GTX1080 reviews out!
  10 / 12    
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]Good points re: the comparison to 970 SLI, however that's looking largely at games where SLI is actually supported. In terms of recent titles that don't support SLI (or have significant issues), we have MGSV, Arkham Knight, Doom, The Division, and Rise of the Tomb Raider. Rather than playing the lottery of whether or not a game will support my investment in SLI, the switch to single GPU of similar power will be an improvement regardless, and after selling my second 970 it won't cost me much to do it. Could even work out to be "free". I'll have a look at pricing once it settles and consider the 1080, but the 1070 pricing makes it tempting. Do you guys really think it's worth an extra $220US (non founders edition pricing) for the 1080, when the difference doesn't seem that significant? There's a PCGamer analysis here, which shows a 25% performance increase at 1080p for the 1080, but it's a 55% increase in price. http://www.pcgamer.com/geforce-gtx-1070-performance-preview/[/quote] As a 1070 is pretty much 3/4 of a 1080, a 1080 should have closer to 33% performance advantage at higher resolutions (including 3D). 18 months ago I had the choice between a 780Ti and a 970 for the same price, I went with the 970 so I had more options to SLI later. I don't regret the 970 but I do think the 780Ti might have performed better for my needs and I no longer consider SLI reliable enough for me. Now I find myself considering either the 1070 or 980Ti, I'm wondering what do people think of using 1440p benchmarks as a substitute for 1080p 3D benchmarks? Is it indicative of relative performance or does 3D Vision do some weird voodoo?
Pirateguybrush said:Good points re: the comparison to 970 SLI, however that's looking largely at games where SLI is actually supported. In terms of recent titles that don't support SLI (or have significant issues), we have MGSV, Arkham Knight, Doom, The Division, and Rise of the Tomb Raider.

Rather than playing the lottery of whether or not a game will support my investment in SLI, the switch to single GPU of similar power will be an improvement regardless, and after selling my second 970 it won't cost me much to do it. Could even work out to be "free".

I'll have a look at pricing once it settles and consider the 1080, but the 1070 pricing makes it tempting.

Do you guys really think it's worth an extra $220US (non founders edition pricing) for the 1080, when the difference doesn't seem that significant? There's a PCGamer analysis here, which shows a 25% performance increase at 1080p for the 1080, but it's a 55% increase in price.

http://www.pcgamer.com/geforce-gtx-1070-performance-preview/


As a 1070 is pretty much 3/4 of a 1080, a 1080 should have closer to 33% performance advantage at higher resolutions (including 3D).

18 months ago I had the choice between a 780Ti and a 970 for the same price, I went with the 970 so I had more options to SLI later. I don't regret the 970 but I do think the 780Ti might have performed better for my needs and I no longer consider SLI reliable enough for me.

Now I find myself considering either the 1070 or 980Ti, I'm wondering what do people think of using 1440p benchmarks as a substitute for 1080p 3D benchmarks? Is it indicative of relative performance or does 3D Vision do some weird voodoo?

OS & Driver: Win 10 w/417.35
CPU & GPU: i7 4790k, Gigabyte 980Ti G1 Gaming
MB & RAM: Asrock Z97 Extreme4, GSkill Trident 16Gb DDR3 2400Mhz
Audio: Realtek HD, Steinberg UR44
Display: Acer XB271HUA w/3D Vision 2 Kit

Posted 05/31/2016 07:49 AM   
Personally I look for the 1080p benchmarks, and mentally cut them in half to get my expected 3D performance. It's difficult to be precise about it as some games fare better in 3D than others, but I don't think higher resolutions are a good indicator.
Personally I look for the 1080p benchmarks, and mentally cut them in half to get my expected 3D performance. It's difficult to be precise about it as some games fare better in 3D than others, but I don't think higher resolutions are a good indicator.

Posted 05/31/2016 08:41 AM   
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]Good points re: the comparison to 970 SLI, however that's looking largely at games where SLI is actually supported. In terms of recent titles that don't support SLI (or have significant issues), we have MGSV, Arkham Knight, Doom, The Division, and Rise of the Tomb Raider. Rather than playing the lottery of whether or not a game will support my investment in SLI, the switch to single GPU of similar power will be an improvement regardless, and after selling my second 970 it won't cost me much to do it. Could even work out to be "free". I'll have a look at pricing once it settles and consider the 1080, but the 1070 pricing makes it tempting. Do you guys really think it's worth an extra $220US (non founders edition pricing) for the 1080, when the difference doesn't seem that significant? There's a PCGamer analysis here, which shows a 25% performance increase at 1080p for the 1080, but it's a 55% increase in price. http://www.pcgamer.com/geforce-gtx-1070-performance-preview/[/quote] Hmm, unless I am missing something: MGSV, - Last I tried it SLI was working for me? (can't remember this one exactly) Arkham Knight, - Don't have the game Doom, - No OpenGL app works out of the box with SLI, unless devs go and add SLI support. The Division, - SLI is working here. Getting close to double framerate (this is 3D Surround). Rise of the Tomb Raider - SLI is working fine here (alternate profile) and I get almost double framerates (this is 3D Surround). I still think SLI is viable and actually a very good investment, especially at big resolutions and 3D. Sure SLI needs a bit of tweaking and tinkering but is very viable!
Pirateguybrush said:Good points re: the comparison to 970 SLI, however that's looking largely at games where SLI is actually supported. In terms of recent titles that don't support SLI (or have significant issues), we have MGSV, Arkham Knight, Doom, The Division, and Rise of the Tomb Raider.

Rather than playing the lottery of whether or not a game will support my investment in SLI, the switch to single GPU of similar power will be an improvement regardless, and after selling my second 970 it won't cost me much to do it. Could even work out to be "free".

I'll have a look at pricing once it settles and consider the 1080, but the 1070 pricing makes it tempting.

Do you guys really think it's worth an extra $220US (non founders edition pricing) for the 1080, when the difference doesn't seem that significant? There's a PCGamer analysis here, which shows a 25% performance increase at 1080p for the 1080, but it's a 55% increase in price.


http://www.pcgamer.com/geforce-gtx-1070-performance-preview/



Hmm, unless I am missing something:
MGSV, - Last I tried it SLI was working for me? (can't remember this one exactly)
Arkham Knight, - Don't have the game
Doom, - No OpenGL app works out of the box with SLI, unless devs go and add SLI support.
The Division, - SLI is working here. Getting close to double framerate (this is 3D Surround).
Rise of the Tomb Raider - SLI is working fine here (alternate profile) and I get almost double framerates (this is 3D Surround).

I still think SLI is viable and actually a very good investment, especially at big resolutions and 3D.
Sure SLI needs a bit of tweaking and tinkering but is very viable!

1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc


My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com

(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)

Posted 05/31/2016 09:41 AM   
Edit: double post
Edit: double post

OS & Driver: Win 10 w/417.35
CPU & GPU: i7 4790k, Gigabyte 980Ti G1 Gaming
MB & RAM: Asrock Z97 Extreme4, GSkill Trident 16Gb DDR3 2400Mhz
Audio: Realtek HD, Steinberg UR44
Display: Acer XB271HUA w/3D Vision 2 Kit

Posted 05/31/2016 12:08 PM   
[quote="helifax"]Hmm, unless I am missing something: MGSV, - Last I tried it SLI was working for me? (can't remember this one exactly) Arkham Knight, - Don't have the game Doom, - No OpenGL app works out of the box with SLI, unless devs go and add SLI support. The Division, - SLI is working here. Getting close to double framerate (this is 3D Surround). Rise of the Tomb Raider - SLI is working fine here (alternate profile) and I get almost double framerates (this is 3D Surround). I still think SLI is viable and actually a very good investment, especially at big resolutions and 3D. Sure SLI needs a bit of tweaking and tinkering but is very viable![/quote] Thanks helifax, I'm now considering picking up another 970, after checking out some benchmarks 970 SLI seems to get around 80% the performance of a 1080. Buying another 970 costs half what it would to sell my 970 and pick up a 1080, the only thing that worries me is less VRAM but I'll be running single screen 1080p 3D for a while yet... any thoughts?
helifax said:Hmm, unless I am missing something:
MGSV, - Last I tried it SLI was working for me? (can't remember this one exactly)
Arkham Knight, - Don't have the game
Doom, - No OpenGL app works out of the box with SLI, unless devs go and add SLI support.
The Division, - SLI is working here. Getting close to double framerate (this is 3D Surround).
Rise of the Tomb Raider - SLI is working fine here (alternate profile) and I get almost double framerates (this is 3D Surround).

I still think SLI is viable and actually a very good investment, especially at big resolutions and 3D.
Sure SLI needs a bit of tweaking and tinkering but is very viable!


Thanks helifax, I'm now considering picking up another 970, after checking out some benchmarks 970 SLI seems to get around 80% the performance of a 1080. Buying another 970 costs half what it would to sell my 970 and pick up a 1080, the only thing that worries me is less VRAM but I'll be running single screen 1080p 3D for a while yet... any thoughts?

OS & Driver: Win 10 w/417.35
CPU & GPU: i7 4790k, Gigabyte 980Ti G1 Gaming
MB & RAM: Asrock Z97 Extreme4, GSkill Trident 16Gb DDR3 2400Mhz
Audio: Realtek HD, Steinberg UR44
Display: Acer XB271HUA w/3D Vision 2 Kit

Posted 05/31/2016 12:31 PM   
I am of the opinion that looking at ~double the resolution benchmarks is an excellent indicator of 3D Vision performance. Cutting the 1080p benchmark results by half is problematic for future gen cards as 1080p does not scale well with the performance of the new card i.e. a 100% more powerful card at high resolutions will only be shown to be a fraction of the performance at 1080p, simply because 1080p is not demanding. As an example, 1080p might show the 100% more powerful card to be only a 60% improvement relative to the previous generation, whereas higher resolutions will show a 90%+ improvement. One should take that the 90% improvement is reflective of true 3D Vision values, as 3D Vision generates that demand - not 60%. This is because 3D Vision works only after geometry data has been rendered twice (once from each perspective). This is very similar to doubling the resolutions. To show this correlation, I have done a quick benchmark with the only professional benchmark that I am aware of that supports 3D vision natively: Heaven Benchmark 4.0. 3D Vision @ 1080p: [img]https://i.imgur.com/6YaQGio.jpg[/img] 2D @ 2560x1600 (similar to 1440p results on most gaming sites) [img]https://i.imgur.com/hYUGidz.jpg[/img] This is the reason that SLi scales so well in 3D Vision compared to plain old 2D. The other problem is that 3D Vision doesn't always cut the framerate in half. Most of the time in-fact, the performance reduction is only 35% in my experience. In summary, indeed, by halfing 1080p performance, you might get a good indicator of how current gen cards will perform under 3D Vision; however, it will not be a good indicator of how next gen, or future cards perform.
I am of the opinion that looking at ~double the resolution benchmarks is an excellent indicator of 3D Vision performance.

Cutting the 1080p benchmark results by half is problematic for future gen cards as 1080p does not scale well with the performance of the new card i.e. a 100% more powerful card at high resolutions will only be shown to be a fraction of the performance at 1080p, simply because 1080p is not demanding.

As an example, 1080p might show the 100% more powerful card to be only a 60% improvement relative to the previous generation, whereas higher resolutions will show a 90%+ improvement. One should take that the 90% improvement is reflective of true 3D Vision values, as 3D Vision generates that demand - not 60%.

This is because 3D Vision works only after geometry data has been rendered twice (once from each perspective). This is very similar to doubling the resolutions.

To show this correlation, I have done a quick benchmark with the only professional benchmark that I am aware of that supports 3D vision natively: Heaven Benchmark 4.0.

3D Vision @ 1080p:
Image

2D @ 2560x1600 (similar to 1440p results on most gaming sites)
Image

This is the reason that SLi scales so well in 3D Vision compared to plain old 2D.

The other problem is that 3D Vision doesn't always cut the framerate in half. Most of the time in-fact, the performance reduction is only 35% in my experience.

In summary, indeed, by halfing 1080p performance, you might get a good indicator of how current gen cards will perform under 3D Vision; however, it will not be a good indicator of how next gen, or future cards perform.

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

Posted 05/31/2016 02:51 PM   
This only confirms my plans to buy another 980ti for 2 way SLI. i only use 1080p anyways
This only confirms my plans to buy another 980ti for 2 way SLI. i only use 1080p anyways

CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele

Posted 05/31/2016 03:19 PM   
Interesting points, everyone. SLI 1080 is out of my budget, but SLI 1070 is something I might be able to look at 6+ months down the track. What do you guys think about either a single 1080, or a single 1070 for now with the option to SLI later? Realistically I'm thinking a single 1070 would likely see me through most modern/future games in 3D/1080p/60fps at max settings (or close to it), for at least 2 years. Does that seem realistic?
Interesting points, everyone. SLI 1080 is out of my budget, but SLI 1070 is something I might be able to look at 6+ months down the track. What do you guys think about either a single 1080, or a single 1070 for now with the option to SLI later?

Realistically I'm thinking a single 1070 would likely see me through most modern/future games in 3D/1080p/60fps at max settings (or close to it), for at least 2 years. Does that seem realistic?

Posted 05/31/2016 03:55 PM   
Why not go for a 1080 now and later down the road you can add another one? (ofc it depends on the budget). But if this is not doable or you want to spend less I would go with a 1070 now and later add another 1070. A 1070 SLI will always be better than a 1080 (even if SLI will not give you that 100% ideal boost). It also comes down to how many time you want to spend tinkering with SLI as well;)
Why not go for a 1080 now and later down the road you can add another one? (ofc it depends on the budget).
But if this is not doable or you want to spend less I would go with a 1070 now and later add another 1070. A 1070 SLI will always be better than a 1080 (even if SLI will not give you that 100% ideal boost). It also comes down to how many time you want to spend tinkering with SLI as well;)

1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc


My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com

(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)

Posted 05/31/2016 04:03 PM   
Yes if you gonna upgrade always buy the fastest and then ad another later
Yes if you gonna upgrade always buy the fastest and then ad another later

CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele

Posted 05/31/2016 06:10 PM   
+1 what helifax said. From the look of things, the limiting factor to the overclock isn't heat - it's bios limited voltage. Without a bios mod, the custom PCBs seem to be performing the same as the mediocre cooler reference boards. These reference 1080s are going for £525 now, which is a decent price compared to the custom PCBs which are going for £620+. If the price of the 1070s is going to be £375, then I would personally go with a 1080 for the 20%-25% performance boost for "only" £150 more. I don't know about the regional pricing of where you are Pirateguybrush, but I would guess they are similar.
+1 what helifax said.

From the look of things, the limiting factor to the overclock isn't heat - it's bios limited voltage. Without a bios mod, the custom PCBs seem to be performing the same as the mediocre cooler reference boards. These reference 1080s are going for £525 now, which is a decent price compared to the custom PCBs which are going for £620+.

If the price of the 1070s is going to be £375, then I would personally go with a 1080 for the 20%-25% performance boost for "only" £150 more. I don't know about the regional pricing of where you are Pirateguybrush, but I would guess they are similar.

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

Posted 05/31/2016 09:36 PM   
+1 for RAGEdemon regarding using 2D benchmarks for SLI in 3D comparisons. You want to use the 1440p numbers, not halve the 1080p numbers, because peformance bottlenecks will shift around, depending upon the load. At 1080p, you can easily be bottlenecked by CPU, not GPU, and so halving that gives you a misleading impression as to SLI behavior. 1440p: 3686400 pixels 1080p3D: 4147200 pixels It's of course not perfect, because the 3D driver has overhead as well, but using 1440p benchmarks is roughly correct. The sometimes 35% loss of performance in 3D instead of the expected 50% is related. It's a 50% loss, always, because we literally draw the same image twice. But... you may only measure a 35% loss depending upon where the bottleneck shifts for your test case. If you are CPU bound already, and the GPU still has headroom, then you won't see a 50% loss of performance. Then there are the cases like GTA5 where it's much more than 50%. In 2D, you can run 100 fps, and still get 30 fps in 3D, with your GPU not stressed. There is some sort of thread/cpu throttling happening with that game, that seems unrelated to the driver itself. Getting good performance metrics is tricky, but as a quick and dirty method you can use 1440p in 2D benchmarks.
+1 for RAGEdemon regarding using 2D benchmarks for SLI in 3D comparisons.

You want to use the 1440p numbers, not halve the 1080p numbers, because peformance bottlenecks will shift around, depending upon the load. At 1080p, you can easily be bottlenecked by CPU, not GPU, and so halving that gives you a misleading impression as to SLI behavior.

1440p: 3686400 pixels
1080p3D: 4147200 pixels

It's of course not perfect, because the 3D driver has overhead as well, but using 1440p benchmarks is roughly correct.


The sometimes 35% loss of performance in 3D instead of the expected 50% is related. It's a 50% loss, always, because we literally draw the same image twice. But... you may only measure a 35% loss depending upon where the bottleneck shifts for your test case.

If you are CPU bound already, and the GPU still has headroom, then you won't see a 50% loss of performance.

Then there are the cases like GTA5 where it's much more than 50%. In 2D, you can run 100 fps, and still get 30 fps in 3D, with your GPU not stressed. There is some sort of thread/cpu throttling happening with that game, that seems unrelated to the driver itself.


Getting good performance metrics is tricky, but as a quick and dirty method you can use 1440p in 2D benchmarks.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

Posted 05/31/2016 11:38 PM   
Hm - I'm pretty sure SLI 1080 is definitely out of my price range (including long term). I just can't see being able to justify spending that much, or needing that much power for the overwhelming majority of games. There might be a few in the 2-3 years I have these cards that force me to dial back a few settings on a 1070 (or SLI 1070), but I'd be surprised if I need more power than that. I've gone from SLI 660 to SLI 770s to SLI 970, and it's only towards the end of their time with me that I've started to hit their performance ceilings (and only because I'm a stickler for cranking settings). With that in mind, it makes sense that a 1070 (followed by another if needed) will service my needs quite comfortably. If I was playing at 1440p 3D that would be a different story, but it's usually either 1080p 3d or 720p 3D (projector).
Hm - I'm pretty sure SLI 1080 is definitely out of my price range (including long term). I just can't see being able to justify spending that much, or needing that much power for the overwhelming majority of games. There might be a few in the 2-3 years I have these cards that force me to dial back a few settings on a 1070 (or SLI 1070), but I'd be surprised if I need more power than that. I've gone from SLI 660 to SLI 770s to SLI 970, and it's only towards the end of their time with me that I've started to hit their performance ceilings (and only because I'm a stickler for cranking settings).

With that in mind, it makes sense that a 1070 (followed by another if needed) will service my needs quite comfortably. If I was playing at 1440p 3D that would be a different story, but it's usually either 1080p 3d or 720p 3D (projector).

Posted 06/01/2016 01:24 AM   
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]If I was playing at 1440p 3D that would be a different story, but it's usually either 1080p 3d or 720p 3D (projector).[/quote] I wouldn't write it off quite yet mate. Have you considered playing your games with 4x DSR with 0% smoothness to give playing at 1440p or even 4k a try on your current displays? Your eventual 1070 SLi would be a great choice but there might be more to it... For me, going from a pixelated mess of 1280x800 native projected, even with the best antialiasing I could get working (spending a huge time finding SGSSAA flags for each game) to DSR 2560x1600 for 3D gaming which works in every game without touching any setting, was a night and day difference. Not only for the edges, but also the crispness of the textures. Indeed there is a rule for sampling sound which states that to not lose any quality, one should always sample 2x the bit rate of the source. Converting this theorem to a display, I would postulate that everyone should be running double the both horizontal vertical resolutions of their displays (Exactly Quadruple the Resolution). i.e. to get the best benefit of your 720p projector display, DSR it to 2560x1440; or your 1080p monitor to 3840x2160 (these are special resolutions which exactly double both vertical and horizontal resolutions). Now, ensuring that smoothness is set to 0%, disable all antialiasing. Load up your favourite games and be amazed! High detail games such as Dragon Age: Inquisition benefit the most of course. I have never been able to go back to my native resolution of 1280x800 after tasting the fruits of 2560x1600 DSR. I would argue that this is the real resolution of your displays after extracting their full potential. If true, you deserve something heftier than a single 1070 you have relegated yourself into. Perhaps you might want to wait for a 1080 Ti :) It now depends on what the price of the 1070 vs the 1080 is going to be in my region... I might be joining you in the proverbial waiting bench. @bo3b, You are correct as usual my friend, however, back in the ATi 5870 days I did a thorough benchmark with ~10 games with both an nVidia card and an ATi 5870 with the iZ3D driver. Both cards showed almost exactly a 35% decrease in performance across the board for all games. I doubt the iZ3D driver was that much more efficient than the current 3D Vision driver. I'm not saying that you are wrong about the 50% decrease in performance nowadays. I think back then, perhaps games were rendered differently. I might be able to find examples of non-CPU limited games even nowadays where the performance hit might be closer to 35% rather than 50%. FWIW, here is a link to my review at the time. Unfortunately, it is missing the graph. http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4550 and [url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/532970/3d-vision/what-kind-of-improvement-vram-or-power-improves-3d-vision-/post/3751999/#3751999[/url]
Pirateguybrush said:If I was playing at 1440p 3D that would be a different story, but it's usually either 1080p 3d or 720p 3D (projector).


I wouldn't write it off quite yet mate. Have you considered playing your games with 4x DSR with 0% smoothness to give playing at 1440p or even 4k a try on your current displays?

Your eventual 1070 SLi would be a great choice but there might be more to it...

For me, going from a pixelated mess of 1280x800 native projected, even with the best antialiasing I could get working (spending a huge time finding SGSSAA flags for each game) to DSR 2560x1600 for 3D gaming which works in every game without touching any setting, was a night and day difference. Not only for the edges, but also the crispness of the textures.

Indeed there is a rule for sampling sound which states that to not lose any quality, one should always sample 2x the bit rate of the source. Converting this theorem to a display, I would postulate that everyone should be running double the both horizontal vertical resolutions of their displays (Exactly Quadruple the Resolution).

i.e. to get the best benefit of your 720p projector display, DSR it to 2560x1440; or your 1080p monitor to 3840x2160 (these are special resolutions which exactly double both vertical and horizontal resolutions). Now, ensuring that smoothness is set to 0%, disable all antialiasing. Load up your favourite games and be amazed! High detail games such as Dragon Age: Inquisition benefit the most of course.

I have never been able to go back to my native resolution of 1280x800 after tasting the fruits of 2560x1600 DSR.

I would argue that this is the real resolution of your displays after extracting their full potential.

If true, you deserve something heftier than a single 1070 you have relegated yourself into. Perhaps you might want to wait for a 1080 Ti :)

It now depends on what the price of the 1070 vs the 1080 is going to be in my region... I might be joining you in the proverbial waiting bench.



@bo3b,

You are correct as usual my friend, however, back in the ATi 5870 days I did a thorough benchmark with ~10 games with both an nVidia card and an ATi 5870 with the iZ3D driver. Both cards showed almost exactly a 35% decrease in performance across the board for all games. I doubt the iZ3D driver was that much more efficient than the current 3D Vision driver.

I'm not saying that you are wrong about the 50% decrease in performance nowadays. I think back then, perhaps games were rendered differently. I might be able to find examples of non-CPU limited games even nowadays where the performance hit might be closer to 35% rather than 50%.

FWIW, here is a link to my review at the time. Unfortunately, it is missing the graph.

http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4550

and

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/532970/3d-vision/what-kind-of-improvement-vram-or-power-improves-3d-vision-/post/3751999/#3751999

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

Posted 06/01/2016 02:31 AM   
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]Hm - I'm pretty sure SLI 1080 is definitely out of my price range (including long term). I just can't see being able to justify spending that much, or needing that much power for the overwhelming majority of games. There might be a few in the 2-3 years I have these cards that force me to dial back a few settings on a 1070 (or SLI 1070), but I'd be surprised if I need more power than that. I've gone from SLI 660 to SLI 770s to SLI 970, and it's only towards the end of their time with me that I've started to hit their performance ceilings (and only because I'm a stickler for cranking settings). With that in mind, it makes sense that a 1070 (followed by another if needed) will service my needs quite comfortably. If I was playing at 1440p 3D that would be a different story, but it's usually either 1080p 3d or 720p 3D (projector).[/quote] After much deliberation, I am going to go with the 1070 and when I do a mobo/cpu upgrade I can then get a second for a SLI configuration. You'll definitely have enough horsepower here. The flagship cards are overpriced when considering performance versus value. To me, there is a law of diminishing return of performance versus the insane price point of the flagship cards. The industry has always been this way. If you got the money, it's like squeezing all the last juices out of the orange. On a more modest budget, the 1070 will be likely the best bang for the buck, especially to your point made in your last paragraph.
Pirateguybrush said:Hm - I'm pretty sure SLI 1080 is definitely out of my price range (including long term). I just can't see being able to justify spending that much, or needing that much power for the overwhelming majority of games. There might be a few in the 2-3 years I have these cards that force me to dial back a few settings on a 1070 (or SLI 1070), but I'd be surprised if I need more power than that. I've gone from SLI 660 to SLI 770s to SLI 970, and it's only towards the end of their time with me that I've started to hit their performance ceilings (and only because I'm a stickler for cranking settings).

With that in mind, it makes sense that a 1070 (followed by another if needed) will service my needs quite comfortably. If I was playing at 1440p 3D that would be a different story, but it's usually either 1080p 3d or 720p 3D (projector).


After much deliberation, I am going to go with the 1070 and when I do a mobo/cpu upgrade I can then get a second for a SLI configuration. You'll definitely have enough horsepower here. The flagship cards are overpriced when considering performance versus value. To me, there is a law of diminishing return of performance versus the insane price point of the flagship cards. The industry has always been this way. If you got the money, it's like squeezing all the last juices out of the orange. On a more modest budget, the 1070 will be likely the best bang for the buck, especially to your point made in your last paragraph.

Posted 06/01/2016 02:35 AM   
  10 / 12    
Scroll To Top