Geforce GTX 980 Ti vs GTX 1070 vs GTX 1080 Overclocked Performance

[Enigmoid]

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.

 

[antihelten]

Bandwidth is lacking for the 1080 as is ROP power.

You should increase your bandwidth numbers for the 1080 by 20% (or 25% if you follow the graph numbers) due to improved compression:

 

[Bacon1]

Did they test in a case for their temp tests?

Did they do a 20-30 minute warm up before running all tests?

What was the actual noise when @ 100% fan speed?

 

[boozzer]

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.

 

[Tweak155]

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

 

[tg2708]

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

Totally agree, nothing from AMD suits me at this time so if I were to upgrade I would go the nvidia route and judging by its performance the 1070 looks like a winner. Stock performance is key for me also because even the 290 I'm using has not been overclocked for more than 20 hrs since the time I got it. Very good card might I add.

 

[boozzer]

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 oc

do you need the blower types? that would explain it.

 

[Thala]

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.

That would be the case if the GTX 980 TI would not be throttling. In fact a non throttling GTX 980 TI would be more than just 4.1% faster than a GTX1070.

 

[Tweak155]

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.

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.

 

[boozzer]

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.

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.

 

[Krteq]

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.

Just wait for hardware.fr review. Damien is usually using a lots of synthetic tests to expose uarch differences.

 

[boozzer]

Just wait for hardware.fr review. Damien uses a lots of synthetic tests to expose uarch differences.

that website is a godsend. helped me made my last purchase.

 

[Tweak155]

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.

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).

 

[antihelten]

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.

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.

 

[Mopetar]

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.

By the same token we could just say that you really like GP104 and will ignore its shortcomings.

Also I wouldn't be surprised if Polaris 10 has better performance / watt (that's what is was designed for and by all counts the clock speeds are on the low side where it shouldn't draw as much power further tilting the comparison) and it won't take much longer than 7 months before AMD or NV have a card that offers better performance.

By the time Nvidia is releasing Volta, I don't think Pascal will be looked at favorably in the history of NV architectures.

 

[boozzer]

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).

I can accept that. :thumbsup: as long as you know what you want.

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.

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.

 

[William Gaatjes]

That GTX1070 sure is a nice card. Not so much out of reach as a GTX1080 is financially.


Imagine, just this weekend, i had seen a screenshot on a forum of someone owning 2 GTX1080 cards in SLI. I made a picture of it and had send it to a friend. That is serious money, i can buy 3 times my current pc for that.

If Hell freezes over and polaris really sucks at 1080p in multiple games without any driver updates and gtx1070 will do well in directx12 and vulkan games, i will just keep on saving and get a GTX1070.

 

[swilli89]

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.

Yet despite all of this, nVidia pre-gouged with FE, and still somehow made each FPS cost more per $ than before. Moore's Law worked like it was supposed to in the time frame from the 980ti to 1080, but nVidia didn't pass ANY of those savings on to the consumer, they actually increased the cost.

 

[poofyhairguy]

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 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.

 

[thilanliyan]

@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. There's nothing right now forcing them to pass savings onto us, especially since there is no competition from AMD in that range right now.

If we stop buying at those prices then they might lower the price.

I don't blame nvidia for charging what they do, much like I don't blame Apple for charging what they do for what can be an inferior product (IMO).

 

[Adul]

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.

 

[moonbogg]

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.

Yep. Relatively speaking and basing things on the last couple generations, AMD cards get faster as time passes while Nvidia cards literally get slower while costing way more. Strange, but true as HELL!

 

[boozzer]

it isn't strange, it is according to plan. How else are you going to buy more cards?

 

[swilli89]

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.

Yep.. pretty much spot on.

@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.

I definitely agree but it just stings knowing they could have had a very healthy margin at $500, but perhaps like you said, they really didn't have the proper amount of stock to launch.

Which is really the other issue. I really feel like nVidia rushed to market to beat AMD despite the lie their CEO spins about the fact that they are no longer concerned about AMD. Their cooler and the driver software controlling it were woefully under prepared (NV has yet to issue the driver fix for 1080's cooling problems) and their stock levels were also way too low. I think a more respectable decision would have been to postpone launch an additional month and build up additional stock to satisfy demand at a lower price.

 

[CakeMonster]

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).

I think the performance is more impressive than the GPU itself. Sure, I'm glad to see the new process shrink and they clearly had to do some redesign, but the numbers of pretty much everything in the chip design except clock speeds are lower than the 980Ti. That isn't going to last through the lifetime of of the 14/16nm process. We will probably surpass the 980Ti specs with 50% even though starting _lower_ with the initial 1080.