I never laughed so hard reading comments here before. Thank you. Thank you all.
Glad it's not just me finding this all very amusing.
I never laughed so hard reading comments here before. Thank you. Thank you all.
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.
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!
That is LEAST you would expect when comparing high end 16nm card against high end 28nm cards.
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?
While 28nm manufacturing tech was around for over 4 years, HBM2 is likely to come in six months. So your logic does not apply.
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.
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.
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!
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...
KNOWINGI 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
Maybe you need some help with basic math.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..
If compared to a 980, its a VERY impressive generation boost.At best, this is another incremental generational boost. Nothing to sneeze at, but nothing to waste your time and money on.
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.Maybe you need some help with basic math.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..
Have you looked at the review yet?
The 1080 just about doubles the 980's performance across the board.
If compared to a 980, its a VERY impressive generation boost.At best, this is another incremental generational boost. Nothing to sneeze at, but nothing to waste your time and money on.
The fact that its also beating the Titan X and 980Ti by a more then noticeable margin is just a cherry on top.
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.
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,
That is only true if it is determined that the GTX 1080 is bandwidth starved. Please find evidence of this fact.- 256-bit GDDR5X may be best right now but 384-bit or 512-bit GDDR5 should be even better.
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%.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 suggest just looking through the many other reviewsI 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?
Not everyone Mr. Anti-Nostradamus. You said the GTX 1080 needed liquid nitrogen to reach 2.1GHzThe performance improvement is great but it's what everyone expected.
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 1Can 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.
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 2That'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.
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:At this point we do know that Nvidia's pascal will have higher power consumption than Maxwell.
Your predictions 0 for 3Spikes 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)
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 demandingI'm not saying their performance won't be better than AMD's, just that Nvidia's "faster than SLI 980s" claim is totally false.
Never TLDR!Sorry to (virtually) all for the long post, but it seems preferable to the multi-posting some people are engaging in.
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.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.
This is meant to replace the GTX980, not the ti, not the Titan, but it beats both of those cards pretty easily.
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.
You seem to posses a twisted sense of logic yourself so again arguing with you is like pissing in the wind.
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.
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.