The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti Review
by Ryan Smith on May 31, 2015 6:00 PM ESTSynthetics
As always we’ll also take a quick look at synthetic performance. Being a virtual copy of the GTX Titan X, GTX 980 Ti should perform very similarly here, just as we've seen in our gaming tests.
Compared to GTX Titan X, GTX 980 Ti does technically lose 2 Polymorph Engines as a result of losing 2 SMMs. However as with our games, this doesn’t really hinder GTX 980 Ti, leading it being within a few percent of GTX Titan X on tessellation performance.
As for texel and pixel fillrates, the results are both as-expected and a bit surprising. On the expected side, we see the GTX 980 Ti trail GTX Titan X by a bit, again taking a hit from the SMM loss. On the other hand we’re seeing a larger than expected drop in the pixel fill rates. GTX 980 Ti loses some rasterization throughput from the SMM loss, but a 15% drop in this test is much larger than 2 SMMs. Just to be sure we checked to make sure the ROP/MC configuration of GTX 980 Ti was unchanged at 96 ROPs, so while we can explain 10% or so (GTX 980 Ti doesn't have its clockspeed advantage in such a short test), we're at a loss to fully explain the last 5%. The short run time of the test also makes it more varaible than other tests, so that may be the last 5%.
Though in either case, despite what 3DMark is telling us, we aren’t seeing any signs of GTX 980 Ti struggling at 4K versus GTX Titan X. So if there is a meaningful difference in pixel fillrates, it’s not impacting game performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
290 Comments
View All Comments
Laststop311 - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link
how is 6GB the minimum ram needed till finfet gpus? Even at 1440p with max settings no game requires 6GB of ram. Even if a game can use 6GB of ram the way some games are programmed they just use up extra ram if it is available but that used ram isn't crucial to the operation of the game. So it will show a high ram usage when in reality it can use way less and be fine.You are overly paranoid. 4GB of ram should be just fine to hold u off a year or 2 till finfet gpus comes out for 1440p res. If you are smart you will skip these and just wait for 2h 2016 where 14/16nm finfet gpu's are going to make a large leap in performance. That generation of gpu's should be able to be kept long term with good results. This is when you would want an 8GB card to keep it running smooth for a good 3-4 years, since you should get good lifespan with the first finfet gpu's.
chizow - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link
Again, spoken from the perspective of someone who doesn't have the requisite hardware to test or know the difference. I've had both a 980 and a Titan X, and there are without a doubt, games that run sluggishly as if you are moving through molasses as soon as you turn up bandwidth intensive settings, like MSAA, texture quality and stereo 3D and hit your VRAM limits even with the FRAPs meter saying you should be getting smooth frame rates.With Titan X, none of these problems and of course, VRAM shoots over the 4GB celing I was hitting before.
And why would I bother to keep running old cards that aren't good enough now and wait for FinFET cards that MIGHT be able to run for 3-4 years after that? I'll just upgrade to 14/16nm next year if the difference is big enough, it'll be a similar 18-24 month timeframe when I usually make my upgrades anyways. What am I supposed to do in this year while I wait for good enough GPUs? Not play any games? Deal with 2-3GB slow cards at 1440p? No thanks.
Refuge - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link
So you are saying I shouldn't be asking questions about something I'm spending my hard earned money on? Not a small sum of which at that?You sir should buy my car, it is a great deal, just don't ask me about it. Because that would be stupid!
Yojimbo - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link
He's not questioning your concern, he's questioning your criteria.Peichen - Sunday, May 31, 2015 - link
Why is the most popular mid-high card: GTX 970, not on the comparison list? It is exactly half the price as 980 Ti and it would be great to see if it is exactly 50% the speed and uses half the power as well.dragonsqrrl - Sunday, May 31, 2015 - link
It's definitely more than 50% the performance and power consumption, but yes it would've been nice to include in the charts.PEJUman - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link
Ryan's selection is not random. it seems he selects the likely upgrade candidates & nearest competitors. it's the same reasoning why there is no R9 290 here. most 970 and R9 290 owners probably know how to infer their card performance from the un-harversted versions (980 and 290x).Granted, it's odd to see 580 here and 970 will be more valuable technically.
mapesdhs - Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - link
Plus, most requests I've seen on forums have been for 970 SLI results rather than a 970 on its own, as 970 SLI is the more likely config to come anywhere a 980 Ti, assuming VRAM isn't an issue. Data for 970 SLI would thus show where in the various resolution/detail space one sees performance tail off because it needs more than 4GB.bloodypulp - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link
The 295X2 still crushes it. But blind Nvidia fanboys will claim it doesn't matter because it is either a) not a single GPU or b)AMD (and therefore sucks).PEJUman - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link
I owns 290 crossfire currently, previously a single 780 TI. Witcher 3 still sucks for my 290 CF, as well as the 295X2. so... depends on your game selections. I also have to spend more time customizing most of my games to get the optimal settings on my 290 CF than my 780TI.