Hardware & Technical msi gtx970 gaming 4gb
- Thread starter sgt Melin
- Start date
On a normal monitor, it will play everything in ultra with room to spare. In an oculus you can play on medium + AA
I've just sent my gtx980 back for a refund. DVI-I port refused to detect my second monitor. Worked fine on its DVI-D port so not a fault elsewhere. Reasonably common problem according to the forums. Will buy it again once they've ironed out the bugs.
N.b. The stutter on the gtx980 was worse than my current gtx760.
Maybe in your power bill. It will be less. If you limit the framerate to 60fps and max out everything it will go even less.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I think it can easily handle ultra on occulus. I used it with an alienware 17 with gtx 880M and even that could handle it(mostly), and that is a lot less powerful card.
With another slow 0.5 GB added, yes. I've never seen ED using more than 2.6 GB, though.
Smashing, thanks - I'm only using a standard living room TV anyway, which I think is limited to 50 or 60Hz (I should know really) so I don't think I'm worried about FPS past those kind of figures.
I'm such a n00b - this is the first time I've gamed on PC since the original PlayStation came out and I'm still learning something every day
In my experience (Galax GTX 970, i920 @ 4GHz, 12Gb ram) the 970 holds well all the way up to 2560*1440 at ultra. 4k isn't easily doable with a single card.
I run with a 4k (displaying 2560*1440) monitor and 60Hz G-Sync, fps doesn't get lower than 45 typically. I'll go fullscreen rather than bordered when I'm in RES sites as it adds a tiny bit of smoothness. While trading borderless is fine (there's *very* little difference in all honesty, but fullscreen "feels" smoother).
All in all, GTX970 is a great card.
I run with a 4k (displaying 2560*1440) monitor and 60Hz G-Sync, fps doesn't get lower than 45 typically. I'll go fullscreen rather than bordered when I'm in RES sites as it adds a tiny bit of smoothness. While trading borderless is fine (there's *very* little difference in all honesty, but fullscreen "feels" smoother).
All in all, GTX970 is a great card.
I replaced 2 GTX570s in SLi with the MSI GTX 970 just last week.
I can run E: D in ultra on my 1900 x 1200 monitor with no problems. (The 570s showed slowed framerates, especially in stations or asteroid belts, but happily with the 970 I am yet to experience any significant FPS drop.)
The bonus is that compared to the howling banshee whines that 2 x 570s with fans at 99% make, the MSI is sweetly quiet and runs a lot cooler too.
BF4 also runs beautifully smoothly, and I'm looking forward to some GTAV FPS action when it lands on the PC next month.
I am yet to play with the other new toys that come with the card (i.e. Shadowplay)!
I can run E: D in ultra on my 1900 x 1200 monitor with no problems. (The 570s showed slowed framerates, especially in stations or asteroid belts, but happily with the 970 I am yet to experience any significant FPS drop.)
The bonus is that compared to the howling banshee whines that 2 x 570s with fans at 99% make, the MSI is sweetly quiet and runs a lot cooler too.
BF4 also runs beautifully smoothly, and I'm looking forward to some GTAV FPS action when it lands on the PC next month.
I am yet to play with the other new toys that come with the card (i.e. Shadowplay)!
yep. absolutely bare this in mind.
while 3.5gb is nice, i would prefer a 4GB card. i personally think about getting a gtx760, maybe a gtx770.
also, it depends what you want to do. if you're playing on a tv, i guess it's only a 720p or 1080p. you don't need a 970 for that. the 960 will run everything just fine in 1080p. if you want to go higher or you want to downsample (rendering the game at higher resolution, then scaling it back down) or if you want to use expensive antialiasing (SSAA - super sampling anti aliasing), you should go with more than just 2GB of vram. again, not sure about the 970, because it does only have 3.5 + 0.5. a gtx770 with 4GB is still totally fine i guess.
i run the game on a gtx560ti on 1080p, smaa, shadows on ultra, environment detail on medium, rest on low (you actually don't see a difference on ultra details). i run the game at 60fps everywhere, except in stations and asteroid belts (drops down to 45fps).
Last edited:
There's always the 980, only about 20W difference power wise. I have been contemplating an upgrade for some time in my watercooled system. I'll want to use it with a rift headset once the resolution has been improved.
What monitor do you use?
Acer something or other. imho it was a poor decision (and an expensive one). I should have either waited/gone for a true 2560*whatever 144Hz one, or waited for better 4K monitors, but at the same time, I've very very happy with the image quality and it's somewhat "future proofed", in that I can always upgrade the GPU(s) in the future.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009658
e: or that crazy 2560*1440 curved 144Hz G-Sync one I've heard tell of. now *that* would be pretty awesome
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009658
e: or that crazy 2560*1440 curved 144Hz G-Sync one I've heard tell of. now *that* would be pretty awesome
Last edited:
I was thinking about getting this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00JIWLNHU/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me=) for 2560x1440 but now i wonder how is 1440p looks like on your acer. Do you still use AA or no need?
Gsync is definety an advantage.
*scratches Occulus off his "to-get" list* Not a chance am I wasting my money on something like that if I then have to fork out even more money just to enjoy it at its full potential. xD
Eh? That's got to be wrong. I have a 660 and play in HIGH on Oculus and the GTX970 is twice as fast as my card with twice the memory.
I'm pretty sure Frontier's demo stations at EGX (apart from the 4K station that had SLI Titans) were running GTX970's in 2560x1440 and run as smooth as a nut.
To confirm my spec:
Intel Core i7 950
8GB 1600Mhz RAM
nVidia GTX660 2GB
27" 1920x1080 + Oculus DK2 1920x1080
Runs Elite on ULTRA on monitor or HIGH on Oculus.
So yes, the 970 is perfect for the job.
Last edited:
1440p on the 4K doesn't look as bad as I would have imagined - it definitely doesn't look like, say, 768 stretched to 1080. There's a little jagginess on the orbit lines that would be better in 4k - as I remember my AA settings are maxed, but then I'm at work atm and can't check - as long as I have 40-60fps g-synced I don't have any qualms with image quality or fps right now.
I'd like to see 144Hz though, but then again I wouldn't - I'd want a new monitor if I did, and I only got this one 3-4 weeks ago...