Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 8,578
- Location
- Lincolnshire
980 is faster, if you have the money, why not
Faster than a Ti O/C version though?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
** MASSIVE NVIDIA PRICE DROP!!! **
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
Faster than a Ti O/C version though?
More than SLI tbh. Let's face it, at 1080p the 780 is an epic card. And it's over £30 cheaper than the 970 and the 970 will net you practically nothing at this res.
As I've already mentioned, stepping up to 4k or surround the 780 actually works out the better card.
980 is faster, if you have the money, why not
Because again the 980 is hobbled with a 256 bit bus. So once you hit the big resolutions the 780ti comes out in front.
TBH I don't even know what Nvidia were thinking when they made the 980. Sure it's faster than the 970 but costs way more and still has the 256 bit bus, making it not so good for 4k.
It's like both are rather confused 1080p cards saying "What the eff are we doing in the market? no idea !!"
I reckon Nvidia have had some luck on cheaper smaller dies again (like they did with the 670 etc) and are milking it.
The 980 and 970 are clearly not high end cards.
If you o/c the 980 yes, i would say most people are getting at least 1500 on core on air. Which measures up very well against TI running at high clock speed.
Also there is probably more to come from drivers. Whole new architecture. The 980 TI and Titan 2 are going to be beasts i think.
They are if you aren't focused on 4k, and if I was looking for 4k cards the only real choice you have is a TITAN atm.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/09/18/nvidia_maxwell_gpu_geforce_gtx_980_video_card_review/12#.VB__bvldU1I
Seems to suggest the 4k performance is at least on a par with the TI. The compression they are doing seems to be working very well. And there is always the possibility these results could get better for the 980 in comparison tot the TI.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,211
It is going to be interesting to see what AMD has up their sleeves. 512 bit is juicy! Lets hope it doesn't need a nuclear power plant to power it up like the current AMD cards. I hope for a good competition between AMD and Nvidia! Thank you for pointing me to that thread
.That's one game and one test.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_970_SLI/1.html
Go through those results. Even in Batman the 970s lose, which usually never happens on Nvidia.
I would imagine that if you compared 780ti to 980 at 4k the results would be pretty much the same as the 970 vs the 295x2.
It all comes down to price. Right now the 780 is pricing out the 970 IMO. If the Ti can do the same then I would have those.
The issue though is that we are all focussed on 4k because it's the future.
Every high end card recently has been put into a multi GPU config and tested in 4k.
So Nvidia have released a card that isn't so hot for 4k.. Which is odd IMO.
As I said, I reckon it's another cheap GPU that they're rinsing.
Oddly enough a few years back I read an article saying that Nvidia needed to stop making kitchen sink dies and focus on smaller, cheaper ones that clock higher and most importantly - sell. They seem to have been doing just that.
And yeah, Titan comes into its own with the higher memory bus *and* the larger vram. The last thing Nvidia will do here is make the Titan pointless because they have nothing to truly replace it with yet.
And that's why I bought Titans. Sure, at £690 each they weren't cheap but I get to shrug off this release completely. Maybe at the next one I'll feel some remorse for buying them but I doubt it. They will be no less useful even if the newer one is much faster.
I bought them with 4k in mind, which is what people should be doing now.
I'm certainly not. By the time a 4k monitor comes along with more than 60hz I'll either have new cards or will buy them for that.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,211
I don't think they (NV and AMD) focus too much on 4k either. If they did we would see massive changes there as well by now. I read somewhere that 95% of the people (me included) still are on 1080p so that is still a huge market to be ignored. Why focus on massive 4k when they can milk more out of their products from the current tech they have. I am a bit disappointed that we don't see a massive step towards 4k in the current gen. I hope that AMD with their next gen release will prove me wrong. The main reason why i haven't gone 1440p or more is because i want to run on a single gpu setup and now the gpus are good for 1440p for what i like to play.
Its a few games tested, I must admin I missed the others, just the way the present the information is right. I still think its a bit early to guess what the 4k performance will be until we have a few months behind the drivers. Also it being a dx12 cards will be in the minds of a few especially if they want to keep it for a couple of years +
I think 4k is going to be the ground of 3 to 4 card setups sure old games will run ok in 4k on 2 or even 1 card. But the Witcher 3 and other games will keep pushing what is possible at 1080 at 1440p. This will mean the goal posts are always moving. I think the majority of people unless they want to turn off features will still be playing at 1080 and 1440 for a couple of years yet.