Gtx 970, 980, 980ti, Pascal

[Unslain_Gamer]

Basically, i've recently built an i7 4790k rig, but currently i don't have a graphics card. I currently have a 1080p 60 hertz Monitor, I may be upgrading later in 2016 to either a 1440p or a 144hertz 1080p monitor(most likely). I want to be able to play ultra/very high settings on the majority of games, and if i choose not to go with pascal, to last another 2-3 years. 

 

Budget: £550

 

Msi gtx 980ti = £540

Msi gtx 980 = £400

Msi gtx 970 = £260

 

But what i really want to know is, is it worth spending £540 on a 980ti, with pascal being a year away, and i'd most likely not see any of the benefits in the meantime. The 980, works out roughly 80fps on avg on ultra in several games, rule of thumb seems to be 110fps > 80fps > 60fps for the 3 cards. When you scale up to 1440p, i've noticed on a few games they seem to hang around 80fps>60fps>40fps, down of around 20fps on ultra. 

 

So i have £550, ideally i'd like to put any spare onto other stuff, I plan to upgrade my rig every 3 years in terms of cpu as technology grows but i may be tempted by pascal down the line, Should i go for the gtx 980 being 1080p, giving slight headroom on future AAA titles, and wait for pascal to see how it is, Or go 1 further notch down to a gtx 970, save £250, however i'm not sure how well a gtx 970 performs and how relevant it's going to stay over the next few years. 

 

Please give your suggestion and a reason why. Spending less is better, but i still want the capacity to have a decent experience. 

[Statik]

I mean if you can afford a 980ti go for it.

 

I wouldn't let possible released 1+ years away influence your rig.

[Nergybrahh]

I would go for the 980 personally, it gives you a bit left over for other upgrades and its still a mighty powerful card and should meet your requirements

[don_svetlio]

R9 390X? 980-performance for 100$ less.

[Unslain_Gamer]

R9 390X? 980-performance for 100$ less.

sadly i prefer nvidia, always had good experience with their cards. 

[DeathlessGaming]

I would just go with the 980ti.

[vK 3 1 RON]

If you can afford a 980 ti. Then go for it Nothing wrong with being a 980 titan instead of a regular 980 is there?

[stealth80]

id get a 390x and put the rest to a custom loop if you dont have one already. If you do maybe consider 2x 970? or even better 2x 390

[don_svetlio]

sadly i prefer nvidia, always had good experience with their cards. 

A 390X is a way to get 980 performance and save 200Eu for Pascal. Best of both worlds friend

[BuckGup]

Get a GTX980ti if you can I have

[Unslain_Gamer]

Well until i upgrade to a 144hertz monitor or a 1440p, the 980ti would really be mostly wasted unless im pushing gta 5 to it's limit. i've heard gtx 980 can dip to around 50 fps in some not well optimised games like the new fallout, so maybe it might be a good choice, Not sure how well the gtx 970 stacks up. If i can pay less and get a constant 60fps now @ 1080p thats the option i'd like but with slight headroom for future releases

[vK 3 1 RON]

Well until i upgrade to a 144hertz monitor or a 1440p, the 980ti would really be mostly wasted unless im pushing gta 5 to it's limit. i've heard gtx 980 can dip to around 50 fps in some not well optimised games like the new fallout, so maybe it might be a good choice, Not sure how well the gtx 970 stacks up. If i can pay less and get a constant 60fps now @ 1080p thats the option i'd like but with slight headroom for future releases

 

 Believe me, even if you're not going to be upgrading to 144hz or 1440p, the 980 ti will serve you well and ensure a good 60 FPS in most games on ultra. Of course you have the abnormals that will always be hard to run. 

[WangKe]

390X for your case. AMD has beaten Nvidia on so many fronts except the 980 Ti price bracket and maybe the 950 price-bracket. Anything Nvidia has, AMD has an answer (despite two of them not entirely winning. Note, I'm basing it on their current lineup)

950>370
960<380, 380X

970<390 (R9 Nano if you just wanna talk about size for the performance)

980<390X, Fury non-X

980Ti>Fury X

But if you really like Nvidia, the 980 Ti makes sense.

[Unslain_Gamer]

Well, it sure gives me something to think about, Want to see some more opinions before choosing. Don't plan to sli, really aiming for single card.

[stealth80]

Well, it sure gives me something to think about, Want to see some more opinions before choosing. Don't plan to sli, really aiming for single card.

