1. 980 is faster by nothing material that can be noticed without actually benchmarking the recording the data. AKA waste of $$$.
Right, 20+% is nothing
2. Stating that 980 can OC 20% and ignoring that 290/290X/390/GTX970 can also all overclock at least 15% is ridiculous.
The AMD cards are comparatively poor overclockers as they don't have the TDP headroom that the GTX 980 has.. Also GCN does not scale as well as Maxwell does..
I posted several links demonstrating this..
Also, your comment that a GTX980 OC ends up between Fury and 980Ti is also misleading since it takes a maxed overclock 980 just to match a stock Fury and since Fury can also be overclocked, 980 will ultimately be the slower card.
The Fury is a dog at overclocking. You're lucky if you get 100MHz extra out of it. Also, a max GTX 980 is either slightly slower, equal or faster than the Fury depending on the game and the resolution.
A 290x on the other hand isn't going to be able to catch up with or surpass a Fury unless it's water cooled.
Tek Syndicate GTX 980 OC vs Fury OC (and he didn't even overclock the memory, which would have gained an additional 5-6%)
Toptengamer GTX 980 OC vs Fury
It has nothing to do with pinching pennies. Are you out of your mind to recommend that a gamer spends $150-200 more for a GTX980 over an R9 290X/R9 390/970 for 4-5 more FPS? Your argument lacks any logic because if you say perf/$$$ doesn't matter, then it makes no sense to recommend a GTX980/390X because might as well go all out for the 980Ti.
The OP stated
his choice between a 980 or a 390x, and between the two, the 980 is the better option period!
If you want to convince him to get a cheaper option instead then by all means do so, but you can't fault myself or others for adhering to the OP's choices.
It's his money after all, and not ours.
The reason I bring up your GPU history is because it shows a lot about your own advise to other members. You constantly pick cards that are in no man's land and then keep recommending them. The GTX580 I can understand but I believe you bought 580 3GB in an era when HD7970 mopped the floor with it by 40-80%. You bought 770 in an era when each 280X/HD7970Ghz was $150 less, meaning it cost $300 less to buy 280X / HD7970Ghz CF that actually were faster than GTX770 4GB SLI.
If I had listened to your terrible advice, I would have gotten the 2GB GTX 770s instead which would have reduced my game enjoyment since it was right around that time that games were starting to easily surpass 2GB of VRAM usage on a regular basis.
If I would have listened to your terrible advice, I would have gotten the 7970GHz cards which had broken crossfire, plus also with AMD being constantly late on producing crossfire profiles for new games, or not making the profiles at all.
If I had listened to your terrible advice, I would have gotten 290x crossfire instead of GTX 980s after returning my GTX 970s, and I would have had to wait
2 fricking months for AMD to release a crossfire profile for the Witcher 3 that actually works, when NVidia had a working SLI profile on day one....and not to mention inferior performance where I would have to disable hairworks!
All that tells us is that you either have absolutely no grasp of calculating perf/$$$ or you just randomly buy graphics cards based on arbitrary budget you have set for yourself. For example, if you set a strict $1000 budget, you just pick any 2 NV cards that fit it and buy them. Most people don't buy graphics cards like that because this is totally illogical. Normally a person will look at some point of reference to see if their purchase actually makes sense. If they don't care about price/performance, they'll buy 980Ti/980Ti SLi and be done with it.
And you can't comprehend that cheaper isn't always better. You strike me as the type that constantly buys cheap stuff which breaks after a few months, and then you go back and buy more cheap stuff and continue the endless cycle.
I on the other hand prefer quality. I want a good experience, and I don't want to regret my purchases down the road just because I managed to save a few bucks..
That's not the point. You would rather recommend a GTX980 over 390X but frankly both cards are a waste of $. There is no context in which either of them makes sense given the current prices of GTX970/290X/390 in the US. For people who don't care about price/performance, they go 980Ti (or Fury X). The extra performance of a 980/390X for GTA V over the cards I mentioned is literally money wasted because it will not improve the actual gaming experience.
If the OP had specified he wanted a bang for the buck solution, I would have told him to get a GTX 970 and overclock it to the max. But he restricted his choices between a GTX 980 and a R9 390x..
It's his money, he can do what he likes with it.
No, I didn't assume anything. It's you who is ignoring that all over GPUs can also overclock and that cards like 290/290X/970/390 can already give the OP the performance he desires. Any extra tangible performance will only come in the form of a 980Ti OC as it has another 35-45% performance that will actually allow turning on more AA filters and grass quality to Ultra.
Are you telling me that the 980 Ti can gain 35 to 45% extra performance from overclocking? Are you nuts?
The 980 Ti gains the same performance as the GTX 980, which is an extra 20 to 25% from overclocking. Ryan said in his review of the GTX 980 Ti:
The gains from this overclock are a very consistent across all 5 of our sample games at 4K, with the average performance increase being 20%.
980 doesn't have any tangible horsepower to pull something like that off in GTA V over a 970 OC, 390 OC or 290X OC. So, yes, really, it's like taking $150-200 and flushing it into the toilet (or NV + NV's AIB's pockets).
I'm actually starting to wonder if you actually read any reviews of aftermarket models.:|
Again, you keep ignoring the original topic and where other cheaper cards stack against 980 in this title.
And you're giving the OP advice that he never even asked for.. He said his choices were the GTX 980 or the 390x, not the 290x, 390, or GTX 970...
Precisely why buying GPUs that sit in no man's land is a waste of $. It's not emotions -- it's pure mathematics. 980 will not be more future-proof than a 290X/390/970 so it's not worth buying unless the price premium is small (i.e., < $400). If someone really wants extra horsepower, they are stepping up to the 980Ti.
Again, anyone that believes in the concept of future proofing is a fool to begin with..
That's akin to saying someone that only plays their games at 1080p should buy a GTX 980 Ti, because it's more "future proof" for the games of tomorrow... One should always buy hardware based on current needs..
It's not senseless at all. The idea of using the most GPU demanding scenarios to try to simulate how the extra workload on GPUs will let them handle it has been used by gamers for many generations and it generally is very accurate. The point here is that 980's performance gets MUCH closer to the R9 290X at high resolutions and the gap becomes way larger between a 980 and upper-tier cards like the Fury/Fury X and 980Ti which means once 980 is required to handle even more GPU load, it won't be able to handle it any better than cards like 290X/970 or 390. Therefore, it's the textbook definition of a GPU that sits in no man's land given its ludicrous $150-200 price premium.
Sorry but that's complete nonsense. The only reason why the gap narrows between the GTX 980 and the 290x at higher resolutions, is because the latter has more bandwidth.. It's the same reason why the gap between the 980 Ti and the Fury X also diminishes as the resolution increases.
It has nothing to do with future proofing....which is really a retarded concept to begin with.
This is a textbook GPU upgrading strategy case of putting aside $150-200 NOT wasted on 390X/980 and buying a stop-gap $250-300 card and then using the $ saved to get a MUCH faster 16nm HBM2 GPU. You seem to have a very hard time getting these simple concepts since it seems if you spend $200-300 more for 5-10% more performance, you don't care.
You assume the OP is like you, in that he's willing to put up with a diminished experience in the present, for some supposed better experience in the future from saving a few bucks in the here and now..
If you're willing to wait long enough, there's always going to be something cheaper and better coming around the corner. Nobody disputes that.
But not everyone is willing to sacrifice a better gaming experience in the present, just to save a few bucks. I want to enjoy my games
NOW, not 6 fricking months from now.
Let's try this one more time: GTX980 costs $450 but it only has 12-15% more performance over a $253 290X.
GTX 980 OC can be as much as 25% faster than a stock model, 1500MHz on the core, and 8GHz on the memory..
Facebook
Twitter