The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti Review
by Ryan Smith on May 31, 2015 6:00 PM ESTFar Cry 4
The next game in our 2015 GPU benchmark suite is Far Cry 4, Ubisoft’s Himalayan action game. A lot like Crysis 3, Far Cry 4 can be quite tough on GPUs, especially with Ultra settings thanks to the game’s expansive environments.
For those of you just joining us, the GTX 980 Ti and GTX Titan are still neck-and neck. The GTX 980 Ti trails the Titan by no more than 4%, at 1440p and 2560, with the two cards taking the top two spots in our charts for single-GPU cards as one would expect.
On an absolute basis, at 4K Ultra this happens to be another case where the GTX 980 Ti delivers framerates around 40fps, in this case coming in at 40.6fps. Otherwise the GTX 980 Ti is going to come up a hair short of 60fps at medium quality – hitting 59.5fps – and finally going over 70fps at 1440p Ultra.
This also ends up being another case where the GTX 980 Ti looks very good as compared to the GTX 780. Here it beats NVIDIA’s last $649 card by as much as 86% at 1440p, highlighting NVIDIA’s performance gains at this price point over the last 2 years.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
290 Comments
View All Comments
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, June 10, 2015 - link
I bought a bunch of G80 G92 G92b and G94 nvidia cards because you could purchase memory size, bandwidth, bit width, power connector config, essentially any speed at any price point for a gamers rig, install the same driver, change the cards easily, upgrade for your customers without hassles...IT WAS A GOLD MINE OF FLEXIBILITY
What happened was, the amd fanboys got very angry over the IMMENSE SUCCESS of the initial G80 and it's reworked cores and totally fluid memory, card size, bit width, and pricing configurations... so they HAD TO TRY TO BRING IT DOWN...
Thus AMD launched their PR war, and the clueless amd fan launched their endless lies.
I'll tell you this much, no on would trade me a 9800GTX for a 9800GT
I couldn't get the 92 bit width cards for the same price as the 128 bit
DDR2 and DDR3 also differentiated the stack massively.
What we had wasn't rebranding, but an amazingly flexible GPU core that stood roaring above at the top and could be CUT down to the middle and the low gaming end, an configured successfully with loads of different bit widths and memory configs....
64 bit width, 92, 128, 256, 384, 192, ETC...
That was an is a awesome core, period.
BillyONeal - Sunday, May 31, 2015 - link
And people have been bent out of shape about it. For "YEARS" :)dragonsqrrl - Sunday, May 31, 2015 - link
Their highest-end rebadge, the 390X, will likely compete with the 980, not the 980 Ti. The 980 Ti will be closer to Fiji's performance profile.austinsguitar - Sunday, May 31, 2015 - link
I dont think you realize how much more efficiant this card is even compared to past cards for its nm and performance. This is a feat. Just calm down and enjoy. I am very happy that the cards price us perfect. :) thanks nvidiaMapRef41N93W - Sunday, May 31, 2015 - link
Maybe you aren't aware of how silicon works, but this a 601mm^2 die which costs a boat load to produce especially with the rising costs of crystalline silicon dies. Being on 28nm this long just means the yields are higher (which is why a 601mm^2 is even possible).You aren't going to see a 14nm card that outperforms this by much till 2017 at the earliest which following the recent NVIDIA trends should see the Titan XYZ (whatever they want to call it) which should be a pretty huge jump at a pretty high price.
Thomas_K - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link
Actually AMD is doing 14nm starting next yearhttp://www.guru3d.com/news-story/it-is-official-am...
"Although this was a rumor for a long time now we now know that AMD skips 20nm and jumps onto a 14nm fabrication node for their 2016 GPUs."
dragonsqrrl - Sunday, May 31, 2015 - link
Not sure I understand your comment, 28nm is precisely why we're paying this much for this level of performance in 2015... But it's also pretty impressive for the same reason.Azix - Sunday, May 31, 2015 - link
14/16nm might cost more. 28nm should have better yields and lower cost. These chips do not cost much to make at all (retail price could be 2-3 times the chip cost)dragonsqrrl - Sunday, May 31, 2015 - link
I think you misinterpreted my comment. I was responding to someone who seemed shocked by the fact that price/performance ratios aren't improving dramatically despite the fact that we're on a very mature process. In response I said the fact that we're on the same process is precisely why we aren't seeing dramatic improvements in price/performance ratios."28nm should have better yields and lower cost. These chips do not cost much to make at all (retail price could be 2-3 times the chip cost)"
Yields are just one part of the equation. Die size also plays a significant role in manufacturing costs. The fact that your trying to say with a straight face that GM200 does not cost much to make says more than your written comment itself.
zepi - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link
Assuming perfect scaling 600mm2 28nm chip would shrink to 150mm2 at 14nm.GM107 is a 148mm2 chip, so basically this "monster" with just a dieshrink would find a nice place for itself at the bottom end of Nvidias lineup with after transition to 14nm.
This does not take into account the fact that at 14nm and 150mm2 they couldn't give it enough memory bandwidth so easily, but just tells you something about how significant the reduction in size and manifacturing cost is after the initial ramp-up of the yields.