The energy efficiency of the new GeForce GTX 900 cards has been praised everywhere since the introduction of the Maxwell-based GTX 980. In reality, however, chokes come into play here, which ensure that the Maxwell chip does not need more energy. Nevertheless it is very fast. What happens if you loosen these chokes at NVIDIA and set them at AMD? Both manufacturers have techniques that make this possible. Our test tries to answer these questions.
Intro
However, we also asked ourselves to what extent the two technologies PowerTune (AMD) and Power-Target (NVIDIA) play an important role here. Most graphics cards from the board partners come with relaxed settings, which should generally result in higher power consumption, but also higher 3D performance. But to what extent do you benefit from such relaxed attitudes or even from your own interventions?
We want to clarify this question in today's article and use high-quality measurement technology to relate the determined power consumption of 18 game titles on our benchmark course to performance. A GeForce GTX 980 in the form of the EVGA GTX 980 Superclocked ACX 2.0 and a Radeon R9 290X in the form of the MSI R9 290X Gaming - also overclocked at the factory - serve as the basis for the comparisons.
Test environment
Hardware
- EVGA GeForce GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (HT4U-Test / Amazon offers)
- MSI Radeon R9 290X Gaming (HT4U-Test / Amazon offers)
We deliberately chose not to use reference graphics cards from the two chip manufacturers AMD and NVIDIA, but to models from the board partners, which had made a good impression in terms of cooling solution, volume and performance and also had clearly relaxed settings for power consumption go to the start. These criteria are met by the two models we have chosen.
Test station:
- CPU: Intel Core i7-3820 - 4 x 3,6 GHz (Turbo / HT: off) [Find it on Amazon*]
- Motherboard: ASUS P9X79 Pro (X79 chipset) - BIOS: 3202 12-2012 [Find it on Amazon*]
- Memory: 8 GB (4 x 2 GB) ADATA Gaming Series - SPD operation: DDR3-1333 9-9-9-24-1T at 1,5 volts [Find it on Amazon*]
- Cooler: Scythe Samurai ZZ Rev B LGA2011 [Find it on Amazon*]
- Seagate Barracuda ST2000DM001 2TB SATA 6 GBit / s [Find it on Amazon*]
- LG GSW H20L (Blu-ray / DVD burner) [Find it on Amazon*]
- be quiet! Dark Power Pro 950 Watts [Find it on Amazon*]
- G.Skill 100 GB SSD as cache drive [Find it on Amazon*]
- Teac Floppy Drive / USB Floppy Drive [Find it on Amazon*]
- Dell 27 inch monitor [Find it on Amazon*]
- Samsung U28590P 4K Monitor [Find it on Amazon*]
- Lian Li T60 (open test stand) [Find it on Amazon*]
Measuring devices
Anyone who knows us knows that we have always been and will always be very special in this area. We forego non-calibrated or poorly calibrated hand-held level meters for sound pressure or loudness and rely on one special system with a simulated anechoic room. We generally keep our hands off the 10 euro multimeter and prefer to rely on it calibrated measurement technology from Fluke, it's about volts or amps. If the information from a digitally transmitted temperature is not enough for us or if we want to see the temperature distribution, then we resort to one Thermographic Camera.
So be that as it may - for today's test, these devices are usually less important, because it is about the exact measurement of power consumption.
Up to now, we had relied on a PCI Express adapter that had been specially converted by our engineers and then monitored the current flow through the individual cable strands to the graphics card using clamp ammeters. We have been one step further for well over half a year and are working with a new toy, which now allows us to evaluate not only the minimum and maximum power consumption of a graphics card, but also the average consumption.
Software
Of course, the last, current drivers were used in the test from both manufacturers, in the present WHQL form. In the games, our 18 titles from the previous test course remain, which is as follows:
- CE V. 1.04.7151 (DX 11 - savegame)
- Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag V. 1.06 (DX 11 - savegame)
- Battlefield 4 (DX 11 - savegame)
- BioShock: Infinite (DX 11 - savegame)
- BRINK V. 1.023692.48133 (OpenGL - Savegame)
- Call of Duty: Ghosts (DX11 - Savegame)
- Crysis 3 V. 1.0 (DX 11 - savegame)
- Far Cry 3 v1.4 (DX 11 - savegame)
- Hitman: Absolution (DX 11 - savegame)
- Max Payne 3 (DX 11 - savegame)
- Metro: Last Light (DX 11 - savegame)
- DiRT: Showdown (DX 11: Integrated Benchmark: Miami Route 0)
- Splinter Cell: Blacklist (DX11 - Savegame)
- The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim V. 1.8.151.0.7 & HR-Texturepack (DX 9 - Savegames)
- Thief (DX 11 - savegame)
- The Witcher 2: The Assassins of Kings V. 1.35 (DX 9 - savegame)
- tomb raider V. 748.0 (DX 11 - savegame)
- Wolfenstein: The New Order* (OpenGL - savegame)
The revised benchmark course is geared towards new blockbusters, but remains with popular titles or representatives of their genre. Under no circumstances should one assume, however, that a strategy game like Anno 2070 may be considered representative of this genre. In most cases, for example, strategy games are designed to be CPU-heavy. Anno and our chosen game sequence represent the opposite. This also applies to other applications. While Sleeping Dogs may show great similarities to GTA, this should not mean that the results of the game can be transferred to GTA.
We are only making a cut over the selected applications and the scenes used for them. We try to make sure that the selected scene corresponds to what the game entails. If we encounter worst-case scenarios, we prefer to choose such a scene, because that is what makes the game flow.
Special features and power saving techniques
Now we could really bring a lot of information in this chapter, but the masses don't want to read it at all. So we limit ourselves to the essentials.
Boost is marketing
We can only repeat it like a mantra: Nothing is “boosted”! Boost is an advertising term from the marketing departments. There is only one maximum GPU clock, and it stays that way until the limits set by the manufacturer are reached.
At NVIDIA, for example, these limits are clearly defined with temperature and clock. There is the so-called temperature limit and the power limit. When these limits are reached, the GPU's clock rate and voltage are reduced. When the temperature target (GTX 980 = 80 ° C) is reached, it is throttled; when the target power consumption (GTX 980 = 180 watts) is reached, it is also throttled. This is done by a chip on the graphics card in conjunction with the graphics card driver.
AMD is a bit more complicated than that. The PowerTune “feature” mentioned there monitors the utilization of the chip by means of several units. An (now) factor that comes into play is the temperature (R9 290X = 94 °C), but also the power consumption (R9 290X = 250 watts).
AMD PowerTune | NVIDIA Power Target |
However, the throttling takes place relatively differently. While with NVIDIA graphics cards it can be observed with this technology that correct step formations arise, which absorb the load limits, with AMD it is observed peaks that jump up and down in a very short time without noticing this in the game flow. In practice it is difficult to compare the two techniques.
Manual intervention
Manual interventions in NVIDIA-based models can be made relatively precisely, but only with external tools such as MSI Afterburner. In the meantime, almost every graphics card partner from NVIDIA has its own tool, but these are mostly based on the programming of the RivaTuner. No wonder, because “Unwinder” (inventor of the RivaTool) is the programmer and supplier for many manufacturers and their tools. And so this programming is hidden behind the variant from ASUS as well as behind that of EVGA or MSI. The tools are usually not linked to a particular manufacturer and can also be used on other NVIDIA graphics cards.
Unfortunately, AMD is completely different. There is even a percentage in the driver. But as AMD made clear earlier, this has nothing to do with a percentage bond to the power consumption.
Unfortunately, the user can only try it out here if he wants to reduce the power consumption manually. In most cases, the endeavors of the users of tools or driver options are mainly to achieve the maximum possible clock rate and the maximum possible performance.
Approach in the test
Game scenes
Of course we use our usual game course with a total of 18 titles and the respective scenes for today's consideration. For each game and the usual scene for us, we have determined the maximum power consumption of each of today's two test graphics cards with our measurement technology and will also report these results later.
But: Just because Crysis 3, for example, in this selected game scene with the test subject, claims 190 watts for itself in the following presentations, this statement should in no way be understood to mean that the game would not be more demanding. The scene only represents one area in the game that we selected and which we thought would be suitable for showing representative benchmarks. So we didn't set out to look for other places in the games where the measuring system shows a significantly higher level of power consumption.
Throttling of the cards to different TDP ranges
As mentioned at the beginning, we not only want to show the total or maximum power consumption, but also how the two test candidates behave at different levels of power consumption. To do this, we first determined the maximum using two applications (Anno 2070 and Tom Clancy's HAWX) and then reduced the power consumption through driver or tool intervention so that the desired throttling was achieved as a maximum.
So in order not to exceed a maximum power consumption of 9 watts for the MSI R290 4X Gaming 180G, we turned the power down using the PowerTune control until our measurement no longer showed any higher values. In practice, this meant a minus of 46 and a fluctuating GPU clock in the range of 820 to 850 MHz.
NVIDIA Power Target | Maximum power consumption | Clock rates EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 |
124% | 224 watts, | 1.418 MHz |
117% | 210 watts, | 1.380 to 1.400 MHz |
108% | 195 watts, | 1.366 to 1.380 MHz |
100% | 180 watts, | 1.329 MHz |
92% | 165 watts, | 1.278 to 1.291 MHz |
AMD PowerTune | Maximum power consumption | Clock rates MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G |
0 | 300 watts, | 1.030 MHz |
- 15 | 260 watts, | 1.010 to 1.030 MHz |
- 30 | 225 watts, | 940 to 960 MHz |
- 36 | 210 watts, | 905 to 920 MHz |
- 41 | 195 watts, | 880 to 895 MHz |
- 46 | 180 watts, | 820 to 847 MHz |
- 50 | 170 watts, | 790 to 820 MHz |
evaluations
Total power consumption
Our current game test course comprises a total of 18 games, which we all consulted, but each linked to our test scene. As already mentioned, we limit ourselves to a resolution of 2.560 x 1.440 here. With some titles we tested them in different settings (with MSAA / SSAA or without). We averaged the results of individual games in different settings.
The two graphics cards from EVGA and MSI used are inherently overclocked models, with the MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G only overclocking its GPU by 30 MHz, the EVGA representative in the form of the GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 clocks around 100 MHz higher the GPU applies.
In order to be able to carry out the following measurements at all, we made sure by manual intervention that the graphics cards are not throttled, i.e. that they stay on their clock. In the case of the NVIDIA representative, we only had to increase the power limit; the AMD representative did not need to intervene at all - the card's clock rate was never throttled, which is due to the different technologies of AMD and NVIDIA.
So we then determined the maximum power consumption of the graphics card for each of our test scenes and each game, whereby we only created a time span of 15 minutes.
The interventions in the throttling mean that the EVGA representative can use a maximum power consumption of 224 watts for both cards. The MSI card, on the other hand, can show up to 300 watts without any problems (but it doesn't in the examples here). In practical terms, however, there are only a few applications that bring this GTX 980 close to the throttle, and there are no representatives (or test scenes) that drive the R9 290X to its maximum.
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (FPS) | AMD MSI R9 290X Gaming (FPS) |
CE | 224 | 262 | 69 | 60 |
Assassin's Creed: Black Flag | 184 | 235 | 41 | 41 |
Battlefield 4 | 223 | 236 | 61 | 50 |
BioShock: Infinite | 177 | 251 | 64 | 61 |
Brink | 191 | 198 | 120 | 85 |
CoD: Ghosts | 194 | 232 | 50,5 | 40 |
Crysis 3 | 190 | 236 | 67 | 63 |
DiRT: Showdown | 182 | 216 | 110 | 99,5 |
Far Cry 3 | 190 | 246 | 51 | 45 |
Hitman: Absolution | 188 | 247 | 52 | 51 |
Max Payne 3 | 185 | 238 | 56,5 | 47 |
Metro: Last Light | 210 | 252 | 57,5 | 44 |
SC: Blacklist | 170 | 251 | 41 | 34,5 |
TES V: Skyrim | 206 | 225 | 106 | 97 |
The Witcher 2 | 190 | 235 | 68 | 63,5 |
Thieves (2014) | 180 | 226 | 70,5 | 51,5 |
tomb raider | 204 | 251 | 47 | 38 |
Wolfenstein: The New Order | 170 | 174 | 38 | 31 |
In order to be able to average the results fairly and evaluate them as a whole, we set the results of the AMD representative at 100% and determined the percentage difference to NVIDIA. In the overall comparison there is no surprise then. Without throttling, the EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 beats the MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G with around 17% advantage in performance. The immediately determined advantage in power consumption is also evident with a little more than 17% for the EVGA graphics card.
As a result, AMD and NVIDIA cards are principally provided by the manufacturer with a throttle - in both cases with different technology. The maximum power consumption of a GTX 980 graphics card would be 180 watts, typically only 165 watts after a short time (via the throttling). AMD's specification for the R9 290 is 250 watts. Based on this information, NVIDIA's GTX 980 would have advantages of around 39% with the maximum TDP and even advantages of 51% with the help of the clock throttling. Our results - as shown - do not provide that for the time being.
