Doom is another bastion for AMD; its Radeon RX Vega 64 is 12% faster than GeForce GTX 1080, while Vega 56 posts a 13%-higher average frame rate than the GTX 1070.
GeForce GTX 1070 Ti upsets that sweep with an 8% lead over Vega 56, though. It’s a token win when you’re comparing 130 FPS to 121. But Nvidia wants as many of those victories as possible now that Vega 56 prices are sliding closer to where they were supposed to be at launch.
Frame rates at 1440p were high enough to justify using the Ultra quality preset at 3840x2160, too.
As in Ashes of the Singularity, our MSI GTX 1070 Ti Titanium 8G ties the GeForce GTX 1080 FE. Once again, this is attributable to a higher sustained clock rate enabled by that big Twin Frozr VI thermal solution. You’ll pay an extra $40 for it compared to a GeForce GTX 1070 Ti FE card, approaching the price of a GeForce GTX 1080. In some cases, however, the premium conveys real value.
In this case, GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is almost 24% quicker than a GTX 1070 FE. That’s significant enough to make Doom playable at its most taxing settings.
MORE: Best Graphics Cards
MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table
MORE: All Graphics Content
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).