Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [AdoredTV] Pascal vs Maxwell at same clockspeeds, same FLOPS (1080 vs 980 Ti)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[AdoredTV] Pascal vs Maxwell at same clockspeeds, same FLOPS (1080 vs 980 Ti) - Page 14

post #131 of 305
Quote:
I also keep seeing people saying "well i'll just wait for Vega 11" (assuming Vega 11 is really the biggest one) but they don't seem to realize that the 4096 SP unit card IS the larger Vega 11. The smaller Vega 10 (again assuming it really is "10 smaller, 11 bigger") will be more like the Fury (non x) in having ~3,584 SP units.
I have no idea about Vega 11 tbh

it WAS on the AMD slide but any time any Vega news/rumors surface - it just says Vega, they never specify which Vega .. granted they dont know themselves


I dont think anyone outside of AMD R&D (and Nvidia spies biggrin.gif) knows anything and things can/could have already changed

the whole Vega10 = 4096 and Vega11 = 6144 shaders thing is pretty much 100% unproven by anything or anyone and we will only know much closer to release
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
Reply
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
Reply
post #132 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkIdeals View Post



Yeah i'm kinda baffled that people still think " X% more Cores = X% Performance boost". For example, the TITAN X (maxwell) has 50% more cores than the 980; but was only about 40% faster than the 980 (sometimes 35%). Streaming Processor/Cuda cores are not an accurate measure of performance by themselves.

A 78% increase in cores, especially GCN ones, will likely net around a 50% performance increase. And as you said the 480 is nowhere near 390X performance, it doesn't even quite hit 390 levels. It's a bit slower or in some cases about the same as a stock speed GTX 970 which varies from slightly slower than a regular 390 (non x) to slightly faster than regular 390.


You should have seen people trying to calculate the performance increase AMD would get from 14nm versus 16, Made an elaborate post saying that you can't always compare apples to apples. However there is always the hope of a new Hawaii arch. I'm going to be optimistic and say that Vega is going to tie/beat the NEW titan X. It would force Nvidia to release the full-fat titan XP.
post #133 of 305
Quote:
I'm going to be optimistic and say that Vega is going to tie/beat the NEW titan X.
not with 4096 shaders, no way

but theoretically a truly gigantic Vega11 - sure, possible
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
Reply
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
Reply
post #134 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yttrium View Post


AdoredTV isn't biased. He said that power consumption wasn't as good as some other cards but that they have made progress (albeit uncertain what the new node provided versus arch changes) Now, any person who understands how a monopoly works will get why we should be praying that vega isn't going to be a bad card, Just like zen. Nvidia (and intel) might still deliver better products however they wouldn't be in a rush to deliver better prices. And yes, AMD would probaly do the same if they had the monopoly.

Now for Darkdeals, they mentioned on twitter when their "new vega architecture" was done, I'm pretty sure that means its a new arch.
Source: http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/93941-amds-raja-koduri-design-team-celebrate-vega-10-milestone/
(Sorry, couldn't find original tweet)

That was worry #1, now for worry #2 about where the vega chips are going to be manufactured I can't give definitive answeres however there were rumours that Glofo got the production chain of the RX480 and down while ZEN and Vega are going to be produced at TSMC.
Source: http://vrworld.com/2016/01/19/amd-to-offer-finfet-chips-with-both-tsmc-and-globalfoundries/

and for the bad yields part, 14/16 is pretty much the same. There's not going to be a noticeable difference for us consumers. Different arch will make comparing impossible anyway. As for the last part, having a massive capital doesn't improve yields as far as I know. AMD finally has money (sort of) so its a moot point.


Concerning Monopolies: Oh yeah. I 100% agree. AMD NEEDS to do good here or prices could go through the roof. AMD is literally on death's door in the mid to high end market. I really hope they release an amazing product, but from recent history i just kinda doubt they will. I think we're gonna see a repeat of the Fury-X vs 980 TI matchup. We'll see Vega 11 with HBM2 and 4096 SP going up against GP102 3,584 Cuda Core 1080 TI / TITAN XP with GDDR5X, just like we saw Fury-X with HBM1 and 4096 SP going up against the 980 TI with GDDR5 and 2,816 Cuda Cores.

AMD's best efforts in the Fury-X even with water cooling, couldn't beat or even match the 980 TI despite having HBM1 compared to GDDR5 and having a MASSIVE core difference of 4,096 vs 2,816 on 980 TI. It honestly looks like things will be the same since the lineup is VERY similar; just with HBM2 on Vega and GDDR5X on Pascal instead of HBM1 on Fiji Fury-X and GDDR5 on Maxwell.

People crap all over Pascal saying it's not a big boost from maxwell even though every Pascal card is literally as fast as TWO Maxwell equivalent tier cards in SLI (SMH -__-) but don'ot seem to realize that Polaris was even worse in terms of performance gains. The RX 480 couldn't even beat the R9 390; whereas the 1080 definitely beat out the 980 TI and TITAN X by almost 30% in many cases.


If Vega does use TSMC then that means they are gonna be on 16nm FinFET most likely as 14nm FinFET isn't really ready yet. So that would actually be a very smart move for AMD to make personally. You don't seem to think 14nm will make a difference compared to 16nm but i guarantee you it DOES make a difference. When you get this small, EVERY single nanometer makes a much larger difference than it did in the past.

This is why you are seeing incremental increases in each node jump. For example, in the past we had 65nm, then went to 45nm, then 28nm etc.. which were large jumps. But now we have 28nm that moves only to 20nm (only 8nm jump) and then from 20nm we only go to 16nm (4nm jump) and 14nm (6nm jump). Next is going to be 10nm which is only a 4 or 6nm increase from 16/14 as well. The reason for this is that we are literally hitting the long predicted point where silicon just can't get places any closer to each other without significant issues. Each new node size is taking EXPONENTIALLY longer to mature and master than it has in the past.

I mean think about it. Think about how INSANELY hard it is (even for a machine) to place 12 BILLION transistors with each transistor only 10 or 14 or 16nm apart from each other? Do you realize how small a nanometer is? A human hair is 100,000 NANOMETERS THICK!!! A SINGLE STRAND OF DNA IS 2.5 NANOMETER IN SIZE! The current 14/16nm chips are literally requiring Nvidia to have electron microscopes SO powerful that they can see INDIVIDUAL ATOMS!! ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRz_CG3DZb4 )

So yes, even 2nm difference between 16nm and 14nm does make a decent amount of difference in yields. Not a WHOLE lot, but it's still somewhat significant.
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 5960X ASUS Rampage V Extreme MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X 16GB Corsair Dominator Platinum 2666mhz DDR4 C15 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
PNY CS2211 MLC SATA III SSD WD Blue 500GB 7200rpm Writemaster DVD/CD +/- RW EK Supremacy EVO 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Mayhem's Pastel Ice White Coolant Coollaboratory Liquid Copper TIM XSPC EX480mm Radiator Black Ice GTX 360mm Radiator 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK XTC 420mm Radiator Swiftech MCP655-B 12v Pump EK RES X3 250 Reservoir Bitspower/EK 3/8" x 1/2" Compression fitting 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q 27" 1440p 144hz G-Sync ASUS VG23AH 23.5" Passive 3d 1080p 60hz  Razer Blackwidow Chroma Tournament Edition 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA Supernova G2 1000 Caselabs SMA8 -XXL Window, Ventilated sides/t... Razer Ouroboros Norman Rockwell collection series print Mousepad 
AudioAudio
Sennheiser HD700 300ohm Open Back Headphones SupremeFX Hi-Fi 5.25" Bay AMP/DAC  
  hide details  
Reply
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 5960X ASUS Rampage V Extreme MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X 16GB Corsair Dominator Platinum 2666mhz DDR4 C15 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
PNY CS2211 MLC SATA III SSD WD Blue 500GB 7200rpm Writemaster DVD/CD +/- RW EK Supremacy EVO 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Mayhem's Pastel Ice White Coolant Coollaboratory Liquid Copper TIM XSPC EX480mm Radiator Black Ice GTX 360mm Radiator 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK XTC 420mm Radiator Swiftech MCP655-B 12v Pump EK RES X3 250 Reservoir Bitspower/EK 3/8" x 1/2" Compression fitting 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q 27" 1440p 144hz G-Sync ASUS VG23AH 23.5" Passive 3d 1080p 60hz  Razer Blackwidow Chroma Tournament Edition 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA Supernova G2 1000 Caselabs SMA8 -XXL Window, Ventilated sides/t... Razer Ouroboros Norman Rockwell collection series print Mousepad 
AudioAudio
Sennheiser HD700 300ohm Open Back Headphones SupremeFX Hi-Fi 5.25" Bay AMP/DAC  
  hide details  
Reply
post #135 of 305
Too make this a legit comparison you need to take away the extra cuda cores in 980 TI.

Otherwise it's noise and you all know it.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k (EK Supremacy Evo) *4.7 @ 1.312 Asus Maximus VIII gene GTX 1080 FE (EK nickel/plexi)* 2075/5401 16gb Corsair 3200  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 950pro M.2 256gb Samsung 850 Evo - 512 - Steam Samsung 850 Evo - 512 - Other Apps EK Res 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
EK pump top XSPC EX 360 XSPC EX 240 10 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine 3 TKL  EVGA 650 Fractal Arc Mini 2 G303 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k (EK Supremacy Evo) *4.7 @ 1.312 Asus Maximus VIII gene GTX 1080 FE (EK nickel/plexi)* 2075/5401 16gb Corsair 3200  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 950pro M.2 256gb Samsung 850 Evo - 512 - Steam Samsung 850 Evo - 512 - Other Apps EK Res 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
EK pump top XSPC EX 360 XSPC EX 240 10 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine 3 TKL  EVGA 650 Fractal Arc Mini 2 G303 
  hide details  
Reply
post #136 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkIdeals View Post

Except the architecture ISN'T the same *****. It's an entirely new architecture, anyone with any REAL knowledge of GPUs will tell you this. You can look at the die image and see it if you know your stuff.

Good, don't respond. ignorant fantards aren't worth MY time lol.

I highly recommend you do some reading yourself before insulting others and spouting off nonsense like "entirely new architecture".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anandtech 
We’ll start with the GP104 SM. Simply named the SM for this generation – NVIDIA has ditched the generational suffix due to the potential for confusion with the used-elsewhere SMP – the GP104 SM is very similar to the Maxwell SM. We’re still looking at a single SM partially sub-divided into four pieces, each containing a single warp scheduler that’s responsible for feeding 32 CUDA cores, 8 load/store units, and 8 Special Function Units, backed by a 64KB register file. There are two dispatch ports per warp schedule, so when an instruction stream allows it, a warp scheduler can extract a limited amount of ILP with an instruction stream by issuing a second instruction to an unused resource.

Overall then at the diagram level the GP104 SM looks almost identical to the Maxwell SM, but with one exception: the PolyMorph Engine. Although the distinction is largely arbitrary for GP104, the PolyMorph Engine has been moved up a level; it’s no longer part of the SM, but rather part of the newly re-introduced TPC, which itself sits between the GPC and the SM.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/4
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnek View Post

As far as I know, the major updates to Pascal include:

- updated PolyMorph Engine to v4.0, which now includes Simultaneous Multi-Projection
- better color compression
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTX 1080 white paper 

GeForce GTX 1080 includes a significantly enhanced delta color compression capability:
- 2:1 compression has been enhanced to be effective more often
- A new 4:1 delta color compression mode has been added to cover cases where the per pixel deltas are very small and are possible to pack into ¼ of the original storage
- A new 8:1 delta color compression mode combines 4:1 constant color compression of 2x2 pixel blocks with 2:1 compression of the deltas between those blocks

- improved async compute abilities(?)

So yeah, not too huge of a change from Maxwell.

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/pdfs/GeForce_GTX_1080_Whitepaper_FINAL.pdf

Lastly since you mentioned die image, why don't you have a look at these block diagrams:

Kepler vs Fermi (Click to show)
Maxwell vs Kepler (Click to show)
Pascal SM (Click to show)

Even a superficial glance at the block diagrams will reveal how similar Maxwell and Pascal are to each other, certainly much more so than Fermi vs Kepler, or Kepler vs Maxwell. Then if you zoom into the details on each SM(M), you'll see even there not much has changed at all:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Bonus: Kepler SMM flow (Click to show)
500x1000px-LL-e03c63ed_SMX_575px.png
post #137 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevChelios View Post

I have no idea about Vega 11 tbh

it WAS on the AMD slide but any time any Vega news/rumors surface - it just says Vega, they never specify which Vega .. granted they dont know themselves


I dont think anyone outside of AMD R&D (and Nvidia spies biggrin.gif) knows anything and things can/could have already changed

the whole Vega10 = 4096 and Vega11 = 6144 shaders thing is pretty much 100% unproven by anything or anyone and we will only know much closer to release

Yeah it just isn't happening. I can guarantee you we won't see a consumer Vega chip with 6,144 Shaders. ESPECIALLY not in October like people are claiming. HBM2 alone is probably not even ready by October, which is why Nvidia only uses it on the super low volume production of the Tesla P100 that is only sold in $130,000 supercomputers. Add in the fact that AMD will have to perfect a massive 650mm2 die to cram 6,144 shaders into it; and you aren't seeing that card until AT LEAST late 2017 if not 2018.

People keep complaining about the new Pascal TITAN X being 478mm2 die size; but they don't seem to realize that it would be nearly impossible to make a bigger die at this point with the terrible yields even with 16nm chips. The only reason the new TITAN X is even in EXISTANCE right now is that the yields for the Tesla P100 and Quadro P6000 were so bad that they ended up with a ton of unused silicon. So they ended up releasing this TITAN X so soon to keep from wasting all that silicon from the bad yields.

Now if Nvidia with all their billions can't even make a 599mm2 die size 16nm chip with 5,760 cores on it in more than a couple hundred units for supercomputers; you think AMD is gonna be able to make an even MORE massive 650mm2 die size 14nm chip with 6,144 cores on it? It just isn't happening. If Vega 11 IS going to have 6,144 cores then it won't happen till BARE MINIMUM mid 2017. My guess is late 2017 to early 2018 though. This is also coinciding with the rumors of "Volta" in mid 2017, which in all likelihood is just full GP100 as Pascal literally 100% follows the GTX 600 series schedule (680 was first 28nm chip, 1080 is first 16nm chip. Both had real bad stock issues for a few months. both had a TITAN come out a few months later etc..etc..) so this 2017 new generation is likely to just be similar to the 700 series in how we simply had the "GK110" original TITAN and then had the "GK210" 780 and 780 TI. We will just have an enhanced "Pascal 2.0" GTX 1180 and 1180 TI with GP100 and HBM2 in 2017 most likely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yttrium View Post

You should have seen people trying to calculate the performance increase AMD would get from 14nm versus 16, Made an elaborate post saying that you can't always compare apples to apples. However there is always the hope of a new Hawaii arch. I'm going to be optimistic and say that Vega is going to tie/beat the NEW titan X. It would force Nvidia to release the full-fat titan XP.


Yeah no. Not happening, sorry. 4,096 GCN cores on the Fury-X couldn't even TIE let alone beat the GTX 980 TI. We'll see a kinda similar story this time except even worse for AMD as this new GCN 1.3 architecture used in Polaris and Vega isn't as big of a jump as we had with Fiji.

The Vega 4096 core chip will be about the speed of a GTX 1080, no more. I just isn't feasible to be any faster.
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 5960X ASUS Rampage V Extreme MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X 16GB Corsair Dominator Platinum 2666mhz DDR4 C15 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
PNY CS2211 MLC SATA III SSD WD Blue 500GB 7200rpm Writemaster DVD/CD +/- RW EK Supremacy EVO 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Mayhem's Pastel Ice White Coolant Coollaboratory Liquid Copper TIM XSPC EX480mm Radiator Black Ice GTX 360mm Radiator 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK XTC 420mm Radiator Swiftech MCP655-B 12v Pump EK RES X3 250 Reservoir Bitspower/EK 3/8" x 1/2" Compression fitting 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q 27" 1440p 144hz G-Sync ASUS VG23AH 23.5" Passive 3d 1080p 60hz  Razer Blackwidow Chroma Tournament Edition 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA Supernova G2 1000 Caselabs SMA8 -XXL Window, Ventilated sides/t... Razer Ouroboros Norman Rockwell collection series print Mousepad 
AudioAudio
Sennheiser HD700 300ohm Open Back Headphones SupremeFX Hi-Fi 5.25" Bay AMP/DAC  
  hide details  
Reply
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 5960X ASUS Rampage V Extreme MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X 16GB Corsair Dominator Platinum 2666mhz DDR4 C15 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
PNY CS2211 MLC SATA III SSD WD Blue 500GB 7200rpm Writemaster DVD/CD +/- RW EK Supremacy EVO 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Mayhem's Pastel Ice White Coolant Coollaboratory Liquid Copper TIM XSPC EX480mm Radiator Black Ice GTX 360mm Radiator 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EK XTC 420mm Radiator Swiftech MCP655-B 12v Pump EK RES X3 250 Reservoir Bitspower/EK 3/8" x 1/2" Compression fitting 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q 27" 1440p 144hz G-Sync ASUS VG23AH 23.5" Passive 3d 1080p 60hz  Razer Blackwidow Chroma Tournament Edition 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA Supernova G2 1000 Caselabs SMA8 -XXL Window, Ventilated sides/t... Razer Ouroboros Norman Rockwell collection series print Mousepad 
AudioAudio
Sennheiser HD700 300ohm Open Back Headphones SupremeFX Hi-Fi 5.25" Bay AMP/DAC  
  hide details  
Reply
post #138 of 305
Actually, if you look at more recent benchmarks, the Fury X more often than not ties a 980Ti and even beats it sometimes, especially at higher resolutions. The Fury X with continuous driver updates went from a card only beating the 980 to beating the 980Ti in many cases. If anyone accuses me of being an AMD fanboy now, look at my rig history wink.gif
post #139 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by xTesla1856 View Post

Actually, if you look at more recent benchmarks, the Fury X more often than not ties a 980Ti and even beats it sometimes, especially at higher resolutions. The Fury X with continuous driver updates went from a card only beating the 980 to beating the 980Ti in many cases. If anyone accuses me of being an AMD fanboy now, look at my rig history

Yeah, benchmark run at stock not taking into account 980Ti goes 24% over its stock boost at max OC whereas Fury X goes 10-15% like the OC turd it is.
Skylake 1080 FTW
(18 items)
 
XPS 15
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K  ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger EVGA 1080 FTW TridentZ DDR4-3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung SM951 128GB Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB Muskin Reactor 1TB Seagate Baracuda 2TB ST2000DM001 HDD 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate Baracuda 2TB ST2000DM001 HDD Corsair H110i GT Windows 10 Pro  Acer XB321HK 32" 4K G-sync 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair K70 Rapid Fire EVGA SuperNova 650 P2 NZXT H440 Black Logitech G900  
Mouse PadOther
Razer Vespula CyberPower CP1500PFCLCD - PFC Sinewave UPS Syst... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-7700HQ 2.8Ghz(3.8Ghz Turbo) Dell XPS 15-9560 Nvidia GTX 1050 8GB DDR4-2400 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB PCIE SSD Windows 10 Pro 15.6" 1080p 
  hide details  
Reply
Skylake 1080 FTW
(18 items)
 
XPS 15
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K  ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger EVGA 1080 FTW TridentZ DDR4-3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung SM951 128GB Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB Muskin Reactor 1TB Seagate Baracuda 2TB ST2000DM001 HDD 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate Baracuda 2TB ST2000DM001 HDD Corsair H110i GT Windows 10 Pro  Acer XB321HK 32" 4K G-sync 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair K70 Rapid Fire EVGA SuperNova 650 P2 NZXT H440 Black Logitech G900  
Mouse PadOther
Razer Vespula CyberPower CP1500PFCLCD - PFC Sinewave UPS Syst... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-7700HQ 2.8Ghz(3.8Ghz Turbo) Dell XPS 15-9560 Nvidia GTX 1050 8GB DDR4-2400 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB PCIE SSD Windows 10 Pro 15.6" 1080p 
  hide details  
Reply
post #140 of 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by sherlock View Post

Yeah, benchmark run at stock not taking into account 980Ti goes 24% over its stock boost at max OC whereas Fury X goes 10-15% like the OC turd it is.
Just like those Pascals, right?

But yeah, 980 Ti is still faster than Fury X, but It's also faster than 1070.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [AdoredTV] Pascal vs Maxwell at same clockspeeds, same FLOPS (1080 vs 980 Ti)