Final Words

Bringing this review to a close, for better or worse, I think this is a launch that pulls no punches and offers no surprises. While AMD's Radeon RX Vega launch was not as impactful as many of us were hoping, it nonetheless had an impact. And that impact was against the GeForce GTX 1070, where the RX Vega 56 was fast enough to give AMD an edge on price/performance; at least when the card could be found in stock for near-MSRP prices.

Given that the RX Vega 56 placed between the GeForce GTX 1080 and GTX 1070, it was really up to NVIDIA as to if they wanted to respond, and to how. A third card in the enthusiast product stack is the straightforward solution to that problem, as it allows NVIDIA to reinforce their video card lineup against whatever foothold AMD can take. NVIDIA is playing a numbers game here – one that puts their new card just $50 below the GTX 1080 – but it's a careful calculus all the same. This is what a competitive market looks like: a little messier for sure, but also one where there are actions and reactions that give consumers more and better options.

Looking back at NVIDIA’s numbers, they seem more-or-less accurate. Based on the testing done for this review, our numbers have the GTX 1070 Ti around 13% faster than the GTX 1070, and about 8% slower than the GTX 1080. But this doesn’t support or reject the idea that the GTX 1080-1070 performance gap is capable of sustaining a new model there.

Comparing the GTX 1070 Ti head-to-head with AMD's Radeon RX Vega 56 is a little trickier, depending on the games. Generally speaking, the GTX 1070 Ti Founders Edition looks to be on the order of 5% faster than the reference RX Vega 56. The main question then returns to a matter of pricing. Just last week ahead of the GTX 1070 Ti announcement, the RX Vega 64 and RX Vega 56 were selling for $569 and $469 respectively. Since then, they've dropped by $50-$70, with retail prices running around $509 and $399 respectively, almost spot-on MSRP (if at last). Meanwhile as AMD's card prices continue to fluctuate, the new GTX 1070 Ti cards will have to remain within their $449 to $500 range, bounded by the $509 GTX 1080 and the $409 1070.

When graphics card prices change frequently, as they are now, numerous cards will drop in and out of the $250 - $550 area. Recommending the GTX 1070 Ti necessarily pigeonholes consumers to the $449 - $500 price bracket, which seems unwise when they still have the options of looking at cheaper GTX 1080 models, heavily overbuilt GTX 1070s, or even reference RX Vega 56s, all of which have been oscillating in price freely over the past couple of months. In real-world terms, as discussed earlier, today that might be the MSI GTX 1080 Armor 8G and EVGA GTX 1070 FTW Hybrid, both at the same price as a $499 GTX 1070 Ti. Or to put things another way, just last week the GeForce GTX 1070 Ti was poised to be RX Vega 56's direct competitor; this week its more of of a tantalizing spoiler for those who can reach a bit deeper into their wallets.

When it comes to comparing the GTX 1070 Ti to the RX Vega 56, it's ultimately a question of how competitive NVIDIA wishes to be and how quickly they want to react. If NVIDIA needs to completely cut-off the RX Vega 56, they can lower prices, otherwise if they just want to force AMD & vendors to bring their own prices back down to MSRP, then that job has just been done. Otherwise, looking briefly at the RX Vega 64 comparison, as you might expect from how it compares to the GTX 1080, the GTX 1070 Ti doesn't quite have the performance to outdo AMD's flagship air cooled card, leaving AMD in the lead by 5%. This means that the GTX 1070 Ti isn't the RX Vega 64's direct competitor either, however it's a potential spoiler by offering 90-95% of the gaming performance for 88% of the cost (not to mention the superior power efficiency).

Meanwhile, speaking very strictly here just within NVIDA's product stack, at today's $409/$449/$509 prices, the GTX 1070 Ti is, if only slightly, the best bargain of the three cards: it's 13% faster than the GTX 1070 for an 10% price increase, and similarly, the last 8% of the performance of the GTX 1080 comes with a 13% price premium. Otherwise all three cards are very similar, scaling in performance, price, and power consumption as you traverse the narrow $100 range. NVIDIA is pitching the GeForce GTX 1070 Ti as an upgrade for the practically legendary GTX 970, however since it launched at only $329, the GTX 970 was never this expensive. Arguably this is more of a late upgrade option for the GTX 980, but at this point I'm splitting hairs. If you are upgrading from an older NVIDIA card, you have a clear price/performance spectrum to pick from.

Otherwise, as custom GTX 1070 Ti cards hit the market over the next few weeks and settle down, it will become clearer what options they bring and how they fit into the market. Looking at our results, a factory-overclocked custom GTX 1070 Ti could easily hit GTX 1080 levels, but is not likely to be an option for precisely that reason.

