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.
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).
{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.
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.
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?
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.
FloorPie wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 13:00:RedEye9 wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 10:22:Creston wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 10:06:Not yet, The GTX 1070 is unflinched for now, from its $349 baseline pricing.
Price drop on the 1070 please.
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.
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.
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?
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Mar 1, 2017, 17:52:No matter what the screen size is, you can never go wrong with more pixels.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.