gtx 970 4gb VS 1060 3gb

[Bizzman]

which shall i buy? 10 pounds difference in price, any suggestions?

[gojo satoryu]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von kRYSTAL:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ⇋๖ۣۜTʜᴇ01xвᴏxᴇʀ:

The GTX 1060 is equivalent to a GTX980 but its not worth with only 3gb as it won't be able to use its full potential, also, the GTX970 only has 3.5gb of real VRAM.

i saw benchmarks of COD WW2 with 970 and it uses whole 4gb of vram and no stuttering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shw2Q62XICo

cod ww2 is another blurry gamewhere all you do is shoot and it is not optimized at all, test normal games

[testicular torsion victim]

If the GPU prices go down, I'd save a little more money for an RX 580.

[DID YOU PRAY TODAY]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Unknown Soldier:

If the GPU prices go down, I'd save a little more money for an RX 580.

Ah ethernum and Zcash showed up so i don't think prices are going down at all until 2018, october or 2019 january.

[lecxeP]

In here we pay like 600 to 700 for a GTX 1070, i hate my life

[DID YOU PRAY TODAY]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Motilless:

In here we pay like 600 to 700 for a GTX 1070, i hate my life

Aahah same unluckily :(

[EcksGamer]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ogami:

The GTX 1060 is slightly more powerful then the GTX 970 but 3 GB VRAM is really low, especially for modern games. A lot of newer games have 4GB VRAM as a minimm requirement with 6-8 GB VRAM for higher settings. High Resolution Texture streaming needs a LOT of VRAM.
The 1060 GTX exists in a 6 GB VRAM variety. If that one is not much more expensive i would recommend that one. If its too expensive then go for the GTX 970, its still a very nice card.
Using it myself for the past 2 years.

i know what you posted here is old but the one thing you forget about the GTX 970 is that it actually shows you 3.5GB of Vram.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Nice old thread ...

GTX 1060 3 GB.

1060 is faster than 970 and the 970 only have 3.5 GB of fast RAM so the VRAM is pretty much the same size. The GTX 1060 6 GB is a better card though but if one have money limits it is what it is. 1060 6 GB is a better buy but _NOW_ both are very old cards but back then the thread was started they weren't and the 970 should had been avoided.

The 10 series also offer newer HDMI and DisplayPort standards, new delta color compression, 10 and 12 bit HEVC as well as VP9 video decoding, HDCP 2.2 4K DRM support, HEVC main10 video encoding, simultanous multi-projection, better asynchronous compute support, fast sync, instruction-level preemption and new cuda compute capability.

So GTX 1060 3 GB was the correct answer.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

The GTX970 performs better and the GTX1060 is not meant to supercede it in terms of upgrades.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ecks­™:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ogami:

The GTX 1060 is slightly more powerful then the GTX 970 but 3 GB VRAM is really low, especially for modern games. A lot of newer games have 4GB VRAM as a minimm requirement with 6-8 GB VRAM for higher settings. High Resolution Texture streaming needs a LOT of VRAM.
The 1060 GTX exists in a 6 GB VRAM variety. If that one is not much more expensive i would recommend that one. If its too expensive then go for the GTX 970, its still a very nice card.
Using it myself for the past 2 years.

i know what you posted here is old but the one thing you forget about the GTX 970 is that it actually shows you 3.5GB of Vram.

4096 Megabytes is 4GB and I happen to own a GTX970. And no the RAM clock of the "missing" 512MB is merely "slower" due to placement on the board.

https://imgur.com/a/0EY7fDh?desktop=1

[John Doe]

The 970 only had 3.5gb of vRAM available across the board because of the way Nvidia designed the GPU, even though it was marketed as a 4GB GPU. Seems like you aren't aware of what you're using.

Coming back to 1060 3gb vs 970, I'd take the 1060 any day. More efficient, newer tech. 500mb of vRAM difference isn't much. You can fine tune the 1060 to not run out of vRAM. It's an OK card for 1080p, not as bad as people make it out to be, because they try to run a load of crap that consume vRAM on it.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The Spoopy Kitteh:

The GTX970 performs better and the GTX1060 is not meant to supercede it in terms of upgrades.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Ecks­™:

i know what you posted here is old but the one thing you forget about the GTX 970 is that it actually shows you 3.5GB of Vram.

4096 Megabytes is 4GB and I happen to own a GTX970. And no the RAM clock of the "missing" 512MB is merely "slower" due to placement on the board.

https://imgur.com/a/0EY7fDh?desktop=1

It's 1/7 or 1/8 as fast which is pretty significant.

And no the GTX 970 isn't faster:
https://youtu.be/9JAjRJjvq-Q?t=51s
https://youtu.be/w7LIENYNZI8?t=32s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvAuRLY2jQ
But the difference isn't large. GTX 1060 3 GB was more modern anyway. But the thread is one year old.

[_I_]

the 1060 3g is weaker than the 6g variant, not just because of missng ram, but disabled cores and tmus

http://www.hwcompare.com/31385/geforce-gtx-1060-vs-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb/
Unified Shaders: 1280 vs 1152
Texture Mapping Units: 80 vs 72

the 970 is closer to the 3g ver of the 1060

the 1060 is liighter on power and a newer gen gpu

if you have the 970 and its working fine, its not worth the upgrade to a 1060 3g

the 512mb of 'slow' ram on the 970 is a non issue, its still alot faster than system ram, and only used when the 3.5g of 'fast' ram is full

[Sapph]

970 has 4Gb of VRAM...the 512Mb portion just has quite hugely cut-down bandwidth. It doesn't make it unusable and most of the time, it doesnt make any difference in performance.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Sapph:

970 has 4Gb of VRAM...the 512Mb portion just has quite hugely cut-down bandwidth. It doesn't make it unusable and most of the time, it doesnt make any difference in performance.

Won't make a difference unless you can hit 750 frames per second. So it's definitely a non-issue.

Warning...old fart's computer timing math ahead:

(1/8x60)x100=750

The idea being that 1/8 of a second delay for the 512MB portion to be used is 1 second divided by 60 frames at a time per one second.

Thus 60Hz monitor at 750 frames a second. It's even higher of a frame rate to be noticed for 144Hz monitors.

[Aliquis Freedom & Ethnopluralism]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Sapph:

970 has 4Gb of VRAM...the 512Mb portion just has quite hugely cut-down bandwidth. It doesn't make it unusable and most of the time, it doesnt make any difference in performance.

I'd assume it make lots of difference in performance but just that either that much VRAM isn't needed / the driver prefer to not use it anyway or it's used but for less important stuff as in where normal RAM would work too.

Of course as long as you just use 0-3.5 GB VRAM it's all fine.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The Spoopy Kitteh:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Sapph:

970 has 4Gb of VRAM...the 512Mb portion just has quite hugely cut-down bandwidth. It doesn't make it unusable and most of the time, it doesnt make any difference in performance.

Won't make a difference unless you can hit 750 frames per second. So it's definitely a non-issue.

Warning...old fart's computer timing math ahead:

(1/8x60)x100=750

The idea being that 1/8 of a second delay for the 512MB portion to be used is 1 second divided by 60 frames at a time per one second.

Thus 60Hz monitor at 750 frames a second. It's even higher of a frame rate to be noticed for 144Hz monitors.

I don't understand what you are supposed to calculate there.

I have no idea where you got 1/8 of a second delay from and what you are trying to calculate.