spasticColon posted:Looks like I'll be getting a 970 or it's 20nm successor then. My PSU (Corsair HX650) is five years old now so should I replace/upgrade that first? Your PSU is probably getting close to clocking out at 5 years old anyway so it's not a bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Hi thread, I have some questions about a low 3dMark score. I just got a new 970 and I decided to run 3dmark firestrike to test it out and I got a really low score, around 6700. The CPU looks like it was really dragging things down. I have a sandy bridge i7 2600k running at 4.4Ghz, is the score normal and I just need to upgrade my mobo and CPU or is something wonky going on?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 17:41
|
|
cisco privilege posted:No that's not right. Maybe you have a rogue process running like a bitcoin miner or other malware? A 2600k wouldn't hold you back in 3DMark - I should know since I have one running around that speed. I seem to have fixed it, I had to turn off Intel Speed Step in my bios, for some reason the cpu was sticking at its idle clocks during the test instead of speeding up. Now getting a score of 9900-ish. BTW, at 4.6Ghz I am getting a core temp of 44C-46C and a CPU temp of 57C, is that too high? Before it was like 25C-27C core and 34C for the CPU...
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 19:42
|
|
John Murdoch posted:This is the problem I'm now running into. I have pretty much exactly 10.5" of room in my case, which rules out most of the 970s I'm seeing...though I'm having trouble actually finding size specs for a few of them. Ironically all of the EVGA options seem to have the best fit, not counting the Gigabyte mini version, anyway. If the EVGA cards will be the best fit buy one of those. They don't OC as well as the better cards and the cooler is louder under load but they are perfectly fine cards otherwise. The 900 series cards are very quiet in general and EVGA updated the firmware so that the card's fans switch off when it's not under load. I certainly don't think the better cards are worth buying a new case over.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 04:58
|
|
John Murdoch posted:I'm mildly worried about potential whine, but given the options I think I'll go with the EVGA FTW version. Thanks, guys. IIRC, people have encountered coil whine on a bunch of brands, so it's not an EVGA thing so much as a 900 series thing.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 05:55
|
|
EoRaptor posted:The Tech Report link pretty clearly explains what is happening and why. It's not a hardware defect, just an effect of the way the 970 is designed. Errr, but that is about fill rate, they are talking about the 970 only using 3.5 of it's 4GB of onboard memory while the 980 uses it's whole 4GB when needed.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 16:35
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:At under $240, the R9-290 is slightly better performance per dollar than a $340+ 970, with the downside of being twice as hot and loud. And less features. I'm really loving DSR for older games, Skyrim and Diablo 3 look really great at fake 4k and run buttery smooth on the 970. It really makes the upgrade feel significant for everything, not just the newer games. 
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 23:35
|
|
Kazinsal posted:Speaking of DSR, correct me if I'm wrong, but has Nvidia just slapped a new marketing term on what we used to call supersampling? With DSR you can just select the resolution you want from in the game. DSR also allows you to scale down from any resolution to any resolution while with supersampling you have to use a 2:1 or 4:1 and so on type scale. Basically it does something similar but makes it much more usable and flexible. Of course a 4k native monitor would be better but I could not justify $340 plus $700-ish. I'll go 4k once I can get a 4k 23" IPS display for $200-$300.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 23:52
|
|
Beautiful Ninja posted:It does seem to be particularly bad in AC: Unity in the benches I've seen, wonder if the 128-bit bus is specifically hampering it in that game, or if it's something like driver issues or Ubisoft being incompetent as gently caress. My money is on that one. AC:U is so incompetently programmed it boggles the mind.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 19:11
|
|
Swartz posted:Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I don't really give a poo poo that my 970 can only use up to 3.8gb or whatever it is. Close enough to 4gb for me. From what I understand it's not about the fact that the card normally only uses 3.5-3.8gb of it's memory, it's that when it does use the memory it normally avoids it causes massive stuttering and frame rate drops. So you could be seeing terrible performance in random games because they hit the "bad" memory and suddenly the card is 60%-90% slower. Plus the whole trust issue. I mean, I'm happy with my 970 so far because everything I've tried playing on it runs great, but I did sort of think I was getting 4gb of correctly working memory on the card. If some company sold you a 4 stick pack of ram and one stick didn't work right wouldn't you want a replacement or refund or something?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
This is disgusting! An absolute OUTRAGE! Nvidia has lied to us all, the press and consumers alike! We must demand action! We must demand justice! We must demand a free upgrade to 980s for everyone who bought a 970! Come on baby free stuff! 
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 23:41
|
|
suddenlyissoon posted:I went to play Far Cry 4 for the first time tonight on my 970 and during the Ubisoft/Nvidia screens I heard a terrible, almost grinding noise coming out of my box followed by what I assume was coil whine. Does the grinding noise generally come before coil whine? I'm still within my exchange time with Newegg, would it be worth it to play card lottery again or move up to the 980 based on the new 970 news? Ehhh, the 980 isn't really worth the extra $200-ish. Remember, the cards we were ohhing and ahhing over when reviews first came out had the same issue, if they were good enough before they are still good enough now. I would look at a return or exchange with newegg, that grinding sound strikes me as ominous and coil whine sucks. Just check wires before hand to see if one got caught in the fans or something.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 01:51
|
|
Fauxtool posted:I had my card go bad on me recently. I got 3 years of overclocked use out of it so im not too upset. It was a 7970 that started to flicker which progressed outputting a white screen with grey lines If I did anything but be on the desktop. This morning I couldnt get any picture out of it at all. You can't really fix graphics cards unless it's something like the fans on the cooler going bad on you. Your old card does not sound like it has that sort of problem, it sounds like damage to the card itself and that is unfixable.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 14:52
|
|
Even if this is a completely honest mistake I think it behooves them to do something about it, I dunno what they should do but they clearly screwed up big time with the false specs and such. Earlier someone used the example of cars with 50hp less than advertised, if that really happened it would be all over the news and we would see lawsuits or a recall. Imagine if Intel sold chips that were labeled "3.5Ghz" but are only clocked at 3Ghz? It would be an uproar, honest mistake or not. at the people demanding a free 980 though.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 01:18
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:This debacle doesn't seem that different from the TLB, TSX, FDIV and various other CPU gently caress-ups historically by CPU makers and there'll likely be some drivers that patch it out or something. We've always had to do some crazy gymnastics to access memory at various points in computing history. Anyone remember emm386.exe? How about the bank switching modes on the Atari 2600? Any game developer that feels like releasing a patch to avoid this area is free to do so, but this may be possible to fix on nVidia's side with drivers that exclude the region from allocation unless developers specifically enable access to it on a GTX 970. It's more about stuff like the 970 being sold as having 64 ROPs and 2MB of L2 cache and really only having 56 ROPs and 1.75MB of L2 cache. Unlike the 3.5+.5GB memory issue the card simply does not have 64 ROPs or the extra .25MB of L2.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 03:41
|
|
Hamburger Test posted:I cannot break 3.4GB VRAM used in Skyrim. I have a *lot* of graphical mods and my resolution is 2560x1440. I never reached 3.5GB Shadow of Mordor, but I "settled" for high textures rather than Ultra because I can't tell the difference in motion. I haven't touched a new UbiSoft game since FarCry 3, but my understanding is that the problems with them are not just VRAM related. Are you using ENB? Especially ENB with some fairly extreme settings?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 10:05
|
|
Knifegrab posted:So I know of the memory issue with the 970, and I am thinking about returning mine for a 980 (not because I am worried about the memory, but because I think I secretely just really want a 980). Does the 980 have the same memory issues? No. In fact the memory thing, the reduced ROPs and the reduced L2 cache are all there because otherwise the 970 would either be a slightly slower 980 or it would be a much slower card than the 980. This whole situation arises from the fact that with maxwell you can cull smaller portions of the chip to create new products or increase effective chip yield. If you really want to understand what is going on with this issue read the Anandtech article.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 19:57
|
|
Yeah, I don't buy the idea that there is only 3.5GB on the card or that it's entirely disabled. It would be super hilarious if it were true, can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth over something like that? 
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 21:06
|
|
Megasabin posted:I've been trying to follow the whole GTX 970 ram fiasco, but I can't tell what's hyperbole and what's actual cause for concern. I'm running a single GTX 970, and I play games on 2560x1440p monitor which is where I've read people can run into issues. Do I have something to actually be concerned about or is it all hot water? Ehhh, no one really knows yet. Assuming that we really know everything there is to know about this issue you can treat the 970 like a 3.5GB card that does not choke up quite as badly when it goes over 3.5GB as a real 3.5GB card would. That last .5GB is vastly slower than the first 3.5GB but not nearly as slow as system memory. EDIT: Sorry to say this but we'll only know about how it handles TW3 once it's out and benchmarked. AVeryLargeRadish fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 07:26
|
|
veedubfreak posted:I could give a poo poo if the new 390 pulls 500 watts as long as it is fastest card I can get my hands on. Why do people act like 100w is this giant deal. It's 1 loving light bulb. It might cost you an extra 50 cents a month in electricity. Also, gently caress Nvidia for being giant lovely assholes that overcharge for everything. The last Nvidia card I actually had for more than a month was my 690. I agree, why would anyone care that their graphics card sounds like a jet engine and fills the room with the smell of burnt plastic? 
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 17:09
|
|
Everyday Lurker posted:Alright, so I have to ask: is it still worth upgrading to a GTX 970 from my current R9 270X? Because right about now, that's pretty much all I care about. I likely wouldn't give much of a poo poo if I'd bought a 770 instead, but that's neither here nor there. A 970 should be around 70% to 80% faster than a 270x, whether that is worth it is up to you.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 04:47
|
|
Annath posted:What ever came out of the whole 970 VRAM snafu? Anything at all? Nvidia made more money from people upgrading from 970s to 980s. 
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 22:50
|
|
sauer kraut posted:
No, you've been waiting for the 1024 bit card that will be absurdly expensive.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 03:48
|
|
Fat_Cow posted:Is a 980 overkill for someone who doesn't game at 4k? I want to upgrade my 770, but all that drama about 3.5 GB memory in the 970 has me worried. The 970 is fine, there are very few situations where the 3.5GB thing comes up and most of them are forced by synthetic benchmarks. Just think of it as buying a 3.5GB card and you have it about right, and 3.5GB is plenty for 1080p. You might see some gains if you game at 1440p or higher, but that's about it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2015 05:19
|
|
NickPancakes posted:Alright tax money came in and getting a 970 despite all the memory poo poo, I'm pretty confident it's the best price/performance in my price range (300-400). For what it's worth I have the SC ACX 2.0 version and it's pretty much silent and never goes above 78C even with an overclock of +250 Mhz core and +500Mhz VRAM. The others are better on cooling and noise but I decided I would go with this one because it was $320 and EVGA has had really good customer service for me in the past.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 03:35
|
|
Stentorian Hoot posted:So about a year ago I built a machine with 4gb GTX 760 and six months later I saw the same card on sale so I made my setup SLI. Is this going to last me for a bit or should I consider upgrading to a 980 in the future? A 980 would only be a slight upgrade, I'd wait for DX12 and see how things look then.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 00:21
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:No, advertising SHOULDN'T matter. You SHOULD be judging cards on a strict price/performance curve, where performance may or may not be defined as including thermals, acoustics, and/or auxiliary features, depending on your preference. I think people should make their own decisions based on what they deem important as long as it does not harm others too much. Is someone buying one card or another something that harms you so much that they should not be able to make that decision based on their own metrics instead of yours?
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 18:32
|
|
HERAK posted:Could be worse. I refuse to believe that that is real, this is all a dream and I am going to wake up and laugh at the very idea of that thing. 
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 01:31
|
|
Weirdoman posted:Wonder how long it'll take that NVidia driver to crash... 
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 17:02
|
|
Zig-Zag posted:Looking to get a new card and I can't decide between the 970 or the 960 with 4gb of vram that just got announced by evga. Would it be worth the extra money? I'm still gaming on 1080p and do t plan on going 4k anytime soon but I would like to get another year or so out of my new card before upgrading again. The 4gb on a 960 is pretty pointless since the memory issues of the 970 only crop up at higher resolutions. I'd say to just get a 970, at 1080p the memory issue won't really matter much and it will be a good bit faster than the 960. I'll also say that the 970 will last you 2-3 years or so, at least if you stick with 1080p and are willing to game at high down the road instead of ultra.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 17:46
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:I think I did it wrong, now I'm hitting low 80s. Maybe I used too little paste now? I don't know. It's like I've never built a computer before. It might just be the break in period for the paste, it can take a little while for the temps to normalize right after applying new paste.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 00:07
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I always worry that I don't put enough on to fill the contact surface, but that's probably not a reasonable concern. The actual CPU under the lid is a good bit smaller than the lid, so as long as you do the standard pea sized dollop of paste in the center you will get plenty of paste where it needs to be.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 19:38
|
|
Mazz posted:So the EVGA GTX 970 4GB FTW ACX 2.0 is currently $344.99 from NewEgg (with a $10 MIR). The EVGA cooler is the worst of all of them, the recommended card is the MSI or ASUS one.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 23:57
|
|
Mazz posted:One last question, I promise (no I don't): Are the 7-8gb versions of the 970/980 due to be out sometime in the next 30-60 days? If the price isn't extreme, is it worth waiting on those if I plan to keep it for a couple years and don't (currently) plan to SLI? 8gb is only going to be worth it at 4k resolutions in future games, and any current card is going to struggle a bit running at 4k on those games anyway. I'd just get a 970 if I was running at 1080p, what resolution is your current setup?
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 01:42
|
|
Zigmidge posted:Hey thread. I'm in the market for a new card. I don't follow this kind of thing anymore and the OP seems way out of date. Get a 970 unless you are running at 1440p or higher. The 970 is pretty close to the 980 and if they made a 970ti it would basically be a 980, the 960 has too little ram and just isn't all that impressive, the 970 is probably your best bet for a nvidia card. You could go with a 290 instead if you want to try out AMD, the prices on those have come down a lot in response to the 900 series.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 19:10
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Not nothing but it has allowed them to go much longer between releasing meaningful upgrades for desktop users. I have an i7-2600k and there will be no real reason to upgrade until Skylake which is going to be like Q1 2016, five years after the 2600k was released. Ehhh, everyone is having problems with getting big chips on smaller processes. Intel has been making advances where it really matters for most of the market: heat and power efficiency.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 22:17
|
|
sauer kraut posted:Anyone got some GTX 960 experiences? You shouldn't see much of a hit from PhysX on a 960, but I'd really bump up to the 970 if at all possible, the extra memory, bandwidth and power are well worth it at 1080p.
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 23:56
|
|
Mutation posted:Well, I tried downclocking the GPU and it the screen blip didn't occur when I launched Firestrike 1.1. Now that I think about it, it is about an inch away from the giant CPU fan and the ambient temperature seems to be 56c. Yeah, if your case temp is 132 degrees that might cause some overheating problems. 
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 22:15
|
|
suddenlyissoon posted:A few days left on my EVGA step up ability. Go from a 970 to 980 for my system (i7 4790k) or just wait it out until next year and upgrade then? If you have a 1080p monitor keep the 970, for higher resolutions the upgrade to the 980 might be worth it depending on your standards and what games you play.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:19 |
|
Phil Tenderpuss posted:Speaking of, I'm thinking about picking up an MSI 970 too as well as a new monitor to go with it. I've been using a 460GTX and a 1680*1050 monitor for the past 4 years and figure its a good time for an upgrade with GTAV and Witcher 3 coming out. I just want to clarify again: people haven't experienced any real world issues with the whole 3.5GB VRAM limit thing on these cards, right? Am I correct to assume I wouldn't have any issues running the next batch of games at 60 fps on 1080p res with a 970? How soon in the future do you think people will start running up against that 3.5GB wall? I know there's no such thing as future proofing, but I've gotten a lot of mileage out of my 460GTX and hope I can get the same kinda distance out of a new card that I purchase. You start hitting that wall at resolutions greater than 1080p. If you are going to stick with 1080p for a while a 970 will serve you well. The exceptions would be using really ridiculous high res texture packs, but at 1080p you will struggle to see the difference between the highest res textures and more reasonably sized ones anyway.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 02:42
|
|