"Nextgen" GPUs

It looks like the entire nVidia Pascal line-up has leaked via AIDA64.

The TL;DR is:

GP-100 = Tesla P100 professional GPU (that one has been available for a while already) and Quadro (TBA)
GP-102 = Titan, GTX 1080Ti (ETA early 2017)
GP-104 = GTX 1080/1070 (May 27/June 10 2016)
GP-106 = GTX 1060 (ETA fall 2016)
GP-107/GP-108 = GTX 1050 and OEMs (TBA)

Also the first GTX 1070 Benchmark is available now (leak as well):

http://videocardz.com/60265/nvidia-g…ike-benchmarks

Originally Posted by Kordanor
Also the first GTX 1070 Benchmark is available now (leak as well):

http://videocardz.com/60265/nvidia-g…ike-benchmarks

Any leaks about the cost of that card ??

Originally Posted by Kordanor
Also the first GTX 1070 Benchmark is available now (leak as well):

http://videocardz.com/60265/nvidia-g…ike-benchmarks

Hmm may be I should flog my GTX 970 and get 1070 . Looks like 40% performance boost.

People are saying 1070 might cost ~£340 and ~£540 for 1080.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Any leaks about the cost of that card ??

NVIDIA already announced it (the MSRP) at the same time as the 1080. Price for the 1070:
$379 US for "normal" edition
$450 US for the Founder edition

Most people are pretty sure there won't be any sub-$450 version though, because that's the price you pay for a cheap fan and crappy overclocking capability.

Originally Posted by azarhal
NVIDIA already announced it (the MSRP) at the same time as the 1080:
$379 US for "normal" edition
$450 US for the Founder edition

Most people are pretty sure there won't be any sub-$450 version though, because that's the price you pay for a cheap fan and crappy overclocking capability.

That does not make sense. In pounds that is ~£260 for 1080? They are selling GTX 970 for around that price here in UK!

Originally Posted by lostforever
That does not make sense. In pounds that is ~£260 for 1080? They are selling GTX 970 for around that price here in UK!

That's for the 1070, not the 1080.

Originally Posted by lostforever
That does not make sense. In pounds that is ~£260 for 1080? They are selling GTX 970 for around that price here in UK!

I think that when they quote MSRP in $ for the UK you will need to add VAT to that when calculating how much it will be over here. so reckon that the 1070 will be around £310-£320 for the non founders edition. Founders edition 1080's are going on sale at around £635 at the moment

As soon as you can see one of the cards in your local shop you should be able to extrapolate this price to the other card as well.

Originally Posted by lostforever
Hmm may be I should flog my GTX 970 and get 1070 . Looks like 40% performance boost.

If you put it like that it's not correct. If you speak about boost you should go from the component which is boosted.

And if the 970 brings 58% of the performance from the GTX 1070, this means that the GTX 1070 is at 172% of the 970 performance.

So the 1070 is 72% faster than the 970.

And of course that is single screen only. In VR you'd get an additional boost due to the new multiscreen technology.

Total War got a beta DX12 patch and there was some tests done. It highlight the CPU bottleneck of the game, that DX12 helps everyone get better FPS and what happens with a GTX1080…

"Hammering" CPU means only one thing and that's - no bloody code optimization!
And some ppl in comments say they run the game without a glitch (except some flicker bug) on i7 4790k stock and 1080p with ultra setting.

But even if this PCG test is to be accepted as a reason to buy something, I don't want to pay $350 for Intel® Core™ i7-6700K that runs 4Ghz by default and has six cores hyperthread capable just to run one game's messy executable. One game that I don't even care about.

There is more to this story, important as we're mostly about RPGs here.
Noone seems to remember that Risen 3 had a bug on release that prevented it from working on these chestbusting and superexpensive CPU i7s. It was patched later.
Also, FF10/10-2 port tends to crash on i7 machines.
So no man. I'll stick to my good old i5 4670K as long as I can.

@azarhal and joxer,

I've seen similar issues reported on Fallout 4. Apparently some of the video tasks associated with shadows, and perhaps some other video functions, are programmed to be accomplished by the CPU, instead of the GPU. People report that the game runs smoother and faster on the i7 as compared to the i5 (It also runs smooth and fast on my cheap eight core AMD FX8350 btw).

I sure wouldn't buy a new CPU and/or motherboard for any single game either. I think that an extra eight gigs of fast ram might help; and ram is cheap these days. For new computer purchasers, more cores is probably really desirable as some game developers may make a habit of assigning more video tasks to the CPU in the future.

Regards.

__

Oddly I haven't experienced that similar F4 issue.
Everything as high as possible, and GPU is GTX760. Not a single framedrop I felt, the game was stuck at 60 all the time (was because my monitor doesn't go over 60, yes, I know, I need a new one).
Then again, I didn't run the game on 4K nor were using mods.

Gaming community is definetly the one pushing new technologies forward.
But this desn't mean we paid Intel to try (and fail) on phone market with Atom.
If Intel (or AMD) can't provide a good enough CPU at some acceptable price for home use, screw them. I'm not projecting houses with a need to render them realtime nor am doing super computersized calculations at home.
And will certainly not die if I can't run one game where devs believe that modern CPU's have 20 cores and are running on 6725235864237852785432 Ghz.

Originally Posted by joxer
Oddly I haven't experienced that similar F4 issue.
Everything as high as possible, and GPU is GTX760. Not a single framedrop I felt, the game was stuck at 60 all the time (was because my monitor doesn't go over 60, yes, I know, I need a new one).
Then again, I didn't run the game on 4K nor were using mods.

Gaming community is definetly the one pushing new technologies forward.
But this desn't mean we paid Intel to try (and fail) on phone market with Atom.
If Intel (or AMD) can't provide a good enough CPU at some acceptable price for home use, screw them. I'm not projecting houses with a need to render them realtime nor am doing super computersized calculations at home.
And will certainly not die if I can't run one game where devs believe that modern CPU's have 20 cores and are running on 6725235864237852785432 Ghz.

I've also seen it reported that F4 programming caps the game at 60fps no matter the capabilities of the GPU and monitor. In my case I can run GPU and monitor at higher frame rates, but with F4, I only see anything higher than 60fps on loading screens.

As to the higher frame rates in general, I'm not sure that those higher frame rates usefully accomplish anything other than more heat anyway.

__

I've noticed a difference in Sims 4 on rates higher than 60. Can't possibly imagine the difference in RPGs or shooters.
Visual difference, not heat.

But well, I don't have a monitor of my own for such stuff yet. With new GPU I'll probably buy VG248QE I'm boring all my friends with talks about it for years now.

I bought a gaming monitor a few months ago (BenQ RL2460HT), it's 60GHz refresh rates but my GPU is a GTX 770, a game is running real smooth when I get 30-40FPS. lol

I really need to upgrade that GPU this year, Nvidia already put them on legacy driver support, lol.

Originally Posted by azarhal
I bought a gaming monitor a few months ago (BenQ RL2460HT), it's 60GHz refresh rates but my GPU is a GTX 770, a game is running real smooth when I get 30-40FPS. lol

I really need to upgrade that GPU this year, Nvidia already put them on legacy driver support, lol.

Uhm…got to disappoint you.
It's 60Hz, meaning 60 pictures a second, which is the standard for a long, long time.
And as it's only 1920 × 1080 you should actually be pretty fine with a GTX 770 atm.

30-40 fps is certainly not great, but should be ok if it's not an action game.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
Uhm…got to disappoint you.
It's 60Hz, meaning 60 pictures a second, which is the standard for a long, long time.

Disappointed me? How? Oh the typo, sorry. Yeah, 60Hz, not 60GHz.

More the fact that 60 Hz is what every monitor and it's mom has.

There are some 120Hz monitors but that's still rather rare.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
More the fact that 60 Hz is what every monitor and it's mom has.

There are some 120Hz monitors but that's still rather rare.

and I have no problem with that, I don't have a setup that would require anything higher, the reviews for the monitor were good and the price was in my budget.

Maybe I should have mentioned that I upgraded from an old crappy 21inch LCD monitor. I'm very happy with my purchase.