GTA V at 4K with a GTX 970 - Is it worth it?

▷ CHEAP GAME CODES: bit.ly/bitwitcodes [G2A]
▷ SIGN UP, PROFIT: bit.ly/goldmine... [G2A Goldmine]
Sure GTA V is playable at 4K with a single GTX 970, but at what cost? I spent some time tuning the in-game settings to squeeze the most performance out of the game without sacrificing a great deal of quality. These are my thoughts and observations from my experience.
TLDW:
GTA V at 4K w/ GTX 970:
-The game still looks great at normal settings
-Turn up Extended Distance for objects and shadows
-MSAA, Grass, and PCSS are performance killers and should be disabled
-Anisotropic, Tessellation, and Ambient Occlusion have no impact on performance. Crank that shiz up.
-You will max out the GTX 970's 3.5GB frame buffer, albeit without noticeable drawbacks
-You can achieve average framerates in the mid 70's without the game looking awful
-GTA V is an awesome and highly scalable game
NEW SHIRT in the store: www.awesomesauc...
CREDITS:
Audio file(s) provided by www.audiomicro.com
SUBSCRIBE! bit.ly/bitwitsub
Want to Become a Channel Member for Exclusive Perks and Content? bit.ly/bitwitme...
Check out my Builds Playlist! bit.ly/bitwitbu...
FLOATPLANE
Watch my videos a week early at bit.ly/2xI0n89
MERCH STORE
www.bitwit.tech...
FOLLOW ME
Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | Snapchat
@bitwitkyle
✉ SEND FAN MAIL TO:
Bitwit
P.O. Box 1449
La Mirada, CA 90637
About Bitwit:
Bitwit is a PC gaming and hardware-focused KZbin channel committed to making quality online tech videos for your infotainment! We are a nerdy married couple pumping out 3 to 4 videos a week delivering a mixed bag of content including product reviews, custom PC builds, vlogs, the occasional comedy sketch and more.
GTA V at 4K with a GTX 970 - Is it worth it?
• GTA V at 4K with a GTX...
Bitwit
/ bitwit

[@RareTurboSupercarsAndGames]

I didn't know GTA4 looked this good.

[@ThePuffin77]

+DataMaster Gaming I played GTA IV at 4K and it looked better than GTA V to me. IDK, I liked the GTA IV style graphics better.

[@RareTurboSupercarsAndGames]

ThePuffin77 I know. IceInhacer adds a better feel to it to.

[@Dtx-Composedmenace]

Same

[@michaellerza6054]

so lost .

[@CombatArmsReviews9]

i rate this card 3.5/4

[@theecarking]

+AmishTurtle Jokes...

[@atruescotsmanuth2481]

+AmishTurtle ur so oiriginal

[@CombatArmsReviews9]

a true scotsman uth Thanks

[@OfficialZiminumGames]

+AmishTurtle fuk off

[@damiankowalskiss]

+ AmishTurtle que es ese numero? si es tremenda targeta una de las mejores en precio y calidad, la gtx ganas 10 frames mas en algunos juegos y vale el doble

[@Sampsonay]

id rather have max settings at 1080p tbh

[@MintyFreshYT]

You can't actually max out GTAV with a 970 at 1080p. Even at 1080p you need a 980 Ti to completely Max it out. You can get the 970 up very high, but not totally maxed out.

[@deadeyesurvival4912]

+MintyFreshYT You are wrong. I have a gtx 970 superclocked and i have everything maxed, i run at over 60 FPS at all times. and yes, it is at 1080p while im running dual monitors

[@Sampsonay]

Dead Eye Survival I believe you. That other comment sounded fishy because i can play at high-medium settings at 60 fps on a GTX 660. And a GTX 970 rapes a 660 so yeah.

[@MintyFreshYT]

Dead Eye Survival You can't max shit like distance scaling or what-not in the advanced settings. BTW Dual monitors doesn't make a dif unless you're running the game on both, which would be weird.

[@Blank_Immortal]

+XgenDaNcEs I can run GTA V on completely maxed settings with my gtx 970. It is totally possible there is just one problem. Due to the way the last few MB works on the GTX 970, you will randomly get massive instability in the game and it may crash. I play GTA 5 on almost maxed settings just lowering a few of those post processsing settings

[@kanwaljeetsingh2157]

"focus on whats ahead of me" *crashes into a car*

[@totscizanagi]

+Kanwaljeet Singh hi fellow sikh!

[@kanwaljeetsingh2157]

TheChromeDragon hi :)

[@totscizanagi]

hello

[@Gamesfan34260]

+Kanwaljeet Singh I died reading this!

[@totscizanagi]

ikr lol

[@MrKeto-ci6vg]

Isn't anti-alising unnecessary with such a high resolution?

[@Bitwit]

Even at 4k, MSAA made a noticeable difference. Even my fiance could tell.

[@MrKeto-ci6vg]

Awesomesauce Network Didn't know, thanks!

[@SPECIFICREGION]

Awesomesauce Network ya I play on two 780 Evga's and I have everything up but my MSAA is at X4. It can not get to x8. And I have Nvidia TAXX ON. With everything turned up. My advance graphics settings, I have that normal and the game looks amazing . Both cards are running stock. They can be overclocked,when I overclocked them, I overclock them to +70 gpu offset / at +200 memory clock offset and it renders in more details you should try it. It runs smooth that maybe due to Trident X 2400mh ram i7 3770k with a asus maximus v extreme motherboard on a vertex 4 256gb so the speed is there. when it is overclocked to 4.6 everything bumps up in speed and I can see a big difference between stock settings and the overclock settings and youll get a great experience.

