• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 PCI-Express Scaling

Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
6 (0.00/day)
Location
Budapest
System Name Gamer PC
Processor intel i7 4770K @ 4.0GHz
Motherboard ASRock Z87M Pro4
Cooling Noctua NH-U12P SE2
Memory Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP 4x8GB DDR3L 1600MHz CL9
Video Card(s) ASUS Strix GTX980 OC 4GB
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB / Crucial M500 240GB / WD Red 2x4TB
Display(s) DELL U2412M
Case Fractal Design Arc Midi
Audio Device(s) Logitech G933 Wireless / Motherboard Realtek ALC892
Power Supply FSP Hyper M 700W
Mouse Zowie FK1
Keyboard IBM USB Keyboard SK-8815
Software Windows 10 Pro 64bit
Same color = similar bandwidth.
Would have made more sense to color the same versions... ie.: 3.0 = color 1, 2.0 = color2... etc.

Then it would be clear that how they compare to each other.
At least for me. :)
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
2,684 (1.10/day)
Didn't anyone notice that the difference between successive generations of PCIe was less @4K than say 1080p, I figured it'd be the opposite?
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
10,461 (5.46/day)
Location
Mars
Processor i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Eizo Foris FG2421
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Power Supply EVGA G2 750w
Mouse Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum
Keyboard Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)
Software W10 x64
Don't you all feel like being cheated by the industry?

They sell each "next step" as revolutionary. Well, 5 fps difference between PCI 2 or 3, x8 or x16 at 4K is not revolutionary at all!!!
Not really. The fact is, because there is a very real difference, even though it is small, the bandwidth has been growing along with the power of graphics cards. Back in the PCIE 1.1 days we had significantly less powerful cards. If anything this bench shows the need of PCIE 3.0 on any serious gaming rig. And that standard really isn't that old - the 1080 also isn't the most powerful card today, so a Titan will show us a larger gap.

I have trouble with the conclusion of this review because of that. The picture I saw on Toms' back in 2011 or 12 was completely different, with powerful cards not even showing a single % difference. Today, as FPS goes up, the bus gets actually saturated. I see some significant differences at 1080p and let's not forget we don't run most of the games in this bench suite at high fps, it is mostly eye candy and console port gaming and we are pushing ultra instead of high, which generally accounts for a major fps drop.

Also keep in mind that VR likes to run at high FPS.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
1,564 (0.39/day)
What about stuttering ?
i forgot to make this comment, this is exactly what matters!

seeing these really fast cards have fps drops on lower pcie standards by themselves is one thing, but seeing similar results on older slower cards (past pcie articles) means something else is reducing the fps that's NOT peak bandwidth (the old cards wouldnt have saturated if the new cards are much faster)
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
3,686 (0.84/day)
Location
Ohio
System Name Felix777
Processor Core i5-3570k@stock
Motherboard Biostar H61
Memory 8gb
Video Card(s) XFX RX 470
Storage WD 500GB BLK
Display(s) Acer p236h bd
Case Haf 912
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Rosewill CAPSTONE 450watt
Software Win 10 x64
thanks W1z. and my 2 cents. its rather cool to see that it does make a difference. However, i also see in some of those results, what looks to me like there's no indication that 3.0 isn't already maxed and that more bus bandwidth could improve performance further. I mean there's a decent crescendo on the FPS in many titles....guess we won't know if even PCI 3.0 is bottlenecking until 4.0/3.X is released.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
10,461 (5.46/day)
Location
Mars
Processor i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Eizo Foris FG2421
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Power Supply EVGA G2 750w
Mouse Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum
Keyboard Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)
Software W10 x64
thanks W1z. and my 2 cents. its rather cool to see that it does make a difference. However, i also see in some of those results, what looks to me like there's no indication that 3.0 isn't already maxed and that more bus bandwidth could improve performance further. I mean there's a decent crescendo on the FPS in many titles....guess we won't know if even PCI 3.0 is bottlenecking until 4.0/3.X is released.
CPU/GPU bottlenecking is what I'm attributing that to. CPU for 1080p, GPU takes over at higher resolutions.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Messages
6 (0.00/day)
Processor FX-8150 OC 4.6 GHZ
Motherboard ASUS Crosshair V Formula
Cooling Watter
Memory 8 GB Vengeance
Video Card(s) HD 6870
Storage Plextor SSD mp2
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 LED Evolution ll [Matte] 27" 2560x1440 SAMSUNG PLS 27in OC 72HZ
Case LIAN LI PC-T60B Black Aluminum
Audio Device(s) Prodigy 7.1 HiFi
Power Supply OCZ 550W
Software Windows 8.1
Nice PCI-E scaling review. Thanks
 

cheddle

New Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
4 (0.00/day)
sigh... why bother testing so many games!

You should do a test that ACTUALLY MATTERS like testing SLI and Crossfire scaling on high end cards across different PCIe bus speeds.
 
Joined
May 2, 2013
Messages
444 (0.18/day)
Location
GA
System Name RYZEN RECKER
Processor Ryzen 5 1600X @ 4ghz
Motherboard Asus Prime B350-plus
Cooling Thermaltake Silent 12 on CPU, Arctic Cooling Acellero Extreme 3 on GPU, Cougar case fans.
Memory 16GB (2x8GB) Corsair LPX 3200mhz
Video Card(s) XFX R9 290 1040 mhz core / 1500 mhz memory (R9 390 clocks..)
Storage 1TB Seagate for Steam games, 1TB WD for backup, Patriot 120gb SSD for boot. 3TB for more Steam games
Display(s) ASUS VX24A 1440p @ 72hz
Case Antec 900
Audio Device(s) Logitech G430 headset
Power Supply Corsair CX850m
Mouse Steel Series Sensei
Keyboard Corsair K55
Software Windows 10 64-bit
I got one for you guys that is not tested here!! Well...sort of.

I just added another R9 290 to my rig. My mobo is an Asrock z75 pro3. It has 1xPCIE x16 Gen 3.0 slot and the other is 1xPCIE running at 4x Gen 2.0....

I have Crossfired AMD 7770s before and the performance was not that bad considering the small memory bandwidth of those cards.
HOWEVER, with the 2x R9 290's that have MASSIVE amounts of memory bandwidth, I am having stuttering issues and game crashes on a LOT of games...

I kind of knew what I was getting into...But I found the second card that can be BIOS modded into a 290X for cheap on Ebay...
I could just sell my old card and mod this one up if I can't tweak my drivers/mobo to cooperate with these beasts of cards.
 

AquaeAtrae

New Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
1 (0.00/day)
Thanks for the article. I'm seeing references to this in an attempt to understand the impact that new Thunderbolt 3 eGPU connections might have. Some laptops are wired with all x4 PCIe lanes while others only have x2 lanes. We have yet to see any tests for these.

More importantly, we should keep in mind and test for the fact that PCIe bandwidth has little to do with the GPU's output speeds (FPS). Once the textures, 3D models (map, characters), cameras, and lighting are all loaded into those 8GB of VRAM, very little PCIe bandwidth is required for the CPU to request an updated render with small changes in angles in positions.

However, loading a new map or region into VRAM may temporarily utilize all available bandwidth and take much longer. When traversing open worlds (map regions) like Far Cry, one might see this in-game. In games like Battlefield 1, this means you'll never start a match fast enough to jump in that plane. Certain games and maps may even timeout (e.g. Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare) before starting.

Any tests comparing PCIe lane scaling should really identify and report these differences by comparing map load times and by testing games in different video modes (DX11 vs DX12 vs Vulkan). With Thunderbolt 3 solutions, we should also expect an additional small loss from its own overhead.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
5,196 (0.98/day)
Location
Kansas City, KS
System Name Dell XPS 15 9560
Processor I7-7700HQ
Memory 32GB DDR4
Video Card(s) GTX 1050/1080 Ti
Storage 1TB SSD
Display(s) 2x Dell P2715Q/4k Internal
Case Razer Core
Audio Device(s) Creative E5/Objective 2 Amp/Senn HD650
Mouse Logitech Proteus Core
Keyboard Logitech G910
Thanks for the article. I'm seeing references to this in an attempt to understand the impact that new Thunderbolt 3 eGPU connections might have. Some laptops are wired with all x4 PCIe lanes while others only have x2 lanes. We have yet to see any tests for these.
Plenty of information is available, thunderbolt 2 gpus have been working for a long time.
 
Top