Final Words

While it was clear early on in our testing that the GeForce GTX 980 would be the new single-GPU champion, even after finishing testing of NVIDIA’s new flagship we weren’t sure what to expect out of the GTX 970. On the one hand NVIDIA had driven a very significant gap between the GTX 970 and the GTX 980 on theoretical performance – on paper the GTX 970 should be around 80% the performance of the GTX 980 – and on the other hand the GTX 980 was in practice some 16% faster than AMD’s flagship R9 290X. Immediately you can see the potential for even a slower GM204 card to be a threat to AMD, but it’s only an assumption until you have the data in hand.

It’s only fitting then that with the GTX 970 now up and running we find ourselves in a virtual tie between NVIDIA and AMD. Despite not even being NVIDIA’s flagship GM204 card, the GTX 970 is still fast enough to race the R9 290X to a dead heat – at 1440p the GTX 970 averages just 1% faster than the R9 290X. Only at 4K can AMD’s flagship pull ahead, and even then the situation becomes reversed entirely in NVIDIA’s favor at 1080p. As such the R9 290X still has a niche of its own, but considering the fact that GTX 970 is a $329 card I don’t seriously expect it to be used for 4K gaming, so the 1440p and 1080p comparisons are going to be the most appropriate comparisons here.

As is the case with AMD/NVIDIA ties in the past, this is an anything-but-equal sort of situation, but it strongly sells the idea of just how fast the GTX 970 is and just how dangerous it is to AMD. Ultimately what you are going to find is that the GTX 970 scores some big leads in some games only to fall well behind the R9 290X in others, and in other games still the two cards are tied through and through. In the end for pure performance neither card is superior, and in this case that’s a huge victory for NVIDIA.

With the GTX 970 NVIDIA only ties the R9 290X, but in the process they do so while consuming nearly 90W less power, generating far less noise, and most importantly delivering all of this at a two-thirds the cost. GTX 980 gave NVIDIA a well-earned lead over AMD, but it’s the one-two punch of GTX 980 and GTX 970 together that so solidly cement NVIDIA’s position as the top GPU manufacturer. It’s one thing for the $499 R9 290X to lose to NVIDIA’s $549 flagship, but to be outright tied by NVIDIA’s second tier card is a slap in the face that AMD won’t soon forget.

There’s not much more that can be said at this point other than that as of this moment the high-end performance landscape is entirely in NVIDIA’s favor. They have undercut AMD with better hardware at a lower price, leaving AMD in a very tenuous position. AMD would have to cut R9 290X’s priceby nearly $200 to be performance competitive, and even then they can’t come close to matching NVIDIA’s big edge in power consumption. To that end it’s a lot like the GTX 670 launch, but even in that case NVIDIA’s overall hardware and pricing advantage wasn’t quite as immense as it is today.

At anything over $300 there are only two single-GPU cards to consider: GTX 980 and GTX 970. Nothing else matters. For much of the last year NVIDIA has been more than performance competitive but not price competitive with AMD. So I am very happy to see NVIDIA finally reverse that trend and to do so in such a big way.

Moving on, in NVIDIA’s lineup the GTX 970 is a potent performer, but NVIDIA has left themselves a big enough gap that it doesn’t completely undercut their new flagship. GTX 980 remains 15% faster than GTX 970, and that’s no small difference. For $220 more GTX 980 is certainly not the value option, but then this is an NVIDIA flagship we’re talking about, and NVIDIA has always charged a premium there. Instead if you can’t afford the high price of the GTX 980 or simply don’t want to pay that premium, the GTX 970 is an excellent alternative. By pricing the card at $329 NVIDIA has done a great job of making a significant fraction of GM204’s performance available at a better price, and for this reason GTX 970 stands a very good chance of being the value champion for this generation.

Finally let’s talk about EVGA’s GeForce GTX 970 FTW ACX 2.0. EVGA has clearly put a lot of thought into their card and there is a good reason they remain one of NVIDIA’s closest partners. As the only GTX 970 we’ve looked at thus far we’re really only able to look at it on a pass-fail basis, but on that basis it’s a clear pass. The ACX 2.0 cooler is incredibly powerful when paired with the 145W GTX 970 (almost a bit too much) and EVGA continues to deliver some great features and software through items such as their triple BIOS capability and their software suite.

At the same time the FTW in particular is a solid value proposition, though how solid will depend on what you compare it to. Compared to GTX 980 it’s going to fall short by 7% or so despite the overclock, but in the process it essentially cuts the GTX 980’s lead in half. Given the $220 price difference between the reference GTX 970 and GTX 980, that $40 FTW premium is a great alternative. On the other hand this is in the end a factory overclocked card, and it’s entirely likely that most reference clocked GTX 970s could achieve similar clock speeds without paying the $40 premium. As is usually the case with factory overclocked cards, with the GTX 970 FTW you are paying for the peace of mind that comes from a sure thing and the support behind it, as opposed to playing the overclocking lottery.

With that said, I feel like EVGA does walk away from this launch with one vulnerability exposed, and that is the ACX 2.0 cooler. EVGA’s amazing cooling performance is undercut by their middle of the road noise performance, which although is still very good in light of GTX 970’s overall gaming performance, it is not as good as what we have seen other open air coolers do in the past. It’s by no means a deal breaker – especially given all of EVGA’s other advantages – but given the kind of quiet cooling possibilities that a 145W GPU should enable, EVGA is not exploiting it as well as they could.

And while this configuration isn’t going to be optimal for stock users, I don’t doubt for a second that EVGA’s overclocking community will have a field day with this one. With this much cooling headroom to work with the ACX 2.0 cooler is going hold up very well for users who want to overvolt on air.

Overclocking
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