GTX 970 and GTX 980 is officially launched

Page 31 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,167
3,862
136
Comfortably is as apt a descriptor as you'll find anywhere. If you do not like the use of the word comfortably then perhaps you could contact them and ask them to rewrite their "article" entirely. Maybe something like, "Nvidia GTX980 was ahead of 290X, but it broke a sweat doing it."

He could had said that it is 9% faster at 1440p than a 290X in full mode but i guess that he couldnt had writen " is comfortably 9% ahead"...:biggrin:

According to this graph the 290 in full mode is largely as fast as a 970, the two regular cards are in quiet mode in this test, the Tri X OC are clocked respectively 5% and 4% higher than stock full mode of 290 and 290X.



http://www.hardware.fr/articles/928-20/recapitulatif-performances.html
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,167
3,862
136
You are right, it is simply used at stock but looks like it doesnt perform accordingly as the Tri X OC variant is clocked only 53Mhz higher than the supposed 947 of the stock card, yet perfs increase by 7.7% for 5.6% higher frequency..
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
You are right, it is simply used at stock but looks like it doesnt perform accordingly as the Tri X OC variant is clocked only 53Mhz higher than the supposed 947 of the stock card, yet perfs increase by 7.7% for 5.6% higher frequency..

Since almost all sites tested 290X in quiet mode, but most people buying 290X either water cooled them or bought after-market versions that solved temperature and noise levels, the reasonable non-biased comparison on an enthusiast forum that can be made is 290X max power tune vs. 980 max power tune if we are talking stock performance.

Computerbase is about the only site that actually did this.

980 max vs. 290X max

1920x1080 = +21%
2560x1600 = +12%
4K = +8%
Average: 13.7% or ~ 14%

14% with 100W less power draw is comfortably ahead but the 980 is 1 year newer. The same people in that Motley fool article never provided the same accolades when $399 R9 290 forced a $650 780 to drop to $499 and 290s destroyed a 780Ti for $100 more. It's these double standards that are the most frustrating. 970 is slightly faster than a 1 year old 290 but it's only $70 less. That's good, but not a revolutionary performance/$ leap in 12 months. It's only amazing in light of NV's laughable $699 780Ti price and if you only buy NV cards.
 
Last edited:

tajoh111

Senior member
Mar 28, 2005
305
322
136
Since almost all sites tested 290X in quiet mode, but most people buying 290X either water cooled them or bought after-market versions that solved temperature and noise levels, the reasonable non-biased comparison on an enthusiast forum that can be made is 290X max power tune vs. 980 max power tune if we are talking stock performance.

Computerbase is about the only site that actually did this.

980 max vs. 290X max

1920x1080 = +21%
2560x1600 = +12%
4K = +8%
Average: 13.7% or ~ 14%

14% with 100W less power draw is comfortably ahead but the 980 is 1 year newer. The same people in that Motley fool article never provided the same accolades when $399 R9 290 forced a $650 780 to drop to $499 and 290s destroyed a 780Ti for $100 more. It's these double standards that are the most frustrating. 970 is slightly faster than a 1 year old 290 but it's only $70 less. That's good, but not a revolutionary performance/$ leap in 12 months. It's only amazing in light of NV's laughable $699 780Ti price and if you only buy NV cards.

The impressive thing about the gtx 980 as a whole is it outperforms 290x by that 14 percent while consuming 100w less power on the same maufacturing node. It beats the 290x on all levels, while a gtx 970 matches it for performance for far less power. You try to downplay the new cards from Nvidia because they are one year newer than Hawaii, but being one year newer doesn't meant they are guaranteed improvements like you see with the gtx 980.

Case in point, look at the r9 285. Note they have the same power consumption or around the same ballpark of the new gtx 980. They were also both released in September. But the gtx 980 has 75% higher performance. That is massive.

What this means is right now, Nvidia has an overwhelming architectural advantage. Considering there wasn't much of an improvement between Tonga and hawaii performance per watt wise, a big version of the r9 285 could very well perform the same as hawaii before it hits the power wall the 290x hits.

On the other hand with the gtx 980, if Nvidia made a big titan version of it, you still have 100watts to go, which means you could eek out another 50 percent more performance. This could translate into a card that is 60% faster than a r9 290x. And this is with the card being held back by being manufactured a 28nm. If Nvidia got a die shrink(double transistors) + maxwell, you could be looking at the single biggest increase of a newest generation of cards ever. Bigger than the gtx 8800, bigger than the 9700 pro.

Pricing is the only thing that hurts the review of the gtx 980(this flaw isn't present on the gtx 970), but from a technological perspective, they are worthy of the praise they get. And the generally balanced nature of these new cards are what is causing the reviewers to go wild and people to worry about AMD longterm ability to compete.

R9 285 and the gtx 980/970 platform are really a preview of what is expected from both companies in the next year or so. The problem is the gtx 980 is good and the pricing reflects that, and the r9 285 generally sucks in comparison and its pricing reflects that.

But considering you think the 290s destroyed the gtx 780 ti's, I am not sure if you can appreciate the new maxwell cards anyways.
 
Last edited:

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
^ 9 years later your first post!
That's got to be a record...

While I agree with the gist of your post, people are overplaying the "technological" perspectives here.

Where were these people when the 290/x got a 512 bit bus, XDMA crossfire (which is absolutely phenomenal considering you don't need a limiting cable and can put the cards in any slots even 4 slots apart), smoother crossfire (mantle is smoother yet), ... and all the other advancements?

Basically the 980 has efficiency, and personally I would have rather seen them bump up the clocks and volts to actually beat the 780 ti soundly. Compared to the 680, the bump from 780 ti to 980 is pitifully small (and to any other top successor). It's hard to mention this with all of the marketing hyping watts. They are being very conservative with the clocks and voltages, probably only to make sure the 980 ti (large die) will "beat" the 980 by 30% (or whatever amount) so they can charge $800+ for it.

This is hype marketing, and it too will pass if AMD passes NV in efficiency just like smoothness campaign between the 680/7970. What happened to the smoother but slower? I guess the 290x crossfire should be recommended for being "smoother" even though it's slower? The goalpost shifting occurred quick with that one, now it's met with silence since it's no longer an advantage.

I'm not saying efficiency doesn't matter at all, it does for a number of reasons, but it's not that special in the enthusiast high end desktop. If it's limiting OC and too hot it's clearly a flaw.

I think the 970/980 are good chips, I just think the 980 is a joke for a high end successor but it's easily missed with the decent pricing of the 970.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
Efficiency may not be the most important metric for all individuals but it still is important and why virtually every review touches on this subject!

The Maxwell performance and price/performance isn't revolutionary but very welcomed but what is revolutionary is the performance/watt considering it's the same process.

This speaks for itself:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_970_JetStream/26.html

Performance/watt may be the most important metric for architectures and possibly for the market place.
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
I can't be the only person that cares about efficiency only in the sense of how much noise it produces? Even then I don't like even ~200W cooling noise so I watercool the cards anyway, so I just don't find efficiency a massively important metric. If the card comes in at a reasonable wattage (with todays coolers that would be anything below about 250W), which results in it being relatively quiet at load then the efficiency doesn't matter at all. Its not like cutting 100W at load is going to make any noticeable change in your electricity bill or save the planet, the only reason Nvidia/AMD worries about it at all is because they have to make something that can be cooled.

So really its all about the price you pay for the performance (smoothness and raw FPS) and features you get. In this measure the 970 brings 780 ti like performance into a more reasonable price bracket, a few features that don't matter very much yet and basically that is all. Its a reasonable jump in a year or so but all it does is bring Nvidia back into competing on price/performance with AMD again. I just don't find any of this even in line with the normal evolution of graphics cards let alone an impressive delivery. I am sure Nvidia sunk a lot of man hours to make it, but the end result isn't doing much but retiring an equivalent card.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
He could had said that it is 9% faster at 1440p than a 290X in full mode but i guess that he couldnt had writen " is comfortably 9% ahead"...:biggrin:

According to this graph the 290 in full mode is largely as fast as a 970, the two regular cards are in quiet mode in this test, the Tri X OC are clocked respectively 5% and 4% higher than stock full mode of 290 and 290X.



http://www.hardware.fr/articles/928-20/recapitulatif-performances.html

If you and a friend of yours were being chased by a bear, and you are running away from the bear, and at that moment you discover your friend was 9% faster than you were. Would you say your friend was uncomfortable with that? Would you feel uncomforted at that moment? I think you might.





:sneaky:
 
Last edited:

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,273
149
106
I can't be the only person that cares about efficiency only in the sense of how much noise it produces? Even then I don't like even ~200W cooling noise so I watercool the cards anyway, so I just don't find efficiency a massively important metric. If the card comes in at a reasonable wattage (with todays coolers that would be anything below about 250W), which results in it being relatively quiet at load then the efficiency doesn't matter at all. Its not like cutting 100W at load is going to make any noticeable change in your electricity bill or save the planet, the only reason Nvidia/AMD worries about it at all is because they have to make something that can be cooled.

If two cards need 250W while one of them is 80% faster then you wont care about efficiency?
A GTX980 is 80% faster than a r9 285 while using less power.

So really its all about the price you pay for the performance (smoothness and raw FPS) and features you get.

Higher efficiency results in higher prices.
 

MTDEW

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 1999
4,284
37
91
If you and a friend of yours were being chased by a bear, and you are running away from the bear, and at that moment you discover your friend was 9% faster than you were. Would you say your friend was uncomfortable with that? Would you feel uncomforted at that moment? I think you might.





:sneaky:
LMAO
Well then I'm afraid I'd have to trip him and leave my "old friend" behind.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
This is hype marketing, and it too will pass if AMD passes NV in efficiency just like smoothness campaign between the 680/7970. What happened to the smoother but slower? I guess the 290x crossfire should be recommended for being "smoother" even though it's slower? The goalpost shifting occurred quick with that one, now it's met with silence since it's no longer an advantage.

The added awareness was good over-all based on better experiences for multi-gpu owners moving forward. Some gamers were talking about this for nearly a decade -- what bothered me was the sheer downplaying of runts. My beef with AFR was the actual number portrayed wasn't really the actual frame-rate offered.

This was a wonderful thread discussing the positives and limitations back in the day:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47683

Personally have a few posts and desired more investigations and learned about the inner workings of their limitations. Some gamers, engineers, editors and the author of this piece was in there:

http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/video/ati4870x2cf/index.php?p=2

The investigations for multi-gpu and single GPU were so very welcomed based on the awareness created more commitments from the powerful players.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |