Is a GTX 980 worth it at $370? Want to play @ 4k

[Actaeon]

Currently have a 2x 290X in Crossfire, happy with their performance but frustrated in not being able to play at 4k since my 4K TV since the card doesn't have HDMI 2.0. It has been overkill at 1080p so I just underclock them for a nice quiet and cool rig. I'm looking at the Nvidia camp and I have an opportunity to get a GTX 980 for $370 shipped. I am considering getting two of them for SLI so I can play with good framerates @ 4k. This would be $740 total for both which seems like strong value to me.

Doing some searching on here the consensus is to get a 970 on budget or go to the 980 Ti if you have the money. But I think that advice is when the 980s are at 400+, so given this pricing I am wondering if the 980 is still worth considering.

I am hesitant for the 970 due to the smaller memory which will limit 4k performance. It will be cheaper than a 980, so certainly strongest value here but I don't think they are as up to the task as the 980s are. A 980Ti will be at least $600 per card and $1200 for two which is significantly more expensive than the other options. Alternatively I could get one 980Ti but I don't think a single Ti is good enough for 4k right now. The two 980 in SLI is sort of in the sweet spot in the middle.

I would sell my 290s to recover costs. Lets say I can get $400 for both, that is $340 total out of pocket for the 980s and $800 for the Tis. The 980s is a bit more digestible.

Another consideration is just to wait for high end Pascal/Arctic Islands next year which would certainly be better than anything we see today. This of course takes into consideration that they give us a good high end card early in the year instead of starting us off with Titans and low range cards. Performance wise I don't know if I'd expect a single Pascal to beat out two 980s either. I expect total cost to be similar if I wait.

The other consideration is DX12, which I hear Maxwell isn't as well off as we originally thought at launch.

So what do you think? Still not worth it at that pricing and I should stick with my 290X for 1080p and wait for Pascal/Arctic Islands? Or are these prices just too good that I should move forward with it?

 

[boozzer]

980 cannot handle 4k. it really depends on what quality setting @ 4k is acceptable to you.

 

[Actaeon]

980 cannot handle 4k. it really depends on what quality setting @ 4k is acceptable to you.

That is why I would get two of them. Sorry if that was unclear

 

[Ken g6]

980 cannot handle 4k.

Technically, the maximum resolution for a 980 is 5120x3200. A more accurate statement might be, "980 cannot handle 4k much better than 970 can."

I'd tend to err on the side of getting a faster single card, rather than SLI. 980Ti is pretty good.

Another consideration is just to wait for high end Pascal/Arctic Islands next year which would certainly be better than anything we see today.

This is the direction I'm thinking for myself.

 

[RussianSensation]

So what do you think? Still not worth it at that pricing and I should stick with my 290X for 1080p and wait for Pascal/Arctic Islands? Or are these prices just too good that I should move forward with it?

I'll throw my opinion in as everyone is going to have a different view on the whole 4K thing.

IMO, even though your TV has 4K, unless you sit really close or it's a very large TV, you'd notice higher quality settings and smoother (higher FPS) more than playing games at medium on a 4K TV with lower minimums. 4K for the sake of 4K on underpowered cards may not be worth it yet. I was so pumped for 4K but then after seeing/reading so many reviews online (YouTube, professional reviews), I personally would not go from 1080P/1440P to 4K without 980Ti SLI or similar.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1033-gtx-980-ti-sli-r9-fury-x-crossfire/

Specifically, even though 980 SLI sounds decent at $740 vs. its $1100 launch price a year ago, compared to R9 295X2 or 970 SLI (in your case due to HDMI 2.0), it's still not that great of a purchase. Ignore the VRAM issue of 970 for a second and look at the FPS.

