I Was Wondering If (EVGA GeForce GTX 970 4GB SSC ACX 2.0) Is A Good One For Powerful Gaming Such As Witcher

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lazyboy10

Lazyboy10

Honorable
Jun 23, 2015
89
2
10,635
Also is there the same card but from AMD. It's a little silly but i'm going for a red theme and i see that AMD cards are red. So Which AMD version is the same as mine?
 
Solution
geofelt
MSI has both GTX970 and R9-390 cards with red accents.
They perform similarly and are priced similarly.
The R9-390 will need about 150w stronger psu.
What is the rest of your build?
Sort by date Sort by votes


The MSI GTX 970 is red in colour. And no Radeon card will be as powerful as the 970.
 
Upvote -1 Downvote
A very good build.
I have two suggestions:
1. Buy a cpu aftermarket cooler. A tower type with a 120 or 140mm fan is all you need. $30 buys you a cm hyper212, $65 or so buys you a noctua or Phanteks with 120 or 140mm fans.
Since you want a red theme, how about a Phanteks ?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835709004

Do not be tempted with the liquid cooler hype for a larg case like yours.I have become a bit jaded on the subject of haswell cooling for overclocking.
How high you can OC is firstly determined by your luck in the bin lottery.
I had high expectations from the Devil's canyon parts and their better thermals.
I found out that the thermals really do not matter unless, perhaps, you are a competitive overclocker.
Haswell runs quite cool, that is, until you raise the voltage past 1.25v or so.
Once you go past 1.3v, then you really do need very good cooling to keep stress loads under say 85c.
But, the consensus is that voltages higher than 1.30 are not a good thing for 24/7 usage.
I have been unable to find any official Intel recommendation on what is a safe vcore limit.

Even if you can handle the heat, how much do you really need that extra multiplier from say 4.4 to 4.6?
My canned rant on liquid cooling:
------------------------start of rant-------------------
You buy a liquid cooler to be able to extract an extra multiplier or two out of your OC.
How much do you really need?
I do not much like all in one liquid coolers when a good air cooler like a Noctua NH-D15 or phanteks can do the job just as well.
A liquid cooler will be expensive, noisy, less reliable, and will not cool any better
in a well ventilated case.
Liquid cooling is really air cooling, it just puts the heat exchange in a different place.
The orientation of the radiator will cause a problem.
If you orient it to take in cool air from the outside, you will cool the cpu better, but the hot air then circulates inside the case heating up the graphics card and motherboard.
If you orient it to exhaust(which I think is better) , then your cpu cooling will be less effective because it uses pre heated case air.
And... I have read too many tales of woe when a liquid cooler leaks.
google "H100 leak"
-----------------------end of rant--------------------------

Your pc will be quieter, more reliable, and will be cooled equally well with a decent air cooler.
2. Your case comes with a 140mm fan for the front. All you will need is a second 140mm fan to draw in all the filtered cooling air you need.
If you add more exhaust fans, you will draw in unfiltered air and make your case get dirty sooner.


 
Upvote 0 Downvote
35 dollars buys you this, which is a much better cooler than the Hyper 212 EVO and has a much better mounting system. Unfortunately it's been out of stock recently and I'm waiting for an answer from Cryorig on expected resupply time frames.

At about the same price as the EVO sells for currently on Newegg, it's a far better cooler.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


That's a ridiculous statement, and an absolute fail in regard to fosting misinformation. The R9 290x trades blows with the 970 at 1080p, whupps it down at 1440p and 4k, and the R9 295x2 flat crushes it. So that's two AMD cards that are either competitive or simply kick it to the curb, without even mentioning any of the newer cards. Get your facts straight and stop posting misinformation. Saying "no radeon card will be as powerful as the 970" is like saying "no car can beat the corvette". Sure it's fast, but to say it's unbeatable is asinine.

And as far as card colors go, there are different colored cards in both AMD and NVidia product lines, and even within the same brand. Most manufacturers have, for example, different color cards for each family. There are blue MSI GTX 970's and red. Color is not dependent on OEM or brand unless we're talking reference cards, which nobody wants anyhow unless the price is pretty low.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As an Nvidia Gameworks title the Witcher 3 will allow some extra settings and overall will perform better on Nvidia cards. The GTX 970 is going to be about the single best bang for the buck card you can get for the Witcher 3, if that is your game.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/24.html
witcher3_1920_1080.gif
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Tell me again how does the 290X trade blows with the 970 again 😀 Please post some reference if you're going to post some information.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-290X-vs-GeForce-GTX-970

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkuB2IUttyo In this video it clearly shows that the 290x is at least 10 frames below the 970.

And please if you're gonna bring in the 295x2 card then please compared that the 2 970 in SLI. A 295x2 comprises of 2 GPU in a single card. comparing it to one 970, you're not doing justice to the graphic card at all.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Don't get feisty, son. It's not wise. You specifically said there were NO Radeon cards that could compare with the GTX 970. Period. You didn't say anything about them being dual GPU. You said NO cards. That's a blanket statement, and you got spanked for it. End of story. And here's your proof:


You also need to LEARN what you're looking at on benchmarks. You don't look at the max FPS. You look at the minimum FPS. This is what will determine what the card can stay above on any given title, at any given resolution. Nobody cares if the card can peak at 200FPS if it dips below 40fps half the time. Minimum FPS is what will determine whether you're going to have issues.


Battlefield 4 1080p Min FPS 970=60 290x=59.
1440p Min FPS 970=59 290x=60
4k Min FPS 970=26 290x=28
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/6


In Bioshock, the 970 slams the door shut on the 290x. End of story on this title.

Crysis 3 1080p Min FPS 970=54-58 290x=54
1440p Min FPS 970=36 290x=54
4k 970=17 290x=17

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/8




On Skyrim, they match up at 1080p, they don't show the 290x 1440p result for some reason and the 290x crushes the 970 by 10FPS at 4K.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/9


I don't know where you see 10FPS over the 290x anywhere. And keep in mind, those benchmarks are using the top three GTX 970 cards available at the time those were tested, while they were using a reference R9 290x which is of course slower than an aftermarket card. You need to reference actual testing results, not paper specs on a generic site like GPU boss or Youtube where as everybody knows, half the crap is faked.


And, as seen here, the 290x narrowly beats the 970 on Witcher 3 at 1080p at every resolution on medium settings:

http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page2.html

It loses to the 970 at 1080p high settings by 4FPS, but at 1440p high settings, once again takes the lead by 1 FPS and at 4K they are dead even.

At Ultra they stay within 1FPS of each other regardless of resolution. Seems like they're pretty equal to me.



 
Upvote 0 Downvote


With that many wins on the 970 side I don't understand why anyone would say the 290X trades blow with the 970. performance wise they may be on the same if you so want to argue. But other things that affects performance like temperature, heat and even power consumption, the 290x loses out. If you want to compared then please make some comparison on these aspect as well. It doesn't matter if your card can give you high frame rate and be the best of the best if takes 500W to power and overheat. The 290X cannot compare to the 970 in any way. And no this is not fan-boying. I'm just stating the facts. 😀
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm not arguing but clearly from every benchmark I've seen, aside from one or two titles, the 970 never leads by more than one or two FPS and at higher resolutions loses by one or two FPS. For the most part their equal. I don't know where you get "that many wins on the 970 side from", but whatever. Clearly you're not looking at the benchmarks. That's fine. I could care less. The fact its, it DOES NOT beat out the 290x by 10FPS as you said, on most titles, and it certainly doesn't beat out all Radeon cards. And yes, you are a fanboy. Clearly. You are not "stating the facts", you're stating your preference. Which is fine. Both cards are very good. But you can't BS those of us who know what's up. 'Nuff said.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I'm not even BS the stuff out. If you prefer a card that can perform on par with the 970 but heat up your rig and consume more power then so be it 😀 It just show how much you care about your system. With so much to consider the 970 beats the 290X.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom