Thursday, May 5th 2016
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Put Through 3DMark
Some of the first 3DMark performance numbers of NVIDIA's upcoming GeForce GTX 1080 graphics card made it to Futuremark's online database. The results page hint at samples of the GTX 1080 running on early drivers, on two separate machines (likely from two different sources). The first source, who ran the card on a machine with a Core i7-5820K processor, scored P19005 on 3DMark 11 (performance preset). The second source, who ran the card on a machine with a Core i7-3770K processor, scored 8959 points on 3DMark FireStrike Extreme. Both scores point at GTX 1080 being faster than a GTX 980 Ti.
Source:
VideoCardz
163 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Put Through 3DMark
That's pretty solid. 980 Ti owners should be looking at the 1080 Ti or Pascal Titan as their replacement.
I'll probably opt for SLI 1080s as it shifts down a price bracket when the 1080 Ti releases.
The processing of pixel shaders and any other kind of shaders is already done by the time the data reaches the rasterisation part. And there where the rasterization of vector graphics happens AT the gpu ROPs. And thats why it is so important to have more ROPs in case if we have a big number of SPs and TMUs on the gpu.
Again I really apologize if I sounded like arguing. I am really not , I'm just sharing an info (talking from experience).
So, you expect that a vcard on 14nm performs 10% more than one on 28nm? wtf???
The 1060 should be on par with 980Ti!, that is the way it always is when there is a node change and generational change, hell, they even skipped 20nm!!!!!!
Where is the huge jump in performance from 14nm? could anybody talk about that??
From my own perspective AMD and NVIDIA are screwing with us.
I completely understood what you said. Your first point was correct (when everything else scales you need more ROPs as well), your second was not (the one about Fiji being limited by ROPs in 4K).
Well, I think your expectations are too high based on PR. What TSMC calls "16nm" FinFET and Samsung calls "14nm" FinFET would be classified as "20nm" FinFET if it were made by Intel...
It performs ~34% better than the similar card on their previous generation, so yes, I would say it's solid (Or perhaps I should use expected) and in line with what they've been doing.
1. It pretty much matches a factory clocked 980 Ti performance wise
2. The commas are missing from the memory, core clock, and memory clock compared with regular entries
www.3dmark.com/fs/6704407
www.3dmark.com/fs/6264721
3. There's a 1290 MHZ difference between the 2 core clocks
4. The memory bus speed is over twice that of a 980 ti
I call BS. These are 980 Ti's with edited graphics card specs on the entry.
GV100(2018) is scheduled to be made on 10nm FinFET, but it wouldn't surprise me if the successor of GP104 will be still made on 16nm FinFET, but with a slightly bigger chip ~400mm², and with the architectural improvements we'll get another 30% once again...</speculation>
does you car go faster just because you are in a racing circuit? dont, you will be sad once the cards are launched and definitive reviews are posted
so only 300points more, or 1-2fps difference.. Right.
And the way that GTX1080 @ 1800mhz is clocked I bet it won't have much room left, probably 2000MHz limit.
3dmark firestrike extreme, same 1418MHz, vram stock 1805Mhzwww.3dmark.com/fs/8357945
Ok here its 600-700points difference, but that's minimal..
Imo overall its nothing special, I suspected it will be like that.. Slightly Oc'ed 980ti perf. at best.
I think sometimes it will be slower when that extra 16ROPS and 20-30GB/s count.
Personally I dont regret anything, bought this 980Ti 2 months ago for 420€, sold my old 780GTX for 250€ (originally payed 320€) and its a bomb. For me its only big Pascal or next-nextgen Volta and AMD Navi that's really interesting. Think I'll just skip Pascal all together. :)
The next set of cards will be good enough to beat the previous cards but thats it. The next series from there will repeat the same trend and a few years from now, we'll have the 1380ti and R9 590X still built on the same 14/16 nm process, just larger and more power hungry
......same pro/con arguments....just a new year........its all just business.....Nvidia like intel like everyone else should be, is out to make consistent profit. year after year, model after model....business 101.
why are people still thinking this is an entirely new gpu? jesus christ folks, you have numbers right in front of you...
GTX 960 (200$) slightly stronger than a GTX 760 (200$)? wtf?
HD 6870 (239$) slightly stronger than an HD 5850 (229$)? wtf?
HD 5850 (260$) slightly stronger than an HD 4890 (250$)? wtf?
HD 4850 (200$) slightly stronger than an 8800 GT (160$)? wtf?
C'mon guys, we've been there many many times. its a small step in performance with another in efficiency.
These are all examples of replacements and competitors with an MSRP higher than their replacement - that's how it starts. sometimes it doesn't, but mostly it does.
Cost has nothing to do with whether a GPU is high-end, and everything to do with it just being expensive.