Alternative to gtx 970 ?

[Effenbach]

i was originally going to buy a gtx 970 , for a new build, but as of the news about the vram issue , im  not sure if that would be wise.

 

im planning to spend around 350$ on a gpu.

 

My question is -

 

will you still recommend the 970 despite of the vram issue?

 

if not , what alternative would then be best?

atm im considering a r9 290x

 

 

 

[jurian123]

yeah 970 is still a better option than amd's flagshit gpu. 

[Shaqo_Wyn]

Yep. Nvidia has released a pretty clear statement addressing the issue. They split the bus in two parts, one goes up to 3.5GB, the other part contains the remaining 0.5GB that is only utilized when what you're doing requires more than 3.5GB.

 

[lani100]

i was originally going to buy a gtx 970 , for a new build, but as of the news about the vram issue , im  not sure if that would be wise.

 

im planning to spend around 350$ on a gpu.

 

My question is -

 

will you still recommend the 970 despite of the vram issue?

 

if not , what alternative would then be best?

atm im considering a r9 290x

I still recommend the 970 but a good alternative would be a 290x but make sure to get the sapphire tri-x version or mount another cooler to it.

[zappian]

Get the r9 290x , its a better card and will last you longer because it actually can use 4 GB of VRAM .

[Sauron]

Aside from the memory issue, with the current pricing an R9 290x offers significantly more bang for the buck. The only thing in favour of the 970 is power consumption, so it's up to you if you really care or not. The vram issue doesn't seem to be that big of a deal, and unless you're playing at 4k it's unlikely you'll need more than 3.5gb of vram before you ugrade anyway, so if you really, really want a 970 despite the higher price for a lower performance I wouldn't let that put me off.

[Sauron]

yeah 970 is still a better option than amd's flagshit gpu. 

 

May I ask based on what?

[zappian]

Aside from the memory issue, with the current pricing an R9 290x offers significantly more bang for the buck. The only thing in favour of the 970 is power consumption, so it's up to you if you really care or not. The vram issue doesn't seem to be that big of a deal, and unless you're playing at 4k it's unlikely you'll need more than 3.5gb of vram before you ugrade anyway, so if you really, really want a 970 despite the higher price for a lower performance I wouldn't let that put me off.

 

I would say the 290x has more longevity potential , it has full speed 4 GB of memory unlike the 970 and a higher memory bus.

 

970 has 3.5 Gb of fast memory and 0.5 Gb of donkey speed memory at the end of the day.

[jurian123]

May I ask based on what?

Clearly the r9 290x has not the same performance and "cool" operation as the 970. When amd releases her new gpus will see who will win this battle. Till now Nvidea has the edge for me. 

 

And the vram issue is overhyped. My friend also got a 970 but the vram works fine so. Apls stop hating.  

[zappian]

Clearly the r9 290x has not the same performance and "cool" operation as the 970. When amd releases her new gpus will see who will win this battle. Till now Nvidea has the edge for me. 

 

And the vram issue is overhyped. My friend also got a 970 but the vram works fine so. Apls stop hating.  

 

Clearly the 290x has full speed 4 GB of memory unlike the 970 and a higher memory bus.

[jurian123]

Clearly the 290x has full speed 4 GB of memory unlike the 970 and a higher memory bus.

So what the r9 290x is running hotter and walks behind the 970 qua performance. 

[Badger906]

i was about to buy a 970 yesterday until i heard about the issue on the wan show. its not a big deal if youre playing @1080p now or in the future, but if you plan a monitor upgrade to 4k soon, its not so much a good idea. the 290x is still an awesome card and not much slower, AMD are due to announce their new line up anytime soon, so maybe worth holding out till then!!

[zappian]

So what the r9 290x is running hotter and walks behind the 970 qua performance. 

 

So what?

 

The 290x will run higher resolution games with less stutter.

 

Did i mention its cheaper?

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 290X 4GB Video Card  ($269.99 @ NCIX US) 

Total: $269.99

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-27 07:16 EST-0500

[jurian123]

So what?

 

The 290x will run higher resolution games with less stutter.

 

Did i mention its cheaper?

I have a better option. 

 

Save your bucks and go for the 980 done. 

[chopdok]

Its not just the VRAM. Its also 56 ROP instead of 64 ROP, 1.75 MB cache instead of 2 MB, and inability to acess the 3.5 and 0.5 on the same clock cycle - thus when the 0.5 module becomes active, the peak bandwith of 3.5 module goes down even further. Oh, and the advertised peak bandwith is not 224 GB/s but 196 GB/s. Under no circumstances, the GTX 970 will deliver more than 196 GB/s, ever ever.

 

Get R9 290X. It may be hotter, but it will last you longer. Alternatively, save up for GTX 980. Or wait for AMD 300 series. But knowing AMD and their "sucess" when implementing new tech, it might actually turn out worse than GTX 970. Also, the "water cooling on stock" phrase being tossed around probably means you will be able to cook food on it as well.

 

Its really wierd right now. A situation where you have to pick between GPU based on "lesser evil" principle.

[zappian]

I have a better option. 

 

Save your bucks and go for the 980 done. 

 

I agree , but the 970 ATM has no chance against the 290x plain and simple.

 

Spend more money for less VRAM and memory performance issues?

 

No thanks.

[jurian123]

I agree , but the 970 ATM has no chance against the 290x plain and simple.

 

Spend more money for less VRAM and memory performance issues?

 

No thanks.

Higher vram does not really matter though when u play at 1080p

[zappian]

Higher vram does not really matter though when u play at 1080p

 

But it will in the future.

 

Thats why i said the 290x is cheaper and will last longer.

[jurian123]

I agree , but the 970 ATM has no chance against the 290x plain and simple.

 

Spend more money for less VRAM and memory performance issues?

 

No thanks.

And what also is known the 970 will perform better in 1080p. 

[Sauron]

I would say the 290x has more longevity potential , it has full speed 4 GB of memory unlike the 970 and a higher memory bus.

 

970 has 3.5 Gb of fast memory and 0.5 Gb of donkey speed memory at the end of the day.

 

Not to mention the fact that the 290x performs better in almost everything.

 

Clearly the r9 290x has not the same performance and "cool" operation as the 970. When amd releases her new gpus will see who will win this battle. Till now Nvidea has the edge for me. 

 

The R9 290x is as fast or faster than a 970, especially at high resolutions where these cards are aimed and the higher memory bandwidths starts to show. This is a fact. And it's also 40-50$ cheaper. Right now the only thing the 970 has going for it is power consumption, which you may or may not care about when it comes at that price premium. "cool" operation doesn't really make a difference as long as the card is running below 80c, and non-reference 290xs deliver that easily.

 

Price is a huge factor when considering gpus and right now, it's not in nvidia's favour.

[jurian123]

But it will in the future.

 

Thats why i said the 290x is cheaper and will last longer.

So end result :

 

 

R9 290X best option for same price class. 

 

While the r9 290x are cheap atm buy 2. 

[Sauron]

i was about to buy a 970 yesterday until i heard about the issue on the wan show. its not a big deal if youre playing @1080p now or in the future, but if you plan a monitor upgrade to 4k soon, its not so much a good idea. the 290x is still an awesome card and not much slower, AMD are due to announce their new line up anytime soon, so maybe worth holding out till then!!

 

if you're playing at 1080p a 970 is absurd overkill and a waste of your money anyway ^^

[zappian]

if you're playing at 1080p a 970 is absurd overkill and a waste of your money anyway ^^

 

I agree a 290 would be enough for that and you can save 100 bones.

[jurian123]

Not to mention the fact that the 290x performs better in almost everything.

 

 

The R9 290x is as fast or faster than a 970, especially at high resolutions where these cards are aimed and the higher memory bandwidths starts to show. This is a fact. And it's also 40-50$ cheaper. Right now the only thing the 970 has going for it is power consumption, which you may or may not care about when it comes at that price premium. "cool" operation doesn't really make a difference as long as the card is running below 80c, and non-reference 290xs deliver that easily.

 

Price is a huge factor when considering gpus and right now, it's not in nvidia's favour.

kden. i dont see a r9290x reach 145 fps on ultra bf4. i saw the 970 do it. so i dont know. 

 

And ofc the 290x is better atm for higher res. 

[jurian123]

if you're playing at 1080p a 970 is absurd overkill and a waste of your money anyway ^^

r9290x too