Would a GTX 970 be a good upgrade for my rig?

V

Viper2

n00b
Joined
Sep 27, 2014
Messages
10
I was thinking about replacing all of my three current 6970s (in Crossfire) for one 970. The reason being that even in this day and age I frequently run into games that don't support Crossfire. If I get a 970, it won't be water-cooled even though the rest of my system is. I don't think there is any point in buying a water block for a video card as quiet as a 970, and I don't plan on overclocking the card much, if at all, but I might buy a factory overclocked version.

Here is my current rig:

  • Fully Water-cooled System
  • Intel Core i7 2600k 3.4GHZ Quad Core 8MB (overclocked to 4.6ghz) - (Water-cooled)
  • Three XFX Radeon HD 6970 Video Cards in Triple Crossfire (Water-cooled)
  • Asus Maximum Extreme IV Motherboard
  • 16GB Patriot Viper Xtreme DDR-1600 RAM
  • OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD SATA Hard Drive
  • Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB SATA Hard Drive
  • 1500 Watt Power Supply
  • Cooler Master HAF 932 Advanced Case
  • LED case lighting (red)
  • Windows 7 Professional 64 Bit

Any responses will be appreciated.

Thanks.
 
If you do, then you won't need that 1500W PSU any more, that's for sure!
 
What he is saying, is you could easily get by with a 600 watt power supply.. as long as the 12v rail has pretty good juice on it. Save some buck$ on your electric bill!
 
txsizzler said:
What he is saying, is you could easily get by with a 600 watt power supply.. as long as the 12v rail has pretty good juice on it. Save some buck$ on your electric bill!
Click to expand...

I have read that PSUs only use as much power as the system calls for, so I assume that the difference in electrics bills will be extremely minimal to say the least. In other words, there is no disadvantage whatsoever is having a overpowered PSU.
 
Viper2 said:
It doesn't matter how powerful the power supply is, does it? The power supply will only use as much power as it needs to, correct?
Click to expand...

While that is true for the most part, consider that a 1500W PSU with your system and a single 970 would most likely never come anywhere close to being loaded at a level that would allow the PSU to function at a high efficiency.

Someone else who is more learned in electrical stuff can chime in here, but I think that you will probably draw more power than you would by using a PSU which more properly spans the power envelope you would be working within.
 
cortexodus said:
While that is true for the most part, consider that a 1500W PSU with your system and a single 970 would most likely never come anywhere close to being loaded at a level that would allow the PSU to function at a high efficiency.

Someone else who is more learned in electrical stuff can chime in here, but I think that you will probably draw more power than you would by using a PSU which more properly spans the power envelope you would be working within.
Click to expand...

His efficiency will suffer but, i dont think it would be enough of a difference to affect his power bill. He'll see a much bigger difference by dropping to the single 970.
 
This isn't a car engine... it's electricity.

That means that if your components aren't drawing more power, your power supply shouldn't draw more power either. That's why some people measure power at the outlet.

To answer the OP's question though:

Having a single videocard would be better (especially if it's a 970) but keep in mind you'll have to take apart your GPU waterblock loop which can be a bitch if you aren't experienced with watercooling.
 
killboy said:
This isn't a car engine... it's electricity.

That means that if your components aren't drawing more power, your power supply shouldn't draw more power either. That's why some people measure power at the outlet.
Click to expand...

This is only anecdotal, but I went from a Silver rated 750W PSU to a Gold rated 550W with the machine in sig (looks like I need to update my sig, too), and the idle power draw of the system dropped from ~100W to ~84W :D

Nothing else about the system was changed except the PSU. Perhaps that can be attributed solely to the energy star rating? :confused:
 
Okay, this thread has gone way off-topic. Let's stay on-topic please. The question was the performance difference between Tri-fire 6970s and one 970 (especially when many PC games still do not support Crossfire/SLI).
 
Viper2 said:
Okay, this thread has gone way off-topic. Let's stay on-topic please. The question was the performance difference between Tri-fire 6970s and one 970 (especially when many PC games still do not support Crossfire/SLI).
Click to expand...

Touché.

I'd say that question can be broken down to this: "is a single 970 all of the time better than three 6970's sometimes and only one 6970 occasionally?

I think it boils down to how often you encounter issues with x-fire such that a single 6970 can't deal with the game you're wanting to play. If a single 6970 won't do what you want it to often enough that it's annoying, then I'd say a solution is in order! :)
 
I am coming from the Sapphire Toxic 6950 (the one where the Bios switch unlocked the extra pipelines) and the GTX 970 made a huge difference in what is playable at 1080p. Where I had to often turn settings down on the 6950, I'm now leaving all settings at max and have smooth performance. I got the EVGA ACS SC version of the 970 and it's much quieter, smaller, and takes less power than the old 6950 as well. Some people have complained of it being loud or having coil whine but I have not noticed that at all.

I'm not sure the 970 will outperform your current setup in all games/situations, but even if you do not see a huge FPS boost right away, I think you will notice drastic decreases in power usage and heat generation. Also, with DX12 being supported in the 970 it would future proof you better.

Hope this helps you out!
 
One GTX 970 will be better than 3 x HD 6970 for all the time. 2 6970 ~ GTX 670 and since tri-fire does not scale very well, 3 6970 will be around 1 680 level at best. 970 is slightly faster than a 780 so you'll see a healthy boost in performance and a huge decrease in heat dissipation as well as power consumption.
 
David-Duc said:
One GTX 970 will be better than 3 x HD 6970 for all the time. 2 6970 ~ GTX 670 and since tri-fire does not scale very well, 3 6970 will be around 1 680 level at best. 970 is slightly faster than a 780 so you'll see a healthy boost in performance and a huge decrease in heat dissipation as well as power consumption.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. I had one toxic 6950(70 unlocked) and my single gtx 670 was about twice as fast. Now I have 2 gtx 670's in SLI and a gtx 970 is about as fast as these two cards. Like stated before, the third 6970 doesn't scale as well as the first two, so I would say you are looking at close to double the performance. Too bad you didn't sell those 6970's about 8 months ago during the bitcoin craze, but that ship has sailed. You could probably still sell them for 50-75 bucks each though. That would make the cost of upgrading a lot cheaper.
 
14 responses and not one soul asked the guy what resolution was he gaming at. Is he going to use a 4K screen in the future? Does he run multiple monitors? Multiple 4K screens a possibility? Does he want to use DSR in the Nvidia drivers? Does the fact that Shadows of Mordor call for a 6GB card for Ultra textures @1080p make a difference? Maybe he should wait for the 8GB cards to come out at the end of the year? Does he want to be stuck purchasing G-SYNC only monitors?

Just a few things to consider before impulse purchasing new gear.
 
cageymaru said:
Does the fact that Shadows of Mordor call for a 6GB card for Ultra textures @1080p make a difference? Maybe he should wait for the 8GB cards to come out at the end of the year?
Click to expand...

I play games at 1080p. I am aware of Shadows of Mordor's ridiculous requirements to play with ultra textures.

8GB video cards coming out at the end of the year? The problem with the wait game is that it never ends, especially when it comes to video cards.
 
Viper2 said:
I play games at 1080p. I am aware of Shadows of Mordor's ridiculous requirements to play with ultra textures.

8GB video cards coming out at the end of the year? The problem with the wait game is that it never ends, especially when it comes to video cards.
Click to expand...

It really does never end.
The 970 looks like it will be the price/performance king at least for a few months. No word or leaks/rumors on AMD's next gen cards so you should be happy at your res with a current cards.

Since you have 3x6970s do you think just one 970 will be enough for you? That is to say, did you outright buy tri fire all at once or did you upgrade over time. I only ask because some people look for crazy performance improvements, not just faster & a lot less power draw. Don't want you to be underwhelmed!

My 2c
 
runudownquick said:
It really does never end.
The 970 looks like it will be the price/performance king at least for a few months. No word or leaks/rumors on AMD's next gen cards so you should be happy at your res with a current cards.

Since you have 3x6970s do you think just one 970 will be enough for you? That is to say, did you outright buy tri fire all at once or did you upgrade over time. I only ask because some people look for crazy performance improvements, not just faster & a lot less power draw. Don't want you to be underwhelmed!

My 2c
Click to expand...

I bought Tri-Fire all at once. However, I don't think I will go with another multiple card solution for quite some time. It seems that almost 30% of the time, Crossfire/SLI is not supported in games, even the newest games.

And Crossfire is good, but a bit overrated. I still can't completely max out Skyrim and get smooth performance. I can come close to maxing is out, but not totally. And I haven't even tried additional graphics mods for Skyrim which are apparently demanding on video cards.

Hopefully, with a 970, I can completely max out the vast majority of games at 1080p and still get smooth performance.
 
1500W PSU will be overkill for singe 970 but otherwise it's totally fine. Yes it may not be operating at its peak efficiency but we're talking 10% max so it'll make little to no difference to your power bill.

Personally I'd get the 970 regardless simply because the price/performance ratio just can't be beat. Even when 980 Ti does come out you could always sell the 970 to recoup some costs. The problem with the waiting game is that it never ends and you could be stuck waiting forever for the next big thing. It mostly comes down to timing and needs and I'd say right now you have a perfectly valid reason to upgrade, and pretty much the perfect time too.

Btw just to give you an idea, I'm using a laptop with 780M SLI, which is about on par with a desktop 780. I can pretty much max out any game (including Crysis 3 if I don't go nuts on AA) at 1080p while doing 60+ FPS.
 
I would wait a few months and get the 980ti with 8 gigs of ram.Why? You have a nice high end system with quality components. Why get a second tier GPU?
 
lol if 970 is second tier, what does that make 780 Ti?

We don't even know if 980 Ti is a thing yet, for all we know the first GM200 card could be Titan X/Titan II priced at $1049 for god knows how much more performance nVidia is willing to give it compared to 980.
 
n=1 said:
lol if 970 is second tier, what does that make 780 Ti?

We don't even know if 980 Ti is a thing yet, for all we know the first GM200 card could be Titan X/Titan II priced at $1049 for god knows how much more performance nVidia is willing to give it compared to 980.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with waiting until the end of the year. Sure, most likely new video cards will come out around Thanksgiving or Christmas time, but what will they cost? Possibly $1000 for something that beats a 970 by like 7 FPS on average at 1080p? Is that really worth it?

Or maybe the new video cards will have 8GB VRAM and run Shadows of Mordor with ultra textures, but the difference between high and ultra textures in that game may not even be noticeable by the human eye. That where the point comes of diminishing returns with computer hardware.
 
Yes, which brings me to my point I made 3 posts back:

n=1 said:
The problem with the waiting game is that it never ends and you could be stuck waiting forever for the next big thing. It mostly comes down to timing and needs and I'd say right now you have a perfectly valid reason to upgrade, and pretty much the perfect time too.
Click to expand...

Like you said, let's say GM200 gets released as Titan II in December with 6GB memory and 20% better performance than 980 at a price point of $1049. Is the price really worth that incremental improvement?

I've mentioned this in several other threads but the pricing of the 980 is off. If GM200 gets released and has 50% performance boost over 980, then the only way for it to not cannibalize 980's market share is to have a very high price tag, at least $1000+. Alternatively, nVidia could release it for cheaper say $749 but gimp it so it has just small enough of a boost (say +15% over 980) that'll make you think real hard about whether the small increase is worth the price premium. nVidia knows the market and isn't dumb.
 
Last edited:
Personally id EASILY get rid of the AMD cards and move over to Nvidia. The 9XX series performance / $ is a no brainer. With a 970 being under $400 for its performance will probably be the hottest selling card. I have 2 in an htpc running on a 60" 4k TV and I can play BF4 on ultra settings and get well over 120fps. Not a single complaint with these cards.
 
It's not about a card with 20% performance. It's about 8GB of memory on the 970 / 980. All some of us are saying is that waiting for the 8GB cards is smarter than just buying what is available at launch.
 
Yeah why upgrade to a card that is basically not good enough for a recent game "shadows of mordor" ?

I wanted a 780 6GB but now that I know for a fact that game will be using more and more V-ram!
I would not get anything less than 8 GB of Vram!

I feel so bad for the purchasers of the 3 gb 780
 
n=1 said:
lol if 970 is second tier, what does that make 780 Ti?

It makes it a very expensive "has been" if you bought it in the last few weeks. I sort of feel Nvidia has thrown all of it's 780ti customers under the bus by making the 970 as good and as cheap as it is. Guess it had to happen at some point. Feel bad for the guy trying to sell his two 780ti classified's for $530 per card here. On the other hand I like the idea of being able to buy a good card for $329, or three for less than $1000. I'm still going to wait to see what's around the corner. Good chance I'll still end up with a couple of 970's if the performance jump or the price/performance of the 980ti8gb is not there.
Click to expand...
 
NastyNative said:
Yeah why upgrade to a card that is basically not good enough for a recent game "shadows of mordor" ?

I wanted a 780 6GB but now that I know for a fact that game will be using more and more V-ram!
I would not get anything less than 8 GB of Vram!

I feel so bad for the purchasers of the 3 gb 780
Click to expand...

Shitty optimization =/= good graphics just because of high vRAM requirement. Just compare the graphics in Crysis 3 vs Watch Dogs and how much vRAM each game soaks up.

Also you realize that by throwing more money at the problem until it goes away, you're essentially enabling lazy and incompetent devs to keep making shittily optimized PC games right?

This will probably sound extreme to most but I personally would never buy a game that "requires" 6GB of vRAM at 1080p. Because unless you're the next Crysis 3, you have no justification for needing that much vRAM.
 
Some PSU have crappy efficiency when loaded below 50% or something.
 
According to the manual for Corsair's AXi PSUs, even at 20% load the efficiency doesn't drop below 90% for the AX1200i, AX860i, and AX760i.

So I imagine even an 80+ Bronze at 20% load would have at least 80% efficiency.
 
n=1 said:
Shitty optimization =/= good graphics just because of high vRAM requirement. Just compare the graphics in Crysis 3 vs Watch Dogs and how much vRAM each game soaks up.

Also you realize that by throwing more money at the problem until it goes away, you're essentially enabling lazy and incompetent devs to keep making shittily optimized PC games right?

This will probably sound extreme to most but I personally would never buy a game that "requires" 6GB of vRAM at 1080p. Because unless you're the next Crysis 3, you have no justification for needing that much vRAM.
Click to expand...

Well said! Voice of reason on this subject, which let's face is it has been moaned about by many people that don't really understand what is really going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top