A few points to note. Most aftermarket 970 reviews are compared to reference 290X. A reference 290X hits its peak 95 C temp quickly, and throttles. An aftermarket never reaches this temperature, and provides better performance. Most aftermarket 290s perform inbetween a reference 290 and 290X even if not OC'd because of this. And most 290X's perform far better than you might think.
This 290X at stock is only 5% overclocked compared to a reference 290X. Yet it is 20% faster because it runs at that 105% the entire time, where the reference 290X hits 95 C quickly and drops clocks below 100% (see the PCS at stock is only 5% faster clocks, you can ignore OC results).
https://www.techwarelabs.com/wp-content/gallery/pcs-290x-8gb-1/shadowofmordor.jpg
Secondly, I tend to consider recent game releases the most because they are either more likely to be played, or more demanding on average. In 10 games released in 2014, most in the fall, even a reference 290X is superior to a 970 at 1080.
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...rds-game_2014-video-test-games__2014_1920.jpg
And, the poster in question stated its for a 1440 build. 970 vs 290X at 1080 is debatable, and if you consider that 970 overclocks further, that res may still favour a 970 user who is aggressive with their OCing. But at 1440, it's pretty cut and dry.
For example, TPU is often highly cited. They use reference 290s in their reviews. Even with throttling, in the latest GPU average from TPU the 290X is only 1% slower than a 970 at
1080. I would never doubt for a second that the 290X is throttling in some games, and would be faster with aftermarket vs aftermarket.
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_G1_Gaming/images/perfrel_1920.gif
You will get better OC headroom from the 970, so it's a pretty fair comparison at 1080 when you consider better OC from 970 vs non-throttling aftermarket 290X actually giving proper performance. But if at
1440 even a throttling 290X is beating a 970, I wonder if better OCing would be enough for the 970 to catch up?
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_G1_Gaming/images/perfrel_2560.gif
Maybe. I would say stock vs stock on aftermarkets 290X is definitely faster at 1440 and, according to most new games, even better at 1080. With OCing, who knows. Maybe it was a bit presumptuous, but I'd still say that for the user I was replying to (1440 user) that the 290X is the faster card on average. And from brand agnostic users, I still hold that 290, 290X, and 980 make the most sense right now because you either want a good bang for the buck, or you want the best.
970 meets a niche for CUDA or G Sync users, 3D Vision, etc users that want to save some cash over the 980, but unless you really need these things it doesn't make sense for the average user (amazon giving you a rebate was worth it, you essentially paid the same price as a 290X, which I can understand favouring the 970 at 1080 if the cards are the same price since you can never go wrong with lower power consumption and heat distribution, though the false advertising still leaves me sour so I'd probably still go AMD in your case, but to each his own).
