The December Steam hardware survey shows that the GeForce GTX 970 is now the most popular GPU

[gtx680resilient]

3.5gb of Vram is more than enough for 1080p because my 2gb GTX 680 handles triple 1280x1024 at 3840x1024 in Arma 3. I don't understand why people thought it was such a bad thing especially with just 1080p. Even in GTA V I told the criminal simulator to ignore my Vram limits and it doesnt affect anything! 2gb is fine in that too for my higher than 1080p resolution. However my next card will be a Pascal beast or maybe even a GTX 980ti when the price drops and I will get a 3440x1440 monitor and run it at its max refresh rate probably 60fps but hopefully 75fps like my triples even though I dont get 75 now in GTA V or Arma 3 but its still super smooth. Iracing, Assetto Corsa, and BF games get 75 now with tweaked high ultra settings. Even if I dont get an ultra wide it would be nice to see my triples at 75fps solid in Arma3. I must say though that if you want a cheap immersive experience then hunt down 3 dvi 1280x1024 monitors used and call it a day. I got all three of mine for 45 bucks but I did have to buy a couple video cables at the same price I paid for the monitors a piece lol.

 

[BMfan]

All the graphs show is that in a few years time we will only be able to choose an Nvidia gpu and an Intel cpu.
The only competition will be which vendor.

Does anyone know if Nvidia received a boost in sales after Project Cars and Witcher 3?

 

[transerv]

I bought the 970 for my 52 Plasma Fantastic card But now with the Newer cards end of 2016 I will also wait for the new D12 4K cards there suppose to be Very Fast a Titan X for half price. Saving up I have the 4K but need either 2 980TI or a Titan X so You tube testers say for Ultra 4K.

 

[gtx680resilient]

Why do we care what size monitors yall are running? Just tell us the resolution and refresh rate which are all that matters

 

[Fluffmeister]

Loooove my GTX 970... fast, efficient, cool and quiet.

No wonder it's sold like hot cakes.

 

[fimbles]

Very impressed with the little 4gb 960 I bought for my son at xmas.

Manages to push most modern games along at a nice 45 to 60 fps at 1080p high graphics presets.
Awesome bang for buck.

 

[Reehahs]

Apparently Intel HD4000 took the lead again, or am I missing something here?

http://I.imgur.com/IsQ7Lsh.png

It is all the poor souls are stuck with internal graphics only unless the survey was done in dual graphic laptops where only the IGP was taken into the account for.

 

[gingerbill]

So ridiculous. There isn't an issue with DX12 performance and the GTX 970 makes out fine with 3.5GB of VRAM, it would be more useless to load it up with an 8GB buffer and charge $100 more.

For 1080p gaming the GTX 970 delivers the best bang for your buck, especially with lower end processors and I assume this is why it is the most popular graphics card.

That said the Radeon R9 390 is really just as good at the same price so you could go either way and get much the same result.

Wow there's no need to bite.

I don't recall ever talking about DX12 performance. We're almost 90% certain that a 970 won't cut it for star citizen.

The "3.5" was a joke, and apparently you bit hard. As for what you said, it was supposed to be a 1440p card. And let me tell me you 3.5gb at 1440p (maybe even 1080p) won't be enough vram for SC. For other 2016 games, it might not be enough.

Next time, don't bite so easily. Youre on the internet.

you weren't joking you were trying to be a smart arse and ended up looking silly.

Doesn't surprise me the 970 is very popular , definitely a great card taking into account cost and performance.

 

[NightAntilli]

I would never buy this card on principle.

 

[mosu]

This site looks more and more like a marketing channel for Nvidia products.What's next, housewives taking the floor praising Nvidia?!! Come on, guys!

 

[Steve]

This site looks more and more like a marketing channel for Nvidia products.What's next, housewives taking the floor praising Nvidia?!! Come on, guys!

And yet we picked Nvidia for the primary choice in just 2 of 6 possible GPU categories in our last GPU article...
https://www.techspot.com/review/1075-best-graphics-cards-2015/page7.html

Not just that but we often openly criticize Nvidia for GameWorks and other shady things...
https://www.techspot.com/review/1000-project-cars-benchmarks/page6.html

Seems like a pretty out of line comment to me.

 

[dividebyzero]

Seems like a pretty out of line comment to me.

Unfortunately, it is actually very much in line with mosu's M.O. He's good for a laugh though - I always enjoy watching guerrilla marketeers accusing others of bias. Self awareness be damned!

Using Nvidia hardware it's doomed to fail...because nothing connected to green team is open source.

I will never buy Nvidia, only AMD. Also never buy Apple products.

Simply Red, I don't like green.

 

[treetops]

I got lucky and gambled on a used 970 g1 gaming for 250$ off ebay. Running strong 4 months in. However it just would not slide in with the back plate, had to take it off, only the plastic clip is holding it in.

 

[darkzelda]

I have a GTX 970, but to be honest, I'm not really impressed at all by this card, I hope I can change this card when the new AMD's cards are released.

 

[Namtrooper]

Wow there's no need to bite.

I don't recall ever talking about DX12 performance. We're almost 90% certain that a 970 won't cut it for star citizen.

The "3.5" was a joke, and apparently you bit hard. As for what you said, it was supposed to be a 1440p card. And let me tell me you 3.5gb at 1440p (maybe even 1080p) won't be enough vram for SC. For other 2016 games, it might not be enough.

Next time, don't bite so easily. Youre on the internet.

Sorry it seemed like a ridiculous thing so say. I didn't realize you were joking, I missed the punch line.

On that note if the GTX 970 can't play SC then rest assured that most current GPU's wont be able to either.

In any case scaling down the detail a bit should make SC playable on a 970.
Which will most likely be what I do with my 970 until I replace it in a few years.
I try and keep a 5 year gap between cards as they are not exactly cheap nowadays.
At the same time I might consider moving from 1080P.

 

[robb213]

Overall I've been happy with my 2, but had I known about the memory debacle I'd probably just waited and got two 980s. But that's my fault for being an early adopter. So far only 2 games have given me problems when exceeding 3.5GB: Dying Light and Fallout 4. The former, which at high is just caching textures causes very sporadic performance. The latter only goes as high in cities, and I can't say if it's the VRAM because even people with 980 Ti's and Fury X's are struggling there too.

Wow there's no need to bite.

I don't recall ever talking about DX12 performance. We're almost 90% certain that a 970 won't cut it for star citizen.

The "3.5" was a joke, and apparently you bit hard. As for what you said, it was supposed to be a 1440p card. And let me tell me you 3.5gb at 1440p (maybe even 1080p) won't be enough vram for SC. For other 2016 games, it might not be enough.

Next time, don't bite so easily. Youre on the internet.

Sorry it seemed like a ridiculous thing so say. I didn't realize you were joking, I missed the punch line.

On that note if the GTX 970 can't play SC then rest assured that most current GPU's wont be able to either.

In any case scaling down the detail a bit should make SC playable on a 970.
Which will most likely be what I do with my 970 until I replace it in a few years.
I try and keep a 5 year gap between cards as they are not exactly cheap nowadays.
At the same time I might consider moving from 1080P.

You and me are the minority

Been really thinking about jumping up to 1440P. Surprised it never really took off when it's sorta the next stepping stone before 2160P. And I usually wait off a full architectural leap to buy a new card, which usually seems to be around 5 years too.

 

[TechSam]

Anybody else concered about dx8 or below cards increasing??

 

[Mister_K]

Welp, that's a lot of people that can't play Star Citizen then...

By the time Star Citizen rolls out, the GTX 970 will be the current equivalent of a lower midrange card anyway - it will be at least one full architectural generation and 2+ years old. Nobody today expects the current equivalent ( GTX 760/HD 6950) to be holding its own any more than that of previous generational changes.
People with new Pascal/Arctic Islands cards will probably still be waiting for the finished game.....and at the rate of its development the same might be said for Volta and whatever Islands code names AMD comes up with after Arctic/Polaris arch

2017/2018 is a very safe bet.

 

[Emexrulsier]

I have generally always gone for the x70 GTX range of cards. This was normally the good performance vs cost card. The x80 cards always felt too expensive in relation to the x70s and I couldn't really justify. I am only using a 980ti now cause I won it but I doubt I would have ever bought one.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]...The "3.5" was a joke, and apparently you bit hard. As for what you said, it was supposed to be a 1440p card. And let me tell me you 3.5gb at 1440p (maybe even 1080p) won't be enough vram for SC. For other 2016 games, it might not be enough.

So I take it, "but will it run Star Citizen", will be the really annoying internet meme which is destined to replace, "but will it run Crysis, in our hearts, minds, and vomit trails.

Next time, don't bite so easily. Youre on the internet.

Dude, at 50 posts, you really don't get to tell us how to act.

Oh, and before I forget, stuff an apostrophe up "youre" where it belongs.

 

[red1776]

Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, Steams survey is notoriously inaccurate. It frequently misses and misidentifies what is in a system on a regular basis. (and this is from responses from steam reps who I pointed this out to.) May be even more 970's out there, but I would not take it as gospel. I also believe the adoption of 4k is much higher than their survey indicates.

 

[Daithi]

I don't know how I feel about my 970. It met my expectations and did pretty much everything I wanted it to, but I can't help feeling cheated. Nvidia's ridiculous excuse about miscommunications or some nonsense only rubbed salt in the wounds. They knew what they were doing and they were laughing all the way to the bank.

The controversy has been the worst of it though, the complete and utter technological illiteracy on display was something else. *****s judging their vram allocation by the estimate thingy in GTAV, or prople going on about how "serious" the issue was by running stupidly resource hungry games like watch dogs at 4k with 4xMSAA, or people thinking 4gb is precisely the cutoff point for resolutions above 1080p regardless of anything else has not been good for my blood pressure.

 

[robb213]

Anybody else concered about dx8 or below cards increasing??

Aside from likely inaccuracies, it could be someone turning on an old computer that has Steam on it. Also, it could be an extra card someone had that they put into an HTPC they've been wanting to do for awhile. I'd bet the latter is likely since aside from x265 HVEC decryption, a strong GPU really isn't needed.

 

[Forebode]

I would never buy this card on principle.

and that is... ?

 

[fps4ever]

Anybody else concerned about dx8 or below cards increasing??

No kidding...I was going to post that, good call! Back to 3DMark2001...