Should I get a GTX 970 even though there is a VRAM issue?

[NoName1234]

I am looking to get an MSI GTX 970 4GB Gaming Edition card for 1440p gaming and I am wondering if it would still be worth it to get it even though there is an issue with the VRAM in the 970. I want to pair it with an 17-4790k so will I lose a lot of performance going with this other than a R9 290X?

[AlwaysFSX]

Are you gaming at 1080p? If so, hell yeah.

[Octavialicious]

I'd get an R9 290/X tbh

[GoncaloMoreno]

The VRAM issue (not really with the VRAM but with the core), doesnt change the performance of the 970. It still performs good.

Unless you really need 4 gb you shouldn't encounter the problem.

Other factors like CUDA, MFAA, heat, physix should probabily impact more on the card choice than the VRAM issue.

But if you want and dont really need the Nvidia features you could buy a r9 290x or 290, that way you dont support these shady marketing schemes and you also give the finger to Nvidia.

[Whorax]

Answer if you don't care about standing up for yourself as a consumer: If you're running games at 1080p, then yes. Anything higher, no.

 

Answer if you do care about standing up for yourself as a consumer: Hell no. Don't buy a card from a company that was lied about to get more sales, let alone buying from said company at all.

[xToFxREAPER]

In all reality the vram "issues" really dont seem to effect the card that much. When gaming at 1080p its a rock solid option and nvidia has even said that are putting out a new driver soonish to help alleviate some of the issues once you get into the higher vram territory.

 

My friend has a pair in sli and we tested it out on my triple monitor setup to see how bad the issue really was. In all honesty compared to my sli 780's (pretty much identical performance so its a pretty fair comparison) it was pretty much blow for blow. We didnt get any of the serious stutters like we had seen mentioned and we didnt get any serious frame rate loss either. He may have just gotten lucky with his pair im not sure but i would say despite the "problems" the card has i would still up vote getting one any day.

[arnavvr]

Are you gaming at 1080p? If so, hell yeah.

 

Why would you buy a 970 for 1080p, It's more of a 1440p card.

[zappian]

I would get a 290x 9/10 times.

 

Cheaper similar performance , REAL VRAM and a higher bit bus.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1059?vs=1355

[eisenklad]

i see some ppl in my country getting unhappy with their brand new cards...

 

for a month old card, i can get it like 500SGD when retail is 579 for a MSI card

 

and i game at 1080p and moving to dual screen soon and i dont really play AAA titles

 

but what i want is the unique software support that come from it

 

and i dont really  support nvidia.. just looking for what suits my needs and  budget

 

this vram issue is turning into a blessing for me

[Badger906]

Op says its for 1440p gaming. so yeah a 970 would be a good choice, and or an r9 290x.. which ever is cheapest in your area would be best. performance difference isn't too vast.

[Majestic]

I would get a 290x 9/10 times.

 

Cheaper similar performance , REAL VRAM and a higher bit bus.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1059?vs=1355

 

Please don't listen to this guy. He's been going around the forum all day talking shit about the 970 when he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

 

I'm not saying this because you shouldn't choose a 290. Just don't listen to him in particular.

[AlwaysFSX]

Why would you buy a 970 for 1080p, It's more of a 1440p card.

It works for fucking 1080p. -__-

[AmbellinaThePrise]

Why would you buy a 970 for 1080p, It's more of a 1440p card.

 

 

So, why not buy a 970 and get extra performance at 1080p? It will perform modestly at 1440, but it slays pretty much anything for 1080p...

I would get a 290x 9/10 times.

 

Cheaper similar performance , REAL VRAM and a higher bit bus.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1059?vs=1355

"REAL VRAM" uhm... what?

[Briggsy]

It's really just a 3.5GB Vram card with a 224bit bus, that happens to have a 512MB partition of Vram with a 32bit bus that runs a bit faster than system Ram. both partitions cannot run at the same time, so the 512MB will hardly get used. If those facts don't bother you, than by all means. 

 

That being said, a 290 outside of the US is the smarter option, but people should buy what makes them happy.

[Suika]

Answer if you don't care about standing up for yourself as a consumer: If you're running games at 1080p, then yes. Anything higher, no.

 

Answer if you do care about standing up for yourself as a consumer: Hell no. Don't buy a card from a company that was lied about to get more sales, let alone buying from said company at all.

NVIDIA hasn't lied, must I repeat this several hundred times before it gets through?

 

The segmented VRAM is usable but not great for gaming. NVIDIA should have advertised it differently, but they never lied.

 

--

 

@OP: Yes, it's a fantastic card, just don't get it for 4K. 

[Whorax]

NVIDIA hasn't lied, must I repeat this several hundred times before it gets through?

 

The segmented VRAM is usable but not great for gaming. NVIDIA should have advertised it differently, but they never lied.

 

--

 

@OP: Yes, it's a fantastic card, just don't get it for 4K. 

They lied.

[Briggsy]

They lied.

 

somebody definitely didn't tell the truth, that's for sure. Nvidia engineers don't live in a cave, and guaranteed they saw the specs when the card launched, knowing that the public specs didn't match the actual product that they designed. they probably were told to STFU or be fired for breach of NDA.

[zappian]

So, why not buy a 970 and get extra performance at 1080p? It will perform modestly at 1440, but it slays pretty much anything for 1080p...

"REAL VRAM" uhm... what?

 

By real i mean all vram on the 290x is fast.

Where the 970 has a portion with slower VRAm.

[ekuhlmann23]

I would not get the 970 even without the memory problem. The R9 290 has similar performance and it is like $100 more than the 970. You could argue that it is not power efficient but for $100 is a lot of money instead of components. You could spend it on other components and know you will still get similar performance (or better depending on the game). And a really strong argument against the 970 is the 3.5GB nonsense ( which probably wont matter as much if you are gaming at a resolution under 4k) but it is ridiculous that they did not spot that problem when they designed the card.

[Briggsy]

I would not get the 970 even without the memory problem. The R9 290 has similar performance and it is like $100 more than the 290. You could argue that it is not power efficient but for $100 is a lot of money instead of components. You could spend it on other components and know you will still get similar performance (or better depending on the game). And a really strong argument against the 970 is the 3.5GB nonsense ( which probably wont matter as much if you are gaming at a resolution under 4k) but it is ridiculous that they did not spot that problem when they designed the card.

 

You are correct, The performance difference is silly. I'll just keep posting this example of a reference 290 @ 947Mhz vs a FTW 970 @ 1400+ Mhz  http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1355?vs=1068  The only gain with the 970 is power draw under full load.

[quintencapital]

Why would you buy a 970 for 1080p, It's more of a 1440p card.

but with the current issues with the Vram, some games can't be played @ high qualities.. at 1080p its different its not so intense. 

[Vrbas]

Why would you buy a 970 for 1080p, It's more of a 1440p card.

People want 60+fps max settings. Its the perfect card for 1080p.