return gtx 970 and wait for 8gb version?

[balgoth17]

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.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Make sure it's not this one

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/evga-geforce-gtx-970-acx-has-misaligned-gpu-vs-heatpipes.html

Out of the big 4, EVGA would be my last choice .... Gigabyte and MSI routinely clock over 1500 .... EVGA finishes last in the roundups.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/14


I you can find a single published comparison test where 4 GB outperformed 2 GB at 1920 x 1080 (or even 5760 x 1080) I'd be most interested in reading it. I found it extremely odd that in the test referenced above, you couldn't load the game at 5760 x 1080 w/ 2 GB but if you did by installing a 4GB card and then switched to a 2 GB card, the game ran fine w/o any observable fps or quality differences. If 2 GB doesn't have an effect today at triple the resolution, I don't see it affecting 1920 x 1080 play in the foreseeable future with 4 GB.

 

[jbonezy]

Make sure it's not this one

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/evga-geforce-gtx-970-acx-has-misaligned-gpu-vs-heatpipes.html

Out of the big 4, EVGA would be my last choice .... Gigabyte and MSI routinely clock over 1500 .... EVGA finishes last in the roundups.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/14


I you can find a single published comparison test where 4 GB outperformed 2 GB at 1920 x 1080 (or even 5760 x 1080) I'd be most interested in reading it. I found it extremely odd that in the test referenced above, you couldn't load the game at 5760 x 1080 w/ 2 GB but if you did by installing a 4GB card and then switched to a 2 GB card, the game ran fine w/o any observable fps or quality differences. If 2 GB doesn't have an effect today at triple the resolution, I don't see it affecting 1920 x 1080 play in the foreseeable future with 4 GB.

I personally play on a 970 and on ultra at 1920x1080 lots of games stay below 2gb some go slightly above but when i play on 5760*1080 def in the 3gb realm and thats on farcry4 on medium high, if ultra i could definetly see the games surpassing 4gb easy. Efficiency is a thing of the past when it comes to pc gaming.

 

[thrillseeker75]

You can't test old games with 2 new cards and expect to see a different between the 2.
Where's the benchmark for Watchdogs, call of duty AW, far cry 4?

take a look at this article:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-vga-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,8.html

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.

 

[xiamandrewx]

This is very dissapointing because gaming is not making any sense anymore. The industry is very unffair.

Technology always changes. There's no such thing as "future proof" just future minded. You would have done just fine to run 760's in SLI with just 2GB. I do a lot of gaming and I've seen a lot of tests/benchmarks where AAA games in 2014 don't need more than 2GB VRAM. I don't claim to understand the technology, and yeah if you're surround gaming you'll need some 4GB cards. But VRAM usage in games is just kinda like "how much can we use?" If you feed your GPU 8GB it's probably gonna try to use all of that space, but it won't need it. I assume to less interfere with your system RAM, plus GDDR5 is gaming optimized. 8GB is pretty much never gonna happen in the gaming world. I have to imagine that spec was added to cater to business design engineers. People who are out there rendering massive, intricate, 3D images in real time at 4k. In gaming, you're just not gonna see a huge benefit with more VRAM than you actually need. My tip to you is to shop for cards that will do what you need. If you wanna play Crysis 3 on ultra, there are benchmarks out there to help you chose the right card for you. If you're chasing the best you'll be spending $1500 every year upgrading your system.

 

[gridironcj]

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.

Honestly, don't let Shadow of Mordor be your main justification for getting an 8GB 970. The in-game benchmark is a poor rule of thumb for actual performance. I have 2 GTX Titans (which are 6GB Vram cards) and at 2560x1440, I had an average over 100 (even though the actual gameplay is capped at 100FPS). This is with the Ultra textures turned on (and yes, it uses up to 6GB). However, when I'm actually playing the game, my FPS drops to 40FPS during certain moments, but is mostly at 100FPS. The drop in FPS is deal-breaking though. If I turn textures to High, this is no longer a problem and my FPS remains around 100 throughout. Hence, this game simply runs like crap with Ultra textures, regardless of your GPU horsepower and Vram (at least in my experience). Perhaps 1920x1080 would be different.

The high Vram trend will continue. You could wait for an 8gn version, but there are better things on the way. In particular, we should see a GM 200 based card relatively soon. Rumor has it that the new flagship will have 12GB of Vram and a 50% performance gain over Titan Black. It will probably cost quite a bit though (especially if it has the Titan name on it), so if you're not looking to spend $700-$1000, you should just stick with a 970.

 

[carlosriosness]

I am surprised there hasn't been more info on the 8gb cards yet. I almost decided to upgrade my 660s in sli to a 970, but with the recent purchase of a 4k tv I don't think that will be a good choice. I already have a hard enough time running far cry 4 at 1080p, I want to be able to run gta v at 60fps 4k, but I don't know if a 8gb 970 will be enough.

 

[NoneBeforeNoneAfter]

Trust me NVIDIA is offering 8GB versions for a Reason and it it not to bribe people, not to be nice, not for the hell of it Let me put it direct. They are forced to. All there decisions are based on what needs to be done atm. This move must be done for there momentum forward. It is a smart business move. Aside from Games increasing texture packs and updates continually They have close ties with Game developers, VFX company's, Architects and so on who ware asking fro these changes.

 

[Hikakiller]

When wondering if the 3.5 gb vram is an issue, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6k55epUBCE

 

[Devin_3]

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.

Mate shadow of mordor does not need 6gb of vram for the hd texture pack. I can run the game at the 1440p setting on ultra at no lower than 45 fps at the worst moments in the benchmark when I have my 970 overclocked.

 

[domjam]

witcher 3 at ultra 1440p a 980ti dose not run it at full 60fps. sli is needed..so yea get 8gig card..more vram is allways better. hands down.