http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-v-amd-radeon-r9-290x
 
Winner: NVIDIA

They better be, I will say for Folding they are.
My 2 980 HC Cards are much faster running P9201 by more then 1 hour and 4000 Points than my 2 290x Graphics Cards.

Here are my Compares two GTX 980 HC -v- two PowerColor LCS R9 290X
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/9066985/3dm11/8328866
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/9067038/3dm11/8266257
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/2143470/fs/3372737
 
OK 1 AMD Win *Corrected
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/is/2505020/is/1948139

Baltothewolf
Uhh... How is this a fair comparison? 290X Was a competetor for the 780 and 780ti, not the 980. I am happy how well the 290x is holding up against the newer gen cards though. If the 390X is what we are all hoping for, it's going to smash the 980. Then that, will be a fair comparison.
 
Oh looking at the temps, it seems they were running the card with the stock cooler, so it was downclocking once it hits 90C. Now I see why the 980 won, they purposely crippled the 290x by leaving it on the stock cooler so it would downclock. Makes sense. 

and there we are. thing is the 780ti beat the 290x. the 390x competition is not just the 980 but the 980ti/1080 also. Nvidia does .5 steps gens while AMD only does 1 step gen. 980 has been out for 3 months, and the best prediction of the 390x coming is Q2 of 2015, nearly 7-9 months after the 980 is released. The article was about the current flag ship cards of both companies not by generation, If AMD released cards as much as Nvidia maybe this competition AMD would have taken the crown.

Scarlet-Tech

Baltothewolf
Uhh... How is this a fair comparison? 290X Was a competetor for the 780 and 780ti, not the 980. I am happy how well the 290x is holding up against the newer gen cards though. If the 390X is what we are all hoping for, it's going to smash the 980. Then that, will be a fair comparison.
 
Oh looking at the temps, it seems they were running the card with the stock cooler, so it was downclocking once it hits 90C. Now I see why the 980 won, AMD purposely crippled the 290x by leaving it on the stock cooler so it would downclock. Makes sense.

There, I fixed it, because we all know if the 980s had the stock coolers, they would perform exactly the same.

I run a kraken x40 with a H50 and I never, no matter how long I game, see over 75C. My card sits at 1175/1250 just fine. Before it would downclock to ~900 core to stay below 90c on the stock cooler. I'm sorry if you don't like fair tests. I'm not a fanboy to either team, just that who is more powerful, but when I see biased reviews like this, where they purposely cripple the comparison card just so their card wins, really pisses me off. It doesn't benefit anyone in the end.

seta8967

Baltothewolf

Scarlet-Tech

Baltothewolf
Uhh... How is this a fair comparison? 290X Was a competetor for the 780 and 780ti, not the 980. I am happy how well the 290x is holding up against the newer gen cards though. If the 390X is what we are all hoping for, it's going to smash the 980. Then that, will be a fair comparison.

Oh looking at the temps, it seems they were running the card with the stock cooler, so it was downclocking once it hits 90C. Now I see why the 980 won, AMD purposely crippled the 290x by leaving it on the stock cooler so it would downclock. Makes sense.

There, I fixed it, because we all know if the 980s had the stock coolers, they would perform exactly the same.

I run a kraken x40 with a H50 and I never, no matter how long I game, see over 75C. My card sits at 1175/1250 just fine. Before it would downclock to ~900 core to stay below 90c on the stock cooler. I'm sorry if you don't like fair tests. I'm not a fanboy to either team, just that who is more powerful, but when I see biased reviews like this, where they purposely cripple the comparison card just so their card wins, really pisses me off. It doesn't benefit anyone in the end.

 Been gaming on Star Citizen and crysis 3 for about 4 hours now... temps on my 980 SC are 80 with stock cooler at 1241/1342.... You have to run a water cooler to stay below 75. That should tell you how much the 290x is a heat freak, consumes more electricity and is weaker performing. Nvidia does lose in the performance/per dollar though.

I really don't understand why the last gen cards are being compared with the new gen cards to begin with? Duh the 290x is a power hog, he'll the 7970 was a power hog and that's the 290x's predecessor. 80c isn't exactly cool either, but I'm not going to rag on the 980 because that's not even why I posted in the first place. I was just pointing out this is a biased review, and if they are going to compare last gen with new gen, they can at least not cripple the last gen on purpose. I'm not going to deny the 980 is faster, it's just not as much faster as that reviews says it it.

seta8967

Baltothewolf

seta8967

Baltothewolf

Scarlet-Tech

Baltothewolf
Uhh... How is this a fair comparison? 290X Was a competetor for the 780 and 780ti, not the 980. I am happy how well the 290x is holding up against the newer gen cards though. If the 390X is what we are all hoping for, it's going to smash the 980. Then that, will be a fair comparison.

Oh looking at the temps, it seems they were running the card with the stock cooler, so it was downclocking once it hits 90C. Now I see why the 980 won, AMD purposely crippled the 290x by leaving it on the stock cooler so it would downclock. Makes sense.

There, I fixed it, because we all know if the 980s had the stock coolers, they would perform exactly the same.

I run a kraken x40 with a H50 and I never, no matter how long I game, see over 75C. My card sits at 1175/1250 just fine. Before it would downclock to ~900 core to stay below 90c on the stock cooler. I'm sorry if you don't like fair tests. I'm not a fanboy to either team, just that who is more powerful, but when I see biased reviews like this, where they purposely cripple the comparison card just so their card wins, really pisses me off. It doesn't benefit anyone in the end.

Been gaming on Star Citizen and crysis 3 for about 4 hours now... temps on my 980 SC are 80 with stock cooler at 1241/1342.... You have to run a water cooler to stay below 75. That should tell you how much the 290x is a heat freak, consumes more electricity and is weaker performing. Nvidia does lose in the performance/per dollar though.

I really don't understand why the last gen cards are being compared with the new gen cards to begin with? Duh the 290x is a power hog, he'll the 7970 was a power hog and that's the 290x's predecessor. 80c isn't exactly cool either, but I'm not going to rag on the 980 because that's not even why I posted in the first place. I was just pointing out this is a biased review, and if they are going to compare last gen with new gen, they can at least not cripple the last gen on purpose. I'm not going to deny the 980 isn't faster, it's just not as much faster as that reviews says it it.

refer to my first post, "The article was about the current flag ship cards of both companies not by generation, If AMD released cards as much as Nvidia maybe this competition AMD would have taken the crown."

If AMD continues their trend from last year, the 390x shout be coming out within the next couple months. I honestly don't care who wins, I just hope AMD is stronger at this point, because it will force NVIDIA to respond with an even stronger card, in turn, PROGRESS. That's all I care about. We are honestly Sooooooo far behind in tech in cards, the fact that even the newer card suck 200w+, regardless of the manufacturer is absurd.

[Edit]: The fact that NVIDIA/AMD thinks they are cell phone companies is the problem. They should really be spending more time in R&D before releasing a new card every 6 months, but alas, everyone will run and buy them so, hindering progress.

seta8967
Dont say nvidia won. You will anger the AMD users and be tingue lashed on how evil nvidia is.

Now I know what you said is so true.
 
Also AMD Said that the 290X is still the king and a better card then the new GTX 980 Cards.
Somewhere on the Forum is a post about this and also why AMD Dropped the Price of the 290X Cards.

About the comments and not the OP:

Well two R9 290X ( Asus R9290x-DC2OC-4GD5) cards are about 659 bucks. This is 80 bucks more than one GTX 980 (ASUS STRIX-GTX980-DC2OC-4) about $579.
I really think AMD is onto something with these products. The price cant be beat. Their drivers have been awesome too. I think we should all give AMD a second look. I did, and so far so good.
 
I did three R9 290 cards all on water blocks for the price of one Titan ( back when the R9 were not even a month old). There is something to be said about this new AMD.

 

Baltothewolf

seth89
About the comments and not the OP:

Well two R9 290X ( Asus R9290x-DC2OC-4GD5) cards are about 659 bucks. This is 80 bucks more than one GTX 980 (ASUS STRIX-GTX980-DC2OC-4) about $579.
I really think AMD is onto something with these products. The price cant be beat. Their drivers have been awesome too. I think we should all give AMD a second look. I did, and so far so good.
 
I did three R9 290 cards all on water blocks for the price of one Titan ( back when the R9 were not even a month old). There is something to be said about this new AMD.

 

Did you measure how much power under load your system pulls? If not, how big is your psu?

I use a WeMo to monitor my computer's power draw. Under a load I don't pull more than 950w, I average in the high 800's. I have a 1100w ABS PSU.
 
WeMo: http://www.belkin.com/us/F7C029-Belkin/p/P-F7C029/
 
PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Pro...x?Item=N82E16817814012

seth89
About time, only took a year! 

nah the 780ti was faster than the 290x, last time AMD was up for a long period was the 5970, before that you'd be going back to 2002-2006 and ATI lead with the 9700Pro and stayed ontop until the 8800GTX came out and the 2900XT was a massive disappointment. 
 
I'd say AMD's glory days are behind it, they are trying to brute force the GPU now, and are barley staying in the x86 market, if not for their APU's for low cost laptops like mine, we'd have forgotten about them.

Baltothewolf
That's not as bad as I thought it would be. But still 1k watts is a lot haha.

1kw is .60 cents an hour for me... play 2 hours a day that about 1.20x 30 days is 36 usd a month.