Hey /g/uys and /g/irls, today I bring you a very hard question for me to decide upon.
<Title says it all.
Here are the pros and cons I know of each:
GTX 690:
Pros:
-As good as 980 or titan as some say
Cons:
-Higher power consumption
-2gb of vram (I play GTA V a lot)
GTX 970
Pros:
-VR Ready
-4GB of Vram
-Better SLI performance
Cons:
-100$ more
-not as powerful (i think)
>>53339274
Why not a 380x?
It'll take over a 970 in upcoming titles too.
So far 2 out of 3 dx12 titles are heavily favouring AMD
>>53339274
Is this bait?
>>53339287
amd doesnt have any drivers and i would rather not use my computer at 800x600 resolution due to not having any graphics drivers to install
Not bait just a serious question, I need to find out which one is better, not by opinion, but by cold hard facts.
>>53339288
I didn't think it was until >>53339331
Fuck this shitty thread.
God dammit I needed a serious response to this fuck you anti-AMD fag baiter.
>>53339488
Gtx 690 is almost 980 ti tier but you have to put up with sli issues and like you said higher energy consumption.
I would say get the 970 since you get more vram, much less heat, and can sli that with another card later down the road if 4gb is still enough vram then.
A gtx 690 without sli is about as fast as a gtx 960 at best.
Now on a side note, any reason why AMD isn't an option?
I'm neutral in regards to which brand to buy since both have different advantages.
If I get another shitty bait response I might as well just leave, really not in the mood.
I had a AMD R7 370, not too bad of a card im not AMD hating thats anon, OP here, i have a GTx 960 currently and was debating on what to buy for 350$ i have an AMD FX 8350 but id prefer not to get an AMD GPU again because i just wasnt happy with catalyst and its capabilities, the 690 looks good and runs good but seems like it has bad cons
>>53339538
>4gb is still enough vram
only if the 4gb are fully usable on the same speed. getting a 970 is pretty retarded, buying now is also retarded as new cards will arrive soon. either get a 390 or wait a few weeks.
>>53339488
fuck you fag take this shit to tomshardware where it belongs
>>53339274
>GTX 970
>Pros:
>-4GB of Vram
>>53339590
OP here, what new cards? When should OP buy then?
>>53339590
It still caches data on that last 0.5GB.
>>53339584
Yeah on an fx processor I'd recommend the 970.
Have you overclocked your cpu?
Also you can sell your 370 to cover some of the cost for the 970?
I'd recommend gigabyte if you want something solid but just about any brand will do. Except asus. Avoid asus strix.
>>53339648
Don't fall for the waiting meme or you'll never upgrade. Just get what you want when you want.
>>53339648
AMD:
Arctic Islands/Polaris: 2016-Q2/Q3
NVIDIA:
Pascal: ~April 2016
>>53339688
>It still caches data on that last 0.5GB.
this doesn't help you if it's slow as hell.
>>53339274
The 390 is faster than the 970 and gives you better DX12 support, there's no real reason to buy a 970
>>53339274
>pros
>4gb
this the b80?
>>53339697
but it's faster than system ram so it does help.
Plus it's not as bad as you make out, my 1gb HD5870 could still play gta v at 60 fps, albeit on low settings.
Yes having more vram is good, and no the 3.5gb issue isn't a serious concern.
In fact my main problem with the 970 is nvidia lying about the cache and ROPs.
>>53339708
This, my 390x fucking wrecks my brothers 970 in all games, even though the 390x is at stock and his 970 is OC'd.
>>53339859
That's because the 390x is priced against a 980, not a 970.
OP has narrowed his decision down to 970 and 690, can you fucks stay on track?
>>53339918
IM OFF THE TRACKS, CHU CHU TRAINS ARE TECHNOLOGY LETS DISCUSS TRAINS /g/
!!!!!!!!!
Just go with the 960. It's literally the best of both worlds. You won't be running current graphic heavy games on full max settings, but holy hell does it do a great job. I have a 760 and it is still running great. Unless you're getting a VR headset though, then go with the 970.
You will generally have a better experience with one powerful single card.
While you may miss a performance gain for you money here you wont get half performance for the titles that dont support SLI.
Old chart is old, but it has a 690 on it.
>>53339274
any chart with all current gpus with latest drivers?
>>53339274
>-4GB of Vram
topkek
>>53340036
That pic is awesome.
>>53340036
notice what?
>>53342832
balls hanging out
>>53342881
I thought it was a belt buckle when I first looked at the pic
>>53339331
sage goes on all fields
shit thread
>>53339274
>4GB of Vram
Hold it right there.
>>53340036
Reported for CP
http://www.gputechconf.com/
Keynotes
Jen-Hsun Huang
NVIDIA, CEO & Co-Founder
Tues, April 5
09:00 AM PT
Just wait for Pascal
OP here has returned, so far you have provided reasons to mostly get the 690, and made fun of the 4GB Vram meme but i had a 2GB XFX R7 370 and could barely play GTA V on medium. So AMD is out of the question not AMD hating just prefer Nvidia now. So 690 or 970
AMDiot internet defense force reporting in
Let's show them pesky Nvidiafags who's boss :)^)
The 970 is going to use less electricity. If you don't care about that, you might as well get a 390x and have more vram to boot.
Here is OP's current specs this probably would of helped;
-EVGA 600B
-EVGA GTX 960 4GB
-AMD FX-8350
-Asus m5-78lt/usb3
-Samsung 850 pro ssd
Will i be able to power everything with only my 600w
I bought a 970 strix. Got fucked by ATI back in the day so i gave nvidia a try.
Have to keep restarting because the clock gets stuck at 600.
Mad coil whine under load that sounds like a crisp packet screaming.
>>53341469
This chart shows the 690 slamming the 970 in all but dead rising and assassin creed two games id never touch, non sli so why does everyone recommend 970 then?
>>53339274
Kepler is abandoned by nvidia, also the 690 has way too little VRAM even at 1080p if you're playing new AAA games
>>53344664
You are reliant on a sli profile for the performance - if the game doesn't support it the 690 is just a shit 680 (lower core clocks yo).
>>53339274
>/g/irls
aww thank you for considering us as well, sweetie ^^
>>53339274
Fucking bait.
