NVIDIA has just announced its new graphics card that will be based on the Pascal architecture, the NVIDIA GTX1080. However, NVIDIA did not reveal how much faster this GPU is from its current high-end GPU, the GTX980Ti. Thankfully, NVIDIA has released some official benchmarks between the GTX980 and the GTX1080, so it’s time to see the performance benefits that PC gamers can expect from this brand new GPU.
NVIDIA claimed that the GTX1080 was faster than two GTX980s in SLI. However, and according to the official charts, that’s not true. As we can see below, the GTX1080 is 1.7X and 1.8X faster than the GTX980 in The Witcher 3 and Rise of the Tomb Raider, respectively.
According to NVIDIA, The Witcher 3 was tested in 1440p on Ultra settings. So let’s take a look at PCGamer’s benchmarks that compares the GTX980 with the GTX980Ti.
The performance gap between the GTX980 and the GTX980Ti is almost 20%. This basically means that if NVIDIA’s figures are anything to go by, the GTX1080 is 50% faster than the GTX980Ti in The Witcher 3.
What’s also interesting here is that we are most likely looking at a 1.75X performance increase compared to the GTX980. NVIDIA claimed that it was 2X, but that won’t be the case in real tests/benchmarks (as showcased by both Rise of the Tomb Raider and The Witcher 3).
The performance difference – according to a lot of benchmarks – between the GTX980Ti and the GTX980 is around 20-30%. Therefore, the GTX1080 can be – according to NVIDIA’s figures – up to 50% faster than the GTX980Ti in extreme situations (we expect an average of 40% performance boost).
So there you have it everyone. The big question now is whether AMD will be able to compete with NVIDIA. Another big question is whether the GTX1080 will perform better in DX12 than all previous NVIDIA cards. Like it or not, the green team faces major performance issues in DX12, something that will undoubtedly help AMD in the long run. The fact that NVIDIA did not say anything at all about Async Compute or DX12 is also something that worries us.
Here is an extreme example: Quantum Break runs 30% faster on AMD’s hardware. Assuming that the GTX1080 is 40% faster than the GTX980Ti, AMD will have to basically offer a GPU with 10% better performance than the FuryX in order to gain its performance crown in that particular game.
All in all, we are really excited about both NVIDIA’s and AMD’s GPUs, and we can’t wait to see what the red team will present at Computex!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
40% is a massive improvement and a larger generational jump than Fermi>Keplar>Maxwell ever had and that’s even on the Ti side of things not just the standard 980. To see a card that outperforms the Titan X for $600 and then also the 1070 which could very well fall in line with the 980 ti or titan x for under $400 is unprecedented.
According to some youtubers who were at the launch event, Nvidia folks were claiming 20-25% faster performance in DX games compared to the 980ti, if so that makes the 1080 a poor value proposition. $50 more for 25% gain in FPS is not impressive.
I’m more interested in Big Pascal and Vega w/HBM2.
Going by MSRP its 50$ LESS than a GTX 980 TI.
but even if you find some limited offer 980Ti at $550, how is 20-30% FPS gain for 9% price increase is a “poor value proposition” ? that’s without even taking new features, extreme cases, OC and VR performance gain into account.
RIght? Where did that dude learn his maths skills? The 980ti is now obsolete because of the 1080.
Still cheaper than 2 980s and you’re going to get best performance in all games for your money, unlike 980 SLI. Also performance per watt is better.
Unprecedented indeed I’m so surprised by this jump I quickly sold my gtx 980ti. I really hope that nvidia performs better in direct12x. Joker did you see this card running doom on Vulcan I was going a bit crazy until I saw it running at 1080p wish it was at higher resolution. Oh well
Did you just upload to YT?
You are very mistaken… Fermi –> Kepler was GF110 SLI being beaten by GK104. This is GM204 SLI outperforming GP104.
The improvement is low. Kepler to Maxwell was not as large a jump because it was on the same NM process; 28nm. Fermi to kepler was a new arch + nm reduction. Maxwell to Pascal is new arch + TWO nm reductions (20nm was skipped, but it was tested), and they can barely pass 60-70% going from midranged card to midranged card?
Just because the GTX 1080 is launched now as their “flagship” doesn’t mean it’s not a “midranged” card. GP100 is the real “high end” cards they’re preparing to launch later. Since Kepler they’ve been launching highly priced midranged cards as their flagships, and the public’s been eating it up. 560Ti ($250 MSRP) replacement was GTX 680 ($500 MSRP). 680 replacement was 980 ($550 MSRP). 980 replacement is 1080 ($600 MSRP, with option for $700 MSRP “founder’s edition”). The 580 ($500 MSRP)’s replacement was the 780Ti/Titan Black ($700/$1000 MSRP). Their replacements are the Titan X ($1000 MSRP; lacking double-precision encoding block that was cited as Titan/Titan Black’s reason for being $1000). Titan X replacement isn’t out yet.
If you have a Maxwell card, it doesn’t make sense to even bother with Pascal due to the lack of dedicated Asynchronous Compute engine hardware.
If Pascal and Maxwell have the same async compute structure, then for most games, it should be sufficient. Maxwell can handle 31 queues + 1 graphics queue. AMD’s Hawaii and Fiji can handle 64. If a game doesn’t need 32 or more async compute queues, then nVidia cards will be fine. Even AMD said that 64 queues should be overkill for any game.
But it’s to be expected, since Pascal’s design process was going on when the whole Async compute scenario blew up, so changing an in-design architecture (that honestly isn’t even technologically impressive to begin with, as I explained above) to add in extra is not the best idea.
Word is making round that Pascal does in fact have hardware async. Also to the OP: Pascal is not a new arch. It is a tweaked maxwell with the double die shrink.
Pascal doesn’t have anything different than maxwell in that regard EXCEPT the fact that it doesn’t have to shut down the pipeline that feeds the rendering and compute tasks. Thus you won’t see any negative impact when Async in employed, however you won’t see huge boosts to performance. Async won’t be employed properly at the hardware level until at least Volta. Nvidia builds their products for the majority, which is currently with a serialized DX11.
AMD tried to change the industry with GCN and although its a very good piece of hardware for Low Level Api’s, its way ahead of its time focusing on parallelization in a serialized world. Too much innovation can be a bad thing when you’re attempting to make a profit.
It was also the addition of FF which increases the complexity of the design by a large margin. This generation from both camps focused primarily on efficiency with additional performance as a biproduct. They have only begun truly gearing towards 4k. Volta + Navi will see performance increases even greater than what we see now.
Oh yeah……it also does it at a third of the power as maxwell. I guess that would be like eight times the power efficiency of my OG TITAN’s!! HA! I’ll be getting s few of these after some true numbers/reviews hit. Just need them water blocks meow!!
and dont forget gtx 1080 need 180 wt for power suplay
TDP is not Power requirements.
Insider info is stating the 1070 to be about 10% slower than the 980ti. The 1070/1080 are overclocking monsters as nvidia usually is and 10% will be easily surpassed with a mild overclock. I’m sure there will be pre-overclocked versions surpassing 980ti all over the place. Not to mention in dx12 and in VR the new tech surpasses the old through finesse. These new cards are basically the 8800 series reborn. I’m sure everyone remembers the slaughter that 8800GTX brought to the game.
U have 980ti overcloked than already beat titan x (on games). I dont see the big jump.
Yes, the power efficiency is good and Multi monitor is something than amd and nvidia should have addressed long ago. VR performance gain is good. The Prtscn app could be nice for wallpapers or PhotoShop, no big deal(imo).
the price only said than 900 series was overpriced.
We need ask for $600.00 usd GPU capable of 4k@60 all games.
All on a smaller die as well,Runs cooler is cheaper and uses less power.
1080 is a beast!
Still going to try hold off for full pascal but I dunno, The temptation seems too great.
Could always use an extra 2gb of Vram over my 980ti’s on 1440p and 4k. lol
5 mins in and they’re already lying lol
you really believed the story “faster than 2 980s” ? If yes, problem’s yours
It’s true, but only for VR.
i’m not sure about it
They said SLI 980s. Have you seen SLI perform x2 faster than a single card? It VERY rarely happens.
???
Fairly obvious point. SLI scaling is never 100%. You’re doing well to get 80% or better. A few recent AAA titles don’t support it at all. Soo….
So? what’s the point of this when we’re talking about a different thing here?
You seem lost and unwilling to admit you didn’t understand what was being compared.
Oh god are you for real? No single gpu card can be faster than 2 even if a generation older high-end cards, no way, it was confirmed by first benchmarks, and it’ll be even more confirmed in the future, VR or no VR. Now tell me what’s the point in saying “Have you ever seen a SLI of cards running twice as fast as a single card?” there’s no point, besides this, no, i’ve never seen such thing, and even less likely what nvidia said
A single card can in fact be faster than two older gen cards. Just because it hasn’t been done in recent times doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.
Thing is, facts are proving my point, it’s not even i’m saying this for some reason. The fact it’s never been done it’s just a small thing that support my point too.
Well, one paper it does but will vary in different games. All NVIDIA need to do is hit that 2x perf in one game. Nowhere did they say it’s 2x the performance in every game. People need to read carefully because there are people who say the GTX1080 is 2x faster than the titan X
On paper we should have hardware so good we wouldn’t even need to upgrade every 3 years in order to perfectly play any game. Facts are always different
>On paper we should have hardware so good we wouldn’t even need to upgrade every 3 years
Are you dim?
You realize hardware pushes software and software pushes hardware. Why would you want to be stagnant? So our games never improve technologically? Software can only take you so far without more powah
I’m pretty sure software has been holding back hardware potential for years, the new APIs are confirming that, and they’re just at the beginning…
They won’t mention everything explicitly, no body does however saying faster than SLI 980 will make a lot of users believe that it’s faster in every case and overall, these are the shady marketing tricks that fool customers on a broad level just like “Advanced DX12 support” and “Async support” drama with Maxwell, that’s why I said that comparing with an SLI setup is not a good indicator.
Btw it’s funny to see that the GPU isn’t even out yet and you’re defending their statements like they are well known facts.
Oh come on you are really stretching now trying to look to sh*t on NVIDIA in every way. AMD do the same thing, a lot of products do the same thing to show their product in the best light.
Yes that’s what I said, every company does that on their product launching but the question is why you have to go very far to defend them always ? let the product come out and we’ll see everything. You don’t have to be Nvidia shill every time.
They weren’t lying. What they meant was it was as fast as two 980’s in SLI regarding VR PERFORMANCE. You guys are just too lazy to actually watch the keynote.
They said that 1080 is as fast as 2 980s in SLI in VR (i guess because of superior arch compared to maxwell)
…
I mean they actually said that , “to VR” how is that lying ?
Nope. They said that the GTX1080 is faster than two GTX980s in SLI and faster than Titan X. Regarding VR, they said that the GTX1080 is 2X faster than Titan X. (thanks to Single Pass Stereo VR; the new VR rendering tech NVIDIA has developed)
It would appear reading is hard…
Kyle, I expected better from you, you know you will get a lot of up votes for that even though it’s not true.
Until I see proper benchmarks, I believe nothing from Nvidia.
Sincerely yours
A disgruntled ex-970 user
Like I said before, all they need to do is get 2x performance in one game. Even their own benchmarks don’t show 2x the performance of a 980, it’s just an ideal situation.
Just realise a new card, any card, somebody. Dying to upgrade here :/
Also, they said “relative performance”, if they wanted to lie they would have shown their few game benchmarked with 2X the performance but they didn’t, ROTTR performed about 80% better than the 980.
We shall see soon Sean.
Wait for the AMD to see what they have to offer, Computex is not far away.
Hey thanks. Shame Vega isn’t coming out until 2017.
Yes that’s a pity though it’s still good to see all available options before making a decision.
VEGA actually will be last big GPU, smaller chips will ALWAYS be more efficient, even if you use more than one, especially under new APIs.
Who cares? We want the powah not the efficients!
The efficients are the build blocks for the power. Lower heat expenditure and power requirements the higher the head room. Throw in some transitors and watch the FPS destroy monitors.
still no async compute for these cards yet?
So you are accusing nvidia of “lying” by both A-misconstruing their statement and expecting a false result, B refusing to believe in what they say. You cannot accuse someone of lying if you refuse to believe anything they say.
Sincerely yours
Someone with common sense
Someone doesn’t seem to understand the term ‘common sense’. Context dear boy, context.
Care to enlighten me on the “context” of this matter? Lying has a set definition, and what NVIDIA did does not match it. That’s all the context you need.
common sense
noun
good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.
“it is all a matter of common sense”
synonyms: good sense, sense, sensibleness, native wit, native intelligence, mother wit, wit, judgement, sound judgement, level-headedness, prudence, discernment, acumen, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, canniness, astuteness, shrewdness, judiciousness, wisdom, insight, intuition, intuitiveness, perceptiveness, perspicacity, vision, understanding, intelligence, reason
Don’t quite see what that has to do with a graphics card that hasn’t even released yet. Why would I need common sense? Like I said, context.
I said “common sense” regarding you saying NVIDIA “lied”. If one has “sound judgement in practical matters” they have enough “common sense” to see that it is asinine to accuse someone of lying when they refuse to believe anything they say.
Lol, you’re not making any sense at all. Why would I need common sense to believe if some company had lied or not?
That’s not what im saying. I’m saying you should have common sense to understand that it is stupid to say someone is “lying” and then outright say I won’t believe them. When you say I won’t believe them, it implies that no matter what they say or do, you will never be convinced that they are telling the truth and you will always call them liars.
I’ll try and decipher the code from that comment, sometime tomorrow. Layers.
Hory Shet this Kyle dude can’t understand your basic logic.
2 things:
1. You sent this to the wrong person
2. English only please
Engrish is my frist rangrage.
I hope you had the goodest teecher.
Nvidia also lied about Async Compute with Maxwell graphic cards, they said that the architecture support it though didn’t mentioned on what level or how good, later it got proved that the support was only bare bone and it wasn’t even proper hardware Async, it was more of preemption technique so that comes in the category of lie. Comparing something to an SLI setup is also shady, that’s all the explanation you need.
It’s the only way you can compare a GTX 1080 to 2×980 in SLI in real game benchmark terms anyway, I think you’re looking for a lie that is not there. You might want to learn about marketing, something AMD does to make their hardware look better than it actually is.
I am not looking for anything, I am just waiting for the product to come out and prove itself rather than believing the marketing hype. It seems you’re too convinced about their product launch, you’re the one constantly defending it here.
If there is anything I learned from Maxwell is the fact that Nvidia lie a lot about their products so for Pascal it’s going to be wait and see.
970 is a great card that is efficient, secondly Amd and Nvidia and Intel lie and troll all day long. Always look out for up to statements and read between the marketing lines.
i just f love that actor
so compared to my 1450mhz 980ti around 30%,i think the strength of the 1080 will be its overclocking abilities if it really as easy to pass 2000mhz core clock so easily on any 1080 and not some cherry picked chip by nvidia for the conference purpose then the 1080 is trully a monster…time will tell
Mine is 1505 mhz. And if the 1080 is 30% faster at stock im sure that i can have another 15% with some realistic overclock. Then we are talking about a 45% increased performance.
Or am i getting it wrong and the 1080 is 30% fastest than a STOCK 980 ti? Than is clocked at what? 1000 mhz reference? Then the performance improvement will be around 20, 25% with some luck.
I want Firestrike extreme benchmarks.. Official ones. Is that too much to ask ? Still trying to figure out if i upgrade from my Titan X.
How about a replacement to the 750 ti. You know a affordable chip that beats consoles for 149$ that would be fun with the new “upgraded 4k” playstation.
NVIDIA own benchmarks shown that the GTX 1080 wasn’t 2X faster than a 980, but in an ideal game is might be and on paper it is. AMD did the same with the FuryX, 20% faster than the 980Ti in Sleeping Dogs while the other games where not and had AF disabled.
They should have compared it to only Titan X or 980 Ti. Comparing it with an SLI setup makes no sense because SLI/CF performance depends on a lot of factors so it’s not a clear indicator.
Bingo, and that is exacly why NVidia is known to be shady and to sugercoat their results/claims.
AMD does it too.
Fury X: Overclockers dream! xD
They did it’s just that the GTX1080 is the 980’s successor, you can’t run 2 980’s any other way anyway.
“NVIDIA claimed that the GTX1080 was faster than two GTX980s in SLI. However, and according to the official charts, that’s not true. As we can see below, the GTX1080 is 1.7X and 1.8X faster than the GTX980 in The Witcher 3 and Rise of the Tomb Raider, respectively.”
I have rarely seen SLI perform x2 faster that one card, ever. So x1.7 and x1.8 is about double SLI, so what they said was for the most part, true.
Are you trolling?
No he’s talking about how SLi setups are generally only around 170%-180% capable, assuming the Game supports them properly, otherwise most of the time they can even perform worse than a single-card setup.
Regardless, it’s not much of a defence in any case; “Oh yeah, but SLi’s generally only operate at around 180%, so all-in-all, the GTX 1080 is “technically” as fast if not faster than two GTX 980’s in SLi.”….. Lol’d.
I know this, the thing is, as i already said, there’s no point in talking about this now, while we’re talking about another thing
b.b.but Hungsan said it was twice as fast as Titan X :(( ::(
He said “it’s faster than the Titan X, not by a little but by a lot”. I read someone actually say that then went back over the coverage of what he said, and no he didn’t say GTX1080 was 2x faster than a Titan X lol.
Oh so he didn’t say it’s “twice the performance of a Titan X” ??
youtube. com/watch?v=XRmAqylrb0A#t=1m36s
Maybe I’m hearing things… Oh well 😛
Of course they lie, it’s Gimpvidia.
Now we need to know how much faster 1070 will be than 980 ti. If it is at least 20% faster than 980 ti then ok
Since you have a 970 already if you wanna upgrade just sell the 970 and go for a 1080 yolo. Upgrading from 970 to 1070 is gonna be a jump sure but meh not so much worth of the effort nor it will last as much in the time don’t forget 1080 has GDDR5X and 1070 has GDDR5 , just spend a bit more and get the best possible.
I will not spent 600 euros for a card i have never done this and never will. 400 euros is the max i have ever spend for cpu or a graphic card. Those 600+ euros cpus and gpus are never worth it because next year there will ne more powerful cpus and gpus than the current hgih end models at a cheaper price. Just take a look at 980 ti: It costs 600 euros but 1070 will outperfom it with just 370 euros price.
This happened because we jumped node , from 28nm to 16nm. Jumping node takes YEARS and its rare at this point since getting smaller is getting harder.
lel i feel so weird about the price and performance, i mean such a good card for $600? i mean all ok but wats the catch here? (beofore calling me a amd fanboy know i own titan x and buying another one to sli) Well the card look fine and all but the price is bothering me.
I just sold my Gigabyte GeForce GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming for $597.23. Lets just say Uncharted 4 could not have released at a better time than this and hopefully the GTX 1080 will indeed be 50% faster than the GTX 980 Ti otherwise I sold a perfectly good card for no reason at all.
Just so you know Nvidia themselves are claiming the 1080 to be 25% faster than 980ti on average, 50% is in extreme cases.
i just LOVE PASCAL!
Yé but meanwhile, i want to know if it’s worth upgrading. I’ll get whatever comes next 😉
like it or not, but new graphics have to be benchmarked in new DX12 games, because seriously who would buy 2016 gpu for games based on API from years ago.
PASCAL ITS LOVE AND PASCAL ITS LIFE
Well ,you don’t buy a GPU to only get full use of it 4 years later either.
PASCAL ITS LOVE AND PASCAL ITS LIFE
GTX 1080 here i come!!!!!
Sold my twins evga 970…and fcking pre-orders yet!
This month will be loooooooong!
goVEGAN
goPascal!
Just to keep people in mind a 1080 is not a Ti edition and its only pulling 180 watts there is a lot more room to go.
I’d like to see how Polaris goes watt for watt using the same type of memory compared to Pascal.
For me 40% doesn’t look like revolution they seemed to announce. Maybe I’m under some false impression, IDK…
All they do is Half-Truths -> a statement that conveys only part of the truth, especially one used deliberately in order to mislead someone.
Very true, that’s why it’s the best to not trust companies but only benchmarkers.
Ty for the dictionary lesson.
Anyone knows the real difference between the Founders Edition and the regular one? If I buy the regular one of zotac or something I will have any loss compared to Founders Edition?
They said on Gamers Nexus the Founders Edition is just a rebrand of the “reference” term. Its a reference card, no special frills or binning, just marketing.
Actually, 1.7x or 1.8x the performance would mean SLI scaling of 85% or 90%, which almost no games have. You aren’t comparing SLI, you are just doubling. So it is likey faster than SLI configs unless you are getting over 90%, near perfect scaling.
And single cards OC higher typically. So it’s almost a lock you won’t see SLI 980’s beating a 1080 unless you compared a perfect use case and OC them under water.
Congrats on showing your ignorance on sli. Saying faster than 980 in sli does NOT equate to 2x as fast as a 980. Why? Because sli doesn’t give the full output of each card added together. It’s usually close to 1.6x the power in of a single card setup. Ergo? 1.7×980 > 1.6×980. Please do us a favor by doing research instead of regurgitating other articles next time. Thanks.
HEY PPL! they talk about reference card 2x outperfomed 980 if we get any vender card like gigabyte it will outperform 2x 980 ti i assure you and remember about 1080 ti in next year it will rock the world / and world will never be the same!
No, Nvidia face performance issues whenever AC is used heavily.
AC is not Dx12 in its entirety, as the internet now seems to think.
AGAIN? You people are brain damaged for real. I don’t give a sh*t if it’s 70 or 80%, it just can’t be faster than that, and again i fuc*ing know it doesn’t scale 100%, it’s still not faster than 2 980, and fuc*ing again that’s not the point, how many times are you gonna say the same sh*t
I like my SLI setup and could never be happier. Just the idea that people bash it as a whole is ridiculous. I have four cards and have never had any true issues that “stuck around…” If a game doesn’t support SLI properly across all four cards I’ll slap a different bridge on there, flip a switch or two on the mobo and rock whatever works.
A true dream to see all of your cards maxed and spitting out mad frames. Especially in 4K…!
Oxidized was correcting that Kyle dude. (though why you let them keep going without letting them in on it i has nun ideas)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jIDbZG1VxY