GTX 1070 review roundup: invincible performance per dollar

Today's the official launch day for the GeForce GTX 1070 Founders Edition graphics card (although these cards aren't actually expected at retail until June 10). This card's Pascal-based processor is the little brother of the GeForce GTX 1080 that everyone has been raving about since its release two weeks ago. If you're reading this article, though, you probably already knew that.

What you might not have realized is that the GTX 1070 runs games as well as a 980 Ti, yet costs almost a third less. That sentiment gets echoed time and time again in reviews of the new card across the web. In fact, the value proposition of the GTX 1070, even considering the more expensive Founders Edition card, is good enough for [H]ardOCP's Brent Justice to award the card the site's coveted Gold award. That rare award was given based on strong performance at 2560×1440 in everything he tested, including Rise of the Tomb Raider, The Witcher III, and even Ashes of the Singularity.

Those titles were mainstays across the majority of reviews published this morning. Techspot's Steven Walton tested those games along with Doom and Overwatch, finding the latter eminently playable in 4K resolution, even at the "Ultra" quality setting. Doom was more taxing and barely playable in 4K, but averaged over 90 FPS with "Nightmare" settings in 2560×1440. Hilbert Hagedoorn at Guru3D found similar results with the new shooter. Hilbert actually tested a whole litany of games, including Anno 2205, Thief (2014), and a 5120×2880 run of Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor, alongside the usual suspects. Spoilers: 5K is hard going for graphics cards.

The general consensus among reviewers is that the card is near-optimal for 2560×1440, but not especially suited for anything higher. No one's figured out VR benchmarking quite yet, but Marco Chiappetta at HotHardware ran the SteamVR performance test on the GTX 1070. It earned a perfect score of 11 alongside the GTX 1080 and the GTX 980 Ti. He also tested the card in LuxMark, one of the few compute-focused benchmarks present in this round of reviews. The GTX 1070 put in a fair showing overall, matching the Titan X—a much larger chip—in the three OpenCL tests.

Of course, we here at TR are always happy to see frame-pacing tests in graphics card reviews. Chris Angelini at Tom's Hardware provided a wealth of frametime data, and his analysis of the 1070 does show the new GeForce with slightly worse frame variance than the older Maxwell parts, which we believe may be attributed to immature drivers. PC Perspective's Ryan Shrout never disappoints with his frametime testing, and his data agrees with Chris'. We noticed this frametime issue in reviews of the GTX 1080 as well.

Nvidia apparently did some good work with reducing Pascal's power usage when compared to Maxwell. The previous architecture was already fairly efficient, but the new GPUs benefit further from being manufactured on a state-of-the-art FinFET process. As a result, the GTX 1070 has a quoted 150W TDP, and Ryan at PC Perspective used his specialized rig to test that claim. What he found is surprising: even though the GTX 970's rated TDP is lower than the GTX 1070's by 5W, the newer card actually draws less power during gameplay (by around 5W).

That power efficiency contributes to the card's cool running. Despite the presence of a typically-noisy blower-style cooler, none of the reviews we read complained about excessive noise. The GTX 1070 eschews the GTX 1080's vapor chamber for a more traditional heatpipe-and-fin heatsink, though, so it isn't really any quieter. It doesn't overclock any better either, although complaining about a GPU core clock of 2.1Ghz—the number that [H]ardOCP and the Guru of 3D both achieved—seems trifling. Doubtless custom board designs and non-reference coolers will see that number increased further.

It's worth mentioning that the value proposition of this card is worsened somewhat by the Founders Edition pricing. Nvidia is fond of comparing the card to the GTX 970, but the GTX 970 premiered at $329, below even the given MSRP of $379 for non-Founders GTX 1070 cards. At $449, the GTX 1070 Founders Edition seems to be a considerably worse value. However, as Brent at the [H] pointed out, the proper performance-wise comparison is to the GTX 980 Ti, which the GTX 1070 consistenly matches or beats. That GPU launched at $650, so in that context, the GTX 1070 is a step forward in its price segment. Suddenly, my GTX 580 feels mighty inadequate.

Comments closed
    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    So which one has better perf/$$$, the RX 480 or the GTX 1070? Because I reckon it’s the 1070. The 480 may be cheaper but I think those with the means and are serious about getting the best VR experience will go with Nvidia.

    • Ninjitsu
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<] However, as Brent at the [H] pointed out, the proper performance-wise comparison is to the GTX 980 Ti, which the GTX 1070 consistenly matches or beats.[/quote<] I'd disagree, the comparison should be to the 970 - if it matches or beats the 980 Ti then that's a bonus (which was admittedly expected given the 1080's performance and the 1070's specs).

    • I.S.T.
    • 5 years ago

    36 fps minimum is unplayable.

    Learn something new everyday!

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    Good grief. $380 for 980Ti-class performance. That’s about as much as 970 prices where i live. I don’t really need a GPU upgrade but the pricing sounds very enticing for non-FE cards. I’m eager to see what AMD does in retaliation.

    • beck2448
    • 5 years ago

    Actually in PC Perspective’s review the only frame time stuttering Ryan noticed was on AMD cards.
    [url<]http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/GeForce-GTX-1070-8GB-Founders-Edition-Review/Grand-Theft-Auto-V-Competitive[/url<]

    • Unknown-Error
    • 5 years ago

    Kyle from [H]ard|OCP claimed he had inside info on Polaris and it is going to be running really hot and a serious disappointment in-terms of performance compared to Pascal based cards.

      • USAFTW
      • 5 years ago

      I hope not, we need competition!

      • tipoo
      • 5 years ago

      Dang it. I hope it’s redeemable. AMD can’t use another flop right now, and really, it would suck for the market as well as the Nvidia cards will no doubt be closer to the Founders Edition pricing than the claimed base price.

      • DrCR
      • 5 years ago

      So another ‘one-time’ write off?

    • tootercomputer
    • 5 years ago

    When the 1080 and 1070 were announced, the latter was the one that interested me, as the price point seemed right. Looking at one review, it appears to have an awesome price-performance ratio.

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 5 years ago

    This $379 msrp is total nonsense. I’ll believe it when I see cards on the shelf for that price or near msrp.

    • Laykun
    • 5 years ago

    It’s weird, I seem to subconsciously refuse to read any reviews of the GTX 1080 or 1070 till TR releases theirs. I know I should have read at least one review by now but I just don’t seem to trust them.

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      I’ll start with TR, then usually hit up the [H] for their subjective reviews.

      But mostly, I’m never in a hurry to buy something so I’m satisfied with headlines until everything else is clear.

      • Leader952
      • 5 years ago

      #1 How do you know “not to trust” the other reviews if you never read them?

      #2 What will you do it TR never posts a review?

    • PrincipalSkinner
    • 5 years ago

    I’d like to see Pascal perform when scaled back to Maxwell clocks.
    Along these lines :
    [url<]http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-Review-Skylake-First-Enthusiasts/Clock-Clock-Skylake-Broadwel[/url<] edit : added link

      • brucek2
      • 5 years ago

      What use case is that relevant to? The heat, noise and power at “Pascal clocks” all seem quite acceptable?

        • NovusBogus
        • 5 years ago

        Mobile GPUs. If NV managed to crank out something that could drive 1080p reasonably well and only eat like 15 watts or something, it would be truly messianic.

        • colinstu12
        • 5 years ago

        to show IPC gains.

        It’s easy to say something runs better when it’s clocked higher. But how much of that is due to higher clocks, and how much of that are from actual improvements to the architecture?

          • Klimax
          • 5 years ago

          Just don’t forget that this 104 chip is smaller with less resources then big 100 chips. And don’t forget that circuit design ahs to accommodate clocks.

