Replacement for GTX 970

[Silverforce11]

I was led into believing the 970's ram was causing me issues already with DSR and I felt the need to act straight away. This is how I ended up with a 980. See, first thing I was concerned with was my personal experience. 2nd was being misled. Bestbuy only had one option for me since I was sure that the 970 ram issue was effecting my gameplay. I was wrong though.

No single GPU can handle high res gaming, especially on newer titles. You should know that, what made you think a single 970 is capable of running high res via DSR? Or rather, 980 wouldn't be able to either.

The vram only matters in many games in SLI configs where there's enough GPU grunt to handle high res, shifting the bottleneck to the vram.

So far, in single card, at playable settings, only a very small number of games are detrimentally affected by the 970 segmented vram. There is a problem, but it doesn't affect the vast majority of gamers, on 1080p with a single GPU.

 

[ocre]

No single GPU can handle high res gaming, especially on newer titles. You should know that, what made you think a single 970 is capable of running high res via DSR? Or rather, 980 wouldn't be able to either.

The vram only matters in many games in SLI configs where there's enough GPU grunt to handle high res, shifting the bottleneck to the vram.

So far, in single card, at playable settings, only a very small number of games are detrimentally affected by the 970 segmented vram. There is a problem, but it doesn't affect the vast majority of gamers, on 1080p with a single GPU.

When the issue was first being pushed, all the evidence was in "high res gaming"

Even still, most of all the sites, forum post, and yôutube vids show the 970 stuttering in "high res gaming". That is almost always what it takes to use over 3500mb of ram.

Just about every case shown as proof is of a 970 with dsr or some really high resolution. This gives off the impression that it is the segmented ram that causes the issue. I got a 980 and realized that those high resolution settings are too much for it as well. Even without segmented memories.

The high resolutions bring stutter and uneven game play. So, if your frame rate is in the 40s, it is completely all over the place. The 980 struggles to though. I figured that since so many were insisting that the ram was causing the 970 to stutter, that a 980 wouldn't stutter. Its not the case though.

Just because u have low frame rates doesn't mean you will have inconsistent framer ones and hitching. But the 980 struggles too, and its not smooth either.

I cannot speak for SLI but I would to hear from someone who directly can compare the 980sli experience with the 970sli.

I have since seen a site that shows the 970 at high res with other cards to compare and reference. The 970 shows stutter, the 980 stutters but maybe slightly less-still a mess in frame times, but the most surprising is the 290x stutters worse. This was in 3 games.

High resolutions are too much for single cards though, now this I am sure. What is strange is how one tiny step further can cause such a massive difference. At high res, frame rates are not at all useful and we really need to look at frame times.

This ram debate has been presented with high res examples as proof. I am just saying that........
These resolutions cause the 980 to struggle to.

I think the misleading aspect is more the issue. Especially in a single card configuration. Being misled for whatever reason. Worse was how nvidia responded. I think those are things people should remember, I expect more out of nvidia.

 

[omeds]

Gotta love when the fanboy card is pulled out of nowhere, especially since it's almost always a fanboy who does it!

Seriously, 3 cards (of either brand) is almost never worth it no matter what you play, since the scaling sucks at that point. Performance even degrades in some games! You need a lot of disposable income or to simply want to say that you have 3 cards to justify it.

I've owned one 3-way CFX and two 3-way SLI systems. Was able to get pretty good scaling on all 3 systems, with the 3rd GPU on par with 2-way scaling. Sometimes it takes some tweaking ofc. I'd say it's worth it if your display/s warrant it.

 

[kasakka]

High resolutions are too much for single cards though, now this I am sure. What is strange is how one tiny step further can cause such a massive difference. At high res, frame rates are not at all useful and we really need to look at frame times.

This ram debate has been presented with high res examples as proof. I am just saying that........
These resolutions cause the 980 to struggle to.

I think the misleading aspect is more the issue. Especially in a single card configuration. Being misled for whatever reason. Worse was how nvidia responded. I think those are things people should remember, I expect more out of nvidia.

I find I have to push my GTX 970 SLI to fairly absurd settings to get it to stutter (excluding Shadow of Mordor) and at that point it is usually going beyond the available VRAM anyway. This is something like 4K (DSR) + 4xMSAA in Far Cry 4.

Depending on the game 4K resolution is fine for 970 SLI as long as you don't go overboard with antialiasing or other VRAM hog settings (like uncompressed textures where the visual difference is usually negligible especially in motion).

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I find I have to push my GTX 970 SLI to fairly absurd settings to get it to stutter (excluding Shadow of Mordor) and at that point it is usually going beyond the available VRAM anyway. This is something like 4K (DSR) + 4xMSAA in Far Cry 4.

Depending on the game 4K resolution is fine for 970 SLI as long as you don't go overboard with antialiasing or other VRAM hog settings (like uncompressed textures where the visual difference is usually negligible especially in motion).

That's what I suspected. And if I say I "suspected it," it points to the 2x GTX 970 as a sort of "gamble." All consumer choices are a gamble, a trade-off and a balancing-act.

that holds for the notion of "future proof." 4K may "take hold," but it is the mass-market and mass-pocket-book which will be the ballast that keeps full-HD from total obsolescence.

That leaves you with options, to include 4K with practical AA and other settings.

 

[UaVaj]

I find I have to push my GTX 970 SLI to fairly absurd settings to get it to stutter (excluding Shadow of Mordor) and at that point it is usually going beyond the available VRAM anyway. This is something like 4K (DSR) + 4xMSAA in Far Cry 4.

Depending on the game 4K resolution is fine for 970 SLI as long as you don't go overboard with antialiasing or other VRAM hog settings (like uncompressed textures where the visual difference is usually negligible especially in motion).

thanks for that 1st hand experience / reality check.
at that point. the game is not even playable, much less enjoyable, nor it is practical.

that nearly rule out 970 x2 as being affected.
can only imagine if 970 x1 is even being affected.

.

 

[ocre]

the issue is much more the misinformation rather than the performance.

As a previous 970 owner who now has a 980, I think my statements should hold more weight. There are hundreds of people that never even had a 970 saying this and that but they have n real expierence with it. Then there are others whos sole purpose is just to bash nvidia and the card.

You know, nvidia makes it real easy for them with stuff like this.

But regardless, the performance is not really the issue. Being misled is

 

[cmdrdredd]

I find I have to push my GTX 970 SLI to fairly absurd settings to get it to stutter (excluding Shadow of Mordor) and at that point it is usually going beyond the available VRAM anyway. This is something like 4K (DSR) + 4xMSAA in Far Cry 4.

Depending on the game 4K resolution is fine for 970 SLI as long as you don't go overboard with antialiasing or other VRAM hog settings (like uncompressed textures where the visual difference is usually negligible especially in motion).

Pretty much my experience but I disagree about 4k, I don't find it playable at all ever unless I reduce visual quality to the point where I'd rather play at 1440p and keep those things on because it flat out looks better.

So far only going overboard on AA or adjustments that also make other cards tank FPS really make the experience less than stellar for me. There are some games with settings that will make even 980SLI have issues with keeping high enough framerates. Maybe gsync would help keep things looking smooth, maybe not but I don't have that option with my setup.

 

[kasakka]

Pretty much my experience but I disagree about 4k, I don't find it playable at all ever unless I reduce visual quality to the point where I'd rather play at 1440p and keep those things on because it flat out looks better.

So far only going overboard on AA or adjustments that also make other cards tank FPS really make the experience less than stellar for me. There are some games with settings that will make even 980SLI have issues with keeping high enough framerates. Maybe gsync would help keep things looking smooth, maybe not but I don't have that option with my setup.

Depends on the game. Far Cry 4 at 4k with SMAA or at most 2xMSAA was fine IMO but then again I am fine with fps over 30 rather than requiring 60 at all times. If DSR worked with Gsync on SLI (driver issue) I'd probably play FC4 at 4K.

Gsync helps but not for memory access related issues as those cause a jarring stutter for a short moment. That is what I see occasionally on Shadow of Mordor on ultra or FC4 with 4K + 4xMSAA.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Depends on the game. Far Cry 4 at 4k with SMAA or at most 2xMSAA was fine IMO but then again I am fine with fps over 30 rather than requiring 60 at all times. If DSR worked with Gsync on SLI (driver issue) I'd probably play FC4 at 4K.

Gsync helps but not for memory access related issues as those cause a jarring stutter for a short moment. That is what I see occasionally on Shadow of Mordor on ultra or FC4 with 4K + 4xMSAA.

Anything below 40 for minimums is a no go for me. I can play at 2804x1577 with no AA and it's fine.

 

[Subyman]

Pretty much my experience but I disagree about 4k, I don't find it playable at all ever unless I reduce visual quality to the point where I'd rather play at 1440p and keep those things on because it flat out looks better.

So far only going overboard on AA or adjustments that also make other cards tank FPS really make the experience less than stellar for me. There are some games with settings that will make even 980SLI have issues with keeping high enough framerates. Maybe gsync would help keep things looking smooth, maybe not but I don't have that option with my setup.

Gsync is amazing. Its the only reason I've decided to keep my 970's. I would have sent them back and would have picked up some 290X's if it wasn't for that single feature. I can't see myself ever going without gsync/freesync. It sucks to be locked into a proprietary features, but it really is that important to me now.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Gsync is amazing. Its the only reason I've decided to keep my 970's. I would have sent them back and would have picked up some 290X's if it wasn't for that single feature. I can't see myself ever going without gsync/freesync. It sucks to be locked into a proprietary features, but it really is that important to me now.

I'm still a bit noobie in the graphics specialty. Is G-Sync a feature built in to certain monitors? My web-search just now turned up some NV Geforce pages that describe it, and that's the impression I came away with.

I pretty much thought all along that the general "unfavorable view" of the GTX-970s was an over-reaction to the VRAM/marketing issue.

Of course, I'm only running a "full-HD" monitor, so I have no firsthand way of assessing this, except to agree that absurd settings might push any card to a point where one has the mythical "problems."

 

[kasakka]

I'm still a bit noobie in the graphics specialty. Is G-Sync a feature built in to certain monitors? My web-search just now turned up some NV Geforce pages that describe it, and that's the impression I came away with.

Yes, it's a module in the display that allows variable refresh rate. Only works with Nvidia video cards unfortunately.

 

[soccerballtux]

Yes, it's a module in the display that allows variable refresh rate. Only works with Nvidia video cards unfortunately.

There's FreeSync for AMD which is an open standard.

I don't see why it wasn't just part of the HDMI spec to begin with.

 

[Subyman]

I'm still a bit noobie in the graphics specialty. Is G-Sync a feature built in to certain monitors? My web-search just now turned up some NV Geforce pages that describe it, and that's the impression I came away with.

I pretty much thought all along that the general "unfavorable view" of the GTX-970s was an over-reaction to the VRAM/marketing issue.

Of course, I'm only running a "full-HD" monitor, so I have no firsthand way of assessing this, except to agree that absurd settings might push any card to a point where one has the mythical "problems."

Yes, its built into the monitor, but only nvidia cards support it. It eliminates screen tearing and display anomalies by only showing full frames and never having the monitor half rendering a scene. Completely changes gaming IMO. I'll be happy when the tech is ubiquitous with free sync.

 

[ocre]

What is all this talk about freesync?

Its already march 2015. i havent heard of one single review site getting the opportunity to be cut loose with it and see what it is really a out. has anyone been able to? There was this wave of articles when AMD set up a very controlled environment only to end up the conflicting information.

Sure everyone has faith that its this perfect solution that is just better than Gsync and much much cheaper. I know its nice to believe that but......

Its already march. Is there not anyone else concerned by the fact that reviewers haven't been able to try out freesync first hand? The only thing we have is very controlled demos...

I am not trying to put it down or start the flame throwers but this really seems odd to me and when I do the math.........something is just not adding up.

I am leaning towards an issue, something is not going well. Or maybe its all fine. But I don't see how. AMD has had so much time with this now. So much time. Remember, way back in the beginning AMD acted like they were confused as to why nvidia took such a complex route to what they insisted was extremely simple. That not only was it simple enough, that everything needed to make it happen already exist. They played it off like nvidia must have been ignorant or something. AMD had engineers out telling this story and here we are, so so long later.......
What s going on?

We were supposed to have everything we needed for freesync already. all the technologies already existed but then we found out that there was this hold up. The DP standard needed a revision and this new revision was all that was needed for freesync. So we waited till we had that. Then it was the scalers themselves we had to wait for. And those were all on the monitor manufactures themselves. That AMD was just held up because of the monitors were just not ready. We were supposed have this monitors with the new spec shipping q4 of 2014. That freesync was just waiting on those monitors. But then...

Here we are, the 3rd month of 2015. We have seen/heard of several upcoming monitors that are supposed to have free sync capabilities. There may even be monitors shipping with DP 1.2a capabilities, I don't even know, but surely there is some samples out there that AMD could have shipped to reviewers. These monitors were supposed to be here in q4. This is supposed to be the very simple thing and its just not making a lot of sense to me.

AMD has not only had all this time now, there is also the little fact that this new capability in the revision to the DP spec has existed all along in the eDP spec. So AMD never needed to wait on the desktop monitors at all. We should already have seen freesync on laptops. This nontrivial function should have been working for AMD mobile gpus long long ago. This should already be a feature for the public yet I haven't seen a single reviewer getting let loose with the technology to this day. Not even a real preview.

Worse still, we actually have seen nvidia accidentally slip a driver that hints to the possibility that nvidia might be uses the eDP capabilities for Gsync. This is crazy to me. I would think the long before anything like this would leak out from nvidia, we would have fully working freesync capabilities.

It is really concerning to me, freesync wasn't supposed to be complex or hard to implement. I can't think of any good reason that things are in the shape they are in. If there is anyone out there who tries to blow this off, I want you to ask yourself.....you can sit there and tell me that a year ago you expected that we wouldn't have a single real review of freesync by march of 2015. Cause everyone was insisting then that it was just coming right around the corner. Gsync was already declared dead over a year ago.

There is shocking. What is going on with it? Its been far too long now and something just doesn't seem right to me.

So, all this talk about freesync and I feel like we are no more closer to it than we were a year ago. It is still the same story. Supposedly just around the corner, supposedly functions just as good or better than nvidias clunky route that needs an extra chip, and it is supposedly it cheep. This all good and great thing that is everything nvidias solution is not.

But I can't help but wonder......,,
What the heck is really going on now

 

[stahlhart]

Either get this thread back on topic, or start another one if the original topic is no longer going to be discussed.
-- stahlhart

 

[007ELmO]

AMD 390x cards taking too long to come out. =(

 

[clok1966]

If you don't mind, what is the rest of your system?

I'm using a 7990 without issues and I regularly play L4D2 and do not see stutter.

Just curious how your setup differs and if there's some other cause than the 7990, as mine has been a champ since purchase and it's why I've cared little for the 29x and 9xx series as they aren't enough gains for the possible downgrade.

GIGABYTE GA-Z68X-UD4-B3, 2500K (not OC at this time) 16ram G.Skill 2400 Ripjaw (just purchased) Corsair 1000RM XFX triple D 7990 Driver is the version they released around Christmas time, did a complete remove (old drivers) and install.

I play alot of L4D, but when i got the card I was deep into a WoW revival (hadn't played in a few years) and WoT so didn't notice any real problems. But then LFD2, it plays just great then a i play a couple games and one will load in stutter mode. To be sure I removed and re installed game, I also put my old card back in (no problems). I could live with this, but i have lost 3 fans now, XFX is great, they have sent me the WHOLE (all 3 fans) fan holder and fans each time but ... I cook this thing because of fans dying I will be pissed off. Right now I have jury rigged some 80MM case fans to cool it as they dont die every 2 months (and the card runs about 5-10 degrees cooler.

Oh case is well ventilated, 2 fans up front, 2 on top, screen side (side off and box fan only lowers temps about 2-3 degrees). The heat of this thing is manageable, but only just. I have a gap of almost 4 inchs below it for air so its not starved.. I even did some jury rigging with some cardboard to force only fresh air into it (again, made a 1 degree cooler if that).

I love the idea of sticking with ONE card and one game is not the end of the world, but I like the damn game then i add the heat (summer it can add up quick) the dying fans with the possibility of killing my card, and power, somebody stated its not that much, but it is something, my rig costs about $13 a month to run (well did) now its $18 (math from the Power backup, if its correct or not? no idea, just going by what it says.


-edit- crap didn't read whole thread before replying, off topic, if you want to reply pm me so this can stay on topic.