Need advice for new gpu

[snoopunit]

Hello everyone, I'm looking to upgrade my setup to be able to play games in 4k. My friend is giving me a nice deal on a monitor, but i'm confused as to what cards will be able to support good framerates at that resolution. I've tested out the monitor on my current card which is a 670 2g. My games seem to run alright with lower settings and playable frames, but it definitely wont cut it once newer games come out. I've been looking at a 4G MSI 770 card, but i'm still not sure if this will be a worthy upgrade to my current setup. Do you think i'll be able to play the newer games if I run with both cards and set the 670 to physx? I also might be wrong but i was under the impression that physx is only supported in some games and not all which would negate  the potential benefits.

[Razzaa]

Hello everyone, I'm looking to upgrade my setup to be able to play games in 4k. My friend is giving me a nice deal on a monitor, but i'm confused as to what cards will be able to support good framerates at that resolution. I've tested out the monitor on my current card which is a 670 2g. My games seem to run alright with lower settings and playable frames, but it definitely wont cut it once newer games come out. I've been looking at a 4G MSI 770 card, but i'm still not sure if this will be a worthy upgrade to my current setup. Do you think i'll be able to play the newer games if I run with both cards and set the 670 to physx? I also might be wrong but i was under the impression that physx is only supported in some games and not all which would negate  the potential benefits.

Imo 4K doesnt run good enough on any current set ups. If you are looking for 60+fps be prepared to spend a ton of money.

[Nup]

physx isn't widely supported. 

 

What kinds of gamses do you play? 

[Subduck]

@snoopunit I dont think a 770 will be able to run games very well at 4k. Maybe a 970 at least...

[Scouten]

if you are doing 4k go with an AMD card currently they are the best choice IMO if you are only using one card

 

otherwise two 770s, 970s, 780s

[Aniallation]

Maybe a 970 at least...

You'll want at least 4GB of VRAM for 4K.

[Guest]

@snoopunit I dont think a 770 will be able to run games very well at 4k. Maybe a 970 at least...

Even then that would max out the 3.5 gbs of ram fast and i have heard there are issues when you go into the other 512. (im not poking fun im just being realistic)

I would say 980 two of them if you want ultra. Either that or one or more of the 8gb 290x cards from sapphire. If you are patient you can wait for the 390x.

[snoopunit]

physx isn't widely supported. 

 

What kinds of gamses do you play? 

currently playing csgo, skyrim and the majority of the games in my steam library

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198020696436/games/?tab=all

i'm also hoping to play gtav soon

 

also if i pickup a 970, are there any pre installed aio water cooling options?

[snoopunit]

@snoopunit

 

Get another 670 and SLI them for 4K. That will give you around the performance of a GTX 690.

wouldn't the 2gb ram limit hinder the performance greatly?

[chopdok]

None of the current single-GPU cards can deliver playable framerates at 4K with high graphical settings. And lowering graphical fidelity to play at 4K defeats the purpose of playing at 4K. The 4 GB VRAM thing on the GTX 970, after testing, turned out to be quite irrelevant. Anyone who still thinks that GTX 970 is "gimped" either can't use google, can't read or AMD fanboy. That said, there are plenty other problems I can name after the GTX 970 fiasco, but none of them are directly related to performance in AAA titles.

 

At the moment, the main spec of top-tier GPU that is holding back their performance in 4K is their fillrates, not VRAM amount or bandwith. Again, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know what he is talking about. R9 290X and GTX 970 have comparable performance, they both overkill for 1080p, trade blows in 1440p, and insufficient for 4K. Despite the fact that R9 290X has 2x memory bandwith and all of its VRAM works at full speed. So, the whole "R9 290X is better for 4K than 970 because VRAM blah blah" is utter and complete nonsense.

 

There is no single GPU that can do 4K and get good FPS. Only solution I know, if you don't want to SLI/Crossfire, is to get R9 295x2. Which is Crossfire on a single board.

[chopdok]

Even then that would max out the 3.5 gbs of ram fast and i have heard there are issues when you go into the other 512. (im not poking fun im just being realistic)

I would say 980 two of them if you want ultra. Either that or one or more of the 8gb 290x cards from sapphire. If you are patient you can wait for the 390x.

