Read more.Quote:
Raising the bar for PC gaming.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Raising the bar for PC gaming.
As I suspected, only the 1080Ti will be worth replacing my two 970's.
How will reviews moving forward implement VR testing? Like; will there a be separate slide, or instead look at the 4K figures and go from there? That aside, here's hoping the 1070 is as pleasing.
That's a good question. We're mulling it over as you write it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jingee
I assume a reference GTX980TI was used?? How do the myriad non-reference GTX980TI do in comparison as these tend to more common and boots higher?? Will the non-reference GTX1080 cards boost higher??
I do not care how much performance per watt or whatever.... I want to use the same power as previous models and have twice the amount of power than TitanX..
It is a bs trademark trying to sell it under 2x performance... and later on mentioning per watt.... for now they prove nothing in cutting edge tech other than a super charged 980TI
Good showing by Nvidia, but then, it really needed to be. With the new node process big changes were always going to happen.
Now the real test is will this performance increase still look as impressive when AMD's new generation has landed.
Good start though!
I want it to use a lot less.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuorTek
It's a real shame that the first cards out have so aggressively pushed performance over power saving. Had nVidia offered GTX 980ti performance for 100-120W than we'd have had quieter gaming laptops, smaller gaming PCs and generally made the gaming industry greener and more environmentally responsible.
Unfortunately, now everything else is going to be measured up to the 1080 and all the other GPUs launched will have to be equally thirsty relative to their predecessors if they want to look good.
I'm very interested in the Fast Sync - in the review you say "We'll have to see how well it works in practise." but I don't see anything about it in your tests. So how well does it work in practise?
Wowsers, clean sweep there! Certainly impressed - looking forward to the tech trickling down to the 1070 and beyond into the affordable spectrum. Just need to wait for the response from the red team :)
That wasn't exactly the groundbreaking performance leap Nvidia was talking about ... The perf/W is amazing, though. ~10% better than 980Ti at 980 power levels? That's very, very good. I'm especially impressed with the power levels given the staggering core clocks.
Alas, 4K ultra gaming is still a pipe dream.
Fast Sync is meant to be more a VR based feature?Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
People on OcUK forums,started looking at some of the GTX980TI numbers reviews were using. They tend to be reference GTX980TI cards which have very low boost - a lot of the available models seem to boost much higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbouk
An example is the Gigabyte GTX980TI Extreme Gaming which is 25% faster over a reference GTX980TI:
https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/..._2560_1440.png
Going by the TPU numbers for the GTX1080 it makes it 10% faster than the Gigabyte GTX980TI Extreme Gaming while being £50 more expensive.
This is why I am asking if non-reference GTX1080 cards will boost higher??
The GTX1080 has 33% more cores than the GTX1070 and has 25% more bandwidth.
It will be interesting to see if the core will boost higher than the GTX1080.
There will be other SKUs in that area of the performance/power consumption curve. Catering to a range of power budgets provides more choice, which cannot be a bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by EndlessWavesI want it to use a lot less.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuorTek
It's a real shame that the first cards out have so aggressively pushed performance over power saving. Had nVidia offered GTX 980ti performance for 100-120W than we'd have had quieter gaming laptops, smaller gaming PCs and generally made the gaming industry greener and more environmentally responsible.
Unfortunately, now everything else is going to be measured up to the 1080 and all the other GPUs launched will have to be equally thirsty relative to their predecessors if they want to look good.
Those willing to accept the higher power budget for increased performance have just as valid a position as those wanting to decrease the power required to hit a set performance level to open up new form factor possibilities. It's all about maximising performance for a given power budget and allowing consumers to choose what is right for them.
According to Hexus it's for high refresh rate scenarios such as less demanding, competitive, games, though it would be useful in VR too.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
[edit: apparently it's coming to Maxell and maybe kepler. Juddering animation/skipped frames might be a problem though]
I would assume so - several other reviews are lambasting the performance of the reference cooler, which is therefore holding back boost speeds.Quote:
People on OcUK forums,started looking at some of the GTX980TI numbers reviews were using. They tend to be reference GTX980TI cards which have very low boost - a lot of the available models seem to boost much higher.
An example is the Gigabyte GTX980TI Extreme Gaming which is 25% faster over a reference GTX980TI:
https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/..._2560_1440.png
Going by the TPU numbers for the GTX1080 it makes it 10% faster than the Gigabyte GTX980TI Extreme Gaming while being £50 more expensive.
This is why I am asking if non-reference GTX1080 cards will boost higher??
Well RIP those people that said it would be twice as fast as anything. It's quite a bit faster than a Titan X (which is awesome for the price), but not the leap that Nvidia wanted everyone to believe it was. Still a nice card, but waiting for Vega. Hope the HBM2 will make a difference in 4k.
Ars talks a bit about overclocking, they seem to think non reference designs will clock higher and water cooling should work very well:Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/201...x-1080-review/