2 ms·
> At the top, r9-390x beats GTX 980 by a little. No, but one step down it does. AMDs R9 390 beats the GTX 970 a little, which also has the problem of only hav
by onli 11y ago
> At the top, r9-390x beats GTX 980 by a little.
No, but one step down it does. AMDs R9 390 beats the GTX 970 a little, which also has the problem of only having 3.5GB Vram, instead of 4 as initially announced. The R9 390 has 8.
The R9 390X is normally slower than the GTX 980, but also quite a bit cheaper (~100€).
(Source: I have a hardware-recommender at www.pc-kombo.de which aggregates many gaming benchmarks to judge processor and graphic cards performance)
- lqdc13 11y agoYou might be right. I just went to one comparison site: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/amd-radeon-r9-390x-review/1100-6429617/ http://www.gamespot.com/articles/amd-radeon-r9-390x-review/1...
- onli 11y agoThe article catches one core point well: the resolution plays into it. When we go to higher resolutions than 1920x1080, the R9 gets a boost. But it has a very strange way of presenting the data. http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-390x-390-380-r7-370-test/3/#abschnitt_leistung http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-390x-390-38... shows it easier (1080p Performance).