GTX 980 vs GTX 980 Superclocked

[Maxarini]

I was going to get the EVGA gtx 980 superclocked but its sold out everywhere. Should I go with the regular gtx 980?

How big is the performance difference between them?
Does anyone know when it will restock?

Also I want the regular evga version and not the acx version since my case has a window and I want it to look good. Thanks in advance!

 

[ko888]

Anywhere from 10% to 15% difference based on display resolution.

ncixus.com shows 14 EVGA GeForce GTX980 Superclocked 04G-P4-2982-KR in stock. It may not be in stock where you live, but since you never specified that, I can only guess.
http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=102000

 

[Maxarini]

Anywhere from 10% to 15% difference based on display resolution.

ncixus.com shows 14 EVGA GeForce GTX980 Superclocked 04G-P4-2982-KR in stock. It may not be in stock where you live, but since you never specified that, I can only guess.
http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=102000

Thanks for the quick response. I would rather buy it from a place like new-egg, amazon, or best buy. Do you know the performance difference between the one i want and the gtx 980 superclocked acx version?

 

[frag06]

Both the non-SC version and SC version are in-stock at Newegg. Non-SC and SC.

There isn't a huge performance difference between them. Nothing to warrant a $30 increase, anyway.

 

[Maxarini]

Thats the ACX version though. I'll get it if I have to but if the non ACX version is in stock I will probably get that one. Which one would you recommend for me?

 

[frag06]

Sorry, didn't notice you wanted the reference cooler. Newegg has it in-stock too, but it's way overpriced.

The reference blower just blows the hot air out of the case, it's not needed unless your case doesn't have good airflow. If you have good airflow, an open-air cooler is fine.

 

[Maxarini]

My PC has 8 fans so I guess that is considered good airflow. My case has a large window so looks matter to me but not as much as performance. So you think I should get the SC ACX version?

 

[frag06]

That's what I would go for. An open-air cooler like ACX 2.0 will perform better than the reference blower, while doing it quieter.

 

[ko888]

Both the non-SC version and SC version are in-stock at Newegg. Non-SC and SC.

There isn't a huge performance difference between them. Nothing to warrant a $30 increase, anyway.

If there wasn't a noticeable difference in performance then the card wouldn't even be on the market. The price difference reflects the performance difference. The SC is guaranteed to run at its higher factory clock speed whereas the non-SC version isn't guaranteed to run at clock speeds higher than its stock clock speeds.

 

[frag06]

Both the non-SC version and SC version are in-stock at Newegg. Non-SC and SC.

There isn't a huge performance difference between them. Nothing to warrant a $30 increase, anyway.

If there wasn't a noticeable difference in performance then the card wouldn't even be on the market. The price difference reflects the performance difference. The SC is guaranteed to run at its higher factory clock speed whereas the non-SC version isn't guaranteed to run at clock speeds higher than its stock clock speeds.

There is a ~4 FPS difference between the reference 970 and the EVGA SC 970, and they have an even higher clock difference than the non-SC and the SC. So is there a difference, yes, but probably about two FPS. Not worth the additional $30 IMO.

The SC isn't guaranteed to run higher than it's stock clocks, either, no card is. It's very unlikely you won't be able to overclock the non-SC version or the SC version though, if you can't you likely just have a poor chip.

 

[ko888]

Both the non-SC version and SC version are in-stock at Newegg. Non-SC and SC.

There isn't a huge performance difference between them. Nothing to warrant a $30 increase, anyway.

If there wasn't a noticeable difference in performance then the card wouldn't even be on the market. The price difference reflects the performance difference. The SC is guaranteed to run at its higher factory clock speed whereas the non-SC version isn't guaranteed to run at clock speeds higher than its stock clock speeds.

There is a ~4 FPS difference between the reference 970 and the EVGA SC 970, and they have an even higher clock difference than the non-SC and the SC. So is there a difference, yes, but probably about two FPS. Not worth the additional $30 IMO.

The SC isn't guaranteed to run higher than it's stock clocks, either, no card is. It's very unlikely you won't be able to overclock the non-SC version or the SC version though, if you can't you likely just have a poor chip.

EVGA guarantees that the EVGA GeForce GTX 980 Superclocked [04G-P4-2982-KR] will run at 1241MHz Base Clock and 1342MHz Boost Clock. Any clock speeds higher than these are not guaranteed to work.

EVGA guarantees that the EVGA GeForce GTX 980 [04G-P4-2980-KR] will run at 1126MHz Base Clock and 1216MHz Boost Clock. Any clock speeds higher than these are not guaranteed to work.

You can RMA the card if it isn't able to operate at its factory shipped clock speeds but you can't RMA it if it is unable to successfully overclock.

The The EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 [04G-P4-2983-KR] has a 12% performance advantage over the NVIDIA Reference clocked GeForce GTX 980 card @ 1080p display resolution. As long as you're not paying over 12% more for the SC version over the NVIDIA reference clocked version then you're getting the extra performance that you paid for.

 

[frag06]

Both the non-SC version and SC version are in-stock at Newegg. Non-SC and SC.

There isn't a huge performance difference between them. Nothing to warrant a $30 increase, anyway.

If there wasn't a noticeable difference in performance then the card wouldn't even be on the market. The price difference reflects the performance difference. The SC is guaranteed to run at its higher factory clock speed whereas the non-SC version isn't guaranteed to run at clock speeds higher than its stock clock speeds.

There is a ~4 FPS difference between the reference 970 and the EVGA SC 970, and they have an even higher clock difference than the non-SC and the SC. So is there a difference, yes, but probably about two FPS. Not worth the additional $30 IMO.

The SC isn't guaranteed to run higher than it's stock clocks, either, no card is. It's very unlikely you won't be able to overclock the non-SC version or the SC version though, if you can't you likely just have a poor chip.

EVGA guarantees that the EVGA GeForce GTX 980 Superclocked [04G-P4-2982-KR] will run at 1241MHz Base Clock and 1342MHz Boost Clock. Any clock speeds higher than these are not guaranteed to work.

EVGA guarantees that the EVGA GeForce GTX 980 [04G-P4-2980-KR] will run at 1126MHz Base Clock and 1216MHz Boost Clock. Any clock speeds higher than these are not guaranteed to work.

You can RMA the card if it isn't able to operate at its factory shipped clock speeds but you can't RMA it if it is unable to successfully overclock.

The The EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 [04G-P4-2983-KR] has a 12% performance advantage over the NVIDIA Reference clocked GeForce GTX 980 card @ 1080p display resolution. As long as you're not paying over 12% more for the SC version over the NVIDIA reference clocked version then you're getting the extra performance that you paid for.

In my previous post I said: "The SC isn't guaranteed to run higher than it's stock clocks, either, no card is."

I would like to see a benchmark where it shows the SC averaging more than 4 - 5 FPS more than the reference 970. Just look at TPU's review.

 

[ko888]

In my previous post I said: "The SC isn't guaranteed to run higher than it's stock clocks, either, no card is."

I would like to see a benchmark where it shows the SC averaging more than 4 - 5 FPS more than the reference 970. The SC does not have a 12% advantage over the reference 970. Just look at TPU's review.

I'd like to know why you're linking to a review of the GeForce GTX 970.

There is an obvious difference between a GeForce GTX 970 and a GeForce GTX 980.

 

[Tradesman1]

A 980 is a 980 is a 980....those that are shipped on OCed cards have been pre binned to meet the clock of the card it goes on, lower clocked cards may, or may not have the OC headroom to reach the upper limits of the highly Pre-OCed cards

 

[frag06]

In my previous post I said: "The SC isn't guaranteed to run higher than it's stock clocks, either, no card is."

I would like to see a benchmark where it shows the SC averaging more than 4 - 5 FPS more than the reference 970. The SC does not have a 12% advantage over the reference 970. Just look at TPU's review.

I'd like to know why you're linking to a review of the GeForce GTX 970.

There is an obvious difference between a GeForce GTX 970 and a GeForce GTX 980.

:lol: My bad, was thinking of the wrong review.

Still, it doesn't change the fact that the EVGA SC 980 is only 4 - 5 FPS faster than the reference 980. I haven't seen a review of the EVGA 980, so we'll use the STRIX here. The SC has clocks slightly faster, so there may be an extra FPS or two pulled from it. Here is TPU's review. You can clearly see there is a 5 FPS difference or so in most games.

 

[ko888]

In my previous post I said: "The SC isn't guaranteed to run higher than it's stock clocks, either, no card is."

I would like to see a benchmark where it shows the SC averaging more than 4 - 5 FPS more than the reference 970. The SC does not have a 12% advantage over the reference 970. Just look at TPU's review.

I'd like to know why you're linking to a review of the GeForce GTX 970.

There is an obvious difference between a GeForce GTX 970 and a GeForce GTX 980.

:lol: My bad, was thinking of the wrong review.

Still, it doesn't change the fact that the EVGA SC 980 is only 4 - 5 FPS faster than the reference 980. I haven't seen a review of the EVGA 980, so we'll use the STRIX here. The SC has clocks slightly faster, so there may be an extra FPS or two pulled from it. Here is TPU's review. You can clearly see there is a 5 FPS difference or so in most games.

German review site: http://ht4u.net/reviews/2014/evga_geforce_gtx_980_superclocked_im_test/index39.php

 

[frag06]

Even they show the difference is about 5 FPS when they're using AA (don't know why they test with no AA at 1080p). It matches up pretty well with TPU's review.

 

[Maxarini]

Wow. This is a really long thread. I have one more question though. How does the ACX version do if you are using 2 of them in sli? Would the cooling of them not be as good as 2 980 reference cards in sli because of the design difference or something?

 

[ko888]

Even they show the difference is about 5 FPS when they're using AA (don't know why they test with no AA at 1080p). It matches up pretty well with TPU's review.

Looks like a 9.9 FPS difference between an NVIDIA Reference clocked card and an EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 [04G-P4-2983-KR] using 4xAA & 16xAF. When the NVIDIA Reference clocked card is overclocked then the difference drops to 4.8 FPS.

 

[frag06]

Even they show the difference is about 5 FPS when they're using AA (don't know why they test with no AA at 1080p). It matches up pretty well with TPU's review.

Looks like a 9.9 FPS difference between an NVIDIA Reference clocked card and an EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 [04G-P4-2983-KR] using 4xAA & 16xAF. When the NVIDIA Reference clocked card is overclocked then the difference drops to 4.8 FPS.

That would be true if you're comparing stock base clock against a SC's max boost clock.

 

[frag06]

Wow. This is a really long thread. I have one more question though. How does the ACX version do if you are using 2 of them in sli? Would the cooling of them not be as good as 2 980 reference cards in sli because of the design difference or something?

The ACX will perform better. The reference cards are good for SLI, but they will still run hotter (around or a little hotter than just one card by itself) than SLI ACX cards.

 

[Maxarini]

I think that the reference model just got restocked on new-egg for a reasonable price. This makes me consider the option of buying it again. So If looks and performance mattered to you and the price of both of them were the same which one would you get? Does the ACX version perform better than the reference model? If so how much? Why is the acx version now CHEAPER than the reference model?

Thanks for the help!

 

[frag06]

They're all within a few FPS of each other. The reference card is a SC card, so it will perform like the ACX SC card.

I would go for the ACX card. As long as airflow isn't an issue, temps shouldn't be either. The top card will run hotter, but with good cooling you shouldn't hit the throttling limit. Most temps I've seen from OCN have been well below 80C.

Not sure why the reference card is marked up so much. Probably just supply and demand. That or retailers are price gouging, since EVGA sells them for $599.

 

[Maxarini]

WHY would you go with the acx card?

 

[frag06]

I prefer open-air coolers. They always run much quieter and cooler than NVIDIA's reference blower.

Not sure why the reference card is marked up so much. Probably just supply and demand. That or retailers are price gouging, since EVGA sells them for $620 (SC). Anyway, that blower model isn't worth $630.