gtx 960 4gb vs gtx 970 4gb

[cdawall]

@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]

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.


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


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


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.


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

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

 

[xorbe]

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]

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.

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

 

[xorbe]

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]

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

 

[Fluffmeister]

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]

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

Oops,

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

Ok ok Mr FanBoY

 

[rruff]

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]

@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]

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]

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.

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]

Always? That's a bit of a stretch.

yup

 

[erocker]

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.