Nvidia GTX 970

>2k
2k is 1080p, not 1440p if that's what you mean. It's still a good card for 1080p. At 1440p you're going to run out of VRAM with high/ultra textures.

>>376670047
I own an EVGA version. Last taxing game was either The Division or DOOM I don't know but they both run on high at 60fps at 1080p.

It runs all my weeb games flawlessly tho so yeah.

>>376670047
970 is a cuck card with 3.5gb of memory. Get a 6GB 1060 or don't bother.

>>376670254

OC'ed mine runs most games 1440p Ultra maxed. BF1, Rising Storm 2, DOOM, Titanfall 2.. Just gotta turn off AA on some games

THREE
POINT
FIVE

Its good enough for 1080p, but if you decide to run multiple monitors or higher resolution you WILL need a better card , at least a 1060 6gb.
t. Anon who once used 970.

>>376670047
just get like a 1050 at that point.

It's a great 1080p card, but it's been superseded by the 1060. If you can get one cheaper than a 1050Ti, you're not missing anything.

>>376670614
I know because I have a 970. Some newer games are unplayable with high/ultra textures and some run great at ultra. Deus Ex MD for example is unplayable with very high textures. There's a huge difference between high and very high textures in MD which is a shame.

Batman Arkham Asylum also runs out of VRAM with all the Nvidia gameworks settings.

>>376670047
It's a decent card, but not very future-proof.
If you want to play new stuff for a while yet then I'd suggest getting at least a 6gig 1060.

The 8gig RX 480 is also good, but
>AMD

>>376670996
>>376670898
>>376670497
Even 6gb is limiting in some games with meme textures. 8gb vram is a must in 2017+.

some games do trigger the 3.5 meme, such as GTA V, where your gameplay slows down to 5fps

Hitman you'll be able to play pretty fucking well and it's even faster in Direct X12 than in 11 at this point.

>>376671189
>some games do trigger the 3.5 meme
This. It's weird how some games go well over 3.5gb and nothing happens, but GTA 5 shits itself at 3500-3700mb.

WD2 is gonna be a lot more dependent on your CPU than your GPU. That game is one of the most CPU intensive games on the market, because Ubisoft can't port worth shit.

>>376671164
>still using the >AMD meme in 2017

>>376671462
AMD may be cheaper, but you're always eventually going to run into weird issues or game not working properly or crashing, especially on launch.
Nier Automata is a recent example.

>>376671609
But MUHFINEWINETECHNOLOGY

>>376671609
The hell are you talking about? A lot of Automata's issues were on Nvidia's side since it was a port of a PS4 game.

>>376671609
I don't think that's the case any more. My 380X never gave me any problems.

And it's not like Nvidia is problem free, their shader-cache bug made running emulators like Cemu a headache.

>>376671847
What are you talking about? People with 480s are having white screen crashes. If you emulate and pirate games, AMD always has more issues both with their CPUs and GPUs.

>>376671863
>My 380X
Older AMD cards are always more stable. 480 users experience most of the issues.

>>376670047
buy a 970 that can overclock to 1450+mhz and it beats a 1060

>>376672117
>cpus

Maybe if we're talking about Bulldozer but Ryzen's perfectly capable of running any emulator just fine.

>>376670047
970 here, with a 6600k and 16gb ddr4

everything runs great, really, only complaint about the card is the insane coil whine, got used to it though.

just ask what game and I'll tell you how it runs if you want to know.

>>376670047
If you're gonna get a 970, you might as well get a 1060 3gb.

>>376672345
>3gb

Gross

>>376670047

I'm really happy with mine.

>>376672236
... I'd pick the 1060 any day and I think that card is garbage.
Only Nvidia cards that are worth touching imo is the 1070 or 1080ti. Any other price bracket and I'd just go AMD.

>>376672345
3gb is literally unusable in 2017, bro.

I'm gonna build my first PC this year, i'm thinking about

>GTX 1060 (maybe a 1070)
>AMD Ryzen 5 1600
>16GB of RAM
>1 TB hardrive

I plan on sticking with 1080p to save money, i'm hoping this build will be enough to play games on ultra at 60 fps.

File: GTA5_2016_08_29_23_42_13_956.jpg (2MB, 2715x1527px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2715x1527px

>>376671189
?

>>376673102
.
1060 aint worth it, get a 580

File: GTA5_2016_08_29_22_34_30_696.jpg (2MB, 2715x1527px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2715x1527px

>>376673128
??

File: DXMD_2016_08_24_22_30_06_790.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>376670996
this is dxmd on my 970

I dont remember the settings I used, but I had solid 60 fps most of the time and if thats not even very high then I'm fine with it.

>>376670047
£135 is a great price for a 970, jump on that shit.

>>376670047
By what you're looking to play the card will be fine.

>>376673227
Is AMD a better choice than Intel & Nvidia?

Are they just as reliable in terms of hardware reliability for the price?

>>376673102
>doesn't fall for the 480/580 meme
>fucks up by getting an AMD cpu
When will you poorfags learn? Stay away from AMD.

File: GTA5_2016_09_27_19_38_06_153.jpg (2MB, 2715x1527px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2715x1527px

>>376673275

>>376673379
>I dont remember the settings I used,
Why did you reply to me and post that image then? I know it runs well with high textures. It's a fact that deus ex MD stutters with very high textures, even at 1080p. Actually, i'm pretty sure very high textures are locked if you have a 970.

Thanks for suggestions. 1060 6gb would be nice, but i cant really find it under 200£ which is a bit above budget i deticated.

>>376672343
Battlefield 1, DS3, Prey

>>376671286
Ehh, though i have shitty fx8350 and it runs at 30+ fps at 1080p and high settings.

>>376673468
>Are they just as reliable in terms of hardware reliability for the price?
Hardware reliability? They're about the same. AMD has always had more issues with software. Some games run poorly on launch, emulation is generally worse on AMD, occasional problems with pirated games etc.

>>376673468
Difference between a 580 and 1060 is negligible in most cases. Find the best deal and go for it if they are in your price bracket

>>376673718
>which is a bit above budget i deticated.
Skip lunch or rob someone, Ahmed.

>>376673468
The 7700k is still worth getting if literally all you care about is game performance, but i5s are pretty much pointless compared to Ryzen 5.

>>376673468

In terms of CPU literally the only Intel CPUs worth buying is a fucking Pentium and the 7700k housefire. All the other pricepoints AMD dominates and its not even close.

GPU wise AMD has the edge in the mid-low tier in performance and price, not by much but its there, plus AMD has 8gb cards. At 1070 level and above its all Nvidia without a doubt.

GPU reliability depends more on the vendor itself. Other than the usual suspects, good AMD brands are XFX and Sapphire.

>>376673887
I wuit my job recently and just wanna rest for a while. I will sell it and get something better in coming months.

>>376673468
It depends what you want to do. AMD typically has stronger hardware which means their cards last longer but their driver support has historically been awful, but they're improving. Also finally have a game recorder that's almsot as good as Shadowplay. Nvidia relies more heavily on drivers, which means their cards don't age as gracefully since they can't brute force an unoptimized game as well as AMD. Nvidia tends to have much stronger support for niche features though. Shadowplay is generally a go to game recording program, Moonlight, a 3rd party app, is by far the best mobile streaming platform. (Pretty much everything else is adware-riddled trash) and they also have support for bizarre custom resolutions and settings you might need in niche cases. For anything the driver doesn't provide there's Nvidia Inspector, which provides support for even more niche use cases. For niche solutions AMD used to have Radeon Pro but that's been abandoned so your mileage may vary. At least a lot of RadeonPro's functionality has been rolled into the official drivers. Nvidia is also better on Linux if that matters to you but AMD has improved dramatically recently.

>>376673718
bf1 averages 80 fps I'd say, maybe more, depends on the map really ( indoor / outdoor ); all ultra settings at 1080p, in multiplayer, easily 100fps + in the solo ( but who cares )
anything runs DS3 really, even a 970 is overkill I'd say, anyway its locked 60 fps
I dont have Prey but judging by how it looks, if its not another garbage port it should run just fine
DOOM is like 110fps average at ultra settings ( not nightmare, you need like 8gb of vram for that, and I heard the difference isnt that big )
I posted some GTA5 above, you can see the framerate in the afterburner overlay, thats with very high settings ( except grass ) and 2x MSAA

>>376674016
>>376674013
I dont even know how you can say that with a straight face when literally all benchmarks out there are made by shills, no matter what product they want to put ahead.

show me a legit comparison between an oc'd 6600k and the equivalent price Ryzen, I highly doubt the i5 is 'pointless'

>>376674242
Thanks. GTA looks mint too

File: 1491518699121.jpg (107KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1000x1000px

>>376673102
EVERYTHING YOU'VE POSTED IS WRONG.

EVERYTHING.

Wait until the new batch of Nvidia GPU's and get the 1060 equivalent for like 200 bucks.

Get a good CPU. You can always upgrade a GPU but a CPU is going to be the hearth of the computer. Spring for an i5.

if you are trying to save money why are you buying 16gigs of ram? just buy 1 8 gig stick for the time being, its easy as pie to upgrade with a second one later
.
Get an SSD. of all the upgrades I've done to computers in the last 10 years, SSD's are by far the cheapest and fastest way to make a computer feel much more responsive. buy a 120 gig ssd and a tb HDD for storage. you wont regret it.

File: 1395578304667.jpg (54KB, 662x712px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 662x712px

>>376670661
>3.5gb was more than 2 years ago

>>376674242
The lowest ive ever seen my 970 go on bf1 is 68fps at 1080p ultra, and that was with a ton of crazy shit going on. It's still a decent card. Will easily hold me over until the next xx70 comes out

>>376674706
Bait

>>376674706
SSDs are fucking expensive.

Unless it's a 500GB I really don't care about slightly faster loading times.

>>376674883
Not him but if you aren't putting your OS on an ssd in 2017 you are retarded and should stick to consoles

>>376674883
https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-120GB-SDSSDA-120G-G26-Newest-Version/dp/B01F9G414U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494557676&sr=8-1&keywords=ssd+120

If 50 bucks is expensive for something you will use everyday then I don;t know what to tell you

Anyone get their $30 dollars yet from that class action?

>>376674413
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VvwWTQKCZs

Equal or better averages and way better mins most of the time.

>>376675817

This plus it gets absolutely wrecked at anything that isnt a game

>>376670047
Card's fine. I like my 390 space heater personally, but there is nothing at all wrong with the 970.

>>376670996
>arkham asylum runs our of vram
I hope you mean arkham knight or you should probably consider getting a new gpu

970 is alright, but there is literally no reason not to get a 1060 or better. If you nee more money then learn to save and wait OP.

I upgraded from an msi gtx970 armor oc to a gtx 1080 fe and i would never go back. The 970 was a good card in its time, but really its best to hold off for Volta. That new gddr6 16gbps is gonna blow everything else out of the water.

>>376675817
I said 6600k, its not exactly the same price as the 7600, nor is it the price difference worth it
>>376676168
this is irrelevant, since we know why 99% of people buy hardware or even get interested in it, its to play vidya, netflix and chill and stream overwatch.

also
>cinebench
>handbrake
>civ6 ( rofl )
>metro LL ( ROFL )

I mean if you dont play vidya yourself thats fine but really, those benchmarks are just pointless, and are only meant to show the new AMD cpus in a good light.
still waiting for a oc'd 6600k vs similar price Ryzen in actually popular games. Starcraft 2 would be a good thing to start with given how shit the game runs today compared to its first release, and many more.
I'm not judging you here, but really there isnt a single source that makes relevant, fair, consistent benchmark.

>>376670047
I'm playing Rising Storm 2 right now at 1440p 60 FPS + at pretty much max settings (shit like motion blur turned off). You're better off getting a 1070 though. I would not recommend the 970 any longer.