The 970 is still a capable card? Heresy

horrorshow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
7,843
It really depends on what you're playing..

(I use a GTX 960 4GB at work for Grim Dawn and the Tony Hawk Remaster soooo yeah)
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,548
Pfft!

Outside the US the tech is stupidly overpriced and availability is in some cases non existent. In my locale the Index isn't available direct from Valve, suppliers stopped holding stock of VR hardware as nothing was selling due to stupidly inflated prices and need for stupidly expensive hardware for a half decent experience.

It seems every 20 years or so VR is the next best thing, and every 20 years or so after all the hype has settled, it fizzes out and vanishes until it's next apparent uprising.

I think you are still living in the 90s in your locale. What country are you from?

VR now is nothing like the releases in the 90s. The advertising back then for the VR headsets was way over the top. The reality had no hope of competing with the expectations because of said marketing. Some of the headsets didn't even have any kind of head tracking. FOV was tiny, less than 45 degrees. Talk about tunnel vision!! Even the best headsets, like the VFX-1, were a buggy mess. Or bad design choices, again, the VFX-1 is an example of this. It needed a VESA card but that only output in 256 colours. They realised their mistake a couple of years later and released a link box that worked with regular VGA cards but of course they messed up again. The Link box didn't provide any tracking data. So it was worse than useless. VR didn't gain any traction back then because of all these issues as well as very expensive.

Compare that to now. Where you can buy a VR headset for $299 that you don't need to connect any wires to. Where you can use VR headsets for more than just gaming. People are using them for social experiences and watching movies.

I used to be a VR Sim Racer. Started VR racing 2016, but once I got the ultrawide, the Oculus has just been collecting dust.
It's a good experience with Super Sampling, but with the hassle of plugging in, calibrating etc just turns me off sometimes when I have other peripherals like wheels pedals etc.

Most people say VR is better than monitors for immersion which is true, but through my experience I prefer Ultrawide with crisper image quality. I would gladly take VR over 16:9 though.
Imo, VR just needs to upgrade on the resolution on VR lens. It's almost been 5 years since I bought the Oculus and there hasn't been much improvements.


Are you serious about there not been much improvement? The Rift S and Valve Index have better resolution than the original rift and vive headsets, those were released in 2019. The headsets just after releasing in the last quarter of 2020 have improved on that again. The Reverb G2 has amazing clarity and it's easy to setup too, no external sensors to mess about with.

Facebook screwed it up bad by tieing the oculus accounts to facebook accounts, people who would have bought the Quest 2 out of mere curiosity now wont because well Facebook. I really wish this hadnt happened or there was a way to opt out.

The Facebook thing will only affect a tiny amount of purchasers. You can see that in sales figures provided by gaming developers who are quoting a 10/20 fold increase in sales since the Quest 2 was released. Is the Facebook account requirement a PITA? Sure. Will it affect sales in any meaningful way? Nope.
 

DarkSideA8

Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
612
Mainstream? Hardly. I build gaming machines every week... want to know how often I'm asked about VR? Maybe, MAYBE one out of 15 builds. I'm not against VR, but we still aren't there yet.

But of those who do, it is common for them to have 900 series cards like the 970 or 1060... and want something better now. Which is understandable. The resolution and refresh rates aren't good without at least a 7000 or 8000 series cpu and a video card starting at the 2060 performance level. Under those specs I hear complains of frame drops and stuttering that shouldn't be happening but are.

As for the adoption rate of VR...

I THOUGHT full immersion VR would finally succeed this time by being dragged along by the rapid advances in AR headsets... a "side effect" of AR becoming a daily use item. But it seems like AR headsets completely died. Which is insane. It's the connection with the real world that will ALSO drive full immersion. Not the other way around. I don't know about everyone else, but as far as headset gaming goes, I was most impressed by something like Minecraft being played on the living room coffee table by multiple people at once. Something an entire family might actually sit down and do, or just randomly join in on. This could easily translate into endless other types of games with real interaction without shutting out from the real world. If the headsets can do this, it's only a small change to shut out the real world and go full virtual for other games. This was going to provide the stepping stone that VR has always failed at in the past.

Microsoft abandoning their AR headset development is one of if not THE most tragic, idiotic lack of vision in the PC space I've ever seen in the history of computer market screw-ups and I've seen them all.

