Single GTX 980 Gaming Performance

Alien: Isolation

If first person survival mixed with horror is your sort of thing, then Alien: Isolation, based off of the Alien franchise, should be an interesting title. Developed by The Creative Assembly and released in October 2014, Alien: Isolation has won numerous awards from Game Of The Year to several top 10s/25s and Best Horror titles, ratcheting up over a million sales by February 2015. Alien: Isolation uses a custom built engine which includes dynamic sound effects and should be fully multi-core enabled.

For low-end graphics, we test at 720p with Ultra settings, whereas for mid and high range graphics we bump this up to 1080p, taking the average frame rate as our marker with a scripted version of the built-in benchmark.

Alien Isolation on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)

Alien Isolation on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

Grand Theft Auto V

The highly anticipated iteration of the Grand Theft Auto franchise finally hit the shelves on April 14th 2015, with both AMD and NVIDIA in tow to help optimize the title. GTA doesn’t provide graphical presets, but opens up the options to users and extends the boundaries by pushing even the hardest systems to the limit using Rockstar’s Advanced Game Engine. Whether the user is flying high in the mountains with long draw distances or dealing with assorted trash in the city, when cranked up to maximum it creates stunning visuals but hard work for both the CPU and the GPU.

For our test we have scripted a version of the in-game benchmark, relying only on the final part which combines a flight scene along with an in-city drive-by followed by a tanker explosion. For low end systems we test at 720p on the lowest settings, whereas mid and high end graphics play at 1080p with very high settings across the board. We record both the average frame rate and the percentage of frames under 60 FPS (16.6ms).

Grand Theft Auto V on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)

Grand Theft Auto V on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

GRID: Autosport

No graphics tests are complete without some input from Codemasters and the EGO engine, which means for this round of testing we point towards GRID: Autosport, the next iteration in the GRID and racing genre. As with our previous racing testing, each update to the engine aims to add in effects, reflections, detail and realism, with Codemasters making ‘authenticity’ a main focal point for this version.

GRID’s benchmark mode is very flexible, and as a result we created a test race using a shortened version of the Red Bull Ring with twelve cars doing two laps. The car is focus starts last and is quite fast, but usually finishes second or third. For low end graphics we test at 1080p medium settings, whereas mid and high end graphics get the full 1080p maximum. Both the average and minimum frame rates are recorded.

GRID: Autosport on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)

GRID: Autosport on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor

The final title in our testing is another battle of system performance with the open world action-adventure title, Shadow of Mordor. Produced by Monolith using the LithTech Jupiter EX engine and numerous detail add-ons, SoM goes for detail and complexity to a large extent, despite having to be cut down from the original plans. The main story itself was written by the same writer as Red Dead Redemption, and it received Zero Punctuation’s Game of The Year in 2014.

For testing purposes, SoM gives a dynamic screen resolution setting, allowing us to render at high resolutions that are then scaled down to the monitor. As a result, we get several tests using the in-game benchmark. For low end graphics we examine at 720p with low settings, whereas mid and high end graphics get 1080p Ultra. The top graphics test is also redone at 3840x2160, also with Ultra settings, and we also test two cards at 4K where possible.

Shadows of Mordor on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)

Shadows of Mordor on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)

Shadows of Mordor on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

Shadows of Mordor on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

CPU Performance, Short Form Testing up to 3xGTX 980 and 10G
Comments Locked

63 Comments

View All Comments

  • kgardas - Tuesday, November 8, 2016 - link

    Looks really nice, ~6W for 10Gbit is good and very low on todays standard. The only drawback in comparison with Intel is PCIe 2.0 support only, so for 10Gbit you need 4 PCIe lanes. Otherwise I'm looking forward to see this card here...
  • Notmyusualid - Friday, December 2, 2016 - link

    @ kgardas: You should have seen our 10G DWDM telecom equipment, back in late 1998... more than 6W I can tell you :) , in fact we couldn't get it to work without forced air, each transceiver taking up a whole rack shelf, and we could only fit three shelves / rack space. The electrical complexity / number of boards to make it work was astounding.

    Incredible to see it done on a single card now, and more often now, even multiples of, on a single card.

    So yes, tech moves on...
  • Lolimaster - Tuesday, November 8, 2016 - link

    I think you should dive the PSU's used.

    Only a high wattage for multigpu test (850w+)
    500-650w Titanium for any cpu + single gpu / APU-intel IGP powered systems
  • ads295 - Wednesday, November 9, 2016 - link

    You know how those clickbait websites show cleavage or a$$?
    The thumbnail for this article led me to open it in the same vein. :O
  • Breit - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link

    Thanks for this review Ian, very informative.

    While reading the comments here, the single feature that seems to attract the most attention is the inclusion of 10G Ethernet. As it seems rather hard to implement a good performing 10G network compared to 1G, maybe an AnandTech-style in-depth article about 10G networking in general would be appreciated by the readers of this site. Just a suggestion.
    At least I would appreciate it... ;)
  • JlHADJOE - Friday, November 11, 2016 - link

    Didn't think I'd see the day when an ASUS motherboard is both cheaper and has more features than it's ASRock counterpart.
  • Notmyusualid - Friday, December 2, 2016 - link

    More features?

    I don't see a SATA DOM port.

    It is missing 2x 1GB Ethernet ports.

    It is missing 2 SATA ports (12 vs 10)

    It has only 10-phase power solution, vs 12 phase.

    It has no USB 2.0 ports did I read correctly?

    It has no fan on the 10G heatsink also, which allows the case temp to equalize with outside temps for some time after shutdown, to avoid condonsation building up in the case.

    Can you mount the same range of M.2 SSDs in this? I see only two mounting holes, mine has four...

    Board-mounted USB port, for DRM-related stick, or whatever you need connecting / secured on the INSIDE of a case.

    I also believe I have LAN LED headers to put network activity on the front panel, as one does with their hard disks.

    So tell me if I'm wrong, please.

    One thing I'll say, I do find the 6-pin board power connector much more elegant than my 4-pin Molex connector. And I cannot STAND my anodized blue... the black on the ASUS is also more elegant.

    Anybody who needs their pcie slots lit, to choose the right combo shouldn't be allowed to buy it..
  • Notmyusualid - Friday, December 2, 2016 - link

    also @ Jihadjoe

    Mine has TB header too. Almost forgot about that...
  • Hixbot - Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - link

    Don't understand the move to 10G copper. We should be transitioning towards 10G fiber. Copper can't carry 10G a practical distance. 55 meters for unshielded Cat 6 cable. That't not very far. 100 meters for shielded Cat 6, thats more reasonable. but has anyone priced Cat 6 shielded cable? It's very expensive, and good luck terminating the shielded RJ45 yourself to Cat 6 standards. In my workplace, we've had to order pre-terminated lengths of shielded Cat 6. Whenever we use fiber it's easier to terminate, costs are much cheaper, and distance is practically unlimited.

    So what is with the move to 10G copper?
  • Notmyusualid - Friday, December 2, 2016 - link

    As an owner of the asrock, I too would have preferred SFP sockets.

    But SMBs CAN afford $700 for a switch, and many of them have little fiber. My 2c.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now