Should I refund my GTX 970 for 1080p

[ninj0e]

So should I get a full refund on my GTX 970 and get my money back or should I stay with it? I do not plan on going above 1080p at the very moment (for a few more years) and I need to be clear with this decision, I have about 1 month to decide whether I should get a full refund or if I should keep it. I have had no issues with it, maxing out every single game I have tested on it, such as Far Cry 4, Dying Light, Metro Last Light, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield 4 and many others. The reason that I am concerned about this is because people saying that 3.5GB wont be enough vram for future games and blablabla and so this question has come to my mind. I will leave my system specs below.

 

[06yfz450ridr]

youll be fine at that resolution. im pretty sure you can use all 4 gb if needed but the split .5gb is slower if i'm not mistaken?

 

[Joseph DeGarmo]

The only reason you'll need 4 GB of VRAM is if you're running top games using DSR-emulated 4K resolution. Dragon Age: Inquisition is quite heavy on VRAM usage in 1080p (2.5 GB VRAM usage) and Titanfall goes way up to 3.6 GB on maxed settings due to the "insane" textures, which is like 8K textures or something like that.

 

[eddieb101]

At 1080p the 970 is all the graphics card you will need for the next few years. If you downgrade to something like a gtx960 then yes it should be capable of 1080p now but will start to struggle as time goes by. I would personally stick with the 970!

 

[FunSurfer]

To OP - There is no reason to change your card because the only better modern upgrade for you now is the GTX 980, so if 3.5GB Vram will not be enough for future gaming @ 1080p, 4GB Vram will not be enough too.
Some numbers for how not enough it will be for max settings:
I have a GTX 970 and play FC4, but my screen is small (1440x900), FC4 use a 16:9 aspect ratio so my actual screen resolution when playing the game is 1440x810, I tested Vram usage with GPU-Z:
Ultra settings + Nvidia settings + MSAAx8 - Vram usage 3.45GB.
Ultra settings + Nvidia settings + MSAAx4 - Vram usage 2.7GB.

So if the game uses 3.45GB @ 1440x810 you can calculate how much is Vram needed @ 1080p, that will have to be more than 4GB.
Notice that my 970 didn't reach the 3.5GB limit, so this is a "true" result for how much the game uses at my resolution, and if you will look at FC4 1080p Vram usage in the internet and see a 3.5-3.6GB Vram usage it means that the Vram on the card is already saturated and you can't know how much the the game can really use at that resolution.

 

[Rafael Luik]

Notice that my 970 didn't reach the 3.5GB limit

LOL you can't hit it because NVIDIA blocked you from using the last 0.5 GB.

 

[Backlash Pro]

You can MAX out dying light and maintain HIGH FPS? I have a GTX 980 thats overclocked and in certain parts of the city it drops down to about 35 FPS with it being maxed.

I went with the 980 because it seems to be the most future proof right now. I was going to get SLI 970 but after my last SLI build (2 GTX 660 ti) I realized SLI isnt always supported (ESO till like a year after it released) and the micro stutters bother the heck out of me. I listened to the community and went with the most powerful single card in my budget and I couldnt be happier.

personally, I would return it and wait to see what AMD has to offer in the next few months or pony up and get a 980.

 

[renz496]

Notice that my 970 didn't reach the 3.5GB limit

LOL you can't hit it because NVIDIA blocked you from using the last 0.5 GB.

AFAIK nvidia optimize their driver so the game will use the first 3.5GB first. but it did not outright preventing the game to use the last 0.5GB of VRAM. if that's the case then there is no need to waste money on nvidia part to put that 0.5GB VRAM on the card. but some people reporting now 970 able to use the last portion more effectively with the latest driver.

 

[Joseph DeGarmo]

It has been found that my GTX 970 going over 3.5 GB VRAM has no negative effect on fps. With Dragon Age: Inquisition running maxed in 4K, I noticed no difference in fps with the VRAM usage at 3.4 GB compared to 3.9 GB. And that's on the 344.80 and 347.52 drivers.

 

[r3v3ng3]

I wonder if anyone would be questioning the ability of the 970 if Nvidia had just stuck to their original idea and manufactured it as a 3gb card...... Regardless, lets say you do return it. Then what? you either buy a slightly weaker card (r9 290x) or you go one step up and pay an extra 40% (gtx 980), either way you pay a price, be it performance or money. I'm not saying what Nvidia did was ok, or condoning it in any way, but lets face it, 4gb or 3.5gb, that card is a BEAST! You also have to realise a lot of these games that may come up needing closer to 4gb of VRAM, are unoptimised ports from consoles. Far Cry 4 is a great example, although that game looks good, there's no way it should tax your VRAM so much, same with Dragon Age. Both were designed for consoles, and when the time came to make the PC copy, shortcuts were taken. Moral of the story? With games like those, unoptimisation will get you before VRAM will. Regardless of how much VRAM you got, if its buggy and unplayable, no amount of VRAM will save you.

 

[Joseph DeGarmo]

Dragon Age: Inquisition with the latest patch seems nearly as well optimized as Battlefield 4, even when maxed. The only reason that the game uses up to 4 GB VRAM in 4K resolution is the SpeedTree modification of the Frostbite 3 engine. That and the weather effects, heavy vegetation (especially in Emerald Graves), and fade touched effects.

 

[bishopi5]

you will never need more then 4gb vram for 1080p, gtx 970 so nice man, enjoy it

 

[Rafael Luik]

Yayy NVIDIA is ripping us off so let's throw more money at them! o/

 

[r3v3ng3]

Yayy NVIDIA is ripping us off so let's throw more money at them! o/

Someone's butt hurt

EDIT: I should probably elaborate, otherwise I run the risk of sounding like an idiot, as you seem to be. They should have mentioned the segmentation of VRAM at the time the 970 hit the market. Albeit the only real piece of false advertising is the bus speeds, and this is quite a crucial piece of information. Now, when people like you claim you are ripped off, that's not entirely true. Assuming the best possible outcome for consumers who purchased a 970 is they get a refund, they have two choices to maintain similar or better performance as I stated above. Given that, I would say that no more than 20% of people who purchased a 970 (I assume this is the % of consumers who intended to SLI the card) will be the only to return it, because it has such great price/performance. I recently built my own rig and my cousins rig, I myself purchased a 980 and he got a 970, he is in no way disappointed with his card. Sure it would be nice to see some kind of compensation (a free AAA title, $50 gift voucher on eftpos card) but in no way is the 970 not worth its price, that's why even after the VRAM fiasco, people are still posting builds on this site and others that include the card for it's current price.

 

[r3v3ng3]

Dragon Age: Inquisition with the latest patch seems nearly as well optimized as Battlefield 4, even when maxed. The only reason that the game uses up to 4 GB VRAM in 4K resolution is the SpeedTree modification of the Frostbite 3 engine. That and the weather effects, heavy vegetation (especially in Emerald Graves), and fade touched effects.

My mistake I thought you meant 4gb VRAM in 1080p.

 

[Rafael Luik]

Yayy NVIDIA is ripping us off so let's throw more money at them! o/

Someone's butt hurt

Not the NVIdiots, they can take NVIDIA's rip off in the butt all day and they like it. ROFLOL

 

[renz496]

Yayy NVIDIA is ripping us off so let's throw more money at them! o/

Someone's butt hurt

Not the NVIdiots, they can take NVIDIA's rip off in the butt all day and they like it. ROFLOL

better keep it civil before the mods steps in.

 

[qwerkus]

I would keep the 970, but definitely OC that CPU. Mine is running at 4,4Ghz for more than a year now, and rarely passes 60C.

 

[FunSurfer]

Notice that my 970 didn't reach the 3.5GB limit

LOL you can't hit it because NVIDIA blocked you from using the last 0.5 GB.

The limit of the first memory pool of card is 3560mb, my Vram usage didn't pass 3450mb, so I didn't reached the limit.

 

[Rafael Luik]

Notice that my 970 didn't reach the 3.5GB limit

LOL you can't hit it because NVIDIA blocked you from using the last 0.5 GB.

The limit of the first memory pool of card is 3560mb, my Vram usage didn't pass 3450mb, so I didn't reached the limit.

You know about the tests showing the same game with same settings on 970 vs 980 and in the 980 it goes above 3.5 GB right? NVIDIA makes the card avoid the last 0.5 like the plague. Also you don't have the full specified mem bandwidth because it only reaches the max when accessing the two segments of memory, NVIDIA likes to be ironical with its consumers.

 

[FunSurfer]

Notice that my 970 didn't reach the 3.5GB limit

LOL you can't hit it because NVIDIA blocked you from using the last 0.5 GB.

The limit of the first memory pool of card is 3560mb, my Vram usage didn't pass 3450mb, so I didn't reached the limit.

You know about the tests showing the same game with same settings on 970 vs 980 and in the 980 it goes above 3.5 GB right? NVIDIA makes the card avoid the last 0.5 like the plague. Also you don't have the full specified mem bandwidth because it only reaches the max when accessing the two segments of memory, NVIDIA likes to be ironical with its consumers.

Yes of course I know that, I'm just saying that the GTX 970 is the best graphics card in the world right now for maxing out next-gen games for 900p resolution, and the GTX 980 is not enough for 1080p, because if you look at the data in my first post, the cost of going from MSAAx4 to MSAAx8 is 750mb @ 810p resolution, 1080p is about twice as many pixels as 810p so that setting alone will cost about 1.3gb Vram, and 3.45+1.3=4.75gb and there is also the cost of 1080p itself.

 

[06yfz450ridr]

Notice that my 970 didn't reach the 3.5GB limit

LOL you can't hit it because NVIDIA blocked you from using the last 0.5 GB.

The limit of the first memory pool of card is 3560mb, my Vram usage didn't pass 3450mb, so I didn't reached the limit.

You know about the tests showing the same game with same settings on 970 vs 980 and in the 980 it goes above 3.5 GB right? NVIDIA makes the card avoid the last 0.5 like the plague. Also you don't have the full specified mem bandwidth because it only reaches the max when accessing the two segments of memory, NVIDIA likes to be ironical with its consumers.

Yes of course I know that, I'm just saying that the GTX 970 is the best graphics card in the world right now for maxing out next-gen games for 900p resolution, and the GTX 980 is not enough for 1080p, because if you look at the data in my first post, the cost of going from MSAAx4 to MSAAx8 is 750mb @ 810p resolution, 1080p is about twice as many pixels as 810p so that setting alone will cost about 1.3gb Vram, and 3.45+1.3=4.75gb and there is also the cost of 1080p itself.

how are you getting those numbers? not sure how 4.75gb of vram came to be? might as well run 1440p and lower the AA which in turn = less cpu load 3Gb is still enough for 1440p for any game i play maxed minus some aa since my cpu cannot handle it

 

[FunSurfer]

Notice that my 970 didn't reach the 3.5GB limit

LOL you can't hit it because NVIDIA blocked you from using the last 0.5 GB.

The limit of the first memory pool of card is 3560mb, my Vram usage didn't pass 3450mb, so I didn't reached the limit.

You know about the tests showing the same game with same settings on 970 vs 980 and in the 980 it goes above 3.5 GB right? NVIDIA makes the card avoid the last 0.5 like the plague. Also you don't have the full specified mem bandwidth because it only reaches the max when accessing the two segments of memory, NVIDIA likes to be ironical with its consumers.

Yes of course I know that, I'm just saying that the GTX 970 is the best graphics card in the world right now for maxing out next-gen games for 900p resolution, and the GTX 980 is not enough for 1080p, because if you look at the data in my first post, the cost of going from MSAAx4 to MSAAx8 is 750mb @ 810p resolution, 1080p is about twice as many pixels as 810p so that setting alone will cost about 1.3gb Vram, and 3.45+1.3=4.75gb and there is also the cost of 1080p itself.

how are you getting those numbers? not sure how 4.75gb of vram came to be? might as well run 1440p and lower the AA which in turn = less cpu load 3Gb is still enough for 1440p for any game i play maxed minus some aa since my cpu cannot handle it

I did a rough calculation of how much Vram will be needed for one setting of 1080p based on how much Vram it uses on 810p, and added it to the 810p result. So IF you are playing FC4 on max settings @ 1080p, 4.75gb is a portion the Vram that the game will "want" to use. There is also the portion of the resolution raise from 810P to 1080p but I can't calculate that because I don't know how much Vram is dedicated (from the 3.45gb) just for the resolution, as some Vram store other things.
I don't think that FC4 is just stuffing data to the Vram like the early next-gen games because if that was the case I would have seen a 3.56gb Vram usage on both MSAAx4 and MSAAx8.
Lacking the full Vram amount that the game "wants" will add more stuttering and hiccups to the gameplay as more data will be shared with the system RAM. I didn't say that the game will be unplayeble.

 

[Ryrynz]

Stick with the 970. Waste of time selling it unless you're upgrading.

 

[omgzhobbs]

I've been playing games on my 970 on DSR without any issues.. They run without a stutter, its perfect.. i don't get why people moaned so much.. its not like anything actually uses the max amount of ram it says it has.