NVIDIA Geforce GTX 1070 Thread

[RussianSensation]

This will probably be the card that replaces my 970, looking to spend around $400 so it looks like a great fit.

For 1080p 60Hz gaming, it's a waste of $. 1060/1060Ti is a better fit. Your sandy bridge i5 and 1080p 60Hz monitor are major bottlenecks. Just saying. In fact, 970 OC is plenty fast for 1080p 60hz gaming. There are plenty of reviews online that prove both of my points - i5 Sandy isn't fast enough for 980Ti level card and 1070/980Ti level card renders way more frames than a 1080p 60Hz display can show. Time to upgrade to 1440p/4K and leave peasant 1080p console gaming behind. PC master race. :thumbsup:

 

[crisium]

The performance delta of OC 1070 vs stock 1080 definitely seems reminiscent of OC 660 Ti vs stock 680. Can't match it, but 90% or so there.

That'd be my only disappointment with this card. MSRP 660 Ti was $300 and beat anything last gen - this asks for $380+ for the same - quite the markup for only 4 years - that's not inflation kids. It's also unfortunate not to have a true 670 successor in between the two for someone who wants to be able to beat stock 1080 performance after an OC and still save some cash. I don't like how Nvidia continues to remove SKUs and increase the performance gaps.

 

[alcoholbob]

1070 would be a beast of a HTPC card. Same power draw as GTX 960, but 980 Ti performance. When they come out with a half-length card I'm definitely gonna get one.

 

[RussianSensation]

The performance delta of OC 1070 vs stock 1080 definitely seems reminiscent of OC 660 Ti vs stock 680. Can't match it, but 90% or so there.

That'd be my only disappointment with this card. MSRP 660 Ti was $300 and beat anything last gen - this asks for $380+ for the same - quite the markup for only 4 years - that's not inflation kids. It's also unfortunate not to have a true 670 successor in between the two for someone who wants to be able to beat stock 1080 performance after an OC and still save some cash. I don't like how Nvidia continues to remove SKUs and increase the performance gaps.

Ya, that's all true. From a historical performance, both the 1070 and 1080 are far worse than 670/680 were if you look at it that way. 1070 is akin to a 660Ti now because of the performance deficit to the 1080.

You'd be absolutely correct that if judging Pascal to Kepler, 1070/1080 are underwhelming performance and pricing wise.

Ya, 1070 should be $299 and 1080 should be $499 like 660Ti and 680 were but with no competition from AMD, it is how it is now.

At least I can accept the $80 premium over the 660Ti and $50 premium over the 970 for the 1070 since it performs so well at 1440p considering today's games. 1080 OTOH is not worth its asking price, not even at $599. Looking at DX12 benchmarks, Pascal didn't fix Maxwell's issues and that's because Pascal is basically Maxwell on Speed (by speed I mean 14nm node clocks). This opens up a lot of headroom for NV to make a proper DX12 Async Compute card with Volta. Either way, considering AMD has Vega for 2017, unless Polaris 10 over delivers (Fury X performance for $299), NV's got the $380-$1000 market locked down for 2016. Even if AMD lowered Fury x to $299, it's still not worth to buy that over the $380 1070.

 

[96Firebird]

For 1080p 60Hz gaming, it's a waste of $. 1060/1060Ti is a better fit. Your sandy bridge i5 and 1080p 60Hz monitor are major bottlenecks. Just saying. In fact, 970 OC is plenty fast for 1080p 60hz gaming. There are plenty of reviews online that prove both of my points - i5 Sandy isn't fast enough for 980Ti level card and 1070/980Ti level card renders way more frames than a 1080p 60Hz display can show. Time to upgrade to 1440p/4K and leave peasant 1080p console gaming behind. PC master race. :thumbsup:

Right now my PC is hooked up to my 4K TV until I finish my office. I think the 1070 will provide a decent boost over my 970.

 

[RussianSensation]

Right now my PC is hooked up to my 4K TV until I finish my office. I think the 1070 will provide a decent boost over my 970.

:thumbsup:

I hope everyone on this forum stops drinking NV's Kool-Aid marketing and doesn't buy the FE cards:
https://www.techpowerup.com/222895/...edition-owners-complain-of-fan-revving-issues

Firstly, the FE cooler is garbage. Secondly, as consumers we need to send a message that adding $70-100 premiums for worse performing products isn't going to fly. The only way NV will listen is if we ignore all FE cards. Vote with your wallet boys. If Asus follows through and releases the 1070 with the same PCB/cooler as their 1080 Strix, that could be a killer $420 card. The added benefit of the 1070 is that because of its 150W power usage, the 8-pin connector is unlikely to be a limiting factor this time. As a result, there is far less need to specifically hunt for 6+8-pin connector cards on the 1070. This is another major bonus of the 1070 cards because almost any 1070 card with a solid cooler should provide the capability for max overclocks on the chip.

 

[MagickMan]

My weakest 980Ti vs the 1070 (and the 1080 too) in FSE. An overclocked 980Ti is perfectly fine.

 

[sam_816]

any performance review on 21:9 1440p ultra wide resolutions???
will 1070(aftermarket) be able to push 60+ on 3440X1440??

looking at these reviews i feel nvidia just hurt its own 1080 really badly.
1080 ti will be a perfect card for 4k(60hz) and 1070 for anything lower than that.
for 100 odd bucks more ppl can sli 1070s and get smoother 4k experience.

 

[Cookie Monster]

:thumbsup:

I hope everyone on this forum stops drinking NV's Kool-Aid marketing and doesn't buy the FE cards:
https://www.techpowerup.com/222895/...edition-owners-complain-of-fan-revving-issues

Firstly, the FE cooler is garbage. Secondly, as consumers we need to send a message that adding $70-100 premiums for worse performing products isn't going to fly. The only way NV will listen is if we ignore all FE cards. Vote with your wallet boys. If Asus follows through and releases the 1070 with the same PCB/cooler as their 1080 Strix, that could be a killer $420 card. The added benefit of the 1070 is that because of its 150W power usage, the 8-pin connector is unlikely to be a limiting factor this time. As a result, there is far less need to specifically hunt for 6+8-pin connector cards on the 1070. This is another major bonus of the 1070 cards because almost any 1070 card with a solid cooler should provide the capability for max overclocks on the chip.

Totally agree. The GTX1070 with custom coolers and boards will be killer cards given price/perf.

Think its about time for me to upgrade but just waiting on AMD to see what they got to offer.

 

[RussianSensation]

Totally agree. The GTX1070 with custom coolers and boards will be killer cards given price/perf.

Think its about time for me to upgrade but just waiting on AMD to see what they got to offer.

I know. I said before that AIB 1070 cards should close the gap even further with $699 1080 FE. 1080's shader and texture performance is completely gimped by its 256-bit bus and the same ROPs as the 1070.

At the key target resolution of 1440p that both cards are aimed at, the 1080 is only 22% faster for a $220-320 premium.

Look at this, the cheapest R9 390X is $380 USD on Newegg, but 1070 beats $580 Fury X for $200 less.

I am so pissed that prices keep rising (aka 1070 is more or less 660Ti with an $80 mark-up), but man, the 1070 makes everything out on the market between $280 and $1000 pointless for 1080p/1440p 60Hz gaming. 6800GT moment. In many ways, even though 970 was way better relative to the 980, looking at the current market context, the 1070 is more impressive than the 970 was because it has 8GB of VRAM (more than enough for 1440p) and unlike $350 after-market R9 290 around 970's launch, there isn't a single AMD card anywhere close to $380 at 150W that can touch it. At least an after-market 290 could keep up with a 970 and needed a small price adjustment from AMD to keep it going. Fury X needs a $250-300 price drop and even then it uses 280W and has just 4GB of VRAM.

 

[C@mM!]

Look at this, the cheapest R9 390X is $380 USD on Newegg, but 1070 beats $580 Fury X for $200 less.

Of course it should, its a fab drop, new architecture, chip.

Tbh, I expect more of a performance jump than this.

 

[RussianSensation]

My weakest 980Ti vs the 1070 (and the 1080 too) in FSE. An overclocked 980Ti is perfectly fine.

I wouldn't upgrade from a 980Ti.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrRhV6qfrr0

980Ti OC is awesome, no doubt but it's not possible to buy it for $380-400 new. The cheapest I can find local is $400 USD used.

Of course it should, its a fab drop, new architecture, chip.

Tbh, I expect more of a performance jump than this.

There is more performance, a lot more. The key here is 1070 and 1080 will only use 150/185W of power. Get ready for a 250W Big Pascal to blow your mind. It will be as fast as GTX1070 SLI. My gut tells me though that Big Pascal may either be milked (aka Titan -> 780 cut -> 780Ti style) OR it launches right off the bat with a $799-899 price. Now imagine how Pascal is a barely improved Maxwell architecture, with lower IPC compensated by higher 16nm GPU clocks and still broken hardware Async Compute --> Now imagine how amazing 2018 16nm Volta will be. Mind-blown.

Think its about time for me to upgrade but just waiting on AMD to see what they got to offer.

Slim hope remains that AMD will have an upset. I think only something as good as a Fury X/980Ti below 175W TDP level for $299 will be able to derail 1070's momentum. Alternatively, Fury Air (390X + 10%) performance for $249.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Of course it should, its a fab drop, new architecture, chip.

Tbh, I expect more of a performance jump than this.

It isn't like the old days where there were sometimes 100% performance increases from node and architecture jumps just by doubling the pipeline count. Seems so ancient thinking about it, but when you look at the level of complexity from the old days e.g. NV40 - 222 million transistors - 16 pipelines -> lets say for laymens sake 16 CC, to now a GP104 at 7.2 billion transistors (x32.43 increase) with 2560 CCs (x160 increase). On top of maintaining similiar die sizes (so transistor density getting smaller and smaller that we are almost there in hitting the atomic limits of silicon).

With so many transistors, its that much harder to design, harder to validate, harder to debug (try finding that 1 faulty transistor out of billions) etc. Its still incredible what the IHVs are doing compared to the CPU side of things imo where performance increases are tiny.

 

[C@mM!]

It isn't like the old days where there were sometimes 100% performance increases from node and architecture jumps just by doubling the pipeline count. Seems so ancient thinking about it, but when you look at the level of complexity from the old days e.g. NV40 - 222 million transistors - 16 pipelines -> lets say for laymens sake 16 CC, to now a GP104 at 7.2 billion transistors (x32.43 increase) with 2560 CCs (x160 increase). On top of maintaining similiar die sizes (so transistor density getting smaller and smaller that we are almost there in hitting the atomic limits of silicon).

With so many transistors, its that much harder to design, harder to validate, harder to debug (try finding that 1 faulty transistor out of billions) etc. Its still incredible what the IHVs are doing compared to the CPU side of things imo where performance increases are tiny.

I'm not sure to be honest. I think the big problem is is that this card should be compared to the 980, of which then its gains are quite remarkable.

However, its priced like a 980 Ti, which then makes its gains look pretty underwhelming.

 

[RussianSensation]

I'm not sure to be honest. I think the big problem is is that this card should be compared to the 980, of which then its gains are quite remarkable.

However, its priced like a 980 Ti, which then makes its gains look pretty underwhelming.

1070 will cost significantly less than 980Ti. Even if you compare it to the 980, the 980 looks awful. The $379 1070 is 35% faster than the $549 Sept 2014 980. Just a month ago, 980 was still selling for $430+. 980 will go down as one of the worst cards ever made. The only thing 3 things the 980 will ever be known for are:

1) amazing perf/watt within the Maxwell line.
2) worst buy ever against 970, 970 SLI, 290X, 290/290X CF;
3) destroyed 9 months later by a $100 more expensive 980Ti.

Everything other than perf/watt for the 980 was underwhelming.

1070 is the opposite. Even though 1070 is a bigger gap against 1080, in the current market its performance is a slam dunk for 1080/1440p 60Hz and 1070 SLI is again superior to a single 1080 for 4K just like 970SLi was against the 980 for 1440p. Both cards have 64 ROPs and the same 8GB of VRAM. 1070 is going to be less picky about requiring more than a single 8-pin connector due to having just a 150W TDP. This will make it easier to find cheaper 1070 cards than 1080 cards. If any AIBs release a 1070 with GDDR5X, 1080 is finished.

 

[C@mM!]

1070 will cost significantly less than 980Ti. Even if you compare it to the 980, the 980 looks awful. The $379 1070 is 35% faster than the $549 Sept 2014 980. Just a month ago, 980 was still selling for $430+. 980 will go down as one of the worst cards ever made. The only thing 3 things the 980 will ever be known for are:

1) amazing perf/watt within the Maxwell line.
2) worst buy ever against 970, 970 SLI, 290X, 290/290X CF;
3) destroyed 9 months later by a $100 more expensive 980Ti.

Everything other than perf/watt for the 980 was underwhelming.

