NVIDIA Geforce GTX 1070 Thread

[Thinker_145]

As I said if we are going to cherry pick then what about scenarios where the 1080 doesn't perform like it should despite no CPU bottleneck?

This is with FE vs FE mind you. I'll like to see what cards were used to achieve a 33% performance difference in Deus-Ex before establishing that such a thing can even happen. All the graphs you posted show a standard difference except the one where it isn't mentioned what cards they used lol.

 

[Head1985]

Link? What GPUs were they using?

I dont know both FE probably.Btw i edited post for oc results

 

[Head1985]

There is no notion of the 1070 being gimped, it is heavily cut down, yes, but not gimped. Otherwise I would never had bought it, it's the perfect 1080/entry 1440p card , but those are preliminary results, give it some time, the 1080 will distance itself from the 1070. Also the FE 1080 cards are good overclockers they might be noisy but they will beat out any AIB 1070 out there FE tax or not. The 1070 is not the value proposition like the 970 was back in the day. Had the 970 not been memory gimped it would have held its ground still today, alas the vRAM segmentation is costing it big time in modern vRAM heavy titles.

Yeah last less cutdown x70 card was GTX670 vs 680.Thats why i say x70 cards are worse every generation.I think better strategy is buy cutdown BIG SKU.They are only slighly cutdown from full SKU and have insane OC potencial.They are even 10-20% faster than full SKU after oc.Like GTX980TI vs TITANXP.
nvidia increasing gap in x70 card and x80cards since GTX670 vs 680 every generation and i dont like it.

 

[Thinker_145]

I dont know both FE probably. Btw i edited post for oc results

You can't just assume that. You know a simple difference like an AIB 1080 vs FE 1070 or even a high end AIB 1080 vs standard AIB 1070 can really skew the results. TPU shows a 23% difference between FE 1080 and 1070 in Deus-Ex.

OC vs OC only very slightly like 2-3% tips the scales in favour of the 1080. Not to mention you can't just conclude that on 1 OC vs OC test. Lastly nobody cares about FE OC potential.

 

[96Firebird]

For anyone still looking for a 1070, Jet has some good deals (as low as $345 shipped for Zotac) when you give up free returns, pay by debit card and use code SHOP10. Not sure if the GOW4 promo codes will be available on cards from Jet though. Unfortunately, they charge tax in my state.

 

[Head1985]

You can't just assume that. You know a simple difference like an AIB 1080 vs FE 1070 or even a high end AIB 1080 vs standard AIB 1070 can really skew the results. TPU shows a 23% difference between FE 1080 and 1070 in Deus-Ex.

OC vs OC only very slightly like 2-3% tips the scales in favour of the 1080. Not to mention you can't just conclude that on 1 OC vs OC test. Lastly nobody cares about FE OC potential.

They both FE editions.They would say if they using aftermarket cards.Btw FE cards have +- same OC like aftermarket cards.Both end up in 2100Mhz.

 

[Anteaus]

Is the 1070 a good idea for right now? From what I read it doesn't go 4k well. I want to hook my PC up to a 4k TV. The 1060 is obviously not as fast but would it be worth it to buy a 1060 6GB now and wait a year or two for the 1070 series to do 4k very well. I am looking at 550 to upgrade to a 1070 card and new power supply. 1060 is going to cost me 300. It appears the 1060 can do VR gaming and 1440p if need be. I plan on keeping the card at least two or three years.

1080 is well out of budget.

The 1070 does 4K no problem. I can max all but a select view games and still get close to 60 FPS. Even then, lowering or turning off AA and the performance drop is recovered. The only conversation in which the 1070 is weak at 4K is if you are looking for 60+ to 120 FPS with everything maxed. I think the 1070 is the best value you can get right now if you are wanting 4K. The 1080 is obviously superior, but for much more money.

I'm running an X99 5820K, 32GB ram, 1070 FE.

 

[Thinker_145]

They both FE editions.They would say if they using aftermarket cards.Btw FE cards have +- same OC like aftermarket cards.Both end up in 2100Mhz.

Yes you are right about that. I guess we will need a little bigger sample to establish that max OC vs max OC the 1080 gains over the 1070. In any case even in your graph the difference is pretty minimal.

Why would they mention it? They already mention "FE" in the other graphs. I don't know why you are so adament in accepting a number without evidence of what they were using when we have other numbers knowing exactly what was used showing a lesser difference.

 

[ZGR]

The 1070 does 4K no problem. I can max all but a select view games and still get close to 60 FPS. Even then, lowering or turning off AA and the performance drop is recovered. The only conversation in which the 1070 is weak at 4K is if you are looking for 60+ to 120 FPS with everything maxed. I think the 1070 is the best value you can get right now if you are wanting 4K. The 1080 is obviously superior, but for much more money.

I'm running an X99 5820K, 32GB ram, 1070 FE.

I have a similar experience with 4k. The 1070 far exceeded my expectations in a number of titles; being able to run every game I play at 60fps. The only game where I lower settings is R6 Siege, which murders it at ultra settings.

The fact that every game I play can pull off 30 fps minimums @ 8k is very surprising. I bought the 1070 as a stop gap card until the 1080 ti. Since the 1070 is performing so well, I will be able to hold onto it far longer than planned.

Edit: I upgraded from a 290. I expected a weak 20% gain in most titles. In Elite Dangerous, ARMA series, GTA V, I am able to exceed the graphical settings my 290 could handle 1080p60 on my 1070 @ 4k60. What?! Still doesn't seem right to me.

Another plus is overclocking. My 290 could OC 10-15%, but it did not scale well.

With a modest OC, my minimums raise linearly with clockspeed, just like my gt 650m. The 1070 is absolutely bandwidth starved.

 

[nerp]

Yes, this strange notion that the 1070 is "not a 4k card" and you must have a 1080 for it is not accurate. Yes, ultra settings at 4k is a stretch but not all titles, especially anything released before this spring. If you're like me, I'm gaming at 2K and everything is insanely smooth with settings on max, ultra, or nightmare or whatever. Most games are way above 60fps all the time and I just have a plain 60hz monitor so I should probably turn vsync on to save some GPU frames since I'm not seeing them all anyway, but why bother when it's super fast. I also have not experienced tearing or all these otherr horrible things people feel forced to buy pricey gsync and 144hz monitors. I think a LOT of people spend more than they should since they'd be happy if only the actually saw it in action.

 

[sze5003]

I find the card perfect for 2k display as well. Most titles I've played run smooth at high fps. To say that it's the best for 1080p is kind of a stretch I think. In my opinion for 1080 it's a bit much. There are less expensive cards that can nicely perform for a 1080 display.

 

[Thinker_145]

Yes, this strange notion that the 1070 is "not a 4k card" and you must have a 1080 for it is not accurate. Yes, ultra settings at 4k is a stretch but not all titles, especially anything released before this spring. If you're like me, I'm gaming at 2K and everything is insanely smooth with settings on max, ultra, or nightmare or whatever. Most games are way above 60fps all the time and I just have a plain 60hz monitor so I should probably turn vsync on to save some GPU frames since I'm not seeing them all anyway, but why bother when it's super fast. I also have not experienced tearing or all these otherr horrible things people feel forced to buy pricey gsync and 144hz monitors. I think a LOT of people spend more than they should since they'd be happy if only the actually saw it in action.

I would really like to get a 144Hz monitor but the lack of quality 1080p 144Hz monitors has stopped me so far. Also the price premium on 144Hz is just so much. And I cannot understand the point of 1440p 144Hz since the majority of AAA games won't run anyway near 144FPS even with high end hardware. I wish we had cheaper 100Hz alternatives it seems like the best balance to me.

What I would REALLY want is to get rid of backlight bleed, corner glow and just the overall terrible black uniformity of all non VA screens.

 

[Sweepr]

Posted some info about NVIDIA's plans for 2017/2018 in the Pascal Thread thursday, now WCCFTech made a news article about it.

Relevant part to this thread is, GTX 1070's successor should get GDDR5X next year.

 

[Head1985]

Of course and probably 4xGPC with 2048SP.The real 1070 will be released but we need to wait for it like year shame on NV....That refreshed 1070 will be very close to GTX1080.

 

[Anteaus]

I would really like to get a 144Hz monitor but the lack of quality 1080p 144Hz monitors has stopped me so far. Also the price premium on 144Hz is just so much. And I cannot understand the point of 1440p 144Hz since the majority of AAA games won't run anyway near 144FPS even with high end hardware. I wish we had cheaper 100Hz alternatives it seems like the best balance to me.

What I would REALLY want is to get rid of backlight bleed, corner glow and just the overall terrible black uniformity of all non VA screens.

I agree. My problem with gaming monitors in general is that the vast majority of them are still based on older TN technology. As someone who does many different things (games, photo editing, movies, etc), non-IPS panels simply aren't an option. I think for competitive play very fast panels <2-4ms have their place, but for average gamer I think the image quality is too low and the price is too high right now for what you get. 60Hz with a 6-8ms latency is fine for every day gaming, at least to my eyes. I paid less than $400 for my Samsung 60Hz 4K IPS panel and it was worth every dime.

 

[torlen11cc]

Are the Micron's memories worse than these of Samsung when it comes to GTX 1070 (or, actually, just in general)? and if so, how is it expressed? From what I've gathered, worse memories equal lower stability, and lower stability equals less overclock.

 

[nerp]

I agree. My problem with gaming monitors in general is that the vast majority of them are still based on older TN technology. As someone who does many different things (games, photo editing, movies, etc), non-IPS panels simply aren't an option. I think for competitive play very fast panels <2-4ms have their place, but for average gamer I think the image quality is too low and the price is too high right now for what you get. 60Hz with a 6-8ms latency is fine for every day gaming, at least to my eyes. I paid less than $400 for my Samsung 60Hz 4K IPS panel and it was worth every dime.

I'm with you on this. I would rather have a really lovely quality IPS non-gaming display than a TN panel with high refresh rate for the price. I have a 27" IPS screen and I couldn't go back to TN. And as I mentioned before, gaming is great on it and I don't see tearing or any weird effects. I spent most of my time writing and working on my PC and the advantages of a good IPS display outweigh the advantage of gysnc or high refresh rates, IMHO.

 

[Thinker_145]

Modern IPS screens are really fast and higher response time isn't even on my list of improvements I seek in a monitor. I am going to jump ship to VA soon so let's see how that goes in terms of response time.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Phynaz]

New G-sync IPS 165hz displays incoming:

http://techreport.com/news/30715/aoc-agon-family-of-gaming-monitors-heads-stateside

 

[Headfoot]

TN = cheap, fast, lower IQ; IPS = still fairly cheap, pretty fast, good off angle and color, crappy IPS glow and crappy contrast ratios; VA = expensive, good off angle, decent color, good contrast, medium speed for high end models and slow for low end ones

OLED = monitor jesus except for the price and the fact it doesnt exist apart from LG TVs

 

[Headfoot]

I want to see 2016 TV LED backlight array tech make its way into monitors. Could get a lot better contrast out of an IPS panel with the right backlight tech

 

[Bacon1]

TN = cheap, fast, lower IQ; IPS = still fairly cheap, pretty fast, good off angle and color, crappy IPS glow and crappy contrast ratios; VA = expensive, good off angle, decent color, good contrast, medium speed for high end models and slow for low end ones

OLED = monitor jesus except for the price and the fact it doesnt exist apart from LG TVs

Samsung is coming out with some new monitors with new panel tech "Quantum Dot".

VA used to be the middle of the two techs with TN being worst and IPS being the best. IPS has changed and gotten a lot better though and TN quality is also better now, but yeah basically same hierarchy. Panels stalled out for a almost good decade though and are now finally getting back into high end ones.

 

[Thinker_145]

Samsung is coming out with some new monitors with new panel tech "Quantum Dot".

VA used to be the middle of the two techs with TN being worst and IPS being the best. IPS has changed and gotten a lot better though and TN quality is also better now, but yeah basically same hierarchy. Panels stalled out for a almost good decade though and are now finally getting back into high end ones.

IPS hasn't done anything to address its corner glow which is it's biggest flaw. I find it remarkable that $1000 IPS screens exhibit the same level of backlight bleed and corner glow as $300 screens and yet people keep buying them.

The shift from CCFL to LED introduced MORE backlight bleed. It seems to me PC gamers have remarkably low IQ standards hence manufacturers can get away with stuff like that.

VA has made good progress with it's response time and gamma shift. It's finally being marketed as a gaming monitor and we are now finding its presence in high end monitors. In pure IQ without ambient lightning a $200 VA destroys a $1000 IPS.

 

[Bacon1]

IPS hasn't done anything to address its corner glow which is it's biggest flaw. I find it remarkable that $1000 IPS screens exhibit the same level of backlight bleed and corner glow as $300 screens and yet people keep buying them.

The shift from CCFL to LED introduced MORE backlight bleed. It seems to me PC gamers have remarkably low IQ standards hence manufacturers can get away with stuff like that.

VA has made good progress with it's response time and gamma shift. It's finally being marketed as a gaming monitor and we are now finding its presence in high end monitors. In pure IQ without ambient lightning a $200 VA destroys a $1000 IPS.

I've never noticed BLB on my monitors and doing computer work in pure darkness is bad for your eyes and will strain your vision, so having ambient light is good and will make any bleed unnoticeable.

 

[Thinker_145]

I've never noticed BLB on my monitors and doing computer work in pure darkness is bad for your eyes and will strain your vision, so having ambient light is good and will make any bleed unnoticeable.

People have been playing games without ambient lightning for years man...even with hard matte screens you will still get distortion due to lights. So darkness always provides the most uniform image quality.