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)We have a new 14nm FinFET GPU, higher GPU clocks alongside enhanced idle and multi-monitor efficiencies, with plenty of custom cards along the way, there are tens of millions who could find a new graphics card upgrade with the RX 500 series.
VS
Released March, 2017
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
- 1.5 GHz
- 11 GB GDDR5
8 Out of 10
by www.tweaktown.com (Apr, 2017)For those with a 21:9 aspect display and native 3440x1440 resolution, in our testing the AORUS GTX 1080 Ti 11G can handle 80-100FPS without a problem, which is perfect for the 100Hz UltraWide gaming monitors on the market.
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 | |||
| Higher texture rate | 409.6 GTexel/s | vs | 354.4 GTexel/s | More than 15% higher texture rate | |||
| Significantly wider memory bus | 2,048 bit | vs | 352 bit | More than 5.8x wider memory bus | |||
| 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 | |||
| Significantly better particle simulation score | 1,764.83 mInteraction/s | vs | 836.96 mInteraction/s | More than 2x better particle simulation score | |||
| More render output processors | 88 | vs | 64 | 24 more render output processors | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,376 MHz | vs | 945 MHz | More than 45% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Better PassMark direct compute score | 9,513 | vs | 7,371 | Around 30% better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Lower TDP | 250W | vs | 300W | More than 15% lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
