According to NVIDIA, 1070 will be close to (+5%) TITAN X and 1080 is ~20% faster than 1070.
Edit: My bad 1080 = 9 TFLOPs
Last edited:
And that is a big if.. given performance of 1080 is close to 40% higher than 1070 (going by GFLOPS)... it looks to be closer to the 390x than the 980ti.
GTX1080 will be around 30% faster than a GTX1070:
6,5 TFLOPS vs. 9,1TFLOPS (~40%+)
256gb/s vs. 320gb/s (~15%+)
The schilling is almost unbearable with this. I typically can't stand Vlad @ TheVerge but this one takes it to a whole new level.. http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/5/7/11615806/nvidia-gtx-1080-1070-pascal-specs-price-release-date
He literally has his subtitle as "Almost irresponsible amounts of performance".
Reading the comments just makes me want to gag. People eat up anything, marketing is so insane. Does anyone really trust a journalist that copy pastes the fluff that comes out of nVidia's CEO? 3x faster than Titan ()
So 20% faster for the same price qualifies that statement? Can anyone even notice 20% difference in actual gaming feel?
I guess what I really hate is the fact that AMD doesn't get the sales/credit that it is due. They have been putting out great products for a very long time. If they had the funds available you better believe we would have had Vega day 1. Why else would they just release the mid-low range chips? Why force a compromise if you don't have to?
If they had been receiving income directly proportional to their engineering and actual video card values they would have had R&D budget to make this generation even better.
And guess what nvidia fans? That 1080 that's $600? It would have been $400 out of the gate if buyers had done proper research and AMD received higher sales in the 79070/290x generations. Instead AMD could only bring out Polaris and nvidia gets to charge whatever the feel like for the 1080.
If you truly are a such a fan that you delight in seeing this level of deception/marketing then be satisfied with paying prices that are 50% too high, we are starting to see what a monopoly looks like! I hate seeing the industry I'm a fan off get slowed down by nvidia's marketing, because besides increasing their sales, its only hurting every single gamer on the planet.
NV said GTX 1080 is 25% faster than last gen (TITAN X).
If 1080 is 30% faster than 1070 then 1070 is slower than TITAN X which is not what NV have said.
20% faster, much more efficient, and as some people like to point out "will get better over time because driver optimization will shift to Pascal."
I don't know why you are trashing this, the GTX 1080 is significantly better than what you could buy before the GTX 1080 was out for pretty much the same price. If you have a 980 Ti it's probably not "worth" upgrading, but if you are on older hardware (Fermi/Kepler) and you want more performance, it's better than perf/$ is now up.
Posts like this honestly make me livid no offense. Amd was not forced to create pascal and not have it scale past the midrange and then have to use vega for the high-end. No one forced amd to segment their release into 2 chips.
Amds mistakes are there own. They are getting the credit they deserve and if they want more. Work for it. End of story.
The Founders Edition for the 1080 and 1070 are in fact nothing more than a renaming of the "reference" cards that Nvidia normally releases with the launch of a new GPU. They are built and designed by Nvidia, they will run the official stock clocks, the chips are not specifically binned to be better than others, and there are no extras of any sort.
so, acc. to them 'founder's Ed.' is just a name for reference edition.the Founders Edition [Ed—hey, where's my apostrophe?] cards are apparently built to exceed the minimum quality needed. The vapor chamber cooling, high quality power components, and other elements cost money, and they may not even be necessary. It's not too hard to guess that the reference cooler—including the large metal backplate—is more expensive than an open air cooler that doesn't have a vapor chamber and uses two fans to move more air. How much more expensive? Almost certainly not $70 or $100.
Its still damn good marketing.Dont know if someone has already posted something like this..
What exactly is Nvidias GTX 1080 Founders Edition?
By Jarred Walton @ PCgamer.com
so, acc. to them 'founder's Ed.' is just a name for reference edition.
Not trashing the 1080/1070 in anyways. Yes I believe they are awful values and I can't remember the last time where worse value was delivered on a new node, but I digress on that. Its the sneakily worded way Jen-Hsun closed with 1070 = faster than titan x. That is being repeated all over the world over and over and over. Yes he has plausible deniability.
I HATE that. He knew exactly what he was doing with that misleading remarks. I equally hated AMD's remarks that Fury was an overclocker's dream. Leave the superflous hyperbole to the car companies. Make tangible statements that really mean something and that doesn't mislead the non-forum lurking average gamer.
Actually what I'm saying transcends "guilt" and whose fault is whose. AMD didn't CHOOSE to release only Polaris 10. They obviously only had so much engineering resources and decided to design the lower end chips first. If they could have, they would have definitely released the entire stack as they have ALWAYS done throughout history.
All I'm saying is that its nvidia's shady tactics (business worshipers will call it good business tactics) that led to their dominance. Closed-box game code, planned obsolescence, paid shills at the press conference shouting tacky remarks from the front road, driver cheats, and now deceptive marketing.
You seriously believe that ending their ENTIRE SHOW with big bold remarks saying "3x faster than titanx" and "1070 faster than titan X) that ONLY applies to some yet to be implemented VR only function is perfectly OK? Even the most jaded capitalism groupie would admit that's pretty shady. TONS of dudes all around the internet freaking out about a $379 card (actually $479 until further notice) can beat a $1000 card? Oh yeah on top of that should be comparing to 980ti...
Its because of all this AMD was left without revenue. I'm not saying it was unfair, I'm not giving ANY moral or ethical qualifiers. I'm merely stating that if the products had been evaluated on their merits alone AMD might have had the resources to bring Vega to market along with Polaris and thus EVERYONE's cards would be cheaper.
Probably because Polaris would kill NV's mid-range sales anyway. It's better for them to announce early and show off that their new card will offer the best performance until someone ships a bigger die.
Even if they end up doing a paper/soft launch of the card, it will get people to wait for better availability.
I imagine that supply will be somewhat constrained even for the FE cards so even at the higher costs there still may be some eBay flipping going on. I think this move from NV minimizes that problem to some extent though and is a smart move on their part. First, customers know that a price drop is coming as well as what the card "should" cost so there's some balking at paying more on eBay and second, Nvidia itself gets to eat the markup that would usually come with not being able to meet initial product demand.
People can complain about price gouging all they want, but that was always going to happen because people would buy to resell and drive up the price anyways. NV now has better control over how the cards are doled out and has assured customers that the cost will be more reasonable once supply catches up with demand. Early adopters were always likely to pay more, it's just now the money goes to Nvidia instead of some one who bought up a bunch of cards to flip on eBay.
Sure they could wait to announce and release in July/August when they'll have enough stock to meet the demand, but Polaris 10 is probably a good enough chip that it will kill off most of NVidia's existing product stack anyway. In such a world it doesn't cost Nvidia anything to paper launch and helps keep their customers by assuring them that new cards are on the way and probably keeps some people from buying AMD cards since they know NV's cards are definitely better, even if it's not really possible to buy one easily.
Polaris will be published at the Computex - three weeks after nVidia's event. nVidia had no reason to announce their new cards if they would fear AMD.
Why would AMD be able to supply the market with Polaris at $300 but nVidia wouldnt?
nVidia could have launched after AMD with better products. nVidia is not in a hurry to replace Maxwell.
The GTX 1080 does not look very interesting IMO, but I guess we should wait for the 'official' benchmarks before judging it. Anyway, one thing I like about it: GTX 980 Ti's are getting dumped for low prices, I might just snatch one up and wait for 1080 Ti/Vega afterwards. Currently on a HD 7870 XT, should be a good upgrade.
i think the options need to be more specific likeI agree I think there should be a poll. I'd make one but there isn't room for yet another pascal thread anywhere lol. Too cluttered. Please add a poll.
"Are you happy with Nvidia's newly announced 1000 series?"
"Yes. They are worthy successors"
"No. They are overpriced, mid range garbage and should cost $350 and $250"
Go make it, OP.
Yes but be aware that in 6 months or so you may see the 980ti struggle to keep up with even a 390x in new games. Or maybe that's happening already in some new games. I'm not trolling you either. I'm actually being serious right now and that's kind of rare for me.
i think the options need to be more specific like
-do u like the performance gains but don't like how Nvidia is actually jacking up the price with this founders ed. shenanigan.
-are u disappointed with the performance gains?
-founders ed. markup is justified since the performance gains make it worth it.
so on n so forth.. just an IMO.
I jokingly said in a thread earlier that Hawaii may last long enough to even beat the 980Ti and be competitive with Pascal....
Seriously, what do I do with Hawaii? It's holding WAY too long. When the 390x is on par with the 1070 in some direct x 12 games, can we officially say the 390x is the longest lived GPU out performance wise?
I'm sure a more practical and reasonable list of poll options could be chosen, but so far I have seen people either love the new cards or hate them. People who don't understand that they really are mid range dies seem to love the cards. Those who realize they are mid range correctly hate the cards with god-like authority.
You mean 290x OC. Yes, the 290x OC makes absolutely everything from the entire Kepler and Maxwell generations, from top to bottom, look completely ridiculous.