Six Generations of GeForce GPUs Compared: From GTX 480 to GTX 1080

[fluffydroid]

Gtx 780 still doing fine at 1080p. All games shown here are close enough to 60 fps that this can be achieved with a modest overclock.

 

[CaptainTom]

As much as I LOVE articles like this, the sad truth is this comparison isn't valid.

Titan Xp vs Maxwell Titan X. That's the real comparison...

You would also have to overclock both, and I would guess the difference would be 40%.. 40% over 2 years (not one).

Also the price: 780 Ti -> Titan Xm -> Titan Xp: $700 -> $1000 -> $1200. Less than 20% performance increases per year, for MASSIVE price increases.

I gotta give Nvidia credit for how masterfully they play the game. However the funny thing is that AMD isn't actually the loser - Lisa is leaving the gaming GPU market in order to capture AI, Mining, and compute. And guess what? AMD hasn't done this well for YEARS (RTG division included).

Who loses? Us gamers. The consumers as usual.

 

[thearbiter117]

I do quite like this article and I read it when you first posted it, but I feel if you are going to 'bump it up' as you say, you should have at least tested the GTX 1080ti on the same becnhmarks (or added results from the 1080ti benchmark) so there is at least something new to see.

 

[Boilerhog146]

Nice bump on a decent article.however.some of the comments are downright PAINFULL! To read.I hope this is one of those posts.

May as well go back even further to my 2 mb trident isa card from 1994. For comparisons sake.and since you will be wasting the rest of your life away with these ridiculous requests.
Though I have some old systems still up for a few gpu tests.a P3,64 mb Radeon aiw. A p4 ,7800gs.
Just get all the readers to bench all the kit they have.then upload the data to your new quantum pc.then you just have to filter it for the splatter graph.
I would also like to see tests comparing the performance going from ISA to PCI to AGP to PCI-E.while your at it.with graphs pretty please.

In the year 2040 .BUMP.I'll get to reread all the new posts.see you in the next life Steve.

This comment was posted based on pure sarcasm with a straight face on my windows 10 Alcatel idol 4s.still has battery.Amazing!

 

[Boilerhog146]

We want Six Generations of AMD/ATI/Radeon GPUs Comparisons! gogo

Haha.you could test the radeon 7970 and cover 3 generations in a few test.

 

[Boilerhog146]

Great article, thanks!
Nice to see some benchmarks at 1600p rather than the inferior, but more prevalent 1440p.

Inferior my arse nothing like a snob 1440p is really good and of course there are better resolution and that for me would be 4k over the inferior 1600p.

1440p or 16:9 actually displays more screen than 1600p or 16:10 in games. Every game I have come across is coded this way.

HUH?2560 x1600 is more pixels than a 2560 x1440

I see 2560 x1600 are typically 30" display like my Dell while most 2560 x1440 are 27"display.though there are some 32" (diagonal)which means they are not as high.
How does that equate to more display.you would need to see game on both displays side by side to make a comment like that.so you say a 30" at 1440p displays more game screen than a 30" at 1600p.I doubt it!
Though screen size doesn't matter.Steve can look at both and correct us when he please.he has both resolution available.I'm waiting!

 

[teklord]

It displays more horizontally. Every game I've played in 16:10 actually shows less screen than in 16:9, especially horizontally. They sometimes give you more on the screen vertically in 16:10 like in fps games. Go to wsfg.org and look at comparisons on the games, devs actually code more screen space for 16:9 and simply stretch the image to fit 16:10! I thought like you and bought a 16:10 monitor because I believed more pixels equates more being displayed, I was shocked to be proven wrong in almost every game!