Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dual GPU Battle: GTX 980 Ti SLI vs. Radeon R9 Fury X Crossfire

Posted by Soulskill on from the for-when-$1k-seems-like-a-reasonable-amount-to-spend-on-graphics dept.

jjslash writes: High-end GPU parts from Nvidia and AMD are plenty fast, these days. While top-end cards from both can provide playable performance at 4K, many games dip down to and below 30fps. Folks looking to achieve smooth 4K gameplay will undoubtedly be eyeing dual GTX 980 Ti or Fury X cards to realize their PC gaming machine's full potential. TechSpot puts both cards to the test in SLI and Crossfire modes, at stock and overclocked speeds in over 10 games to see who gets the bragging rights. As it turns out, AMD has a tiny advantage in average frame rates. The two split wins on frame time, but AMD won by bigger margins. When the cards get overclocked, Nvidia is the clear winner, and power consumption favors Nvidia as well.

51 comments

  1. Please enlighten me by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 2

    4k is cool and all, I get it. Still, why would I want my PC to render 4k at suboptimal frame rates, when I can play at full HD and have the display present me those 1080px in a way no native HD display could do? Really, I want one of those things just for the real estate and the freedom to place more better looking windows where I want and need them, but for gaming at native resolution, I just don't get it.

    --
    I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    1. Re:Please enlighten me by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 2

      I agree. When monitors are 40 or 50 inch, then 4K will make sense for gaming. I just don't see it now. You need a lot of screen real estate to take advantage of that many pixels.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    2. Re:Please enlighten me by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Someone always has to pay the cost so that the bleeding edge can become commonplace. Enthusiasts pay for the high cost, high margin products that help make up for selling the mid-range run of the mill parts at low margins to the rest of us. Yesterday's luxury is today's commodity.

    3. Re:Please enlighten me by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree. When monitors are 40 or 50 inch, then 4K will make sense for gaming. I just don't see it now. You need a lot of screen real estate to take advantage of that many pixels.

      If that were true, then there would be no need for Anti Aliasing...

      Since there is, then your point is simply incorrect...

      Until there is no need for AA, then the resolution isn't high enough.

    4. Re:Please enlighten me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You need a lot of screen real estate to take advantage of that many pixels.

      Not really. 28" at 2' occupies the same visual arc as 42" at 3'.

    5. Re:Please enlighten me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AA will always be needed, simply because we are not using vector displays.

    6. Re: Please enlighten me by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's pretend 4k monitors didn't exist (they do). I give you another reason, supersampled anti-aliasing where you render at a higher resolution, apply any effects and maybe fxaa and then downscale the frame at the end to native resolution. Basically the downscaling the final frame is the best form of anti-aliasing one can actually have due to how downscaling algorithms derive pixel values from multiple sources pixels.

    7. Re: Please enlighten me by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's pretend 4k monitors didn't exist (they do). I give you another reason, supersampled anti-aliasing you render at a higher resolution, apply any effects and maybe fxaa and then downscale the frame at the end to native resolution, basically the downscaling the final frame is the best form of anti-aliasing one can actually have due to how downscaling algorithms derive pixel values from multiple sources pixels. That said, I wouldn't allow my computer to use such methods when I don't still get high enough framerates.

    8. Re:Please enlighten me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4k is cool and all, I get it. Still, why would I want my PC to render 4k at suboptimal frame rates, when I can play at full HD and have the display present me those 1080px in a way no native HD display could do? Really, I want one of those things just for the real estate and the freedom to place more better looking windows where I want and need them, but for gaming at native resolution, I just don't get it.

      Because some of us have multimonitor setups so we can work and play at 5760x1080.

    9. Re:Please enlighten me by lordofthechia · · Score: 2

      When monitors are 40 or 50 inch, then 4K will make sense for gaming

      What do you mean, "when"?. 40+ inch UHD ("4K") gaming monitors are already here! Even comes with freesync.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    10. Re:Please enlighten me by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More pixels per inch means better resolution with less detail-killing antialiasing. Back when resolutions over 1600x1200 were a lot I used to regularly get kills on people who couldn't even see me yet in FPSes because I had a big fancy .22 pitch monitor.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Please enlighten me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the aspect ratio of a band aid.

