This is the card I've been waiting for to finish off my 6700k build as I currently have a GTX 660 letting the side down. But I'm only interested if the custom non-founder cards are in the £300-£325 ballpark. Given the ludicrous overpricing we get in the UK I'm not that hopeful though.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
GTX 1070 - any takers?
- Thread starter skywalker909
- Start date
Honestly I don't think you have those games maxed, or you're just not noticing the FPS drops they have in some areas. Also if they're dipping from 60 to 40 fps, and a 1070 is 50-60% faster, they'll be dipping from 80 to 60 instead, thus still feeling smooth, assuming they're not CPU limited.You shouldnt have a problem with Doom/Dying Light/Dark Souls 3 tbh, I get like 100fps on Doom/Dying light and a solid 60 on DS3 maxed at 1080p on a 2500k and 980
Arkham Knight, Ark Survival and Dead Rising 3 are all terribly optimised so I dont know if a 1070 will help you there.
Permabanned
You will... wait til the reviews start coming out, some are already checking this - it's just the information isn't public yet. Further down the line there will be more reports too... it's interesting to observe how many people still haven't gotten their heads around the issue with the 970 yet even
It is improved compared to the 970 as there are some changes, but the fundamental issue is still there. The "tagged on" 2GB of redundant memory is accessed at a slowed speed than the main 6GB.
A reasonable number of users didn't notice the issue on 970... so the same people won't notice it on the 1070 - but some of us find it very easy to notice...
For a single card setup, most people will find the 1070 OK and it will be a good performing card - especially on paper.
It's a slightly more even breakdown than the 970, but a similar fundamental issue is present.
The 1070 should be a 6GB card... the 970 should have been a 3.5GB card.
It's very frustrating that Nvidia are doing this... they would still sell loads if they had set them up correctly. I'm sure plenty of people would have been happy with a 6GB 1070...
Why would anything be referenced in the slow 0.5 GB if only 1 GB of vram was used? When memory is assigned it's always the first available chunk that's of the size requested. And if we're talking vram, that task is handled by DirectX which hands the task off to the nvidia driver, which I would imagine is programmed to use that slow 0.5 GB last. Also aren't there demonstrations showing the 970 slowing down after vram usage passes 3.5GB?
Last edited:
Caporegime
Wait,is the 6GB thing conjecture or do people actually have some evidence??
I always have MSI fps counter up, I can assure you Dark souls 3 is 60fps at all times. I just booted up and checked dying light the following and the only options I have disabled is chromatic, film grain and nvidia pcss. I dont really like the nvidia only options, they seem to reduce fps too much is all games (like 20fps difference).
Doom is really well optimized and it usually stays above 80-100~ or so fps, which is nice as I use 1080p 120hz monitor since 2010
I do have my 980 at 1550mhz though and 2500k at 4.8, but still a 970 should have no problem with those games especially at 1080p
from a review . its full 8GB
'This is a key differentiating factor from the GTX 970 which included an odd 3.5GB + 500MB partitioning setup which didn’t really impact performance in most situations but proved to be excessively poor optics for an otherwise great card. This time around the full 8GB layout is being utilized along with the aforementioned ROPs and L2 cache. '
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...ews/72689-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review.html
'This is a key differentiating factor from the GTX 970 which included an odd 3.5GB + 500MB partitioning setup which didn’t really impact performance in most situations but proved to be excessively poor optics for an otherwise great card. This time around the full 8GB layout is being utilized along with the aforementioned ROPs and L2 cache. '
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...ews/72689-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review.html
I just went through the benches in a couple of reviews,in some games the 1070 has some pretty significant gains over my clocked 970, and in others not so much.Oc'ing doesnt really seem to bring much extra over the out the box clocks.
I wrote my custom bios when i was using air,and the card had a little more to give,its now on water could prob get a little more out it on top of that now.Not really feeling the 1070 being worth a £350 upgrade for me :/
I want more grunt tho for 1080/144hz with good IQ
What to do
I wrote my custom bios when i was using air,and the card had a little more to give,its now on water could prob get a little more out it on top of that now.Not really feeling the 1070 being worth a £350 upgrade for me :/
I want more grunt tho for 1080/144hz with good IQ
What to do
Load up the Church of Yorshka bonfire, turn left and go up the path to the cathedral where you fought Sulyvahn, I'd be surprised if you didn't get some fps drop. And if you don't, then you would if you had a 970.
I don't even know what the point is of saying I shouldn't have problems on a 970 when I do have problems on a 970. Who is more likely to know, me that has one or you that doesn't? None of those games I listed gets me a guaranteed 60 fps at 1080p, and I'm not even running them maxed (I also have a 120Hz monitor btw).
It's also pointless comparing stuff that's overclocked to hell and back when my system is all at stock.
Last edited:
I just went through the benches in a couple of reviews,in some games the 1070 has some pretty significant gains over my clocked 970, and in others not so much.Oc'ing doesnt really seem to bring much extra over the out the box clocks.
I wrote my custom bios when i was using air,and the card had a little more to give,its now on water could prob get a little more out it on top of that now.Not really feeling the 1070 being worth a £350 upgrade for me :/
I want more grunt tho for 1080/144hz with good IQ
What to do
The 1070 is essentially as powerful as a 980Ti, so Twice your 970.
I would sell yours immediately while it still holds value (sold one 970 one month ago for 235£, don't know how much the 1070 will change that value).
Permabanned
Because as far as the card and software are concerned, it has 4GB memory... there is no software instruction or basic logic that tells it to use the fast 3.5GB first and only then to use the remaining slow 0.5GB - it doesn't know the difference - only we do.
It is NOT programmed to use the slow 0.5GB last... after the PR issues and demands for refunds, Nvidia initially said that they would be releasing a driver that did just that... but later rescinded that in a different statement a few days later and the performance issues are still present to this very day with the newest drivers.
Paper benchmarks show the 970 "slowing down" significantly after more than 3.5GB is used - yes... but they don't include the user experience.
Various sites have tried to demonstrate this with things like frame time analysis and other methods... but that's the closest we've come to demonstrating the issues on paper.
Caporegime
Looking at the TPU figures,if the GTX1070 is around Titan X performance its 40% faster than a GTX970:
http://i.imgur.com/sML12EO.png
The only problem is that the GTX970 was £250 at launch and the GTX1070 is £320 to £400.
http://i.imgur.com/sML12EO.png
The only problem is that the GTX970 was £250 at launch and the GTX1070 is £320 to £400.
Permabanned
No they weren't... the 970 has 64 ROPs, the 980 has 64 ROPs.
The issue is the interface between the bank of shaders/texture units and memory controller...
The difference between the shaders/tex-u is still there... the ROPs are the same on both... only the ratios differ.
The new core does have a different design though, which improves things from last time.
Last edited:
Nice to see I was correct. I already explained why the first 3.5GB would get used first, because memory is always assigned sequentially from the first block that fits the size requirement. I've programmed enough to know this, including with D3D. Btw see studulike's post above, the 1070 doesn't even have this issue.
Last edited:
Soldato
Doesn't the 970 have 56 ROPs?
You will... wait til the reviews start coming out, some are already checking this - it's just the information isn't public yet. Further down the line there will be more reports too... it's interesting to observe how many people still haven't gotten their heads around the issue with the 970 yet even
It is improved compared to the 970 as there are some changes, but the fundamental issue is still there. The "tagged on" 2GB of redundant memory is accessed at a slowed speed than the main 6GB.
A reasonable number of users didn't notice the issue on 970... so the same people won't notice it on the 1070 - but some of us find it very easy to notice...
For a single card setup, most people will find the 1070 OK and it will be a good performing card - especially on paper.
It's a slightly more even breakdown than the 970, but a similar fundamental issue is present.
The 1070 should be a 6GB card... the 970 should have been a 3.5GB card.
It's very frustrating that Nvidia are doing this... they would still sell loads if they had set them up correctly. I'm sure plenty of people would have been happy with a 6GB 1070...
The reviews that you are privy to that have done these tests what did they find? or is this its only a 6GB card unproven and your opinion?
Permabanned
Soldato
You will... wait til the reviews start coming out, some are already checking this - it's just the information isn't public yet. Further down the line there will be more reports too... it's interesting to observe how many people still haven't gotten their heads around the issue with the 970 yet even
It is improved compared to the 970 as there are some changes, but the fundamental issue is still there. The "tagged on" 2GB of redundant memory is accessed at a slowed speed than the main 6GB.
A reasonable number of users didn't notice the issue on 970... so the same people won't notice it on the 1070 - but some of us find it very easy to notice...
For a single card setup, most people will find the 1070 OK and it will be a good performing card - especially on paper.
It's a slightly more even breakdown than the 970, but a similar fundamental issue is present.
The 1070 should be a 6GB card... the 970 should have been a 3.5GB card.
It's very frustrating that Nvidia are doing this... they would still sell loads if they had set them up correctly. I'm sure plenty of people would have been happy with a 6GB 1070...
What are you gibbering on about? It's 8GB GDDR5
Unless you can provide proof to the contrary.
Permabanned
Yeah sure... just like the GTX970 is 4GB 
Caporegime
Yeah sure... just like the GTX970 is 4GB
You keep saying it very confidently but you're selling opinion as fact. I'll wait for some actual data.