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

[JDG1980]

Who cares about power consumption if it's slow (even if it's not, in the "top performance" card)?

Who cares? People who want to use a small form factor case instead of a giant full tower. OEMs who don't want to have to spec out bigger power supplies just to offer a video card upgrade.

Once Quadro comes around, businesses that rely heavily on GPUs will care, too - power consumption can really add up for them.

I'd be surprised if Apple didn't take power usage into account when deciding which GPU vendor to go with on the next Mac Pro.

And on the other side of the coin, those that used the 470/480 sit here and pretend like a few watts suddenly mean the difference between buying a cheaper and faster card when their spons..., I mean brand is slightly more efficient. :thumbsdown:

Exactly who are we talking about here?

2048 cores, 16 SMM, not 15 SMM as many had thought. ~175W TDP.

Also GTX 970 is 148W TDP.

Those figures are actually a bit better than I had initially guessed. I wonder what we'll see for TDP on the GTX 960. If they bring it in around 100-125W, it might actually be feasible to cool that card fanlessly with something like the Accelero S1 Plus, at least if your case has decent airflow.

I think you dramatically misunderstand just how little 75 watts is.

Do you start sweating in an island of heat when you turn on a light bulb? Because one those puts out more heat than a second 6-pin would add.

Incandescent light bulbs do noticeably heat up a room. They're extremely inefficient, which is why they're in the process of being banned.

If after-market 970s can provide 92-93% of the performance of 290X at such a dramatically lower power level, combined with NV's strong brand value and NV-specific features, it'll be enough to make 290Xs irrelevant for the majority of the market (1080p and below gamers) even if AMD were to drop 290X to $400. I think AMD will need to drop 290 to $319 and 290X to $359 if a 148W 970 is $399.

After this release, the only really competitive card AMD will have on the high end will be the R9 295X. (It will continue to be the only single-board solution that can provide viable AAA gaming at 4K, with the possible exception of the three-times-as-expensive-and-not-as-good Titan Z.) Tonga, Tahiti, and single-chip Hawaii are going to have a hard time against GM204; they're going to have to rely on price drops, which is not good for AMD's bottom line. Pitcairn too will be squeezed when the GTX 960 comes along. AMD really needs to get the ball moving again or they'll lose market share rapidly.

 

[Grooveriding]

Hope that graph is false or it's epic fail and GK110 will still be the best. I'm thinking the chart is close enough though, all the leaks are saying it's no faster than 780ti unless the ti is running at low clocks. So this will likely be the case.

I'll wager none of the top spots on GPU benchmark records will be gtx980. After overclocking both the gm204 and gk110, the GK110 will continue to win out. But, I think the reviews running both at stock will show 1080p wins for gtx980 across the board by 5-10% margins, with benches going back and forth at higher resolutions.

This is a cash-in card, cheaper to produce, selling for the same price until they can afford to move to the new process when costs come down. I'm surprised it is not going to be cheaper though, because there won't be a reason to upgrade from a 780ti or Titan Black. Maybe it will cost less, but I am hearing $699 CAN for the 980, which should be about $650 US.

 

[nvgpu]

:thumbsup:

 

[AdamK47]

I certainly hope the GTX 980 is at least 10% faster than the 780Ti. A small performance increase combined with vastly lower power consumption should make for a great card. Release the GTX 970/980 now and then spend engineering time getting full Maxwell to the next die shrink with other advancements.

 

[jpiniero]

http://videocardz.com/52339/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-has-2048-cuda-cores

2048 cores, 16 SMM, not 15 SMM as many had thought. ~175W TDP.

Also GTX 970 is 148W TDP.

Wonder if they went with 2048 instead of 1920 so it does end up being faster than the 780 Ti in all cases. The 290 still looks like the best deal if it is indeed $100 cheaper than the 970, although the 970's 148 W TDP is really nice.

 

[jpiniero]

Oh and does the 980 really need the Titan cooler if the ref is 175 W?

 

[Silverforce11]

Oh and does the 980 really need the Titan cooler if the ref is 175 W?

Yes it does, better reference blowers are needed to keep noise to a minimum as well as sending heat out the case.

It would work wonders in SLI.

 

[Grooveriding]

Oh and does the 980 really need the Titan cooler if the ref is 175 W?

Probably not, the 680 was quiet and not hot with the cooler it had. I think the Titan cooler is to give it a flagship pedigree.

 

[3DVagabond]

:thumbsup:

Cherry pick much?

 

[tviceman]

And ?? That mean you can't feel more heat ??

Relative, you'll notice it less if it's already at an EXTREMELY hot ambient temperature. On top of that, the excess heat will affect an already high ambient temperature less. So, to answer your question, likely not. You will be much, much, much less likely to feel extra heat in an already hot environment.

 

[Vesku]

Because a difference of 110-120W of power against a 290X is too much to ignore for most gamers if it means NV eco-system and 92-93% of performance of 290X. Look how well 750Ti sold for $150 despite plenty of AMD cards in that similar price range crushing it by 20-40% in performance. What about 780 selling for $80-100 premiums over 290 despite 3GB of VRAM and not any faster, lacking the AMD game bundle too? I don't see 290 selling for $350 either when 970 with similar performance is "only" $50 more. After-all gamers purchased 680 for $450 when the faster 7970Ghz was $380 (even at launch, 7970Ghz was $480 when the slower 680 4GB was $550) and 770 2-4GB for $300-380 when R9 280X was $250-300.

Using the 750 Ti as an example AMD hasn't dropped the r7 265 below its launch MSRP of $150. That's despite the 750 Ti attracting a lot of sales. Will AMD really get much more conversions, Nvidia -> AMD, if they sell the 290X at $400 instead of $450? Doesn't seem like it. They did drop the MSRP of the R7 260X in anticipation of the 750 Ti, though, and I expect the R9 290 to be priced a bracket under the 970 with continued gaming evolved bundles, rebates, and sporadic discounts.

GPU buyers have historically paid a performance premium, that extra ~15% from the 2nd fastest to fastest card of the generation from AMD or Nvidia is not offered on a linear slope.

 

[Enigmoid]

Cherry pick much?

Cherry picking would imply that there are other benchmarks and he's picking the best one. Not seeing too many others.

This might be maxwell addressing the compute problems of Kepler (the 750ti does better than the 660 in general).

 

[3DVagabond]

Cherry picking would imply that there are other benchmarks and he's picking the best one. Not seeing too many others.

This might be maxwell addressing the compute problems of Kepler (the 750ti does better than the 660 in general).

While not all benches have been run, more than just that one has. It's, the best one by quite a lot vs. AMD. Plus, not listed on the chart is that the 980 was run @ 2560*1440 while the 290X was run @ 3840*2160. I'm not sure what changes that would make in the comparison, relatively speaking. One would assume resolution matters though, at least in the FPS results.


It's a new benchmark suite, but here's the limited results listed so far.
http://compubench.com/compare.jsp?b...dows&api1=cl&D2=NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+980&cols=2

 

[Enigmoid]

While not all benches have been run, more than just that one has. It's, the best one by quite a lot vs. AMD. Plus, not listed on the chart is that the 980 was run @ 2560*1440 while the 290X was run @ 3840*2160. I'm not sure what changes that would make in the comparison, relatively speaking. One would assume resolution matters though, at least in the FPS results.


It's a new benchmark suite, but here's the limited results listed so far.
http://compubench.com/compare.jsp?b...dows&api1=cl&D2=NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+980&cols=2

Thanks, didn't see that.

 

[Fastx]

NM

 

[Ylurien]

http://www.techpowerup.com/205286/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-and-gtx-970-pricing-revealed.html

$599 for GTX 980? Seriously, Nvidia? You better be packing some secret reserve of performance somehow, because the leaked benchmarks I'm seeing do not justify 600 bucks.

I have an idea - why don't we all boycott Nvidia this round? Let's all go red for six months and see how Nvidia scrambles to win us back.

Come on, we can do it!

 

[ShintaiDK]

http://www.techpowerup.com/205286/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-and-gtx-970-pricing-revealed.html

$599 for GTX 980? Seriously, Nvidia? You better be packing some secret reserve of performance somehow, because the leaked benchmarks I'm seeing do not justify 600 bucks.

I have an idea - why don't we all boycott Nvidia this round? Let's all go red for six months and see how Nvidia scrambles to win us back.

Come on, we can do it!

And what, pay 500-600$ for a slower 290X with a 110W higher TDP? Should everyone boycott AMD as well over the 285?

Both AMD and nVidia is stuck on 28nm. Thats just a fact of life for the moment.

 

[Ylurien]

And what, pay 500-600$ for a slower 290X with a 110W higher TDP? Should everyone boycott AMD as well over the 285?

Both AMD and nVidia is stuck on 28nm. Thats just a fact of life for the moment.

So? They don't have to charge 600 bucks for 28 nm. Again.

 

[Elixer]

They will charge what they can get.
The first batch will be slurped up by the die-hard fans, and then, you will see rebates or something like that to knock the price down $50-60.

I was hoping they would start a price war, then, everyone will be excited.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So? They don't have to charge 600 bucks for 28 nm. Again.

So if it was 20nm and performed more or less the same, it would be ok?

This is reality and companies cant live of charity. R&D doesnt pay itself.

 

[wand3r3r]

So if it was 20nm and performed more or less the same, it would be ok?

This is reality and companies cant live of charity. R&D doesnt pay itself.

No matter how you try put it, selling mid range next gen for the price of current high end is a crock, especially if it's around the same performance.

 

[Abwx]

:thumbsup:

Not sure that the Titan Z/Black owners will also thumb up when seeing the graph...

 

[RussianSensation]

And what, pay 500-600$ for a slower 290X with a 110W higher TDP? Should everyone boycott AMD as well over the 285?

Both AMD and nVidia is stuck on 28nm. Thats just a fact of life for the moment.

290X is $450 not $500-600. Almost no one recommends a 290X when after-market 290s are $350-380 right now and should settle at $350 after 970 launches. On 285, I find it impossible to recommend at the moment as long as $260 280X 3GB is widely available.

Also you make it sound as if AMD and NV release a new card, we are faced with only 2 choices: buy NV or buy AMD. There is a 3rd choice of staying on your current 680/770/7970Ghz and waiting until next gen PC games come out that push the hardware; while waiting for AMD's response to hopefully see more reasonable prices due to increased competition.

Who wants to pay $599 for a mid-range Maxwell and support such business practices overall, knowing it's not the flagship in the Maxwell architecture stack and it's not helping that there are no next gen graphically jaw-dropping PC games coming out this year? Everything is pretty much unoptimized console ports (Watch Dogs) or runs well enough on a single 770 at 1080p. There is no future proofing in 980 for 4K or multi-monitor gaming if it's only 10-15% faster than 780Ti since that would only match or barely beat a 290X in those cases.

I called Titan a major rip-off at launch and I even said we'll get that performance for $500 when competition heats up. AMD delivered that performance for $400 in R9 290. Buying a $600 mid-range Maxwell chip means in 1.5 years the same performance will be $350. This is unlike say buying a $500-600 8800GTX, 280, 480, where for 2 years of that generation your OC flagship card had 90-93% of the performance of 9800GTX+, 285, or 580. If 390X follows the same price gouging, I'll criticize it just the same.

No matter how you try put it, selling mid range next gen for the price of current high end is a crock, especially if it's around the same performance.

Exactly. This is a $499 680 (GM104) replacement plain and simple, but won't even come close to 680's 30-35% increase over 580, which would imply a joke of a progress in price/performance from an already overpriced 780Ti. Even if this beats 780Ti, as I said since GeForce 2, every single next gen mid-range NV card matched or beat the last gen flagship. I mean all the data is there to call it a mid-range card since no next gen flagship only outperformed the previous gen flagship by 10-15%. NV is essentially raising the price of 680 by $100 and selling us a 256-bit, 4+1 VRM 960Ti for $599?!

I don't care if the alternative is $450 290X from AMD. As far as I am concerned I won't be recommending either card at these prices simply because I will stick to my guns and not support the idea of bifurcating a generation into 2 and pricing 960Ti at $600, only to later launch the real flagship and price it again at $700-800. This is like pricing a 6600GT or GTX 460 or 660Ti at $599 and delaying 6800U/480/780.

All those NV gamers who complained that a $549 7970 only beat a 580 by 25-30% stock and 40-80% 7970 OC beat 580 OC are completely silent at the moment.

And then GPU makers are surprised their volume sales are tanking.

 

[SlickR12345]

So if it was 20nm and performed more or less the same, it would be ok?

This is reality and companies cant live of charity. R&D doesnt pay itself.

The reality is the GTX 780ti is already about $200 overpriced, now we are getting the SAME EXACT part at the same price with just slightly less power consumption. 50W in the grand thing of schemes is minor when its reduced from 250W. I mean if we are talking about 75W vs 130w we can say it makes a difference, but at higher levels it doesn't.

The median is still $700 for the GTX 780TI, with very few cards about the $650 mark.

So yea, its a terrible product that any sane person should stay away from!

 

[nvgpu]

Everyone here seems to lack common sense and critical thinking ability. It's really simple, there's nothing complex to think about.

If you already have a GTX 780 or GTX 780 Ti, you can wait for GM200 or Pascal. That's your upgrade. No one is forcing you to upgrade every cycle.

Many people don't have a high end Kepler GPU and they already told Nvidia they want a high performance GPU without "noisy fans and take up a lot of heat" 2 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SfPLhTgRPQ

So Nvidia is giving them what they want, a power efficient Maxwell GPU with high performance. There's plenty of people with older generation Tesla/Fermi GPU that has been waiting for this since the upgrade cycles have grown to 4 years or so.

Also go look up the word inflation, cost of materials keep rising every year yet you think you should get a free ride?