hehe I know how you feel my friend, just had it this way with the Overwatch beta launch at 1am our time instead of maybe earlier so everybody could play on the 2nd, not only the Americas But... ...Alamn's right, patience is a virtue. I'm not sure if I'll stay up or just skip it and read about it tomorrow. Probably 200 posts here by then True, it even showed 'lacking maths' on the slides. Was just BS and marketing, not 3D performance indications.
Hahaha, that timeline wouldn't suprise me at all Might be able to get the other guys/chicks to put it on beamer :banana:
Yeah, but I am used to watch those things as soon as possible. And I have to be up early tomorrow and will have busy day. This way I may not see it till Monday.
He started to talk about 1080gtx.. finally.. And comparing to 980GTX. So ~4.2 index vs stock TitanX 3.8.. Oc'ed 1400mhz is its 4.5 index for sure, ok power not though :grin:
I can't belive they called it 1080. Of the unedicated there about to be some confusing. From a marketing standpoint it does not make any sense.
funny like sometimes he's highly specific and precise and... "it's faster than Titan-X... by a lot".... ROFL Not a word on new APIs yet
he already gave it away man come on he was talking about clean power delivery, that's not even gpu-related, it's board related; he's confirming that they tweaked the entire board design to allow for the higher clocks and stay within the 330mm budget that said, reference board design must be pretty good for that big an improvement in ripple 980 users will flock to it 980ti users should wait unless they have money to burn
980!!! The 980-Ti won't be mentionned lol... it's a just "a lot" faster than titan-x and can run the division on Ultra over 60fps rofl, no info on resolution used. If it's 1080, it's a pure joke.
09:44PM EDT - Back of the envelope calculation says that GTX 1080 should be around 25% faster than GTX 980 Ti, using NVIDIA's numbers Edit: Obviously stock 980Ti.
Holy ****, 2114 Mhz, 67c Yet it's only 25% faster then a Ti? I wonder if the core count we thought it was is wrong. Either that or Pascal is significantly slower per clock, which doesn't make much sense to me.
