NVIDIA GTX 1080 & GTX 1070 'Founders Edition' explained | VideoCardz.com
Founder's editions are kinda of a waste, its just the shroud that is changed.
Founder's editions are kinda of a waste, its just the shroud that is changed.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Would the GTX 1060 have less TDP than the GTX 970?
Like I mentioned it is just a standard reference design, which all the AIBs will sell.NVIDIA GTX 1080 & GTX 1070 'Founders Edition' explained | VideoCardz.com
Founder's editions are kinda of a waste, its just the shroud that is changed.
Sounds like an early adopter moneygrab and "I need reference for my waterblock" moneygrab.That's what I figured. It's just a money-grab for people that can't wait an extra month.
I'm thinking the SP counts are at 1920 for the 1070
founder's edition are just reference cards.
I think they will still have a similar overclockability to their maxwell counterparts, also nV's partners can make their own designs too.
Maybe!!!??? Maybe not????!!!I'm trying to play Skyrim at 4K DSR and my 980 Ti is struggling, maybe I do need a GTX 1080?
You must have some crazy mods then as the vanilla version is not even close to taxing a 980 Ti at 4k.I'm trying to play Skyrim at 4K DSR and my 980 Ti is struggling, maybe I do need a GTX 1080?
Your percentages are way off as you seem to be making the mistake at looking at "advertised" boost clocks. For example a reference 980 ti already goes to 1200 not 1075 like its advertised.Yeah but for once it was heavily suggested the reference board designed was changed to actually be competitive, and HH on G3D said he understood it to be a kind of high binned card, makes sense for WC, decent VRM performance on par with msi lightning etc etc
980, 970 not uncommon to hit 1550, some cards even go near 1600mhz - on air 31% fir 970, 28% for 980 both 1550
980Ti 1500 on air is not uncommon, on water you can fiddle with 1550+, 39%
Disappointing if this is going to be another 780ti->980ti level upgrade. Apparently the days are gone when a new generation means a 50% bump or more.
Your percentages are way off as you seem to be making the mistake at looking at "advertised" boost clocks. For example a reference 980 ti already goes to 1200 not 1075 like its advertised.
How do you think people will react if Pascal has less headroom than Maxwell? It ships at 1733 stock boost, 2000mhz is 15% - 2150mhz is 24%, and if the founders edition cards are high binned cards maybe that will be considered a very high oc
970 - 1178
980 - 1216
980Ti - 1076
TitanX - 1086
Those are stock boost clocks, it can clock up to ~80 mhz higher on it's own, only the Titan X struggles to hit 1500mhz because of reference board design >_>
If you go to the "Fury Series" category, it says average FPS 48 on the right.depends on the overclock?
My friend just got the 980Ti 2 months ago. Spent around 625 for it too...didn't want to wait.Of course i just bought a 980, lol. Will probably return for a 1080Ti like you mentioned wanting.
Wouldn't the game basically have to be changed for Pascal architecture?
That's what a low-level API would require, after all.
Then older games wouldn't work with newer cards.
I don't see Pascal as being so different from Maxwell that Nvidia scrapped the entire way that their basic drivers interface with their cards. Should be Plug n' Play.
I dug through the Ashes results a bit more and it turns out most of them are mGPU results (doh).
The 1080 being benched there seems to be about 10-15% faster than the other "Fury Series" results. It would probably be a bit higher with a larger sample size, assuming Pelly isn't pushing the card's OC at all (assuming the Fury cards are OC'd).
Here are all the results from the same user.
It seems to be 47~50fps for the 1080 and 41~42 for the Fury (X). Around 15% faster.
About 5-10%.Furys can OC!?
Same result, amd cards hold up better over time. Different motivation, makes nvidia look less ruthless and amd less noble, so it makes sense nvidias defenders would lean on that explanation. Either way, the result is the same though. AMD cards hold up better over time, and I fully expect maxwell cards to drop off after pascal unless they too are almost the same architecturally.
I just noted the advertised floating point throughput of the 1070 is low.
I assumed the cut gp104 die would have roughly 80% of the sps like 970:980 that would put it at 2048
Now with that SP count you need only 1586mhz to hit 6.5tflops
So either this is some marketing stupidity calculating with the base clock (which is lower than 1080) or it has fewer sps than I imagined, which would be...
Interesting, but not a particularly pleasant surprise
Either the yields are low and they're disabling many SMs, or they're taking advantage of the absence of competition and 'gating' the performance for the cut die ; they don't want to offer much more than stock Titan X at 379$
Of course it could be clocked low and consequently have a lot of OC headroom, but I don't see that happening given 1080
Thoughts, gentlemen?
Considering the date yeah
I dug through the Ashes results a bit more and it turns out most of them are mGPU results (doh).
The 1080 being benched there seems to be about 10-15% faster than the other "Fury Series" results. It would probably be a bit higher with a larger sample size, assuming Pelly isn't pushing the card's OC at all (assuming the Fury cards are OC'd).
Here are all the results from the same user.
It seems to be 47~50fps for the GTX 1080 and 41~42 for the Fury (X). Around 15% faster.