970 or 290X?

[Majestic]

since when.

 

I counted 8 512MB chips on my 970. That is 4GB. It's a matter of how you ask the question.

 

That said, I think people are still overestimating the VRAM thing. 1440P is fine on the 970, 4K both the 290X and 970 lack the necessary power to drive it. 4K is only for Titan X cards and future cards. Don't game on 4K unless you have a lot of money to blow.

 

OP, just buy a Dell 2515H and settle for 1440p. Don't buy some cheap TN 4K monitor, I don't see the point.

[XxDeadpool67xX]

At 1080p, they go back and forth, it's about the same with the 290x being a little better most of the time. It's also hotter and takes more power if you're okay with that

 

290x for anything higher than 1080p

970 for 1080p

90% of the people here love spreading false information :lol:

[XxDeadpool67xX]

I counted 8 512MB chips on my 970. That is 4GB. It's a matter of how you ask the question.

 

That said, I think people are still overestimating the VRAM thing. 1440P is fine on the 970, 4K both the 290X and 970 lack the necessary power to drive it. 4K is only for Titan X cards and future cards. Don't game on 4K unless you have a lot of money to blow.

 

OP, just buy a Dell 2515H and settle for 1440p. Don't buy some cheap TN 4K monitor, I don't see the point.

Cause everyone on this form are fanboys to the core.

[itachipirate]

The 970 has always had 4GB vram. You're spreading misinformation.

If you don't know what he's referring to you've been living under a rock when it comes to the GTX 970. Please stop trying to start fights

[ZetZet]

No. The card has 4GB vram, but it's split into two chunks where the 0.5 GB chunk runs slower than the 3.5GB chunk. The card has 4GB in total and all of it is useable.

it's too slow to be used, every single case I heard when it hit over 3.5gb the card hits the floor in the performance. But like I said nvidia patched the drivers so it's fine now, I recommend 970 all the time.

[owenrees1]

90% of the people here love spreading false information :lol:

Thank you so much!!!

[Majestic]

90% of the people here love spreading false information 

 

Tomb Raider is even an AMD title..

 

@owenrees1 to add to the point i was trying to make

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/361655-lower-than-native-causes-lower-contrast/#entry4909590

 

this is what happens when you start gaming at 1440p on a 4K monitor. You have a TN panel + shitty contrast. It will look pretty bad...

[XxDeadpool67xX]

Tomb Raider is even an AMD title..

Really dang I've head battlefield 4 is too.

[Majestic]

Really dang I've head battlefield 4 is too.

 

Well it's mantle, so yeah probably.

[Solkia]

*sigh* why do people bother with these threads 90% of the people asking here know what card there gonna getting. Why take advice from random people on the internet, instead of looking up benchmarks. Just saying I'm pretty sure if the r9 290x was better more people on pcparkpicker would be using it. The total the amount of r9 290x used in pcpartpicker completed builds are 210 and the total amounts of gtx 970 used is over 1700 and the gtx 970 has not een out for as long.

 

When you're dropping over $200 on something it's good to know if it was worth it.

[itachipirate]

90% of the people here love spreading false information :lol:

Why am I spreading misinformation? I said they go back and forth and that's exactly what happened in the video 

[XxDeadpool67xX]

Just a heads up neither of these will reach ultra 1440p. Yet the 970 come closer because it can overclock farther.

[othertomperson]

I counted 8 512MB chips on my 970. That is 4GB. It's a matter of how you ask the question.

 

That said, I think people are still overestimating the VRAM thing. 1440P is fine on the 970, 4K both the 290X and 970 lack the necessary power to drive it. 4K is only for Titan X cards and future cards. Don't game on 4K unless you have a lot of money to blow.

 

OP, just buy a Dell 2515H and settle for 1440p. Don't buy some cheap TN 4K monitor, I don't see the point.

 

A 970 or 290X should get a decent framerate at 4K if OP is willing to settle for medium (which will still look great at the resolution). Two of either is great for 4K and is substantially cheaper than a Titan X.

 

And there are some spectacular TN 4K monitors. TN's come a long way since most people on this forum judged it to be shite. But then people still tell me daily that "most games don't support SLI". Apparently people are stuck eight years in the past.

 

 

it's too slow to be used, every single case I heard when it hit over 3.5gb the card hits the floor in the performance. But like I said nvidia patched the drivers so it's fine now, I recommend 970 all the time.

 

It isn't too slow to be used. The only time I've hit a floor in performance is when Shadow of Mordor had me sitting at 4096GB constantly. That was a problem. I can sit quite happy at 3.8GB and have no issues.

[XxDeadpool67xX]

Why am I spreading misinformation? I said they go back and forth and that's exactly what happened in the video 

My bad meant to quote cheese_tartz. My bad.

[XxDeadpool67xX]

A 970 or 290X should get a decent framerate at 4K if OP is willing to settle for medium (which will still look great at the resolution). Two of either is great for 4K and is substantially cheaper than a Titan X.

 

And there are some spectacular TN 4K monitors. TN's come a long way since most people on this forum judged it to be shite. But then people still tell me daily that "most games don't support SLI". Apparently people are stuck eight years in the past.

Eh 4k is meh to me I'd rather get 5760x1080p its easier to run.

[Majestic]

 

A 970 or 290X should get a decent framerate at 4K if OP is willing to settle for medium (which will still look great at the resolution). T

 

But why game at medium settings on a TN panel, and not just higher settings on a IPS 1440p panel. The visuals on the latter will be better...

 

TN might have come a long way, but they're not up to snuff compared to Dell IPS panels.

[XxDeadpool67xX]

Btw your build is good just if you ever plan on getting the 290x going crossfire later might be risky (might not even work) due to its high power consumption. SLi 970 should work on a 650w but its cutting the edge and you can't overclock neither of them so I reccomend getting a 750w model. Ax760 is relly cheap right now.

[owenrees1]

Im not looking go go crossfire/SLI, but thanks anyways

[Majestic]

Just get a Gigabyte G1 or MSI 970 (or 290X, if you accept the powerdraw, lack of overclocking and extra heat) and a Dell 2515H or equivalent. Leave 4K for when cards can run this effortlessly. 

[othertomperson]

 

If you don't know what he's referring to you've been living under a rock when it comes to the GTX 970. Please stop trying to start fights

 

How am I "trying to pick fights"? The 970 has 4GB of vram. He said something that was categorically wrong. I'm not going to just leave blatant rubbish uncorrected just because of some fanboys' sensitivities when OP is looking for actual advice.

 

Eh 4k is meh to me I'd rather get 5760x1080p its easier to run.

 

Eh that has its own problems. Firstly that it's only slightly easier to run, it's the equivalent of a 3k screen. Secondly the fish-eye issues associated with triple monitor FOV and the bezels don't do it for me. And finally for all the extra horsepower you're throwing at it over 1080p you're not gaining any ppi which for me is the real draw of high resolution, not just a big area of display.

 

But why game at medium settings on a TN panel, and not just higher settings on a IPS 1440p panel. The visuals on the latter will be better...

 

TN might have come a long way, but they're not up to snuff compared to Dell IPS panels.

 

Because that's what OP said they wanted to do. I think they should double up on whatever card they want and game at very-high to ultra.

 

Then buy a 4K IPS screen. They're only about £500 now. They were £2000 when I bought my 4K screen for £400. Personally I find the quality difference pretty minimal these days and can only recommend IPS for artists and photographers. Otherwise for media and games you can't tell unless you're actively trying.

[XxDeadpool67xX]

 

 

Eh that has its own problems. Firstly that it's only slightly easier to run, it's the equivalent of a 3k screen. Secondly the fish-eye issues associated with triple monitor FOV and the bezels don't do it for me. And finally for all the extra horsepower you're throwing at it over 1080p you're not gaining any ppi which for me is the real draw of high resolution, not just a big area of display.

 

 

I do agree on the bezel part I wouldn't ever game on tripple monitor is it wasn't framless.

[Sintezza]

well i would grab a 290x personaly.

But both cards a basicly okay.

 

THe only thing is that the Vram issue on the GTX970 is exaly a hardware fail which cannot be denied.

On 1080p it will not realy matter much, however i have seen shadow of mordor even having issue on 1080p maxed out so yeah.

 

For 1440p the vram issue will become an issue in hightexture games definitely