980 Ti

[chenw]

did you downloaded the extra texture package?... if not then ultra and high will be the same.. ultra textures doesn't load until you download the texture package.. and is certainly a performance killer even at 1080P with 4GB cards..

I am almost sure I did, but I will definitely look into it.

That could be the reason. I was surprised at how little ultra and high affected performance so little.

anyway, I don't know if this horse has been beaten to death, but... 970 has 4GB VRAM.

Segmented? Yes. but probably better that the last part is there compared to when it is not.

4k is certainly not a waste of money of the player in question will not settle for anything less than 4k.

Will you require absolutely the best hardware to get the most out of 4k in the state it currently is? Most certainly.

However the time you enjoyed wasting is not wasted time. Same goes for money.

My choice of 1440p over 4k is more a practical choice and less of a monetary I could easily push the cash up a bit more to go for SLI 980's instead of 970's (possibly even breaking even since 4k monitors have gotten cheaper now), however, 4k is currently far too reliant on SLI working properly for my liking, and the fact that DSR exist, which meant that, when I have the performance to spare, at least I can use DSR to get some of the 4k goodness.

That hasn't stopped me from drooling over a good quality 4k panel though, I always wanted to see for myself what 4k fuss was about, my chocie of 1440p was based on theory.

 

[Araxie]

that thing of segmented vRAM its the same as nvidia did with the asynchronous (or asymmetrical) memory controller since the GTX 500 series but in those times they were honest with the card bus, for example GTX 660 and 660TI and the 192bus using 2GB version and having a 3GB version.. why not 2GB and 4GB? well the darn memory controller.. that card was also a 1.5gb + 0.5gb card just like the GTX970 and suffered from the same issue after going above the 1.5gb mark the card would work with only 1 64 bit memory controller plummeting the card bandwidth to only 48GB/s of course the magic nvidia drivers try always as possible to not use more than 1.5gb vRAM but in recent gaming its so impossible to make so the card enter easily in the stuttering realm.... (and its heavy certainly) problem that doesn't exist in the 3GB version because the memory controller are symmetrical with the chips .. so with that as example.. yes the gtx 970 have 4GB on board vRAM but its a issue to use it all and this issue will become more and more present while the time pass..

 

[kalston]

6 Gb is plenty for 1080p or 1440p, there's no 120/144hz 4k monitors yet so I don't even want to hear about 4k gaming until then 60hz makes me sick. Even playing a 60fps locked game on a 120/144hz is miles better due to the reduced input lag (be it v-sync or g-sync).

If nvidia gets it right with the 980ti they can have my money, single 970 is definitely a tad weak in 1440p and not really because of VRAM in my case. And I don't do SLI, ever. Not even an option. I've considered the Titan but it's really a lot of money for me and 12Gb of VRAM is totally overkill even if it can't hurt. Heck I don't even use much if any AA at all and not really interested in DSR so yeah, I don't need 12.

 

[chenw]

that thing of segmented vRAM its the same as nvidia did with the asynchronous (or asymmetrical) memory controller since the GTX 500 series but in those times they were honest with the card bus, for example GTX 660 and 660TI and the 192bus using 2GB version and having a 3GB version.. why not 2GB and 4GB? well the darn memory controller.. that card was also a 1.5gb + 0.5gb card just like the GTX970 and suffered from the same issue after going above the 1.5gb mark the card would work with only 1 64 bit memory controller plummeting the card bandwidth to only 48GB/s of course the magic nvidia drivers try always as possible to not use more than 1.5gb vRAM but in recent gaming its so impossible to make so the card enter easily in the stuttering realm.... (and its heavy certainly) problem that doesn't exist in the 3GB version because the memory controller are symmetrical with the chips .. so with that as example.. yes the gtx 970 have 4GB on board vRAM but its a issue to use it all and this issue will become more and more present while the time pass..

I concede the argument.

I checked and behold I did actually miss the HD texture packs, now I have installed it, I tested Ultra and High textures.

High gave me a 88fps with 60 fps minimum, and my GPU VRAM (as reported by my ARX control app on my phone) stayed well below 70%. So SoM at 1440p, with textures set at high and maxed everything else, seems to be just right.

Ultra textures however... gave me 87 average fps, but minimum dipped to 40fps. GPU VRAM usage was constantly at 90%, well inside the 3.5GB zone. RAM never went above 5GB used in either case.

That's just the benchmarks. During benchmarks, I did notice the occasional hiccups, but I had to look hard for it, and even then it was just barely noticeable.

I will do more playing now.

 

[Araxie]

I concede the argument.

I checked and behold I did actually miss the HD texture packs, now I have installed it, I tested Ultra and High textures.

High gave me a 88fps with 60 fps minimum, and my GPU VRAM (as reported by my ARX control app on my phone) stayed well below 70%. So SoM at 1440p, with textures set at high and maxed everything else, seems to be just right.

Ultra textures however... gave me 87 average fps, but minimum dipped to 40fps. GPU VRAM usage was constantly at 90%, well inside the 3.5GB zone. RAM never went above 5GB used in either case.

That's just the benchmarks. During benchmarks, I did notice the occasional hiccups, but I had to look hard for it, and even then it was just barely noticeable.

I will do more playing now.

well yes, the benchmark its a thing but the entire game feels different.. specially when you are used to the controls and you want to run fast for the the map.. in my 780 I suffer a lot with ultra texturas and max ram usage i saw was at arround 9.8GB..

 

[xorbe]

that thing of segmented vRAM its the same as nvidia did with the asynchronous (or asymmetrical) memory controller since the GTX 500 series but in those times they were honest with the card bus, for example GTX 660 and 660TI and the 192bus using 2GB version and having a 3GB version

Actually, I think the 660 was not segmented, just unbalanced. Couple of the 32-bit channels had extra memory (256+256+256+256+512+512). But the 970 doesn't have that, it has an even 512MB per channel. I would have to run that vram tool on my Dad's PC (has a 660) to see if there's any functional, realistic difference though.

 

[Araxie]

the last 512mb work with a different 64bit memory controller if well the memory ins't segmented as the GTX 970 the bus certainly it is.... so as the 970 lost 1/7 of the total bandwidth it also happens to the 660 and 660TI.. so 192bit * 6GHz / 8 = 144GB/sec but: 64bit * 6ghz /8 = 48GB/sec same principle apply to 970 and that's the stuttering cause mostly..

 

[raidflex]

Gaming on native 4k at this point in time is immature, it does not matter how much money you have to throw at a setup, this is just fact.

 

[x3sphere]

Even though it should be a bigger upgrade in sheer pixel count, I did not find 4K as impressive as the jump from 1080->1440. I'm not saying the difference wasn't apparent but I can still easily go back to 1440P and not feel as if I am missing much. Diminishing returns, perhaps, or current LCD tech is just not good enough for 4K. I plan to revisit 4K once OLED monitors are out.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

Even though it should be a bigger upgrade in sheer pixel count, I did not find 4K as impressive as the jump from 1080->1440. I'm not saying the difference wasn't apparent but I can still easily go back to 1440P and not feel as if I am missing much. Diminishing returns, perhaps, or current LCD tech is just not good enough for 4K. I plan to revisit 4K once OLED monitors are out.

It's obviously a problem with your eyeballs.
I couldn't care less about resolution but I need dat pixel density. Switching from mobile devices to my monitor is painful.

 

[Brahmzy]

Wuh? LOL

4K is awesome. I rocked 1600p for like 8 years and the diff is HUGE!

 

[x3sphere]

Wuh? LOL

4K is awesome. I rocked 1600p for like 8 years and the diff is HUGE!

Same here, I bought the 3007wfp when it first came out. So I have been on higher resolutions for awhile. It was a massive upgrade from 1080 but I just don't get the same feeling from 4K *shrugs*

 

[Cyph]

Same here, I bought the 3007wfp when it first came out. So I have been on higher resolutions for awhile. It was a massive upgrade from 1080 but I just don't get the same feeling from 4K *shrugs*

That's because you went from 20" 1080P to 30" 1440p in both size and resolution. Now do the same to 40-48" 4K. Whoa.

 

[x3sphere]

That's because you went from 20" 1080P to 30" 1440p in both size and resolution. Now do the same to 40-48" 4K. Whoa.

Yeah, true. I should mention I compared the Dell 32" 4K monitor against my 34UM95 (3440x1440 -- that's around 0.9 million more pixels than 1600p, so that definitely made the jump less apparent, as well).

40" 4K seems like the sweet spot. I'm going to hold off for now though, I've gotten used to the aspect ratio of this LG and I'm hoping they come out with a bigger curved 21:9 monitor at 5120x2160 (21:9 equivalent of 4K).

 

[raidflex]

Yeah, true. I should mention I compared the Dell 32" 4K monitor against my 34UM95 (3440x1440 -- that's around 0.9 million more pixels than 1600p, so that definitely made the jump less apparent, as well).

40" 4K seems like the sweet spot. I'm going to hold off for now though, I've gotten used to the aspect ratio of this LG and I'm hoping they come out with a bigger curved 21:9 monitor at 5120x2160 (21:9 equivalent of 4K).

I really enjoy my LG 34UM95 also, I think its really the sweet spot now for gaming. When Pascal comes out, then maybe 4K will be more viable.

 

[5150Joker]

60 hz panels are terrible for gaming, doesn't matter what resolution you have. Once you go 144 hz and gsync theres no going back.

 

[TDSlam720]

60 hz panels are terrible for gaming, doesn't matter what resolution you have. Once you go 144 hz and gsync theres no going back.

Except no one had trouble gaming at 60hz until the past few years when they started pushing 120/144hz.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/288/13

I remember having VooDoo 2 SLIs getting 30-45FPS between Q2 and 3 and being astonished at how sweet it was. 60FPS was always the sweet spot until some nerd with a marketing degree tried to get people to believe 60 was dogshit. Unless you're like prime fatal1ty or something, I think you'll be fine with 60hz.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

Except no one had trouble gaming at 60hz until the past few years when they started pushing 120/144hz.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/288/13

I remember having VooDoo 2 SLIs getting 30-45FPS between Q2 and 3 and being astonished at how sweet it was. 60FPS was always the sweet spot until some nerd with a marketing degree tried to get people to believe 60 was dogshit. Unless you're like prime fatal1ty or something, I think you'll be fine with 60hz.

Console gamers had no problem with 30fps until they saw 60fps... Then up to 120fps... So on, and so forth. Same for resolutions.

Things always feel "fine" until you try something better.

 

[pandora's box]

Except no one had trouble gaming at 60hz until the past few years when they started pushing 120/144hz.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/288/13

I remember having VooDoo 2 SLIs getting 30-45FPS between Q2 and 3 and being astonished at how sweet it was. 60FPS was always the sweet spot until some nerd with a marketing degree tried to get people to believe 60 was dogshit. Unless you're like prime fatal1ty or something, I think you'll be fine with 60hz.

Took me a minute to figure out the whole "16 bit" and "32bit" in the graphs.

 

[Cyph]

Console gamers had no problem with 30fps until they saw 60fps... Then up to 120fps... So on, and so forth. Same for resolutions.

Things always feel "fine" until you try something better.

60fps to 120fps is definitely a "feeling". 40" 4K is definitely a "seeing and a feeling".

 

[DooKey]

60 hz panels are terrible for gaming, doesn't matter what resolution you have. Once you go 144 hz and gsync theres no going back.

This

 

[xorbe]

Except no one had trouble gaming at 60hz until the past few years when they started pushing 120/144hz.

Yes, it's very fortunate that they started making 144Hz panels just as 60Hz starting making my eyes bleed.

 

[Cyph]

Yes, it's very fortunate that they started making 144Hz panels just as 60Hz starting making my eyes bleed.

Those poor, poor Xbox One players. Playing the Witcher 3 at 900p and 30fps. The humanity!

 

[RadXge]

The 60Hz discussion is out of topic...

980 Ti = Geforce GTX Titan X with 6GB of memory
http://www.fudzilla.com/news/graphics/37681-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-to-use-gm200-310-gpu

rumored to hit the market with a US $600 to $650 price tag

 

[Koizumi]

I wish people would stop linking sites that just refer to videocardz.com We've seen this info already 5 days ago

 

[chenw]

$600 to $650?

If 980ti anywhere close to Titan X's performance, then my expectations had been met: 980ti is better for the money than 980, assuming we are comparing MSRP's.

980 would have to drop in price to around $480 or lower before I can consider it 'worth' the money at this day and age, though I would still not get it. 6GB would be my minimum for a GPU (this is for both 1440p and 4k, 1080p can probably still get away with 970 or 980).

 

[n=1]

$600 to $650 for Titan X performance and 6GB vram? Yeah that's even more believable than 390X being a Titan X killer.

 

[EnderW]

980 would have to drop in price to around $480 or lower before I can consider it 'worth' the money at this day and age, though I would still not get it. 6GB would be my minimum for a GPU (this is for both 1440p and 4k, 1080p can probably still get away with 970 or 980).

EVGA GTX 980 FTW was on sale for $480 last week

 

[lee0539]

3440 X 1440 AC Unity runs at 5.4 gb vram with 60 fps. near max settings. We are talking about ubisoft game but now I know why gtx 970 was a stuttering mess and barely got it playable by lowering lots of graphics. Shadow of mordor 6.5 maybe more GB at 63 fps. Wolfenstein Old Blood 5.3 GB 60fps. GTA V doesn't use much more than 4 gb at 60 fps. I'll continue to report my titan x gb usage. I decided it isn't worth 200-100 dollar difference in price (due to the price i got the titan x) to worry about vram and 980 ti being a cut version. But yea I will regret keeping titan x if 980 ti is same or faster at 600 dollars. 6 gb seems like a good amount of vram for current games for 3440X1440. It is unknown if future games will require more than that at this resolution. But man it is so smooth compared to 970 or 970 sli.

 

[GearChoices]

60 hz panels are terrible for gaming, doesn't matter what resolution you have. Once you go 144 hz and gsync theres no going back.

Except all the 120/144hz gsync/freesync panels are either overpriced TN garbage or overpriced mediocre-VA garbage. The technology and design-principles are already here to make a high-quality 120/144hz IPS/VA gsync/freesync panel, but instead they offer garbage for $1,000. If you are going to charge $1,000 for a 27" 1440p monitor, any sane person is going to demand it use the best tech/design-principles available, which currently no manufacturer is doing.

 

[n=1]

There's no 1440 120Hz VA panel that I know of, and the Eizo Foris is the only 120Hz 1080p VA panel that I can think of off the top of my head.

There's a single 1440p 144Hz GSync IPS Panel -- Acer XB270HU. The panel is fine if you can stomach the obvious Acer level build quality (hint: cheap, flimsy plastic galore) and the usual QC issues. I don't have any dead pixels on mine, but the backlight is clearly borked since the bottom left corner appears darker than the rest of the screen on light/high contrast backgrounds (no it's not backlight bleed, it's the exact opposite of backlight bleed).

 

[Brahmzy]

60hz terrible? LOL! Oh how I have suffered @ 60hz. Gimme a break.

 

[Iklos]

60 hz panels are terrible for gaming, doesn't matter what resolution you have. Once you go 144 hz and gsync theres no going back.

well, i went back.. and did not regret it either.. different tastes thats all..

for me.. the TN panel really breaks the immension..

that 144Hz Ips Acer screen on the other hand.. but its so smallish.. 4k@40" really spoiled me.

i might bite the bullet when a 120hz+, 110dpi+, 34+inches, Oled or great VA/ips (without backlight bleed) launches..

i might add, i am a sucker for blacklevel, but refresh rate alone dosent do it for me. but different tastes.. just don't be under the illusion that one panel or panel type suits all.

 

[Sprayingmango]

60hz terrible? LOL! Oh how I have suffered @ 60hz. Gimme a break.

60Hz panels are awful. G-Sync + 144Hz = bliss. How the hell people can game at 60Hz is beyond me. All of that wasted hardware power and FPS go unused.

 

[naticus]

60Hz panels are awful. G-Sync + 144Hz = bliss. How the hell people can game at 60Hz is beyond me. All of that wasted hardware power and FPS go unused.

I wouldn't say it is awful. But the difference is night and day. As drastic as going from 30 to 60 FPS IMO.

So are thinking the MSRP is really going to be $600-700?

 

[chenw]

It would nice if true, but it's squarely in the realm of 'too good to be true' I think.

 

[Cyph]

60Hz panels are awful. G-Sync + 144Hz = bliss. How the hell people can game at 60Hz is beyond me. All of that wasted hardware power and FPS go unused.

There are no wasted hardware. I think the folks who are playing at 60fps are playing at 4K and a giant monitor. It's also night and day difference. It really boils down to which night and which day difference you prefer.

 

[VulcaN]

Or they don't care about winning!

As soon as I got the motion clarity and response times that came with 144Hz / gsync my game improved noticeably. Win win win no matter what; put a 4k screen on the web browsing / ms office computer and watched my k:d skyrocket.

 

[Cyph]

Or they don't care about winning!

As soon as I got the motion clarity and response times that came with 144Hz / gsync my game improved noticeably. Win win win no matter what; put a 4k screen on the web browsing / ms office computer and watched my k:d skyrocket.

You're assuming everyone's game is FPS shooters. I think that's probably where the divergent opinions come in. For those that play FPS games exclusively, 144hz is a must. For others, it's not.

Although, I'd like proof of the claim that 144hz screens help your KD go up. Skills is what matters most, not hardware.

On topic: I think a 980 TI with half the memory would produce less heat and use less power. There may be potential for improved overclock.

 

[MorgothPl]

You're assuming everyone's game is FPS shooters. I think that's probably where the divergent opinions come in. For those that play FPS games exclusively, 144hz is a must. For others, it's not.

Although, I'd like proof of the claim that 144hz screens help your KD go up. Skills is what matters most, not hardware.

On topic: I think a 980 TI with half the memory would produce less heat and use less power. There may be potential for improved overclock.

THis... I don't play competitive FPS, only RPG and strategy games, and I rather have great colours of IPS. And yes, I was gaming on 120hz TN, then went to 60hz 1440p IPS, and it's really a night and day. I don't really see the difference in fluidity, but I notice much, much better colours and screen quality.

About VRAM... before it really matters, and there are more VRAM demanding games, we will be already at next architecture of 490X/Pasacal along with DX12. And then we will have single card to get 60+ steady FPS in 4K on single card.

And finally to topic of 980Ti. I do hope, it will also come with price drop of 980. I'll then get pair of 980s (hopefully used form people who switch to Ti) and will be happy gamer.