Easy "New card" question. I hope.

[Vellinious]

If "fine" means on low settings, and barely managing 30 fps in new titles.....I wouldn't consider that fine. Not even close. /shrug

 

[EarthDog]

Well, to split hairs, the 980 to 980tI is a gap I'm not sure the 980 makes up (~20%)...but with you all the way in the typical gaps.

If "fine" means on low settings, and barely managing 30 fps in new titles.....I wouldn't consider that fine. Not even close. /shrug

+1.. with that card, I'd imagine settings had to be turned down because of the power of the card anyway. I'm thinking the 960 is faster than the 570??

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page3.html

Techspot has a 670, which is 25% faster than a 570, in the link above. If you extrapolate performance, the 570 is not playable at those settings I can tell you that much.

It's going to depend on the title and settings you can tolerate as to if it's pounding off 2gb. But unless I absolutely couldn't afford it, I wouldn't get a 2gb carD today.

 

[bob4933]

Gtx 770 was released 5/30/2013. It hasn't been out 3 years yet.

There are drops.. but it depends on demand and when they stop making them, etc. When the 780ti came out, a few months after the 770, there was an across the board drop. Same thing with 980 amd 980ti. Not new gen, but drops nonetheless when something better comes out.

I do agree, but it's so hard to tell as there isn't an official msrp after new gen cards release. So it's supply and demand directing prices more so than nvidia or amd.

Also remember that amd cards came out much cheaper than nvidia, then the mining craze super saturated the market with used cards driving that market down as well.

EDIT: One more thought... AMD has had generational rebrands of their Hawaii based chips. The only 'new' cards were 290/290x and the fury/fury x/nano.

970 MSRP was $329 for the reference model. Cheapest out there on newegg is $280 (non reference). Its been out since 9/2014.

So tough to compare and pinpoint.

Fair enough Just saying they didn't tank in price like some people would prefer to happen.

 

[wingman99]

+1.. with that card, I'd imagine settings had to be turned down because of the power of the card anyway. I'm thinking the 960 is faster than the 570??

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page3.html

Techspot has a 670, which is 25% faster than a 570, in the link above. If you extrapolate performance, the 570 is not playable at those settings I can tell you that much.

It's going to depend on the title and settings you can tolerate as to if it's pounding off 2gb. But unless I absolutely couldn't afford it, I wouldn't get a 2gb carD today.

My GTX 570 with BF4 was minimum 12 FPS Maximum 50 FPS on ultra I use to play on that setting averaging 30FPS it was vary playable so was crysis3, the card was overclocked also. yes I agree I like my GTX 970 much better with 4GB it has improved my gaming I'm a hole new player now, it's just not fine, it's great gaming.

 

[M@rk]

Also, there is likely no way it will increase 10 FPS on modern intensive titles... The 950 can only manage 30 FPS on say BF4. You aren't getting 33% more performance out of it... that is why I like to mention increases by percentage as it is FPS agnostic.

You can run BF4 with GTX750ti ultra settings at 40 FPS, The 950 is a better card than the 750ti so i think it'll run at 50 FPS ultra settings.
(Just wanted to note)

 

[EarthDog]

That was hypothetica and for a completely different point. But if you want to know......


40 fps on a 750ti... shows 29 here:https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_750_Ti/10.html

a heavily overclocked 950 would... like overclocking after a factory overclock:https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_950_SSC/10.html

960 starts where heavy factory overclock 950 ended up...now, a factory overclocked 960 reaches 50 fps on ultra: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_960_STRIX_OC/11.html

 

[Dlaw]

I just wanted to touch on drivers quick: I've only had a handful of issue with drivers on my rig in the year I've had it. All of those issues were due to one of two things: allowing (more accurately not disabling) Windows to automatically keep my drivers up to date (Win10 is a butt like that), or using Geforce Experience to update the drivers. Obviously, neither way is preferable, and both are (mostly) my fault.

BUT, I only update my drivers when I get a new game that benefits from new drivers, and the only game I've bought in less than a month after release is Dark Souls 3 (and I'm not updating my drivers to play that, because my hardware is massive overkill for that game).

While some drivers have caused hardware failure, NVidia is very good about pulling them and fixing them as soon as they're made aware (the ones that caused hardware failure were available for less than an hour before pulled). Nobody is perfect, companies like NVidia included, but admitting the mistakes they make and trying their best to fix them does go a long way in my opinion.

Anyway, as I've said, I've had no issues at all with any of the drivers I've had on my system, outside of the ones that I didn't install the way I know I should. As far as I know, that's the general census among the owners of current NVidia hardware. As long as you don't need a driver as soon as it's released (even if you do, it's best to wait a few days), you'll be set with them too, I reckon.

 

[M@rk]

That was hypothetica and for a completely different point. But if you want to know......


40 fps on a 750ti... shows 29 here:https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_750_Ti/10.html

Well, Here he says he got 44 FPS Avg ultra at 5:10 :

 

[EarthDog]

Ultra with 2x aa (lower settings than default ultra) 37 fps -
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-and-750-ti-review,14.html

Lowered aa and post ultra, 37 fps again-
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-750-ti-review,3750-9.html

True ultra, 28 fps again - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/02/18/nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-ti-review/5

Our review true ultra, 32 fps - http://www.overclockers.com/evga-gtx-750ti-ftw-graphics-card-review/

33 again on ultra - http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/msi_gtx_750_gaming/10.htm

So, you see the first two were not true ultra... reviews that run true ultra are down by 30 fps or so. Also note that there isn't a canned benchmark in the game so every review is going to be different. That said, I'll take around a low 30s average across 4 reviews versus this guy pulling a whopping 44 fps out of nowhere while guys with lesser settings are not even hitting 44 FPS.

 

[Alaric]

If I have to go with a 960 I would go with the 4 GB version. If I already had a decent 2 GB card it would be different , but I don't see the point in buying a new card with 2 GB. An OC'd 960 and a reasonably priced SSD would be a nice refresh on my aging rig. It's looking like a CPU/mobo isn't in the cards in the near future so I think the 960 OC/SSD is the best place to spend based on performance overall. I'd love to get a 970 but I don't see used 970s getting low enough in price to compete with a 960 any time soon.

 

[M@rk]

Ultra with 2x aa (lower settings than default ultra) 37 fps -
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-and-750-ti-review,14.html

Lowered aa and post ultra, 37 fps again-
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-750-ti-review,3750-9.html

True ultra, 28 fps again - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/02/18/nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-ti-review/5

Our review true ultra, 32 fps - http://www.overclockers.com/evga-gtx-750ti-ftw-graphics-card-review/

33 again on ultra - http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/msi_gtx_750_gaming/10.htm

So, you see the first two were not true ultra... reviews that run true ultra are down by 30 fps or so. Also note that there isn't a canned benchmark in the game so every review is going to be different. That said, I'll take around a low 30s average across 4 reviews versus this guy pulling a whopping 44 fps out of nowhere while guys with lesser settings are not even hitting 44 FPS.

Ok , Still a good card for the money though, But not for heavy gaming :/

 

[magellan]

I was using a GTX 570 4 months ago with 1.28GB GDDR5 and only experienced a little hitching in BF4, you can still use 2.0G cards fine.

The only game I've been playing lately that uses less than 2.0 GiB of VRAM is GTA: SA, even GTA IV uses more than 2 GiB of VRAM (but I'm using DSR).

Dying Light, Fallout 4, Far Cry 3, Crysis 2, Crysis 3 all regularly use more than 2.0 GiB of VRAM.

 

[wingman99]

Just because the game can use more than 2GB 1080p does not mean it needs to, run top notch.

 

[EarthDog]

No always, but certainly most of the time games allocate what they need. It really is, at this time, an exception for over allocation of vram

 

[magellan]

Just because the game can use more than 2GB 1080p does not mean it needs to, run top notch.

In the case of Fallout 4, I'd argue you're wrong. Because Fallout 4 is an open world game increasing draw distance I'd bet directly affects how much VRAM is used and I'd like a lot more draw distance than I'm getting.

In GTA V, you can see what the estimated VRAM usage will be when you change some of the graphics options.

 

[wingman99]

I'm not saying some games are not slightly effected however from what I have been reading the vram usage is dictated by the Graphic card drivers and not the game, so it's just a estimate of v ram usage for now until DirectX12 witch will give the game designers control of V ram usage.

 

[EarthDog]

Some games are HUGELY affected wingman... in fnact most titles will show hitching and such after breaking its physical vram barrier and lower your gameplay experience.

Can you link up where drivers are in control of vram? I think, even in DX11, it is a shared thing. How would the drivers know what to load if the program didn't tell it what it was looking for.

 

[wingman99]

What games are Hugely affected with 2GB Vram 1080p also what do they do?

Consequently, memory management under DirectX 12 is still a challenge, albeit one that’s evolving. Under DirectX 11 memory management was typically a driver problem, and the drivers usually got it right – though as Baker noted in our conversation, even now they do sometimes fail when dealing with issues such as memory fragmentation. DX12 on the other hand gives all of this control over to developers, which brings both great power and great responsibility. PC developers need to be concerned with issues such as memory overcommitment, and how to gracefully handle it. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10136/discussing-the-state-of-directx-12-with-microsoft-oxide-games

 

[magellan]

What games are Hugely affected with 2GB Vram 1080p also what do they do?

GTA V in the graphics options menu indicates that exceeding your video card's VRAM capacity will significantly affect framerates.

They say Dying Light is a lot smoother if you have more VRAM and will use more than 3 GiB if it's available.

DSR will also use more VRAM, all by itself.

 

[wingman99]

Dying Light came out when the AMD Radeon R9 290 (2GB VRAM) was the card out. I don't know what GTA V uses for v ram on 1080P