NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti Video Card Preview @ [H]

techrat said:
Using a 470 still. Feel no need to upgrade. Would still be on the 275 if it wasn't for that DirectX/Source Engine GPU driver crashing bug.
Click to expand...
Which is why I'm honestly tempted by the 980. I mean, the 660ti (3gb) is sufficient for max/high graphics on most games these days (crap ports aside). If I drop a 980 in there, I'll never have to upgrade this computer again at the rate things are going. the 660ti also has most of the nicer tweaks and tricks (adaptive vsync, fxaa, etc).

Araxie said:
that's correct if you only play minesweeper at 800x600.. =).. even my 780 its crap for actual gaming at 1080P..
Click to expand...

I don't know what games you're playing, but a 780 is going to overkill the majority of games these days. What games are you having issues with at 1080p on a 780?
 
A 660ti maxing most games these days? LOL wut?


Yeah maybe Guacamelee.


Interesting to see how much more the AIB boards with custom coolers will be over the MSRP.
 
Modred189 said:
Which is why I'm honestly tempted by the 980. I mean, the 660ti (3gb) is sufficient for max/high graphics on most games these days (crap ports aside). If I drop a 980 in there, I'll never have to upgrade this computer again at the rate things are going. the 660ti also has most of the nicer tweaks and tricks (adaptive vsync, fxaa, etc).
Click to expand...

I don't know what games are you playing but im strongly sure (i also have a couple of 660TI) that this card in single configuration its barely enough for most recent games at mid/high settings.. its far for max out any recent game.. go straight to the 980TI skip the 980 if possible.. it will last you much more..


Modred189 said:
I don't know what games you're playing, but a 780 is going to overkill the majority of games these days. What games are you having issues with at 1080p on a 780?
Click to expand...

Shadow of Mordor, Far Cry 4, Dragon Age: inquisition, Watch Dogs, GTA V, The Witcher 3 as few examples...
 
chameleoneel said:
eh, it's not all about the absolute high end. Nvidia was way late with the GTX960. We've been able to buy AMD's 280, 285, and 280x for $200/near $200, for months.

Even then, the 960 just meets those much older cards---already begs for a replacement. As it's just not a very compelling offering.
Click to expand...

The problem with AMD/ATI has never been decent hardware at a decent price. It's those damn drivers and general software offerings around the drivers. Those are the real AMD downside. I really wish they were actual competition for nvidia, but they're just not. It gives NVIDIA a near-monopoly, because the competition bar is set so very low.

My roommate got one of the 200$ AMD models last year because it was an "unbeatable" deal at the time because it came with 3 AAA games then. Less than a year later he went back to nvidia, he just couldn't take the driver and instability woes anymore. I've experienced the same thing more than once in my life, in the earlier days before the 8800 GTX (separate topic, but: the nvidia 8800 series was the best card generation ever - I didn't even feel the need to upgrade for 4 years, that's the first and only time that's happened!). Never again.
 
Araxie said:
Shadow of Mordor, Far Cry 4, Dragon Age: inquisition, Watch Dogs, GTA V, The Witcher 3 as few examples...
Click to expand...

Shadows of mordor is mid-high. FC is a crappy port. Don't have DA:I. WD is a crappy port. Don't have GTAV, though that thing craps on any card. Don't have the Witcher 3, but those have never been terribly optimized games.

Is your 780's problems the fact that the games are graphically demanding or crappy ports?
 
Modred189 said:
Shadows of mordor is mid-high. FC is a crappy port. Don't have DA:I. WD is a crappy port. Don't have GTAV, though that thing craps on any card. Don't have the Witcher 3, but those have never been terribly optimized games.

Is your 780's problems the fact that the games are graphically demanding or crappy ports?
Click to expand...



The Witcher 3, GTA V, Shadow of mordor, Dragon Age: Inquisition are all very graphically demanding and those are far of being near 50-60FPS average with the 780 even turning down a lot of settings.. far cry 4 yes its a crap port but the fact that even my R9 280X perform better than the 780 its just an insult..
 
Araxie said:
The Witcher 3, GTA V, Shadow of mordor, Dragon Age: Inquisition are all very graphically demanding and those are far of being near 50-60FPS average with the 780 even turning down a lot of settings.. far cry 4 yes its a crap port but the fact that even my R9 280X perform better than the 780 its just an insult..
Click to expand...

AH. And therein lies a difference in our gauges (inevitable considering the conversation): we have different standards. I aim for, and am entirely happy with, 30-40fps. I just can't tell the difference at 60fps. Maybe I'm lucky that way. But fair enough.
 
Araxie said:
that's correct if you only play minesweeper at 800x600.. =).. even my 780 its crap for actual gaming at 1080P..
Click to expand...

30" monitor at 2560x1600. I tend to sit up while playing so it's more comfortable to simply size my playing area to what I can see in the center of my vision. Minimal neck turning and looking around while missing a different part of the screen... Because of this, I tend to kick down the windowed resolution so I can max out the eyecandy to make up for the lower overall gameplay resolution.

This means I tend to play at around 1400 or 1600 wide... which is damn near the area of my 1080 monitor at 22"
 
I'll look forward to $300 something vanilla 980's for SLI. I think that will carry me till my X99 system's retirement.
 
Modred189 said:
AH. And therein lies a difference in our gauges (inevitable considering the conversation): we have different standards. I aim for, and am entirely happy with, 30-40fps. I just can't tell the difference at 60fps. Maybe I'm lucky that way. But fair enough.
Click to expand...

You should be happy. I can easily see the difference between 60 and 75 fps which makes me to target that. For that reason current 60 Hz 4K screens are out of the question. I can easily live with 75 Hz screen though.
 
Tup3x said:
You should be happy. I can easily see the difference between 60 and 75 fps which makes me to target that. For that reason current 60 Hz 4K screens are out of the question. I can easily live with 75 Hz screen though.
Click to expand...

My enjoyment of the mediocre has its benefits. Scotch is much easier on the wallet as a result!
 
Modred189 said:
My enjoyment of the mediocre has its benefits. Scotch is much easier on the wallet as a result!
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Yes!

I'm in this boat. I got a 3440x1440 60Hz screen and I don't want to know what it's like past 60. :) Imagine the rig required for that. I just don't want to know. I'm good down to around 50Hz.
 
Last edited:
Stoly said:
Indeed. But the 390x is not to compete with the 980Ti (its still hawaii based). That will be Fury,or whatever it ends up being named.
Click to expand...

390X is Fiji .

I still find it odd that Nvidia would release a new card which competes directly with their flagship card for half the price.
 
Last edited:
Pieter3dnow said:
390X is Fiji .

I still find it odd that Nvidia would release a new card which comes competes directly with their flagship card for half the price.
Click to expand...

I expect they have a good idea of where the 390X will be in regards to price and performance.
 
Anyone remember when you could get a kickass video card for $200?
 
The Titan X gave AMD a lot of pricing room. The 980ti gives them much less.

NVIDIA could probably sell these chips for $200 and still make a profit. They are just building up bank until they feel like releasing Pascal which is probably ready to go.
 
PRIME1 said:
The Titan X gave AMD a lot of pricing room. The 980ti gives them much less.

NVIDIA could probably sell these chips for $200 and still make a profit. They are just building up bank until they feel like releasing Pascal which is probably ready to go.
Click to expand...

Yep. Seems like Nvidia always has a next gen part locked and loaded and ready to fire at a moment's notice.

Dark days ahead for team Red.
 
Looking forward to the review. Also to AMD's response, if anything, Fury has to be exceptional for them, since the 290 series was quite some time ago
 
tajoh111 said:
The die of the gtx 960 is only 227mm2.

The r9 285 die size is 359mm2. While the rest of that lineup is 352mm2.

What is closer in regards to that die size is the gtx 970/980 lineup at 398mm2. And this is exactly why Nvidia's lineup doesn't need refreshing.

Nv because of it's performance and branding allows their small die which is akin to the size of the 270x(which is sold at about 150 bucks) to be sold at a higher price than a 285 which has a die size over 50 percent larger than the gtx 960.

And this is exactly why AMD hasn't been making money while Nvidia has been posting record quarters.

AMD inferiority at the moment is what is letting Nvidia make so much money and bump up their product stack.

If AMD was competitive like during the gtx 580/480 generation, the gtx 980 would be named the gtx 960, the gtx titan x would be the gtx 980. Instead we get this garbage situation where we have 1000 dollar cards and AMD's predicament where the only thing beside the console Gpus stops making money and has lead to AMD losing hundreds of millions of dollars a quarter.

If the only thing new in AMD product stack is fiji, they are in trouble. Fiji is not the type of card to be sold at high volume and the rest of Nvidia lineup is way to conservatively clocked that a pricecut or upclock of their cards is all it would take to prevent AMD from selling cards on anything rebranded.
Click to expand...

Nvidia has no problem overcharging one minute and slashing prices the next. Just ask any Titan owner. Nvidia had no need to compete with the Titian at all in the current market. Why do you think they chose to do so now? Quit worrying about AMD's bank account and more why Nvidia is cannibalizing its own high end sales.
It is clearly a preemptive strike and probably for good reason.
 
funkydmunky said:
Nvidia has no problem overcharging one minute and slashing prices the next. Just ask any Titan owner. Nvidia had no need to compete with the Titian at all in the current market. Why do you think they chose to do so now? Quit worrying about AMD's bank account and more why Nvidia is cannibalizing its own high end sales.
It is clearly a preemptive strike and probably for good reason.
Click to expand...
This card doesn't cannibalize Titan X sales that card is a niche that sells to a very specific user who will buy the card unless the 980ti performed exactly the same which ie doesn't. Best possible performance for corner cases not bang for your buck.
 
They dropped the price of the 980 to release this card when they had NO direct competition in that bracket, and now it performs very close to the current high end Titan that also has NO direct competition. How many potential high end Titan buyers are going to switch to the lower cost 980ti? Maybe read THIS thread to find out. LOL.
Preemptive strike bro. If you aren't seeing that you need new glasses.
 
anyone with the money that doesn't care to buy the bigger, greater and better card will still buy Titan X over 980TI.. remember that most people still think "if its more expensive its better"..
 
Pieter3dnow said:
390X is Fiji .

I still find it odd that Nvidia would release a new card which competes directly with their flagship card for half the price.
Click to expand...

Titan X is not a high volume seller due to its price point. Thats why Nvidia launches 980ti (just like 780ti back then).
 
zzzaac said:
Looking forward to the review. Also to AMD's response, if anything, Fury has to be exceptional for them, since the 290 series was quite some time ago
Click to expand...

Fury?? Its Fiji. 390x coming soon. Delayed due to HBM yield.......
 
disemboweler said:
The problem with AMD/ATI has never been decent hardware at a decent price. It's those damn drivers and general software offerings around the drivers. Those are the real AMD downside. I really wish they were actual competition for nvidia, but they're just not. It gives NVIDIA a near-monopoly, because the competition bar is set so very low.

My roommate got one of the 200$ AMD models last year because it was an "unbeatable" deal at the time because it came with 3 AAA games then. Less than a year later he went back to nvidia, he just couldn't take the driver and instability woes anymore. I've experienced the same thing more than once in my life, in the earlier days before the 8800 GTX (separate topic, but: the nvidia 8800 series was the best card generation ever - I didn't even feel the need to upgrade for 4 years, that's the first and only time that's happened!). Never again.
Click to expand...

For me its the opposite.... Those damm Nvidia drivers. I was using AMD/ATI all the time. Bought the first Titan launched because its the fastest. Sold it off after a month. I too couldn't take the driver and instability woes. Now running on a pair of 290. Never felt better than before. Will never ever touch Nvidia again.
 
idmanotic said:
For me its the opposite.... Those damm Nvidia drivers. I was using AMD/ATI all the time. Bought the first Titan launched because its the fastest. Sold it off after a month. I too couldn't take the driver and instability woes. Now running on a pair of 290. Never felt better than before. Will never ever touch Nvidia again.
Click to expand...

csxb.jpg
 
So the 980ti has ~90% of the Titan X performance... yet nVIDIA decided to ONLY ask ~65% of the Titan X price...

Why would nVIDIA do that ?...

I have high hopes for "Fury"...

:)
 
idmanotic said:
For me its the opposite.... Those damm Nvidia drivers. I was using AMD/ATI all the time. Bought the first Titan launched because its the fastest. Sold it off after a month. I too couldn't take the driver and instability woes. Now running on a pair of 290. Never felt better than before. Will never ever touch Nvidia again.
Click to expand...

 
idmanotic said:
Fury?? Its Fiji. 390x coming soon. Delayed due to HBM yield.......
Click to expand...

Latest word is 390x is "enhanced and tuned" Hawaii i.e. 290x and will compete with GTX 980. Fiji will be branded as "Fury" and will compete in the upper echelon with Titan products (and will likely have Titan-like prices). 980 ti will likely sit just below Fiji/Fury in performance.

I'm just hoping AMD uses "Ours is the Fury" on its branding :)
 
Modred189 said:
Shadows of mordor is mid-high. FC is a crappy port. Don't have DA:I. WD is a crappy port. Don't have GTAV, though that thing craps on any card. Don't have the Witcher 3, but those have never been terribly optimized games.

Is your 780's problems the fact that the games are graphically demanding or crappy ports?
Click to expand...

None of those were crappy ports. They were all fantastic games, from the get go, and any issues had easy workarounds, same as the consoles except they got fixed easier and faster.

GTA V is remarkably scalable, you must be judging it based on Rockstar's previous PC efforts. It's almost a flawless port and runs with great graphics on even very old cards.

Witcher 3 is one of the most optimized PC ports ever. 60 FPS on Ultra? And it's one of the best looking, HUGE, games ever made?

No wonder you're fine with that old card. You find ways to justify hating some of the best games around.
 
disemboweler said:
Witcher 3 is one of the most optimized PC ports ever. 60 FPS on Ultra? And it's one of the best looking, HUGE, games ever made?
Click to expand...

As 780Ti owner I can guarantee you that Witcher does not run in 60fps on Ultra (in 1080p) - that is with hairworks off, of course. I am playing with medium grass density, medium shadow quality, high foliage visibility (ultra visibility murders performance like ultra grass in GTA V) and I use 40fps limiter. My GPU usage approaches 90% most of the time.
Calling it "one of the most optimized PC ports ever" is a huge exaggeration, it is a very demanding game.
GTA V is also very demanding, it is not possible to completely max it out and get 60fps in 1080p even on a Titan X.
 
We got off topic here but are there really ports anymore since consoles are miniPCs? Perhaps less features or shittier textures... I don't understand how it could be "less optimized" since it's all x86?

Anyone with SLI will likely look at Titan X's for the VRAM. I hope someone does a good comparison soon of how much it matters. I've gone over 6GB pretty easily with DSR. The 980ti will certainly eat into Titan X sales though.
 
idmanotic said:
For me its the opposite.... Those damm Nvidia drivers. I was using AMD/ATI all the time. Bought the first Titan launched because its the fastest. Sold it off after a month. I too couldn't take the driver and instability woes. Now running on a pair of 290. Never felt better than before. Will never ever touch Nvidia again.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha! All these people desperately justifying their bad investments...

What nvidia driver woes do you speak of? It must've been a hardware issue, cause aside from the Witcher 3 driver that had chrome crashes, there hasn't been anything nearly as bad as every AMD driver they release (and even then, they're months later with optimizations and fixes than NVIDIA). Did you RMA the card or just give up on it, assuming drivers?

Plus you're running in Crossfire, which doesn't even work properly in 75% of games (SLI isn't much better, but it's actually nearly acceptable compared to CrossFire!). There's no way you're playing a variety of high-end games and not have crossfire issues. Or, possibly more likely, you just don't even know what a good experience is, having never given Nvidia a fair shake.

Nvidia is nowhere near perfect, but in comparison, they seem it.

My nvidia cards and drivers have been completely stable for many years (they seem to work fine after games get proper bug fixes, whenever there is an issue, aside from SLI, it's almost always the game itself in the end). With good overclocks to boot. And every friend I have has the same story with Nvidia, and they have also given up on ATI cards at this point - I know cause I'm always the one helping to troubleshoot their issues.

But half the reason I have so few issues is because I always buy the highest end single card (aside from the TITAN, always worth saving that extra cash for the next imminent release that will match the TITANs usually), and never use SLI because I realize that the 2% of the market using SLI is never going to get the attention they need to work well enough for my tastes (stability and performance optimization). Plus I hate microstutter.
 
Dayaks said:
We got off topic here but are there really ports anymore since consoles are miniPCs? Perhaps less features or shittier textures... I don't understand how it could be "less optimized" since it's all x86?

Anyone with SLI will likely look at Titan X's for the VRAM. I hope someone does a good comparison soon of how much it matters. I've gone over 6GB pretty easily with DSR. The 980ti will certainly eat into Titan X sales though.
Click to expand...

What games can you go over 6GB? I can't even think of one aside from Watchdogs that is reasonably capable of going over, and even then, it was at beyond ultra settings and their VRAM usage was way over estimated anyway. Of course I'm using 1080p on a 48" LED, so 4GB has always cut it so far, beyond enough.

Though I realize that as the new consoles mature, multiplatform games will want to use 6GB+ VRAM soon enough. So 6GB is a good choice for future readiness.
 
disemboweler said:
What games can you go over 6GB? I can't even think of one aside from Watchdogs that is reasonably capable of going over, and even then, it was at beyond ultra settings and their VRAM usage was way over estimated anyway. Of course I'm using 1080p on a 48" LED, so 4GB has always cut it so far, beyond enough.

Though I realize that as the new consoles mature, multiplatform games will want to use 6GB+ VRAM soon enough. So 6GB is a good choice for future readiness.
Click to expand...
He mentioned DSR. I have seen over 6GB of VRAM usage when I tested 5k downsampling in a few games, too, which is 7x the pixels of 1080p and 4x the pixels of 1440p.

But 6GB does look to be optimal for 1440p. In newer games I've played like Dying Light, The Witcher 3, and Project CARS, VRAM usage is right around 5GB on my Titan X at 1440p with 32GB of system memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top