NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Specifications Leaked, Inbound for Holiday 2016?

[Dave65]

I'm snug as a bug in a rug with my Gigabyte G1 1070

 

[Hood]

Honestly a graphics card that is more than 500 dollars isn't really worth it IMO. (Blankets most 1080s, titans, and even the pro duo from AMD). I don't see a point for something being priced so high when a card that's half the price delivers a respectable gaming experience, yes I am strictly speaking about gaming. Beyond the fact of just having one to have it. I don't know maybe its the hardware hipster in me, but I don't think AMD or NVIDIA should continue this kind of trend. Considering you can buy a R9 Fury X for 389.99 right now, and a 1070 for just over 400. Meh.

I agree for the most part, but let's not forget 4K gaming - the TXP and now the more reasonable 1080 Ti are the only single card solution available that can handle 4k 60Hz playing the more demanding titles. I believe that most people would rather skip 4K if it means running 2 cards in XFire or SLI and all of those possible problems, driver issues, and cooling issues. Right now there is no $500 card that will run a 4K monitor at decent frame and refresh rates, so what can you do but wait for a card like the 1080 Ti, although prices won't come down until the GTX 1180 is released (which will be even more capable at 4K and probably the same price as 1080). Either way, 4K will become as affordable as 1440p is now, maybe sooner than you think.

 

[$ReaPeR$]

just like we discussed in the MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X review thread a TXP is not far ahead from a decently OC'ed 1080 so the Ti will be in the middle the 1080 will be able to reach and surpass it (ofc a Ti will be OC'able too but ... to what extent? ) and the Ti will be overpriced no matter what.

bottom line?

you want a 1080? get a 1070 and OC it later ... it's sufficient for now (up to 1440p ) for me it translate into a ~400chf price reduction

you want a 1080Ti? get a 1080 and OC it later ... it's sufficient for now (up to 4k if not too hardcore on settings ... come on ... FXAA/MSAA/TXAA are not needed for it ) it would have been a ~200chf price reduction

you want a Titan X Pascal? think again .... or get a 1080 and OC it ... or wait the 1080Ti and OC it but the price reduction would not be really worth it ... IF ..., a big IF, the MSRP would be respected ... pfahahahaha, at MSRP that would be a ~200chf price reduction (out of MSRP : 50 to 100chf price reduction i bet ... )


nah ... 800$ MSRP maybe ... but 1000+ price ... pfahahaha (country dependent ... ofc )
TXP are 1400-1500chf where i am (1541.17$ opposed to 1200$ ) unless nvidia store ...

that's what i said, 800$ MSRP and a 900$ founders edition.. but yeah, as for the price it will probably be around the 1000$ mark, and above it for europe.

 

[BlueFalcon]

It's not interpreted as both. They are two separate questions.

What you are looking at is "How much faster would the 1080 have to be to equal the Titan X" and what I was saying was looking at it from an entirely different direction. "How much faster is the Titan X than the 1080."

You are incorrect. If we assume Titan X's 100% = 100 fps, and 1080's 76% = 76 fps, then:

1) How much faster is the Titan X's performance compared to the GTX 1080?

Titan X = New, GTX 1080 = Old/Base, formula is (New - Base) / Base x 100% = (100 - 76) / 76 x 100% = 31.58% faster. As was outlined above by an astute member, the shortcut approach is simply 100%/76% = 31.58% greater. You absolutely cannot subtract percentages as you have done since the videocards are represented relative to each other's in terms of their performance. What this means in mathematics is that GTX1080 achieves 76% of the performance of the Titan X @ 100%.

2) How much slower is the GTX1080's performance compared to the Titan X?

GTX 1080 = New, Titan X = Base, (New - Base) / Base x 100% = (76 - 100) / 100 x 100% = - 24% or 24% slower than the Titan X.

Since the discussion is centered on how much faster the GTX1080Ti/Titan X are relative to the GTX 1080, the formula in the first example is the correct one to use.

------------

Yet another overpriced NV card due to lack of competition this generation. Even if NV released the 1080Ti with the exact same specs of the Titan X for $799-899, it would still be a rip-off because a cut-down Titan X is more in-line with historical 2nd tier flagship $349-399 GPUs aka GeForce 4400, 5900XT, 6800GT, 8800GTS 512MB, GTX275, GTX570. Since Kepler, NV has doubled the prices for each GPU tier and used marketing names to obfuscate the true hierarchy of GPUs. AMD cannot compete which creates a market situation where PC gamers who want cutting edge 1440p 144-165Hz, 3440x1440 or 4K gaming need high-end GPUs. NV is simply taking advantage of the market as these gamers will continue purchasing the cards anyway. In slightly more than a year the $650 Fury X and GTX980Ti have dropped to $360-390 on Newegg and GTX1070 can be had for $400. A $450 GTX1070 successor should be a better card than the 1080Ti for about half the price.

High-end cards now are aimed strictly at consumers for whom gaming is their #1 hobby and/or inelastic high-income earners who will buy a GTX1080Ti even if it cost $999+. On the positive side, for the vast majority of PC gamers who are still using console 1080p resolution, there is no need to buy anything faster than a $400 GTX1070 this generation. As usual, future-proofing with an $800 1080Ti or a $1200 Titan X will prove to be a waste of time and $ as we have already seen with the GTX580/780Ti/980Ti generations. Future proofing on the high-end never works well.

 

[qubit]

Looking properly at the block diagram, I can see just how much the GPU has been crippled - ugh. It's barely wider than the GP104. I reckon this card will perform 10-20% better than the GTX 1080, tops. Seems hardly worth it and that 12GB RAM will be overkill for the GPU performance, yet add significantly to the cost. Not convinced that memory type will be only GDDR5 and not GDDR5X as on the GTX 1080 though.

Come on AMD, compete properly with NVIDIA to bring prices down and performance up.

 

[Ungari]

The big question is:

"How much will the Paxwell 1080Ti sell for on the Used Card market when Volta comes out?".

 

[Captain_Tom]

Where are you crybabies?

I said the 1080 Ti would have GDDR5 and it does!

Deal with it!

 

[Captain_Tom]

The big question is:

"How much will the Paxwell 1080Ti sell for on the Used Card market when Volta comes out?".

The same answer for Nvidia cards as always: Too much.

You can get used 7970's on ebay for $100. Yet 680's sell for $150 while offering 2/3rd's the performance.

 

[qubit]

You can get used 7970's on ebay for $100. Yet 680's sell for $150 while offering 2/3rd's the performance.

That's because NVIDIA is better.

3... 2... 1... I get accused of being an NVIDIA fanboy.

 

[Captain_Tom]

that's what i said, 800$ MSRP and a 900$ founders edition.. but yeah, as for the price it will probably be around the 1000$ mark, and above it for europe.

Yeah I am guessing $800 - $900. Due to GDDR5 it might actually cost the same to make as the 1080 since it has GDDR5X. So I wouldn't be surprised if they priced it at $800 to get people to pay more for the 1080 Ti.

Same as before - the 980 and Titan X prices were placed to get people to buy the 980 Ti.

 

[Captain_Tom]

That's because NVIDIA is better.

Hahaha good joke. I love that the 680 is vastly weaker than the 7970, and yet people bought it because it is "The Way It's Meant to be Played".

 

[Captain_Tom]

I'm snug as a bug in a rug with my Gigabyte G1 1070

I'm extra snug with my stronger Fury I paid $310 for.

 

[qubit]

Hahaha good joke. I love that the 680 is vastly weaker than the 7970, and yet people bought it because it is "The Way It's Meant to be Played".

Not quite a joke. There's other things besides raw framerate, such as fan noise, heat, drivers, features etc.

For example, I had a HD 4870 in 2009 and was quite pleased with it overall. I then got the legendary 8800 GTX used for about £60 to play with. It was certainly slower at rendering frames, but the games still felt more fluid many times. I couldn't believe it. I then realized why NVIDIA cards usually cost more. They're just better.

That 4870 soon found itself on eBay and I then became the proud owner of a GTX 285 which felt like the 8800 GTX on steroids. Never looked back since and had very few problems with the various NVIDIA cards I have bought since.

 

[Captain_Tom]

Not quite a joke. There's other things besides raw framerate, such as fan noise, heat, drivers, features etc.

For example, I had a HD 4870 in 2009 and was quite pleased with it overall. I then got the legendary 8800 GTX used for about £60 to play with. It was certainly slower at rendering frames, but the games still felt more fluid many times. I couldn't believe it. I then realized why NVIDIA cards usually cost more. They're just better.

That 4870 soon found itself on eBay and I then became the proud owner of a GTX 285 which felt like the 8800 GTX on steroids. Never looked back since and had very few problems with the various NVIDIA cards I have bought since.

Haha ok buddy tell yourself whatever.


I can't speak for cards from 10 years ago, but I can say that if you look at Deus Ex: MD DX12 benchmarks the GTX 1070 is trading blows with the 480 while having the same frametimes. Not only that but GTX cards almost always fall apart in performance after 1 year, they can't use Freesync, and they lack basic features like 10-bit color.

In 2016 Nvidia just flat out doesn't make good cards. It's funny because I used to own Nvidia cards, but I cannot with good conscience recommend them to anyone anymore. I have a lot of friends building right now, and they have all come to the same conclusion: Nvidia cards age like potatoes and they can't use any of the monitors I want.

 

[HammerON]

I think we are getting off topic here a bit. Please keep on topic.

 

[qubit]

Haha ok buddy tell yourself whatever.


I can't speak for cards from 10 years ago, but I can say that if you look at Deus Ex: MD DX12 benchmarks the GTX 1070 is trading blows with the 480 while having the same frametimes. Not only that but GTX cards almost always fall apart in performance after 1 year, they can't use Freesync, and they lack basic features like 10-bit color.

In 2016 Nvidia just flat out doesn't make good cards. It's funny because I used to own Nvidia cards, but I cannot with good conscience recommend them to anyone anymore. I have a lot of friends building right now, and they have all come to the same conclusion: Nvidia cards age like potatoes and they can't use any of the monitors I want.

I'm not "telling myself" anything. Or do you think I just lied about my experience? I found that NVIDIA worked better so switched sides. What's so hard to understand?

"In 2016 Nvidia just flat out doesn't make good cards." Garbage. Now you sound like an AMD fanboy. Have you read the graphics card reviews on TPU this year? NVIDIA consistently outperform AMD in framerates and other ways. AMD's best now has only about half the framerate performance of a GTX 1080 and consumes a lot of power doing it, too. It's just embarrassing. Let's hope the next gen makes a significant improvement and gives NVIDIA some competition, eh?

I've run up quite a few of my old NVIDIA cards and they continue to work very well. None of this "falling apart" that you claim. Sure, framerate lacks sometimes and they can't show as much detail due to a smaller video memory, but that's to be expected from any card as technology moves on.

What's this about 10-bit colour? What game uses it? What monitor supports it? Not the high framerate gaming ones, that's for sure. Give me some evidence for this point and I'll take you seriously.

Finally, I agree it would be great if NVIDIA would adhere to an open adaptive sync standard, but proprietary lock-in is the nature of competition sometimes and I don't like it either.

@HammerON Just seen your comment after I posted. Happy to leave it here.

 

[Ruru]

Nah, my 780Ti rocks just fine.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Nah, my 780Ti rocks just fine.

Yeah, for 1080p is perfect.

 

[Captain_Tom]

I'm not "telling myself" anything. Or do you think I just lied about my experience? I found that NVIDIA worked better so switched sides. What's so hard to understand?

"In 2016 Nvidia just flat out doesn't make good cards." Garbage. Now you sound like an AMD fanboy.

No more than you did with your comment lol. You haven't looked at benchmarks of the latest games have you?

 

[ppn]

GTX 770 7GBps. and GTX 780 6GBps memory,
GTX 1080 10GBps, 1080 Ti 8GBps. See lower memory clock, higher end card.

Makes sense. Next year 1080 could very well end up being 1170, 1080Ti to be re branded as 1180.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Makes sense. Next year 1080 could very well end up being 1170, 1080Ti to be re branded as 1180.

Actually, that's how Nvidia cards have been working for the past 4 generations. Next year's 1170 will beat a 1080, and so on.

Their cards are beaten in next generation by the model occupying one step down.

 

[Nima]

Haha ok buddy tell yourself whatever.


I can't speak for cards from 10 years ago, but I can say that if you look at Deus Ex: MD DX12 benchmarks the GTX 1070 is trading blows with the 480 while having the same frametimes. Not only that but GTX cards almost always fall apart in performance after 1 year, they can't use Freesync, and they lack basic features like 10-bit color.

In 2016 Nvidia just flat out doesn't make good cards. It's funny because I used to own Nvidia cards, but I cannot with good conscience recommend them to anyone anymore. I have a lot of friends building right now, and they have all come to the same conclusion: Nvidia cards age like potatoes and they can't use any of the monitors I want.

This is a benchmark comparing GTX 1070 with Fury X and RX 480 in Deus Ex: MD DX12 .
http://techreport.com/review/30639/...x-12-performance-in-deus-ex-mankind-divided/3

Where do you see 480 trading blows with 1070?

 

[Liviu Cojocaru]

This appears to be fake...Hibert from Guru3d said:

** UPDATE, after further examination of the screenshot (click the thumbnail at the bottom), we think it was tempered with, this information looks to be FAKE as far as I can tell. Look at the 3328 CUDA cores in the screenshot, you'll notice that 28 is placed lower in there compared to 33.

So no reliable information about 1080Ti just yet

 

[qubit]

No more than you did with your comment lol. You haven't looked at benchmarks of the latest games have you?

This is off topic, so take it to pm if you really want to continue arguing about this. And you'll have to properly address my points too, not just give me a half baked reply like this one.

 

[Dethroy]

The entire current generation is boring me to death. Don't have high hopes for Vega as well.
I imploringly hope Volta and Navi won't disappoint.