• 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 **

ICDP said:
It is the general tone from some posters (and especially reviews) that imply the 1080 FE is an awesome overclocker.
Click to expand...

lol. I swear people just make things up in this thread. I don't think anyone has said they think the 1080 FE is a great overclocker...


For a start you replied to someone quoting the percentage increase over an OC 980Ti, not the overall percentage increase from overclocking on just the 1080.
 
NirK said:
I have no idea where you got this from, me and most of the people in this thread have universally said we are waiting for AIB coolers not the FE.
Click to expand...

Pretty much universally any reviews that did max OC testing concluded the 1080 FE was a great overclocker. This followed over into forums and there are plenty of posters who think the overclocking on 1080 is great.
 
ICDP said:
One other thing the 980Ti reference cards and custom cooled AIB cards all seemed hit a similar max OC potential of around 1500 core (give or take 50MHz). The advantage of the AIB custom cooled versions was that they could maintain that OC without throttling.

If we have the same thing with the 1080 then ~2.1-2.2GHz could be a best case scenario but the AIB custom cooled versions will just be able to prevent throttling better.
Click to expand...

But 2.2Ghz on a 1080, would be the same as 1,5Ghz on a 980ti... Realistically most 980ti do not do that, probably not one reference 980ti in existence in fact.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
lol. I swear people just make things up in this thread. I don't think anyone has said they think the 1080 FE is a great overclocker...


For a start you replied to someone quoting the percentage increase over an OC 980Ti, not the overall percentage increase from overclocking on just the 1080.
Click to expand...

Actually I didn't reply to anyone at all with my first post on the subject of 1080 FE overclocking. Here it is for reference.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29537565&postcount=9913

A post not replying to anyone and simply giving my opinion on the fact the 1080 FE is a poor overclocker and to wait on custom cooled AIB versions. The 23% number was in relation to 1080 overclocking, not comparing 980Ti vs 1080 performance.

The 23% number in my post is referring to the fact people see 1080 FE having 1706 base clock and see 2.1GHz as an overclock (23%) and incorrectly assume that equates to 23% extra performance. Hence my inclusion of actual average overclocked performance gains.
 
Last edited:
ICDP said:
Actually I didn't reply to anyone at all with my first post on the subject of 1080 FE overclocking. Here it is for reference.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29537565&postcount=9913

A post not replying to anyone and simply giving my opinion on the fact the 1080 FE is a poor overclocker and to wait on custom cooled AIB versions. The 23% number was in relation to overclocking, not comparing 980Ti vs 1080 performance.

The 23% number in my post is referring to the fact people see 1080 FE having 1706 base clock and see 2.1GHz as an overclock (23%) and incorrectly assume that equates to 23% extra performance. Hence my inclusion of actual average overclocked performance gains.
Click to expand...

Ah i see, i think we are all talking at cross purposes with each other. Some replied/ were talking about the difference between the 980Ti OC and the 1080OC where as you were talking about just the performance gain on just the 1080 from overclocking. :)
 
NirK said:
But 2.2Ghz on a 1080, would be the same as 1,5Ghz on a 980ti... Realistically most 980ti do not do that, more like 1380-1450, which would be 2050-2150mhz equivalent on 1080.
Click to expand...

Not the case. A stock 1080 would be marginally better than a stock Ti. It's still a good 20-30 faster stock vs stock.

If a 1080 at 2050mhz vs 1450mhz(Ti) is 20-30% faster. That still puts a 1450mhz Ti slower than a stock 1080.
 
tyler_jrb said:
Not the case. A stock 1080 would be marginally better than a stock Ti. It's still a good 20-30 faster stock vs stock.

If a 1080 at 2050mhz vs 1450mhz(Ti) is 20-30% faster. That still puts a 1450mhz Ti slower than a stock 1080.
Click to expand...

Well I meant the % from default. 980ti default 1200mhz, 1080 default 1785mhz. (no throttling).

As I keep repeating only a few reviews tell you exactly what the settings are and measure in multiple games.

read through the reviews on the videocardz list, mostly the german ones and overclockerclub give the most info.
 
Last edited:
NirK said:
Well I meant the % from default.

As I keep repeating only a few reviews tell you exactly what the settings are and measure in multiple games.

read through the reviews on the videocardz list, mostly the german ones and overclockerclub give the most info.

Really bored of repeating now so i will leave it to someone else, but personally I am going on the reviews that give proper info not the ones that test one game and do not tell you what settings used etc.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the overclockersclub review.

But after re-reading. I see what you mean now ;). My bad.

Just have to wait for AIB cards and see what the chip is truly capable of.
 
Last edited:
But I am getting impatient now what is taking so long, my 5870 on a 3440x1440 monitor is annoying me.
 
Last edited:
Yeah so I am running reference 980 TI SLI, both @ +250 / +250 since launch. They're great... but.... I like shiny new things.. :|

I was hoping for a super widescreen monitor with 120hz+, blur reduction and greater than 1080v by now but mmmmm can I justify this...
 
Well the FE is not bad at all, its just the MSRP that makes it not good. You can probably run it at quiet fan and decent speed, up to about 70% on the 980ti reference card was not loud.
 
Last edited:
Kaapstad said:
Reading the reviews for the 1080

Actual overclocking MHz was good

Actual performance increase was poor

This is hinting that there is something amiss with the power delivery or cooling or both.

The AIB upmarket cards should fix the above.
Click to expand...

if its keeping clocks it points more to bandwidth or something no?
i think the big chip u will see more linear performance
thats my guess anyway, its still going to be fast!
 
drunkenmaster said:
Because you're basing that off the gain from doing stock cards in one benchmark to heavily overclocked Nvidia cards in the other, thus you are attributing the gain from AMD purely on being in game rather than the benchmark and completely ignoring the clock gain.

But wait for layte to post that every few pages, have that pointed out by multiple people and then use that as a basis to make such a claim.

For the most part almost all game benchmarks show different performance from the game in the benchmark but they usually do with ALL cards. You can't use all stock cards in the benchmark and overclocked vs stock being benched in the game as proof that Nvidia are handicapped in the benchmark.

Find a review that benches both companies stock cards(or at least stock Nvidia cards alongside overclocked Nvidia cards) in game then you'd have a point, currently you're making a baseless claim on extremely dodgy benchmarking.

I'm absolutely fine with benchmarking overclocked cards, but bench a stock 980ti and a heavily overclocked 980ti to show the difference. Showing no reference Nvidia cards vs only reference AMD cards is entirely misleading. Okay Fury doesn't overclock great but it does overclock and the other cards shown like 390/380 overclock just fine.
Click to expand...

Oh you are back, in full FUD mode again. How's the Pascal release date and HDMI stuff working out for you? I notice you did your customary disappearing act when shown up.

It's utterly comical you are trying to deflect the Hitman results as being nothing more than having an overclocked card in the mix. For mystery reasons AMD are ludicrously far ahead in the developers canned benchmark, no amount of overclocking will fix that. Yet when a test is performed away from that.... If the situation was reversed we would have no end of tedious walls of text from the likes of yourself as to how NV are bribing developers to make them look good etc.. It's funny how no matter where the benchmarks originate from, if they don't fit your agenda they are biased or somehow not valid. I lose count now of how many sites you have thrown those particular accusations at.

Your FUD campaign in this thread is getting pretty desperate now, perhaps you should give it a rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom