# EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 SuperClocked 8 GB



## W1zzard (Jul 11, 2016)

EVGA's GeForce GTX 1070 SuperClocked comes with the company's new ACX 3.0 thermal solution, which uses a dual-fan, dual-slot heatsink to keep the card cool no matter what you throw at it. The card is also the quietest GTX 1070 we tested so far - even quieter than the MSI GTX 1070 Gaming.

*Show full review*


----------



## Air (Jul 11, 2016)

Looks like EVGA did a great job with the cooler this round. Performs close to the MSI one, while being much smaller. Part of it is thanks to the unchanged efficiency from reference, but still.


----------



## R00kie (Jul 11, 2016)

Good Lord, have they dumped the whole tube of thermal paste on that thing?


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 11, 2016)

I'm actually a bit gobsmacked by how efficient these cards are.  A 16nm process using 143 watts while gaming versus the 14nm process of Polaris using 163 watts (before fix).  And this 143 Watts gives a 50% better performance.  How powerful is the GP102/100 going to be for gaming?


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 11, 2016)

it's just me or the backplate say ... 1080????? 

oh noticed on the detailed look ...  pretty funny mixup


----------



## darklm (Jul 11, 2016)

Im wondering in whats the point on keeping the MSRP on the charts since there is no card that is going to be priced that low, al least for the next months


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 11, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> I'm actually a bit gobsmacked by how efficient these cards are.  A 16nm process using 143 watts while gaming versus the 14nm process of Polaris using 163 watts (before fix).  And this 143 Watts gives a 50% better performance.  How powerful is the GP102/100 going to be for gaming?



Well even Maxwell offers better peformance per watt still.

Nvidia are far ahead of AMD in this regard for sure.


----------



## birdie (Jul 11, 2016)

This is the first custom Pascal design which is more power efficient than the FE card. Bravo, EVGA!

I would have grabbed this card right away, but my budget is way too low at the moment (cannot afford more than $150 for a GPU).


----------



## MagnuTron (Jul 11, 2016)

Perhaps it is time to use a more memory bandwidth heavy GPU bench, when it comes to overclocking performance?


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 11, 2016)

Well I like the cooler somewhat but its design to me seems a bit to basic looking for my taste...  But I like crazy looking things.  Very nice and quiet though...

Overclocking is a bit disappointing and boring from it...  Still waiting to see the FTW variants.


----------



## sweet (Jul 12, 2016)

GhostRyder said:


> Well I like the cooler somewhat but its design to me seems a bit to basic looking for my taste...  But I like crazy looking things.  Very nice and quiet though...
> 
> Overclocking is a bit disappointing and boring from it...  Still waiting to see the FTW variants.



Overclocking on Pascal is just incremental. You should just aim for a silent card that hold the clock well and be done with it.


----------



## Pumper (Jul 12, 2016)

Really not liking the "founder's edition" price tags on these aftermarket GPUs.


----------



## Dethroy (Jul 12, 2016)

29 dB(A)? That's astounding!
Any chance we get to see how the FTW variant fares? Would like to see how the bigger heatsink and fans affect temps/noise and if there is more OC headroom.


----------



## Frick (Jul 12, 2016)

Pumper said:


> Really not liking the "founder's edition" price tags on these aftermarket GPUs.



Yes, we are all shocked.


----------



## bug (Jul 12, 2016)

darklm said:


> Im wondering in whats the point on keeping the MSRP on the charts since there is no card that is going to be priced that low, al least for the next months


It's a reminder of the markup we're being charged, I guess.


----------



## NBH (Jul 12, 2016)

Cards like this make me wonder why we need 3 fan designs. This is the 1070 I wanted to get but it's £450 in the UK...when its in stock. Just too expensive at the moment.


----------



## D3mux (Jul 12, 2016)

Hi, I've always followed techpowerup for the comprehensive reviews and all the nice graphs, but this time I have a doubt that I can't dispel.
Of course all cards are benched on the same machine with the same drivers for all VGA of the same brand, as stated in page 5
"All video card results are obtained on this exact system with exactly the same configuration."
However in the table in that same page i read "AMD: Crimson 16.4.2 Beta" (dated april) while Nvidias are benched on June's drivers, is it a typo? Cause i wonder if RX480 (that is listed in the results) could even work with those 

Thanks


----------



## CobraRacer (Jul 12, 2016)

I am curious as to why most of reviews on the GTX 1070's and GTX 1080's are all aftermarket video cards (MSI GAMING, EVGA SC versions, etc...) against reference cards (GTX 980ti's, R9 390's etc...). I have only seen one review were a EVGA GTX 1070 SC went up against a EVGA GTX 980TI SC and the GTX 980TI was faster.


----------



## Nima (Jul 13, 2016)

CobraRacer said:


> I am curious as to why most of reviews on the GTX 1070's and GTX 1080's are all aftermarket video cards (MSI GAMING, EVGA SC versions, etc...) against reference cards (GTX 980ti's, R9 390's etc...). I have only seen one review were a EVGA GTX 1070 SC went up against a EVGA GTX 980TI SC and the GTX 980TI was faster.



390/390x with reference cooler doesn't exist. most reviewers are comparing aftermarket overclocked 390's against reference 970/980s. I wonder why people don't complain about that since most aftermarket Maxwell GPUs are 10%-20% faster than reference ones.


----------



## bug (Jul 13, 2016)

CobraRacer said:


> I am curious as to why most of reviews on the GTX 1070's and GTX 1080's are all aftermarket video cards (MSI GAMING, EVGA SC versions, etc...) against reference cards (GTX 980ti's, R9 390's etc...). I have only seen one review were a EVGA GTX 1070 SC went up against a EVGA GTX 980TI SC and the GTX 980TI was faster.


Maybe because that's the point of having a reference card? For reference, you know...
Sure, it makes comparing aftermarket card A to aftermarket card B a bit more complicated, but at least it shows what the custom versions actually bring to the table.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 13, 2016)

D3mux said:


> Hi, I've always followed techpowerup for the comprehensive reviews and all the nice graphs, but this time I have a doubt that I can't dispel.
> Of course all cards are benched on the same machine with the same drivers for all VGA of the same brand, as stated in page 5
> "All video card results are obtained on this exact system with exactly the same configuration."
> However in the table in that same page i read "AMD: Crimson 16.4.2 Beta" (dated april) while Nvidias are benched on June's drivers, is it a typo? Cause i wonder if RX480 (that is listed in the results) could even work with those
> ...


Ah I forgot to add the driver version for 480, fixed. Future reviews will also use 16.7.1 for RX480, which adds 1-2% on average


----------



## CobraRacer (Jul 13, 2016)

Sorry I didn't have enough time to fully think about what I was trying to say on my first post (I was at the end of a lunch break).

When the GTX 1070 Founders Edition and aftermarket versions are being reviewed they are being compared to reference style GTX 980Ti's and for the most part the GTX 1070 is better. One review sight knew that most people own a aftermarket version of the GTX 980Ti and so they included a Gigabyte Xtreme Gaming GTX 980Ti (along with a reference card) to show that a aftermarket GTX 980Ti for the most part was a superior card to the GTX 1070 Founders Edition cards. I personally purchased a EVGA FTW ($360.00) and EVGA Classified edition ($380.00) GTX 980Ti from 2 different people that spent $499.99 + tax for Founders Edition GTX 1070's. They paid more money for a slower card and other than a few new features, 2GB more memory and less power consumption they paid more for a lesser card. Even this review has a EVGA GTX SuperClocked GTX 1070 that I would have liked to have seen it up against a similar version GTX 980Ti. I am sure that down the road a 2nd and 3rd generation version of the aftermarket GTX 1070's will be superior to even the aftermarket versions of the GTX 980Ti's, but for now I personally would not recommend someone with an aftermarket GTX 980Ti selling it and getting a GTX 1070.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 13, 2016)

Pumper said:


> Really not liking the "founder's edition" price tags on these aftermarket GPUs.



You really shouldn't be surprised by these shenanigans.  Founder's Edition is just a reference model.  Not a thing special about it.  So when NVIDIA prices it higher than the price they suggest for AIB manufacturers, it's quite obvious the AIB's know where NVIDIA slyly is saying an appropriate pricepoint is.


----------



## CobraRacer (Jul 13, 2016)

I want to make very clear, the GTX 1070 appears to be a very nice video card. It smokes the GTX 970 and GTX 980. I just believe that reviews should help people with their purchasing choices and a large number of GTX 980Ti owners are selling their cards at huge losses to purchase a video card that is about the same as they already had and in some cases not as good.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 14, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> I'm actually a bit gobsmacked by how efficient these cards are.  A 16nm process using 143 watts while gaming versus the 14nm process of Polaris using 163 watts (before fix).  And this 143 Watts gives a 50% better performance.  How powerful is the GP102/100 going to be for gaming?


doesnt the lack of async modules has an impact on that though?
on topic: solid card, but that price is a bit on the expensive side imo.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 14, 2016)

CobraRacer said:


> I want to make very clear, the GTX 1070 appears to be a very nice video card. It smokes the GTX 970 and GTX 980. I just believe that reviews should help people with their purchasing choices and a large number of GTX 980Ti owners are selling their cards at huge losses to purchase a video card that is about the same as they already had and in some cases not as good.



You're being pedantic.  It's pragmatically ill founded to bench a custom card against custom cards from each generation.  The fact is if you look back, TPU benches a 980ti custom card against a reference 980ti card in that same generation (much as this review benches against a reference 1070).  This allows you to gauge how far above reference that custom is.  So each generation @W1zzard provides inter family comparisons.  Next architectural leap he will then bench that family against it's custom variants.  The previous generation reference is used as a baseline to see how well the custom new gen works against the previous baseline.

I know my Kingpin is about 15-20% faster than a stock 980ti (based on TPU reviews of cards running at high 1400's).  So I know to use my knowledge to base my purchases against that.  TPU isn't here to hold your hand through exacting benchmarks on every custom card to make a 99% probability purchase.  It's here to give you insight into how well a card does above baseline and the competition.  It's easy enough to back pedal through reviews to find your own card and see how it fares against the reference model.



$ReaPeR$ said:


> doesn't the lack of async modules has an impact on that though?
> on topic: solid card, but that price is a bit on the expensive side imo.



It's not about Async modules.  It's about compute.  You don't need AMD's ACE's to do Asynchronous scheduling, you need to be able to do compute.  Nvidia dropped compute after Fermi (would be interesting to see a driver update for Vulkan on a Fermi card, GTX480).  That dropping of compute is what gives Nvidia it's massive power efficiency edge.  As I read elsewhere, it's a double edged sword - Nvidia is efficient because it is already fully utilised and efficient without it's compute.  AMD's GCN is woefully under used in DX9-11 but shines in DX12 as it can use it's ACE's to throw a ton of compute at the graphics tasks.

Although going on a mini tangent here - Nvidia isn't Async crippled, it's just already got a fully utilised architecture and using Async doesn't help it at all.  AMD on the other hand gets to run at it's potential under DX12.  So the playing field is quite even now - which is good, if only AMD released a Fury X update.  As long as DX11 is still the major API (and it is) Nvidia will stick to low compute, high efficiency against AMD's high compute, low efficiency.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 14, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> It's not about Async modules.  It's about compute.  You don't need AMD's ACE's to do Asynchronous scheduling, you need to be able to do compute.  Nvidia dropped compute after Fermi (would be interesting to see a driver update for Vulkan on a Fermi card, GTX480).  That dropping of compute is what gives Nvidia it's massive power efficiency edge.  As I read elsewhere, it's a double edged sword - Nvidia is efficient because it is already fully utilised and efficient without it's compute.  AMD's GCN is woefully under used in DX9-11 but shines in DX12 as it can use it's ACE's to throw a ton of compute at the graphics tasks.
> 
> Although going on a mini tangent here - Nvidia isn't Async crippled, it's just already got a fully utilised architecture and using Async doesn't help it at all.  AMD on the other hand gets to run at it's potential under DX12.  So the playing field is quite even now - which is good, if only AMD released a Fury X update.  As long as DX11 is still the major API (and it is) Nvidia will stick to low compute, high efficiency against AMD's high compute, low efficiency.


that was what i was thinking, it will be interesting to see how nvidia will fare when it inevitably makes compute modules part of its arch again, there will be another 4xx generation "hot" issue imo. and yes i agree that dx11 is king right now, but i predict that dx12 will take hold in a shorter time period than dx11 did since M$ is pushing very hard with their win10 platform. imo in a year or so the race will get very hot, literally and figuratively. interesting times indeed.


----------



## kilenfl (Jul 14, 2016)

What about RX480 ?


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 14, 2016)

kilenfl said:


> What about RX480 ?


What about it!
Look at the thread title.


----------



## bug (Jul 14, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> It's not about Async modules.  It's about compute.  You don't need AMD's ACE's to do Asynchronous scheduling, you need to be able to do compute.  Nvidia dropped compute after Fermi (would be interesting to see a driver update for Vulkan on a Fermi card, GTX480).  That dropping of compute is what gives Nvidia it's massive power efficiency edge.  As I read elsewhere, it's a double edged sword - Nvidia is efficient because it is already fully utilised and efficient without it's compute.  AMD's GCN is woefully under used in DX9-11 but shines in DX12 as it can use it's ACE's to throw a ton of compute at the graphics tasks.



I would like to add that, besides removing compute capability which didn't make much sense on a consumer card, Nvidia also did it so they can more easily sell Titan and Tesla cards. Because those still have full compute capability.
Just for more context, I'm not trying to say anything else here.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 14, 2016)

bug said:


> I would like to add that, besides removing compute capability which didn't make much sense on a consumer card, Nvidia also did it so they can more easily sell Titan and Tesla cards. Because those still have full compute capability.
> Just for more context, I'm not trying to say anything else here.



Don't know if the Titan cards have better compute?  The original might have but the follow ups (black and X) I think were gimped.


----------



## Dethroy (Jul 15, 2016)

@W1zzard Could you please confirm that the EVGA GTX 1070 SC's power target is really set to 150W?
*According to EVGA* it is set to 170W. And according to an EVGA tech support employee it is set to 180W/215W at normal/OC settings (source: http://de.evga.com/forums/FindPost/2440897).


----------



## Joss (Jul 17, 2016)

gdallsk said:


> Good Lord, have they dumped the whole tube of thermal paste on that thing?


Indeed  
It doesn't build confidence does it?
Excess thermal paste may bring no harm, but why wouldn't that carelessness translate into other areas of the manufacturing process?


----------



## mcraygsx (Jul 26, 2016)

Very well written article as always, the part that really caught my attention was

"Currently, the EVGA GTX 1070 SC is listed online for $439, which is similar to other custom-design GTX 1070s, but still way too high; remember, we were told $379. Today, one month after launch, not a single card is priced like that. Rather, it seems as though pricing for custom designs is gravitating toward the Founders Edition price of $449; some cards above, some below. However, if you compare the EVGA GTX 1070 SC to the Founders Edition, it's definitely the better deal. You will save 10 bucks and gain amazing noise and temperature levels and no thermal throttling. On the other hand, compared to the MSRP of $379, a price increase of $60 is too much. Given the huge demand and limited availability right now, companies get away with this and cash in on people who want their new graphics card now."

Now I cannot wait for the day when I can buy 1070 for merely $379.


----------



## Nelly (Nov 16, 2016)

A score of 9.8 looks abit silly now, considering the findings of three other review sites for the EVGA ACX 3.0 pascal cards not having sufficient cooling in place to cool the VRMs compared to all other brands.

I guess it could be time consuming and costly, I read on the Guru3D website that the thermal imagining equipment cost 10,000 Euros.


----------



## bug (Nov 16, 2016)

Nelly said:


> A score of 9.8 looks abit silly now, considering the findings of three other review sites for the EVGA ACX 3.0 pascal cards not having sufficient cooling in place to cool the VRMs compared to all other brands.
> 
> I guess it could be time consuming and costly, I read on the Guru3D website that the thermal imagining equipment cost 10,000 Euros.


What? The SC is perfectly fine, only the FTW line was affected (solutions have been deployed already).


----------



## R00kie (Nov 16, 2016)

bug said:


> What? The SC is perfectly fine, only the FTW line was affected (solutions have been deployed already).



It's the other way around.
EDIT: nevermind, they're all affected.


----------



## bug (Nov 16, 2016)

gdallsk said:


> It's the other way around.
> EDIT: nevermind, they're all affected.


Wth are you talking about? *This was only about the FTW line*, see here: https://www.techpowerup.com/227849/...bios-updates-gtx-1080-70-60-ftw-line-of-cards


----------



## Ungari (Nov 16, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> Well even Maxwell offers better peformance per watt still.
> 
> Nvidia are far ahead of AMD in this regard for sure.



Yes, they are pennies per month ahead.


----------



## bug (Nov 16, 2016)

Ungari said:


> Yes, they are pennies per month ahead.


Will you stop with this nonsense?
Performance per watt is really important, it's not about a few pennies saved. It means less heat for the same level of performance and less heat means simpler cooling and more silence. For the current generation, it also means Nvidia can scale up to 2GHz while AMD is left out of the high end because it can't.


----------



## Nelly (Nov 16, 2016)

bug said:


> Wth are you talking about? *This was only about the FTW line*, see here: https://www.techpowerup.com/227849/...bios-updates-gtx-1080-70-60-ftw-line-of-cards



Any non-reference EVGA ACX 3.0 card with a shipping date prior to September don't have any thermal pads installed.

On the instructions on how to install the thermal pads it includes Classified, FTW and SC / stock versions, the methods differ due to the screws on the PCB being different for the backplates.

See here for details >> http://www.evga.com/thermalmod/thermal_pad_mod_installation_guide.pdf


----------



## Ungari (Nov 16, 2016)

bug said:


> Will you stop with this nonsense?
> Performance per watt is really important, it's not about a few pennies saved. It means less heat for the same level of performance and less heat means simpler cooling and more silence. For the current generation, it also means Nvidia can scale up to 2GHz while AMD is left out of the high end because it can't.



Clockspeed is important for DX11, but not so much for DX12 and Vulkan.
Apparently, due to yields and the early manufacturing process there aren't enough low TDP Polaris chips that can reach high OCs on Air, to sell to the consumer market. We look to see this rectified in the refresh of this arch, but AMD won't be in the "high end" until Vega anyway.


----------



## bug (Nov 16, 2016)

Nelly said:


> Any non-reference EVGA ACX 3.0 card with a shipping date prior to September don't have any thermal pads installed.
> 
> On the instructions on how to install the thermal pads it includes Classified, FTW and SC / stock versions, the methods differ due to the screws on the PCB being different for the backplates.
> 
> See here for details >> http://www.evga.com/thermalmod/thermal_pad_mod_installation_guide.pdf



Ok, there's the misunderstanding then. Not all cards are affected as my 1060 SC definitely doesn't come with ACX 3.0, but neither is the problem apparent only on FTW line.



Ungari said:


> Clockspeed is important for DX11, but not so much for DX12 and Vulkan.
> Apparently, due to yields and the early manufacturing process there aren't enough low TDP Polaris chips that can reach high OCs on Air, to sell to the consumer market. We look to see this rectified in the refresh of this arch, but AMD won't be in the "high end" until Vega anyway.



Believe what you want. Maybe you'll get Vega running at 300MHz since apparently that is not an issue going forward.
But you still more potent cooling (and possibly PSU) to tame more inefficient designs


----------



## Ungari (Nov 16, 2016)

bug said:


> Ok, there's the misunderstanding then. Not all cards are affected as my 1060 SC definitely doesn't come with ACX 3.0, but neither is the problem apparent only on FTW line.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At 300Mhz, the power consumption and thermals should be outstanding!


----------



## R00kie (Nov 16, 2016)

bug said:


> Wth are you talking about? *This was only about the FTW line*, see here: https://www.techpowerup.com/227849/...bios-updates-gtx-1080-70-60-ftw-line-of-cards



He wasn't talking about the BIOS updates (although that also affected all other models mind you), he was talking about the thermal issues the cards having, that were fixed by issuing the thermal pads to customers.


----------