There are no issues. Thats the problem. People spew bullcrap, and other people then "hear" it, and pass on. Find me 1 proof link with conclusive description of the "issues", with FPS and FCAT tests and whatnot. Other than that, nonsense. I am not poking fun or offending, just being realistic.

 

R9 290X with 8 GB of VRAM has the exact same performance of R9 290X with 4 GB of VRAM.

[Guest]

There are no issues. Thats the problem. People spew bullcrap, and other people then "hear" it, and pass on. Find me 1 proof link with conclusive description of the "issues", with FPS and FCAT tests and whatnot. Other than that, nonsense. I am not poking fun or offending, just being realistic.

 

R9 290X with 8 GB of VRAM has the exact same performance of R9 290X with 4 GB of VRAM.

I dont think you have a clear understanding of how these components work so let me explain it to you. The first 3.5 gbs of memory is fast the other 512 is slow (in some cases slower than system memory). Now resolution goes up vram usage goes up. Now if it stays within the 3.5 gbs of memory you are fine but once it goes ito the slower memory you end up with some issues the most prominent of which is stuttering. Now at 1080p this will never happen unless you are playing skyrim with a whole host of high res mods or a game like shadow of morder with the high res texture pack. I also personally own the 970 and have had some minor stutter issues with some games that happened to coincidence with my 3.5 gbs of memory being maxed out. Now this happened once or twice at 1080p so at 4k i can imagine it happening a great deal more.

 

Also that last comment shows your ignorance when it comes to how vram influence performance at high resolutions. 

[FellTheSky]

in your position i would sell the 670 and grab a gtx 970 or r9 290. If you want to max out every game, you would need to sli/crossfire them

[Nup]

currently playing csgo, skyrim and the majority of the games in my steam library

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198020696436/games/?tab=all

i'm also hoping to play gtav soon

 

also if i pickup a 970, are there any pre installed aio water cooling options?

I see, you'll want some horsepower for gys alright

There are. You can buy a kraken g10 adaptor and most aio 's will fit fit your GPU with that. Although you'll want every ounce of performance. So maybe a pair of 290s would do more good.

Enjoy your new 4k monitor by the way

[D2ultima]

None of the current single-GPU cards can deliver playable framerates at 4K with high graphical settings.

 

The 4 GB VRAM thing on the GTX 970, after testing, turned out to be quite irrelevant.

 

There is no single GPU that can do 4K and get good FPS.

In unoptimized new AAA titles. I don't know about you, but I could play 99% of my steam library at max graphics at 4K res WITH anti-aliasing without even overclocking my GPUs... and two of these roughly equal a single 780Ti or 980 at stock, so...

 

It's not irrelevant. There is a distinct stuttering and sometimes performance drop when crossing the buffer. It does not appear in framerate count tests often, but the smoothness is affected. It doesn't mean the card is crap, but it definitely means that there are some people I cannot recommend it to... I.E. multitaskers who play high vRAM games and like to use windowed mode/borderless windowed mode.

 

You must have forgotten most of the games in existence, sir. Of course, if you're only considering high profile games released in the last 6 months to 1 year... I could see where you're coming from. But please specify what you mean.

 

Oh, and for the record, I *AM* one of those people who think we aren't ready for 4K yet. I simply know that the reason is because I don't want to have to skimp on settings/resolution below native and mostly-max for ANY game I play, and that includes some newer games. Someone playing CS:GO/LoL/DoTA 2/a few MMOs/etc probably won't even need as much as a single 780 for 60fps

[chopdok]

I dont think you have a clear understanding of how these components work so let me explain it to you. The first 3.5 gbs of memory is fast the other 512 is slow (in some cases slower than system memory). Now resolution goes up vram usage goes up. Now if it stays within the 3.5 gbs of memory you are fine but once it goes ito the slower memory you end up with some issues the most prominent of which is stuttering. Now at 1080p this will never happen unless you are playing skyrim with a whole host of high res mods or a game like shadow of morder with the high res texture pack. I also personally own the 970 and have had some minor stutter issues with some games that happened to coincidence with my 3.5 gbs of memory being maxed out. Now this happened once or twice at 1080p so at 4k i can imagine it happening a great deal more.

 

Also that last comment shows your ignorance when it comes to how vram influence performance at high resolutions. 

Proof. All of these games were tested, nothing was found. I don't think you have an understanding of how the memory allocation works. The ability to store data =/= ability to process data. If you say that 4 GB of VRAM is enough for GTX 980, then you are automatically saying that 3.5 GB is enough for GTX 970, since 7/8 VRAM for the chip that delivers 7/8 of performance. But judging by your last coment, you have 0 idea about what you are talking about. Your ignorance to the fact that higher resolutions are first and foremost are about fillrates and not VRAM, pretty much shows me just how huge your lack of technical knowledge is. Cheers.

[chopdok]

In unoptimized new AAA titles. I don't know about you, but I could play 99% of my steam library at max graphics at 4K res WITH anti-aliasing without even overclocking my GPUs... and two of these roughly equal a single 780Ti or 980 at stock, so...

 

It's not irrelevant. There is a distinct stuttering and sometimes performance drop when crossing the buffer. It does not appear in framerate count tests often, but the smoothness is affected. It doesn't mean the card is crap, but it definitely means that there are some people I cannot recommend it to... I.E. multitaskers who play high vRAM games and like to use windowed mode/borderless windowed mode.

 

You must have forgotten most of the games in existence, sir. Of course, if you're only considering high profile games released in the last 6 months to 1 year... I could see where you're coming from. But please specify what you mean.

 

Oh, and for the record, I *AM* one of those people who think we aren't ready for 4K yet. I simply know that the reason is because I don't want to have to skimp on settings/resolution below native and mostly-max for ANY game I play, and that includes some newer games. Someone playing CS:GO/LoL/DoTA 2/a few MMOs/etc probably won't even need as much as a single 780 for 60fps

Of course you can play non-demanding titles in 4K. You can also play them with far lesser cards. 960 GTX will probably play most of your library in 4K just fine. If we are not talking about latest AAA games, then any card for 200$ and above currently sold on the market will handle 4K, as long as it has HDMI 2.0 and/or DP.

[Guest]

Proof. All of these games were tested, nothing was found. I don't think you have an understanding of how the memory allocation works. The ability to store data =/= ability to process data. If you say that 4 GB of VRAM is enough for GTX 980, then you are automatically saying that 3.5 GB is enough for GTX 970, since 7/8 VRAM for the chip that delivers 7/8 of performance. But judging by your last coment, you have 0 idea about what you are talking about. Your ignorance to the fact that higher resolutions are first and foremost are about fillrates and not VRAM, pretty much shows me just how huge your lack of technical knowledge is. Cheers.

Ok lets try to keep this friendly. I do understand how memory allocation works I was speaking form personal experience and do not know what other people experience other than jayztwocents video. The problem from what i have seen is that when it begins to acess the other 512 stuttering occurs. This could just be me. Also I never said vram was the only thing that affect high resolution gaming I was simply trying to say that the more you have the better. This isnt just me take Linus's surround gaming setup they used 8 gb cards for a reason. Now back to tha main point vram aside the 970 isnt powerful enough to drive a decent 4k gaming experience.

[Trik'Stari]

Proof. All of these games were tested, nothing was found. I don't think you have an understanding of how the memory allocation works. The ability to store data =/= ability to process data. If you say that 4 GB of VRAM is enough for GTX 980, then you are automatically saying that 3.5 GB is enough for GTX 970, since 7/8 VRAM for the chip that delivers 7/8 of performance. But judging by your last coment, you have 0 idea about what you are talking about. Your ignorance to the fact that higher resolutions are first and foremost are about fillrates and not VRAM, pretty much shows me just how huge your lack of technical knowledge is. Cheers.

Yeah I've used over the 3.5 limit on my 970, at 1080p at 60hz, it stutters like crazy and makes the game impossibly to enjoy.

