Nvidia GTX 980 or 970

[communistsquared]

Why does that chart show 970 sli as having 8g?
Sli dosnt work like that

vendors and manufacturers combine it (ie GTX 690 sold as "4GB", R9 295X2 sold as "8GB"), no idea why

eithet way the R9 390 can be found for cheaper than a GTX 970 so i would definitely recommend it if you want more horsepower

[Ad Bot]

[Ravencroft·]

980m on my laptop; I can run any game at max settings.

[CRITAWAKETS]

You could wait for pascal. Like im doing,but thats more of beacuse my GPU does not need upgrading the most,the problem in my PC is the CPU and the PSU.

eithet way the R9 390 can be found for cheaper than a GTX 970 so i would definitely recommend it if you want more horsepower

You are an AMD employee/fanboy. Stop recommending a AMD card for blockland its going to make the performance worse than a nvidia card. Trust me,i upgrade from a... Low-Medium end AMD card to a Nvidia Medium power card. The performance jump was easy to see. You cant find an extra 40 FPS to be small. By the way,Nvidia cards are more future proof.

[communistsquared]

You are an AMD employee/

lol

By the way,Nvidia cards are more future proof.

?? are you kidding? the R9 290X was equal to the GTX 780 at launch. nowadays, a few years later, it outperforms a GTX 780 Ti and the GTX 970. the 7970, at launch, matched a 770. now, a few years later, after being rebranded into the R9 280X, it clearly outperforms it by a wide margin. GCN arch is better suited to DX12 as well and most of their cards have more VRAM. what you said is p false

[shitlord]

lol?? are you kidding? the R9 290X was equal to the GTX 780 at launch. nowadays, a few years later, it outperforms a GTX 780 Ti and the GTX 970. the 7970, at launch, matched a 770. now, a few years later, after being rebranded into the R9 280X, it clearly outperforms it by a wide margin. GCN arch is better suited to DX12 as well and most of their cards have more VRAM. what you said is p false

and yet developers will continue to forget amd over to fuel the nvidia monopoly machine, so again,

in the end would you rather have the big card that sometimes cant be used properly or the smaller card that has little difference and is used properly?

also customer reviews on the 970s are generally higher than those on the 390

[CRITAWAKETS]

most of their cards have more VRAM.

Theres a small issue with that. AMD cards usually just have too much VRAM. So much so they probably cant use it at all with the performance of the card. 8GB of VRAM is completly insane unless you want to use a card like the Titan X but that has 12GB. I find the best card for balance is the 980 Ti even if i dont have a card even comparable to it. (Geforce 640 1GB)

[shitlord]

reminds me of how some amd processors have  6 - 8 cores for some reason but yet most games can only use 1 - 2

[Zloff]

290x

[communistsquared]

and yet developers will continue to forget amd over to fuel the nvidia monopoly machine, so again,also customer reviews on the 970s are generally higher than those on the 390

forget over or not, the R9 390 still performs better on average.

Theres a small issue with that. AMD cards usually just have too much VRAM. So much so they probably cant use it at all with the performance of the card. 8GB of VRAM is completly insane unless you want to use a card like the Titan X but that has 12GB. I find the best card for balance is the 980 Ti even if i dont have a card even comparable to it. (Geforce 640 1GB)

GTX 680 had 2GB. 7970 had 3GB. guess which lasted better??
GTX 780 Ti had 3GB. R9 290X had 4GB. guess which lasted better?

reminds me of how some amd processors have  6 - 8 cores for some reason but yet most games can only use 1 - 2

AMD CPUs are absolute horsestuff for gaming, Ill agree with that

[shitlord]

forget over or not, the R9 390 still performs better on average.

okay?  i've never denied this

770 had 2GB. 7970 had 3GB. guess which lasted better??
R9 290X had 4GB. 780 Ti had 3GB. guess which lasted better?

i've yet to see a game use more than 2.8gb of vram on my 970, as the only game that hit 2.8 was rust because of memory leaks, so as far as im concerned the 7970 and 780 ti are still fine

[espio100]

Tbh imo if your going to buy an asspensive 980 or 970 just buy a 290X

[Mr Queeba]

980 because more numbers
Also, I'm debating whether or not to upgrade my GPU from an AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series to an Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 Ti (my older brother is doing some upgrades to his PC, and his 560 will be replaced). Is the 560 better than the 6800 series?

[communistsquared]

okay?  i've never denied this

why do you keep bringing it up? AMD users aren't forgeted over, it's a card that performs better

i've yet to see a game use more than 2.8gb of vram on my 970, as the only game that hit 2.8 was rust because of memory leaks, so as far as im concerned the 7970 and 780 ti are still fine

at 1080p, far cry 4 uses ~2.5GB, fallout can use up to 3GB, shadow of mordor uses almost 6GB, GTA V also goes above 4GB, rainbow six siege uses above 3GB, skyrim mods can push it up to 8GB. 1440p and 4k? values are significantly increased

[shitlord]

GTA V also goes above 4GB

above?

never seen it go over 2GB  even when maxxed on my 970

[communistsquared]

above?

never seen it go over 2GB  even when maxxed on my 970

just took the first review I saw