http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1080_review,1.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10326/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-preview
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/GeForce-GTX-1080-8GB-Founders-Edition-Review-GP104-Brings-Pascal-Gamers
>>54595955
>£619
15% more than a 980 Ti for the small version of Pascal. They can fucking keep it. Anybody supporting this monopoly deserves to get their wallet and anus raped.
>30% faster
>10-15% more expensive
>muh generational leap
>>54595955
More reviews:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pascal,4572.html
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_geforcegtx_1080_founders_edition/
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/92846-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-founders-edition-16nm-pascal/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3071037/hardware/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-review-the-most-badass-graphics-card-ever-created.html
http://techgage.com/article/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-review-a-look-at-4k-ultra-wide-gaming/
1060 small form factor gpu when?
>>54595982
...and its winning by simply having a higher clock thanks to the die shrink.
>>54595955
>Historically, reference-design cards set the baseline launch-pricing for any SKU. This time around, NVIDIA is making its partners sell the reference-design card at $699 (higher than the launch prices of GTX 980 Ti, GTX 780 Ti, etc.) The company is sub-branding this SKU as "Founders Edition." Since this also happens to be the only GTX 1080 card designed entirely by NVIDIA, it's the card we are reviewing today. Custom-design cards will start at $599, but this is really a "suggested" price by NVIDIA to its partners. Adding meaty cooling solutions and custom VRM designs to the mix could easily push prices way above the $599 mark, and perhaps even close to the $699 "Founders Edition" price, if partners decide to see that as baseline.
>Aftermarket cards will be more expensive than the $700usd reference card
NOPE
O
P
E
Either some woodscrews caught on fire or 60°C under load was a big fat lie
>>54596013
>As Nvidia showed off the GeForce GTX 1080 at its press day in Austin, Texas, we kept asking ourselves how the card repeatedly showed up in demos at temperatures under 65 °C. In order to circumvent its thermal limit, we tried setting the fan to a 100% duty cycle, and that ended up being the simple solution.
>In our standard setup with an ambient temperature of 22 °C, we measured 68 to 69 °C. In another room at 20 °C, and using a less demanding Full HD workload, we finally replicated Nvidia's 65 °C demo. The noise that's created isn't bad when you're in a large hall full of journalists and EDM blaring over the speakers. But it's much more apparent in an office.
>And unfortunately, real-world temperatures after three minutes of warm-up look a lot different than what we saw during Nvidia's press day. It doesn't take long for the card to hit its temperature target and hover around 83 to 84 degrees Celsius. That number rises to 85 degrees during the stress test.
From toms.
>>54596013
when dedicated shilling sites say it's 83 it means it's 83
>>54596033
only retards will buy the """"""""""founders edition""""""""""""
>>54596005
it may finally go 4k 60 fps with higher OC, it's around 54 in most games
But fuck me if i'm going to pay for soon-to-be midrange card after ti version released for 700
Gonna by the EVGA version of the reference board and slap an EK waterblock to it. My 290x while still "decent" for 1440p (my gaming resolution) the coil whine is murder on me esp since i'm a quit fag.
On a quit game like Dark Souls 3 the sound I heard most was the coil whine from my 290x
Power consumption is good.
The card is about as expected. Not disappointed, but not surprised either.
>>54596082
Still it operates at fucking 80 degrees+ unless you have the stock cooler at 100%
Thats like fucking GTX285 level bad
The cooler is no slouch either the GTX1080p is a fucking housefire
Why they didnt ship these with a watercooling option i dont know
>Muh 4k
Yeah at 100degrees+ with aftermarket cooling and serious overclocks
PASCAL SO GOOD I GOTTA BUY THAT FOUNDERS EDITION
>>54596103
>Still it operates at fucking 80 degrees+ unless you have the stock cooler at 100%
What do you think is the point of GPU Boost?
1070 for poorfags please, I can't wait to fill this baby up.
