Nvidia announces Geforce GTX 10 Series - GTX1080 - $599 - May 27th, GTX1070 = $379

Sep 7, 2014
808
17
285
The 970 was 3.5 Gflops, so if the 1070 is 6.5 it means the raw power actually doubled.

Though I'm doubtful since the 980Ti Gflops were 5.6 and it's not possible the 1070 will be faster than that too.
 
Oct 1, 2006
48,836
1
0
peter.metaclassofnil.com
Question:

Nvidia CEO kept using "VR Performance" as comparison point. Is it higher because of the VR FPS-smoothing tech?
It's higher because Pascal can apparently render with up to 16 distinct projection matrices to 16 viewports in a single pass, which allows you to be significantly more efficient in VR rendering than you can on GPUs which can't do that.
 
Feb 21, 2014
17,722
2
0
Kuala Lumpur
It's higher because Pascal can apparently render with up to 16 distinct projection matrices to 16 viewports in a single pass, which allows you to be significantly more efficient in VR rendering than you can on GPUs which can't do that.
Ah thanks a lot.

I got confused earlier when he switched to the monster and FPS segment, didn't know it was the same multi-projection tech.
 
Nov 9, 2012
4,795
3
420
It may be that for VR but not for normal games. Just take a look at the image I posted, it's way less than 2x over 980 in RottR and The Witcher III.

I bet it's just about 15-20% at most over a 980Ti.
Yep, a lot of the lofty performance numbers seem focused on VR and the removal of a second pass for multiple viewports. It's typical Nvidia PR jargon barf.
 
Aug 31, 2005
19,699
1
0
It's higher because Pascal can apparently render with up to 16 distinct projection matrices to 16 viewports in a single pass, which allows you to be significantly more efficient in VR rendering than you can on GPUs which can't do that.
Do the games have to be specifically coded to support that?
 
Oct 1, 2006
48,836
1
0
peter.metaclassofnil.com
Ah thanks a lot.

I got confused earlier when he switched to the monster and FPS segment, didn't know it was the same multi-projection tech.
That segment was a demonstration of the performance gains you can achieve using that tech. (Of course, a sample which heavily biases into that technology's favour, but it's still really awesome in the real [VR] world)

Do the games have to be specifically coded to support that?
I assume that the engines have to be.

The good thing is, 90% of all VR games are built on 2 engines :p
 

Oxn

Member
Jul 17, 2011
7,563
2
555
I think alot of people missed it cause the slide went by really fast but they are using DP 1.4, and totally skipping DP 1.3

Thats sick.
 
May 3, 2007
10,977
0
950
Moscow, Russia
Less than I hoped performance wise but less than I thought price wise. I'll have to see how the OC editions will perform compared to 980TiOC to decide if I want to upgrade.

The chip is less complex than you could think from the die size. 2560 SPs is a really low number for a chip of 7.2B of transistors though - I wonder if the FP64 performance is kept at 1/2 FP32 like in GP100?

9TFlops is a nice figure for a stock clocks though - +50% to TitanX. If the card will be able to OC to 2100MHz on factory OC models that'd bump the pure math power to 10.75 TFlops. Not bad for what is a lower high end card.

1070 on the other hand gets quite a decimation with 6.5 TFlops. If the clocks will be roughly the same (which they're likely to be judging from 970 vs 980) they'll have to chop nearly 1/3 of the chip off to get there. So I'm thinking - 1920 SPs on ~1.7GHz? Seems like quite a salvage there but for $379 I don't think that anyone would mind.

As for the proper benchmarks - I'm guessing on May 27th? Still don't see why they even announced the cards today tbh.
 
Aug 31, 2005
19,699
1
0
Less than I hoped performance wise but less than I thought price wise. I'll have to see how the OC editions will perform compared to 980TiOC to decide if I want to upgrade.

The chip is less complex than you could think from the die size. 2560 SPs is a really low number for a chip of 7.2B of transistors though - I wonder if the FP64 performance is kept at 1/2 FP32 like in GP100?

9TFlops is a nice figure for a stock clocks though - +50% to TitanX. If the card will be able to OC to 2100MHz on factory OC models that'd bump the pure math power to 10.75 TFlops. Not bad for what is a lower high end card.

1070 on the other hand gets quite a decimation with 6.5 TFlops. If the clocks will be roughly the same (which they're likely to be judging from 970 vs 980) they'll have to chop nearly 1/3 of the chip off to get there. So I'm thinking - 1920 SPs on ~1.7GHz? Seems like quite a salvage there but for $379 I don't think that anyone would mind.

As for the proper benchmarks - I'm guessing on May 27th? Still don't see why they even announced the cards today tbh.
Think of how tiny a 1070 card could be.

Think of all the tiny PCs.