GeForce 8800 GTS 512 vs GTX 1070 Ti

Place in the ranking	115	980
Place by popularity	75	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	31.76	0.03
Power efficiency	14.65	0.75
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GP104	G92
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	2 November 2017 (7 years ago)	11 December 2007 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$399	$349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1070 Ti has 105767% better value for money than 8800 GTS 512.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	2432	128
Core clock speed	1607 MHz	650 MHz
Boost clock speed	1683 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	180 Watt	135 Watt
Texture fill rate	255.8	41.60
Floating-point processing power	8.186 TFLOPS	0.416 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	16
TMUs	152	64

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	267 mm	254 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	1x 6-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	2002 MHz	820 MHz
Memory bandwidth	256.3 GB/s	52.48 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	6.1	1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1070 Ti 38.07
+2490%

8800 GTS 512 1.47

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 1070 Ti 14689
+2486%

8800 GTS 512 568

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	107 +2575%	4−5 −2575%
1440p	65 +3150%	2−3 −3150%
4K	50 +4900%	1−2 −4900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.73	87.25
1440p	6.14	174.50
4K	7.98	349.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

65−70
+3200%

2−3

−3200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	80−85 +2600%	3−4 −2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	65−70 +3200%	2−3 −3200%
Battlefield 5	120−130 +2975%	4−5 −2975%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	75−80 +3750%	2−3 −3750%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3200%	2−3 −3200%
Far Cry 5	100 +3233%	3−4 −3233%
Far Cry New Dawn	95−100 +3067%	3−4 −3067%
Forza Horizon 4	180−190 +2600%	7−8 −2600%
Hitman 3	80−85 +2600%	3−4 −2600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	160−170 +2567%	6−7 −2567%
Metro Exodus	138 +2660%	5−6 −2660%
Red Dead Redemption 2	90−95 +2900%	3−4 −2900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	130−140 +2660%	5−6 −2660%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +3075%	4−5 −3075%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	80−85 +2600%	3−4 −2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	65−70 +3200%	2−3 −3200%
Battlefield 5	60 +2900%	2−3 −2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	75−80 +3750%	2−3 −3750%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3200%	2−3 −3200%
Far Cry 5	82 +2633%	3−4 −2633%
Far Cry New Dawn	44 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Forza Horizon 4	180−190 +2600%	7−8 −2600%
Hitman 3	80−85 +2600%	3−4 −2600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	160−170 +2567%	6−7 −2567%
Metro Exodus	122 +2950%	4−5 −2950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	90−95 +2900%	3−4 −2900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	130−140 +2660%	5−6 −2660%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	75−80 +2533%	3−4 −2533%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +3075%	4−5 −3075%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	63 +3050%	2−3 −3050%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	65−70 +3200%	2−3 −3200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	75−80 +3750%	2−3 −3750%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3200%	2−3 −3200%
Far Cry 5	59 +2850%	2−3 −2850%
Forza Horizon 4	100 +3233%	3−4 −3233%
Hitman 3	80−85 +2600%	3−4 −2600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	160−170 +2567%	6−7 −2567%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	130−140 +2660%	5−6 −2660%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	72 +3500%	2−3 −3500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +3075%	4−5 −3075%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

90−95
+2900%

3−4

−2900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	80 +2567%	3−4 −2567%
Far Cry New Dawn	64 +3100%	2−3 −3100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	48 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 +4100%	1−2 −4100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 +4400%	1−2 −4400%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Far Cry 5	42 +4100%	1−2 −4100%
Forza Horizon 4	210−220 +2588%	8−9 −2588%
Hitman 3	45−50 +4800%	1−2 −4800%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +2633%	3−4 −2633%
Metro Exodus	76 +3700%	2−3 −3700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	90−95 +2967%	3−4 −2967%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +2650%	2−3 −2650%
Watch Dogs: Legion	180−190 +2600%	7−8 −2600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

65−70
+3150%

2−3

−3150%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
Far Cry New Dawn	35 +3400%	1−2 −3400%
Hitman 3	30−35 +3000%	1−2 −3000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	170−180 +2867%	6−7 −2867%
Metro Exodus	42 +4100%	1−2 −4100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	47 +4600%	1−2 −4600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14	0−1
Far Cry 5	23	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	55 +2650%	2−3 −2650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +2500%	2−3 −2500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35
+3300%

1−2

−3300%

This is how GTX 1070 Ti and 8800 GTS 512 compete in popular games:

GTX 1070 Ti is 2575% faster in 1080p
GTX 1070 Ti is 3150% faster in 1440p
GTX 1070 Ti is 4900% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	38.07	1.47
Recency	2 November 2017	11 December 2007
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	16 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	180 Watt	135 Watt

GTX 1070 Ti has a 2489.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 306.3% more advanced lithography process.

8800 GTS 512, on the other hand, has 33.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GTS 512 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.