VG Docs

On LTT forum, ignores Linus' videos on refresh rates.

The GTX 970 will likely satisfy your needs best due to its more consistent frame times (and lowest frame rates) in games and its memory compression is efficient enough that (even when SLI'd) you're very unlikely to run into a VRAM bottleneck at 1080p or 1440p.

I'm not sure what scenario you're referring to, but from what I've seen they're pretty good overall. Much better than most others in fact. If they acted stupid in one specific issue, I can understand getting annoyed. However, you look at most other popular tech channels (Jayztwocents, Linus [no offense to him of course], tek syndicate, Awesomesauce Network, Digitalfoundry), I can point out so many more issues they all have when compared to Gamers Nexus. Digitalfoundry and Tek Syndicate most notably say some of the dumbest crap yet people consider them reliable. Whether they made a notable stupid mistake once or twice doesn't make their testing less valid considering half of the Youtubers I mentioned don't even use minimums all the time, let alone the 0.1% and 1% fps deltas. Their numbers aren't simply made up just because you've lost faith in their competence. Whatever their past configurations were, it looks like they learned (something that tells a lot more than one or two stupid mistakes). Their test setup is definitely not an FX-9590 anymore, and (at least on the GPU side) I've noticed they're not biased for one brand or another, or even one card or another (something I can't say for any of the youtubers I mentioned above). In any case, I won't respond to your next comment because I know how people on the internet generally take to being challenged in their logic and this'll likely only escalate. Just noting: you do what you do, I'll continue to do what I'm doing.

The 3.5GB VRAM (w/ 512MB 1/7 speed VRAM) will not be an issue for a single card at 1080p or 1440p. As reflected in the video I'll link, it doesn't even bottleneck with 2 970s at those resolutions. The 970 will likely be the better buy if you're looking for stable performance instead of just high fps performance. There are simply more games that perform better (in terms of stability) on Nvidia cards. Even with just one GPU with much more VRAM, the 390 tends to perform more poorly in those minimum frame times. Here's a video that further explores single 970, single 390x, and dual GPU configs with both. Your primary considerations should then be price, software, and compute considerations.

Assuming there aren't any issues with the rest of the build and you have a normal-low tolerance for lower frame rates, I do recommend selling and upgrading. However, if your tolerance is of an average non-PC gamer or better (or you can adjust easily to sub 60 fps), the 960 will be completely fine at 1080p with nearly all titles on their highest/close to highest settings.

This video explains things quite nicely:

Realistically, you're not going to be bottlenecked in VRAM at 1080p with 2 970s. It'll be pushing it in some more drastic cases (like Shadow of Mordor's ultra texture pack which doesn't even up most textures in a scene), but the architecture and memory compression it uses will make it rare to see any slowdown or (more likely) stuttering/lag spikes in more VRAM intensive scenarios. As reflected in this video (with 1% and 0.1% low benchmarks. Although the lows are lower than 980 Ti, there's nothing other than 4k benchmarks that would indicate a noticeable VRAM bottleneck), when SLI works there doesn't appear to be any VRAM bottleneck present even at 1440p or even 4k for some AAA games. Also for what it's worth (Probably not a lot), Jayztwocents' video indicates similarly. The primary issue to arise with 970 SLI and whether it's worth it will likely be in the games you'll be playing. If your games won't see much gain in performance I'd recommend selling the 970 for as much as you can and going higher (980 or 980 Ti may be your best bets due to lack of poor 0.1/1% performance when compared with Radeon's current lineup) if you can.

I'm curious because I've seen a few things like this that say the Skylake Celeron lineup was released a while back but I can't seem to find any (at least none at their approximate launch price). Are they only for OEM stuff or something?

I don't know why people are guessing only one or two GPUs. It's greatly dependent on the game. Tomb Raider? Probably 390 or better. MMOs? Probably around 750 Ti or 260x. Most are in between.

Flash Player does this every time I start up. Usually it's only ~150MB worth though before I close it. I figured it was some sort of unwanted software presenting itself as flash player but I opened the file location (I closed it before explorer brought up the file because it was taking so long) and it goes to c\ProgramData\Adobe\ which is blank. Any ideas on this?

Major update: Fixed. I don't want this to be necro'd or anything, but I would like anyone who searches this to notice this fix. Easy way to get to this: Click on the internet bars in the lower right corner, > Open network and sharing center > Internet Options (Lower left corner) > Connections tab > LAN Settings > uncheck the bottom two boxes under "Proxy server" I don't actually know why mine were checked in the first place, but w/e

The 270x/7870 GHz tends to be the most similar in performance to a GTX 950. For current gen cards, the 370 is generally a bit worse while the 380 is generally a bit better.

Thanks, but that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for something that can present frame times. Also something with a nice presentation like in the videos I linked to which involves something entirely separate from normal game recording software.

I mean dominate the market like how most common cards are now (r7 360-Fury X/GTX 950-980 Ti). Do you think it'll ever be so that a single lineup of cards is almost solely dual GPU?

I would never do that trade. I'd definitely haggle or nothing here.

Aren't they multiple integer units designed to share a single module? Or is that what you meant?

I'm trying to determine whether the "cores" in the FX series, Athlon II series, and the consoles' Jaguar series are cores. Normally I call them integer units to be safe from any technical discrepancies but that may technically be off as well. Is there a definition for what a CPU core is? Is there a way to define these (2 "cores" per module or 4 "cores" per module) units? To be clear, this isn't a thread to hate or criticize AMD or the consoles. It's only one to see if there's a way to define what I mentioned above.

Yeah, I think that's the case. I think he uses the software called "FCAT" by nvidia. I'm not really sure how to use that though.

Okay, but with what? He mentions that afterburner and fraps are inaccurate (a few seconds prior to what I timestamp linked it) while playing the game

That's the point of this thread... to find out what people (like the person I linked to) use

Unless I'm misunderstanding, that's not entirely true (based on one of the guys that does these frame rate videos) Edit: Though I guess my memory of that video was a bit off, didn't remember that he used a second PC to do raw capture

No, look at the videos I gave examples of. They're examples of frame rate measurements after the fact.

I'm wanting software that measures real time frame rate/frame times (like in the videos I gave examples of), in a similar presentation.

Real time frame rates that are variable, like the examples I gave.

As a couple examples, DF and NXGamer use software to measure frame rate and frame times after recording a video. I'd assume they did this with their own software within a video editor, but there should be other (public) software that does this same thing right? I'm interested mainly due to its cleaner presentation (for videos) and better accuracy. If no one can find software like this, what about what Linus and Jayztwocents use for their benchmark videos?