NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX1080Ti will be made available tomorrow and the first gaming benchmarks have just been leaked online. These benchmarks come from the Russian website 3DNews, and they feature a lot of games; from Crysis 3 to Rise of the Tomb Raider.
As we can see, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX1080Ti offers similar performance to the Titan X Pascal (and in some cases the GTX1080Ti is faster than the Titan X Pascal).
Expect more benchmarks tomorrow when the embargo for all third-party benchmarks will be officially lifted.
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
Wow, I’m surprised the 1080Ti consistently outperforms the TitanXP. Good on Nvidia for not gimping the 1080Ti to underperform compared to the TitanXP.
It is only a couple of FPS faster than a TitanXP, Vega will make the 1080Ti blush
Dude.. It better because I been waiting for a long time
Same here.
the Vega will be lower than the 1080 in performance
AMD said it themselves it will not be a top-end card
mostly a gamer’s performance card (something similar to what the R9 290’s/X was back at the day)
Vega should be somewhere around a 1080 (non Ti) in performance for most games. It will probably exceed the 1080 (non Ti) in performance on the few DX12 or Vulkan games though.
This is what happens. AMD fans post wishful thinking as if it were fact and raise expectations to unrealistic levels and then when AMD releases the Vega people will be angry at AMD and see Vega as a fail because they thought it would compete with the 1080 Ti / Titan XP. Vega will not be a fail. It will compete with the mid range and upper mid range Pascals just as intended at most likely a reasonable price and that’s a good thing for all of us even though it will be a year late to the party.
I believe AMD could possibly release a beefier and faster Vega to compete with high end Pascals but the Vega that AMD has been talking about isn’t intended to compete with the 1080 Ti / Titan XP for now.
well they did fail massively with the Fury and the Fury X (both price wise and performance)
dunno if it’s wise for them to try their hand at the top-end market
would definitely be good for the consumer
but when you got your competitor’s top-tier card at 700$ on launch
they cannot really compete with Nvidia for both price and performance
for me AMD purely exists to make sure Nvidia and Intel prices remain competative, i never intend to buy an AMD Cpu nor an AMD card since they’re always weaker than their competition
but if you’re a mid-range gamer and you prefer a bang for you buck, i’ed definitely recommend to go with AMD since they’re the “mid-tier” company
To be honest, were not for the release of the 980Ti, the Fury and Fury X would have been marvelous cards: $650 for performance almost on par with the $1000 Titan? That’s a good deal. Sadly, the 980Ti launched at the same price with actually even better performance than the Titan X a few days earlier and that pretty much screwed AMD. It was a matter of timing which is why, I think, AMD is not giving many solid details about Vega.
“i never intend to buy an AMD Cpu nor an AMD card since they’re always weaker than their competition” Ryzen outperforms Intel in productivity and the jury is still out in gaming (there are necessary optimizations to be made both by AMD and third parties, like Microsoft) and we don’t know much about Vega so my question is: would you buy AMD if, in the end, Ryzen offers similar or better gaming performance than Intel (probably Ryzen 3 and 5 are going to be better suited for that, due to less cores and higher clockspeeds) and Vega offers performance on par with the 1080Ti? Honest question.
Aaaaannnndddd there’s the AMD fanboy. There’s always one.
And there is always the blocked Sup, how many account’s do you own by now….
Yes i am sick and tired of your whining/ lying/ fantasy’s., that is why i Block all your accounts
I have two accounts, I forgot the password to my main one so I made this one
Loser fanboy
Nah that is what you are, oh and do you think i believe you have only 2 account’s?
Couldn’t give a crap what you believe.
because ryzen did such for cpu`s right? š
lol, amd is finished.
Technically, Ryzen is a great CPU for productivity and gaming is still up in the air, all that at less than half the price of comparable Intel chips (the 6900K and the 59xx, the 6800k and 7700k are comparable to Ryzen 7 only in pricing but in specs they are to Ryzen 5 and 3 respectively). So, if Vega brings performance similar that the Titan XP at, say, $600, it would be a nice deal. The ideal thing would be performance similar to the 1080Ti though.
Finally, hopefully without sounding like a fanboy, the last thing you would want is for AMD to be “finished”. That would mean Intel and Nvidia would have the market all for themselves (deservedly or not is another question) and they would start charging whatever they want for little more than incremental updates, given that there’s really no incentive for innovation.
Of course, I wouldn’t ask anyone to buy something below their needs just to support AMD but when a competitive product launches (like Ryzen, hopefully optimizations come soon) I see no reason to not support them.
What he said. Morons howling about “AMD is finished” are idiots. That’s exactly what we DON’T want; Intel-Nvidia hegemony, assraping us with incremental updates at ridiculous prices year after year after year.
Imagine Intel’s Tick-Tock becoming Tick-Tick-Tick-Tock-Tock-Tock with 4/6 of those being Kaby Lake-style jokes, for at least a 3rd more than we’re currently paying.
Nice, huh?
Exactly! And in a way, we’ve already seen it. Not to ignore that it’s all AMD’s fault, but look at Pascal. Despite the performance bump (that, it has to be said, is quite substantial), it’s just an overclocked Maxwell on a smaller node. Intel has been iterating since, what, Haswell? Only giving small bumps in clocks and IPCs at higher prices.
I hope Ryzen does well, we as consumers need competition.
That is what you hoped for, i can only say……dream on, boy
by blush you mean laugh right?
No, shame…..that it will gets it’s A5S kicked by Vega
Well they do have the same Cuda Core count and the 1080 TI does have higher clock speeds. So no shock really.
It’s no surprise that it does, since the clocks are higher on the Ti. More interesting would be to see how both cards perform on the same clocks as well as which card has the better overclock potential.
Edit: John beat me to it lol
Same clocks would be the same since they have the same Cuda Cores. Only at the same clocks I think the Titan would win at 4K because it has higher rops.
By surprised, I meant by the fact that NVIDIA didn’t gimp the 1080Ti to underperform so that the TITANXP would stay on top to justify it’s price.
Titan XP is still faster clock for clock. And the 1080ti does NOT OC any higher then the XP. The memory does slightly, but the core is exactly the same (for OC…). So a TItan XP at 2062MHz is faster then a 1080ti at 2062MHz. But ya, it’s about half the price… So it’s a WAAAAAY better deal. But remeber ROPs and Memory Bandwidth are slightly less then the XP (96 ROPs for the XP/ 90ROPs for the ti and 384bit for XP vs. 352bit for the ti…). But as far as a better card for the money there is no comparison. 1080ti destroys the XP for Perf/Price.
Hands down.
You got it man! clock for clock the XP is slightly faster. And both cards OC the same (except for the memory on the ti goes slightly faster then the XP, but the XP’s 384bit memory bus cancles that out). I have read almost all of the reviews out there and they both OC to around 1974-2037MHz. On water like I said before my XP runs at just over 2100MHz. And the 1080ti has a better cooler then the XP so it will have better clocks on air. But the core is the same with some aspects gimped. So ya, I know we have gone back and forth on this one… It has been fun!
Yeah I saw the reviews. The XP performs better than 1080ti reference when both are overclocked. Now we need to see how the partner cards will perform once they’re out. I think Asus and Gigabyte might got something nice coming.
They can’t, not this time, AMD actually brought real competition to the table, so they had to go all-out with the Ti model this year š
That has yet to be seen…
These are not proper benchmarks. My 1080 plays the 1440p scores at 4k resolution. Deus Ex 1440p 20something benchmark? LOL that score is my 4k score!
Waiting on “non leaked” review benchmarks from tech and gaming sites.
It’s the settings. Mankind Divided has a couple settings that tank your frame rate with almost no noticeable difference vs when they’re lowered by 1 notch. Note they’re using SSAA in Metro and RotTR, which almost no one does for very good reason.
ye but do you MSAA x4 tho?
Ultra settings.
MSAA x4 isn’t part of “ultra settings” so do you have it enabled or no?
Crysis 3 Benchmark…..
Lol’d.
are these average frame rates?
some of them looks minimum to me
those BF1 results really makes this card attractive…
though i would really want to see some 4K results on games like the Witcher 3
59 fps , there is benchmarks in TechPowerUp , this card would be perfect with my Ryzon CPU X JAJ
with or without hairworks?
Those benches have to be messed up, with a slight fps gain, yet paying the same price as when the 1080 launched….
Great, these charts remind me of how f*cking bad optimised Tomb Raider and Deus Ex were. Wait, no.. they still are!
No, those benchamrks aren’t proper at all.
I mean. How long has it been since AMD released at higher end product ?. They need to be there omfg. Where U AT LISAAAAAAAAA WHERE U AT
There are MUCH better reviews than this elsewhere. Google this.
Eurogamer has some benchmarks too. š Those here seem in line with the other ones (for the most part?)
I still dont get why BF4 runs at 60-80 fps at med/high settings with a 1070. I should of waited and just grab a 1080 when it gets down to 500$
Not impressed
Look up Gamersnexus review of the 1800X and you can see it smoking the competition in most productivity scenarios, with exception of the overclocked 6900K. I would post links but somehow they got stuck in moderation.
And even in the link you gave you can see that the 1700X (not the 1800X) rates higher for workstation tasks (95% against 74%). In single core tasks the 7700K beats it by a considerable margin mostly thanks to the higher clockspeeds, the 6900K has a worse score mitigated in part by the fact that it overclocks better. But whether overclocking plays a role in productivity environments is up for debate.
As for AMD not having something to compete with Nvidia beyond the 1080, we can’t really say, as there’s nothing solid regarding announcements on AMD’s part, isn’t there?
the link also has the 1800X if you simply hover under the Ghz and select 1700X/1700/1800X
and the review you mention doesn’t really compare to anything nor provides the exact details of the processor
the userbenchmark site i sent you is a USER-based benchmarking site to share and compare results of different parts
and you can CLEARLY see the price of the 1800X is 500$ while the 7700K 340$ (on average, right now it’s 310$)
yes the 1800X has better workstation performance but it’s a 500$ CPU vs a 340$ one
even still it has lower performance in gaming
and a more fair comperison would be the 7700K and the 1700X because price is a f**king major factor when you compare parts
it’s like you’ll tell me an R9 fury is better than a GTX 970, being a fanboy is unhealthy bro
i know you want the Ryzen to succeed, but you gotta stay real to actual results
Is there a problem in the way I write or what? At no point I said they were better than Intel at gaming, I said at productivity. On that aspect, a 4C/8T just don’t cut it anymore. A 6C/12T is way better but it’s almost necessary a 8C/16T processor. The ones from Intel are $1000 (around $600 for the 6C part) so a $500 that competes in PRODUCTIVITY with that is a huge saving, not to speak of the $400 and $330 parts. The 6900K is comparable directly to those CPUs because of it having the same number of cores. The 7700K is comparable only in pricing to the 1700 and is a better deal if you only want a gaming rig, but it’s out of the question if you need something to handle production applications.
The 7700K is better at single threaded, non-gaming loads because of it having a higher effective clock speed derived from the fact it has less cores. If you read GamersNexus’ review properly you would have seen a very clear comparison to a wide variety of CPUs, including the 6900K, 6700K and 7700K, as well as some i5 and i3 processors.
The gaming performance is still up in the air because there are optimizations to be made, even for Windows.
BTW, both the 1700X and 1800X have better workstation scores than the 7700K in the site you shared.
BOTTOM LINE: Ryzen is a huge improvement over the FX line and they are very competitive to Intel’s offerings no matter how you look at it. BUT, what you’re going to get from them depends on the use you are going to give them. Gaming: 7700K (so far). Productivity: any Ryzen CPU will do better.
So yeah, you can call me a fanboy all you want but I rather be that than someone without reading comprehension.
isnt gaming this website about mostly? i was really hoping for much better result since AMD was hyping it so much. its a shame they kept quite about gaming performance until the cpus were released.
Are they underwhelming? Definitely. But it’s worth taking into account that their performance don’t match with what they’ve proven they are capable of. The fact that the 1800X can perform better than the 6900K on benchmarks but lags behind in gaming shows that the application is unoptimized for Ryzen. I certainly would look at how the newer games, like Andromeda, perform in Ryzen before ruling them out as gaming CPUs. Remember: every game out now has been developed considering Intel CPUs, whose architecture has not changed in a long time. Ryzen is brand new.
sure we can say games are not optimize for the Ryzen yet but how much more time will it take? average consumer dont care about the raw numbers(AMD radeon has been almost always have more), consumer want to have better performance which for now Intel cpus has more when gaming.
Honestly, I don’t know. “Old” games may never get much of an improvement (like old games that used to run on single cores had big issues on modern CPUs) but we should focus at how Mass Effect performs when it arrives as well as all the games to come.