# GTX 1070 specs and the reason that nvidia didn't unveil it!



## idx (May 13, 2016)

It appears that the GTX 1070 is even funnier than its name. Nvidia did not unveil the full spec of its GTX1070 because ... lol guess what:

GTX 1070 has *1920 SP* !
Clocks : 1530MHz, boost 1670MHz .
Ingame it can boost upto 1800Mhz

I just wanted to share this because Its so freaking funny that both of Nvidia cards has 1080p in its name. and believe it or not this is why they didn't want to unveil everything about the GTX1070.

Just to be clear this is not 100% sure!

*source: ... umm... I promised to not tell.


----------



## qubit (May 13, 2016)

Like the 970 before it with 0.5MB of crippled slow RAM out of 4, I bet this has 1GB crippled out of 8. Can we say memorygate all over again? lol

I'll bet this is the real reason.


----------



## idx (May 13, 2016)

qubit said:


> Like the 970 before it with 0.5MB of crippled slow RAM out of 4, I bet this has 1GB crippled out of 8. Can we say memorygate all over again? lol
> 
> I'll bet this is the real reason.



Apparently the GTX 1070 is nothing but a damaged 1080 chip.


----------



## Frick (May 13, 2016)

idx said:


> Apparently the GTX 1070 is nothing but a damaged 1080 chip.



Sounds good to me.


----------



## P4-630 (May 13, 2016)

I don't mind 1GB slow memory out of 8GB total


----------



## Maban (May 13, 2016)

I don't get it. So what? It has better than 980 performance for $100 less MSRP. Edit: Hmm, just checked 980 prices. $400-425 is typical now. So, better than 980 for a little less. Still don't see a problem.


----------



## OneMoar (May 13, 2016)

nvidia has been doing the memory split thing since the 580 ...
the issue with the 970 is that no vendor used large enough memory chips to offset the issue
and its fairly easy to program around as well you simply need to allocate low priority objects to the .5GB section first and load them into the faster 3.5GB partition when needed
then you simply just swap back and forth


----------



## RejZoR (May 13, 2016)

Maban said:


> I don't get it. So what? It has better than 980 performance for $100 less MSRP. Edit: Hmm, just checked 980 prices. $400-425 is typical now. So, better than 980 for a little less. Still don't see a problem.



Unless you already own GTX 980...


----------



## R-T-B (May 13, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Unless you already own GTX 980...



You know how tech works man.  Part of the game...


----------



## qubit (May 13, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> and its fairly easy to program around as well you simply need to allocate low priority objects to the .5GB section first and load them into the faster 3.5GB partition when needed
> then you simply just swap back and forth


Sounds like a recipe for hitching.


----------



## EarthDog (May 13, 2016)

idx said:


> It appears that the GTX 1070 is even funnier than its name. Nvidia did not unveil the full spec of its GTX1070 because ... lol guess what:
> 
> GTX 1070 has *1920 SP* !
> Clocks : 1530MHz, boost 1670MHz .
> ...


I can't say I buy this... nor care I have to admit...LOL



On a side note, can someone explain why that means they will have a slower chunk of memory please....do we know the SMM breakdown to make that call?


----------



## qubit (May 13, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> On a side note, can someone explain why that means they will have a slower chunk of memory please....do we know the SMM breakdown to make that call?


If you're referring to my post above, then I'm only surmising it based on the previous 970 and the fact that NVIDIA is being cagey about the specs for the new version, that's all.


----------



## FYFI13 (May 13, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> On a side note, can someone explain why that means they will have a slower chunk of memory please....do we know the SMM breakdown to make that call?


It's just someones guess... My i guess is fully functioning 8GB of VRAM. Nvidia can't fukup twice in a row.

PS. If it's at least 40% faster than my GTX970 - i buy it, no matter what.


----------



## EarthDog (May 13, 2016)

Can't say I would make that leap with you qubit...at all. Heck of leap...

Just need to know how the SMMs are setup to figure it out though. Do we know what the 1080 SMM setup is? You can have a cut down core and still full access to the memory, just with less bandwidth (bits, say 256 to 192)... that is, if I have an understanding of it all, LOL!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 13, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> nvidia has been doing the memory split thing since the 580 ...
> the issue with the 970 is that no vendor used large enough memory chips to offset the issue
> and its fairly easy to program around as well you simply need to allocate low priority objects to the .5GB section first and load them into the faster 3.5GB partition when needed
> then you simply just swap back and forth


Code specifically to make a handful of cards not run at a snails pace is bad practice.  If NVIDIA does the same thing with GTX 1070...


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (May 13, 2016)

let's pray hard that the 1070 will not suffer the same fate that the 970 has gone through... Despite the 970's 0.5GB VRAM being a reserve space, it still win 1080p benches across all kind of games being thrown at it, with some potential in 1440p.


----------



## EarthDog (May 13, 2016)

And if it has 8GB, with 7 usable, that is only going to affect, what 4K users with gobs of AA? Not sure I see it as an issue... but the speculation is premature at best, particularly with the reason why it started was meritless to begin with.


----------



## qubit (May 13, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> *Can't say I would make that leap with you qubit...at all. Heck of leap...*
> 
> Just need to know how the SMMs are setup to figure it out though. Do we know what the 1080 SMM setup is? You can have a cut down core and still full access to the memory, just with less bandwidth (bits, say 256 to 192)... that is, if I have an understanding of it all, LOL!


Oh I dunno you could well be right. Just one of my wild ruminations that's all. 

Alas, I don't know anything more about the specs than what's been reported in the news articles. Can't wait for the reviews on the 27th.


----------



## EarthDog (May 13, 2016)

17th... hard launch is the 27th.

1070 is June 10th.


----------



## qubit (May 13, 2016)

Ta... just 4 days to go.


----------



## OneMoar (May 13, 2016)

qubit said:


> Sounds like a recipe for hitching.


not if its done correctly
 you swap from system memory all the time so why let it go to waste


----------



## newtekie1 (May 13, 2016)

idx said:


> Apparently the GTX 1070 is nothing but a damaged 1080 chip.



Just like the 970, and the 670, and the 570, and the 470...  Did you expect something else?



OneMoar said:


> nvidia has been doing the memory split thing since the 580 ...



Do you have a source for this, because before the 970, they used lower memory bus sizes, not a memory partition.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 13, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Do you have a source for this, because before the 970, they used lower memory bus sizes, not a memory partition.



Regrettably, at this moment, no I can't get you a source to OneMoar's claim.  However, it was pretty common knowledge that the 660 was partitioned into 1.5GB memory portions. 

This is why the 3GB version was preferred, despite nothing using 3GB back then, because the memory was symmetrical. 

On the 2GB versions though (with a 1.5GB segment and a .5GB segment), no one really noticed, because games were not using all that VRAM anyway.


----------



## OneMoar (May 13, 2016)

The upshot here is that while this is the first time NVIDIA has used this specific ROP/MC configuration in a product, this is not the first product they have designed with segmented or otherwise unbalanced memory configurations. Since the GTX 500 series, on some midrange SKUs NVIDIA has used unbalanced/asymmetrical memory configurations, most recently on the GTX 660 and GTX 660 Ti. In the case of both of those cards, NVIDIA utilized a 192-bit memory bus with 2GB of VRAM attached, which meant that some memory controllers had more VRAM attached to them than others. The end result as it turns out is very similar, and while NVIDIA has never explained in-depth how they handle memory allocation on those cards, it turns out that it’s very similar to GTX 970’s memory segmentation. Which is to say that NVIDIA actually has multiple generations of experience with segmented memory, and this is not the first time they have implemented it. Rather this is first time we’ve seen such a configuration on a high-performance card such as the GTX 970
cite
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/...cting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/2
toward the bottom


----------



## BiggieShady (May 13, 2016)

The split they did in 660 and 660ti was almost symmetrical, 970 split was totally asymmetrical and first of a kind in that regard (gimped part is completely ignored by the driver until absolutely needed because it's still better than ram to vram over pci-e transfer)

edit: crossed the whole section because @rtwjunkie made me remember 600 series was first with asymmetric bus and memory, and the 550 ti was the almost symmetrical one.


----------



## lukart (May 13, 2016)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> let's pray hard that the 1070 will not suffer the same fate that the 970 has gone through... Despite the 970's 0.5GB VRAM being a reserve space, it still win 1080p benches across all kind of games being thrown at it, with some potential in 1440p.



Being crippled 970 in the memory, that didnt stop from being the most popular nvidia has right now...


----------



## LightningJR (May 14, 2016)

idx said:


> It appears that the GTX 1070 is even funnier than its name. Nvidia did not unveil the full spec of its GTX1070 because ... lol guess what:
> 
> GTX 1070 has *1920 SP* !
> Clocks : 1530MHz, boost 1670MHz .
> ...




I did some math myself and came up with the exact same SP count as the possible specs for the 1070. I am not sure why you're making it sounds so surprising. Maybe I am interpreting you wrong and the 1920x1080 thing is just what you are reacting like this for and not that you think it's a low SP count and shitty.

Based off the 6.5TFlops announced by NVidia and considering where the 1080's clocks are this is very feasible. I hope to see a higher SP count though because then the core clock will be lower and an overclock on it will be even more impactful.


----------



## OneMoar (May 14, 2016)

this thread is as about as stupid as it gets
go home people stop wasting everybodys time


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> this thread is as about as stupid as it gets
> go home people stop wasting everybodys time


Just unsub it if you don't like it and let people discuss what they want in peace.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 14, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Regrettably, at this moment, no I can't get you a source to OneMoar's claim.  However, it was pretty common knowledge that the 660 was partitioned into 1.5GB memory portions.
> 
> This is why the 3GB version was preferred, despite nothing using 3GB back then, because the memory was symmetrical.
> 
> On the 2GB versions though (with a 1.5GB segment and a .5GB segment), no one really noticed, because games were not using all that VRAM anyway.


Asymmetric memory like the 660/660ti is very different from what was done o  the 970.


----------



## OneMoar (May 14, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Asymmetric memory like the 660/660ti is very different from what was done o  the 970.


but the end result is the same special steps need to be taken to get the most out of it


----------



## EarthDog (May 14, 2016)

What special steps are taken to get the most out of either card??


----------



## newtekie1 (May 14, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> but the end result is the same special steps need to be taken to get the most out of it


Not really.


----------



## OneMoar (May 14, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Not really.


yea really have a look at the driver change logs and game patch notes for that era
you would be surprised the amount of effort that goes into optimizing a game for a single card especially when gpu vendors do things like monkey around with memory access


----------



## EarthDog (May 14, 2016)

So, nothing the end user needs to do. Gotcha. NVIDIA did have a driver update which was said to help with that memory management. As an end user though, we did nothing but enjoy it in most cases.


----------



## idx (May 14, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> I did some math myself and came up with the exact same SP count as the possible specs for the 1070. I am not sure why you're making it sounds so surprising. Maybe I am interpreting you wrong and the 1920x1080 thing is just what you are reacting like this for and not that you think it's a low SP count and shitty.
> 
> Based off the 6.5TFlops announced by NVidia and considering where the 1080's clocks are this is very feasible. I hope to see a higher SP count though because then the core clock will be lower and an overclock on it will be even more impactful.




*Exactly I mainly meant that it so funny. The fact that they did not unveil the GTX1070 spec because of the 1920x1080p.* Its just thier marketing. *It is so funny that one of thier cards is called 1080 and the other one has 1920 SP.*

And about the 970 the reason they did that was to make sure no one will get more performance out of the 970 more than they already planned. They were worried about ppl overclocking it.
It is indeed so ridiculous the fact they were selling the same physical chip and they decided the lower SP count is not enough to limit the 970 performance, so in order to make sure that it will not out perform what they have planned already, they did that with the 970.

With the GTX 1070 .. we will see anyway. However for sure that right now they are more careful on how they limit the chip.


----------



## P4-630 (May 14, 2016)

idx said:


> *Exactly I mainly meant that it so funny the fact that they did not unveil the GTX1070 spec because of the 1920x1080p. *Its just thier marketing. *It is so funny that one of thier cards is called 1080 and the other one has 1920 SP.*
> 
> And about the 970 the reason they did that was just to make sure that no one will get more performance out of the 970 more than they already planned. they were worried about ppl overclocking it.
> It is indeed so ridiculous the fact they were selling the same physical chip and they decided that the lower SP count is not enough to limit the 970 performance, so in order to make sure that it will not out perform what they have planned they did what they did.
> ...



As I said before,_ if_ it would have just 1GB slow memory of the 8GB total, who cares!
And as @Maban said:


Maban said:


> better than 980 for a little less.


----------



## idx (May 14, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> As I said before,_ if_ it would have just 1GB slow memory of the 8GB total, who cares!
> And as @Maban said:


Well , think about it like this then . Imagine  buying an 8GB of RAM to upgrade your system, and someone sold you a memory (saying that its 8GB RAM) and later you discovered that it was only 7GB of it is working properly.

would you be happy about that ?


----------



## P4-630 (May 14, 2016)

idx said:


> Well , think about it like this then . Imagine  buying a 8GB of RAM to upgrade your system, and someone sold you a memory (saying that its 8GB RAM) and later you discovered that it was only 7GB of is working properly. would you be happy about that ?



Maybe not, but I don't know any game yet that uses 8GB of vram at 1080p, I will buy a GTX1070 and use it for 1080p and even 7GB vram is more than enough for a very long time!

I did not buy a GTX970 because of the memory issue, since it only had 3.5GB fast vram and there are games now reaching over 3.5GB vram usage.


----------



## Naito (May 14, 2016)

Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't the memory subsystem of the 1070 been known for a while? Same 256bit bus of 1080, just lacks the GDDR5X?


----------



## agent_x007 (May 14, 2016)

1920 CC's is exacly 3/4 of total from GTX 1080 (2560 CC), so the number does make sense.
Only requirement for this is that we must assume that total number of SMM's can be devided by at least "4" (ie. GTX 1080 has 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 32, 36, 40, etc. SMM's).

So I guess "consumer grade" GP100 (that 1070's successor should have), will get 2560 CC's ?

I think 1070 will have 256-bit bus with GDDR5.
GDDR5 vs. GDDR5X should make enough difference, to justify not cutting memory bus width (in theory).

Memory width vs. Bandwidth comparison :
320GB/s (GTX 1080) vs. 256GB/s (GTX 1070 256bit GDDR5) vs. 224GB/s + 32GB/s (GTX 1070 224bit + 32bit GDDR5).

EDIT :
The extremely NOT likely scenario (GTX 1070 with 10GHz GD5X) :
224bit + 32bit 10GHz GDDR5X = 280GB/s + 40GB/s


----------



## P4-630 (May 14, 2016)

In my case it does not matter _if_ it would have 1GB of crippled memory since I only play at 1080p.
People having a GTX1070 (sli) and a 4K monitor, well that's a different story.


----------



## idx (May 14, 2016)

Naito said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't the memory subsystem of the 1070 been known for a while? Same 256bit bus of 1080, just lacks the GDDR5X?


The GTX1070 is exactly the same chip as the GTX1080. GDDR5X is compatible with GDDR5. From what I understood, a lil tweaking is needed to be done to the memory controller .


----------



## idx (May 14, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> In my case it does not matter _if_ it would have 1GB of crippled memory since I only play at 1080p.
> People having a GTX1070 (sli) and a 4K monitor, well that's a different story.


What made all the drama about the gtx 970 was the fact that they were advertising the card as if it was exactly the same spec as 980 just lower SP ( or CC) count. where in fact it was NOT just lower SP count it was lower memory lower L2 cache and so on. 

If they just announced the card the same way as it really was no one would be cheated no one would feel annoyed


----------



## P4-630 (May 14, 2016)

idx said:


> What made all the drama about the gtx 970 was the fact that they were advertising the card as if it was exactly the same spec as 980 just lower SP ( or CC) count. where in fact it was NOT just lower SP count it was lower memory lower L2 cache and so on.



I do agree with that, when that came out, the GTX970 was being sold as 3.5 + 0.5GB vram in the specs in my country.


----------



## FYFI13 (May 14, 2016)

idx said:


> Well , think about it like this then . Imagine  buying an 8GB of RAM to upgrade your system, and someone sold you a memory (saying that its 8GB RAM) and later you discovered that it was only 7GB of it is working properly.
> 
> would you be happy about that ?


That's slightly different. I bought GTX 970 (that's my second 970 btw) because of it's performance, not because of it's official specifications. After we figured out about 512MB of "slow" memory, this card did not became any slower or any worse. In my Steam library there are only two games that happily take up to 4GB of VRAM (Arma 3 and GTA 5) and guess what? I can't feel any difference when some textures are loaded into "slow" partition - games work buttery smooth.
Nvidia should have been more detail with GTX 970 specs, although i don't see this such a big issue as some people made it look.


----------



## Caring1 (May 14, 2016)

idx said:


> The GTX1070 is exactly the same chip as the GTX1080. GDDR5X is compatible with GDDR5. From what I understood, a lil tweaking is needed to be done to the memory controller .


I think you mean the 1070 is compatible with GDDR5 and GDDR5X.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 14, 2016)

i cant wait to buy a cheap 970....should be plenty around anyway.


----------



## Caring1 (May 14, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> i cant wait to buy a cheap 970....should be plenty around anyway.


They're still around $500 new here.


----------



## P4-630 (May 14, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> i cant wait to buy a cheap 970....should be plenty around anyway.



The prices went down from 355 last week to 335 Euros now in my country, but I'm not buying it


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 14, 2016)

Like new.......£ 205.00 delivered UK

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MSI-GeFor...202550?hash=item33b7378a76:g:B-oAAOSwInxXNiBP


New £ 270

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/4GB-MSI-G...802060?hash=item3d00a4bfcc:g:CTYAAOSwHnFVx0az


----------



## EarthDog (May 14, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> They're still around $500 new here.


They are $310 here in the states at newegg...


----------



## the54thvoid (May 14, 2016)

Reason they don't need to speak too much about the 1070 is because it's not the main card.  1080 is.  You don't go into all the depth about the 2nd tier card when you're touting how good the first one is.

And while this thread is full of nonsense and rumour:

1080 reaches 2.5GHz under AIB water cooling for a mighty 12.8 Teraflops.

http://wccftech.com/geforce-gtx-108...iants-including-25-ghz-liquid-cooled-edition/

If this is true I'll be amused at the ensuing hand wringing from certain peeps.  If it's not true - then all is good in the world of balance.


----------



## FYFI13 (May 14, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> i cant wait to buy a cheap 970....should be plenty around anyway.


I just got one for 240 euro  I was going to use R9 380 until GTX 1070 comes out but when i saw current prices of second hand GTX 970's - just couldn't resist.


----------



## hojnikb (May 14, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> The upshot here is that while this is the first time NVIDIA has used this specific ROP/MC configuration in a product, this is not the first product they have designed with segmented or otherwise unbalanced memory configurations. Since the GTX 500 series, on some midrange SKUs NVIDIA has used unbalanced/asymmetrical memory configurations, most recently on the GTX 660 and GTX 660 Ti. In the case of both of those cards, NVIDIA utilized a 192-bit memory bus with 2GB of VRAM attached, which meant that some memory controllers had more VRAM attached to them than others. The end result as it turns out is very similar, and while NVIDIA has never explained in-depth how they handle memory allocation on those cards, it turns out that it’s very similar to GTX 970’s memory segmentation. Which is to say that NVIDIA actually has multiple generations of experience with segmented memory, and this is not the first time they have implemented it. Rather this is first time we’ve seen such a configuration on a high-performance card such as the GTX 970
> cite
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/8935/...cting-the-specs-exploring-memory-allocation/2
> toward the bottom



Actually, even 400 series had asymetrical memory. 460 v2 comes to mind.


----------



## zbam (May 14, 2016)

Hello people.
I will probably buy 1070 after it's released since i didnt use desktop PC for like 10 years,
I am new to this graphics card and desktop hardware stuff. So as it may look stupid to you but what does it mean 1070 has 1920 SP ? and what is SP


----------



## vega22 (May 14, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> nvidia has been doing the memory split thing since the 580...



8800s


----------



## MrGenius (May 15, 2016)

zbam said:


> ...what is SP


In simplest terms they are _shaders, _or_ Shader Processors._

SP = Shader Processor = Shader Processing Unit = Shading Unit = CUDA core = Shader

BTW, 1920 shaders is a low ball guesstimate. Other guesstimates are as high as 2304 shaders.  The true number will likely not be released until the 1070 hits shelves(or there abouts).

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2840/geforce-gtx-1070
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10304/nvidia-announces-the-geforce-gtx-1080-1070/2

EDIT: If we were talking AMD terms SP = Stream/Shader Processor = Shader Processing Unit = Shading Unit = Shader


----------



## tabascosauz (May 15, 2016)

The 1070 is not fully revealed, because for Nvidia's purposes the 1080 is the most important piece of tech at the moment. It is the current flagship of the Pascal family, and will forever be the standard-bearer of the architecture, as the GTX 680 was for Kepler, 7970 for GCN, GTX 980 for [real] Maxwell and Fury X for the Fiji product family.

It really isn't a surprise. AMD does it all the time. Look at how many times Anandtech has had to make tables documenting two-prong releases like this, in which the lesser card's specs are virtually blank and the writer has to substitute question marks and amusing snippets like (who knows?) or (less than _insert name of flagship) _instead of real numbers.

It's a cut down version of the big brother that you can get for less $$$. And as far as Nvidia or AMD is concerned, that's all you need to know at the time of release.

Whether you think that's fair is up to you, but if they fully documented the 1070, the 1080 would no longer be the star of the show. When you're promoting a brand new architecture or technology, the posterboy needs to be flawless and the best you can give. The gimped, cheapened 1070 is not that product.

That said, this has been an amusing theory to read.


----------



## GhostRyder (May 15, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> Reason they don't need to speak too much about the 1070 is because it's not the main card.  1080 is.  You don't go into all the depth about the 2nd tier card when you're touting how good the first one is.
> 
> And while this thread is full of nonsense and rumour:
> 
> ...


...............................................I am about to explode with curiosity if that is the case!!!!!  Now I really want one so badly if they really can go almost an extra 1ghz on the core clock!!!

Personally, I will still be waiting for both either way to get reviewed before I make a purchase.  But right now the 1080 sounds fantastic, not sure yet about the 1070.


----------



## arbiter (May 15, 2016)

idx said:


> Apparently the GTX 1070 is nothing but a damaged 1080 chip.


Um pretty much every card generation has done that. 980/970, 680/670, incase you think AMD doesn't do it well they have done it just the same 290x/290 etc. Its done to reduce waste of just scrapping a chip that still can be used at a cheaper point.



MrGenius said:


> BTW, 1920 shaders is a low ball guesstimate. Other guesstimates are as high as 2304 shaders. The true number will likely not be released until the 1070 hits shelves(or there abouts).


I am betting its 2048, it would be a round number.


----------



## zbam (May 15, 2016)

MrGenius said:


> In simplest terms they are _shaders, _or_ Shader Processors._
> 
> SP = Shader Processor = Shader Processing Unit = Shading Unit = CUDA core = Shader
> 
> ...



thanks a lot. it was really informative  1070 is currently dream card I'm hoping it will be able to allow me to play+stream at the same time.


----------



## OneMoar (May 15, 2016)

ZOMG the card has 1080 in the name LULzzzzlelellelelelelellelelehehehehehhehehekekekkehiim12
go home tpu is not Reddit we are grown ups here .. well mostly
this thread serves no informative purpose other then to circle jerk  
NO


----------



## Jurassic1024 (May 15, 2016)

qubit said:


> Sounds like a recipe for hitching.



You mean like this?
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-Pro-Duo-Review/Fallout-4
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-Pro-Duo-Review/Grand-Theft-Auto-V
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-Pro-Duo-Review/Rise-Tomb-Raider
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-Pro-Duo-Review/Witcher-3-Wild-Hunt


----------



## jboydgolfer (May 15, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> .. well mostly
> this thread serves no informative purpose other then to circle jerk
> NO



so THAT'S what's all over the floor.


----------



## MrGenius (May 15, 2016)

No. It's mostly cat shit. With one large dinosaur dropping.


----------



## LightningJR (May 15, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> ZOMG the card has 1080 in the name LULzzzzlelellelelelelellelelehehehehehhehehekekekkehiim12
> go home tpu is not Reddit we are grown ups here .. well mostly
> this thread serves no informative purpose other then to circle jerk
> NO



and you're the gonorrhea.

I love when people actively shit on a thread, especially a benign one. It shows the vulnerability of the poster; reflects poorly on themselves.



qubit said:


> Just unsub it if you don't like it and let people discuss what they want in peace.


----------



## RejZoR (May 15, 2016)

Does this mean GTX 1070 won't be able to render at 1080p ? Will it stretch the image from 1070p to 1080p or will you get black lines? XD


----------



## LightningJR (May 16, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Does this mean GTX 1070 won't be able to render at 1080p ? Will it stretch the image from 1070p to 1080p or will you get black lines? XD


yes.
I think i'll choose a 5 pixel line on the top and bottom.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (May 16, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Maybe not, but I don't know any game yet that uses 8GB of vram at 1080p, I will buy a GTX1070 and use it for 1080p and even 7GB vram is more than enough for a very long time!
> 
> I did not buy a GTX970 because of the memory issue, since it only had 3.5GB fast vram and there are games now reaching over 3.5GB vram usage.


So you wont buy a 970 because of the memory issue, but you WOULD buy a 1070 with said issue? Yet you yourself acknowledge the 970 memory bus is starting to become an issue, the same thing will happen to the 1070. The 970 came out a year and a half ago, the same timespan could also apply to the 1070. 

games like forza run horribly at 1080p with less than 4GB VRAM. Look up the performance of a 2GB 770 vs a 4GB one in that game.

With game devs finally using console hardware to full effect, expect this even more in the next few years. the ps3 and 360 effectively had a 256mb video buffer, yet the pc ports could easily hit a GB of vram usage, and were pushing above that late in the generation BF3 could hit 2GB vram usage). It wouldnt surprise me if games started using 7GB+ at high rez in the next few years, at which point the 1070 will be in the position the 970 is now, with certain games just pushing the edge of it's usable vram. Seems like a huge waste of money to buy a chip you know is crippled in a way its lifespan could be cut short due to an artificial limitation.


----------



## cdawall (May 16, 2016)

I'm confused first off why people are surprised and second off why people care so much. The card will play 4K at least as good as the 980/290(x)/390(x) and will finally let NV play VR worth a shit.


----------



## P4-630 (May 16, 2016)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> So you wont buy a 970 because of the memory issue, but you WOULD buy a 1070 with said issue? Yet you yourself acknowledge the 970 memory bus is starting to become an issue, the same thing will happen to the 1070. The 970 came out a year and a half ago, the same timespan could also apply to the 1070.
> 
> games like forza run horribly at 1080p with less than 4GB VRAM. Look up the performance of a 2GB 770 vs a 4GB one in that game.
> 
> With game devs finally using console hardware to full effect, expect this even more in the next few years. the ps3 and 360 effectively had a 256mb video buffer, yet the pc ports could easily hit a GB of vram usage, and were pushing above that late in the generation BF3 could hit 2GB vram usage). It wouldnt surprise me if games started using 7GB+ at high rez in the next few years, at which point the 1070 will be in the position the 970 is now, with certain games just pushing the edge of it's usable vram. Seems like a huge waste of money to buy a chip you know is crippled in a way its lifespan could be cut short due to an artificial limitation.



As I said, I play at 1080p, so even 7GB vram will be plenty for me for many years.
I did not buy a GTX970 because it probably has not enough vram to play the upcoming games at decent settings.


----------



## VR PC-BUILD (May 16, 2016)

Guys check this

*"While Huang did not focus too much on the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, he did preview some of the specs of the GPU. It will have 6.5 Teraflops, 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, and will be as powerful as the TITAN X GPU"*
Source:http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/artic...graphics-cards-arriving-this-summer/44376.htm

With that big price difference TITAN X will be crushed in competition.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 16, 2016)

What you ignore, bc you only seem to have read the summary article: Actually it's "faster than Titan X" in VR when using simultaneous multiprojection", not in general.


----------



## RCoon (May 16, 2016)

idx said:


> *source: ... umm... I promised to not tell.



Somehow there are 3 pages of discussion even without a source so this is pure conjecture/nonsense.

Gotta love it when TPU is used as a tool to spread baseless speculation.

EDIT: If/when there is any credit to this information, it'd be front page news, don't you think?


----------



## LightningJR (May 16, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> What you ignore, bc you only seem to have read the summary article: Actually it's "faster than Titan X" in VR when using simultaneous multiprojection", not in general.



I really hope this isn't true, I could really use Titan X performance at the ~$400 price. 

If you go only by what NVidia has given us, the 1070 has 6.5TFlops of power while the Titan X has 6.75TFlops. If the overclocking is as good as NVidia has shown us the 1080 is then it could very well be faster than it. If you just take the TFlop number at stock it's not.



RCoon said:


> Somehow there are 3 pages of discussion even without a source so this is pure conjecture/nonsense.
> 
> Gotta love it when TPU is used as a tool to spread baseless speculation.
> 
> EDIT: If/when there is any credit to this information, it'd be front page news, don't you think?



Wow and now a mod is even at it. Not sure when speculation and conjecture was a crime.


----------



## RCoon (May 16, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> Not sure when speculation and conjecture was a crime.



When this happens: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a...efox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=PKU5V76RAovS8AfzyLTYDA


----------



## LightningJR (May 16, 2016)

RCoon said:


> When this happens: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a...efox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=PKU5V76RAovS8AfzyLTYDA



That's interesting, was this a slip from bta? If so then I can understand why it happened. But the OP is, well, no offense, no one.  Maybe i give too much credit to the internet.. I don't believe for a second that the OP has a leak from a source.  But I can say that I did do some math (referencing my first post) before this thread was started which I do for myself, because I like GPUs and the tech and the number of SP is what I guessed or 2048.

I don't see the harm in speculation and conjecture, but maybe I don't realize how things can spread, I look at a forum thread in TPU as a talk among like minded friends.


EDIT: Oh and I just noticed from the leaked slides of GP104 showing the layout of the core... It's not the same layout as GP100, it's just like Maxwell... Disappointing.. It seems like GP104 will not have the same shader configuration as GP100.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 16, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> I really hope this isn't true, I could really use Titan X performance at the ~$400 price.



We'll just have to wait for the june reviews of the 1070.  It will be interesting, to be sure.  I'd rather wait, than take Nvidia's purposely vague claims at face value.


----------



## RCoon (May 16, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> That's interesting, was this a slip from bta?



It was entirely my fault, actually.

While I agree the OP isn't really anybody, they've garnered this page a substantial amount of views over the last few hours, enough for a bunch of rumourmongering sites to throw up some poorly researched articles.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 16, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> I don't see the harm in speculation and conjecture, but maybe I don't realize how things can spread, I look at a forum thread in TPU as a talk among like minded friends.



The problem is that conjecture threads, if often enough putting TPU high on search results for conjecture, will give us the same reputation as some lesser regarded sites.


----------



## R-T-B (May 16, 2016)

MrGenius said:


> No. It's mostly cat shit. With one large dinosaur dropping.



Someone been playing ARK again?


----------



## LightningJR (May 16, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> The problem is that conjecture threads, if often enough putting TPU high on search results for conjecture, will give us the same reputation as some lesser regarded sites.



Shouldn't the reputation of TPU be from the main site and not it's forum threads?

I like civil intelligent speculation, I hope I can keep finding it here.




RCoon said:


> While I agree the OP isn't really anybody, they've garnered this page a substantial amount of views over the last few hours, enough for a bunch of rumourmongering sites to throw up some poorly researched articles.



Wow, really? Maybe the first post should be edited.


----------



## R-T-B (May 16, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> Shouldn't the reputation of TPU be from the main site and not it's forum threads?
> 
> I like civil intelligent speculation, I hope I can keep finding it here.



I agree with that.  Sadly google doesn't differentiate.


----------



## zbam (May 18, 2016)

so in the end. he was right 1920 sp


----------



## Vayra86 (May 18, 2016)

LightningJR said:


> Shouldn't the reputation of TPU be from the main site and not it's forum threads?
> 
> I like civil intelligent speculation, I hope I can keep finding it here.
> 
> ...



Civil intelligent speculation is very prone to the predators that like pageviews and clicks, and the eternal troll.

Would be really nice if TPU has better bullshit filtering amongst its members (note: 'we' are still doing a pretty good job compared to 90% of all tech sites). I try to do my part, every time, but it's like carrying water to the sea. This thread being case in point. I really do NOT mind mods stepping in earlier to cull the BS.

This thread proved that a vast majority of long term and new forum members have trouble with comprehensive reading and/or common sense.


----------

