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

[none12345]

"if you are building a new pc on buget then is way to go"

A $450 card is in no way shape or form 'budget'. Even if it was the at the $380 price it may be a few months down the line, its still not a budget option.

Budget is like $100 cards, or maybe $200 cards. A $450 card is, i could buy whatever, but i really shouldnt spend twice as much for a lil more performance, so i'll buy the card with the better performance/price ratio.

 

[Aks_X]

For a 1080p gamer like me, I guess 1070 is probably an overkill.
Will wait for AMD Polaris' Reviews and would settle for the most Bang for buck, 1080p card.

 

[mpampis84]

"If it performs better than a 980 Ti, it costs more than a 980 Ti."

Master N. Vidia "The Great Book of I Like Money"

 

[hannibal]

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?

1080 founders edition has superior cooler compared to 1070 founders edition. That is why it runs so slow speed compared to 1080.
But sooner or later there will be better cooled versions out. And them it will be silicon lottery...

 

[kingform]

i want to see improvements to 4K benchmarks
one with AA on and another with AA completely off since it is the most sensible thing people would do the first time they crank it up to 4K

 

[Marcus52]

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?

I don't understand why someone can't figure out a video card that beats the GTX 980Ti would crush a GTX 970.

 

[Quixit]

Looks like a great card, even disregarding the "low for high-end" price.

 

[ajac09]

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?

Google and figure it out yourself? You act like they HAVE to do this for you.

 

[rush21hit]

All that disabled stuff yet still perform like a beast while ahead the top of Maxwells and high end GCN. Very impressive result.

If any 3rd party could actually stick with $380 on one of their variants, this thing will be a force to be reckon with. This means that every $300+ cards today would be forced to further devalue their respective price performance, a ripple that will also effect much further down.

Guys, I'm in tears of joy...it'd be only a matter of time now. Glorious moment! Thank you nVidia!

I hope AMD won't make us wait far too long for an answer for this.

 

[wizyy]

http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KTN8Zh4mrGwgZHTut8X4wN-650-80.jpg

 

[Math Geek]

http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/KTN8Zh4mrGwgZHTut8X4wN-650-80.jpg

thanks for this link. pretty much verifies the numbers i crunched myself between a bunch of reviews.

 

[tomc100]

Well since I only own a 1080p monitor it will be a while before I upgrade from my gtx 970. By then, the gtx 1080 will probably be $300. I just hope AMD doesn't take too long to respond to Nvidia otherwise they will lose market share like last time with the 900 series. AMD needs to get their act together and not allow Nvidia to corner the market again.

 

[lucas_7_94]

Well since I only own a 1080p monitor it will be a while before I upgrade from my gtx 970. By then, the gtx 1080 will probably be $300. I just hope AMD doesn't take too long to respond to Nvidia otherwise they will lose market share like last time with the 900 series. AMD needs to get their act together and not allow Nvidia to corner the market again.

GTX 1080 at $300? not today, and not in the future.

I would wait to see what AMD offer against NVIDIA new gpus, and then, make a choice. 970 still and will be a decent card for some years.

 

[vilor]

I wonder why they cut so much hardware this time.
980 ? 970 was 16 to 13 SMs 81.25% hardware left
1080 ? 1070 is 20 to 15 SMs 75% hardware left
And more difference from memory type.

The difference between 1070 and 1080 is way more than 970 to 980.
Performance scale is good but noticeable this time
But price difference seems same as 970 to 980.

I waited 1070 as a great value card. Even for 1080p.
1080p resolution for 3 years or even 1080p at 120hz

you need gtx 1070 for 1080p resolution also to crank up everything up, for more than one year or for more frames (120hz anyone?) or for VR.
Not everyone wants to play with 40 frames new games for only few months.

That means in 1 year 950/960 will not be able to do 1080 full details
and 970/980 will be phased out or buy “old”tech if the prices drop fast.
(we can always wait more for 1060 but that means new AMD options also)
1070 seems great for good pc at 1080p that may upgrade screen or keep it for 3 years
Not everyone buys 400+ euro cards for one year only.

 

[vilor]

The problem is the price though
Prices are joke.
1080 Founders Edition landed at 950 euro at my country (and to all Europe as i see from other posts).
1070 would be 650/700 euro same perspective.
Fury /X is like 500/620 euro
Availability is joke also, it’s like preorder than actual order (but I guess that makes price so high in all Europe).
And having official difference in prices between Founder edition and normal card is also a big joke of NVidia to us.
It’s like they say pay me for my cooler but DONT pay for the coolers of the other companies!
It’s either mocking their partners and us OR companies will NOT sell near MRSP for long time and try to stay at least near Founder edition price.
Customers will loose and trying to convince people the cards are a lot cheaper than reality.
Great Performance that is not available yet in normal quantities, they wanted to catch AMD and paper launched but also they want to milk customers at the same time!

 

[lucas_7_94]

The problem is the price though
Prices are joke.
1080 Founders Edition landed at 950 euro at my country (and to all Europe as i see from other posts).
1070 would be 650/700 euro same perspective.
Fury /X is like 500/620 euro
Availability is joke also, it’s like preorder than actual order (but I guess that makes price so high in all Europe).
And having official difference in prices between Founder edition and normal card is also a big joke of NVidia to us.
It’s like they say pay me for my cooler but DONT pay for the coolers of the other companies!
It’s either mocking their partners and us OR companies will NOT sell near MRSP for long time and try to stay at least near Founder edition price.
Customers will loose and trying to convince people the cards are a lot cheaper than reality.
Great Performance that is not available yet in normal quantities, they wanted to catch AMD and paper launched but also they want to milk customers at the same time!

Its the deal in every country from that. Example: Here in Argentina, the cost of GTX 1080 Founders Edition(no arrives yet, in 15 days will start the sales) is 1355 U$D (20k pesos argentinos). If they doesn't have the Founders, will give you the MSI, ASUS, or EVGA ACX 3.0 for exactly the same price (considering that the last mentioned are cheaper).

 

[bin1127]

Simple, if you are happy gaming at 1080, then it's not worth the money.
If you want to game at 2k, then it is worth the money.

1080 is 1920 vertical res = 2k.

 

[tomc100]

Well since I only own a 1080p monitor it will be a while before I upgrade from my gtx 970. By then, the gtx 1080 will probably be $300. I just hope AMD doesn't take too long to respond to Nvidia otherwise they will lose market share like last time with the 900 series. AMD needs to get their act together and not allow Nvidia to corner the market again.

GTX 1080 at $300? not today, and not in the future.

I would wait to see what AMD offer against NVIDIA new gpus, and then, make a choice. 970 still and will be a decent card for some years.

It's unlikely any game will come out in the near future that will make the gtx 970 become obsolete for 1080p gaming. So far the only one is Quantum Break which is due to poor porting. There's not many dx12 games on the horizon either. So I probably won't be upgrading for at least 3 years. By 3 years, I guarantee that the 1080 will be around $300.

 

[lucas_7_94]

Well since I only own a 1080p monitor it will be a while before I upgrade from my gtx 970. By then, the gtx 1080 will probably be $300. I just hope AMD doesn't take too long to respond to Nvidia otherwise they will lose market share like last time with the 900 series. AMD needs to get their act together and not allow Nvidia to corner the market again.

GTX 1080 at $300? not today, and not in the future.

I would wait to see what AMD offer against NVIDIA new gpus, and then, make a choice. 970 still and will be a decent card for some years.

It's unlikely any game will come out in the near future that will make the gtx 970 become obsolete for 1080p gaming. So far the only one is Quantum Break which is due to poor porting. There's not many dx12 games on the horizon either. So I probably won't be upgrading for at least 3 years. By 3 years, I guarantee that the 1080 will be around $300.

depends, i'm a gamer which obviously, i love to play in everything full max settings, but i'm sure you can put the settings on medium and get an smooth fps, but yes, now the cicle-life of the GPU has changed.

In conclusion : It depends on how you push yourself the GPU.

 

[kulmnar]

My 980 Ti feels underpowered and overpriced . I guess now I know how most Titan X owners felt when the 980 Ti came out lol!

 

[L0tus]

Great cards. Alas, the search for single-GPU 4k cards continues...

 

[TJ Hooker]

Simple, if you are happy gaming at 1080, then it's not worth the money.
If you want to game at 2k, then it is worth the money.

1080 is 1920 vertical res = 2k.

I used to think the same thing, and logically it makes sense, but 2k actually means 1440p. It's stupid (in my opinion), but for whatever reason the convention of 2k = 1440p has caught on.

 

[67168]

I would love to see 1080p charts added. A good reason is that most users are still on that resolution and it appears that the Pascal GPUs were designed with 4K resolutions in mind. Also, it would be helpful to see the GTX 970 (stock & overclock) and the R9 390 added to the charts as well. In addition, Witcher 3 is a good game to show, but newer more relevant titles some as Doom, would be very helpful.

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.

Unless you're logging into Second Life

 

[chalabam]

Unfortunately, I learned my lesson with the geforce 670: It had fantastic performance when it was brand new, but as soon as the next generation was released, NVIDIA stopped optimizing his drivers for the 670, and slower AMD cards turned faster than the 670 on long term.

So, the 1070 is a good buy today, but only if you update frequently. Otherwise AMD is a better long term bet.

 

[psiboy]

So you gave Nvidia a Hall Pass by only including one game with DX12?! Very disappointing! The benchmark for cars looks more than Nvidia optimized it loks AMD crippled.... Further unbiased investigation may be necessary.. you know.. like you used to do 20 years ago!