Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 And 980 Review: Maximum Maxwell

[4745454b]

You can do the math. ~170W / 12V ~14A. Happy now?

 

[smeezekitty]

And not a word about the amperage requirements on the 12V rail..
While people are burning these cards because their PSUs don't suffice..

Usually with an underpowered supply you would end up frying your PSU, not the card.

Unless it is a really crappy PSU where it could fry the whole system. But that isn't the cards fault.

 

[M-31]

I've been running 2 GTX 970's in SLI mode for 2 weeks now, and I have tell you playing "Sky Rim" or any other game fully maxed out on my Mitsubishi 85" TV is just plain awesome. I'm very, very happy.

 

[Elterrible]

I don't get it, I run a Sapphire Tri-X R9-290 OC and I get 45 FPS in 4K with AA turned off... If that's all the 980 is going to get me with AA, it isn't worth the money as the Aliasing is minimal at that resolution anyway.

 

[Elterrible]

I was waiting for Tom's review to make my final decision, the 980 is definitely going into my current 5960x build! I cant wait.

EVGA 4 Gig 980 is $569 on Amazon right now... I have one in my cart but, I cannot justify the price at the moment.

 

[Elterrible]

I want a 970, wow!
That's some flat out insane price / performance ratio right there!

The R9-290 line has similar performance for less money and it is easier to get. Not sure why everyone is going crazy over this thing when it just flat out costs more.

 

[MasterMace]

I want a 970, wow!
That's some flat out insane price / performance ratio right there!

The R9-290 line has similar performance for less money and it is easier to get. Not sure why everyone is going crazy over this thing when it just flat out costs more.

GTX 970 performs as well as or better than an R9-290. If you're running 2160, you have an argument for the R9-290. But considering the price of a 2160 display, you won't be arguing over this class of cards if you can afford a 2160 in 2014.

 

[Elterrible]

I want a 970, wow!
That's some flat out insane price / performance ratio right there!

The R9-290 line has similar performance for less money and it is easier to get. Not sure why everyone is going crazy over this thing when it just flat out costs more.

GTX 970 performs as well as or better than an R9-290. If you're running 2160, you have an argument for the R9-290. But considering the price of a 2160 display, you won't be arguing over this class of cards if you can afford a 2160 in 2014.

Actually, quite the contrary... I have the Sapphire Tri-X that is OC and matches the 290X performance.

However, I have 2160P for my display because I didn't buy more GPU than I needed.

 

[somebodyspecial]

I want a 970, wow!
That's some flat out insane price / performance ratio right there!

The R9-290 line has similar performance for less money and it is easier to get. Not sure why everyone is going crazy over this thing when it just flat out costs more.

GTX 970 performs as well as or better than an R9-290. If you're running 2160, you have an argument for the R9-290. But considering the price of a 2160 display, you won't be arguing over this class of cards if you can afford a 2160 in 2014.

Actually, quite the contrary... I have the Sapphire Tri-X that is OC and matches the 290X performance.

However, I have 2160P for my display because I didn't buy more GPU than I needed.

And 10 seconds later the 970 guy OC'ed his card to 1400-1500mhz and laughed at lower power and less noise and 10C less temps while running like default 980 speeds or better in some things. Glad you're happy with your purchase, but it's not as equal as you're saying. 290x does not match 980, so all your card does is catch a 970 in many things and maybe wins a few BEFORE that guy OC's his card also, or worse he just buys an OC card for an extra $5 out of the box and does nothing.

IE see below, 970oc Asus STRIX card, hitting 79fps in 1440p (face it most of us are NOT above this) vs. 69fps 290x Mantle, and it's worse without mantle (65fps). This is an AMD Mantle game!
http://techreport.com/review/27203/geforce-gtx-970-cards-from-msi-and-asus-reviewed/4
"Yep, the overclocked Strix 970 exactly matches the performance of a stock-clocked GTX 980, and the tweaked-up MSI 970 is a smidgen faster than that. Let that sink in for a moment."

So while you're catching 290x, 970 is Ocing itself into a whole other league with 980 stock. See the point? At 4K you're not running much on that card maxed out (probably nothing but wimpy games). Anything above 1440/1600p won't be interesting to me until 14nm maybe.

You're implying a 290x or OC'd 290 is ok for 2160P? LOL. You could claim that with TWO of them maybe. Note even in thief above, you're barely running and those aren't min fps. 41fps is not earth shattering, and not mantle actually only hit 40fps (backwards as res rises?). About 20% faster for 970oc vs 290x, so that might have a chance of running above 30fps all day in THIS game, but again, most games can't max at 4K even on 980 (nowhere near max). That article also shows even OC'ed no louder than a whisper, and doing it 35-40w less. WOW. I could go on, but you should get the point here.

 

[TopLuca]

This is off topic , the guy is happy with your purchase while you're bashing AMD , being sarcastic and bashing him.

I find this offensive and unproductive , He's happy with his 4k FPS whether you like it or not .

 

[fraserfroz]

I bought 2 of these 980's when they came out downunder about 2 months ago.all i can say is WOW! The benchmarking FPS on Valley was insane . The temperature of these GPU's were a bit warm( 78-80c)I am now leak testing a custom water cooling loop to help alleviate this problem.

 

[somebodyspecial]

This is off topic , the guy is happy with your purchase while you're bashing AMD , being sarcastic and bashing him.

I find this offensive and unproductive , He's happy with his 4k FPS whether you like it or not .

Who is this directed at? This is a maxwell review and the discussion (right above your comment) is about the compared cards in the review (980/970/290x etc). Who was off topic?

If it was directed at me I said : "Glad you're happy with your purchase, but it's not as equal as you're saying."

My dispute was his claim about the perf, not about his happy purchase. There is nothing wrong with discussing the facts about performance in a review of these cards (whether we're talking 1080p, 4k etc while using them).

If you were offended by something I said, you really need thicker skin I attacked his data/point, not HIM/HER. If your comment was directed at me, I find your comment unproductive and pointless.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg
Note where my comment would land me in that chart, and then take a look at where you're would be (bottom two or three at best?).

For anyone who wants the pic (several sizes in the link above actually):

And if anyone really wants to learn the point of it the chart in detail (too bad more don't follow this for most comments):
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Enjoy your day

 

[4745454b]

Thicker skin? If you aren't sure who he's mentioning why even reply? Easy guys, life is good.

 

[silicondoc_85]

I'm seeing that the extra ROPs helps at the lower resolutions, but the extra cores are needed up at 2160+.

The extra ROPs are to support higher resolution, not help with lower resolution frame rates.

That's not what the benchmarks are showing. The 980 and 970 perform very well at 1080, but slow down heavily on the 2160 benchmark compared to the 780ti etc.

I'm seeing a consistent 7% performance difference between the GTX 980 and GTX 780 Ti at 1080 versus 2160 resolutions. Therefore no relative difference, they both incur the same hit. The 290X gives a strong showing, going from -19% to -10% when you bump up the resolution.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/26.html

A strong showing is still a loss for amd's 290x, as well as a big big big loss after overclocking, since the 970 was knocked down to lowest release rate for the tests, and OC's are sky high, while the 290x is already stretched and oc hammered in comparison.

A "strong showing" is A BIG FAT LOSS in reality.

 

[loki1944]

3.5GB issue is why I prefer the 290X to the 970, that way I don't have to worry about stuttering. http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-geforce-gtx-970-vram-stress-test.html. I'd rather have lower FPS and smooth gameplay than higher fps and stuttering.