GP104 provides a performance increase vs. it's direct predecessor, GM204 as well as vs. GM200, the largest GPU of the Maxwell (2) generation. This is not entirely unprecedented, GM204 itself was in a similar position upon its introduction relative to the prior (complete) generation, Kepler. The difference this time however appears to be much greater, such that this initial observation also applies to the 2nd tier GP104 SKU, GTX 1070 and not only the top tier SKU as with the prior generation. Given the reduced price of GTX 1070 relative to GTX 1080 or 980 Ti, this makes it an excellent value proposition at the top-end of the graphics card performance spectrum, with the 1080 offering additional performance at a higher price point.
When GP104 was unveiled, I became curious as to its performance relative not only to GM204 but also GM200 as a means of determining what (if any) architectural improvements have been made. To determine the answer to this question, I have utilized overclockersclub.com's 1070 overclocking review which provides performance numbers for all of the aforementioned GPUs in 9 current games at resolutions of 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 4k (assuming 3840x2160). I've compiled a spreadsheet (Google docs) of data from this review and have made a number of calculations comparing the GPUs in question. I'll provide links to the review and the spreadsheet in question at the end of this post. From this data, I've been able to make some interesting observations.
GTX 970 vs. 1070:
I believe this to be the natural comparison of SKUs between these generations based on their MSRPs ($329+ vs. $379-449). My current gaming PC has a Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming with an EK waterblock and is overclocked to 1554/8000, almost exactly the same speed as the 970 featured by overclockersclub in their review. Contemplating an upgrade, I found this to be a near perfect natural comparison and so I began to dig in to the numbers. Given the overclocked speeds of the cards in question, 1070 has a clockspeed increase of 30.9% over the 970 (2050 vs. 1566MHz). There is also an SP count differential of 15.4% (1920 vs. 1664). Combining these increases we arrive at an expected SP throughput difference of of 51.1%. Therefore, in purely shader-bound workloads the performance difference from 970 to 1070 should be close to this number. Averaging the performance across the 3 resolutions tested we arrive at a figure of 53.2% performance advantage for the 1070. It is possible that there were some variances in the reported clockspeeds which could account for this difference, it is also possible that there are architectural differences at play. Without further supporting information I cannot say if either or both options are true. Nonetheless, an interesting finding and what seems to be a rather close corrolation. One last data point of note, FPS/W is 73.3% higher with 1070. Further breakdowns of the performance of each card are available in the spreadsheet.
GTX 980 Ti vs 1080:
Here's the basic breakdown: 1080 has a clockspeed increase of 40.9% vs. 980 Ti (2050 vs. 1455), with a 9.1% decrease in SP count (2560 vs. 2816). This equates to a 28.1% theoretical increase in SP throughput. The average performance increase across all 3 resolutions was 22.6%. The observed performance increase is not as high as with 1070 vs. 970. This leads me to believe that SP throughput is not the only limiting factor in the observed performance. I am not an electrical engineer (let alone architect) so I don't have much insight into this phenomenon. FPS/W is 51.5% higher with 1080. Given that fact, its performance gain over 980 Ti is impressive.
There's a lot more data in the spreadsheet, including performance for each card at each resolution. Anyone interested in highlighting further datapoints of interest feel free, I hope this can be a good topic for discussion. Kudos to OCC for their hard work in this review and for including so many data points.
Overclockers Club review: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_geforcegtx_1070_overclocking/
Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10mwNtNsQXNJCjHQPtE5K636f-rXjZTRrmHszOUWyI6Y/edit?usp=sharing
Note: FPS/W figures were calculated based on measured total system power consumption. The ratios are the same as what they would be if the power of each card was measured individually, but the calculated numbers themselves are lower.
When GP104 was unveiled, I became curious as to its performance relative not only to GM204 but also GM200 as a means of determining what (if any) architectural improvements have been made. To determine the answer to this question, I have utilized overclockersclub.com's 1070 overclocking review which provides performance numbers for all of the aforementioned GPUs in 9 current games at resolutions of 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 4k (assuming 3840x2160). I've compiled a spreadsheet (Google docs) of data from this review and have made a number of calculations comparing the GPUs in question. I'll provide links to the review and the spreadsheet in question at the end of this post. From this data, I've been able to make some interesting observations.
GTX 970 vs. 1070:
I believe this to be the natural comparison of SKUs between these generations based on their MSRPs ($329+ vs. $379-449). My current gaming PC has a Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming with an EK waterblock and is overclocked to 1554/8000, almost exactly the same speed as the 970 featured by overclockersclub in their review. Contemplating an upgrade, I found this to be a near perfect natural comparison and so I began to dig in to the numbers. Given the overclocked speeds of the cards in question, 1070 has a clockspeed increase of 30.9% over the 970 (2050 vs. 1566MHz). There is also an SP count differential of 15.4% (1920 vs. 1664). Combining these increases we arrive at an expected SP throughput difference of of 51.1%. Therefore, in purely shader-bound workloads the performance difference from 970 to 1070 should be close to this number. Averaging the performance across the 3 resolutions tested we arrive at a figure of 53.2% performance advantage for the 1070. It is possible that there were some variances in the reported clockspeeds which could account for this difference, it is also possible that there are architectural differences at play. Without further supporting information I cannot say if either or both options are true. Nonetheless, an interesting finding and what seems to be a rather close corrolation. One last data point of note, FPS/W is 73.3% higher with 1070. Further breakdowns of the performance of each card are available in the spreadsheet.
GTX 980 Ti vs 1080:
Here's the basic breakdown: 1080 has a clockspeed increase of 40.9% vs. 980 Ti (2050 vs. 1455), with a 9.1% decrease in SP count (2560 vs. 2816). This equates to a 28.1% theoretical increase in SP throughput. The average performance increase across all 3 resolutions was 22.6%. The observed performance increase is not as high as with 1070 vs. 970. This leads me to believe that SP throughput is not the only limiting factor in the observed performance. I am not an electrical engineer (let alone architect) so I don't have much insight into this phenomenon. FPS/W is 51.5% higher with 1080. Given that fact, its performance gain over 980 Ti is impressive.
There's a lot more data in the spreadsheet, including performance for each card at each resolution. Anyone interested in highlighting further datapoints of interest feel free, I hope this can be a good topic for discussion. Kudos to OCC for their hard work in this review and for including so many data points.
Overclockers Club review: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_geforcegtx_1070_overclocking/
Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10mwNtNsQXNJCjHQPtE5K636f-rXjZTRrmHszOUWyI6Y/edit?usp=sharing
Note: FPS/W figures were calculated based on measured total system power consumption. The ratios are the same as what they would be if the power of each card was measured individually, but the calculated numbers themselves are lower.
