Should I stay with GTX970 or switch to a R9 290x?

[ayasecon]

YES...THIS THREAT......AGAIN!

Hello guys!
In a few days i should receive a package with my new computer components. While it's already paid and it's already shipped by a internet shop I'm still wondering about graphics card. You know - I have never spent in my lifetime over $300 for a graphics card, so I want to make sure, that I make the right decision, because it's an investment for at least 3 or 4 years - I'll SLI or CrossFire it in 2 years if not less. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I already ordered along with the other component a GTX 970 DC2 OC from Asus, and I'm really confused, I even asked few days ago on NVIDIA forums, to help me with making a choice, but now I can see there a full two pages with complainants about that 3.5 GB affair...

So... I can return this graphics card within 14 days, after I'll leave my signature on a shipping document or even refuse to take the package and expect full return of cash to my bank account. That means, that I have 16 days to make my mind again, and again... ( ͡€ ͜ʖ ͡€)

The main question still remain: Should I stay with GTX970 or switch to a R9 290x? I know that you probably heard that question for dozens of times, but I really can't afford to have a crap for this amount of cash. It's really hard to get money in Poland. Also I can't want to wait to x300 series form AMD, because PSU (Modecom) in my old computer can go off in any minute. Pls. guys, help me.

PSU: Chieftec A80 CTG-650C, 650W, 85+ (Definitely from the "White List")
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 PRO4 Z97
CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K
RAM: 2x8GB HyperX Savage 2x8GB 2400MHz DDR3 CL11
Monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 2043NWX 1050p

If you need more details feel free to ask. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[suraswami]

Samsung SyncMaster 2043NWX - with that monitor u won't have issue using the GTX and going over 3.5GB. Only if you are using more than 3.5GB ram you will have issue.

Other gurus might have better answer for you.

970 is more power efficient than that 290x, if that matters to you.

 

[R-T-B]

I don't think you will see an issue unless you are playing over 1080p to be honest. That monito is less than 1080p, stay away from the DSR feature and you'll be fine (DSR essentially lets you use more resolution than you really have, and downscales it. Don't do this with high end games and a 970, just use traditional AA).

For what it's worth though, the R9 290X is a very nice card. I even have one. It just chews up energy like a madman. 970 is way more energy efficient.

 

[manofthem]

With a 650w and plans to sli/cfx, I think I'd stick with the 970. I have 2 290s (non x), and I've gotten close to 600w without any over clocking. Of course, my comment is based on adding another card. Also with an i3 2100 and 290, it can hit around 400w. These numbers are for reference only.

Your monitor says 1650x1050, so you shouldn't be excessively worried about the 3.5gb mark at all. At 1440p, I don't recall ever going over 3gb. Caveat for Skyrim but I don't play it.

 

[newtekie1]

Stick with the 970. Even at 1440p the card just rocks. The memory issue really was blown out of proportion.

 

[xfia]

I have seen a hand full of benchmarks that show the 970 suffers at 1600p when it goes over 3.5gb and gets a ass kicking from even 3gb gpu's..

not really sure what to tell ya seeing as how your outlook is years and the 290 is not full dx12 but the 970 will continue to suffer with more and more games and possibly lower resolutions by then..

I would rather just have a 290 and not worry about if my gpu is flawed

 

[erocker]

Does the card work with the games/apps you use?

Yes: Keep it.

No: Get something else.

 

[R-T-B]

not really sure what to tell ya seeing as how your outlook is years and the 290 is not full dx12

Heck, GTX Maxwell is still not DirectX 11.2. Not that it matters.

 

[TRWOV]

Stay with the 970. The 3.5GB thing would be a concern only if you had a 4K monitor. For 1440p and below 3.5GB is plenty.

 

[xfia]

hm.. I thought they branded maxwell as being full dx12

it makes since to just have a simple outlook.. I mean if the op is worried about it and is sticking with 1050p for awhile could just get a 960 or a 280 and have some cash to save on something new down the road.

 

[R-T-B]

Technically, both AMD and NVIDIA at one point said they were full DX12 ready with both GCN and Maxwell. But DX12 is a weird thing to be claiming considering no one knows the full spec yet.

"DX12 Ready" is just a fancy way of admitting it probably won't break with that platform, it doesn't mean "full" support.

 

[xfia]

a radeon rep answered a few of my questions in a q&a. I was pretty specific to explain the difference in dx12 ability of the 970vs290x but he lumped it together with another question and said all of the most important parts of next gen api's will be supported on current gpu's witch is cpu overhead and superior threading close to his words

 

[TRWOV]

The only new DX12 features that have been mentioned are new blend modes and the so called "conservative rasterization" (something related to object culling and hit detection). Apart from that the mayor feature is the lower-level abstraction that all DX11 compliant GPUs will be able to take advantage of.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8544/microsoft-details-direct3d-113-12-new-features

 

[Enterprise24]

My 970 OC work perfectly fine with 1440p but some games I need to tweak , like ACU my setting is everything max except high shadows (reduce from PCSS performance gain 20%) and no AA (didn't like FXAA since it blur) AVG. FPS is 50-60 all time (drop to 40s very rarely) frame time is constant around 20ms VRAM usage not go beyond 35XX MB.
But when I set 2xMSAA @ 1440p VRAM used up to 4GB and the problem come. Frame time spike heavily and the game unplayable.
So I think you shouldn't worry about VRAM @ 1680x1050.
I think 970 VRAM issue is serious problem for people who use 4K monitor with 970 SLI.

 

[ayasecon]

Sorry about delay.
The only game, I want to play with my new graphics card is ultra-heavy-graphically-modded Skyrim with ENB, ultra HD textures from mods, and stuff like that and I'm not sure if 3.5GB of VRAM can handle it.
I used to have a Sapphire HD 4870 Toxic 512MB 2 months AFTER GTA IV PC release, I thought, this going to be enough, but I could run the game only on low-medium setting - I spent about $280 for it and I was really disappointed...

 

[P4-630]

Sorry about delay.
The only game, I want to play with my new graphics card is ultra-heavy-graphically-modded Skyrim with ENB, ultra HD textures from mods, and stuff like that and I'm not sure if 3.5GB of VRAM can handle it.
I used to have a Sapphire HD 4870 Toxic 512MB 2 months AFTER GTA IV PC release, I thought, this going to be enough, but I could run the game only on low-medium setting - I spent about $280 for it and I was really disappointed...

That sucked , you bought a 512MB HD4870, I could play on high/very high with HD4870 1GB smoothly.
As what I read, ultra-heavy-modded Skyrim will use more then 3.5GB Vram.

Edit: I think it should not be a problem with your monitor.

 

[64K]

Well, I don't know about prices in Poland but you can get a R9 290X for less money than a GTX 970 here. Honestly I don't see you needing to SLI/Crossfire at 1680x1050 but if you do decide to Crossfire 2 R9 290X then you will need a bigger PSU.

 

[xfia]

its my opinion but if your going to be modding hardcore you really dont want the 970.. 290x will fill its vram to the last bit and keep rockn the gcn way.

i have been playing the new cod and there is a option for only 4gb gpu's to have things preloaded for no chance of frame hitching.. so you can weigh that in if you want.

 

[AsRock]

Stick with the 970, Although at 1080P there is only the odd game i will hit over the 3.5GB mark.

 

[GhostRyder]

I would not worry dude as both cards are similar enough that you would not notice a difference at the resolution your at. Unless you plan on some extreme settings(Mostly involving mods)/DSR/4K your going to be more than fine.

Unless that 3.5gb bothers you that much I would not worry.

 

[xfia]

The only game, I want to play with my new graphics card is ultra-heavy-graphically-modded Skyrim with ENB, ultra HD textures from mods, and stuff like that and I'm not sure if 3.5GB of VRAM can handle it..

I will put my foot down on this one for a fellow gamer..
the op is spending hundreds of $$$ and wants a badass skyrim machine..
the op can get a 1440p monitor and mod the hell out of skyrim the way they want with a 290x..

is that enough or should we start talking about how nv is going to court for false advertising and a flawed memory system?

or better yet why not send the op to the microsoft technet forum and see it professionals and engineers say when the op says UHD and skyrim in the same sentence. I bet there wont be any argument there.

 

[newtekie1]

the op can get a 1440p monitor and mod the hell out of skyrim the way they want with a 290x..

Only if he goes with the $200 more expensive 8GB version...

Other than that, the extra 512MB actually doesn't make that much of a difference even in Ultra modified Skyrim because if you really start going crazy with the mods Skyrim will break way past even 4GB.

 

[HammerON]

Keep the 970 and add another if you ever decide to upgrade your monitor/

 

[ayasecon]

Keep the 970 and add another if you ever decide to upgrade your monitor/

Even if I will upgrade my monitor, it will be at 1080p resolution - 2K and 4K monitors are not for my pocket.

Only if he goes with the $200 more expensive 8GB version...

Other than that, the extra 512MB actually doesn't make that much of a difference even in Ultra modified Skyrim because if you really start going crazy with the mods Skyrim will break way past even 4GB.

I'm already over budget more than $100, so that is not an option.

---
My new computer will arrive tommorow, and I'll try to test it out by a modding bomb in Skyrim. If GTX970 will handle it - it stays in my computer. If not - I'll sent it back, get R9 290x and lose only $15 on this deal.

 

[P4-630]

Even if I will upgrade my monitor, it will be at 1080p resolution - 2K and 4K monitors are not for my pocket.



I'm already over budget more than $100, so that is not an option.

---
My new computer will arrive tommorow, and I'll try to test it out by a modding bomb in Skyrim. If GTX970 will handle it - it stays in my computer. If not - I'll sent it back, get R9 290x and lose only $15 on this deal.

I hope the gtx970 does the job! Let us know if it worked for you.