GTX 980ti > GTX 1070

[i_build_nanosuits]

Well...at least on early drivers nvidia will make sure the 1070 outperform the 980ti in the months to come i'm sure!

[Hunter259]

But as performance per dollar goes the 1070 is a MUCH better deal. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, Hunter259 said:

But as performance per dollar goes the 1070 is a MUCH better deal. 

Obviously...

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Hunter259 said:

But as performance per dollar goes the 1070 is a MUCH better deal. 

of course it is it's a great card don't get me wrong...it's EPIC in fact.

[Hunched]

The 1070 is not as close to the 1080 as the 970 was to the 980.

It's not as impressive, and they're really opening themselves up to get destroyed by the R9 490 provided AMD doesn't fuck up.

They already destroyed the 970 with a card of equal performance and double the VRAM for the same price.

 

Now Nvidia is being stupid and relaxing, deciding not to push the boundaries as far as they did with the 970, charging more and providing less.

AMD is really being given an opportunity here, hopefully they don't fuck up.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, Hunched said:

 they're really opening themselves up to get destroyed by the R9 490 provided AMD doesn't fuck up.

AMD is really being given an opportunity here, hopefully they don't fuck up.

of course they will...don't even worry about that...polaris 10 is said to only be around R9 390X performance...which will get slaughtered by even the GTX 1060 IMHO.

[i_build_nanosuits]

22 minutes ago, brubru1998 said:

[removed]

if you're doing 1080p gaming the GTX 970 is still a very capable card...games aren't really keeping up with the cards these days...most of them run well on even a GTX 960 at 1080p...so yeah....those cards are overkill...1440p 144hz or better otherwise you're putting money in the toilet IMHO.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Godlygamer23
Clean up.

[PlayStation 2]

I love suckers who buy into overpriced shit. That leaves the last gen high end shit for us who waited at cheap prices.

[Arc_Jester]

7 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

of course they will...don't even worry about that...polaris 10 is said to only be around R9 390X performance...

That is BS, if you read this and use a bit of common sense you will see the  480 will be around the R9 Nano and the Fury (non X) in performance.

 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, Arc_Jester said:

That is BS,if you read this and use a bit of common sense you will see the  480 will be around the R9 Nano and the Fury (non X) in performance

pfff...even then...have you looked at the benchmarks?! the GTX 1070 annihilate the FuryX to no end dude...

[aisle9]

Just saw a YouTube review from Gamers Nexus that had it beating the 980 Ti in most situations and trading blows with it in others, never really getting stomped by the last-gen architecture. As thrilled as I am with early reviews of the 1070, I'm still going to wait and see what AMD has for us before making a decision. I don't really feel like I can lose at this point. 1440p monitor, here we come

[Godlygamer23]

Keep the thread on topic. 

[BuckGup]

31 minutes ago, Hunched said:

The 1070 is not as close to the 1080 as the 970 was to the 980.

It's not as impressive, and they're really opening themselves up to get destroyed by the R9 490 provided AMD doesn't fuck up.

They already destroyed the 970 with a card of equal performance and double the VRAM for the same price.

 

Now Nvidia is being stupid and relaxing, deciding not to push the boundaries as far as they did with the 970, charging more and providing less.

AMD is really being given an opportunity here, hopefully they don't fuck up.

Look someone else gets it.

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

Look someone else gets it.

if polaris 10 is as fast as say an R9 Fury but come in at a good price (sub 300$USD) then it might be something good...but vega...by the time this comes out i think the big pascal chip will be on the horizon...but again if vega is as fast as a GTX 1080 for a bit less money this can be good as well... (since we HAVE to be talking AMD in this nvidia thread apparently ) it's all good.

[BuckGup]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

if polaris 10 is as fast as say an R9 Fury but come in at a good price (sub 300$USD) then it might be something good...but vega...by the time this comes out i think the big pascal chip will be on the horizon...but again if vega is as fast as a GTX 1080 for a bit less money this can be good as well... (since we HAVE to be talking AMD in this nvidia thread apparently ) it's all good.

Hey I didn't start it. I just don't like to see companies sitting around and bathing in the money. Not because I want cheaper cards, more FPS, or anything like that. I just want to be able to upload my concussions to a computer and live forever before I die, and companies not innovating are pushing my dream away

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

Hey I didn't start it. I just don't like to see companies sitting around and bathing in the money. Not because I want cheaper cards, more FPS, or anything like that. I just want to be able to upload my concussions to a computer and live forever before I die, and companies not innovating are pushing my dream away

i feel you

no you're right...but i don't think nvidia is sitting on it's ass with pascal...it's a HUGE performance jump.

if you compare the GTX 1070 to the card it SHOULD be compaired to in terms of size, power consumption and price (the GTX 970) it's a LOT faster...PC per in their review mentioned words for words ''The GTX 1070 is NEVER LESS than 52% faster than the GTX 970 at 1440p and can go up to 100% faster in some situations'' this is IMHO nothing to sneeze at.

[Hunched]

6 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i feel you

no you're right...but i don't think nvidia is sitting on it's ass with pascal...it's a HUGE performance jump.

if you compare the GTX 1070 to the card it SHOULD be compaired to in terms of size and power consumption (the GTX 970) it's a LOT faster...PC per in their review mentioned words for words ''The GTX 1070 is NEVER LESS than 52% faster than the GTX 970 and can go up to 100% faster in some situations'' this is IMHO nothing to sneeze at.

You're still missing the point of my post as to why the 1070 isn't as impressive as the 970 was at launch.

The 970 was closer to the 980 in performance than the 1070 is to the 1080.

Both the 970 and 1070 are cut down from their bigger brothers, 980 and 1080.

They cut down the 1070 from the 1080 MORE than they cut down the 970 from the 980.

The 1070 does not gain as much from overclocking as the 970 does either as reviews are showing.

 

Yes, the 1070 performs a lot better than the 970. Nobody is arguing that, that isn't even what is being discussed.

We are discussing relations of the x70 to x80 and generation performance leaps.

 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, Hunched said:

You're still missing the point of my post as to why the 1070 isn't as impressive as the 970 was at launch.

The 970 was closer to the 980 in performance than the 1070 is to the 1080.

Both the 970 and 1070 are cut down from their bigger brothers, 980 and 1080.

They cut down the 1070 from the 1080 MORE than they cut down the 970 from the 980.

The 1070 does not gain as much from overclocking as the 970 does either as reviews are showing.

 

Yes, the 1070 is a lot better than the 970. Nobody is arguing that, that isn't even what is being discussed.

 

 

i know the cuda core reduction on the GTX 1070 vs 1080 is more significant...probably because the yields for those little chips are very good and nvidia has a lot of those ''perfect'' GP104 GPU's on hand...so they are trying to push the GTX 1080 on you for that particular reason.

 

Now, will AMD take advantage of this or not remains to be seen...but usually big companies like that have a good idea of what the opposite force is working on and if nvidia made the 33% cuda core cut on the 1070 it's probably because they know that even then AMD will not have any direct competition for this card any time soon.

[BuckGup]

5 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i feel you

no you're right...but i don't think nvidia is sitting on it's ass with pascal...it's a HUGE performance jump.

if you compare the GTX 1070 to the card it SHOULD be compaired to in terms of size, power consumption and price (the GTX 970) it's a LOT faster...PC per in their review mentioned words for words ''The GTX 1070 is NEVER LESS than 52% faster than the GTX 970 at 1440p and can go up to 100% faster in some situations'' this is IMHO nothing to sneeze at.

See here's the thing. My father worked in the early days of Cray making the Cray 1 and many other marvelous machines. The GPU went from 28nm to 16nm which is a pretty big jump. From this we should see increased clock speeds which we did so it is following the trend so far. I am by no means capable to explain this well enough so sorry but you should really talk to a professor or a computer engineer on this but jumping from 28nm to 16nm should have yielded much higher results. Now the performance we are seeing is the jump but it is not nearly what it could be. Probably due to Nvidia hyping it up and wanting to sell if before AMD. The next generation we will see much better performance still at 16nm though and so on. You might think this is typical which for a GPU company aimed at gamers it makes sense. But in the old days (sound like an old man) when there was a shrink it was refined and tested true and yielded much higher results quicker. 

[Hunched]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

if nvidia made the 33% cuda core cut on the 1070 it's probably because they know that even then AMD will not have any direct competition for this card any time soon.

Which is bad for consumers if they're going to start cutting down the x70 more and more every generation because they don't fear their competition.

We don't want each x70 leap to get smaller, and for the gap between x70 and x80 to continue growing larger. 

Especially when they're charging more for the 1070 than they did the 970.

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, Hunched said:

Which is bad for consumers if they're going to start cutting down the x70 more and more every generation because they don't fear their competition.

We don't want each x70 leap to get smaller, and for the gap between x70 and x80 to continue growing larger. 

Especially when they're charging more for the 1070 than they did the 970.

gap from X70 to X80 growing is indeed bad...

but the X70 to X70 leap this time around is massive...and the price did not increased that drastically IMHO...it did, but it's reasonable considering the games are not even keeping up with the GPU's nowadays...you can still max out just about any game out there on even a stock clocked GTX 970...the GTX 1070 will be relevant a long long time i think so it's a good place to spend your money IMHO...you get a lot of GPU for the price and it will keep you happy for a long time...and should retain a decent re-sell value.

[ivan134]

9 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

See here's the thing. My father worked in the early days of Cray making the Cray 1 and many other marvelous machines. The GPU went from 28nm to 16nm which is a pretty big jump. From this we should see increased clock speeds which we did so it is following the trend so far. I am by no means capable to explain this well enough so sorry but you should really talk to a professor or a computer engineer on this but jumping from 28nm to 16nm should have yielded much higher results. Now the performance we are seeing is the jump but it is not nearly what it could be. Probably due to Nvidia hyping it up and wanting to sell if before AMD. The next generation we will see much better performance still at 16nm though and so on. You might think this is typical which for a GPU company aimed at gamers it makes sense. But in the old days (sound like an old man) when there was a shrink it was refined and tested true and yielded much higher results quicker. 

The performance increase are there alright. It's Nvidia's prices that are making it seem otherwise. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

The performance increase are there alright. It's Nvidia's prices that are making it seem otherwise. 

pricing on these do make me fear about how much they will ask for the next titan and then the GTX 1080ti...if this card is going to be 899$USD for example...i'm out...cause this would be like 1299$CAD...

[BuckGup]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

pricing on these do make me fear about how much they will ask for the next titan and then the GTX 1080ti...if this card is going to be 899$USD for example...i'm out...cause this would be like 1299$CAD...

It is suppose to be $1499. Do to yield problems

[i_build_nanosuits]

10 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

It is suppose to be $1499. Do to yield problems

seriously? for the Titan right? not the 1080ti?!

Titan i have no problem...it's an enthusiast grade product meant for die hard fanboys...they can ask 5000$ for it i do not care at all...but the 1080ti if it's more than 799$USD it stays on the shelf as far as i'm concerned.