NVIDIA's second graphics card based on its GP104 "Pascal" silicon, the more affordable GeForce GTX 1070, hits the shelves on June 10, 2016. At the May 7th event, the company was surprisingly quiet about its specifications, until now. It turns out that slower memory isn't the only thing setting the GTX 1070 apart from the GTX 1080. The company will also cut down the CUDA core count, a proportionate number of TMU count, and lower the GPU clock speeds.
NVIDIA set the MSRP for the GeForce GTX 1070 at US $379, $50 higher than the launch-price of the GTX 970, the most popular SKU based on the GM204 silicon. The company also plans to sell a premium reference-design card, dubbed the GeForce GTX 1070 Founders Edition, at $449, at a $70 premium. NVIDIA hopes to make the GTX 1070 the go-to card for Summer 2016 PC upgrades.
GeForce GTX 1070
16 nm "GP104" silicon, 7.2 billion transistors, "GP104-200-A1" ASIC
1,920 CUDA cores, 15 out of 20 streaming multiprocessors enabled on the GP104 silicon
120 TMUs, 64 ROPs
256-bit GDDR5 memory, 8 GB standard memory amount
Max GPU Boost frequency 1600 MHz
6.75 TFLOP/s single-precision floating point performance
150W TDP, single 8-pin PCIe power connector
3x DisplayPort 1.4, 1x HDMI 2.0b
2-way SLI with SLI HB bridge support
Who is this card even for.
Isn't a 980ti going to be better value when they go down in price.
>>54615863
Lower TDP
Driver optimizations
More VRAM
>7.5 GB
>>54615846
>$50 higher than the launch-price of the GTX 970,
So x80 price for a x70, the jewing know no bounds
980ti will be stronger probably.
The 1080 is already only about 10-15% stronger than 980ti once OC'd. The 1070 is much weaker from the looks of it.
>>54615846
forgot source:
http://www.techpowerup.com/222537/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-specifications-revealed
>>54615879
>Lower TDP
The 1080 is a housefire. The 1070 will probably be not as bad, but still toasty.
>Driver optimizations
Nvidia inentionally gimping superior older cards with their drivers should not be an argument for buying worse newer cards
>More VRAM
Less memory bandwidth.
If the 1070 and the 980TI are close in price, you'd be retarded to go for the 1070.
>>54615922
>1080 is house fire
???
>>54615946
85 C
>>54615846
I'll never buy another x70 after getting cucked last year
>>54615846
>449usd
considering the 980 cost $550 at launch its not a bad price
Still it wont overclock very good with TDP of 150, aftermarket will fix that
>>54615922
>Nvidia inentionally gimping superior older cards with their drivers should not be an argument for buying worse newer cards
That's a myth.
There've been several tests of cards with different driver versions, even older cards benefit from newer drivers.
https://www.overclockers.ru/lab/print/71301/o-polze-obnovleniya-chetyre-pokoleniya-videokart-nvidia-protiv-drajverov-raznyh-let.html
This one in russian but diagram are pretty self-explanatory.
There are some drivers that decrease performance, but they do so across all gens.
Can't find another similar test but results are pretty much the same
>If the 1070 and the 980TI are close in price
IF.
Right now they're nowhere near, 980Ti retails for $609-759, 1070 is going to be $379-449
>>54616031
how bad where they? I knew tonnes of dumbshits with them but never actually got to try one, came out just before i got a 770 back in the day too
>>54616082
much of a muchness really
ever since 362 their drivers have been terrible
365.09 wasnt bad
>>54616082
>one card
show stuff from the 700 series
>>54616131
Did you take a look at the article?
They're testing 480, 580, 680 and 780
>>54615846
I fucking love how Nvidia is pushing that Boost Clock Speed* over the normal clock speed. I use to hate this company but I just love their marketing ruthlessness. I'm falling in love with nvidia man. These guys are sly as fuck.
>>54615879
>More VRAM
But a gimped 256-bit bus.
0 reason for anyone to buy it, nvidias new 10xx cards dont have async shaders, just basic async compute implenetation and the whole gpu will come to a screeching halt anytime its used (like in VR and dx12 games).
>>54616180
bus don't matter, bandwith matter
but you're right, lower bandwidth than a 980Ti, but it's also significantly cheaper. If it offers similar performance at $200 lower price it'd be nice
>>54615846
>US $379, $50 higher than the launch-price of the GTX 970
will it still drop to 250-290 at good deals?
>>54616277
Close to $300, doubt that it'd go lower. GTX 1060 will retail at $200-250 at launch (960 retailed at $200 but Nvidia bumped the price of 1070/1080 by $50 so they're probably gonna do the same for mid-range).
>>54615863
Imminent driver nerf on 980ti soon. Get ready to be jewed, again
So from the specs I know we can't really accurately gauge how it will actually perform, but is it likely that the 1070 will perform on par or better than a 980ti?
>>54616608
Nvidia shills keep saying it will so you already know it won't. Expect 980 performance or slightly better on selected benchmarks.
>>54616381
>driver nerf
Nice meme
>7.5GB
Also this will pretty much be on par with an R9 390 in terms of DX12 performance.
>>54616381
This has been proven false multiple times.
Why is /g/ so uneducated?
So if I'm in the market for a new GPU should I get this or the 980ti? I am confused, /g/.
Meh probably going to wait until the 11 series. I'm not playing at 4k so my regular 980 is still hanging in there.
>>54616727
Wait a few weeks for the 1070 benchmarks to come out.
Depending on the 1070's performance relative to the 980ti and pricing of both you can make your decision.
So I'm guessing a 1070 will be more than enough for 1920x1080 in the foreseeable future?
I'm not moving on to 4K or 1440 any time soon.
>>54615922
>>54615964
that's the reference cooler, blower coolers are always hotter than open ones
going to have to wait for partner cards to come out to see the real temps as no one is going to buy the "founders edition" card.
>>54616764
Fair enough. I can wait.
>>54616768
I do I have a 1440p monitor waiting in the wings for my new GPU, is it fucked unless I get a 1080?
>>54616768
It will definitely be enough for 1080p at 60fps, although maybe not with every setting maxed out like AA or something.
I'm really hoping that it can run games at around 100fps though, because if it can I'll buy a 144Hz monitor instead of a regular 60.
>>54616768
Good choice.
1440/4k will never be viable until developers optimize for those resolutions.
Consoles barely use 1080p as a standard yet because they want to push GRAPHIXX instead of performance. As long as the priority is visual fidelity, we're never going to see a climb in resolution because developers will always push for fidelity in 1080p or less as hardware gets better/cheaper.
>>54616801
>I can wait
Although, if you are willing to pay enough for a 980ti why don't you just get the 1080?
It's already performing better than it right now and the performance will only increase more with driver updates.
>>54616695
meh it will retail for like $600AUD+ here since my country is a shithole
>>54616807
>although maybe not with every setting maxed out like AA or something.
Fucking what? Isn't a 980ti already major overkill for 1080p maxed?
>>54616834
Take a look at these benchmarks for the 1080.
As you can see, even at 1080p resolution there are some games where it barely surpasses 60fps, and even one or two games that are under that.
Seeing how the 1080 is more powerful than the 980ti in pretty much every scenario, then I think it's safe to say there might have to be some settings that you would have to turn down on the 1070.
>>54616929
there's been literally zero optimizations for those games
>>54616929
This is why Nvidia pays devs to include inefficient ultra graphics gimmicks. It's so gullible idiots like you buy a $600 GPUs for 1080p when everyone with a brain is playing the exact same games just fine with a $250 GPU.
That's why the 970 sold so well. Nvidia's marketing team actually convinced plebs that they need a $330 GPU to play games.
>>54615846
For what purpose?
It is not like there is a healthy game industry cranking out bleeding edge titles that need it.
>>54617015
>idiots like you
Holy shit are you AMDrones actually this retarded?
I just put up a chart clearly showing that there are some games that even the gtx 1080 cannot play at FHD and you're still accusing me of shilling?
>everyone with a brain is playing the exact same games just fine with a $250 GPU
Really, because the benchmarks show pretty clearly that the 1080 far outperforms the Fury X at every resolution, and in the cases the 1080 can't hit 60 fps the Fury X is much lower.
A $250 AMD GPU would be even worse than that.
desu it's all just about standards. If you want price/performance then the only nvidia card even worth looking at is the X70, otherwise it's going to be AMD. If you want raw performance it's probably going to be an Nvidia card.
>>54616824
Mostly because I'd like to save a few bucks if possible. I had the GTX 980 Ti sitting in my basket but perhaps it isn't the best purchase now?
>>54617100
980ti will go down in price as soon as the 1080 is for sale.
>>54616817
1440p has been viable for years on high end cards.
>>54615883
The catch now is that it's 8GB of GDDR5 in the 1070 and 8GB of GDDR5X in the 1080
>>54617125
Yeah but am I going to get hosed quicker with the 980, like is it going to be obsolete quicker and can it run 1440p as well as the 1070 will be able to?
>>54617129
Hell, I do it on my 960. Works fine as long as I'm okay with 30-40fps (which I normally am).
>>54617228
>8
it's 7.5 m8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANE2verd1dk
>>54617091
>there are some games that even the gtx 1080 cannot play at FHD
The why have I yet to find a game that I can't play at 2560x1440 with a 390? High settings or better.
Nvidia marketing is really working wonders on fools like you. Just 5 years ago the fastest GPU on the planet was only $500 and most gamers bought cards in the sub $300 range.
Today Nvidia has convinced the average PC gamer that if he can't get ultra settings 60fps in every single game he should immediately upgrade his GPU.
>>54617277
>Today Nvidia has convinced the average PC gamer that if he can't get ultra settings 60fps in every single game he should immediately upgrade his GPU.
They really have haven't they. Its out of hand.
>>54616845
>i'm not reading the graph right, the post
>>54617277
I don't understand what you're trying to argue.
I posted benchmarks showing the 1080 beating the fury X at every level, and if the 1080 can't play some games at 60fps then the Fury X can't either, and obviously any other weaker AMD card wouldn't be able to either.
Did you even look at the image I posted or are you just too much of a buttblasted faggot to actually look at any data?
>>54617267
I ain't clicking that shit nigga
>>54617267
g8 b8, m8. The only issue is you chose a taquitto looking mother fucker
>>54617307
>buttblasted faggot
>kek
>>54616092
They're absolutely fine, great even, so long as you don't try to do retard shit with them like higher resolution than 1440p.
It's a very funny may may but the truth is that you won't force the card to access that slow memory (which it will only do if it has no other option) on anything in 1080p and hardly anything in 1440p.
>>54617307
>I don't understand what you're trying to argue
He's arguing that you can easily play games on 1440p with an R9 390 if you lower some graphics settings.
>it's fucking nothing.jpeg
>>54617393
And like I also said, you could lower some graphics settings to achieve higher framerate.
He's just arguing because he's a shill.
>>54617404
>4k res
at lower resolutions the difference is more apparent. then again, 1080 is kinda overkill for 1080p, 1440p seems like a sweet spot. for maintaining 60+fps
>>54616075
>comparing the x70 with x80 card
>being that retarded
The 970 launched for 329$, the 1070 is launching for 120$ MORE.
I lost my PC recently so I'm getting new parts once this gen of cards dropped. Am I retarded for going with ati because freesync monitors are so much cheaper than gsync?
>>54617486
to clarify for fags like you
>>54617516
>Am I retarded for going with ati because freesync monitors are so much cheaper than gsync?
that means you didn't fall for the gsyn meme. may 27th, Polaris 10 reveal
GTX1080 has 25% more CUDA cores 25% higher bandwith.
1920 Cores * 1,25 = 2560 CUDA Cores
256 GB/s *1, 25= 320GB/s
Performance-wise GTX1070 is probably gonna be between 980 and 980Ti, a bit closer to Ti.
I'm still gonna wait for GTX1060, I'm okay if it offers GTX970-980 range performance at $200-250.
>>54617620
>920 Cores * 1,25 = 2560 CUDA Cores
scratch that, I meant 1,33
>>54616209
Isn't the bandwith = bus width * clock speed?
>>54617412
Not that guy but you are the shill here. You are trying to argue for spending more money. That is the literal definition of shill.
>>54617488
for the founder's edition you fucking moron
>>54617684
>founder's edition
*reference
>>54616082
>There've been several tests of cards with different driver versions, even older cards benefit from newer drivers.
Except that for a lot of people with older Nvidia cards, Dark souls 3 was flat out unplayable and they had to revert to drivers from 2013.
>>54617700
>those literally mean the same thing
it's only $380 for the base card
>>54617721
The reference is the base card.
Do I buy a 980 or wait for a 1070? Want to run stuff at 1440p. Help.
>>54616082
The benchmark does not make a comparison.
Also, all the game it tested are old and outdated.
Most of the claim are from newer games where a fucking GTX960 out perform GTX780.
The test completely missing the point here and a complete waste of time.
>>54617745
Wait for the 1070 to release so that the 980 goes down in price, then buy neither and get Polaris.
>>54617766
this
980Ti price here has dropped to 550 euros, while the gtx 1080 (founders aka reference edition) will cost 699 euros.
what do?
>>54617671
It is. I mean judging by bus width alone is stupid. Hell, 2900XT had 512-bit bus width and it was proper shite compared to 8800GTX with 256-bit bus
>>54617766
lmao this
>>54617677
>not that guy
lmao, I'm not the guy you responded to either, but all he was saying was that a gtx 1070 would not be able to run every game at 1080p maxed out.
The other guy just got triggered for some unknown reason
>>54617516
>Am I retarded for going with ati
Yes. AMD is an awful, awful company and the only reason they're still in business is because Intel needs them to be (anti-monopoly laws).
Their GPUs are impressive on paper, and then all that power gets completely squandered with their horrific drivers. Seriously, the CPU-side overhead is stupid. You need an i5 for situations where you'd be fine with an i3 for a similar Nvidia card.
They're slow to release updates when major games are released, their features lag is very long (took them 6+ months to support GL4.5, Nvidia supported it on the day the spec was released).
Finally, while NV is working on a bunch of neat technology exclusive to their products (physx, hairworks, etc), AMD has nothing. When they do have an equivalent, it's a shitty half-baked "free" version. See: Gsync vs Freesync, 3D Vision vs HD3D, CUDA vs [any GPGPU tech that isn't CUDA].
And then /g/ neckbeards using 2010 thinkpads come along and spout shit about PC gamers being deluded into using NV cards. No, we're just using the products that work better.
>>54618216
>$0.02 has been deposited to your bank of israel account
>>54615993
So?
My reference 980 hits 83C regularly.
>>54618332
>so?
>>54617730
The msrp is what EVGA/MSI/etc. Will start pricing at, the founders (reference) card is more expensive because if the aluminum heatsink and being sold direct by NVidia.
Evga 980ti classified owner here. I can get stable 1550mhz on boost. Pushing a single 1440p monitor at 60hz. Should I bother with the 1080? Just how real is the "driver gimping"? I haven't used nvidia since the gtx 5xx series. I came from r9 390 xfire. So far my 980ti is crushing everything and I haven't updated my driver in like 5 months.
Is the high OC ceiling of the 1080 just placebo? I.e. an r9 390X @ 1.2ghz is equivalent to a gtx 970 at 1.4ghz? So a 1080 at 2.1ghz would barely keep up with my 980ti? Or since the 1080 is essentially a refined version of Maxwell on a smaller die, the clock speed performance increases are linear?
I don't care about the latest and greatest. Just want to be able to drive my single 1440p panel for latest titles at 60fps without turning settings down below high. My card has a warranty and I can get my $700 back. So money isn't an issue.
I realize that nvidia has the superior product but I can buy two r9 380s and a free sync monitor for the price of a gtx 960 and a gsync monitor. It seems like too few people consider this when researching their purchase
>>54615846
Is this good for ultra 1080p? I couldn't care less for 25% resolution increase if I can't even do high settings at 1440p for more than 5 years.
>>54619080
SLI is shit and most people don't consider adaptive sync monitors.
>>54618673
If it already does what you want it to, don't bother.
Otherwise fine a reviewer that has a similar system to yours and run the same benches they do, then compare your results.
It won't be perfect, but it'll give you an idea of how it compares.
>>54619256
From what I understand theyre a drastic improvement and once again a 24 inch 144hz fhd freesync can be had for $200 new
1070 loses a lot of shaders, yields must be pretty bad on GP104, maybe we can expect a third GPU based on it.
>>54618500
You'd have to be an idiot to believe that.
>>54618065
Uhuh
So 1070 or 490x
the 1070 is for poorfags
i'll switch to sli 1080 from my sli 980ti
>>54618216
Lel. Nvidia bought Physx and stole Hairworks. What great technologies they develop.
>>54620001
Guess we'll see in about a month.
any point in upgrading from a 4670k for a 1080? currently using a 290x
dearest /g/
I havent built a computer since like 2010 or whatever when the i5-3570k was hot so I'm completely out of the loop
I'm looking to have two environments:
one for gnu-linux rice, coding, compiling, browsing, fun posting, watching movies, playing streamed or downloaded 4k porn, and just general usage and enjoyment
The other environment is Windows, for work, Office, Solidworks, and messing around with VR goggles.(my interest in VR would be in programming, simulating stuff, cad, and porn, I'm not interested in gaming because I'm not a 12 year old /v/ faggot)
so i think I want a high end processor available to each and whatever graphics are capable of decoding 4k video
also I'm interested in very aggressive data backups, redundancy, failsafe, and protection
I don't know if it makes sense to build two separate computers since that would be expensive, or to run Windows in a VM with pass through. I just want the least amount of stress possible.
Maybe it would make sense to have a super thin master OS and virtualize gnu-linux AND windows? It would make backups super easy and separate possible crashes, and also if I bought a shit ton of RAM I could potentially run my gnu-linux environment on a RAMDISK.
>2019
>not running your OS on a 24GB (actually 23.5GB) Nvidia GTZ 12980 Ti GDDR6 VRAMDISK and burning your house down
TLDR, what graphics are capable of playing 4k videos smoothly
>>54622827
A raspberry pi 3 can play 4k video smoothly if it's encoded correctly
>>54616665
>>54616697
Like when the 290 BTFOd the 780ti?
