Case: Cooler Master HAF XB Evo Black / Case Fan(s) Front: Noctua NF-A14 ULN 140mm Premium Fans / Case Fan(s) Rear: Corsair Air Series AF120 Quiet Edition (red) / Case Fan(s) Side: Noctua NF-A6x25 FLX 60mm Premium Fan / Controller: Sony Dualshock 4 Wireless (DS4Windows) / Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo / CPU: Intel Core i5-10600, 6-cores, 12-threads, 4.4/4.8GHz, 13,5MB cache (Intel 14nm++ FinFET) / Display: ASUS 24" LED VN247H (67Hz OC) 1920x1080p / GPU: Gigabyte Radeon RX Vega 56 Gaming OC @1501MHz (Samsung 14nm FinFET) / Keyboard: Logitech Desktop K120 (Nordic) / Motherboard: ASUS PRIME B460 PLUS, Socket-LGA1200 / Mouse: Razer Abyssus 2014 / PCI-E: ASRock USB 3.1/A+C (PCI Express x4) / PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA G2, 850W / RAM A1, A2, B1 & B2: DDR4-2666MHz CL13-15-15-15-35-1T "Samsung 8Gbit C-Die" (4x8GB) / Operating System: Windows 10 Home / Sound: Zombee Z300 / Storage 1 & 2: Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD / Storage 3: Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD / Storage 4: Seagate Desktop 2TB SSHD / Storage 5: Crucial P1 1000GB M.2 SSD/ Storage 6: Western Digital WD7500BPKX 2.5" HDD / Wi-fi: TP-Link TL-WN851N 11n Wireless Adapter (Qualcomm Atheros)
gtx 980 sli vs gtx 970 sli 1080p camcorder
Case: Cooler Master HAF XB Evo Black / Case Fan(s) Front: Noctua NF-A14 ULN 140mm Premium Fans / Case Fan(s) Rear: Corsair Air Series AF120 Quiet Edition (red) / Case Fan(s) Side: Noctua NF-A6x25 FLX 60mm Premium Fan / Case Fan VRM: SUNON MagLev KDE1209PTV3 92mm / Controller: Sony Dualshock 4 Wireless (DS4Windows) / Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo / CPU: AMD FX-8370 (Base: @4.4GHz Turbo: @4.7GHz) Black Edition Eight-Core (Global Foundries 32nm) / Display: ASUS 24" LED VN247H (67Hz OC) 1920x1080p / GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 970 4GD5 OC "Afterburner" @1450MHz (T.S.M.C. 28nm) / GPU: Gigabyte Radeon RX Vega 56 Gaming OC @1501MHz (Samsung 14nm FinFET) / Keyboard: Logitech Desktop K120 (Nordic) / Motherboard: MSI 970 GAMING, Socket-AM3+ / Mouse: Razer Abyssus 2014 / PCI-E: ASRock USB 3.1/A+C (PCI Express x4) / PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA G2, 850W PSU / RAM 1, 2, 3 & 4: Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866MHz CL8-10-10-28-37-2T (4x4GB) 16.38GB / Operating System 1: Windows 10 Home / Sound: Zombee Z300 / Storage 1: Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD (x2) / Storage 2: Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD / Storage 3: Seagate Desktop 2TB SSHD / Wi-fi: TP-Link TL-WN951N 11n Wireless Adapter
As for frametimes, 0.1% metrics run poor on both the SLI and CrossFire configurations when compared against neighboring single-card alternatives. The 2x R9 390s run a bit worse. 51.3FPS 0.1% low against an average throughput of 130FPS (1080p) will be detected as the occasional 'dip,' 'stutter,' or 'lag' (or other colloquialism) on rare occasion.
At 1080p, the SLI 970s are advantaged by a noticeable 17.86% (122FPS vs. 102FPS AVG). More noticeable is the 0.1% low metric at 77.3FPS vs. 34.7FPS for the 2x R9 390s. 1440p saw a 6.1% AVG FPS delta that favored the 970s, but severely low 0.1% output (8FPS) on the 2x 390s prohibited smooth play.
I originally made a post similar to this about a few weeks ago. However, that was before the price drops starting kicking in for the GTX 970 and originally, I was going to get the 1080. However, I've decided to be realistic instead of just being like "omg I could be future proof for years" like I initially started out when the 1080 first launched. I've got a 1080p 144hz monitor. So yeah, I don't really need the 1080, it'd be overkill. The reason I want to upgrade is because my single GTX 970 doesn't really take advantage of my monitors refresh rate, especially with most newer games. Not to mention, with some games like GTA V, Fallout 4, and even Borderlands 2/Pre-Sequel (with PhysX maxed out) I see some heavy frame dips from time to time that can even go below 40 FPS which REALLY bothers me. I'm a person that likes to max out my games and see the FPS shoot up so that I'm really getting good use out of my monitor.
Now I get it, SLI = hotter and sometimes isn't compatible with some games thus rendering it useless. With that being said, again, the 970 is going down in price. A single 970 at $270-330 USD (depending on which one I get) vs a single 1070 at 440+ USD. The 1070 usually beats out the GTX Titan X in most games...though so do two 970's. Also, I know the 1070 has like 8GB of VRAM and the 970 has basically 3.5GB of VRAM, but...I game at 1080p so VRAM really isn't an issue and wont be for still a few years most likely. As you can tell, I'm kinda leaning towards the SLI 970's...but my decision is still far from final overall and I do have a couple of weeks before I actually purchase my upgrade, so with that being said, I wanted to hear your opinions on what my final decision should be and why. I'd really appreciate it. PS: Sorry for the semi-long post....I tend to type a lot lol...
The end of our single GTX 960 review concluded that the card was very capable of 1080p gaming while maintaining ultra or very high settings. We also concluded that, given the memory bandwidth and memory interface limitations, the GTX 960 would not be a suitable standalone video card for gaming at resolutions greater than 1080p.
We can strongly recommend ASUS' GTX 960 Strix in a single card configuration; at $210, the value is tremendous for low-TDP, 1080p gaming systems with a high performance demand. AMD has nearby competition in the form of the R9 280 -- which very strongly competes against the 960 (and outperforms it, though with less software support) -- and R9 270X. As for SLI, it just doesn't make financial sense to invest in a second GTX 960 at this time.
The sheer real estate on offer means there's no shortage of ports either. The usual microphone and headphone jacks are supplemented with a Toslink SPDIF output, there are five USB 3.0 ports, Killer gigabit LAN, and HDMI 1.4 video. Bearing in mind the mammoth spec, the inclusion of a mere 1080p 60Hz display might seem a bit strange, but the rear of the unit has two mini DisplayPort outputs, meaning that 4K video at full-fat 60Hz is possible. We used them for capturing our FCAT benchmarks at 2560x1440, a demanding resolution that the basic GTX 980M struggles with on our test games - but which proves no real problem on most of our benchmarking suite when two of them are operating together in SLI.
The GT80 Titan SLI is a remarkable physical package then - as you might expect given the stratospheric 3,500 price-point - but it means nothing if it is not backed up by properly impressive gaming performance, and that's pretty much exactly what is delivered. We've been just a little concerned of late in the diminishing returns offered by high-end GPU configurations, be it full-fat GTX 980s in SLI or indeed the rampant Titan X. However, the GTX 980M is powerful, yet modest part in comparison to desktop alternatives. Performance-wise, it's about on par with the old GTX 780, but not quite as strong as a GTX 970 - but put two of them together and things get very interesting, as you'll see in these 1080p benchmarks:
Similar to its 1080p performance, Crysis 3 at 1440p is at the lower end of the SLI set-up's scalability - generally speaking, the Titan GT80 SLI still works plenty of magic at 2560x1440. We see some phenomenal results here, particularly in the case of Assassin's Creed Unity, Battlefield 4, Ryse and Tomb Raider, all of which come close to a full doubling of performance over a single 980M. Far Cry actually sees a more than 2x increase in performance - which seems implausible, but is confirmed after retesting. Minimum frame-rates during the test sequences are also sturdy - Crysis 3 and AC Unity faring worse at 39fps and 44fps respectively, but in most cases a locked 60fps is still on the table, even if some minor settings tweakage is required. It's important to remember here that anti-aliasing aside, we're running on max settings in all of these benches, meaning there's plenty of room to tweak with only a minimal hit to image quality.
It might seem like overkill to have this much GPU power on tap for a mere 1080p display, but the possibilities here are still enticing. Firstly, there's nothing stopping you connecting up the GT80 Titan to an external display, capable of a much higher resolution. Secondly, Nvidia has its own downscaling tech - DSR. In effect, the driver allows you to select much higher resolutions in-game, downscaling them dynamically to run on the 1080p display. This is a process known as super-sampling, and it is by far the most effective form of anti-aliasing you can get. It's pure brute-force, but the twin GTX 980Ms clearly have the potency to deliver solid results. The only problem here? DSR doesn't seem to be available yet in Nvidia's mobile drivers, which is bizarre considering the silicon is identical to the desktop equivalent.
Kicking off with our performance tests, we load up our 'go to' title for an initial assessment of the card's abilities. The GTX 980 made mincemeat of our Crysis 3 maxed 1080p60 challenge, with just a couple of performance dips, so we went one step further with Titan X, targeting a 2560x1440 resolution. The Crysis test is somewhat different from a standard benchmark run. Instead of turning off v-sync and running the GPU as fast as we possibly can, we aim for consistency, matching the resolution and refresh rate of the monitor for the smoothest experience, meaning v-sync is engaged.
Looking at 1080p results against the GTX 980 reference card, only Ryse breaks the 30 per cent improvement barrier - with most of the other titles lurking just below. Far Cry 4 and Call of Duty Advanced Warfare only see a 16-17 increase in overall frame-rates. On average across all nine games, the Titan X is only 26 per cent faster than GTX 980, and only 21 per cent faster than the MSI Gaming variant. Nvidia's reviewers' guide offers healthy comparisons with AMD's Radeon R9 290X and we can see why - in our tests, the average performance boost at full HD leaps to a colossal 53 per cent.
To be honest, we had expected the GTX 980's performance to drop back somewhat more significantly, but what's clear is that Nvidia's compression technology really pays off, even at 1440p. Overclocking would be an option there for even better performance of course, but it turns out that Titan X is a capable overclocker too. We added 230MHz to the core clock, 465MHz to RAM and ramped up the power limit to 110 per cent (unfortunately no voltage boost options were available). At 1080p, this only gave us a 13 per cent increase to stock performance, but at 1440p that rose significantly to 18.2 per cent. 2ff7e9595c
Comments