Is there a decent upgrade over the GTX 970 out that doesn't cost $400+?

[Jtbrig7390]

Should be, in the UK, I can get hold of a 4GB RX 480 for like £160ish, so I am going to assume the GPU that will be positioned between this and the high end might be just above £200.

I doubt AMD will leave a huge gap in its product stack like Nvidia has been doing, the area between the RX480 performance and the 1070 is just empty, I'm sure we will see competing GPUs in the high end, just have to see if AMD can release most of its lineup at the same time (which it really needs to do).

Right...

Ill sit and wait, as I said it isn't a needed upgrade. Its just a upgrade I want to do.

[ovm33]

Right...

Ill sit and wait, as I said it isn't a needed upgrade. Its just a upgrade I want to do.

One last thing to consider. People are going to start selling used 1080's en mass as more and more 1080ti's become available. You likely will be able to get one for under 400 bucks as the supply increases. Just a thought if you're willing to go the used route.

EDIT: Nellah's link put's the 1080 at almost double the performance.

[Jtbrig7390]

One last thing to consider. People are going to start selling used 1080's en mass as more and more 1080ti's become available. You likely will be able to get one for under 400 bucks as the supply increases. Just a thought if you're willing to go the used route.

EDIT: Nellah's link put's the 1080 at almost double the performance.

I rather not, But will keep that in mind if I see one cheap enough.

[Slicer299]

I personally think there are no logical upgrades for a 970, your upgrade will be the 1160.

400 dollars for 30-40% gains is not good value for money.

Again it varies based on the game and resolution. Looking group of benchmarks across 15 games, a 1070 almost doubles the average FPS at 1080p of a 970. Far beating that "30-40%" claim. Yes it's only 30-40% in some games, but in other games it's much higher. Average FPS totaled up in 15 game benchmarks for the 1070 came out to 111.9 fps average, compared 68.3 fps average for the 970 in those same games at 1080p. That's a very significant increase in performance, far exceeding that 30-40% that you are trying to claim.

There has not been a generation to generation jump in performance that significant in a very long time, if ever, because this is the biggest jump in die shrinks between generations that has ever happened. Logic and facts are literally not on your side at all here.





http://www.pcgamer.com/the-geforce-gtx-1070-review/

[Fascinate]

I dont upgrade a GPU unless its a 100% gain. 1060 is around twice as fast as 760, that was my upgrade path. If you got a bunch of money to toss around sure upgrade every generation by all means, but i still dont think anything in the 10 series is a logical upgrade path for the money.

[Jtbrig7390]

There has not been a generation to generation jump in performance that significant in a very long time, if ever, because this is the biggest jump in die shrinks between generations that has ever happened. Logic and facts are literally not on your side at all here.

Ya Ill still be gaming at 1080p, I give zero fucks about 1440p or 4k.

So that is a huge boost to 1080p gaming imo, When I finally upgrade my tv to 4k then I mite care a little. But that is a ways off.

[Fascinate]

Ya Ill still be gaming at 1080p, I give zero fucks about 1440p or 4k.

So that is a huge boost to 1080p gaming imo, When I finally upgrade my tv to 4k then I mite care a little. But that is a ways off.

Good 4k TV's are coming down in price, this is on sale for a grand and rivals OLED blacks:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/vizio-55...?skuId=4352209

99% of the negative reviews are from people that dont realize how much better a chromecast is than a on screen "smart" interface. Sigh, old people lol.

[DeltrusDisc]

One thing that makes me consider it is the fact the GTX 970 is using gimped VRAM.

Not totally true. If your 970 was a late model, all 4gb is good vram, and even if not (like in my case) it's only half a gigabyte that's bad.

And it's really not important unless you actively use over 3.5gb of vram when gaming, which I doubt.

[Slicer299]

Ya Ill still be gaming at 1080p, I give zero fucks about 1440p or 4k.

So that is a huge boost to 1080p gaming imo, When I finally upgrade my tv to 4k then I mite care a little. But that is a ways off.

Do not, do not, do NOT, try to game on a TV. There is a reason why monitors cost more than TVs do, because the response time on TVs is terrible. And all the marketing around refresh rates and response times on times is a lie 99.99999% of the time. 120Hz TVs are not really 120Hz like a real gaming monitor is. Hell some TVs even fake their 60Hz refresh rate. Response times on TVs is also usually 10ms or higher, compared to 5ms or less on a gaming monitor. This doesn't have as much of an impact on consoles due to input lag you get from playing with a control anyways.

Sure, some people hook their PCs up to their TVs and some of them will tell you it's "fine". But I find it's best not to listen to delusional people. The slower response time alone will significantly add to your input lag and negatively affect your game play. I'm personally going to stick with my 1080@144Hz monitor until 1440@144Hz IPS panels become a thing and don't cost a fortune.

[Life-Binder]

1070 or a used 1080 are the only options for you

Vega isnt going to cost $400 or less, its a high-end big die card with expensive af HBM2


if thats not good enough then wait for Volta 1160/1170

[Bigvizz]

Well little surprised no one has mentioned the R9 Fury on sale at newegg. You're looking at roughly 20 fps increase based on the average graph above. 21 hours left on the deal as of this post.

[Life-Binder]

if you dont mind older cards with much bigger powerdraw and heat then current gen, then yes a used/discounted Fury/Nano or a used/discounted 980Ti is also an option

[Jtbrig7390]

Not totally true. If your 970 was a late model, all 4gb is good vram, and even if not (like in my case) it's only half a gigabyte that's bad.

And it's really not important unless you actively use over 3.5gb of vram when gaming, which I doubt.

I try to max out many games I play and they can in fact use right about or not all the VRAM.

Also I have never heard of the bolded.

So I would need some sources to back that up. Even if I don't max it all out, I would still like the wiggle room for future titles.

- - - Updated - - -

Do not, do not, do NOT, try to game on a TV. There is a reason why monitors cost more than TVs do, because the response time on TVs is terrible. And all the marketing around refresh rates and response times on times is a lie 99.99999% of the time. 120Hz TVs are not really 120Hz like a real gaming monitor is. Hell some TVs even fake their 60Hz refresh rate. Response times on TVs is also usually 10ms or higher, compared to 5ms or less on a gaming monitor. This doesn't have as much of an impact on consoles due to input lag you get from playing with a control anyways.

Sure, some people hook their PCs up to their TVs and some of them will tell you it's "fine". But I find it's best not to listen to delusional people. The slower response time alone will significantly add to your input lag and negatively affect your game play. I'm personally going to stick with my 1080@144Hz monitor until 1440@144Hz IPS panels become a thing and don't cost a fortune.

I game on a 60Hz 1080p 40inch tv just fine already.

- - - Updated - - -

if you dont mind older cards with much bigger powerdraw and heat then current gen, then yes a used/discounted Fury/Nano or a used/discounted 980Ti is also an option

Ya rather not go with a older model, If/When I upgrade I want it to be future proof for awhile.

[Polarthief]

Unless you want to blow a ton of bucks, best choices are 480, 1060, or 1070.

1080 (and GPUs of that nature) are just stupidly overpriced compared to the amount of performance you get.

[Jtbrig7390]

Unless you want to blow a ton of bucks, best choices are 480, 1060, or 1070.

1080 (and GPUs of that nature) are just stupidly overpriced compared to the amount of performance you get.

Ya Ill never spend that much lol, $400 is the max ill drop on a GPU.

[Life-Binder]

1080 new price is (should be soon) $500+, thats quite reasonable for the perf you are getting

480/1060 dont give a big enough upgrade over 970 to justify an upgrade IMHO


so its pretty much only the 1070

[Jtbrig7390]

1080 new price is (should be soon) $500+, thats quite reasonable for the perf you are getting

480/1060 dont give a big enough upgrade over 970 to justify an upgrade IMHO


so its pretty much only the 1070

I though as much and ty all for the info.

[DeltrusDisc]

I try to max out many games I play and they can in fact use right about or not all the VRAM.

Also I have never heard of the bolded.

So I would need some sources to back that up. Even if I don't max it all out, I would still like the wiggle room for future titles.

So, I'm honestly surprised. I can't find any sources, to be fair I heard it word of mouth, but I swear I remember studying the different 970s and certain ones had 4GB of the same VRAM, and the older ones had the 3.5GB+512MB...

Either way, here's an interesting article, and basically, this was all working as intended, all along...

http://techreport.com/review/27724/n...ly-as-intended

Either way, you have the card now. Work with it? And upgrade when you can... maybe wait, save some extra cash, and get a 1080 Ti and never worry for a long ass time. 11GB of GDDR5X is nothing to sniff at.

[Jtbrig7390]

Either way, you have the card now. Work with it? And upgrade when you can... maybe wait, save some extra cash, and get a 1080 Ti and never worry for a long ass time. 11GB of GDDR5X is nothing to sniff at.

Ya but a 1080TI will be out of the price range I want to pay for.

It isn't a needed upgrade, just one I wouldn't mind doing. Still a few months off before I can do it.

[Kagthul]

"Intel is very lazy and milking right now.
.

Yeah, lazy Intel not figuring out how to break the laws of physics. How dare they.