GTX_1080 benchmark

Forums: GTX_1080 benchmark
Generic forum to discuss Octane Render, post ideas and suggest improvements.
Forum rules
Please add your OS and Hardware Configuration in your signature, it makes it easier for us to help you analyze problems. Example: Win 7 64 | Geforce GTX680 | i7 3770 | 16GB

Re: GTX_1080 benchmark

Postby Timmaigh! » Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:54 pm

Timmaigh! Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:54 pm
Repost from anandtech forums, test performed/screen posted by user named Dufus...for anyone wondering how far u can get with 1080 performance wise:

Image
R9 7950x, 64GB DDR5 6000 MHz, 2x RTX 4090, Samsung 990 Pro 2TB, Kingston KC3000 2TB, Kingston KC3000 1TB, WD Caviar Gold 6TB, Win11 Pro 64bit
Timmaigh!
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:10 am

Re: GTX_1080 benchmark

Postby anklove » Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:38 pm

anklove Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:38 pm
ff7darkcloud wrote:Anklove and Uncia, could you let me know the temperatures at the end of the benchmarks for a single 1070 and a single 1080 at stock clocks?

Thanks in advance!


About 67/65 C
i7 10700k | Win 10 64 bit | RTX 3090
anklove
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:31 am

Re: GTX_1080 benchmark

Postby arashiii » Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:44 pm

arashiii Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:44 pm
Here are the results for the 1070 stock:

1 x 1070 > 117.61
4 x 1070 > 482.43

octanebench_1x1070.PNG
i7 5930K, ASUS x99-e WS, 64 GB, 4xGTX 1070 FE, 950 pro 512GB, EVO 840 500GB (cache), 2x3TB storage, WIN 10 64bit pro, Cinema 4D R18, Octane V3.03.2-R5
arashiii
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 3:27 pm

Re: GTX_1080 benchmark

Postby mbutler2 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:31 am

mbutler2 Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:31 am
So if it is the case that two GTX 1070s bench at 241, then one would bench at 120 (my personal tests show linear, so I'm assuming.)

And all of the GTX 980 TI's I have bench at around 125 each.

Then there's absolutely no reason to buy any more expensive 980 TI's.

Not to mention the power and heat improvements over the hot and hungry 980 TI's.

And improvement from 1070 to 1080 has a bigger price increase than performance increase.

So if you have room for a bunch of cards, it seems like 1070s is the way to go. Because cost per speed is more expensive in a 1080.

Any opinions, guys?
mbutler2
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:58 pm

Re: GTX_1080 benchmark

Postby cayn99 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:29 am

cayn99 Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:29 am
mbutler2 wrote:So if it is the case that two GTX 1070s bench at 241, then one would bench at 120 (my personal tests show linear, so I'm assuming.)

And all of the GTX 980 TI's I have bench at around 125 each.

Then there's absolutely no reason to buy any more expensive 980 TI's.

Not to mention the power and heat improvements over the hot and hungry 980 TI's.

And improvement from 1070 to 1080 has a bigger price increase than performance increase.

So if you have room for a bunch of cards, it seems like 1070s is the way to go. Because cost per speed is more expensive in a 1080.

Any opinions, guys?


so far i think you are right, but maybe we should wait for proper optimization of the 1xxx series; i think those numbers are not final.

Cheers~!
cayn99
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:43 am
Location: Rome, Italy

Re: GTX_1080 benchmark

Postby arashiii » Sat Sep 24, 2016 5:39 am

arashiii Sat Sep 24, 2016 5:39 am
@mbutler2

My idea was to have a quad gpu system which doesnt need liquid cooling. 4 of 980 ti cards squeezed together become too hot when just air cooled and in consequence start underclocking. so the full potential can only be used when there is a proper cooling installed.

my tests showed that after 5 min of excessive rendering the 1070s in the middle reach the temperature limit of about 83 degree C and start underclocking. with 1080s this effect should appear even quicker. so i needed to change the factory fan speed settings to higher rpms in hot conditions. the noise is still ok and they all run with 100% speed.

lower power consumption and the better price/performance tag (compared to 1080 and above) and more ram (compared to 980 ti) were the main reasons for me to go with the 1070s.
i7 5930K, ASUS x99-e WS, 64 GB, 4xGTX 1070 FE, 950 pro 512GB, EVO 840 500GB (cache), 2x3TB storage, WIN 10 64bit pro, Cinema 4D R18, Octane V3.03.2-R5
arashiii
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 3:27 pm

Re: GTX_1080 benchmark

Postby darkline » Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:45 pm

darkline Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:45 pm
Not so sure. I recently bought a 980ti and paid less for it than a gtx 1070. It benchmarks at 141 (evga FTW edition).

Have they released the optimisation for Pascal yet? That could push 1070 beyond a 980ti?
Windows 7 64bit/ Intel 3930K/ ASUS Rampage IV/ GTX980ti x 2/ 64GB system RAM
darkline
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:56 pm

Re: GTX_1080 benchmark

Postby coilbook » Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:57 pm

coilbook Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:57 pm
140 for 1080 and only 160 for titan x pascal. Why is titan so slow?
coilbook
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 2985
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:27 pm

Re: GTX_1080 benchmark

Postby Timmaigh! » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:59 pm

Timmaigh! Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:59 pm
coilbook wrote:140 for 1080 and only 160 for titan x pascal. Why is titan so slow?


Partially cause of its lower clocks compared to 1080 and then, the performance increase does not correlate with the number of CUDA cores. GTX 1060 at half the cores of 1080 gets the score of 90, so 1080 should be 180 instead of 140 too.
Hopefully this will be resolved with the CUDA 8 Pascal optimized versions.
R9 7950x, 64GB DDR5 6000 MHz, 2x RTX 4090, Samsung 990 Pro 2TB, Kingston KC3000 2TB, Kingston KC3000 1TB, WD Caviar Gold 6TB, Win11 Pro 64bit
Timmaigh!
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:10 am

Re: GTX_1080 benchmark

Postby coilbook » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:07 pm

coilbook Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:07 pm
Timmaigh! wrote:
coilbook wrote:140 for 1080 and only 160 for titan x pascal. Why is titan so slow?


Partially cause of its lower clocks compared to 1080 and then, the performance increase does not correlate with the number of CUDA cores. GTX 1060 at half the cores of 1080 gets the score of 90, so 1080 should be 180 instead of 140 too.
Hopefully this will be resolved with the CUDA 8 Pascal optimized versions.



i see Thank you
coilbook
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 2985
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:27 pm
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:24 am [ UTC ]