-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 reviews and benchmarks
- Thread starter dr_rus
- Start date
Not sure if this was already posted here?
GTX 1070: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1070
GTX 1070: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1070
Hmm, this doesn't seem impressive at all. seems like I might have to go for the 1080.
Beerman462
Member
Comparing Hairworks(Nvidia tech) for one(?) game and a feature of Direct X12 isn't exactly apples to apples, and your right we have no idea if it will be utilised by many games. If it helps the current consoles though it could be an issue for Nvidia. It's our best example of this feature yet and the results of it are interesting, not because Hitman is a game I want to play, but because it gives insight on how AMD and Nvidia perform a feature of the next Direct X12 release. Doom is interesting in the same way, because it shows a strength of one manufacturer and a weakness of another. Although one can should be easy to fix with drivers and or new API support(Vulkan) while another is a hardware deficiency. Consumers will have weigh the pros and cons of each. Will there be more games with OGL or async? Is the performance differential big enough to worry about?
I will say a single benchmark has influenced a purchase for me in the past though. I played alot of WoW and Intel was getting double the frame rate of AMD. So for the first time in 10 years I bought an Intel. It was the i5 2400 and it cost me $50 more than the AMD I was considering and totally worth it.
Check the techgage review from the OP
CaptainZombie
Member
Yeah, this doesn't look impressive at all. Like I was telling my buddy about this, there is like a $300 difference between the 1070 and 1080......I have a feeling that when AMD releases their cards NVIDIA will counter with a 1070 Ti to fit right between the 1070 and 1080 to close the gap in this weird pricing.
I have a 970 right now which I am not fond of, but will look for a 980 Ti when the fire sales start. I think the 980 Ti can last me till HBM2.
Finaika
Member
How does this compare to the 980 Ti?
McHuj
Member
On paper at least its about 65% more in flops over the 970. Not as big of a gain as the 1080 over the 980, but still pretty good. Plus it's 8 GB.
Thanks.
So the average fps difference is between 15 and 30fps, mostly around 20, and since the TITAN X gets around 50/60fps average in most recent big games, I believe it'll be great for future games that will need more ressources.
It's a lot of money, maybe not worth it for that 3440x1440 masterrace (at least for me since I need to build a whole PC and buy the monitor and they cost almost as much as the PC itself)
McHuj
Member
More flops and more RAM for the 1070 vs a stock 980ti.
Caayn
Member
Courtesy of the dutch site tweakers.net
(I replaced the Dutch terms with English terms except for "miljard" which is billion.)
Courtesy of the dutch site tweakers.net
(I replaced the Dutch terms with English terms except for "miljard" which is billion.)
Do you think AIB-cards will add Pin-connectors? So we get like 8+6? Since 8-pin is limiting the overclocking.
draughn101
Member
One reviewer said that there's space on the board for it. Then again, maybe it was intentional?
65% more speed for 100% more price... Hmm...
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Not an expert, but this dosn't look too good?
In a lot of aspects looks even worse than a 980, less cuda cores, less SM's, etc..I know new architecture and all and that that data dosn't tell the full history, but isn't a bit dissapointing considering the price?.
I have a 970 with a 3440x1440p monitor...I need that 1080 to run the games like how I want.
For VR, probably the 1070. Even if multi-perspective rendering doesn't catch on, fine-grained preemption is a boon.
Even for the most basic comparison (ignoring architecture differences) you need to multiply all the specs by the clock rate.
Witcher 3 performance seems particularly good on 1080. Basically a 100% jump from a 970 at higher resolutions.
Which is a good thing, as TW3 is one of the few "high-end" games I'd actually like to play when I get a new card.
How is "how you want" ?
You already have the expensive monitor and if you plan to keep it 2-3 years it seems reasonable anyway.
OverturePT
Member
So, how much are we expecting a 1070 to cost? I didn't really want to go above 400 but looks like there's some confusion/speculation with the prices thanks to the funders editions.
I'd expect >500 for the FE and ~450 for the non-FE.
$380 US list price + relatively weak + average 20% tax.
I would buy the 1080 Day One at $599, even with a shitty cooler, as I'm going to water cool it. But waiting for EK + waiting for a reasonable price is really killing my hype
Skellington, I'd wait until the 3rd party vendors release theirs. The reviews show that the power delivered from a single 8 pin is limiting how far you can push the clock.
So, 980 OC prices for slightly lower performance?
I really want a DS3 benchmark as well :C
SneakyStephan
Banned
70 percent more pixelsWow the framerate jump from 1440p to 1080p in Tomb Raider is nuts
Most people don't realise just how big a jump 1080p to 1440p really is
Because of the price
I agree that for a 300mm² chip the 1080s performance is INSANELY impressive
but it's also insanely expensive for a 300mm² chip, especially the FE, and it'll be even more expensive here in europe.
In the end performance/price is all that matters, and when you sell a card at the same price or higher than a 980ti then that's what people will rightfully compare it to
Hopefully the 1080 will go way down in price once the 1080ti is out and once amd's vega gpus are out.
Why would you ever get the idea that 1070 will perform below 980, OC or not? It will massacre 980 (probably performing around 980ti level or slightly below it).
Gen.Grievous
Member
EK will have a block at launch. And several pc enthusiast sites have tested the FE with an aftermarket cooling solution and in all cases the limiting factor is not temperature but voltage/power delivery. If you want to push past 2.1 Ghz you will need a AIB partner card.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Courtesy of the dutch site tweakers.net
(I replaced the Dutch terms with English terms except for "miljard" which is billion.)
256GB/sec memory bandwidth huh
Maybe if the memory can be further overclocked it won't be that bad (assuming nvidia's claim of 20 percent increase in effective memory bandwidth because of the color compression is accurate)
Still pretty bad, but not as hopeless as I thought.
edit: counting the cuda core difference and the clockspeed difference the 1070 is only about 25 percent faster than the 980, that's not as fast as a stock 980ti. (and ofc there's the bandwidth issue)
seems like it's not another gtx 970
OverturePT
Member
Aw man... better start saving, I gotta get rid of this 770.
The charts on NVIDIA website?
...
Actually, refreshed my memory with regards to 980 OC benchmarks, and you're right, even with the 66% increase from NVIDIA data, it should blow out 980.
Nevertheless slightly) disappointing.
Irobot82
Member
This is interesting. I'd prefer to see these cards burned in for like 10 minutes before the bench recording starts. I'm pretty sure most sites start benches cold.
I'm saving myself from 20 back and forth replies in which the point of my post would be neglected deflected and what not.
With you I can gladly say the point of my post was to be aware of how many years you intent to keep your purchase, because history is showing a severe lack of optimization on high end geforce cards once new models enter the market.
This is how the top dog 699$ Geforce Ti from 2013 is behaving today. The smoking gun something unethical is happening are the 3dmark scores (and cant be changed without bringing attention), which accurately reflect the positioning of each of those cards, but somehow with the 780ti that potential is not being translated into performance in the newer games, as opposed to the 970 and 290x.
Its a very good and valid point. The one flaw I can think of is that the 2600k from 2011 is within 80% of the 6700K performance (I know because its my cpu), and the addition of 2/4 plus cores to the existing 4 seems to only benefit 2 or 3 titles in a nonlinear way.
The only 8 core cpu's that show improvement with dx12 seem to be the AMD FX series. Maybe thats what your referring to.
Probably because they are the only 8 core CPUs slow enough sequentially for parallelization to be at all beneficial in current gaming scenarios.
Unknown Soldier
Member
2/3 the SMs and 2/3 the memory bandwidth of 1080. It should just barely keep up with the 980 Ti in older games and possibly pull ahead in newer ones.
Netherscourge
Banned
Courtesy of the dutch site tweakers.net
(I replaced the Dutch terms with English terms except for "miljard" which is billion.)
The GTX 1070 looks like a slightly boosted GTX 980 according to this....
terencecah
Member
I think I'm gonna wait for AIB at least
I can run everything well with my 980ti sli setup
I can run everything well with my 980ti sli setup
Depends on if it gets up to 2000mhz boost when ocd like the 1080.
The 1080 also looks worse than the 980 ti other than clock speed, but the performance is there.