GTX 980 vs RX 580 4GB

[jboydgolfer]

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]

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]

Gf 900 series didnt age well

 

[lexluthermiester]

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]

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

 

[cucker tarlson]

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]

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]

any advices? about anything?

change logo color to red

 

[Vayra86]

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).

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]

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]

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 fat pentium anniversary edition Oc'd to Super high speeds, 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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

lol,when are people gonna stop repeating this BS

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

 

[Aaron_Henderson]

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]

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]

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, they're basically the same performance,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.

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

And apparently still too much effort. Stunning ey

 

[Aaron_Henderson]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Ruru]

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).

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]

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]

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