GALAX HOF Pro PCIe 4.0 NVMe review
How to: Firmware Update the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
MSI Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming Z review
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT OC review
ASUS STRIX Radeon RX 5600 XT TOP review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming OC review
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
GeForce GTX 1070 2-way SLI review
Posted by: on: 06/23/2016 07:54 AM [
45 comment(s) ]
We review two MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Gaming X editions graphics cards in a 2-way Multi-GPU setup. We'll obviously focus at Ultra HD performance as well as a micro stuttering analysis with the help of FCAT. Join us in this review where we'll once again look at everything.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2
jase240
Member
Posts: 22
Member
Posts: 22
Posted on: 06/23/2016 08:09 AM
This is probably the lowest power supply recommendation I have seen from Guru3D so far, 650-700W for SLI. I am really excited to see what Pascal means for laptop gaming soon!
This is probably the lowest power supply recommendation I have seen from Guru3D so far, 650-700W for SLI. I am really excited to see what Pascal means for laptop gaming soon!
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36833
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36833
Posted on: 06/23/2016 08:15 AM
Professionally done, but where is GTX 980Ti SLI comparison. In the end, GTX 980Ti now Costs as much as GTX 1070.
And GTX 980Ti is still widely available in many editions.
No time I'm afraid, in case you missed it .. it's the busiest summer ever with al GFX releases, in order to timely release other articles there is just no time left.
I hear ya though - perhaps in a later stage I'll look into a massive mGPU article with different brands and cards all together. No promises though.
Professionally done, but where is GTX 980Ti SLI comparison. In the end, GTX 980Ti now Costs as much as GTX 1070.
And GTX 980Ti is still widely available in many editions.
No time I'm afraid, in case you missed it .. it's the busiest summer ever with al GFX releases, in order to timely release other articles there is just no time left.
I hear ya though - perhaps in a later stage I'll look into a massive mGPU article with different brands and cards all together. No promises though.
kaudiyo
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Posted on: 06/23/2016 08:15 AM
opssss, I´m missing Witcher 3 benchmark on this SLI review :-(
anyway, well done as always.
opssss, I´m missing Witcher 3 benchmark on this SLI review :-(
anyway, well done as always.
Ziggymac
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Posted on: 06/23/2016 08:33 AM
Finally, the test I've been waiting for, those numbers are pretty representative of what we should expect from a single 1080Ti, which is what I'm going to replace my two 970's with.
Finally, the test I've been waiting for, those numbers are pretty representative of what we should expect from a single 1080Ti, which is what I'm going to replace my two 970's with.
SirDremor
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Posted on: 06/23/2016 09:01 AM
Great article - as always!
Though I have a feeling something went wrong with "Total War: WARHAMMER" test (or posted result).
According to article - in FullHD (1920x1080) SLI works way slower than a single card. Is this correct?
76 FPS (SLI) vs 90 FPS (Single)
If this indeed have been the actual test result - a word or 2 on that on the page itself would be helpful.
Great article - as always!
Though I have a feeling something went wrong with "Total War: WARHAMMER" test (or posted result).
According to article - in FullHD (1920x1080) SLI works way slower than a single card. Is this correct?
76 FPS (SLI) vs 90 FPS (Single)
If this indeed have been the actual test result - a word or 2 on that on the page itself would be helpful.
Tuukka
Member
Posts: 74
Member
Posts: 74
Posted on: 06/23/2016 09:07 AM
@HH "GeForce GTX 1070 - 8 GB GDDR5X memory" or GDDR5 only
@HH "GeForce GTX 1070 - 8 GB GDDR5X memory" or GDDR5 only
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36833
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36833
Posted on: 06/23/2016 09:15 AM
Great article - as always!
Though I have a feeling something went wrong with "Total War: WARHAMMER" test (or posted result).
According to article - in FullHD (1920x1080) SLI works way slower than a single card. Is this correct?
76 FPS (SLI) vs 90 FPS (Single)
If this indeed have been the actual test result - a word or 2 on that on the page itself would be helpful.
That behavior is actually described on the conclusion page. Often with multi-GPU solution you can stumble into a bottleneck once you are not GPU bound anymore. The framerates go up higher and higher whereas the graphics driver needs to do it's work twice as hard and thus enforces a much heavier workload on the processor. If that processor cannot keep up you will see negative scaling in lower resolutions, the problem is CPU related and thus a CPU bottleneck.
Great article - as always!
Though I have a feeling something went wrong with "Total War: WARHAMMER" test (or posted result).
According to article - in FullHD (1920x1080) SLI works way slower than a single card. Is this correct?
76 FPS (SLI) vs 90 FPS (Single)
If this indeed have been the actual test result - a word or 2 on that on the page itself would be helpful.
That behavior is actually described on the conclusion page. Often with multi-GPU solution you can stumble into a bottleneck once you are not GPU bound anymore. The framerates go up higher and higher whereas the graphics driver needs to do it's work twice as hard and thus enforces a much heavier workload on the processor. If that processor cannot keep up you will see negative scaling in lower resolutions, the problem is CPU related and thus a CPU bottleneck.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9864
Senior Member
Posts: 9864
Posted on: 06/23/2016 09:18 AM
No time I'm afraid, in case you missed it .. it's the busiest summer ever with al GFX releases, in order to timely release other articles there is just no time left.
I hear ya though - perhaps in a later stage I'll look into a massive mGPU article with different brands and cards all together. No promises though.
Thank You Hilbert. I know it is busy time.
I have another unreasonable request to ask:
"When you are benchmarking RX-480 for FCAT, can you capture GPU utilization and clock over time too?"
Even if only for one game, so we can see if performance we see is all RX-480 can deliver.
Because at time Fiji released, I measured so many games where GPU utilization was damn low and fps was not great. But with newer drivers, GPU utilization and fps went up.
AMD did not recover all there is to Fiji. GPU is still underutilized in many cases. But at least we can get to know if there is untapped potential.
Even something as simple as I did here:
WH 40k: Space Marine:Maximum details + Adaptive AA + texture LOD settings "-1" enforced via RadeonPRO.
1080p: 120fps (limit set in RP)
1440p: 108~120fps (limit set in RP)
2160p: 96~120fps (limit set in RP)
--------
W10 Driver 15.200.1023.10 Fiji
1080p: 128~205fps
1440p: 130~202fps
2160p: 95~192fps
Improvement on lower resolution is notable. At 2160p card is quite utilized, so no improvement there:
It is 3times same section of game where hordes of smaller orks are sieging camp on ground, and then at end there is 1st ground boss fight.
And, you are right below. I should have put it into PM.
No time I'm afraid, in case you missed it .. it's the busiest summer ever with al GFX releases, in order to timely release other articles there is just no time left.
I hear ya though - perhaps in a later stage I'll look into a massive mGPU article with different brands and cards all together. No promises though.
Thank You Hilbert. I know it is busy time.
I have another unreasonable request to ask:
"When you are benchmarking RX-480 for FCAT, can you capture GPU utilization and clock over time too?"
Even if only for one game, so we can see if performance we see is all RX-480 can deliver.
Because at time Fiji released, I measured so many games where GPU utilization was damn low and fps was not great. But with newer drivers, GPU utilization and fps went up.
AMD did not recover all there is to Fiji. GPU is still underutilized in many cases. But at least we can get to know if there is untapped potential.
Even something as simple as I did here:
WH 40k: Space Marine:Maximum details + Adaptive AA + texture LOD settings "-1" enforced via RadeonPRO.
1080p: 120fps (limit set in RP)
1440p: 108~120fps (limit set in RP)
2160p: 96~120fps (limit set in RP)
--------
W10 Driver 15.200.1023.10 Fiji
1080p: 128~205fps
1440p: 130~202fps
2160p: 95~192fps
Improvement on lower resolution is notable. At 2160p card is quite utilized, so no improvement there:
It is 3times same section of game where hordes of smaller orks are sieging camp on ground, and then at end there is 1st ground boss fight.
And, you are right below. I should have put it into PM.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36833
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36833
Posted on: 06/23/2016 09:21 AM
Thank You Hilbert. I know it is busy time.
I have another unreasonable request to ask:
"When you are benchmarking RX-480 for FCAT, can you capture GPU utilization and clock over time too?"
Even if only for one game, so we can see if performance we see is all RX-480 can deliver.
Because at time Fiji released, I measured so many games where GPU utilization was damn low and fps was not great. But with newer drivers, GPU utilization and fps went up.
AMD did not recover all there is to Fiji. GPU is still underutilized in many cases. But at least we can get to know if there is untapped potential.
This thread is not at all about RX 480 so please stay on-topic. I'll indulge one reply though, AMD decided not to include a DVI connector (needed) on that card, FCAT is impossible until an AIB partner supplies one with a DVI connector.
Thank You Hilbert. I know it is busy time.
I have another unreasonable request to ask:
"When you are benchmarking RX-480 for FCAT, can you capture GPU utilization and clock over time too?"
Even if only for one game, so we can see if performance we see is all RX-480 can deliver.
Because at time Fiji released, I measured so many games where GPU utilization was damn low and fps was not great. But with newer drivers, GPU utilization and fps went up.
AMD did not recover all there is to Fiji. GPU is still underutilized in many cases. But at least we can get to know if there is untapped potential.
This thread is not at all about RX 480 so please stay on-topic. I'll indulge one reply though, AMD decided not to include a DVI connector (needed) on that card, FCAT is impossible until an AIB partner supplies one with a DVI connector.
Emille
Senior Member
Posts: 785
Senior Member
Posts: 785
Posted on: 06/23/2016 10:16 AM
That's quite a selection of relatively untaxing games you have benchmarked.
Some more demanding games worthy of these cards would have been great, Rise of the Tomb Raider etc.
Especially seeing as the old 2013 Tomb Raider was part of your regular benchmark suite.
That's quite a selection of relatively untaxing games you have benchmarked.
Some more demanding games worthy of these cards would have been great, Rise of the Tomb Raider etc.
Especially seeing as the old 2013 Tomb Raider was part of your regular benchmark suite.
Solfaur
Senior Member
Posts: 7209
Senior Member
Posts: 7209
Posted on: 06/23/2016 10:21 AM
As usual, great scaling on GTAV/frostbyte engine games, not so much on the rest. Maybe drivers will improve this, maybe not, but to have the latest DX12 games not support even 2way GPUs is quite a disappointing...
As usual, great scaling on GTAV/frostbyte engine games, not so much on the rest. Maybe drivers will improve this, maybe not, but to have the latest DX12 games not support even 2way GPUs is quite a disappointing...
Ziggymac
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Posted on: 06/23/2016 10:22 AM
Some more demanding games worthy of these cards would have been great, Rise of the Tomb Raider etc.
Especially seeing as the old 2013 Tomb Raider was part of your regular benchmark suite.
Rise of the Tomb raider doesn't support SLI.
Some more demanding games worthy of these cards would have been great, Rise of the Tomb Raider etc.
Especially seeing as the old 2013 Tomb Raider was part of your regular benchmark suite.
Rise of the Tomb raider doesn't support SLI.
Toli001
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Posted on: 06/23/2016 10:25 AM
You need to test it against other SLI or CF configurations, especially 980 SLI and 390x CF.
2x 390x (700Euro) vs 2x 1070 (1000Euro), that's more than 40% difference and I doubt that 1070's are 40% faster.
You need to test it against other SLI or CF configurations, especially 980 SLI and 390x CF.
2x 390x (700Euro) vs 2x 1070 (1000Euro), that's more than 40% difference and I doubt that 1070's are 40% faster.
Noufel
Senior Member
Posts: 106
Senior Member
Posts: 106
Posted on: 06/23/2016 10:36 AM
Didn't know that FCAT needed a DVI connector, thnx for the info Hilbert
This thread is not at all about RX 480 so please stay on-topic. I'll indulge one reply though, AMD decided not to include a DVI connector (needed) on that card, FCAT is impossible until an AIB partner supplies one with a DVI connector.
Didn't know that FCAT needed a DVI connector, thnx for the info Hilbert
Koniakki
Senior Member
Posts: 2843
Senior Member
Posts: 2843
Posted on: 06/23/2016 10:51 AM
Great review Hilbert! Dang those GTX 1070's fly!
I've never seen so much CPU bottleneck in just one article!
Great review Hilbert! Dang those GTX 1070's fly!
I've never seen so much CPU bottleneck in just one article!
moab600
Senior Member
Posts: 6124
Senior Member
Posts: 6124
Posted on: 06/23/2016 11:46 AM
Not impressive at all, probably due to cpu overclock. SLI 1070 means only if u at 4k, only then it match or exceed 60 fps, still not 4k ready though.
Not impressive at all, probably due to cpu overclock. SLI 1070 means only if u at 4k, only then it match or exceed 60 fps, still not 4k ready though.
eclap
Senior Member
Posts: 31497
Senior Member
Posts: 31497
Posted on: 06/23/2016 12:00 PM
Huh? And only at 4k does it match or exceed 60fps? Again, huh?
Anyway, nice review HH, some really nice scaling in some games and some not so good but still, this would be my choice if I was at 4k. Much cheaper than 1080 Sli yet capable of 60fps most of the time.
Not impressive at all, probably due to cpu overclock. SLI 1070 means only if u at 4k, only then it match or exceed 60 fps, still not 4k ready though.
Huh? And only at 4k does it match or exceed 60fps? Again, huh?
Anyway, nice review HH, some really nice scaling in some games and some not so good but still, this would be my choice if I was at 4k. Much cheaper than 1080 Sli yet capable of 60fps most of the time.
moab600
Senior Member
Posts: 6124
Senior Member
Posts: 6124
Posted on: 06/23/2016 12:08 PM
Huh? And only at 4k does it match or exceed 60fps? Again, huh?
Anyway, nice review HH, some really nice scaling in some games and some not so good but still, this would be my choice if I was at 4k. Much cheaper than 1080 Sli yet capable of 60fps most of the time.
I meant to say that two 1070 seems to match 60 fps or exceed it at 4k, yes in other resolutions too, but i'm talking about 4K now.
If u have 4k monitor it seems worth it, if your target fps is around 60, but we far from being 4K ready... i wonder how many years till we get card that cost 200$ and can give at least 60 fps at all games on 4K.
Huh? And only at 4k does it match or exceed 60fps? Again, huh?
Anyway, nice review HH, some really nice scaling in some games and some not so good but still, this would be my choice if I was at 4k. Much cheaper than 1080 Sli yet capable of 60fps most of the time.
I meant to say that two 1070 seems to match 60 fps or exceed it at 4k, yes in other resolutions too, but i'm talking about 4K now.
If u have 4k monitor it seems worth it, if your target fps is around 60, but we far from being 4K ready... i wonder how many years till we get card that cost 200$ and can give at least 60 fps at all games on 4K.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36833
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36833
Posted on: 06/23/2016 12:11 PM
That's quite a selection of relatively untaxing games you have benchmarked.
Some more demanding games worthy of these cards would have been great, Rise of the Tomb Raider etc.
Especially seeing as the old 2013 Tomb Raider was part of your regular benchmark suite.
I understand that the youtube generation is used to just watching stuff, however this is Guru3D.com and we actually write stuff. How about instead of complaining I may offer the suggestion that you maybe actually read the content, honestly the answer you seek is in there. I'll even go as far as to give you a hint: last page, where I mention Tomb Raider ... twice.
That's quite a selection of relatively untaxing games you have benchmarked.
Some more demanding games worthy of these cards would have been great, Rise of the Tomb Raider etc.
Especially seeing as the old 2013 Tomb Raider was part of your regular benchmark suite.
I understand that the youtube generation is used to just watching stuff, however this is Guru3D.com and we actually write stuff. How about instead of complaining I may offer the suggestion that you maybe actually read the content, honestly the answer you seek is in there. I'll even go as far as to give you a hint: last page, where I mention Tomb Raider ... twice.
BlueRay
Senior Member
Posts: 270
Senior Member
Posts: 270
Posted on: 06/23/2016 12:29 PM
I meant to say that two 1070 seems to match 60 fps or exceed it at 4k, yes in other resolutions too, but i'm talking about 4K now.
If u have 4k monitor it seems worth it, if your target fps is around 60, but we far from being 4K ready... i wonder how many years till we get card that cost 200$ and can give at least 60 fps at all games on 4K.
Give it at least 6 more years. And being so cheap another 5-6. It will take more than 10 years for 4K to become mainstream. The hardware and software are not yet ready. (games not optimized for 4K yet, scaling in Windows is simply non existent, hardware is too expensive to become relevant for the average consumer.) People with 4K pc monitors are like what 1%-2% of the total market? We are still long way from 4K to be mainstream.
I meant to say that two 1070 seems to match 60 fps or exceed it at 4k, yes in other resolutions too, but i'm talking about 4K now.
If u have 4k monitor it seems worth it, if your target fps is around 60, but we far from being 4K ready... i wonder how many years till we get card that cost 200$ and can give at least 60 fps at all games on 4K.
Give it at least 6 more years. And being so cheap another 5-6. It will take more than 10 years for 4K to become mainstream. The hardware and software are not yet ready. (games not optimized for 4K yet, scaling in Windows is simply non existent, hardware is too expensive to become relevant for the average consumer.) People with 4K pc monitors are like what 1%-2% of the total market? We are still long way from 4K to be mainstream.
moab600
Senior Member
Posts: 6124
Senior Member
Posts: 6124
Posted on: 06/23/2016 12:59 PM
yep that's why there is no point in going SLI and xfire, not worth the price nor the hassle.
But excellent review, i wonder if DX12 games will eliminate cpu bottlenecks and how much time till it happens, i say at least 3 years.
Give it at least 6 more years. And being so cheap another 5-6. It will take more than 10 years for 4K to become mainstream. The hardware and software are not yet ready. (games not optimized for 4K yet, scaling in Windows is simply non existent, hardware is too expensive to become relevant for the average consumer.) People with 4K pc monitors are like what 1%-2% of the total market? We are still long way from 4K to be mainstream.
yep that's why there is no point in going SLI and xfire, not worth the price nor the hassle.
But excellent review, i wonder if DX12 games will eliminate cpu bottlenecks and how much time till it happens, i say at least 3 years.
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6664
Senior Member
Posts: 6664
Posted on: 06/23/2016 01:06 PM
4k
1440p
1080p
A refreshing change
Looks perfect for 144Hz 1440p.
Too bad Nvidia still does not support Adaptive Sync over Display Port/HDMI
4k
1440p
1080p
A refreshing change
Looks perfect for 144Hz 1440p.
Too bad Nvidia still does not support Adaptive Sync over Display Port/HDMI
Koniakki
Senior Member
Posts: 2843
Senior Member
Posts: 2843
Posted on: 06/23/2016 01:23 PM
I meant to say that two 1070 seems to match 60 fps or exceed it at 4k, yes in other resolutions too, but i'm talking about 4K now.
If u have 4k monitor it seems worth it, if your target fps is around 60, but we far from being 4K ready... i wonder how many years till we get card that cost 200$ and can give at least 60 fps at all games on 4K.
Give it at least 6 more years. And being so cheap another 5-6. It will take more than 10 years for 4K to become mainstream. The hardware and software are not yet ready. (games not optimized for 4K yet, scaling in Windows is simply non existent, hardware is too expensive to become relevant for the average consumer.) People with 4K pc monitors are like what 1%-2% of the total market? We are still long way from 4K to be mainstream.
By then its gonna be the same scenario as now but instead of 1080p/1440p vs 4K it will be 4K vs 8K and up.
Same thing all over again just with higher resolutions in play.
I meant to say that two 1070 seems to match 60 fps or exceed it at 4k, yes in other resolutions too, but i'm talking about 4K now.
If u have 4k monitor it seems worth it, if your target fps is around 60, but we far from being 4K ready... i wonder how many years till we get card that cost 200$ and can give at least 60 fps at all games on 4K.
Give it at least 6 more years. And being so cheap another 5-6. It will take more than 10 years for 4K to become mainstream. The hardware and software are not yet ready. (games not optimized for 4K yet, scaling in Windows is simply non existent, hardware is too expensive to become relevant for the average consumer.) People with 4K pc monitors are like what 1%-2% of the total market? We are still long way from 4K to be mainstream.
By then its gonna be the same scenario as now but instead of 1080p/1440p vs 4K it will be 4K vs 8K and up.
Same thing all over again just with higher resolutions in play.
rockupuncture
Member
Posts: 46
Member
Posts: 46
Posted on: 06/23/2016 01:25 PM
Never saw the point of SLI. If we had SLI to power games that looked like the Final Fantasy movie then I could understand but just to sqeeze out a few more frames? since games are so p155 poor optimized if they actually made games work on Pc instead of porting them there would be more reasons to go SLI. Specially if they added huge amounts of graphical options to warrent it...
Why don't Nvidia and AMD team up to make games for PC?
Never saw the point of SLI. If we had SLI to power games that looked like the Final Fantasy movie then I could understand but just to sqeeze out a few more frames? since games are so p155 poor optimized if they actually made games work on Pc instead of porting them there would be more reasons to go SLI. Specially if they added huge amounts of graphical options to warrent it...
Why don't Nvidia and AMD team up to make games for PC?
pages 1 2
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 9864
Professionally done, but where is GTX 980Ti SLI comparison. In the end, GTX 980Ti now Costs as much as GTX 1070.
And GTX 980Ti is still widely available in many editions.