Slashdot Mirror
NVIDIA Unveils GeForce GTX 1080, GTX 1070, Faster Than Titan X For a Lot Less (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes (edited and condensed): NVIDIA has unveiled its next-generation Pascal-based GeForce graphics cards -- known as the GeForce GTX 1080 and GeForce GTX 1070. NVIDIA's Pascal architecture is based on 16nm FinFET technology, similar to that of NVIDIA's high-end data center Tesla P100 processing engine though the GeForce cards are targeted at the consumer gaming market. NVIDIA's GP104 GPU at the heart of the new GeForce cards is comprised of some 8 billion transistors and features a 256-bit memory interface with 8GB of Micron GDDR5X graphics memory on the GeForce GTX 1080. The GTX 1070, however, employs standard GDDR5. The core clock speed of the GeForce GTX 1080 hit 2.1GHz at one point during the demonstration, though GTX 1070 clocks were not disclosed. NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang claimed the new GeForce GTX 1080 is faster than a pair of GeForce GTX 980 cards in SLI and faster than the company's very expensive Titan X graphics card but at half the price. The new GeForce GTX 1080 will be offered in two versions, a standard card with an MSRP of $599 or a highly-overclockable Founders Edition for $699. The standard GTX 1070 will arrive at $379, while a Founders Edition will be priced at $449. Availability for the GTX 1080 is slated for May 27th and the GTX 1070 for June 10. Anand Tech has more information.
Wouldn't it be nice if the promise of mixed GPUs had arrived already. Then we could buy a new GPU and just add it to the stack we already have. And if the stack is full just drop the worst card out.
Without that I'll probably skip this generation, replacing what I already have for a modest increase is too expensive. Still keeping my fingers crossed that multi-gpu is the way of the future but I'm not holding my breath.
Think VR
90fps minimum, stereo, and high fov
Assuming their "A NEW KING" graph isn't a lie, it's $600-$700 for 1.7x the performance of a single 980. This also jives with their claim about it being faster than 2 980s in SLI.
The graph is missing the 980 Ti though, which is what people paying $600-$700 for a GPU will be comparing it to.
I can understand not including the 980 Ti since we're talking about the 1080 and not a 1080 Ti. But they went ahead and included the Titan X. That's some major bullshit - the Titan X is an expensive piece of shit compared to the 980 Ti. A reference 980 Ti is nearly identical in performance to a Titan X at $400-$500 cheaper. A non-reference 980 Ti will easily beat a Titan X and still save you $200-$300. (The Titan X is only available with the reference cooler.) The non-reference 980 Ti is also at the same $600-$700 price of the GTX 1080 (MSRP).
My guess based on their chart (using the Titan X as a baseline) is that the 1080 is about 30% faster than a reference 980 Ti and 15-20% faster than any of the dozens of non-reference designs out there now priced around $600-$700. (There are dozens more non-reference 980 Ti models priced higher and higher than that, if you've got money to burn.)
Anyone on a current generation card really should wait for the presumed 1080 Ti and AMD's Vega.
> Do video card upgrades even matter anymore?
Yes.
* VR requires 90 Hz minimum (Thank god!)
* 4K Gaming at 120 Hz requires beefy hardware.
* ENB mods
If you can't even tell the difference between 24 Hz and 60 Hz ....
OWE my eyes @ 24 fps !
Silky smooth @ 60 fps !
Something I'm hoping for is smoother offloading of physics between multiple GPU's/cards, such that using 1 GPU for graphics, and the other card, not connected to a display, can be used for physics with less clunkiness than what is currently in use. Would be nice for various simulators for example.
> That's some major bullshit - the Titan X is an expensive piece of shit compared to the 980 Ti.
Whoa, hold on. Context is extremely important.
For gaming yup, that's some serious shenanigans(*) ! BUT for rendering the Titan X is faster then the 980 Ti.
(*) Obviously, many people don't feel the Price/Performance of the Titan X vs 980 Ti is worth it, myself included. Words along Over-priced, Greedy bastards come to mind, but if performance is king and money is no object then for rendering + scientific computing, the Titan X was the previous crown holder.
It all depends on context.
AMD has been in trouble for a decade now. On one side they've been getting their ass consistently handed to them by intel. On the other, there's nvidia.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
I just put together an i7 6700k and 32GB of DDR4 system together. I'm glad I held off on buying dedicated GPU for the moment (mostly due to the cost of the 980Ti)
Maybe so, but for regular people that just want a laptop to browse cat videos on the internet while running a few windows apps, you can't beat something with an AMD CPU for the price.
Also, every console uses AMD.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
More stable than... fuck, why can I only settle for crappy or less crappy? Don't the capitalism preachers constantly tell me just how much capitalism ensures that only that gets produced what the customer wants, and how happy we should be that we're not in commie hell where we could only buy what The Party thinks is good enough for us?
What's the difference between The Party and The Corporation deciding what the fuck I can buy?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
AMD gets paid every time Intel sells an x64 chip. Tired of hearing this crap. AMD isn't going anywhere including broke. Go download a 64 bit iso for Linux. I don't care what distro it is. If it is 64 bit then it is labeled AMD64. Wonder why that is. Maybe you should Google that and learn something.
"AMD gets paid every time Intel sells an x64 chip"
The Intel/AMD cross licensing agreement, in place since the SEVENTIES says 'lol'. Further, when it comes to R&D and patents, AMD is a cruel joke in comparison. AMD and Intel are NOT peers, they are not equals, they are not partners. Intel is a Titan of monstrous proportions, AMD is a Demi-God at best. People get this idea in their head that AMD is an equal competitor to Intel, they arent, not even close.
Good-bye
They pay for a night at a hotel and domestic airfare for maybe 100-200 people. Let's say an average airfare of $300, and the room costs $300, that puts your total schmoozing cost at 60-120k, plus the smaller cost of renting a big room for the presentation.
For that small cost, you get guaranteed coverage that will fire up social media, and even reach less interested sites like Slashdot, and it all happens SIMULTANEOUSLY from all those who attended, because they want to be first to report back from the exclusive event.
So Nvidia paper-launches a product with no actual reviews, and nobody can stop talking about it! That's a shitload more effective than a boring old press release., which may get buried.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
I remember when I read that the 980 had just been supported by Linux...heh...that's when I still had a 760, kinda happy I didn't buy a 980 since it got CUDA support so late. I love the speed of the 1080 - but since I use Linux exclusively for 3D rendering and Video editing, I'm going to hold off until there's decent support for it.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Here you go:
https://frames-per-second.apps...
That is a simple JS app that lets you compare frame rates controlling all aspects (I love how it lets you even configure motion blur settings). For me the best comparison (on my 60fps monitor) is 60fps vs 30 fps both without any motion blur, the quality difference is so blatant that I can't imagine like people still defend frame rates lower than 60fps.