GTX 1070 have only 1920SP!

[A_Skywalker]

The card is not released yet.

The 1080 too but there are benchmarks. Didnt they give 1070s to bloggers to test it?

 

[tviceman]

How exactly do you do that calculation?

When have we ever seen 100% scaling in increasing/decreasing cores and/or increasing/decreasing clock speed?

 

[Paratus]

Hmm.

An overpriced top of the line GTX
An expensive cut down secondary card that has 1920 cores
AMD bringing a couple of most likely small die competitors to market a few weeks later.

Why does this sound so familiar? :hmm:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2556

Maybe we should wait for the GTX 1070 2160.

 

[crisium]

Hmm.

An overpriced top of the line GTX
An expensive cut down secondary card that has 1920 cores
AMD bringing a couple of most likely small die competitors to market a few weeks later.

Why does this sound so familiar? :hmm:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2556

Maybe we should wait for the GTX 1070 2160.

Ah, flashbacks to the olden days when AMD (still sporting the ATi name) could make Nvidia react. Nvidia of today wouldn't even budge on their $650 GTX 280. It's premium. Modern Nvidia released the $700 GTX 780 Ti after the $400 Radeon 290 was released and it was only 15% faster.

There's certainly room for another SKU between the two, let alone a revision with more cores. But Nvidia of today is a different beast, and the market is more tolerant of the brand name dictating whatever terms they please.

 

[nerp]

Less SP. More power. A modern 4-cylinder engine can have 300+ horsepower. A V8 in the mid 1980s you were lucky to have 150. A Toyota Camry stock, today, can beat a Ferrari off the line from the 90s.

Counting SPs and getting mad is dumb.

 

[selni]

1920 cores was correct, 1600mhz clock not so much (1683mhz base boost). So much for nvidia confirmed, but still a bit weak in comparison. 8gbps GDDR5 for 256GB/s.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1070

 

[DamZe]

At first I had high hopes for the 1070, I was hoping it would sport a 384-bit bus with its GDDR5 memory, and be around 2048+ shaders. Well if these specs are true, it's nowhere near a compelling buy as the 970 was at launch vs the 980 (which I own btw, and still love for my lowly 1080p gaming needs, full GM204 was beautiful at the time it released). Memory bandwidth wise it will starve at higher resolutions, GDDR5 can only be pushed so far. And what's with the power limit gimping going on? I read these won't be able to hit 1080 clocks, so overall final verdict on paper specs, NOPE!

 

[AtenRa]

Less SP. More power. A modern 4-cylinder engine can have 300+ horsepower. A V8 in the mid 1980s you were lucky to have 150. A Toyota Camry stock, today, can beat a Ferrari off the line from the 90s.

Counting SPs and getting mad is dumb.

Not even a 1980 Ferrari.

 

[AtenRa]

The 1080 too but there are benchmarks. Didnt they give 1070s to bloggers to test it?

1080 has been released (paper launch), 1070 hasn't yet so no reviews.

 

[MrTeal]

Not even a 1980 Ferrari.

I'm sure he meant Fieros.

 

[LTC8K6]

Not even a 1980 Ferrari.

A stock Camry V6 is pretty darn quick to 60, though. 5.8 seconds according to C&D.

That seems to be as fast or faster than quite a few Ferraris;

http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/ferrari-0-60-mph-times/

 

[Headfoot]

Let's stay away from car analogies here. They are never instructive and it just adds yet another element to bicker over

 

[AtenRa]

A stock Camry V6 is pretty darn quick to 60, though. 5.8 seconds according to C&D.

That seems to be as fast or faster than quite a few Ferraris;

http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/ferrari-0-60-mph-times/

There are even faster Ferraris than this 5.8secs 0 to 60mph from the 70s.

but yea this is OT so ill stop here

 

[Head1985]

Official specs at NV web...
Btw look at GTX970 they have wrong memory speed.Maybe its again marketing so GTX1070 will look better?
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1070

 

[AtenRa]

Official specs at NV web...
Btw look at GTX970 they have wrong memory speed.Maybe its again marketing so GTX1070 will look better?
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1070

Again, I sure hope when AMD was talking about 2.5x efficiency they didnt mean in VR.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Heh... $700 for a videocard, when you think about it, you can build the rest of the computer, CPU/RAM/Mobo/SSD/PSU/Case for about that much money. It's insane that a videocard would cost as much as the rest of the computer. Sad to say this, but I think it's finally getting to the point where I might give up on gaming. I'm not playing as often as I used to and I'm not willing to plop that kind of money just to be able to casually game every once in a while... Hopefully AMD will provide a better value.

 

[Bacon1]

Can someone link me to the 1070 benchmarks, I want to see if its good for 1440p.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1070

Nvidia's website is up, and has some basic "benchmarks" like showing ROTTR dx12 @ 1.7x faster than 970.

 

[Head1985]

Pr benchmarks are from GTX 1080..they copy/paste them for 1070 but are false for 1070.
1070 cant be 70% faster than GTX970 because it have only +66% Tflops...

Some numbers
1080 vs 980 there is 80% increase in teraflops and 25% SP
1070 vs 970 there is 66% increase in teraflops and 15% SP

1080 have 80% more Tflops vs 980 and is 60-65% faster than GTX980
1070 have 66% more Tflops and should be only 40-45% faster than GTX970.

Btw TITANX is 46-50% faster than GTX970.
980TI is 46% faster than GTX970

I think 1070 will be slower than TITANX and 980TI by small margin.

 

[airfathaaaaa]

Pr benchmarks are from GTX 1080..they copy/paste them for 1070 but are false for 1070.
1070 cant be 70% faster than GTX970 because it have only +66% Tflops...

Some numbers
1080 vs 980 there is 80% increase in teraflops and 25% SP
1070 vs 970 there is 66% increase in teraflops and 15% SP

1080 have 80% more Tflops vs 980 and is 60-65% faster than GTX980
1070 have 66% more Tflops and should be only 40-45% faster than GTX970.

Btw TITANX is 46-50% faster than GTX970.
980TI is 46% faster than GTX970

I think 1070 will be slower than TITANX and 980TI by small margin.

depends they can always use more games from 2011 and 2013 to make more average score

 

[tviceman]

25% less shader power, 25% less bandwidth, and virtually same ROP throughput (unless this is another 970 "fiasco"). It should be right at 20% slower than the 1080 with probably no chance to overtake a stock reference 1080 with overclocking but still faster than Titan X, just as Nvidia said it would be. Time and time again people get in a massive upheaval over specs instead of just concentrating on performance in real-world benchmarks. Nvidia is releasing a card 20% slower than MSRP AIB GTX 1080's for a 37% lower price. As I said earlier in this thread, if this bothers you then wait for Polaris to get what AMD fans say will be Fury-class performance for $299.

 

[Insomniator]

Heh... $700 for a videocard, when you think about it, you can build the rest of the computer, CPU/RAM/Mobo/SSD/PSU/Case for about that much money. It's insane that a videocard would cost as much as the rest of the computer. Sad to say this, but I think it's finally getting to the point where I might give up on gaming. I'm not playing as often as I used to and I'm not willing to plop that kind of money just to be able to casually game every once in a while... Hopefully AMD will provide a better value.

By that logic you should have given up when the $3k Titan Z and the $1.5k 295x2 were released.

There are a ton of cards at all price points that are perfectly fine for gaming. People on these boards just like to complain and argue about cards that are A. Not released yet and B. They will probably never buy anyway.

 

[Mopetar]

We may see a GTX 1060Ti from GP104 but i doubt we'll see 1070Ti.

What would a 1060 Ti be though? I honestly expected what was released as the 1070 to be the 1060 Ti. In the past the x60 has had around half of the SPs as the x80. That suggests that GP106 would have 1280 - 1536 SPs. That doesn't leave a lot of room for a 1060 Ti.

As aggressively as Nvidia harvested those chips I can't imagine that there's terribly many left that are still functional but have fewer than 75% working SMs. I don't think we'll see a repeat of the 970s memory configuration with the 1070, so I suppose that leaves room for a 1060 Ti that has a damaged memory controller that can get deactivated.

A 1070 Ti makes a lot more sense as eventually yields are going to improve and there's no good reason to cut out 5 SMs if only 2 are bad.

 

[tviceman]

1070 cant be 70% faster than GTX970 because it have only +66% Tflops...

It certainly can be if it's utilizing it's theoretical max performance better than the 970.

 

[tviceman]

What would a 1060 Ti be though?

It would probably be the 1070 but with a 192-bit bus, just like the GTX 660 TI was to the GTX 670.

 

[Head1985]

It certainly can be if it's utilizing it's theoretical max performance better than the 970.

You mean far better than GTX1080 yes?

Because 1080 have 80% more Tflops vs GTX980 and is 60% faster.