Looks like info on the GTX 1070 is out!

[GiSWiG]

Just google 'GTX 1070' It's all quite fresh:

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/222537/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-specifications-revealed

http://wccftech.com/gtx-1070-1920-cuda-cores/

http://videocardz.com/60127/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-has-1920-cuda-cores

 

Linus, Luke, you're up...

[Simon771]

Well that's dissapointing.

I was hoping on 2048 cores at 1700MHz.

 

Quote

15 out of 20 streaming multiprocessors enabled on the GP104 silicon

So if I understand that correct, it has the same chip as 1080, but they disabled 5 streaming multiprocessors?

Can't wait for someone to "enable" all of those multiprocessors  

 

If those are even real infos.

 

I had higher hopes for GTX 1070, but with 1920 cores at 1600MHz ... kinda hard to be better than gtx titan x or gtx 980 ti. Probbably better only in VR and not real games + benchmarks.

[LeStringMan]

Well this makes Polaris even more interesting, 8gb Gddr5x, 2048 stream processors and under $299? Should be pretty close to 1070 performance while being cheaper.

[Malaki Titi]

1 minute ago, Simon771 said:

Well that's dissapointing.

I was hoping on 2048 cores at 1700MHz.

 

So if I understand that correct, it has the same chip as 1080, but they disabled 5 streaming multiprocessors?

Can't wait for someone to "enable" all of those multiprocessors  

 

If those are even real infos.

I remember about 10 years ago when I bought a 6800LE.
With the help of RivaTuner, I was able to unlock the locked pipelines and I was able to turn it into a 6800.

[Simon771]

8 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

Well this makes Polaris even more interesting, 8gb Gddr5x, 2048 stream processors and under $299? Should be pretty close to 1070 performance while being cheaper.

Where did you get those infos? And you forgot to factor core speed.

Also AMD GPU cores can't compare to CUDA cores.

Just like AMD CPU cores can't compare to Intel CPU cores.

[Spectrez]

2 minutes ago, Simon771 said:

Where did you get those infos? And you forgot to factor core speed.

Also AMD GPU cores can't compare to CUDA cores.

Just like AMD CPU cores can't compare to Intel CPU cores.

lets not get ahead of our selfs here.

 

we know nothing concrete about the actual performance of amds chip, be it Zen or polaris.

 

AMD's current cpus are ancient, and we need to remember this. their GPU lineup did fine, even beating Nvidia on many of the midrange price groups.

[Malaki Titi]

Quote

However, principally Pascal still can’t execute async code concurrently without pre-emption. This is quite different from AMD’s GCN architecture which has Asynchronous Compute Engines and hardware schedulers that enable the execution of multiple kernels concurrently without pre-emption or context switching.

We all saw how the 1080 took care of that problem.  LOL!

If the 1070 is as powerful as Nvidia cays it is, this so called trump card of AMD needs to meet my Zippo lighter and be burned.

[Simon771]

4 minutes ago, Spectrez said:

lets not get ahead of our selfs here.

 

we know nothing concrete about the actual performance of amds chip, be it Zen or polaris.

 

AMD's current cpus are ancient, and we need to remember this. their GPU lineup did fine, even beating Nvidia on many of the midrange price groups.

That's true. But AMD seems to have lower clock speeds, so higher core number doesn't mean anything for them realy.

Take Fury X for example. 4096 cores, and can't beat 980 ti with 2860 cores. In most games at least

I'm not a fan boy, but that's just a fact that noticed.

 

But you are right. I could be wrong. Maybe AMD will blow our minds with something insane.

[GiSWiG]

Rumors do have some truth but I wait for reliable sources before getting excited. That being said, I'm not so sure that the R9 490 will be all that better than the R9 390. Newer tech yes, but I wonder what innovations AMD will bring compared to what nvidia is bringing.

 

Everything I've seen points to more performance per dollar and slightly cheaper when it comes to the R9 400 series. I only had a 750w PSU and it is quite enough for one R9 390 but two would be pushing it, if not downright impossible. Maybe I can get two R9 490s but for what? I can get a GTX 1080 if I want but I'll probably end up getting a 1070 and then add another in a year or two.

[Malaki Titi]

Polaris is shooting for R9 380 performance.  That song is done.

 

RIP Fury.

 

 

[Simon771]

2 minutes ago, GiSWiG said:

Rumors do have some truth but I wait for reliable sources before getting excited. That being said, I'm not so sure that the R9 490 will be all that better than the R9 390. Newer tech yes, but I wonder what innovations AMD will bring compared to what nvidia is bringing.

 

Everything I've seen points to more performance per dollar and slightly cheaper when it comes to the R9 400 series. I only had a 750w PSU and it is quite enough for one R9 390 but two would be pushing it, if not downright impossible. Maybe I can get two R9 490s but for what? I can get a GTX 1080 if I want but I'll probably end up getting a 1070 and then add another in a year or two.

Polaris is focused on lower power consumption (probbably lower temps also), for same performance and a bit lower price. I don't think Polaris will release any card that will be able to beat current R9 390.

However, there were some rummors about Vega being released at the end of the year. That one will focus on performance.

[LeStringMan]

12 minutes ago, Simon771 said:

That's true. But AMD seems to have lower clock speeds, so higher core number doesn't mean anything for them realy.

Take Fury X for example. 4096 cores, and can't beat 980 ti with 2860 cores. In most games at least

I'm not a fan boy, but that's just a fact that noticed.

 

But you are right. I could be wrong. Maybe AMD will blow our minds with something insane.

Yes but the look at compute performance, fury x is at 8.5 Tflops, 1080 sits at 9 right?. Also 2048 stream processors and 8gb of gddr5x on a 256 bit bus has been reported by several different sites, with a clock speed of 1340mhz, just google polaris 10. Of course like every one else has said none of this is official from AMD until June 1st, which is when they are to debut. The 1080 seems like a great card and all but its DX12 performance is a little less than i was expecting, you know unless game devs are gonna use DX11 for all eternity where maxwell/pascal have many advantages over GCN.

[Malaki Titi]

5 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

The 1080 seems like a great card and all but its DX12 performance is a little less than i was expecting, you know unless game devs are gonna use DX11 for all eternity where maxwell/pascal have many advantages over GCN.

You're kidding right?  Were you living under a rock?

The 1080 obliterated the Fury X with an average of 35% margin on DX12 benchmarks of Tomb Raider, Hitman and Ashes.

[Malaki Titi]

Not to mention the Fury X costs more and has 1/2 the vram of the 1080.

The Fury X's death certificate has been signed and notarized.  It'll be delivered in AMD's mailbox soon.

[LeStringMan]

5 minutes ago, Malaki Titi said:

You're kidding right?  Were you living under a rock?

The 1080 obliterated the Fury X with an average of 35% margin on DX12 benchmarks of Tomb Raider, Hitman and Ashes.

at 4k it literally beats the Fury by an incredible 5 fps.... Yea it has half the vram but nearly 200gb/s more bandwidth .

[Malaki Titi]

9 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

at 4k it literally beats the Fury by an incredible 5 fps.... Yea it has half the vram but nearly 200gb/s more bandwidth .

9 fps is actually a big deal when talking about such high resolutions.

 

In this one, 18 frames per second is a HUGE leap.

 

Keep in mind these are AMD titles where the 1080 is beating team red's brains out while using 1st release drivers.

Expect the gap to widen as they days go by.

[LeStringMan]

1 minute ago, Malaki Titi said:

9 fps is actually a big deal when talking about such high resolutions.

 

In this one, 19 frames per second is a HUGE leap.

 

Keep in mind these are AMD titles where the 1080 is beating team red's brains out while using virgin drivers.

Expect the gap to widen as they days go by.

And Ashes of the singularity where it gets 5-6 more fps... my point was that yes the card is great in DX11 and DX12 but the 4k performance is a little underwhelming, all AMD would have to do to match or exceed the 1080s performance would be a die shrink of the Fury.

[Malaki Titi]

If the 1070 exchanges blows with the Titan, then this $380 Nvidia card will utterly destroy AMD's $650 flagship.

If the 1060 matches the 980's performance and sells for $200... I'm sorry to break it to you, but AMD's hold of the 380 segment is lost.

If the 1050 matches the 970's performance... oh man.  What a massacre it would be.

[LeStringMan]

3 minutes ago, Malaki Titi said:

If the 1070 exchanges blows with the Titan, then this $380 Nvidia card will utterly destroy AMD's $650 flagship.

If the 1060 matches the 980's performance and sells for $200... I'm sorry to break it to you, but AMD's hold of the 380 segment is lost.

If the 1050 matches the 970's performance... oh man.  What a massacre it would be.

But we know nothing of Polaris or Vega yet... or the other pascal cards they could be re brands for all we know at this point, thats like me saying what if the r7 450 has over 90000000000 gbs of HBM3 and sell for 22 cents, Fockin rip nVidia.

[Malaki Titi]

6 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

And Ashes of the singularity where it gets 5-6 more fps... my point was that yes the card is great in DX11 and DX12 but the 4k performance is a little underwhelming, all AMD would have to do to match or exceed the 1080s performance would be a die shrink of the Fury.

The 1080 actually has a 17 fps lead over the Fury X in Ashes

No, it's going to take more than a die shrink to catch the 1080.

[LeStringMan]

2 minutes ago, Malaki Titi said:

The 1080 actually has a 17 fps lead over the Fury X in Ashes

No, it's going to take more than a die shrink to catch the 1080.

You're so biased its not even funny friend.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pascal,4572-6.html

[Malaki Titi]

3 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

But we know nothing of Polaris or Vega yet... or the other pascal cards they could be re brands for all we know at this point, thats like me saying what if the r7 450 has over 90000000000 gbs of HBM3 and sell for 22 cents, Fockin rip nVidia.

From AMD's lips came out that Polaris is a die shrink for the successor of the 380.  There's nothing "high end" on the horizon for Polaris.

 

As for Vega... who knows.  But I think it would have been wiser to shoot for the high end territory and let it trickle down the line.  Rather than focus on the low end, and scrub your work bench and build a high end from the ground up.

[Malaki Titi]

2 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

You're so biased its not even funny friend.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pascal,4572-6.html

I didn't author the source that I cited.  If you don't like what you're seeing, don't get mad at the mirror.

[TheRandomness]

1 hour ago, Malaki Titi said:

Polaris is shooting for R9 380 performance.  That song is done.

 

RIP Fury.

 

 

The bias is unreal.

[LeStringMan]

5 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

The bias is unreal.

It's funny right.