17-09-2015, 03:25 PMHarry Wrote:16-09-2015, 06:40 PMPulseeey Wrote:16-09-2015, 06:18 PMHarry Wrote:16-09-2015, 05:53 PMPulseeey Wrote:16-09-2015, 05:22 PMHarry Wrote: I went for smaller due to the cooling but I guess you're right... I could look into swapping it.
"I went for smaller due to the cooling"
Explain pls :yus:
I was told that a smaller card would result in less need for cooling?
Who keeps telling you this bullshit?
The physical size of the card doesn't matter to how much heat it generates. The die (the processor) is still the same as it is on any other GTX 970. This one is overclocked so it will actually use more power, thus generate more heat than a reference model.
A cooling system is graded on how well it dissipates the heat into the air, this one seems to have a heat-sink and a single fan. Will it suffice? Yes. Is it ideal for you? Not when you have the space to accommodate a full sized card, you should be getting a normal sized card.
This is designed for tiny cases, for those who go to LAN parties and all that shite.
So the original GTX 970 at 8GB would be better?
8GB is not necessary.I assume you mean VRAM.
17-09-2015, 04:51 PMAeux Wrote: People are hyping RAM way too much here.
I got 4,00GB RAM DDR3 @ 666MHz (9-9-9-24) & I can use After Effects, Illustrator & Photoshop without any problems.
I've also edited videos with Sony Vegas and rendered without a single failure caused by RAM.
"People"?
One guy said 1333Mhz was old, everyone else (mainly me) has corrected the situation.