Feature Article

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Review

The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is the fastest graphics card we’ve ever tested.

When Nvidia released its GeForce GTX 1080 graphics card last May, it blew me away. It was by far the fastest GPU I’d ever tested. It outperformed 2015’s $1,000 Titan X and often eclipsed two GeForce GTX 980s in SLI. With the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, Nvidia asserts that its new graphics card performs 35 percent faster than the GTX 1080. This would make it the biggest performance leap a Ti card has offered over its base model. It’s a lofty claim that I’ll test in this review.

Nvidia asserts that its new graphics card performs 35 percent faster than the GTX 1080.

Design

The Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti uses the same external chassis as the GTX 1080 before it. It’s still a two-slot card that’s 10.5 inches long and 4.3 inches tall. The Founders Edition of the card, which I’m reviewing here, still uses a radial cooler. Like the GTX 1080, you can remove a portion of the back plate to improve airflow in compact SLI setups. Nvidia did remove the DVI port this time around to provide more cooling surface area for the GPU. This leaves you with three DisplayPort connections and one HDMI port. The box does come with a DisplayPort-to-DVI adapter, however.

Gallery image 1Gallery image 2Gallery image 3Gallery image 4Gallery image 5Gallery image 6Gallery image 7Gallery image 8Gallery image 9Gallery image 10

The GTX 1080 Ti has a much higher 250-watt TDP than the GTX 1080’s 180-watt equivalent. As a result, the Ti features a six-pin and eight-pin power connector. Nvidia recommends a 600-watt PSU to power the card.

Specs

The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is like a souped-up version of the GTX 1080. It’s still based on a 16nm FinFET production process and is based around Nvidia’s power-efficient Pascal micro-architecture, but has more of almost everything. It has more CUDA cores, texture units, and video RAM. The only area where it lags behind is in core and boost clock speeds. See comparative spec chart below.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 TiNvidia GeForce GTX 1080Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060AMD Radeon RX 480
CUDA Cores/Stream Processors35842560192012802304
Texture Units22416012080144
ROPs8864644832
Core Clock1480MHz1607MHz1506MHz1506MHz1120MHz
Boost Clock1582MHz1733MHz1683MHz1708MHz1266 MHz
Memory Clock11Gbps GDDR5X10Gbps GDDR5X8Gbps GDDR58Gbps GDDR57/8Gbps GDDR5
Memory Bus Width352-bit256-bit256-bit192-bit256-bit
VRAM11GB8GB8GB6GB4/8 GB
Transistor Count12B7.2B7.2B4.4B5.7B
Teraflops11.348.96.53.85.8
TDP250W180W150W120W150W
Manufacturing Process16nm FinFET16nm FinFET16nm FinFET16nm FinFET14nm FinFet
ArchitecturePascalPascalPascalPascalGCN 2.0
GPUGP102GP104GP104GP106Polaris 10
Launch Date3/10/20175/27/20166/10/20167/19/201606/29/16
Launch Price$699$599/$699$379/$449$249/$299$200/$240

Note: These are the cards I’ll be testing the GTX 1080 Ti against. Specs like stream processors, CUDA cores, and core clocks, etc. should only be used as a frame of reference against other cards within the same GPU family for any apples-to-apples comparisons.

Here's a photo of the GTX 1080 Ti's exposed GPU and PCB.
Here's a photo of the GTX 1080 Ti's exposed GPU and PCB.

Arguably the biggest bump Nvidia has added to the Ti is the extra 3GB of GDDR5X video RAM, which brings the total VRAM to 11GB. The company also incorporated equalization and optimization techniques to boost the video memory frequency from the GTX 1080’s 10Gbps solution to 11Gbps for the Ti. Coupled with this larger frame buffer, the GTX 1080 Ti has a beefier 352-bit memory interface, which allows peak memory bandwidth to top out at 484GB/s.

The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is like a souped-up version of the GTX 1080.

Benchmarks

To ensure benchmarking consistency, I’m using the same system that I used to review the GTX 1080, 1070, 1060, and RX 480. It’s equipped with an Intel Core i7-5930K Haswell-E CPU clocked at 3.9GHz, coupled with 16GB of DDR4 RAM clocked at 2133MHz running in quad-channel mode.

To provide the widest data set possible, I’m going to test the card against all the aforementioned graphics cards using the same suite of synthetic, VR, and game benchmarks. These tests encompass three resolutions (1080p, 1440p, and 4K). I also ran each benchmark at their respective max settings to really put the cards through their paces.

I’ve also added a chart for newer titles or games that don’t have built-in benchmarks at the tail end of each section below. These segments aren’t meant to compare the GTX 1080 Ti against other cards, but to give you a real-world snapshot of how the GPU handles an assortment of newer games. I used FRAPS to record average frames-per-second data whenever a built-in benchmark was not available.

1080p Benchmarks

No Caption Provided

Starting things off, the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti performs 30 percent better than the GTX 1080 in this synthetic DirectX 11 test. While this represents the largest lead that the Ti has over the GTX 1080 at 1080p, it falls short of Nvidia’s 35 percent improvement claim. But, *spoiler warning* you’ll notice the Ti pull ahead more at higher, more graphically demanding resolutions.

No Caption Provided

In the Unigine Valley synthetic graphics benchmark, the Ti outperforms the GTX 1080 by 11 percent. While that’s a definitive win for the Ti, it represents a more modest gain.

No Caption Provided

In the Tomb Raider benchmark at 1080p, the Ti outperforms the GTX 1080 by three percent, which is underwhelming. If there’s any consolation prize, it’s that the card still got an incredibly high 175 average FPS, which is higher than most high-refresh rate monitors.

No Caption Provided

Surprisingly, the GTX 1080 outperformed the Ti by 3.8 percent here. This is the only test in my suite of benchmarks where the GTX 1080 was able to beat the Ti. That’s not a huge loss, and the Ti was still able to produce an incredibly high 154.5 average FPS, but it’s still a loss. At this relatively low resolution, it’s possible that this Unreal Engine game simply isn’t graphically grueling enough to bring the best out of the Ti, which allows the GTX 1080's slightly higher clock speeds squeak out the win. You’ll notice the tide start to change at higher resolutions.

No Caption Provided

Shadow of Mordor is slightly more graphically demanding than BioShock Infinite. At 1080p, the Ti was able to beat the GTX 1080 by 20.2 percent.

No Caption Provided

Metro Last Light is the most graphically taxing benchmark in our stable. Regardless, it approached nearly 100 average FPS here, which gives it a 22.6 percent lead over the GTX 1080.

No Caption Provided

As you can see from the results, the GTX 1080 Ti has no issues running some of the latest and most graphically demanding games at 90 FPS average and above.

1080p Conclusion

While the Ti greatly falls short of Nvidia’s lofty claims for the card at 1080p, my results ultimately show that the card is still grossly overkill for standard HD panels. The DX12 version of Rise of the Tomb Raider represented its stiffest test, but even with everything maxed out, it was still able to run at over 90 average FPS.

1440p Benchmarks

No Caption Provided

In Unigine Valley, the Ti increased its lead over the GTX 1080 from 30 percent at 1080p to 34.8 at 1440p. This puts it inline with Nvidia’s assertion of 35-percent performance improvement over the non-Ti version.

No Caption Provided

Whereas the Ti only beat the GTX 1080 by three percent in Tomb Raider at 1080p, at 1440p, the Ti was able to increase its lead to 21.8 percent.

No Caption Provided

As you may recall, the GTX 1080 narrowly beat the Ti at 1080p. The tables turn at 1440p, however, with the Ti taking a 10.5 percent lead. That’s still not a huge performance jump, but it’s indicative that the Ti needs to be pushed to show its true potential.

No Caption Provided

With a 143.3 average FPS, the Ti outperforms the GTX 1080 by 35.7 percent. This puts it right inline with Nvidia’s performance claim.

No Caption Provided

Metro Last Light at 1440p gives the Ti its biggest performance lead yet with a 38.8 percent advantage over the GTX 1080. This allows the GPU to produce a higher-than-60 average FPS.

No Caption Provided

The Ti was able to run every single game here above an average 60 FPS with the highest settings enabled, with the exception of Rise of the Tomb Raider. There, it averaged frame rates in the mid to high 50s, which is still highly playable.

1440p Conclusion

Unless you’re running a high-refresh rate monitor, the GTX 1080 Ti is largely overkill for 1440p. The extra performance headroom shows that the card is better suited for even higher resolutions. At 2560x1440, it should be able to max out every single game you throw at it with smooth frame rates.

Unless you’re running a high-refresh rate monitor, the GTX 1080 Ti is largely overkill for 1440p.

4K Benchmarks

No Caption Provided

Moving up to 4K (3840x2160p), the Ti’s potential really comes into view with its 47.5 percent lead over the GTX 1080 in Tomb Raider. This is a lead we haven’t seen at lower resolutions.

No Caption Provided

BioShock Infinite gave the GTX 1080 Ti its stiffest test at 1080p and 1440p, and while that’s still the case at 4K, with its 36.9 percent advantage over the 1080, it’s inline with Nvidia’s performance assertion for the card.

No Caption Provided

Whereas the GTX 1080 slightly missed the 60 FPS average threshold, the GTX 1080 Ti had no issues averaging above 80 FPS. This represents a 39.8 percent win for the Ti.

No Caption Provided

Up until now, no GPU has been able to garner an above 30 FPS average in the graphically-demanding Metro Last Light benchmark at 4K. The GTX 1080 Ti is the first card to break this barrier. With its 36.3 average FPS, it outperforms the GTX 1080 by 88 percent. It took me several runs to accept this fact. It’s possible the that Ti’s larger, faster frame buffer may have removed a performance bottleneck and allowed the GPU to leapfrog the competition. To add more perspective, the Ti was 118 percent faster than the GTX 1070, which is incredibly fast in its own right. It was also over 200 percent faster than the GTX 1060, and was 290 percent as fast as AMD’s RX 480. That’s crazy.

Up until now, no GPU has been able to garner an above 30 FPS average in the graphically-demanding Metro Last Light benchmark at 4K. The GTX 1080 Ti is the first card to break this barrier.

No Caption Provided

The GTX 1080 Ti is able to max out Battlefield 1 at 4K with above 60 average FPS. Rise of the Tomb Raider is the only game to make its average FPS dip below 30, though it did get relatively close in what is a not-very-well-optimized port.

4K Conclusion

4K really allows the GTX 1080 Ti to flex its muscles. Other than unoptimized ports, it should be able to max out the most graphically-demanding games with playable frame rates. This is an incredible accomplishment for a single graphics card.

VR Test

No Caption Provided

In Valve’s SteamVR Performance Test, the GTX 1080 Ti produced a 20462 score. This is the highest score I’ve ever seen in this benchmark. The Ti beats the GTX 1080 by 47 percent here, which was the best VR card that I’ve tested up until this point.

GTX 1080 Ti Temperatures, Noise, and Overclocking

Running the Unigine Valley benchmark at 1440p, the GTX 1080 Ti stayed super quiet, though its temperatures did get moderately warm hitting 84 degrees Celsius. This is six degrees C shy of the card’s thermal limit.

In terms of overclocking, Nvidia asserts that the card’s core clock can reach over 2GHz. On stage at GDC 2017, company CEO Jen-Hsun Huang showed the card hitting a 2038MHz core clock, a 5603MHz core clock with a 66 degree C GPU temperature. I attempted to recreate those results.

To do this, I cranked the card’s fan to 100 percent. While that makes the card blisteringly loud, I wanted to mitigate any thermal bottlenecks. Using EVGA’s Precision X overclocking software, I also set power voltage to 120 percent and added an additional 20 percent of over voltage for added stability. With these metrics, I was able to reach the exact same clock speed and temperatures running Unigine’s Valley benchmark.

While it did increase my average frame rate, it only boosted performance by 2.4 percent. Your mileage may vary depending on the game/application. In general, your overclocking results will vary as all GPUs, even those within the same SKU, overclock differently.

Conclusion

When I take the average of my 16 benchmarks, the GTX 1080 Ti performs 30.2 percent better than the GTX 1080. That’s lower than Nvidia’s lofty 35 percent claim, but it’s important to keep in mind that this is a card that’s geared for higher resolutions, like 3840x2160p. At 4K, the Ti beat the GTX 1080 by a stunning 53 percent in my tests.

No Caption Provided

The GTX 1080 Ti shattered nearly every benchmark I threw at it while being a very quiet card. At $699, it isn’t cheap, but it’s still a great value given the performance.

The GTX 1080 Ti should be able to max out the most graphically-demanding games at 4K with playable frame rates.

If you told me last year that we’d get a card this fast by now, I would have called you crazy. As I noted in my GTX 1080 review in 2016, I thought it wouldn’t be until Nvidia’s Volta GPU micro-architecture that we’d get a card that could truly handle 4K this well. The GTX 1080 Ti proved me wrong. It’s that good.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

jimmythang

Jimmy Thang

Hi! I'm Jimmy Thang and I'm GameSpot's Tech Editor!
Back To Top
199 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for Daveof89
Daveof89

Personally, I prefer 1440p over 4k. Everything seems too small in 4k.

Sticking with my 1080 and 34" uw

Avatar image for analgrin
analgrin

@Daveof89: at 4k on my screen windows automatically scales the desktop up to look like 1080p so shouldn't seem small. Should be able to adjust settings somewhere to make things look big again,

Avatar image for kingkadett
kingkadett

@Daveof89: May i ask what framerate you get with that, and do you play on ultra? I have the ASUS 100hrz ultrawide currently running on 2 980's, but i'm so sick of bad SLI optimisation...

Avatar image for lilkwarrior
lilkwarrior

@kingkadett: 980 wasn't really meant for 1440p, even with 2; I'm not surprised. That's 980TI SLI territory as far as ideal framerates.

FWIW, I have 980TI SLI for 2 years, but switching to a single 1080TI since I'm waiting for HBM2 + Async compute + AV1 hardware decoding Nvidia GPUs with the next generation before I SLI again (I SLI at work though, so it won't rain on my productivity; SLi is primarily for productive work rather than gaming; game developers are much more lazy about its implementation than production software).

Also note that DX12 explicit multi-GPU feature enables 92%-100% scaling of the second card since it actually was built to take advantage of second cards unlike earlier versions of DX

Avatar image for wr3ckloose_
wr3ckloose_

@kingkadett: @kingkadett:im getting anywhere from 75 to 100 fps with my gtx 1080 ftw card. never dips below 75 with everything on ultra.

Avatar image for Daveof89
Daveof89

@kingkadett: I do play on ultra, my framerate is limited because my monitor only supports 60hz, but I can hit it with any game, no stuttering.

Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

I would have thought all monitors above 1440p would be high refresh now that gamers are using unless they also use the monitor for graphic arts etc.

The high bandwidth i would imagine would help it alot in 4k. Plus a much higher TDP to give it more power.

Actual clock speed is not everything. Titan X still smokes a 1080 with much lower clock speeds for instance and this is based on that design more so than 1080.

Avatar image for givenchy7
givenchy7

Yes....yes...it's fast...yes..yes...4k looks great...but can it make a crappy game not crappy? can it make a poorly coded game that requires patch after patch after patch...better?

Avatar image for titang1
TitanG1

@givenchy7: People talk of PC games like the majority of them are bad and need constant patches, when out of the 60+ games I own so far only a few have had issues worth mentioning.

Avatar image for deactivated-5d04c6ddb5adc

@titang1: Battefield 3, can't even boot for the first year.

Mass Effect 2 with DLC, many crashes in the same repeated places.

Dragon Age Inquisition, first 2 months unplayable, fine now.

Quantum Break, broken fps and stuttering until Steam version.

Deus Ex Mankind Divided, barely 60fps with GTX 1070.

Most annoying: GTA V stutter bug.

Hearthstone, crashes on boot as driver doesn't recognize 1440p monitor correctly.

These are all known bugs (GTX 10 series) that don't get fixed on PC. It's annoying, and I love PC gaming. Gonna get Vega and hope that those bugs are gone, as I noticed the GTA V bug is nVidia only in particular.

Just want to say Tomb Raider has always been great, a nice exception :)

Avatar image for titang1
TitanG1

@alistairbrogan: Quantum Break runs fine if you bump things down to HIGH instead of maxing everything out, and the difference between HIGH and ULTRA is negligible

Deus Ex Mankind Divivded doesn't run bad for me with my 1080, I haven't had any issues worth mentioning.

GTA5 hasn't been all that bad either

Games may not run 100% perfectly, but it's not like they run 100% perfect on consoles either. I'd rather have minor stutters at 60fps than a 20-30fps framerate.

Avatar image for Raizak
Raizak

@titang1: It just depends on the games you're into. I run into problems for like 70% of the games I try to run on my PC. However, this is largely because I play a lot of AAA titles that originally released on consoles and received a lesser port on PC. Otherwise, yeah there's a ton of games optimized for PC really well.

Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

@givenchy7: Some games are coded well, Rise of the Tombraider only had a couple of issues that have been ironed out in patches. Amazing game on PC.

Avatar image for galeta
galeta

4k gaming still not there.

stick with 1440p and cheap gtx 1080.

wait for next gen to invest 4k when 144hz 4k monitors come out.

Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

@galeta: 120hz is the limit apparently but it will also have built in adaptive sync so Gsync and free sync will no longer be needed.

Avatar image for iGoTKiDs2FeEd
iGoTKiDs2FeEd

@galeta: ABSOLUTELY! Until they create a card that runs 4k at 120fps or higher, im not buying again. My 1080 runs my 1440p no problem and can reach 120 fps with some games, but im still not investing again until they create a single GPU that runs 4k with ease. I have the ASUS ROG PG278Q and the just announced basically the 4k version of that. This monitor ran me almost $700, and im sure the 4k version will be over $1000. Im not buying that monitor and upgrading until they make a GPU capable of utlizing said monitor. If you want 1440p, youre much better off with just a 1080. Youre splitting hairs with a few frames and it still wont run 1440p over 120 fps, thus not even utlizing the monitor i currently have.

Avatar image for sepir
sepir

@iGoTKiDs2FeEd:

Yep, my upgrade cycle was November last year. Looked pretty hard at 4K, but decided on a 1440p 144 Hz (went the Acer over the ASUS though) to replace my old 1080p monitor whilst running a GTX 1080. Haven't played anything particularly new, but I'm definitely happy with this setup. In 2.5 years when my next cycle starts I'll look at 4K then, but given the cost of the monitor I may not even bother until the one after that.

Avatar image for titang1
TitanG1

Damn, this thing really wakes up at 4K and smokes the reg GTX 1080.

Itching to get my hands on one.

Avatar image for iGoTKiDs2FeEd
iGoTKiDs2FeEd

@titang1: 20 fps isnt smoking it 60fps compared to 80 fps is marginal. Wake me up when a GPU can hit 4k at 120 fps and higher

Avatar image for titang1
TitanG1

@iGoTKiDs2FeEd: A 20-30fps increase at max settings is a big deal, so unless you're some PC elitist nitwit that must have 100+ fps at a million "K" resolution then I understand why you're not impressed, you're likely NEVER satisfied either.

In other words, sucks to be you.

Avatar image for iGoTKiDs2FeEd
iGoTKiDs2FeEd

@titang1: you're a complete moron. You're not getting my point. 20-30 fps doesn't mean shit if you're not hitting your monitors benchmarks retard. If I'm running my monitor at 60 and I have 60, it's going to work flawlessly. If I'm running my monitor at 120 but getting 80 fps, it won't run as well. Fact is, the difference between 60-80 is marginal. 60-120 is a different story. If you buy yow card to get that extra 20, you're stupidity is irreversible. Something tells me it already is. Hey guys let's spend $700 to get 80 fps over 60 on 4K lol wake me up when a single gpu gives me 120 fps on 4K all day everyday. Fucken nerd.

Avatar image for titang1
TitanG1

@iGoTKiDs2FeEd: You just said all that shit and you called ME a nerd? Sit your virgin ass down boy.

And apparently you ARE the PC elitist fuckwit I try to avoid but can't seem to get away from. I'm not "nerdy" enough to feel as though I HAVE to have 100+ frames per second in my games, so a card that's able to run 4K/60fps at max settings is plenty for me, but if you're looking for a single GPU to hit 4K/120fps+ then GOOD LUCK waiting on that, because it's not coming any time soon, not at max settings anyway.

Now, go count how many years you've been a virgin, something tells me you'll need to stop at 16, fuckin fat kid with freckles all over your body talking shit to me online, typical.

Avatar image for masscrack
masscrack

these reviews are a sham, other reviews (anadtech, tomshardware,linus) have rise of tomb raider at 65 fps @ 4k, witcher 3 @ 60fps 4k, metro last light, 70 fps at 4k, for honor 60 fps at 4k. and an average of 32% faster from a 1080

Avatar image for ALLIAMOS
ALLIAMOS

@masscrack: agreed

Avatar image for jimmythang
jimmythang

@masscrack: I can't speak to their testing methodology, as I did not see it, but there is a chance that they didn't run the game maxed out with AA, etc.

Staff
Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

@jimmythang: They usually don't but people usually don't read things properly either.

Avatar image for masscrack
masscrack

@jimmythang: how did all 3 of those reviewers have the same fps man and gamespots is all off. Who do you trust? reviews who have been doing it for decades or gamespot?

Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

@masscrack: Were the machine specs the same? Other sites often you expensive 6 and 8 core CPU's with high end cards.

Avatar image for masscrack
masscrack

@deviltaz35: 7700k 4 core vs 8 core makes no difference in gaming man. Same card was used, 1080 ti FE.. there is no other card out atm.

Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

@masscrack: Ok cheers it can make a difference depending on the type of game though such as strategy titles. Any game that needs a strong CPU will benefit from higher end ones.

Avatar image for bbq_R0ADK1LL
bbq_R0ADK1LL

@masscrack: 30.2% vs 32%, overall conclusion is pretty much the same. Some of those scores do seem a bit low though, other outlets probably tested with a 7700K rather than the 5930K here but that shouldn't make a huge difference.

Avatar image for gaminsincepong
Gaminsincepong

Cool. Ill pick this up next year when its 300$

Avatar image for titang1
TitanG1

@gaminsincepong: Hahahahahaha. I don't even think the 980ti is $300

Avatar image for gaminsincepong
Gaminsincepong

@titang1: I thought it was a good laugh too. This will be a good card to build with tho. Its the best on the market as far as what Ive seen.

Avatar image for Metalnoid
Metalnoid

Peasant eyes can't see more than 24 fps

Avatar image for xanatos357
Xanatos357

@Metalnoid: This is a very common misconception. I don't think mods allow us to drop links or I would give you an article that does a pretty decent job at explaining everything.

Avatar image for darks88
darks88

Why is it that you guys never review or compare the GTX 1080 FTW card? its specs are well above the bottom end 1080 card.

  • 1721MHz Base Clock
  • 1860MHz Boost Clock
  • 275.3GT/s Texture Fill Rate
  • 8192MB GDDR5X Memory
  • 10000MHz Memory Clock
  • 320GB/s Memory Bandwidth
  • 2560 CUDA Cores

GTX 1080 Ti - Sourse Ars Tech

  • 1480MHz Base Clock
  • 1582MHz Boost Clock
  • 275.3GT/s Texture Fill Rate
  • 8192MB GDDR5X Memory
  • 10000MHz Memory Clock
  • 484GB/s Memory Bandwidth
  • 3584 CUDA Cores

Avatar image for wr3ckloose_
wr3ckloose_

@darks88: its still gonna be better. especially the 1080 ti ftw3

Avatar image for jimmythang
jimmythang

@darks88: For consistency sake, I think it makes more sense to benchmark reference cards against each other whenever possible. OEM boards almost always change the cooling and overclocks.

Staff
Avatar image for xcreep1ngdeath
xCREEP1NGDEATH

Selling my 980ti SC. 275.00

Avatar image for deactivated-5bda06edf37ee

Best news here is actually the price cut of the regular GTX 1080.

It perfectly suits my 1440p needs.

Avatar image for davillain-
DaVillain-

@groowagon: It does but my GTX 1070 also run games in my 1440p Monitor well.