Lets say AMD vs Nvidia which deal would you really pick

What would you pick for gaming

  • R9 Nano + Freesync monitor for same price as 980Ti

    Votes: 58 45.7%

  • 980Ti

    Votes: 47 37.0%

  • AMD all the way

    Votes: 26 20.5%

  • Nvidia all the way

    Votes: 29 22.8%
  • Total voters
    127
gerardfraser

gerardfraser

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,366
Did this poll over at 3d Guru

Yes I love AMD vs Nvidia stuff,so let look at real value and which one would have best gameplay. This is only one example and I am sure people could pick out many more,but if you had no preference which one would you really pick.

Total 658 USA -R9 Nano + Freesync monitor

R9 nano
XFX Radeon R9 Nano R9-NANO-4SF6 4GB 4096-Bit HBM PCI Express 3.0 CrossFireX Support Video Card - Newegg.com $479usa

SAMSUNG S24E370DL Glossy White PLS 23.6" 4ms Widescreen LED Backlight LCD Monitor; Free-Sync Compatible w/ Wireless Phone Charging Capability - Newegg.com 179usa

Total 659 USA-980Ti
980ti - Newegg.com 659usa
 
Depends on what resolution you're gaming.
At 4k Nano holds its own pretty well, maybe 3-5 fps less. But, 980Ti posses far superiour overclocking capability, so the gap would be higher when both are overclocked.
Since you seem to want to game at 1080p, then 980Ti might be overkill.

I wouldn't get either of those. If this question was asked 2-3 months ago I'd say Nano without that monitor, but now I say wait for Polaris/Pascal.

But seriously man, 23.6"? I though gaming at that size died long time ago ;)
 
Assuming you already have a monitor with similar resolution, I am inclined to choose Nano.

AMD cards generally have a longer lifespan than equivalent nVidia cards due to the longer shelf-life (and thus driver support) for their cards, but my impression is that when they are behind nVidia in terms of raw performance, they generally need sometime to catch up. Since this is 1080p we are talking about however, I am more inclined to go with Nano with Free-Sync.

If the monitor was 1440p or higher, than I would pick 980ti.
 
Nebell said:
Depends on what resolution you're gaming.
At 4k Nano holds its own pretty well, maybe 3-5 fps less. But, 980Ti posses far superiour overclocking capability, so the gap would be higher when both are overclocked.
Since you seem to want to game at 1080p, then 980Ti might be overkill.

I wouldn't get either of those. If this question was asked 2-3 months ago I'd say Nano without that monitor, but now I say wait for Polaris/Pascal.

But seriously man, 23.6"? I though gaming at that size died long time ago ;)
Click to expand...

Well I read lots of your post.Do you really think 980Ti at 1920x1080 can run games maxed out 60FPS,even with SLI 980Ti you can not max out all games.Lower settings at 4k maybe hit 60 FPS.
Here is a test I did in a few games with only 4xMSAA at 1920x1080. with 980Ti card overclocked high.
20 to 60 FPS LOl so get of your high horse and just stop with the BS.
 
Honestly, it would depend on if I was upgrading a current setup, or building something new. I'm currently gaming on a 970 + 24" 1920x1080@60hz, so I'd really rather just skip the video cards altogether and upgrade to a 120hz G-Sync monitor. If it was a all new setup, I'd go with the Nano + Freesync. It'd be awesome if it did 120+ though. Not sure you can get something like that at a price that low though.

EDIT: To add to that, I'm going to assume you mean on a new build, so I'm voting Nano + Freesync.
 
Upgrading current setup would be nice to have GPU plus freesync monitor for same gaming experience.
G-sync monitor is also fine but I am not sure if I would ever buy one for my 980TI cards.
 
If everything was free and I had to pick one then I'd choose nano + freesync monitor.
If I have to pay then I would choose just the GTX 980 Ti.
 
Nano + monitor just makes the most logical sense at 1080p or 1440p. AMD cards scale better at mGPU so I'd go dual Nano for 4K. I don't think the 980ti is consistently much faster than the Nano / Fury X. I'd take my savings and install a custom WC loop to keep the Nano as chilly as possible then OC the memory and core.
 
cageymaru said:
Nano + monitor just makes the most logical sense at 1080p or 1440p. AMD cards scale better at mGPU so I'd go dual Nano for 4K. I don't think the 980ti is consistently much faster than the Nano / Fury X. I'd take my savings and install a custom WC loop to keep the Nano as chilly as possible then OC the memory and core.
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait.

