510°

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 vs. 970 Performance Comparison

NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1070 is set to launch next month, but is it worth upgrading from an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970?

FPSFox3277d ago

Was expecting more of a jump. I'll be getting the next Titan when it launches later on.

freshslicepizza3276d ago

At 1440p, across the ten games we tested with, it was on average 22% faster than the Titan X and 28% faster than the GTX 980 Ti, which is significant. It was also 60% faster than the GTX 980, which is an important comparison to make considering how many 980 owners will likely be looking at the GTX 1080 for their next GPU upgrade. The 1080 was also 34% faster than the Fury X.
http://www.techspot.com/rev...

"Moving to 4K, the GTX 1080 was only 19% faster than the Titan X and 26% faster than the 980 Ti. Interestingly, it remained 60% faster than the GTX 980. Against AMD's top card, the GTX 1080 was 28% faster than the Fury X which is surprising -- we expected the 4GB AMD card to slip further behind at this extreme resolution but it did hold well."

the titan is also much more expensive so i would say this card is quite impressive for being $600

FPSFox3276d ago (Edited 3276d ago )

Wow, my mind read this title and replaced 1070 with 1080 and 970 with 980. Sorry! I don't like the leap the 1080 has over the 980TI overclocked. Those are the number I wasn't impressed with. Sorry again for the comment above lol

OoglyBoogly3277d ago (Edited 3277d ago )

Anyone have info on what magic Nvidia has to make VR so much better? If the GPU itself isn't 2.3x more powerful then how is the VR performance 2.3x faster? Doesn't make any sense.

Also, what can the 1070 and 1080 do in VR that can't be done on the 9xx series?

cluclap3277d ago

Im not a tech wiz but from what Ive gathered a big deal id the way the transistors are placed on the gpu. The 9 series uses 24nm(?) on its die while the 10 series uses 16nm process. This somehow allows for faster data transfer rate im assuming the electrons dont have to travel as far. Nm stands for nanometers which is a measure of microscopic length to the degree of a billionth of a meter. Talking crazy small. Couple that with the gtx 1080's use of GDDR5X memory which is supposed to be significantly more effecient than the standard GDDR5 and you have a card that may not seem so good on paper, but offers a truly enormous leap in performance.

OoglyBoogly3277d ago

Nah, it's number of transistors and architecture that really makes a difference. I know the 1070 is also just using GDDR5 and not GDDR5X. Also, again, VR performance being much faster than that of the other games listed doesn't make sense. VR is just producing the same image twice (once per eye) so I fail to see how that could be so much faster but actual game performance is only like 1.4-1.6x faster.

cluclap3277d ago

Right I missed your point. Google "Nvidia Simultaneous Multi Projection". I believe your answer lies there.

Kleptic3276d ago

Any VR performance increases, other than what comes with simply being more powerful, is only marketing...They're claiming they have some driver updates that will make VR performance 'unparalled' to competition...but there aren't any real tricks to it, you just need a lot of gpu horsepower.

cluclap...die size and manufacturing processes, on their own, do not determine performance...They're more related to energy efficiency and power consumption...both of which translate to heat...and heat is the problem in relation to performance...So shrinking die size and increasing transistor density allows for less power usage, more efficient cooling, and therefor a higher amount of transistors to be utilized...which leads to increased performance...

cluclap3277d ago

Sorry for that ridiculously long paragraph lol

DJ3277d ago

Instead of drawing all the geometry and shading the 3D scene separately for each "eye" in your VR goggles, that data is processed for both at the same time. So the GTX 1080 isn't really twice as fast as the 980. It's more like a 50% gain in performance for normal games.

KTF263276d ago

this video have the answer
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
but take it with a grain of salt as well as the 2.3x performance gain because it's marketing
you need perfect conditions to reach near 2.0x

sweendog3276d ago

They have locked software to the new cards that allow for things like the gpu only processing what the lenses see and not the whole picture. This could be achieved on all capable cards but nvidea being nvidea are locking it down on the new cards

WeedyOne3276d ago (Edited 3276d ago )

Its the same reason as to why AMD ran VR better than nvidia for a while. AMD had something called asynchronous compute built in at a hardware level with their CGN architecture. This feature allows graphics processes and compute processes to run simultaneously.

I believe the answer to much better VR performance of the 1000 series is due to the recent inclusion of async compute at a hardware level in nvidias 1000 series cards. The 900 series did not have async compute built in at hardware level which meant it had to rely on driver software for async compute which caused dips in performance on 900 series nvidia cards when in VR.

OoglyBoogly3276d ago

AMD still runs VR better. It's still the only GPU that has Async computing.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3276d ago
DJ3277d ago

Call me when the new Titan is announced. That's worth upgrading for.

FlyingFoxy3277d ago

Waiting for the Ti myself, 1080 isn't really worth it if you already own a 980Ti Oced/Pre-oced, difference is only like 10-20% at most.

Plus when AMD bring Vega there will be better prices, not like the 1080 that's priced what a Ti would be right now. Nv are really trying to milk this time, and I'll likely never get the Titan cards at the ridiculous prices they charge when you can get a Ti for a fair bit cheaper and is usually just as fast or faster than a Titan.

GrontB3276d ago

Exact same boat as you. The 1080ti will be great I think. I was hoping the 980ti would get the Simultaneous Multi Projection as an update for a little VR boost but probably not. The 1070 is a good card though still and the price won't be ridiculous once it gets down to the MSRP price.

Dabigsiebowski3276d ago (Edited 3276d ago )

I doubt there will be a 1080ti. The 980ti was an unlocked 980 to its full potential. The 1080 already has the full chip running at capacity with no gimps. Just wait 2 more generations at least if you want things to get interesting. Plus AMD has Vega moved up and will probably see some mentions of it soon. My bets with them.

FlameBaitGod3276d ago (Edited 3276d ago )

You'll be able to get two 1080's for the price of one titan lol, and two 1080's will outperform a titan.

Nero21423276d ago

Yeah that relative performace comparisions are usualy bullshit , it looks like they are saying 1070 is faster around 70% in w3 than 970 but in benchmarks 1080 it's ''only '' faster 40 % in w3 than 980

3276d ago Replies(2)
Show all comments (34)
60°

Valve Makes Up for Steam Deck Repair Delay by Gifting Free Game

Valve gave a user Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 for free as compensation for the long wait during their Steam Deck repair.

170°

Sony Aims To Sell 15 Million PS5 Units This Year, but Is Shifting Focus to Monthly Active Users

Sony CEO Hiroki Totoki and CFO Lin Tao talked about the state of the PlayStation business and the strategy and targets going forward, including how they're responding to the tariffs.

Read Full Story >>
simulationdaily.com
1Victor2d ago

I wonder how the USA tariffs war will affect that projection. 🤔

S2Killinit2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

I think they take that into consideration when they announce their projections. Currently, after the xbox price increase, the PRO is cheaper than the series x! That is ridiculous, and it can’t last.

darthv722d ago

you keep saying that but the price of a PS5 Pro is S699.99 (US) and the price of a Series X is $599.99 (US)

S2Killinit2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

The series x with 2 TB storage space is more expensive than PS5 PRO which also has 2 TB storage space.

darthv722d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Oh so you are pitting a regular Pro with a special edition X... got it. If you are going so far as trying to compare apples to apples... please add in the optical drive and stand to the Pro. Seeing as the X has both of those by default.

I will help you if you are unable to do so.
PS5 Pro 2tb: $699.99, Optical Drive: $79.99, Stand: $29.99 = $809.97
Xbox Series X Galaxy Black Special Edition 2TB: $729.99

2d ago
S2Killinit1d 16h ago (Edited 1d 16h ago )

The PS5 PRO has 2TB storage. The series X with 2TB storage and much weaker, is… more expensive! So yeah, Im pointing out that fact.

Also, the PRO does not require a stand.

Ps: regular series 2TB is $749 (where did u get 729?)

darthv721d 14h ago

Its right here on the official XB site: https://www.xbox.com/en-US/...

Okay, so no stand for the Pro, but you might still want the optical drive. So $779.98 vs $729.99. A properly outfitted Pro is still more $$ than a 2tb X.

S2Killinit1d 1h ago (Edited 1d 1h ago )

Do I need to mention that the series x is not nearly as powerful as the PS5 PRO?

And no, the PS5 PRO runs just fine without a drive, and people don’t have to buy the drive right away, assuming they want it.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1d 1h ago
drivxr2d ago

I wonder why they are shifting focus to MAU.

RaiderNation2d ago

Because that's where the real money is made, in microtransactions.

Profchaos2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

People are spending less time playing is a typical trigger for this.

The less time spent playing the less likely you are to spend more money on games and services including subs or even the next console.

Increased engagement equals more money.

2d ago
DarXyde2d ago

Same reason Microsoft does it: it looks better to investors and it's a solution when unit sales slow down.

Personally, I'm not a fan of this metric; and by using it, you're kind of signaling that you're moving into the "This is a PlayStation" era.

Z5011d 20h ago

Because the PS4 also has users and not necessarily sales

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1d 20h ago
2d ago
2d ago
310°

Sony Announces Large Profits Growth for PlayStation; Expects Further Wins in Current Fiscal Year

Sony announced its financial results for the fiscal year 2024, and things are certainly looking up, despite a decline in PS5 sales.

Read Full Story >>
simulationdaily.com
CrimsonWing692d ago

Expect sh*t to slow down if prices aren’t kept in check.

Redgrave2d ago

Who downvotes the truth?

Even PSN itself is too damn high.jpg

S2Killinit2d ago

Gamepass is already at 20$ per month if im not mistaken.

toxic-inferno2d ago

@neutralgamer1992

Not all of us. I'm a big PlayStation fan, and have been since the PSOne. But I can't begin to defend what's happening currently.

At least Nintendo release a large number of games from their major franchises. Sony is just not banking on their established franchises, and yet are raising prices. Not great.

S2Killinit2d ago

Im pretty sure we are going to see a price increase for PRO. I mean think about it, its currently cheaper than xbox series x! That cannot last.

Eonjay2d ago

I'm absolutely sure we will not see a price increase. I don't think we should 'expect' to see price increase because it just adds validity to what Nintendo and Microsoft have done.

darthv722d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Sorry to pop that bubble but the Pro is not cheaper than a series x... generally speaking (like you are). It is cheaper than one specific version, and doing so by not including the optical drive and stand like the X has by default.

So keep on trying to convince people you are right when everyone knows it's quite the opposite. A stock Pro is $699.99 and a stock X is $599.99. A special edition galactic black 2tb X is $729.99. And if you really want to compare apples to apples... adding the aforementioned optical drive and stand brings that Pro to $809.97 and then they would be on equal footing.

Twisting truths to fit a narrative... I expect better from you S2.

S2Killinit1d 16h ago (Edited 1d 16h ago )

The PS5 PRO has 2TB storage. And the series X with 2TB is more expensive. Which in my opinion is insane conseidering how much more powerful the PRO is. The PS5PRO does not need a stand, it can be used without a stand.

TheKingKratos2d ago

So the Pro is not offering any push in sales at all ?

CrashMania2d ago

It's still an expensive, niche product ultimately. And they exceeded their sales projections for units sold by half a million.

lawox2d ago

"18.5 million units have been shipped during the full fiscal year. This is actually ahead of the 18 million units target set by the company."

They beat their yearly estimate. It's not broken down by device, but it's clearly performing well enough. Since it's been released it's consistently been the second best selling SKU on Amazon only after the the Slim with disc.

2d ago
Bathyj2d ago

18 million a year is in the toilet?
I remember when 10 was considered good
Hell Microsoft would take that right now.
Probably pay $100b for it.

2d ago
BeHunted2d ago

If their profits fall next quarter, we'll probably see more price hikes. I can't imagine having to pay £20 a month for PlayStation Plus.

S2Killinit2d ago

I think gamepass is already paying that much.

2d ago
drivxr2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Decline in hardware sales.
Behind on lifetime sales and decline in first party sales.
Third party content and PSN came through to save the day.
Things will improve starting with the next Ghost game.

Hopefully a steady flow of first party content by end of '25

rlow12d ago (Edited 2d ago )

I guess you get downvoted for stating facts from Sony’s own lips. What I’m curious about is what their top games of the year were and how much Xbox games contributed to the increase?

CrashMania2d ago

Well, generally 3rd party publisher games contribute the most anyway, so no different to capcom, EA and so on contributing to this figure.

lawox2d ago

That's because the report is actually really good.

They beat the console sales estimate that they set last year March, they have increased users both due to the record numbers of PS4 users and strong PS5 sales which is leading to great profits in sales and user spend.

This report is about the financial health of the PlayStation brand and as a platform PlayStation is stronger than ever. Heck they even have Microsoft putting their biggest franchises on the platform.

2d ago
S2Killinit1d 15h ago (Edited 1d 15h ago )

Well, the facts in the article are positive. Nothing wrong with his comment, but in my opinion it doesn't correctly indicate all the facts and nuances that give context to the reality of things. I downvoted for that only.

Make sense?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1d 15h ago
Lightning772d ago

This is exactly what happened to Xbox year's ago. They had no first party and started seeing decline in 1st party sales, which effected their third party games which eventually effected their console sales. A slow decline across the board.

Calm down PS fans I'm not saying PS is becoming like old Xbox. I'm showing examples of the importance of first party output. Look how Xbox finally has compelling first party and things are on a up swing(despite years going on a downswing). I know thanks to PS releases which helps a ton, (which is why Xbox hardware only dropped 6% instead of 30+% like it usually does) The point still stands despite what Genz Trends may go, first party and compelling games sell hardware and software still. Sony's financial quarter is an example of this, of what lower First party output looks like.

No matter they'll be right back on track in due time any time especially with DS2 (not my type of game but I know many like it) and Yotei. They're not Xbox and let things get bad for so many years on end.

crazyCoconuts2d ago

"I'm showing examples of the importance of first party output. "
First party is mostly relevant for the sole purpose of creating EXCLUSIVES that are needed to stay competitive. With Xbox consoles collapsing and no more Xbox exclusives, first party is way less important. PlayStation as a platform now has free reign to profit without the high expense of needing exclusive first party titles.

red2tango2d ago

Sony has been very lazy with 1st party games compared to the PS4 era. And even the PS4 era was nothing compared to the PS3 era in terms of games.

S2Killinit1d 15h ago (Edited 1d 15h ago )

We have Ghost and Intergalactic coming. And then Marathon which is not exclusive to PlayStation. I think Covid and that chip shortage put a speedbump in game development because game manufacturers dont want even more risk that their game will arrive to too little hardware, but the games are starting to show up.

Lightning772d ago

"With Xbox consoles collapsing and no more Xbox exclusives, first party is way less important."

Absolutely not. If that was the case then Nintendo would put Mario on Sega Genesis and Sonic on Super Nintendo. I know things are way different 30+ years later but not much has really changed in terms of exclusives and their impact on hardware. Especially early in the console life cycle.

Sony made all the money this quarter handover fist. Profits isn't a issue for them right now. I was just saying lower hardware sales and lower first party sales will hurt them or any console manufacturer of they don't have the compelling games in the long run. Just like it hurt Xbox. IF Sony keeps up not having lower first part output. Which we know they're not.

crazyCoconuts2d ago

Well no big exclusives in the last two years yet PS is doing great. What are people gonna do? Buy an Xbox?

S2Killinit1d 15h ago

I agree with you. But they have had plenty of exclusives so far. Has it been ideal? Nope. I have a feeling we are seeing a resurgence with the effects of covid and that chip shortage now behind us.

Lightning772d ago

No it's just like 360 where they had no games yet ppl still bought it because they sold ppl on the games early on that gen the fans were locked in and invested. They were riding the good will and was dubbed the shooter, racer box. The games dried up and they never recovered from it which hurt them in the long run. Same here with PS they still make the big bucks because they had games early on and the fans locked in and will continue to lock in for a little while longer despite lacking in first party.

S2Killinit1d 15h ago (Edited 1d 15h ago )

I agree. But the problem with xbox was that for some crazy reason MS thought game development wasnt all that important to a platform holder. They literally did not fund games with their own studios. When they lost marketshare they couldnt justify paying for exclusives with large install bases making it too expensive. That is not the scenario with PlayStation.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1d 15h ago
Show all comments (46)