    12. Re:Please enlighten me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you look up DSR (Dynamic Super Resolution) - it uses your video card to render at resolutions greater than your display's maximum, and then downsamples is to produce a superior result. Even people without 4k monitors are using 4k rendering.

    13. Re:Please enlighten me by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Works pretty well on 28" on a normal sized desk.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    14. Re:Please enlighten me by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Why would AA be needed on a display where the eye could not distinguish between individual pixels?

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    15. Re:Please enlighten me by Jupix · · Score: 1

      Having used a 55" 4K 60Hz panel (Sony 55X9005A) as my gaming display since 2013, I can say that high resolution gaming is pretty much the same thing as high refresh rate gaming or VR gaming: you won't "get it" until you try it.

      Furthermore, in my time I've observed three primary types of gamers:

      • "graphics & performance don't matter" gamers
      • "resolution & fidelity is everything" gamers
      • "fps & low latency is everything" gamers

      If you're not in category 2 then I'm afraid you'll never "get" these very expensive high end products/builds nor do you need to.

      People who are a balanced combination of categories 2 and 3 are the populous target audience of Asus, MSI, Alienware, etc etc and those people keep those companies afloat. It's not the high end customers who are interested in dual GPU setups or 4K at this time.

    16. Re:Please enlighten me by Jupix · · Score: 1

      On a 4K display, antialiasing is already completely pointless. It's uses a huge amount of rendering horsepower for a blur effect that is impossible to notice without A/B comparisons. Competent system testers use it in benchmarks only to put more load on the systems, and incompetent ones to prove that SLI/CF builds are inadequate for 4K. Popular but incompetent review sites like IGN like to do that latter part regularly, which is really counterproductive because it only increases FUD and slows down 4K adoption.

      Personally, I've been running games in 4K without antialising since 2013. First with an overclocked GTX 660 which required lowering the fidelity settings of new games. Afterwards, with a single GTX 980 which could run every game on maxed settings. About 6 months ago I built a GTX 980 SLI rig which could handle some useless antialising too, but instead I elect to put the cards in powersave mode which makes the rig quiet while gaming.

      Disclaimer: 4K particularly on maxed settings will require you to forget about "stable 60fps" because high end graphics settings like that cause framerate drops unrelated to raw GPU performance.

    17. Re:Please enlighten me by Kjella · · Score: 1

      4k is cool and all, I get it. Still, why would I want my PC to render 4k at suboptimal frame rates, when I can play at full HD

      Not all games are about competitive FPS, it's that simple really. If you're playing The Witcher, Metro: Last Light, Tomb Raider, Civilization or any of a bunch of other games you just want it to be smooth and otherwise crank up the resolution/details/effects as far as you can.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    18. Re:Please enlighten me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A misconception, AA will likely always be needed.
      Imagine a 3D model of a cup on a table. As you move away from the table the cup gets smaller and smaller on the screen, eventually becoming smaller than the size of a pixel. As the viewpoint moves, the cup will either be drawn (because a 'ray' from the pixel hits the cup) or not be drawn (because the ray misses the cup). A single pixel will therefore appear to flicker. AA smooths out this flicker by averaging over multiple pixels - its fundamentally very similar as to why textures need mipmaps.

    19. Re: Please enlighten me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much bragging, so much virginity

    20. Re:Please enlighten me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because not everyone's eyes are quite so blind as yours? Seriously, just as everyone has a different set of ears and hearing ranges, and some of us actually can tell the difference between an MP3 and an uncompressed recording, everybody has a different set of eyes, or we wouldn't have people with glasses and contact lenses and LASIK surgery. 4k at 24" is great for desktop use.

    21. Re:Please enlighten me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Visual acuity has a physical limit due to the number of rods and cones that can fit on the fovea.

      If you go higher than 200ppi on a screen more than a meter away, you're exceeding that limit and you can't distinguish individual pixels, I don't care how good you think your vision is.

    22. Re:Please enlighten me by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I agree. When monitors are 40 or 50 inch, then 4K will make sense for gaming. I just don't see it now. You need a lot of screen real estate to take advantage of that many pixels.

      If that were true, then there would be no need for Anti Aliasing...

      Since there is, then your point is simply incorrect...

