Primarily Gaming Purposes - GTX 970 vs GTX 980 vs GTX 780Ti - 2/3 Way SLI ?

[sidrockrulz]

These are 2 way SLI of both the 980 and 970 from Guru3D. This is enough for me to not be able to recommend Maxwell SLI until it's fixed. Especially if you account for the price premium over 290/290X

These are FCAT charts, not doctored, unlike what Hardware Canucks did to theirs. Those downward drops to 0 are where nothing is being sent to the screen and it should be.

Now they also pass it off as not visible, which technically is true. Since the frames are dropped and not rendered there isn't anything to see (Pretty tricky eh?). It does cause visible stuttering if the FPS drop down enough. None of these benches are running slow enough to have stutters with the exception of Thief. They did notice stutters in Thief, but they said it wasn't due to the dropped frames. They gave no explanation as to what it was that was causing it though except "there was a lot going on on screen". What that has to do with stuttering I don't know?

Keep in mind these are also only 30sec benchmarks not the entire game. I wouldn't bet $700 to $1100 that all will run smooth in actual hours of gaming. This is also consistent in all the games they tested, not just an outlier for a single game. It's definitely not the fault of the games. There is a driver or hardware issue. Likely driver, but nVidia claims "superior hardware frame metering". Seeing this also makes me question those claims.

Now, when this was pointed out on AMD cards AMD admitted it and vowed to correct it. For the most part they did too. I'm waiting for something from nVidia.

Sure...

But NV has been pretty good about their drivers too ! And delay is in Milliseconds.. Do you think we can really see the difference ?


Thank you for the grpahs... But now that we have the 290X into the picture.. Let me ask.. I do not really see the 290X CF perform any better than the 970 SLI.... With 970 having better features and lower temps( which allow better OC)..

So... Which would u put your money on ? Why ?

 

[sidrockrulz]

Ok, but I'l even give you better than that if you don't like reselling.

I
Using the upgrading more frequently strategy, you could start off with $230-250 R9 290 and upgrade in 2 years and then again in 2 years. Such a proven upgrade strategy would wipe the floor with $580-630 after-market 980 cards over 6 years. On the NV side dual 970s will survive far longer than a single 980 for just $120 more.

What would you recommend ? Buy the 2x GTX970 or 2x 290X ? Both are 300$ ... And resell, after 2 years, upgrade to better GPU ?


Which is going to hold better value ? GTX970 or the 290X ?

 

[sidrockrulz]

Take a look at the 4k [h] 980 SLI review. It's pretty brutal, the only thing the 980 SLI can win is in power consumption at 4k. Imagine higher resolution, it will get worse since 980 sli is better at low resolution and drops as it goes higher, whereas the 290/x are slower at low resolution (vs. 970/980) and become stronger competitors at higher resolutions. The 980 SLI is 83% more expensive yet can't even offer a superior experience.

You may want to consider 290/x. Are they not a consideration? (Sorry if I missed it)

Well... They are now !!


What would you recommend ? Buy the 2x GTX970 or 2x 290X ? Both are 300$ ... And resell, after 2 years, upgrade to better GPU ?


Which is going to hold better value ? GTX970 or the 290X ?

 

[sidrockrulz]

Well said. I am quite sure that the emphasis on frametimes in SLI has fallen or atleast is not being displayed with the same vigour as when the HD 7970 issues were highlighted. hardocp was the most vocal in recent times that XDMA CF is superior than SLI

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...r9_290x_4gb_overclocked_at_4k/11#.VE3ZCXutHhA

To give you a comparison look at the BF4 frametimes at 4k on R9 295x2 . the GTX 980 3 and 4 way SLI results are compared here. The 4 way scaling is broken for SLI while XDMA CF scales almost perfectly

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...e-4K-Quad-Hawaii-GPU-Powerhouse/Battlefield-4

"Our first set of results come from Battlefield 4 running in DirectX mode. At 4K and running on the Ultra preset, we see an impressive scaling rate of 81% by adding in the second pair of GPUs to the mix. Frame time variance does increase a bit with the quad GPU configuration but it doesn’t become a bother really until you hit the 95th percentile of frame times when you exceed 4ms. You can see at the 50 second mark in our test where there is some stutter occurring, but with a frame rate exceeding 80 FPS at 4K, it’s hard not to walk away impressed."

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...3-Way-and-4-Way-SLI-Performance/Battlefield-4

"BF4 is our first indication that scaling beyond two graphics card in SLI is going to be problematic. Here you can see that we jump up from 58 to 94 FPS on average going from a single GTX 980 to a pair of them, but the move to a third card only scales to 110 FPS; but the story is much worse than that. The Frame Times graphs indicates that the average FPS doesn't mean much as the frame time consistency is very poor, result in wildly fluctuating frame rates. The exact same thing occurs with 4 GPUs as well. A look at the Frame Variance graph tells the story from another angle: both 3-Way and 4-Way SLI are seeing more than 3ms of frame time variance (from frame to frame) for more than 20% of the total frames being rendered!

The results at 4K are much the same as the 2560x1440 results above: 2-Way SLI works very well but both 3-Way and 4-Way are poor experiences."

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...70-GM204-Review-Power-and-Efficiency/Battlefi

"At 4K the relative performance delta actually grows, with the new GM204 GPU bring in an average frame rate that is 13% faster than the R9 290X from AMD."

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...70-GM204-Review-Power-and-Efficiency/Battle-0

"Our GTX 980 results show solid and consistent scaling in BF4 with minimal frame time variance and no stutter. For NVIDIA, the experience is actually slightly more erratic at 4K than with Hawaii, indicated by the slightly more variable orange line in our Frame Times graph."

So the GTX 980 starts out faster at single gpu and similar smoothness. At 2 way GTX 980 SLI is slightly ahead in raw fps and slightly behind in frametime variance. Finally at 4 way GTX 980 SLI is crushed by R9 295x2 CF in fps and frametimes. Ironically there was no comparison of GTX 980 tri and quad sli with R9 295x2 with R9 290X Tri CF and dual R9 295x2 quad CF in pcper's review. Nvidia's solutions need to benchmarked against the competition and not against themselves.

:awe:... Mantle definitely blew the NVs out of the water at 4K CF...

Im nowhere near that config right now. ! !

So, whats your recommendation at Triple monitor 1440p ?

 

[sidrockrulz]

He's merely speculating, and it does apply to all resolutions not just 4k (notice how he doesn't have any sources). I haven't seen anything to indicate that going beyond 4k would increase scaling, but it's very poor scaling already with 3x or 4x SLI even with demanding games. Even if it goes up a few percent at 1440px3 it's still a very poor value. It won't change the situation, you'll still pay a lot for less gains with the 3rd and 4th card. If you are fine with that it's your choice.

Hmm..

So now that it doesnt make mucho senso to drop to much on the 3rd card or the 980 either, would you reco dualGTX970 or dual290X ?

 

[sidrockrulz]

If i am going the Z97 way, Would anyone recommend a board with a PLX chip ? If i want to add an 3rd GPU over the years ?

We know that broadwell K is going to support the 1150 socket, so would it have enough PCIe lanes and suppport 3 way GPU you think ?

 

[raghu78]

:awe:... Mantle definitely blew the NVs out of the water at 4K CF...

Im nowhere near that config right now. ! !

So, whats your recommendation at Triple monitor 1440p ?

Since you will be watercooling go with three reference R9 290X cards. choose a brand which you are comfortable. generally sapphire is one of the best partners for AMD.

 

[SantaAna12]

Take a look at the 4k [h] 980 SLI review. It's pretty brutal, the only thing the 980 SLI can win is in power consumption at 4k.

Nice review. 290X looking real good with the price drops.

 

[RussianSensation]

What would you recommend ? Buy the 2x GTX970 or 2x 290X ? Both are 300$ ... And resell, after 2 years, upgrade to better GPU ?

Yes I'd go with 970 or 290 or 780Ti if you can find it at $360-370.

Which is going to hold better value ? GTX970 or the 290X ?

970 since it has higher MSRP, lower power consumption, HDMI 2.0, DX12 support and DSR which is useful for older/less demanding games. Plus, NV cards tend to have higher resale value to begin with. If you go with dual MSI Gaming 970s or something similar, you cannot go wrong really. Those are good cards. Frankly 3x 1440P screen setup will force you to sacrifice some FPS or IQ anyway, doesn't matter if you'll go 780Ti SLI or 970 SLI or 980 SLI or 290X CF. You'll likely want something 50-100% faster for newer games in 2-2.5 years so don't sweat it too much. 970 is a great card.

If you don't mind going used, you can buy 3 reference 290s for dirt cheap on EBay. Since you are going to be watercooling that would be a powerhouse setup. I bet you can pick up used 290X reference cards for $250 each and R9 290s for low $200s. I would never recommend reference 290/290X series unless you are watercooling. Otherwise the bang for the buck for reference Tri-Fire 290s with waterblocks is strong.

 

[cbn]

He's merely speculating, and it does apply to all resolutions not just 4k (notice how he doesn't have any sources). I haven't seen anything to indicate that going beyond 4k would increase scaling, but it's very poor scaling already with 3x or 4x SLI even with demanding games. Even if it goes up a few percent at 1440px3 it's still a very poor value. It won't change the situation, you'll still pay a lot for less gains with the 3rd and 4th card. If you are fine with that it's your choice.

Hmm..

So now that it doesnt make mucho senso to drop to much on the 3rd card or the 980 either, would you reco dualGTX970 or dual290X ?

FPS at triple 1440p will be less than a single 4K monitor (all things being equal). The difference is not trivial either as triple 1440p has ~34% more pixels. (More pixels = lower FPS for any given amount of GPU, there is no disputing this)

However, It just depends on how much FPS you want to sacrifice for those high/ultra settings:

i'm not shooting for a specific FPS, but i want to be able to play games for the next 4 years in Ultra/High !


Monitor setup = 3x1080p or a 3x1440p

However, If going for a value set-up I would definitely take the advice given to you with respect to the lower cost cards.

The most expensive cards do lose their value very quickly and if you can get by with something less extravagant, you will be be $$ ahead in the long run.

 

[cbn]

One thing that I think has happened in this thread is that some people have confused lack of SLI scaling in some cases with cpu bottleneck.

Problem is that if the resolution is not high enough to stress the card(s), maximum FPS will be governed by the cpu. No matter how many GPU(s) you add your FPS will not increase in those cases.

But this doesn't mean the SLI system wouldn't scale at a higher resolution than the one being tested.

 

[3DVagabond]

Sure...

But NV has been pretty good about their drivers too ! And delay is in Milliseconds.. Do you think we can really see the difference ?


Thank you for the grpahs... But now that we have the 290X into the picture.. Let me ask.. I do not really see the 290X CF perform any better than the 970 SLI.... With 970 having better features and lower temps( which allow better OC)..

So... Which would u put your money on ? Why ?

The drop frames will be noticeable depending on FPS. Just like when crossfire suffered from it you could reduce settings and increase the FPS and it wouldn't be noticeable.

The 970 having better features is a matter of opinion. The two companies have different feature sets. Which nVidia features are you interested in that AMD doesn't offer?

There are plenty of cool and quiet 290's. The 970 does use appreciably less power, but that's mostly the reference cards. The custom cards use quite a bit more power than the reference designs. If you are honestly concerned about power usage buy reference and don't overclock.

Finally, I have a definite brand preference, so what I would buy isn't necessarily a good metric. My brand preference doesn't change facts though and I have no problem recommending nVidia cards for other people if they are the better solution. Right now, SLI is not the better solution. Look at the [H] review. They actually play games, not simply run 30sec canned benches. They also run at high enough settings to stress the GPU's. They used to say how SLI was superior to crossfire even before the FCAT and FRAPS frame time reports came out. They now say Crossfire offers the better solution. When you consider the difference in price it's not even close, IMO.

 

[sidrockrulz]

970 since it has higher MSRP, lower power consumption, HDMI 2.0, DX12 support and DSR which is useful for older/less demanding games. Plus, NV cards tend to have higher resale value to begin with. If you go with dual MSI Gaming 970s or something similar, you cannot go wrong really. Those are good cards. Frankly 3x 1440P screen setup will force you to sacrifice some FPS or IQ anyway, doesn't matter if you'll go 780Ti SLI or 970 SLI or 980 SLI or 290X CF. You'll likely want something 50-100% faster for newer games in 2-2.5 years so don't sweat it too much. 970 is a great card.

Thank you !!

I am sure i will be losing frames on a triple monitor compared to a single one, that i am accepting to sacrifice for the 3 monitor gameplay i suppose... Would i be able to get an avg of 60 fps over a Triple1440p setup ? Or a Triple 1080p setup ?

If you don't mind going used, you can buy 3 reference 290s for dirt cheap on EBay. Since you are going to be watercooling that would be a powerhouse setup. I bet you can pick up used 290X reference cards for $250 each and R9 290s for low $200s. I would never recommend reference 290/290X series unless you are watercooling. Otherwise the bang for the buck for reference Tri-Fire 290s with waterblocks is strong.

I do not mind getting used cards for temporary use, but how well do they last ? And warranty transfers ? Is it a hassle ?


Are there any waterblocks and reference GTX780Tis still available ?? Or waterblocks for any 780Tis ????

 

[sidrockrulz]

FPS at triple 1440p will be less than a single 4K monitor (all things being equal). The difference is not trivial either as triple 1440p has ~34% more pixels. (More pixels = lower FPS for any given amount of GPU, there is no disputing this)

However, It just depends on how much FPS you want to sacrifice for those high/ultra settings:

I am sure i will be losing frames on a triple monitor compared to a single one, that i am accepting to sacrifice for the 3 monitor gameplay i suppose... Would i be able to get an avg of 60 fps from a 970SLI over a Triple1440p setup ? Or a Triple 1080p setup ?

 

[sidrockrulz]

The 970 having better features is a matter of opinion. The two companies have different feature sets. Which nVidia features are you interested in that AMD doesn't offer?

Used to PhysX,.. Looks like DSR is promising and the resale value of the cards.. But resale is something i can compromise a little over performance considering 290X or 780Tis..

There are plenty of cool and quiet 290's. The 970 does use appreciably less power, but that's mostly the reference cards. The custom cards use quite a bit more power than the reference designs. If you are honestly concerned about power usage buy reference and don't overclock.

Power usage is not a concern !

I would totally go with780Tis reference if i can find them ! Else 290X is suppose...

 

[sidrockrulz]

One thing that I think has happened in this thread is that some people have confused lack of SLI scaling in some cases with cpu bottleneck.

Problem is that if the resolution is not high enough to stress the card(s), maximum FPS will be governed by the cpu. No matter how many GPU(s) you add your FPS will not increase in those cases.

But this doesn't mean the SLI system wouldn't scale at a higher resolution than the one being tested.

Wait,,, you think 290X CF or 970SLI will be plenty power that the CPU will start bottle-necking ? At Triple 1440p or Triple 1080p ?

 

[Rvenger]

I wouldn't worry about resale value. I think they are both around equal IMO in depreciation.

GTX 780ti - $700 MSRP, now can be found at around $370 on Newegg. Price decrease of $330.

R9 290X - $550 MSRP, now can be found at around $300, price decrease of $250.


Honestly, both of these brands are a good value right now. I saw some models of the 780ti drop to ~$350 and that is a great value for a good performing card.

 

[sidrockrulz]

I wouldn't worry about resale value. I think they are both around equal IMO in depreciation.

GTX 780ti - $700 MSRP, now can be found at around $370 on Newegg. Price decrease of $330.

R9 290X - $550 MSRP, now can be found at around $300, price decrease of $250.


Honestly, both of these brands are a good value right now. I saw some models of the 780ti drop to ~$350 and that is a great value for a good performing card.

True that... But i want to watercool and cannot find any more reference 780Tis...

If i did, i would totally jump on it..


290Xs are good, but i am a little concerned about their heat dissipation which makes it hard to OC.. the 970 OCs just fine to 980 performance...

Recommendations ?

 

[RussianSensation]

If you are watercooling with a full waterblock, heat of any GPU is not a concern. Even Quad-290Xs will run cooler in a good waterloop than any aircooled 970/980/780/780Ti/290/290X/295X2. If you are watercooling 970/980s, you are just wasting $ straight up. The type of cards that should be watercooled are EVGA Classified, MSI Lightning, etc. where you have a lot of voltage control and low GPU temps allows you to exceed air cooled OCs by a lot. Otherwise, what benefit exactly will you get from watercooling MSi Gaming 970s? Nothing.

 

[sidrockrulz]

If you are watercooling with a full waterblock, heat of any GPU is not a concern. Even Quad-290Xs will run cooler in a good waterloop than any aircooled 970/980/780/780Ti/290/290X/295X2.

Sure.. I understand that

If you are watercooling 970/980s, you are just wasting $ straight up. The type of cards that should be watercooled are EVGA Classified, MSI Lightning, etc. where you have a lot of voltage control and low GPU temps allows you to exceed air cooled OCs by a lot. Otherwise, what benefit exactly will you get from watercooling MSi Gaming 970s? Nothing.

If i am watercooling a Reference 970SLI, wouldnt it still mean lower temps and more OC performance ?

 

[RussianSensation]

Sure.. I understand that

If i am watercooling a Reference 970SLI, wouldnt it still mean lower temps and more OC performance ?

1. There are no reference 970 cards.
2. 970/980 are TDP and Vcore limited not temperature limited. Watercooling might add 20-30mhz more headroom, if that. I bet you will get higher overclocks on air cooled MSI Gaming 970/Gigabyte G1 970 than on a watercooled reference 980 even.

 

[Z15CAM]

Very BIAS by the OP's options - I would pick X-Fire Reference 290X's under water for over 60FPS using IPS displays and over 1440p into 4k resolutions.

 

[sidrockrulz]

970/980 are TDP and Vcore limited not temperature limited. Watercooling might add 20-30mhz more headroom, if that. I bet you will get higher overclocks on air cooled MSI Gaming 970/Gigabyte G1 970 than on a watercooled reference 980 even.

If i am understanding right, a watercooled EVGA GTX970 will not provide more than 50Mhz more than a ACX cooled one ? Will there be any effect on consistency of frame rates from the lower temps ?

 

[wand3r3r]

If i am understanding right, a watercooled EVGA GTX970 will not provide more than 50Mhz more than a ACX cooled one ?

Yes, because NV has neutered the voltage adjustments on the cards. If you could adjust voltage it could really be an amazing overclocker. I'd guess you'll be lucky if it goes any higher under water since they don't seem to be thermally limited.

Will there be any effect on consistency of frame rates from the lower temps ?

Nope. Unless it was going over the temperature limit where it starts throttling (80c?), which the aftermarket cards shouldn't ever hit.

 

[sidrockrulz]

Yes, because NV has neutered the voltage adjustments on the cards. If you could adjust voltage it could really be an amazing overclocker. I'd guess you'll be lucky if it goes any higher under water since they don't seem to be thermally limited.

That sucks... Did they do this to the 980 ?