Last week we took a look at NVIDIA’s newest consumer flagship video card, the GeForce GTX 980. Based on the company’s new GM204 GPU, GTX 980 further cemented NVIDIA’s ownership of the performance crown with a combination of performance improvements, new features, and power consumption reductions. Combined with a lower price than the now-dethroned GTX 780 Ti, GTX 980 is an impressive flagship with a mix of attributes that NVIDIA hopes to entice existing 600 and 500 series owners to upgrade to.

Of course even though GTX 980 was cheaper than the outgoing GTX 780 Ti, it is still a flagship card and at $549 is priced accordingly. But as in every GeForce product lineup there is a GeForce x70 right behind it, and for GTX 980 its lower-tier, lower priced counterpart is the GeForce GTX 970. Based on the same GM204 but configured with fewer active SMMs, a slightly lower clock speed, and a lower TDP, GTX 970 fills the gap by providing a lower performance but much lower priced alternative to the flagship GTX 980. In fact at $329 it’s some 40% cheaper than GTX 980, one of the largest discounts for a second-tier GeForce card in recent memory.

For this reason GTX 970 is an interesting card on its own, if not more interesting overall than its bigger sibling. The performance decrease from the reduced clock speeds and fewer SMMs is going to be tangible, but then so is a $220 savings to the pocketbook. With GTX 980 already topping our charts, if GTX 970 can stay relatively close then it would be a very tantalizing value proposition for enthusiast gamers who want to buy in to GM204 at a lower price.

NVIDIA GPU Specification Comparison
  GTX 980 GTX 970 (CorrecteD) GTX 780 GTX 770
CUDA Cores 2048 1664 2304 1536
Texture Units 128 104 192 128
ROPs 64 56 48 32
Core Clock 1126MHz 1050MHz 863MHz 1046MHz
Boost Clock 1216MHz 1178MHz 900Mhz 1085MHz
Memory Clock 7GHz GDDR5 7GHz GDDR5 6GHz 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 05/23/13 05/30/13
Launch Price $549 $329 $649 $399

Compared to GTX 980 and its full-fledged GM204 GPU, GTX 970 takes a harvested GM204 that 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

Along with the reduction in SMMs clock speed is also reduced slightly for GTX 970. It ships at a base clock speed of 1050MHz and a boost clock speed 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 still potentially 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. Compared to the GTX 770 that the GTX 970 replaces, this is a welcome and much needed upgrade from what has been the 2GB VRAM standard that NVIDIA has held to for the last two and a half years.

GTX 970’s TDP meanwhile is lower than GTX 980’s thanks to the reduced clock speeds and SMM count. The stock GTX 970 will be shipping with a TDP of just 145W, some 80W less than GTX 770’s official TDP of 225W. 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.

Like the GTX 980, NVIDIA’s target market for the GTX 970 will be owners of GTX 600/500/400 series cards and their AMD equivalents. GTX 970 is faster than GTX 770 but not immensely so, and as a result NVIDIA does not expect GTX 770 owners to want to upgrade so soon. Meanwhile GTX 670 owners and beyond are looking at 65%+ improved performance for cards at the same tier, while power consumption will remain roughly consistent from the GTX 670’s 140W GPU Boost 1.0-based power target.

Furthermore, as we mentioned in our GTX 980 review, GTX 970 has been a pure virtual (no reference card) launch, which means all of NVIDIA’s partners are launching their custom cards right out of the gate. A lot of these have been recycled or otherwise only slightly modified GTX 700/600 series designs, owing to the fact that GM204’s memory bus has been held at 256-bits and its power requirements are so low.

Meanwhile since NVIDIA did not produce reference cards, for GTX 970 reviewers are being sampled directly by NVIDIA’s partners. For our review today we will be looking at EVGA’s GeForce GTX 970 FTW ACX 2.0, the company’s highest performance GTX 970 card. Accordingly, we will be taking a look at both it’s out of the box performance and performance when reconfigured as a stock card to showcase both performance profiles.

With the discontinuation of the GTX 780 series and GTX 770, competition for the GTX 970 will be split between the GTX 760 and GTX 980 on the NVIDIA side. On the AMD side things will be even more spread out; AMD’s closest cards from a pricing perspective are the R9 280X and R9 290 priced below and above the $329 GTX 970 respectively, but as we’ll see even R9 290X is not necessarily out of the picture thanks to GM204’s strong performance.

Surprisingly even a week after the launch of the GTX 900 series, AMD has yet to officially respond to the GTX 900 series launch with any further price cuts or additional incentives beyond their existing Never Settle Forever bundle. In lieu of that some retailers have been running their own promotions; our pricing benchmark retailer Newegg has been offering 15% discounts on some of their PowerColor R9 290 series cards, meanwhile some other cards qualify for a $40 Newegg gift card (which cannot be applied retroactively to the purchase). Since the bulk of these cards don’t qualify for the price discount we’re holding our reference prices at $500 for the R9 290X and $400 for the R9 290, however the very cheapest of these PowerColor cards with the discount in play can go for as little as $450 and $340 respectively.

Meanwhile GTX 900 series sales have been brisk, and while the cards are still in supply not all models are available or are regularly available. At the very least everything from reference clocked cards to significantly overclocked cards are available at Newegg, so there is still a range of options. Though they are coincidentally all EVGA cards as of publication time.

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

 

Meet The EVGA GeForce GTX 970 FTW ACX 2.0
Comments Locked

155 Comments

View All Comments

  • hammer256 - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    It would not surprise me if GM204 is crippled in FP64 in a similar way to GK104, with physically limited number of FP64 cores.
    Regarding to GK110, how the die are selected between FP64 crippled and professional cards is not known. You can imagine a case where the dies with defects in the FP64 cores can still be used in gamer cards, and thus have a bit more yield. But that's pure speculation, of course.
    Either way, Nvidia does this because this makes them more money, and they can get away with it. If you remember from your class in micro-economics, when the industry is in a state of monopoly or oligopoly, segmentation is the way to go for profit maximization. Unless AMD is willing to not segment their products, there is no pressure for Nvidia to change what they are doing.
    So we can argue that consumers are the losers in this state of things, and generally in monopoly and oligopoly that is indeed the case. But in this specific case with FP64, I have to ask: are there many/any consumer relevant applications that could really benefit from FP64? I'm curious to know. I would say that in order for these companies to care, the application need to have sufficient general relevance in the same order of magnitude as that for graphics.
    Those of us who uses the GPU in scientific computation such as simulations are the real losers in this trend. But then again, we were fortunate to have had this kind of cheap, off the shelf hardware that were so powerful for what we do. Looks that ride is coming to an end, at least for the foreseeable future. Personally, my simulation doesn't really benefit from double precision, so I'm pretty lucky. Even then I found that stepping from the GTX580 to a GTX680 core didn't improve performance at all. The silver lining there was that GTX690 had much better performance that the GTX590 for me, and I was able to get 4 GTX690's for some excellent performance. A GTX990 would be tempting, or maybe just wait for the 20nm iteration...
  • anubis44 - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link

    Of course GM204 is crippled in FP64. That's where nVidia is finding the improved power budget and reduction in wattage requirement. Frankly, I think it's pretty cheesy, and I've stopped listening to people creaming their jeans about how fabulous nVidia's low power is compared with AMD's. Of course it's going to loose it's power requirements if you cripple the hell out of it. Duh. The question is whether you will line up to get shafted with all the other drones, or if you'll protest this stupidity by buying AMD instead, and give nVidia the finger for this, as they rightly deserve. If we don't, AMD will have to take its FP64 circuitry out of their cards to compete.
  • D. Lister - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link

    What I said earlier had nothing to do with efficiency. If you were a prosumer and were in the market for double precision hardware... why would you want a $3000 pro GPU when you can get nearly the same performance from a <$1000 consumer variant? Not everyone cares for ECC VRAM. HPC guys et al would be all over it, resulting in an unfairly inflated retail value for the rest of us. When that happens, Nvidia is the one that gets the bad rep, just like AMD did during the bit mining fad. Why do you believe it is so important anyway?
  • Subyman - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    Looking at the PCB, the FTW version does not have more VRMs than the SC or normal EVGA model. I only see four chokes, which is what the other cards have. MSI has 6 VRMs. I'm wondering if EVGA is also using the same low-end analog VRMs that the SC and regular EVGA cards use as well. All other 970's use higher end VRMs.
  • wetwareinterface - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    the ftw is not the top end designation it isn't even better than the sc cards in most cases it's lower clocked than the sc and just has extra ram.

    for evga the cards are custom clocked cards are in order

    sc
    ftw
    ssc
    sc signature
    classified

    again the ftw can have lower clocks than the sc or the same clocks but usually has more ram
  • Subyman - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    I never said it was. The article mentioned it had 1 more power phase than the others, but from the pictures it obviously doesn't.
  • Subyman - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    Also, we really need a round up of all the brands on here. Seeing the FTW version vs reference doesn't paint a usable picture for those looking to make a purchase.
  • Mr Perfect - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    Is anyone going to pair this with the 980's blower? That would be quite impressive.

    Oh, and get the 970's IO up to par. Again, the 980's configuration would be better. Dual DVI indeed...
  • Margalus - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    pny has a 970 with the full complement of output's. 3 dp, 1 hdmi 2 and 1 dvi. It really pisses me off that most of the top tier makers like EVGA and ASUS decided to switch that to 1 dp, 1 hdmi and 2 dvi...
  • pixelstuff - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    Same here. Annoyed.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now