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

Page 119 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


the one to watch out for will be 1080ti. can two 490 be cheaper than one 1080ti while being faster than 1080ti in majority of tittles? in the past this is the reason why you go multi gpu with much cheaper card. take GTX460 for example. two of them are much cheaper than GTX480 while performance wise they were about 20% faster than GTX480.

also there is matter of game support. this is from RX480 CF review by TPU:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/21.html

The findings are interesting; when averaged among games that do scale, the RX 480 CrossFire is about 5-10% faster than a GTX 1070. However, only 6 out of 16 tests are taking advantage of the second card.
Click to expand...

 
Well if that is the case, I'm still green team then. I want a single gpu that will run 4k as well as possible. I haven't looked into red team much, but if the 490 is only supposed to be at the 1070 level, that helps me out.
 


I just assumed it would be similar to the last couple generations.

AMD's x80 competes with Nvidia's x60
AMD's x90 competes with Nvidia's x70
AMD's x90X competes with Nvidia's x80

We have already seen this to be true at least for the RX 480 and GTX 1060. I think it will be the same for the RX 490 and GTX 1070 and they will probably need a RX 490X or Fury replacement to compete with the GTX 1080.

I think it would be very surprising to see a RX 490 compete with a GTX 1080. If it does AMD will have a pretty massive performance gap in their lineup with nothing between GTX 1060 and GTX 1080 performance.

Also pricing would be weird. If the RX 490 was on a similar performance level to the GTX 1080 they would also want to charge something close to the $600-$650 that most 1080s go for. That would mean they have a $400 gap between RX 480 and RX 490 pricing.

When you look at all that it makes much more sense that the 490 will compete with the 1070 in both price and performance. That being said, if they could release something with 1080 performance at 1070 prices they would make a ton of people very happy.
 


Adding on:

New Fury/Fury X = GTX 1080 Ti/Titan X
 


now that is a very interesting development. a single slot 1070 should open the door to single slot everything else. no reason can't also do one for 1060 and 1050 cards if it can be done for a 1070.

but it does make sense if you consider that the laptop cards are supposed to be fully capable cards like desktop brothers. no massive coolers in a laptop either. so should be possible all the way to a 1080
 


But at a performance loss. They don't boost nearly as high and Pascal is very power efficient at lower clocks. My 1060 doesn't even get to 60C if the the clocks are at or below 1500MHz and that is with fans at 0%!
 
what kind of in game fps does the laptop ones lose? not really paid any attention to any reviews on them yet. is it enough of a loss to worry about overall?

i mean a single slot 1070 that only loses 4-5 fps over a full size one, is not really a big loss. but losing 15-20 fps would be a disappointment. i'd say a single slot card would be rather comparable to a laptop one due to the obvious hits it would have to take in boost speeds.
 
that's what i was thinking since that last few hundred mhz make so little difference anyway. so a single slot card that "only" boosts to 1800 mhz or so would take such a minimal performance hit that it is not really even worth talking about. someone who needs the single slot card, would be happy to get FE performance in a single slot solution. that's about all you'd lose overall it seems is that last few fps the custom cards get over the FE one.
 


Yep, the Pascal cards seem to run cooler than Maxwell in general, or at least that has been my experience so far. My EVGA SC 970 typically ran at 75-78 degrees depending on the game. Now I have a Gigabyte G1 1070 and it seems to top out at about 65 degrees under full load with the default fan curve.

The thing that makes this even more impressive is that my 970 was usually capped at 60 FPS with vsync so it wasn't even always running at 100% when it was pushing 75 degrees. Since getting my 1070 I have upgraded to a 1440p 144Hz G-Sync monitor so my GPU is almost always running at 99% core load since it can't maintain 144 FPS in most games.

Even with the 1070 at full load it still runs about 10 degrees cooler than the 970 that wasn't always maxed out. Of course, the Gigabyte G1 1070 might just have a better cooler than the EVGA SC 970. Either way, I'm very happy with it. My home office doesn't heat up nearly as much as it used to when I'm playing games.
 
EVGA seems to set a 75C thermal limit on their cards as a stock setting. My 1080 never breaches it, always backs off before it gets there. Hovers between 2012Mhz and ~1900Mhz under a full load and happily sits at 75C all day.
 


