Nvidia Reveals Pascal: GTX 1080 And 1070 To Beat Titan X, GDDR5X Debuts

[poochiepiano]

I'm tired if nvidia. I'm update hbm2 yields are too low.

What?

 

[photonboy]

Some points:

1. GTX1080 approx 25% faster than GTX980Ti
2. 3rd party benchmarks to verify
3. don't get hung up on technical jargon. benchmarks are what matter

4. 2xTitan X etc and similar misleading comments by all sorts of articles. Get your stuff straight. Some charts are for regular gaming, others for VR where I guess they've put in hardware optimizations for VR.
5. SLI not alwasy supported, or may stutter (so not easy to compare 2x980 to a GTX1080 except in specific scenarios)
6. after-market coolers coming. May or may not mean even higher than 25% vs GTX980Ti's BEST cards. 40% boost would be welcomed.

Finally...
7. The GTX1080 as said is about 25% faster than the GTX980Ti, but it's a replacement in terms of the lineup for a GTX980. That's a pretty impressive performance boost.

And while a lot of the boost is due to frequency, in the end I don't care if it's from cream cheese as long as it's quiet and performs well

 

[falchard]

I wouldn't worry about AMDs pricing on the Fury, they are running out of stock currently so the prices were good.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

AMD, make your move, this time I'll wait. Bought the 970 before AMD's 300 series launched and I regret it.

Regretted having that card that has outsold all AMD 2xx and 3xx R7 and R9 cards combined by almost 2 to 1 ? Regretted having the card that, when both are overclocked, according to techpowerup's 19 game test suite outperforms the 390 and 390x up to 1440p ? Yes the 390/390x cards are great outta the box but their single digit overclock ability compared to nVidias 25- 31% is crippling.

I hope AMD comes up with something this round. AMD does not have a card in the top 10 as far as market penetration and the entire R9 200 series combined is in 13th place. The R9 3xx series isn't in the top 50.

Also, the presumed lack of FreeSync is the only real drawback I see, and the thing that would have me buying a comparable AMD card (if there were one).

Its not that something was left out, neither technology supports the other but there's more to it than that. G-Sync produces much the same result as Freesync, but Freesync is incapable of producing the same results as G-Sync. G-Sync comes with a hardware module for ULMB .... Freesync has no hardware component and therefore no comparable feature.

NVidia, in one sense was wise for skipping HBM1 from the perspective of what it did for last generation cards (nothing), However, that put AMD in a position to have priority access to HBM2 so going forward that should give AMD and advantage especially with HBM2 production behind expectations.

AMD needs a real shot in the arm financially and, as consumers, we will all be much better off in the long run if AMD can hit a home run this round.

Still, I don't think we'll see anything from either side that, even with 2 x SLI / CF that will consistently drive 4k above 60 fps and at refresh rates that support Motion Blur Reduction technology.

 

[fgergely]

What do you think a single 1070 will be enough for playing games with ultra settings (@60 fps) on 1440 resolution?

 

[iam2thecrowe]

Type-o:

"Nvidia explained that traditional rendering techniques use one single-view port to to output to displays"

to two?

 

[xaephod]

When do we see Polaris? Also, are they going to release a 1080Ti? I want better performance, but I don't want to jump the gun. Happy with my GTX970, but I think it was a bad upgrade from a 7970Ghz edition. I probably should have waited.

 

[Alec Mowat]

Well, AMD? Going to get left behind again?

 

[Sharky36566666]

Anyone know the power requirement for the new gtx1070 ?

 

[stevenrix]

I will probably wait for the GTX 1080 TI or for AMD new GPU. No rush 😉

 

[sharpethunder]

AMD need Polaris and Zen To do well otherwise i can see the company being sold off and broken up. But if you own a GTX7xx series i can say The GTX 1080-1070 would be a worth while upgrade to what you using right now

 

[bit_user]

I will wait for the 1080ti and see how it performs before replacing my 980ti gpus

Just guessing, but I think you'll have to wait a long time for 1080 Ti, depending on whether it uses the same die as their compute-oriented products. There are rumors of manufacturing problems with it, and demand from cloud/business users will be extremely high.

That's a lot of if's but I'm just saying you shouldn't assume it'll follow shortly, unless you have good reason to think so.

 

[bit_user]

I've been saying for a long time that I would love to drop back down to one card since SLI isn't really all it's cracked up to be. Would be nice to see a single Pascal card take the place of these Titan X I have.

It'll never happen. Game developers are targeting lower framerates. They're going to keep adding features until top-end cards drop to the target frame rate. To get the framerates you want, on the latest games, you'll always have to run multi-GPU.

The best we can hope is that NVlink and Vulkan/DX12 improves the multi-GPU experience over what you've seen with SLI.

 

[bit_user]

Naturally I expect the nVidia part to be much lower power and a marginal improvement in performance since they are in a smaller package.

Doubling the clock speed is not a good way to conserve power. However, GDDR5X will help with power, compared with GDDR5.

I also expect at least one AMD part with HBM memory since they have already begun integrating it into their hardware with the Fury. It isn't as risky for AMD to do a die shrink with HBM as it would be for nVidia.

Check AMD's own roadmaps. That part is called Vega, and it's not due out 'till about Q1 2017.

 

[bit_user]

And while a lot of the boost is due to frequency, in the end I don't care if it's from cream cheese as long as it's quiet and performs well

What it comes down to is cost vs. power.

A larger die size (on the same node) is going to deliver the same performance at lower clock speed (meaning lower power). But it would cost more, because you get fewer dies per wafer and a higher defect rate. I think this tells us that either the 16 nm yields are low (or NVidia was concerned they might be), or they're just taking the cost difference as profit and letting us pay higher electricity/cooling bills.

In the end, the market is segmented into cost/power/performance steps, and as long as GTX 1080 fits into that curve, there won't be a problem.

It will be interesting to see if AMD and Intel follow their lead.

 

[bit_user]

Also, the presumed lack of FreeSync is the only real drawback I see, and the thing that would have me buying a comparable AMD card (if there were one).

Its not that something was left out, neither technology supports the other but there's more to it than that. G-Sync produces much the same result as Freesync, but Freesync is incapable of producing the same results as G-Sync. G-Sync comes with a hardware module for ULMB .... Freesync has no hardware component and therefore no comparable feature.

If you can't use FreeSync on a NVidia card + FreeSync monitor, then something was left out, as far as I'm concerned!

Regarding ULMB, you actually have to disable GSync, in order to use it. And, I believe it's simply a temporal-domain signal processing technique that could be implemented in the monitor, independent of GSync/FreeSync. If you have any details to the contrary, please provide.

 

[justasii]

Good thing no AMD fanbois showed up to spread useless comments.... In other news...
The cards look good and waiting to see some realworld testing is always a good idea. The 970 ram was never an issue, everyone just cried and blew it out of porportion due to laziness and entitlement syndrome.

 

[Killuminati1]

I own a watercooled Titan X running at 1490 mhz. I suspect the 1080 is going to run between 5-15 fps faster than my current setup depending on the game and resolution. That's not worth the upgrade yet. The GP100 on the other hand will be. GP100 has twice as many transistors as GP104 (1080) and will use HBM2 memory. In short these gp104 cards are nice, but the real gains will be seen with the big boy pascal chip and hbm2.

 

[jasonelmore]

The Founders Edition is nothing more than the Stock Cooler that Nvidia made. Its not special binned chips that overclock better. In fact, the Founders Edition, have 0 stock overclock. You'll want to buy a pre-overclocked card for better performance, instead of relying on software overclocking tools which are finicky and have to be re-done everytime you format or install windows updates.

 

[nikoli707]

twice as fast lol. i would expect the 1070 to be right behind the 980ti while the 1080 be a bit faster than the 980ti. i mean, we are talking about a 180w chip here, not the 250-300w big pascal chip that will be here in early 2017.

from what i can tell, 1070 scores 15000ish overall graphics score, 980ti 16000ish, titan x 17000ish, and 1080 19000ish. so roughly 20% faster than a reference 980ti and 15% faster than a reference titan x. doing that and also saving 30% power is on par with nvidias trend and definitely impressive.

 

[8R_Scotch]

What's odd is that the graph that places the gtx 1080 above the titan x has an axis entitled "relative game performance" where the 1080 scres around 4.3-4.4, and the Titan X scores 3.6-3.7. That'd imply a 22% advantage for the 1080 over the Titan, not "twice the performance". It does use a lot less power so I'll grant the eficiency argument, I'm not doing the math.

They also say the 1070 beats the Titan, but they imply that it's not on all circumstances, so it's the same game between the titan/980ti and the fury x. It'd be safe to bet the 1070 will have titan x-ish performance. Which is impressive for the price, and the power draw will be even lower, I'm sure. The difference in performance between x70 and x80 cards is never incredible, which also leads me to believe that regular gaming performance for the 1080 won't be that far above the titan.

It's a decent jump in performance per price, and an impressive reduction of power for that performance... but it's nothing close to the impression and wacky numbers they're throwing around.

I'm waiting to see Polaris, they won't launch high-end first, so it'll be sometime before we can do a proper comparison. On the one hand the 1080 has DDR5X, on the other Polaris has a 2nm advantage in lithography. We'll see.

 

[g-unit1111]

I cant wait to see what MSI, EVGA, and Gigabyte bring to the table with their 1070 and 1080 variants. Hopefully MSI will release a Lightning version of the 1080. That will be mine.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

The thing is, I think too many people are undermining the potential AMD has here. As InvalidError says:

Lots of bold claims, no benchmarks.

Nothing bold about those claims: new architecture + die shrink from 28nm to 16nm = massive performance improvement with potential for at least 5X Maxwell. Nvidia merely doubling performance of the Maxwell generation gives away that Nvidia is tapping less than half of the potential 16nm has.

I believe InvalidError, he is extremely intelligent. Clearly Nvidia has held back on the true potential they could unleash with 16nm. This gives AMD a lot of room to release cards that may be very competitive and lower these prices down a lot. It'll be interesting to see how this goes. AMD could beat Nvidia super easily in terms of power requirements this time around. Let's not forget - they are on 14nm with Polaris.

I'm not favoring one or the other, but I'm just saying that too many people seem to have this "AMD is dead" aura and that they won't bring anything competitive to the table to fight the 1070 and 1080.

 

[pierrerock]

So GTX 970 MSRP : 299$, GTX 1070: 379$. I am very disappointed as my budget for my next card was 300$ and was waiting for next gen GPU. Guess will have to wait and see what AMD offer in this price range.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Where on earth did you get GTX 970 MSRP $299? It was never that low. It was, if I recall, about $380 at release also.