      Until there is no need for AA, then the resolution isn't high enough.

      Perhaps all that 4k rendering should be in the monitor. Just send the video image deltas and step out of the way.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    23. Re:Please enlighten me by smallfries · · Score: 1

      And so... for this person who has fantastic eyes providing amazing vision: when they are given a screen at a resolution where they cannot distinguish individual pixels - would they need AA? Come on child, summon the brain trust and gather their collective wisdom.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    24. Re:Please enlighten me by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you are wrong. Its common to play "2k" or 4k with AA off on 27' monitors for the performance and frame gains. In fact, I would know - I recently upgraded from 1080p to 2k. 2k at lower settings with AA off looks better than 1080p at high settings with 8x AA. No jaggies anywhere on 2k without AA on a 27' monitor.

    25. Re:Please enlighten me by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Having used a 55" 4K 60Hz panel (Sony 55X9005A) as my gaming display since 2013, I can say that high resolution gaming is pretty much the same thing as high refresh rate gaming or VR gaming: you won't "get it" until you try it.

      Furthermore, in my time I've observed three primary types of gamers:
      "graphics & performance don't matter" gamers
      "resolution & fidelity is everything" gamers
      "fps & low latency is everything" gamers

      If you're not in category 2 then I'm afraid you'll never "get" these very expensive high end products/builds nor do you need to.

      Hate to break it to you, but you're lacking fidelity, because the X900 Sonys do not support HDMI 2.0a (18gbps), required for true RGB at 60fps. And the X900 does not have DisplayPort.

      Instead, you're using YUV422 format, which is a way to cheat and get 60fps 4K using standard HDMI 1.4a signalling and speeds.

      Even the flagship of 2014, the X950 series does not support 4K at 60 at RGB or YUV444.

      True HDMI 2.0 sets and equipment are coming out this year (HDMI 2.0 was ratified last year), these support 18gbps signalling and thus will get you your 4k @ 60 at full bit-depth.

    26. Re:Please enlighten me by Jupix · · Score: 1

      The resolution matters more than the 4:2:0 chroma. Try it with A/B testing.

  2. Driver Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    As usual driver support will determine the clear winner so it looks like I'm sticking with Nvidia.

    1. Re:Driver Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Ugh. The same predictable douchey driver argument that rears it's ugly head in every single red v green article that's posted on /.

      When idiots like you talk about driver support, what you really mean is "whose drivers are better optimized for the games I play".

      For those of us that use GPUs for WORK, the value proposition is a little different. Now, go back to your Skyrim or whatever other console clusterfuck you waste your life with.

    2. Re:Driver Support by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      I fail to see what's invalid about that argument, though.

      "X is better than Y for the use cases I'm seeing" is a perfectly valid argument. Now, it's best to clarify as such, and not simply extrapolate out to every single possible use under the sun, a la "Well, Nvidia/AMD gets 3 more frames per second on $GAME, so therefore it's better for EVERYTHING." That's stupid - but something like my recent experience where I had major crash problems with AMD drivers on some of the games I like to play, and none with Nvidia (one desktop, the other laptop), I'm strongly inclined to go with Nvidia on my next major purchase, because I have a very visceral (if anecdotal) sense that one is going to work better for what I'm using it for than the other.

      Now, you may not be using them for the same thing - but that in no way invalidates the specific point that it's better for what he's using it for.

    3. Re:Driver Support by DiehardIndependent · · Score: 1

      I fail to see what's invalid about that argument, though.

      What argument? Is there any argument in GGP's post beyond the premise "nVidia rocks, AMD sucks"? Not that I can see.

    4. Re:Driver Support by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The same predictable douchey driver argument that rears it's ugly head in every single A/B article that's posted on /.

      FTFY - As for red and green, it's not Christmas — and July was last month.

    5. Re:Driver Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Now, go back to your Skyrim or whatever other console clusterfuck you waste your life with.

      Some of us don't live to work, we work to live...

    6. Re:Driver Support by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 0

      What about Intel's GPUs? Why isn't this a triple-GPU battle, GTX 980 Ti SLI vs. Radeon R9 Fury X Crossfire vs. Intel SUX 5000 or whatever their current model is?

    7. Re:Driver Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The specific point seems to have been the expectation that AMD's drivers for a brand new part would fail on some unspecified games on some unspecified OS, because he remembers a time when he had driver problems with an AMD part or its drivers. This amounts to "I believe Team X will still suck in the future, so I will stick with Team Y even when the facts disagree with me".

      It's not worth announcing, and it's not exactly the mark of a smart consumer, and yet there's always someone here to announce it.

      It comes up with such regularity - every time AMD is mentioned in a headline on Slashdot - that one would think there was a cluster of bots programmed to comment on every AMD-related story with an ATI anecdote from 1998.

      Personally, I haven't had a driver problem with any GPUs or drivers for seven or eight years. I must be doing something wrong.

  3. Fast To-day, Slow To-morrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember?

    All Abooooard.

  4. A smoking hot combo in the late 1990's... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3

    Nvidia TNT2 for Windows desktop and software-rendered games, and a pair of 3Dfx Voodoo 2 SLI boards for 3Dfx games. Got me through many rounds of Quake and Quake 2. Now get off my lawn!

    1. Re:A smoking hot combo in the late 1990's... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Remember those Quantum Obsidian (I believe they were called) 3D-only cards with shit-tons of 3Dfx Voodoo chips on 'em? :)

    2. Re:A smoking hot combo in the late 1990's... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      And a Diamond Vortex Aureal A3D card.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  5. In over 10 games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can marketing majors everywhere please quit using this sentence?

    Just say how many. Quit with the "Over X" bullshit. Every time I read that, I hear DUR IM PADDING NUMBERS BC IM STUPID.

    1. Re:In over 10 games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even better, it's *exactly* 10 games...
      So not only is it stupid, it's flat out wrong.

    2. Re:In over 10 games by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't knock it. It's an improvement on "up to X or more".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  6. Hand-screened nVidia sample vs standard AMD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this not slightly unfair - at least until AMD or another provider create a similar product?

    A future Fury X 'Golden Sample' product might prove to be an interesting and more equitable comparison. How does a 'vanilla' 980Ti compare?

  7. Outdated article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article is now useless. They tested with:
    Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit
    Nvidia GeForce 353.30
    AMD Catalyst 15.7

    Windows 10 received a new scheduler that gives a much needed boost. Win 10 Radeon 15.7.1 drivers gave AMD cards upwards of 20% performance improvements. Geforce cards were already doing well so their increase wasn't as high but there were improvements with newer Geforce drivers too.

    In order to top out Witcher 3 at 1080p you'd need two Titans or two Fury cards with Windows 7/8. Hairworks just killed it for everyone. Now with Windows 10 you'll get a Radeon 280 or a GTX 970M (between gtx960 and gtx970) in order to max out Witcher 3 with hairworks.

    The article is useless.

    1. Re:Outdated article by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Geforce driver improvements? They don't even install properly on Windows 10.

      --
      MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
  8. Is this tested with DirectX 12? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it isn't, then it's an invalid benchmark.

  9. So basically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    ...when push comes to shove, nvidia wins. Like they always have. AMD is garbage for people on a budget.

  10. nvidia has hdmi 2.0 output by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4k makes most sense when going to a 48 inch or more monitor. When looking at such sizes, I end up at 4K tvs instead of monitors. (like a samsung 48ue ju6400 for around 900 euro)
    most 4k tvs do not have displayport, even though it technically is superior. AMD cards do not have a hdmi 2.0 output, and no convertor for displayport to hdmi exists that can do 4k @ 60Hz . Therefor AMD graphics card didn't even get considered as a choice for me. It probably also explains why nvidia is having a good year with sales of gtx970 and 980.

    1. Re: nvidia has hdmi 2.0 output by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you buy such a dreadful display. Resolution isn't everything

    2. Re:nvidia has hdmi 2.0 output by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      you're assuming an OS and related software that can't run in high DPI modes. iMac with 5k display is beautiful, and it's only 27".

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    3. Re: nvidia has hdmi 2.0 output by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a un60ju7100. It's pretty awesome! See review below:

      http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-brand/samsung/ju7100

      4:4:4 chroma, 4k60fps, 45ms input lag. It's really quite incredible. This is why I bought 2 980tis. Awesome machine!