I read arround the internet about that 3.5GB + 0.5 Issue of GTX 970 while I was searching about this card because I want to upgrade. Seriously now they put defective 980 chips and sell it as an 970?
Solution
the master 123
Distinguished
- Dec 16, 2012
- 23
- 0
- 18,540
It for most part is. It a fairly common practice actually. Early one I can think of is the intel 486 that had a varient without it on board fpu(one of the key feature of that cpu), the core dual series also had a solo with was a dual core but one core disable. If you read the info they disable parts of the 980, Several feature like some of shader array are disabled to get the difference in shador count. The 960, 980, and titan x are complete chip been with then using gm206, gm 204, and gm 200 respectably. the 950 is a reduce 960, 970 is a reduce 980, and 980ti is a reduce titan x. here a wikipedia page that talk about more of it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_900_series#GeForce_900_.289xx.29_series.
Well then I will wait for the pascal series, I think it's pointless to give 350 euro for a 3.5 GB card when arround the same price is an r9 390 with the 8GB, 512bit bus. More future proof. Only reason I am not buying the 390 is that I need the CUDA feature of Nvidia for Matlab. But from what I read gtx 970 is just a money grab and faulty advertised...
But the 8gb of the 390 is a marketing gimmick, it's not fast enough to ever warrent 8gb. The 970 can use the last 0.5gb just slower, it's not a defect but actual design. The 970's benchmarks and real world reviews are what count. The extra cost of the 980 brings such a small gain it's not worth it. If you can wait for Pascal then great but it might not hit the shops until as late as June/July
- Dec 8, 2013
- 12,606
- 29
- 56,990
Well, I wouldn't agree with that entirely. Just because it has higher numbers doesn't mean It's better in every way. Now if we were talking about the same architecture but one has higher numbers, then yeah. It's not the case here though, and from what it looks like the GTX 970 has a chance to be more future proof then the R9 390, because AMD seems to have dropped their support for older GEN graphics cards which are not fully DX12 compatible, whilst apparently the Nvidia Maxwell series GPU's are claimed to be fully compatible for DX12 based on the latest results which could mean they would last longer.
Anyways, most graphics cards on the market could be considered defective if It's for that. But It's far from the term 'defective' in comparison to what you're getting for the price. It's still a great GPU for the price.
It seems be able to use 8GB VRAM with noticable benefits in some games actually. And officially, I think the GTX 970 is indeed one ''defective'' counter-part in comparison to the GTX 980.
Mousemonkey
Titan
- Sep 3, 2006
- 59,466
- 17
- 92,965
More like it is a result of what happens when the parts of the chip that do not work properly get disabled, consequence not design.
- Dec 8, 2013
- 12,606
- 29
- 56,990
BigBoss, I personally think it depends on preference rather than choosing performance when it comes to GTX 970 vs R9 390. I've said this several times before, but the R9 390 8GB runs better out of the box, but overclock the GTX 970 and it becomes the better graphics card whilst still running much cooler so even if you overclock the R9 390 8GB which just air cooling you're going to exceed 75 degrees comfortably and OC'ing on the AMD chip is a lot more limited compared to the well-overclockable GTX 970's. However the GTX 970 OC'd is better until you play a game that is very VRAM heavy, then the R9 380 8GB regains the lead.
But again, these cards are about preference. I play a lot of FIFA 16, this game doesn't support AMD cards in 144 Hz capped, so I had to get a GTX 970 to run FIFA 16 at 144fps.
But again, these cards are about preference. I play a lot of FIFA 16, this game doesn't support AMD cards in 144 Hz capped, so I had to get a GTX 970 to run FIFA 16 at 144fps.
Mousemonkey
Titan
- Sep 3, 2006
- 59,466
- 17
- 92,965
Seems like a whole lot of noise for nothing, the benchmarks speak for themselves. Whether 970 or 390 it's the performance/cost that should be the basis of the decision. It's actually an efficient production methodology that reduces waste. As I say, it's by design
burgessanthony
Dignified
- Jun 27, 2012
- 3,016
- 4
- 13,960
My observation is that my oc 390 benches the same as ocd 970s in games and benchmarks. I never get above 67 on the card due to good case cooling and cool room. Howevrer, the 970 will do it for less power if that's a concern to you.
Whether the 8gb can be used is a food point. I have a few games that use 7gb at 1440 ( 2 cod games included) and maybe it helps, maybe not. When I was researching I did note that at 1440 the 390 frametimea and min fps were better than 970s maybe due to extra bandwidth...
Not sure.
Either way, its personal preference with these cards.
Whether the 8gb can be used is a food point. I have a few games that use 7gb at 1440 ( 2 cod games included) and maybe it helps, maybe not. When I was researching I did note that at 1440 the 390 frametimea and min fps were better than 970s maybe due to extra bandwidth...
Not sure.
Either way, its personal preference with these cards.
the master 123
Distinguished
- Dec 16, 2012
- 23
- 0
- 18,540
Sizzling is right as I said it common practices, I sure amd\ati has done it also. You better off looking a benchmarks and choose a card based on that, and look at features and see if though are relevant to you cuda, linux support, or something like video encoding software support could be notable depend on you uses and i one of my reason a I went with the 970 about a year ago due to not finding and free software with amd hardware encoding support. As for vram you could agree the the 3.5gb limit could be issue and choose the 390 also.
The point is that for the same price you get more VRAM with 390 and wider BUS. Maybe games can't utilize all the 390 benefits but still gtx 970 for the same price with 3.5 GB VRAM is I think is bad from nVidia. Yet problem is that I need nVidia because of CUDA feature that is used in simulation programs like matlab. And I run heavy codes that benefit from GPU computing and I don't wan't to bother with openCL that needs further programming from your side while nVidia is by deffault supported in matlab gpu computing. Thing is that I am a gamer too and 390 is a lot more value, I can't decide but I think you answered my question guys thanks. Still nVidia has yet to show us some fair priced card compared to what AMD gives, while AMD drivers are often garbage and have issues... But anyway.
TRENDING THREADS
-
[SOLVED] Is it safe to use a recapped PSU for a long time ?- Started by zwtch_17
- Replies: 7
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
-
-
News Microsoft updates Windows 11 24H2 requirements, CPU must support SSE4.2 or the OS will not boot- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
Latest posts
-
-
-
Question User RX 580 8gb red devil powercolor, asking original BIOS- Latest: PizzaInGame
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram