Well, let's look at this from another angle:
You are suggesting that 980 is better than SLI 970 because of all of the SLI issues, but then as an upgrade path, you are suggesting SLI'ing 980's down the line.
What I am not getting here is, why, since you are suggesting that a single 980 is superior to SLI 970's, to SLI 980's in 1 years time? Cost down?
It'll be pretty hard to knock 980 all the way down to $200 in a years time. Either way, going 980 now and sli'ing 980 down the road, you may as well SLI 970's now, at least you'll use the SLI for a year longer, and being cheaper at it.
EDIT: Ok, you did actually say a reason for SLI'ing, but my opinion is this: in a year's time, no one knows what requirements will games have, but there is a greater chance of new cards with specs that accurately represent games requirement then. If, for example, VRAM becomes bottlenecked on 980, SLI'ing 980 won't help nearly as much as say sli'ing new cards then with 6GB VRAM, so there is still a chance that you will end up getting rid of 980 instead of SLI'ing.
Had 980 came with specs that were better than 970 (VRAM for example), then I would mostly agree with SLI later plan, but they are not, they are very similar to each other.
Another thing: if SLI is needed in a years time, there isn't any harm in adopting SLI now. If SLI problems persist in the future, then one would probably end up not SLI'ing anyway.
You are suggesting that 980 is better than SLI 970 because of all of the SLI issues, but then as an upgrade path, you are suggesting SLI'ing 980's down the line.
What I am not getting here is, why, since you are suggesting that a single 980 is superior to SLI 970's, to SLI 980's in 1 years time? Cost down?
It'll be pretty hard to knock 980 all the way down to $200 in a years time. Either way, going 980 now and sli'ing 980 down the road, you may as well SLI 970's now, at least you'll use the SLI for a year longer, and being cheaper at it.
EDIT: Ok, you did actually say a reason for SLI'ing, but my opinion is this: in a year's time, no one knows what requirements will games have, but there is a greater chance of new cards with specs that accurately represent games requirement then. If, for example, VRAM becomes bottlenecked on 980, SLI'ing 980 won't help nearly as much as say sli'ing new cards then with 6GB VRAM, so there is still a chance that you will end up getting rid of 980 instead of SLI'ing.
Had 980 came with specs that were better than 970 (VRAM for example), then I would mostly agree with SLI later plan, but they are not, they are very similar to each other.
Another thing: if SLI is needed in a years time, there isn't any harm in adopting SLI now. If SLI problems persist in the future, then one would probably end up not SLI'ing anyway.
stormflakes
Reputable
- Jun 6, 2014
- 409
- 0
- 4,860
so it's basically a question of money:
gtx 970: cheapest
gtx 980: more expensive
2x gtx 970: most expensive
2x gtx 980: woooooooow
if i follow your logic you'll have to swap those gpu's at about the same time to get the newest models.
Well, then i'dd say 650€ is enough for a gpu setup.
gtx 970: cheapest
gtx 980: more expensive
2x gtx 970: most expensive
2x gtx 980: woooooooow
if i follow your logic you'll have to swap those gpu's at about the same time to get the newest models.
Well, then i'dd say 650€ is enough for a gpu setup.
semiroundboss
Honorable
- Aug 2, 2013
- 53
- 0
- 10,640
If anyone is still deciding, just wait for the new 970's and 980's to come out. The increase of 4gb to 8gb will be great. 4gb isn't gonna cut it in single GPU 4k. But the ideal thing for people still deciding is to go 8gb 970 sli. This will future proof you for a while. And if power consumption or price isn't a concern, then it may also beeven be better to go 3 way sli when the 1000 series come out.
Apollodoros
Reputable
- Feb 17, 2015
- 19
- 0
- 4,510
Arshad Miakhan
Reputable
- Mar 16, 2015
- 8
- 0
- 4,510
Do casual gamers like me who play at 1080p res require SLI? I am going to buy the 970 but I want to know whether one card alone can last me for the next 2-3 years with decent game settings?
Singularity Bound
Reputable
- Mar 22, 2015
- 1
- 0
- 4,510
2x970s are not a lil better then 1x980; it is hugely better! Not only in performance but in price.. Matter of fact 2x970s benchmark lit right on the tail of 2x980s. Its a good card despite the debacle.
And people saying 2x970s are more then a 980..no... 1x980 is more then 2x970s and the 2x970s run much better if supported. Let me point this out... 2x of either are a HUGE performance increase over either card single. I mean a lot more. You get 30-40 more fps and the 2x970s tail by 5-10 fps difference. So again the 970 steals it.
So being that 2x970s are very close to 2x980s you might as well stick with the 970s. The idea of upgrading to 2x980s when the prices falls is just not that big of an upgrade. By that time you should be looking forward to the next deal or next GPU period.
Going 2x980s obviously would be idiotic because why not just an TX then.
This is ONLY considering if you have the set up to handle 2x970s. If not don't bother because the cost will then go above the 1x980. I mean unless you are looking for SLI period.
I mean come on 970s are a stealllllll.
That's why 2x970s is alluring, its a good bit cheaper. People who complain about SLI issues do not know what they are doing or it is an issue with a game not supporting it. That is still no harm as you turn it off (*Duh) and still run decent for that game... (Almost every single game in Development builds for it now.. People are so stupid when they bring the problems up.
However 2x970s might according to some post here do have an issue due to bug? But one post has solution. Even then im sure there is more to it then that. People go SLI Drool or best card drool and don't know jack about computers; just plugging things in and QQ when something doesn't go right.
Im not pushing the 970s.. Go TX if you can wait and save. Its always not a bad idea If you can manage to buy in as far ahead as possible. The only downside is nextgen seems to be getting faster and faster these days. But by the time its EVER and issue for you; you would get a 2nd TX and go on for years again.
And people saying 2x970s are more then a 980..no... 1x980 is more then 2x970s and the 2x970s run much better if supported. Let me point this out... 2x of either are a HUGE performance increase over either card single. I mean a lot more. You get 30-40 more fps and the 2x970s tail by 5-10 fps difference. So again the 970 steals it.
So being that 2x970s are very close to 2x980s you might as well stick with the 970s. The idea of upgrading to 2x980s when the prices falls is just not that big of an upgrade. By that time you should be looking forward to the next deal or next GPU period.
Going 2x980s obviously would be idiotic because why not just an TX then.
This is ONLY considering if you have the set up to handle 2x970s. If not don't bother because the cost will then go above the 1x980. I mean unless you are looking for SLI period.
I mean come on 970s are a stealllllll.
That's why 2x970s is alluring, its a good bit cheaper. People who complain about SLI issues do not know what they are doing or it is an issue with a game not supporting it. That is still no harm as you turn it off (*Duh) and still run decent for that game... (Almost every single game in Development builds for it now.. People are so stupid when they bring the problems up.
However 2x970s might according to some post here do have an issue due to bug? But one post has solution. Even then im sure there is more to it then that. People go SLI Drool or best card drool and don't know jack about computers; just plugging things in and QQ when something doesn't go right.
Im not pushing the 970s.. Go TX if you can wait and save. Its always not a bad idea If you can manage to buy in as far ahead as possible. The only downside is nextgen seems to be getting faster and faster these days. But by the time its EVER and issue for you; you would get a 2nd TX and go on for years again.
Keep in mind that 2 video cards can be a pain in the posterior. I have been a fan of sli and crossfire in the past but with shady drivers being pushed on the public from both nvidia and and AMD I have decided to revert back to a single card operation....just something to think about
Zombieknight Productions
Reputable
- Mar 6, 2015
- 33
- 0
- 4,530
When directX 12 comes out soon, sli you will get 8gb vram with the 970s and only the 4 with the 980 (HUGE performance increase)
massapeal79
Reputable
- Jan 6, 2015
- 41
- 0
- 4,540
Well here my set up guys i5 4670k running two gtx 970 sc with z87x oc 4 way motherboard AZZA Solano 1000 CSAZ-1000 Full Tower Case (Black) Coolmax ZPG-1200B 1200W 80Plus Gold ATX12V v2.3/EPS 12V v2.92 Power. Kingston Technology HyperX Red 16GB Kit (2x8GB) 1600MHz 10-10-10...and I got a 2tb hard drive with a dvd combo rewritable drive 120 gigs sshd what u think please leave a comment
Daniel Manole Cinco
Reputable
- Sep 26, 2014
- 21
- 0
- 4,510
If you are not "loaded" and money really matter... for 1080p max 60 Hz, a single gtx 970 should be enough for now and for tomorrow! Anything beyond that is subject to a debate! 1440p-60 Hz, and not a hardcore gamer, GTX 970 is still a strong candidate. With that said, I would NOT invest in a single 980 with the thought that I might SLI it later! I think, that all the "benefits" of GTX 980, are in a single card scenario, avoiding SLI! It cannot compare to 2x970, but on top of one of those, has roughly 15-20% extra, when it comes to performance, plus a full 4 gb frame buffer, no SLI and no >3.5 vram issues!. Outside SLI scenarios, a GTX 970, that can reach a "stock" 980 in performance, with stable overclocking, in my country is only 105-140 $ cheaper, than a Super Jetstream 980 (which overclocks very good as well), and you also need to be lucky to receive a good 970! For 970 SLI, THE COST is double, and a lot of new factors may come into equation: PSU, heat, TDP, mainboard, case, cooling, the type of the CPU cooler that you have relative to your PCIe slots, with no guarantee of double fps output! I would not invest in SLI, with 3.5 Gb cards at this point (until titles will make use of added vram in dx12 will take alot of time) unless I can find really really good pricing offers, and decide to add 3d vision sooner than I planned! Market will be fluctuating a lot this year, and new releases are scheduled soon, so I`d play it "safe".
So far, the 3.5GB+0.5GB issue, I have heard of a rather simple solution: upgrading system RAM to 16GB. I personally already built the rig with 16GB RAM and thus far I have noticed no significant stuttering in any game, including AC:U (I even had AA increased to 2x MSAA rather than FXAA), and there were several other people who said upgrading RAM to 16GB also solved much of the stuttering issues.
However, recommending a 980 over a 970 due to the fact that it has no VRAM segmentation is something I completely do not agree with. If 970 is running into the segmentation issue, then 980 is not going to last much longer, as the 980 will only have several hundred MB headroom. You are paying 60% more for a card that almost certainly will not last 60% as long.
I would definitely be inclined to get a 970 over a 980, and use the money saved to get an earlier upgrade to a 6GB card instead.
However, recommending a 980 over a 970 due to the fact that it has no VRAM segmentation is something I completely do not agree with. If 970 is running into the segmentation issue, then 980 is not going to last much longer, as the 980 will only have several hundred MB headroom. You are paying 60% more for a card that almost certainly will not last 60% as long.
I would definitely be inclined to get a 970 over a 980, and use the money saved to get an earlier upgrade to a 6GB card instead.
Daniel Manole Cinco
Reputable
- Sep 26, 2014
- 21
- 0
- 4,510
I have the feeling that some people are trying to justify their purchases, rather than being fair in their advice. Hereby, 60% cheaper 970`s compared to 980, when we all know, it is a matter of the taxes from your country, shops policies, and pure offers. Also, comparing lowest possible quality build, against premium is something I don`t agree with and never will! Plus, I thought it was a matter of SLI vs single high end card, which also implies a "neck to neck" approach, whenever you cannot use SLI because application lacks the support! I live at the tropics (temperature,cooling and electricity matter here) and I like to state facts: a GTX 980 Gigabyte G1 is priced 663.144 USD here, where the small brother 970 G1 Gaming is 432.665 USD! That is not by far 60% difference but it is enough to make 970 an extremely sweet spot for me, as a single card, unfortunately for a shorter time that I would wish! To go for 970 SLI on the other hand, is a TOTALLY a different thing: checking if the cooling in my case is OK, change my CPU air cooler with a closed loop, and all these for an outrageous price of 865 USD? When you`re going into SLI, you really have to have an idea of whatever you are doing and in many parts of the world GTX 970 is a close to high end when it comes to pricing! So there are some situations whenever a single 560 $ Palit Jetstream 980 actually makes alot of sense!
