Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 And 980 Review: Maximum Maxwell

[JackNaylorPE]

How so? Forgotten the 780/titan that got their asses handed by the 290/290x?

Huh ? Is this what you mean by having your ass handed to ya ?

Crysis 3 Very High 8 x MSAA 1080: 780 = 44.6 / 290x = 40.0
Bioshock Infinite Ultra 1080: 780 = 107.8 / 290x = 103.9
Far Cry 3 Ultra 8 x MSAA 1080: 780 = 50.3 / 290x = 47.4
Tomb raider 3 Ultra 1080: 780 = 90.3 / 290x = 87.8
Star Citizen Very High 1080: 780 = 69.6 / 290x = 56.5
Star Citizen Very High 2560 x 1600: 780 = 46.6 / 290x = 43.7
Far Cry 3 Ultra 8 x MSAA 1440: 780 = 32.4 / 290x = 32.3
Bioshock Infinite Ultra 1440: 780 = 67.3 / 290x = 65.8
Crysis 3 Very High 8 x MSAA 1440: 780 = 26.9 / 290x = 26.0
Tomb raider 3 Ultra 1440: 780 = 64.4 / 290x = 63.0

The 290x ruled in compute, mining and 4K gaming but it didn't top the 780 Ti nor the much cheaper 780 @ 1920 and 2560 resolutions when both were tested at maximum performance levels. The 290 / 290x was aggressively overclocked in the box..... overclock a 780 and it topped the 290x across the board at resolutions up to 2560. Data from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djvZaHHU4I8

See benchies at 840 mark.

I have built both 290x and 780 boxes ..... best OC I have gotten on the 780s was 26% .... best 290x OC was around 12% ...

For further confirmation and to quell discussions about poor cooling designs ....with water cooling .... nVidia improves more than the AMD when water cooled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqaHh-y51us

780 improved just under 10%
290 improved 7%

 

[logainofhades]

On average, an R9 290 beats a GTX 780, and costs less doing so.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1036?vs=1068

 

[azzazel_99]

Lol here we go with the back and forth.

 

[azzazel_99]

I would take those numbers with a grain of salt from anandtech. I would like to see driver comparisons, what exact cards were tested and under what type of environment because some of those contradict ALOT of test numbers I have seen ruling in favor of the nvidia. You also have to consider the stock 780 was clocked ALOT lower than the stock 290 and 290x where they were over 1000mhz the 780's were at what barely 900? So that would also give the edge to the amd cards. Also consider the 290/x has a 512 bit interface for the memory where nvidia 780 has a what 380 something. So technically the 780 is doing more with less and in a lot of cases beats a card that should in all reality be beating the pants off it. I still think nvidia has won that battle. Having said the both 780/ti and 290/x are amazing performing cards and do a great job of gaming. That doesn't change the fact the new maxwell (what this topic was about) beats the pants off both of its predecessors and has way more overclocking head room.

 

[logainofhades]

I would take those numbers with a grain of salt from anandtech. I would like to see driver comparisons, what exact cards were tested and under what type of environment because some of those contradict ALOT of test numbers I have seen ruling in favor of the nvidia. You also have to consider the stock 780 was clocked ALOT lower than the stock 290 and 290x where they were over 1000mhz the 780's were at what barely 900? So that would also give the edge to the amd cards. Also consider the 290/x has a 512 bit interface for the memory where nvidia 780 has a what 380 something. So technically the 780 is doing more with less and in a lot of cases beats a card that should in all reality be beating the pants off it. I still think nvidia has won that battle. Having said the both 780/ti and 290/x are amazing performing cards and do a great job of gaming. That doesn't change the fact the new maxwell (what this topic was about) beats the pants off both of its predecessors and has way more overclocking head room.

My guess would be from their review, when the 290 was launched.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7481/the-amd-radeon-r9-290-review

 

[logainofhades]

Either way, price/performance the R9 290 is better than the GTX 780. The GTX 970 is even better yet. I wouldn't recommend an R9 290, for gaming, at this time. Those prices really need to drop and soon.

 

[smeezekitty]

Remember NVidia's prices were sky high at the launch of the 290(X)

They were forced to lower then because they were atleast matched at a lower price point.

NVidia obviously retook the crown with the 980/970 owning everything else at a lower price.

But I don't doubt AMD being able to come out on top again

 

[Danra]

I think everyone here knows that informed people purchase the video card that they believe is the best for the money at the time of purchase.

And, at least almost all of us know that game fps championship has been going on, back and forth, between AMD and Nvidea for a very long time. As some others here are, I am at least somewhat sure that AMD will come up with an answer to the GF 970 and 980, probably with an enhanced version of the R9 290 series.

And, to those that complain about AMD drivers and laud GeForce always having great drivers, I know they are wrong, I have used both cards for around 15 years - and BOTH have produced poor drivers, forcing people to roll-back to earlier drivers. I wish the blind, possibly ignorant or new to video cards, would learn both sides of the story that cover the past many years. I do admit that AMD needs to work on multi-card drivers. I do not have a R9 295 to play around with, so, I cannot comment on how well that card works with it's best driver - and, if you do not own that card, please do not make a post stating how poor the driver for it is.

At the moment I think everyone can agree that the GeForce 980 is the gaming GPU king - and I hope the crown goes back and forth between AMD and Nvidea forever - or at least 30 years, by then I will be 95 years old and will most likely have given up gaming.

 

[sirstinky]

Incredible. A year ago you'd have to spend $500+ to get the same performance as the $330 970. The fact that NVIDIA can sell the 980 for cheaper than the 780 Ti (and the Titan) is amazing. We'll see how AMD responds. Maybe drop the price of the 290 to $300... even then, with the power consumption aspect, the 970 would look mighty appealing. It's amazing how technology has improved things like graphics cards and processors. The $60 G3250 is faster than the old Pentium Extreme CPU's that cost $1000 at launch.

 

[CaptainTom]

Don, when you mention the Gigabyte "Golden Sample", why don't you fire up GPU-Z and read the ASIC score? It would be interesting to see the ASIC difference between the two chips.

In terms of Maxwell, consumers are all going to win. Prices are going to be dropping all over the place. The GTX 760 just had its price dropped, and the entire top-end Kepler line was discontinued. AMD cards are all going to be forced into big price cuts, and even then you'd have to think twice about purchasing one.

Hardware Canucks had a good summary of the situation:
"The GTX 980 must be causing a serious case of deja-vu for AMD. Back when the GTX 680 was launched, their Tahiti cards looked too expensive, too slow, too loud and too hot….and the situation hasn’t really changed this time around. In every almost every game the GTX 980 easily outmuscles their flagship R9 290X, consumes significantly less power and costs just $50 more. So what does this mean for AMD? They’re currently stuck with a power hungry, hot running architecture that is still quite competitive from a performance standpoint but some significant price cuts are desperately needed."
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/67445-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-performance-review-14.html

Honestly this is probably one of the dumbest comparisons I have ever heard of.

The two cases could not be more different.

That's funny, because Anandtech used the exact same analogy in their conclusion.

Quote:
"In many ways it feels like this latest launch has returned us to the PC video card industry of 2012. NVIDIA’s flagship consumer card is once again powered by a smaller and more potent consumer-class x04 GPU, and once again NVIDIA is swinging the one-two punch of performance and power efficiency. When GTX 680 was launched it set a new high mark for the video card industry, and now we see GTX 980 do more of the same. The GTX 980 is faster, less power hungry, and quieter than the Radeon R9 290X, so once again NVIDIA has landed the technical trifecta. Even if we’re just looking at performance and pricing the GTX 980 is the undisputed holder of the single-GPU performance crown, besting everything else AMD and NVIDIA have to offer, and offering it at a price that while no means a steal is more than reasonable given NVIDIA’s technical and performance advantage. As such GTX 980 comes very, very close to doing to Radeon R9 290X what GTX 680 did to Radeon HD 7970 over 2 years ago."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/23

Ok so now I have seen two websites make a dumb statement. Funny indeed.

 

[CaptainTom]

-The 980 consumes 100w less. THIS IS MASSIVE.

They seem to optimize the GPU usage in gaming environment... but what about that torture run.
When i see the actual results of over 240W from GTX 970 and even more from 980 in the torture run, it seems like reference card seems to be designed very optimistically with that 2x6 pin connectors tho.
nVidia learned the lesson this time with energy efficient models... but once in awhile even a goliath gets a good idea... but the way they did is is not really sophisticated...time for AMD for quick adaptation and the slap back.
Lets wait and see the response from opposition...

Oh I saw that too! It just goes to show that AMD really isn't that far behind in efficiency in reality (Although the efficiency difference has always been blown out of proportion). Don't be surprise folks if AMD manages to release something 20-30% stronger than the 980 a couple months from now while only using the same ol' 250W.

 

[Danra]

Don, when you mention the Gigabyte "Golden Sample", why don't you fire up GPU-Z and read the ASIC score? It would be interesting to see the ASIC difference between the two chips.

