• 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 **

layte said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, you're simply reading something into nothing. This is the website and their benchmarking style you're talking about.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Hitman-Spiel-6333/Specials/DirectX-12-Benchmark-Test-1188758/

DX11 4k,

980ti (1380Mhz), 37.2fps
Fury pro(stock) 33.3fps,
Titan X (stock)31.4fps
390 (stock) 29.3
980 strix (1316Mhz) 23.9.

DX12 4k,

Fury pro (stock) 38.1
980ti (1380Mhz) 36.7
390x 34.3
Titan X 30.8
390 31.8
980 (1316Mhz) 23.9.

Oh, so the non canned benchmark..... has the Fury Pro beating the overclocked 980ti.. wow this entirely disagrees with Guru 3d, because a slower card is now beating an overclocked 980ti.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Hitma...Episode-2-Test-Benchmarks-DirectX-12-1193618/

The actual review you were using as proof, which came from an updated version benching episode 2.

DX12 4k they only did the two cards. 980ti same overclocks 37.1, stock Fury X 34.7, it's a little strange they only tested two cards in DX12, that the 980ti gets almost identical performance to before and somehow they lost performance using a faster card for AMD. They don't specifically mention what the settings are unlike the first review and they also make not that they upped the AMD driver setting to HQ-AF, which is also fairly non standard... as is benching only an overclocked 980ti/980 to make it stand out from other cards.

So the idea that the canned benchmark is the only reason AMD are good, when the very website you are using as proof shows a fury pro beating a well overclocked 980ti at the launch of the game..... is pretty much a BS claim.

Take 10-15% off that 980ti performance and that is what you get in other reviews in terms of Fury X vs stock 980ti.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/04/17/hitman_2016_performance_video_card_review/8

without double checking, from recollection [H] always bench in game and not canned benchmarks. So they also have Fury pro/x beating 980ti(stock) while a 390 easily beats a 980. So at launch every review showed AMD beating Nvidia and the very website you're using as proof... agrees. So the idea that AMD wins the canned benchmark but not the game, when those two sites use in game numbers to show Nvidia getting beaten suggests you couldn't be more wrong.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
No, you're simply reading something into nothing. This is the website and their benchmarking style you're talking about.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Hitman-Spiel-6333/Specials/DirectX-12-Benchmark-Test-1188758/

DX11 4k,

980ti (1380Mhz), 37.2fps
Fury pro(stock) 33.3fps,
Titan X (stock)31.4fps
390 (stock) 29.3
980 strix (1316Mhz) 23.9.

DX12 4k,

Fury pro (stock) 38.1
980ti (1380Mhz) 36.7
390x 34.3
Titan X 30.8
390 31.8
980 (1316Mhz) 23.9.

Oh, so the non canned benchmark..... has the Fury Pro beating the overclocked 980ti.. wow this entirely disagrees with Guru 3d, because a slower card is now beating an overclocked 980ti.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Hitma...Episode-2-Test-Benchmarks-DirectX-12-1193618/

The actual review you were using as proof, which came from an updated version benching episode 2.

DX12 4k they only did the two cards. 980ti same overclocks 37.1, stock Fury X 34.7, it's a little strange they only tested two cards in DX12, that the 980ti gets almost identical performance to before and somehow they lost performance using a faster card for AMD. They don't specifically mention what the settings are unlike the first review and they also make not that they upped the AMD driver setting to HQ-AF, which is also fairly non standard... as is benching only an overclocked 980ti/980 to make it stand out from other cards.

So the idea that the canned benchmark is the only reason AMD are good, when the very website you are using as proof shows a fury pro beating a well overclocked 980ti at the launch of the game..... is pretty much a BS claim.

Take 10-15% off that 980ti performance and that is what you get in other reviews in terms of Fury X vs stock 980ti.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/04/17/hitman_2016_performance_video_card_review/8

without double checking, from recollection [H] always bench in game and not canned benchmarks. So they also have Fury pro/x beating 980ti(stock) while a 390 easily beats a 980. So at launch every review showed AMD beating Nvidia and the very website you're using as proof... agrees. So the idea that AMD wins the canned benchmark but not the game, when those two sites use in game numbers to show Nvidia getting beaten suggests you couldn't be more wrong.
Click to expand...

Just to clear some stuff up.

All the cards they tested are using out of the box clocks.

The 980 Ti's have higher out the box clocks as they are not reference but still have good overclocking headroom on them and should be good for another 10% or 12% more.

My personal view is NVidia cards are a bit weak at this benchmark but I have not tested much.

I have been asked to do a bench thread for this and will do so after the 1080 launch is out of the way. This should help in showing what the cards can do at their best.
 
Jono8 said:
Read back a few pages - Overclock3d did a comprehensive comparison and someone worked out that the average over all games and resolutions put the 1080 as 22% faster overall. I think the 1080 was at 2.0ghz and the 980Ti was at 1450mhz.
Click to expand...

But was this done in a case? Computerbase did their tests in a case and found within a few minutes the overclocked 1080 would throttle significantly.

Hence their conclusion was the 980ti OC was only about 8% slower in real world gaming than an OC 1080 due to this throttling.
 
straxusii said:
But was this done in a case? Computerbase did their tests in a case and found within a few minutes the overclocked 1080 would throttle significantly.

Hence their conclusion was the 980ti OC was only about 8% slower in real world gaming than an OC 1080 due to this throttling.
Click to expand...

Not read it but is it a ref 1080 vs ref 980 Ti? Both ref cards will throttle when overclocked. Both can of course have the fan profile changed.

If not a ref 980 Ti then a better comparison will be a non-ref 1080 too.

Sounds like people trying to make the figures as close together as they can because they "currently" don't want to upgrade :).

The throttling is a non-issue, it's been blown out of proportion.
Besides, overclocked cards have their downsides too. Two cards with equal performance, where one has been overclocked to reach the performane level, real gaming performance will be better on the non-overclocked card - smoother.
 
Does anybody know when the 3rd party cards with the better coolers are going to be released?
If it's a month or so I'll wait but if it's three months... :(
 
Anyone paying over £315 for a secondhand 980ti may want to look at this:

GeForce-GTX-1070-3DMark-FireStrike-Performance.png


1070 is priced around £300-£350 ($379). I know this is a synthetic, but still.

Edit: I see this has been posted already, apologies.
 
N17 dizzi said:
Anyone paying over £315 for a secondhand 980ti may want to look at this:

GeForce-GTX-1070-3DMark-FireStrike-Performance.png


1070 is priced around £300-£350 ($379). I know this is a synthetic, but still.

Edit: I see this has been posted already, apologies.
Click to expand...

Based on those figures a 980 Ti will beat a 1070 by a wide margin once you start overclocking both.

Just ran my EVGA SC TitanX @stock to see what graphics it scores in Firestrike Standard.

Graphics Score 19 023
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
No, you're simply reading something into nothing. This is the website and their benchmarking style you're talking about.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Hitman-Spiel-6333/Specials/DirectX-12-Benchmark-Test-1188758/

DX11 4k,

980ti (1380Mhz), 37.2fps
Fury pro(stock) 33.3fps,
Titan X (stock)31.4fps
390 (stock) 29.3
980 strix (1316Mhz) 23.9.

DX12 4k,

Fury pro (stock) 38.1
980ti (1380Mhz) 36.7
390x 34.3
Titan X 30.8
390 31.8
980 (1316Mhz) 23.9.

Oh, so the non canned benchmark..... has the Fury Pro beating the overclocked 980ti.. wow this entirely disagrees with Guru 3d, because a slower card is now beating an overclocked 980ti.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Hitma...Episode-2-Test-Benchmarks-DirectX-12-1193618/

The actual review you were using as proof, which came from an updated version benching episode 2.

DX12 4k they only did the two cards. 980ti same overclocks 37.1, stock Fury X 34.7, it's a little strange they only tested two cards in DX12, that the 980ti gets almost identical performance to before and somehow they lost performance using a faster card for AMD. They don't specifically mention what the settings are unlike the first review and they also make not that they upped the AMD driver setting to HQ-AF, which is also fairly non standard... as is benching only an overclocked 980ti/980 to make it stand out from other cards.

So the idea that the canned benchmark is the only reason AMD are good, when the very website you are using as proof shows a fury pro beating a well overclocked 980ti at the launch of the game..... is pretty much a BS claim.

Take 10-15% off that 980ti performance and that is what you get in other reviews in terms of Fury X vs stock 980ti.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/04/17/hitman_2016_performance_video_card_review/8

without double checking, from recollection [H] always bench in game and not canned benchmarks. So they also have Fury pro/x beating 980ti(stock) while a 390 easily beats a 980. So at launch every review showed AMD beating Nvidia and the very website you're using as proof... agrees. So the idea that AMD wins the canned benchmark but not the game, when those two sites use in game numbers to show Nvidia getting beaten suggests you couldn't be more wrong.
Click to expand...

From recollection. Top Kek. I also like the long winded desperate arm waving you do regarding settings, you may just be able to convince the really hard of thought. So keep making stuff up and throwing around that FUD. Each post you make just has you looking more ludicrous than the last.

Me, I'm just happy to post the numbers and let people make their own mind up. It's quite telling you are not, and are desperate to cast doubt on the entire site. And those numbers show that when tested away from the AND sponsored and assisted developer benchmark, NV cards have a much higher performance delta to AMD's. Spooky.
 
Last edited:
Kaapstad said:
Based on those figures a 980 Ti will beat a 1070 by a wide margin once you start overclocking both.
Click to expand...

Well yes if the 1070 is a bad clocker. The 970 overclocked was > a stock 980, right? Quite a bit of stuff disabled on the 1070 so we'll see.

I am guessing that a 1070, a second hand 980ti, or indeed a 1080 will be an improvement on my 760.
 
N17 dizzi said:
Well yes if the 1070 is a bad clocker. The 970 overclocked was > a stock 980, right? Quite a bit of stuff disabled on the 1070 so we'll see.

I am guessing that a 1070, a second hand 980ti, or indeed a 1080 will be an improvement on my 760.
Click to expand...

Pascal is a big step forward but the trick is to buy the right card at the right time for the right price.:)

The non reference AIB cards I think will be a nice step up from the FE 1070s and 1080s for less money.:)
 
im currently running a 280x(borrowed from a friend) as my 7950 died on me recently and im waiting to buy a new gpu, looking at those rough stat's a 980ti or a 1070 will be a huge leap in performance for me either way,however i would rather spend my money on the newer tech,the 1080 however is a little to steep for me.
 
Last edited:
Kaapstad said:
Pascal is a big step forward but the trick is to buy the right card at the right time for the right price.:)

The non reference AIB cards I think will be a nice step up from the FE 1070s and 1080s for less money.:)
Click to expand...

i will definetly be waiting for the non founders card's before i purchase,from all ive read the founders cards have issues and seem far to steeply priced.
 
N17 dizzi said:
Anyone paying over £315 for a secondhand 980ti may want to look at this:

1070 is priced around £300-£350 ($379). I know this is a synthetic, but still.

Edit: I see this has been posted already, apologies.
Click to expand...

That will be a 1075mhz Ti likely. I know an overclocked Ti can get over 20k. I think a 1070 may match a Ti. I think it may struggle at a higher res though.

A 1070 is $449 for the FE. Won't be had for any less than £400 I guess. AIB cards are likely to be the top end (if not more) of that as $379 is only a suggested price.
 
layte said:
Seeking Alpha. lol

Right, let's check that guys post history. Yup, AMD investor.

Every post there is like that. See a hit piece on AMD. Likely the poster has NV investments as well.
Click to expand...

Even so it had some interesting points. Assuming his figures are correct, the 1080 does just appear to be a mega overclocked 980ti.....................

And certainly isnt showing any signs of its die shrink or a similar level of increased performance as the 980 did when it was launched.

Its almost as if Nvidia are drip feeding us 20% gains every launch.................


Of course the 1080 is twice as fast clock per clock as a 980ti in VR which is where all the R&D seems to have being spent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom