Any GTX 970 owners?

[bogani 756]

Admin can move the thread if needs be. I'm thinking abandoning my R9 280x for a GTX 970 to get stutter free RX. My card goes below 60 fps on the gravel parts. You guys that own 970's, do you have any drops below 60 maxed out?

[couger1981 89]

These two guys are Nvidia fanboys so you can ask them ;) @RevolvingPrawn @Hughesy 

[DocStrangelove 165]

I have one. Maxed out, it can occasionally dip below 60fps on the rally tracks, and will go below in rallycross. To have rock-solid 60fps, you'll need to turn down a few settings. The main reason for that seems to be some optimisation issues though, I hope it'll get fixed in a future update.

edit: I assume we're talking about 1080p here.

edit 2: also depends on some other things like your CPU obviously. I have an old (but still not bad) i5 750.

[TanHammer 0]

I have a 970 with an i5 4460 and I can't run every setting maxed out and stay above 60 frames, I have a few things like crowds and trees turned down a bit to keep above 60 but most are set to ultra.

[789ifyz 0]

I had problems when the first Rallycross update came out: every time I'd crash or use interior camera, I'd have HUGE FPS drops.

But after the expansion update, the performance has been very smooth. Not a solid 60, but very little fluctuation - usually stays 50-60 with occasional drops to about 47.

I do get VERY rare drops to about 15 fps, which brings some stuttering with it, but usually the game runs smoothly on all modes for me.

My card's the Twin Frozr V version by MSI. Not sure if that makes much of a difference, since it's essesntially the same card as any other 970.

I think they slightly overclocked it, and I have heard this card overclocks like crazy, if you want to try pushing it further. Apparently, it'll outperform the 980, if you know what you're doing... I'm personally too scared to try something like that.

Hope this helps.

[bogani 756]

Hmm, ok. I do run most settings on Ultra atm and the rally stages are generally above 60 all the time. The RX struggles on the gravel parts where there is alot of dust. I find ground cover combined with particles the biggest fps hog. If I turn one of those off I'll get solid 60fps.

Maybe it's not worth upgrading. I actually thought a 970 could handle 60.

Thanks guys :)

[dgeesi0 305]

not worth upgrading a 7950/7970/280x is twice as slow as a 970 gtx. i know i have both at side of me :p

[TanHammer 0]

Maybe its my i5 bottle necking but I would have my doubts you would see any major difference, I definitely cannot run all settings at Ultra and get a constant 60, certainly not with weather effects and dust effects in RX.

[DocStrangelove 165]

To put it another way, I upgraded from an ancient 560 ti to a 970, and it boosted DR framerates by some 30-40%, very little compared to other games. But CPU and GPU usage are far from 100%. I still believe these are technical issues to be resolved in future updates.

[Woozie77 0]

I'm running a GTX970 on a i7 4790k and get solid 60fps on ultra settings at all Rally stages. In RX it sometimes drops down to 53-55 but that barely noticeable.

But thats all with 'advanced blending' off, as it eats up to 50% FPS 

[bogani 756]

dgeesi0 said:

not worth upgrading a 7950/7970/280x is twice as slow as a 970 gtx. i know i have both at side of me :p

So it's not worth upgrading or what are you saying? I doubt that performance will be twice as good on Dirt Rally though. 

When the frames drop under 60 in RX the GPU load is still around 65% and 65 degrees celsius. I doubt that my CPU is the bad guy? I'm no computer wiz though :)

[bogani 756]

Woozie77 said:

I'm running a GTX970 on a i7 4790k and get solid 60fps on ultra settings at all Rally stages. In RX it sometimes drops down to 53-55 but that barely noticeable.

But thats all with 'advanced blending' off, as it eats up to 50% FPS 

Yes I'm not counting advanced blending as it's off by default on ultra.

[DocStrangelove 165]

bogani said:

When the frames drop under 60 in RX the GPU load is still around 65% and 65 degrees celsius. I doubt that my CPU is the bad guy? I'm no computer wiz though :)

According to MSI Afterburner, my CPU load never exceeds 70%, and I have the old i5 750. If I crank up the settings, GPU load can increase to over 90%, but on those weird occasions with hefty stuttering, neither of them goes beyond 70%. There has to be some software issue.

[OzoreXS 0]

Flawless run with my specs...
Cant be better

[bogani 756]

OzoreXS said:

Flawless run with my specs...
Cant be better

No dips below 60fps on the RX gravel parts? That's where I have some trouble with my current specs. 

[cjl9 12]

Runs perfectly, though I don't do RX. Only setting not ultra is "Advanced Blending" set to "Off"

[789ifyz 0]

@DocStrangelove , it just so happens that I also upgraded from an ancient GTX 560 Ti, back in \mid-July. That was an EVGA 1GB version.

[dgeesi0 305]

bogani said:

dgeesi0 said:

not worth upgrading a 7950/7970/280x is twice as slow as a 970 gtx. i know i have both at side of me :p

So it's not worth upgrading or what are you saying? I doubt that performance will be twice as good on Dirt Rally though. 

When the frames drop under 60 in RX the GPU load is still around 65% and 65 degrees celsius. I doubt that my CPU is the bad guy? I'm no computer wiz though :)

the 970 gtx is 2x as fast as your card.

[JZStudios 631]

Not sure how much it matters, but I've got a 960 and an AMD FX 8350 about maxed out and I get pretty smooth framerate. Average around 55, then again I don't care if I play at 30-40 fps.

[bogani 756]

dgeesi0 said:

bogani said:

dgeesi0 said:

not worth upgrading a 7950/7970/280x is twice as slow as a 970 gtx. i know i have both at side of me :p

So it's not worth upgrading or what are you saying? I doubt that performance will be twice as good on Dirt Rally though. 

When the frames drop under 60 in RX the GPU load is still around 65% and 65 degrees celsius. I doubt that my CPU is the bad guy? I'm no computer wiz though :)

the 970 gtx is 2x as fast as your card.

I bet it is. That doesn not mean it will give me 2x more fps though. If that was the case there would be no dips under 60 fps as people seem to be getting even with a card 2x faster than mine.

[dgeesi0 305]

im just saying it is 2x as fast.you would probably need a 980ti at 1080 to have no drops maxed out below 60 fps.literally every map though i have 60 fps lowest capped when recording on a 970 gtx just with advanced blending off. only drops maybe under that are on lyden but avg without recording is over 60 fps.general fps is 90-120 on all tracks.

a 280x is still a capable card. but a 970 is a decent increase.some good deals about at moment if you shop about.

if you want i could do a fraps min ,max,avg fps run on a track of your choice if you want a exact comparison ?

[bogani 756]

dgeesi0 said:

im just saying it is 2x as fast.you would probably need a 980ti at 1080 to have no drops maxed out below 60 fps.literally every map though i have 60 fps lowest capped when recording on a 970 gtx just with advanced blending off. only drops maybe under that are on lyden but avg without recording is over 60 fps.general fps is 90-120 on all tracks.

a 280x is still a capable card. but a 970 is a decent increase.some good deals about at moment if you shop about.

if you want i could do a fraps min ,max,avg fps run on a track of your choice if you want a exact comparison ?

Sure, that would be great. Full Höljes would be great.

[789ifyz 0]

Does the power connector affect gpu performance? If so, how much of a loss would using a PCI-e connector cause for a PCI-e 3.0 capable card? 'Cuz my performance is the same/slightly below @dgeesi0 's recording performance when I'm not recording... I'm running at 1080p with 4xMSAA.

Also, I tried the advanced blending option that I somehow hadn't realised existed and found that the only performance drops it causes are when there are lots of trees on screen at the same time, in which case the fps count drops by half. There's also a little stuttering due to framerate fluctuations on forest-y stages, like in Wales.

Rallycross is unaffected performance-wise by advanced blending, at least on my rig.

I also noticed that the dense tree sections with advanced blending on cause the gpu usage to jump to 98%, but the gpu power never went past 70%.

[OzoreXS 0]

bogani said:

OzoreXS said:

Flawless run with my specs...
Cant be better

No dips below 60fps on the RX gravel parts? That's where I have some trouble with my current specs. 

Not at all. Maybe my chipset and OCed CPU helps. (BIOS config is quite refined too)

The only weird thing to mention is when I use v-sync OFF, I get FPS near to 180 (and downs to max 110). To many FPS but it just stutter, the image is not fluid.

So I have to activate VSync and be content with 60... anyway the experience is superb.

[dgeesi0 305]

bogani said:

dgeesi0 said:

im just saying it is 2x as fast.you would probably need a 980ti at 1080 to have no drops maxed out below 60 fps.literally every map though i have 60 fps lowest capped when recording on a 970 gtx just with advanced blending off. only drops maybe under that are on lyden but avg without recording is over 60 fps.general fps is 90-120 on all tracks.

a 280x is still a capable card. but a 970 is a decent increase.some good deals about at moment if you shop about.

if you want i could do a fraps min ,max,avg fps run on a track of your choice if you want a exact comparison ?

Sure, that would be great. Full Höljes would be great.

okay will do holjes run with min ,max avg fps no advanced blending on.

here you go


 Min, Max, Avg
    76, 136, 92.600

on the track you wanted.i use 4x msaa everything else max @ 1080.advanced blending off.