Continuing onto our synthetic benchmarks, we should be able to see how the GTX 1070 Ti sits in between the GTX 1080 and 1070. These tests are more graphics focused than compute focused – especially the low-level tests – so it will be interesting to see how the GTX 1070 Ti compares to its fully-featured GP104 sibling, the GTX 1080, given how close they are so often in compute tests.

Synthetic: TessMark, Image Set 4, 64x Tessellation

Starting off with tessellation performance, as NVIDIA's geometry performance is tied to the SMs, the GTX 1070 Ti benefits from having 3 more SMs enabled than the vanilla GTX 1070. This allows the new card to leapfrog both AMD Vega cards, coming in right behind the GTX 1080.

Synthetic: VRMark Orange

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. Consequently, it also hits the weaker parts of the GTX 1070 Ti's configuration, particularly the lack of increased ROP throughput and memory bandwidth. As a result the GTX 1070 Ti still gains quite a bit over the GTX 1070, but it also trails the GTX 1080 by about 5%. Which, as it turns out, isn't too far removed from our general gaming benchmarks.

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: Beyond3D Suite - Pixel Fillrate

The pixel fillrate test is actually one of the more interesting results we have in today's review. While the GTX 1070 Ti doesn't get any more ROP resources on paper, pixel fillrates are a combination of both ROP (backend) and rasterizer (frontend) output. And in the case of NVIDIA's architecture, rasterization is not fully decoupled from the SMs; which is to say there's some scaling going on. And actually, this was more than I was expecting, with the GTX 1070 Ti coming very close to the GTX 1080 despite the memory bandwidth disadvantage. Not unlike tessellation performance, we see the new card leapfrog both AMD Vega cards here, pushing over 100 Gigapixels per second. In general pixel throughput is still going to be what best differentiates the GTX 1080 from the GTX 1070 Ti, but in this low-level test the two are closer than I would have expected.

Synthetic: Beyond3D Suite - Integer Texture Fillrate (INT8)

Synthetic: Beyond3D Suite - Floating Point Texture Fillrate (FP32)

Finally, for texture throughput, we're once again looking at a scenario tightly-coupled with the SM count. As a result the GTX 1070 Ti can deliver texture throughput rates very close to the GTX 1080.

Compute Power, Temperature, & Noise


View All Comments

  • moxin - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    Still think it's a bit expensive Reply
  • Spunjji - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    Agreed. This should be 1070 price, 1070 down to the 970's original MSRP... Anything less is gouging. Reply
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    I think it should cost $20. Reply
  • edlee - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link

    This mining rush might kill the pc gaming industry, when a gamer cannot find a single high performance card at msrp prices, they will just flock to the xbox one x or ps4 pro, this is outrageous. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    Hey everyone, please watch your language. (not you specifically, Spunjji, I removed a comment below you) Reply
  • CiccioB - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    I think that any comment whining about prices should be removed ASAP. Reply
  • Ratman6161 - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    I'm not a gamer so I'm more wide eyed at a the idea of a video card that draws 80 watts at idle and over 300 under load...more than my whole system under load. And upwards of $500? Wow. I guess I'm sort of glad I'm not a gamer. :) Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    Those are total system numbers, not the card itself. Reply
  • CaedenV - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    The card by itself idles at ~20W and load at ~250W

    Still quite a bit compared to a small desktop or a laptop though lol
  • BrokenCrayons - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link

    Yup, those power numbers are terrible. The desire for improvement in visual quality and competition between the two remaining dGPU manufactures has certainly done us no favors when it comes to electrical consumption and waste heat generation in modern PCs. Sadly, people often forget that good graphics don't automatically imply tons of fun will be had at the keyboard and they consequently create demand that causes a positive feedback loop that make 200+ watt TDP GPUs viable products. I remember the many hours I killed playing games on my Palm IIIxe and it needed a new pair of AAA batteries once every 3 or so weeks. Not everyone feels that way though and for an obviously large number of consumer buyers, graphics and resolution mean the world to them no matter the price of entry or the power consumption. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now