The Pascal GTX 1080 Ti Review Thread.

[andybird123]

I'll just leave this here.....
http://www.eteknix.com/nvidia-gtx-1080-ti-cpu-showdown-i7-7700k-vs-ryzen-r7-1800x-vs-i7-5820k/

Bit of an odd choice, the 7700k is a ~£300 CPU and the 5820k is a <~£380 CPU and 3 years old to boot.

I remember when AMD CPU's offered 90% of the performance of an intel chip but was a big chunk cheaper - looking at the various 1700/1800x vs. 7700k / 6800k / 6900k reviews the only place Ryzen stands out is the 1800X being 90% of a 6900k for nearly half the price, but in all of the £300-400 chips I think I would still go intel.

I mean, at least AMD is an actual choice now, but its not the slam dunk that article is trying hard to make out.

 

[humbug]

Bit of an odd choice, the 7700k is a ~£300 CPU and the 5820k is a <~£380 CPU and 3 years old to boot.

I remember when AMD CPU's offered 90% of the performance of an intel chip but was a big chunk cheaper - looking at the various 1700/1800x vs. 7700k / 6800k / 6900k reviews the only place Ryzen stands out is the 1800X being 90% of a 6900k for nearly half the price, but in all of the £300-400 chips I think I would still go intel.

I mean, at least AMD is an actual choice now, but its not the slam dunk that article is trying hard to make out.

You would still go Intel even tho they are more expensive and slower and use more power?

This is an example of the sort of mindshare Intel have, which is why they cost 3x more than what they are worth.

It has never been a case of AMD not providing competition, it has always been the mindset of those buying hardware. people will pay anything for anything with a certain logo on it.

 

[Razor Time]

To be fair Humbug there are allot of gaming benchmarks where Ryzen looses out to Intel on gaming and some games its a fair bit, so its not as cut and dry. Reviews seem to be all over the place.

One good thing is tho, at least AMD have now upped their game in the cpu sector and consumers have a choice. Its going to be very interesting over the next few years to see how this all plays out and hopefully the cpu market starts moving forward as it has been stale for a long time.

 

[humbug]

To be fair Humbug there are allot of gaming benchmarks where Ryzen looses out to Intel on gaming and some games its a fair bit, so its not as cut and dry.

One good thing is tho, at least AMD have now upped their game in the cpu sector and consumers have a choice. Its going to be very interesting over the next few years to see how this all plays out and hopefully the cpu market starts moving forward as it has been stale for a long time.

Its Motherboard BIOS updates, them fixing BIOS problems that's producing these results now, the CPU was always this fast its simply that its taken a little while for motherboard vendors to get ontop of it.

Its not as if that ^^^ wasn't already recognised even when it was throwing up lower gaming results, its always been faster than a 6900K or even closer to a 10 core 6950K in MT.

Read the article

 

[spot35]

You would still go Intel even tho they are more expensive and slower and use more power?

This is an example of the sort of mindshare Intel have, which is why they cost 3x more than what they are worth.

It has never been a case of AMD not providing competition, it has always been the mindset of those buying hardware. people will pay anything for anything with a certain logo on it.

Hail corporate.

I for one am very pleased with the competition shot that AMD have fired across Intels bows. I really hope that Vega does the same to nVidia.

 

[Razor Time]

Its Motherboard BIOS updates, them fixing BIOS problems that's producing these results now, the CPU was always this fast its simply that its taken a little while for motherboard vendors to get ontop of it.

Its not as if that ^^^ wasn't already recognised even when it was throwing up lower gaming results, its always been faster than a 6900K or even closer to a 10 core 6950K in MT.

I really do hope you are right, time will tell.

I was listening to the pcper podcast last night and they don't think that Bios updates will fix everything. Its a fairly interesting discussion on the topic, how accurate is it? Who knows?

Discussion starts @ 35mins but the interesting stuff is and guesses as to why is at @ 40:30mins.

Hail corporate.

I for one am very pleased with the competition shot that AMD have fired across Intels bows. I really hope that Vega does the same to nVidia.

Agreed.

 

[r7slayer]

I do agree that bios updates will improve things and when game devs and windows get some updates to improve the efficiency and optimisation for the new AMD R7 cpus then things will improve more. Problem is it's just like the GPU side of AMD. Great GPUs but fall short of their counter part, however over time around when their upgrade counter parts come out do you find they are actually beating and besting their current counter part.

I do believe though when Zen+ comes out things will be different as Zen's cpus will have been optimised for and it will have been a learning curve for AMD to overcome some problems their new cpus have faced.

Lets be honest when a new console comes out and you look at games they are not great at first but couple years down the line when devs have got used to the new architecture and hardware their game engines are much more optimised for the hardware and more capable of greater things squeezing and pushing more performance out of the hardware. Only the same in this situation. But people are looking at performance today not tomorrow and they will take that onboard and believe this to be true 1 month down the line or 6 months down the line despite things improving.

 

[shamus21]

On Linus' review they put up a graph showing dollar per frame and the 1080ti was one of the best. It's good value for money for the performance even given it's price tag. Depending on how much performance you need though a 2nd hand 980ti is probably the best value you can get right now.

With S/H prices hitting £250 for a 980TI it is probably one of the best value graphic cards going.

 

[andybird123]

You would still go Intel even tho they are more expensive and slower and use more power?

This is an example of the sort of mindshare Intel have, which is why they cost 3x more than what they are worth.

It has never been a case of AMD not providing competition, it has always been the mindset of those buying hardware. people will pay anything for anything with a certain logo on it.

When you cherry pick a review with a 3 year old intel chip then yes. the 7700k and 6800k both seem to slot in to their respective slots performance wise, and if anything overclock a bit better. There is no way a 7700k is only "worth" £100 if an AMD 1700 is £320

if 20 watts makes or breaks your system build then I'd suggest you need a bigger PSU anyway

 

[humbug]

When you cherry pick a review with a 3 year old intel chip then yes. the 7700k and 6800k both seem to slot in to their respective slots performance wise, and if anything overclock a bit better. There is no way a 7700k is only "worth" £100 if an AMD 1700 is £320

if 20 watts makes or breaks your system build then I'd suggest you need a bigger PSU anyway

It was a comparison with the 7700K which is not is not 3 years old, its Intel's latest chip, the problem with the 7700K is it does not have enough cores and it is more expensive than the Ryzen 1700.

The 7700K is better than Ryzen in older games because they are low threaded and the 7700K has higher clock rates, but in new games and going forward its miserable 4 cores cannot keep up with Ryzens 8 and 6 when its released.

 

[andybird123]

It was a comparison with the 7700K which is not is not 3 years old, its Intel's latest chip, the problem with the 7700K is it does not have enough cores and it is more expensive than the Ryzen 1700.

The 7700K is better than Ryzen in older games because they are low threaded and the 7700K has higher clock rates, but in new games and going forward its miserable 4 cores cannot keep up with Ryzens 8 and 6 when its released.

5820k I was referring too, come on you posted the article, keep up

7700k and 1700 are basically the same price, so again, pretty weak argument, its not 3 times the price like you just suggested, the 1800X you linked to is £500, so the 7700k looks pretty good value in comparison bearing in mind how well it overclocks

 

[mahius]

Stock 1080ti reference edition is unimpressive and puts me off buying the card. But overlock and things start to get interesting... now if we can see watercooled or AIB overclocked benchmarks... if it hit's the right spot... well hello 1080ti!

Also props for 980ti still shining with it's successor around. By the looks of the video, even at £350 (current day equivalent of prices presented), I'd say it's worth a go for folks who want something on the 'light side' that's bang for buck. Again, I feel bad for not managing to get one EOL last year. Though RX 480s at like £150/160 seem to smash that... was that on the chart?

*rechecks video*

Nope, I guess it's in an entirely different bracket entirely.

I wonder if DigitalFoundry (which Kaap spelt wrong by the way in the list) will do a video for AIB/Custom 1080tis, cos they don't always do that for GPU releases.

 

[LeMson]

That's a very silly review up above with stock 5820k and 7700k, a 2 year old could mash 45 multiplier and 1.325 volts for a 4.5ghz oc on a 5820k, they managed to oc the ryzen chip didn't they, apples to apples

 

[Doug2507]

Go take the AMD talk to one of the multiple threads already going. This is for 1080 ti.