# MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X Plus 11 Gbps 8 GB



## W1zzard (Apr 21, 2017)

The MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X Plus is built around the updated GTX 1080 NVIDIA announced recently. It comes with faster 11 Gbps memory chips and a decent GPU overclock, which results in a significant performance improvement. The cooler is also extremely quiet and runs very cool.

*Show full review*


----------



## kruk (Apr 21, 2017)

Waiting for those who bashed the 570/580 power consumption increase to show up ... and it will probably happen with 1060 11 Gbps too ...


----------



## dj-electric (Apr 21, 2017)

kruk said:


> Waiting for those who bashed the 570/580 power consumption increase to show up ... and it will probably happen with 1060 11 Gbps too ...


They bashed something that is very bashable. Even with its incresed power consumption, this is still RX 580 levels. This is an overclocked GTX 1080, mind you.


----------



## natr0n (Apr 21, 2017)

Excited to see the 1060 now.


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 21, 2017)

Hmm the gpu on this thing is market as gp104-410-A1 when it was gp104-400-A1 on original gtx1080, minor tweaks on memory controller part maybe or just differentiation markings. Great review as always.



kruk said:


> Waiting for those who bashed the 570/580 power consumption increase to show up ... and it will probably happen with 1060 11 Gbps too ...


Well yeah you should compare it to msi gtx 1080 gaming card, but still it's 20W. Probably all of it does not come from faster memory chips though, maximum boost clock seems to be higher on this one(1974 MHz vs 1873 MHz). It's the same with RX 580 power consumption numbers, those should be compared to same AIB:s same kind of RX 480, not the reference.


----------



## 64K (Apr 21, 2017)

kruk said:


> Waiting for those who bashed the 570/580 power consumption increase to show up ... and it will probably happen with 1060 11 Gbps too ...



Two different worlds really. Take a look at the OC Sapphire RX 580 Nitro+ review and you will see that it still uses a little more watts than this card for a lot less performance. Also, that Nitro+ was a $255 card. People buying in on a budget are going to take power draw into consideration with the Nitro+. People being able to afford $570 on a card......not as much.


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 21, 2017)

natr0n said:


> Excited to see the 1060 now.



Speaking of, do you W1zzard have one on the review queue?(11Gbps gtx1060)


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 21, 2017)

jabbadap said:


> Speaking of, do you W1zzard have one on the review queue?(11Gbps gtx1060)


yes. msi, too


----------



## Raendor (Apr 21, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> yes. msi, too


Guys, none of the 1060 has 11 GBps mem. It's 9 GBpz, cause it's GDDR5 without X.


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 21, 2017)

Raendor said:


> Guys, none of the 1060 has 11 GBps mem. It's 9 GBpz, cause it's GDDR5 without X.



Quite right you are.


----------



## kruk (Apr 21, 2017)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> They bashed something that is very bashable. Even with its incresed power consumption, this is still RX 580 levels. This is an overclocked GTX 1080, mind you.


*
That is not the point*. If someone bitched how worse the RX500 series are because of the increased power consumption, he should also bitch about this cards power consumption. Else, he is just a hypocrite ...


----------



## avatar_raq (Apr 21, 2017)

I would love to see a comparison of this card with the original gaming X to see how much performance the faster memory adds.. And I wonder if one can SLI this card with the original.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 21, 2017)

avatar_raq said:


> I would love to see a comparison of this card with the original gaming X to see how much performance the faster memory adds.. And I wonder if one can SLI this card with the original.



Almost nothing b/c the vanilla 1080 mem OC isn't far off. It's a pointless "refresh". Nvidia just has to get their name in the news before Vega release.

Oh, and milk another hundo from fools.


----------



## xkm1948 (Apr 22, 2017)

In terms of efficiency AMD is no where to be seen. At the same time if I had the money I would go for the Ti, moar SP is always good.  

Are we gonna get a TitanXp review any time soon?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Apr 22, 2017)

It's good to see the shoe on the other foot after all the Fermi hate, now we know AMD suck at power consumption and efficiency too.

We all hate hypocrites after all.


----------



## 64K (Apr 22, 2017)

Fluffmeister said:


> It's good to see the shoe on the other foot after all the Fermi hate, now we know AMD suck at power consumption and efficiency too.
> 
> We all hate hypocrites after all.



People truly did give that GPU hell on tech forums


----------



## Nihilus (Apr 22, 2017)

kruk said:


> *That is not the point*. If someone bitched how worse the RX500 series are because of the increased power consumption, he should also bitch about this cards power consumption. Else, he is just a hypocrite ...



Settle down there.

Lets look at performance increase, perf/ watt DECREASE, and perf/$ decrease at their target resolution from TPU:

1.) Stock RX 480 vs Nitro 580 at 1440p: 10%, 23%, 10%
2.) Stock 1080  vs Gaming+ 1080 at 4k: 12%, 17%, 5%

Both have WORSE perf./watt and per/$, but the GTX 1080 less so.  Also, it gets love for not being called the GTX 1180


----------



## jsfitz54 (Apr 22, 2017)

@W1zzard 

Page 4 error?  Picture shows GP104 and GP102 is mentioned?

"NVIDIA's *GP102* graphics processor is the company's second-largest chip using the Pascal architecture. It is produced on a 16 nm process at TSMC, Taiwan, with a transistor count of 12 billion and a die size of 471 mm²."


----------



## intelzen (Apr 22, 2017)

11Gbps Plus vs "non Plus" equivalent - NO performance gains!? ... I mean that should be the main point in conclusion and here in discussion (instead of unrelated RX series powerdraw)


----------



## mroofie (Apr 22, 2017)

intelzen said:


> 11Gbps Plus vs "non Plus" equivalent - NO performance gains!? ... I mean that should be the main point in conclusion and here in discussion (instead of unrelated RX series powerdraw)


you thought there would be real performance increases ?


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 22, 2017)

jsfitz54 said:


> @W1zzard
> 
> Page 4 error?  Picture shows GP104 and GP102 is mentioned?
> 
> "NVIDIA's *GP102* graphics processor is the company's second-largest chip using the Pascal architecture. It is produced on a 16 nm process at TSMC, Taiwan, with a transistor count of 12 billion and a die size of 471 mm²."


Fixed, thanks!


----------



## bug (Apr 22, 2017)

kruk said:


> *That is not the point*. If someone bitched how worse the RX500 series are because of the increased power consumption, he should also bitch about this cards power consumption. Else, he is just a hypocrite ...


You've missed a tiny detail: this one right here is not sold as GTX 2080. (That and the 580 still offers a lot less FPS/W)
But yes, when it burns through all that power you'd have to think twice before buying it. Hopefully other manufacturers  will do a better job keeping the power in place.

On the other hand, while this review is ok, it fails to address the one question that needed addressing: how much does the faster memory help?


----------



## Assimilator (Apr 22, 2017)

ITT: crying AMD fanboys who don't understand the difference between new SKUs (NVIDIA) and rebrands (AMD).


----------



## Nihilus (Apr 22, 2017)

avatar_raq said:


> I would love to see a comparison of this card with the original gaming X to see how much performance the faster memory adds.. And I wonder if one can SLI this card with the original.



Guru 3d did just that with an older MSI 1080 gaming x .  It was about 5% increase at 4k for most games.


----------



## Nihilus (Apr 22, 2017)

I am more interested in the GTX 1060.  The 8 gb/s version saw MONSTER  https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X/27.html  performance gains when the memory was pushed to 9.5 gb/s.  If the new version can push the memory to 10 gb/s and beyond, it will leave the RX 580 behind.  Nvidia always had GPUs that were 1 or 2 levels above what AMD offers, but now it might be 5: Titan XP, 1080ti, 1080, 1070, 1060 9 GB/s, RX580.  (Titan X seems obsolete after the release of the 1080ti, so I don't really count that)


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 22, 2017)

Nihilus said:


> Guru 3d did just that with an older MSI 1080 gaming x .  It was about 5% increase at 4k for most games.



Does they have same max non-advertised boost clocks though(Well fast check from tpus reviews, gives 1974 MHz for plus and 1962 MHz non plus, so not that much different).



Nihilus said:


> I am more interested in the GTX 1060.  The 8 gb/s version saw MONSTER  https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X/27.html  performance gains when the memory was pushed to 9.5 gb/s.  If the new version can push the memory to 10 gb/s and beyond, it will leave the RX 580 behind.  Nvidia always had GPUs that were 1 or 2 levels above what AMD offers, but now it might be 5: Titan XP, 1080ti, 1080, 1070, 1060 9 GB/s, RX580.  (Titan X seems obsolete after the release of the 1080ti, so I don't really count that)



Well Titan Xp is still the fastest of them all, only available as reference form nvidia themselves though and extreme price so more prosumer card than consumer. But if money is not the problem and one don't really care about warranties, liquid cooled Titan Xp:s are the ones to beat.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Apr 22, 2017)

64K said:


> Two different worlds really. Take a look at the OC Sapphire RX 580 Nitro+ review and you will see that it still uses a little more watts than this card for a lot less performance. Also, that Nitro+ was a $255 card.* People buying in on a budget are going to take power draw into consideration* with the Nitro+. People being able to afford $570 on a card......not as much.



In what world? That doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Rosie Scenario (Apr 22, 2017)

Nihilus said:


> I am more interested in the GTX 1060.  The 8 gb/s version saw MONSTER  https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X/27.html  performance gains when the memory was pushed to 9.5 gb/s.  If the new version can push the memory to 10 gb/s and beyond, it will leave the RX 580 behind.  Nvidia always had GPUs that were 1 or 2 levels above what AMD offers, but now it might be 5: Titan XP, 1080ti, 1080, 1070, 1060 9 GB/s, RX580.  (Titan X seems obsolete after the release of the 1080ti, so I don't really count that)


1060 here. Not a question of "defeat"... If ATI come out with a good one they have my cash. I can bench @10gbs now (not that I require it.) I love fastsync more than 200fps.


----------



## intelzen (Apr 22, 2017)

mroofie said:


> you thought there would be real performance increases ?


then what was the point of this "upgrade"?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 22, 2017)

intelzen said:


> then what was the point of this "upgrade"?


By appealing with a perception of faster for those that haven't upgraded to a 1080 or above, aren't willing to pay for a 1080Ti and didn't think the previous 1080 offered enough increase from what they have.

Really, it's going after the same type of customer that AMD is appealing to with the RX 580.


----------



## Hades (Apr 22, 2017)

*Drivers:* NVIDIA: 378.92 WHQL
AMD: Catalyst 16.3.3 Beta

I hope it's a typo...


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 22, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> By appealing with a perception of faster for those that haven't upgraded to a 1080 or above, aren't willing to pay for a 1080Ti and didn't think the previous 1080 offered enough increase from what they have.
> 
> Really, it's going after the same type of customer that AMD is appealing to with the RX 580.



Same type or dumber?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 23, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> Same type or dumber?


I would need to commission a study to get a good answer to that.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 23, 2017)

Nihilus said:


> Settle down there.
> 
> Lets look at performance increase, perf/ watt DECREASE, and perf/$ decrease at their target resolution from TPU:
> 
> ...


The last part in bold there, spot on... thats the difference, they dont call it a different card when its not.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 23, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> The last part in bold there, spot on... thats the difference, they dont call it a different card when its not.



Wouldn't that be a first in history?


----------



## Nihilus (Apr 23, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> Wouldn't that be a first in history?



GTX 460 was different AND was not re branded.  Better in every way than the GTX 465 but wasn't called the GTX 560 SE.  Similar deal with the RX 285.  Also, AMD never rebranded the "Ghz edition" into a new lineup.  Not sure why they are doing it now so much.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 23, 2017)

Too bad you didn't include the MSI Gaming Non-Plus or at least another custom 1080 so we could compare directly. Honestly, nobody cares about reference Nvidia speeds compared to custom ones. Custom vs. custom is the main thing.

That's criticism on high niveau though - it's the one thing missing on TPU reviews. Custom vs. custom.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 23, 2017)

Hades said:


> *Drivers:* NVIDIA: 378.92 WHQL
> AMD: Catalyst 16.3.3 Beta
> 
> I hope it's a typo...


Yup, typo, forgot to update the year. Fixed in all affected reviews.


----------



## intelzen (Apr 23, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Too bad you didn't include the MSI Gaming Non-Plus or at least another custom 1080 so we could compare directly. Honestly, nobody cares about reference Nvidia speeds compared to custom ones. Custom vs. custom is the main thing.
> 
> That's criticism on high niveau though - it's the one thing missing on TPU reviews. Custom vs. custom.


this... I understand why Wizz does not include custom cards (because he has reviewed buttloads of those - too much data)... but in this test "Msi ....Gaming X" vs "Msi... Gaming X Plus 11 Gbps" would be crucial, because 99% people will not look it up and conclude something like this:  "damn, that new 11Gpbs gives a nice +10% overall performance increase" - and that is pure wrong (well that is what nvidia would like us to think)


----------



## 64K (Apr 23, 2017)

intelzen said:


> this... I understand why Wizz does not include custom cards (because he has reviewed buttloads of those - too much data)... but in this test "Msi ....Gaming X" vs "Msi... Gaming X Plus 11 Gbps" would be crucial, because 99% people will not look it up and conclude something like this:  "damn, that new 11Gpbs gives a nice +10% overall performance increase" - and that is pure wrong (well that is what nvidia would like us to think)



It really is relevant when reviewing a non-reference 1080 with faster VRAM than the previous card.

I would also ask that when a review is made and the GPU is obviously marketed against the competitor, such as the RX 580 Nitro+ and the GTX 1060 6 GB, then one additional benchmark slot be added with non-reference results for comparison between the two for best bang for the buck.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Apr 23, 2017)

64K said:


> It really is relevant when reviewing a non-reference 1080 with faster VRAM than the previous card.
> 
> I would also ask that when a review is made and the GPU is obviously marketed against the competitor, such as the RX 580 Nitro+ and the GTX 1060 6 GB, then one additional benchmark slot be added with non-reference results for comparison between the two for best bang for the buck.



Yeah I notice in the 580 review there are the 480 benches there. I expected to see the old 1060 in this review.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 23, 2017)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Yeah I notice in the 580 review there are the 480 benches there. I expected to see the old 1060 in this review.


Thing is, the vast majority of GPU's that W1zzard tests he doesn't keep.  In any given cycle there could be 2 to 3 versions of each model, including reference models.  And since he retests everything each time he does a review, you can see how utterly exhausting it would be to include more than the reference models from each prior GPU.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 24, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> Thing is, the vast majority of GPU's that W1zzard tests he doesn't keep.  In any given cycle there could be 2 to 3 versions of each model, including reference models.  And since he retests everything each time he does a review, you can see how utterly exhausting it would be to include more than the reference models from each prior GPU.


I know bud, but he could simply enter the data he already has, no need to rebench the same card again. Unless it's different drivers and they have a real impact that is. But if the difference is negligible he can use the "old" data again.


----------



## W1zzard (Apr 24, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I know bud, but he could simply enter the data he already has, no need to rebench the same card again. Unless it's different drivers and they have a real impact that is. But if the difference is negligible he can use the "old" data again.


It is different drivers and different games: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Gaming_X/

Using relative performance against a baseline card should be close enough though, or pick a game and look at relative differences


----------



## Kanan (Apr 24, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> It is different drivers and different games: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Gaming_X/
> 
> Using relative performance against a baseline card should be close enough though, or pick a game and look at relative differences


I'd simply view your old review and then compare custom vs custom - essentially what I say is to include it, so I don't have to search up that review and compare myself, it's simply for comfort purposes (for me) in the end. But if it's against your work schedule or so nvm. I would simply include it as far as possible, leaving aside the games it wasn't tested for in the newer review so that at least some of it is in the new review to compare side by side. In the end PCGH do a pretty good job on that but I guess they have more workforce as well, so I'm not exactly expecting you to do that, rather as far as it's possible to do for you.

/my 2 cents


----------



## Vayra86 (May 4, 2017)

Strangest thing is the difference between those two reviews though, have you looked at GTA V?


----------



## W1zzard (May 4, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Strangest thing is the difference between those two reviews though, have you looked at GTA V?


Yeah different test scene, different test duration, possibly different settings too.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 4, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> Yeah different test scene, different test duration, possibly different settings too.



Yeah if that is the case we definitely need to just use the data from the ref 1080 in the most recent review and go from there to compare.


----------



## W1zzard (May 4, 2017)

980 ti vs 1080 stock: 33.6 vs. 32.4%, so really the same


----------

