GTX 970 overkill for 1080p?

[mhonor]

I was originally going to get an r9 380/X for my 1080p gaming rig, but I'm getting tempted by the sale prices on 970s recently. I probably don't need that much GPU though...  if I don't care about absolutely maxing out every brand new game, should I save my money?

 

Please no "wait for pascal/polaris" comments. I know.  

[SpiralTTGL]

970 can run almost every game at 1080p with high to max settings unless its horribly optimized or your cpu is bottleknecking

[Fulgrim]

R9 390 > GTX 970

[Matias_Chambers]

It is not overkill for 1080p. It is a very good sweetspot for 1080p 

[don_svetlio]

It can now but with DX12 the 970 is actually getting matched by a 380X. The 390 is certainly a better value product

[Maxwaehrens]

1 minute ago, Fulgrim said:

R9 390 > GTX 970

I heard otherwise, if you overclock the GTX 970, and the 390 is just a 290 with more VRAM. And assuming you're not trying to max GTA V or Shadow of Mordor, then you probably won't need the extra VRAM.

[don_svetlio]

Just now, Maxwaehrens said:

I heard otherwise if you overclock the GTX 970, and the 390 is just a 290 with more VRAM. And assuming you're not trying to max GTA V or Shadow of Mordor, then you probably won't need the extra VRAM.

The 390 has a redesigned power-delivery enabling it to easily hit 1200 core - something no 290 ever did.

[mhonor]

I would get an r9 390 but they are still pretty expensive, also I don't think I need that much power. 

[Starelementpoke]

3 minutes ago, Maxwaehrens said:

I heard otherwise, if you overclock the GTX 970, and the 390 is just a 290 with more VRAM. And assuming you're not trying to max GTA V or Shadow of Mordor, then you probably won't need the extra VRAM.

Because higher clock speed = better. Therefore, FX 9590 > 4790k.

[ClobberXD]

7 minutes ago, mhonor said:

I was originally going to get an r9 380/X for my 1080p gaming rig, but I'm getting tempted by the sale prices on 970s recently. I probably don't need that much GPU though...  if I don't care about absolutely maxing out every brand new game, should I save my money?

 

Please no "wait for pascal/polaris" comments. I know.  

970 is kinda the minimum for 1080p these days, with games getting more and more demanding...

[Starelementpoke]

5 minutes ago, Anand_Geforce said:

970 is kinda the minimum for 1080p these days, with games getting more and more demanding...

1080p high-max. 380/x is more than capable for med.

[Bananasplit_00]

13 minutes ago, Anand_Geforce said:

970 is kinda the minimum for 1080p these days, with games getting more and more demanding...

a 750TI is fine with 1080p lol you just need to know were to place your settings, i would however not go for it because something like a 960 or 380 will smash it to bitts 

[DND]

No it's not an overkill, for me it a 970 is a safe spot for 1080p gaming can mostly run all games with ease.

[ClobberXD]

4 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

a 750TI is fine with 1080p lol you just need to know were to place your settings, i would however not go for it because something like a 960 or 380 will smash it to bitts 

Sorry - I meant maxing out on 1080p. Otherwise even the 750Ti will do good as you said. BTW, ain't 960s starting to struggle with 1080p?

[Bananasplit_00]

Just now, Anand_Geforce said:

Sorry - I meant maxing out on 1080p. Otherwise even the 750Ti will do good as you said. BTW, ain't 960s starting to struggle with 1080p?

the 2GB ones are the 4GB ones are still good as far as i know

[DrDray]

I'm using a 660 at the moment for 1080p. It still runs games like battliefield 4 really smooth, just with lower detail settings

[Monarch]

29 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

It can now but with DX12 the 970 is actually getting matched by a 380X. The 390 is certainly a better value product

You can't generalize like that. It's only in 1 game - Hitman, and that's because it's optimized for AMD. When Nvidia cards were leading in Nvidia titles you criticized and hated on Nvidia. Now that AMD titles are using async, something Nvidia can't, I don't see you complaining. Obvious AMD bias. 

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Monarch said:

You can't generalize like that. It's only in 1 game - Hitman, and that's because it's optimized for AMD. When Nvidia cards were leading in Nvidia titles you criticized and hated on Nvidia. Now that AMD titles are using async, something Nvidia can't, I don't see you complaining. Obvious AMD bias. 

Hitman
Ashes
Tomb Raider

It's no longer 1 game - it's every game

[Starelementpoke]

2 minutes ago, Monarch said:

You can't generalize like that. It's only in 1 game - Hitman, and that's because it's optimized for AMD. When Nvidia cards were leading in Nvidia titles you criticized and hated on Nvidia. Now that AMD titles are using async, something Nvidia can't, I don't see you complaining. Obvious AMD bias. 

Async? Isn´t that the whole thing of DX12?

[Monarch]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

Hitman
Ashes
Tomb Raider

It's no longer 1 game - it's every game

Could you provide a source for that? I can't find benchmarks for other 2 games atm, but 

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ashes_of_singularity_directx_12_benchmark_ii_review,6.html

 

970 is clearly faster in AoS.

 

Also, you ignored the other part of my post. Why do you not criticize AMD for doing the same thing Nvidia was doing with GW? 

 

3 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

Async? Isn´t that the whole thing of DX12?

The whole thing? DX12 is about enabling developers to utilize hardware features GPUs have. AMD GPUs happen to support async, while Nvidia GPUs don't. There's much more benefits of a low level API than just async.

 

 

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Monarch said:

Could you provide a source for that? I can't find benchmarks for other 2 games atm, but 

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ashes_of_singularity_directx_12_benchmark_ii_review,6.html

 

970 is clearly faster in AoS.

 

Also, you ignored the other part of my post. Why do you not criticize AMD for doing the same thing Nvidia was doing with GW? 

 

The whole thing? DX12 is about enabling developers to utilize hardware features GPUs have. AMD GPUs happen to support async, while Nvidia GPUs don't. There's much more benefits of a low level API than just async.

 

 

390X matching a 980 Ti and Fury beating it. Your point?

[Narnash]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

Hitman
Ashes
Tomb Raider

It's no longer 1 game - it's every game

 

11 minutes ago, Monarch said:

You can't generalize like that. It's only in 1 game - Hitman, and that's because it's optimized for AMD. When Nvidia cards were leading in Nvidia titles you criticized and hated on Nvidia. Now that AMD titles are using async, something Nvidia can't, I don't see you complaining. Obvious AMD bias. 

Agree on DX 12 AMD run better ... but maybe this change in one or 2 months, this whole post here is more kind of fortune telling.

Maybe Hitman is AMD optimized but than Ashes and Tomb Raider, too .... Maybe it's because DirectX12 run (currently) better on AMD cards. 

[Starelementpoke]

2 minutes ago, Monarch said:

Could you provide a source for that? I can't find benchmarks for other 2 games atm, but 

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ashes_of_singularity_directx_12_benchmark_ii_review,6.html

 

970 is clearly faster in AoS.

 

Also, you ignored the other part of my post. Why do you not criticize AMD for doing the same thing Nvidia was doing with GW? 

 

The whole thing? DX12 is about enabling developers to utilize hardware features GPUs have. AMD GPUs happen to support async, while Nvidia GPUs don't. There's much more benefits of a low level API than just async.

 

 

So wait, how is it AMD´s fault that Nvidia didn´t make their cards more hardware beefy?

[ivan134]

17 minutes ago, Monarch said:

You can't generalize like that. It's only in 1 game - Hitman, and that's because it's optimized for AMD. When Nvidia cards were leading in Nvidia titles you criticized and hated on Nvidia. Now that AMD titles are using async, something Nvidia can't, I don't see you complaining. Obvious AMD bias. 

What the fuck does optimizing for AMD mean?

[Monarch]

8 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

390X matching a 980 Ti and Fury beating it. Your point?

Point #1: Your claim that the 380X is faster than the 970 is false.

Point #2: You are biased towards AMD for not condemning AMD for doing the same thing Nvidia was doing with GW which you were against.

 

6 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

So wait, how is it AMD´s fault that Nvidia didn´t make their cards more hardware beefy?

How is it Nvidia's fault that AMD cards are bad at tessellation? I'm talking about double standards here.