Looking for advice on GPU upgrades

[Stg-Flame]

My rig is in my signature and I'm thinking of upgrading from the 670s to 970s. My PSU is an eVGA 850 G2 Supernova, so I'm pretty sure it can handle two 970s without any problems. I was looking at grabbing two of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814487088 but I'm open to suggestions. I'd prefer eVGA and I'd like to keep with SLi unless a single 980 or higher would be better for this.

I built my PC so I only had to upgrade my GPUs, so I'm willing to take CPU/RAM suggestions as well if you think my other hardware isn't up to snuff. I'd like to keep the cost below $800 if possible.

Any information is appreciated.

 

[Ken g6]

I'd prefer eVGA and I'd like to keep with SLi unless a single 980 or higher would be better for this.

So, not interested in Crossfire 290's, huh? (Since they wouldn't be SLI and EVGA doesn't do AMD.) What about the upcoming R9 390/390X (whose performance is unknown)?

What's your monitor resolution? Any particular games you're having trouble with?

 

[wand3r3r]

I assume you've heard about the 970 3.5 GB + 0.5 GB VRAM fiasco?

It's potentially the worst for SLI since they share the memory.

I'd recommend 290/x crossfire for similar or a lot less money. XDMA crossfire is excellent and you wouldn't be messing with the 0.5 GB blocks which can cause stuttering.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I guess it is dependent on your resolution and what your expectations are. A 980 is more a sidegrade from a pair of 670s.

I went from SLI 670s to SLI 970s and couldn't be happier, even despite what all the haters say about the 970 these days. I have no issues and I run 2560x1440. An option too is a single 980 which would about match the 670s you have now and then later you can get a second one for SLI and get a nice boost. Again, it depends on your expectations and resolution.

 

[Stg-Flame]

So, not interested in Crossfire 290's, huh? (Since they wouldn't be SLI and EVGA doesn't do AMD.) What about the upcoming R9 390/390X (whose performance is unknown)?

What's your monitor resolution? Any particular games you're having trouble with?

My current resolution is 2560X1440 and I'm looking to stick with nVidia. I've never had one good experience with AMD.

My only expectations are for the current gen and upcoming games to be played at higher settings like Farcry 4 and Dying Light. I've tried Dying Light with my current setup and I can't maintain a decent (45+) frame rate at higher settings.

 

[lehtv]

I assume you've heard about the 970 3.5 GB + 0.5 GB VRAM fiasco?

I wouldn't be worried. Just avoid settings that push you over 3.5Gb - it's going to be a very, very rare occasion anyway.

 

[wand3r3r]

I wouldn't be worried. Just avoid settings that push you over 3.5Gb - it's going to be a very, very rare occasion anyway.

He's talking SLI with mirrored memory.

 

[lehtv]

He's talking SLI with mirrored memory.

So am I. In which games does 1440p put you over 3.5GB at settings where 970 SLI gives you 60 fps? (MSAA not included, as 1440p doesn't demand as strong AA as 1080p. SweetFX SMAA is good enough.)

 

[cmdrdredd]

He's talking SLI with mirrored memory.

Which I have and play at 1440p without problems. Actually in some games I go above 1440p with DSR and no AA and get slightly better IQ than 1440p + AA.

Playability is important and there's no issues for me there.

 

[Stg-Flame]

Playable frame rates is far more important to me than maxing every little slider. Back when Oblivion and F.E.A.R were melting PCs, I knew what every graphical setting meant and how much impact they had on performance. Seems like half the settings available anymore I have absolutely no idea what they do and half the time I just take a huge hit to performance while not being able to tell what the option actually accomplished.

At the moment, SLi 970s is about the same price as a single 980, so I think it's down to those two options. I'd like to get Dying Light and Farcry 4 maxed out at playable frame rate as well as some other games like Shadow of Mordor. If not completely maxed, then mostly maxed at 2560X1440 is what I'm shooting for.

Any other opinions on the 970/980 series? Specific models?

Any information/advice is greatly appreciated. I never want to jump the gun on a big purchase without exploring every option. Thanks again for all the input thus far.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Far cry 4 I can run at the next resolution up above 1440p using DSR and maxed everything in the game except I would turn off AA and minimums don't go below 50.

I don't have dying light but people say the draw distance is the performance killer. Shadow of mordor I can max at 1440p easily and is it super smooth in game.

You should explore how the sli compares to a 980 in the games you are interested, provided you can find that info somewhere. See if a single card would be enough, I know it would have fewer problems.

 

[KaRLiToS]

I don't know how someone could even think about buying GTX 970 SLI after what was discovered last month. This card will be a real mess in a year with new AAA games.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I don't know how someone could even think about buying GTX 970 SLI after what was discovered last month. This card will be a real mess in a year with new AAA games.

So you say. I bet it won't be a problem because when games supposedly used over 2GB I was running 2GB 670s in SLI and didn't have any problems at 1440p. Looking at current games that use over 3GB on my 970s I don't see the 690 struggling.

 

[rumpleforeskin]

So am I. In which games does 1440p put you over 3.5GB at settings where 970 SLI gives you 60 fps? (MSAA not included, as 1440p doesn't demand as strong AA as 1080p. SweetFX SMAA is good enough.)

AC:Unity uses between 3.3GB and 3.7GB at 1440p with everything maxed - using FXAA has the FPS in the mid 60's

 

[lehtv]

AC:Unity uses between 3.3GB and 3.7GB at 1440p with everything maxed - using FXAA has the FPS in the mid 60's

Uses, or allocates? If it's just allocated, it shouldn't cause stutters with proper memory management (i.e. use fast VRAM for stuff actually being used, use slow VRAM for caching stuff that isn't used).

 

[TurtleCrusher]

So am I. In which games does 1440p put you over 3.5GB at settings where 970 SLI gives you 60 fps? (MSAA not included, as 1440p doesn't demand as strong AA as 1080p. SweetFX SMAA is good enough.)

If NBA 2K15 does 1.93GB @1680x1050 2x AA, I'd not be surprised if it surpasses 3.5GB at 1440, especially with 4x AA.

 

[cmdrdredd]

If NBA 2K15 does 1.93GB @1680x1050 2x AA, I'd not be surprised if it surpasses 3.5GB at 1440, especially with 4x AA.

Is it using that all or just allocating extra? That makes a big performance difference.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Is it using that all or just allocating extra? That makes a big performance difference.

Using. It fluxes from ~1780 to ~1930, and then there's the ~250MB or so of dynamic memory that wasn't present before gaming.

 

[Stg-Flame]

Forgive my ignorance on the matter between allocation and utilization, but what does this break down to in regards to the 3.5GB VRAM issue for the 970s? Would this potentially cause problems down the line for games still in development? I've read the Witcher 3's engine is supposed to push the limits for even high-end gaming rigs and I'd like to have my investment tide me over for the next few years since these 670s have lasted me almost three years now.

 

[raghu78]

Forgive my ignorance on the matter between allocation and utilization, but what does this break down to in regards to the 3.5GB VRAM issue for the 970s? Would this potentially cause problems down the line for games still in development? I've read the Witcher 3's engine is supposed to push the limits for even high-end gaming rigs and I'd like to have my investment tide me over for the next few years since these 670s have lasted me almost three years now.

OP the GTX 970 is already struggling due to the memory partition in games like Evolve at 1440p

http://www.techspot.com/review/962-evolve-benchmarks/page4.html

"Disappointingly, the GTX 970 averaged just 44fps, being only marginally faster than the old HD 7970 GHz at 41fps. We believe this massive reduction in performance is due to the GTX 970's partitioned memory configuration."

Its a bad idea to buy a GTX 970 especially in SLI for 1440p because you will have lots of GPU power but will be limited by bandwidth and ROPs. Looking at 1440p VRAM usage and performance in games of 2013 is of no use. Look at Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor, COD AW, AC Unity, Lords of the Fallen, Dying Light and Evolve. All of them are known to use above 3.5 GB at 1440p at the highest texture settings. Games like Witcher 3 and Star Citizen are expected to be even more demanding and thus the GTX 970 SLI is bound to run into issues like it is already doing.

If you are not in a hurry to buy the GPUs wait till R9 390X and 380X launch in Q2. That will push GTX 980 prices below USD 400 and would be a good option in SLI. :thumbsup:

 

[garagisti]

I guess it is dependent on your resolution and what your expectations are. A 980 is more a sidegrade from a pair of 670s.

I went from SLI 670s to SLI 970s and couldn't be happier, even despite what all the haters say about the 970 these days. I have no issues and I run 2560x1440. An option too is a single 980 which would about match the 670s you have now and then later you can get a second one for SLI and get a nice boost. Again, it depends on your expectations and resolution.

You know, you could simply say i have no problems, but must you bring 'haters' into the equation? Who's a hater? Golden Tiger at [h] who complained about it wouldn't ever be accused of being a hater... not if you know him. You can disagree, but must you label?

Forgive my ignorance on the matter between allocation and utilization, but what does this break down to in regards to the 3.5GB VRAM issue for the 970s? Would this potentially cause problems down the line for games still in development? I've read the Witcher 3's engine is supposed to push the limits for even high-end gaming rigs and I'd like to have my investment tide me over for the next few years since these 670s have lasted me almost three years now.

Unless you're actually tired of carrying the money around... my recommendation is to wait. There is a problem, well Nvidia flat out misrepresented the facts, and no one knows what may come with future titles. What future does bring is GM200 and some cards from AMD. While you don't have to buy AMD, given you don't want to, but waiting may help you pick better, and better prices. So if you will buy only Nvidia, wait till GM200 hits shelves.

If you must have a card now, and yesterday, then i'd recommend buying a Tri-X 290x's on ebay which were selling for about $300 each. Ahem, you would still end up saving anywhere between $40-$80 or more, depending on whcih 970 model you were thinking of. You could actually get 2 290's, if you want two or more cards, to tide you till new ones and that will be close to $200 cheaper than a pair of 970s. Yes, gameworks titles are a problem, but CF scales better in most cases when both work proper.

 

[Spanners]

Forgive my ignorance on the matter between allocation and utilization, but what does this break down to in regards to the 3.5GB VRAM issue for the 970s? Would this potentially cause problems down the line for games still in development? I've read the Witcher 3's engine is supposed to push the limits for even high-end gaming rigs and I'd like to have my investment tide me over for the next few years since these 670s have lasted me almost three years now.

Potentially yes. If you're looking for a long-term card I wouldn't chose the 970. Not that I have any ability to predict the future but people were adamant that 2GB was sufficient in the very recent past. Especially if you plan on using SLI again which is where the 970's VRAM segmentation seems to hurt frametimes/smoothness the most.

Seeing as you've had a bad time with AMD and Kepler is not ageing that well, the 980 seems the best choice. It's not the best price/perf but I don't see anything else that suits you. There is always the ever frustrating advice to wait and see what upcoming cards deliver. I know you have to jump in and buy at some point though.

 

[omek]

Gonna chime in on this.

You could imagine how a GPU would react when it has to deal with more than one ram partition with different sizes both at different speeds. It's going to be a bad time unless that 1/8th is managed into non-existence.

I've got two 2GB 670's and the VRAM wall is messy already but of course this is (luckily) on a GPU with one large memory partition at one speed.

I also don't think it's going to take too long to saturate 4GB's and as soon as you start to talk about DX12 it could be out-the-window exponentially.

 

[desprado]

Plz advice base on facts.

People who are advising R9 290 CF should know that there is no CF profile for latest game like Evolve, Far cry 4 and Dying light so can tell him how he will play these latest game on CF?

he is buying muti gpu to play games with both gpu.

OP if u can wait for 3 to 4 months after game release for a CF profile than u should go for R9 290 CF.

 

[iiiankiii]

Plz advice base on facts.

People who are advising R9 290 CF should know that there is no CF profile for latest game like Evolve, Far cry 4 and Dying light so can tell him how he will play these latest game on CF?

he is buying muti gpu to play games with both gpu.

OP if u can wait for 3 to 4 months after game release for a CF profile than u should go for R9 290 CF.

I'm going to have to agree. CF profile has been slow. Having said that, SLI isn't that much better. In general, avoid multi-gpus unless one gpu just isn't enough. Might want to hang in there with those 2x 670 and see the REAL flagships have to offer.