To phrase it another way, i wonder how long this cpu will be good until it may bottleneck gaming for me. Assuming i get a gtx 1080
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 reviews and benchmarks
- Thread starter dr_rus
- Start date
To phrase it another way, i wonder how long this cpu will be good until it may bottleneck gaming for me. Assuming i get a gtx 1080
Yes , really.
Over and over again people kept saying (with a tone of great authority) that the 1080 was going to be below a 980ti performance wise, with a few guessing it would be above it.
Only a handful of people were saying it would be more powerful (my guess was either at 980ti level or slightly above depending on clockspeeds, as there were early rumors of nice clockspeed gains from ff+. I was expecting 1.3-1.5ghz based on the lower operating voltage for 16nmff+ ,but not frigging 1.7 and ocing to 2.1 lol).
What's worse is that most people were just speculating based on confirmation bias and not on specs or any kind of logical reasoning. Just some crap about 'these days you only get incremental 20 percent improvements every gen'
So while he may seem a bit obnoxious right now with his gloating, if you were in those old threads he has all the reason to be.
it's just a shame that the people who were so wrong despite being so confident now don't say a word about it
I checked the "NVIDIA Pascal GPU to feature 17B transistors and 32GB HBM2, coming Q2 2016 (earliest)" thread for mentions of the 980ti and I found nobody saying the X80 equivalent was going to perform under the 980ti. Maybe I overlooked a post, but if it was as as prevalent as you guys were saying it would've been an easy search. Maybe you two experienced this in other threads, but seeing that the thread I searched was the main Pascal thread and was 54 pages long and was first posted in early 2015 I don't see how the thread could've avoided that argument if it was a prevalent opinion and that the "X80 will be better than the 980ti" was a minority belief.
This performance potential (3rd party with more pins and custom bios with ov) makes me want to sell my Titan X's and get a jump on saving for big Pascal + a new rig. Might not be the right thread to ask, but is 450-500 too much for a used Titan X? (assume post 1080 release price)
Also curious about the SLI changes come SLI benchmarks. Sad to see 3/4 way support go(unless you have a key), but interested to see how they improve on two way.
Also curious about the SLI changes come SLI benchmarks. Sad to see 3/4 way support go(unless you have a key), but interested to see how they improve on two way.
Lockjaw333
Member
I agree with you. For me $300 - 350 is my limit when upgrading gpu and has been for years. I generally try to stick closer to $300 or below.
$500 or $600 dollars for a video card is insanity to me. The 970 was a good reach purchase for me at $319 when I bought it, couldn't pass up that price to performance. But I'm not the type who is waiting with insane anticipation to drop $500 on a new card. That's a lot of freaking money!
I'm more of an nvidia guy, but if AMD can come with something new with a decent performance jump at $300 or below, especially with their dx12 advantage, id be now inclined to go that way.
digitalrelic
Banned
There's honestly a 3-5% difference in games between the 4790k & 6700k. There's absolutely no reason to upgrade your CPU just yet if you're a 4790k owner.
See these 4790k/6700k comparison videos:
Assassin's Creed Unity
Witcher 3
GTA V
Far Cry 4
No more than a ~5% boost in any modern games.
Next spring I'll be upgrading from my 980 Ti to 1080 Ti, and I don't plan on upgrading my 4790k until the spring of 2018, probably to Cannonlake. No reason it won't last until then.
opticalmace
Member
Sorry if I missed it, but what resolution is this at? I see the images are 720p, but I don't know if that was the rendering res... thanks.
hmmm im on a 3570k, seems like ymmv depending on game though, but yeah think I might look into a new cpu next.
Ya, I checked too. No one was saying the 1080 would be slower than the 980Ti. 980Ti owners were just saying that it probably wouldnt be worth upgrading because the 1080 probably wont give a significant increase over the 980Ti. Significant meaning something in the area of 40%
holygeesus
Banned
I can't recall seeing that either. All I remember is some people saying the 1070 wouldn't outperform the 980ti/Titan and it likely won't, at least by much.
On another note, aren't titles using DX12 showing some parity between the 1080 and Fury X or did I dream that?Certainly more so than the 1080 and 980ti at stock anyway. Seems a bit premature to completely rule out AMD at this point based on that alone.
Also why is the 980ti/Titan X outperforming the 1080 when benchmarking Metro Last Light?
drotahorror
Member
The 1080 bench's are much better than what I expected. Now I'm really curious about the 1070 ones.
No, it's meant to be a terrible option that nobody should ever buy. You're only allowed to spend $600+ when buying a new video card.
exmachina64
Banned
March 2017?
Yawn.
lightchris
Member
Always depends. Of course a 6700K will be faster by a good margin in CPU bound situations.
The question is: How likely is it to run into such a situation where A) the fps are not already sufficient and B) GPU taxing settings (such as resolution) are turned up to your desire. In my opionion that's pretty rare. In most cases a i5-4690k is enough for 60 fps gaming and thus a CPU upgrade would be wasted (unless you want more than 60 fps of course).
OnionPowder
Member
I'm probably wrong, but I don't think resolution has much of an impact on CPU performance on CPU heavy games.
The ONLY reason to upgrade from a 4790K is if you want more PCIE lanes for SLI and an NVMe PCIE SSD. I would wait until Intel's Cannonlake CPU generation which should support Xpoint/Optane which is a stupid fast storage medium. Other than there is no reason to upgrade.
