[HEXUS]Overclocked 980 series big power consumption

[RussianSensation]

I'm not sure why that is a bad value for someone who values perf/$.

Because it's like selling a 6600GT or GTX460 or GTX680 for $550-600. You don't see it but I do. I called 680 mid-range and I was right. 980 is a mid-range Maxwell card, only marketed as flagship until GM200 launches. This is akin to NV purposely holding back 6800U, GTX480 and GTX780 to only launch slightly faster than last gen mid-range 6600GT, 460 and 680. The 980 name is only that in marketing, not performance.

You think a card that's 10% faster than 780Ti nearly 1 year later for $600 is a good deal? :hmm: I think it's a horrible deal since based on Computerbase's analysis of GPUs from September 2009 (HD5870), GPUs got 3.3X faster in 4 years or an average of 35% faster per year. 980 fails to meet 35% faster per year over 780Ti.
http://www.computerbase.de/2013-12/grafikkarten-2013-vergleich/10/

Also, relative to after-market 970 that goes for $350, $600 980 is a horrendous value since you can buy almost 2 970s and smoke a 980. Anyone who values performance/$ would never buy the 980 at $550+.

You can complain about Vram all you want but the 970/980 offer more vram than previous nvidia cards and do so a lower prices. There are few cards with more Vram on the market. As you said and keep moaning about the 980 and 970 aren't enough for 4K and then complain that they don't have the Vram necessary for 4K. And what about the R290 and 290X? Only slightly slower than the 980 (max 20%) if the 980 has problems the R290 and 290X are going to have the same problems. In fact if you want to moan about 4 GB not being enough, there is no reference card on the market with more vram save the titan and some 6GB GK110 or Hawii cards.

History has proven that NV's flagship cards have all been gimped in the last 4 years and are practically worthless in 2 years.

GTX480 / 580 = 1.5GB - not enough in 2 years
680 = 2GB - not enough in 2 years as these cards are running into serious VRAM bottlenecks
780/780Ti = 3GB - already starting to show limitations in games like Watch Dogs. In 12 months from now 3GB of VRAM on 780Ti for high rez gaming will become an even bigger problem. People who paid $700 for 780TI probably don't care but that's not the point. A $700 card shouldn't have the same VRAM as a $200 R9 280 since way more powerful.
980 = 4GB - in 2 years it will be borderline again

Using 290/290X's 4GB of VRAM as an excuse why 970/980's 4GB is sufficient isn't reasonable since 4GB on 290/290X is 1 year old tech. NV should at least offer the option of 6-8GB on 970/980. I wouldn't buy 290/290X either at this point. If you look at 980 SLI 4K gaming performance, it's hardly much faster than the nearly 1 year old 290s. Max overclocked, you'll maybe get 17-20% at 4K. That's not going to change your playability in heavy titles like Metro or Crysis 3 at 4K. Granted, that's an amazing accomplishment for NV's next gen mid-range to whoop AMD's flagship card by 17-20% but it's not moving the absolute performance bar much regardless, especially not at $550+. Think about it if GM200 is $699 and is 30-40% faster than 980, then 980 will seem very overpriced in hindsight, unless NV goes $900-1000 for GM200.

The fact remains that the cost for the high quality GDDR5 nvidia is using on their cards is something like $12-15/GB. Upping Vram to 8GB would cost something like $48-$60 and benefit something like the top 0.01% of the people who bought the card. You can always buy a 8 GB card when it becomes available.

What's the difference between a $550 and a $600 card? Just like 480/580 1.5GB /680 2GB/ 770 2GB all ran into VRAM bottlenecks just 2-2.5 years after their launch, so will the 980. Many people would choose an 8GB 980 for $60 more over $550 MSRP since some people keep their GPUs for more than 2 years. For example, if I had a 680 SLI 2GB, I would have had to upgrade already but with 7970s 3GB, I can coast to fall of 2015. By then 980's level of performance will probably be $399.

Also, NV ships 970M with 6GB and 980M with 8GB but somehow it was too difficult for them to offer these options on the desktop? It's just a strategy to later release 8GB versions when AMD offers competition. NV will drop 980 4GB to $479 and have 980 8GB at $549.

Now I can understand what you are saying but it makes no sense for Nvidia. GM200 will be out in a few months and if you want more performance its always there for you. Nvidia already learned their lesson with Fermi; they will be focusing on efficiency for the near future. Efficiency drives their notebook shipments and tegra products and on the desktop allows for better scaling of the designs available.

As it stands the 980 and especially the 970 seem to do exactly what the R290 and 290X did. Move existing performance to a lower price while keeping absolute performance constant. Look at it this way. It did far better to the competition than the 290 and 290X did or the 285 by lowering power.

I think 970 is a great card. I am saying 980 at $550 is the most overpriced NV card in years. Even 680 beat 580 by 35% at launch for $499 and it also offered an excellent increase in performance/watt. Also, it's not even remotely fair to compare 970/980 vs. 290/290X.

290 was $399 when 780 was $650 and Titan was $1000. 970 beats 290 by 10% and it only undercuts it by $70. If 290 was a card made by NV and 780 and Titan were AMD cards, it would be hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread. But because 290 was made for AMD and most NV buyers don't care for AMD cards, even if it came out for $299 at launch 1 year ago, they still wouldn't have switched.

If tomorrow AMD releases a 20% faster 390X with 300W power usage for $550, 980 owners would say well I got a card that's barely slower but uses nearly half the wattage. I've been on these forums long enough to know how it works.

The point you aren't acknowledging is that 980 is only a flagship because it replaces a 2 year old Kepler tech. Right now the marketers at NV are having a field day advertising performance/watt, and 2x perf/watt on 28nm node. But as a consumers I mostly see 10% faster 1 year later for $550, which is pretty underwhelming historically speaking. I expect better from AMD/NV next year. :thumbsup: And if they flop, I'll just keep waiting for Pascal. I have little to no pressure to upgrade due to 99% console ports that are destroyed by 7970s at 1080P and 4K IPS monitor prices still sky high.

 

[SirPauly]

Because it's like selling a 6600GT or GTX460 or GTX680 for $550-600. You don't see it but I do. I called 680 mid-range and I was right. 980 is a mid-range Maxwell card, only marketed as flagship until GM200 launches.

Because of market and competition changes.

Lets use your example of the GTX 460 and how it compares to the GTX 680 -- Dude, they're both mid range GPU's and that's the end and you're right? Hardly!

The default GTX 460 had trouble competing with a 299 dollar 5850 and had to be priced lower -- and the 5870 was noticeably quicker.

The default GTX 680 competed very strong( many metric wins) with AMD's 549 dollar 7970 Flagship and was cheaper.

The market and competition changed.

 

[Enigmoid]

They will offer 8 GB cards later. The 580 plays fine at 1080p, you may have to deactivate a few settings but most games are perfectly playable as shown by several members on this forum.

 

[RussianSensation]

Because of market and competition changes.

I don't disagree with your post.

I realize NV can price a mid-range Maxwell at $550 because it's a superior card to the R9 290X, which is currently AMD's single-GPU flagship. However, remember the criticism we all laid on a 925mhz 7970 when it beat a GTX580 by 25-30% at stock and 40-80% OC vs. OC, while offering 3GB of VRAM vs. 1.5GB of the 580? The 7970 was only $100 more than the $450 580 and now 980 is what 20-25% faster max OC vs. 290 mac OC and it costs $550 vs. $400 for 290X. In other words, 980 is far less impressive than 7970 vs. 580. It's not even close!! :thumbsdown:

Why is that most of our forum ripped 7970 apart but 980 gets none of the same criticism? 7970 overclocks even better than 980, doubled the VRAM for $100 more, destroyed 580 in compute, and could bitcoin mine.

That's my point - it's always a double standard when it comes to NV. NV is forgiven for VRAM crippling and under-delivering performance all because AMD cannot compete or NV's magical performance/watt? If true it's even more reasons why we need a competitive AMD or NV can just release Pascal GP104 at $599 in 2016.

---

Recall GTX480 $499 was 23% faster on average than a $349 GTX470 and it offered more VRAM.

Recall GTX580 $499 was 15-16% faster on average than $349 GTX570 and it also offered more VRAM.

Yet now NV is placing a $220 price premium and keeps VRAM the same. They are sand-bagging. They should have given 980 users another reason to spend extra and that is 8GB of VRAM.

To add to your point, when there is little competition in the market, you are often paying a very large early adopter premium for the best product:

- $650 280 and 1 month later it drops to $500 due to $299 4870.
- $550 7970, and 6 months later following 670/680 launch, it could be had for $380.
- $650 780 and 5 months later you could have had that performance for $400 in R9 290.

NV knows AMD has nothing until Q1 2015 at the earliest so they decided to maximize profits with 980 as a normal business would. I have a feeling we are going to see major shifts in price/performance from 980 next year simply because NV pulled a 7970 on us and priced 980 very high due to no competition. 970 is proof that NV baked in a huge profit margin into the 980. 970's price more or less means NV can drop 980 4GB to $349 if required and easily make $ on it.

 

[96Firebird]

Why is that most of our forum ripped 7970 apart...

Do you just make this stuff up or...?

 

[SimianR]

Do you just make this stuff up or...?

There was a lot of criticism that AMD was being "greedy" by pricing the 7970 above NV's cards and not undercutting like they did previously.

 

[96Firebird]

There was a lot of criticism that AMD was being "greedy" by pricing the 7970 above NV's cards and not undercutting like they did previously.

Well yes, the price was a major criticism of the 7970 at launch. And here's why...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/30.html

But for him to go on and say it is a double standard because we don't criticize the 980, what should we criticize it about? Most people know it's price is absurd compared to the 970.

 

[sontin]

The 7970 cost $549. Everything what is wrong right now, is a result of the launch price of the 7970.

The GTX980 was released 33months after the 7970 and it offers 605 more performance while using less power for the same MSRP.

The 7970 was released 19 months after the GTX480 and was only 35% faster while using less power and cost $50 more.

 

[SimianR]

I don't know - I feel like AMD was following NVIDIA's lead by setting that price for the flagship. Usually the flagship GPU's are not where the best value is, so a performance per dollar chart isn't going to look pretty. If the 7950 pricing was crazy than I can understand people being upset. AMD really set people up for disappointment I suppose because the 5870 was priced very competitively at launch.

 

[FiendishMind]

Why is that most of our forum ripped 7970 apart but 980 gets none of the same criticism? 7970 overclocks even better than 980, doubled the VRAM for $100 more, destroyed 580 in compute, and could bitcoin mine

To be fair, you have to remember that the HD 7970 and HD 7950 were heavily hyped as the first available 28nm based GPUs. People were really expecting more from a simultaneous arch change and fab shrink, that plus the fact that it broke AMD's relatively long standing pricing tradition was a recipe for outrage.

 

[thilanliyan]

The 7970 cost $549. Everything what is wrong right now, is a result of the launch price of the 7970.

Actually, it's all the fault of the 8800 Ultra!!

 

[realibrad]

Well yes, the price was a major criticism of the 7970 at launch. And here's why...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/30.html

But for him to go on and say it is a double standard because we don't criticize the 980, what should we criticize it about? Most people know it's price is absurd compared to the 970.

So, lets compare the Performance per Dollar of a 290 with the current price cut, to that of say a 980.

 

[96Firebird]

So, lets compare the Performance per Dollar of a 290 with the current price cut, to that of say a 980.

Did you just pick 2 random cards to compare?

Let's compare the 750Ti with the 290X!

 

[mindbomb]

People really care about 50 watts in a gaming PC?? Give me moar speed! Double the speed and IDC if the GPU pulls 500 watts. Ill deal with the heat and PSU. Just give me speed.

On the front page of anandtech right now, there is a an entire computer that uses 35 watts (uses an i7 4500u). So yea, 50 watts extra for a graphics card of more or less equivalent performance actually does bother me a bit.

 

[Grooveriding]

Actually, it's all the fault of the 8800 Ultra!!

No, no, it's the $1000 Titan to two month later $650 gtx780 sandbag. :sneaky:

 

[Rvenger]

On that note, I think we are done here. You guys have gone way off topic.


-Rvenger