Worth buying 8gb versions of gtx 980 and gtx 970 Or just buy the older 4gb versions

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

Ashish Bhelwa

Reputable
Sep 18, 2014
27
0
4,530
Nvidia is releasing their new 8GB versions of gtx 980 and gtx 970 should it be worth to buy?? Or just buy the older 4GB versions and SLI them later. Which will be better a new 8GB version or an older 4GB version and SLI it better gaming at higher fps at 2K and 4K resolution??
 
Solution
Icaraeus
Only worth it if you're going to do something like tri-SLI. That's because in SLI or Crossfire the GPUs share VRAM, so with a 4GB GPU it would have 4GB each. 4GB VRAM is not really enough for ultra HD (4k), so 8GB will be better as each GPU will have 8GB VRAM to use.
Sort by date Sort by votes
envy14tpe

envy14tpe

Champion
Mar 3, 2012
9,574
14
56,665


If I were gaming on 2k I'd get a 780 4GB. If I wanted to jump to 4K I'd have to make sure my mobo allows it and then I'd get a new GPU at that point of time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DonkeyOatie

DonkeyOatie

Champion
Sep 16, 2014
12,141
1
50,960
The amount of graphics memory you need on the GPU depends almost entirely on the resolution of the output that you want and the level of effects used. Your Gigabytes and Megapixels need to be aligned. For 1080p, 4GB is plenty, double the resolution and you need double the graphics memory to achieve the same level of output.

This article says it all.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-myths,3694-5.html
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Icaraeus

Icaraeus

Honorable
Oct 9, 2013
2,566
0
13,460
Only worth it if you're going to do something like tri-SLI. That's because in SLI or Crossfire the GPUs share VRAM, so with a 4GB GPU it would have 4GB each. 4GB VRAM is not really enough for ultra HD (4k), so 8GB will be better as each GPU will have 8GB VRAM to use.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
A

Ashish Bhelwa

Reputable
Sep 18, 2014
27
0
4,530


so what should I buy the older version and SLI it or wait for the 8GB version to come??
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
C

chronofusion

Reputable
Dec 6, 2014
1
0
4,510


--- Yes, I think you should wait IF your goal is 4k gaming at higher than low, low/medium, and possibly medium settings ( crysis 3, metro games, fc4, etc) depending on the game. Even with a 5960x to eliminate cpu bottlenecks out of the equation, a 4GB 290x or gtx 980 is not enough to play the games in parenthesis at medium/high or maxed settings WHILE maintaining MINIMUM fps of over 40 at ALL times ( which is the ONLY way I play. Fluidity is king, image quality is 2nd priority).

It is my guess the 8GB card should be available to mass public sales within 5 months or less. This also gives you that time to save up for a GOOD 32" 4k low ms response time ips monitor since there really AREN'T hardly any on the market. The few that are available are still overpriced imo.

If you're thinking, " well I could sli two or three 980's and that would do it", no it will not. Sli just like xfire technologies STILL haven't figured out a way to STACK the games consumption of more than one video card's total amount of ram. ONE 970 or 980 4GB vram card is enough for ANY game out there. It is only when you crank the in game grapical settings above either low/medum or medium as to when the vid card's vram amount becomes the real bottleneck. cheers.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

sharpnova

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2010
46
0
18,530


That's incorrect. The video cards would be sharing the 8 GB. In SLI/Crossfire, VRAM is mirrored. They would not have 8 GB each.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Icaraeus

Icaraeus

Honorable
Oct 9, 2013
2,566
0
13,460

I never said they would have 8GB each...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
G

Guy Parris

Honorable
Mar 27, 2013
43
0
10,540


even some games at 1080p is using more than 4gbs on my gpu. like shadows of mordor, cod aw are using around 5200mb so it's definatliy worth getting the getting the 8gbs just incase.

Games right now are unpredicatable with these next gen consoles having 8gbs of gddr5 to play with.

that's the only 2 games that I have seen that has went over that 4gb mark though far cry 4 is only using 2gbs, ac unity is using nearly 3gbs so yeah seems games are bit all over the place vram wise. But having more vram is better since it gives games more head room for certain games that need it which I think more will tbh.

I think we will see more vram hungry games this year for sure. I was even thinking about moving from my 6gb 780 to a 8gb 980 just to be on the safe side but we'll see what happens.

but yeah defo go 8gb sli because 2 980's will last you a long time and I can gurantee there will be games that will want more than 4gb vram before they cards start to run out of steam. It wasn't that long ago people were like awh 2gb is fine for 1080p and saying 3gb/4gbs were overkill then boom out comes watch dogs that needs 3gbs to max out then wolfenstein the new order which crashed 2gb gpus on max settings because it lacked the vram. the tables turned just like that and this is only the start of next gen hence why I said it's unpredictable. But there was even people on steam moaning about ryse saying they couldn't max it on there 3gb 780 ti because the texture setting was locked and the game was stuttering because they didn't have enough vram even though the 780 ti has more than enough power to run that game easy it couldn't because again it lacked the vram. The last thing you want is having a sweet sli set up and for a game to come along and bottleneck they gpu's because you don't have enough vram to run it. 8gb's all the way mate you won't regret it!.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

sharpnova

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2010
46
0
18,530
Even if Ashish Bhelwa wasn't claiming that VRAM is additive, his argument that tri-SLI justifies it makes no sense.

How many gpu's you have in there doesn't really scale with how much VRAM you need.

It's not capability but requirements that justify more hardware.

In my case, I have triple monitors and like to do triple monitor gaming. And even if I'm not doing that, the mere act of playing a game @ 2560x1440 with tons of AA and anisotropic filtering while still rendering 2560x1440 desktops that may have a lot going on is taxing and very VRAM occupying.

Couple this with some BSOD issues I've had with my GTX Titan 6 GB when closing/exiting full screen games/applications, and the transition is a no brainer for me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
carlosriosness

carlosriosness

Honorable
Aug 20, 2013
188
0
10,710
i am in the same boat too. i just bought a 4k vizio p652 tv and my 660 in SLI just cant push Far Cry 4 beyond 1080p.

at first i thought i would just buy a 970 FTW+, so i can get hdmi 2.0 (4kj @ 60hz) and possibly get to 1440p with Far Cry 4. then i saw there is a r9 290x 8gb card, but its still kinda expensive, and didnt show crazy gains in performance.

then i thought possibly the new r390x that is coming out might be good, but read it will probably have 4gb ram because it uses a new type of memory that is faster but cant stack as high.

now finding out 8gb 970's are on the way, i think i might wait for that since i have some time until GTA V comes out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

Ashish Bhelwa

Reputable
Sep 18, 2014
27
0
4,530
me too I don't understand why they are always varies their product versions and I don't really amd for making a high end GPU's comparison to nvidia. I'm tired of checking all of them and i will wait until GTA V then I'm going to buy gtx 970 no matter they launch their 8 GB version or not.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

raider89

Distinguished
Nov 28, 2008
84
0
18,630
■ It does not use 5-6gb of vram it uses 3gb (It can use 5 to 6 if you have the ultra HD pack installed and running maxed out ultra settings, 3.5gb vram if you run on very high.

http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/matthew-wilson/shadow-of-mordor-pc-testing-1080p-1440p-4k/3/

http://www.hardwarepal.com/shadow-mordor-benchmark/

Skyrim heavy modded is only thing that would use more, really isnt a game out now that needs more than 4gb vram for 4k.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

raider89

Distinguished
Nov 28, 2008
84
0
18,630
I didn't repeat anything you said, you said it uses 5-6gb ram at 4k, which your saying is 4gb isnt enough for 4k . Which is incorrect. Very high only uses 3gb of vram. Although your statement can be true, but the idea you're trying to put out that 4gb vram isnt enough for 4k is incorrect.

Which from your specs it doesn't look like you're anywhere capable of running 4k or have 4k so you wouldn't know anyway ;)

1 970 or 1 980 can handle 4k.

SLI those and you can handle ultra HD maxed out in most games.

Shadow of Mordor ran above 45fps on the ultra and barely reached 3.5gb vram.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Icaraeus

Icaraeus

Honorable
Oct 9, 2013
2,566
0
13,460


I'll pretend I didn't take offence by your statement and I'll just state that I have a 1080p monitor and I priced my PC to run things at 1080p, nothing higher or lower. If I wanted I could have bought both a 4k monitor and a 4k-capable PC but there's little point in it at the moment. There are some circumstances where 4GB isn't enough and that was what I was pointing out.

Ultra in Shadow of Mordor is for 1080p, not for ultra HD. You need to install the texture pack for it to take effect.
 
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