return gtx 970 and wait for 8gb version?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

balgoth17

Honorable
Feb 26, 2013
29
0
10,530
Hi all!

So I ordered the msi gtx 970 from Newegg and should be getting it in a few days.

I'm wondering if I should try and return it in and wait for the 8gb version, because shadow of murder uses 6gb vram for the ultra optional pack, and the evil within uses 4gb, which I'm not planning on getting, but if this trend continues I think I should get the 8gb version instead.

Do you think I should do that or just stick to what I've got?

I'm currently waiting for benchmarks for shadow of more or to help me make my devision.
 
Solution
JackNaylorPE
Considering that we haven't as yet seen any significant benefit from 4 GB, I don't see 8GB doing much for ya.

At 5760 resolution, there were games that "used" more than 2 GB, but out of 30 games only 5 showed more than an FPS or tw0 at 5760 res.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

This leaves five games out of 30 where a 4GB GTX 770 gives more than a 1 frame per second difference over the 2GB-equipped GTX 770 [at 5760 resolution]. And one of them, Metro: Last Light still isn’t even quite a single frame difference.

Of those five games, two of them are unplayable at 5760×1080 although in these cases, 4GB GTX 770 SLI would finally make some sense over 2GB GTX 770 SLI. That only leaves Lost Planet 2...
Click to expand...
Sort by date Sort by votes
I think you are very confused..... it requires 8gb of SYSTEM RAM... lol

4GB of VIDEO ram will be kind of standard for open games and it will be enough for quite a long while...

Besides be careful on the 970 as MSI and EVGA are both defective with lots of problems...
 
Upvote -1 Downvote
Considering that we haven't as yet seen any significant benefit from 4 GB, I don't see 8GB doing much for ya.

At 5760 resolution, there were games that "used" more than 2 GB, but out of 30 games only 5 showed more than an FPS or tw0 at 5760 res.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

This leaves five games out of 30 where a 4GB GTX 770 gives more than a 1 frame per second difference over the 2GB-equipped GTX 770 [at 5760 resolution]. And one of them, Metro: Last Light still isn’t even quite a single frame difference.

Of those five games, two of them are unplayable at 5760×1080 although in these cases, 4GB GTX 770 SLI would finally make some sense over 2GB GTX 770 SLI. That only leaves Lost Planet 2 and two racing games that gain some advantage by choosing a single GTX 770 4GB card over the single GTX 770 2GB. And in Lost Planet 2, we were able to add even higher anti-aliasing – from 8xAA to CSAA8XQ and to CSAA32X – but the performance difference was greatest with 8xAA.

There is one last thing to note with Max Payne 3: It would not normally allow one to set 4xAA at 5760×1080 with any 2GB card as it claims to require 2750MB. However, when we replaced the 4GB GTX 770 with the 2GB version, the game allowed the setting. And there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution


Sorry I wasn't very clear haha.
The optional ultra textures for shadow of mordor require 6gb of vram. I'm just wondering if this will eventually become the norm for "next gen" games. As far as msi, I've heard from both critics and customers that it one of the best if not the best. Thanks though! I appreciate it.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote

Thanks!

However, I'm not really worried about performance per say. I know the gtx 970 is a very capable card.

Like a computer, if you don't have enough ram it can't do much.

The system requirements for Shadow of Mordors ultra texture setting is 6gb vram.

I'm assuming that because of this, you would be limited by how much vram you have, not how powerful your card is.

My assumption is that if you don't have enough vram your card won't be able to run the game with all those high res textures without lagging or some other issue, because it doesn't have enough storage for all of them, not necessarily lack the power to do so.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


As the article stated....Max Payne 3 **says*** it needs 2750 MB of RAM however .....

..... when we replaced the 4GB GTX 770 with the 2GB version, the game allowed the setting. And there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s."
Click to expand...

Being able to allocate more RAM and showing an improvement from having more RAM are two very different things. Same with BF4....seen lotta reports of BF4 using 4+ GB of VRAM, but not one documented test published of an actual measured performance difference. We just won't have any information either way until someone tests it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alright, thanks.

That makes sense. I guess I just assumed there was a better reason for them recommending 6gb of vram. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I'll just wait for benchmarks and see if the game really needs or makes use of 6gb of vram for the ultra textures.


Thanks again.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


if you want to play on resolutions higher than 1080p or play on more than one monitor then i recommend waiting for the 8gb vram version. i opened a thread on the subject myself and decided its best to wait for the 8gb anyway cuz i think upcoming games will need more than 4gb vram.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shadow of Mordor specs are very conservative. I have GTX 570, 1.25GB of VRAM and use the Medium '4GB spec' Shadow of Mordor textures just fine...its more of a guideline...so long as the GPU is decent enough it should be fine...also the computer can compensate for lack of VRAM with DRAM - similar to how a computer uses a page file when low on RAM (uses HDD space for RAM when very low)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


you dont get any stutters at all? do you think ill be able to run high 1080p with 770gtx 2gb?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nah, it's not just a guideline, the 6gb vram requirements for the optional ultra texture pack is around the actual impact on the amount of vram being used for it. Even with supersampling 2x-4x at 1080p, while there certainly isn't a reason to believe that amount of vram isn't being used when there's people and journalists who confirm it, it's hard to believe that the pack was efficiently optimized despite being an open world game.

The way I've been seeing some of the discussions around this going, I've been interpreting some of the arguments for and against more vram as some people thinly veiling their desire to want people who have had or just bought 4 gb cards to be levelled with their older, yet still good hardware out of either malice or just not wanting to be left behind, then there's the small percentage of people who want to desperately cling to some illusion of a virtual caste of "master race" hardware on that very small percentage of cards that actually have 4+ gb's of vram, there's people who think that 2 gb's is still good for ultra quality graphics (which often includes SSAA) at 1080p for the quite the foreseeable future, etc. Then there's the people who seem to either have a background in programming or are at least quite knowledgeable about the subject who argue that it's because the current generation of consoles are pushing PC hardware requirements forward, yet still somehow omit that only 4.5-5gb's on that 8 gb unified memory architecture which is shared between both the console's CPU and GPU are actually usable, while the rest is reserved for the OS, and even then it's not yet a matter of it fully being saturated.

Unless as this trend continues the actual software is dissected, debunked as being so necessarily resource intensive and then pressure is placed on publishers to reverse these types of practices, if you want to play at ultra in 1080p or above that 6-8 gb standard is unfortunately probably right around the corner. I have a PS4 by the way, contrary to a recent article written by someone (Durante) who coded some widely used game hacks (which I have as well and do appreciate the time people like that put into making these types of utilities not for profit but to contribute something), if I didn't expect to play modern games at ultra settings with hardware that I recently paid and will pay a considerable amount of money for, for all the versatility of PC I wouldn't have ever migrated to it for gaming.

So keep your 970, sell it later if you have to.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote




 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I bought mine about 1 1/2 week ago and I just returned it yesterday because I found out about this coming release of the 8GB version. This is very dissapointing because gaming is not making any sense anymore. The industry is very unffair. Last year, I went all out on my build around this time of year. A few months later, DDR4 is released along with the Z97 Chipset. At that time I was in the market for a 660ti card to upgrade from my 560. Though I quickly realized that would have been a mistake because the 700 series cards had just been released. I started looking for a 760 but quickly was convinced to buy a much more powerful 770 2GB. A couple weeks with the new card and I noticed 2 things right away. (1) I wasn't seeing much of a framerate increase and (2) with the release of BF4 and Mantle around the corner, 2 gigs wasn't gonna cut it. I then returned the 2 gig and opted for EVGA'S much more expensive GTX 770 4GB FTW. Priced at $439.99 to be exact and $470 with taxes because VRAM recommended for BF4 was 4GB. It seemed like a smart purchase because it seemed like futerproofing pointed to 4GB gaming. SLI Seemed like the way to go for upgrading. Right away I noticed that my framerate increased only by a mediocre frame. There was absolutely no advantage from the increased VRAM. Huge dissapointment. There was hope though as SLI seemed like the next best option for future proofing. Now 11 months later, the newer cards were released with 4GB of VRAM stock and priced much cheaper than my expensive GTX 970 4GB FTW and with 15% increase in performance. The EVGA GTX 770 4GB FTW is still more expensive thsn the GTX 970 4GB FTW card. This made my SLI option unreasonable and a waste of money. Now I'm out to buy the GTX 970 FTW and come to find out that shadow of mordor is pushing 6GB requirements. What the heck! By the time these 8GB cards hit the shelves which I highly doubt will be available by December, games will probably be pushing for 12 gb of ram. Honestly, this is a very unffair practice. Can't say console gaming is any better but at least it's much cheaper. PC Gaming is becoming a bad hobby and investment.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote

More VRAM isn't for higher framerate. If you run out of VRAM, your game will freeze or drop to absurdly low framerates while it access system RAM. More VRAM allows you to have higher resolutions, more anti-aliasing, and higher quality textures. it does nothing to average framerate. Your gameplay basically just dies if you run out of VRAM.

That said, 2GB of VRAM is sufficient for most games at 1080P, though on the odd game you may need to reduce texture quality slightly. 3GB of VRAM is plenty for 1080P and 1440P gaming. 4GB of VRAM is enough to max out games at 1440P and get your feet wet at 4K... so unless you plan to be playing at 4K maxed out (which I'm guessing you aren't, or you'd go SLI GTX 980s), 4GB is more than you'll need for a very long time.

The GTX 970 will stop being powerful enough to pump out good framerates for the latest games long before the 4GB of VRAM is an issue for 1080P or 1440P.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


only if you max out hardware aa on higher than 1080p resolution. software aa is plenty for 1440p+. if textures are so unoptimized that they use up 4gb of vram, then it is a poorly made game to begin with and shouldn't be supported by would be buyers. fire the guys who attempted to sell the public crappy junk.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would return the card and wait for the 8gb version. Call of duty advanced warfare uses the entire 4gb of vram, a titan 6gb was tested and the entire 6gb of vram was also used on that card. In conclusion, 4gb is not enough for today's games. GTA5 on pc will be demanding when it is released.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The reviewer didn't limit his comments to frame rates:

t would not normally allow one to set 4xAA at 5760×1080 with any 2GB card as it claims to require 2750MB. However, when we replaced the 4GB GTX 770 with the 2GB version, the game allowed the setting. And there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s.
Click to expand...

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


4GB

http://store.steampowered.com/app/268050/


 
Upvote 0 Downvote


i was about to buy the evga 970 ftw 4g, out of stock right not so i got the time to read more about it , im planned to sli with it so if i want to spend 700 $ on it better wait for the 8 gig gtx 970 then buy a second one laer to sli for like 120 $ more, maybe the best move for not being overun after 1 year with game asking for 4g +vram. also have to switch my 16/10 monitor lcd and now i see the 4k getting lower price then 1440p. 8 gig of vram have more chance to hold a decent quality of gaming, my opinion

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom