Alienware x51 upgrade - gtx 970

[MRTENTACLES]

Also, which modern games are you talking about?

[Vagrant0]

I'm looking to play new games like witcher 3, fallout 4, arkham knight etc and heavily modded skurim with enb with minimum 40fps. Right now my gtx 745 runs dying light at 30 on lowest settings. That's really disappointing for me. I would like to be safe for at least 3 years or more running at playable fps on highest/second highest settings.

(Keep in mind that I am willing to turn settings to medium or turn things like aa or draw distance down, especially in years to come - I'm not too ambitious or expecting)

Using a 970 and can play Witcher 3 on ultra settings. Not playing it at a crazy high resolution and don't care much about framerates >20, but it will work. For its price point it is still the best performing card available... But, the 970 WILL have problems with postprocessing tweaks like ENB. This is really the failing part of the card, more so than just what is implied by partitioned RAM. Even with games that are significantly less demanding, this issue with postprocessing can cause games to fail completely.

 

If you're trying to go for 40 fps with a high resolution, and then are trying to add graphics mods, you're either going to be paying through the nose (provided your current motherboard and powersupply will even support it (Dell (Alienware) is known to still skimp on quality when it comes to these components since their customer base generally doesn't even know to look) or are going to be very frustrated and disappointed when things don't work. Even a 980ti can have trouble running games at 1080p 30fps once you start adding in ENB presets.

 

Really, you should sit down and figure out where your priorities are. Are you actually wanting shader tweaks or are you just applying them because it's a "thing to do"? Do you really even notice 30+ fps and suffer from anything with more than 20ms delay between frames (despite the fact that your monitor refresh rate is probably 30hz), or are you just trying to get those numbers because it gives you something to brag about? What about budget; does it make more sense to buy a budget card every few years, or buy a high end card that costs 2-4 times as much but which you don't have to think much about.

 

That said, a 970 will cover you through the current console generation (since these games are going to be multi-platform). you will have to accept the limitations of the card, steer away from postprocessing effects whenever possible, and accept ~30fps, but you will be able to play the games you want to play at high graphics. If that isn't enough, then you'll be paying more for it.

[MRTENTACLES]

Firstly, I am awarevof the taxing nature of enb, and I will be using a performance version. My monitor is 144 refresh rate as well (1080). I do actually want an enb, not because it's the thing to do, because the game is looking hideos. I have seen people running 760s and getting 40fps with enb.

To be fair, in about 3-4 years, I'll build a new pc anyway - I just dont have the money, but I have the money for this upgrade, which will allow me to play some of the games I've been holding off on because my current pc is too weak.

[MRTENTACLES]

And it's more powerful than consoles, which is the reason i switched to pc gaming anyway.

[obobski]

Firstly, I am awarevof the taxing nature of enb, and I will be using a performance version. My monitor is 144 refresh rate as well (1080). I do actually want an enb, not because it's the thing to do, because the game is looking hideos. I have seen people running 760s and getting 40fps with enb.

To be fair, in about 3-4 years, I'll build a new pc anyway - I just dont have the money, but I have the money for this upgrade, which will allow me to play some of the games I've been holding off on because my current pc is too weak.

 

There's actually a fairly big gap between current "entry level" or "low end" (I'm trying to make that as value-less of a category as possible) cards like the 740 series, and "mid-range" or "gaming" cards, like the 760 series. Certainly something like 970 would be faster still, but my point is, you may be over-shooting on the upgrade depending on exactly what kind of performance you're looking for, especially coming from where you are now. GTX 745 is a fine card for anything non-gaming, and "light" handling of heavier games (e.g. Skyrim/whatever) but upgrading to something like the GTX 960 would still be a pretty significant gain. If your budget is limited, it may make more sense to go with the 750/960 route as opposed to the bigger upgrade to the 970.

 

 

Also, which modern games are you talking about?

 

A lot of current games will struggle at 4K on even top-end cards, like 980, and some will still not run great at 1080p on higher-end cards. See this review of the 980 Ti for examples: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9306/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/4

 

For "vanilla" Skyrim, you should have no problems with a 960 or 970, but with heavy mods that situation may change dramatically.

 

 

 

Using a 970 and can play Witcher 3 on ultra settings. Not playing it at a crazy high resolution and don't care much about framerates >20, but it will work. For its price point it is still the best performing card available... But, the 970 WILL have problems with postprocessing tweaks like ENB. This is really the failing part of the card, more so than just what is implied by partitioned RAM. Even with games that are significantly less demanding, this issue with postprocessing can cause games to fail completely.

 

If you're trying to go for 40 fps with a high resolution, and then are trying to add graphics mods, you're either going to be paying through the nose (provided your current motherboard and powersupply will even support it (Dell (Alienware) is known to still skimp on quality when it comes to these components since their customer base generally doesn't even know to look) or are going to be very frustrated and disappointed when things don't work. Even a 980ti can have trouble running games at 1080p 30fps once you start adding in ENB presets.

 

Really, you should sit down and figure out where your priorities are. Are you actually wanting shader tweaks or are you just applying them because it's a "thing to do"? Do you really even notice 30+ fps and suffer from anything with more than 20ms delay between frames (despite the fact that your monitor refresh rate is probably 30hz), or are you just trying to get those numbers because it gives you something to brag about? What about budget; does it make more sense to buy a budget card every few years, or buy a high end card that costs 2-4 times as much but which you don't have to think much about.

 

That said, a 970 will cover you through the current console generation (since these games are going to be multi-platform). you will have to accept the limitations of the card, steer away from postprocessing effects whenever possible, and accept ~30fps, but you will be able to play the games you want to play at high graphics. If that isn't enough, then you'll be paying more for it.

 

 

Most LCD computer monitors run at 60Hz; many higher-end models, and CRTs, will run at 75Hz or higher. This is field rate, however, not frame rate. Technically, assuming the machine can match frame rate to field rate with no problems, the 16ms difference between 30Hz and 60Hz is unlikely to be a problem unless the renderer's latency is right on the edge (RAGE is probably the only current engine I can think of where this may be a factor).

 

And it's more powerful than consoles, which is the reason i switched to pc gaming anyway.

 

It is and it isn't. You can't just compare the console's specifications straight-across to a PC, because there's significantly higher degrees of optimization for console ports, as well as a much higher degree of hardware access through console APIs. This means that consoles have potentially better flexibility for game support than a PC. To use the "last gen" as an example, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 both came out around the same time as Oblivion, and run that game fairly well. A top of the line PC from back then (~2005) is "better" at that. However, that PC won't run (or won't run very well) new games like GTA5, Battlefield 4, or Skyrim.

 

I'm not trying to "take a side" here - it's just a technical difference between the two platforms. Both can be very good, but the gaming PC will likely end up costing more over the long-run, as relatively frequent upgrades will become part of the experience, while you will be able to keep the console for at least its effective market life (which is usually like 5-7 years).

 

Honestly I agree with Vagrant0 as far as "sit down and think about your goals." From your responses to this thread, it sounds like any competent mid-range/gaming card should be suitable, and it may be easier/simpler to go with something a bit less robust than the 970. Upgrading graphics cards every year was not an uncommon feature for gaming PCs - but in recent years we've experienced "console stagnation" due to the limits of the Xbox360 and PlayStation 3. With new consoles on the market, this situation seems to be changing, at least somewhat. I don't think we'll go back to how things were ten-twenty years ago, but the "free lunch" of the last few years is likely over.

 

EDIT PS:

 

I forgot to add, on the 144Hz feature of your monitor - I wouldn't worry about that with Skyrim. IME the game gets kind of wiggy running at 144 FPS, so I tend to lock it at 60Hz/60FPS.

Edited June 19, 2015 by obobski

[MRTENTACLES]

Right, I understand that. So, back to my original question, everything aside, should I buy it? (And these models specifically)

[amaris1337]

I'm running a GTX 970 with a similar Alienware rig. Heavily modded (around 150 mods) Skyrim with K ENB (Quality Preset) runs at 35 FPS outdoors. With less intensive ENBs, it usually averages 40 - 45 FPS.

 

It also runs Witcher 3 at Ultra settings (minus Foliage Distance, which I set at high) at 50 - 60 FPS.

 

I would definitely recommend upgrading. The 745 it ships with is junk. I also tested the 4 GB GTX 960, but it doesn't fit well in the case (due to the cables and pins), so I would not recommend the 960 for that reason alone. If you buy a 970, make sure you get the upgraded PSU. The only reason I would not recommend the GTX 970 is the fan noise, which can get ridiculously loud. Also, I am not sure how compatible it is with an Alienware, as technically, the X51 doesn't meet the power requirements. However, so far, it has been running fine on my rig.

 

EDIT: Should also add that everything is run at 1080p resolution.

Edited June 21, 2015 by amaris1337

[Vagrant0]

Firstly, I am awarevof the taxing nature of enb, and I will be using a performance version.

The issue with the 970 is that it doesn't matter how taxing an ENB setting is, it will still perform unreliably on a 970 due to how the card is designed. The card simply doesn't like handling multiple post processing effects, regardless the source. It doesn't mean that you will necessarily have problems, just that problems are more likely to occur depending on what sort of effects the game uses natively combined with what is being added by ENB.

[soupdragon1234]

I'm tempted to jump in at this point and say "save yourself a wedge of cash and buy a Radeon R9 290(x) instead!" but as no-one ever buys AMD I guess I'll leave it.* :ermm:

 

Comparison GTX 970 vs R9 290. 4GB Vram, no memory bug issues but higher power consumption but hey it doesn't have an Nvidia sticker, right?

 

"Its hot. Its noisy!" No its not. Well mine isn't anyway. Avoid the reference cards and you'll be fine.

 

*except me, apparently. Havn't had an Nvidia card in nearly ten years, FX5600, GTX 7900, X800XT, HD 4870x2, HD 7950, R9 290 is my history.

 

 

 

 

[Vagrant0]

I'm tempted to jump in at this point and say "save yourself a wedge of cash and buy a Radeon R9 290(x) instead!" but as no-one ever buys AMD I guess I'll leave it.* :ermm:

 

Comparison GTX 970 vs R9 290. 4GB Vram, no memory bug issues but higher power consumption but hey it doesn't have an Nvidia sticker, right?

 

"Its hot. Its noisy!" No its not. Well mine isn't anyway. Avoid the reference cards and you'll be fine.

 

*except me, apparently. Havn't had an Nvidia card in nearly ten years, FX5600, GTX 7900, X800XT, HD 4870x2, HD 7950, R9 290 is my history.

 

R9 is a good series hardware wise... Still ATI drivers though, and that's the problem. The drivers often require months to have fixes for instabilities, have trouble updating correctly, and requires having software installed that uses a considerable amount of system RAM. Nvidia software takes up about 40mb of RAM, ATI Catalyst Control continually uses between 400mb and 900mb. The hardware is getting better, but the software is still horrible.