NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8 GB

[HumanSmoke]

Great review but, I do find it funny that when AMD releases a GPU with 8GB of VRAM and it gets a Con for "8 GB VRAM provides no tangible benefits" but, when nVidia does it, suddenly it's not a con anymore

I think the difference is that previous 8GB cards are "upgrades" over existing 4GB cards. The underlying architecture wasn't strong enough to utilize 8GB (Most comparisons between 4GB and 8GB only showed difference when the 4GB framebuffer was saturated with HD textures. Less a win for 8GB than a loss for 4GB). When the "cons" were voiced, the instances when 8GB made a tangible difference much more fewer and further between .The GTX 1080 is only available as an 8GB card. No other option exists.

I think a EVGA engineer confirmed that 1080 only supports 2-way SLI?

Not actually true. Via Nvidia via Kyle Bennett:

While NVIDIA no longer recommends 3 or 4 way systems for SLI, we know that true enthusiasts will not be swayed…and in fact some games will continue to deliver great scaling beyond two GPUs. For this class of user we have developed an Enthusiast Key that can be downloaded off of NVIDIA’s website and loaded into an individual’s GPU.

Catering for the HWBot crowd.

also, "founders edition" +100$ = 699 and AIB will table on a 599$ MSRP my @$$, AIB will never price their custom lower than a reference and since the founders IS the reference model they will table on a base price of 699$, why would they do otherwise?

Because some vendors see the value of selling reduced BoM cards for those consumers who value savings over bling. Sapphire did it for years with their Flex cards.
I'm pretty sure the high volume sellers will be more than happy to sell at $599. Care to make a wager that they won't? Palit/Galax have already shown a reduced BoM GTX 1080 using a recycled reduced BoM GTX 980 / GTX 980 Ti HSF shroud.

Except the reference 1080 is $699 and the partners most likely won't undercut that by much, if at all.
To be realistic it wouldn't make sense for partners to put money in to new designs and sell cheaper.

That'swhy they recycle previous cooling solutions and plonk them on top of the reference PCB. The largest graphics AIB's also act as full manufacturers for not just their own house brands (i.e. Palit with GALAX and Gainward), but AIB's that have no manufacturing base (i.e. the aforementioned Palit building cards for PNY). ODM's like Asus, EVGA, and Gigabyte probably wont bother selling at the low end of the 1080 market, but it has already been shown that the really large OEMs selling huge volumes of cards are quite eager to sell at every price point to maximize opportunity and keep the manufacturing and assembly lines fully occupied.

Then compare it to R9 380.
After all, it also ends with 80.
Makes as much sense.

Only makes sense if the GPU tier is the same. GP104 is a second tier GPU, the R9 380 is a third tier GPU.
Comparison should be by GPU tier, not numbers. GM204 is a second tier GPU of the Maxwell architecture, GP104 is a second tier GPU of the Pascal architecture.

 

[BoyGenius]

Surrounding air @ 20 C & fan at 100 % leads to that temprature.
Reference

Wonder why the temp was 67 at the event.

 

[xorbe]

To me sounds like that basically they want to move 3- and 4-way support to enterprise class, and by handing out keys one at a time, ensuring that only a few gamer end-users are getting the legacy functionality for free.

 

[GreiverBlade]

I'm pretty sure the high volume sellers will be more than happy to sell at $599. Care to make a wager that they won't?

nope i don't care. (mainly because the 980 was supposed to be like that or lower and it ended for the 980 to be at 980Ti MSRP and 980Ti nearing a Titan X MSRP for me ... )

because:

Palit/Galax have already shown a reduced BoM GTX 1080 using a recycled reduced BoM GTX 980 / GTX 980 Ti HSF shroud.

these brands are not widely distributed, specially where i am, tho Palit have some good review for them .... Galax on the other hand ...

 

[medi01]

New fabrication processes are more expensive initially

Or mature processes become cheaper? Oh wait...
That thing is called "investment", "Research and Development".
This is something you'd know if you had any sort of knowledge of pretty much any (manufacturing and not) industry.

And in this very context, it's just a silly attempt to justify blatant price gouging with some "expensive tech".

The "5 months after"-argument is moot. You could always say that.

It is THE FIRST TIME EVER we see GPU manufacturers advance over 2 node processes in one go. Oh and that lovely HBM2 too.

We'll see vastly faster cards wiping floor with previous gen cards, with 2+ times performance jump.

It is "always like that", my arse.

 

[deemon]

one question I haven't found answer yet. DOES THE 1080 DO HAIRWORKS and the likes of nvidia gimmicks any better than previous generations? I mean apart from the general performance boost, is the hairworks working now even better than the average performance increase or not?


also really sad to see that the 1080 ASYNC "now OK" is a lie (and seems to work off CPU / drivers in software):
http://e.infogr.am/74b6f789-48a6-4a83-a44e-845be2a8cb3c?src=embed

 

[Aquinus]

I think the difference is that previous 8GB cards are "upgrades" over existing 4GB cards. The underlying architecture wasn't strong enough to utilize 8GB (Most comparisons between 4GB and 8GB only showed difference when the 4GB framebuffer was saturated with HD textures. Less a win for 8GB than a loss for 4GB). When the "cons" were voiced, the instances when 8GB made a tangible difference much more fewer and further between .The GTX 1080 is only available as an 8GB card. No other option exists.

What? The only time memory capacity impacts performance is when there was already not enough memory in the first place. Once again, I'm claiming shenanigans that it can't handle it because that really depends on the workload. Since games don't really need over 4GB yet, you're not going to see a slowdown because the 8GB is merely not used or required. So lets say you have 8GB of system memory in two DIMMs but, you haven't utilized all of it yet, then you upgrade to 16GB, are you still going to expect a performance boost? I would say, generally speaking, no. I think GPUs are the same way. It's not that VRAM capacity improves performance, it's that it stops performance from degrading nearly as quickly when you eventually do need more than 4GB as opposed to having to resort to streaming textures which always hinders performance to some degree.

So it's not about gaining performance, it's about not losing performance... because performance tanks when you run out of VRAM.

 

[Artas1984]

It's amazing that at 1440p the R9 280X is now significantly faster than GTX770 and equal to GTX780, while R9 270X is equal to GTX960 and GTX770. If you thought about mid-range AMD cards performance back in 2013, there was no way you'd ever though about that kind of catch-up with NVIDIA.

 

[Air]

It's amazing that at 1440p the R9 280X is now significantly faster than GTX770 and equal to GTX780, while R9 270X is equal to GTX960 and GTX770. If you thought about mid-range AMD cards performance back in 2013, there was no way you'd ever though about that kind of catch-up with NVIDIA.

Yeah, also noticed this. When i bought my R9 270x (for $200) it had ~10% less performance then GTX 760 (priced at ~240$ i think)?. Now it has the same performance as a GTX 770, which was $400 at the time. If thats correct, clueless me made a great choice back then.

 

[rtwjunkie]

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.

So many people think price is what determines the next gen replacement, when in reality it's the chip used and where it falls in the product line. Price is immaterial!

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

It's amazing that at 1440p the R9 280X is now significantly faster than GTX770 and equal to GTX780, while R9 270X is equal to GTX960 and GTX770. If you thought about mid-range AMD cards performance back in 2013, there was no way you'd ever though about that kind of catch-up with NVIDIA.

OTOH, nvidia users dont need to wait for a year+ to get proper performance with their cards. If the 280x, which is a 7970, could be faster then a 680/770, it should not have taken 3+ years to get there. It's simply a matter of when you want the best performance, now or years from now?

And it doesnt help AMD either. Their cards age too well to be replaced consistently.

 

[Valdas]

It is THE FIRST TIME EVER we see GPU manufacturers advance over 2 node processes in one go. Oh and that lovely HBM2 too.

We'll see vastly faster cards wiping floor with previous gen cards, with 2+ times performance jump.

It is "always like that", my arse.

Fury X was released with HBM. How much faster it was when compared to 980 Ti that was running gddr5? You assume >2x without any data to back it up.

 

[red_stapler]

So should I finally consider replacing my 7950? Is the 1080 "fast enough" that I'll see a difference?

 

[Valdas]

So should I finally consider replacing my 7950? Is the 1080 "fast enough" that I'll see a difference?

In 7950 review it averages 34 fps at 1440p and 52 fps at 1080p in BF3 while 1080 runs it at 137 fps at 1440p and 199 fps at 1080p. While it's not entirely apples to apples comparison it should give you a rough idea.
Edit: You can also make an assumption that 7950 = 270X which is present in 1080 performance summary review.

 

[rtwjunkie]

So, after a more thorough look at the fps in games, I have concluded that this is such a big leap ahead of my 980, it's not even funny. It is getting more FPS at 1440p than the 980 is getting in the same games at 1080p. This means going 1440p monitor AND getting a 1080, it would still be performing better than the 980 at the previous 1080p resolution.

I cannot afford it now, and haven't found anything I can't play like I want yet with a 980, but this is the kind of revelation that makes people start saving and planning for someday...even if it's a year from now.

 

[Grings]

Given the cooler seems to be the limiting factor in wizz's review i am interested to see how the decent non reference cards do

While im sure there will be Kingpin and 8 pack branded cards even more expensive than the Founder Edition, it would be nice to see some come in cheaper AND perform even better

 

[nem..]

recycled architecture, recycled slides...
BILLIONS of $$ rofl

 

[CounterSpell]

according to this site, a gtx 1080 system consumes 314w - http://www.legitreviews.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-founders-edition-video-card-review_181298/12

so, can a 500psu (a good one) hold this system?

i have a cx500 from corsair and would like to know if i upgrade my vga to a 1080, will i have to change my psu?

 

[Kanan]

according to this site, a gtx 1080 system consumes 314w - http://www.legitreviews.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-founders-edition-video-card-review_181298/12

so, can a 500psu (a good one) hold this system?

i have a cx500 from corsair and would like to know if i upgrade my vga to a 1080, will i have to change my psu?

Your PSU is good enough for it, enjoy. Even a lot of reserves with that combination.

 

[CounterSpell]

Your PSU is good enough for it, enjoy. Even a lot of reserves with that combination.

for real or trolling?

 

[Caring1]

for real or trolling?

314W will be peak usage, not constant draw during game play.
A decent 500W PSU should be capable of supporting the 1080

 

[Kanan]

for real or trolling?

Why should I troll? All my answers here are serious at least if it's about hardware questions. i5 2500K is maybe 150 W tops (with OC, without under 100W), mainboard ram etc. 50W, thats 200W tops, and the graphics card GTX 1080 on top of that would be 180 or 220W (in OC mode) tops, so you have a power usage of 380 to 420W tops (!), the average is much lower, maybe 300 to 350W. As I said, you have a lot of reserves, it's no problem.

 

[CounterSpell]

Why should I troll? All my answers here are serious at least if it's about hardware questions. i5 2500K is maybe 150 W tops (with OC, without under 100W), mainboard ram etc. 50W, thats 200W tops, and the graphics card GTX 1080 on top of that would be 180 or 220W (in OC mode) tops, so you have a power usage of 380 to 420W tops (!), the average is much lower, maybe 300 to 350W. As I said, you have a lot of reserves, it's no problem.

its because everyone says we need at least a 750w for a descent gpu....

 

[red_stapler]

its because everyone says we need at least a 750w for a descent gpu....

You might want to go tri-SLI in the future!

 

[Kanan]

its because everyone says we need at least a 750w for a descent gpu....

That's for multi-GPU. A high power GPU like 980 Ti or Fury X needs a 500 or 600W PSU to run (depends on CPU too, of course). My system is a good example for that. The GTX 1080 uses much less power than these GPUs, so it's no problem.