GPU dilemma again.

[Colt_0pz]

so i am gonna be building this new pc: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Colt_0pz/saved/Cf8scfand it's gonna feature an xfx r9 290x. Should i go for the 290x or the gtx 970? The 970 is more powerful but also suffers from the memory bottleneck. This is gonna be a problem, especially with GTA V once i neutalize more than 3.5 GB of ram. Another question i have is that is there a way to disable the remaining 500 MB memory bus to avoid that bottleneck?

[dizmo]

AFAIK it's actually lower quality memory. So no.

I can't see it being a problem though. No one's been screaming about it being an issue as far as I've seen.

FWIW I've heard of way more problems with AMD cards in general with GTA.

 

I'm afraid to even ask what happens when you neutalize something...

[blackadder]

so i am gonna be building this new pc: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Colt_0pz/saved/Cf8scfand it's gonna feature an xfx r9 290x. Should i go for the 290x or the gtx 970? The 970 is more powerful but also suffers from the memory bottleneck. This is gonna be a problem, especially with GTA V once i neutalize more than 3.5 GB of ram. Another question i have is that is there a way to disable the remaining 500 MB memory bus to avoid that bottleneck?

on gta 5, i use mostly very high/ultra 2xmsaa, i get really close to 3.5 even go slightly over sometimes. gta is super buggy at the moment. i have had 0 problems with my 970 and they are great card, we really should of know you werent going to get 980 power in a 970 price point but, we ate it up anyways, the 290x and 970 trade places/ are neck and next, get whatever is cheaper and you like the best.

edit at 3.5 gb i am getting 45-120 ish fps, sometimes it dips into the high 30, damn you ultra grass, very high grass helps alot with fps. i feel like if i were to add any more effects my card doesnt have the horses needed to do the job. same with the 290x 

[Dimi3os]

You can't disable the bottleneck, I would go with a gtx 970 or wait for the new AMD cards to release. The price of the 290x might go down of it's gonna be the same as the 380x/390 (rumored...)

[VG Docs]

so i am gonna be building this new pc: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Colt_0pz/saved/Cf8scfand it's gonna feature an xfx r9 290x. Should i go for the 290x or the gtx 970? The 970 is more powerful but also suffers from the memory bottleneck. This is gonna be a problem, especially with GTA V once i neutalize more than 3.5 GB of ram. Another question i have is that is there a way to disable the remaining 500 MB memory bus to avoid that bottleneck?

GTA V doesn't actually use nearly as much VRAM as it says in the game settings. Trust me, it'll be unplayable WAY before you actually utilize all its VRAM. 

Even in games that use way too much VRAM (like Shadow of Mordor with crazy textures), it'll only be a negligible difference in performance... and that's assuming 2k resolution. If you're going with a lower resolution you really don't have to worry about VRAM usage.

[blackadder]

AFAIK it's actually lower quality memory. So no.

I can't see it being a problem though. No one's been screaming about it being an issue as far as I've seen.

FWIW I've heard of way more problems with AMD cards in general with GTA.

 

I'm afraid to even ask what happens when you neutalize something...

normally it turns into a salt, or at least we want it to, its easy to remove from solution and easy to clean. 

[Colt_0pz]

AFAIK it's actually lower quality memory. So no.

I can't see it being a problem though. No one's been screaming about it being an issue as far as I've seen.

FWIW I've heard of way more problems with AMD cards in general with GTA.

 

I'm afraid to even ask what happens when you neutalize something...

neutalize, another way of saying use. EDIT: not neutralize

[Necrodead]

If you are playing at 1080p the 970 is probably the better choice. The only way I am aware you can avoid the memory bottleneck is by not letting it use more than 3.5gb, which really shouldn't be a problem for a 1080 display. When you get to 1440p and 2560x1600, the R9 290x comes out on top. They are really close choices, I like my r9 290, but GTA is supposed to run better on Nvidia cards,

 

Woah, 6 new replies since I started typing. Gonna post anyways.

[dizmo]

normally it turns into a salt, or at least we want it to, its easy to remove from solution and easy to clean. 

Can I harvest it to sprinkle on my chips?

 

neutalize, another way of saying use

It's not a word.

 

[Colt_0pz]

Can I harvest it to sprinkle on my chips?

 

It's not a word.

 

well i generally say it instead of use and i actually don't know the spelling

[blackadder]

GTA V doesn't actually use nearly as much VRAM as it says in the game settings. Trust me, it'll be unplayable WAY before you actually utilize all its VRAM. 

Even in games that use way too much VRAM (like Shadow of Mordor with crazy textures), it'll only be a negligible difference in performance... and that's assuming 2k resolution. If you're going with a lower resolution you really don't have to worry about VRAM usage.

its close it not having enough power, if you have one card it seem to be pretty close to what it says at the top. gta says i will use 3.38 or something, i just +/- 10% of that,  with it once hitting 3.58, this is from msi afterburnerer and gpu-z. 

[dizmo]

well i generally say it instead of use and i actually don't know the spelling

I think you mean utilize.

I hope you haven't been saying it wrong your entire life

[VG Docs]

But yeah, VRAM's no issue at 1080p, especially for GTA (Like I said, exaggerated values. So just make sure you got them CPU jigahertz, and you'll be perfectly fine.) 

[VG Docs]

its close it not having enough power, if you have one card it seem to be pretty close to what it says at the top. gta says i will use 3.38 or something, i just +/- 10% of that,  with it once hitting 3.58, this is from msi afterburnerer and gpu-z. 

It may allocate more VRAM for usage (like what Titanfall does), but it doesn't affect performance from that extra allocation.

[blackadder]

Can I harvest it to sprinkle on my chips?

 

It's not a word.

 

lol, i didnt even read it right, yes you can put it on chips, as long as it table salt, in chemistry salt is a extremely broad term.  

[DotoreN]

Is the 0.5gb vram of the gtx 970 still better than nothing or is it basically nothing?

[Necrodead]

Is the 0.5gb vram of the gtx 970 still better than nothing or is it basically nothing?

Its faster than system ram by about 4x, but useless for gaming as far as I've seen in examples like Shadow of Mordor.

[typographie]

Is the 0.5gb vram of the gtx 970 still better than nothing or is it basically nothing?

 

As said above, it's still faster than overflowing into system memory. But it's extraordinarily difficult to even find a real-world scenario where it makes a difference. For one, Nvidia's driver preferentially places frequently-accessed files in the faster 3.5 GB partition. Secondly, few (I suspect close to zero) games at 1080p actually require a full 4 GB of frequently-accessed data in the first place. To be frank, it's the principle of the VRAM "issue" and the PR implications for Nvidia that have people upset, rather than any real performance problems they can point to.

 

The GTX 970 is a more attractive product and it will often outperform the R9 290X. If it were my money, it would be my choice.

[Colt_0pz]

I think you mean utilize.

I hope you haven't been saying it wrong your entire life

yep. my bad on  my part