The EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti FTW2 Review: iCX Brings the Lights and Sensors
by Nate Oh on January 31, 2018 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
- EVGA
- GeForce
- NVIDIA
- GTX 1070 Ti
Compute & Synthetics
As always, we will take a look at compute and synthetic benchmarks. Like the gaming benchmarks, this overview is more of a formality as the standardized GTX 1070 Ti reference clocks render the results very similar or within margin of error to those documented in the GTX 1070 Ti Founders Edition review.
Starting us off for our look at compute is Blender, the popular open source 3D modeling and rendering package. To examine Blender performance, we're running BlenchMark, a script and workload set that measures how long it takes to render a scene. BlechMark uses Blender's internal Cycles render engine, which is GPU accelerated on both NVIDIA (CUDA) and AMD (OpenCL) GPUs.
For our second set of compute benchmarks we have CompuBench 2.0, the latest iteration of Kishonti's GPU compute benchmark suite. CompuBench offers a wide array of different practical compute workloads, and we’ve decided to focus on level set segmentation, optical flow modeling, and N-Body physics simulations.
Moving on, our 3rd compute benchmark is the next generation release of FAHBench, the official Folding @ Home benchmark. Folding @ Home is the popular Stanford-backed research and distributed computing initiative that has work distributed to millions of volunteer computers over the internet, each of which is responsible for a tiny slice of a protein folding simulation. FAHBench can test both single precision and double precision floating point performance, with single precision being the most useful metric for most consumer cards due to their low double precision performance.
Our final compute benchmark is Geekbench 4's GPU compute suite. A multi-faceted test suite, Geekbench 4 runs seven different GPU sub-tests, ranging from face detection to FFTs, and then averages out their scores via their geometric mean. As a result Geekbench 4 isn't testing any one workload, but rather is an average of many different basic workloads.
Switching gears, we have Futuremark's VRMark Orange benchmark. Essentially a synthetic gaming-type rendering workload with a focus on VR, this test pushes every part of a video card.
Finally, for looking at texel and pixel fillrate, we have the Beyond3D Test Suite. This test offers a slew of additional tests – many of which use behind the scenes or in our earlier architectural analysis – but for now we’ll stick to simple pixel and texel fillrates.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
View All Comments
Dr. Swag - Wednesday, January 31, 2018 - link
Fury x always was faster than a 980DnaAngel - Tuesday, May 22, 2018 - link
Heck my old R9 390 would match or outperform the 980 in a good amount of titles. Which was always comical, as the 390 was supposed to compete with the 970, which it did at launch with launch drivers, but after a few months of driver improvements, it was going toe to toe with not the 970, but the 980 lol.masouth - Wednesday, January 31, 2018 - link
Either I'm just missing your sarcasm or you are dredging up 2.5 year old GPU news regarding the Fury X being faster than a GPU released 9 months before it while simultaneously ignoring that the GTX 980ti which was released 2 weeks before the Fury X was faster than the Fury X?Sounds like another day in the world of GPUs. Anybody that thinks buying the top tier is going to stay there for much more than 6-12 months either caught the market at the absolute perfect time or is basically delusional.
masouth - Wednesday, January 31, 2018 - link
and yes I realize you are commenting on the charts but how data ends up on charts seems like old news as well.Makaveli - Wednesday, January 31, 2018 - link
So winning by 3-5 fps in a game is destroying now??nice troll bait.
CiccioB - Thursday, February 1, 2018 - link
You made my day... comparing the Fury X with the 980 to signa point... wait.. the new flagship Vega64 is faster than the 1050Ti!!!!!!!!!Yes, all 1050Ti owners are crying out for that result!
AMD fanboys can really become ridiculous
BurntMyBacon - Thursday, February 1, 2018 - link
I completely agree that the Fury X vs 980 is a bad comparison and I have no intention of defending what should not be defended.Regarding ridiculousness however, the 980 is a single SKU below the proper competition (980Ti) and still in the same high end classification. While not the case here, there have often in the past been price disparities between the top end SKUs from ATi and nVidia that warrant such a comparison.
1080Ti > 1080 > 1070Ti > 1070 > 1060 > 1050Ti
N/A > Vega64 > Vega56 > N/A > 580 > 570
On the other hand, your Vega64 vs 1050Ti comparison is pitting AMDs top GPU against a card 5 SKUs below nVidia's top GPU (4 SKUs below the proper competition) and classified lower mid range at best. Then you proceed to suggest these comparisons are somehow similar and label IGTrading as a "ridiculous" AMD fanboy. IGTrading's comparison was certainly the wrong comparison, but who's more deserving of the "ridiculous fanboy" label?
DnaAngel - Tuesday, May 22, 2018 - link
That analogy doesn't really work. Maybe in 4K, but only a small fraction of users are at 4K right now. The majority are in 1080/1440p and at those resolutions, the 1070Ti is not only trading blows, but sometimes outperforming not the Vega 56 it was meant to compete against, but the 800 dollar Vega 64.Jad77 - Wednesday, January 31, 2018 - link
...the Lights and Sensors and the weirdest graphics card cosmetics I've ever seen. Why didn't EVGA use the new 1080 ti shrouds? Whatever, I've gone without Pascal this long I'm waiting for Volta.Gunbuster - Wednesday, January 31, 2018 - link
I'm confused on that as well. It's got a half-hearted Tron sorta thing going on with the light diffusers, but then has the steampunk rivet looking screw things, then the dollar store electronics looking badges laid over and blocking two of the lights...