• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The GTX 980 Ti arrives as Nvidia new flagship!
#11
Whoa, Computerbase.de is showing TitanX to be only 2% faster than GTX 980 Ti overall, but then explains the reason for this:
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/gefor...a-titan/3/

GTX 980 Ti is being boosted far higher than TitanX (about 3-4% higher). Perhaps the air conditioning has kicked in on their labs during the summer, as all of their boost clocks are temperature-limited rater than power-limited?? It would've been nice if they could've recorded the ambient temperature for each review... Rolleyes
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
  Reply
#12
(06-04-2015, 12:10 AM)Bo_Fox Wrote: Whoa, Computerbase.de is showing TitanX to be only 2% faster than GTX 980 Ti overall, but then explains the reason for this:
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/gefor...a-titan/3/

GTX 980 Ti is being boosted far higher than TitanX (about 3-4% higher).  Perhaps the air conditioning has kicked in on their labs during the summer, as all of their boost clocks are temperature-limited rater than power-limited??  It would've been nice if they could've recorded the ambient temperature for each review...   Rolleyes

My results weren't that different, were they? The GTX 980 Ti does boost higher than Titan X for me also. That is why the delta narrowed when both cards were overclocked as far as they could go.

My ambient temperatures were consistently from about 78-80F. Maybe a degree variance beyond this.
It was consistently warm.
  Reply
#13
(06-04-2015, 01:59 AM)gstanford Wrote: 980 Ti has less cores enabled than Titan, of course it is going to run cooler!

That could very much be the case, but now, it's largely a crapshoot.  TPU is showing TitanX to be 4% faster overall.  Anand shows 3-4% faster.

Anand is showing that the voltage is higher for GTX 980 Ti than the TitanX, while another site shows it to be the other way around.  

I guess it depends on ASIC quality.  My old GTX 460 SLI kit of 2 identical cards was interesting in that one card had higher stock voltage than the other, and didn't overclock as well.  

Now, it's affecting everything else - that is, benchmarks.  The better ASIC quality, the faster the card is in benches.  

Before, it used to be a given - a factory specification, and that's it.  Now, even an R9 290X can throttle way down and be slower than a $100 cheaper R9 290, in rare cases (if the ASIC quality is extremely poor for the 290X, and extraordinary for the 290) - in some benchmarks.  

This variability and contingency just widens the "margin of error" when it comes to advertising performance scores like TFLOPs, etc.  

Geez.  I miss the simplicity, but I guess it's good that Nvidia can selectively squeeze things out of cards based on temperature and power draw. What sucks though is the severe throttling in some cases - especially for the R9 290 that I got rid of just a couple weeks ago. Yep, sold it off.
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
  Reply
#14
The only issue with R9 290X is cooling.  Cool it below 94C and it doesn't throttle.  I run my 290X with its fan at up to 100% - neither of my reference 290xes throttle with max fan.  It's just noisy as hell.

GTX 980 Ti overclocks better than the Titan X for two reasons.  Less cores enabled and half the vRAM; 12GB vRAM runs pretty warm, uses more power, and doesn't OC as well as 6GB.

I also found that voltage is higher with GTX 980 Ti (1.193V) than with Titan. Got to agree with AT results.
from the "Overclocking section" of my GTX 980 Ti article
Quote:Voltage for the GTX 980 Ti ranged from 1.162 to 1.193V, somewhat higher than the TITAN’s 1.13V to 1.143V over a full range of clocks.
  Reply
#15
Power consumption is the 290X's biggest problem IMO. Look at me with a 430w PSU. I can't upgrade to a faster AMD card without swapping out my PSU. I would be fine with a GTX 970 or perhaps even a card like the 980ti. That just adds to the purchase, not to mention the cost of all the extra electricity that it's going to use.

Heat and noise you can always deal with by using better cooling. It's quite easy these days to strap on a basic water cooler, it's much cheaper and better than it used to be. There is nothing you can do about a card that requires that much juice, though. It really speaks to AMD's design skills or lack thereof. It's sad because back in the day of the 4870/5870 they were destroying nVidia in that regard.
  Reply
#16
(06-04-2015, 02:18 PM)apoppin Wrote: The only issue with R9 290X is cooling.  Cool it below 94C and it doesn't throttle.  I run my 290X with its fan at up to 100% - neither of my reference 290xes throttle with max fan.  It's just noisy as hell.

GTX 980 Ti overclocks better than the Titan X for two reasons.  Less cores enabled and half the vRAM; 12GB vRAM runs pretty warm, uses more power, and doesn't OC as well as 6GB.

I also found that voltage is higher with GTX 980 Ti (1.193V) than with Titan.  Got to agree with AT results.
from the "Overclocking section" of my GTX 980 Ti article

Quote:Voltage for the GTX 980 Ti ranged from 1.162 to 1.193V, somewhat higher than the TITAN’s 1.13V to 1.143V over a full range of clocks.

Uhhh.. for me and my R9 290, it was not just the temperature but the fan speed that was an issue. If I turned the fan speed to over 70% or so, it would just throttle no matter what. Turns out, it was power-limited. Well, that was with litecoin mining (which maxed out the power usage even with Powertune turned up all the way). I had to undervolt it for it to not throttle - which also allowed me to overclock it as well. :D Not all the way, though - but almost all the way to the minimum voltage allowed on the slider, then I was able to get a 1000MHz overclock.

Perhaps 290X'es were better quality chips cherry-picked from the bin, while the 290's generally had lower ASIC quality overall (if not a defective component like a couple shaders or TMUs). For me, it was not just for mining - it pretty much held the same for demanding games as well.

I can't remember exactly, but the fan consumed up to 20 watts or so, so it just caused the overall power draw to run into the ceiling - at least for my card, if nothing else makes sense.
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
  Reply
#17
Both of my 290Xes power draw go through the roof when they are overclocked from 1050MHz to 1100MHz. However, the fan in each one of these cards is fully up to the task of cooling the cards without throttling (at all at 1050MHz).

I know for sure that my original PowerColor 290X PCS+ was a golden chip - picked to be able to run 1030MHz in Uber mode without throttling. My VisionTek card is from their last run of reference cards; by then the leaky throttling chips of the early 290s had been fixed, and the reference versions were decent - except for the fan noise in Uber mode.

Hawaii was excellent architecture and design. Then someone at AMD ordered the engineers (at the last minute) to take on the Titan in a huge strategic blunder by over- overclocking their chips past what they should run at. And the reviewers were not fooled.
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)