GeForce GTX 970  vs 960 

I call BS. You claim to be able to play a DirectX 11 game with a graphics card that doesn't meet the recommended requirements. Even if they are crossfire, they don't double the performance of a single GPU, at most it would be about 65% of the combined processing power. even if you have the newest intel I7 processor with a ridiculous amount of ram, you are looking at about 40-50 fps, maybe. one card alone playing Civilization 5 on maximum settings gets about 30 fps. And Civ is one of the least graphically demanding DirectX11 titles out there. Do the math people...

Yeah, I retired them cards, still great cards for how old they are, But you have to remember then 650ti is so much newer, so its gonna do better in DX11 games. I got 2x 780ti's now, BF4 locked at 144 fps it never moves at 1080p.

You must be playing on 800x600 res with 25% res scale. nice to see that 8800 ultra doing well...

Really?

I have two 970's in SLI. No issues other than after every driver update I have to re-enable SLI in the NVidia panel. I generally miss my AMD cards though. I just like AMD better.

Well, the current gens have Nvidia beating AMD in both gaming performance and far, far, far better TDP. Don't get me wrong, I don't care what side whoever is on, I even have AMD shirts from all my previous AMD purchases, but you should know that these things go in rounds, and right now, the AMD's are heat-making beasts with little performance to show for it. Not that long ago, Nvidia was in the same boat, I'm getting a 970 to replace my 480, that thing is basically a space heater (still has great performance, but it literally raises the temperature of the entire room by several degrees when running). Of course what matters the most is the price/performance ratio, which currently AMD is also lacking in, unless you get a steal of a deal on a card. The 290 is lacking in almost all benchmarks to the 970, and the 970 can be SLI'd much easier (since there's far less heat and energy consumed) vs the 290.

Yeah totally. I wasn't running MSAA but 1080p averaging 50-60 fps mang.

English please.

Yeah, totally. Maxed at 1080p with 60 fps?

It actually has 4 GB of VRAM, it just that the last 0.5 GB of VRAM is extremely slow. Also a 970 is good choice. :D

All 970's have the same architecture which blocks some of the VRAM so in fact whichever 970 you may buy which includes all custom cards and reference cards (of course) will have that problem of 3.5 GB of fast memory and 0.5 GB of slow memory.

amd sucks my 8800 ultry doing it better and its older more 2-3 years than your suck amd

2GB of vram is ok for 1080p, though their are games they will easily pass up the 2GB limit at just 1080p, why to many to mention, Vram may not have been a huge factor back then, but as we go on, we are already seeing that 4GB is being pushed at even 1080p to max things out. I personally would recommend more then 4GB for 4k gaming for any decent setting in moist triple A titles.

Sorry it won't let me edit my post, probably because im a guest, I meant to say it Wouldn't bottleneck.

The A10 6800k would bottleneck a single GTX 970, you will see full utilization in most titles at 1440p, but 1080p the 970 is a bit overkill for a lot of games. Keep in mind AMD's APU will bottleneck in certain games. Though don't expect to stream and be able to max out games or you would peg the CPU out, The i7 6700k is a good CPU, and is much much newer then AMD's APU cores that are just plain outdated by todays standards.

In all honesty, as long as the cards don't need a separate PSU, I don't think they should care for their higher end cards as long at temps can stay within reason. As a gamer and a overclocker I'm not looking to save every ounce of power, if I did I would be with a lower end CPU and certainly not with power hungry 780ti's.

The only times 2GB on my EVGA 650 ti BOOST 2GB hasn't been enough is when the game/application has mishandled the memory via a memory leak that causes FPS drop which will eventually lead to a CTD. World of Tanks and Wargaming I am looking at you. FR can you guys not get your game to work an Nvidia cards? I swear every other patch it happens.

Yeah VRAM really isn't a huge factor on GPU's anyways. 2GB has been more than enough for 1080p for a long time. My EVGA 650 ti BOOST 2GB was an absolute beast when it came to performance per dollar. It had clock speeds that match what the 970's, but was lacking in other areas obviously. 4GB is really only needed for 4k and with all the 970 issues I think I'll just go with a 960 4GB, and just OC it.

RIP. My EVGA GTX 650 ti BOOST 2GB can run GTA maxed on FXAA @ 1080p and still get 60 fps. Back when EVGA cards were good, I hear the EVGA 970 is shit so I'm going with MSI for this one.

Bruh my EVGA GTX 650 ti BOOST 2GB can play BF4 on all high with FXAA @ 1080p over 60 fps. It can also run GTA similarly well. DirectX games usually run DirectX games extremely well. Especially triple A titles that are well optimized. Still going to upgrade to an MSI GTX 970 G4 here soon. Gotta go fast.

"Back in the day when people had their own thoughts..." When was this mythical time? 1938? 1970? 1992? 0AD?

who cares about 3.5 gb. just dont go above it and ur fine.

I find it useful for memory-hungry applications like Photoshop that make use of not only the extra processing power of the GPU for rendering and redraws, but can also be configured to use up to the entire VRAM pool.

the fanboyism going on down below the comments gave me AIDS

CrossFire R9 390 = 16GBS... nvidia sucks