[VideoCardz] GTX 1070 Benchmarks

[Bacon1]

Yeah gtx 970 reference was silently releases and only sold through pre built, best buy or nvidia. It also had a $50 premium.

Dat first founders card! Was still selling for $380 last week or so.

Ok, doesn't remove the fact that this card is trying to replace a $300 one. Lets pick the "best buy" for the card not the one from best buy . From any other store you'll get a factory OC'd 970 for $300.

Get Asus blower style for $289 + $30 MIR for $259

MSI Gaming also $259 after $30 MIR.

EVGA GAMING w/ACX 2.0 for $305 plus $20 MIR.

And dozens of others at newegg right now

So those are faster than the stock one tested, and much, much cheaper than the launching 1070 @ $450. Maybe we will see custom ones for cheaper, maybe not. But we can't compare them at the maybe sold price, only at the actual sale price.

 

[railven]

Ok, doesn't remove the fact that this card is trying to replace a $300 one. Lets pick the "best buy" for the card not the one from best buy . From any other store you'll get a factory OC'd 970 for $300.

Get Asus blower style for $289 + $30 MIR for $259

MSI Gaming also $259 after $30 MIR.

EVGA GAMING w/ACX 2.0 for $305 plus $20 MIR.

And dozens of others.

So those are faster than the stock one tested, and much, much cheaper than the launching 1070 @ $450. Maybe we will see custom ones for cheaper, maybe not. But we can't compare them at the maybe sold price, only at the actual sale price.

The bold pretty much is contradictive since we can't buy the GTX 1070 today (at either price). All it takes is one non-reference card to basically make your argument moot.

Either you use the stated prices or you wait for release to see what is available. Other wise the goalposts can move at any point.

I just posted to state that the GTX 970 had two prices, and it was basically the precursor to Founder's Editions. Yet no one noticed, and no one really cared.

 

[Magee_MC]

I can't find any reviews at launch that have cards @ $380, they are all $330 -> $350 depending on factory OCs.



https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_970_SLI/1.html

Either way, its been selling for $300ish range since 390 came out.

It seems that there was a last second price cut right at launch.

http://www.fudzilla.com/35793-nvidia-adjusted-launch-price-of-gtx-980-and-gtx-970

It appears that Nvidia has been feeling the pulse of the market and took some note from comments regarding the original launch price for the upcoming GM204 Maxwell based Geforce GTX 980 and GTX 970 graphics cards. The company has adjusted the launch price and the new price, which AIB partners got yesterday morning, is set at US $329 for the GTX 970 and US $549 for the GTX 980.

In less that 12 hours, Nvidia will launch its newest Geforce GTX 980 and GTX 970 graphics cards, both based on the new 28nm GM204 Maxwell GPU. While we already reported the launch price, which partners had before yesterday, it appears that Nvidia has either seen all the comments regarding the quite steep price for both graphics cards or simply wants to put a bit more pressure on AMD's Radeon lineup, which recently got a decent price cut.

While the price was set at US $599 for the Geforce GTX 980 and the US $399 for the for the Geforce GTX 970, Nvidia apparently decided to cut it down significantly, down to US $549 for the Geforce GTX 980 and US $329 for the GTX 970. The price of the Geforce GTX 970 is actually US $299, but for reference design and since most, if not all, AIB partners will come up with a custom GTX 970 design from day one, the expected price on the market is set at US $329.

 

[Kenmitch]

Yeah gtx 970 reference was silently releases and only sold through pre built, best buy or nvidia. It also had a $50 premium.

Dat first founders card! Was still selling for $380 last week or so.

They whacked the price down to $279.99

 

[96Firebird]

It seems that there was a last second price cut right at launch.

http://www.fudzilla.com/35793-nvidia-adjusted-launch-price-of-gtx-980-and-gtx-970

Yes, they posted that to excuse themselves for getting it wrong here.

 

[Denithor]

Does anyone know why is the Titan X so expensive?
Titan X =~ 980Ti performance
980Ti = 620$
Titan X = 1000$

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9059/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-review

Scroll down to the first table, showing specifications. Look at that FP64 numbers. The first two cards (Titan, Titan Black) had 1/3 FP32, making them suitable for commercial grade number crunching. The much higher double precision capability of these cards justified their extreme pricing (they were referred to as "prosumer" cards and gamers were actually the secondary target audience).

The subsequent Titan X card went completely away from this functionality, only offering the gaming card level FP64 capability. And nVidia kept it priced at $1,000 even though it was nowhere near as capable a card for high precision work (instead, this was a gaming card, plain and simple). They just left on the higher price because there were gamers willing to pay that price for the pinnacle of performance.

 

[MrTeal]

You're missing the point of my original post entirely and nitpicking. I can edit the $379 to $450 and my point remains unchanged. But to directly respond, Jen said in a live webcast to millions of people that there would be a $379 1070. It may not come out immediately, or if ever at all. But until that's proven wrong, I'm going to go with what the CEO of the company publicly announced versus what "everyone pretty much knows". Sorry.




There is no difference between a FE and non-FE cards except the shroud and vapor chamber. So your point is moot. Also it doesn't matter what most cards consumers care about. It doesn't change the fact that a 1070 outperforms a Titan X. Which is a $1000. Cool beans if the market prefers a 980 ti for $650. It doesn't change the performance numbers or my point. 1070 > $1000 card. Again, more nitpicking and has nothing to do with my desires.

Its about the general overall tone and attitude of discussion just outright being unfun to read. People in here are very concerned about letting everyone else know that ___ new tech is crappy or inadequate because they upgraded 10 days ago, and its only 5% better then what they have. It's insane! memememememmememe

Why stop there? It also outperforms this card.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133623&cm_re=quadro-_-14-133-623-_-Product
Obviously perf/$ has gone up by a factor of 10 thanks to the miracles of Pascal.

Titan has never been a good value, so comparing a new x70 class GPU to it and claiming value is only marginally better than doing so with a Quadro card. We don't know how the 1070 will stack up to the 980Ti, but there's a decent chance that it will not be faster than the overclocked AIB 980Ti's that are available for $550 without a rebate. No doubt the 1070 is a better value that purchasing a 980Ti right now, but until there's more information on when and if $380 1070's will launch it's not surprising people might be a little disappointed at the thought of paying $450 for a 1070 FE that's possibly slower than a $550 980 Ti.

 

[Bacon1]

edit nvm other posts already talked about it

 

[railven]

They whacked the price down to $279.99

Not surprised, card is being phased out. Now that I'm home, it isn't even listed on Geforce.com. Guess it's EOL?

 

[AtenRa]

nvm wrong thread

 

[guskline]

Since this is the GTX 1070 thread, may I say that the performance on the limited info we have for the price point looks VERY good. I'm surprised. I suspect this is the battle ground with AMD.

 

[Qwertilot]

Likely not - AMD seem likely to be stuck at least half a tier below this until Vega. This is principally NV competing to give good upgrade paths from older cards.

Most of the stricter requirements deriving from that come from them wanting to get a decent number of 970 owners to upgrade to the 1070. That places a fair few requirements on cost/TDP/performance etc which I guess they've broadly hit.

 

[cytg111]

two of these for multi projection in VR. This makes much more sense than the 1080.

 

[antihelten]

two of these for multi projection in VR. This makes much more sense than the 1080.

Multi projection as used in single pass stereo for VR is pointless if you're running more than 1 GPU.

 

[cytg111]

Multi projection as used in single pass stereo for VR is pointless if you're running more than 1 GPU.

I am sure this is a stuipid question... why?

 

[cytg111]

I am sure this is a stuipid question... why?

I dont understand why it should not be synergic?

 

[SPBHM]

I am sure this is a stuipid question... why?

I think the idea is that you would have 1 GPU per eye anyway, and not AFR?

 

[ShintaiDK]

I dont understand why it should not be synergic?

Multi projection essentially cancels out most benefits of using 2 cards. Plus you avoid any possible sync issues as well. The geometry workload on the GPUs is the same if its 1 or 2 with multi projection. Its the holy grail for VR.

 

[cytg111]

I think the idea is that you would have 1 GPU per eye anyway, and not AFR?

Yea I get that, but whats wrong with rendering one scene, two frames(one pr eye) on first GPU, next scene two frames on the second gpu?

 

[selni]

Yea I get that, but whats wrong with rendering one scene, two frames(one pr eye) on first GPU, next scene two frames on the second gpu?

You're describing AFR and yeah at a very high level it works but it's nontrivial to get the timing right. Frame timing/microstutter can be an issue, and it's supposedly a much bigger deal in VR.

 

[cytg111]

Thanks guys

 

[dacostafilipe]

I dont understand why it should not be synergic?

MP would by like having two render targets on a single GPU. When you have two GPUs you already have two targets so MP would be useless.