GeForce GTX 1080 Ti arrives this week, let's unbox it ahead of the actual review

[Puiu]

LINK: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru.../73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review.html

You don't really understand things at all. First off, every single new DX API had a lot of problems early on, and as usual history is repeating itself with the first titles that support it. Secondly, in titles that have good DX12 optimisations you can clearly see just how much AMD hardware can gain. (you also already have DX12 only titles)
FYI if you read the conclusion of the benchmark you provided then you'll notice that the 1060 6GB leads in DX11 titles at 1080p by 2% on average (0% at 1440p) and loses by 6% in DX12. (this is without the newer ReLive AMD drivers)

Here's the closing statement: "So which one of these would I buy? That will likely boil down to whatever is on sale at a given time but I’ll step right into and say the RX 480 8GB. Not only has AMD proven they can match NVIDIA’s much-vaunted driver rollouts but through a successive pattern of key updates have made their card a parallel contender in DX11 and a runaway hit in DX12. That’s hard to argue against."

Why would you try to form a counter-argument with something that further reinforces mine?

 

[ddferrari]

Wow- first it's "Just wait until Vega gets here", and now it's "Watch out for Volta next year". Haven't you heard that AMD has a history of over-hyping their cards? And why are AMD fans always talking about what's coming up, as opposed to Nvidia fans who can talk about what's here right now?

No, playing the waiting game is like chasing a carrot, and I won't base my GPU purchases on the handful of titles currently using DX12. Besides, do you think the 1080 Ti is going to somehow struggle in those games?? Will I have to "settle" for 80 fps in a few titles while AMD can do 100? What about the other 90% of title where the 1080 Ti will likely be faster, and in some cases ridiculously faster?

Please don't talk as if you already know performance numbers for future products. Nobody will take you seriously when you'll just throw made up percentages left and right.
Every single single new API version had a hard time gaining traction, but eventually they became the standard. At the moment DX12/Vulkan support is progressing at the expected pace. Unless you plan to upgrade your PC every 1 or 2 years (which very few do) then planning for the future is not a bad idea.

You're silly! That was exactly my point to the poster I was actually addressing: I'm tired of AMD fanboys bragging about what's coming up when there is absolutely no objective data on the product other than AMD's cryptic "leaks". DX12 is moving at a snail's pace just like DX11 did. A quick check of Wikipedia shows exactly two upcoming titles listed thus far in 2017. Hardly a reason to get on the DX12 bandwagon in the next several years. Better advice: Get what will make you happy now, don't endlessly play the waiting game. And decide in advance that you won't regret your purchase no matter what is released afterwards, because you already know something better is right around the corner.

 

[Puiu]

You're silly! That was exactly my point to the poster I was actually addressing: I'm tired of AMD fanboys bragging about what's coming up when there is absolutely no objective data on the product other than AMD's cryptic "leaks". DX12 is moving at a snail's pace just like DX11 did. A quick check of Wikipedia shows exactly two upcoming titles listed thus far in 2017. Hardly a reason to get on the DX12 bandwagon in the next several years. Better advice: Get what will make you happy now, don't endlessly play the waiting game. And decide in advance that you won't regret your purchase no matter what is released afterwards, because you already know something better is right around the corner.

sorry if I misunderstood.
but in general I can't honestly recommend something that only has marginal gains today when there is a big possibility that in the future there is a lot to gain from making a more "future proof" purchase. like I said before, not everybody upgrades their GPU once every 1-2 years. your way of thinking only works if you already know that you'll buy something new after a relatively short period of time.

 

[ddferrari]

I don't think we're talking about subjectivity here. it's pretty much common knowledge at the moment that AMD's implementation of DX12 is better. 2nd gen Maxwell and Pascal get close, but it's not enough (especially without proper async shader support). If you are on the 1st gen Maxwell then tough luck.

Please don't talk as if you already know performance numbers for future products. Nobody will take you seriously when you'll just throw made up percentages left and right.
Every single single new API version had a hard time gaining traction, but eventually they became the standard. At the moment DX12/Vulkan support is progressing at the expected pace. Unless you plan to upgrade your PC every 1 or 2 years (which very few do) then planning for the future is not a bad idea.

Please don't talk as if you already know performance numbers for future products. Nobody will take you seriously when you'll just throw made up percentages left and right.
Every single single new API version had a hard time gaining traction, but eventually they became the standard. At the moment DX12/Vulkan support is progressing at the expected pace. Unless you plan to upgrade your PC every 1 or 2 years (which very few do) then planning for the future is not a bad idea.

"Please don't talk as if you already know performance numbers for future products"

Please don't talk as if you already know performance numbers for future products. Nobody will take you seriously when you'll just throw made up percentages left and right.
Every single single new API version had a hard time gaining traction, but eventually they became the standard. At the moment DX12/Vulkan support is progressing at the expected pace. Unless you plan to upgrade your PC every 1 or 2 years (which very few do) then planning for the future is not a bad idea.

"Please don't talk as if you already know performance numbers for future products."

You don't really understand things at all. First off, every single new DX API had a lot of problems early on, and as usual history is repeating itself with the first titles that support it. Secondly, in titles that have good DX12 optimisations you can clearly see just how much AMD hardware can gain. (you also already have DX12 only titles)
FYI if you read the conclusion of the benchmark you provided then you'll notice that the 1060 6GB leads in DX11 titles at 1080p by 2% on average (0% at 1440p) and loses by 6% in DX12. (this is without the newer ReLive AMD drivers)

Here's the closing statement: "So which one of these would I buy? That will likely boil down to whatever is on sale at a given time but I’ll step right into and say the RX 480 8GB. Not only has AMD proven they can match NVIDIA’s much-vaunted driver rollouts but through a successive pattern of key updates have made their card a parallel contender in DX11 and a runaway hit in DX12. That’s hard to argue against."

Why would you try to form a counter-argument with something that further reinforces mine?

My two points are:
1) The gains from DX12 (6% you say?) are minimal, as both cards are providing very acceptable frame rates. While the DX11 gains for Nvidia are minimal between these two particular cards, I have seen other reviews between different where the differences were vast.
2) There are literally thousands of games released that use DX11/9, etc. and about 20 DX12 titles. Logically, that number is too insignificant to base a purchase on today. At this rate, DX 12 won't be a significant factor for in the next few years, so I wouldn't be concerned about it until the next upgrade after this one. We don't even know for sure that a majority of developers plan to embrace it anytime soon.

 

[theBest11778]

Wow- first it's "Just wait until Vega gets here", and now it's "Watch out for Volta next year". Haven't you heard that AMD has a history of over-hyping their cards? And why are AMD fans always talking about what's coming up, as opposed to Nvidia fans who can talk about what's here right now?

No, playing the waiting game is like chasing a carrot, and I won't base my GPU purchases on the handful of titles currently using DX12. Besides, do you think the 1080 Ti is going to somehow struggle in those games?? Will I have to "settle" for 80 fps in a few titles while AMD can do 100? What about the other 90% of title where the 1080 Ti will likely be faster, and in some cases ridiculously faster?

Sorry I don't buy in to the "Buy Nvidia NOW it's the fastest thing ever... at least right now" mentality. It's plain as day that Nvidia knows AMD has a real competitor on the way otherwise they'd have pulled the same Founder's Edition cash grab again. Glad you feel like supporting a company that feels it's good business to screw over their customers, but they've lost my business until they prove to me they're worth supporting.

Personally, I rarely play newer games as maybe 1-2 per year are good. It doesn't take much to run FEAR, Quake 2, Dark Forces, KOTOR, or a myriad of other games that are worth playing. If AMD can't deliver a good product, and Nvidia doesn't start trying to earn my business instead of expecting it, I'll just stick to classics and used/budget hardware. After two or 3 years even today's toughest games will run fine on budget hardware. Feeling like you need the fastest/most expensive setup is a product of buying in to the marketing, and MOST Nvidia fans are stuck on that koolaid.

 

[ddferrari]

Sorry I don't buy in to the "Buy Nvidia NOW it's the fastest thing ever... at least right now" mentality. It's plain as day that Nvidia knows AMD has a real competitor on the way otherwise they'd have pulled the same Founder's Edition cash grab again. Glad you feel like supporting a company that feels it's good business to screw over their customers, but they've lost my business until they prove to me they're worth supporting.

Personally, I rarely play newer games as maybe 1-2 per year are good. It doesn't take much to run FEAR, Quake 2, Dark Forces, KOTOR, or a myriad of other games that are worth playing. If AMD can't deliver a good product, and Nvidia doesn't start trying to earn my business instead of expecting it, I'll just stick to classics and used/budget hardware. After two or 3 years even today's toughest games will run fine on budget hardware. Feeling like you need the fastest/most expensive setup is a product of buying in to the marketing, and MOST Nvidia fans are stuck on that koolaid.

Well first of all Nvidia can't "screw over" anyone, because they aren't your utility company or the IRS. You are perfectly free to choose to never buy their products. When was the last time they put a gun to your head?

Secondly, today's toughest games may run at 1080p with medium settings on some budget hardware and that's fine- but that doesn't work for those of us with higher resolutions at higher refresh rates. I don't feel that I "need the fastest/most expensive setup"; I'm ready for an upgrade after 4 years and the 1080 Ti will fit into my system perfectly. That's why I waited and passed on the 1080.

You know, a Chevy Cavalier will get you back and forth to work just fine too, but that doesn't mean that anyone with a BMW is a fool. It probably just means that you've never driven a BMW.

 

[Puiu]

"Please don't talk as if you already know performance numbers for future products"

"Please don't talk as if you already know performance numbers for future products."

My two points are:
1) The gains from DX12 (6% you say?) are minimal, as both cards are providing very acceptable frame rates. While the DX11 gains for Nvidia are minimal between these two particular cards, I have seen other reviews between different where the differences were vast.
2) There are literally thousands of games released that use DX11/9, etc. and about 20 DX12 titles. Logically, that number is too insignificant to base a purchase on today. At this rate, DX 12 won't be a significant factor for in the next few years, so I wouldn't be concerned about it until the next upgrade after this one. We don't even know for sure that a majority of developers plan to embrace it anytime soon.

again you are working on the assumption that most ppl are buying a new video cards every 1 or 2 years which you know that it isn't true. even if Vulkan/DX12 aren't big right now, they will be big enough in 2 years.

here's newer benchmark that reached the same conclusion. it shows the % delta between the two cards in several games.
http://blog.logicalincrements.com/2017/01/gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-graphics-card-better-driver-update/

in general you should buy which one has a much better price in your country, but if the price is the same then going with the RX480 should be a no brainer. future proofing is something that you should not ignore. (unless maybe you know for certain that you'll play games that work better on AMD or Nvidia - gaming preferences are subjective so I can't give advice on what to buy unless that person tells me exactly what games he wants to play)

 

[HonestTony]

I have two new in boxes of the following 1070's, 1060's and one 1080 GTX series. Should I sell these and buy two GTX1080 Ti's instead? I might be using this computer for gaming on Steam. These are all MSI cards I have brand new. Just curious on what advice I get. Thank you

 

[Urgelt]

Can`t wait for some gaming benchmarks. I think if it hits 40-50 FPS 4k in most demanding games, it`s very much a playable performance and a phenomenal feat for 1080ti at this price. Sure, let`s hope AMD can bring some challenge and make prices drop even lower, though I seriously doubt Vega can deliver.

Both the GTX-1080 and the Titan XP have been thoroughly benchmarked against the most popular games at highest graphical settings for 4K monitors. On some games (Titanfall 2 is one), Titan XP can't get much above 66 FPS at 4K. GTX-1080 falls into the mid-50's on Titanfall 2. There isn't much mystery here: the 1080 Ti will slot in between the Titan XP and the GTX-1080, probably closer to the Titan XP's performance.

But the only people who *really* think 60 FPS is just hunky-dory are console enthusiasts and casual PC gamers. Serious PC gamers at the high end crave much faster, butter-smooth frame rates. They can get those faster frame rates at 1440p, easily, with GTX-1070 and GTX-1080 GPUs. They can't get them at all at 4K at max graphical settings with any cards in this generation. GP-102 cards are better, but not *enough* better to change that equation.

My MSI hybrid GTX-1080 drives my 27" 1440p monitor at well over 90 FPS minimum for almost any game at highest graphical quality. Typical frame rates exceed 100 FPS. And at that resolution, the display is crisp, sharp, beautiful and I can read it.

I can't read 4K monitors at 27" or 28" at native resolution from three feet away. They're too small. Most 4K monitors on the market are capped at 60 hz, too. So adopting 4K in this generation of GPUs means slow frame rates *and* monitors I can't read. Until we get larger 4K monitors with higher refresh rates and faster GPUs to drive them, 1440p is the sweet spot for high-end gamers.

And sweet it is. 1440p displays are beautiful, they're commonly available with up to 144 hz refresh, and gaming has never looked so good. Yeah, one day, I'd like to get to 4K gaming, but not until the monitors are much larger, not capped at 60 hz, and GPUs appear on the market that can drive them at 90+ FPS, preferably more.

There are use cases for the 1080 Ti. Video editing is an example, where the better the GPU, the faster the work flow can be. But I don't lust after the 1080 Ti for gaming purposes. I don't need it for 1440p, and high-end 4K gaming just isn't here yet. It's getting closer, but it still hasn't arrived.

All of that analysis is aimed at single GPU systems. Some games support bridged GPUs adequately. If you are so inclined, you can use two or more bridged GPUs to play those games at higher frame rates at 4K. But 4K monitors capable of more than 60 hz refresh aren't common, and 4K monitors large enough to read easily at 3 feet away aren't here at all. If you have an unlimited budget, you will still come up short trying to get 4K monitors to match what you can do with 1440p monitors in this generation of tech.

I'm sure not complaining. At 1440p, gaming has never looked so good at the high end.

 

[OcelotRex]

I don't think we're talking about subjectivity here. it's pretty much common knowledge at the moment that AMD's implementation of DX12 is better. 2nd gen Maxwell and Pascal get close, but it's not enough (especially without proper async shader support). If you are on the 1st gen Maxwell then tough luck.

I'm sure that we are - if it were objectively better Doom's results would not be an outlier; they'd be the norm.

 

[Puiu]

I have two new in boxes of the following 1070's, 1060's and one 1080 GTX series. Should I sell these and buy two GTX1080 Ti's instead? I might be using this computer for gaming on Steam. These are all MSI cards I have brand new. Just curious on what advice I get. Thank you

don't expect early prices to be around 700$ (or for cards to be in stock). you might have to wait for the prices come down after a few months.
you could use two 1070s in SLI if you want 4K gaming, but I can't honestly recommend SLI or CF as both have big compatibility problems and if you already have an GTX 1080 then you stick with that until video cards that have better hardware support for DX12 and Vulkan appear on the market from Nvidia and AMD (aka Volta and Vega). both current gen cards (Pascal and Polaris) are just tweaked older architectures on a smaller node. Volta and Vega are more in line of what people think of "next gen" with huge changes to the architecture of the GPUs.

 

[madboyv1]

I can't wait to see the third party offerings for the 1080TI. the ML-08 is so... SO small... Basically need Gigabyte to put the GTX 1080 G1 gaming cooler on it for my purposes.

 

[ddferrari]

I have two new in boxes of the following 1070's, 1060's and one 1080 GTX series. Should I sell these and buy two GTX1080 Ti's instead? I might be using this computer for gaming on Steam. These are all MSI cards I have brand new. Just curious on what advice I get. Thank you

How odd. You have five brand new cards just laying around in boxes? Why don't you return them to where they were purchased?

 

[ddferrari]

I have two new in boxes of the following 1070's, 1060's and one 1080 GTX series. Should I sell these and buy two GTX1080 Ti's instead? I might be using this computer for gaming on Steam. These are all MSI cards I have brand new. Just curious on what advice I get. Thank you

don't expect early prices to be around 700$ (or for cards to be in stock). you might have to wait for the prices come down after a few months.
you could use two 1070s in SLI if you want 4K gaming, but I can't honestly recommend SLI or CF as both have big compatibility problems and if you already have an GTX 1080 then you stick with that until video cards that have better hardware support for DX12 and Vulkan appear on the market from Nvidia and AMD (aka Volta and Vega). both current gen cards (Pascal and Polaris) are just tweaked older architectures on a smaller node. Volta and Vega are more in line of what people think of "next gen" with huge changes to the architecture of the GPUs.

"Volta and Vega are more in line of what people think of "next gen" with huge changes to the architecture of the GPUs."

I don't care if AMD comes out with a 2nm architecture- all that counts is how they perform. AMD's history of exaggerating their GPU's performance pre-release is legendary, and then reality sinks in when they arrive: they're slightly below their Nvidia counterpart overall, they don't overclock for ****, and they can only be described as noisy, power hungry space heaters.

 

[Puiu]

"Volta and Vega are more in line of what people think of "next gen" with huge changes to the architecture of the GPUs."

I don't care if AMD comes out with a 2nm architecture- all that counts is how they perform. AMD's history of exaggerating their GPU's performance pre-release is legendary, and then reality sinks in when they arrive: they're slightly below their Nvidia counterpart overall, they don't overclock for ****, and they can only be described as noisy, power hungry space heaters.

you are talking as if I told him to buy only Vega. if Vega doesn't perform then there is always Volta from Nvidia which should launch in about 1 year. he already has a GTX 1080, upgrading to an GTX 1080 ti won't bring him much besides Titan XP performance. He would still be stuck on the same architecture that is know to have problems with the newer APIs.

FYI you clearly are an nvidia fanboy since you don't know anything about noise and heat. you just read articles about the reference cards released a long time ago. OEM cards are both quiet and cool. as for power draw, I don't think that those few cents you will be paying a month are something you should complain about when building a gaming PC. both the 480 and 1060 are in the same PSU power bracket.

 

[RevD14]

I'm waiting for the 1070 to drop down to 300 or lower. I'm still running a 560TI and its actually not bad. I have a huge backlog of steam games that still look great on it (Crysis, Arkham city, black flag ,ect.) but games like the new tomb raider...not so much.

 

[That Dude There]

At this point I'd suggest picking up an old GTX 970, 980, 980Ti for cheap (sub $200,) or a GTX 1060 6GB/RX 480 (also sub $200,) or keep what you have until Nvidia produces a fully DX12 capable GPU or Vega actually proves it's worth it.

980ti is not sub $200.

 

[ddferrari]

Smart move on Nvidia's part. They knew Vega wasn't ready for prime time, so AMD's showing today would be weak (doubt specs/drivers/pricing are finalized.) Pascal is technically based on old architecture, the 750 Ti launched February 18, 2014, so 3 years ago, and much like Kaby Lake is basically the same architecture as Sandy Bridge, Pascal is just a tweaked Maxwell.

As of now the architecture is fine, but won't age well, so getting you're products out first is a must. Pascal will become the next Kepler 2 years from now when DX12 and Vulkan features are in full swing. I wouldn't recommend anything past a 1060 and that's if you're in dire need of an upgrade, as you'll need to upgrade again shortly after Volta launches early next year.

Not that AMD is really helping matters. Their Ryzen marketing was excellent. They showed early like for like comparisons and kept delivering more detail each time they brought it up. Vega has been the opposite. They've shown nothing at all.

At this point I'd suggest picking up an old GTX 970, 980, 980Ti for cheap (sub $200,) or a GTX 1060 6GB/RX 480 (also sub $200,) or keep what you have until Nvidia produces a fully DX12 capable GPU or Vega actually proves it's worth it.

And I would recommend taking these suggestions with a big grain salt.

This whole DX12 worship is just crystal ball reading by AMD fans. There are only 20 titles using it to date and according to Wikipedia, there is exactly one confirmed game thus far in 2017 that has stated it will have DX12 support, so you're speculation that it's going to be "in full swing" in the next few years is pure speculation with little traction at this point.

As the chart below clearly illustrates, Vulkan can in many cases be very much utilized by Nvidia cards too, despite what AMD fanboys say. Look at the increase on the GTX 1080- which, by the way, is destroying AMD's top dog, the $550 R9 Fury X. Even the $380 1070 is on the Fury's heals.

It's way too soon to start recommending hardware based on its DX12 capabilities. Anyone planning to upgrade this year shouldn't bother waiting; go ahead and get whatever floats your boat, and check in on DX12 for the next upgrade in 2-4 years.

 

[Brock Kane]

L M A O at that absurd price.

they are just waiting for Vega to come out before they cut the price.

$700 is absurd? On what planet?

pretty much anywhere on Earth it's indeed a lot of money for a video card, very few can afford it.

I think it's all about priorities and/or bragging rights more than it is about money. I would buy it cause I'm a gadget guy. I love to game, but more than that, I love the latest tech. Playing with settings, benchmarking, ect.

$700 is a lot of money to most people, but some people spend that much on alcohol in a month!

 

[Comanche]

L M A O at that absurd price.

$700 is absurd? On what planet?

in some planets people make $60 a year
on planet central america people make $550 a month average

 

[ddferrari]

in some planets people make $60 a year
on planet central america people make $550 a month average

So? Do you think gaming is (or should be) a priority for someone who is poor? What's your point?

 

[Puiu]

So? Do you think gaming is (or should be) a priority for someone who is poor? What's your point?

I think his point was that it's a lot of money, not who's priority gaming should be. it's a luxury good through and through.
I seriously don't understand why you are even arguing about this.

 

[ddferrari]

I think his point was that it's a lot of money, not who's priority gaming should be. it's a luxury good through and through.
I seriously don't understand why you are even arguing about this.

I don't care about your unsolicited interpretation. If Comanche responds, then the discussion will continue.

 

[mctommy]

Hmmm still rocking a 2500k and 580ti from 2012... time to upgrade...

 

[BrianMontanye]

I think his point was that it's a lot of money, not who's priority gaming should be. it's a luxury good through and through.
I seriously don't understand why you are even arguing about this.

I don't care about your unsolicited interpretation. If Comanche responds, then the discussion will continue.

His point is more valid than yours, maybe you should care about what he is saying. You may end up learning something, although I doubt it.