• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

980 vs 970 RESULTS [update]

H

hunkeelin

Senior member
so i know this kind of thread have been all over google but I there's an interesting finding that I must disclose between 970 vs 980.

My motto in testing video card is not the average fps over a benchmark, but what is the average fps during the MOST GRAPHICAL DEMAND scene. That's what matters. Who cares about 150fps vs 120fps right?

So here we go

Again when I do testing I have 2x 970 and 2x 980 to cross reference so my results are solid. All video drivers are the same and completely reinstall whenever I plug in new cards.

During a particular graphical demanding scene in metro redux
970: 16~19fps oc 1500
980: 22~24fps oc 1480
980 sli: 44~48fps Oced to 1480mhz, at stock fps is 42~46fps
970 sli: 32~36fps Oced to 1500mhz

During a particular graphical demanding scene in battlefield 4 with resolutational scale tune to 200%

970: 11~15ps oc 1500
980: 16~18fps oc 1480
980 sli: 35~38fps Oced to 1480mhz
970 sli: 25~28fps Oced to 1500mhz

Conclusion:
The message I want to deliver is that reviews in google are a mis representation. A percentage performance scale is not how you judge a gpu. a 980 is not 15% faster than a 970. The correct representation is, 980 is 15fps better than a 970. This is especially true when there are scenes that's really pushing the cards. When 970 is rendering at an unplayble 15fps. The 980 can render at 30fps. That's a difference. I just want to let people know 980's price is justified. Spilling out nonsense like 980 is only 15% better for 50~60% of the price is not right.

Also, I have to note, during scene's where it's really pushing the cards. The average fps between oc(1500mhz) and stock(1316mhz) is minimal. 1~2fps increase at best. For both 970 and 980.

Just want to let you guys know
 
Last edited:
I have known this, 970 has never been on my upgrade cards.

GTX 670 could have easily been OC'ed to 680 performance level in games. Nvidia got smarter this time. Intel like.
 
Last edited:
I am not trying to debate but are not the results in the OP comparing overclocked 980s vs overclocked 970s?

But his claim is that an overclocked 970 catch catch up to gtx 980 levels.
He said google is wrong.

Everyone knows an overclocked gtx 970 doesnt stand a chance against an overclocked gtx 980.

I think an overclocking 970 would have a really really hard time trying to catch up with a gtx 980 stock. I think one can get pretty close though but not quite catch it.

His benchmark results would be more interesting had he ran the gtx 980s at complete stock while overclocking the gtx 970(s)
 
ocre said:
I am not trying to debate but are not the results in the OP comparing overclocked 980s vs overclocked 970s?

But his claim is that an overclocked 970 catch catch up to gtx 980 levels.
He said google is wrong.

Everyone knows an overclocked gtx 970 doesnt stand a chance against an overclocked gtx 980.

I think an overclocking 970 would have a really really hard time trying to catch up with a gtx 980 stock. I think one can get pretty close though but not quite catch it.

His benchmark results would be more interesting had he ran the gtx 980s at complete stock while overclocking the gtx 970(s)
Click to expand...

For metro i did
 
I'd like to know what settings you were using for your benchmark, and whether you only overclocked the core. I have both Metro LL and Metro 2033 Redux, and neither game is demanding.

And a 980 is on average 18% to 20% faster than a 970 when comparing reference stock clocks, but for aftermarket models, the percentage is less; around 10% to 12%.

It's perfectly doable for an overclocked 970 to achieve parity with a stock 980 or even beat it, but comparing overclocked vs overclocked, of course the 980 is going to be faster.
 
ocre said:
I am not trying to debate but are not the results in the OP comparing overclocked 980s vs overclocked 970s?

But his claim is that an overclocked 970 catch catch up to gtx 980 levels.
He said google is wrong.

Everyone knows an overclocked gtx 970 doesnt stand a chance against an overclocked gtx 980.

I think an overclocking 970 would have a really really hard time trying to catch up with a gtx 980 stock. I think one can get pretty close though but not quite catch it.

His benchmark results would be more interesting had he ran the gtx 980s at complete stock while overclocking the gtx 970(s)
Click to expand...

I just thought it was a troll thread because of this.
 
Carfax83 said:
I'd like to know what settings you were using for your benchmark, and whether you only overclocked the core. I have both Metro LL and Metro 2033 Redux, and neither game is demanding.

And a 980 is on average 18% to 20% faster than a 970 when comparing reference stock clocks, but for aftermarket models, the percentage is less; around 10% to 12%.

It's perfectly doable for an overclocked 970 to achieve parity with a stock 980 or even beat it, but comparing overclocked vs overclocked, of course the 980 is going to be faster.
Click to expand...

As I said all the things out there saying 970oc can beat 980 is rubbish. No matter how much I oc my 970 i cannot beat the 980 at stock. It's simply impossible. I've cross reference with different cards as well. For metro redux i turn to highest setting with x16AA. It's demanding. The reviews out there shows 970oc beat 980 when both producing 80+ fps. I'm talking about when there's scene where it is really hammering the graphics card. This is when 980 shines and undefeated. Btw both my 970 and 980 is msi twin frost V.

I did compare the 970 oc 980 for metro's benchmark only in sli though.
 
Last edited:
You need to present data, average fps during your "intense" scenes, for Stock 970, Stock 980 and max OC 970.

Its not clearly laid out. But I did see:

"980 sli: 44~48fps Oced to 1480mhz, at stock fps is 42~46fps
970 sli: 32~36fps Oced to 1500mhz"

So it means a stock 980 sli during intense scenes drop to 42-46 fps while a heavily OC 970 sli drop 32-36 fps?

It's not something review sites generally cover. I did notice a major drop off in FCAT usage for Maxwell too. :/
 
Silverforce11 said:
You need to present data, average fps during your "intense" scenes, for Stock 970, Stock 980 and max OC 970.

Its not clearly laid out. But I did see:

"980 sli: 44~48fps Oced to 1480mhz, at stock fps is 42~46fps
970 sli: 32~36fps Oced to 1500mhz"

So it means a stock 980 sli during intense scenes drop to 42-46 fps while a heavily OC 970 sli drop 32-36 fps?

It's not something review sites generally cover. I did notice a major drop off in FCAT usage for Maxwell too. :/
Click to expand...


^ you are correct. I didn't compare single 970oc vs 980 stock. I did compare it while in sli.
 
hunkeelin said:
As I said all the things out there saying 970oc can beat 980 is rubbish. No matter how much I oc my 970 i cannot beat the 980 at stock. It's simply impossible. I've cross reference with different cards as well. For metro redux i turn to highest setting with x16AA. It's demanding. The reviews out there shows 970oc beat 980 when both producing 80+ fps. I'm talking about when there's scene where it is really hammering the graphics card. This is when 980 shines and undefeated. Btw both my 970 and 980 is msi twin frost V.

I did compare the 970 oc 980 for metro's benchmark only in sli though.
Click to expand...

So you used 16x AA? LOL I didn't think anyone used that setting anymore, except for really old games. But there's always that one guy :awe:
 
Z15CAM said:
Similar argument between the AMD R9 290 and 290X!
Click to expand...

Not really because a R290 running at 1ghz is ~5% slower than the R290X in all scenes, there's no major discrepancies that I noticed in min fps or latency. Custom R290 with higher clocks (1050mhz) are ~= R290X.

IF OP is correct, then there's a problem with the 970s during intense scenes as it suffers significantly lower fps, relative to the 980s.
 
Generally an interesting discussion and useful information.

But my needs and usage don't make the difference between the two cards more important than budgeted or desired expense. Further, SLI might be in the cards for me, but I'm just astounded by the GTX 970's lower power-consumption, better performance and cooler running temperatures compared to my GTX 780 and certainly to my old GTX 570.

I vacillated over ordering two for SLI versus a single. The promotion of recent weeks or months his turned the compass needle to the MSI "Gaming" GTX 970 4G, and I actually paid $40 extra for the "Gold LE" version of the card. I absolutely wanted the back-plate as part of the package.

So . . . I'm not going to lose any sleep over the difference with the 980.

I think it's HardOCP's judgment that the 970/980 models represent one of the more overclockable generations among recent years' offerings by NVidia. If I'm not stunned, I'm impressed. If I'm not all that impressed, I'm OK with my decision. But I'm somewhere between stunned and impressed, because my gaming is casual and oriented toward simulators -- racing and flying. I still have the task on my forthcoming agenda to teach myself "MS Xbox Joystick" for Titanfall, and my experience with the little test run training sequence for the program didn't leave me feeling deprived. That was with the GTX 780, too. . . .

By the way. The 960 has been released, probably available at Egg. The skinny on the street: "You get what you pay for."

Oh. Z15CAM said that . . . too . . .
 
Silverforce11 said:
Not really because a R290 running at 1ghz is ~5% slower than the R290X in all scenes, there's no major discrepancies that I noticed in min fps or latency. Custom R290 with higher clocks (1050mhz) are ~= R290X.

IF OP is correct, then there's a problem with the 970s during intense scenes as it suffers significantly lower fps, relative to the 980s.
Click to expand...

He's using 16x AA, so I think those results should be taken within that context.

16x AA is not only excessive, but totally unrealistic.
 
Well, the 970 is not as fast as the gtx980.

Everyone knows that.

Even max overclocked, the gtx 970 has its work cut for it. Its all one can do to try to catch a gtx980s performance.

This is surely by design. I dont think anyone out there thinks their gtx 970 can beat a gtx 980 especially overclocked. But a lot of everyday situations, you can get pretty close to gtx 980 stock performance.

Nothing new

But thanks OP for your contribution, even though i admit its really really skimpy on data. Do you actually own both 970SLI and 980SLI?
 
ocre said:
Well, the 970 is not as fast as the gtx980.

Everyone knows that.

Even max overclocked, the gtx 970 has its work cut for it. Its all one can do to try to catch a gtx980s performance.

This is surely by design. I dont think anyone out there thinks their gtx 970 can beat a gtx 980 especially overclocked. But a lot of everyday situations, you can get pretty close to gtx 980 stock performance.

Nothing new

But thanks OP for your contribution, even though i admit its really really skimpy on data. Do you actually own both 970SLI and 980SLI?
Click to expand...


yes. I own 2 970sli and 2x 980. I can return it after I made my decision on which set to keep that's why i own both.

The message I want to deliver is that reviews in google are a mis representation. A percentage performance scale is not how you judge a gpu. a 980 is not 15% faster than a 970. The correct representation is, 980 is 10~12fps better than a 970. This is especially true when there are scenes that's really pushing the cards. When 970 is rendering at an unplayble 15fps. The 980 can render at 25~27fps. That's a difference. I just want to let people know 980's price is justified. Spilling out nonsense like 980 is only 15% better for 50~60% of the price is not right.

Also, I have to note, during scene's where it's really pushing the cards. The average fps between oc(1500mhz) and stock(1316mhz) is minimal. 1~2fps increase at best. For both 970 and 980.
 
Last edited:
Oh, also another piece of information. There's some that wonder why some 970's boost clock is at 1317mhz instead of 1279mhz at stated in the specification. That's because lot of the 970 is actually a 980 defect. During the fab process some 980 didn't make the cut so nvidia disable some cores and ship it as 970.

Same goes for intel. Xeon defect = core i7 extreme. 5960x defect = 5930k etc.. etc..

This will explain why some chips are higher binned despite the same model. That is because they are a defect of a high binned model. a xeon defect 5960x> a 5960x.
 
Last edited:
Interesting results. I was vacillating between the 970 and 980 when they came out, but went with the latter, especially with a deal going on at the time. The AT review did show the 980 being about 20% faster (more than some other sites), and it may just have a bit more lasting power in future games. I won't ever be doing SLI and upgrade very infrequently these days.
 
hunkeelin said:
Oh, also another piece of information. There's some that wonder why some 970's boost clock is at 1317mhz instead of 1279mhz at stated in the specification. That's because lot of the 970 is actually a 980 defect. During the fab process some 980 didn't make the cut so nvidia disable some cores and ship it as 970.

Same goes for intel. Xeon defect = core i7 extreme. 5960x defect = 5930k etc.. etc..

This will explain why some chips are higher binned despite the same model. That is because they are a defect of a high binned model. a xeon defect 5960x> a 5960x.
Click to expand...

First, the whole darn thread is interesting. But Hunkeelin's discussion of binning processors especially caught my attention. Offhand, I can't think of a single reason why it is not true. Hold that thought.

On the other side of the same equation is "product differentiation" -- a classic example being the automobile model-lines and even "brands" among GM subsidiaries. Product differentiation is a deliberate attempt to capture extra profits -- similar to "consumer surplus" seen by a monopolist. You sell "more stuff" at multiple price-points addressing various consumer market-segments and therefore you earn more profit with a greater aggregate customer-base than at a single price-point. "Cadillac plus Chevrolet" is better than either "Cadillac" or "Chevrolet" separately.

So I'm guessing this may actually reconcile with the observation about binning defective product. Intel had done this with the Pentium 2, producing a "260," a "300," etc. They rolled all the processors off the assembly-line, then deliberately disabled a pre-calculated feature making this or that production-unit a lesser or greater processor. This then led to someone in the Philippines who was able to re-enable the feature, and "Voila" -- you had a form of CPU-counterfeiting.

They could actually do it both ways: test the product for certain types of defects, and disable enough more of them to meet marketing department assessment of profitability among us "great-unwashed GTX 970" consumers.

BY THE WAY. Did anyone mention a performance comparison between 2x GTX 970 in SLI against a single 980? Perhaps even with judiciously chosen overclocks between the two configurations?

That would actually be an important topic of interest, since 2x GTX 970 is just a tad more than 1x 980 in price. So it actually concerns a "bang-for-buck" ratio of value in making those consumer choices.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top