GTX 970 Users need to see this ASAP.

[BicycleMafioso]

I find that most sites tend to average predominantly FPS games where AMD is traditionally favored. This is especially true for European sites and HardOCP. Back in 2013/2014, any composite performance rating with Tomb Raider was ridiculously biased (lol TressFX).

Nvidia tends to do better with F2P, MMOs, and the like (basically high popularity games). Makes sense because Nvidia sells a lot of laptop GPUs to non-hardcore gamers.

Actually, the games listed are pretty much 50/50 in which brand they favour. Most sites or tests I see are 75/25, just pick triple A, or goes >90% nVidia favoured (LinusTechTips)

[Lathais]

Literally inconsequential.



Err, what? I can't figure out what your point here is. Have you or have you not watercooled your PC? (Because your follow-up seems to make fun of it, which is all kinds of fucking weird.)

No, I have not watercooled my PC. Watercoolers are noisier and less effective than Air Coolers unless you go with custom loops which get pretty pricey and I do not feel it is worth it.

- - - Updated - - -

What are you even talking about?

i am talking about the person who said he laughed at people with fans on their GPUs.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess I've said my piece and am done here. My opinion, the "defect" in the 970s is a non-issue and nVidia cards are still currently superior IMO. Just like intel/AMD, nVidia beats out AMD at all price points. There is also the fact that, at least on the CPU side, AMD has been losing money for a while now and intel even had to give them money to keep them afloat to avoid a monopoly. I think I'd rather stay away from a sinking ship. This whole lawsuit thing and crap going on is pointless and stupid. Perhaps my opinion on who makes better cards will change with the release of AMDs new line-up later this year, we'll just have to wait and see. Until then, I will continue to recommend nVidia cards as most games I look at seem to run better in nVidia, even if only marginally.

[Drunkenvalley]

i am talking about the person who said he laughed at people with fans on their GPUs.

...Who? /10char

[Vash The Stampede]

...Who? /10char

That's right unlucky 13.

[Deleted]

nVidia beats out AMD at all price points.

Not really.

280 > 960
270 > 750 ti (altho the price difference is a bit bigger on this one)

[Stormspark]

Honestly, the statement from Nvidia is about all you can expect. They can't say "oops we misadvertised the card". They have to be VERY careful what they say or it could impact the lawsuit. The class action will only benefit the lawyers anyway.

Besides, I don't think that there is anything "wrong" with the 970. The price is still VERY MUCH in line with the performance of the card (the 980 is a lot more). In fact, I think it's a little on the cheap side. But companies should be held accountable for their advertising.

But despite all this, I just advised a friend of mine who is building a new computer to get a 970 unless they want to wait for the Rx 300 series from AMD. Because right now, it's the best performing card in their price range.

[Lathais]

I laugh at graphic cards with 2-3 cooling fans.

You........

[Stormspark]

Not really.

280 > 960
270 > 750 ti (altho the price difference is a bit bigger on this one)

And yep, AMD still has the mid-range GPU market cornered. Nvidia has the low end and high end. Though, this will probably change when the 300 series comes out.

[Drunkenvalley]

Presently, I might recommend the GTX 960 to people. I don't know for sure though. Still erring back and forth on that one. But at the GTX 970 mark I'm more towards the R9 290. The GTX 980 is in a bit of a weird spot though. It's so much more expensive than the tiers below.

[Lathais]

Not really.

280 > 960
270 > 750 ti (altho the price difference is a bit bigger on this one)

280: ~$175USD
960: ~$200USD
280x: ~$225USD

That also happens to be the order of performance as evidenced by these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6l6MwSngr8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEWABNJi6Rc

It's still fairly difficult to find any good benchmarks for the 960 as it is still so new. Also, being newer, drivers will increase the performance some over time where the 280 has been out about a year I think? I can also speak from personal experience as my best friend and I both did nearly identical builds. Only difference? He has a 270x(which is almost as good as the 280) and I have a 960 and his case is the windowed version of mine. Mine runs things better, while having a lower TDP and generating less heat. So, average life of a GPU, 2-4 years. That $25 difference is made up over the life of the card. 960 wins.

270: ~$150
750ti: ~$130

Ok, so maybe on certain budgets the 270 is a better choice. The performance is quite a bit better at higher settings in current games. I'll have to consider this when giving advice from now on.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Also, being newer, drivers will increase the performance some over time where the 280 has been out about a year I think?

The R9 280 is an HD 7950 with slightly higher clock speeds on the core and the memory, so find some 7950 benchmarks and add a couple of FPS.

[Drunkenvalley]

Also, being newer, drivers will increase the performance some over time where the 280 has been out about a year I think? I can also speak from personal experience as my best friend and I both did nearly identical builds. Only difference? He has a 270x(which is almost as good as the 280) and I have a 960 and his case is the windowed version of mine. Mine runs things better, while having a lower TDP and generating less heat. So, average life of a GPU, 2-4 years. That $25 difference is made up over the life of the card. 960 wins.

a. Drivers increase performance of all cards usually. But they don't get benchmarked over time nearly as much as they should be. (Especially since the R9 280 and 280X is literally the HD 7970 and thus has had even more time for driver updates.)

b. Your personal experience is so full of holes it's not even vaguely meaningful to the conversation. The 270X does not equal the 280, so you're starting off with a false comparison.

c. The lower TDP and heat-development are inconsequential provided your build is not already a space-heater (in which case fix your damn build, no card will have a nice time in it).

d. Average life of a GPU is 2-4 years because...? You have literally zero reasoning behind it.

e. Stop pretending you actually save even vaguely the amount of money on TDP as you claim. It is categorically false from beginning to end.

[krihan]

i dont really understand why people are making such a huge deal out of this. if you are planning to run 4k then sure, this is a big problem. but most gamers dont really see 4k gaming as appealing, so it wont matter that much anyways. but i can kinda understand why people get angry at nvidia when they are marketing the card as an 4gb card, but in reality nvidia has lied to their customers and sold them a product that dosent even have the vram nvidia has marketed the card to have. in terms of performance, the card is really close to the gtx 980, so despite the "vram issue", it performs really well.

[noteworthynerd]

I think this thread has lived long past its usefulness. I'm gonna go ahead and close it.