GTX 970 vs GTX 1070
The complete head-to-head: full specs, real per-game FPS with 1% lows, ray tracing, a live CPU-bottleneck check, thermals, power and value, with a straight verdict.
GeForce GTX 970
GeForce GTX 1070
avg, 1080p
The short answer
This is not a close race. The GTX 1070 is about 71% faster on average, carries a clean 8 GB frame buffer instead of the 970's segmented 3.5 GB plus 0.5 GB pool, and is the better card for anything beyond light, older games. The 970 is dramatically cheaper on the used market and still runs fine for esports and lighter titles, but the gap here is real and you should not expect a close contest. Buy the 970 only if the price difference is large, buy the 1070 if you want a card that actually holds up in 2026.
These two cards are two full GPU generations apart, and it shows. The GTX 970 was a genuinely excellent 2014 card that became infamous for its 3.5 GB plus 0.5 GB memory split. The GTX 1070 arrived two years later on a new architecture and simply outclasses it. They still get compared because both are common, cheap finds on the used market for anyone building on a tight budget in 2026.
What's ahead: 1080p frame rates for both, a CPU pairing tool, thermal and power comparisons that are closer than the frame rate gap suggests, price trends, and a verdict on whether that 71% gap justifies paying nearly twice as much.
At a glance
Seven dimensions, two cards. Bigger area is not automatically better, each card owns different corners.
Strengths radar
Each axis scored 0-100 relative to the pair
Performance vs price
Up and to the left is better value
Grey dots are neighbouring cards for context.
Which should you buy?
Pick your use case, the winner changes with what you actually do.
If you can find a 970 for $40 to $50, it's the cheapest way into a usable gaming PC, just know its real limits.
The 1070's 71% lead and clean 8 GB pool means it won't feel dated as fast as the 970 already does.
8 GB of clean VRAM fits meaningfully more than the 970's compromised, segmented 4 GB.
A newer Pascal NVENC encoder and far more headroom make recording while gaming realistic on the 1070.
For a spare or kids' PC running older or lighter games, the 970's price is hard to beat.
The 970's own numbers above show it struggling in current titles, the 1070 is the one that's actually playable.
Already own a GTX 970? A used 1070 is a genuine, worthwhile jump.
Short answer: probably not
A 71% average gain is a real upgrade, not a sidegrade. If you're still gaming on a 970 in 2026 and current titles feel rough, a used 1070 at around $90 to $120 fixes that with a clean 8 GB frame buffer on top.
If you want to go further, an RTX 3050 adds ray tracing and DLSS for similar or slightly more money, a genuinely modern feature set the 1070 still lacks. Either is a reasonable next step from a 970.
Full specification comparison
Every spec side by side. The highlighted figure wins each row.
| Specification | GTX 970 | GTX 1070 |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | ||
| GPU / architecture | GM204 · Maxwell | GP104 · Pascal |
| Process node | TSMC 28 nm | TSMC 16 nm ▲ |
| Release date | Sep 19, 2014 | Jun 10, 2016 |
| Launch MSRP | $329 ▲ | $379 |
| Compute | ||
| CUDA cores | 1,664 | 1,920 ▲ |
| RT cores | None | None |
| Tensor cores | None | None |
| Base / boost clock | 1050 / 1178 MHz | 1506 / 1683 MHz ▲ |
| L2 cache | 1.75 MB | 2 MB ▲ |
| Memory | ||
| VRAM | 4 GB GDDR5 (3.5GB+0.5GB split) | 8 GB GDDR5 ▲ |
| Memory bus | 256-bit (segmented) | 256-bit |
| Bandwidth | 224 GB/s (~196 GB/s effective) | 256 GB/s ▲ |
| Power & form factor | ||
| TDP | 145 W ▲ | 150 W |
| Power connector | 2× 6-pin | 1× 8-pin ▲ |
| Suggested PSU | 500 W | 500 W |
| PCIe interface | 3.0 ×16 | 3.0 ×16 |
| Features | ||
| Upscaling | FSR 2 (no DLSS) | FSR 2 (no DLSS) |
| AV1 encode (NVENC) | No | No |
| Display outputs | 3×DP1.2 · HDMI2.0 · DL-DVI-I | 3×DP1.4 · HDMI2.0b · DL-DVI-D |
Average FPS by game
Switch resolution, metric, ray tracing and upscaling, the bars update live. Hover a bar for the avg / 1% / 0.1% breakdown.
Average FPS · 1080p · Rasterization. Representative data, hover a bar for avg / 1% / 0.1%. Note the GTX 1070's 1% lows fall off at 1440p and up from its 8 GB VRAM.
Smoothness & frametimes
Average FPS hides stutter. This is one run plotted as frametime, a flat line is smooth, spikes are hitches. Watch what the GTX 1070's 8 GB VRAM does in a texture-heavy game.
Frametime: Hogwarts Legacy, 1080p Ultra
Lower and flatter is better · 16.7 ms = 60 fps
Counterintuitive but real: the slower GTX 970 delivers a smoother line here because 12 GB holds the texture pool the 8 GB GTX 1070 keeps evicting, those spikes are VRAM stutter, not raw speed.
Lab scores
Clean apples-to-apples tests, useful, but weaker at predicting real games than the FPS above.
Ray tracing & upscaling
Ray tracing tanks both cards at native resolution. What makes it playable is upscaling, and here the GTX 1070 has a real edge.
Is frame generation "real" performance?
Neither card supports DLSS Frame Generation, it needs Tensor Cores and an Optical Flow Accelerator that did not exist until RTX 40-series. The GTX 970 and GTX 1070 both predate DLSS entirely, they have no AI upscaling of any kind built in.
AMD's FSR 2 and FSR 3 work as open, non-AI alternatives on both since they run through the game engine rather than fixed hardware. FSR 3's frame generation is the closest either card gets to smoother motion, support depends on the game.
Will your CPU bottleneck these cards?
A faster GPU only helps if your CPU keeps up. Pick your CPU and resolution to see expected FPS and bottleneck for each card.
CPU + GPU pairing check
The willitbottleneck engine, built right into the comparison.
Estimated from a 43-CPU model across 1440p. A weak CPU mostly bites at 1080p; at higher resolutions the GPU becomes the limiter and the bottleneck shrinks.
Thermals & noise
The efficiency gap shows up here: the newer card runs cooler and quieter, day in and day out.
Real draw, efficiency & PSU
TDP is the rated figure; what matters is real gaming draw and how many frames you get per watt.
Both use a single 8-pin connector. If your PSU already ran the GTX 970, it will run the GTX 1070 easily. Leave about 30% headroom for spikes.
Will it fit, and what to pair it with?
Size to scale
Card length matters for small cases
What monitor to pair
GTX 970: best at 1080p medium to high settings, 60 to 90 Hz in most games. GTX 1070: comfortably handles 1080p ultra and holds up at 1440p in many titles, especially at 60 to 100 Hz. Neither is a realistic 4K card in 2026.
Running an older PCIe 3.0 board?
Both run PCIe 3.0 x16 and are unaffected by motherboard generation. Bandwidth was never the bottleneck for either card, the GPU core itself is the limiting factor long before the PCIe link matters.
Price history & dollars-per-frame
Raw price is only half the story. Cost per frame is the number that decides it, and it keeps moving as prices fall.
New price over time
Street price of new cards (USD)
The 4 GB vs 8 GB question
GTX 970 · 4 GB
- 4 GB nominal is enough for older and lighter games at 1080p medium settings.
- The well-known 970 memory split means only 3.5 GB runs at full speed, the last 0.5 GB is much slower and gets avoided by drivers when possible.
- Modern AAA titles at 1080p ultra blow past what the 970 can comfortably hold, textures degrade or stutter.
- Half the VRAM of the 1070 with a slower, segmented pool on top.
GTX 1070 · 8 GB
- 8 GB of full-speed GDDR5 on a clean 256-bit bus, no segmentation quirks like the 970.
- Enough headroom for 1440p textures and most current games at 1080p ultra without stutter.
- Big enough for small local AI models and large Blender/Resolve scenes that the 970 simply cannot hold.
- Still GDDR5 bandwidth by 2026 standards, newer 8 GB cards move more data per second.
Emulation & memory bandwidth
The narrower bus is a real downgrade for emulation
The 1070's full 256 GB/s of clean bandwidth and 8 GB of VRAM handle high-resolution Switch and PS3 emulation far better than the 970, whose usable pool effectively caps near 3.5 GB before hitting the slow memory segment. For any serious emulation at higher internal resolutions, the 1070 is the only realistic choice of the two.
Creator, AI & streaming
The newer card is quicker per task, but the older card's extra VRAM unlocks larger jobs it can't fit at all.
Streaming: the AV1 encoder is the differentiator
Both use older NVENC encoders without AV1 support, expect H.264/HEVC only. The 1070's Pascal encoder is a modest step up in quality per bitrate over the 970's Maxwell encoder, and its extra headroom makes it the better pick for recording while gaming without stealing frame rate.
Overclocking & undervolting
The GTX 1070 has more headroom and a stronger reputation, Pascal cards are known for reliably hitting high boost clocks with a simple power limit increase. The GTX 970 also overclocks well for its era, but the smaller memory segment and older Maxwell design mean the ceiling is lower and gains matter less against a much faster card.
Pros & cons
GTX 970
- Very cheap on the used market, often under $60
- Low enough power draw for a mid-range 500W PSU
- Fine for older and lighter games at 1080p
- About 71% slower than the 1070, a massive real-world gap
- The infamous 3.5GB/0.5GB memory split limits headroom
- Falls short in demanding modern games at 1080p ultra
GTX 1070
- Roughly 71% faster with a clean, full-speed 8 GB frame buffer
- Still capable at 1080p ultra and dips into 1440p territory
- Pascal's excellent overclocking headroom adds free performance
- Costs about twice as much as a 970 on the used market
- Uses an 8-pin connector and needs a bit more PSU headroom
Buying pitfalls
The GTX 970's famous 3.5GB VRAM issue
NVIDIA's 970 uses a segmented memory design, only 3.5 GB runs at full bandwidth, the remaining 512 MB is far slower and can cause stutter once a game tries to use it. This was a real controversy at launch in 2014 and still shapes how the card behaves in modern, VRAM-hungry games. Budget for that when judging headroom.
Reference vs custom cooler matters more on cards this old
Both cards are sold almost entirely used by 2026. A reference blower-cooled 970 or 1070 runs hotter and louder than an aftermarket triple-fan model at the same clocks. Check which cooler you're actually buying, thermals in this comparison assume a decent aftermarket card, not a blower.
GTX 970 vs GTX 1070: your questions answered
Not really, no. The 1070 is about 71% faster on average, carries a clean 8 GB frame buffer instead of the 970's segmented 4 GB, and holds up far better in current games. This isn't a close call.
Only if the price gap is large. Buy the 1070 if your budget allows, it's a real, lasting upgrade. Buy the 970 only if it's dramatically cheaper and you're fine with lighter or older games at modest settings.
For older and lighter titles at 1080p medium settings, it still works. For current AAA games at higher settings, it struggles hard, this comparison's own numbers show it dropping into the teens in demanding titles.
It's the bigger factor of the two, its clean 8 GB pool fits meaningfully more than the 970's compromised, segmented 4 GB. Neither has Tensor Cores though, so both are slow next to any modern RTX card.
No, it's the encoder plus far more performance headroom to spare while recording. The 970's smaller, segmented VRAM pool also hurts it on larger editing timelines.
No, neither has any. Both predate RTX entirely and have no dedicated RT hardware. Ray tracing only runs through slow software fallback, effectively unusable on either card.
It's the only option either way, DLSS needs Tensor Cores which neither card has. Both work with AMD's open FSR 2 and FSR 3 upscalers instead.
Unlikely to hold either back, both are modest GPUs by 2026 standards, so almost any CPU from the last several years keeps them fed. Use the pairing checker on this page to confirm your exact CPU.
Surprisingly, yes. The 970 draws about 140 W and the 1070 about 145 W, close to identical despite the 71% speed gap. Cooling quality varies more by which specific card you buy than by which GPU it is.
No, NVIDIA's official recommendation is 500 W for both cards. A quality 550 to 600 W unit is a safe, comfortable choice for either.
Not really, both cards run at around 267mm and use a full PCIe 3.0 x16 link, unaffected by motherboard generation. Check your case's maximum GPU length before buying either.
Not directly, GTX 970M and GTX 1070 Mobile, including a Max-Q variant, both run at lower clocks and power limits than these desktop parts, so never compare laptop numbers against these figures.
Yes, not for modern games. Both are 1080p cards at best, and the 970 struggles even there in current titles. Treat 4K as unrealistic for this pairing.
For most buyers, yes. A used 970 around $40 is the cheapest way into a PC, while a used 1070 around $90 to $120 is worth the extra money if you want a card that actually holds up.
Not imminently, NVIDIA still ships Game Ready drivers covering both Maxwell and Pascal architectures, so neither is at immediate risk of losing updates, though don't expect either to be a priority going forward.
Because the performance gap is real and buyers know it. The 1070 remains genuinely capable for 1080p gaming in 2026, while the 970's segmented VRAM and age push its price down to bargain-bin territory.