Nvidia GeForce GTX 1000 Series (Pascal) MegaThread: FAQ and Resources

[turkey3_scratch]

No I think it's binned well for overclocking.

 

[maxalge]

Does the "Founders" edition card, simply mean Reference?

supposedly it's a super special overclocking version



XD I'm surprised no one commented on my pic, guess i'm too geeky

 

[rcald2000]

@maxalge, I'm a huge DS9 fan. Very witty post. FYI: Netflix finally re-rendered the entire Star Trek series to sharpen the videos. Quality is now acceptable.

 

[mr91]

Does the "Founders" edition card, simply mean Reference?

supposedly it's a super special overclocking version



XD I'm surprised no one commented on my pic, guess i'm too geeky

Might be the new reference standard, perhaps nvidia will charge a bit more and offer better quality cards...

With pascal do we really need better coolers than the founders reference if the card can function over 2000 mhz under 70 degrees?

 

[maxalge]

@maxalge, I'm a huge DS9 fan. Very witty post. FYI: Netflix finally re-rendered the entire Star Trek series to sharpen the videos. Quality is now acceptable.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Do you think non reference cards will be priced closer to the Founders Edition price point?

I see what you did there.

 

[17seconds]

The GTX 1080 Ti with a full GP100 chip will be released within weeks of AMDs Volta (FuryX replacement), thus once again raining on AMDs parade. It will be completely dependent on AMDs plans.
(Refer to the GTX 980 Ti vs. FuryX and GTX 780 Ti vs. 290X release schedules.)

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I'm still quite disappointed that Pascal has (at least the 1080) higher power requirements than Maxwell. I was hoping we'd be getting to the era with a GTX 1060 with no PCIe cable requirements, but it seems it won't be this year.

Also, like Bignastyid said, with the die shrink to 16nm they if they wanted to could have 5X the performance of Maxwell. It's obvious both Nvidia and AMD hold back from what they really can do.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

The GTX 1080 Ti with a full GP100 chip will be released within weeks of AMDs Volta (FuryX replacement), thus once again raining on AMDs parade. It will be completely dependent on AMDs plans.
(Refer to the GTX 980 Ti vs. FuryX and GTX 780 Ti vs. 290X release schedules.)

For 4K the FuryX competes with the 980Ti well. 780Ti vs 290X is not a fair comparison, the 780Ti is more expensive. Cards are priced accordingly as they should, if anything Nvidia only rains on their own parades by releasing X80Ti versions that crush their own Titans for the money.

 

[Deleted member 217926]

The GTX 1080 Ti with a full GP100 chip will be released within weeks of AMDs Volta (FuryX replacement), thus once again raining on AMDs parade. It will be completely dependent on AMDs plans.
(Refer to the GTX 980 Ti vs. FuryX and GTX 780 Ti vs. 290X release schedules.)

For 4K the FuryX competes with the 980Ti well. 780Ti vs 290X is not a fair comparison, the 780Ti is more expensive. Cards are priced accordingly as they should, if anything Nvidia only rains on their own parades by releasing X80Ti versions that crush their own Titans for the money.

Stock price: NVDA (NASDAQ) $35.33 +0.36 (+1.03%)
May 6, 4:00 PM EDT - Disclaimer

Stock price: AMD (NASDAQ) $3.68 +0.02 (+0.55%)
May 6, 4:00 PM EDT - Disclaimer


Hmmm, raining on their own parade seems to be working

 

[rcald2000]

@turkey3_scratch I too was hoping that power consumption would be lowered with the Pascal and Volta architectures. Not the biggest deal with one GPU, but two to three makes it a major factor.

 

[TheConsiderateIlliterate]

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gtx-1080-asynchronous-compute/

"According to the official statement, the GTX 1080 is fully capable of performing Async Compute."

 

[TheConsiderateIlliterate]

http://videocardz.com/59718/nvidia-gtx-1080-gtx-1070-founders-edition-explained

"Well to put this as short as possible, Founders Edition is nothing more than typical reference edition. It is not using higher quality components, it is not overclocked nor does it use higher binned chips. It simply is reference edition that will ship before custom solutions.

Rather than sell new polygonal reference design at lower price, NVIDIA decided to treat it as special edition and sell it for more money. However it does not mean it will be anyhow better than future modified versions of GTX 1080, nor that there are two ‘polygonal’ versions of GTX 1080."

 

[Math Geek]

I'm still quite disappointed that Pascal has (at least the 1080) higher power requirements than Maxwell. I was hoping we'd be getting to the era with a GTX 1060 with no PCIe cable requirements, but it seems it won't be this year.

Also, like Bignastyid said, with the die shrink to 16nm they if they wanted to could have 5X the performance of Maxwell. It's obvious both Nvidia and AMD hold back from what they really can do.

think you are making a slightly unfair comparison between the 1080 and 980. consider that the 1080 beats a titan x by a long shot and the titan x is a 250w card. from that perspective they beat the 250w card with a 180w one. that's progress if you ask me

i still have hope that the lower end cards may still get below 75w for perhaps a 960/970 range of card. that's still great performance for little power.

 

[Math Geek]

and thanks for the heads up Mr. illiterate. was out all day with my mom and missed this piece of info released today. posted it to the op.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I'm still quite disappointed that Pascal has (at least the 1080) higher power requirements than Maxwell. I was hoping we'd be getting to the era with a GTX 1060 with no PCIe cable requirements, but it seems it won't be this year.

Also, like Bignastyid said, with the die shrink to 16nm they if they wanted to could have 5X the performance of Maxwell. It's obvious both Nvidia and AMD hold back from what they really can do.

think you are making a slightly unfair comparison between the 1080 and 980. consider that the 1080 beats a titan x by a long shot and the titan x is a 250w card. from that perspective they beat the 250w card with a 180w one. that's progress if you ask me

i still have hope that the lower end cards may still get below 75w for perhaps a 960/970 range of card. that's still great performance for little power.

Yeah but one year from now the 1050 for instance won't be "great performance" they'll be low to mid-range cards instead. Right now they might be because we are comparing them to out current cards, but once they replace them they are the new mid range cards.

I think they had the potential to do more with efficiency.

 

[Jonathan Cave]

Can i clear something up which has my head battered!!!!

Is the only card you can buy from NVIDIA (Non partner) is the $699 founders card?

i.e. the MSRP $599 for the 1080 is the lowest partners can sell their cards at?

Nvidia causing me a headache!

 

[maxalge]

Can i clear something up which has my head battered!!!!

Is the only card you can buy from NVIDIA (Non partner) is the $699 founders card?

i.e. the MSRP $599 for the 1080 is the lowest partners can sell their cards at?

Nvidia causing me a headache!

the founders card is a special overclocking version, that's it

 

[renz496]

They said the founder edition is just regular reference card. No special treatment on it other than the metal shroud.

 

[Wayfall]

The only thing I'm wondering is that is their going to be a GTX 1070 and if so is it basically going to be like the current GTX 970 (which I own) as in power for the price compared to the 1080 version.

Do you think people should go full blown and just get the 1080 so they don't have to upgrade for god knows how long?

Regards

 

[Rabmac]

I have not read the entire thread so apologies if this has already been mentioned.

Moving on, I noticed the graph used in the presentation showed Power vs Relative Gaming Performance. Is it just me, or does anyone else think the metric of "Relative Gaming Performance" is very cryptic and could be misleading? Personally I have never saw this metric and don't think it really tells us anything.

 

[TheConsiderateIlliterate]

I have not read the entire thread so apologies if this has already been mentioned.

Moving on, I noticed the graph used in the presentation showed Power vs Relative Gaming Performance. Is it just me, or does anyone else think the metric of "Relative Gaming Performance" is very cryptic and could be misleading? Personally I have never saw this metric and don't think it really tells us anything.

I think it could be misleading. It is not defined what's considered in that metric. You really have to take the self promoted stuff with a grain of salt as not all the fine print and disclosures are displayed.

Once that presentation got over I pretty much had my wallet in my hand. Now that time has passed, I realized most of the BIG talk was related to VR (which I'm holding off on until it matures a little). I really want to see what AMD has to offer and some unbiased benchmarks before making a decision as to what is right for me.

 

[sharndowg]

Yes it's very cryptic. It seems though they may be talking about VR. This seems to be where these cards really excel compared to Maxwell and i wouldn't be surprised if that's what they are measuring. This is an interesting chart i came across, comparing GTX 980 and 1080. VR has real improvement over last gen. I'm guessing the GTX 1070 would possibly slot in at something like 80-85% of the 1080.

taken from http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/05/07/nvidias-new-graphics-cards-are-priced-for-blood/#7184f70625d0

 

[advancedmixedgaming]

Wait. For these cards, what Intel CPU would begin to bottleneck the 1070? Would i5 4690k begin to struggle to keep up? OC in order to keep up?

 

[James Mason]

Wait. For these cards, what Intel CPU would begin to bottleneck the 1070? Would i5 4690k begin to struggle to keep up? OC in order to keep up?

You'd probably still be fine with an i3 for a 1070, unless they start making games that are even more heavily dependent on CPU power.

Your i5 is fine, and you can OC it a little to make up for any gaps.