Wherever I look people the reviews are saying really great things about the 1080. However when you crunch down the numbers, the 1080 is really only about ~20% faster than reference 980ti.
980ti can OC a ton and get 20% performance boost on top, thus equaling out. So where's the point in this side grade?
I know 1080 can OC too, but from the OCs the performance increase average seems to be about 10%, so overall, OC vs OC, the card is only about 10% better. This seems eerily underwhelming given that its MORE EXPENSIVE than 980ti and aiming for 980 tier market. Their 1080ti version will surely hit >1200 for sure if the pricing ratio has increased or stayed same
>>54613286
You're correct, but the Nvidia fanboys have convinced themselves that it's worth the money anyway. All the people who were planning to buy one before the reviews came out on the tech forum I post on are still buying one. It's their money I guess.
>>54613286
Power consumption
30% more perf. When OC than 980 at least... it is still better
VR optimization and the multiple display tering thing
However the SLI key and price are a shitty thing
And i see people speculating on other downsides
Did you check out Tek Syndicate? That seemed to be one of the more objective reviews.
>>54614215
>blatant amd marketer
>"objective review"
>>54613286
Minimum and average fps increase is pretty shit honestly its barely 5-10% and the card doesnt run that much better at 2.1ghz
>>54613999
50W is nothing for somebody running a high end system. It's not 30% more performance either. That's a bullshit stock vs stock comparison. The 980 Ti rapidly gains ground on the 1080 once you start overclocking both, as it has more CUDA cores and Pascal is literally just a die shrink.
The rest is driver-level stuff that will be intentionally held back to make Pascal look better. There's literally no reason it couldn't be done on Maxwell too.
>104 C
>not a problem
>>54614215
link plz
