Radeon Vega Frontier vs GeForce GTX 1080 Ti |
Released June, 2017
AMD Radeon Vega Frontier
- 1.4 GHz
- 16 GB
9.4 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
9.3 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 | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
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 | |||
| Much 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 | |||
| Much better particle simulation score | 1,905.61 mInteraction/s | vs | 823.16 mInteraction/s | More than 2.2x 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