>tfw 1440p monitors in this shit hole costs 2 legs and 2 arms
Guess I'm stuck with 1080p.
IT'S OVER, AMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT
>>54596103
They have to push the stock clock to the most acceptable limit to improve the performance.
60% more clock rate for a mere 30% more performance.
>>54596117
PCPer shows a different picture of Hitman.
>>54596126
>Cant even run a 3 year old DX11 game at 60fps 4k
Crysis3 isnt even demanding its very well optimized compared to 1 and 2 anyway
Looks like 4K Fags will have to buy two 1080s thats like $1500+ and it barely beats two titans
Anyone notice the lack of Overclocking? Also anyone notice how its only a Fury and no Fury X in alot of the DX12 benches, especially AoTS? Lol good ol Nvidia shills...
>>54595955
>9 TFLOPs
>>54596206
>muh 30% faster
This is fun!
>>54596203
guru and anandatech has fury x
>>54596206
>>54596218
yeah some serious horseshit is going on here
GTA 5 benchmarks are depressing
>>54596218
Over 30% here.
>>54596033
this is something I've commented on here several times since the demo.
Unfortunately you can't shake the iron faith of a fanboy
>>54595955
TRY DEFEND THIS NVIDIOTS!
>>54596203
Here's 2.066/2.133 Ghz overclocks.
http://hothardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pascal-gpu-review?page=8
>>54596239
>27% faster than Fury X
>34% faster than 980 Ti
What's the problem?
![1463491350044[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/tsFW6tS.png "1463491350044[1].png")
W-woth a purchase for me!
>>54596241
god, and people ask why there is so many paranoiacs around
>>54596255
House fires confirmed.
>>54596255
83C seems completely fine to me.
I even idle my AMD GPU at 65C for less fan noise.
>>54596295
Perhaps a dumb question:
Why do game designers even make games where the ultra setting is more or less unobtainable?
>>54596325
>more or less unobtainable
>>54596267
The heck is this? why didn't they test proper scaling game?
>>54596325
Meant to be run at a lower resolution.
>>54596272
>27% better than a FuryX
Yeah, while being 11% more expensive. And on a newer node. And hotter. lul nvidia
>>54596325
Benchmarking purposes, pushing the limits of current PCs, keeps the game relevant longer graphically. Even the original doom was hard to run when it came out. It's always been like this.
>>54596325
It's 4k, 1080p it runs 105 fps.
And that's how it always worked - people upgraded for the game not other way around when developers now increase graphics fidelity behind the market.
>>54596346
The takeaway is an 18% clock increase gave roughly 10% more performance across their tests.
Which means Pascal is literally Maxwell - The Die Shrink.
>>54596349
>>54596355
>>54596366
I figured as much, sorry for the dumb question. Just seems silly to make the best looking version of your game essentially unobtainable.
>>54596372
kinda sad, I secretly kept hope for revolution
>Still no hardware async
>>54596383
The best looking version of your game is always unobtainable because you technically can increase AA to infinity.
I just want to play games at 1080p with 60 or above fps. Can I do that with the 1070? I can't find a single article about it.
so when is the time to grab some cheap 980?
any doom benches? can't see one, I want to see how is that 200fps
>>54596417
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1080_review,16.html
>>54596414
check how is 780(not ti) doing and just forget about it
>>54596413
you can do that right now with a 380 or 960 for like under $200
the 1070 is just a gimped version of this and will be slower than a 980ti oc
>>54596430
i'm blind thanks
>>54595955
>kicking the ass of the 295x2
>>54596442
>the 1070 is just a gimped version of this and will be slower than a 980ti oc
Yes but for half the price
>>54596430
>290x beating 970
>290 beating 780ti
the gimping is real
>60fps @ 4k
>still no vulkan
i wonder what this will get on it compared to amd's cards?
>>54596447
>took three years to dethrone the single-card king
Reminder, mediocre price/performance.
>>54596449
Neither $380 nor $450 is not half of $650
>>54596449
for 65% of price if you are optimist
So a 1080 with a 750Ti (for PhysX) is going to kill right?