That could also be what is happening. My Gigabyte G1 doesn't automatically boost itself above 2GHz without overclocking. It usually boosts itself somewhere between 1925MHz and 1950MHz. The highest I have seen it do on it's own was 1985MHz. Maybe Gigabyte doesn't boost as high or the fan curve is set higher to keep it at 65 degrees.

For a while I had a manual overclock that would boost above 2000MHz and +500MHz on the memory clock without noticing much change in temperatures. I had some problems with Gigabyte's overclocking software bugging out and the LED color changes not working so I got fed up and uninstalled it. I originally planned to install MSI Afterburner or EVGA Precision X but my overclock was such a small increase over boost 3.0 that I didn't bother.
 
almost takes the fun out of it when it does it automatically. but for lazy folks like me or folks who don't know how to do it. boost 3.0 is a rather remarkable feature. it oc's almost as good as you can do manually on it's own and even drops back a bit if thermals get into play.

it's a dream come true for me anyway :)
 
Yeah, not much fun overclocking this go around.

Going to slap a water block on the card eventually, but I am waiting for Kaby-Lake to do a re-build. I expect it will just stay flat out at the 2012Mhz boost it seems comfortable with. Might try to coax a little more out of it, but there doesn't seem to be a strict need at the moment. Runs pretty much everything at 2K.
 
does make it hard to answer the "what is the best ______ card?" type questions. they all boost so well and most are plenty cool enough. folks want a definitive answer but there just is not one this time around. non oc any better, non get any extra fps worth mentioning and there are so many models and so many prices to chose from. freaking hate MSI and EVGA this time around for so many models that each perform almost identical.
 


I actually see that as a good thing. It means that you can just recommend whatever is offered at the best price. Since all the cards perform the same and none of the custom cards seem to have trouble with thermal throttling there isn't much reason to fall for an upsell option like the EVGA FTW, Gigabyte Xtreme Gaming, MSI Gaming Z, or one of the hybrid cooled cards.

Even though I said it doesn't really matter which card you choose I have no trouble recommending the Gigabyte G1 after my personal experience with it. It comes with premium features like chip sorting, RGB lighting, and a backplate while running cool and consistently sells at one of the lower price points available for the 1070. Amazon has it for $399.99 right now. I'm sure many people here could make similar points for the card they chose though.

The point is going with a cheaper option won't mean getting lower performance and that's great.

Edit: Amazon also has the Gigabyte Windforce 1070 for $379.99. Nice! That's a full size card for Nvidia's original announced MSRP.
 
oh ya i agree 100%, but some folks won't accept that as an answer. there just has to be one that is just a ton better than the others to many people.
this generation really evened things out a lot. every card is a good one and we get to go by looks and price above all else.
 


I'd say that the only significant factor with Pascal is noise and how much one is willing to pay for a silent card.

Otherwise the cheapest available on the market should be the obvious choice. Even though they might lose as much as 100MHz boost, the actual performance impact is minuscule.

EDIT: and, funnily enough, the Palit Game Rock 1080 is the cheapest and the most silent one. Weird.
 


And if people care about that extra 100MHz they can probably get it back by manually overclocking. Every 1070 and 1080 review I read said that they were able to get into the 2GHz-2.1GHz range. Since even the highest end cards seem to have the same overclocking limit they all even out if you are willing to do the overclocking.

You are right though, people may be able to get a quieter card by spending more even if the performance is the same.
 


Not exactly. Unless you disable Boost 3.0 somehow since it throttles automatically at certian temps.

I had two GTX 1060's. The cheap Palit Dual and now the MSI Twin Frozr.

Overcklocking both cards manually proved that the MSI can hold a higher boost clock because of a lower overall temperature. I went from ~1970MHz to ~2065MHz while gaming.

The Palit was in the low-mid 80's and pretty loud while the MSI sits in the low-mid 70's and is barely audible (both Overclocked and Overvolted, custom Fan Curves).

Funnily enough the Palit dual had a +175MHz offset and the MSI has only a +150MHz and it still ended up nearly 100MHz higher.

For the record: I went from good FPS to placebo better FPS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom