Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980 Ti Costs $350 Less Than TITAN X, Performs Similarly

Posted by timothy on from the most-of-the-price-of-a-chromebook-pixel dept.

Deathspawner writes: In advance of the rumored pending launch of AMD's next-generation Radeon graphics cards, NVIDIA has decided to pull no punches and release a seriously tempting GTX 980 Ti at $649. It's tempting both because the extra $150 it costs over the GTX 980 more than makes up for it in performance gained, and despite it coming really close to the performance of TITAN X, it costs $350 less. AMD's job might just have become a bit harder. Vigile adds The GTX 980 Ti has 6GB of memory (versus 12GB for the GTX Titan X) but PC Perspective's review shows no negative side effects of the drop. This implementation of the GM200 GPU uses 2,816 CUDA cores rather than the 3,072 cores of the Titan X, but thanks to higher average Boost clocks, performance between the two cards is identical. And at Hot Hardware, another equally positive, benchmark-laden review.

3 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Re:This isn't surprising by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ATI/AMD has had shit drivers since the 90s. This whole "Nvidia is stabbing us in the back!" doesn't carry water since they've *never* had reliable products.

  2. It's summer-time, no need to heat your office! by B.Stolk · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Nah... the sweet spot is still on the 750Ti, which is a nice 60W GPU that has plenty oompf and costs just $180,-
    Why would you want to heat your office with an extra 0.25KWatt heater if you don't live in Alaska?
    Top Tip: Pass on this one, and take the 750Ti.

    --
    http://www.stolk.org/tlctc
  3. Re:This isn't surprising by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I worked on 3D drivers, oh, how we used to laugh when some idiot developer put in code that deliberately broke the game when run under a debugger. Yet they still expected it to work well on our cards...

    But, yeah, it wasn't at all unusual for developers of little clue to do completely retarded things that worked on other hardware, but not ours. Often because we actually implemented the feature they were using in hardware, whereas the other drivers simulated it in software.