NVIDIA Launches Maxwell-Based GeForce GTX 980 and GeForce GTX 970 GPUs

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NVIDIA Launches Maxwell-Based GeForce GTX 980 and GeForce GTX 970 GPUs

Posted by timothy on Saturday September 20, 2014 @03:22AM from the upgrade-treadmill dept.

MojoKid (1002251) writes NVIDIA has launched two new high-end graphics cards based on their latest Maxwell architecture. The GeForce GTX 980 and GTX 970 are based on Maxwell and replace NVIDIA's current high-end offerings, the GeForce GTX 780 Ti, GTX 780, and GTX 770. NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980 and GTX 970 are somewhat similar as the cards share the same 4GB frame buffer and GM204 GPU, but the GTX 970's GPU is clocked a bit lower and features fewer active Streaming Multiprocessors and CUDA cores. The GeForce GTX 980's GM204 GPU has all of its functional blocks enabled. The fully-loaded GeForce GTX 980 GM204 GPU has a base clock of 1126MHz and a Boost clock of 1216MHz. The GTX 970 clocks in with a base clock of 1050MHz and Boost clock of 1178MHz. The 4GB of video memory on both cards is clocked at a blisteringly-fast 7GHz (effective GDDR5 data rate). NVIDIA was able to optimize the GM204's power efficiency, however, by tweaking virtually every part of the GPU. NVIDIA claims that Maxwell SMs (Streaming Multiprocessors) offer double the performance of GK104 and double the perf per watt as well. NVIDIA has also added support for new features, namely Dynamic Super Resolution (DSR), Multi-Frame Sampled Anti-Aliasing (MFAA), and Voxel Global Illumination (VXGI). Performance-wise, the GeForce GTX 980 is the fastest single-GPU powered graphics card ever tested. The GeForce GTX 970 isn't as dominant overall, but its performance was impressive nonetheless. The GeForce GTX 970 typically performed about on par with a GeForce GTX Titan and traded blows with the Radeon R9 290X.

125 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Astro by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 03:33 · Score: 0

The same looking marketing blurb is showing up all over the net with different 'sources'.
What we need here... by ThomasBHardy · 2014-09-20 03:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is mod point for articles themselves.
Imagine the possibilities.

--
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
1. Re:What we need here... by sribe · 2014-09-20 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine the possibilities.
  Oh, you mean like a karma score for submitters, which would influence the priority in the queue of their submissions. We can only dream ;-)
2. Re: What we need here... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  file an rfe at soylent and wait a few weeks!
Slashvertisment for HotHardware! YAY! by Chas · 2014-09-20 03:49 · Score: 0

Oh joy.
Instead of linking to multiple articles, we just see endless links to the HH blurb.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by bongey · 2014-09-20 03:49 · Score: 1, Informative

Can only drive up to 4 displays , pretty much any AMD card can drive 6 displays. I don't want to play games but want more screen real estate for software development.
1. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by pushing-robot · 2014-09-20 04:03 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I know what you mean. I don't want to play games but am looking to carry sacks of grain through the Andes, and these cards lack the qualities of a trusty burro.
  
  --
  How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
2. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Elledan · 2014-09-20 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  Not true, each DisplayPort 1.2 output on a GTX 980 card can drive up to two monitors daisy-chained, so with a single GTX 980 you could have up to 6 displays with DisplayPort alone, more if the other outputs are independently driven (haven't checked into this yet).
  
  --
  Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
3. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by bongey · 2014-09-20 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  Nope http://www.geforce.com/hardwar... . Trust me I have tried and they don't allow you to drive more than four even in SLI mode.
  Finally it has monitor ports, which implies you can drive 5 , nope only 4.
4. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by bongey · 2014-09-20 04:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If you want more than 4 , you have to pay up from the quadro series. I had more than four in SLI on GTX 760 cards , until they did a driver update and set the max to 4.
5. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Elledan · 2014-09-20 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's indeed a bummer :(
  
  --
  Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
6. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by meerling · 2014-09-20 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, if you can afford that card, you can probably afford a couple of monitors, but honestly, other than a few oddballs, who's really going to have more than 2 or 3 monitors at once. If nothing else, the space used by them really adds up in most home environments. So maybe these cards aren't made for the rich guy with specialty needs, which brings up the question of, "yeah, so what?".
7. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Greyfox · 2014-09-20 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  So how many Xterms can you have open with 6 30" displays?
  If I had that setup at home, I'd find the fucking postage stamp I'm allocated at work to be insufferable. Actually I already do. If I had that setup at work, I'd have to drop a few grand to duplicate it at the house.
  I'm pretty sure I'm not going to find a game I'd want to play that'd allow me to make effective use of that many monitors. Maybe if I were building a realistic VR flight simulator with X-Plane, or something. I guess you could use it for bitcoin farming or nuclear physics simulations, if you were into that sort of thing...
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
8. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by FlyHelicopters · 2014-09-20 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  For professional use, yea, that does suck...
  For gaming, three displays is the sweet spot, but nVidia's surround isn't up to the level of Eyefinity yet. I tried it with a pair of 780 TI cards and it just isn't as good as Eyefinity.
9. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Luckyo · 2014-09-20 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  Then you don't want a super expensive gaming card, but two cheapo nvidia cards in SLI.
10. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  Would be right if not for the trusty burro in this case could also be used for playing games. Why get the slashvertishment product when the alternatives are better?
11. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by bongey · 2014-09-20 05:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No you are still limited to 4 displays, NVIDIA did a dick move and limits it to 4 in the driver. You have to have quadro card to have more than 4 displays. Note when I first got my 2 gtx 760 cards I could drive 6 displays, and then a driver update and they limited to 4 displays even in SLI.
12. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by UnknownSoldier · 2014-09-20 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Someone needs to mod this up.
  And also figure out how to hack the driver to increase the limit back up to 6.
13. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  If you don't want to play games, then those cards aren't for you.
14. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Considering the card is aimed at gamers, I'd have thought 3 would be plenty. There's some flight sim setups that use more I guess, but the ones I've seen use more than one computer.
15. Re: Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by cecom · 2014-09-20 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  If you need six displays for software development, something is seriously wrong with you.
16. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by bongey · 2014-09-20 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  You can http://www.eevblog.com/forum/c... but you also need to hack to report of your machine as approved machine to run quadro in SLI.
17. Re: Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by bongey · 2014-09-20 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Nope don't need 6 but it is helpful I have to the top displays usually having API documentation, bottom three are usually editor windows.
18. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Ash+Vince · 2014-09-20 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Can only drive up to 4 displays , pretty much any AMD card can drive 6 displays. I don't want to play games but want more screen real estate for software development.
  Then why look at this card at all? You must be able to get something FAR cheaper if all you want is 2d real estate for software development. Wouldn't 2 or 3 cheaper cards be a far better purchase, even if you needed to buy a new motherboard to support it.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
19. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Luckyo · 2014-09-20 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  You can hack the drivers and graphics card's report name, or you can roll back to said drivers. The functionality is there, it's just disabled in current drivers.
20. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Ash+Vince · 2014-09-20 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  If I had that setup at home, I'd find the fucking postage stamp I'm allocated at work to be insufferable.
  Sounds like you work for a crap employer. Most companies nowadays recognise that developers are far more productive with at least 2 monitors. Where I work we all have 2 dell monitors attached to a laptop docking station for our company issue laptop so we can actually use 3 screens if you don't mind one being smaller than the other two.
  
  If I had that setup at work, I'd have to drop a few grand to duplicate it at the house.
  Why? Personally I try and avoid working unpaid hours from home, if it was part of my job requirement then I would want the company to buy be the necessary gear.
  I don't mind the off bit of being on call to reboot servers and such, but that hardly requires anything more than a laptop screen.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
21. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by CurryCamel · 2014-09-20 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Most companies nowadays recognise that developers are far more productive with at least 2 monitors. Where I work we all have 2 dell monitors attached to a laptop docking station for our company issue laptop so we can actually use 3 screens
  Not quite true. Any perceived increase in productivity is greatly offset by me trying to fine-tune the scripts that handle the screens when docking and undocking, and the docking station showing all 5 (!! HDMI, DVI, VGA and 2xDP) video outputs as "DP2", and cloning the output between them.
  Yes, I am running Linux. No, this is not 1999.
  Thankyou Lenovo & Intel.
22. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Greyfox · 2014-09-20 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I do my own little projects at home. Lately I've been generating a fair bit of video from gopro footage of my skydives. I also do some programming for fun. Traditionally my setup at home has always been a little better than my setup at work. If I got used to working with a huge amount of screen space at work, I'd want something similar at home.
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
23. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by bongey · 2014-09-20 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yes I know that you can hack it but why NVIDIA does this is just pain in ass.
24. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 17:34 · Score: 0
  
  I just upgraded my work environment to two 28" 4K displays. Each screen is like a 2x2 array of full HD 1920x1080 displays at 160 dpi.
  xterms with the venerable fixed pitch font were postage stamp sized, so I had to switch to a scalable font that could compensate for the high dpi. Even with a larger font, it is amazing how much space I have now. I have found myself only using about 1.5 screens worth of area and switching virtual desktops much less often than I used to.
25. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by queazocotal · 2014-09-21 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think playing games with burros is on-topic on slashdot.
26. Re: Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-21 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  You're not serious. My AMD card stopped working between Kubuntu 12.02 and 14.04. After upgrade... no gui. I will never ever ever look at AMD again.
27. Re:Only 4 displays, sticking to AMD. by armanox · 2014-09-21 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  What about if you don't have the cards in SLI?
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Tips? by Espectr0 · 2014-09-20 03:49 · Score: 1

I'm on the market for a GPU this december. My requirements are: less than 250$, low power consumption, good compatibility with Z77 chipset (intel i5 3570k), no overclocking needed, low noise, best performance/price ratio and of course better performance than my current GPU (msi twin 7850 2GB).
So far i have seen either a r9 280 or gtx 760.
Anyone would like to offer some advice?

--
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
1. Re:Tips? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  buy a used 280x from ebay for $150
2. Re:Tips? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  The AMD R9 cards run a lot hotter than the similar preforming NVIDIA cards, but the AMD offerings are more competitively priced. I've delt with both the R9 and the 700 series in the past year and I would go with an NVIDIA card from EVGA even if it costs a bit more. If you do choose AMD try and go the Sapphire route.
3. Re:Tips? by Kjella · 2014-09-20 04:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The R9 280 certainly doesn't count as low power (250W), the R9 285 is considerably better in that department (190W) and got some newer features to boot, with a $249 MSRP it should just barely squeeze inside your budget. To stay in your budget limit the nVidia alternative is GTX 760, but I wouldn't buy a Kepler card today, too hot and too noisy. Unfortunately there's not a Maxwell to match your specs, there's a gap between the GTX 750 Ti (which wouldn't be a performance upgrade) and GTX 970 (which blows your budget at $329).
  Personally I was very surprised by the GTX 970 launch price though, the GTX 980 @ $549 was as expected but the 970 delivers 13/16ths of the processing power with the same memory size and bandwidth for over $200 less. I bought two to use in a SLI setup, in the games that scale nicely it's a kickass value. I suspect that by December this will have had some market effect at the $250 price point too, so I'd say check again then. Asking for advice 2-3 months out in a market that changes so quickly doesn't really make much sense.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
4. Re:Tips? by Espectr0 · 2014-09-20 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  I have just seen a 285 review, which is basically a 280 with more features and same price.
  For what i have seen, the 285 beats the 760 on every front, including power draw, and the nvidia response was to lower the price about 30$.
  I haven't bought nvidia for years, while they have great drivers and performance, power use and price hasn't been competitive.
  I will keep looking to see if the prices change or a new board gets introduced by december. I am not happy the 285 is still a 2GB card, while my 22" monitor isn't even 1980p so it shouldn't matter much.
  
  --
  Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
5. Re:Tips? by Espectr0 · 2014-09-20 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I was looking at the 970 just before you posted, i can't believe that kind of performance at less than 100$ more of my budget, with that incredible low power draw (which is important to me, on my country we are heavily penalized for high power consumption, since we have blackouts every day)
  It's tempting... Let's see what happens on december.
  
  --
  Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
6. Re:Tips? by UnknownSoldier · 2014-09-20 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  nVidia is like intel, you pay for performance.
  Very, very happy with GTX Titan and 780Ti for low noise and performance.
7. Re:Tips? by Nemyst · 2014-09-20 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Kepler, hot and noisy? And then you recommend a GCN card? As much as I'll fully agree that you'll get better performance per dollar from AMD, their cards are vastly less efficient than Nvidia's.
8. Re:Tips? by epyT-R · 2014-09-20 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you're running 50 of these things in your basement 24/7 I doubt you'll notice enough difference on your power bill to justify picking one over the other. I would think driver quality and performance is much more important as you're not buying the gtx line for power economy.
9. Re:Tips? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 17:43 · Score: 0
  
  I'm very happy with my MSI Graphics Card N760 2GD5/OC ITX which is a relatively low power GTX 760 card. I used it to upgrade an older Dell workstation where I didn't want to worry about power supply wattage nor cabling limitations. I haven't noticed any noise except perhaps during POST and boot. It has four outputs which can be active simultaneously, but I'm currently driving 4K displays at 30 Hz off each of the two mini-DP connections.
10. Re:Tips? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 21:29 · Score: 0
  
  Nvidia might release the GTX 960 before the end of the year.
11. Re:Tips? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-21 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  One thing about ATI(AMD) Cards is that the drivers are very low quality. If you're sticking to windows they're not that bad, but beware of the "betas"(alpha would be more accurate IMNHO/E), i.e. they'll mostly work as well as ATI drivers ever do.
  Linux: well, your close to SOL here as even "release" drivers can be horrendous, although I hear that the OSS radeon driver is doing pretty well now if you can live w/o/limited openCL support and opengl 4.x.
  Personally, since I multiboot, I'm done w/ATI crap until they can produce demonstrably better driver quality(including Windows), I mean not too many generations ago they couldn't even unload the driver under XP/Vista/7, update it, AND restore the display, so I got to play does no disk activity mean that it's done and I can reset now since I can't see sh!t(black screen). At least the currentish drivers have been able to restore the display, so that problem is history(hopefully).
  Video still tears like mad(R9 280X, 270X, 260X, 250) acceptable for Windows(i.e. even the nVidia drivers tear from time to time), but under linux not discernibly better than with 4XXX series and whatever catalyst that was back then(11? 12?).
  Also be prepared for them to "claim" to have "fixed" a bug only to find, nope, just borked in a new way, and oh hay! they also managed to add 5 or 6 NEW bugs, i.e. be prepared to rollback to favorite catalyst version, and preferably let others guinea pig them.
  "beta": R9 280X machine, win8.1 x64 install kept breaking at DIFFERENT points, and I was clean wiping the old crapalyst in between attempts, before I finally gave up and went back to the original drivers to await the next WHQL release, which indeed manage to install "cleanly". And by breaking install, I mean one time it would load the display driver, but nothing else(i.e. no control panel), other times the display driver install would FAIL but it STILL would blithely carry on attempting to install the rest of their sh!t, etc. Which is why I mentioned above that they'd be better off being called alpha quality at best.
  For some reason I've just never had the smooth experience with ATI(/AMD) drivers that I've had with nVidia, and well even if sometimes ATI GPUs are a little better performing and are more capable gpgpu(nvidia gimps gpgpu on their consumer cards although WTH would do anything serious with non-ECC memory is beyond me) it's just NOT worth the headaches and grief. Or once again IOW the moral of the story is that ATI(/AMD) USED to be pretty good at GPU hw design(until the spaceheaters appeared) but have ALWAYS SUCKED HORRENDOUSLY at their drivers and sw. I mean in 10+y they've only gotten to kinda acceptable to me?!
12. Re:Tips? by Espectr0 · 2014-09-24 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  if my country, if you go over 1300kw/month, your electric bill doubles. Yes, it's insane. Check your power bill and tell me how much you use.
  
  --
  Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Faster using less power! by FlyHelicopters · 2014-09-20 03:52 · Score: 2

What is nice to see is that these cards are slightly faster than the generation they replace, while using less power.
The power use of video cards has been creeping up in recent years, going up to the point where a pair of PCI-E power cables was required for one card.
Nice to see a fast card that can be put into a modest system, the 970 is 20% slower than the 980, while costing 40% less money and using only 165w of power
That is low enough that it should work with most cheaper rebuilt systems from the likes of Dell/HP/Acer etc.
1. Re:Faster using less power! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Nice thing is that they achieve this without a process change.
2. Re: Faster using less power! by Sable+Drakon · 2014-09-20 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Um, on the high end of the spectrum, a pair of 6-pin PCIe power connectors are still needed. Even with the 970.
  
  --
  The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
3. Re: Faster using less power! by FlyHelicopters · 2014-09-20 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but it consumes less power than the 770 it replaces.
  Also, it only barely needs the second connection, that is likely there for margin and overclocks, it could probably run just fine at stock clocks with a single PCI-E cable.
4. Re: Faster using less power! by Sable+Drakon · 2014-09-20 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  But are you going to be foolish enough to risk undervolting the card?
  
  --
  The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
5. Re: Faster using less power! by FlyHelicopters · 2014-09-20 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  The connectors aren't the issue, the power output of the power supply and electric bill are.
  The 770 needed a stronger power supply than the 970 does. You can get away with perhaps 50-100 fewer watts in you PS and it saves money over time in your power bill.
  These are good things.
6. Re:Faster using less power! by spire3661 · 2014-09-20 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. IM upgrading my 770 to a 970 just for the power savings.
  
