# NVIDIA Also Announces $379 "Faster than TITAN X" GTX 1070



## btarunr (May 7, 2016)

Hot on the heels of the GeForce GTX 1080, the company also announced its second fastest GPU, the GeForce GTX 1070. Based on the same 16 nm GP104 silicon as the GTX 1080, the GTX 1070 features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, and has 3 quarters the single precision performance (6.5 TFLOP/s vs. 9 TFLOP/s) of the GTX 1080. NVIDIA claims that just as the GTX 1080 is faster than the GTX 980 SLI, the GTX 1070 is faster than the GTX TITAN X, making it the second fastest GPU in existence. Available on June 10, the GTX 1070 will be priced at US $379, with a "founder's edition" (reference-design) card going for $449.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Chaitanya (May 7, 2016)

Prices go up again compared to previous generation.


----------



## mcraygsx (May 7, 2016)

This was one impressive GPU launch.


----------



## AxilomX (May 7, 2016)

Faster than a Titan at almost 1/3 the price. Shut-up and take my money.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 7, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Prices go up again compared to previous generation.


Yep, 50 more $ for the *70 series I think is also too much. Performance is there thou, so the ball is in AMD's court now in order to force nGreedia to lower the prices.
However, I think they will milk those for a long time...


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 7, 2016)

Technically, if it is only faster than the Titan-X, which is not faster than a 980Ti, then that makes the 1070 the *THIRD*-fastest in existence, not the second.


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 7, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Prices go up again compared to previous generation.



....so does performance...your getting *pretty much* a Titian X($1199.99) for $379.99...thats awesome in any currency, language or unit of measurement.  I think nvidia been doing surprisingly well in this area lately. Of course there will be price gouging galore.


----------



## Azumay (May 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Technically, if it is only faster than the Titan-X, which is not faster than a 980Ti, then that makes the 1070 the *THIRD*-fastest in existence, not the second.



3rd fastest card for 379.00. Yep I'm in.  Bargain in my book.


----------



## T8RR8R (May 7, 2016)

I'd like to add that AMD sounds like it's going to be bringing some pretty good performing cards this time around too. So, hopefully we'll have a little price competition to drive these prices down. Also I think most e-tailers end up being cheaper than the MSRP not too long after launch, but I may be mistaken. I think the 1070 is a good value even in the $350-$400 price range, assuming the performance is there of course. Hopefully they OC well too.


----------



## Estaric (May 7, 2016)

Well i know what my next gpu may possibly end up being!


----------



## pedromvu (May 7, 2016)

According to the latest GTX 980 Ti review here: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/23.html

A Titan X is indeed a bit faster than a reference GTX 980 Ti, of course very few people buy one with stock clocks, but still the article is technically correct.


----------



## rruff (May 7, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Yep, 50 more $ for the *70 series I think is also too much. Performance is there thou, so the ball is in AMD's court now in order to force nGreedia to lower the prices.
> However, I think they will milk those for a long time...



It's a very big increase in performance/price for one generation. 

AMD isn't in a position to get in a price war with anybody. They will price their GPUs just cheap enough to be competitive with Nvidia. I'm sure AMD has been hoping and praying that Nvidia will high ball the price so they can do the same and actually make some good margins for a change.


----------



## manofthem (May 7, 2016)

I think this will be my next GPU purchase.  I'd like to grab a 1080 but the price is just too steep for me despite its performance.

I'm sweating right now for AMD...hope they bring something to the table as well.


----------



## AsRock (May 7, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Yep, 50 more $ for the *70 series I think is also too much. Performance is there thou, so the ball is in AMD's court now in order to force nGreedia to lower the prices.
> However, I think they will milk those for a long time...



Last thing AMD need to start is a price war, they should just match it.


----------



## arterius2 (May 7, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Prices go up again compared to previous generation.



So did my salary, as did my mortgage and property price, so quit your yakking.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 7, 2016)

pedromvu said:


> A Titan X is indeed a bit faster than a reference GTX 980 Ti, of course very few people buy one with stock clocks, but still the article is technically correct.



Except for one minor detail, which you do point out, but others overlook.  All the manufacturers AIB 980Ti's easily outperform the Titan-X.  

Did anyone even buy one reference?  Maybe .01% of the buyers.  So the real 980Ti's in existence are all the aftermarket ones which all beat reference, and all their reviews can be checked.  That's what you really want if you want to compare chips.


----------



## arterius2 (May 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Except for one minor detail, which you do point out, but others overlook.  All the manufacturers AIB 980Ti's easily outperform the Titan-X.
> 
> Did anyone even buy one reference?  Maybe .01% of the buyers.  So the real 980Ti's in existence are all the aftermarket ones which all beat reference, and all their reviews can be checked.  That's what you really want if you want to compare chips.


right... so all the aftermarket 1070's will beat the reference 1070's, whats the point you are trying to make here?


----------



## PcFixer (May 7, 2016)

As long as there's no memory issue like 7.5 fast memory and .5 slow memory..... well at that size of frame buffer wouldn't matter.... sign me up for two point five cards.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 7, 2016)

arterius2 said:


> right... so all the aftermarket 1070's will beat the reference 1070's, whats the point you are trying to make here?


Compare the cards to the actual clocks of the many 980Ti's reviewed by W1z, and see the actual speeds of the cards that are actually sold and used.  It's plainly obvious.


----------



## arterius2 (May 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Compare the cards to the actual clocks of the many 980Ti's reviewed by W1z, and see the actual speeds of the cards that are actually sold and used.  It's plainly obvious.


heh, I get that, you are saying, "hey you shouldn't compare reference 1070s to the reference TitanX, instead you should compare it to the aftermarket 980Ti, because most people buy them", when you are making statements like these, you are giving your own argument unfair advantage, and pretend like you didn't know about it. Instead, you should say, lets compare aftermarket 1070s to aftermarket 980Tis since both will take advantage of the extra cooling. Makes sense?


----------



## newtekie1 (May 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Except for one minor detail, which you do point out, but others overlook.  All the manufacturers AIB 980Ti's easily outperform the Titan-X.
> 
> Did anyone even buy one reference?  Maybe .01% of the buyers.  So the real 980Ti's in existence are all the aftermarket ones which all beat reference, and all their reviews can be checked.  That's what you really want if you want to compare chips.



That doesn't matter. When nVidia is talking, they are talking reference cards.  The factory overclocked partner cards aren't part of the picture.  The Titan X overclocked still beats the 980Ti anyway, but no AIBs put out factory overclocked Titan X cards(because nVidia didn't allow it?).

The fact is, when the GPUs leave nVidia, the Titan X GPU is more powerful than the 980Ti.  That is all the matters for this comparison, and the reason they aren't comparing it to the 980Ti.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 7, 2016)

arterius2 said:


> heh, I get that, you are saying, "hey you shouldn't compare reference 1070s to the reference TitanX, instead you should compare it to the aftermarket 980Ti, because most people buy them", when you are making statements like these, you are giving your own argument unfair advantage, and pretend like you didn't know about it. Instead, you should say, lets compare aftermarket 1070s to aftermarket 980Tis since both will take advantage of the extra cooling. Makes sense?


Yes! I completely agree.


----------



## N3M3515 (May 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Yes! I completely agree.



What did i tell you!!! x70 faster than last gen fastest!


----------



## TheHunter (May 7, 2016)

Yes TitanX like Perf.  in VR only.. 
Its a big marketing stunt to make people gasp for air, I mean just mention the word Titan and then new gpu at "cheap" this will sell! lol


By normal scenario it will be slower.. I mean 1080GTX is ~ 15-20% faster vs stock 980Ti at 1164mhz boost, for 600€ or 700€+ SE 2GHz guarantied binned gpus hah, 
so ~ 30-35% faster then stock 980Ti or ~ 10-15% once both OC'ed.. 

Imo 980 and 980Ti users can easily pass on this one and wait for either big pascal or Volta.. If 980Ti can't do 4K to the max, Im sure 1080GTX won't either, not at 60fps+ in more demanding games...


----------



## N3M3515 (May 7, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> That doesn't matter. When nVidia is talking, they are talking reference cards.  The factory overclocked partner cards aren't part of the picture.  The Titan X overclocked still beats the 980Ti anyway, but no AIBs put out factory overclocked Titan X cards(because nVidia didn't allow it?).
> 
> The fact is, when the GPUs leave nVidia, the Titan X GPU is more powerful than the 980Ti.  That is all the matters for this comparison, and the reason they aren't comparing it to the 980Ti.



Exactly, what i was going to write.


----------



## Kanan (May 7, 2016)

Overclocked Titan X with custom Cooling:

http://www.mindfactory.de/product_i...l-Black-Accelero-Hybrid-S-Hybrid_1026513.html

980 Ti btw never was faster, overclocked 980 Ti is faster, yes, but you can overclock Titan X too - 3072 Shaders can't possibly lose to 2816. And don't argue with better cooling, people spending 1000$ on a card can easily get a watercooled Titan X and overclock it to Mars, or the custom solution I just posted (that already has +100MHz OC included). 

Topic:

Wow, great performance. I think the 1080 will stay the fastest card, 1070 will fight against AMD cards for 2nd place (like GTX 570 vs. HD 6970 back then, with the GTX 580 alone on the top). But we will only know that for sure after the AMD cards are announced & tested (also the NV ones of course).


----------



## arbiter (May 7, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Yep, 50 more $ for the *70 series I think is also too much. Performance is there thou, so the ball is in AMD's court now in order to force nGreedia to lower the prices.
> However, I think they will milk those for a long time...


So yea price will go up since its Brand New tech instead of an older mature tech.


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (May 7, 2016)

Kanan said:


> Overclocked Titan X with custom Cooling:
> 
> http://www.mindfactory.de/product_i...l-Black-Accelero-Hybrid-S-Hybrid_1026513.html
> 
> ...




Let's hope the Polaris XT card can compete with the GTX 1070. Remember Polaris is 2/3 the size of GP104, and if it's not clocked aggressively, like these Pascal cards, then Polaris XT will be behind the GTX1070 performance wise.
  If what Nvidia is claiming is true, which might be, then AMD better forget about power efficiency and focus on performance.


----------



## VulkanBros (May 7, 2016)

8 GB mem ~ or are we talking 7 GB in reality 
Sorry couldn´t resist


----------



## cdawall (May 7, 2016)

So these are going to be clocked to the moon from what I have seen floating around on the new (boost as high as 2.3ghz for tech demos and the 1080) curious on overclocking and actual wattage consumption.


----------



## bogami (May 7, 2016)

Nice to have put a little more realistic price but still  50 $ across the class border .


----------



## HD64G (May 7, 2016)

Just by putting numbers down and comparing to those from this W1Z review, since stock 980Ti is in the same perf lvl to Titan X, 1070 will be between a factory oced 980Ti and the stock one for 60-65% of their cost, and 1080 will be at about +20% from the factory oced 980Ti for almost the stock's money. 1070 could be of good value indeed if Polaris isn't close to that in perf.


----------



## Caring1 (May 7, 2016)

What's the difference between the two cards, the $379 card should be classed as reference too, so why pay $70 more for the other reference card.


----------



## HD64G (May 7, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> What's the difference between the two cards, the $379 card should be classed as reference too, so why pay $70 more for the other reference card.


The expensive one is factory overclocked, just sold by nVidia itself.


----------



## arbiter (May 7, 2016)

HD64G said:


> The expensive one is just factory overclocked, just sold by nVidia itself.


expensive one uses GDDR5x memory and cheaper one is GDDR5.


----------



## Xzibit (May 7, 2016)

arbiter said:


> expensive one uses GDDR5x memory and cheaper one is GDDR5.



Nvidia never said the 1070 will carry G5X. The price difference might just be better bin and less power restriction so it can boost higher.


----------



## Nkd (May 7, 2016)

let me know when game benchmarks are out. Nvidia purely going by gpu compute performance. In that way its sure faster than titan x at stock clocks. But I will go by gaming performance. I doubt it beats titan x in that. It's just hard to belive they will make up 1000 shaders just by higher clocks. Wait and see. I am sure it will be a decent card but marketing words are the last thing I am gonna take from either amd or nvidia. Give me numbers and take my money..


----------



## matar (May 7, 2016)

Oh Yes faster then a $1000 GPU for $379 can't wait GTX 1070 in my case thank you NVidia.


----------



## jigar2speed (May 7, 2016)

matar said:


> Oh Yes faster then a $1000 GPU for $379 can't wait GTX 1070 in my case thank you NVidia.



Well played Nvidia, you brought price war game to AMD with best in class performance offering. AMD is now in tough position. Nvidia was right in anticipating a price war this round and they have played the exact same move AMD was about to make. This complicates a lot of things for AMD. Hope Vega brings something good cause Nvidia has watered the parade of Polaris 10.


----------



## techy1 (May 7, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Prices go up again compared to previous generation.


True, but this is not like intels price goes up - for example last expected HEDT - performance goes up +20%, but price +60%.
If these nvidia claims are true than performance goes up +100% and price +20% - so price performance goes up (in our favor) significantly... I want price increase like this - with any next gen announcement - all day long.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 7, 2016)

Well SLI is more like70-75% more performance. If lucky


----------



## HD64G (May 7, 2016)

matar said:


> Oh Yes faster then a $1000 GPU for $379 can't wait GTX 1070 in my case thank you NVidia.


980Ti is equal to TitanX in game performance and that is being sold for $550-600, so the $379 GTX1070 should be compared to 980Ti for FPS/$. And that's the only Pascal GPU of good value until we see what Polaris will bring to the table in FPS and prices.


----------



## HD64G (May 7, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Well SLI is more like70-75% more performance. If lucky


http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/23.html shows that 970SLi is just 55% more FPS than the single 970 in 4K, +58% in 1440K and just +41% in 1080P average. So, just by adding the same values to GTX980 gives away the numbers needed.


----------



## ivan375 (May 7, 2016)

HD64G said:


> 980Ti is equal to TitanX in game performance and that is being sold for $550-600, so the $379 GTX1070 should be compared to 980Ti for FPS/$.



exactly, no use in comparing it with a gpu nobody even buys. A 980ti is the standard for any practical comparison and titan x for marketing comparison.


----------



## P4-630 (May 7, 2016)

Impressive, I just hope that it will not cost much more than 350 Euros in Europe 

Edit: Powerdraw of a GTX1070 as GTX980? About 165 Watt? Or?


----------



## Luka KLLP (May 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Technically, if it is only faster than the Titan-X, which is not faster than a 980Ti, then that makes the 1070 the *THIRD*-fastest in existence, not the second.



If this $379 card is *actually *going to be faster than a Titan X, I don't think anyone is going to care haha


----------



## bpgt64 (May 7, 2016)

As a Titan X owner,   cheers mates.


----------



## MustSeeMelons (May 7, 2016)

How much did the 970 MSRP at launch? I had to pay 350 euros for my ~2 months after its release, don't want to spend 400+ on a 1070. AMD, show us what you've got!


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 7, 2016)

Nice, bought my 970 for £275 here in the UK and it's still sells for that today, just sold mine yesterday.

Glad nVidia cards hold their value, gonna sell my 980 Ti now too, sit on my 670 for a few weeks and wait these bad boys to launch.


----------



## Dethroy (May 7, 2016)

MustSeeMelons said:


> How much did the 970 MSRP at launch? I had to pay 350 euros for my ~2 months after its release, don't want to spend 400+ on a 1070. AMD, show us what you've got!


I'd say the ball is in AMD's court now.
Bring it on!


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 7, 2016)

That $1500 Radeon Duo is gonna be a tough sell now.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 7, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> That $1500 Radeon Duo is gonna be a tough sell now.



It wasn't already?


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 7, 2016)

MustSeeMelons said:


> How much did the 970 MSRP at launch? I had to pay 350 euros for my ~2 months after its release, don't want to spend 400+ on a 1070. AMD, show us what you've got!



Gonna be verry verry hard this time around for amd.  Hbm is more expensive and in shorter supply so profit is gonna be much harder for them.  If amd cards arent significantly faster than nvidia....then whats the point of hbm and its price premium? Vr? Not a house hold thing yet.....even amoung enthusiasts. Honestly the majority of the market i.e. the majority of sales and profit is from 1080p-ers


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 7, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> It wasn't already?



Good point.


----------



## Kaotik (May 7, 2016)

Actually it's "faster than Titan X" _in VR when using simultaneous multiprojection_, not in general.
In normal gaming it's around stock 980 Ti performance or so, maybe even slightly under (since GTX 1080 is around 20 % faster than Titan X in general gaming, and around 58 % more expensive than 1070)


----------



## rruff (May 7, 2016)

jigar2speed said:


> Well played Nvidia, you brought price war game to AMD with best in class performance offering. AMD is now in tough position. Nvidia was right in anticipating a price war this round and they have played the exact same move AMD was about to make. This complicates a lot of things for AMD. Hope Vega brings something good cause Nvidia has watered the parade of Polaris 10.



I don't think AMD will have a problem if they got the details right. *Polaris 10 is lower tier.* I expect performance in the 970 and 980 range for $200-$250. Even the 1060 Ti will likely be above it. Polaris 10 will only compete with old designs in that segment until 1060 comes out.


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 7, 2016)

Kaotik said:


> Actually it's "faster than Titan X" _in VR when using simultaneous multiprojection_, not in general.
> In normal gaming it's around stock 980 Ti performance or so, maybe even slightly under (since GTX 1080 is around 20 % faster than Titan X in general gaming, and around 58 % more expensive than 1070)



An 8GB GTX 980 Ti that probably floats around 165 watts or even less and is great for VR????

Sounds good to me.


----------



## Kaotik (May 7, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> An 8GB GTX 980 Ti that probably floats around 165 watts or even less and is great for VR????
> 
> Sounds good to me.


Not saying it wouldn't be a great card, just that people shouldn't expect it beating Titan X in normal games


----------



## TRWOV (May 7, 2016)

Damn... that price must have made someone over at AMD lose some sleep. Didn't think nVidia would launch a price war so early but then they are the ones in the position to try that.

Still rocking my 7970 though. I guess I can hold out a little bit more.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 7, 2016)

Not sure why people are surprised by the price. The *70 cards have always been around this price point, and always been extremely good values for the money.


----------



## TRWOV (May 7, 2016)

Yeah but with this performance level you'd think nVidia would charge a little extra at least at first while AMD has nothing to fight back.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 7, 2016)

TRWOV said:


> Yeah but with this performance level you'd think nVidia would charge a little extra at least at first while AMD has nothing to fight back.


That isn't really their MO. They do that with the *80 cards, while the *70 cards are the values.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 7, 2016)

They are already charging +50$ over last year


----------



## Kaotik (May 7, 2016)

TRWOV said:


> Yeah but with this performance level you'd think nVidia would charge a little extra at least at first while AMD has nothing to fight back.


Sure about that? Slowest Polaris 10 is around GTX 970 / R9 290 -level for VR. The highest is rumoured to be around Fury X / 980 Ti -level (in 3DMark anyway). They've confirmed to target under $349 markets


----------



## HD64G (May 7, 2016)

TRWOV said:


> Yeah but with this performance level you'd think nVidia would charge a little extra at least at first while AMD has nothing to fight back.


Polaris will be at the price range below or up to $300, and with a performance 10-20% below 1070 me thinks, so not any competition between AMD and nVidia until late 2016-early 2017 imho. We might have a new 470-480 vs 4850-70 case in front of us.  Not any thermal or TDP problems for the green camp now though. Just lower FPS/$ for Pascal vs Polaris I dare to predict. FPS/W could be very similar on the other side. Only thing that can judge this fight is how high will the clocks go for each camp and how much oc will the chips have?


----------



## Kanan (May 7, 2016)

GTX 1080 after some thought isn't faster than 980 SLI, it's just faster in VR than SLI 980,_ maybe. _These are only marketing numbers from Nvidia, to take with a grain of salt, I don't think they are accurate. I expect custom 1080 to be 10-20% faster than 980 Ti custom and 1070 _clearly slower. _I expect the 1070 to be 10-20% faster than 980 (non Ti).

Polaris on the other hand not only has the arguably better tech (14nm) but smaller chips too, they have no problems starting a price war with Nvidia. I expect R9 490 to be about ~ GTX 1070 level with a smaller chip and better production tech. The days of AMD, starting with the biggest chip and 384 bit, are over I guess. Wasn't exactly a smart move anyway (talking  HD 7970, vs. the smaller, but more efficient GTX 680 back then). Now they are doing the opposite again, reminds me of HD 6970/6950 days vs GTX 560 Ti/570/580. Better be small and efficient than too big to fail. Price cuts/wars are no problem that way.

Edit: corrected 980 Ti SLI to 980 SLI.


----------



## Kaotik (May 7, 2016)

Kanan said:


> GTX 1080 after some thought isn't faster than 980 Ti SLI, it's just faster in VR than SLI 980 Ti,_ maybe. _These are only marketing numbers from Nvidia, to take with a grain of salt, I don't think they are accurate. I expect custom 1080 to be 10-20% faster than 980 Ti custom and 1070 _clearly slower. _I expect the 1070 to be 10-20% faster than 980 (non Ti).
> 
> Polaris on the other hand not only has the arguably better tech (14nm) but smaller chips too, they have no problems starting a price war with Nvidia. I expect R9 490 to be about ~ GTX 1070 level with a smaller chip and better production tech. The days of AMD, starting with the biggest chip and 384 bit, are over I guess. Wasn't exactly a smart move anyway (talking  HD 7970, vs. the smaller, but more efficient GTX 680 back then). Now they are doing the opposite again, reminds me of HD 6970/6950 days vs GTX 560 Ti/570/580. Better be small and efficient than too big to fail. Price cuts/wars are no problem that way.


Actually the claim was 980 SLI, not 980 Ti SLI. And yes, it's in regular gaming according to marketing slide (which does exaggarate differences a bit, even for already released cards)
1080 = ~2x 970, ~1.7-1.75x 980, ~1,2x Titan X


----------



## Kanan (May 7, 2016)

Kaotik said:


> Actually the claim was 980 SLI, not 980 Ti SLI. And yes, it's in regular gaming according to marketing slide (which does exaggarate differences a bit, even for already released cards)
> 1080 = ~2x 970, ~1.7-1.75x 980, ~1,2x Titan X


That's right, but doesn't change my opinion. Still expecting the 1080 custom to be "only" 10-20% faster than 980 Ti custom.


----------



## TheNumberTrent (May 7, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Technically, if it is only faster than the Titan-X, which is not faster than a 980Ti, then that makes the 1070 the *THIRD*-fastest in existence, not the second.


Except that you can overclock the 1070 + 1080 above 2k GHz on stock cooler, they even showed the 1080 overclocked in there testing of VR. In my eyes, that makes it the SECOND fastest card in existence.


----------



## TheNumberTrent (May 7, 2016)

Kanan said:


> That's right, but doesn't change my opinion. Still expecting the 1080 custom to be "only" 10-20% faster than 980 Ti custom.


Halt right there! Overclocking the polaris will be a piece of cake on even stock cooling, though. If you read my above message you will get some of the info. Imagine a non reference cooler, how much more performance that will be. So better make that "10-20%" to be about "30%+"


----------



## TheHunter (May 7, 2016)

TheNumberTrent said:


> Except that you can overclock the 1070 + 1080 above 2k GHz on stock cooler, they even showed the 1080 overclocked in there testing of VR. In my eyes, that makes it the SECOND fastest card in existence.


On specially binned another 30-50$/€ extra..

970 was 330$
1070 is 370$
1070 binned is 430$


Normal won't OC as much..

Btw that 2.1Ghz was a golden ASIC 1080GTX, IMO normal  will go up to 2Ghz, only those special up to 2.1GHz.


Like others said in reality (non VR) a 1080GTX will be up to 10-20% faster when both OC'ed to the "max", e.g. 980Ti @ 1450mhz, 1080gtx @ 2.1Ghz.


----------



## Kanan (May 7, 2016)

TheNumberTrent said:


> Halt right there! Overclocking the polaris will be a piece of cake on even stock cooling, though. If you read my above message you will get some of the info. Imagine a non reference cooler, how much more performance that will be. So better make that "10-20%" to be about "30%+"


Please don't doublepost (use edit). Also I talked about GTX 1080 not Polaris. Still expecting Polaris to be in GTX 1070 range, not speculating on more, that would be wishful thinking I guess.

PS. I think that prices are simply based on performance compared to the Maxwell GPUs. Expecting ~600$ for a GTX 980 Ti perf GPU isn't bad. Expecting 350-400$ for a ~GTX 980 perf GPU isn't too bad either. I think the prices are "okay" for now.


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 7, 2016)

TheNumberTrent said:


> Halt right there! Overclocking the polaris will be a piece of cake on even stock cooling, though. If you read my above message you will get some of the info. Imagine a non reference cooler, how much more performance that will be. So better make that "10-20%" to be about "30%+"



Havent seen any possible pics of polaris if its aio cooled like furry x wouldnt expect too much


----------



## KainXS (May 7, 2016)

Nvidia's own slides on their site contradict what Huang said, he said the 1080 was twice the performance of a titan x(and he did not say VR until later) but on their slides it does not say that, it says 60% or 70% on the games they tested vs a GTX 980(not even a TI). The 1070 does look a little interesting though definitely moreso than the 1080 with that price.







Gonna wait for what AMD has to say about their card and some benchmarks.


----------



## dwade (May 7, 2016)

Sold my 980 Ti. Let's face it. A driver gimp is coming and you all know it. Sell yours while you can for a decent price. Everyone is hungry in craigslist.

If a 1070 only beats a Titan X barely, nvidia will make damn sure it'll beat it soundly within a few months.


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (May 7, 2016)

Kanan said:


> GTX 1080 after some thought isn't faster than 980 SLI, it's just faster in VR than SLI 980,_ maybe. _These are only marketing numbers from Nvidia, to take with a grain of salt, I don't think they are accurate. I expect custom 1080 to be 10-20% faster than 980 Ti custom and 1070 _clearly slower. _I expect the 1070 to be 10-20% faster than 980 (non Ti)..



That is most likely the case, going by the Fire Strike numbers of the ~1800MHz GTX1080  from a couple of day ago.




Kanan said:


> Polaris on the other hand not only has the arguably better tech (14nm) but smaller chips too, they have no problems starting a price war with Nvidia. I expect R9 490 to be about ~ GTX 1070 level with a smaller chip and better production tech. The days of AMD, starting with the biggest chip and 384 bit, are over I guess. Wasn't exactly a smart move anyway (talking  HD 7970, vs. the smaller, but more efficient GTX 680 back then). Now they are doing the opposite again, reminds me of HD 6970/6950 days vs GTX 560 Ti/570/580. Better be small and efficient than too big to fail. Price cuts/wars are no problem that way.
> 
> Edit: corrected 980 Ti SLI to 980 SLI.



Well... a couple of things to remember: First, if AMD doesn't clock Polaris high enough and focuses on power consumption, then even the Polaris10 XT won't beat the 1070. I do think that the Polaris 10 chip is highly capable of competing with the Fiji chip if clocked aggressively, which is the primary reason why the GP104 based cards are able to do so well against the GTX980 TI.  
The second point to be made is Samsung's 14nm vs TSMC's 16nm finfet processes. I'm not sure which one is better, but the fact that AMD was able to cram 2560 SPs into a ~230mm^2 chips is impressive. Remember this is the same number of SPs that the full GP104 chip has.


----------



## Kanan (May 7, 2016)

That makes sense. Going by these numbers Polaris with 2304 shaders (R9 490) could very well be faster than 980 Ti. Then they also have 256 shaders left for the full, non-cut version of the chip. Expect a (price) war on top too. Good for us.


----------



## Tom_ (May 7, 2016)

Concerning the Hardware Power this a weaker than a Radeon 390X (5,914 GFLOPS, 384 GB/s).


----------



## jchambers2586 (May 7, 2016)

My 970 plays every game I have on a 1200P IPS monitor why should I upgrade. I want a 4K IPS but that it too expensive I will wait for prices to drop.


----------



## doxology (May 7, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Prices go up again compared to previous generation.



Well a GTX970 cost anywhere from $299 to $379 depending on model right now.

When I bought my Asus GTX 970 I spent $359 right after that card launched. I purchased the Asus because of its single power connector. Doesn't seem like a huge gap increase in price honestly, especially considering the jump from 4GB to 8GB of memory.

My main concern is that they didn't show benchmarks for any of the cards. Also when bragging about how buttery smooth the games had been running they also never mentioned resolutions. Also it looks like when running one of the demos for VR with the monster and how smooth it was with their new technology implemented that was also when you saw that the card was overclocked like 3-400 MHZ over stock. So everything we saw yesterday was probably on an overclocked 1080. Which was deceiving imo. Sure we will probably see factory overclocked cards, but of course those will come with price premiums. 

If the GTX 1080 was running those games maxed out with ultra settings at 1080P I could care less. If it or the 1070 can run those games maxed at 4K then now you have my attention.

The more I think about it I realize how vague they were about real details, even claims of 2x the performance of Titan X but that was only in certain circumstances. After sleeping and waking up fresh I am more skeptical and want to see some sites benchmark these before I get super excited.

Finally, I have watched multiple Nvidia events and they really need to learn to streamline them. That event could of easily fit into an hour instead of an hour and a half. I know he is the head of Nvidia but they need to either get him some classes or hire a PR person to do these. Steve Jobs he clearly is not. And they clearly had not prepared properly. Kind of weak in that regard.


----------



## rruff (May 7, 2016)

Kanan said:


> Still expecting Polaris to be in GTX 1070 range, not speculating on more, that would be wishful thinking I guess.



The most sensible rumors and AMD statements lead me to believe it will be 480/480x and substantially below 1070. Even below 1060 Ti. 970/390 performance level. Priced appropriately of course. 

490/490x will be the lowest tier Vega coming out next year, and will compete against 1070/1080.


----------



## medi01 (May 7, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> ...the ball is in AMD's court now in order to force nGreedia to lower the prices...


The ball is always in pockets of the buyers., that either buy or not.


----------



## puma99dk| (May 7, 2016)

awesome to see a card as a GTX 1070 with more than 4gb of vram I been waiting for this, even I said to myself no more hardware this yr doe 

but I properly going to buy one anyway and but waiting on a ITX version to launch of the GTX 1070.


----------



## Dethroy (May 7, 2016)

medi01 said:


> The ball is always in pockets of the buyers., that either buy or not.


And people simply throw money at whatever product is performing the worst and has the highest price, right?

The buyer's decision is mostly based on who ever sells the most compelling product.


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (May 7, 2016)

rruff said:


> The most sensible rumors and AMD statements lead me to believe it will be 480/480x and substantially below 1070. Even below 1060 Ti. 970/390 performance level. Priced appropriately of course.
> 
> 490/490x will be the lowest tier Vega coming out next year, and will compete against 1070/1080.



Highly unlikely that Polaris 10 will not outperform 390/390X at the same clocks and compete with Fury/FuryX if clocked aggressively like the 1080/1070. 

The GTX1080 has ~40% higher GPU frequency than the GTX980. That's where most of 1080's performance comes from: the GPU clock frequency. If AMD decides to clock the Polaris 10 chips at high freqnencies, then the Polaris 10 based cards should have no problems competing with the Fury/FuryX cards.


----------



## btarunr (May 8, 2016)

TheHunter said:


> Imo 980 and 980Ti users can easily pass on this one and wait for either big pascal or Volta.. If 980Ti can't do 4K to the max, Im sure 1080GTX won't either, not at 60fps+ in more demanding games...



That's what every GTX 780 Ti and other high-end "Kepler" users said about GTX 980/970, until the driver optimizations dried up.


----------



## arbiter (May 8, 2016)

Xzibit said:


> Nvidia never said the 1070 will carry G5X. The price difference might just be better bin and less power restriction so it can boost higher.


As i said cheaper one aka 1070 uses GDDR5 which nvidia had in their slides, the expensive one which is 1080 will use GDDR5x sorry if you lack understanding to be able to understand words used to work that out. 



Kanan said:


> GTX 1080 after some thought isn't faster than 980 SLI, it's just faster in VR than SLI 980,_ maybe. _These are only marketing numbers from Nvidia, to take with a grain of salt, I don't think they are accurate. I expect custom 1080 to be 10-20% faster than 980 Ti custom and 1070 _clearly slower. _I expect the 1070 to be 10-20% faster than 980 (non Ti).


a 1080 is 55-70% faster then a 980. It can be faster then 980's in SLI cause there is only 1 game where SLI scales almost 100%, most games its only around 50-60% at most (that 1 game that scales to 100 was Sniper Elite III). So their claim of being faster then 980's in SLI is very valid since it is faster without the draw back of SLI.


G33k2Fr34k said:


> The GTX1080 has ~40% higher GPU frequency than the GTX980. That's where most of 1080's performance comes from: the GPU clock frequency. If AMD decides to clock the Polaris 10 chips at high freqnencies, then the Polaris 10 based cards should have no problems competing with the Fury/FuryX cards.


Well it does have 25% more shaders so its performance boost isn't all from the clock speed. if it was only clocks then it would need to be higher.


----------



## TheHunter (May 8, 2016)

btarunr said:


> That's what every GTX 780 Ti and other high-end "Kepler" users said about GTX 980/970, until the driver optimizations dried up.



Yes and no.. Maxwell vs Pascal are quite similar with its scheduler, Kepler was a little different from those two - less effective and no delta compression.

rematch 780Ti vs 980GTX vs R9-290X, 780Ti is tiny bit behind,.. But nothing that makes it  omfg 
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...iews/70125-gtx-780-ti-vs-r9-290x-rematch.html
This is after drivers matured, anything beyond 350.xx.

Look at FC4, GTA5, Withcer3,etc by all max 2-4fps difference, rare exceptions up to 8fps by min fps avg not so much..



Im  sure it will be similar @stock boost 1164Mhz 980Ti vs 1080GTX.


----------



## Xzibit (May 8, 2016)

arbiter said:


> As i said cheaper one aka 1070 uses GDDR5 which nvidia had in their slides, the expensive one which is 1080 will use GDDR5x sorry if you lack understanding to be able to understand words used to work that out.



You really need to understand what thread your in and what your replying to.  All you had to do is check the conversation which you participated in.



Caring1 said:


> What's the difference between the two cards, the $379 card should be classed as reference too, so why pay $70 more for the other reference card.





HD64G said:


> The expensive one is factory overclocked, just sold by nVidia itself.





arbiter said:


> expensive one uses GDDR5x memory and cheaper one is GDDR5.





Xzibit said:


> Nvidia never said the 1070 will carry G5X. The price difference might just be better bin and less power restriction so it can boost higher.



379+70=449 not 599 or 699 for that matter.  Not sure how you make the jump to the 1080 when your replying to people clearly talking about the 1070 and 1070 FE.


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (May 8, 2016)

arbiter said:


> a 1080 is 55-70% faster then a 980. It can be faster then 980's in SLI cause there is only 1 game where SLI scales almost 100%, most games its only around 50-60% at most (that 1 game that scales to 100 was Sniper Elite III). So their claim of being faster then 980's in SLI is very valid since it is faster without the draw back of SLI.
> 
> Well it does have 25% more shaders so its performance boost isn't all from the clock speed. if it was only clocks then it would need to be higher.




A stock-clocked 1080 is 20 - 25% faster than a stock clocked 980TI, going by the Fire Strike results from a couple of days ago. Now given that the 980TI is ~20% faster than a 980, this makes the 1080 ~55% faster than the GTX980.  What does this mean? It mean that clock to clock, the GTX1080 is ~15% faster than the GTX980, which isn't much.  

Here's a scenario for you: Polaris 10 is ~15% faster than Hawaii clock to clock, which is quite possible. 
What happens if Polaris 10 is clocked 30% - 40% higher than Hawaii? Does it make sense now? It's all up to AMD, but I think it's quite likely that Polaris 10 based cards can be competitive against GTX1080/GTX1070.


----------



## rruff (May 8, 2016)

G33k2Fr34k said:


> It's all up to AMD, but I think it's quite likely that Polaris 10 based cards can be competitive against GTX1080/GTX1070.



I didn't realize that manufacturers could choose any clock speed they wish... 

The AMD spokesman flat out said that Polaris would slot in *beneath* Pascal, that it would be mid range, and provide min VR level performance (970/390) at an affordable price. Is AMD in the habit of under-hyping their products? Plus indications are that Polaris 10 will be 480, which further indicates where it lives in the hierarchy. And AMD is working on two different Vega chips, and I think it's highly unlikely they are working on two premium designs that exceed the 490 level. 

1070/980 Ti level is more performance than most people need. AMD is targeting the bigger market, and also the place where they can be the sole player on a smaller node for awhile. Smart. They have to choose their battles wisely if they want to claw back some market share. 

Nothing is for sure of course, but I hate to see so many people have unrealistic hopes. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed.


----------



## Ebo (May 8, 2016)

I just wanna see realworld preformance i games, *not firestrike* or any other artificial test, just show me what the bloody chip can do every day and stick your marketings*hit up where the sun dont shine.


----------



## Enterprise24 (May 8, 2016)

If 1070 is faster than Titan X then full chip Polaris 10 which is suppose to be a little bit under 980 Ti will have to compete with 1060 Ti not 1070.
1070 2048Cuda = 379$
Polaris 10 2560SP = 299$-329$ can't be 349$ for sure.
1060 Ti 1536Cuda = 299$
Polaris 10 2304SP = 249$


----------



## trog100 (May 8, 2016)

the big gain seems to be the ability run much higher clocks at lower power and heat levels.. so far i am impressed.. 

currently my pair of 980ti cards have more performance than i really need.. but the thought that a pair of 1070 cards will do pretty much the same thing at half the price and half the heat and power levels makes me a tad envious.. 

trog


----------



## puma99dk| (May 8, 2016)

Ebo said:


> I just wanna see realworld preformance i games, *not firestrike* or any other artificial test, just show me what the bloody chip can do every day and stick your marketings*hit up where the sun dont shine.



yeh bcs in the end of the day it's the fps in gaming that matters not a benchmark for most users


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 8, 2016)

Guys relax. AMD is not stupid. Most likely as we speak they are tuning the cards BIOS in order to compete with 1080 and 1070. Previously they advertised big power savings for their new cards, meaning they can cut that and go for extra performance. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if both their middle and high end cards will be faster and nVidia's equivalents for the same price. Just wait and see


----------



## trog100 (May 8, 2016)

apart from the odd poorly optimized game firestrike is a bloody good indicator of general gaming performance.. its the first thing i look for in any gpu review..

but the bottom line is if these new cards come even close to what is being suggested they will be good.. i really cant go for all this negative sh-t.. it seems par for the course but there aint a lot of sense in it.. what the fuck do some people expect.. miracles.. he he

the new 1070 just like the old 970 will be the popular buy.. it will be interesting to see what AMD do come up with.. but they have their work cut out..

and if the new 970 (price bracket) has a bit less memory.. who gives a fuck.. a bit less than 8 gigs will still be plenty.. he he

i recon its pure envy that generates all this negative crap.. i cant see any other reason for it..

trog


----------



## Enterprise24 (May 8, 2016)

trog100 said:


> apart from the odd poorly optimized game firestrike is a bloody good indicator of general gaming performance.. its the first thing i look for in any gpu review..
> 
> but the bottom line is if these new cards come even close to what is being suggested they will be good.. i really cant go for all this negative sh-t.. it seems par for the course but there aint a lot of sense in it.. what the fuck do some people expect.. miracles.. he he
> 
> ...



I agree. Firestrike GPU Score is very reliable. In Unigin Heaven and Valley 780 Ti OC even surpass 980 OC and 780 is much faster than 970 and 280X. 
But Firestrike GPU Score 780 Ti is just on par with 970 which is true in many modern games. Also 280X is not far behind 780 in FS GPU score which is true again in many newer games.


----------



## jboydgolfer (May 8, 2016)

I plan on getting the 1070, and will happily pass up the "founders" editionm since i have the reference 970's x2, ill be seeing if i can mount that shroud on the 1070 

They are treating this ref design like its the 9xx ref design, but the difference is the 9xx ref design is gorgeous,as where the 1070 ref design is hideous. They musnt have focus grouped that new design.


----------



## rruff (May 8, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Guys relax. AMD is not stupid. Most likely as we speak they are tuning the cards BIOS in order to compete with 1080 and 1070. Previously they advertised big power savings for their new cards, meaning they can cut that and go for extra performance. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if both their middle and high end cards will be faster and nVidia's equivalents for the same price. Just wait and see



I'm definitely no GPU expert, but this seems a little ridiculous. You just "tune the bios" to get as much performance as you want?!

I think you are making way too much out of AMD's statement that they are targeting low power consumption. They certainly won't be doing that on desktop cards to the *detriment* of performance! Those things will be clocked as high as possible, and they will still be slower than 1070.


----------



## Kaotik (May 8, 2016)

Enterprise24 said:


> If 1070 is faster than Titan X then full chip Polaris 10 which is suppose to be a little bit under 980 Ti will have to compete with 1060 Ti not 1070.
> 1070 2048Cuda = 379$
> Polaris 10 2560SP = 299$-329$ can't be 349$ for sure.
> 1060 Ti 1536Cuda = 299$
> Polaris 10 2304SP = 249$


1070 is supposed to be faster than Titan X _in VR when using simultaneous multiprojection_, not in general. In general performance of 58 % more expensive GTX 1080 is around 20 % faster than Titan X, so 1070 should be clearly under, around 980 Ti or even under


----------



## efikkan (May 8, 2016)

So "GTX 1070 is (/may be) faster than Titan X (in select benchmarks)",
and "GTX 1080 is (/may be) faster than GTX 980 SLI (in select benchmarks)" (remember SLI scaling is really bad in some cases)
Both Nvidia and AMD is always stretching the truth in these claims. Do you remember the cherry-picked benchmarks of Fury X which portrayed it as faster than GTX 980 Ti? (I remember some people canceling their orders for GTX 980 Ti)
Even though we have an idea of how these cards will perform, we'll only know precisely after extensive benchmarking.


----------



## Slothatron (May 8, 2016)

manofthem said:


> I think this will be my next GPU purchase.  I'd like to grab a 1080 but the price is just too steep for me despite its performance.
> 
> I'm sweating right now for AMD...hope they bring something to the table as well.


What i would do is trade in my old gpu and get a preowned 1080 well i have a 960 and i could get a 1070 for the same price if i trade it in and get the 1070 preowned


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 8, 2016)

I certainly remember this thread that got people excited, and this was a $650 card:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...tan-x-fury-to-gtx-980-ti-3dmark-bench.213528/


----------



## Kanan (May 8, 2016)

rruff said:


> The most sensible rumors and AMD statements lead me to believe it will be 480/480x and substantially below 1070. Even below 1060 Ti. 970/390 performance level. Priced appropriately of course.
> 
> 490/490x will be the lowest tier Vega coming out next year, and will compete against 1070/1080.


I don't think the Vega cards will be named like that, I think they will call them Fury again (Fury X2 / Fury 2 maybe).

The Polaris 10 is afaik the 490, because it has some shaders of its 2560 shader engine disabled (about 2300 usable). The 490X will have all shaders enabled, 2560. And i expect very high clocks, 1700 minimum and a maximum of 2000, maybe even more. With those speeds, it's easy to surpass Fury X and even 980 Ti performance. Hawaii with its 2816 cores and 1050-1100 MHz is just 20% slower than Fury X (maximum), now imagine a Hawaii with clocks of over 1700 MHz - yeah, now you know what I mean.
Also I think the 480(X) are the Polaris 11 GPUs. But maybe I'm wrong. But naming isn't overly important I'd say. 

On the other hand, Pascal is a compute based engine, unlike Maxwell, so thats why Pascal is only a tad faster than 980 Ti, just by its big advantage 16nm resulting in clearly higher clocks. Give GM200 these clocks and it wins easily against 1080. GTX 1080 is no wonder GPU, all it's advantage is the better manufacturing process. Now imagine Maxwell with 6144 (double Titan X) or 5632 shaders (double 980 Ti), this would be nice (16nm 600mm² GPU). I think if Nvidia does a pure gaming architecture again, it will be like that - and a lot faster than Pascal. Just imagine, Maxwell on 16nm and with even higher performance per shader and more ROPs etc.


----------



## medi01 (May 8, 2016)

Jees, guys, let me simplify it *for ya:

faster than Titan X in VR when using simultaneous multiprojection*

PS
I'll pray for 490/490x to be faster than 1070. AMD absolutely needs it.


----------



## efikkan (May 8, 2016)

Then you'd better pray for a miracle...


----------



## arbiter (May 9, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Guys relax. AMD is not stupid. Most likely as we speak they are tuning the cards BIOS in order to compete with 1080 and 1070. Previously they advertised big power savings for their new cards, meaning they can cut that and go for extra performance. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if both their middle and high end cards will be faster and nVidia's equivalents for the same price. Just wait and see


I guess you haven't been seeing AMD's Marketing last few years. Claiming so much outta GPU but in real world tests that are not setup to benefit their cards only they fall way short. I wouldn't Hype up AMD at this point as they have had many years of hyping a product only to see it fall flat on its face.


----------



## jaggerwild (May 9, 2016)

Price and performance get my money, I used to be on the Nvidia fan boy wagon. Hell the 980Ti is looking better n better, prices will fall(of course so will the drivers) I'll save a current driver and lick my wounds after purchase.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 9, 2016)

jaggerwild said:


> I used to be on the Nvidia fan boy wagon. Hell the 980Ti is looking better n better, prices will fall



Nvidia prices rarely fall very much...in the 5-10% arena on average, despite new tech.  This is why they announced end of production on 970 & 980 awhile back.  It allows for clearance of the discontinued stock and makes price cuts unnecessary (in their sales thinking).


----------



## ironwolf (May 9, 2016)

Does this mean we will see a huge influx of used 970/980/980Ti cards on fleaBay/CL/etc very very soon?


----------



## maximoor (May 9, 2016)

arterius2 said:


> heh, I get that, you are saying, "hey you shouldn't compare reference 1070s to the reference TitanX, instead you should compare it to the aftermarket 980Ti, because most people buy them", when you are making statements like these, you are giving your own argument unfair advantage, and pretend like you didn't know about it. Instead, you should say, lets compare aftermarket 1070s to aftermarket 980Tis since both will take advantage of the extra cooling. Makes sense?



completely agree with you.

..and the fact that nVidia comparing 1070 to Titan X instead 980 Ti is becouse Titan X is indeed the fastest card.


----------



## HD64G (May 9, 2016)

maximoor said:


> completely agree with you.
> 
> ..and the fact that nVidia comparing 1070 to Titan X instead 980 Ti is becouse Titan X is indeed the fastest card.



That's wrong imho. They compare Pascal GPUs to Titan X because they use compute power and not gaming performance as metric to compare efficiency and in order to show that they went 2X in efficiency (TFlops/W) from Titan X, while comparing to 980Ti they aren't so far ahead in those metrics. That's why in the graph of relative performance to efficiency 980Ti is absent too. Only real gaming benchmarks will show the true potential of Pascal in gaming.


----------



## Kanan (May 10, 2016)

btw. somewhat interesting for those who want to know what the "Founder's Edition" is about:








TL : DW(atch): Founder's Edition is 100% the same as ref cards of AIB's, but Nvidia sells them and they will sell it longer than AIB's, that discontinue it after a while.
(no cherry picks, no extra clocks, no nothings)


----------



## buggalugs (May 10, 2016)

Azumay said:


> 3rd fastest card for 379.00. Yep I'm in.  Bargain in my book.



 OMG theres still people saying "wow this card is cheap". The card wont be $379, the reference card is $479 and when released , availability will be so low, that stores will sell them for $529 or even more.

  Nobody will be buying a 1070 for $379, maybe in 2017 you might, or unless AMD have something competitive.


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 10, 2016)

buggalugs said:


> OMG theres still people saying "wow this card is cheap". The card wont be $379, the reference card is $479 and when released , availability will be so low, that stores will sell them for $529 or even more.
> Nobody will be buying a 1070 for $379, maybe in 2017 you might, or unless AMD have something competitive.



Not so... Nvidia's reference model will cost more and be available directly from them and on the market longer but any other reference model will be $379 and up depending on aib overclocks/upgrades etc.


----------



## P4-630 (May 10, 2016)

Will it play GTAV maxed out at 1080p 60fps?


----------



## BobATmcbob (May 10, 2016)

Does anyone know if the non founders edition gtx 1070 379$ will come with the goemetric design or is that only with the founders edition


----------



## P4-630 (May 10, 2016)

BobATmcbob said:


> Does anyone know if the non founders edition gtx 1070 379$ will come with the goemetric design or is that only with the founders edition





btarunr said:


> "founder's edition" (reference-design) card going for* $449*.


----------



## ensabrenoir (May 10, 2016)

BobATmcbob said:


> Does anyone know if the non founders edition gtx 1070 379$ will come with the goemetric design or is that only with the founders edition



My last post may have been confusing. The founders edition is the angular design.  But say for example msi will release the same identical stock clocked/ featured card with an msi cooler on it for $379. But if you want that angular design you have to get a founders edition with the  premium price.


----------



## Kanan (May 10, 2016)

ensabrenoir said:


> My last post may have been confusing. The founders edition is the angular design.  But say for example msi will release the same identical stock clocked/ featured card with an msi cooler on it for $379. But if you want that angular design you have to get a founders edition with the  premium price.


That makes sense, why else should the card be more expensive, if you could get the same for 379$ from AIB partners. I think the AIB-version of the reference card will be of cheaper materials like plastic, but good enough too (think of the GTX 680 ref).


----------



## newconroer (May 10, 2016)

So, 1070 SLI or 1080 by itself..hmm could be interesting when DX12 supported titles start merging VRAM


----------



## Slizzo (May 11, 2016)

Kanan said:


> That makes sense, why else should the card be more expensive, if you could get the same for 379$ from AIB partners. I think the AIB-version of the reference card will be of cheaper materials like plastic, but good enough too (think of the GTX 680 ref).



If it's a Founder's Edition, it will be the exact card that nVidia showed during the reveal. Only exception may be the AIB partner sticker on the fan.


----------



## newconroer (May 11, 2016)

I think this market share space by Nvidia is almost a clear sign that their greedy or their in financial despair. Why now do they want to jump in the mix and even remotely /potentially upset the balance and relationships they've held with the partners all these years?

What leads me to believe it's greed and not financial crisis, is because of the 'founders' concept. They want to sell the top dog premium product while price fixing what their partners are able to do(bottom floor price/price range). I can see this leading to the third party being limited on what they can offer because what happens when they create a better product? Are they forced to charge more than Nvidia as to not undercut them? Or are they forced to sell less as to not make their product look more premium than the Nvidia 'founder' model, but all the while losing money by selling at a loss.


----------



## Kanan (May 12, 2016)

newconroer said:


> I think this market share space by Nvidia is almost a clear sign that their greedy or their in financial despair. Why now do they want to jump in the mix and even remotely /potentially upset the balance and relationships they've held with the partners all these years?
> 
> What leads me to believe it's greed and not financial crisis, is because of the 'founders' concept. They want to sell the top dog premium product while price fixing what their partners are able to do(bottom floor price/price range). I can see this leading to the third party being limited on what they can offer because what happens when they create a better product? Are they forced to charge more than Nvidia as to not undercut them? Or are they forced to sell less as to not make their product look more premium than the Nvidia 'founder' model, but all the while losing money by selling at a loss.


I think the AIB partners will ignore the Founder's Edition and price their custom cards as they priced them always - a tad above MSRP, 100$ tops. I don't think the Founder's Edition will play a big role, after a few months it will be more or less irrelevant. It's just for Nvidia to make some additional $$ because cards will be rare at launch, and also no custom versions available, so no better alternatives.


----------



## Yamigenesis (May 30, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Technically, if it is only faster than the Titan-X, which is not faster than a 980Ti, then that makes the 1070 the *THIRD*-fastest in existence, not the second.



No, the titan x is better than the 980ti, but only slightly. You might think that the 980ti is better because of its price point but no, it's not better than a titan x.


----------



## P4-630 (May 30, 2016)

Yamigenesis said:


> No, the titan x is better than the 980ti, but only slightly. You might think that the 980ti is better because of its price point but no, it's not better than a titan x.



And you signed up for just that?


----------



## Yamigenesis (May 30, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> And you signed up for just that?


There could be worse reasons


----------



## Yamigenesis (May 30, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Will it play GTAV maxed out at 1080p 60fps?


I can play gta5 1080p 60+fps maxed out (besides the advanced shadows) on a msi 970.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 30, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> And you signed up for just that?



It makes no diff, bc numerous reviews are showing that the 1070 is NOT faster than Titan X, proving Nvidia's claim is nothing but PR hot air.


----------



## Yamigenesis (May 30, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> It makes no diff, bc numerous reviews are showing that the 1070 is NOT faster than Titan X, proving Nvidia's claim is nothing but PR hot air.


Idk who your reviewer was and I'm sure he did his benchmarking right, however I watch linus media group and a few other reviewers who I don't believe would steer me wrong. Linus released a video showing their results and in about every test the 1070 barely beat out the titan x. And since it's well over 600 less. I'd say is a pretty darn good deal.


----------



## Kanan (May 30, 2016)

Yamigenesis said:


> Idk who your reviewer was and I'm sure he did his benchmarking right, however I watch linus media group and a few other reviewers who I don't believe would steer me wrong. Linus released a video showing their results and in about every test the 1070 barely beat out the titan x. And since it's well over 600 less. I'd say is a pretty darn good deal.


It's not important. Who owns a Titan X? 0.001% of people? The most enthusiasts have a 980 Ti custom and it is easily faster than GTX 1070. The Titan X only loses to GTX 1070 because it's clocked very low. It would easily beat the GTX 1070 if BOTH were overclocked. 

Benchmarks / review of GTX 1070 with custom cards:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Nvidi.../GTX-1070-Benchmarks-Test-Preis-1196360/2/#a1


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 30, 2016)

Kanan said:


> It's not important. Who owns a Titan X? 0.001% of people? The most enthusiasts have a 980 Ti custom and it is easily faster than GTX 1070. The Titan X only loses to GTX 1070 because it's clocked very low. It would easily beat the GTX 1070 if BOTH were overclocked.
> 
> Benchmarks / review of GTX 1070 with custom cards:
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Nvidi.../GTX-1070-Benchmarks-Test-Preis-1196360/2/#a1



If our young friend you responded to would look for all the threads here on 1070's he would find it is not "my reviewer"...a lot of links have been posted showing that AT STOCK, the 1070 is not beating the Titan X.  I'm afraid our new young fanboy friend is unable to accept that Nvidia lied to him and all of us.


----------



## N3M3515 (May 31, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> If our young friend you responded to would look for all the threads here on 1070's he would find it is not "my reviewer"...a lot of links have been posted showing that AT STOCK, the 1070 is not beating the Titan X.  I'm afraid our new young fanboy friend is unable to accept that Nvidia lied to him and all of us.



http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru.../72689-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review-19.html 1070 faster than titan x
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-pascal-performance,4585-6.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-pascal-performance,4585-6.html "The short of it is that, *in every test we ran, GeForce GTX 1070 is as fast as, or faster than the $1100+ GeForce GTX Titan X*."
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1070_review,13.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1070_review,13.html overall wins
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_geforcegtx_1070_founders_edition/11.htm
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_geforcegtx_1070_founders_edition/11.htm "At NVIDIA's Pascal launch event, a slide that caught everyone was that the GTX 1070 was going to be as fast as the top card in the Maxwell product stack, the GTX Titan X. Truth be told, that target was reached and exceeded in many cases in my testing. From 1920 x 1080 through 3840 x 2160, the GTX 1070 was every bit the equal of the GTX Titan X, and in many cases it was the faster card."
http://hothardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review-high-performance-lower-pricing?page=7
http://hothardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review-high-performance-lower-pricing?page=7 "
*"Performance Summary:*At its launch event, NVIDIA claimed the GeForce GTX 1070 would offer “Titan X-class performance” and it certainly delivered. Save for only a couple of tests, the GeForce GTX 1070 outran the GeForce GTX Titan X, and where it didn’t the deltas separating the cards is miniscule."

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review/1100-6440307/ *"Conclusion: *If you were tallying the wins between the GTX 1070 and the Titan X in my suite of benchmarks, then you’ll know that the 1070 beat the Titan X in all of the benchmarks with the exception of one test, where it was just one percent behind."

http://www.pcgamer.com/geforce-gtx-1070-performance-preview/ The GTX 1070 beats or exceeds the performance of the Titan X in every game, at every resolution we tested. Yeah, really.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3074...-the-new-peoples-champion-topples-titans.html "If Nvidia had released the GeForce GTX 1070 just _last week_ it would’ve been the most powerful single-GPU graphics card to ever grace the earth, edging out the awe-inspiring—and $1,000—GTX Titan X."

http://www.babeltechreviews.com/gtx-1070-arrives-25-games-benchmarked/5/ "It did incredibly well performance-wise comparing it to GTX 980 Ti and the TITAN X where it generally matches or beats the more expensive last generation cards."

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1070,9.html Basically a tie.

http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/revi...review-titan-x-less-half-price/conclusion-883 "it serves up performance on par with the GeForce GTX Titan X, and even manages to edge it out in certain DirectX 12 games."

I don't agree with you, nor those links.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 31, 2016)

Anyways, let's not forget that the drivers and the games are not yet optimized for the 1070 GTX. In 1 year time this card will run circles around 980Ti.


----------



## medi01 (Jun 5, 2016)

First, it's 449$ at the moment and any time soon. (even more so for non-US customers).
Second, comparing it to Titan X, when one has faster than that factory OCed 980Ti's for a bit more than half of its Titan X price, is misleading.

It's definitely not a card for 980Ti owners with good OC, for whom even 1080 would only be a slight upgrade.

In other words, if you are locked into nVidia, buy aftermarket 980Ti...


----------



## Acidrebel (Jun 18, 2016)

arterius2 said:


> heh, I get that, you are saying, "hey you shouldn't compare reference 1070s to the reference TitanX, instead you should compare it to the aftermarket 980Ti, because most people buy them", when you are making statements like these, you are giving your own argument unfair advantage, and pretend like you didn't know about it. Instead, you should say, lets compare aftermarket 1070s to aftermarket 980Tis since both will take advantage of the extra cooling. Makes sense?



The 980 ti has more overclock potential than the 1070. In the end the 980 ti oc vs 1070 oc looks very similar in performance.


----------



## P4-630 (Jun 18, 2016)

Acidrebel said:


> The 980 ti has more overclock potential than the 1070. In the end the 980 ti oc vs 1070 oc looks very similar in performance.



GTX1070 using less power.


----------



## Acidrebel (Jun 18, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> GTX1070 using less power.


Yep agreed.


----------



## Slizzo (Jun 19, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> If our young friend you responded to would look for all the threads here on 1070's he would find it is not "my reviewer"...a lot of links have been posted showing that AT STOCK, the 1070 is not beating the Titan X.  I'm afraid our new young fanboy friend is unable to accept that Nvidia lied to him and all of us.





N3M3515 said:


> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru.../72689-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review-19.html 1070 faster than titan x
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-pascal-performance,4585-6.html "The short of it is that, *in every test we ran, GeForce GTX 1070 is as fast as, or faster than the $1100+ GeForce GTX Titan X*."
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1070_review,13.html overall wins
> http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_geforcegtx_1070_founders_edition/11.htm "At NVIDIA's Pascal launch event, a slide that caught everyone was that the GTX 1070 was going to be as fast as the top card in the Maxwell product stack, the GTX Titan X. Truth be told, that target was reached and exceeded in many cases in my testing. From 1920 x 1080 through 3840 x 2160, the GTX 1070 was every bit the equal of the GTX Titan X, and in many cases it was the faster card."
> ...



I don't usually agree with Nemesis, but he did just cite a bunch of source material and effectively put the smackdown on you junkie.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 19, 2016)

Slizzo said:


> I don't usually agree with Nemesis, but he did just cite a bunch of source material and effectively put the smackdown on you junkie.



At the time I said that, it's what we were seeing everywhere. It's ok, it turns out that was not true.  My main point all along has been to try to get people to stop going hysterical and ready to pass out from rapture whenever Nvidia claims something, because AMD is not alone in exaggerating or lying.  That's why I lime to wait for W1zzard's benchmarking.

I'm not sure what was served by putting a smackdown on me over a week later. Kind of belaboring a past issue..  All of us are wrong at some point..   Have a good evening.


----------



## chief-gunney (Jul 4, 2016)

No $379 card here, Founders Edition price of $449 is the basic bottom line for this one with Nvidia saying to AIB partners you can charge less for more if you like. It's pretty obvious really isn't it?


----------

