NVIDIA Also Announces $379 "Faster than TITAN X" GTX 1070

[G33k2Fr34k]

GTX 1080 after some thought isn't faster than 980 SLI, it's just faster in VR than SLI 980, maybe. These are only marketing numbers from Nvidia, to take with a grain of salt, I don't think they are accurate. I expect custom 1080 to be 10-20% faster than 980 Ti custom and 1070 clearly slower. I expect the 1070 to be 10-20% faster than 980 (non Ti)..

That is most likely the case, going by the Fire Strike numbers of the ~1800MHz GTX1080 from a couple of day ago.

Polaris on the other hand not only has the arguably better tech (14nm) but smaller chips too, they have no problems starting a price war with Nvidia. I expect R9 490 to be about ~ GTX 1070 level with a smaller chip and better production tech. The days of AMD, starting with the biggest chip and 384 bit, are over I guess. Wasn't exactly a smart move anyway (talking HD 7970, vs. the smaller, but more efficient GTX 680 back then). Now they are doing the opposite again, reminds me of HD 6970/6950 days vs GTX 560 Ti/570/580. Better be small and efficient than too big to fail. Price cuts/wars are no problem that way.

Edit: corrected 980 Ti SLI to 980 SLI.

Well... a couple of things to remember: First, if AMD doesn't clock Polaris high enough and focuses on power consumption, then even the Polaris10 XT won't beat the 1070. I do think that the Polaris 10 chip is highly capable of competing with the Fiji chip if clocked aggressively, which is the primary reason why the GP104 based cards are able to do so well against the GTX980 TI.
The second point to be made is Samsung's 14nm vs TSMC's 16nm finfet processes. I'm not sure which one is better, but the fact that AMD was able to cram 2560 SPs into a ~230mm^2 chips is impressive. Remember this is the same number of SPs that the full GP104 chip has.

 

[Kanan]

That makes sense. Going by these numbers Polaris with 2304 shaders (R9 490) could very well be faster than 980 Ti. Then they also have 256 shaders left for the full, non-cut version of the chip. Expect a (price) war on top too. Good for us.

 

[Tom_]

Concerning the Hardware Power this a weaker than a Radeon 390X (5,914 GFLOPS, 384 GB/s).

 

[jchambers2586]

My 970 plays every game I have on a 1200P IPS monitor why should I upgrade. I want a 4K IPS but that it too expensive I will wait for prices to drop.

 

[doxology]

Prices go up again compared to previous generation.

Well a GTX970 cost anywhere from $299 to $379 depending on model right now.

When I bought my Asus GTX 970 I spent $359 right after that card launched. I purchased the Asus because of its single power connector. Doesn't seem like a huge gap increase in price honestly, especially considering the jump from 4GB to 8GB of memory.

My main concern is that they didn't show benchmarks for any of the cards. Also when bragging about how buttery smooth the games had been running they also never mentioned resolutions. Also it looks like when running one of the demos for VR with the monster and how smooth it was with their new technology implemented that was also when you saw that the card was overclocked like 3-400 MHZ over stock. So everything we saw yesterday was probably on an overclocked 1080. Which was deceiving imo. Sure we will probably see factory overclocked cards, but of course those will come with price premiums.

If the GTX 1080 was running those games maxed out with ultra settings at 1080P I could care less. If it or the 1070 can run those games maxed at 4K then now you have my attention.

The more I think about it I realize how vague they were about real details, even claims of 2x the performance of Titan X but that was only in certain circumstances. After sleeping and waking up fresh I am more skeptical and want to see some sites benchmark these before I get super excited.

Finally, I have watched multiple Nvidia events and they really need to learn to streamline them. That event could of easily fit into an hour instead of an hour and a half. I know he is the head of Nvidia but they need to either get him some classes or hire a PR person to do these. Steve Jobs he clearly is not. And they clearly had not prepared properly. Kind of weak in that regard.

 

[rruff]

Still expecting Polaris to be in GTX 1070 range, not speculating on more, that would be wishful thinking I guess.

The most sensible rumors and AMD statements lead me to believe it will be 480/480x and substantially below 1070. Even below 1060 Ti. 970/390 performance level. Priced appropriately of course.

490/490x will be the lowest tier Vega coming out next year, and will compete against 1070/1080.

 

[medi01]

...the ball is in AMD's court now in order to force nGreedia to lower the prices...

The ball is always in pockets of the buyers., that either buy or not.

 

[Shou Miko]

awesome to see a card as a GTX 1070 with more than 4gb of vram I been waiting for this, even I said to myself no more hardware this yr doe

but I properly going to buy one anyway and but waiting on a ITX version to launch of the GTX 1070.

 

[Dethroy]

The ball is always in pockets of the buyers., that either buy or not.

And people simply throw money at whatever product is performing the worst and has the highest price, right?

The buyer's decision is mostly based on who ever sells the most compelling product.

 

[G33k2Fr34k]

The most sensible rumors and AMD statements lead me to believe it will be 480/480x and substantially below 1070. Even below 1060 Ti. 970/390 performance level. Priced appropriately of course.

490/490x will be the lowest tier Vega coming out next year, and will compete against 1070/1080.

Highly unlikely that Polaris 10 will not outperform 390/390X at the same clocks and compete with Fury/FuryX if clocked aggressively like the 1080/1070.

The GTX1080 has ~40% higher GPU frequency than the GTX980. That's where most of 1080's performance comes from: the GPU clock frequency. If AMD decides to clock the Polaris 10 chips at high freqnencies, then the Polaris 10 based cards should have no problems competing with the Fury/FuryX cards.

 

[btarunr]

Imo 980 and 980Ti users can easily pass on this one and wait for either big pascal or Volta.. If 980Ti can't do 4K to the max, Im sure 1080GTX won't either, not at 60fps+ in more demanding games...

That's what every GTX 780 Ti and other high-end "Kepler" users said about GTX 980/970, until the driver optimizations dried up.

 

[arbiter]

Nvidia never said the 1070 will carry G5X. The price difference might just be better bin and less power restriction so it can boost higher.

As i said cheaper one aka 1070 uses GDDR5 which nvidia had in their slides, the expensive one which is 1080 will use GDDR5x sorry if you lack understanding to be able to understand words used to work that out.

GTX 1080 after some thought isn't faster than 980 SLI, it's just faster in VR than SLI 980, maybe. These are only marketing numbers from Nvidia, to take with a grain of salt, I don't think they are accurate. I expect custom 1080 to be 10-20% faster than 980 Ti custom and 1070 clearly slower. I expect the 1070 to be 10-20% faster than 980 (non Ti).

a 1080 is 55-70% faster then a 980. It can be faster then 980's in SLI cause there is only 1 game where SLI scales almost 100%, most games its only around 50-60% at most (that 1 game that scales to 100 was Sniper Elite III). So their claim of being faster then 980's in SLI is very valid since it is faster without the draw back of SLI.

The GTX1080 has ~40% higher GPU frequency than the GTX980. That's where most of 1080's performance comes from: the GPU clock frequency. If AMD decides to clock the Polaris 10 chips at high freqnencies, then the Polaris 10 based cards should have no problems competing with the Fury/FuryX cards.

Well it does have 25% more shaders so its performance boost isn't all from the clock speed. if it was only clocks then it would need to be higher.

 

[TheHunter]

That's what every GTX 780 Ti and other high-end "Kepler" users said about GTX 980/970, until the driver optimizations dried up.

Yes and no.. Maxwell vs Pascal are quite similar with its scheduler, Kepler was a little different from those two - less effective and no delta compression.

rematch 780Ti vs 980GTX vs R9-290X, 780Ti is tiny bit behind,.. But nothing that makes it omfg
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...iews/70125-gtx-780-ti-vs-r9-290x-rematch.html
This is after drivers matured, anything beyond 350.xx.

Look at FC4, GTA5, Withcer3,etc by all max 2-4fps difference, rare exceptions up to 8fps by min fps avg not so much..



Im sure it will be similar @stock boost 1164Mhz 980Ti vs 1080GTX.

 

[Xzibit]

As i said cheaper one aka 1070 uses GDDR5 which nvidia had in their slides, the expensive one which is 1080 will use GDDR5x sorry if you lack understanding to be able to understand words used to work that out.

You really need to understand what thread your in and what your replying to. All you had to do is check the conversation which you participated in.

What's the difference between the two cards, the $379 card should be classed as reference too, so why pay $70 more for the other reference card.

The expensive one is factory overclocked, just sold by nVidia itself.

expensive one uses GDDR5x memory and cheaper one is GDDR5.

Nvidia never said the 1070 will carry G5X. The price difference might just be better bin and less power restriction so it can boost higher.

379+70=449 not 599 or 699 for that matter. Not sure how you make the jump to the 1080 when your replying to people clearly talking about the 1070 and 1070 FE.

 

[G33k2Fr34k]

a 1080 is 55-70% faster then a 980. It can be faster then 980's in SLI cause there is only 1 game where SLI scales almost 100%, most games its only around 50-60% at most (that 1 game that scales to 100 was Sniper Elite III). So their claim of being faster then 980's in SLI is very valid since it is faster without the draw back of SLI.

Well it does have 25% more shaders so its performance boost isn't all from the clock speed. if it was only clocks then it would need to be higher.

A stock-clocked 1080 is 20 - 25% faster than a stock clocked 980TI, going by the Fire Strike results from a couple of days ago. Now given that the 980TI is ~20% faster than a 980, this makes the 1080 ~55% faster than the GTX980. What does this mean? It mean that clock to clock, the GTX1080 is ~15% faster than the GTX980, which isn't much.

Here's a scenario for you: Polaris 10 is ~15% faster than Hawaii clock to clock, which is quite possible.
What happens if Polaris 10 is clocked 30% - 40% higher than Hawaii? Does it make sense now? It's all up to AMD, but I think it's quite likely that Polaris 10 based cards can be competitive against GTX1080/GTX1070.

 

[rruff]

It's all up to AMD, but I think it's quite likely that Polaris 10 based cards can be competitive against GTX1080/GTX1070.

I didn't realize that manufacturers could choose any clock speed they wish...

The AMD spokesman flat out said that Polaris would slot in beneath Pascal, that it would be mid range, and provide min VR level performance (970/390) at an affordable price. Is AMD in the habit of under-hyping their products? Plus indications are that Polaris 10 will be 480, which further indicates where it lives in the hierarchy. And AMD is working on two different Vega chips, and I think it's highly unlikely they are working on two premium designs that exceed the 490 level.

1070/980 Ti level is more performance than most people need. AMD is targeting the bigger market, and also the place where they can be the sole player on a smaller node for awhile. Smart. They have to choose their battles wisely if they want to claw back some market share.

Nothing is for sure of course, but I hate to see so many people have unrealistic hopes. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed.

 

[Ebo]

I just wanna see realworld preformance i games, not firestrike or any other artificial test, just show me what the bloody chip can do every day and stick your marketings*hit up where the sun dont shine.

 

[Enterprise24]

If 1070 is faster than Titan X then full chip Polaris 10 which is suppose to be a little bit under 980 Ti will have to compete with 1060 Ti not 1070.
1070 2048Cuda = 379$
Polaris 10 2560SP = 299$-329$ can't be 349$ for sure.
1060 Ti 1536Cuda = 299$
Polaris 10 2304SP = 249$

 

[trog100]

the big gain seems to be the ability run much higher clocks at lower power and heat levels.. so far i am impressed..

currently my pair of 980ti cards have more performance than i really need.. but the thought that a pair of 1070 cards will do pretty much the same thing at half the price and half the heat and power levels makes me a tad envious..

trog

 

[Shou Miko]

I just wanna see realworld preformance i games, not firestrike or any other artificial test, just show me what the bloody chip can do every day and stick your marketings*hit up where the sun dont shine.

yeh bcs in the end of the day it's the fps in gaming that matters not a benchmark for most users

 

[Prima.Vera]

Guys relax. AMD is not stupid. Most likely as we speak they are tuning the cards BIOS in order to compete with 1080 and 1070. Previously they advertised big power savings for their new cards, meaning they can cut that and go for extra performance. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if both their middle and high end cards will be faster and nVidia's equivalents for the same price. Just wait and see

 

[trog100]

apart from the odd poorly optimized game firestrike is a bloody good indicator of general gaming performance.. its the first thing i look for in any gpu review..

but the bottom line is if these new cards come even close to what is being suggested they will be good.. i really cant go for all this negative sh-t.. it seems par for the course but there aint a lot of sense in it.. what the fuck do some people expect.. miracles.. he he

the new 1070 just like the old 970 will be the popular buy.. it will be interesting to see what AMD do come up with.. but they have their work cut out..

and if the new 970 (price bracket) has a bit less memory.. who gives a fuck.. a bit less than 8 gigs will still be plenty.. he he

i recon its pure envy that generates all this negative crap.. i cant see any other reason for it..

trog

 

[Enterprise24]

apart from the odd poorly optimized game firestrike is a bloody good indicator of general gaming performance.. its the first thing i look for in any gpu review..

but the bottom line is if these new cards come even close to what is being suggested they will be good.. i really cant go for all this negative sh-t.. it seems par for the course but there aint a lot of sense in it.. what the fuck do some people expect.. miracles.. he he

the new 1070 just like the old 970 will be the popular buy.. it will be interesting to see what AMD do come up with.. but they have their work cut out..

and if the new 970 (price bracket) has a bit less memory.. who gives a fuck.. a bit less than 8 gigs will still be plenty.. he he

i recon its pure envy that generates all this negative crap.. i cant see any other reason for it..

trog

I agree. Firestrike GPU Score is very reliable. In Unigin Heaven and Valley 780 Ti OC even surpass 980 OC and 780 is much faster than 970 and 280X.
But Firestrike GPU Score 780 Ti is just on par with 970 which is true in many modern games. Also 280X is not far behind 780 in FS GPU score which is true again in many newer games.

 

[jboydgolfer]

I plan on getting the 1070, and will happily pass up the "founders" editionm since i have the reference 970's x2, ill be seeing if i can mount that shroud on the 1070

They are treating this ref design like its the 9xx ref design, but the difference is the 9xx ref design is gorgeous,as where the 1070 ref design is hideous. They musnt have focus grouped that new design.

 

[rruff]

Guys relax. AMD is not stupid. Most likely as we speak they are tuning the cards BIOS in order to compete with 1080 and 1070. Previously they advertised big power savings for their new cards, meaning they can cut that and go for extra performance. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if both their middle and high end cards will be faster and nVidia's equivalents for the same price. Just wait and see

I'm definitely no GPU expert, but this seems a little ridiculous. You just "tune the bios" to get as much performance as you want?!

I think you are making way too much out of AMD's statement that they are targeting low power consumption. They certainly won't be doing that on desktop cards to the *detriment* of performance! Those things will be clocked as high as possible, and they will still be slower than 1070.