970's having performance issues using 4GB Vram - Nvidia investigating

ubersonic · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:12

Kipz said:
Just going to leave this here.

http://i.4cdn.org/g/1423781683154.webm

Looks like GoT intro, I even heard the wiener wiener song in my head XD

leon4112 · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:26

LambChop said:
Just going to leave this here.

3.5GB gimped card still slaughters 290x
NVidia also causes AMD to drastically lower prices due to gimped card

Doesn't Slaughter it but it is faster.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960,4038-4.html

humbug · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:32

leon4112 said:
Doesn't Slaughter it but it is faster.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960,4038-4.html

According to that the 290X is only 10% quicker than a 280X, so only having a 290 None X i would be better off with a 280X

Anyone want to swap?

RavenXXX2 · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:34

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1059?vs=1355

That's more like it.

~>Dg<~ · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:36

ask anyone whos tried a 290vs 970. if they honest they will tell you a 970 gtx is quicker at everything except 4k then there is like 2 fps difference to the 290.

Uncle Petey · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:38

Slightly quicker is not the same as 'slaughters'.

humbug · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:38

~>Dg<~ said:
ask anyone whos tried a 290vs 970. if they honest they will tell you a 970 gtx is quicker at everything except 4k then there is like 2 fps difference to the 290.

There are a few posts around here now with people saying they have a better experience with the 290.

Harlequin · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:39

~>Dg<~ said:
ask anyone whos tried a 290vs 970. if they honest they will tell you a 970 gtx is quicker at everything except 4k then there is like 2 fps difference to the 290.

amazingly the opposite is also being said in this very thread.....

TheRealDeal · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:43

~>Dg<~ said:
ask anyone whos tried a 290vs 970. if they honest they will tell you a 970 gtx is quicker at everything except 4k then there is like 2 fps difference to the 290.

At 1080p sure the gtx970 might be slightly quicker but above that things change. The 290x is the more powerful card.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_960_STRIX_OC/29.html

Ayahuasca · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:47

I'd argue anyone who can say one is faster than the other without an FPS counter is talking rubbish.

JamesM · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:49

The 970 is quicker than a 290 at 1080p

How do I know this? I had both.

leon4112 · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:50

RavenXXX2 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1059?vs=1355

That's more like it.

Anandtech is a load of crap they don't review anything just show graphs lol so no ideal what cpu they use what drivers so hardly useful to show anything.

PayneUK · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:52

The horse has been so long dead that they've gotten Tony Robinson in to dig it up and prove it actually existed in a 3 part special, but still people try to flog it.

leon4112 · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:52

TheRealDeal said:
At 1080p sure the gtx970 might be slightly quicker but above that things change. The 290x is the more powerful card.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_960_STRIX_OC/29.html

Yeah what ive always said from the start 1080p 970 is quicker above this go for a 980gtx or 290x 8gb

leon4112 · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:53

humbug said:
According to that the 290X is only 10% quicker than a 280X, so only having a 290 None X i would be better off with a 280X

Anyone want to swap?

Well these were with the current drivers etc so its not that out of date!

older review with 8gb card
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/sapphire-vapor-x-r9-290x-8gb,review-33067-4.html

RavenXXX2 · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:56

leon4112 said:
Anandtech is a load of crap they don't review anything just show graphs lol so no ideal what cpu they use what drivers so hardly useful to show anything.

I find them to be truly accurate to my own results.

RavenXXX2 · 13 Feb 2015 at 15:56

JamesM said:
The 970 is quicker than a 290 at 1080p

How do I know this? I had both.

Talking about the 290X.

ubersonic · 13 Feb 2015 at 16:05

At 2560x1080 the reference GTX970 is faster than the reference R290X if that's any help (own both). Of course factory overclocked cards will vary in mileage.

humbug · 13 Feb 2015 at 16:11

RavenXXX2 said:
I find them to be truly accurate to my own results.

Probably more accurate than that Toms review.

Going from older reviews somehow the 280X has gained 22% while the 290X has only gained 2%.

Add to that what they are saying is the 290X is only 10% faster than the 280X, so the 290 None X having 10% less shaders and being 5% lower clocked would be no faster or even slightly slower than the 280X.

How can the 280X gain so much while the 290X change but gain nothing? in the same review how can the latter card be 30/40%% more powerful and yet lose that performance.

Its almost as if they published accurate reviews until it came to the 290X vs the 970, like they pushed the 290X under the 970 without taking the rest of the card's into consideration.

Looks to me like "Dodgy Donors"

sorry, could not resist.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960,4038-4.html

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-r9-290-review-benchmark,review-32818-6.html

TheGentry · 13 Feb 2015 at 16:15

Sad to see the "best value for money" card is a dud,