We've missed the boat. By now, we should be just entering a golden era of AR where companies like Logitech should be making quality AR accessories that are used globally daily. But no.... MS just couldn't be bothered to finish what they almost had done. The last 10% just kicked their ass and they quit. Tragic. It shouldn't have mattered if they needed to spend another few billion and start over from scratch. Winning the AR/VR space and developing the standards in interaction for those environments is worth almost any price. Far better than Facebook developing the standards.
I think the headache and nausea is a big turn off for some people. Even people who don't normally suffer simulator sickness get queasy after a VR session. There are, of course, many people - especially young adults - who don't have problems... But many, many more people do.

Hard to sell the general public when 'you may barf' is written on the side of the box.

The other problem is pixel density and refresh rate. Until the headsets are getting 'retina' (aka - you can't discern the pixels) and a seamless experience free from motion jaggies, unintentional blurring and screen tearing - VR cannot go mainstream.

The interactive hardware is also kinda weird.

Frankly - I don't think we have figured out a good control scheme for interactive vr yet and that is another major problem that few talk about.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,432
Flipping through GPU articles - I stumbled across this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techspot.com/amp/review/1822-geforce-gtx-970-vs-radeon-r9-290/

A 2019 article comparing 970 performance 5 years later.

Considered within the limitations of playing on a 24 inch 1080p screen at 60hz (the most common screen out there (as far as I know) ) - it's still getting solidly playable frames. As in - a player with a good CPU and RAM and a 970 can probably get the visuals and be competitive on all but the most demanding 2020 games at 1080p.

AAnyway... While most of us here are enthusiasts who like the bleeding edge of tech in our rigs... I'm kinda surprised by the 'long legs' of this very legacy card. Anyone still rocking one certainly got their money's worth.
I had two Maxwell Titan X's in SLI for around 3 years. It was a very capable setup for a long time. In fact, one of the cards was in my girlfriend's gaming rig playing games pretty well at 2560x1440 until recently. Ghost Recon Breakpoint and to a lesser extent, Destiny 2 were finally too demanding for it. In preparation for Cyberpunk 2077, I finally replaced the card. Maxwell was a very strong architecture with long legs. Its still very good at 1920x1080 in most games.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
30,775
I had two Maxwell Titan X's in SLI for around 3 years. It was a very capable setup for a long time. In fact, one of the cards was in my girlfriend's gaming rig playing games pretty well at 2560x1440 until recently. Ghost Recon Breakpoint and to a lesser extent, Destiny 2 were finally too demanding for it. In preparation for Cyberpunk 2077, I finally replaced the card. Maxwell was a very strong architecture with long legs. Its still very good at 1920x1080 in most games.
I think we forget because of how insanely good pascal was; I still use Maxwell hardware in a lot of things in the datacenter, as well as at home. Hell, Nvidia still makes the M10 GRID cards for a reason.
 

staknhalo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
1,422
I think we forget because of how insanely good pascal was; I still use Maxwell hardware in a lot of things in the datacenter, as well as at home. Hell, Nvidia still makes the M10 GRID cards for a reason.

My Nvidia SHIELD TVs, as well as the Nintendo Switch - still Maxwells going strong today.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,432
I think we forget because of how insanely good pascal was; I still use Maxwell hardware in a lot of things in the datacenter, as well as at home. Hell, Nvidia still makes the M10 GRID cards for a reason.

It's sort of the opposite for me. I forget how good Pascal was. Primarily because I ran 2x Maxwell Titan X's in SLI and built several 980 Ti SLI rigs etc. for people. When I went to GTX 1080 Ti SLI, it was lackluster to say the least. As a result, I ended up running games at 4K on a single 1080 Ti, which wasn't the best experience. I'd have skipped the RTX 2080 Ti as it was theoretically slower than my 1080 Ti's in SLI, but in reality, I was upgrading from functionally a single 1080 Ti to an RTX 2080 Ti. As a result, I just don't have too many fond memories of Pascal.
 

CleanSlate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 28, 2003
Messages
5,231
Still rocking my EVGA 970 SSC 970 with an AIO modded on to it at 1500/4000.

Just waiting on that 3080 ti.
How difficult is modding an AIO onto a graphics card?


Been thinking about selling this at my store as a way to increase revenue
 

pendragon1

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
24,606
How difficult is modding an AIO onto a graphics card?


Been thinking about selling this at my store as a way to increase revenue
not hard. you can ghetto it with zip-ties or get a g12 and an acetek based aio.
not sure about selling it as a "service" though...
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,432
How difficult is modding an AIO onto a graphics card?


