# GTX 980 vs RX 580 4GB



## Valent117 (Oct 2, 2018)

i can have any of those cards for 150$, i currently have GTX 960 4GB

GTX 980 Strix OC  vs  RX 580 Nitro+ 4GB (with 2000MHz gddr5)

no sli/crossfire planned

also i have a 144hz freesync 1080p monitor

i am looking for a card wich output the less heat possible, less noise. and the max performances ofc

i don't feel the need for freesync yet, fastsync is enough for me

which one should i pick?

thanks for the help, don't hesitate to ask questions


----------



## Space Lynx (Oct 2, 2018)

Valent117 said:


> i can have any of those cards for 150$, i currently have GTX 960 4GB
> 
> GTX 980 Strix OC  vs  RX 580 Nitro+ 4GB (with 2000MHz gddr5)
> 
> ...



I would go for the rx 580 in all honesty.  free sync will improve your gaming experience whether you believe it will or not, it really does make everything feel smoother. and also a 580 for $150? thats a very good deal. i'd buy one for that price.


----------



## Supercrit (Oct 2, 2018)

Why is there even a hesitation? Almost same performance and you have Freesync compatible with 580 which is newer and has lower heat output/power consumption.


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Oct 2, 2018)

Like others have said, rx 580, even more so with a freesync monitor


----------



## John Naylor (Oct 3, 2018)

Resolution would have been a nice number to add... but its 1080p so ... the image below puts it smack in the middle of the 970 and the 980 Ti, but unfortunately, the 980 isn't listed.

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/images/perfrel_1920_1080.png

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/images/perfrel_1920_1080.png
Using the 970s number from the 1st link(85%) let's take the reference 970 (74) and 980 (82) from the one above.
Using the 980 Tis number from the 1st link (118%) let's take the reference 980 Ti (100) and 980 (82) from the one above.

And do some math...

85% (970) x 82/74 ~ 94% for the 980
118%  (980 Ti) x 82/100 ~ 97% for the 980

It's therefore reasonable to assume that the reference 980 is between 94 and 97% of the Nitro...let's call it 95.5.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/33.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_STRIX_OC/28.html

Adding in overclocking ... 4.4% for the Nitro and 18.6% (155.1 / 1308) and doing the math ...

100.0 x 1.044 = 104.4 for the Nitro
95.5 x 1.186 = 113.3 for the Strix ... so the Strix is about 8.5% faster in TPU gaming test suite.

So now it comes down to what monitor you have.... and what games you play.   If the games you play are going to see:

< 60 fps @ 1080p and with your current monitor, Id give up the Strix's speed advantage and use Freesync.

< 60 fps @ 1080p and with G-Sync monitor, the Strix's speed advantage is obvious.

If a fair number of your games break 60 fps @ 1080p and you had one of these (Acer GN246HL, Acer GN276HL, ASUS VG248QE, ASUS VG278HV, BenQ XL2411T, BenQ XL2420T, BenQ XL2420TE or BenQ XL2720T) I'd take the Strix and use MBR via toasty strobelight utility.


----------



## GamerGuy (Oct 3, 2018)

RX 580 4GB regardless of whether you think you don't need Freesync if you're playing games at 1080P, performance-wise, the GTX980 is faster.....but really depends on the games and res you play at.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 3, 2018)

Nitro+ cards are higher grade than strix.

DX12 games perform better on the radeon


----------



## king of swag187 (Oct 3, 2018)

RX580 over GTX 980, freesync+ DX12. If you just have $150, I recommend picking up a Fury off ebay, better than both and might be unlockable+ all the advantages of the 580


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 3, 2018)

Supercrit said:


> and has lower heat output/power consumption



Actually, heat output/power consumption is about the only thing the GTX980 does still beat the RX 580 at.  The RX 580's power consumption and heat output is closer to the levels of the 980Ti.

That said, I'd still go with the RX 580, though it would be nice if it was the 8GB model instead of the 4GB.


----------



## Supercrit (Oct 3, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Actually, heat output/power consumption is about the only thing the GTX980 does still beat the RX 580 at.  The RX 580's power consumption and heat output is closer to the levels of the 980Ti.
> 
> That said, I'd still go with the RX 580, though it would be nice if it was the 8GB model instead of the 4GB.



I kept thinking RX 580 is on the same level as RX 480 of power consumption, until I saw them use same amount of power as 1080ti.


----------



## Valent117 (Oct 23, 2018)

ok it's in
had to install beta drivers for latest windows 10 support
any advices? about anything?


----------



## Tallencor (Oct 23, 2018)

Supercrit said:


> I kept thinking RX 580 is on the same level as RX 480 of power consumption, until I saw them use same amount of power as 1080ti.


Playing in Wattman or Afterburner with lower voltage and a custom fan profile will fix this. Old reviews show the Polaris line suffers from mem bandwidth but excels with undervolting.


----------



## IceShroom (Oct 23, 2018)

Supercrit said:


> I kept thinking RX 580 is on the same level as RX 480 of power consumption, until I saw them use same amount of power as 1080ti.


It depends on card. Top card like Nitro+ or Devil will consume more power than a Pulse card.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Oct 23, 2018)

Maxwell is still more efficient than Polaris despite being on 28nm.

But anyway, you've gone for the 580 already, enjoy the card!


----------



## GamerGuy (Oct 23, 2018)

Valent117 said:


> ok it's in
> had to install beta drivers for latest windows 10 support
> any advices? about anything?


Which Windows 10 are you on? 1803 or 1809? I'm on Adrenalin 18.10.1 on Windows 10 Pro 1809 and I've yet to encounter any issue with my Vega 64.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 23, 2018)

I would have gone with a 580 as well.
Simply because the 580 is a current model and it's basically as good.


----------



## Valent117 (Oct 23, 2018)

GamerGuy said:


> Which Windows 10 are you on? 1803 or 1809?


w10 pro 1809 and adrenaline 18.10.1


----------



## Kissamies (Oct 26, 2018)

As a 980 owner I'd go with this. With 1500MHz core clock, this is still a beast.


----------



## User ! (Oct 26, 2018)

980 is better than 580. I've got 7700+ fse graphics score at 1.56g 8200mhz by 980 g1.
rx 580 seems very hard to reach 7200+ fse.


----------



## SoNic67 (Oct 27, 2018)

I can't test the FS because I have only the demo version of 3DMark. But for what's worth, this is my Time Spy result.


----------



## bestonecnc (Oct 29, 2018)

all way winner GTX 980... its tru Do not worry, use GTX 980 i have GTX 1070 haha


----------



## VincentVanBork (Oct 29, 2018)

If you want to use freesync that badly and have a monitor that supports it, go for radeon. That's probably the only good thing about this card.  I wouldn't invest into radeon gpu's personally because most of the time they are a huge letdown. I'd go for gtx 980.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 29, 2018)

User ! said:


> 980 is better than 580. I've got 7700+ fse graphics score at 1.56g 8200mhz by 980 g1.
> rx 580 seems very hard to reach 7200+ fse.



Not sure about you but I don't spend my time running benches all day.

Far Cry 5 begs to differ (DX11), for one...





@OP great choice IMO. The only games where a GTX 980 would pull ahead in a meaningful way is those with heavy tesselation, Maxwell has a stronger tess engine than Polaris.

So you have better perf (at higher power draw, that is) across the board, equal at worst, and if you want a var.refresh monitor there's no Gsync tax involved. Winner.


----------



## Aaron_Henderson (Oct 29, 2018)

Not sure if you have the new card yet or not, but really try to get the 8GB version...many games I play need settings lowered so I'm not maxing out the 4GB VRAM...and nearly any new game at the very least require setting medium / low textures to not hit that limit.  I wish I had bought an 8GB 290X vs the 4GB I ended up with.


----------



## User ! (Oct 30, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Not sure about you but I don't spend my time running benches all day.
> 
> Far Cry 5 begs to differ (DX11), for one...
> 
> ...


What you post shows R9 NANO is even slower than RX 580,which is unusual.According to TPU's test,980 is faster than RX480 , slightly shower than RX 580.But 980 can hit 1520+ in common,if an oced 980 compare to oced 580 ,you will find 980 is still strong.
By the way,G-sync moniter isnt important to NVIDIA's user.What you need is just setting lower quality and keep 60 fps+


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 30, 2018)

He has FSync so radeon is likely best, seems he already bought it. But the 980 is faster ime, my old ref 970's are nearly as fast as the 580's i tested, although they had mod bios. I was super unimpressed with the 580's.... and ive always been an amd guy (for gpu's ,obviously not amd cpus  ). But different uses or builds work better with different components, whatever floats your boat & works best


----------



## GamerGuy (Oct 30, 2018)

The topic is moot anyway since TS has already gotten the RX 580 (generally better than GTX 980 in VULKAN and DX12 games), let's just congratulate him on the purchase and wish oodles and oodles of fun gaming with that card.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 30, 2018)

Gf 900 series didnt age well


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 30, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> Gf 900 series didnt age well


It really didn't. That's not to say the GTX980 is a bad card, just not compared to a 580.

@Valent117 I would recommend an RX580 8GB though. It'll future proof you a bit better, and the price difference is minimal last time I checked.


----------



## bestonecnc (Oct 30, 2018)

GTX 980 is better  RX580 = GTX 1060 same or small better  GTX 980 >= GTX 1060 6G >= RX580 > GTX 1060 3G = GTX 970


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 30, 2018)

they aged reasonably well,contrary to Fury X,which is biggest dud of a video card of the last several years. Lol this thing cost $650

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...n_s_creed_odyssey_pc_grecka_tragedia?page=0,7
https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...pc_test_wydajnosci_kart_i_procesorow?page=0,8
https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz..._5_pc_wymagania_adekwatne_do_grafiki?page=0,7

maxwell is basically the foundation for pascal,I see no reason why it would age badly.


still, 580 is the only option here, it may be slower than 980 OC vs OC, but not by that much, and variable refresh rate a marvellous thing to have.


----------



## GamerGuy (Oct 30, 2018)

bestonecnc said:


> GTX 980 is better  RX580 = GTX 1060 same or small better  GTX 980 >= GTX 1060 6G >= RX580 > GTX 1060 3G = GTX 970


Not exactly true, for DX11 games, they trade wins with the GTX980 winning most, but when it comes to DX12 and VULKAN, the position is reversed with the RX580 winning most. Again, all this is moot now since OP has gotten an RX 580 already, plus his having a Freesync monitor only makes it a wise decision.


----------



## ne6togadno (Oct 30, 2018)

Valent117 said:


> any advices? about anything?


change logo color to red


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 30, 2018)

User ! said:


> What you post shows R9 NANO is even slower than RX 580,which is unusual.According to TPU's test,980 is faster than RX480 , slightly shower than RX 580.But 980 can hit 1520+ in common,if an oced 980 compare to oced 580 ,you will find 980 is still strong.
> By the way,G-sync moniter isnt important to NVIDIA's user.What you need is just setting lower quality and keep 60 fps+



First off, fully in agreement about Gsync. There are always better or nearly equal alternatives (strobe, or fixed FPS, or Fast Sync) that cost less and also bring less of a hassle - Gsync isn't really a stellar piece of engineering given all the problems it's had / having.

But... why is it unusual? One only needs to look at perf summaries to see it confirmed, irrespective of resolution as well.

Here lookey look: 9% between RX 480 (stock, shitty blower cooling) versus a GPU Boosting GTX 980. The RX480 is 35% behind 980ti.







And here is a factory OCd, boosted RX580, a mere 15% off the 980ti. A lot has happened on the AMD side in about a year's time: important driver releases + optimizations for Polaris are now virtually completed and it's had some refresh love. Meanwhile the 980 was stagnant. (Yes I know its not in this chart, probably not rebenched because market share was super low for 980's as they were overpriced and barely had more perf than a 970 - that alone should tell you enough, too; the 970 is falling down hard).








bestonecnc said:


> GTX 980 is better  RX580 = GTX 1060 same or small better  GTX 980 >= GTX 1060 6G >= RX580 > GTX 1060 3G = GTX 970



Look above here and you can see this is not the case. The 1060 3G is a sliver faster than a 970 and the 980 is about on par with the 6G version.

I get the impression far too many people are still comparing launch Maxwell performance to RX480's in their minds, which was always wrong to begin with. As time went by, Maxwell 4GB cards fall off FAST and AMD cards have improved across the board.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 30, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> Gf 900 series didnt age well


id say it did age well. the 980/970 was released in 2014 fall, and the 580 nearly 4 years later in 2018. I tested a couple 580's against a couple of my Reference 970's , which even without Modded bios' they still nearly were identical perf-wise, and these were 970's. i just happen to still have a couple screenshots of one of my bench results too.

i ran them with an i7 as well as a pentium, & the 970's were very close performance to a 580 (which for some reason showed as 480 in the Bench test output, but they were 580''s)

the tests below were run with a VERY fast pentium anniversary edition Oc'd to Super high speeds (higher Single core speeds than HEDT CPU's in CPUz Bench test), and the results only increased VERY slightly with an i7 instead of the pentium. the roughly 6% performance increase with the 4 year newer and more than double RAM 580 was pretty standard in my tests.

GTX970 reference blower model






Rx 580 8Gb Gigabyte AIB model


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 30, 2018)

jboydgolfer said:


> id say it did age well. the 980/970 was released in 2014 fall, and the 580 nearly 4 years later in 2018. I tested a couple 580's against a couple of my Reference 970's , which even without Modded bios' they still nearly were identical perf-wise, and these were 970's. i just happen to still have a couple screenshots of one of my bench results too.
> 
> i ran them with an i7 as well as a pentium, & the 970's were very close performance to a 580 (which for some reason showed as 480 in the Bench test output, but they were 580''s)
> 
> ...



Yup 1920x1080. If already had a 970/980/ti a 580 wouldn't make sense. But a 980 would have to be way way cheaper than a 580 to justify buying it over a brand new 580. 4K is where the 580 pulls ahead as where @Vayra86 vayrapointed out.

Its like the 290-390X vs a 1060/580. The 290-390X would have to be way way cheaper than said above to justify buying it, even a VaporX/Nitro


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 30, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> Yup 1920x1080. If already had a 970/980/ti a 580 wouldn't make sense. But a 980 would have to be way way cheaper than a 580 to justify buying it over a brand new 580. 4K is where the 580 pulls ahead as where @Vayra86 vayrapointed out.
> 
> Its like the 290-390X vs a 1060/580. The 290-390X would have to be way way cheaper than said above to justify buying it, even a VaporX/Nitro



Well yeah of course there's differences between value ,but that goes without saying because one of them is four years newer. In  2014, I would be surprised if 5% of computer monitors were even 2K ,never mind 4K .  I'm aware there are scenarios in which the 580 is faster (which is just about every scenario), but that's my point,  to say that a four-year-old card that performs 10% or less within a modern card is "not aging well" seems a bit strange imo,  since, had it performed any better they would be the same card other than one being older than the other.

If I were going to talk about performance/value, I would say match a 580  and nvidia card released at the same time. I always bought AMD gpu's until my 970s . What happened is that I came to a realization ,that although the Nvidia offering would often be nearly double the cost as the AMD option, the Nvidia card would still be very much "relevant" five years later, as where the same couldn't be quite the same for the AMD option.  Comparing a 6970 to a GTX 980 ,and then comparing a GTX 980 to an RX 580 dmonstrates my point.   essentially that's what I decided, I'd rather spend twice as much ,for a card that's going to be "relevant" for twice as long. The 980 is under 15-20% slower than a 580, but a 6970 is almost 180% slower than a 980.

In the end, my only argument with your post would be that the GTX 9XX series didn't age well, at least the 970 and 980 models.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 30, 2018)

jboydgolfer said:


> Well yeah of course there's differences between value ,but that goes without saying because one of them is four years newer. In  2014, I would be surprised if 5% of computer monitors were even 2K ,never mind 4K .  I'm aware there are scenarios in which the 580 is faster (which is just about every scenario), but that's my point,  to say that a four-year-old card that performs 10% or less within a modern card is "not aging well" seems a bit strange imo,  since, had it performed any better they would be the same card other than one being older than the other.
> 
> If I were going to talk about performance/value, I would say match a 580  and nvidia card released at the same time. I always bought AMD gpu's until my 970s . What happened is that I came to a realization ,that although the Nvidia offering would often be nearly double the cost as the AMD option, the Nvidia card would still be very much "relevant" five years later, as where the same couldn't be quite the same for the AMD option.  Comparing a 6970 to a GTX 980 ,and then comparing a GTX 980 to an RX 580 dmonstrates my point.   essentially that's what I decided, I'd rather spend twice as much ,for a card that's going to be "relevant" for twice as long. The 980 is under 15-20% slower than a 580, but a 6970 is almost 180% slower than a 980.
> 
> In the end, my only argument with your post would be that the GTX 9XX series didn't age well, at least the 970 and 980 models.



It depends a lot on how you look at 'aging'. Its not like the cards lose performance over time. But what does happen is that game demands change over time. In AMD's favor that is a shift to other APIs than DX11, for example. But another factor in AMD's favor is the market share increase of higher resolutions than 1080p. RX580 at resolutions over 1080p allows it to shine, whereas that is the territory where Maxwell does not excel anymore - Maxwell really is a 1080p optimized arch all the way until you hit a 980ti. VRAM limited at 4GB also doesn't help Maxwell - and is a reason to find an 8 GB 580 as well.

Its not realistic to compare 'the last five years' versus the five years prior to it. Things change, and its not a linear change, but one of heavy stagnation followed by rapid advancement to something new. A good example of that is growth of high refresh rate gaming and high resolutions. We were stuck at 1080p for more than a decade.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 30, 2018)

jboydgolfer said:


> Well yeah of course there's differences between value ,but that goes without saying because one of them is four years newer. In  2014, I would be surprised if 5% of computer monitors were even 2K ,never mind 4K .  I'm aware there are scenarios in which the 580 is faster (which is just about every scenario), but that's my point,  to say that a four-year-old card that performs 10% or less within a modern card is "not aging well" seems a bit strange imo,  since, had it performed any better they would be the same card other than one being older than the other.
> 
> If I were going to talk about performance/value, I would say match a 580  and nvidia card released at the same time. I always bought AMD gpu's until my 970s . What happened is that I came to a realization ,that although the Nvidia offering would often be nearly double the cost as the AMD option, the Nvidia card would still be very much "relevant" five years later, as where the same couldn't be quite the same for the AMD option.  Comparing a 6970 to a GTX 980 ,and then comparing a GTX 980 to an RX 580 dmonstrates my point.   essentially that's what I decided, I'd rather spend twice as much ,for a card that's going to be "relevant" for twice as long. The 980 is under 15-20% slower than a 580, but a 6970 is almost 180% slower than a 980.
> 
> In the end, my only argument with your post would be that the GTX 9XX series didn't age well, at least the 970 and 980 models.



Aging well was in regards to how there is improvement on AMD parts over the liefcycle and nv forces new products out yet dums the drivers on older cards down.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 30, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> Aging well was in regards to how there is improvement on AMD parts over the liefcycle and nv forces new products out yet dums the drivers on older cards down.



ERRRN! Wrong. Drivers are fine and just recently we have seen proof rebenching Kepler on several drivers. There is no trend of driver perf loss over time, stop feeding it and carefully read my post above yours.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 30, 2018)

lol,when are people gonna stop repeating this BS

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-nvidia-driver-updates-performance-tested,5707.html


----------



## Aaron_Henderson (Oct 30, 2018)

Try comparing 290x speeds at launch vs now...drivers were rough in the beginning and saw massive improvements over time...that's all I will say about it.  Never once said Nvidia drivers did not also being improvements over time...gtx 980 was stronger than 290x at the 290x launch. If I can recall correctly...now it's well known 290x is bit faster than gtx 980...now people who say Nvidia nerfs performance on older cards... different story...


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 30, 2018)

Aaron_Henderson said:


> now it's well known 290x is bit faster than gtx 980...


lol,well known.....why do people keep saying crap like that before they do some basic research

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Grafi...Rangliste-GPU-Grafikchip-Benchmark-1174201/2/

980 wins in 19 titles out on 21, in several instances crushing the 290X. It's 17% faster on average in this test. And that's on stock while it's well known how maxwell overclocks, +250-300MHz on the 980 is a safe bet. OC vs OC it'd be close to +25%.


If you look at 980 vs 580 out of the box performance, they're basically the same,choosing a winner is splitting hairs. 980 still has more OC headroom, but 580 comes with a 8GB variant and supports freesync. 980 is a better card than 580 when both pushed to max. oc, it'll be faster and more efficient, but overall I'd say 580 wins due to freesync support.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 30, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> lol,well known.....why do people keep saying crap like that before they do some basic research
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Grafi...Rangliste-GPU-Grafikchip-Benchmark-1174201/2/
> 
> ...



Basic research = one Google search and two clicks these days.

And apparently still too much effort. Stunning ey


----------



## Aaron_Henderson (Oct 30, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> lol,well known.....why do people keep saying crap like that before they do some basic research
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Grafi...Rangliste-GPU-Grafikchip-Benchmark-1174201/2/
> 
> ...



I stand corrected!  I am not one of those who can't admit they were wrong...thanks for setting me straight!

Edit - I think know where the notion came from...my horrible memory and confusing the 980 for the 970...


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 30, 2018)

Aaron_Henderson said:


> I stand corrected!  I am not one of those who can't admit they were wrong...thanks for setting me straight!


this all comes from one problem - people with brand bias repeating bs. this is the whole story as short as it can be:

Kepler had good drivers at launch. Hawaii was hit or miss. Hawaii got incremental performance increase over time, while Kepler was replaced with more advanced Maxwell. While both GCN and Maxwell got driver improvements, Kepler was already kinda "spent" on launch. It did get some improvement,but not much. People said Kepler is being gimped,which is just not true

https://babeltechreviews.com/nvidia-forgotten-kepler-gtx-780-ti-vs-290x-revisited/

now you've got people carrying that over to gcn vs maxwell, while it doesn't make sense at all. maxwell is very similar to pascal, any performance increase pascal gets, maxwell gets too. you can see it goes toe to toe with 580 and leaves 290x in the dust.
they try to apply the same logic to dx12 and vulkan,didn't even know nvidia improved dx12/vulkan peformance a long time ago,980 can match 580 in DOOM Vulkan


https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...70_ti_nemezis_amd_radeon_rx_vega_56?page=0,12
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_rog_geforce_gtx_1080_ti_poseidon_review,20.html


----------



## Valent117 (Oct 31, 2018)

op here
about futureproofing
i will get a top end card when or after i will upgrade my cpu/mobo/ram (waiting for zen 3 if ipc get above intel)
atm im not hitting the 4gb limit on any game


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 10, 2018)

13692pts in Fire Strike with GTX 980 @ 1500/1950MHz, CPU i7-5820K @ 4.6GHz on 5c/10t (I have that one core defective).

https://www.3dmark.com/fs/15813086

Need to test the normal Time Spy since my card is now watercooled, it clocks a tiny bit more than with the stock cooler. I've just ran Time Spy Extreme for measuring temps (like before and after the waterblock).


eidairaman1 said:


> Gf 900 series didnt age well


I don't agree. 980 @ 1520/2000MHz handles even new games well, though Shadow of the Tomb Raider was maybe too much since I didn't get a stable 60fps..  It's the 4GB VRAM which is the real bottleneck.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 11, 2018)

Chloe Price said:


> It's the 4GB VRAM which is the real bottleneck.


Turn down or off AA and lower shadow quality and that problem will go away.


----------



## Valent117 (Nov 11, 2018)

Chloe Price said:


> 13692pts in Fire Strike with GTX 980 @ 1500/1950MHz, CPU i7-5820K @ 4.6GHz on 5c/10t


i have 15 958 graphic,  10 891 physic and  5 058 combined with my 580 and 4790k 4ghz


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 11, 2018)

Valent117 said:


> i have 15 958 graphic,  10 891 physic and  5 058 combined with my 580 and 4790k 4ghz


Graphics about the same, in those others I have quite a lead thanks to extra core and clockspeed. I have Haswell-E and you have Haswell, so the IPC is 1:1.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 11, 2018)

lexluthermiester said:


> Turn down or off AA and lower shadow quality and that problem will go away.


I know I talk about not lowering, but only one system in the house can play maxed out. Lowering Shadows to medium is one of the biggest things you can do lower vram usage, with only a small loss in the appearance of the shadows.


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 11, 2018)

VRAM is not going to be an issue at 1080p, unless you try really really hard to create one. .... if 3GB isn't enough at 1080 p, then 11 GB on a 1080 Ti isn't adequate at 4k (4 x 1080p).  You can put this to bed quite easily and unassaialbly looking at TPU test results for the 3GB and 6 GB 1060s.   First off it must be recognized that the 6 GB version has a different GPU with 11% more shaders.  So regardless of VRAM, the 6 GB is faster.

In TPU testing, we see that the 6GB version is faster by 6%









Now looking at the above, we see that the 6 GB card is faster ... and that extra speed will be affected by a) those extra shaders, b) the factory OC on the AIB card and c) the extra 3 GB of VRAM.   Now of those possible contributors, the one thing that would show up the VRAM as being the bottleneck would be an increase in resolution.   If 3 GB is holding this will immediately be made obvious by jumping to 1440p ... doesn't happen, same 6% ...jump to 4k and that missing 3 GB finally has an impact jumping up to 14%


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 11, 2018)

Well, in many new games the VRAM usage is almost always over 4000-4060MB which I think is going to limit performance. I may be wrong, but that's how I think it is.

With 1060 3GB vs 6GB, the performance boost of latter one is of course by extra shaders.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 12, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> ERRRN! Wrong. Drivers are fine and just recently we have seen proof rebenching Kepler on several drivers. There is no trend of driver perf loss over time, stop feeding it and carefully read my post above yours.


reading ? carefully ? lol,that's a good one. why read and comb tech sites/channels for valuable information if one can just get their news from the "people are saying" side of the internet.


----------



## Lionheart (Nov 12, 2018)

580 easily, it will have better future driver support or wait for black friday for even better deals, up to you.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 12, 2018)

Lionheart said:


> 580 easily, it will have better future driver support or wait for black friday for even better deals, up to you.



https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gtx-980-vs-rx-580-4gb.248153/#post-3927910

@cucker tarlson your message is incompetent and invalidated.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 12, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gtx-980-vs-rx-580-4gb.248153/#post-3927910
> 
> @cucker tarlson your message is incompetent and invalidated.


really ? what invalidated it ? what invalidates the fact that,among other thing you're almost always completely wrong about, you still keep spreading BS about gimping drivers even though it was disproven years ago. *show me one full review that shows nvidia crippling performance on old gen with drivers.*


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 12, 2018)

When thinking about price/performance, 980 is light years ahead. Since it cannot be bought as new anymore, used cards are in very reasonable prices. RX480/580 aren't even nearly that cheap.

My 980:s price/performance is superior, since I got this beast for free.


----------



## gamerman (Nov 12, 2018)

sure 980 strix oc...ots faster and have better effciency,also drivers are better.

also if and when u sell it someday,980 are more value for sure.


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 12, 2018)

Almost 14k in Fire Strike with 980 @ 1520/2000

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/30244286?

14k is possible, just a few MHz more. 

edit: And here we have it! 
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/30244466?

1526/2003MHz


----------



## Valent117 (Nov 13, 2018)

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29700582
i have lower cpu clocks, and i can oc the 580 by 90mhz almost stable and mem to 2250, but im fine with base clocks


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 13, 2018)

Valent117 said:


> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29700582
> i have lower cpu clocks, and i can oc the 580 by 90mhz almost stable and mem to 2250, but im fine with base clocks


You win with a tiny difference in GT1. 

https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/17029270/fs/16816182#


----------

