Titanfall 2 Benchmarks

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,734
514
126
www.facebook.com
I love how the only price comparisons people are making between the 980 and 290x are the 980's highest price and 290x's lowest price. Nevermind that the 980 was $450-475 for quite a bit of its shelf life, held its resale value until Pascal and you know.... all that OCing and massively lower power draw.

Agendas gotta be promoted! Narrate that story to make it fit your rational! I am not sure if I've ever seen people get so whipped up and butt hurt when someone else owned a particular card.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Carfax83

ConsoleLover

Member
Aug 28, 2016
137
43
56
I love how the only price comparisons people are making between the 980 and 290x are the 980's highest price and 290x's lowest price. Nevermind that the 980 was $450-475 for quite a bit of its shelf life, held its resale value until Pascal and you know.... all that OCing and massively lower power draw.

Agendas gotta be promoted! Narrate that story to make it fit your rational! I am not sure if I've ever seen people get whipped up and butt hurt when someone else owned a particular card.
You are right, when the 290x first came out it was around $550, so was the 7970 before it, it was against the $700 780ti, but when the GTX 980 went on sale for $600 the 290x price at that point was floating around $400.

Anyways the cheapest the 290x had been was $270 on newegg with rebates and stuff, the cheapest 980 had been $450 on newegg with rebates and stuff. The most expensive the 290x had been was $600, while the 980 $650. Average price was $500 for the 980 vs $350 for 290x.

So $150 less for roughly the same performance(sure at first the 290x would lose by up to 20% in some games) but as we saw with time it actually went on to beat the 980 in most games!!!
 

daxzy

Senior member
Dec 22, 2013
393
77
101
You guys forget the reason the 290X's price was so damn high in the first place was because of mining.

If you casually mined on the 290X (and sold everything as you mined), your 290X paid for itself probably 2-3 times over.
 

thesmokingman

Platinum Member
May 6, 2010
2,307
231
106
You are right, when the 290x first came out it was around $550, so was the 7970 before it, it was against the $700 780ti, but when the GTX 980 went on sale for $600 the 290x price at that point was floating around $400.

Anyways the cheapest the 290x had been was $270 on newegg with rebates and stuff, the cheapest 980 had been $450 on newegg with rebates and stuff. The most expensive the 290x had been was $600, while the 980 $650. Average price was $500 for the 980 vs $350 for 290x.

So $150 less for roughly the same performance(sure at first the 290x would lose by up to 20% in some games) but as we saw with time it actually went on to beat the 980 in most games!!!
I remember a time when you could buy 290x Lightnings for 330 bucks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2ulqmz/r9_290x_lightning_at_330_whats_not_to_like/
 
  • Like
Reactions: RussianSensation

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,189
979
126
Being faster, quieter, cooler, less power hungry, and a better overclocker doesn't make a card a better buy. Being all those things and charging a reasonable premium for them, makes a card a better buy.

So question is if the $250 premium of the 980 over the 290X was a reasonable premium. That obviously depends upon the individual, but personally I would say no.

And besides the 980 wasn't just overpriced because of the $300 290X available at the time, it was also overpriced because of the $330 970.
I agree that a "better buy" can often be subjective. Regardless of what you may think about the pricing though, the GTX 980 and 970 sold exceptionally well. It seems a lot of AMD fans underestimate the importance of performance per watt. It really is the single most important metric there is, and NVidia has been nailing it these past few cycles..
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,011
126
I agree that a "better buy" can often be subjective. Regardless of what you may think about the pricing though, the GTX 980 and 970 sold exceptionally well. It seems a lot of AMD fans underestimate the importance of performance per watt. It really is the single most important metric there is, and NVidia has been nailing it these past few cycles..
Perf per watt is important (crucial in laptops, not as much in desktops) but there's more to selling product than the characteristics of the product itself.
 

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
GTX 980 and 970 sold exceptionally well. It seems a lot of AMD fans underestimate the importance of performance per watt.
Nvidia sells cards because of its massive marketing compared to AMD. People aren't buying high end desktop parts off perf/watt. They care about price/perf like anyone else. Nvidia's marketing blows AMD out of the water.
 

ConsoleLover

Member
Aug 28, 2016
137
43
56
I agree that a "better buy" can often be subjective. Regardless of what you may think about the pricing though, the GTX 980 and 970 sold exceptionally well. It seems a lot of AMD fans underestimate the importance of performance per watt. It really is the single most important metric there is, and NVidia has been nailing it these past few cycles..
NO ONE cares about watts on anything other than a htpc build. Even entry level customers are looking at the performance and price. When talking about high end cards, the performance is the key issue.

Anyways even if watt difference was 100W that is still TINY, that is literally a light bulb change. Take out 1 100W lightbulb and replace it with a 14w LED and boom that is the difference. In terms of costs of electricity 100W would account to something like few more dollars or euros per year, literally meaningless.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,189
979
126
it really wasnt, with a slighly OC 290x matched 980 performancealso performed better in mgpu and it has support for asynchronous shaders. the 290x was a 1.5years old card and it had much better price/performance
What kind of revisionist nonsense is this? o_O The 290x was an extremely poor overclocker that scaled terribly, just like Fiji. And when you did overclock it, the power usage went up big time for small gains, which made doing so practically counterproductive.

Contrast that to the 780 Ti, that gained significantly from overclocking, with reasonable power consumption unlike the 290x.

This article from HardOCP tells you everything you need to know. It pits an Asus DirectCU II 290x against a reference model 780 Ti, both overclocked.

Hint, the 780 Ti trashes the 290x

and if you wanted a true 980 competitor the r9 nano and r9 fury had similar price and perfomed better in most DX11 games and All DX12 games with async shaders
I wouldn't touch a nano with a ten foot pole. Too dicey with the clock speed. The Fury though is an excellent competitor I agree, and probably a better GPU than the GTX 980 overall; especially with no overclocking.

Back in the day, we had several threads concerning the performance of an overclocked Fury vs an overclocked GTX 980, and from what I recall, they traded blows..

R9 290X beat GTX Titan while having similar compute capabilities and 1/2 price and AMD lowered the price of the 290/xs to keep the card competitive against Maxwell which had slighly lower price (970)
Agreed, that the 290x performed admirably against the GTX Titan, but then NVidia came out with the 780 Ti shortly afterwards which stopped the 290x dominance.

then Maxwell should be suffering or having lower performance in same games.
I specifically mentioned the 780 Ti. Maxwell is a much stronger GPU than Kepler for compute..
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,189
979
126
You are definitely not sane. That is like saying you can compare the GTX 980 to R7 270x because they are both 28nm and both have 4GB of memory. It doesn't make any sense.

Or saying GTX 970 is same as 1060 3GB, because both have 3gb of memory, it doesn't make any sense, not unless you are hardcore shilling for Nvidia or a giant troll.
I'm done talking to you, so don't even bother to reply to this. If anyone is a troll, it's you, as you clearly glossed over my response, or probably didn't understand it due to lack of knowledge..

The GTX 980 and the 290x have nearly the same FP32 performance, which makes them very comparable.. So your example with the GTX 980 and the R7 270x is utterly nonsensical in that regard, and I don't even think you know what FP32 is.

Go educate yourself, then come back..
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,189
979
126
Perf per watt is important (crucial in laptops, not as much in desktops) but there's more to selling product than the characteristics of the product itself.
Perhaps I should expound a bit on this. What I meant was, NVidia has designed GPUs with a focus on performance per watt, but have also made them extremely SCALABLE. So it's the scalability in conjunction with the emphasis on performance per watt that makes NVidia GPUs so dominant..

They make highly efficient, high performant per watt GPUs, and simply scale them up or down according to market..
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,189
979
126
Nvidia sells cards because of its massive marketing compared to AMD. People aren't buying high end desktop parts off perf/watt. They care about price/perf like anyone else. Nvidia's marketing blows AMD out of the water.
It can't just be marketing, as enthusiasts care more about performance than anything else. I'm a hardware enthusiast, and I've spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on computer hardware over the years. Do you honestly think I and many other people buy NVidia hardware just because of the marketing?

That's nonsensical. Looking at the specs in my sig, does that even look like I care about performance per watt? Probably not, especially since I've used SLI for many years..

But when NVidia makes a GPU like the GTX 1080 that offers 9 plus teraflops of performance for under 200w, that's pretty damn impressive to me. Roughly the performance of two GTX 980s, for under 200w :openmouth:
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,011
126
It can't just be marketing, as enthusiasts care more about performance than anything else. I'm a hardware enthusiast, and I've spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on computer hardware over the years. Do you honestly think I and many other people buy NVidia hardware just because of the marketing?

That's nonsensical. Looking at the specs in my sig, does that even look like I care about performance per watt? Probably not, especially since I've used SLI for many years..

But when NVidia makes a GPU like the GTX 1080 that offers 9 plus teraflops of performance for under 200w, that's pretty damn impressive to me. Roughly the performance of two GTX 980s, for under 200w :openmouth:
There is a positive correlation between product competitiveness (perf/watt, absolute perf) and market segment share. However, all else equal, NVIDIA's superior marketing puts it over the top.

NVIDIA's revenue share gains in gaming/enthusiast have accelerated as they have put more distance between themselves and AMD in terms of product performance, power efficiency. NVIDIA virtually owns the gaming notebook market, they own the >$250 dGPU market, and at $250 and below (for gaming) they are extremely competitive (lower power, better performance, roughly the same price).
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,784
2,956
136
It seems a lot of AMD fans underestimate the importance of performance per watt. It really is the single most important metric there is, and NVidia has been nailing it these past few cycles..
I wouldn't touch a nano with a ten foot pole. Too dicey with the clock speed. T
Looking at the specs in my sig, does that even look like I care about performance per watt? Probably not,
First you say perf/watt is the single most important metric,

Then you wouldnt touch Fury Nano which has higher perf/watt than GTX 980/980Ti in almost every DX-12 game at half the card size.

And finally you say you dont care about perf/watt yourself,

Really you got me confused here.

But when NVidia makes a GPU like the GTX 1080 that offers 9 plus teraflops of performance for under 200w, that's pretty damn impressive to me. Roughly the performance of two GTX 980s, for under 200w :openmouth:
Well, Fury Nano has 8 plus Teraflops of performance for under 200W at 28nm, i dont see you being so damn impressed with that.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,784
2,956
136
NVIDIA's revenue share gains in gaming/enthusiast have accelerated as they have put more distance between themselves and AMD in terms of product performance, power efficiency.
I would really like to see perf/watt in DX-12 games, unfortunately nobody have done such a measurement. The majority of reviews measure power usage in old and/or GW titles.

For example what is the perf/watt of Polaris 10 vs GP106 in DOOM under Vulkan ??
What is is the perf/watt in Deus Ex MD on DX-12 ??
What is is the perf/watt in BF1 on DX-12 ??
What is is the perf/watt in Gears Of War on DX-12 ??
What is is the perf/watt in Total War : Warhammer on DX-12 ??
What is is the perf/watt in Rise of The Tomb Rider on DX-12 ??
What is is the perf/watt in Forza Horizon 3 on DX-12 ??

Also, Fury Nano in those DX-12 games should have the highest perf/watt of the 28nm generation cards, easily above the GTX 980/980Ti.
 

antihelten

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,764
274
126
I love how the only price comparisons people are making between the 980 and 290x are the 980's highest price and 290x's lowest price. Nevermind that the 980 was $450-475 for quite a bit of its shelf life, held its resale value until Pascal and you know.... all that OCing and massively lower power draw.

Agendas gotta be promoted! Narrate that story to make it fit your rational! I am not sure if I've ever seen people get whipped up and butt hurt when someone else owned a particular card.
People aren't comparing the highest price of the 980 to the lowest price of the 290X, they are comparing their prices at similar points in time, i.e. when the 980 launched it was $550 and at the same point in time the 290X could be had for $300. Unless you own a timemachine that allows you to buy the card at the best possible time, this is the only logical way to compare their prices from the consumer point of view.

I agree that a "better buy" can often be subjective. Regardless of what you may think about the pricing though, the GTX 980 and 970 sold exceptionally well. It seems a lot of AMD fans underestimate the importance of performance per watt. It really is the single most important metric there is, and NVidia has been nailing it these past few cycles..
The 970 definitely sold exceptionally well, but I'm not so sure the same can be said for the 980, as far as I can tell it sold about as well as previous X80 cards from Nvidia have sold.

Also while I agree that performance per watt is extremely important when considered across an entire lineup on both desktop and notebook (and possibly the most important metric, at least from the manufacturers point of view), it's not necessarily as critical when specifically comparing two desktop GPUs in the 150-250W range. Performance per watt affects areas such as:
  • Battery life (not relevant for desktop obviously)
  • Noise (since power equals heat).
  • Max performance at the PCIe power limit (300W or so, which is not relevant here, although it may come into play with overclocking).
  • Max performance without a PCIe connector (75W so again not relevant here).
  • The electricity bill.
So in the case of the 980 it really only matters with regards to noise and the electricity bill (and possibly the max performance at 300W with overclocking, since the 290X is already sitting quite close to this limit). Noise levels for the 980 are definitely much better than reference 290X models, but by the time the 980 launched perfectly decent non-reference 290X models were available. And as far as the electricity bill is concerned the difference will generally never come close to matching the $250 price difference.

But either way, the main point still stands. Yes an improvement in performance per watt makes for a better card, but it only makes for a better buy if said improvement is available for a reasonable premium.
 

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,734
514
126
www.facebook.com
People aren't comparing the highest price of the 980 to the lowest price of the 290X, they are comparing their prices at similar points in time, i.e. when the 980 launched it was $550 and at the same point in time the 290X could be had for $300.
Wrong. The 290x was $450-500 at 980's launch.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/67445-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-performance-review.html

In fact AMD was defiant with price drops the face of the 980's release, with Roy sending out tweets saying the 290x was the better card because it had a 512 bit bus.

So I rest my case. People who rag on the 980's pricing exaggerate their argument by comparing the 290x fire sale price to the 980's initial MSRP price, and leave all the other tangibles out of it on top of that.
 

antihelten

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,764
274
126
Wrong. The 290x was $450-500 at 980's launch.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/67445-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-performance-review.html

In fact AMD was defiant with price drops the face of the 980's release, with Roy sending out tweets saying the 290x was the better card because it had a 512 bit bus.

So I rest my case. People who rag on the 980's pricing exaggerate their argument by comparing the 290x fire sale price to the 980's initial MSRP price, and leave all the other tangibles out of it on top of that.
Just 9 days after the 980 was announced the 290X could be had for $300.

If you're seriously complaining about a 9 day span, then I think it's obvious who has an agenda to promote.
 

stahlhart

Super Moderator Graphics Cards
Super Moderator
Dec 21, 2010
4,273
77
91
Not even remotely on topic any longer. Some of you are beyond pathetic.
Thread closed.
-- stahlhart
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magee_MC
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY