The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Review: Maxwell Mark 2
by Ryan Smith on September 18, 2014 10:30 PM ESTCrysis: Warhead
Up next is our legacy title for 2014, Crysis: Warhead. The stand-alone expansion to 2007’s Crysis, at over 5 years old Crysis: Warhead can still beat most systems down. Crysis was intended to be future-looking as far as performance and visual quality goes, and it has clearly achieved that. We’ve only finally reached the point where single-GPU cards have come out that can hit 60fps at 1920 with 4xAA, never mind 2560 and beyond.
At the launch of the GTX 680, Crysis: Warhead was rather punishing of the GTX 680’s decreased memory bandwidth versus GTX 580. The GTX 680 was faster than the GTX 580, but the gains weren’t as great as what we saw elsewhere. For this reason the fact that the GTX 980 can hold a 60% lead over the GTX 680 is particularly important because it means that NVIDIA’s 3rd generation delta color compression is working and working well. This has allowed NVIDIA to overcome quite a bit of memory bandwidth bottlenecking in this game and push performance higher.
That said, since GTX 780 Ti has a full 50% more memory bandwidth, it’s telling that GTX 780 Ti and GTX 980 are virtually tied in this benchmark. Crysis: Warhead will gladly still take what memory bandwidth it can get from NVIDIA cards.
Otherwise against AMD cards this is the other game where GTX 980 can’t cleanly defeat R9 290XU. These cards are virtually tied, with AMD edging out NVIDIA in two of three tests. Given their differing architectures I’m hesitant to say this is a memory bandwidth factor as well, but if it were then R9 290XU has a very big memory bandwidth advantage going into this.
When it comes to minimum framerates the story is much the same, with the GTX 980 and AMD trading places. Though it’s interesting to note that the GTX 980 is doing rather well against the GTX 680 here; that memory bandwidth advantage would appear to really be paying off with minimum framterates.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
274 Comments
View All Comments
kron123456789 - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link
Look at "Load Power Consuption — Furmark" test. It's 80W lower with 980 than with 780Ti.Carrier - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link
Yes, but the 980's clock is significantly lowered for the FurMark test, down to 923MHz. The TDP should be fairly measured at speeds at which games actually run, 1150-1225MHz, because that is the amount of heat that we need to account for when cooling the system.Ryan Smith - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link
It doesn't really matter what the clockspeed is. The card is gated by both power and temperature. It can never draw more than its TDP.FurMark is a pure TDP test. All NVIDIA cards will reach 100% TDP, making it a good way to compare their various TDPs.
Carrier - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link
If that is the case, then the charts are misleading. GTX 680 has a 195W TDP vs. GTX 770's 230W (going by Wikipedia), but the 680 uses 10W more in the FurMark test.I eagerly await your GTX 970 report. Other sites say that it barely saves 5W compared to the GTX 980, even after they correct for factory overclock. Or maybe power measurements at the wall aren't meant to be scrutinized so closely :)
Carrier - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link
To follow up: in your GTX 770 review from May 2013, you measured the 680 at 332W in FurMark, and the 770 at 383W in FurMark. Those numbers seem more plausible.Ryan Smith - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link
680 is a bit different because it's a GPU Boost 1.0 card. 2.0 included the hard TDP and did away with separate power targets. Actually what you'll see is that GTX 680 wants to draw 115% TDP with NVIDIA's current driver set under FurMark.Carrier - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link
Thank you for the clarification.wanderer27 - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link
Power at the wall (AC) is going to be different than power at the GPU - which is coming from the DC PSU.There are loses and efficiency difference in converting from AC to DC (PSU), plus a little wiggle from MB and so forth.
solarscreen - Friday, September 19, 2014 - link
Here you go:http://books.google.com/books?id=v3-1hVwHnHwC&...
PhilJ - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link
As stated in the article, the power figures are total system power draw. The GTX980 is throwing out nearly double the FPS of the GTX680, so this is causing the rest of the system (mostly the CPU) to work harder to feed the card. This in tun drives the total system power consumption up, despite the fact the GTX980 itself is drawing less power than the GTX680.