The King is dead. Long live the King. Nvidia has discontinued its flagship GTX 780 Ti, replacing it with the brand-new GTX 980, powered by its new Maxwell architecture. It's the fastest single-chip graphics card money can buy - but the takeaway for many will be that there's no revelatory performance increase over Nvidia's existing top-end hardware. This is a refined, ultra-power efficient replacement with a relatively small performance bump, as opposed to the next big new thing in graphics technology.

Maxwell's power efficiency shouldn't be so readily discounted though. Performance graphics cards typically consume an absolute maximum of 250W - at full-pelt, that translates into an awfully large amount of heat. Hot chips need cooling, in turn requiring elaborate cooling assemblies, which can produce unwanted noise. The GTX 980's TDP limit is a mere 165W, so the implications here are obvious - the GTX 980 is capable of being deployed in a much larger variety of PCs: living-room small form factor units being the obvious example.

Our review card features the premium metallic chassis introduced with the GTX Titan - clean, industrial, cool and quiet. From an aesthetic standpoint, differences are relatively minor - the PCB backing of the older Nvidia cards has given way to a plastic shroud that more fully encloses the components. A plastic tab on the rear of the unit can be removed in order to facilitate better airflow, but the major differences come on the back-plate: Nvidia's established line-up of dual DVI, HDMI and DisplayPort gives way to a new arrangement: one DVI, one HDMI and three DisplayPorts. The new array of ports has been designed to facilitate easier set-up of surround G-Sync - which still requires DisplayPort to function. Also of interest is that the HDMI port is based on the 2.0 standard, meaning support for 4K resolution at 60Hz.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 specs Nvidia's Maxwell architecture debuted in the rather splendid GTX 750/750 Ti budget card released earlier this year, based on the GM107 chip. The GTX 980 reveals the debut of the 'big' Maxwell aimed at the high-end enthusiast. CUDA Cores: 2048

2048 Base Clock: 1126MHz

1126MHz Boost Clock: 1216MHz

1216MHz Memory: 4GB GDDR5

4GB GDDR5 Memory Clock: 7000MHz

7000MHz Memory Bandwidth: 224GB/s

224GB/s Texture Mapping Units 128

128 ROPs: 64

64 L2 Cache Size: 2048MB

2048MB TDP: 165W

165W Die Size: 398mm 2

398mm Manufacturing Process: 28nm Codenamed GM204, the new Maxwell has two billion fewer transistors than the top-end GTX 780 Ti, and features a much narrower memory bus (256-bit vs 384-bit) and is physically a much smaller chip (398mm2 vs 552mm2). However, it carries more RAM and a much more efficient design actually sees it pull ahead of the prior Nvidia flagship.

It's on the inside where the GTX 980 really impresses - its efficiency goes far beyond its meagre power consumption alone. The new Maxwell chip achieves more - a lot more - with a lot less, despite using the same 28nm chip technology as its predecessor. The GM204 chip is around 72 per cent the size of the Titan/GTX 780 Ti processor, and around 91 per cent of the area of the Radeon R9 290X's Hawaii chip. What's more, the new Maxwell card utilises a relatively narrow 256-bit memory bus up against the 384-bit interface of its predecessor and the whopping great 512-bit bus of the R9 290X. Despite this, the GTX 980 powers ahead of both those cards in almost all of the tests we put it through. Put simply - the GTX 980 is cheaper for Nvidia to produce, and while you don't get any pricing benefits as a consumer (the new GTX 970 is Nvidia's value play - we'll review that soon), you do benefit from a much cooler, less expensive card to run.

This content is hosted on an external platform, which will only display it if you accept targeting cookies. Please enable cookies to view. Manage cookie settings

Order the GTX 980 4GB [?] from Amazon with free shipping

So what's the secret sauce here? Well, from the GeForce GTX 750 Ti we already know that the Maxwell architecture offers a 2x performance per watt boost compared to Nvidia's last tech, codenamed Kepler. This new, larger chip could almost be considered a Maxwell 2.0 part - it retains all the advantages of its predecessor (a revised approach to its CUDA cores, a big boost to L2 cache) but it also features power-saving features culled from Nvidia's work on the Tegra K1 mobile part found in the Shield tablet. And while the 256-bit memory interface may seem rather narrow for a high-end performance part, lossless compression is utilised on the bus to get higher throughput. It's an interesting approach, but its effectiveness will be limited by the 'compressability' of the material it has to work with - as you'll see later.

But to begin with, let's see how the GTX 980 copes with that most intensive of GPU workouts - the 1080p Crysis 3 gameplay challenge. Here we stack up all settings to the max, turn on v-sync, and utilise SMAA T2X anti-aliasing - the game's best balance between performance and quality. To make things more interesting, we compare the action with two similar playthroughs on the same Core i7 3770K PC running the GTX 780 Ti and the Radeon R9 290X.

This test isn't about maximum frame-rates (v-sync caps that at 60fps), it's about the deviation from the 60Hz update in the most challenging areas. Immediately, we get a sense of this card's potential - there is no 60fps lock as such, but instead the drops are less pronounced than they are on the GTX 980's immediate rivals. It's a good start, but the feeling we're getting is that the card only offers an incremental increase in performance compared to existing high-end parts as opposed to the kind of revelatory leap you might hope for from a new architecture.

This content is hosted on an external platform, which will only display it if you accept targeting cookies. Please enable cookies to view. Manage cookie settings The 1080p Crysis 3 max settings challenge reveals that the GTX 980 has no relevatory performance upgrades compared to its immediate competitors - performance is clearly higher and that's obviously a good thing, but we're looking at evolution, not revolution.

Order these alternative top-tier graphics cards with free shipping:

Ploughing on into our benchmark suite, we evaluate the GTX 980 against a range of comparable GPUs, kicking off with the other GTX 'x80' cards Nvidia has released in the last couple of years, along with the products the firm really needs to comprehensively beat - the power-hungry R9 290X and the outgoing GTX 780 Ti. To begin with, we test at 1080p on max settings. Some might consider the GPU tech we're using here as overkill for a meagre 1080p resolution, but the prior Crysis 3 test suggests otherwise. Not only that, but 95 per cent of the PC audience use full HD monitors, according to the Steam hardware survey, so it's a viable test - Nvidia shifts a lot of graphics cards and regardless of power, most of them are utilised on 1080p displays.

VXGI: real-time global illumination Check out the picture above. Click on it, if you will, for a closer look. Of course, you've probably seen it before - it's an image of Buzz Aldrin descending from the Apollo 11 lunar module, taken by the first man to walk on the Moon, Neil Armstrong. Only it isn't actually a photo, it's a real-time render generated using VXGI, Nvidia's new voxel-based global illumination system. But for reference, the actual Armstrong image is here. Nvidia's version looks like it has been over-exposed a touch, but when we saw the demo running in real-time at a recent Nvidia tech conference, the match was uncanny. So why replicate this pivotal moment in history? Well, Nvidia's demo is operating a fully real-time voxel-based global illumination system: it's the next phase in lighting technology, one step beyond the physically-based rendering seen in console titles like Killzone: Shadow Fall, Metal Gear Solid 5 and Forza Horizon 2. This demo does rather cool things - the scene can be viewed from any angle, elements like exposure can be adjusted, and in the process, just about every moon landing conspiracy theory (lack of stars in the sky, for example) can be blown out of the water. A similar voxel-based system - dubbed SVOGI - was initially added to Unreal Engine 4, but was removed because it was just too computationally expensive to be viable. If you've heard John Carmack talk about sparse voxel octrees, this is very similar technology. Voxels are where it's at when it comes to real-time GI - the only problem is that the performance hit is just too hard to deploy it in video games on current-gen hardware. Nvidia reckons that it's cracked the problem with its own VXGI implementation, which offloads a lot of the workload to dedicated hardware within the Maxwell processor. Obviously it's early days, and although Nvidia has Unreal Engine 4 integration in the works, it's unclear how much work it will be for developers to support it - certainly the move to physically based rendering for next-gen console was an enormous challenge. Perhaps what's most important though is that Nvidia has identified a key limitation in current rendering technology, and has sought to address it. While no game implementation has been announced as of yet, the demo itself should be released fairly soon.

We see an average 14 per cent boost over the R9 290X, a mere 5 per cent increase over the GTX 780 Ti and a more handsome 27 per cent uplift compared to the GTX 780. It's the old GTX 680 that provides a like-for-like comparison of the Maxwell vs Kepler generational leap, and here we see the new card lock in a remarkable 61 per cent jump in performance. Both GTX 680 and 980 offer similar levels of power consumption, and both have the 256-bit memory bus.

We've also included overclocking results. Using MSI Afterburner, we ramped out maximum power consumption to 125 per cent of the norm, and achieved a 200MHz boost to the GPU core, and a 475MHz increase to the memory clock. This produces an averaged 12.2 per cent increase in performance at 1080p, perfectly in line with an additional 12 per cent in peak power consumption we measured. Pushing higher on either memory or core clocks produces unwelcome instability, with Metro Last Light's benchmarking run a good proving ground for testing the durability of your overclock.

This content is hosted on an external platform, which will only display it if you accept targeting cookies. Please enable cookies to view. Manage cookie settings To our mind, benchmarks mean little without context. This video showcases exactly what we tested and how, and reveals how the hardware we test compares on a frame-by-frame basis. We use Nvidia's FCAT (incorporated within our own tools) to show relative performance between GPUs along with consistency metrics.

1920x1080 (1080p) GTX 980 GTX 980 (OC) GTX 780 Ti R9 290X GTX 780 GTX 680 BioShock Infinite, DX11 Ultra DDOF 121.6 130.9 116.5 93.0 99.5 79.7 Tomb Raider, Ultimate, FXAA 91.1 104.1 90.9 85.1 71.3 56.2 Battlefield 4, Ultra 87.2 98.3 78.0 70.1 65.2 50.6 Metro: Last Light, Very High, SSAA 52.0 59.2 51.0 47.4 40.9 31.4 Crysis 3, Very High 77.0 86.7 71.9 68.6 60.9 50.7

At 2560x1440 - or 1440p if you prefer - the narrow memory bus of the GTX 980 starts to make an impact compared to its nearest rivals. Tomb Raider actually runs marginally slower on the new card compared to the GTX 780 Ti, though the 980 still manages to stay comfortably ahead on other titles, especially on Battlefield 4. The massive 512-bit interface of the R9 290X also brings it back into contention, especially on Tomb Raider. Indeed, the 15 per cent average uplift the GTX 980 enjoys at 1080p shrinks to just five per cent at the higher resolution.

Nvidia's new card still manages to comfortably outstrip the non-Ti GTX 780 and once again we are seeing a substantial boost in performance compared to the GTX 980's technological predecessor - the stalwart GTX 680. Memory bandwidth is clearly important at much higher resolutions, and the 256-bit interface on the older card clearly struggles, particularly on the insanely demanding Metro Last Light with its super-sampling preset engaged.

Overall, the benchmarks here suggest that the GTX 980 is a worthy performer at the higher resolution, with our overclock adding a 14.8 per cent boost to the results on average. The combination of Maxwell's refined CUDA core architecture in combination with the compression system in place on the memory bus allows the new card to punch above its weight, but the Tomb Raider result suggests that performance might vary on a game by game basis.

This content is hosted on an external platform, which will only display it if you accept targeting cookies. Please enable cookies to view. Manage cookie settings At 2560x1440, it seems that the memory compression technology struggles just a little bit - in certain scenarios, the outgoing GTX 780 Ti commands a minor advantage over the new GTX 980.

2560x1440 (1440p) GTX 980 GTX 980 (OC) GTX 780 Ti R9 290X GTX 780 GTX 680 BioShock Infinite, DX11 Ultra DDOF 83.3 94.0 77.2 61.7 65.4 50.9 Tomb Raider, Ultimate, FXAA 60.9 69.7 62.2 58.5 49.0 36.6 Battlefield 4, Ultra 58.0 65.5 52.0 47.3 44.2 33.4 Metro: Last Light, Very High, SSAA 32.6 37.9 32.2 29.7 25.8 18.8 Crysis 3, Very High 47.8 56.2 45.0 45.1 37.4 30.5

With 4K monitors now available at the £500 mark (cheaper if you're prepared to stick with a 30Hz refresh), enthusiasts may be wondering how well the GTX 980 holds up when moving up to the ultra-HD standard. Well, the truth is that ideally, you're still looking at two high-end GPUs working parallel to deliver the kind of power required in sustaining 4K on modern games at demanding settings.

G-Sync revisited We're looking to review an Asus 'Swift' PG278Q recently delivered to the Digital Foundry office - the first 2560x1440 monitor to support G-Sync. If you've not read our review of this new tech, we encourage you to do so - G-Sync completely eliminates screen-tear while at the same time minimising the stutter brought about when v-sync is engaged in a variable frame-rate scenario. No longer is the game experience dictated by the refresh rate of the monitor - G-Sync puts the GPU firmly in control. We put the GTX 980 to the test with G-Sync engaged by re-running our maxed-out Crysis 3 test, this time at the monitor's native 1440p resolution. Frame-rates persisted in 30-40fps territory - not really an area where G-Sync can make a difference. Dialling back a couple of the advanced settings from very high to high, frame-rates settled just north of 40fps, and at this point, G-Sync starts to make sense, offering a smoother refresh that's definitely a cut above the console standard 30fps experience. Dropping all presets down from very high to high, the GTX 980 mostly renders the game at a variable frame-rate between 50-60fps. In our experience, this is the ideal window that G-Sync operates in. Frame persistence varies between 16-20ms, and it's really difficult to discern any judder during gameplay unless you set out to look for it. Our day-to-day work on Digital Foundry sees us struggling with frame-pacing issues, often sub-optimal performance and unsightly screen-tear. G-Sync isn't the complete solution, but it's the best possible hardware for the job, and it's down to the user to tweak settings in order to move gameplay frame-rates into the 'window' in which G-Sync works best. Adaptive v-sync refresh as pioneered by G-Sync is the way forward for display technology and rival AMD agrees. It has just signed deals with scaler manufacturers MStar, Novatek and Realtek to implement its own open standard - FreeSync - but it's clearly still early days before we see FreeSync displays on the shelves while Nvidia has a proven technology that is available now. Try it out if and when you can - the experience is in a class of its own.

For our benchmarks, we drop back the quality presets a single notch - Tomb Raider drops down from ultimate to ultra (TressFX's removal being the major difference), while Battlefield 4's high setting without MSAA is utilised instead of the top-end ultra. It's Metro Last Light that is cut back the most - we drop down from very high to high settings on both overall quality and tessellation, and we turn off super-sampling anti-aliasing (SSAA). Crysis 3 and BioShock Infinite drop to high and ultra respectively. With these settings in place we see that the card is capable of a good experience at 30fps, but in truth, we'd trade that extra resolution for something approaching 60fps at 1440p. Coupled with a 1440p G-Sync monitor, you can get exceptional results here with both the GTX 980 and the outgoing 780 Ti.

Good results on Battlefield 4 and BioShock give the GTX 980 a good 10 per cent average lead over the R9 290X, but in actual fact, it performs worse on both Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider. It's a similar story with the 780 Ti, in fact, but the GTX 980 still manages to comfortably beat the GTX 780 and GTX 680 - but to be honest, neither of those cards should really be considered for 4K gaming on anything other than medium settings at 30fps. With the overclock in place, we actually see our biggest gain in performance at 4K - our cumulative average rises from a 12.2 per cent boost to 14.8 per cent to 17.5 per cent as we move from 1080p to 1440p to 4K.

This content is hosted on an external platform, which will only display it if you accept targeting cookies. Please enable cookies to view. Manage cookie settings The GTX 980 remains competitive at 4K, though the weakness in Tomb Raider remains with both the GTX 780 Ti and R9 290X beating the new card. Here we've dropped down one quality preset compared to the previous tests, but BioShock Infinite aside, we're still firmly in 30fps territory on most titles.

3840x2160 (4K) GTX 980 GTX 980 (OC) GTX 780 Ti R9 290X GTX 780 GTX 680 BioShock Infinite, DX11 Ultra 57.4 66.8 50.7 43.7 39.9 31.8 Tomb Raider, Ultra, FXAA 39.5 45.6 43.3 40.1 34.1 26.0 Battlefield 4, High 46.2 53.7 41.9 38.9 35.8 26.8 Metro: Last Light, High, AAA 36.4 42.7 33.1 30.4 27.6 19.3 Crysis 3, High 34.2 41.9 33.4 35.2 28.1 23.5

Finally, let's take a look at peak power draw, extracted from the same PC running the Metro Last Light benchmark on each of our tested graphics card. There may be some disappointment at the relatively small increase in performance compared to the GTX 780 Ti in particular, but the power consumption metrics speak for themselves. The GTX 980's peak power draw is a colossal 80W lower than the outgoing 780 Ti, and almost 100W (!) lower than AMD's R9 290X. Even overclocked, it is more energy efficient than the Titan-lite GTX 780 - a stunning result.

Perhaps the most intriguing comparison is with the veteran GTX 680, a board that the new Maxwell offering has much in common with in terms of chip size and the memory bus. We see a seven per cent increase in peak power consumption on the new board in exchange for an average 65 per cent boost in performance.

That's the kind of generational leap we like to see - it's just a bit of a shame that Nvidia didn't really push the boat out and give enthusiasts a real upgrade in terms of performance compared to its existing flagship parts. What if the firm had retained the 384-bit memory interface for GTX 980? What if it had made a chip as large as the GK110 silicon found in the GTX 780, 780 Ti and Titan? A prospective GM210 would have been staggeringly good - perhaps Nvidia is looking to save that particular behemoth for the 20nm fabrication process, allowing for a cooler, quieter product.

GTX 980 GTX 980 (OC) GTX 780 Ti R9 290X GTX 780 GTX 680 Peak System Power Draw 265W 299W 345W 363W 312W 248W

Nvidia is keen to point out that the new range of graphics cards isn't just about the hardware - new features have been added software-side too. One new enhancement is MFAA (multi-frame anti-aliasing), which uses a 2x MSAA base in combination with temporal AA to produce an effect that the company reckons is comparable with 4x MSAA. From a performance standpoint, the hit is said to be the same as standard 2x multi-sampling. The demos we saw at a recent Nvidia tech conference are intriguing, but the technology was not available for testing in the GTX 970/980 launch driver. [UPDATE 19/9/14 8:51am: This Nvidia product video suggests that MFAA can also provide 2x MSAA quality with just a tiny performance hit - skip to around 1:30 for an explanation.]

Since the advent of deferred rendering, MSAA has been on the endangered list. It's no surprise that developers working with console in mind are looking to increase the effectiveness of post-process anti-aliasing, using a similar temporal component to Nvidia's MFAA technology. But cards like the GTX 980 may well have the bandwidth and fill-rate to accommodate MSAA, so we'll be interested to see how good it looks and what the performance hit actually is in demanding titles like Crysis 3 and Watch Dogs.

Crysis 3 has a range of anti-aliasing options. FXAA at 1080p is rather ropey, but SMAA 4x is a lot nicer though it does struggle with sub-pixel detail. Nvidia's DSR looks very smooth here - as it should when you have a downscaled 4K image. Nvidia's proprietary TXAA rounds off the comparison. Variations in lighting here are caused by the canopy overhead moving, by the way. Dark Souls 2 offers no anti-aliasing options whatsoever, you're stuck with console-style post-process anti-aliasing that doesn't do a great job on the grass here. Here you can see the standard image, DSR scaling from an internal 2560x1440 and also from 4K. It's here - on games with a light GPU load and no real AA options - that DSR makes a huge difference. If you think the DSR image is a little soft, the filtering can be adjusted in the Nvidia control panel. Here's Assassin's Creed 4 running at 1080p with FXAA and 4x MSAA, with comparisons on the same game running the same settings with Nvidia's DSR tech engaged. Nvidia supplied this comparison - to be honest, it's rather unlikely that you'd be using 4x MSAA and DSR simultaneously, but you can see how well DSR compares to 4x MSAA, and the diminishing returns you get from a 4x MSAA DSRed image. Watch Dogs next, with FXAA and 4x MSAA variants once again stacked up against the DSR equivalents. Again, the MSAA vs FXAA/DSR comparison is probably the most enlightening comparison.

What we can test is DSR - dynamic super resolution - a new feature added to Maxwell, which should (hopefully) filter down eventually to existing Nvidia GPUs. Activated via GeForce experience, DSR is targeted at those using 1080p displays, effectively allowing you to access much higher resolutions (up to 4x native resolution), which are then downscaled down to 1080p - super-sampling, effectively. The idea is that if you're running a game with less demanding requirements on the GPU, you can re-deploy the power of the graphics card in order to produce extraordinarily good anti-aliasing.

Nvidia provided some examples in the zoomer gallery above (Assassin's Creed 4, Watch Dogs), but we've added a couple more based on our testing of the technology. If you've got the GPU time to spare, you can achieve some superb results here, but the application on newer titles will be limited - with DSR maxed, you're effectively asking the GPU to render 4K, and as you can see from the performance table above, that's too much of an undertaking for most modern games. However, there is clearly an application worth considering here for less demanding titles like Dark Souls 2 and BioShock Infinite. These titles shipped with post-process anti-aliasing only, and super-sampling makes a big difference.