I just received my EVGA GTX 970 SCC and my boost clock runs 1404MHz at 73c

[wingman99]

I just received my EVGA GTX 970 SCC, it is a step up from a GTX 570 SC. My crysis bench marks went from GTX 570 Min FPS: 32.90 Max FPS: 46.52 Average FPS: 42.915 to GTX 970 Min FPS: 51.75 Max FPS: 101.32 Average FPS: 78.21 BF4 in Siege of Shanghai ultra 1920X1080 64 players, went from GTX 570 12 FPS minimum max 50 FPS to GTX 970 50 FPS minimum and max 90 FPS. So far my i5 2500 is keeping up, it was overclocked to 4.2GHz and under clocked to 3.7Ghz, So I'm going to see how low it will clock before affecting my video card to see how much meat is on the bone for the next upgrade hopefully just a video card.

My game play is much better at Siege of Shanghai In BF4 now that the FPS only drops to 50 FPS at intense scene. Life is good for now.


My boost clock runs higher than the advertised 1342MHz it runs 1404MHz at 73c is that just luck in firmware revision and GPU yield?

 

[EarthDog]

It depends on the title as to how that CPU will respond to lower/raise the clocks. That said, there is a site that already tests that for you by game... http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

My boost clock runs higher than the advertised 1342MHz it runs 1404MHz at 73c is that just luck in firmware revision and GPU yield?

No, that is how it is supposed to work. The boost clock you see in GPUz is supposed to be the MINIMUM boost. There are many boost bins above that. Typically it is around 100 MHz higher than what GPUz says on these cards.

 

[wingman99]

With the R9 290X it is 9 FPS less in BF4 compared to GTX 970 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1439?vs=1595 I guess that is close enough. Back in the day you would say to me a few frames per second could make the difference.

A GTX 970 and GTX 980 is only 11 FPS difference BF4.http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1442?vs=1595


I Guess I will have to wait for a new game, whatever engine it is using and test my CPU.

 

[EarthDog]

Not sure what you are suggesting or saying with the first two parts here really... but great that it is faster than cards its supposed to be faster than?

I Guess I will have to wait for a new game, whatever engine it is using and test my CPU.

Or just look up the game in question at techspot and see what it shows. They have done the work for you.

 

[wingman99]

Not sure what you are suggesting or saying with the first two parts here really... but great that it is faster than cards its supposed to be faster than?

Or just look up the game in question at techspot and see what it shows. They have done the work for you.

My previous post was about the link techspot you gave me, it was testing With the R9 290X and not a GTX 970 glad you know what you are doing.

 

[EarthDog]

Oy...Wingman, I was well aware that was on a 290x and not your card. Its the best you have. Results will be similar with your 970.

But your links compared the GPUs with the same CPU while my link compared CPUs with the same GPU.... the subject of your thread. Or did you intend to do that (switch subjects)?

 

[wingman99]

I did not switch subjects My post is about my GTX 970 and i5 2500K you are the one who posted 290x and other CPUS and I found 290x was 9 FPS slower, are you saying my results will be similar. Earthdog do you estimate your tests here, a few FPS could be playable or not?:

 

[EarthDog]

Good luck wingman.