What's the difference between these two? >MSI GTX-970

>>51520750
$20

One is for overclocking, the other for gaming.

[spoiler]:^)[/spoiler]

File: 1447731062341.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

Gainward best card.

>>51520772
So, will OC have more performance oveclocked?
Can my B85M-G and i5-4460 handle it?

File: fWz5Kxk.gif (1MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x169px

>not getting gaming g1

The red detailing and dragon logo make it faster.

File: 1447635072061.jpg (3MB, 1920x4160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x4160px

>>51520852
Kek

File: 1444631137726.png (136KB, 304x332px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 304x332px

>>51520881

File: 1448443323010.jpg (25KB, 400x386px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x386px

>>51520899
>almost a year since the issue was discovered
>people still buy gtx 970

>>51520942

in their defence they are fucking dumb

File: 1447156591359.jpg (33KB, 300x274px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x274px

>>51520983
>mfw one of my friends buys a 970 for his new computer despite all my warnings.
On the plus side, he shouldn't have any issues as long as he waits for game specific drivers to lock the gpu at 3.5gb.

>>51521023
i'm sure this is one of the reasons they force the geforce experience from now on, to avoid such discoveries in the future, driver will be updated automatically when new series of cards will be released

nobody will ever know

>>51521023
>>51520942
I think the 970 isn't a bad card, but they really should have just not used that slow ass 0.5 gb partition and marketed it as a 3.5gb card

>>51521132
the gpu itself is fine, 3.5gb is fine
the extra .5 is not fine

its basically a 3.5kg cake with 0.5kg of layer made of shit, would you eat a cake that tastes like shit? it's a cake tho

>>51521183
It sickens me that after the fiasco it's still marketed as a full 4gb card with no asterisks and is the most used card based on Steam hardware surveys, like how are there that many people with a 350 dollar card?

>>51521245
yeah, nvidia gtx 970 alone is 4.45% of total steam users

R9 200 series only 1.32% (that includes 270,280,280x,290,290x,290x2)

there arent many amd users indeed, nvidia users get jewed so much, but whatever, atleast i'm not one

The fact they're giving you two choices when for starters the 970 isn't a choice to begin with.

3.5memebit keks !

how can a gtx 960 userbase grow so fast tho? it's

1 2 8 b i t s
2
8

b
i
t
s

Since it's no use making a new thread..

I was wondering if between all the different brands, as well as reference/aftermarket, is there a difference of the overclocking capabilities if you disregard the cooling?

I want to watercool mine so everything extra will be stripped off. But I don't want to get the cheapest possible if the OC capabilities is holding me back.

>>51521370
for amd, its best to buy sapphire, they usually have he highest binned chips

but it's called silicon lottery
my friend has r9 290x that can get core to 1229mhz
my r9 290x doesnt go over 1140 no matter how i try, my friend even tried it on my computer, the temps dont go high, it just starts crashing and artifacting

silicon lottery is what it is, if you live in america and want to get a highest oc capability card

buy a card, try how it OC's, compare it to the results in tomshardware or whatever, if you have one of the low-end binned chips, RMA the card for coil-whine issue, say its really bad and get a new one, repeat if neccessary

>>51521370
Even a heavily OC'd liquid cooled card won't perform as well as just getting a tier higher card. To answer your question though, no, unless it's a specifically cherry-picked card like the Galazy HOF edition cards, but those will cost you a lot more. Other than that, just go with the highest clocked card that's reasonably compared to other cards of the same model that you can afford.

>>51521447
reasonably priced***

>>51521428
>>51521447
Well shit, that's not too good.

It's not the temp per se, but the hardware limits that decides how high you can go?

>>51521495
For the most part, yeah. You migh only get a 10 frame boost max if you're lucky with a liquid cooler vs the worst air cooler. The card's clock rates can only go so high before it starts shitting itself.

>>51520750
its all shit
>nvidia
>msi
not even once

>>51520750
one of them is red

>>51520750
Well most certainly not the 3.5GB VRAM

>>51521023
Its not a bad card and it performs pretty well compared to the competition, I have 2 slid in my system.


But its greasy they still market it as 4gb when its a 3.5gb card. What ever I'll see what AMD pull out of their arse for the next gen.

>>51521655
Shieeet.

Well my goal with the watercooling is to lower the noise, so I guess I'll have to accept the performance dream being crushed.

If you run games at 1080 the 3.5gb should not be a problem.
Who wants to upgrade a 24 inch 1080p 60hz monitor when it works perfectly?
Why would you want 4K?

>3.5 meme

The question is about differences between the two flavours of 970, not even between it and any other cards.

>>51521341
960 actually performs decent though.
128 bit isn't a bottleneck with compression at 1080p, and anyone buying it for anything higher is an idiot.

>>51520942
I just couldnt buy it knowing its a gimped card.

3.5/4 just triggers my autism something bad

>>51522559
It bus the hell out of me too.
Some people can't afford a 980 though. I'll probably be getting a 970 sometime in the next few days.

>>51524007
Check ebay. You can find 980's around 970 pricing if you wait long enough.