970 vs 380X PhysX

[Rroff]

nVidia is mostly moving PhysX functionality into the GameWorks library under FleX implemented using Direct X rather than CUDA (which runs on AMD GPUs though how well it performs is another matter) so future titles will be generally using that if anything rather than GPU PhysX.

The VRAM use is a bit of a mixed story - I'm using a 2560x1440 monitor (ROG Swift) with both a 780 and 970 to hand and there aren't that many games that actually use over 3GB - a lot of games with ultra settings (using the same settings on both) sit at 28xxMB used on the 780 and 34xx-36xxMB on the 970 with absolutely no impact on performance, smoothness or visual quality on the 780 (so largely the extra is probably cached data) - whereas at 4K the VRAM use would push past 3GB on the 780 and even ignoring the core performance make it struggle badly. That said the actual payload isn't that far from 3GB at ultra settings with some games so I'd definitely want a decent bit of headroom if I was upgrading - preferably above 4GB.

 

[slick rick]

All things considered I think I will get a 970 for the extra power and PhysX stuff. I won't be buying new again for a while so may as well get what I can stretch to now I guess.

With regard 1440... I think instead of getting that 25" AOC I have been looking at I'll get a larger 1080 screen instead, probs 27".

Thanks for the information.

What about picking up a used 980?

 

[tommybhoy]

Ah well, look on the bright side. If still running the 970 come summer, you won't have to game in your underpants any more due to not pumping anywhere near as much heat as your previous flamethrowers

Already been through summer on 970, it's a bit better...

Don't believe the hype

 

[~>Dg<~]

thomy with his amd flag flying as usual

 

[Geeman1979]

Regained his confidence and crawled out from the woodwork.

Normal service resumes

 

[Gregster]

The 970 is more for gaming at 1080p...its 3.5GB vram could struggle at 1440 res for some titles.

3.5GB? I thought they all had 4GB

Just to say, my Titan X struggles at 1440P in some titles but if you know of a single GPU that can cope, please do tell.

 

[Geeman1979]

3.5GB? I thought they all had 4GB

Just to say, my Titan X struggles at 1440P in some titles but if you know of a single GPU that can cope, please do tell.

The 390 with it's gazillion gigs of Vram, it conquers all.

 

[Marine-RX179]

3.5GB? I thought they all had 4GB

Just to say, my Titan X struggles at 1440P in some titles but if you know of a single GPU that can cope, please do tell.

You are talking about something completely different.

There's a difference between potential lack of smoothness due to lower frame rate due to lack of grunt, and potential stuttering due to lack of vram/ tapping into the use of the last 500MB of vram on 32-bit bus.

 

[Gregster]

You are talking about something completely different.

There's a difference between potential lack of smoothness due to lower frame rate due to lack of grunt, and potential stuttering due to lack of vram/ tapping into the use of the last 500MB of vram on 32-bit bus.

Hmmmm, so do they have 3.5GB (like you said) or not?

And to clarify some more, I did actually use a 970 at 1440P and it ran out of grunt before it ran out of VRAM, pretty much the same as the 290X I had. Both good cards and both with 4GB of VRAM

 

[thebennyboy]

I would go with a 390 if you want to go 1440p, the 970 with 4GB of VRAM may struggle in some titles.

The only downside with going with a 390 is you won't have PhysX, you do get double the VRAM over the 970 though which is better for 1440p!

 

[Geeman1979]

Both will struggle in some titles at 1440p with certain settings regardless of the amount of Vram.

 

[HazardO]

Hmmmm, so do they have 3.5GB (like you said) or not?

And to clarify some more, I did actually use a 970 at 1440P and it ran out of grunt before it ran out of VRAM, pretty much the same as the 290X I had. Both good cards and both with 4GB of VRAM

They have 4GB in total, but only 3.5GB is accessible at full bandwidth as the 970 has had one if it's memory controllers culled vs the 980.

I find 970s are very good at 1440p, there's only a very small list of titles where the VRAM is an issue. In SLI they'll keep up with a 980Ti most of the time (unless SLI is not supported).
If I was buying now and couldn't wait for pascal, I'd get a 980Ti, but it didn't exist at the time I was upgrading, and I've had over a years worth of 980Ti comparable performance before the Ti did exist. (Titan was stupidly priced so that wasn't a consideration).

 

[tommybhoy]

thomy with his amd flag flying as usual

Creak creak, not going to even contemplate insulting anyones intelligence that I 'like' both of them but, cutting through the BS isn't flying a company you dumped last year.

Hmmmm, so do they have 3.5GB (like you said) or not?

Might as well be 3.5Gb, after 7 months of 970 gaming, they certainly look like they only use 3.5Gb, well 3.59Gb to be exact.

Like Iv'e been saying for ages, not much to shout about 4 v 3.5Gb fast ram as Nvidia leashed the vram usage driver side, very few titles venture past 3.59Gb, it's downhill all the way from there if they do though, thanks Nvidia for G-Sync Mclovn to paper the cracks.

 

[Marine-RX179]

They have 4GB in total, but only 3.5GB is accessible at full bandwidth as the 970 has had one if it's memory controllers culled vs the 980.

I find 970s are very good at 1440p, there's only a very small list of titles where the VRAM is an issue. In SLI they'll keep up with a 980Ti most of the time (unless SLI is not supported).
If I was buying now and couldn't wait for pascal, I'd get a 980Ti, but it didn't exist at the time I was upgrading, and I've had over a years worth of 980Ti comparable performance before the Ti did exist. (Titan was stupidly priced so that wasn't a consideration).

Exactly.

That's why I said the 970 "could" have issue with "some" titles at 1440 res, but obviously some people are not happy with me stating even that. But yea I recall reading that Nvidia had capped the memory usage on driver side as tommy mentioned above.

 

[Gregster]

Exactly.

That's why I said the 970 "could" have issue with "some" titles at 1440 res, but obviously some people are not happy with me stating even that. But yea I recall reading that Nvidia had capped the memory usage on driver side as tommy mentioned above.

I used 3.7GB when doing my review and no slow downs, so can you provide me some evidence of Nvidia capping the memory usage please.

 

[Geeman1979]

Exactly.

That's why I said the 970 "could" have issue with "some" titles at 1440 res, but obviously some people are not happy with me stating even that. But yea I recall reading that Nvidia had capped the memory usage on driver side as tommy mentioned above.

Both the 970 & 390 could have issues "Game dependant" at 1440p if settings are turned up high enough.

 

[Ayahuasca]

The 3.5gb debate still going strong I see although it's not even an issue outside of nVidia lying to customers, which was unacceptable.

If I was buying now between those two I'd go for a 390.

 

[Geeman1979]

If I was choosing between the two, i'd go with either. Vram wouldn't sway my decision one bit. Pluses and minuses with both cards, performance wise there's nothing in it.

 

[tommybhoy]

If I was choosing now I'd still go Nvidia because of GW's.

I used 3.7GB when doing my review and no slow downs, so can you provide me some evidence of Nvidia capping the memory usage please.

Your vid review shows evidence of being capped driver side, SOM uses as much is on the gpu

1440p must use a baw hair more than 1080p.

 

[Gregster]

If I was choosing now I'd still go Nvidia because of GW's.



Your vid review shows evidence of being capped driver side, SOM uses as much is on the gpu

1440p must use a baw hair more than 1080p.

No, you are seeing what you want and claiming a YouTube video as evidence. All of my vids are the same but if you felt this way, why on earth did you go from a 290 to a 970 lol

Anyways, Nuff said.