[VC]NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, GTX 980 SLI, GTX 970, 3DMark performance

[desprado]

Edit: Sorry those were 3D MARK not 3D MARK 11 scores

Edit 2 : Bellow are the scores at 3D MARK 11 (X preset)

Core i3 4130 + GTX780Ti Score = 5200

Core i3 4130 + GTX780 Score = 4228

So it means both 980 GTX and 970 GTX are mid ranges cards.

 

[Silverforce11]

So it means both 980 GTX and 970 GTX are mid ranges cards.

I thought GM104 and 256 bit bus would have been obvious its a mid-range product.

Did you guys see the 970 reference design? Looks like the 670, half-sized PCB.

It hasn't been that long since GK104.

I can imagine the bean counters would be laughing their asses off thinking: "Who needs a new node when we can sell ANOTHER 28nm mid-range for $500 or more??"

ps. It's AMD's fault. They should hurry it up with GCN 2.0 because GCN 1.1.1.1... isn't cutting the mustard versus Maxwell.

 

[Deders]

Good point. That Core i3 must be a serious bottleneck for this card, if its performance is around or above that of a GTX 780/r9 290.

It shouldn't be a bottleneck as such, it will still allow the card to run at 100% and the individual GPU score should still be comparable to i5's and i7's, it's just when you factor in the PhysX and Combined scores that it looks low.

 

[desprado]

I thought GM104 and 256 bit bus would have been obvious its a mid-range product.

Did you guys see the 970 reference design? Looks like the 670, half-sized PCB.

It hasn't been that long since GK104.

I can imagine the bean counters would be laughing their asses off thinking: "Who needs a new node when we can sell ANOTHER 28nm mid-range for $500 or more??"

ps. It's AMD's fault. They should hurry it up with GCN 2.0 because GCN 1.1.1.1... isn't cutting the mustard versus Maxwell.

I think we dont need so much horse power in games.

Look at it R9 290X or GTX 780 TI is 3 time faster than console so gaming industry wont advance just for pc.

Hardware has advanced alot but software are a lot behind.

 

[wand3r3r]

Here's the new NV 970 "mid-range", potentially at $450-650.
The 560 ti successor (the 670/680) and now the GTX 970/980. If you have any questions to whether the card is high end, take a look at the cut down PCB.

I'm beginning to suspect the $450-650 prices are not real.

http://videocardz.com/52259/galaxy-geforce-gtx-970-gc-pictured

 

[Enigmoid]

Edit: Sorry those were 3D MARK not 3D MARK 11 scores

Edit 2 : Bellow are the scores at 3D MARK 11 (X preset)

Core i3 4130 + GTX780Ti Score = 5200

Core i3 4130 + GTX780 Score = 4228

The 780 ti doesn't look like its running reference clocks.
But yep, looks lower than originally leaked for GM204

 

[RussianSensation]

I can imagine the bean counters would be laughing their asses off thinking: "Who needs a new node when we can sell ANOTHER 28nm mid-range for $500 or more??"

ps. It's AMD's fault.

Sarcasm detected? It's the consumer who opens his/her wallet not AMD putting a gun to someone's head to buy a $500 mid-range NV card. When either AMD or NV tries to sell me a next gen mid-range card for $500, I know better to wait for the market to mature (unless we are talking 7970 mining days when the card paid for itself so it didn't really matter that it cost $550, $750 or $1000 even). If in the next 5 months AMD releases a next gen 390X for $500 that happens to be only 10-15% faster than a 780Ti and tries to market it as their flagship for the next generation, I'd tell them to go home too. NV will save me $1,000 if they try to pitch a 960 as a 980.

As I already said, if 980 beats 780Ti by only 15% at $500, it's better to wait for flagship GM210 for anyone with 680/770/7970Ghz.

770 = 100%

780Ti = 145% (Max)
980 => hypothetical 145% x 1.15 = 167% ($500 MSRP = $7.46 for 1% increase in performance)

GM210 => if just 50% faster than 780TI => 145% x 1.50 = 218% ($700 MSRP = $5.93 for 1% increase in performance)
http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/amd-radeon-r9-285-test-benchmarks/5/

Without bitcoin mining, the idea of paying $500 for a next gen mid-range card when Witcher 3 isn't even come out is underwhelming.

----

Maybe NV will surprise everyone and price the 980 card at $399-449?

 

[el etro]

ps. It's AMD's fault. They should hurry it up with GCN 2.0 because GCN 1.1.1.1... isn't cutting the mustard versus Maxwell.

My bet is that GCN2 will only come at 20nm. Until there AMD will be releasing little improvements to the original GCN1 design(Is like Intel's tick-tock way).

 

[amenx]

Here's the new NV 970 "mid-range", potentially at $450-650.
The 560 ti successor (the 670/680) and now the GTX 970/980. If you have any questions to whether the card is high end, take a look at the cut down PCB.

I'm beginning to suspect the $450-650 prices are not real.

Funny how the pecking order of cards that no longer follow the same performance gains of earlier gens is always made an issue of. Traditionally the line up of new gen cards equalled the earlier gens card above it (ie 560/470, 570/480), etc. With Kepler, the performance envelope took a leap above that : the 660ti (not just 670) was significantly cheaper than the 580 and while outperforming it. To ignore that as a factor while focusing solely on specs and pecking order is just an unrealistic way of looking at things. When end-users see performance vs price vs pecking order, trust me, common sense will prevail and PO will not be a factor. Would love to see the hilarity of someone trying to convince a buyer "dont do it... its a mid-range card, ignore its performance vs other cards, just dont pay that much for a mid-range because mid-ranges should hold their price brackets forever regardless of what they're capable of".

And inferring that the 970 could even "potentially" go for $650 is just silly... no need to pretend to 'suspect' its not real . However $450 as a release price can be OK as long as it matches or beats other cards in its price bracket. Again, the only criteria that should matter is price/performance. Any manufacturer of any product that does more with less while being good at it is basically what all businesses aspire to. I have no doubt in my mind that AMD would do the same if they could.

 

[FatherMurphy]

http://videocardz.com/52282/zotac-g...ed-the-ultimate-proof-there-are-no-800-series

Rumored that the $970 will go for $400, same as the 670. If so, I can't imagine the 980 going for more than $550. Two disabled SMMs won't put that much distance between the two cards performance-wise.

 

[RussianSensation]

With Kepler, the performance envelope took a leap above that : the 660ti (not just 670) was significantly cheaper than the 580 and while outperforming it. To ignore that as a factor while focusing solely on specs and pecking order is just an unrealistic way of looking at things.

No one is ignoring that; in fact the opposite. It's because Kepler was such a breakthrough since GeForce 8 that NV could price a mid-range 680 as a high-end and position the low-end 660Ti as a mid-range. Doesn't change the fact that 680 was a mid-range Kepler card/chip in the product stack of that generation/architecture. But is 980 going to bring 35% more performance over 780Ti at $500 to warrant the same praise as the 680? As a gamer I don't really care that TSMC screwed NV over. If NV (AMD) can't deliver the same leaps, price the card at $400 not $500.

However $450 as a release price can be OK as long as it matches or beats other cards in its price bracket. Again, the only criteria that should matter is price/performance.

You forgot something. Price/performance for new generations should really be viewed in the context of time. If it took 10 years to release a card 15% faster than 780Ti for half price, it wouldn't be that impressive. Looking at price/performance while ignoring the context of generational time would have put the 7970 as an amazing videocard vs. the 580 since it crushed it by 25-30% but in the context of generational leaps, it was underwhelming at launch. Additionally, using your statement, NV could have then released GTX460 for $350 and simply delayed 480 by 12 months. You would have claimed that 460 offers a better price/performance and perf/watt than 285 and thus it would have been OK. If NV used this strategy since GeForce 2, imagine how much longer it would have taken to release flagship cards of next gen and how much slower the improvements in price/performance would have been?

Any manufacturer of any product that does more with less while being good at it is basically what all businesses aspire to. I have no doubt in my mind that AMD would do the same if they could.

Even if both participants adopt this new strategy of bifurcating a generation into 2 halves, it doesn't mean we PC gamers should be happy about this new change of GPU release strategy. PC gamers will vote with their wallets if next generation's mid-range cards should now cost $400-500 instead of historical $200-300. If PC gamers accept this, then by all means NV/AMD should maximize their profits and utilize this strategy. I am not OK with paying $500 for a next gen mid-range and will sit that one out until AMD/NV can deliver a real flagship even if it costs $700 next year.

You say that as long as price/performance is there we should be happy with new cards but it's been nearly 3 years since I got my 1.175Ghz 7970. Historically I should have been able to buy an AMD/NV card with 2x the performance for the same price and there is no way it's looking like 980 OC will put up a 200% reading on this chart relative to the 280X. If you've been buying GPUs for 15+ years, then you would be seriously frustrated that there is still nothing 2x faster than 680/7970 for $500. The only saving grace are the fact that 4K IPS monitors at reasonable prices are MIA and modern PC graphics have completely stagnated since Crysis 3 so there is very little incentive to waste $ unlike in the past where upgrading was necessary to keep playing next gen PC games. I understand why NV/AMD are doing this - shrinking volume of discrete GPU sales means they have to raise ASP to increase profit margins to compensate for lower sales volume. This means it'll take a lot longer to get a 2x increase in price/performance than in the past which is why GPU upgrade cycles have now stretched to 3+ years.

I am hoping GM210 will give me 2x more performance but it will cost more than $550 for sure. Look at the past:

GeForce 4 4600 - Feb 2002 = 2.9 VP
GeForce 7800GTX - June 2005 = 15.4 VP (5.3x faster in barely more than 3 years!)
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2298406

I still remember those times which is why to me a hypothetical $500 980 card which is barely 50-60% faster than 7970 Ghz 2.5 years later is a huge disappointment regardless if NV or AMD release it.

 

[Termie]

RussianSensation, those days are over. You want a doubling of performance every three years? You'll need to journey back in time and stay there. The PC market has changed. Look at CPUs. At fixed price points, we get a 10% boost every year or so, and 20% or so on the video card side. That's just how it's going to be.

But your suggestion that "mid-range" cards can't be priced at $500 even if they beat everything else on the market just doesn't hold water. If Nvidia delivers a card 10% faster than the 290X for 10% less one year later, that's a win for consumers. It doesn't matter that it's not 33% or 50% faster, as it might have been in the past. Gamers can complain all they want about the slow pace of progress, or they can welcome the fact that a competitive video card market still exists.

Alas, only real price and performance data will determine if Nvidia has indeed delivered a great new product for gamers. I still believe the GTX 980 will be well over $500. I'm betting $600, with performance 5-10% higher than a 780 Ti based not on leaked benchmarks, but its specs. I originally guessed in another thread that it would tie the 780, but huge price cuts nearly across the board on the 780 Ti that have hit in the past week suggest that the 980 will be all but replacing that card.

 

[RussianSensation]

RussianSensation, those days are over. You want a doubling of performance every three years? You'll need to journey back in time and stay there. The PC market has changed. Look at CPUs. At fixed price points, we get a 10% boost every year or so, and 20% or so on the video card side. That's just how it's going to be.

780Ti beat 580 by 2x and it took 3 years. So it's too early to declare those days over because there is still a chance NV/AMD could release something with 2x the performance of 7970Ghz by June 2015 (7970Ghz launch date).

But your suggestion that "mid-range" cards can't be priced at $500 even if they beat everything else on the market just doesn't hold water. If Nvidia delivers a card 10% faster than the 290X for 10% less one year later, that's a win for consumers. It doesn't matter that it's not 33% or 50% faster, as it might have been in the past. Gamers can complain all they want about the slow pace of progress, or they can welcome the fact that a competitive video card market still exists.

I never said it can't be priced at $500. NV can price the card at $5,000 if they so desire. I even outlined in my post that NV/AMD will try to set new price points to increase ASPs to compensate for declining discrete GPU sales but I don't welcome this trend and I think many others feel the same way. I am suggesting that mid-range cards are likely to be priced at $400-500 because gamers have accepted these price levels but even during 680/7970/780/290 days we had Metro 2033, Crysis 3. What's the incentive to upgrade right now? There isn't even 1 killer PC next gen game on the horizon until next year. Knowing that a next gen mid-range SKU is coming now but next year NV will likely release the flagship, it's like paying an early adopter premium for what reason exactly? It's not as if 980 will be future-proof for 4K. For that reason I think NV will price the 980 well below $600 to create the incentive to upgrade.

Alas, only real price and performance data will determine if Nvidia has indeed delivered a great new product for gamers. I still believe the GTX 980 will be well over $500. I'm betting $600, with performance 5-10% higher than a 780 Ti based not on leaked benchmarks, but its specs.

Think about this, if NV/AMD give such low performance increases and keep prices high, there is a huge risk it will be damaging long term. If say they priced 980 at $400, someone might get 2 of them and spend $800. If they price it at $600, the person will feel very pissed off paying that for a mid-range product and just not buy period. If your $600 price target is correct, then will GM210 cost $1,000 and Titan II $1,500? This is a dangerous time to raise GPU prices that high because there is a serious drought of next generation PC game engines/graphical wows like Far Cry 1, Crysis, etc. 980 will fall flat on its face at 4K if it brings a mere 10-15% leap over 780Ti, who in the world will be paying $600 for barely more performance than what 780Ti delivered a full year ago?! (Talk about the opportunity cost of waiting a full year for a mere $100 price drop and 10% more performance).

The other point that makes me question your $600 price for 10% faster is that NV has never brought so little change in price/performance with a next gen part. Also, how does one justify a $600 videocard with a $250 760 PCB? I don't think NV is that greedy honestly.

 

[Azix]

the 970 might be a 200 watt part, hence it would be almost directly comparable to the r9 285...which it would crush if this is true.

normally people compare price brackets to find the competition...

 

[amenx]

You forgot something. Price/performance for new generations should really be viewed in the context of time. If it took 10 years to release a card 15% faster than 780Ti for half price, it wouldn't be that impressive. Looking at price/performance while ignoring the context of generational time would have put the 7970 as an amazing videocard vs. the 580 since it crushed it by 25-30% but in the context of generational leaps, it was underwhelming at launch. Additionally, using your statement, NV could have then released GTX460 for $350 and simply delayed 480 by 12 months. You would have claimed that 460 offers a better price/performance and perf/watt than 285 and thus it would have been OK.

Bad example. How could they sell the 460 @ 350 when it under-performs both the 5850 and 5870. No one would have bought it. OTOH if it was 10-20% faster than the 5850, they would have been stupid not to sell it for $350. Nvidia should not look at how their cards compare to last gens higher tier cards, but how they perform vs current competition and to price accordingly. Same with AMD. Just that AMD may not be able to do it as well due to Nvidias stronger brand recognition perhaps.

Even if both participants adopt this new strategy of bifurcating a generation into 2 halves, it doesn't mean we PC gamers should be happy about this new change of GPU release strategy. PC gamers will vote with their wallets if next generation's mid-range cards should now cost $400-500 instead of historical $200-300. If PC gamers accept this, then by all means NV/AMD should maximize their profits and utilize this strategy. I am not OK with paying $500 for a next gen mid-range and will sit that one out until AMD/NV can deliver a real flagship even if it costs $700 next year.

I absolutely agree if it is indeed a strategy to "bifurcating a generation into 2 halves" for milking profits to the hilt. Just curious, is it confirmed to be a strategy of sorts or is it governed by manufacturing restraints whatever they may be?

You say that as long as price/performance is there we should be happy with new cards but it's been nearly 3 years since I got my 1.175Ghz 7970. Historically I should have been able to buy an AMD/NV card with 2x the performance for the same price and there is no way it's looking like 980 OC will put up a 200% reading on this chart relative to the 280X. If you've been buying GPUs for 15+ years, then you would be seriously frustrated that there is still nothing 2x faster than 680/7970 for $500. The only saving grace are the fact that 4K IPS monitors at reasonable prices are MIA and modern PC graphics have completely stagnated since Crysis 3 so there is very little incentive to waste $ unlike in the past where upgrading was necessary to keep playing next gen PC games.

I cant speak for most gamers but I dont look at performance in chronological percentage terms. Just what current games I can play to my satisfaction with whatever card that can do it. TBH I think I could get by with my old 570. Always surprised by how good games look when not maxed out, with just a little judicious tweaking of settings. I think I've gotten over the point in encountering games that 'require' me to upgrade, I just upgrade cards almost every year for the thrill of new hardware than actual need for it .

 

[Azix]

I have a serious question about some of the talk here. When you guys say the 970 is a midrange card, do you mean you think it costs <300 or something? If not, when did 400+ become midrange? Nvidia and AMD( nvidia mostly) have PC gamers whipped if this is really the sentiment.

 

[RussianSensation]

I cant speak for most gamers but I dont look at performance in chronological percentage terms. Just what current games I can play to my satisfaction with whatever card that can do it. TBH I think I could get by with my old 570. Always surprised by how good games look when not maxed out, with just a little judicious tweaking of settings. I think I've gotten over the point in encountering games that 'require' me to upgrade, I just upgrade cards almost every year for the thrill of new hardware than actual need for it .

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Very good points.

If we look at GK104 (1536 Cuda cores) and GM204 (1920 Cuda cores for 28nm 980), I think a GM210 20nm could easily have > 3000.

Videocardz reports a rumour of 970 costing $399. Based on that, I don't see how 980 could possibly be $600.

970 specs: 1051 mhz Base/Core clock, 7Ghz GDDR5, 256-bit, 4GB.

Looks like 1178mhz Boost clock for both the 970 and 980 with the former having 1664 CUDA cores and the latter 1920.

I have a serious question about some of the talk here. When you guys say the 970 is a midrange card, do you mean you think it costs <300 or something? If not, when did 400+ become midrange? Nvidia and AMD( nvidia mostly) have PC gamers whipped if this is really the sentiment.

It's pretty simple.

1) Internal product code naming. GM204 replaces GK104, not GK110.

2) Die size, PCB complexity and bus width all point to a mid-range SKU chip = 760 PCB implies GM204 is pin compatible with 760/770 (mid-range cards), 256-bit bus and using 760 PCB implies a mid-range product with only ~224 GB/sec memory bandwidth (not enough for 4K gaming). Rumoured die size is < 440mm2 which hasn't been associated with NV's flagship card for a long time.

3) Relative performance. No next generation flagship GPU from NV has ever beaten the previous gen flagship by only 10-15%; it's usually 40-100%.

4) Rumoured TDP rating of 180-190W. Flagship NV cards in the last 5 years have TDP rating of 250W.

GM204 doesn't meet any criteria of a next gen flagship GK110 replacement. It's expected that NV's next generation mid-range SKU beats last generation's flagship so the fact that 980 will beat 780Ti by 5-15% is nothing special as this held true all the way back to GeForce 2 anyway:

GeForce 4 Ti 4600/4800 < 5700U
GeForce 5900/5950U < 6600GT
6800U < 7800GT
7900GTX < 8800GT/8800 GTS 320, etc.

 

[tviceman]

Russian, given the current market, what do you think the price of a 4gb GTX980 (assuming +10-15% 780 TI performance) should be when it is released this month?

 

[Mand]

Why are we convinced it is just 970 and 980? What if there's a 980Ti?

 

[96Firebird]

ASUS GTX 780 for $398AR/AC (EMCPAWW27), time to clear stock for the new parts?

 

[JohnWayne74]

Will you guys just stop it already, the 980 is going to be sick, END OF STORY

 

[Grooveriding]

Will you guys just stop it already, the 980 is going to be sick, END OF STORY

That's jumping the gun, still unknown whether it will be decent or not. Right now with the leaks we've seen it seems there is a chance it may not even be faster than a 780ti. Until it launches it's hard to say. It may be nothing special beyond making existing performance more affordable, or it might be decent. Not really clear yet.

 

[tviceman]

Ehhh... I am convinced it's about 10% faster than the 780 TI. For $500 it's a win, even if it's not enticing for current 780 / 780 TI owners to upgrade. $550 would be meh.

If it's 20% faster, then $550 is a win, $600 is meh.

 

[lopri]

I have a serious question about some of the talk here. When you guys say the 970 is a midrange card, do you mean you think it costs <300 or something? If not, when did 400+ become midrange? Nvidia and AMD( nvidia mostly) have PC gamers whipped if this is really the sentiment.

I agree with you there. Price is what determines the progress in my mind and the state of affairs has been pretty abysmal in GPU front. I have no idea how these corporations can get away with these pricing for years. I have stopped buying such products that I do not feel worthy of $$$ but on this board here it seems like many have lowered expectations these days.

 

[FatherMurphy]

Ehhh... I am convinced it's about 10% faster than the 780 TI. For $500 it's a win, even if it's not enticing for current 780 / 780 TI owners to upgrade. $550 would be meh.

If it's 20% faster, then $550 is a win, $600 is meh.

Agreed. These rumors that there is going to be a roughly $200 difference between the 970 and 980 are no good. If the 970 comes in at $400 and somewhere between 780 and 780ti, that's good, but not great, I suppose. As a 670 owner who paid $400 for my 670 on launch day, I'm not sure that is a compelling upgrade. But with the same memory bus (256) and only 2 SMMs disabled, the 970 won't be that much slower than a 980, certainly not enough to justify that kind of price differential (unless there are features we don't know about distinguishing the two). It makes the 980, if only 10% faster than a 780ti, as double meh at $600 (to use a legal term).