Even at very high settings, a 980ti isn't always able to sustain the vsync cap and it cost something like double a 970 at the time. I still stand by my recommendation (at the time) that the 970 was a good pick.
Yup, the game did indeed turn out to be one of the most demanding on the market, and vastly more so at higher settings than it's predecessor.Ī 970 is going to barely cope with "very high" settings, (27min, avg 38), 1080P, but is very capable at "high" settings (45min 61avg).īear in mind that the answer was provided before the game was released and I've clearly said my response was speculating, and encouraged OP to wait for benchmarks and post-release drivers if he wants to make an informed decision. You will be disappointed with a single 9p gaming on this particular release.
I was able to get 30-40 FPS using two 980's in SLI on Ultra with everything turned on, upgraded to two 980 Ti's and believe it or not still have some benchmarks that go below 60 FPS but obviously much silkier experience in general. Ran in game benchmarks using both the in game FPS counter and the in-game benchmark tool and once you get to areas that have an extreme level of detail, foliage, action, etc., the game drops to unplayable frame rates. I personally ran this game on a i7-4790K Haswell with two 970's in SLI and tried optimizing it in every way I can manually and through Nvidia's game optimization. Rise of the Tomb Raider is a beautiful game, but the amount of textures and level of detail involved in this game on Ultra settings is incomparable to several modern games released to date.
Sorry to disappoint but while the answer provided here that was marked as the answer is a great response, there is no way you're getting 1080p at decent frame rates with a 970 on Ultra settings. I'm not prepared to pay a hundred Euro or more on the off chance that it allows me to turn on one extra setting. For me, the 970 (or 390 - particularly given that it's a TressFX (=AMD) game), is a easy choice. OR, on the off chance that something like TressFX decimates GPUs, you could pay a lot more for a card which still only *might* handle the feature at a solid 60fps. So you could get a 970 and you'll probably be able to run full-ultra, no compromises. But if you want to play it on day one, you'll need to speculate.
You may also have to wait a couple of weeks to see how driver updates and game patches impact on performance. If you can wait for the game release and benchmarks, then you can make an informed decision. Minimum FPS are in the 20s for the best cards - they were getting smashed by HairWorks effects. but there's just at much chance that they still won't be up to it. If there is a setting like that (TressFX, for example), then a much more expensive 980 or 980ti (or 390X or Fury/Fury X from AMD's camp) *might* give you the little extra horsepower you need to hold 60fps solid. And I'm *as sure as I can be* that if it's one of those few games that do bring top end GPUs to their knees, then there will only be a setting or two you need to drop to stay consistently at 60fps VSync. I *think* a 970 will get you 1080P ultra. You're asking me (and others) to speculate on an unreleased game, so I'm speculating. I'd be surprised if you had trouble on Ultra, though TressFX on Nvidia didn't work too well the first time around, so we'll have to wait and see. The first Tomb Raider (reboot) wasn't too hard on GPUs, except for TressFX. But usually that's a specific setting or (in Witcher's case it had a lot to do with Hairworks). There are some monsters like Witcher 3 which decimate even top end cards at 1080P Ultra. Assuming you have a decent CPU too, the 970 or 390 are great choices.