[VC]NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, GTX 980 SLI, GTX 970, 3DMark performance

[wand3r3r]

The card itself looks ok, decent for the new mid range.

The problems that I see is price and performance. Performance looks ok, nothing special nor groundbreaking. On it's own it appears solid, around last gen high end. I still suspect performance will go down with high resolutions.

Looking at the titan rip off I won't be surprised to see it priced near the 780 ti. Just keep on milking the customers.

Looking at the entire picture, it may end up around 780 ti or a bit faster. The problem is that the 780 ti is a rip off atm, giving it a little price cut to $500 doesn't change much. Thus the lack of excitement over this. I'm very interested in it, but await the worst based on the absurd pricing lately.

 

[paul878]

The titan is not a rip off, it wasn't meant to be a gaming card.

With 4k monitor becoming affordable this is very disappointing.

 

[Granseth]

I can't get this Joan Jett and the Blackhearts tune out of my head.

Anyway I completely agree with all you said here. GTX980 is anything but weak. Mark my words. Groover will own two if not three of these not long after launch.

I agree with it being a step forward, but what's sad is that it looks to be a stagnant top performance.
It's been so long since the last time there where a big improvement increase. I think that is the big issue, no real performance increase gets a lot of enthusiasts frustrated.

 

[Grooveriding]

Do you really think the 780 TI used for that benchmark and graph is running below boost clock speeds? They're locking down the boost? Really??? No, it isn't. No one benches that way, ever. 98% sure the graph is listing the base speeds and not listing the boost speeds. So according to that graph, a stock GTX 980 will be about 10% faster than a stock 780 TI.

Try and think properly here. 928 is 780tis reference boost clock as printed on the box, they all boost to at least 1100 though. There are more numbers there for 1150 and higher. Unless you think the higher numbers are indicating base clocks correlating to boosts as high as 1400+ ?..... The rational conclusion is that those are all boost clocks, as.mentioned in the article...

The charts are ambiguous at best and I know it's always rough going for a few here to see nvidia called out. It is what it is though if those are accurate; a slower card than a 780ti. Very weak for a new X80 part, even if it manages parity.

If these are accurate benchmarks the cards should release as gtx 970 and 960. I think the marketing from nvidia should be the only interesting part of this launch really, we've already seen the perf/w improvement in the 750ti, so I'd guess we'll hear the marketing trumpet of perhaps 'an engineering marvel again'.

I just hope nvidia can afford the new process sometime soon so we can get some more performance rather than power consumption improvements on the same node. Ultimately the niche of buyers who buy just because it's new is probably very small, if you can't bring new performance to the table you won't get most of the people buying the top cards to upgrade. Going on these benchmarks 28nm is at a dead end and this is performance that has been available for the past 18 months.

 

[wand3r3r]

The titan is not a rip off, it wasn't meant to be a gaming card.

With 4k monitor becoming affordable this is very disappointing.

I mean the titan-z... Go to their website, it doesn't mention any other use than gaming & 4k, both of which it is only in second place to a card 1/3 of the price.

GeForce® GTX™ TITAN Z is a gaming monster, the fastest card we’ve ever built to power the most extreme PC gaming rigs on the planet. Stacked with 5760 cores and 12 GB of memory, this dual GPU gives you the power to drive even the most insane multi-monitor displays and 4K hyper PC machines

I agree, a 256 bit mid range card will be surprising if it brings anything to the 4k arena.

 

[Subyman]

I think the numbers are impressive, especially considering the power usage. You'll be able to overlock well on air. The 970 is faster than the 780. Compare the 980 to the original 780. The TI is a very pricey part. If this launches at $499, we will be set up for a nice price dip after a few months if AMD responds. I'm optimistic. TI performance for $499 + low energy usage for easier over clocks, keeping in mind these are launch prices.

 

[wand3r3r]

I think the numbers are impressive, especially considering the power usage. You'll be able to overlock well on air. The 970 is faster than the 780. Compare the 980 to the original 780. The TI is a very pricey part. If this launches at $499, we will be set up for a nice price dip after a few months if AMD responds. I'm optimistic. TI performance for $499 + low energy usage for easier over clocks, keeping in mind these are launch prices.

The 970 is the same as the 780 (2% difference on the chart).

You can get that level of performance, or actually probably slightly higher performance right now for <$400 (r9 290 custom models). The 970 has to be $350 or less to even compete with the 290.

Even compared to the current pricing on the 780 ($500 retail, down closer to $420 on sale), it's not that impressive.

 

[f1sherman]

Nvidia does it again!!!

New gen lower model that is faster than old gen, higher model card
Yeye j/k... but after R9 285 launch...

I think they can easily sell it cheaper too, but will they??
My guess is $600 for GTX 980 (btw what happened with GTX 800. Is this because of the mobile lineup already having GTX 800M)


They are getting rid themselves of 780 Ti

$560 ASUS DirectCU II:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-838-_-Product

 

[Arachnotronic]

Very true. Just want to place blame where it belongs. Maxwell is an outstanding piece of engineering that's held back by the process currently available. 28nm is tapped out.

Agreed. I am miffed that we haven't seen any 20nm GPUs yet.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Agreed. I am miffed that we haven't seen any 20nm GPUs yet.

Because there is no saving going 20nm. Just higher cost.

 

[RussianSensation]

Nvidia does it again!!!

New gen lower model that is faster than old gen, higher model card
Yeye j/k... but after R9 285 launch...

What? 285 is not a next generation part from AMD the same way Maxwell architecture is for NV.

As to your other point, NV's true next generation mid-range card has outperformed last generation flagship all the way to GeForce 2! I don't know if people have short memory but it was always expected from NV. The difference is those next gen mid-range cards cost $200-300 and outperformed the previous gen $500-650 flagship. Starting with 680, NV changed the pricing completely, essentially doubling the cost of a mid-range die. 680 still managed 30-35% faster than 580 which is A LOT better at $499 than 980 beating 780Ti by only 15% at $499. If 980 is only 15% faster, it should really be $400, not $500-550. At $500, the performance/$ for a new gen is far worse than 7970/680.

Look at the responses in this thread: gamers are focusing on performance/watt, power usage, but that implies it will be the new norm for mid-range cards from AMD/NV to cost $500 at the beginning of a new generation? I mean using that logic NV should have held back 5900U and launched 5700U at $500, or released 6600GT, 7800GT, 8800GTS 320mb, GTX260 216 all at $500? I guess the going green marketing is working wonders.

I don't get the whole idea of buying a $400-500 mid-range card to save 80W of power when the performance/$ for a new gen part is not so great. Gamers just forgot what we used to get. Normally the 980 would just be a 960 and cost $200-300, like the GTX460 that beat a $649 MSRP GTX280.

If 980 is only 15% faster than 780Ti at $500, I am waiting for AMD's or NV's real next gen flagship that beats 780Ti by 50-70%. I'd rather pay $700 for a Maxwell flagship than $500 for a midrange. Just wish TMSC didn't screw the GPU market this bad.

This likely suggests in the next 2 years we will see a major increase in GPU performance once NV/AMD move on from 28nm. 250W GM210 should be very nice.

 

[f1sherman]

I said j/k!! Of course that's expected. It was a stab at AMD & 285 launch which still baffles me to no end

And no one is focused on perf/W per se. I think tviceman already explained why many of still thinks it's mighty important, if not crucial.
Do we really have to go all over it... AGAIN?

 

[RussianSensation]

Performance/watt is especially important for mobile since you have cooling limitations and PSU limits for laptops. However, performance/watt as discussed in the context of desktop GPUs is getting tiring since it's often used incorrectly. I can't run a GPU on its own in a vacuum. Let's add up the power usage of a modern gaming system, often overclocked i5/i7. Really for practical purposes running a 350W or a 430W rig hardly changes anything (170W vs. 250W GPU) because a 50-60% faster GM210 will have better performance/watt in the context of the overall system.

So then we are again back to price and price/performance as the more important metrics since we are talking about paying $500 for what's really a mid-range next gen part. The engineering is impressive for sure on the same 28nm node but it makes me want a GM210 even more.

 

[Attic]

Performance per watt is a bit of misdirection here. If a 500 dollar card is pushed on that I'd be hesitant of reviewers buying into that bullet point from the nvidia review guide for these parts.

Performance per dollar please, and just performance in the end, sure throw in some power numbers, I'll figure out the rest.

A 980 that beats a 780ti and costs 500 is decent IMO. No reason to price it much less.

So, as many predicted, we'll need to wait for 20nm for real performance improvements.

Also, it's not a cheap hobby when done right, nvidia/amd put that to use, so what.

 

[SirPauly]

What? 285 is not a next generation part from AMD the same way Maxwell architecture is for NV.

As to your other point, NV's true next generation mid-range card has outperformed last generation flagship all the way to GeForce 2! I don't know if people have short memory but it was always expected from NV. The difference is those next gen mid-range cards cost $200-300 and outperformed the previous gen $500-650 flagship. Starting with 680, NV changed the pricing completely, essentially doubling the cost of a mid-range die. 680 still managed 30-35% faster than 580 which is A LOT better at $499 than 980 beating 780Ti by only 15% at $499. If 980 is only 15% faster, it should really be $400, not $500-550. At $500, the performance/$ for a new gen is far worse than 7970/680.

Look at the responses in this thread: gamers are focusing on performance/watt, power usage, but that implies it will be the new norm for mid-range cards from AMD/NV to cost $500 at the beginning of a new generation? I mean using that logic NV should have held back 5900U and launched 5700U at $500, or released 6600GT, 7800GT, 8800GTS 320mb, GTX260 216 all at $500? I guess the going green marketing is working wonders.

I don't get the whole idea of buying a $400-500 mid-range card to save 80W of power when the performance/$ for a new gen part is not so great. Gamers just forgot what we used to get. Normally the 980 would just be a 960 and cost $200-300, like the GTX460 that beat a $649 MSRP GTX280.

If 980 is only 15% faster than 780Ti at $500, I am waiting for AMD's or NV's real next gen flagship that beats 780Ti by 50-70%. I'd rather pay $700 for a Maxwell flagship than $500 for a midrange. Just wish TMSC didn't screw the GPU market this bad.

This likely suggests in the next 2 years we will see a major increase in GPU performance once NV/AMD move on from 28nm. 250W GM210 should be very nice.

nVidia can get away with it based on their second tier chips compete strongly to the competition's top tier. When AMD raised their MSRP with their HD 7970 to 549 -- not surprising! 28nm translated with paying more premiums from both vendors! Even though the 28nm node and arches were more-so substantial and significant the price/performance at times were more-so evolutionary and incremental!

 

[Subyman]

The 970 is the same as the 780 (2% difference on the chart).

You can get that level of performance, or actually probably slightly higher performance right now for <$400 (r9 290 custom models). The 970 has to be $350 or less to even compete with the 290.

Even compared to the current pricing on the 780 ($500 retail, down closer to $420 on sale), it's not that impressive.

It doesn't have to be $350. $399 is about right for the 970. It's much lower power usage, nearly 50% less than the ripping hot 290 (I owned one.) That alone will be huge. Great over clocking on air. Remember these are launch prices too. Of course they will charge a premium.

I don't see any reason for Nvidia to undercut themselves by much. A fancy new card sells itself for the first few months. The times of huge leaps up the price/perf latter are over and its more about slowly lowering prices over time.

 

[CakeMonster]

My guess is that they're just replacing the lineup with something that is much, much cheaper to produce. They just had to make sure it matched 780* and apparently it does. Now they can have huge margins for the 6-18 months it will take to get a 20nm part out. That's the only reason its 256bit.

 

[Subyman]

Nvidia does it again!!!

New gen lower model that is faster than old gen, higher model card
Yeye j/k... but after R9 285 launch...

I think they can easily sell it cheaper too, but will they??
My guess is $600 for GTX 980 (btw what happened with GTX 800. Is this because of the mobile lineup already having GTX 800M)


They are getting rid themselves of 780 Ti

$560 ASUS DirectCU II:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-838-_-Product

I'm sure nvidia can sell these things much cheaper. Small die = massive margins. They can dip way down the price ladder if AMD responds. No need to do that on launch though.

 

[CakeMonster]

If 980 is only 15% faster than 780Ti at $500, I am waiting for AMD's or NV's real next gen flagship that beats 780Ti by 50-70%. I'd rather pay $700 for a Maxwell flagship than $500 for a midrange. Just wish TMSC didn't screw the GPU market this bad.

This likely suggests in the next 2 years we will see a major increase in GPU performance once NV/AMD move on from 28nm. 250W GM210 should be very nice.

Yep once they move up to 384/512bit again with 20nm and the new architecture there will be a huge leap. I doubt we'll get everything at once though. They'll probably milk 20nm for ages slowly upping the specs......

 

[CakeMonster]

I know I for a fact would have bought a 980 (up from 780 gtx) if they hadn't reduced memory bandwidth. I know when I'm being screwed over and I know what they're doing now increasing their margins while waiting for 20nm. I'm sure their math is correct and that this is the better choice for earnings but they still lost me as a buyer this round.

 

[sontin]

It doesn't have to be $350. $399 is about right for the 970. It's much lower power usage, nearly 50% less than the ripping hot 290 (I owned one.) That alone will be huge. Great over clocking on air. Remember these are launch prices too. Of course they will charge a premium.

A $399 GTX970 and a $499 GTX980 with around the same performance of the 290(x) will immediately kill AMD's Haiwaii sales and will result in the typical post nvidia launch price cut.

I guess in less than two months we will AMD's graphics card will be much cheaper than today.

 

[DooKey]

I figure a 980 will be a nice replacement for my GTX 690

 

[Vesku]

Performance per watt is a bit of misdirection here. If a 500 dollar card is pushed on that I'd be hesitant of reviewers buying into that bullet point from the nvidia review guide for these parts.

Performance per dollar please, and just performance in the end, sure throw in some power numbers, I'll figure out the rest.

A 980 that beats a 780ti and costs 500 is decent IMO. No reason to price it much less.

So, as many predicted, we'll need to wait for 20nm for real performance improvements.

Also, it's not a cheap hobby when done right, nvidia/amd put that to use, so what.

If a review discusses power under the value aspect I'd be fine with it but it definitely shouldn't be given the same review space as performance, with the exception of perhaps a "silent" or "green" focused site.

From the value, price/performance context:

US average price per kWh = $0.1297
Hours per week played by "core gamers" = 22
Annual cost per 100W of power of "core gamers" PC = 22 hours/week * 52 weeks/yr * 0.1297 $/kWh = ~150 $/yr * .1 (100W) = 15 $/yr
Total cost 100W of power usage of "core gamer" video card if used for 3 years = $45

So for example if the Nvidia 970 saves an amazing 100W over the 780 and this rumor is correct about their performance being relatively equal, that's $45 in inherent value to be considered when comparing pricing.

After crunching the math I'm just going to remember 50 cents per watt when value comparing.

Out of curiosity I looked up Techpowerup's power chart from their latest review: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_285_Dual-X_OC/23.html
Their Radeon 290 uses 64W more than the Geforce 780 so that's a negative value of $32.00 using that $0.50 close enough number. Excluding rebates the cheapest cluster of 290s are ~$380 cheapest cluster of 780s are $470, so from a brand feature neutral perspective the 290 is offering $58 in value atm. If the theoretical GeForce 970 using 100W less than the 780 was dropped into the market at $450 it would be close to value parity, $7 better value, with the Radeon 290 at $380.

I don't see the actual 970 being 100W less than the 780 as that would be only 75W average power usage. However, if it can get to GeForce 670 levels, 145W, at $450 MSRP it would be just -$27.50 in value compared to current Radeon 290 pricing, which would be quite a small premium for Nvidia's feature set historically.

Sources:

"core gamers" 22 hours a week - http://bgr.com/2014/05/14/time-spent-playing-video-games/

US Average price per kWh - http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/end_use.cfm#tabs_prices-3

 

[Attic]

A $399 GTX970 and a $499 GTX980 with around the same performance of the 290(x) will immediately kill AMD's Haiwaii sales and will result in the typical post nvidia launch price cut.

I guess in less than two months we will AMD's graphics card will be much cheaper than today.

$50 cut from AMD for the 290 is all it would take. If the 290 goes to 299 (much cheaper) then a $399 gtx970 is going to have trouble selling.

R9 290 still the card to beat for the price for enthusiasts. The 970 at $399, if it gets there would be great. Dual 970s very interesting as we'll if their power needs are as tame as is being suggested, 270x levels.

 

[DooKey]

$50 cut from AMD for the 290 is all it would take. If the 290 goes to 299 (much cheaper) then a $399 gtx970 is going to have trouble selling.

snip

I disagree. 290 is considered old to the masses, and too many of them used on ebay and the like for very cheap. 970 will be new and being NV it will still sell well. The masses determine sales and prices.........NV has a winner here.