Still worth buying a GTX 980?

[afyeung]

My issue with their statement is the insinuation that anything will release shortly. 2016 could be almost a year away. I really don't understand the ideology of waiting.

It's mainly to save money for something better. However, given history, it is very unlikely that the gtx1080 will be significantly faster than the 980ti at launch. Maybe 10% at most. 

[SteveGrabowski0]

It's mainly to save money for something better. However, given history, it is very unlikely that the gtx1080 will be significantly faster than the 980ti at launch. Maybe 10% at most. 

 

I don't know man, GTX 680 was about 30%-45% faster than the GTX 580 last node shrink, and the GTX 580 was their big chip equivalent to what is labeled 80Ti or Titan now while the GTX 680 was their upper midrange GK104 chip (they were originally going to call it GTX 670 Ti).

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1348?vs=1350

 

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-680-vs-Nvidia-GTX-580/3148vs3150

[Guest]

Since you do not have a GPU.

 

I'd say get the best deal you can on anything that is a 960/380 + (these will, at bare minimum, tide you over) 

 

then sell it when the new cards are released to recuperate some of the costs. 

 

Doesn't make sense to go a year + without a GPU if you like to game. 

[afyeung]

I don't know man, GTX 680 was about 30%-45% faster than the GTX 580 last node shrink, and the GTX 580 was their big chip equivalent to what is labeled 80Ti or Titan now while the GTX 680 was their upper midrange GK104 chip (they were originally going to call it GTX 670 Ti).

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1348?vs=1350

 

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-680-vs-Nvidia-GTX-580/3148vs3150

That was before they had the Ti and Titan series which was a leg up over the 80 series. At launch, the 980 wasn't much faster than the 780Ti. I think that'll be the case with the 980ti and 1080. However, after the 980ti gets phased out like the 780ti did, the 1080(or whatever they call it), will absolutely crush the 980Ti for less money at launch.

[SteveGrabowski0]

That was before they had the Ti and Titan series which was a leg up over the 80 series. At launch, the 980 wasn't much faster than the 780Ti. I think that'll be the case with the 980ti and 1080. However, after the 980ti gets phased out like the 780ti did, the 1080(or whatever they call it), will absolutely crush the 980Ti for less money at launch.

 

580 was the last big die Fermi card. Titan was the first big die Kepler card. They were able to use the upper midrange smaller die in Kepler in the 80 series card because the node shrink made such an enormous difference, but Titan was the successor to 580, the balls to wall high-end chip. True the Titan had more vram, so I guess you could call the 780 the successor to the 580, though it was cut down while the 580 wasn't. And the 980 wasn't coming off a node shrink. I think you're underestimating what kind of performance gain we could get out of Pascal by projecting only 10%.

[App4that]

I don't know man, GTX 680 was about 30%-45% faster than the GTX 580 last node shrink, and the GTX 580 was their big chip equivalent to what is labeled 80Ti or Titan now while the GTX 680 was their upper midrange GK104 chip (they were originally going to call it GTX 670 Ti).

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1348?vs=1350

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-680-vs-Nvidia-GTX-580/3148vs3150

Look at the relationship between consoles and PCs at the time though. That's what everyone misses. Consoles are already pushed to the breaking point this gen, games won't be getting much more demanding. Mark my words the new GPUs will concentrate on high resolution performance and efficiency. Even if you have a 1440 monitor the difference between the GPUs won't be that great.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Look at the relationship between consoles and PCs at the time though. That's what everyone misses. Consoles are already pushed to the breaking point this gen, games won't be getting much more demanding. Mark my words the new GPUs will concentrate on high resolution performance and efficiency. Even if you have a 1440 monitor the difference between the GPUs won't be that great.

 

I'd be surprised. I'm not an electrical engineer, but as I understand it, smaller transistor = less power draw per transistor, so you can cram more transistors and still get lower power draw. Nvidia got 30%-45% more performance out of the 680 than the 580 while still cutting its power consumption by 50W. Or 90% more performance out of 780 at the same power draw. Nvidia still wants you to upgrade, they'll stop making the 900 series when Pascal nears release.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Look at the relationship between consoles and PCs at the time though. That's what everyone misses.

 

Can you expand on this point though?

[afyeung]

580 was the last big die Fermi card. Titan was the first big die Kepler card. They were able to use the upper midrange smaller die in Kepler in the 80 series card because the node shrink made such an enormous difference, but Titan was the successor to 580, the balls to wall high-end chip. True the Titan had more vram, so I guess you could call the 780 the successor to the 580, though it was cut down while the 580 wasn't. And the 980 wasn't coming off a node shrink. I think you're underestimating what kind of performance gain we could get out of Pascal by projecting only 10%.

Well. Nobody knows how the gaming performance of Pascal will improve over maxwell. Last time, when they moved from big Kepler to Cut down maxwell, the performance increase was around 10% going from the 780ti to 980. Obviously, the performance gap is a lot bigger in newer games since Nvidia stopped caring about Kepler. I'm talking about what will happen at launch. This is just my speculation.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Well. Nobody knows how the gaming performance of Pascal will improve over maxwell. Last time, when they moved from big Kepler to Cut down maxwell, the performance increase was around 10% going from the 780ti to 980. Obviously, the performance gap is a lot bigger in newer games since Nvidia stopped caring about Kepler. I'm talking about what will happen at launch. This is just my speculation.

 

But both Kepler and Maxwell were 28 nm architectures. If Pascal was a 28 nm architecture I'd also expect only incremental improvement. Maybe you end up being right and Nvidia really holds out and only gives us really low power stuff in 2016 and waits for 2017 to release the high performance stuff, but that's really risky since AMD is likely to release balls to wall hardware to try to make up for all the market share they have lost since the mining craze.

[afyeung]

Look at the relationship between consoles and PCs at the time though. That's what everyone misses. Consoles are already pushed to the breaking point this gen, games won't be getting much more demanding. Mark my words the new GPUs will concentrate on high resolution performance and efficiency. Even if you have a 1440 monitor the difference between the GPUs won't be that great.

I agree with your first statement dude. The consoles are already using low end stuff from half a decade ago so it's unlikely that games will look any better on them 5 years from now than they look now. However, what do you mean by even if somebody has a 1440p monitor, the difference between GPUs won't be that great? The 980/980Ti crush the 780/780Ti at 1440p especially in newer games. 

[afyeung]

But both Kepler and Maxwell were 28 nm architectures. If Pascal was a 28 nm architecture I'd also expect only incremental improvement. Maybe you end up being right and Nvidia really holds out and only gives us really low power stuff in 2016 and waits for 2017 to release the high performance stuff, but that's really risky since AMD is likely to release balls to wall hardware to try to make up for all the market share they have lost since the mining craze.

Just because the transistors are smaller doesn't mean more performance unless they add more transistors per die. Even more transistors doesn't mean more performance, the 780ti has 2 billion more transistors than the 980, and the 980 crushes the 780ti. The 6700k is based on the 14nm process while my 5820k is based on 22nm, the 6700k is significantly less powerful than the 5820k. That's why I'm basing my speculation on previous performance increase numbers. I also doubt AMD's new GPUs will be successful unless games start using Asynchronous shaders which is the ONLY advantage AMD has for games. And a total of 0 games currently out use Asynchronous shaders unfortunately.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Just because the transistors are smaller doesn't mean more performance unless they add more transistors per die. Even more transistors doesn't mean more performance, the 780ti has 2 billion more transistors than the 980, and the 980 crushes the 780ti. The 6700k is based on the 14nm process while my 5820k is based on 22nm, the 6700k is significantly less powerful than the 5820k. That's why I'm basing my speculation on previous performance increase numbers. I also doubt AMD's new GPUs will be successful unless games start using Asynchronous shaders which is the ONLY advantage AMD has for games. And a total of 0 games currently out use Asynchronous shaders unfortunately.

 

I guess I base my optimism on architectural improvements combined with the smaller transistors, as well as on how much money Nvidia made out of the 970 being such a huge jump for the 70 series. I surely don't expect a 100% gain in GP100 vs GM200 like we got on GK110 vs GF110 last node shrink though.

[bomerr]

I'd wait for Pascal over buying a new 980. 980 used on eBay i would recommand tho. 

[App4that]

Can you expand on this point though?

Sure, how much use is a two foot dick? Graphics cards for most of the general public are used to play video games. If the games aren't more demanding in a year, what use is a more powerful graphics card?

If someone is happy with their current performance in game then upgrading is a waste. If they're not, waiting is fucking stupid. To be blunt.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Sure, how much use is a two foot dick? Graphics cards for most of the general public are used to play video games. If the games aren't more demanding in a year, what use is a more powerful graphics card?

If someone is happy with their current performance in game then upgrading is a waste. If they're not, waiting is fucking stupid. To be blunt.

 

People could ask what use is your 980 Ti at 1080p? I have heard your answer, to run heavily modded games. And it still seems like games are getting harder to run over time, they just run even shittier on the consoles. Just Cause 3, Witcher 3, AC Syndicate, I mean these are heavy duty games you can't come close to maxing out with the 970 or 390.

[afyeung]

Sure, how much use is a two foot dick? Graphics cards for most of the general public are used to play video games. If the games aren't more demanding in a year, what use is a more powerful graphics card?

If someone is happy with their current performance in game then upgrading is a waste. If they're not, waiting is fucking stupid. To be blunt.

Well, there are current games that a single 980Ti(best single GPU on the planet) cannot run maxed. And I know you never have to play everything maxed, but some people insist. Also, at 1440p, you're gonna need 2 980Ti's if you want to maintain high FPS for a high refresh rate. And at 4k, dual 980ti's is recommended. So there is definitely room for a single, more powerful GPU. Current Nvidia GPUs can't even take advantage of Async but Pascal can.

[App4that]

Well, there are current games that a single 980Ti(best single GPU on the planet) cannot run maxed. And I know you never have to play everything maxed, but some people insist. Also, at 1440p, you're gonna need 2 980Ti's if you want to maintain high FPS for a high refresh rate. And at 4k, dual 980ti's is recommended. So there is definitely room for a single, more powerful GPU. Current Nvidia GPUs can't even take advantage of Async but Pascal can.

I've run Witcher 3 maxed, even Hairworks at 1440 and never dip below 60fps. But your point is on point that it really depends on the monitor being used, and I have yet to see someone advising someone to wait ask.

[App4that]

People could ask what use is your 980 Ti at 1080p? I have heard your answer, to run heavily modded games. And it still seems like games are getting harder to run over time, they just run even shittier on the consoles. Just Cause 3, Witcher 3, AC Syndicate, I mean these are heavy duty games you can't come close to maxing out with the 970 or 390.

Actually those games were just rushed to market, other than AMD they run fine on a 390/970. And we run into optimization. Should we really treat the problem by addressing the symptom?

[afyeung]

I've run Witcher 3 maxed, even Hairworks at 1440 and never dip below 60fps. But your point is on point that it really depends on the monitor being used, and I have yet to see someone advising someone to wait ask.

Yeah. Wasn't really talking about witcher 3 which is one of the best optimized games for PC. Glad it runs like a dream on your PC Mainly games like Crysis 3 and GTA 5 which are really hard to run maxed. But the main thing I don't like about powerful hardware is that it gives developers an excuse to be lazy and not optimize them as well. Although we do enjoy higher framerates/resolution, games should also be looking a lot better than they do on console with PC. 

[bomerr]

I've run Witcher 3 maxed, even Hairworks at 1440 and never dip below 60fps. But your point is on point that it really depends on the monitor being used, and I have yet to see someone advising someone to wait ask.

idk about that. I played the Witcher 3 at 1440p on my 980 (oc'd) and avg'd 45-50 fps with dips to 40. With a 980 TI OC'd you should be just barely avg 60 and definitely having dips below that. 

[App4that]

idk about that. I played the Witcher 3 at 1440p on my 980 (oc'd) and avg'd 45-50 fps with dips to 40. With a 980 TI OC'd you should be just barely avg 60 and definitely having dips below that.

Big difference is my CPU, which is a overclocked 4790k. Can't stress enough how important that is. But my 980ti doesn't even sit at 100% while running Witcher maxed. Though it does boost to its 1366 boost speed.

[Nena Trinity]

I consider the best value cards to be 390, Fury or 980Ti...

[App4that]

I consider the best value cards to be 390, Fury or 980Ti...

You're right on the 390 and 980ti, the Fury is a joke.

[bomerr]

Big difference is my CPU, which is a overclocked 4790k. Can't stress enough how important that is. But my 980ti doesn't even sit at 100% while running Witcher maxed. Though it does boost to its 1366 boost speed.

I have a 5820k OC'd to 4.4Ghz. It doesn''t even matter cuz Novigrad is the only CPU intensive area in that game and my dips were in the open world areas.

 

GPU not running 100% tells me something is really wrong with your setup cuz Witcher 3 is the Crisis of this generation and pushes every GPU to it's limit.