Five Years Later: Revisiting the GeForce GTX 970

[LNCPapa]

That wasn't an oops at all - it was a preemptive response to all the folks who like to mention that the AMD cards age better. I'll be the first to admit that over time performance increases at a greater delta on the AMD side vs the nVidia side due to driver optimizations - it just takes too long to make a difference for when I've made my purchases.

Also, a flaw in your argument is that you are the only person here who supports AMD. I've owned many AMD GPUs and 2 of my main machines in my home have fairly recent AMD CPUs as well. I even ran Quadfire for a while but when it was time for me to do an upgrade AMD was unable to compete. Many of the people here who are currently riding the nVidia train have supported AMD in the past. I like nVidia because they've been able to deliver on the performance I want - not just because they are nVidia. When AMD delivers I like AMD more and they have done better in the past. Also, I'm not sure (as I've done no research on this) but I'm betting more regular consumers bought the R290X than the Titan of that time. The typical high-end gaming consumer was still purchasing x80 or x80Ti which would not have been twice the price of the R290X. When I buy I base it on the fastest/most optimal thing I can get for my set number of dollars when I'm ready to push the buy button.

Also, you mention that people don't want to support AMD when they need it. These last 2 generations of CPUs should prove that everyone here is perfectly willing to support AMD when they bring a good product. Sure, it's not the best for every purpose but nothing is. I have a Ryzen 2600 for my significant other's gaming and work machine and I have a Threadripper 1950X for my Plex and Virtualization server. For the amount of money I was willing to spend when I wanted/needed to spend it these were the best chips to get.

I think the use of the word fanboi/fanboy is just a way to get people riled up here. There is definitely plenty of blind loyalty to companies who don't care about any of us as individuals, but people are fickle and minds are easily swayed. If AMD can drop a GPU with equivalent performance for a little less (YES, it has to be a little less because they are currently the underdog and you need to give people a reason to move away from what they already know works) then these same people will be singing AMD's praises. If that product is still pertinent at the time I'm going to make a purchase then I'll buy it. For now, I'll stick with my SLI 1080 Ti setup because I can't afford to pay nVidia's current RTX tax and even though I currently like nVidia more than AMD I think they are out of line with their current pricing.

 

[NightAntilli]

That wasn't an oops at all - it was a preemptive response to all the folks who like to mention that the AMD cards age better. I'll be the first to admit that over time performance increases at a greater delta on the AMD side vs the nVidia side due to driver optimizations - it just takes too long to make a difference for when I've made my purchases.

Fair enough. Just don't state that it's never used as a reason not to buy AMD cards... It's widely used for that...

Also, a flaw in your argument is that you are the only person here who supports AMD.

Appeal to majority. Next.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I've owned many AMD GPUs and 2 of my main machines in my home have fairly recent AMD CPUs as well. I even ran Quadfire for a while but when it was time for me to do an upgrade AMD was unable to compete. Many of the people here who are currently riding the nVidia train have supported AMD in the past.

Many people say that, yet, AMD's sales have never been on the level of nVidia even when AMD had the better product.

I like nVidia because they've been able to deliver on the performance I want - not just because they are nVidia. When AMD delivers I like AMD more and they have done better in the past. Also, I'm not sure (as I've done no research on this) but I'm betting more regular consumers bought the R290X than the Titan of that time. The typical high-end gaming consumer was still purchasing x80 or x80Ti which would not have been twice the price of the R290X. When I buy I base it on the fastest/most optimal thing I can get for my set number of dollars when I'm ready to push the buy button.

The masses don't buy AMD. Reviews need to be non-biased to have any hope of turning things around, and mostly, they aren't. I can say that they seem to be more fair now than a few years back. But people and reviews still give this impression that nVidia is miles ahead of AMD, while in reality, the only card that is truly out of reach at this point is the RTX 2080Ti, a card that barely anyone wants to buy because of the price... So... What's the big deal again?

Also, you mention that people don't want to support AMD when they need it. These last 2 generations of CPUs should prove that everyone here is perfectly willing to support AMD when they bring a good product. Sure, it's not the best for every purpose but nothing is. I have a Ryzen 2600 for my significant other's gaming and work machine and I have a Threadripper 1950X for my Plex and Virtualization server. For the amount of money I was willing to spend when I wanted/needed to spend it these were the best chips to get.

Look at what AMD released though. It's basically twice the threads (or more) at a similar or cheaper price. It worked also, because AMD rebranded everything. And also, while everyone is silent about it, AMD is more power efficient. Intel was justified in the past due to its power efficiency, yet we currently never hear anyone recommending Ryzen based on power efficiency. The bias has been corrected a bit but it's not completely gone. Regularly people post in forums in the Intel section asking for new builds, and when Ryzen is suggested, they are hesitant. At least it's a step in the right direction, where suggesting Ryzen doesn't immediately require a flameshield.

That's not true for the GPUs though. Maybe AMD needs to rebrand their GPUs, like they did Ryzen. But it has already been proven that getting the performance crown in GPUs does not put them on top. And neither has price/performance, which they're practically always better at. Case and point right now, RX 570 vs 1050Ti.

I think the use of the word fanboi/fanboy is just a way to get people riled up here. There is definitely plenty of blind loyalty to companies who don't care about any of us as individuals, but people are fickle and minds are easily swayed. If AMD can drop a GPU with equivalent performance for a little less (YES, it has to be a little less because they are currently the underdog and you need to give people a reason to move away from what they already know works) then these same people will be singing AMD's praises.

I do hope you're right, but at this point, I don't believe in this anymore.

If that product is still pertinent at the time I'm going to make a purchase then I'll buy it. For now, I'll stick with my SLI 1080 Ti setup because I can't afford to pay nVidia's current RTX tax and even though I currently like nVidia more than AMD I think they are out of line with their current pricing.

That's fair enough. At this point, I perfectly get why people go nVidia. Although, I still think the likes of Vega 56 were and still are undervalued within the game community. It's a perfectly viable card.

You know what also annoys me? In this review, Steve decided to compare the GTX 970 to its newer counterparts, the GTX 1060 and the RTX 2060, praising the improvements nVidia made. Did we see the same for the R9 290? No.
Additionally, the visit back to the R9 290 has no such thing. Not only is there no article here on Techspot for it, while the GTX 970 does have both a video on YouTube and an article on here. The R9 290 video has no indication of AMD's improvements, but compares the R9 290 to the RX 570 as if that's the best AMD can do. Why not compare it to a Vega as well? He does mention it at least, but, no comparison on performance and power improvements. Again. I'm not saying this is done on purpose to punish AMD or something. But, it is something that is basically free advertising for nVidia, while AMD, once again is neglected, for no real reason. This reinforces nVidia mind share. The effort for nVidia is willingly put in. For AMD? Not so much.

GTX 970 video:

R9 290 video:

Additionally, in 2015, the R9 390 and GTX 970 were compared. In 2017, again the R9 390 and the GTX 970 were compared;

Today in 2019, suddenly, the R9 390 is downgraded to the R9 290 for comparison with the GTX 970... WHY??? It's all a little odd for this article...

All these little snippets and details give the impression that the R9 290 was only benchmarked to make the GTX 970 look good. Good for clicks I guess...

 

[hahahanoobs]

I continue to see arguments focused on how higher VRAM density and bandwidth of AMD cards are a big selling point, completely ignoring how it's failed many times over when 4GB and 8GB variants are included in reviews - and a little something called compression.
https://www.slashgear.com/developing-nvidia-maxwell-the-cooler-bits-18346925/

NVIDIA beats AMD with "lower" specs often. AMD resorts to raising clocks in response. Just look at how poorly the 390 overclocks in the video posted above compared to the 970. Additionally, look how the 390 beats the 480 more times than not in the same video. That shouldn't happen.

 

[Gypsygib]

Still provides minimum 60FPS in everything at console settings, not bad for a GPU $70 cheaper than PS4/XONE at the time.

It was a solid upgrade.

 

[loki1944]

This would have made more sense with a more mainstream CPU. People who buy a 9900K are not typically going to be using a GTX 970.

 

[neeyik]

Possibly not a 9900K but something like a 9700K or 8700K, which is well within spitting distance of performing like the other model in games, could well be a possibility. I had a 4790K system with two GTX 970s in SLI and when it came to upgrade time, I had two choice: change the CPU, motherboard and RAM, but stick with the 970s or keep the CPU, etc and upgrade the GPUs. I went with the latter, changing to a 9700K setup a few years later. There could be some folks in a similar situation who went with the former, and have an 8700K system with a 970.

 

[trivial]

I love this article, and I still love my GTX 970 (running on an old-but-still-awesome i5-2500k system... I think I built the damned thing 8 years ago and I'm amazed at how capable it remains as a gaming PC, even at 4K sometimes).

Only with the release of The Outer Worlds + my desire to play modern games at 4K has me looking at upgrades (spoiler: tentatively looking at switching teams and getting a Radeon 5700 XT).

Thanks for taking the time to do this!