Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 Review: Titan X-like performance for a fraction of the price

A hint to all video card 'testers', you should test all types of games, then test video editing systems, cad/cam, photo editing etc. Only then will you be able to give the buying public a real hands on evaluation of the new card.
*hint *hint
I think you may be looking at workstation cards. Sure these cards can do those tasks as well but when you're into the business of doing those kind of work like CAM/CAD and such, you're looking at workstations cards for the thorough testing, certifications, and high focus on accuracy over speed (on certain models there are even ECC RAM for very high reliability of data).

These cards are more focus on gamers where speed of polygon generation is more important than their accuracy. Therefore it makes sense the testing benchmarks here are all about games since this is exactly the market these cards are aiming for.

In case of workstation cards, you have quite a variety too. From NVIDIA, you have the Quadro and Tesla series. From AMD, you have the FirePro series. There are plenty of reviews for them all.
 
Last edited:
IMO this card really really deserves its score of 100/100, though I really don't think this is a mainstream card. While it offers amazing perf/dollar it still costs a bit too much for a mainstream
 
I see no reason to upgrade from my 980Ti.

Anyway newer games don't interest me anymore. There is no compelling reason to get the 1080 or the future 1080Ti too.

I'm also tired of upgrading for the extra few FPSs shown in benchmarks.

Just lock all games at 60FPS @ 1080p, and all current flagships will take care of any future gaming needs.
 
Personally, I think it would be interesting to see sli benchmarks for the 1070 and also the 1080. Any chance we will see sli benchmarks for the new generation?
 
Just lock all games at 60FPS @ 1080p, and all current flagships will take care of any future gaming needs.
Why are you buying a flagship to run at 1080p and 60Hz?
You buy a Flagship to run at 1440p @ 144Hz I would have thought
 
Why are you buying a flagship to run at 1080p and 60Hz?
You buy a Flagship to run at 1440p @ 144Hz I would have thought

200% DSR because after buying this card you can't afford better display just yet? :)
Also this card is not anywhere near 144Hz at 1440p (except in Overwatch). And on average struggles to pull 144Hz at 1080p ... about 50% times.
 
200% DSR because after buying this card you can't afford better display just yet? :)
Also this card is not anywhere near 144Hz at 1440p (except in Overwatch). And on average struggles to pull 144Hz at 1080p ... about 50% times.
He was talking about the 1080 since that's currently the Flagship.
 
I see no reason to upgrade from my 980Ti.

Anyway newer games don't interest me anymore. There is no compelling reason to get the 1080 or the future 1080Ti too.

I'm also tired of upgrading for the extra few FPSs shown in benchmarks.

Just lock all games at 60FPS @ 1080p, and all current flagships will take care of any future gaming needs.

So you bought the best card available when you bought it to lock your frame rate at 1080p/60HZ and never planned on getting anything better? So why did you buy that card in the first place, a 970 would have done you plenty fine.

It sounds more like your upset for dishing out a ludicrous amount of money for a GPU that has now been eclipse by one less than half the price. Only now are you tired of upgrading all of a sudden, this makes no sense at all to me.
 
I see no reason to upgrade from my 980Ti.

Anyway newer games don't interest me anymore. There is no compelling reason to get the 1080 or the future 1080Ti too.

I'm also tired of upgrading for the extra few FPSs shown in benchmarks.

Just lock all games at 60FPS @ 1080p, and all current flagships will take care of any future gaming needs.

Why not lock all games at 640*480? oh that's why, progression!
 
"1506 MHz to 1726 MHz, which should put the boost clock at or above 1827 MHz, or only a 6% increase. However, the actual operating frequency was consistently above 2000 MHz so that is more like a 16% overclock."

Not really when the stock card gets the boost clock. Pascal can't overclock as well as Maxwell that's for sure.

The exclusion of 4k benchmarks is noticeable to cast the card in only a good light. From other reviews I've seen, once again, Nvidia's xx70 series card has worse and worse performance as resolution increases.

