OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£400VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):170 W

EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming
5.6/10

Overall score

Score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

40%

4.4

Technical score

25%

4.4

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

9.0

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 93% of graphics cards
6.4

Value for money

Value for money
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

▼Worse than 88%
4.4

Technical score

Technical score
4.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

44%

2.4

Performance

24%

3.8

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.6

Design

4%

6.8

Connectivity

▼Worse than 91%
4.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 92% of models

4.4

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 92%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • evga-geforce-gtx-970-hybrid-gaming
evga-geforce-gtx-970-hybrid-gaming
Where to buy
    N/A~ £400
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming

Based on 2 · 1

Reviewers mostly agree the hybrid cooling works well and keeps temperatures low, though not everyone is convinced.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming

Based on 232 owners sharing their experience in online comments

76%positive12%mixed12%negative

Owners praise its long-lasting gaming performance, while memory limits and aging speed hold it back in newer games.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say newer demanding games often run at only 35 to 45 fps at 1080p, forcing them to lower settings or consider upgrading.22
  • Games that need more than the card's usable 3.5 GB of video memory can cause frame drops, stutter or crashes at 1080p or 1440p, especially at high textures.8
  • Owners say the card was advertised as 4 GB but only 3.5 GB runs at full speed, and some felt misled and sought refunds or returns.8
  • Owners report microstutter and frame drops, often when games push past about 3.5 GB of video memory at high texture settings.7
  • Some owners report temperatures near 75 degrees Celsius under load, with one card in a pair running hotter than the other.3
  • Owners report real-world results well below review benchmarks, often around 45 fps average with dips into the 30s in demanding areas.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming

Technical score
Technical score
4.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components:

44%

2.4

Performance

24%

3.8

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.6

Design

4%

6.8

Connectivity

4.4
Reviews score
4.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

6.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
4,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 4,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 90.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
9,900 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 9,900 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 84.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,740 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,740 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 92.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
3.79 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 3.79 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 90% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
224.3 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 224.3 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 83.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
7,010 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 7,010 MHz, which is slower than that of 89.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
170 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 170 W, which is lower than that of 63.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.9% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
299 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 299 W under peak load, which is higher than 70.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
500 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 500 W PSU, which is lower than that of 75.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
148 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 148 W, which is lower than that of 77.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
148 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
?
Length
241.3 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 241.3 mm long, which is shorter than 74.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
111.15 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111.15 mm tall, which is shorter than 81.1% of graphics cards and equal in height to 2.4% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
2041 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 2041 g, which is heavier than 91.6% of Graphics cards.
Show more

EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 13.85 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.15 mm vs 125 mm
  • 40.9 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (241.3 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    241.3 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 20.9% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (170 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    170 W vs 215 W
  • 15.4% higher sentiment score
    9.0 vs 7.8
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 0.2% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,753 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,753 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports NVLink
    This graphics card supports NVLink, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 20.9% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (170 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    170 W vs 215 W
  • 32.7% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (148 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    148 W vs 220 W
  • Uses hybrid cooling
    This graphics card uses hybrid cooling, the average graphics card does not.
  • 27 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (40 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    40 °C vs 67 °C
  • 14 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (23 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    23 °C vs 37 °C
  • 13.85 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.15 mm vs 125 mm
  • 40.9 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (241.3 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    241.3 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 48.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,279 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,279 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 38.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models

    4.4

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.4 vs 7.2
  • 27 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (13 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    13 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 40.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,140 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,140 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 38.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models

    4.4

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.4 vs 7.2
  • 15% worse value for money
    EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.45 vs 7.4).
    6.45 vs 7.41
  • 48.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,279 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,279 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 27 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (13 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    13 vs 40
  • 40.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,140 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,140 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 64.8% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (133 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    133 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 80 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (104 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    104 vs 184
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 60.4% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (63.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    63.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 83.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (3.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    3.79 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 8 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2015 vs 2023).
    December 2015
    2015 vs 2023
  • 72.9% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (4,000 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    4,000 points vs 14,779 points
  • 56.3% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (9,900 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    9,900 points vs 22,638 points
  • 8 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (56 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    56 vs 64
  • 77.3% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,740 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,740 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 75% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.12 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 2,688 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,664 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,664 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 63.1% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,010 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,010 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 49.9% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (224.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    224.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6 vs 6.8).
    6 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 77.3% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (5,200 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    5,200 million vs 22,900 million
  • 35.4% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (398 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    398 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2 vs 2.1a).
    2.0 vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    1 vs 6
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 25 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (25 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    25 dB vs 0 dB
  • 4.5 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (39.9 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    39.9 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 2.01x heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (2041 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    2,041 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
Joker Productions
≈ estimated
29/12/2015
Comparison · air vs water cooling, temperatures and noise
Verdict
EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming is a niche pick for buyers who want the coolest card, but it is louder and pricier than air cooling.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
legitreviews.com
≈ estimated
10/02/2016
Review · Closed-loop water-cooled card
Verdict
The EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming is a water-cooled card with noticeably lower GPU temperatures, though its clocks trail several other EVGA models.
6.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
15/12/2015
Lab test · Liquid-cooled GTX 970
Verdict
The EVGA GTX 970 Hybrid runs cooler than any card on the bench, suiting warm rooms or cramped cases, but trails the SSC model by about 2%.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming

  • Exceptionally low operating temperatures (approx. 23°C idle / 40°C load) due to the self-contained liquid cooling loop.
  • Whisper-quiet performance, as the GPU stays cool enough to keep fans at low RPM even during gaming.
  • Strong overclocking potential, with some users reaching over +200MHz core stable clocks.
  • Maintenance-free 'all-in-one' design that is easy to install in standard 120mm fan ports.
  • Reliable high-frame-rate performance for 1080p and 1440p gaming at high settings (at time of release).

What customers don't like about EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming

  • Higher price point compared to standard air-cooled GTX 970 models, which some users felt offered better value.
  • Physical size requirements: the 120mm radiator and tubing require additional space and mounting points in the PC case.
  • The 3.5GB/4GB memory limitation characteristic of all GTX 970 cards, which can lead to performance drops in VRAM-heavy scenarios.
  • Conservative factory clock speeds despite the cooling headroom, requiring manual overclocking to fully utilize the thermal benefits.
  • The basic short PCB design was seen as 'unnecessary' or underwhelming by enthusiasts expecting a high-end custom board.

Verdict

The EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming is a high-performance graphics card built on the 28nm Maxwell 2.0 architecture, featuring 1664 CUDA cores and a factory-overclocked base clock of 1140 MHz that boosts up to 1279 MHz. Its standout characteristic is a self-contained, maintenance-free 'all-in-one' liquid cooling system that paired a dedicated 120mm radiator for the GPU core with a blower fan for the VRM and 4GB of GDDR5 memory. This hybrid setup offers significant pros, including exceptionally low load temperatures (often under 50°C), near-silent operation, and a 256-bit memory interface providing 224.3 GB/s of bandwidth. However, it is hindered by the well-known GTX 970 'VRAM controversy,' where only 3.5GB of its 4GB memory runs at full speed, and it is occasionally noted for audible coil whine under heavy stress.

Compare EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of EVGA GeForce GTX 970 Hybrid Gaming and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found