GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

Perfectly Functional GTX 970 Cards Being Returned Over Memory Controversy

Hitler Reacts to The GTX 970 Being 3.5 GB +

Thinking about buying a GTX 970:

You can't actually access all 4GB of VRAM without hitting a massive performance wall. The internet is flooded with this news, and over on the https://forums.geforce.com/default/t...-issue/geforce forums, there's a single thread spanning over 280 pages from users looking to demand refunds.

Here’s a video on how Nvidia screwed over their customers (via PC Expert):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spZJ...yt-cl=85114404

Look, man, this is pretty much an "old news" topic at this point—anyone rocking those specific cards already knows the deal. I mean, when are you actually going to need more than 3.5 GB of VRAM anyway? Maybe if you're pushing 4K, but let's be real—even a GTX 980, which is definitely more powerful, isn't really built for that kind of resolution. Honestly, most of the hardware hitting the market right now just can't handle playing at those ultra-high resolutions while maintaining a decent FPS.

Ultimately, those 3.5GB limits aren't actually a dealbreaker (at least for now) click.

The real issue here is that they lied about the specs—and not just regarding the VRAM. They’ve seriously damaged their reputation and lost the trust of a huge portion of their fanbase, which is a much bigger problem than any hardware limitation.

That’s a whole different story, honestly—it feels like every time a new generation of graphics cards hits the market, everyone starts complaining about whether they actually got the amount of VRAM promised 😁 especially when it comes to the folks over at AMD.

Larry Ortiz5 said:Look, man, this is an "old news" topic at this point. Anyone running those specific cards already knows the deal. I mean, what games are you even going to run with 3.5 GB+ anyway? Maybe at 4K? But even the GTX 980, which is actually better, isn't built for resolutions like that. Honestly, most hardware on the market right now can barely handle playing at that resolution with decent FPS..

The real issue isn't just how things run today; it's about how they'll handle games a year from now when VRAM demands start spiking. We’re already seeing titles that push past 4GB of VRAM even at 1080p. You have to look ahead—you don't buy a card to use it for five months; you buy it to last at least two years. You've gotta consider the future and think long-term.

So, which game is actually going to push 4 GB of VRAM at Full HD resolution?

From what I’ve heard, you need Shadow of Mordor and Far Cry 4 to actually hit those specs, but honestly, most people using cards like this are just running a 3 or 4-monitor setup at 1080p. In that case, you definitely need that 4GB VRAM.

I ran Far Cry 4 without any issues at all. Honestly, if you're trying to run three or four monitors, two GTX 980s wouldn't even cut it—so a single GTX 970 doesn't stand a chance.

Here is what one buddy of mine had to say after someone asked him if he’d actually benchmarked his GTX 970, specifically which games and resolutions would actually force it to swallow that 3.5GB of VRAM.

I was actually messing around with some pretty ridiculous settings just to see—basically, you have to use DSR to crank the resolution up to 4K, and then you've got to pile on 8x MSAA, which is just totally overkill. Of course, your FPS ends up being garbage... we're talking single digits here. But trust me, even SLI or CrossFire couldn't push that to a playable level, so it really doesn't make much sense. We're talking about Far Cry 4, after all; it's actually quite playable with everything set to Ultra at 4K without AA. On my rig, it hits about 25-30 FPS and uses roughly 3.6-3.8GB of VRAM without any microstuttering. Personally, though, I find the HUD way too small when using 4K DSR, and I’d much rather play at a smooth 60 FPS than struggle at 30.
The bottom line is that a card will usually run out of raw processing power before it runs out of VRAM. Take Dragon Age: Inquisition, for example—everything on max, 2xMSAA at 1080p with Vsync ON, and it runs at a perfectly smooth 60 FPS while only using "a mere" 2.2-2.5GB of VRAM.
I actually suspect that Frostbite engine games might be better optimized for AMD.

Check this out http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/bat...6x2160%29.html

I've got a pretty solid deal on a Sapphire R9 280 x dual-x sitting in front of me... what do you guys think, is it worth it? It's still got about a year of warranty left on it, too. My setup is running an FX 8350 paired with a CX 500 power supply. I know, I know—that PSU isn't exactly top-tier or anything, but I guess it might hold up for a few more months with this card?

Kenneth Jackson3 said:I've got a decent offer on an AMD Radeon R9 280 X series, thoughts? It still has a year left on the warranty. Running an FX 8350 with a CX 500 power supply. I know the PSU isn't exactly top-tier, but do you think it could handle this card for a few more months?

What's the price tag?
The PSU should hold up just fine!

1000-$400

EDIT: never mind, someone snatched it up while I was still overthinking things... :/

It’s a shame; that’s a fantastic number.

Kenneth Jackson3 said:1000-$400

EDIT: never mind, it sold while I was overthinking it :/

If you're still looking, check out this and maybe try to talk them down to $33

You could also try getting a deal on $33

Sean Garcia3 said:From what I hear, people use cards like that just to run three or four 1080p monitors at once. In that case, you're definitely gonna need 4GB of VRAM.

If we're talking about a triple monitor setup, it isn't just FHD 1920 x1080 anymore. You're looking at 5760x1080 total resolution. Of course it's going to eat up more than 3.5 GB of VRAM.

Do a little homework before you start acting tough.

Robert Rodriguez2 said:if you're running a triple HD monitor setup, it’s not just FHD 1920 x1080 (single monitor) anymore—it’s 5760x1080. obviously, it’s gonna eat up more than 3.5 GB of VRAM

maybe do a little homework before you start acting like you know everything.

Look, I didn't even say that. I just said people tend to hook up multiple 1080p monitors when they have high-end graphics cards. No need to get all worked up over nothing.

Honestly, it feels pretty awkward watching everyone on this forum jump down his throat to correct him or disagree with his answers—which, let’s be real, happens a huge amount of the time here. After I pointed out to him that he wasn't talking about a single monitor but several, and that it's perfectly normal to use more than 3.5GB of RAM, he just dropped that link for Battlefield 4. When you actually look at it, the resolution is 4096*2160 and it pulls 5.1 GB of VRAM. Then he has the nerve to tell me that Shadow of Mordor uses more than 3.5GB at FHD 1920 x1080... I mean, how is that even possible? If it's doing that at 1080p, how is it supposed to run at 4K? Is it just going to eat up 50 gigs of VRAM or something? You're just giving people the wrong information 😵

Sean Garcia3 said:Look, I didn't say that. I just said people hook up multiple 1080p monitors when they have high-end cards. Stop acting all sensitive over nothing.

🤦

Hey, I'm planning on picking up this PC tomorrow Right now, my current rig is basically just for browsing the web and playing some older titles like Rome: Total War, Call of Duty 2, and Napoleon: Total War. Do you think this integrated graphics card can actually handle those, or am I wasting my time? Is it even worth pulling the trigger on a new motherboard and a dedicated GPU at the same time?