Here's what you need. The R9 390 performs similar to a stock R9 290X.The R9 380 2GB/4GB is roughly 10-15% faster than a GTX 960. That's your first comparison.The R9 380X is a further 15-20% faster than a R9 380, making it around 30% faster than a GTX 960. That's your second comparison. The GTX 960 4GB isn't competing with the 380X. It can't even compete with the cheaper 380.The R9 390 is slightly faster than a GTX970 (say 5%).In all of the above instances, AMD cards almost double their lead over the competing cards at 4K due their better memory management. Considering the future, Nvidia is pretty awful with it's Direct X 12 performance, with the R9 390 performing similar to a GTX 980Ti in some instances.
damn! 270x is equal to the performance of 960? :O
AMD drivers FTW man. If you buy an AMD card at launch, you'll have a card that's 30-50% faster 3 years later.
nvidia rolls out the drivers at 100% at launchso basically if u upgrade your GPU frequently nvidia is best for youbut if you don't upgrade frequently AMD is better for you
as a user of both red & green I would say i am better off with the green team. AMD basically matched the performance of the Maxwell architecture with their R9 series. so better to go with the green team..
Pascal architecture will be a bombardment for the Red team.
the only reason to buy a red one is if you have a soft pocket.
furthermore in my experience I do not think that memory management will do much of a difference in gaming performance.
and if the rumors are true Pascal will be 10x faster than Maxwell..
AMD more than matched the Maxwell architecture with the 300 series. Pick any price point and there will always be a faster AMD card available for the same price. Please don't go by launch reviews. As I said earlier, AMD cards improve over time. Cards that may have once been equals are no longer so. Also speaking about architecture, Maxwell is far far behind GCN in DirectX 12 performance, so if you are considering emerging technology, then Maxwell hasn't even matched GCNI suggest you read up on the upcoming Polaris architecture and it's implications on performance-per-watt and Async computing (DX12). AMD already have a headstart with the Fury cards, for Nvidia, it will be uncharted waters.Or if you want more performance for the same amount of money. Or the same performance for less money. If you achieve the end goal for less money it's called being smart, not being cheap. Also, Nvidia have no competing cards for a few AMD products, namely the R9 380 and R9 380X, with the closest competitor 15% slower. Same is true with the opposite though, AMD has no competitor for the GTX 980Ti at the moment.Go to Google, find any graphics card review that tests multiple resolutions and compare 1080p vs 4K results. Cards with better memory interfaces will be relatively faster than ones with poorer ones. For example, from the review I shared above, the card being reviewed, the R9 380X Strix, is ~23% slower than a GTX970 at 1080P, but only ~18% slower than a GTX970 at 4K. This is mostly due to the better memory interface on the AMD cards.This is entirely possible, but what if Polaris is even faster? Don't be a fanboy, read up on both sides
seems REd wins all over as Zero says, but..1. what about all the technologies Green team has, like MFAA hairworks gpuboost physx all that? 2. Also, what about bias certain game-engines has over green? like unreal engine for green etc. 3. Also nvidia releases hell a lot of gpu driver updates. Do those wont do a thing when it comes to performance? never used a red card as i was always a green fan, but feels like changing track bcoz f cost but just wanna be sure what Im gonna give up choosing red over green