1070 is the opposite. Even though 1070 is a bigger gap against 1080, in the current market its performance is a slam dunk for 1080/1440p 60Hz and 1070 SLI is again superior to a single 1080 for 4K just like 970SLi was against the 980 for 1440p. Both cards have 64 ROPs and the same 8GB of VRAM. 1070 is going to be less picky about requiring more than a single 8-pin connector due to having just a 150W TDP. This will make it easier to find cheaper 1070 cards than 1080 cards. If any AIBs release a 1070 with GDDR5X, 1080 is finished.

Again, not so sure. The darkhorse atm with the 1070 is Polaris. Depending on where Polaris sits perf wise, its possible we will see high clocking Polaris parts that are cheaper to manufacturer having equal or better performance to a 1070. With 1070 dies being more expensive to manufacture, this could pincer pricing on 1070's.

 

[3DVagabond]

Aftermarket 980tis still demolish the 1070 at default clocks and even when both overclocked:

http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/revi...less-half-price/performance-benchmarks-page-1

http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/revi...less-half-price/performance-benchmarks-page-2

The power consumption is pretty neat though..

You'll see most O/C'd cards not being compared any more.

 

[mohit9206]

Great card for $400.Very impressive OC potential.Closes the gap with the 1080 by a lot when OC'd rendering the 1080 irrelevent just as RussianSensation correctly pointed out.
However if Polaris can deliver 85-90% of the stock 1070 perf at $299 then it would be great for us.Very future proof card too.The 8gb vram is enough to easily last 4 years if one sticks to 1080p.

 

[AtenRa]

The chip (GP104) is nice but, just like the GTX1080 FE, those 2-3 minutes benchmarks are not real gaming performance due to throttling. Im waiting for the custom cards.

 

[Head1985]

As others predicted, game over for the 980Ti too. 980Ti OC cannot beat 1070 OC at 1440p 60hz gaming.

Wrong
They didnt overclock 980TI
http://www.sweclockers.com/test/22153-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070/10#content

Real 980TI OC(1500/8000) is faster than 1070OC.Also 1080OC is 40% faster than 1070 OC

 

[USER8000]

In the UK due to a combination of factors,instead of £250 for a GTX970,the GTX1070 is probably going to cost between £320 to £400 which is around 30% to 60% price hike over the GTX970.

 

[Head1985]

In the UK due to a combination of factors,instead of £250 for a GTX970,the GTX1070 is probably going to cost between £320 to £400 which is around 30% to 60% price hike over the GTX970.

Same in czech republic..Prices for EU are 500euro for reference and 425euro for aftermarket(cheapest crap)
I dont know who the hell make those EU prices.

Aftermarket 1070 should cost around 450euro(decent ones)

 

[selni]

Same in czech republic..Prices for EU are 500euro for reference and 425euro for aftermarket.
I dont know who the hell make those EU prices.

That's almost entirely EU sales tax. Google reckons $1 USD = €0.9 currently, so the raw US prices are ~€341 and €405. Add 21% VAT and you're at €413 and €490.

 

[NTMBK]

For 1080p 60Hz gaming, it's a waste of $. 1060/1060Ti is a better fit. Your sandy bridge i5 and 1080p 60Hz monitor are major bottlenecks. Just saying. In fact, 970 OC is plenty fast for 1080p 60hz gaming. There are plenty of reviews online that prove both of my points - i5 Sandy isn't fast enough for 980Ti level card and 1070/980Ti level card renders way more frames than a 1080p 60Hz display can show. Time to upgrade to 1440p/4K and leave peasant 1080p console gaming behind. PC master race. :thumbsup:

I don't get this race to 4K. There are still tons of Windows apps that just don't work properly with DPI scaling, and the difference in games isn't particularly visible to me. I'd rather see 1080p with higher refresh rate and better color reproduction (e.g. HDR support). 4K feels like a waste of GPU power.

 

[tential]

I don't get this race to 4K. There are still tons of Windows apps that just don't work properly with DPI scaling, and the difference in games isn't particularly visible to me. I'd rather see 1080p with higher refresh rate and better color reproduction (e.g. HDR support). 4K feels like a waste of GPU power.

1080p is a tiny resolution, especially for large screens. 4K adds a TON of clarity to the overall image. AC Unity's release was the perfect example of this. 1080p, the game looked meh. 4K+ downsampled and it looked amazing.