GTX 970 PNY vs EVGA

[julianspiteri]

I'm building a new pc and decided to go with a gtx 970. I am able to get the PNY card at a lower price due to certain reasons, but because of its 1 fan design am wondering how it compares to the evga variation of the 970.

[PHInfinite]

Go for a R9 390 instead it offers better value and performance.

[Guest]

it really doesn't they're exactly the same speed wise. 

and the design you're talking about is a reference design, or a blower design.

[TheCaptain53]

I'm building a new pc and decided to go with a gtx 970. I am able to get the PNY card at a lower price due to certain reasons, but because of its 1 fan design am wondering how it compares to the evga variation of the 970.

Having recently tried out a blower style cooler, they're actually not that bad. However, if you want to attach an aftermarket cooler later on, it probably would have just been cheaper to buy the EVGA in the first place. Unless you plan to watercool the graphics card, then it doesn't really matter (although, I would still recommend a custom PCB card for better power delivery and therefore higher overclocks).

 

If you're building a new PC, I would consider the R9 390 instead. It's roughly the same price but performs better. Good brands are XFX and Sapphire.

[don_svetlio]

EVGA are best for Nvidia but I'd suggest R9 390 instead - just better for the price

[julianspiteri]

Unfortunately, for some reason in the country i live in the r9 390 is more than €50($60) more expensive, which altough isn't much, I am already stretching my budget. Is it really that much of a performance boost over the 970? http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-2688178/gtx-970-390.html Some people here are saying the 390x (a $450 card where i live) only just beats 970 in 1080p gaming while using double the power, so I assume the 390 is the same story.

[don_svetlio]

Unfortunately, for some reason in the country i live in the r9 390 is more than €50($60) more expensive, which altough isn't much, I am already stretching my budget. Is it really that much of a performance boost over the 970?

Nah - don't splurge that much - unless you need the VRAM or intend to go for 1440p then it's not worth it. If going higher res, dual GPU or need the VRAM, then 390, else, 970 by EVGA

[julianspiteri]

Nah - don't splurge that much - unless you need the VRAM or intend to go for 1440p then it's not worth it. If going higher res, dual GPU or need the VRAM, then 390, else, 970 by EVGA

I was considering adding another 970 in the future. Why is a 390 better for this?

[don_svetlio]

I was considering adding another 970 in the future. Why is a 390 better for this?

3.5GB of VRAM is pointless for SLI - you'll run into a VRAM bottleneck before you run out of GPU horsepower - 390 has more than double the usable VRAM (8GB).

[SteveGrabowski0]

3.5GB of VRAM is pointless for SLI - you'll run into a VRAM bottleneck before you run out of GPU horsepower - 390 has more than double the usable VRAM (8GB).

 

970 SLI is awesome for 1440p. That's still plenty of vram for SLI, it's not like he's talking about putting two 2GB 960s together.

 

[don_svetlio]

970 SLI is awesome for 1440p. That's still plenty of vram for SLI, it's not like he's talking about putting two 2GB 960s together.

 

Still - it's not like games are going to be getting less demanding and the 8GB are much more likely to last him longer in a CF setup.

[SteveGrabowski0]

I'm building a new pc and decided to go with a gtx 970. I am able to get the PNY card at a lower price due to certain reasons, but because of its 1 fan design am wondering how it compares to the evga variation of the 970.

 

I assume you're talking about a reference style blower cooler PNY 970 like this:

 

 

vs an EVGA axial fan card like this:

 

 

The differences between the two style of coolers are

 

1. The blower cooler works well if you have poor airflow in your case. If you can't put a decent front intake fan onto your system then the blower cooler card will probably work better, since it exhausts heat outside of the case instead of dumping it into the case.

 

2. If you run a small mini ITX build, they're often designed for blower style cards like that PNY one I posted above. For instance, the Corsair 250D does an incredible job cooling blower style cards, but I have heard a few complaints about it with open cooler cards like the EVGA one I posted above.

