The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Review: Maxwell Mark 2
by Ryan Smith on September 18, 2014 10:30 PM ESTCrysis 3
Still one of our most punishing benchmarks, Crysis 3 needs no introduction. With Crysis 3, Crytek has gone back to trying to kill computers and still holds “most punishing shooter” title in our benchmark suite. Only in a handful of setups can we even run Crysis 3 at its highest (Very High) settings, and that’s still without AA. Crysis 1 was an excellent template for the kind of performance required to drive games for the next few years, and Crysis 3 looks to be much the same for 2014.
Meanwhile delta percentage performance is extremely strong here. Everyone, including the GTX 980, is well below 3%.
Always a punishing game, Crysis 3 ends up being one of the only games the GTX 980 doesn’t take a meaningful lead on over the GTX 780 Ti. To be clear the GTX 980 wins in most of these benchmarks, but not in all of them, and even when it does win the GTX 780 Ti is never far behind. For this reason the GTX 980’s lead over the GTX 780 Ti and the rest of our single-GPU video cards is never more than a few percent, even at 4K. Otherwise at 1440p we’re looking at the tables being turned, with the GTX 980 taking a 3% deficit. This is the only time the GTX 980 will lose to NVIDIA’s previous generation consumer flagship.
As for the comparison versus AMD’s cards, NVIDIA has been doing well in Crysis 3 and that extends to the GTX 980 as well. The GTX 980 takes a 10-20% lead over the R9 290XU depending on the resolution, with its advantage shrinking as the resolution grows. During the launch of the R9 290 series we saw that AMD tended to do better than NVIDIA at higher resolutions, and while this pattern has narrowed some, it has not gone away. AMD is still the most likely to pull even with the GTX 980 at 4K resolutions, despite the additional ROPS available to the GTX 980.
This will also be the worst showing for the GTX 980 relative to the GTX 680. GTX 980 is still well in the lead, but below 4K that lead is just 44%. NVIDIA can’t even do 50% better than the GTX 680 in this game until we finally push the GTX 680 out of its comfort zone at 4K.
All of this points to Crysis 3 being very shader limited at these settings. NVIDIA has significantly improved their CUDA core occupancy on Maxwell, but in these extreme situations GTX 980 will still struggle with the CUDA core deficit versus GK110, or the limited 33% increase in CUDA cores versus GTX 680. Which is a feather in Kepler’s cap if anything, showing that it’s not entirely outclassed if given a workload that maps well to its more ILP-sensitive shader architecture.
The delta percentage story continues to be unremarkable with Crysis 3. GTX 980 does technically fare a bit worse, but it’s still well under 3%. Keep in mind that delta percentages do become more sensitive at higher framerates (there is less absolute time to pace frames), so a slight increase here is not unexpected.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
274 Comments
View All Comments
garadante - Thursday, September 25, 2014 - link
Yeah. To be honest nobody except ardent Nvidia fanboys would've believed Nvidia would release cards as performance and price competitive as they did, especially the 970. The 980 is honestly a little overpriced compared to a few generations ago as they'll slap a $200 premium on it for Big Maxwell but $330 MSRP for the 970 (if I remember correctly) wasn't bad at all, for generally what, 290/780/290X performance?tuxRoller - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link
It's not too surprising as we saw what the 750ti was like.What is disappointing, though, is that I thought nvidia had made some fundamental breakthrough in their designs where, instead, it looks as though they "simply" enabled a better governor.
garadante - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link
It'll be interesting to see how the efficiency suffers once nvidia releases a proper compute die with area dedicated to double precision FP. I have to keep in mind that when factoring in the stripped down die compared to AMD's 290/290X cards, the results aren't as competition. Lowing as they first seem. But if AMD can't counter these cards with their own stripped down gaming only cards then nvidia took the win this generation.tuxRoller - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link
That's an excellent point. I take it you already read the tomshardware review? They're compute performance/W is still good, but not so unbelievable as their gaming performance, but I'm not sure it's b/c this is a gaming only card. Regardless, though, amd needs to offer something better than what's currently available. Unfortunately, I don't think they will be able to do it. There was a lot of driver work than went into making these maxwell cards humgaradante - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link
One thing that really bothers me though is how Anandtech keeps testing the 290/290X with reference cards. Those cards run at 95 C due to the fan control profile in the BIOS and I remember seeing that when people ran those cards with decent nonreference cooling in the 70 C range that power consumption was 15-20+ watts lower. So an AMD die that sacrifices FP64 performance to focus on FP32(gaming, some compute) performance as well as decreasing die size due to the lack of FP64 resources seems like it could be a lot more competitive with Maxwell than people are making it out to be. I have this feeling that the people saying how badly Maxwell trounces AMD's efficiency and that AMD can't possibly hope to catch up are too biased in their thinking.tuxRoller - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link
Do you have a link to those reviews that show non-reference fans make gpus more efficient? I don't know how that could be possible. Given the temps we're looking at the effects on the conductors should be very, very small.Regarding the reduction in fp performance and gaming efficiency, that's a good point. That may indeed be part of the reason why nvidia has the gaming/compute split (aside from the prices they can charge).
garadante - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link
Here's an example of a card with liquid cooling. Factor in the overclock that the nonreference card has and that it draws something like 20 watts less in Furmark and the same in 3Dmark. I could be mistaken on the improved power usage but I do recall seeing shortly after the 290X launch that nonreference coolers helped immensely, and power usage dropped as well. Sadly I don't believe Anandtech ever reviewed a nonreference 290X... which is mind boggling to consider, considering how much nonreference cooling helped that card, even outside of any potential power usage decreases.garadante - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/lcs-axr9-290x-... Whoops, forgot the link.jman9295 - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link
I wonder why they still give these cards these boring numbered names like GTX 980. Except for the Titan, these names kinda suck. Why not at least name it the Maxwell 980 or for AMD's R( 290 series the Hawaii 290. That sounds a lot cooler than GTX or R9. Also, for the last several generations, AMD and Nvidia's numbering system seems to be similar up until AMD ended that with the R9/R7 200 series. Before that, they had the GTX 700 and HD 7000 series, the GTX 600 and HD 6000 series and so on. Then, as soon as AMD changed it up, Nvidia decides to skip the GTX 800's for retail desktop GPUs and jump right up to the 900 series. Maybe they will come up with a fancier name for their next gen cards besides the GTX 1000's.AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link
Naw, names are much harder to keep track of than numbers that inherently describe relative performance.