The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Review: Featuring EVGA
by Ryan Smith on September 26, 2014 10:00 AM ESTSynthetics
As always we’ll also take a quick look at synthetic performance. These tests mainly serve as a canary for finding important architectural and configuration changes.
Tessellation performance has scaled very closely with the change in SMMs and clock speeds, just as we would expect here.
Texel throughput has also taken a hit in accordance with the loss of SMMs and clock speed. Based on gaming performance the GTX 970 doesn’t appear to be too badly handicapped here, but it definitely doesn’t have much in the way of texel throughput to spare.
Pixel throughput on the other hand ends up being extremely odd and not at all what we were expecting. The GTX 970 takes an incredible dive here, with its pixel fillrate dropping by 26%. At a high level this test is bounded by memory bandwidth and ROP throughput, and both of these factors should be identical between GTX 980 and GTX 970. Instead we see GTX 970 lose more performance than should theoretically be possible, as the 26% drop is more than the accumulated difference between the clock speed and SMM differences.
At this point we’re still trying to figure out exactly what’s going on. We have no other evidence that there’s a difference in ROP throughput or memory bandwidth between the GTX 980 and GTX 970 so it is not clear to us where the difference lies. One possibility is that this is somehow bottlenecked at the Raster Engine level – where each of the four engines accounts for 25% of the work – but the pigeonhole principle means that NVIDIA can’t disable a GPC since at least 1 SMM must be active in each GPC partition. This matter will require further research.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
155 Comments
View All Comments
LancerVI - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link
Looks good! Mostly a side-grade for my 290's, but I knew that already. Probably the best purchase I made in a while, those 290's are gonna last me a bit. May have to ebay a 3rd for some tri-fire. I'll go nVidia next round depending, but I'm really impressed with the 980/970, but 290's right now are a steal!Impulses - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link
Did the prices drop significantly? I'm scared to look, I got mine for $350 (after rebate) and $360 about a month ago, didn't see anything priced that low immediately after the 980/970 launch but... You'd think AMD would now have to at least match 970 pricing with the 290 in order to sell any at all.Impulses - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link
FWIW, I did think the price I paid for the 290s was pretty terrific and haven't regretted it yet... When looking at SLI vs CF tests the performance gaps from game to game are even narrower, a huge AMD price drop would be slightly irksome tho I understand it's bound to happen. OTOH, being so close to the holiday season I doubt we'd see any good sale prices atop any price drops or beyond the 980/970 price points.Death666Angel - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link
The 980 and 970 make me excited for what nVidia (and hopefully AMD) has in store for 20nm next year. I'm not going to upgrade from my water cooled 7970 (35% chip and 20% memory OC) for another 28nm GPU, even if nVidia managed to squeeze a lot out of the process.StormFuror - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link
Wow, I didn't expect the 970 to pull up stats like this compared to the 780. I don't know why, lol. The power consumption from the horsepower this card throws down is rather impressive compared to AMD's R9's. I may have to get one of these. I'm stuck with one monitor @ 1920x1080. This card will give me 60 FPS in just about everything it seems, probably over kill. But this seems like it'll hold me over until I have to do a complete new rebuild down the road(when I upgrade to 4k). I've got a couple years :)eek2121 - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link
I know AT's benchmarks portrays the Radeon 6970 as 'slow as balls' when it comes to gaming recent titles, but as someone who games more than most (on a 1080p monitor), i still find very little incentive to upgrade. Maybe if i gamed at higher resolutions.... Haven't really encountered a game (worth playing) that doesn't run on ultra settings in 1080p. Then again, steam has been shifting my dollars away from top tier games towards indie games for a while now. I own 425 games on steam and all of them give me no issue on my 'old' graphics card. Not knocking the new geforce cards at all....just wish developers would push the envelope a bit more.TiGr1982 - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link
Wel, old VLIW4-based HD 6970 is, say, something around 1/3 (33%) slower than GCN-based R9 280 aka HD 7950 Boost (which I have, BTW). But I believe that 6970 is more or less still good enough for 1080p, and, besides, probably the drivers for HD 6970 are pretty mature since HD 6970 is nearly 4 years old now (plus, Trinity and Richland also have VLIW4-based GPU, just 1/4 of HD 6970's Cayman GPU).just4U - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link
The biggest thing for me is this..." For much of the last year NVIDIA has been more than performance competitive but not price competitive with AMD."
------
That's been a major bone of contention with me. They corrected pricing which was very much in line and competitive during the 460-80 days. Then went out to lunch thru the 560-80 era and marginally came back (almost not quite..) during the 660-80 only to head way out to lunch again with their 7x series. It boggles the mind and makes it hard to purchase when AMD is offering great deals on their end /w similar performance.
hamiltus - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link
So my main question is if the GTX 970 is a good upgrade from the GTX 670 for 1440p/4K gaming?coldpower27 - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link
This is a solid upgrade, just thinking if this is worth it over GTX 670 as well. Slightly more power consumption for much greater performance and similar idle performance numbers.970 has a nice ring to it. :)