 

The card is crap for high end gaming, note I say HIGH END, like modding the crap out of skyrim, playing on triple monitor surround, etc. Even Dying light managed to go over 3.5 and stutter.

[Razzaa]

Yeah I've used over the 3.5 limit on my 970, at 1080p at 60hz, it stutters like crazy and makes the game impossibly to enjoy.

 

The card is crap for high end gaming, note I say HIGH END, like modding the crap out of skyrim, playing on triple monitor surround, etc. Even Dying light managed to go over 3.5 and stutter.

I dont get any stuttering!! 

 

http://youtu.be/BVRR0Syy-1I

[Trik'Stari]

I dont get any stuttering!! 

 

I'll admit, this was right after launch. And have you checked to see if you were hitting over 3.5? I was. Had asus GPU monitor running on my second monitor (which is running off of another gpu)

 

Try adding about 50 mods to skyrim and running it. A hell of a lot of texture and graphics mods, that'll do it every time.

[Razzaa]

I'll admit, this was right after launch. And have you checked to see if you were hitting over 3.5? I was. Had asus GPU monitor running on my second monitor (which is running off of another gpu)

 

Try adding about 50 mods to skyrim and running it. A hell of a lot of texture and graphics mods, that'll do it every time.

You can see in the Video i hover around 3.6gb. I have a 4k video where im @ 3.7gb+ vram with no issues.

[chopdok]

Ok lets try to keep this friendly. I do understand how memory allocation works I was speaking form personal experience and do not know what other people experience other than jayztwocents video. The problem from what i have seen is that when it begins to acess the other 512 stuttering occurs. This could just be me. Also I never said vram was the only thing that affect high resolution gaming I was simply trying to say that the more you have the better. This isnt just me take Linus's surround gaming setup they used 8 gb cards for a reason. Now back to tha main point vram aside the 970 isnt powerful enough to drive a decent 4k gaming experience.

Card(s) - as in plural. No single GPU can really utilise more than 4 GB of VRAM - but with multi-GPU setups, that is of course better to have more VRAM on board. For crossfire/SLI, of course, better to have 8 GB of VRAM effective. Same logic - if a single R9 290X is absolutely satisfied with 4 GB of VRAM - for 2 of these, you want 8 GB effective.

 

Now, as far as stuttering - do realise the fact that in order to force the game to use 4 GB of VRAM - you need to use some insane settings, or use some insane texture packs. Of course your 970 will stutter like crazy - even GTX 980 won't fare that much better. In fact, in every case where GTX 970 exceeds the 3.5 GB - its performance is crap overall. And GTX 980 is only marginally better. Did you expect it to have the same smoothness and performance as from GTX 980, which is 200$ more expensive?

 

Why do you even think that stuttering is caused by the VRAM? Because its not, actually. Its caused by the fact that the card has reached the limits of its computational capacity, and cant handle all the stuff you throw at it. And I can prove this :

 

http://www.hardwarepal.com/shadow-mordor-benchmark/

 

Because on R9 290, the game stutters even more - even tho that card has more VRAM and 2x the bandwith, its frame times are in fact worse.

 

My main issue with people who complain about GTX 970 is that they dont COMPARE their experience. They have experienced issues with their gameplay. They heard about the nVidia screw-up. And then they attribute all their issues to that screw-up, without even trying to check if this issue exists on other GPU of comparable performance. Its a classic post hoc fallacy.

 

Again. The chip can only compute so much. If you mod the crap out of Skyrim, then of course your performance will tank. I honestly don't get people. The GPU was perfectly fine. Before that was known, people had the exact same performance. When it came out - people began increasing the load on GPU as much as they can, because thats how you increase the VRAM usage. Basically, people are saying - I tried to fill my VRAM by cranking up everything, and I get crap perforamnce. Which is exactly what is supposed to happen.

[Guest]

Card(s) - as in plural. No single GPU can really utilise more than 4 GB of VRAM - but with multi-GPU setups, that is of course better to have more VRAM on board. For crossfire/SLI, of course, better to have 8 GB of VRAM effective. Same logic - if a single R9 290X is absolutely satisfied with 4 GB of VRAM - for 2 of these, you want 8 GB effective.

 

Now, as far as stuttering - do realise the fact that in order to force the game to use 4 GB of VRAM - you need to use some insane settings, or use some insane texture packs. Of course your 970 will stutter like crazy - even GTX 980 won't fare that much better. In fact, in every case where GTX 970 exceeds the 3.5 GB - its performance is crap overall. And GTX 980 is only marginally better. Did you expect it to have the same smoothness and performance as from GTX 980, which is 200$ more expensive?

 

Why do you even think that stuttering is caused by the VRAM? Because its not, actually. Its caused by the fact that the card has reached the limits of its computational capacity, and cant handle all the stuff you throw at it. And I can prove this :

 

http://www.hardwarepal.com/shadow-mordor-benchmark/

 

Because on R9 290, the game stutters even more - even tho that card has more VRAM and 2x the bandwith, its frame times are in fact worse.

 

My main issue with people who complain about GTX 970 is that they dont COMPARE their experience. They have experienced issues with their gameplay. They heard about the nVidia screw-up. And then they attribute all their issues to that screw-up, without even trying to check if this issue exists on other GPU of comparable performance. Its a classic post hoc fallacy.

 

Again. The chip can only compute so much. If you mod the crap out of Skyrim, then of course your performance will tank. I honestly don't get people. The GPU was perfectly fine. Before that was known, people had the exact same performance. When it came out - people began increasing the load on GPU as much as they can, because thats how you increase the VRAM usage. Basically, people are saying - I tried to fill my VRAM by cranking up everything, and I get crap perforamnce. Which is exactly what is supposed to happen.

 Ok i was under the impression the slower memory was causing the stuttering since their seemed to be a correlation between the two from data i collected in after burner (mostly when playing skyrim with 2k and 4k texture mods). This was backed up by complains from other users when it came to stuttering when hitting or going over 3.5 gb. Now I love my 970 and will probably be getting another and im not complaining about it I just didnt want the OP to have a bad experience. Also my performance in skyrim was generally fine (90-120 fps) the game just occasionally stuttered AC unity also did it maxed out but that game is so broken i didnt make mention of it. This is just my personal experience and this was the conclusion i had drawn since it seemed to align with early complaints, some articles by PCper, and some of the reviewers. Like anything take it with a grain of salt.

[chopdok]

 Ok i was under the impression the slower memory was causing the stuttering since their seemed to be a correlation between the two from data i collected in after burner (mostly when playing skyrim with 2k and 4k texture mods). This was backed up by complains from other users when it came to stuttering when hitting or going over 3.5 gb. Now I love my 970 and will probably be getting another and im not complaining about it I just didnt want the OP to have a bad experience. Also my performance in skyrim was generally fine (90-120 fps) the game just occasionally stuttered AC unity also did it maxed out but that game is so broken i didnt make mention of it. This is just my personal experience and this was the conclusion i had drawn since it seemed to align with early complaints, some articles by PCper, and some of the reviewers. Like anything take it with a grain of salt.

Pcper actually came to the conclusion that I expressed in my post. To quote Ryan " you need to force it to become an issue".

 

The hardest part is that there is indeed a correlation between your performance and the VRAM usage - its supposed to be like that, the more data chip needs to process - the more data VRAM will store. The perfect solution is to compare performance between GTX 970 and R9 290. Former has better chip but slower and less VRAM, the latter is weaker chip (slightly), but full 4GB of VRAM working at 2x bandwith of 970. If the performance of the GTX 970 is higher than R9 290 - then VRAM of 970 is not an issue. If the performance of R9 290 is close to equal or higher - then GTX 970 is held back by its VRAM.

 

Also, sorry for rudeness. Its just that when you said about the system memory sometimes being faster, I kinda lost it. Because between the GPU and system RAM, there is PCI-E bus - which will limit the bandwith no matter how fast your system RAM is. You wont be able to achieve faster transfer rates than 15 GB/s on PCI-E 3 x16 anyway. And that if you assume that all of the bus bandwith is availible for that task. And then there is the fact that system memory controller might be busy.