Gtx 1080

[tjanson]

You, and all the other people looking at upgrading from the 900-series.. I seriously don't understand you people. Yes, its new and shiny.
But do you need it? Especially the people that RECENTLY bought cards and are now drooling over the new cards.

It's been known new cards would appear around this or the next month since early february.
And anyone with the slighest knowledge of building computers could've told you so long before 2016.

Some people need to inform themselves better on what they are buying, for real.

Probable quotes from your ancestors:

"Ha! Who needs a 30" TV, when you can buy a 20" for so much less, and you can still see what's going on perfectly well? What a bunch of idiots."

"How absurd, who would spend money on one of these "autos" when a perfectly serviceable horse is so much cheaper?"

"Wheel dumb. Me use strong legs."

[Schattenlied]

As nice as their claims are, and even once the benchmarks come out, I am not buying anything until the AMD cards come out, and we get benchmarks for those as well... I would advise anyone else to do the same, unless you are illogical and only ever buy Nvidia anyways.

[Aberrict]

Be careful when parroting nvidia claims. All these claims of better performance than a titanx are based off VR benchmarks of very selective games.

The performance of the 970/980 in VR is nothing to brag about, which is why nvidia are using those comparisons. They simply display the best performance increase they can find.

I do recognize the misleading, if technically true, marketing tact of yelling about how the 1080 is TWICE THE SPEED OF TITAN X! while running VR...

Since we're on the subject let's do into some rough math of the 1080's performance.

We do know that this graph was benchmarked at 2560x1600 thanks to this dude.

The graph that compares the GTX 980 to the 1080 in the ‘performance’ tab doesn’t display exact numbers, meaning most readers are forced to estimate the values. I opened up the inspect element to view the width in pixels of the chart bars, and used simple math to determine the percentage difference. The GTX 1080 performs 70% better in Witcher 3 and 80% better at Rise of the Tomb Raider than the GTX 980, according to the benchmark. These benchmarks were conducted at max settings @ 2560×1600, according to a comment in the source.

So looking at Techspot's Witcher 3 2560x1600 benchmarks. The 980ti scores 51FPS average and the 980 40FPS average. With the 70% difference reported on the official 1080 page we get a speculative 68FPS for the 1080 in the same benchmark and a 28.57% percent difference between the 1080 and 980ti on that Witcher 3 bench.

The 1080 being 25%-30% higher performance over the 980ti sounds about right.

It's both a stupid thing to do. But if you really want to throw that money away at least this generation seems to OC well enough to somewhat warrant the "upgrade".

My point is that you could've prevented needing to spend money twice by just not buying a 900-series, and waited for 1000-series instead.
Like I said before, I'm running a 600-series with 1/4th the computing power of the new high end card. Very consciously waited and skipped 700/900-series cards for a decent enough upgrade.

That's a difference in purchasing strategy. You purchased a GPU and used it until you were no longer happy with its performance. There's nothing wrong with that.

I purchased a Asus 970 on launch day for $360. I will sell it for about half that. I'll use that $120-180 to buy a 1070 near launch. If it comes with game bundled like the 970 did. I'll sell that key for $20-30 and that means instead of buying a 1070 at $380. I'll have purchased it at $190-240. When the GTX 1170 announcement nears I'll aim sell the 1070 for $190-240. Which means the 1070 will have paid itself back and I'll have recouped my money.

You see? I'm not spending twice the money. I'm at a zero net loss or in the worst case down a few dozen dollars. While having enjoyed the 970 for it's full life span for half it's price and the 1070 for it's full life span for nothing/an negligible amount.

[Life-Binder]

Be careful when parroting nvidia claims. All these claims of better performance than a titanx are based off VR benchmarks of very selective games.

The performance of the 970/980 in VR is nothing to brag about, which is why nvidia are using those comparisons. They simply display the best performance increase they can find.

no

it was straight up stated BY NVIDIA that 1070 = Titan X, not just in VR (and the 1000 series are better then 900 in VR)


independant tests will show if its true, but it was not "based off of VR of selective games" (you are thinking of the 1080 = 2x Titan X claim, that was for VR .. 1070 = Titan X is not .. 1080 >= 980 SLI was also NOT with VR)

1070 and 1080 are just that powerful .. = Titan X and > Titan X, respectively


do people just want to downplay 1070 or what ?

its fine if a X70 card is as powerful as the previous non-OCed top card

[xskarma]

Let me just remind people this thread is about the new Nvidia card and not about if people are, or are not, spending their money wisely. Stay on topic.

[Eats Compost]

I have a 980ti, so I'm not going to get one for the time being unless I get my hands on VR. The specs and price point seem great, though. If the benchmark is even slightly accurate, then nVidia is out for blood!

[Jakexe]

no

it was straight up stated BY NVIDIA that 1070 = Titan X, not just in VR (and the 1000 series are better then 900 in VR)


independant tests will show if its true, but it was not "based off of VR of selective games" (you are thinking of the 1080 = 2x Titan X claim, that was for VR .. 1070 = Titan X is not .. 1080 >= 980 SLI was also NOT with VR)

1070 and 1080 are just that powerful .. = Titan X and > Titan X, respectively


do people just want to downplay 1070 or what ?

its fine if a X70 card is as powerful as the previous non-OCed top card

Calm down there.

All the graphics that I've seen from nvidia are stated to be using VR benchmarks. Until I see otherwise I'm not taking nvidias word on it. SLi doesn't even work with VR, so i'm not sure what you're on about there.

You say you're waiting for independent tests but it seems like you've already swallowed nvidia's marketing hype.

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

Time to start building my new baby!

[SLSAMG]

Fucken hell did not expect it to be $600. Thats cheap IMO.

Edit: Holy hell 1070 for $380.... Wow.

Cheap for Americans. Canadians will still pay 1K for the damn thing.

[Aberrict]

Calm down there.

All the graphics that I've seen from nvidia are stated to be using VR benchmarks. Until I see otherwise I'm not taking nvidias word on it. SLi doesn't even work with VR, so i'm not sure what you're on about there.

You say you're waiting for independent tests but it seems like you've already swallowed nvidia's marketing hype.

You didn't read my effort post

1080 benchmarks on Ashes of Singularity have leaked out.

Crazy (1080p) http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com...3-5b1efded9a8a

Extreme (1080p) http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com...0-2a5ded72442b

High (1080p) http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com...0-27a3334e688f

Crazy (1440p) http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com...e-199d6e00c4c6

[Deleted]

time to pick up a 970 for £100 methinks.

[Life-Binder]

All the graphics that I've seen from nvidia are stated to be using VR benchmarks.

well than you need to rewatch the Nvidia presentation with glasses on. There have been graphs for both VR and non-VR and clear statements which all sum up to the following:

- 1000 series is inherently better at VR and multi-monitor then 900

- 1070 = Titan X (outside VR) .. also - https://twitter.com/nvidia/status/728773098661543936
- 1080 >= regular 980 SLI (outside VR)
- 1080 = 2x Titan X (in VR)

You didn't read my effort post

1080 benchmarks on Ashes of Singularity have leaked out.

Crazy (1080p) http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...73-5b1efded9a8a

Extreme (1080p) http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...e0-2a5ded72442b

High (1080p) http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...30-27a3334e688f

Crazy (1440p) http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com...e-199d6e00c4c6

only the last link works for me

also how does this compare to the Fury X AotS benchmarks ?

[Jakexe]

You didn't read my effort post

1080 benchmarks on Ashes of Singularity have leaked out.

Crazy (1080p) http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com...3-5b1efded9a8a

Extreme (1080p) http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com...0-2a5ded72442b

High (1080p) http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com...0-27a3334e688f

Crazy (1440p) http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com...e-199d6e00c4c6

I did, it was a lot of speculation. Sounds about right tho.

Singularity numbers are interesting. 1080 is doing double a 980ti but only just pulling ahead of a R9 fury x.

well than you need to rewatch the Nvidia presentation with glasses on. There have been graphs for both VR and non-VR and clear statements which all sum up to the following:

- 1000 series is inherently better at VR and multi-monitor then 900

- 1070 = Titan X (outside VR) .. also - https://twitter.com/nvidia/status/728773098661543936
- 1080 >= regular 980 SLI (outside VR)
- 1080 = 2x Titan X (in VR)

So again it's all nvidia marketing. Until I see otherwise I'm not believing it on them saying it alone. I have no issue being wrong on this, i'll be happy if they have the performance they claim they do.

As for the bolded part how are they testing that when sli doesn't work with vr?

[Aberrict]

well than you need to rewatch the Nvidia presentation with glasses on. There have been graphs for both VR and non-VR and clear statements which all sum up to the following:

- 1000 series is inherently better at VR and multi-monitor then 900

- 1070 = Titan X (outside VR) .. also - https://twitter.com/nvidia/status/728773098661543936
- 1080 >= regular 980 SLI (outside VR)
- 1080 = 2x Titan X (in VR)





only the last link works for me

also how does this compare to the Fury X AotS benchmarks ?

I've fixed the links.

It appears to be 15% over the Fury X. We can't tell if it's at stock or overclocked or if it has any driver support at this time.

http://m.imgur.com/9Di9Gi7?r

[Life-Binder]

So again it's all nvidia marketing. Until I see otherwise I'm not believing it on them saying it alone.

thats fine, everyone will be waiting for the tests

but you were claiming earlier that the 1070 = Titan X bit was shown by them to be for VR only, which is false, so I corrected it

I dont see what the marketing issue is either, they gave clear statements on how powerful the new cards will be according to them (in VR and outside of it)

are you saying anything a company ever says is marketing bs or what ?


and the bolded - didnt say SLI, I said 2x .. 1080 would simply give 2x the performance of what Titan X does in VR

1080 is doing double a 980ti but only just pulling ahead of a R9 fury x.

sounds about right ? non-OC 1080 is ~25%+ faster then non-OC 980Ti, so it would be 25% (or less) faster then the Fury X in DX12

there may still be Async advantage to ATI, but its obviously not as big as with Maxwell (2x more then 980Ti in AotS proves that) and the raw power of 1000 is there as well

[Nutri]

I've been using double R9 290's in crossfire for almost 2 years now and I'm so... fed... up... with... crossfire...
Half the time it gives less fps than a single card or it's all flickering until AMD patches it out 10 weeks after release. Recent example is Division, but the flickering was real with Far Cry 4, Witcher 3, Fallout and what not. Consisted for weeks before it got fixed.

For Division tho, it still hasn't, and that game released om March 8th. The flickering might me gone, but in Crossfire it's -20fps compared to a singel gpu, lolz.

So I'm really done with Crossfire, and I'm done with AMD as well. Now Nvidia probably also has it's shortcomings but time and time again I've cursed my AMD cards for the past two years. I'll most likely sell these R9's and it'll hurt a lot since 2nd hand hardware prices are just blow but the annoyance I have with the cards and Crossfire cards will be well well worth the investment in what on paper looks like an awesome card that is the 1080.

[Life-Binder]

I never touched SLI/Crossfire from the start, saved myself so much headache


1 solid card for solid gaming

[Jakexe]

thats fine, everyone will be waiting for the tests

but you were claiming earlier that the 1070 = Titan X bit was shown by them to be for VR only, which is false, so I corrected it

I dont see what the marketing issue is either, they gave clear statements on how powerful the new cards will be according to them (in VR and outside of it)

are you saying anything a company ever says is marketing bs or what ?


and the bolded - didnt say SLI, I said 2x .. 1080 would simply give 2x the performance of what Titan X does in VR




sounds about right ? non-OC 1080 is ~25%+ faster then non-OC 980Ti, so it would be 25% (or less) faster then the Fury X in DX12

there may still be Async advantage to ATI, but its obviously not as big as with Maxwell (2x more then 980Ti in AotS proves that) and the raw power of 1000 is there as well

It was more a general statement about nvidia claims after seeing the graphs floating around with the *in vr cut off. Should've expanded on it.

And yes, I don't trust nvidia. In fact when it's the company talking about their products I tend to take everything with a grain of salt no matter the company. After the 970 4gb debacle every single claim they make shouldn't be taken at face value.

[Nutri]

I never touched SLI/Crossfire from the start, saved myself so much headache


1 solid card for solid gaming

And you never ever should haha. Learned that the hard way.
From now on one solid card and thats it!

[AgesPast0]

So tempted to get a 1080 but Gsync monitors are so expensive! Had my 670 for 4 years now and I've been waiting patently.

Come on AMD, give me a good 1070 card and a cheaper freesync monitor.