If these results are true it will make the 1070 a very nice card. If it is priced the same as a GTX 970 it will sell well as the 980ti is awesome at 1080p and I figure that's is what the GTX1070 will be used for.

if those numbers are accurate (and reflected in real world games) and hopefully prices stay ~AUD$550 then i can see it being my next card

Here's my estimated numbers for 2 games based on Nvidia's site for GTX1070 at 1080P http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1070; Tomb Raider; GTX1080 = 131 GTX1070 = 116 Titan X = 106 GTX980Ti= 104 The Witcher 3; GTX1080 = 105 GTX1070 = 85 Titan X = 82 GTX980Ti= 76 Let's see how close I got! 😀

This launch has been so very unexciting :| this is just such a dull upgrade over the previous generation. These new cards even look like they're already starved for memory bandwidth at 2560x1440, I'm not going to be buying a card that's this expensive only to have it run out of steam in a year :| rather just stick with what I have. Wonder what AMD are bringing to the table... probably not anything exciting either. Everyone playing it safe, even the ones who need to take risks.

This launch has been so very unexciting :| this is just such a dull upgrade over the previous generation. These new cards even look like they're already starved for memory bandwidth at 2560x1440, I'm not going to be buying a card that's this expensive only to have it run out of steam in a year :| rather just stick with what I have. Wonder what AMD are bringing to the table... probably not anything exciting either. Everyone playing it safe, even the ones who need to take risks.

Twice as fast as previous gen is a "dull upgrade"? I can think of no other card that was twice as fast as previous gen since possibly the 8800gtx. At 1440p it pulls further ahead of the TitanX than at 1080p! My god, how people process such information to reach such ridiculous conclusions I will never know. :wanker:

Will be hard to sell 980Ti:s when this card is released.

... rather just stick with what I have. ...

The 680? O_o Yeah.. I mean.. Why would you upgrade to something like 3 times faster, right?

Twice as fast as previous gen is a "dull upgrade"? I can think of no other card that was twice as fast as previous gen since possibly the 8800gtx. At 1440p it pulls further ahead of the TitanX than at 1080p! My god, how people process such information to reach such ridiculous conclusions I will never know. :wanker:

I think it has been rather huge leap every node change actually. We just did not have one since 7xxx radeons. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/30/amd_radeon_hd_7950_video_card_review/8#.V0VWwU-LRro was a rather huge leap. I was kind of expecting these performance numbers from nvidia. AMD is going the route of releasing 480 series which usually competes with nvidias x60 or at tops x70 cards. So if AMD was releasing x90 series cards we would be seeing huge leap there too ofc.

Twice as fast as previous gen is a "dull upgrade"? I can think of no other card that was twice as fast as previous gen since possibly the 8800gtx. At 1440p it pulls further ahead of the TitanX than at 1080p! My god, how people process such information to reach such ridiculous conclusions I will never know. :wanker:

Twice as fast? :| +~25% isn't twice as fast. More like Pentium 4 mhz race going on here to make it sound wonderful and a bunch of flop numbers thrown around. Meh. Sure it uses less power, whatever, that's nonessential at this point. I was expecting something new, like when we went to Universal Shaders, how the cards of that generation were so much faster than the previous gen. This? Just dull. It's the first dieshrink we've had in 4 years, after all, meaning at least 1 shrink was skipped, and this is all we get? Bleh. nVidia resting on their laurels like never before.

The 680? O_o Yeah.. I mean.. Why would you upgrade to something like 3 times faster, right?

I don't know, actually. The 680 still runs pretty much everything just fine. The only game I've skipped because I wanted better frames was The Witcher 3. Everything else has been perfectly playable at 2560x1440. 4 years after purchase and 2016 was the first year where I had to start turning settings down below high to maintain playable framerates - 50-60. And the new resolution scale option to render at lower res and upscale has been quite beneficial in games like The Division and Doom. I have set out to not buy anything new till I can get something that yields average framerates in all the usual benchmark titles that are twice that of this card AND cost less than what I paid for this in May 2012. So far there has been no such product . I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to expect to be possible. But apparently it is, because the 980Ti ALMOST managed the performance doubling, but the price was way off. I paid 520€ in 2012, the 980Ti was 950€ when it launched. It has just recently dropped to around 600€. But that's still 100€ above the mark... The 1070 might be the card that manages it, but it just seems unimpressive and dull.

Price/perfomance wise it looks like the best single card to have now is either a 980Ti (bought for the cheap) or a 1070 (which also SHOULD be cheap compared to 1080) and wait for 1080Ti or whatever they will call the big Pascal later this year/early next. At least that's my plan at the moment.

Well, if those are real we're talking about a 980 Ti replacement. That said, this may be stock comparison only and if the 1070 happens to be a less overclock friendly the 980 Tis may reign supreme. At least the 1070 would have its price tag going for it if nothing else. Not a fan of the 256 bit memory bus however.

Price/perfomance wise it looks like the best single card to have now is either a 980Ti (bought for the cheap) or a 1070 (which also SHOULD be cheap compared to 1080) and wait for 1080Ti or whatever they will call the big Pascal later this year/early next. At least that's my plan at the moment.

Yea. Hope AMD brings something to the table that shakes things up a bit, but probably not :| Ever increasing prices for ever less performance.

Yea. Hope AMD brings something to the table that shakes things up a bit, but probably not :| Ever increasing prices for ever less performance.

Thing is, we won't see a 1080Ti until AMD put out their big boys, and if that October rumor is true it would be good for the competition, otherwise nvidia will milk this opportunity, just like intel does it in the CPU scene for years.

Only thing that matters is max OC performance vs max OC performance. If the GTX 1070 doesn't overclock as far as the GTX 980 ti, the GTX 980 Ti will still be the better purchase.

Twice as fast? :| +~25% isn't twice as fast. More like Pentium 4 mhz race going on here to make it sound wonderful and a bunch of flop numbers thrown around. Meh. Sure it uses less power, whatever, that's nonessential at this point. I was expecting something new, like when we went to Universal Shaders, how the cards of that generation were so much faster than the previous gen. This? Just dull. It's the first dieshrink we've had in 4 years, after all, meaning at least 1 shrink was skipped, and this is all we get? Bleh. nVidia resting on their laurels like never before.

Twice as fast compared to old generation 970 (where it should be compared to). I think it's huge leap. And 1080 has ~43% perf. advantage over 980. Ti models aren't even here. I don't know where your bashing comes from.

Did anyone even read it? GTX 1070 is made by cutting 25% of GTX 1080 off and clocking it 3~6% slower + crippling it IMC down from 320 to 256GB/s. Yet only 24% impact on performance? Look again, scores are for OCed GPU to 1860MHz. That's 10.5% OC. It is pure marketing targeted on dummies.

Fury X and 980Ti are close in 3dMark Benchmarks , but in real games 980Ti is much better. If 1070 will be faster in games than 980Ti , Nvidia just shoot itself in the foot , they won't sell even one 980Ti in the future. But I really doubt in real games gtx 1070 will be quicker than a TitanX or 980ti. Maybe in 1920p and Dx12 titles GTX1070 can catch them, in the rest of all will be slower than both and I think by quite big gap GTX 1070 6.45 TFLOPS VS 6.4 TFLOPS of 980Ti, looks to me to be almost the same...but no, 980Ti have more rops(96 vs 64) , more TMUs , much more memory bandwidth .

Seeing how those GTX1080's struggle to maintain 2ghz+ overclocks, I'm pretty sure max oc vs max oc, the 980Ti @ 1400+ is the faster card against a 2ghz 1070. Time to buy a 2nd 290 for dirtcheap. Think what people forget about high wattage cards is that they only consume a ton if pushed to the max. Since I only play like 2h a day, and usually games like cs:go etc, this costs close to nothing. (-20% power too in RS) With vulkan this setup will rock, maybe. lol, nvidia didn't shoot itself in the foot, the oppsoite. They cancelled 980/980Ti production in april, sold the chips and announced pascal chips. Max profit.

Thing is, we won't see a 1080Ti until AMD put out their big boys, and if that October rumor is true it would be good for the competition, otherwise nvidia will milk this opportunity, just like intel does it in the CPU scene for years.

hmmm? right now it is AMD who is the most expensive since more or less one year... things change. (but i agree for the starting date for competition 🙂 and all the commercial buzz lol)

Here's my estimated numbers for 2 games based on Nvidia's site for GTX1070 at 1080P http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1070; Tomb Raider; GTX1080 = 131 GTX1070 = 116 Titan X = 106 GTX980Ti= 104 The Witcher 3; GTX1080 = 105 GTX1070 = 85 Titan X = 82 GTX980Ti= 76 Let's see how close I got! 😀

My prediction is (keep in mind gtx1070 is a cut down version of a gtx1080 by 25%) Tomb Raider; GTX1080 = 131 GTX1070 = 98 Titan X = 106 GTX980Ti= 104 The Witcher 3; GTX1080 = 105 GTX1070 = 78 Titan X = 82 GTX980Ti= 76 Let's see who is closer to real benchmarks :banana: