NVIDIA Pascal Thread

[sontin]

Guess i have to repeat myself one more time:

And what did we get ? 700$

• reference 1080 is ~25% faster than reference 980Ti

• reference 1080 is ~0-5% faster than then aftermarket 980TI (the actual one that people owns)

• overclocked 1080 is ~20-25 faster than then aftermarket 980TI (24% increase in boostclock don't mean 24% faster overall)

Worth it for 700$ ? Not for me at least, but then again we have:

.. So iam sure they will do fine

So a faster card is not worth the same price? Wow.
Oh and a 2117MHz GTX1080 will use less than 225W while a overclocked GTX980TI needs more than 300W.

 

[tential]

Guess i have to repeat myself one more time:

And what did we get ? 700$

• reference 1080 is ~25% faster than reference 980Ti

• reference 1080 is ~0-5% faster than then aftermarket 980TI (the actual one that people owns)

• overclocked 1080 is ~20-25 faster than then aftermarket 980TI (24% increase in boostclock don't mean 24% faster overall)

Worth it for 700$ ? Not for me at least, but then again we have:

.. So iam sure they will do fine

None of this matters except the last part. Genius marketing. That's what matters. I've said it time and time again. It's not that the 1070/1080 are ncessarily great deals. They evoke emotion. The 1070 lowers the price of the 980Ti and makes it affordable for more people to get Titan X performance (Oooo Titan X!!!!!!)

The 1080 is 30% faster than a 980TI!!!!!! (Reference... your 980Ti has massive OC room btw).

Nvidia's marketing is what matters the most.

So a faster card is not worth the same price? Wow.
Oh and a 2117MHz GTX1080 will use less than 225W while a overclocked GTX980TI needs more than 300W.

Remember when the 980Ti was an extremely efficient card? Now it's a power hungry beast that needs over 300W!!!!!

 

[sontin]

Yes, i remember it. But when somebody is using an overclocked GTX980TI to make a point it makes sense to stay in the reality.

 

[Silverforce11]

Flying around in the air somewhere, only seen by those who want to believe it to be true.

What do you believe?

When will we see MSRP AIB cards?

 

[Silverforce11]

Guess i have to repeat myself one more time:

And what did we get ? 700$

• reference 1080 is ~25% faster than reference 980Ti

• reference 1080 is ~0-5% faster than then aftermarket 980TI (the actual one that people owns)

• overclocked 1080 is ~20-25 faster than then aftermarket 980TI (24% increase in boostclock don't mean 24% faster overall)

Worth it for 700$ ? Not for me at least, but then again we have:

.. So iam sure they will do fine

Actually your maths is wrong for the OC.

Since the reference 1080 gets it's 25% lead by boosting to at least 1.86ghz (for people that didn't know, NV's boost clocks go above their paper specs, often by greater than 100mhz).

When it's OC to 2.1ghz, that is only ~12%.

You could say a 980Ti at 1.5ghz is only ~10-15% slower than an OC 1080 at 2.1ghz.

There's major features in Pascal that will mean this across the board game average will be much bigger in modern compute-heavy games, DX12 games, and VR games. It's certainly much more future proof and later this year, it will be quite common to see Pascal's lead grow to a huge one.

 

[DiogoDX]

Remember when the 980Ti was an extremely efficient card? Now it's a power hungry beast that needs over 300W!!!!!

:thumbsup:

 

[96Firebird]

What do you believe?

When will we see MSRP AIB cards?

If not on launch day, within a week.

 

[Arachnotronic]

So 25% better than a Geforce GTX 980 Ti and (possibly, demoed at 2.1 GHz) significant overclocking headroom is now considered a failure. Unsurprisingly that's coming from the same people who told us we wouldn't see Pascal till months after the competitor's FinFET products. Can't wait to see how 'mainstream desktop' Ellesmere compares to NVIDIA's 'failure'.

I agree, I just can't imagine how this can be considered a "failure" -- more efficient, faster, more VRAM, etc. compared to outgoing 980 Ti. 1080 seems like a great product. Looking forward to reviews, particularly overclocking reports. If the review samples consistently hit 2.1GHz+, this will be really nice.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

It sounds like the NDA on the GTX 1080 won't be up until May 27th. Check the 3:00 mark below from TekSyndicate where he says "We're allowed to talk about a few things and some of the other stuff you're going to have to wait until the card is released May 27th." I mean what would we find out about that wouldn't be covered in reviews?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9IPccbOgPU

 

[Spanners]

If not on launch day, within a week.

