The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 & GTX 1070 Founders Editions Review: Kicking Off the FinFET Generation
by Ryan Smith on July 20, 2016 8:45 AM ESTBattlefield 4
One of the older games in our benchmark suite, DICE’s Battlefield 4 remains a staple of MP gaming. Even at its age, Battlefield 4 remained a challenging game in its own right, as very few mass market MP shooters push the envelope on graphics quality right now. As these benchmarks are from single player mode, based on our experiences our rule of thumb here is that multiplayer framerates will dip to half our single player framerates, which means a card needs to be able to average at least 60fps if it’s to be able to hold up in multiplayer.
As a game that has traditionally favored NVIDIA, Battlefield 4 makes for a very clean sweep of the field. The GTX 1080 takes top honors with the GTX 1070 some distance behind it. Notably, the two Pascal cards become the first cards to cross 60fps at 4K, which means that they’re the first cards we can be reasonably sure won’t have framerate dips below 30fps in multiplayer.
Looking at our standard generational comparisons, both GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 improve upon their predecessors by about what we’d expect; 67% and 58% respectively. Or to see how GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 compare, we find that the GTX 1080 leads its cut-down sibling by between 20% and 25%, with the gap increasing with the resolution. This is consistent with what we know about GTX 1080, as its bandwidth advantage means that it’s going to have an easier time pushing pixels at 4K, as the case is here.
Finally, to check in on the GTX 680, we find the GTX 1080 has only improved in performance by 2.8x, which is actually a bit less of a gain than the average. None the less we’ve gone from a card that can’t quite muster 1080p with 4xMSAA to a card that can easily handle 4K without any MSAA.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
200 Comments
View All Comments
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Thanks.Eden-K121D - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Finally the GTX 1080 reviewguidryp - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
This echoes what I have been saying about this generation. It is really all about clock speed increases. IPC is essentially the same.This is where AMD lost out. Possibly in part the issue was going with GloFo instead of TSMC like NVidia.
Maybe AMD will move Vega to TSMC...
nathanddrews - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Curious... how did AMD lose out? Have you seen Vega benchmarks?TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
its all about clock speed for Nvidia, but not for AMD. AMD focused more on ICP, according to them.tarqsharq - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
It feels a lot like the P4 vs Athlon XP days almost.stereopticon - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
My favorite era of being a nerd!!! Poppin' opterons into s939 and pumpin the OC the athlon FX levels for a fraction of the price all while stompin' on pentium. It was a good (although expensive) time to a be a nerd... Besides paying 100 dollars for 1gb of DDR500. 6800gs budget friendly cards, and ATi x1800/1900 super beasts.. how i miss the dayseddman - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Not really. Pascal has pretty much the same IPC as Maxwell and its performance increases accordingly with the clockspeed.Pentium 4, on the other hand, had a terrible IPC compared to Athlon and even Pentium 3 and even jacking its clockspeed to the sky didn't help it.
guidryp - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
No one really improved IPC of their units.AMD was instead forced increase the unit count and chip size for 480 is bigger than the 1060 chip, and is using a larger bus. Both increase the chip cost.
AMD loses because they are selling a more expensive chip for less money. That squeezes their unit profit on both ends.
retrospooty - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
"This echoes what I have been saying about this generation. It is really all about clock speed increases. IPC is essentially the same."- This is a good thing. Stuck on 28nm for 4 years, moving to 16nm is exactly what Nvidias architecture needed.