🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 21:17:32 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>Hi everyone, I just got an NVidia 1070 and I wanted to post some 
>thoughts on this card.
>First of all, this is one hell of a card, and quiet too.
>Basically the fans do not spin in normal desktop mode due to low power 
>consumption and I get the feeling that it is roughtly twice as fast as 
>my old nvidia 970 from which I have been moving up.
>
>The Witcher 3 runs in 60 fps smoothly with all settings to max in 1080p 
>and still keeps up roughly 30 fps in all settings to max in 4k.
>(I am running the card with a core i5 3570 which later this year will be 
>replaced with an AMD Ryzen)
>HEVC encoding is somewhere between 190fps and 280fps depending on the 
>settings for a full hd video card. And to the best the power consumption 
>is less than with my old nvidia 970 card.
>
>The 10xx series is a milestone, nice job NVidia and definitely something 
>ATI has to choke on for a while.


*--

Which version did you get?  My 970GTX eVGA does everything I need it
to do.  But I just cancelled my XBox One S from Amazon (got sick of
waiting a month for it) so maybe I should upgrade my PC with this
card.

-pw

Am 24.12.16 um 21:30 schrieb PW:
> Which version did you get?  My 970GTX eVGA does everything I need it
> to do.  But I just cancelled my XBox One S from Amazon (got sick of
> waiting a month for it) so maybe I should upgrade my PC with this
> card.
I got the MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Gaming X 8G. Not the cheapest card there 
is, but I think it is worth it.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:01:09 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 24.12.16 um 21:30 schrieb PW:
>> Which version did you get?  My 970GTX eVGA does everything I need it
>> to do.  But I just cancelled my XBox One S from Amazon (got sick of
>> waiting a month for it) so maybe I should upgrade my PC with this
>> card.
>I got the MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Gaming X 8G. Not the cheapest card there 
>is, but I think it is worth it.

I snagged an EVGA SC 1080, and boy, it is the best card I've ever put
in a machine. The thermals are better than other cards I've owned by
about 10 degrees. And, of course, it's bleeding edge so it can handle
anything I can throw at it. Tomb Raider, with HairFX, at 60 fps is
beautiful (I'm going through it as a completionist. It's more fun than
the main storyline.)

-- 
Zag

Sent from my slow-ass Toshiba Laptop

Am 25.12.16 um 01:29 schrieb Zaghadka:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:01:09 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
>> Am 24.12.16 um 21:30 schrieb PW:
>>> Which version did you get?  My 970GTX eVGA does everything I need it
>>> to do.  But I just cancelled my XBox One S from Amazon (got sick of
>>> waiting a month for it) so maybe I should upgrade my PC with this
>>> card.
>> I got the MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Gaming X 8G. Not the cheapest card there
>> is, but I think it is worth it.
>
> I snagged an EVGA SC 1080, and boy, it is the best card I've ever put
> in a machine. The thermals are better than other cards I've owned by
> about 10 degrees. And, of course, it's bleeding edge so it can handle
> anything I can throw at it. Tomb Raider, with HairFX, at 60 fps is
> beautiful (I'm going through it as a completionist. It's more fun than
> the main storyline.)
>
Yes the entire 10xx line of cards is absolutely awesome. An 1080 card is 
out of my league pricewise (at least i do not want to spend that much 
money on a graphics card), nevertheless, I love the card. A little bit 
of unknown strength is that nvidia has improved the hevc encoding big 
time. I am getting really good results here, with about 270fps encoding 
speed on full hd with 30% processor load and the results are way better 
imagewise than with my old 970 thanks to 10 bit encoding and other new 
parameters.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 09:52:22 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 25.12.16 um 01:29 schrieb Zaghadka:
>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:01:09 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 24.12.16 um 21:30 schrieb PW:
>>>> Which version did you get?  My 970GTX eVGA does everything I need it
>>>> to do.  But I just cancelled my XBox One S from Amazon (got sick of
>>>> waiting a month for it) so maybe I should upgrade my PC with this
>>>> card.
>>> I got the MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Gaming X 8G. Not the cheapest card there
>>> is, but I think it is worth it.
>>
>> I snagged an EVGA SC 1080, and boy, it is the best card I've ever put
>> in a machine. The thermals are better than other cards I've owned by
>> about 10 degrees. And, of course, it's bleeding edge so it can handle
>> anything I can throw at it. Tomb Raider, with HairFX, at 60 fps is
>> beautiful (I'm going through it as a completionist. It's more fun than
>> the main storyline.)
>>
>Yes the entire 10xx line of cards is absolutely awesome. An 1080 card is 
>out of my league pricewise (at least i do not want to spend that much 
>money on a graphics card), nevertheless, I love the card. A little bit 
>of unknown strength is that nvidia has improved the hevc encoding big 
>time. I am getting really good results here, with about 270fps encoding 
>speed on full hd with 30% processor load and the results are way better 
>imagewise than with my old 970 thanks to 10 bit encoding and other new 
>parameters.
>

I actually wouldn't mind to swap out my dual gtx980s for a gtx1080,
just to so that I am dealing with a single card so that I don't have
to wonder whether a given game is going to support SLI properly.  Also
a single card would give me all of the RAM on one physical card (where
it can actually be used).  Problem is, for now, my dual 980s are
actually faster so I can't justify the purchase, even factoring in
selling the 980s.  I usually like to look for about a 2x performance
improvement before I upgrade cards, and because I play games at 1080p,
which of course only taxes the system in the most visually demanding
games, my actual need to upgrade will probably be deferred for a
while.  It used to be "upgrade time" about ever 1.5-2 years on GPU,
but this time I find myself 2 years into ownership on my current
setup, and I'm really not even close to needing a performance boost.  

You might also consider pairing your card with a g-sync monitor.  Also
about two years into ownership, it remains one of my best gaming
hardware purchases, period.  Even in extremely visually demanding
games, the net effect is that your rig will feel more powerful
overall, because the adaptive sync of the monitor removes a lot of
stuttering and other anomalies that would otherwise be symptomatic of
a struggling GPU - games just feel that much better on it.

 

Am 25.12.16 um 15:45 schrieb Rin Stowleigh:
> You might also consider pairing your card with a g-sync monitor.  Also
> about two years into ownership, it remains one of my best gaming
> hardware purchases, period.  Even in extremely visually demanding
> games, the net effect is that your rig will feel more powerful
> overall, because the adaptive sync of the monitor removes a lot of
> stuttering and other anomalies that would otherwise be symptomatic of
> a struggling GPU - games just feel that much better on it.

Yes I was thinking about that, but in the end, I play 90% of my games 
usually streamed against a 65 inch tv or a notebook computer via a 
steam/steam link or nvidia shield. So for me prio #1 is a decent 
encoding/gaming performance.

And also there were severe deficits with G-Sync monitors until recently 
(aka lack of more than 1-2 input ports, lack of 4k monitors) which now 
have been resolved to some degree or are getting resolved as we speak. I 
probably will jump on that train in 1-2 years.
This year I just want to upgrade my aging core i5 3570 to something with 
more horsepower. The upcoming AMD Ryzen for instance if they can deliver 
finally performancewise.

Am 25.12.16 um 16:04 schrieb Werner Punz:
> Am 25.12.16 um 15:45 schrieb Rin Stowleigh:
>> You might also consider pairing your card with a g-sync monitor.  Also
>> about two years into ownership, it remains one of my best gaming
>> hardware purchases, period.  Even in extremely visually demanding
>> games, the net effect is that your rig will feel more powerful
>> overall, because the adaptive sync of the monitor removes a lot of
>> stuttering and other anomalies that would otherwise be symptomatic of
>> a struggling GPU - games just feel that much better on it.
>
> Yes I was thinking about that, but in the end, I play 90% of my games
> usually streamed against a 65 inch tv or a notebook computer via a
> steam/steam link or nvidia shield. So for me prio #1 is a decent
> encoding/gaming performance.
>
> And also there were severe deficits with G-Sync monitors until recently
> (aka lack of more than 1-2 input ports, lack of 4k monitors) which now
> have been resolved to some degree or are getting resolved as we speak. I
> probably will jump on that train in 1-2 years.
> This year I just want to upgrade my aging core i5 3570 to something with
> more horsepower. The upcoming AMD Ryzen for instance if they can deliver
> finally performancewise.
>
>
Forgot to mention, also the lack of HDR is somewhat of a showstopper 
ATM. I have good HDR on my TV and I do not want to miss it anymore.

