Upgrading my setup

[Salmonella]

1080P 60hz? 980 is a huge overkill. A 960 will even do.

Did you consider an AMD R9 290X (Sapphire, not the reference model)? They're probably the best bang for the buck atm

[brian1996]

Keep the 980, it ain't overkill. The benefit that you have now is that you can crank up the AA settings to get crisp clear quality.

[Salmonella]

A good midway for that would be the 970. 980 is definitely overkill for 60 herz 1080p dude

I mean if you want to spend shekels, sure, but...

[Alsatian]

Keep the 980, it ain't overkill. The benefit that you have now is that you can crank up the AA settings to get crisp clear quality.

Most of the benchmarks for the games I want to play (Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Shadow of Mordor) are getting FPS rates of between 50-60 on maximum settings. Once I've OCd both my CPU and GPU, it should be more than enough... wouldn't you agree?

If I was getting a 120 Hz monitor then I definitely would go for the 980. But I think it would be a better decision at this point to save the extra ~£100 and go for the 970. After all, I'll still be getting a kick ass gaming experience.

1080P 60hz? 980 is a huge overkill. A 960 will even do.

Did you consider an AMD R9 290X (Sapphire, not the reference model)? They're probably the best bang for the buck atm

I have considered a few AMD cards, but have decided to stick with Nvidia this time. I know the latter's cards are a bit more expensive, but a few areas such as noise level, power consumption and driver issues have swayed me.

My only reservation with the 970 is the 3.5 GB vRAM cock-up. Shouldn't be too big a deal though, if even noticeable.

[brian1996]

Most of the benchmarks for the games I want to play (Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Shadow of Mordor) are getting FPS rates of between 50-60 on maximum settings. Once I've OCd both my CPU and GPU, it should be more than enough... wouldn't you agree?

Partly, the thing is it can be noticed when frames start dipping below 60 FPS and it's pretty annoying. But then again I always play on 144 FPS so you might not even notice it. If I would go for 60 FPS gaming I would take a card that outputs a minimum of 60 FPS without dipping.

My only reservation with the 970 is the 3.5 GB vRAM cock-up. Shouldn't be too big a deal though, if even noticeable.

[Luke]

I have a 970 had it for pretty much a year now, and I must say it is a brilliant card, can play all top end titles at Ultra/High settings, Battlefield 4 at ultra gets me 100+fps, GTA V gets me around 90fps High with a few details touched, Hardline gets me over 100 also, SAMP with a high end ENB within crowded areas such as Pershing gets me 100+ also. Overall the card is good for current gaming with no issues from my side, The games currently on the market will run with good FPS topping over 60 easy on most, but if your like me and don't mind playing at 1920x1080 for the time being then its a good bargain, but if you are looking for 4k then id opt for the 980/980ti. Just don't go for AMD, AMD is shite. #SorryAMDLovers

[Pandalink]

Remember that Fallout 4 is made by Bethesda so you can't expect it to run well at all times. Even my 980 can't maintain 60fps in Boston.

I got the 980 just in case Dell decides to release a 16:10 144hz or 1600p monitor, and to give me extra power for when shitty devs don't optimise games correctly.

[Alsatian]

If I would go for 60 FPS gaming I would take a card that outputs a minimum of 60 FPS without dipping.

Which for 1080p the 970 should be perfect.

I have a 970 had it for pretty much a year now, and I must say it is a brilliant card, can play all top end titles at Ultra/High settings, Battlefield 4 at ultra gets me 100+fps, GTA V gets me around 90fps High with a few details touched, Hardline gets me over 100 also, SAMP with a high end ENB within crowded areas such as Pershing gets me 100+ also. Overall the card is good for current gaming with no issues from my side, The games currently on the market will run with good FPS topping over 60 easy on most, but if your like me and don't mind playing at 1920x1080 for the time being then its a good bargain, but if you are looking for 4k then id opt for the 980/980ti. Just don't go for AMD, AMD is shite. #SorryAMDLovers

There's no way I'm looking at a 4k setup anytime soon. For one I can't afford and secondly I'm simply not interested at this stage.

Seems like the 970 is serving you well. Have you played Witcher 3 or F4 by chance?

Remember that Fallout 4 is made by Bethesda so you can't expect it to run well at all times. Even my 980 can't maintain 60fps in Boston.

I got the 980 just in case Dell decides to release a 16:10 144hz or 1600p monitor, and to give me extra power for when shitty devs don't optimise games correctly.

Yeah, that's unfortunately true.

Still, as I said, the 970 should be fine for 1080p gaming for at least the next couple of years. But there's obviously no guarantee.

[Luke]

There's no way I'm looking at a 4k setup anytime soon. For one I can't afford and secondly I'm simply not interested at this stage.

Seems like the 970 is serving you well. Have you played Witcher 3 or F4 by chance?

Well then you haven't got an issue topping most of the games you would play, I believe you can play both of them on pretty much ultra with a little bit of tweaking at 60 fps easily.
The card is a good card its right in the sweet spot IMO, more then 2GB from the 960, and cheaper then the 980 but only a margin different. Good card, would recommend.

@MrTrane @Link9rly, both have this card was discussing how pretty superior it is to the likes of the R9 290/x.

[Salmonella]

The reference version of the R9 290X is pretty bad because of fan noise and shit. The Sapphire versions are however nicely built cards with plenty of cooling.

The 970 is more power efficient and maintains slightly lower temperatures. Also, like I said before, AMD drivers and software are pretty shitty but if you just wanna play a game it won't bother you.

I got the 290x because of AMDs better multi-monitor support (at the time) and because it was really cheap. I only paid 200 euros for mine while the 970 was still at 400 or something. I didn't think lower temps and lower power consumption justified paying twice as much for a videocard. I feel like AMD has finally caught up with nVidia in terms of performance with the R9 290X. The 390X is however just a rebranded 290X worth avoiding.

[Alsatian]

Thank you all for your help. For those interested, this is what I went for in the end:

MSI GTX 970
HyperX FURY 16GB

I also purchased a new case fan and CPU fan as I plan to overclock my CPU and GPU. As well as that, I received a new monitor, keyboard and mouse for Christmas. Really happy with how my setup is looking and running.

[Janar]

Thank you all for your help. For those interested, this is what I went for in the end:

MSI GTX 970
HyperX FURY 16GB

I also purchased a new case fan and CPU fan as I plan to overclock my CPU and GPU. As well as that, I received a new monitor, keyboard and mouse for Christmas. Really happy with how my setup is looking and running.

Great choice, 980 is quite a useless card since 980Ti came out. Isn't really worth the price IMHO.

You say you bought a new CPU fan - which one and what cooler did you get?

[Alsatian]

Great choice, 980 is quite a useless card since 980Ti came out. Isn't really worth the price IMHO.

You say you bought a new CPU fan - which one and what cooler did you get?

Thanks. The card is running absolutely perfectly so I'm more than happy.

For the case fan I went with a Corsair Air Series AF120-LED and for the CPU fan/heatsink I went with the Cooler Master RR-212E-16PK-R1 Hyper 212 Evo.

[Janar]

Nice.

Guess this topic can go to the archive then. Have fun