Nvidia’s GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 revealed: Faster than Titan X at half the price

DrunkenBastard

Storage is cool
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
643
Location
on the floor
#45
So I'll be replacing the 2x "Titan X" in my home rig with 1x "Titan X" and expect a ~30% performance improvement. That isn't confusing at all....
Isn't one 2016 Titan 60% faster than one of your Titans? How will one new Titan be faster than two old ones? Or are you using some sli scaling factor other than 2x?
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
12,922
Location
USA
#46
Wow, that really was a fast release for a new Titan X! I'm mainly stoked because if history remains the same, a 1080Ti release many months from now may be a GPU at 9/10s of this new Titan X at a much reduced cost...so plausible 4K gaming @60Hz on a single card.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,360
Location
Michigan
#47
There's not really any room in the lineup for a 1080Ti to slot in between the 1080 and the Pascal based Titan Ten. If you go by FLOPS they're only 22% apart. If you try to stick something between them, an OC 1080 can probably match it. It's also possible the performance gap between the 1080 and the Titan Ten is a lot more than just the FLOPS numbers would suggest.

Some speculation on [H]ardOCP is that the 1080Ti is the Titan Ten. After a few months the GP102 will be made available to the AIB makers who can make 1080Ti's with it at a lower cost.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,315
Location
Monterey, CA
#48
Isn't one 2016 Titan 60% faster than one of your Titans? How will one new Titan be faster than two old ones? Or are you using some sli scaling factor other than 2x?
Yup. At best in gaming I've seen 1.8x or so. Average is probably 1.5x. Combine that with games that won't run with an SLI setup at all (Eve Online and others), and it is a no-brainer.
 

CougTek

Serial computer killer
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
8,692
Location
Québec, Québec
#56
A blue flame is hotter than a red one...

AMD's GPU should have their own thread. All Polaris Pro card related messages should not have been posted and replied here.
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
12,922
Location
USA
#62
What are your plans with the 1080? Is this for more video processing or are you gaming at all these days?
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,360
Location
Michigan
#63
What are your plans with the 1080? Is this for more video processing or are you gaming at all these days?
HTPC duty. I thought about a R9 Nano or a R9 Fury X. The many reports of coil whine on the Nano and the inherent pump noise of the Fury X turned me off to them. I wouldn't mind benchmarking a Fury X to see how it compares. However, I'm not going to buy one just to benchmark it.

FWIW, someone on Doom9 compared the GTX 1060 to the RX 480 and found they're basically equivalent in madVR performance despite the RX480 having ~50% more FLOPS. He also tested a GTX 1070 and GTX 970. The RX 480 & GTX 1060 were about 22-23% faster than the GTX 970 and the GTX 1070 was about 36% ahead of the 480/1060. The higher FLOPS/compute of the prior generations R7/R9 AMD cards put them well ahead in madVR performance of similarly priced Nvidia cards they lost to in gaming. You could get lots of madVR performance for a lot less money with AMD. I'm not sure what's going on with the RX 480. AFAIK, it's basically just a continuation of the GCN architecture of the prior generations of R7/R9 cards, so I don't know why it doesn't significantly outperform the 1060.

Edit: I am tempted to pick up Doom (2016) though to check it out. I haven't played FPS games since college. Quake 2 CTF mostly with some some Duke, Quake 1, Quake 3 thrown in for good measure.
 
Last edited:

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,329
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
#64
I maintain that Unreal Tournament games are the high water mark for the genre. Doom 2016 is really pretty but there's not very much variety in the settings (Outdoor Mars, Snowy Mars, Base Interior, Lava and Sparks Factory, Science Lab, Hell).
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,360
Location
Michigan
#67
It seems to have the fans or is blower belt driven like. Sue supercharger?
It has 2 fans, no blowers.

I should also point out that the numbers I posted earlier may be a little low because the GTX1080 doesn't necessarily run at max clocks with the madVR load I presented it.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,360
Location
Michigan
#69
I wish there were some decent cards without any fans.
I guess that all depends on what you mean by decent or decent at what, but I would suggest that's probably not possible. High end graphics cards use more power than the CPU. Do you also want a CPU without any fans too?

I'm struggling a bit with thermals at the moment. While running Furmark the GTX 1080 gets up to 82C & lowers the boost clocks a bit. The fans on the card ramp along the way. I can't spin my case fans up very much without them getting audible. :scratch:
 
Last edited:

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,037
Location
USA
#70
I guess that all depends on what you mean by decent or decent at what, but I would suggest that's probably not possible. High end graphics cards use more power than the CPU. Do you also want a CPU without any fans too?
I had a video card with a fan once and the fan slowed down after a few years, cooking it. Since then I try to avoid the fans.
Are we simply doomed by the inefficiency of the semiconductors?
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,360
Location
Michigan
#71
I had a video card with a fan once and the fan slowed down after a few years, cooking it. Since then I try to avoid the fans.
Are we simply doomed by the inefficiency of the semiconductors?
They're not inefficient. What's considered the minimum acceptable performance level has increased. Why don't you just use the Intel IGP?
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,037
Location
USA
#72
They're not inefficient. What's considered the minimum acceptable performance level has increased. Why don't you just use the Intel IGP?
I'm not sure if my computer has one or if it's any better than the fabless card. I suppose fast computers will always be high heat producers.
I'm still waiting for the flying cars and nano robots in the internal organs. Oh well.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,037
Location
USA
#79
What are you doing that requires that equipment and cannot be done another way? Do the Feds or other orgs need that card for something vital?
 
Top