Reply With Quote
LOL they took the review down (but left the images on their server). I bet Nvidia's lawyers weren't too happy when they contacted the site's owner.
They only gave overclock results for 4k. Pascal seems like a pretty disappointing overclocker, but I don't think you can read too much into the 4k results, as a GTX 1070 is way too memory bandwidth starved for 4k IMO, you really need to go with 1080s if you want to run 4k.
Based on overclocking benchmarks from the 1080 though, I expect the better 1070s to lose to the better 980 Ti when both are overclocked, at least in DX11 games. The 1070 will probably still win in DX12 though. The GTX 980 Ti scales really well with overclocks (the Nvidia big die chips like the 980 Ti always seem to, while the medium die chips like the 1070/1080 don't).
LOL they took the review down (but left the images on their server
RandomGuy, man this card is going to sell like ing crazy. Some of the reviews say not to get this for 1080p, but I disagree with them because:
1. The $200-$250 cards like the R9 380, R9 380x, and GTX 960 will have you dialing settings way back for 60 fps gaming at 1080p in many modern games, and even then it's not going to be enough sometimes. Getting a locked 60 fps is the whole reason to get a high end computer like you're building.
2. The $300 cards like the R9 390, R9 390x, and GTX 970 will have you dialing some settings down to high to get a locked 60 fps and that's only going to get worse with new games this year and beyond.
3. Reviewers said the same about the GTX 970 at launch and a year and a half later it's not a guaranteed 60 fps card at 1080p ultra settings anymore (it's the card I run so I'm speaking first hand). AMD's compe or cards, R9 290 and R9 290x (and also R9 390 and R9 390x) give the same performance at 1080p as the GTX 970 on average. The 290 and 290x came out about a year earlier than the GTX 970 though.
4. I don't think I'd wait until June 29th (bare minimum) for AMD's Polaris 10. Them not allowing reviews to be published until then is a big red flag IMO. If they had anything that could compete with the GTX 1070 (even 15% weaker) why would they not want to get reviews out before the GTX 1070 goes on sale June 10th?
5. You're building a system with a highend cpu, highend board, highend case, highend everything basically. What a waste to not buy a highend gpu. Now I wouldn't buy a $600 GTX 1080 unless you're going to get a 1440p monitor (it's the resolution you want for say a 27 inch screen), but for say a 24 inch 1080p monitor the GTX 1070 will ing kill. And it's very good for even a 1440p monitor right now.
If you want to overclock significantly I'd probably go for an EVGA FTW, which I'm guessing will come out around $430-$450. The Asus Strix should be very good too (the pcb is a monster on their 1080) and I imagine it'll be around $400 for the regular card or $420 for the factory overclocked version (factory OC isn't a big deal IMO, what matters is the quality of the PCB, and both Strix versions should have the same pcb). But I like EVGA for their rock-solid customer service. Asus' isn't so great. I know I recommended an Asus board, but they're usually the best boards and none of their compe ion in motherboards (Gigabyte, MSI, and AsRock) are known for great customer service either. If you want something cheaper I'd imagine the EVGA GTX 1070 ACX 3.0 will be around $390-$400, but it won't have the highend pcb that the EVGA GTX 1070 FTW nor the Asus Strix GTX 1070 will have. If you have to have something as soon as possible I think only the $450 Founders Edition GTX 1070 will be available the first week. I don't like those kind of reference coolers myself, they're terrible for overclocking. And the Nvidia reference PCB is kind of weak on the 1070. But it's a bit cooler running card than the 1080, so the core doesn't look like it gets hot enough to throttle down to lower speeds at stock speed like the GTX 1080 Founders Edition does. If you want to hit the $380 MSRP price point Zotac and MSI should have some cards there. The MSI Gaming GTX 1070 should be a really strong overclocker too, they build great power delivery into their pcbs in that series. I'd imagine those cards will be around $420 or so, but it's a wild guess since they haven't released their GTX 1080 pricing yet like EVGA and Asus have. Gigabyte G1 Gaming cards often have really strong PCB too for overclocking.
Last edited by baseline bum; 05-29-2016 at 06:27 PM.
It's good to have a card like this even at 1080p just to be able to brute force ty coded games.. the benchmarks show Arkham Knight was averaging almost 144 hz on a 1070
I think Arkham Knight must have gotten some big performance enhancing patches since it was nowhere close to that on the 980 Ti a few months ago, and the 980 Ti and 1070 are pretty close in performance in DX11. Too bad the nosteam version of the game hasn't gotten any new patches in months.
I have to say AMD looks officially ed
2016 is going to be as ugly for their gpu division as 2014 and 2015 were. And those years were even worse for their cpu division than their gpu division. I wonder how long until Samsung comes and buys them out or Intel swoops in and buys out their graphics IP. Anything to get them out of using the consistently underperforming Global Foundries. AMD gpus made in Intel's foundries could end up being pretty great. Intel's already going to be releasing 10 nm chips next year.
Another GTX 1070 review: this one shows it solidly behind the an X and even with the 980 Ti. They say they run all their tests after 20 minutes of usage to heat the cards up like they'd be in normal gameplay so I thought the cooler was behind the discrepancy, but it doesn't look like there is any thermal throttling. So these results are a bit of a head scratcher since other reviews are showing the 1070 consistently outperforming an X.
I'm now driving three 32" 1440p monitors from an overclocked GTX 950. I just might buy the 1070 or 1080 when available.
Wise or no?
I'm holding off on making a new computer, but if I do, I'll have it to put there.
prices out for AU regarding the FE, above 1k + 10% stupid tax on overseas bull anything bought above 1k = 1100 landedfck u tax kent
anyway thinkn of pulling the trigger on t hat acer predator ips 27 model 1k or the tnt panel which is around 400....lol tn panel
For what you use your computer for it would be a waste of money IMO. If you ever want to game on three 1440p panels in games where having those panels would benefit (eg racing games and first person shooters) you're probably looking at needing two GTX 1080 in SLI to push that many pixels at an acceptable framerate. I'm not 100% though, almost no one uses triple 1440p panels so it's not a resolution I ever see tested in gaming benchmarks. People who game on three panels mostly buy 1080p panels, and that's what you see review sites benchmarking.
Wow the GTX 1080 is a real piece of when it comes to overclocking. I can't believe the 1080 Strix can't hit 2100 MHz with that highend pcb.
http://videocardz.com/60631/asus-rog...r-overclocking
If I play a high-end game, it would be on just the center one. Just yesterday, I was playing a bluray on the right monitor, mostly just listening. Had spreadsheets and PDF files open on the other two. It's real convenient for the several windows I often have open at once.
Maybe they will improve the GPU in a short time to do so.
The 1070 is pretty strong for 1440p gaming. The 1080 is about 25% stronger than the 1070, but costs 60% more.
The prices discussed look promising for the 1070.
I have never read how SLI works. If I drove my primary monitor off one card, and the other two off a second card, seems to me that would be optimum, but that's just a guess.
1070 looks like a ing beast. May be the cornerstone of my next system. We'll see what AMD offers.
You're probably going to have to wait for Vega if you want to see them compete with the 1070.
Hey RandomGuy, if you haven't bought your CPU yet the i7-6800k just came out today.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc..._-19117649-S0C
It seems to be testing roughly 10% faster than the i7-5820k in cpu benchmarks but it's also clocked 3% higher (3.4 GHz vs 3.3 GHz), but if you're overclocking you'll make up that difference easily anyways. It's not a world beating performance gain and likely will require you to do a BIOS update on your board, though Asus makes it easy to do with their ability to flash the BIOS from a USB flash drive without the CPU being installed. If it was me I don't think I'd pay the extra $60 myself and I'd probably stick with the i7-5820k for $390 vs the i7-6800k for $450, but I figured you'd want to know there is a new CPU line compatible with your motherboard. Here is a review of their new line of X99 CPUs.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/...up-to-10-cores
Last edited by baseline bum; 05-31-2016 at 07:06 AM.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrac...knml?context=3
Apparently R9 390 performance from Polaris 10 according to this guy from XFX who probably just got himself fired:
And $400 for ing R9 390 performance when Nvidia has an X performance for $380?
We'll see. People were crowning the 970 too, when in reality AMD was a better card this time around until you got to the 980ti.https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrac...knml?context=3
Apparently R9 390 performance from Polaris 10 according to this guy from XFX who probably just got himself fired:
And $400 for ing R9 390 performance when Nvidia has an X performance for $380?
The 970 was better than the 290, the 390 came out like 9 months later.
Are you gonna watch AMD's Computex presentation tonight? I think it's 7PM PST, and it should be streamed. Probably on their twitch channel.
The 290x is roughly the equivalent card and likely will have better future proofing as it ages.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
