980 Ti

Brahmzy said:
Cyph - you going this route too? Or have you been a Titan user?
Click to expand...

I still have my trusty GTX 670. I'm waiting for news of the 980Ti and 390x. Right now, I'm leaning toward the 980Ti. I'm not the max everything type person so I know I can do 4K with this card as long as I adjust some settings. It's also nice to have a monitor that can do both 4K and 1080P so I got all bases covered. If I need everything on Ultra, I can just switch up the resolution.

NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980TI-R9-300-Hawai-3DMark-FireStrike-Performance.png
 
Cyph said:
Try 55%. Overclocked, almost as fast as a 970 SLI. Start with the Titan X benchmark and go from there.
Click to expand...

LoL. That chart has Titan X losing to the GTX980Ti at the same clockspeed...

Unless they don't cut it down and also clock it up to 1.2ghz boost... you aren't going to see +55% over a GTX970 at stock.
 
LordEC911 said:
LoL. That chart has Titan X losing to the GTX980Ti at the same clockspeed...

Unless they don't cut it down and also clock it up to 1.2ghz boost... you aren't going to see +55% over a GTX970 at stock.
Click to expand...

You're the same guy who says 980Ti doesn't exist right? Of course you'd deny this as well.
 
WorldExclusive said:
No backplate

:eek:
Click to expand...

RIDICULOUS

Both my 980s have a backplate and have the same memory clearance as the 980TI shown.
Its simply a cost cutting solution, has NOTHING to do with SLI airflow. Anyone considering these cards has a modern SLI spacing on their motherboard. Its a load of shit really.
 
But nVidias only making $10-$15 per card. If they included a backplate they'd be losing money.
You don't want nVidia losing money, do you?
 
According to the chart above, at stock speed, 980 Ti is 2% slower than Titan X and 29% faster than GTX 980.
Sounds fishy...
 
Well let's think about it logically. The 980 is on average ~15% faster than the 970. Granted ref 980 also runs about 40MHz faster core than ref 970, but the difference there should be negligible, maybe 2-3%, so let's call it 12% advantage to 980 if we matched clocks.

980 has 4 more SMMs (512 cores) than the 970, so that means 3% difference per SMM. This rumored 980 Ti has 2816 cores = 22 SMMs, 2 less than Titan X. So clock for clock it should be 6% slower than Titan X, or at most 8% if you ignore me correcting for clock differences between the 980 and 970.

That 6-8% could be easily made up by clocking the core higher. Hell just by maxing out thermal and power limits gave the Titan X a 3.7% boost. Plus the 980 Ti trails the Titan X by 2.5%, meaning you don't even have to make up the entirety of that 6-8% difference. So I have no issue with the 980 Ti "just" trailing the Titan X by 2.5%.
 
n=1 said:
Well let's think about it logically. The 980 is on average ~15% faster than the 970. Granted ref 980 also runs about 40MHz faster core than ref 970, but the difference there should be negligible, maybe 2-3%, so let's call it 12% advantage to 980 if we matched clocks.

980 has 4 more SMMs (512 cores) than the 970, so that means 3% difference per SMM. This rumored 980 Ti has 2816 cores = 22 SMMs, 2 less than Titan X. So clock for clock it should be 6% slower than Titan X, or at most 8% if you ignore me correcting for clock differences between the 980 and 970.

That 6-8% could be easily made up by clocking the core higher. Hell just by maxing out thermal and power limits gave the Titan X a 3.7% boost. Plus the 980 Ti trails the Titan X by 2.5%, meaning you don't even have to make up the entirety of that 6-8% difference. So I have no issue with the 980 Ti "just" trailing the Titan X by 2.5%.
Click to expand...
980 has 384 more cores than the 970 not 512 more. ;)
 
misterbobby said:
980 has 384 more cores than the 970 not 512 more. ;)
Click to expand...

epic fail
doh.gif


I know what went wrong, I was thinking of the 980M instead of the 970 LOL

Anyway so 980 = 3 more SMMs than 970. Assuming 4-5% per SMM, that puts 980 Ti 8-10% behind Titan X clock for clock. Still a fairly small amount of ground to cover especially if 980 Ti is only supposed to be 2-3% slower than Titan X by default.

Edit: Actually come to think of it, if the 980 Ti is equipped with Hynix's latest 8GHz GDDR5 chips, then all they need is a very small bump in core clock to get close to a stock Titan X. IF those numbers are anywhere near accurate, then I wouldn't be too shocked if we end up seeing these 8GHz memory chips being used in the 980 Ti.
 
Last edited:
Since these are the failed silicon of the Titan X, much like the 970 was to the 980, Real question is: Are they going to put 5.5GB on the box or are they going to lie again and call it 6GB? Inquiring minds want to know! ;)
 
well 390x needs same or above Titan X performance to be viable; based on those numbers will i buy my next gpu
 
RadXge said:
According to the chart above, at stock speed, 980 Ti is 2% slower than Titan X and 29% faster than GTX 980.
Sounds fishy...
Click to expand...

Why ? 6% less cuda cores can easily be negated by slightly higher boost clock. Seems perfectly reasonable.
 
Early 980 Ti benchmarks are out, including SLI:
http://videocardz.com/55566/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-performance-benchmarks

Benches exactly the same within 2% statistical error (at standard clock speed) as a Titan X (also at standard clock speed). However, this site OCs the 980 Ti to 1220 and then it squeaks past a Titan X (though the Titan X is at standard clock and over clocks just as well as a 980 Ti would...)

I think Nvidia learned the lesson back with the original Titan. They quickly released a much cheaper GTX 780 that was nearly as quick as the Titan in most games. And then they fairly quickly released the 780 Ti which was FASTER than the original Titan (again, Im talking gaming here). They had to scramble to quickly come out with Titan Black with higher clock speeds to match the much cheaper 780 Ti in games. The outcry from original Titan owners (wether you think it was legit or not is a different matter) could be heard around the world.

I think Nvidia learned a lesson this time around: Keep the 980 Ti's gaming performance exactly the same (Again, 2-3% statical error) as the Titan X, as to not infuriate every Titan X owner into saying "Well I will never buy the Titan Y when it comes out! I will just wait for a 1080 Ti a few months later at half the price for the same performance..." :)

However, I'm not familiar with that bench program and no where does it say what resolution they are doing this at.
 
Last edited:
In all likelihood I will be upgrading to a 980 Ti from my 580 SLI (unless the R390x blows it away), but what I am not clear on is whether I should do a total overhaul of my cpu, ram and mobo.

I'm currently running a Sandy Bridge i7-2700K at 4.7ghz on a Z77 mobo. The impression I get from reviews of subsequent cpu releases is that the improvements of newer cpus when it comes to gaming are negligible compared to older overclocked cpus like Sandy Bridge. So can I get the full performance benefit of a 980 Ti without having to upgrade other components in my system?
 
Michaelius said:
Why ? 6% less cuda cores can easily be negated by slightly higher boost clock. Seems perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...

Well according to the specifications detailed below the chart showing performance results, teh 980 Ti has 8% less Cores and TMUs than the Titan X but core and memory clocks are the same (the boost clock is unknown and may explains the lower than expected gap).

While the price has not been confirmed, the 980 Ti will certainly cannibalize the sales of the Titan X.
 
Blade-Runner said:
In all likelihood I will be upgrading to a 980 Ti from my 580 SLI (unless the R390x blows it away), but what I am not clear on is whether I should do a total overhaul of my cpu, ram and mobo.

I'm currently running a Sandy Bridge i7-2700K at 4.7ghz on a Z77 mobo. The impression I get from reviews of subsequent cpu releases is that the improvements of newer cpus when it comes to gaming are negligible compared to older overclocked cpus like Sandy Bridge. So can I get the full performance benefit of a 980 Ti without having to upgrade other components in my system?
Click to expand...

Yep, you are still good. 4C/8T is plenty for today's games with your overclock.
 
RadXge said:
Well according to the specifications detailed below the chart showing performance results, teh 980 Ti has 8% less Cores and TMUs than the Titan X but core and memory clocks are the same (the boost clock is unknown and may explains the lower than expected gap).

While the price has not been confirmed, the 980 Ti will certainly cannibalize the sales of the Titan X.
Click to expand...

I disagree. People who want the best will pay extra for the VRAM even they don't need it, that's the type of purchaser NV is targeting with the Titan anyway.

There may be some lost sales but overall a $700-750 price point is going to attract a lot more buyers that otherwise wouldn't drop $1K on a GPU regardless
 
n=1 said:
How about you wait for actual specs and pricing before saying that?

If this 22 SMM 2816 core 980 Ti with 6GB vram launched at $799, would you still be touting that line?
Click to expand...

Ignore the troll. He's been just posted random drive-by BS in all of these threads.

No TITAN X owner was unaware of the 980 Ti possibility.
 
sk3tch said:
Ignore the troll. He's been just posted random drive-by BS in all of these threads.

No TITAN X owner was unaware of the 980 Ti possibility.
Click to expand...

Yep, 980 TI is hardly a surprise, we all knew about it and chose not to wait.
 
Damn,bought my Titan X a week ago. If I eBay it I'll end up losing out after fees and whatnot,just my luck.
 
bodine1231 said:
Damn,bought my Titan X a week ago. If I eBay it I'll end up losing out after fees and whatnot,just my luck.
Click to expand...

Enjoy the X. I don't think it'll be worth the hassle unless you're planning to go SLI and don't have a second card yet.
 
Keep your Titan. I already know I need SLi for 4K, which makes the the 980ti that much more of a 'value' over 2 Titans. If a single Titan would've ran 4K, I'd have bought one months ago n been done with it.
 
bodine1231 said:
Damn,bought my Titan X a week ago. If I eBay it I'll end up losing out after fees and whatnot,just my luck.
Click to expand...

Id keep the X. I really don't understand the point of your post. Why would you want to sell the X and replace it with the 980 Ti? The 980 Ti is a worse card from a gaming standpoint.

The only way I could understand your post is if you planned on selling your X and getting TWO 980 Ti's.

But even then, you're better off just spending a little more for a 2nd X if you need it (i.e., 4K gaming).
 
Titan X is the full chip not a cut down and the 6 gb vram might become a limitation in some games (there games right now that already use more than 6 gb of vram so who knows how many more in the future). That limitation also increases with Sli until direct X12 starts combining vram which at that point you might as well upgrade to the next card because it won't happen anytime soon. Think about how much EA and ubisoft are even optimizing games for pc right now. You are stupid to think they will suddenly change their ways and start supporting sli and dx12 for sli pc gaming which is a very very small portion of the gaming market. PC is bottom of the list below xbox and ps4 and on top of that sli/xfire is even lower on their priority list. Badly optimized games cause these vram issues. COD/wolfenstein don't even support sli/xfire. Many games that came out like assassin's creed and watch dog used tons of vram due to textures not compressing optimally. Shadow of mordor also used a lot of vram. There are games out there that are well made for sli/xfire but the list isn't that large albeit the games are great because the developers are better than EA and ubisoft. When I had sli i ran into a lot of different issues with new games. I can understand the appeal of a 980 ti being nearly as fast as a titan x if it were close to half the cost but at 800 or so dollars you might as well just get a titan x. if you are spending nearly 1600+ dollars on video card alone for sli gaming at high resolution what is ~400 dollars more? You going to risk having such an expensive gaming rig potentially be bottlenecked by vram? Really it comes down to the price of the 980 ti. if it is 600 and lower than yes two is nearly price of one titan x. but at 800 dollars the difference is not enough unless you plan on staying one card and don't plan on going 4k or 3440X1440.

The other argument is that 980 ti will have custom coolers therefore be faster. But when i had gtx 970 i even wanted to watercool that thing for more quiet and faster card. I'm planning the same with my titan X as well. With two 980 ti with ACX the top card is going to be suffocated by the bottom card and the fan will have to run faster to keep the top card cool therefore increasing noise unless you don't oc it much and let the top card bottleneck the overclock. And if you go reference than you have the same limitation as titan x which makes the argument moot. So really 980 ti is for people who want the fastest single card for low resolution gaming (unless of course it comes out with like a 600 dollar price tag)
 
Last edited:
lee0539 said:
Wall of text
Click to expand...


Where did you read its $800? Oh wait you didn't. Somehow you've managed to base all of this math on a number you pulled out of your arse.
Stop with the VRAM fear-mongering. 6GB will get me by just fine for for a few years. It'll be time to upgrade by that time anyway.

And for whatever reason these games that are supposedly using so much VRAM (more than 6GB) aren't games I'm interested. The ones I am have been optimized and are fine.
 
Brahmzy said:
Where did you read its $800? Oh wait you didn't. Somehow you've managed to base all of this math on a number you pulled out of your arse.
Stop with the VRAM fear-mongering. 6GB will get me by just fine for for a few years. It'll be time to upgrade by that time anyway.

And for whatever reason these games that are supposedly using so much VRAM (more than 6GB) aren't games I'm interested. The ones I am have been optimized and are fine.
Click to expand...

Is there a confirmed price on the 980 ti? which is why I am giving a range between 600 and 800 dollars. Vram may not be an issue for you but it is for me. If I want to try out many different games I don't want a over 2k dollar rig be limited by something. Not everyone just plays one game or specifically well optimized games. Why even get a 980 ti or even sli 980 ti if all you play is league of legends. I'm not saying "you" shouldn't get it so stop being so defensive. I'm just making an argument that there is no reason to get rid of a titan x and lose additional 50 dollars or so selling it when the price difference could potentially be not worth doing that. Also who is to say there will never be a game in the future you want to play that uses more than 6 gb of vram. That is the point of having 8 gb or more is that you have that peace of mind. It is like insurance basically, yes you pay more and you may never cash in that extra amount but you will be glad you did when that situation arises
 
Last edited:
The custom cards will not only have better coolers, but better vrms. These two things will allow for greater overclocks than Titan x
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top