• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

980ti vs 1080 @ same clocks

Brent should have an article about the clocks of the 1080 up soon, so maybe you'll get some info there. I think I remember reading that clock for clock the Ti was faster than the 1080 though.
 
Why would you underclock a 1080 just to see if it ran faster than a 980ti?. It already does. There is no reason to underclock it.
 
Devil Inc said:
Maybe you just want to see if you can keep the at load temps below 80C
Click to expand...

you just have to crank up the fan speed or utilize an aggressive fan profile to achieve that... reference cooler are made to keep the card at the lowest possible noise, so underclocking you will end with a card at just using a lower fan speed at the same 80C and nothing else they prioritize noise over temp if you want the oposite then just crank up the fan and done this is happening since... since always.. but with more emphasis since kepler..
 
Devil Inc said:
Maybe you just want to see if you can keep the at load temps below 80C
Click to expand...

Sure you can, Here is a review on Hardware Canucks of him overlclocking the card 2100+ on the core with 55% fan speed and it only got to 58c

 
Krenum said:
Why would you underclock a 1080 just to see if it ran faster than a 980ti?. It already does. There is no reason to underclock it.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, to see how the 1080 and 980ti compare clock-for-clock.
 
Krenum said:
Sure you can, Here is a review on Hardware Canucks of him overlclocking the card 2100+ on the core with 55% fan speed and it only got to 58c

Click to expand...


That is full of bullshit. Every other tech site got theirs to 80-83C. [H] did an indepth thermal over time test and it got 80C+ with high fan speed.

HCW, they must have tested it outside in the middle of a Canadian winter, -40C ambient.. -_-
 
Nebell said:
Would be nice if you guys included 4k on all your game tests. 1440p don't tell me (and surely a lot of your visitors) much.
Click to expand...
Guarantee you far more gamers are using 1440P than 4k... for something being called a "preview" it makes sense
 
Nebell said:
Would be nice if you guys included 4k on all your game tests. 1440p don't tell me (and surely a lot of your visitors) much.
Click to expand...

THIS! The [H] review was one of the weakest ones I read and a lot of that was due to there being a lack of resolutions tested.

EDIT: In regards to the topic at hand... Everyone seems to be mentioning downclocking the 1080 to 980ti speeds for testing, but what if the OP meant how an overclocked 980ti matches up with a 1080 at similar speeds?
 
Bahanime said:
That is full of bullshit. Every other tech site got theirs to 80-83C. [H] did an indepth thermal over time test and it got 80C+ with high fan speed.

HCW, they must have tested it outside in the middle of a Canadian winter, -40C ambient.. -_-
Click to expand...

Nah, winter was cancelled this year. Didn't get cold, didn't get snow. No winter in southern Canada this year.
 
Activate: AMD said:
Guarantee you far more gamers are using 1440P than 4k... for something being called a "preview" it makes sense
Click to expand...

4k is a better tool for measuring horsepower, IMO. I can understand, though, that it's not been playable for almost any single card until now.
 
THUMPer said:
I play at 1440p... (y)
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are a lot of users that play at 1440P, but I would think that a reviewer for [H] would include a wider range of resolutions during the testing. I would think that 1080P and 4K would at least be a minimum requirement for testing and then option resolutions could be 21:9 and Triple monitors.
 
Nebell said:
Would be nice if you guys included 4k on all your game tests. 1440p don't tell me (and surely a lot of your visitors) much.
Click to expand...

If he replies back at all I have a feeling your not going to like it with that tone...
 
Monkey God said:
Wipe that brown of your nose and stop imagining tones where there is none.
Click to expand...

LOL wut? I only know how Kyle would probably take it if he read it...not brown nosing at all if you read my history. I play at 1440P, which helps me a lot vs not at all...WOW
 
It would be incredibly difficult to make sure both GPUs sustain the same GPU Boost speed while gaming. There are many variables that change GPU Boost clock. You'd have to monitor it real-time in game and make adjustments on the fly.
 
jedolley said:
THIS! The [H] review was one of the weakest ones I read and a lot of that was due to there being a lack of resolutions tested.

EDIT: In regards to the topic at hand... Everyone seems to be mentioning downclocking the 1080 to 980ti speeds for testing, but what if the OP meant how an overclocked 980ti matches up with a 1080 at similar speeds?
Click to expand...

Or, how about appreciate that we test both. We will get to 4K testing, we are only human and can only do so much, you would be surprised how little time we actually have to do launch reviews, focus and testing has to be limited to what is capable of during that time frame, we chose what is most popular and more relevant for the initial review, we can always expand and do other forms of testing after it, which we always do. We don't have a team of people working on each review, it's one person per review, in this case, just me for 1080 reviews.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Or, how about appreciate that we test both. We will get to 4K testing, we are only human and can only do so much, you would be surprised how little time we actually have to do launch reviews, focus and testing has to be limited to what is capable of during that time frame, we chose what is most popular and more relevant for the initial review, we can always expand and do other forms of testing after it, which we always do. We don't have a team of people working on each review, it's one person per review, in this case, just me for 1080 reviews.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of sites that also run on a small staff, but are able to put out similar reviews with more resolutions. I only added my comments because I have read many top notch reviews from this site in the past and figured I would add my $.02 on what I felt was missing. My comments were my opinion on how things could be better, but I understand how it would illicit that kind of response.
 
jedolley said:
There are plenty of sites that also run on a small staff, but are able to put out similar reviews with more resolutions. I only added my comments because I have read many top notch reviews from this site in the past and figured I would add my $.02 on what I felt was missing. My comments were my opinion on how things could be better, but I understand how it would illicit that kind of response.
Click to expand...

But you don't take in consideration that most sites do 60secs gameplay test... yes just 1 minute per test, which its directly traduced in fast reviews, [H] instead do very extended periods of gameplay, brent take always hours playing a game to find a sweet spot for testing procedures that take as long as 30 minutes or even more and this is what make [H] reviews even better, because the performance reflected there in their charts are obtained by long gaming sessions instead of just 60 seconds run..
 
jedolley said:
There are plenty of sites that also run on a small staff, but are able to put out similar reviews with more resolutions. I only added my comments because I have read many top notch reviews from this site in the past and figured I would add my $.02 on what I felt was missing. My comments were my opinion on how things could be better, but I understand how it would illicit that kind of response.
Click to expand...

You are missing the fact that we evaluate differently than others, we don't just throw together quick benchmarks or timedemos, make a grpah, and call it a day. We are the only one that evaluates gameplay experience on this in-depth level, and that takes time and resources. Others have tried, only to give up and go back to what they were doing before.

I'm not going to apologize for doing things different than "plenty of sites" do, we don't want this site to be another "plenty of sites", we are going to focus on the gameplay experience, if that isn't enough for you, feel free to visit your "plenty of sites."
 
Araxie said:
But you don't take in consideration that most sites do 60secs gameplay test... yes just 1 minute per test, which its directly traduced in fast reviews, [H] instead do very extended periods of gameplay, brent take always hours playing a game to find a sweet spot for testing procedures that take as long as 30 minutes or even more and this is what make [H] reviews even better, because the performance reflected there in their charts are obtained by long gaming sessions instead of just 60 seconds run..
Click to expand...

This will be my last post on this since this is derailing the point of the discussion... There are still plenty of sites that test for more than 60 seconds and have multiple resolutions. Regardless, my point was simply that there was room for improvement.
 
jedolley said:
This will be my last post on this since this is derailing the point of the discussion... There are still plenty of sites that test for more than 60 seconds and have multiple resolutions. Regardless, my point was simply that were was room for improvement.
Click to expand...

There are several comments I could make here, but honestly, it isn't worth it. Enjoy your "plenty of sites."
 
Brent_Justice said:
You are missing the fact that we evaluate differently than others, we don't just throw together quick benchmarks or timedemos, make a grpah, and call it a day. We are the only one that evaluates gameplay experience on this in-depth level, and that takes time and resources. Others have tried, only to give up and go back to what they were doing before.

I'm not going to apologize for doing things different than "plenty of sites" do, we don't want this site to be another "plenty of sites", we are going to focus on the gameplay experience, if that isn't enough for you, feel free to visit your "plenty of sites."
Click to expand...

Okay, I lied about that being my last response... I don't believe you're the only one, but will agree in-depth analysis is in the minority. Again, not saying you need to apologize or even change, but any good professional would know there is always room for improvement. Done.
 
Bahanime said:
That is full of bullshit. Every other tech site got theirs to 80-83C. [H] did an indepth thermal over time test and it got 80C+ with high fan speed.

HCW, they must have tested it outside in the middle of a Canadian winter, -40C ambient.. -_-
Click to expand...


Don't think the reviewer would put his credibility on the line.
 
Well it seems a well overclocked 980 Ti is pretty close to a stock clock (and whatever it boosts to) 1080.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Or, how about appreciate that we test both. We will get to 4K testing, we are only human and can only do so much, you would be surprised how little time we actually have to do launch reviews, focus and testing has to be limited to what is capable of during that time frame, we chose what is most popular and more relevant for the initial review, we can always expand and do other forms of testing after it, which we always do. We don't have a team of people working on each review, it's one person per review, in this case, just me for 1080 reviews.
Click to expand...
Its obvious that Kyle pays you a full time wage of what a quality reviewer deserves and that this is your only job........................ How dare you have a life.:confused:

jedolley said:
Okay, I lied about that being my last response... I don't believe you're the only one, but will agree in-depth analysis is in the minority. Again, not saying you need to apologize or even change, but any good professional would know there is always room for improvement. Done.
Click to expand...
Did you miss all the 4k reviews of the latest cards? Do you even read [H] reviews regularly or do you just blow shit out of your ass?
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X CrossFire - AMD Radeon R9 Fury X CrossFire at 4K Review
GeForce GTX 980 SLI - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 SLI 4K Video Card Review
Introduction - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 SLI 4K and NV Surround Review
4 Weeks with NVIDIA TITAN X SLI - 4 Weeks with NVIDIA TITAN X SLI at 4K Resolution
Introduction - AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4K Video Card Review

Those are just 4k specific reviews to boot. Let alone the other testing done at 1080p/1440p/2160p in the regular card reviews. Maybe you want them to tri-SLI some GTX480 and attempt to play BF4 on 4k and pray the computer does not melt?
 
And this thread turned out exactly how I though it would. Some posters are impatient and full of entitlement.
 
jedolley said:
In regards to the topic at hand... Everyone seems to be mentioning downclocking the 1080 to 980ti speeds for testing, but what if the OP meant how an overclocked 980ti matches up with a 1080 at similar speeds?
Click to expand...

People are talking about downclocking the 1080 to compare because most overclocked 980 Ti's top out just north of 1500mhz while the 1080 is clocked at 1607 (and boosts higher) right out of the box. The only way to compare the cards clock for clock (without doing math... And fuck math) is to downclock the 1080 to an overclocked 980 Ti speeds. Just sounds like a pain in the ass to me.
 
kasakka said:
Well it seems a well overclocked 980 Ti is pretty close to a stock clock (and whatever it boosts to) 1080.
Click to expand...

I'm seeing this myself at 4k when benching with FS Ultra. Granted it's a synthetic test and my 980Ti Classy was running at 1600 core (Boost) and 8612 memory. I think "if" we could match the core clocks of the 1080 there wouldn't be the 1080 we know of today. Nvidia would have released something greater than they did.
 
HexiumVII said:
are there any reviews that have them at same or similar clocks to see how they fare against each other?
Click to expand...

I think that is a great idea to be honest. I would like to see a single benchmark with similar numbers. On the flip side of things, it is quite wicked to see the 1080 break the 2ghz barrier without any fancy cooling. It will be fun to see what the modding community will do.
 
Quix said:
Nah, winter was cancelled this year. Didn't get cold, didn't get snow. No winter in southern Canada this year.
Click to expand...
I'm near calgary and all we got was like a mix of fall and spring for a reaallly loooong time. i think we hit our normal -30 once or twice but with next to no snow. and we broke high temp records in march/april. no real Canadian winter this year.

Krenum said:
Here is a review on Hardware Canucks of him overlclocking the card 2100+ on the core with 55% fan speed and it only got to 58c
Click to expand...
umm not sure where you got that from?! quote from article:
"Despite the fact NVIDIA showed a GTX 1080 running at over 2GHz and under 70°C at their launch event, the actual reality is quite different. Here we see the core temperatures gradually rising to around 83°C before they are eventually tamed by a combination of the heatsink’s fan speed and voltage / clock speed manipulation. While this is far from the GTX 1080’s official throttle temperature of 90°C, the trickle-down effect it has upon clock speeds and performance is quite interesting to see." and pic from vid:

edit: dug into YT comments and say that they set fan to 55% to start, no ramping and that supposedly kept it cool...
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    241.2 KB · Views: 20
Last edited:
pendragon1 said:
umm not sure where you got that from?! quote from article:
"Despite the fact NVIDIA showed a GTX 1080 running at over 2GHz and under 70°C at their launch event, the actual reality is quite different. Here we see the core temperatures gradually rising to around 83°C before they are eventually tamed by a combination of the heatsink’s fan speed and voltage / clock speed manipulation. While this is far from the GTX 1080’s official throttle temperature of 90°C, the trickle-down effect it has upon clock speeds and performance is quite interesting to see." and pic from vid:

edit: dug into YT comments and say that they set fan to 55% to start, no ramping and that supposedly kept it cool...
Click to expand...


I was just going by what the reviewer showcased to me in the video.
 
I wasn't saying that there are more people gaming at 4k than 1440p, but there are actually a lot who game at 4k, just check display forums, especially that Samsung 4k thread, it's the biggest thread and just one of many 4k threads on other monitors/TVs.

And I wasn't criticizing [H] about that, I was just making a suggestion. 4k is gaining ground.
 
Nebell said:
I wasn't saying that there are more people gaming at 4k than 1440p, but there are actually a lot who game at 4k, just check display forums, especially that Samsung 4k thread, it's the biggest thread and just one of many 4k threads on other monitors/TVs.

And I wasn't criticizing [H] about that, I was just making a suggestion. 4k is gaining ground.
Click to expand...

I don't think 4k will gain enough ground until TV catches up with Content for 4k.

Don't get me wrong 4k/8k is the future, but it still lags way behind 1080p, and will for a few more years.
 
Brackle said:
I don't think 4k will gain enough ground until TV catches up with Content for 4k.

Don't get me wrong 4k/8k is the future, but it still lags way behind 1080p, and will for a few more years.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by content. 99% of games have support for 4k, and those few that don't can be tweaked in settings.ini.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top