[VideoCardz] GTX 1070 Benchmarks

[SolMiester]

WHy is the VC&G community so toxic and negative?

the natural reaction to any news in here is always negative, and always about tearing down something else. Its always about what it DOESNT have, rather than what it does have. Its always about the "ifs" and "buts" never about whats actually in front of us.

We literally just got benchmarks confirming that a $379 card can beat last generations $1000 card. How can you not be excited or blown away by that?


Who cares if the relative performance to its higher performing brother is wider than the previous gen. Does it make the card any less fast or impressive? NO. If you're in the market for a 1070, you're in the market for a 1070. If you care so much about the difference between 970 and 980, go buy a 970 and brag to everyone how its only x% slower than a 980. Meanwhile the rest of the world will be enjoying a titan x for under $400.

This rhetoric and logic in here is getting really tired.

Easy answer, the AMD crew come in to discredit new NV hardware...same thing when AMD release.

 

[Rvenger]

That will be enough thread crapping, get back on topic.

-Rvenger

 

[jabroni619]

WHy is the VC&G community so toxic and negative?

the natural reaction to any news in here is always negative, and always about tearing down something else. Its always about what it DOESNT have, rather than what it does have. Its always about the "ifs" and "buts" never about whats actually in front of us.

We literally just got benchmarks confirming that a $379 card can beat last generations $1000 card. How can you not be excited or blown away by that?

Because some people just don't want to believe their 980Ti's and Titan X's were just made obsolete by a card costing a fraction of the price. Soon we will have custom 1070's with dual PCIe power connectors for better OC and the last argument against it will no longer exist.

Heck I get it, I have a 980Ti too, but the emergence of the 1070 and 1080 is welcomed news is far as I'm concerned, though the 1080 is a fair bit over priced IMO, but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[SPBHM]

the 1070 looks well priced considering it's beating the 980 ti (and it's much faster than a 390X, 970 and so on), still disappointing that it costs more than the 970, but... it also fixes the vram limitations of the 970...

 

[railven]

I'm starting to not regret not selling my 980 Ti.

GF gets a good overclocker that is basically silent and she doesn't even play cutting edge games so the DX12 deficient won't show probably until we're ready to upgrade again anyways.

 

[escrow4]

I sold my 780 Ti GHz a few months ago for $300 which was lucky as now its now useful as a doorstop. Over here a 980 Ti - the cheapest one - is a Gainward Phoenix at $909, a 970 - an Asus Turbo - is $439 AUD. So if a 1070 lands at around $600 its not too shabby. However, I'd still rather buy Polaris closer to $400. Still mid-range GPUs at high end prices. Tut tut.

 

[railven]

I sold my 780 Ti GHz a few months ago for $300 which was lucky as now its now useful as a doorstop. Over here a 980 Ti - the cheapest one - is a Gainward Phoenix at $909, a 970 - an Asus Turbo - is $439 AUD. So if a 1070 lands at around $600 its not too shabby. However, I'd still rather buy Polaris closer to $400. Still mid-range GPUs at high end prices. Tut tut.

Some of these worldwide prices make me glad my family ended up in 'Murica.

Woof at those prices.

 

[selni]

Some of these worldwide prices make me glad my family ended up in 'Murica.

Woof at those prices.

Comparable US pricing would be about $600US for the 980ti and $280US for the 970 - not setting low price records but doesn't seem that bad relative to RRP.

 

[beginner99]

WHy is the VC&G community so toxic and negative?

We literally just got benchmarks confirming that a $379 card can beat last generations $1000 card. How can you not be excited or blown away by that?

Why is it negative? This $379 card is actually over $400 (FE) and AIBs ain't going to price their custom cards below FE because they are better. But let's assume you are right and it's $379. The issue is it does not beat a last gen $649 card. GTX 980 Ti are factory OCed and have some additional potential. They are faster than the Titan X. See this thread. OCed 980 Ti scores 15% above a 1070.

Factoring in these 2 point, the 1070 for sure is a much better deal than the 1080 but it is not that great as you make it out to be. Especially since this card is the cut-down midrange chip. These used to cost below $300 just couple years back.

Yes 1070 is way better deal than a 1080 as it actually improves performance/$ a bit compared to old gen but not that much considering it's more than a full node shrink.

 

[amenx]

Yes 1070 is way better deal than a 1080 as it actually improves performance/$ a bit compared to old gen but not that much considering it's more than a full node shrink.

If these benches are accurate (big if), cant think of a single instance of a new gen card with nearly twice the performance vs last gen (node shrink or not). Other than the 8800gtx possibly.

 

[OatisCampbell]

Not the GTX 1070. Could you please not ruin this thread with unsubstantiated FUD? Thanks.

Even if this is true, I don't know if I would care.

My custom cooled 4GB Radeon 290 runs my games fine at 1600p, I can't imagine running out at 7.5GB.

If the Polaris leaks are true, I might be going with NVIDIA for the the first time in a long time. (had two 7970s before the 290)

The Polaris doesn't look like a big enough bump to upgrade, and I can't afford big cards like the Vega/1080/1080Ti. If this bench is true, I'll probably get the cheapest 1070. Titan X level 1600p for a couple hundred bucks over sale price of my 290 works for me.

 

[crisium]

If these benches are accurate (big if), cant think of a single instance of a new gen card with nearly twice the performance vs last gen (node shrink or not). Other than the 8800gtx possibly.

Well this isn't double.

In historical context, this is pretty ho hum. And it's one of the (is it the?) biggest node jumps Nv has ever done.

$230 460 matched the 285 - but it had far, far more OC ability. So opposite of here where the older gen catches up. 285 cannot hold a candle to a 460 when both are max OC.

$300 660 Ti beat the 580, by about the same margins as the 1070 seems to hold over the TX and Ti. To see a price jump of +$80 since then itself is very significant, nevermind that the card is actually launching at $450 initially which is 50% higher than the 660 Ti. Also the 600 series is where ppl began to complain about mid range creeping up. And it's a more significant node jump this time around, right?

Then there's the 970. While now it slightly beats the 780 Ti in many games, initially it was slower sure. But that was on the same node, which is remarkable. So 1070 vs 980 Ti is greater than 970 vs 780 Ti was initially, but it's also a massive node jump AND asks for $50 more ($120 more at launch).

I can see why many expected more.

 

[amenx]

Well this isn't double.

In historical context, this is pretty ho hum. And it's one of the (is it the?) biggest node jumps Nv has ever done.

$230 460 matched the 285 - but it had far, far more OC ability. So opposite of here where the older gen catches up. 285 cannot hold a candle to a 460 when both are max OC.

$300 660 Ti beat the 580, by about the same margins as the 1070 seems to hold over the TX and Ti. ..

Its nearly double vs the 970 which its meant to replace. No cards AFIK have achieved this other than possibly the 8800gtx vs 7900gtx.

 

[crisium]

Its nearly double vs the 970 which its meant to replace. No cards AFIK have achieved this other than possibly the 8800gtx vs 7900gtx.

Are you going by the Firestrike Ultra score? That has a stock 980 Ti 88% faster than a stock 970, which is not indicative of gaming performance.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980_Ti/31.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/26.html

980 Ti enjoys a 35% and 41% lead over the 970 at 1080p/1440p at the 980 Ti launch. In the latest TPU review, it is 38% and 40%, respectively. About the same.

Are you saying that the 1070, which appears to be 5% over the 980 Ti, will be double the 970's speed? Even the GTX 1080 isn't quite double the 970, although it is very close at 81%-92% faster on TPU.

 

[Bacon1]

Its nearly double vs the 970 which its meant to replace. No cards AFIK have achieved this other than possibly the 8800gtx vs 7900gtx.

17557 @ $450

11291 @ $300 (pricing since 390 came out)

So we have 50% increase in price ($150) for 55% gain in performance.

Nvidia isn't passing the savings on thats for sure.

Now lets look at 770 vs 970, without even a node shrink.

770 was ~$400

970 was $329

Yet the 970 was 25% faster and cheaper and there was no node shrink.

So why are we happy about a 50% increase in price for 55% increase in performance with a large node shrink when we had 25% perf increase along with a 20% price cut with last gen?

 

[Termie]

Are you going by the Firestrike Ultra score? That has a stock 980 Ti 88% faster than a stock 970, which is not indicative of gaming performance.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980_Ti/31.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/26.html

980 Ti enjoys a 35% and 41% lead over the 970 at 1080p/1440p at the 980 Ti launch. In the latest TPU review, it is 38% and 40%, respectively. About the same.

Are you saying that the 1070, which appears to be 5% over the 980 Ti, will be double the 970's speed? Even the GTX 1080 isn't quite double the 970, although it is very close at 81%-92% faster on TPU.

Just FYI, TPU's average results are about as indicative of gaming performance as 3DMark. They include a lot of older, CPU-bottlenecked games like WoW, COD, and Anno.

Based on benchmarks I've run on my 980 Ti, 980, and 970, the 980 Ti is 55% faster than a 970 at 1080p and 60% faster at 1440p. So a 1070 could conceivably be 65% faster than a 970. Not going to double a 970, but way more than TPU's numbers would suggest.

And yes, a 1080 is twice as fast as a 970 in modern games that aren't CPU-bottlenecked.

 

[crisium]

Indeed, 65% is nowhere near double, and I don't think that's what you'll see stock vs stock 1070 vs 970. Here's why:

I believe your benchmarks. I assume you are doing OC for both? With higher stock reference boosts, the 970 has less OC headroom. At stock speeds both I would think it's quite rare to see a 980 Ti 60% faster than a 970. Feel free to peruse TPU for your non-CPU bottlenecked games - even Crysis 3 it's only a 49% gap at 1440p. And stock is what I'm going off since that's all we have so far from the "leak". But I can only read benchmarks for Maxwell, sadly, so w/e.

 

[railven]

17557 @ $450

11291 @ $300 (pricing since 390 came out)

So we have 50% increase in price ($150) for 55% gain in performance.

Nvidia isn't passing the savings on thats for sure.

Now lets look at 770 vs 970, without even a node shrink.

770 was ~$400

970 was $329

Yet the 970 was 25% faster and cheaper and there was no node shrink.

So why are we happy about a 50% increase in price for 55% increase in performance a large node shrink when we had 25% perf increase along with a 20% price cut with last gen?

Seems the gtx 970 is the precursor to the Founders Edition cards which makes it best to compare it's $380 reference price to the $450 founders price.

If you use the $330 that was non-reference which should be fairly compared to gtx 1070 non-reference price of $380.

EDIT:

Using ref price and founder price 18.4% more using non reference prices 15.1% more.

If you really wanna raise a pitchfork check out the 6979 to 7970. That was terrible.

 

[amenx]

I was going by the firestrike (yes, theoretical) averaged against all resolutions in which the 970 was 58% of the performance of the 1070 (50% = double):

http://videocardz.com/60265/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-3dmark-firestrike-benchmarks

But I agree in RL scenarios/games it will most likely not reflect that.

 

[Bacon1]

Seems the gtx 970 is the precursor to the Founders Edition cards which makes it best to compare it's $380 reference price to the $450 founders price.

If you use the $330 that was non-reference which should be fairly compared to gtx 1070 non-reference price of $380.

They launched @ $330, where is $380 coming from?

Even @ 380 its still faster and cheaper without a node shrink.

 

[railven]

They launched @ $330, where is $380 coming from?

Even @ 380 its still faster and cheaper without a node shrink.

$380 is gtx 970 reference price. Sorry I'm mobile can't get you links someone else can provide em. Or just go to the geforce.com and last I saw it was listed as $380 with $50 off on sale.

 

[Bacon1]

$380 is gtx 970 reference price. Sorry I'm mobile can't get you links someone else can provide em. Or just go to the geforce.com and last I saw it was listed as $380 with $50 off on sale.

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

Earlier this month, AMD slashed pricing of its dual-GPU flagship Radeon R9 295X2 graphics card to $999, down from its launch price of $1499, even as NVIDIA's offering in the same league, the GeForce GTX TITAN-Z, continues to sell at $2999. NVIDIA instead extended its generosity to buyers of its two new high-end graphics cards, the GeForce GTX 980 and the GeForce GTX 970, respectively pricing them at US$549 and US$329. The latter's price is particularly exciting as it disrupts every current graphics card offering under $350 by so much so that NVIDIA discontinued the GTX 770 completely while reducing the GTX 760's pricing to a mere $220.

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

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

 

[railven]

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.

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.

 

[Face2Face]

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

Correct. $329 launch price, even eVGA's top tier FTW edition was only $369 at launch.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/2

 

[railven]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga

Furthermore, as we mentioned in our GTX 980 review, GTX 970 has been a pure virtual (no reference card) launch, which means all of NVIDIA’s partners are launching their custom cards right out of the gate.