Sunday, October 15th 2017

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Ashes of the Singularity Numbers Surface

Ahead of its October 26 launch, someone with access to an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti sample put it through "Ashes of the Singularity" (AotS) benchmark, with its scores even getting posted on its online database. Paired with an Intel Core i9-7900X based high-end machine, and running the benchmark's DirectX 11 API version, the card scored 6,200 points in the "Extreme" (1440p) preset.

This score spaces it significantly apart from the GTX 1070, which typically scores around 5,400 points in this test, and the GTX 1080, which puts out around 7,000 points. The GTX 1070 Ti manages to keep frame-rates of AotS consistently above 60 frames per second. Much like the Radeon RX Vega 56 it's designed to compete with, the GTX 1070 Ti will find its comfort-zone with the 1440p resolution, even though it will be capable of playable (≥30 fps) frame-rates at 4K Ultra HD.

Sources: AotS Benchmark Database, VideoCardz
Add your own comment

14 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Ashes of the Singularity Numbers Surface

#1
Th3pwn3r
Interesting, it scores dead in the middle of the two cards.
Posted on Reply
#2
JackOne
Exactly what I expected, only AMD releases GPUs too close to eachother, a mistake Nvidia usually isn't doing. This one is severely crippled by its GDDR5 (8000) memory instead of G5X (10000 speed), it translates into 256 GB/s vs. 320 GB/s on the 1080. That said, even the 1080 isn't completely bandwidth saturated. And that means, though nearly same amount of shaders, it is still not quite as fast as the 1080.
Posted on Reply
#3
Prima.Vera
As an GTX 1080 owner, allow me to blow off this urban legend that the cards are perfect for 1440p resolution.
Let's first define perfect. If perfect means 40-60fps, then this(those?) cards are perfect for that resolution. But if you own a monitor with at least 100Hz refresh rate, then, not even an 1080Ti is sufficient to run the games at ~100fps.
Posted on Reply
#4
Midland Dog
who even plays ashes of the benchmark for the gameplay
Posted on Reply
#5
Totally
Midland Dog said:
who even plays ashes of the benchmark for the gameplay
I play it time to time it's a decent RTS and not one of many hollowed-out shells that claim to be one.
Posted on Reply
#6
Midland Dog
i used to love rts games, back when age of empires 2 was king, but i have never touched any new ones, is it worth getting better question will my cpu even be able to run it
Posted on Reply
#7
Totally
I tend to stay way from them because now they're now just glorified rock paper scissor with gobs of eye candy. Devs practically replaced the word 'strategy' in RTS with the word with 'streamlined'.
Posted on Reply
#8
Fluffmeister
W1zz gave me a free copy, must remember to try it at some stage.
Posted on Reply
#9
bug
JackOne said:
Exactly what I expected, only AMD releases GPUs too close to eachother, a mistake Nvidia usually isn't doing. This one is severely crippled by its GDDR5 (8000) memory instead of G5X (10000 speed), it translates into 256 GB/s vs. 320 GB/s on the 1080. That said, even the 1080 isn't completely bandwidth saturated. And that means, though nearly same amount of shaders, it is still not quite as fast as the 1080.
I think you need to make up your mind. Either the loss of 20% bandwidth is crippling the 1070Ti or the 1080 is too weak to use all that bandwidth. Because both at the same time are highly unlikely.

Midland Dog said:
i used to love rts games, back when age of empires 2 was king, but i have never touched any new ones, is it worth getting better question will my cpu even be able to run it
Since AoE2 I have enjoyed Total Annihilation, Earth 2140/2150/2160 series and Supreme Commander. But yes, today it's the golden age of rehashes and DLC, gameplay takes the back seat :(
Posted on Reply
#10
jabbadap
Prima.Vera said:
As an GTX 1080 owner, allow me to blow off this urban legend that the cards are perfect for 1440p resolution.
Let's first define perfect. If perfect means 40-60fps, then this(those?) cards are perfect for that resolution. But if you own a monitor with at least 100Hz refresh rate, then, not even an 1080Ti is sufficient to run the games at ~100fps.
Well fps is not always the only thing what matters: In some type of games even stable 30fps might be enough, but with some like fast space shooter even 100fps is not enough. And then there's VRR tech, 40-60fps is usually well within VRR range of diffrent freesync/gsync monitor.
Posted on Reply
#11
bug
jabbadap said:
Well fps is not always the only thing what matters: In some type of games even stable 30fps might be enough, but with some like fast space shooter even 100fps is not enough.
It's always about the FPS, a 60 fps is what is generally accepted as "playable" or "good enough", even if, as you have noted, there are exceptions to this.
jabbadap said:
And then there's VRR tech, 40-60fps is usually well within VRR range of diffrent freesync/gsync monitor.
You don't need freesync/gsync for that, Nvidia has had AdaptiveSync since forever. However, that is mostly about capping the frame rate at 60fps while removing the cap when the GPU cannot sustain 60fps, without automatically dropping to 30/20/15fps. That simply offers a better experience than having Vsync on, but does not make a fast paced title (much) more playable. But considering what I wrote above, VRR does bring titles that can sustain 40-60fps closer to playability.
Posted on Reply
#12
JackOne
bug said:
I think you need to make up your mind. Either the loss of 20% bandwidth is crippling the 1070Ti or the 1080 is too weak to use all that bandwidth. Because both at the same time are highly unlikely.
I think you need to reread my post because it makes perfect sense. Maybe you understand it after the second time, or it's simply too much for you.
It's always about the FPS, a 60 fps is what is generally accepted as "playable" or "good enough", even if, as you have noted, there are exceptions to this.
60 fps is generally seen as "good" or "very good". 30 fps and possibly even lower is seen as "playable" and "good enough". Right off the mark.

120 fps and higher is seen as very high/fluid FPS for enthusiast or pro gamers.
Posted on Reply
#13
ratirt
JackOne said:
I think you need to reread my post because it makes perfect sense. Maybe you understand it after the second time, or it's simply too much for you.

60 fps is generally seen as "good" or "very good". 30 fps and possibly even lower is seen as "playable" and "good enough". Right off the mark.

120 fps and higher is seen as very high/fluid FPS for enthusiast or pro gamers.
It also depends which game you play with that 120 FPS. Don't think Civilization 6 or car driving games etc. needed 120 Hz monitor refresh. I bet this 120hz matters with First person shooter games.
As a matter of fact I tried 120Hz with Grid motorsport and didn't see any difference. 120Hz monitors I leave for personal judgment if it's really needed across all sorts of games we have now.
Posted on Reply
#14
JackOne
Correct, more than 60 fps isn't really needed for racing games. I tried it on a few racing games, example, NFS Hot Pursuit and it really didn't make any difference. It made a difference on shooters and other fast paced titles were you move around a lot, playing a character, however.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment