• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Quick opinions on GTX 970 please

wolfie138

wolfie138

wolfie138

Soldato
Joined
8 Jun 2013
Posts
4,545
Still dithering over a build, so as it's been suggested i'd be better w/ a 970 than a 960, what is the better option; the ASUS 970 Strix variant, or the EVGA SSC Rev 2?

ta in advance.
 
I had the Strix for about 3 months until I upgraded to a MSI 980ti. I had no problems with the Strix. There will be the people who bring up the memory issues (3.5gb of the advertised 4gb), but I had no issues at 1080p.

As always it will depend on your budget, but I would recommend the Asus Strix to anyone wanting a 970 as a dependable card.
 
Seems 390 is a better choice, even if you chose to mod just 1 or 2 games (I'm not a big modder but the odd game like skyrim it can be fun on) then that's when the 3.5gb could start letting you down and also the future proofing of it. Can't hurt to have the extra vram just in case (and especially since it's got more performance anyway). vram + performance is gonna make it a bit more worthwhile.

At the moment you get a free game with 390 as well so even at RRP you're looking at it being better value, more future proof (not likely to be a big issue but can't hurt to have it) and a better performer. 970 is just kind of lacking when you have all 3 of those things in favour of the alternative. Not to mention if you ever want to go SLI / Crossfire then it'll not only last you longer but I imagine AMD cards don't retain there value quite as well just because of Nvidia cards tending to be more popular (making the second card cheaper to buy)
 
Last edited:
I have the Strix and it's a very good card, overclocks to 1506mhz on stock volts and runs pretty much all games at playable framerates with some tweaking. Of course you won't be able to max every current game and maintain satisfactory performance but I think you'll still be very happy with it.

About the 3.5gb "issue, it's mostly brought up by people who either don't have the card or by fanboys who think the 390 is significantly more futureproof because of 8gb vram.

Actually, I've recently moved to 1440p and still can't hit the vram limit in any game. I tried Shadow of Mordor at 1440p with ultra textures and was using well over 3.5gb without any sort of stuttering (the game was running at 38-45fps, though).

I thought it would be impossible but oc'd to 1506mhz, the card runs GTA V at 1440p almost maxed (including some advanced settings) with grass on very high, Project True Reality SweetFX profile and population/traffic density increased above max values. What's more it runs it at almost stable 60fps, only dropping to 45-50 in grassy areas, which I can live with.

Personally, I'd grab a used 970, overclock it, use it for as long as you want and grab something better when new cards arrive.

At this point in time, I treat both the 970 and the 390 as stopgap cards and if you really want to buy new either one will do the trick (but I don't really think they're worth it new). Just don't get cajoled into believing the 390 is significantly more powerful or futureproof:p This is an enthusiast forum, most people will be done with either within a year:p
 
I've had an MSI Gaming 970 and I can't fault it. It also overclocks like mad (1500MHz+ on stock volts, and could probably go higher).
 
970 and 390 basically same performance.

vram is basically a troll.you will struggle with either card if it needs that much performance vram aint gunna help.

they are 1080 cards for running maxxed out. which they do it very well and will do for next two years.


out of the both. amd generally has better colours image quality.
970 is generally quicker at 1080 regardless of what people say.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
970 and 390 basically same performance.

vram is basically a troll.you will struggle with either card if it needs that much performance vram aint gunna help.

they are 1080 cards for running maxxed out. which they do it very well and will do for next two years.


out of the both. amd generally has better colours image quality.
970 is generally quicker at 1080 regardless of what people say.
Click to expand...

Is that true? In the vast majority of threads I've read, people recommend the 390 > 970 because it's more powerful for the same money.
 
ElliotHand said:
Is that true? In the vast majority of threads I've read, people recommend the 390 > 970 because it's more powerful for the same money.
Click to expand...

The 390 is clocked higher 'out the box' but when you start to clock the 970 up, it then paints a different story. Having personally owned a GTX 970 and a 290X (both MSI Gaming models), there was bugger all difference between them.

It all comes down to software and features and if you just want to game, either will do well but if you like to record, stream, play Co-OP, you need to look a little deeper.
 
I had the MSI GTX 970 Gaming Edition, wish I never got rid of mine; I got brainwashed in the 3.5GB borefest, realistically I wasn't even effected by it @ 1920x1200P. :rolleyes:

If I was choosing a GTX 970 today, it would either be the MSI GTX 970 Gaming Edition or the EVGA GTX 970 SSC, upon reading reviews the maximum the SSC fan goes when overclocked is 36% at full load, it also has dual bios.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/4

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2015/05/08/evga-geforce-gtx-970-ssc-acx-2-0-review/1

Apparently there's a new revision of the MSI GTX 970 Gaming Edition 1.1 or 1.3 which is explained here >> http://www.overclock.net/t/1515697/msi-gtx-900-gaming-edition-owners-club/870#post_24154015

epZvaR5.jpg
 
Last edited:
~>Dg<~ said:
970 and 390 basically same performance.

vram is basically a troll.you will struggle with either card if it needs that much performance vram aint gunna help.

they are 1080 cards for running maxxed out. which they do it very well and will do for next two years.


out of the both. amd generally has better colours image quality.
970 is generally quicker at 1080 regardless of what people say.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

Having more vram is only an advantage if you can tap into it and 99% of the time you'll run out of grunt first. Neither the 970 nor the 390 can max The Witcher 3 at 1080p without dropping to 30-40fps and how much vram does the game use up at that res? <2GB?:p I can run it at 1440p with minor quality compromises and without BrokenWorks but I have to settle for around 45fps. The vram is still not a problem, it's the grunt of the card.

Between the 970 and 390, you can basically toss a coin (unless you prefer the features of a specific brand/honestly believe 8gb will make a difference) or grab a decent second-hand 970 which will be better value.
 
Amatsubu said:
Precisely.

Having more vram is only an advantage if you can tap into it and 99% of the time you'll run out of grunt first. Neither the 970 nor the 390 can max The Witcher 3 at 1080p without dropping to 30-40fps and how much vram does the game use up at that res? <2GB?:p I can run it at 1440p with minor quality compromises and without BrokenWorks but I have to settle for around 45fps. The vram is still not a problem, it's the grunt of the card.

Between the 970 and 390, you can basically toss a coin (unless you prefer the features of a specific brand/honestly believe 8gb will make a difference) or grab a decent second-hand 970 which will be better value.
Click to expand...

Let's see.

GTX 970

3.5GB VRAM + 0.5GB
partial Async Compute
Possible drop off in performance as new architecture is release due to reduced developments in drivers

R9 390

8GB VRAM
Full Hardware Async Compute
No drop off in performance due to drivers based on GCN architecture


Since many also say the GTXC 970 can be overclocked, it's fair to say so can the 390 so the point is moot.
 
many thanks for the reply, i'll look into the MSI card.
I've got the 980 Strix in my other build, very capable card, though i was getting plagued by Bugcheck278 stuff (which i HOPE is now sorted), i originally thought this was a card issue but i'm pretty sure it's not. ASUS always seems decent quality though their customer care could be a bit better.
as far as the 3.5Gb issue, as far as i'm concerned it's a non-issue, especially for me as i doubt i'll eer be gaming at the level that will cause probs. doing renders on a big scene might be another story but i'll worry about that as and when.

forgot to say; flat out not interested in ATI cards as they fkd me off greatly in the past, w/ performance and customer "service". That aside, the far lower power draw is what i'm looking for.

thanks again.
 
Last edited:
I would get the 390 for the extra memory just because. And dx12 seems to be showing the 390 to get away from the 970 even with the big overclocks. Not to mention it will run at 1200mhz which matches a 970's overclock at about 1450 for dx11 games.
 

No idea what is going on with the hot chick spinning but she does a good comparison that you can see what is what and the music is pretty good as well :D
 
Looking to the next few years i would get the 390 as it should last longer due to proper memory configuration and more of it. From what we have seen of dx12 so far the 390 seems to fair better than the gtx970 even at 1080p. Granted it's not enough to say this pattern will continue but if i was placing a bet for the better card over the next few years i would bet on the 390.

Edit: Missed the op's post above gtx970 it is then.

wolfie138 said:
forgot to say; flat out not interested in ATI cards as they fkd me off greatly in the past, w/ performance and customer "service". That aside, the far lower power draw is what i'm looking for.
Click to expand...

Ati are no more and have not been for a while now :D :D
 
Last edited:
wolfie138 said:
forgot to say; flat out not interested in ATI cards as they fkd me off greatly in the past, w/ performance and customer "service". That aside, the far lower power draw is what i'm looking for.

thanks again.
Click to expand...

Maybe it would have been a good idea to mention that in the OP so people don't waste time recommending stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom