• 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.

** The Official Nvidia GeForce 'Pascal' Thread - for general gossip and discussions **

Probably because my rig is better than yours.

:rolleyes:

:D HAHA classic... good reply mate. You should have also added... I know how to configure my computer correctly too to get the best out of it.


The funny part some that are after 1080 are still running systems that will bottleneck a 980 nevermind a 1080 and still using 1080p screens. Priorities are all wrong really. More of a ego E-peen thing to have the latest graphics card it seems, no wonder Nvidia is taking us all for a ride.
 
Last edited:
Will have to read the article, that's not bad at all if it sat at 2160Mhz for over an hour @ 100% GPU use of course, not vsynced or frame limited, that will make the hybrid cards that are based off a none reference board even better then, need to read it, must be a gotcha somewhere. These will make good upgrades for people on anything from a 980 and below and wanting to go ultra wide 3440x1440 or 2560x1440 high refresh rates, I still think they suck at 4K for a single card solution. I still feel they are not a good enough upgrade for a 980ti or titan x that OC well or are OC/hybrid models.

Looks like in terms of raw fillrate, etc. they are kind of cut back - not sure how they stack up in terms of actual ROP throughput, etc. compared to the 980ti and so on but they seem to basically be a bit cut back in that aspect kind of like you'd expect from a mid-range card.

The only gotcha really in that regard is that you really need an AIB board with one of the higher end aftermarket cooling solutions to hit the higher end stable clocks.
 
Doom is old and crap? :confused:

What you been smoking?



I'll remember to add that next time.

:D

Its not old, but after 30 minutes I'm bored of it. Its framerates reflect the quality of graphics, its not exactly taxing.

Anyhoo, you posted up saying you get 100fps on ultra, and then weve got purg on 75hz and turning off AA
 
Last edited:
You don't have a 980ti anymore that's what is wrong with your setup lol :D:p

:D HAHA classic... good reply mate. You should have also added... I know how to configure my computer correctly too to get the best out of it.


The funny part some that are after 1080 are still running systems that will bottleneck a 980 nevermind a 1080 and still using 1080p screens. Priorities are all wrong really. More of a ego E-peen thing to have the latest graphics card it seems, no wonder Nvidia is taking us all for a ride.

Nothing is bottlenecking in my system thanks.And I know how to setup my computer....

Fact is anyone saying they max ultra games with a single 980ti at 3440 X 1440 are talking BS

Fact.

Rise of the tomb raider is one Doom doesn't yield a constant 100fps either...
 
Last edited:
Nothing is bottlenecking in my system thanks.And I know how to setup my computer....

Fact is anyone saying they max ultra games with a single 980ti at 3440 X 1440 are talking BS

Fact.

Rise of the tomb raider is one Doom doesn't yield a constant 100fps either...

980 ti @ 1500 in doom no problem on ultra + the 2 nightmare settings with 8 x max aa what ever it is called in doom. just on the cusp @60fps vsynced on... @1550 with bios mod no problem at all max settings....

Now i find as its an openGL game enabling triple buffering really helps not sure why M$ dx ditched this as its a good form of back buffering yes it uses more vram but does a great job of buffering & keeping things smooth

All so all my i7 cores are unparked this helps with certain games with bad cpu utilisation gets rid of them nasty random glitches or forms of micro stutter metro 2033 was bad for that mainly with vsync on .....

P.S yes @3440 X 1440
 
My 980 in doom does 4k ultra at 45fps and 1440 16:9 at 100fps

So 980ti might be little to slow for 100 constant at 21:9 1440

Easy is taking about 100fps not 60
 
My 980 in doom does 4k ultra at 45fps and 1440 16:9 at 100fps

So 980ti might be little to slow for 100 constant at 21:9 1440

Easy is taking about 100fps not 60

Yes i know i am just giving my result ...there would be peaks i imagine up to the 100s in certain parts but no way would it be staying there... like i said i am getting a solid 60fps without it dropping out of sync...
 
Last edited:
Nothing is bottlenecking in my system thanks

Fact is anyone saying they max ultra games with a single 980ti at 3440 X 1440 are talking BS

Fact.

Rise of the tomb raider is one Doom does yield a constant 100fps either...

You can max out any game that doesn't have a check in it for GPU memory available. Even an integrated CPU GPU will MAX them to any resolution you can set.. doesn't mean it will play well.. will be like a slide show if you are lucky.


Coming back to the point that a 980ti at 3440 x1440 is not enough to max out most games and be playable is silly, it is more than enough and the games play really nice, yes you may get the odd one that you need to drop a few settings or just dropping AA will do it. I honestly don't see the difference from 16x to 8x AA @ 3440x1440 even 4X or 2X is enough and if you are not pixel peeping you would never notice it while gaming, I think some just get all caught up on the game settings instead of actually enjoying the game.


Everyone has a different perception on what is playable. I would rather have higher resolution and nice aspect ratios than stupid high frame rates that are not here or there. If you are hitting 60 frames average the game is playable, come on console users are getting 30 frames and under and you are saying console makers are making devices that are not playable ? But selling them like crazy and the games. This is why developers for games are more bothered about consoles and giving us PC users rubbish ports that require 5x the GPU power of the consoles to be playable and have the few higher settings we want to keep us PC users happy.

Honestly there has been so few really good games recently that require a good GPU, PC gaming is starting to become a luxury that is not always worth it. If it wasn't for 21:9 screens and my love for flight sim and gaming in general I would have probably given up on it on the desktops and flight sim on a laptop.

Nvidia has really left a bad taste in my mouth with the GTX 1080 and their behavior when they showed off the card and the lies they spun.

I love technology and always want the latest toys, but the latest toys are becoming small updates and huge price increases that don't add up to what you are getting anymore.. Nvidia at this rate will kill off PC gaming and all their gimp works features and other software that they have locked down. AMD to stay in business will sadly have to follow Nvidia's pricing too as they will not be undercutting Nvidia by huge amounts.


The 1080 with all the reduction in manufacturing should have had 1.5x the transistors of a 980ti, but they reduced the transistor count from 8 billion on the 980ti to 7.2 on the 1080... It's just greed now.

What they don't realize is they are soon going to turn people like me that pays for the new parts into someone that will wait for them second hand, so they will basically loose a new sales or I will wait till they get discounted a lot because they are classed as older generations.

The 1080 is going to fly off the retailers for 3-4 weeks and after that we will see .. They have upset a lot of people this time with the 1080. They will realize when they start having stock piles of them. They are not worth £450 nevermind anything over £600.
 
You can max out any game that doesn't have a check in it for GPU memory available. Even an integrated CPU GPU will MAX them to any resolution you can set.. doesn't mean it will play well.. will be like a slide show if you are lucky.


Coming back to the point that a 980ti at 3440 x1440 is not enough to max out most games and be playable is silly, it is more than enough and the games play really nice, yes you may get the odd one that you need to drop a few settings or just dropping AA will do it. I honestly don't see the difference from 16x to 8x AA @ 3440x1440 even 4X or 2X is enough and if you are not pixel peeping you would never notice it while gaming, I think some just get all caught up on the game settings instead of actually enjoying the game.


Everyone has a different perception on what is playable. I would rather have higher resolution and nice aspect ratios than stupid high frame rates that are not here or there. If you are hitting 60 frames average the game is playable, come on console users are getting 30 frames and under and you are saying console makers are making devices that are not playable ? But selling them like crazy and the games. This is why developers for games are more bothered about consoles and giving us PC users rubbish ports that require 5x the GPU power of the consoles to be playable and have the few higher settings we want to keep us PC users happy.

Honestly there has been so few really good games recently that require a good GPU, PC gaming is starting to become a luxury that is not always worth it. If it wasn't for 21:9 screens and my love for flight sim and gaming in general I would have probably given up on it on the desktops and flight sim on a laptop.

Nvidia has really left a bad taste in my mouth with the GTX 1080 and their behavior when they showed off the card and the lies they spun.

I love technology and always want the latest toys, but the latest toys are becoming small updates and huge price increases that don't add up to what you are getting anymore.. Nvidia at this rate will kill off PC gaming and all their gimp works features and other software that they have locked down. AMD to stay in business will sadly have to follow Nvidia's pricing too as they will not be undercutting Nvidia by huge amounts.


The 1080 with all the reduction in manufacturing should have had 1.5x the transistors of a 980ti, but they reduced the transistor count from 8 billion on the 980ti to 7.2 on the 1080... It's just greed now.

What they don't realize is they are soon going to turn people like me that pays for the new parts into someone that will wait for them second hand, so they will basically loose a new sales or I will wait till they get discounted a lot because they are classed as older generations.

The 1080 is going to fly off the retailers for 3-4 weeks and after that we will see .. They have upset a lot of people this time with the 1080. They will realize when they start having stock piles of them. They are not worth £450 nevermind anything over £600.

Yes agree

If it was not for the 21.9 screens i would have lost interest too.... RTS race sims & FPS are great on these screens but sadly yes the 980ti is just a bit fraction shy in performance to be a perfect match even @1550 ...

The 1080.... well a good over clocked one may be the answer for 3440x1440 ....but at over £600 forget it ....

I will sit tight and wait for Ti....
 
Nothing is bottlenecking in my system thanks.And I know how to setup my computer....

Fact is anyone saying they max ultra games with a single 980ti at 3440 X 1440 are talking BS

Fact.

Rise of the tomb raider is one Doom doesn't yield a constant 100fps either...

Not BS at all.

Doom runs great on my rig ultra settings @ 3440 X 1440.

And and from what I have observed its running at the frame rate cap practically all the time. I use AB to cap it at 97fps to keep it in g-sync territory and lag free.

Ain't played Tomb Raider (not my sort of game) so can't comment on that one.

I reckon the 1080Ti will be a match made in heaven @ 3440 X 1440 for future games such as BF1.

I hope AMD's offering speeds up the release of the 1080Ti. . .
 
Last edited:
Yes I agree 980ti for 3440x1440 is not enough for new games. This is exactly the reason I want a 1080... Another 20-30% performance would be ideal (well obviously more would be better) . But at 2560x1440 or 1080p a 980ti is fine... its just that extra resolution on 3440 which drops the performance.... I still expect some games will need to drop down to "high" instead of "very high" to get good FPS, 1080ti would be better, but it doesn't exist now so that is no use.
 
Last edited:
Yes I agree 980ti for 3440x1440 is not enough for new games. This is exactly the reason I want a 1080... Another 20-30% performance would be ideal (well obviously more would be better) . But at 2560x1440 or 1080p a 980ti is fine... its just that extra resolution on 3440 which drops the performance.... I still expect some games will need to drop down to "high" instead of "very high" to get good FPS, 1080ti would be better, but it doesn't exist now so that is no use.

1080p a 980ti is fine.. lol 980ti is like super overkill for 1080p..:rolleyes:

A GTX 970 is edging on overkill for 1080p, but will become the sweet spot for 1080p in the future as games get more demanding.
 
1080p a 980ti is fine.. lol 980ti is like super overkill for 1080p..:rolleyes:

A GTX 970 is edging on overkill for 1080p, but will become the sweet spot for 1080p in the future as games get more demanding.

There's no such thing as overkill, it's called being prepared.

I'm on a 1080p monitor and looking to get a 1080. Complete overkill for that maybe, but it's safe to say i don't plan on sticking around on 1080p....
 
Last edited:
Not BS at all.

I reckon the 1080Ti will be a match made in heaven @ 3440 X 1440 for future games such as BF1.

If it turns out to be 50% faster at stock compared to a 980ti OC yes it will be nice for that resolution for people with 100hz screens and a nice upgrade from a 980ti, but will still suck bad for 4K users.


I don't see any hope for 4K users with Pascal unless they go SLI or really drop the settings. Volta I'm really hoping they do some magic with that, I'm really put off by Pascal (aka Maxwell on a die shrink, less Cuda cores (Transistors) and higher clocks) now and even when the 1080Ti comes out I will be inspecting it with a microscope if I feel I need to update.

I really hope they learn a lesson from the 1080 and make sure not to screw their customers over with the 1080Ti and actually make it an upgrade.
 
Last edited:
1080p a 980ti is fine.. lol 980ti is like super overkill for 1080p..:rolleyes:

A GTX 970 is edging on overkill for 1080p, but will become the sweet spot for 1080p in the future as games get more demanding.

Not if you want to use DSR or 144hz.

Also pascal has improvements over maxwell, technically you could look at any card and say it is the same as the old architecture, they all look similar with a few tweaks.
 
Last edited:
If it turns out to be 50% faster at stock compared to a 980ti OC yes it will be nice for that resolution for people with 100hz screens and a nice upgrade from a 980ti, but will still suck bad for 4K users.


I don't see any hope for 4K users with Pascal unless they go SLI or really drop the settings. Volta I'm really hoping they do some magic with that, I'm really put off by Pascal (aka Maxwell on a die shrink, less Cuda cores (Transistors) and higher clocks) now and even when the 1080Ti comes out I will be inspecting it with a microscope if I feel I need to update.

I really hope they learn a lesson from the 1080 and make sure not to screw their customers over with the 1080Ti and actually make it an upgrade.

Considering the 1080 is 30-40% faster than the 980Ti if the 1080Ti is only 10-20% faster again it will be an epic fail. The 1080 is 65-75% faster than the 980 and I see absolutely no reason why that wont be continued wiht the 1080Ti.


Also, the pascal has far more transistors than Maxwell. The 980 has 5.2Bn transistors, the 1080 has 7.2Bn - 38% more.
 
Considering the 1080 is 30-40% faster than the 980Ti if the 1080Ti is only 10-20% faster again it will be an epic fail. The 1080 is 65-75% faster than the 980 and I see absolutely no reason why that wont be continued wiht the 1080Ti.


Also, the pascal has far more transistors than Maxwell. The 980 has 5.2Bn transistors, the 1080 has 7.2Bn - 38% more.

Yeah there's no way the 1080 Ti will only be 10-20% faster than a 1080.

If you look at the speed per mm2, that's probably a better way to estimate speed going forward. The 1080 is ~1.7x faster than the 980, but also a lot smaller at the same time.

It's actually ~2.1x faster per mm2. So the 1080 Ti should only have to be 480-500mm2 to be 70% faster than the 980 Ti.

(Obviously this is assuming they make a P102 chip. If they used P100 for the 1080 Ti, then yes it would be crap, due to the wasted FP64 space)
 
Back
Top Bottom