GTX 1070 have only 1920SP!

[MrTeal]

How does it do 6.75 Tflops? My calculation gets under 6.2 and thats based on the max boost clock. The 1080 on the other hand has the right 8.2 tflops based on the base clock. What's up? It may not even be a 6 tflop card at its base clock.

It doesn't make sense. My guess is that 1.6GHz is the base clock, and that they listed TFLOPS is based on the boost clock.

 

[badb0y]

This is a poverty level x70 card. More like a x60 Ti level card.

 

[selni]

If GDDR5X versions of the GTX 1070 ever come into fruition, it may perform a bit more like an X70 should. I would gladly buy a 7GB 1070 SLI if it had GDDR5X instead of a 1080.

I am quite bummed out about the 1070 though. Because of its specs, I expect the lower product stack to be as disappointing.

But much later near Titan P/1080 ti, I hope we see some weird combos. Maybe a 2 GHz+ 1060 with 4GB of GDDR5X.

Another weird, outlandish idea: An OEM releases a GTX 980 ti variant with GDDR5X. How hilarious would that be? Nvidia would be pissed seeing that steal the 1080's thunder.

It seems to me that NV doesn't want a lot of diversity in their lineup. We won't be seeing the likes of confusing SKU's such as GTX 650 vs GTX 650 Boost or 560 ti vs 560 ti 448.

X60 ti and X70 were merged to become the 1070. I have a feeling aftermarket 1070's will be a lot more exciting because of overclocking and different memory.

Would a GDDR5X 1070 even matter? GTX 1070 memory isn't anywhere near as crippled as clocks/core counts if this rumor is correct.

 

[Azix]

Would a GDDR5X 1070 even matter? GTX 1070 memory isn't anywhere near as crippled as clocks/core counts if this rumor is correct.

I dont see confirmed bandwidth. And that could be "256 bit" like the 970.

 

[selni]

I dont see confirmed bandwidth. And that could be "256 bit" like the 970.

Nothing here is really confirmed - lots of website linking to each other as the source and inconsistent numbers (eg the tflops comparison). For a reasonably educated guess though you could assume 7gbps (it's likely to be 8, but at least 7 is all but certain) GDDR5 and a 256 bit bus though and that'd still be less of a reduction over 10gbps GDDR5X than the aforementioned 1920 * 1600mhz cores would be over 2560*1733mhz. And yes, assuming no 970 quirks which also may not be true.

 

[Azix]

Nothing here is really confirmed - lots of website linking to each other as the source and inconsistent numbers (eg the tflops comparison). For a reasonably educated guess though you could assume 7gbps (it's likely to be 8, but at least 7 is all but certain) GDDR5 and a 256 bit bus though and that'd still be less of a reduction over 10gbps GDDR5X than the aforementioned 1920 * 1600mhz cores would be over 2560*1733mhz. And yes, assuming no 970 quirks which also may not be true.

They actually claim its been confirmed by nvidia. But there could be a small mistake missed.

Earlier this morning, alleged specifications for the GTX 1070 began popping up around the web. We’ve confirmed with Nvidia’s Bryan Del Rizzo that the technical details are accurate, and will go live on the GTX 10-series website tomorrow. So here’s an early preview of the card’s high-level details, as first reported by TechPowerUp:

16nm “GP104” silicon, 7.2 billion transistors
1,920 CUDA cores, 15 out of 20 Streaming Multiprocessors enabled on the GP104 silicon
120 TMUs, 64 ROPs
256-bit GDDR5 memory, 8GB
1,600MHz max GPU boost core clock frequency
6.75 TFLOP/s single-precision floating point performance
150W TDP, single 8-pin PCIe power connector
3x DisplayPort 1.4, 1x HDMI 2.0b
2-way SLI with SLI HB bridge support

So as expected, this is a cut-down version of the full-fat GP104 GPU found inside the GTX 1080.

 

[tviceman]

25% less cores and 25% less bandwidth should equate to about 20% less performance clock-for-clock. I know it's clocked slower than GTX 1080, but I'm still inclined to believe Nvidia and JHH at this point that 1070 will be faster than Titan X. Not by much, though.

 

[sirmo]

25% less cores and 25% less bandwidth should equate to about 20% less performance clock-for-clock. I know it's clocked slower than GTX 1080, but I'm still inclined to believe Nvidia and JHH at this point that 1070 will be faster than Titan X. Not by much, though.

Wasn't 20% the difference between 980 and 970?

 

[maddie]

25% less cores and 25% less bandwidth should equate to about 20% less performance clock-for-clock. I know it's clocked slower than GTX 1080, but I'm still inclined to believe Nvidia and JHH at this point that 1070 will be faster than Titan X. Not by much, though.

How exactly do you do that calculation?

 

[Head1985]

It's much worse than that because you didn't account for the disparity in clocks

Shader performance
1080 vs. 1070 = (2560 CC x 1733mhz) / (1920 CC x 1600mhz) = 44.4% higher

Texture performance
1080 vs. 1070 = (160 TMU x 1733mhz) / (120 CC x 1600mhz) = 44.4% higher

Memory bandwidth
1080 vs. 1070 = 320GB/sec vs. 256GB/sec or 25% higher but GDDR5X will overclock to 370GB/sec, while it's highly doubtful 8Gbps GDDR5 will go much beyond 8500-8600mhz (275GB/sec). That means max overclocked, 1080's should have 30-35% higher memory bandwidth over max overclocked 1070's bandwidth.

This is NOT a x70 level card. It's NV taking a GTX660/660Ti and re-badging it as a GTX1070.

GTX680 was 27% faster than GTX660Ti

Since GTX660Ti was a $299 card, NV is effectively doing this:

Reference cards: $499 GTX680 -> $699 GTX1080
Reference cards: $299 GTX660Ti -> $449 GTX1070

The biggest marketing scam in the history of GPUs accompanied by a huge pricing increase as well from already inflated prices of 2012 GTX600 series. Since the masses do not buy AMD, AMD has no cash flow for sufficient R&D and to hire the best engineers to be able to do anything about this nonsense.

PC gamers voted for years buying NV over and over and over and now they got exactly what was coming to them --> Record margins from NV = Record prices of mid-range GPUs (masquerading as high-end via marketing re-branding strategies, bifurcating a generation into two halves), while AMD is left hopelessly trying to scramble for the remaining 20% market share while still losing $$$.

Don't forget, a stock GTX670 cost $399 and outperformed GTX580 (aka Titan X predecessor) by 20% on launch day.

There is no way a GTX1070 will beat the Titan X by 20% at 1440p/1600p, further proving it's not a real x70 series card but a x60Ti re-branded to x70 because there is no competition from AMD.

None of this will change until people stop buying NV and start buying AMD. As long NV gets $ from its loyal userbase, they will continue to raise prices. As long as AMD doens't get $, they have no $ to developer next generation GPUs. This in turn allows NV to neuter performance any way they like, while raising prices. Expect GP100/102 to cost even more than $699 780Ti or $649 980Ti did. It's only going to get worse actually because AMD doesn't have money for a price war and lack the human capital/R&D resources to keep up. That means Vega should also cost a lot too. All the bickering online defending NV for decades have finally resulted in one of the worst next generation line-up of all time (i.e., Record prices of next gen mid-range cards and the most neutered x70/x75 card ever made).

Yeah..this so called 1070 looks even worse than GTX660TI vs GTX680.
So far i am very dissapointed by 16nm Nvidia GPUs

1080 have decent performance, but 700USD ist too much and its overpriced beyond common sense.
1070 looks like GTX1060/TI on paper- total crap.For those specs it is also overpriced.1060/TI should cost less than 380/450USD

I was expecting far more from new 16nm NV gpus...
Worst new generation GPUs on new node ever so far..

Lets hope atleast AMD brings some good GPUs..

 

[selni]

They actually claim its been confirmed by nvidia. But there could be a small mistake missed.

Yeah it's the tflops number here that seems inconsistent. As you say it could have just been missed - we'll see very soon either way.

 

[Saylick]

Agree on all accounts for the 1070/1080 being overpriced.

In no previous generation would I have ever paid more than $250 for a 150W TDP card, and here we have a 1070 @ $379 which is more like a 1060 in spec.

 

[thesmokingman]

Is this it? Have we reached the limit of less for more?

 

[iiiankiii]

If the 1070 is cut down by 25%, that means the die space is roughly around ~235mm. Polaris 10 is rumor to have 232mm. That's pretty darn close to each other. Yeah, I know the cut down 1070 doesn't really scalar perfectly to its die size, but it's something to think about. Both Polaris 10 and 1070 will use GDDR5, and they're roughly around the same die size.

If Polaris 10 is able to clock around 1300mhz or so, I think the performance will be very similar to the 1070.

 

[C@mM!]

If the 1070 is cut down by 25%, that means the die space is roughly around ~235mm. Polaris 10 is rumor to have 232mm. That's pretty darn close to each other. Yeah, I know the cut down 1070 doesn't really scalar perfectly to its die size, but it's something to think about. Both Polaris 10 and 1070 will use GDDR5, and they're roughly around the same die size.

If Polaris 10 is able to clock around 1300mhz or so, I think the performance will be very similar to the 1070.

Die size will be the same due to using damaged and lasered dies. But using your metric, with higher density in Polaris due to 14nm, its entirely possible that Polaris 10 may be faster than a 1070.

 

[Elixer]

If the 1070 is cut down by 25%, that means the die space is roughly around ~235mm. Polaris 10 is rumor to have 232mm. That's pretty darn close to each other. Yeah, I know the cut down 1070 doesn't really scalar perfectly to its die size, but it's something to think about. Both Polaris 10 and 1070 will use GDDR5, and they're roughly around the same die size.

If Polaris 10 is able to clock around 1300mhz or so, I think the performance will be very similar to the 1070.

It could be the same size as the 1080, with a section fused off...which is how they do this normally.
It most likely isn't a new die.

 

[Bacon1]

Doubt it anytime soon. NVIDIA wouldn't have priced the way they did if they thought they'd have to cut prices anytime soon, they'd just look dumb in that case.

The team that NVIDIA has doing competitive intelligence is just killing it these days. 980 Ti rendered Fury X basically DOA for all intents and purposes (slightly faster @ stock, much better OC'ing headroom, more/cheaper VRAM, etc.), GTX 970 was very well priced, and so on.

Nah that is the beauty of "Founder" edition. They can start the pricing @ $700 and if AMD has amazing perf for the money, stop releasing them and only charge the MSRP of $599 instead. Hell they can even discount it to $550 and its not a $150 price cut, but only a $50 one. Excellent way to save face if needed, and make massive profit either way.

 

[misuspita]

Except they don't. We all know the truth and that will not change. The price difference will be 150... I don't intent to let nVidia escape with this intentional milking of it's own customers. It's ok, they can price their products as high as they want, but when they try to cheat with this fake MSRP... no thanks...

 

[torlen11cc]

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

 

[mohit9206]

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

Either very slightly slower or about the same.Certainly won't be faster though.

 

[iiiankiii]

It could be the same size as the 1080, with a section fused off...which is how they do this normally.
It most likely isn't a new die.

Yeah, I know. But I was just guesting what a "complete" 1070 die size would be if they did make a new die for the 1070.

 

[A_Skywalker]

Can someone link me to the 1070 benchmarks, I want to see if its good for 1440p.

 

[DeathReborn]

Anyone think a 1070 Ti might be possible given those specs?

 

[AtenRa]

Can someone link me to the 1070 benchmarks, I want to see if its good for 1440p.

The card is not released yet.

 

[AtenRa]

Anyone think a 1070 Ti might be possible given those specs?

We may see a GTX 1060Ti from GP104 but i doubt we'll see 1070Ti.