GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Evaluation Thoughts

4K should be the focus...buying a 1080ti for 1080p/1440p seems beyond silly (unless you have $$ to kill)
 
4k and 1440p144Hz for me- show how well the 1080Ti scales with resolution vs. framerate.

Not sure how 1080p results are really relevant, unless a game is tested that actually struggles at 1440p.
 
Brent_Justice said:
an 11GB card vs. a 4GB card :p
Click to expand...

From what I have seen from other sources, 4GB HBM actually does surprisingly well when compared to other GDDR5 4GB cards, but they still lose to 6GB+ GDDR5(X) cards when memory is a problems.

But if you were to actually compare a top AMD dog against this 1080ti, there is literally no other choice, considering Vega isn't even here yet, unless we want to go to the ancient 295X?
 
My opinion or suggestion:

  • 3440x1440p - This resolution is a lot more taxing than what most people think and can give a great gaming experience (144hz would be cool as well)
  • 4K 60hz - sounds like what this card is made for

Only video card even worth testing on the AMD side from last generation would be Radeon Pro Duo which I don't think you guys have. FuryX - no it would be a waste of time, 2 - Rx480 in CFX or three if you want a comparable cost would be interesting. Also will let the reader know how viable that is compared to a single monster card. Without Vega being available you might just want to skip AMD all together.
 
noko said:
My opinion or suggestion:

3440x1440p 144hz preferred - This resolution is a lot more taxing than what most people think and can give a great gaming experience
4K 60hz - sounds like what this card is made for

Only video card even worth testing on the AMD side from last generation would be Radeon Pro Duo which I don't think you guys have. FuryX - no it would be a waste of time, 2 - Rx480 in CFX or three if you want a comparable cost would be interesting. Also will let the reader know how viable that is compared to a single monster card. Without Vega being available you might just want to skip AMD all together.
Click to expand...
That is a very small niche resolution and it would make no sense for them to test at it. Not to mention some games dont even work right out of the box at that aspect ratio and some not even at all.
 
1440p is needed as well. You are not getting super high refresh at 4K.
 
misterbobby said:
That is a very small niche resolution and it would make no sense for them to test at it. Not to mention some games dont even work right out of the box at that aspect ratio and some not even at all.
Click to expand...
Very few games in my experience, great resolution to test in. 1070 is great at 16:9 1440p, bump it up to 21:9 and it falters pretty bad. It is also a great working resolution/aspect ratio as well. If 2560x1440 is used I hope it is on a 144hz monitor otherwise it would be another waste of time and also would make zero sense.
 
noko said:
My opinion or suggestion:

  • 3440x1440p - This resolution is a lot more taxing than what most people think and can give a great gaming experience (144hz would be cool as well)
  • 4K 60hz - sounds like what this card is made for

Only video card even worth testing on the AMD side from last generation would be Radeon Pro Duo which I don't think you guys have. FuryX - no it would be a waste of time, 2 - Rx480 in CFX or three if you want a comparable cost would be interesting. Also will let the reader know how viable that is compared to a single monster card. Without Vega being available you might just want to skip AMD all together.
Click to expand...
Crossfire scaling and support becomes a complication with the Rx480 setup though.
 
chenw said:
Crossfire scaling and support becomes a complication with the Rx480 setup though.
Click to expand...
Yes and that would be part of the evaluation as well as when it doesn't scale you're going to have a rather significant performance delta or loss compared to the 1080Ti. When it does work not so much. Meaning let the folks decide if they want the drama of multiple cards by showing them the ins and outs.

That is the closest that AMD has to offer at this date 3-Way CFX for that level of performance from their current generation - good or bad. Otherwise might as wait for a Vega review for testing AMD cards at this level.

Use Sniper Elite 4 which is a DX 12 title, showing multi-GPU is maybe the best example so far in when it works right.
 
Last edited:
Brent_Justice said:
I don't normally poll these kinds of threads, normally because we cannot if under embargo, but this situation is unique, the 1080 Ti has been announced, the specs and pricing released. I'm interested in feedback this time and your thoughts.
Click to expand...


Thanks for polling.

If you're asking about just an initial evaluation, I think a 4k focus would be fine.

If you're asking about how you should focus a one and only review, I'd think that including 1440p would (at the least) draw a larger audience/traffic and benefit a lot of people, even if only those comparing benchmarks across cards. As well as a 1080p in something like BF1 just to get the information out there.

I would suggest including card generations people may upgrade from- 980/980ti (covers the 970), 1070, Titan/TitanX(?), haven't been following AMD closely, but I guess it'd be the 290x/390x, Fury X, RX 480. I have no idea how much additional work each card takes. Basically throw out enough info that we can assess performance by comparing to other reviews.

Personally I'm going from 970->10XX & 1440p->4k. I assume the $300+ GPU gaming audience is currently more or less divided into:

a) FPS/competitive gamers. 120+fps 1080p, with low tolerance for dips in framerate

b) 1440p guys who couldn't afford Titans/1080s (me). Like the pretty graphics in the 30-90fps range, RPG games, etc. Want max settings at playable frame rates. Don't mind trading FPS for graphics to save $$$.

c) 1440p guys who can afford stuff like the ROG Swift/Predator. Don't know how concerned they are with maxing out 120-144fps or how they use their monitors.

d) Specialist setups. Multi monitors. Custom resolutions. Experimenting with 3D/VR/sims, etc. People who like to tinker setting up their hardware/software and are budgeting for the top tier equipment. Probably a valid option to cater to them since: it's [H], they're the target audience of the 1080ti (right?), they're the most passionate/interested. Even though I'd guess they're one of the smaller groups. They'll also share the most information with the rest of the community.

*forgot the 4k camp. Doh. I get the impression it's split into:
-Qnix/Wasabi group who aspires for '4k performance' by choosing freesync in exchange for some of the drawbacks of Qnix/Wasabi
-High end 4k TVs. People interested in either Samsung/Sony/LG, & many capable of 3D as well (active or passive, & some running outside apps to get >1080p 24hz). So the only thing I see needing >60fps 4k GPU would be 3D or if you're running >1 monitor(?)
-Low budget 4k TVs. Probably won't be buying 1080ti's, but still interested in 1070/1080/1080ti comparison
-Other- Projectors & people interested in bleeding edge 144hz 4k. Don't know anything about that.



And none of this is taking into account G Sync :/ Or widescreen weirdos:) Or people interested in streaming.

The most valuable comparison reviews I found while deciding between a 4k upgrade were:

http://www.babeltechreviews.com/titan-x-vs-gtx-1080-25-games-tested-4k-2k-1440p/3/
http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2...s-1070-and-1080-power-temperatures-fps/page-4 (really liked their use of 1%/0.1% lowest FPS rather than absolute min)
TechSpot had an excellent roundup, which I think was deleted or moved. It rounded up a ton of cards including 9XX/10XX at 1080p/1440p/2160p. Basically like 20 games of this graph at 1080p/1440p/2160p


If you go to the displays forum, I think it could be lumped together mostly as: Korean budget 1440p, Samsung 4k TVs for all people, & Asus ROG Swift. Maybe the Swift guys care about 1440p at 120fps. The Qnix/Xstar might, but I remember them being more concerned with value & playable fps. Majority of TV guys only care about 4k 60hz (& maybe pushing 3D at high res via outside applications).
https://hardforum.com/forums/displays.78/?order=reply_count
OCN gets into a bit more with the 1440p stuff. Could be I just don't circulate with that group. I'd guess the people interested in $800+ 1440p monitors with G Sync also are very interested in 1080ti performance.

That's my .02, thanks for the hard work.
 
Last edited:
0996451 said:
Personally I'm going from 970->10XX & 1440p->4k. I assume the + GPU gaming audience is currently more or less divided into:

a) FPS/competitive gamers. 120+fps 1080p, with low tolerance for dips in framerate

b) 1440p guys who couldn't afford Titans/1080s (me). Like the pretty graphics in the 30-90fps range, RPG games, etc. Want max settings at playable frame rates. Don't mind trading FPS for graphics to save $$$.

c) 1440p guys who can afford stuff like the ROG Swift/Predator. Don't know how concerned they are with maxing out 120-144fps or how they use their monitors.

d) Specialist setups. Multi monitors. Custom resolutions. Experimenting with 3D/VR/sims, etc. People who like to tinker setting up their hardware/software and are budgeting for the top tier equipment. Probably a valid option to cater to them since: it's [H], they're the target audience of the 1080ti (right?), they're the most passionate/interested. Even though I'd guess they're one of the smaller groups. They'll also share the most information with the rest of the community.
Click to expand...

I'm firmly in the C camp with a 980 Ti and ASUS PG278Q (1440p / 144 Hz / G-Sync). I'm conflicted about the 1080 Ti. On one hand I am perfectly happy with the performance of my current setup at 1440p but I also have a 4K TV where better performance would be nice. That said, I really would prefer 4K / 120+ Hz with G-Sync but those are only coming out next year and so far such displays announced are on the small side at 27".

So I am wondering if I should grab a 1080 Ti or just wait for Volta instead as then I could get both the display and the GPU.

For review I'd prefer 1440p / high refresh rates and 4K / 60. 1080p tests are not really worth it as we are talking very high fps.
 
Last edited:
1440p 100/120/144hz and 4K 60, 1440p60 is dated for this price point IMO

I think understanding the how both GPU and CPU impact quest for minimum frames is important.

I know it takes lots of time but, having a multi generation CPU comparison or other data point would be helpful for us other/old platform people (AMD, X58 or Sandy bridge). I'm thinking 3 CPU data points max for 1 or 2 benchmarks (assuming the pattern holds).

Yes I know people willl say 'but dude you'll bottleneck it' but spending more GPU dollars can drive performance more than buying a lesser GPU plus platform upgrade for many people. I've looked to other review sights for this like gamers nexus for this in the past.
 
Last edited:
misterbobby said:
Even 1/3 of AAA games dont properly support multi gpu so whats the point?
Click to expand...
The point is some of us know that is a lie and use SLI. I will ALWAYS buy 2 cheaper cards if they can perform as well as a higher priced single card. If a title doesn't support SLI then I didn't want it anyway.
 
If you aren't getting at least 100fps-hz *average*, which swings around +/- 30fps-hz, you aren't getting much out of a high hz monitor. 144hz 3440x1440 and 144hz 4k monitors are due out this year and by year end, finally getting displayport 1.4 on the monitors. There is no overkill vs fps minimums on an arbitrary "Ultra" ceiling which is heightened every game generation and which can break out even higher using downsampling, lighting, texture, and asset mods, etc. - especially at 3440 x 1440 and 4k.

Here is a frame rate graph example showing ~ 100fps-hz compared to 60 fps-hz. Their ranges or variable fps bands vary through the high hz benefits charted below it. Getting lower than 100fps-hz average isn't getting much if anything out of a high hz monitor.

ALY9lQS.png
 
I use a 4K monitor but I understand others use less pixels. I say include both and also AMD's top card. I am not sure if VR will need testing? It runs max on a 1070 and above already? Maybe next gen VR sets.
 
This card along with Titan, and 1080 should be tested in 2k and 4k only. 2k is very important and it is becoming mainstream. 1440p@144Hz is really awesome for gaming. For true 4k experience we will need a next video card generation along with next generation of 4k monitors supporting 144Hz refresh rate, and it is coming!
 
noko said:
My opinion or suggestion:

  • 3440x1440p - This resolution is a lot more taxing than what most people think and can give a great gaming experience (144hz would be cool as well)
  • 4K 60hz - sounds like what this card is made for

Only video card even worth testing on the AMD side from last generation would be Radeon Pro Duo which I don't think you guys have. FuryX - no it would be a waste of time, 2 - Rx480 in CFX or three if you want a comparable cost would be interesting. Also will let the reader know how viable that is compared to a single monster card. Without Vega being available you might just want to skip AMD all together.
Click to expand...


I second this. 21:9, 3440x1440 monitors are becoming more and more popular. The resolution is supported by most games now and the newer batch of these monitors support higher refresh rates. As someone who uses a 3440x1440 monitor with a GTX1080, I would very interested to see how the 1080Ti performed in these tests and I'm sure there are many others who would agree.
 
And so the question arises - sell my 1080 and get a 4k monitor and 1080Ti now or wait for Volta as planned.
 
I'd like to see comparison against 1070 SLI, as it can be had for the same $700 price point (hopefully less soon).
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
I'd like to see 1440p.

If you are going to do full benchmarks at 1440p, then I think it would make sense to see a comparison to as many 10-series cards you have time for. Help people better understand what is a value purchase or not at that resolution. With the 1080 and below cards getting a price cut. Should users buy 'lower end' cards & wait a year or two as they are 'good enough' or maybe the 1080TI is the last 1440p card they will ever need to buy.

1080p is done. Never again please! :D
 
The new GTX 1080 Ti can surely fire up a 3440x1440p monitor no problem. Heck, it can probably even go higher than 100Hz with all of the settings cranked up! Though, that remains to be seen from game to game, but it is pretty interesting what Nvidia has cooked up in just a span of a few years.
 
257Tony said:
I'd like to see comparison against 1070 SLI, as it can be had for the same $700 price point (hopefully less soon).
Click to expand...
Only 3 of the 7 games in the current [H] testing suite support SLI, as far as I know: Battlefield 1 [DX11], Fallout 4, and The Witcher 3.
 
Elory Besus said:
The new GTX 1080 Ti can surely fire up a 3440x1440p monitor no problem. Heck, it can probably even go higher than 100Hz with all of the settings cranked up! Though, that remains to be seen from game to game, but it is pretty interesting what Nvidia has cooked up in just a span of a few years.
Click to expand...
I hope so. I have a 980ti and while it was a great card for 1080p @60hz it's not working out that well when I finally upgraded to a 1440p ultrawide. The 1080 is still not good enough for 1440p ultrawide @ 100hz and the titan xp is just crazy expensive. If the 1080ti is able to deliver that (50% or so more power than a 980ti) at nearly 980ti prices - great.
 
Hagrid said:
I use a 4K monitor but I understand others use less pixels. I say include both and also AMD's top card. I am not sure if VR will need testing? It runs max on a 1070 and above already? Maybe next gen VR sets.
Click to expand...

I use a 2560 x 1440 144hz g-sync monitor but I understand why others use smearing blur and greatly inferior motion definition monitors scraping to get much lower frame rates, often at 60fps-hz avg at best whose avg is down into 30 - 60 half the time.. (or do I?) :cool:

Even on a 4k screen I'd consider dropping to 1440p at very high+ settings on the most demanding games of a generation to get 100fps average if I had to - on a 144hz 4k that is.
I refuse to buy a 60hz gaming monitor ever since my first 120hz samsung 1080p.
Requirements for me have been for a long time now: 120hz+ , at least 1440p, g-sync, low input lag, and a good modern gaming overdrive implementation.
Going forward requirements are dp 1.4 ,1440p to 4k at 144hz , g-sync , low input lag, modern gaming overdrive, FALD (no EDGE LIT HDR crap), HDR (w/ p3 color of course).
I'd really like to stick to a contrast and black depth requirement like HDR premium label's 1000nit peak and .05 black depth standard, but I'll have to see what the asus 4k 144hz 1000nit FALD HDR can do with the 384 zone fald. It being IPS rather than VA might limit it a lot in that facet.
 
Another vote for 4K here as either the GTX 1080 Ti or Vega will replace my current GTX 980 Ti for 4K@60.
 
I also vote for 4k benchmarks, but I'm one of the few who use a 4k monitor apparently.

As a compromise, in many reviews you see 1080p and 1440p benchmarks. Why not just leave out 1080p entirely? Granted, I haven't read a videocard review in a while since I've been waiting for the TI and Vega. But anything that costs over $499 bench'd at 1080p seems unnecessary to me. The reviews I do still read I'm looking specifically for 4k performance, which is why I don't read many anymore because no one benches 1080 custom cards at 4k (understandably so).

As for comparison cards, you obviously need the 1080. If you can do a comparison of an OC'd 1080 maybe? I wouldn't dip down to the 900 series because isn't that considered legacy hardware now by NV?
 
Hagrid said:
I use a 4K monitor but I understand others use less pixels. I say include both and also AMD's top card. I am not sure if VR will need testing? It runs max on a 1070 and above already? Maybe next gen VR sets.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse VR needs testing. 1080 Ti was built for VR, and it definitely does not max out with a 1070 - you need a Titan X currently to be able to crush reprojection (GTX1080 -> Titan X = 8.53% -> 0.11%, lower is better).

Can't wait to use 1080 Ti for VR so eye candy can finally start ratcheting up. It'll be the definitive card for 4K60 as well, since right now only Titan X really allowed max 4K settings in a lot of games. Good Ti.mes
 
Last edited:
I use a 2560 x 1440 144hz g-sync monitor but I understand why others use smearing blur and greatly inferior motion definition monitors scraping to get much lower frame rates, often at 60fps-hz avg at best whose avg is down into 30 - 60 half the time.. (or do I?) :cool:
Click to expand...

I also vote for 4k benchmarks, but I'm one of the few who use a 4k monitor apparently.
Click to expand...

More like one of those who uses a 60hz monitor for gaming imo.
I think that will change as the card's performance/dollar goes up like this and finally monitors are going to come out on dp 1.4 (supposedly starting sometime this year) - so there will be fully featured modern gaming monitors at 4k 144hz instead of stuck at 60hz, and 21:9 3440 x 1440 at 144hz not capped at 100hz overclock on dp 1.2.



Personally I'm all in on the asus PG27UQ
4k 144hz dp 1.4 , 1000nit 384 zone FALD HDR , G-SYNC IPS monitor by the end of the year I'm hoping.
 
Last edited:
I currently have a Acer x34 (3440x1440 - 100Hz), and for my next GPU I would like to have all games pinned at 100FPS on Ultra. I'm hoping that the TI will be that card, because my current 1070 usually only gives me 60FPS.
So yes, please include 1440p in the 1080ti review.
Hell if you threw a 3440x1440 resolution into your review that would be greaaaaaaat.
 
I would love to see how max OC Titan XP vs max OC 1080TI compare.

I would also like to see 1070 SLI vs 1080TI since cost wise it would be similar. I know when SLI scaling is great (Firestrike Ultra), stock 1070s in SLI are beaten by my OC Titan XP.
 
Brent_Justice said:
I don't normally poll these kinds of threads, normally because we cannot if under embargo, but this situation is unique, the 1080 Ti has been announced, the specs and pricing released. I'm interested in feedback this time and your thoughts.

With the upcoming 1080 Ti launch, now that specs are public and we can talk about it, how do you guys feel about a 4K focused video card evaluation this round? I'm feelin that, how about ya'll? Would you miss 1440p for this level of video card?

In addition, knowing the price ($699), and the fact we will include a 1080 for sure in the evaluation, what other GPUs do you feel warrant comparison to the 1080 Ti (NV and AMD) ?

I appreciate your feedback and thoughts :)
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself, I'm not interested in 4K gaming at all really, but I'm keenly interested in VR.

The only game I've played in the last two months is Elite: Dangerous, with an Oculus Rift.

Regarding other GPUs, the only ones that really seem relevant are the 1080 and Titan X. It's not really a shock that this is faster than a 1070 or RX480 at this point.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Also listening to opinions on GPU comparisons, we will be for sure including 1080, what else makes sense at $699 in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Hmm ... I know this is a long shot, but if you could put in a GTX 980 Ti, that would be greatly appreciated as I'm sure that many 980 Ti owners (including myself) would love a direct comparison to the 1080 Ti, as it's the logical upgrade path.
Stock 980 Ti not strictly necessary, an overclocked variant would do just fine.
 
Araxie said:
Nowadays I know way more people using 2K Panels than 4K, and way even more who ditched 4K 60 back to 2K just to enjoy higher settings in newer games at higher FPS..
Click to expand...

I meant 1440P 144hz :p Which might be not as widespread, considering the price of those monitors is about the same as 4K TVs / Monitors.
 
Stev3FrencH said:
I would love to see how max OC Titan XP vs max OC 1080TI compare.

I would also like to see 1070 SLI vs 1080TI since cost wise it would be similar. I know when SLI scaling is great (Firestrike Ultra), stock 1070s in SLI are beaten by my OC Titan XP.
Click to expand...

I think it would make more sense to compare 1080ti SLI for $1400 vs a single titan for $1200.
 
I think VR and 4K should be in for sure.

I think the cards compared should be GTX 980 Ti SLI, GTX 1080 (to support the 35% claim), 1080 Ti, Titan XP, R9 Fury crossfire (because they are so damn cheap), and the R9 Fury X.

Perhaps a second piece could be done on overclocked 1080Ti vs overclocked Titan XP at VR, 1440p and 4K resolutions.
 
In my opinion I believe the next frontier for Competitive FPS will be 1440P at 144hz. This will become a very important market as a young audience of gaming stream viewers and creators will be looking for content on their mobile phones and computers and 1440P is definitely the immediate direction for hardware vendors in the mobile space. Additionally, within the next two years it would appear that all budget PC builds will include a 1440P monitor (as cost of these monitors with high refresh rate declines). With this in mind, I would like to see a 1440P at max settings comparison.

I guess it is no surprise that I would also love to see the 4K and VR numbers from the 1080Ti but a comparison against AMD in crossfire would be necessary. I did read that at Capsaicin & Cream conference two AMD GPU's could scale incredibly well against Nvidia offerings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top