Gtx 1080 Non-Founders edition boards

[Kagthul]

Where did you order?

directly from EVGA. 619$

[Reeve]

Do you raid too? A lot of sprites will slow your screen down if you don't have a good card, even if you normally run at 60FPS

I haven't really raided at all since the Firelands. I briefly did a little in Dragon Soul, but the guild I was in fell apart at that point and I couldn't be bothered to find a new one. I decided I'd rather not be locked into 2-3 nights per week where I have to be there.

Nowadays, I'm not even sure if I could keep up in a raid. I'd probably be fine after a couple weeks, but it'd take me some time to get back in the swing of things, to get my interfaces set up correctly, etc. I don't really play WoW at all, and mostly stick to single player games.

Right now I'm actually replaying Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura. It's so old that I had to spend 4 hours troubleshooting it it get it to work on my Windows 10 computer. I had to apply the Unofficial Patch, the Windowed Mode patch (doesn't work anymore outside of Windowed mode on Windows 10), put it into compatibility mode for Windows XP SP2, run as administrator, set up the shortcut with -no3D and -doublebuffer, and switch my monitor's resolution to 800x600. It's obnoxious, but totally worth it for such a great oldschool Fallout 1 style game.

[Lathais]

Wow, a bit touchy? I never suggested the 270X outperformed the 390X. I was just asking what people were using these high end cards for.

I have a 1080p monitor, not 1440p, and the only one of those games I play is GTA V, and then only very occasionally. Seems to run fine on Ultra, but then I'm also pretty comfortable with 40 FPS.

Yet you claimed:

I'm curious what games/programs people are using that require such beastly graphics cards. I still seem to be running everything on Ultra just fine with my R9 270X.

That's something the 390X is not capable of, so yeah, you kinda did.

Also, sorry if I came off "touchy" or crass. I am extremely tired and grouchy today. It was an absurd claim you made though, a 270X running everything just fine on Ultra. That;s like me saying my 960 runs everything just fine on Ultra. Most things it does pretty well on Ultra. More demanding Modern games it does ok at Med-High. That's a far cry from "everything" though.

[Eroginous]

Does anyone know when non-founders edition gtx 1080 will be available? I am sick of seeing 900 dollar overpriced founders editions in limited quantities. I am ok paying 599, but 899? I'll just stick with my gtx 780 (still a beast)

Current pricing is a reflection of new production limiting available quantity. You have to give it time for distribution to catch up to demand before you can expect to see pricing coming down.

[Reeve]

Yet you claimed:



That's something the 390X is not capable of, so yeah, you kinda did.

Also, sorry if I came off "touchy" or crass. I am extremely tired and grouchy today. It was an absurd claim you made though, a 270X running everything just fine on Ultra. That;s like me saying my 960 runs everything just fine on Ultra. Most things it does pretty well on Ultra. More demanding Modern games it does ok at Med-High. That's a far cry from "everything" though.

"Everything" that I play. That's why I was asking what other people play that wouldn't run fine on my 270X and requires something like a GTX 1080.

[Lathais]

"Everything" that I play. That's why I was asking what other people play that wouldn't run fine on my 270X and requires something like a GTX 1080.

Everything and everything that you play are 2 entirely different things. Anyway, I gave 3 examples already, there are plenty more though. Heck, even heavily modded Skyrim can bring top of the line GPUs to their knees. There's plenty out there that is demanding and worthy of a 1080, especially if you take 1440p in to consideration, not to mention trying to play at 4k.

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

Follow this site https://www.nowinstock.net/computers...vidia/gtx1080/

That's about all i got for you. I got my gtx 1080 already, was a founder's edition but the site tracks both.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

"Everything" that I play. That's why I was asking what other people play that wouldn't run fine on my 270X and requires something like a GTX 1080.

Resolution plays the biggest role. 1080p is still pretty much industry standard (I mean consoles are just getting into it and they set the stage more or less) and a 270X handles that resolution pretty damn well. Specifically if you have a monitor with a standard refresh rate like 60.

1080p is 1k. 1440p is 2k. It goes on up to 4k and eventually even more.

So a 1080p monitor only has to push the pixils of a 1k. A 2k is for all intensive purposes of this discussion double that. 4k is double of 2k and quaduple of a 1080p. So as that goes up the amount that video card has to render and project explodes upward. Then you add in refresh rates. Stanard is 60. But you have 120, 144, and even higher these days. This means the screen have show you that amount of frames per second. Again, 60 is the standard and really good enough. The higher you go does reduce somethings, it can make it look better, and maybe help with proformance but honestly it isn't life or death.

So your 1k setup is still an awsome gaming experince. The standard. The 270X is excellent for a 1080p setup specifically someone with a 60 htz refresh rate monitor and even further so for someone not to worried about 60+ FPS all the time.

A lot of people these days are pushing 2k+ with 120+ refresh rates. By no means required to enjoy games but it does look and feel better. For those people you really do need a 980ti plus graphics card (not sure what the AMD equal is, but its just a good). A 1080 and its AMD other is just another step in that direction for 2k + gaming. For 1080p honestly its almost a waste of money unless of course your card craps out and you might as well by the current gen card (although for 1080p you might as well go 1070 for this example if you went current gen).

[Lathais]

Resolution plays the biggest role. 1080p is still pretty much industry standard (I mean consoles are just getting into it and they set the stage more or less) and a 270X handles that resolution pretty damn well. Specifically if you have a monitor with a standard refresh rate like 60.

1080p is 1k. 1440p is 2k. It goes on up to 4k and eventually even more.

So a 1080p monitor only has to push the pixils of a 1k. A 2k is for all intensive purposes of this discussion double that. 4k is double of 2k and quaduple of a 1080p. So as that goes up the amount that video card has to render and project explodes upward. Then you add in refresh rates. Stanard is 60. But you have 120, 144, and even higher these days. This means the screen have show you that amount of frames per second. Again, 60 is the standard and really good enough. The higher you go does reduce somethings, it can make it look better, and maybe help with proformance but honestly it isn't life or death.

So your 1k setup is still an awsome gaming experince. The standard. The 270X is excellent for a 1080p setup specifically someone with a 60 htz refresh rate monitor and even further so for someone not to worried about 60+ FPS all the time.

A lot of people these days are pushing 2k+ with 120+ refresh rates. By no means required to enjoy games but it does look and feel better. For those people you really do need a 980ti plus graphics card (not sure what the AMD equal is, but its just a good). A 1080 and its AMD other is just another step in that direction for 2k + gaming. For 1080p honestly its almost a waste of money unless of course your card craps out and you might as well by the current gen card (although for 1080p you might as well go 1070 for this example if you went current gen).

2k and 1440p are not the same thing.

2K resolution is a generic term for display devices or content having horizontal resolution of approximately 2,000 pixels.[1] Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) defines 2K resolution standard as 2048×1080.[2][3]

In fact, 2k is becoming shorthand for 1080p, since it refers to the horizontal number of pixels, which in 1080p is 1920 which is almost 2000, hence 2k. 1440p is it's own resolution that has nothing to do with 2k. Here's a short list of resolutions and what they are often called:


1280×720 (HD, 720p)
1920×1080 (FHD, Full HD, 2K 1080p)
2560×1440 (QHD, WQHD, Quad HD, 1440p)
3840×2160 (UHD, Ultra HD, 4K, 2160p)
7680×4320 (FUHD, Full Ultra HD, 8K, 4320p)

[Deleted]

Considering that even WoW can make a GTX960 cry when driving 1080p in raids, then a GTX1080 may not be that much overkill even for 'just' a single 1440p monitor.

Though I am not in any great hurry, then I am thinking about replacing my '970 with a '1080, as the latter has about twice the graphics performance, compared to the former.

[Jakexe]

Had a choice between the Asus strix 1080 and the msi gaming x, went with the msi. Cheaper for equal performance. I'll bench it like usual once it's installed but i'm not water cooling it so I'm not expecting anything insane.

[Noctifer616]

Considering that even WoW can make a GTX960 cry when driving 1080p in raids, then a GTX1080 may not be that much overkill even for 'just' a single 1440p monitor.

That has nothing to do with the GPU. It's a CPU bottleneck. The outside world in WoW is far more demanding on the GPU than raids are. With Ultra settings at 1080p my 7970 can struggle at times, but in raids it's load sits around 50-60%.

A GTX1080 is more than enough even for 4k when it comes to WoW.

Don't mix GPU and CPU bottlenecks.

[Deleted]

That has nothing to do with the GPU. It's a CPU bottleneck. The outside world in WoW is far more demanding on the GPU than raids are. With Ultra settings at 1080p my 7970 can struggle at times, but in raids it's load sits around 50-60%.

Depending on the PC it can be both or either the CPU or GPU, which bottlenecks in situations with many active players in a small-ish area. There is a reason why the game has an optional secondary graphics setup for instanced content.

I have tested this fairly extensively. If I actually crank all the graphics settings up into the stratosphere ('Ultra'), then my setup struggles to deliver a steady 60 fps, even when alone in my garrison and with the CPU running at about 40% (load spread evenly across all 4 cores). I was messing with this as late as last night on Live, and even in 1440p and 4x MSAA you can still see the occasional jagged edge on grass and other slim objects. So even more AA would be welcome, but my '970 doesn't really want to go there, if I insist on a fluid 60 fps at all times.

Haven't logged into the PTR yet. Will be interesting to see how the new graphics engine performs with my setup.

[Lathais]

Depending on the PC it can be both or either the CPU or GPU, which bottlenecks in situations with many active players in a small-ish area. There is a reason why the game has an optional secondary graphics setup for instanced content.

I have tested this fairly extensively. If I actually crank all the graphics settings up into the stratosphere ('Ultra'), then my setup struggles to deliver a steady 60 fps, even when alone in my garrison and with the CPU running at about 40% (load spread evenly across all 4 cores). I was messing with this as late as last night on Live, and even in 1440p and 4x MSAA you can still see the occasional jagged edge on grass and other slim objects. So even more AA would be welcome, but my '970 doesn't really want to go there, if I insist on a fluid 60 fps at all times.

Haven't logged into the PTR yet. Will be interesting to see how the new graphics engine performs with my setup.

Alone in your Garrison is not really alone due to the way phasing works. Every other person who is in their garrison is pretty much right on top of you and your system is doing some work because of that, you are just not seeing anyone.

[Deleted]

Alone in your Garrison is not really alone due to the way phasing works. Every other person who is in their garrison is pretty much right on top of you and your system is doing some work because of that, you are just not seeing anyone.

The load of the GPU has *absolutely nothing* to do with whether you are in a phased zone or not. The GPU only cares about what actually needs to be rendered, once filtered out by the CPU.

I just tested this on Live. Again. It seems I didn't go totally HAM on the settings in my previous tests. Now I cranked everything up to 'You Have Got To Be Kidding?!', particularly with respect to AA, and the FPS is now around 20 - give or take - *everywhere* in Draenor. CPU load changes between 20 and 40%, depending on number of objects in the frame, as you would expect. (That is why I have been testing in the garrison so far, incidentally). There was absolutely zero, zilch, nada difference in average FPS as I jumped on a taxi and flew out across the border from the Garrison zone and down to Karabor. It now always hovers somewhere in the 18-22 FPS range, with the odd excursion slightly higher or lower.

Yeah, I could use more GPU power. A '970 has about the same processing power per pixel as a '960 driving 1080p, so no big surprise here.

[Noctifer616]

The load of the GPU has *absolutely nothing* to do with whether you are in a phased zone or not. The GPU only cares about what actually needs to be rendered, once filtered out by the CPU.

I just tested this on Live. Again. It seems I didn't go totally HAM on the settings in my previous tests. Now I cranked everything up to 'You Have Got To Be Kidding?!', particularly with respect to AA, and the FPS is now around 20 - give or take - *everywhere* in Draenor. CPU load changes between 20 and 40%, depending on number of objects in the frame, as you would expect. (That is why I have been testing in the garrison so far, incidentally). There was absolutely zero, zilch, nada difference in average FPS as I jumped on a taxi and flew out across the border from the Garrison zone and down to Karabor. It now always hovers somewhere in the 18-22 FPS range, with the odd excursion slightly higher or lower.

Yeah, I could use more GPU power. A '970 has about the same processing power per pixel as a '960 driving 1080p, so no big surprise here.

If you are using the most demanding AA option (SSAA) then yea, no wonder you are GPU bound. At 4x SSAA you basically rendering everything at 4 times higher resolution, so at 1440p you are rendering about 70% more pixels than with 4k resolution.

[Deleted]

If you are using the most demanding AA option (SSAA) then yea, no wonder you are GPU bound. At 4x SSAA you basically rendering everything at 4 times higher resolution, so at 1440p you are rendering about 70% more pixels than with 4k resolution.

We are digressing from the main point I was trying to make earlier in the thread.

Currently, depending on your exact PC configuration, you can be either CPU or GPU bound, or both. On live, with near zero spell effects visible in my garrison, I get about 75-80 ish fps with AA set near the lowest it will go, and vsync off. The 'overhead' above the preferred target value of 60 fps shows how far I am from running out of GPU power, IE. not terribly.

If I go into a raid with these settings, then I absolutely _can_ experience fps drops and stuttering, which are due to my GPU running out of steam. Yet even with the 'low' AA settings I can still perceive jagged edges, so I wouldn't mind being able to turn AA up higher. For that I would need more GPU power.

I also cranked the AA settings for a different reason: People constantly claim that a '960 will run WoW in 1080p at 60 fps with all settings on 'Ultra'. Clearly this cannot be correct.

[Noctifer616]

I also cranked the AA settings for a different reason: People constantly claim that a '960 will run WoW in 1080p at 60 fps with all settings on 'Ultra'. Clearly this cannot be correct.

It actually is correct considering AA is not impacted by the slider. Also, there are settings which can't be configured at all trough the video settings, so even if you max everything in the video settings you still don't play it maxed out.

[Deleted]

It actually is correct considering AA is not impacted by the slider. Also, there are settings which can't be configured at all trough the video settings, so even if you max everything in the video settings you still don't play it maxed out.

OK, fair enough, but in this case the community ought to have a fixed guideline for benchmarking WoW and other games, for the sake of comparison. I have always understood 'Ultra' settings as referring to every (visible) graphics and audio quality setting cranked up to max.

Otherwise we are comparing apples to oranges. I haven't found a single slider in WoW, which controls every available setting, though maybe it is I, who am missing the obvious.

[Bethrezen]

Just built a new system with an i7 5960X cpu, Noctua NH-D15 with Rampage V Extreme mobo, 64gb G skill RAM , and still using samsung 850 2tb SSD. But still using a GTX 480 plain, trying DESPERATELY to find stock of two of the new ASUS GTX 1080 STRIX ROG GPU boards. (((((((((((

Money is not an issue.