Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Pascal Performance Review

[cangelini]

Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1080 is the company's Pascal-based flagship, but its upcoming GTX 1070 is bound to turn more heads with a $449 price tag and GeForce GTX Titan X-like performance.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Pascal Performance Review : Read more

 

[adamovera]

Archived comments are found here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-3073584/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-pascal-performance-review.html

 

[gromann]

Fury X is going for $399-449 as of yesterday on Newegg.

 

[nitrium]

So given the simultaneously lower price and higher performance of the partner boards, only an actual idiot would buy the "Founder's Edition" GTX 1070?

 

[George Phillips]

I feel that I should regret getting MSI 1070 FE. MSI's custom designs perform superior then FE cards in every way. Very impressive. Asus and Gigabyte's custom designs must also do better than FE cards.

 

[Krushe]

When you're talking about the heat on FE cards. I think the default fan speed is 45-50% at 83c. Make it 80% and the card never reaches 70c even with boost clock up to 1900+. What speeds are the MSI fans running at during your temp measurements?

 

[DookieDraws]

Edit: The article has been updated, so I deleted my original comment about the MSI GPU.

 

[Tony Casagrande]

"This means that the lowest possible GPU Boost clock rate step gets eliminated from the bottom of the BIOS’ table. So, if you want an additional space at the top, you need to make room for it by getting rid of the very bottom one."

If it were me, I would have removed a low to middle clock rate instead of the very lowest to get both the low idle power consumption and the OC speed.

 

[straatkat]

Still annoyed that they posted this review without including the 970 as a baseline.

 

[neblogai]

Regarding the possible audible noise because of power spikes on PEG: it is not really about cheap MB, but about using analog audio out of MB, and not anything digital, right?
Also, about overclocking: I think reviews of all these new generation nVidia and AMD cards should include average clock that cards operated when doing all game benchmarks. Official boost clock numbers are a bit useless, because AMD cards run games at below boost clocks, and average for nVidia GTX1070 is above boost clocks. Having just official boost clock numbers make it difficult to evaluate overclocking potential and make real gains look much bigger or smaller than expected.

 

[Calculatron]

Am I the only one that noticed that the Founder's Edition cards managed to pull over 75 watts from the motherboard PCIe slot and that no one went bonkers over it?

 

[TJ Hooker]

Am I the only one that noticed that the Founder's Edition cards managed to pull over 75 watts from the motherboard PCIe slot and that no one went bonkers over it?

It has narrow peaks that go over 75 W, as have a number of cards in the past. For the most part, what people were concerned about with the RX 480 was that average power was over 75 W. Whether that concern was warranted... well that's another question.

 

[avatar_raq]

The last page needs to be updated as well.
"Missing out on power consumption, operating temperatures and noise due to the constraints of Computex leaves us with an incomplete picture of GeForce GTX 1070, though we can certainly make some assumptions."
You added those pages.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I don't see why people bought the Founder's Edition. This is just proof how much better aftermarket coolers are.

 

[jtd871]

Looking forward to reviews of 3rd party cards from other vendors.

 

[Calculatron]

It has narrow peaks that go over 75 W, as have a number of cards in the past. For the most part, what people were concerned about with the RX 480 was that average power was over 75 W. Whether that concern was warranted... well that's another question.

Yep, and that's why I am poking fun at it.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Yeah the same could be said about anything. An aftermarket GTX 1080 reaches 400W. But that's only a rare thin spike.

 

[d_s_c_8]

TJ Hooker said:
It has narrow peaks that go over 75 W, as have a number of cards in the past. For the most part, what people were concerned about with the RX 480 was that average power was over 75 W. Whether that concern was warranted... well that's another question.


The GTX 1070 Founder Edition averages 75 watts but realistically has a 65 watt limit.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

TJ Hooker said:
It has narrow peaks that go over 75 W, as have a number of cards in the past. For the most part, what people were concerned about with the RX 480 was that average power was over 75 W. Whether that concern was warranted... well that's another question.


The GTX 1070 Founder Edition averages 75 watts but realistically has a 65 watt limit.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[d_s_c_8]

TJ Hooker said:
It has narrow peaks that go over 75 W, as have a number of cards in the past. For the most part, what people were concerned about with the RX 480 was that average power was over 75 W. Whether that concern was warranted... well that's another question.


The GTX 1070 Founder Edition averages 75 watts but realistically has a 65 watt limit.

That doesn't make any sense.

From page 7 of the review:

"Taking a closer look at the motherboard slot yields a surprising finding: none of the cards in this round-up use the 3V rail at all. This means that the PCIe slot doesn’t really provide the 75W most enthusiasts assume it does, since the 12V rail only offers about 65W on its own."

 

[neblogai]

"Taking a closer look at the motherboard slot yields a surprising finding: none of the cards in this round-up use the 3V rail at all. This means that the PCIe slot doesn’t really provide the 75W most enthusiasts assume it does, since the 12V rail only offers about 65W on its own."

That is about the PCIe spec at 12V, not the power usage of cards in the test.

 

[d_s_c_8]

"Taking a closer look at the motherboard slot yields a surprising finding: none of the cards in this round-up use the 3V rail at all. This means that the PCIe slot doesn’t really provide the 75W most enthusiasts assume it does, since the 12V rail only offers about 65W on its own."

That is about the PCIe spec at 12V, not the power usage of cards in the test.

That is exactly my basis. The spec says 65W on 12V, and the card averages 75W on 12V. I call that going over spec.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

The spec actually says 5.5A of current.

 

[d_s_c_8]

The spec actually says 5.5A of current.

And the card averages 6.25A on the 12V rail.

 

[10tacle]

Fury X is going for $399-449 as of yesterday on Newegg.

Only one is going for $399[US]...the XFX variant. The rest are $600 and up, so that is suspicious on NewEgg ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709%20600566292 ).

Also, whatever they are selling for now is irrelevant. AMD stopped making them. It's what the launch price is as to what is directly comparable. It launched at $650[US]. Never mind that GPU was a fail for the most part and not the 980Ti killer it was supposed to be (according to the AMD fans anyway). It couldn't overclock as it was already maxed out and a factory overclocked 980Ti that was overclocked again like the Gigabyte G1 Gaming just destroyed it:

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/GTX%20-980-TI-GB/GTX%20-980-TI-GB-87.jpg