That's what I was thinking. Too many games using effects that don't work on alternate frame rendering. I think that's the worst comparison Nvidia could have made because they could have simply have taken their numbers from a game with little to no sli scaling. I'd much prefer straightforward comparisons.
It's marketing. It is convenient to leave out inconvenient details. It is also par for the course that this is an industry wide issue - why this is suddenly a deal breaker when AMD touted framerate as the centerpiece of its VR Radeon Pro Duo a couple of weeks ago only to conveniently forget that frame pacing has taken a turn for the worse lately is quite frankly beyond me
It looks like I was right about Pascal using more power overall than Maxwell though.
I would hold off judgement if I were you until the actual numbers are in. You've just pilloried Nvidia's nebulous claims, and are now taking their 180W board power limit as being indicative of actual usage. An example of things not necessarily being created equal might be Nvidia's board power for the GTX 780 Ti and 980 Ti is the same at 250W - or the fact that the GTX 970 has a board power of 165W while the GTX 980 has a board power of 180W, yet the 970 generally consumes as much if not more than the 980 thanks to the card holding boost clocks more consistently
Can anyone explain Nvidia's overclocking claims? A card consuming more wattage produces more heat, thus a pascal card will produce more than it's maxwell equivalent resulting in an overclocking bottleneck.
So you again assuming that actual consumption is higher for Pascal, and that the new cooler has the same cooling characteristics (including airflow and fan profile) as the Maxwell cards, and that the GPU workload is identical under what are very likely different workload (game) scenarios? Sounds faulty to me. By all indications, the GTX 1080 (180W) is faster than the 980 Ti (250W), and even if you were comparing apples-to-apples, do you really think that a GTX 1080 will use more power than a GTX 980 in an identical situation. I think I'll take that bet since it will probably pay off as soon as a comparison benchmark is run in a CPU/framerate limited scenario.
I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia only got those results using liquid nitrogen
...and there it is! he shoots...he trolls!. The demo system was clearly shown during both the presentation wrap up,
the Doom Vulkan demo, and the in-depth seminar today.......Does this look like liquid nitrogen?
How about a friendly wager? If the GTX 1080 requires LN2 to reach 2.1GHz I'll donate a token $US100 via PayPal to the registered charity of your nomination. If the GTX 1080 is capable of reaching 2.1GHz with conventional (non sub-zero) cooling, you donate the same amount to my nominated registered charity.
with a cherry picked card.
No doubt it wasn't a dud, but I seem to remember the same hopefulness and derision regarding Nvidia's Titan X and 980 Ti demonstration about how there was no way retail cards would hit 1400MHz+......yet there seems to a be veritable swathe of owners pushing that and more with air cooled cards.
If you need something to hold on to desperately ameliorate the impact - and you do seem desperate to find something to denigrate , I suggest Pascal might be like Maxwell in that Nvidia will make the board power limit hardware locked, so air and water cooling will probably have a hard limit (+/- a small variance) unless the owner sources a sub-zero BIOS.