Are you comparing the $560 980 to a $460 970 or a $350 970?
Where I live, the relative prices of 970 and 980 are similar to the relative prices of the same pair in the US (in US, a 980 is 160% of a 970, where I live it's around 150%). When I look at our own 970 prices, and comparing that to US, yes, the US can sound like a pretty good deal, but only if you can actually avail of the price.
For example, my 970's costs over $400 for all but EVGA's model, where as 980 in the US costs $550 or so, with this comparison, I would agree 980 looks better. But I cannot avail of that price, I have to pay closer to $650, which is exactly the same comparison of a US's 970 vs 980 argument.
The main point I am making is not to justify my own purchases. If I really had it my way I would rather not have bought my 970's at all and bought a single Titan X or waited for 980ti instead. I should have also stated that I am assuming, for the most part, the relative prices between 970 and 980 are roughly the same in most part of the world, the absolute prices will undoubtedly differ, but most of the time the ratio between them do not stray far.
The main argument here is, and I will state again, if 970 is already meeting VRAM issues at 3.5GB, then paying 60% extra for that little bit of VRAM is not going to be a good idea if you are going to keep your card for any length of time, because chances are, you will have to replace the card sooner than you expected anyway. Buying a 970 now would pretty much handle most things 980 can do, there is still plenty of performance to be had from a 970, and you can used the $200 or whatever you saved to get an earlier upgrade where there will be more likely card with VRAM size more suited to the gaming trends at the time.
Also, I am basing this argument based on that there is absolutely nothing magical about the 3.5GB~4GB VRAM, and chances are majority of games will fall either below 3.5GB (in which case neither will have VRAM issue) or over 4GB (in which case both 970 and 980 will have VRAM issue). That is why I really don't think the extra 500MB of VRAM is actually worth the half of a 970 or so.
Had 970 came with 3+1 rather than 3.5+0.5, or if 980 came with 6GB VRAM, then I would definitely agree that 980 is a much smarter buy. I am under the impression that if games does unfortunately fall into the last 512mb of VRAM, it won't take that many settings to keep the VRAM usage tame (3+1 would require larger concessions).
That is my opinion, and it's based on my own extrapolation. However if 980 was closer to 130% of a 970, then it's much more justifiable.
Where I live, the relative prices of 970 and 980 are similar to the relative prices of the same pair in the US (in US, a 980 is 160% of a 970, where I live it's around 150%). When I look at our own 970 prices, and comparing that to US, yes, the US can sound like a pretty good deal, but only if you can actually avail of the price.
For example, my 970's costs over $400 for all but EVGA's model, where as 980 in the US costs $550 or so, with this comparison, I would agree 980 looks better. But I cannot avail of that price, I have to pay closer to $650, which is exactly the same comparison of a US's 970 vs 980 argument.
The main point I am making is not to justify my own purchases. If I really had it my way I would rather not have bought my 970's at all and bought a single Titan X or waited for 980ti instead. I should have also stated that I am assuming, for the most part, the relative prices between 970 and 980 are roughly the same in most part of the world, the absolute prices will undoubtedly differ, but most of the time the ratio between them do not stray far.
The main argument here is, and I will state again, if 970 is already meeting VRAM issues at 3.5GB, then paying 60% extra for that little bit of VRAM is not going to be a good idea if you are going to keep your card for any length of time, because chances are, you will have to replace the card sooner than you expected anyway. Buying a 970 now would pretty much handle most things 980 can do, there is still plenty of performance to be had from a 970, and you can used the $200 or whatever you saved to get an earlier upgrade where there will be more likely card with VRAM size more suited to the gaming trends at the time.
Also, I am basing this argument based on that there is absolutely nothing magical about the 3.5GB~4GB VRAM, and chances are majority of games will fall either below 3.5GB (in which case neither will have VRAM issue) or over 4GB (in which case both 970 and 980 will have VRAM issue). That is why I really don't think the extra 500MB of VRAM is actually worth the half of a 970 or so.
Had 970 came with 3+1 rather than 3.5+0.5, or if 980 came with 6GB VRAM, then I would definitely agree that 980 is a much smarter buy. I am under the impression that if games does unfortunately fall into the last 512mb of VRAM, it won't take that many settings to keep the VRAM usage tame (3+1 would require larger concessions).
That is my opinion, and it's based on my own extrapolation. However if 980 was closer to 130% of a 970, then it's much more justifiable.
Daniel Manole Cinco
Reputable
- Sep 26, 2014
- 21
- 0
- 4,510
Ok, chenw.. it is a good and reasonable debate! At this point, I can afford either a single cheaper 980 or any 970.
I agree with you about the price/ratio, but when the products are more expensive overall, that is a "game changer" and you see the things in a different manner.
I was simply stating that a GPU capable to achieve 980 "stock" performances, in my country would be Gigabyte G1 Gaming, via overclock, at a reasonable price, compared to other models! Now.. for 140 $ (on top of 430 +)I can get a Palit Super Jetstream at a special offer, which is an amazing product, already oced+ room for more, with no stutter in current titles! That sounds like I am throwing that money away?.
Of course we can make it almost 100% price difference if i would buy ZOTAC GTX 970 ZT 90101 at 348 USD (I had this card 2 weeks in my pc and I totally disliked it) and not a EVGA 980 priced at 680 USD. I was just trying to find a sweat spot for me, at 1440p, in which a 980 does not seem such a "ridiculously priced item" with the best capabilities as SINGLE GPU, with a better quality build, less chance of coil whine, and not needing to add extra ram not to stutter! Especially that i am coming from Fermi dual GPU, and before that I had 3 SLI setups, and I am tired of it!
But, yes, if I`d go lower than G1 970 Gaming, of course that nothing will make sense anymore, and 980 is not justified, even that most of my used applications only make use of 1 GPU!
So long story short, we agree in many things, except that I would not SLI 970 AT ALL NOW, not "before" not "after" (unless 1080p, 120 Hz+ and your case, CPU, PSU, cooling, are already good for it), And I would not a buy a GTX 980, unless I am sure that I can OC the sh*t out of it, to justify its higher price, so I can have a single card solution for a longer time, with a way higher cost .. than what actually this card is offering!
I wished there was anything else in between 970/980/970 sli
as performance price as single GPU!!!
I agree with you about the price/ratio, but when the products are more expensive overall, that is a "game changer" and you see the things in a different manner.
I was simply stating that a GPU capable to achieve 980 "stock" performances, in my country would be Gigabyte G1 Gaming, via overclock, at a reasonable price, compared to other models! Now.. for 140 $ (on top of 430 +)I can get a Palit Super Jetstream at a special offer, which is an amazing product, already oced+ room for more, with no stutter in current titles! That sounds like I am throwing that money away?.
Of course we can make it almost 100% price difference if i would buy ZOTAC GTX 970 ZT 90101 at 348 USD (I had this card 2 weeks in my pc and I totally disliked it) and not a EVGA 980 priced at 680 USD. I was just trying to find a sweat spot for me, at 1440p, in which a 980 does not seem such a "ridiculously priced item" with the best capabilities as SINGLE GPU, with a better quality build, less chance of coil whine, and not needing to add extra ram not to stutter! Especially that i am coming from Fermi dual GPU, and before that I had 3 SLI setups, and I am tired of it!
But, yes, if I`d go lower than G1 970 Gaming, of course that nothing will make sense anymore, and 980 is not justified, even that most of my used applications only make use of 1 GPU!
So long story short, we agree in many things, except that I would not SLI 970 AT ALL NOW, not "before" not "after" (unless 1080p, 120 Hz+ and your case, CPU, PSU, cooling, are already good for it), And I would not a buy a GTX 980, unless I am sure that I can OC the sh*t out of it, to justify its higher price, so I can have a single card solution for a longer time, with a way higher cost .. than what actually this card is offering!
I wished there was anything else in between 970/980/970 sli
as performance price as single GPU!!!Justin Jacobs
Reputable
- Apr 30, 2015
- 1
- 0
- 4,510
A lot of you are going to eat those words. There is something that will extremely change the advantage that SLI has soon, and its DX12. DX12 is massively changing the way SLI/xfire works. instead of required synchronization like now, it allows workloads to split respectively to what the game developer desires across the cards. also the hindrance of being limited to the VRAM of only one card is out the window as well. DX12 allows combining VRAM of your cards in SLI/CROSSFIRE to be used with the workload. this allows for the combination of memory to be used for rendering and other workloads. DX12 also allows the combination of any graphics units to be used. (even processor graphics) 2 970s you cant beat for price to performance.....but, if your goal is to take full effect of high refresh (120/144hz) and are playing in high resolution, 2560x1440 or 4k, i would say go 980 and get another later, or another card of your chosing, something capable of tier 3 DX12.
BobCharlie
Distinguished
- Sep 2, 2011
- 221
- 1
- 18,710
I have a single MSI GTX 970 Gamign4G and in bench tests, I can get within 11% of a GTX 980 in DX11, 10% in DX10, and direct compute test get within 0.1 % of a GTX 980. It took a +250 core, +460 mem, +18mv, K-boost ON. Fans at 100% temps were averaging around 64c. I also left "Power Target' at 100. DX9 games are WAY behind a GTX 980. I used to run a GTX 550ti that could always max everything in DX9 games. On my benching, the GTX 970 is something like 200-300% more powerful with DX9 games than a GTX 550ti. After OC'ing the 970, was within 40% of the GTX 980 in DX9 simple and complex tests in bench.
I believe the 970 can go higher core with maybe a drop in mem if needed, but my PSU isn't strong enough to support the amperage demand of the system. I'm ordering a new EVGA G2 1000w PSU, and will resume testing. Have a thread in the OC forum if interested in previous results (header is MSI GTX 970). Was also using an OLD EVGA PX software to OC, so might get better results with most recent update which I d/l yesterday, as they made a bunch of fixes to K-boost along with improvements to voltage settings, so I suspect better scores will be had.
Point is, I'm within 10%, DX10, 11% DX11, and direct compute is basically a tie with a GTX 980. I paid $320 (and got a free Witcher 3 game) but it jumped to $350 a day or so later. For nearly $200 LESS, I'm within 11% of a GTX 980 which I think I can get within 5-9% with more aggressive OCing as each +001 to core was chiseling the % down until PSU hit a wall. You just can't beat that value. I used "Performance Test 8.0" by Passmark to monitor changes with each adjustment as it tests DX9 Simple/Complex, DX10, DX11, and Direct Compute in a few minutes, then compared the results against 5 other cards with the 980 being top card in comparisons. Once watermark results were established, I ran it in Heaven and got a 3174 with a max 254.6 FPS, minimum frames were 27.4, though there's a bug when the test first starts that seems to drop the minimum immediately even though the test is still initializing as FPS immediately jump to 150+ but the 27 was already logged, so I suspect score would be higher if that wasn't the case, and average FPS were 126. Either way, stock everything with no OC nor K-boost enabled saw a 2791, min frames of 9.9 and max of 233, with average FPS being 110. Remember, I'm at the limit of my PSU, actually over the limit by nearly 10 amps on the 12v+ rail, so not even gaming until new PSU arrives, or I'll drop power target to 60% and underclock. Running stock everything and only K-boost, saw score go from 2791 to 2828, and min. frames jump from the lazy to respond 9.1 to 27.1. That was with NO OC. Just using K-boost which locks it at boosted clock rate of 1328 mhz in my case.
Anyways, it's pretty clear the GTX 970 is a beastly card if you a buy a better, non-reference variant and at minimum, run K-boost. For $320, you can run pretty much anything out now. But a 2nd and you are around $640 and performance jump is significant (run K-boost minimum). Or, you can save a $100 and by a single 980. Even if the 980 can get a 15% improvement with OC, I don't see the value compared to SLI'd GTX 970. Although, both cards are horrible at 2D tasks. Somehow a GT 630 walks all over them in the 2D world. DX9 shouldn't matter as like I said earlier, the 970 is double to to triple the performance of a 550ti which I used to own, and the 550 could easily max DX9 games (for the most part).
Also, whichever card/cards you get, get the best Gold or even better Platinum PSU you can afford. Look at the 12v+ rail amperage. If it says "up to, "MAX" or "peak", that is NOT what it'll do continuous. My current PSU is a 4 year old Thermaltake 600w. It's actual continuous rated on unit is 32amp 12v+. Looked on Thermaltake's site and they questionably changed the 32 amp cont. to 50 amp MAX. Very bad. That means cont. is 64% different than max. More efficient "Gold' or "Platinum" PSU might not be that far off, but even at a 64% difference between cont. amperage (what it'll do consistently) and "max" (what it can do in short boosts like power up), that means a 850w rated at 70.8 amp MAX, is putting out 45.312 amp cont. That's enough for a single card, but not SLI. I dunno if a 90% efficient PSU directly translates to less spread between max and cont. or not, but be VERY careful in the PSU you run. Better to have too much PSU than not enough, as it'll pull more current trying to stabilize the voltage, which is bad. People that buy a psu solely on rated wattage are making a mistake. The amperage output is what matters. I've seen people on Newegg and elsewhere say "It worked great for a week, then died, RMA'd it, new unit worked for a week then dies, I'll never buy another one these, went with an EVGA platinum PSU and all is well". The real reason it died is it didn't put out amperage, he smoked it, then smoked 2nd one, then by chance he picked one that DID supply enough cont. amperage.
Choose PSU carefully. Most only show MAX ratings in spec section, despite claiming to be "continuous" in the descriptions section. At very least, take "MAX' rating and multiply by .64 or 64% to show a ballpark. Better PSU like gold or platinum, can assume it's a little higher. If in doubt, contact PSU company directly and ask for continuous values on all 3 voltage rails i.e. 3v, 5v, 12,v as what's listed on most is MAX, meaning MAX. Not what it'll do all the time. Same thing as amplifiers and RMS wattage. That matters. "Peak or max" don't really matter and is a last resort before dying number.
I believe the 970 can go higher core with maybe a drop in mem if needed, but my PSU isn't strong enough to support the amperage demand of the system. I'm ordering a new EVGA G2 1000w PSU, and will resume testing. Have a thread in the OC forum if interested in previous results (header is MSI GTX 970). Was also using an OLD EVGA PX software to OC, so might get better results with most recent update which I d/l yesterday, as they made a bunch of fixes to K-boost along with improvements to voltage settings, so I suspect better scores will be had.
Point is, I'm within 10%, DX10, 11% DX11, and direct compute is basically a tie with a GTX 980. I paid $320 (and got a free Witcher 3 game) but it jumped to $350 a day or so later. For nearly $200 LESS, I'm within 11% of a GTX 980 which I think I can get within 5-9% with more aggressive OCing as each +001 to core was chiseling the % down until PSU hit a wall. You just can't beat that value. I used "Performance Test 8.0" by Passmark to monitor changes with each adjustment as it tests DX9 Simple/Complex, DX10, DX11, and Direct Compute in a few minutes, then compared the results against 5 other cards with the 980 being top card in comparisons. Once watermark results were established, I ran it in Heaven and got a 3174 with a max 254.6 FPS, minimum frames were 27.4, though there's a bug when the test first starts that seems to drop the minimum immediately even though the test is still initializing as FPS immediately jump to 150+ but the 27 was already logged, so I suspect score would be higher if that wasn't the case, and average FPS were 126. Either way, stock everything with no OC nor K-boost enabled saw a 2791, min frames of 9.9 and max of 233, with average FPS being 110. Remember, I'm at the limit of my PSU, actually over the limit by nearly 10 amps on the 12v+ rail, so not even gaming until new PSU arrives, or I'll drop power target to 60% and underclock. Running stock everything and only K-boost, saw score go from 2791 to 2828, and min. frames jump from the lazy to respond 9.1 to 27.1. That was with NO OC. Just using K-boost which locks it at boosted clock rate of 1328 mhz in my case.
