GTX 1070 have only 1920SP!

[torlen11cc]

Do you think there might be a 1070Ti?

 

[Genx87]

Do you think there might be a 1070Ti?

Most likely to combat Vega.

 

[selni]

Most likely to combat Vega.

Vega is a huge die fury successor no? Likely going to be up against GP100/102 and much faster than either GP104 chip.

 

[Qwertilot]

Considering they had done the exact same pricing structure ($1000/$650) and time between releases (3 months) looking at the Titan/780 and Titan X/980 Ti, I'd say they were sticking with what worked for them in the past.

Very definitely. NV have a frankly fairly obvious plan they're holding to, and the 980ti was bang in line with it.

Annual +30% performance lift, with pricing structure essentially according to where cards slot into the performance heirarchy.
(Big cards a little more etc.).

This is presumably what they feel they have to do to compete with their older cards as much as staying ahead of AMD, and isn't in all honesty terrible to work with as a consumer.

Rather doubt there'll be a 1070ti to combat Vega. More or less come what may it seems to safe to say that there will be a big pascal at a further ~30% up next year.
(but HBM2 one presumes, so > than that at 4k etc.).

The questions in terms of AMD's competition are things like whether that just drops in on top of the 10xx pricing structure (like with the 9xx stuff) or if NV are made to reorganise things somewhat like with the 6xx to 7xx transition.

Also whether that big pascal card hits in 9 or the scheduled 12 months, although I guess they may well run for a few months with a Titan.

Doubt if vega is going to be huge, huge die but you never know....

 

[nerp]

Will a GTX 1070 be faster or slowler than GTX 980 Ti? What do you think?

Faster. They said it. And the cards exist and have been tested.

 

[maddie]

Vega is a huge die fury successor no? Likely going to be up against GP100/102 and much faster than either GP104 chip.

There are supposed to be 2 Vega GPU. The smaller one should surpass the 1080 and the big one battling for the crown.

In any case, small full Vega should easily surpass the 1080. The cut version could be in the vicinity of the 1080 range.

 

[nerp]

A stock Camry V6 is pretty darn quick to 60, though. 5.8 seconds according to C&D.

That seems to be as fast or faster than quite a few Ferraris;

http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/ferrari-0-60-mph-times/

Yes, non-car guys should never make claims they don't know how to support. Yes, your mom's camry can roast your 1999 Camaro.

 

[Genx87]

Do you think there might be a 1070Ti?

Vega is a huge die fury successor no? Likely going to be up against GP100/102 and much faster than either GP104 chip.

I dont know. It could be. In that case they would need to come out with a big die Pascal. So a 1070ti would be a different chip.

 

[torlen11cc]

Faster. They said it. And the cards exist and have been tested.

Faster? Are you sure? where they said that?

 

[Det0x]

Faster? Are you sure? where they said that?

Remember 1080 is 3x faster then 980ti :biggrin:

Nvidia PR is spreading fud and people are eating it raw.. They are comparing performance in a made-up VR benchmark in which Maxwell tanks.

1070 will probably only match or lose to a stock reference 980ti (which noone owns)

While loosing badly when both are overclocked/980ti aftermarket version.

 

[antihelten]

Faster? Are you sure? where they said that?

here you go (technically he said faster than Titan X, not 980 Ti, but it's practically the same):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxoWkSDhVc&t=3m40s

Remember 1080 is 3x faster then 980ti :biggrin:

Nvidia PR is spreading fud and people are eating it raw.. They are comparing performance in a made-up VR benchmark in which Maxwell tanks.

Nvidia never said that the 1080 is 3x faster than a 980 Ti in VR, they said that it was 2x faster than a Titan X and 3x faster than a 980 (non-Ti).

So the only one spreading FUD here is you.

 

[Det0x]

Nvidia never said that the 1080 is 3x faster than a 980 Ti in VR, they said that it was 2x faster than a Titan X and 3x faster than a 980 (non-Ti).

So the only one spreading FUD here is you.

2x perf and 3x efficiency vs Titan X wheb using Pascal's special features

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080

GeForce GTX 10-series graphics cards are powered by Pascal to deliver up to 3x the performance of previous-generation graphics cards

Nvidia PR is spreading fud and people are eating it raw.. They are comparing performance in a made-up VR benchmark in which Maxwell tanks.

Nothing more need to be said... Have a nice dinner

 

[antihelten]

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080





Nothing more need to be said... Have a nice dinner

You do know that everything you just posted confirmed what I said.

2x faster than Titan X and 3x faster than 980 (the previous generation card).

Not 3x faster than the 980 Ti like you claimed.

 

[Det0x]

1 more time.

Remember 1080 is 3x faster then 980ti :biggrin:
Nvidia PR is spreading fud and people are eating it raw.. They are comparing performance in a made-up VR benchmark in which Maxwell tanks.

You should understand i was paraphrasing, hence the ":biggrin:" behind that sentence.

I could have written:

2x faster vs Titan X
3x efficiency vs Titan X

Or

3x the performance of 980

But since we were talking about the 1070 performance vs 980ti, i used 980ti as a sub. I might add that it was meant as a joke, nothing for you to get your panties twisted over

In the end it don't really matter, these are just made-up PR numbers, like i have said from the start.. If you cant understand that i see no need to take this "discussion" any further.

 

[antihelten]

1 more time.

Again Nvidia never said that 1080 was 3x faster than the 980 Ti like you claimed, nor did they ever try to pass off VR performance as general performance (every instance of the 2x faster than Titan X and 3x faster than 980 was clearly marked as VR). Plus they provided plenty of samples of non-VR performance as well.

So again the one spreading FUD is you, not Nvidia.

You should understand i was paraphrasing, hence the ":biggrin:" behind that sentence.

I could have written:

2x faster vs Titan X
3x efficiency vs Titan X

Or

3x the performance of 980

Do you even understand the concept of paraphrasing?

Saying that 1080 is 3x faster than a 980 Ti is not in anyway the same as saying it is 2x faster than Titan X or 3 times faster than a 980.

You do understand that the 980 Ti and the 980 are completely different cards right?

But since we were talking about the 1070 performance vs 980ti, i used 980ti as a sub. I might add that it was meant as a joke, nothing for you to get your panties twisted over

In the end it don't really matter, these are just made-up PR numbers, like i have said from the start.. If you cant understand that i see no need to take this "discussion" any further.

And here come the excuses when called out on your FUD. "I was just joking, lol"

 

[RussianSensation]

1070 will probably only match or lose to a stock reference 980ti (which noone owns)

While loosing badly when both are overclocked/980ti aftermarket version.

Unlikely. Pascal has very scaling against Maxwell.

1080 = 2560x1733mhz / (2048x1216) = 78% higher, vs. real world 1440p-4K at about 67-69%. That means Pascal has about a 11.5-14% reduction in IPC against Maxwell based on these benches (67% / 78%).

1070 = 1920x1683mhz / (2048x1216) = 30% higher. Let's apply the same 14% IPC penalty => 25.8% faster real world vs. GTX980 (minimum)

1440p
GTX980 = 60%
GTX1070 extrapolated = 60% * 1.258X = 75.48%

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

Many games are still CPU limited or engine limited. They aren't able to show the full potential of Pascal. This is a similar situation to early launches of GTX480, HD5870 or HD7970. You will never see the true potential of a new architecture/GPU series until you either test the highest resolution gaming to shift the bottleneck 99% to the GPU or future next gen PC games come out.

In Crysis 3, 1080 is 46% faster than the 980Ti.

In Hitman, 1080 is 37% faster than the 980Ti.

In GTA V, at 4K 1080 is 33% faster than the 980Ti, with minimum FPS 52% higher.

This suggests at GPU limited settings, 1080 can be 33-46% faster than the 980Ti. Someone choosing between a 1070 and a 980Ti will likely keep the 1070 for at least 2 years. This gives 1070 room to separate itself from the GTX980Ti as Pascal drivers mature and NV stops optimizing for Maxwell.

Max overclocked 980Ti also uses 300-350W of power.
https://www.overclockers.ru/lab/76273_4/obzor-i-testirovanie-videokarty-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080.html

Max overclocked 1070 is unlikely to use more than 200W.

As soon as the first good AIB 1070 drops for $380-400, GTX980Ti isn't even worth $380.

Annual +30% performance lift, with pricing structure essentially according to where cards slot into the performance heirarchy.
(Big cards a little more etc.).

You are right on the $$$. I'll narrow it down to 32-33%.

September 2009 HD5870 -> November 2013 GTX780Ti
100% -> 305%
For 4 years from 2009 to 2013, average GPU increases are 32% per annum (1.322^4 years ~ 305%)
http://www.computerbase.de/2013-12/grafikkarten-2013-vergleich/10/#abschnitt_highend_2010_bis_2013

1080 is about 2X faster than GTX780Ti and it took 2.5 years from 780Ti's launch to get there.

780Ti = 100% base * 1.33^2.5 years = 204% 1080. (Averaging 1440p and 4K per TPU = avg(100/51 + 100/47)=204.4%)

This highlights an annualized improvement in GPU power of roughly 32-33%, an increase that has been constant since September 2009 until now. This means roughly we should expect some AMD/NV 2017 GPU to be 30-33% faster than the 1080.

Your +30% is a very, very reasonable projection of what the future holds unless AMD/NV run into a major 7nm-10nm node roadblock soon.

 

[nurturedhate]

So again the one spreading FUD is you, not Nvidia.

How about both?

 

[LTC8K6]

up to

Think about that part of the claim.

 

[antihelten]

How about both?

I can go with that one as well I suppose (although for other aspects than the performance stuff Detox is going on about)

Unlikely. Pascal has very scaling against Maxwell.

1080 = 2560x1733mhz / (2048x1216) = 78% higher, vs. real world 1440p-4K at about 67-69%. That means Pascal has about a 11.5-14% reduction in IPC against Maxwell based on these benches (67% / 78%).

Your math is a bit off here. Pascal doesn't have 11.5-14% lower IPC than Maxwell, it has 5-6% lower IPC (1.67-1.69 divided by 1.78 is equal to 0.94-0.95). Although TPU actually shows the average clock of 1080 as 1783 MHz, not 1733 MHz, so actual the IPC gap is roughly 10%. But then if one were to compare to the 980 Ti it goes back down to 5%. So all in all GP104 has 5-10% lower IPC.

 

[Lepton87]

It is slower core for core because of bandwidth restriction, pascal is mostly a die-shrink of maxwell, it doesn't make sense for it to be slower per core.

 

[AtenRa]

Max overclocked 1070 is unlikely to use more than 200W.

As soon as the first good AIB 1070 drops for $380-400, GTX980Ti isn't even worth $380.

I highly doubt we will see a good custom (custom PCB, power circuit + Heat-sink) GTX 1070 card for less than $449.

 

[jabroni619]

Given the price difference between the 1070 and 1080 it's not at all surprising. nVidia wants more differentiation between their cards. People who opt for the 1080 are going to get an appreciable difference in performance, vs say someone who bought a 680 vs 670 a few generations back.

Besides, if it performs like a 980Ti at a fraction of the price and power draw, the specs really shouldn't bother anyone.

 

[Lepton87]

A comparison to the 980ti running at stock is mostly irrelevant, most cards are at running at 1.2GHz and higher so a comparison of custom cards would be more relevant for most people. How does it compare to custom 980Tis like the msi lightning or the asus matrix?

 

[jabroni619]

It's a valid comparison IMO. There will be custom 1070's as well.

 

[Lepton87]

It's a valid comparison IMO. There will be custom 1070's as well.

Not to most 980Ti owners it isn't, for example my 980Ti is 20% faster out of the box then stock so 1070 has a lot of ground to cover to be faster. GM200 was really under-clocked in reference cards which doesn't seem to be the case with GP200.