Isn't the 980 Ti Consistently faster than the Fury X*? So why would the Nano be anywhere even close?

Was I dreaming when the Nano was described as 'slightly faster than a 390X'? Is the Nano some crazy super-card?

*in released games, not early access benchmarks.
 
Nano when not thermally constrained should equal a Fury X and is priced in the $438 - $466 range. Do you think a 980ti has $200 more performance to justify the price? I'd spend the $200 on a custom EK water cooling kit for the CPU and GPU.
 
cageymaru said:
Nano when not thermally constrained should equal a Fury X and is priced in the $438 - $466 range. Do you think a 980ti has $200 more performance to justify the price?
Click to expand...

In theory, the Nano should equal the FuryX when not thermally constrained, but didn't the Nano consistently throttle itself in the big, full ATX [H] review? Apparently it was smooth sailing for the first ten minutes, then it scales itself down to ~970 performance... That's the reason MOST people baulked at the launch price of $650. Am I the only one who remembers everyone and their dog criticising AMD for thinking the Nano was a $650 classed card?


I don't know, I see the whole issue a bit sideways. In my mind this is like asking "Should I grab the Fury X, or grab a 970 with a new monitor?"

Its sort of apples and oranges.... The Nano is not a $650 classed card. Its very much a $450 card.
 
I see it as a slightly defanged Fury X. Slap a Fury X cooling solution on it and it will be a Fury X. I think it's the best value out there today for modders. Especially for someone that already has a custom WC loop. For slightly more than R9 390X money you get almost 980ti performance while having fun customizing your system.

Ashes comes out of Early Access in less than 8 days. Hitman DX12 performance is awesome. MS fixed Gears of War so it now runs like butter on my system. Great card for the value.
 
cageymaru said:
I see it as a slightly defanged Fury X. Slap a Fury X cooling solution on it and it will be a Fury X. I think it's the best value out there today for modders. Especially for someone that already has a custom WC loop. For slightly more than R9 390X money you get almost 980ti performance while having fun customizing your system.

Ashes comes out of Early Access in less than 8 days. Hitman DX12 performance is awesome. MS fixed Gears of War so it now runs like butter on my system. Great card for the value.
Click to expand...

I agree that the card has good value, but how much are you going to pay for a cooling solution? Would the Non-X Fury be just as cost-effective when you consider the extra costs of cooling?
 
cageymaru said:
I see it as a slightly defanged Fury X. Slap a Fury X cooling solution on it and it will be a Fury X. I think it's the best value out there today for modders. Especially for someone that already has a custom WC loop. For slightly more than R9 390X money you get almost 980ti performance while having fun customizing your system.

Ashes comes out of Early Access in less than 8 days. Hitman DX12 performance is awesome. MS fixed Gears of War so it now runs like butter on my system. Great card for the value.
Click to expand...

Best value how? At stock it performs about as well as a 970/980. If you slap a water block on it, that's a $100-150 investment on top of the original price, only to almost match a 980Ti, which even with air cooling can net you an extra 15% more performance via overclocking and voltage tweaks.

Once you factor in the cost of the water block, then the 980Ti suddenly doesn't look so outlandish. Then you're comparing $550 to $650, 18% difference.
 
Non Fury is just as silly as buying a GTX 980 nowadays. It is a neutered Fury X mechanically. It literally can never reach Fury X performance. It will be close though. Oh and it costs more than the Nano. I guess it is for the system builder scared of water, so they refuse to get a Fury X.
 
trandoanhung1991 said:
Best value how? At stock it performs about as well as a 970/980. If you slap a water block on it, that's a $100-150 investment on top of the original price, only to almost match a 980Ti, which even with air cooling can net you an extra 15% more performance via overclocking and voltage tweaks.

Once you factor in the cost of the water block, then the 980Ti suddenly doesn't look so outlandish. Then you're comparing $550 to $650, 18% difference.
Click to expand...

