# gtx 960 4gb vs gtx 970 4gb



## Easy Rhino (Feb 7, 2016)

I understand the performance difference between the two. But, it seems all of the reviews focus on maxing out AA and the like. But do you really need AA and MSAA and all that jazz when gaming at the higher resolution? The MSAA tech was introduced to help improve gaming at lower res with bigger monitors. It seems that problem no longer exists. Technical answers preferred. @erocker @sneekypeet @Solaris17 @TheMailMan78


----------



## erocker (Feb 7, 2016)

I still think MSAA is superior to any of the popular AA's used today. That being said, at 1080p, the 970 is just a much better card than the 960. I wouldn't even put AA in the equation. A lot of games have upscaling and downscaling options now (super sampling) which is really better than any AA, but requires a bit more grunt to use it. Battlefield and Battlefront, for me look much better at 1.25 X scaling.. Crisper, less muddy, etc.


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 7, 2016)

Not very technical, but if it were me, I would get the 970.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 7, 2016)

Lets's say i want to play at 1440p... I have seen videos showing the 960 4gb card can do it at 60 fps @ 1440p. That seems insane.


----------



## Xzibit (Feb 7, 2016)

Easy Rhino said:


> Lets's say i want to play at 1440p... I have seen videos showing the 960 4gb card can do it at 60 fps @ 1440p. That seems insane.



A lot of the settings would need to be turned down on AAA titles. Games that don't require much yes but there is a big gap between performance. 970 struggles with Max Settings on 1080p so a 960 at 1440p your looking at Low settings on any mildly demanding game.

*Nvidia recommends 970 for 1080p High Settings 60 FPS gaming*.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 7, 2016)

When it comes to resolutions over 1080p, I really don't like the performance hit MSAA gives vs the visual improvement.  I prefer to just using something like TXAA or FXAA.


----------



## erocker (Feb 7, 2016)

Easy Rhino said:


> Lets's say i want to play at 1440p... I have seen videos showing the 960 4gb card can do it at 60 fps @ 1440p. That seems insane.


Well, most things can play at 60 fps if you turn the settings down. I use two 970's at 1440p and most of the time they're great, but with a couple games, they want more than the 970's 3.5gb of Vram offer.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 7, 2016)

Xzibit said:


> A lot of the settings would need to be turned down on AAA titles. Games that don't require much yes but there is a big gap between performance. 970 struggles with Max Settings on 1080p so a 960 at 1440p your looking at Low settings on any mildly demanding game.
> 
> *Nvidia recommends 970 for 1080p High Settings 60 FPS gaming*.



i havnt seen a benchmark yet showing the 970 unable to hit 60fps on everything @ 1080p with decent AA settings.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 7, 2016)

Easy Rhino said:


> Lets's say i want to play at 1440p... I have seen videos showing the 960 4gb card can do it at 60 fps @ 1440p. That seems insane.



Having a 960 and a 970 in the house I can tell you that a 960, though a decent and affordable card at 1080p, doesn't have the processing power to keep up with a 970.  I would hate to see what would happen at 1440p!

Also, don't forget, that when asked if he would be reviewing any 4GB 960's, W1zz relied he would not, since the chip doesn't have the strength to proprly utilize 4GB.

4GB 960 is a marketing gimmick.


----------



## xfia (Feb 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Having a 960 and a 970 in the house I can tell you that a 960, though a decent and affordable card at 1080p, doesn't have the processing power to keep up with a 970.  I would hate to see what would happen at 1440p!
> 
> Also, don't forget, that when asked if he would be reviewing any 4GB 960's, W1zz relied he would not, since the chip doesn't have the strength to proprly utilize 4GB.
> 
> 4GB 960 is a marketing gimmick.


i kinda agree but its worth adding that on the 960 or 380 the 4gb versions are great for crossfire and sli. be hitn max settings on a 2k adaptive refresh gaming monitor.


----------



## Xzibit (Feb 7, 2016)

Easy Rhino said:


> i havnt seen a benchmark yet showing the 970 unable to hit 60fps on everything @ 1080p with decent AA settings.



Its all about personal preference with game visual detail.  If you can play with out the need of features being fully maxed then no problem if you want all the visual on to the fullest then its going to struggle maintaining 60fps.

Preset = Very High
Anti Aliasing = SMAA
Shadows Quality = High (Not Vey High)
Sun Soft Shadows = High (Not Very High)
PureHair = On (Not Very High)








Here you see it struggle to get to 60fps with Very High Preset which isn't all the *settings maxed*.  Lowering the ones you don't find appealing will get you over and maxing them out will put your avg lower.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 8, 2016)

thanks, everyone. i think i will go with the 970 and just pay the extra.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 8, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Having a 960 and a 970 in the house I can tell you that a 960, though a decent and affordable card at 1080p, doesn't have the processing power to keep up with a 970.  I would hate to see what would happen at 1440p!
> 
> Also, don't forget, that when asked if he would be reviewing any 4GB 960's, W1zz relied he would not, since the chip doesn't have the strength to proprly utilize 4GB.
> 
> 4GB 960 is a marketing gimmick.


I would agree with you on that, but in reality I saw a review of computerbase I think, they compared 960 2 vs 4 and 380 2 vs 4 versions against eachother and the 4 GB versions had clearly less variation, in some games it's even a big plus. But one thing as a matter of fact is true: the 380 needs the 4 GB a lot more than the 960 with its better compression technique and / or better software managing the Vram.
Also I'd say the 4 GB versions are longer usable vs. the 2 GB ones, they have a higher value on the long run. 

@OP: for 1080p a 970 is really worth the money, if you want to play with high settings and don't want to worry for some time. A 960 on the other hand would be the "minimum" for good graphics on that resolution, I'd say. In the end it also comes down to your personal preference, a lot of people are satisfied without the best settings.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 8, 2016)

thanks everyone but i think some people have a distorted view of performance. at 1080p my current 570 plays basically every game above 45 FPS with 2x AA MSAA etc. I am not sure why people think you need a 970 to do that.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 8, 2016)

Easy Rhino said:


> thanks everyone but i think some people have a distorted view of performance. at 1080p my current 570 plays basically every game above 45 FPS with 2x AA MSAA etc. I am not sure why people think you need a 970 to do that.



Look at it this way: You don't want sonething "just good enough" for now, and barely good enough a year from now.  

The 970 defeats both of those standards easily.


----------



## rruff (Feb 8, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Also, don't forget, that when asked if he would be reviewing any 4GB 960's, W1zz relied he would not, since the chip doesn't have the strength to proprly utilize 4GB.



It misses out on processing power, but the big thing that makes the 4GB of vram virtually useless is the weak memory bandwidth. 

The 970 is in a completely different league. You can see that in the hardware specs.


----------



## Ruyki (Feb 8, 2016)

rruff said:


> The 970 is in a completely different league. You can see that in the hardware specs.



Yes, it's in the 3.5GB league.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 8, 2016)

Ruyki said:


> Yes, it's in the 3.5GB league.



What I have predominately noticed since the issue was revealed in February of last year is that this issue is primarily brought up by people that have not used one.  So, not being a secret at all, it has still been one of the top selling cards of the last 12 months, despite this issue being much-publicized.  Why?  Because it's a damned good card, regardless.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 8, 2016)

The price difference between those two is huge though. In Canada, I am looking at around 130 CAD between cheapest 960 4gb & 970 4gb. Kinda feel like a new GPU could pill the gap, like 960 Ti.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 8, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> What I have predominately noticed since the issue was revealed in February of last year is that this issue is primarily brought up by people that have not used one.  So, not being a secret at all, it has still been one of the top selling cards of the last 12 months, despite this issue being much-publicized.  Why?  Because it's a damned good card, regardless.



So much so, that it is now the #1 card on Steam's hardware survey.


----------



## peche (Feb 8, 2016)

Difference in some shops here is like $100 between 960's and 970's, according the model could be $120 differences but the availability of the 970 is pretty limited, 960's are available...

 and the difference between 970 & 980 is pretty much here... you could get a 970 on a retail with full warranty and sh*ts for $450 but a single 980 for more than $700,  


when 700 series came to local stores prices where insane, i decided to get one online, best Deal ever! this xmas i will see if money is enough to upgrade my card for a 970 or maybe 980 if the prices get  lower!

Regards,


----------



## Xzibit (Feb 8, 2016)

Easy Rhino said:


> thanks everyone but i think some people have a distorted view of performance. at 1080p my current 570 plays basically every game above 45 FPS with 2x AA MSAA etc. I am not sure why people think you need a 970 to do that.



I think review methodology is one.

People see the results and don't pay much attention to the system it was tested on and settings.  Visiting most site which repeat such results and they all re affirm each other.  Hardly anyone test on something other then close to max settings.  I think its in part that PC have an inherent need to be superior visually to Console. Even if any one of the major components from the test system cost more then a Console at the very least it should look better even if it has to struggle or stutter along.

It also helps feed the cycle.


----------



## rruff (Feb 8, 2016)

Ruyki said:


> Yes, it's in the 3.5GB league.



Apparently it's enough. And 2GB is enough for the 960. 

Quantity of vram is one of the least important specs on a card. Depending on the card's processing ability you want to have enough vram, and more than that adds nothing to performance 99% of the time... provided that your settings are optimized for your hardware. It was several months after the 970 was introduced with rave reviews before anyone discovered there was something funny with the vram.


----------



## rruff (Feb 8, 2016)

peche said:


> Difference in some shops here is like $100 between 960's and 970's, according the model could be $120 differences but the availability of the 970 is pretty limited, 960's are available...



The 970 is about 50% higher FPS, so which card wins the FPS/$ contest?


----------



## erocker (Feb 8, 2016)

rruff said:


> Apparently it's enough.
> 
> Quantity of vram is one of the least important specs on a card. Depending on the card's processing ability you want to have enough vram, and more than that adds nothing to performance 99% of the time... provided that your settings are optimized for your hardware. It was several months after the 970 was introduced with rave reviews before anyone discovered there was something funny with the vram.


Due to poor performance with titles that need more than 3.5gb's of Vram. So no, it's no enough sometimes.


----------



## rruff (Feb 9, 2016)

erocker said:


> Due to poor performance with titles that need more than 3.5gb's of Vram. So no, it's no enough sometimes.



Are you aware of any instances where a vram quantity issue arises with the 970 that can't be fixed with a setting change? I mean a setting adjustment that has very little effect on visual quality.


----------



## erocker (Feb 9, 2016)

CryEngine games, the new Tomb Raider game, games modified with higher res. textures, I'm sure there's plenty of others, but I don't play every game.


----------



## johnspack (Feb 9, 2016)

While I swear at my 970 sometimes because of the 3.5gb issue,  if you know how to use it, it's not really a problem.  At least nothing that a GTX980Ti couldn't fix.  I can't see the extra lousy .5gb of ram on the 980 for 200 more bucks being much more helpful.  If textures are an issue,  get a GTX980Ti,  otherwise it should be a GTX970.  To be honest,  the GTX960 is a waste of a card.  It's why I wracked up my credit card and went 970.


----------



## xorbe (Feb 9, 2016)

I still don't get why people insist on ultra settings on 128-bit 960, or large texture mods on a 3.5GB 970.  There is a reason for 6GB+ and 384-bit and 3072-core cards.  970 is a better investment, 960 is okay now (common sense settings and resolution), but will be sagging badly in a year, imo.

Almost every review maxes out all the gfx options.  imho, this makes a lot of reviews useless for lower-end cards.


----------



## Xzibit (Feb 9, 2016)

xorbe said:


> I still don't get why people insist on ultra settings on 128-bit 960, or large texture mods on a 3.5GB 970.  There is a reason for 6GB+ and 384-bit and 3072-core cards.  970 is a better investment, 960 is okay now (common sense settings and resolution), but will be sagging badly in a year, imo.
> 
> Almost every review maxes out all the gfx options.  imho, this makes a lot of reviews useless for lower-end cards.



In the end a Game review turn into Test bench hardware+GPU reviews.

I don't recall a web-site testing Games Recommended hardware to see if they actually play decent


----------



## rruff (Feb 9, 2016)

erocker said:


> CryEngine games, the new Tomb Raider game, games modified with higher res. textures, I'm sure there's plenty of others, but I don't play every game.



It's *possible* to cause the vram to be a limiter on most cards but not if you optimize the settings for the best mix of quality and speed. Are you after max eye candy and don't care about fps?


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 9, 2016)

erocker said:


> CryEngine games, the new Tomb Raider game, games modified with higher res. textures, I'm sure there's plenty of others, but I don't play every game.



The new Tomb Raider game does not need a lot of VRAM, even on max settings.


----------



## rruff (Feb 9, 2016)

erocker said:


> CryEngine games, the new Tomb Raider game, games modified with higher res. textures, I'm sure there's plenty of others, but I don't play every game.



Tomb Raider runs just fine on the 970 with high preset: http://www.techspot.com/review/1128-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-benchmarks/page2.html

Also check out the non-existent difference between the 2GB and 4GB 960s.


----------



## Xzibit (Feb 9, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> The new Tomb Raider game does not need a lot of VRAM, even on max settings.












Even on Medium Settings its dipping a lot.


----------



## erocker (Feb 9, 2016)

rruff said:


> Tomb Raider runs just fine on the 970 with high preset: http://www.techspot.com/review/1128-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-benchmarks/page2.html
> 
> Also check out the non-existent difference between the 2GB and 4GB 960s.



The issue with the 970 isn't the amount of vram, it's the .5 GB or so that is slow. It would be better off without it.

I speak only from my experience owning the cards.


----------



## vega22 (Feb 9, 2016)

erocker said:


> Well, most things can play at 60 fps if you turn the settings down. I use two 970's at 1440p and most of the time they're great, but with a couple games, they want more than the 970's 3.5gb of Vram offer.





erocker said:


> Due to poor performance with titles that need more than 3.5gb's of Vram. So no, it's no enough sometimes.





rtwjunkie said:


> What I have predominately noticed since the issue was revealed in February of last year is that this issue is primarily brought up by people that have not used one.  So, not being a secret at all, it has still been one of the top selling cards of the last 12 months, despite this issue being much-publicized.  Why?  Because it's a damned good card, regardless.



i aint owned any either, but having seen the issue myself i too will continue to be vocal about it. i know 4 people personally that, like erocker, went the 970 sli route. 1 of the 4 i know has 0 issues and the other 3 have all since changed gpu setups.

970 is a great card if you have 0 intentions of upgrading your 12/10 screen. for anybody looking forward...


----------



## rruff (Feb 9, 2016)

vega22 said:


> i know 4 people personally that, like erocker, went the 970 sli route.



SLI is a different story. Until DX12 anyway. I've never done SLI. Everything I read about it seems problematic. 

You get double the processor performance but no improvement in vram, so vram would become a limiter unless you just want high FPS. Plus driver problems, poor scaling, etc.


----------



## erocker (Feb 9, 2016)

SLI with these cards works fine. Games that benefit from it, certainly do.


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2016)

rruff said:


> SLI is a different story. Until DX12 anyway. I've never done SLI. Everything I read about it seems problematic.
> 
> You get double the processor performance but no improvement in vram, so vram would become a limiter unless you just want high FPS. Plus driver problems, poor scaling, etc.


i cant really see split frame rendering being used on anything but vr optimized games.. more cash but anyway scaling is good for 2 gpu's now and yeah dx12 increases draw call rate so the vram will be used with even greater efficiency that gives developers the option of more eye candy or more performance.. or in the middle. 
with that said i think a 4gb 960 is a great value to get 1 now and 1 in like 6-10 months when the prices come done.. that is of course if your fine with 1080p and i think 960sli is worthy of 1080p gsync.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Feb 9, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> The new Tomb Raider game does not need a lot of VRAM, even on max settings.



Even at 4K using the Very High Preset the GTX 970 holds up admirably considering no card is playable at that setting, hell it was the Nano having heavy frame time variance when tested:







Souce: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Performance-Results/Adding-GTX-970-and-R9-390

Ramgate was unfortunate, but people do tend overplay it's actual impact.


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> Even at 4K using the Very High Preset the GTX 970 holds up admirably considering no card is playable at that setting, hell it was the Nano having heavy frame time variance when tested:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


its just kinda a complex situation atm..  i think its a combo of some driver tweaks and game engine tweaks for hbm. nothing they cant fix just $$


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 9, 2016)

Xzibit said:


> Even on Medium Settings its dipping a lot.



But not because of the VRAM.  Just look at the SLI setup absolute crush everything at 1440p:





In fact, it is the only playable option.  The game is just down right demanding.



erocker said:


> The issue with the 970 isn't the amount of vram, it's the .5 GB or so that is slow. It would be better off without it.
> 
> I speak only from my experience owning the cards.



It definitely wouldn't be better off without it.  The 0.5GB acts as a buffer to using system RAM, which is a lot slower than the 0.5GB.  The drivers know to use that last 0.5GB last, it doesn't affect anything that uses less than 3.5GB, and anything that does use more than 3.5GB will run better with the 0.5GB than without it.


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> But not because of the VRAM.
> 
> 
> 
> It definitely wouldn't be better off without it.  The 0.5GB acts as a buffer to using system RAM, which is a lot slower than the 0.5GB.  The drivers know to use that last 0.5GB last, it doesn't affect anything that uses less than 3.5GB, and anything that does use more than 3.5GB will run better with the 0.5GB than without it.


doesnt seem that its even possible.. if anything it would only mess up texture swapping if they let it be used. 
yet another complex vram situation but not being taken as serious as it should be.


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 9, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Also, don't forget, that when asked if he would be reviewing any 4GB 960's, W1zz relied he would not, since the chip doesn't have the strength to proprly utilize 4GB.
> 4GB 960 is a marketing gimmick.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2016)

P4-630 said:


>



My only question is the number of 60fps charts he put up for 1080p.  As an owner I can tell you that although a decent card, you are only consistently get 60fps on all those games if you are lowering settings where needed, which neans it's not a good comparison accross all games.

That makes the tests worthless, unless you are lowering settings on ALL GPU's for the same games test, to get actual comparisons.  I nearly spit my coffee out laughing at all the 60fps charts he put up for either 960....sonething shady goin on there.  The GPU itself is just not THAT strong.


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> But not because of the VRAM.  Just look at the SLI setup absolute crush everything at 1440p:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no no... they tested this on intels tech site. whatever its called and it cant be used like that because you cant access both segments at the same time. if nvidia has said otherwise its just lie to keep less informed people ignorant and keep selling it. the truth is the only optimizing they can do for the 970 is to not use .5gb segment period. people that own it should demand it.


----------



## 64K (Feb 9, 2016)

P4-630 said:


>



Depends on the game but overall it seems the GTX 960 4GB and 2GB models perform about the same at 1080p.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...0_gaming_4g_video_card_review/10#.Vrn-mkCB6R8


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 9, 2016)

64K said:


> Depends on the game but overall it seems the GTX 960 4GB and 2GB models perform about the same at 1080p.
> 
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...0_gaming_4g_video_card_review/10#.Vrn-mkCB6R8



But... You can run games with textures on highest quality with the 4GB version, for example in GTA V.
When I run GTA V my GTX770M uses about 2600mb vram with highest texture quality which you can't do with a GTX960 2GB version.


----------



## 64K (Feb 9, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> But... You can run games with textures on highest quality with the 4GB version, for example in GTA V.
> When I run GTA V my GTX770M uses about 2600mb vram with highest texture quality which you can't do with a GTX960 2GB version.



GTA V was included in the link I posted above at ultra settings.

VRAM used is not the same thing as VRAM needed to play smoothly. Some games eat up more VRAM than is necessary to play.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 9, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> What I have predominately noticed since the issue was revealed in February of last year is that this issue is primarily brought up by people that have not used one.  So, not being a secret at all, it has still been one of the top selling cards of the last 12 months, despite this issue being much-publicized.  Why?  Because it's a damned good card, regardless.