 

in that case either 980ti or 390x plus watercooling loop

[Nena Trinity]

Go for 390, Fury or 980Ti!

[SteveGrabowski0]

Well until i upgrade to a 144hertz monitor or a 1440p, the 980ti would really be mostly wasted unless im pushing gta 5 to it's limit. i've heard gtx 980 can dip to around 50 fps in some not well optimised games like the new fallout, so maybe it might be a good choice, Not sure how well the gtx 970 stacks up. If i can pay less and get a constant 60fps now @ 1080p thats the option i'd like but with slight headroom for future releases

 

My 970 stays at 60 fps at 1920x1080 in Fallout 4 with shadow distance and god rays at medium but everything else as high as it will go. I occasionally get a drop into the low 50s, but it's pretty rare. But those are heavily cpu influenced settings too, so you might not need to turn those down as much or maybe even at all with an overclocked 4790k at say 4.5 GHz (I run a Xeon E3-1231v3 at stock 3.6 GHz). Witcher 3 and Crysis 3 are the two hardest games to run for me, Crysis 3 will play a lot in the 50s on Welcome to the Jungle on my 970, and Witcher 3 will mostly stay above 60 fps at a mixture of high and ultra, but will have pretty regular drops into the low 50s. Those are both at 99% GPU usage, so I know it's not a cpu limit in either.

[Unslain_Gamer]

My 970 stays at 60 fps at 1920x1080 in Fallout 4 with shadow distance and god rays at medium but everything else as high as it will go. I occasionally get a drop into the low 50s, but it's pretty rare. But those are heavily cpu influenced settings too, so you might not need to turn those down as much or maybe even at all with an overclocked 4790k at say 4.5 GHz (I run a Xeon E3-1231v3 at stock 3.6 GHz). Witcher 3 and Crysis 3 are the two hardest games to run for me, Crysis 3 will play a lot in the 50s on Welcome to the Jungle on my 970, and Witcher 3 will mostly stay above 60 fps at a mixture of high and ultra, but will have pretty regular drops into the low 50s. Those are both at 99% GPU usage, so I know it's not a cpu limit in either.

 

Thanks, thats great to know, have you tried games like GTA 5, battlefield, assassin creed with your 970, Just curious, how they run, I mean the aim for me is 50-60fps on a 60hertz 1080p panel for now. gtx 980ti looks overkill for that set up. 970 i've seen ti dip into 30/40s in some games, and 980 seems to be +10-20fps higher, 60 with minor dips to 50 with v-sync.

I have 550, i still do need a HDD, as im only on a 120gb boot ssd, and i still need to buy maybe some newer case fans from stock. So 980 can do that, but a 970 would save more, and i'm curious how it stacks up

[SteveGrabowski0]

Thanks, thats great to know, have you tried games like GTA 5, battlefield, assassin creed with your 970, Just curious, how they run, I mean the aim for me is 50-60fps on a 60hertz 1080p panel for now. gtx 980ti looks overkill for that set up. 970 i've seen ti dip into 30/40s in some games, and 980 seems to be +10-20fps higher, 60 with minor dips to 50 with v-sync.

I have 550, i still do need a HDD, as im only on a 120gb boot ssd, and i still need to buy maybe some newer case fans from stock. So 980 can do that, but a 970 would save more, and i'm curious how it stacks up

 

GTA V I max everything out in the standard settings except use FXAA instead of MSAA, turn off reflection MSAA, and set grass to very high instead of ultra. The advanced settings are turned off other than the streaming setting for flying, since that has minimal effect for framerate but lowers pop-in when flying a plane (though even with everything maxed there will be pop-in). On those settings I get a locked 60 fps with vsync on. I don't have the AC games or Battlefield, but I think you'll have to turn settings down on the AC games with anything less than a 980 Ti while BF4 should be simple as hell to run at 60 fps on a 970 based on what I have read here from people who play that. Seems like I have seen lots of people here who claim a 970 can do 100+ fps on ultra in the MP maps at 1920x1080.

[Unslain_Gamer]

Well looking at comparisons, gtx 970 and 980. 970 seems to dip alot below 50 whilst the 980 holds around 60-70 in AC

[Citadelen]

The R9 Fury is faster than a GTX 980 for around 15% higher cost, it's a good halfway point between the 980 and the 980Ti\Fury X.

It saves you having to pay so much for a 980 Ti and leaves money for Pascal or Arctic Islands next year.

Also follow your own posts.