Our standard test methodology applies here. For thermal benchmarking, we deployed FurMark to place the GPU under 100% load while logging thermals with HW Monitor+. FurMark executed its included 1080p burn-in test for this synthetic thermal benchmarking. In FPS and game benchmark performance testing, we used the following titles:
gtx 980 benchmark 1080p monitor
This review looks at PNY's GTX 980 XLR8 Pro ($570) video card, an ironclad-like AIC with pre-overclocked specs. Alongside the XLR8 Pro graphics card, we threw-in the reference GTX 980 (from nVidia) and MSI's Gaming 4G GTX 980 (from CyberPower) when benchmarking.
Note that benchmarks between previous articles may not be comparable to today's benchmark due to system configuration changes, methodology changes, and driver updates. Also note that this is strictly a GTX 980 benchmark, and so will feature no competing video cards. For cost analysis against AMD or other nVidia solutions, visit our original GTX 980 review.
We already know ACU and Far Cry 4 consume massive amounts of video memory, often in excess of the 2GB limits of some cards. GRID: Autosport and Metro: Last Light provide highly-optimized benchmarking titles to ensure stability on the bench. Shadow of Mordor, GTA V, & Battlefield Hardline (not shown here) are new enough that they heavily eat RAM. 3DMark offers a synthetic benchmark that is predictable in its results, something of great importance in benchmarking.
Our PNY card had a slightly lower ASIC quality than the other two devices, which likely contributed to the disparity between reference and the XLR8 Pro. It's likely that the boost in the XLR8 over reference in 4K GRID benchmarking was a result of the higher memory clock.
This $1747 GTX 980 Ti gaming PC build is versatile, with the ability to tackle a variety of high-end gaming experiences. It's useful to think of the build in terms of what monitor will be paired with it, as both 1080p and 1440p G-Sync up to 120Hz are functional pairings. 1080p at Ultra settings and 1440p at High or Ultra (depending on the game) are both achievable on the 980 Ti; as we learned recently, the 980 Ti performs almost as well as the Titan X for a significantly lower price. This build aims to take advantage of that price with a system that does such a powerful card justice while looking badass.
Recently, the monitor industry has amusingly reminded me of laundry detergent. It seems like everybody is coming out with detergents that are four times as potent, and the monitor industry isn't too different in its marketing language. With the rising popularity of 4K, it's just a matter of time until the norm is to have a monitor with four times as many pixels as a 1080p screen.
The normalization of 4k monitors is certainly very exciting, but current-gen GPUs still struggle with playing games at such a high resolution. Similarly, prices for 4K monitors may be dropping, but are still high for the average gamer. Luckily, 2560x1440 screens are a reasonable compromise between performance, pixels, and price.
To test each card, I used the game's built-in benchmarking tool, which sees the camera swooping through one of the game's many crowded towns while it's raining. There are plenty of NPCs and bits of environment to tackle, and I found the average frame rate it spits out at the end roughly matches what I experienced in-game as well.
I say roughly, as in a lot of cases, the average frame rate was perhaps a touch higher than the in-game speeds I experienced (the beginning of the benchmark begins inside, for instance, which produced universally higher speeds than the bits taking place outside, potentially skewing the results slightly), but I've also made note of how much the game dips below that average to hopefully give a more accurate picture of what you can expect.
Ubisoft say the Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 should be able to do around 30fps on High at 1920x1080 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, but I'm pleased to report that's a rather conservative estimate according to my results, as this card performed much better than that when I ran it through the game's benchmarking tool.
You can indeed. The GTX 970 performed well across all of Assassin's Creed Odyssey's quality presets, with High yielding a very comfortable 50fps average. It spent a lot of time in the benchmark hovering around the 45fps mark, but that's still a lot higher than Ubisoft's 30fps estimate on this preset. Indeed, the GTX 970 was only really limited to 30fps when I stuck it on Ultra High at this resolution, garnering an average of 31fps and a minimum of 22fps.
If you're after the full 60fps, however, your best bet is to play on Medium. Again, the frame rate still dipped as low as 34fps on occasion, with a fair amount of the benchmark spent below 60fps, but I'd take Medium over Low any day if I could possibly help it.
However, I still recorded a respectable average of 49fps on Medium with the GTX 1050Ti, and a very playable average of 41fps on High, so you needn't limit yourself to Low if you don't mind sacrificing the frame rate a bit for superior graphical fidelity. Indeed, things only really started to get choppy when I pushed the quality up to Very High. Here, the benchmark's average frame rate dropped to 35fps and I saw quite a few major stutters as well where the frame rate tumbled as low as 16fps. High, on the other hand, was much more stable, so stick with this if you favour prettiness over speed.
Just about, but you'll have to play on Low to get the best speeds. Here, I saw an average frame rate of 41fps in the benchmark, whereas Medium saw it drop down to 34fps. The latter spent most of its time above 30fps, but there were still a couple of bumps down to 25fps. You could probably get away with it if you set the FPS Limit to 30fps, but I think Low will serve you much better at this resolution.
Unfortunately not. Even on Low, the GTX 1050Ti barely managed to keep its head above 20fps in the game's benchmark, frequently dropping as low as 18fps. I doubt you'd have a 4K monitor if you've only got a GTX 1050Ti, but if you were hoping to hook your PC up to a 4K TV for this one, you might want to reconsider.
Truth be told, the Asus GeForce GTX 1060 OC 9Gbps Edition I've tested isn't actually available to buy any more, but when it was available, it was definitely one of the higher-end versions of the card that was ever produced thanks to its boost clock speed of 1809MHz. Indeed, there are only two other models with faster boost speeds than Asus' OC 9Gbps card, so the results below should probably be taken as a kind of best case scenario for the 6GB GTX 1060 than anything else. Still, regardless of whether you own one of the top-end GTX 1060s or one of the cheaper ones, there's still plenty of good news here for those aiming to play at 1080p.
If you really want to be sure you're getting an absolutely flawless 60fps, however, then knock it down to High. Here, the benchmark hovered much closer to the 60fps mark, producing an average of 68fps overall. Again, the lowest it went was 31fps, but these dips were few and far between.
Sure thing. Medium will get you closest to 60fps at this resolution, with the benchmark averaging 65fps overall, but those after more of those pretty graphics will probably be just as comfortable on High. Here, I saw an average of 54fps, and that only dropped down to an average of 50fps when I bumped the quality up to Very High, too.
Yes, but with a couple of compromises. Play on Low and you'll see an average of 47fps, where the frame rate never dipped below 32fps, but Medium still has potential with its average of 39fps. The latter did occasionally fall to 26fps, but most of the time the benchmark stayed well above 30fps, so you should still get a decent experience out of it for the most part.
You sure can. Compared to the regular Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070, the GTX 1070Ti pretty much gives you equivalent speeds one quality setting up. On Very High, for instance, I got an average frame rate of 64fps, in the game's internal benchmark, making the game feel just that bit smoother than its non-Ti counterpart on the same setting.
Ultra High produced great results, too, averaging 55fps overall. If anything, it was Ultra High that produced the most stable, accurate frame rate, as Very High still spent quite a bit of time below 60fps according to the benchmark's results graph. Still, regardless of whether you end up picking Very or Ultra High quality, you're still getting one good looking game at near-perfect speed.
Yep, and you can pretty much pick from any of the three 'High' settings and still get a lovely smooth frame rate. On regular High, the benchmark finished with an average of 59fps, rarely dipping below 45fps, while Very High came out with an average of just 54fps. There were a couple of major stutters in the latter, admittedly, but otherwise it was perfectly stable.
Admittedly, you're only looking at an average of 36fps on High, but while the benchmark's lowest recorded frame rate was 24fps, it spent the majority of its time comfortably above 30fps. That's still pretty impressive in my books, particularly at this resolution, but those after smoother speeds should stick with Medium.
My current recommendation for the best graphics card you should actually buy for 1080p gaming, the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 is a true force to be reckoned with at just 200 / $220, and it makes a mighty fine partner for Assassin's Creed Odyssey, too - the Ikaros of today's lower-end graphics cards, so to speak.
Certainly. For that perfect Midas touch of a golden 60fps, Very High and its average of 62fps is going to be your best bet here, but I reckon Ultra High's average of 48fps is also highly doable for those who want to get the absolute best out of their 1080p monitor. I did see a couple of stutters down to the mid-20s, all told, but for the most part it was absolutely fine. 2ff7e9595c
Comments