Anyways, it's pretty clear the GTX 970 is a beastly card if you a buy a better, non-reference variant and at minimum, run K-boost. For $320, you can run pretty much anything out now. But a 2nd and you are around $640 and performance jump is significant (run K-boost minimum). Or, you can save a $100 and by a single 980. Even if the 980 can get a 15% improvement with OC, I don't see the value compared to SLI'd GTX 970. Although, both cards are horrible at 2D tasks. Somehow a GT 630 walks all over them in the 2D world. DX9 shouldn't matter as like I said earlier, the 970 is double to to triple the performance of a 550ti which I used to own, and the 550 could easily max DX9 games (for the most part).
Also, whichever card/cards you get, get the best Gold or even better Platinum PSU you can afford. Look at the 12v+ rail amperage. If it says "up to, "MAX" or "peak", that is NOT what it'll do continuous. My current PSU is a 4 year old Thermaltake 600w. It's actual continuous rated on unit is 32amp 12v+. Looked on Thermaltake's site and they questionably changed the 32 amp cont. to 50 amp MAX. Very bad. That means cont. is 64% different than max. More efficient "Gold' or "Platinum" PSU might not be that far off, but even at a 64% difference between cont. amperage (what it'll do consistently) and "max" (what it can do in short boosts like power up), that means a 850w rated at 70.8 amp MAX, is putting out 45.312 amp cont. That's enough for a single card, but not SLI. I dunno if a 90% efficient PSU directly translates to less spread between max and cont. or not, but be VERY careful in the PSU you run. Better to have too much PSU than not enough, as it'll pull more current trying to stabilize the voltage, which is bad. People that buy a psu solely on rated wattage are making a mistake. The amperage output is what matters. I've seen people on Newegg and elsewhere say "It worked great for a week, then died, RMA'd it, new unit worked for a week then dies, I'll never buy another one these, went with an EVGA platinum PSU and all is well". The real reason it died is it didn't put out amperage, he smoked it, then smoked 2nd one, then by chance he picked one that DID supply enough cont. amperage.
Choose PSU carefully. Most only show MAX ratings in spec section, despite claiming to be "continuous" in the descriptions section. At very least, take "MAX' rating and multiply by .64 or 64% to show a ballpark. Better PSU like gold or platinum, can assume it's a little higher. If in doubt, contact PSU company directly and ask for continuous values on all 3 voltage rails i.e. 3v, 5v, 12,v as what's listed on most is MAX, meaning MAX. Not what it'll do all the time. Same thing as amplifiers and RMS wattage. That matters. "Peak or max" don't really matter and is a last resort before dying number.
BobCharlie
Distinguished
- Sep 2, 2011
- 221
- 1
- 18,710
DX12 will only matter to those running Win10. You are going WAY out on a limb parroting reviews as fact. We've seen how many Windows generations in the past 4 years? DX12 will undoubtedly have bugs, it won't work with all systems, etc. Let's wait until DX12 is released as well as another draconian Win10 and wait a month until REAL WORLD reviews come in before championing it as liquid gold from water.
sz0ty0l4
Distinguished
- Jan 9, 2015
- 1,072
- 0
- 19,660
for 1440p/4k both cards are fail, won't play ultra textures , coz vram is insufficient. games already use 4gb on 1080p.
and actually LukaBoki was partly right. most games are not well optimised for dual gpu setups at release, even if it gets an sli profile, sometimes it takes 4-5 patches to get rid of all sli/cfx issues( flickering,bad scaling,stutter, etc.)
the single 980 is better choice.
and actually LukaBoki was partly right. most games are not well optimised for dual gpu setups at release, even if it gets an sli profile, sometimes it takes 4-5 patches to get rid of all sli/cfx issues( flickering,bad scaling,stutter, etc.)
the single 980 is better choice.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Using cloning software for a dying HDD which shows only 10% health ?- Started by Mashuumatics
- Replies: 1
-
Question Wifi card speed fluctuating on my Lenovo Ideapad pro 5 16APH8- Started by sirdariush
- Replies: 6
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 24
-
Question Recovering an old version of a Notepad file in Windows 10 ?- Started by MC72
- Replies: 2
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Question Buying a used card, what should I look for before purchase?- Latest: MatthewJamess
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram