Is there a better GPU choice than the Jetstream GTX 970?
-Best price/performance ratio
-Low power consumption
-nice blue&black design
>3.5 GB of VRAM
>NVIDIA jew shilling
If you're going to go NVIDIA go with a 980
It's what I'm using and its basically perfect for any game at almost any resolution.
I was using AMD R9 290x before and to be honest it was a way better value, granted slightly less powerful than my 980.
>People still don't understand how the VRAM in the 970 works.
There is 4 GB, it's just that you can't access both of them at the same time. As to whether or not that affects performance, I personally haven't seen any issues but people claim otherwise.
Stay new kiddos, I also heard from the internet that a black and blue dress was actually white and gold. Kek
That's a clever combination of current memes there OP.
I do understand how it works, and there is a reason that people are so pissed off about it right now. NVIDIA are a bunch of greedy cunts trying to run a monopoly on the market and people are starting to wonder why their hardware that isnt that well built is so fucking expensive.
>calls people new
>gets facts blatantly wrong
You can access it all at any time, but .5 gig of it is slow as fuck. And when the card starts using the last .5 gigs, the rest of the memory downclocks to match the lowest speed of active memory.
Man it must feel good to be so wrong. Here's a picture on the problem. Notice that you can't access the 7th and 8th at the same time, as they share a common line.
I'm not saying Nvidia didn't screw up. I think people are focusing way too much on the VRAM issue in the wrong manner. The card has 4 GB of VRAM, but no one would have expected it to be designed the way it was. I think more the issue was the fact that no one knew, rather than it being an actual performance issue. But that's from personal testing. Not to mention the fact that they mistakenly or otherwise put the L2 Cache size and the ROP count for the 970 to that of a 980, when it isn't.
Also I should add that both 3.5 GB and 0.5 GB of VRAM have the same speed per GB. So you would be incorrect in that as well. The main 3.5 GB has 7/8th the total speed and the 0.5 has 1/8th the total speed. For a collective 4 GB at ~220 GB/s. But again, you can't take advantage of that at the same time, because they can't be accessed at the same time.
You can though, it will just be without the l2 cache of the second block.
As per nvidia statement about the issue: "When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands. When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments."
I also like how there are so many people that talk shit about how unreliable AMD is (as a whole), but in my personal experience AMD has served me fucking leagues better than NVIDIA has and for less money. Same goes for my friends. Granted maybe me and my friends always got lucky and had the best hardware from AMD, but I kind of find it hard to justify spending so much more money for slightly better performance in a piece that in my case I can guarantee will be broken in about a year.
4G of RAM..... hahahahahhaha.
Technically it can access both. The problem is that the first 7 have have priority of that of the 8th. Which means that if the first 7, specifically the 7th and 8th cannot share the same if the 7th is already fully utilizing it. As to how this could be the case otherwise would be impossible. The card just switches between them rapidly.
Another statement from the leader: "However, the upper 512MB of the additional 1GB is segmented and has reduced bandwidth"
I'm pretty sure it can in fact access all of it at once, but at half the speed. Even if it can't, assuming you're right about the l2 switching rapidly, the end result would still be a net 50% decrease in the access speed of that last segment. So, same thing. And as we've seen in the past with issues like this, both in regards of RAM and cache and video memory in SLI, the lowest speed sets the pace for the rest, to remain in sync.
>-Best price/performance ratio.
Unless you buy a 290x or 780 which are better and cheaper.
>-Low power consumption.
So are Sega Genesis gaming systems but that doesn't make them better shit licker.
>-nice blue&black design
Because every case, PSU, mobo all are blue as well....... oh wait...... they aren't.
"nice blue black design"
i give this man the trolling medal of trollution
This. Nvidia fanboys talk about power consumption as if the GTX series didn't use any at all.
Space heaters..... because the Nvidia reference is so well known for running cool?..... fucking pleb.
Keep drinking that kool-aid brah
I honestly don't have any problems with my 970
I can render lots of games at 1440p like BF4, and can play Skyrim with over 130 mods at 40-60fps
It's not as futureproof as I thought it would be, and Nvidia is a bunch of dirty jews for misrepresenting what the card is, but it still performs fine, and I'll wait and see what the next gen of cards will be from Team Red and Green as there are no better options out there right now
I noticed that guy is only 3.5/4 parts full.... coincidence?
I bought one on sale last year for 230, just bought the non SC model from a buddy for 150, gonna use a SLI set up. I think i I can get some really great performance out of them if i OC the non SC model to try and match the the SC.
I download lots of shit
Actually had most of the drives laying around and just threw them in