Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Review: The Mad King of GPUs

Quit the whinninggggg ,about the price of the cards ,Bunch of phoney enthusiasts, if you have to complain about these low prices of cards in todays market,YOU DON'T Deserve to own one. ya should have to throw down at least a grand for the top card,IMO. like back in the Day, BFG tech 512 meg 6800 ultra anyone ,999.00 u.s. . 1299.00 can.at the time .and I allways buy in pairs.. you kids are lucky today..stick to the midrange and complain about that instead ,sorry for the rant,but some are complaining for the sake of it .and have no clue what they are complaining about,,,bring on a pair of 1080 ti's,whats this 1440 p stuff.I been at 2560 x1600 ,for almost 10 years now.lol I'm OLD..and so are my 2 x 4 gig 670's. I'm just happy I held off on the 7/9/titan series cards as long. woohoo,, great article BTW,

They still have cards in that price range so it's not just back in your day. I don't see how calling people whiners is a point for high prices. Calling names does not equal an argument nor is pricing back in your day. The market changes.

FLAME ON.!you should reread my post , I called no one names ,fanboy. ,there, happy now,if NVidia gave their cards away some would complain about that,there is nothing to complain about this card,other than I don't own 1 or 2,yet
,they still have cards in that range ?even after the market has changed? Markets haven't changed that much, I still want the best for me .cost is secondary..FLAME OFF.

GO overclock your Radeon.let me know how it goes..

I saw sp many negative post for such a great piece of kit,I just had to stomp, and the 1080 is gonna do some stompin too hahahahaaaaarrrrrgggg,my fanboy is coming out oooohhh....I love reading the posts in an article like this .almost as good as a game of hockey during playoffs..gets pretty dirty don it,?lol,
 
Last edited:
OMGZZ!! Teh 1080 es here an et es dis menny finngerz more fasterer den deh titanik Xee ting, cuz enveddiyah saiz sew! en dey wount exajj..egxaj...dat wurd wut meen beeg storee!

Do I know you ?your from here in Newfoundland somewhere aren't you?spelling almost as good as mine,I see what your sayin..LMAO.

oh ,Mod can edit my posts at any time..but I just gotta flame them naysayers...
 
Last edited:
That is LEAST you would expect when comparing high end 16nm card against high end 28nm cards.

This is meant to replace the GTX980, not the ti, not the Titan, but it beats both of those cards pretty easily.

Even this model is not available yet. I expect that quite soon we will see GTX 1080 cards that are:

- Faster than this one
- Equipped with better cooler than this one

As this receives 100/100, what score would those better ones get? 120/100?

You clearly don't understand the purpose of scoring cards based on what is CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, and not what's coming out in the future so I'm done arguing with you about that. Compared to what's out on the market right now this is the single fastest GPU and does so while consuming less power than what previously held that spot.

While 28nm manufacturing tech was around for over 4 years, HBM2 is likely to come in six months. So your logic does not apply.

You seem to posses a twisted sense of logic yourself so again arguing with you is like pissing in the wind.

HBM2 cards will beat this one. Also, 16nm tech alone means this card will be more efficient etc. Even Maxwell with zero improvements made with 16nm tech would be enough for that, something many here don't seem to realize. There is also many weaknesses in this card so perfect score proves that rating system is indeed broken.

That will be the GTX1080ti when it gets released, they already forecast it to use HBM2, along with the fully unlocked version of this die that will be put in the next generation Titan card, again this shows how little you know about Nvidia and how they release products. Your focusing on one thing and one thing alone, anyways, I don't even know why I've gone this far, your not getting the point of anything I'm saying, or what anyone else is, now I have no choice but to label you for what you really are, a fanboy.
 
Very impressive GPU release. The high clock speeds are a welcome addition. Given how long many of us are between upgrade cycles, this card would seem like a Ferrari in comparison to those of us still using Fermi or Kepler stuff.
 
I live in the real world, with limited income and a family to raise, so I am more interested in the pricing presumed GTX 1060, or in how this pushes down prices of the current GTX 900 series. For several years there has been a huge price gap between the $160 960 and the $300 970. I had hoped for a 960 Ti in that low-mid $200 range, to replace my aging GTX 480.
 
Score 100/100?

- AMD's Async shaders implementation is superior compared to Nvidia's.
- This card is using GDDR5X memory, so first HBM2 card will receive at least 150/100?
- DirectX 12 support is about same level as Maxwell, again AMD is miles ahead.

Giving perfect score somethiong is just ridiculous as it leaves no room for improvements. Some of which already exists or will soon become. Nvidia fanboy score spotted.

Or you could read the dozens of other reviews that corroborate this review in that it is a hell of a card and well deserving of a perfect or near perfect score.
 
Whew thats nasty!
The Crysis 3 1440p benchmark on Ultra is crazy impressive, and the power consumption is dandy...a 600W PSU will run one of these just fine.
I will say the temps will be lowered when you see the Windforce & STRIX.
 
Perfect score.
High price.
Marginal 'real world' performance difference.

Not interested.

So much for the 1080 providing twice as much performance as a Titan X. The tech community has been spewing the hyperbole from Nvidia like mind controlled trolls. "Nvidia said that the GTX 1080 offers two times the performance of the company's current flagship Titan X, while delivering three times the power efficiency."
OMGZZ!! Teh 1080 es here an et es dis menny finngerz more fasterer den deh titanik Xee ting, cuz enveddiyah saiz sew! en dey wount exajj..egxaj...dat wurd wut meen beeg storee!

Basically this. I'm quite unimpressed with this card. It was touted as being nearly twice as fast, but as soon as we get these real world benchmarks we learn that it's mere frames better. At best, this is another incremental generational boost. Nothing to sneeze at, but nothing to waste your time and money on.
 
I will agree with one thing about this article and that is that I like the reference cards better. knowning only nvidia has hands on my gfx card suits me well. I have a reference gtx 980 right now with no performance or temp problems to date
 
OMGZZ!! Teh 1080 es here an et es dis menny finngerz more fasterer den deh titanik Xee ting, cuz enveddiyah saiz sew! en dey wount exajj..egxaj...dat wurd wut meen beeg storee!

Do I know you ?your from here in Newfoundland somewhere aren't you?spelling almost as good as mine,I see what your sayin..LMAO.

oh ,Mod can edit my posts at any time..but I just gotta flame them naysayers...

Well, let's see, I was born and raised on Coastal Maine and have been to Newfoundland several times. I love the freaking place! A neighbor was a truck driver (before retiring) and used to make a Newfoundland run carrying fruit, mostly bananas (explains a lot!). I also spent a lot of time on Deer Island & Campobello Island and at St. Stephens & St Andrews, NB.
 
I will agree with one thing about this article and that is that I like the reference cards better. knowning only nvidia has hands on my gfx card suits me well. I have a reference gtx 980 right now with no performance or temp problems to date
KNOWING
 
Basically this. I'm quite unimpressed with this card. It was touted as being nearly twice as fast, but as soon as we get these real world benchmarks we learn that it's mere frames better..
Maybe you need some help with basic math.
Have you looked at the review yet?
The 1080 just about doubles the 980's performance across the board.






At best, this is another incremental generational boost. Nothing to sneeze at, but nothing to waste your time and money on.
If compared to a 980, its a VERY impressive generation boost.
The fact that its also beating the Titan X and 980Ti by a more then noticeable margin is just a cherry on top.
 
Basically this. I'm quite unimpressed with this card. It was touted as being nearly twice as fast, but as soon as we get these real world benchmarks we learn that it's mere frames better..
Maybe you need some help with basic math.
Have you looked at the review yet?
The 1080 just about doubles the 980's performance across the board.






At best, this is another incremental generational boost. Nothing to sneeze at, but nothing to waste your time and money on.
If compared to a 980, its a VERY impressive generation boost.
The fact that its also beating the Titan X and 980Ti by a more then noticeable margin is just a cherry on top.
I am thinking the person you quoted actually did the math and didn't round up the important numbers. Going back to the 980 comparison: BF4 99/83 vs 59/49 @ 2K - Let's do the math, watch closely! 99÷2=49.5 vs 59 FAIL! 83÷2=41.5 vs 49 FAIL! Let's look at 4K - 50/37 vs 29/22, 50÷2=25 vs 29 FAIL! 37÷2=18.5 vs 22 FAIL! The Witcher results follow the same example. If we look at the GTX 970 in the same two games at 2K and 4K, the GTX 1080 doubles the performance on BF4 @ 4K only when taking average frame rates into consideration. If you don't think close math (regarding the 970) is important, tell your employer it's okay if the come "close enough." to what your paycheck should be.
Two "almosssstttt there" examples don't make a clean sweep (2 times performance across the board - no pun intended).
 



What you essentially have is the same thing AMD has right now, really fast cards that run hot and don't overclock well on stock cooler.

I've read the article and all comments a couple of times .but fail to see where you come up with this conclusion,did you even read the article?it is really fast ,not as hot as a 480.or 290. but overclocks like .read the oc section again,Did you oc your Radeon yet?
NOT! the same thing AMD has right now...so your comment is mute.
 
Last edited:
Here I'll put it here then I know you will see it..straight from the article.

Overclocking Performance
For overclocking the GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition we used a pre-release version of Evga’s PrecisionX. The software allowed us to increase the base clock frequency from 1607MHz to 1827MHz, though thanks to Boost technology the frequency almost never dropped below 2GHz when gaming, often hovering around 2054MHz.

The GDDR5X memory was also very willing to go faster reaching 5858MHz, a 17% increase over the stock frequency.

Did you get that?must be something wrong with the software?huh?
 
Let's put fanboyizm out for this once. Let's see the facts:

GTX 980 has 2048 cores
GTX 1080 has 2560 cores, so %25 more

GTX 980 runs on 1127 MHz
GTX 1080 runs on 1607 MHz, so %42,5 higher

GTX 1080 uses a much faster memory data rate (7gb/s vs 10gb/s)

JUST THESE CHANGES (SUPPOSED TO) MAKE(S) 1080 MORE THAN TWICE FASTER THAN 980 (in theory)

So as we can see, almost all the advantage comes from the node shrink. So I say Pascal 1080 is NOT a 100/100 rate product because obviously it doesn't bring any raw advantages from its design (check the facts again). Obviously Nvidia designed it power-efficiency in mind so it has room for agressive clocks and it's all it does. So, sticking there the newest memory tech raised performances, too. From perf/watt perspective I'd give it 90/100 (-10 cause of high heats), price/perf 80/100 (sorry but it's not cheap) and at this price point it's more of a match for 980ti not the 980
 
FLAME ON.!you should reread my post , I called no one names ,fanboy. ,there, happy now,if NVidia gave their cards away some would complain about that,there is nothing to complain about this card,other than I don't own 1 or 2,yet
,they still have cards in that range ?even after the market has changed? Markets haven't changed that much, I still want the best for me .cost is secondary..FLAME OFF.

GO overclock your Radeon.let me know how it goes..

I saw sp many negative post for such a great piece of kit,I just had to stomp, and the 1080 is gonna do some stompin too hahahahaaaaarrrrrgggg,my fanboy is coming out oooohhh....I love reading the posts in an article like this .almost as good as a game of hockey during playoffs..gets pretty dirty don it,?lol,

Last time I checked "whiners" and "fanboy" are names. Don't talk and ride a horse at the same time or you'll bite your tongue.
 
First of all why do I have to scroll all the way down to make a comment??? seems Techspot isn't used to many comments as this is hardly ideal way to encourage people commenting!

Anyways, not sure about the perfect score but it certainly is a good card. The $100 price premium should take away from that perfect score, but I understand Nvidia wants to maximize its profits by taking the lion's share of the profit the first month of sales. All the power to them. Personally, I'm quite happy with my GTX 970 for what I play, won't upgrade until Volta and hopefully a 100% FPS increase, but good to see Nvidia is making progress. now let's see what Polaris brings to the table.

PS. Pascal is a shrink of Maxwell, Volta is the real deal next gen architecture.
 
Lol perfect score.

Pay $100 for a bum intrusion version, only for a much faster card to come out a few months later (ahem, Ti, the real Pascal card we were waiting for).

If anything, I'm glad to see that NVIDIA's reference cooler is still nothing but eye candy and third party coolers do much better. That proprietary SLI bridge though; that's just a clear sign of what NVIDIA's changing into.

Too bad I've had it with my 2x 780's. Lack of SLI support in many recent games, poor scaling otherwise, unable to run things windowed if I need SLI, absurdly more heat and power consumption.. I'm done with SLI, and with DX12, SLI is going to go away anyway. So, I'll be taking it up the bum with the 1080 and whining when the 1080 Ti comes out.. Maybe this time the 1080 Ti won't be the same price and I'll get to sell it for near it's original value instead of much less..
 
- 256-bit GDDR5X may be best right now but 384-bit or 512-bit GDDR5 should be even better.
That is only true if it is determined that the GTX 1080 is bandwidth starved. Please find evidence of this fact.
Maxwell wasn't affected by bandwidth restriction for gaming - it only suffered in comparison by architectural compromises and a relative lack of texture address units.
So using your logic, let's assume this card uses 28nm instead of 16nm. 28 nm would be "best available" so it would not lower score?
I'd give it 100+ if that were the case. 30% higher performance than its direct competitors, using a fraction of the power, less architectural resources, and a 40%+ (much higher if you're comparing to Fiji ;)) overclock headroom - and both on 28nm...sounds like miracle territory let alone 100%.
I simply cannot believe you have omitted one of the most important benchmarks in your review - VR performance!
Why are there no VR benchmarks when Nvidia have claimed that Pascal performs especially well here with its simultaneous multi projection and VR is pretty much the future of gaming?
I'd suggest just looking through the many other reviews
VR-render-_0.png
VR-overhead.png

The performance improvement is great but it's what everyone expected.
Not everyone Mr. Anti-Nostradamus. You said the GTX 1080 needed liquid nitrogen to reach 2.1GHz
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. I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia only got those results using liquid nitrogen with a cherry picked card.
TechPowerUp, Hardware France, PCGH, Hardware Canucks, and Tom's Hardware all reached 2.1GHz or more on air. Not a single review that tested overclocking didn't break 2GHz. Your predictions 0 for 1
You tried to shoot down my contention the GDDR5X would also overclock, even though it has demonstrated OC headroom in Micron's own internal testing:
That's an assumption. Just because it runs at a lower voltage doesn't mean it has more headroom. If it were using a half-node they would have already entered into volume production. These are really early samples as well, for all we know Nvidia could very well increase the voltage to increase the yields.
Leaving aside the stupid voltage increase claims (GDDR5X operated at 1.35V regardless). Every site that pushed the overclock parameters of GDDR5X showed a 10% to 17% overclock result in addition to overclocking the core. Your predictions 0 for 2
The power consumption you claimed would be higher?
At this point we do know that Nvidia's pascal will have higher power consumption than Maxwell.
Well that is obviously application dependent, and needs to be card only ( to eliminate overall system power usage variability) as well as an application that doesn't under utilize the GPU. You mentioned Tom's Hardware who tend to pay scrupulous detail to power testing:
15-Gaming-3D-Overview_w_600.png
99-GTX-980-Gaming_w_600.png

Spikes above 300W are a thing of the past. Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1080 barely has any, whereas they were a lot more frequent on the 980. Overall, even though these cards post almost identical averages, the GeForce GTX 1080’s curve is both smoother and more dense. - Tom’s Hardware power usage)
Your predictions 0 for 3
Your claim that the GTX 1080 is unable to to bestGTX 980 SLI - and claims to the contrary are TOTALLY false...
I'm not saying their performance won't be better than AMD's, just that Nvidia's "faster than SLI 980s" claim is totally false.
The majority of 4K benchmarks are showing that not to be the case, along with all the VR benchmark comparisons. GTX 980 SLI only has a chance when the screen resolution and game I.q. is less demanding
Your predictions: 0 for 4
For someone who has no interest in the card at all (apart from criticizing it) you are (yet again) providing a large proportion of posts in the thread. 7 of the 71 posted. Hopefully the thread is boosted tech enthusiasts aren't put off by the viral marketeers.

Sorry to (virtually) all for the long post, but it seems preferable to the multi-posting some people are engaging in.
 
Just because something gets a 100/100, doesn't mean something better won't ever exist. Should the 980 have gotten a 0/100 because the 1080 would exist one day?

Its like everybody here forgot how rating systems work just because Nvidia hit it out of the ball park with the 1080, so everyone has to find something to hate on.
You got it all wrong. By your logic every flagship device should get a 100/100 because it's the best when released and it cannot possibly be better. This is so simple yet you can't understand it, instead you say I hate Nvidia for some reason only known to you.
 
This is meant to replace the GTX980, not the ti, not the Titan, but it beats both of those cards pretty easily.

Yes because it's 16nm part, Ti and Titan are 28nm.

You clearly don't understand the purpose of scoring cards based on what is CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, and not what's coming out in the future so I'm done arguing with you about that. Compared to what's out on the market right now this is the single fastest GPU and does so while consuming less power than what previously held that spot.

This card has worse DX12 features than 4 year old AMD card. So better talking about something that has been available for 4 years, not what is available today.

You seem to posses a twisted sense of logic yourself so again arguing with you is like pissing in the wind.

There is always better coming if timeframe is unlimited. In case timeframe is limited, it's possible that nothing better is coming. That makes huge difference.

That will be the GTX1080ti when it gets released, they already forecast it to use HBM2, along with the fully unlocked version of this die that will be put in the next generation Titan card, again this shows how little you know about Nvidia and how they release products. Your focusing on one thing and one thing alone, anyways, I don't even know why I've gone this far, your not getting the point of anything I'm saying, or what anyone else is, now I have no choice but to label you for what you really are, a fanboy.

In case you quote something, please say something about quoted text. You said nothing this time.

Or you could read the dozens of other reviews that corroborate this review in that it is a hell of a card and well deserving of a perfect or near perfect score.

Yes, I remember when GTX970 was about best card ever. Later it was reality that:

- it has only 3.5GB fast memory
- it has no support for async shaders
- it has poor support for DX12 features

So these reviewers make very poor job. I'm sorry to say that because I admit they have lot work to do.

And in this case, even if this card was just 16nm Maxwell, it would still receive similar scores. Those other sites seem also have their scoring system broken.
 
Back