There are a few instances where the lead is closer to 20 percent, even at 4K, and Civilization VI is still CPU limited at 4K Ultra with 4xMSAA-even 8xMSAA doesn't change things. But that's only when you're running games and settings that tax the GPU and don't hit CPU or system bottlenecks. The 1080 Ti does exactly what Nvidia claimed it would: it beats the GTX 1080 by over 30 percent on average. This game was not included in the overall average score, due to its newness. Ultra is too much for most GPUs right now, obviously. Tested with medium preset at 1080p, and ultra preset at 1080p/1440p/4K. But there's no reason to expect Titan XP will be more than a few percent slower-it's basically the more expensive fraternal twin to the 1080 Ti, and just happened to be born first. We did some limited testing of the Titan XP last year in a Falcon Northwest Tiki, and there are two liquid-cooled Titans sitting in the LPC, but I can't really pull those out (due to the hard tubing for the liquid cooling).
Why? Because I never actually got a review sample-Nvidia said the card wasn't intended for gamers, and apparently that meant not for PC Gamer either.
Oh, and you won't find any comparisons with the Titan XP here. For reference, the GTX 1070 tends to be roughly equal to the GTX 980 Ti, slightly faster in some cases.
I've omitted most of the older cards, since I haven't had a chance to go back and retest them with the latest drivers and game versions.
For that, I present you with a full suite of sixteen games, tested at four setting/resolution combinations.
The short summary: a 'secret' ingredient to Maxwell and Pascal GPUs in the form of tiled caching has helped Nvidia make better use of the available bandwidth, and the power circuitry and cooling on the 1080 Ti is improved relative to the 1080.īut I know most of you are just interested in seeing how the GTX 1080 Ti performs. If you want to know a bit more about what makes the GTX 1080 Ti tick, check my earlier article on the subject. And I have to say, I personally find this approach a lot more appealing than the 'up to' clockspeed numbers seen on other products. It's Nvidia's way of making customers feel like they got something extra-you'll almost always meet or exceed the 'typical boost' speed in my experience. In practice, even after leaving games running for several hours, the actual GPU clockspeed is often in the 1700-1800MHz range. If you run something like Furmark or an extremely computationally intensive GPGPU workload, yeah, the typical boost clock may be around 1582MHz. And even more importantly, Nvidia's 'typical boost clock' figures are very conservative. With both the GTX 1080 Ti and Titan XP using the same GP102 GPU with 3,584 CUDA cores enabled, clock speeds play an important role. Nvidia says the actual vapor chamber is improved relative to the GTX 1080, but to the naked eye there's no visible difference. It also looks virtually identical to the GTX 1080 FE, except with an extra 6-pin PCIe connector and without a native DVI output. As with the prior top-shelf Ti cards, GTX 1080 Ti looks an awful lot like the Titan XP, with silver accents instead of going for an all-black cooling shroud.