 

3. If you have a reasonable case the open style card (eg the EVGA one above) will keep your GPU cooler and probably let it run faster. As long as you have a decent airflow channel with an intake fan at the front around the GPU height and then an exhaust fan at back (both should be 120mm or more) the open cooler card will probably perform better. They're much better at cooling the GPU core and since you have a nice channel for cool air to come in through the front and hot air to exit out the back that hot air the GPU exhausts into the case won't get stuck there.

 

4. If you're ever thinking of watercooling your card with say a Kraken G10 bracket and an AIO cooler like a Corsair H80i or NZXT Kraken x40, go for the reference blower. If you'd watercool with say an EKWB Predator and an EKWB waterblock though, get the faster EVGA card. Though I would never recommend watercooling a GPU unless you already have dual 980 Ti or something and there is no other way to extract much more performance from your system, as watercooling is expensive.

 

If you go EVGA, try to get an SSC or ACX 2.0+ if at all possible. They made big changes to their power delivery and those cards on average overclock way better than the SC and ACX 2.0 cards do. I have one of the original EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 and I can't get much of an overclock from stock, though the card's stock speed is still significantly faster than reference.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Still - it's not like games are going to be getting less demanding and the 8GB are much more likely to last him longer in a CF setup.

 

I'm skeptical of that. AMD's best cards targeting 4k are still 4GB. This last year is the first time we have really seen 2GB become much of a limitation. I doubt game optimization is just going to zoom past 4GB to 6GB that quickly. And with the jump to 14nm and HBM2 in Pascal and Arctic Islands I'd be surprised if any of the current gen of cards age all that well.

[don_svetlio]

I'm skeptical of that. AMD's best cards targeting 4k are still 4GB. This last year is the first time we have really seen 2GB become much of a limitation. I doubt GPU optimization is just going to zoom past 4GB to 6GB that quickly. And with the jump to 14nm and HBM2 in Pascal and Arctic Islands I'd be surprised if any of the current gen of cards age all that well.

6-7 games already use more than 4GB though - as for HBM, it's different tech, it compensates for the size deficit with speed, or so I was told.

[SteveGrabowski0]

6-7 games already use more than 4GB though - as for HBM, it's different tech, it compensates for the size deficit with speed, or so I was told.

 

Shadow of Mordor recommends 6GB for the uncompressed ultra textures, but I can't tell a difference between that and the high textures recommended for 3GB cards, though there is a world of difference between the high and the medium textures recommended for people on 2GB cards. The two toughest games out there to run right now, Crysis 3 and Witcher 3, both use very little vram. I think what you're referring to is games using extra vram for caching things not important to the scene, just like we see with most current games on 2GB vs 4GB versions of cards. We're just entering the 4GB era, I doubt it's going to be over so soon. I wish AMD made a 4GB version of the 390 so this could actually be tested. I suspect they'd lose money though when benchmarks came out and showed a 4GB 390 being as good as an 8GB one.

[don_svetlio]

Shadow of Mordor recommends 6GB for the uncompressed ultra textures, but I can't tell a difference between that and the high textures recommended for 3GB cards, though there is a world of difference between the high and the medium textures recommended for people on 2GB cards. The two toughest games out there to run right now, Crysis 3 and Witcher 3, both use very little vram. I think what you're referring to is games using extra vram for caching things not important to the scene, just like we see with most current games on 2GB vs 4GB versions of cards. We're just entering the 4GB era, I doubt it's going to be over so soon. I wish AMD made a 4GB version of the 390 so this could actually be tested. I suspect they'd lose money though when benchmarks came out and showed a 4GB 390 being as good as an 8GB one.

You have to account for games like GTA V as well - those can easily push past 4GB or modding, Dragon Age, Skyrim, even Witcher - modding shreds through VRAM very fast.

[Vellinious]

lol, imagine that.  A 970 thread that turned into a 390 thread.  /shocked