NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8 GB

[Parn]

The performance and efficiency gain is really impressive (sort of expected moving from 28nm straight to 16nm. If maxwell was built using 20nm, maybe the gap wouldn't be this big). Now waiting for AMD to bring out something that can compete with this so as to lower its price to a more reasonable range.

 

[laszlo]

Nope. Not even close. This is like a new Opel, tops. A Veyron would have to be a super-limited quad card running at 2.5 Ghz and scaling perfectly in every game ever made, and being inaudible to boot.

What it in reality is, is a new GPU with above all great effeciency and decent power, which is only what it should be.

not quite understand your comparison .....as i see now is the fastest single GPU on market; in your view which is the veyron of single GPU's ?

 

[peche]

as i t was posted by the review, founders cards aren't made for OC, so why are more expensive?
My mind couldn't get the reason why they are more expensive... if the coolers also get the card to the limits...

Regards,

 

[redeye]

Stop moaning about the cost of the 1080, is is twice the performance of the gtx970, at twice the price in 6-12 months. Right now, is it worth the extra 100 dollars NOT to have SLI problem's of a 970SLI?... Is it worth 100 dollars more to have twice the performance of a SLI970 and SMOOTH as butter?.


What can i say, when everybody is complaining about the cost of the 1080?...
It is a new product.
looking at the steam hardware, 4% have 970's, 1% have 980's. A 980 is 200 dollars more than a 970, so if nvidia had only 980's and priced then at 50 dollars more than a 970 would they have sold more?. Or was it was people buying the 970 thinking it is a 980?.

TL;DR... Would everybody replace their 970/980 with a 1080 at 500?. Or would they have some excuse that their new card, is good enough?.

Looking at the review of the gtx980ti, most recent one, the gtx 1080 at stock is as fast as the overclocked gtx980ti https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/26.html
(stock gtx1080 137.3 fps vs 136fps overclocked gtx980ti)

 

[apoe]

People mention the price, but it has a preeetty impressive price/performance ratio, especially for a higher tier card. Interested to see where the 1070 lands.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Looking for one of these to replace my 970s... And bring balance to the force

 

[GhostRyder]

Looks like a great card as expected. I only see a few problems one of which being that cooler which is being charged a lot for and only delivers ok performance. Guess I was expecting more by the way they were touting it at the event but whatever since I never buy those cards for the coolers.

I really want to see some classified variants or similar. I want to push that overclock well beyond the 2100mhz mark!!! I want to actually get a pair of these with the new SLI bridge, water cool them, overclock the life out of them, then get a nice Ultra Wide G-Sync monitor to complement them. Great performance from the card, its nice to see a decent performance gap.

 

[peche]

founders edition is the reference cooled one or the VR ready?

 

[chinmi]

If amd cant make a better card then the 1080 is the nail in the coffin for amd

 

[HD64G]

He said 980

Price and performance wise 1080 is the opposition for 980Ti and FuryX. So, GTX1080 vs GTX980Ti Gigabyte Extreme, 1080 is a bit more pricey with 13-17% more performance. That's its competition in GPU market atm for anyone willing to spend much for the best single core GPU.

 

[medi01]

Stop moaning about the cost of the 1080, is is twice the performance of the gtx970, at twice the price in 6-12 months.

Look, kid:

1) Pricing for cards in each tier normally stay the same, since people tend to spend roughly the same amount of money (regardless of the tier they stick to)
2) Progress, aka "we got a new fab process" allows to produce faster cards for roughly the same money
3) This leads to HIGHER perf/$ numbers

Now, when you get a card that is two times faster, but 3 times more expensive... That's pure pwnage of you, the customer.
Which I, for one, welcome!
Please, dear Huang (Juang? Anyhow, CEO of nZilla) make it even moar "foundation"-all, many dudes out there do deserve it!

 

[cadaveca]

Look, kid:

1) Pricing for cards in each tier normally stay the same, since people tend to spend roughly the same amount of money (regardless of the tier they stick to)
2) Progress, aka "we got a new fab process" allows to produce faster cards for roughly the same money
3) This leads to HIGHER perf/$ numbers

Now, when you get a card that is two times faster, but 3 times more expensive... That's pure pwnage of you, the customer.
Which I, for one, welcome!
Please, dear Huang (Juang? Anyhow, CEO of nZilla) make it even moar "foundation"-all, many dudes out there do deserve it!

"If you build it, they will come."

 

[geon2k2]

Stop moaning about the cost of the 1080, is is twice the performance of the gtx970, at twice the price in 6-12 months. Right now, is it worth the extra 100 dollars NOT to have SLI problem's of a 970SLI?... Is it worth 100 dollars more to have twice the performance of a SLI970 and SMOOTH as butter?.


What can i say, when everybody is complaining about the cost of the 1080?...
It is a new product.
looking at the steam hardware, 4% have 970's, 1% have 980's. A 980 is 200 dollars more than a 970, so if nvidia had only 980's and priced then at 50 dollars more than a 970 would they have sold more?. Or was it was people buying the 970 thinking it is a 980?.

TL;DR... Would everybody replace their 970/980 with a 1080 at 500?. Or would they have some excuse that their new card, is good enough?.

Looking at the review of the gtx980ti, most recent one, the gtx 1080 at stock is as fast as the overclocked gtx980ti https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/26.html
(stock gtx1080 137.3 fps vs 136fps overclocked gtx980ti)

Please consider that NA and few countries from EU have salaries for exactly the same job, with exactly the same working hours and mostly the same prices for food and goods, up to 10 times higher than the rest of the world. In some countries that 700E is about yearly salary, heard stories about some Chinese Walmart employees for which that is 2 years pay, in some other 2 average monthly salaries, from which bills have to be paid, children to be fed. So yeah it is crazy expensive. The fact that you are fortunate to be born in a western country doesn't mean that suddenly this is cheap.

Please check this :

 

[z1tu]

Please consider that NA and few countries from EU have salaries for exactly the same job, with exactly the same working hours and mostly the same prices for food and goods, up to 10 times higher than the rest of the world. In some countries that 700E is about yearly salary, heard stories about some Chinese Walmart employees for which that is 2 years pay, in some other 2 average monthly salaries, from which bills have to be paid, children to be fed. So yeah it is crazy expensive. The fact that you are fortunate to be born in a western country doesn't mean that suddenly this is cheap.

Please check this :

People who have children and 700E yearly salaries have other more important things to focus on than the price of a new video card, this made no sense.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Ha, what a failure. I just benched GTA V (tons of crap in background no less) with same settings and at 1440, I got 99 fps on my OCed 980ti. Sorry, 12% increase from OCing 1080 won't cut it.

NEXT

Logan's numbers make more sense.

 

[Assimilator]

No, the reasoning was that nothing really could take advantage of 8GB, not that it can't use it. I've seen some games use more than 4GB on my 390 and it runs just fine but, there are other GPUs that use upto 3GB or 4GB that still run just as well. W1zz has even stated that most games, even at 4k don't tend to need more than 4GB yet but, there are games that will use it if it's there. The problem with saying that Hawaii doesn't have the ability to drive the VRAM because it depends on the workload. Generally speaking, it isn't compute that takes up a lot of VRAM, it's textures, and Hawaii has quite a large number of TMUs and has some pretty significant texturing capability. I was able to play Farcry 4 in surround with AA off without too much problem and there were occasions where I used just over 4GB. Same deal with Elite Dangerous, in some situations (with the 64-bit client,) more than 4GB of VRAM could be used, in fact I saw usages almost as high at 5GB but, that isn't to say the GPU needs all of it at once or that the 390 can't handle it.

Either way, I still want to know the reasoning behind 8GB not being a con. It's either because nVidia is doing it which now makes it "normal," or games have evolved enough where 8GB can actually provide some level of tangible benefits.

Also, even if I were to play devil's advocate and say that the 390 can't handle 8GB worth of whatever gets put in there, I would argue that wouldn't be the case in CFX as I can attest to personal experience that more memory for multi-GPU setups is generally a good thing having come from CFX 6870s.

As you rightly pointed out, there are games that take advantage of >4GB GPU memory, but those are still few and far between and most importantly, they are generally more texture-heavy than processing-heavy (open-world games like Far Cry, Elite, GTA, Skyrim with extra texture packs). If those games are your primary use-case, then yes Hawaii + 8GB is going to be better for you than Hawaii + 4GB.

But in my opinion, games that are "imbalanced" in this way (heavy on textures, light on GPU) aren't (or at least, shouldn't be) the future of gaming. Unfortunately, due to certain realities (consoles and the age of DirectX 11), game engines just haven't been able to properly balance great textures with great particle effects, highly detailed models, etc. DirectX 12 will (I fervently hope) end this stagnation and give us a new generation of game engines that need the horsepower that Pascal has and Hawaii doesn't. I'm talking the graphical leaps we saw going from Unreal Engine 1 to 2 to 3, not sightly more detailed tessellation.

In all honesty, Fiji was the right time to make 8GB the new normal because Fiji was the first arch that truly had the horsepower to drive 4K; unfortunately just as Hawaii + 8GB is mostly hamstrung by Hawaii, Fiji + 4GB was mostly hamstrung by the 4GB limit. AMD mitigated that somewhat with the system memory cache, but in all honesty Fiji with 8GB HBM (and maybe a few extra ROPs) would've blown GTX 980 Ti out of the water, and I'll be very interested to see how Vega (which should essentially be Fiji+ coupled to 8GB+ memory) will perform in regards to validating that theory. nVIDIA just happens to have not fumbled the ball in regards to coupling 8GB memory to a GPU that can actually use it well, and probably they don't really deserve that credit, just as AMD doesn't really deserve getting pissed on for trying to push 8GB ahead of its time. But such is the way the chips have fallen.

I purposefully ignored Crossfire for the simple reason that it's mostly irrelevant, because the vast majority of people don't have CF setups; they have single GPUs. That means developers are going to optimise for single GPUs, and that means there are really no games that were coded to exploit the horsepower of 2x Hawaii. But Pascal has that amount of horsepower and 8GB memory on a single card, which means it's going to become the new optimisation target - and also means, ironically, that 8GB Hawaiis in CF might be a better investment now than they were when first released...

 

[Fluffmeister]

I love my 980 Ti too, but this card is just plain better in every way, and it isn't even it's direct replacement (which people just don't seem to get).

 

[Assimilator]

Ha, what a failure. I just benched GTA V (tons of crap in background no less) with same settings and at 1440, I got 99 fps on my OCed 980ti. Sorry, 12% increase from OCing 1080 won't cut it.

NEXT

Logan's numbers make more sense.

Yes dear, we all know that performance is the only metric that matters and that small things like power consumption, noise, and heat output are irrelevant. The latter three, strangely enough, are precisely the reason why I sidegraded from a 980Ti to a 980; the Ti ran too hot to sustain its overclock, even though it had a custom cooler whose fans were loud enough to make me want to scream.

 

[Assimilator]

Look, kid:

1) Pricing for cards in each tier normally stay the same, since people tend to spend roughly the same amount of money (regardless of the tier they stick to)
2) Progress, aka "we got a new fab process" allows to produce faster cards for roughly the same money
3) This leads to HIGHER perf/$ numbers

Now, when you get a card that is two times faster, but 3 times more expensive... That's pure pwnage of you, the customer.
Which I, for one, welcome!
Please, dear Huang (Juang? Anyhow, CEO of nZilla) make it even moar "foundation"-all, many dudes out there do deserve it!

Wrong. New fabrication processes are more expensive initially because yields are always poorer than established processes (this is something you'd know if you had any sort of knowledge of the semiconductor industry).

And, again, for the billionth time, nobody is forcing anybody to buy the Founders Edition cards. If you can afford to buy on day one and choose to do so, good for you. If you can't, or you have patience, you wait for the cheaper custom designs and save $100. It's entirely up to you, the buyer.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Yes dear, we all know that performance is the only metric that matters and that small things like power consumption, noise, and heat output are irrelevant. The latter three, strangely enough, are precisely the reason why I sidegraded from a 980Ti to a 980; the Ti ran too hot to sustain its overclock, even though it had a custom cooler whose fans were loud enough to make me want to scream.

Mine may break into the 70s in the summer. It's a Zotac AMP! Fans aren't loud, either, and I have a custom profile to crank it up.

Yes, performance is all that matters lol. If the Fury X wasn't a pile of crap, I would have bought it.

 

[Aquinus]

As you rightly pointed out, there are games that take advantage of >4GB GPU memory, but those are still few and far between and most importantly, they are generally more texture-heavy than processing-heavy (open-world games like Far Cry, Elite, GTA, Skyrim with extra texture packs). If those games are your primary use-case, then yes Hawaii + 8GB is going to be better for you than Hawaii + 4GB.

But in my opinion, games that are "imbalanced" in this way (heavy on textures, light on GPU) aren't (or at least, shouldn't be) the future of gaming. Unfortunately, due to certain realities (consoles and the age of DirectX 11), game engines just haven't been able to properly balance great textures with great particle effects, highly detailed models, etc. DirectX 12 will (I fervently hope) end this stagnation and give us a new generation of game engines that need the horsepower that Pascal has and Hawaii doesn't. I'm talking the graphical leaps we saw going from Unreal Engine 1 to 2 to 3, not sightly more detailed tessellation.

In all honesty, Fiji was the right time to make 8GB the new normal because Fiji was the first arch that truly had the horsepower to drive 4K; unfortunately just as Hawaii + 8GB is mostly hamstrung by Hawaii, Fiji + 4GB was mostly hamstrung by the 4GB limit. AMD mitigated that somewhat with the system memory cache, but in all honesty Fiji with 8GB HBM (and maybe a few extra ROPs) would've blown GTX 980 Ti out of the water, and I'll be very interested to see how Vega (which should essentially be Fiji+ coupled to 8GB+ memory) will perform in regards to validating that theory. nVIDIA just happens to have not fumbled the ball in regards to coupling 8GB memory to a GPU that can actually use it well, and probably they don't really deserve that credit, just as AMD doesn't really deserve getting pissed on for trying to push 8GB ahead of its time. But such is the way the chips have fallen.

I purposefully ignored Crossfire for the simple reason that it's mostly irrelevant, because the vast majority of people don't have CF setups; they have single GPUs. That means developers are going to optimise for single GPUs, and that means there are really no games that were coded to exploit the horsepower of 2x Hawaii. But Pascal has that amount of horsepower and 8GB memory on a single card, which means it's going to become the new optimisation target - and also means, ironically, that 8GB Hawaiis in CF might be a better investment now than they were when first released...

Ah, okay. I see where you're going. I think I need to do a little more explanation on what's going through my head. You're right that everything isn't going to be about textures but, that's where the extra VRAM is important. If we're going to talk about compute and texturing, you have to keep in mind we're talking about two different parts of the GPU. On top of that, they're implemented differently between AMD and nVidia which further muddies the waters.

Texturing is going to have a huge preference for higher bandwidth memory, this is why the huge number of TMU and wide memory bus on Hawaii excels at texturing. Textures are big so, they're not going to easily reside in cache, so it's important to get this data into the TMUs are quickly as possible when it's needed. If you want higher resolutions to look pretty, you need higher resolution textures which will immediately put more strain on both the GPU's memory controller as well as the TMUs.

On the compute side, Hawaii most definitely has a weakness. It's the same damn weakness AMD introduced with Bulldozer and that's "omg more cores." If you look at the 390, it has 40 CUs with a preference for lower clocks. Whereas nVidia has a preference for fewer compute clusters but, higher clocks. Just like normal CPUs, this makes serial-like workloads much faster, so unless an engine is capable of taking advantage of all 40 CUs at once with whatever 3D API it's using, you need to do some serious work. Async shaders favors AMD because AMD GPUs have more parallel throughput than serial throughput compared to nVidia's GPUs so there are a lot of untapped resources in that respect.

I'm seriously not trying to say which one is better, I'm just saying that there are certain workloads that each GPU are good at and that the choices AMD has made have been pretty consistent just as nVidia's has. I will agree that with pre-DX12 games, that nVidia will almost always wipe the floor clean but, DX12 has some perks that can have a huge preference for the way GCN has been architected. For that reason, I think that Hawaii might fare better than you might think it will.

Either way, the question still remains regardless of which camp is better. What changed to make 8GB not a con?

 

[xorbe]

I love my 980 Ti too, but this card is just plain better in every way, and it isn't even it's direct replacement (which people just don't seem to get).

980 Ti is $649? 1080 is $599/699? Seems like a direct replacement ...

 

[Fluffmeister]

980 Ti is $649? 1080 is $599/699? Seems like a direct replacement ...

Good point.... it's faster, more efficient and offers more VRAM to boot. I can see why you'd think that.

Those pesky GXX04 chips certainly do fly.

 

[Kanan]

Vega is 5 months out at a minimum. Card now is 1080. 5 months after Vega you get daddy Pascal (almost twice the chip) which may well be GP102 and tweaked to provide more gaming centric purpose. The main Pascal chip if clocking similar to 1080 will obliterate anything before it.
Worse thing from your standpoint is that 5 months after Vega 10 you will also have the full Vega chip.
Saying half a year wait for Vega 10 is just ignorant of tech market conditions. If you wait like that, you may as well wait for the 'proper' Vega chip.

For now, the FE 1080 is by reviewer conclusions, an incredible feat but too expensive. If you can get partner OC and power relaxed cards for same or less price, then you'll have a ridiculously fast piece of kit.
In fact rather than wait for Vega 10, people ought to just wait till June for the the partner cards. I'll wait for EK to release some custom partner blocks too.

1080 is only good for users who don't own a Fury X or GTX 980 Ti and only worthwile with custom cooling. The ref cooling version is severly hindered by its cooler = lower boost clocks + lower OC capability.

The "5 months after"-argument is moot. You could always say that. Yeah and after "daddy pascal" there comes "daddy Vega". What now? And after "daddy Vega" comes new architecture of Nvidia (kinda "Maxwell 2" architecture without productive crap that gamers don't need and wastes a lot of transistors). And after that there comes something new of AMD again. Like I said, a moot point.

No, what you say is ignorant. People buy things when they need them, they usualy DON'T wait (they only do if it's a few week, tops, not 5 months, lol). What I said was just, that the first GPU worthwile for enthusiast users (who obviously already have a enthusiast GPU) is most probably Vega10, end of story.

 

[-1nf1n1ty-]

I was worried a bit that I should have just waited for the new cards but my R9 390 seems to hold up pretty well. This isn't a HUGE performance boost to me like nvidia was claiming. The power draw is definitely great though. Wonder what companies like Gigabyte and EVGA are gonna do.

Or maybe I'm blind!