Updated: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Pascal Review

Hitman, CARS And Rise of the Tomb Raider Results

Hitman

AMD turns in another exceptional performance in Hitman; its Radeon R9 Fury X lands in second place after the GeForce GTX 1080, while the Fury technically scores third place (though the GTX 1070 achieves the same average frame rate). But again, Nvidia’s second-fastest GP104-based board is expected to sell for quite a bit less money.

We want to see Founders Edition cards on shelves at $449 before handing Nvidia any sort of endorsement. But if the company hits its target with availability, you can bet AMD will have to react.

The previous situation repeats itself at 4K; the R9 Fury edges out Nvidia’s 1070 by a hair.

This time it’s the Nvidia cards that get snagged by stuttering though, albeit mostly right at the beginning of our benchmark. The GeForce GTX 980 struggles with smoothness through the run, although its low average and minimum frame rates are probably more apparent to gamers.

Project CARS

Even AMD’s Radeon R9 390X offers better than 40 FPS at 2560x1440 with aggressive quality settings in Project CARS. But the GeForce family sweeps this title as even Nvidia’s GTX 980 beats AMD’s Fury X. GeForce GTX 1070 finishes in second place, behind the 1080 and ahead of GeForce GTX Titan X.

The spikes on our single frame time over average frame time chart look large, but the smoothness graph’s worst-case of ~7ms, and its average of closer to 1 to 2ms, assures us that you’re actually getting a fairly smooth experience.

Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1070 is more than 17% faster than the 980 Ti at Ultra HD—and the 980 Ti was already capable of serving up playable frame rates. Smoothness remains a strong point across the board in Project CARS, although the GeForce GTX 1080 does trip over itself during the last third of our benchmark run (evidenced by the spikes above 10ms that stand out like a sore thumb).

Rise of the Tomb Raider

If we were comparing the GeForce GTX 1070 to Nvidia’s previous-gen 970, the perceived gains would naturally be larger. But given the contenders at our disposal, we can tell you the 1070 is still a little more than 7% faster than GeForce GTX 980 Ti in Rise of the Tomb Raider with the game’s settings cranked up.   

That advantage over the 980 Ti shrinks to just over 5% at 3840x2160. Then again, with minimum frame rates in the 20s, you’ll want to dial back the graphics detail for more playable performance anyway. Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1080 again proves itself to be the only single-GPU solution we’d want in a system tasked with 4K gaming at taxing quality settings.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: All Graphics Content

This thread is closed for comments
62 comments
    Your comment
  • gromann
    Fury X is going for $399-449 as of yesterday on Newegg.
  • nitrium
    So given the simultaneously lower price and higher performance of the partner boards, only an actual idiot would buy the "Founder's Edition" GTX 1070?
  • George Phillips
    I feel that I should regret getting MSI 1070 FE. MSI's custom designs perform superior then FE cards in every way. Very impressive. Asus and Gigabyte's custom designs must also do better than FE cards.
  • Krushe
    When you're talking about the heat on FE cards. I think the default fan speed is 45-50% at 83c. Make it 80% and the card never reaches 70c even with boost clock up to 1900+. What speeds are the MSI fans running at during your temp measurements?
  • DookieDraws
    Edit: The article has been updated, so I deleted my original comment about the MSI GPU.
  • Tony Casagrande
    "This means that the lowest possible GPU Boost clock rate step gets eliminated from the bottom of the BIOS’ table. So, if you want an additional space at the top, you need to make room for it by getting rid of the very bottom one."

    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.
  • straatkat
    Still annoyed that they posted this review without including the 970 as a baseline.
  • neblogai
    Regarding the possible audible noise because of power spikes on PEG: it is not really about cheap MB, but about using analog audio out of MB, and not anything digital, right?
    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.
  • Calculatron
    Am I the only one that noticed that the Founder's Edition cards managed to pull over 75 watts from the motherboard PCIe slot and that no one went bonkers over it?
  • TJ Hooker
    1294514 said:
    Am I the only one that noticed that the Founder's Edition cards managed to pull over 75 watts from the motherboard PCIe slot and that no one went bonkers over 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.
  • avatar_raq
    The last page needs to be updated as well.
    "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.
  • turkey3_scratch
    I don't see why people bought the Founder's Edition. This is just proof how much better aftermarket coolers are.
  • jtd871
    Looking forward to reviews of 3rd party cards from other vendors.
  • Calculatron
    1636679 said:
    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.


    Yep, and that's why I am poking fun at it.
  • turkey3_scratch
    Yeah the same could be said about anything. An aftermarket GTX 1080 reaches 400W. But that's only a rare thin spike.
  • d_s_c_8
    TJ Hooker said:
    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.
  • turkey3_scratch
    2284094 said:
    TJ Hooker said: 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.
  • d_s_c_8
    1712875 said:
    2284094 said:
    TJ Hooker said: 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."
  • neblogai
    2284094 said:
    "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.
  • d_s_c_8
    124761 said:
    2284094 said:
    "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.


    That is exactly my basis. The spec says 65W on 12V, and the card averages 75W on 12V. I call that going over spec.
  • turkey3_scratch
    The spec actually says 5.5A of current.
  • d_s_c_8
    1712875 said:
    The spec actually says 5.5A of current.


    And the card averages 6.25A on the 12V rail.
  • 10tacle
    416069 said:
    Fury X is going for $399-449 as of yesterday on Newegg.


    Only one is going for $399[US]...the XFX variant. The rest are $600 and up, so that is suspicious on NewEgg ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709%20600566292 ).

    Also, whatever they are selling for now is irrelevant. AMD stopped making them. It's what the launch price is as to what is directly comparable. It launched at $650[US]. Never mind that GPU was a fail for the most part and not the 980Ti killer it was supposed to be (according to the AMD fans anyway). It couldn't overclock as it was already maxed out and a factory overclocked 980Ti that was overclocked again like the Gigabyte G1 Gaming just destroyed it:

    http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/GTX%20-980-TI-GB/GTX%20-980-TI-GB-87.jpg