980 Vs Nano

[Radox-0]

A few have said that a water cooled nano is the only way to really get full power out of it, dose that mean the quietness is it only drawback as its not cooling it right?

How badly dose the card throttle on new games at say 1440 under the stock fan?

The stock fan profile is very quiet and silent which as a result leads to abit of throttling with my pair of Nano's to around the 900 MHz mark. You can of course trade performance for noise and ramp up the fan to maintain a 1000mhz no issue and even then the noise is fairly reasonable.

Once I moved mine to under water you get the benefits of both silence and low temps basically and I found I was able to overclock it further.

the Nano handily out performs the Gtx 980. Heck at times and in some recent titles starts getting close to my Titan x's. Not seeing any driver issues thus far either.

For coil whine both my Nano's have some. Tad annoying as under water it's more noticeable but as I cap it mostly to 60fps not the worst issue.

But yeah at this stage may be worth while seeing what comes out soon

 

[tommybhoy]

Nano>980

It looks like he has now completely sold his soul to Nvidia and recommending a lower powered card an easy life, all for a few GW effects.

Rrgardless of the politics involved with Nv's black box, some of us simply had enough mate, just want the least fuss to play some games.

 

[JediFragger]

Nano>980



Rrgardless of the politics involved with Nv's black box, some of us simply had enough mate, just want the least fuss to play some games.

+1

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Its all ******** - The Division despite being a much pumped Nvidia sponsored title for Gameworks by the NV friendly studio,Ubisoft,ended up doing very well on AMD cards even with Gameworks effects activated and with them off,was destroying Nvidia cards even with game ready drivers.

Only the GTX980TI seems to have held it's own,but the others getting histerical about Gameworks like a religion now are ignoring all the Nvidia sponsored games which are running fine on AMD hardware and have backed themselves into a corner,meaning if they say otherwise it means they were wrong,so need to keep repeating the same mantra. It was the same rubbish people were parroting about PhysX and 3DVision yonks ago. Gameworks = PhysX for a new generation. Just as bore inducing.

Hence to support their own flawed arguments,they need to give others poor advice.


ARK was the same - Nvidia sponsored and UE4 based and my mates R9 280 ran it better than a faster GTX960 FFS!!

Last year AMD did not sponsor as many games,but for the hysterical lot they appear to be doing so much more now,and I suspect they were holding off until this year and next. Big ****** deal.

Mates with R9 290 and 390 series cards still ran W3 and FO4 fine. I found it so funny when all the Gameworks/PhysX religion followers quietly went silent when all the Kepler based cards tanked in W3 and the AMD owners could actually run the game better than them. Only a few million people affected. Nothing.

Dat' Gameworks effect!

It also seems Ubisoft seem to be getting into bed with AMD a bit more now.

The Nano is a faster card than a GTX980,and with AMD having so much functionality in hardware,once Pascal drops,the GTX980 will get worse and worse as both companies will drop cards to second tier driver status this year.

The people who suggest the GTX980 will be silent in another years time when the GTX980 is being curb stomped by the Nano,and they would have changed their hardware too,so don't really care.

Take away the GTX980TI and Titan X,and the whole Nvidia range under £450 seems to getting slower and slowe relative to the AMD cards even including the Fury ones which seem to have a very unbalanced hardware design.

That is supposedly "Dat' Gameworks Effect" in action.

Also,to the OP if I were you I would seriously consider seeing what Pascal and Polaris brings to the table,unless you really need a graphics card now.

 

[JediFragger]

Its all ******** - The Division despite being a much pumped Nvidia sponsored title for Gameworks by the NV friendly studio,Ubisoft,ended up doing very well on AMD cards even with Gameworks effects activated and with them off,was destroying Nvidia cards even with game ready drivers.

How's that Crossfire coming along? Still broke, really??

Tbf, my comment was aimed at mGPU......mainly because I can!!!

 

[tommybhoy]

Its all ********

There's more to GW's than the few titles you mention, that bull is WORKING and it's getting Nv sales from AMD users.

How's that Crossfire coming along? Still broke, really??

Exactly, I dumped faster cards than what I have now for an easy life because GW's is in the majority of titles I'm playing, if AMD step up their game(or get as dirty as Nv), they'll get some customers back, I can easily shift back to AMD like I did to Nv, but until then, I'll be running green.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

There's more to GW's than the few titles you mention, that bull is WORKING and it's getting Nv sales from AMD users.

Exactly, I dumped faster cards than what I have now for an easy life because GW's is in the majority of titles I'm playing, if AMD step up their game(or get as dirty as Nv), they'll get some customers back, I can easily shift back to AMD like I did to Nv, but until then, I'll be running green.

Dude,I run a midrange GTX960(and had a GTX660 beforehand) - many of the Gameworks titles run worse than the equivalent AMD cards.

I have mates who I game with everything from an HD7850 upto GTX980 cards. I don't need forums to say that "Dat Gameworks Effect" is like all the rubbish PhysX/3DVision crap which was promoted years ago.

You yourself said you only had ATI/AMD from the HD4000 series onwards.

Until the HD5000 series - I used to have rigs running both AMD and Nvidia cards.

Even with all the fluff(exactly the same you are saying now) about Nvidia PhysX/Gameworks 2010 and Nvidia sponsoring "more" games in reality it really didn't make as much difference as people thought.

Go back even earlier to HL2,the hysteria about Nvidia better drivers and games support meant people bought rubbish like the FX when the 9500/9700 series could even when the FX cards couldn't even run DX9 in the game properly.

My experience and that of mates has been opposite to what you are saying.

Conversely I have mates who have R9 290 and R9 390 cards who have no issue,running most of the Nvidia sponsored or Nvidia friendly titles fine.

That includes Nvidia friendly Blizzard titles and so on.

It is hilarious when you hide the fact you had an XFire setup and then moved to a single GTX970 and now say everything is so much better.

Guess what:
1.)I hardly know anybody who has dual cards
2.)Plenty of games don't even support SLI that well now,hence all the complaints about it on forums

You keep parroting the same stuff all the time,and then when you are shown up that it is really not that true,you go la!la!la!la!la!

Now,with Nvidia seemingly not doing as well in a number of titles,and AMD games sponsorship getting into gear this year how is "Dat' Gamework Effect" is all in your head.

The Division is a prime example how Gameworks meant bug all from one of the most NV friendly studios out there. That is why without them the AMD cards ran the game faster and with them,they were no slower,and if you are a GTX960 then tough luck.

You have backed yourself into a corner.

Now while you are worrying about Gameworks I am still waiting for the Async driver Nvidia promised us so I can run Ashes well. Some better performancce drivers for ARK would be good too.

Edit!!

I can see we have totally opposite viewpoints about "Dat' Gameworks Effect" so we will need to agree to disagree.

 

[Panos]

There's more to GW's than the few titles you mention, that bull is WORKING and it's getting Nv sales from AMD users.



Exactly, I dumped faster cards than what I have now for an easy life because GW's is in the majority of titles I'm playing, if AMD step up their game(or get as dirty as Nv), they'll get some customers back, I can easily shift back to AMD like I did to Nv, but until then, I'll be running green.

When I read about Gamesworks etc I laugh. Because same thing started with PhyX. Year one had more games than the next 5 years put together. And total 10 years after PhysX, 55 games supported it, of which only a handfull of major titles (3 of them Batman). The rest were games like plants versus aliens.
However everyone was saying "you will get PhysX with NV cards" on what? 1 game per year? And I had NVidia cards all way to 2014.


DX12 Async Compute, wasn't the one you called as dirty tech, and we do not need console optimization to PC because NVidia doesn't support it?

As for the drivers, pick a GTX780Ti with latest NV drivers, against a 290X with the latest AMD drivers. Lets see who's the fastest, especially in DX12.

 

[tommybhoy]

It is hilarious when you hide the fact you had an XFire setup and then moved to a single GTX970 and now say everything is so much better.

Yet, it is so much better when you run a game and can just play it...

The whole Nv package-NOT just the outright performance, that's what your missing when people like myself and (only going off of this page)Dave who were AMD nuts get fed up and go for the easy option.

Don't know about you, but I jump on games when they release, not going to insult anyone's intelligence and profess Nv get their drivers right, but I prefer the calmness with Nv's release delivery, good luck when/if you go AMD and play the driver tightrope game.

In 1 year of running Nv, I've had no headaches running GW's/AMD titles, on AMD running any GW's titles it was frustrating.

 

[tommybhoy]

DX12 Async Compute, wasn't the one you called as dirty tech, and we do not need console optimization to PC because NVidia doesn't support it?

Nope definitely wasn't me, you are confusing me with the stiff upright Nv users.

As for the drivers, pick a GTX780Ti with latest NV drivers, against a 290X with the latest AMD drivers. Lets see who's the fastest, especially in DX12.

You don't need latest drivers, that happened when the 97/80 released, but that's how Nv roll, and why they are where they are, they make you want to upgrade, Maxwell will crumble too when Pascal hits-of that I was under no illusion.

 

[melmac]

This thread still going?

It's really simple,

If you are staying single card configuration then get the Nano.

If plan to get a second card at later date then get the 980.

or

If you want the latest and greatest, wait, as next gen cards will be out before the end of the year.

 

[Jono8]

I would get neither as new cards will be coming out soon.

But if you have to buy, at today's prices, get the Nano.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yet, it is so much better when you run a game and can just play it...

The whole Nv package-NOT just the outright performance, that's what your missing when people like myself and (only going off of this page)Dave who were AMD nuts get fed up and go for the easy option.

Don't know about you, but I jump on games when they release, not going to insult anyone's intelligence and profess Nv get their drivers right, but I prefer the calmness with Nv's release delivery, good luck when/if you go AMD and play the driver tightrope game.

In 1 year of running Nv, I've had no headaches running GW's/AMD titles, on AMD running any GW's titles it was frustrating.

Yet all my mates also did not get games on release too - oh wait they did.
According to the forum "experts" no way an R9 290 could run Fallout4 at launch especially on a crappy FX8350. Lo and behold I actually saw my mate run the game on his PC and it was fine.

Plus we only need to see how well games like the last Batman and Watchdogs had zero problems on Nvidia cards..yet they did didn't they??

I still remember Metro:Last Light and its graphical issues with Nvidia launch drivers and the 320 branch were the worst branch of drivers I have used in years.

"Dat' PhysX Effect".

Then you have Gameworks titles like The Division despite "game ready drivers" and "Dat' Gameworks Effect" you have a GTX960 with a massive pre-overclock not even beating an R9 380 running at stock.

Then Kepler owners getting shafted and there are millions of them plus all the GTX960 owners too. That same GPU in the GTX960 is in many gaming laptops too. So millions more.

Even the GTX970 is not even consistently beating a repainted R9 290 in Nvidia sponsored games now.

Its frankly an embarassment that a 2.5 year old R9 290 is holding off two generations of Nvidia cards.

The last time AMD did that it was the 9500/9700 era.

Nvidia card performance in The Division is a disaster and it appears one of the most Nv biased studios,ie, Ubisoft are now getting closer to AMD too.

Now with AMD started to sponsor more and more titles,I really hate to think what will happen now.

You are getting into a histeria about "Dat' Gameworks Effect" and if the MAIN Gameworks title release this year,ie, The Division is fine,then I think you have just backed yourself in a corner.

I am still waiting for the Async driver for Ashes and who knows maybe "Dat Gameworks Effect" 2016 will make my card run ARK better. "Dat' Gameworks Efect" 2015 seemed a load of fail.

We will need to agree to disagree.

 

[tommybhoy]

No point quoting if you can't absorb what was written in the first place..

The whole Nv package-NOT just the outright performance, that's what your missing

histeria

You should re-read your posts.

 

[Jono8]

Yet all my mates also did not get games on release too - oh wait they did.
According to the forum "experts" no way an R9 290 could run Fallout4 at launch especially on a crappy FX8350. Lo and behold I actually saw my mate run the game on his PC and it was fine.

Plus we only need to see how well games like the last Batman and Watchdogs had zero problems on Nvidia cards..yet they did didn't they??

I still remember Metro:Last Light and its graphical issues with Nvidia launch drivers and the 320 branch were the worst branch of drivers I have used in years.

"Dat' PhysX Effect".

Then you have Gameworks titles like The Division despite "game ready drivers" and "Dat' Gameworks Effect" you have a GTX960 with a massive pre-overclock not even beating an R9 380 running at stock.

Then Kepler owners getting shafted and there are millions of them plus all the GTX960 owners too. That same GPU in the GTX960 is in many gaming laptops too. So millions more.

Even the GTX970 is not even consistently beating a repainted R9 290 in Nvidia sponsored games now.

Its frankly an embarassment that a 2.5 year old R9 290 is holding off two generations of Nvidia cards.

The last time AMD did that it was the 9500/9700 era.

Nvidia card performance in The Division is a disaster and it appears one of the most Nv biased studios,ie, Ubisoft are now getting closer to AMD too.

Now with AMD started to sponsor more and more titles,I really hate to think what will happen now.

You are getting into a histeria about "Dat' Gameworks Effect" and if the MAIN Gameworks title release this year,ie, The Division is fine,then I think you have just backed yourself in a corner.

I am still waiting for the Async driver for Ashes and who knows maybe "Dat Gameworks Effect" 2016 will make my card run ARK better. "Dat' Gameworks Efect" 2015 seemed a load of fail.

We will need to agree to disagree.

Fallout 4 is a bad example seen as the 970 stomps all over the 290

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/fallout_4_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html

 

[stulid]

Even a raging Nvidia lover like myself can see the Nano is generally quicker and currently there is one £20 less than the cheapest GTX980 here.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

No point quoting if you can't absorb what was written in the first place..

You probably need to actually follow that line yourself.

You are just trying to justify your purchase and since you ditched your card a year ago,then in the end you are in denial that plenty of Nvidia owners have issues with their games too,and conversely plenty of AMD owners don't have all the issues you seem to repeating in every thread.

It is not so black and white as you make it out to be.

You should re-read your posts.

You are one is hysterical,since you keep repeating it in EVERY one of these kind of threads.



Like I said we should agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Fallout 4 is a bad example seen as the 970 stomps all over the 290

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/fallout_4_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html

I quoted it for a reason - that was one game that "ran worse" so AMD was instacrap.

Except,the forum experts sadly forgot that the engine has issues running over 60FPS as the physics is tied to framerate.

Hence,all the high end cards are easily hitting 60FPS.

Edit!!

I am going in circles now,and I have said what I wanted to say.

Been informed I need to get off my lazy arse,stop argueing on the internet and do some "spring cleaning!"

 

[ICDP]

Yet, it is so much better when you run a game and can just play it...

Tell that to everyone who had serious issues with W3 drivers. I had a 980 when W3 was released and I ended up using the pre release day drivers because of the multitude of utter crap drivers from Nvidia that cause kernel errors.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/3azgik/anyone_having_the_witcher_3_crash_using_drivers/

Do a google search for Nvidia Windows Kernel mode error. Their W3 gameday drivers were appalling.

The whole Nv package-NOT just the outright performance, that's what your missing when people like myself and (only going off of this page)Dave who were AMD nuts get fed up and go for the easy option.

Over the past few years I have had mostly Nvidia hardware and in no way does it equate to an easier life overall. It's basically swings and roundabouts and I had plenty of issues with SLI and even single Nvidia GPUs. It's the old grass is always greener BS and it's pathetic to watch people complaining their CF AMD setup was crap compared to their single Nvidia GPU.

Don't know about you, but I jump on games when they release, not going to insult anyone's intelligence and profess Nv get their drivers right, but I prefer the calmness with Nv's release delivery, good luck when/if you go AMD and play the driver tightrope game.

Hyperbole much? The last time I had actual issues with AMD driver performance was with FO4 and clock jumping with the Crimson drivers. Like I said swings and roundabouts because the last AAA game I played using Nvidia was W3 and the Nvidia release day drivers for it were woeful as were the subsequent "fixes" a few months later. Guess what, both issues were fixed by going to earlier versions of their respective vendor drivers.

In 1 year of running Nv, I've had no headaches running GW's/AMD titles, on AMD running any GW's titles it was frustrating.

If you had a Crossfire AMD setup it is not fair to compare against single Nvidia GPU. My experience with Gameworks on W3 was appalling considering it absolutely destroyed performance with Hairworks until the devs released a slider for the overdone tessellation and SSAA.

Basically it's all swings and roundabouts as my experiences with both AMD and Nvidia has shown they can both have their problems. But for you to complain that AMD multi GPU was crap compared to single GTX970 shows you are incapable of logical thought.

It's ironic to see one of the full on AMD fanboys flip flopping to Nvidia because he happens to own Nvidia now. It quite laughable frankly.

 

[Snypa]

Forum section = Graphics Cards
Title = 980 vs NANO
Question = there is only £15 is the cost so when it comes down to it what as the better GPU power?

I don't know how much more clear it could be?

Proof reading is generally a good skill to employ when communicating via text. Especially if you're defending your own writing in a sarcastic manner

In terms of the Question. Nano, easy. Next?

 

[Jono8]

You probably need to actually follow that line yourself.

You are just trying to justify your purchase and since you ditched your card a year ago,then in the end you are in denial that plenty of Nvidia owners have issues with their games too,and conversely plenty of AMD owners don't have all the issues you seem to repeating in very thread.

It is not so black and white as you make it out to be.


You are one is hysterical,since you keep repeating it in EVERY one of these kind of threads.



Like I said we should agree to disagree and leave it at that.



I quoted it for a reason - that was one game that "ran worse" so AMD was instacrap

Except,the forum experts sadly forgot that the engine has issues running over 60FPS as the physics is tied to framerate.

Hence,all the high end cards are easily hitting 60FPS.

But the same could be said for people suddenly thinking AMD are loads better because of some good performance in the 1 or 2 DX12 games that have come out ( but not even all of them - ie Tomb Raider).

I don't really see your point about being amazed that the 290 is still keeping up with the 970. The 970 was always in that ball park area for performance - it sat between the 780 and 780Ti in performance terms.

The 970 was released only 10 months after the 290, and had a £50 cheaper release RRP and was much, much more efficient in power terms (almost half the TDP!). It was pretty much what was to be expected from medium Maxwell without a die shrink.

Sorry, i am just not seeing what you find so amazing about this