GTX 980Ti finally launched - MSRP $649 - Reviews

[YBS1]

Isn't the block for the Hydrocopper made by a third-party? Traditionally, the HC has been pretty expensive BUT is pretty much the only plug-n-play WC GPU you can just connect to an existing custom loop AND have a warranty. For some, that is worth it...

As an aside, the Hydrocopper 980Ti clocks look low...I wonder if a better version will be released when more custom 980Tis are available?

Yes, it's made by EK, but you can bet EVGA isn't paying as much for them as we would. So I don't see how all the additional things that go into the hybrids are cheaper.

 

[Silverforce11]

It boggles my mind that people think a card at Titan X/980 Ti level of performance with 4GB is the same as a 970 with 4GB...

The 970 hardly had a chance to be playable with anything that used more than 4GB of VRAM, unless you have more than one card. The new top cards have a chance of being playable at settings that use >4GB VRAM.

Is that so hard to understand?

You should show a situation where 980 SLI is not playable but Titan X is, then we can see 4GB as being the limitation rather than GPU power.

Currently there's none. 4K with 8x MSAA is not playable on Titan X, it lacks the grunt to push settings beyond 4GB vram limits.

 

[Udgnim]

So they are calling it a "bug" right? I swear in all honesty, I do not believe them when they say that. I want to see some new numbers for the fix.

funny thing is some people were arguing that Nvidia maxed out Kepler instead of blaming Nvidia for not properly optimizing for Kepler

 

[Silverforce11]

funny thing is some people were arguing that Nvidia maxed out Kepler instead of blaming Nvidia for not properly optimizing for Kepler

Those same people choose to ignore the blatant fact that Kepler ONLY under-perform in games where NV are actively involved in development, ie. NV GameWorks program.

It's amazing that with their active engagement in making a game, they didn't find these "bugs" during the years it took for the game to be made. They only started looking for these bugs once the rage meter exploded to the front page of Reddit... and they found those "bugs" pretty quickly, almost on the same day as the rage started.

 

[RussianSensation]

I'm not sure I get your beef with my usage of the word.

Again, I'm referring to a previous thread where there was ongoing debates about a top end card shipping with 4GB, the fiasco that ensued about the topic. RS was bringing up the same arguments that I and others had already addressed, specifically about my buying habits which he is more concerned with than anyone else, myself included. So I referred to that thread as the "4gb fiasco" so he knows what I'm talking about.

No, you are confused. I don't care about your buying habits in particular. It's that when people say one thing and do another, then I call it out. You already ordered 980Tis well before even seeing the price, performance or VRAM options of Fiji XT. We don't even know what the performance of Fiji XT will be but you already decided it's a worse videocard. How?

Fiji XT could be a flop or it could beat the 980Ti. We don't know. Truly brand agnostic/objective gamers do not state they are open-minded about the next flagship card and literally order the first one to come out when the competitor is releasing their SKU in 3 weeks. Unless you know that Fiji will 100% have 4GB of HBM1 and it has worse performance than a 980Ti, then as I said you already made up your mind a long time ago about which cards you were going to buy. That's the whole point about someone pretending to be objective for months.

I don't attach myself to nVidia like you attach yourself to AMD. Pummel/smash away.

My attachment is to consistency. Price/performance. I even skipped HD5850/5870 and got GTX470s because once overclocked they outperformed 5850s or 5870s. My HD7970s were better than 680s because they cost $0 due to mining and were actually superior for games. While some people were paying for every single GPU upgrade since 2008, I paid $0 because AMD cards made $. That suddenly makes me an AMD fanboy? What a nonsensical accusation. I literally spent $0 on videocards since 2008 because I bought AMD cards. I didn't buy AMD cards cuz I am attached to the brand or something. $1000 GTX680 SLI vs. $0 for HD7970Ghz CF. Simple, no?

At the moment, 4GB is fine. I personally buy at the high end and keep my cards around for a while, which is why I'm looking beyond 4GB. I do a complete system build about every 5 years.

So you are saying you'll keep your 980Tis for 4-5 years now?

980Ti is 70-75% faster than a 780 and it took just 2 years. By June 2018, Volta will be 2-2.5X faster than a 980Ti. Buying flagship cards and keeping them long-term is one of the worst strategies in PC building. In fact, this strategy has always failed. Always, no exceptions.

how can you guys not realized this yet? 980 ti is 650$ that means amd got a card with similar performance at 650 or lower!

or same price but even more performance!!!

we need damn benchmarks yesterday!

Because GameWorks, because some people buy NV only, because Fiji XT is automatically a fail no matter the price/performance or performance as long as it has 4GB of VRAM, despite 980 SLI beating Titan X in 99% of all games where SLI scales.

Apparently some people are 100% convinced AMD will offer a Fiji XT card for $850 that's only 5% faster than a 980Ti because AMD is apparently an idiot firm that thinks they can just price cards based on WCCFtech rumors.

I feel a wall of text, %,
and graphs coming.

No need for that. I already knew months ago he was going to buy 980Ti SLI, even if Fiji XT was 50% faster. But when someone states publicly on forums that they are open-minded and tries to paint a veil of this and then doesn't even wait of a competitor's offering 3 weeks from now, they should just be man enough to admit their preferences.

 

[RussianSensation]

LOL, nvidia exploited our backsides hard this time, no reach around even. Glad I went into it eyes wide open this release. This is much worse than Titan vs 780 was, Titan X is pointless, but 12GB VRAM, bro
I wonder if I can still even dump mine for $1100CDN each at this point and wait for the Kingpin 980ti. At current exchange rates the Titan X sells for $1300 in Canada, the 980ti should be $850. Who wants to buy a pair of TX $2100CDN all in ?

Fiji better be faster than Titan X or it's going to bomb.

hehe, you might be able to sell the Titan Xs and just lose the taxes on them. Your waterblocks should fit reference 980Tis. Since Toronto is such a large city, I think if you put the TX up for sale and say no 13% tax, someone will buy slightly used TXs for productivity or something.

$650 to play what AAA game. There is nothing else coming out this year that would use that shiny 980 Ti. I already posted, no new Mass Effect, no new Elder Scrolls, no new Fallout (unless Bethesda just stealth drops it which I seriously doubt) Just Cause 3 is likely next year. High vs Ultra in Witcher III is next to irrelevant beyond screenshots, er - ? AAA releases are drying up - V and Witcher III have launched and those playing Day One like me are already finished or a third of the way through respectively.

Damn I'm getting old and grumpy.

You are not getting old and grumpy, just more logical in your GPU upgrade buying decisions.

980Ti came out about 2 years after GTX780 and it offers 70-75% more performance.

If Pascal repeats this, 980Ti successor should be 70-75% faster come June 2017. That would make the 1080Ti card 2.4X faster than your 780Ti, but you'd have to wait almost 2 years for that.

What is the expected performance difference between the 980TI and the pascal line?

HUGE. Last time NV had a new node shrink + new architecture (Fermi-> Kepler), performance increased 90-100%. I would expect 980Ti successor to be at minimum 70-75% faster.

Still no point in rushing to buy anything - AMD's parts are only weeks away.

Or we can wait until next year for the second best Pascal to probably match the TitanX at one third the price, like the 970 did to the original Titan.

:thumbsup:I have high respect for you BFG10K. Learned from Titan marketing grab and waited for 980Ti, and now you will wait for Fiji XT vs. 980Ti to make your buying decision, having assessed the entire GPU market landscape. As Ryan Smith alluded, at this point anyone who waited this long might as well wait 3 more weeks and have all the cards on the table on what the best options are. That's being objective and reasonable. :thumbsup:

However, I've seen lots of people on this forum talk about how 4GB would be a deal breaker when they grab the latest and greatest GPU whenever it's available - in that case it seems like looking for any reason to eliminate the Fiji from consideration.

Exactly. Chances are even a GTX970/980 successors come Q4 2016 will be faster than 980Ti and have 8GB HBM2. Trying to future-proof for 4-5 years with 980Ti SLI or Fiji XT CF is a futile strategy and it won't work. Today you can buy a single $550 R9 290X CF that is 50% faster than $1000 -1100 HD7970 CF/680 SLI and it only took 3.5 years. The strategy of buying high-end GPUs and keeping them for a long time is outdated. In fact, it was always inferior and continues to be that way.

If you're not at 4K and you have no intention of going multi-GPU, 4GB is NOT a factor whatsoever.

Apparently it was not a factor for the last 8 months when so many gamers were purchasing 970 SLI 3.5GB and 980 SLI 4GB -- both setups actually faster on paper than a 980Ti. Now, it's a deal breaker.

GTX 980 Ti has 96 ROPs. Are all of them active or there's a problem like 970?

Credit to TechReport:

"Notice that the 980 Ti's peak rate is lower than the Titan X's even though it has the same ROP count (96 pixels per clock) and clock speed. That's because, on recent Nvidia GPUs, fill rate can be limited by the number of shader multiprocessors and rasterizers. The GTX 980 Ti's 22 SMs can only transfer 88 pixels per clock to the ROPs, so its peak throughput is a bit lower than the Titan X's [96 pixels per clock]."

a %30 average is not worth a $650 "upgrade" no matter how you spin it.

Unless you love a certain game, and play it every day, that gives you a huge advantage with a certain card, its not worth it to upgrade anymore unless it gives a %50+ in every game.

I agree with your assessment. I personally try to upgrade once the performance increase is 75-100%. However, there are certain games where Kepler performs much worse than 30% against a 980Ti and you know what those games are.

980Ti is 91% faster in TW3 than 780Ti

980Ti is 65% faster in GTA V than 780Ti at your resolution.

Also, 980Ti gets one closer to 60 fps (which is achievable with an OC), while because Kepler performs so poorly in many GW titles, it falls behind by more than 30% average you sighted in your response. With a mind overclock you can hit 60 fps in Project CARS on a 980Ti, something that's impossible on a 780Ti at 2560x1440/1600.

Purchased two from Nvidia. Tax, shipping, expensive! Oh well, I got a big green chubby going on right now. Can't wait.

Congrats!! Feel free to share your upgrade experience from 670 SLI. :thumbsup:

Was this a common occurance during Keplers hayday? People plopping down $330 for a 970, and $550 for a 980 at launch, buying into the 980ti at $650 8 months down the line.

I think with most gamers having upgraded to SSDs and Intel CPUs lasting so much longer (5+ years), gamers have a much larger budget for GPUs now. In the past we basically upgraded CPUs every 2-2.5 years at most which meant the same $500-1000 upgrade budget needed to be balanced. Today, once you have a modern i5/i7 overclocked, you can safely just keep upgrading the GPU only. That's one of my theories why people upgrade their GPUs so much more often and why gamers don't care as much anymore about GPU prices.

I'm not sure, all I hear is console use 6GB of VRAM so since we are getting so many console port in the near future, it would make sense to have at least a 6GB Vram gpu.

This should be mainly a concern for someone buying dual 980Tis or Fiji cards. A single one of those cards isn't fast enough for 4K gaming at 50-60 fps to take advantage of 6GB of VRAM. Essentially 980 4GB SLI beats Titan X 12GB in almost every game possible, even at 4K.

Take 4K resolution for example. GTX 980Ti is playable with that, GTX 970 is not.

4K is not playable at high settings with 50-60 fps any single GPU card. You need to turn things down to Medium/High instead of Ultra and MSAA is a no go.

Even a Titan X overclocked to nearly 1.4Ghz is getting 30-46 in many titles at 4K.

Proof

For the type of settings 1080P and 1440P gamers enjoy (60 fps everything maxed out), dual 980Tis or Titan Xs are needed for 4K.

In games like TW3 or GTAV or Project CARs or AC Unity, a single Titan X gets destroyed at 4K.

390x has 8 GB of ram....
I never said that pc shouuld have more system ram.

These same individuals recommended 970 SLI, 980SLI and 970 3.5GB over R9 290/290X/290 CF/290X CF for 8 months, even even defended 970 3.5GB at all costs. Apparently 980 SLI that overpowers Titan X was A-OK setup 8 months ago but now that 980Ti has 6GB of VRAM, 4GB of VRAM is garbage now.

Ok, so then these same individuals will NOT recommend GTX970/980 then over R9 390/390X 8GB cards, right? Surely if 4GB of VRAM is a bottleneck, then 3.5GB 970 is outdated any minute now once AMD's R9 390/390x 8GB cards launch.

It boggles my mind that people think a card at Titan X/980 Ti level of performance with 4GB is the same as a 970 with 4GB...

It boggles my mind how you and other "4GB isn't enough anymore" PC gamers never made a peep about 970 SLI or 980 SLI in the last 8 months. Did you actively tell users looking to buy those setups that it's dangerous and those setups will be outdated really soon? It also boggles my mind how 6GB is now the "minimum" but 980 SLI and R9 295X2 provide higher FPS than Titan X in almost all 4K gaming situations, and certainly in 99% of 1440P gaming situations where SLI/CF scale. It's even more ironic considering Project CARS, GTA V or TW3 do not run any faster with 6GB of VRAM over 4GB. These 3 are the popular games released in the last quarter.

This was the EXACT same argument made for 2GB cards. Turns out to be nothing more than a convenient way to delude ones self. I know, I've been there.

It's not really the same argument because HD7970 cost less than 680 and once both were overclocked, it was as fast or faster. Over time 7970 easily surpassed 680. 3GB vs. 2GB in that case was a bonus when already buying a superior gaming card. Since we don't know if Fiji Fury will be 10-15% faster than 980Ti, 10-15% slower or tie it, we can't conclude YET if it's the same case as 7970 vs. 680.

You should show a situation where 980 SLI is not playable but Titan X is, then we can see 4GB as being the limitation rather than GPU power.

Currently there's none. 4K with 8x MSAA is not playable on Titan X, it lacks the grunt to push settings beyond 4GB vram limits.

Just need to show any metric where NV is clearly better against an unreleased card and run with it. Doesn't matter what the metric is as long as there is a strong chance it's something AMD cannot match.

If Fiji XT accidentally beats 980Ti in performance, price/performance, perf/mm2, compute, perf/watt, none of those will matter. Just 4GB vs. 6GB.

Those same people choose to ignore the blatant fact that Kepler ONLY under-perform in games where NV are actively involved in development, ie. NV GameWorks program.

It's amazing that with their active engagement in making a game, they didn't find these "bugs" during the years it took for the game to be made. They only started looking for these bugs once the rage meter exploded to the front page of Reddit... and they found those "bugs" pretty quickly, almost on the same day as the rage started.

NV discovering a 'bug' with Kepler and admitting they can fix the performance via driver updates is a positive since it will give Kepler owners much needed boost. But it flies in the face of NV having amazing drivers and AMD cards having crappy drivers considering GCN has been closing the gap with Kepler and Maxwell in the last 1.5 years.

Today a 980 is only 7% faster than R9 290X at 4K and 11% at 1440P. But I guess NV drivers are still amazing.....or so the myth goes.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Unless you know that Fiji will 100% have 4GB of HBM1

Didn't AMD already confirm this to ArsTechnica and probably others?

The 980ti looks like a nice card, though the price is high. Roughly double the power of my 680 with the same heat and noise (but higher power draw).

If I needed a card this month I'd still want to see what AMD will offer. My 4870 was great except for the noise and the 6850 that replaced it eventually fixed that.

 

[2is]

It actually is the same argument. First of all, this has nothing to do with 7970 or 680 we are talking about simple RAM capacity and whether or not a GPU can take advantage. So you're off in your own little world there just trying to find a way to compare AMD to NVidia to say AMD is better. Try to keep on topic.

Secondly, not that this has anything to do with my post you quoted, 7970 was more expensive than 680 when the 680 was released. You need a history lesson. You've actually been remained of this before, but you conveniently pretend to forget.

So not only do you respond with something completely out of left field that has nothing to do with the conversation you're quoting, but the uselessness of your reply is compounded by the fact that you don't even have your facts straight on the tangent you decided to go on.

That's before we mention the fact that you also criticized the 980 for having 4GB of ram 8 months ago. But now you've had a change of heart.

If you're trying to break some sort of record regarding the amount of fail and misinformation contained in a single post, I think you just may have done it.

 

[YBS1]

Fiji XT could be a flop or it could beat the 980Ti. We don't know. Truly brand agnnostic/objective gamers do not state they are open-minded about the next flagship card and literally order the first one to come out when the competitor is releasing their SKU in 3 weeks. Unless you know that Fiji will 100% have 4GB of HBM1 and it has worse performance then a 980Ti, then as I said you already made up your mind a long time ago about which cards you were going to buy. That's the whole point about someone pretending to be objective for months.

That's what makes this the most exciting launch in years. They are coming out at roughly the same time, it always used to go down like this, I can't remember the last time it actually happened though it's been so long.

 

[YSK]

I will skip this generation (980Ti), my almost 2 years GTX 780 still enough for my 1080 panel.
My CPU i think enough for the next 2 year, already using 5820K and 16GB DDR4
My plan for next year is Pascal 1080Ti with 8GB HBM2 ( I believe with 16nm it will be HUGE jump ) and 32 inch 4k IPS panel.
Does anyone here know when 16nm GPU ready next year, Q1 or maybe Q2 2016 ?

 

[thehotsung8701A]

@ RussianSensation

I want to quote you but I don't want to multiquote your multiquote. You said something about buying the top end GPU is a horrible strategy.

What is a good strategy? I am currently using an HD 5850 and in desperate of an upgrade. Do I not upgrade to a GTX 980ti or a AMD Fury? And if not buying a GTX 970 or GTX 960 would be obsolete in a year? So what do you suggest?

 

[thehotsung8701A]

I will skip this generation (980Ti), my almost 2 years GTX 780 still enough for my 1080 panel.
My CPU i think enough for the next 2 year, already using 5820K and 16GB DDR4
My plan for next year is Pascal 1080Ti with 8GB HBM2 ( I believe with 16nm it will be HUGE jump ) and 32 inch 4k IPS panel.
Does anyone here know when 16nm GPU ready next year, Q1 or maybe Q2 2016 ?

How do you game on a 32 inches monitor. It would be extremely bad for your eyes sitting so close would it not? Also how much width is your table to be able to sit far enough away from a 32 inches monitor without damaging your eyes or causing eye strain?

 

[thilanliyan]

@ RussianSensation

I want to quote you but I don't want to multiquote your multiquote. You said something about buying the top end GPU is a horrible strategy.

What is a good strategy? I am currently using an HD 5850 and in desperate of an upgrade. Do I not upgrade to a GTX 980ti or a AMD Fury? And if not buying a GTX 970 or GTX 960 would be obsolete in a year? So what do you suggest?

Just wait a bit. The new AMD cards are supposed to be out soon. Once they are out, compare and buy what is best for your needs.

 

[RussianSensation]

@ RussianSensation

I want to quote you but I don't want to multiquote your multiquote. You said something about buying the top end GPU is a horrible strategy.

That's not what I said. I didn't say buying a top end GPU is a horrible strategy. Buying a top-end GPU and holding on to it for 4-5 years is a horrible strategy. Unless you can afford to buy $650 cards every generation, do not buy them if you care about $. Think about it, it only took 4 years before $150 GTX750Ti matched the performance of a $500 GTX480 in nearly 1/5th the power usage! In addition, newer cards bring better features.

What is a good strategy? I am currently using an HD 5850 and in desperate of an upgrade. Do I not upgrade to a GTX 980ti or a AMD Fury? And if not buying a GTX 970 or GTX 960 would be obsolete in a year? So what do you suggest?

What's your gaming resolution? 1080P?

If you can't afford to buy $500-750 cards every generation, it's better to find a sweet-spot for your intended resolution and upgrade more often.

For example, today it would be $280 R9 290X or $300 GTX970 for 1080P. You can use those cards for 2-2.5 years and resell them and invest the resale value into another $300-350 card. This strategy will ensure you have a very good GPU for the next 2-2.5 years and your next $350 GPU that you buy should have better perf/watt, performance and features than a $650 GTX980Ti which means over the remaining 2-2.5 years you will have a better product. It's not an exact science.

I'll give some examples. Buy a GTX560Ti/HD6950 for $249-299 use it for 2 years, then get a $300 R9 280X. A much much better strategy than buying a $499 GTX580 and holding on to it for 5 years.

Also, cards that cost less tend to lose less in resale value since there is higher demand for them and performance doesn't improve as much on the lower end. You can probably sell a $300 GTX970 for $150 in 2.5 years, a loss of $150 in value. At the same time a $650 980Ti will probably lose $250 in value in the same period.

As others have suggested, just wait 3 more weeks to see AMD's response and you can start a thread in our forum where other gamers will help you make a decision. You'd list your resolution, the games you play/intend to play, what your budget is, etc. If you have been gaming on a 5850 1GB for so long, chances are you are OK turning down settings or don't play the latest games or don't require constant 60 fps. That means cards like 290X or GTX970 are perfect for you. You just buy them and upgrade more often. You won't be missing much from the flagship cards that are intended for people who absolutely need 60 fps minimums, or MSAA/VSR/super-sampling, etc.

It actually is the same argument. First of all, this has nothing to do with 7970 or 680 we are talking about simple RAM capacity and whether or not a GPU can take advantage.

It does. You used the last gen as example how people promoted 3GB of VRAM over 2GB of VRAM but that's not why people promoted it. HD7950 OC and HD7970 OC were at least as fast or faster than 670/680 OC and except for the initial 2.5 months, throughout the entire 12 months until GTX780 launched in May 2013, HD7950/7970/7970 1Ghz had superior price/performance to GTX670/680 and performance was top notch in the hands of an enthusiast. In that case, 3GB vs. 2GB was never the key determining factor. It was just a bonus when already buying a superior product in the first place. That's why it's you who is trying to twist history as implying that people on this forum went out of their way to recommend HD7000 series specifically because of more VRAM. That's not how that generation went down at all. Sorry.

You are the one who has your history twisted when you are trying to insinuate that people pushed 3GB of VRAM on 7900 series over 2GB on GTX600 series as a selling point. 3GB had almost nothing to do with why HD7000 series was the better buy. It was things like a $280 HD7950 beating a $350-380 GTX670 or $450 GTX680 that was one key point. Another was HD7970/7970Ghz could be overclocked to easily beat 670 and 680 at high resolution gaming. Looks like you were half asleep last generation or something if you think 3GB was some big selling point of HD7000 series as opposed to actual performance and overclocking:
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...z_edition_7950_iceq_xsup2_boost_clock,13.html

So you're off in your own little world there just trying to find a way to compare AMD to NVidia to say AMD is better. Try to keep on topic.

It's not that AMD is better. It's the argument you are trying to portray. You are saying that people made a big deal about 3GB of VRAM on HD7000 series as a key selling point over Kepler. That wasn't even a big factor. Superior price/performance, very good performance in overclocked states and bitcoin mining were the 3 key selling points of HD7000 series vs. GTX600, not VRAM.

Therefore, you trying to paint this as a similar situation to today doesn't even work because we don't even know how fast Fiji Pro/XT is or how well they overclock. A similar situation would be IF GTX980Ti OC is as fast or faster than Fiji XT OC and then 6GB of VRAM is just a bonus. Only then would you be correct. Since we don't have any info about how fast Fiji XT or Pro are, we can't conclude on this point for now.

Secondly, not that this has anything to do with my post you quoted, 7970 was more expensive than 680 when the 680 was released. You need a history lesson. You've actually been remained of this before, but you conveniently pretend to forget.

HD7970 was $50 more expensive because it was uncontested for 2.5 months by GTX580. You know kinda like the Titan X cost $1K for 2.5 months and you didn't say a word. When GTX680 launched, all it took is 1 month before HD7970 was a better value again. Starting June 21, 2012, AMD not only recaptured the performance crown from 680, but they had class leading price/performance in every segment. This continued from June 2012 to May 2013, excluding the $1K pricing segments occupied by GTX690 and OG Titan.

In the hands of overclockers, even the original HD7970 could be turned into an HD7970Ghz in about 3 minutes with 0 voltage control. Not even an after-market 680 could keep up in frame times. That's why your argument that HD7970 was more expensive and worse doesn't work. $50 got one 2.5 months class leading performance, and that performance crown never left the 7970 series. Try again.

That's before we mention the fact that you also criticized the 980 for having 4GB of ram 8 months ago. But now you've had a change of heart.

Already repeated many times but seems to have flown over your head:

1) I said 980 should have had options of 4GB and 8GB. Much like I did say that Fiji XT should have those options as well. You are the one who categorically says that 4GB is a fail no matter what, no matter its price, no matter what resolution the gamer plays, no matter how long he plans to keep the card(s), etc.. I say bring out the options, which means I recognize that there is a market for both 4GB and 8GB versions. You don't.

2) 980 should have had 8GB thrown in not because it needed it per say, but because it had such an outrageous price premium over 970/290X, NV should have added it to justify the price premium. For those gamers who paid $1200 for dual GTX980s, the 8GB option would have been good to have.

You seem to be confused as well in that you think I am defending AMD's choice to go 4GB. I am not because I simply don't know if 4GB is the only option they will have. You also seem to have ignored all the PC gamers who plan to buy just 1 GTX980Ti/Fiji card. If a gamer is buying just 1 of those cards for 1080P-1440P, why would they need 6GB of VRAM? You haven't addressed this point at all cuz your mind is already set that 4GB on Fiji XT = automatic fail, no matter the gamer's needs. Other gamers have called you out on this but you ignored all of them.

If you're trying to break some sort of record regarding the amount of fail and misinformation contained in a single post, I think you just may have done it.

I am not the one who is calling an unreleased card a fail without knowing its specs, price, performance or VRAM amount, while also hypocritically suffering for 1.5 years on 2GB VRAM gimped SLI cards with real world, measurable and quantifiable VRAM bottlenecks vs. today's gaming world where you can't even come up with any hard facts that show where 4GB of VRAM is a bottleneck for GTX980 SLI, a setup that itself is faster than 980Ti or even the Titan X.

Other gamers see the same thing: You ran gimped GTX680 2GB SLI for the last 1.5 years, supposedly turning down settings left right and center and that was A-OK, but now a hypothetical 4GB VRAM bottleneck is a deal breaker? You keep saying how you can't stand VRAM bottlenecks but yet you lived through them or the last 1.5 years and at no point considered ditching 680s despite 980 SLI beating yoru cards 70-80%. That's why people are calling you out because you were A-OK with real VRAM bottlenecks but when you can't even point out to how 4GB of VRAM is a fail, you still insist on calling it a fail no matter what.

Finally, had you waited and Fiji XT actually failed in performance, price/performance and we knew for 100% fact only 4GB HBM cards would be available for many months, no one would question why you went with 980Ti SLI. Most gamers would agree here that all things fairly equal, 6GB card > 4GB. The fact that you didn't even wait for Fiji is why you got called out on your objectivity, unless you have insider info and know for sure that Fiji XT is a 4GB performance flop.

 

[blastingcap]

Just wait a bit. The new AMD cards are supposed to be out soon. Once they are out, compare and buy what is best for your needs.

Agreed. Unless you need a high end card immediately, it's better to wait a month and see what's available.

 

[thilanliyan]

I am not the one who is calling an unreleased card a fail without knowing its specs, price, performance or VRAM amount

That is also what I was getting at...calling an unreleased card (with no confirmed performance numbers) a "fail" is a bit odd if someone is being objective.

 

[2is]

Other gamers see the same thing: You ran gimped GTX680 2GB SLI for the last 1.5 years, supposedly turning down settings left right and center and that was A-OK, but now a hypothetical 4GB VRAM bottleneck is a deal breaker? You keep saying how you can't stand VRAM bottlenecks but yet you lived through them or the last 1.5 years and at no point considered ditching 680s despite 980 SLI beating yoru cards 70-80%. That's why people are calling you out because you were A-OK with real VRAM bottlenecks but when you can't even point out to how 4GB of VRAM is a fail, you still insist on calling it a fail no matter what.

Finally, had you waited and Fiji XT actually failed in performance, price/performance and we knew for 100% fact only 4GB HBM cards would be available for many months, no one would question why you went with 980Ti SLI. Most gamers would agree here that all things fairly equal, 6GB card > 4GB. The fact that you didn't even wait for Fiji is why you got called out on your objectivity, unless you have insider info and know for sure that Fiji XT is a 4GB performance flop.

This has been explained to you no less than 4 times, by more than just myself, but I'll try again. When I buy a top end card, I don't expect to turn down my settings left right and center. When the card gets older, I fully expect I'll need to turn settings down at some point. With the 680's that time came sooner than I'd have liked. Not an experience I'd like to repeat.

Now, before I respond to your second paragraph, please tell me what part of my response was so mind boggling to you, that you are seemingly incapable of processing it, in spite of it being explained to you multiple times by more than one person? I know it's not difficult to understand, because others have fully grasped my point of view and did you the service of explaining it to you in even greater detail. So, with that said, I'd really like to know, at what point exactly are you getting completely and utterly confused, that you keep regurgitating the same garbage over and over again?

 

[AnandThenMan]

That's not what I said. I didn't say buying a top end GPU is a horrible strategy. Buying a top-end GPU and holding on to it for 4-5 years is a horrible strategy.

I never really gave this much thought until you started talking about it and you're right, it is. I've generally always bought the top end single GPU card but honestly I don't think I will going forward. BTW I keep my cards for 5+ years if not more I rarely sell them off, the older ones go into my older systems.

On the Ti I have a strong feeling Nvidia has been sitting on this card for awhile now waiting for the right time to release it.

 

[RussianSensation]

Anyways, let's talk about the cards.

(1) Gigabyte Windforce 3X has some cool things:

#1 - 600W cooler
#2 - finally semi-passive fan profile which means like the Asus Strix and MSI Gaming cards, the fans won't spin until the card reaches a certain temperature
#3 - Gigabyte continues to use cherry-picked top ASICs as part of their:

"GPU Gauntlet Sorting technology that guarantees greater overclocking capabilities in terms of excellent power switching and thermal efficiency."

#4 - the illuminated Windforce logo can now be changed to 7 different colours.

#5 - This 3-slot cooler packs enough metal to cool the GeForce GTX 980 Ti with its three fans completely stopped, when the GPU is below a 65°C temperature threshold. The underlying heatsink design consists of two independent aluminium fin stacks, with 8 mm thick copper heat pipes meeting at the GPU base, where they make direct contact with the GPU die. A base-plate cools the memory and VRM. Three 100 mm fans ventilate the heatsink, which are topped off by a two-tone metal shroud. The card features six display outputs including two DVI, three DisplayPort 1.2, and an HDMI 2.0; and supports up to five displays at a time.

(2) Asus GTX980 TI Strix
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/computex-2015-asus-gtx-980-ti-strix-directcu-iii-and-poseidon.html

#1 - all new triple fan DirectCU III cooler with 0dBA technology
#2 - Super Alloy Power II Components

Also, the 980Ti Poseidon cards look awesome for those who don't want to buy after-market water-blocks but want to just connect the cards to their water loop.

(3) Zotac GTX980Ti AMP! Extreme

#1 - 1253mhz Base (massive 25% overclock) and 1355mhz Boost clocks out of the box!
#2 - all new triple fan cooler

 

[RussianSensation]

(4) MSI GTX980TI Gaming G6

- more or less continues in the tradition of 980 with 1279mhz boost

http://www.techpowerup.com/213020/msi-announces-its-geforce-gtx-980-ti-gaming-graphics-cards.html

(5) ZOTAC GeForce GTX 980 Ti Arctic Storm

- this is essentially an ASUS Poseidon competitor.

Has an awesome backplate!

(6) EVGA cards

#1 - key standout are double-ball bearings that have a longer life than the competitors

Their marketing site has a lot of info on the cards.

The downside is EVGA cards have the lowest Boost clocks out of ALL the key manufacturers I listed above.
Even the Classified only goes to 1241mhz, which is even lower than the basic MSI Gaming G6 card. Ouch.
http://www.evga.com/articles/00934/EVGA-GeForce-GTX-980-Ti/

Looks like EVGA put the least amount of work into their new lineup this round. Very disappointing especially after they completely dropped the ball last gen with GTX970/980 series. Their Classified 980 cards suffered from poor voltage control and couldn't overclock that well with higher voltage.

 

[happy medium]

Agreed. Unless you need a high end card immediately, it's better to wait a month and see what's available.

WHy wait? I mean do you really think AMD is gonna have a card that's not at least close to the performance / price of the gtx980ti? There is a much better chance of a 390x/Fury or whatever they call it being very close in price and performance than not. WHy wait? What are you gonna lose 50$ or 5% performance? ON the other hand AMD's card might flop,then you made the right choice anyway.

edit:side note ,:Nice to see you Blastingcap.

 

[Elfear]

WHy wait? I mean do you really think AMD is gonna have a card that's not at least close to the performance / price of the gtx980ti? There is a much better chance of a 390x/Fury or whatever they call it being very close in price and performance than not. WHy wait? What are you gonna lose 50$ or 5% performance? ON the other hand AMD's card might flop,then you made the right choice anyway.

edit:side note ,:Nice to see you Blastingcap.

Or it could be a good bit faster than the 980Ti. No one knows which is why it makes sense to wait three weeks.

 

[nomas]

Nvidia made the right move with 980 Ti. Let's see if Radeon 9700 Pro will be reborn in 3 weeks.

 

[RussianSensation]

I never really gave this much thought until you started talking about it and you're right, it is. I've generally always bought the top end single GPU card but honestly I don't think I will going forward. BTW I keep my cards for 5+ years if not more I rarely sell them off, the older ones go into my older systems.

On the Ti I have a strong feeling Nvidia has been sitting on this card for awhile now waiting for the right time to release it.

Even if you don't upgrade every 2.5-3 years, look at some of the previous purchases you made.

Did HD5870 outlast HD5850? No
Did HD6970 outlast HD6950? No
Did GTX480 outlast GTX470? No
Did GTX580 outlast GTX570? No
Did GTX680 outlast GTX670? No
Did HD7970Ghz outlast HD7970 925mhz? No

Will GTX980 outlast GTX970? No
Will R9 290X outlast R9 290? No

For that reason buying the absolute fastest cards and keeping them for 4-5 years is a waste of $. Might as well get 2nd tier as they will age just as much.

There are rare examples where the above is false like HD7970 vs. 680 since Kepler bombed or GeForce 5/7 that bombed completely with newer games against 9700/9800Pro and X1950 series, or HD2900/3800 series vs. GeForce 8.

It doesn't look like that will be the case with Fiji vs. GM200 though, because AMD is going to have to support GCN cards with drivers for years to come.

WHy wait? I mean do you really think AMD is gonna have a card that's not at least close to the performance / price of the gtx980ti? There is a much better chance of a 390x/Fury or whatever they call it being very close in price and performance than not. WHy wait? What are you gonna lose 50$ or 5% performance? ON the other hand AMD's card might flop,then you made the right choice anyway.

edit:side note ,:Nice to see you Blastingcap.

Seriously?

You forgot $650-> $499 GTX280 vs. HD4870?
You forgot $399 GTX670 and $499 GTX680 vs. $550 HD7970 925mhz?
You forgot $650 GTX780 getting owned by $399 R9 290 and $549 R9 290X owning the OG Titan?

In this case it's a good idea to wait 3 weeks before buying a new $650+ card considering most people who buy these will keep them for at least 2 years or 104 weeks. That means it's better to have all the options on the table.

But even if we go with your idea that waiting is pointless for AMD's cards, one major reason to wait is because the after-market 980Ti cards such as Gigabyte Windforce 3X, Zotac AMP! Extreme and MSI Gaming G6/Asus Strix DCUIII are way better than any reference turd blower card.

You realize not everyone wants a hot and loud reference blower single card? After-market open air cooled cards can often be far superior. That's why there is still incentive to wait.

Did you not read Titan X reviews or 980Ti reviews? The reference blower is a jet engine when it comes to achieving a balance of good noise levels and temps while overclocking.

For that reason a lot of gamers still have an incentive to wait for better 980Ti cards.

 

[tential]

WHy wait? I mean do you really think AMD is gonna have a card that's not at least close to the performance / price of the gtx980ti? There is a much better chance of a 390x/Fury or whatever they call it being very close in price and performance than not. WHy wait? What are you gonna lose 50$ or 5% performance? ON the other hand AMD's card might flop,then you made the right choice anyway.

edit:side note ,:Nice to see you Blastingcap.

I'm not in a rush to play anything. Both of those cards would mean I'd need to either buy a new monitor and get a desk or buy a new expensive TV. Maybe I'll get a Vizio P series refurbished and hope for the best though.
If you need a new card yesterday then get it. But for people like me, I want to wait anyway. There aren't even good aftermarket models of the GTX 980Ti out yet. Why would I buy now? I'm definitely waiting a bit.