Need GTX 980 vs 970 benchmarks.
Tags:
-
Graphics Cards
Last response: in Components
Dawis67_AE
September 19, 2014 3:09:42 AM
In Norway GTX 980 costs 5000kr but 970 only 3000kr. You dont need to know the currency to tell that GTX 980 almost double as expensive. I wana know the compatison on these 2 cards. I will be probably overclocking . My idea is to maybe get 970 and then later on SLI it or maybe i should just 1 980. IDK
More about : gtx 980 970 benchmarks
-
Reply to Dawis67_AE
Dawis67_AE
September 19, 2014 3:49:58 AM
Related resources
- GTX 980ti/980/970 vs R9 390x/380x - Tech Support
- Gtx 980 vs 970? - Tech Support
- GTX 980 vs GTX 780 Ti and GTX 970 vs GTX 780 - Tech Support
- GTX 980 vs. GTX 970 SLI - Tech Support
- GTX 970 vs 980 main difference please? - Tech Support
Dawis67_AE said:
VincentP said:
GTX 980 is about 20% faster than GTX 970.This could be important at 2560x1440 resolution, not so much at 1920x1080.
Well i am gonna have 1080p monitor.
Then the GTX 970 is a better choice. The GTX 980 would be over kill.
You will find most of the published benchmarks are at 2560x1440 because neither of these cards has any trouble at 1920x1080.
-
Reply to VincentP
m
0
l
Dawis67_AE
September 19, 2014 4:10:28 AM
VincentP said:
Dawis67_AE said:
VincentP said:
GTX 980 is about 20% faster than GTX 970.This could be important at 2560x1440 resolution, not so much at 1920x1080.
Well i am gonna have 1080p monitor.
Then the GTX 970 is a better choice. The GTX 980 would be over kill.
You will find most of the published benchmarks are at 2560x1440 because neither of these cards has any trouble at 1920x1080.
Not a the moment, but i wont be upgrading in 3-4 years at least and i want to maintain at least 60+ fps on all upcomming games when playing on high/ultra. Not so sure if it will be overkill.
-
Reply to Dawis67_AE
m
0
l
Get the 980. ALWAYS better to have to much then not enough. The more you have now the more options you are left open for later in Upgrades. The 980 beats the 290x of that gives you an idea of speed so even at 1080p if you wanted a 144hz monitor like one I game on the extra horse power is very much so necessary to maintain 120+fps. So I say get the 980 so you won't be regretting it later.
-
Reply to azzazel_99
m
0
l
Dawis67_AE
September 19, 2014 4:39:15 AM
Dawis67_AE said:
VincentP said:
Dawis67_AE said:
VincentP said:
GTX 980 is about 20% faster than GTX 970.This could be important at 2560x1440 resolution, not so much at 1920x1080.
Well i am gonna have 1080p monitor.
Then the GTX 970 is a better choice. The GTX 980 would be over kill.
You will find most of the published benchmarks are at 2560x1440 because neither of these cards has any trouble at 1920x1080.
Not a the moment, but i wont be upgrading in 3-4 years at least and i want to maintain at least 60+ fps on all upcomming games when playing on high/ultra. Not so sure if it will be overkill.
So you pay almost double now for a 20% performance improvement so that you don't have to upgrade for a little bit longer, but in two years time you could just upgrade to something significantly better with the money you saved with the cheaper card now.
"Future proofing" is never a good reason to buy a top of the line product at an exponentially more expensive price. The only legitimate reason is if you need the extra performance before some reasonable replacement will be available.
-
Reply to VincentP
m
0
l
20% is alot when it comes to gaming. So Instead of getting what's gonna get you 70-80 fps in games like bf4 now which is rather demanding as is watch dogs when next years games come out that demand more than watch dogs you maybe barely pulling 50-60 fps where that extra power from the 980 May save you. I have seen this countless times over the last 10 years with gpu's. Or maybe you decide in a few mo the to get that 144hz monitor and even maybe the asus 144hz 1440p monitor..... The 970 May not have enough juice to let you enjoy that monitor the way you want too. However the 980's stock 20% increase in performance (even higher once overclocked) over the 970 will very well give you the extra boost you need to game how you want to game. I'm not saying it's gonna last you 6 years from now but it opens the upgrade path for other hardware you might decide to add. That's why I said it's ALWAYS a better to have a little extra than too little. Also the 980 isn't "top of the line" in terms of top performance.
-
Reply to azzazel_99
m
0
l
Dawis67_AE
September 19, 2014 5:15:20 AM
azzazel_99 said:
20% is alot when it comes to gaming. So Instead of getting what's gonna get you 70-80 fps in games like bf4 now which is rather demanding as is watch dogs when next years games come out that demand more than watch dogs you maybe barely pulling 50-60 fps where that extra power from the 980 May save you. I have seen this countless times over the last 10 years with gpu's. Or maybe you decide in a few mo the to get that 144hz monitor and even maybe the asus 144hz 1440p monitor..... The 970 May not have enough juice to let you enjoy that monitor the way you want too. However the 980's stock 20% increase in performance (even higher once overclocked) over the 970 will very well give you the extra boost you need to game how you want to game. I'm not saying it's gonna last you 6 years from now but it opens the upgrade path for other hardware you might decide to add. That's why I said it's ALWAYS a better to have a little extra than too little. Also the 980 isn't "top of the line" in terms of top performance.yes...But i wana see benchmarks. I just cant find good picture with benchmarks.
-
Reply to Dawis67_AE
m
0
l
Best solution
Article with a full description of the cards and benchmarks in 8 different games:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx...
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx...
-
Reply to VincentP
Share
Rather impressive for oh god are their setups all over the place. There is no consistency with their gpu setups which kinda makes me question their testing at all. Also o. The bf4 testing their screen shot shows 4k res but the. Their chart shows 1440p so which is it? Some tests they did sli 780ti's others they didn't. Are their 780's and it's reference or are they aftermarket like one of their 980's were. No consistency at all. I would wait till toms does their testing with good consistent setups.
-
Reply to azzazel_99
m
0
l
azzazel_99 said:
Rather impressive for oh god are their setups all over the place. There is no consistency with their gpu setups which kinda makes me question their testing at all. Also o. The bf4 testing their screen shot shows 4k res but the. Their chart shows 1440p so which is it? Some tests they did sli 780ti's others they didn't. Are their 780's and it's reference or are they aftermarket like one of their 980's were. No consistency at all. I would wait till toms does their testing with good consistent setups.Tom's article with benchmarks has been posted:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-...
Guru3D results gave an idea of performance.
Any benchmarks have their limitations. Toms' hardware benchmarks include 1080p results where the cards are platform limited and then 4K, but not 2560x1440 which would be the most common resolution to use these cards. The percentage results in the conclusion seem to include the platform limited benchmarks which makes the average improvment seem lower than it is.
-
Reply to VincentP
m
0
l
Dawis67_AE
September 19, 2014 9:02:35 AM
VincentP said:
azzazel_99 said:
Rather impressive for oh god are their setups all over the place. There is no consistency with their gpu setups which kinda makes me question their testing at all. Also o. The bf4 testing their screen shot shows 4k res but the. Their chart shows 1440p so which is it? Some tests they did sli 780ti's others they didn't. Are their 780's and it's reference or are they aftermarket like one of their 980's were. No consistency at all. I would wait till toms does their testing with good consistent setups.Tom's article with benchmarks has been posted:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-...
Guru3D results gave an idea of performance.
Any benchmarks have their limitations. Toms' hardware benchmarks include 1080p results where the cards are platform limited and then 4K, but not 2560x1440 which would be the most common resolution to use these cards. The percentage results in the conclusion seem to include the platform limited benchmarks which makes the average improvment seem lower than it is.
Great benchmarks, but only bad thing about it is that i will be using 4790k and 8gb DDR3 ram.
Also not sure if benchmarks are made on max possible since it stands there "high" on most games.
Also weird thing is that 780ti outperforms 980 in Ubisofts open world games, spesificly AC Black Flag and Watch Dogs. I wonder why is that?
-
Reply to Dawis67_AE
m
0
l
-
Reply to RobCrezz
m
0
l
Dawis67_AE
September 19, 2014 9:12:47 AM
In the 1080p AC Black Flag benchmark, the GTX 970, R9 290, GTX 980, R9 290X and GTX 780 Ti results are all pretty much the same. Something in the platform or game is limiting performance to 60 FPS. None of these cards is noticeably faster in this benchmark.
Arma 3 is also clearly limited by the platform or game.
In Watch Dogs, the average frame rate of the GTX 780 Ti and GTX 980 are the same. The minimum for the GTX 980 is lower. If I were running the test I would run it again in case it was just a one off. The drivers are also not as mature for this card as the older GTX 780 Ti.
If you exclude AC Black Flag and Arma 3, the GTX 980 is 13.7% faster than the GTX 970 at 1080p. To me, this isn't worth the price difference.
Arma 3 is also clearly limited by the platform or game.
In Watch Dogs, the average frame rate of the GTX 780 Ti and GTX 980 are the same. The minimum for the GTX 980 is lower. If I were running the test I would run it again in case it was just a one off. The drivers are also not as mature for this card as the older GTX 780 Ti.
If you exclude AC Black Flag and Arma 3, the GTX 980 is 13.7% faster than the GTX 970 at 1080p. To me, this isn't worth the price difference.
-
Reply to VincentP
m
0
l
Dawis67_AE
September 20, 2014 6:56:42 AM
VincentP said:
In the 1080p AC Black Flag benchmark, the GTX 970, R9 290, GTX 980, R9 290X and GTX 780 Ti results are all pretty much the same. Something in the platform or game is limiting performance to 60 FPS. None of these cards is noticeably faster in this benchmark.Arma 3 is also clearly limited by the platform or game.
In Watch Dogs, the average frame rate of the GTX 780 Ti and GTX 980 are the same. The minimum for the GTX 980 is lower. If I were running the test I would run it again in case it was just a one off. The drivers are also not as mature for this card as the older GTX 780 Ti.
If you exclude AC Black Flag and Arma 3, the GTX 980 is 13.7% faster than the GTX 970 at 1080p. To me, this isn't worth the price difference.
I agree it isnt worth, but i think 200usd difference is because in the middle 970ti might come, but idk.
Anyways, at least in Norway MSI gtx 980 costs 5100kr and 1 EVGA GTX 970 ACX costs 2800. So basically you can pay 500kr more than MSI 980 and get 970 SLI. I dont quite understand the pricing there, but fine. I am getting 970 most likely. Although the only reason that i want 980 is because its better and i have that hype to go for the best and not look for the price....NO DAWIS DONT.
-
Reply to Dawis67_AE
m
0
l
Dawis67_AE said:
VincentP said:
In the 1080p AC Black Flag benchmark, the GTX 970, R9 290, GTX 980, R9 290X and GTX 780 Ti results are all pretty much the same. Something in the platform or game is limiting performance to 60 FPS. None of these cards is noticeably faster in this benchmark.Arma 3 is also clearly limited by the platform or game.
In Watch Dogs, the average frame rate of the GTX 780 Ti and GTX 980 are the same. The minimum for the GTX 980 is lower. If I were running the test I would run it again in case it was just a one off. The drivers are also not as mature for this card as the older GTX 780 Ti.
If you exclude AC Black Flag and Arma 3, the GTX 980 is 13.7% faster than the GTX 970 at 1080p. To me, this isn't worth the price difference.
I agree it isnt worth, but i think 200usd difference is because in the middle 970ti might come, but idk.
Anyways, at least in Norway MSI gtx 980 costs 5100kr and 1 EVGA GTX 970 ACX costs 2800. So basically you can pay 500kr more than MSI 980 and get 970 SLI. I dont quite understand the pricing there, but fine. I am getting 970 most likely. Although the only reason that i want 980 is because its better and i have that hype to go for the best and not look for the price....NO DAWIS DONT.
The top card will always be priced high simply because it is the best.
The GTX 970 is much better value.
There will no doubt be a faster card made on the Maxwell architecture later and once that happens the GTX 980 won't be so expensive anymore.
The GTX 780 was $800 in Australia when first released. Because of the R9 290X and GTX 780 Ti its price had dropped to $550 before the GTX 970 and GTX 980 had been released.
-
Reply to VincentP
m
0
l
Related resources
- SolvedIm in some deep dung, GTX 980 SLI vs 970 3-way SLI solution
- GTX 970 vs GTX 980 SLI comparison solution
- Gtx 970 vs 980 Forum
- GTX 970 Vs 980 solution
- gtx 970 vs 980 solution
- GTX 980 vs GTX 970 solution
- Dual GTX 970 VS Single GTX 980 solution
- GTX 970oc vs GTX 980 What to Get? solution
- GTX 980 vs 970? solution
- GTX970 3-way sli vs GTX980 2way SLI solution
- GTX970 in SLI vs GTX980 solution
- GTX 970 sli vs GTX 980 Forum
- SolvedGtx 970 Sli Brand + gtx 980 ti ? soon solution
- SolvedWill AMD A10 6800k bottleneck a GTX 970 or 980 solution
- SolvedNvidia Geforce 980 and I5-4690k vs Nvidia Geforce 970 and I7-4790k solution
- More resources
Read discussions in other Components categories
!