Considering i Game at 1360 x 768 Is it worth upgrading a 280x to a 970GTX

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Considering i Game at 1360 x 768 Is it worth upgrading a 280x to a 970GTX

I know the 970 gtx has more ram and is considered a faster card , but i game at a fairly low res , i have no plans to upgrade my 60inch TV that i game to a 1080 any time soon.

I am very tempted to buy the 970gtx , but i never see any reviews that show gaming in the lower res these days...everything is 1080 or above , so it is kind of hard to work out if i would gain any real benefit ! other than Nvida Physx.

The rest of my system is :-

EVO 840 ssd
16gb 1866 ram
8350 amd
750 watt psu.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
G

Guest

Guest


The other thing , is with more games starting to quote 4gb of video ram for the ideal experince

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FunSurfer

FunSurfer

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
960
36
19,240


Please explain the marketing reason for not having the Ultra option in Wolfenstein: The New Order if you have only 2GB VRAM.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Novuake

Novuake

Champion
Aug 27, 2011
14,308
0
56,960


Please provide proof that Wolfenstein NEEDS more than 2GB of VRAM at 1080p?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FunSurfer

FunSurfer

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
960
36
19,240


Well someone posted in a thread that it actually uses 4GB...
http://steamcommunity.com/app/201810/discussions/0/540742579486739991/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Novuake

Novuake

Champion
Aug 27, 2011
14,308
0
56,960
There is a very very big difference between NEEDING the 2GB of VRAM and BUFFERING the extra 2GB VRAM.

Just because its storing more data, does not mean it needs to do it to run optimally.

As the next person in that thread stated it could be :

"That is expected usage. The engine is storing as many texture pages in the VRAM as possible to prevent pop-in."

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FunSurfer

FunSurfer

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
960
36
19,240


The game WILL run on 2GB VRAM, but you will get more stuttering:
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/wolfenstein-the-new-order-pc-performance-analysis/
"At this point, we should note that owners of GPUs with less vRAM than 3GB should enable VTCompress, otherwise they’ll get a glorified stuttering mess".
If stuttering gameplay is your thing, then it is all marketing.

Also note that in the earlier link I posted the poster says he is playing SMOOTHLY.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Novuake

Novuake

Champion
Aug 27, 2011
14,308
0
56,960


You realize you are using USER reported experiencing as a source, right?

Do you not see the problem with that?

I can say anything in this thread and then someone can quote it 2 years later as the honest truth? LOL I think not.

If you can provide a reasonable and reliable source with clear data supporting your claim for 2GB+ at 1080p, then I will discuss this further with you, in PM or in a new thread.
I do not trust hearsay.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
unknownofprob

unknownofprob

Illustrious
Oct 3, 2013
8,409
0
38,960
Ever seen reviews of these cards before -

GTX 770 2GB vs 4GB

GTX 760 2GB vs 4GB

GTX 780 3GB vs 6GB

7970 3GB vs 6GB

R9 280X 3GB vs 6GB

The results from all these tests are concluding, there is little to no performance increase with the extra Vram. So instead of comparing different cards with Different vram, compare the same cards with different Vram to see the ACTUAL difference. until you see reviews which say the extra vram helps, your argument is absolutely inconclusive.

Just from recently I have sold my 2GB GTX 680 and 6GB 7990 (really only 3GB) and I can assure you from the games like battlefield 4 which "supposedly" use over 2GB Vram there was no sign of dramatic improvement from the 7990 with crossfire disabled (I took into account that the 7990 is two underpowered 7970 GPU's on same PCB, though the GTX 680 outperformed it by good amount, I called it even as to the situation the 7990 was under.). To add to this I had tested even newer titles, like Watch_Dogs which was yet again supposed to use over 2Gb Vram "Supposedly". I do not see how your logic is even of the most relevant.

Just for the sake of more proof -

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

Also note - The testing was done on 5760x1080 which is meant to be even more Vram dependent, but no noticeable difference, eve with the higher 4GB Vram'ed GTX 770. Now We'll see what you have in store for us.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FunSurfer

FunSurfer

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
960
36
19,240


As you stated before there is no evidence of games needing more than 2GB of VRAM, as I am waiting myself for a review comparing the same card with normal and double VRAM running the latest next-gen titles that have 3-4GB VRAM on their recommended requirements, showing minimum fps and frame time variance.

I just intervened in this thread because it may mislead gamers that 2GB or 3GB of VRAM is enough for high-end gaming today and in the near future and I don't want them to waste hundreds of dollars buying the wrong card. I personally recommend to OP and other upgraders to buy the 8GB VRAM GTX 970 or 980 (or AMD equivalent).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
C

ccampy

Honorable
Jan 4, 2014
1,052
0
11,460
8gb cards? No you will not need 8gb cards until 4k is mainstream and we get into the realms of 6k and 8k the cards will long be of no use before then as it won't be push the amount of data

A few month old but here you go
http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/227r3j/2gb_vs_4gb_vram_for_1080p_tests/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Novuake

Novuake

Champion
Aug 27, 2011
14,308
0
56,960


VRAM usage does not merely quadruple in the matter of a yaer, it took 8 YEARS for use to get from 512MB of memory usage to just under 2GB(I believe the last I saw it was 1.8GB optimally).

And incase you didn't get that comparison, 512MB multiplied by 4 = 2GB.
And you expect that same increase in what? 1 year? 2 years?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FunSurfer

FunSurfer

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
960
36
19,240
To ccampy -
The games in the benchmarks you posted are old, except BF4, but on that benchmark they are using a GTX 760 that may not be powerful enough to push 4GB VRAM, also BF4 is not a VRAM hog and sitting close to 2GB VRAM usage at 1080p. As I stated before I an looking for benchmarks running the latest next-gen titles that have 3-4GB VRAM on their recommended requirements, showing minimum fps and frame time variance, these do not exist yet.
Edit: If a GPU of a console can push 8GB, so can PC's.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FunSurfer

FunSurfer

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
960
36
19,240
To Novuake -
The problem is that games are developed differently now so, yes, VRAM CAN double now in a matter of months, but I think the trend will stop at 8GB ( guess what has 8GB VRAM?) so that it why I recommend 8GB cards.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
unknownofprob

unknownofprob

Illustrious
Oct 3, 2013
8,409
0
38,960


That is totally rubbish. Why don't you link something that can support such a claim.

Your use of the words "can" and "may" is only giving me the impression you don't have a solid conclusion yourself.

"( guess what has 8GB VRAM?)" <- Guess what kind of people only buy 1 8GB Card?

People may say that cards are limited by their memory bus, but you know that isn't true. This may give you the impression that cards with such High Vram can be supported and is beneficial. Just as a little fact, The reason why these cards with the added "Vram" actually don't shine over the lesser Vram models is that the core struggles before it actually needs more Vram. When the cards struggle you don't "turn up to max settings with AA" and expect a huge improvement because you have more Vram, because it just doesn't happen. That is why the 2GB vs 4GB cards are no different from each other. To note, do you know the people who actually buy the Extra vram cards? These are people who tend to do multiple Graphics card setups, because the combined cores help to utilise the Vram more (Because Vram is not added but mirrored - (2GB+2GB=2GB, 4GB+4GB=4GB, 2GB+4GB=2GB.)

Also with your argument about these newer Recommended specs (3-4GB recommended vram) Games -

http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=7983&game=Need%20For%20Speed:%20Rivals

Notice the recommended card is a GTX 660 3GB, but looking at the 2GB GTX 660 in Reviews and gameplay in the same game it performs no different.

Because you like to link opinions -


http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/1txahl/stop_trying_to_buy_4gb_gtx_760s/

Also - GTX 760 2GB vs 4GB performance differences -

Screen_Shot_2014_09_30_at_10_05_32_AM.png


Screen_Shot_2014_09_30_at_10_04_34_AM.png


This is solid, because just as you said before "the latest next-gen titles that have 3-4GB VRAM on their recommended requirements....."

Don't place your opinion on "Recommended"

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FunSurfer

FunSurfer

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
960
36
19,240
To unknownofprob - I am sorry that I wasn't clear enough, the benchmarks that can prove of disapprove my point should run on the "real" next-gen games: Cal of duty ghosts, Titanfall, Wolfenstein, Watch Dogs, The Evil Within, Middle-Earth Shadow of Mordor with the 2GB/4GB and 3GB/6GB and 4GB/8GB cards and must include minimum fps and frame time variance tests. For a strange reason, one did these benchmarks yet as the this the most important data today for anyone who wish to buy a high-end gaming card that will last him for a while.
Sorry again, but the data that I seek is not found on the links you posted.
My opinion is based on numerous threads I've been reading for the last months in an attempt to gain this knowledge, and in those threads gamers with double VRAM cards were usually getting smoother performance than gamers with normal VRAM amount cards ( on the released games that I mentioned earlier on this post). But you all don't accept this data.
My opinion is also based on the new record of 6GB VRAM Ultra requirement of Middle-Earth Shadow of Mordor. But you don't believe this either.
So I say farewell and hope for you guys to be able to play all these games and newer titles on ultra settings at 1080p with 2-3GB cards...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
unknownofprob

unknownofprob

Illustrious
Oct 3, 2013
8,409
0
38,960
It's not believed because it is not reviewed and documented. Your based this info off User accounts in which those users mainly have only bought one card, in which then the describe it as "better" over the base model.

As with those games coming up again, I have tried and said about Watch_Dogs and Ghosts but you haven't taken it aboard, again basing and believing accounts off others.

And you last comment, "So I say farewell and hope for you guys to be able to play all these games and newer titles on ultra settings at 1080p with 2-3GB cards..." Say that to the majority of people who already do.

I am also finding it hard for you to listen, who bases all info as fact from users with a one card experience. As I said, I have had three cards in the past, ranging from 2GB Vram to 4GB.

"one did these benchmarks yet as the this the most important data today for anyone who wish to buy a high-end gaming card that will last him for a while. Sorry again, but the data that I seek is not found on the links you posted."

I see you are finding it hard to link any evidence which shows your lack of worldwide support.

Why not find your own supportive data instead of criticising our own, thank you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom