GTX 970 vs GTX 980 (yes, it's about the RAM thing)

TechLarry

TechLarry

RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
30,481
Man I hate to ask this after reading about it as much as I have, but I have to.

I've got a new GTX 970 sitting next to me that I picked up last night. I'm wondering if I shouldn't take it back and get the GTX 980 instead.

I understand the ramifications of the fast/slow memory deal on the 970. The problem is I don't know if it will affect me or not.

I know it makes no difference unless the game, or usage, exceeds the 3.5GB barrier and taps the last 512MB.

Two Questions:

1. Is this an issue if I intend to eventually connect a 40-42" 4K 60hz 4:4:4 display as the main monitor for gaming and work?

2. Is there a way to tell the card to completely forget about the slow 512mb so it never gets accessed (and thus never has the chance to slow the card down) ?

I can return it and get the 980, which is also on sale but dayum. $175 Difference.
 
Oh, and is all this a moot point because 4GB really isn't enough for 4k gaming anyway?
 
4K is where the lack of VRAM is going to rear it's ugly head. Get the 980. Save yourself a headache.

Just wondering. Did your old card die? The new rumor is Nvidia launches cards in May I think. If you need something now you can sell the 980 on EBAY I suppose.
 
TechLarry said:
Man I hate to ask this after reading about it as much as I have, but I have to.

I've got a new GTX 970 sitting next to me that I picked up last night. I'm wondering if I shouldn't take it back and get the GTX 980 instead.

I understand the ramifications of the fast/slow memory deal on the 970. The problem is I don't know if it will affect me or not.

I know it makes no difference unless the game, or usage, exceeds the 3.5GB barrier and taps the last 512MB.

Two Questions:

1. Is this an issue if I intend to eventually connect a 40-42" 4K 60hz 4:4:4 display as the main monitor for gaming and work?

2. Is there a way to tell the card to completely forget about the slow 512mb so it never gets accessed (and thus never has the chance to slow the card down) ?

I can return it and get the 980, which is also on sale but dayum. $175 Difference.
Click to expand...

I can say from personal experience, that WoWs runs @ 4k just fine on a 970, that won't be the case for most games though :)
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I can say from personal experience, that WoWs runs @ 4k just fine on a 970, that won't be the case for most games though :)
Click to expand...

On this machine, that is my primary game :)

Are you able to see a much larger map area in 4k ?
 
cageymaru said:
4K is where the lack of VRAM is going to rear it's ugly head. Get the 980. Save yourself a headache.

Just wondering. Did your old card die? The new rumor is Nvidia launches cards in May I think. If you need something now you can sell the 980 on EBAY I suppose.
Click to expand...

Well, I have a need for the 7970 in this machine to replace an old GTX 8800 in my Living Room machine.

I already have a 290x in my primary gaming (iRacing) machine.

This workstation (where I also play WoWs) is the target for anything regarding a 4k display in the future.
 
TechLarry said:
On this machine, that is my primary game :)

Are you able to see a much larger map area in 4k ?
Click to expand...

everything is smaller :p so yes, you get more map area. However the scale gets messed up compared to 1080p, so you end up having to zoom out 1 or 2 clicks to shoot.

I had to re-learn how to shoot
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
everything is smaller :p so yes, you get more map area. However the scale gets messed up compared to 1080p, so you end up having to zoom out 1 or 2 clicks to shoot.

I had to re-learn how to shoot
Click to expand...


Yikes.

Funny thing is, even with a 1440 X 2560 display (32"), I STILL have to aim off screen at longer ranges due to the stupid US gun arc's :( I was hoping 4k was the answer to that.
 
970 is widely regarded as insufficient for 4k for most games. WoW may be one of the few able to played at 4k by a 970, but I'd think the 980 would serve you better. Or, wait for the new cards.
 
TechLarry said:
Yikes.

