Nvidia GTX 10xx Discussion Thread

Serephucus

Vulkan is OpenGL, using some Mantle components (AMD's previous API).

Basically, Vulkan does the things DX(12) does, but is also open source and is cross-platform, so GPUs should perform under Linux as well as in Windows.

The reason AMD cards perform better is that AMD has always designed their GPUs with Mantle in mind, and since Vulkan has a lot of Mantle blood in it, they get a nice bump. NVIDIA prefers the brute force performance approach, and spent an awful lot of time perfecting DX11 drivers, and haven't caught up with DX12 yet.

Xenoronin

Serephucus wrote: »

NVIDIA prefers the brute force performance approach, and spent an awful lot of time perfecting DX11 drivers, and haven't caught up with DX12 yet.

Similar to how they spent a long time perfecting the 28nm node, considering how long DX11 has been around, it makes sense to have spent this long focusing on it. Even now, they are slightly behind, but not significantly enough to pose a real issue considering it is still early days for DX12 (somehow, even though it's been out for a good while too now).

Eoinmc97

Xenoronin wrote: »

Similar to how they spent a long time perfecting the 28nm node, considering how long DX11 has been around, it makes sense to have spent this long focusing on it. Even now, they are slightly behind, but not significantly enough to pose a real issue considering it is still early days for DX12 (somehow, even though it's been out for a good while too now).

Not to mention the majority of optimisation was done at driver level for DX11 games. DX12 is now putting more of that work on the developer, and MS even had community workshops to highlight this, and ways to balance time and effectiveness. nVidia will still release drivers, but they actually won't need to if Devs implement features properly. nVidia did hold the driver lead over AMD for some time, but in the coming years, drivers might be purely to address specific GPU issues etc.

So, whilst DX12 and Vulkan will be a nice little boost to performance, poor support from devs will translate to poor performance. I don't think AAA games will be the ons to worry about, but more of the smaller groups that don't have the resources to optimise for a wide variety of GPUs and CPUs.

As for which is better, DX12 or Vulkan, it's hard to say. IMO, I prefer the idea of Vulkan more due to it's open, cross-platform and it's ease for developers to share implementations with the SourceCode. DX12 is definitely not bad either, as it has some of the leading programmers working on it, building on years of experience. Plus, there are quite a few features of DX12 not present in Vulkan (at the moment anyway) so there will be small, but albeit, un-important differences for the end-consumer who cares for performance.

Venom

Eoinmc97 wrote: »

Not to mention the majority of optimisation was done at driver level for DX11 games. DX12 is now putting more of that work on the developer, and MS even had community workshops to highlight this, and ways to balance time and effectiveness. nVidia will still release drivers, but they actually won't need to if Devs implement features properly. nVidia did hold the driver lead over AMD for some time, but in the coming years, drivers might be purely to address specific GPU issues etc.

So, whilst DX12 and Vulkan will be a nice little boost to performance, poor support from devs will translate to poor performance. I don't think AAA games will be the ons to worry about, but more of the smaller groups that don't have the resources to optimise for a wide variety of GPUs and CPUs.

As for which is better, DX12 or Vulkan, it's hard to say. IMO, I prefer the idea of Vulkan more due to it's open, cross-platform and it's ease for developers to share implementations with the SourceCode. DX12 is definitely not bad either, as it has some of the leading programmers working on it, building on years of experience. Plus, there are quite a few features of DX12 not present in Vulkan (at the moment anyway) so there will be small, but albeit, un-important differences for the end-consumer who cares for performance.

If DX12 is going to cause more work for devs it would definitely explain why its not really taken off as fast as previous versions. I'm not sure that's going to be a good thing for PC gaming considering how shoddy some ports are, Batman Arkham Knight being a prime example.

Slutmonkey57b

Since dx12 well be supported on the Xbox, it probably means console ports should be less shoddy in future. Assuming xbox market share doesn't tank.

Pushtrak

Got my 1070 now but had to order a new motherboard to replace the one I sold to a boardsie. The new one should be arriving tomorrow. Thought I'd get the motherboard first, wasn't expecting the graphics card to ship till today.

EoinHef

The stock situation on these is a absolute joke,places are quoting 3-4 week waits now. Brought a gigabyte 1080 through to check out on amazon and estimated delivery was end of august start of september....

Ri_Nollaig

EoinHef wrote: »

The stock situation on these is a absolute joke,places are quoting 3-4 week waits now. Brought a gigabyte 1080 through to check out on amazon and estimated delivery was end of august start of september....

I only just got my evga 1080 sc yesterday and I preordered it back in at the end of May when it was first announced!

Was actually close to cancelling and waiting for the TI model...

I wonder was it the forcing the "Founder Edition" on us that diverted chips away from the better [and now cheaper ?!?!?!] after marker coolers.

Slutmonkey57b

I suspect they never had the volumes in the first place and the variance in availability is solely down to customer sentiment about brand x vs y and how pricing has shaken out between boards after launch.

Standard nv practice now to have a hype filled launch event with bare minimum availability and skyrocketing prices off the back of it. Keeps interest high, better profit margins and masks supply or production problems.

AMD's model of releasing in volume with badly designed reference cards and driver bugs isn't any better, just different...

Icyseanfitz

does actually increase interest though? i know that if all the major 1080 cards had been stocked id have probably bought as i was interested in getting one, now i feel like just waiting for titan\ti or amd's next performance cards

mossym

so are we likely so see the same shortages on the 1060 then?

MarkAnthony

mossym wrote: »

so are we likely so see the same shortages on the 1060 then?

Very likely.

Slutmonkey57b

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

does actually increase interest though? i know that if all the major 1080 cards had been stocked id have probably bought as i was interested in getting one, now i feel like just waiting for titan\ti or amd's next performance cards

You only have to look at all the posts here where people are discussing what cards are available at what price to see! For every sale lost to someone who isn't going to wait, there are several more kept on "maybe next week"who couldn't be provided with a card anyway due to production volumes but who also aren't buying AMD. Win on three counts for nv

mossym

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

You only have to look at all the posts here where people are discussing what cards are available at what price to see! For every sale lost to someone who isn't going to wait, there are several more kept on "maybe next week"who couldn't be provided with a card anyway due to production volumes but who also aren't buying AMD. Win on three counts for nv

on that note, sapphire 480 Nitro OC ordered, well pre-ordered.

EoinHef

Problem with it is that Nvidia have most people who want get better than 980 ti/titan x performamce by the short and curlies. There is literally no competition atm in that segment for Nvidia. Forcing people to either sit on whatever gpu they currently have or fork over inflated prices if they can find stock.

Vega looks like it may change that but cant even guarantee that will be available this year. This is like the definition of why a lack of competition in any market is bad for consumers.

K.O.Kiki

EoinHef wrote: »

Problem with it is that Nvidia have most people who want get better than 980 ti/titan x performamce by the short and curlies. There is literally no competition atm in that segment for Nvidia. Forcing people to either sit on whatever gpu they currently have or fork over inflated prices if they can find stock.

Vega looks like it may change that but cant even guarantee that will be available this year. This is like the definition of why a lack of competition in any market is bad for consumers.

Fury X still exists!

XFX models are being listed at €429 but I can't seem to find them in stock anywhere.

EoinHef

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Fury X still exists!

XFX models are being listed at €429 but I can't seem to find them in stock anywhere.

Yes it does exist but is soundly beaten by the 1080 and also the 1070 in most cases. Granted its not a million miles from a 1070 though. Also the average price is €600+ if im not mistaken?

So a 1070 is about €100 less and beats it in most games.

K.O.Kiki

EoinHef wrote: »

Yes it does exist but is soundly beaten by the 1080 and also the 1070 in most cases. Granted its not a million miles from a 1070 though. Also the average price is €600+ if im not mistaken?

So a 1070 is about €100 less and beats it in most games.

GTX 1070 beats it in some benchmark games & draws ~100W less power, but that DOOM performance boost has me wondering.
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/4096MB-XFX-Radeon-R9-FURY-X-Hybrid-PCIe-3-0-x16--Retail-_1007341.html

Check back on 15th, I guess.

FAILSAFE 00

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Fury X still exists!

XFX models are being listed at €429 but I can't seem to find them in stock anywhere.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

GTX 1070 beats it in some benchmark games & draws ~100W less power, but that DOOM performance boost has me wondering.
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/4096MB-XFX-Radeon-R9-FURY-X-Hybrid-PCIe-3-0-x16--Retail-_1007341.html

Check back on 15th, I guess.

I seen this pic today and I have to say it reminds me of many AMD fans when it comes to all the possibilities that AMD card X and Y might have

TerrorFirmer

I posted in another thread about how AMD's ifs, buts and maybes with regards CPUs and GPU's hardly cut it compared to the proven track record of Intel/Nvidia, only to be told I was 'bashing AMD'....

Cuddlesworth

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I posted in another thread about how AMD's ifs, buts and maybes with regards CPUs and GPU's hardly cut it compared to the proven track record of Intel/Nvidia, only to be told I was 'bashing AMD'....

Its a puty, they made some good design decisions at the wrong time. AMD aimed for more cores as a major part of their design, Intel went for raw power. As AMD lost market share, intel stepped up R&D and murdered them. Both are under fire from ARM at the moment with the cpu market stagnating and mobile devices ramping up.

AMD went for asynchronous compute as a major part of their design in graphics cards, Nvidia went for tessellation(raw power again). Asynch compute is only now just starting to be picked up and in the meantime, Nvidia paid for developers to abuse the ****e out of tessellation giving them a huge lead. As DX12 and Vulkan get picked up, any AMD card from the HD7xxx range and upwards are going to see big improvements. Its what they were originally built to do.

They are both under fire from Intel at the moment, the new internal gpu's are going to kill their bread and butter market in the next few years.

EoinHef

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

GTX 1070 beats it in some benchmark games & draws ~100W less power, but that DOOM performance boost has me wondering.
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/4096MB-XFX-Radeon-R9-FURY-X-Hybrid-PCIe-3-0-x16--Retail-_1007341.html

Check back on 15th, I guess.

No doubt its an impressive improvement but Doom is one game. Widespread adoption of Vulkan is not guaranteed. If i was determined to go AMD id be waiting for Vega.

Cuddlesworth

Its interesting, lots of reviews for 1070 AIB cards are showing very slight improvements over the founders in overclocks clocks but large improvements in temps.

TheDoc

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Its interesting, lots of reviews for 1070 AIB cards are showing very slight improvements over the founders in overclocks clocks but large improvements in temps.

I'm pretty blown away with the temps and noise of my 1070, although comparing against a 290. While apprehensive at first about dropping sheets on this due to what happened, it only took a day of using it to be absolutely thrilled with my purchase.

Venom

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Its interesting, lots of reviews for 1070 AIB cards are showing very slight improvements over the founders in overclocks clocks but large improvements in temps.

A few reviewers have noticed that the AIB cards with 2 power connectors don't OC as high as those with just the standard 1 connector, which seem to have a much better chance of hitting a stable 2150+ mhz. Personally I go for AIB cards more for quieter fans rather than clock speeds.

Another issue is I think that the Nvidia Boost 3 does such a good job out of the box than OCing offers very little extra compared to previous GPUs.

Kirby

EVGA finally shipped my GTX 1080 SC. It arrived today. It really does handle everything super smoothly.

Yes, it can run crysis. :P

MarkAnthony

Kirby wrote: »

EVGA finally shipped my GTX 1080 SC. It arrived today. It really does handle everything super smoothly.

Yes, it can run crysis. :P

Mine runs in the 80s is that your experience?

TheDoc

For a bit of craic was playing Batman Arkham City last night. Games I love, but keep forgetting to finish (typical with my single player games). Saw it had a benchmark option so ran it for lols. And lols were had. 105 FPS+ average

Did notice there is some weird tearing happening during the cutscenes. I have Vsync turned off in game, and I was under the impression Gsync is only for when your FPS goes low(not happening in Arkham City) so have that turned off due to the flickering in Wow.

Cuddlesworth

TheDoc wrote: »

For a bit of craic was playing Batman Arkham City last night. Games I love, but keep forgetting to finish (typical with my single player games). Saw it had a benchmark option so ran it for lols. And lols were had. 105 FPS+ average

Did notice there is some weird tearing happening during the cutscenes. I have Vsync turned off in game, and I was under the impression Gsync is only for when your FPS goes low(not happening in Arkham City) so have that turned off due to the flickering in Wow.

On a basic level, gsync matches your monitors refresh rate with your graphics cards frame output dynamically. You should not be getting tearing of any kind if its working.

FAILSAFE 00

TheDoc wrote: »

For a bit of craic was playing Batman Arkham City last night. Games I love, but keep forgetting to finish (typical with my single player games). Saw it had a benchmark option so ran it for lols. And lols were had. 105 FPS+ average

Did notice there is some weird tearing happening during the cutscenes. I have Vsync turned off in game, and I was under the impression Gsync is only for when your FPS goes low(not happening in Arkham City) so have that turned off due to the flickering in Wow.

Something may be faulty with your card if you have to turn off G-Sync. I have never had to turn off G-Sync on any title.
Maybe ask around and Google your card to see if anyone else has the same issues.