Updated: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Pascal Review
-
Page 1:Meet The GeForce GTX 1070
-
Page 2:How We Tested GeForce GTX 1070
-
Page 3:Ashes of the Singularity, Battlefield 4 And GTA V Results
-
Page 4:Hitman, CARS And Rise of the Tomb Raider Results
-
Page 5:The Division And The Witcher 3 Results
-
Page 6:Partner Cards And Efficiency Testing
-
Page 7:Power Consumption Results
-
Page 8:Efficiency Results
-
Page 9:Temperature And Noise Results
-
Page 10:Conclusion
Ashes of the Singularity, Battlefield 4 And GTA V Results
Ashes of the Singularity
-
ashes 25x14 fps
-
ashes 25x14 frot
-
ashes 25x14 ftoa
-
ashes 25x14 ftor
-
ashes 25x14 smoothness
In our analysis of the GeForce GTX 1080, we commented on the flagship’s ability to overtake AMD’s Fiji-based boards, both of which excel in Ashes. The GeForce GTX 1070 does not enjoy the same distinction. Although it’s faster than the $1000+ GeForce GTX Titan X, it slides in just behind the Radeon R9 Fury at 2560x1440.
Before we all start ripping on the GP104-based board, though, remember that the Founders Edition card is expected to sell for $449, while the Radeon that nudges past it goes for $520 on Newegg (on 5/24/16). And Ashes is perhaps a best-case for AMD. Almost certainly we’ll be seeing price drops on Fiji-based hardware to correspond.
-
ashes 38x21 fps
-
ashes 38x21 frot
-
ashes 38x21 ftoa
-
ashes 38x21 ftor
-
ashes 38x21 smoothness
Stepping up to 4K doesn’t change the finishing order; it simply shifts all of the benchmark results down significantly. The GeForce GTX 1070 still trails both Fiji-based boards, but it’s only just behind the vanilla Fury that sells for $70 more at the time of writing.
We can’t help but be impressed by how the Fury X holds up to the GeForce GTX 1080 at a price point almost $100 below Nvidia’s new flagship. Then again, we saw the rest of the story play out earlier in the month, and we know most games don’t acquiesce to GCN quite like this one.
Battlefield 4
-
bf4 25x14 fps
-
bf4 25x14 frot
-
bf4 25x14 ftoa
-
bf4 25x14 ftor
-
bf4 25x14 smoothness
Case in point, the GeForce GTX 1070 follows the 1080 in Battlefield 4 at 2560x1440 for a second-place finish. The GeForce GTX Titan X takes third and the 980 Ti lands in fourth. AMD’s hardware doesn’t show up until we get to fifth place. Despite tight frame time groupings delivered by all of these cards, perhaps best illustrated by frame-to-frame variance, charting frame rate over time shows how they’re all clearly separated into distinct performance tiers.
-
bf4 38x21 fps
-
bf4 38x21 frot
-
bf4 38x21 ftoa
-
bf4 38x21 ftor
-
bf4 38x21 smoothness
The same situation unfolds at 3840x2160. Despite its age, Battlefield 4 exacts a tolls on these high-end cards. So much so, in fact, that we’re not as comfortable calling the GeForce GTX 1070 a single-GPU solution for 4K with details maxed out. QHD is low-hanging fruit for this card. We’d even say 1080x1200 at 90Hz should be doable most of the time (of course, that’s before factoring in a ~1.4x render target). But the demands of 3840x2160 with quality cranked up are a bit much to expect a steady 60 FPS (that’s almost 500 million shaded pixels per second).
Grand Theft Auto V
-
gtav 25x14 fps
-
gtav 25x14 frot
-
gtav 25x14 ftoa
-
gtav 25x14 ftor
-
gtav 25x14 smoothness
Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1070 again proves its mettle against the previous-gen GeForce GTX Titan X for less than half the cost. In the process, it secures a second-place finish after the superior GeForce GTX 1080. AMD’s fastest gaming card shows up in fifth place (the 1070 is almost 40% faster).
The following observation from our GTX 1080 review still bears mention: “Interestingly, the Radeon R9 Fury and 390X—both from AMD add-in board partners—demonstrate sharp frame time spikes that show up as hitching during playback. The reference Radeon R9 Fury X doesn’t exhibit the same behavior.”
-
gtav 38x21 fps
-
gtav 38x21 frot
-
gtav 38x21 ftoa
-
gtav 38x21 ftor
-
gtav 38x21 smoothness
Ultra HD nearly cuts performance in half. In the case of GeForce GTX 1080, you still get mostly-playable frame rates. But the 1070 dips under 30 FPS in a few different places. You’d want to dial back the game’s very granular settings to find the best compromise between speed and fidelity.
Meanwhile, the frame-to-frame variance chart shows all three AMD cards experiencing different degrees of stuttering, with the R9 Fury faring worst.
MORE: Best Graphics Cards
MORE: All Graphics Content
- Meet The GeForce GTX 1070
- How We Tested GeForce GTX 1070
- Ashes of the Singularity, Battlefield 4 And GTA V Results
- Hitman, CARS And Rise of the Tomb Raider Results
- The Division And The Witcher 3 Results
- Partner Cards And Efficiency Testing
- Power Consumption Results
- Efficiency Results
- Temperature And Noise Results
- Conclusion
If it were me, I would have removed a low to middle clock rate instead of the very lowest to get both the low idle power consumption and the OC speed.
Also, about overclocking: I think reviews of all these new generation nVidia and AMD cards should include average clock that cards operated when doing all game benchmarks. Official boost clock numbers are a bit useless, because AMD cards run games at below boost clocks, and average for nVidia GTX1070 is above boost clocks. Having just official boost clock numbers make it difficult to evaluate overclocking potential and make real gains look much bigger or smaller than expected.
"Missing out on power consumption, operating temperatures and noise due to the constraints of Computex leaves us with an incomplete picture of GeForce GTX 1070, though we can certainly make some assumptions."
You added those pages.
Yep, and that's why I am poking fun at it.
It has narrow peaks that go over 75 W, as have a number of cards in the past. For the most part, what people were concerned about with the RX 480 was that average power was over 75 W. Whether that concern was warranted... well that's another question.
The GTX 1070 Founder Edition averages 75 watts but realistically has a 65 watt limit.
That doesn't make any sense.
From page 7 of the review:
"Taking a closer look at the motherboard slot yields a surprising finding: none of the cards in this round-up use the 3V rail at all. This means that the PCIe slot doesn’t really provide the 75W most enthusiasts assume it does, since the 12V rail only offers about 65W on its own."
That is about the PCIe spec at 12V, not the power usage of cards in the test.