Funny thing is, even with a 1440 X 2560 display (32"), I STILL have to aim off screen at longer ranges due to the stupid US gun arc's :( I was hoping 4k was the answer to that.
Click to expand...

Ultra-Wide is the answer to that, I had no problem doing that on my 2560x1080 monitor.
 
The new cards will probably be ridiculously expensive.

Since the purchase of the 4k display is likely 6 months down the road, I think my best bet is to use the $300 970 for now. That will get me the 7970 from this machine to use where I need it, and get me a faster card than the 7970 for now.

When it comes time for a 4k display, I'll take another look at the whole mess and see where things lie.

Right now I would be spending $175 to do something I'm not ready for anyway.

Sound reasonable ?
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Ultra-Wide is the answer to that, I had no problem doing that on my 2560x1080 monitor.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm still offscreen sometimes even with the 1440 X 2560.

Sometimes I can just barely see the nose of the target ship off to the side of the display.

The issue is worse with destroyers running on boost, of course.
 
Is the 970 totally ok on a 2K display ?

1440 X 2560.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
For WoWs yes, it really depends on the games you want to play.

Your 2560x1440 is not ultra-wide, its 16:9, 2560x1080 is 21:9 , wider aspect.
Click to expand...

Right, but 2560 pixels is 2560 pixels. Unless I'm missing something here :)

WowS is my main concern on this machine. I was playing HI1Z1 on it as well until that whole thing went pear shaped.

The only other game I really play regularly is iRacing, and I have a dedicated 3 panel 290x based machine set up for that.

WoWs is a great game for those that can't stand FPS games (me) but still want to shoot and blow shit up :)
 
TechLarry said:
Right, but 2560 pixels is 2560 pixels. Unless I'm missing something here :)

WowS is my main concern on this machine. I was playing HI1Z1 on it as well until that whole thing went pear shaped.

The only other game I really play regularly is iRacing, and I have a dedicated 3 panel 290x based machine set up for that.

WoWs is a great game for those that can't stand FPS games (me) but still want to shoot and blow shit up :)
Click to expand...


2560 is not 2560, because the FOV will probably change when you reduce the vertical resolution as well. :)
 
c3k said:
970 is widely regarded as insufficient for 4k for most games. WoW may be one of the few able to played at 4k by a 970, but I'd think the 980 would serve you better. Or, wait for the new cards.
Click to expand...

So is the 980, in fact the only really solid choice for 4K is to buy 2 Geforce 980 TIs and that's a lot of money to lay out. Better off waiting a while if you want 4K setup.
 
TechLarry said:
Is the 970 totally ok on a 2K display ?

1440 X 2560.
Click to expand...

I have 2 GTX 970s with a 2560x1440 screen and I can crank the graphics all the way on all games (antialiasing not withstanding). Usually I can do FXAA and everything is super smooth. Not sure about one though.

The only exception was Rise of the Tomb Raider because one of the texture settings required more VRAM than I had.
 
Yeah, I think I'll go with the 970 for now. If it's going to be a stop-gap either way, might as well keep the $175 for now :)

Thanks!
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Larry, what card are you currently using?
Click to expand...

AMD HD7970.

Ok, put in the 970. One thing I can tell right away is the 2D desktop is noticeably brighter and sharper. I wasn't expecting that. Or maybe it's because I actually CLEANED the monitors. Really. It could be that. LOL

Not sure about WoWs yet, but I do think it's performing better. I think Wow's is capped somewhere between 50 and 75fps. Will have to experiment to find out. I did turn everything on Very High, and all other options to their highest settings, before testing. That's a bit pushy, so I'll go back to defaults like the AMD card had and see how it does.
 
TechLarry said:
AMD HD7970.

Ok, put in the 970. One thing I can tell right away is the 2D desktop is noticeably brighter and sharper. I wasn't expecting that. Or maybe it's because I actually CLEANED the monitors. Really. It could be that. LOL

Not sure about WoWs yet, but I do think it's performing better. I think Wow's is capped somewhere between 50 and 75fps. Will have to experiment to find out. I did turn everything on Very High, and all other options to their highest settings, before testing. That's a bit pushy, so I'll go back to defaults like the AMD card had and see how it does.
Click to expand...

I think it's 75 FPS, IF i was you, I'd keep the 7970 until the new cards drop. just my opinion...

Anyway if you decide to keep the 970, check out Business6s post in the WoWs thread about enable AA, I have 4x AA + 4X sparse grid, game looks awesome with it.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I think it's 75 FPS, IF i was you, I'd keep the 7970 until the new cards drop. just my opinion...

Anyway if you decide to keep the 970, check out Business6s post in the WoWs thread about enable AA, I have 4x AA + 4X sparse grid, game looks awesome with it.
Click to expand...

I need the 7970 for another machine. That's kinda what started all this.

What the hell is sparse grid?

It usually takes me a year before I'm even remotely interested in a new Video Card. Driver bugs, high prices, phoey!!! I'll let the dust settle :)

I've always been happy with the 2nd best of anything when it comes to computers. Processors, Video Cards, etc... Saves a ton of money :)
 
As others have said, 980Ti SLI is really your only choice at 4K, and even then it's sometimes not enough.

The 970 sounds like it will be fine for your use, since you aren't playing very demanding titles.

The 980 isn't worth considering any more, from what I've seen and read around here -- you either go to the 980Ti (which everyone keeps saying will be replaced "any time now"... for the last 6+ months) or you drop down to the 970. The price point of the 980 makes no sense.
 
I guess I'll weigh in as well. Here's my response to most of what's going on in this thread.

  • I use a GTX 970. I play most of my games at 4k, locked 60fps. However, most of these are older titles (WoW, Heroes of the Storm, Valkyria Chronicles, NFS Rivals (30fps), Fable Anniversary, Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed, etc.). What you need to run 4k depends on what games you're running. A 750ti will run some older titles at 4k. A 980ti SLI combo won't be enough for some modern titles at 4k.
  • The 4GB VRAM issue for the GTX 970 is grossly overblown and only happens in specific forced scenarios. The 970 is closer to the 980 in performance than it is in price. It's a damn good value.
  • If VRAM (970) and price (980) is a concern, get the best of both worlds and get the Radeon R9 390. Similar price and performance as the 970, 8GB VRAM. Problems solved. Don't limit yourself to one brand unless you have to. Make them compete for your dollar.
 
Keep in mind to a few of us WoWs = World of Warships. That's what TechLarry is talking about.

If you 're keeping the 970 you can do this
"
3. Force AA to work without use of DSR

You need:nvidia Inspector + newest driver (wont test with older one just to find the point at which it is broken)

Open Inspector, go to profiles, find WoWs profile.

Change the AA-compatibility bits to: 0x404012C1

Change AA-Behavious-Flags to: None.

Change AA-Mode to: Overide any application setting

Change AA-Settings to: your choice, may want to start with 4xMSAA since you should be able to afford it.

Change AA Transparency SS to: 4x Sparsed Grid Supersampling (its the MSAA samples that get ehanced to SGSSAA - so 4xSGSSA on 2xMSAA doesnt give you 4xSGSAA)

Change Texture Filter Lod Bias to: something of you liking, rule of thumb would be -0.5 per 2xSGSSAA but I rather go with these figures:



2x SGSSAA: -0,375
4x SGSSAA: -0,875
8x SGSSAA: -1,250



but again is personal prefferences what is eye cancer inducing shimmering and what not
Smile_trollface.gif
and differs from game to game, so you have to play some time to find the right setting.

again restart application after you applied changes to the profile to have them take effect."

Stolen from:
SLI workaround - Gameplay

Real AA in that game looks magnificent. AMD can't do it.

Personally I'd hang onto the 970 if you already have it. 980 is only 18% faster for much more money and you'd be hard pressed to find games that will use over 3.5GB on a single card. The card isn't really powerful enough to need more than that unless you go SLI. Which you should do a 980ti over 970 SLI anyways...
 
Last edited:
Daniel_Chang said:
I guess I'll weigh in as well. Here's my response to most of what's going on in this thread.

  • I use a GTX 970. I play most of my games at 4k, locked 60fps. However, most of these are older titles (WoW, Heroes of the Storm, Valkyria Chronicles, NFS Rivals (30fps), Fable Anniversary, Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed, etc.). What you need to run 4k depends on what games you're running. A 750ti will run some older titles at 4k. A 980ti SLI combo won't be enough for some modern titles at 4k.
  • The 4GB VRAM issue for the GTX 970 is grossly overblown and only happens in specific forced scenarios. The 970 is closer to the 980 in performance than it is in price. It's a damn good value.
  • If VRAM (970) and price (980) is a concern, get the best of both worlds and get the Radeon R9 390. Similar price and performance as the 970, 8GB VRAM. Problems solved. Don't limit yourself to one brand unless you have to. Make them compete for your dollar.
Click to expand...

This is a model reply. Well said.
 
Dayaks said:
Keep in mind to a few of us WoWs = World of Warships. That's what TechLarry is talking about.

If you 're keeping the 970 you can do this
"
3. Force AA to work without use of DSR

You need:nvidia Inspector + newest driver (wont test with older one just to find the point at which it is broken)

Open Inspector, go to profiles, find WoWs profile.

Change the AA-compatibility bits to: 0x404012C1

Change AA-Behavious-Flags to: None.

Change AA-Mode to: Overide any application setting

Change AA-Settings to: your choice, may want to start with 4xMSAA since you should be able to afford it.

Change AA Transparency SS to: 4x Sparsed Grid Supersampling (its the MSAA samples that get ehanced to SGSSAA - so 4xSGSSA on 2xMSAA doesnt give you 4xSGSAA)

Change Texture Filter Lod Bias to: something of you liking, rule of thumb would be -0.5 per 2xSGSSAA but I rather go with these figures:



2x SGSSAA: -0,375
4x SGSSAA: -0,875
8x SGSSAA: -1,250



but again is personal prefferences what is eye cancer inducing shimmering and what not
Smile_trollface.gif
and differs from game to game, so you have to play some time to find the right setting.

again restart application after you applied changes to the profile to have them take effect."

Stolen from:
SLI workaround - Gameplay

Real AA in that game looks magnificent. AMD can't do it.

Personally I'd hang onto the 970 if you already have it. 980 is only 18% faster for much more money and you'd be hard pressed to find games that will use over 3.5GB on a single card. The card isn't really powerful enough to need more than that unless you go SLI. Which you should do a 980ti over 970 SLI anyways...
Click to expand...


I kept it. As configured, it's pulling 58-62, sometimes 66 fps.

I'll try the above changes !

Thanks

-Larry
 
Well I went from a 750 Ti, 970, 980 and now a 980 Ti on my 4K TV.

I can say I seen little to no difference between the 970 and 980 at 4K, but the 980 Ti preforms a LOT better. The 750 Ti was a joke at 4K. I also tried SLI 970s at 4K and it was closer in performance to the 980 Ti.

So if you're choosing between the 970 and 980, go with the 970. It's cheaper and the price hike to a 980 isn't worth it.

If you really want to game at 4K, then go with a 980 Ti.
 
athenian200 said:
If you can still get your money back because you haven't opened the 970 yet, I'd go for the better version at 4K.

Still, in all honesty, if I wanted to do anything graphically intensive at 4K today... I'd probably get something like a Titan or a Quadro with at least 8GB of RAM. I really think you need 8GB of VRAM to play modern games at 4K and 60FPS. The 4 to 6GB on most modern cards doesn't quite cut it. Modern cards are pretty much built for 1440p/2K resolutions.

I mean, the 970 could certainly play some games at 4K with a good framerate, but probably not the most demanding ones.
Click to expand...

How do you justify a quadro?

TechLarry said:
I kept it. As configured, it's pulling 58-62, sometimes 66 fps.

I'll try the above changes !

Thanks

-Larry
Click to expand...

If you need help let me know. I could always take a screen shot of my nVinspector.
 
TechLarry said:
Man I hate to ask this after reading about it as much as I have, but I have to.

I've got a new GTX 970 sitting next to me that I picked up last night. I'm wondering if I shouldn't take it back and get the GTX 980 instead.

I understand the ramifications of the fast/slow memory deal on the 970. The problem is I don't know if it will affect me or not.

I know it makes no difference unless the game, or usage, exceeds the 3.5GB barrier and taps the last 512MB.

Two Questions:

1. Is this an issue if I intend to eventually connect a 40-42" 4K 60hz 4:4:4 display as the main monitor for gaming and work?

2. Is there a way to tell the card to completely forget about the slow 512mb so it never gets accessed (and thus never has the chance to slow the card down) ?

I can return it and get the 980, which is also on sale but dayum. $175 Difference.
Click to expand...
if you are playing at 4k and some games at 1440 you will use around 3.5GB or more(in all recent consoles ports) if the price difference is that big, why not wait for AMD Polaris or get a r9 390/290(x)


TechLarry said:
The new cards will probably be ridiculously expensive.

Since the purchase of the 4k display is likely 6 months down the road, I think my best bet is to use the $300 970 for now. That will get me the 7970 from this machine to use where I need it, and get me a faster card than the 7970 for now.

When it comes time for a 4k display, I'll take another look at the whole mess and see where things lie.

Right now I would be spending $175 to do something I'm not ready for anyway.

Sound reasonable ?
Click to expand...
AMD Polaris would be focused for mainstream/budget so it would be fine for you
 
athenian200 said:
I can't, that's why I still play games at 1080p. It's good enough for me. If I upgrade, it will most likely be to 1440p after everyone else moves to 4k. The amount of power needed for 4k on most games is a little ridiculous, and I don't have room for a 30" monitor on my desk anyway. That one game he talked about playing isn't very demanding, after looking through the thread.

The Titan cards would likely be the better bet for gaming, honestly. But Quadro cards have a LOT more RAM than most desktop cards right now, and you can get configurations with up to 24GB of RAM. It would be especially useful for any kind of 3D content creation at 4K. Also, he mentioned something about his computer being a workstation, and Quadros are workstation cards.

I mean, there's a reason why I'm telling most people to wait for Pascal and Polaris to see if things get a little more reasonable. But he seems to be asking what's out there today, and honestly all we have for 4K today are really, really high-end cards that cost an arm and a leg.
Click to expand...

Recommending a Quadro card for gaming.... No. Just... no.

Also, content creation is actually way /less/ VRAM intensive than gaming at a given resolution in most cases, as you tend to be working on small sections / assets that will be combined later, and once you get to the combining stage framerates are completely irrelevant since you're typically doing the final render off screen via a dedicated engine.

In other words... this was a terrible recommendation. Please do not recommend a Quadro again until you understand what they're for.
 
A single 980 isn't really going to be enough for 4k gaming either....not and hold decent frame rates on high settings, but....whatever floats your boat.
 
I'm actually considering returning the 970 given the new announcements. It's not like the 7970 is a low end card. I really needed it for another machine, but that machine can survive a little while longer with the old GTX 8800 I guess. I dunno LOL
 
TechLarry said:
I'm actually considering returning the 970 given the new announcements. It's not like the 7970 is a low end card. I really needed it for another machine, but that machine can survive a little while longer with the old GTX 8800 I guess. I dunno LOL
Click to expand...

Yes return the GTX 970, and get the new NV GPU or a used GTX 980 for $350 or less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top