[@xIpodTouchGoeroex]

Awesomesauce Network that's funny because i see no difference on my 1440p screen

[@DethThrasher1]

xIpodTouchGoeroex get your eyes checked

[@xSniperU]

ULTRA at 1080p much better than normal at 4k

[@joukovilander]

agree

[@PeterLeconte]

+xSniperU Yes and I think Gtx 970 is made for 1080p gaming (and there its op). So I'm suprised that normal settings are good in gta v for a card "ment" for 1080p, scoring good in 4k.

[@Noah04922]

+Peter Leconte Wrong 970 is really good for 1440p gaming to 980 has a 10% Better performance in most games in 1440p and 10% is not much..

[@byee]

منجد

[@MsMaster563]

+Noah Schulte yeah like the 980 ti has 8% better performance than 980

[@domojim]

4K ??? But the human eye can only see up to 900p

[@alexanderachterberg963]

Jimmy M per how much inch? XD

[@jasonyoung4258]

Jimmy M You have no clue what you are talking about. If you think 1440 x 900 is the same at 20" as it is in bigger monitors, you might as well quit trying to be an enthusiast. Its about PPI not resolution.

[@kyruu100]

hes obviously trolling guys ;p

[@alex01230ROBLOX]

Jimmy M no duh its 720p upscale at 24 fps

[@gaveroid418]

Jimmy M The human eye cannot be measured in resolutions. The human eye can see more than 900p, and to knock out two birds with one stone the same goes for FPS; it can see more than 30FPS as well. The amount that the human eye can see is currently unmeasurable, and unlimited as far as we are concerned.

[@filipzacek2028]

IMO 1440p is the sweet spot for the GTX 970 and 980...

[@filipzacek2028]

***** What's your grass quality setting?

[@filipzacek2028]

***** I beg to disagree. Very High is much less demanding and looks pretty much the same...

[@SgtAMYNTAS]

Filip Zacek Using a 780Ti EVGA SC about a Month ago everything cranked up 1080p and live streaming nice 90FPS+

[@jettechristensen4014]

Filip Zacek yep 780 at damn near max settings with no aa at 1440p 50 fps average. Although in dessert it dips to 35 ish fps but in city its 60+.

[@collinxsmith]

Filip Zacek So, how does a 980Ti sound for 1440p 60Hz monitor?

[@clarenceboddicker6679]

I personally would much rather have ultra graphics settings and an extended draw distance than a 4K resolution but that's just me.

[@Arek15Arek]

I'd rather play at low but at 1440p 144Hz

[@Starburp]

+Arek15Arek 1080p max> 1440p low silly people

[@clarenceboddicker6679]

Deathlord626 Since I've experienced the awesomeness of gaming at 4K I've changed my stance on the topic. I have two 1080s in an SLI configuration along with an Intel i7-6700 which run the latest games very smoothly at 4K, I still only have to lower a couple of graphics settings by a single notch to maintain the blisteringly high frame rate and that's well worth it in my opinion.

[@multimediaman374]

this is 2120p not 1440...

[@Starburp]

+AbwattMatt no it's not its 1.7x 1080p. It's not even 2 times 1080p, 1440p is 4times 720p & 4K is 4times 1080p

[@JosephAraya]

Kyle, the 970 has 4 whole GBs of VRAM. If you examined the whole debacle more carefully, you would have found a chart outlining the gtx 970 memory config. there is a pool of 3.5GB running at full speed, but the last 500MB is running about 7x slower than the first 3.5GB pool due to a partially functional memory controller. It still is faster than storing info to the sys ram, but in the end there really are 4gb of memory on the card.

[@JosephAraya]

Joseph Araya Here is a great article by PCPer explaining the memory subsystem of the 970. Please read and don't spread false info of saying there is only 3.5GB! www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

[@Bitwit]

Joseph Araya Definitely aware of this, Joseph. I recorded this late at night after a long day and didn't deliver that point as clearly as I would have hoped. At any rate, good looking out!

[@JosephAraya]

Awesomesauce Network yeah normally you are spot on at getting people the right info and great suggestions, but i thought i should clarify some things. Thanks for the reply Kyle!

[@roteroktober360]

***** yep, the Vram isnt a drawback, if your card has 2Gb of Vram that it probably cant handle ultrad etails anyways, a friend of mine got r9 270x for his old athlon 640 x4 3Ghz and he said he gets about 60fps on medium in 1080p only when driving it drops, but he also has only 4GB DDR2 so yea, it will probably run at least as good as my mate's pc

[@roteroktober360]

***** 8GB would easily be enough for BF4, in BF4/BFH the max vram usage that i get is 2050MB on my gtx 970 @1080p ultra

[@RamySGaming]

0:32 GTA V* (sorry, I'm nitpicky like that).

[@ZeusRL]

Beat me to it XD

[@RamySGaming]

lol

[@TheNorthPoleDancer]

I can down here for the same reason:p

[@apheus27]

RSGaming 12:30 "500 gigs", There's that also.

[@RamySGaming]

apheus27 lol kk

[@ManpreetSingh-pt1ve]

What's the point in gaming in 4k when your game looks like shit and can barley go above 40 fps. For those who could run at least high settings and 40+ consistently on 4k props, but why not just game on 1080 or 1440 and still have a high framerate and something enjoyable to see. Just my opinion though...

[@WindowCleaningWizards]

Because some people can afford a GTX 1080

[@Starburp]

My 2cents I use 1080p 27" monitor with 3D and I have the new 1070 gtx you'll need 120+ fps to drive 3D & I feel 3D is the now at 1080p & VR is tomorrow.

[@bipbong2906]

He's using a 970...

[@Guitardudeftw]

this is probably how the scorpio will run games in 4k 60 lol

[@joshclark4492]

Guitardudeftw it won't run that.

[@Renegade322]

I really do not see the point of AA at higher res displays, they are so smooth already it doesnt bug me,

[@retroguy74]

The Croaker I was thinking the same thing. AA was created to smooth edges due to low res graphics of the time. Now that we're getting up there in resolution, AA should soon be obsolete and that extra processing will go back into pushing pixels instead of calculating algorithms.

[@Renegade322]

Retro Guy74 I am excited to see what we can do when we arent held down giving like 10% of our usage going straight to smoothing edges lol

[@retroguy74]

The Croaker Right, exactly, well he's kind of showing it by saying the game looks great with all AA turned off with a GTX 970 at 4k. You can get away with no AA on 4k now, although it still looks better with it turned on, but I think when 8k is a standard, AA should be dead as it's just redundant at that point.

[@Renegade322]

Retro Guy74 true, I personally am unbothered though at even 4k without AA though Some people however, still get bothered by it, if they are really picky, but I never use AA at 4k

[@bennyuoppd33]

The CroakerAA is for the resolutions that are high enough to have the extra pixels to smudge but not enough to already be doing it by itself. I personally use a 1080p display with 2-4x MSAA and just roll with it.

[@SeeOlEe]

I actually don't mind being in mid 40 fps if my game looks sexy

[@M4RC3L001]

Tony Cole particularly if you played it on a last gen console before, like me :)

[@s_for_short2400]

60fps is only necessary online but it does look nice when max 60fpd

[@s_for_short2400]

***** Arkham knight ran at 5 fps as i remember.

[@joachimpeiper7471]

+Tony Cole It depends which game. Some run really smooth around 30fps and others need to be at 60fps to appear smooth. A quick example would be: GTAV runs smoothly at 30-40fps but Skyrim needs to be at or above 60fps to appear smooth.

[@M4RC3L001]

Joachim Peiper I wouldnt call it smooth but when it's on stable 30 fps it's definentely playable. Best example -> last gen consoles ;D

[@441greenleaf]

instead of 4k, play in ultra in 2k ;) much more fun and better graphics

[@441greenleaf]

shutup traitor =P .. and what kind of question that?) 2k posible ofcoure,

[@KayJay01]

+FINN Stormtrooper FN-2187 2k is 1440p. +Eren Alkan noone says 2k anymore, its 1440p

[@KayJay01]

***** It was to explain.

[@KayJay01]

***** No, it is 1440p. It is weird but it is 2k. People call it 2k because it is 2560x1440. 1920 isn't quite 2000 pixels so that's just full HD.

[@KayJay01]

***** Most people I talk to refer 1440p to as 2k. But you may be right.

[@REPOMAN24722]

My 970 can just do 60 fps on high/ultra, 4k is unimaginable on a 970.

[@bagfumbler]

+Super_Slav My 960 4GB can do Ultra at 80FPS (1080p). (with an i3, and 8 gigs of ram too) plus i get the full 4gb expierience ;p

[@REPOMAN24722]

GalaxysDesigns Yeah, but you have to crank the settings down, I like to play on ultra.

[@bagfumbler]

no I dont

[@REPOMAN24722]

GalaxysDesigns Well, I do on my 6700k at 4.7ghz, GTX 970, 16gb DDR4 RAM 2400mhz, z170a xpower titanium.

[@ess8683]

+Super_Slav what 970 are you using? g1 Gygabite?

[@teejyy]

This is gonna sound stupid, but I'm new to PC gaming. What's 4k? As in how do you get it? Is it a resolution setting, or does it refer to having all your settings up to high?

[@Bitwit]

4k is a resolution just like 1080. You need a monitor, video card, and game that support it. All three need to support 4k in order for it to be possible.

[@teejyy]

Awesomesauce Network Ah ok thank you!

[@MadSkillzz89]

+Awesomesauce Network You forgot you also need a 4k compatible CPU.

[@teejyy]

***** Yeah, I heard its like 3500 x 1000 or something like that

[@At-vn6ng]

+RagegamR lol its 4 times 1080p. 3.5k x 2.6k

[@zezimaly6009]

0:32 "I'm going to be running gta 4" hahaha

[@primarysecondaryxd]

Unplayable at 40 FPS? 40 FPS is fine for me xD

[@lucasensimon]

+Dominic Donahue yeah I know right! PC gamers are always losing their minds about gaming at anything lower than 50, but I could even game at 30 fps as long as there aren`t any sudden framedrops. ofcourse 60 FPS is a lot better but i think only when it hits less than 30 FPS you should call it unplayable.

[@noahlangdon3073]

+randomaandag dude pic gaming is scary when you play on pic you start to expect too much and you turn into a fps pig

[@ArthaxtaDaVince777]

+Dominic Donahue Exactly without any stutter problems or choppyness , and a complete stable frame rate, even 25fps seems pretty smooth on gta5.

[@questv2661]

+Dominic Donahue 25 FPS is fine for me! ik its sad but im just use to it

[@questv2661]

+JMNMJ yeah but i can't afford anything else my family doesn't have a lot of money. my PC takes 5-10 mins to turn on sometimes and I can tell it's on it's last legs and I don't have enough money to get a new one :(

[@cellprocessing6832]

The Nvidia shadows are percentage shadows. What that means is the GPU is doing real time calculations on the shadows to find out how much diffusion the edges of the shadows should have form the distance there being cast from. What this means is a if you look at a big trees shadow you will see the part of the shadow closer to the tree will have sharp edges. And the farthest part of the tree shadow will have softer edges. This is why such the big hit on GPU. Also just shadow diffusion takes a bit of power up.

[@Bitwit]

Thanks for clearing that up, Cell. Makes a lot of sense.

[@KingOracle69]

Awesomesauce Network Totally of topic but what is a good gaming laptop under 1200$?

