Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Pascal Performance Review (Archive)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
a 1070 compared to the 970 was 64% faster at 1080p, 65% faster at 1440p and 79% faster at 4k based on reviews from a number of other sites that included it. the 970 really does not even compare to the 1070!!
 
So, this is the successor to the GTX 970, but you didn't include benchmarks for that card? Am I missing something here? How are us 970 owners supposed to see if this is worth the money?
Click to expand...

It beats 980 ti by a significant margin and at a lower price.. Which means it will obliterate 970. That means it's time to upgrade..
 

There are plenty of reasons for it, the main one being lack of time - assuming Chris even had a spare 970 on-hands.

Everyone who cares about the 970 should already know how it compares against the 980 and including it here would add very little value anyway. The regular reviews after the launch where there won't be so much pressure to get things done quickly will be able to afford broader benchmarking.
 


1080p is a waste with either a 1080 or 1070. that's why it is not included. if you are only playing 1080p, then stick with a 970 or wait for the 1060 to show up whenever that is. it's not worth the time t test just to say "look at that big number". if you REALLY need them, look for 980ti/titan x 1080p numbers and add a few to that. oh wait there are few of them as well, since they are also WAY overkill for 1080p.
Click to expand...
Heck, I bought a 950 card back in January as a holdover for these cards coming out. Turns out, I am happy with it. I'll be fine with that for 1080p gaming. I'll get a new monitor first, then get the fancy gpu
 
so let me get this straight, if I upgrade to a 1070, I wont even need to think about a upgrade until I get a 1440p or 144hz monitor? as it stands I have a 770, so I do need to upgraded in the near future.
 

I wouldn't I ran SLI 970's about a year ago and I didn't find it very enjoyable. I was much happier with the single 970. I would sell your 970 used and then just buy a 1070.
 
DX12, NVidia and ASync Compute...
Most people keep concluding that NVidia is way behind AMD in this area, however what you need to understand is that NVidia's new Pascal architecture is different from ASync Compute.

AotS is not optimized for NVidia's new architecture. They would have to rewrite some of the code, so NVidia can't magically make a fix for this. They may work with the game team however it is uncertain how much can be done at this point.

We do NOT have a clear understanding of AMD vs NVidia for DX12 yet, nor are we likely for quite some time. The game engine, game developer, and NVidia driver team are all instrumental in making this work.

I think most people expected DX12 to arrive and all of a sudden new games would run far better. That's NOT the case as we've seen with games like Tomb Raider that try to tack on some elements to a DX11 game.

There's a learning curve, it takes years to make a game properly, and much of DX12 isn't even properly coded for yet.

I don't expect to get a good indication of how this is panning out until sometime in 2017.

There is also a lot more than simply ASync Compute. What concerns me most for AMD (because I want them to succeed) is whether they put in the same hardware optimization for VR that NVidia did. NVidia can get up to 60% when a game uses their plugin (new GTX1080/1070 only).

This new hardware tweak has benefits for multiple monitors, but from what I understand it works so well for VR because both images (left eye and right eye) are very similar, essentially they are the same image with some elements offset. This takes advantage of that (more than 60% may even be possible but I'm guessing).

AMD's GPU design so far seems unable to reach the same frequencies as NVidia's (NVidia claims they spent a lot of engineering optimizing the distances of paths which is critical for stability at high frequencies). They can still make a product with good VALUE, however if true it will be very difficult to compete with NVidia on the high-end because yields get worse as die size increases and there is a maximum feasible die size anyway.

In the short term it looks like AMD may be the best $150 to $300 offering, and I look forward to see if that is true. I'm especially interested to see what their best APU for a laptop ends up being capable of with a Zen/Polaris, 14nm finfet design because Intel is a bit expensive, and AMD right now too hot to optimize for mobile.

I'm guessing up to the performance of a modern quad-core + GTX960 desktop in a mobile APU might be possible in 2017.
 


I thought Tomb Raider was DX12, not just Ashes.
Click to expand...

It has a DX 12 mode but in the "How we tested" section Tom's specifically states it used DX 11 mode. Either way, the DX 12 mode of Tomb Raider is broken and usually provide no performance benefit at best.

Side note, where the heck are the temps? We know the 1080 suffers from thermal throttling after 20 minutes, I'm guessing it's similar for the 1070?
 
You really should have put the 970 in these charts(along with the 380 for parity). Since this is the 970 replacement, it really should be there. Even tho its more expensive then the 970 so its not a direct replacement.

My biggest question. Do we have the same memory speed issue we had with the 970? Is it really 7 gigs of fast memory and 1 gig of slow memory? Did you test it?
 
1070 losing handidly in the Async Compute Games to Fury x. Sure the price is good compared to them, but this highlights nvidia's need to take async compute seriously moving forward. AMD's 16nm GPU's will smoke this in async compute games. And i'm a nvidia fan, so i think we all need to agree its something we want nvidia to concentrate on. And i also want them to work with Intel and bring NVLink to x86.

They can do it on motherboards, or they can work with intel and do it with the cpu itself.
 

A $380 GPU is losing at something compared to a $600 card? Who could imagine :ouch:
 
In Sweden pricing is no where near the msrp, the 1080 is priced at 900€ so all talks of value is marketing bs. At 400$ for the 1070 pricing should land at under 3500-4000sek but ill bet it will land at 5000 and thus out of reach for mid-market with only rich people left and they will probably pick the fasterst card (1080) and not the 1070
 


1080p is a waste with either a 1080 or 1070. that's why it is not included. if you are only playing 1080p, then stick with a 970 or wait for the 1060 to show up whenever that is. it's not worth the time t test just to say "look at that big number". if you REALLY need them, look for 980ti/titan x 1080p numbers and add a few to that. oh wait there are few of them as well, since they are also WAY overkill for 1080p.
Click to expand...
The main thing is that 1080p 144Hz monitors are much cheaper than 1440p monitors of the same kind. 1080p at 144Hz does require some decent graphics. 1070 should provide good performance but more demanding games like Witcher 3 will still not maintain 144Hz in 1080p with everything maxed out. I run 1440p 144Hz, but I respect that 1080p 144Hz is a much more affordable proper gaming setup.
 
1080 seems to be the only card that can handle 2560x1440 properly
(That is always MEETS 60fps)

It's still not a cheap card though.

1070... meh... who cares, doesn't hit 60fps at 2560x1440, and it total overkill at 1920x1080 (because you'll be bound by a monitor that is 60Hz at that res)

Nvidia is weird sometimes with their Card FPS to Monitor refresh to Card cost ratios.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't these the street prices for the GTX 980 and 970 last year?

GTX 980: $550

GTX 970: $350

I don't care how much more powerful the GTX 1080 and 1070 GPUs are than their predecessors. They should be at the same price points.
 
I think that the price tag in reality is much bigger and this cards are in nature realy expensive, EU price tag for inno 1080 for example is 940€, as for 1070 in reality price will be somewhere about 650€.
 
While I dont give a rats ... nose about VR, and I still mostly use FULL HD (there might be a reason to 4K now, but I still like old plasma better than 4k LEDs and OLED is too rich for my blood),

Having a very steady MINIMAL frame rate at maxed out details while using mods for better graphics? Maybe even 120FPS?

Id say count me in but I am REALLY tempted to wait and see what is Red's Team response.
 
I think that the price tag in reality is much bigger and this cards are in nature realy expensive, EU price tag for inno 1080 for example is 940€, as for 1070 in reality price will be somewhere about 650€.
Click to expand...

I wouldent be surprised at all.
Its not about what the right price is, but how much are people willing to pay for it.
Currently in Poland the cheapest version of a FURY X, bought online (again cheapest place) is 633,05 dollars.
Id expect the 1070 to be closer to 500 dollars than 350 when it hits the market here. Perhaps even higher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom