gtx 960 4gb vs gtx 970 4gb

[NdMk2o1o]

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]

@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]

@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.

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

 

[64K]

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.

all you nv lovers are going to be paying back any money you didnt give to your power company back to nv hahaha
it wasnt planned in a good way.. its more like they didnt implement everything that got thrown at them for free to help keep power down so they can fool people and get more cash in the long run.

no one plays dirtier than nv in the tech world and they constantly make everything harder in the gaming world.. sorry if you cant see it but yeah im done with this thread so you guys can carry on if you want.

 

[rtwjunkie]

LOL!

 

[newtekie1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[hertz9753]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The gtx950 is a decent bit faster than a ps4.

 

[medi01]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The gtx950 is a decent bit faster than a ps4.

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

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

@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...