NVIDIA Will Unveil Pascal GeForce GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 Graphics Cards at a Special Livestream Event May 6 – Cooler Shrouds Confirmed

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

They were advertising 2GHz OC in their 1080 promotional video, so it sure as hell better be able to hit those speeds!

you can get all the specs about the GTX 1080 here:

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080

[grayperview]

anyone else see the correlation of what Nvidia are doing with the clock speeds, as AMD did with CPU clock speeds, when they could keep up with Intel's more efficient lower clocked architecture just a few years ago?

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

there is no issue...my card was idling at 800mhz when pcper noted this i checked...and then nvidia released a new driver...problem gone since then...100%.

 

Yes you do not have this problem because why? 

 

You only have one monitor. When Pcper investigated this, the issue was rampant on all sorts of setups. 364.xx drivers suppressed the issue making it less likely to have the problem as long as you are only running one monitor. 

 

If you have a second(even as low as 720p res) It is a sure way to get the problem. 

 

Invest more time to helping people who have the problem instead of denying its existence. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, super_skank said:

anyone else see the correlation of what Nvidia are doing with the clock speeds, as AMD did with CPU clock speeds, when they could keep up with Intel's more efficient lower clocked architecture just a few years ago?

no, clockspeed on GPU's increased over time generation after generation...i remember having a 133mhz GPU in my system back in the day...kepler was lucky to clock 1200mhz...maxwell 1500mhz...and now pascal 2000mhz...in the end all that matter is performance increase...and it seem like they nailed it...and power efficiency...well 3x per/watt ain't bad!

[tsk]

13 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

Isnt AMD's Polaris on 14nm Finfet? In theory that should be a significant difference compared to Nvidia's 16 nm?

No, TSMC 16nm and GloFo 14nm are very similar, both based on 20nm with finfets slapped on.

[captainespinoza]

STICKY WHEN

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

32 minutes ago, super_skank said:

anyone else see the correlation of what Nvidia are doing with the clock speeds, as AMD did with CPU clock speeds, when they could keep up with Intel's more efficient lower clocked architecture just a few years ago?

Nvidia had real problems they had to solve with their compute, maybe that's what's hurting their IPC. Quantum Break is the biggest example of this, those compute effects murder Maxwell while Hawaii handles them much better. If Pascal still sucks in that game then that could be an indication it's not worth buying.

[pagani123]

does the reference card even come with a backplate because all the pictures i have seen have omitted the backside of the gpu 

[Misanthrope]

18 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Nvidia had real problems they had to solve with their compute, maybe that's what's hurting their IPC. Quantum Break is the biggest example of this, those compute effects murder Maxwell while Hawaii handles them much better. If Pascal still sucks in that game then that could be an indication it's not worth buying.

I think they might be able to just brute force their way to current titles if they are sitting on this much performance. However that's if you believe them: I think it's hard to believe a simple driver update makes the card jump from barely beating the 980ti to beating 2 of them as they are claiming so you might have a point after all.

[ivan134]

31 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Nvidia had real problems they had to solve with their compute, maybe that's what's hurting their IPC. Quantum Break is the biggest example of this, those compute effects murder Maxwell while Hawaii handles them much better. If Pascal still sucks in that game then that could be an indication it's not worth buying.

Notice how there was zero talk about dx 12? I feel like they're trying to pull wool over our eyes. I'll reserve judgement until we get final products.

[MEC-777]

42 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Notice how there was zero talk about dx 12? I feel like they're trying to pull wool over our eyes. I'll reserve judgement until we get final products.

It's up to the game devs to implement the features DX12 and take advantage of the hardware. 

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, MEC-777 said:

It's up to the game devs to implement and take advantage of DX12. 

Yes,  but the hardware still needs to be there. I hope Nvidia is no banking on dx 11 out staying its welcome. 

[MEC-777]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Yes,  but the hardware still needs to be there. I hope Nvidia is no banking on dx 11 out staying its welcome. 

It's probably a given they are fully dx12 compatible, seeing as that's the next major API devs will be moving to. 

[Xyes]

My sibling needs a new graphics card, so I'll probably get one of these 2 and hand-me-down my 980.  The question is, which to get?  What kind of customer is the target for the 1080?

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

It's probably a given they are fully dx12 compatible, seeing as that's the next major API devs will be moving to. 

Which is why it was strange to me that they didn't talk about it at all. The other new tech they showed was cool, but no discussion about the next API. I just want actual confirmation of what Pascal actually is. More performance than 980 SLI in an API that is on it's way out the door means absolutely nothing to me.

[ivan134]

18 minutes ago, Xyes said:

My sibling needs a new graphics card, so I'll probably get one of these 2 and hand-me-down my 980.  The question is, which to get?  What kind of customer is the target for the 1080?

Just like the 980, the 1080 looks like it's bad value compared to the 1070. Judging by specs, the 1080 seems to be 20% faster at most and costs 50% more than a 1070.

[Lays]

9 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Just like the 980, the 1080 looks like it's bad value compared to the 1070. Judging by specs, the 1080 seems to be 20% faster at most and costs 50% more than a 1070.

Obviously it's not going to be a 1:1 scale of price to performance, the higher end stuff will always have worse perf per dollar

[DXMember]

is it just me or nVidia VRWorks Audio is AMD Open Source TrueAudio from 2013?

[ivan134]

16 minutes ago, Lays said:

Obviously it's not going to be a 1:1 scale of price to performance, the higher end stuff will always have worse perf per dollar

They still need to do a better job with the price. The performance increase is nice, but the 1080 looks really unattractive to me considering the price of the 1070.

[Lays]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

They still need to do a better job with the price. The performance increase is nice, but the 1080 looks really unattractive to me considering the price of the 1070.

Look at it this way....

 

They're claiming it's 22% faster than a Titan X, for $600...  The price is perfectly fine.

[ivan134]

7 minutes ago, Lays said:

Look at it this way....

 

They're claiming it's 22% faster than a Titan X, for $600...  The price is perfectly fine.

Not really. 1080 is a smaller chip and is cheaper to produce than a Titan x regardless of whether the 1080 is faster. Paying 50% more for what seems like 20 % increased performance over the 1070 is ridiculous to me. A 30 to 35% increase in price would be a lot more bearable. The 1070 looks like infinitely better value. 

[Lays]

32 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Not really. 1080 is a smaller chip and is cheaper to produce than a Titan x regardless of whether the 1080 is faster. Paying 50% more for what seems like 20 % increased performance over the 1070 is ridiculous to me. A 30 to 35% increase in price would be a lot more bearable. The 1070 looks like infinitely better value. 

Value is all relative to the person buying it.

 

If it's faster than a Titan X for less money, and faster than a 980 TI for essentially the same price as the 980 ti "was", I have absolutely no problem accepting it as a value option.

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, Lays said:

Value is all relative to the person buying it.

 

If it's faster than a Titan X for less money, and faster than a 980 TI for essentially the same price as the 980 ti "was", I have absolutely no problem accepting it as a value option.

The 980 was the same vs the 780 ti and the general consensus was that the 980 want great value either over a 970. Same with the 390x and price difference between that and a 390 was even less. The way i see it, if someone really wants a high performing pascal card, they're better off waiting for GP100. And if you want the best bang for your buck, very a 1070. The staggered release is what is making the 1080 look way more attractive than it actually is. 

[Lays]

26 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

The 980 was the same vs the 780 ti and the general consensus was that the 980 want great value either over a 970. Same with the 390x and price difference between that and a 390 was even less. The way i see it, if someone really wants a high performing pascal card, they're better off waiting for GP100. And if you want the best bang for your buck, very a 1070. The staggered release is what is making the 1080 look way more attractive than it actually is. 

 

People will always shell out for the best, not everyone has to worry about getting the best bang for their buck, some people have expendable funds and will always shell out for the best performance.

I get that price to performance is extremely important, but not everyone falls under the woes of spending 50% more to get 20% more performance.

 

I myself will get a 1080, and then when the 1080 ti comes out, I will probably get that as well.   In the grand scheme of things, ~200-300$ every 6-12 months for more performance out of your system isn't really that much money.

[shdowhunt60]

While the cards are certainly impressive, this does validate awhile back what Roy Taylor said AMD and nVidia are competing in two entirely different markets. These are both very expensive cards, targeting the high end.

 

What I didn't expect is Nvidia going for the throat on VR; that performance leap is astronomical. It's far more elegant than AMD's solution of using multiple GPU's for VR. This could seriously hurt AMD's gameplan to try and gain market dominance through VR.

 

This is a very interesting start, I'm highly interested to see where it goes once the 1080 ti and Vega hit the scene.