Returning to the GTX 1070 Ti Founders Edition, it is a solid card with the GTX 1080 Founders Edition's vapor chamber cooler and reference 5+1 power phase PCB, all at a static $449 and reasonable power consumption. But ultimately it is a reference card with performance in between the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080, with a price to match. Given that GTX 1080 and 1070 models have been in that space for some time, that price point may be better some days and not on others for what you need. This isn't a card that is meant to drastically alter the enthusiast video card market in the last months of the year – which is to say that it doesn't do much to alter the balance between NVIDIA and AMD – but rather it's a card that is designed to offer a proportional option between the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070.

Overclocking
Comments Locked

78 Comments

View All Comments

  • CiccioB - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    Price is dictated by the basic market supply/demand rule.
    Being a so basic rule, I can't understand why people continuously whine about too high prices.
    Do you think you are better than the entire nvidia marketing team?
    Do you think that lowering the prive as you suggest is going to make nvidia gain more money?
  • kmmatney - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    Why should our goal be to make NVidia more money?
  • nyquaxyla - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    Why should Nvidia's goal be to make any less money than the most that they can make?
    I'm not saying that I like this system.. I too wish there was more competition from AMD, and GPU prices were lower.. but the harsh reality is that profits are the ultimate decider, and every business will try to maximize the same.. it doesn't make them bad or evil people.
  • darckhart - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    Come on, this card shouldn't even exist. Only because miners have created supply shortages has NV decided to put another something out there. It's purely a cash grab. 1 less SM than a 1080? No factory overclocks because it could cannibalize 1080 sales? The only people looking for new 1080s are probably miners once again. And compete against Vega56? Come on. No one can GET a Vega56 at MSRP.
  • CiccioB - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link

    You are getting it wrong.
    People here whine about how the things should work and indeed they work that way.
    Companies exists to make money (rule number one companies based on capitals) and whining because they try to make more of them is quite useless like whining about the fact that if you leave your smartphone it will fall down.

    So constantly speaking about wrong or right prices from OUR point of view is useless and quite stupid. I can't see people whining about the fact that the gravity is too high and that falling smartphones can't be grabbed before they touch the ground.
    They are basic rules that makes things work (one the economics, the other one the universe) so it is really useless to point about wrong prices. People have learnt that whining about gravity won't change the effects, but it appears that they have still not understood that good prices is a simple supply/demand affair.
    We all would like a GTX1080/Vega to cost $50 and that smartphones would not fall so fast, but that is our vain wish, not what can be either possible or even clever to discuss on a technical forum like this one. More if you do not understand economics.
  • kmmatney - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link

    These cards are marketed to gamers. However the "demand" (what is driving up the price) is not from gamers, it's from miners. So the high prices are artificial - if miners weren't snapping up all the cards, they would be lower. Heck, the cards can't even get down to MSRP - we can at least complain about that. At least I bought my 1060 at MSRP, and it is still good enough for now.
  • babadivad - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    I still think the Vega 56 is the best value card out there. Granted you can find one.
  • Samus - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    I was at Microcenter a month ago when the Vega56 was just becoming available at retail, and this guy was talking to the sales clerk about how it's his fifth one for mining and I just wanted to punch him. He'd apparently been coming back to the store repeatedly to buy them all.

    That's why I can't find any fucking video cards to upgrade my GTX970/980. And considering it still plays everything (albeit at medium detail in some stuff) I'm just going to ride this GPU gravy train out.
  • tipoo - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link


    Just when they reach a point of convergent evolution with Intel designs, they seem to slip away on GPUs. Maybe AMD just can't sustain three tentpolls (counting APUs) at once? Spin-out?

    Nvidia is spending 3 billion on each new architecture (and in that cost, spliting compute architectures from gaming architectures), while AMD I don't think is even hitting the big B on new architectures, and keeping one for both sides. Too bad, but no wonder results are like this.

    Anyways, per the 1070TI, I don't suppose the MRSP will be anywhere near realistic for a while as eth miners are still snapping up any good cards.
  • Manch - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    AMD doesn't have a 1080TI fighter, cant compete on efficiency, and the cards came too little too late. It wasn't enough to match year old cards, they needed to beat them. Miners are their only saving grace right now.

    That being said, there were some design choices made with integration in mind ala RR, and I think it will pay off in the long run but it wont move cards into gamers hands right now.

    Asf or the 1070TI, I don't see the point but I get why NVidia is doing it. Adds an option, crowds out the 56, gives them something to do with those other chips.

    IF they actually sell at what they're supposed to sell at, I don't see why you wouldn't spring for the 1080. Price/Perf diff isn't worth the savings when spending that much.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now