Exactly. The 290 seems better off. Plus, correct me if i'm wrong but aren't there already a few games that run at 4GB Vram (Shadow of Mordor, Lord of Fallen if my memory serves me)? The 970 seemed like a god send a few months back and I was loving it (my friends computer had a 970) until all the controversy started which really shows the 290 as a better card overall imo.
It's not that huge an issue, never take posts on a forum to be representative of the real world numbers. SoM especially is that game where the 970 sails smoothly despite scaling up and Ultra textures.
I'll leave these two here:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtWL3D9ZL3Q
Get whatever brand/card you want but don't be under any assumption that the VRAM thing is a huge crippling issue on the 970. It's not something "new" they've partitioned VRAM this way on all series going as far back as the 500 series.
I'll leave these two here:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtWL3D9ZL3Q
Get whatever brand/card you want but don't be under any assumption that the VRAM thing is a huge crippling issue on the 970. It's not something "new" they've partitioned VRAM this way on all series going as far back as the 500 series.
Last edited:
Pretty much why I think the whole controversy is way overblown. If you hadn't heard of the controversy you'd still be loving it. And that DF video just goes to show how extreme measures you need to use to fill up the 3,5GB partion.
I don't think the upset over 970 is an issue of performance, but it is an issue of consumers feeling cheated and betrayed. 970 is still a good GPU, but its name was stained by the controversy.
I think the best price/performance card in Nvidia's line up at the moment is the GTX 970.
I think the best price/performance card in Nvidia's line up at the moment is the GTX 970.
I used AMD GPUs for past 4 years without any issues, I never faced or heard any burning as well. Their driver controversy is way more exaggerated than it is in reality (by fan boys of course) . The only problems they have is noise/heat (with reference design only) and sometimes they take too much time in releasing a new driver.
I will just say that being an owner of a GTX 970 since mid March, i think i made the right choice. I might have posted something similar a few pages back but i will summarize just for anyone to have an overview of my experiences with both AMD and Nvidia latest cards.
I had a custom MSI R9 290X before and while it's a pretty powerful card it has 2 major flaws.
(1) The card functions at 94 degrees and that's with the 2 fans at 100% speed which is unsettling and (2) it is a very very noisy card when gaming.
On top of that, when playing DA:I which uses lots of resources, the CPU would be at around 65 degrees.
When i changed to the 970 i saw two improvements.
(1) The card never ever goes over 71 degrees even in full load for hours and (2) it's almost completely silent.
Doing the same test on DA:I with the GTX 970 i saw the CPU cores sitting at 54-55 degrees compared to 65 when i had the 290X. That on it's own would be a reason, for me personally, to get the 970 cause the unneccesary heat inside my system when i had the 290X was just unbelievable.
I'm not advertizing Nvidia or anything since i almost always bought AMD graphics cards but in this instance the differences are huge. I mean the 970 works at 71 degrees in full load and the fans are programmed to function at ONLY 40% which is fantastic. If you add a custom profile for the fans it will even go lower than 71.
Now as for performance, i havent done any specific tests to show but i did try to get an average while playing DA:I. With the exact same settings i was getting about 5-10 fps more with the 970.
The 3.5GB of the 970 should not worry you. There is a post a few pages back with a youtube video from Digital foundry which will solve your questions, i suggest you read it
I had a custom MSI R9 290X before and while it's a pretty powerful card it has 2 major flaws.
(1) The card functions at 94 degrees and that's with the 2 fans at 100% speed which is unsettling and (2) it is a very very noisy card when gaming.
On top of that, when playing DA:I which uses lots of resources, the CPU would be at around 65 degrees.
When i changed to the 970 i saw two improvements.
(1) The card never ever goes over 71 degrees even in full load for hours and (2) it's almost completely silent.
Doing the same test on DA:I with the GTX 970 i saw the CPU cores sitting at 54-55 degrees compared to 65 when i had the 290X. That on it's own would be a reason, for me personally, to get the 970 cause the unneccesary heat inside my system when i had the 290X was just unbelievable.
I'm not advertizing Nvidia or anything since i almost always bought AMD graphics cards but in this instance the differences are huge. I mean the 970 works at 71 degrees in full load and the fans are programmed to function at ONLY 40% which is fantastic. If you add a custom profile for the fans it will even go lower than 71.
Now as for performance, i havent done any specific tests to show but i did try to get an average while playing DA:I. With the exact same settings i was getting about 5-10 fps more with the 970.
The 3.5GB of the 970 should not worry you. There is a post a few pages back with a youtube video from Digital foundry which will solve your questions, i suggest you read it
Last edited:
Hi guys - I'm new here, I'd like to see exactly how 'powerful' my laptop, a Clevo W230SS/Sager NP7338 is and whether it can run TW3 at decent settings.
These are my specs:
Note that in The Witcher 2, the autodetect function automatically set my configuration to the lowest possible settings. When I ran it, I got 100+ FPS. I jacked all the settings up except motion blur (I don't like motion blur - gives me a headache), 'Ubersampling', bloom (everything looks too bright with bloom on), and cinematic depth of field. I got a consistent 45-55 FPS. I even installed the 'Extreme Quality Flora' mod, and in the graphically-intensive battlefield outside the Kaedweni camp in Chapter 2, framerates didn't go below 40.
All in all, I'm checking whether my system should be able to run TW3 at medium settings without losing too much detail, and having similar framerates: around 40-50. Heck, even 35 FPS is fine. What do you guys think?
These are my specs:
- CPU: Intel Core i7-4710MQ @ 2.5 GHz (Turbo Boot, OC to 3.7 GHz)
- GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M 2GB Maxwell (OCed to 1300 MHz core, 2856 MHz VRAM and a +275 mV overvolt)
- 8 GB DDR3 1600 MHz RAM
Note that in The Witcher 2, the autodetect function automatically set my configuration to the lowest possible settings. When I ran it, I got 100+ FPS. I jacked all the settings up except motion blur (I don't like motion blur - gives me a headache), 'Ubersampling', bloom (everything looks too bright with bloom on), and cinematic depth of field. I got a consistent 45-55 FPS. I even installed the 'Extreme Quality Flora' mod, and in the graphically-intensive battlefield outside the Kaedweni camp in Chapter 2, framerates didn't go below 40.
All in all, I'm checking whether my system should be able to run TW3 at medium settings without losing too much detail, and having similar framerates: around 40-50. Heck, even 35 FPS is fine. What do you guys think?
I am guessing you could pull of medium settings with that laptop and be in the 35-40 fps mark. I can't be certain of course, since it's a mystery what fps we will be getting in general.
I will just say that being an owner of a GTX 970 since mid March, i think i made the right choice. I might have posted something similar a few pages back but i will summarize just for anyone to have an overview of my experiences with both AMD and Nvidia latest cards.
I had a custom MSI R9 290X before and while it's a pretty powerful card it has 2 major flaws.
(1) The card functions at 94 degrees and that's with the 2 fans at 100% speed which is unsettling and (2) it is a very very noisy card when gaming.
On top of that, when playing DA:I which uses lots of resources, the CPU would be at around 65 degrees.
When i changed to the 970 i saw two improvements.
(1) The card never ever goes over 71 degrees even in full load for hours and (2) it's almost completely silent.
Doing the same test on DA:I with the GTX 970 i saw the CPU cores sitting at 54-55 degrees compared to 65 when i had the 290X. That on it's own would be a reason, for me personally, to get the 970 cause the unneccesary heat inside my system when i had the 290X was just unbelievable.
I'm not advertizing Nvidia or anything since i almost always bought AMD graphics cards but in this instance the differences are huge. I mean the 970 works at 71 degrees in full load and the fans are programmed to function at ONLY 40% which is fantastic. If you add a custom profile for the fans it will even go lower than 71.
Now as for performance, i havent done any specific tests to show but i did try to get an average while playing DA:I. With the exact same settings i was getting about 5-10 fps more with the 970.
The 3.5GB of the 970 should not worry you. There is a post a few pages back with a youtube video from Digital foundry which will solve your questions, i suggest you read it
There is no doubt that Maxwell has proved itself in terms of power efficiency and temperatures output but still it's strange to hear that you reached 94c with your MSI R9 290X. I had Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X and the max I reached with that card is 72 - 74 depending on game and it was really silent while gaming. Now with 2x Gigabyte GTX 980 G1, the temp for top card goes to 75c - 76c max and lower card 64c - 66c max. I had to make custom profile for fans because otherwise the top card reaches 80c and then does thermal throttling, the custom profile made them slightly audible during games but nothing unbearable.
As far as performance is concerned I am also very satisfied from the switch to 980s, there is no game right now that goes below 60 fps mark even at highest settings + DSR to 2560x1440 (Maybe TW3 will change that lol), they have nice factory OC and still have room to do more.
As for 970, it is quite clear now that there are no big issues from 3.5 GB fiasco however it got more severe after Nvidia revealed the corrected specs. we cannot argue with customers who say Nvidia did false advertising and to me it's a big blunder from Nvidia to have such a communication gap between marketing and engineering departments. I also don't understand the fact that even if it was a mistake then how come no one from engineering ever noticed the difference after release ? it's very unlikely that all of them didn't even saw any of the reviews that published wrong specs.
I do agree about the advertising of the 970 and i was a bit sceptical wether to buy it or not but since i couldnt afford the 980 i went for it. It was a good choice and the card, right now, has no problems with any game and i'm pretty sure it wont have for at least the next 1-2 years. That is on 1080p gaming which i intend to do for the time being.
As for the 290X, i know it's weird but thats how it is. Its not reference model, it's an actual twin frozer MSI but still always reaches 94 and burns out the whole pc inside, thats why i decided on a change.
^ Yeah there is no doubt that 970 is the best performer in it's price range and once you OC it gets real close to reference 980 or equal quite easily and a second 970 will give you a killer machine in killer price. As for 290X I remember I was confused between Sapphire and other brands when purchasing it sometime ago because Sapphire card is really long but now I am glad I went for that because that extra long cooler really proved it's worth there.
I haven't dared overclock it. Although i did OC my CPU i am scared s**tless to try it on the card. If it gets fried it'll feel like i threw my poor money out the window.
I have an Acer Aspire V15 Nitro (Black Edition), but my specs are pretty much the same, the only exception being i7-4720MQ 2.6 GHz, 12GB DDR3 RAM and GTX 860M with 4GB VRAM.
Also wondering if we might run it at least on medium. I grew up playing most PC games usually at 20 FPS so I don't really need to play this on ultra, 1080p or 120 FPS.
Steady 30 FPS and medium quality visuals is all I need
Witcher 3 - Intel Core i3 - advice needed
Hello,
I am really looking forward to the Witcher 3, that being said I am still not sure what platform I shall be buying it on. Though I have a PS4 and Xbox One I would really like to play this game on PC, that being said going by the specs I seem to be meet everything at the minimum apart from my CPU which is a intel core i3. I was wondering how much of a issue this could possibly be and if I could possibly still run the game at playable framerate.
Thanks!
Hello,
I am really looking forward to the Witcher 3, that being said I am still not sure what platform I shall be buying it on. Though I have a PS4 and Xbox One I would really like to play this game on PC, that being said going by the specs I seem to be meet everything at the minimum apart from my CPU which is a intel core i3. I was wondering how much of a issue this could possibly be and if I could possibly still run the game at playable framerate.
Thanks!
Attachments
-
Screenshot_64.png
It reads like you have a Nehalem Core i3. It's at least equal to and probably better than the minimum spec Phenom II x4 940, and the rest of your system is about the stated minimum. So I think it's worth a gamble on the PC, but the PS4 version seems to play well and might be the better deal.
(If the game really does run more than 2 compute-bound threads, Core i3's won't perform well. But the stated minimum of a Phenom II sets a rather low bar for acceptable performance on low-medium settings.)
(If the game really does run more than 2 compute-bound threads, Core i3's won't perform well. But the stated minimum of a Phenom II sets a rather low bar for acceptable performance on low-medium settings.)
Do you guys think I could run the game at High or Ultra with these main components?
CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor
Motherboard: Asus X99-DELUXE ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws 4 series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 4GB WINDFORCE Video Card (2-Way SLI)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 4GB WINDFORCE Video Card (2-Way SLI)
CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor
Motherboard: Asus X99-DELUXE ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws 4 series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 4GB WINDFORCE Video Card (2-Way SLI)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 4GB WINDFORCE Video Card (2-Way SLI)