Should I get a GTX 980ti or a second GTX 970

[Majestic]

Did I ever imply that 6GB is required?

 

Yes, more or less.

 

2 years ago 2GB was enough for 1440p. Now 2GB is not enough for 1080p

 

Oh no you don't, you don't get to red herring this now. We're talking 3.5/4GB. Prove 4GB isn't enough, and don't show me data of games running over 4GB, show me data that makes >4GB cards have a clear advantage in a 1080p/1440p scenario at playable framerates.

[ITS-PARTY-TIME]

Were you expecting me to go on about 390s or Furies? I'm not a fanboy, I just look at the most optimal solution for the money

dont see the problem with buying a second 970 tho? it is good idea if you already have 970

[don_svetlio]

Yes, more or less.

 

 

Oh no you don't, you don't get to red herring this now. We're talking 3.5/4GB. Prove 4GB isn't enough, and don't show me data of games running over 4GB, show me data that makes >4GB cards have a clear advantage.

I'm saying history repeats itself. In 2009 1GB was the ultra high end. In 2010 it was 1.5GB. In 2012 it was 2GB. In 2013 it was 3GB. In 2015 it was 4GB. In 2016 it may be 6GB. Going for more means you will have your card last longer. Quite a few people had to ditch 770 SLI since 2GB wasn't enough for max settings anymore

[don_svetlio]

dont see the problem with buying a second 970 tho? it is good idea if you already have 970

A 980 Ti is better value considering both are the same price and a 980 Ti has proper DX12 support unlike the 970

[Bluebeano]

To make it clear, I already have a GTX 970

[ITS-PARTY-TIME]

A 980 Ti is better value considering both are the same price and a 980 Ti has proper DX12 support unlike the 970

980ti same price as 970?

what i said was if you already have 970 then buying a 970 is not a bad idea if you are going to upgrade later on..

Edited January 9, 2016 by Godlygamer23
Clean up.

[Majestic]

I'm saying history repeats itself. In 2009 1GB was the ultra high end. In 2010 it was 1.5GB. In 2012 it was 2GB. In 2013 it was 3GB. In 2015 it was 4GB. In 2016 it may be 6GB. Going for more means you will have your card last longer. Quite a few people had to ditch 770 SLI since 2GB wasn't enough for max settings anymore

 

That's a lame argument, and you know it. Now stop making statements you can't back up.

Having more VRAM certainly never hurts, but right now it's not enough to go for either A or B when over a certain threshold (4GB).

 

EDIT: that said though, i'd never go SLI again.

[don_svetlio]

980ti same price as 970?

what i said was if you already have 970 then buying a 970 is not a bad idea if you are going to upgrade later on..

He said 970 SLI costs the same as a 980 Ti for him. Be less offensive and read.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Godlygamer23

[ITS-PARTY-TIME]

He said 970 SLI costs the same as a 980 Ti for him. Be less offensive and read.

what ever. i didnt see he would sell it.

[don_svetlio]

That's a lame argument, and you know it. Now stop making statements you can't back up.

 

Having more VRAM certainly never hurts, but right now it's not enough to go for either A or B when over a certain threshold (4GB).

I use to hear the same when talking about 2GB vs 3/4GB before. Now nobody goes for 2GB

[Dabombinable]

That's a lame argument, and you know it. Now stop making statements you can't back up.

 

Having more VRAM certainly never hurts, but right now it's not enough to go for either A or B when over a certain threshold (4GB).

Its true though. Also, try running some games at 1440p and 4K yourself-even if you need to use DSR. Also, at 1080p alone FO4 (as an example) consumes up to and over 3GB vRAM.

[Majestic]

I use to hear the same when talking about 2GB vs 3/4GB before. Now nobody goes for 2GB

 

You're saying that as if that was years ago. That trend only started appearing with the very latest games. Plus companies themselves are ditching their 2GB cards, so it's not much of a choice. 4GB cards are just not that much more expensive. 

 

We're however, not talking 2GB vs. 4GB. Stop deflecting and either prove 6GB is now somehow the new requirement or sweetspot or stop making it an argument to go either for A or B.

 

 

Its true though. Also, try running some games at 1440p and 4K yourself-even if you need to use DSR. Also, at 1080p alone FO4 (as an example) consumes up to and over 3GB vRAM.

 

Not talking 2GB vs. 4GB, don is throwing red herrings to prevent me from criticising his earlier statements (deflecting). And going over 3GB does, again, not imply the need for >2GB. Many games just leave junk on the VRAM to prevent excessive fetching. But with a fast SSD you might not even notice.

[don_svetlio]

You're saying that as if that was years ago. That trend only started appearing with the very latest games. Plus companies themselves are ditching their 2GB cards, so it's not much of a choice. 4GB cards are just not that much more expensive. 

 

We're however, not talking 2GB vs. 4GB. Stop deflecting and either prove 6GB is now somehow the new requirement or sweetspot or stop making it an argument to go either for A or B.

Nvidia are promising up to 16GB on next gen cards. AMD are likely going for the same. Current high end cards have 4+. 4GB will be minimum soon enough.

[X1XNobleX1X]

Yes, more or less.

 

 

Oh no you don't, you don't get to red herring this now. We're talking 3.5/4GB. Prove 4GB isn't enough, and don't show me data of games running over 4GB, show me data that makes >4GB cards have a clear advantage in a 1080p/1440p scenario at playable framerates.

For 1080p and most other resolutions you're right, the extra 2GB/ anything over 4GB won't make any difference.

 

But. as you said, the extra 2GB when deciding will help the decision if you want to "futureproof" (If that even can be used).

 

 

 

There is no real evidence, that the extra RAM will give any performance boost or having not enough will degrade performance. 

[Guest HyppoCube]

how about wait for new cards. its not like 970 cant play games on monitor.. id be more worried about 4k or VR

 

just sell it before new cards are released, use iGPU, buy whater you want

[don_svetlio]

how about wait for new cards. its not like 970 cant play games on monitor.. id be more worried about 4k or VR

Considering what Valve and HTC are saying, VR will cost more than a 980 Ti from the looks of it.

[Majestic]

Nvidia are promising up to 16GB on next gen cards. AMD are likely going for the same. Current high end cards have 4+. 4GB will be minimum soon enough.

 

Are you even listening to yourself mate, you must realise how utterly weak these arguments are by now... You still haven't given us any emperical evidence that shows current games at 1080p or 1440p absolutely requiring 6GB. Or that anything over 4GB is somehow a step-up, next to bragging rights that is.

 

"promising" "likely" "futureproofing". C'mon...

 

I don't want to be mean, but on these forums doctrines are near-impossible to erradicate. So I'd like to nip it in the bud.

[TheGamingBarrel]

Nvidia are promising up to 16GB on next gen cards. AMD are likely going for the same. Current high end cards have 4+. 4GB will be minimum soon enough.

16GB Of HBM2? Considering that when you increase memory speed you decrease memory usage I doubt we will even see it get close to 8GB At 4K

[don_svetlio]

Are you even listening to yourself mate, you must realise how utterly weak these arguments are by now... You still haven't given us any emperical evidence that shows current games at 1080p or 1440p absolutely requiring 6GB. Or that anything over 4GB is somehow a step-up, next to bragging rights that is.

I'm not talking about current games, I never did mention the dozen current games that need above 4GB for max settings. I'm talking about future games.

[don_svetlio]

16GB Of HBM2? Considering that when you increase memory speed you decrease memory usage I doubt we will even see it get close to 8GB At 4K

Titan XYZ

[harrynowl]

If I'm reading OP correctly it seems he has sold his 970 and is wondering if he should get another 970 (as a single card) or upgrade to a 980ti. Not run in SLI and buy a second card, or even buy 2 new ones. OR he is saying he could sell the 970 to his friend and use that money towards a 980ti.... not sure second makes more sense.

 

A 980ti would be better on average but 2 970s are faster in games that like SLI.

 

 

Don't bother with the regular 980 though.

[TheGamingBarrel]

If I'm reading OP correctly it seems he has sold his 970 and is wondering if he should get another 970 (as a single card) or upgrade to a 980ti. Not run in SLI.

 

980ti is obviously more expensive, but it also faster. If you were happy with your 970s perf- get another. If not- get the 980ti.

 

Don't bother with the 980.

980 Is only fun for benchmarks

 

 

And @OP You could go 390 2 Way CF, Faster than 970 SLI And is aesthetically better since no crossfire bridge.

[X1XNobleX1X]

Either way, I'm pretty sure he easily has his answer.

 

The 980TI is the clear winner, for many reasons.

[Opeth747]

Not sure why people are arguing here. There's nothing to really argue about. It is literally a fact that SLI has many problems. Games come out that doesn't properly take advantage of SLI all the time. My brother just ditched SLI in favor for a single 980Ti. 

It really comes down to if you'd rather plug and play with no issues, or deal with the headache of SLI. 

[Majestic]

I'm not talking about current games, I never did mention the dozen current games that need above 4GB for max settings. I'm talking about future games.

 

Which is a weak argument, unless yourname is nostradamus and you can predict future VRAM usage. And wasn't DX12 supposed to add SLI VRAM if we start talking hypotheticals...