So in the end I probably will buy a HDR capable monitor with G-Sync UHD 
and multiple input ports in a few years down the road and ride out the 
model I have atm for another bunch of years.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 16:05:56 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 25.12.16 um 16:04 schrieb Werner Punz:
>> Am 25.12.16 um 15:45 schrieb Rin Stowleigh:
>>> You might also consider pairing your card with a g-sync monitor.  Also
>>> about two years into ownership, it remains one of my best gaming
>>> hardware purchases, period.  Even in extremely visually demanding
>>> games, the net effect is that your rig will feel more powerful
>>> overall, because the adaptive sync of the monitor removes a lot of
>>> stuttering and other anomalies that would otherwise be symptomatic of
>>> a struggling GPU - games just feel that much better on it.
>>
>> Yes I was thinking about that, but in the end, I play 90% of my games
>> usually streamed against a 65 inch tv or a notebook computer via a
>> steam/steam link or nvidia shield. So for me prio #1 is a decent
>> encoding/gaming performance.
>>
>> And also there were severe deficits with G-Sync monitors until recently
>> (aka lack of more than 1-2 input ports, lack of 4k monitors) which now
>> have been resolved to some degree or are getting resolved as we speak. I
>> probably will jump on that train in 1-2 years.
>> This year I just want to upgrade my aging core i5 3570 to something with
>> more horsepower. The upcoming AMD Ryzen for instance if they can deliver
>> finally performancewise.
>>
>>
>Forgot to mention, also the lack of HDR is somewhat of a showstopper 
>ATM. I have good HDR on my TV and I do not want to miss it anymore.
>
>So in the end I probably will buy a HDR capable monitor with G-Sync UHD 
>and multiple input ports in a few years down the road and ride out the 
>model I have atm for another bunch of years.
>

For me there is a clear line of separation between TV/movie watching
and gaming, perhaps more so than for most people.  I don't want to
watch movies on my monitor and don't really want to game on my living
room TV, but I understand how needs vary.

On HDR I wouldn't defer any purchases for that.  Lots of standards to
still work themselves out and not a lot of content taking advantage of
it yet.  It's also not particularl important to gaming since it will
just make take well-optimized games back to performing poorly anyway,
sending frame rate expectations back to the stone age, assuming games
attempt to tackle HDR by the same definition of HDR the TV industry is
using.

If one waits for the "next big thing", they might as well never buy
hardware at all.  The TV industry sits around with entire committees
of people trying to find the next thing to keep them employed and
justify their existence.   Remember HDTV?  They started saying "don't
buy another set that's not HD!" around maybe 1996.  How long was it
until there was enough actual content for it to matter for most folks
and enough channels that supported it?  Maybe 2009?   Then there is
3D, VR, and the list goes on and on.

The ironic thing is that one of the big advantages of HDR is supposed
to be "real black levels"..   Oh guess what, my 4 year old dinosaur of
a plasma TV already offers that level of contrast quite beautifully on
existing content.  It's not my fault that everyone stopped selling the
superior plasma TVs, so that they could get everyone's eyes accustomed
to LCD TVs, just so they could line them up to be sold the next newer
thing a few years down the road (that promises to give them the same
benefit of the TVs a generation before).

Just think, if TV technology progresses far enough, we might actually
regain some of the benefits we had with CRTs.

Am 25.12.16 um 17:23 schrieb Rin Stowleigh:
> The ironic thing is that one of the big advantages of HDR is supposed
> to be "real black levels"..   Oh guess what, my 4 year old dinosaur of
> a plasma TV already offers that level of contrast quite beautifully on
> existing content.
It is getting off topic, but real black levels have nothing to do with 
HDR but with the technology of the monitor. Currently you can only get 
those from plasma OLED and FALD LCD screens. Most hdr screens sold in 
2016 have edge backlighting and cannot provide real blacks at all.
The only advantage of HDR is higher contrast ratios deeper colors and 
brighter whites.
And yes HDR given the correct technology behind it can improve the image 
quality big time, but most hdr screens cannot do that ATM.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:24:56 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 25.12.16 um 17:23 schrieb Rin Stowleigh:
>> The ironic thing is that one of the big advantages of HDR is supposed
>> to be "real black levels"..   Oh guess what, my 4 year old dinosaur of
>> a plasma TV already offers that level of contrast quite beautifully on
>> existing content.
>It is getting off topic, but real black levels have nothing to do with 
>HDR but with the technology of the monitor.

Well to the best of my understanding, HDR is really about the range
between the whitest whites and the darkest blacks, and if the monitor
technology cannot produce true black levels then the entire point of
HDR kind of goes out the window. 

Imagine selling someone an HDTV that's only capable of 480p of
receiving and displaying HDTV, then saying "okay the monitor itself
doesn't have enough pixel display capability to show you the full
range of HD pixels counts, but the receiver receives the signal and it
will be displayed as well as possible a the max pixel count the
monitor is capable of".  In other words it would kind of defeat the
purpose of an HDTV at all, just as having an HDR TV that cannot
display true black defeats the purpose of HDR.

Perhaps it's not quite analogous or a bit unclear when I said real
black levels are an advantage of HDR.  Maybe it would be more accurate
to say that the goal of HDR is thwarted if the monitor technology used
cannot support the end goals, one of which is proper whites, proper
blacks, and every human-perceptible possibility in between.

More importantly I think what I wanted to be the takeaway from my
prior message was just that I'm not a believer in constantly
suspending purchase decisions in ancticipation of the next greatest
fad, because just as soon as the industry starts to get a handle of
all the tradeoffs that come with the new television technology, and
start wondering if those tradeoffs were worth it (such as the
framerate loss that inevitably comes from techs like HDR and higher
resolutions), the industry will throw in yet another distraction by
coming up with something else to sell the consumer more hardware.  And
sheep will follow.

Meanwhile, what about the quality of the content?  How many movies or
TV shows emerge each year that are really worth watching?  For my
viewing tastes, not that many.  A lot of the stuff I find entertaining
is older, or perhaps a nostalgic re-watch for me, much of which was
filmed before there was HDTV or of course HDR.  And of course any
attempt to "update" that content with newer tech will result in a
disaster, like in the 80's when they started colorizing old black and
white films, much to everyone's viewing displeasure.

So personally I think they should focus more on good
writing/acting/direction and overall production of content, rather
that worrying about the fact something will now support a hundred
gazillion luminance levels that most people will never notice after
the first week of ownership anyway.

Most people I talk to, when I ask them about their first ownership
experience with HD television and content, confess that it wowed them
at first, and after a few days their eyes just adjusted to the new
format and expected it, which made it harder to tolerate standard def
content.  Basically separating them from the enjoyment of most things
written or produced before the HD era.  I'm not sure that's really
technological progress.

Am 25.12.16 um 21:12 schrieb Rin Stowleigh:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 19:24:56 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
>> Am 25.12.16 um 17:23 schrieb Rin Stowleigh:
>>> The ironic thing is that one of the big advantages of HDR is supposed
>>> to be "real black levels"..   Oh guess what, my 4 year old dinosaur of
>>> a plasma TV already offers that level of contrast quite beautifully on
>>> existing content.
>> It is getting off topic, but real black levels have nothing to do with
>> HDR but with the technology of the monitor.
>
> Well to the best of my understanding, HDR is really about the range
> between the whitest whites and the darkest blacks, and if the monitor
> technology cannot produce true black levels then the entire point of
> HDR kind of goes out the window.
>
Yes and no, even the edge lit lcds can produce 1000 nits so you get a 
strong brightness but not perfect blacks. Nevertheless, if you want 
something similar to Plasma, then OLED is your friend, the downside is 
you will only get 500 nits atm with OLED while LCDs next year already 
hit the 1500 nits mark. The plus side is oled has amazingly low input 
lag, but burn in issues.

If you want to have both perfect blacks and strong brightness, then 
there is only one technology ATM which can produce it and that is Full 
Area Local Dimming LCDs (FALD LCDs). But that one is very expensive and 
not perfect either (you can get halo effects in white black patterns)

Plasmas were at the end of the life 3 years ago because there was no way 
to produce a 4k plasma with a decent energy consumption (or maybe it was 
not even possible to produce 4k plasmas at all)


> Imagine selling someone an HDTV that's only capable of 480p of
> receiving and displaying HDTV, then saying "okay the monitor itself
> doesn't have enough pixel display capability to show you the full
> range of HD pixels counts, but the receiver receives the signal and it
> will be displayed as well as possible a the max pixel count the
> monitor is capable of".  In other words it would kind of defeat the
> purpose of an HDTV at all, just as having an HDR TV that cannot
> display true black defeats the purpose of HDR.
>
It is more than true blacks, it is deeper color range and higher 
contrast and a higher brightness to darkness range.
But I also think that edge lit lcds do not deserve the HDR label neither 
do OLED displays ATM.
But the industry needs a selling point for the upcoming years and it has 
one now. HDR is specced up to 10.000 nits and full 10/12 bit 
colorspaces. We are far away from that.
Next year they will see 1500 nits screens again with improved color 
space and probably the next upgrade to HDMI which finally allows 12 bit 
colors etc...
The year after that another raise in nits. This is an endless swine 
cycle. After 5 years the low to mid range models then catch up while 
high end has moved on.

> Perhaps it's not quite analogous or a bit unclear when I said real
> black levels are an advantage of HDR.  Maybe it would be more accurate
> to say that the goal of HDR is thwarted if the monitor technology used
> cannot support the end goals, one of which is proper whites, proper
> blacks, and every human-perceptible possibility in between.
>
> More importantly I think what I wanted to be the takeaway from my
> prior message was just that I'm not a believer in constantly
> suspending purchase decisions in ancticipation of the next greatest
> fad, because just as soon as the industry starts to get a handle of
> all the tradeoffs that come with the new television technology, and
> start wondering if those tradeoffs were worth it (such as the
> framerate loss that inevitably comes from techs like HDR and higher
> resolutions), the industry will throw in yet another distraction by
> coming up with something else to sell the consumer more hardware.  And
> sheep will follow.
>

Neither do I, I usually buy when I really need some stuff. However I 
also watch industry trends and I am not buying into half finished 
features. HDR was one such feature, the first hdr panels have been in 
existence since 2013 but last year was the first year they defined a 
base profile for that stuff. So every HDR tv before 2015 basically was 
rendered obsolete in that area. So I postponed my TV buying decision 
from 2014 to 2015 and I am happy about that now. Same goes for the 
monitors. My key criteria is, at least 2-3 possible connections because 
I have multiple devices. 4k is a must for me, sorry. HDR is a nice to 
have OLED would really be sweet. And absolutely low on my list is 
G-Sync/FreeSync (if AMD finally once can get their act together graphics 
cards wise)


> Meanwhile, what about the quality of the content?  How many movies or
> TV shows emerge each year that are really worth watching?  For my
> viewing tastes, not that many.  A lot of the stuff I find entertaining
> is older, or perhaps a nostalgic re-watch for me, much of which was
> filmed before there was HDTV or of course HDR.  And of course any
> attempt to "update" that content with newer tech will result in a
> disaster, like in the 80's when they started colorizing old black and
> white films, much to everyone's viewing displeasure.
>
Actually it is not as bad as trying to move a black and white movie to 
color. You in many cases if it is filmed on analog material can push out 
a 1080p version of that movie easily.
Hence you can get lots of classics in good quality on Blu Ray.
Once you have 1080p the tv scalers can do a darn good job up to 4k. (it 
is just that low to mid range tvs have lousy scalers, high end tvs tend 
to have really good ones)


> So personally I think they should focus more on good
> writing/acting/direction and overall production of content, rather
> that worrying about the fact something will now support a hundred
> gazillion luminance levels that most people will never notice after
> the first week of ownership anyway.
>

Well the mainstream movie quality has gone downhill the last 20 years, 
independend movies and pay tv shows is where the quality can be found 
nowadays.

> Most people I talk to, when I ask them about their first ownership
> experience with HD television and content, confess that it wowed them
> at first, and after a few days their eyes just adjusted to the new
> format and expected it, which made it harder to tolerate standard def
> content.  Basically separating them from the enjoyment of most things
> written or produced before the HD era.  I'm not sure that's really
> technological progress.
>
Same goes for every technology. Once you have moved to 4k and HDR you do 
not want to go back to 1080p tvs but on the other hand you wont notice 
it anymore after a few days. Funny stuff is that a 1080p movie looks 
better on a decent 4k tv than on the same screensize in 1080p, if you 
have a decent scaler built in.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:01:09 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 24.12.16 um 21:30 schrieb PW:
>> Which version did you get?  My 970GTX eVGA does everything I need it
>> to do.  But I just cancelled my XBox One S from Amazon (got sick of
>> waiting a month for it) so maybe I should upgrade my PC with this
>> card.
>I got the MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Gaming X 8G. Not the cheapest card there 
>is, but I think it is worth it.


*--

Thank you guys.  I am still to get the you know whats to upgrade as my
wife will see the bill :-)

-pw