• 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.

GTX 970 and GTX 980 is officially launched

Page 30 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
96Firebird said:
Unless my math is wrong, 110%/69% = 59% (1600p)...
Click to expand...

Oops, corrected, thanks. 😱

60% is decent. I think 680 SLI may end up around 80%? I'd take the 980 over 680 SLI though I have to admit.

The average is still the bottom number of the supposed 60-100% "range". I would like to see where that came from?
 
wand3r3r said:
The average is still the bottom number of the supposed 60-100% "range". I would like to see where that came from?
Click to expand...

Anything can be cherry-picked! ^_^

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/12.html

Crysis 3 maxed out at 4K, 770 is at 7.2FPS, 980 is at 13.7FPS. 90%, we're getting there!

Edit - Found one!

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/20.html

Watch Dogs at 4K, 119% faster.

Of course, these are all still unplayable.
 
Last edited:
Dylanharvey999 said:
I have a GTX 680 and am still scratching my head at the thought of upgrading for 1080p.
Click to expand...

Why? Just look at the AT bench and you can see a lot of recent games that only hit 30-45fps on a 680 @ 1080P 4xMSAA + ultra/best quality. If you like eye-candy, you can get those same games to peg right at 60fps vs. hitting 20s/30s ranges when high traffic comes on the screen.

If you stick with sub-max quality settings and no MSAA then yes, a 980 would make no sense.

I would also say a 970/980 will be MUCH better for new (sub-par) console ports as well. The 4GB memory will be a huge help.
 
exar333 said:
Why? Just look at the AT bench and you can see a lot of recent games that only hit 30-45fps on a 680 @ 1080P 4xMSAA + ultra/best quality. If you like eye-candy, you can get those same games to peg right at 60fps vs. hitting 20s/30s ranges when high traffic comes on the screen.

If you stick with sub-max quality settings and no MSAA then yes, a 980 would make no sense.

I would also say a 970/980 will be MUCH better for new (sub-par) console ports as well. The 4GB memory will be a huge help.
Click to expand...
Even at 1080p on new games maxed out barring the likes of MSAA x2 or higher is just doable at 60 FPS with current single card setups and with games like DragonAI, Witcher 3, AC: Unity, Batman AK and maybe Far Cry 4 will likely have put even 970s and 980s to the test to maintain max settings at 60 FPS (barring high MSAA which reduces frames or certain PhysX).

If I am going through the hassle with a new card at 1080P I would like to play games at max-ish settings (to me, no consuming AA settings and maybe no PhysX) at least and maintain 60FPS until 2016-ish.
 
Rome 2 and Thief for example is roughly 100%

67733.png

67736.png
 
A GTX980 is nearly 80% faster in BF4. Problem is even with the memory comperession is has only 15% more raw bandwidth than a GTX680. So in certain situations (i.e. deferred renderer with MSAA) a GTX980 is only 40-50% faster.
 
wand3r3r said:
Oops, corrected, thanks. 😱

60% is decent. I think 680 SLI may end up around 80%? I'd take the 980 over 680 SLI though I have to admit.

The average is still the bottom number of the supposed 60-100% "range". I would like to see where that came from?
Click to expand...

I have SLI'd 680's and I agree, I'd rather have a single 980. I won't be replacing them, but if I didn't already have them I'd be going with a 980. Performance of SLI 680's is great in the vast majority of games, but there are a few newer titles that are bottlenecked by their 2GB VRAM
 
Do any of the 9x0s have 2 Dual-Link DVI? As far as I could figure out the reference model had 1 Dual-Link DVI.

Not too keen on going back to DP with the power loss and desktop reset error which messed up all my window position/sizes overnight unless I left the monitor on burning power 24/7.
 
The MSI was the only one I could find that stated 2x Dual-Link DVI (I had to visit their web page, since the info is lacking from all Newegg product pages:

DVI Output:
2 (Dual-link DVI-I x 1, Dual-link DVI-D x 1)
Max Resolution: 2048x1536 @60 Hz
Click to expand...

Now, it does say that both ports are Dual-Link, but the fact that it says max resolution is 2048x1536 is quite astonishing, that would not indicate Dual-Link at all.

I have a hard time ordering based on this. I can't say I'm convinced or reassured yet.
 
Looking at the images on Newegg, the ports are all dual-link. I assume they wouldn't put dual-link ports if the card didn't support it.
 
Well the pins (or at least the holes) are there, but both NV and AMD had only one of their DVI ports with Dual-Link up until 7xx and 2xx (and both ports looked identical, just checked since my old 7970 and 6970 are in my drawer). I had to upgrade from 7970 to 780 to get 2x Dual-Link. So I'm not convinced until it is stated unequivocally, they could easily go backwards feature wise to save money if they figure people will use DP or HDMI 2.0 instead.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, under "Key Features" on the back of my box it says "Support for four concurrent displays; two dual-link DVI connectors, HDMI and Displayport 1.2" This is for the EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX1.0, P/N 04G-P4-0974-KR.
 
Keysplayr said:
Logic suggests that whatever setting you lower from the reviews you've seen, the fps "should" go up from the numbers you saw. Right?
You'd be hard pressed though to find a reviewer that wasn't trying to push these cards as hard as possible. HardOCP does a "best playable" bench along with an "apples to apples" comparison. Might help you.
Click to expand...

I'm also tempted to buy the ROG Swift display and hence getting say at least 85 fps on 2560X1440 for ULMB would be nice.
 
Takes a few days for Stock Market sites to catch up but today Tom's Hardware, TechPowerUp and Anandtech made it in The Motley Fool write up about the Maxwell release:

9-24-2014

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...porations-new-graphics-processors-should.aspx

NVIDIA Corporation Delivers a Knockout With Maxwell



In the world of discrete PC graphics chips, there are only two vendors remaining: Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD ) and NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA ) . Both companies produce very high quality products -- although both are guilty of producing lemons now and again. AMD, in recent years, has positioned its products as the more "budget friendly" options, while NVIDIA generally commands a premium for its products.


However, on Sept. 18, NVIDIA launched a pair of graphics chips -- the GTX 980 and its de-featured counterpart, the GTX 970 -- that appears to have fundamentally disrupted the high-end desktop gaming GPU landscape.


In fact, after reading several product reviews and watching how quickly these cards have been going out of stock on various e-tailers' websites, it's clear to me that cards based on these graphics processors should sell like hotcakes.


According to the review of the 970 and 980 on Tom's Hardware, the $549 GTX 980 is the fastest graphics card in the site's test suite in 1920-by-1080 and 3840-by-2160 gaming, edging past the prior generation (and more expensive) GTX 780 Ti and coming in comfortably ahead of AMD's finest R290X graphics card.

Last year, AMD lauched a line of graphics cards codenamed "Hawaii," which is the GPU now known as the R290X. According to TechPowerUp, this chip packs 6.2 billion transistors into an area of 438 square millimeters.

The AnandTech review of the R290X concluded that the R290X was generally faster than the GTX 780.

AMD has a GPU-related event scheduled for Sept. 25. Investors interested in both AMD and NVIDIA should pay close attention to the material that comes out of that.
 
dmcowen674 said:
Takes a few days for Stock Market sites to catch up but today Tom's Hardware, TechPowerUp and Anandtech made it in The Motley Fool write up about the Maxwell release:

9-24-2014

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...porations-new-graphics-processors-should.aspx
NVIDIA Corporation Delivers a Knockout With Maxwell
Click to expand...

Is that a surprise that this site took the hype waggon.??

Motley fool advise people to buy Nvidia stock, i guess that they need a good bump to get rid of their own NVidia stocks at good prices.

The Motley Fool recommends Amazon.com, Apple, and NVIDIA and owns shares of Amazon.com and Apple
Click to expand...
 
Abwx said:
Is that a surprise that this site took the hype waggon.??

Motley fool advise people to buy Nvidia stock, i guess that they need a good bump to get rid of their own NVidia stocks at good prices.
Click to expand...

You own quote of Motley's recommended and owned stocks contradicted your trolling efforts. Congrats.
 
tviceman said:
You own quote of Motley's recommended and owned stocks contradicted your trolling efforts. Congrats.
Click to expand...


Where s the contradiction.?. i d like to hear..

Advising to buy Nvidia shares and writing an hyped article seems to you being within deontological rules..?

This is a conflict of interest, period.
 
According to the quote in your post, The Motley Fool does not own Nvidia stock. Why would they care if people bought a stock they don't own?

This is the contradiction with your post.
 
I am quite puzzled by the "huge" sales if that report is true. There are several alternatives out within 10% of the performance of both of these, and the price/performance improvement is not enormous either, not even for the 970. But I'm thinking its mainly caused by one of the following.

People have been waiting to upgrade until the next generation. NV releases the first new chip from either company in a long time, people auto-buy because they are impatient, not because of any big improvement if a noticeable improvement at all. I know I'm desperate to upgrade myself to the extent of feeling withdrawal symptoms, having allowed myself yearly upgrades up until 2012.

People seeing that the new chip is out and that we did NOT get the performance increase that is usually associated with a new gen. This and the fact that we're stuck on 28nm means people think "what the hell, I will need to buy something before 20nm anyway and if this gen doesn't improve, I might as well buy now since there's no way I'm keeping my 7970/680/290/780vanilla for a whole year from today". I'm also in this group and if this is all we're getting for the next 12 months I might as well buy it and get the miniscule performance increase and 4Gb.

I'm sure someone will fundamentally disagree but if the reports about sales are indeed true, I can only imagine these reasons being the drive. No matter how you frame it the performance increases are so small that there has to be other reasons.
 
96Firebird said:
According to the quote in your post, The Motley Fool does not own Nvidia stock. Why would they care if people bought a stock they don't own?

This is the contradiction with your post.
Click to expand...

They care that their followers get "good advices", isnt it, so they will do what is necessary to prove to their customers that they are good as investment advisors , but i m sure you already knew that, otherwise why these kind of quotes :

the $549 GTX 980 is the fastest graphics card in the site's test suite in 1920-by-1080 and 3840-by-2160 gaming, edging past the prior generation (and more expensive) GTX 780 Ti and coming in comfortably ahead of AMD's finest R290X graphics card.
Click to expand...

Comfortably is much exagerated, indeed he was cautious to not quote %ages as readers could have a different opinion of what is "comfortably"..
 
Abwx said:
They care that their followers get "good advices", isnt it, so they will do what is necessary to prove to their customers that they are good as investment advisors , but i m sure you already knew that, otherwise why these kind of quotes :



Comfortably is much exagerated, indeed he was cautious to not quote %ages as readers could have a different opinion of what is "comfortably"..
Click to expand...

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." 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top