I don't know what resolution NV targets the 980 as, I didn't watch their launch presentation.
Then why did you pick 1080p when you know the 980 is the fastest GPU on the market and thus making comparisons at 1080p is worthless?
Nope.
What I am saying is perf/w will be similar so whatever % increase you expect it to be, it will correspond with a same % power increase. Capiche?
You can skew it ugly with the 770 vs 780ti comparison by upping resolution. NV has presented the GK104 based SKUs as targeted at 1080p, we know its performance tanks as resolution is upped. Why stop at 1440p? If you compare 3x 1080p or 4k, the 770 looks awful. Your link showed a very recent review. Definitely compare them on launch results to get a clearer picture of when GM200 comes, rather than after years of driver optimizations or lack of for older products.
I see now. You arbitrarily pick a resolution and stick with it. When talking about how fast AMD is, you stick with 4K. Because that is where AMD looks best. When comparing Nvidia products, you do 1080p. Because that is what shows the smallest gains between Nvidia chips. And since you're worried about the lack of recent driver optimizations for older products, lets go back a few months then!
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/26.html
3x 1080p: 770 - 65, 780 TI - 94......44.6% diference
1440p: 770 - 65, 780 TI - 94..........43.9% difference
1080p 770 - 66, 780 TI - 93...........40.9% difference
OMG Where is the massive drop off in 770 performance????? There isn't. Now do you see why I picked 1440p? Because 4k isn't adopted yet, 1080p isn't what GM200 buyers are going use, and the 770 was quite capable of 1440p gaming without massive performance degradation beyond typical pixel scaling.
How many times do you I have to prove you wrong?