In the following individual evaluations, we will go into how interventions in Power-Target or PowerTune can affect the performance of the models, because in principle AMD could also slow down its GPU in such a way that it only plays at the level of the power consumption of NVIDIA. Where is the sweet spot and does it even exist?
Individual evaluation: Brink
Game | Brink |
Developer | Splash damage |
Publisher | Bethesda Softworks |
publication | 13 May 2011 |
Genre | Ego shooter |
Graphics engine | modified id-tech 4 |
DirectX path / API | OpenGL |
Age rating USK | From 16 years |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Hostage rescue |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest levels of detail |
Brink | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
Brink | 191 | 198 |
The test scene shows that the power consumption of both graphics cards is about the same - just under 200 watts - but of course with certain advantages for the NVIDIA graphics card. With the power consumption shown, it is also clear that both representatives can no longer improve beyond the 200 watt mark in terms of performance. Deviations can be clearly explained by measurement inaccuracies.
It is therefore clear that the NVIDIA representative has the biggest difference between 165 and 180 watts, but there is no longer a larger jump to 190 watts. The performance is increased by 2%, but the power consumption is increased by 9% (180 W) or 15% (unthrottled). The sweet spot with the GTX 980 clearly seems to be the NVIDIA default setting.
With AMD, the difference between the minimum set power consumption and the maximum looks a little different. The AMD representative can gain a maximum of 9% in performance. However, the difference in power consumption shows an increase of around 17%. The sweet spot of the AMD card would be 195 watts in this area. However, it must be noted that the AMD graphics card scales equally well with increasing power consumption.
Individual evaluation: Wolfenstein: The New Order
Game | Wolfenstein: The New Order |
Developer | Machine Games |
Publisher | Bethesda |
publication | May 2014 |
Genre | Ego shooter |
Age rating USK | From 18 years |
Graphics engine | id Tech 5 |
DirectX path | OpenGL |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Chapter 9, intro |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest levels of detail |
HT4U-Test | |
Find on Amazon* |
Wolfenstein: The New Order | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
Wolfenstein: The New Order | 170 | 174 |
Wolfenstein: The New Order can be power-hungry, but there are no real challenges to be found in the area of power consumption itself, because with around 170 watts in our test scene, it is also clear that the two representatives can hardly show any differences, despite manual restrictions.
If we throttle the AMD representative into the range of 170 watts, there is a significant limitation in performance. Loosening the TDP then allows an 8% increase in 3D performance. But there is no more information to be derived from Wolfenstein here.
Individual evaluation: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Game | The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim |
Developer | Bethesda Game Studios |
Publisher | Bethesda Softworks |
publication | March 2012 |
Genre | role playing game |
Age rating USK | From 16 years |
Graphics engine | Creation engine |
DirectX path | DirectX 9 |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Steinhuebel |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest levels of detail, FXAA, High Resolution Texture Pack |
Order from Amazon* |
TES V - Skyrim | |
2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
TES V - Skyrim | |
2560 x 1440 [8xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
TES V: Skyrim | 206 | 225 |
With Skyrim, the power consumption of the two test subjects is now slightly further apart for the first time. AMD has to pay for its best performance with 225 watts, NVIDIA already 206 watts are sufficient here - mind you, always based on our test scene.
The Radeon representative continues to scale identically within the scope of its throttle levels. Actually, at 225 watts, there should be no throttling at all, but there are obviously still fluctuations here that PowerTune collects and then disappeared in the next level of relaxation. Starting with the lowest power consumption level of 170 watts up to around 230 watts, the MSI graphics card increases its performance by a whopping 19%. A sweet spot cannot therefore be identified.
Individual evaluation: The Witcher 2
Game | The Witcher 2: The Assassins of Kings |
Developer | CD Projekt RED |
Publisher | CD project, Atari |
publication | 17 May 2011 |
Genre | RPG, fantasy |
Graphics engine | RED engine |
DirectX path | DirectX 9 |
Age rating USK | From 16 years |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | barricade |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest levels of detail |
Witcher 2 - Assassins of Kings | |
2560 x 1440 [4xSSAA / 16xAF] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
The Witcher 2 | 190 | 235 |
The Witcher 2 also shows clear differences in power consumption between the two rivals. The AMD representative needs around 235 watts for the best performance, the EVGA card with NVIDIA GPU is content with around 190 watts. However, the performance is pretty much the same and this game has some nice information to offer when we look at it.
Although this test scene demanded about 235 watts unthrottled from the AMD representative, this is not the same when it comes to scaling. From the lowest point (around 170 watts) to the throttle level, you scale the same and practically identically to the NVIDIA rival. After that, however, more or less nothing happens. A maximum of 1% can still be increased in performance, but then you have to throw 25 watts more into the balance. So here you could definitely see a sweet spot at 195 watts of power consumption.
But: This circumstance clearly seems to be due to the in-game supersampling! If we look at runs without supersampling, the picture with NVIDIA remains very similar, but the R9 from MSI now scales more or less the same across all throttle levels:
Witcher 2 - Assassins of Kings | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Individual evaluation: Anno 2070
Game | CE |
Developer | Related Designs / Ubisoft Blue Byte |
Publisher | Ubisoft |
publication | 17 November 2011 |
Genre | strategy game |
Age rating USK | From 6 years |
Graphics engine | InitEngine |
DirectX path | DirectX 9/11 |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | On the trail of the truth |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest levels of detail |
CE | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
CE | 224 | 262 |
Anno 2070 pushes both test subjects to their limits. The selected scene reaches the maximum possible power consumption of 224 watts with the EVGA card, and at least 262 watts with the MSI card.
The MSI representative shows that there is no really explosive point in terms of power consumption. It can be pointed out that the 10-watt increase from 170 to 180 watts results in a performance increase of 9% and the subsequent increases are usually only 4 to 5%. Overall, however, the graphics card can increase its performance by around 34%, and this is quite linear. The difference in power consumption between 170 and 250 watts is then 47% - justifiable in terms of the performance increases.
From an energy point of view, 180 watts would be optimal, but 3 watts would be optimal with regard to the best 250D performance.
Individual evaluation: Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag
Game | Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag |
Developer | Ubisoft |
Publisher | Ubisoft |
publication | Nov 2013 (PC) |
Genre | Action adventure |
Age rating USK | From 16 years |
Graphics engine | AnvilNext |
DirectX path | DirectX 9/11 |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Sequence 4 - Reminder 2 |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest level of detail, DirectX 11; PhysX: Off |
HT4U-Test | Order from Amazon* |
Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag | |
2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag | 184 | 235 |
Once again, we see a very large difference between the two representatives in terms of maximum power consumption with maximum performance. The NVIDIA representative needs around 185 watts here, the AMD representative around 235 watts. Of course, this has a clear effect on the course of our following diagram for scaling.
With AMD, the scaling from 170 to 225 watts is constant, and only then does the diagram curve flatten out clearly. The representative brings out the best performance at 210 to 225 watts.
Individual evaluation: Battlefield 4
Game | Battlefield 4 |
Developer | EA Digital Illusions CE |
Publisher | Electronic Arts |
publication | October 2013 |
Genre | Ego shooter |
Age rating USK | From 18 years |
Graphics engine | Frostbite 3 |
DirectX path | DirectX 10 / DirectX 11 / Mantle |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Level 6: Tashgar - Checkpoint 5 |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest level of detail, DX 11 |
HT4U-Test | Order from Amazon |
Battlefield 4 | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Battlefield 4 | |
2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
Battlefield 4 | 223 | 236 |
In Battlefield 4 and our test scene, the maximum power consumption of our test candidates is much closer together. While the EVGA graphics card practically reached its maximum of 224 watts, the MSI R9's 236 watts.
We cannot explain with certainty why the 180 to 195 watt choke on the AMD graphics card does not show a clear scaling here. AMD's PowerTune doesn't just work as a choke for the power consumption and could be the explanation for the result, because regardless of this measured value, we see a continuous increase in performance up to the 225 watt level. Only then does the result turn out to be unspectacular and dispensable. 180 watts show up here as the best point from the point of view of energy consumption; It is 225 watts with a view to the 3D performance.
Individual evaluation: BioShock: Infinite
Game | BioShock: Infinite |
Developer | Irrational Games, 2K Marin, Human Head Studios |
Publisher | 2K Games |
publication | March 26, 2013 |
Genre | First person shooter with fantasy elements |
Graphics engine | Unreal engine 3 |
DirectX path | DirectX 10/11 |
Age rating USK | From 18 years |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Finkton Proper |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | System settings Maximum & FXAA |
HT4U-Test | |
Order from Amazon* |
Bioshock: Infinite | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
BioShock: Infinite | 177 | 251 |
Rarely in this comparison are the differences in maximum power consumption as great as with BioShock. The EVGA graphics card needs a maximum of 180 watts, the AMD graphics card a maximum of around 250 watts.
The AMD card is completely different. Throttled to 170 watts it is not at all. A loosening of 10 watts already brings 10% more power with it. Then you scale gently in about 4% steps up to the 260 watt choke. If you want to speak of a sweet spot with this R9-290X implementation, you could then at most name 180 watts in terms of energy. The best overall performance is only available beyond 250 watts.
Individual evaluation: Call of Duty: Ghosts
Game | Call of Duty: Ghosts |
Developer | Infinity Ward |
Publisher | Activision |
publication | November 2013 |
Genre | Ego shooter |
Age rating USK | From 18 years |
Graphics engine | IW engine / Havok |
DirectX path | DirectX 9/11 |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Level: The Hunted - Checkpoint 3 |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest level of detail, DX 11 |
HT4U-Test | Order from Amazon |
Call of Duty: Ghosts | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Call of Duty: Ghosts | |
2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
CoD: Ghosts | 194 | 232 |
Clear differences in the maximum power consumption can also be seen in Call of Duty: Ghosts and the selected test scene. The GCN architecture of the Radeon graphics card allows itself around 230 watts, the Maxwell architecture of the GTX graphics card is satisfied with around 190 watts.
The AMD representative shows an image that is seen all too often and increases quite linearly to around 250 watts, which is the correct value with regard to the 3D performance and the requirements of the game.
Individual evaluation: Crysis 3
Game | Crysis 3 |
Developer | Crytek |
Publisher | Electronic Arts |
publication | 21 February 2013 |
Genre | Ego shooter |
Graphics engine | CryENGINE 3 |
DirectX path | DirectX 9/11 |
Age rating USK | From 18 years |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Mission 5: River - Red Star Rising |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Default system and textures: high |
Order from Amazon |
Crysis 3 | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Crysis 3 | |
2560 x 1440 [2xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Crysis 3 | |
2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
Crysis 3 | 190 | 236 |
Again we see a roughly the same difference in power consumption - a maximum of around 190 watts for NVIDIA, a maximum of around 230 watts for AMD. In some titles this picture is repeated very clearly. Again it becomes clear that we can hardly derive any results in the following diagram from the 195 watt level.
On the other hand, the best cut between performance and power consumption by the AMD representative is 225 watts. Up to this power consumption, the test subject then again scales cleanly and linearly with the increasing TDP preselection. 210 watts would still be acceptable, but AMD models have so far not given any options to select these criteria yourself.
Individual evaluation: Far Cry 3
Game | Far Cry 3 |
Developer | Ubisoft |
Publisher | Ubisoft |
publication | November 2012 |
Genre | Ego shooter |
Age rating USK | From 16 years |
Graphics engine | Dunia Engine 2 and Havok Physics |
DirectX path | DirectX 9/11 |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Fruits of the jungle |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest level of detail (Ultra), SSAO: SSAO, DirectX 11 |
Order from Amazon* |
Far Cry 3 | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Far Cry 3 | |
2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Far Cry 3 | |
2560 x 1440 [8xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
Far Cry 3 | 190 | 246 |
Once again, we see a clear discrepancy in the power consumption between the two representatives under this title and the selected test scene. In the worst case, the EVGA model is satisfied with 190 watts, the MSI graphics card also manages in the 250 watt region.
With the AMD representative, we once again observed that the 170 watt throttle does not taste good at all and the jump in performance to 180 watts with a 6% increase in performance shows the strongest deflection. Nevertheless: The R9 290X also scales in an exemplary manner with the further loosening - up to 23% increase in performance can be seen up to the level of 250 watts.
Individual evaluation: DiRT: Showdown
Game | DiRT: Showdown |
Developer | Codemasters southam |
Publisher | Codemasters |
publication | May 2012 |
Genre | Racing simulation |
Age rating USK | From 7 years |
Graphics engine | EGO engine |
DirectX path | DirectX 9/10/11 |
Benchmark measurement | Integrated benchmark |
Test area | Miami Routes |
Runtime benchmark | 85 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest level of detail, DirectX 11 |
Order from Amazon |
Dirt: Showdown | |
2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Dirt: Showdown | |
2560 x 1440 [8xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
DiRT: Showdown | 182 | 216 |
Our test scene in DiRT: Showdown does not turn out to be particularly demanding for either graphics card in terms of power consumption, and the difference between the two graphics cards is significantly lower than in some of the other applications shown. But there is still a difference of more than 30 watts.
However, high frame rates can also be seen in the R9 290X in this game, although this is of course secondary to the general approach. As expected, the Radeon graphics card scales relatively linearly in the individual levels up to 225 watts with the individual loosening.
Individual evaluation: Hitman: Absolution
Game | Hitman: Absolution |
Developer | IO Interactive / Nixxes software |
Publisher | Square Enix |
publication | November 2012 |
Genre | Action shooter |
Age rating USK | From 18 years |
Graphics engine | Glacier 2 |
DirectX path | DirectX 9/11 |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Rock slope |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | DirectX 11; Highest levels of detail |
Post-processing filter | FXAA |
Anti-aliasing | 4 x / 8 x MSAA |
Find on Amazon* |
Hitman: Absolution | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Hitman: Absolution | |
2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Hitman: Absolution | |
2560 x 1440 [8xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
Hitman: Absolution | 188 | 247 |
Hitman then again presents us with a serious difference in the maximum power consumption of the two candidates. The MSI card is almost 60 watts ahead of the EVGA GTX 980. The latter shows a maximum of almost 190 watts in the test scene.
It is interesting to note that the AMD representative does not show any fluctuations in performance beyond the 225 watt throttling. Up to this mark one shows good increases in performance, which then simply fail. However, this statement then only applies to the results with 8 x MSSA, which is probably responsible for the behavior. Without MSSA or with only 4 x MSAA, the Radeon graphics card can increase performance by another 225% from 250 to 3 watts. It can be assumed that at this point it is the graphics card memory that leads to the limitations shown.
Individual evaluation: Max Payne 3
Game | Max Payne 3 |
Developer | Rockstar studios |
Publisher | Rockstar Games |
publication | May 2012 |
Genre | Action shooter |
Age rating USK | From 18 years |
Graphics engine | RAGE (Rockstar Advanced Game Engine) |
DirectX path | DirectX 9/10/11 |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Chapter V - Control Point 10 |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest levels of detail, FXAA high |
Order from Amazon* |
Max Payne 3 | |
2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Max Payne 3 | |
2560 x 1440 [8xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
Max Payne 3 | 185 | 238 |
Max Payne 3 demands the MSI graphics card with Radeon GPU once again much more than the NVIDIA representative in the form of the EVGA GTX 980 SC.
The MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G scales relatively evenly up to 250 watts - again, the easing from 170 to 180 watts is most noticeable.
Individual evaluation: Metro: Last Light
Game | Metro: Last Light |
Developer | 4A Games |
Publisher | Deep Silver |
publication | 17 May 2013 |
Genre | Ego shooter |
Graphics engine | 4A engine |
DirectX path | DirectX 10/11 |
Age rating USK | From 18 years |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Chapter infection |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | System settings: Very high - Tess: High |
Find it on Amazon* |
Metro: Last Light | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Metro: Last Light | |
2560 x 1440 [4xSSAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
Metro: Last Light | 210 | 252 |
Metro: Last Light challenges the NVIDIA representative a little more than some of the previous titles. After all, 210 watts have to be made here in order to achieve maximum performance. AMD brings it with the MSI representative to just over 250 watts.
And the AMD representative? It also has no surprises in store and scales quite linearly in the individual levels, up to 250 watts. From 225 watts, the gain in performance is a little lower, which is then only due to the choice of 4-fold supersampling, as the measured values without this option show.
Individual evaluation: Splinter Cell: Blacklist
Game | Splinter Cell: Blacklist |
Developer | Ubisoft Toronto, Montreal, Shanghai |
Publisher | Ubisoft |
publication | August 2013 |
Genre | Sneak game, action adventure |
Age rating USK | From 18 years |
Graphics engine | Unreal Engine 2.5 / LEAD / Havok Physics |
DirectX path | DirectX 9/11 |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Level: Benghazi - Libya - Mission 1 |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest level of detail, DX 11 |
HT4U-Test | Order from Amazon* |
Splinter Cell: Blacklist | |
2560 x 1440 [4xAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Splinter Cell: Blacklist | |
2560 x 1440 [4xSSAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
SC: Blacklist | 170 | 251 |
We see the biggest discrepancy so far in the difference in maximum power consumption in the benchmark scene from Splinter Cell. The two test candidates today are separated by over 70 watts.
The commentary on the AMD representative remains largely the same. Linear up to 225 watts. The relaxation to 250 watts then no longer shows a large increase in performance. A circumstance that could be observed more often.
Individual evaluation: Thief (2014)
Game | Thieves (2014) |
Developer | Eidos |
Publisher | Square Enix |
publication | February 2014 |
Genre | Action adventure / stealth game |
Age rating USK | From 16 years |
Graphics engine | Unreal engine 3 |
DirectX path | DirectX 9/11 |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | Stone Market |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest levels of detail |
HT4U-Test | |
Find it on Amazon* |
Thief | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Thief | |
2560 x 1440 [2xSSAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) | |
Thieves (2014) | 180 | 226 |
The differences in the maximum power consumption of both representatives are not as extreme as in the blacklist, but of course still clearly present at around 46 watts. The GTX 980 hardly needs more than 180 watts in this scene, and it is therefore already clear that the following scaling will hardly bring any new information with it.
The AMD representative is once again most impressed by the relaxation from 170 to 180 watts, but also scales up to 250 watts.
Individual evaluation: Tomb Raider (2013)
Game | tomb raider |
Developer | Crystal Dynamics & Eidos Montreal |
Publisher | Square Enix |
publication | March 5, 2013 |
Genre | Action-Adventure |
Graphics engine | Crystal engine |
DirectX path | DirectX 9/11 |
Age rating USK | From 18 years |
Benchmark measurement | Fraps / savegame |
Test area | at about 26 percent of the game |
Runtime benchmark | 10 seconds |
Benchmark settings | Highest level of detail, TressFX, shadow: Ultra |
HT4U-Test | Order from Amazon* |
Tomb Raider (2013) | |
2560 x 1440 [No AA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Tomb Raider (2013) | |
2560 x 1440 [2xSSAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Tomb Raider (2013) | |
2560 x 1440 [4xSSAA / 16xAF] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 224 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 210 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 195 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 180 watts] |
|
EVGA GTX 980 [Max. 165 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 300 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 260 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 225 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 210 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 195 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 180 watts] |
|
MSI R9 290X [Max. 170 watts] |
|
FPS |
Game | EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 (watt) | MSI R9 290X Gaming (watts) |
tomb raider | 204 | 251 |
In Tomb Raider, too, the two test subjects are separated by more than 40 watts at maximum power consumption. The NVIDIA card shows swings up to a maximum of 204 watts, the Radeon candidate wanders just over 251 watts. Again, the findings from the last diagram are not new.
AMD's R9 290X is Tomb Raider like almost every title. The GPU scales up to the level of 260 watts and can increase the 22D performance by up to a maximum of 3%. We cannot identify a special “favorite area” here.
Conclusion
After today's measurements and analyzes, we have to clearly state and attest that the two graphics chip manufacturers AMD and NVIDIA probably know their GPUs best and that the selected default settings for power consumption are no coincidence. You have certainly thought about this based on many of your own tests and measurements and AMD has probably made the right choice with 250 watts - NVIDIA with 180 watts.
However, our tests have also shown that across the board we cannot say that these are the sweet spots for both chips from the manufacturers, because in some cases a sweet spot with AMD might be more like 225 watts, with NVIDIA more than 195 watts. But AMD has probably recognized that in a large number of cases you can offer a good increase in performance up to this range, and NVIDIA may have realized that the scaling is no longer quite as optimal. You could run through 100 other applications as you like and would always find extreme outliers in the result.
Generally speaking - based on our measurements - the implementation of the EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 shown today is around 17% faster than the MSI R9 290X Gaming 4G shown and also offers around 17% better power consumption. Subjectively, however, the EVGA graphics card is not representative of all GTX 980 models on the market, just as the MSI card is not for Radeon R9-290X cards. There are applications and resolutions in which an R9 290X can sometimes be equal to a GTX 980 - but in most cases not really.
Generally speaking, today's test also clearly indicates that AMD is under pressure with future chips. Increased performance is required, but also a well-balanced mix of power consumption, because NVIDIA has presented here with the GTX 980 and Maxwell technology. AMD's R9 380X is expected this year - but at the moment rumors are again pointing to a 250 watt solution. The expected R9 390X represents the top chip from AMD. NVIDIA's top model - the GM200 - has not yet been presented or announced. However, after the presentations so far, it should be obvious that you will not go above a maximum board power of 225 watts - the manufacturer's throttle options will probably intervene much earlier. But our crystal ball is currently too cloudy for that, and we would rather wait for the facts.