Official Nvidia GTX 970 Discussion Thread

[zappian]

I did, but your cognitive dissonance is higher than the empire state building. You don't even realise how thick you're being, dunning-kruger in full effect.

 

Hence i'm done with you, for my own sanity's sake.

 

Lost the debate i see.

 

Cant handle the proof i bring fourth.

 

Just shows im right.

 

Have a good day sir

[Gunjob]

Your proof doesn't suggest this. Why do you keep stating this as a fact when your own evidence doesn't support this. Don't be so daft please..

 

I've made my statement. Any sane person will know better. You can just stay in wonderland. I'm done with you.

Well if you look at it in its simplest form. The 780 has the upper hand on the 290 up until it reaches the past 1440p mark when you're pushing past 3GB's of VRAM, at this point the 290 either pulls ahead or matches the 780 where in lower resolutions the 780 would've won. That tells me that VRAM at least in quantity was the limiting factor on the 780. 

 

Now if we take the 970vs290x situation the same applies, except now the VRAM values are the same, but the 970 again beats the 290x in lower resolutions  but the gap is closed or the 290x pulls ahead in higher res. Now this is due to the amount of memory bandwidth since we've removed the VRAM amount as a factor. And the reason the 290x has sooo much more bandwidth (320Gb/s) is in no small part due to the 512bit bus. 

[zappian]

Well if you look at it in its simplest form. The 780 has the upper hand on the 290 up until it reaches the past 1440p mark when you're pushing past 3GB's of VRAM, at this point the 290 either pulls ahead or matches the 780 where in lower resolutions the 780 would've won. That tells me that VRAM at least in quantity was the limiting factor on the 780. 

 

Now if we take the 970vs290x situation the same applies, except now the VRAM values are the same, but the 970 again beats the 290x in lower resolutions  but the gap is closed or the 290x pulls ahead in higher res. Now this is due to the amount of memory bandwidth since we've removed the VRAM amount as a factor. And the reason the 290x has sooo much more bandwidth (320Gb/s) is in no small part due to the 512bit bus. 

 

Exactly.

 

That was what i have been trying to say for a long time.

 

The extra bandwidth helps at 4k , and thats related to the huge memory BUS.

[Majestic]

Well if you look at it in its simplest form. The 780 has the upper hand on the 290 up until it reaches the past 1440p mark when you're pushing past 3GB's of VRAM

 

What graphs are you looking at?

 

And @zappian if all you're aruging is 4K, you should keep your memorbuffer matters BS only reserved for people actually thinking of running 4K or crossfire/SLI for that matter. But you don't, you also say the same stuff to people running 1440p or only a single card.

 

That is my issue.

 

I would also advise against 970 SLI for 4K. we've been saying that shit all along. But i'd also not grab 290X crossfire. I'd go with 980 SLI.

[zappian]

What graphs are you looking at?

 

And @zappian if all you're aruging is 4K, you should keep your memorbuffer matters BS only reserved for people actually thinking of running 4K or crossfire/SLI for that matter. But you don't, you also say the same stuff to people running 1440p or only a single card.

 

That is my issue.

 

I would also advise against 970 SLI for 4K. we've been saying that shit all along. But i'd also not grab 290X crossfire. I'd go with 980 SLI.

 

I agree but for a cheap 4k combo 290x cfx is good for some people.

 

Each 290x is half of a 980.

 

I agree that for 1440p for now the 970 is fine.

I even told a guy on this forum that wanted to return his 970 to keep them if he was gaming at 1440p

 

I will link it if i can find it.

[zappian]

Here it is:

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/299881-970-return-or-not/

 

Before you think im a giant AMD fanboy.

 

Look im not proud of my behaviour on the last few days and IM trying to have a more civilized discussion.

[Majestic]

I agree but for a cheap 4k combo 290x cfx is good for some people.

 

A 'cheap' 4K combo is a GTX 970/980 and a Acer XB280HK (G-sync) imho. Aiming for solid 60fps on 4K with current graphics cards is not realistic.

[Gunjob]

What graphs are you looking at?

Just grabbed this one from Anandtech that properly illustrates my point. 

 

http://imgur.com/N3ajdBm

 

Orange is 970 and blue is 290x.

 

Now the lead should remain around about the same as the resolutions at least to a limited percentage. So as you see the 290x remains fairly consistent as the res goes up where as the 970 just drops its lead in a big way in UHD. 

[zappian]

A 'cheap' 4K combo is a GTX 980 and a Acer XB280HK (G-sync).

 

290x CFX is the same price as GTX 980 and performs better by about 30% or more.

 

I know tons of people that have that setup.

 

Nothing wrong with it.

[Majestic]

290x CFX is the same price as GTX 980 and performs better by about 30% or more.

 

I know tons of people that have that setup.

 

Nothing wrong with it.

Read my edit. You'll have a more pleasant experience on the 970/980 + acer. Because no graphics setup is doing 4K flawless at 60 atm. Might aswell accept it and aim for the best visual experience instead.

