GTX 970 vs 980 for the LG-34um95?

[a388p434]

I'm building a computer and I can't seem to make up my mind in the graphics card department. I'm pretty dead set on the LG 34um95  as my display (might also consider another 21:9 display), but I'm getting conflicting information on what can properly drive 3440:1440 with games and the like. I'm not dead set on maxing game settings across the board, I'd just like an enjoyable experience. The idea with this build is longevity, I'd like to have a solid setup for the next 4-6 years. With the bench-marking I've looked over it appears that the GTX 980 edges over the 970 by a marginal 15%, and I'm not sure 15% is worth an additional $200. Furthermore would the the 3.5gb vs 4gb vram become a contributing factor at this resolution?

[Guest]

980 for sure at that resolution.

[spenser_l]

If you're not deadset on maxing games out, I think an overclocked 970 is a better choice for you. At higher resolutions, you're going to be using more VRAM for sure, however I'm not sure if it would be a major issue for the majority of games.

[PillowSmoke]

I'd say if you can afford the 980, absolutely get it. Unless you want to play with your luck, you can get possibly a 970 that overclocks really well.

[Enerjex]

I have the Dell 34" and the gaming experience was decent at medium to high settings with a single 970. I added a 2nd 970 and can now max things out. I would recommend the 980 for single gpu as the 970 while decent was just a little away from where I wanted to be.

[a388p434]

Thanks for the advice! I'm not pressed for capital on this build so I think I'd rather pick up the top end model and have a little more peace-of-mind. I'll probably end up going with this: http://pcpartpicker.com/part/evga-video-card-04gp42983kr 

 

p.s. are most 980's created equal? How can you tell which overclock better?

[Dabombinable]

At 4K your surprisingly better off with 2x R9 290X 8GB, since in Crossfire the they outperform the 980, cost about the same, and have more vRAM at a higher bandwidth. Also, on there own an R9 290X can actually come quite close to the GTX 980-and its a lot older.

[Ellis_D]

I've got the LG 34UM95 with a GTX 970 and it struggles with a lot of high end games, especially with any form of anti-aliasing enabled. I don't know if this is true for all 1440p monitors but using even 2X MSAA has twice the performance hit at 3440x1440 than it did at 1920x1080.  The pixel density does help a lot to mitigate the effects of aliasing but it's still slightly noticeable if you're not using anything.  As for VRAM, the only game I've been able to exceed 3.5GB was GTAV which uses close to 4.5GB maxed at 3440x1440 (and it only does about 15fps maxed by the way).  Most other high-demand games are using around 3GB.  Given current trends towards more and more VRAM, I'd say the more you can get the better and would even suggest waiting a month to see what the R9 390x is capable of. Honestly, if the 390x proves to be worth it, I'm probably going to be selling my GTX 970 for it.  I would have already done that and got the 980 but the 4GB of memory and slight performance increase just doesn't make sense to me considering the price.  Same goes for getting a second 970 for SLI.  I don't want a year to go buy and suddenly, my VRAM is the bottleneck when every AAA game uses 4GB+

[TechnoBacon]

At 4K your surprisingly better off with 2x R9 290X 8GB, since in Crossfire the outperform the 980, cost about the same, and have more vRAM at a higher bandwidth. Also, on there own an R9 290X can actually come quite close to the GTX 980-and its a lot older.

Tested my brother's 290x and it comes really close to my 980 stock when its overclocked