If a Fury X were $550 and a 980ti was $650 nobody would buy a 980ti due to the fact that in some games the Fury X can exceed 980ti performance. Of course the 980ti will take off in Battlefield 4 and win the war as that benchmark seems to be the determining factor nowadays. The 980ti is weird that way.
 
cageymaru said:
Non Fury is just as silly as buying a GTX 980 nowadays. It is a neutered Fury X mechanically. It literally can never reach Fury X performance. It will be close though. Oh and it costs more than the Nano. I guess it is for the system builder scared of water, so they refuse to get a Fury X.
Click to expand...

The Fury is able to OC to beyond FuryX speeds, last I checked: Which is, ironically, something the Fury X has trouble doing.

cageymaru said:
If a Fury X were $550 and a 980ti was $650 nobody would buy a 980ti due to the fact that in some games the Fury X can exceed 980ti performance. Of course the 980ti will take off in Battlefield 4 and win the war as that benchmark seems to be the determining factor nowadays. The 980ti is weird that way.
Click to expand...

But the Fury X is NOT $550. It is pretty poor value compared to a card that overclock -at all-.
 
He was saying that to make the Nano into a Fury X you need to slap on a $100 water block. Which would make the Nano into a Fury X that only costs $550. Thus we would then compare a $550 Fury X to a $650 980ti. The Fury X does beat the 980ti in some games even though the 980ti will jump out to a commanding lead in something like Battlefield 4.

Which supports my argument that the 980ti is inconsistently faster than the Fury X. This inconsistency extends into DX12 going by the numbers released so far. Then lowering the Fury X to $550 by my instructions above, is the 980ti really worth the extra money? I rarely see the 980ti being able to enable more than one extra setting over the Fury X on the best of days.

To me the Nano is the best value on the market if you're into custom PCs. Well maybe I'm the only weirdo that buys cases to flip cards 90 degrees for better cooling. I like building cool stuff. :)


Also, I don't remember the non Fury beating the Fury X at much of nothing. Guess I'll research that some. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
cageymaru said:
He was saying that to make the Nano into a Fury X you need to slap on a $100 water block. Which would make the Nano into a Fury X that only costs $550. Thus we would then compare a $550 Fury X to a $650 980ti. The Fury X does beat the 980ti in some games even though the 980ti will jump out to a commanding lead in something like Battlefield 4.

Which supports my argument that the 980ti is inconsistently faster than the Fury X. This inconsistency extends into DX12 going by the numbers released so far. Then lowering the Fury X to $550 by my instructions above, is the 980ti really worth the extra money? I rarely see the 980ti being able to enable more than one extra setting over the Fury X on the best of days.

To me the Nano is the best value on the market if you're into custom PCs. Well maybe I'm the only weirdo that buys cases to flip cards 90 degrees for better cooling. I like building cool stuff. :)


Also, I don't remember the non Fury beating the Fury X at much of nothing. Guess I'll research that some. :)
Click to expand...

Ah.. I can KINDA see that. If you already have a loop, and you buy the Nano with a block, it comes in at $550, and will perform in the same ballpark as a stock 980Ti.

A 980Ti that you literally do nothing but install and run.

As soon as you so much as touch MSI afterburner, the 980Ti is in another galaxy of performance that the Nano, nor the Fury family have hope of touching. That's the MAIN issue I have with 'but overclock!' arguments. You need to compare overclocked with overclocked. If you are a custom PC builder who is comfortable slapping waterblocks on cards, there is NO way you'll leave a 980Ti at anything below 1400MHz: waterblock or no.

So you still have a pretty ridiculous performance delta between 980Ti Air OC'd and Nano Water OC'd. THAT is when you should consider if that $100 is worth it.
 
Thing is that the Fury X will defeat the 980ti stock vs stock. I fully understand your argument about OCing and I think it has great merit. But there is a great big DX12 sign hanging over the bar that Nvidia hopefully figures out with Pascal. Just too many inconsistencies with the 980ti and the Nvidia lineup as a whole for me to crown them the performance king at this time. I don't think a 970 can compare to a 390 in stock form or OC'd. The 980 is way overpriced as the R9 390X can once again like the Fury X does, beat the Nvidia card. I literally bought all the old decent DX11 titles already. That ship has sailed many times and I'm tired of looking at it. I'm ready for Win 10, Zen, Kaby Lake, Pascal, Polaris, Vulkan, VR, and DX12. The entire Nvidia 900 series looks shaky from top to bottom in my eyes.

Nvidia and AMD are so different. Just picking a resolution, game, or API will return different results as to who is "winning". In my opinion PC builders that think outside the box, and look for value, will be hard pressed to pass up a Nano deal if they are going to go the WC route. Especially if running 2 or more cards. After the DX12 titles have their legs, I'd like to see a mGPU showdown featuring AMD and Nvidia using the new API.

So you might be thinking, "Why all the Nano love out of Cage tonight?" Well I recently bought a used WC loop from someone here on the forums and I keep buying doodads and changing it. At this rate I may never actually install it in my PC as I keep getting one more part that fits my aesthetic or gear. I was looking at getting a second R9 290 off EBAY with a waterblock for $200 or so. Then I looked at the Nano and was like, "Bet I could do something really nice with those under water."

Hell the Fury X2 basically told me that the Nano isn't going anywhere for years to come. So if I bought 2 for $880, how much more of a value is it over a single 980ti? The Fury X2 is 16TFlops of Compute right? So two Nano should easily match that performance for $200 more than a 980ti.

Decisions, decisions. ;) I've been pondering this thread literally for the past 24 hours before I even saw it.
 
cageymaru said:
If a Fury X were $550 and a 980ti was $650 nobody would buy a 980ti due to the fact that in some games the Fury X can exceed 980ti performance. Of course the 980ti will take off in Battlefield 4 and win the war as that benchmark seems to be the determining factor nowadays. The 980ti is weird that way.
Click to expand...
everyone buying a card in that price range would still buy the 980 Ti. why? because your everyday garden variety aftermarket cooled 980 Ti is more often than not ~20% faster than the Fury X (i picked this graph because it's what i consider an average 980 Ti to be, techpowerup's latest 980 Ti review holds the same numbers with their updated game suite), and the Fury X doesn't overclock for shit. move the slider a little bit more when you get that aftermarket 980 Ti and suddenly your card is about 25% faster. even at $550 the Fury X would only be 9% cheaper than cards like Gigabyte's LED-less G1 or Zotac's slightly less beefy version of the AMP!. which number is bigger, 25 or 9? the Nano is AMD's best offering but you saying it's "almost 980 Ti performance" is just really funny.
 
Could you link the article from your first graph? So I can have some context to the game, resolution, driver, etc. I usually use [H]ardocp numbers because usually other website numbers seem to be inconsistent when it comes to actually playing the games. I was told that my CPU was a POS by every website, but when the buildings fell in BF3 & 4, my Intel brethren in my gaming clan were ready to quit due to low frame rates. I was running around killing everyone without a hiccup.

In short real world beats spreadsheets 99.999% of the time. :)
 
Please don't take this the wrong way, but that article is using drivers that were so new for AMD. Those were probably the very first Fury driver releases right? I think to be objective you would need a much newer article. Like I said I'm not being mean; just stating my opinion.
 
cageymaru said:
Thing is that the Fury X will defeat the 980ti stock vs stock. I fully understand your argument about OCing and I think it has great merit. But there is a great big DX12 sign hanging over the bar that Nvidia hopefully figures out with Pascal. Just too many inconsistencies with the 980ti and the Nvidia lineup as a whole for me to crown them the performance king at this time. I don't think a 970 can compare to a 390 in stock form or OC'd. The 980 is way overpriced as the R9 390X can once again like the Fury X does, beat the Nvidia card. I literally bought all the old decent DX11 titles already. That ship has sailed many times and I'm tired of looking at it. I'm ready for Win 10, Zen, Kaby Lake, Pascal, Polaris, Vulkan, VR, and DX12. The entire Nvidia 900 series looks shaky from top to bottom in my eyes.

Nvidia and AMD are so different. Just picking a resolution, game, or API will return different results as to who is "winning". In my opinion PC builders that think outside the box, and look for value, will be hard pressed to pass up a Nano deal if they are going to go the WC route. Especially if running 2 or more cards. After the DX12 titles have their legs, I'd like to see a mGPU showdown featuring AMD and Nvidia using the new API.

So you might be thinking, "Why all the Nano love out of Cage tonight?" Well I recently bought a used WC loop from someone here on the forums and I keep buying doodads and changing it. At this rate I may never actually install it in my PC as I keep getting one more part that fits my aesthetic or gear. I was looking at getting a second R9 290 off EBAY with a waterblock for $200 or so. Then I looked at the Nano and was like, "Bet I could do something really nice with those under water."

Hell the Fury X2 basically told me that the Nano isn't going anywhere for years to come. So if I bought 2 for $880, how much more of a value is it over a single 980ti? The Fury X2 is 16TFlops of Compute right? So two Nano should easily match that performance for $200 more than a 980ti.

Decisions, decisions. ;) I've been pondering this thread literally for the past 24 hours before I even saw it.
Click to expand...

DX 12 is up in the air with Nvidia cards: AMD has solidified their DX12 position, while Nvidia keep making excuses. So when considering DX12, the answer is 'maybe, but probably AMD's lead.

But I still fail to see where the 980Ti is anything but 'mostly superior' to the Fury X. The odd game that the fury is ahead is the exception, not the rule... at STOCK values. The 980Ti is almost always 5-10% ahead. At Stock. There are occasional games that the Fury X can reverse that, to 5% above the 980 Ti... At Stock.

So I'm not a huge believer in the Fury X. When it comes to 'flagship' cards, AMD's Fury line is not that great. The 390X is awesome, and killer deal at the price, but any more than that, the ground is owned by Nvidia*.




*for now.
 
cageymaru said:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but that article is using drivers that were so new for AMD. Those were probably the very first Fury driver releases right? I think to be objective you would need a much newer article. Like I said I'm not being mean; just stating my opinion.
Click to expand...
you are being funny, not mean. click reviews at the top, type 980, click the newest one which was published February 12th. same numbers.
 
cageymaru said:
Fury X kicking ass.
Far Cry Primal: Performance Analysis

980ti kicking ass.
ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Ti Matrix 6 GB Review

Either you are a winner or a loser. I don't believe in lukewarm. There should never be a ribbon for 2nd place. That's why I say the 980ti is inconsistently faster.
Click to expand...
Fury X kicking ass = being 7% slower at 1080p, 2% faster at 1440p, and 9% faster at 4K versus a stock clock 980 Ti which, as previously discussed, is not realistic. ok...

also: AMD clobbers Nvidia in updated Ashes of the Singularity i'm not going to bother updating that with gamegpu's benchmarks they've done since i wrote that post, but really dude, the 980 Ti is clearly the best card on the market and nothing else is close. if it wasn't i wouldn't have bought one.
 
Last edited:
gerardfraser said:
Well I read lots of your post.Do you really think 980Ti at 1920x1080 can run games maxed out 60FPS,even with SLI 980Ti you can not max out all games.Lower settings at 4k maybe hit 60 FPS.
Here is a test I did in a few games with only 4xMSAA at 1920x1080. with 980Ti card overclocked high.
20 to 60 FPS LOl so get of your high horse and just stop with the BS.
Click to expand...
Um you might want to check your gpu usage. The only time I drop below 60 fps in GTA V on those same settings its not gpu limited. I can lower my res to 1280x720 or raise it to 2560x1440 and get basically the identical framerate when I drop below 60. That ultra grass setting is the main culprit as its poorly optimized.

And I dont know what the heck you have going on in Crysis as even with 8x MSAA I am not anywhere near your crappy framerate. And once again its the cpu NOT the gpu that is the limitation there. Even with 8x MSAA my gpu usage drops to 50% whenever my framerate drops but even then it stays in the low 60s when fully cpu limited. My 2500k would drop into the mid 40s though so that is probably your issue.
 
Odellus said:
Fury X kicking ass = being 7% slower at 1080p, 2% faster at 1440p, and 9% faster at 4K versus a stock clock 980 Ti which, as previously discussed, is not realistic. ok...
Click to expand...

Huh? All I did was look at the newest benchmarks and chose FarCry Primal since it was a really new game and Battlefield because I knew from reading past reviews how dominate the 980ti is in that game. To be 100% honest with you I didn't bother to read another page of the reviews. In the end it is still 1 - 1; aka a tie game. If the 980ti is so much faster at Battlefield as shown in the charts, it would be faster at all games; not some. Thus it is inconsistent. It should never lose if it is faster. Like NEVER. But it is inconsistent in it's performance.

It is what it is. I still think it's a great card and anyone that owns one made a great purchase. But I also think it's inconsistent when compared to the Fury X. I also think that the Fury X is a good card as it rises like a phoenix and snatches benchmakrs from the 980ti from time to time. Really I didn't want to get into a spreadsheet linking contest. I think it's kinda silly really as the cards are pretty evenly matched until you start OCing. But OCing only gets you one more graphical setting which makes me yawn.
 
cageymaru said:
Huh? All I did was look at the newest benchmarks and chose FarCry Primal since it was a really new game and Battlefield because I knew from reading past reviews how dominate the 980ti is in that game. To be 100% honest with you I didn't bother to read another page of the reviews. In the end it is still 1 - 1; aka a tie game. If the 980ti is so much faster at Battlefield as shown in the charts, it would be faster at all games; not some. Thus it is inconsistent. It should never lose if it is faster. Like NEVER. But it is inconsistent in it's performance.

It is what it is. I still think it's a great card and anyone that owns one made a great purchase. But I also think it's inconsistent when compared to the Fury X. I also think that the Fury X is a good card as it rises like a phoenix and snatches benchmakrs from the 980ti from time to time. Really I didn't want to get into a spreadsheet linking contest. I think it's kinda silly really as the cards are pretty evenly matched until you start OCing. But OCing only gets you one more graphical setting which makes me yawn.
Click to expand...
keep drinking the koolaid i guess? your points are bewildering. engines and developers are inconsistent, not the card. the same thing could be said about literally every single gpu that has ever existed.
 
misterbobby said:
Um you might want to check your gpu usage. The only time I drop below 60 fps in GTA V on those same settings its not gpu limited. I can lower my res to 1280x720 or raise it to 2560x1440 and get basically the identical framerate when I drop below 60. That ultra grass setting is the main culprit as its poorly optimized.

And I dont know what the heck you have going on in Crysis as even with 8x MSAA I am not anywhere near your crappy framerate. And once again its the cpu NOT the gpu that is the limitation there. Even with 8x MSAA my gpu usage drops to 50% whenever my framerate drops but even then it stays in the low 60s when fully cpu limited. My 2500k would drop into the mid 40s though so that is probably your issue.
Click to expand...

When I play GTA V, I live in those areas because I suck at driving so I need all the open grass to get away. The new Tomb Raider is a 1080p 980ti killer also if you try to max it out and expect a consistent 60 fps. I think what he's trying to say is that with the new games @1080p, not even a single 980ti can always give you 60 fps. You're still going to have dips. I like the dips as it just tells me that I should be looking out for new technology to upgrade to. My gaming hobby feeding my computer building hobby is great for me. ;)
 
cageymaru said:
When I play GTA V, I live in those areas because I suck at driving so I need all the open grass to get away. The new Tomb Raider is a 1080p 980ti killer also if you try to max it out and expect a consistent 60 fps. I think what he's trying to say is that with the new games @1080p, not even a single 980ti can always give you 60 fps. You're still going to have dips. I like the dips as it just tells me that I should be looking out for new technology to upgrade to. My gaming hobby feeding my computer building hobby is great for me. ;)
Click to expand...
Well other than grass being on Ultra in GTA V everything else that ever brings me below 60 fps is not because of my gpu. And the only time I get close to going below 60 fps in Cryis is again because of the cpu not gpu.

And Rise Of the Tomb Raider is not stressful at all for a 980 Ti at just 1080. Heck I average well over 100 on max settings and dont get anywhere near 60 fps. In fact even at 1440 I can stay above 60 for about 75% of the game and lowest minimum I have seen is low 50s at 1440.

I dont mind dips if a game looks great and if the dips can be overcome with more gpu power. Many games are poorly optimized though.
 
Odellus said:
keep drinking the koolaid i guess? your points are bewildering. engines and developers are inconsistent, not the card. the same thing could be said about literally every single gpu that has ever existed.
Click to expand...

What koolaid? You started linking benchmarks showing your point and I linked some back showing my point. I don't think either of us is emphatically wrong. You can add up frame rate leads in individual games all you want, but to me it's silly as a 15% lead in one game does NOT translate to the next game as I showed you this. In the end it comes down to a game of balance and what am I missing by choosing card A over B in the games that I'm most concerned about. And I'm just not seeing this huge performance jump when in some games the 980ti regresses to the point where it gets it's ass handed to it. Either it's faster or not faster. To me they are more equal than you think due to these inconsistencies.

Then the fact that you can mod a Nano into a Fury X for $100 less that the MSRP price of a Fury X is icing on the cake. I think the Nano is a great value card for PC gamers that happen to be into water cooling. It's a full on Fury X that has been trapped by an air cooling solution for $200 less than it's water cooled big brother. If you look in the Cooling section of this website, there seems to be a ton of guys into water cooling their PCs. All those darn pictures they keep posting made me buy some gear to give it a try. So I'm not trying to be contrary for the sake of choosing the opposite opinion. I honestly think that the card is great if you're into water cooling as you can buy an entire CPU loop for the $200 difference. Add one more piece for the GPU and you're golden. It is what it is.
 
misterbobby said:
Well other than grass being on Ultra in GTA V everything else that ever brings me below 60 fps is not because of my gpu. And the only time I get close to going below 60 fps in Cryis is again because of the cpu not gpu.

And Rise Of the Tomb Raider is not stressful at all for a 980 Ti at just 1080. Heck I average well over 100 on max settings and dont get anywhere near 60 fps. In fact even at 1440 I can stay above 60 for about 75% of the game and lowest minimum I have seen is low 50s at 1440.

I dont mind dips if a game looks great and if the dips can be overcome with more gpu power. Many games are poorly optimized though.
Click to expand...

I can agree with you wholeheartedly. My B-Day is soon and I want some new sh*t dang it! I want some dip prevention to be exact. Ha ha! :)
 
gerardfraser said:
Well I read lots of your post.Do you really think 980Ti at 1920x1080 can run games maxed out 60FPS,even with SLI 980Ti you can not max out all games.Lower settings at 4k maybe hit 60 FPS.
Here is a test I did in a few games with only 4xMSAA at 1920x1080. with 980Ti card overclocked high.
20 to 60 FPS LOl so get of your high horse and just stop with the BS.
Click to expand...


980Ti going below 20 fps at 1080p? Yeah RIGHT.

Five scenarios:

First and most probable: fucked up computer filled with viruses and spyware.
Second: bottlenecked by cpu. What is that, Pentium 4?
Third: upscaling.
Fourth: modded the shit out of the game.
Fifth: unoptimized game.

With those scenarios not even a 2080Ti will help you get over 60 fps.

I get 30+ fps maxed out Witcher 3/GTA V with a single 980Ti at 4k resolution which is a shit ton more demanding than 1080p, even less clocked than the guy in that video. I call BS on that video and it's not to be used as proof. besides, I wonder how much FPS loss did he hit by recording it.
 
Last edited:
Go with the 980Ti.

* More VRAM
* HDMI 2.0
* Typically better/faster driver updates for newly released games
* Broader used market when it comes time to sell it
* Some factory OC models slightly faster than stock-clocked Titan X
* Features such as PhysX that might be utilized depending on the game

...just keep in mind it's still a 28nm 250W TDP unit, so expect it to get a little toasty under heavy load. As long as the fan curve is set to keep it at <= 80F max, you won't have to worry about thermal throttling...same can not be said about Fury Nano.
 
I'll go with 980Ti, as for me, being able to maintain high fps (ie. 60) is more important. Nano just doesn't have the same performance, and even with Freesync or Gsync, low fps is still low fps.
 
AMD's performance is quite impressive, but I'd stay away from them only because of the numerous Power-Now clock scaling complaints I've read here. You have to use a third-party utility to work around the issue.

But if they fixed that, or it doesn't bother you, then AMD has good performance in most games.
 
Hornet said:
I'll go with 980Ti, as for me, being able to maintain high fps (ie. 60) is more important. Nano just doesn't have the same performance, and even with Freesync or Gsync, low fps is still low fps.
Click to expand...

Just wondering, do you have a GSync monitor? For me personally, unless I can hit 60 FPS minimum, lower FPS + Freesync feels much, much better than higher FPS without it. Numbers may be lower but responsiveness and visuals are much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top