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 ESTOverclocking
For our final evaluation of the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 Founders Edition cards, let’s take a look a overclocking.
Whenever I review an NVIDIA reference card, I feel it’s important to point out that while NVIDIA supports overclocking – why else would they include fine-grained controls like GPU Boost 3.0 – they have taken a hard stance against true overvolting. Overvolting is limited to NVIDIA’s built in overvoltage function, which isn’t so much a voltage control as it is the ability to unlock 1-2 more boost bins and their associated voltages. Meanwhile TDP controls are limited to whatever value NVIDIA believes is safe for that model card, which can vary depending on its GPU and its power delivery design.
For GTX 1080FE and its 5+1 power design, we have a 120% TDP limit, which translates to an absolute maximum TDP of 216W. As for GTX 1070FE and its 4+1 design, this is reduced to a 112% TDP limit, or 168W. Both cards can be “overvolted” to 1.093v, which represents 1 boost bin. As such the maximum clockspeed with NVIDIA’s stock programming is 1911MHz.
GeForce GTX 1080FE Overclocking | ||||
Stock | Overclocked | |||
Core Clock | 1607MHz | 1807MHz | ||
Boost Clock | 1734MHz | 1934MHz | ||
Max Boost Clock | 1898MHz | 2088MHz | ||
Memory Clock | 10Gbps | 11Gbps | ||
Max Voltage | 1.062v | 1.093v |
GeForce GTX 1070FE Overclocking | ||||
Stock | Overclocked | |||
Core Clock | 1506MHz | 1681MHz | ||
Boost Clock | 1683MHz | 1858MHz | ||
Max Boost Clock | 1898MHz | 2062MHz | ||
Memory Clock | 8Gbps | 8.8Gbps | ||
Max Voltage | 1.062v | 1.093v |
Both cards ended up overclocking by similar amounts. We were able to take the GTX 1080FE another 200MHz (+12% boost) on the GPU, and another 1Gbps (+10%) on the memory clock. The GTX 1070 could be pushed another 175MHz (+10% boost) on the GPU, while memory could go another 800Mbps (+10%) to 8.8Gbps.
Both of these are respectable overclocks, but compared to Maxwell 2 where our reference cards could do 20-25%, these aren’t nearly as extreme. Given NVIDIA’s comments on the 16nm FinFET voltage/frequency curve being steeper than 28nm, this could be first-hand evidence of that. It also indicates that NVIDIA has pushed GP104 closer to its limit, though that could easily be a consequence of the curve.
Given that this is our first look at Pascal, before diving into overall performance, let’s first take a look at an overclocking breakdown. NVIDIA offers 4 knobs to adjust when overclocking: overvolting (unlocking additional boost bins), increasing the power/temperature limits, the memory clock, and the GPU clock. Though all 4 will be adjusted for a final overclock, it’s often helpful to see whether it’s GPU overclocking or memory overclocking that delivers the greater impact, especially as it can highlight where the performance bottlenecks are on a card.
To examine this, we’ve gone ahead and benchmarked the GTX 1080 4 times: once with overvolting and increased power/temp limits (to serve as a baseline), once with the memory overclocked added, once with GPU overclock added, and finally with both the GPU and memory overclocks added.
GeForce GTX 1080 Overclocking Performance | ||||||
Power/Temp Limit (+20%) | Core (+12%) | Memory (+10%) | Cumulative | |||
Tomb Raider |
+3%
|
+4%
|
+1%
|
+10%
|
||
Ashes |
+1%
|
+9%
|
+1%
|
+10%
|
||
Crysis 3 |
+4%
|
+4%
|
+2%
|
+11%
|
||
The Witcher 3 |
+2%
|
+6%
|
+3%
|
+10%
|
||
Grand Theft Auto V |
+1%
|
+4%
|
+2%
|
+8%
|
Across all 5 games, the results are clear and consistent: GPU overclocking contributes more to performance than memory overclocking. To be sure, both contribute, but even after compensating for the fact that the GPU overclock was a bit greater than the memory overclock (12% vs 10%), we still end up with the GPU more clearly contributing. Though I am a bit surprised that increasing the power/temperature limit didn't have more of an effect.
Overall we’re looking at an 8%-10% increase in performance from overclocking. It’s enough to further stretch the GTX 1080FE and GTX 1070FE’s leads, but it won’t radically alter performance.
Finally, let’s see the cost of overclocking in terms of power, temperature, and noise. For the GTX 1080FE, the power cost at the wall proves to be rather significant. An 11% Crysis 3 performance increase translates into a 60W increase in power consumption at the wall, essentially moving GTX 1080FE into the neighborhood of NVIDIA’s 250W cards like the GTX 980 Ti. The noise cost is also not insignificant, as GTX 1080FE has to ramp up to 52.2dB(A), a 4.6dB(A) increase in noise. Meanwhile FurMark essentially confirms these findings, with a smaller power increase but a similar increase in noise.
As for the GTX 1070FE, neither the increase in power consumption nor noise is quite as high as GTX 1080FE, though the performance uplift is also a bit smaller. The power penalty is just 21W at the wall for Crysis 3 and 38W for FurMark. This translates to a 2-3dB(A) increase in noise, topping out at 50.0dB for FurMark.
200 Comments
View All Comments
Matt Doyle - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Same page, "The latter is also a change from GTX 980, as NVIDIA has done from a digital + analog DVI port to a pure digital DVI port.""NVIDIA has gone"?
Matt Doyle - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Rather, "Meet the GTX 1080" page, second to last paragraph.Matt Doyle - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
"Meet the GTX 1080..." page, "...demand first slow down to a point where board partners can make some informed decisions about what cards to produce."I believe you're missing the word "must" (or alternatively, "needs to") between "demand" and "first" in this sentence.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Thanks!supdawgwtfd - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Didn't even finish reading the first page. The bias is overwhelming... So much emotional language...Good bye Anandtech. Had been a nice 14 years of reading but it's obvious now you have moved to so many other sites.
Shills who can't restrain their bias and review something without the love of a brand springing forth like a fountain.
Yes i created an account just for this soul reason...
The fucking 2 month wait is also not on.
But what to expect form children,
BMNify - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Then just GTFO you idiot, on second thoughts crying your heart out may also help in this fanboy mental break down situation of yours.catavalon21 - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
You're joking, or a troll, or a clown. I complained about the time it took to get the full article, (to Ryan's credit, for the impatient ones of us just looking for numbers, he noted a while back that GPU bench was updated to include benchmarks for these cards), but this is exactly the kind of review that often has separated AT from numerous other sites. The description of the relatively crummy FP16 performance was solid and on point. From NV themselves teasing us with ads that half precision would rock our world, well, this review covers in great detail the reset of the story.Yeah, I know guys, I shouldn't dignify it with a response.
atlantico - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Anandtech have always been nvidia shills. Sad they can't make a living without getting paid by nvidia, but they're not alone. Arstechnica is even worse and Tomshardware is way worse.brookheather - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
Typo page 12 - "not unlike AMD’s Pascal architecture" - think you mean Polaris?brookheather - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
And another one on the last page: it keep the GPU industry - should be kept.