Synthetics

As always we’ll also take a quick look at synthetic performance. As a pretty straightforward and wider implementation of Pascal, GTX 1080 Ti shouldn't offer too many surprises here.

Synthetic: TessMark, Image Set 4, 64x Tessellation

With TessMark, we find that the that the GTX 1080 Ti offers 26% better tessellation performance than the GTX 1080, and 63% better performance than the GTX 980 Ti. NVIDIA has always built their architectures geometry-heavy, and GTX 1080 Ti further adds to that lead.

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.

Synthetic: Beyond 3D Suite - Pixel Fillrate

Synthetic: Beyond 3D Suite - Texel Fillrate

As it turns out, the pixel fillrate results for the GTX 1080 Ti are a bit surprising. The GTX 1080 Ti doesn’t dominate by as much as I would have expected given the massive memory bandwidth advantage and additional ROP throughput. Not that a 25% increase over the GTX 1080 is anything to sneeze at, but I wonder if we’re looking at one of the consequences of the unusual way NVIDIA has cut-down GP102 for GTX 1080 Ti. We haven’t seen NVIDIA disable a single ROP/memory channel at the high-end before in this manner.

As for texel fillrate, the GTX 1080 Ti excels. In fact it does a bit better than I’d otherwise expect based on the specifications. This could be a sign that GTX 1080 is a bit bandwidth limited at times when it comes to texel throughput, as that’s the facet of performance the GTX 1080 Ti has improved upon the most.

Compute Power, Temperature, & Noise
Comments Locked

161 Comments

View All Comments

  • Jon Tseng - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link

    Launch day Anandtech review?

    My my wonders never cease! :-)
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link

    For my next trick, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
  • blanarahul - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link

    Ooh.
  • YukaKun - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link

    /claps

    Good article as usual.

    Cheers!
  • Yaldabaoth - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link

    Rocky: "Again?"
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link

    No doubt about it. I gotta get another hat.
  • Anonymous Blowhard - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link

    And now here's something we hope you'll really like.
  • close - Friday, March 10, 2017 - link

    Quick question: shouldn't the memory clock in the table on the fist page be expressed in Hz instead of bps being a clock and all? Or you could go with throughput but that would be just shy of 500GBps I think...
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, March 10, 2017 - link

    Good question. Because of the various clocks within GDDR5(X)*, memory manufacturers prefer that we list the speed as bandwidth per pin instead of frequency. The end result is that the unit is in bps rather than Hz.

    * http://images.anandtech.com/doci/10325/GDDR5X_Cloc...
  • close - Friday, March 10, 2017 - link

    Probably due to the QDR part that's not obvious from reading a just the frequency. Thanks.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now