[@thatking7913]

KingOracle69 Macbook Pro

[@Su1t3dBr0n3FiM]

0:32 "GTA 4 @ 4K"

[@RG6Snipers]

Why do you want mid 60s or 70s in 4K? Surely you have a 4K monitor locked at 60hz like the rest of us?

[@user-ld9zm2vg4p]

+AxelGaming Getting a steady 60 fps means that it can drop below that in any second. Having around 70 gives you a bit of margin so you don't notice the drops. Hope I helped.

[@musicmaker11]

+AxelGaming I use a 4k 65in tv at 120hz myself.

[@RG6Snipers]

musicmaker11 can DP even support 4k @ 120hz?

[@jackedrussell]

+musicmaker11 It's fake 120Hz. It's actually 60Hz, but it shows the same frame twice. There are no real 4K 120Hz monitors or TVs out at the moment.

[@Boardwoards]

"tessellation has no impact on performance whatsoever" What??? That's massively untrue

[@jcm2606]

+Herr Richtofen When used in moderation on cards that are capable of tessellation without massive performance impacts (basically any mid or high end NVIDIA card), tessellation doesn't impact performance as much as you'd think. Developers frequently use it for things like parallax occlusion mapping, bump mapping, vertex displacement (for waves, moving leaves, etc), and other uses.

[@truesightgrabber]

So at Full HD (not 4k) you can use all max settings and have 60fps ?

[@dimitriid]

Can't deal with those textures myself: it is very noticeable on the street and you do look at it a lot since well you look at the road while driving.

[@giovdor]

same problem here....

[@MechetheGoat]

dimitriid with the normal textures on pc they cant match the consoles very high or high textures. and everything set on high that gives the consoles a good presentation. 4k might be sharp but its not gonna improve the textures

[@RandomGuyScrollingDown445]

MechePlaysGames Nahhhh.

[@MechetheGoat]

what i said is true its a big difference in road textures between normal and high

[@RandomGuyScrollingDown445]

MechePlaysGames Oh.

[@Centrinario]

I guess I'm what some may call a" peasant gamer", but I'm thinking 35 FPS is... fine. I really don't need to hit 60 in order to enjoy a game. I can make do just fine with significantly less.

[@JohnCena-ou8tz]

I find that if I use a controller then 30fps is really all I need, but if I'm using a mouse then I want at least 45 or 50. 60's always great though

[@billbeis7691]

+Golden Boy just by saying that you dont need something that you never experienced is kinda stupid ...

[@Centrinario]

I've also never shot anyone. Does it mean I need to?

[@billbeis7691]

Golden Boy no , a better example is : I dont like ferrari , i prefer my fiat uno , its so great to drive at such low speed OR i dont like playboy mansion , i prefer living in my parent's basement

[@Centrinario]

This isn't about liking a Ferrari. It's about being able to afford one.

[@zakaria9000]

why u upload 1080p?? if you want to demonstrate 4K ???????

[@TheDarkstar826]

I really dont understand why 40fps isnt playable? Console is locked at 30fps. What is the big deal? Plus, I play all my PC games at at least 30 to 40fps. I still savage people asses online.

[@TheDarkstar826]

TV has 60hz of inputs and console runs at 30 FPS. it still runs good. In my opinion, the only time is bad is when it hits 24 FPS or below. That's why I think buying a expensive graphic card is pointless. Plus, when DirectX 13 comes out. You wont be able to play the next gen games becuz ur card is directx 11 or 12. For example: Alien Isolation require you to have DX11 to play the game even if you have 295gtx which is powerful enough. lol

[@whewmancool]

People who said 60 fps doesn't make big difference never played at 60 fps or just simply dumb, mostly console peasants

[@TheDarkstar826]

I play PC at 60fps on some games... At long as it's playable at ultra setting. The extra frame is good to have, but it's not that serious. Lets play blacklight becuz that game is running at 30fps on my system.lol

[@blunderinghooligan]

Piet Pietersen That is the biggest load of shit i have ever heard. I have showed my mates 30, 40, 50 and 60fps with frame caps and each one is progressively smoother. Even going from 30-35fps while playing skyrim is highly noticeable. 40 looking choppier than 30. Fuck are you smoking. So you are trying to tell me that 48hz 1080p capture on my mounted digital camera somehow looks worse than 30fps recordings on a tv? Get a life. Why dont you watch some youtube clips at 48fps...there a quite a few. If you believe it looks worse than 30fps footage you have dicks for eyes.

[@tuyenhoang5546]

TheDarkstar826 when you use gamepad, slow dpi isn't a big deal. But with mouse click, it's very precise and therefore u can notice the lag right away.

[@gakvin98]

Is watching it at 4k at lower quality better than 1080p maxed out ?

[@1toncheese]

deaflol if its watching a video it depends on if theres any compression on the files. if gaming it depends on what maxed out means (some games have aa options that are on par with 4k and some dont)

[@gakvin98]

1toncheese I meant gaming sorry haha and just a 'general' very high setting with probably 2xMSAA

[@InstantCasette]

deaflol 4K at lower quality is better than 1080p maxed out (40" UHD Monitor here) Maybe at smaller sizes like 28" you won't notice as much.

[@robin2111]

Jeroen van Wamelen i disagree altough i might be wrong cuz i dont have 4k. for example, a rock at 4k with bad textures (like in farcry if you put the quality all the way down) looks whorse (dont know how to spell it but i mean less good) than the same rock with beatifull textures at 1080p.

[@InstantCasette]

robin ET Yeah but I always have textures at maximum. Just turn down the shadowmap size and blur it via the soft setting. Most of the settings in GTA V hardly have any difference when going from high to very high. And it is exactly there that you get the most FPS penalty. I'm not saying you should set things at low, I'm saying set stuff at high @ 4k, not ultra. Stuff like textures don't really effect performance, just memory.

[@TobiasRieperGER]

3834 x 2120 is not 4K. It is UHD. Why nobody knows that?

[@OmniOmnium]

+Tobias Rieper Then what the fuck is 4k smart ass...

[@TobiasRieperGER]

Casual Lyric 4K is 4096 x 2160 you fool

[@OmniOmnium]

Tobias Rieper You're such a genius...

[@TobiasRieperGER]

Casual Lyric Its a difference, such a small, but it is there. But i see, you all dont care, cause it is legit to spare failures. Its like the Chevy Suburban and the Cadillac Escelade. They spare the same base. So they are nearly the same cars but the labels differ them.

[@karlmartin617]

+Tobias Rieper i knew

[@Ramimy-uk4gu]

And i'm watching this at 240p... Gr8

[@Kevin_burgess]

+Ramimy1555 144p here XD

[@Kingvik7Gaming]

+Necro lol mine hasn't even loaded yet

[@macwas5900]

+Necro 77p

[@sprucegoose568]

1p

[@sprucegoose568]

pffft......yes

[@alebone_]

You can't drive when you're at 50 fps?

[@megit6607]

sooooooo,is this GTA5 or GTA 4

[@foshbz2687]

5

[@Arek15Arek]

6

[@marcogiraudo8450]

9

[@McNuggets129]

10

[@GameHacker77]

11

[@TheShadesOfBlack]

"Running at mid 40 frames per second, which is virtually unplayable to me", pff. PC elitist. My kind has been running on locked 30 frames a second for decades! My father played on machines so sold they didnt even have a frame per second, now we have you snooty pc gamers all "aww 40 isnt enough, aw 40 is too low, wine wine wine". Makes me sick. Im going to go back to my Pong and be happy with its 3 fps.

[@ItsStribe]

Chill

[@goaboa_]

+Tallen Smith Maybe if you look hard enough, you'll find someone who cares

[@TheShadesOfBlack]

***** I started off being annoyed but as I typed I slowly just stopped caring.

[@troy8612]

+Tallen Smith If it was a constant 40 fps, then it isn't an issue. I think the issue is when the framerate drops and tries to catch up, then there is a jump on the screen. here is a better explanation: /watch?v=UnS0xWtoRzk Skip to 5:29

[@ItZReboundZzOMG]

+Tallen Smith With a controller 30fps is fine, but if your with a mouse on an fps, you will notice it jerking about at 30fps, you need 60+fps on an FPS using a mouse so you don't notice jerking when moving your mouse fast. I personally can run all FPS games at 125 fps constant, which is nice for 120hz.

[@odiehavoc5330]

4K Gaming Video> Doesn't upload in 4K >:(

[@VirtualMark2]

Personally I think it's better to go with a lower resolution if you can't run 4k at ultra settings. The extra bells and whistles always make a game more immersive.

[@BenderBendingRodriguezOFFICIAL]

The only 4k content I've seen that looks truly next generation are the demo's playing at bestbuy. DO NOT waste your time or money on 4k right now. Wait another 3 years.

[@deadrablade]

+Dylan Smith no

[@BenderBendingRodriguezOFFICIAL]

Deadrablade Yes. Otherwise you're not a very smart consumer.

[@deadrablade]

Dylan Smith Nope lol

[@BenderBendingRodriguezOFFICIAL]

yep lol

[@deadrablade]

Dylan Smith I dunno I got my 4k monitor cheap compared to others and my two 980tis run it perfectly so it doesn't look like you have any idea what you are talking about.

[@KimMiller321]

970 is not meant for 4k

[@joelverrier]

no shit

[@DEVILTAZ35]

+Joel Verrier 2 of them has issues due to the framebuffer in alot of games , why on earth would they use 1 lol.

[@capcom23]

+Joel Verrier you mean "no shit sherlock!" lol

[@joelverrier]

+DEVILTAZ35 exactly... And at that rate a single 980ti is in order. In Canadian rupees it's cheaper to buy one 980ti than two 970s. Is it the other way in the US?

[@DEVILTAZ35]

Not sure i am in Australia :) . Actually it's cheaper to buy two 970's here but i had a 970 and i didn't like it. So even SLI it's still going to be limited to 3.5GB full speed memory on each card. not enough for these days. To be honest 980ti is the only Nvidia card i would recommend or Titan X if you have 3 screens.

[@drummer2443]

i have a single 970 in my pc and a 4k tv. i have found that while the 4k for gtav is not atrocious, without multiple gpus, it is much more satisfactory to play at 1080p at completely maxed settings

[@PappaLitto]

I run GTA 5 on my single 970 maxed out no AA at 30-40 fps everywhere

[@TheMankyTube]

***** Should be running better. My 290 plays it maxed out at constant 60 with much foliage.

[@PappaLitto]

Sorry I forgot to write 4k

[@TheMankyTube]

***** Much better

[@JeremiahE1999]

Oskar Biniecki LOL, Im actually using Intel Hd4400 ALL Low,720P also same frame rate

[@TheMankyTube]

2160p>720p :D

[@itsdeonlol]

I play at 1440p on my 970 & that's good enough for me.

[@KnockedDaSnotOuttaYoAss]

***** how many fps do you get and is your 970 OC?

[@itsdeonlol]

KryJet above 60fps minimum. Yes my 970 is OC.

[@KnockedDaSnotOuttaYoAss]

i have a i5 4690 standard and gtx 970 standard not OC. Do you think i'll be running good fps running at that resolution?

[@itsdeonlol]

KryJet​ Yes, just make sure you watch your GPU memory.

[@KnockedDaSnotOuttaYoAss]

alright thanks.

[@rom0n2]

My order of preference: 1.Resolution 2.Texture 3.Draw Distance 4. other shader effects. It's required the get the pixels to show the extra texture quality. But I can understand why shadows popping is not immersive.

[@RenegadePlaysHD]

I'd just like to point out that this video is 13:37 minutes long. GG.

[@Kold2012]

13:36

[@SirMsuni]

+Mike Hines Depends if you're on a pc or a mobile device.

[@Billum01]

"Even with everything turned down it still looks way better than the PS4 and Xbox One" Lol no it doesn't. Not only is the draw distance in this video painfully low, but you've also got low quality textures, shaders, shadows, reflections, particles, etc. I assume what you meant was it looks better than the PS3 and 360 versions (but even then you're wrong because the draw distance and reflections in those versions were actually decent).

[@imgabenewell6967]

+EpicPudding gta doesnt have low textures, the lowest they go is normal which is the same as your garbage ps4 which is running it at 900p. educate yourself

[@Billum01]

10xReportLoL Nice troll face you fucking 12 year old.

[@imgabenewell6967]

impressive comeback

[@bobfaget3456]

+EpicPudding Look at my ears fingers wrist look at my neck gloooow

[@Billum01]

Bob Faget hot

[@capcom23]

The wrong card for 4K even 980gtx is the wrong card. We don't have the proper videocard yet for full 4k experience with everything turned up high! 970gtx is absolutely perfect for 1080P. 980gtx TI might come closer but still will have trouble on higher settings. We're not there yet!

[@joeyg2k8]

Gtx 980Ti SC Sli (2 Gtx 980 Ti)

[@dancetweety10]

What counter, there is no counter in the video.

[@joachimpeiper7471]

Yeah that annoyed me too. What a noob.

[@Ne0nxSpy]

+DanceTweety Looney Tune He forgot to record it, he put a note about it...

[@JackSpoona]

+DanceTweety Looney Tune it literally put some text in the video

[@123thomasluk]

Is GTX 970 still the best bang for the buck video card?

[@f1tony2003]

Thomas Luk Without a single doubt bruh

[@joeytmandude]

f1tony2003 Just bought a 970, but I disagree. Technically, the 290x can be gotten for the same price or even cheaper, and has better performance and more usable vram. However, it runs hotter and with waaaay more energy, so it kind of balances out.

[@fuarkbrahhh3251]

joeytmandude well plus the 970 had some banging games that if you didnt want could be sold for like $70 total which will make it as cheap as a 290 let alone much cheaper than the 290x

[@TheVanillatech]

Thomas Luk It never was.... it's the best "bang for buck" nVidia card, at least in a serious option category (the 750Ti is better price/performance, but it's a low end card). The 290 vanilla (a good aftermarket edition such as the MSI Gaming or Sapphire Tri-X OC) are tons better "bang for buck" than a 970. The 290X is cheaper than the 970 here in the UK, too. Making that better bang for buck, only not as much as the vanilla 290. nVidia don't DO bang for buck, with the 970 being the only offering released in the past 3 years worth considering, despite the massive coil whine problems, the 3.5GB problem etc... For example, Titan X is at £890 ... then they release the 980Ti which matches the Titan X but costs £550. Do you think nVidia give a fuck about "bang for buck"? The R9 295X2 rapes the shit out of both of those cards yet costs £499. If you want bang for buck, do not buy nVidia. Simples. Buy a 970 for : 1) great 1080p performance in all games 2) decent 1440p performance in most games, at least up to 60fps 3) Shadowplay 4) You are willing to pay a little more than AMD for the same performance, for these features and for less power consumption and heat

[@MechetheGoat]

TheVanillatech nvidia cards tend to be more optimized for games on release date for example dying light. and gta itself with the official patch the next day

[@jadzeineddine9687]

Turning on Multi Sampling Anti Aliasing on a 4K monitor is like making your lawn mower mow each grass one-by-one so they are all even length. You won't notice the difference, and it will slow you down. Seriously, he's like "it will smooth out the edges on everything." Yeah, but the whole point of Anti Aliasing was to smooth out jagged edges on LOWER RESOLUTIONS. FXAA and MSAA help situations where you can ACTUALLY see the pixels separating two objects. Unless your face is 3mm away from the screen, you won't notice the difference. Don't listen to what this spoiled kid thinks about "playable" conditions. You don't need MSAA, the gtx 970 is a great card, don't waste your money on a 980 (ti) for that MSAA or Shader quality. Please, Awesomesauce, inform yourself before telling half a million people that MSAA helps "a lot."

[@Jupester]

6:40 3504mb=/=3.504gb. 3504mb=3.42gb.

[@Strangelet_EU]

+Jupezzi IKR, while he knows his stuff about graphics, he doesn't know the basics of IT.

[@Jupester]

Krzysztof Schreiber Hah exactly.If it were over 3.5gb, the game would either crash or lag the shit out.

[@Npc5150]

Can't hear because my audio jack broke. What did he say? 3.42GB is correct. Divide by 1024. I'm guessing your correcting him and referring to the 970's 3.5GB cap.

[@Jupester]

cheri strobbe Yeah, he (if I remember correctly, something along these lines) said that the memory usage is over that 3.5gb mark when it's 3504mb which is 3.42gb.

[@MrPummetje]

dat 1337 video length

[@lamboboySV]

MrPummetje 1336 isn't it? Atleast for me.

[@MrPummetje]

Pataar for me its 1337

[@SimpleSickness]

This isn't fair... You get extra 'Kyle-ness'

[@HShango]

Pataar same here

[@christianbro2]

What about uploading the video in 4K? If you render it in 1080P there is basically no comparison.

ı watch 480 p you play 4 k nice :D

[@hondaman62]

+Furkan Çörekoğlu Same, I have shit internet :(

[@hondaman62]

Kendall Lorenz Mine is 110kbps and i live in the city

[@ducklan3979]

200mbps :3

[@David-qv8fk]

+Massie Mayhem mine internet is 4mbps... i live in village and i can easily watch any video on youtube in 720p 60

[@hondaman62]

Yep, still faster than my internet

[@Elian504]

i really don't see the point of every gamer trying to get 4K. I am happy with my 1080p. MY OPINION

[@Elian504]

+Valoro85 aggressive

[@antonlourens1206]

+Valoro85 Fuck you this man has an opinion so don't judge he loves 1080P i love 1440P... If he loves 144P so what. So fuck you

[@Blank_Immortal]

+Elian Bollue (fireclaw20) I like my 1080p but planning on maybe getting 1440p Idk why it just sounds nice.

[@Koolkid736]

+Elian Bollue (fireclaw20) 1080p is good for most people (including myself) for gaming but some people just want to have better. eventually 4k will become the new standard, like 1080p is now.

[@theofficialpollo]

-

[@ELIJAHMASTERX]

"GTA V at 4K with a GTX 970 - Is it worth it?" *Records in 1080p*

[@seanwilson7640]

Wow, that whole vram scandal even has supposed professionals thinking that the card will basically break everything it runs past 3.5gb. News flash. It doesn't.

[@jeroen92]

Just wondering: why would you play at 4k if it means you can't play on ultra? Medium textures on 4k look worse than ultra textures on 1080p to me.

[@h3rmy1]

The filtering you turned up is what makes it look sharp -.-

[@shinjisan2015]

The problem I experience with 4k isn't from my GTX 970, it's the fact my screen is only 30Hz at 4k so I get a lot of screen tearing in GTAV. I've found with the 4k screen 1080p at 60Hz and very high settings looks great and I really enjoy the experience.

[@Radicoly]

You should turn down population variety it makes a huge difference.

[@Majthoub]

i have an i5 750 first gen with 8 gigs of ram if i get a GPU like 970 , would it bottleneck and i'm willing to get a 100/120/144 Hz monitor is it ok for an i5 750 ? =D

[@johndaman4863]

At 30 or so seconds from the start of the video he made a mistake. The mistake was that he said GTA 4 at 4k not GTA 5 at 4k.

[@littlecop1987]

Playable 4K needs 2 way 1080 sli if you want to max out the graphics settings.

[@lifethrownoutofthewindow]

+Come to papa Oompsie lol a single gtx 1080 brings 6fps at 4k

[@silentshadow3176]

Was playing gta on my 4k 43" tv with a OC 1070 with ultra settings 45fps

[@rooo1o]

i have the 2G 960...all i can tell you is...turn down every setting in the game until your vram allows you to use very high textures!

[@tech4ro]

restoring a 2006 8800gtx and playing GTA V its the most awesome experience ever.

[@GotAdam1]

its quite annoying when people say things like 3504mb is over 3.5gb when 3.5gb is in fact 3584mb

[@MeRiJohnny]

i5 4440, 8GB RAM, Sapphire R9 290 GPU not overclocked, all settings High-Very High-Ultra, MSAAx4 running 1920x1080 about 30-42fps average 38-40fps, 2560x1044p with no MSAA 30-35fps, with MSAA x2 25-30fps, 4k without MSAA 20-28fps. i'm good with the first two. pretty enjoyable

[@jacobrzeszewski6527]

Personally I like to run low resolution low fps with high quality effects because once you start playing those higher frame rates and higher resolutions games start losing their original glamor. I don't mind 30 fps or 720p because I've never had the pleasure of having hardware capable of much more than that. Once you start gaming high quality your eyes will never go back.

[@Terrr05]

Low res textures at 1080 bother me immensely. If I ran something at 4k with low res textures... I'd probably just not bother.

[@Kavser]

tldr in description is SO HELPFUL THANK YOU

[@sali6644]

ftw oldgen consoles +cars invisible sometimes +houses spawns after 1 meter +crash into a wall might get you undermap

[@kerenton5897]

For everyone in comments saying its not worth it. IT IS. You cant see 4k on youtube properly, so of course it doesn't look worth it - but it really is. 4k is like 8x MSAA

[@ArachnidSoul]

The eye candy isn't really important to me. With that said...I do push the 970 to make games look their best without dipping below 60 fps. I usually play games with vsync on. With my monitor that means a max of 60 fps. As someone who was on console exclusively for the longest time...60 fps is more than enough for me...though I can't bring myself to do 30 fps anymore.

[@jekyllgaming99]

Sorry to sound like a nuisance but hearing you say that 3504MB is 4MB over 3.5GB slightly irritated me, as 3.5GB is actually 3584MB, not 3500MB.

[@breadpixelsbakery7865]

You are seriously the first person I see, not bumping against all the yellow pillars! 12:43

[@PaulWorld]

do you record yourself and the game and consider the gameplay be viable?

[@thrownsofaraway9978]

The only problem is that when you upload this to youtube, it downscales to 1080p so we dont get to see how nice it is... AND that is gta5 and you said 4!

[@yakubu05]

The 970 is a good 1080p card. It has no right being anywhere near 4K.

[@anouarnajah]

0:32 GTA 4 @ 4K the Four Got U

[@noo8man3]

I've always been a performance-minded gamer, so I can't speak for everybody, but I don't pay a second thought to lowering render distance, shadows, and overall "eye candy" in games. I first started gaming on a dual-core i3 laptop with integrated graphics, so I had to lower settings a lot just to play certain games. I'm more concerned with higher frames than quality, so having those settings cranked is something I wouldn't do. Does this mean that everyone should follow my lead? No, but to me it seems like sacrificing a little bit of quality for better performance is a no-brainer. Some (like yourself) enjoy quality, but for someone like myself who's constricted by budget (poor college student), I'd say the increase in quality isn't worth the hassle or drop in performance.

[@saturn420xd5]

Great story

[@thrivinganarchy5267]

I love how optimized gta 5 is on pc it's really good for playing at high resolutions at good framerates while looking absolutely amazing

[@aaaaaoverflow]

1080p ultra settings looks better than 4k low settings.. The shadows look off and plants are ugly too..

[@talasattila6401]

If I have to trade in. I personally prefer going 1080p with everything maxed then 4k with everything minimized. I also have 2 monitors. Because1080p is looking almost as sharp on 1080p if the monitor's max native resolution is 1080p. It looks horrible if the monitor's native resolution is higher then the resolution you play your games at. So if you want 4 k, buy the hardware first, because trading texture quality, shader quality just to run it at 4 k is a HORRIBLE idea. Otherwise stay at 1080p and you will still be happy. I only play some games at 4k which actually run smooth enough with nice high settings at that resolution. Otherwise I use the 1080p monitor

[@MarkGameVid]

what throws me off is the fact that it looks like the car isnt touching the ground because of the wheels

[@halexp]

that game never* needs 3gb vram... no matter ur options...

[@SirBilliam96]

Just so you know, 3.5GB does not equal exactly 3500MB. 1 GB=1024MB, so 3.5GB is 3584MB. So when you said you were going over your limit at 7:00, you actually were right under it.

[@rhodyboland4326]

"going down to the low 50s and even 40s, to me unplayable" What the hell, you literally can't notice any difference

[@BluePalmetto]

This video is informative even to someone like me who only has a 2GB card and plays at 1080p because I can read until I'm blue in the face about what does what but to see it in real time is very helpful. Also, how is it when you change textures you don't have to restart the game?

[@Trifton]

lock it at 30 fps. You can turn up some settings, get a perfect stable fps with no drops and cutscenes look and feel way better.

[@sn0wb0ard1ng]

so GTAV becomes so boring that when you play you're not actually playing - you're just adjusting settings to keep yourself entertained.

[@day.brakeF1]

not uploading benchmarks at 60fps? come on man...

[@borademiray1997]

Dont think too much over the VRAM. That indicator there is to show that somehow and somewhere in the game, it can require that much of a VRAM for a few secs. Personally, I pushed the game on 4K with 980 Ti SLI. I had 12gb of VRAM. With ultra settings on everything, Game took around 15 something gigs. However, the game was smooth. Had no problem for the next 3 hours of gaming.

[@visionmedia2810]

After you fixed your shadows you had more then enough vram to crank up your textures to high and still get 60 plus. I have a gtx 750ti on a Dell with 2 xeons and 40 gig ram. I actually found the computer for free. But it runs this game super fast.

[@lupaw774]

Isn't it kinda dumb to have a 4k Monitor when you have to turn down all those settings like textures and stuff for it to work fluently?

[@MillennialInvestor101]

i notice PC users talk more about graphical settings than actually playing/enjoying the game i don't ever want to go back to those days.

[@ashwinchugh9807]

The car he is driving seems to be floating/flying on the road. Am i the only one to notice that or did u also notice that?

[@votpavel]

the problem with using 1080 for me now is,being actually blurry-because i got 27' 4k monitor it is simply not right to use 1080 p anymore as the pixels tend to smudge all over the monitor thus causing "blurry" picture now it might be ok on some games but i basically have to turn it all up to 2,560 x 1,440 also this samsung monitor will go into window mode/bad color scheme or very wide picture if set on 1080p usually so even 2,560 x 1,440 resolution is in a way not 4k but it is perfectly clear and better looking than 1080 for those who wander why the 4k

[@votpavel]

+aWildHooman yeah

[@thepolitestranger]

Whats the purpose of playing in & recording 4k gameplay and rendering it as a 1080p vid lol.

[@coinsagE46m3]

It must be because I've been exclusively a console gamers for decades and only just started playing on PC, but a stable 30fps or above is totally playable for me. Especially considering I've extensively played GTA V on the 360 and PS4. Getting a stable 30fps @ 4K is not only playable, but friggin awesome!

[@COLDDEATHDESTROYER]

You'll see soon enough.

[@coinsagE46m3]

I Got that Nope.avi I've already seen. Being able to play in 60fps the same games I've been playing on consoles at 30fps has been quite eye-opening. But I don't think I'll ever consider 30fps to be unplayable, depending on the game or course.

[@COLDDEATHDESTROYER]

coinsagE46m3 Well, try going back to 30fps after a few months of 60fps. You'll be horrified.

[@coinsagE46m3]

I Got that Nope.avi I'm totally sure I will eventually. At this point I'm kicking around the idea of selling both my PS4 and XB1 to get a UWQHD G-Sync monitor for my clearly superior PC. Now that I've got 60fps clearly conquered, time for 100hz and beyond! I'm thinking that if I get used to triple-digit frame rates, I'll be able to whole-heartedly agree with you.

[@mahius19]

I'd say a R9 390 is much better for this, just due to the VRAM. At that point you only have to worry about the settings that have a huge performance impact, cos you can crank up the VRAM heavy settings. I personally use an overclocked 970, at one point GeForce experience bugged out and changed my in-game settings to be optimised for 4k. It took me about a minute to notice, the UI was the giveaway. But with a 970, I'd rather play maxed 1080p60, especially considering my screen is 1080p at 60Hz.

[@JacPac]

At just past 2 min you say Ambient Occlusion and Tessellation have no impact at performance whatsoever. Are you sure?