Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Tags:
  • Games
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 29, 2014 2:52:55 AM

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.

More about : game 1360 768 worth upgrading 280x 970gtx

September 29, 2014 3:00:12 AM

For that resolution, it is not worthwhile upgrading your card just yet. I would actually wait for next-gen AMD's 20nm R9 3XX series cards.
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 3:06:31 AM

unknownofprob said:
For that resolution, it is not worthwhile upgrading your card just yet. I would actually wait for next-gen AMD's 20nm R9 3XX series cards.


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

m
0
l
Related resources
September 29, 2014 3:09:35 AM

it would help but at your resolution and current card, it is not what I would call a worthwhile upgrade as of yet.
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 3:18:58 AM

Forget those "quotes", all just marketing.

The R9 280x is MORE than capable of maxing EVERY single settings at your resolution and will be able to for a long time to come.

No point in upgrading yet.
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 3:24:54 AM

Novuake said:
Forget those "quotes", all just marketing.

The R9 280x is MORE than capable of maxing EVERY single settings at your resolution and will be able to for a long time to come.

No point in upgrading yet.


Please explain the marketing reason for not having the Ultra option in Wolfenstein: The New Order if you have only 2GB VRAM.
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 3:55:01 AM

FunSurfer said:
Novuake said:
Forget those "quotes", all just marketing.

The R9 280x is MORE than capable of maxing EVERY single settings at your resolution and will be able to for a long time to come.

No point in upgrading yet.


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


Please provide proof that Wolfenstein NEEDS more than 2GB of VRAM at 1080p?
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 4:20:36 AM

Novuake said:
Forget those "quotes", all just marketing.

The R9 280x is MORE than capable of maxing EVERY single settings at your resolution and will be able to for a long time to come.

No point in upgrading yet.


Well someone posted in a thread that it actually uses 4GB...
http://steamcommunity.com/app/201810/discussions/0/5407...
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 4:27:19 AM

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."

m
0
l
September 29, 2014 7:12:31 AM

Novuake said:
Forget those "quotes", all just marketing.

The R9 280x is MORE than capable of maxing EVERY single settings at your resolution and will be able to for a long time to come.

No point in upgrading yet.


The game WILL run on 2GB VRAM, but you will get more stuttering:
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/wolfen...
"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.
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 7:19:16 AM

FunSurfer said:


The game WILL run on 2GB VRAM, but you will get more stuttering:
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/wolfen...
"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.


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.
m
1
l
September 29, 2014 7:26:04 AM

I can honestly merge and solidly agree with Novuake. There is no "true" evidence that over 2GB is "really" needed.
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 8:04:05 AM

To Novuake, unknownofprob: No, we will discuss that further after you will play The Evil Within, Middle-Earth Shadow of Mordor and The Witcher 3 - Ultra settings @1080p on 2GB card and THEN we'll see.
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 8:31:36 AM

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-teste...

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.
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 8:54:27 AM

unknownofprob said:
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.


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).
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 9:25:26 AM

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...
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 9:31:21 AM

FunSurfer said:

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).


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?
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 9:39:24 AM

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.
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 9:56:56 AM

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.
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 11:18:33 AM

You're talking about consoles with 8GB of GDDR5 RAM, but you do realize that RAM is used for both video and CPU data transfer?
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 6:36:17 PM

FunSurfer said:
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.


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&ga...

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_t...

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





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"

m
0
l
September 29, 2014 11:09:19 PM

Thank you unknownofprob.

Getting a bit annoyed at how very vague this guy is and everything he says is as if it was law.
m
0
l
September 30, 2014 3:26:46 AM

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...
m
0
l
September 30, 2014 3:35:55 AM

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.
m
0
l
October 1, 2014 4:28:25 AM

The resolution is 2560x1080...

Not the standard 1080p, 1920x1080, we were referring to.
We are well aware that LARGER than HD 1080p resolution DOES use more than 2GB of RAM, that was not the original debate, at least not from my side.

Kindly stop looking for a fight, because 1. you do not do it very well, and 2. you can't even stick to the original debate.

m
0
l
October 1, 2014 5:00:12 AM

so much clutter and crap..

hey op if you do have the money to spare why not? but then youre better off using your money to buy a better monitor that can do higher resolutions. i own a 280x too so i know that it handles 768p quite well. a 970 will be fantastic if youre into physx even at that resolution.
m
0
l
October 1, 2014 5:19:09 AM

unknownofprob said:
For that resolution, it is not worthwhile upgrading your card just yet. I would actually wait for next-gen AMD's 20nm R9 3XX series cards.

It hasn't been confirmed at all yet that it's gonna be 20nm though..
m
0
l
October 1, 2014 5:38:29 AM

Wow , thank you all for the contributions to the thread :)  great replys , Does shadow of mordor make use of the physx engine for extra effects if using a suitable Nvida card such as the 970 ?
m
0
l
October 1, 2014 5:53:40 AM

justwondering25 said:
Wow , thank you all for the contributions to the thread :)  great replys , Does shadow of mordor make use of the physx engine for extra effects if using a suitable Nvida card such as the 970 ?


Shadow of mordor does not use PhysX.
m
0
l
October 1, 2014 7:07:39 AM

maxtex said:
unknownofprob said:
For that resolution, it is not worthwhile upgrading your card just yet. I would actually wait for next-gen AMD's 20nm R9 3XX series cards.

It hasn't been confirmed at all yet that it's gonna be 20nm though..


That's somewhat true but it is pretty much expected.