1070 is still only a 1080p / 1440p card just like the 970. 1070 didn't live up to the "faster than a titan x" claims Nvidia was making either.

The fact that TechSpot gives every video card Nvidia releases a 100 a joke and proves they are not being critical. I'm sure that AMD won't pull past Nvidia this gen but a perfect score is just pandering.

The 2 benchmark games, Doom and The Division had 4k data shown ( 4k resolution is based on the 1st number in the resolution and rounded up to make it sound fancier than it really is . All other resolution types ( 1080/1440 etc are based on the 2nd/last number )

Using 4k resolution for the overclocking section would make the least sense due to 4k being a strain on all video cards . The lower the resolution, the more noticeable the difference between stock and overclocked performance.

As for for the general comment that the 70 Nvidia cards get worse as resolutions increase, that's true for every Gpu ever made .

A 100 score is rather arbitrary, wouldn't stand the test of time unless they update Their review Scores over time . But it is the best mainstream card currently available.
 
The 2 benchmark games, Doom and The Division had 4k data shown ( 4k resolution is based on the 1st number in the resolution and rounded up to make it sound fancier than it really is . All other resolution types ( 1080/1440 etc are based on the 2nd/last number )

Using 4k resolution for the overclocking section would make the least sense due to 4k being a strain on all video cards . The lower the resolution, the more noticeable the difference between stock and overclocked performance.

As for for the general comment that the 70 Nvidia cards get worse as resolutions increase, that's true for every Gpu ever made .

A 100 score is rather arbitrary, wouldn't stand the test of time unless they update Their review Scores over time . But it is the best mainstream card currently available.

The 4k benchmarks were added after I said that.
 
"As far as we can tell, the 1070 Founders Edition card uses the exact same cooler as the 1080, and this would explain the slight improvement in thermal performance. With the fan spinning at near silent levels, the card typically operated at 76 degrees Celsius, though, on occasion, it would get as high as 79 degrees. Throughout the testing, a typical boost clock of 1782 MHz was seen, which is well above the quoted 1683 MHz for the boost clock."

That makes the 1070 a bit more appealing. Any chance we can get temps along with perhaps overclocking in another article? I've heard the 1080's single 8-pin connector limits OC but that shouldn't be the case with the 1070.

I'm pretty positive the non-nvidia coolers will be better. I've looked at the ASUS STRIX model and it looks like it should be better. But that's a 2x slot card, the founders would most likely be more appealing in the double and triple SLI config. A single 1080 will do for me and I'm waiting to see the thermal tests on the aftermarket ones before buying.
 
I will read through the comments, but, I read the bit about the best Banff for buck is the 1080, which would be the case if Nvidia and their claim that the 1080 had the power of two 980ti's which from videos I've seen, they have only like 10% increase on the 980ti, which quite frankly, isn't worth £635.

So I'll wait for the next iteration. New *tock* version of skylake, and the 1180 may be worth the upgrade

Maybe not the best bang for the buck if you are using the ti's right now. But for me, or anyone coming from a much older model (680gtx in my case) it is much better than buying a 980ti. So for me and many others, it is indeed the best bang for the buck.
 
Using the 980Ti with smooth frame rate at 1080p + 60FPS with all settings maxed out is way better than chasing higher res, and even with the 4K craze, no single new flagship graphics card can pump out a constant 60fps ... let alone maxing out all the settings at 4K. (At least for a few more years to come).

Yes, for those coming from older generation cards, it makes sense to upgrade.

For those who simply must upgrade, because it's a new card, go ahead.
 
Hey there, I love these reviews that you guys do.

Is there any chance you could run The Witcher 3 @ 1080p with hair works and HBAO+ on and everything on ultra and let me know the min and average FPS with a quad core i7 @ 3.5Ghz?

I understand why, but nobody is benching TW3 with hair works on and I want my next card to be able to do 60FPS minimum (preferably) @ 1080p!

Cheers!
 
The 1070/1080 are far and away the best out there, in terms of both price and performance - and they will very likely stay that way until Vega shows up - I.e. Q4 2016, if rumors are to be believed.

As someone who bleeds red (Radeon, not Hemoglobin), and has not owned an Nvidia card since ~2004 (GeForce 2 MX), it pains me to say this, but they deserve it this time around.

Additionally, these could have been released priced very close to the previous gen flagships - they weren't.

First, these aren't flagship cards. Should we be thanking Nvidia for releasing reference, er "founder" edition cards for $100 more than what they used to be? We are still waiting on Nvidia's big card.

They deserve a 100? All of the performance increase you are seeing is coming from the nm shrink. Over that, the cards do have issues. 1080 had thermal throttling and neither overclocks as well as maxwell. What exactly earns pascal a higher score than maxwell when one it's obvious a lesser piggyback of the other simply riding a die shrink.

I don't care what side you are on but giving anything a perfect score means it has not issues to speak of. These cards do. 4k scaling is still poor just like maxwell, overclocking isn't great, DX 12 performance is still in the air (but looks to still be an issue so far), and neither the 1080 or 1070 provide what gamers wanted in a true 4k video card. What's the point of getting a 1070 if the 970 can handle 1440p just fine? 1070 is not fast enough for 144 Hz 1440p nor 4k so it's in a middle-spot where it doesn't do much good. The 970 overclocks amazingly as well.
The 1070/1080 are far and away the best out there, in terms of both price and performance - and they will very likely stay that way until Vega shows up - I.e. Q4 2016, if rumors are to be believed.

As someone who bleeds red (Radeon, not Hemoglobin), and has not owned an Nvidia card since ~2004 (GeForce 2 MX), it pains me to say this, but they deserve it this time around.

Additionally, these could have been released priced very close to the previous gen flagships - they weren't.

First, these aren't flagship cards. Should we be thanking Nvidia for releasing reference, er "founder" edition cards for $100 more than what they used to be? We are still waiting on Nvidia's big card.

They deserve a 100? All of the performance increase you are seeing is coming from the nm shrink. Over that, the cards do have issues. 1080 had thermal throttling and neither overclocks as well as maxwell. What exactly earns pascal a higher score than maxwell when one it's obvious a lesser piggyback of the other simply riding a die shrink.

I don't care what side you are on but giving anything a perfect score means it has not issues to speak of. These cards do. 4k scaling is still poor just like maxwell, overclocking isn't great, DX 12 performance is still in the air (but looks to still be an issue so far), and neither the 1080 or 1070 provide what gamers wanted in a true 4k video card. What's the point of getting a 1070 if the 970 can handle 1440p just fine? 1070 is not fast enough for 144 Hz 1440p nor 4k so it's in a middle-spot where it doesn't do much good. The 970 overclocks amazingly as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What's the point of getting a 1070 if the 970 can handle 1440p just fine? 1070 is not fast enough for 144 Hz 1440p nor 4k so it's in a middle-spot where it doesn't do much good. The 970 overclocks amazingly as well."

You sound like a 970 owner with 1070 envy. Some of us are running 1440p at higher refresh rates than 60 Hz- did you consider THAT? And check out Guru3d's THIRTY page review of the 1070, where it handed the 970 its azz on a silver platter (50-70% better), and regularly beat Titan X as well. So the $380 card beats the $1000 card from last year, and you're grasping at straws as to why it's a fail. There's that envy thing...

Also, where do you get off demanding answers from the reviewer? Who are you again?? Why don't you stop being an armchair QB and start your own tech site; then we can all sit around and tell YOU what you're doing wrong! Seriously, if you don't like Techspot, go somewhere else. If you don't like Pascal, don't buy one. Any questions?
 
Back