Wednesday, May 25th 2016

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Faster than GTX TITAN X

NVIDIA's upcoming GeForce GTX 1070 graphics card, which NVIDIA is pinning its summer upgrade revenue on, is shaping up to be faster than the previous-generation enthusiast GeForce GTX TITAN X. 3DMark FireStrike numbers scored by VideoCardz reveal that averaged across three popular resolutions - 1080p (FireStrike standard), 1440p (FireStrike Advanced), and 4K (FireStrike Ultra), the GTX 1070 is about 3 percent faster than the GTX TITAN X.

At FireStrike (standard), the GTX 1070 scored 17557 points, versus 17396 points of the GTX TITAN X; 8327 points at FireStrike Advanced against 7989; and 4078 points at FireStrike Ultra against 3862, respectively. The performance lead is highest at 4K Ultra HD. Based on the 16 nm GP104 silicon, the GeForce GTX 1070 features 1,920 CUDA cores, 120 TMUs, and 8 GB of GDDR5 memory clocked at 8.00 GHz (256 GB/s). The MSRP for this SKU is set at $379, although its reference design board will be sold at a $70 premium, for $449, when the card goes on sale this 10th June.
Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

84 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Faster than GTX TITAN X

#1
ViperXTR
Despite having much lower memory bandwidth than Titan X and 980Ti, it still leads in the Firestrike Ultra , new memory compression kicking in?
Posted on Reply
#2
Caring1
I fully expect this card to sell out in my country if it is that good, despite the price being nearer an estimated $600 here.
Posted on Reply
#3
Harry Lloyd
The only bad thing about this card is that it is 50 $ more expensive than the 970 was. It makes it a rather pricey card in Europe, even though the performance is amazing. At least the value in relation to the 1080 is pretty much the same as it was with the 900 series.
Posted on Reply
#4
ViperXTR
Expecting it to be overpriced in my area as well.

Harry Lloyd, post: 3463223, member: 121315"
The only bad thing about this card is that it is 50 $ more expensive than the 970 was. It makes it a rather pricey card in Europe, even though the performance is amazing. At least the value in relation to the 1080 is pretty much the same as it was with the 900 series.
Maybe because they are justifying the 970 was on par with the 780Ti back then and the 1070 is faster than the 980Ti and on ar with the Titan X?
Posted on Reply
#5
The Quim Reaper
Lol..if the figures are true, good luck being able to actually find one in stock for the first 3mths.
Posted on Reply
#6
RejZoR
Ok, now I'm interested. It's just 3DMark, but still. Though I might actually wait for AMD to release their stuff this time around.
Posted on Reply
#7
hojnikb
This numbers could might as well be made up...
Posted on Reply
#9
Assimilator
Absolution, post: 3463234, member: 104804"
@btarunr Why wasnt there a news article for the 480 3DMark score leak? (http://videocardz.com/60253/amd-radeon-r9-480-3dmark11-benchmarks)

Genuinely curious behind the screening process....
Probably because it shows that, at best, Polaris C4 sits between GTX 970 and GTX 980 performance, whereas Polaris C7 sits between GTX 980 and Fury, and nobody's really interested in a new architecture that's not faster than the previous generation.
Posted on Reply
#10
medi01
Interesting is that gap between TitaniumX and 1080 in this benchmark is 20%.
In the other leak (different benchmark) 1080 lead TitaniumX by 24%.

And, as far as journalism goes, unbiased title would be specific enough: "...in <benchmark bla>".

Anti underdog bias is despicable...

Assimilator, post: 3463236, member: 7058"
...nobody's really interested in a new architecture that's not faster than the previous generation...
Only under 8 million of users are on 970/290 or higher.
Only 30% of NVIDIA users are on Maxwell.

Yet there is nobody who'd like well priced "between 980 and Fury" card, eh?
(n)Logical.

449$ for mid range card, my arse, dear Huang.


Absolution, post: 3463242, member: 104804"
not everyone can afford $400+ GPUs
I can afford 1.5k card, heck, every quarter or so, without even my wife noticing, but I don't think spending that much on it is reasonable, so I won't.
Posted on Reply
#11
Absolution
Assimilator, post: 3463236, member: 7058"
Probably because it shows that, at best, Polaris C4 sits between GTX 970 and GTX 980 performance, whereas Polaris C7 sits between GTX 980 and Fury, and nobody's really interested in a new architecture that's not faster than the previous generation.
Its still new hardware though, and nobody knows how competitively it will be priced... not everyone can afford $400+ GPUs
Posted on Reply
#12
night.fox
expected price here in korea would be close to 800usd and 1080 would be about over 1000. always expected here.
Posted on Reply
#13
arbiter
Absolution, post: 3463234, member: 104804"
@btarunr Why wasnt there a news article for the 480 3DMark score leak? (http://videocardz.com/60253/amd-radeon-r9-480-3dmark11-benchmarks)

Genuinely curious behind the screening process....
Look how much slower that 480 and even 480x is. I mean it takes CF to beat the number a 1070 put up and even then the number isn't that much better, only 10% faster for 480x in CF.

hojnikb, post: 3463233, member: 148747"
This numbers could might as well be made up...
Um really? Number is likely legit, i know you want to help AMD and all but no.
Posted on Reply
#14
Valdas
medi01, post: 3463240, member: 158537"
Interesting is that gap between TitaniumX and 1080 in this benchmark is 20%.
In the other leak (different benchmark) 1080 lead TitaniumX by 24%.

And, as far as journalism goes, unbiased title would be specific enough: "...in <benchmark bla>".
Not sure if you're trolling, or bad at math, or bad at reading.
Posted on Reply
#15
Caring1
arbiter, post: 3463244, member: 106403"
Um really? Number is likely legit, i know you want to help AMD and all but no.
Having too much time on my hands, I've been watching the benchmarks a lot as they roll in, and the numbers seem right.
This one has me interested as it is extremely high, even higher than the figures coming through for the 1080.
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8571073?_ga=1.80459155.507117041.1462523653
Possibly a new Quadro card or a 1080Ti?
Posted on Reply
#16
the54thvoid
Caring1, post: 3463246, member: 153156"
Having too much time on my hands, I've been watching the benchmarks a lot as they roll in, and the numbers seem right.
This one has me interested as it is extremely high, even higher than the figures coming through for the 1080.
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8571073?_ga=1.80459155.507117041.1462523653
Possibly a new Quadro card or a 1080Ti?
1266Mhz are Polaris clocks?

Assimilator, post: 3463236, member: 7058"
Probably because it shows that, at best, Polaris C4 sits between GTX 970 and GTX 980 performance, whereas Polaris C7 sits between GTX 980 and Fury, and nobody's really interested in a new architecture that's not faster than the previous generation.
This is indeed true. The Polaris leak verifies the previous assumptions that it wont be Fury topping card, therefore the leaked bench is no surprise. But people were dubious about Nvidia's claim that 1070 would be faster than Titan X. So a leaked benchmark showing it to be faster (and at 4k) is more interesting than a leaked benchmark that shows Polaris sits in the middle of the stack.
Posted on Reply
#17
arbiter
Caring1, post: 3463246, member: 153156"
Having too much time on my hands, I've been watching the benchmarks a lot as they roll in, and the numbers seem right.
This one has me interested as it is extremely high, even higher than the figures coming through for the 1080.
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8571073?_ga=1.80459155.507117041.1462523653
Possibly a new Quadro card or a 1080Ti?
i haven't seen the pages for say 1080 or 1070 so hard to say what that could be, some of scores in stories posted for what rumored to be 480(x) used 720p where as that one you posted used 1440p.

Any benchmarks posted using 720p pretty much can be throwing out and burned. No one uses that low rez anymore cept on laptops. 1080p is min they should be using or higher.
Posted on Reply
#18
RejZoR
What the hell is the point of Polaris then? I really don't understand AMD sometimes...

R9-290X -> R9-390X -> R9-490X, all being basically exactly the same in performance, just with slightly lower power consumption with each iteration. No one frigging cares about power consumption. People only care about it when there is performance, but not at a heavy cost of consumption. You know, like the GeForce FX that was literally just a load of hot air and very little performance.

And if R9-490X won't be beating R9 Fury, again, what's the point of this card exactly? Seeing how R9-390X is so close to R9 Fury, what will trhey be selling? A new name? It's almost like AMD doesn't understand progression anymore. High end today is next year's mid end. But they keep shuffling same high end through years under new names and very little changes. Ugh!?

R9 490X should be a bit faster than R9 Fury X. R9 Fury X 2 or whatever it'll be named should be quite faster than old R9 Fury X...
Posted on Reply
#19
the54thvoid
RejZoR, post: 3463260, member: 1515"
What the hell is the point of Polaris then? I really don't understand AMD sometimes...

R9-290X -> R9-390X -> R9-490X, all being basically exactly the same in performance, just with slightly lower power consumption with each iteration. No one frigging cares about power consumption. People only care about it when there is performance, but not at a heavy cost of consumption. You know, like the GeForce FX that was literally just a load of hot air and very little performance.

And if R9-490X won't be beating R9 Fury, again, what's the point of this card exactly? Seeing how R9-390X is so close to R9 Fury, what will trhey be selling? A new name? It's almost like AMD doesn't understand progression anymore. High end today is next year's mid end. But they keep shuffling same high end through years under new names and very little changes. Ugh!?

R9 490X should be a bit faster than R9 Fury X. R9 Fury X 2 or whatever it'll be named should be quite faster than old R9 Fury X...
Smaller chip, more OEM buyers for power efficiency. Probably cheaper to manufacture especially not using HBM. It's a sound business move. It may not fire your coals but as many people point out for both sides, the high end isn't where the money is, only the prestige and prestige doesn't fill the bank.
Posted on Reply
#20
IceScreamer
RejZoR, post: 3463260, member: 1515"
What the hell is the point of Polaris then? I really don't understand AMD sometimes...

R9-290X -> R9-390X -> R9-490X, all being basically exactly the same in performance, just with slightly lower power consumption with each iteration. No one frigging cares about power consumption. People only care about it when there is performance, but not at a heavy cost of consumption. You know, like the GeForce FX that was literally just a load of hot air and very little performance.

And if R9-490X won't be beating R9 Fury, again, what's the point of this card exactly? Seeing how R9-390X is so close to R9 Fury, what will trhey be selling? A new name? It's almost like AMD doesn't understand progression anymore. High end today is next year's mid end. But they keep shuffling same high end through years under new names and very little changes. Ugh!?

R9 490X should be a bit faster than R9 Fury X. R9 Fury X 2 or whatever it'll be named should be quite faster than old R9 Fury X...
Well, looking at the "leaked" 3DMark11 benches (which didn't show up on TPU) the 480X should be the same as Fury Air, so the 490X is probably faster than Fury X. Really curious as to why the GTX1070 benches showed up here and no 480, especially since they both come from Videocardz.
Posted on Reply
#21
trog100
i can see there being a good supply of used 9xxx cards appearing on ebay shortly.. he he..

trog
Posted on Reply
#22
P4-630
The Way It's Meant to be Played
Ok I'm starting to feel better now I did not buy the GTX980Ti :D
Posted on Reply
#23
nem..
1080 = 2560 x 1/5 = 512 cudacores
1070 = 1920 mean 620 cc difference with 1080
25% difference cc






Posted on Reply
#24
HumanSmoke
IceScreamer, post: 3463266, member: 161373"
Really curious as to why the GTX1070 benches showed up here and no 480, especially since they both come from Videocardz.
Probably for the same reason that Videocardz weren't keen on publishing the results themselves
Results vary by 20% while 3DMark shows the same clock, so lower scores were either run with older, unsupported drivers, or higher scores simply show overclocked scores. You are the judge here. I didn’t want to post this because I simply could not confirm which results are showing stock performance.
Hardly a glowing recommendation.
Posted on Reply
#25
Fluffmeister
P4-630, post: 3463269, member: 22154"
Ok I'm starting to feel better now I did not buy the GTX980Ti :D
The second hand 980 Ti market is looking pretty tasty too now though! You can pickup a sweet 980 Ti custom for not a lot of money that beyond the mighty GTX 1080 smashes everything. :P
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment