Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Reply to this thread

Solved Forum question

Started by Dawis67_AE | | 20 answers
Need GTX 980 vs 970 benchmarks.
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
  • By posting on this site, I confirm I am over 13 years of age and agree to abide by the site’s rules.

a c 158 U Graphics card
September 20, 2014 4:32:41 PM

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.
a c 78 U Graphics card
September 20, 2014 4:26:51 PM

Yeah of course, it isnt a 780 Ti upgrade - its not meant to be. Wait for "big Maxwell" for that. This is the equivalent of the GK104 (680/770).
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.
a c 158 U Graphics card
September 19, 2014 2:05:01 PM

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.
September 19, 2014 9:12:47 AM

Also looking at "verdict" the average performance in 1080p with GTX 970 is only 6% smaller than 780ti and 12% smaller than 980.
Since i will be using 1080p monitor i am not really sure if i should get 980 since the price is around 40% bigger than 970 in Norway.
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?
a c 158 U Graphics card
September 19, 2014 6:24:26 AM

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.
a b U Graphics card
September 19, 2014 6:15:15 AM

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.

See all answers