gtx 960 4gb vs gtx 970 4gb

[Easy Rhino]

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]

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]

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

 

[Easy Rhino]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Kanan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.