Bandwidth is lacking for the 1080 as is ROP power.
actually no, 980 ti was sold on this forum for the oc ability. the comparison criteria doesn't changed simply because 1070/1080 doesn't have a good oc headroom now.Actually I do like the GP104, I think it's a very impressive GPU. I don't particularly like the price of it nor the FE cooler (or perhaps more accurately, Nvidias PR claims about the cooler), but that's it really.
The GP104 is absolutely a beast, but my point was that this particular test doesn't actually help portray that, since it focuses on one of the only weak points of GP104, it's poor overclockability (relative to GM200, which admittedly was an exceedingly good overclocker).
How long it will remain unmatched is up in the air at this point. I'm not sure if I believe the Vega rumours of launch in October, but if true it could potentially be a rather short stay at the top (there's also the GP102 of course).
To be fair they are also using the reference throttling 1080/1070 (founders edition). So isn't this just apples to apples?
actually no, 980 ti was sold on this forum for the oc ability. the comparison criteria doesn't changed simply because 1070/1080 doesn't have a good oc headroom now.
If anyone's does change, then you know what they are
1080 oc vs 980 ti oc, best of 1080 and best of 980 ti is what is needed :thumbsup: no one here cares for a reference.
I care for reference. While I've dabbled in OC'ing my parts, for the most part I don't see the increase in performance as justification to run the parts harder.
Sure, the hardware would probably last me the same amount of time since I upgrade so frequently anyway, but I'd still just prefer to buy a card, pop it in, install the drivers and be good to go. I'm not a tinkerer really.
So, basically I like that they did reference![]()
why? AIB 980 ti was sold with factory oc, and most of them came with softwares that does 1 button/click ocI care for reference. While I've dabbled in OC'ing my parts, for the most part I don't see the increase in performance as justification to run the parts harder.
Sure, the hardware would probably last me the same amount of time since I upgrade so frequently anyway, but I'd still just prefer to buy a card, pop it in, install the drivers and be good to go. I'm not a tinkerer really.
So, basically I like that they did reference![]()
OCed Gefore GTX 980 Ti should be 4.1% faster than OCed Geforce GTX 1070 here (if this was Maxwell), but it's actually a bit slower.
why? AIB 980 ti was sold with factory oc, and most of them came with softwares that does 1 button/click oc
do you need the blower types? that would explain it.
when the AIB were sold with factory oc, doesn't it becomes the baseline? why would it be fuzzy?It just gives you a better idea of the design and how fast it runs as designed.
I'm ok with buying a factory OC card, but it gets fuzzy when they are comparing multiple factory OC cards together. You lose a baseline unless all the overclocks are not the same % compared to base. Base clocks eliminates this part of the comparison.
I honestly don't care all that much, but I can appreciate this comparison.
Just wait for hardware.fr review. Damien is usually using a lots of synthetic tests to expose uarch differences.Not seeing any support for IPC decrease using back of napkin math.
![]()
Some part of the chip scaled more than others. Bandwidth is lacking for the 1080 as is ROP power.
that website is a godsend. helped me made my last purchase.Just wait for hardware.fr review. Damien uses a lots of synthetic tests to expose uarch differences.
when the AIB were sold with factory oc, doesn't it becomes the baseline? why would it be fuzzy?
if you didn't buy into the 980 TI AIB hype, then yea, I guess you wouldn't care much. would also explain why you care for reference.
actually no, 980 ti was sold on this forum for the oc ability. the comparison criteria doesn't changed simply because 1070/1080 doesn't have a good oc headroom now.
If anyone's does change, then you know what they are
1080 oc vs 980 ti oc, best of 1080 and best of 980 ti is what is needed :thumbsup: no one here cares for a reference.
I know you dont like the GP104, but its a beast and unmatched in performance and perf/watt by any other GPU. And it will continue so from the looks of it for a long, long time.
I can accept that. :thumbsup: as long as you know what you want.Because the OC % might be different. Like I said, not a big deal.
But basically I don't expect the overclock to give me a drastically different card. I'm more a casual gamer and hardware upgrader, I just want a good experience for the games I play. A lot of people focus on the % increase in performance, but rarely does that % increase translate to all games and FPS (especially minimum FPS which I feel is the most important).
that is why the best of 1080 oc vs the best of 980 ti oc is what is needed, non of that reference magic veil.Sure, but then the post complaining about them using the reference 980 Ti should also have complained about them using the reference 1080 (i.e. the Founders Edition), instead of only focusing on the 980 Ti. Anything else is just hypocritical.
Exactly. That is the real fail here. the problem isn't performance, it's price.
This honestly can't be said enough. For 980 TI's that can be bought RIGHT NOW versus 1080's that can be bought RIGHT NOW (you know, like an actual comparison useful to potential buyers..), the 1080 regresses performance/$ DESPITE a 1+node shrink and a "new" architecture.
I know you dont like the GP104, but its a beast and unmatched in performance and perf/watt by any other GPU. And it will continue so from the looks of it for a long, long time.
in Nvidia speak that means until the next generation, then you card gets slower from there on.So 2 years or less from now. I know I am ready to upgrade this 970.
I think some of that was the fact that the 980ti was such a good deal itself. Usually the best any sort of computer part is a bad deal- you pay 40% more for an extra 10% of performance or something like that. The 980 ti actually gave pretty good fps/$ even at the high end, I think last generation only the bottom of Nvidia's product stack (the GTX 950) came close to matching it's value.
My theory was that was on purpose to push buyers to increase their overall GPU budget by giving us a lot of value at the top. But now we are comparing that 980 ti to a 980 replacement and then we are shocked the value went backwards even though the GTX 980 was always probably the worse value in the Maxwell lineup, just like the 780 was probably the worst value Kepler card.
We will look back with the hindsight of the 1080 ti and see that the 1080 was the worst value of the Pascal cards, and the people who bought them won't care because they were kings for six months.
@swilli89
Nvidia is a company that also wants to make money...why wouldn't they charge as much as people are willing to pay. And I'm sure they're selling all the cards they can make, even if that isn't very many of them.
Actually I do like the GP104, I think it's a very impressive GPU.
[...]
How long it will remain unmatched is up in the air at this point. I'm not sure if I believe the Vega rumours of launch in October, but if true it could potentially be a rather short stay at the top (there's also the GP102 of course).