Been thinking about selling this at my store as a way to increase revenue

It isn't. I think the Maxwell cards actually have a bracket you can buy that makes it pretty easy. EVGA even had an AIO kit that was designed for that purpose if I recall correctly.
 

Advil

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
1,994
It's sort of the opposite for me. I forget how good Pascal was. Primarily because I ran 2x Maxwell Titan X's in SLI and built several 980 Ti SLI rigs etc. for people. When I went to GTX 1080 Ti SLI, it was lackluster to say the least. As a result, I ended up running games at 4K on a single 1080 Ti, which wasn't the best experience. I'd have skipped the RTX 2080 Ti as it was theoretically slower than my 1080 Ti's in SLI, but in reality, I was upgrading from functionally a single 1080 Ti to an RTX 2080 Ti. As a result, I just don't have too many fond memories of Pascal.
That would probably be about the only way you could not have loved Pascal. :) I stayed at 1080p until after I had a 1070 for a while then moved up to a 1440p monitor. Which immediately made me want to upgrade the card just a little more... the 1070 was "ok" at 1440 but to keep the game options on high a 1080 was a little better. The 2080 was perfect at 1440p.

At least Nvidia is up front about SLI being dead now.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,432
That would probably be about the only way you could not have loved Pascal. :) I stayed at 1080p until after I had a 1070 for a while then moved up to a 1440p monitor. Which immediately made me want to upgrade the card just a little more... the 1070 was "ok" at 1440 but to keep the game options on high a 1080 was a little better. The 2080 was perfect at 1440p.

At least Nvidia is up front about SLI being dead now.

I used to just buy cards in pairs without thinking about it. I knew that SLI wasn't a huge boost in every game or that it sometimes didn't work at all. But for the vast majority of the time I used it, I got a 20-30% boost or better in games at a minimum which was enough to make the system viable for high resolution gaming at every point that I used it. The 1080 Ti was the first time I had zero to no improvement in games. I think there were only three games that I played which benefited from SLI. That was Destiny 2, Ghost Recon Wildlands and Mass Effect Andromeda. For the latter of the two the increase was only around 20% or so and my minimum FPS and general frametimes were shit. So, even though the average FPS was definitely higher the experience blew goats.

When reviewers and benchmarks showed the RTX 2080 Ti's in SLI performing even worse, I knew that I'd only need one RTX 2080 Ti and that SLI was truly dead. While I'm not a huge fan of JaysTwoCents, he did run some benchmarks against a pair of RTX 3090's in NVLink and the results were pretty abysmal. When it works it can achieve amazing performance, but it only works in a very select group of games and the performance you get just can't justify the cost or the power consumption of two of those monsters in NVLink. For example: Shadow of the Tomb Raider already performs pretty well at 4K on a RTX 3090. I don't think $1,500 more makes sense to increase what's already satisfactory performance.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
30,775
I used to just buy cards in pairs without thinking about it. I knew that SLI wasn't a huge boost in every game or that it sometimes didn't work at all. But for the vast majority of the time I used it, I got a 20-30% boost or better in games at a minimum which was enough to make the system viable for high resolution gaming at every point that I used it. The 1080 Ti was the first time I had zero to no improvement in games. I think there were only three games that I played which benefited from SLI. That was Destiny 2, Ghost Recon Wildlands and Mass Effect Andromeda. For the latter of the two the increase was only around 20% or so and my minimum FPS and general frametimes were shit. So, even though the average FPS was definitely higher the experience blew goats.

When reviewers and benchmarks showed the RTX 2080 Ti's in SLI performing even worse, I knew that I'd only need one RTX 2080 Ti and that SLI was truly dead. While I'm not a huge fan of JaysTwoCents, he did run some benchmarks against a pair of RTX 3090's in NVLink and the results were pretty abysmal. When it works it can achieve amazing performance, but it only works in a very select group of games and the performance you get just can't justify the cost or the power consumption of two of those monsters in NVLink. For example: Shadow of the Tomb Raider already performs pretty well at 4K on a RTX 3090. I don't think $1,500 more makes sense to increase what's already satisfactory performance.
Yeah. I gave up on SLI and crossfire when the 6870 from AMD was a driver disaster. 🤣
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,759
I think you are still living in the 90s in your locale. What country are you from?
The country I'm from is irrelevant. The fact is that outside of the US hardware cost is ridiculous, that makes niche technologies like VR almost impossible to sell.

It's hard enough selling the latest high end Nvidia graphics card considering it's outrageous cost.
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,548
The country I'm from is irrelevant. The fact is that outside of the US hardware cost is ridiculous, that makes niche technologies like VR almost impossible to sell.

It's hard enough selling the latest high end Nvidia graphics card considering it's outrageous cost.

The country your from is very relevant to this discussion. You are taking the situation in your country and applying it globally. I don't live in the US and I have had no problem getting any VR headset and at a reasonable price.

And why are you only considering one of the highest price VR headsets as the only option, or that you need an expensive PC to have a good VR experience? You can buy the Quest 2 for $299 and it doesn't need a PC.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,759
The country your from is very relevant to this discussion. You are taking the situation in your country and applying it globally. I don't live in the US and I have had no problem getting any VR headset and at a reasonable price.

And why are you only considering one of the highest price VR headsets as the only option, or that you need an expensive PC to have a good VR experience? You can buy the Quest 2 for $299 and it doesn't need a PC.

Because depending on what you class as 'entry level headsets', they hardly give a great experience. You may as well strap your phone to your face.

I'm not interested in telling you what country I'm from, needless to say it's hardly third world. The Quest 2 in my locale is between $500.00 and $700.00 depending on spec. For that reason, VR isn't going anywhere globally - As stated, hand controllers aside, you may as well strap your phone to your face. Furthermore, motion sickness is undoubtably increased regarding the cheaper units, making the tech even less desirable to most. A realistic VR setup is ~$2000.00 and that doesn't include a PC of high specification to drive the thing.
 
Last edited:

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,548
Because depending on what you class as 'entry level headsets', they hardly give a great experience. You may as well strap your phone to your face.

I'm not interested in telling you what country I'm from, needless to say it's hardly third world. The Quest 2 in my locale is between $500.00 and $700.00 depending on spec. For that reason, VR isn't going anywhere globally - As stated, hand controllers aside, you may as well strap your phone to your face. Furthermore, motion sickness is undoubtably increased regarding the cheaper units, making the tech even less desirable to most. A realistic VR setup is ~$2000.00 and that doesn't include a PC of high specification to drive the thing.

OH my god, you know nothing about the current line up of headsets, you are living in the 1990s.

And you are at it again, applying what's happening in your country globally. Tell you what, tell me what continent you are on. Because I am in Europe and the Quest 2 isn't that expensive here. The only place I know where the headsets are $570 for the 64GB version is in New Zealand. And that's $570 NZ Dollars, around $405 US.

$2000 for a headset? LOL I hope that's New Zealand Dollars you are talking about. Because if it's US Dollars, you are so far off the mark.

And you are wrong, VR has been growing year on year. And I would bet that if you really do live in a First World Country, VR has been growing there too. VR now isn't just about gaming, it's been used for other things, education, entertainment, retail.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,759
OH my god, you know nothing about the current line up of headsets, you are living in the 1990s.

Well...Not really.

You see, in the 1990's we didn't have smart phones, VR was based on Amiga hardware in the consumer space.

And you are at it again, applying what's happening in your country globally. Tell you what, tell me what continent you are on. Because I am in Europe and the Quest 2 isn't that expensive here. The only place I know where the headsets are $570 for the 64GB version is in New Zealand. And that's $570 NZ Dollars, around $405 US.

And yet only 1.96% of all Steam users have a VR headset...With sales of Valve's own index actually dropping by almost 2%. That's a 'global' statistic.

$2000 for a headset? LOL I hope that's New Zealand Dollars you are talking about. Because if it's US Dollars, you are so far off the mark.

Yep, ~$2000.00 for a headset, then you've got at least ~$2000.00 for a PC capable of driving it without inducing nausea. Why would I be talking $US?

And you are wrong, VR has been growing year on year. And I would bet that if you really do live in a First World Country, VR has been growing there too. VR now isn't just about gaming, it's been used for other things, education, entertainment, retail.

It's not growing, it's floundering. The changes according to Steam month to month could almost be classed as statistical noise they're so low.

But, anyway, this isn't a VR thread and like VR this thread is boring me now. Dig this thread up in another 10 years, and if VR has really made a dent in the consumer space I'll buy you a nice roast dinner.
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,548
Well...Not really.

You see, in the 1990's we didn't have smart phones, VR was based on Amiga hardware in the consumer space.



And yet only 1.96% of all Steam users have a VR headset...With sales of Valve's own index actually dropping by almost 2%. That's a 'global' statistic.



Yep, ~$2000.00 for a headset, then you've got at least ~$2000.00 for a PC capable of driving it without inducing nausea. Why would I be talking $US?



It's not growing, it's floundering. The changes according to Steam month to month could almost be classed as statistical noise they're so low.

But, anyway, this isn't a VR thread and like VR this thread is boring me now. Dig this thread up in another 10 years, and if VR has really made a dent in the consumer space I'll buy you a nice roast dinner.

LOL So your whole basic argument is, I don't like VR so VR is not going anywhere.

And you think the Quest 2 gives a bad VR experience and increases motion sickness, lol.

As for the Steam Hardware Survey, There are several reasons why it is particularly useless for VR headset numbers.

1. Most people don't leave their headsets attached to their computer. Reducing the chances of been included in the Survey.
2. If you mainly play games from the Oculus store or through Viveport they won't get included in the Steam Hardware Survey.
3. Two of the biggest selling headsets, the Quest and Quest 2, are mainly stand alone headsets.
4. Any headset that doesn't use steam isn't included, Like the PSVR.

But, lets go with the 1.96% figure that you are using as a sign that VR is floundering. In March the Steam Hardware Survey was at 1.20% for VR headsets. Which itself is an increase from the 1.09% in December 2019. That sure looks like growth to me, nearly double the amount of headsets in a year.

Valve wouldn't have got involved in VR if they thought it was going nowhere and they certainly wouldn't have produced a game for a dying platform, especially not a Half Life Game.

Do any little bit of research at all and you will see that the VR is growing. All the markets have grown since 2016, all the forecasts have estimated further growth. All the major players are working on future headsets, including Sony. This is nothing like the 90s.
 

greyboxer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2017
Messages
272
I just gave my sister an Asus GTX 970 Strix and she loves it. huge upgrade from her..5770. I was using it for Destiny 2 and Witcher 3, and it was still handling it admirably even with only 3.5gb of ram. great card, long legs, forgettable generation of cards overall, as it was overshadowed greatly by the next series.
 

DrDoU

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
2,669
A 970 can get you by at 1080p as long as textures don’t get to crazy so can a 660 in a pinch. I have one of each and have been used in a bind.
 

Kardonxt

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,319
I have a few friends with 970s and they have no trouble playing anything at 1080p. Heck, one of them still runs a Phenom II X6 CPU too. It's incredible what some old hardware is capable of, or I guess how little 1080p gaming demands have advanced, depending on which way you look at it.
 

freeagentt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
176
I used to have a 970, I lent it to my boss, who laid me off a few months later.. still has it. But I do use a 980 in my rig, and it works just fine at 1080/60. Although I don't know how much time it has left, especially for new games. But for now its still decent. My 970 was a FTW model, so its clocks were very close to my classified. Box clocks dont mean anything these days. My 980 is supposed to run at 1290 I think, but it runs at 1417, like my 970 did.
 

wareyore

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 1, 2014
Messages
232
The 970 was/is a real workhorse. Great value card.

Corsair made an AIO conversion for it years ago, the HG10 N970. I put one on an EVGA 970 with a Corsair 140mm AIO and Noctua fan then installed it on my wall mounted SR2. Worked great, cool and quiet. You could get a G12 now, as someone mentioned.


Recently, I dusted it off and tested it on my test bench with a 7700k. Still a capable 1080p card.
 

Attachments

  • 20201230_091452.jpg
    20201230_091452.jpg
    440.7 KB · Views: 0

jlbenedict

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
1,469
I have a few friends with 970s and they have no trouble playing anything at 1080p. Heck, one of them still runs a Phenom II X6 CPU too. It's incredible what some old hardware is capable of, or I guess how little 1080p gaming demands have advanced, depending on which way you look at it.

Considering this is [H], most people here upgrade because they lust after new shiny hardware... the reality is, as you pointed out is old hardware is still capable. 144 FPS is not a necessity
 

DarkSideA8

Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
612
Considering this is [H], most people here upgrade because they lust after new shiny hardware... the reality is, as you pointed out is old hardware is still capable. 144 FPS is not a necessity
I've been preaching this for a while. Although, I think we (especially people who've built systems for a while) have been conditioned by our experiences from the 90s to mid 20teens... Throughout this time, every new shiney really did result in a measurable performance increase relative to the hardware that we commonly used (whether CRTs or 1080p flat panels). In other words, the new shiney was a good buy.

But times have changed: the new shiney outperforms (meaning the improvements cannot be realized) most older systems.

The thing is, people don't really think that hard about where the limitations in their systems may be: and for those still rocking 24 inch 1080p systems, the new cards are total overkill. Buying the new card 'because that's what you do' is no longer a good plan.

This whole generation, both from AMD and NVidia is aimed straight at higher refresh 1440p and widescreens -- and for those cats they're great. They are also, IMO, door-openers to 4k, because even the top cards are offering middling performance at 4k.

So - if you are running high refresh 1440 or 4k, the new cards make sense. If you still have an older-tech panel... not so much.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
5,420
It honestly not surprising older hardware is still kicking. A lot high and ultra setting in games really don't add much to a game at a huge performance cost. People just are not satisfied unless all their sliders are maxed out at their given res at what ever they believe is acceptable fps. Even tho I usually try to upgrade to the best hardware possible I am content with 30fps as long as it is a locked 30 fps. 60 is better but starts to really become unnoitcable to me once it gets over 100fps. Maybe because I grew up as primary a console player. For the longest time I just really used my pc for MMORPG, quake 3 and Unreal tournament back in the early high school days.
 

n64link

n00b
Joined
May 21, 2016
Messages
25
I still have 2 GTX970s, though I don't use them. My brother was until last year, @ 1080p, and he was doing fine. I got him a GTX1080 and took the 970s. Over all they are still good cards. the 3.5GB of usable VRAM is their main issue. But for the average gamer, they work well.
 

Advil

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
1,994
It is not just the 970 that has long legs. What's amazing is just how old a hardware set Win 10 will run. You can stuff that 970 into an i7-2700 and still do some serious gaming. I can't remember a similar time in the history of PCs when you could actually load the current OS on a 10 year old CPU/MOBO, probably go with the detected drivers, slap in a 5 year old 970 card and play a current game at 1080p.

It might not be amazing, but it certainly won't suck.
 

crazycrave

Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
968
I would like to see Hawaii ran on a Ryzen 5000 system just to see how much more could be there .
 

legcramp

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
11,263
I am rocking a system that I am selling in the living with an i7-4790K with a Gigabyte Windforce G1 GTX 970 and it plays great at 1080p. Literally every esports game runs great including warzone which is pretty much sits 60+ fps on a mixture of normal/high settings.
 

Saabjock

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
477
rFactor 2 came out a year before the GTX 770.

Just sayin' :cool:
Yes!...but since then RF2 has changed hands and been basically rebuilt to support a different version of DirectX.
It also had a lot of shader updates which are a lot more intensive on hardware.
Again....just sayin';);)
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
545
Flipping through GPU articles - I stumbled across this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techspot.com/amp/review/1822-geforce-gtx-970-vs-radeon-r9-290/

A 2019 article comparing 970 performance 5 years later.

Considered within the limitations of playing on a 24 inch 1080p screen at 60hz (the most common screen out there (as far as I know) ) - it's still getting solidly playable frames. As in - a player with a good CPU and RAM and a 970 can probably get the visuals and be competitive on all but the most demanding 2020 games at 1080p.

AAnyway... While most of us here are enthusiasts who like the bleeding edge of tech in our rigs... I'm kinda surprised by the 'long legs' of this very legacy card. Anyone still rocking one certainly got their money's worth.

So...funny story. I was helping a friend upgrade from a 970, but all the new cards either out of stuck or too expensive. So, we ended up getting a Gsync 1080P monitor for him to help deal with the frame drops until we can get him in a new GPU.

PS: I almost lent him my 980ti but after removing enough cat hair to make a lion from his rig, I decided to keep my precious safe. Seriously... I broke out the shop vac.
 

DarkSideA8

Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
612
So...funny story. I was helping a friend upgrade from a 970, but all the new cards either out of stuck or too expensive. So, we ended up getting a Gsync 1080P monitor for him to help deal with the frame drops until we can get him in a new GPU.

PS: I almost lent him my 980ti but after removing enough cat hair to make a lion from his rig, I decided to keep my precious safe. Seriously... I broke out the shop vac.
You know that little screen / filter on the front of the enclosure? I once took it off to blow out some dust on the fan and dropped it on a nearby table. When I went to put it back - I discovered I needed a dustpan!

(we had just done some remodeling, and while I thought I had done a bang up job of dust mitigation - sheesh!) needless to say I went back and blew out the whole box thoroughly.

That was two years ago - I try to keep my computer clean - but they somehow find ways to get filthy. The thing is - those 970s are like the Energizer Bunny...
 
Top