In terms of Maxwell, consumers are all going to win. Prices are going to be dropping all over the place. The GTX 760 just had its price dropped, and the entire top-end Kepler line was discontinued. AMD cards are all going to be forced into big price cuts, and even then you'd have to think twice about purchasing one.

Hardware Canucks had a good summary of the situation:
"The GTX 980 must be causing a serious case of deja-vu for AMD. Back when the GTX 680 was launched, their Tahiti cards looked too expensive, too slow, too loud and too hot….and the situation hasn’t really changed this time around. In every almost every game the GTX 980 easily outmuscles their flagship R9 290X, consumes significantly less power and costs just $50 more. So what does this mean for AMD? They’re currently stuck with a power hungry, hot running architecture that is still quite competitive from a performance standpoint but some significant price cuts are desperately needed."
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/67445-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-performance-review-14.html

Honestly this is probably one of the dumbest comparisons I have ever heard of.

The two cases could not be more different.

That's funny, because Anandtech used the exact same analogy in their conclusion.

Quote:
"In many ways it feels like this latest launch has returned us to the PC video card industry of 2012. NVIDIA’s flagship consumer card is once again powered by a smaller and more potent consumer-class x04 GPU, and once again NVIDIA is swinging the one-two punch of performance and power efficiency. When GTX 680 was launched it set a new high mark for the video card industry, and now we see GTX 980 do more of the same. The GTX 980 is faster, less power hungry, and quieter than the Radeon R9 290X, so once again NVIDIA has landed the technical trifecta. Even if we’re just looking at performance and pricing the GTX 980 is the undisputed holder of the single-GPU performance crown, besting everything else AMD and NVIDIA have to offer, and offering it at a price that while no means a steal is more than reasonable given NVIDIA’s technical and performance advantage. As such GTX 980 comes very, very close to doing to Radeon R9 290X what GTX 680 did to Radeon HD 7970 over 2 years ago."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/23

Ok so now I have seen two websites make a dumb statement. Funny indeed.

Both of those "review" sites have their head so far up Nvidea's ... and so often, I wonder if they take the time to wipe the brown off their faces.

Be honest hardwarecanucks and Anand, the fastest GPU gaming crown has been going back and forth for some years - odd how you failed to mention that.

 

[azzazel_99]

Last card amd had worthy of a "crown" was the 7970ghz.

 

[Danra]

I suppose Nvidia did not respond to AMD's R9 290X or R9 290. If it did, that meant those AMD cards were better than Nvidia's = AMD was better than Nvidia.

Nvidia did respond, first with price cuts then with Ti [which was basically an overclocked 770 or 780] to catch up. And, if you are going to throw out game fps quotes from "review" sites, I hope you know that some games are coded for Nvidia and some for AMD.

What a short memory you have.

 

[logainofhades]

I suppose Nvidia did not respond to AMD's R9 290X or R9 290. If it did, that meant those AMD cards were better than Nvidia's = AMD was better than Nvidia.

Nvidia did respond, first with price cuts then with Ti [which was basically an overclocked 770 or 780] to catch up. And, if you are going to throw out game fps quotes from "review" sites, I hope you know that some games are coded for Nvidia and some for AMD.

What a short memory you have.

The 780ti is not an overclocked 770. The 770 is a rebadged GTX 680. The 780ti is essentially a Titan black without the double precision feature.

 

[VincentP]

The stock 290s were bad. They should have launched with a cooler that had a hope/prayer of keeping boost clocks. Aftermarket 290s are fine. the only real issue with them, and even then it's a stretch is the DX9/CF issue. I suspect AMD will never give us a driver that enables it. All they can really do is keep the fixing going forward. Most new games will be DX10+, and a single 290 doesn't have a problem with a single 1080 monitor for most DX9 games. It's something that matters to as many gamers as your multi monitor gamer. (Don't label me a fanboy, my last Nvidia card was the GTX460.)

I just hope AMD can launch something back and keep it going. They did great with Eyefinity and keeping the price/performance curve going. I just hope their answer doesn't take forever.

Why do you see Eyefinity as a benefit for AMD?
Nvidia Surround does the same thing doesn't it?

 

[smeezekitty]

Surround is less flexible than eyefinity

 

[4745454b]

As a reminder to those who feel the need/urge to use "colorful" words, don't. There is a mod watching this thread and he doesn't like it. I'll leave that one up there, but please don't make me break out the edit/ban tools. The 7970GHz was a great card, but I would argue the 290X was also a "crown" card as it was cheaper with similar performance to the TI.

 

[17seconds]

The problem with all these "crown" comments is that those AMD cards, the 7970 GHz and 290X, were engineered exactly, specifically, for that myopic one-sided goal. In the process, to accomplish that goal, AMD was forced to push those GPUs to their realistic limits in terms of clock speeds. The result was, in the case of the 7970 GHz, a +2% performance advantage over the GTX 680, but yet also a hot, noisy, power hungry card that could hardly be called a "king" in anything but that 2% advantage. That also applies to the 290X.

Anyone can turn up the clock speeds on their card and brag that they are the fastest, but to do so while sacrificing basic aesthetics ignores the bigger picture. It speaks volumes to the overall state of affairs between these two companies to note that those AMD "crown" cards are also among the noisiest ever made. There is a lot of fiscal/business reality hidden in the lines of this chart.

 

[azzazel_99]

my point exactly.

 

[4745454b]

I disagree. The 7950/7970 were famous for their OCing ability. When Nvidia came back with their top card, AMD simply gave us the 7970GHZ. Most of those cards that I've read about can hit 1300MHZ pretty easily. Releasing the card 300MHz slower then that (25%+) isn't really pushing it to the max. Yes AMD is currently on the back end of the power curve. Something they are trying to fix with the 285.

 

[smeezekitty]

I disagree. The 7950/7970 were famous for their OCing ability. When Nvidia came back with their top card, AMD simply gave us the 7970GHZ. Most of those cards that I've read about can hit 1300MHZ pretty easily. Releasing the card 300MHz slower then that (25%+) isn't really pushing it to the max. Yes AMD is currently on the back end of the power curve. Something they are trying to fix with the 285.

I agree. And remember at the launch of the 7970, it blew the 580 away.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

On average, an R9 290 beats a GTX 780, and costs less doing so.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1036?vs=1068

Anandtech is a good source to look at if you assume nobody ever downloaded MSI Afterburner, EVGA Precision, Asus GPU Tweak and never ran their card above stock speeds. But THG being an enthusiast site, caters mostly to the tweaker crowd and so I am speaking from the perspective of the typical gamer of "computer enthusiast". I think most of us are less interested in what the cards do "outta the box", then what they are capable of doing once installed in our systems.

In that vein, comparing one card that arrived in the box aggressively overclocked with maybe 6 - 12% OC headroom with another that has 20-26% headroom is not "apples and apples"

Outta the box, the 290x is faster
Both overclocked "to the wall", 780 faster (at up to 2560 x 1600)

And cheaper ? I haven't seen that except for a period of a week or so last October. The release of the 780 Ti drove the 780 down to $500. Again apples and apples.

MSI 780 is $320 .... hasn't been above $500 in $2014
MSI 290x is still $520 ....cheapest one is $480

I'm not pointing this out to argue which one is better, they both have areas where each excels and logical reasons for people to choose one or the other.. I am pointing it out cause the R9 series did very little for AMD's fortunes. We all suffer if there's no competition and this round went very one sided which had a huge impact on sales....but more importantly AMD revenues.

Believe me I rooted like hell for the R9 series but it's been a large disappointment with respect to sales and I don't know why .... the 280 and 290 look great on "paper" but the cards are just not selling well. I like that they aggressively overclocked their card in the box cause it means more cards were guaranteed to perform at that level.

Not one R9 series card has as yet made it onto Steam's Hardware Survey because the numbers in actual use are just too small to count. Under Dx11 cards, they list "All R9 series combined" as having 0.60% of the market. That's a total of 7 cards, ..... all 7 cards totaled up together from the $150 to the $550 price point combined represent just 0.60% of the machines hitting steam servers. By comparison, the 780 Ti which was hovering up near $700 till last month all by itself has 0.53%. Note: Data doesn't include cards put in use in September which won't be posted for a week.

I hope the 390 series has something special to offer....cause the DX11 list here is getting way too one-sided
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

 

[LookItsRain]

It amazes me that people can consider amd cards bad due to their noise level and power usage, the loudest amd card is around the sound of a dishwasher in another room, they had great performance for the price. The power consumption does not affect most people, unless its a reference card causing heat issues. Were comparing a brand new architecture compared to something a few years old. Besides, lets wait to see what amd responds with. Competition is always a plus for the consumer.

 

[CaptainTom]

It amazes me that people can consider amd cards bad due to their noise level and power usage, the loudest amd card is around the sound of a dishwasher in another room, they had great performance for the price. The power consumption does not affect most people, unless its a reference card causing heat issues. Were comparing a brand new architecture compared to something a few years old. Besides, lets wait to see what amd responds with. Competition is always a plus for the consumer.

Yep. What has always annoyed me is people acting like Kepler was more efficient than GCN. The 7970 and 680 used about the same amount of power. The difference was like 5% and the 7970 was powering more VRAM.