If you use that single really poor synthetic benchmark then yes. Anywhere else will tell you that the fastest graphics card you can buy is the 295x2.
Well yes, if we're talking outrageously expensive dual-GPU-on-board cards at 4k resolutions - can't argue with that. I do agree that Passmark has taken it's fair share of stick as a comparison for years though - but it's good for a rough indication at least.
For single GPU solutions however, the article you quote...
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/26.html[/URL]
... makes a very good case for the 980 - at the more 'real world' resolutions (1600x900, 1920x1080), the 980 is only between 5% and 19% behind - for roughly 33% off of the price. The 970 is roughly 10% further back than that - for less than half the cost.
Note that the GTX980 isn't even in the same league. It's 60% slower.
You can check this too for a similar result -
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1187?vs=1351
Again, the point about well-above-average resolutions and prices counts there.
Except it's not. The 290 is around the same speed and cheaper while coming with 3 very good, new games. It is clearly the superior "bang for buck" choice. In performance per Watt the new Maxwell cards are unbeatable, but that's not "bang for buck".
Got to admit I had no idea the 290x had dropped so much in price - well, call me suitably educated then, I can't argue with that. 290x wins for bang per buck
Incidentally, you might be interested in this -
GTX 970 memory bug reportedly cripples performance in memory intensive scenarios
I realise this doesn't quite fit the bill of "Nvidia roxors AMD suxors", but hey ho. I'd be VERY wary of buying a 970 until this is fixed.
Yeah, I did catch Nvidia's response on the issue earlier (
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue) - first time I've encountered it myself, hasn't affected me in the slightest. You might want to quantify those 'memory intensive scenarios' some? The average gamer punting £260ish on a graphics card likely won't be trying to force it to run 4k resolutions? My take on that article is that it essentially is a design compromise to save cost and time. Even Battlefield 4 seems to be perfectly happy cranked up at max settings for triple screen res for me, although I have yet to try Farcry 4, too many games to play!
Myself, I've come from crossfired AMD 7850s - so I'm no stranger to AMD's cards. I don't fanboy after either camp. I guess my opinion is flavoured by owning a 970, if I'd jumped up to a 290x I'd probably have been just as happy. Cost wise you're definitely right though - 290x before the GTX 970, lowest 290x I can find is about £20 cheaper and is roughly in the same ballpark as the GTX 980 for performance.
