GTX970 has became a mid-range card?

[Nemo_KEL]

As title shows.

I saw this statement today in a Chniese website, someone here claims that Gtx 970 has already become a mid range card...and accroding to him, a 1060 is the MINIMUM requirement for PC gaming, anything below that are just totally trush.

Agreed or not?

I'm not, I'm prefectly fine with a 970 on 3440*1440 monitor with high  setting playing some mainstream game at around 60 fps, and it's apparently good enough for content creation as well.

 

Just wanna discuss with you guys.

 

In case you guys wanna read the original post (which is in Chinese...), I'll post a link down below.

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/5081496644?pn=1

 

 

[yathis]

The 970 = 1060

[Nemo_KEL]

Just now, yathis said:

The 970 = 1060

Sweet spot card as usual?

[WereCat]

Just now, yathis said:

The 970 = 1060

No.

1060 6G is more like 980.

 

Yes, 970 was mid range when it released, now it is lower mid range, next gen it will be upper low end.

[yathis]

There is a GPU hierchy list on Tomshardware and LTT

[yathis]

Close enough ----------->

 

[Space Reptile]

R9 290 , 390 , RX 480

GTX 780 , 970 , 1060

 

all of These are midrange Cards by now , no matter how big they once were

heck my old 4850´s arent even concidered Budget Cards anymore , and they where cream of the crop years ago

[Nemo_KEL]

1 minute ago, Space Reptile said:

R9 290 , 390 , RX 480

GTX 780 , 970 , 1060

 

all of These are midrange Cards by now , no matter how big they once were

heck my old 4850´s arent even concidered Budget Cards anymore , and they cream of the crop years ago

Yeah...still pretty enjoy using this card by now

[Space Reptile]

3 minutes ago, Nemo_KEL said:

Yeah...still pretty enjoy using this card by now

nothing stop you from doing so , the 970 and amds equivalents are still plenty powerful Cards and will stay that for atleast another 2 years

[Vode]

GTX 970 is definitely lower midrange right now, but it doesn't matter. It's just a word.

 

As long as the performance seems right to you it doesn't matter how many newer and faster cards are on the market.

[Bananasplit_00]

i use a 970(overclocked ofc) and its good for everything i have thrown at it but its about the preformance of an RX 470 so it would be considered mid range. that said all i play are light titles at the moment, like OSU and Paladins(with a bit of BDO that melts my CPU...) but i play at 1440p maxed out and i get good framerates(exept BDO because its an un optimised pice of shit). the 1060 is a better card but i would honestly not consider it a worth while upgrade seeing as you can get an R9 Fury for the same money which hitts at right bellow the 980TI or a bit less then the GTX 1070 as long as you can live with a last gen card(might get myself one later this year but it depends on VEGA). 

 

anyway the 970 is a smack dab mid range card IMO with the 470 edgeing it out in preformance and the 1060 beating it. its still a good card for 1080p but its not going to be maxing out all the AAA games at 1080p.

[crzyces]

1 hour ago, Nemo_KEL said:

As title shows.

I saw this statement today in a Chniese website, someone here claims that Gtx 970 has already become a mid range card...and accroding to him, a 1060 is the MINIMUM requirement for PC gaming, anything below that are just totally trush.

Agreed or not?

I'm not, I'm prefectly fine with a 970 on 3440*1440 monitor with high  setting playing some mainstream game at around 60 fps, and it's apparently good enough for content creation as well.

 

Just wanna discuss with you guys.

 

In case you guys wanna read the original post (which is in Chinese...), I'll post a link down below.

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/5081496644?pn=1

 

 

 

They talk funny. Is this an homage to the passing of the once renowned GTX 970? 
So poetic. And odd.

"970 is not already can be considered low-end graphics card?"

 Look at the landlord

    Collection
Water is not water and water

Now the development of graphics cards so fast, the performance is the old
yellow belt is to fly to heaven, then it is not possible to say
970 has been considered low-end graphics card."

 

[crzyces]

I have to make my own silliness here...

咖啡
能量不是能量和力量
現在開發安非他明
老式的表現將會向尼姆斯騰飛
不過，人們可能不會說cappaccino沒有目的

It equates well. Now where, now where did I put my adderol?

[3 Lions]

The 970 is still a high-end card even though it now gets beaten by anything above a 1050Ti. 

 

Cards
Mid-range	GeForce GTX 950 GeForce GTX 960
High-end	GeForce GTX 970 GeForce GTX 980
Enthusiast	GeForce GTX 980 Ti GeForce GTX Titan

[othertomperson]

13 hours ago, WereCat said:

Yes, 970 was mid range when it released, now it is lower mid range, next gen it will be upper low end.

Not really. The mid range was the 960, 380, 380X ballpark. The 970 was a cut down variant of the once-flagship GM-204. GM-204 continued to be the highest end mainstream GPU until Pascal. Calling the 970 mid-range would be like calling the i7 4770k mid-range when it and the 4790k were the top of their class.

 

They're mid-range now. The 970 and the 480 are approximately the same performance.

[crzyces]

54 minutes ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

The 970 is still a high-end card even though it now gets beaten by anything above a 1050Ti. 

 

Cards
Mid-range	GeForce GTX 950 GeForce GTX 960
High-end	GeForce GTX 970 GeForce GTX 980
Enthusiast	GeForce GTX 980 Ti GeForce GTX Titan

You just listed it in mid range, which I assume it is.

I'll try to list in order, only going back 1 gen

Low end

rx550

rx 460

rx 560

r9 280

r9 280x

GTX 960

r9 380

Mid Range

r9 380x

GTX 970

GTX 1050

GTX 1050ti

r9 390

GTX 1060 3 gig

RX 470 4 gig

r9 390x

GTX 1060 6 gig

r9 Nano

r9 Fury X

RX 480/580 8 gig (Just consider the 480 flashed as 90% of people are going to do it)>=GTX 1060 SSC (too close to call)

High End

Gigabyte rx580 AORUS 8 gig

GTX 1070

GeForce GTX 1070 Gaming X

Radeon Pro Duo (Worst bang for your buck unless you are a professional artist/animator, then it is a great deal)

GTX 1080

Enthusiast:

The Zotac GTX 1080 AMP

Original Titan

Titan X (V1)

Reference FE 1080 ti

Zotac 1080ti = Gigabyte Aorus 1080 ti (Out of the box)

Asus Strix 1080 ti = MSI Gaming Gaming X 1080 ti (Out of the Box)

Manually overclocked the AORUS jumps to the top, then Zotac just behind, then Strix then MSI. Honestly, these cards are all so powerful, out of the box the frame difference is usually no more than 3 FPS in real life gaming, with each winning in one game or another; OC'd The AORUS and Zotac seem to outdistance the others by 3-5 FPS. Lol, I know, the disparity...

New Titan XP (IDK what you want to call it. It's big and fast)

 

I know I left a bunch of brands off (frankly besides noise, size, etc. they were all so close I did not feel the need to list every 480 manufacturer for instance), but that would be my take from hundreds of reviews and benchmarks. I've only used 5 of the cards listed, so I can't say first hand. Only the cool kids who get review samples have that luxury I suppose.

[alphaproject]

Actually it simply depends on what games you play. For me my 970 is a high end card still because I don't use 4K settings for anything.... I also don't play the newest AAA games at 4K on ultra. What I mostly play is War Thunder as of late...and in that game... the 970 is perfectly fine. I know people that actually play it with a Mac and get 20 fps and are somehow happy with that. I don't get it. I suppose he's happy just to play it at all... ??? I know the 970 is not the best... nor was it ever... but it's still a pretty rocking card and if you need to run it with medium graphics on a new engine in 2016+ then so be it. Just because the 1060 is out and soon to be new cards does not make it crap... The games you play make the difference.

[crzyces]

1 hour ago, alphaproject said:

Actually it simply depends on what games you play. For me my 970 is a high end card still because I don't use 4K settings for anything.... I also don't play the newest AAA games at 4K on ultra. What I mostly play is War Thunder as of late...and in that game... the 970 is perfectly fine. I know people that actually play it with a Mac and get 20 fps and are somehow happy with that. I don't get it. I suppose he's happy just to play it at all... ??? I know the 970 is not the best... nor was it ever... but it's still a pretty rocking card and if you need to run it with medium graphics on a new engine in 2016+ then so be it. Just because the 1060 is out and soon to be new cards does not make it crap... The games you play make the difference.

Have to agree. I'm replaying Mass Effect 2 (My least favorite of the original trilogy but the only one I have for PC; DvD and all) and Deus Ex: Human Revolution. A GTX 970 wouldn't make them look any better than a 660 at 1080p 60hz. So yep, the games and res definitely matter.

[GuruMeditationError]

Well, newer games are always going to be able to utilise faster hardware but the existing P.C. gaming library hasn't got any faster.

Today's Titan X is tomorrow's 8800 GTX...it's just progress...it's why I don't pay the premiums for the GTX x80's and above (and why I favour retro-gaming)

 

But no...970's are definitely not trash, they never were and it's going to be a long while before they can really be considered that way...they were an absolute godsend when they were released and an absolute winner in the value department (probably because of the jiggery-pokery with the RAM, but even so...) 

...but time does move on and attitudes do change.

[crzyces]

Just now, GuruMeditationError said:

Well, newer games are always going to be able to use faster hardware but the existing library hasn't got any faster.

Today's Titan X is tomorrow's 8800 GTX...it's just progress...it's why I don't pay the premiums for the GTX x80's and above. 

 

But no, 970's are definitely not trash; they were an absolute godsend when they were released but time does move on and attitudes do change.

If you have the disposable income and it makes you happy, great. It's like a car. "Bob" would love to own a Bentley, but drives a 2015 Civic coupe. Either way, he still gets to work.

[GuruMeditationError]

26 minutes ago, crzyces said:

If you have the disposable income and it makes you happy, great. It's like a car. "Bob" would love to own a Bentley, but drives a 2015 Civic coupe. Either way, he still gets to work.

If money was no object I'd 2-way SLI top-flight as soon as they're released, but...unfortunately I'm not so blessed  

@crzyces ...exquisite  

...but yeah...hypothetically, every graphics card ever released and ever to be released will, almost certainly, at some point -- and for a (relatively) limited period -- be considered by someone somewhere as being "mid-range"...

...I feel like playing some Bob Dylan...now whatever did happen to that record player... 

[alphaproject]

I think had I had money to burn I would have gotten the 1070. However, I was really waiting on Volta and or Vega. I wanted some dang mainstream cards to use HBM2 and now I gotta hear about GDDR6...???

[Biggerboot]

Midrange is relevent to the current GPU lineup.  You can certainly game on lower end stuff though.  Depends what you run, but I'd say you can enjoy the newest games at reasonable settings on the current 'low end' cards.

[App4that]

On 4/27/2017 at 1:09 PM, othertomperson said:

Not really. The mid range was the 960, 380, 380X ballpark. The 970 was a cut down variant of the once-flagship GM-204. GM-204 continued to be the highest end mainstream GPU until Pascal. Calling the 970 mid-range would be like calling the i7 4770k mid-range when it and the 4790k were the top of their class.

 

They're mid-range now. The 970 and the 480 are approximately the same performance.

Nope, 980ti with a GM-200 beat the GM-204 way before Pascal. Here's mine.

 

 

 

 

[Andreas Lilja]

It's getting outdated, developers have it in their recommended specs. 

 

But then it's 3-4 yrs old...