1440p Max Settings GPU

[Nahrime]

Hey guys,

So I hava a Zotac GTX 970 AMP Extreme Edition. Its overclocked to 1505Mhz and +500 memory.I want to play recent games and also games like Witcher 3 and Batman Arkham Knight on 1440p with whatever AA possible Max settings except for v-sync and motion blur.So I am thinking about getting one more of my GPU because I'm really happy with it.I get 40 Average FPS on Far Cry 4 1080p TXAA x4 Max Settings.So should I get another one? Or is it only possible with a 980 or 2  for that matter.

[Aniallation]

So I hava a Zotac GTX 970 AMP Extreme Edition. Its overclocked to 1505Mhz and +500 memory.I want to play recent games and also games like Witcher 3 and Batman Arkham Knight on 1440p with whatever AA possible Max settings except for v-sync and motion blur.So I am thinking about getting one more of my GPU because I'm really happy with it.I get 40 Average FPS on Far Cry 4 1080p TXAA x4 Max Settings.So should I get another one? Or is it only possible with a 980 or 2  for that matter.

With a 970, in future AAA titles you will start to hit the 3.5GB VRAM bottleneck and performance will suffer. Get a card with proper 4GB like 290, 290X, or 980.

[Xaring]

lower the Antialiasing. Its eating most of your performance. if you want multiple GPUs, get 2 290X. Single GPU keep the 970, overkill, dual 980s.

[Butterfish]

I played FC4 on 1440p with my 970 at medium settings. If want to crank things up, i suggest getting a second 970.

[Butterfish]

With a 970, in future AAA titles you will start to hit the 3.5GB VRAM bottleneck and performance will suffer. Get a card with proper 4GB like 290, 290X, or 980.

well he is most likely going to upgrade in the future too

[IMPERIUS]

I suggest the 980

[othertomperson]

With a 970, in future AAA titles you will start to hit the 3.5GB VRAM bottleneck and performance will suffer. Get a card with proper 4GB like 290, 290X, or 980.

 

Erm no, the 970 has a usable 4GB vram. There is a 3% performance drop over 3.5GB. You should read beyond sensationalist headlines and the online rumourmill to the actual articles. Secondly, none of these GPUs are really powerful enough to be bottlenecked by their vram. Their vram limits are good for SLI and Crossfire, let alone as single cards, and at 4K at that.

 

And finally the 970 beats all of those cards bar the 980 in 1440p benchmarks.

[Nahrime]

I'm thinking about 980 too since its ''really'' 4gb. But I dont think one of them is enough right?

[Nahrime]

This may sound strange but i never really experienced any FPS drops above 3.5gb VRAM.

[Aniallation]

Erm no, the 970 has a usable 4GB vram. There is a 3% performance drop over 3.5GB. You should read beyond sensationalist headlines and the online rumourmill to the actual articles. Secondly, none of these GPUs are really powerful enough to be bottlenecked by their vram. Their vram limits are good for SLI and Crossfire, let alone as single cards.

It's not just sensationalist headlines and rumormills. The performance drop is much more then 3%. 

[ManIkWeet]

I'm thinking about 980 too since its ''really'' 4gb. But I dont think one of them is enough right?

It's made by Ubisoft in 2014, no single card can run that ¬¬

 

Edit: No dual+ -card can run it either, because FPS drops will be limited to a single GPU

[othertomperson]

It's not just sensationalist headlines and rumormills. The performance drop is much more then 3%. 

 

Prove it. Most investigations into this have not even managed to reproduce any performance drop, 3% is the highest figure that anyone has ascertained.

 

A month ago benchmarks showed the 980 to have a slight lead over the 970. Three months of testing haven't been negated just because the Internet shat itself.

[KamiKatze]

Don't. SLI. The. GTX. 970. Period!

 

I am sitting in that boat right now and i am running into the VRAM limit on some games already. 1440P is just too demanding already. The 970 SLIs extra performance is nice 95% of the time but the other 5% really spoil the soup.

 

It's also partly living with the knowledge, that your cards will eventually crap out sooner or later when you get into the upper VRAM regions, that spoils your experience. I'd honestly rather have 3.5 GB of VRAM that those 3.5 + 0.5 GB BS.

 

Do yourself a favour and stay with one 970 (which is good) or wait for the AMD 300 series and see if they suit your needs.

 

Edit: right now is a bad time to choose a powerful GPU setup. The GTX 980 is madly expensive. The 970 is damaged. The GTX 780 (Ti) is old and has few VRAM. The R9 290X runs hot and is also old. On the plus side it's cheap, but i mean it's not worth getting it now. You have a 970. That will hold out for at least the AMD 300 series release. Redecide then.

 

I have been through this at least 20 times in the last couple of days, i seriously want to get rid of my GTX 970s.

[Aniallation]

Prove it. Most investigations into this have not even managed to reproduce any performance drop, 3% is the highest figure that anyone has ascertained.

 

A month ago benchmarks showed the 980 to have a slight lead over the 970. Three months of testing haven't been negated just because the Internet shat itself.

If you've even been on this site for the past month you would know it's more then 3% rather then asking for people to prove it. 

 

As far as numbers go I've been hearing a lot of 192 up to 3.5GB but only 28 from 3.5 to 4GB. Difference may be smaller then this, but it isn't 3%. 

 

If you want to "prove" your own 3% figure, there's plenty of threads on this forum that your proof could go towards.

[Nahrime]

Prove it. Most investigations into this have not even managed to reproduce any performance drop, 3% is the highest figure that anyone has ascertained.

 

A month ago benchmarks showed the 980 to have a slight lead over the 970. Three months of testing haven't been negated just because the Internet shat itself.

I agree with you but its not a lie and its a issue with 'some' cards. My BF4 is playable with %200 scaling and everything max on 1080p but some people are getting lower fps than me with no AA and with no scaling.

[Nahrime]

Think I'll wait because I cant afford 2 980's and there is no other single NVIDIA GPU (I dont use AMD cards) can afford my need. Except for 970 but it has problems

[Nahrime]

If I SLI 970's will it still go above 3.5 VRAM??

[KamiKatze]

If I SLI 970's will it still go above 3.5 VRAM??

 

Especially if you SLI, yes. Not all the time. In fact very rareley but it is obnoxious when you do.

[MegaDave91]

Here's my general rule of thumb:

 

1080p ->         4xaa

1440p ->         2xaa

2160p (4K) -> no aa

[Aberu]

If I SLI 970's will it still go above 3.5 VRAM??

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html

 

I wouldn't worry about it. Whatever difference between 3.5 gb of RAM with the .5 gb partition that the 970 has and an exactly the same card with 4 gb of RAM would be is not usually noticeable.

 

When you SLI, both cards run a "mirror" of the RAM, meaning each card has the same things in it's RAM, it's just a copy because communicating between each card via the RAM would bottleneck anything loaded into RAM over the bus.

[Nahrime]

I didnt run into 3.5gb problems with my card. Even if I SLI and dont get problems with 3.5 how long you think i can run 1440p  with ultra. I dont think long and probably i'll just wait.

[arnavvr]

GPU Shack has an Insane deal on the R9 290 with the the Arctic Accelero Extreme 3 : http://gpushack.com/collections/all-gpus-for-sale/products/xfx-r9-290-with-arctic-cooler

[Nahrime]

GPU Shack has an Insane deal on the R9 290 with the the Arctic Accelero Extreme 3 : http://gpushack.com/collections/all-gpus-for-sale/products/xfx-r9-290-with-arctic-cooler

Thank you but I dont want an AMD card and even if I did , dont think they post to Turkey

[Jumper118]

Here's my general rule of thumb:

 

1080p ->         4xaa

1440p ->         2xaa

2160p (4K) -> no aa

1080p all the aa

1440p 4xaa

4k 2xaa (no aa looks terrible)

[MegaDave91]

1080p all the aa

1440p 4xaa

4k 2xaa (no aa looks terrible)

 

To each their own I suppose. Anti-aliasing is a thing of the past at 4k, personally. 

 

Do you have a 4K monitor or you're just assuming no anti-aliasing looks terrible?