[zappian]

Read my edit. You'll have a more pleasant experience on the 970/980 + acer. Because no graphics setup is doing 4K flawless at 60 atm. Might aswell accept it and aim for the best visual experience instead.

 

290x CFX + freesync with be the better alternative when we have more freesync monitors.

Im saying this because its common knowledge that 290 cfx packs a bigger punch than a single 980.

http://www.tomshardware.de/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-gtx-980-roundup-vergleichstest,testberichte-241658-19.html

Look at the difference between 295x2 ( basiclly two 290x) and the 980 lol.

[Gunjob]

Read my edit. You'll have a more pleasant experience on the 970/980 + acer. Because no graphics setup is doing 4K flawless at 60 atm. Might aswell accept it and aim for the best visual experience instead.

I've had a wonderful time doing UHD with my 290x CFX setup. The only games I've run into low framerate issues are Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen (those my be due to still being on a i5 though.) Other than those I run everything Max settings at 60fps. Difference being I don't use alot of AA at most maybe 2x on the odd game that suffers from bad jaggies.  

[zappian]

I've had a wonderful time doing UHD with my 290x CFX setup. The only games I've run into low framerate issues are Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen (those my be due to still being on a i5 though.) Other than those I run everything Max settings at 60fps. Difference being I don't use alot of AA at most maybe 2x on the odd game that suffers from bad jaggies.  

 

Yeah the 290x cfx setup is insane bang for the buck at 4k.

 

http://www.tomshardware.de/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-gtx-980-roundup-vergleichstest,testberichte-241658-19.html

 

It destroys the gtx 980.

 

It would be even better with a freesync monitor to help when the FPS dropped.

[Majestic]

I'm glad atleast nuance has returned and the black & white shitslinging has passed. That's all i wanted to achieve.

 

Ofcourse different cards have different strong suits. Just don't confuse one and the other, or overstate their importance in different scenario's.

My guess is, when the 512MB stops being used in 4K textures, the performance of the 970 will improve. However, until it does I wouldn't recommend it for 4K either.

 

But don't state that the buffer is also an issue for 1440p or 1080p because console ports. Because that is just not true.

[zappian]

I'm glad atleast nuance has returned and the black & white shitslinging has passed. That's all i wanted to achieve.

 

Ofcourse different cards have different strong suits. Just don't confuse one and the other, or overstate their importance in different scenario's.

 

All i was saying is that this problem doesnt help the 970 SLI setups at 4k for example.

 

It only makes it harder.

 

Unfortunately there are people with 970 SLI setups for 4k.

 

I have met some of them here in the forums and they aren't pleased at all.

 

And I kinda feel bad for them honestly , i would be pissed if my 270x only had 1.5 GB of good ram.

 

Im sure you would agree this doesn't help them.

[Majestic]

I'm not apologizing for Nvidia at all. It IS stupid what they've done. I never said it wasn't. You were just overexaggerating until shortly, which you gladly realised, and that did needed defending.

[zappian]

I'm not apologizing for Nvidia at all. It IS stupid what they've done. I never said it wasn't. You were just overexaggerating until shortly, which you gladly realised, and that did needed defending.

 

As long as you acknowledged that some users got screwed in the whole deal we are cool.

 

I know a few of them.

[Gunjob]

Yeah the 290x cfx setup is insane bang for the buck at 4k.

 

http://www.tomshardware.de/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-gtx-980-roundup-vergleichstest,testberichte-241658-19.html

 

It destroys the gtx 980.

 

It would be even better with a freesync monitor to help when the FPS dropped.

Freesync is interesting to me but I'd rather power through the fps drops with more graphics horse power than have to replace all my monitors, as I've not had them long enough yet. 

 

But on topic my stance on the "970gate" Nvidia should have been upfront about the limitations of the card, and it would've helped had they gotten the spec listing correct. But its up to the individual consumer on how upset they want to be over this. The card is the same as it was on launch we now know more about its limitations. 

 

Me personally, I'd see about returning the card if I was gaming at 1440p upward. Not because its not a great card now, because it still is, but because I'd be worried about its longevity because of its VRAM limitations. If I was still gaming at 1080p, balls to it, still a great card. 

 

But its up to the individual to how they treat this information. 

[Majestic]

As long as you acknowledged that some users got screwed in the whole deal we are cool.

 

I know a few of them.

 

"got screwed" how. They bought 970 SLI for 4K? If they're upset with 512MB missing, shouldn't they have also looked at the 256bit it originally had in the first place? Just seems really weird how they suddenly care about specifications when previously they overlooked it.

[zappian]

"got screwed" how. They bought 970 SLI for 4K? If they're upset with 512MB missing, shouldn't they have also looked at the 256bit it originally had in the first place? Just seems really weird how they suddenly care about specifications when previously they overlooked it.

 

Got screwed because they thought they could use their 4 GB memory at full speed. Which isnt the case and for NOW it affects 4k performance like i have proven.

 

I agree that 970 for 4k isnt the smartest decision but hey some people have that setup and works fine in games that don't use much VRAM.

[Majestic]

Got screwed because they thought they could use their 4 GB memory at full speed. 

 

Now you're steering back to your old argument. Details matter, did they bought it for 4K or not. 

 

And it matters, but not to the degree in which you present it. In Crysis 3 it's like <5%. And I still stand by the fact that both 290X CF an 970 SLI aren't smart for 4K. Just means you invested allot in equipment that can barely play current games at 4K. Let alone games 1 or 2 years from now.

[zappian]

Now you're steering back to your old argument. Details matter, did they bought it for 4K or not. 

 

And it matters, but not to the degree in which you present it. In Crysis 3 it's like <5%. And I still stand by the fact that both 290X CF an 970 SLI aren't smart for 4K. Just means you invested allot in equipment that can barely play current games at 4K. Let alone games 1 or 2 years from now.

 

Yes they did , iIM just saying its not that good as a 4k card as most people thought.

 

Because at 4k using your whole memory at full speed is important.

 

Do you agree with this?

 

I would say 290x CFX is much smarter at 4k.

[Majestic]

Yes they did , iIM just saying its not that good as a 4k card as most people thought.

 

Because at 4k using your whole memory at full speed is important.

 

Do you agree with this?

 

I would say 290x CFX is much smarter at 4k.

Well, that was a mistake on their part to begin with. 

 

Partially, not to the extent you're advocating. Performance between the 290X CF and 970 SLI doesn't vary by much that it would've mattered either way. In that hardocp review, they trade blows at 4K. Sometimes AMD wins, sometimes Nvidia wins.

 

See above.

 

I would argue they're both pretty weak for 4K, especially if you plan on using them for more than a year.

[zappian]

Well, that was a mistake on their part to begin with. 

 

Partially, not to the extent you're advocating. Performance between the 290X CF and 970 SLI doesn't vary by much that it would've mattered either way. In that hardocp review, they trade blows at 4K. Sometimes AMD wins, sometimes Nvidia wins.

 

See above.

 

I would argue they're both pretty weak for 4K, especially if you plan on using them for more than a year.

 

The 290x is faster in more tests ( count the tests it wins and the tests it loses)

 

And the whole set is cheaper ( each 290x is 230 bucks)

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 290X 4GB TurboDuo Video Card  ($232.99 @ NCIX US) 

Total: $232.99

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-29 08:18 EST-0500

 

 

I will give you an example , imagine that my 270x had 1.5 GB of fast ram and 0.5 GB of slow ram.

 

Now i play at a low resolution and i dont use much VRAM but if this had happened to me i woudnlt be able

to upgrade to a 1080p monitor since i had 500 mb of nerfed VRAM.

 

This is whats happening to 970 owners that are either at 4k or want to upgrade to 4k.

 

Thats as plainly as i can explain it.

If you cant understand the issue i have no more explanations i can give sorry.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

since you told me to have a nice day and not calling me a idiot i will respond not that i want to change your take on the matter or to bother you.

 

at this point this not about the performance issues, there are some but still is a great product, on the other hand the specs do not match what people payed for they have the right to be upset, obviously some people are over reacting and trying to gain something from this, in my honest opinion those people that really want a card with matched specs should be helped by NV and pay the extra difference form their pocket and get a 980, to others asking for a free a game NV should just close thir eyes and do just that...a sign of good faith, hey he sorry and take this fore your "trouble" in my opinion i don't like this last option but i would do it just to clear the room.

 

last but not least the design of the 970 is made my intent, nothing took a long time to discover it has allways been there, the engineers and makers now this, how could they have been quite, that i will never believe, they came clean after the cuda test and then all went to hell

970 released in September of last year 4 months in and none of you had a problem unless someone pointed it out in an extreme scenario , if you did watch the video from PCper about why nvida had to split it , you would be glad that they did it  , they did the the only way they could possible in the new architecture , 4 months in and people talking how great of a product 970 and linus talking  about 970 sales and how much back orders was there for the product for it's price , 970 still has 4 gigs of ram , still performs as good as it can be as 780 , and unless you have a 970 , i don't see why you think you should have any say in how upset you are, and those who do have 970, greater than 70% of them wont probably have a 4K display, i am not saying it doesn't have a problem , i acknowledge there is one , but it's just a design choice they had to make it from the bunch of chips they got to make it a 970 card not a 980 all over again , again , if they enable the 0.5 gigs all over they had to enable the rops which would make it a 980 all over again , i do recommend you see this video 

now after all these points i mentioned and you still are desperate to argue like they committed a crime and argue over here , i don't have much to say , as you said , Nvidia customers aren't really upset over it as much , most of them never even realize the problem , half of them dont own a 4k screens , the rest are ok with the card on how it performs , but the people who are upset more than the owners are the amd fan boyz and people whe don't own the damn card, i'm sorry but this is true , 

you can argue all you want , i said this before, i am saying it again , it's still the same fcking card people were buying seeing the benchmarks and all the 1000's of reviews online 

Source : http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-Looking-GTX-970-Memory-Performance