>>54596474
Always the case for high end cards.
Still better than Fury (X) and 980 (Ti).
>>54596482
>(for PhysX)
last 8 months I can't remember game except fo4 that used that
>>54596482
Only in certain physx games. The difference probably wouldn't amount of much either.
>>54596474
This really. Nvidia hyped too much and the price point does not support the benchmarks results. Will AMD deliver this time around and force a price war?
>>54596449
>1070
>Founders and aftermarket are $400usd+
>half the price
NOICE MATH THERE
Anyone do any benching with the 1080 and Witcher 3 @1440p?
>>54596013
Nobody seriously thought that it'd run at sub-70, right? Nvidia probably had it in a room with the air conditioning on full blast, several desk fans pointing at the card and the card's fan at 100%. Fine if you live in a wind tunnel, but not realistic for most home users.
>>54596482
1080 probably will sit waiting for the PhysX numbers from the 750ti. I bet it is much better just to run everything on the 1080.
>>54596499
If AMD delivers Nvidia will start bleeding money on price war due to huge chip.
It's lose/lose for them if market share shifts 10%
>>54596499
Polaris 10/11 isn't supposed to compete with 1080. I doubt it will compete with 1070, but it might. The Vegas will compete with 1080 for sure and the ti versions.
>>54596518
>>54596372
>Maxwell - The Die Shrink
Basically. One of the reviews compared an overclocked 1080 to an overclocked 980 Ti and the 980 Ti actually made up ground on it due to having more shaders. Pascal is nothing but Maxwell on a smaller process at higher clocks. Which I guess is fine if the performance is there, but the price they're charging for it is gross.
>>54596565
Feel bad for telling people to drop their 980tis while they can.
I'd rather have 4GB DDR5X than 8GB DDR5.
Was 4GB ever not enough?
>>54596557
That's with hairworks I assume?
>>54596565
Where is this overclock result?
Haven't seen any site that compare 1080 to an overclocked 980ti.
>>54596565
So it's a rebrand + die shrink? This is worse than AMD rebranding 200s into 300s.
>>54596278
did it die?
>>54596583
I've seen some people selling them off ridiculously cheap (around the price of a high end 970). They must feel like fucking idiots right now.
So 10~15% gain over an already overclocked 980 ti. Pretty good considering this isn't even the biggest Pascal yet.
They only got it up to 2ghz but there are already reports of it reaching 2.5ghz. If so we might be looking at 980 ti sli performance here with the upcoming non reference cards.
The 1080 ti will be absolutely crazy.
Oh, and 50% more power efficient than Maxwell.
>>54596598
I suspect they were forced by the "VR revolution" shit.
>>54596600
ofc not, you can freely -20fps for hairworks
>>54596474
LMAO BTFO'd BY GTX 950 AHAHAHAH
At least it's efficient.
FERMI 2.0 CONFIRMED
>>54596662
>amd advocates can't even crop images
>>54596635
and cost upwards of $800 fucking usd or more because who wants to sell the fastest single card below founder pricing at $599?
Anyone who buys this instead of waiting for the 490 and 1070 are completely retarded
>>54596662
Are you fucking retarded?
>>54596635
>So 10~15% gain over an already overclocked 980 ti. Pretty good considering this isn't even the biggest Pascal yet.
But they're also charging 15% more than a 980 Ti for it. A generational leap is supposed to offer more performance for the same price, not an exact scaling of extra performance to higher price.
>>54596635
>50% more power efficient than Maxwell
More like 25% famalam. Which you'd expect from a die shrink anyway.
>>54596662
You had one job
Also
>reference cooling
>y is it hot lol
Maxwell didn't get any performance boost from watercooling. Looks like Pascal will change that.
>>54596662
>Higher is better
>>54596662
DEAR GOD
Thats worse than i expected
Christ almightly this thing is literally going to go thermonuclear at 2.1ghz+
>Stock Fury and 390 are lower in temp despite been on 28nm
what the mcfuck
>>54596683
>posts total power consumption
>tries to make relative comparisons between two different cards from it
How retarded are you?
>>54596683
>But they're also charging 15% more than a 980 Ti for it. A generational leap is supposed to offer more performance for the same price, not an exact scaling of extra performance to higher price.
This.
Fuck 'founders edition' shit too
>>54596710
here is weird thing, tpu(?) posted that OC runs same as not OC =83C
either i'am camel or something is not right
>>54596613
sold my 9 months old TI for 600€
it's ok, still expected more but worth it
>>54596748
Eh, you got a pretty nice price for your Ti.
>>54596739
>Very good results, but the GTX 1080 seems to be limited by the board power limit and temperatures going above 83°C, which both will result in lower clocks from NVIDIA Boost.
>Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 12.8%.
>>54596710
>>54596662
are you guys retarded?
I mean, how stupid are you guys?
If i have a gtx 780 is this a good upgrade?
Makes me wonder what's the price point for Gigabyte's watercooled 1080 and if it takes off at least 20 degrees
>>54596721
All the other components in the test system are the same. Where do you think the difference is coming from, you tech-illiterate cretin?
>>54596683
>A generational leap is supposed to offer more performance for the same price, not an exact scaling of extra performance to higher price.
Wait for 1070 and you'll get your extra performance for the same/lower price. The top end GPU rarely comes out at the same price as what the previous top end GPU costs as the time.
AMD was even worse about it with 7970.
Card is good as expected but no surprises. 16nm GloFo finfet looks solid
>>54596721
It works out exactly the same if you only take the card into account. The 1080 is ~25% more power efficient, not 50%.
>>54596781
It's a problem with math, you dumbfuck.
Say you have two GPUs. One consumes 150W, the other 100W. You can easily tell that the former consumes 50% more power.
Now add the other components to it. Say your other components consume 200W total. Your system with GPU 1 consumes 350W, and the system with GPU 2 consumes 300W.
What's the relative difference between 350W and 300W? It's certainly not the 50% we got with only the graphics cards. It has changed to a mere 16.7%.
Do you now see the mistake you made?
>>54596767
Oh so they killed OC in firmware, okay. I wonder how effective non reference power delivery will be.
>100% score
this means that this card had no flaw?
>>54596778
Well over $800
I think we could be seeing one of the first $1000usd+ single card/gpu flagships
>>54596777
as someone who owned a 770 for 3 years yes anything is a upgrade over that pos
a 390 will give you most for your money atm
and regularly go for under 300usd and you get 980 performance or better for half the price its a no brainre
>>54596825
I see that 25% was the correct figure. >>54596819
Goodbye shill. Take care. Bye! :^)
>>54596787
>1.5 to 3 times the VRAM of any competing card
>largest 28nm die at the time
>completely new, difficult to program for architecture
It was expensive for a reason, and it was also meant for 1440p and ultra 1080p.
ill ask again since you alll left me standing here like a doos is this card a good upgrade from a gtx 780?
>>54596843
>Thermal throttles with the fan on 100%
>Power throttles because only 1 8pin power plug
>aftermarket coolers will only knock off 20degrees max
>Card runs well into the 80s
>overclocking does nothing
>>54596819
If it's anything like Maxwell the efficiency will go up with overclocking.
Amazing release as usual from Nvidia.
>>54596827
gpu boost can be disabled by editing the bios. reference cards are hitting the temp/tdp limit. Non reference cards will have crazy performance.
>>54596872
Maybe
>>54596777
No, might as well save up and wait for the ti. 780 is just fine for 1080p with settings on ultra. So unless you have a higher res monitor, the answer is no.
>>54596872
read my fucking response >>54596844
NO!
>>54596819
First off, you should refrain from using estimates when there are direct measurements of GPU power consumption available on other sites (tpu, toms).
Second of all, efficiency != power consumption. Calculating efficiency requires you to know the performance of the card as well. A card isn't simply efficient if it consumes little power, it is efficient if it has high performance relative to the power it consumes.
The figures you should be using are performance/watt, for example, the chart here >>54596661
>>54596787
>Wait for 1070 and you'll get your extra performance for the same/lower price
I have my doubts about the value proposition there too. The 1080 seems to be slower than the 980 Ti clock for clock, and creates a gap on sheer clock speed alone. The 1070 will be further gimped with less shaders, slower memory and probably lower clock speeds. It might not even match a 980 Ti, yet is set to cost as much as a 980.
>>54596883
At least try to hide your shilling there fampai. There's nothing "amazing" about this release so far. Even the Nvidia fanboys over at OCUK seem underwhelmed.
>still shit at dx12/async
>>54596883
>Amazing release as usual from Nvidia.
5 rupees have been deposited in your account.
>>54596912
how did they turn as off?
also source plz
>>54596909
>clock for clock comparisons ever being relevant for cards with different architectures and die sizes
Consider killing yourself.
>>54596902
Sorry i had a very bad experience with amd a long time ago will not use their cards again so it's either the 1080 or the 980 ti cause titan x is a workstation card
>>54595955
that a good score for a 970 sli
>>54596904
No, the subject was power efficiency, not perf/watt. Nice try at shifting the goalposts, but could you be any more BTFO right now? :^)
>muh 50%
>>54596883
>Non reference cards will have crazy performance.
OR they will shit their pants because there are limits how much power chip can take. 83C is before it could take on acutal OC.
>>54596943
how bad? I thought so too but it turned out to be my psu mobo and ram kicked the bucket
>>54596941
They're entirely relevant when the new architecture is a die shrink of the old one and is clocked higher, not lower. Consider a different line of defence, shillfriend.
>>54596946
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_efficiency
Sometimes I wonder what you all expect from these cards. For me I just expect the next generations card to perform at the next tier above but be more energy efficient. For example, a gtx x60 from new gen will perform about the same as a gtx y70 from last gen. Well I hope that makes sense.
>>54596932
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/39124-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-mit-pascal-architektur-im-xxl-test.html?start=32
>>54596914
It's a nice change of pace from the constant disappointment amd shits out.
Pic related, it cost $1500 and gets shit on by the non overclocked $599 1080
>>54596965
Over the two years i had the card the performance just kept degrading to the point i could barely run the simplist games with it though to be fair this was back when it was still called ATI
>>54596969
It's not relevant when the older cards can't reach the same clocks.
>>54596981
>pic related
>>54596981
>>54596976
>muh wikipedia
Apparently I was wrong, you could be! :^)
>>54596990
which card?
Ive had more nvidia cards go bad over the years desu amd cards always where more reliable for me.
>>54596978
It's just retards who fall for marketing hype.
>>54597014
Fuck i think it was called a readeon 4670 its been a while like i said
>>54596978
28->16nm
last time it was actual x2 performance, not it's meh
>>54597044
>last time it was actual x2 performance
literally when?
>>54597040
weird i had a 3870 and 4970 and a 6970 had literally 0 problems with any of them desu
all aftermarket though fuck getting stock cards these days
Literally nothing wrong with the 390 for the money
>>54596996
Of course it is, shillfriend. If a 980 Ti is only 15% slower than a 1080 at a 25%+ clock speed deficit, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that a gimped 1070 is going to struggle to even match a 980 Ti. That was the entirely reasonable point being made, and yet you decided to get all defensive about it. It's like making excuses for Bulldozer.
![PCars-DS4X-FPS2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/IH8WeAm.jpg "PCars-DS4X-FPS2[1].jpg")
Current virtual reality games benchmarks:
http://www.roadtovr.com/nvidia-gtx-1080-benchmark-review-performance-head-to-head-against-the-980ti/
*Remember that no VR titles have integrated the "Simultaneous Multi-Projection" technology yet.
>>54597052
2007 i think, when did they make unified shaders?
Any word on the gtx 1060? Need to buy a 200 dollar card for someone but don't feel comfortable buying a gtx 960 or 380. Also the cpu is pretty bad, a haswell celeron maybe a g1820. Person just wants to game but not break the bank. Curious about how bottlenecked a card would be with a celery cpu.
>>54597052
480p 7fps hopefully
>>54597063
Stock 1080 is ~37% faster than 980 Ti at 1440p.
Pretty doubtful for 1070 to be slower than 980 Ti.
>>54597079
get a 390 for cheapo
>>54597079
bottled to fuck, make them shell out a bit more get a i5 and 970s are cheap enough and bang for the buck
>>54597089
lel its 25 percent at best
>>54597095
Forgot to mention the psu is a cx430. Even if I did give them a spare psu, you would pair an Intel celery with a 390?
>>54597079
wait 3 weeks, and decide than when AMD shows at least something
Man, these threads sure do highlight how utterly stupid some of /g/ is.
>>54597104
See OP.
>>54595955
I hope 1070 can OC to within 10% performence of 1080. If it can it will be the only card I ever need for 1440p.
>>54597063
Are you literally retarded? They said on the slides the 1070 will be faster than a Titan X.
>>54597063
>15%
As an exercise, I'll let you do the math.
>>54597115
AMD has already confirmed their polaris ones are aimed at the mid market. Theirs wont be worth looking at for gaming.
>>54596873
>>54596843
how much nvidia paid for this?
>>54597111
Dear god that sounds shit
Whats your ram?
Even a 5 year old card would get bottlenecked on that cpu
>>54597070
That was with nvidia 8000-series.
That was a long time ago though. Those times of generational performance increases are long gone.
https://youtu.be/Vm6kiLG1dTw overclocking seems pretty useless for 10% performance+ at 2100mhz
>>54597137
price wise, everyone keeps very tight lipped about performance it can go either way
>>54597099
>970
Yea never anon. Nvidia was shot compared to amd last gen. Only the 980ti was a success.
Anyway, the persons not shelling out money for an i5. She just wants to play modern titles on her literal fb/work machine. That's why I assumed 200 or less would be an OK sweetspot to play some new games on high settings at least.
>>54597148
How rustled are ones jimmies over a gpu review. Get a grip.
>>54597146
What is a mid market to you?
better than integrated but worse than gaming?
Gaming is the middleground, There'll be 10x 1070s sold for every 1080.
I don't know which modern card is equivalent to my 7950 to compare to the 1080. Is it the 380?
>>54597146
yes, they confirmed prices, nobody said a thing about performance yet
>>54597182
270X is a 7950 rebrand, so that.
>>54597182
380x
>>54597161
Sadly this
GPU's have finally caught up with CPU advances and now are starting to plateau as we're seeing the limits of silicone in its current state
2018 and 2020+ cards probably even less
Really happy to hear that coil whine is not a thing on the reference board. Still gonna wait for an EVGA option with better power delivery first and hope EK makes a block fo it
>>54597188
280x
>>54597188
270x is a rebranded 7800, not 7900.
![1463495777258[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fvOCt4v.jpg "1463495777258[1].jpg")
>>54597118
non shill scores
>>54597182
270x, or a gtx770
>>54597161
as far as I remember it also was decent die shrink, we were on 28nm for what? 5 years? People expected this gen to be a little different.
>google recommending shitty budget brands of aftermarket cards
This is why we get so many people complainiing vision tech is shit they are SHIT
>>54597205
I dun goofed
I only remembered that is was basically equal to 7950 in performance.
>>54597151
See
>>54597173
It was a good 200 or so dollar machine. Was even faster than my own pc due to the SSD being newer however it's definitely not as strong as mine. I think her monitor costs more than the actual system.
Anyway, I might throw in a gtx 780 and see how bottlenecked it gets lol. From there I'll decide on what gpu would be manageable on that system. Kinda sucks the only upgrade path for the machine is a i5 haswell.
>>54597181
http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/04/amd-polaris-will-be-a-mainstream-gpu/
Thats the article I read that I got the information from
>>54597162
What exactly do you expect? The thing boosts up to 1800+ MHz at stock and 2000-2100 MHz when OC'd. That's a ~10-15% clock boost and a 10-15% performance boost. The performance increase is absolutely exactly what any sane, logical person would expect and predict.
>>54597200
i still feel like gpus are going somewhere. like the 1080 gets twice the frames of say a 390, and then theres the 4k and vr memes
cpus literally havnt improved since 2010
>>54597186
see
>>54597225
or
https://hardforum.com/threads/amds-polaris-will-be-a-mainstream-gpu-not-high-end.1898170/page-2
or
http://www.techinvestornews.com/Tech-News/Latest-Headlines/amds-polaris-will-be-a-mainstream-gpu-not-high-end
>>54597181
Midrange is around $300
>>54597225
Now thats clearer
I guess their yields suck too much to reliably get high end crap.
What is founders edition even supposed to mean, sounds something you'd see on kickstarter?
>>54597207
>cherrypick one game from a cherrypicked site
ok
You just reminded me why I stopped browsing /g/. GPU threads are literally cherrypick to prove the point.
>>54595955
im stuck with a gtx 770, this made me sad.
I don't wana pay 800$
>>54597257
Waste of money ,wait for manufacturers ones.
>>54597162
http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-overclocking-benchmarks/
The written article said they had gains of up to 10fps+ so thats ok
>>54597243
>8-12core+ xeons
>No improvement
AMD CPU's maybe but not intel especially the xeons
>>54597266
770 isn't that bad.....
>>54597265
its not a cherrypick. amd gets shit on in that image
>>54597148
>great overclocker
paid as fuk
>>54597247
since you don't seem to understand how midrange/highend categories work let me explain
highend $500+
midrange $300-400
performance is irrelevant, it can be anything
all things hint that top polaris will be fury performance for 350, nobody knows what it actually will be
>>54597266
I dont so good job im buying a 1080 for $600-$699 as mentioned everywhere
>>54597266
i sold mine for and got a new 390
>>54597273
as someone who's been stuck on one since 2014 its fucking terrabad
Do we have some new 1080p 144hz IPS screens yet?
Not gonna buy driving shit at higher stuff when we dont even have this.
>>54596662
DELETE THIS
>>54597290
how much did you sell it for?
>>54597280
>OP review shows an average of 37% difference across 16 different games
>yours shows a 12% difference
>not cherrypicked
ok
>>54597148
>great overclocker
kek
>>54597211
Those people must be detached from reality then. It isn't even about technology, it's about business. Big Pascal is a thing, it's going to be much faster, but why would NVIDIA release that for $600 today when there's 0 competition for the "small" 1080 anyway?
They're not going to do that because it makes no sense, they're going to milk people with the small one and release a fast card when the market pushes them to (i.e. AMD does something else other than <$300 "mainstream" crap). This is exactly what they did with Maxwell.
>>54597300
$180aud
their worth jack shit and get crapped on by a 380 and 960 for like $250 where i am
>>54597308
ops review is fucking paid retard.
is the /g/oyim meme true?
cant play games at 4k 60 fps without sli minor upgrade over 980ti.... my crossfire 290x will hold me over till a real card is released
>>54597320
>it's paid because it shows what I don't want it to show
ok
>1080 benches
All I see is wait for Vega and 1080Ti. It still couldn't do 60fps across the board on UHD, and judging by how it performs, the 1070 is less amazing than it was lead to be. I'm in the lookout for a 1440p monitor with *sync and am heavily considering Vega with a freesync monitor. If anything, it feels underwhelming after all the hype it build up several days ago. It might just be a rehashed Maxwell, that would be hilarious.
>>54597294
>falling for the 144hz ips meme
They cost like fucking $700usd+ for a decent screen and at 2.5k or 4k forget about it unless you want to spend over a grand on a monitor
Polaris pls come save us from this jewery
>>54597333
>meme
I said 1080p, they literally don't exist.
>>54597290
Lol I had 3 of them laying around so I wouldn't know.
>>54597315
Who cares nobody buys high end amd or nvidia cards 90% of the market buys low-mid range stuff in the $100-300 bracket
>>54597338
vega*
which rumors say will be out in October
>>54597320
IT has to be fake, they must have been paid.
>>54597300
You can sell em on eBay for like 150-200? I'm sure someone would buy it as long as you advertise it well.
>>54597347
can i have one?
t. poor fag with a 770
>>54597325
thinking about crossfiring 390's when i get a new cpu build next year
Might just do a polaris build instead idk
>>54597330
4k 60hz is a meme 4k 240hz would be more interesting and you will need at least 4k 90hz for the next VR Gen
>>54597179
it means this site are unreliable.
the /v/ thread is laughing at us guys
AMDrones are in full damage control mode.
You can literally feel their tears in their posts.
>b-but muh async
>83c full house fire, *even though they're reference models with the shitty bowler
>the performance i-isn't t-hat great guyz!! seriously
>AMD will win this, p-please amd give us something.... ;_;
Meanwhile VEGA is not even on paper.
T O P C U C K S
O
P
C
U
C
K
S
>>54597361
Polaris 10 gonna launch June1 at least
>>54597330
>you will need at least 4k 90hz for the next VR Gen
Good, because I don't give a shit about VR right now. By then, Volta and Navi will hopefully be out.
>>54597347
>Not 3way sli those badboys
What is this 2013?
>>54597365
>Ebay
>20% in horseshit double dipping paypal + ebay fees + postage assfuckery
>>54597377
Yes it must be lies as you dont like what they are saying.
The sites been paid to publish it.
>>54597369
No.
I don't keep them because I want to but because I have to. - anon 2016
In all seriousness I just don't want to go through the trouble of shipping one out, sorry.
>>54597379
You mean the same /v/ thread where people are former PS4/Xbone retards trying to talk about PC hardware?
>>54597399
Fuck, it was for you. >>54597376
What the fuck are """founder editions"""??
>>54597400
Eh, I've been selling parts I don't use off eBay. But yea like 15 percent or so of the money goes to eBay.
>>54597413
Perfect score is just too much.
>>54597416
>>54597416
damn. a boy can dream.
>>54597438
You pay $100 more for a sticker and a engraved cooler
>>54597426
Those the same retards that don't realize you can get inexpensive xeons + a gpu instead of buying intel-k series?
>>54597438
New name for reference card because marketing
>>54597426
Sounds like /g/.
>>54597376
>thinking about crossfiring 390'
don't, sli/crossfire is dying in gaming finally, slowly but surely
AMD barely releases profiles already, 7 out of 10 games do not support it
>>54597398
I said VEGA you tard
>>54597399
yeah the smart thing to do is pick up a 390 or some such CHEAP and wait it out until 2020
>>54597453
xeons perform like shit in gaming though
I just found in our local craigslist equivalent site a used GTX titan for 400 usd
should i get it?
>>54597464
Stop bullshitting me anon. It's more like 2-3 games don't support it.
>>54597379
>16 year old turbo autists virgins who know jackshit about technology are laughing at us guys
I'm not sleeping tonight
>>54597441
Yeah its fucked i got ripped off $50 for my $330 sale couple of months back
Ill just charge more for postage next time but its absolutely fucked
>>54597473
Stop playing unoptimized AAA games.
>>54597476
No, get a 980 or AMD equivalent.
>>54597476
ausfag?
Gumtree?
If yes to either of those dont trust it for a second unless you eyeball the fucker
>>54597308
>if test show less results than i expect it must be cherrypicking
ok.
My 980Ti classified is going to be eligible for step-up. Should I step up to a 1080 founders?
