Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti based on its benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details Radeon Vega Frontier vs GeForce GTX 1080 Ti |
Released June, 2017
AMD Radeon Vega Frontier
- 1.4 GHz
- 16 GB
9.6 Out of 10
by www.tweaktown.com (Apr, 2017)Well, if you're an owner of - or looking to save money on a new FreeSync gaming display... yes, definitely.
VS
Released March, 2017
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
- 1.5 GHz
- 11 GB GDDR5
7.9 Out of 10
by www.tweaktown.com (Mar, 2017)Performance (overclocking, power)100%Quality (build, design, cooling)100%General Features (display outputs, etc)100%Bundle, Packaging & Software100% Overall TweakTown Rating100% The Bottom Line: NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is the most amazing graphics card to come in a very long time, offering $1200 performance from the Titan X for just $699.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Vega Frontier vs 1080 Ti among all GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 9.6 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 TiGPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Significantly more memory | 16,384 MB | vs | 11,264 MB | More than 45% more memory | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better floating-point performance | 13,107 GFLOPS | vs | 11,340 GFLOPS | More than 15% better floating-point performance | |||
| Much wider memory bus | 2,048 bit | vs | 352 bit | More than 5.8x wider memory bus | |||
| Higher texture rate | 409.6 GTexel/s | vs | 354.4 GTexel/s | More than 15% higher texture rate | |||
| More shading units | 4,096 | vs | 3,584 | 512 more shading units | |||
| More texture mapping units | 256 | vs | 224 | 32 more texture mapping units | |||
| |||||||
| Much higher effective memory clock speed | 11,008 MHz | vs | 1,890 MHz | More than 5.8x higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Better PassMark score | 13,373 | vs | 10,659 | More than 25% better PassMark score | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 139.2 GPixel/s | vs | 102.4 GPixel/s | More than 35% higher pixel rate | |||
| Higher clock speed | 1,480 MHz | vs | 1,382 MHz | More than 5% higher clock speed | |||
| More render output processors | 88 | vs | 64 | 24 more render output processors | |||
| Significantly better PassMark direct compute score | 9,513 | vs | 7,371 | Around 30% better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,376 MHz | vs | 945 MHz | More than 45% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Better particle simulation score | 1,719.46 mInteraction/s | vs | 1,591.1 mInteraction/s | Around 10% better particle simulation score | |||
| Lower TDP | 250W | vs | 300W | More than 15% lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
