I agree that the Nvidia 1080 is the new king on the block. HOWEVER, as tech syndicate has delicately pointed out, the 1080 has only increased 20% from last generation (4k stats, compared to the 980 ti although and not the 980). What nvidia has done this time around is more excellent marketing than engineering.
What annoys me is that all the reviewers claim to be objective and a lot of them are (tec synd, pc per and so on), but what I miss from a review, is investigating how the generation change have affected performance across maybe the three last generations (1080 vs- 980, 980 vs. 780, 780 vs. 680 …) to really investigate whether the increase in performance, in this generation of Pascal architecture, is extraordinary this time around or if history have just repeated itself once again .. -.-‘’ These reviews are to consumer friendly -.-‘’ and I can’t help but feel that the Nvidia has a say or interest in how they (the reviewers) should present the performance data .. Additionally, I had expected more from this architecture, a base clock of 1600 mHz, which boost up to 1750 mHz during gaming sessions?! But still only 20 % increase compared to the 980 ti? This made me think, what if they reduced the base clock of the 1080 to the same base clock as a 980 ti, would we then observe any performance difference between the two GPU’s? These are the real questions you should be asking, if you really are reviewing tech for the sake of consumers. Do not just do the generic and usual performance test, which everybody and their mom are doing ^^
Thank you for writing what I was going to write down some time. I do remember jayztwocents did a video on how far nvidia (not both teams) had come in the last 4 (I think) generations. Also please @Logan bring the 1080 down to 980 and 980 to speeds and see what happens. I'm quite curious and can't test myself.
Yeah, it would be awesome if someone did that .. I'm tired of all the bandwagoning .. Seriously, the 20-25% performance increase compared to 980 ti (in 4k) I think is a minimum requirement, especially when you have board partners selling the "founders-edition" card (which in some instances throttles btw) for 790 euros in europe! This is a card that should be stacked against the 980, and it costs 150 euros more than the previous 980 release ... It cost more than a 980 ti? Then of course it should be better than a freaking 980 ti, and I can't fathom that reviewers are looking past this .. Sad era for GPU's. If AMD need to step up they game with this upcoming generation of GPU's or else engineering and innovation will suffer and marketing will conquer -.-'
May I remind everyone, that this GPU basically outperforms everything else? Thermal throttling, overheating, etc, once Gigabyte, EVGA, Asus, MSI, etc, get their cards out, we will see significant improvements? It is funny, that there is barely anyone reporting the overheating and the thermal throttling and the inability to overclock properly, compared to 980Ti... I am really impressed with Nvidia's marketing team. They deserve every penny Nvidia is paying them. They are going places and doing deals and stuff, and as a result review really really favor Nvidia's products. For example, Techpowerup still have higher score for GTX970 compared to R9 390, and the 390 is outperforming 970 almost across the board...
My issue is what they don't touch on. This is why I love reading some obscure review website. Because they try and give extra information and show things others don't show. Like computer-based.de - German website, used it for years, because they do really really interesting and rich benchmarks, that many others don't. Their results often contradict other websites, but I tend to not trust Anandtech, who worked for Intel while reviewing hardware...
I'd really be interested in seeing old vs new, like some 7970s or 780s or even 680 and whatnot differences, on popular games people actually play. Personally I don't care how a new card does vs the previous flagship, because if I had a 980 or 980ti or fury I wouldn't be upgrading this cycle anyway
not by a margin nearly large enough to justify most people with their heads on straight getting the card unless you were on something say pre HD58xx or right after fermi
because TBH if i was on a HD7000 or GTX 780 ti or something.. id be definitely waiting for polaris or vega.. or a newer architecture from nvidia..
i despise how well marketed it is.. there are quite a few issue with the card and we will soon here about them
Why is nobody talking about the fact that this is a Paper Launch? Only one I've seen mention it is Kyle over at HardOCP. Suddenly, paper launches is okay and nobody cares. What?
NVIDIA just paper launched its GTX 1080 cards. If those show up on time it will be 3 weeks from announcement to retail, and that is starting to get very much like how it was during the "dark times" in the world of GPUs. If the GTX 1070 hits on the date we expect, it will be over a month from announcement to retail. Boo. I don't like that, and I suspect you don't like it either.