Overclocking GTX 1070, can it reach stock 1080?

3,276 Views | 27 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by tamusc
FatZilla
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Anyone seen anything to this effect yet? Haven't been able to find and reports on the OCability of the cards. Although the lower amount and slower memory is making the 1070 seem like an overpriced 970 or even 980 if the prices tank after pascal launch.

GeForce GTX 1070
16 nm "GP104" silicon, 7.2 billion transistors, "GP104-200-A1" ASIC
1,920 CUDA cores, 15 out of 20 streaming multiprocessors enabled on the GP104 silicon
120 TMUs, 64 ROPs
256-bit GDDR5 memory, 8 GB standard memory amount
Max GPU Boost frequency 1600 MHz
6.75 TFLOP/s single-precision floating point performance
150W TDP, single 8-pin PCIe power connector
3x DisplayPort 1.4, 1x HDMI 2.0b
2-way SLI with SLI HB bridge support

VonDownByTheRiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1070s haven't even been released for review yet.
getme
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm probably going for a 1070, but given that it will take at least 6-8 weeks for the initial rush to be over and for prices/ availability to normalize, I think I'd like to see some reviews first. If the massive performance gains they are touting are really only seen in VR content then I think I can wait a year until prices drop. VR is not a big deal for me right now. I think there is a chance VR is to gaming what 3d was to movies, everyone thought it was the next big thing, until it wasn't.

We'll see.
VonDownByTheRiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Generally, people that equate VR to 3D TV have never tried VR.

It's literally game changing.
PeekingDuck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
People have to care for it to be game changing.
tamusc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Considering there are months long waits for either of the two new VR platforms and the Sony Playstation VR initial allotments are sold out six months in advance, I'd say that there is a fair number of people that care for it.

That is of course in addition to the billions that are being spent on current and future VR technologies right now.
tamusc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In regards to the OP, I'm kind of torn right now on what I'll do as I'm still using a Titan (the original one, not the Z or X). The 1080 looked good, but not quite what NVIDIA had hyped it up to be and still can't perform up to the levels most want at 4K in a single card configuration. The 1070 might be the sweet spot though from a price/performance standpoint (especially in SLI) if it has a similar jump in performance as the one the 1080 exhibited.

I really want to see what the new multidisplay technologies they developed for these new cards can do in VR as well. One of the more interesting bits I read was if you are running a dual card SLI rig for VR, each perspective will be rendered by it's own card, rather than current SLI where a card renders every other line and then the two are stitched together. This new method for multimonitors and VR should theoretically eliminate the normal SLI overhead you see with single monitor implementations.
FatZilla
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
In regards to the OP, I'm kind of torn right now on what I'll do as I'm still using a Titan (the original one, not the Z or X). The 1080 looked good, but not quite what NVIDIA had hyped it up to be and still can't perform up to the levels most want at 4K in a single card configuration. The 1070 might be the sweet spot though from a price/performance standpoint (especially in SLI) if it has a similar jump in performance as the one the 1080 exhibited.

I really want to see what the new multidisplay technologies they developed for these new cards can do in VR as well. One of the more interesting bits I read was if you are running a dual card SLI rig for VR, each perspective will be rendered by it's own card, rather than current SLI where a card renders every other line and then the two are stitched together. This new method for multimonitors and VR should theoretically eliminate the normal SLI overhead you see with single monitor implementations.
By the specs alone though, I would take a single 1080 for cheaper than trying to SLI 2 1070's (GDDR5 vs DDR5X). But truly, neither of those options are budget worthy to me lol
hunter2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I thought the jury is still out as to whether the 1080 can handle 4K. Don't forget that 4K monitors are limited to 60Hz unless if you want to shell out $6k. I'm actually tempted to get a gsync 4K moniter if it looks like the 1080 can handle it.
tamusc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
None of the benchmarks I've seen were able to maintain above even 50fps, though some of the newer DX12 games were close. The problem is you tend to see crazy screen tearing because of the frame rates below 45-50fps on a 60Hz monitor that is that is running that high of a resolution.
tamusc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Very true in regards to budget

Like I said, it'll be really interesting to see how the new VR and multidisplay tech works out, because that will make these new cards far more interesting in my eyes. Without considering VR, I'd say the 1080 is the way to go right now, though I'd personally wait for the 1080 TI version you know is coming unless you absolutely need an upgrade now. However, if some of the new VR focused technologies and changes to SLI work as advertised, two 1070's in SLI could be the better option for VR over a single 1080, though that's all pure speculation based on some of the spec sheets and the live stream.
hunter2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
None of the benchmarks I've seen were able to maintain above even 50fps, though some of the newer DX12 games were close. The problem is you tend to see crazy screen tearing because of the frame rates below 45-50fps on a 60Hz monitor that is that is running that high of a resolution.

Hence the gsync, I wouldn't consider the upgrade otherwise for the reasons you mentioned. Gsync will eliminate the screen tearing.
FatZilla
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It will be interesting to see how well AMD can match this performance over the year and to see what its "Budget" cards that are supposed to release specs soon stack up. I'm still sitting on an AMD HD7850 that I got in 2012 lol. I'm always buying a generation or two behind until it cant play current games on decent settings.
tamusc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
True enough, you'll just start seeing flicker at that low of a frame rate instead.
tamusc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Honestly I'm kind of pissed at AMD because they dropped driver support on everything prior to the 7000 series. They've had a history of ****ty drivers and now they are cutting support fairly short. I have an old desktop using a 6970 and a laptop using a 5870m that will no longer receive updated drivers.
FatZilla
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Honestly I'm kind of pissed at AMD because they dropped driver support on everything prior to the 7000 series. They've had a history of ****ty drivers and now they are cutting support fairly short. I have an old desktop using a 6970 and a laptop using a 5870m that will no longer receive updated drivers.
My 2011 laptop is in the same boat, its a 6990m series card. Hoping it will be enough to play overwatch lol.

Edit: looks like it will play just fine. 2gb gddr5 with ok clock speeds. Gonna bump the ram up to 16gb 1600 ddr3l's.
hunter2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gamespot review is out.

From the looks of it the 1080 is "only" on par with 2 980 SLI cards. What's interesting is that it's worse on a 1080 screen because the resolution is too low to utilize the VRAM. So it's really only worth it for 1440p or 4k.

From the looks of the benchmarks, yes it looks viable for 4k. I'm fine with 60Hz since a 120Hz 4k is $5000. I'm perfectly happy with +40 fps especially if it's on 4k.

I will wait for a few more benchmarks but if other reviews get similar results I think I'm going to pull the trigger on this one.
hunter2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
engadget review

they got similar benchmarks as well.
nomad2007
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Gamespot review is out.

From the looks of it the 1080 is "only" on par with 2 980 SLI cards. What's interesting is that it's worse on a 1080 screen because the resolution is too low to utilize the VRAM. So it's really only worth it for 1440p or 4k.

From the looks of the benchmarks, yes it looks viable for 4k. I'm fine with 60Hz since a 120Hz 4k is $5000. I'm perfectly happy with +40 fps especially if it's on 4k.

I will wait for a few more benchmarks but if other reviews get similar results I think I'm going to pull the trigger on this one.
I don't think a 120hz 4k screen would even be worth it for gaming unless you're going to wait on the 1080ti or this generation's Titan card....even those could struggle to breach 60fps on the newer games (unless in SLI, maybe).
3rdGen2015
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PCGamer got similar benchmarks as well
tamusc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's the point I was trying to make. A single 1080, despite the impressive gains over the previous generation of cards, still doesn't quite have the horsepower to drive 4k gaming (at max settings). If the 980Ti is any indicator, the gains the 1080 Ti might have could get it over that 50-60fps threshold.
hunter2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And like I said a 4K moniter than has true 120 Hz is $5000. So it's not worth it anyway.
tamusc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yup
SF2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maybe I can get some opinions here.

I am fixing to purchase three new monitors. I can not find a good answer regarding 4k.

From all I have read the 1080 is close but not quite there for single card 4k.

Regardless of the performance, how does 1080P look on a 4k monitor???? Could I down scale until I get the power to run 4k? Does it look like garbage no running the native resolution?

My main question is should I go ahead and pick up 4K monitors since I am in the process of remodeling my office/PC setup?
nomad2007
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Maybe I can get some opinions here.

I am fixing to purchase three new monitors. I can not find a good answer regarding 4k.

From all I have read the 1080 is close but not quite there for single card 4k.

Regardless of the performance, how does 1080P look on a 4k monitor???? Could I down scale until I get the power to run 4k? Does it look like garbage no running the native resolution?

My main question is should I go ahead and pick up 4K monitors since I am in the process of remodeling my office/PC setup?
1080p will generally, as a rule, look worse downscaled on a 4k monitor simply because it's not the native resolution. Does that mean it'll look bad? Not necessarily. Some monitors downscale pretty well.

If you're getting a single 1080, it may be better to spend your money on a 1440p, 144hz G-sync monitor like one of the ASUS ROG models. You'll get the most out of that in my opinion. But the 1080 will likely run most games at 4k, just not at 60fps.
tamusc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:
Maybe I can get some opinions here.

I am fixing to purchase three new monitors. I can not find a good answer regarding 4k.

From all I have read the 1080 is close but not quite there for single card 4k.

Regardless of the performance, how does 1080P look on a 4k monitor???? Could I down scale until I get the power to run 4k? Does it look like garbage no running the native resolution?

My main question is should I go ahead and pick up 4K monitors since I am in the process of remodeling my office/PC setup?
1080p will generally, as a rule, look worse downscaled on a 4k monitor simply because it's not the native resolution. Does that mean it'll look bad? Not necessarily. Some monitors downscale pretty well.

If you're getting a single 1080, it may be better to spend your money on a 1440p, 144hz G-sync monitor like one of the ASUS ROG models. You'll get the most out of that in my opinion. But the 1080 will likely run most games at 4k, just not at 60fps.


If I was buying a monitor now (for gaming with a single graphics card), I would wholeheartedly go with nomad's suggestion of an ASUS ROG 1440p 144Hz G-sync monitor.
tamusc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And now we finally have hard numbers on the 1070.

http://www.polygon.com/2016/5/29/11799020/gtx-1070-review-nvidia-geforce

Looks to be on par with the Titan X in regards to 4K performance, which is pretty damned impressive for a card that costs roughly a third.

If I was building a rig today and didn't want to break the bank, I'd be buying a 1070 for now (or waiting to see what ASUS or EVGA can do with the 1070). As it is, I want to see what SLI performance is plus how powerful the 1080 Ti that you know NVIDIA is sitting on until the AMD Polaris drops is.
Cromagnum
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Don't understand the fascination with 4k PC gaming. 1440p looks amazing on a gsync monitor running 144 Hz and you have more overhead out of current cards.
tamusc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Don't understand the fascination with 4k PC gaming. 1440p looks amazing on a gsync monitor running 144 Hz and you have more overhead out of current cards.


Personally, I agree with you for the current generation of cards (including the 1080 and 1070) and monitors.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.