970 and wait for upgrade to Pascal or 980ti

[maremp]

I'm building my first pc after a long time, over 8 years since I've last done it. It's going to be hackintosh (that's the reason for considering only nvidia cards) used primarily for work and with boot to windows for some gaming to wind off, so nothing hardcore. For work, I'll be using 4K display and I might even add a second one in the future. It offers me much more space than 1080p and most 1440p panels, so I'm decided on 4K. But with all the information and reviews out there, I'm more confused with every article I read and every video I watch. Basically what most of them are saying is 970 isn't suitable for 4K gaming at reasonable framerates. But then again, all the reviews use maxed or nearly maxed settings in their benchmarks. Although it's nice to get all the shiny details out of the game, I don't need all the ultra details, hd texture packs and whatnot to be able to play through the game. By the way, the games that I plan to play is some of the newer AAA titles, such as The Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Just Cause 3, upcoming Far Cry Primal etc.

 

Technically I could afford 980ti, but it would bump cost of the rig by 25% and I don't know how I feel spending 2000€ for a pc. None of my previous builds was exceeding 700€ and this one would be almost 3 times as much. The second reason is that it would be overkill for the most part, since I expect to play only few hours per week and the rest is web development work, which doesn't need a beefy gpu. Lastly, an upgrade is expected in about half a year, therefore I was thinking that I could upgrade to then flagship gpu if I will see that I need something better than 970. So my question is, would 970 be enough to run games at least at mid settings at 4K or should I absolutely get a 980ti?

[Matty2hatty]

Wait for Pascal

[Kryptyx]

970 isn't really that strong for 4K. It can do it, but not well. Pascal is still a ways out and at launch it won't be much better than the current 980 TI. You'll need to wait for the Pascal TI sometime in 2017 (likely June 2017).

[maremp]

6 hours ago, Kryptyx said:

970 isn't really that strong for 4K. It can do it, but not well. Pascal is still a ways out and at launch it won't be much better than the current 980 TI. You'll need to wait for the Pascal TI sometime in 2017 (likely June 2017).

I didn't know that decent 4K gaming is so far out. 

 

What about 4K with 970 with med settings, I've seen some info that even most of the newer AAA titles have playable framerates at these settings, is this at least somewhat correct? Although maxed out settings are always neat, lower quality isn't a dealbreaker for me. I couldn't find any benchmarks that show at what settings you can get ~60fps, they all torture their gpus at max/ultra settings with even sub 30fps in some cases (like The Witcher 3). 

[Kryptyx]

1 hour ago, maremp said:

I didn't know that decent 4K gaming is so far out. 

 

What about 4K with 970 with med settings, I've seen some info that even most of the newer AAA titles have playable framerates at these settings, is this at least somewhat correct? Although maxed out settings are always neat, lower quality isn't a dealbreaker for me. I couldn't find any benchmarks that show at what settings you can get ~60fps, they all torture their gpus at max/ultra settings with even sub 30fps in some cases (like The Witcher 3). 

 

You'd really be pushing that card too far at 4k. Sure it can probably get like 40-50 fps with low-medium settings but you also have to consider the VRAM consumption. With that card already having gimpy 3.5gb of VRAM I think you would really be better off looking at something like the 390 if your budget is tight. I wouldn't bother with the 980, but would highly recommend the 980TI if you can afford it.

[maremp]

4 hours ago, Kryptyx said:

 

You'd really be pushing that card too far at 4k. Sure it can probably get like 40-50 fps with low-medium settings but you also have to consider the VRAM consumption. With that card already having gimpy 3.5gb of VRAM I think you would really be better off looking at something like the 390 if your budget is tight. I wouldn't bother with the 980, but would highly recommend the 980TI if you can afford it.

The problem with amd gpus is that support for hackintosh (which is a big deal for me) is quite bad. Although there are cases where people got it working, most of the community recommended nvidia since the support is much better. I'll see what it would take to add 980ti instead of 970, hopefully I'll manage to get it. 

Btw, what results with 4K gaming can I expect from 980ti?

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, maremp said:

The problem with amd gpus is that support for hackintosh (which is a big deal for me) is quite bad. Although there are cases where people got it working, most of the community recommended nvidia since the support is much better. I'll see what it would take to add 980ti instead of 970, hopefully I'll manage to get it. 

Btw, what results with 4K gaming can I expect from 980ti?

Depends on the game, if you're using a single 980ti do yourself a favor and play in 1440.

[Conan1600]

i have never done a hackintosh but for windows i never build a pc for 4k with a 970. a gtx 980 ti is pretty good for it though and if you sli even better. the 970 is my favorite card of all time methinks but at 4k it can studddddtter. i have 2 systems in the house with a 970. both are ok for 1440. great for 1080. haswell 4430 and 6600k. 

[sgloux3470]

A 970 can run games at 4K provided that you reduce settings.  Notably you'll have to reduce texture settings in some titles and some quality settings.  You won't be pulling 60 FPS in really heavy titles (Witcher 3, Far Cry 4/Primal) but they'll be playable.  This is really the kind of usecase where I'd recommend a 390 (which rivals a 980 at 4K) but if you're locked to nvidia you're SOL.  (Waiting for Pascal might make sense, but you'll be waiting like what, a year plus?)  In general, 4K can run decently on a single high end GPU if you lower settings.

 

I did some tests in Witcher 3 cause I was concerned that a 970 wouldn't be enough.  On absolute lowest settings my overclocked 980 was getting high 40's to low 50's, so you could expect around 30 FPS with medium-ish settings, maybe 40 or so if you overclock.

 

Pic related

[iDeFecZx]

4 hours ago, App4that said:

Depends on the game, if you're using a single 980ti do yourself a favor and play in 1440.

My friend maxes out gta 5 in 4k at about 70fps on a single 980ti

[maremp]

12 hours ago, sgloux3470 said:

A 970 can run games at 4K provided that you reduce settings.  Notably you'll have to reduce texture settings in some titles and some quality settings.  You won't be pulling 60 FPS in really heavy titles (Witcher 3, Far Cry 4/Primal) but they'll be playable.  This is really the kind of usecase where I'd recommend a 390 (which rivals a 980 at 4K) but if you're locked to nvidia you're SOL.  (Waiting for Pascal might make sense, but you'll be waiting like what, a year plus?)  In general, 4K can run decently on a single high end GPU if you lower settings.

 

I did some tests in Witcher 3 cause I was concerned that a 970 wouldn't be enough.  On absolute lowest settings my overclocked 980 was getting high 40's to low 50's, so you could expect around 30 FPS with medium-ish settings, maybe 40 or so if you overclock.

Thanks for the numbers, this gave me a much better idea than just descriptions.

What if instead of just turning down settings I would also scale down the resolution in game (while still viewing it on 4K display)? Some people say it's crappy, but I used to do that on my old machine when it wasn't capable of running decent fps at 1080p so I've turned game resolution to 720p. It did help and it didn't look that horrible.

[sgloux3470]

Just now, maremp said:

Thanks for the numbers, this gave me a much better idea than just descriptions.

What if instead of just turning down settings I would also scale down the resolution in game (while still viewing it on 4K display)? Some people say it's crappy, but I used to do that on my old machine when it wasn't capable of running decent fps at 1080p so I've turned game resolution to 720p. It did help and it didn't look that horrible.

 

It's absolutely an option.  1440p looks perfectly fine on my monitor when I've used it.  1080p looks like regular 1080p as well, but once you get used to the higher fidelity image it really begins to look like trash.

 

It's definitely an option if you don't really care about 4K gaming and just want the display for work purposes. 

[maremp]

6 minutes ago, sgloux3470 said:

 

It's absolutely an option.  1440p looks perfectly fine on my monitor when I've used it.  1080p looks like regular 1080p as well, but once you get used to the higher fidelity image it really begins to look like trash.

 

It's definitely an option if you don't really care about 4K gaming and just want the display for work purposes. 

In this case, is the gpu performance comparable with benchmarks on 1080p/1440p, or is there still some diminishing factor to consider?

I'm asking all these questions because I really have hard time deciding, I'd like to get a great computer but would not like to end with buyer's remorse

[Kryptyx]

I really suggest you either wait for Pascal x70 or get a 980TI if you're set on sticking with Nvidia. The 970 will have issues on high resolutions and high textures. This problem will only get worse as time goes on and new games push those limitations harder. The 980TI has a healthy 6gb vram and plenty of horsepower for quite some time. I know it's expensive but I think it's a smarter buy than having to upgrade your video card next year (or sooner if you aren't happy with performance on your display).

[Low_Battery]

Given the hardware you will have, and the titles you will be playing, I highly doubt you will have any remorse over going with a 980ti.  It will last you well into the future, AND, if you decided to upgrade in the future, I anticipate you will have a much easier time / cost recoup from a 980ti.  A 970 will work, and if budget is a big concern, is viable.  You could also always add another 970 down the line in SLI.  But my guess is that if you were to play games for a month on each card, you would find that the extra $ was worth it (assuming you are gaming more than 4 - 6 a week).  But in the end, it is all a personal preference and opportunity cost issue, so you must decide

[WhOaMi-Gaming]

980 TI.... just do it and be happy

[Mr_Troll]

if i was in your place i would wait for pascal/polaris... from the leaks that we have seen .... they look promising... + they are only couple months away.... but if money is no issue for u ... they go get a fury X/ 980ti... they will still be viable even after polaris and pascal come out .. my opinion

[App4that]

29 minutes ago, Mr_Troll said:

if i was in your place i would wait for pascal/polaris... from the leaks that we have seen .... they look promising... + they are only couple months away.... but if money is no issue for u ... they go get a fury X/ 980ti... they will still be viable even after polaris and pascal come out .. my opinion

They are not a "couple months away", Nvidia doesn't even have working examples of the GPU's yet. You might see a few mobile applications this summer of Polaris, and a entry level and Furyx2 this fall.

[maremp]

You have me convinced, I've decided that I'll go with 980ti, most likely the custom pcb gigabyte g1 gaming, since performance based it's one of the best compared to other 980ti's.

[V36]

i'm in the same dilemma. however I'm building a new PC now so waiting isn't really an option. I'm also looking into a 390x  

[Tytan64]

I just got myself a GTX 980 Ti. Awesome card. No regrets. I doubt it will be obsolete when Pascal eventually arrives