Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Pascal Review

[FormatC]

May be, this can take a long time to get something equal, may be notl

 

[f-14]

Exactly, but it seems like nvidia instructed every single outlet to bench the Reference 1080 only against stock Maxwell cards, which is honestly bullshit - pardon. I bet an OCed 980Ti would come super close to the stock 1080, which at that point makes me wonder why even upgrade now, sure you can push the 1080 too, but I'd wait for a price drop or at least the supposed cheaper AIB cards.

you used to own an 880gtx or 9800 gtx too didn't ya. ok well OC the 1080 and watch it smoke your 980ti OC and doing it with less power to boot.

this is the same major jump as the 9800gtx to 2XXgtx series, power cut performance almost doubled.
technically this is all mostly due to the die shrink....seen this i don't remember how many times...since well before nvidia even existed. first graphics card i had was a 2mb orchid3d

 

[Steeldemonuk]

I have to say i'm a bit disapointed with 4K performance even though its better then the 980ti/Titan X I still wouldn't consider it a 4K GPU. I would like to see a follow-up review for SLI since the bandwith has nearly doubled with the new bridges.

"So why does the card still have two connectors? Using new SLI bridges, both connectors can be used simultaneously to enable a dual-link mode. Not only do you get the benefit of a second interface, but Pascal also accelerates the I/O to 650MHz, up from the previous generation’s 400MHz. As a result, bandwidth between processors more than doubles."

What is there to be disappointed about with the Titan X? I have the EVGA Titan X SC and I can 4K virtually all games at Ultra settings. DOOM is beautiful at 4K and runs a constant 57+ fps. If that's disappointing then I'm not sure what you are hoping for with any hardware.

 

[starscream27]

Disappointing that still no single GPU can do 4K.

 

[Steeldemonuk]

Disappointing that still no single GPU can do 4K.

?? Except, of course, the Titan X. My Titan X SC rocks 4K beautifully in virtually all games.

 

[rantoc]

Seriously I have to ask, did nvidia instruct every single reviewer to bench the 1080 against stock maxwell cards? Cause i'd like to see real world scenarios with an OCed 980Ti, because nobody runs stock or even buys stock, if you can even buy stock 980Tis.

You will likely never know, if they enforced that i'm sure they did it with an NDA to begin with. Free press when it comes to reviews? LMAO!

 

[rantoc]

Can we please fast forward to 1080TI who hopefully have HBM stacks?

 

[Synthercat]

Could you run an Otoy octane bench? We would be grateful

 

[iam2thecrowe]

performance wise, no comment. Price wise, really? if the 1080 costs 700 @ launch, the 1080ti, or whatever, will cost how much? 1000? then the Pascal Titan 1500? I dont like the road we are heading, really.

Why? they're offering a huge performance advantage, of course they're going to charge for it....

 

[3ogdy]

Seriously I have to ask, did nvidia instruct every single reviewer to bench the 1080 against stock maxwell cards? Cause i'd like to see real world scenarios with an OCed 980Ti, because nobody runs stock or even buys stock, if you can even buy stock 980Tis.

Nvidia : My card, my rules

Our review, our conclusions, our tests. Don't like it, release better products.

 

[mrkillall]

Why did they go with hdmi 2.0b instead of the a spec which is a much better spec for 4k considering you can have better chroma at high hz. and it also supports 12 bit color. The highest color depth with 4k at 60 hz 4:2:0

 

[tical2399]

I've noticed that a lot of people who are disappointed with the 1080 are comparing it to the 980 Ti. It appears to be a 20-30% performance increase over the 980 Ti in most games.

The 1080 is not the 980 Ti replacement though. It is a 980 replacement and when you look at it that way and see the 60-70% improvement (101% in Rise of the Tomb Raider) that is a pretty nice jump from one generation to the next.

Expecting to see those 60-70% jumps over the 980 Ti isn't really realistic in my opinion because this is the 980 replacement. I think you will see the kind numbers you were hoping for when the 1080 Ti rolls out.

I'm personally anxious to see if a single 1070 will be able to match my SLI 970s. There are some games that don't support SLI and some games where VRAM has caused issues for me at 1440p.

With current resale values I could sell my pair of 970s for about $400 and get a 1070 with no out of pocket cost. As long as I won't see a performance decrease from my SLI 970s trading them in for a single 1070 with 8GB of VRAM seems like a no brainer.

I don't care how much more percentage gains this have over this card or that card. All I care about is if this card can do 4k 60 all day every day in all games. It can't, so i'm disappointed

I doubt the 1080 ti or titan will be able to either. So from now on, my determining factor on if i will buy a card or not will be; "can it do 4k at max/ultra settings and get 60fps at all times".

 

[vpoko]

I've noticed that a lot of people who are disappointed with the 1080 are comparing it to the 980 Ti. It appears to be a 20-30% performance increase over the 980 Ti in most games.

The 1080 is not the 980 Ti replacement though. It is a 980 replacement and when you look at it that way and see the 60-70% improvement (101% in Rise of the Tomb Raider) that is a pretty nice jump from one generation to the next.

Expecting to see those 60-70% jumps over the 980 Ti isn't really realistic in my opinion because this is the 980 replacement. I think you will see the kind numbers you were hoping for when the 1080 Ti rolls out.

I'm personally anxious to see if a single 1070 will be able to match my SLI 970s. There are some games that don't support SLI and some games where VRAM has caused issues for me at 1440p.

With current resale values I could sell my pair of 970s for about $400 and get a 1070 with no out of pocket cost. As long as I won't see a performance decrease from my SLI 970s trading them in for a single 1070 with 8GB of VRAM seems like a no brainer.

I don't care how much more percentage gains this have over this card or that card. All I care about is if this card can do 4k 60 all day every day in all games. It can't, so i'm disappointed

I doubt the 1080 ti or titan will be able to either. So from now on my determining factor on if i will buy a card or not will be "can it do 4k 60 at max/ultra settings and get 4k at all times".

That's a major milestone, but I don't expect either Nvidia or AMD will reach it until late 2017 at the earliest.

 

[tical2399]

I've noticed that a lot of people who are disappointed with the 1080 are comparing it to the 980 Ti. It appears to be a 20-30% performance increase over the 980 Ti in most games.

The 1080 is not the 980 Ti replacement though. It is a 980 replacement and when you look at it that way and see the 60-70% improvement (101% in Rise of the Tomb Raider) that is a pretty nice jump from one generation to the next.

Expecting to see those 60-70% jumps over the 980 Ti isn't really realistic in my opinion because this is the 980 replacement. I think you will see the kind numbers you were hoping for when the 1080 Ti rolls out.

I'm personally anxious to see if a single 1070 will be able to match my SLI 970s. There are some games that don't support SLI and some games where VRAM has caused issues for me at 1440p.

With current resale values I could sell my pair of 970s for about $400 and get a 1070 with no out of pocket cost. As long as I won't see a performance decrease from my SLI 970s trading them in for a single 1070 with 8GB of VRAM seems like a no brainer.

I don't care how much more percentage gains this have over this card or that card. All I care about is if this card can do 4k 60 all day every day in all games. It can't, so i'm disappointed

I doubt the 1080 ti or titan will be able to either. So from now on my determining factor on if i will buy a card or not will be "can it do 4k 60 at max/ultra settings and get 4k at all times".

That's a major milestone, but I don't expect either Nvidia or AMD will reach it until late 2017 at the earliest.

I'm cool with waiting. My 980 ti is not going to become complete garbage in two years.

 

[michaelzehr]

It would be nice to see a video encoding benchmark, fills a gap between gaming and professional workstation needs. (If it was there, I missed it.)

 

[SpAwNtoHell]

Hmmm, i was waiting for this review and i am somehow dissapointed tho a great card and i will say why, no stable 4k 60hz not even fhd 144 stable fps( to answer" who will buy one of this for fhd?") I just hope board partners will make this 1080 justice with a better cooling and some factory overclock at a decent price not 700$ for a reference...( do you read this ? Asus, gigabyte,msi evga, zotac...?!

 

[17seconds]

Judging by the overclocking results on various reviews, overclock scaling is one of the GTX 1080's strong points. TPU got a 12.8% boost out of an 11% core overclock (16% memory). Time to get excited for the custom cooled, factory overclocked models. With the new Turbo Boost 3.0, cooler temperatures lead directly to higher clocks, and that is only going to mean that the custom models are going to leave this reference card in the dust.

 

[Quarkzquarkz]

Wow, that was disappointing after all that hype. So in other words, if you have a GTX 980 Ti, it's not worth it. Wait for the 1080 Ti or better.. =(

 

[tical2399]

Judging by the overclocking results on various reviews, overclock scaling is one of the GTX 1080's strong points. TPU got a 12.8% boost out of an 11% core overclock (16% memory). Time to get excited for the custom cooled, factory overclocked models. With the new Turbo Boost 3.0, cooler temperatures lead directly to higher clocks, and that is only going to mean that the custom models are going to leave this reference card in the dust.

I'd rather wait for a stronger overall 4k gpu which should be the 1180 or 1180 to or whatever the big AMD card of the time should be.

 

[vpoko]

I've noticed that a lot of people who are disappointed with the 1080 are comparing it to the 980 Ti. It appears to be a 20-30% performance increase over the 980 Ti in most games.

The 1080 is not the 980 Ti replacement though. It is a 980 replacement and when you look at it that way and see the 60-70% improvement (101% in Rise of the Tomb Raider) that is a pretty nice jump from one generation to the next.

Expecting to see those 60-70% jumps over the 980 Ti isn't really realistic in my opinion because this is the 980 replacement. I think you will see the kind numbers you were hoping for when the 1080 Ti rolls out.

I'm personally anxious to see if a single 1070 will be able to match my SLI 970s. There are some games that don't support SLI and some games where VRAM has caused issues for me at 1440p.

With current resale values I could sell my pair of 970s for about $400 and get a 1070 with no out of pocket cost. As long as I won't see a performance decrease from my SLI 970s trading them in for a single 1070 with 8GB of VRAM seems like a no brainer.

I don't care how much more percentage gains this have over this card or that card. All I care about is if this card can do 4k 60 all day every day in all games. It can't, so i'm disappointed

I doubt the 1080 ti or titan will be able to either. So from now on my determining factor on if i will buy a card or not will be "can it do 4k 60 at max/ultra settings and get 4k at all times".

That's a major milestone, but I don't expect either Nvidia or AMD will reach it until late 2017 at the earliest.

I'm cool with waiting. My 980 ti is not going to become complete garbage in two years.

Yeah, I wouldn't even consider a new card right now if I had a 980ti. It's like my ma used to tell me when I was a kid and she'd cook something I didn't want to eat, "It means you're not hungry enough." I only like to upgrade my video card when I get hungry (when not doing it actually hampers me). $600 is too much to spend each time an incremental improvement shows up. Nothing wrong with incremental improvements, they add up in a few generations, but getting each one is overkill. Once 4K @ 60FPS has been reached, that'll be a reasonable time for people with currently cutting-edge cards to upgrade. As for me with my 660, now is the time.

 

[tical2399]

Yea a person with a 660 is right to upgrade ( i got a 660 ti in my wife computer) the 1080 is such a let down.

 

[mapesdhs]

I doubt the 1080 ti or titan will be able to either. So from now on, my determining factor on if i will buy a card or not will be; "can it do 4k at max/ultra settings and get 60fps at all times".

Thing is, the goal posts keep moving. By the time a single card is available which can do what you want for the games you're playing right now, the newer current games of the future will impose a higher load, especially for VR which needs at least a fill rate doubling to keep up. Thus, if you're always updating which games you play aswell, then you'll never reach that goal. It's always been this way with games vs. GPUs, though sometimes a game comes out which knocks back GPU usefulness by a hefty chunk, eg. Crysis and Metro 2033 (my gripe with such events is people assuming a newer game's lower performance on the latest GPUs is because the game is more complex, whereas it could just as well be due to poor coding. In the case of Crysis, this was at least partly confirmed when Warhead came out with better performance on the same hw).

I get round this problem by not trying to play the latest games. By staying just a bit behind on what's currenct, I can use GPUs that run slightly older games maxed out. However, I'm probably in a minority in this regard.

 

[tical2399]

I doubt the 1080 ti or titan will be able to either. So from now on, my determining factor on if i will buy a card or not will be; "can it do 4k at max/ultra settings and get 60fps at all times".

Thing is, the goal posts keep moving. By the time a single card is available which can do what you want for the games you're playing right now, the newer current games of the future will impose a higher load, especially for VR which needs at least a fill rate doubling to keep up. Thus, if you're always updating which games you play aswell, then you'll never reach that goal. It's always been this way with games vs. GPUs, though sometimes a game comes out which knocks back GPU usefulness by a hefty chunk, eg. Crysis and Metro 2033 (my gripe with such events is people assuming a newer game's lower performance on the latest GPUs is because the game is more complex, whereas it could just as well be due to poor coding. In the case of Crysis, this was at least partly confirmed when Warhead came out with better performance on the same hw).

I get round this problem by not trying to play the latest games. By staying just a bit behind on what's currenct, I can use GPUs that run slightly older games maxed out. However, I'm probably in a minority in this regard.

Um not really. None of the high en cards have issues playing all games on max at 1080p. So until cards are out that can play all brand new games at 4k 60 then i'll stay put. Does not matter to me if that wait is 1 generation or 4

 

[rmse17]

"But who buys a $700 graphics card for Full HD?" - People like me who want min frame rate to be 120-144 in order to use the proper gaming monitor? There are still games that my GTX980OC can't handle with max settings on 1080p. Why are there no 1080p benchmarks? Are the majority of gamers using > 1080p at this point?

 

[tical2399]

"But who buys a $700 graphics card for Full HD?" - People like me who want min frame rate to be 120-144 in order to use the proper gaming monitor? There are still games that my GTX980OC can't handle with max settings on 1080p. Why are there no 1080p benchmarks? Are the majority of gamers using > 1080p at this point?

You want 120/144, but the standard is 60. What game is out there that cant be maxed out 1080p60 with today's high end cards???? So i'm waiting until the high end cards can all do 4k 60 with no issues.