I too went with gtx970 knowing the 'issues' it has. I think much of it is being wholly blown out of proportion. I wanted an update to my gtx670 2GB card mostly for gaming since it's really starting to struggle on some titles in 1440p. There was no way I will pay $550+ for gtx980 (or any card for that matter). AMD is no option for me. They are so much hotter, louder and more power hungry and I never had anything but problems with their terrible drivers in the past either. Though the last AMD I owned was FireStream 9270. So basically for me it was either buy gtx970, older used card with 4GB, or no upgrade. I regret going cheap on the gtx670 and not getting the 4GB version... I might have lasted through another generation.
the issue is not blown out of proportion.. the odds of frames dipping into single digits are real..
it's not that it will happen all the time..
So it's like a car, that will intermittently TURN OFF... doesn't matter how great the car is, but if it intermittently turns off here/there while ur driving... That's a major problem
The issues are blown WAY out of proportion.. who bought a gtx 970 planning on using it for 4k or multi monitor surround gaming? The 970 absolutely destroys 1080p and is more than enough for 1440.
many people bought the 970 for SLI on 2560x1600.. if you add 4x AA to that, you can easily exceed 3.5GB
I'm pretty sure 'many people' and 2560x1600 are mutually exclusive statements.. but a SINGLE 970 seems to run pretty much any benchmark I've seen pretty well at 2560x1440 with 4x AA
The benches don't always cover large frame dips..
For example.. what if you had a game going, then minimized it, and the card didn't flush that, and you loaded another game.. in this case you'd hit the 3.5..
now you have to go back and close the other game...
many programs now use the GPU cache as well,...
point is.. if you have a 970, odds are it's ok if you work around the kinks..
but, if you went and BOUGHT one today, that's just "needless aggravation"..