Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Chicago, IL 11/17

Regularly scheduled events

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month

The GeForce website has the expected announcement of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, a new flagship for their line of gaming video cards. They claim the founder's editions for these will be available beginning March 10th for $699, and that preorders will begin tomorrow. These will boast "next-gen 11 Gbps GDDR5X memory," and in a separate post they announce that this fancy RAM will make its way to the rest of the 1080 line in a refresh, saying this is "video memory that's faster and better than the G5X VRAM on the $1200 NVIDIA TITAN X." Here's more on the 1080 Ti:

Featuring the most powerful and efficient hardware we've ever designed, the $699 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is up to 35% faster than the GeForce GTX 1080, and is even faster in games than the $1200 NVIDIA TITAN X.

The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti achieves this feat through its implementation of 3,584 CUDA Cores, and 11GB of next-gen GDDR5X Video Memory (G5X VRAM) running out of the box at 11 Gbps. Even faster than the G5X memory on the GeForce GTX 1080 and NVIDIA TITAN X, the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti's blisteringly-fast G5X memory further increases memory bandwidth and takes performance to new heights.

In addition, the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition features a new high-airflow thermal solution that's cooler and quieter than previous designs, maximizing the potential of GPU Boost and enabling overclockers to achieve even faster speeds. And under the hood efficiency is improved thanks to a new 7-phase power design with 14 high-efficiency dualFETs that deliver better power efficiency at the highest usage and power levels.

View
63 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

63. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 3, 2017, 09:35 Verno
 
CJ_Parker wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 19:05:
I have had numerous IPS and VA panels over the years and they have their pros and cons.

Contrary to what you are saying VA definitely has better image quality. It has better contrast (black is black) and better colors.
IPS displays very often times suffer from IPS glow, ghosting, backlight bleeding and comparatively poor contrast and colors but they usually have better response times in ms (less latency).


VA viewing angles are objectively worse which matters hugely for TVs and less so for monitors. Contrast is definitely better with VA but that's only apparent in dark rooms, most people have their main TV in brightly lit rooms which nullifies the advantage. For computer monitors its a different story obviously. IPS ghosting is largely a problem of the past outside of low end models, glow on the other hand can be annoying.

I've never really had a VA monitor I was happy with over the long term but there have been a few TVs I really liked. I'm simplifying of course, there's so many factors involved. For example I will pay a happy premium for the Sony OLED over LG just to have the superior Sony picturing processing engine even if the underlying tech is essentially the same.
 
Playing: Ever Oasis, Doom, Horizon Zero Dawn
Watching: Riviera, The Mist, Lucky Number Slevin
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
62. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 2, 2017, 09:21 ForgedReality
 
{PH}88fingers wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 20:02:
Slick wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 19:46:
I know I'm late to this thread, looks like there's no "2xxx" series being announced lol.

Anyways, all of you talking about monitors should just LOOK AT THIS

This is the best thing coming out in the foreseeable future, and will be very future-proof. G-sync will help with the low framerates with the 1080ti, (pushing 60) but will be able to really shine with volta and beyond. Plus HDR and FALD, which are pretty much not optional if you're buying a new high-end TV. Very nice to see these techs come to the monitor market.

Not sure when/if OLEDs will happen for the gamer crowd.

Those monitors are 27" ? I'm with the others above who say 27" is too small for 4k. I have 34" and it's not even 4k and i wouldn't wanna go smaller with a higher resolution.

Yeah and I don't get all the hype around OLED. That shit is seriously not ready for consumers. The tech is just not finished. It has way too many problems to justify the price, especially for desktop use, where you have static images on the screen for long periods of time. Image retention, motion blur, slow response times, burn-in... These are all things that are detrimental to a gaming experience.
 
Avatar 55267
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
61. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 22:06 jdreyer
 
Nullity wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 13:06:
ForgedReality wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 12:44:
HorrorScope wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 12:41:
Most likely 60hz? If so, that is now the problem I have, I've seen 144hz and I don't think I'm ever dropping less than 120hz again.

Now if only they could do that in 4k, and appropriate monitor sizes for that resolution. 27" is just FAR too small.

Coming soon.

Although I disagree with 27" being too small, I feel that's just about perfect, IMO. Perhaps it depends on the quality of your vision.

Cost of entry: $1200
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 22:05 jdreyer
 
HorrorScope wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 19:11:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 18:55:
While I'd prefer a 1080P OLED over a 4K LCD, the sweet spot I think is a 3440x1440 ultra widescreen (21:9) OLED.

144hz? I would agree. Cost?

Pretty far north of a grand when they first come out, but prices will come down. Eventually.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
59. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 20:29 Dr_Dissent
 
bulbrook wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 11:05:
ForgedReality wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 10:29:
I really wish they had skipped this and just jumped into the overdue Volta. I've been sitting on my 3gb GTX580 forever, waiting for a card capable of 4k@60 max settings. This won't be it still. Where the fuck is Volta? >=(

Really? Wow that is a long wait. I have to say I run 4K 60fps on most games with a 1080gtx. Max settings is such a minor difference I would drop that requirement. I run a samsung 48" quantum dot HDR TV as my monitor and it is jaw dropping based on color and resolution alone. Lower some settings to get 60fps is not a big deal. IMO this 1080Ti is an amazing upgrade at that price, buy 2017 samsung HDR tv and you will never look back.

I'd say just turn anti-aliasing off. You don't need to smooth out "the jaggies" at that resolution.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58. Re: Morning Mobilization Mar 1, 2017, 20:13 Nullity
 
RedEye9 wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 19:10:
No matter what the screen size is, you can never go wrong with more pixels.
Pretty much sums it up.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 20:03 eRe4s3r
 
FloorPie wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 13:00:
RedEye9 wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 10:22:
Creston wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 10:06:
Price drop on the 1070 please.
Not yet, The GTX 1070 is unflinched for now, from its $349 baseline pricing.

LOL. On what planet has the baseline price of the 1070 been $350? I dunno what crack TechPowerUp is smoking, hopefully just a typo. Its MSRP was $379 and prices have been mostly $400 to $450 for a model with good cooling. The "founders editions" were $450.

Anyway, I expect Nvidia will do the usual and offer a couple of AAA games with their higher end cards this spring/summer.

Sites often quote prices without taxes, 1070 costs here more like 400 to 500 ~.~
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 20:02 {PH}88fingers
 
Slick wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 19:46:
I know I'm late to this thread, looks like there's no "2xxx" series being announced lol.

Anyways, all of you talking about monitors should just LOOK AT THIS

This is the best thing coming out in the foreseeable future, and will be very future-proof. G-sync will help with the low framerates with the 1080ti, (pushing 60) but will be able to really shine with volta and beyond. Plus HDR and FALD, which are pretty much not optional if you're buying a new high-end TV. Very nice to see these techs come to the monitor market.

Not sure when/if OLEDs will happen for the gamer crowd.

Those monitors are 27" ? I'm with the others above who say 27" is too small for 4k. I have 34" and it's not even 4k and i wouldn't wanna go smaller with a higher resolution.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 19:59 {PH}88fingers
 
HorrorScope wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 19:11:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 18:55:
While I'd prefer a 1080P OLED over a 4K LCD, the sweet spot I think is a 3440x1440 ultra widescreen (21:9) OLED.

144hz? I would agree. Cost?


100hz; this is the monitor I got and I love it. I run a 980Ti and at that resolution, gotta say 100hz seems sweetspot with my vid card. 4k wouldn't cut it I barely sustain 100fps.

asus 34" 21:9 ultra widescreen
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 19:46 Slick
 
I know I'm late to this thread, looks like there's no "2xxx" series being announced lol.

Anyways, all of you talking about monitors should just LOOK AT THIS

This is the best thing coming out in the foreseeable future, and will be very future-proof. G-sync will help with the low framerates with the 1080ti, (pushing 60) but will be able to really shine with volta and beyond. Plus HDR and FALD, which are pretty much not optional if you're buying a new high-end TV. Very nice to see these techs come to the monitor market.

Not sure when/if OLEDs will happen for the gamer crowd.
 
Avatar 57545
 
(Regarding SW:Battlefront II) Frostshite is a horrible piece of shit engine that makes games look artificial as if you were playing on a movie set instead of the actual location. -CJ_Parker
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 19:11 HorrorScope
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 18:55:
While I'd prefer a 1080P OLED over a 4K LCD, the sweet spot I think is a 3440x1440 ultra widescreen (21:9) OLED.

144hz? I would agree. Cost?
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: Morning Mobilization Mar 1, 2017, 19:10 RedEye9
 
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 17:52:
Ozmodan wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 14:37:

Sorry but I have to disagree with that comment. The difference between 2k and 4k is minor, especially so if your monitor is under 48". I bought a 4k monitor and guess what I run it at 2k all of the time on games. There are only a few games I can really tell the difference. So ask yourself do you really see that much difference between 2k and 4k or are you just being elitist?



Don't look at games: look at text rendering.

Maybe it's just a matter of continuing Windows fucker-y when it comes to HiDPI displays, and the differences are less apparent than they otherwise would be. What I can say is that whenever I go from my Retina MacBook Pro (15" 2880x1800 native resolution scaled to look like 1440x900) to the 27" 1080p monitor attached to my gaming PC, then my eyes begin to bleed the moment I look at text. Text looks like the printed word on the MBP; on the PC, text looks like a grid of pixels (a hi-res grid, but a grid nonetheless). Doubled pixel density, at least on the MBP, makes for a gorgeous display; while I don't have a 4k display, I would have to imagine that a 4k 27", with twice the pixel density of my current 1080p 27", would look similarly amazing.
No matter what the screen size is, you can never go wrong with more pixels.
 
Avatar 58135
 
unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality
http://spaf.cerias.purdue.edu/quotes.html
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 19:05 CJ_Parker
 
VaranDragon wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 16:04:
ForgedReality wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 15:35:

A lot of this is down to the quality of the panel. Cheaper monitors will have lower picture quality. The technology used in the panel will have an impact as well. IPS is okay for speed, but image quality suffers, especially at angles, when compared to something like VA. It's not all about the resolution and PPI. You're also asking for trouble using a scaled resolution, as a lot of monitors have trouble with that. So, 2k on a 4k display might look like shit compared to even 1080p on the same display, as that translation is a little more 1:1, but still not perfect.

I think you got your terms mixed-up there. IPS has better image quality, VA has higher refresh rate.

I have had numerous IPS and VA panels over the years and they have their pros and cons.

Contrary to what you are saying VA definitely has better image quality. It has better contrast (black is black) and better colors.
IPS displays very often times suffer from IPS glow, ghosting, backlight bleeding and comparatively poor contrast and colors but they usually have better response times in ms (less latency).

Also, while it is true that there are a handful of 200Hz VA displays, I'd say that the difference between 144Hz/165Hz IPS and 200Hz VA is marketing gimmickry at best and the higher refresh rates do not eliminate the latency advantage of IPS, of course.

Personally, I would not touch any of the current 144Hz IPS displays with a 10 foot pole. They all come with the same super-shitty panels from AU Optronics with dead pixels, dust particle enclosures and massive backlight bleeding. The pertinent forums and Amazon reviews are full of complaints over the craptastic quality of these displays.
It's a real shame, too, because I'd really like a decent 144Hz screen but Asus and Acer can shove their overpriced garbage AU panel crap where the sun don't shine.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 19:00 Luke
 
theglaze wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 18:38:
The GTX 1080 didnt make a lot of sense to me, the price per FPS gain wasn't there. On average, it performed about 15-25% faster in real game performance than a 1070, but was +50% more expensive.

The 1080 Ti will be 50% faster than a single 1070...but still double the price! May as well get two 1070's for SLI, unless there are some non-SLI titles that are super important to one's personal taste.


But still ya got that little devil sitting behind ya ear wispering : go for 2 x 1080ti cards....people never learn there are no need at all for those cards only in peoples "show off mind " ..sad sad
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 18:55 jdreyer
 
Ozmodan wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 14:37:
Nullity wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 13:02:
CJ_Parker wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 12:25:
TV and large diagonals are a different story but as long as you are in the 27" to 32" territory then 1440p is just as fine looking and it performs leagues better, of course.

I have a 27" 4k monitor (IPS panel), and while yes, 1440p looks pretty good and certainly performs better in any game, I can still tell a large difference between it and 4k. It's like night and day... 4k is just spectacular.

Of course, my 980 (non-ti) can't handle most newer/AAA games at 4k, hopefully this 1080ti will be able to.

Sorry but I have to disagree with that comment. The difference between 2k and 4k is minor, especially so if your monitor is under 48". I bought a 4k monitor and guess what I run it at 2k all of the time on games. There are only a few games I can really tell the difference. So ask yourself do you really see that much difference between 2k and 4k or are you just being elitist?

Personally I regret wasting money on a 4k monitor and a 1080. Should have gotten a 2k monitor and a 1070.

You will see more price drops from Nvidia soon as AMD's vega sounds like a real challenger.

While I'd prefer a 1080P OLED over a 4K LCD, the sweet spot I think is a 3440x1440 ultra widescreen (21:9) OLED.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 18:38 theglaze
 
The GTX 1080 didnt make a lot of sense to me, the price per FPS gain wasn't there. On average, it performed about 15-25% faster in real game performance than a 1070, but was +50% more expensive.

The 1080 Ti will be 50% faster than a single 1070...but still double the price! May as well get two 1070's for SLI, unless there are some non-SLI titles that are super important to one's personal taste.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Morning Mobilization Mar 1, 2017, 18:31 mag
 
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 17:52:
Ozmodan wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 14:37:

Sorry but I have to disagree with that comment. The difference between 2k and 4k is minor, especially so if your monitor is under 48". I bought a 4k monitor and guess what I run it at 2k all of the time on games. There are only a few games I can really tell the difference. So ask yourself do you really see that much difference between 2k and 4k or are you just being elitist?



Don't look at games: look at text rendering.

Maybe it's just a matter of continuing Windows fucker-y when it comes to HiDPI displays, and the differences are less apparent than they otherwise would be. What I can say is that whenever I go from my Retina MacBook Pro (15" 2880x1800 native resolution scaled to look like 1440x900) to the 27" 1080p monitor attached to my gaming PC, then my eyes begin to bleed the moment I look at text. Text looks like the printed word on the MBP; on the PC, text looks like a grid of pixels (a hi-res grid, but a grid nonetheless). Doubled pixel density, at least on the MBP, makes for a gorgeous display; while I don't have a 4k display, I would have to imagine that a 4k 27", with twice the pixel density of my current 1080p 27", would look similarly amazing.

I feel the exact opposite. I have a 27" 2560x1440 monitor on my Windows machine, and I would much rather read text on it than on my retina whatever work macbook. I did spend a while fiddling with the Windows text antialiasing settings to get what I wanted, but I do not enjoy the pixel doubling on the Mac.

(That said, I have another windows laptop with a HiDPI display, and that is way worse than the Mac. Windows scaling sucks.)
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Morning Mobilization Mar 1, 2017, 17:52 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Ozmodan wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 14:37:

Sorry but I have to disagree with that comment. The difference between 2k and 4k is minor, especially so if your monitor is under 48". I bought a 4k monitor and guess what I run it at 2k all of the time on games. There are only a few games I can really tell the difference. So ask yourself do you really see that much difference between 2k and 4k or are you just being elitist?



Don't look at games: look at text rendering.

Maybe it's just a matter of continuing Windows fucker-y when it comes to HiDPI displays, and the differences are less apparent than they otherwise would be. What I can say is that whenever I go from my Retina MacBook Pro (15" 2880x1800 native resolution scaled to look like 1440x900) to the 27" 1080p monitor attached to my gaming PC, then my eyes begin to bleed the moment I look at text. Text looks like the printed word on the MBP; on the PC, text looks like a grid of pixels (a hi-res grid, but a grid nonetheless). Doubled pixel density, at least on the MBP, makes for a gorgeous display; while I don't have a 4k display, I would have to imagine that a 4k 27", with twice the pixel density of my current 1080p 27", would look similarly amazing.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 17:36 HorrorScope
 
Nullity wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 15:52:
It's an IPS panel. Acer XB271HK.

Monitors using VA panels aren't that common (especially for gaming), and IPS has significantly better image quality than TN. I was also worried about 1440p on a 4k panel, but it looks really good too. The PPI is high enough that any image degradation from the non-standard pixel ratio (1:1) is completely hidden, and looks much better than 1080p (27" is too big for 1080, imo). Whatever method this panel uses for the scaling was well done.

I want to jump in here at this spot I think, I've been a big believer in quality scalers could fix a lot of issues, esp in VR. When we think a 2k or 4k wide panels in VR, we then think, what kind of PC beast will I need to drive that, does it even exist? But if you had a good scaler in the process (99% of us don't and is why running not native rez looks like ass), you can have a 4k panel but run a much lower resolution on it and hold sharpness. What you gain is a much higher pixel density of the native panel, less black space between pixels, which creates the screen door affect. With that gone, a much lower rez still looks very good now, you notice the low rez today because of the screen door on the native low rez panel. Not saying native under a tight eye isn't better, but it is better than a lower rez panel and same resolution.

Using projectors for a long time now, pixel density is part of Image Quality since you are blowing small panels up over 100"'s, mfg's build them tighter to remove that black gap as much as possible, so when blown up it doesn't look like Lite-Brite.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti This Month Mar 1, 2017, 16:55 ForgedReality
 
VaranDragon wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 16:04:
ForgedReality wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 15:35:

A lot of this is down to the quality of the panel. Cheaper monitors will have lower picture quality. The technology used in the panel will have an impact as well. IPS is okay for speed, but image quality suffers, especially at angles, when compared to something like VA. It's not all about the resolution and PPI. You're also asking for trouble using a scaled resolution, as a lot of monitors have trouble with that. So, 2k on a 4k display might look like shit compared to even 1080p on the same display, as that translation is a little more 1:1, but still not perfect.

I think you got your terms mixed-up there. IPS has better image quality, VA has higher refresh rate.

I'm talking response time, not refresh rate. IPS tends to have worse blur than VA, true, but IPS generally has quicker response time.
 
Avatar 55267
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
63 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >




Blue's News is a participant in Amazon Associates programs
and earns advertising fees by linking to Amazon.



footer

Blue's News logo