"First off, we should see the R9 390X being the first GPU to be built on TSMC's new 20nm manufacturing process"




m
0
l
October 1, 2014 7:39:46 AM

FunSurfer said:
Here is someone that checked his fps on Shadow of Mordor with 780ti 3Gb @2560x1080 :
http://www.overclock.net/t/1515461/ipon-shadow-of-mordo...

He is getting MINIMUM 20 fps! that means STUTTERING!
BOHOHOHOWAHAHAHA!!!
I was right and you all were WRONG!!!


I find it amusing how you have come to conclude that this (1) score is like god, and everything is in your favour. Small news flash, check out the other ones, the scores weren't as bad for higher resolutions with similar to worse cards. This can indicate that his system is not even up to spec, and also the res was not even what we were referring to.

Did you notice this one -

2560x1440 with GTX 780 average FPS was 54.58, not bad.

same guy you referred to did the same test again with Vsync disabled/enabled - average FPS 72.88/72.56 - not bad at all, even though the minimum was slightly less then 20, that would have been the occurrence of a short FPS drop. (keeping all this in mind this is the res above 1920x1080)

Looking even further along you'll notice a guy called Chargeit who did it a 1920x1080 with a GTX 780 - min was just above 29 but average FPS was above 91FPS, which is certainly good (max above 147FPS). Comparing the difference to the best 2GB Vram card you would expect less FPS, but considering that the GTX 770 is behind the GTX 780 it would not put the average FPS at 1080p below 60FPS for the GTX 770 (the minimum will of course be slightly below 20FPS, like all the other cards listed), which does not mean that the game is still "required" to have these greater Vramed cards. It is known that it helps, but it is not what your portraying as a complete necessary.

To note - all the cards even with the higher Vram (Even the GTX Titan black mind you with 6GB Vram - this is also not the 4k reviewed one) had the thing you were referring to as "Stuttering", which is the small FPS drops which don't last long at all. The GTX Titan black in the link you provided showed it's minimum also under 20FPS. We still considered to be "ALL WRONG?"



m
0
l
October 1, 2014 8:16:04 AM

unknownofprob said:
FunSurfer said:
Here is someone that checked his fps on Shadow of Mordor with 780ti 3Gb @2560x1080 :
http://www.overclock.net/t/1515461/ipon-shadow-of-mordo...

He is getting MINIMUM 20 fps! that means STUTTERING!
BOHOHOHOWAHAHAHA!!!
I was right and you all were WRONG!!!


I find it amusing how you have come to conclude that this (1) score is like god, and everything is in your favour. Small news flash, check out the other ones, the scores weren't as bad for higher resolutions with similar to worse cards. This can indicate that his system is not even up to spec, and also the res was not even what we were referring to.

Did you notice this one -

2560x1440 with GTX 780 average FPS was 54.58, not bad.

same guy you referred to did the same test again with Vsync disabled/enabled - average FPS 72.88/72.56 - not bad at all, even though the minimum was slightly less then 20, that would have been the occurrence of a short FPS drop. (keeping all this in mind this is the res above 1920x1080)

Looking even further along you'll notice a guy called Chargeit who did it a 1920x1080 with a GTX 780 - min was just above 29 but average FPS was above 91FPS, which is certainly good (max above 147FPS). Comparing the difference to the best 2GB Vram card you would expect less FPS, but considering that the GTX 770 is behind the GTX 780 it would not put the average FPS at 1080p below 60FPS for the GTX 770 (the minimum will of course be slightly below 20FPS, like all the other cards listed), which does not mean that the game is still "required" to have these greater Vramed cards. It is known that it helps, but it is not what your portraying as a complete necessary.

To note - all the cards even with the higher Vram (Even the GTX Titan black mind you with 6GB Vram - this is also not the 4k reviewed one) had the thing you were referring to as "Stuttering", which is the small FPS drops which don't last long at all. The GTX Titan black in the link you provided showed it's minimum also under 20FPS. We still considered to be "ALL WRONG?"







Yes, but also in that forum there are people with 780s that are complaining about a lot of stuttering in-game, not relevant to benchmarks, that stuttering were gone after reducing settings from ultra to high, but you buy a $600 top end card to play on ultra, not on high. Someone there reduced his resolution to 1080p and still got stuttering in-game with ultra settings.
But surprisingly the 4GB 970s and 980s are doing pretty well, maybe due to the drivers that allow them to save VRAM and artificially using 5.5GB VRAM.

Don't know why it came in bold, not intended
m
0
l
October 1, 2014 9:05:42 AM

"Yes, but also in that forum there are people with 780s that are complaining about a lot of stuttering in-game, not relevant to benchmarks, that stuttering were gone after reducing settings from ultra to high, but you buy a $600 top end card to play on ultra, not on high. "

I already answered this, even the top end cards have stuttering, with minimum FPS below 20. However, the GTX 780 has the ability to achieve an average FPS jus below 60 @ 2560x1440. Today, just below 60FPS at that res for that card is very good. The game is fairly new, and just like Crysis 3 on the release it has issue, and the stuttering is prominent for all the cards.

"Someone there reduced his resolution to 1080p and still got stuttering in-game with ultra settings."

Already answered that also, the stuttering is prominent to all cards.

"But surprisingly the 4GB 970s and 980s are doing pretty well, maybe due to the drivers that allow them to save VRAM and artificially using 5.5GB VRAM. "

They are, but they too are also experiencing stuttering, though not as badly as the others. The game is still new, and still receiving many updates so anything could change, and I still after seeing those specs do not even still see a point with the high vramed cards as the Average FPS achieved by the GTX 780 at even higher res then this original argument is certainly better then you may have intended.
m
0
l
!