- Thread Starter
- #241
They're both great cards, doz. Here's a thread of mine from a few weeks back comparing the two:
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/...to-keep-Gigabyte-G1-970-vs-MSI-Lightning-290X
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
False Specs on GTX 970?
- Thread starter ninjacore
- Start date
They're both great cards, doz. Here's a thread of mine from a few weeks back comparing the two:
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/...to-keep-Gigabyte-G1-970-vs-MSI-Lightning-290X
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
Found another issue, 2x8 PIN doesnt work. I simply need a good card that isnt a insane monster... really. Most 970 simply may do the trick but very difficult for a 290 of any "cool" type.
Btw: If it doesnt fit i will try to make it fit the hard way, doesnt matter if i have to use a Katana, my system is aready 3+ years of age and it will only need to serve me as a gamer machine one more year or so. When Skylake is released im gonna build a new gamer machine. So i basically need the card for around 1 year and then it will be a backup PC and not more than that. Still pretty hard to fit a card so incredible huge... some cards are more realistic, for example the MSI 970.
I only have those limitations (when i go mad using Katana style):
1. 1x6 PIN, 1x8 PIN (the PSU is a stable 500W of good quality, no issues with power).
2. Max length 28 cm (30 cm cards is clearly to much troubles), height may be able to fit up to 14 cm or so (2-3 cm above standart). It can be a bit thicker than 2 slot, no problem.
3. Need powerful cooler, not more than 70 C when used in a open bench test or huge tower case.
4. Low noise of course (less than 38 dB)... no one wants a vacuum cleaner sound during gameplay.
Btw: If it doesnt fit i will try to make it fit the hard way, doesnt matter if i have to use a Katana, my system is aready 3+ years of age and it will only need to serve me as a gamer machine one more year or so. When Skylake is released im gonna build a new gamer machine. So i basically need the card for around 1 year and then it will be a backup PC and not more than that. Still pretty hard to fit a card so incredible huge... some cards are more realistic, for example the MSI 970.
I only have those limitations (when i go mad using Katana style):
1. 1x6 PIN, 1x8 PIN (the PSU is a stable 500W of good quality, no issues with power).
2. Max length 28 cm (30 cm cards is clearly to much troubles), height may be able to fit up to 14 cm or so (2-3 cm above standart). It can be a bit thicker than 2 slot, no problem.
3. Need powerful cooler, not more than 70 C when used in a open bench test or huge tower case.
4. Low noise of course (less than 38 dB)... no one wants a vacuum cleaner sound during gameplay.
Last edited:
Most every tech site that reviewed it have addressed the issue with a revised review and, found it to mostly be a non-issue. Again, unless you are running a super resolution monitor, really before the entire GPU market is ready for that, then you have no problem. And if you are under the impression that we will all be gaming at 4k in the next 2-3 years and that this was not the future-proof purchase it once was, I really don't think that will be the case. The 970 is enthusiast level and most people in that price/performance bracket upgrade way before this will become a problem.
Professional reviewers are having a hard time creating problems for the 970, in real-world situations. And there is always the issue of people not understanding what they are doing. Nobody should be running MSAA in Triple-A titles from 2014. Regardless of how demanding MSAA is with little return over FXAA, 2014 was a terrible year for Triple-A titles and many are still not even close to running optimally. A few are still not even running properly, let alone optimally.
And as pointed out, the 900 series hasn't seen a great driver release yet. It will. It will receive a handful of them.
At this point all they have is a 200+ page thread on their forum filled with enthusiast PC brats on a less-than-logical mission to see who can scream the loudest.
Until someone proves they knowingly deceived people then Nvidia might as well start rewarding those who keep their cards while daring everyone else to buy AMD. The result will be threads of people swearing they are done with Nvidia, while quietly buying Nvidia. Unless they truly hate themselves, are truly stupid, and/or like the idea of creating generational wealth for power company executives.
And maybe AMD does an about-face and starts caring about CPUs and PC GPUs meant for gaming again instead of pretty much waving the white flag by tossing most of their eggs into the console basket. That would be good for all of us because AMD's recent GPU offerings that count on brute force 4GB/512bit while using more energy than your furnace in winter might attract gamers with less than optimal knowledge of what they are buying, but it isn't actually advancing GPU technology or consumer options.
People want to laugh at the guys who are returning their 970's and tossing another $100 Nvidia's way. Beyond doing the intelligent and obvious thing in keeping their 970 and moving on, the least intelligent option of all would be to trade in that 970 for a 290 or even a 290x.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
Regarding "future proof", i cant entirely agree that there is 4k needed in order to use 4 GB RAM. It is possible that some future games may make use of 4 GB even at 1080P and even without modding and for the 4k users there will be new cards released anyway with even more RAM. But not everyone is upgrading the card every year or so, some may have a 2-3 year cycle. I was using my card almost 3 years now, my 7870 was from spring 2012 as far as i remember (got it at the release), now we have early 2015 and i finally need a upgrade, even when i still play on 1080P, 2 GB simply isnt sufficient anymore. The GPU is a bit on the weak side but may still work when a bit reduced settings, the main issue is the RAM. Only the true geeks or freaks are upgrading a GPU as soon as there is a "stronger one" available (sometimes every year), not even every performance user is doing it, so a bit of "future proofing" is not bad, at least 2 years it should be able to be sufficient.
So if you think the 970 can stay sufficient with the RAM cap and at max or slightly reduced 1080P settings (the card should be able to handle it considering its solid performance), without modding, for the next 2-3 years then raise your hands. When modding included... the 970 is already insufficient, sadly*. Fortunately i only need it 1 more year but many people may use it 2-3 years, pretty possible.
*May get the card today, then i can check out how it handles a game modded to the edge.
One of the thing i dont like to hear is the fact that you are considering it "low rated" in term a chip manufacturer is handing out "console chips", and it may not be rewarding at all from a financial point of view. But the dev support will surely be way bigger, and a company isnt only looking for primary cash flow, maybe Nvidia does because they truly are cash cows*. But AMD got some true interest into higher dev support and they are actually proud that both (next gen) consoles are using AMD chips, no matter how you look at it, its not because of inferior chips or whatever dirty stuff you got in mind.
You can have your opinion regarding 290 series cards but it doesnt make the people buying them "stupid" and thats the way how you are now pointing at them... and thats simply disrespectful. All have different needs and some simply need high and good VRAM... for example me. In term Nvidia is to dumb or to cheap in order to use appropriate VRAM solutions, some users may still have need for a "dated" Radeon product. Although from a performance and technology point of view the current Maxwell stuff is clearly supreme and no one is doubting it, even if you feel that way.
*The recent 960 release is a strong proof of that "cash-cow-spec". I know its not the topic here but still a short thing i want to bring up. It is a totally unspectacular card, a boring thing, the only true advantage is the high efficiency it got because of the Maxwell bonus. But the card is gimped in such a hard way that the efficiency is lower compared to 970 or 980 (it was not the case with comparable AMD cards in the past) because the Maxwell chip cant anymore use the resources in the most efficient way. Mainwhile the pricing is pretty high for a card having a rather boring "average performance level", it is not a card with good price/performance rate, definitely not. So what is Nvidia actually trying to achieve exactly? No one knows... but surely they are charging a lot for a card that is gimped hard and not even any good memory, still the old 2 GB spec, maybe some super casual 08/15 gamers may feel happy buying it, but i worry they may not be able to afford this cards price...
Btw: The energy consumed is mainly a chip architecture matter, the bus nor RAM is having very little effect regarding that matter. So you are actually pointing at something else in a pretty harsh way that is actually a big addition to any card, even a Nvidia card, oh yeah... it would really save my day if Nvidia would use it. Because at twice the bus size the 32 bit may go up to 64 bit... thats a hell of a bonus on a bus already cut down way to hard.
Ah yes, seems to be a popular and funny video but cant say he is wrong and he is truly hitting both partys, so no "fanboy-ism", although Nvidia naturally takes bigger hit:
So if you think the 970 can stay sufficient with the RAM cap and at max or slightly reduced 1080P settings (the card should be able to handle it considering its solid performance), without modding, for the next 2-3 years then raise your hands. When modding included... the 970 is already insufficient, sadly*. Fortunately i only need it 1 more year but many people may use it 2-3 years, pretty possible.
*May get the card today, then i can check out how it handles a game modded to the edge.
So far i was fine with what you said, from your already strong Nvidia supportive perspective. But those lines above are truly way to critical and actually ignorant in some way, so i think your Nvidia approach is now becoming to harsh lined and totally hardliner, almost fanboy-ism, sorry.
One of the thing i dont like to hear is the fact that you are considering it "low rated" in term a chip manufacturer is handing out "console chips", and it may not be rewarding at all from a financial point of view. But the dev support will surely be way bigger, and a company isnt only looking for primary cash flow, maybe Nvidia does because they truly are cash cows*. But AMD got some true interest into higher dev support and they are actually proud that both (next gen) consoles are using AMD chips, no matter how you look at it, its not because of inferior chips or whatever dirty stuff you got in mind.
You can have your opinion regarding 290 series cards but it doesnt make the people buying them "stupid" and thats the way how you are now pointing at them... and thats simply disrespectful. All have different needs and some simply need high and good VRAM... for example me. In term Nvidia is to dumb or to cheap in order to use appropriate VRAM solutions, some users may still have need for a "dated" Radeon product. Although from a performance and technology point of view the current Maxwell stuff is clearly supreme and no one is doubting it, even if you feel that way.
*The recent 960 release is a strong proof of that "cash-cow-spec". I know its not the topic here but still a short thing i want to bring up. It is a totally unspectacular card, a boring thing, the only true advantage is the high efficiency it got because of the Maxwell bonus. But the card is gimped in such a hard way that the efficiency is lower compared to 970 or 980 (it was not the case with comparable AMD cards in the past) because the Maxwell chip cant anymore use the resources in the most efficient way. Mainwhile the pricing is pretty high for a card having a rather boring "average performance level", it is not a card with good price/performance rate, definitely not. So what is Nvidia actually trying to achieve exactly? No one knows... but surely they are charging a lot for a card that is gimped hard and not even any good memory, still the old 2 GB spec, maybe some super casual 08/15 gamers may feel happy buying it, but i worry they may not be able to afford this cards price...
Btw: The energy consumed is mainly a chip architecture matter, the bus nor RAM is having very little effect regarding that matter. So you are actually pointing at something else in a pretty harsh way that is actually a big addition to any card, even a Nvidia card, oh yeah... it would really save my day if Nvidia would use it. Because at twice the bus size the 32 bit may go up to 64 bit... thats a hell of a bonus on a bus already cut down way to hard.
Ah yes, seems to be a popular and funny video but cant say he is wrong and he is truly hitting both partys, so no "fanboy-ism", although Nvidia naturally takes bigger hit:
Last edited:
AMD has always had poor driver support and in the world of gaming drivers are extremely important. I gave up on my old AMD cards partly because of the drivers but also due to the noise and heat the make.
I am still disappointed on the 970 being only a 3.5GB card but at the same time when i have thought things through I am not sure if I would have changed my choice if this information was public before my purchase.
I am still disappointed on the 970 being only a 3.5GB card but at the same time when i have thought things through I am not sure if I would have changed my choice if this information was public before my purchase.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
Nah, AMD was improving a lot in the last few years regarding driver matters. I would say nowadays they are almost head to head with Nvidia. One oft the thing that was maybe able to turn the pot is the higher dev support and it was easyer for AMD to figure out driver related matters that way. However, AMD because of the console thing got the primary GPU development delayed, thats a fact. So Nvidia had it even easyer attacking AMD by a new architecture and way ahead of AMD (Maxwell of course). However, AMD is more toward a "long term approach", so even if they got a "short term hit", in long term the investment may pay out for AMD because they have it easyer getting the drivers fixed and software may also get some better support on AMD hardware. So everything got pros and cons and AMD was simply trying to use a more long term approach that was already kicking in at the driver spot, in my mind they have the best drivers ever at current time. Indeed, the GPU development is delayed but nothing comes free... everything got a price and at the end of the day the long term gain is the most important one, even if most companys only think "short term".
You make no sense at all (why didnt you buy AMD from the start) and your post is pure speculation. AMD GPUs and CPUs have been lagging behind for years and continue to do so - that is a fact.
nvidia is just better right now and for the foreseeable future.
nvidia is just better right now and for the foreseeable future.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
Cant agree, no, at the release of GCN AMD actually had the better architecture but it wasnt utilized properly because of driver issues. For example the 7970 was more powerful than the 680 GTX but driver issues was not able to put the 7970 at the "true performance spot" for almost a full year and efficiency related those architectures (GCN vs. Kepler) are more or less on par. Anyway, not gonna argue here because it is simply to much off topic. Simply get the stuff you enjoy and guess we should not derail topic to much.
Now we have the Maxwell, much more efficient architecture, fighting for Nvidia but thats a new architecture and AMD simply was unable to catch up so far... and we have a 970 issue that still isnt solved or it may not able to be solved at all.
Btw: CPU matter is just way "off topic" and the issue is more than 10 years of age, its almost collecting dust and not truly worth it to mention.
Regarding "better" you have to be careful not to put it into a standardized "performance" spot because the performance at many different spots is important too, not only the sheer TFLOP performance or efficiency. Although thats a matter hard to be understood by "Overclockers", i am well aware. Currently AMD is behind and it was not always like that, but its so obvious i dont even know why i am reading it... at least you got ED as your supporter, may be of use. Besides, you may notice that you are doing a lot of speculations from your side aswell.
Now we have the Maxwell, much more efficient architecture, fighting for Nvidia but thats a new architecture and AMD simply was unable to catch up so far... and we have a 970 issue that still isnt solved or it may not able to be solved at all.
Btw: CPU matter is just way "off topic" and the issue is more than 10 years of age, its almost collecting dust and not truly worth it to mention.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2001
so the r9 3xx has no chance to compete with the 9xx series from nvidia? I kinda thought that it would step ahead in some situations. Seems this may be the case for the past few series. Amd comes up with something and nvidia surpasses it, AMD comes up with something else and nvidia surpasses it. This could also be said that nvidia comes up with something and AMD surpasses it.
There are game optimizations that go both ways and makes it hard for the other to compete. But I would venture to say that AMD is more reputable as a company when it comes to taking care of customers
There are game optimizations that go both ways and makes it hard for the other to compete. But I would venture to say that AMD is more reputable as a company when it comes to taking care of customers
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
Yeah, most fun stuff is that he is accusing me of doing "speculations" but is doing "speculations" too on his behalf and ED even seems to be impressed about the nonsense calling it nonsense. WOW. Finally, no one can truly see the future and its hard to say if AMD cant catch up or at least offer some solutions with some unique advantages that may be able to be ahead of Nvidia in certain spots. I just hate it making "standardized" calls in a way like "Nvidia is simply better... dot. and finish". And then there comes the Nvidia fans or whatever, saying that AMDs fixer video isnt respecting the competition, but go ask yourself... all that are responsible... are you truly respecting the competition too and is Nvidia truly doing it? Think about...
Last edited:
AMD GPUs were actually better than Nvidia many times but they were always picking bad premiere dates so Nvidia was catching up quick. Now AMD has long delay so left behind for some longer. I will leave AMD CPUs without comment.
Technology can be better but if you can't use it then it's garbage. AMD introduced GCN long time ago, couldn't make full software support and soon it will be replaced by something else. Really except enthusiasts noone cares how it's called or what is inside the GPU as long as it performs good. All these numbers are good for marketing purposes but gamers only care if they can play some games or not.
13 pages of thread with the same conclusions over and over again ( good it's not OCN or it would be 500 pages ). I'm not sure if you noticed but 3-4 forum members are actually complaining about this GTX970 issue while all others say it sucks but can live with that.
Still most often recommended gaming gfx is GTX970 even though all know about mentioned memory issue.
All this GTX970 issue is more like a fight between "want" and "need" where 95% users just want what they paid for while all others need it but many probably can wait for next gen cards or just return GTX970 and get something else ( many already did it).
Technology can be better but if you can't use it then it's garbage. AMD introduced GCN long time ago, couldn't make full software support and soon it will be replaced by something else. Really except enthusiasts noone cares how it's called or what is inside the GPU as long as it performs good. All these numbers are good for marketing purposes but gamers only care if they can play some games or not.
13 pages of thread with the same conclusions over and over again ( good it's not OCN or it would be 500 pages ). I'm not sure if you noticed but 3-4 forum members are actually complaining about this GTX970 issue while all others say it sucks but can live with that.
Still most often recommended gaming gfx is GTX970 even though all know about mentioned memory issue.
All this GTX970 issue is more like a fight between "want" and "need" where 95% users just want what they paid for while all others need it but many probably can wait for next gen cards or just return GTX970 and get something else ( many already did it).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
That's the problem. Nvidia engineering not only knew, according to them they told marketing. Too bad the "consumer" didn't know.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2001
nvidia didnt respect the competition when they mislead the user community about the specs.
What scares me is if/when nvidia does get all their little technologies in place and has total control over the gaming world and will price us out of being able to afford said equipment. AMD on the other hand usually gives their technology-software wise, to the community for free
I see nvidia as an underhanded power monger of a buisiness
What scares me is if/when nvidia does get all their little technologies in place and has total control over the gaming world and will price us out of being able to afford said equipment. AMD on the other hand usually gives their technology-software wise, to the community for free
I see nvidia as an underhanded power monger of a buisiness
- Thread Starter
- #254
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Location
- S. Flori-duh
'Cue Devil's Advocate'...So what's the difference with the HDD manufacturers selling HDD's at a rated size, but in reality the usable space is always much lower? Should they also disclose a 4TB drive has only ~ 3.64TB usable space?
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
Well my MSI gaming 970 was installed yet, no problem to make it fit as a master of measurement and fitting skills. Only had to remove HDD/optical drive bays but dont need them anyway, far to big when no optical drive installed (rarely ever need it, its no HTPC, so i use external drive for install only) i will make custom bays for 3x small 2.5 inch. But no time for testing yet.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
Beginning to sound like the defense Attorneys for Nvidia in closing argument to the jury!
ROPs were not truly disclosed (64 listed vs 56 actual) and no posted spec explained the 4G aggregate Vram.
PS Bishoff, had Nvidia disclosed the info like you do in your specs we wouldn't even have this thread!