Wouldn't it be a really odd move then though, to offer "Founders" cards for $100 more? It would only make sense to me if they had limited supply and wanted to control the demand (while banking the profits that "scalpers" would've made). If the previous links are correct and the "Founders" cards are only reference + early then what possible incentive would there be to buy one vs a cheaper + cooler/quieter custom design if they are available on or very close to release? I would be surprised if there wasn't a least a fortnight gap after the release till we see non-reference cards.

 

[alcoholbob]

If not on launch day, within a week.

I seriously doubt that.

There's no way Nvidia is charging a $100 premium on launch day just for people who can't wait a week. Also remember Nvidia charges full sales tax, and they charge shipping, so we are talking about in reality, a $180-190 launch day premium after NY or CA sales tax. We're talking about almost $200 over MSRP, it's gonna be $780-790 to buy a GTX 1080 on launch day. On launch day GTX 1080 is gonna be competing with discounted GTX 980 Ti Kingpins, and honestly if you aren't overclocking the two cards will basically be just as fast as each other, and the Kingpins will probably be cheaper by then.

Remember when they launched the Titan X it wasn't available from 3rd party sellers until about 3 weeks after launch. I'd honestly be surprised you could get a $599 GTX 1080 even by June 10. I'm guessing mid-June we'll start seeing 3rd parties selling $600 GTX 1080s, and late June will be $379 GTX 1070s.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Remember when the 980Ti was an extremely efficient card? Now it's a power hungry beast that needs over 300W!!!!!

Compared to Pascal it is obviously not very efficient. Efficiency is relative, and in its weight class the 980 Ti offered excellent perf/watt across a broad mix of titles.

 

[Silverforce11]

I agree, I just can't imagine how this can be considered a "failure" -- more efficient, faster, more VRAM, etc. compared to outgoing 980 Ti. 1080 seems like a great product. Looking forward to reviews, particularly overclocking reports. If the review samples consistently hit 2.1GHz+, this will be really nice.

Pascal is an excellent design and 1070 and 1080 are great GPUs, just priced very poorly, but then price is a subjective thing, I'm sure we all judge value differently.

Engineering wise, a mid-range chip beating a prior gen big chip by 25% is a great achievement.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Pascal is an excellent design and 1070 and 1080 are great GPUs, just priced very poorly, but then price is a subjective thing, I'm sure we all judge value differently.

Engineering wise, a mid-range chip beating a prior gen big chip by 25% is a great achievement.

There is nothing "mid-range" about a GPU that will sell for $600+.

 

[kithylin]

Actually your maths is wrong for the OC.

Since the reference 1080 gets it's 25% lead by boosting to at least 1.86ghz (for people that didn't know, NV's boost clocks go above their paper specs, often by greater than 100mhz).

When it's OC to 2.1ghz, that is only ~12%.

You could say a 980Ti at 1.5ghz is only ~10-15% slower than an OC 1080 at 2.1ghz.

There's major features in Pascal that will mean this across the board game average will be much bigger in modern compute-heavy games, DX12 games, and VR games. It's certainly much more future proof and later this year, it will be quite common to see Pascal's lead grow to a huge one.

Time for a little math myself...

So wikipedia page has the GTX 1080 @ 9000 Gflops @ 1733 mhz (max boost listed).

And at the event we saw it running at 2114 Mhz core speed (http://www.outfoxed.net/nvidia-gtx1080-performance-2.png)

So based on the wikipedia page, that would put the 1080 (when running at 2114 Mhz) at 10,987 Gflops.

Also there on wikipedia, the reference GTX 980 Ti is listed at 5632 Gflops.

Which would put the GTX 1080 (again, when running at 2114 Mhz), at +95.08% faster.

I went and looked at hwbot.org and just picked firestrike -> GTX 980 Ti -> Custom water, and the first 15 results are about 1470 - 1530 Mhz core speed.

So let's do a little more math. Say we take nvidia's reference GTX 980 Ti listed at 5632 Gflops for max 1075 Mhz boost. So by this.. we can extrapolate that a 980 Ti running at 1500 mhz would be doing 7858 Gflops.

Compared to the GTX 1080's 10,987 Gflops (when clocked @ 2114 Mhz), the GTX 1080 is still yet +39.82% faster than a custom water-cooled, massively overclocked 980 Ti.

And most likely uses a heck of a lot less power to do it. And.. no water.

 

[Silverforce11]

@kithylin

Don't measure the performance based on Tflops (unless you are in HPC). Actual performance in a game or game benchmark is more realistic.

 

[kithylin]

@kithylin

Don't measure the performance based on Tflops (unless you are in HPC). Actual performance in a game or game benchmark is more realistic.

Unfortunately since we don't have hard benchmark data yet, that's the -ONLY- performance metric we have for the new cards right now.

 

[Silverforce11]

There is nothing "mid-range" about a GPU that will sell for $600+.

No, not based on price, it's high-end. Based on the chip, it's mid-range.

Small size, small bus, low TDP and the fact we've seen this for many generations, screams mid-range sold at high-end prices.

ps. Was the GM204 mid-range? GK104? Yeah they were all mid-range chips.

 

[tential]

Time for a little math myself...

So wikipedia page has the GTX 1080 @ 9000 Gflops @ 1733 mhz (max boost listed).

And at the event we saw it running at 2114 Mhz core speed (http://www.outfoxed.net/nvidia-gtx1080-performance-2.png)

So based on the wikipedia page, that would put the 1080 (when running at 2114 Mhz) at 10,987 Gflops.

Also there on wikipedia, the reference GTX 980 Ti is listed at 5632 Gflops.

Which would put the GTX 1080 (again, when running at 2114 Mhz), at +95.08% faster.

I went and looked at hwbot.org and just picked firestrike -> GTX 980 Ti -> Custom water, and the first 15 results are about 1470 - 1530 Mhz core speed.

So let's do a little more math. Say we take nvidia's reference GTX 980 Ti listed at 5632 Gflops for max 1075 Mhz boost. So by this.. we can extrapolate that a 980 Ti running at 1500 mhz would be doing 7858 Gflops.

Compared to the GTX 1080's 10,987 Gflops (when clocked @ 2114 Mhz), the GTX 1080 is still yet +39.82% faster than a custom water-cooled, massively overclocked 980 Ti.

And most likely uses a heck of a lot less power to do it. And.. no water.

So you're saying the 1080 is even faster than Nvidia claimed it to be.

I have a speed boat that I swear goes faster than the manufacturer says far faster actually. Interested?

I'll stick with the ballpark of 20-30%. We know full well that the math you're applying has nothing to do with gaming performance so it's highly misleading.

 

[Jaydip]

Well tbh this pricing has pissed me off a lot, $100 premium for a "founder's" card? NV is becoming more like a boutique vendor.So what will 1080Ti founders edition retail for? $849? I know I will be probably looking at the benches and will be hard pressed not to buy it but this time around I want to control my upgrade itch lol.

 

[kithylin]

By the way if anyone has a GTX 1080 in their paws they can't find drivers for and uses windows, PM me and I'll try to modify our current ones and send you a copy so you can (maybe) get it running now. Might work for a while until official drivers come out.

 

[tential]

Well tbh this pricing has pissed me off a lot, $100 premium for a "founder's" card? NV is becoming more like a boutique vendor.So what will 1080Ti founders edition retail for? $849? I know I will be probably looking at the benches and will be hard pressed not to buy it but this time around I want to control my upgrade itch lol.

You're pissed off, but you still want it...
The second you get the card, ahead of anyone else getting any cards this gen, you'll be happy. Nvidia gets a ton of money, and you get to feel good.
Don't you want to feel good baby?

 

[Jaydip]

You're pissed off, but you still want it...
The second you get the card, ahead of anyone else getting any cards this gen, you'll be happy. Nvidia gets a ton of money, and you get to feel good.
Don't you want to feel good baby?

lol

 

[Silverforce11]

Well tbh this pricing has pissed me off a lot, $100 premium for a "founder's" card? NV is becoming more like a boutique vendor.So what will 1080Ti founders edition retail for? $849? I know I will be probably looking at the benches and will be hard pressed not to buy it but this time around I want to control my upgrade itch lol.

If this Founders premium works and NV banks big time, they will do it again and jack up the prices even more.

Think GP100 Titan Founders Edition for $1499.

1080Ti Founders Ed for $999 ("look ma! almost as fast as our $1499 Titan for $500 less! Get it NOW!")..

 

[Jaydip]

If this Founders premium works and NV banks big time, they will do it again and jack up the prices even more.

Think GP100 Titan Founders Edition for $1499.

1080Ti Founders Ed for $999 ("look ma! almost as fast as our $1499 Titan for $500 less! Get it NOW!")..

Ohh I am sure this strategy will work for them, I bet all of them will be sold out at launch day .