The R9 390 is faster overall being a sweet spot between the GTX 970 and GTX 980 performance wise while also being the same price as, if not a little cheaper than, a GTX 970. It also has considerably more VRAM at 8GB compared to the GTX 970's 4GB (3.5GB usable). There are a couple of disadvantages however. The R9 390 does use considerably more power and so it will output more heat into your room and it will need a decent PSU to run it, at least a good 650W supply is recommended. The R9 390 is a more future proof card too, as it not only has more VRAM but it also remains that AMD cards have a very good performance lead in DX12 and Vulkan titles compared to Nvidia so it should be good for future games. Driver wise its a bit of a minefield, depending on who you ask, one is better than the other and there is no clear research really, there are to many variables to factor in, either way both have their problems. Overall though Nvidia most likely has the lead in terms of driver stability. AMD drivers have got a lot better in the last while with the Crimson driver update which has really improved them overall and has made them more user friendly and feature rich than the current Nvidia drivers. Basically though if you have a lower end PSU (550W+) combined with a small case or particularly bad air flow then get the GTX 970 otherwise the R9 390 is the better buy overall. I think I covered everything
The GTX 970 has GameWorks and power efficiency on its side, but the 390 is the better card. On DX11 they are on par, with the 970 performing slightly better in most games. On DX12 AMD pretty much wipes the floor with Nvidia cards - their architecture, GCN, was ready for Async Compute from the start. Reasons to get the 970 are: * Slightly better performance in most DX11 titles at 1080p * Much lower TDP (145W vs 275W) * Shadowplay is pretty cool I guess Reasons to get the 390: * 8GB or VRAM - the 970's effective 3.5GB means it won't do very well at 1440p or higher. * Much better next-gen (DX12, Vulkan) performance * Better high-res performance (1440p+) * Better long term support - Nvidia seems to forget about their older cards, AMD is still supporting the 7000 and I think even 6000 series Overall the 390 is the better choice. It's also slightly cheaper than the 970.
There was a video from JayzTwoCents comparing the MSI aftermarket variants, and showed that they are about equal on performance, but the R9 390 was $20 cheaper. It's actually that video that persuaded me to get the 390, because I originally intended to get the 970.
Probably around July actually. Also the 490 is likely to cost $500+ at launch. I'd actually wait though - Polaris does look pretty awesome.
Why the hell would they charge $500 for that thing, even for a start? Anyhow, it should probably be a great deal after like half a month or so...
It's a new chip and also likely to outperform the R9 Fury. $450-500 seems about right. The R9 290 was $400 at launch, 290X was $550. 390/X were cheap at launch because they were rebrands. Actually $400-450 is more likely for the 490, $500+ for the 490X. Still much more expensive than a 390.
Well then. Although I really hoped top-end GPUs wouldn't get more and more expensive every time like top-end Smartphones. But oh well, seems like we are seriously paying for every teeny tiny bit of performance that we're then allowed to use for good. I wonder when Bitcoin mining will actually become lucrative though, should happen in the next five or so years if what I heard was right...
Top-end GPUs right now are $650 (980Ti, Fury X). Not getting more expensive with every generation, 780Ti was ~$700 and all the x80 cards were at least $500 at launch.
With that budget, I think you will struggle to get an R9 390 into your budget if you want to buy a whole PC. I might have misunderstood you though.
Oh, okay. I thought you meant like $650. You can get quite a good build for $800, but I don't need to tell you that.