Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Mar on January 15, 2016, 09:38:47 PM
-
I'm looking into getting this card, but I'm not sure which to choose. I know I want it from EVGA, but they have about ten different versions of it and I'm not sure how to tell the differences.
HERE (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487090&cm_re=gtx_970-_-14-487-088-_-Product) is what I'm looking at.
-
You want this.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125684
-
Because...?
-
Yes?
£250
-
Personally, I would only get an Evga because of their phenomenal warranties. The Reference cooler version is quieter and do not blow as much air into the case. The ACX style cooler versions are louder and disrupt the airflow of your case. The G1 is a good card, but I don't see the ease of an RMA, unlike Evga.
-
Because...?
The Windforce cooling system tends to be a bit better, so overclocking capabilities tend to be a bit better.
Personally I would not go with any reference design.
-
Cool, thanks.
Can anyone tell me what EVGA's SC, 2.0, 2.0+ etc stuff is all about?
-
Cool, thanks.
Can anyone tell me what EVGA's SC, 2.0, 2.0+ etc stuff is all about?
SC is Superclocked. The factory SC cards use the best chips coming off the production line and, unlike overclocking your own card, the manufacturer warranty remains in force.
Is it worth the extra money? I guess it depends on how important the warranty is to you. You can probably buy a regular version, overclock it yourself and end up in a similar position for a little less money but you lose the warranty. I've always used EVGA cards and have only had one fail but that was after years of use.
-
SC is Superclocked. The factory SC cards use the best chips coming off the production line and, unlike overclocking your own card, the manufacturer warranty remains in force.
Is it worth the extra money? I guess it depends on how important the warranty is to you. You can probably buy a regular version, overclock it yourself and end up in a similar position for a little less money but you lose the warranty. I've always used EVGA cards and have only had one fail but that was after years of use.
Since BE helped w/ the SC part I won't bring that up.
The 2.0 is the version of the ACX cooling solution meaning it's an improved version vs the original ACX cooler version & the 2.0+ is an ACX 2.0 version cooler w/ improved cooling fans providing more positive cooling pressure vs the ACX 2.0 reference cooler.
That is a good choice & should perform very well for you. You gonna use this card w/ a 1920 x 1080 res monitor or are you gonna be using it w/ a 2560 x 1440 res monitor? At 1080p you should be golden......
Hope this helps you out.
:salute
-
Since BE helped w/ the SC part I won't bring that up.
The 2.0 is the version of the ACX cooling solution meaning it's an improved version vs the original ACX cooler version & the 2.0+ is an ACX 2.0 version cooler w/ improved cooling fans providing more positive cooling pressure vs the ACX 2.0 reference cooler.
That is a good choice & should perform very well for you. You gonna use this card w/ a 1920 x 1080 res monitor or are you gonna be using it w/ a 2560 x 1440 res monitor? At 1080p you should be golden......
Hope this helps you out.
:salute
1080p :banana:
Now there's one more, FTW. It shows as having the fastest core clock right? And the + comes with a back plate. What does the plate do, just protect the back?
-
Assuming it has the same functionality as mine then yes. Many older cards had the PCB showing. Most of the newer/higher end cards have backplates on them which usually have some sort of logo, but it is mainly for protection I'd think. Some people say they are supposed to act as a heat dispersal and some say it is to give the card more support (since most are very long and only sit in the PCI slot and attach to the case at one point).
-
You want this.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125684
I got this, not disappointed. I was a EVGA guy to.
Go to new egg, place it in your cart but do not buy. wait, newegg will start sending you deals and you could get the card a little cheaper.
-
I got this, not disappointed. I was a EVGA guy to.
Go to new egg, place it in your cart but do not buy. wait, newegg will start sending you deals and you could get the card a little cheaper.
What makes it different? I'M STUPIDOnly better overclocking? I'm not really into overclocking just yet.
-
1080p :banana:
Now there's one more, FTW. It shows as having the fastest core clock right? And the + comes with a back plate. What does the plate do, just protect the back?
The FTW series (for the win) is a 970 GPU that comes from the highest binned GPU chips stock (highest quality wafers) that have the lowest voltage leakage so they can be factory OC'd the highest & remain stable thus retain the best warranty (also the highest price).
Hope this helps you, Mar.
:salute
-
The FTW series (for the win) is a 970 GPU that comes from the highest binned GPU chips stock (highest quality wafers) that have the lowest voltage leakage so they can be factory OC'd the highest & remain stable thus retain the best warranty (also the highest price).
Hope this helps you, Mar.
:salute
It does indeed. :rock
-
I run a stock 4770K (maybe OC might be needed in a few years?), stock 780ti across three monitors and get 60 frames regardless of the game. There should be no need to overclock on a single monitor with the eyecandy turned up. I believe the OC thing is being played a bit too much here, when the OP might not even need it.
-
What makes it different? I'M STUPIDOnly better overclocking? I'm not really into overclocking just yet.
The G1 has 3 cooling fans. Its about 12" long. These are 2 physical differences.
As far as Gigabyte vs EVGA. I have several EVGA cards, all work as advertised. The 1 time I had to do an RMA, it was done.
I started using Gigabyte mobos, I like them a lot. So when I went for a newer vid card......................... ............I doubt there would be that much difference performance wise between manufacturers.
Gigabyte uses dual bios as well.
The 4GB of ram is untrue, the 970 has a 3.5GB ram block and a .5GB ram block...................googl e this
some say it will not be good for the 4K monitors of future...........
For AH3 and my purposes, this card rocks for the dollar amount.
Pudgie could prolly give you chapter and verse of the different variants as well. He is quite good with the intel and specs.
:salute
-
If someone is using a 4K monitor, you are not looking into 970's. Let's keep the train on the rails here.
-
The 4GB of ram is untrue, the 970 has a 3.5GB ram block and a .5GB ram block
That does not mean it is untrue. It does indeed have 4GB of ram unless 3.5+.5 ≠ 4, but that would be news to me.
-
That does not mean it is untrue. It does indeed have 4GB of ram unless 3.5+.5 ≠ 4, but that would be news to me.
Agree with this. As far as I have read, they are 4gb cards.
-
This is/was the issue:
Although the 970 has 4GB of VRAM, not all of that memory is created equal. The 970 has two different segments of memory it can access, as Nvidia recently explained to PC Perspective: a primary segment with 3.5GB and a secondary, slower one with another 512MB.
Under normal conditions (and the vast majority of gaming scenarios), the card relies on the 3.5GB segment alone, turning to the supplementary segment only when necessary. But when a game needs more than 3.5GB of memory, tapping into the secondary segment drags down performance. Some are reporting stutters and frame rate drops as the card uses between 3.5GB and 4GB of memory.
From: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2875740/nvidia-explains-geforce-gtx-970s-memory-performance-issues-admits-error-in-specs.html (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2875740/nvidia-explains-geforce-gtx-970s-memory-performance-issues-admits-error-in-specs.html)
It didn't stop me from buying a 970. It's still a very good card for the price.
-
This is/was the issue:
Although the 970 has 4GB of VRAM, not all of that memory is created equal. The 970 has two different segments of memory it can access, as Nvidia recently explained to PC Perspective: a primary segment with 3.5GB and a secondary, slower one with another 512MB.
Under normal conditions (and the vast majority of gaming scenarios), the card relies on the 3.5GB segment alone, turning to the supplementary segment only when necessary. But when a game needs more than 3.5GB of memory, tapping into the secondary segment drags down performance. Some are reporting stutters and frame rate drops as the card uses between 3.5GB and 4GB of memory.
From: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2875740/nvidia-explains-geforce-gtx-970s-memory-performance-issues-admits-error-in-specs.html (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2875740/nvidia-explains-geforce-gtx-970s-memory-performance-issues-admits-error-in-specs.html)
It didn't stop me from buying a 970. It's still a very good card for the price.
Correct. However the poster said that the card having 4GB was untrue, which is false. It does have 4GB as advertised.
I agree, it is one of the best bang for the buck cards out there.
-
Correct. However the poster said that the card having 4GB was untrue, which is false. It does have 4GB as advertised.
I agree, it is one of the best bang for the buck cards out there.
just trying to get OP to research the subject so he knows. Yeah the 2 blocks total 4GB, but in practice it does not work that way. as per BE's post.
-
I have the EVGA 970 SSC, which is somewhere between the SC and the FTW. Runs AH3 fine so far.
-
That whole 3.5/4gb fiasco was more of a PR mistake than a real crisis IMO. I had purchased 2 970 eVGA cards they day they released, and never saw a problem until I'd read about the issue here, and only with one game I never played could I recreate any performance issues that brought the whole thing up. I did return them, but only because nVidia offered my company I deal with great terms for returns over the whole thing, not because I was unsatisfied with the 970s. The price went up on the cards dramatically here in Canada, plus the dollar plummeted vs the USD at the time too, so I made about 85$ per card, and switched to 2 980s for only a bit more money.
The 970 IMO has been a very impressive piece of kit, the Gigabyte variant like Spikes has especially so, being probably the best option out of a lot of great companies. It's incredible how long the 970 has been such a "go to" card for so many gamers/PC builders out there IMO.
-
That does not mean it is untrue. It does indeed have 4GB of ram unless 3.5+.5 ≠ 4, but that would be news to me.
They are 4GB cards, but the last 512MB is ultra slow RAM (cheaper) meant to be used for scratchpad work for the GPU. If your application actually needs 4GB of video RAM, the application WILL slow down and manifest many unsightly features (stutters, erratic motion, texture loading issues...).
As long as the application stays in the confines of the 3.5GB space, then everything is great. This is why I will say the 970 is the best bang-for-the-buck 1080 video card on the market. If you get beyond 1080 resolution, then you could run into the 3.5GB limit with several games.
-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=14-487-088&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=GD012516&cm_mmc=EMC-GD012516-_-index-_-Item-_-14-487-088
good sales price........................ ....
-
They are 4GB cards, but the last 512MB is ultra slow RAM (cheaper) meant to be used for scratchpad work for the GPU. If your application actually needs 4GB of video RAM, the application WILL slow down and manifest many unsightly features (stutters, erratic motion, texture loading issues...).
As long as the application stays in the confines of the 3.5GB space, then everything is great. This is why I will say the 970 is the best bang-for-the-buck 1080 video card on the market. If you get beyond 1080 resolution, then you could run into the 3.5GB limit with several games.
Does the 3.5GB limit affect AH3 at 2560 x 1440? Anyone compared AH3 performance with the 970 at 1080 v 1440?
TIA
-
Does the 3.5GB limit affect AH3 at 2560 x 1440? Anyone compared AH3 performance with the 970 at 1080 v 1440?
TIA
Right now, I would say AH3 will not be impacted.
-
I am now running an NVidia 970. Everything up max frame rates at 60 (naturally vid sync on) Great card for the price.
When you install, you will be directed through NVidia software to download the driver. Do so, it works great.
-
I am now running an NVidia 970. Everything up max frame rates at 60 (naturally vid sync on) Great card for the price.
When you install, you will be directed through NVidia software to download the driver. Do so, it works great.
What do you get in the beta?
-
What do you get in the beta?
Not sure if Hajo and I have the exact same card, but I also have a 970 and I hopped in there just to fly around in offline, with everything turned up I was locked at 60fps.
-
I am now running an NVidia 970. Everything up max frame rates at 60 (naturally vid sync on) Great card for the price.
When you install, you will be directed through NVidia software to download the driver. Do so, it works great.
What screen resolution do you use?
-
What do you get in the beta?
I also have a GFX 970 and in the beta with the graphic settings on high and the environmental slider on full, I get 96fps w/vsync off and a steady 60fps with vsync on. In the mission arenas with the sky full of planes, my FPS will dip to 84fps w/vsync off and 48fps with vsync on.
-
What screen resolution do you use?
1920 X 1200
-
I think we should have a 390 vs 970 bench and figure out what AH likes the best . I have a 390 and id love to see how it stacks up. the 8 gigs isnt relevant cause it doesnt have enough for 4k but they are pretty close performance wise @ 1080 ....... 390 might be better at 1440. . If anyone has a stock clocked 970 we should try some benches. If you have aa ftw just let me know cause i have some overclocking headroom . I really did have sleepless nights trying to decide ... but the 390 came out on top for me .... vmmv <S> 38
-
it would be really cool if an AH benchmark program was released that would give people an idea of how their card will perform in-game.
-
I think we should have a 390 vs 970 bench and figure out what AH likes the best . I have a 390 and id love to see how it stacks up. the 8 gigs isnt relevant cause it doesnt have enough for 4k but they are pretty close performance wise @ 1080 ....... 390 might be better at 1440. . If anyone has a stock clocked 970 we should try some benches. If you have aa ftw just let me know cause i have some overclocking headroom . I really did have sleepless nights trying to decide ... but the 390 came out on top for me .... vmmv <S> 38
this would be a matter of choosing a benching software that all could aquire, FREE.
Still benchmarks would reflect an entire systems performance, not just the cards. Only true comparison would be benching each card on the same system.
Choose a bench program, I'll run it........... or post frame rates with consistant card settings, v sync off, same places in an arena area..
-
it would be really cool if an AH benchmark program was released that would give people an idea of how their card will perform in-game.
+1
:salute
-
I'm not sure it's possible, or at least I don't think it has been with previous versions. I tried benchmarking before and making changes that 'should' have slowed down the program actually increased performance slightly. Maybe AHIII will change that.
-
this would be a matter of choosing a benching software that all could aquire, FREE.
Still benchmarks would reflect an entire systems performance, not just the cards. Only true comparison would be benching each card on the same system.
Choose a bench program, I'll run it........... or post frame rates with consistant card settings, v sync off, same places in an arena area..
390 vs 970 was a real tough choice for me and i consider myself an enthusiast. I finally went with the 390 cause it was 20 bucks cheaper at the time, and performed a bit better at higher resolutions . The 8 gig's of memory on the 390 is kinda a marketing gimmick as of right now IMHO , cause the regular 390 doesnt have the gpu power to run 4K games at exceptable levels. The extra memory will help at 1440p but I'm not sure the 970 would run into memory issues at that res either.... so back to square one lol .
I'd just like to see which one will run AH3 better, i think it would help a lot of people in the future so they dont pull their hair out deciding like i did lol. Maybe there wont be a big enough difference to say so , but it would be nice to see either way.
-
I've got the EVGA 970 FTW , in AH2 I haven't seen my frames drop below 90 in the toejam and typically stay between 100-144 vysnc/Gsync on (not sure if the gsync bit makes a difference or not - as not all monitors support it.) In the beta it seems to stay in the 80's, drops to the mid 70's here and there but just when a lot is going on. This is at 1920*1080, haven't messed with any resolutions higher than that yet.
-
390 vs 970 was a real tough choice for me and i consider myself an enthusiast. I finally went with the 390 cause it was 20 bucks cheaper at the time, and performed a bit better at higher resolutions . The 8 gig's of memory on the 390 is kinda a marketing gimmick as of right now IMHO , cause the regular 390 doesnt have the gpu power to run 4K games at exceptable levels. The extra memory will help at 1440p but I'm not sure the 970 would run into memory issues at that res either.... so back to square one lol .
I'd just like to see which one will run AH3 better, i think it would help a lot of people in the future so they dont pull their hair out deciding like i did lol. Maybe there wont be a big enough difference to say so , but it would be nice to see either way.
bottom line, either product would more than likely work fine. All you need is a solid 60 f/s with everything enabled. You get that and your gold. Its good that you pulled some hair tho, now you know a little more overall.
I put a G1 in a PCIe 2.0 slot, an 8 year old build, its rocking the game alright and its not that noisy.
:salute