          Interestingly enough, it seems that high OC was surprise to NVidia too. (According to HardOCP: [url<]http://hardocp.com/article/2016/05/18/geforce_gtx_1080_most_bizarre_secret_paper_launch_ever)[/url<]

          • jihadjoe
          • 5 years ago

          IMO being able to clock high without cooking itself is also an improvement in the architecture.

          Didn’t great leader Jen say they specifically went to work optimizing path lengths so that Pascal could clock as high as it does?

        • PrincipalSkinner
        • 5 years ago

        The use case that shows roughly how much performance is gained through increased clocks.

          • Rurouni
          • 5 years ago

          The more important measure is performance per watt instead of performance per clock. One architecture might have high performance/clock but it can’t be clocked really high because of the power ceiling while the other architecture might trade that performance/clock with performance/watt, which clock for clock it might have lower performance but can be overcome with a much higher clock and ultimately be faster.
          Anyway, I’m not saying Pascal have lower performance/clock vs Maxwell. I’m just saying there is more to it than just performance/clock.

      • kuraegomon
      • 5 years ago

      Except that data is completely irrelevant. Can Maxwell get to Pascal clocks? What would be the TDP of a hypothetical Maxwell that could? Pascal is significantly faster within the same power budget. You may care about _how_ that performance increase is attained, but why should anyone else?

        • beck2448
        • 5 years ago

        Exactly. Who cares as long as you perform better, go faster, cost less, and use less energy?
        Can’t wait to see the AIB super cooled and clocked versions. Gonna be fun.

        • travbrad
        • 5 years ago

        Yeah it would only be relevant to overclockers if Maxwell and Pascal both topped out at similar clock speeds when overclocked, but that isn’t the case. GTX 970 tends to top out around 1.5ghz, while the 1070 seems to top out at 2ghz+ (based on the limited reviews we have so far).

        That Sandy/Ivy/Haswell/Broadwell/Skylake clock-for-clock comparison WAS actually relevant because Sandy Bridge can hit similar (or higher) clock speeds to Skylake. It basically showed that overclockers are going to get a much smaller performance improvement between Sandy Bridge and Skylake than people who don’t overclock.

      • tipoo
      • 5 years ago

      I’d like to see Pascal performance when scaled back to Pentium 4 core counts, just because arbitrary measure.

      Actually, dang, wait, I’d be really curious what you could do with one GPU core. Fast enough to run modern Windows desktop?

      • MathMan
      • 5 years ago

      Not necessary: it would run almost identical to a Maxwell with the same amount of cores.

      Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Maxwell was already very good in terms of performance vs theoretical FLOPS, so it made sense to build on the existing architecture.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 5 years ago

      It’s not quite what you’re after but Hardware.fr tested the 1080 relative to the initial Maxwell, Kepler and Fermi high end chips (980/680/480). They found Pascal was a very similar improvement to it’s predecessors (very slightly smaller on average):
      [url<]http://www.hardware.fr/articles/948-11/fermi-vs-kepler-vs-maxwell-vs-pascal.html[/url<]

    • anotherengineer
    • 5 years ago

    “GTX 1070 review roundup: invincible performance per dollar”

    The current market value of $10 for my HD6850 has great fps/$ ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • JustAnEngineer
    • 5 years ago

    [quote=”Zak Killian”<] What you might not have realized is that the GTX 1070 runs games as well as a 980 Ti, yet costs almost a third less. [/quote<] The reviews indicate that GeForce GTX1070 performs better than a stock-clocked GeForce GTX980Ti, but your math is way off on the pricing. $500+markup for the GeForce GTX1070 is only 7ยฝ% = 1/14th less than the $540 GeForce GTX980Ti.

      • auxy
      • 5 years ago

      MSRP on the 980Ti is $649, tho. That’s probly what he meant.

        • Shobai
        • 5 years ago

        Yep, I’m thinking he’s comparing launch prices.

          • JustAnEngineer
          • 5 years ago

          [quote=”Shobai”<] I'm thinking he's comparing launch prices. [/quote<] That would be a strangely manipulative way to make a comparison. GeForce GTX1070 wasn't available in June of 2015. When GeForce GTX1070 does appear in the market, you have to compare it to the cards that are in the market [b<]at the same time[/b<] and for the prices for which they can be purchased [b<]at the same time[/b<]. We don't have Doc Brown's DeLorean. We have to live in the present time. If we want to spend $500 to buy a GeForce GTX1070, it's going to be $500 this year, not last.

            • USAFTW
            • 5 years ago

            WE ALL KNOW NVIDIA BOUGHT TR AND KEPT SCOTT UNTILL NOW AS A COVER SINCE TR AGREED TO PUBLISH A POSITIVE REVIEW OF THE SINFUL GTS 450.
            But seriously, just compare current prices. Who cares what the card launched at? The point should be what do these cards cost RIGHT now.

            • jihadjoe
            • 5 years ago

            NGREEDIA
            GTS450 OUGHT TO BE ENOUGH FOR EVERYBODY

        • RAGEPRO
        • 5 years ago

        Heh, what really happened is that I was barely awake and had “nearly as well as a 1080, but costs almost a third less” and then edited the first part to compare it to the 980 Ti but didn’t edit the second part. Oops.

        But we’ll go with your version, loli, sure. ๐Ÿ˜€

          • auxy
          • 5 years ago

          [url=http://i.imgur.com/1zCmDtF.jpg<]You super idiot.[/url<] You know the [url=http://youtu.be/FY6YyeAsvZw<]consequences[/url<] for calling me that. I'm coming over later. Prepare your jeans. (ยดใƒปฯ‰ใƒป๏ฝ€)

      • PixelArmy
      • 5 years ago

      (1070 launch)/(980Ti current) = $380/$540 = 70%, 30% is “almost a third less”
      Since later in the article… “It’s worth mentioning that the value proposition of this card is worsened somewhat by the Founders Edition pricing.”

      (1070 launch)/(980Ti launch) = $380/$650 = 58%, 42% is past “almost”
      (1070 [u<]FE[/u<] launch)/(980Ti launch) = $500/$650 = 77%, 23% is closer to "almost a [i<]quarter[/i<] less"

    • NovusBogus
    • 5 years ago

    Give me a pint-sized 1070 from Asus or EVGA and no nasty question marks after three months and I just might go for it.

      • Leader952
      • 5 years ago

      Give you what you want and you [b<]ONLY MIGHT[/b<] buy it!

    • chuckula
    • 5 years ago

    I know you’ve got a 1080 sample onhand for review, do you guys have a 1070 as well?

    • USAFTW
    • 5 years ago

    Come on TR!

    • EndlessWaves
    • 5 years ago

    [quote<]Nvidia apparently did some good work with reducing Pascal's power usage when compared to Maxwell. The previous architecture was already fairly efficient, but the new GPUs benefit further from being manufactured on a state-of-the-art FinFET process. As a result, the GTX 1070 has a quoted 150W TDP, and Ryan at PC Perspective used his specialized rig to test that claim. What he found is surprising: even though the GTX 970's rated TDP is lower than the GTX 1070's by 5W, the newer card actually draws less power during gameplay (by around 5W).[/quote<] I'm not sure I'd call a 3.3% reduction in power usage 'some good work'.

      • morphine
      • 5 years ago

      Performance-per-watt.

      • tipoo
      • 5 years ago

      I think their point is, slightly less power for a lot more performance. Even if they called the power draw even, the point would remain.

        • EndlessWaves
        • 5 years ago

        But power use [b<]matters[/b<]. It's absolute power use that determines how noisy a card is and how well it works in smaller systems. If you were after a green car then would you buy a new car that did the same 30mpg as it's predecessor but offered 190 instead of 150 horsepower? It's providing more power for the same amount of fuel so it's undoubtedly more fuel efficient but most people would find more benefit in a rival with 150 horsepower and lower fuel use, even if the fuel efficiency was worse. Efficiency is all very well, but don't confuse it with power consumption.

          • tipoo
          • 5 years ago

          But that efficiency also means if you only want a 150 horsepower car, you may get 35MPG. Efficiency and power are intrinsically linked.

            • EndlessWaves
            • 5 years ago

            If the manufacturer offers it.

            Power use is currently determined by nVidia because the market considers graphics card positioning based on price, rather than power use. A mid range graphics card is one costing ### currency, not one pulling ###W.

            You can fiddle around a little by changing settings and influence it one way or another, but there’s currently no way to play many games at high resolutions on a sub-100W computer, let alone anything close to the average computer power consumption.

            While an immediate reduction back to a 50W high end graphics card like the 9700 Pro would be nice, it would be commercially difficult. However, a 10-20% reduction was perfectly realistic from a company already ahead in power efficiency. I couldn’t believe it when the tiny little reduction we got was called good work. nVidia could easily have put far more of the efficiency gain into reducing power consumption had they wanted to.

            • DrCR
            • 5 years ago

            150HP yielding 35MPG is awful. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • tipoo
            • 5 years ago

            It’s why I’m on Techreport and not MotorTrend ๐Ÿ˜›

      • chuckula
      • 5 years ago

      If you can point out another card that matches the performance of the GTX-980Ti in a 150 watt power envelope then please feel free to do so.

    • trek205
    • 5 years ago

    So no 1070 review from you guys and still no 1080 review? I dont care what excuses you have at this point as its pretty ridiculous when every other site manages to get them out on time and its been two freaking weeks since the 1080 NDA was up. Hell even reviewers on the road have no trouble getting their reviews out on time.

      • Krogoth
      • 5 years ago

      Computex is the reason for delays.

      Besides, it looks like 1080 is going to be unobtainium for a while yet. It is the 5870 all over again.

        • trek205
        • 5 years ago

        Lol that is no excuse at all as everyone else got their reviews out.

          • Krogoth
          • 5 years ago

          Most other reviewers don’t have their hands on 1080 and 1070 yet.

          It is the AAA list a.k.a VIP list that managed to get units from Nvidia Marketing. It looks like 1080 launch is another *gasp* paper launch as far as customers are concerned.

            • trek205
            • 5 years ago

            What a load of crap. Even all the youtube testers had their reviews up on time. And most of those reviews had WAY more games than will be reviewed here and covered overclocking in depth.

            • Waco
            • 5 years ago

            If you want to read/watch crappy reviews, do so.

            TR has a higher standard that goes far more in depth than almost all other reviews. Perfection takes time.

            • Sargent Duck
            • 5 years ago

            Agreed, perfection takes time and I’ve always waited patiently for TR’s review. That’s never been in question.

            But they’ve had the 1080 in their labs AT LEAST since May 16 [url<]https://techreport.com/news/30140/in-the-lab-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-graphics-card[/url<], if not longer. Assuming they got their card the same time as the other sites (a reasonable assumption I think), it's now been an extra 2 weeks. TR is always the best reviews, but just how in-depth are they going?

            • Inkling
            • 5 years ago

            Maybe a reasonable assumption, but not at all correct.

            There are multiple issues complicating the completion of this review, most of which I shouldn’t get into. One of which is that although Scott would just skip sleep and personal/family time for 3 or 4 days to produce quality reviews on super-short schedules, not everyone can (or should) do that.

            • Waco
            • 5 years ago

            Agreed. Family and sanity come first and quality takes time.

            I don’t have any motivation to run out and buy one first day anyway – reviews that take longer don’t change my timelines (and I doubt many NEED to buy a card today such that the TR review being late is killing them).

            • Krogoth
            • 5 years ago

            It is just more belly aching from spoiled kiddies that still think that in-depth product reviews magically appear after NDA lifts.

            I don’t see that big deal either as it looks like 1080 is a repeat of 5870, 680 and 8800 Ultra launch. If the staff at TR managed to publish a quality review at NDA lifting day. The same kiddies would complain that the whole thing is a thinly-veiled paper launch since you cannot get a 1080 from most etailers at this time.

            • the
            • 5 years ago

            From that post and a comments else where, they got the card after most of the other major review sites.

            The other thing that has happened is that there have been a bunch of new driver revisions this month on both the nVidia and AMD side of things. Summer is supposed to be a slow time for game releases and we got both Overwatch and Doom this month. Speaking of Doom, it too is supposed to be getting a big update here in a few weeks to bring Vulkan support to the game. All these changes either means waiting them out to settle down, redoing a lot of testing or simply settle for results that would be ‘out of date’ when finally published.

            • Sargent Duck
            • 5 years ago

            I agree with everything you said in regards to new games and new drivers. That’s just the state of the industry. A reviewer wouldn’t go back and redo their entire review just because of a new driver release. They’d release what they had, clearly stating the drivers they tested and mentioning there are newer ones out there. Then they’d likely re-test with a few key benchmarks and update the review, stating the new drivers and the impact they had compared to the previous. Same could be said of games. We’ve seen this before in older GPU reviews, so nothing new here.

            Games and drivers are always getting updated and even if TR delays the review to test the latest Nvidia drives, it’d be moot in a month when Nvidia releases it’s next version.

            • trek205
            • 5 years ago

            Oh good grief. It is beyond asinine to act like every other review is crappy and only TR can do a decent review. Plenty of other reviews actually cover way more in depth detail and WAY more games. You clowns on here are worse than the Kyle kiss butts over on Hardforum.

            • NarwhaleAu
            • 5 years ago

            I agree. I cancelled my subscription to TR for exactly this reason. I got tired of waiting.

            • Waco
            • 5 years ago

            If you don’t care, why complain? I did not say every other review was crappy. I said that TR reviews tend to be a notch above the rest and that I’m willing to wait.

            If you disagree, fine, but why complain about it?

            • Krogoth
            • 5 years ago

            Babby’s first trolling attempt.

            Come back to us when you do your own in-depth reviews and publish them.

            • the
            • 5 years ago

            Really? What site does nVidia themselves cite for bringing frame pacing to the forefront? Oh yeah….

            • trek205
            • 5 years ago

            Pcper.com goes over that stuff too you know. And again most other reviewers actually test more than a few games. And we have reviews that actually bother to OC the card and do comparison with other OCed cards. And many of them will look into seeing what the limitations are on the OC. But again if you clowns cant comprehend that other sites can do good reviews then no point in discussing it anymore. At least everyone else has got their damn reviews out on the date NDA lifted and 2 weeks later NOTHING from TR and now they did not even review the 1070 either. Ignorant ass kissers.

            • Krogoth
            • 5 years ago

            go back to /v/ you pimple-face troll.

            • trackerben
            • 5 years ago

            You need to get real and chill a little. To me TR’s hardware reviews are usually great for strictly validating what others are saying. If you want faster but looser the other sites are good for that.

            • PainIs4ThaWeak1
            • 5 years ago

            So go read/watch those instead?

            • Demetri
            • 5 years ago

            Exactly. Not sure why this guy is complaining if he thinks TR reviews have nothing to offer anyway.

            • Krogoth
            • 5 years ago

            He is a third-rated troll starving for attention.

            Ignore him.

            • Ninjitsu
            • 5 years ago

            Yeah, and one YT “reviewer” I was shown looked at an obvious CPU bottleneck in his FPS average comparison of TWO GPUs (HOW DID HE MANAGE SO MUCH WORK) and said “i dunno whass goin on man!”

            ยฌ_ยฌ

        • BoilerGamer
        • 5 years ago

        EVGA had 1080(Founders, ACX or Reference) available for step-up on last Friday right away. I got my April 980Ti trade-in approved immediately and even with shipping back and forth from Indiana to CA I should get mine in 2 weeks.

          • Krogoth
          • 5 years ago

          1080 went out of stock with most etailers and are on back orders on the same day. Looks like a good, old paper launch.

            • End User
            • 5 years ago

            Mine is shipping from BC to Toronto as I type this.

          • cygnus1
          • 5 years ago

          So, your point is that if you needed to do a review you wouldn’t have a card to do it with either?

        • chuckula
        • 5 years ago

        I’ve seen online retailers listing June 10 as the arrival date for the next big batch of GTX-1080s, and that is also the date that the GTX-1070 goes on sale (likely shipped together.).

        Hopefully there will be more non-“founders edition” cards floating around by the end of June.

        • ronch
        • 5 years ago

        It’s not uncommon for new stuff to be in short supply during the first few weeks upon launch, but in the hardware review industry you’d better have your review ready when the NDA lifts. Everyone will be wanting to read reviews at launch particularly if it’s a significant product. You can’t post your review after the dust has settled because by then everyone ale would have read several reviews of the product elsewhere, and no one but fans of your website will even bother to drop by and read your late review.

      • thedosbox
      • 5 years ago

      Why do you care when the cards won’t even be available for at least another week? Better a quality review than one done by some youtuber who agreed to slavishly follow nvidia’s reviewers guide.

        • NarwhaleAu
        • 5 years ago

        We don’t have either. Besides, some of the other sites already have quality reviews up.

          • thedosbox
          • 5 years ago

          Assuming you’re referring to quality reviews, you’re contradicting yourself.

          And for clarity, I liked the PCPer review, but I’d still like to see TR’s take. I’m just willing to be more patient.

      • alphadogg
      • 5 years ago

      As opposed to the OP, overall I appreciate the whole body of work produced at TechReport and will continue to support them. That they don’t have a review on one new product exactly at or just before the NDA lifted, that I can’t buy anyways due to availability, is not a concern to me.

      Keep up the good work!

      • Leader952
      • 5 years ago

      At this point I too have given up on TR.

      TR used to produce quality reviews on a timely fashion but recently those reviews got out somewhat late like a few days.

      Now being weeks late I don’t really care. I have read many of the reviews available and many of them are quality work.

      Now what I do wonder about here is the enablers who accept the excuses carte blanche and attack those who dare question the severe lateness of said review(s).

      For those interested here is a link to a list of GTX 1070 reviews:

      [url<]https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1917754[/url<]

        • lycium
        • 5 years ago

        It is indeed quite sad, reminds me of the end of FlipCode in the hobbyist programming world…

    • Sargent Duck
    • 5 years ago

    Good review of every other site’s review, but where is TR’s review?

      • south side sammy
      • 5 years ago

      there weren’t enough 1080’s to hand out either. seems like they were in a big hurry to beat AMD’s release and get some of the market share. wonder what the inventory really is?
      I don’t like seeing reviews pulled from around the web either. but if you watch some of the video reviews, you’ll see the same thing. not enough cards were handed out, and not enough were on the shelves for purchase. I smell a rat.

        • Ifalna
        • 5 years ago

        They have to put pressure on people somehow to warrant the +100 early adopters tax.

          • JustAnEngineer
          • 5 years ago

          For the GeForce GTX1070, the “Founder’s Edition” early adopter gouging is +$120 = +32%

        • travbrad
        • 5 years ago

        [quote<]seems like they were in a big hurry to beat AMD's release and get some of the market share. wonder what the inventory really is? [/quote<] If the inventory is really limited how are they going to gain market share? You don't gain market share if no one can buy your stuff.

    • tipoo
    • 5 years ago

    “the GTX 1070 beats or exceeds the performance of the Titan X in every game, at every resolution we tested. Yeah, really.”

    From PC gamer. That gave me the warm feels. Does the SteamVR test above take advantage of SMP? Seems like a big game changer for VR, minimal performance impact from rendering two scenes.

      • bfar
      • 5 years ago

      Nods to Nvidia for a great product, but when will it be on the shelves at a non gouging- price?

        • nanoflower
        • 5 years ago

        When AMD finally gets out some competitive products. Until then Nvidia has no need to lower their prices. Sad but true.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This