GeForce GTX 1080 Ti  vs 1080 

false GeForce GTX 1080 1,047.12 mHash/s or why? on rx 480 vs 1080 is GeForce GTX 1080 651.72 mHash/s

Nice :)

Don't trust these specs.

Hahaha, all the people that used to tell me that in high-school are either incarcerated, or working in fast food. Meanwhile, I'm planning on whether I want to go with an Alpha or Omega performance package for my GT-R.

You're a fag, dude

(Triggers have been intensified) seriously dude, take a chill pill. It's a graphics card, there's no need to get that worked up about it. Even my ati card can play any game at 1080. note that it's a msi radeon r9 380

Mr. Choudhary? Cool!

LOL "And yes, if you use this website as a source of information and make purchasing decisions or give advice based on what's here you are uninformed/misinformed, and yes, possibly stupid. Sorry." Frequent this site often Jay?

You're here because you want to fix this sites errors?

You forgot biggest factor. VR GAMING!

HDMI 2.1?

If you look at the order of the posts here(along with the timing in respect to the actual announcement), I made my original comment based on this site posting something as fact that clearly wasn't, and the comment was before the announcement. It wasn't insulting to anybody in particular(well, it was insulting to GPUBoss as a "tech site", but still). Then a couple of jackasses decide to misrepresent my post and make themselves look stupid in the process. So yeah, I'm going to respond to that type of stuff, particularly in a condescending manner because condescension is what was shown to me. I give people back what they give me. Some people are dicks, that's just how it is. I'm a dick to people that are willfully ignorant, that's just how I am.

People link to this abortion of a site all the time to try to settle debates over hardware. I wouldn't have said anything else to anybody if people didn't decide to make themselves look stupid by misrepresenting what my original comment was about. Also, this site didn't post the information as "rumor", this site posts things as if they're facts. It should be discredited at every turn and people who use this site for information need to be told that this site is unreliable and shouldn't be used for anything at all.

It's actually not that good of source for how well the cards actually perform they just use benchmarks instead of real world tests like games,video editing or rendering.All this website is good for is showing the performance of cards in benchmarks and specs of the card which you can get on Nvidea or AMD's websites anyway.Also you're just being really annoying and trying to be right.Everyone here knows that it's all a rumors.The only one that is stupid here is you for saying something is not correct when nothing is final until release.So next time don't try to correct rumors because that's just retarded.

Coming from the Guy who seems Triggered at everyone on here.Stop being a dick and let people talk what they want to talk about.That's all I have seen you do on on here is just shutting people down and making fun of them.

Did they stop teaching reading comprehension in schools or something? I didn't estimate anything, I stated that they have no way of knowing the information they posted and what rumors were saying(rumors that came from MUCH more reliable sources that in fact DO have insider information). Nvidia surprised EVERYBODY with the GTX 1080 Ti. I also didn't insult anybody until a couple of morons decided to run their mouths about stuff they know nothing about. I simply said "Seriously, to anyone who's been using this site as a legitimate source of information: stop.", if you find that insulting, that's your problem, not mine. I also never told anybody to trust my judgment, but to use actual tech sites to get real information, and that was after the fact anyway. And yes, if you use this website as a source of information and make purchasing decisions or give advice based on what's here you are uninformed/misinformed, and yes, possibly stupid. Sorry.

Yeah, I read your comment. You were wrong too. But I guess we should trust you more than the site then because they overestimated and you underestimated. Is your ego really so badly damaged that you felt the need to come here and try and insult the intelligence of the site's readers? That might be even more awkward than the original...

GPUBoss is a biased website that often lists incorrect, partially correct or not enough information to make an accurate determination. If you want to see hardware compared in ways that are more in line with real world results, you don't come here. You check out userbenchmark.com, or an actual tech reviewing site. This website is for people who are uninformed. Bring up this site around real tech geeks and you will be laughed out the door. Quit frankly, I don't believe a word of the first paragraph. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

I have the reading level of a Harvard grad, actually. I was in the same Kirkland dorm as Mr. Zuckerberg. Google me and you will find my work on Customer Service Differentiation published in the Harvard and Oxford Business Journal. Please calm down, I did not mean to offend you. But you said to not trust GPUBoss, ever. Common sense says it can be trusted 99% of the time, the 1% being before a product's official specs is officially released by the manufacturer. I will give you a thumbs up if you can reply to this comment without the use of your Caps Lock level being turned up to 20 (max).

I love how you posted a link to the Nvidia site that even shows that some of what GPUBoss listed is still incorrect. Wow, you're special.

Because it wasn't correct? You realize that when a website is published the information on the page isn't set in stone, right? How bad is your reading comprehension? Anybody with the reading level of a 5th grader could figure out that when I posted this comment the website listed 12GB of VRAM, which CLEARLY isn't correct. All of the memory related info has been changed since I posted my comment 3 days ago. Also the site still lists 1584MHz as boost clock, which is incorrect. TDP is listed as 220 when it's 250. Floating point performance is also incorrect.

Awkward how? The info that was here when I commented was WRONG(and some of it still is). If you know how to read, you can infer that when I posted, the site listed 12GB of VRAM...oh, what do you know. That was wrong.

It's been changed since I commented. Hell, some of the info is STILL incorrect, the boost clock has been confirmed to be 1600MHz, not the 1584 that's listed(redacted, it's 1582, but in the live stream 1600 was what was announced). TDP is still listed wrong too as well as floating point performance. "rumors point to the 1080 Ti having 10 GB of VRAM, not 12" Meaning, it said 12 gigs before the reveal. You realize websites can be edited, right? Are you stupid? Must be, you don't know how to read AND you think GPUBoss is a good source of information.

GPUBoss gets more information than just rumors, because it turns out pretty much all of the information listed is exactly as Nvidia has it listed on their own website. Why did you think none of it was correct?

Awkward...