Wednesday, September 10th 2014

Galaxy GeForce GTX 970 Pictured, Specs Confirmed, Early Benchmarks Surface

Here are some of the first pictures of an AIC partner branded NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 graphics card, the Galaxy GTX 970 GC. Spotted across Chinese PC enthusiast forums and social networks, the latest set of leaks cover not just pictures of what the GTX 970 looks like, but also what's under its hood. To begin with, Galaxy's card appears to be built for the high-end market segment. A meaty twin-fan aluminium fin-stack heatsink, coupled by a spacey backplate cover a signature Galaxy blue PCB, holding NVIDIA's new GTX 970 GPU, and 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. The card appears to feature a high-grade VRM that draws power from a combination of 8-pin and 6-pin PCIe power connectors.

There's also a selection of pictures of a purported reference-design GeForce GTX 970 graphics card. It may look drab, but that's because NVIDIA will not ship reference-design cards. The GTX 970 will likely be an AIC-exclusive, meaning that you'll only find custom-design cards based on the chip. We wonder if that's the same with the GTX 980. Straightaway, you'll notice that the GTX 970 reference PCB bears an uncanny resemblance to the one NVIDIA used for the GTX 670, GTX 660 Ti, and GTX 760. That's probably because the GK104 and new GM204 are pin-identical. Such a thing isn't new. The "Pitcairn" silicon (Radeon HD 7870, HD 7850) and its predecessor, "Barts" (HD 6870 and HD 6850) are similarly pin-identical, differing with the die. The similarity in PCB design, if nothing, shows that the GTX 970 will be as energy-efficient as the GTX 670.
Moving on to the actual-specs, and some users with access to GeForce GTX 970 managed to pull these specs off a TechPowerUp GPU-Z screenshot. Some parts of the screenshot look blurry, probably due to a failed attempt at blurring out the BIOS string. GPU-Z has preliminary support for GM204 since version 0.7.9. This is what it could make out:
  • GPU identified as "1C32"
  • 1,664 CUDA cores
  • 138 TMUs
  • 32 ROPs
  • 256-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface
  • 4 GB standard memory amount
  • 1051 MHz core, 1178 MHz GPU Boost, and 7012 MHz (GDDR5-effective) memory clocks
  • 224 GB/s memory bandwidth
The sample was put through a quick run of 3DMark 11 Extreme Preset. It scored X3963 points, which if you factor in the dual-core Core i3-4130 used in the bench, puts the GTX 970 somewhere between the GTX 780 and GTX 780 Ti, in terms of performance.


Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

69 Comments on Galaxy GeForce GTX 970 Pictured, Specs Confirmed, Early Benchmarks Surface

#1
ZoneDymo
"puts the GTX 970 somewhere between the GTX 780 and GTX 780 Ti, in terms of performance."

Uuurggggg lame!
Come on now, you name as if its 2 jumps from the 700 series and THAT is the performance?
I hope some magic drivers can give it a good kick in the ass
Posted on Reply
#2
thebluebumblebee
draws power from a combination of 8-pin and 6-pin PCIe power connectors
Bummer. There goes the hope for a lower power middle weight. That's good for up to 300 watts. I was looking for something around the GTX 780's performance while using 125-150 watts. I do see that the other board shots show 2x6 pin.
Posted on Reply
#3
LAN_deRf_HA
Without a die shrink never expect much. Always hate it when this happens because you don't get as much performance jump and then when the die shrunk cards do comes its another small jump.

thebluebumblebee said:
Bummer. There goes the hope for a lower power middle weight. That's good for up to 300 watts. I was looking for something around the GTX 780's performance while using 125-150 watts. I do see that the other board shots show 2x6 pin.
Galaxy likes to do that on lower power cards. They had my 660 Ti's on a 680 PCB and I was never able to come close to hitting the power limit on that thing even volt modded.
Posted on Reply
#4
erixx
1) LOVELY to see the TechpowerUp utility being used!!!!! Feeling proud of this community!
2) 970 is the lower spec twinbrother, so if it is in between 780 and 780Ti, I am in! :)
Posted on Reply
#5
the54thvoid
Reviews will be soon enough. No point even guessing now.

Let's all be patient, after all, we know we're getting the repeat scenario from a few years back.

Next year we'll have 980Ti. But for now, a 980 beating a 780Ti will be nice, if not for anything else, better perf/watt and more Vram.
Posted on Reply
#6
GhostRyder
That's more what I expected, its between the 780 and 780ti and its a X70 counterpart which is very good and could confirm that the 980 is going to be better than the 780ti even if it is not by an extreme amount.

Going to be a beast at that with 4gb GDDR5 with that 7012mhz clock for the memory! It will be a good high resolution gaming card from NVidia especially if the price falls nicely in line (Though I am expecting $600~).

Glad to see this card turns out well, now it just comes down to how good the power consumption is.
Posted on Reply
#7
Sleepless
btarunr said:
  • 1051 MHz core, 1178 MHz GPU Boost, and 7012 MHz (GDDR5-effective) memory clocks
  • 232 GB/s memory bandwidth

Bandwidth should be the same 224.4GB/s as a GTX 770 since its the same speed and bus size.
Posted on Reply
#8
Roel
thebluebumblebee said:
Bummer. There goes the hope for a lower power middle weight. That's good for up to 300 watts. I was looking for something around the GTX 780's performance while using 125-150 watts. I do see that the other board shots show 2x6 pin.
The amount of power connections say nothing about the actual consumption of the card.
Posted on Reply
#9
64K
Maxwell is more efficient so we know that the GTX 970/980 will outperform Keplers but being tied down to the 28nm process is what will limit it. My guess is the GTX 980 will perform somewhere around the GTX 780Ti maybe beating it.
Posted on Reply
#10
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
HazMatt said:
Bandwidth should be the same 224.4GB/s as a GTX 770 since its the same speed and bus size.
Fixed. Mixed up memory clocks between reference and that Galaxy GC (factory OC card).
Posted on Reply
#11
HumanSmoke
thebluebumblebee said:
Bummer. There goes the hope for a lower power middle weight. That's good for up to 300 watts. I was looking for something around the GTX 780's performance while using 125-150 watts. I do see that the other board shots show 2x6 pin.
The original source does mention that the reference design is 150W TDP ( 2 x 6pin), so I guess it comes down to how aggressive the vendor boards push the OC's, and the marketing factor. A lot of people do associate a performance board with 1*8pin + 1*6pin (and 2*8 for uber SKUs) whether it warrants it or not.
Posted on Reply
#12
thebluebumblebee
Roel said:
The amount of power connections say nothing about the actual consumption of the card.
But it's obvious that Galaxy thinks that it can use more than the 225 watts that 2x6 pin (75 watts from the PCI-e bus) can provide.
Posted on Reply
#13
Selene
Sigh another mid rage GPU with a high end part number just like the 670/680 and 770. Will sit on my 780 Classifieds for a while longer.
Posted on Reply
#14
Animalpak
I will skip this gen. because of the waterblock that i bought for my 780 Ti.
Posted on Reply
#15
thebluebumblebee
Can I swap out the GPU on my 660 Ti?;):laugh: I'm okay with 2 GB.
Posted on Reply
#16
RejZoR
Not sure if i'll even bother replacing my HD7950...
Posted on Reply
#17
Hilux SSRG
Selene said:
Sigh another mid rage GPU with a high end part number just like the 670/680 and 770. Will sit on my 780 Classifieds for a while longer.
Exactly. The power efficiency will be better but still won't beat a 770sli setup.

High end will be GM210.
Posted on Reply
#18
HumanSmoke
thebluebumblebee said:
But it's obvious that Galaxy thinks that it can use more than the 225 watts that 2x6 pin (75 watts from the PCI-e bus) can provide.
Well, hopefully the decision reflects the overclocking headroom. If it mirrors the GM 107, then the DIY performance upgrade should make the card all the more interesting. If the reference card debuts at $399, then I doubt the vendor specials will be $20-30 more for the most part. Not bad for the performance, but I doubt it would cause AMD's exec's to get heart palpitations either. Seemingly the status quo remains....how surprising :rolleyes:
Just for the record, Galaxy used a 6-pin on their GTX 750 (non-Ti), and it did need it -barely- 80-85W with a max 1402MHz core boost frequency
Posted on Reply
#19
thebluebumblebee
The sad truth is that there are no games pushing the hardware anymore. Do remember how long it took for hardware to catch up to Crysis?
Hilux SSRG said:
Exactly. The power efficiency will be better but still won't beat a 770sli setup.

High end will be GM210.
Remember the movie Trading Places? There's the scene where they're buying up all of the stock at rock bottom prices. This might turn out to be a good time to pick up some 670/680/770's as people blindly dump them for the new P/N.
Posted on Reply
#20
Dj-ElectriC
I am not pleased by the fact that NVIDIA decided to use its micro-architecture supiriority over AMD and deliver us slower-than-expected product. Really hoped for a 1920 core product that will match or even surpass the 780 ti.

Oh well... time to wait for the bigger dogs.
Posted on Reply
#21
Casecutter
Is there ample confirmation to the $400 MSRP for this GTX 970, I'd say given the small PCB of their reference BOM it might bare that out?
Posted on Reply
#22
HumanSmoke
Dj-ElectriC said:
I am not pleased by the fact that NVIDIA decided to use its micro-architecture supiriority over AMD and deliver us slower-than-expected product. Really hoped for a 1920 core product that will match or even surpass the 780 ti.
You hoped a 256-bit, 1920 core part would outperform a 384-bit 2880 core using the same basic architecture on the same process node ? I think you expect a little too much from a tweaking of shader module/core ratio's and increased cache. As it is, I'm guessing that GM 204 makes further sacrifices in compute to reduce power demand, and save die space (esp. if the 370-390mm² die size estimate is correct)
Dj-ElectriC said:
Oh well... time to wait for the bigger dogs.
Well, this is the GK 104 replacement after all, so I think there's only so much you can reasonably expect with any given transistor density.
Posted on Reply
#23
Dj-ElectriC
HumanSmoke said:
You hoped a 256-bit, 1920 core part would outperform a 384-bit 2880 core using the same basic architecture on the same process node ? I think you expect a little too much from a tweaking of shader module/core ratio's and increased cache. As it is, I'm guessing that GM 204 makes further sacrifices in compute to reduce power demand, and save die space (esp. if the 370-390mm² die size estimate is correct)

Well, this is the GK 104 replacement after all, so I think there's only so much you can reasonably expect with any given transistor density.
Kepler and Maxwell are not the same, not nearly the same in performancewatt ratio.
If a 1664 part can beat a GTX 780, than yes, a 1920 part could match something that is 22% faster than a GTX 780.
Posted on Reply
#24
JDG1980
thebluebumblebee said:
But it's obvious that Galaxy thinks that it can use more than the 225 watts that 2x6 pin (75 watts from the PCI-e bus) can provide.
Or, alternatively, they just re-used the GTX 770 board design as-is. It is a mistake to estimate TDP from the power connectors on a non-reference card; even the power-sipping GTX 750 Ti has some aftermarket boards with PCI-E plugs.
Posted on Reply
#25
james888
HumanSmoke said:
As it is, I'm guessing that GM 204 makes further sacrifices in compute to reduce power demand, and save die space (esp. if the 370-390mm² die size estimate is correct)
I was hoping for more compute performance. The 750ti has incredible compute performance per watt. In F@H my overclocked 750ti gets about 70k points per day, similar to that of a 7870 or 660ti. Gaming wise, it is no where near them, but in compute it is really close.

Are you sure maxwell won't have good compute performance?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment