NVIDIA Posts Full GeForce GTX 1070 Specifications: 1920 CUDA Cores Boosting to 1.68GHz
by Ryan Smith on May 18, 2016 10:15 PM EST
Back when NVIDIA first announced the GeForce GTX 1080 earlier this month, they also briefly announced that the GTX 1070 would be following it. The GTX 1070 would follow the GTX 1080 by two weeks, and presumably to keep attention focused on the GTX 1080 at first, NVIDIA did not initially reveal the full specifications for the card. Now with the GTX 1080 performance embargo behind them – though cards don’t go on sale for another week and a half – NVIDIA has posted the full GTX 1070 specifications over on GeForce.com.
| NVIDIA GPU Specification Comparison | ||||||
| GTX 1080 | GTX 1070 | GTX 970 | GTX 770 | |||
| CUDA Cores | 2560 | 1920 | 1664 | 1536 | ||
| Texture Units | 160 | 120 | 104 | 128 | ||
| ROPs | 64 | 64 | 56 | 32 | ||
| Core Clock | 1607MHz | 1506MHz | 1050MHz | 1046MHz | ||
| Boost Clock | 1733MHz | 1683MHz | 1178MHz | 1085MHz | ||
| TFLOPs (FMA) | 8.9 TFLOPs | 6.5 TFLOPs | 3.9 TFLOPs | 3.3 TFLOPs | ||
| Memory Clock | 10Gbps GDDR5X | 8Gbps GDDR5 | 7Gbps GDDR5 | 7Gbps GDDR5 | ||
| Memory Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | ||
| VRAM | 8GB | 8GB | 4GB | 2GB | ||
| FP64 | 1/32 | 1/32 | 1/32 | 1/24 | ||
| TDP | 180W | 150W | 145W | 230W | ||
| GPU | GP104 | GP104 | GM204 | GK104 | ||
| Transistor Count | 7.2B | 7.2B | 5.2B | 3.5B | ||
| Manufacturing Process | TSMC 16nm | TSMC 16nm | TSMC 28nm | TSMC 28nm | ||
| Launch Date | 05/27/2016 | 06/10/2016 | 09/18/14 | 05/30/13 | ||
| Launch Price | MSRP: $599 Founders $699 |
MSRP: $379 Founders $449 |
$329 | $399 | ||
Previously disclosed at 6.5 TFLOPs of compute performance, we now know how NVIDIA is getting there. 15 of 20 SMs will be enabled on this part, representing 1920 CUDA cores. Clockspeeds are also slightly lower than GTX 1080, coming in at 1506MHz for the base clock and 1683MHz for the boost clock. Overall this puts GTX 1070’s rated shader/texture/geometry performance at 73% that of GTX 1080’s, and is a bit wider of a gap than it was for the comparable GTX 900 series cards.
However on the memory and ROP side of matters, the two cards will be much closer. The GTX 1070 is not shipping with any ROPs or memory controller channels disabled – GTX 970 style or otherwise – and as a result it retains GP104’s full 64 ROP backend. Overall memory bandwidth is 20% lower, however, as the GDDR5X of GTX 1080 has been replaced with standard GDDR5. Interestingly though, NVIDIA is using 8Gbps GDDR5 here, a first for any video card. This does keep the gap lower than it otherwise would have been had they used more common memory speeds (e.g. 7Gbps) so it will be interesting to see how well 8Gbps GDDR5 can keep up with the cut-down GTX 1070. 64 ROPs may find it hard to be fed, but there will also be less pressure being put on the memory subsystem by the SMs.
Meanwhile as is usually the case for x70 cards, GTX 1070 will have a lower power draw than its fully enabled sibling, with a shipping TDP of 150W. Notably, the difference between the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 is larger than it was for the 900 series – where it was 20W – so we’re going to have to see if GTX 1070 ends up being TDP limited more often than GTX 1080 is. In that sense TDP is somewhat arbitrary – its purpose is to set a maximum power consumption for cooling and power delivery purposes – and I’m not surprised that NVIDIA wants to stay at 150W or less for the x70 series after the success that was the GTX 970.
Like the GTX 1080, the GTX 1070 will be launching in two configurations. The base configuration is starts at $379 and will feature (semi) custom partner designs. Meanwhile as previously disclosed, NVIDIA will be offering a Founders Edition version of this card as well. The Founders Edition card will be priced at $449 – a $70 premium – and will be available on day one, whereas this is not guaranteed to be the case for custom cards.
The GTX 1070 Founders Edition card will retain the basic stylings of the GTX 1080, including NVIDIA’s new angular shroud. However I have received confirmation that as this is a lower TDP card, it will not get the GTX 1080’s vapor chamber cooler. Instead it will use an integrated heatpipe cooler similar to what the reference GTX 980 used.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
137 Comments
View All Comments
hbsource - Thursday, May 19, 2016 - link
Reasonable or fair? Literally, what are you talking about?I'm sorry to appear slightly rude but I have no idea what you're complaining about. Am I missing something here? Are Cadbury's price gouging their Creme Eggs because I consider 60p too expensive?
I don't get it.
close - Saturday, May 28, 2016 - link
Yes, you don't get it. And this is more than obvious judging by you comparing Cadbury who has exclusivity on their product from one end to the other to Nvidia who just manufactures the GPU and has plenty of partners to manufacture the actual cards. It's the cards that matter because you DON'T BUY A GPU, smart guy. And the proof that Nvidia was price gouging? Other manufacturers buy the GPU from Nvidia, put it in a better, faster, cooler, more silent design and it's still cheaper. When I manage to buy Cadbury Creme Eggs, put them in a guilded box and still sell it to you cheaper than Cadbury does you can bet that every minute Cadbury insists on exclusivity is a minute of price gouging.http://www.anandtech.com/show/10360/zotac-and-evga...
So, $50 less, 100MHz more than the "Founders" edition, my how technology advances in... 2 weeks?
"I don't get it" incoming ;).
Yojimbo - Thursday, May 19, 2016 - link
"NVIDIA is enjoying temporary exclusivity"...on a product they researched and developed? What are you smoking?
Price gouging is when there is a hurricane and bottled water prices go up 1000%. It's not charging 17% more for a special-edition graphics card. There's no such thing as price gouging on luxury items. The odd entitlement it takes to think there is. Additionally, ignoring the fact that it's a luxury item for a moment, it's not even possible for them to be "gouging" when competitive alternatives exist. Hell, even 3rd party cards based on their own GPUs are competitive alternatives to the card. You sound like some crying baby whose mommy won't give him a lolipop. Get a grip.
close - Saturday, May 28, 2016 - link
So if Nvidia developed the product and it's normal for them to have exclusivity on it how come most GPU sales actually come from partners? The product is the GPU. Every second Nvidia had exclusivity on products with their GPUs was a second where they got more money out of the product then would have been possible otherwise. And the proof is that 2 weeks later you have better and cheaper products.I don't care about your "personal" definition of price gouging or luxury. By your definition if I live in a landlocked country I cannot suffer from price gouging. Billions of people consider your "basic needs" as luxury. But you look like a guy who thinks he's some sort of reference point. You are, just not how you'd like it.
Meteor2 - Thursday, May 19, 2016 - link
'Price gouging' can only be applied to necessities, not luxuries.Murloc - Thursday, May 19, 2016 - link
it would be if they had a monopoly, but they don't, and the price is only for the founder's edition.Book publishers selling hardcover version at high price first, and then the pocket edition, are applying the same strategy, and nobody ever accused them of price gouging.
just4U - Thursday, May 19, 2016 - link
Not quite true.. (on the founders edition etc.) Nvidia has been pushing up their pricing for two release cycles now.Sushisamurai - Friday, May 20, 2016 - link
Well, there is also inflation. Prices can't stay the same forever...crimson117 - Thursday, May 19, 2016 - link
Price Gouging cannot by definition apply to optional, luxury goods like high end graphics cards. There's nothing unethical about releasing a hot new graphics card and charging top dollar for anyone who wants one. If you don't think it's worth it, don't buy one, and your GAMES - not your lung machine, or your pre-mature infant incubator, or your Flint Michigan water purifiers - your VIDEO GAMES will run slightly slower than they would have otherwise.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging
"Price gouging is a pejorative term referring to when a seller spikes the prices of goods, services or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair, and is considered exploitative, potentially to an unethical extent. Usually this event occurs after a demand or supply shock: common examples include price increases of basic necessities after hurricanes or other natural disasters. In precise, legal usage, it is the name of a crime that applies in some jurisdictions of the United States during civil emergencies. In less precise usage, it can refer either to prices obtained by practices inconsistent with a competitive free market, or to windfall profits."
78stonewobble - Thursday, May 19, 2016 - link
"Price Gouging cannot by definition apply to optional, luxury goods like high end graphics cards."According to the wiki you linked it can tho.
The definition is:
"Price gouging is a pejorative term referring to when a seller spikes the prices of goods, services or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair, and is considered exploitative, potentially to an unethical extent."
The rest about necessities... are examples of price gouging, not the definition of it.
So yes I'd say you could call graphics card pricing, at times, for "price gouging"...
But I don't see why anyone would expect them to do anything less in periods in which demand rises, supply is low and competition is lacking. It's their jobs to make money after all.
As consumers it's our jobs to figure out whether we wanna pay extra when demand is high, supply is low and competition is lacking... or wait til the prices normalize and the companies cannot "price gouge".
PS: Your definition would be correct if going by the legal usage, but... it's a silly distinction since it's still the same free market effects and principles and the only real difference being a subjetive moral judgement... as to when it's ok and when it's not.