1080ti vs 1060

[jeb17]

can some one explain to me how the boost clock of the reference 1080ti is lower than that of a gtx 1060, yet it performs twice as well?

[manikyath]

because there's more to performance than megahertz, in this case, the chip would for example have twice as much calculating power per cycle.

[Zando_]

Massively more CUDA cores, much faster VRAM, etc, etc. Just like how a 980 Ti beats a 1060 but has a lower clock speed. Or how a R7 1700 can beat an i7 7700K even though it has a lower clock speed. More cores are often faster than less, but higher clocked, cores. 

[jeb17]

1 hour ago, Zando Bob said:

Massively more CUDA cores, much faster VRAM, etc, etc. Just like how a 980 Ti beats a 1060 but has a lower clock speed. Or how a R7 1700 can beat an i7 7700K even though it has a lower clock speed. More cores are often faster than less, but higher clocked, cores. 

so basically performance lies in the number of cores not the clock speeds

[Guest]

Just now, jeb17 said:

so basically performance lies in the number of cores not the clock speeds

in both

[Guest]

Clock speed is only one specification. It goes so much deeper than that. I'm not very knowledgeable on exactly how the many more transistors impact the performance and all that, but... this is just how it is. Even the 6GB 1060 gets smashed by it. http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1080-Ti-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1060-6GB/3918vs3639

[jeb17]

1 hour ago, deXxterlab97 said:

in both

alright

 

[Zando_]

Just now, jeb17 said:

so basically performance lies in the number of cores not the clock speeds

Kind of. It also depends on the workloads. In gaming, a 7700K will outdo a Ryzen for max fps, but bring in anything else requiring more cores (say streaming, for example), and the Ryzen instantly has the advantage. For a GPU, it'll defo make a difference since they're made to fire on as many cores as possible. 

[manikyath]

Just now, jeb17 said:

so basically performance lies in the number of cores not the clock speeds

it lies in both clock speed, the number of whatever functional bits apply to the specific case (to keep it broad), and in how efficient those functional bits can do work. (for example, a 2.4GHz skylake i5 is faster than a 2.4GHz core2quad)

[jeb17]

1 hour ago, Zando Bob said:

Kind of. It also depends on the workloads. In gaming, a 7700K will outdo a Ryzen for max fps, but bring in anything else requiring more cores (say streaming, for example), and the Ryzen instantly has the advantage. For a GPU, it'll defo make a difference since they're made to fire on as many cores as possible. 

makes sense

 

[jeb17]

would a 1080ti be bottle necked by an r5 1500x?

[ivan134]

7 minutes ago, jeb17 said:

would a 1080ti be bottle necked by an r5 1500x?

No. You'll get the issue where a lot of current games run a bit slower on RyZen because they weren't optimized for it, but in future games the 1500x will hold up well because it's a 4 core 8 thread CPU and games are becoming more multi threaded.

[Mooshi]

The same reason a 5ghz stressed Bulldozer chip falls on its face vs a Ryzen chip at 4. Higher numbers don't mean much.

[jeb17]

1 hour ago, Mooshi said:

The same reason a 5ghz stressed Bulldozer chip falls on its face vs a Ryzen chip at 4. Higher numbers don't mean much.

lol noted

[jeb17]

1 hour ago, ivan134 said:

No. You'll get the issue where a lot of current games run a bit slower on RyZen because they weren't optimized for it, but in future games the 1500x will hold up well because it's a 4 core 8 thread CPU and games are becoming more multi threaded.

yeah, at that price point its a better deal than say a i5 7500, more threads

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, jeb17 said:

yeah, at that price point its a better deal than say a i5 7500, more threads

Yup. i5s are horrible value now that RyZen exists.

[jeb17]

1 hour ago, ivan134 said:

Yup. i5s are horrible value now that RyZen exists.

so very true

[PCGuy_5960]

6 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Yup. i5s are horrible value now that RyZen exists.

Especially the K i5s

[ivan134]

They're still not threaded. So even though, you'll be getting better averages when you OC them, you'll still be getting worse minimums in multi threaded games. My horrible minimums in Overwatch is what made me buy a 6700. 300 fps in some places. Dips to 110 fps in other places. This is pretty annoying to deal with when playing certain heroes.

 

Spoiler

 

 

[ivan134]

@PCGuy_5960Overwatch is limited to 2 cores, but it's still threaded. If you have nothing running in the background, an i3 is technically a better CPU than an i5 for Overwatch, lol.

 

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

@PCGuy_5960Overwatch is limited to 2 cores, but it's still threaded. If you have nothing running in the background, an i3 is technically a better CPU than an i5 for Overwatch, lol.

Are you sure about that?

[ivan134]

@PCGuy_5960it was a theory I had in my head, so I should have checked if it checked out. Now I'm even more confused, lol. Every benchmark shows that Overwatch is pegged at 2 cores so there's no reason why i7s should be running it better, but they do, so I figured it must be a 2 core 4 thread game. Now I don't even know, lol. I wish I had the funds to be able to get to the bottom of this.

[KenjiUmino]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

@PCGuy_5960Overwatch is limited to 2 cores, but it's still threaded. If you have nothing running in the background, an i3 is technically a better CPU than an i5 for Overwatch, lol.

 

how is that possible? can the OS or the game even differentiate between physical cores and logical cores?

 

AFAIK, the OS does not make a difference between a multithreaded dual core and a not multithreaded quadcore when it decides wich thread to run on wich logical core.

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, KenjiUmino said:

how is that possible? can the OS or the game even differentiate between physical cores and logical cores?

 

AFAIK, the OS does not make a difference between a multithreaded dual core and a not multithreaded quadcore when it decides wich thread to run on wich logical core.

My theory was wrong as @PCGuy_5960 pointed out. It was the only thing I could come up with since technically, the game shouldn't be running better on i7s than it does on i5s.