GTX 1080 benchmarks leak: not much faster than a 980 Ti

[DevilishBooster]

1 minute ago, Citadelen said:

This is all true. It's be best to wait for the final releases to make a final judgment I think.

 

Most people see the 980 Ti at the top and then get that, without knowing that it has inferior hardware and software support for VR.

Alright, could you educate a pleb as to what about the 980Ti makes it not work so great for VR, and/or about what makes a card like the Fury X a better choice? How is it that AMD is better at a-synchronous computation (?) than Nvidia, when Nvidia is knows for the computational powerhouse cards? (I genuinely don't really know much about how GPUs work and all the nitty-gritty details.)

[DildorTheDecent]

Really doubt that's 1.86GHz GPU clock on air.

 

And while memory clock is impressive it's still 256bit bus. Even with this compression tech balls it's still a *tiny* bus. Doesn't have sheer bandwidth. Which is nice sometimes. 

 

Just waiting for these aftermarket cards now. EVGA pls. Lets not be late to the game this time. 

[Citadelen]

10 minutes ago, DevilishBooster said:

Alright, could you educate a pleb as to what about the 980Ti makes it not work so great for VR, and/or about what makes a card like the Fury X a better choice? How is it that AMD is better at a-synchronous computation (?) than Nvidia, when Nvidia is knows for the computational powerhouse cards? (I genuinely don't really know much about how GPUs work and all the nitty-gritty details.)

First off there's the Asynchronous compute.

Here's a short video explaining it:

Nvidia doesn't have ACEs in their GPUs, so has to do Asynchronous compute through the software and the CPU, which isn't as good as a hardware based solution, it isn't as fast, and can have a negative affect on latency thus motion sickness in VR is used. Thus motion sickness.

 

We also have LiquidVR, which is what Mantle has evolved into, among other things, it drives down latency.

Here's a video about it:

To my knowledge all Nvidia has for VR at the moment is GameWorks which I'm not too excited to see for obvious reasons.

Of course this might all change later on with Pascal and future software. 

 

[No Nrg]

I own a GTX 980 and will be waiting for either the 1080ti or even next gen past that.

 

My card still runs pretty much everything in 1440p near max (except AA), what's the point of upgrading? I don't need to upgrade just because it's new.

[Thony]

2 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

if this is priced the same or close to a 980 then from a 970 this is good upgrade

 

It should cost as much as 980 when it launched or more. It should have twice the Vram (gddr5x).

[Commander Llama]

4 hours ago, asim1999 said:

True, NVIDIA's performance upgrades look like this:

GTX 1080= GTX 980 Ti

GTX 1070 + GTX 980 

GTX 780 Ti = GTX 980

GTX 780 = GTX 970

and so on 

 

You're not far off, though the 780Ti performs more like a 970. That would actually make this news worse if the 1080 is "barely" beating the 980Ti. However it's also possibly a load of crap news, who knows what the driver situation is, etc etc.

[-BirdiE-]

4 minutes ago, Commander Llama said:

 

You're not far off, though the 780Ti performs more like a 970. That would actually make this news worse if the 1080 is "barely" beating the 980Ti. However it's also possibly a load of crap news, who knows what the driver situation is, etc etc.

The 1080 is "barely" beating an overclocked 980ti, not a stock 980ti. My old 780ti overclocked could pretty easily beat my 980 stock.

[Commander Llama]

Just now, -BirdiE- said:

The 1080 is "barely" beating an overclocked 980ti, not a stock 980ti. My old 780ti overclocked could pretty easily beat my 980 stock.

 

Ah, I didn't see that part. Well this is just good old fashion clickbait then. Bad comparisons are bad.

[2FA]

7 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Yea, not surprised. It has faster GPU memory so it should help a bit in 4K gaming and VR, but that is about it.

Pascal is really Maxwell 2.0. It probably has full DirectX12 support, as well as improved Vulkan support, and more power efficient. The rest is just a minor performance increase, mostly because the architecture is pretty much the same.

 

Volta is really a new architecture, and that would be 2017-2018 launch.

 

Thank you!!!! I've been saying this for a while that Nvidia likes to use pretty much the same architecture for two generations and from what we have seen, Pascal isn't much more than Maxwell.

[GoodBytes]

4 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Thank you!!!! I've been saying this for a while that Nvidia likes to use pretty much the same architecture for two generations and from what we have seen, Pascal isn't much more than Maxwell.

Well it is really the simple fact that they don't have a choice.

It takes a long time to make a new architecture, and sometimes extra long time (recall the 9000 and 200 series, all waiting for Fermi (400 series)).

 

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

You realize AMD is doing the exact same thing, right?

I don't recall AMD releasing the fury 6 months before the fury x, the 290x 6 months later than the 290 or the 7970 60 months later than the 7950.

[IMPERIUS]

not that big of an surprise imo, a generational jump is almost equal to a x80 -> x80ti jump

[2FA]

6 hours ago, Citadelen said:

If the 380X ends up being as fast as a 1080 then it will really surprise me, as the die size for Polaris 10 is 232mm², while GP104 will be 332mm².

AMD would be able to both undercut Nvidia and make more money per chip than them.

 

You mean 480X?

[PlayStation 2]

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Yea, not surprised. It has faster GPU memory so it should help a bit in 4K gaming and VR, but that is about it.

Pascal is really Maxwell 2.0. It probably has full DirectX12 support, as well as improved Vulkan support, and more power efficient. The rest is just a minor performance increase, mostly because the architecture is pretty much the same.

 

Volta is really a new architecture, and that would be 2017-2018 launch.

 

But wasn't Maxwell 2.0 Maxwell 2.0?

[BuckGup]

5 hours ago, -BirdiE- said:

So, the 1080 is likely going to be cheaper than the 980ti, draw less power than the 980ti, and it would take a LN2 cooled 980ti to beat it at stock?

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

My 980ti beats that score currently and I am not even remotely close to pushing it hardcore. But if it costs as much as a 970 that will destroy competition

[SteveGrabowski0]

41 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I don't recall AMD releasing the fury 6 months before the fury x, the 290x 6 months later than the 290 or the 7970 60 months later than the 7950.

Polaris in June, Vega in 2017.

 

[Xsilent(X)]

nVidia marketing hype on his best and suckers would always go falling in these traps.

[Clyne]

14 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Polaris in June, Vega in 2017.

 

Rocking a 2012 GPU(270X is a rebranded 7870) and waiting for Vega!

It's like using a 580 when the 1080 is going to be released...

[Sauron]

20 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Polaris in June, Vega in 2017.

 

Your point? I'm talking about holding back the full die of a given architecture to sell the second best tier at an inflated price, not the gap between different architectures.

[Curufinwe_wins]

IDK what you people are talking about but if these are stock speeds that is a pretty nice boost....

 

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6276112

 

This is a pretty highly overclocked 980ti (mine when it was on air) and the graphics score is still worse than the 1080 (for reference, a 980ti can gain 25%+ score via overclocking...)

 

Also you need to be comparing graphics scores not overall.

 

And finally, no I will not be upgrading, but that still isn't a bad improvement.

[Curufinwe_wins]

55 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

My 980ti beats that score currently and I am not even remotely close to pushing it hardcore. But if it costs as much as a 970 that will destroy competition

Yea, I'm calling you out on that one... You need a pretty darn good OC to even match 10100. The best on LN2 is only 10500.

Link to 3dmark?

[PlayStation 2]

9 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

IDK what you people are talking about but if these are stock speeds that is a pretty nice boost....

 

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6276112

 

This is a pretty highly overclocked 980ti (mine when it was on air) and the graphics score is still worse than the 1080 (for reference, a 980ti can gain 25%+ score via overclocking...)

 

Also you need to be comparing graphics scores not overall.

 

And finally, no I will not be upgrading, but that still isn't a bad improvement.

Not to mention the 1080's price bracket.

[BuckGup]

7 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Yea, I'm calling you out on that one... You need a pretty darn good OC to even match 10100. The best on LN2 is only 10500.

Link to 3dmark?

Where do you see 10100? I see 8959

[Curufinwe_wins]

Not to mention the 1080's price bracket.

Exactly. I wasn't even expecting it would beat the 980ti by more than a hair (esp with Polaris news being so meh).

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, SamStrecker said:

Where do you see 10100? I see 8959

It's called graphics score.....

 

click on the following link, right under the overall title you see three numbers, the first one labeled graphics score is the one that actually matters...

 

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6276112 <- My fairly high oc'd 980ti scores 10037

 

 

Scores 10102