Don't forget to overclock your 4790K! That is what it was made for. 4.6-4.8 should be pretty easy to achieve.
In terms of memory DDR3 only becomes an (minor) impediment at slow speeds (1333, 1600) and that is in a select few games (Fallout 4, etc). Even then the difference is less than 10%. If you get a nice set of Corsair Vengeance Pro memory you should be fine for quite some time.
In terms of Pascal, this is another case (as it is every year) of, wait for cards from third parties. IMO getting a "Founders Edition" is even worse than buying at Titan. It is 2 weeks people... 2 weeks for a lower retail price and likely higher performance. The Gigabyte Xtreme, EVGA Classified and Zotac AMP! Extreme will likely add another 20% or more to the reference card.
KurtSloane
Banned
Why kabylake? According to the PC Per guys it will be lucky to provide anywhere near 5℅.
ISee
Member
Resolution was 1080p.
Drama Zed Nod
Member
All this talk of CPU now.
I have a 4770k (OC @4.3) , is that something i would need to worry about if i got a 1080?
I'm not sure how that compares to newer CPUs.
I have a 4770k (OC @4.3) , is that something i would need to worry about if i got a 1080?
I'm not sure how that compares to newer CPUs.
It might not have benchmarks but even them saying the will be releasing a competing product this year says something.
nah, you're still set (i have the same CPU)
Disappointing gains overall, but expected. Seems like I'll still need two cards to get the perf I want @ 3440 x 1440. Was really hoping to drop SLI in favor of a single GPU solution this generation, as SLI support has generally dropped in frequency and overall quality in the past few years.
Oh well. Here's hoping the 1080Ti packs a big enough punch.
Oh well. Here's hoping the 1080Ti packs a big enough punch.
exmachina64
Banned
We've got people in this thread talking about upgrading from 2700Ks, 3570Ks, and 4790Ks approximately six months before new CPUs come out.
I'm not saying anyone should upgrade, but if they really want to upgrade, they should wait just a bit longer.
Phawx
Member
Lowest I've seen on eBay is $525. Avg is about $600
OnionPowder
Member
Rocking a 2600K with 980 ti SLI seems weird to me. Either way I'd definitely recommend waiting for the i7-7xxx series and getting a new CPU this year before replacing the 980tis.
Bl@de
Member
Hmm Computerbase reporting on the GTX 1070 specs. Only 1920 shaders with 1.6ghz boost. Would rather have more shaders :/
http://www.computerbase.de/2016-05/geforce-gtx-1070-1.920-shader-1.6-ghz-150-watt/
http://www.computerbase.de/2016-05/geforce-gtx-1070-1.920-shader-1.6-ghz-150-watt/
Intel has said that we are near the end of the road... so probably quite some time
Goldfishking
Member
Exactly, atleast that's how I understand it.
finalflame
Member
Any SLi benchmarks? I was looking but can't seem to find any.
General Lee
Member
Roadmaps are something they'll be discussing at Computex for all AMD's products.
Thanks for the info. Would prob still sell for 450-500 anyway. I'd rather these GPU's get life in another home ( maybe with a partner or two) than for them to eventually turn into 3 $1000 dust magnets when big Pascal comes out lol.
Found 3 way to be to much, heat wise, with air cooling anyway. I actually have my middle gpu pulled out so the top card can reach its full overclock potential(playing DOOM) without having to deal with restricted airflow from the middle card
The second 980ti was unintentional. Got in on the Dell $400 listing a couple months ago. The 2600k is still fine as long as you don't want to push more than 60fps.
Kabylake won't be much to wait around for and Skylake-E is way too far out.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I'm bummed I've been priced out permanently of one of these cards. The 980 although not the best price/perf was still within my range at the time (open-box sale). Managed to get one for $400 or so, absolute limit of what I'd spend. But they've lost me with these prices.
Will be lucky if the 1080 ever hits $500 in the next 2 years.
What are the indications they're only being released in 2 weeks?
The Neo will probably be getting the equivalent of a 1080Ti with Vega. So a lot?
D4rth Man7iz
Member
Solid 4K benchmarks. I'll wait for '1180 Ti' or equivalent, my 780 is doing just fine @ 1080p. Getting a top of the line 1440p monitor w/ G-sync is my top priority right now.
ISee
Member
~ 25% fewer cuda cores.
~ 8% slower core clock
~ slower ddr5 ram.
Currently the 1080 founders edition seems to be around 30% faster than a 980Ti (@1430mhz). Overall the 1070 could be 'just' as fast as an overclocked 980Ti. Still not bad for ~ 400, I guess.
Lockjaw333
Member
Yeah I don't see the 1070 being available under $400 for a long while. It will be founders and custom cards all above $400 IMO. The 1080 is way too expensive for me
Bl@de
Member
I'd rather have more CUDA cores and less core clock. Would leave more room for OC. But let's wait and see.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Wow. This thing looks to be an absolute beast.
Any benches vs 970 SLI setups?
Any benches vs 970 SLI setups?
ISee
Member
6 months is a long time for a barely consequential bump. Unless if you are crazy over octane.
It could hit $500 when 1080ti comes out, depending how high nvidia thinks they can price that
Papacheeks
Banned
Yea, it's garbage it's like after AMD lost it's edge and ground in the market they shoe horned in and bullied their way in the market and can have whatever price they want.
I hope AMD's offerings seriously put them in check. I hope Vega mops the floor with them and at a third of the cost.