Nvidia GTX 980 Ti

[Xsinar]

A lot of this information is very game centric.

So, what about us content creators working on 6K, 8K, or larger compositions and renders where we can offload CPU cycles to our GPU?

Would two of these in SLI with a mild overclock out perform a Titan X or a Titan Z(which seems like an in-card Titan Z SLI)?

Cheers guys,

Brian

 

I guess a Titan X or a Quadro would suit you better, especially since you are working on 8K content.

[Tiber1337]

The price for the 980 ti is higher than that of the 980, so basically he gave them the same score because the 980 ti gives that much extra performance to justify it's price.

 

Here is an example to make it easier, If the 980 performance is 1 and price is $100 and the performance for the 980 ti is 2 and price is $200 then both the cards will have the same score as there is a proportional increase in performance and price.

 

Hope this has helped answer your question 

 

I understood the math part, I just didn't know why Linus said the 980ti or 970 are BETTER bang for buck than the 980, since they have the same score

[camz988]

You know you have issues when you have a perfectly capable 780 then buy a 4K / 60Hz monitor to make it incapable... to justify a GPU upgrade to yourself

 

You know you have issues when you have a 980 SLI setup but are taking photos to make an online listing to get the funds to buy a 980Ti SLI setup

[Xsinar]

I understood the math part, I just didn't know why Linus said the 980ti or 970 are BETTER bang for buck than the 980, since they have the same score

 

 Why not ask the man himself? @LinusTech any comments?

[Samfisher]

I understood the math part, I just didn't know why Linus said the 980ti or 970 are BETTER bang for buck than the 980, since they have the same score

Performance to price ratio my man.

[Tiber1337]

Performance to price ratio my man.

 

Go through the effort of rewatching the video from min 6:40 , Listen to what Linus sais while looking at the chart, and tell me what you hear and see, my man

[RagnarokDel]

what a sneaky release!

[ThePolymath]

I guess a Titan X or a Quadro would suit you better, especially since you are working on 8K content.

Thanks Xsinar.

[euzen01]

WOW!

[Angel Ayanami]

I understood the math part, I just didn't know why Linus said the 980ti or 970 are BETTER bang for buck than the 980, since they have the same score

why becuase for $350 for 1080p gaming is cheap that card should be able to run almost any game on high at 1080p as for the 980ti its one of the cheapest cards on the market that can do 4k gaming at the max settings other then the r9 290x2 but sadly that card not as good as i was hopping it was going to be 

[sgloux3470]

A lot of this information is very game centric.

So, what about us content creators working on 6K, 8K, or larger compositions and renders where we can offload CPU cycles to our GPU?

Would two of these in SLI with a mild overclock out perform a Titan X or a Titan Z(which seems like an in-card Titan Z SLI)?

Cheers guys,

Brian

 

If you're working on content, buy a workstation card.  Not a gaming card.

[Tiber1337]

why becuase for $350 for 1080p gaming is cheap that card should be able to run almost any game on high at 1080p as for the 980ti its one of the cheapest cards on the market that can do 4k gaming at the max settings other then the r9 290x2 but sadly that card not as good as i was hopping it was going to be 

 

Its dead because none of those cards are worth it over nvidia if they are priced that high.

 

Even if they are equal to nvidia in performance and price. I hate to admit that nvidia is more efficient and has a bit better driver support. 

 

AND even if they had equal everything even drivers or efficiency, nvidia would win cuz it its more popular and people trust it more, paying for the brand

[Tairetsu]

Everyone has said this already but there really isn't that much to be said, people who bought a Titan X got screwed completely, at least in 4K, I would imagine that the 12GBs of V-RAM could help in setups with multi-4K monitors and I guess if you are putting 1K towards a GPU you probably have cash to drop on that as well. 

 

But personally now i'm way more interested to see what AMD has to offer, for starters I already like how compact it looks on the teaser pictures and the rumored integrated watercooling is also kinda mindblowing, with AMD recent statements that they are tired of being the cheapo solution I wanna believe their next GPU will be able to compete with Nvidia's and hopefully at a lower price too.

 

Now AMD probably won't gain market share over Nvidia even if they manage to do all that simply for all the software support Nvidia gets, but for people who prefer their offer it would be very beneficial.

 

Edit: btw I would love to see a 980ti SLI vs the Titan X, since I have seen some benchmarks that actually showed the Titan X having at slightly better performance than what you guys got (basically the PCgamer review) but I wanna say that 2 980ti's in SLI could double the performance of the Titan X for only about 300$ more.

[MegaATVLover]

Everyone has said this already but there really isn't that much to be said, people who bought a Titan X got screwed completely, at least in 4K, I would imagine that the 12GBs of V-RAM could help in setups with multi-4K monitors and I guess if you are putting 1K towards a GPU you probably have cash to drop on that as well. 

 

But personally now i'm way more interested to see what AMD has to offer, for starters I already like how compact it looks on the teaser pictures and the rumored integrated watercooling is also kinda mindblowing, with AMD recent statements that they are tired of being the cheapo solution I wanna believe their next GPU will be able to compete with Nvidia's and hopefully at a lower price too.

 

Now AMD probably won't gain market share over Nvidia even if they manage to do all that simply for all the software support Nvidia gets, but for people who prefer their offer it would be very beneficial.

 

Edit: btw I would love to see a 980ti SLI vs the Titan X, since I have seen some benchmarks that actually showed the Titan X having at slightly better performance than what you guys got (basically the PCgamer review) but I wanna say that 2 980ti's in SLI could double the performance of the Titan X for only about 300$ more.

 

Joker Productions said he'd have a video up today or tomorrow...

[othertomperson]

Well TI's generally have been the case but generally with half the vram.

But I'd still take 12gb of vram, yes overkill now but not so much in say 6-mo to a year.

 

There's still games at 4K that require at least 6GB or more, so it's not wise to just be at that limit... best to have some headroom. 

An 8GB version would have been better at the same price.

 

That's a lot of "generally"s for something that's happened once before.

 

I would worry about vram if I was going for 4K surround. The vram is worth worrying about then, until then 4GB is fine.

[Tairetsu]

Joker Productions said he'd have a video up today or tomorrow...

 

And it proved me right. 

[MetaknightXYZ]

This card is a beast ;o

[Pizzatime6]

$649 US ..... LOL!  Wow! Thank so much for this affordable price on your new card. LOL!  This card being brought out sooner btw probably happened because Nvidia needs to try and get every buck they can before AMD releases the 390X.  They know once that is out people would not be buying Nvidia cards.  

390X is just a rebrand. Only good 300 series cards to get are the fury and furyX gpu's. The other gpu's are just re-brands with a mark up. I'd rather have a 970-980 over a 290x re-brand.

[Pizzatime6]

That's a lot of "generally"s for something that's happened once before.

 

I would worry about vram if I was going for 4K surround. The vram is worth worrying about then, until then 4GB is fine.

 

At 4k GTA V takes up 8gb fully maxed out. At higher resolutions 4gb vram is going to start becoming a problem. Good thing DX12 hopes to stack memory. Me I'm going to hold my breath until I see it actually working in person.

[othertomperson]

At 4k GTA V takes up 8gb fully maxed out. At higher resolutions 4gb vram is going to start becoming a problem. Good thing DX12 hopes to stack memory. Me I'm going to hold my breath until I see it actually working in person.

 

Yeah, it's going to take more than a single outlier for me to change my GPU buying preferences, as opposed to only choosing the "very high" texture in that one game in place of "ultra".

 

Do you even have a source that GTA V requires 8GB to run the highest texture at 4K? And I mean requires, not "will use by not clearing unneeded vram on cards that have way more than 8GB". I want to see an FPS drop on 4GB 290Xs vs otherwise identical 8GB versions. I want to see substantial performance difference between the Titan X and 980 Ti otherwise I'm not even going believe this example.

[Pizzatime6]

Yeah, it's going to take more than a single outlier for me to change my GPU buying preferences, as opposed to only choosing the "very high" texture in that one game in place of "ultra".

 

Do you even have a source that GTA V requires 8GB to run the highest texture at 4K? And I mean requires, not "will use by not clearing unneeded vram on cards that have way more than 8GB". I want to see an FPS drop on 4GB 290Xs vs otherwise identical 8GB versions. I want to see substantial performance difference between the Titan X and 980 Ti otherwise I'm not even going believe this example.

My source is that I own two titan X gpu's and can see how much vram it uses in the settings menu. My friend who has two titan blacks also uses more then 4gb of vram maxed out at 1080p. Even bf4 uses above 3.5 gb in 1080p alone with ultra settings. Also I was assuming you were taking about the new fury and furyX gpu's which really should be used for 2k and up gaming. I just don't see 4gb being good for max settings at 4k for the future. If you buy a card that powerful that can run games with that resolution and game settings I would hate to see the vram be a issue. Whenn I get my pc rebuilt with water cooling Ill have to test the witcher 3 again with it. At 4k I'm pretty sure it also used more then 4gb of vram. If more games follow this trend. 4gb might not be enough but time will tell. I just wish they put at least 6gb on their flagship gpu. As for the 290X unless you have more then one you wouldnt be gaming in 4k with settings that would use that much vram. I might be forgetting to mention some things I was thinking of with this post, but this is the short version of it. That's just my two cents. If your not 2k+ resolution gaming 4gb should be good for some time, 4k in the future is questionable and only time will tell.

[BuckGup]

At 4k GTA V takes up 8gb fully maxed out. At higher resolutions 4gb vram is going to start becoming a problem. Good thing DX12 hopes to stack memory. Me I'm going to hold my breath until I see it actually working in person.

It will probably stack but maybe not have the memory at it's 100% efficiency 

[Pizzatime6]

It will probably stack but maybe not have the memory at it's 100% efficiency 

 

Thats what I was thinking....if thats the case I would rather just have more vram on the gpu so I wouldnt need to worry about how stacked vram plays out.

[othertomperson]

My source is that I own two titan X gpu's and can see how much vram it uses in the settings menu. My friend who has two titan blacks also uses more then 4gb of vram maxed out at 1080p. Even bf4 uses above 3.5 gb in 1080p alone with ultra settings. Also I was assuming you were taking about the new fury and furyX gpu's which really should be used for 2k and up gaming. I just don't see 4gb being good for max settings at 4k for the future. If you buy a card that powerful that can run games with that resolution and game settings I would hate to see the vram be a issue. Whenn I get my pc rebuilt with water cooling Ill have to test the witcher 3 again with it. At 4k I'm pretty sure it also used more then 4gb of vram. If more games follow this trend. 4gb might not be enough but time will tell. I just wish they put at least 6gb on their flagship gpu. As for the 290X unless you have more then one you wouldnt be gaming in 4k with settings that would use that much vram. I might be forgetting to mention some things I was thinking of with this post, but this is the short version of it. That's just my two cents. If your not 2k+ resolution gaming 4gb should be good for some time, 4k in the future is questionable and only time will tell.

 

So yeah that's just your cards having more vram than they need and so usage scales up. It doesn't actually mean anything. BF4 is a good example. Are you claiming that that game never ran on a 780 Ti at 1080p? That game ran at 1080p on a 770. This isn't a hardware limitation, this is you not understanding how vram usage works. You aren't even taking into account the ridiculous memory bandwidth of the Fury which will reduce the amount of vram needing to be used at any one moment.

 

Like I said, I would love to see a source showing 4GB vram to actually be an issue because so far nothing gives that impression whatsoever.

[Pizzatime6]

Linus tech tips did a video about Vram useage. BF4 used more then 3gb at ultra settings. Look it up. I could be wrong though.