Getting a 1440p, sell 970 buy 390x or buy another 970

[MEC-777]

I share the recommendation to sell the 970 and grab a 980Ti instead. 

[arniks8]

Actually, there aren't any improved drivers. Only different power management micro architecture and better memory chips.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/389669-amds-3xx-series-tessellation-not-improved-performance-boost-comes-from-the-drivers/

[arniks8]

pretty much this...

better binning. better components, a few minor tweaks under the hood and a slightly increased clock speed....

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/389669-amds-3xx-series-tessellation-not-improved-performance-boost-comes-from-the-drivers/%5D"]http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/389669-amds-3xx-series-tessellation-not-improved-performance-boost-comes-from-the-drivers

[don_svetlio]

I already have GTA V hitting 3.5-3.6 and stutters so

Then grab a 390X - if you have stutters @ 1080p then 1440p will only get worse.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/389669-amds-3xx-series-tessellation-not-improved-performance-boost-comes-from-the-drivers/

 

Its already been debunked. And I'd appreciate it if you'd do some research because currently 290/290x/390/390x use the same drivers. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Then grab a 390X - if you have stutters @ 1080p then 1440p will only get worse.

well...i play GTA5 at 1440p with highest texture settings on my 3GB GTX780...memory usage is 2950mb or so and i get absolutely no stutters what so ever and i also get 80FPS+ consistently...so i don't know what's up with that...the only game i've played that stutter due to lack of VRAM at 1440p is Dying light and lowering texture quality one notch fixes it.

Most games you can easily hit max VRAM and it won't get you stutter or anything else...for example i play batman the arkham knight with highest texture settings and it says it will require 3750mb of VRAM and it flags me in red that i'm gonna be in trouble if i attempt those settings...yet the game run ABSOLUTELY fine with no stutters at 50FPS+ with these settings (max textures settings and max anisotropy filtering, anti-aliasing on, nvidia gameworks features all disabled though)

 

i think the fact that a game CAN use more VRAM does not mean it NEED's it, so long as you're not starving it too intensively it's fine...the GPU will throw in and out the textures it needs into the framebuffer seaminglessly and in most cases it won't cause any problems or performance issues...again i believe so long as you're not going really far out of bound you know...a 2GB card would probably not cut it, my 780 3GB is fine for 1440p in the many games i've tested so far...a 3.5gb + 500mb GTX 970 should handle 1440p gaming flawlessly accross the board albeit not on everything ultra for the most demanding titles, but most of them games you can still pretty much max out and hit 60FPS+.

[don_svetlio]

well...i play GTA5 at 1440p with highest texture settings on my 3GB GTX780...memory usage is 2950mb or so and i get absolutely no stutters what so ever and i also get 80FPS+ consistently...so i don't know what's up with that...the only game i've played that stutter due to lack of VRAM at 1440p is Dying light and lowering texture quality one notch fixes it.

Most games you can easily hit max VRAM and it won't get you stutter or anything else...for example i play batman the arkham knight with highest texture settings and it says it will require 3750mb of VRAM and it flags me in red that i'm gonna be in trouble if i attempt those settings...yet the game run ABSOLUTELY fine with no stutters at 50FPS+ with these settings (max textures settings and max anisotropy filtering, anti-aliasing on, nvidia gameworks features all disabled though)

games sometimes behave differently based on resources available. IIRC Battlefield 2 had a character that was not there when you had a dual core but when a quad core was present he appeared

the 970 is a sub-par card for 1440p I believe

[Prysin]

...still trade blows with a GTX970 though.

 

Worthy upgrade to a GTX970 are IMHO a GTX980ti or Radeon FuryX...and i think we all know which is better.

The R9 390X is only marginaly faster than a GTX970, nothing to write home about between the two, and even the GTX980 which is faster across the board wouldnt be worth the upgrade.

OP should just try to game at 1440p on his GTX970 and call it a day, nothing wrong having to run high or very high settings instead of ultra from time to time, you won't notice the difference in most games anyways (talking from experience i am gaming at 1440p on my GTX780 a lot lately...tried MANY games, they all run perfectly fine at what i consider ''high'' image fidelity)

 

And most well optimised titles you can run ultra anyways, there is only like AC:U, Batman arkham knight, witcher 3 and crysis 3 that i can't run ultra settings so far. (in my favor i use a Gsync display though so drops to 50-55FPS are completely fine on this)

 

marginally you say?

 

the R9 390 is marginally faster... we are talking of the X VERSION which is closer to 980 territory.

[i_build_nanosuits]

games sometimes behave differently based on resources available. IIRC Battlefield 2 had a character that was not there when you had a dual core but when a quad core was present he appeared

the 970 is a sub-par card for 1440p I believe

well...based on my experience and the fact that the GTX970 is roughly 10-12% faster than my GTX780 and boast an extra GB of VRAM i think it's in the ''adequate'' range for 1440p gaming depending on what games you play and what you're looking for...it's not ideal and you won't max out the witcher 3 but you can defenetly run it on high settings with some anti-aliasing and make it look REALLY pretty...1440p looks awesome.

I must say though my monitor is Gsync capable, and it really make a nice difference at around 45 to 60FPS...where it feel pretty smooth now and previously i remember ANY drop bellow 60FPS was very noticeable and all hell broke loose...now this is not an issue but this monitor was darn expensive though.

I will not go as far as to say that the 970 is perfect for 1440p gaming, but it's defenetly good enough and adequate for high settings 60FPS gaming...and if you happen to play battlefield games or call of duty and other lesser demanding games then it totaly make sense...my 780 as i said play the most broken demanding games just fine on high settings...and the good ones i can play maxed out or nearly maxed out...also the fact that FXAA is not blury at 1440p and it just look super sharp.

i think the fact that a game CAN use more VRAM does not mean it NEED's it, so long as you're not starving it too intensively it's fine...the GPU will throw in and out the textures it needs into the framebuffer seaminglessly and in most cases it won't cause any problems or performance issues...again i believe so long as you're not going really far out of bound you know...a 2GB card would probably not cut it, my 780 3GB is fine for 1440p in the many games i've tested so far...a 3.5gb + 500mb GTX 970 should handle 1440p gaming flawlessly accross the board albeit not on everything ultra for the most demanding titles, but most of them games you can still pretty much max out and hit 60FPS+.

[i_build_nanosuits]

 

marginally you say?

 

the R9 390 is marginally faster... we are talking of the X VERSION which is closer to 980 territory.

yeah, and even the upgrade to a GTX980 won't make any sense moving from a GTX970...you don't upgrade a graphics card for a 15% performance boost at best?! what's your point?

[don_svetlio]

well...based on my experience and the fact that the GTX970 is roughly 10-12% faster than my GTX780 and boast an extra GB of VRAM i think it's in the ''adequate'' range for 1440p gaming depending on what games you play and what you're looking for...it's not ideal and you won't max out the witcher 3 but you can defenetly run it on high settings with some anti-aliasing and make it look REALLY pretty...1440p looks awesome.

I must say though my monitor is Gsync capable, and it really make a nice difference at around 45 to 60FPS...where it feel pretty smooth now and previously i remember ANY drop bellow 60FPS was very noticeable and all hell broke loose...now this is not an issue but this monitor was darn expensive though.

I will not go as far as to say that the 970 is perfect for 1440p gaming, but it's defenetly good enough and adequate for high settings 60FPS gaming...and if you happen to play battlefield games or call of duty and other lesser demanding games then it totaly make sense...my 780 as i said play the most broken demanding games just fine on high settings...and the good ones i can play maxed out or nearly maxed out...also the fact that FXAA is not blury at 1440p and it just look super sharp.

i think the fact that a game CAN use more VRAM does not mean it NEED's it, so long as you're not starving it too intensively it's fine...the GPU will throw in and out the textures it needs into the framebuffer seaminglessly and in most cases it won't cause any problems or performance issues...again i believe so long as you're not going really far out of bound you know...a 2GB card would probably not cut it, my 780 3GB is fine for 1440p in the many games i've tested so far...a 3.5gb + 500mb GTX 970 should handle 1440p gaming flawlessly accross the board albeit not on everything ultra for the most demanding titles, but most of them games you can still pretty much max out and hit 60FPS+.

Just want to point out - Witcher 3 is the most well-optimized game I've seen in a while - I can run medium settings 1440p with 40-45fps and Ultra I get 25 fps but I still only use 2.4GB of VRAM

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just want to point out - Witcher 3 is the most well-optimized game I've seen in a while - I can run medium settings 1440p with 40-45fps and Ultra I get 25 fps but I still only use 2.4GB of VRAM

i can run high settings 50FPS 1440p with my GTX780 but for some reasons it won't look nearly as good as GTA5 for example which run at nearly double the framerates on highest settings...that's why...i feel witcher 3 could/should be better i don't even find it to look particularily good to be honest...anyways i don't play it since it has to be one of the most boring games i own

[don_svetlio]

i can run high settings 50FPS 1440p with my GTX780 but for some reasons it won't look nearly as good as GTA5 for example which run at nearly double the framerates on highest settings...that's why...i feel witcher 3 could/should be better i don't even find it to look particularily good to be honest...

I actually really like how Witcher 3 looks - and the optimization is stellar up to 8 cores for a CPU and GPU-wise even very low-tier cards can run it fine