2560x1440 gaming GPU

[pandemonium]

Hey ladies and gents,

My dinosaurus Q9400 in my Gigabyte EP45-UD3P is still going strong @3.2GHz, so I'll wait on the platform (MoBo, RAM, CPU). For the meantime I'll be upgrading only my GPU from crossfired HD6870s. PSU is Seasonic XP2 760W and monitor is the Asus PB278Q (25x14).

I'm back and forth between a 290x and 970 since they seem tit for tat on different games. The 290x seems to perform a little better at higher resolutions and I'm guessing that can be compensated with higher clocks on the 970? However, and this is where I'm really leaning, the 970 seems to run far more efficiently and not pump out as much heat.

So that's my dilemma. I'm not brand loyal to anything and really just want to obtain 60FPS (59 with no V-Sync) with the lowest frametimes for most games with maximum settings at 2560x1440. For specific eye candy contexts, I typically don't use any settings that soften texture detail. Obviously it depends on the engine and how that's implemented and if there's GPU headroom available, but I digress. If it can run cooler/less power than alternatives that's definitely welcomed.

I don't typically fold, compute, or mine. I do the occasional video editing, but prefer quality over speed every time for compression methods.

The EVGA SC seems to be the best deal right now (as listed on Newegg).

Thoughts?

 

[kasakka]

At 1440p, you'll probably need two 970 to get 60+ fps in new games. That's what I'm running at the moment. I'm not a big user of AA either (mostly use SMAA).

 

[RussianSensation]

That CPU is a major bottleneck. Get used R9 280X/290 since they are dirt cheap and then once you get something more modern, you can pick up faster GPUs. You are literally wasting money getting a 290X or 970. An after-market 970 is identical in speed at 1440p to an after-market 290, so why would you spend $350 on a 970 especially given your massive CPU bottleneck?

Those GPUs will provide no material gain over an after-market 290 with that CPU. In some games even a 280X will max out your CPU.

Evga 970 is also one of the worst 970 cards. Looks like you haven't done your research.

 

[pandemonium]

As you would imagine, I don't make upgrades as often as most people may. I prefer not to upgrade solely based on current components in my box and aim for longevity and cost effective time/money spending. I'm buying for the immediate, with importance of long term.

I know my CPU will bottleneck. I think you missed the part where I said for the meantime. Calm down.

Just answer the question, please.

2560x1440 gaming GPU. GO.

Why would you say the EVGA is the worst? Is it due to the coil whine? I understand that was fixed recently.

 

[Erenhardt]

Why would you say the EVGA is the worst? Is it due to the coil whine? I understand that was fixed recently.

They used cooler from another card. Resulted in no contact with some heat-pipes. Not something you expect from premium overclocking nvidia exclusive brand

 

[Sulaco]

At 1440p, you'll probably need two 970 to get 60+ fps in new games. That's what I'm running at the moment. I'm not a big user of AA either (mostly use SMAA).

Nonsense about needing 2 970s for 60FPS gaming on a 25x14. On my single 970 all my latest games maintain 55-60FPS just fine, max details. Who knows for how long, though. But as of now, just fine.

But buying two 970s to pair with a Q9400 seems like a complete waste. Take the money you'd spend on one of them and invest into a decent, modern CPU (+motherboard).

 

[pandemonium]

Upgrades to the rest of the platform will be made. Just not now. GPU is my weakest link right now, so I'm focusing on that.

 

[pandemonium]

They used cooler from another card. Resulted in no contact with some heat-pipes. Not something you expect from premium overclocking nvidia exclusive brand

Ah, that's dookie. Thanks.

 

[velis]

I have an ASUS STRIX 970 and there's one thing I'm very impressed about: this chip overclocks to the sky and back. I'm running 1.5 GHz + 8GHz on RAM and with such speeds the difference is definitely noticeable (vs stock). Also, the card is pretty quiet. Initially I thought I needed to get a water block for it, but then decided against it because it's that quiet.

I can also confirm decent performance @ requested resolution. You won't always get 60FPS @ max settings though.

 

[R0H1T]

As you would imagine, I don't make upgrades as often as most people may. I prefer not to upgrade solely based on current components in my box and aim for longevity and cost effective time/money spending. I'm buying for the immediate, with importance of long term.

I know my CPU will bottleneck. I think you missed the part where I said for the meantime. Calm down.

Just answer the question, please.

2560x1440 gaming GPU. GO.

Why would you say the EVGA is the worst? Is it due to the coil whine? I understand that was fixed recently.

In which case wouldn't it be more prudent to wait for Radeon 3xx to launch, I'm assuming you plan on keeping the new GPU(s) for a few years ? The new Radeon launch will put a lot of pressure on Nvidia & we may even see their current flagship 980 go down a 100$ in price. You just have to decide what's your priority atm i.e. gaming at QHD resolutions now or getting a better GPU, that'll last a few more years, & perhaps enable you to game at 4K (SLI/CFX) in the future.

 

[amenx]

Why would you say the EVGA is the worst? Is it due to the coil whine? I understand that was fixed recently.

I believe this is why the Evga is not high on some peeps list:

The cooler was designed for earlier gen cards and rather than redesigning it for the 970, Evga just didnt bother. So the heat pipes dont fully cover the GPU core.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/evga-geforce-gtx-970-acx-has-misaligned-gpu-vs-heatpipes.html

Not sure if it was fixed but I did hear of newer coolers either for the 970 or 980.

 

[pandemonium]

I have an ASUS STRIX 970 and there's one thing I'm very impressed about: this chip overclocks to the sky and back. I'm running 1.5 GHz + 8GHz on RAM and with such speeds the difference is definitely noticeable (vs stock). Also, the card is pretty quiet. Initially I thought I needed to get a water block for it, but then decided against it because it's that quiet.

I can also confirm decent performance @ requested resolution. You won't always get 60FPS @ max settings though.

Nice to hear about the ASUS. So far, their products seem to have been done really well (in all markets), so bonus points from history for me there. Thanks.

In which case wouldn't it be more prudent to wait for Radeon 3xx to launch, I'm assuming you plan on keeping the new GPU(s) for a few years ? The new Radeon launch will put a lot of pressure on Nvidia & we may even see their current flagship 980 go down a 100$ in price. You just have to decide what's your priority atm i.e. gaming at QHD resolutions now or getting a better GPU, that'll last a few more years, & perhaps enable you to game at 4K (SLI/CFX) in the future.

Yeah, I've been holding off and holding off, lol. It's gotten to this point and I'm just tired of waiting, heh. (Seeing my GPUs capped out on everything kinda pushes that along quicker.) The market for QHD+ gaming seems to have barely been scratched upon right now (in the mainstream; most still use 1920x1080), so it would seem more reasonable that GPU architectures coming in the near future will be much more suited for it.

I believe this is why the Evga is not high on some peeps list:

The cooler was designed for earlier gen cards and rather than redesigning it for the 970, Evga just didnt bother. So the heat pipes dont fully cover the GPU core.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/evga-geforce-gtx-970-acx-has-misaligned-gpu-vs-heatpipes.html

Not sure if it was fixed but I did hear of newer coolers either for the 970 or 980.

That is pretty terrible. I had EVGAs a long time ago, and both of them died after only a year, so their record with me isn't that great. I guess they've really been slacking. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Kenmitch]

There is no guarantee your current rig can even support a modern high end gpu. You'd have to try it and see. The 290's required bios updates for many on modern platforms to function correctly at launch. I doubt it's a AMD only scenario.

My thought.... Wouldn't even consider pairing the platform with a latest and greatest gpu.

 

[Headfoot]

970 = 290 for $100 more with 5-10% more performance

 

[raghu78]

If you go with R9 290 get the SapphireTri-x. For GTX 970 its the Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming.

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?...82E16814202080
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?...82E16814125684

Both cards trade blows at 1440p and are on par.

http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-sovremennykh-videokart.html

if you want the power efficiency then go with GTX 970.

 

[Sohaltang]

780ti classified with a nice 1300 mhz OC. One will run most games at 60 fps, need two if your going with a 120 hz monitor.

 

[Erenhardt]

I would wait a bit longer. There are new cards coming out soon. New cards should push price/performance ratio. It is not always the case, but one can hope.

 

[RussianSensation]

As you would imagine, I don't make upgrades as often as most people may. I prefer not to upgrade solely based on current components in my box and aim for longevity and cost effective time/money spending. I'm buying for the immediate, with importance of long term.

I get it but in your case this is actually counter-intuitive. Why buy a GPU so fast that it bottlenecks your CPU, and when you upgrade your CPU in 12, 15 or 18 months, a much faster GPU at $350 will have come out? In other words, you run the risk of overspending now to buy a GPU well beyond the speed that your current CPU is capable of producing in hopes that the GPU's legs will be stretched down the line when you upgrade to a faster CPU. The thing is, you'd be better off getting a GPU fast enough, pocking the savings and then selling that GPU and getting something much faster with the savings realized now. I rarely recommend someone overspending for a GPU and it's usually in cases where you are going from a GTX750Ti to an R9 270/270X and you can just apply extra AA for free due to a CPU bottleneck but usually the price difference is $20-40. In your case a 970 costs significantly more than say a used R9 290.

I know my CPU will bottleneck. I think you missed the part where I said for the meantime. Calm down. Just answer the question, please.
2560x1440 gaming GPU. GO.

1. An after-market market R9 290 = Reference 290X.
2. You can buy a used Sapphire Tri-X 290 for $225-235, sometimes less. Alternatively a new Sapphire Tri-X is $255 with the $25 AMEX off $200 Twitter deal.
3. Reference 290X = after-market 290 = after-market 970 at your resolution in games with a proper modern CPU:

So why would you pay more to get identical performance with the 970? In fact, as I said, with your CPU, you can just buy a used HD7970Ghz/R9 280X and then once you upgrade the CPU, then consider buying something much faster from R9 300/GM200 series. Your idea to spend $350 now in hopes to keep the card long-term is a bad one since a $700 GTX780Ti's performance can now be had for $350 in a 970. You see how fast GPU's drop in price/get faster?

Get an HD7970Ghz for $120, get Skylake in 12 months, sell the 7970Ghz for $70, losing just $50 and get a way faster card than a 970 for $350 by early 2016. That's what I would recommend as one of the options.

Why would you say the EVGA is the worst? Is it due to the coil whine? I understand that was fixed recently.

Besides EVGA Classified 980, lower quality PCB components, worse cooler in terms of noise and temperatures vs. other brands. The main reason to get EVGA is warranty, but the card itself is lower quality than MSI Gaming, Gigabyte Windforce, Zotac Extreme AMP!, Inno3D, Galax, etc.

 

[jacktesterson]

I definitly would be upgrading your Mobo/CPU/Ram before video cards

 

[DownTheSky]

As these guys said would be to buy a cheap 280X and save money for a new system.

 

[Anubis]

seems to have been answered but I game at 1440p on a 970 just fine

 

[nitromullet]

I get that people are disappointed in EVGA for essentially re-using the same cooler on the GTX 970 as they did on the GTX 760, but the end result compared to the Asus STRIX, which is highly regarded, isn't bad.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/29.html

GPU Temperature Comparison
........................................Idle......Load
EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX..........35°C.....73°C
ASUS GTX 970 STRIX OC.......47°C.....71°C
Palit GTX 970 JetStream........49°C.....78°C
NVIDIA GTX 980...................36°C.....80°C

I'm not saying get the EVGA over the STRIX, just pointing out the that the bashing of the EVGA cooler is a little overblown IMO.

 

[cmdrdredd]

They used cooler from another card. Resulted in no contact with some heat-pipes. Not something you expect from premium overclocking nvidia exclusive brand

The version 2.0 ACX cooler fixes this. Although it is louder and less efficient than other solutions.

I personally have two MSI Gaming 970s coming tomorrow. I do my FPS gaming at 1440p and my action games etc at 1080p on the TV.

 

[Mondozei]

That CPU is a major bottleneck. Get used R9 280X/290 since they are dirt cheap and then once you get something more modern, you can pick up faster GPUs. You are literally wasting money getting a 290X or 970. An after-market 970 is identical in speed at 1440p to an after-market 290, so why would you spend $350 on a 970 especially given your massive CPU bottleneck?

Those GPUs will provide no material gain over an after-market 290 with that CPU. In some games even a 280X will max out your CPU.

Evga 970 is also one of the worst 970 cards. Looks like you haven't done your research.

Bascially everything he said, but with one addition. I got two 290 Tri-X in Crossfire. I don't get much heat at all. In fact I don't feel any real difference, and before I had two it was completely fine. I do have a very good cooling and ventilation though, all the expensive stuff(pure Noctua) and a great case which is designed for good airflow, but still, all that wattage should make the room very warm if you read the stuff on teh internetz but the reality is completely different. Normal and pleasant room temp at about 20 celcius.

 

[amenx]

I get that people are disappointed in EVGA for essentially re-using the same cooler on the GTX 970 as they did on the GTX 760, but the end result compared to the Asus STRIX, which is highly regarded, isn't bad.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/29.html

GPU Temperature Comparison
........................................Idle......Load
EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX..........35°C.....73°C
ASUS GTX 970 STRIX OC.......47°C.....71°C
Palit GTX 970 JetStream........49°C.....78°C
NVIDIA GTX 980...................36°C.....80°C

I'm not saying get the EVGA over the STRIX, just pointing out the that the bashing of the EVGA cooler is a little overblown IMO.

Thats because the Evga had an aggressive fan curve to compensate for their 'not perfect' cooler. While the Strix on the other end of the scale was very quiet (fans off till around 60c+) and lower fan speed at load too.

Evga statement:

"Regarding fan noise, we understand that some have expressed concerns over the fan noise on the EVGA GTX 970 cards, this is not a fan noise issue but it is more of an aggressive fan curve set by the default BIOS. The fan curve can be easily adjusted in EVGA PrecisionX or any other overclocking software. Regardless, we have heard the concerns and will provide a BIOS update to reduce the fan noise during idle."

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/3

But ultimately I dont think the cooler was much of a problem, just that it was bad PR for EVGA and may have shaken confidence in their cards.