NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Faster than GTX TITAN X

[ViperXTR]

With the reviews all over the web now, its Titan X/980Ti performance levels, its faster sometimes but won't be noticeable and there are times that the 1070 drops in min framerate, it looks hampered on its memory bandwidth on extreme situations but still manage to hold its ground on some tests.

 

[Caring1]

The title should be changed to ...when overclocked, compared to a stock card.

 

[rtwjunkie]

The title should be changed to ...when overclocked, compared to a stock card.

Now, don't let such a minor detail get in the way of Nvidia's PR machine...or the large number of sheep who bleated in orgasmic glee at the claim.

 

[ViperXTR]

The title should be changed to ...when overclocked, compared to a stock card.

But it can't even maintain its OC over time on some tests

 

[arbiter]

But it can't even maintain its OC over time on some tests

Well its not like AMD and their ref cooler that can't even maintain its max clock and they just say "up to xxxxmhz"

 

[Caring1]

Well its not like AMD and their ref cooler that can't even maintain its max clock and they just say "up to xxxxmhz"

Peak performance has never been an indicator of real world performance.
When a company states "up to" I take that the same way as sales "start from", they rarely are that figure.

 

[Kanan]

Peak performance has never been an indicator of real world performance.
When a company states "up to" I take that the same way as sales "start from", they rarely are that figure.

Correct, there's not a big difference between "clocking high and going down" and "clocking low and going high", the latter is just better in PR and on paper because you can use the "boost" or "OC" term whereas the other states "going down" which is usually reminded a bad thing. Well the usual problems AMD has compared to NV (PR).

 

[medi01]

"
Remember, we have two listings for the GTX 1070 here; one at the expected MSRP of partner cards and one at the Founders Edition price that is $70 more expensive. Let’s discuss the easy results first. The GeForce GTX 980 is clearly a “bad deal” for a new GPU if the prices stay at the $499 price, which I don’t expect they will. The same is true for the Radeon R9 Nano, at $499 it doesn’t perform as well as the GTX 1070 so it takes a big hit here.

But look at the GeForce GTX 970 and the Radeon R9 390X – both of them are competitive with this value metric going against the new GTX 1070, and when you compare them to the Founder Edition price, both of them are actually equal "values" in a couple of instances! This was not the case with the GTX 1080 – the Fury X didn’t even come close to the value of the GTX 1080 in large part due to the large performance gap between the two cards."

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...s-Edition-Review/Pricing-and-Closing-Thoughts

 

[Kanan]

Yes and the best price to performance card is even missing, the R9 390. I think prices of the Fiji cards will come down soon, AMD will try and get rid of them before they are obsolete and to sell the new cards that are released soon. If rumours are true, even their own cards will make Fiji cards obsolete - better said, especially their own cards, because they are even better priced than GTX 1070.

 

[mroofie]

The title should be changed to ...when overclocked, compared to a stock card.

So all of the reviews are non stock ?

Now, don't let such a minor detail get in the way of Nvidia's PR machine...or the large number of sheep who bleated in orgasmic glee at the claim.