It is the same cost as an 8GB AMD 390. which performs as good at 1080P and better at all higher resolutions. I honestly don't understand why the 390 is so under-appreciated on the market. Me personally this is the exact situation where I would bypass nvidia and run a single AMD card. The 960/970 definitely aren't worth it.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2016)

cdawall said:


> It is the same cost as an 8GB AMD 390. which performs as good at 1080P and better at all higher resolutions. I honestly don't understand why the 390 is so under-appreciated on the market. Me personally this is the exact situation where I would bypass nvidia and run a single AMD card. The 960/970 definitely aren't worth it.



The 970 is worth it, but at this point, I also would probably choose the 390 as the better card.

The 960 is decent for the people that need to keep cost down, and every penny counts, so for them it would also be worth it.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 9, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> The 970 is worth it, but at this point, I also would probably choose the 390 as the better card.
> 
> The 960 is decent for the people that need to keep cost down, and every penny counts, so for them it would also be worth it.



It is especially better if you ever decide to go higher resolution 970 vs 390 at 4k is a joke, the 390 starts knocking on the 980's door. As for the 960, the only way I see it being worth it is if you have to have the latest gen card. It honestly doesn't beat out the 7970's, 280X's, 780's etc.


----------



## P4-630 (Feb 9, 2016)

64K said:


> GTA V was included in the link I posted above at ultra settings.
> 
> VRAM used is not the same thing as VRAM needed to play smoothly. Some games eat up more VRAM than is necessary to play.



GTA V high/very high settings + highest quality textures:



 


 
as I said you just can't do that without stuttering with just 2GB vram:


----------



## mobiuus (Feb 9, 2016)

i can't believe nobody mentioned the upcoming pascal generation of cards!?
if u can wait next 5-6 months u'll be set for next 2-3 years and skip this obsolete 960-970's cards


----------



## cdawall (Feb 9, 2016)

DarkStalker said:


> i can't believe nobody mentioned the upcoming pascal generation of cards!?
> if u can wait next 5-6 months u'll be set for next 2-3 years and skip this obsolete 960-970's cards



When I see the cards in person I will believe the hype. The FX 5xx0 series was hyped up pretty heavily by nvidia as well and we all saw how well that worked out.


----------



## mobiuus (Feb 9, 2016)

yeah u r right but what ever the case is - 960, and 970 won't cope with upcoming directx 12 games
(and i mean high to ultra details on 1080p ** 1440p forget it)


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 9, 2016)

DarkStalker said:


> yeah u r right but what ever the case is - 960, and 970 won't cope with upcoming directx 12 games
> (and i mean high to ultra details on 1080p ** 1440p forget it)



By the time native dx12 games are out no one is going to care about the 960 or 970. Hell any card from the current generation for that matter.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 9, 2016)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> By the time native dx12 games are out no one is going to care about the 960 or 970. Hell any card from the current generation for that matter.



When nvidia fully supports DX12 without offloading it to the CPU we can worry about native DX12 games lol


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2016)

DarkStalker said:


> yeah u r right but what ever the case is - 960, and 970 won't cope with upcoming directx 12 games
> (and i mean high to ultra details on 1080p ** 1440p forget it)


hmm.. dont forget dx12 increases draw call rate. its in developers hands if they want to make a game look better, add performance or take some middle ground. 
its silly to think they would just go crazy eye candy at the same time they are pushing for higher res.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 9, 2016)

xfia said:


> hmm.. dont forget dx12 increases draw call rate. its in developers hands if they want to make a game look better, add performance or take some middle ground.
> its silly to think they would just go crazy eye candy at the same time they are pushing for higher res.



Doesn't matter the cards aren't fully DX12 compliant anyway


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Doesn't matter the cards aren't fully DX12 compliant anyway


and whats full dx12 compliance? dx11 or dx11.1? nv is the one with a heads up on compliance but it doesnt matter.. 
i feel like  atm for some of what has been said here


----------



## mobiuus (Feb 9, 2016)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> By the time native dx12 games are out no one is going to care about the 960 or 970. Hell any card from the current generation for that matter.


if u read carefully u would notice that i meant PASCAL gpus!


----------



## cdawall (Feb 9, 2016)

xfia said:


> and whats full dx12 compliance? dx11 or dx11.1? nv is the one with a heads up on compliance but it doesnt matter..
> i feel like  atm for some of what has been said here



I believe it would be meeting all of the requirements for the DX12 API. Nvidia doesn't do that they offload work to the CPU to have partial support. This is fine when you have a good CPU that isn't already being taxed, but load both the CPU and GPU and then try to render with your CPU on top of it all. Let me know what happens to FPS at that point. Beat you head against a wall at the end of the day nvidia doesn't support the API and is a poor choice if longevity is the only goal.


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2016)

cdawall said:


> I believe it would be meeting all of the requirements for the DX12 API. Nvidia doesn't do that they offload work to the CPU to have partial support. This is fine when you have a good CPU that isn't already being taxed, but load both the CPU and GPU and then try to render with your CPU on top of it all. Let me know what happens to FPS at that point. Beat you head against a wall at the end of the day nvidia doesn't support the API and is a poor choice if longevity is the only goal.


the hell? show me where you got this from..


----------



## cdawall (Feb 9, 2016)

xfia said:


> the hell? show me where you got this from..



http://www.overclock.net/t/1572716/directx-12-asynchronous-compute-an-exercise-in-crowd-sourcing

Read into this a bit. If that isn't reason enough look into which brand supports 10 bit color as opposed to 8 bit color.


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2016)

cdawall said:


> http://www.overclock.net/t/1572716/directx-12-asynchronous-compute-an-exercise-in-crowd-sourcing
> 
> Read into this a bit. If that isn't reason enough look into which brand supports 10 bit color as opposed to 8 bit color.


interesting..  so nv has to use software emulation to get dx12's async shading working and it causes overhead that is exactly what windows 10 and dx12 is all about eliminating while amd doesnt have the extra compliance nv does but according to them it doesnt matter at all and all those features are already apart of tools used for games now. 
hahaha seems like nv wants to sink ship sometimes.. probably a planned shitty situation by them to make people buy a new gpu instead of holding onto one they bought a year or two ago.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 9, 2016)

DarkStalker said:


> if u read carefully u would notice that i meant PASCAL gpus!



Not in that specific post I quoted. Jokes on you.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 9, 2016)

xfia said:


> interesting..  so nv has to use software emulation to get dx12's async shading working and it causes overhead that is exactly what windows 10 and dx12 is all about eliminating while amd doesnt have the extra compliance nv does but according to them it doesnt matter at all and all those features are already apart of tools used for games now.
> hahaha seems like nv wants to sink ship sometimes.. probably a planned shitty situation by them to make people buy a new gpu instead of holding onto one they bought a year or two ago.



Like I said the 390 is a better long term choice


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Like I said the 390 is a better long term choice


not such a outdated re-branded chip like a lot would have you believe.


----------



## erocker (Feb 9, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> But not because of the VRAM.  Just look at the SLI setup absolute crush everything at 1440p:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sometimes yes. Though, it seems to me that with many games (be it driver related or otherwise) things will scale down to how much vram is offered. In some of W1zz's reviews, some games will use what vram is available, run fine and that's it. I suppose Nvidia has done a better job recently with drivers making applications avoid the slow ram.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 9, 2016)

xfia said:


> no no... they tested this on intels tech site. whatever its called and it cant be used like that because you cant access both segments at the same time. if nvidia has said otherwise its just lie to keep less informed people ignorant and keep selling it. the truth is the only optimizing they can do for the 970 is to not use .5gb segment period. people that own it should demand it.



Correct, they can not access both segments at the same time.  However, the small switch to access the 0.5GB is still a lot faster than the time it would take to send the command out to system RAM and wait for the response.



erocker said:


> Sometimes yes. Though, it seems to me that with many games (be it driver related or otherwise) things will scale down to how much vram is offered. In some of W1zz's reviews, some games will use what vram is available, run fine and that's it. I suppose Nvidia has done a better job recently with drivers making applications avoid the slow ram.



No, they just start swapping out to system RAM if the amount of RAM the game tries to use is beyond the VRAM amount.  But, then, any game packing that much into VRAM, doesn't actually need that much in VRAM.  And it tries to put the textures closest to the player in actual VRAM, and the stuff that isn't even being used to render the current scene either in the 0.5GB segment or if that fills up, in system RAM.

It is kind of similar to how some software optimizes hard drives.  Putting the important, most likely to be used, data a the beginning of the drive.  VRAM is mapped in very much the same way.  The most likely to be used textures are put at the beginning of the memory map, and the textures are organized from most likely to be used to least likely.  Because, really, the driver just reports a memory amount to the game, an area of addressable space. This space includes the VRAM as well as the system RAM the card can access.  The game doesn't really care how much VRAM the card actually has, it just puts the most needed textures at the beginning of the memory map, because that is almost definitely going to be VRAM.


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2016)

nv playing in the mud while amd watching from the window wondering what to spoon feed them next and if they can even get it right..
watch them do something screwy with hbm next.. we know you should have good latency for vr but dont worry we got the software emulation!!!  haha 
the 970 is going to be worth as much as a roll of toilet paper by this time next year


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2016)

xfia said:


> probably a planned shitty situation by them to make people buy a new gpu instead of holding onto one they bought a year or two ago.



It actually was planned, nothing nefarious about it.  They saw ahead, same as I did and knew DX12 games would for the most part be a couple years off.  So they decided to maximize DX11 performance for the last couple years of its primary life and released Maxwell.

It was a good business decision.  They lowered heat and power consumption, improved performance, and solidified their DX11 crown.  This way they release true DX12 GPU's at around the time DX12 finally shows up.

Also, by this time next year the 970 will be two and a half years, so yeah, how long do you expect what is basically a high-middle tier chip to be relevant?  It's actually going to have been in active inventory for a good, normal amount of time.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 9, 2016)

xfia said:


> nv playing in the mud while amd watching from the window wondering what to spoon feed them next and if they can even get it right..
> watch them do something screwy with hbm next.. we know you should have good latency for vr but dont worry we got the software emulation!!!  haha
> the 970 is going to be worth as much as a roll of toilet paper by this time next year



And you will probably still have users that are happy with its performance for the games that they play. So who cares.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 9, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> It actually was planned, nothing nefarious about it.  They saw ahead, same as I did and knew DX12 games would for the most part be a couple years off.  So they decided to maximize DX11 performance for the last couple years of its primary life and released Maxwell.
> 
> It was a good business decision.  They lowered heat and power consumption, improved performance, and solidified their DX11 crown.  This way the release true DX12 GPU's at around the time DX12 finally shows up.



So much this


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 9, 2016)

That's speculation based on some early DX 12 benches and not representative of real world DX 12 gaming that we know of yet.... and as others have said when full DX 12 titles are out in their masses then 970/390 etc will all be low-mid range performing cards at best anyway so it makes no odds.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2016)

@xfia lets set the record straight. I'm not an nv lover or amd lover. I just shoot straight, whether that hurts peoples feelings or not.

Since when is it a new thing that performance models are replaced every 2-3 years?  You act like it was an evil plan to make people buy new models.  You name me a manufacturer of ANY product that isn't constantly coming up with new models to replace the old.  That's not playing shitty, it's capitalism and the free market.

You know why amd seemed "more prepared" for dx12? Because DX12 is based off mantle.  It's a good thing too, because they didn't have the research money to develop a whole new line.  If it had been based on something else, they would be seriously scrambling right now.  

Would you be saying they were playing dirty as well if they were following the same cycle as nvidia and most other manufacturers in the world?  2 years from release of 970 till Pascal is quite the normal cycle. Nothing new.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 9, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> @xfia lets set the record straight. I'm not an nv lover or amd lover. I just shoot straight, whether that hurts peoples feelings or not.
> 
> Since when is it a new thing that performance models are replaced every 2-3 years?  You act like it was an evil plan to make people buy new models.  You name me a manufacturer of ANY product that isn't constantly coming up with new models to replace the old.  That's not playing shitty, it's capitalism and the free market.
> 
> ...



I was about to post something very similar. Right on!


----------



## 64K (Feb 9, 2016)

xfia said:


> dont all come at me at the same time now
> 
> yup the 970 will be 2 years old and stuck at its performance level while a 290 thats been sitting in a pc for 2 already will get like a 30% performance boost or a lot more eye candy. the first gpu i ever bought is a 7850 that can use async shaders so while someone with a 750ti that just bought it is going to be like why didnt i just buy some old amd gpu since the arch is years ahead.. but damn someone told me on a forum nvidia was the way to go because of heat and power consumption.
> 
> ...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2016)

64K said:


>


LOL!


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 10, 2016)

xfia said:


> amd doesnt give a chip a whole new generation name every time they make a little tweak to the arch like some..




Whoa Whoa Whoa...

AMD started the trend of giving a chip a whole new generation name every time they made a little tweak.

That all started with the R600 to RV670 transition.  Everyone was expecting RV670, which was just a tweaked R600, to be branded the HD2950 series.  It was so much expected to be this way that nVidia branded their new chip, the G92 based off G80, as the 8800 same 8800 series as G80.  But AMD surprised everyone by naming RV670 the HD3870.  Indicating a generation leap for what was nothing more than a tweaked chip.

And then there is the 290 being rebranded almost completely to the 390, with nothing more than an extra 4GB tacked on and clock speeds increased, and some firmware and driver optimizations.  The chip isn't even tweaked, it is literally the exact same chip this time.  Note: Before you even say it, I know nVidia did this over and over with G92.  I'm not saying they aren't guilty of doing it.  My point is that AMD isn't innocent of it either.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 10, 2016)

cdawall said:


> It is the same cost as an 8GB AMD 390. which performs as good at 1080P and better at all higher resolutions. I honestly don't understand why the 390 is so under-appreciated on the market. Me personally this is the exact situation where I would bypass nvidia and run a single AMD card. The 960/970 definitely aren't worth it.


Maybe because not everyone likes powerhungry cards. Problem is, all high-end AMD cards now are power hungry but the Nano - and the Nano is a 500$/€ card. So the GTX 970/980 have definitely their pluses too.

Also don't underestimate the 3.5 GB on GTX 970 or 4 GB on GTX 980. Nvidia uses a effective compression (way more compared to GCN 1.2 / GCN 3) + software combination to make perfect use of that ram. A review in Techreport showed that all these cards had enough Vram up until freakish resolutions of over 5K. That said, the 8 GB of AMD (GCN 1.1 without compression) cards is more like 6 GB on NV cards worth, maybe even less. The 6 GB on 980 Ti were stellar, the 12 GB on Titan X were 99,9% useless.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 15, 2016)

because of its small size which means small cooler the amd nano is power restricted.. mostly it dosnt even run at its max speed it throttles down to maintain reasonable tempts.. made to fit in small form factor cases and no other reason.. 

at its current price its a good buy but a card that has to throttle down during normal use just to stay within acceptable tempt limits isnt a good example of lower amd power usage.. 

trog


----------



## Kanan (Feb 16, 2016)

trog100 said:


> because of its small size which means small cooler the amd nano is power restricted.. mostly it dosnt even run at its max speed it throttles down to maintain reasonable tempts.. made to fit in small form factor cases and no other reason..
> 
> at its current price its a good buy but a card that has to throttle down during normal use just to stay within acceptable tempt limits isnt a good example of lower amd power usage..
> 
> trog


Nano can be overclocked, power target can be changed. And *it is* a very good example of a AMD card with lower power consumption, because it does what it is supposed to do. Your post is full of senseless anti-AMD bias and not trustworthy.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 16, 2016)

Kanan said:


> Maybe because not everyone likes powerhungry cards. Problem is, all high-end AMD cards now are power hungry but the Nano - and the Nano is a 500$/€ card. So the GTX 970/980 have definitely their pluses too.
> 
> Also don't underestimate the 3.5 GB on GTX 970 or 4 GB on GTX 980. Nvidia uses a effective compression (way more compared to GCN 1.2 / GCN 3) + software combination to make perfect use of that ram. A review in Techreport showed that all these cards had enough Vram up until freakish resolutions of over 5K. That said, the 8 GB of AMD (GCN 1.1 without compression) cards is more like 6 GB on NV cards worth, maybe even less. The 6 GB on 980 Ti were stellar, the 12 GB on Titan X were 99,9% useless.


OR its the simple fact it's the same beef nvidia got for rebranding their cards. The 390 is just an 8gb 290, with a few firmware tweaks and clock changes. Mind you that extra 4gb is pretty useless unless you are using crossfire.


----------



## Kursah (Feb 16, 2016)

Kanan said:


> Nano can be overclocked, power target can be changed. And *it is* a very good example of a AMD card with lower power consumption, because it does what it is supposed to do. Your post is full of senseless anti-AMD bias and not trustworthy.



I would say Trog's not far off though, from what the reviews show if you don't make said changes with the Nano, then it's not running full speed ahead, its throttling down.

Our very own @W1zzard did a pretty damn good review of the R9 Nano, so I'll use that as reference and here's a page to show it not maintaining its 1GHz clock at stock config: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Nano/33.html

Now with that said, as you pointed out Kanan, one can overclock and increase the power target. But overclocking, at least on W1z's sample seemed pretty pointless...and the biggest change appears to come more from increasing the power target...

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Nano/34.html



> The biggest performance gain is achieved by increasing the power limit as additional clock increases only yield small performance improvements.



Straight from W1z's review. So to say the R9 Nano is overclockable, and isn't limited/restricted is senseless as not everyone that buys that card is going to have the sense to go into drivers and make that change...hopefully most that purchase that card read a few reviews and get that hint that in order to extract factory max clocks consistently, modifications need made out of the chute...even W1z points out AMD's "Up to 1000MHz" as misleading during his test results with bone-stock configuration...



> If you take a look at the graphs, it quickly becomes apparent that AMD's "up to 1000 MHz" is not wrong as 1000 MHz is actually achieved, though I would classify it as misleading. In reality, the frequencies depend a lot on the actual game played, and the resolution.



Sure the R9 Nano has potential...but it's lacking out of the chute that is the biggest disappointment imho. Sure it is an easy fix for many of us folks that are more technical and less plug it in and game types, but we all know there will be those that buy the card and might not even realize their card is gimping out because of the default limits or those that notice and have to start a thread to find out how to resolve it. Seems stupid this needs done just to achieve what should have been done out of the damn box.

But if one wants the most powerful ITX card out there, this is definitely it. I almost considered buying one with the recent price drop until a screaming deal on a 980Ti eclipsed that consideration without hesitation. I'm hoping next gen keeps its promises, would be nice to see the potential here expanded and improved on with some better real-world out of the chute results.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 16, 2016)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> OR its the simple fact it's the same beef nvidia got for rebranding their cards. The 390 is just an 8gb 290, with a few firmware tweaks and clock changes. Mind you that extra 4gb is pretty useless unless you are using crossfire.


I wouldn't call a few games that are utilizing it already and better future proofing "useless", also crossfire .. I couldn't care less about crossfire, had my fair share of it and happy to be rid of it.
However, as it is now, games get more video ram hungry every day, a card with lots of it is something good. I don't care much about the rebranding, AMD simply didn't had the money to make a new (gaming) architecture like Nvidia with Maxwell. But they did what they could and it's okay for what it is supposed to do. Nvidia cards are more efficient but with R9 390(X) you get more Ram, good deal. Not the first time AMD cards are more future proof. I was told Nvidia doesn't care much about the future, they want you to replace your cards every 1-2 years.

@Kursah: Yes I know the review. The Nano isn't a big overclocker (then again, no Fiji really is), but what I meant was simply overclocking by raising its power target, basically the same just that it happens automatically.

Also, Trogs post is a pretty negative anti-AMD post, you can tell me what you want, it's obvious. The card throttles down, and now what? That's pretty irrelevant because it does it's job. But to point it out to say it's "bad, because it throttles" is stupid anti-AMD shit.

And I'm not sure I get the point of your post, the Nano is a good card for this prize now. I don't see where it is a "big disappointment" as you said. First it was a mini-ITX card, now it's a simple 500$ high end card that competes with the GTX 980. It does what it's supposed to do. I could see it as a "big disappointment" when it was priced at 650$, but now the card is pretty well priced and it's performance is good enough too.

I don't get your problems with the Nano.

PS. Edit:




> even W1z points out AMD's "Up to 1000MHz" as misleading during his test results with bone-stock configuration...


Who exactly cares about that? Any intelligent buyer reads reviews, and in reviews you clearly see what performance it has and what clocks it really drives. Maybe it's misleading, but only to the ones not understanding the technology.


----------



## Kursah (Feb 16, 2016)

Shouldn't happen in the first place is a better way to put it. 

Oh well maybe next time...until then its a fine card that won't run at capacity without making necessary changes.

 Easy for you or I? Absolutely. One shouldn't have to understand the technology to know they must make said change...they should be able to install card and drivers and go. Simple.as that...and for now in many cases they can. Instead they're being duped because its not performing at full capacity. There's no argument for that decision...it was a poor one.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 16, 2016)

Kursah said:


> Shouldn't happen in the first place is a better way to put it.


No? The card works as intended. You don't like their tech and that's why you make it so that it seems as a "deception", but it simply isn't.



> Oh well maybe next time...until then its a fine card that won't run at capacity without making necessary changes.


It runs at the intended capacities with room for more. You try to make something positive sound negative, I negate that. Seems you're anti-AMD too.



> Easy for you or I? Absolutely.


Never said anything about easy.



> One shouldn't have to understand the technology to know they must make said change...they should be able to install card and drivers and go. Simple.as that...and for now in many cases they can. Instead they're being duped because its not performing at full capacity. There's no argument for that decision...it was a poor one.


The card works as intended, you simply dislike their tech. As I said, I don't get your point, maybe because you don't have a point, it seems rather like emotions mixed with some flawed logic. The Nano *works*. The Nano is overclockable by simply raising it's limits, and it's overclockable further if you increase the max. core clock. They wanted to do a mini-version of the Fury X for mini-ITX and ppl who don't want a 250/275 W TDP card and that's exactly what they did (+ now for people who don't want to spent 650$ too). Granted, what Nvidia did was better, but AMD didn't had the money to make a new architecture, so that was their only solution to it, because the R9 390X is not quite fast enough to cope with the GTX 980 but a slowed down Fury X/Full Fiji is.

Dislike the Nano, I don't care. For me it's a great card. You seem to like to talk positive things into negative, and I don't have the time to change your opinion (maybe it's impossible too). Also it's somewhat offtopic, because it's Nvidia vs AMD again, but this topic is about the best card for the buck and not "NV vs AMD". Childish shit, that is.

Buyer's can read reviews, even if they don't know anything about tech. Then, they can see how the Nano performs - there is no "deceiving". And buyers can read, "up to 1000 MHz" certainly isn't the same as "1000 MHz". If you want to talk that into negative or "misleading", do it, I disagree and would call that Nvidia-biased or simply a negative opinion about something what is in truth neutral. We can agree to disagree from now on, you won't change my opinion on this, I already had this discussion.


----------



## Kursah (Feb 16, 2016)

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied, I accept your proposal that we can agree to disagree. 

I'm also glad you are so passionate about this topic...but whether you want to believe what they did is deceptive doesn't make it fact, and it's beating a dead horse. I almost bought a Nano, just recently if you re-read my post above...because of the price drop and easy to adjust power increase to actually maintain full clock speeds. It's still got its obvious flaws and disappointments, as do many other product releases from just about any vendor. I'm no more accepting of the 3.5GB issue on the 970, and sure that .5GB is still faster than system RAM...still no more impressive on that end of the spectrum. Doesn't make either a bad card in the end if the users are happy and able to manage how they game or adjust their software to utilize best to their applications.
I'll gladly take @W1zzard word for it over your opinion. You stand your ground, I respect that...I simply disagree with your opinions.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Feb 16, 2016)

clearly the GTX970 is the choice here over a GTX960 with 4GB... despite having the 3.5GB + 512MB debacle.


----------



## hertz9753 (Feb 16, 2016)

For 1080P I would go with the GTX 970.  I own all of the Maxwell cards from the 950 up to the 980 Ti.

Some of you are getting pretty mean in the hardware threads.


----------



## Frick (Feb 16, 2016)

hertz9753 said:


> For 1080P I would go with the GTX 970.  I own all of the Maxwell cards from the 950 up to the 980 Ti.
> 
> Some of you are getting pretty mean in the hardware threads.



Now daisy chain them and see how many FPS'ses you get in Crysis.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 16, 2016)

Kanan said:


> Nano can be overclocked, power target can be changed. And *it is* a very good example of a AMD card with lower power consumption, because it does what it is supposed to do. Your post is full of senseless anti-AMD bias and not trustworthy.



 i am not anti amd and please stop these personal attack attempts.. they serve no useful purpose.. 

the nano is what it is.. a built to be small card with all the downsides that come with it.. in some ways brilliant.. in some ways lacking.. nothing comes free..

trog


----------



## hertz9753 (Feb 16, 2016)

Frick said:


> Now daisy chain them and see how many FPS'ses you get in Crysis.



What would you like, dual 980's or 970's.  Maybe you want the quad 960's.  I have five rigs to pick from.  I try to not be mean when I post and I tell the truth.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 16, 2016)

trog100 said:


> i am not anti amd and please stop these personal attack attempts.. they serve no useful purpose..
> 
> the nano is what it is.. a built to be small card with all the downsides that come with it.. in some ways brilliant.. in some ways lacking.. nothing comes free..
> 
> trog



I what way is it lacking?


----------



## Kevin-HTPC (Feb 16, 2016)

As a new member of this forum the first thing I have noticed is how much bickering there is in these posts!

Back onto topic - I recently bought a GTX 950 in combination with an i3-6100, I've been using it to game at 1080p on my HDTV and to be honest I am blown away with the graphics quality of this card, especially considering many would class the GTX 950 as a low end card, to me it looks better than a PS4.  Everyone has a different level of what they would call 'acceptable' graphics.

Some would consider £125 for a graphics card a high end purchase, it all comes down to what you can afford to buy.

The point I'm making is that a GTX 960 will give you an amazing 1080p gaming experience and the GTX 970 will be even better.  Buy the best you can and still afford to pay your rent!


----------



## cdawall (Feb 16, 2016)

The gtx950 is a decent bit faster than a ps4.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 16, 2016)

rruff said:


> Apparently it's enough.


If you check recent review on Tomb Raider, the game consumes up to 8GB of GPU mem on ultra settings.
With 960/380 having 4Gb, 3.5 on 970 look confusing.



peche said:


> but a single 980 for more than $700,


You probably mean 980 Ti? Because for normal 980 I don't get the point with 499$ Fury Nano.



Kevin-HTPC said:


> Back onto topic - I recently bought a GTX 950 in combination with an i3-6100, I've been using it to game at 1080p on my HDTV and to be honest I am blown away with the graphics quality of this card, especially considering many would class the GTX 950 as a low end card, to me it looks better than a PS4.


That's interesting, considering that 7850-7870-ish PS4 GPU is at least on par with yours and consoles normally enjoy better optimizations.



rtwjunkie said:


> You name me a manufacturer of ANY product that isn't constantly coming up with new models to replace the old.


That's misleading.
Sure any manufacturer that hasn't quit business continues to release new stuff.
But it's about how quickly does support for older stuff get dropped.



cdawall said:


> The gtx950 is a decent bit faster than a ps4.


Is it? I thought 7870 was a bit faster than gtx950.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Feb 16, 2016)

@cdawall both PS4 & XB1 are using custom-built 8-core AMD processor with 8GB of unified memory. so, it's not a surprise to see a PC equipped with a rather fast VGA card blowing the consoles away at 1080p.

@medi01 50/50 that there will be a patch which reduces the VRAM usage as not many ppl has or can afford a card that has 8GB of VRAM...


----------



## cdawall (Feb 16, 2016)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> @cdawall both PS4 & XB1 are using custom-built 8-core AMD processor with 8GB of unified memory. so, it's not a surprise to see a PC equipped with a rather fast VGA card blowing the consoles away at 1080p.



Eh fast in what way? It is about as fast as a 270x, which is just an overclocked 7870 which would be your PS4 chip. Now the overclocked 950's hold a decent lead over the 270x's which would hold a lead over the 7870's out of the box (fuck renaming by the way)


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 16, 2016)

medi01 said:


> If you check recent review on Tomb Raider, the game consumes up to 8GB of GPU mem on ultra settings.
> With 960/380 having 4Gb, 3.5 on 970 look confusing.
> 
> 
> ...



Some games will show it occupying all the vram you have to offer, but that does not mean it's utilizing it completely.


----------



## xorbe (Feb 16, 2016)

hertz9753 said:


> For 1080P I would go with the GTX 970.  I own all of the Maxwell cards from the 950 up to the 980 Ti.



You have some serious gear acquisition syndrome, man!!


----------



## AsRock (Feb 16, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> Even at 4K using the Very High Preset the GTX 970 holds up admirably considering no card is playable at that setting, hell it was the Nano having heavy frame time variance when tested:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, 970 pawned a 980, sorry but some things wrong their. I will stick with getting my reviews from else were.


----------



## xorbe (Feb 16, 2016)

AsRock said:


> Wow, 970 pawned a 980, sorry but some things wrong their. I will stick with getting my reviews from else were.



That graph is frame time, not fps ... just sayin'


----------



## xfia (Feb 16, 2016)

@Kanan AMD is always gets better when vram.. is the question.
dont give that ultra compression is the way to go NV spin


----------



## Fluffmeister (Feb 16, 2016)

AsRock said:


> Wow, 970 pawned a 980, sorry but some things wrong their. I will stick with getting my reviews from else were.








You're right, you should stick to other reviews.


----------



## AsRock (Feb 16, 2016)

xorbe said:


> That graph is frame time, not fps ... just sayin'




Oops, 




Fluffmeister said:


> You're right, you should stick to other reviews.



Ok ok Mr FanBoY


----------



## rruff (Feb 16, 2016)

medi01 said:


> If you check recent review on Tomb Raider, the game consumes up to 8GB of GPU mem on ultra settings.
> With 960/380 having 4Gb, 3.5 on 970 look confusing.



Tomb Raider runs just fine on the 970 with high preset: http://www.techspot.com/review/1128-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-benchmarks/page2.html

Also check out the non-existent difference between the 2GB and 4GB 960s.

You can buy a GT640 with 4GB of vram. It isn't confusing if you understand that it's pure marketing for people who are obsessed with vram.



> I thought 7870 was a bit faster than gtx950.



Nope. If you OC the 950 is a clear winner.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 16, 2016)

xfia said:


> @Kanan AMD is always gets better when vram.. is the question.
> dont give that ultra compression is the way to go NV spin



Always? That's a bit of a stretch.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Feb 16, 2016)

AsRock said:


> Wow, 970 pawned a 980, sorry but some things wrong their. I will stick with getting my reviews from else were.



I still laughing at this tbh.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 17, 2016)

Kursah said:


> If you didn't care, you wouldn't have replied, I accept your proposal that we can agree to disagree.
> 
> I'm also glad you are so passionate about this topic...but whether you want to believe what they did is deceptive doesn't make it fact, and it's beating a dead horse. I almost bought a Nano, just recently if you re-read my post above...because of the price drop and easy to adjust power increase to actually maintain full clock speeds. It's still got its obvious flaws and disappointments, as do many other product releases from just about any vendor. I'm no more accepting of the 3.5GB issue on the 970, and sure that .5GB is still faster than system RAM...still no more impressive on that end of the spectrum. Doesn't make either a bad card in the end if the users are happy and able to manage how they game or adjust their software to utilize best to their applications.
> I'll gladly take @W1zzard word for it over your opinion. You stand your ground, I respect that...I simply disagree with your opinions.



I do not, but I can still reply because that was the last time I cared. If you want to fanboy Nvidia and/or dislike AMD, then do it. Not my problem.

And pls stop to use Wizzard as a argument. His Nano review isn't really good, because he lacks the understanding that the Nano in truth has a baseclock of 800-900 MHz, and in fact is a great overclocker, even if it is a automatical overclock. He disregards that fact completely and uses the irrelevant 1000 MHz _maximum clock_ as a base that it is not (that's ~never in use with the Nano) and +60 additional OC to say that it has "slim overclocking" which is simply wrong. 200-300 MHz overclock isn't "slim" (from 800 to a maximum of 1100 MHz). End of story.



trog100 said:


> i am not anti amd and please stop these personal attack attempts.. they serve no useful purpose..
> 
> the nano is what it is.. a built to be small card with all the downsides that come with it.. in some ways brilliant.. in some ways lacking.. nothing comes free..
> 
> trog


Maybe not, but you are some of the most ignorant posters here, if not the most ignorant poster. Your original post about the Nano is way off, I don't care what you write now as a excuse to that.

to all: I think this topic is dead by now, I don't think the OP still cares.


----------



## xfia (Feb 17, 2016)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Always? That's a bit of a stretch.


yup


----------



## erocker (Feb 17, 2016)

Easy Rhino said:


> thanks, everyone. i think i will go with the 970 and just pay the extra.


I didn't even realize this thread ended on the first page.


----------

