Question about graphic card and RAM (GA included)

th gtx970 is good gc but no one is able to guarantee you it will meet your requirements in terms of time.If there will be stagnation on market and no one will develop "gamechanging" graphic card technology you will be able to play at 1080 on high in most of the cases, medium settings shouldnt be a problem. About ram Im not sure if its worth you can always OC from 2400 to 3000, I have gskill ripjaw 3000 cl 15 overclocked to 3600 and I gained ~2% score in 3dmark so if you can play on medium-high it shouldnt be a problem.

Search for any Nvidia Quadro if you plan design (don't go for gaming cards)

I can't help you with the techno-stuff, but here's a bump! Thanks for the giveaway.

Bump!

i know nothing about graphic cards but here have a bump.

From what I've been recently told, the new amd card will be one to set a standard and is coming pretty soon, might want to look into what it promises

1. There's no such thing as future proof in hardware but 970 is ideal for 1080p gaming so you should be fine for several years.
2. The more RAM you have the better for rendering and 3D work.

I you want an Nvidia card and you can wait a few months you can buy a Pascal card, it will be a great step forward over Maxwell architecture (GTX 970): http://wccftech.com/nvidia-pascal-gpu-analysis/

But if you can't wait that card is great anyway, I don't know if it will last 5 years but 2-3 at least to play with mid-high settings.

2x performance per watt estimated improvement over Maxwell.
To launch in 2016, purportedly the second half of the year.
DirectX 12 feature level 12_1 or higher.
Successor to the GM200 GPU found in the GTX Titan X and GTX 980 Ti.
Built on the 16nm FinFET manufacturing process from TSMC.
Allegedly has a total of 17 billion transistors, more than twice that of GM200.
Will feature four 4-Hi HBM2 stacks, for a total of 16GB of VRAM and 8-Hi stacks for up to 32GB for the professional compute SKUs.
Features a 4096-bit memory bus interface, same as AMD’s Fiji GPU power the Fury series.
Features NVLink (only compatible with next generation IBM PowerPC server processors)
Supports half precision FP16 compute at twice the rate of full precision FP32.

I would take amd 390 Nitro than GTX970 mostly because you have 8GB not 3,5. Newest game need more and more ram. And second because there is very strange thing if we will check graphic test in many games (especially newest one). I don't know if this is because nvdia doing some strange thing with their driver/physx in games or amd is creating better drivers but in older games 390 and 970 have similar fps results in games but in new games for example The Division is very visible that 390 is getting better. This is magic OR nvdia is making 9xx card worse to prepare market for new generation

I can't understand most of the OP and answers, I can only offer you a bump.

The 970 will be fine for mid/high settings op 1080p for the next few years. If it's going to be 4-5, nobody will know, but 2-3 will definitely be fine. You can run just about any game at ultra settings on 1080p with it right now.

I wouldn't go for the faster memory. It hardly makes any difference (at most 1-2fps), you can spend the money better on other parts.

If you don't mind having a slightly higher noise/power consumption, the AMD 390 is also a good card (a little faster and a little cheaper).

Overclocking RAM hardly affects performance but greatly reduces stability. I really wouldn't do it.

The GTX 970 should do you fine for another 3-4 years at 1080p.

970 is a great gpu especially for it's price. also you'll want an i7 cpu with hyperthreading.

I think upgrading from 2400 to 3000 in RAM isn't big deal in performance. I'd save some money there.

Bump!

I like your primary setup, not bad.
The CPU is sweet. (pretty much the successor of the one I'm still using :P
As long as you know for sure you need hyperthreading (which most don't need) then it's good.
I'd likely make slightly different choices about the cooler and psu, but your choices are not bad or anything.

With regards to your GPU choice. the 970 GTX is a good choice between raw power and budget for the time being but considering the current trend I don't believe it's as futureproof as I'd want it to be for its price. (As for raw power of course the 980 ti beats it by far).

The new architecture that's coming up soon should be a reasonable boost: Please do wait till they show consumer-ready models for that. Then you can make a much better choice.

If you really want a 970GTX: Personally I wouldn't go for the "Asus GeForce GTX 970 4GB STRIX" version but more towards the "MSI GeForce GTX 970 GAMING 4G", assuming there isn't a huge price difference where you live. Should be more efficient and with some overclocking on average get a bit more power out of it.

I would say middle to high settings you are ok for the next 4 years on 1080p. Just don't expect to go up to 60 fps though. That's what I usually do late in the graphic card's cycle, trade in resolution and AA for frames, or have constant 30 fps for sharper image.

I'm going to say that no current GPU will be be good for 4-5 years based on 2 things:

1) Since consoles have finally come out of the dark ages, game graphics might become more demanding. Even if things pace the same, I think even a 980ti would be stretching it to maintain medium to high settings 4-5 years. I typically buy a GPU in the $350-$400 range and upgrade every 3 years to keep up. My last few graphics cards were a GTX 260, then I upgraded to a 470. The 470 was doing OK, and I probably could have gone another year with it but it crapped out after 2 years. It was under warranty, but I had to send it off and wait for a replacement. I still sent it off, but rather than wait I went ahead and bought a GTX 660 in a hurry for about $200 USD. That lasted me 2 years before I bout a GTX 970 last year to be able to run GTA V at 60fps on high settings (my CPU is a first gen i5 2.66GHz overclocked to 3.8GHz).

2) In 2-3 years 1080p is going to be out dated. We've already had of 1440p displays for a while and 4k displays coming down in price, so if you're doing 3D modelling, you'll probably be upgrading your display, and that's going to put extra strain on that GPU to push that resolution.

As for your RAM question, go with the RAM rated for the frequency you will be overclocking to. You can try overclocking the RAM, but RAM can be picky when overclocked. You'll have to mess with timings, and overclocking it might mean running it at slower timings to make it stable. RAM is pretty cheap, so get good RAM rated for the speed you will be running. For example, my first gen Core i5 2.66 GHz would use 1333MHz RAM, but I bought 1600MHz RAM because overclocking bumped up the RAM frequency. If your MB supports it, you can adjust the RAM speeds separate from the base clock. My MB supports this, but at the settings to give me 3.8GHz, brought the RAM frequency up to 1600MHz with options to run at lower frequencies of 1200MHz or 1400MHz. I could have bought cheaper 1333MHz RAM and run it underclocked at 1200MHz or tried pushing it to 1400MHz, but it was easier just to get 1600MHz RAM and not worry about it.

bump

IMHO get better PSU for your RIG :D

1. No. Depending on how terrible it will utilise DX12, its life expectancy currently is around 3 years. If you want a card that lives for 4-5 years, you probably need an AMD R9 390X or Fury, and a really well-ventilated case for the heat they generate.
   Or, even better, get a Quadro or FirePro. Both are good now in gaming – the FirePro is a little better, but there aren't really much difference between them in this regard, and the Quadro line usually outclasses AMD in rendering. not to mention that it outclasses GeForce A LOT in rendering.

2. The opposite: the closer the memory stick's frequency is to the specification base (2133 MHz in DDR4), the more stable the system will be.
   Still, in general, currently 2666 MHz sticks are stable as hell, and there are even a few really good ones up to 3200 MHz (but they also cost almost double of a good 2133 MHz stick).
   Also, unless the latency is also great, having a 3 GHz+ memory stick won't bring any real improvement over a cheap one. I have to add though that you are right in the sense that if RAM helps anywhere, it is usually compressing, which is an important part of media handling.

Edit: Two other things
You want to render but only have 1 TB of storage space for it? This doesn't seem right.
And for the money you spend on that liquid cooler, you could get an air cooler with better performance. Liquid cooling under 90-100 Euros only has one single advantage over air cooling, it is easier to fit in a small case.

As I know, for this kind of work you not need some powerful gaming videocards - just new low-end or medium class, with low power consumption and quiet cooling system. But main priority - memory size, bigger is better, more size > GDDR speed.

bump

If you want to run games in middle-high setting at 1080P for the next 4-5 years at acceptable framerates then get used to the idea of changing your GPU at least once.
Games have cerrtainly got more hardware-hungry.
You can always sell your 970 for an acceptable price and get the next mid-higher range GPU in a few years time.

Edit: Of course it depends on what kind of games you play.

MSI GeForce GTX 970 Gaming Edition OR MSI - AMD Radeon R9 380 4GB GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 Graphics Card - Black

^ Check those out. THey'll last around 4 years till they start slowing down but they overclock like a beast.