Do you have a special setup? Or is HDMI not a common thing for 144hz screens? I assume that a screen with 3ms or less of lag, 144hz and HDMI would be pretty universal...
Yeah in that case why not. I personally wouldn't go near the 970 since its VRAM limits (and in general, I wouldn't go in 1GB steps only for THAT amount of money since I do like to use DSR) but you don't have too many options in the sector of "recommendable" right now. So be prepared that you might want a new card in a year or 1 1/2, but otherwise I think its not a bad choice. And given your current card, you WILL see an enormous jump in FPS.
1. There are only bad choices on the market right now. 28nm is so 2013. 2. The Cards WILL get cheaper and have to get cheaper. Moore's law says that in average, PC hardware doubles it's performance for the same price in 2 years. However neither performance, nor price has changed in the last two years. To achieve that, you would definitely need a Maxwell-Titan. Or just a Pascal 1070/1080 I quess. This is Nvidia's GPU roadmap. They want to release the new Titan in April and the new 1070/1080 in June. So, only 4 months to go.
The problem was/is getting the right size/resolution with an IPS display, at 100+mhz with a good response time and G-sync. However those sort of monitors are in the works (maybe Asus's ROG very latest one does all that).
Im not going to take 1. too serious And I dont think you got me right regarding number two. I mean that the newly released nVidia cards will get cheaper when the AMD ones are better. Because than AMD would again offer better price to performance so nVidia had to drop their prices in order to be competitive. And if AMD screws it up (or we have the same thing as with the 290, so only one year later the drivers allow the card to perform equally to nVidias GPUs) the nVidia card wont get more expensive. So theres a chance of getting a new Pascal card cheaper when AMDs new cards are good.
It's more about the lack of competition nowadays, and other factors, and you usually have to hit a certain window in time if you want to get a card very cheap. They don't gradually decline in price over time. It also varies a lot between different vendors. see price histories at geizhals.eu for example
I would like to throw out there that since I got my GTX970 (June 2015), the full VRAM has been reporting in every tool I have to look at my GPU as full - not partitioned, as the article references. It is an EVGA SSC that I picked up on sale back around the Witcher 3s release - it came with the Witcher, Batman Arkham Knight (which ended up giving me ALL Batman titles in the series as compensation for its ****** PC launch - not bad for a freebie with a GPU), Backplate, and at the time all the EVGA cards were on discount to be the same price as the reference with the exception of their "FTW" and "Above" factory "select" ones.
The card has and always had full 4GB physical memory, the issue is a different one in how the VRAM is handled. Usually it should be just fine though. I was rather referring to 4GB in general, since my card has 3 and for me it doesn't make much sense to just go just 1GB up right now. Waiting for cards that can handle highres and can make actual use of 4+GB.
This is a good point - (arguably) more important than high refresh rates is the ability to refresh at lower rates (lower than 60hz) when needed ie. when things get busy. If you play with v-sync off, you get these lower rates but you'll also see 'tearing' on screen where one part of the screen shows the new frame, the other part shows the old. Nvidia G-Sync and AMD Freesync achieve just that but guess what - they're NOT compatible. So you should ideally match a graphics card manufacturer with the display technology - which starts to get very expensive. Of course, you could just stick to the 'older' technology fixed refresh rates and it's no longer an issue - but then, you're stuck with screen tearing or stuttering when there's so much on the screen that the graphics card hasn't had time to build the new frame on time. I personally think you can get the ideal right now - ACER and ASUS have high refresh rate, G-Sync 4k IPS panels but with a suitably powerful card (and PC for that matter), that's an awful lot of wonga
ive been running a gtx 670 4gb for the last year or so for ps2. I have 2 gtx 670 4gb cards installed. SLI performance is actually worse for me regardless of settings, ive tried every guide out there, I couldnt get rid of the hitching, so I run with SLI disabled for planetside 2, suffice to say I would reccomend against getting another card and trying for SLI in ps2, your money would be better spent on the best single card solution you can afford imo.
Whelp boyoes, I got me a GTX 970 today, we gonna see how good of a performance boost we get. I literally have like an inch of space between the edge of my hard drive compartment and my GPU. Dat tite fit thou
Since the OP got his card. We can go a little off topic. If you're looking at running 3840x2160 (4k) remember you pretty much need to stick to the Nvidia GTX 900 series. For some damned reason ATI Radeon decided to allow 4k, but didn't think about the ports on the card to support it. The consequence is they can only run 4k at 30Hz instead of 60Hz. This should change when ATI releases new GPU's later this year. Just do your research before you buy one. If you're into the 4k resolution thing.
