Would Two Graphics Cards of Different Brands Work?

[JTHarden]

How's it goin guys! So I originally bought a Sapphire Radeon R9 270x 2GB that was meant to handle Fallout 4 when it comes out. This is my first gaming rig by the way. Well I've realized that this GPU won't cut it to get the most out of the graphics of the game as I can get. So I'm about to purchase the EVGA Geforce GTX 970 Super Clocked. This thing can definitely handle the graphic power of Fallout 4. But before I try and sell the Sapphire Radeon online I was wondering if you all think I could possibly use a crossfire cable to link the two together for a little more kick? Thanks for the help guys!

 

[spagalicious]

Nope. Crossfire works with only AMD cards of the same suit (i.e. two R9 270x). Nvidia SLI works the same, utilizing a pair of sli certified cards (i.e. two GTX 970)

Sell the 270X and save up for another GTX 970, if you have the resolution that warrants such GPU horsepower. At 1080p, a single GTX 970 is more than enough.

Hope this helps!

 

[azca]

you can sell your 270x or buy a 2nd 270x to run in CrossFire to nearly double your FPS. You can buy a 2nd 270x for about $150 now.

You can also buy an R9 290 for $240. It will give you double the performance of 270x and 90% the performance of GTX 970 for a lot less with full 4GB VRAM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131668&cm_re=powercolor_290-_-14-131-668-_-Product

don't forget that gtx 970 only has 3.2GB of usable VRAM http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/79925-nvidia-explains-geforce-gtx-970s-memory-problems/

 

[Gam3r01]

You can only SLI/Xfire the same base chip. Ie 970 and 970, 7970 and 280x etc.
So in your case no.

Azca, that is misinformation. First of all, its 3.5 of full bandwidth memory, and .5 of slower memory. Note: Slower, not unusable, nor is it .8
The 970 still performs, as benchmarked, since day one.

 

[azca]

numbers don't lie http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/79925-nvidia-explains-geforce-gtx-970s-memory-problems/

You can only SLI/Xfire the same base chip. Ie 970 and 970, 7970 and 280x etc.
So in your case no.

Azca, that is misinformation. First of all, its 3.5 of full bandwidth memory, and .5 of slower memory. Note: Slower, not unusable, nor is it .8
The 970 still performs, as benchmarked, since day one.

 

[Gam3r01]

This is not the place to argue this, but literally the second sentence proves what you said wrong.

This furore picks up on the fact that the GeForce GTX 970's memory-bandwidth performance dives when more than 3.5GB out of the possible 4GB is used, and, crucially, this is a situation that doesn't arise with the seemingly architecturally-similar GeForce GTX 980.

3.5, not 3.2, and dives, not unusable.
The .5 limited bandwidth is not new news, its been evaluated, and it is still a good card to recommend.

 

[azca]

can you read the article and look at the SCREENSHOTS provided in the article which clearly shows only 3.2GB VRAM?

"Digging deeper and putting some numbers on these bones, the folks over at Lazygamer.net have shown that after approximately 3.3GB of usage the memory bandwidth of the GTX 970 tails off magnificently, from 150GB/s down to as low as 20GB/s - see the below image for more details"

http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/79925-nvidia-explains-geforce-gtx-970s-memory-problems/

This is not the place to argue this, but literally the second sentence proves what you said wrong.

This furore picks up on the fact that the GeForce GTX 970's memory-bandwidth performance dives when more than 3.5GB out of the possible 4GB is used, and, crucially, this is a situation that doesn't arise with the seemingly architecturally-similar GeForce GTX 980.

3.5, not 3.2, and dives, not unusable.

 

[Gam3r01]

Yet nearly every other source on the topic shows 3.5? Interesting.
Like I said, not the place.

OP has selected the answer, and this was not his question.

 

[azca]

can you provide some links please for those sources? (not nvidia marketing response)

Yet nearly every other source on the topic shows 3.5? Interesting.

 

[Gam3r01]

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-memory-issue-fully-explained/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8931/nvidia-publishes-statement-on-geforce-gtx-970-memory-allocation

 

[azca]

yes, these 2 articles simply report the news, since they haven't done any actual testing themselves to verify any claims

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-memory-issue-fully-explained/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8931/nvidia-publishes-statement-on-geforce-gtx-970-memory-allocation

 

[Gam3r01]

Yet the link you posted has the same chart...
The second half of the wccftech explains how they did their own memory allocation testing.

 

[azca]

that chart was provided by nvidia pr/marketing team to nullify any issues and keep selling the card as 4GB. If that's not outright lying and manipulation on their part, I don't know what is

Yet the link you posted has the same chart...