Nozzer66 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I'd do a single 980 for now. Link to comment
Neovalen Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Do you really need to run SLI? Can you return one at a time? My son just bought a single EVGA GTX 980 4 GB Superclocked model and he is quite pleased with it ($560 on newegg not including $10 rebate). He is obsessive about having everything at max settings and getting 60 fps. That being said his monitor does not even do 1080p, it is an old Dell Ultra I gave him. I know you're running at higher then 1080p. Just curious, what monitor(s) do you use?Personally, single card is preferable for ease of use / compatibility issues but gaming at 2560x1600 doesn't always allow you to keep pumping 60fps at max on single. I have a single 30" 2560x1600 60Hz monitor. Edit: Looking at the reviews, I think the 970 SLI was the right choice when I bought it assuming it had the full 4GB. A single 980 dips below 60fps at 2560x1600 in many games. So the basic answer is: If I want to play max settings I need 2 cards. Link to comment
DanimalTwo Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Personally, single card is preferable for ease of use / compatibility issues but gaming at 2560x1600 doesn't always allow you to keep pumping 60fps at max on single. I have a single 30" 2560x1600 60Hz monitor. Edit: Looking at the reviews, I think the 970 SLI was the right choice when I bought it assuming it had the full 4GB. A single 680 dips below 60fps at 2560x1600 in many games. So the basic answer is: If I want to play max settings I need 2 cards.I not sure if you meant 680 or 980. My understanding is that the 980 is twice as fast as the 680 I had, when you were still using two 570s. I replaced it, with a 770 (less than a year old) that was my son's when he got his new 980 this week. I was curious about the make and model of your monitor. It is not in your SR:LE specs. I am in the market for a monitor to replace the crappy Sceptre TV I currently use. Link to comment
Neovalen Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I meant 980. I was using 2 670 4gb previously. Link to comment
phazer11 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I don't think you'll use all of that in unmodded games personally. Link to comment
Neovalen Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I don't think you'll use all of that in unmodded games personally.I've already hit it in Shadow of Mordor myself... plus AC:Unity and FC4. Edit for correction: DA:I crosses the 3.5gb boundary with 4xMSAA also at my res. Link to comment
Neovalen Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 As for my monitor it's a Korean Import ... Basically a Dell 30" without the fluff. Link to comment
Adonis_VII Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 It's hard to say. I would definitely agree on wanting that full 4GB with the way new games increasing the vram usage so much. I don't know how much the two 980's are worth the price tag. I lucked out and got them as gifts so it was easy for me. That said I'm not sure what other options are good until the new AMD is out. And I believe there are still two additional AMD only bugs with crossfire when using ENB that don't exist with SLI. Link to comment
Aiyen Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I am personally going to have to do some research... I just do not buy that those games cost that much active VRAM use... it simply does not compute for me! They are not modded, and they are not made with the intent of squishing every last bit out of the consoles since some of them also are on the previous generation. It would also mean that my Skyrim at 1440p would eat up way more VRAM then at 1080p.. and it does not. The impact of increasing resolution should hit the GPU not its memory first. Link to comment
DanielCoffey Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I don't think the vram is solely for texture storage... post-processing will need more memory too as the resolution increases. Link to comment
Aiyen Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I am aware of the cost of post processing effects with increased resolution... but it does not measure in the GB range or even 500Mb range. Taking ENB as an example, its memory use is rather minimal compared to texture use, and it does use techniques etc. that current game engines are only starting to employ this generation. The witcher series is unique in respect to this.. looking at witcher 2 then it had options that no GPU at the time could hope to run at any meaningfull resolution and FPS. But that is part of what made it awesome. And they are most likely doing that with nr. 3 as well... and the point here is that people should not expect current gen cards to even be able to do it at 60 FPS at 1600p... with everything at max. Link to comment
Neovalen Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 An update for anyone who is following this thread:I have contacted Newegg, I'm in an "internal review" and will probably hear an answer during the week. I've heard mixed reviews from people about Neweggs taking of these returns. Amazon, Tigerdirect, Overclockers, etc have all stated they will take the cards back no problem due to Nvidia's error. If the return gets denied I will be forced to contact Gigabyte, the FTC, and/or my credit card company. Additionally, I will be personally boycotting any future purchases from Newegg. I know the false advertising is not their fault, but if every other retailer can do the returns and they can't then its simply bad customer service. The popular review sites have tried sweeping this under the rug for Nvidia with "nothing to see here, look at this shiny avg fps.", however a few of the more independent (read: European) review sites are still pounding Nvidia hard and showing the real problems. Nvidia has been dead silent on this issue since they released their red herring of an excuse. Boris has determined that Nvidias driver is using SYSTEM RAM for the last 1GB to make up for the missing 0.5GB. So its even worse than originally reported. Now for some lighthearted jokes (which made me laugh despite being pissed):SHOCKING interview with Nvidia engineer about the 970 fiascoHitler Reacts To The GTX 970 Being 3.5GB + .5GB Edit: Links instead of video embeds due to foul language in the captions. Link to comment
Aiyen Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Yeah that would be a bad business move from their part... but I guess it ultimately depends on how much money they got invested in it. Guess with this report the price of the 970 is going to drop soon..... then perhaps I can get one if I get a decent tax refund this year... I would not care about the memory issue since it would still be way more then my 2Gb! :) oh yeah btw Neo... your system specs are wrong.. it should only say 3.5Gb :P (Runs for the hills!) Link to comment
Neovalen Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 oh yeah btw Neo... your system specs are wrong.. it should only say 3.5Gb :P (Runs for the hills!) :angry: ..... ..... Link to comment
Razorsedge877 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 This problem is with just the 970 right. No issues with the 980? Wonder what every ones opinion with the 980 now Link to comment
Recommended Posts