980 SLI is just 14% faster than 970 SLI. Some reviews show 16-17%.

Even if NV/AMD do not launch a card 50-80% faster than the 980Ti in 2016, I think they could launch a card with close to 980Ti's performance for $399-449 or alternatively a card for $699-749 that's 20-25% faster than the 980Ti which is basically where 980 SLI ends up. I mean it's your call but if I were in your shoes, I would much rather sell those 290Xs and grab a single after-market 980Ti for $575 and overclock it to 1.5Ghz. Then next year re-evaluate your options. Otherwise, I would just continue using your existing cards and upgrade next year. Your cards close to bottomed out in their resale value so it doesn't hurt you much to keep using them.

With a single 980Ti OC, you can also run some games at 1080P and enable DSR. You will get a lot of the benefits of reduced aliasing/sharpness. It will also let you upgrade much cheaper and go away with CF profiles. Right now Newegg has 2 promotions with $25 off AMEX or Visa Checkout which means you should be able to purchase a GTX980Ti for $570-575 easily by December 31st.

 

[xorbe]

I don't think 4K + $740 SLI 980 is worth it. Use a more powerful single $599-649 GPU and cut your gfx settings back. No worries about games that can't use SLI. Or find two $250 GTX 970 and roll the dice for SLI support, and keep your options in check for VRAM usage.

 

[Actaeon]

Thank you for the advice. My TV is quite large, it is 75" and I sit about 9-10 feet away from the TV. I like using the big screen TV experience sitting on the couch versus a desk and monitor.

Unfortunately I cannot do 1440p since my TV doesn't support that resolution. If I select 1440p on my computer, the TV will display the output resolution as 1440p, but the display resolution itself goes to 2160p and won't go above 30hz on HDMI 1.4. In other words, I can do 1080p or 2160p, but nothing in between.

If I am to stick with 1080p, I'll keep what I have as it is good enough 60fps @ 1080p for the games I am currently playing.

This question is really about going to 4k and what it would take to get there. I am open to a single 980 Ti and the performance is incredible as a single card and 6GB is more future proof. I don't think it is quite as fast as two 980s in SLI, but it is also about $150 cheaper ($600~ vs $740~). So do you think a OC'd 980Ti is good enough as a single card for 4k? I would look at the Gigabyte G1 model.

 

[Teizo]

A 980 can handle 4K decent on high settings, especially in SLI...you just are not going to be able use use AA/MSAA outside of maybe FXAA...but @ 4K is AA really even necessary?

A single 980Ti would be better though, imho....either the MSI Gaming 980Ti or the Gigabyte WF. I don't personally think the extra for the G1 is worth it, though that is up to you entirely.

 

[RussianSensation]

So do you think a OC'd 980Ti is good enough as a single card for 4k? I would look at the Gigabyte G1 model.

It honestly depends on the settings you use and what FPS you require. If we are talking about high quality settings at 60 fps, it's not enough but neither is the 980 SLI. Some of these benchmarks do not even include MSAA/SMAA or the highest settings (HairWorks, etc.).

And in some cases where the programmers cannot code, even 980Ti SLI is not enough.

That's why it's very difficult to answer your question because for say Starcraft 2, it would be enough. Personally, I would not go 4K without 980Ti SLI but since CF doesn't work in every game, I'd still consider selling your 290Xs and getting a single after-market 980Ti since at least some games you'll be able to play at 4K, while with your current setup you can't even play 1 game.

 

[Teizo]

Are those benchmarks using AA?

Using AA in 4K benchmarks is not going to give a good real use case scenario. If anything, it is only to show the power of the architecture and is just and arbitrary measurement imho. 1440p? Yeah, makes sense, but not at 2160p with anything more than 2xMSAA or FXAA.


The Gigabyte WF 9800Ti is $599, btw....

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125803

 

[RussianSensation]

Are those benchmarks using AA?

Using AA in 4K benchmarks is not going to give a good real use case scenario. If anything, it is only to show the power of the architecture and is just and arbitrary measurement imho. 1440p? Yeah, makes sense, but not at 2160p with anything more than 2xMSAA or FXAA.

I picked some of the more favourable scenarios for him. I didn't even bother linking some of those games with even higher MSAA and even higher settings because it would be literally slide show.

I mean I shouldn't need to tell you that in FO4, 980Ti will never provide smooth 60 fps at 4K even with 0 MSAA when the game has dips below 60 fps even at 1440P.

Also, certain games have broken or poor SLI/CF scaling.

I also disagree that 980 is good enough for 4K. In a lot of games you will need to drop settings to medium to get good fps on a 980 at 4K.

980 often gets dropped hard at 1440P in modern games. In some games you will still have crawling edges. Again, I don't want to get into pages of arguments. Based on countless reviews I read online, the general consensus is if going 4K, grab 980Ti SLI or Fury CF, no less.

As I said earlier, it depends on the game and where the game was benchmarked. For example, in Anno 2205, 980Ti gets almost 43 fps in the beginning of the game but by middle/end of the game, the # of inhabitants drop FPS to 23-26 only.
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-11/...viele-einwohner/#diagramm-anno-2205-3840-2160

Yet, if someone is playing Starcraft 2, 980Ti would be flying so it's difficult to answer without looking at specific games the OP plays.

 

[Actaeon]

Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough replies. Looks like we're in a tough spot for 4K gaming right now.

I guess I kind of thought a single 980Ti wasn't quite quick enough and I was hoping two 980s would fast enough but still affordable. In that sweet spot, but it looks like that might not be the case.

Two 980Tis would be sweet but at around $1200 it is a bit too much to reasonably spend, especially as that would get me a high end Pascal early next year.

I guess I have a lot to think about.

 

[boozzer]

if not in a hurry, I 110% vote for waiting for 16nm gpus.

 

[KaRLiToS]

So you wanna go from 2 x R9 290x to 2 x GTX 980 ?

It is a sidegrade. Crimson is coming.

I have 4 x R9 290x and I am in the waiting camp. 16nm is where to real shizzle is.

 

[xorbe]

Unfortunately I cannot do 1440p since my TV doesn't support that resolution. If I select 1440p on my computer, the TV will display the output resolution as 1440p, but the display resolution itself goes to 2160p and won't go above 30hz on HDMI 1.4. In other words, I can do 1080p or 2160p, but nothing in between.

Pretty sure the gfx card can scale 2560x1440 to the TV's native resolution (gpu scaling).

 

[Teizo]

I picked some of the more favourable scenarios for him. I didn't even bother linking some of those games with even higher MSAA and even higher settings because it would be literally slide show.

Ok, I was not sure if they had MSAA enabled, because no single card is fast enough yet to handle 4K with MSAA. I was under the impression that without AA you could at least do relatively well on high settings at 4K with a 980Ti and medium settings with a 980. 4K with MSAA is going to come with next years cards presumable, and possibly their refresh down the line 2 years from now is when 4K will be routine for high end cards like 1440p now.

 

[Actaeon]

if not in a hurry, I 110% vote for waiting for 16nm gpus.

Thanks, a strong option for sure. I am OK with current gen stuff if discounted appropriately (I thought $370 for a 980 was pretty fair) but I don't want to pay top dollar for older stuff.

So you wanna go from 2 x R9 290x to 2 x GTX 980 ?

It is a sidegrade. Crimson is coming.

I have 4 x R9 290x and I am in the waiting camp. 16nm is where to real shizzle is.

Yes, a side grade/minor upgrade, but the 2x 290Xs aren't doing anything for me for 4K while the 980s would. I can get by with just one 290X for 1080p so I feel like I have a lot of unused power. If I could do 4k with my current setup I would not consider changing cards at this time.

Pretty sure the gfx card can scale 2560x1440 to the TV's native resolution (gpu scaling).

If I select GPU Scaling in CCC, my highest option is 1080p @ 60hz. If I don't select the GPU scaling option, I can select all sorts of resolutions but the TV stays at 2160p @ 30hz due to HDMI 1.4.

 

[bystander36]

Ok, I was not sure if they had MSAA enabled, because no single card is fast enough yet to handle 4K with MSAA. I was under the impression that without AA you could at least do relatively well on high settings at 4K with a 980Ti and medium settings with a 980. 4K with MSAA is going to come with next years cards presumable, and possibly their refresh down the line 2 years from now is when 4K will be routine for high end cards like 1440p now.

That may actually be true, depending on the game, but for some reason, everyone wants to review at Ultra, and the enthusiast crowd no longer understand anything lower than Ultra. But then what looks better, 1080p (up scaled) or 4K at lower settings? I'm not really sure myself and it likely varies depending on the game.

 

[xorbe]

If I select GPU Scaling in CCC, my highest option is 1080p @ 60hz. If I don't select the GPU scaling option, I can select all sorts of resolutions but the TV stays at 2160p @ 30hz due to HDMI 1.4.

I don't have a 4K display, so I can't say if nvidia works any differently. :\

 

[bystander36]

If I select GPU Scaling in CCC, my highest option is 1080p @ 60hz. If I don't select the GPU scaling option, I can select all sorts of resolutions but the TV stays at 2160p @ 30hz due to HDMI 1.4.

The issue is that your GPU doesn't support HDMI 2.0. Nvidia's latest cards do, so they have the option to use HDMI 2.0, but that is also assuming your TV also supports it.

 

[vbored]

I've got sli 980's and a 4k monitor. No aa at 4k still looks better than aa at 1440p, this is on a 28 inch screen though so i'm not sure if on bigger screens you will start to notice the crawling/edges.

That said I recommend you wait, the sli profiles are getting alot more problematic lately. Unless your targetting 4k@30hz, in which case one 980 ti might be an option.

 

[Mondozei]

Another consideration is just to wait for high end Pascal/Arctic Islands next year which would certainly be better than anything we see today.

This. I know you want to do it now, now, now but one reason to wait, aside from Pascal/Artic, is CES. We're likely to see a large new selection of monitors at CES in a month or so.

I am personally looking for DP 1.3 displays. I want a 144 Hz 4K display. Yes, you might not be able to do 100+ FPS in the vast majority of games at 4K unless you're playing something really light, but it's about the future. What about the generation after Pascal/Artic? Pascal/Artic will likely bring us the first single dGPUs who are capable of 60 fps at 4K on good settings. The generation after that will push even higher and I want to be able to run that without getting another monitor.

Also, Pascal/Artic GPUs will likely have DP 1.3 anyway. So you could well end up getting two for one next year: a genuinely 4K-capable single dGPU and a 4K monitor which can scale well into the future, meaning past 60 fps. So wait and save.

 

[Actaeon]

Thanks. Personally I am not interested in buying a new display. I will be using my TV I already own and I'm ok with 60hz. 144hz sounds pretty amazing though.

Realistically the timing for Pascal seems so fuzzy it makes the decision really tough. My hunch is that Nvidia will announce their first GP100 Pascal based chip in Mid-early 2016 as some type of Quattro or Titan. Then we'll see some mid-high range GP104-like stuff a few months later, then finally the full GP100 Ti card for enthusiasts. Looking at the release schedule between the 780Ti and the 980Ti, it was about 18 months. If we accept that same cadence it'll be Q4 2016 at the earliest before we see the 980Ti replacement.

That is a long time to wait, but if this is a Sandy Bridge-like leap it would certainly be worth it. On the other hand, the hype for Fury was also very high and that was a bit of a disappointment.

 

[Headfoot]

Unfortunately I cannot do 1440p since my TV doesn't support that resolution. If I select 1440p on my computer, the TV will display the output resolution as 1440p, but the display resolution itself goes to 2160p and won't go above 30hz on HDMI 1.4. In other words, I can do 1080p or 2160p, but nothing in between.

The new AMD driver should allow you to do a custom resolution of 1440p @ 60hz now on your current 290s.

 

[Azix]

If I had that cash I'd maybe buy a 34" 21:9 ultrawide screen with 3440x1440 resolution and be happy with the 2 x 290 cards till next year. Sell that and buy a powerful single card. freesync one if possible and/or 144Hz.

Whats the model of the TV?

You can also just wait for adapters to be out for display port to HDMI 2.0. Recent driver mentioned them so should be decently soon.