Recommended reading

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB Review: Vega In The Crosshairs

Reviews
By , published

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III (DirectX 11)

2560x1440 Results

Dialing in Warhammer’s highest detail settings imposes a substantial performance penalty. Its own tooltips claim that the High Anti-Aliasing option (which supplements FXAA by rendering to a higher-res off-screen buffer) can reduce frame rates by 50 to 100%.

Image 1 of 6

These cards are all fast enough to power through Dawn of War III’s most demanding options at 2560x1440, though.

A tie between GeForce GTX 1070 Ti and Radeon RX Vega 56 puts both cards on even footing in our value calculations, given the comparable price tags we were seeing in the hours before 1070 Ti's launch. Of course, a last-minute move by AMD cut Vega 56 to as low as $400. We'll see if that discount sticks, though.

3840x2160 Results

Image 1 of 6

GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is 15% faster than the GTX 1070 at 3840x2160 using Dawn of War III’s High detail setting. But that’s only enough of a boost to pull up even with Radeon RX Vega 56.


MORE: Best Graphics Cards


MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table


MORE: All Graphics Content

See more GPUs Reviews
Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.
39 Comments Comment from the forums
  • 10tacle
    Yaaayyy! The NDA prison has freed everyone to release their reviews! Outstanding review, Chris. This card landed exactly where it was expected to, between the 1070 and 1080. In some games it gets real close to the 1080, where in other games, the 1080 is significantly ahead. Same with comparison to the RX 56 - close in some, not so close in others. Ashes and Destiny 2 clearly favor AMD's Vega GPUs. Can we get Project Cars 2 in the mix soon?

    It's a shame the overclocking results were too inconsistent to report, but I guess that will have to wait for vendor versions to test. Also, a hat tip for using 1440p where this GPU is targeted. Now the question is what will the real world selling prices be vs. the 1080. There are $520 1080s available out there (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127945), so if AIB partners get closer to the $500 pricing threshold, that will be way too close to the 1080 in pricing.
    Reply
  • samer.forums
    Vega Still wins , If you take in consideration $200 Cheaper Freesync 1440p wide/nonwide monitors , AMD is still a winner.
    Reply
  • SinxarKnights
    So why did MSI call it the GTX 1070 Ti Titanium? Do they not know what Ti means?

    ed: Lol at least one other person doesn't know what Ti means either : If you don't know Ti stands for "titanium" effectively they named the card GTX 1070 Titanium Titanium.
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    20334482 said:
    Vega Still wins , If you take in consideration $200 Cheaper Freesync 1440p wide/nonwide monitors , AMD is still a winner.

    Well that is true and always goes without saying. You pay more for G-sync than Freesync which needs to be taken into consideration when deciding on GPUs. However, if you already own a 1440p 60Hz monitor, the choice becomes not so easy to make, especially considering how hard it is to find Vegas.
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    For those interested, Guru3D overclocked their Founder's Edition sample successfully. As expected, it gains 9-10% which puts it square into reference 1080 territory. Excellent for the lame blower cooler. The AIB vendor dual-triple fan cards will exceed that overclocking capability.

    http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1070_ti_review,42.html
    Reply
  • mapesdhs
    Chris, what is it that pummels the minimums for the 1080 Ti and Vega 64 in BF1 at 1440p? And why, when moving up to UHD, does this effect persist for the 1080 Ti but not for Vega 64?

    Also, wrt the testing of Division, and comparing to your 1080 Ti review back in March, I notice the results for the 1070 are identical at 1440p (58.7), but completely different at UHD (42.7 in March, 32.7 now); what has changed? This new test states it's using Medium detail at UHD, so was the March testing using Ultra or something? The other cards are affected in the same way.

    Not sure if it's significant, but I also see 1080 and 1080 Ti performance at 1440p being a bit better back in March.

    Re pricing, Scan here in the UK has the Vega 56 a bit cheaper than a reference 1070 Ti, but not by much. One thing which is kinda nuts though, the AIB versions of the 1070 Ti are using the same branding names as they do for what are normally overclocked models, eg. SC for EVGA, AMP for Zotac, etc., but of course they're all 1607MHz base. Maybe they'll vary in steady state for boost clocks, but it kinda wrecks the purpose of their marketing names. :D

    Ian.

    PS. When I follow the Forums link, the UK site looks different, then reverts to its more usual layout when one logs in (weird). Also, the UK site is failing to retain the login credentials from the US transfer as it used to.

    Reply
  • mapesdhs
    20334510 said:
    Well that is true and always goes without saying. You pay more for G-sync than Freesync which needs to be taken into consideration when deciding on GPUs. ...

    It's a bit odd that people are citing the monitor cost advantage of Freesync, while article reviews are not showing games actually running at frame rates which would be relevant to that technology. Or are all these Freesync buyers just using 1080p? Or much lower detail levels? I'd rather stick to 60Hz and higher quality visuals.

    Ian.

    Reply
  • FormatC
    @Ian:
    The typical Freesync-Buddy is playing in Wireframe-Mode at 720p ;)

    All this sync options can help to smoothen the output, if you are too sensitive. This is a fact, but not for everybody with the same prio.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    20334648 said:
    Chris, what is it that pummels the minimums for the 1080 Ti and Vega 64 in BF1 at 1440p? And why, when moving up to UHD, does this effect persist for the 1080 Ti but not for Vega 64?
    From other benchmarks I've seen, DX12 performance in BF1 is poor. Average FPS is a bit lower than in DX11, and minimum FPS far worse in some cases. If you're looking for BF1 performance info, I'd recommend looking for benchmarks on other sites that test in DX11.
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    20334667 said:
    It's a bit odd that people are citing the monitor cost advantage of Freesync, while article reviews are not showing games actually running at frame rates which would be relevant to that technology. Or are all these Freesync buyers just using 1080p? Or much lower detail levels? I'd rather stick to 60Hz and higher quality visuals.

    Well I'm not sure I understand your point. The benchmarks show FPS exceeding 60FPS, meaning maximum GPU performance. It's about matching monitor refresh rate (Hz) to FPS for smooth gameplay, not just raw FPS. But regarding the Freesync argument, that's usually what is brought up in price comparisons between AMD and Nvidia. If someone is looking to upgrade from both a 60Hz monitor and a GPU, then it's a valid point.

    However, as I stated, if someone already has a 60Hz 2560x1440 or one of those ultrawide monitors, then the argument for Vega gets much weaker. Especially considering their limited availability. As I posted in a link above, you can buy a nice dual fan MSI GTX 1080 for $520 on NewEgg right now. I have not seen a dual fan MSI Vega for sale anywhere (every Vega for sale I've seen is the reference blower design).
    Reply