Little bit disappointed with the 980 Ti performance

[kasakka]

You have to remember that the best looking console games are able to achieve it through things like barely 30 fps, rendering at less than full 1080p resolution and game design choices. Running a closed quarters linear pipe game like The Order consistently covered in fog is nowhere near as taxing as an open world game with long view distances, hundreds of objects to track, many of which are affected by physics.

Uncharted is sort of an anomaly as the programmers at Naughty Dog are REALLY good. Even though the games are also built around mostly linear set pieces, they have managed to make good use of the PS3 hardware and now PS4 without introducing any obvious performance saving features (like The Order's wider aspect ratio). They've also had really good artists to craft the overall look that has the right amount of cartoon and realism to the characters so they look good even if they're not totally realistic.

GPUs have improved a lot. Now we finally have single GPUs capable of running at 1440p with most games at max REASONABLE details (8xMSAA or SSAA isn't really one of them) at 60 fps while staying reasonably quiet and cool. In a few years we'll be saying the same about GPUs capable of handling 4K.

 

[Insomniator]

GPUs have improved a lot. Now we finally have single GPUs capable of running at 1440p with most games at max REASONABLE details (8xMSAA or SSAA isn't really one of them) at 60 fps while staying reasonably quiet and cool. In a few years we'll be saying the same about GPUs capable of handling 4K.

Yeah, but those GPU's are still $600 alone and very few games actually look noticeably better than they do on the $400 console.

I've been saying this for a while, high end GPU's are a waste of money if you are really just interested in gaming. If you want the biggest epeen, have money to burn and are really into multi screen gaming then sure.. spend the 1200 on SLI 980TI's... but your games won't look all that different than the kid playing on the PS4 for 1/6 the price.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Yeah, but those GPU's are still $600 alone and very few games actually look noticeably better than they do on the $400 console.

I've been saying this for a while, high end GPU's are a waste of money if you are really just interested in gaming. If you want the biggest epeen, have money to burn and are really into multi screen gaming then sure.. spend the 1200 on SLI 980TI's... but your games won't look all that different than the kid playing on the PS4 for 1/6 the price.

Hogwash. The consoles are nice, but a high end PC is going to allow you to customize all manner of features not found on consoles (like resolution and various antialiasing solutions), and it's not stuck at a fixed framerate of 30 fps. GTA V looks great on PS4, but you'd have to be blind not to see the difference between that and the maxed out PC version, and the maxed out PC version can run at 60 fps on a 980 ti. The Witcher 3 looks pretty fine on consoles, but the latest patch has it locked to 20 fps at places, and I'm going to guess that most people would be able to discern that lack of smoothness when compared to the PC version. Now that's to be expected; a $2,000+ gaming PC should run things better than a $300 console. But let's not act like the difference doesn't exist.

 

[ocre]

Man you haven't even scratched the surface.

Most consoles are running games on their lag-fest TVs on top of the fact that your limited to 20-30 fps and mostly sub1080 resolutions.

These people haven't any experience running 60 fps but that is just scratching the surface of what PC has offer.

Some don't have any place to be talking because they don't have a real true picture of what PC has to offer. Gaming at ultra high PPI is one thing, but what about gaming at ultra high refresh rates? If you haven't ever seen 120hz/120fps then you have no clue what it is like. Then there is freesync and Gsync, all the reviews a person can read does nothing to really convey the actual expierence. These things you can only understand by personally experiencing them. And once you do, there is no taking it back.

Anyone how has a 120-144hz monitor playing at a high frame rate, turn off your PC and fire up a kiddy console. It makes you want to cry

 

[casiofx]

Man you haven't even scratched the surface.

Most consoles are running games on their lag-fest TVs on top of the fact that your limited to 20-30 fps and mostly sub1080 resolutions.

These people haven't any experience running 60 fps but that is just scratching the surface of what PC has offer.

Some don't have any place to be talking because they don't have a real true picture of what PC has to offer. Gaming at ultra high PPI is one thing, but what about gaming at ultra high refresh rates? If you haven't ever seen 120hz/120fps then you have no clue what it is like. Then there is freesync and Gsync, all the reviews a person can read does nothing to really convey the actual expierence. These things you can only understand by personally experiencing them. And once you do, there is no taking it back.

Anyone how has a 120-144hz monitor playing at a high frame rate, turn off your PC and fire up a kiddy console. It makes you want to cry

Console gamers aren't really bothered that much by input lag because they are using controllers instead of a mouse. I experienced the same when I'm using Xbox360 controller to play games on my PC instead my K+M. Though I hated the 30fps cap on console so I'm gaming on PC.

When I tried again the PS3 GTAV few weeks ago I was so surprised that I finished it years ago, the fps is horrible lol. My eyes hurt.

 

[sam_816]

Yeah, but those GPU's are still $600 alone and very few games actually look noticeably better than they do on the $400 console.





I've been saying this for a while, high end GPU's are a waste of money if you are really just interested in gaming. If you want the biggest epeen, have money to burn and are really into multi screen gaming then sure.. spend the 1200 on SLI 980TI's... but your games won't look all that different than the kid playing on the PS4 for 1/6 the price.

I don't think your post shows complete picture (cost wise) another major difference between consoles and pc is cost of games or should I say the rate at which games lose value for pc since there are no brokers like Sony and MS. At most of the time you can compare prices of the games and you will see that the pc version of the games reached flash sale prices for console version at least few months ago. Not only that, a console has long life cycle that means you are stuck with same gpu power for over 5 years easily.

Worst thing that has happened for pc gaming is the change in focus of these business houses(won't even call them game devs or publishers) from pc to consolization of games. Arkham knight is a shining example of where pc gaming is going thanks to these consoles.

I think VR is where pc gaming and these $600 gpus will shine. Consoles will have to chop serious visual fidelity to get acceptable fps.

 

[Insomniator]

Well I hope VR energizes the market. I've been a PC gamer my whole life but I'm sorry, getting tired of hearing 'oh but there is better AA on the PC' as justification for dealing with higher costs.

I'm not saying there is NO difference, but there hasn't been a real large one for a long time. Where is the next Crysis? Give me something that runs at 25 FPS at 1080P on my GTX780 and can't even be dreamed of running on a PS4. 16X Super Duper AA to reduce some jaggies on stairs a mile in the background is not the answer.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Modders are really the only saviors at this point. Devs/Publishers are not interested in pushing boundaries or marketing to niches. It's all about common denominators and setting the bar the same across the board so they don't 'offend' a company.

That will change as PC gaming picks up more speed, but only if games besides MMO's/RTS/Mobas start to sell more.

As a person who plays both PC and consoles, as much as it pains me to say this, the vast majority of console gamers are lazy and are not interested in technology. They simply use it because that's what everyone else they know is doing. If gaming suddenly became the 'geeky' guy thing to do again, they'd all move on to the next fad.

This has been the culmination over many years. Since the last gen was out performed so early in it's life, and the new gen of consoles did not push any boundaries (or go ahead of PC in any way), we are in a lull that we won't get out of until they stop looking at consoles as the primary development brand, or..as I said, modders take over and do the work (which they do quite often).

I do think VR will invigorate some innovation, however, it will still just be a niche unless it hits big with consoles....which won't solve anything as it currently given the limited power they have.

 

[Innokentij]

Well I hope VR energizes the market. I've been a PC gamer my whole life but I'm sorry, getting tired of hearing 'oh but there is better AA on the PC' as justification for dealing with higher costs.

I'm not saying there is NO difference, but there hasn't been a real large one for a long time. Where is the next Crysis? Give me something that runs at 25 FPS at 1080P on my GTX780 and can't even be dreamed of running on a PS4. 16X Super Duper AA to reduce some jaggies on stairs a mile in the background is not the answer.

Try to sit as close to ur tv as u do with ur monitor to see how far behind that consoll really is on image quality

 

[escrow4]

Modders are really the only saviors at this point. Devs/Publishers are not interested in pushing boundaries or marketing to niches. It's all about common denominators and setting the bar the same across the board so they don't 'offend' a company.

That will change as PC gaming picks up more speed, but only if games besides MMO's/RTS/Mobas start to sell more.

As a person who plays both PC and consoles, as much as it pains me to say this, the vast majority of console gamers are lazy and are not interested in technology. They simply use it because that's what everyone else they know is doing. If gaming suddenly became the 'geeky' guy thing to do again, they'd all move on to the next fad.

This has been the culmination over many years. Since the last gen was out performed so early in it's life, and the new gen of consoles did not push any boundaries (or go ahead of PC in any way), we are in a lull that we won't get out of until they stop looking at consoles as the primary development brand, or..as I said, modders take over and do the work (which they do quite often).

I do think VR will invigorate some innovation, however, it will still just be a niche unless it hits big with consoles....which won't solve anything as it currently given the limited power they have.

PS2 (and PC heh):

-> The Suffering
-> Manhunt
-> State of Emergency
-> Bloodrayne
-> Soldier of Fortune

and so on and so forth

360/XBO/PS3/PS4

-> Condemned

***crickets chirping***

I remember on PS2 there was real diversity and games I actually wanted to buy. Sure most of it was B grade cheese but it was different. Now its FPS #478 with a 5hr single player campaign and anything else have some DLC!

 

[railven]

Man, these is some funny shiznits. Because I frequent a lot of gaming-related websites/forums, the mentality is funny.

Console Crowd:
My observations: Some are very disappointed with the hardware choices. Once very vocal Xbox fans are disappointed with Xbone's performance/success. Some have yet to forgive the DRM scandal and would rather not support either company.
Conclusion: I'm going to PC gaming.

PC Crowd:
My observations: Some are very disappointed with the hardware performance growth. Some with the software growth. Some with the success/failures of the companies. Some with the implied detrimental bottlenecks.
Conclusion: I'm going to console gaming.



Heck, even I said it jokingly when the rumored prices for Fury/980 Ti were >$800. It was more of a financial decision than a platform issue.

So much angst on both sides. Just enjoy the games!

 

[railven]

PS2 (and PC heh):

-> The Suffering
-> Manhunt
-> State of Emergency
-> Bloodrayne
-> Soldier of Fortune

and so on and so forth

360/XBO/PS3/PS4

-> Condemned

***crickets chirping***

I remember on PS2 there was real diversity and games I actually wanted to buy. Sure most of it was B grade cheese but it was different. Now its FPS #478 with a 5hr single player campaign and anything else have some DLC!

Generation 6th for consoles was AMAZING (PS2/Xbox/Gamecube) because Consoles had their own legit library. If you wanted the full experience you had to have a console (or two) and a good PC because the catalogs barely intertwined.

Then Generation 7th started to blur that line. Lots of PC games were getting raving success on consoles, and now consoles were leading the dev cycle for almost all games (even once exclusive PC games).

Now Generation 8th is (for me) a wasteland on consoles. Unless it's first party, I'm not buying it on console because I know it will get a PC version (eventually) and kudos to those devs/pubs that are doing day 1's for PC. Most of the once console exclusive titles are now announce for PC. So, why bother with consoles (except for those few gem 1st parties).

 

[Sabrewings]

Generation 6th for consoles was AMAZING (PS2/Xbox/Gamecube) because Consoles had their own legit library. If you wanted the full experience you had to have a console (or two) and a good PC because the catalogs barely intertwined.

Even this gen blurred the lines with some large titles. The NFS:U series, for example.

 

[Stg-Flame]

Ok, so it seems I'm rusty at overclocking. I don't recall messing with the voltage on my 670s and I can't remember the ratio of increasing clock and memory. eVGA Precision X16 lets me offset the values really easy and the benchmark utility is a decent way to stress test it directly after a clock, but every time I try to offset one of the clocks, it crashes the driver.

 

[iiiankiii]

Ok, so it seems I'm rusty at overclocking. I don't recall messing with the voltage on my 670s and I can't remember the ratio of increasing clock and memory. eVGA Precision X16 lets me offset the values really easy and the benchmark utility is a decent way to stress test it directly after a clock, but every time I try to offset one of the clocks, it crashes the driver.

I don't like Precision. It can be a bit flaky at times for me. Uninstall Precision and try out MSI Afterburner. It seems to work better for me.

 

[railven]

Ok, so it seems I'm rusty at overclocking. I don't recall messing with the voltage on my 670s and I can't remember the ratio of increasing clock and memory. eVGA Precision X16 lets me offset the values really easy and the benchmark utility is a decent way to stress test it directly after a clock, but every time I try to offset one of the clocks, it crashes the driver.

You got a ref or SC EVGA?

I got Ref Zotac, took it out of the box, new drivers, yada, opened up MSI AB, slider for Power and Temp to max, unlinked em, priority temp, through +300/300 on core and mem with fan @100$, ran Firestrike no issue.

Can't go higher on core for mine or it crashes, but got Mem stable at +315. I haven't tried to OV (more so because I feel I'm still an amateur when it comes to GPU Boost 2.0).

If you got a SC+, your base Boost is already higher than mine, so I'd try starting at like +100 mem and core. Also give your fan a manual setting just to avoid heat as the issue.

 

[ocre]

Ok, so it seems I'm rusty at overclocking. I don't recall messing with the voltage on my 670s and I can't remember the ratio of increasing clock and memory. eVGA Precision X16 lets me offset the values really easy and the benchmark utility is a decent way to stress test it directly after a clock, but every time I try to offset one of the clocks, it crashes the driver.

Yeah, MSI Afterburner.

Dont mess with voltages.
Since you got a stock card, no need to get crazy.

I would mess with the power/temp--> all the way up. Max

Then the MHZ offset. You should be able to do +200mhz or round about that without much issue. You could start off with +100 and work your way up.

People with a 980ti on a stock cooler speak up cause they may know more. But just work yourself up till it gets too loud or unstable. Then you could try adding voltage if you want. But i dont have to mess with none of that on the 980 non ti.

Last, after you settled on your overclock speed. You can try overclocking the memory. +200mhz shouldnt be a problem, most maxwell cards get good memory overclocks. You dont usually gain a lot of performance, I just figure that if you get a +200mhz core overclock, it wouldnt hurt to overclock the ram to match.

The ram could go a lot higher, but it takes time to find max stable clocks. And what is max for one game or app, may not be max for another.

I like the set it and forget it overclocks, which are modest. I usually work my OC up to a point and then back it down. My current card overclocked to 1500mhz boost clocks, but i dialed it down to 1450mhz boost. This is stable in everything i have tried so far. If i every run into stability issues, I will back it down some more and leave it there. I dont mess around with unstable overclocks. And i dont like to use a lot of voltage.

Thats my suggestion. If you want to overclock you 980ti with that cooler, starting a new thread might bring in others who have direct expierence with 980ti's like yours

 

[Osjur]

Ooh I so wish AAA developers would take their head out of their ass and started making those graphically NEXT GEN titles which we clearly lack atm. Community is doing better job at least:

GTA IV

It feels like original Crysis was the last next gen defining title and that came 8 years ago. All newer titles really haven't had the same kind of wow effect expect for couple of GTA IV and Skyrim mods.

 

[Headfoot]

I think Rockstar did a really good job on GTA V PC. Maybe not next gen defining, but the scope and detail of that game is incredibly impressive.

 

[Stg-Flame]

You got a ref or SC EVGA?

I got Ref Zotac, took it out of the box, new drivers, yada, opened up MSI AB, slider for Power and Temp to max, unlinked em, priority temp, through +300/300 on core and mem with fan @100$, ran Firestrike no issue.

Can't go higher on core for mine or it crashes, but got Mem stable at +315. I haven't tried to OV (more so because I feel I'm still an amateur when it comes to GPU Boost 2.0).

If you got a SC+, your base Boost is already higher than mine, so I'd try starting at like +100 mem and core. Also give your fan a manual setting just to avoid heat as the issue.

I have the SC edition. I'll look into afterburner when I get home later this week.

 

[Timmah!]

These new cards are over-rated. You see all the reviews raving about the performance, it makes you want to buy it and see it for yourself, but in reality its not so hot. While i am currently looking into 980Ti myself, i am doing it only cause my old card, GTX 590, broke.

Now for gaming purposes, there is no question 980Ti is nice upgrade over 590. I used to play only with one of those GPU anyway, i dont really think i ever used multi-GPU mode...and i guess 980Ti is probably about 4x faster than single 580...
but when u use it for computing, like i do, things dont look so great anymore. For example, OctaneBench, something of interest to me:
GTX 590 at 670MHz - 113 points
GTX 980Ti (probably stock speeds, per OctaneBench result page) - 126 points
with OC probably capable to get 140-150 points...

now i bought 590 four years ago for 610 EUROs. 980Ti i would want is nowadays 800...giving me 10-25 percent more perf...and obviously having much more videoRAM, which is really important, but not worth 800 EUROs...

No matter how much reviewers praise it, this is certainly not good enough improvement after 4 years...its actually pretty disappointing.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Generation 6th for consoles was AMAZING (PS2/Xbox/Gamecube) because Consoles had their own legit library. If you wanted the full experience you had to have a console (or two) and a good PC because the catalogs barely intertwined.

Then Generation 7th started to blur that line. Lots of PC games were getting raving success on consoles, and now consoles were leading the dev cycle for almost all games (even once exclusive PC games).

Now Generation 8th is (for me) a wasteland on consoles. Unless it's first party, I'm not buying it on console because I know it will get a PC version (eventually) and kudos to those devs/pubs that are doing day 1's for PC. Most of the once console exclusive titles are now announce for PC. So, why bother with consoles (except for those few gem 1st parties).

Pretty much this.

 

[Sabrewings]

No matter how much reviewers praise it, this is certainly not good enough improvement after 4 years...its actually pretty disappointing.

Seeing how there's only been one node jump between your 590 and a 980 Ti, the gaming improvement itself is impressive. That's the key take away, is that it is a gaming card first. Maxwell actually stripped out certain compute functionality to make more room for transistors that make a difference in games. If you need a compute card, perhaps a Quadro is better suited?

I'm still blown away by my 980 Ti. But, I came from a GTX 275 so anything current gen is an improvement.

 

[DustinBrowder]

Well we've had pretty much the same performance in GPU's for the past 4 years. With the process stuck at 28nm for 4 years we've basically been stuck with the same performance for 4 years.

I mean the AMD 7000/8000/200/300 series are pretty much the same GPU.

For Nvidia the 600/700/900 are pretty much the same GPU. Nvidia had a bigger shift from 700 to 900 with more architecture changed, AMD had the same leap from 7000 to 8000 series.

So even though the 980TI is very fast, its not the same leap we got as before when we'd jump to a smaller node. So the 980TI is about 30% faster than 780TI and this is with Nvidia dropping the ball for driver support for the 700 series graphics.

While AMD's 200 series have remained competitive with Nvidia's 900 series with constant optimizations, Nvidia 700 series have failed to even compete with AMD's 200 series which they were beating.

The only new architecture in the Fury line, but AMD dropped the ball with it as well, somehow managing to make it run really poor on lower resolutions. I just don't get it how such a card with those specs on paper can perform so poor at lower resolutions.

On Paper it should be able to crush the 980ti on all resolutions. But most of the time it wins at 4k resolutions, but mostly loses at 1080p or lower.

 

[soccerballtux]

A 980 Ti @ 1200p maxxxed out in Witcher III - every single setting including Hairworks - will just hit 60FPS. If it could do that at 1440p why would you ever upgrade? Nvidia would go broke. 4K is a myth for a long long time unless you upgrade an SLI setup every 6 months and pray drivers work.

if turn off hairworks, should be able to hit 1440p60 no?