Launching Today: GTX 980 & GTX 970

Now that we’ve had a chance to take a look at the architectural and feature additions found in Maxwell 2 and GM204, let’s talk about the products themselves.

Today NVIDIA will be launching 2 products. These are the GeForce GTX 980 and GeForce GTX 970. As with past 80/70 parts this is a two tier launch, with GTX 980 being NVIDIA’s new flagship card and 1st tier GM204 card, while GTX 970 offers 2nd tier performance at much lower pricing.

NVIDIA GPU Specification Comparison
  GTX 980 GTX 970 (Corrected) GTX 780 Ti GTX 770
CUDA Cores 2048 1664 2880 1536
Texture Units 128 104 240 128
ROPs 64 56 48 32
Core Clock 1126MHz 1050MHz 875MHz 1046MHz
Boost Clock 1216MHz 1178MHz 928Mhz 1085MHz
Memory Clock 7GHz GDDR5 7GHz GDDR5 7GHz GDDR5 7GHz GDDR5
Memory Bus Width 256-bit 256-bit 384-bit 256-bit
VRAM 4GB 4GB 3GB 2GB
FP64 1/32 FP32 1/32 FP32 1/24 FP32 1/24 FP32
TDP 165W 145W 250W 230W
GPU GM204 GM204 GK110 GK104
Transistor Count 5.2B 5.2B 7.1B 3.5B
Manufacturing Process TSMC 28nm TSMC 28nm TSMC 28nm TSMC 28nm
Launch Date 09/18/14 09/18/14 11/07/13 05/30/13
Launch Price $549 $329 $699 $399

Starting with the GeForce GTX 980, this is a fully enabled GM204 part. This means that 16 SMMs are enabled (2048 CUDA cores), as are all 64 ROPs and the full 256-bit memory bus. It is in other words GM204 at its best.

For clockspeeds NVIDIA is shipping GTX 980 with a base clockspeed of 1126MHz, a boost clockspeed of 1216MHz, and in our samples we have found the maximum clockspeed (highest stock boost bin) to be 1252MHz. This is a higher set of clockspeeds than any NVIDIA consumer GPU thus far, surpassing GTX 770, GTX Titan Black, and GTX 750 Ti. Curiously NVIDIA’s self-defined (and otherwise arbitrary) boost clock is much higher than on past parts; normally it would only be 50MHz or so above the base clock. This indicates that NVIDIA is getting more aggressive with their boost clock labeling and are picking values much closer to the card’s maximum clockspeed. This is a subject we will be revisiting later.

Meanwhile the memory clock stands at 7GHz, the same as with NVIDIA’s past generation of high-end cards. With GDDR5 clockspeeds all but tapped out, NVIDIA appears to have reached the limits of GDDR5 as a technology, hence their long-term interest in HBM for future architectures and improved color compression for current architectures. In any case this 7GHz of GDDR5 is attached to a 256-bit memory bus, and is populated with 4GB of VRAM. NVIDIA for the longest time has held to 2GB/3GB of memory for their cards, so it is a welcome sight to see that they are now making 4GB their standard, especially if they are going to target 4K gaming.

For power delivery GTX 980 has a rated TDP of 165W. This is significantly lower than the 250W TDPs of the GTX 780/780Ti/Titan and even the 225W TDP of the GTX 770, and heavily contributes to NVIDIA’s overall power efficiency advantage. Meanwhile NVIDIA does not specify an idle TDP, however in our testing idle power usage is lower than ever for a high-end NVIDIA card, indicating that NVIDIA should have it down to the single watt range.

Moving on, we have the GTX 980’s lower price, lower performance counterpart, the GTX 970. Compared to GTX 980, GTX 970 drops 3 of the SMMs, reducing its final count to 13 SMMs or 1664 CUDA cores. It also sheds part of a ROP/L2 cache partition while retaining the 256-bit memory bus of its bigger sibling, bringing the ROP count down to 56 ROPs and the L2 cache down to 1.75MB, a configuration option new to Maxwell.

As expected, along with the reduction in SMMs clockspeed is also reduced slightly for GTX 970. It ships at a base clockspeed of 1050MHz, with a boost clockspeed of 1178MHz. This puts the theoretical performance difference between it and the GTX 980 at about 85% of the ROP performance or about 79% of the shading/texturing/geometry performance. Given that the GTX 970 is unlikely to be ROP bound with so many ROPs, the real world performance difference should much more closely track the 79% value, meaning there is a significant performance delta between the GTX 980 and GTX 970. Elsewhere the memory configuration is unchanged from GTX 980. This means we’re looking at 4GB of GDDR5 clocked at 7GHz, all on a 256-bit bus.

GTX 970’s TDP meanwhile is lower than GTX 980’s thanks to the reduced clockspeeds and SMM count. The stock GTX 970 will be shipping with a TDP of just 145W, some 80W less than GTX 770. NVIDIA’s official designs still include 2 6-pin PCIe power sockets despite the fact that the card should technically be able to operate on just one; it is not clear at this time whether this is for overclocking purposes (150W would leave almost no power headroom) or for safety purposes since NVIDIA would be so close to going over PCIe specifications.

Due to the launch of the GTX 980 and GTX 970, NVIDIA’s product lineup will be changing to accommodate these cards. GTX 780 Ti, GTX 780, and GTX 770 are all being discontinued; their replacements offer better performance at better prices for lower power consumption. GTX 980 will be launching at $550, meanwhile GTX 970 will be launching at the surprisingly low price of $329, some 40% cheaper than GTX 980. On a historical basis GTX 980 is a bit higher than most of the past GTX x80 cards – which are often launched at $500 – while GTX 970 immediately slots in to GTX 770’s old price.

NVIDIA’s target market for the GTX 900 series will be owners of GTX 600/500/400 series cards and their AMD equivalents. GTX 980 and GTX 970 are faster than their 700 series predecessors but not immensely so, and as a result NVIDIA does not expect 700 series owners to want to upgrade so soon. Meanwhile 600 series owners and beyond are looking at 70%+ improved performance for cards at the same tier, along with some degree of a reduction in power consumption.

For today’s launch NVIDIA will be doing a reference launch of the GTX 980, so reference cards will be well represented while production of customized cards ramps up. Meanwhile GTX 970 is a pure virtual launch, meaning there will not be any reference cards at all. NVIDIA’s partners will be launching with customized designs right away, many of which will be carried over from their GTX 600/700 card designs. This will be a hard launch and cards should be readily available, and while NVIDIA should have no problem producing GM204 GPUs on the very mature TSMC 28nm process, it is difficult to predict just how well supplies will hold out.

On the competitive basis NVIDIA’s direct competition for the GTX 980 and GTX 970 will be split. GTX 980 is an immediate challenger for the Radeon R9 290X, AMD’s flagship single-GPU card which outside of a couple of sales continues to be priced around $499. GTX 970’s competition meanwhile will be split between the Radeon R9 290 and Radeon R9 280X. From a performance perspective the R9 290 is going to be the closer competitor, though it's priced around $399. Meanwhile the R9 280X will undercut the GTX 970 at around $279, but with much weaker performance.

NVIDIA for their part will not be running any promotions or bundles for the GTX 900 series, so what you see is what you get. Otherwise AMD will have their continuing Never Settle Forever bundle in play, which offers up to 3 free games in order to add value to the overall product.

Finally, there will be price cuts for the GTX 700 series. Officially GTX 760 stays in production with a new MSRP of $219. Meanwhile GTX 770, GTX 780, and GTX 780 Ti will go on clearance sale at whatever prices retailers can manage, and are still part of NVIDIA’s Borderlands bundle offer. That said, from a performance and power efficiency angle, the GTX 900 series is going to be a much more desirable product line.

Fall 2014 GPU Pricing Comparison
AMD Price NVIDIA
Radeon R9 295X2 $1000  
  $550 GeForce GTX 980
Radeon R9 290X $500  
Radeon R9 290 $400  
  $330 GeForce GTX 970
Radeon R9 280X $280  
Radeon R9 285 $250  
Radeon R9 280 $220 GeForce GTX 760

 

Better AA: Dynamic Super Resolution & Multi-Frame Sampled Anti-Aliasing Meet the GeForce GTX 980
Comments Locked

274 Comments

View All Comments

  • TheJian - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link

    http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/09/19/maxwell-an...
    Did I miss it in the article or did you guys just purposely forget to mention NV claims it does DX12 too? see their own blog. Microsoft's DX12 demo runs on ...MAXWELL. Did I just miss the DX12 talk in the article? Every other review I've read mentions this (techpowerup, tomshardware, hardocp etc etc). Must be that AMD Center still having it's effect on your articles ;)

    They were running a converted elemental demo (converted to dx12) and Fable Legends from MS. Yet curiously missing info from this site's review. No surprise I guess with only an AMD portal still :(

    From the link above:
    "Part of McMullen’s presentation was the announcement of a broadly accessible early access program for developers wishing to target DX12. Microsoft will supply the developer with DX12, UE4-DX12 and the source for Epic’s Elemental demo ported to run on the DX12-based engine. In his talk, McMullen demonstrated Maxwell running Elemental at speed and flawlessly. As a development platform for this effort, NVIDIA’s GeForce GPUs and Maxwell in particular is a natural vehicle for DX12 development."

    So maxwell is a dev platform for dx12, but you guys leave that little detail out so newbs will think it doesn't do it? Major discussion of dx11 stuff missing before, now up to 11.3 but no "oh and it runs all of dx12 btw".

    One more comment on 980: If it's a reference launch how come other sites already have OC versions (IE, tomshardware has a Windforce OC 980, though stupidly as usual they downclocked it and the two OC/superclocked 970's they had to ref clocks...ROFL - like you'd buy an OC card and downclock them)? IT seems to be a launch of OC all around. Newegg even has them in stock (check EVGA OC version):
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
    And with a $10 rebate so only $559 and a $5 gift card also.
    "This model is factory overclocked to 1241 MHz Base Clock/1342 MHz Boost Clock (1126 MHz/1216 MHz for reference design)"

    Who would buy ref for $10 diff? IN fact the ref cards are $569 at newegg, so you save buying the faster card...LOL.
  • cactusdog - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link

    TheJian, Wow, Did you read the article? Did you read the conclusion? AT says the 980 is "remarkable" , "well engineered", "impeccable design" and has "no competition" They covered almost all of Nvidia marketing talking points and you're going to accuse them of a conspiracy? Are you fking retarded??
  • Daniel Egger - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link

    It would be nice to rather than just talk about about the 750 Ti to also include it in comparisons to see it clearer in perspective what it means to go from Maxwell I to Maxwell II in terms of performance, power consumption, noise and (while we are at it) performance per Watt and performance per $.

    Also where're the benchmarks for the GTX 970? I sure respect that this card is in a different ballpark but the somewhat reasonable power output might actually make the GTX 970 a viable candidate for an HTPC build. Is it also possible to use it with just one additional 6 Pin connector (since as you mentioned this would be within the specs without any overclocking) or does it absolutely need 2 of them?
  • SkyBill40 - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link

    As was noted in the review at least twice, they were having issues with the 970 and thus it won't be tested in full until next week (along with the 980 in SLI).
  • MrSpadge - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link

    Wow! This makes me upgrade from a GTX660Ti - not because of gaming (my card is fast enough for my needs) but because of the power efficiency gains for GP-GPU (running GPU-Grid under BOINC). Thank you nVidia for this marvelous chip and fair prices!
  • jarfin - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link

    i still CANT understand amd 'uber' option.
    its totally out of test,bcoz its just 'oc'd' button,nothing else.
    its must be just r290x and not anantech 'amd canter' way uber way.

    and,i cant help that feeling,what is strong,that anatech is going badly amd company way,bcoz they have 'amd center own sector.
    so,its mean ppl cant read them review for nvidia vs radeon cards race without thinking something that anatech keep raden side way or another.
    and,its so clear thats it.

    btw
    i hope anantech get clear that amd card R9200 series is just competition for nvidia 90 series,bcoz that every1 kow amd skippedd 8000 series and put R9 200 series for nvidia 700 series,but its should be 8000 series.
    so now,generation of gpu both side is even.

    meaning that next amd r9 300 series or what it is coming amd company battle nvidia NEXT level gpu card,NOT 900 series.

    there is clear both gpu card history for net.

    thank you all

    p.s. where is nvidia center??
  • Gigaplex - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link

    Uber mode is not an overclock. It's a fan speed profile change to reduce thermal throttling (underclock) at the expense of noise.
  • dexgen - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link

    Ryan, Is it possible to see the average clock speeds in different tests after increasing the power and temperature limit in afterburner?

    And also once the review units for non-reference cards come in it would be very nice to see what the average clock speeds for different cards with and without increased power limit would be. That would be a great comparison for people deciding which card to buy.
  • silverblue - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link

    Exceptional by NVIDIA; it's always good to see a more powerful yet more frugal card especially at the top end.

    AMD's power consumption could be tackled - at least partly - by some re-engineering. Do they need a super-wide memory bus when NVIDIA are getting by with half the width and moderately faster RAM? Tonga has lossless delta colour compression which largely negates the need for a wide bus, although they did shoot themselves in the foot by not clocking the memory a little higher to anticipate situations where this may not help the 285 overcome the 280.

    Perhaps AMD could divert some of their scant resources towards shoring up their D3D performance to calm down some of the criticism because it does seem like they're leaving performance on the table and perhaps making Mantle look better than it might be as a result.
  • Luke212 - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link

    Where are the SGEMM compute benchmarks you used to put on high end reviews?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now