980 TI stock and OC vs. Fury X stock and OC [techspot]

[crisium]

Well, ROTTR was actually the only game I have installed with a benchmark, doh. 1440p, mostly max settings. Average of 6 runs. Fury air.

1100MHz Core / 545MHz Memory / 60 CUs = 53.85 fps avg
1100MHz Core / 545MHz Memory / 56 CUs = 53.06 fps avg
1000MHz Core / 500MHz Memory / 56 CUs = 49.73 fps avg

So 6.7% gain for 10% Core / 9% Mem OC. Partial unlock doesn't do much, just another 1.5% over default CUs. But that's an 8.3% total gain over a stock reference Fury in this (only one sadly) game.

 

[Bacon1]

I just tested DXMD while in DX12 mode. Instead of doing my normal run around I just stared at a wall (so no NPC's would walk in front of me and so FPS was steady).

GPU usage from MSI Afterburner was @ ~96% the whole time.

Gotta say I just found out about the MSI Afterburner remote server & phone app and it made testing this very nice. Since I was just looking at a wall my fps was completely stable but there was still high CPU usage and other game logic / NPCs going on behind me. I was able to modify the clocks / voltages from my phone and then record the changes without having to touch my computer at all

Anyway, going from the stock of 1000 (and my own undervolt) to 1150 (15% OC) had 11% gain in this game, still with ~96% GPU utilization. The power usage I took from my UPS so I'm not sure how accurate it is, plus it includes other things like my monitors. It does seem to have jumps in ranges for what it reports off, but I included it for anyone curious. "Idle" usage is around 170w (browsing web etc). The 15% OC used ~41 more watts going from -72 to a +72 voltage modifier.

I tried doing HBM OCing (500, 525, 550), but with the Relive drivers AMD seems to have locked them down again, and even enabling both settings did allow me to OC it finally, but it made absolutely no difference, so I'm not sure if it was just a display change or if the memory isn't bottlenecking at all so made no difference. Since it wasn't making any difference I didn't test any further.

Well, ROTTR was actually the only game I have installed with a benchmark, doh. 1440p, mostly max settings. Average of 6 runs. Fury air.

1100MHz Core / 545MHz Memory / 60 CUs = 53.85 fps avg
1100MHz Core / 545MHz Memory / 56 CUs = 53.06 fps avg
1000MHz Core / 500MHz Memory / 56 CUs = 49.73 fps avg

So 6.7% gain for 10% Core / 9% Mem OC. Partial unlock doesn't do much, just another 1.5% over default CUs. But that's an 8.3% total gain over a stock reference Fury in this (only one sadly) game.

Can you try w/o doing memory OC? I found that ocing the memory had 0 impact when doing my testing.

 

[crisium]

Quite right. Stock reference specs with only a 9% memory OC resulted in 49.87 fps, virtually identical with the stock results of 49.73.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Again with your lies.

It has been your daily routine to spread lies on GTX1070 and GTX980Ti

GTX980Ti hardly exceeds 1500Mhz unless you have golden sample. In the link posted by OP, 1.48Ghz 980Ti is faster than stock Gigabyte GTX1070 G1 on average on 7%. Did you forgot that the Gigabyte GTX1070 G1 can overclock as well?

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_1070_g1_gaming_review,29.html

Overclocked Gigabyte GTX1070 G1 on average are 9% faster than stock Gigabyte GTX1070 G1.

So we can see that overclocked Gigabyte GTX1070 G1 is slightly faster than 1.48Ghz GTX980TI.

1-2% variation is too small. GTX1070 and GTX980Ti is essentially equal in performance.

So stop spreading your lies.

The review posted in the OP used a reference 980 Ti. That was the point Head1985 is making. There's a huge gulf in speed between reference 980 Ti and a decent aftermarket one.

Techpowerup's reference 980 Ti gains 9.4% from overclocking
Techpowerup's Gigabyte Xtreme Gaming 980 Ti gains 10.6% from overclocking, and it was already 20% faster than the reference 980 Ti out of the box. For a total of 32.8% performance increase over the reference 980 Ti, compared to a 9.4% increase max OC on the reference itself.

Techspot might have increased the power and temperature limits on their reference 980 Ti, which would increase the performance gains from overclocking substantially, but a proper comparison demands an aftermarket 980 Ti against an aftermarket 1070. For one, you certainly can't buy a reference 980 Ti anymore, not new at least, and Techspot was using an aftermarket 1070 in their review, only fair to compare it to an aftermarket 980 Ti.

I'd wager that if you paired a nice aftermarket cooler and PCB with a fully-enabled GM200 (3072 shader) that you'd see it come within 5% of an aftermarket 1080 OC vs OC.

 

[railven]

Catching up on some readings. TIL, a press event at E3 is not considered advertising by some members here. Hell, everything at E3 is basically advertising! EDIT: Hell, it came directly from AMD and every forum member and blogger wouldn't stop talking about it. Of course, until the card launched. Then it became taboo haha.

As for GTX 980 Ti, loved that card. Mine OC'd out of the box with max fan to something like ~1504mhz. Slapped a an EVGA Hyrbid cooler on it and kept it <40c @ 1450mhz without problem. Kicker was because of rebates, the Batman fiasco, and EVGA giving stuff away, it cost me less than a Fury X would have cost.

Definitely going down with my beloved (still miss it) ref HD 7970 as a champ.

 

[SolMiester]

LOL, forgot why I hardly ever visited this site anymore until I read the bollocks about ''Fury OC dreaming'' excuses from those that should know better.

Trolling is not allowed
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator

 

[moonbogg]

In Rise of the Tomb Raider my FPS doubled with DX12. Yes. It doubled. Locked at 100 with dips in the 80's @ 3440x1440, no AA, all maxed except textures are high instead of very high. Seems to be a very odd issue with very high textures under DX12 only causing the game to lock up and crash. DX12 and SLI are fantastic in this game.

 

[tviceman]

In Rise of the Tomb Raider my FPS doubled with DX12. Yes. It doubled. Locked at 100 with dips in the 80's @ 3440x1440, no AA, all maxed except textures are high instead of very high. Seems to be a very odd issue with very high textures under DX12 only causing the game to lock up and crash. DX12 and SLI are fantastic in this game.

Is there a noticeable visual difference between high and very high textures?

 

[moonbogg]

Is there a noticeable visual difference between high and very high textures?

The difference is technically there, but you really need to stop what you are doing and compare side by side images, close up, to notice it. You really need a keen eye and a magnifying glass for this, and if you have neither of those things, its OK, just watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfpSyMpWbeE