Hardware Inno3D GeForce GTX 1080 Ti iChill X3

The fastest graphics card struts into the bit-tech labs.

https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2017/03/17/inno3d-geforce-gtx-1080-ti/1

 

I really don't want to appear like an arse, but I just might anyway.

You only compare the new cards to a Titan (pascal) or an AMD R9 Fury X. What about the previous generation? I am sitting here with a 970, but all your reviews aren't applicable to me as you don't include a reference to the previous generation.

So what am I to take away from this? X card is faster than X card..well yeah..but unless you provide the last generation of cards what do those charts even mean to most of us? Nothing, is what they mean.

 

^I'm sure I remember reading a while back that they brought in a new test setup and so had to effectively start from scratch with the results starting at the 1080. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong however.

 

This may be the case.

Basically this is my first stop before comparing. I could easily use another, but I'd rather not..and other sites seem to be able to incorporate multiple GPU's and configurations. To me it just seems like laziness to not compare the previous setup/generation with this one. It is possible to use an old setup with a new GPU to show the difference.

We don't all sit on a pile of gold, where only the newest things have relevance. And I am not asking for 1080 to be compared with a 560. Help a guy out.

 

You can't have skewed results, or else your credibility becomes questionable. You have to draw the line and start somewhere. I'd have thought that BT would at least keep a few of their samples behind so that they can retest, especially in these particular circumstances.

Maybe the results are coming at some point...?

 

I bolded a sentence to stop these kinds of replys

Maybe I should just delete the first paragraph?

Edit: Done..

 

I know that they can use an old setup to show the performance of a new GPU, but where do you stop? You have to draw the line somewhere and start from afresh. You wouldn't want to put a 1080 Ti with a QX9650 because it was the best chip back in 2008, would you?

I will agree that it is a pain, but you've got to understand that you have to draw the line somewhere; whether it be now (as it is) or a year down the road, it has to happen. We went through the exact same problem when refreshing our graphs over at the site that I write for.

 

What's to say that they have the time to put together an old system to run all the old gpus on? What's to say that they've still got, let's say, some 780s or 960s kicking around in the office to test even if they did have the time?

 

Is it really that difficult, if you want to know how the newly tested cards compare with older hardware, to look-up old test results and make a rough comparison? There is plenty of information out there, make some effort yourself.

 

^ Or that - look at the 1080 reviews and you can see that 1080s give roughly double the fps of 970s and the 1080ti gives roughly 50% more fps than a 1080 and you get that a 1080ti will give roughly 3 times the fps of a 970. Done.

 

Hi, this is absolutely right. More cards will be added in due course.

 

^Yes! Maybe my memory isn't quite as bad as I thought

 

I spose... It isn't very scientific though

 

Neither is running the latest GPU on a 10 year old platform...