Gtx 1080/1070

W

Wozza63

Biblical Poster
So around 10-30% improvements in most games over a Titan. Not quite the double the performance that was claimed.
 
Rakk

Rakk

The Awesome
Moderator
Wozza365 said:
So around 10-30% improvements in most games over a Titan. Not quite the double the performance that was claimed.
Click to expand...

Though I believe the 'double' comment was for VR stuff, not for normal stuff and those benchmarks are not for VR.
 
W

Wozza63

Biblical Poster
It's pretty impressive, some of their claims still seem to be untrue and just some marketing attempts but it does hold up very well and seems to be able to play a lot of games at 4k 60fps which seems to be the industry target. Overclocking will be very interesting to see, Nvidia claiming there is a lot of headroom but if there is so much headroom then why not set the default clock to be better and really blow everything away.
 
Oussebon

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
Though I believe the 'double' comment was for VR stuff, not for normal stuff and those benchmarks are not for VR.
Click to expand...
This.

I'd actually posted the slides from the Nvidia reveal (via techpowerup) in another thread, one for normal gaming, one for VR:
https://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/foru...showing-at-GTC&p=362207&viewfull=1#post362207

Also, a few of my favourite sites:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10326/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-preview/3
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graph...tx-1080-founders-edition-16nm-pascal/?page=13
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/32.html

Some DX12:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-review
 
Last edited:
J

jerpers

Master
I am not blown away by the results so far. I am keen to see the results of some VR testing. I don't see my card not being able to cope for a good while yet but if the VR benchmarks yield positive results, I may be tempted, especially if developers start to push the limits a bit more and I start to stutter.
 
Oussebon

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
VR: http://www.roadtovr.com/nvidia-gtx-...performance-head-to-head-against-the-980ti/3/

Owners of GTX 980’s will see a substantial uplift in performance should they choose to upgrade and those 980Ti owners with deep pockets who are willing to dabble in overclocking will also see very worthwhile benefits too.
If your focus is purely VR however, the upgrade argument is perhaps less compelling at this stage. With application developers judiciously targeting performance well below the capabilities of the GTX 1080 for very good reasons, it’s hard to see the need for 1080 levels of raw grunt for a little while. However, if you do upgrade, you will find yourself with the performance headroom to maximise visual fidelity in VR for some titles right now and potentially more down the line.
Click to expand...
 
keynes

keynes

Multiverse Poster
jerpers said:
I am not blown away by the results so far. I am keen to see the results of some VR testing. I don't see my card not being able to cope for a good while yet but if the VR benchmarks yield positive results, I may be tempted, especially if developers start to push the limits a bit more and I start to stutter.
Click to expand...

Maybe overclocked versions will provide a more significant improvement in performance gaming wise
 
Oussebon

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
Though probably not founder's edition ones. Techpowerup's one hit 83 degrees on load before they even overclocked it, though they did maintain that temp and still OC it to get ~12% better performance.
 
S

Spuff

Expert
My 980ti also stays at 83 degrees on load. The fans do not go to 100% though. It clearly does what it needs to do to keep it at 83, but is happy to stay there rather than increase the fans to lower the temperature, so the fact that it might go to 83 before OC doesn't mean there isn't fan headroom to take it further.
 
Last edited:
Oussebon

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
Obviously. My criticism above is that there's a $100 premium for a card with a cooler that doesn't keep it below the 83 target under load. There's just no need to let the GPU run that warm. The only reason might be noise, but the fan is a design that doesn't prioritise quiet either and doesn't turn off on idle.

The guru3d and techpowerup OC sections aren't very inspiring as things stand, with temps, power limits, and the new Nvidia OC tools being mentioned as issues. We need to see what MSI, Asus, EVGA and the others are going to whip up. Whatever Nvidia used in their demo that was running at a stable 2.1Ghz with temps in the 60s wasn't a straight up founders edition. We'll need to wait a while for that "Crazy Overclocker" status to be confirmed.
 
Last edited:
W

Wozza63

Biblical Poster
Spuff said:
My 980ti also stays at 83 degrees on load. The fans do not go to 100% though. It clearly does what it needs to do to keep it at 83, but is happy to stay there rather than increase the fans to lower the temperature, so the fact that it might go to 83 before OC doesn't mean there isn't fan headroom to take it further.
Click to expand...

Interesting, people say AMD runs hot but my R9 390 maxes out at 75c overclocked and thats under the desk with no gap at the back for air to escape. I know its a less powerful card but just an observation. Used to run at 65 before I put it under the desk.
 
Oussebon

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
people say AMD runs hot but my R9 390 maxes out at 75c overclocked
Click to expand...
I was a little surprised by the 83 too. Perhaps the 980 ti is special. Or perhaps the temp target has been adjusted for OCing or fan profile reasons. the 2 970s in this house top out at 79, their target, when really pushed. And they're EVGA ones which are brilliant but not cards I would describe as cool. The 970 FTW+ bumbled around 73 in Valley yesterday. I didn't know people said the AMD 300 series runs hot, it was the 290(x?) running at 95 degrees on the reference cooler that really stood out.
 
S

Spiero

Active member
I'm personally not really too "blown-back" out of my seat by the comparison with the 980 ti on certain benchmarks with the founders edition card: it's simply an overclocked 980ti.
Also, it's not that great of a performance boost as they were boasting: "Better than 980 sli".

However, with manufacturers such as ASUS (Strix), MSI & EVGA going at it there might still be a chance of redemption even though this is the nr. 1 card that will be on the market.
 
W

Wozza63

Biblical Poster
Oussebon said:
I was a little surprised by the 83 too. Perhaps the 980 ti is special. Or perhaps the temp target has been adjusted for OCing or fan profile reasons. the 2 970s in this house top out at 79, their target, when really pushed. And they're EVGA ones which are brilliant but not cards I would describe as cool. The 970 FTW+ bumbled around 73 in Valley yesterday. I didn't know people said the AMD 300 series runs hot, it was the 290(x?) running at 95 degrees on the reference cooler that really stood out.
Click to expand...

390 = 290x if I recall correctly. I'm using the XFX, which is usually the cheapest and doesn't really have anything special in terms of cooling just 2 standard fans and a backplate. It does tend to idle fairly high. Its at 52 after being on all day which is because of the build up of warm air under the enclosed desk and fans sitting at 20%. That's a little higher than idle clock speeds as I'm watching 2 streams.

But I didn't realise how hot Nvidia cards ran, thought they were meant to be the cooler ones.
 
Oussebon

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
It varies. http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/81985-evga-geforce-gtx-970-super-superclocked/?page=10
The reason the R9 390 can be considered a cooler card than the R9 290x despite being kinda the same is because hardly any versions with blower coolers were released, unlike the 290x which with its original coolers caused temps to be very high.

This is what happens when you add a blower cooler to an R9 390:
http://www.custompcreview.com/reviews/xfx-radeon-r9-390-8gb-review-reference-style-cooling/28706/5/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top