Upgrade to 1080? Would it be worth it?

[EarthDog]

Not sure there are many holes to poke in those vids...

I just double checked some of my results, and the 1070 I had, even with the latest drivers, doesn't quite reach the 1080 in our tests either. I was mistaking... and in many titles, headik may very well be spot on.

If anyone has links that show to the contrary, post them on up. I think we are all ears to facts outside of what TPU showed in an old title.

Flame suit on...

 

[Vayra86]

Not sure there are many holes to poke in those vids...

I just double checked some of my results, and the 1070 I had, even with the latest drivers, doesn't quite reach the 1080 in our tests either. I was mistaking... and in many titles, headik may very well be spot on.

If anyone has links that show to the contrary, post them on up. I think we are all ears to facts outside of what TPU showed in an old title.

Flame suit on...

As time and drivers mature, and the games progress, it is no more than likely that the 1080 will win some ground. However even today and on the vast majority of PCs the statements I just repeated are very much correct. 1070 *and* 1080 have sufficient core to push a well clocked i5 into 100% utilization at 1080p, and W1zz does testing with a much faster cpu. Especially on YT vids, there is zero proof that settings weren't altered, or that we aren't looking at ultra settings which means the potential for a bottleneck showing at 1440p and up is also very well possible (Lower detail>higher FPS > CPU util bottleneck).

Replicating the exact same situation 'with my 1070' really doesn't say much. The FPS is what it is at the time it is tested. Don't really see why we are making such a big deal out of this. The reality hasn't changed. At lower res, going 1080 is just as useless as it was when the cards were reviewed, and at higher res, the lead of the 1080 increases.

The point of reviews is not to spend three pages discussion on the meaning of a 2-5% perf difference when the cards are rated for being 30% apart. It simply means they are in the same ballpark, and that is all. Especially as Pascal is showing wildly differing results per game engine and especially per API.

 

[headik]

This is funny no one still post anything.Any proof at all only repeating GTX1070 and GTX1080 have 64rops..LOL.Do you think i dont know this?But GTX1080 have 33% more SP and 25% more memory bandwidth + have ONE more GPC.That one less GPC reduced GTX1070 pixel fillrate by alot.Both cards have on paper same pixel fillrate, but in reality GTX1080 have 33% more pixel fillrate.
I have done some testing and the gap is 25-30% in most latest games in 1440P.
You just cant OC GTX1070 by 25-30%.That is a fact.
Even crazy OC GTX1070 like mine at 2114/9400 cant OC by 25-30% vs reference GTX1070.I usually gain 15% from OC vs reference.So by logic if the gap in GTX1070 vs GTX1080 is 25-30% there is no way you can reach GTX1080 performance.Maybe on 2300Mhz with 10Ghzmemory(Good luck with that lol)

 

[Vayra86]

This is funny no one still post anything.Any proof at all only repeating GTX1070 and GTX1080 have 64rops..LOL.Do you think i dont know this?But GTX1080 have 33% more SP and 25% more memory bandwidth + have ONE more GPC.That one less GPC reduced GTX1070 pixel fillrate by alot.Both cards have on paper same pixel fillrate, but in reality GTX1080 have 33% more pixel fillrate.
I have done some testing and the gap is 25-30% in most latest games in 1440P.
You just cant OC GTX1070 by 25-30%.That is a fact.
Even crazy OC GTX1070 like mine at 2114/9400 cant OC by 25-30% vs reference GTX1070.I usually gain 15% from OC vs reference.So by logic if the gap in GTX1070 vs GTX1080 is 25-30% there is no way you can reach GTX1080 performance.Maybe on 2300Mhz with 10Ghzmemory(Good luck with that lol)

But... who is disputing that the 1080 beats the 1070 at 1440p then?

I'm not. For the record - someone who says '1070 is enough for 1440p' doesn't count.

 

[64K]

I agree that the 1070 is fine for 1080p unless you have a monitor that is 120 Hz or 144 Hz and you really want all those frames then probably a 1080 or 1080 Ti would be better when they release it. Higher resolutions, especially 4K, a 1080 Ti would be better. Only thing is that I think Nvidia will release Volta within months of the 1080 Ti although I have no proof of that and they could release the midrange Voltas well before the 1180 Ti like they are doing this time so it's either playing the waiting game or buy the 1080 Ti. For me with my 980 Ti I don't see much point in buying a 1080 Ti to drive my 1440p monitor. I will just wait on Volta.

@headik you can look at the review here to see that the 1070 is even enough for 1080p on Crysis 3.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1070_Gaming_X/12.html

 

[Frag_Maniac]

except they've been talking about 8k TV's for a couple of years now.

Yeah and if the reality came as fast as the talk, we'd be constantly upgrading. Trust me, it will be a while before 8k catches on. We might even have a suitable replacement for awful LCD displays by then.

 

[64K]

I may be wrong but I don't think we will see 8K gaming for years unless you are willing to spend a lot of money on cards. 8K has the same amount of pixels as 16 1080p monitors. That's a tremendous amount of work for a GPU.