  --
  Good-bye
7. Re:Faster using less power! by FlyHelicopters · 2014-09-20 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, we will start to see more of this as the process technology leaps slow down.
  They will have to find improvements in the design of the chips, vs, for years just depending on making them smaller.
  Even if no new process technology came out for five years, I suspect they could keep making theses better and better
8. Re: Faster using less power! by Luckyo · 2014-09-20 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that most of the released custom cooled 970s have a 8 pin and a 6 pin, it's far more likely that dual six pin is barely enough for stock card rather than a massive overkill.
9. Re: Faster using less power! by Luckyo · 2014-09-20 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. If you're burning 400-1000€ on a graphics card, you are not going to care about a few extra euro a year in your electric bill.
  I can understand this on the low end, but "woo power savings" on the high end is nothing short of amusingly silly. High end has always been and will always be about one thing and one thing alone: raw power.
  There's a reason why power supplies that push 1500 watts enthusiasts exist.
10. Re:Faster using less power! by Luckyo · 2014-09-20 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Depending on your country, time for payback assuming ten hours uptime daily under load is between three and ten years (ten years for mine, did the math about a week ago).
  Chances of a graphics card surviving that long, especially under constant load are pretty slim.
11. Re:Faster using less power! by spire3661 · 2014-09-20 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  For me, its not about the money, its about heat, noise, case size, power draw (as related to PSU sizing) etc. I cant keep the 770 on my desk (noise, heat), but i might be able to keep the 970 on my desk. There are other factors. I will give my 770 to my nephew and get his 750 ti back(another maxwell part) to put in my HTPC. When i talk about power consumption, I'm always more concerned with all the other factors besides actual electricity cost vs capital outlay. While it might not pencil out financially, that doesn't negate the sum of the other gains. IM more concerned with packing more power per watt than saving money.
  
  --
  Good-bye
12. Re: Faster using less power! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  15 years ago, I would have agreed with you.
  Nowadays I prefer spending a few $100 more over having my box sound like a leaf-blower under load.
13. Re:Faster using less power! by Luckyo · 2014-09-20 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why you're not target audience for top end cards. People who are, if faced with problem of heat, simply spend another hundred on a water cooling solution that is very quiet and a much more efficient PSU that would easily run one-two of those cards with minimal fan activity.
14. Re: Faster using less power! by Luckyo · 2014-09-20 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  So spend them. Market is choke full of after market water cooling solutions for people like you. Because people who are target audience for these cards aren't going to balk at a cost of a water cooling addition to their box when it's a tiny fraction of what they paid for said box.
15. Re:Faster using less power! by FlyHelicopters · 2014-09-20 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Since you can sell (or otherwise use) the 770, if you pay a premium rate for power, the savings over 2 years may well pay for the upgrade. :)
16. Re: Faster using less power! by FlyHelicopters · 2014-09-20 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I disagree... not everyone directly compares the cost of buying something to the cost of power. That power comes from somewhere, in my case, from coal power plants...
  In addition, I'd like to upgrade my son's computer, he has a Dell with a limited power supply. I could of course upgrade that, but if the card needs less power, I can put it in without a bunch of modification.
  The other benefit is the mid tower case that Dell provides doesn't have a ton of airflow, a cooler running card needs less airflow and thus less of a case to put it in.
  It also reduces the AC bill, which in Texas, adds up after awhile.
17. Re: Faster using less power! by Luckyo · 2014-09-20 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you understand. These cards cost more than an entry level PC. 980 in fact costs more than midrange PC. Alone.
  If you're shopping for a card like this, you really aren't going to give a damn about power bill increase from it.
18. Re: Faster using less power! by FlyHelicopters · 2014-09-20 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  I consider a mid range PC to be north of $550, so I have to disagree with you there. :)
  You continue to miss the point... Heat, noise, and source of power are all concerns, none of which have to do with the price of power.
  As it stands, my power is 11 cents per kwh, so it matters less to me, but my power comes from coal, I don't like heat and noise, I have to air condition my home, and the airflow in my son's computer case isn't great.
  So yea, I do like that these use less power.
19. Re: Faster using less power! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  They were talking about the 970. It is one thing to spend an extra $50-100 to go up to a step in video card price category, but that doesn't mean I want to spend another couple hundred on watercooling and the effort to install that too. Doubling, tripling or more the cost is not a tiny fraction in the change, and if you are trying to entice people to splurge a little more on a higher end product, expecting them to have to invest considerably more elsewhere too. There will always be a small market for performance at any cost, and they gain some publicity from having a few products targeting that market. But considering how much is common under the hood, and that the vast majority of their products are targeted at people who have interests beyond just raw power, they are going to invest in developing the core technology towards things like lower power and even the high ends stuff will come along for the ride to some degree. Even when building something where I don't mind spending a bit extra on a larger power supply and cooling, I would still prefer to spend less a smaller setup because at the end of the day I want to use the system and not brag about how many watts it needs.
20. Re: Faster using less power! by Luckyo · 2014-09-20 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure what you consider a mid range PC, but I do know what the suppliers consider one. And it's around 500-600 at most today.
  And frankly, "oh noes coal power" argument is equally silly. You're talking a hundred watts savings at best, and that's when machine is under load.
  Considering the total usage of these top end cards on steam (below 1%), it's literally these savings are less than a rounding error.
21. Re: Faster using less power! by Luckyo · 2014-09-20 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  I get the feeling you're one of those "let them eat cake" types that thinks that *70 and *80 cards are common and not something that rich older men like us grab because we have extra money to spend.
  I recommend a look at steam hardware survey for a harsh dose of reality.
22. Re: Faster using less power! by Blaskowicz · 2014-09-20 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  20-year-old kids and slightly older working minimum wage or slightly higher buy these kinds of cards, in some european countries at least. (where you get health insurance with any job and not paying for a car can be an option if you're not e.g. a construction worker)
  At around 300 euros it's not a particularly ultra-expensive mass consumer product. it's nice that a 400W PSU and a cheapo vanilla tower will be adequate, plus the power bills are only increasing anyway.
  Many, many people don't follow the upgrade treadmill anymore, that's true. I'm personnally not that interested as games don't have much new to offer anyway and I would need to upgrade the motherboard and CPU, which I don't need/want to. (running linux on the hardware means very few games too!, and Wine is unsupported retro-gaming that works less than half the time)
23. Re: Faster using less power! by Luckyo · 2014-09-21 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  I get a strong suspicion that you're an right wing American who believes fox news' fiction about Europe.
  In real life on the other hand, most of the Europe has been in a sharp recession for last five years, with youth unemployment at record heights and those youths who are employed struggling to remain employed and suffering reduced wages.
This is bad for AMD by edxwelch · 2014-09-20 03:52 · Score: 1

The GTX 970 is as fast as AMD's flagship R9 290X, much more power efficient and is $170 cheaper. This means AMD will have to knock down prices by a huge amount and
they are sort of depending on graphics revenue to break even, because of falling CPU marketshare.
1. Re:This is bad for AMD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  AMD has their APUs in both the Xbone and PS4. They should be pretty comfortable until they release their next desktop chip in 2016
2. Re:This is bad for AMD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  AFAIK, they don't get much from those contracts. While it is possibly a stable source of income, it won't be enough to hold up the whole company and all it's segments.
  I can only hope that more GCN 1.2 cards, or an incremental GCN 1.3 will appear soon to decrease the possible damages, until they can move to GCN 2.0 on 20nm.
3. Re:This is bad for AMD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  Eh, it's just part of their musical chairs game, AMD's next GPU generation is forthcoming, and will put things back into a different balance.
Looking for info on running 4k screens by grimJester · 2014-09-20 04:09 · Score: 2

I'm thinking about upgrading my monitor to 4k but I'm a bit confused about the current situation with both connectors and screens. How is running 4k@30Hz for normal desktop purposes, with no 3d gaming? Are the cheap 4k 39-40" TVs completely fine for those purposes? What connector(s) do I need from my GPU? How long would I have to wait for GPUs and TVs/monitors to support 4k@60Hz (HDMI 2.0? Displayport x.y?). Can I connect more than one screen to a single GPU card if I want 4k?

This might be a candidate for Ask Slashdot, I guess
1. Re:Looking for info on running 4k screens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  Where are you gonna find 4k content? Is there really enough out there to justify this hardware?
  These are two questions that I don't think you've accurately addressed.
2. Re:Looking for info on running 4k screens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  Have you considered 2560x1440? It's a lot cheaper than 4K and supports 60hz. 4K is a nice toy right now but isn't exactly practical. I would describe 4K as too much resolution. There are a lot of desktop apps that don't visually scale well.
3. Re:Looking for info on running 4k screens by Kjella · 2014-09-20 04:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  As I understand it 30p is okay for photo work, but a pretty big compromise for general desktop use so I wouldn't do it. I have a 3840x2160@60p 28" monitor hooked up over DisplayPort 1.2 using SST (single stream transport). It works very well, I can also hook it up to my 1080p TV at the same time on my GTX 670. Just bought dual GTX 970s to replace it though.
  There are three ways to support 4K content:
  HDMI 2.0
  DisplayPort 1.2+ over SST
  DisplayPort 1.2+ over MST
  Avoid MST (multiple stream transport), it's not worth the issues. DisplayPort 1.2 has been around for a while, the screen is usually the blocker on whether you can use SST. My screen (Samsung UD590) can so I do and that works great. HDMI 2.0 is brand new, the GTX 970/980 are the first graphics cards to support them but I suppose they're the only means to hook up 4K to an UHDTV as I understand most of these don't have a DisplayPort. That's what it's designed to do anyway, but if you jump on HDMI 2.0 now you'll be the first to test it really. For me that's not even an option, I hook it through the sound system and that doesn't support HDMI 2.0 pass-through. I find it's not that essential at couch distance anyway, it's sitting up real close you notice it most.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
4. Re:Looking for info on running 4k screens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 05:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  OK, I have a Seiki 4K 39" running at 3840*2160@30hz, for Autocad and GIS, it's like running a 2*2 19" 1080p monitor array without the bezels in the middle, works fine with my Nvidia GeForce GTX 560Ti, but I had to set a custom resolution in the nvidia control panel to use it at 4k@30hz and 1080p@120hz for gaming (the only TV I know to support this refresh rate without frame interpolation, which it doesn't have), and sometimes i set it at 4k@24hz for watching 1080p movies. Since the card doesn't have official support for 4k sometimes there is some loss of sync @ 4k@30hz or 1080p@120hz, I fix it setting the refresh rate to something lower or higher and back again. Color can be very good after calibration. The sound of the speakers in the TV it's pretty bad.
  This TV only has HDMI 1.4a, VGA and component inputs, only supports 4k on the HDMI inputs.
  The newly launched Nvidia GTX 980 and 970 support HDMI 2.0 and DP, so these can run 4k@60hz with TV and monitors that support it, I think some Samsung and LG TVs advertise HDMI 2.0 and DP.
  The GTX 970 and 980 support multiple displays running 4@60hz simultaneously, 4 IRC.
  here are a couple threads where I found most of the information before I bought it:
  http://www.overclock.net/t/1442986/playing-with-my-seiki-se39uy04-got-it-to-do-1440p-at-60hz-playing-with-other-custom-stuff
  http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1756171
5. Re:Looking for info on running 4k screens by FlyHelicopters · 2014-09-20 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  He isn't asking to watch movies, and it does t sound like games either, if he is willing to consider 30hz.
  For desktop environments, more resolution is usually better.
6. Re:Looking for info on running 4k screens by grimJester · 2014-09-20 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Good info, thanks
7. Re:Looking for info on running 4k screens by dinfinity · 2014-09-20 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  I just bought and installed an iiyama B2888UHSU-B1 for ~EUR500. It runs great at 60Hz over displayport 1.2 on an AMD7950. It's a TN-panel (by CMO, which apparently is used in most of the 4k monitors at this price point), but it performs quite well in the color department, according to proper tests ( http://nl.hardware.info/tv/802... - Dutch, but the tables shown at certain points in the video should be intelligible).
  The 7950 drives an extra monitor over HDMI (1080p@60Hz) simultaneously without problems.
  1. Using HDMI, you are limited to 30Hz, which is definitely noticeable in daily use.
  2. 28" 4k is for people with great eyesight (which I thankfully still have). I'd say 32" is the minimum size for people with average eyesight. This is when using Windows 7, in which dpi scaling is pretty much hit and miss to the point where it is almost useless.
  3. 4k TVs are probably going to be bad for gaming, due to input lag etc.
  4. Gaming on 4k requires me to kick in my second 7950 in crossfire and even then we're talking around 30 fps in modern games. Anti-aliasing is not necessary, though.
  5. Windows 7+AMD drivers+Displayport is a pain in the ass. If I turn off my main display with the power button on the monitor and turn it on again, the display is removed and added again, leading Windows to take a minute to completely mess up the positions of all the windows on all my monitors. Any tips on how to prevent this behavior (beyond what is found on the first 20 hits for 'windows 7 disable automatic display detection displayport') would be most welcome.
  All in all, I am very happy with my purchase. Photo's with enough resolution look fantastic. 4k video is amazing to look at (there are a number of clips on Youtube that you want to download using some downloading extension/service - at least, if you want them to play properly). Gaming in 4k is also amazing but most of all, being able to see more content on one screen is what I had been waiting for for years (less scrolling, more working).
8. Re:Looking for info on running 4k screens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  That's somewhat similar to my setup here.
  P-L-P setup with a Samsung U28D590 (same Chi Mei Innolux 28" panel) main and 2 Dell U2412M as aux displays.
  2 original (non-ghz) 7970s in crossfire.
  1. Agreed. UHD@30 over HDMI is *really* laggy, running 2x 1920x2160@60 over 2x HDMI is better (yeah, it can actually do that...), but you end up with tearing between the 2 screen halves. Single stream 4k@60 over DP1.2 is the way to go.
  2. Yup. Ended up rearranging my desk a bit so I now sit about 70cm instead of 85cm from the main monitor. And yes, the UI scaling is so worthless I ended up just leaving it at 100% and getting used to the tiny UI elements.
  3. Actually, some seem to be decent. The 40" Samsung UE40HU6900 is reported to have the same ~33ms input lag as the U28D590.
  4. Oh yes. I quite often have to drop AA completely and graphics settings a notch or two to not get a slide show at 4k. Btw, for quite a few games upscaled 2560x1440 doesn't look *that* much worse and gets much more playable frame rates.
  5. Use DPMS to put it in standby, never actually turn it off. This issue isn't specific to AMD and isn't specific to 4k. The Dells do the same thing when connected over DP, and that consistently on amd, nvidia and intel...
  Now, I wouldn't recommend that Samsung U28D590 to anyone. The non-adjustable stand, lack of VESA mount and horrible connector placement make it strictly worse than the SST 4k@60 28"s from Acer/AOC/iiyama/Philips/Lenovo/... that are all around the same price and from what I have seen all have the exact same panel/backlight/scaler/controller setup.
9. Re:Looking for info on running 4k screens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-21 00:14 · Score: 0
  
  people baffled by power efficient gpu without obvious advantags. meanwhile, altcoin miners cheer in rejoice
10. Re:Looking for info on running 4k screens by ChoosyBeggar · 2014-09-21 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'm writing this on a 50" Seiki 4K-unit, & it's pretty great, (once you get past the intial set-up clunkiness.) 30fps is fine for desktop work, writing code, web, etc. When I want faster performance, (3D-games, animation, movies, etc,) I swap display resolution out for 1920x1080@60-120fps. After all, I'm reading this thread because my videocard is old, if not ancient, & I'm in the market.
  
  As for connectors, this unit has 3xHDMI(A) , 2xUSB, 1xDVI, and a handful of RCA ports for sound & component video. I'm using a DVI-HDMI(A) from my tower to the UHDTV. For my NUC unit, I use a mini-HDMI(C) to HDMI(A).
  
  I've been reading that next-gen 4K units will support full 60fps, & will be coming in the next 6 months or so..
  
  Feeding this screen taxes my current tower-setup, but my NUC D54250WYK (with Intel 5000) runs it just fine. Can't speak upon dual monitors either; sorry.
11. Re:Looking for info on running 4k screens by toddestan · 2014-09-21 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? Any desktop environment is perfectly happy running at 4K. Most games made in the past few years will render at 4K (whether your graphics card can handle it is something else entirely). 4K televisions are still a bit of a solution without a problem, but I could take advantage of a 4K screen on my computer immediately.
Anyone else notice the low DP numbers? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:14 · Score: 0

I realize these cards are for gamers, but double precision floating point on these cards is relatively weak.
Anyone else disappointed?
1. Re:Anyone else notice the low DP numbers? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  They do this on purpose to sell quadros. My 580 actually has more double performance than the 980, and it is 4 years old. The funniest part of it, though, is that people interested in double precision are simply going to buy amd instead. Nvidia is just shooting themselves in the foot here.
2. Re:Anyone else notice the low DP numbers? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Except AMD now pulls the same shit. Uncrippled Hawaii has 1/2 rate DP...
3. Re:Anyone else notice the low DP numbers? by MarkRose · 2014-09-20 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  I recently bought 2 used 580's for their 32-bit integer compute performance, for $280 total. Buying GTX 780 Ti's with comparable performance would have cost me 5 times as much.
  
  --
  Be relentless!
And still by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:15 · Score: 0

Neither will run on Linux.
1. Re:And still by armanox · 2014-09-21 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Actually they do. nVidia's desktop cards have been very well supported for as long as I can remember (going back to my first nVidia setup, with a GeForce 3).
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Still 28nm by Solandri · 2014-09-20 04:29 · Score: 5, Informative

At this point I think it's safe to write off TSMC's 20nm fab process. It's not gonna happen, with signs pointing to development being shifted to 16nm instead.

A lot of what you see going on in the GPU and mobile front is being dictated by the failure of TSMC and other fabs to transition to 20nm for processors (memory is a lot easier and reached 16nm in 2013). Intel made the transition from 32nm to 22nm last year with Haswell and Bay Trail. The other fabs were supposed to leapfrog Intel by going from 28nm to 20nm this year. They haven't, which is what's allowed Intel to produce Atom SoCs with power usage approaching that of ARM SoCs. ARM has the lower power tech, but Intel's smaller lithography is mostly wiping out that advantage. If you see Intel successfully make the transition to 14nm in 2015 while the other fabs can't get 16nm to work, things are going to get really interesting on the mobile SoC front..

The GPU front is bleaker. Both nVidia and AMD use third party fabs like TSMC, so there's no competitive advantage to be had. We've just had to suffer with stagnating product lines and slow product releases because the expected lower power consumption in GPUs from 20nm didn't happen in 2014.
1. Re:Still 28nm by edxwelch · 2014-09-20 05:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I doubt that.
  TSMC 20nm will be ready for GPUs a lot sooner than their 16nm process. The only reason there are no 20nm GPUs yet is because the initial ramp was fully booked out by Apple.
  Meanwhile, a comparison of Apple's 20nm A8 density versus 14nm Core M, indicates Intel's 14nm may not have such a density advantage as they claim: https://www.semiwiki.com/forum...
2. Re:Still 28nm by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Actually Intel switched to 22 nm with Ivy Bridge, in 2012 (not with Haswell in 2013).
3. Re:Still 28nm by irq-1 · 2014-09-20 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  The GPU front is bleaker. Both nVidia and AMD use third party fabs like TSMC, so there's no competitive advantage to be had.
  
  Intel 14nm fab capacity is potentially game changing -- they've held back 2 huge fabs with double the normal capacity, and they still have enough for their own chips. I predict that Intel is going into the 14nm business, and either nVidia or AMD would be interesting clients.
4. Re:Still 28nm by Anubis+IV · 2014-09-20 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  At this point I think it's safe to write off TSMC's 20nm fab process. It's not gonna happen [...]
  Except that it already is shipping. Apple's A8 chip used in the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus is manufactured using TSMC's 20nm process. And given Apple's proclivity for consuming entire manufacturing lines for their products, it's entirely possible that TSMC had to turn away other customers if they wanted to keep Apple, simply because they lacked the capacity to do otherwise. It also makes sense why they haven't been able to talk about the fact that they had a major customer lined up, given how religiously Apple likes to control their product announcements and the fact that they didn't even announce the devices until a week or two ago.
5. Re:Still 28nm by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-21 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  TSMC's 20nm process is operational, but it's really only suited to SoCs. Those who follow these things have known for roughly a year now that the next GPU-suited process would be 16nm, though I've heard rumors that AMD might use GlobalFoundries' 20nm process for GPUs. Of course, GlobalFoundries being GlobalFoundries, even if AMD intends to, it might not happen anyway.
Yeah, but which games to play with it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 04:42 · Score: 0

I have a hard time finding any recent game that I'd like to play at all, let alone ones that require any serious graphics power. They all seem to "EA suck".
Waiting for Space Citizen ...
1. Re:Yeah, but which games to play with it? by Luckyo · 2014-09-20 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on resolution used. At 1440p, you're already going to strain a lot of graphics cards to the limits, especially if you want relatively stable 60fps.
  At 2160p, you're pretty much going to need the best of the best.
7xx to 9xx ?? by CrashNBrn · 2014-09-20 04:46 · Score: 0

So its a tweaked 780/790... and Nvidia bumps the leading digit by 2? WTF. Shouldn't this of been an 8xx series at most? Pretty f'n misleading.
1. Re:7xx to 9xx ?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  It isn't a tweaked 780 as it uses a new architecture (Maxwell instead of Kepler). But the 980 is indeed not much faster than the 780 Ti.
  They are doing this because the mobile 800m series mostly consists of Kepler GPUs.
2. Re:7xx to 9xx ?? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  The 980 has ~2/3rds the "cores" of the 780Ti but achieves similar performance (at significantly lower power use). It's a pretty damn huge improvement and major architecture change. Performance per watt is insanely improved. I can't wait to see what they do when pushing up to 250W cards with Maxwell. All of this and still on the same 28nm node. Damn impressive.
3. Re:7xx to 9xx ?? by Nemyst · 2014-09-20 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it's a tweaked 780 using a completely different architecture. Sure, tweaked.
  
  Next you'll say Haswell's just a tweaked NetBurst maybe?
Useless comparisons by TheDarkMaster · 2014-09-20 04:54 · Score: 1

I do not want to know the performance in SLI, I want to know the normal performance that the buyer would have a single card. And compared to the currently existing cards on the market.

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Re:Slashvertisment for HotHardware! YAY! by Luthair · 2014-09-20 05:04 · Score: 1

If you look at the submitter's history its blatantly obvious he works for them
Blender Cycles Rendering Engine by MindPrison · 2014-09-20 05:11 · Score: 1

Oh wow. This will do wonders for the Blender Cycles rendering engine. Thanks to Blender & Brecht (The coder behind Blenders Cycles rendering engine) I've been able to enjoy the power of a thousand computers in one card thanks to the accelerated powers of the Nvidia GPU based cards with multiple GPUs, mine has about 1300 GPUs and renders like insanity knows no bounds, I love it. YAY the future looks even better now.

Reading this makes me behave like a kid in a candy store, seriously.

--
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
1. Re:Blender Cycles Rendering Engine by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-21 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  You're either using very very wrong terminology to describe a GPU rendering cluster, or you're seriously misinformed.
  There is no such thing as a card with 1300 GPUs; though there are cards with 2 GPUs on the same board, it's essentially impossible to fit more. You might have a GPU with ~1300 ALUs, but there's an enormous difference between the two. A GPU is an independent device, roughly speaking. An ALU is not, and in GPUs, they execute in lockstep in large sets (64 in AMD's GCN, 192 in nVidia's Kepler, etc), meaning that they can't do ~1300 tasks, but only a handful at once, just on 64 or 192 or whatever other number of data elements*. Moreover, each ALU is quite slow compared to a CPU core. It's just that for massively parallel tasks, a huge number of slow cores beat a small number of fast ones. Finally, any OpenCL-enabled device is capable of this sort of function. It's not unique to nVidia, no matter how much their marketing pretends otherwise.
  *The exact function is much more complex than this, including the ability to switch between different tasks much like a CPU, but the need to execute in lockstep is a significant limitation for GPU programming. Also the arrangement of execution on the Kepler architecture is remarkably complex and requires a small essay at minimum to explain, so it's simplified for the purposes of this explanation.
2. Re:Blender Cycles Rendering Engine by MindPrison · 2014-09-22 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  I know, but for the sake of simplicity.
  
  It has 1300+ cores (some of the bigger cards got over 2300+ cores), and yes - I realize that they're not full-fledged CPUs and just highly specialized to perform certain calculations, kind of like FPGAs if you like.
  
  --
  What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Still 28nm by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 05:19 · Score: 0

The only company that would ever "leapfrog" Intel on manufacturing node is IBM. No one else in the world will ever do this.
Thanks by grimJester · 2014-09-20 05:45 · Score: 1

The newly launched Nvidia GTX 980 and 970 support HDMI 2.0 and DP, so these can run 4k@60hz with TV and monitors that support it, I think some Samsung and LG TVs advertise HDMI 2.0 and DP.
Ok, so it's a somewhat reasonable idea to get 60Hz on a TV without spending the cash for a 4k monitor.

here are a couple threads where I found most of the information before I bought it: http://www.overclock.net/t/144... http://hardforum.com/showthrea...

Thanks, I'll have a look at these.
Have 30" 2560x1600 @ 60Hz now by grimJester · 2014-09-20 05:47 · Score: 2

So upgrading to about 40" with 4k shouldn't be a problem
Really? by EtaCarinae · 2014-09-20 06:57 · Score: 1

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
Samsung UE40HU6900 has HDMI 2.0, cheap enough by grimJester · 2014-09-20 08:50 · Score: 1

800 euro locally. A GTX 970 seems like overkill / waste of money for my purposes, so I guess I'll wait a month or two.

Thanks again for the help!
Anyone tried the newer, more expensive Radeons? by rsilvergun · 2014-09-20 10:58 · Score: 1

And tried them with off the wall games? Like Psychonauts, Stranger's Odyssey, older Need For Speed games or Maybe Fallout 3? I'm wondering how stable they are these days. The 4000 serious turned me off ATI again. Ran fine on Call of Duty and other big titles but the smaller ones were really unstable :(... I miss the nicer image quality, better performance and lower prices...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Anyone tried the newer, more expensive Radeons? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  I've been running ATI (5850 then 7970) cards for a while.
  I have not noticed any stability problems playing older games!
  Apart from those problems which are due to newer operating systems, and older games assuming old screen resolutions, and not modern wide screens.
970 price point by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 12:11 · Score: 0

Wow 320 for a card that meets/exceeds the flagship cards for both companies as of a week ago? Just ordered a gtx 970 to replace my gtx 470 (which itself was a huge improvement over my geforce 7800). I'm sure the gtx 970 will be the baseline for vr content moving forward with that price.
1. Re:970 price point by Salgat · 2014-09-21 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  As an added bonus, the 970 scales almost perfectly in SLI, almost double the FPS for two cards in SLI. This even beats the 980 in performance/cost.
He's not actually interested by Sycraft-fu · 2014-09-20 14:53 · Score: 1

It is AMD fanboy sour grapes. For some reason some people get really personally invested in their choice of graphics card. So when the other company comes out with a card that is substantially better than what their company has, they get all ass hurt and start trying to make excuses as to what it is bad. The nVidia fans did that back when the AMD 5870 came out and nVidia had no response. Same deal here. The GeForce 900 series are a reasonable bit faster than the AMD 200 series, and way more power efficient. At this time, AMD doesn't have a response, so the AMD fanboys are going on the defensive.
The real answer is, of course, buy the card that works best for your usage, which will vary person to person.
Low power, fanless anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 15:57 · Score: 0

GPU cards that are suitable for HTPCs and other low power configurations are few and far between.
Every time I read about new GPU products, they're always high power and require their own fans.
Most of us don't need GPUs that are so muscled up but neither are the built-IN GPUs from Intel/AMD delivering what's needed.
1. Re:Low power, fanless anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-21 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  AMD's FMI1 or Intel's current integrated graphics are good ways to go here. If HTPC means "pretty powerful SteamBox for games," I don't really know where to go these days,
  My "HTPC" these days is a little ARM box (SolidRun Cubox) that I believe is fanless. It runs OpenELEC.
Looking for info on running 4k screens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-22 08:05 · Score: 0

30Hz for gaming is garbage. You can try it tonight yourself - go home, create a custom resolution at 30Hz in the control panel and play at game with that resolution selected. Even for slow games it's garbage. Super jerky and unnatural. Even 59Hz I only use for slow games. Most games need 60Hz+.
Displayport can already go 4k @ 60Hz, but for HDMI you need HDMI 2.0. The GTX9x0 supports HDMI 2.0 but you need a TV/monitor that also accepts it. HDMI 2.0 is kinda weak though... can't do 4k @ 60Hz w/ full 16bit 4:4:4 color. and only 16bit color? ehhh.
http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_0/hdmi_2_0_faq.aspx
Most last-gen games can easily run at 4k on a single GPU (I do it on a GTX580 3GB with moderate success relative to performance), but next-gen @4k and higher will need more power than the measly ~225GB/sec the GTX980 is pumping out. The 9x0-gen wasn't a power-grab, so I'd avoid it if you want proper 4k gaming.
In the next few gens 3D VRAM will debut, so that + super beefy architectures will deliver proper 4k gaming performance.
Once you get used to 4k (esp. if youre a graphics whore like myself), there's no going back. It's not just a reduction of jaggies and clearer distances, but textures have more detail, objects are better defined from the background, just... everything. Put it this way... now that everyone is used to 1080p... how many are saying 900p is "good enough" and recommending those monitors? No one. Go 4k - your eyes will thank you.