Nvidia GTX 10 Series, Who is it for?

[handymanshandle]

7 minutes ago, Lukiose said:

Based on reviews the 480 is a great solo card but it seems to scale terribly in CF for some reason, to the point where 2x 480 = 1070.

So if you are at 1080p now it's probably best to just grab the cheapest RX480 you can find, and get a new card for 1440p next year.

Well this would be my first build, and trying to cut back on costs and get it down to a point where I'm still not sacrificing too much so I would be buying a new 1080p monitor. Like Sapphire Ed has said is that if you're going to do CF, then grab the 8GB card if you're just going for 1080p just save some money and get the 4GB card. But yeah I'm thinking I may go with the 4GB model instead, and Sapphire will for sure have a 4GB Nitro which will hopefully not mean I'm sacrificing anything aesthetically. I was planning on going with a 1070 and a 1440p monitor but the costs I was looking at was about US$1.7k and I was kinda getting uncertain if I was going to be able to save up that much fast enough. US$1.3k is a little more comfortable. The only thing I'll really be sacrificing is 1440p and 80 or so fps at 1440p and not 80 or so fps at 1080p.

7 minutes ago, Lukiose said:

Which card will depend on the state of the market.. If Vega turns out to be a disappointment then we will continue getting fucked by Nvidia's high prices, at this point we can only hope Vega is like AMD's 7870/7950/7970 when they were released up against the 660/670/680. The cards were so powerful and cheap that it forced Nvidia to release a 660ti to fill in a new bracket and drop prices on the 670 in order to compete.  If the same thing happens then the 1070 and 1080 will likely have minor price cuts in the future

Yeah, I do hope Vega can be AMD's come back architecture. I started paying attention to PC parts back in 2014, and I remember that the R9 290 and R9 290X were both really good cards but then the 300 series kinda got a bad name because AMD didn't really do anything too new. And the 480 is kinda the glimmering hope that AMD can make great stuff again.

[App4that]

7 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

AMDs new "wonder card" is their mid tear card........Vega is when you should really be comparing new AMD GPUs 

I meant no disrespect. The RX 480 holds its own with a 390 and as I owned one I know what a power card that is. And it's 100us cheaper. Hence wonder card. And we haven't seen what the RX 480 can do with beefy power delivery and a open cooler. The 1060 has a tough job ahead of it.

 

But since the 480 matches a 390 the comparison of the 970 to the 480 is valid. 

[wolfsbane3083]

I've got my GTX 1080 arriving today (finally). I know you guys are going to hate this but I game at 1080p 60hz  There are a few reasons why I've bought this card though.

 

1 - To replace my GTX 780 SLI (which technically should be on par with a 980Ti). As the amount of heat they produce is ridiculous and uncomfortable.

2 - Even at 1080p I'm hitting 100% usage on both cards in some games with the settings cranked to max.

3 - I'm using up all 3GB of vram in some games too, or I have to turn down textures in some, so I need that 8GB.

4 - I want to try the new features of Pascal and to also catch up on all the technologies that I've missed from not having Maxwell.

5 - Silence, at full load these cards get ear-bleedingly loud, gone for an EVGA FTW with the large 100mm fans to aid with noise.

6 - At some point within the next year I'm probably going to end up buying a VR headset and a 55" 4k TV to game on.

7 - To go with the 4k TV I'm also going to need HDMI 2.0 which my current cards don't have.

 

[DrMacintosh]

32 minutes ago, App4that said:

I meant no disrespect. The RX 480 holds its own with a 390 and as I owned one I know what a power card that is. And it's 100us cheaper. Hence wonder card. And we haven't seen what the RX 480 can do with beefy power delivery and a open cooler. The 1060 has a tough job ahead of it.

 

But since the 480 matches a 390 the comparison of the 970 to the 480 is valid. 

Yes you are right in terms of performance, but I was talking price. 

[Techicolors]

1 hour ago, Lukiose said:

A 980ti at 1400mhz will perform equal or better than a 1070 at 1900mhz because of poor scaling in Pascal i believe. So at this point it's a choice between the increased efficiency and relevance of the newer cards vs saving a little to grab a 980ti.

not sure what you mean by pascal having poor scaling. my 1070 scales just fine 

[mrchow19910319]

1 hour ago, Annoyingnerds said:

There are also people that bought top notch PC Parts just because the got fuck tons of  money without understanding what is it for and how would they perform side to side with the other parts, and they still plays at Medium settings, I believe they don't even know how to tweak their settings and turn off motion blur

Yeah. There are people like that. 

Not to be too judgemental though, they'll just tell you : "I want the best of the best PC. I don't care how much it costs."

[mrchow19910319]

1 hour ago, glitchmaster0001 said:

most people dont spend more than $200 on a card. hell my dad freaked out when i bought a $150 GTX 950 last year. hes all like "honestly id just buy a cheap $30 video card and call it a day" and "$150 is almost enough to buy a new low end PC" 

It is all about double standard. 

 

"I don't get kids days that spend so much money on video games and pcs and even phones or tablets. Back in my days we were happy with a new bicycle. "

"Dad what about all those cigarette you smoke, and all those beers and expensive wine you drank? "

"Watch who you are talking to kid, there are things that adults do that you are simply too young to understand. We are adults, THATS WHAT WE DO."

 

I fucking hate that saying. "We are adults, that's what grown ups do."

You mean you spend all your money on booze and hooker and drink yourself till other people call you stupid? Is that what you do??

Being stupid is what adults do? 

Sometimes people are just full of shit....

 

 

Sorry for the rant tough. I've been eating too much lately, 

[Lukiose]

33 minutes ago, Technicolors said:

not sure what you mean by pascal having poor scaling. my 1070 scales just fine 

A 1070 overclocked from 1700 core clock to 2050 [Pascal soft limit at 2.1ghz, nobody seems to break it so far except GALAX on LN2] barely increases in performance. (2-3fps)

On the contrary, a 980ti at reference 1000 core clock has massive gains [in some cases up to 15-20fps] from being overclocked to 1400mhz. Almost all 980tis can reach this clock while still keeping stable and if you hit the silicone lottery you will be punching 1500mhz.

 

As a result an overclocked 980ti is about even with an overclocked 1070 at the moment, although it emits more heat and consumes more power.
 

For more info you can check out 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1601896/overclockersclub-overclock-showdown-gtx-980ti-vs-gtx-1070-vs-gtx-1080

 

Here's Slick going: meh @ the overclocking of 1070

 

[mrchow19910319]

1 hour ago, glitchmaster0001 said:

for me i never upgrade my computer, i just build something top of the line at the time and use it for a decade or so or until it breaks 

That is actually a great strategy. 

Instead of buying all the "hype" those companies created, that's what all of us should do. 

[Annoyingnerds]

2 hours ago, wcreek said:

Lol, EVGA is only charging $40 more for their cooler. Anyways, once I get a job I'm saving for a build with an i5 6600K and RX 480 (and a few other things).  (http://pcpartpicker.com/list/fvmjyf) That RX 480 is just a place holder though.

 

Oh yeah, I don't have a whole lot of choice but to wait. I'm planning on going for a RX 480 though.

Yeah, I know the 980ti is pretty similar than a 1070.

So when I hopefully go 1440p next year, I should just buy a Vega card instead of doing CF with an RX 480 so I should just get the 4GB model then right?

Goodluck man, with your build

[PianoPlayer88Key]

I too am one that likes to keep my PCs a long time if I can.

 

My own first PC was built in February 2008 around an Athlon 64 X2 4000+, 4 GB RAM (started with 2GB), ATI X1250 iGPU, a TB or 2 of HDD storage, etc.  The motherboard died in early 2012, so I used my dad's Dell D830 (C2D T7250, 2GB RAM, 500GB HDD, etc) for a while.  He's still using it now.  Had I had money at that time, I probably would have gotten a Sandy Bridge system built around the 2500K, and would likely still be using it now.

 

My 2nd is my current one from January 2015, built around an i7-4790K, 32GB RAM, Intel HD 4600 iGPU, 256GB SATA SSD, 12TB of HDDs, etc.  I'm hoping to get a GPU sometime this year.  I'll go for a 1070 *IF* I can get a dual-fan open-air design for the announced MSRP of $379, otherwise I'll probably go for a 1060 depending on reviews.  (I've already rejected the AMD 4x0 series because performance/watt, and also silence, is also important to me.)

 

In the event that my PC doesn't break before I decide it's too old, I have a few criteria I use to decide if it's time to upgrade.  Not all of them have to be met, although it would be nice.

• ~3-5x or more performance or capacity at the same price
• New low-end hardware outperforms my hardware generation's high end, or even just outperforms mine.
• Nearly constantly maxing-out resources with no upgrade path without changing the motherboard, and/or things take a long time to do, have to turn down settings/expectations, etc.

Also, reading another post, I was reminded that people will sell their parts to upgrade and try to save some money that way.  (I do think it would have been crazy to sell a 4770K to get a 4790K though!)  Usually, I like to keep my parts until they're worth almost nothing.  For example if I had like an i7-920 and a GTX 280, they'd be old enough to retire when I would be lucky to get like $15-20 total for both of them.

 

If I can afford it, using games in general as an example, I like to max out my monitor and settings, and if possible keep it maxed for a little while.  But as my hardware ages, I'm willing to turn the settings down.  I'm willing to go as low as like 20-25fps peak (10-15fps average) at 480p on low settings, in games that have dropped below $10 when NOT on sale, currently.  Back when Team Fortress Classic was first released, I used to play at like 8-12 fps at 240p on low, or something like that.

 

My iGPU isn't quite that bad yet, but I'm still looking at upgrading anyway.  If I'd already had a GPU, though ... whether I would upgrade to a 1060 or 1070, or keep my old one, depends on the generation I have, based on benchmarks I've looked up.  If I had a 460 or 470 I'd definitely keep it.  If I had a 260 or 275, I might still keep it, or I might upgrade.  If I had a 9800 or 8800 series, I'd likely upgrade.

 

----------------------

 

Something I'd like to know ... what specs might a 2008-vintage PC have that you'd still consider usable today for typical home/office use?  Assume you haven't upgraded anything since buying the system - still using, say, the original Q6600, GTX 260, 7.2k/10k rpm HDD (or SSD if you could get one then), etc.  My mom complains that my dad's Dell laptop (mentioned above) is dreadfully slow loading & doing things, but my dad doesn't like to frequently upgrade, because she gets thrown for a loop when they have to switch OS / software.  (They're STILL on XP!)

Would an $800-1200 budget including peripherals be good enough for them to last 8+ years?  Or, if they could only do like $400-500 and would need to upgrade after 3-4 years, could they reuse the same OS & software?  (I'd prefer they not have to reinstall, cause it's SOOO time consuming to set everything up; just essentially clone the SSD or reuse it with the new setup.)

[handymanshandle]

42 minutes ago, Annoyingnerds said:

Goodluck man, with your build

Thanks. Will be looking forward to the day hopefully around October or November when I can go on a bit of a shopping spree buying all those parts. Certainly will be fun. I just need to find a job soon. Only problem is, I haven't had the best luck trying to get into like a grocery store, so I might have to reluctantly go apply for some fast food job. Idk something about starting out in a job area where many teens have their first jobs, doesn't seem right to me. But I guess it might be my only option for being able to afford that $1.3k price tag then I guess so be it. 

 

Anyways I can save myself a little money by going with the 4GB model, and I recall Sapphire Ed saying that Sapphire would have the 4GB model launch alongside the 8GB model.

[Annoyingnerds]

4 hours ago, App4that said:

The 9 series gets way too much undeserved hate. Look at the 980ti, it trades blows with Nvidia's latest and greatest. The 970 trades blows with AMD's new wonder card. And Maxwell fucking overclocks. Meanwhile find someone who's gone over 2.2GHz on Pascal. 

 

The ten series is cool, don't get me wrong. But Maxwell is still a valid opinion. 

Maxwell is not obsolete.. Just yet, all in all Maxwell cards still could be a relevant choice to buy brand new. Plus, there are no game that is like Pascal exclusive well maybe VR but who the fuck wants to do VR as a daily gaming session. VR is still a kind of luxury that not every gamer got.

[Delicieuxz]

The GTX 10XX series is the 2016 equivalent of the GTX 9XX series in 2014, and a GTX 1070 isn't much more beastly for today's gaming than a GTX 970 was for gaming two years ago. If you want to play all games at max settings in 1080p, a GTX 1070 is the minimum card that's able to do that - and even then, some games might not make 60 FPS, like AC Black Flag with vsync turned on.

 

And then there is 1440p gaming, 4K gaming, 21:9 1080p / 1440p gaming, 144Hz gaming, VR, DSR... and not even a GTX 1080 conquers all of those things. And game performance requirements only increase with time. I don't see the GTX 1070 and 1080 as being out of place for their markets, but I see the graphics market having broadened substantially in different targets, with the 1070 and 1080 arriving well beneath the higher performance quotas available today.

 

1080p 60 FPS is going to progressively phase out of being the gaming standard, and it has already started happening. 1440p, with 120+ FPS will take over as the PC gaming standard, and the GTX 1070 can't run all games at 1440p and get 60 FPS. So, the 10XX lineup seems pretty reasonably-placed, and a normal GPU performance lineup for its market, to me.

[BrightCandle]

In die size its a smaller 980, that is all. The silicon process and the progress it brings in performance continues for GPU workloads. What is a little bit of a surprise is the vast price hike that came with the die size shrink, the 1000 series is quite expensive for what it is in the silicon world. When we compare it to the 980, the 680 and even older we are seeing a general trend of increasing prices for something that is a similar size. Its not like suddenly yields on 16nm are dramatically worse than they were at the beginning of 28nm or 40nm, if anything they are better as its a more mature process at this point. So we are being overpriced somewhat due to the gap from TSMC and this new silicon process but don't go thinking this is some ungodly improvement as its just Moore's law continuing on for GPUs. It'll come to a halt at some point but the industry sees its way to at least 2 more jumps currently and each will bring around 60-100% more performance or bring todays performance down to about half the price.

 

This has been happening for over a decade on GPUS its not exactly shocking at this point! Its been happening for consumer CPUS for 3 decades at least and otherwise since the invention of silicon transistors. Are we not bored by it already?! Its technically difficult but its not unexpected.

[Annoyingnerds]

3 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

The GTX 10XX series is the 2016 equivalent of the GTX 9XX series in 2014, and a GTX 1070 isn't much more beastly for today's gaming than a GTX 970 was for gaming two years ago. If you want to play all games at max settings in 1080p, a GTX 1070 is the minimum card that's able to do that - and even then, some games might not make 60 FPS, like AC Black Flag with vsync turned on.

 

And then there is 1440p gaming, 4K gaming, 21:9 1080p / 1440p gaming, 144Hz gaming, VR, DSR... and not even a GTX 1080 conquers all of those things. And game performance requirements only increase with time. I don't see the GTX 1070 and 1080 as being out of place for their markets, but I see the graphics market having broadened substantially in different targets, with the 1070 and 1080 arriving well beneath the higher performance quotas available today.

 

1080p 60 FPS is going to progressively phase out of being the gaming standard, and it has already started happening. 1440p, with 120+ FPS will take over as the PC gaming standard, and the GTX 1070 can't run all games at 1440p and get 60 FPS. So, the 10XX lineup seems pretty reasonably-placed, and a normal GPU performance lineup for its market, to me.

TL;DR what you're trying to say is that the 10 Series is the standard of high end,high performance gaming like what happened to the 9 Series in 2014?

[PlayStation 2]

13 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

IMHO, 400$+ GPU should be paired with at least a 400$ monitor...ideally with Gsync...1440p...etc.

So yeah...it's defenetly for the serious gamers...or 1080p gamers that want a lot of ''future-proofing'' from this purchase of a new video card cause lets be honest those things at 1080p will last years of maxing out the graphics at 60FPS+

daily reminder that I'm using a TV from 2009 with my 7850

[Delicieuxz]

25 minutes ago, Annoyingnerds said:

TL;DR what you're trying to say is that the 10 Series is the standard of high end,high performance gaming like what happened to the 9 Series in 2014?

I see it as normal, and what should be expected for the market that it's releasing in, whereas I see AMD's lineup as a serious miscalculation that is competing with 2014's GPU-generation. AMD's Raja said AMD was expecting the performance-graphics market to phase out, which is why AMD was re-releasing nearly the same graphical performance for the past 4 years. The last 4 years of GPU hardware slowdown was a first-time anomaly, and not what is normal.

 

The 10XX just seems normal to me, but I think there are people coming from console gaming who expect hardware to last forever, or people who starting paying attention to PC gaming just this past 5 years, and whose impressions are based off that ~5-year aberration of little GPU progress caused by the 360 / PS3 console generations' domination of game sales. But that's not how things go with PCs. Every other year should show significant progress in GPUs, and in PC gaming graphics. That's the historical norm.

 

A GTX 1070 / 980ti is minimum that's capable to play all games in 1080p at max settings. I don't see that as anything amazing. 2016 isn't 2014, and I see both those cards as being upper mid-tier.

[The Spark]

For someone who builds a rig and wants it to last about 4 years without thinking about upgrades anytime soon.

 

For someone who wants to game at 1440p with consistent 120fps+ performance.

 

For someone who just likes high scores in benchmarks.

 

For someone who´s life evolves around PCs and tech, I don't even own a car. All my money goes to tech. (dont need a car where I live in Denmark)

 

For someone who likes to brag on forums and doesn't get laid.

 

For someone who has lots of equal minded nerdy friends to fuel his enthusiasm for tech.

 

For someone who just has the money and doesn't know what to do with it.

 

For someone who likes to look at his rig and dream about VR being his girlfriend.

 

All of the above applies to me, I dare you to mock me !!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

[NegNoodles]

Like pretty much what everyone else here said, 1440p gaming. 1080p gaming would be overkill, tho I tried it regardless and indeed, I was getting average of 80+fps in Witcher 3 all maxed and 100+ in most other games. Fortunately, I have a x34 to accommodate this beast of a graphics card and finally challenging it to push itself to the limits

 

And VR of course. But TBH aside from GTA V and Witcher 3, I"m not even sure what other games are close in terms of demanding such graphical power. Its up to the buyer of course, if you have the money and need the upgrade, might as well go for the best.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, The Spark said:

For someone who wants to game at 1440p with consistent 120fps+ performance.

26 minutes ago, NegNoodles said:

Like pretty much what everyone else here said, 1440p gaming. 1080p gaming would be overkill, tho I tried it regardless and indeed, I was getting average of 80+fps in Witcher 3 all maxed and 100+ in most other games.

 

The GTX 1070 won't do 60 FPS in all games at 1440p, settings maxed, and anything less than a 980ti / 1070 can't do everything maxed settings in 1080p, 60 FPS. So, I don't see a 1070 as overkill for 1080p, but rather as just the bare-minimum required to play all things completely smooth at maxed settings. Also, it will continue to be that for the next couple of years.

 

Quote

And VR of course. But TBH aside from GTA V and Witcher 3, I"m not even sure what other games are close in terms of demanding such graphical power.

Assassin's Creed games, Crysis 3, Star Citizen, and hopefully many games to come out over the next couple of years.

[straight_stewie]

15 hours ago, Annoyingnerds said:

It has been 1 month after the release of GTX 10 Series, but I still cannot get a hold on who is it really for? It got a beasty power of a Titan for half the price and Super power efficient you could almost say that the GTX 10 Series had Irresponsible performance compared to any other GPU. The MSRP of GTX 1080 and 1070 is $599 and $375, but in reality The founders edition is Cheaper than the MSRP which usually come with custom built fans and housing, and sometime PCB. At first glance a Price tag of $375 on the 1070 is totally cheap for the performance of a Titan, and it's also Budget gamer friendly, but in reality that never really happened, now the 1070 and the 1080 is more of a enthusiast GPU because of the Price and the performance, but I don't really know.

Their two newest architectures, Pascal and Volta were/are being designed from the ground up to be compute cards in HPC machines. IMO Nvidia is moving their focus from consumer cards to High Performance Computing applications, and then building consumer cards out of those architectures almost as an after thought. 

Pascal was designed strictly to go into Tesla cards. Beyond that they have developed a proprietary replacement/sibling to PCIe called NVlink which is intended to work only with their GPUs and select processors (IBM POWER) to improve bandwidth in machines with multiple graphics cards. They are one of only two companies that are building compute cards solely for supercomputers (the other being Intel), and the only one building GPUs for such applications. IMHO it's very clear that Nvidia has developed a new market, one which they are monopolizing right now, and that that is their primary focus.

This new(ish) market is potentially much bigger than the consumer market once you realize that people who are building webservers might buy 1000's of these cards at a time, and people who are building supercomputers (high ranking on the top500 list) will potentially buy 10's of thousands of cards or more in a single procurement. 

[glitchmaster0001]

16 hours ago, rrubberr said:

Exactly my strategy! I find that it definitely saves money in the long run, especially if you keep the PC 5 years+ like I have with my current system.

yeah back then my rig would've been considered a high end one and today it still fairs in 1080p oh course you cant max out all the setting but you just need to turn down some things here and there to get a good gaming experience. im going to push my rig for another 3 years or so then maybe think about upgrading. to an enthusiast my rig has long outlived its usefulness but to me its still a beast in my eyes. for me i keep my computer until it breaks my current computer is almost over a decade old and it still plays the latest titles at 1080p with some settings turned down, thats why i like desktops since they are more durable and they last a whole lot longer than a laptop. 

 

16 hours ago, mrchow19910319 said:

That is actually a great strategy. 

Instead of buying all the "hype" those companies created, that's what all of us should do. 

i know right? my current main gaming desktop still uses 8GB DDR2 and an old AM2+ board along with a phenom ii x6 back then i got a free phenom x4 when my friend upgraded to the phenom ii x6 and when my friend upgraded his phenom ii x6 to an FX 8350 he gave me his old phenom ii x6 so now i have it all these years later, still going strong even in 2016 im going to push it all the way to 2017 and hopefully onwards!  as of the GPU my friend also gave that to me when he upgraded to the GTX 960. 

[glitchmaster0001]

15 hours ago, wcreek said:

Thanks. Will be looking forward to the day hopefully around October or November when I can go on a bit of a shopping spree buying all those parts. Certainly will be fun. I just need to find a job soon. Only problem is, I haven't had the best luck trying to get into like a grocery store, so I might have to reluctantly go apply for some fast food job. Idk something about starting out in a job area where many teens have their first jobs, doesn't seem right to me. But I guess it might be my only option for being able to afford that $1.3k price tag then I guess so be it. 

 

Anyways I can save myself a little money by going with the 4GB model, and I recall Sapphire Ed saying that Sapphire would have the 4GB model launch alongside the 8GB model.

im a teen and my high school part time job was at Supermicro Computer in San Jose, California. just start small and move up the totem poll, start with the burger flipping at mcdonalds and lumber stacking at home depot then move up the totem pole.  

[handymanshandle]

2 minutes ago, glitchmaster0001 said:

im a teen and my high school part time job was at Supermicro Computer in San Jose, California. just start small and move up the totem poll, start with the burger flipping at mcdonalds and lumber stacking at home depot then move up the totem pole.  

Yeah, looks like it'll be my only option really is to go for Burger King, McDonald's, or Subway. I think for me though, I think Subway would keep a bit of my dignity or whatever in tack. I don't know why but I feel like if I do take the cliché job that teenagers have of being at a fast food restaurant I've lost a part of myself or something idk.

 

Because yeah, I was hoping to either be a cashier at Target, Walmart or Cub Foods. I kinda gimped my Target application by putting in not many hours of being available during the weekday. I mean I even applied for Starbucks.