# [WCCFTECH] Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti Launching In January With Titan X Performance At A Much Lower Price



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> *Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Coming January 2017, Debuting At CES*
> 
> The GTX 1080 Ti is planned for an initial debut in January 2017 with availability scheduled to trickle in soon after. Pricing wise all reports indicate that it will be significantly less expensive than the Titan X. However, we haven't heard of a specific MSRP yet. Which isn't surprising, considering the launch is still relatively far out in time. It's safe to assume that no final MSRP has been decided on at this for competitive reasons
> 
> *Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, A Price Cut Titan X Pascal For The Masses*
> 
> Just a couple of weeks ago we reported that Nvidia's announcement that its CEO Jen-Hsun Huang was going to "break news" regarding a new gaming product. A couple of weeks before that we reported on the alleged GTX 1080 Ti specifications that surfaced on the web. Which indicated that the 1080 Ti will, for all intents and purposes, render the GTX Titan X Pascal effectively obsolete. Delivering nearly identical performance with an identical memory capacity at a significantly lower price.
> 
> The GTX 1080 Ti will be powered by a slightly cut back variant of the GP102 GPU. 52 out of a total of 60 SMs are enabled with the remainder 8 SMs lasered off. This is only four SMs fewer than the GP102 variant used to power the GTX Titan X Pascal, Nvidia's fastest graphics card to date. Although the GTX 1080 Ti will come with fewer functional CUDA cores than its bigger brother, it will actually perform just as well.
> 
> Cutting a few more SMs from GP102 has more to do with improving yields rather than roping in performance. In fact, to make up for the cut SMs Nvidia has reportedly pushed the clock speeds up significantly compared to the Titan X Pascal. The result is 10.8 teraflops of FP32 compute compared to the Titan X's 11. Furthermore, because Nvidia is allowing its partners to go wild with designs we're bound to see factory overclocked 1080 Ti's that outperform the Titan X right out of the box. Very much exactly like what we had seen with the GTX 980 Ti & the original Titan X last year.
> 
> *Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti Specs - 3328 CUDA Cores, 12GB GDDR5X, 1.6Ghz Boost Clock & 250W TDP*
> 
> At the heart of the GTX 1080 Ti is Nvidia's flagship gaming graphics processing unit, code named GP102. In terms of compute throughput & resources, GP102 has exactly 50% more of everything compared to GP104, the GPU that powers the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 graphics cards. We're talking 50% more CUDA cores, 50% more TMUs & ROPs, 50% larger cache & 50% wider memory interface. It also happens to be exactly 50% larger than the 314mm² GP104.
> 
> *Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Rumored Specs:*
> 
> 
> GPU : GP102
> Process : TSMC 16FF
> Die Size : 471mm²
> Transistors : 12 Billion
> SMs : 52
> CUDA Cores : 3328
> Core Clock : ~1.5Ghz
> Boost Clock : ~1.6Ghz
> Peak FP32 Compute : 10.8 TFLOPs
> Memory Interface : 384bit
> Memory : 12GB GDDR5X
> Bandwidth : 480GB/s
> TDP - 250W


*Source*

More info:

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-now-rumored-to-be-released-at-ces-2017.html


----------



## littledonny

$699 please.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Such performance for 699 would be crazy cool


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *littledonny*
> 
> $699 please.


Id be happy with 700, id even pay 800 if it performance like a titan XP. 1080 TI FTW for like 799, take my money EVGA>


----------



## lombardsoup

-Buys a 1080
-Almost immediately after mine ships, this news comes out


----------



## Rob27shred

If true this is my next card, that is unless AMD releases Vega in the same time frame & it can at least match this, if not the 1080ti it is. TBH I'll be shocked if turns out to be true, not because of WCCFTech's rep, but because as it stands Nvidia has absolutely no competition from the 1070 & up! Maybe AMD has a monster they're hiding because I can really see no other reason for NV to be doing this.


----------



## Rob27shred

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> -Buys a 1080
> -Almost immediately after mine ships, this news comes out


I've been really close to pulling the trigger on a 1080 myself but figured I'd wait to see what Vega is at the very least. Also this is still a rumor & the specs could be different so the jury is still out right now.


----------



## s1rrah

I can wait 3 months ... great info ... was about to drop 1200 on a Titan X ... LOL ...


----------



## Asmodian

January is far away.









At least it hope it is... Why must I be stuck in a hotel in some random city instead of at home playing with my Titan XP. It really makes early adoption less of a benefit.


----------



## i7monkey

$699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rob27shred*
> 
> I can really see no other reason for NV to be doing this.


If they have dies that aren't up to Titan X standards but can be cut down for this card, they may as well put them on a card and sell them. What else are you going to do with them, let them sit in a warehouse somewhere?


----------



## Wenty

$800.00 I bet for one......... I'll be waiting. Might have to go 4K for gaming.


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> $699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.


This is so true it isn't funny. It would make them releasing the 780Ti after I bought my SLI OG Titans seem perfectly reasonable.

$899 seems more likely to me, to stay away from the high end 1080s. If it is $699 then you know Vega is at least as fast as it.


----------



## DADDYDC650

I'm guessing around $900 for this bad boy. No point in undercutting the 1080 if Vega isn't even out at the time.


----------



## Rob27shred

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> If they have dies that aren't up to Titan X standards but can be cut down for this card, they may as well put them on a card and sell them. What else are you going to do with them, let them sit in a warehouse somewhere?


You do got a good point & are right there. Although I would more expect this under the Titan branding if that were the case. Maybe get rid of the X & just call it a Titan because the chips are not up to snuff. That way NV could get close to the Titan X price for it. Releasing it as the 1080ti feels like they are setting up to compete with something. Although we still have yet to hear the MSRP (not that it means anything nowadays apparently) & it could be closer to a 1k than we're all expecting.


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> $699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.


Guess someone hasn't followed technology for the past half a century. If you see AMD or Nvidia releasing something better performing for barely more than something you bought half a year ago, well that is just technology moving forward. Get over it (and I say this as a 1080 owner). I could care less if it priced closely to the GTX 1080. I spent my money for what I needed now, not later.


----------



## akaTRAP

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wenty*
> 
> $800.00 I bet for one......... I'll be waiting. Might have to go 4K for gaming.


$800 was my guess, too. If I remember correctly, the 980TI was 65% of the MSRP of the Titan X Maxwell, so the 1080TI should be $780 (aka $800).


----------



## marik123

$799.99 MSRP and $899.99 for founder's edition.


----------



## mmonnin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rob27shred*
> 
> If true this is my next card, that is unless AMD releases Vega in the same time frame & it can at least match this, if not the 1080ti it is. TBH I'll be shocked if turns out to be true, not because of WCCFTech's rep, but because as it stands Nvidia has absolutely no competition from the 1070 & up! Maybe AMD has a monster they're hiding because I can really see no other reason for NV to be doing this.


If the 1080Ti and Pascal Titan are the same chip with different # of cuda cores enabled it makes sense to sell each chip for as many enabled as yield allows. Might as well sell as many chips as possible instead of tossing 3/4 of a good chip. As some point there is a crossover where semi companies just make smaller chips with like half the cores instead of cutting back the cores of a big die.


----------



## looniam

welp, looks like my upgrade budget for this winter just doubled.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> welp, looks like my upgrade budget for this winter just doubled.


lol


----------



## Just a nickname

Gotta milk 'em all!


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Why so salty?


----------



## BinaryDemon

Even if Nvidia says $800, I'd bet you wont see them for less than $900 until AMD has something equal or better.


----------



## RayvinAzn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> -Buys a 1080
> -Almost immediately after mine ships, this news comes out


First time buying a GPU or something? This happens all the time. I paid $320 for an X1900XT two months before G80 released, I felt a little miffed, but its not the end of the world. Two years on (of playing all games but Crysis at max setting at 1680x1050) I got a 9800GT for like $140. Get your money's worth out of your card, don't worry about what everyone else has. It's not like your GTX 1080 suddenly performs worse because of this announcement.


----------



## mothergoose729

So wait, what is the purpose of the titan xp then? At least with the first titan x you got "better compute performance", for all the was worth. These cards are going to be virtually identical in every way... how does nvidia justify making its first 1080ti customers pay so much?


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mothergoose729*
> 
> So wait, what is the purpose of the titan xp then? At least with the first titan x you got "better compute performance", for all the was worth. These cards are going to be virtually identical in every way... how does nvidia justify making its first 1080ti customers pay so much?


The 1080 Ti probably won't have a Founders Edition and thus the Titan X(P) will have worked as one. Get the performance ahead of time.

That way they also avoid the backlash of having a more expensive model that AIBs will follow more than the suggested MSRP.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mothergoose729*
> 
> So wait, what is the purpose of the titan xp then? At least with the first titan x you got "better compute performance", for all the was worth. These cards are going to be virtually identical in every way... how does nvidia justify making its first 1080ti customers pay so much?


You are thinking of the OG Titan. The Maxwell Titan X had the same compute performance as the 980 Ti.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *mothergoose729*
> 
> So wait, what is the purpose of the titan xp then? At least with the first titan x you got "better compute performance", for all the was worth. These cards are going to be virtually identical in every way... how does nvidia justify making its first 1080ti customers pay so much?
> 
> 
> 
> You are thinking of the OG Titan. The Maxwell Titan X had the same compute performance as the 980 Ti.
Click to expand...

Yes, he got that mixed up, but the first Titan X did at least have twice the VRAM as the 980 Ti. If this one has the same amount, even that difference is gone. Hence my suspicion above that there won't be an FE for the 1080 Ti.


----------



## Unkzilla

My [email protected]+ is performing well @ 4k in a lot of titles, but some games it only hits high 40 fps range on ultra. With a extra 20-30% performance , 60fps average on nearly everything seems possible

Will happily upgrade and take a small loss


----------



## Noufel

what what what wccf has finaly a true reliable news about a gpu release








on topic i'll be ready for an upgrade for april till then my 1080 will serve me well


----------



## Cloudforever

This I would pay 700 for that card. out of the years of high ass prices, would sure a good comparison. That would last you ages.


----------



## xartic1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> -Buys a 1080
> -Almost immediately after mine ships, this news comes out


My 1080 HOF just came in today... I'm still really satisfied with it though

Probably why there was a game promotion.


----------



## istudy92

I really wish they would release for black friday or in november when I got alot of cash to drop along with new pc upgrade..like Jan is when we spent ALL our money on gifts..they are crazy to not capitalize now.


----------



## DADDYDC650

I'll stick with my Titan XP until Volta arrives. Price you pay to have the best card months earlier.


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xartic1*
> 
> My 1080 HOF just came in today... I'm still really satisfied with it though
> 
> Probably why there was a game promotion.


The painful reality of this industry. Just when you think you have decent stuff, boom, innovation. I am grateful for it though; a stagnant market lacking in improvements would be far worse.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

This should hammer down 980 Ti pricing, allowing for a steal on one while we wait for the good stuff on Volta.


----------



## kd5151

1080 comes out. No! I just bought 980Ti.
1080Ti comes out. No! I just bought 1080.


----------



## littledonny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> $699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.


Despicable? That's rich. I guess you want everyone else to pay too much like you did.

1080 was always a small chip. Everyone knew it. It was never worth $700 on its own. It will drop to $500, 1070 will drop to $350, and we'll be at the exact same place we were when 980 Ti released.

Paying $700 for a small-die chip is not smart if you are concerned about resale value.


----------



## inedenimadam

Well dang it AMD, I really wanted to give you a shot at a generation in my main gaming rig, but you still dont have anything that is a worthwhile upgrade from my 980s...

Two please!


----------



## p4inkill3r

$899, I see no reason to believe otherwise.


----------



## caliking420

Oh yeah









Putting two in my shopping cart the minute they release.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *caliking420*
> 
> Oh yeah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Putting two in my shopping cart the minute they release.


Ill be trying to get 1 1080 ti FTW, if they dont sell out before i can get one when they release.


----------



## p4inkill3r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *caliking420*
> 
> Oh yeah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Putting two in my shopping cart the minute they release.


If you get them, toss 'em up on eBay for $1400 per, I bet you get it.


----------



## LiquidHaus

As a new owner of a 1080, I can say I expected something like this to happen.

Though I'm sure it'll be some time before the best AIB Ti's will come out vs the initial launch date.

Either way, having a 1080 now - I'll have a chance to sell the 1080 with a higher resale value than any other card out there. So yeah, it's a small loss on those with a Pascal card, but it'll be worth it.


----------



## thebski

I too believe this card will be in the 799 to 899 range. Given the price of the TXP and 1080, I don't see a 1080 Ti coming in at 699. That's still a lot of money for a card that is so cut down, but I guess the days of uncut GPUs for 700 have come and gone just like the days you could get it for 550. No competition is a terrible thing for the consumer.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Last time i paid 700 dollars for a single GPU, was the HD 5970 lol. Still have that card.


----------



## sticks435

Thanks, but no thanks Nvidia. I'll sleep on my 980Ti Hybrid until Volta and maybe then jump to 4K or high FPS 1440.


----------



## Clocknut

want fully enabled chip like 780Ti? unless Vega is as fast as a full fat GP102 otherwise = NOPE









$1200 & $700 for a cut down chip LOL.


----------



## sKorcheDeArtH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> $699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.


Welcome to the club ?. I can really see 700 MSRP but in reality they probably wont be found for under 800.


----------



## Klocek001

I imagine it'll be $849 realistically. Optmimistically it's gonna be $750. Pessimistically, $900.
I'm just patienly waiting for confirmation. If true and the card is indeed in $800-$850 range I might sell the 1080 after christmas and wait a month. This news seems very sketchy though. And given how the prices are shaping up, all we can expect for the msrp is some crappy grey plastic reference-like cooling. If msrp is 800, the cards you wanna have are gonna be 900. If 850, then custom version will cost +900.


----------



## d5aqoep

Vega is going to be a disappointment like all AMD's past disappointments. Only hype and nothing else. A company simply CANNOT defend itself with low end products. They badly need top tier products. See how immediately 480X and 470X were neutralized by Nvidia with cut down Pascals?

AMD has lost the war and that is a bad sign for us customers. Ngreedia is now virtually a monopoly. I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia's Volta based cards having $50 markup compared to their Pascal counterparts.

I paid Rs. 39000 ($587) for GTX 1070 at Lamington Road, Mumbai which is roughly the same price of GTX 1080 elsewhere. Nvidia is really milking it this year especially in India.

I worry about the pricing of 1080Ti (Titan X is selling for $2000 here btw)


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d5aqoep*
> 
> Vega is going to be a disappointment like all AMD's past disappointments. Only hype and nothing else. A company simply CANNOT defend itself with low end products. They badly need top tier products. See how immediately 480X and 470X were neutralized by Nvidia with cut down Pascals?
> 
> AMD has lost the war and that is a bad sign for us customers. Ngreedia is now virtually a monopoly. I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia's Volta based cards having $50 markup compared to their Pascal counterparts.
> 
> I paid Rs. 39000 ($587) for GTX 1070 at Lamington Road, Mumbai which is roughly the same price of GTX 1080 elsewhere. Nvidia is really milking it this year especially in India.
> 
> I worry about the pricing of 1080Ti (Titan X is selling for $2000 here btw)


Ouch. The cheapest 1070's here stateside are just shy of $400.


----------



## hyp36rmax

I'm going to throw this out there. AMDs Vega will probably be on the same performance level as the 1080Ti (maybe a little less) and will gradually improve with new driver releases. Nvidia will also probably hold the fastest single GPU chip with the Titan XP in this time frame.

I based this on previous GPU releases from AMD and Nvidia. For the record I own both brands currently Crossfire Fury X, Crossfire R9 290X vaporX, GTX 780ti, GTX 970 FTW, GTX 1070 FTW all on live builds in my home.

Can't wait for these new GPUs


----------



## KenjiS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I imagine it'll be $849 realistically. Optmimistically it's gonna be $750. Pessimistically, $900.
> I'm just patienly waiting for confirmation. If true and the card is indeed in $800-$850 range I might sell the 1080 after christmas and wait a month. This news seems very sketchy though. And given how the prices are shaping up, all we can expect for the msrp is some crappy grey plastic reference-like cooling. If msrp is 800, the cards you wanna have are gonna be 900. If 850, then custom version will cost +900.


This is sorta where I feel on price, I paid about $750 last year for my 980Ti after it had been out for months so I expect the 1080Ti to fall in the $800-850 range at launch..

Id expect a small price drop on the 1070 and 1080 when it happens

Not sure ill upgrade.. Im still waiting to feel my 980 Ti is truly getting its butt handed to it


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I imagine it'll be $849 realistically. Optmimistically it's gonna be $750. Pessimistically, $900.
> I'm just patienly waiting for confirmation. If true and the card is indeed in $800-$850 range I might sell the 1080 after christmas and wait a month. This news seems very sketchy though. And given how the prices are shaping up, all we can expect for the msrp is some crappy grey plastic reference-like cooling. If msrp is 800, the cards you wanna have are gonna be 900. If 850, then custom version will cost +900.


Exactly. I don't know why people are saying $700. That's what the 1080 FE costs. It the 1080 would cost anything near that, the 1080 and 1070 prices would have to come down quite a bit. Why? What does AMD have that competes with them? Vega won't be out in January, so Nvidia will milk the market as much as they can until then. Price cuts in March / April? Perhaps, depending on how Vega does, but that is after many units sold.


----------



## CallsignVega

Titan-XP will still be faster. May as just buy one instead of waiting until January.


----------



## Flamous

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> This should hammer down 980 Ti pricing, allowing for a steal on one while we wait for the good stuff on Volta.


Exactly my plan


----------



## Malinkadink

Skimming a lot of the posts i see a lot of people convincing themselves that $750-900 for a high end, enthusiast even i guess GPU is suddenly reasonable. Not too long ago the best card you could buy for gaming was in the $500-600 range at release and there were no bogus shenanigans like a new gpu coming out in less than a year dethroning that other gpu already. Now we get a super cut down gpu in the $400-500 range (1070), and another cut down die in the price segment that was reserved for the king of the hill.

So what we have now is the Titan XP sitting as KOTH @ $1200, double what it used to cost to get the best card, and it's going to be acceptable if they introduce another tier around $900? *sigh* What is happening to pc gaming


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Malinkadink*
> 
> Skimming a lot of the posts i see a lot of people convincing themselves that $750-900 for a high end, enthusiast even i guess GPU is suddenly reasonable. Not too long ago the best card you could buy for gaming was in the $500-600 range at release and there were no bogus shenanigans like a new gpu coming out in less than a year dethroning that other gpu already. Now we get a super cut down gpu in the $400-500 range (1070), and another cut down die in the price segment that was reserved for the king of the hill.
> 
> So what we have now is the Titan XP sitting as KOTH @ $1200, double what it used to cost to get the best card, and it's going to be acceptable if they introduce another tier around $900? *sigh* What is happening to pc gaming


This would not be happening if AMD was giving NVIDIA more competition in those price segments.


----------



## Insan1tyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> -Buys a 1080
> -Almost immediately after mine ships, this news comes out


I just bought a 1080 for $580 last week, so this news is kind of a bummer to me as well. But realistically there won't be any price-drops on the GTX 1080, 1070, etc. when the GTX 1080 Ti releases, so I do not think anyone will have any problems getting their 1080's sold if they want to move up to a 1080 Ti. Especially if you list it for say $500 - $550? At that price someone will go home happy with a good deal and you will be that much closer to getting your hands on a new 1080 Ti (or Titan XP).

- Insan1tyOne


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Insan1tyOne*
> 
> I just bought a 1080 for $580 last week, so this news is kind of a bummer to me as well. But realistically there won't be any price-drops on the GTX 1080, 1070, etc. when the GTX 1080 Ti releases, so I do not think anyone will have any problems getting their 1080's sold if they want to move up to a 1080 Ti. Especially if you list it for say $500 - $550? At that price someone will go home happy with a good deal and you will be that much closer to getting your hands on a new 1080 Ti (or Titan XP).
> 
> - Insan1tyOne


That's probably going to be the plan. The value of used cards doesn't depreciate much as long as they're in working condition. Take my loss and lick my wounds I guess.


----------



## buttface420

dont do it guys, next year there will be a gtx 1170 that beats it for half the price......

that said..im doing it and buying one...because for some reason i always do


----------



## bazh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sKorcheDeArtH*
> 
> Welcome to the club ?. I can really see 700 MSRP but in reality they probably wont be found for under 800.


It's easy with their strategy lately, 700 MSRP but 800 FE

Though I too think for those price they have to price down the 1080 a bit I guess, otherwise it more likely 800 MSRP - 900 FE way


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Insan1tyOne*
> 
> I just bought a 1080 for $580 last week, so this news is kind of a bummer to me as well. But realistically there won't be any price-drops on the GTX 1080, 1070, etc. when the GTX 1080 Ti releases, so I do not think anyone will have any problems getting their 1080's sold if they want to move up to a 1080 Ti. Especially if you list it for say $500 - $550? At that price someone will go home happy with a good deal and you will be that much closer to getting your hands on a new 1080 Ti (or Titan XP).
> 
> - Insan1tyOne


how did you figure that? i think exact opposite, there WILL be a price drop for 1080/1070 when 1080Ti is released. just like what happened to 980/970 when 980Ti was released.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> how did you figure that? i think exact opposite, there WILL be a price drop for 1080/1070 when 1080Ti is released. just like what happened to 980/970 when 980Ti was released.


All depends on supply and demand.


----------



## redshoulder

This happened twice before so it's of no surprise.


----------



## Xen0nAU

Definitely holding out on the GTX 1080 if this is true! My GTX 970 will hold up fine until then.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xen0nAU*
> 
> Definitely holding out on the GTX 1080 if this is true! My GTX 970 will hold up fine until then.


970 to a 2.1ghz + 1080 TI would be some killer performance gains.


----------



## eXe.Lilith

EVGA Step-Up Program









nuff said


----------



## Imglidinhere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Id be happy with 700, id even pay 800 if it performance like a titan XP. 1080 TI FTW for like 799, take my money EVGA>


That's wishful thinking right now. Even IF MSRP was stated to be $700, you know they'd be price gouging right now and asking $900 for it. There's no way this is fair in the slightest. LIke...

Does anyone remember the good old days? When the most expensive GPU you could buy was only $600? Man... good times...


----------



## ucode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Hence my suspicion above that there won't be an FE for the 1080 Ti.


Wat, and miss out on a $150 surcharge !


----------



## Wishmaker

Hmm ... must resist for non HBM memory cards







.


----------



## DFroN

Im gonna say £750 in the UK.


----------



## Krzych04650

Nice. I just hope that GTX 1080 price will drops to where it belongs( <$550) and 1080 Ti will launch as proper high-end product at proper $700 price, not like it is right now, mid-size 1080 chip priced as high-end. In Poland 1080 is around 3300, 980 Ti was at around the same at release. I am not willing to pay more than 4000 for 1080 Ti (roughly $1050, welcome to Poland







)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> $699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.


No, it wouldn't. GTX 1080 buyers will just pay the price for being inpatient and unreasonable, paying $700+ for mid-sized chip that mas meant to be fake high-end product to milk money from lemmings, and then drop in price and be replaced with proper high-end product - 1080 Ti.


----------



## maltamonk

I really can't see this being any less than $799. Even at basically $800-900 ppl will line up in droves to buy it and ofc do the same when the next iteration hit the shelves. It's the reason we keep seeing the same pattern.


----------



## RobotDevil666

January ??!! so just outside my EVGA step up







first GOW 4 offer comes few days after I bought my 1080's now this, come on now








Also why January ? to miss out on all the Christmas sales ? does not compute ....


----------



## HaiderGill

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *littledonny*
> 
> $699 please.


Nah 400 pound sterling


----------



## HaiderGill

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> Nice. I just hope that GTX 1080 price will drops to where it belongs( <$550) and 1080 Ti will launch as proper high-end product at proper $700 price, not like it is right now, mid-size 1080 chip priced as high-end. In Poland 1080 is around 3300, 980 Ti was at around the same at release. I am not willing to pay more than 4000 for 1080 Ti (roughly $1050, welcome to Poland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> No, it wouldn't. GTX 1080 buyers will just pay the price for being inpatient and unreasonable, paying $700+ for mid-sized chip that mas meant to be fake high-end product to milk money from lemmings, and then drop in price and be replaced with proper high-end product - 1080 Ti.


1080 needs to be 300-350 sterling...What about the GeForce 1070 paid £400 for an AIB card in the Blighty? The 1060/1070 are the low and top-end mid range cards, the 1080,1080 TI, Titman are low top, mid top and luxury cards


----------



## zealord

Does anyone else realize that wccftech does the same thing before every GPU launch?

They are just doing news completely based on their guesses, basically every day or week throwing around speccs and rumours.

They do it every single time. News with no source, no quality, no nothing.

They are probably going to do 50 more rumor news of the 1080 Ti before the card actually launches.

Didn't they just last week said it was a 3300 cuda core card with 8GB GDDR5 ram? And now it's 12GB GDDR5X ?


----------



## Krzych04650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Does anyone else realize that wccftech does the same thing before every GPU launch?
> 
> They are just doing news completely based on their guesses, basically every day or week throwing around speccs and rumours.
> 
> They do it every single time. News with no source, no quality, no nothing.
> 
> They are probably going to do 50 more rumor news of the 1080 Ti before the card actually launches.
> 
> Didn't they just last week said it was a 3300 cuda core card with 8GB GDDR5 ram? And now it's 12GB GDDR5X ?


This is what tech-rags of this kind do. Major tech releases are quite rare, those sites would be dead for majority of the year without all of those speculations. So they are doing copy-paste on any rumor that comes out + adding something from themselves. We are viewing it, discussing, creating threads on forums and the business is going well









Plus all of those releases and specs are quite predictable so it is quite easy to make speculations quite accurate and then posting it from time to time with some changes to pretend that there is new leak, breaking news or something


----------



## Pantsu

999$. For the masses.









I guess they'll just price it based on whatever they think Vega can manage.


----------



## Swolern

Nvidia already calling the Titan X Pascal obsolete? I guess they made enough money out of those cards and ready to move on.

With that kind of talk I'm guessing $799.


----------



## mmonnin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *buttface420*
> 
> dont do it guys, next year there will be a gtx 1170 that beats it for half the price......
> 
> that said..im doing it and buying one...because for some reason i always do


With this mindset someone would always be in a holding pattern waiting for the next gen.


----------



## andydabeast

My guess is $950 MSRP and $1050 Founders


----------



## SuprUsrStan

Calm down you guys.

You do realize this is a "mainstream" part and while it's the top end "mainstream" part, it's meant to be sold to the masses. Meaning, it's going to be hard to justify if it costs much more than $700. I'd gladly pay the $800 or $900 that people are talking about and I'd even be willing to pick up two but I seriously doubt Nvidia will price it like that. My guess is the price is going to similar to the 1080 launch price of $599 and $699 founders.


----------



## davidelite10

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krzych04650*
> 
> Nice. I just hope that GTX 1080 price will drops to where it belongs( <$550) and 1080 Ti will launch as proper high-end product at proper $700 price, not like it is right now, mid-size 1080 chip priced as high-end. In Poland 1080 is around 3300, 980 Ti was at around the same at release. I am not willing to pay more than 4000 for 1080 Ti (roughly $1050, welcome to Poland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> No, it wouldn't. GTX 1080 buyers will just pay the price for being inpatient and unreasonable, paying $700+ for mid-sized chip that mas meant to be fake high-end product to milk money from lemmings, and then drop in price and be replaced with proper high-end product - 1080 Ti.


Impatient? Nah, I have had an amazing 4k experience and 1440p experience with my GTX 1080s, for almost what will be 12 months when this releases.

One paycheck for 12 months+ of enjoyment is well worth it to me. ESPECIALLY since upgrading to 4k.
My 780s can now rest easy.
I'm generally on a 3 year cycle but might break on hbm2.


----------



## flopper

sell your 1080 now as you get something of value as the price crashes down as the 1080ti is the card people will pay extra tax to own.
it will cost 1000euro here.
amazing how people fall for nvidia price tactics.


----------



## Blameless

Could finally be a compelling single card upgrade from my CFX 290X setup.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swolern*
> 
> Nvidia already calling the Titan X Pascal obsolete? I guess they made enough money out of those cards and ready to move on.


Most willing to drop that kind of money on something because it's the latest and greatest are willing to do so early and often.


----------



## SoloCamo

This is hilarious. As smart as you would think the people buying in the higher end gpu industry are they fall for the same crap every. single. time.

There will not be a 780ti! Titan is top! - 780ti releases

There will not be a 980ti! Titan X is top! - 980ti releases

There will not be a 1080ti! Titan X(p) is top! - 1080ti inevitably will release

Rinse and repeat. Well there is one change - Nvidia keeps increasing the cost and everyone eats it up. It's so laughable.


----------



## hht92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> This is hilarious. As smart as you would think the people buying in the higher end gpu industry are they fall for the same crap every. single. time.
> 
> There will not be a 780ti! Titan is top! - 780ti releases
> 
> There will not be a 980ti! Titan X is top! - 980ti releases
> 
> There will not be a 1080ti! Titan X(p) is top! - 1080ti inevitably will release
> 
> Rinse and repeat. Well there is one change - Nvidia keeps increasing the cost and everyone eats it up. It's so laughable.


Yeap totally agree here. We should stop buy nvidia cards for a while to see what will happen to the prices.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Pretty sure It will be $699, might even be $649 like the 980Ti if AMD can launch some competition for enthusiasts. At this point that's looking like a pipe dream though..









Surreal that the x80 TI's have become the price-to-performance leaders in Nvidia's high-end lineup.. I doubt I'll ever buy a standard x80 card again, the 980 and now 1080 look ridiculous price-wise next to them, and $1000+ on Titans that end up competing with cards nearly half the price a few months later just aren't for me..

I don't blame Nvidias pricing at all though, just sucks knowing we would be buying cards like these for $499 *Max* if there was competition.. Well done AMD, you've managed to skip an entire GPU cycle outside of the 480 tier..
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Could finally be a compelling single card upgrade from my CFX 290X setup.
> *Most willing to drop that kind of money on something because it's the latest and greatest are willing to do so early and often*.


This.


----------



## guttheslayer

Everyone is SOOO engrossed on this 1080 Ti that they actually didnt realised the block diagram is completely wrong to begin with...



That diagram only show *2816 effective cores, not 3328*. Terrible QC on their article.


----------



## guttheslayer

Let me once again repost what our mod andrew posted 2 week ago:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1611465/wccf-nvidia-gtx-1080-ti-specs-leaked-3328-cuda-cores-12gb-gddr5x-powered-by-gp102/80#post_25518764



1503 Base and 1623 Boost clock? Sound too familar? And also the previous leaked G5 memory instead of G5X.


----------



## Assimilator87

When will nVidia release the Titan X Ti so that people can spend $1200, or more, and actually get a GP(102)U without disabled functional units?


----------



## Rustynails

the will be 998.99


----------



## JackCY

The future for AMD GPUs looks bright, like a light at the end of a tunnel.
Meanwhile rich people throw money at NV Titan based cards and multiples of them.

And when AMD finally releases it simply copies the crazy pricing set by NV and Intel...

R.I.P. competitive PC market.

Enjoy your Titans and Tis for which price you could feed a family for a year.


----------



## i7monkey

I've been constantly upgrading to flagship GPUs for the past 3+ years (never a Titan though) and I think I'm done with this hobby.

Cut-down GPUs for $1200? Cut-down-cut-down GPUs for $800-$900? Pretty laughable to be honest. I'm glad it's become like this because maybe people will realize the insanity and stop buying. The industry needs a reset.


----------



## CluckyTaco

Well we're only going to see more and more rumours like this till the actual thing comes out, whether or not they are salty is for us to decide.


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I've been constantly upgrading to flagship GPUs for the past 3+ years (never a Titan though) and I think I'm done with this hobby.
> 
> Cut-down GPUs for $1200? Cut-down-cut-down GPUs for $800-$900? Pretty laughable to be honest. I'm glad it's become like this because maybe people will realize the insanity and stop buying. The industry needs a reset.


This is the unfortunate reality when your only choices for cards are company a and company b. If one company does poorly in a market segment, the other company has no incentive whatsoever to keep prices low.

Compare that to, say, SSDs or system RAM. Lots of manufacturers and very competitive pricing.


----------



## rcfc89

Lol with all those who argued with me that we would never see a 1080Ti. Come eat your crow. I'm ready for another pair of Lightnings.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I would buy one if its $700 and Vega sucks. Pretty sure it will be $699 MSRP with FR at $799 minimum.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> The Enjoy your Titans and Tis for which price you could feed a family for a year.


Yea, maybe eating rice and beans once a day.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> The future for AMD GPUs looks bright, like a light at the end of a tunnel.
> Meanwhile rich people throw money at NV Titan based cards and multiples of them.
> 
> And when AMD finally releases it simply copies the crazy pricing set by NV and Intel...
> 
> R.I.P. competitive PC market.
> 
> Enjoy your Titans and Tis for which price you could feed a family for a year.


Sounds like its your problem.


----------



## jdstock76

Huh! A lot sooner than I expected. Didn't expect this till April/May or even June. Yay!

Need to find my invoices for all the 980ti's I bought but $679-699 is ballpark so $699 will be amazing.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdstock76*
> 
> Huh! A lot sooner than I expected. Didn't expect this till April/May or even June. Yay!
> 
> Need to find my invoices for all the 980ti's I bought but $679-699 is ballpark so $699 will be amazing.


How is 6 month a lot sooner?


----------



## jmcosta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> The future for AMD GPUs looks bright, like a light at the end of a tunnel.
> Meanwhile rich people throw money at NV Titan based cards and multiples of them.
> 
> And when AMD finally releases it simply copies the crazy pricing set by NV and Intel...
> 
> R.I.P. competitive PC market.
> 
> Enjoy your Titans and Tis for which price you could feed a family for a year.


the culprit is both sides

amd lost the strength in the high end after Tahiti and nvidia begin to overcharge by releasing full chips later as in "TI" models instead of the usual high end like the gtx1080 or 980...
similar situation happen with intel and amd but more drastically, they lost the market with mediocre products (FX) and then instead of spending on development they went with rebrands and intel barely did any progression through those years

they released just the enough to compete.

btw
if i remember correctly amd was the first to launch a card with a price tag above 1k $


----------



## LancerVI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> This is hilarious. As smart as you would think the people buying in the higher end gpu industry are they fall for the same crap every. single. time.
> 
> There will not be a 780ti! Titan is top! - 780ti releases
> 
> There will not be a 980ti! Titan X is top! - 980ti releases
> 
> There will not be a 1080ti! Titan X(p) is top! - 1080ti inevitably will release
> 
> Rinse and repeat. Well there is one change - Nvidia keeps increasing the cost and everyone eats it up. It's so laughable.


Yeah, completely agree. I'm running a 980Ti now. The more I think about it, the more positive I am that I'll buy Vega when it comes. If it's anywhere near 1080 performance and the price is right, it's VEGA for me.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> How is 6 month a lot sooner?


what ?

also, shame on all the guys who choose the TXP instead of feeding the family, you're all lame.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> what ?
> 
> also, shame on all the guys who choose the TXP instead of feeding the family, you're all lame.


All Ti card have come like 2-3 after Titan. He is saying that 6 months is too soon for Ti card lol.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> All Ti card have come like 2-3 after Titan. He is saying that 6 months is too soon for Ti card lol.


Ah ok, gotcha









It may seems so, but on the other hand what's left for people who want sth faster than 1080 ? It's still gonna be launched well before Vega and comes with guaranteed TXP performance. Vega will certainly come later and we still have no clue how it'll perform. If I was waiting for 1080Ti I'd be happy too, mostly due to the fact that it will even be released.
I'm not biting 1080Ti tho, Volta is the one I'm waiting for. 1080Ti is well late (and still unconfirmed)..


----------



## Nightingale

I mean this was foreseen ever since the 600 series got the ball rolling with charging top tier price for a upper mid range chip. Gone are the days that a top tier chip could be had for $499 USD such as the GTX480 or 580.

Sadly there is nothing that can be done, unless AMD can put immersive pressure on Nvidia which by the looks of it isn't going to happen and even if they do come out with a monster chip, will they also play the high price tag? For this I fear. I knew it was bad when I saw the first Titan and the amount of people that bought into them in droves, setting a bad precedent for us consumers.


----------



## SystemTech

I dont get it.. Why are people always "blaming" the high pricing on the fact that AMD are not competitive.

Did anyone remember what the prices were like on the Fury's.. Anyone???
Easily in reach of 980Ti's and 980's for the respective cards.

Ngreedia launches a card, and sets the bar high, very high.
AMD releases a card that within 5% so they price it within 10% and still have the value proposition but its still a Truck load of cash.

Why must they release their (Hypothetical scenario) Vega flagship (matches 1080Ti almost identically) at $600 when they can price it at $750 and still be $50-$100 less than Nvidia and still be the value proposition.

If you develop a product, and there are competing products, are you going to price it in the upper realms of where you can safely price it?
If not, why not!!

Basically what im saying, is both companies are price hiking here.
Nvidia sets the bar, and AMD follows.
one of them needs to change their ways and drop the prices but as long as investors exists, thats not going to happen anytime soon!


----------



## Buddaking

LOL. I just brought 2 1080.

Now i have to toss both of my 1080 on ebay when the official release date for the 1080 ti is announced.


----------



## t1337dude

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buddaking*
> 
> LOL. I just brought 2 1080.
> 
> Now i have to toss both of my 1080 on ebay when the official release date for the 1080 ti is announced.


If resale value means anything to you, you want to sell them before any official announcement.

I learned this the hard way


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SystemTech*
> 
> Basically what im saying, is both companies are price hiking here.
> Nvidia sets the bar, and AMD follows.
> one of them needs to change their ways and drop the prices but as long as investors exists, thats not going to happen anytime soon!


Truth. The choice AMD made for the 480 at $199 is the same they made for the Fury X at $649.

Nobody forced them to on either one.

The one and only bright side of Nvidia's ridiculous pricing is it has allowed AMD to price their offerings and make a few bucks instead of giving them away at cost.

For all the times we hear the AMD side talk about Nvidia's mid-range chip, what would happen to AMD if that mid-range chip 1080 was released at mid-range price of $299?


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> Truth. The choice AMD made for the 480 at $199 is the same they made for the Fury X at $649.
> 
> Nobody forced them to on either one.
> 
> The one and only bright side of Nvidia's ridiculous pricing is it has allowed AMD to price their offerings and make a few bucks instead of giving them away at cost.
> 
> For all the times we hear the AMD side talk about Nvidia's mid-range chip, what would happen to AMD if that mid-range chip 1080 was released at mid-range price of $299?


There is zero incentive for NVIDIA to do this, unless AMD starts being competitive again. NVIDIA knows their own mid range cards will sell even with a price increase.


----------



## Creator

Screw this - I want to see a full 3840 core, 24GB GDDR5X part.


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> There is zero incentive for NVIDIA to do this, unless AMD starts being competitive again. NVIDIA knows their own mid range cards will sell even with a price increase.


It was simply hypothetical. We all know it's not going to happen. As long at mid-range chips provide top of the line performance that is.


----------



## Benny89

Now this is something I can upgrade to finally from 980Ti. Questions is- when Volta?


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benny89*
> 
> Now this is something I can upgrade to finally from 980Ti. Questions is- when Volta?


2 weeks after you buy a 1080ti


----------



## Benny89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> 2 weeks after you buy a 1080ti


Probably







I think time between Ti version and next 80s version is too short really. I wonder if should I get 1080Ti or just wait for Volta.

My 980Ti serves me well, got golden chip 1550 on air.... However I wanna finally pull those 165Hz on my XB271HU









Decisions, decisions


----------



## Xuvial

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benny89*
> 
> I wonder if should I get 1080Ti or just wait for Volta.


Well even once Volta comes it will first be the overpriced x80 card, at which point you'll be tempted to wait for the x80 Ti volta and then end up waiting close to a year.









I'm falling into the same trap...I just want a single GPU that is worthy of this 1440p 144hz monitor without dropping settings in demanding games.


----------



## pittguy578

Curious what is the actual cost to make one of these things?


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pittguy578*
> 
> Curious what is the actual cost to make one of these things?


25 cents and a stick of gum


----------



## spinFX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Id be happy with 700, id even pay 800 if it performance like a titan XP. 1080 TI FTW for like 799, take my money EVGA>


shhh, they'll hear you.

Gonna start saving for a 1080Ti me thinks, cya later 780Ti SLI.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

That's pretty insulting if true. (And it's WCCF so it isn't true.







) This means that Nvidia is releasing a cheaper GPU than the Titan XP that will be negligibly slower, for several hundred dollars less (inb4 it's $1000), and without the traditional VRAM reduction. News of this means there is _no reason whatsoever_ to buy a Titan XP, especially when aftermarket 1080Tis launch that beat the more expensive Titan at stock speeds, and for less money.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> That's pretty insulting if true. (And it's WCCF so it isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) This means that Nvidia is releasing a cheaper GPU than the Titan XP that will be negligibly slower, for several hundred dollars less (inb4 it's $1000), and without the traditional VRAM reduction. News of this means there is _no reason whatsoever_ to buy a Titan XP, especially when aftermarket 1080Tis launch that beat the more expensive Titan at stock speeds, and for less money.


6 months after? How is that a insult? vRAM was never much of a selling point for Titan. GTX1080 has to have more RAM than GXT1080. The insult is Titan XP is a 1080 Ti.


----------



## spinFX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> That's pretty insulting if true. (And it's WCCF so it isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) This means that Nvidia is releasing a cheaper GPU than the Titan XP that will be negligibly slower, for several hundred dollars less (inb4 it's $1000), and without the traditional VRAM reduction. News of this means there is _no reason whatsoever_ to buy a Titan XP, especially when aftermarket 1080Tis launch that beat the more expensive Titan at stock speeds, and for less money.


Why is it insulting? It's probably to do with the manufacture process. It's also completely expected, as they have done this in the past, *and* it's really really good for everyone who can wait a few months and not throw their money at the top of the line enthusiast gear as soon as it drops. I wont buy the absolute top of the line, because it will always be superseded for considerably less in a short time (this applies to most technology) and then i'll be sad.









Design a new chip, start producing it. Get a few good samples from the first batch, release them early as the Titan (with a standard early adopters fee) to recoup some R&D and early Manufacture costs. Then once they get the kinks out of the manufacture process and can produce a higher yield of fully functional chips (ie. produce the good samples at a lower failure rate -> less cost) they can produce the 80Ti card for cheaper.

Any time you buy the latest and greatest as soon as it is released you will pay a premium for early adoption. Same happened with TV's and other multimedia hardware in the past.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Hasn't most if not all the TI versions have been cut down titans that perform almost as good?

In most games 980 Ti is only 2-5% slower then a titan X, but 980 Ti oc very well, not sure about the titan x.

A 780ti was faster in almost all games vs a titan black.


----------



## pittguy578

Seriously though how cheap are these things made?


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pittguy578*
> 
> Seriously though how cheap are these things made?


Well if you just count the materials probably pretty darn cheap. But if you include all the RnD for it, the factory, the machines to make them, the cost of the workers, the market team, and adds, coders for the drivers, etc etc etc, you can see that it might cost alot more.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 6 months after? How is that a insult?


Because it's still within a single generation. Nvidia would have had an easier time producing this GPU - it's an even further cut-down GP102 core - than the Titan XP. No reason to wait this long other than moolah from Titan XP sales.
Quote:


> vRAM was never much of a selling point for Titan. GTX1080 has to have more RAM than GXT1080.


Disagree. Arguably the FP64 performance on the original GK110 Titans (including the Z nobody bought) was a selling point, and I have seen claims that people have used it like a cheap Quadro. Compared to a K6000, it lost ECC memory and 6GB VRAM but saved $4000, an 80% price reduction.

However, as of GM200, that is no longer true. Nvidia does not offer _any_ workstation features on either Titan X. The first one had a niche over the 980Ti, even after the 980Ti launched, because of its additional VRAM. However, the 1080Ti won't have that disadvantage (or alternatively the Titan XP won't have that advantage). With its slightly higher clockspeeds and slightly fewer cores, the two should be nearly identical in benchmarks. Once you factor in Nvidia's refusal to allow non-reference Titans and the abundance of stupidly fast aftermarket 980Tis, you're looking at a _third_ Nvidia flagship in a single generation, within a single year. About 7 months from the 1080's launch to the 1080Ti's launch.

Quote:


> The insult is Titan XP is a 1080 Ti.


And I fully agree with that.









All that said. This is conjecture on WCCF's part and they haven't confirmed a 1080Ti. Nvidia has hinted at a new gaming product, however. I think that we won't see a 1080Ti but rather a repeat of the Titan Black, a fully enabled die (GP102 rather than GK110 this time) for the same price. Probably with 24GB VRAM as well because why not? If my far superior theory is true, then that means the Titan XP literally is the 1080Ti, and is very similar to the 980Ti, in that both GPUs have just 50% more VRAM than their X80 counterparts and both have 256 CUDA cores disabled. That would make the new product like the Titan X, with the fully enabled die and 200% more VRAM than its X80 counterpart.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> Because it's still within a single generation. Nvidia would have had an easier time producing this GPU - it's an even further cut-down GP102 core - than the Titan XP. No reason to wait this long other than moolah from Titan XP sales.
> Disagree. Arguably the FP64 performance on the original GK110 Titans (including the Z nobody bought) was a selling point, and I have seen claims that people have used it like a cheap Quadro. Compared to a K6000, it lost ECC memory and 6GB VRAM but saved $4000, an 80% price reduction.
> 
> However, as of GM200, that is no longer true. Nvidia does not offer _any_ workstation features on either Titan X. The first one had a niche over the 980Ti, even after the 980Ti launched, because of its additional VRAM. However, the 1080Ti won't have that disadvantage (or alternatively the Titan XP won't have that advantage). With its slightly higher clockspeeds and slightly fewer cores, the two should be nearly identical in benchmarks. Once you factor in Nvidia's refusal to allow non-reference Titans and the abundance of stupidly fast aftermarket 980Tis, you're looking at a _third_ Nvidia flagship in a single generation, within a single year. About 7 months from the 1080's launch to the 1080Ti's launch.
> And I fully agree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that said. This is conjecture on WCCF's part and they haven't confirmed a 1080Ti. Nvidia has hinted at a new gaming product, however. I think that we won't see a 1080Ti but rather a repeat of the Titan Black, a fully enabled die (GP102 rather than GK110 this time) for the same price. Probably with 24GB VRAM as well because why not? If my far superior theory is true, then that means the Titan XP literally is the 1080Ti, and is very similar to the 980Ti, in that both GPUs have just 50% more VRAM than their X80 counterparts and both have 256 CUDA cores disabled. That would make the new product like the Titan X, with the fully enabled die and 200% more VRAM than its X80 counterpart.


Oh. I think you had it the other way. Yes 6 months is just to soak as much XP sales but they know Titan does not sell much after its initial launch.


----------



## HanSomPa

-For the masses
->500$

Pick one.


----------



## KenjiS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> This should hammer down 980 Ti pricing, allowing for a steal on one while we wait for the good stuff on Volta.


Newegg just had the eVGA SC version for $389...

I was quite cringing at that


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KenjiS*
> 
> Newegg just had the eVGA SC version for $389...
> 
> I was quite cringing at that


In a few odd situations I have seen the 980 Ti for more than a 1070. When I can find a $300 steal on a 980 Ti, then I will jump on one. Unless solid Volta information comes.

The 1080 Ti will be fast, but dang, Volta! Who knows, maybe Nvidia is nice and surprises us on pricing of the Ti.


----------



## KenjiS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> In a few odd situations I have seen the 980 Ti for more than a 1070. When I can find a $300 steal on a 980 Ti, then I will jump on one. Unless solid Volta information comes.
> 
> The 1080 Ti will be fast, but damn GPU pricing is silly!


Kinda why im hanging onto the 980 Ti for now, trying to wait for Volta and HBM2...

A lot of games i play go one of two ways, they either run pretty much max at 50-60fps (Fine) or they're CPU bound as heck


----------



## Clocknut

u know guys... instead of complaining, why not just limit your budget at the usual $200-$500 range.









if everyone do that Nvidia will not able to sell a $1200 GPU. Nvidia can release a $5000 GPU, it doesnt affect me because I am sticking on the same budget range.


----------



## hht92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> u know guys... instead of complaining, why not just limit your budget at the usual $200-$500 range.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if everyone do that Nvidia will not able to sell a $1200 GPU. Nvidia can release a $5000 GPU, it doesnt affect me because I am sticking on the same budget range.


I agree with you. Stop buying 500+$ gpus guys and maybe Nvidia will think again that 1200$.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> u know guys... instead of complaining, why not just limit your budget at the usual $200-$500 range.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if everyone do that Nvidia will not able to sell a $1200 GPU. Nvidia can release a $5000 GPU, it doesnt affect me because I am sticking on the same budget range.


what's the problem? your budget is $200-$500 range, for other people it's $800-$1500. there are so many different GPUs for all price ranges. why are you dictating and trying to limit what people buy?


----------



## hht92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> what's the problem? your budget is $200-$500 range, for other people it's $800-$1500. there are so many different GPUs for all price ranges. why are you dictating and trying to limit what people buy?


Yea but after paying $800-$1500 something new better and cheaper is coming out (after a few months), that's when the complaining starts.

Edit: To understand this look many previous comments Example: "oh no i just bought GTX 1080 now they want to release Ti







?
Thats what @Clocknut is trying to say.


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> what's the problem? your budget is $200-$500 range, for other people it's $800-$1500. there are so many different GPUs for all price ranges. why are you dictating and trying to limit what people buy?


read again, basically I am saying stop complaining how expensive the GPU is. Just buy whatever you can afford and you wont butthurt if the new one comes out.


----------



## Yttrium

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Everyone is SOOO engrossed on this 1080 Ti that they actually didnt realised the block diagram is completely wrong to begin with...
> 
> 
> 
> That diagram only show *2816 effective cores, not 3328*. Terrible QC on their article.


And we had such a reliable source...


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yttrium*
> 
> And we had such a reliable source...


I find it even more hilarious that ppl are happily discussing how they wanna get the 1080ti when it been debunked more than once to be FAKE!

Gddr5 instead of G5X and ppl still believing that crap.

They dont even check the source that wcctech quoted


----------



## KenjiS

To clarify, i dont mind how much my 980 Ti cost, i knew going in something faster and cheaper will come..because computers and technology in general, I just wanted the experience of a top tier card for once (my last cards were always down in the high midrange, IE, 9500 PRO, 9800 PRO, 7900 GT, 8800 GTS 512, GTX 460, GTX 570, GTX 770, GTX 970)

and it came like..a year later, and its still not like the 980 Ti is a bad card, it runs everything very well.. Not sure when ill see games that actually cripple it at 1440p...

My plan is to wait for HBM2, So probubly a 2018 upgrade where my 980 Ti will be 3-ish years old unless I get to a point i can no longer run games at the settings i want and hold a good 50-60fps at 1440p


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Hasn't most if not all the TI versions have been cut down titans that perform almost as good?
> 
> In most games 980 Ti is only 2-5% slower then a titan X, but 980 Ti oc very well, not sure about the titan x.
> 
> A 780ti was faster in almost all games vs a titan black.


780 Ti was the only big die Ti that was not cut down.

It and the Titan Black had the exact same performance for gaming because they were both the full chip.

Titan X can sometimes be slower than a 980 Ti because of TDP limits. All things being equal, the Titan should always be faster.

We could really use Vega being strong enough to force Nvidia's hand into releasing the chips with all cores enabled.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I find it even more hilarious that ppl are happily discussing how they wanna get the 1080ti when it been debunked more than once to be FAKE!
> 
> Gddr5 instead of G5X and ppl still believing that crap.
> 
> They dont even check the source that wcctech quoted


actually just one rumor was "debunked" and mind you that was an image, not the rumor. personally i think that thread got locked way too soon since as you can see here there is alot of speculation people have pent up about the card.

if you dson't like the wccf tech block diagram, here is guru3d's:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti now rumored to be released at CES 2017


better?









remember, this is the rumor's section, if it was 100% accurate it would be in the news section.









but yeah, people never check sources.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> actually just one rumor was "debunked" and mind you that was an image, not the rumor. personally i think that thread got locked way too soon since as you can see here there is alot of speculation people have pent up about the card.
> 
> if you dson't like the wccf tech block diagram, here is guru3d's:
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti now rumored to be released at CES 2017
> 
> 
> better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> remember, this is the rumor's section, if it was 100% accurate it would be in the news section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but yeah, people never check sources.


Thanks, put that link on OP.


----------



## xioros

$899 lol.

I told you so. That's like $100 away of the "outrageous" $1,000 pricing the original Titan was set at. And before you blame Nvidia, blame yourself for accepting the new price norm.
Nvidia is increasing the price of every segment every gen. Price/performance remains more or less the same.

What makes me cringe most is that people in this thread rather see it priced at 799 than at 699 because they don't want to feel ripped off with their GTX 1080.

AMD, please guide us trough this dark night of GPU pricing


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> 780 Ti was the only big die Ti that was not cut down.
> 
> It and the Titan Black had the exact same performance for gaming because they were both the full chip.
> 
> Titan X can sometimes be slower than a 980 Ti because of TDP limits. All things being equal, the Titan should always be faster.
> 
> We could really use Vega being strong enough to force Nvidia's hand into releasing the chips with all cores enabled.


thats is if Vega is as threatening as Hawaii.

AMD Hawaii performance is fast but it was destroyed by its own driver. Had Hawaii come with the driver quality like todays, 780Ti would probably need to sell for $400.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> actually just one rumor was "debunked" and mind you that was an image, not the rumor. personally i think that thread got locked way too soon since as you can see here there is alot of speculation people have pent up about the card.
> 
> if you dson't like the wccf tech block diagram, here is guru3d's:
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti now rumored to be released at CES 2017
> 
> 
> better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> remember, this is the rumor's section, if it was 100% accurate it would be in the news section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but yeah, people never check sources.


The fact that it comes in G5 instead of G5X make it cringe worthy...

I mean do you want micron G5 chip on your $800 prized possession that cannot OCed at all when its already facing memory bottleneck?

It has 30% more shader cores than GTX 1080 while only having 20% more memory bandwidth... it is very very heavily bottleneck, you talking about 100GB/s difference vs TXP which only has 256 cores extra!


----------



## mohit9206

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pittguy578*
> 
> Curious what is the actual cost to make one of these things?


I have no clue but if i had to wild guess with no proof then 1060 for $100,1070 for $150 and 1080 for $200.Lower end cards have lower margins than high end cards.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> read again, basically I am saying stop complaining how expensive the GPU is. Just buy whatever you can afford and you wont butthurt if the new one comes out.


Because each generation we are getting less and less for the money. Are you so blind to that?

The 290x launched three years ago as of October. It was $549 and actually less if you factor in they launched with BF1 + one expansion.

What can I buy today, three years later for $549?

An AIB 1070? A 980ti? A Fury X?

Yea, it's an upgrade but let's be realistic here, 3 years later in the tech industry and that is the best I can get for the same amount of money? To see any sort of worth it jump I'd need to hop to a gtx1080 and pay quite a bit more in the same segment. And the funny thing is, the 1080 will be just like the 980 when the Ti version hits. Not worth it.


----------



## pas008

love whiners
with the new best tech you pay more
you do with cpus phones tvs stereos etc

and no matter what you buy in electronics something will always come out better weeks months years later
funny thing everyone knows this happens with video cards look at last couple gens

so quit whining or crying of the cost
be happy you arent paying for inflation, some already pay vat,


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pittguy578*
> 
> Curious what is the actual cost to make one of these things?


Likely in the ballpark of 100 USD.

Probably about double what it costs to make a 6950X.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pas008*
> 
> love whiners
> with the new best tech you pay more
> you do with cpus phones tvs stereos etc
> 
> and no matter what you buy in electronics something will always come out better weeks months years later
> funny thing everyone knows this happens with video cards look at last couple gens
> 
> so quit whining or crying of the cost
> be happy you arent paying for inflation, some already pay vat,


I pay inflated price + tax. I have been buying high end GPUs since HD 4870. Max I spend was $550 CAD for 290X. I cant afford high end cards anymore. GTX1080 goes ~ $900 CAD. GTX1070 ~ $600. I cant get myself to spend $600 on a cut down, G5 GPU and $900 on a mid-high end card knowing something better is out there already.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Because each generation we are getting less and less for the money. Are you so blind to that?
> 
> The 290x launched three years ago as of October. It was $549 and actually less if you factor in they launched with BF1 + one expansion.
> 
> What can I buy today, three years later for $549?
> 
> An AIB 1070? A 980ti? A Fury X?
> 
> Yea, it's an upgrade but let's be realistic here, 3 years later in the tech industry and that is the best I can get for the same amount of money? To see any sort of worth it jump I'd need to hop to a gtx1080 and pay quite a bit more in the same segment. And the funny thing is, the 1080 will be just like the 980 when the Ti version hits. Not worth it.


Welcome to my world. Maybe the worse part about 290X is finding a replacement. Vega really has to deliver though. I want at least GTX1080 performance for $550 max.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

The current Titan XP isn't even the same tier chip that older x80 series cards had, and yet they now cost $1200.. So while some of you are willing to spend that amount of money on a single cut-down chip, what happens when chips like the 1060 start costing $699, and the 1070 class move to the $1000 mark?

It's easy for some people to mock others complaining about prices while the costs are still suitable for them, the funny part will be when these counter-whiners are pushed out of the bracket and then start moaning themselves.. There'll always be groups who can afford/ who are willing to spend more than you, so while $1200 might be no big deal right now, i look forward to the % who will be willing to spend $3000 on Titans telling the $1200 ones to stop complaining.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xioros*
> 
> I told you so. That's like $100 away of the "outrageous" $1,000 pricing the original Titan was set at. And before you blame Nvidia, blame yourself for accepting the new price norm.
> Nvidia is increasing the price of every segment every gen. Price/performance remains more or less the same.


Yup, it's hilarious. And if you laugh at people proudly boasting on how they purchased two absurdly overpriced cards you're met with "blah blah blah he can't afford them".


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The current Titan XP isn't even the same tier chip that older x80 series cards had, and yet they now cost $1200.. So while some of you are willing to spend that amount of money on a single cut-down chip, what happens when chips like the 1060 start costing $699, and the 1070 class move to the $1000 mark?
> 
> It's easy for some people to mock others complaining about prices while the costs are still suitable for them, the funny part will be when these counter-whiners are pushed out of the bracket and then start moaning themselves.. There'll always be groups who can afford/ who are willing to spend more than you, so while $1200 might be no big deal right now, i look forward to the % who will be willing to spend $3000 on Titans telling the $1200 ones to stop complaining.


Just look at us idiots begging for a $700 card lol. Now we thing $700 is a good deal. Titan XP $1200 is probably due to extremely early launch. I am fine with that for a Titan line. If Titan X (Maxwell) came 2 months after GTX980 instead of 6 months It would have been priced the same way most likely. Those that pay $1000 over $650 are doing it for time exclusivity.


----------



## pas008

lol complaining about product placement and pricing
thats the consumers and lack of competition

complaining about cut down chips lol wow, now that is whining

are you complaining about intels business practices too?

these companies are in the business to make money,


----------



## moustang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The current Titan XP isn't even the same tier chip that older x80 series cards had, and yet they now cost $1200.. So while some of you are willing to spend that amount of money on a single cut-down chip, what happens when chips like the 1060 start costing $699, and the 1070 class move to the $1000 mark?
> 
> It's easy for some people to mock others complaining about prices while the costs are still suitable for them, the funny part will be when these counter-whiners are pushed out of the bracket and then start moaning themselves.. There'll always be groups who can afford/ who are willing to spend more than you, so while $1200 might be no big deal right now, i look forward to the % who will be willing to spend $3000 on Titans telling the $1200 ones to stop complaining.


For the record...

GTX 780 Launch price = $649
GTX 1080 Launch price = $699 for FE, as little as $619 for 3rd party AIBs.

And as far as the Titan price goes, I would like to remind you that the AMD 295X2 was a $1,500 card two and a half years ago.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pas008*
> 
> lol complaining about product placement and pricing
> thats the consumers and lack of competition
> 
> complaining about cut down chips lol wow, now that is whining
> 
> are you complaining about intels business practices too?
> 
> these companies are in the business to make money,


With Intel is different because you do not need to upgrade CPU like you do the GPU. My 3770K is 4 years old and is more than fine for al my needs. Prices are high because in the recent years PC gaming has had a surge of new incomers. Most people have jobs and really $800 is no big deal for most working people. Problem is people with no job aka students are the ones that are interested in price of these parts. I am pretty sure once I have a high paying job I would also thing why are these people arguing for $200-300.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moustang*
> 
> For the record...
> 
> GTX 780 Launch price = $649
> GTX 1080 Launch price = $699 for FE, as little as $619 for 3rd party AIBs.
> 
> And as far as the Titan price goes, I would like to remind you that the AMD 295X2 was a $1,500 card two and a half years ago.


GTX780 price was fine. There was no competion and was a cut down $1000 card. GTX1080 is not a large die GPU.
295X2 is not really the card most people consider. Even so it was $650 very soon after. Also dont forget 295X2 $1.5K was cheap comapre to Titan Z lol.


----------



## pas008

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> With Intel is different because you do not need to upgrade CPU like you do the GPU. My 3770K is 4 years old and is more than fine for al my needs. Prices are high because in the recent years PC gaming has had a surge of new incomers. Most people have jobs and really $800 is no big deal for most working people. Problem is people with no job aka students are the ones that are interested in price of these parts. I am pretty sure once I have a high paying job I would also thing why are these people arguing for $200-300.
> GTX780 price was fine. There was no competion and was a cut down $1000 card. GTX1080 is not a large die GPU.
> 295X2 is not really the card most people consider. Even so it was $650 very soon after. Also dont forget 295X2 $1.5K was cheap comapre to Titan Z lol.


you dont NEED to upgrade anything you want to

need and want are completely different

and complaining about a cut down chip is just plain ridiculous binning process does cost money,

if it performs where it is meant to be placed in the market then *** you complaining about wow


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pas008*
> 
> you dont NEED to upgrade anything you want to
> 
> need and want are completely different
> 
> and complaining about a cut down chip is just plain ridiculous binning process does cost money,
> 
> if it performs where it is meant to be placed in the market then *** you complaining about wow


Want and need are different. I think for most people here is want. Nothing life is really a need unless its a life essential. I do need faster GPU for 4K. Nobody is really complaining about cut down GPU. Its more about price you pay to get a full chip.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pas008*
> 
> lol complaining about product placement and pricing
> thats the consumers and lack of competition
> 
> complaining about cut down chips lol wow, now that is whining
> 
> are you complaining about intels business practices too?
> 
> these companies are in the business to make money,


Who is arguing that they're not in the *business* to make money? I'm not even questioning why Nvidia are pricing their products the way they are, that's no mystery..

As i said, i look forward to some of these elitists getting pushed out of the elite camp, and being told by the even higher elite to - "stop whining, you don't have to buy it".









I'm not even having a go at Titan owners, or people willing to spend the money on the best, i'm responding to those who can't seem to comprehend why some people would be frustrated with current prices. If you want a perfect example of the type of Titan owners I'm talking about, then go have a look at a certain monitor thread where a Titan XP owner is *complaining* about the price of a monitor.









Of course I'd say the same about Intel, not sure what you're getting at there..

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moustang*
> 
> For the record...
> 
> GTX 780 Launch price = $649
> GTX 1080 Launch price = $699 for FE, as little as $619 for 3rd party AIBs.
> 
> And as far as the Titan price goes, I would like to remind you that the AMD 295X2 was a $1,500 card two and a half years ago.


GTX 780 is the same class chip as the Titan XP, the 295X2 has, as it's name implies, 2 GPU's.. The 295X2 was even met with harsh criticism btw. Your post just backs up what i said..


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Because each generation we are getting less and less for the money. Are you so blind to that?
> 
> The 290x launched three years ago as of October. It was $549 and actually less if you factor in they launched with BF1 + one expansion.
> 
> What can I buy today, three years later for $549?
> 
> An AIB 1070? A 980ti? A Fury X?
> 
> Yea, it's an upgrade but let's be realistic here, 3 years later in the tech industry and that is the best I can get for the same amount of money? To see any sort of worth it jump I'd need to hop to a gtx1080 and pay quite a bit more in the same segment. And the funny thing is, the 1080 will be just like the 980 when the Ti version hits. Not worth it.


I paid 400 dollars for my first 290X (an unlockable 290 on the week of launch), then 230 and 220 dollars each for my Sapphire Tri-Xes when they were on sale about two years ago.

No doubt they were a better value then than a 1080 Ti would be today, but if I want a meaningful upgrade to my CFX 290Xes, a 1080 Ti is about as low as I can go in a single card even though CFX works well in the few demanding games I play now, I still try to avoid multi-GPU setups whenever practical), and I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Just look at us idiots begging for a $700 card lol. Now we thing $700 is a good deal.


If 700 dollars is the only way I can get decisively better performance than what I have, then that's the best deal there is.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> With Intel is different because you do not need to upgrade CPU like you do the GPU.


Depends on what you use the CPU for.

I've been running Intel hex cores in my main system since 2010. I've upgraded to take advantage of architectural improvements and new instruction sets that I'll use, but I am pretty much at the point were I am going to need eight or ten cores, without sacrificing lightly threaded performance. So, a BW-E is almost certainly in my near future, and is just as important for the things I do as new GPUs are.


----------



## pas008

cut down was mentioned more than once and gorilla talked about paying for a cut down,

why would cut down even be mentioned


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Crazy what Nvidia price increases have done to the tech media. The wording of the articles on this are like 'Titan XP performance for _significantly less_' so now apparently $700 (very likely $800) is some kind of deal









No way I'm ever spending more than the equivalent of $400-450. I got other priorities, like paying for my own house. But to each their own.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

GTX1070 is a good dead at MSRP but now $450. My problem now is that I want a card as futureproof as 290X was to me to upgrade. I know there is not such thing but the upgrade cycle has increased dramatically for me.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pas008*
> 
> cut down was mentioned more than once and gorilla talked about paying for a cut down,
> 
> why would cut down even be mentioned


Cut-down is relevant because that's why certain people are upset, they aren't just upset because something is expensive, they're upset because of what that certain something is..

If "real" x80 chips were still $500- 600 top-tier consumer GPU's, and Nvidia made Zeus-tier chips for $1500, i doubt anyone would be complaining. Instead, thanks to AMD's blunders, Nvidia have just moved the prices up, *massively*.

If in some dreamworld Vega curb stomps Nvidias best, and AMD do it for at least 2 generations, then watch chips like the ones in the 1080 go back to where they belong, in the 1060. Prices are like they are because Nvidia can get away with it, simple as that. I agree with buy it or don't, we're stuck with the current landscape. I just don't get why people act like the ones who complain are somehow delusional..


----------



## i7monkey

Nvidia does a great job of diminishing the value of their cards at the right time and screwing over their buyers.

They do this by maximizing profit at the right time, getting people to purchase overpriced cards (1080) then they surprisingly release another card at insane prices and people jump on that (Titan XP), then a short while later they dump on XP owners by releasing a similarly performing card for a lot less (1080Ti). And if Vega is a competitor they might price the Ti very similarly to the 1080 which is a spit in the face to 1080 buyers.

How often does AMD do this shady garbage?


----------



## pas008

nvidia is just typical
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Cut-down is relevant because that's why certain people are upset, they aren't just upset because something is expensive, they're upset because of what that certain something is..
> 
> If "real" x80 chips were still $500- 600 top-tier consumer GPU's, and Nvidia made Zeus-tier chips for $1500, i doubt anyone would be complaining. Instead, thanks to AMD's blunders, Nvidia have just moved the prices up, *massively*.
> 
> If in some dreamworld Vega curb stomps Nvidias best, and AMD do it for at least 2 generations, then watch chips like the ones in the 1080 go back to where they belong, in the 1060. Prices are like they are because Nvidia can get away with it, simple as that. I agree with buy it or don't, we're stuck with the current landscape. *I just don't get why people act like the ones who complain are somehow delusional.*.


because they can insert them at their various performanc/price points
just like any other product out there, price it to what people pay

I personally am happy with the significant jump in performance they released last 2 gens
way better than cpu market which should be the real story, roughly 10% improvements


----------



## PatrickCrowely

$899 all day long...


----------



## i7monkey

Is there a point at which prices in this industry are such a turnoff that it turns away enough gamers to cause Nvidia to go back to sane pricing (like $500 for full flagship)? Or is it only dependent on competition?


----------



## pas008

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Nvidia does a great job of diminishing the value of their cards at the right time and screwing over their buyers.
> 
> They do this by maximizing profit at the right time, getting people to purchase overpriced cards (1080) then they surprisingly release another card at insane prices and people jump on that (Titan XP), then a short while later they dump on XP owners by releasing a similarly performing card for a lot less (1080Ti). And if Vega is a competitor they might price the Ti very similarly to the 1080 which is a spit in the face to 1080 buyers.
> 
> How often does AMD do this shady garbage?


if they released all around superior cards they would
remember what the fury was suppose to be released at? quickly price cut if I remember correctly


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pas008*
> 
> I personally am happy with the significant jump in performance they released last 2 gens
> way better than cpu market which should be the real story, roughly 10% improvements


Technically we would still get that same performance jump even if prices were still in line with what they use to be. Prices don't just go up because performance improves. There are other variables at work.


----------



## pas008

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Technically we would still get that same performance jump even if prices were still in line with what they use to be. Prices don't just go up because performance improves. There are other variables at work.


obviously
do you understand price points? supply and demand? the new best thing?
many of these things have been stated

but this last gen of improvements from nvidia was huge jump more than typical


----------



## SirWaWa

want fully unlocked card with custom cooler
titan is not the answer


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pas008*
> 
> obviously
> do you understand price points? supply and demand? the new best thing?
> many of these things have been stated
> 
> but this last gen of improvements from nvidia was huge jump more than typical


You seem to be the one that was hung up on pricing being like it is because of the performance jump. I have no issue understanding what's going on.


----------



## pas008

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> You seem to be the one that was hung up on pricing being like it is because of the performance jump. I have no issue understanding what's going on.


plz reread


----------



## djsi38t

Thank god for this.I know so many people are disappointed with their cards performance.

Hopefully people can actually play games now without it being a slideshow.

This card for 600 bucks would actually be worth it.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Is there a point at which prices in this industry are such a turnoff that it turns away enough gamers to cause Nvidia to go back to sane pricing (like $500 for full flagship)? Or is it only dependent on competition?


Most gamers don't buy top-end parts; never have and never will.

Supply and demand set prices. If NVIDIA can sell their supply of flagship parts for 800+ dollars (and they generally can), that's where they will be priced. Only competition, which increases supply of comparable parts, can lower prices.


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hht92*
> 
> I agree with you. Stop buying 500+$ gpus guys and maybe Nvidia will think again that 1200$.


Sadly those of us aware of the price gouging are a niche group. The mainstream idiots are the ones mostly supporting the market increase in price, I know people personally that have bought titans and they are not even the most computer savoy people. They have lot's of money and just heard it was the best GPU and had to have it. So by the looks of how this has played out, it seems Nvidia has a price gouging market well supported.

When I purchased my 1070 here in Canada which sells for significantly more even with the dollar exchange first time in history since 1997 when I purchased my first 3DFX that I was not thrilled to have a new GPU. I knew I was getting ripped off but there was no alternative. 1080 is $1000 CDN where I live, absolutely insane, I opted for the 1070 which 45% cheaper.


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Because each generation we are getting less and less for the money. Are you so blind to that?
> 
> The 290x launched three years ago as of October. It was $549 and actually less if you factor in they launched with BF1 + one expansion.
> 
> What can I buy today, three years later for $549?
> 
> An AIB 1070? A 980ti? A Fury X?
> 
> Yea, it's an upgrade but let's be realistic here, 3 years later in the tech industry and that is the best I can get for the same amount of money? To see any sort of worth it jump I'd need to hop to a gtx1080 and pay quite a bit more in the same segment. And the funny thing is, the 1080 will be just like the 980 when the Ti version hits. Not worth it.


The way it used to work was when they moved over to a smaller node, we were given top tier gpu for around $500-600 tops. Instead they use the node shrink and architectural optimizations and produce chips back 5 year ago that we be classified as mid range chips and market and sell them as top tier. Then the actuall top tier chip is help back for a few months and then released and marketed as a super expensive elite GPU and sold at 2-2.5x the price as the fake(1080) high end card, alas we have the *TITIAN*

Nvidia has gotten so cocky that they are now marketing the real 1080ti as the new Titan and for even more money than what real titans sold last year.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djsi38t*
> 
> Thank god for this.I know so many people are disappointed with their cards performance.
> 
> Hopefully people can actually play games now without it being a slideshow.
> 
> This card for 600 bucks would actually be worth it.


Don't worry, it won't be $600.


----------



## Randomdude

I like to think that it'll be a full chip. Guessing more people will buy that instead of a cut down one. At least I know I won't even consider anything but a full chip, but if it is, I'll most likely bite and justify later, knowing myself.


----------



## xioros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Is there a point at which prices in this industry are such a turnoff that it turns away enough gamers to cause Nvidia to go back to sane pricing (like $500 for full flagship)? Or is it only dependent on competition?
> 
> 
> 
> Most gamers don't buy top-end parts; never have and never will.
> 
> Supply and demand set prices. If NVIDIA can sell their supply of flagship parts for 800+ dollars (and they generally can), that's where they will be priced. Only competition, which increases supply of comparable parts, can lower prices.
Click to expand...

Except if AMD prices their cards at the same scram-grade level. Competition works if there's competition. It could very well be that this becomes a big duopoly - in which case I'll likely drop my gaming hobby and start with something like wingsuit diving, because both will be equally expensive


----------



## hht92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nightingale*
> 
> Sadly those of us aware of the price gouging are a niche group. The mainstream idiots are the ones mostly supporting the market increase in price, I know people personally that have bought titans and they are not even the most computer savoy people. They have lot's of money and just heard it was the best GPU and had to have it. So by the looks of how this has played out, it seems Nvidia has a price gouging market well supported.
> 
> When I purchased my 1070 here in Canada which sells for significantly more even with the dollar exchange first time in history since 1997 when I purchased my first 3DFX that I was not thrilled to have a new GPU. I knew I was getting ripped off but there was no alternative. 1080 is $1000 CDN where I live, absolutely insane, I opted for the 1070 which 45% cheaper.


1080 cost $1000 CDN ?








Damn man that's more than here in Greece.


----------



## CalinTM

My guess regarding price, 900-1000$

Because new node delay, and because maxwell cut down from pascal, and because fat R&D on pascal.

Also, its not even the full fat GP102. Not even the titan XP has the 3.8k cores. Only some pro. card, tesla or quadro, don't remember right.

I dont think either that will be a founder's edition (with higher price) on 1080 Ti, the founder's edition is the Titan XP.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> actually just one rumor was "debunked" and mind you that was an image, not the rumor. personally i think that thread got locked way too soon since as you can see here there is alot of speculation people have pent up about the card.
> 
> if you dson't like the wccf tech block diagram, here is guru3d's:
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti now rumored to be released at CES 2017
> 
> 
> better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> remember, this is the rumor's section, if it was 100% accurate it would be in the news section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but yeah, people never check sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that it comes in G5 instead of G5X make it cringe worthy...
> 
> I mean do you want micron G5 chip on your $800 prized possession that cannot OCed at all when its already facing memory bottleneck?
> 
> It has 30% more shader cores than GTX 1080 while only having 20% more memory bandwidth... it is very very heavily bottleneck, you talking about 100GB/s difference vs TXP which only has 256 cores extra!
Click to expand...

what bottleneck?


----------



## Edge Of Pain

Yes, finally. This is one of the reasons why I didn't buy a 1080. Also, the price. £600 to £700 here in the UK! Hopefully, the 1080 drops in price and this 1080 Ti comes in at around the same price as a current 1080. Can't imagine 1070 prices shifting though, since they're quite a bit cheaper than current 1080s.

Still, GPU prices are ridiculous these days.


----------



## strong island 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Edge Of Pain*
> 
> Yes, finally. This is one of the reasons why I didn't buy a 1080. Also, the price. £600 to £700 here in the UK! Hopefully, the 1080 drops in price and this 1080 Ti comes in at around the same price as a current 1080. Can't imagine 1070 prices shifting though, since they're quite a bit cheaper than current 1080s.
> 
> Still, GPU prices are ridiculous these days.


The 1080 ti will be at least $50 more than the 1080 founders was and that's for reference, custom cards will be a lot more. Reference might even be more than $50.


----------



## Yttrium

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> actually just one rumor was "debunked" and mind you that was an image, not the rumor. personally i think that thread got locked way too soon since as you can see here there is alot of speculation people have pent up about the card.
> 
> if you dson't like the wccf tech block diagram, here is guru3d's:
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti now rumored to be released at CES 2017
> 
> 
> better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> remember, this is the rumor's section, if it was 100% accurate it would be in the news section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but yeah, people never check sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that it comes in G5 instead of G5X make it cringe worthy...
> 
> I mean do you want micron G5 chip on your $800 prized possession that cannot OCed at all when its already facing memory bottleneck?
> 
> It has 30% more shader cores than GTX 1080 while only having 20% more memory bandwidth... it is very very heavily bottleneck, you talking about 100GB/s difference vs TXP which only has 256 cores extra!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what bottleneck?
Click to expand...

the rx480 has been rumored to have memory bottlenecks with its g5 chips. if this fake 1080ti has the same memory and more cores than the 1080/rx480 then yes, it will bottleneck beyond comprehension. no compression tech can save this one.


----------



## HugoStiglitz96

Price cut the 1080 to 450$,1070 to 300$ and 1060 to 200$ then launch this at 650-700$


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yttrium*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> what bottleneck?
> 
> 
> 
> the rx480 has been rumored to have memory bottlenecks with its g5 chips. if this fake 1080ti has the same memory and more cores than the 1080/rx480 then yes, it will bottleneck beyond comprehension. no compression tech can save this one.
Click to expand...

rumored? stop.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Welcome to my world. Maybe the worse part about 290X is finding a replacement. Vega really has to deliver though. I want at least GTX1080 performance for $550 max.


Me and you are in the same boat. After the first Titan came out I told myself and even said on this forum many times I will not drop over the "standard" high end GPU prices again. $550 is absolute max, but realistically I'd prefer $499.

There is no card three years later for me that is a worthwhile upgrade, especially at my current 4k. I'm not going to drop the money for a 1070/980ti or Fury-X for a _minor_ fps jump at 4k. It is not worth it for me to drop near $500 for a meager gain of 10fps at most in 90% of titles when those cards can barely pull 45fps themselves. I would rather save the money and drop from ultra to high or high to medium.

Even going to a gtx1080 is still around 15fps more average at 4k compared to my oc'ed 290x.
Certainly not worth $700 over a three year old card that manages fine with lowering a few settings at 4k or simply dropping to 1080p or 1440p and maxing out most games just fine over 60fps.

If 1080 performance drops into the $500 range, or AMD offers similar performance for that I will be going that route instead. Whatever route Vega lands, AMD has a history of doing better at high res and I feel Vega will be a far better option for those of us on 4k. All AMD has to do is price it right and there is a large market.

I'm not one to freak out about an incandescent light bulb's worth more of power consumption if it has to be that way to get the performance I want at the price.


----------



## Blameless

The GTX 1080 (with it's 256-bit bus) generally sees much greater benefit, proportionally speaking, from core clocks than memory clocks, even at 4k. The Titan X is even less memory bandwidth limited with the same memory clock, 50% wider bus, but lower core clocks and less than 50% increase in functional units.

Unless the 1080 Ti is clocked considerably higher than the TItan X, even 8Gbps GDDR5 isn't likely to make it significantly memory bottlenecked.

If anyone reading this has a GP 102 Titan X, you can confirm or debunk a memory bottleneck by underclocking your card's memory and running some benchmarks. If it takes more than a 2% reduction in memory clock to reduce average performance by each 1%, then I'd argue even GDDR5 is enough.


----------



## prjindigo

So now the GTX 1080ti release with the specs I called first back when everybody was calling me a troll for saying they'd not release a "GP" of the P100 chip...

A chapter closes.

Now for the juicy stuff. I'm betting that the Vega10 won't stand a chance against the 1080ti at 3200x1440 or less but will hold its own just fine in most detail levels in 4k against the Titan-P and that the superior asyncronous capacity of the 8x64bit ram controllers of HBM2 will serve it handily when doing multiple monitors.

Has nVidia resolved the multi-card limits in support on games yet that JayzTwoCents was displaying with black-outs and other problems?


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> The GTX 1080 (with it's 256-bit bus) generally sees much greater benefit, proportionally speaking, from core clocks than memory clocks, even at 4k. The Titan X is even less memory bandwidth limited with the same memory clock, 50% wider bus, but lower core clocks and less than 50% increase in functional units.
> 
> Unless the 1080 Ti is clocked considerably higher than the TItan X, even 8Gbps GDDR5 isn't likely to make it significantly memory bottlenecked.
> 
> If anyone reading this has a GP 102 Titan X, you can confirm or debunk a memory bottleneck by underclocking your card's memory and running some benchmarks. If it takes more than a 2% reduction in memory clock to reduce average performance by each 1%, then I'd argue even GDDR5 is enough.


You are talking about 384GB/s of 1080 Ti vs 480GB/s that TXP have and they both have similar amount of graphical processing capability.

Even 1080 have better bandwidth per cores vs the 1080 Ti.

Now you telling us it wont bottleneck for the former, you got to be kidding. Pascal only have 20% more compression tech than Kepler, not 50%. The existence of HBM would be redundant if what you said is true.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Regarding the price, I'm not sure it's 100% price gouging. Smaller processes are much more expensive than the smaller ones, and they're only going to get more expensive. I'm actually amazed that Intel, for example, has kept prices as consistent as they are, even with more expensive fabs and less competition. Some given tier of E5 Xeon costs about 10% more for the 14nm Broadwell version than the 32nm Sandy Bridge version, and prices haven't changed much since 22nm Ivy Bridge past inflation.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> 780 Ti was the only big die Ti that was not cut down.


To be fair we've only seen two so far.









Quote:


> It and the Titan Black had the exact same performance for gaming because they were both the full chip.
> 
> Titan X can sometimes be slower than a 980 Ti because of TDP limits. All things being equal, the Titan should always be faster.
> 
> We could really use Vega being strong enough to force Nvidia's hand into releasing the chips with all cores enabled.


Keep in mind that the Titan Black was released _after_ the 780Ti. There were a few months where customers had to choose 6GB and FP64 xor just 3GB and minimal FP64 with a full die. If I remember correctly, EVGA wanted to release a 6GB 780Ti but Nvidia shot it down.

Yeah, Titan X beats 980Ti when all else is equal. But that's the thing, some things aren't. As said previously, Nvidia does not allow non-Founder's reference Titans. For less money than a Titan X, a faster 980Ti is easy to make. It's already $350 cheaper than a Titan X, after all, and that money can pay for quite a bit of binning and a much beefier PCB.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HugoStiglitz96*
> 
> Price cut the 1080 to 450$,1070 to 300$ and 1060 to 200$ then launch this at 650-700$


Keep dreaming.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Let's be honest, YOU KNOW you all want this card.


----------



## FattysGoneWild

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Let's be honest, YOU KNOW you all want this card.


No. And it is not buyers remorse. I have had my 1080 since launch and have no regrets. Love this card. I will be holding onto it until Volta.


----------



## FattysGoneWild

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HugoStiglitz96*
> 
> Price cut the 1080 to 450$,1070 to 300$ and 1060 to 200$ then launch this at 650-700$


AMD is that way

>


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Let's be honest, YOU KNOW you all want this card.


if it butters my bagel, in for 2!


----------



## caenlen

I just hope custom cards let me overlock to 2.1 GHZ, we all know it can handle it. Nvidia will prob lock it though I'm sure.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Let's be honest, YOU KNOW you all want this card.


I'll take a dozen for free if you got 'em.

GTX 1080 is good enough for 60fps 4K.


----------



## meowth2

knowing nvidia, it's going to be at least $1000 something. about $200 less than titan xp


----------



## G woodlogger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HugoStiglitz96*
> 
> Price cut the 1080 to 450$,1070 to 300$ and 1060 to 200$ then launch this at 650-700$


Keep *dreaming.*

*Not impossible, next summer/Autumn, with new updated Pascal gtx 2070, gtx 2080 or whatever.*


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> You are talking about 384GB/s of 1080 Ti vs 480GB/s that TXP have and they both have similar amount of graphical processing capability.


Yes.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Even 1080 have better bandwidth per cores vs the 1080 Ti.
> 
> Now you telling us it wont bottleneck for the former, you got to be kidding. Pascal only have 20% more compression tech than Kepler, not 50%.


It would be more memory bandwidth limited than the TXP, but the TXP isn't really memory bandwidth limited.

Even if the 1080 Ti is a full GP102 and if it only has 8GT/s GDDR5, that's 20% less bandwidth per core than the 1080. However, it's almost certainly clocked at least 10% slower. This means it would only be marginally more memory bottlenecked than a 1080, which isn't memory bottlenecked.

Our hypothetical full GP102 1080 Ti would still benefit more from core than memory overclocks and would still be a lot faster than a 1080 and only slightly slower than the TXP.

Take a TXP and knock 20% off the memory clock...chances are you'll see a ~5% loss of performance.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> The existence of HBM would be redundant if what you said is true.


Bandwidth isn't the sole reason for HBM and it's going to be a while before the bandwidth HBM provides is critical to performance. AMD is pushing HBM more aggressively because they currently have less efficient compression and aren't using tile based rendering...as well as for power and size reasons.

NVIDIA uses HBM for GP100 because it's an HPC part where the extra memory performance may actually make a real difference and because the increased margins more than make up for the cost.


----------



## Benny89

Guys, I have been waiting for this moment. But I will need your advise now.

Getting 1080Ti soon and I am looking at two options: 4k 60Hz Gaming or my current 1440p 144Hz gaming (with card that can finally deliver







) XB271HU.

January is still away however you know- I need some research first


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Yes.
> It would be more memory bandwidth limited than the TXP, but the TXP isn't really memory bandwidth limited.
> 
> Even if the 1080 Ti is a full GP102 and if it only has 8GT/s GDDR5, that's 20% less bandwidth per core than the 1080. However, it's almost certainly clocked at least 10% slower. This means it would only be marginally more memory bottlenecked than a 1080, which isn't memory bottlenecked.
> 
> Our hypothetical full GP102 1080 Ti would still benefit more from core than memory overclocks and would still be a lot faster than a 1080 and only slightly slower than the TXP.


Clocked 10% slower isnt the concern here in OCN, most of us here would push the 1080 Ti to 2.1Ghz which is the max OC for TXP, as well as 1080...

Core overclock will be hampered by limitation of memory bandwidth, thus effectively handicapping it.

Putting it 20% less memory per core is a big thing against something cheaper like 1080. You are effectively removing the benefit of Pascal vs Maxwell or in fact it will be even more limited than Maxwell because Pascal only give 20% more compression, not 25%

0.8 x 1.2 = 0.96 or less than <1.0

Yes at stock setting maybe the 384 GB/s is just sufficient. But I dont want to stay at low 1.6GHz thank you. If I am paying this much I will push it all the way till 2.1GHz or more.


----------



## jezzer

finally a true 1440p card, should have been here few years ago but better late than never.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> You are effectively removing the benefit of Pascal vs Maxwell


Even with GDDR5 the card would still be dramatically faster than any Maxwell part or any GP104 part.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Yes at stock setting maybe the 384 GB/s is just sufficient. But I dont want to stay at low 1.6GHz thank you. If I am paying this much I will push it all the way till 2.1GHz or more.


If GDDR5X is an absolute requirement for you and the card turns out to only have GDDR5, then don't buy it.

GDDR5 won't hurt performance enough to make a 1080 Ti anything less than the best upgrade option from what I have. Obviously, GDDR5X would be better, but it's absence won't be a deal breaker and won't cripple performance.


----------



## s1rrah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> finally a true 1440p card, should have been here few years ago but better late than never.


I'm stoked about that too ... I'm going to be gaming 1440p until 4K gets consistent 120FPS at max settings ... been 1440p for about three years now and still consider it my ideal gaming resolution ... using two 980 hybrids at the moment and they kick booty at 1440p ... but I'm looking forward to pulling those out and going with a single card solution (though I'll probably buy a second 1080ti some time after the first) ..

Can't wait!


----------



## CalinTM

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benny89*
> 
> Guys, I have been waiting for this moment. But I will need your advise now.
> 
> Getting 1080Ti soon and I am looking at two options: 4k 60Hz Gaming or my current 1440p 144Hz gaming (with card that can finally deliver
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) XB271HU.
> 
> January is still away however you know- I need some research first


U can, games right now, and maybe 2-3 AAA graphical titles in the future. As we already know a card can't last forever. It will die in 2 years tops. If ur looking for maxed out minimum 60fps.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Even with GDDR5 the card would still be dramatically faster than any Maxwell part or any GP104 part.
> If GDDR5X is an absolute requirement for you and the card turns out to only have GDDR5, then don't buy it.
> 
> GDDR5 won't hurt performance enough to make a 1080 Ti anything less than the best upgrade option from what I have. Obviously, GDDR5X would be better, but it's absence won't be a deal breaker and won't cripple performance.


G5 is more than fine if they price it like $650.


----------



## CalypsoRaz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> $699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.


And also kind of hilarious. People act as if they didn't know there was a good chance that a Ti was coming.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> $699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.


Why?


----------



## Benny89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CalinTM*
> 
> U can, games right now, and maybe 2-3 AAA graphical titles in the future. As we already know a card can't last forever. It will die in 2 years tops. If ur looking for maxed out minimum 60fps.


But I change card every generation to next 80Ti.

But this will be second (after Pascal Titan X) single card that can do 60fps 4K, so I am of course considering switching to 4K with it around corner.

I will grab 1180Ti anyway probably


----------



## sdrawkcab

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CalinTM*
> 
> U can, games right now, and maybe 2-3 AAA graphical titles in the future. As we already know a card can't last forever. It will die in 2 years tops. If ur looking for maxed out minimum 60fps.


As in the driver support and optimizations around that architecture will die off?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CalypsoRaz*
> 
> And also kind of hilarious. People act as if they didn't know there was a good chance that a Ti was coming.


Wait for the pricing, more laughter and rage will ensue.


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Unless the 1080 Ti is clocked considerably higher than the TItan X, even 8Gbps GDDR5 isn't likely to make it significantly memory bottlenecked.
> 
> If anyone reading this has a GP 102 Titan X, you can confirm or debunk a memory bottleneck by underclocking your card's memory and running some benchmarks. If it takes more than a 2% reduction in memory clock to reduce average performance by each 1%, then I'd argue even GDDR5 is enough.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Core overclock will be hampered by limitation of memory bandwidth, thus effectively handicapping it.
> 
> Putting it 20% less memory per core is a big thing against something cheaper like 1080. You are effectively removing the benefit of Pascal vs Maxwell or in fact it will be even more limited than Maxwell because Pascal only give 20% more compression, not 25%.


I decided to do some testing to get some data around this question, three runs of Fire Strike Ultra per setting with repeats done interleaved, not back to back. 2038 MHz core (+178 MHz @ 36°C), the stock memory clock is 1251 MHz or 480.4 GB/sec:


When declocking by almost 10% I see about a 1.71% change but when declocking nearly 20% (equivalent to 8GHz GDDR5) I see a 6.29% change in performance, from about 17.6% effectiveness to 31.6% effectiveness. This hints that the point when it starts being significantly bottlenecked by memory bandwidth is somewhere between 433.9 GB/sec and 384.8 GB/sec, at least for Fire Strike Ultra.

edit: added 1465 MHz memory clock, single repeat.


----------



## geort45

I guess those Titan XP buyers feel rear-raped by this?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asmodian*
> 
> I decided to do some testing to get some data around this question, three runs of Fire Strike Ultra per setting with repeats done interleaved, not back to back. 2038 MHz core (+178 MHz @ 36°C), the stock memory clock is 1251 MHz or 480.4 GB/sec:
> 
> 
> When declocking by almost 10% I see about a 1.71% change but when declocking nearly 20% (equivalent to 8GHz GDDR5) I see a 6.29% change in performance, from about 17.6% effectiveness to 31.6% effectiveness. This hints that the point when it starts being significantly bottlenecked by memory bandwidth is somewhere between 433.9 GB/sec and 384.8 GB/sec, at least for Fire Strike Ultra.


Thanks for the tests.

Performance trend makes me think this is exactly the sort of thing NVIDIA will do with a 1080 Ti. GDDR5 doesn't look like it will hurt performance at stock GPU clocks enough to matter, but might just make enough of an issue at higher clocks to keep the Titan X from losing significant appeal for those willing to drop that kind of money on a card.

Assuming the the same GDDR5 used on the 1070 would be used on the 1080 Ti, there should be enough memory headroom to keep performance from taking a nose dive, even at the higher end of air-cooled OCs.


----------



## xzamples

meanwhile at amd headquarters

Where is the 980ti OC killer?
Where is the Titan X killer?
Where is the 1070 killer?
Where is the 1080 killer?
Where is the Titan X Pascal killer?
Where are the AMD gaming laptops GPUs?

"Just wait for Polaris"

"Just wait for Vega"

"Just wait for Navi"

it's the same thing over and over again


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xzamples*
> 
> meanwhile at amd headquarters
> 
> Where is the 980ti OC killer?
> Where is the Titan X killer?
> Where is the 1070 killer?
> Where is the 1080 killer?
> Where is the Titan X Pascal killer?
> Where are the AMD gaming laptops GPUs?
> 
> "Just wait for Polaris"
> 
> "Just wait for Vega"
> 
> "Just wait for Navi"
> 
> it's the same thing over and over again


I waited for 290X and it was GTX 780 and Titan killer. What more can you ask?


----------



## 12Cores

I wonder if Nvidia will be able to render Vega 10 null and void a month before it launches like they did to the Fury X by releasing the 980ti a month before that launch. By the time the Fury X launched custom 980ti were on the market and most reviews pit the Fury X against massively overclocked custom cards, it had no chance.

I just want a true [email protected] card under $500 that I can hold on to for 3-4 years, the company that releases that card first will get my money.


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Thanks for the tests.
> 
> Performance trend makes me think this is exactly the sort of thing NVIDIA will do with a 1080 Ti. GDDR5 doesn't look like it will hurt performance at stock GPU clocks enough to matter, but might just make enough of an issue at higher clocks to keep the Titan X from losing significant appeal for those willing to drop that kind of money on a card.
> 
> Assuming the the same GDDR5 used on the 1070 would be used on the 1080 Ti, there should be enough memory headroom to keep performance from taking a nose dive, even at the higher end of air-cooled OCs.


I added +850MHz, it follows the same trend as the +/- 10% clocks perfectly so I am convinced there is a somewhat more significant effect near GDDR5 speeds, but this is for a watercooled, +120% power, overclocked Titan XP. A stock 1080Ti with fewer cores would probably stay on the top line and only lose 3-4% by using 8Gbps GDDR5 vs 10Gbps GDDR5X.


However, rumors seem to indicate Nvidia might switch everything to GDDR5X instead. I don't think they care about putting something very close to the Titan XP, as long as it isn't exactly the same number of cores (or more







) the Titan XP is fine. It could even have faster memory than the Titan XP, if Nvidia happened to find a decent deal for 12 or 14 Gbps GDDR5X they would probably do it.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xzamples*
> 
> meanwhile at amd headquarters
> 
> Where is the 980ti OC killer?
> Where is the Titan X killer?
> Where is the 1070 killer?
> Where is the 1080 killer?
> Where is the Titan X Pascal killer?
> Where are the AMD gaming laptops GPUs?
> 
> "Just wait for Polaris"
> 
> "Just wait for Vega"
> 
> "Just wait for Navi"
> 
> it's the same thing over and over again


It feels like they release a product every 18 months while Nvidia is busy releasing products one right after another and milking as much from consumers as possible. And if AMD is lucky enough to have a competitive product for 3 whole seconds (290X, RX480), Nvidia will quickly top it with something else (780Ti, 1060) and then AMD goes back to getting smashed until their product product 18 months away, which Nvidia quickly tops anyway.

This is what it feels like at least for the higher end products.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> It feels like they release a product every 18 months while Nvidia is busy releasing products one right after another and milking as much from consumers as possible. And if AMD is lucky enough to have a competitive product for 3 whole seconds (290X, RX480), Nvidia will quickly top it with something else (780Ti, 1060) and then AMD goes back to getting smashed until their product product 18 months away, which Nvidia quickly tops anyway.
> 
> This is what it feels like at least for the higher end products.


The 290x laughs at the 780ti in the long run, though. Ended up as the slower card only to be worsened by one less gb of vram. Well worth the money spent getting a card that has held up far better over time while still costing less when new and being the 'older' card.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> The 290x laughs at the 780ti in the long run, though. Ended up as the slower card only to be worsened by one less gb of vram. Well worth the money spent getting a card that has held up far better over time while still costing less when new and being the 'older' card.


Cost wise 290X + WB ~ GTX780 Ti. Much rather have a WC card







. 290X was always the better buy even if performance was 10% less at launch. GTX980 Ti was clearly better than Fury X.


----------



## thebski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I waited for 290X and it was GTX 780 and Titan killer. What more can you ask?


That was in 2013. I think the obvious answer is something that competes in the high end a little more recently than 3 years ago.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thebski*
> 
> That was in 2013. I think the obvious answer is something that competes in the high end a little more recently than 3 years ago.


It was the same talk back then. People like to talk down AMD. Nvidia has not impressed me. I am still waiting to upgrade from 290X.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> It was the same talk back then. People like to talk down AMD. Nvidia has not impressed me. I am still waiting to upgrade from 290X.


Plenty of options. I think what you really mean is that you're waiting for high-end cards that have had their price deflated by the 2nd hand market or a desperation for market share.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> Plenty of options. I think what you really mean is that you're waiting for high-end cards that have had their price deflated by the 2nd hand market or a desperation for market share.


Wrong word. Normalized. Right now Nvidia cards price are inflated.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> The 290x laughs at the 780ti in the long run, though.


Agreed, but performance in the long run means nothing for AMD's sales.

Let me explain.

290x comes out, gets outperformed by the 780Ti by 10% and by the time AMD beats it significantly both cards are EOL which means no more sales for AMD.

Great for long term 290x users, great for the second hand market because 290x cards retain value unlike Nvidia cards, but it doesn't do any good for AMD's bottom line.

The only thing it might do for AMD is get people who want GPUs for the long long haul, and they're a small percentage. So Nvidia always wins in these 1-1.5 year short bursts, and it helps them in the long run because they continue to beat AMD in these contests.


----------



## pas008

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Agreed, but performance in the long run means nothing for AMD's sales.
> 
> Let me explain.
> 
> 290x comes out, gets outperformed by the 780Ti by 10% and by the time AMD beats it significantly both cards are EOL which means no more sales for AMD.
> 
> Great for long term 290x users, great for the second hand market because 290x cards retain value unlike Nvidia cards, but it doesn't do any good for AMD's bottom line.
> 
> The only thing it might do for AMD is get people who want GPUs for the long long haul, and they're a small percentage. So Nvidia always wins in these 1-1.5 year short bursts, and it helps them in the long run because they continue to beat AMD in these contests.


nicely put

290/290x/7970 aged well

but simply people arent buying wine to see if it ages well, they want their performance and they want it now


----------



## i7monkey

Nvidia is a front runner and as soon as the contest is over and the next cards come out they dump driver support while AMD continues to support theirs. And Nvidia wins the cash game every single time.

You can trust AMD to properly support their cards and not pull any shady stuff with their card names or come up with sudden secret releases, but they're always late to the game and Nvidia's already soaked up the market with their overpriced hardware which has constantly been downgraded as years go by.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> Plenty of options. I think what you really mean is that you're waiting for high-end cards that have had their price deflated by the 2nd hand market or a desperation for market share.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong word. Normalized. Right now Nvidia cards price are inflated.
Click to expand...

I was actually alluding to how 290X's were substantially cheaper than MSRP at one time due to the mining craze. Nvidia's high-end cards are much better than your 290X. They simply carry a premium that you're not willing to pay.


----------



## Thrilhouse

Not sure why anyone would suspect a $699 price point. The 1080 cost that. The Ti will be around $900.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> I was actually alluding to how 290X's were substantially cheaper than MSRP at one time due to the mining craze. Nvidia's high-end cards are much better than your 290X. They simply carry a premium that you're not willing to pay.


I bought mine at launch. Yes Nvidia card carry a premium which I am not willing to pay each generation. Fury X failed so I want to see if Vega has anything to offer. In the end of the day I will upgrade but not like in the old days. It's nice to know the price of card before it even comes out. For me it also been harder because CAD Dollar is a lot lower then in 2013. GTX980 Ti was ~ $900 CAD. How is that a upgrade from 290X which was $550? That no premium for me. Thats almost double. GTX1080 is the same thing. I could get 1070 for $600 which is around 290Xs price but really a 1070 knowing Titan XP is there. I much rather not buy at all at that point. I do not know but I like to think I get a good deal when I buy something. I do nothing any card right now fits me.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Assuming the the same GDDR5 used on the 1070 would be used on the 1080 Ti, there should be enough memory headroom to keep performance from taking a nose dive, even at the higher end of air-cooled OCs.


If you have been following 1070 thread you will know recently there is alot of issue on the new G5 memory chip. overclocking anything more than the stock 8gbps give u artifacts...

Although there is a work to improve that through vbios, I really dont want to drop that amount of money on potential issues and way-out-dated Vram, especially considering this card is suppose to be more high end than 1080 which uses far superior memory.

Just no.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asmodian*
> 
> However, rumors seem to indicate Nvidia might switch everything to GDDR5X instead. I don't think they care about putting something very close to the Titan XP, as long as it isn't exactly the same number of cores (or more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) the Titan XP is fine. It could even have faster memory than the Titan XP, if Nvidia happened to find a decent deal for 12 or 14 Gbps GDDR5X they would probably do it.


Likely comes down to cost. If the part is significantly cheaper than the TXP, it will sell, irrespective of what memory it has. So, if GDDR5 remains less expensive, they may as well increase their margins a few more dollars.

Of course, the may use GDDR5X to hedge against possible competition from Vega.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I really dont want to drop that amount of money on potential issues and way-out-dated Vram, especially considering this card is suppose to be more high end than 1080 which uses far superior memory.


Performance dictates how high-end something is. How one gets there is much less relevant.

If the 1080 Ti uses punch cards and is powered by a miniature steam engine, but still outperforms the 1080, it's still higher-end.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> If the 1080 Ti uses punch cards and is powered by a miniature steam engine, but still outperforms the 1080, it's still higher-end.


Doesn't matter, I am not getting something that I cannot push performance further with OCed while the rest of the high end lineup can do so...

When I am paying so much, I also expect premium component too.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Doesn't matter, I am not getting something that I cannot push performance further with OCed while the rest of the high end lineup can do so...
> 
> When I am paying so much, I also expect premium component too.


Then don't buy it.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Then don't buy it.


Did I say I am buying it...









I will go straight to Volta if 1080 Ti comes with G5, or a 2nd hand TXP when Volta is out.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Did I say I am buying it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will go straight to Volta if 1080 Ti comes with G5, or a 2nd hand TXP when Volta is out.


You complained about the rumor with it having g5 was completely fake, but now you believe it?


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> You complained about the rumor with it having g5 was completely fake, but now you believe it?


I dont, but many other member vouch for their true authenticity, by explaining how G5 wont impact performance and cost much less to implement blah blah...

So I am just reaffirming that *IF it does comes with G5* like so many other believe. I will skipping it.

Its so simple, what is the fuss now?


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I dont, but many other member vouch for their true authenticity, by explaining how G5 wont impact performance and cost much less to implement blah blah...
> 
> So I am just reaffirming that *IF it does comes with G5* like so many other believe. I will skipping it.
> 
> Its so simple, what is the fuss now?


I just think that very first rumor with the guy who made a fake spread sheet with the lop sided core count just forgot to put an X on the memory.

Only fuss is you getting angry over so-called things you don't even think are real.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> I just think that very first rumor with the guy who made a fake spread sheet with the lop sided core count just forgot to put an X on the memory.
> 
> Only fuss is you getting angry over so-called things you don't even think are real.


That isnt the case unfortunately.

Its stated with 8 gbps GDDR5 using 384-bits bus width, effectively giving it *384 GB/s.*

G5X dont give that specs under 384 bits with 10 gbps, it will give 480 GB/s instead. So the rumor is pointing at GDDR5 without a mistake.

Here is the link with the picture of the specs sheet.

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/3717041210_ipfys1LS_zMk49qs.jpg

Either way I hope it isnt real, and if Nvidia decide to release 1080 Ti, (which is unlikely till AMD buck up) it has to be something of better caliber.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> That isnt the case unfortunately.
> 
> Its stated with 8 gbps GDDR5 using 384-bits bus width, effectively giving it *384 GB/s.*
> 
> G5X dont give that specs under 384 bits with 10 gbps, it will give 480 GB/s instead. So the rumor is pointing at GDDR5 without a mistake.
> 
> Here is the link with the picture of the specs sheet.
> 
> http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/3717041210_ipfys1LS_zMk49qs.jpg
> 
> Either way I hope it isnt real, and if Nvidia decide to release 1080 Ti, (which is unlikely till AMD buck up) it has to be something of better caliber.


Yes me too, i would think since the 1080 has X memory that TI would also. But then again we could be wrong and get non X memory.

But if the card even has non X memory and its only 2-5% slower then a Titan XP clock for clock then i would still be happy.

As long is it performance very close to a titan x for a cheaper price then i will buy one. And these card getting after market cooling when the titan can't might make them OC better and then at that point the 1080 TI could be faster then a titan.

Iv been buying AMD cards for a long long time and im ready to make the switch to Nvidia. And the last time i spend a but load of cash on a single card was a HD 5970. And at that time the 5970 was a monster in performance.

Think that card cost me around 650-700 but i can't be sure since it as a long time ago.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> That isnt the case unfortunately.
> 
> Its stated with 8 gbps GDDR5 using 384-bits bus width, effectively giving it *384 GB/s.*
> 
> G5X dont give that specs under 384 bits with 10 gbps, it will give 480 GB/s instead. So the rumor is pointing at GDDR5 without a mistake.
> 
> Here is the link with the picture of the specs sheet.
> 
> http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/3717041210_ipfys1LS_zMk49qs.jpg
> 
> Either way I hope it isnt real, and if Nvidia decide to release 1080 Ti, (which is unlikely till AMD buck up) it has to be something of better caliber.


If that's DDR5 on the 1080Ti I'm not even gonna consider buying it.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> If that's DDR5 on the 1080Ti I'm not even gonna consider buying it.


Even if its on pare with a titan XP for 400 dollars cheaper even with ddr5?


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Even if its on pare with a titan XP for 400 dollars cheaper even with ddr5?


It won't be on par oc'd vs oc'd if it's using DDR5 that can't be overclocked. It's gonna be 8GHz vs 11-12GHz, and given that's a bandwidth hungry card TXP will be out of reach. That and also the oc vs oc core clock difference between reference txp and 1080ti would be much more narrow than reference txm and 980ti.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> It won't be on par oc'd vs oc'd if it's using DDR5


Can titan xp with there junky coolers OC and not down throttle to 2.1ghz like most 1080s? Not sure on this. I just thought since 1080 TI would have nice coolers like EVGA FTW, that i could keep 2.1ghz -2.2ghz with out down throttling.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Can titan xp with there junky coolers OC and not down throttle to 2.1ghz like most 1080s? Not sure on this. I just thought since 1080 TI would have nice coolers like EVGA FTW, that i could keep 2.1ghz -2.2ghz with out down throttling.


yes, but even 1950MHz vs 2100MHz is not that big of a difference. 1350MHz vs 1500MHz was bigger. Plus DDR5 is a real handicap for a card like this,especially if it can't oc like the gut slayer says. 384 GB/s vs 550GB/s on a card with 96 ROPs ? That's a huge disadvantage.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> yes, but even 1950MHz vs 2100MHz is not that big of a difference. 1350MHz vs 1500MHz was bigger. Plus DDR5 is a real handicap for a card like this.


Well then lets just hope its gddr5X.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Well then lets just hope its gddr5X.


Let's hope for a Volta year not another Pascal year.

If nvidia can sell us a cut-down-twice non-flagship gpu with ddr5 for $900 then I don't know whether to rant or clap.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> Let's hope for a Volta year not another Pascal year.


Lol, well i been saving a while for 1080 TI if it ever comes out. My 290 CF dump so much heat into my office im pretty darn sick of it. Im also sick of CF problems and AMD drivers not installing properly. Been buying AMD gpu's for like 7 years and its time to switch for me. Also i think the next monitor im getting will have g sync so i need one.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Lol, well i been saving a while for 1080 TI if it ever comes out. My 290 CF dump so much heat into my office im pretty darn sick of it. Im also sick of CF problems and AMD drivers not installing properly. Been buying AMD gpu's for like 7 years and its time to switch for me. Also i think the next monitor im getting will have g sync so i need one.


Not worth it IMO, Volta might be not even a year after 1080Ti, using HBM2 on GV104 and hardware async.

Grab a used custom 980Ti TXM with a block as a placeholder.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> Not worth it IMO, Volta might be not even a year after 1080Ti, using HBM2 on GV104 and hardware async.
> 
> Grab a used custom 980Ti TXM with a block as a placeholder.


You think volta will be alot faster then a 1080 TI? And im pretty sure my 290 cf smokes a single 980 TI


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> And im pretty sure my 290 cf smokes a single 980 TI


I had both 290 Trix 1100/1600 (single card) and 980Ti 1500/7800 (single card), and you'd be amazed to see the results. 290CF might smoke it in benchmarks and games with almost perfect scaling. my old 290 would need ~70% scaling to outpace my old 980Ti in the games I compared them.

edit: Didn't see the whooping 1300 on the core. Yeah, it'd smoke an air cooled 980Ti then. But not a +1.6GHz TXP on water.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I had both 290 Trix 1100/1600 (single card) and 980Ti 1500/7800 (single card), and you'd be amazed to see the results. 290CF might smoke it in benchmarks and games with almost perfect scaling. my old 290 would need ~70% scaling to outpace my old 980Ti in the games I compared them.


Well my hopes was a 1080 TI would be 80-100% faster then a 980 TI which a 1080 TI then would be double what 290 CF is with 1 card.

And im guessing these numbers based on a 980 vs 1080 being 75-100% faster depending on game from all the benchmarks iv seen.

I think a 1080 TI would last me many years. Been saving for months saving 50 bucks a check. Im pretty mind set on it lol.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> *If you have been following 1070 thread you will know recently there is alot of issue on the new G5 memory chip. overclocking anything more than the stock 8gbps give u artifacts...
> *
> 
> Although there is a work to improve that through vbios, I really dont want to drop that amount of money on potential issues and way-out-dated Vram, especially considering this card is suppose to be more high end than 1080 which uses far superior memory.
> 
> Just no.


Ok, firstly 1070 GTX as far as I'm aware shipped, and still ships with GDDR5. Secondly I had no issues overclocking the memory on either my 1080GTX or my Pascal Titan X, with over a 500+ offset.

Please just refrain from regurgitating things you read at a glance.


----------



## Klocek001

No way 1080Ti is gonna be +1.75x- of 980Ti
1080 is 1.25x of 980Ti, 1080Ti is gonna be 1.25x of 1080. So more like ~1.5x
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Ok, firstly 1070 GTX as far as I'm aware shipped, and still ships with GDDR5. Secondly I had no issues overclocking the memory on *either my 1080GTX or my Pascal Titan X*, with over a 500+ offset.
> 
> Please just refrain from regurgitating things you read at a glance.


what does that have to do with what he wrote ? 1080 and TXP have GD5X


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> No way 1080Ti is gonna be +1.75x- of 980Ti
> 1080 is 1.25x of 980Ti, 1080Ti is gonna be 1.25x of 1080. So more like ~1.5x
> what does that have to do with what he wrote ? 1080 and TXP have GD5X


Well a 2100mhz titan XP in fire strike gets GS of 16,007 and 980 TI SLI at 1500mhz scores 18,051. So one 980 TI is 77% slower then a titan xp.

But that really don't matter. All that matters to me is a 1080TI will stomp my 290CF with less heat/watts and is a single card.

Anyways thanks for the chat, its nice to think about things to make better informed decisions.


----------



## Klocek001

I would really think twice before buying it if it comes with GDDR5. You might be disappointed to see it doesn't pull away from oc'd 1080 as much as oc'd TXP does.
TPU says GDDR5X though.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I would really think twice before buying it if it comes with GDDR5. You might be disappointed to see it doesn't pull away from oc'd 1080 as much as oc'd TXP does.
> TPU says GDDR5X though.


Ya ill def wait a tad bit to see benchmarks and OCing. If its not much faster then a 1080 then i could probably just get away with a 1080 and i would be fine. But if its 20-30% faster then ill pull the trigger definitely. Thanks


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Ok, firstly 1070 GTX as far as I'm aware shipped, and still ships with GDDR5. Secondly I had no issues overclocking the memory on either my 1080GTX or my Pascal Titan X, with over a 500+ offset.
> 
> Please just refrain from regurgitating things you read at a glance.


My friend, i am not talking about the first batch of samsung gddr5 that 1070 ship with. I am talking about the micron gddr5 that has a power feature to prevent the chip from going above 8 gbps

And secondly gddr5x have no issue overclocking at all becz its 5X. We talking about gddr5 that gtx 1070 and below are getting. Gtx 1080 and titan xp which are using 5X are way off topic here...


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I would really think twice before buying it if it comes with GDDR5. You might be disappointed to see it doesn't pull away from oc'd 1080 as much as oc'd TXP does.
> TPU says GDDR5X though.


I have seen all the leaked 1080 ti and all the chinese source they quote are G5 not G5X. I dunno why wccftech and TPU keep saying they are using G5X. It is as if they are injecting their own speculation and judgement, which is not uncommon for trash site like wccftech.


----------



## Mickeymouse1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> $699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.


I bought a 1080 on release and couldn't be happier. Playing @ 3440x1440p on an Acer predator with g sync, all games I have played I can max out at that res.. and I play a lot of games. This coming out next year sometime doesn't faze me. I expected a new more powerful card to come out some time next year. Who wouldn't? Why wouldn't a new more powerful card come out in a year?


----------



## outofmyheadyo

If you can max out everything then do explain why witcher 3 was in the 30s (yes hairworks was on)at 2560x1440 while on 2ghz 1080 and 4.8 6700k? Briefly sold the card after that and took the 2times cheaper 1070 now waiting for the ti regular 1080 is not worth the asking price atleast in my book.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I have seen all the leaked 1080 ti and all the chinese source they quote are G5 not G5X. I dunno why wccftech and TPU keep saying they are using G5X. It is as if they are injecting their own speculation and judgement, which is not uncommon for trash site like wccftech.


what makes ZOL any different?

here is what i believe the article:
Nidia GTX 1080 Ti or will be released in the next year CES
(yeah the headline is translated in chrome)

we are talking about a RUMOR here, i didn't know that only some sites/people had license to speculate. kitguru summed it up:
Quote:


> The final bit of information pertains to VRAM, while other leaks have claimed that the GTX 1080Ti will have standard GDDR5 memory, this report says that it will feature 12GB of GDDR5X, just like the Titan X. However, do keep in mind that all of this information is unofficial right now, so it may not turn out to be entirely accurate. Either way, we should learn more as we get closer to CES, if these reports have any weight.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> 384 GB/s vs 550GB/s on a card with 96 ROPs ? That's a huge disadvantage.


Even if the GDDR5 didn't OC at all (which is far from a sure thing), that would be a sub-10% performance disadvantage at 4k (vs a ~2GHz TXP), according to the tests Asmodian ran a few pages ago.

This is would leave it a solid 25-30% faster than a 1080.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I would really think twice before buying it if it comes with GDDR5. You might be disappointed to see it doesn't pull away from oc'd 1080 as much as oc'd TXP does.


Why would anyone expect it to pull away from an OCed 1080 as much as an OCD TXP does? It doesn't need to in order to be significantly faster than the the 1080 and doesn't need to in order to be a significantly better value than the TXP.

I certainly hope the card uses GDDR5X, because it's end-user price will likely be the same regardless, but if it uses GDDR5, that will do exactly nothing to change what peformance segment it's in relative to the rest of NVIDIA's line up.

A 1080 is too slow do what I want it to do and a TXP is too expensive for me to be able to justify. Even a 8Gbps GDDR5 with no memory OCing headroom would slot nicely between these two parts and be a compelling upgrade for those in similar situations to my own.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> My friend, i am not talking about the first batch of samsung gddr5 that 1070 ship with. I am talking about the micron gddr5 that has a power feature to prevent the chip from going above 8 gbps
> 
> And secondly gddr5x have no issue overclocking at all becz its 5X. We talking about gddr5 that gtx 1070 and below are getting. Gtx 1080 and titan xp which are using 5X are way off topic here...


Micron's GDDR5 isn't really new. That's why I assumed you were talking about GDDR5X.


----------



## TheGovernment

I think im gonna wait for volta. Im usually an upgade every ti cycle but there are not many games that my current dual 980tis dont play good enough.
I want to upgrade so bad lol love building new stuff!


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheGovernment*
> 
> I think im gonna wait for volta. Im usually an upgade every ti cycle but there are not many games that my current dual 980tis dont play good enough.
> I want to upgrade so bad lol love building new stuff!


I just don't like two cards heating up my office so much. Even in the summer with ac going 24/7 it still feels like a sauna. Does two 980 TI heat up your office or room?


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Even 1x980ti was ridiculous sauna in my smallish room, that was the reason I like the new pascal cards better, dont heat up the room as much.


----------



## NikolayNeykov

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> I just don't like two cards heating up my office so much. Even in the summer with ac going 24/7 it still feels like a sauna. Does two 980 TI heat up your office or room?


It's kinda good not to turn on any heater in winter, it is best for more cold countries.


----------



## Mickeymouse1

My founders edition 1080 doesn't go above about 67 degrees @ 2ghz with custom fan profile, water cooler for the CPU and a corsair 780T case (big, lots of airflow). CPU doesn't go above 55. Pc is quieter With lower temps with this set up than it has been for a long while.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Agreed, but performance in the long run means nothing for AMD's sales.
> 
> Let me explain.
> 
> 290x comes out, gets outperformed by the 780Ti by 10% and by the time AMD beats it significantly both cards are EOL which means no more sales for AMD.
> 
> Great for long term 290x users, great for the second hand market because 290x cards retain value unlike Nvidia cards, but it doesn't do any good for AMD's bottom line.
> 
> The only thing it might do for AMD is get people who want GPUs for the long long haul, and they're a small percentage. So Nvidia always wins in these 1-1.5 year short bursts, and it helps them in the long run because they continue to beat AMD in these contests.


People act like the 290x was actually not competitive at launch when it very much was. It was the titan killer at the time. Half the price and the same if not better performance. Aging well was just icing on the cake for users who bought it. The 290x cost $550 at launch and the 780ti cost $699. A minor performance lead and 1gb less of vram is somehow worth $150 and made Nvidia the better buy? I think not. Not then, not now.

You underestimate the amount of people that buy gpu's for the long haul as it is a much larger percentage than those who buy a new top of the line card each launch. This site alone which has members that are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as high end systems go and yet even here, many are using 2+ year old cards fine because the options at this point in time are just, well, meh.

AMD has been and always was competitive in every gpu margin up until recently when they have focused their resources on the cpu division and let Nvidia run away with the high end gpu market.


----------



## TheGovernment

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> I just don't like two cards heating up my office so much. Even in the summer with ac going 24/7 it still feels like a sauna. Does two 980 TI heat up your office or room?


No, I run a full water cooled rig. They are bios modded and have never been over 30c lol


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> No, I run a full water cooled rig.


Water cooling is just a different method of transfering heat to the room (unless your radiators/water is going outside of your room..)


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Water cooling is just a different method of transfering heat to the room (unless your radiators/water is going outside of your room..)


Yes it heat the room the same but a WC system will have less heat spot in your room.


----------



## i7monkey

I remember when I first got into watercooling, I asked why a loop would still need fans, since I thought watercooling meant no more fans, and someone on the board said something like, "what, did you think that heat is magically going to leave your loop? that chuck norris is going to come and remove it for you?".

lol


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I remember when I first got into watercooling, I asked why a loop would still need fans, since I thought watercooling meant no more fans, and someone on the board said something like, "what, did you think that heat is magically going to leave your loop? that chuck norris is going to come and remove it for you?".
> 
> lol


Was familiar with the idea because cars are water cooled.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Was familiar with the idea because cars are water cooled.


cars go fast.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mickeymouse1*
> 
> My founders edition 1080 doesn't go above about 67 degrees @ 2ghz with custom fan profile, water cooler for the CPU and a corsair 780T case (big, lots of airflow). CPU doesn't go above 55. Pc is quieter With lower temps with this set up than it has been for a long while.


yeah I found the blower 1080 can be beneficial in my no-so-great case too. My 980Ti (twinfrozr) could reach 1510MHz, but when the case was closed it could downclock below 1450MHz (-60MHz) since the heat build up was massive. Now my 1080FE is oc'd to 2050MHz but 2025MHz (-25MHz) is rock solid cause most of the heat is dumped outside.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Yes it heat the room the same but a WC system will have less heat spot in your room.


^THAT

having an acx cooler and the side off my case (on table facing towards me) felt like a hair dryer in my face since the heat was coming from a small area (top of the card). but adding it to a 140x280 rad, the area is much bigger and goes straight up to the ceiling w/rad on top of the case.


----------



## TheGovernment

Except for the fact no all the heat gets dumped into the room like a fan cooled GPU. The loop retains some of the heat. I currently have 4 x 480's and 2 x 360's. My loop takes just over 2.2L if water. Even went gaming for long periods, I've never noticed any temp change in the room. My upstairs PC on the other hand with a titan X and 5930k, it's gets hot enough to be uncomfortable in the room after a few hours.


----------



## PureBlizz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheGovernment*
> 
> Except for the fact no all the heat gets dumped into the room like a fan cooled GPU. The loop retains some of the heat. I currently have 4 x 480's and 2 x 360's. My loop takes just over 2.2L if water. Even went gaming for long periods, I've never noticed any temp change in the room. My upstairs PC on the other hand with a titan X and 5930k, it's gets hot enough to be uncomfortable in the room after a few hours.


... I don't know what to say.


----------



## looniam

you can't compare systems in two different rooms; different ambient, drafts, space and whatnot.

bottom line is both air and water will be expelling (roughly) the same amount of heat for the same components; it's thermal dynamics.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> you can't compare systems in two different rooms; different ambient, drafts, space and whatnot.
> 
> bottom line is both air and water will be expelling (roughly) the same amount of heat for the same components; it's thermal dynamics.


Parts are more efficient under lower temps so yes Water cooled system use less power/ less heat.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> If you can max out everything then do explain why witcher 3 was in the 30s (yes hairworks was on)at 2560x1440 while on 2ghz 1080 and 4.8 6700k? Briefly sold the card after that and took the 2times cheaper 1070 now waiting for the ti regular 1080 is not worth the asking price atleast in my book.


You should have held onto the card. A single 1080 easily maxes TW3 at 1440p and max settings. An OC one is almost on par with my 980's which maxed out 1440p in TW3 like nothing. 30fps at 1440p is what a 980 should give you.

Edit: Just tried and yep. Solid 60fps with SLI disabled at 1440p/max settings.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlizz*
> 
> ... I don't know what to say.


He's completely right, a water loop retains some of the heat of a CPU in its water fill, it doesn't just suddenly get dumped in the room when the PC is turned off.


----------



## TheGovernment

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> you can't compare systems in two different rooms; different ambient, drafts, space and whatnot.
> 
> bottom line is both air and water will be expell
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> you can't compare systems in two different rooms; different ambient, drafts, space and whatnot.
> 
> bottom line is both air and water will be expelling (roughly) the same amount of heat for the same components; it's thermal dynamics.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure i can. I have had them side by side tons of times. Also the water does hold the heat somewhat, or ot would never get warm at all. My loop will get to 31c under heavy usage and ambinet is 20c. If it never held heat, it would stay ambient temp.
Click to expand...


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Parts are more efficient under lower temps so yes Water cooled system use less power/ less heat.


This is true, but the difference is usually quite small.

A 20C differential in overall temperature results in a ~5% difference in power consumption on my primary system.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> He's completely right, a water loop retains some of the heat of a CPU in its water fill, it doesn't just suddenly get dumped in the room when the PC is turned off.


A watercooled system is dumping heat into the room at exactly the same rate of any other system consuming the same amount of energy.

The system will take a little longer to warm up when loaded and to cool off when shut down than an air cooled system because of the extra mass and heat capacity, but that's neither here nor there. Virtually all the energy the system uses winds up in the room as heat, and very quickly (the whole point of any cooling system is to move heat).


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheGovernment*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> you can't compare systems in two different rooms; different ambient, drafts, space and whatnot.
> 
> bottom line is both air and water will be expelling (roughly) the same amount of heat for the same components; it's thermal dynamics.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure i can. I have had them side by side tons of times. Also the water does hold the heat somewhat, or ot would never get warm at all. My loop will get to 31c under heavy usage and ambinet is 20c. If it never held heat, it would stay ambient temp.
Click to expand...

ah yeah the water holds heat or you wouldn't need a radiator. if the radiator didn't dispel the heat then the water temp would constantly rise. the size and amount of rad space (and fans) affects the water's temp, though i am sure you know that.

that is thermal density; which also affects node shrinks - the smaller chip may seem hotter but it still has the same TDP and expelling the same amount of heat; being a smaller area "feels" hotter.

feel free to cotinue the discussion in the water cooling section.


----------



## Silver_WRX02

" 52 out of a total of 60 SMs are enabled with the remainder 8 SMs lasered off."

Why not just laser off the price of the Titan XP? Why spend time to laser off 8 SMs and make a New Similar product? Why can't they do customers a favor for once and give customers a bang for your buck high end gpu? How much do I need to invest on NVidia's stock to get enough return to buy their high end gpu?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silver_WRX02*
> 
> " 52 out of a total of 60 SMs are enabled with the remainder 8 SMs lasered off."
> 
> Why not just laser off the price of the Titan XP? Why spend time to laser off 8 SMs and make a New Similar product? Why can't they do customers a favor for once and give customers a bang for your buck high end gpu? How much do I need to invest on NVidia's stock to get enough return to buy their high end gpu?


It's called artificial performance. If they just priced Titan XP similar to GTX980 Ti then topping it off next generation for same price would be harder. Also during the months that Titan XP sells many cores fail so they are just using them for 1080 Ti.


----------



## littledonny

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silver_WRX02*
> 
> " 52 out of a total of 60 SMs are enabled with the remainder 8 SMs lasered off."
> 
> Why not just laser off the price of the Titan XP? Why spend time to laser off 8 SMs and make a New Similar product? Why can't they do customers a favor for once and give customers a bang for your buck high end gpu? How much do I need to invest on NVidia's stock to get enough return to buy their high end gpu?


Because they have a lot of chips with <= 8 SMs that are defective and thus can't be Titan XP chips.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silver_WRX02*
> 
> " 52 out of a total of 60 SMs are enabled with the remainder 8 SMs lasered off."
> 
> Why not just laser off the price of the Titan XP? Why spend time to laser off 8 SMs and make a New Similar product? Why can't they do customers a favor for once and give customers a bang for your buck high end gpu? How much do I need to invest on NVidia's stock to get enough return to buy their high end gpu?


I feel ya bro but it's a monopoly. They can do whatever they like.

This stuff wouldn't fly in a competitive market. Almost every other PC component has competition (cases, hard drives, SSDs, monitors, motherboards, memory), but there's nothing in the CPU and GPU market, especially GPU.

$1200 for a cut-down Titan XP? Cut down flagships like the GTX 570 used to cost $329, now it's almost 4x as much. Midrange GX104's used to cost $199/$229, then it became $500 (GTX 680), $550 (GTX 980), and now $700 (GTX 1080). Crummy reference coolers now cost $100 more for no apparent reason.

The only thing that can save us is competition. AMD, where are you?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I feel ya bro but it's a monopoly. They can do whatever they like.
> 
> This stuff wouldn't fly in a competitive market. Almost every other PC component has competition (cases, hard drives, SSDs, monitors, motherboards, memory), but there's nothing in the CPU and GPU market, especially GPU.
> 
> $1200 for a cut-down Titan XP? Cut down flagships like the GTX 570 used to cost $329, now it's almost 4x as much. Midrange GX104's used to cost $199/$229, then it became $500 (GTX 680), $550 (GTX 980), and now $700 (GTX 1080). Crummy reference coolers now cost $100 more for no apparent reason.
> 
> The only thing that can save us is competition. AMD, where are you?


In general price have gone up because of 14nm but yeah since 28nm Nvidia prices have gone out of control.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

I remember 5-6+ years ago drooling at the site of a $600-$650 GTX 480 Hydro Copper FTW while the air cooled 480s started at $500. I ended up grabbing two GTX 480 SCs as I probably shed some lbs by sweating so much and had a loss of hearing.







Those GPUs came to a total of $1100 while if I were to do the same today, I could only afford one GPU with that kind of funds. Crazy to see the price where it is now. I understand inflation and all but these prices I feel are because of not much competition. If people started voting with their wallets, I'm sure Nvidia would finally feel it needs to take drastic measures but than again, who would we go to for buying GPUs? Either way, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. Know I mean?


----------



## sdrawkcab

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silver_WRX02*
> 
> " 52 out of a total of 60 SMs are enabled with the remainder 8 SMs lasered off."
> 
> Why not just laser off the price of the Titan XP? Why spend time to laser off 8 SMs and make a New Similar product? *Why can't they do customers a favor for once and give customers a bang for your buck high end gpu?* How much do I need to invest on NVidia's stock to get enough return to buy their high end gpu?


Nvidia wants your money, not your friendship








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> I remember 5-6+ years ago drooling at the site of a $600-$650 GTX 480 Hydro Copper FTW while the air cooled 480s started at $500. I ended up grabbing two GTX 480 SCs as I probably shed some lbs by sweating so much and had a loss of hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those GPUs came to a total of $1100 while if I were to do the same today, I could only afford one GPU with that kind of funds. Crazy to see the price where it is now. I understand inflation and all but these prices I feel are because of not much competition. *If people started voting with their wallets, I'm sure Nvidia would finally feel it needs to take drastic measures but than again, who would we go to for buying GPUs?* Either way, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. Know I mean?


Can you imagine if people actually voted with their wallet? Everyone buys things or does things because they can, then when they get shafted by companies involved they forget to remember they are part of the problem. Look at video games, some people pre-order to get a cool in-game bonus item or simply because they can. When the lack of developer support comes about they are raging mad. If a million people pre-order and 100,000 of those end up posting negative feedback across the internet, how much of an impact does it really make. Is the developer going to release a few more rinse & repeat titles knowing there is a large amount of people still willing to pre-order or will they do it until they release a quality title that allows the same people to forget all those trash games they pre-ordered.

People will come with whatever justification they need to support their purchase or feelings. It's their money so who are we to question them right?







The business side of things has no feelings, so regardless how many forums has someone bashing a company, game, hardware, or anything it simply won't matter until people actually start taking action ( voting with wallet ) instead of paying to complain.


----------



## meson1

I've been reading through this thread this morning. I have a couple of comments to make. So rather than pull out individual posts to quote, I'll just plonk my views in here.

*Nvidia Pricing.*

These calls for people to not buy Nvidia's high end graphics cards are futile. I get the logic, but the fact of the matter is that there are enough people out there that will dip their hands into their pocket to buy them, even if reluctantly. It's all a bit Canute-against-the-tide.

The fact of the matter is Nvidia have successfully pitched the prices of their products at what they think people will pay. And people have so bought in their droves; even the stupendously expensive Titan XP.

The ONLY way we will see prices come under control is if another competitor starts operating in the same performance space. People are pinning their hopes on AMD to do this with Vega. I hope they do, but don't be surprised if they fall a little short.

I'd like to think that Nvidia would drop the price for the 1080 a little ($650) and then put the 1080 Ti at ,say, $750. But don't be surprised if they price the 1080 Ti all the way up at $900. That's near Titan XP performance for $300 less; it's quite conceivable that Nvidia might do this. They could have left themselves that nice big price gap (between 1080 and Titan X) on purpose.

*Memory*

I'm not sure that the rumour about GDDR5 memory a short while back has anything in it. It struck me at the time that it looked either like a typo, or somebody's contrived idea to introduce a differentiator between the Ti and the Titan XP.

Aren't the memory controllers for Pascal GPU's on chip? If so, can they just substitute one memory type for another just like that? Or is GDDR5X close enough to GDDR5 to be a direct swap? Those are genuine questions, because I don't know the answer.

You have to bear in mind where the GP102 chips for the proposed 1080 Ti are coming from. They are not being specially made, they are binned chips from the Quadro P6000/Tesla P40/Titan X line. Chips that didn't test as having quite as many viable SM's as those used for the Titan X. So they are not going to feature any architectural changes from those fuller fat chips such as a different memory controller unless such functionality can be altered post-fabrication (e.g. via micro-code).

But this newer rumour does say GDDR5X again which is a little more in line with hope if not expectations. So this whole question might be moot.


----------



## lowbudgethero

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meson1*
> 
> I've been reading through this thread this morning. I have a couple of comments to make. So rather than pull out individual posts to quote, I'll just plonk my views in here.
> 
> *Nvidia Pricing.*
> 
> These calls for people to not buy Nvidia's high end graphics cards are futile. I get the logic, but the fact of the matter is that there are enough people out there that will dip their hands into their pocket to buy them, even if reluctantly. It's all a bit Canute-against-the-tide.
> 
> The fact of the matter is Nvidia have successfully pitched the prices of their products at what they think people will pay. And people have so bought in their droves; even the stupendously expensive Titan XP.
> 
> The ONLY way we will see prices come under control is if another competitor starts operating in the same performance space. People are pinning their hopes on AMD to do this with Vega. I hope they do, but don't be surprised if they fall a little short.
> 
> I'd like to think that Nvidia would drop the price for the 1080 a little ($650) and then put the 1080 Ti at ,say, $750. But don't be surprised if they price the 1080 Ti all the way up at $900. That's near Titan XP performance for $300 less; it's quite conceivable that Nvidia might do this. They could have left themselves that nice big price gap (between 1080 and Titan X) on purpose.
> 
> *Memory*
> 
> I'm not sure that the rumour about GDDR5 memory a short while back has anything in it. It struck me at the time that it looked either like a typo, or somebody's contrived idea to introduce a differentiator between the Ti and the Titan XP.
> 
> Aren't the memory controllers for Pascal GPU's on chip? If so, can they just substitute one memory type for another just like that? Or is GDDR5X close enough to GDDR5 to be a direct swap? Those are genuine questions, because I don't know the answer.
> 
> You have to bear in mind where the GP102 chips for the proposed 1080 Ti are coming from. They are not being specially made, they are binned chips from the Quadro P6000/Tesla P40/Titan X line. Chips that didn't test as having quite as many viable SM's as those used for the Titan X. So they are not going to feature any architectural changes from those fuller fat chips such as a different memory controller unless such functionality can be altered post-fabrication (e.g. via micro-code).
> 
> But this newer rumour does say GDDR5X again which is a little more in line with hope if not expectations. So this whole question might be moot.


People are buying the 1080 and TitanXP because it's finally a good option for 1440p and 4K for the highest graphically demanding games, nvidia is the only real option right now so they can charge what they want.

The other alternative is some xfire combo of the fiji line


----------



## meson1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lowbudgethero*
> 
> People are buying the 1080 and TitanXP because it's finally a good option for 1440p and 4K for the highest graphically demanding games, nvidia is the only real option right now so they can charge what they want.
> 
> The other alternative is some xfire combo of the fiji line


Yes. 4K is what I'm wanting one for. I have assembled almost all my bits for a new Broadwell-E rig. I am missing a GPU and fittings for the custom loop. I'm considering going for the Titan XP anyway in spite of this 'news' about the Ti, just so I can get on with it. I'm not sure I can wait another four months plus however long it will take to get Ti waterblocks, even though I might save 300 GBP.


----------



## KJZ87

I hope the rumors are true, and that it is priced no more than $850. I need a new gpu for 1440p/144 hz and a lot of vram. My 980 ti does not cut it and I had to send the original one in for a RMAed version.


----------



## Valor958

Reading all this has made me change the buying order for my new PC. I'll be buying everything BUT the gpu... that comes last since I want to see where this falls in line. Budget wise, I planned to get a RX480 8gb. Can't really argue with the performance in that range. Now, get top-tier like this and it's an entirely different set of expectations. I'm not an early adopter though, so i'll wait for release and reviews and see where things go.

Honestly, I'm a bit nervous going back to Team Green after years in the Red due to the drivers. I personally had several bad experiences with bad Nvidia drivers and wonky issues. I have had exactly zero issues with AMD drivers over the past years. The occasional updates I do maybe, 2-3 times a year, have always yielded noticeable improvements to me. Maybe it's just because I read the release notes and it's all psychosomatic. I just want solid, consistent performance with a minimal of interaction needed to get optimal performance. Squeezing maximum performance out of it may vary per instance, but i'll take that as it comes lol.


----------



## BoredErica

Did everyone just ignore Guttheslayer's post?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meson1*
> 
> I've been reading through this thread this morning. I have a couple of comments to make. So rather than pull out individual posts to quote, I'll just plonk my views in here.
> 
> *Nvidia Pricing.*
> 
> These calls for people to not buy Nvidia's high end graphics cards are futile. I get the logic, but the fact of the matter is that there are enough people out there that will dip their hands into their pocket to buy them, even if reluctantly. It's all a bit Canute-against-the-tide.
> 
> The fact of the matter is Nvidia have successfully pitched the prices of their products at what they think people will pay. And people have so bought in their droves; even the stupendously expensive Titan XP.
> 
> The ONLY way we will see prices come under control is if another competitor starts operating in the same performance space. People are pinning their hopes on AMD to do this with Vega. I hope they do, but don't be surprised if they fall a little short.
> 
> I'd like to think that Nvidia would drop the price for the 1080 a little ($650) and then put the 1080 Ti at ,say, $750. But don't be surprised if they price the 1080 Ti all the way up at $900. That's near Titan XP performance for $300 less; it's quite conceivable that Nvidia might do this. They could have left themselves that nice big price gap (between 1080 and Titan X) on purpose.
> 
> *Memory*
> 
> I'm not sure that the rumour about GDDR5 memory a short while back has anything in it. It struck me at the time that it looked either like a typo, or somebody's contrived idea to introduce a differentiator between the Ti and the Titan XP.
> 
> Aren't the memory controllers for Pascal GPU's on chip? If so, can they just substitute one memory type for another just like that? Or is GDDR5X close enough to GDDR5 to be a direct swap? Those are genuine questions, because I don't know the answer.
> 
> You have to bear in mind where the GP102 chips for the proposed 1080 Ti are coming from. They are not being specially made, they are binned chips from the Quadro P6000/Tesla P40/Titan X line. Chips that didn't test as having quite as many viable SM's as those used for the Titan X. So they are not going to feature any architectural changes from those fuller fat chips such as a different memory controller unless such functionality can be altered post-fabrication (e.g. via micro-code).
> 
> But this newer rumour does say GDDR5X again which is a little more in line with hope if not expectations. So this whole question might be moot.


I do not believe AMD can help with prices. You say high end but look at the mess RX480/GTX1060 price segment is. The same thing will happen at the high end. I fove with my wallet. I have not bought a Nvidia GPU since GTX580. Ever since GTX680 price increase I have stopped considering Nvidia. Bough HD 7970 for $530 at launch because I though it was a fast card and around the same price as GTX580 I had before. After that GTX780 was priced $650. Too much for me. 290X fit the bill right on. Since than no GPU has come into my price bracket $500-550 that I consider worth buying. The way things are these prices will keep staying high or keep increasing. Before it was the Crysis race for me and now its the 4K race. The difference is the 4K race will have a lot less bump in terms of GPUs bough. Just like how Intel CPUs have not changed that much in performance we upgrade less, GPU have changed in price so we upgrade less. Used to buy GPUs every generation. Now I might even skip Vega is not priced correctly and do a every 2 generations upgrade cycle. Still will have to pay $700 for a GPU but only once instead of 2-3 $550. AMD/Nvidia just have to see which one makes them more money. Demand is still high right now for GPUs. I personally do not see why since most PC gamers play games that can run with a potato. Its mostly like a hobby where you buy these fast GPUs because you can.


----------



## meson1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I do not believe AMD can help with prices. You say high end but look at the mess RX480/GTX1060 price segment is. The same thing will happen at the high end. I fove with my wallet. I have not bought a Nvidia GPU since GTX580. Ever since GTX680 price increase I have stopped considering Nvidia. Bough HD 7970 for $530 at launch because I though it was a fast card and around the same price as GTX580 I had before. After that GTX780 was priced $650. Too much for me. 290X fit the bill right on. Since than no GPU has come into my price bracket $500-550 that I consider worth buying. The way things are these prices will keep staying high or keep increasing. Before it was the Crysis race for me and now its the 4K race. The difference is the 4K race will have a lot less bump in terms of GPUs bough. Just like how Intel CPUs have not changed that much in performance we upgrade less, GPU have changed in price so we upgrade less. Used to buy GPUs every generation. Now I might even skip Vega is not priced correctly and do a every 2 generations upgrade cycle. Still will have to pay $700 for a GPU but only once instead of 2-3 $550. AMD/Nvidia just have to see which one makes them more money. Demand is still high right now for GPUs. I personally do not see why since most PC gamers play games that can run with a potato. Its mostly like a hobby where you buy these fast GPUs because you can.


In the short term, it probably won't change anything. If Vega happens to be on a par with, say, the 1080 Ti, I think all AMD will do is price it to slightly undercut the Nvidia product slightly. Because Nvidia have already established what you get at what price, there's no way AMD will just go $200 under that for the hell of it. Instead they will see an opportunity to be able to charge near Nvidia prices. AMD will be rubbing their hands together.

What will make a difference is if AMD can produce a sustained challenge over several years with successive products. But that won't bring prices down, or not by much if at all. But it might serve to curtail Nvidia's plan to increase their price points with quite so much impunity.


----------



## Bugzzz

History repeating itself again then. If AMD thinks they can glue their products at the high end to nvidia's (or intel, 1000$/€ fx9590 !? lol







) by just some ~50-100$/€ and hope whomever is already spending 400+€/$ is going to instantly be "i'm buying" after almost a year waiting for vega for some close performance (or let's suppose match it within +/- 3 to 5% deviations among broad list of games) would justify buying their product after several months of waiting and nvidia's pascal already available much sooner and to be released for such a small price difference is silly thinking.

Whomever had that cash to spend most likely already did so, and it won't sell much to potential customers targeting that price segment since majority of those already spent it on NVidia's 107/80. There might be a very residual amount of customer who will (and i am not referring to any sort of fanboyism and brand suckers) but it won't be enough to keep them clearing stock for long (beyond the first batch of the month at best) until a more aggressive (i say agressive but is in the sense of adapting to the realities of market/economy conditions) serious price cut imo since odds are very high they'll be spending it on the 1080Ti instead. Anyone spending that amount of money on a graphics card aims for the best not the 2nd close best.

If it weren't for an aggressive pricing (not initially with 470-550 price tag, but when it got closer to 350) of the HD79xx and 2/3xx series at their time, AMD's market share would likely be half or less of what it is by now.

I seriously hope they don't try to pull the equivalent of an FX9590 initial price with Vega10/11.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KenjiS*
> 
> Kinda why im hanging onto the 980 Ti for now, trying to wait for Volta and HBM2...
> 
> A lot of games i play go one of two ways, they either run pretty much max at 50-60fps (Fine) or they're CPU bound as heck


Found one for $250 on Amazon the day after our conversation, so.....it will be here tomorrow!










This makes it official, the next new GPU will be a big Volta!


----------



## KenjiS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Found one for $250 on Amazon the day after our conversation, so.....it will be here tomorrow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This makes it official, the next new GPU will be a big Volta!


Nice deal!

Geesh i still need to sell my 970 and my XL2730Z...


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I feel ya bro but it's a monopoly. They can do whatever they like.
> 
> This stuff wouldn't fly in a competitive market. Almost every other PC component has competition (cases, hard drives, SSDs, monitors, motherboards, memory), but there's nothing in the CPU and GPU market, especially GPU.
> 
> $1200 for a cut-down Titan XP? Cut down flagships like the GTX 570 used to cost $329, now it's almost 4x as much. Midrange GX104's used to cost $199/$229, then it became $500 (GTX 680), $550 (GTX 980), and now $700 (GTX 1080). Crummy reference coolers now cost $100 more for no apparent reason.
> 
> The only thing that can save us is competition. AMD, where are you?


Problem is the alot of the new young generation of PC enthusiasts don't see this as clear as us old timers who were buying cards back in 1996. I know too many people that buy into the price gouging and when I mention it to them they give a me blank stare like I'm the clueless guy.

For instance it was common that when we got a new die shrink a massive performance boost was given to us for a price that was established for years as being fair. Usually the $500-550USD for the new top of the line node shrink die. Now people make the argument that the performance increase from die shrinks should be priced according to the performance benefit the shrink allows. Perfect example is we know the new pascal 1080, 5 years ago would have been sold as the equivalent to the GTX 560ti of it's time, but instead is being paraded and priced higher than what we payed for the GTX580 (Full die). Get's even worse cause the Titan or 1080ti DIE going back on how things were done should have really been sold like the 580 was.

Now I understand with TSMC node manufacturing they changed the terms after 40nm GTX580 era. Before Nvidia only payed for working dies off the platter, where today they have to pay for the whole platter regardless of yield and 16nm is more complicated then the older higher 28nm processes. I can except that this would cause a price increase, but not a 250-300% one. I expect $600-650 tops from Nvidia for the full GP102 core.

To put this into perspective imagining paying $699 for GTX 470 or GTX 560ti back when they were released. This BS is not helping PC gaming. Those that want VR or high resolution monitors with Variable refresh rate either started or already given up the idea of getting into it when they factor the insane costs for admission. For this industry to grow we need strong competition like back in the old days where good hardware could be had for reasonable prices. When we have fierce competition driving prices down this it help's the PC gaming industry grow faster with a stronger presence to push innovation and captivate the attention of developers that now threat us as second rate since the console user base is where the money is it and for a good reason, since they are cheap and affordable. Meanwhile PC hardware keeps jumping up in prices.
Bare in mind us Overclock.net members are a niche group and we are not representative of what makes up the large majority of PC users that end up with really horrible sub par hardware.

Don't even get me started on the downfall of PC monitors and there price gouging. I mean I love how LG and samsung has been fined multiple times for price fixing PC displays but the fines are so little to them they laugh it off. No OLED, No ADVANCED VA TECH. All we have is poorly made IPS panels, which are brutally expensive and deliver poor image and build quality. The only new innovative thing I have seen from PC monitor tech is ULMB(which was discovered by accident when making displays 3D complaint) and VRR which is another great tech but a disaster in it's implementation due to you guessed it NVIDIA, I have no issues with them wanting to reap the benefits of there R&D and wanting to profit off there innovation, but it is just a mess. They refuse to support the open standard Freesync while boasting the superiority of G-Sync.
Now when you want to purchased a monitor with VRR and own an Nvidia card you are locked into purchasing a select handful of models.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

That pretty much sums it up. Well said Nightingale.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nightingale*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is the alot of the new young generation of PC enthusiasts don't see this as clear as us old timers who were buying cards back in 1996. I know too many people that buy into the price gouging and when I mention it to them they give a me blank stare like I'm the clueless guy.
> 
> Fortnstance it was common that when we got a new die shrink a massive performance boost was given to us for a price that was established for years as being fair. Usually the $500-550USD for top of the line new node shrink die. Now people make the argument that the performance increase from die shrinks should be priced arroding to the performance beneifit the shrink allows. Perfect example we know the new pascal 1080 5 years ago would have been sold as the equivalentto the GTX 560ti of it's time, but instead is being paraded and priced higher than what we payed for the GTX580 (Full die). Get's even worse cause the titan or 1080ti DIE going back on how things were done should have been really been the sold as like the 580 was.
> 
> Now I understand with TSMC node manufacturing they changed the terms after that era. Before Nvidia only payed for working dies off the platter, where today they have to pay for the whole platter regardless of yield and 16nm is more complicated then the older higher nm processes. I can except that this would cause a price increase, but not a 250-300% one. I expect $600-650 tops from Nvidia for the full GP102 core or even maybe one SM unit disabled.
> 
> To put this in perspective imagining paying $699 for GTX 470 or GTX 560ti back when they were released. This BS is not helping PC gaming. Those that want VR or high resolution monitors with Variable refresh rate give up the idea when they have to consider costs which are insane. For this industry to grow we new strong competition like back in the old days where good hardware could be had for reasonable prices. By doing this it help's the PC gaming industry grow faster with a stronger presence to push innovation and captivate the attention of developers that now threat us as second rate since the console user base is where the money is it, since they are cheap amd affordable, while the PC keep jumping up in prices.
> Remember us Overclock.net members are a niche group and we don't Representative the large majority of PC users that end up with really horrible sub par hardware.
> 
> Don't even get me started on the downfall of PC monitors and there price gouging. I mean I love how LG and samsung has been fined multiple times for price fixing PC displays but the fines are so little to them they laugh it off. No OLED, No ADVANCED VA TECH. All we have is poorly made IPS panels, which are brutally expensive and deliver poor image and build quality. The only new innovative thing I have seen from PC monitor tech is ULMB(which was discovered by accident when making displays 3D complaint) and VRR which is another great tech but a disaster in it's implementation due to you guessed it NVIDIA, I have no issues with them wanting to reap the benefits of there R&D and wanting to profit off there innovation, but it is just a mess. They refuse to support the open standard Freesync while boasting the superiority of G-Sync.
> Now when you want to purchased a monitor with VRR and own an Nvidia card you are locked into purchasing a select handful of models.


Yep, very well said.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nightingale*
> 
> Problem is the alot of the new young generation of PC enthusiasts don't see this as clear as us old timers who were buying cards back in 1996. I know too many people that buy into the price gouging and when I mention it to them they give a me blank stare like I'm the clueless guy.
> 
> Fortnstance it was common that when we got a new die shrink a massive performance boost was given to us for a price that was established for years as being fair. Usually the $500-550USD for top of the line new node shrink die. Now people make the argument that the performance increase from die shrinks should be priced arroding to the performance beneifit the shrink allows. Perfect example we know the new pascal 1080 5 years ago would have been sold as the equivalentto the GTX 560ti of it's time, but instead is being paraded and priced higher than what we payed for the GTX580 (Full die). Get's even worse cause the titan or 1080ti DIE going back on how things were done should have been really been the sold as like the 580 was.
> 
> Now I understand with TSMC node manufacturing they changed the terms after that era. Before Nvidia only payed for working dies off the platter, where today they have to pay for the whole platter regardless of yield and 16nm is more complicated then the older higher nm processes. I can except that this would cause a price increase, but not a 250-300% one. I expect $600-650 tops from Nvidia for the full GP102 core or even maybe one SM unit disabled.
> 
> To put this in perspective imagining paying $699 for GTX 470 or GTX 560ti back when they were released. This BS is not helping PC gaming. Those that want VR or high resolution monitors with Variable refresh rate give up the idea when they have to consider costs which are insane. For this industry to grow we new strong competition like back in the old days where good hardware could be had for reasonable prices. By doing this it help's the PC gaming industry grow faster with a stronger presence to push innovation and captivate the attention of developers that now threat us as second rate since the console user base is where the money is it, since they are cheap amd affordable, while the PC keep jumping up in prices.
> Remember us Overclock.net members are a niche group and we don't Representative the large majority of PC users that end up with really horrible sub par hardware.
> 
> Don't even get me started on the downfall of PC monitors and there price gouging. I mean I love how LG and samsung has been fined multiple times for price fixing PC displays but the fines are so little to them they laugh it off. No OLED, No ADVANCED VA TECH. All we have is poorly made IPS panels, which are brutally expensive and deliver poor image and build quality. The only new innovative thing I have seen from PC monitor tech is ULMB(which was discovered by accident when making displays 3D complaint) and VRR which is another great tech but a disaster in it's implementation due to you guessed it NVIDIA, I have no issues with them wanting to reap the benefits of there R&D and wanting to profit off there innovation, but it is just a mess. They refuse to support the open standard Freesync while boasting the superiority of G-Sync.
> Now when you want to purchased a monitor with VRR and own an Nvidia card you are locked into purchasing a select handful of models.






Sorry, but your position completely ignores the immense amount of R&D required to bring new products to market. It also completely ignores the GPU margins staying (relative to R&D increases) the same over the years.

In 2010 Nvidia had around a 45% margin reported, their latest is 55%. Yet Pascal was "several Billions" to R&D, the most expensive yet for Nvidia; by comparison in the past R&D being substantially less. The 10% increase in margin itself is well within reason, given the extreme volume they are shipping now, being a volume business.

In other words, they have had to GREATLY increase their R&D to bring products to the consumer, but their margins aren't massively increasing either. It isn't price gouging when the money is being justified through very real costs. The bill of materials at the fab is a small portion of what it costs to bring each GPU to market.

Yes, paying more sucks, we all agree; but trying to say that we are being gouged for profit is utterly wrong.

EDIT:

Obviously Nvidia is profiting, they are a business, and have that right/obligation. However, there isn't the consumer wallet pillaging going on that people think there is. Our hobby is getting expensive, it is just that simple.

Now, I suggest we all just buckle up and prepare for the next phase of GPU pricing. Unless competition is truly had, because that is the only way to bring down ALL costs to get a GPU to market.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Yes, paying more sucks, we all agree; but trying to say that we are being gouged for profit is utterly wrong.












Implying that this monopoly needs to massively increase prices over 3-4 years just to keep itself afloat is disingenuous.

They're a monopoly, this market isn't competitive, and prices aren't justified.


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> 
> Sorry, but your position completely ignores the immense amount of R&D required to bring new products to market. It also completely ignores the GPU margins staying (relative to R&D increases) the same over the years.
> 
> In 2010 Nvidia had around a 45% margin reported, their latest is 55%. Yet Pascal was "several Billions" to R&D, the most expensive yet for Nvidia; by comparison in the past R&D being substantially less. The 10% increase in margin itself is well within reason, given the extreme volume they are shipping now, being a volume business.
> 
> In other words, they have had to GREATLY increase their R&D to bring products to the consumer, but their margins aren't massively increasing either. It isn't price gouging when the money is being justified through very real costs. The bill of materials at the fab is a small portion of what it costs to bring each GPU to market.
> 
> Yes, paying more sucks, we all agree; but trying to say that we are being gouged for profit is utterly wrong.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Obviously Nvidia is profiting, they are a business, and have that right/obligation. However, there isn't the consumer wallet pillaging going on that people think there is. Our hobby is getting expensive, it is just that simple.
> 
> Now, I suggest we all just buckle up and prepare for the next phase of GPU pricing. Unless competition is truly had, because that is the only way to bring down ALL costs to get a GPU to market.


I have heard this reasoning so many times and I don't buy it, not to say they have not ramp up R&D and as I mentioned wafer costs have risen. But R&D on pascal in general is vague. They were not only referring to the gaming cards as you know they make a killing on the Telsa cards for server farms, however R&D costs can be attributed to so many different things in there company's division that isolating the CEO's claim who in the past is known to over aggregate and downright be dishonest to simply imply those cost were spent purely on Pascal gaming GPU's I think is not accurate. I mean what did they spend with the equivalent cost of a mission to mars on for pascal? Shrinking the node with minor architectural improvements to maxwell. Pascal is not a *TICK*, rather a tock remember that cause it makes there claim look even more bogus. They have spent tremendous R&D in the past and were selling at a significantly reduced cost(some amazing GPU's) compared to what we are seeing now. Even if they spent more does not click with these 200% markups from only 3 product generations ago . Nvidia's bottom line has been exponentially increasing so this having to charge with massive price increases for the Gaming Pascal cards to recuperate there R&D isn't resonating with me. How much you wanna bet that if consumers actually took a stand and stopped buying there over inflated cards, suddenly they would be able to sell for significantly cheaper prices and Nvidia would still profit handsomely. Or better yet AMD comes out with a Top tier chip like the old days with a competitive price and Wham!!!! Nvidia lowers the Prices and still makes out ahead.

One for thing this Buckling it up attitude is what is killing the chance for PC gaming to expand in the high end with VR and game development in general. The average PC user is not financially capable to Buckle it up and get grafted by these prices, where as before back in the mid to late 2000's they were able since prices were reasonable.
Everybody won, Nvidia Profited handsomely, and users ser got great performing cards. Oh and Nvidia many years ago even with they introduced new cards put more effort into continuing driver optimization on the last gen cards more so then they do today.


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nightingale*
> 
> One for thing this Buckling it up attitude is what is killing the chance for PC gaming to expand in the high end with VR and game development in general. The average PC user is not financially capable to Buckle it up and get grafted by these prices, where as before back in the mid to late 2000's they were able since prices were reasonable.
> Everybody won, Nvidia Profited handsomely, and users ser got great performing cards. Oh and Nvidia many years ago even with they introduced new cards put more effort into continuing driver optimization on the last gen cards more so then they do today.


Of course lack of competition increases prices but it is not the mid to late 2000's anymore. Wishing it was the good old days when prices were lower and there was less market segmentation doesn't get us anything. I wish I could buy a house for only two years salary too. You cannot tell me I am getting grafted by current prices and I have purchased every almost every generation of 3D accelerator (I got a Voodoo 1 during my first year of college) and will happily drop $1000+ on Volta or whatever I buy next. It isn't the mid 2000's, the market has changed for a whole host of reasons, only some of which are greed pure business reasons. The only reason houses cost what they do in the Silicon Valley is "greed" too, you sell for what people will pay. This is fundamental to how a market works.

I also strongly disagree that Nvidia used to put more effort into optimizing drivers for older cards. That is completely false in my memory. They used to drop support for old cards completely and did little to optimize the drivers for anything at all after release. There might be a few fixes or big performance updates but it wasn't a regular thing that a new game would get a new driver to improve its performance, never for old hardware. There is a much stronger focus on evolving drivers now with specific optimizations for specific workflows.

A driver update that improved the performance of the GeForce FX 5800 after the GeForce 6800 was out?


----------



## GTXJackBauer

I agree. I always believed most of the money is being spent in the enterprise world and the rest is just a trickle down effect for silicon that didn't make the cut. Doesn't intel do that? Nonetheless, the prices for gaming GPUs are ridiculously expensive.

Can someone make the same comparison of enterprise GPUs and see if they had a massive jump or are they still in the $2k-$4k range 5+ years ago? I think its around the same range.


----------



## Mickeymouse1

Meh, I was using a r9 290 and wanted to game at 3440x1440p, but had to settle with a 2560x1080p widescreen monitor instead because the 290 couldn't perform adequately with a 3440x1440p monitor. I waited for the 480's to release, and they did, at a good price as well, but the performance just isn't there for what I wanted. The 1080 offers something the competition can't and personally I'm glad we have the OPTION to purchase it.

No one forcing us to buy it. If it's priced to high it won't sell. For me the benefit of the extra performance to drive a 3440x1440p monitor maxed out in most games with g sync meant I was willing to pay that price. I don't plan on upgrading for a good couple of years either.


----------



## rbarrett96

Where the heck is AMD with their upper tier 400 card to combat Nvidia and force a price war? They never wait this long. Ridiculous.


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asmodian*
> 
> Wishing it was the good old days when prices were lower and there was less market segmentation doesn't get us anything. I wish I could buy a house for only two years salary too. You cannot tell me I am getting grafted by current prices and I have purchased every almost every generation of 3D accelerator.


Nor does supporting and allowing precedent to take place within the companies pricing structure. We are no longer consumers that vote with our wallets anymore. Also I gave up "wishing" as you put it long ago for prices to return back the way they used to be. Like you said lack of competition is one of the reasons prices are higher. Also when you pay close attention from the 6000 series and up it's evidently clear that Nvidia was testing the waters with gradual price increases as they moved forward and found that the market supported those prices.

One more thing, yes I can tell you that you're getting grafted just as you are telling myself and others who disagree that we are not, it's called a difference of opinion which respectively you and I have.


----------



## i7monkey

Come to think of it, so what if AMD produces a competitive card? They've both jacked up prices. Nvidia raises prices and AMD's follows suit although it's slightly less egregious.

The 6970 flagship was $379. Typical AMD, good value flagship card.

AMD then realized they could pull a move so they sold the 7970 for $549 which went against the 580 which sold at $499.

Nvidia raises their dual gpu prices and charges $1000 for the 690, then AMD comes up with a $1000 7990.

Nvidia sells a Titan Z at $3000, AMD charges $1500 for the 290X2.

So what if AMD comes up with a good card, it's a duopoly and they're both ripping off consumers.


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Come to think of it, so what if AMD produces a competitive card? They've both jacked up prices. Nvidia raises prices and AMD's follows suit although it's slightly less egregious.
> 
> The 6970 flagship was $379. Typical AMD, good value flagship card.
> 
> AMD then realized they could pull a move so they sold the 7970 for $549 which went against the 580 which sold at $499.
> 
> Nvidia raises their dual gpu prices and charges $1000 for the 690, then AMD comes up with a $1000 7990.
> 
> Nvidia sells a Titan Z at $3000, AMD charges $1500 for the 290X2.
> 
> So what if AMD comes up with a good card, it's a duopoly and they're both ripping off consumers.


I agree with you. Just keep in mind If they do come out with a great card this will force a restructuring of the worst generational lineup of Nvidia pricing to go down a bit, but since Nvidia has new cards in the line(1080ti) AMD's will either be slightly cheaper but still jack up in price.

AMD is a business with and R&D that pales in comparison to Nvidia and I would assume just as before they will try to get as much as possible for the card while keeping it slightly below Nvidia's price as an incentive to sway a potential customer over to there side. Gone are the days of the 5870, remember when Nvidia was half a year behind schedule and AMD still sold that card for a cheap price, when instead they could have used thatg opportunity to sell it at a much higher price. Best dollar/per value card I ever bought in the Highend enthusiast market. I paid $450 CDN which was about $380USD. Then I bought the 580 to replace it.


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Come to think of it, so what if AMD produces a competitive card? They've both jacked up prices. Nvidia raises prices and AMD's follows suit although it's slightly less egregious.
> 
> The 6970 flagship was $379. Typical AMD, good value flagship card.
> 
> AMD then realized they could pull a move so they sold the 7970 for $549 which went against the 580 which sold at $499.
> 
> Nvidia raises their dual gpu prices and charges $1000 for the 690, then AMD comes up with a $1000 7990.
> 
> Nvidia sells a Titan Z at $3000, AMD charges $1500 for the 290X2.
> 
> So what if AMD comes up with a good card, it's a duopoly and they're both ripping off consumers.


While there is some truth to that, AMD is just a business trying to survive.

When they give us good price/performance, it's because they think doing so is best for them long term not for us.

6970 was the price it was simply because it couldn't compete with the 580 not because AMD wanted it to be a good value.

I do truly hope there is a console on the way that can can replace my PC for gaming because of stupid prices but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> This is the unfortunate reality when your only choices for cards are company a and company b. If one company does poorly in a market segment, the other company has no incentive whatsoever to keep prices low.
> 
> Compare that to, say, SSDs or system RAM. Lots of manufacturers and very competitive pricing.


Not much so, the chips are still made by only a few factories and manufacturers. They then sell them and get used in other products. Same as AMD and NV chips get sold and then released under other brands.
Unfortunately the laws in US are not very protective of market and allow companies to create these 1-2 company monopolies, allow them to buy out the competition and use dirty tactics to get rid of them.

Both AMD and NV are charging as much as they dare, to cover the development costs. The actual production cost isn't that high considering bigger chips were sold before for less with beefier VRMs and coolers...


----------



## rbarrett96

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Come to think of it, so what if AMD produces a competitive card? They've both jacked up prices. Nvidia raises prices and AMD's follows suit although it's slightly less egregious.
> 
> The 6970 flagship was $379. Typical AMD, good value flagship card.
> 
> AMD then realized they could pull a move so they sold the 7970 for $549 which went against the 580 which sold at $499.
> 
> Nvidia raises their dual gpu prices and charges $1000 for the 690, then AMD comes up with a $1000 7990.
> 
> Nvidia sells a Titan Z at $3000, AMD charges $1500 for the 290X2.
> 
> So what if AMD comes up with a good card, it's a duopoly and they're both ripping off consumers.


For one simple reason: the 480x. It has set a precedent for performance to price ratio. I'm hoping this has an effect on their 490/furyx tier as well.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rbarrett96*
> 
> For one simple reason: the 480x. It has set a precedent for performance to price ratio. I'm hoping this has an effect on their 490/furyx tier as well.


It hasn't set a damned thing, calm down. It gets beat by gtx 970 unless you test on oc'd 2015/16 i7 CPU and is cheap only in 4GB reference version.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> While there is some truth to that, AMD is just a business trying to survive.
> 
> When they give us good price/performance, it's because they think doing so is best for them long term not for us.
> 
> 6970 was the price it was simply because it couldn't compete with the 580 not because AMD wanted it to be a good value.
> 
> I do truly hope there is a console on the way that can can replace my PC for gaming because of stupid prices but I won't hold my breath.


Up to 5870 AMD strat was basically what GTX680/980/1080 are instead of 780/980 Ti/Titan XP. HD 7970 was their first GPU since 2900XT to go for the ultra high end. Basically It was a card to compete with ~ $500 Nvidia flagship. People think HD 7970 should have been price similar to older AMD cards but that was never the case for AMD. If anything HD 7970 hits right in line what they did up to 5870. 4870 sold for $300, 5870 sold for $400, 6970 was a hybrid card that failed the move to GCN due to node delay hence lower price because performance was not there.
Personally I think after GTX580 Nvidia could finally achieve what they wanted to do for year. Reason why 580/480 was $500 is because they where forced by AMD. GTX280 was $650 card way before 780 was $650. They always priced the cards that high.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> This is the unfortunate reality when your only choices for cards are company a and company b. If one company does poorly in a market segment, the other company has no incentive whatsoever to keep prices low.
> 
> Compare that to, say, SSDs or system RAM. Lots of manufacturers and very competitive pricing.


Things were much more interesting when we had 3dfx, ATI, NVIDIA, and PowerVR all on roughly equal footing.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> The 6970 flagship was $379. Typical AMD, good value flagship card.
> 
> AMD then realized they could pull a move so they sold the 7970 for $549 which went against the 580 which sold at $499.


The problem with this example was that the 6970 was decisively slower than NVIDIA's GTX 480 flagship at the time (I had both), while the 7970 was much faster than the GTX 580.

Flagship or not doesn't determine market segment...how the card stands in relation to the competition does.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Things were much more interesting when we had 3dfx, ATI, NVIDIA, and PowerVR all on roughly equal footing.
> The problem with this example was that the 6970 was decisively slower than NVIDIA's GTX 480 flagship at the time (I had both), while the 7970 was much faster than the GTX 580.
> 
> Flagship or not doesn't determine market segment...how the card stands in relation to the competition does.


I am pretty sure GTX480 = GTX570 = HD 6970. I had HD 5850, 6950, 6970, 6990, GTX470 , GTX580.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> It hasn't set a damned thing, calm down. It gets beat by gtx 970 unless you test on oc'd 2015/16 i7 CPU and is cheap only in 4GB reference version.












Whoever picks a 970 over a 480 right now has a screw loose.. The 480 competes with the 1060 just fine, it's just nowhere near good enough to convince Nvidia users to switch to AMD. _If_ consumers could find 480's for $199 then it would be pretty damn hard to match, especially a year from now when we all know it will be consistently beating the 1060. Don't know what the hell is up with GPU prices lately.. AMD/NV should do more to enforce their prices.

Ridiculous how people act like the 1060 is in a whole other tier, outside of exaggerated graphs making 5-8% look like a massive difference, i bet hardly anyone could tell one from the other in a blind test .. If the 480 competes with the 970, then so does the 1060.


----------



## lowbudgethero

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Things were much more interesting when we had 3dfx, ATI, NVIDIA, and PowerVR all on roughly equal footing.
> The problem with this example was that the 6970 was decisively slower than NVIDIA's GTX 480 flagship at the time (I had both), while the 7970 was much faster than the GTX 580.
> 
> Flagship or not doesn't determine market segment...how the card stands in relation to the competition does.


QFT, when the 290 and 290x came out nvidia had to drop their prices to stay competitive. Well, at least until all the miners drove the prices to insane levels.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meson1*
> 
> Aren't the memory controllers for Pascal GPU's on chip? If so, can they just substitute one memory type for another just like that? Or is GDDR5X close enough to GDDR5 to be a direct swap? Those are genuine questions, because I don't know the answer.


GDDR5X was made to be as close to GDDR5 as possible. The only significant difference as far as timing/interface goes is the size of the prefetch and any memory controller that can handle GDDR5X should be able to handle GDDR5.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nightingale*
> 
> Problem is the alot of the new young generation of PC enthusiasts don't see this as clear as us old timers who were buying cards back in 1996. I know too many people that buy into the price gouging and when I mention it to them they give a me blank stare like I'm the clueless guy.


I've been buying video cards since 1996 and once you adjust for inflation; and take into account the increased development time, costs, and risks; the gradually increasing prices don't seem all that out of line to me.

Prices are definitely higher, but I won't feel any more ripped off by an $800 dollar 1080 Ti than I did by the $330 GeForce 256 DDR I bought in Christmas 1999.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I am pretty sure GTX480 = GTX570 = HD 6970. I had HD 5850, 6950, 6970, 6990, GTX470 , GTX580.


I may have been remembering a larger gap than existed at stock because my main GTX 480 was underwater with a 40% OC.

Anyway: www.anandtech.com/show/4061/amds-radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950/

Overall it looks like the 480 had a slight edge that increased with resolution. With the 6970 being released after the 580, 570, and 480, as well as not decisively outperforming any of them, they had to undercut them all in price.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I've been buying video cards since 1996 and once you adjust for inflation; and take into account the increased development time, costs, and risks; the gradually increasing prices don't seem all that out of line to me.


There's been nothing _gradual_ about the price differences, though. A $200 hike in a single year is down to a lack of competition, i bet the R&D on Pascal was far less than what they spent on Maxwell too, it's more or less identical minus the different process.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> There's been nothing _gradual_ about the price differences, though. A $200 hike in a single year is down to a lack of competition, i bet the R&D on Pascal was far less than what they spent on Maxwell too, it's more or less identical minus the different process.


There have been previous spikes of similar magnitude when competition was lacking (8800 GTX and Ultra come to mind). Overall trend of GPU price increases is still pretty gradual.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> There have been previous spikes of similar magnitude when competition was lacking (8800 GTX and Ultra come to mind). Overall trend of GPU price increases is still pretty gradual.


It hasn't really been 'gradual'. I would say the term to more accurately describe it would be continual price rises as 'gradual' sounds rather forgiving on Nvdia's practice, which is a horrible one.

There should be no argument that graphics cards have increased in price significantly over the past 10 years and that the price of a high-end card is now exorbitant.


----------



## i7monkey

Nothing gradual about this.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1606550/twitter-jen-hsun-introduces-the-new-nvidia-titan-x/2300_100#post_25395071

Chart courtesy of guttheslayer:


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Nothing gradual about this.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1606550/twitter-jen-hsun-introduces-the-new-nvidia-titan-x/2300_100#post_25395071
> 
> Chart courtesy of guttheslayer:


Put up all the charts you want, people will still make leaps in excuses for the price hike that has taken place in such a short period.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Nothing gradual about this.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1606550/twitter-jen-hsun-introduces-the-new-nvidia-titan-x/2300_100#post_25395071
> 
> Chart courtesy of guttheslayer:


You buy more than just the GPU from Nvidia now.


----------



## looniam

the graph isn't gradual because it is skewed.









fermi releases were a GF100 for the 480 and a GF110 for the 580 both $500 BUT there were also two GK1*10* chips (no GK100 part) with the FULL chip being *$700* not $1000.


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> You buy more than just the GPU from Nvidia now.


Yeah they include a little tin badge with a pin. *Premium Handmade.*


----------



## Code-Red

lol PostalTwinkie in here trying to justify GPU prices again. Actually, lol at everyone hoping these cards will be $800, why don't you just email Nvidia's marketing firm telling them you're more than willing to completely empty your savings and credit card to buy a GPU.









Well, it was nice being able to build a computer without the GPU costing the equivalent of every other component. RIP


----------



## Klocek001

There's one bar missing in the graph.

It's AMD's competitor for Pascal cards bar.

Coincidence ?


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Code-Red*
> 
> lol PostalTwinkie in here trying to justify GPU prices again. Actually, lol at everyone hoping these cards will be $800, why don't you just email Nvidia's marketing firm telling them you're more than willing to completely empty your savings and credit card to buy a GPU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it was nice being able to build a computer without the GPU costing the equivalent of every other component. RIP


I'm sure they possibly snoop around reading the "genius" comments supporting their rise in prices.

Soon at this rate, it will cost you all the components except a GPU of a build times two. I wonder how many justify the pricing and suck at basic economics 101 while being on the brink of bankruptcy.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> There's one bar missing in the graph.
> 
> It's AMD's competitor for Pascal cards bar.
> 
> Coincidence ?


You are not allowed to bash AMD.

nVidia is evil and should be the only company to blame for everything that doesn't go your way.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> There have been previous spikes of similar magnitude when competition was lacking (8800 GTX and Ultra come to mind). Overall trend of GPU price increases is still pretty gradual.


To be fair though, that similar spike also came with one of the most legendary cards ever.. Will the 1080 and Titan XP be remembered the same way? Doubtful. .


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> To be fair though, that similar spike also came with one of the most legendary cards ever.. Will the 1080 and Titan XP be remembered the same way? Doubtful. .


The 8800GTX was a rare and special card since nothing before it other than maybe a the first 3dfx card had such an impact. Also the 8800GTX was in expensive card to produce not just R&D wise.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> There should be no argument that graphics cards have increased in price significantly over the past 10 years and that the price of a high-end card is now exorbitant.


High-end graphics increased in price more dramatically from 1996 to 2006 than from 2006 to 2016.

Whether current prices are unreasonably high is debatable. Obviously, cards are still being sold at these prices and it's not like high-end parts are the only parts available.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> To be fair though, that similar spike also came with one of the most legendary cards ever.. Will the 1080 and Titan XP be remembered the same way? Doubtful. .


The G80 was certainly revolutionary, but it was also outdone (due to the faster product cycles at the time) more rapidly than many modern GPUs.

I'm not after a legendary card, or something I'll remember as revolutionary, just better overall performance than the 290X CFX I've been using for over two years, in a single GPU.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> High-end graphics increased in price more dramatically from 1996 to 2006 than from 2006 to 2016.
> 
> Whether current prices are unreasonably high is debatable. Obviously, cards are still being sold at these prices and it's not like high-end parts are the only parts available.
> The G80 was certainly revolutionary, but it was also outdone (due to the faster product cycles at the time) more rapidly than many modern GPUs.
> 
> I'm not after a legendary card, or something I'll remember as revolutionary, just better overall performance than the 290X CFX I've been using for over two years, in a single GPU.


Titan XP for ~ $550?


----------



## mouacyk

The reason both companies are price hiking... OCN is giving birth to new enthusiasts everyday. True.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Titan XP for ~ $550?


If you've got one for sale for $550, I'll take it, but I suspect this is unlikely.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> If you've got one for sale for $550, I'll take it, but I suspect this is unlikely.


I mean to upgrade from 2 x 290X we need Titan XP performance for ~ $550 price.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I mean to upgrade from 2 x 290X we need Titan XP performance for ~ $550 price.


That's still barely an upgrade at least in games where there's scaling. A Titan XP is a good upgrade from a single Hawaii GPU. 150% faster OC vs OC.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> That's still barely an upgrade at least in games where there's scaling. A Titan XP is a good upgrade from a single Hawaii GPU. 150% faster OC vs OC.


Its an upgrade even if CFX scales 100% because a lot of games at 4K will use more than 4GB vRAM. Even at same fps is upgrade.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I mean to upgrade from 2 x 290X we need Titan XP performance for ~ $550 price.


Near Titan XP performance is needed, but it's still an upgrade regardless of price.

I'm not expecting any contemporary GPU to give me the same sort of value I got out of my 200-250 dollar Tri-Xes...that was a once in a decade fluke.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> That's still barely an upgrade at least in games where there's scaling. A Titan XP is a good upgrade from a single Hawaii GPU. 150% faster OC vs OC.


Hawaii doesn't OC for crap, unless you put them under water, or have loose definition of stability (and most people that only use their GPU's to game do).

Best OC I consider stable out of the four Hawaii's I've had was 1100 core 1500 memory and the two I've got in CFX now have to be run at stock to not force me to use 100% fan speed on the cards and case fans. Power has also been an issue; even with the GPU's at stock speed (and slightly undervolted) I can get my primary signature system, tower only, to pull ~1200w from the wall. I've already had to swap out a Seasonic 860 Platinum for a 1000w Corsair (it was on sale) to make CFX viable and I'm not going to drop more money on a 1200w+ PSU so I can get another 5-10% more performance out of my two year old GPU setup while listening to a wind tunnel.

Also, VRAM capacity is the biggest limiting factor in the game I play the most of currently.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Its an upgrade even if CFX scales 100% because a lot of games at 4K will use more than 4GB vRAM. Even at same fps is upgrade.


Elite: Dangerous Horizons will use more than 4GiB at 1080p, if you tweak the texture resolutions.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I mean to upgrade from 2 x 290X we need Titan XP performance for ~ $550 price.


depends on game really, crossfire/sli just are worse for your gaming experience overall and a single 1080 would be along with vega a good upgrade.
the price will continue be high and I dont expect that to change with vega either.
The great option would be a Vega with performance along the 1080 but price will be that to.

great is that gpu finally is getting 4k gaming down to the masses


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> depends on game really, crossfire/sli just are worse for your gaming experience overall and a single 1080 would be along with vega a good upgrade.
> the price will continue be high and I dont expect that to change with vega either.
> The great option would be a Vega with performance along the 1080 but price will be that to.
> 
> great is that gpu finally is getting 4k gaming down to the masses


Yeah I consider GTX1070+ really a upgrade but not at current prices. Probably just wait another gen to get 1170 or something like that.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Hawaii doesn't OC for crap, unless you put them under water, or have loose definition of stability (and most people that only use their GPU's to game do).
> 
> Best OC I consider stable out of the four Hawaii's I've had was 1100 core 1500 memory and the two I've got in CFX now have to be run at stock to not force me to use 100% fan speed on the cards and case fans. Power has also been an issue; even with the GPU's at stock speed (and slightly undervolted) I can get my primary signature system, tower only, to pull ~1200w from the wall. I've already had to swap out a Seasonic 860 Platinum for a 1000w Corsair (it was on sale) to make CFX viable and I'm not going to drop more money on a 1200w+ PSU so I can get another 5-10% more performance out of my two year old GPU setup while listening to a wind tunnel.


Hawaii overclocks perfectly fine. WIth extra voltage and a 290 Double Dissipation, I observed an 18.6% speedup in Time Spy vs stock (947/1250)[1] counting only graphics tests of course, and the noise was perfectly tolerable to me. Furthermore, this setup ran comfortably on a 750W PSU, drawing about 500-600W from the wall, overvolted.

I don't have any experience with crossfire, but 1200W undervolted? I have a lot of trouble believing that. According to Techpowerup, the 295X2 never exceeds 500W[2], additionally, [H] tested 2 290X Black Editions in crossfire[3], and the power draw didn't exceed 750W for the whole system. (GPU only), so unless you have a 6GHz Piledriver in there, where is that extra ~500W coming from?

I actually own a Titan XP and the speedup I described is accurate, actually a little lower.


Spoiler: R9 290 100mV, 1130/1525










Spoiler: Titan XP power limit: 120%, 172/585 offset, avg boost: ~1950








Average speedup: 2.35x

[1] http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2828738/ (graphics score: 3530 vs 4189, seen above, - 18.6% speedup)
[2] https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_295_X2/22.html
[3] http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/29/xfx_r9_290x_black_oc_edition_crossfire_video_card_review/10#.V_Q8GvArKiM


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Hawaii overclocks perfectly fine. WIth extra voltage and a 290 Double Dissipation, I observed an 18.6% speedup in Time Spy vs stock (947/1250)[1] counting only graphics tests of course, and the noise was perfectly tolerable to me. Furthermore, this setup ran comfortably on a 750W PSU, drawing about 500-600W from the wall, overvolted.
> 
> I don't have any experience with crossfire, but 1200W undervolted? I have a lot of trouble believing that. According to Techpowerup, the 295X2 never exceeds 500W[2], additionally, [H] tested 2 290X Black Editions in crossfire[3], and the power draw didn't exceed 750W for the whole system. (GPU only), so unless you have a 6GHz Piledriver in there, where is that extra ~500W coming from?
> 
> I actually own a Titan XP and the speedup I described is accurate, actually a little lower.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: R9 290 100mV, 1130/1525
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Titan XP power limit: 120%, 172/585 offset, avg boost: ~1950
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average speedup: 2.35x
> 
> [1] http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2828738/ (graphics score: 3530 vs 4189, seen above, - 18.6% speedup)
> [2] https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_295_X2/22.html
> [3] http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/29/xfx_r9_290x_black_oc_edition_crossfire_video_card_review/10#.V_Q8GvArKiM


My best score was like 9K with 290X + 290. That was no 24/7 clock speed. For 24/7 it was ~ 8.2K. If games where like 3DMark the world would be a easy place for dual gpus.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Hawaii overclocks perfectly fine.


Not on air.

Keeping the VRM cool on air during worst case loads is extremely difficult. The reference cooler actually cools the VRM pretty well, but it can't handle the GPU's heat production without sounding like a hair dryer. Non-reference and after market coolers, like what's on the Sapphire Tri-X NEs that I've got cool the GPU much better, but the VRM cooling isn't any better and rapidly becomes the limiting factor.

Crossfire dramatically exacerbates cooling issues as well. Even in a well ventilated case, the top card is going to be much warmer than if it were a single card system. My top GPU is the same temperature with a -6mV offset and stock 1020/1350 clocks as it is as a single card at 1100/1500 with +93mV.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Time Spy


Yeah, I could get a 20% OC and a 20% performance increase in Time Spy if being able to pass a few runs of Time Spy without blatant artifacts was my standard for stability. However, it's not.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> I don't have any experience with crossfire, but 1200W undervolted?


Full screen FurMark with Prime95 28.9 running in the background is about 1200w.

Gaming is 700-800w depending on title, and if I'm recording or streaming I can see ~900w at the wall while playing.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> I have a lot of trouble believing that. According to Techpowerup, the 295X2 never exceeds 500W[2], additionally, [H] tested 2 290X Black Editions in crossfire[3], and the power draw didn't exceed 750W for the whole system.


They were probably basic gaming loads with the power limiter intact. A 295X2 tends to use less power than two 290Xes regardless (better binning, lower clocks, lower voltages, better cooling, as well as being on a single PCB).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> so unless you have a 6GHz Piledriver in there, where is that extra ~500W coming from?


The additional current drawn by more demanding loads, a much more power hungry CPU than what you get on the mainstream platform, and probably considerably higher ambient temperatures.

Together my 290Xes will draw about 700-750w in OCCT or Furmark. Folding or BOINC can get into the 600w range. Gaming is usually a bit less. My 5820k will use ~220w in Prime95 or ~150w while transcoding. Board, RAM, HDDs, and fans account for the remainder. PSU is about 88% efficient at 100% load, so if I see 1200w at the wall, the PSU is delivering 1056w.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Average speedup: 2.35x


I'd consider 2x all-round speed up vs. a completely stock reference 290X, no multi-GPU issues, and triple the VRAM to be a pretty compelling upgrade. I'd probably be willing to spend somewhere in the $750 dollar ballpark for it.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Ya mine can OC 1300 with over 1.4v lol, but it will only run synthetic stuff, i try those speeds in gaming i crash. But i knew a bunch of peeps who did the mining crazy and searched through like 50-70 different cards to find best OC.

Gaming they are usly only 1200mhz if the game needs the extra fps, other then that just 1000mhz is fine. But like blamless said, they don't OC worth a damn with out water cooling.

Down fall is SOOO MUCH heat is put into my office. Like most others are saying, i want 1 card like a 1080 TI that's performance is better and have lower temps over all.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Not on air.
> 
> Keeping the VRM cool on air during worst case loads is extremely difficult. The reference cooler actually cools the VRM pretty well, but it can't handle the GPU's heat production without sounding like a hair dryer. Non-reference and after market coolers, like what's on the Sapphire Tri-X NEs that I've got cool the GPU much better, but the VRM cooling isn't any better and rapidly becomes the limiting factor.
> 
> Crossfire dramatically exacerbates cooling issues as well. Even in a well ventilated case, the top card is going to be much warmer than if it were a single card system. My top GPU is the same temperature with a -6mV offset and stock 1020/1350 clocks as it is as a single card at 1100/1500 with +93mV.
> Yeah, I could get a 20% OC and a 20% performance increase in Time Spy if being able to pass a few runs of Time Spy without blatant artifacts was my standard for stability. However, it's not.
> Full screen FurMark with Prime95 28.9 running in the background is about 1200w.
> 
> Gaming is 700-800w depending on title, and if I'm recording or streaming I can see ~900w at the wall while playing.
> They were probably basic gaming loads with the power limiter intact. A 295X2 tends to use less power than two 290Xes regardless (better binning, lower clocks, lower voltages, better cooling, as well as being on a single PCB).
> The additional current drawn by more demanding loads, a much more power hungry CPU than what you get on the mainstream platform, and probably considerably higher ambient temperatures.
> 
> Together my 290Xes will draw about 700-750w in OCCT or Furmark. Folding or BOINC can get into the 600w range. Gaming is usually a bit less. My 5820k will use ~220w in Prime95 or ~150w while transcoding. Board, RAM, HDDs, and fans account for the remainder. PSU is about 88% efficient at 100% load, so if I see 1200w at the wall, the PSU is delivering 1056w.
> I'd consider 2x all-round speed up vs. a completely stock reference 290X, no multi-GPU issues, and triple the VRAM to be a pretty compelling upgrade. I'd probably be willing to spend somewhere in the $750 dollar ballpark for it.


Last time I checked my setup during Crysis 3 was ~ 650W with cards at stock, 850W with +100mV and 1050W with + 200mV. 650W is not that bad.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Not on air.
> 
> Keeping the VRM cool on air during worst case loads is extremely difficult. The reference cooler actually cools the VRM pretty well, but it can't handle the GPU's heat production without sounding like a hair dryer. Non-reference and after market coolers, like what's on the Sapphire Tri-X NEs that I've got cool the GPU much better, but the VRM cooling isn't any better and rapidly becomes the limiting factor.
> 
> Yeah, I could get a 20% OC and a 20% performance increase in Time Spy if being able to pass a few runs of Time Spy without blatant artifacts was my standard for stability.


That overclock I used for Time Spy worked fine 24/7. I wasn't doing anything unusual like 100% fan speed or anything stupid like that. I'm not a huge "overclocker", I tend to use benchmarks just as stress tests. I'm not pushing some agenda, I've simply never felt any of the issues you're talking about. I was happy with the overclocking and cooling capabilities on that particular model of card.

I think the most important thing I think we can take from this is that going two cards is a mistake - extra expense, difficult to justify upgrading to a single GPU, lack of support (especially crossfire) and all the other downsides. Single GPUs always work.

Furmark+Prime95 is not anywhere near a realistic workload and frankly I don't think the power consumption numbers don't matter. AMD and NV are right to throttle their newer cards when you run that crap.


----------



## airisom2

GTX 1080 Ti
10.80 Teraflops.

...


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Furmark+Prime95 is not anywhere near a realistic workload


It's a worst case scenario test.

If I know my cooling and power supply can handle them, they'll handle more typical loads for orders of magnitude more time. That's what stress testing is for.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> AMD and NV are right to throttle their newer cards when you run that crap.


I'm of the opinion that I should be able to execute any software that's technically able to run on my hardware...and generally I can. However, headroom is often non-existent in the most demanding software I can find, and some past parts have been wholly inadequate.

There are quite a few real-world apps that are more demanding than most games or benchmarks, and even those that aren't any more demanding can be vastly more sensitive to instability. It generally takes quite a huge rate of GPU errors to actually crash a game or make artifacts you can see. Clocks that you may never have issues with in a game could be returning bad data to distributed computing projects, result in stale shares while crypto mining, or cause corruption/crashes in other GPGPU work.

Out of curiosity, does your 290 show any ECD errors at your 24/7 OC? You can see these as "GPU Memory Errors" in HWInfo.


----------



## Strat79

My only hope is they price it reasonably but my brain, and past release experience the last few years, tells me that it will be $749 minimum and most likely $799+. Add in the first few weeks of vendor price gouging and they will probably be $850-900 until the hype settles down. If they come out of the gate at $650 or lower, I will burn up my keyboard clicking add to cart so fast. I'm tired of running 2, very hot, cards and a very hot CPU. I'll gladly donate my 780 Ti's to family members for one single 1080 Ti if the price is anywhere near reasonable. Grab one of those up with a water block and OC it to hell and back and turn HT off on the CPU and get the highest OC I can with stock voltage or maybe even under-volt it to reduce heat and be done with it. While still having a profile saved with HT and 4.5Ghz OC when needed.
I'm having to run 2 PSU's just to power this crazy system and it's just too freakin' hot. Gaming highs hit right at 1.1 KW from the wall and over 1300KW running LinX running 14 cores (leaving 2 for the GPU's) and EVGA's OC Scanner's "DOF" test which puts my GPU's at about 140% power consumption. Over 1450KW with any of the "furry cube" type benches which will make them hit 175%+ which is a very unrealistic scenario which is why I use the DOF one instead. My water temps never go over 37-38C with my excellent water setup. It keeps my GPU's at 36C average gaming(42-43C max) and CPU's highest core of the 16 never goes over 62-63C but all that heat dumped into my room is unbearable at times. This GPU can't come fast enough. I don't see myself ever going multi GPU again once I dump these. Please, please price these at a descent price, Nvidia!


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> the graph isn't gradual because it is skewed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fermi releases were a GF100 for the 480 and a GF110 for the 580 both $500 BUT there were also two GK1*10* chips (no GK100 part) with the FULL chip being *$700* not $1000.


That is nonsense, my chart include the most expensive consumer card which include the titan pricing which explain why pascal is $1200


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Out of curiosity, does your 290 show any ECD errors at your 24/7 OC? You can see these as "GPU Memory Errors" in HWInfo.


I don't have the card anymore now that I've replaced with the XP. However, I never did testing in any those applications you listed. There could very well be stability issues, but it was fine for games.

However, I did dabble in eth mining a very small bit, but I found it was way not worth it. I did run it overclocked, but I don't think I was using extra voltage. The clocks would have been close to 1100/1400.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> the graph isn't gradual because it is skewed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fermi releases were a GF100 for the 480 and a GF110 for the 580 both $500 BUT there were also two GK1*10* chips (no GK100 part) with the FULL chip being *$700* not $1000.
> 
> 
> 
> That is nonsense, my chart include the most expensive consumer card which include the titan pricing which explain why pascal is $1200
Click to expand...

it's not none sense that you cherry picked the data and mislead with labeling; you have it listed as chips, not cards. surprised you didn't include the titan z.


----------



## Tokkan

Another 2 months or 3 and the new Titan...


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Not on air.
> 
> Keeping the VRM cool on air during worst case loads is extremely difficult. The reference cooler actually cools the VRM pretty well, but it can't handle the GPU's heat production without sounding like a hair dryer. Non-reference and after market coolers, like what's on the Sapphire Tri-X NEs that I've got cool the GPU much better, but the VRM cooling isn't any better and rapidly becomes the limiting factor.


Only reason I put up with the noise on my reference cooler. I keep it at 70% fan speed as the top of a ramp up if it get's WAY too hot but otherwise it's usually in the 64-65% range which is very slightly above factory 'uber' settings. That said, I bumped the power slider 6% and keep the core at 1060mhz with no voltage increase. I can do 1150/1500 w/ +100mv on this sapphire reference model fine as well but it gets too hot too fast for 24/7 stability. 1100/1500 is manageable though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Last time I checked my setup during Crysis 3 was ~ 650W with cards at stock, 850W with +100mV and 1050W with + 200mV. 650W is not that bad.


I pulled 670w or so back when I had my single oc'ed 290x paired with a FX-9590... The 4790k sips power in comparison. Always wanted to try CFX with the 290x especially back when prices were low but though my NZXT Hale-82 850w psu is pretty good, it's simply not enough.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> it's not none sense that you cherry picked the data and mislead with labeling; you have it listed as chips, not cards. surprised you didn't include the titan z.


What are you talking? Of cos I added in as chip not card cos the chip were of *similar sizes*.

I am talking about chip, which imply single GPU, not dual GPU like GTX 690 590 etc. you are one that is misleading others.

Kepler has no GK100 chip for consumer. Its GK110 but my chart 00/02 implied the big chip for that generation, which include GK110 but I didnt add more "/" to minimise cluttering.

If you want to specific its:

GF110 - Most expensive consumer model - GTX 580, $499 (Reference)
GF104 - Most expensive consumer model - GTX 560, $249 (Reference)
GF106

GK110 - Most expensive consumer model - Titan OG/Black, $999 (Reference)
GK104 - Most expensive consumer model - GTX 680, $499 (Reference)
GK106

GM200 - Most expensive consumer model - Titan X, $999 (Reference)
GM204 - Most expensive consumer model - GTX 980, $549 (Reference)
GM206

GP102 - Most expensive consumer model - Titan X pascal, $1200 (Reference)
GP104 - Most expensive consumer model - GTX 1080, $699 (Reference)
GP106

Please dont mislead and add more to confusion.

PS: If nvidia were in monopoly back in 2010 they would have listed (GF110 based) GTX 580 as Titan F with $1200 and GTX 560 as GTX 580 as $699 and you would have suck up to it anyway.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> it's not none sense that you cherry picked the data and mislead with labeling; you have it listed as chips, not cards. surprised you didn't include the titan z.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking? Of cos I added in as chip not card cos the chip were of *similar sizes*.
> 
> I am talking about chip, which imply single GPU, not dual GPU like GTX 690 590 etc. you are one that is misleading others.
> 
> Kepler has no GK100 chip for consumer. Its GK110 but my chart 00/02 implied the big chip for that generation, which include GK110 but I didnt add more "/" to minimise cluttering.
> 
> If you want to specific its:
> 
> GF110 - Most expensive consumer model - GTX 580, $499 (Reference)
> GF104 - Most expensive consumer model - GTX 560, $249 (Reference)
> GF106
> 
> GK110 - Most expensive consumer model - Titan OG/Black, $999 (Reference)
> GK104 - Most expensive consumer model - GTX 680, $499 (Reference)
> GK106
> 
> GM200 - Most expensive consumer model - Titan X, $999 (Reference)
> GM204 - Most expensive consumer model - GTX 980, $549 (Reference)
> GM206
> 
> GP102 - Most expensive consumer model - Titan X pascal, $1200 (Reference)
> GP104 - Most expensive consumer model - GTX 1080, $699 (Reference)
> GP106
> 
> Please dont mislead and add more to confusion.
> 
> PS: If nvidia were in monopoly back in 2010 they would have listed (GF110 based) GTX 580 as Titan F with $1200 and GTX 560 as GTX 580 as $699 and you would have suck up to it anyway.
Click to expand...

i'm not trying to mislead or confuse anyone. the OG titan was not a full chip and the titan black was released over a year later; after kepler's refresh. the 780ti was the first and for awhile the only full GK110 chip on the market but yet you'll dismiss it. so yeah you're talking CARDS not CHIPS here no matter how you label it.

if you don't want that pointed out then i guess you only want the data that shows your conclusion. btw, pascel still hasn't released a full chip yet but i guess that doesn't help your cause either.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> [/SPOILER]
> 
> i'm not trying to mislead or confuse anyone. the OG titan was not a full chip and the titan black was released over a year later; after kepler's refresh. the 780ti was the first and for awhile the only full GK110 chip on the market but yet you'll dismiss it. so yeah you're talking CARDS not CHIPS here no matter how you label it.
> 
> if you don't want that pointed out then i guess you only want the data that shows your conclusion. btw, pascel still hasn't released a full chip yet but i guess that doesn't help your cause either.


I dunno what are you thinking, i am simply listing the most expensive consumer model on that particular gpu chip. Is it that hard to understand? Please dont argue for the sake of argument, i am sure most ppl here will agree my data is correct and is not skewed.

It doesnt matter if its cut down or not. The most expensive model means the most expensive model. Titan og not full chip den use titan black which is the same $999. Pascal if got full gp102 chip den i will replace $1200 to smth even more costly, if not titan xp remain the most expensive model. Its that simple!


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> *I dunno what are you thinking*, i am simply listing the most expensive consumer model on that particular gpu chip. *Is it that hard to understand?* Please dont argue for the sake of argument, i am sure most ppl here will agree my data is correct and is not skewed.
> 
> It doesnt matter if its cut down or not. The most expensive model means the most expensive model. Titan og not full chip den use titan black which is the same $999. Pascal if got full gp102 chip den i will replace $1200 to smth even more costly, if not titan xp remain the most expensive model. Its that simple!


how is it I have the comprehension problem when it's YOU that doesn't understand? seriously, i get tired of that tactic when someone refuses to listen to an opposing point of view. and conventional wisdom can have nothing to do with facts.

with that said, fine. if you want to use the most expensive card but then present it as something else; you ought to just go ahead and use the 690 for the GK104 and the titanZ for the GK110 since you only want to use the criteria that fits.

have a good day.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> how is it I have the comprehension problem when it's YOU that doesn't understand? seriously, i get tired of that tactic when someone refuses to listen to an opposing point of view. and conventional wisdom can have nothing to do with facts.
> 
> with that said, fine. if you want to use the most expensive card but then present it as something else; you ought to just go ahead and use the 690 for the GK104 and the titanZ for the GK110 since you only want to use the criteria that fits.
> 
> have a good day.


A load of bs. U insist on single card but i state chip codename. Again dual gpu are a thing of a past for nvidia. They are never fair to compare to begin. Its like saying 295x2 is faster than titan x maxwell and therefore amd is the fastest in the 2014-2015 time frame.

Do you realised how dumb you sound by mixing single gpu and dual gpu card together? I doing my best for a apple to apple comparison and you trying to say my result are skewed Because i never do a apple to orange comparison.

If you are so stubborn i will make a chart specifically for dual gpu, and they are not allowed to mixed with single gpu chart. How about that?

GF110 x2 - most expensive consumer model, gtx 590, $700

GK110 x2 - most expensive consumer model, titan z, $3000

Conclusion: 329% inflation in price

You just prove my point even stronger on dual gpu that nvidia is jacking up price like no tml.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> how is it I have the comprehension problem when it's YOU that doesn't understand? seriously, i get tired of that tactic when someone refuses to listen to an opposing point of view. and conventional wisdom can have nothing to do with facts.
> 
> with that said, fine. if you want to use the most expensive card but then present it as something else; you ought to just go ahead and use the 690 for the GK104 and the titanZ for the GK110 since you only want to use the criteria that fits.
> 
> have a good day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A load of bs. *U insist on single card but i state chip codename.* Again dual gpu are a thing of a past for nvidia. They are never fair to compare to begin. Its like saying 295x2 is faster than titan x maxwell and therefore amd is the fastest in the 2014-2015 time frame.
> 
> Do you realised how dumb you sound?
> 
> If you are so stubborn i will make a chart specifically for dual gpu, and they are not allowed to mixed with single gpu chart. How about that?
Click to expand...

you keep changing your tune:
Quote:


> i am simply listing the most expensive consumer model on that particular gpu chip


the most expensive consumer model based on the GK104 was the 690 and the titanZ for the GK110 so your criteria should include those.

since i said that, you get the drift or continue to refuse to see the point?









your apples to oranges comparison, which you're doing a lot of, has no relevance, unless your want to use an example of sounding dumb.


----------



## i7monkey

dual GPU prices:

gtx 295 - $500

gtx 590 - $700

gtx 690 - $1000

titan z - $3000

"Gradual price increase"


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> dual GPU prices:
> 
> gtx 295 - $500
> 
> gtx 590 - $700
> 
> gtx 690 - $1000
> 
> titan z - $3000
> 
> "Gradual price increase"


have i said that prices aren't ridiculous? EVER?

NOPE.(psst go check the titan Z review thread i've been most vocal how "halo" products also increase the lower gpu prices.)

i am criticizing the criteria used for a graph.


----------



## guttheslayer

Look like looniam are those that say 295x2 are faster than nvidia titan x maxwell... well done.

I keep laughing becz nvidia is no longer making dual gpu. If i follow nvidia latest trend pattern for dual gpu with 1+1=3, den if pascal titan x dual gpu ever exist it will be $3600.

Prove my point again. Really pure absurb if i were to include it. Maybe i should include quadro and tesla how about that? Dumb suggestion


----------



## guttheslayer

Actually what looniam is trying to suggest is that pascal titan x is a good buy and the best deal from
Nvidia becz the most expensive model release was titan z. So nvidia is actually trying sell flagship price at 40% price only.

Therefore nvidia didnt increase price trend at all, in fact they decrease it.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> you keep changing your tune:


Btw i never change my tune. I said chip. Singular form. Not chips in a card.

Tonight i will go back and update the chart title with a big fat font for "SINGLE GPU" on the top to shut someone mouth. And guess no one would bother dual gpu version because nvidia no longer make them.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> have i said that prices aren't ridiculous? EVER?


not referring to you but to the many comments that downplay ridiculous prices.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> you keep changing your tune:
> 
> 
> 
> Btw i never change my tune. I said chip. Singular form. Not chips in a card.
> 
> Tonight i will go back and update the chart title with a big fat font for "SINGLE GPU" on the top to shut someone mouth. And guess no one would bother dual gpu version because nvidia no longer make them.
Click to expand...

whatever dude. you just can't admit you cherry picked what you wanted or you just can't see where you would lead someone to a misunderstanding. either way of course you're not wrong.









good luck with that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> have i said that prices aren't ridiculous? EVER?
> 
> 
> 
> not referring to you but to the many comments that downplay ridiculous prices.
Click to expand...

welp my bad. i figured since only two of us had been posting for most of the day . .


----------



## Dragonsyph

Can't we all just get along.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

I feel like were getting off topic here. Would be nice to see posts based on any new information on the possible GTX 1080 Ti.


----------



## jmcosta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> dual GPU prices:
> 
> gtx 295 - $500
> 
> gtx 590 - $700
> 
> gtx 690 - $1000
> 
> R9 295X2 - $1499
> 
> titan z - $3000
> 
> "Gradual price increase"


now its complete


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:
Originally Posted by *jmcosta* 

Originally Posted by *i7monkey* 

dual GPU prices:

gtx 295 - $500

gtx 590 - $700

gtx 690 - $1000

R9 295X2 - $1499


> Radeon Pro Duo - $1499
> 
> titan z - $3000
> 
> "Gradual price increase"


now its complete


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Actually what looniam is trying to suggest is that pascal titan x is a good buy and the best deal from
> Nvidia becz the most expensive model release was titan z. So nvidia is actually trying sell flagship price at 40% price only.
> 
> Therefore nvidia didnt increase price trend at all, in fact they decrease it.


Speechless if that is the belief held.


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rbarrett96*
> 
> For one simple reason: the 480x. It has set a precedent for performance to price ratio. I'm hoping this has an effect on their 490/furyx tier as well.


What set the rx480 price was the performance gap between it and the gtx 1070 which is a 400 dollar card. The gtx 1070 is 45 percent faster which meant there had to be a substantial gap in price. Add in the expected performance and price of the gtx 1060, and amd had no choice to price the rx480 at 240.

The fact that Aib have a 20 dollar price increase over reference and are using generally stripped down pcb's show that this was likely not the original intended partners and air sought.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> dual GPU prices:
> 
> gtx 295 - $500
> 
> gtx 590 - $700
> 
> gtx 690 - $1000
> 
> titan z - $3000
> 
> "Gradual price increase"


But Titan Z contained so much tech it had to be priced that way!


----------



## Blameless

I generally ignore dual-GPU boards. They cost too much and have to many caveats, even compared to two separate cards, for me to really care about.

The only way I can see myself using a dual-GPU board is if I need to cram the most GPGPU/compute performance possible in a SFF system.


----------



## Forceman

Not to dredge up yesterday's debate, but here are two price charts going back to 2008 - two because there is one with Ti cards (since that's the practical option) and one with Titan cards.




Edit: maybe it would be better to cut off the 1080/480 cards, since they are probably pulling the trend lines down. Hmm.

Edit2: Didn't do much to the no Titans chart, but interesting trend on the a Titan one.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> now its complete


Perfect response.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Not to dredge up yesterday's debate, but here are two price charts going back to 2008 - two because there is one with Ti cards (since that's the practical option) and one with Titan cards.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: maybe it would be better to cut off the 1080/480 cards, since they are probably pulling the trend lines down. Hmm.
> 
> Edit2: Didn't do much to the no Titans chart, but interesting trend on the a Titan one.


thank you for taking the time to do that. (+rep)

imo, using a larger sample size give it a credibility to those that aren't aware of the pricing trend(s) or whom wish minimize it/them.


----------



## Asus11

I've lost interest in GPUs now nothing released is exciting anymore

also sold the 1080 and went back to 980 ti as I think its more than capable of powering 1440p also its more fun to overclock


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> I've lost interest in GPUs now nothing released is exciting anymore
> 
> also sold the 1080 and went back to 980 ti as I think its more than capable of powering 1440p also its more fun to overclock


Yup. It used to be, "I can't wait to spend $500 on nvidia's next gen stuff. It's a little pricey but i know I'll have the best they have to offer for a whole year."

Now it's, "If I buy anything I'm getting ripped off and it won't last long before it gets replaced by something else in a few months".


----------



## Benny89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Yup. It used to be, "I can't wait to spend $500 on nvidia's next gen stuff. It's a little pricey but i know I'll have the best they have to offer for a whole year."
> 
> Now it's, "If I buy anything I'm getting ripped off and it won't last long before it gets replaced by something else in a few months".


The last one is what makes me sick about buying GPUs. I mean you buy 80, 2 months latter there is TITAN, you buy TITAN, 3 months later 80Ti, you buy 80Ti, 6-7 months later new 80 that is better.

And so on and so on.

My friend have very good tactic that I might adopt at this point.

He is always one generation of GPUs behind current one, buying SLI of previous Generation best cards and waiting for another one generation to upgrade to previous one.

For example now he is sitting on SLI 980Ti which he bought for less price than one 1080. When Votla will drop he will buy SLI 1080Ti and so on.

I think this is very good plan.

Having SLI 980Ti he is roughly now on power of TITAN XP level (of course there are differences, pros and cons), paying 2 times less price: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzHUqR9A8YA&feature=youtu.be

I might start doing the same. I am all for new hardware but 1 year between each generation of GPU is WAAAY to fast.


----------



## Asus11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Yup. It used to be, "I can't wait to spend $500 on nvidia's next gen stuff. It's a little pricey but i know I'll have the best they have to offer for a whole year."
> 
> Now it's, "If I buy anything I'm getting ripped off and it won't last long before it gets replaced by something else in a few months".


its literally money down the drain, I could buy an overpriced iPhone and have a longer run with the best for a whole year and probably still would be worth more aswell

I'll just stick to the 980 ti until theres a £300 card with Titan X pascal performance.


----------



## Strat79

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benny89*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Yup. It used to be, "I can't wait to spend $500 on nvidia's next gen stuff. It's a little pricey but i know I'll have the best they have to offer for a whole year."
> 
> Now it's, "If I buy anything I'm getting ripped off and it won't last long before it gets replaced by something else in a few months".
> 
> 
> 
> The last one is what makes me sick about buying GPUs. I mean you buy 80, 2 months latter there is TITAN, you buy TITAN, 3 months later 80Ti, you buy 80Ti, 6-7 months later new 80 that is better.
> 
> And so on and so on.
> 
> My friend have very good tactic that I might adopt at this point.
> 
> He is always one generation of GPUs behind current one, buying SLI of previous Generation best cards and waiting for another one generation to upgrade to previous one.
> 
> For example now he is sitting on SLI 980Ti which he bought for less price than one 1080. When Votla will drop he will buy SLI 1080Ti and so on.
> 
> I think this is very good plan.
> 
> Having SLI 980Ti he is roughly now on power of TITAN XP level (of course there are differences, pros and cons), paying 2 times less price: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzHUqR9A8YA&feature=youtu.be
> 
> I might start doing the same. I am all for new hardware but 1 year between each generation of GPU is WAAAY to fast.
Click to expand...

That has been my approach for a while but unless MGPU gets better support on newer games it is no longer the best option. I've never had so many games that either flat out don't support SLI/CFX, even if forced or tricked, etc until last gen to the present. Every other game coming out these days has lousy support or the engine can't do it at all, period. So many great games wasted with poor to no MGPU support.

If things change, don't get me wrong, it's a great method of cutting down on money spent and still getting killer performance. It's been working for me for years. But at present, MGPU is at an all time low as far as I'm concerned. They have come so far and with such great new techs like G/Free-Sync then developers ruin it by not supporting it in the engine or whatever they say is causing poor or no scaling these days. I'm lucky because I still play a LOT of older games and it's so nice to be able to crank up everything and really max a game out at [email protected] with max super-sampling and every single tiny detail tweaked to the max with Nvidia iNspector. Games just a year or two old look better than than the top end games just now coming out because of this. Crystal clear and silky smooth. If only they would put that attention to detail on multi-GPU now, that buying two, 1 generation old cards to save money method would still be worth it. As of right now, it's a very bad time to. Unless you just like to play mostly older games that support it better or benchmarking, it's not near as good of a value now.


----------



## artemis2307

I got my brand new gtx1080FE for 520$ (in my country it usually costs over 800$)
is that a good deal?


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artemis2307*
> 
> I got my brand new gtx1080FE for 520$ (in my country it usually costs over 800$)
> is that a good deal?


Very good deal.


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Yup. It used to be, "I can't wait to spend $500 on nvidia's next gen stuff. It's a little pricey but i know I'll have the best they have to offer for a whole year."
> 
> Now it's, "If I buy anything I'm getting ripped off and it won't last long before it gets replaced by something else in a few months".


I love how people complain technology isn't moving fast enough, but when Nvidia releases something new for a similar price that slaps the last "top of the line" by 40%, everyone goes bonkers and complains about it.

If they gave us 5-10% every generation everybody would cry that we weren't seeing gains.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> I love how people complain technology isn't moving fast enough, but when Nvidia releases something new for a similar price that slaps the last "top of the line" by 40%, everyone goes bonkers and complains about it.
> 
> If they gave us 5-10% every generation everybody would cry that we weren't seeing gains.


It was 25% tbh.

And most of the 40% gain from tsmc 16 ff+. Nvidia just retuned their maxwell to make sure they can perform at that speed.

Memory compression, better boost etc. it is still a maxwell at the heart of the design


----------



## Benny89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> I love how people complain technology isn't moving fast enough, but when Nvidia releases something new for a similar price that slaps the last "top of the line" by 40%, everyone goes bonkers and complains about it.
> 
> If they gave us 5-10% every generation everybody would cry that we weren't seeing gains.


For a simillar price - 1200 USD for new card and new 80 card at the cost of previous 80Ti in previous generation.

I don't think it is simillar price at all.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> It was 25% tbh.
> 
> And most of the 40% gain from tsmc 16 ff+. Nvidia just retuned their maxwell to make sure they can perform at that speed.
> 
> Memory compression, better boost etc. it is still a maxwell at the heart of the design


Still irrelevant. Performance is performance. The 1080 could be a return to Kepler for all a consumer *SHOULD* care. Peformance is performance.


----------



## Benny89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> Still irrelevant. Performance is performance. The 1080 could be a return to Kepler for all a consumer *SHOULD* care. Peformance is performance.


Not true. You could say that for Intel CPUs also. Each generation 5-10% gain, but performance is performance. At least intel does not rise prices and each generation new i7 k costs same as previous one.

Of course each generation will be faster- performance, as you have said. But I don't think that justify higher prices. GPUs should have more less simillar price points every generation, simillar as Intel has for CPUs.

Going by your standards- 4 generation from now new 80 card will costs price of nowaday TITAN Pascal X, cause performance is performance.

Any company (TV, radio, speakers, CPUs, cars etc.) can go simillar explanation and rise they prices every year couse of small performance gains. Wonder how much some things would cost today. You know that brand new Fridge costs today as much as brand new fridge 8-10 years ago. Even though performance is performance?

Same with TVs.


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> It was 25% tbh.
> 
> And most of the 40% gain from tsmc 16 ff+. Nvidia just retuned their maxwell to make sure they can perform at that speed.
> 
> Memory compression, better boost etc. it is still a maxwell at the heart of the design


You're focusing to much on the numbers so I will be blunt.

People complain about when little-to-no progress is being made.

On the other hand, people complain when their last gen item becomes "irrelevant" according to them, when a new product comes out that is much faster.

It seems no matter which side things are on, people are always unhappy and find something to ***** about.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benny89*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> Still irrelevant. Performance is performance. The 1080 could be a return to Kepler for all a consumer *SHOULD* care. Peformance is performance.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. You could say that for Intel CPUs also. Each generation 5-10% gain, but performance is performance. At least intel does not rise prices and each generation new i7 k costs same as previous one.
> 
> Of course each generation will be faster- performance, as you have said. But I don't think that justify higher prices. GPUs should have more less simillar price points every generation, simillar as Intel has for CPUs.
> 
> Going by your standards- 4 generation from now new 80 card will costs price of nowaday TITAN Pascal X, cause performance is performance.
> 
> Any company (TV, radio, speakers, CPUs, cars etc.) can go simillar explanation and rise they prices every year couse of small performance gains. Wonder how much some things would cost today. You know that brand new Fridge costs today as much as brand new fridge 8-10 years ago. Even though performance is performance?
> 
> Same with TVs.
Click to expand...

You missed the entire point, i'm afraid.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

So I am waiting here for Nvidia flagship for $500. Anything more is overpriced. People should be OK with $600, 650, 700, 750+ cards. Vote with wallet and the nightmare of high prices will end. As long as you feed them they will keep increasing prices. Stop being GPU addicts. Get some help.


----------



## meson1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> So I am waiting here for Nvidia flagship for $500. Anything more is overpriced. People should be OK with $600, 650, 700, 750+ cards. Vote with wallet and the nightmare of high prices will end. As long as you feed them they will keep increasing prices. Stop being GPU addicts. Get some help.


I'm afraid you are going to be waiting for a $500 flagship Nvidia GPU for the rest of your life. The days of such prices are long gone. You'd need the entire PC builders' world to stand as one and for no-one to buy anything over $500. It's just not gonna happen. The will isn't there. Look at how people bought the Titan XP in their droves even though it was widely recognized as to be _ridiculously_ stupidly priced.

I admire your stance. But I fear that it is beyond futile.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meson1*
> 
> I'm afraid you are going to be waiting for a $500 flagship Nvidia GPU for the rest of your life. The days of such prices are long gone. You'd need the entire PC builders' world to stand as one and for no-one to buy anything over $500. It's just not gonna happen. The will isn't there. Look at how people bought the Titan XP in their droves even though it was widely recognized as to be _ridiculously_ stupidly priced.
> 
> I admire your stance. But I fear that it is beyond futile.


Not many people buy anything over $500. The % is very small. The change is possible. Problem is people value money differently.


----------



## meson1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Problem is people value money differently.


Exactly. Agreed.


----------



## JackCY

For some people money is not a concern in the slightest and hence will buy anything at any price. If NV released a double sized Titan X2 with 4 times the price it would sell, low amount sure, but then so do expensive cars sell in low amounts yet they do sell and have waiting lists.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> For some people money is not a concern in the slightest and hence will buy anything at any price. If NV released a double sized Titan X2 with 4 times the price it would sell, low amount sure, but then so do expensive cars sell in low amounts yet they do sell and have waiting lists.


Titan Z did not sell. A Titan that is 2x faster than Titan XP but 4 times the price will sell.


----------



## Gorillionaire

I think pc gamers as a whole have been targeted companies now know how much people love their machines..i mean 120 dollar mice ,200 dollar keyboards our demographic has been marked as a cash cow. so now on to my point i've been reading and digging a bit and caught a rumor of pascal refresh and the pricing of the 2080 refresh is quite nice which makes me thing this is the area in which vega will land. all this assumes the rumor has merit which it might not but yeah thats my opinion and nvidia ti titan thing shouldn't be a surprise unless your new

http://videocardz.com/63764/editorial-nvidia-geforce-20-series


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> I love how people complain technology isn't moving fast enough, but when Nvidia releases something new for a similar price that slaps the last "top of the line" by 40%, everyone goes bonkers and complains about it.
> 
> If they gave us 5-10% every generation everybody would cry that we weren't seeing gains.


Back then release schedules, prices, and products were predictable and no-nonsense.

Fully unlocked high end flagship for $499. Cut down flagship for $329. Midrange for $229. Boom, that's it. No BS.

These days every product tier is a blatant rip off, prices have doubled tripled and almost quadrupled, and they have a dozen products in their pocket just waiting to milk customers with.

It's disgusting on every level and to pretend that they've always behaved this way is a lie.


----------



## Dragonsyph

A gtx 980 to a gtx 1080 is 80-100% faster in games. Where are you guys getting these 40% or 25% gains?


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gorillionaire*
> 
> I think pc gamers as a whole have been targeted companies now know how much people love their machines..i mean 120 dollar mice ,200 dollar keyboards our demographic has been marked as a cash cow. so now on to my point i've been reading and digging a bit and caught a rumor of pascal refresh and the pricing of the 2080 refresh is quite nice which makes me thing this is the area in which vega will land. all this assumes the rumor has merit which it might not but yeah thats my opinion and nvidia ti titan thing shouldn't be a surprise unless your new
> 
> http://videocardz.com/63764/editorial-nvidia-geforce-20-series


Same chips being clock at actual OC levels without an increase in price is not going to happen.


----------



## DIYDeath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Back then release schedules, prices, and products were predictable and no-nonsense.
> 
> Fully unlocked high end flagship for $499. Cut down flagship for $329. Midrange for $229. Boom, that's it. No BS.
> 
> These days every product tier is a blatant rip off, prices have doubled tripled and almost quadrupled, and they have a dozen products in their pocket just waiting to milk customers with.
> 
> It's disgusting on every level and to pretend that they've always behaved this way is a lie.


This is what happens when there's a monopoly. AMD isn't competing with Nvidia, they release hardware that's outdated consistently so in reality, Nvidia can set their pricing to whatever they want until amd starts competing with their top end on release.

We need a competitior for Nvidia to fix the market at this point. Too bad the cost of entry to this industry is far too high for competition to come along.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> A gtx 980 to a gtx 1080 is 80-100% faster in games. Where are you guys getting these 40% or 25% gains?


Eh more like 50-70% faster. Went from a pair of 980's to a pair of 1080's. Compared single and SLI performance and I never gained twice the frame rate. Not even close. To be fair I did go from a pair of SC to a pair of Founder's Edition.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/10341249/fs/8618001

Around 50% gains in 1080p.
Around 63% gains in 4K.
Around 70% in TimeSpy.

The higher up you go in resolution and the bigger the gap becomes. Probably because of the bandwidth of the 1080. It also has much better DX12 support and twice the RAM so I'm very happy with my 1080's.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Yup. It used to be, "I can't wait to spend $500 on nvidia's next gen stuff. It's a little pricey but i know I'll have the best they have to offer for a whole year."
> 
> Now it's, "If I buy anything I'm getting ripped off and it won't last long before it gets replaced by something else in a few months".


No new release can change the performance of what I have.

Also, product cycles are generally longer now than in the past, and it's essentially never been possible, or economical, to stay at the top of things for long.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> So I am waiting here for Nvidia flagship for $500. Anything more is overpriced. People should be OK with $600, 650, 700, 750+ cards. Vote with wallet and the nightmare of high prices will end. As long as you feed them they will keep increasing prices. Stop being GPU addicts. Get some help.


I always vote with my wallet. It's why I haven't spent more than 10 dollars on a Windows license in a decade and haven't given Valve, EA, Blizzard, or Ubisoft one red cent in almost as long. It's also why I didn't buy a GTX 980 or 980ti (though the latter was tempting), any of the Radeon 300 series parts, or a Fiji.

I don't particularly care if I have to spend $750 to get what I want, but if I spend $750 dollars on a GPU this year, it will probably be the only new GPU I purchase for the next two years, barring some killer app that shows up in the meantime that justifies another purchase (which is highly unlikely, and even more unlikely to be a game).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Back then release schedules, prices, and products were predictable and no-nonsense.
> 
> Fully unlocked high end flagship for $499. Cut down flagship for $329. Midrange for $229. Boom, that's it. No BS.
> 
> These days every product tier is a blatant rip off, prices have doubled tripled and almost quadrupled, and they have a dozen products in their pocket just waiting to milk customers with.
> 
> It's disgusting on every level and to pretend that they've always behaved this way is a lie.


I have to go back to the GTX 6800 Ultra days to find a line up that looks like that and it lasted for one generation.

Prior to that, we had cards that we modestly underclocked from flagship levels and given less VRAM to differentiate them, which often made the flagships even more of a rip off relative to lower-tier parts than they are today.

After the 6800 series, we had flagship parts well in excess of 500 dollars. The 7800 GTX was 600 dollars on launch and the the 7800 GTX 512 was almost 700. The 8800GTX was 650 and the 8800 Ultra was 800. Then G92 offered a bit of a respite, but once the 65nm lineup was fleshed out, it was a total mess...a trend that has generally continued.

Even if you throw ATI/AMD parts into the mix, we get maybe three generations out of dozens that ever looked like what you mention.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> Eh more like 50-70% faster. Went from a pair of 980's to a pair of 1080's. Compared single and SLI performance and I never gained twice the frame rate. Not even close. To be fair I did go from a pair of SC to a pair of Founder's Edition.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/10341249/fs/8618001
> 
> Around 50% gains in 1080p.
> Around 63% gains in 4K.
> Around 70% in TimeSpy.
> 
> The higher up you go in resolution and the bigger the gap becomes. Probably because of the bandwidth of the 1080. It also has much better DX12 support and twice the RAM so I'm very happy with my 1080's.


Those stats are still pretty good, alot of videos iv seen on youtube are 80-100% gains stock vs stock. Not sure on like a 980 1400mhz vs like a 1080 2100mhz though. Guess it really depends on the game.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Back then release schedules, prices, and products were predictable and no-nonsense.
> 
> Fully unlocked high end flagship for $499. Cut down flagship for $329. Midrange for $229. Boom, that's it. No BS.


Those were days.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Those were days.


Those days where fake. Very fake because they never existed. People seem to forget history of GPUs. Lets start with GTX280. MSRP of $650. Forced to drop to $500 because HD 4870 was friken $300. Move to GTX480. It was not a full Chip, It was cut down. It was also very hot running and 6 months late to the party, hence $500 price tag. GTX580 was a full chip but was basically the same card. Kind of like Titan OG to Titan Black. You paid $500 because anything more would be stupid. After that we all know the story. Nvidia was not late, did not run hot and could charger $650-700 for their high end part.


----------



## whitrzac

The only time nvidia cards have been cheap is when ati/amd could actually compete with them....

That 8800gtx was also the best you could possibly buy when it came out, all for $600ish. It was top dog for 2? years before anything faster came out.

Now, the next faster card is 6 months away and $1200.

Intel cpu's have been in similar price ranges for a while, they just removed the OC capabilities of the lower end ones. They haven't gone up nearly as much as GPUs.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *whitrzac*
> 
> The only time nvidia cards have been cheap is when ati/amd could actually compete with them....
> 
> T*hat 8800gtx was also the best you could possibly buy when it came out, all for $600ish.* It was top dog for 2? years before anything faster came out.
> 
> Now, the next faster card is 6 months away and $1200.
> 
> Intel cpu's have been in similar price ranges for a while, they just removed the OC capabilities of the lower end ones. They haven't gone up nearly as much as GPUs.


And? $600 in 2006 would be worth $712.80 in 2016.

CPI Index:
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/community/teaching-aids/cpi-calculator-information/consumer-price-index-and-inflation-rates-1913

GTX 1080 is actually cheaper than 8800 GTX. You also forgot that Nvidia released 8800 Ultra for $1000 soon after which is $1188 in today's dollars


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> And? $600 in 2006 would be worth $712.80 in 2016.
> 
> CPI Index:
> https://www.minneapolisfed.org/community/teaching-aids/cpi-calculator-information/consumer-price-index-and-inflation-rates-1913
> 
> GTX 1080 is actually cheaper than 8800 GTX. You also forgot that Nvidia released 8800 Ultra for $1000 soon after which is $1188 in today's dollars


8800 Ultra was $830.

8800 Ultra came after which is irrelevant. Nobody would cares if Titan cames after Ti card.


----------



## Shogon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mouacyk*
> 
> The reason both companies are price hiking... OCN is giving birth to new enthusiasts everyday. True.


Some of that indeed. I bet most tech companies love this site, and what it does to their quarterly earnings. Plus for a forum of "knowledge" we don't seem that different than those with limited knowledge. We complain all the same when things don't stay they way we like it.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shogon*
> 
> Some of that indeed. I bet most tech companies love this site, and what it does to their quarterly earnings. Plus for a forum of "knowledge" we don't seem that different than those with limited knowledge. We complain all the same when things don't stay they way we like it.


We mostly care about the GPU and not their price. People mostly complain for price.


----------



## guttheslayer

I got my pair of Palit 1070 Dual for US$330 each through a rare promotion in my stores. So I just use them till Nvidia came out with a full blown GP102 Geforce card (Not Titan), or anything just as good.

I will forgo TXP this time round since its cost US$1400 (with tax) if I order them from US.


----------



## tajoh111

Although Nvidia cards are overpriced, it is mostly the founders edition and titan XP edition that are overpriced. Everything else is in line with what you expect pricing to be at for Nvidia to be a moderately profitable company.

If Nvidia was pricing their cards at 500 dollars for flagships and everything else was priced relatively to that, Nvidia would be taking a massive loss every quarter.

Nvidia is supply limited because of the amount of wafers they can get is limited because of competition from Apple and qualcomm. This means volume is going to stay the same.

What in this turn means is, Nvidia would be slashing its revenue by nearly half.

e.g 500 dollar titan xp
300 dollar gtx 1080
225 dollar gtx 1070
150 dollar gtx 1060

And what also would happen is because price is so low along with supply, these cards would be scalped and the retailers would take that extra revenue instead of Nvidia.

Cut Nvidia's revenue in half and all of a sudden you have 400 million dollar quarterly loses. The economics is simple. Nvidia revenue is 1.428million now. Their cost of goods sold is 602 million and their expenses is 509 million. 714million revenue vs 1111 million in expenses... and your pricing fantasies are dumb. Particularly when Nvidia is the market leader and is a business out to make money.

Add in the shrinking desktop computer sales and it's obvious margins have to get larger to make up for lower volume, and increasing expenses.

The most Nvidia could drop their prices is by a percentage which would result in 200 million less revenue which is equal to their net profit minus their intel revenue.

200 million off of 1.4 billion is just a 14.2% drop in price.

Intel has not increased their prices much but their chips are ridiculously small now.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9505/skylake-cpu-package-analysis

a 45nm lynnfield processor used to be 296mm2.
a 32nm Sandybridge processor is 216nm.
A 22nm haswell is 177mm2
And a 14nm skylake is only 122mm2.

While Intel hasn't increase their prices, by reducing the die size, they keep their margins healthy.

If people preferred the Intel strategy, the 500 dollar flagship from Nvidia would be a gtx 1060 at 500 dollars.

122/296 = 0.412

0.412*(471mm = titan xp die area or 529 or gtx 580, 520mm2) = 194-214mm2 which is about the die size of a gtx 1060.

Anyone suggesting big monolithic dies should be priced at 500 should never run a tech company as they will simply run it into the ground.


----------



## artemis2307

yeah, Nvidia's margin is nowhere near Intel's, but bcz Intel's the only choice we have, we can't complain


----------



## supergamer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> And? $600 in 2006 would be worth $712.80 in 2016.
> 
> CPI Index:
> https://www.minneapolisfed.org/community/teaching-aids/cpi-calculator-information/consumer-price-index-and-inflation-rates-1913
> 
> *GTX 1080 is actually cheaper than 8800 GTX*. You also forgot that Nvidia released 8800 Ultra for $1000 soon after which is $1188 in today's dollars


If you want to compare that far back.. $600+ gtx1080 is actually successor to $200 8600gts.
Nvidia has upped their costs over 3 times this past decade.


----------



## mohit9206

Pascal Titan($1200) is actually 1080 should be $499 since GTX680 was also $499
1080Ti ($900)is actually 1070 should be $399
1080($650) is actually 1060Ti should be $249
1070($400) is actually 1060 should be $199
1060 6GB($250) is actually 1050Ti should be $149
1060 3GB($200) is actually 1050 should be $119
1050Ti($170) is actually 1040 should be $99
1050($130) is actually 1030 should be $69
We all getting ripped off and you guys are eating it up like they're being given away for free.You're all paying double of what you used to pay just a few years ago.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> Pascal Titan($1200) is actually 1080 should be $499 since GTX680 was also $499
> 1080Ti ($900)is actually 1070 should be $399
> 1080($650) is actually 1060Ti should be $249
> 1070($400) is actually 1060 should be $199
> 1060 6GB($250) is actually 1050Ti should be $149
> 1060 3GB($200) is actually 1050 should be $119
> 1050Ti($170) is actually 1040 should be $99
> 1050($130) is actually 1030 should be $69
> We all getting ripped off and you guys are eating it up like they're being given away for free.You're all paying double of what you used to pay just a few years ago.


so you're telling us that you're not eating up the inflated prices every time you buy anything but you're judging us for doing it while you've got no business to ?
also, did you not notice that 1080 competes with no card in that performance spot ? 1.5x faster than Fury X, twice the vram capacity, superior power efficiency.... catch my drift ?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Those days where fake. Very fake because they never existed. People seem to forget history of GPUs. Lets start with GTX280. MSRP of $650. Forced to drop to $500 because HD 4870 was friken $300. Move to GTX480. It was not a full Chip, It was cut down. It was also very hot running and 6 months late to the party, hence $500 price tag. GTX580 was a full chip but was basically the same card. Kind of like Titan OG to Titan Black. You paid $500 because anything more would be stupid. After that we all know the story. Nvidia was not late, did not run hot and could charger $650-700 for their high end part.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 8800 Ultra was $830.
> 
> 8800 Ultra came after which is irrelevant. Nobody would cares if Titan cames after Ti card.


QFT


----------



## mohit9206

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> so you're telling us that you're not eating up the inflated prices every time you buy anything but you're judging us for doing it while you've got no business to ?
> also, did you not notice that 1080 competes with no card in that performance spot ? 1.5x faster than Fury X, twice the vram capacity, superior power efficiency.... catch my drift ?


Alright so lets do it your way.1080 is 1.8X faster than RX480 8GB($250) so 1080 should cost $450.Still paying $200 premium.


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> Pascal Titan($1200) is actually 1080 should be $499 since GTX680 was also $499
> 1080Ti ($900)is actually 1070 should be $399
> 1080($650) is actually 1060Ti should be $249
> 1070($400) is actually 1060 should be $199
> 1060 6GB($250) is actually 1050Ti should be $149
> 1060 3GB($200) is actually 1050 should be $119
> 1050Ti($170) is actually 1040 should be $99
> 1050($130) is actually 1030 should be $69
> We all getting ripped off and you guys are eating it up like they're being given away for free.You're all paying double of what you used to pay just a few years ago.


Nvidia is making record profits while selling less cards than they used to so your point is valid there.

But your chart assumes that the way that things used to be done should still be applying to today and that's not the case.

Everyone keeps talking about how Nvidia plays dirty etc. Can they not see that if Nvidia were to continue releasing cards with the prices in your chart, AMD would be done for???

A GTX 1080 as a 1060 for $249? What happens to the RX 480? Or a Fury X? They simply would not be able to compete.

The reality of today is that we pay prices for the performance of the chip not the size. I don't like it. Nobody should. But if it's that big of a deal, don't buy one.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> He's completely right, a water loop retains some of the heat of a CPU in its water fill, it doesn't just suddenly get dumped in the room when the PC is turned off.


Yes, but so do the massive heatsinks that would otherwise be attached.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Parts are more efficient under lower temps so yes Water cooled system use less power/ less heat.


It's not a massive reduction in power consumption. Notable, like potentially ~10% for example, but not massive.

PC's don't actually put out that much heat unless you have a pretty beefy setup, in which case any cooling system will output roughly similar amounts of heat. This almost always comes down to the placebo effect


----------



## mohit9206

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> so you're telling us that you're not eating up the inflated prices every time you buy anything but you're judging us for doing it while you've got no business to ?
> also, did you not notice that 1080 competes with no card in that performance spot ? 1.5x faster than Fury X, twice the vram capacity, superior power efficiency.... catch my drift ?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> Nvidia is making record profits while selling less cards than they used to so your point is valid there.
> 
> But your chart assumes that the way that things used to be done should still be applying to today and that's not the case.
> 
> Everyone keeps talking about how Nvidia plays dirty etc. Can they not see that if Nvidia were to continue releasing cards with the prices in your chart, AMD would be done for???
> 
> A GTX 1080 as a 1060 for $249? What happens to the RX 480? Or a Fury X? They simply would not be able to compete.
> 
> The reality of today is that we pay prices for the performance of the chip not the size. I don't like it. Nobody should. But if it's that big of a deal, don't buy one.


Yeah i agree if Nvidia were to price like that they would kill off AMD and not make any profit so a little revision is in order
Titan XP - $999(let the suckers buy it)
1080Ti - $599
1080 - $399
1070 -$299
1060 - $199 RX480 -$199
1060 3GB-$149 RX470-$149
1050Ti-$119
1050-$99 RX460-$99
This way both can be competitive and we won't be getting ripped off.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> lol how is this my way, please explain.
> 
> I'm saying that with a card that stomps Fury X in all aspects they can charge whatever they friggin like.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> Alright so lets do it your way.1080 is 1.8X faster than RX480 8GB($250) so 1080 should cost $450.Still paying $200 premium.


lol how is this "my way", please explain.

I'm saying that with a card that stomps Fury X in all aspects they can charge whatever they friggin like.


----------



## stryker7314

This price gouging is the reason I'm now staying one year behind on tech and buying it at normal prices. Not because I don't have the money, but because they are ripping us off and it's insulting. I calculated that I will pay 50-70% off the release price for just about everything a year later. Over the course of a life time that's yuuuge!


----------



## mohit9206

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> lol how is this "my way", please explain.
> 
> I'm saying that with a card that stomps Fury X in all aspects they can charge whatever they friggin like.


Ofcourse they can charge whatever they want which is their current strategy, I'm just pointing out what the fair price should be. If you want to pay $1200 for a cut down chip go ahead. Next year it will be $1500.


----------



## Klocek001

Dude what you're not understand is that they're not putting 1080 against 480, they're putting it against AMD current high end, which is Fury X.


----------



## EightDee8D

And that gpu is selling for 300-400$ nowadays. still, it's irrelevant. 1080 replaced 980 which was 550$ gpu, so obviously it's not going to cost below 550$ unless there's a better alternative. ( i hope it never comes







)


----------



## i7monkey

As a *consumer*, why should we care about Nvidia's financials?

You guys go to every length to justify why we should pay more but never for why we should pay less.

"Nvidia should charge us more so AMD doesn't go bankrupt".

This line of reasoning means we're already screwed.


----------



## i7monkey

And what's next? We should all donate 10% of our salaries to AMD to help them stave off Nvidia so we can get cheaper GPUs?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> And what's next? We should all donate 10% of our salaries to AMD to help them stave off Nvidia so we can get cheaper GPUs?


My solution the higher priced GPU is buy less frequently.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> As a *consumer*, why should we care about Nvidia's financials?
> 
> You guys go to every length to justify why we should pay more but never for why we should pay less.
> 
> "Nvidia should charge us more so AMD doesn't go bankrupt".
> 
> This line of reasoning means we're already screwed.


And isn't it the same for you? Arguing on and on about why nVidia shouldn't charge crap for their product because its unfair and that's not how they used to do things.


----------



## i7monkey

Don't get me wrong.

Nobody is entitled to anything, Nvidia and AMD are in this business to make money, and nobody is forced to buy anything, but consumers also have a right to complain about prices.

And consumers should also defend their own interests because no one else is going to do it certaintly not Nvidia or AMD.


----------



## CBZ323

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lifeisshort117*
> 
> As a new owner of a 1080, I can say I expected something like this to happen.
> 
> Though I'm sure it'll be some time before the best AIB Ti's will come out vs the initial launch date.
> 
> Either way, having a 1080 now - I'll have a chance to sell the 1080 with a higher resale value than any other card out there. So yeah, it's a small loss on those with a Pascal card, but it'll be worth it.


right right


----------



## Nightingale

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Don't get me wrong.
> 
> Nobody is entitled to anything, Nvidia and AMD are in this business to make money, and nobody is forced to buy anything, but consumers also have a right to complain about prices.
> 
> And consumers should also defend their own interests because no one else is going to do it certaintly not Nvidia or AMD.


Those of us who were paying close attention called this situation out almost 3-4 years ago. Nice to see that a larger growing body of people are finally coming the harsh realization that prices are out of control. I mean it's one thing to acknowledge this and pay up anyways, it's another to conjure up weak excuses and lies in order to try and trick justify the price hikes thereby lessening the financial blow.

I got a friend that was born into money and he buys titan's like you and I buy usb thumb sticks. He knows Nvidia is ripping him off but what does he care when it's only a minor financial burden to him.


----------



## dVeLoPe

if i have a 1080 (does 2100+ in games) what would it be worth once this comes out? how about what its worth now?


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dVeLoPe*
> 
> if i have a 1080 (does 2100+ in games) what would it be worth once this comes out? how about what its worth now?


It's always going to be worth less of its new or newly reduced price.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dVeLoPe*
> 
> if i have a 1080 (does 2100+ in games) what would it be worth once this comes out? how about what its worth now?


If 1080 Ti comes out $700 than 1080 will drop to like $500-550 so your might sell yours for 450-500.


----------



## sdrawkcab

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> If 1080 Ti comes out $700 than 1080 will drop to like $500-550 so your might sell yours for 450-500.


Already seeing lucky buyers score 1080 off ebay for under $500, problem is those last few minutes where a $460 auction turns into $525


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> If 1080 Ti comes out $700 than 1080 will drop to like $500-550 so your might sell yours for 450-500.


I can't really see them releasing a 1080 ti for that cheap, not with the Titan X being 1200$. I think 800-900 is probably what they're going to shoot for. Unless they cut the Titan X to 999 and release the ti for like 750.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> I can't really see them releasing a 1080 ti for that cheap, not with the Titan X being 1200$. I think 800-900 is probably what they're going to shoot for. *Unless they cut the Titan X to 999 and release the ti for like 750.*


We can only hope.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> I can't really see them releasing a 1080 ti for that cheap, not with the Titan X being 1200$. I think 800-900 is probably what they're going to shoot for. Unless they cut the Titan X to 999 and release the ti for like 750.


They cant go higher than $700. Maybe they might do $699 MSRP and $799 FE but thats the worse they can do. People are not going to spend that much.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> They cant go higher than $700. Maybe they might do $699 MSRP and $799 FE but thats the worse they can do. People are not going to spend that much.


Say what? Lol


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> They cant go higher than $700. Maybe they might do $699 MSRP and $799 FE but thats the worse they can do. People are not going to spend that much.


Yeah right. People bought the $650 780 in droves and we hadn't had cards anywhere near that price for a couple of years, save for the Titan that was launched just before it.


----------



## RobotDevil666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> They cant go higher than $700. Maybe they might do $699 MSRP and $799 FE but thats the worse they can do. People are not going to spend that much.


Hahaahah really ? I can't believe you just said that, have you been in Titan X/(Pascal) Owners Thread ?
1080Ti will be at least $800 Nvidia has zero reason to make it cheaper, for one it would cannibalize Titan XP sales 2 it would kill 1080 sales so no definitely not going to be $700
I'd say 800/900 and people will buy it in droves, just like they did with 980Ti


----------



## guttheslayer

Gtx 1080 ti wont exist if nvidia is planning to do pascal refresh...

That gtx 1180 is what 1080 ti suppose to be...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobotDevil666*
> 
> Hahaahah really ? I can't believe you just said that, have you been in Titan X/(Pascal) Owners Thread ?
> 1080Ti will be at least $800 Nvidia has zero reason to make it cheaper, for one it would cannibalize Titan XP sales 2 it would kill 1080 sales so no definitely not going to be $700
> I'd say 800/900 and people will buy it in droves, just like they did with 980Ti


Are you sure about that. You are just looking at OCN. Titan X owners are very very loud. Titan X buyer does not really have a limit. 80 Ti has. 780 Ti was the most expnsive card.


----------



## djsi38t

Prices are high but an extremely satisfying gaming experience can be had with a $200.00 gpu today.

I think things are better than they have ever been for the average gamer.


----------



## RobotDevil666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Are you sure about that. You are just looking at OCN. Titan X owners are very very loud. Titan X buyer does not really have a limit. 80 Ti has. 780 Ti was the most expnsive card.


Sure but many (if not most) Titan XP owners are people who aren't patient enough to wait for 1080Ti and there's much more people that are waiting for this card and they will happily pay to get nearly Titan XP performance for 300/400 less, just like it was with 980Ti


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *supergamer*
> 
> If you want to compare that far back.. $600+ gtx1080 is actually successor to $200 8600gts.


Not even close.

The 8600GTS was never the fastest card available, not even for a split second, nor was it ever in remotely the same segment. Hell, it wasn't even the fastest card in it's decidedly mainstream segment.

The idea that the GTX 1080 being a GP104, and thus not a big die part, controls what segment it's in more than it's performance relative to contemporaneous parts is an idiotic farce.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> You guys go to every length to justify why we should pay more but never for why we should pay less.


I always pay as little as practical.


----------



## BoredErica

So uh, how credible is the Jan 1080ti unveil rumor?


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkwizzie*
> 
> So uh, how credible is the Jan 1080ti unveil rumor?


0% in my opinion

I think we'll either see 1080Ti as 2080 or 2080Ti with no 1080Ti in between 980Ti and 2080Ti.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> 0% in my opinion
> 
> I think we'll either see 1080Ti as 2080 or 2080Ti with no 1080Ti in between 980Ti and 2080Ti.


My gut says they'll follow their usual routine and release something in May/June of 2017.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> My gut says they'll follow their usual routine and release something in May/June of 2017.


What you think there won't be a Pascal 1080 Ti? Based on what?

They will release a 1080 Ti. It may be called 2080 Ti but what I know for sure is that it ain't coming as late as May/June. It will be released by March.


----------



## meson1

Well, this is all a bit up in the air.

Previously, we would have expected Nvidia to release the 1080Ti in late Q4 2016 or early 2017. The smart money was on them announcing it at CES in January, but more likely is that Nvidia would time the 1080Ti to coincide with the release of Vega in order to overshadow it and spoil AMD's party. This would have sat nicely with the suggestion that Volta may be brought forward onto 16/14nm FinFET for release in H2 2017.

HOWEVER ...

The latest rumour now is that Nvidia may well be planning a Pascal refresh, revising their Pascal lineup and tweaking model specifications. The rumour suggests that this refresh may even involve moving the entire model range to a whole new series number and that a 20xx series would be better marketing-wise than 11xx. If this is the case, it would let Nvidia push back Volta to H1 2018 again. A release of Pascal refresh in H1 2017 would leave little or no room for the 1080 Ti.

It is suggested that GP102 would be re-released with the full fat chip (3840 CC) being a Titan X Black (or something) and a cut down version of GP102 becoming the 2080 Ti.

But at this point it becomes difficult to pinpoint exactly when all this might kick off.

All this is highly speculative, so generous pinches of salt are advised. I hope I got all that right.

For more info, look at > http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-20-pascal-refresh-gpu-speculation/


----------



## BoredErica

If it's announced in Jan then I don't think there will be good supply until like March.







I dunno what I want to do yet. I'm flirting with the idea of a custom loop and I would like some more GPU power... I also would like some more Vram because I'm trying to go crazy with Skyrim and I want to test some Skyrim stuff. It feels weird to have a custom loop with quality parts but not be buying the latest and greatest (barring Titan of course because it's crazy and getting crazier).

Maybe by the time I'm done with my current Skyrim project and planning my next build the 1080ti will be out... (Or closer to being out)


----------



## meson1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkwizzie*
> 
> If it's announced in Jan then I don't think there will be good supply until like March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno what I want to do yet. I'm flirting with the idea of a custom loop and I would like some more GPU power... I also would like some more Vram because I'm trying to go crazy with Skyrim and I want to test some Skyrim stuff. It feels weird to have a custom loop with quality parts but not be buying the latest and greatest (barring Titan of course because it's crazy and getting crazier).
> 
> Maybe by the time I'm done with my current Skyrim project and planning my next build the 1080ti will be out... (Or closer to being out)


If you're doing a custom loop, then you also have to think about waterblocks. Also, I imagine you might not be thinking about the Founders' Edition version if you plan to OC, so you might be waiting for an AIB partner's custom PCB version with extra power phases and stuff _and then_ the WB for _that_.

I'm building soon too, and I'm think I might actually be better off not waiting and going for a Titan XP and Heatkiller IV WB simply because they are available right now.


----------



## BoredErica

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meson1*
> 
> If you're doing a custom loop, then you also have to think about waterblocks. Also, I imagine you might not be thinking about the Founders' Edition version if you plan to OC, so you might be waiting for an AIB partner's custom PCB version with extra power phases and stuff and then the WB for that.
> 
> I'm building soon too, and I'm think I might actually be better off not waiting and going for a Titan XP and Heatkiller IV WB simply because they are available right now.


Let's hibernate for a few years and walk out of our stasis pods (lol) to free OLED for all and GTX 9001ti!


----------



## NikolayNeykov

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkwizzie*
> 
> Let's hibernate for a few years and walk out of our stasis pods (lol) to free OLED for all and GTX 9001ti!


You mean 9080ti... and yes it will be the 1xxx era last model gpu and it will be really powerful. It should be 8k ready.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NikolayNeykov*
> 
> You mean 9080ti... and yes it will be the 1xxx era last model gpu and it will be really powerful. It should be 8k ready.


TBH that is what I am hoping for too... to fast forward to the future, because current progression in PC tech is just too disappointing, lack of innovation plus slow progression due to monopolization and incompetency from certain underdog company.

I hope by den wont have AMD, but new fresh company that take the lead against the old Giant like Intel / Nvidia


----------



## Asus11

this makes no sense... titan XP is 25-30% faster than a 1080...

so a 1080ti will be 20-25%...

worth the upgrade.. really?

I don't know but I know pricing will be stupid for the 20-25% over a 1080

will only make sense if they move the 1080 lower and replace the price with the 1080 ti

for example 1080 499 1080 ti 649


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> this makes no sense... titan XP is 25-30% faster than a 1080...
> 
> so a 1080ti will be 20-25%...
> 
> worth the upgrade.. really?
> 
> I don't know but I know pricing will be stupid for the 20-25% over a 1080
> 
> will only make sense if they move the 1080 lower and replace the price with the 1080 ti
> 
> for example 1080 499 1080 ti 649


It depend on how much clock speed the 1080 Ti is able to give if it run on more matured 16 FF+, that is what the rumored 2000 series are aiming for anyway...

Either way, I believe a rebrand of next gen Geforce than the release of 1080 Ti.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> this makes no sense... titan XP is 25-30% faster than a 1080...
> 
> so a 1080ti will be 20-25%...
> 
> worth the upgrade.. really?
> 
> I don't know but I know pricing will be stupid for the 20-25% over a 1080
> 
> will only make sense if they move the 1080 lower and replace the price with the 1080 ti
> 
> for example 1080 499 1080 ti 649


Titan XP is more in the 40-45% faster if you OC both cards. 35-40% is a huge upgrade if you play at 4K.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> its literally money down the drain, I could buy an overpriced iPhone and have a longer run with the best for a whole year and probably still would be worth more aswell
> 
> I'll just stick to the 980 ti until theres a £300 card with Titan X pascal performance.


Are u drunk?


----------



## Asus11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Titan XP is more in the 40-45% faster if you OC both cards. 35-40% is a huge upgrade if you play at 4K.


benchmark scores say otherwise


----------



## killerhz

lets get a 1080Ti Classified for like $500 for the poor ppl lilke me


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> benchmark scores say otherwise


Yes at stock Titan XP is 30% faster. Both OCed its 40% faster because it has more headroom.


----------



## Somasonic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> this makes no sense... titan XP is 25-30% faster than a 1080...
> 
> so a 1080ti will be 20-25%...
> 
> worth the upgrade.. really?
> 
> I don't know but I know pricing will be stupid for the 20-25% over a 1080
> 
> will only make sense if they move the 1080 lower and replace the price with the 1080 ti
> 
> for example 1080 499 1080 ti 649


There are plenty of people sitting on 980 Ti's who felt the 1080 wasn't a big enough upgrade and would leap at a 1080 Ti. I know I would.


----------



## Strat79

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Somasonic*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> this makes no sense... titan XP is 25-30% faster than a 1080...
> 
> so a 1080ti will be 20-25%...
> 
> worth the upgrade.. really?
> 
> I don't know but I know pricing will be stupid for the 20-25% over a 1080
> 
> will only make sense if they move the 1080 lower and replace the price with the 1080 ti
> 
> for example 1080 499 1080 ti 649
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of people sitting on 980 Ti's who felt the 1080 wasn't a big enough upgrade and would leap at a 1080 Ti. I know I would.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting on it too, but to get rid of my 780 Ti's for one single card. It will definitely be worth it for me, at the right price at least.


----------



## Benny89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Somasonic*
> 
> There are plenty of people sitting on 980 Ti's who felt the 1080 wasn't a big enough upgrade and would leap at a 1080 Ti. I know I would.


980Ti was/is awesome card. It beats every game vs my friend 1070 OCed and is only 16-18% slower than my cousine OCed 1080.

Honestly if my wife didn't need new card, I would just grab second 980Ti for SLI and wait for Volta, but I want to give her my gold chip 980Ti


----------



## caliking420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Somasonic*
> 
> There are plenty of people sitting on 980 Ti's who felt the 1080 wasn't a big enough upgrade and would leap at a 1080 Ti. I know I would.


Exactly this.


----------



## looniam

idk, if i am being honest with myself, my 980TI is gaming just dandy @1080.

but i don't like being stagnant benchmarking. however, until pascal gets to be bios modded, doesn't make sense for me to upgrade at all ATM unless i want to spend a chunk of change binning cards.


----------



## mouacyk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Somasonic*
> 
> There are plenty of people sitting on 980 Ti's who felt the 1080 wasn't a big enough upgrade and would leap at a 1080 Ti. I know I would.


Even though the ~%50+ performance from 980 TI to 1080 TI is enticing, it still is not quite enough to reach 4K nirvana, and so I'd rather sit it out until a true enthusiast-level DX12 GPU shows up (a la Vega or Volta). You'll get the >%50 performance increase and better DX12 features (especially ASync Compute).


----------



## Dragonsyph

Im sitting on 290 CF, and been waiting for a 1080 TI ever since the 1080 came out. RAWR>>> give me that power..


----------



## dVeLoPe

im on a single 1080 and have been considering buying a second one or selling both and getting titanXP

that was until i heard about this so my question is what will the price most likely be and when will it come?

i would want to wait for custom cards so it looks like i have another 6 months or so on my 1080


----------



## outofmyheadyo

4k is irrelevant since 60hz is unusable and 4k 120hz monitors are 2000-3000 and 2x titan xp is another 2500 aswell might aswell stop talkin about 4k.


----------



## artemis2307

and I'm sitting here with a GTX1080 on a 1080p 60hz monitor


----------



## NikolayNeykov

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artemis2307*
> 
> and I'm sitting here with a GTX1080 on a 1080p 60hz monitor


It is your own damn fault for buying it instead of 980ti. xD


----------



## artemis2307

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NikolayNeykov*
> 
> It is your own damn fault for buying it instead of 980ti. xD


I got a really good deal on it so....


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> 4k is irrelevant since 60hz is unusable and 4k 120hz monitors are 2000-3000 and 2x titan xp is another 2500 aswell might aswell stop talkin about 4k.


I wasn't aware anything was 4k 120 hz right now?


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> I wasn't aware anything was 4k 120 hz right now?


The chase for gaming at fastest fps at highest resolution will never end, the moment the true 4k 60 fps card drop, [email protected] display will be out and ppl will chase a single gpu capable of that again.

Dx12 games are going to get demanding and no way gpu can catch up the increasing requirement of resolution and game graphic at the same time. Even if they could it only matter of time our dear intel cpu will bottleneck it with their mediocre 5% gain each year.

The only hope that will happen is when CNT chip is out for both gpu and cpu den gaming at the best resolution, fps and most demanding title will materialised.


----------



## Ninjawithagun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> 4k is irrelevant since 60hz is unusable and 4k 120hz monitors are 2000-3000 and 2x titan xp is another 2500 aswell might aswell stop talkin about 4k.


Uh, no. There are no 4K 120Hz monitors available at all right now. The one and only 4K 120Hz monitor is the Dell UP3017Q and it has yet to be released for sale, let alone a detailed hands on review. MSRP for the Dell UP3017Q? $5000


----------



## Ninjawithagun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> The chase for gaming at fastest fps at highest resolution will never end, the moment the true 4k 60 fps card drop, [email protected] display will be out and ppl will chase a single gpu capable of that again.
> 
> Dx12 games are going to get demanding and no way gpu can catch up the increasing requirement of resolution and game graphic at the same time. Even if they could it only matter of time our dear intel cpu will bottleneck it with their mediocre 5% gain each year.
> 
> The only hope that will happen is when CNT chip is out for both gpu and cpu den gaming at the best resolution, fps and most demanding title will materialised.


incorrect assumptions on multiple counts:

1) DX12 removes the CPU bottleneck, thus CPU performance past a quad core variant is not the issue at that point and that's only because games are only optimized to take advantage of a limited amount of CPU resources, which in effect defeats the whole purpose of the DX12 API: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3039552/hardware/tested-how-many-cpu-cores-you-really-need-for-directx-12-gaming.html

2) Current GPUs actually have caught up to the demands of today's games. The Titan X Pascal is able to attain ~60Hz or higher with almost every game today @ 4K resolutions...turn off AA, which is useless anyway at that resolution and the frame rate jumps 40-60%. By the way, AA is turned on in all those reviews you have seen, which skews the results of expected performance as any smart PC game knows this and would turn AA immediately if playing games at 4K.

3) 4K 120Hz gaming will be way too expensive for at least the next full year. The Dell UP3017Q is the one and only 4K 120Hz capable monitor and it has yet to be released. MSRP for the Dell UP3017Q? $5000


----------



## Asus11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Yes at stock Titan XP is 30% faster. Both OCed its 40% faster because it has more headroom.


looking at the highest gtx 1080 scores on valley and heaven the Titan XP is 27% faster on valley and 31% faster on heaven


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> looking at the highest gtx 1080 scores on valley and heaven the Titan XP is 27% faster on valley and 31% faster on heaven


That is more likely due to CPU if you're looking at ExtremeHD preset on Valley, it's very CPU intensive once you get past ~125 FPS.


----------



## Benny89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> looking at the highest gtx 1080 scores on valley and heaven the Titan XP is 27% faster on valley and 31% faster on heaven


Valley, heaven, firestrike....

Benches are not games. Period.


----------



## Asus11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benny89*
> 
> Valley, heaven, firestrike....
> 
> Benches are not games. Period.


id say the difference is less in games

as these benchmark scores are at the limit


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> id say the difference is less in games
> 
> as these benchmark scores are at the limit


In games the difference might be more. Titan XP has 50% more memory bandwidth. If game is memory intensive than its will pull the 40%.


----------



## killerhz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Somasonic*
> 
> There are plenty of people sitting on 980 Ti's who felt the 1080 wasn't a big enough upgrade and would leap at a 1080 Ti. I know I would.


so true


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *killerhz*
> 
> so true


Cause GTX980 Ti owners need a upgrade lol. The card is only 1 year old and will play anything at 1440p.


----------



## killerhz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Cause GTX980 Ti owners need a upgrade lol. The card is only 1 year old and will play anything at 1440p.


sad part is my wallet cant afford anything other than 1080p right not. i got my 980Ti Classified back in Feb open box at local micro center for $455. love this card atm however dying for the 1080Ti to drop around tax season so can add to me epeen LOL!!!!


----------



## caliking420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *killerhz*
> 
> sad part is my wallet cant afford anything other than 1080p right not. i got my 980Ti Classified back in Feb open box at local micro center for $455. love this card atm however dying for the 1080Ti to drop around tax season so can add to me epeen LOL!!!!


Mate, upgrade that monitor. You're living in the stone age!


----------



## killerhz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *caliking420*
> 
> Mate, upgrade that monitor. You're living in the stone age!


totally want to but cost for newer monitors are to expensive. i do want a 1440p or dem sexy curved ones but need to pay rent LOL


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *killerhz*
> 
> totally want to but cost for newer monitors are to expensive. i do want a 1440p or dem sexy curved ones but need to pay rent LOL


1440p over 1080 Ti any day.


----------



## Iceman2733

So what are we expecting the pricing to be for the 1080ti? I about to buy 2ea 1080 but I am second thinking it now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ninjawithagun*
> 
> incorrect assumptions on multiple counts:
> 
> 1) DX12 removes the CPU bottleneck, thus CPU performance past a quad core variant is not the issue at that point and that's only because games are only optimized to take advantage of a limited amount of CPU resources, which in effect defeats the whole purpose of the DX12 API: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3039552/hardware/tested-how-many-cpu-cores-you-really-need-for-directx-12-gaming.html
> 
> 2) Current GPUs actually have caught up to the demands of today's games. The Titan X Pascal is able to attain ~60Hz or higher with almost every game today @ 4K resolutions...turn off AA, which is useless anyway at that resolution and the frame rate jumps 40-60%. By the way, AA is turned on in all those reviews you have seen, which skews the results of expected performance as any smart PC game knows this and would turn AA immediately if playing games at 4K.
> 
> 3) 4K 120Hz gaming will be way too expensive for at least the next full year. The Dell UP3017Q is the one and only 4K 120Hz capable monitor and it has yet to be released. MSRP for the Dell UP3017Q? $5000


You forgot about the 8K HDR 120Hz monitor...


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 1440p over 1080 Ti any day.


+1 and a 980ti will run 1440p wonderfully even a 144hz screen.


----------



## Somasonic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Cause GTX980 Ti owners need a upgrade lol. The card is only 1 year old and will play anything at 1440p.


Ultra settings + AA in AAA titles and an irrational hatred of FXAA beg to disagree. If my minimum FPS is less than 60 then I don't have enough grunt


----------



## Klocek001

True. 980Ti is fine for 1440p, but you'll not get to see the highest quality unless you're okay with 40-45 fps drops. 1080 takes it above 50 fps and close to 55, so 1080Ti should get a min of 60 fps alright with ultra preset. At least that's my experience with a few new AAA titles played @1440p/Ultra.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> True. 980Ti is fine for 1440p, but you'll not get to see the highest quality unless you're okay with 40-45 fps drops. 1080 takes it above 50 fps and close to 55, so 1080Ti should get a min of 60 fps alright with ultra preset. At least that's my experience with a few new AAA titles played @1440p/Ultra.


My 290X is more than enough for 1440p lol. GTX980 Ti/GTX 1070 will get 60 fps + in 95% of the games unless is some unoptimized game. Only for 4K you need 1080 Ti.


----------



## killerhz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> My 290X is more than enough for 1440p lol. GTX980 Ti/GTX 1070 will get 60 fps + in 95% of the games unless is some unoptimized game. Only for 4K you need 1080 Ti.


but you forgot about the e-peen mang....we all need more of it LOL!!!!!


----------



## Asus11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *killerhz*
> 
> but you forgot about the e-peen mang....we all need more of it LOL!!!!!


980 ti is great for 1440p 1080 is great for 3440 1440 1080 ti will be great for 3440 1440 and should be decent for 4k


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> 980 ti is great for 1440p 1080 is great for 3440 1440 1080 ti will be great for 3440 1440 and should be decent for 4k


1080 Ti should be great for 4K.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *killerhz*
> 
> but you forgot about the e-peen mang....we all need more of it LOL!!!!!


Or actually 100+ fps not the laggy 60.


----------



## NikolayNeykov

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> Or actually 100+ fps not the laggy 60.


I need to buy 4k @ 120hz+ monitor first then I will upgrade my gpu (probably with volta Ti)
Currently have 4k @ 60hz and it's decent with oced 980ti.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

60hz be it 4k 8k or 20k is a lagging choppy mess, was my point.


----------



## NikolayNeykov

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> 60hz be it 4k 8k or 20k is a lagging choppy mess, was my point.


Except if you come from 1080p @ 60 Hz, with crap GPU that cannot even run on medium settings games... I think it's quite good that way.


----------



## Klocek001

If you've never tried +100 fps/100hz adaptive sync (not to mention 120hz ulmb) then I think 4K 60Hz is amazing indeed. Still, it needs more horsepower than 100 fps @1440p. My oc'd GTX 1080 can't handle 4K/60 at all, not even close. I may drop settings to high, and still there are 40 fps drops.


----------



## Derek1

Not sure if this is relevant or news to anyone.

GTX1050Ti

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/msi-gtx-1050-ti-gtx-1050-twin-frozr,32884.html


----------



## TheBloodEagle

I really hope that the success of GDDR5X ends up bringing QDR (Quad Data Rate) system RAM DIMMs to the market. I think QDR would be a much bigger bump than frequency increases in most cases. GDDR5X is QDR (but kept the naming scheme for I suppose easier marketing). GDDR5X also seems to use less power than GDDR5. So I suppose the same could happen for the DIMM version, since one of the main benefits of DDR4 was lower power consumption while increasing density.


----------



## meson1

While QDDR is interesting as a next step, I rather suspect that RAM may well go in the HBM direction.

But, neither QDDR or HBM will be used for the prospective 1080 Ti (the subject of this thread), because the use of different RAM would necessitate a change to the memory controller onboard the GP102.

Remember the idea is to use GP102s that have been binned because they don't have enough SM's that test well enough for the Titan XP cards. The 1080 Ti would let them use up chips that still meet the slightly lower specification of the 1080 Ti. Fabbing a whole new variant of GP102 to have a different memory controller rather defeats that objective.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meson1*
> 
> While QDDR is interesting as a next step, I rather suspect that RAM may well go in the HBM direction.
> 
> But, neither QDDR or HBM will be used for the prospective 1080 Ti (the subject of this thread), because the use of different RAM would necessitate a change to the memory controller onboard the GP102.
> 
> Remember the idea is to use GP102s that have been binned because they don't have enough SM's that test well enough for the Titan XP cards. The 1080 Ti would let them use up chips that still meet the slightly lower specification of the 1080 Ti. Fabbing a whole new variant of GP102 to have a different memory controller rather defeats that objective.


To help me understand this better, are you saying it will and should be coming with GDDR5X instead of the speculated GDDR5?


----------



## meson1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> To help me understand this better, are you saying it will and should be coming with GDDR5X instead of the speculated GDDR5?


Not quite. Apparently GDDR5 is close enough to GDDR5X that it can be run by the same memory controller. So the 1080 Ti might get either GDDR5 or GDDR5X (nobody knows which yet). What I was saying above is that the memory won't be a completely different type like HBM2 or (in response to Mr Blood Eagle) QDDR.


----------



## HaiderGill

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meson1*
> 
> While QDDR is interesting as a next step, I rather suspect that RAM may well go in the HBM direction.
> 
> But, neither QDDR or HBM will be used for the prospective 1080 Ti (the subject of this thread), because the use of different RAM would necessitate a change to the memory controller onboard the GP102.
> 
> Remember the idea is to use GP102s that have been binned because they don't have enough SM's that test well enough for the Titan XP cards. The 1080 Ti would let them use up chips that still meet the slightly lower specification of the 1080 Ti. Fabbing a whole new variant of GP102 to have a different memory controller rather defeats that objective.


Or Intel may bring RDRAM back with Netburst 2.0


----------



## kariverson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Malinkadink*
> 
> Skimming a lot of the posts i see a lot of people convincing themselves that $750-900 for a high end, enthusiast even i guess GPU is suddenly reasonable. Not too long ago the best card you could buy for gaming was in the $500-600 range at release and there were no bogus shenanigans like a new gpu coming out in less than a year dethroning that other gpu already. Now we get a super cut down gpu in the $400-500 range (1070), and another cut down die in the price segment that was reserved for the king of the hill.
> 
> So what we have now is the Titan XP sitting as KOTH @ $1200, double what it used to cost to get the best card, and it's going to be acceptable if they introduce another tier around $900? *sigh* What is happening to pc gaming


So much this all day every day. I remember I payed 90euro for the 8600gt when it was a mid end gpu.and now we pay 3 times that.


----------



## BoredErica

Wasn't 8800 Ultra $800 or $931 today? Less than $1200 for sure, but not twice as expensive.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Titan Z did not sell. A Titan that is 2x faster than Titan XP but 4 times the price will sell.


That's what I meant X2 sized die








They can keep all the SLI AFR crap.


----------



## kingduqc

one thing I hate is that they do incremental releases. Buy a x80 now? Better wait 4 months for the titan. Buy the titan now? Better wait the x80 ti in 3 months... The Ti release, better wait the next generation in 4 months.


----------



## ladcrooks

somehow the word Titan doesn't mean much anymore


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ladcrooks*
> 
> somehow the word Titan doesn't mean much anymore


the entire lineup means nothing

rip off at every segment


----------



## Rayleyne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> $699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.


How is it an insult? You bought your product and times change, Advances are made, Faster things are made for the same or less, I'm not seeing it as insulting in anyway.


----------



## Lass3

No thanks, it's Vega or Volta for me next.


----------



## xzamples

the GTX 1080 Ti is going to have the same performance as SLI 1070's


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xzamples*
> 
> the GTX 1080 Ti is going to have the same performance as SLI 1070's


No it won't.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *xzamples*
> 
> the GTX 1080 Ti is going to have the same performance as SLI 1070's
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't.
Click to expand...

don't be so serious, that could very well be a poke at (lack of) SLI support.


----------



## Lee Patekar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rayleyne*
> 
> How is it an insult? You bought your product and times change, Advances are made, Faster things are made for the same or less, I'm not seeing it as insulting in anyway.


No advances were made since the 1080's launch actually; its nothing more than the larger variant of the 1080. What changed, or presumably will change, is the market. Things aren't priced by their intrinsic value or the cost of manufacturing, they are priced by how much people are willing to pay for them. If the manufacturing costs are higher than what people will pay, then it simply doesn't get produced.

So in essence he's saying he'd be pissed at knowing he paid a large sum for a 1080 knowing they could have sold it for much less. Selling the larger TI model at 699 would thrust that point home.. hard.. and repeatedly .. :^)

Competition from AMD, in every segment, is sorely missed.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lee Patekar*
> 
> No advances were made since the 1080's launch actually; its nothing more than the larger variant of the 1080. What changed, or presumably will change, is the market. Things aren't priced by their intrinsic value or the cost of manufacturing, they are priced by how much people are willing to pay for them. If the manufacturing costs are higher than what people will pay, then it simply doesn't get produced.
> 
> So in essence he's saying he'd be pissed at knowing he paid a large sum for a 1080 knowing they could have sold it for much less. Selling the larger TI model at 699 would thrust that point home.. hard.. and repeatedly .. :^)
> 
> Competition from AMD, in every segment, is sorely missed.


1080 TI has a cut down titan XP core not an upped 1080 core.


----------



## Lee Patekar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> 1080 TI has a cut down titan XP core not an upped 1080 core.


Semantics; they're both different variants of the same Pascal architecture.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lee Patekar*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> 1080 TI has a cut down titan XP core not an upped 1080 core.
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics; they're both different variants of the same Pascal architecture.
Click to expand...

yes and no.

the larger chips have more cache and ROP:SM units.


----------



## Lee Patekar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> yes and no.
> 
> the larger chips have more cache and ROP:SM units.


Sure, but its irrelevant for the point I made. Specifically..

600$ for 2560 cuda cores
699$ for ~3328 cuda cores + other differences we can ignore.

Why you're getting hung up on minor technical details is beyond me.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lee Patekar*
> 
> Sure, but its irrelevant for the point I made. Specifically..
> 
> 600$ for 2560 cuda cores
> 699$ for ~3328 cuda cores + other differences we can ignore.
> 
> Why you're getting hung up on minor technical details is beyond me.


so ROPs are an ignorable difference?

yeah, ok. i can see where it's beyond you.


----------



## Lee Patekar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> so ROPs are an ignorable difference?
> 
> yeah, ok. i can see where it's beyond you.


And in the argument of getting almost 50% more for a hundred bucks more how is that an important detail? Shall we discuss the finer points of the GPU's color while where at it?


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lee Patekar*
> 
> And in the argument of getting almost 50% more for a hundred bucks more how is that an important detail? Shall we discuss the finer points of the GPU's color while where at it?


when one spends the $100 more to play at a higher resolution, it's pretty important.

E: compare how the titanXP increases its lead over the 1080 (an additional ~10%-20% 1080/4K) w/higherROP:SM, while the 390X starts to creep up on the furyX (same ROPs)

i like blue.


----------



## Lee Patekar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> i like blue.


Too bad its green :^)

I don't know if I'm surprised that someone on this forum tunnel visions on specs instead of seeing the general economic point.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lee Patekar*
> 
> Too bad its green :^)
> 
> I don't know if I'm surprised that someone on this forum tunnel vision on specs instead of seeing the general economic point.


that should help you.









and your not on an economics forum so yeah, specs are talked about.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lee Patekar*
> 
> And in the argument of getting almost 50% more for a hundred bucks more how is that an important detail? Shall we discuss the finer points of the GPU's color while where at it?


Because the point kinda went over your head.

There are two factors of a core performance.
Number of CUs / SMMs, and number of ROPs.
More CUs / SMMs means more parallel rendering unites depends on how the GPU works, and more ROPs means more post parallel work done (like AA etc) is done after.

The titan XP has just 4 more SMs than the 1080, but 96 ROPs compared to 64 on the 1080. And that is why it gains so much in performance even though it runs slower clock wise.
The 390x has 44 CUs compared to 64 of the fury x because of the so many cores in the fury x, but they both have the same ROP count. That is why even though the fury x and 390x were running on similar clocks overall, and the fury x had a much faster memory, it could only gain in performance a lot less.

When talking about "larger" 1080 which has a cutdown amount of SMMs and ROPs, it isn't going to gain much. But a cut down titan xp will gain more ROPs but only a few SMMs compared to the 1080, which is going to help it a lot. While it might be just semantics, it is a big difference.


----------



## leetmode

I check this forum everyday to see if there's any news of a 1080ti and get excited every time I see this thread only to be disappointed immediately. Please lock.


----------



## mouacyk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *leetmode*
> 
> I check this forum everyday to see if there's any news of a 1080ti and get excited every time I see this thread only to be disappointed immediately. Please lock.


Not sure why 1080TI is exciting you. You've already seen Titan X Pascal and this will perform worse, on top of all Pascal having BIOS lockdown. It's not going to be another 980 TI, precisely because of the second point. I would hate to be wrong about the BIOS lockdown soon.

What should be exciting is the prospect of marrying Pascal's insane clocks with DX12/Vulkan hardware features so that we don't get crappy console ports. Volta and Vega are way more exciting than this dragged out arch. We've already seen that Titan XP barely escapes the [email protected] boundary... sad.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *leetmode*
> 
> I check this forum everyday to see if there's any news of a 1080ti and get excited every time I see this thread only to be disappointed immediately. Please lock.


sorry you're disappointed but i'll give ya a tip; any real news wouldn't be in the rumors section.

but yeah, since this thread is a month old now, any excitement would be dead and it's carcass being picked over.


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> The titan XP has just 4 more SMs than the 1080, but 96 ROPs compared to 64 on the 1080. And that is why it gains so much in performance even though it runs slower clock wise.
> The 390x has 44 CUs compared to 64 of the fury x because of the so many cores in the fury x, but they both have the same ROP count. That is why even though the fury x and 390x were running on similar clocks overall, and the fury x had a much faster memory, it could only gain in performance a lot less.
> 
> When talking about "larger" 1080 which has a cutdown amount of SMMs and ROPs, it isn't going to gain much. But a cut down titan xp will gain more ROPs but only a few SMMs compared to the 1080, which is going to help it a lot. While it might be just semantics, it is a big difference.


Correction: The Titan XP has 8 more SMs than the 1080.

I also don't understand your point, there are the same number of ROPs per GPC on both GP102 and GP104. The only difference is that the Titan XP has two SMs disabled without disabling any ROPs, and I wouldn't really consider that to be an advantage.

A "larger" 1080 with a cut down number of SMs _is_ a Titan XP. Even cutting an entire GPC out of GP102 (leaving 25 SMs and 80 ROPs) would have exactly 25% more of everything in a 1080. With the Pascal architecture saying X% more shaders is short hand for extra complete GPCs, which also includes the cache, ROPs, and everything else in a GPC.

I think you are confusing the idea of Pascal with "more CUDA cores" as equivalent to what AMD did with GCN to scale from the 290 to the Fury but it isn't because a 1080Ti would actually just be a further cut down GP102, not a completely new design like GP104 with more SMs per GPC.


----------



## xentrox

Sooo.. 57 pages later.. is there a real 1080-Ti or are we still mulling over one WCCFTECH article from months ago?


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asmodian*
> 
> Correction: The Titan XP has 8 more SMs than the 1080.
> 
> I also don't understand your point, there are the same number of ROPs per GPC on both GP102 and GP104. The only difference is that the Titan XP has two SMs disabled without disabling any ROPs, and I wouldn't really consider that to be an advantage.
> 
> A "larger" 1080 with a cut down number of SMs _is_ a Titan XP. *Even cutting an entire GPC out of GP102 (leaving 25 SMs and 80 ROPs) would have exactly 25% more of everything in a 1080.* With the Pascal architecture saying X% more shaders is short hand for extra complete GPCs, which also includes the cache, ROPs, and everything else in a GPC.
> 
> I think you are confusing the idea of Pascal with "more CUDA cores" as equivalent to what AMD did with GCN to scale from the 290 to the Fury but it isn't because a 1080Ti would actually just be a further cut down GP102, not a completely new design like GP104 with more SMs per GPC.


and that will leave an odd number of MCs (2MC:1GPC). .sure, that works for 284bit bus and would be pure junk.


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> and that will leave an odd number of MCs (2MC:1GPC). .sure, that works for 284bit bus and would be pure junk.


It isn't an odd number of memory controllers, it is 10 for a 320bit bus which would be completely fine.

Full GP102 has 6 GPCs and 12 memory controllers. Disabling an entire GPC and 2 memory controllers keeps everything at the same ratios as the GTX 1080 and Quadro P6000 (full GP102).


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asmodian*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> and that will leave an odd number of MCs (2MC:1GPC). .sure, that works for 284bit bus and would be pure junk.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't an odd number of memory controllers, it is 10 for a 320bit bus which would be completely fine.
> 
> Full GP102 has 6 GPCs and 12 memory controllers. Disabling an entire GPC and 2 memory controllers keeps everything at the same ratios as the GTX 1080 and Quadro P6000 (full GP102).
Click to expand...

yep the my math totally missed the target







(you can say it, "hurr durr 2:1 would be even!")

but it not going to work well having 10Gbs of vram on a 320bit bus castrating a GP102 chip like that.

nvidia is better off cutting SM units than a whole GPC and i suspect more failed titanX chips fit that bill!


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> yep the my math totally missed the target
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (you can say it, "hurr durr 2:1 would be even!")
> 
> but it not going to work well having 10Gbs of vram on a 320bit bus castrating a GP102 chip like that.
> 
> nvidia is better off cutting SM units than a whole GPC and i suspect more failed titanX chips fit that bill!


I agree, there is probably no reason to actually disable any memory controllers, but they could and it would be OK. Likely, it is more effective to disable individual SMs that happen to be bad in different GPCs, as needed. Even if they did disable a complete GPC the memory controller isn't part of the GPC so disabling a memory controller too would be arbitrary. They wouldn't have to design a completely new PCB either.


----------



## spinFX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pittguy578*
> 
> Seriously though how cheap are these things made?


hundreds of millions of dollars.
R&D
Machines
Factories
Employees across the board; from engineers to coders to factory hands
Wastage
etc.


----------



## spinFX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *leetmode*
> 
> I check this forum everyday to see if there's any news of a 1080ti and get excited every time I see this thread only to be disappointed immediately. Please lock.


Lol you want a thread locked because this thread keeps tricking you







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *leetmode*
> 
> I check this forum everyday to see if there's any news of a 1080ti and get excited every time I see this thread only to be disappointed immediately. Please lock.


Instead of asking for a 50 page thread in the rumours section of the forum to be shut down just for your, you could download dotjs extension for chrome or firefox, create an overclock.net.js file, and have a little routine that finds the rows in the news section

Code:



Code:


$(document).ready(function() {
    var newsrows = $(document).find("div#semi-fluid");
    var count;
    for (count = 0; count < newsrows.length; count++) {
         newsrows[count].find('a:first');
         // do something with newrows[count] to locate a thread with "[WCCFTECH] Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti Launching" in it and use .remove or something to get rid of it completely.  
    }
});

You will literally never see this thread in the news section again.


----------



## meson1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spinFX*
> 
> Lol you want a thread locked because this thread keeps tricking you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of asking for a 50 page thread in the rumours section of the forum to be shut down just for your, you could download dotjs extension for chrome or firefox, create an overclock.net.js file, and have a little routine that finds the rows in the news section
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> $(document).ready(function() {
> var newsrows = $(document).find("div#semi-fluid");
> var count;
> for (count = 0; count < newsrows.length; count++) {
> newsrows[count].find('a:first');
> // do something with newrows[count] to locate a thread with "[WCCFTECH] Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti Launching" in it and use .remove or something to get rid of it completely.
> }
> });
> 
> You will literally never see this thread in the news section again.


Interesting.

Or perhaps all he needs to do is unsubscribe from the thread.


----------



## d5aqoep

Why is everyone suddenly hurt with 1080Ti rumors?

Nvidia's R&D invented Pascal architecture 1-2 years back. They hit the jackpot and produced a GTX Titan X Pascal which is the highest end chip.

Then the marketing, R&D as well as board of directors sat together for a demo/presentation and decided on the following schedule to maximize their profits.

1. Release GTX 1080/1070 Around May 2016 at $100 price higher than before. Rename it to Founders Edition to justify the price increase. Make sure GTX 1080 is cut down in such a way that it is 40-50% slower than Titan X Pascal.
2. Release GTX 1060 as a lower end and GTX Titan after a month. This covers budget as well as extreme gamers.
3. Release GTX 1050/1050Ti to cover casual gamers after 3 months
4. Release GTX 1080Ti after 6 months so that it might force GTX 1070/1080 to upgrade as they will see a value created. Now this is the actual game of Nvidia "_The way it's meant to be played_".

This gives Nvidia the maximum profit as they get people to potentially upgrade twice in the same generation.

But those who upgrade from GTX 1070/1080 may be able to get 60-70% of their card's value by selling it on eBay. If one uses their card for 5-6 months, he/she must be prepared to lose 30% value over it.

So it is definitely not a bad situation to get butthurt. If money permits, take the hit and upgrade to GTX 1080Ti and engross yourself in 4K gaming at medium settings.









AMD on the other hand have a fail strategy by launching low/middle end cards or perhaps they just don't have any ace up their sleeves.


----------



## BoredErica

I'm trying to just skip 1080 and get 1080ti. Just upgrade every ti...


----------



## GTXJackBauer

I have a question for you all. I have 2 GTX 780 Classified Hydro Coppers. I game at 1080p @ 60 Hz with mostly max settings and with the option of going to 5760x1080 @ 60 Hz with lower settings. Mind you I love eye candy therefore love playing at max settings. AFAIK, the pixel count is less then 4K for 5760x1080. My plan is to sell these two GPUs and hope I get at least $300 for a single presumed GTX 1080 Ti or maybe grab 2 GTX 1080/1070s if the price drops enough. Basically my max range is under $1000 including WBs. Is it worth it and will I be able to max out my games to come 3+ years down the road in DX11/12?

I know this is a far fetched question atm but was curious to hear what some that have been in the game think. What can we speculate based on performance let alone the limited RAM I have atm.


----------



## Asus11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkwizzie*
> 
> I'm trying to just skip 1080 and get 1080ti. Just upgrade every ti...


pretty much like the S models on the iphones.. the S models are always so much better not just performance wise buy quality control etc etc


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> pretty much like the S models on the iphones.. the S models are always so much better not just performance wise buy quality control etc etc


No offense but that makes no sense. Its anywhere from a minor to a medium improvement.


----------



## Asus11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> No offense but that makes no sense. Its anywhere from a minor to a medium improvement.


its still always a better product and better value for money, hence the 1080 ti should actually be worth it compared to the 1080 if it is as the specs say


----------



## TheBlindDeafMute

Moar powaaaa


----------



## Tinman12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> its still always a better product and better value for money, hence the 1080 ti should actually be worth it compared to the 1080 if it is as the specs say


Yup, same for me on this. Still sitting on my 690 waiting for the Ti to come out before I pull the trigger. Almost went with the 1080 hybrid but if I'm finally going to upgrade I want to get the last iteration of the series. Even if the difference between the 1080 and 1080ti might be marginal making that big of jump from the 690 up to this gen chip, it makes sense to me to hold off a bit longer and see what the full nut gamer card looks like.


----------



## DrFPS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkwizzie*
> 
> I'm trying to just skip 1080 and get 1080ti. Just upgrade every ti...


Yep. I';m in there with you. I've been waiting since the 1080 release.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> pretty much like the S models on the iphones.. the S models are always so much better not just performance wise buy quality control etc etc


I agree 110%

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> No offense but that makes no sense. Its anywhere from a minor to a medium improvement.


It makes perfect sense, you just miss the point. The point is why buy a product that will obsolete in 8 months. When in fact the back bone of entire line up of pascal will be 1080ti.
I jumped in on launch day with maxwell, thinking the 980 would remain at the top until the next gen (not counting the titan) Imagine my surprise









That is the !!POINT

Papaw told me someone once, does dirt on me shame on them.

Someone does dirt on me twice, shame on me. It's kind'a relative.


----------



## i7monkey

x80

several months later

titan

several months later

x80ti

several months later new arc

nasty prices at every point. x80 is a ripoff, titan is a ripoff, x80ti will be overpriced and of little use since a refresh/new arc could be 5 months away.

they're starting to release their stack in a way that makes buying anything at any time not worth it.


----------



## looniam

nVidia: The Way It's Meant To Be Upgraded Early and Often.


----------



## AlphaC

GP102 = no deal IMO , at least not if you want to retain value.

The GTX 1080 is a GP104 part and GTX TITAN X is a GP102 part, that is only why people can consider a GTX 1080 Ti based on GP102 acceptable.

At the rumored 3328 CUDA cores, that would be closer to the GTX TITAN X than the GP104 based GTX 1080. Unless it comes around $800-900 compared to the $600-700 GTX 1080 and $1200 GTX TITAN X with terrible availability then it wouldn't really have a large market.

The current iteration of the Pacal GTX TITAN X (and the Maxwell GTX TITAN X) is an affront because the TITAN name is supposed to be pro-sumer with FP64.


----------



## spinFX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> x80
> 
> several months later
> 
> titan
> 
> several months later
> 
> x80ti
> 
> several months later new arc
> 
> nasty prices at every point. x80 is a ripoff, titan is a ripoff, x80ti will be overpriced and of little use since a refresh/new arc could be 5 months away.
> 
> they're starting to release their stack in a way that makes buying anything at any time not worth it.


Lol, why is my 3 year old SLI setup still cranking away happily that I could easily wait one more generation for an upgrade? In fact, the only real reason I want to upgrade is to get the multi-projection feature for multiscreen setups so i can angle my peripheral monitors at about 40 degrees instead of having to have them all almost level (1.5meters wide!).

If you want to stay on the cutting edge of PC gaming, you will pay through the nose. But if you are happy to sit just behind it - the cost is not unreasonable!


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> pretty much like the S models on the iphones.. the S models are always so much better not just performance wise buy quality control etc etc


That's because just like nVidia, the non-S model is the 1st of its kind from said company. New internals (as usual) but the biggest difference is usually the screen and body. And what failures that they learn from the consumers (IE the 6 had bending issues) are than fixed on the S model as its the same body + minor or major internal upgrades.
So yes its usually wiser for iPhone lovers to get the S, but some people can't be helped and has to have the newest and best now.
Also you can argue that iPhone 6/GTX 1080 owner was able to enjoy all the new features for XX months longer than you while you had to keep your old outdated tech while you waited.


----------



## renejr902

Hi! Im sick of waiting. I went this: 980ti,970,1070,titan x pascal, 1080 to get finally back to 980ti. Is it strange ? LOL i didnt lose much money with exchange, but im sick of doing this, i want to play 4k at 60fps stable with high settings (no sli)
None of theses cards can do it, even the titan x pascal fully overclocked. This time i will wait for a card at least 20% to 30% stronger than titan x pascal. I hope they release a titan black in january , 14nm, 3840, core, hbm2... I dont think they will do it. And please dont tell me i will have to wait until 2018, i will die









I sold my 1080 because i sold it at 90% of his brand new price. Im ready for a titan black in january or a 1080ti if 20-30% stronger than titan x pascal.. But it seems impossible even with overclocking. I played several games in 4k but in each games i have to live with 40-50fps and tearing at high-ultra settings or 60fps vsync on, no fps drop, in medium settings, with a few high ultra settings, some games run better than others.

Be honest, when do you think nvidia will release a videocard at least 20% stronger than titan x pascal ?


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> No offense but that makes no sense. Its anywhere from a minor to a medium improvement.


6 -> 6S was a bigger update than 6S -> 7.

6 non-S was even bending and had button issues (after a while) + slow fingerprint sensor.
6S was much faster than 6. 6S and 7 are pretty much same speed for daily use.


----------



## meson1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> x80
> 
> several months later
> titan
> 
> several months later
> x80ti
> 
> several months later new arc
> 
> nasty prices at every point. x80 is a ripoff, titan is a ripoff, x80ti will be overpriced and of little use since a refresh/new arc could be 5 months away.
> they're starting to release their stack in a way that makes buying anything at any time not worth it.


They've been release their lineups like this for years. It's nothing new. What has changed in the past couple of years is the way that Nvidia are pushing their pricing up aggressively.

But if you keep waiting for the next faster thing, then you'll always be waiting because there's always something faster on the horizon. Sooner or later you have to pick your time and jump in and buy something that does what you want it to.


----------



## d5aqoep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renejr902*
> 
> Hi! Im sick of waiting. I went this: 980ti,970,1070,titan x pascal, 1080 to get finally back to 980ti. Is it strange ? LOL i didnt lose much money with exchange, but im sick of doing this, i want to play 4k at 60fps stable with high settings (no sli)
> None of theses cards can do it, even the titan x pascal fully overclocked. *This time i will wait for a card at least 20% to 30% stronger than titan x pascal.* I hope they release a titan black in january , 14nm, 3840, core, hbm2... I dont think they will do it. And please dont tell me i will have to wait until 2018, i will die
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sold my 1080 because i sold it at 90% of his brand new price. Im ready for a titan black in january or a 1080ti if 20-30% stronger than titan x pascal.. But it seems impossible even with overclocking. I played several games in 4k but in each games i have to live with 40-50fps and tearing at high-ultra settings or 60fps vsync on, no fps drop, in medium settings, with a few high ultra settings, some games run better than others.
> 
> Be honest, when do you think nvidia will release a videocard at least 20% stronger than titan x pascal ?


Even if you get a card which is 30% faster than Titan XP, newer games will also get more complex and Nvidia will come up with another lame arse effect which will cut down the performance into half with 1% improvement in image quality.

You will need a card which is double faster than Titan XP within a year. So SLI may be your best bet. But everyone knows the problems with SLI and how Nvidia is slowly moving away from such setups.

Then even if such GPU is made available, one might start an argument about wanting a 4K 120 Hz (120 fps) experience as 4K @120hz monitors are not far away.

Basically you will have to wait forever.


----------



## renejr902

Im not interested in 120hz , i tested it but its not for me and i dont play shooters. I mostly play rpg, action 3rd person and racing games and the blur is acceptable at 60hz.I dont want to play all games in maximum setting, high is ok in 4k, but medium is unnaceptable to me. Anyway ultra vs high is not always a big visual jump. And i dont care about hairworks and AA too. Even at high setting with no hairworks, no aa, i cant play witcher 3 and rise tomb raider and forza horizon3 with sync on at 60fps at 4k, without fps drops and fps drops cause a lot of stuttering below 60fps. Even with my overclocked titan x pascal it was not possible. Forza horizon 3 was not possible too but i played it with a 1080 gtx.

(After several tests, i dissapointed to see that 1080 gtx is only a little stronger than my 980ti strix fully overclocked. Maybe 20-25% stronger.)

So for me a titanx pascal +20% stronger at minimum is the videocard im waiting for.

I also tested a 27" 4k with gsync acer 280hk, im not sure about this gsync technology. Its great to remove tearing but games at40-45fps still feel 40-45fps, but no tearing and no stuttering. Its good for games with fps drops at 55fps though. But the acer predator gsync xb321hk 32" 4k is 1700$ in canada, dont worth it at that price. I got a big deal with a benq bl3201ph 32" 4k same panel but no gsync. And i have a 55" samsung js8500 tv. U til now no monitor beat this tv in image quality. Witcher and rise of tomb raider in 4k with forcing hdr with the samsung with complete color range , is UNBELIEVEBLE, its so beautiful. Black are black and sunlight is very strong like 500nits. None of the monitors i had or tested have this visual quality. I suppose the oled lg tv should be even better, i saw it several time at bestbuy.

I was thinking some time ago to go with a 1080ti in january with the 32" acer xb321hk gsync 4k monitor at least all my games can be play at maximum setting without tearing or stuttering but at 40-50fps. but if im buying this monitor at 1700$ and a 1080ti, i wont buy volta geforce serie. So finally i think im better with a titan volta card with a no gsync 4k monitor than a 1080ti with a gsync 4k monitor.. Right ? What do you think is the best between these two possible choices ? After that maybe i wont upgrade for 3 years. I still think i should wait for the titan volta and keep my no gsync benq 4k 32" monitor and my samsung 55" js8500, than buying this 1700$ acer 32" gsync monitor and the 1080ti. While waiting the titan volta i will play with my old 980ti strix fully overclocked. Thanks for your opinion! ( read my previous post too, to really understand my situation)


----------



## kariverson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> x80
> 
> several months later
> 
> titan
> 
> several months later
> 
> x80ti
> 
> several months later new arc
> 
> nasty prices at every point. x80 is a ripoff, titan is a ripoff, x80ti will be overpriced and of little use since a refresh/new arc could be 5 months away.
> 
> they're starting to release their stack in a way that makes buying anything at any time not worth it.


That's what monopoly does. AMD has to step up their game and release high end cards for cheap or nvidia will keep upping the prices. Same as Intel.


----------



## d5aqoep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renejr902*
> 
> I was thinking some time ago to go with a 1080ti in january with the 32" acer xb321hk gsync 4k monitor at least all my games can be play at maximum setting without tearing or stuttering but at 40-50fps. but if im buying this monitor at 1700$ and a 1080ti, i wont buy volta geforce serie. So finally i think im better with a titan volta card with a no gsync 4k monitor than a 1080ti with a gsync 4k monitor.. Right ? What do you think is the best between these two possible choices ? After that maybe i wont upgrade for 3 years. I still think i should wait for the titan volta and keep my no gsync benq 4k 32" monitor and my samsung 55" js8500, than buying this 1700$ acer 32" gsync monitor and the 1080ti. While waiting the titan volta i will play with my old 980ti strix fully overclocked. Thanks for your opinion! ( read my previous post too, to really understand my situation)


1080Ti would be a worthwhile upgrade for you coming from GTX 1080. But please check the reviews and make sure that it's performance is 30-40% more than plain GTX 1080. I can tell that Nvidia is already successful when they can get people to upgrade graphics cards within same generation. Nvidia loves you already. Hope you can get 70% of the original value selling your used GTX 1080.

I myself have a 1070 FE and upgrading to a 1080Ti with almost double the performance may be slightly more worth it. But I will sit this one out and upgrade to GTX 2070 EE (Extortion Edition) in early 2018.


----------



## renejr902

LoL


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d5aqoep*
> 
> 1080Ti would be a worthwhile upgrade for you coming from GTX 1080. But please check the reviews and make sure that it's performance is 30-40% more than plain GTX 1080. I can tell that Nvidia is already successful when they can get people to upgrade graphics cards within same generation. Nvidia loves you already. Hope you can get 70% of the original value selling your used GTX 1080.
> 
> I myself have a 1070 FE and upgrading to a 1080Ti with almost double the performance may be slightly more worth it. But I will sit this one out and upgrade to GTX 2070 EE (Extortion Edition) in early 2018.


More like early 2H 2017.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

I can tell alot of wishful thinking from 1080 to 1080 Ti. If you looked back to the older gens, every upgrade to the next under the same chipset was what? 10-25% at the most? lol Good lord people. Stop drinking the koolaid. Invest into AMD so I can buy a cheaper Nvidia GPU.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renejr902*
> 
> LoL


I am sorry you have to wait.

Even at a faster boost clock for Titan Black v2 it will be at most 10-15% faster...

Unless it can OC better than Titan XP.


----------



## Eorzean

I'm on the 'impatient I need to upgrade naow' cycle (x80). I suppose I can try to sell the 1080 and get the Ti, but that means I'll need to wait... and go through the hassle of dealing with the scum on Kijiji (our Craig's List in Canada).

Hopefully prices of the 1080 drop, then I'll just get a new mobo and SLI those.


----------



## renejr902

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I am sorry you have to wait.
> 
> Even at a faster boost clock for Titan Black v2 it will be at most 10-15% faster...
> 
> Unless it can OC better than Titan XP.


Thanks a lot for answers guys , its really appreciated!


----------



## Asus11

the 1080 ti will be a hit or miss depending on price, even then the titan XP will still be the fastest card, I wish I could afford to buy Titans on release also I wish I actually played games


----------



## ladcrooks

*Originally Posted by i7monkey View Post

$699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.
*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rayleyne*
> 
> How is it an insult? You bought your product and times change, *Advances are made*, Faster things are made for the same or less, I'm not seeing it as insulting in anyway.


your in away right but - ' Advances are made ' they were there before the 1080 came out









the ti is another dig to get more revenue, all in all they come from the same cloth


----------



## d5aqoep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ladcrooks*
> 
> *Originally Posted by i7monkey View Post
> 
> $699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.*


Or worse 1080Ti being a direct rebrand of Titan XP


----------



## Asus11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ladcrooks*
> 
> *Originally Posted by i7monkey View Post
> 
> $699 would be an absolute insult to anyone who bought a 1080. Despicable.
> *
> your in away right but - ' Advances are made ' they were there before the 1080 came out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the ti is another dig to get more revenue, all in all they come from the same cloth


imo the Titan XP was already an insult to 1080 owners so I don't see why Nvidia wouldn't pull the 1080 ti for 699 and move the 1080 to 549

the 1080 ti after Titan XP for much less is to be predicted as history has proved but the 1080 to Titan XP no one was expecting considering most people still was waiting for their preorders to be fulfilled


----------



## blue1512

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> imo the Titan XP was already an insult to 1080 owners so I don't see why Nvidia wouldn't pull the 1080 ti for 699 and move the 1080 to 549
> 
> the 1080 ti after Titan XP for much less is to be predicted as history has proved but the 1080 to Titan XP no one was expecting considering most people still was waiting for their preorders to be fulfilled


I second this.

Most people agreed to the price of 1080 because of its "flagship" title, then they got Titan XP to their face.

And given the ridiculous price of Titan XP, it is safe to conclude that nVi is ripping off their customer in every segment


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blue1512*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> imo the Titan XP was already an insult to 1080 owners so I don't see why Nvidia wouldn't pull the 1080 ti for 699 and move the 1080 to 549
> 
> the 1080 ti after Titan XP for much less is to be predicted as history has proved but the 1080 to Titan XP no one was expecting considering most people still was waiting for their preorders to be fulfilled
> 
> 
> 
> I second this.
> 
> Most people agreed to the price of 1080 because of its "flagship" title, then they got Titan XP to their face.
> 
> And given the ridiculous price of Titan XP, it is safe to conclude that nVi is ripping off their customer in every segment
Click to expand...

I agree with your second point but anyone who got a 1080 not expecting a GP102 based Titan to be released shortly afterwards simply wasn't paying attention.


----------



## Malinkadink

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asmodian*
> 
> I agree with your second point but anyone who got a 1080 not expecting a GP102 based Titan to be released shortly afterwards simply wasn't paying attention.


I think the problem is people weren't expecting the Titan after just 2 months of the 1080 being on the streets, if the Titan launched now or December that would have been less shocking.


----------



## spin5000

Anyone buying a 1080 not knowing a 1080 Ti would mostly come along dropping the prices, or that prices would just generally go down anyways for other various reasons ("new factor" goes away, other competeing cards from AMD eventually come out, etc. etc.) must be new at buying PC components and is therefore unaware of how the industry works; if he/she _isn't_ new to the PC game then he/she is simply a sucker and has no-one to blame other than themselves for buying right away at such relatively ridiculous prices. Don't say a price drop from a company is an insult to you when you were the fool for just _having_ to buy it the second it came out (and at such a high relative price).


----------



## djsi38t

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spin5000*
> 
> Anyone buying a 1080 not knowing a 1080 Ti would mostly come along dropping the prices,


Nah prices won't drop.Maybe20 bucks but they will just get discontinued before any decent price drop.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

I feel like I'm reading comments from folks who weren't paying attention of Nvidia's history from the past few generations since the 600 series. They seem to follow the 80/Titan model and then release a Ti after while there's really no other competition. Nothing new folks. Maybe some are new to PC building while some of us have been in it for a few decades now. And yes, expect a price drop for the 1080 if a Ti gets released.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> I feel like I'm reading comments from folks who weren't paying attention of Nvidia's history from the past few generations since the 600 series. They seem to follow the 80/Titan model and then release a Ti after while there's really no other competition. Nothing new folks. Maybe some are new to PC building while some of us have been in it for a few decades now. And yes, expect a price drop for the 1080 if a Ti gets released.


680 March 2012
Titan February 2013
*1 year difference*

980 September 2014
Titan X March 2015
*6 month difference*

1080 May 2016
Titan XP July 2016
*~1 month difference*

Releases between the x80 and the Titan are much closer these days so it's a very new pattern. We can't count on having cards for a reasonable amount of time anymore because they're dumping new Titans on us almost at will, *and* charging more, *and* giving us less features (compute), *and* with more core cuts.


----------



## blue1512

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> 680 March 2012
> Titan February 2013
> *1 year difference*
> 
> 980 September 2014
> Titan X March 2015
> *6 month difference*
> 
> 1080 May 2016
> Titan XP July 2016
> *~1 month difference*
> 
> Releases between the x80 and the Titan are much closer these days so it's a very new pattern. We can't count on having cards for a reasonable amount of time anymore because they're dumping new Titans on us almost at will, *and* charging more, *and* giving us less features (compute), *and* with more core cuts.


Yet you still buy their card and set nVidia as your profile picture


----------



## spin5000

Lol.

I don't get it. If people want a Titan, spend a crap-load and get (in my opinion) ripped off.

If people want a 780/980/1080 and _just_ have to submit to their hunger and have it right away, then spend a crap-load because it's new and relatively over-priced.

If people want a 780/980/1080 at a more reasonable price, then wait for it's price to drop after some time (especially as AMD cards and/or the Ti models come out).

If people want a 780/980/1080 Ti model, then pay a lot less than the Titan while having 95% as much performance.

Where's the issue? If you got the 1080 upon first-release and now (or soon) the price drops, then blame yourself for not being able to stop yourself from buying the GPU the "instant" it got released.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djsi38t*
> 
> Nah prices won't drop.Maybe20 bucks but they will just get discontinued before any decent price drop.


Yes it will. Vega comes out at the same time.

I think 1080 will be sub 500$ after Vega/1080Ti launch.


----------



## sdrawkcab

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Yes it will. Vega comes out at the same time.
> 
> I think 1080 will be sub 500$ after Vega/1080Ti launch.


Why would they do that to a 1080 if they didn't to a 980 or 980ti ?


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> imo the Titan XP was already an insult to 1080 owners so I don't see why Nvidia wouldn't pull the 1080 ti for 699 and move the 1080 to 549
> 
> the 1080 ti after Titan XP for much less is to be predicted as history has proved but the 1080 to Titan XP no one was expecting considering most people still was waiting for their preorders to be fulfilled


I'm not seeing how a card that gets 30-35% more performance for *double* the money could possibly insult 1080 owners.

If the Titan Xp was fast enough to match 1080 SLI then yes.

If it was the 1080 Ti released for $699 instead then yes.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdrawkcab*
> 
> Why would they do that to a 1080 if they didn't to a 980 or 980ti ?


980 was below 500$ after 980 Ti came out. Way below..


----------



## GTXJackBauer

They usually drop in the $450-$550 range when the Ti's around $699.


----------



## meson1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> I'm not seeing how a card that gets 30-35% more performance for *double* the money could possibly insult 1080 owners.


Me neither. I think they might have been objecting because their 1080's were no longer top of the range ... maybe. Most people were upset at the obscene pricing of the Titan XP.

But let's face it. If a product gets released, there's always someone that will find an excuse to have a moan about it. It could be the fastest and best GPU ever in the world for the best ever price and someone will go out of their way to have a whinge about it.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> 980 was below 500$ after 980 Ti came out. Way below..


sorry but beg to differ, the 980 dropped to $500 (-$50) at the 980ti release.

though some AIBs did run a rebate from time to time for ~ $20-$30.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> sorry but beg to differ, the 980 dropped to $500 (-$50) at the 980ti release.
> 
> though some AIBs did run a rebate from time to time for ~ $20-$30.


A friend of mine picked up a custom 980 + a game for 459$ on Newegg just after pricedrop / 980 Ti release..


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> A friend of mine picked up a custom 980 + a game for 459$ on Newegg just after pricedrop / 980 Ti release..


I've heard of people picking up a 1070 for $370. Doesn't mean it's its usual price (or even close to average).


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> I've heard of people picking up a 1070 for $370. Doesn't mean it's its usual price (or even close to average).


Newegg had plenty of custom 980's in that pricerange, it was not a special offer.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> I've heard of people picking up a 1070 for $370. Doesn't mean it's its usual price (or even close to average).
> 
> 
> 
> Newegg had plenty of custom 980's in that pricerange, it was not a special offer.
Click to expand...

go to PCpartpicker and pick ANY 980, then check the price history for the last 2 years. none were under $500 except when on a special.

E: excluding open boxes or refurbs.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> I'm not seeing how a card that gets 30-35% more performance for *double* the money could possibly insult 1080 owners.
> 
> If the Titan Xp was fast enough to match 1080 SLI then yes.
> 
> If it was the 1080 Ti released for $699 instead then yes.


The only thing that's insulting is how the consensus is that it really matters at all at this point. Even as an enthusiast, there is a limit. Most that bought the 1080 wouldn't be in two minds about a $1,300 GPU.

I think personally I've finally had enough. I sold my 6950x because even with the reporting / rendering I was doing, I didn't really need 10 cores, and for gaming even less so. The reality is, with the current rate the gaming industry is churning out these titles, and at the fidelity they run at - you can happily get away with spending out every 2 or even 3 generations, and get ample performance for 1080 and for the most part even 1440p.

If you want to chase pixel count and absurd framerates , then by all means do spare no expense as it feeds the market. I do enjoy playing with new hardware, but there is a line drawn in the sand where when all is said and done - I just want to be able to play the games I like.

So can I do that with a 1080GTX? Yes, I can. Do I really need 4K? No, I don't.


----------



## ExoticallyPure

How did anyone not see this coming?


----------



## prjindigo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> How did anyone not see this coming?


Told them in April - got reported as a troll because I said there wouldn't be a GP100 graphics card.


----------



## meson1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prjindigo*
> 
> Told them in April - got reported as a troll because I said there wouldn't be a GP100 graphics card.


And interestingly, there still isn't a GP100 graphics card and nor will there ever be. You called it.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prjindigo*
> 
> Told them in April - got reported as a troll because I said there wouldn't be a GP100 graphics card.


GP100 is currently used in the Tesla computing GPUs , not even in the Quadro P6000 (it uses GP102)
https://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelforall/inside-pascal/
Quote:


> The GP100 GPU used in Tesla P100 incorporates multiple revolutionary new features and unprecedented performance. Key features of Tesla P100 include:
> 
> Extreme performance-powering HPC, deep learning, and many more GPU Computing areas;
> NVLink™-NVIDIA's new high speed, high bandwidth interconnect for maximum application scalability;
> HBM2-Fastest, high capacity, extremely efficient stacked GPU memory architecture;
> Unified Memory and Compute Preemption-significantly improved programming model;
> 16nm FinFET-enables more features, higher performance, and improved power efficiency.


http://www.anandtech.com/show/10222/nvidia-announces-tesla-p100-accelerator-pascal-power-for-hpc

It is highly unlikely GP100 will see consumer use: until every last Tesla P100 has been sold out and FP64-unworthy chips are rebranded into Quadro P6x00 and then sold out as well


----------



## Eorzean

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> The only thing that's insulting is how the consensus is that it really matters at all at this point. Even as an enthusiast, there is a limit. Most that bought the 1080 wouldn't be in two minds about a $1,300 GPU.
> 
> I think personally I've finally had enough. I sold my 6950x because even with the reporting / rendering I was doing, I didn't really need 10 cores, and for gaming even less so. The reality is, with the current rate the gaming industry is churning out these titles, and at the fidelity they run at - you can happily get away with spending out every 2 or even 3 generations, and get ample performance for 1080 and for the most part even 1440p.
> 
> If you want to chase pixel count and absurd framerates , then by all means do spare no expense as it feeds the market. I do enjoy playing with new hardware, but there is a line drawn in the sand where when all is said and done - I just want to be able to play the games I like.
> 
> So can I do that with a 1080GTX? Yes, I can. Do I really need 4K? No, I don't.


Yeah, I've been pretty satisfied with the 1080 so far, especially coming from a 780 (before this Ti / Titan business came to fruition). 1440p is definitely doable on my 96hz monitor, especially after turning off any GimpWorks, motion blur, or excessive DoF settings.

I wasn't butthurt with the TXP, as I'd never pay that much for a card even if I had the money, so you're on target with that one as well.

Not butthurt with the Ti either, to be honest. If they released it a month after for ~$100 US more, than yeah, I'd be completely pissed.

With no competition in sight, and prices of the 1080 being in the $620-700 range, and the TXP being $1200, I don't see how it'd make any logical sense to price it at $700. They could sell it for 1k and get away with it. And then if AMD does release something, they'll do what they usually do and price in within its performance bracket anyways.


----------



## gamervivek

I doubt GP100 would make any sense in consumer space but hopefully nvidia can put out a 600mm2 behemoth that tops Titan XP by say around 30%. They can go the AMD route and not scale the front end to get that kind of performance increase from the difference between 600mm2 and Titan XP's die size.


----------



## JakdMan

Reading through here is a bit appalling. On one side you have the camp of; unfair $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ with logical and justified arguments of NV's apparent gouging and antics. On the other end you have the delusional who insist the high prices are justifies, nearly conveying the idea that everything NV put out in the past was nearly done on a whim with a magic wand and little effort, but no OH the horrid R&D they have to put in now. Nvidia sure are aching and on their last leg after actually haing to actually put work into making these beasts of today (as if they were fully capable of this back then and just didn't bother or something)

Struggles to the node shrinking may raise prices but not this much............

I'd LOVE Titan XP performance. I may even haven't a choice unless I ditch CUDA locked programs, down my target resolutions, and AMD *stop twiddling their thumbs and bring the fight already.*







Even then it would take year to get back down to the reasonable pricing of yesteryear for all tiers


----------



## Serandur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gamervivek*
> 
> I doubt GP100 would make any sense in consumer space but hopefully nvidia can put out a 600mm2 behemoth that tops Titan XP by say around 30%. They can go the AMD route and not scale the front end to get that kind of performance increase from the difference between 600mm2 and Titan XP's die size.


I don't think going the Fiji route is necessary (or wise). Remember how GM200 was like right at TSMC's reticle limit, but still had everything (including the front-end) synchronously scaled-up over GM204? It looks like Nvidia are very consciously making decisions that allow perfect scaling (and perfectly spaced-out chip differences; ex, GP106 is exactly 1/3rd of GP102, GP104 is exactly 2/3rds of GP102, GM206 is exactly 1/3rd of GM200, GM204 is exactly 2/3rds of GM200) and even an 8 GPC, 5120 shader core Pascal chip on 16nm might just be possible.

GP102 is exactly 50% bigger than GP104 according to available information, which correlates with its resource increases. Going by that, an 8 GPC, 5120 shader, 512-bit memory controller Pascal chip with no density changes would be 33.33% larger than GP102 which would be ~628mm^2.

Obviously, that's probably a bit too big, but we know GP100 isn't much smaller at 610mm^2 (which suggests TSMC's reticle limit is at least slightly higher than it was on 28nm). However, if Nvidia cut-out that 512-bit memory bus and replace it with an HBM2-compatible controller or just keep a 384-bit IMC paired with higher-speed GDDR6 to get corresponding bandwidth increases, that should save some die space and may make that perfectly-scaled-up ~600-610mm^2 monster GPU a reality.

If they could even improve transistor density by 3%, that would also do the trick. Some combination of the two could very well be what Nvidia have planned for the big daddy Volta chip, ignoring the possibility that Volta is a significantly different microarchitecture and achieves your desired 30% gains through some other way than raw SM/GPC/ROP scaling.

Throw some power efficiency improvements in there (or don't) and overclock this theoretical monster with a water block or beefy open-air cooler and ~30% over a full GP102 (let alone the cut-down one in the Titan XP) definitely looks possible. The real issue would be whether FinFET wafer costs go down enough for Nvidia to bother giving that to us lowly consumers.


----------



## ladcrooks

At the end of the day its your choice when you buy , its history that has repeated itself more times than i can remember - patience is a virtue they say

Like some, in the pass, i couldn't play the waiting game


----------



## OccamRazor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> welp, looks like my upgrade budget for this winter just doubled.


@looniam
Why not Bro?
After all with the die shrink and extended frequencies all it matters is shader count and CPC performance and on that the OC 980Ti/Titan Maxwell beats the 1080 OC easily clock for clock (Just take a peak at LN2 scores), GTX 1070/80 is just a refined, smaller die,superfast clocked, less power hungry Maxwell for the masses!
So IF the 1080Ti comes out (in my opinion depending on AMD move and will be in the 1000$ range) it will be the card to get anno 2016/2017, but my bet is on Volta...








Come over to 1080 owners thread, im rocking the boat!







http://www.overclock.net/t/1601288/official-nvidia-gtx-1080-owners-club/7500_100#post_25628886
You know me...























Cheers

Occamrazor


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OccamRazor*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> welp, looks like my upgrade budget for this winter just doubled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @looniam
> Why not Bro?
> After all with the die shrink and extended frequencies all it matters is shader count and CPC performance and on that the OC 980Ti/Titan Maxwell beats the 1080 OC easily clock for clock (Just take a peak at LN2 scores), GTX 1070/80 is just a refined, smaller die,superfast clocked, less power hungry Maxwell for the masses!
> So IF the 1080Ti comes out (in my opinion depending on AMD move and will be in the 1000$ range) it will be the card to get anno 2016/2017, but my bet is on Volta...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come over to 1080 owners thread, im rocking the boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1601288/official-nvidia-gtx-1080-owners-club/7500_100#post_25628886
> You know me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Occamrazor
Click to expand...

you're FINALLY off kepler?


----------



## OccamRazor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> you're FINALLY off kepler?


Had to!


----------



## supermi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OccamRazor*
> 
> Had to!


BRO your presence is WELCOME


----------



## OccamRazor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *supermi*
> 
> BRO your presence is WELCOME


SUPER BRO!!!!!!!!!!!









How are you Man?!?!!? Hope all is well with you and the Family!


----------



## Asus11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OccamRazor*
> 
> SUPER BRO!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you Man?!?!!? Hope all is well with you and the Family!


HEY!

how is the 1080 seahawk? hope its the EK veriosn









also how is your bro skynet?


----------



## OccamRazor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> HEY!
> 
> how is the 1080 seahawk? hope its the EK veriosn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> also how is your bro skynet?


Its the corsair version, got it at a dirty cheap 600$! Idle 25C and load OC 42C! My brother is just fine thanks!Hope you are fine too!

Cheers

Occamrazor


----------



## meson1

Further to my previous GP100 post:

You may have missed my point about the GP100 (which is not surprising because I did not explicitly explain WHY there will not be a graphics card based on the GP100). Put quite simply, it has no Render Output units. No RO's means it cannot output rendered graphics. So it cannot be used for graphics cards applications. The GP100 was designed solely for compute.

Nvidia are unlikely to produce any further variants of the Pascal chips they have produced so far, other than the normal post fabrication packaging they already do. They might package a slightly cut down version of GP102 for a prospective 1080 Ti. They might even use a fully specified version of GP102 for a slightly more powerful Titan.

But we won't see GP100 used for a graphics card and we won't see a GP102 deployed with an HBM2 memory controller.

There is a rumour that they might consider doing a Pascal refresh between now and Volta by taking the existing Pascal chip designs currently fabbed on TSMC's 16nm FinFET and more or less directly transfer them to Samsung's 14nm FinFET process (which is supposed to enjoy better yields). This is supposedly easier said than done, but that is the rumour that emerged several weeks ago.


----------



## i7monkey

bros if we bro each other enuf will nvidia be nice?

sincerely,

bro


----------



## guttheslayer

I think if 1080 Ti is going to be release on CES 2017, it will most likely feature 3200 cores with one whole GPC disabled.

That also means 320 bits 10GB card probably running at 400GB/s memory bandwidth.


----------



## carlhil2

Lol, I see some of the same culprits. do you cats actually upgrade, or, just talk about it? not trolling, just asking....


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serandur*
> 
> I don't think going the Fiji route is necessary (or wise). Remember how GM200 was like right at TSMC's reticle limit, but still had everything (including the front-end) synchronously scaled-up over GM204? It looks like Nvidia are very consciously making decisions that allow perfect scaling (and perfectly spaced-out chip differences; ex, GP106 is exactly 1/3rd of GP102, GP104 is exactly 2/3rds of GP102, GM206 is exactly 1/3rd of GM200, GM204 is exactly 2/3rds of GM200) and even an 8 GPC, 5120 shader core Pascal chip on 16nm might just be possible.
> 
> GP102 is exactly 50% bigger than GP104 according to available information, which correlates with its resource increases. Going by that, an 8 GPC, 5120 shader, 512-bit memory controller Pascal chip with no density changes would be 33.33% larger than GP102 which would be ~628mm^2.
> 
> Obviously, that's probably a bit too big, but we know GP100 isn't much smaller at 610mm^2 (which suggests TSMC's reticle limit is at least slightly higher than it was on 28nm). However, if Nvidia cut-out that 512-bit memory bus and replace it with an HBM2-compatible controller or just keep a 384-bit IMC paired with higher-speed GDDR6 to get corresponding bandwidth increases, that should save some die space and may make that perfectly-scaled-up ~600-610mm^2 monster GPU a reality.
> 
> If they could even improve transistor density by 3%, that would also do the trick. Some combination of the two could very well be what Nvidia have planned for the big daddy Volta chip, ignoring the possibility that Volta is a significantly different microarchitecture and achieves your desired 30% gains through some other way than raw SM/GPC/ROP scaling.
> 
> Throw some power efficiency improvements in there (or don't) and overclock this theoretical monster with a water block or beefy open-air cooler and ~30% over a full GP102 (let alone the cut-down one in the Titan XP) definitely looks possible. The real issue would be whether FinFET wafer costs go down enough for Nvidia to bother giving that to us lowly consumers.


I forgot about HBM2, yeah that could cut it down to size without needing sacrifices on complete scaling. It should come in at $2000 for the whole chip easily but would be a blast to have.

But nvidia can go the Fiji route since they have the front end power to do that, I think it's more about how their architecture is laid out and that it'll affect other components too. It can be done however, look at 780Ti's fillrate which tops out at 40Gpix/s since while it does have 48ROPs, it only outputs 40 fragments per clock.
Quote:


> GTX 770 : 32/32/32
> GTX 780 : 40/48/48 or 32/48/48 (as there are 2 die configuration options)
> GTX 780 Ti : 40/60/48


http://techreport.com/blog/27143/here-another-reason-the-geforce-gtx-970-is-slower-than-the-gtx-980


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I think if 1080 Ti is going to be release on CES 2017, it will most likely feature 3200 cores with one whole GPC disabled.
> 
> That also means 320 bits 10GB card probably running at 400GB/s memory bandwidth.


GTX1070 also have one whole GPC disabled and according NV have somehow 64rops.
1080Ti will be -2SMX from currect TITANXP.Just like TITANX vs 980TI.Custom aftermarket 1080TI will be like 20% faster than TITANXP.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> GTX1070 also have one whole GPC disabled and according NV have somehow 64rops.
> 1080Ti will be -2SMX from currect TITANXP.Just like TITANX vs 980TI.Custom aftermarket 1080TI will be like 20% faster than TITANXP.


I am quite sure Nvidia is not going to give you the full 480GB/s bandwidth unless for some reason the clock speed of 16nm FF has greatly improved. Even den it might be cut down at 320 bits.

Custom aftermarket wont be 20% faster... and no way 1080 ti will be faster given if the max clock of 2 GPUs are clocked the same.


----------



## headd

Titan xp runs at 1600Mhz.If aftermarket 1080TI runs at 1900-2000Mhz it will be 20% faster just like aftermarket 980TI is 20% faster than TITANX.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> Titan xp runs at 1600Mhz.If aftermarket 1080TI runs at 1900-2000Mhz it will be 20% faster just like aftermarket 980TI is 20% faster than TITANX.


You're right to an extent. I don't know if it's 20% all the time but it was always out performing Titan's because of the 3rd parties beefier PCBs, cooling, possibly picked GPU, etc. That would change if unless Nvidia does something with the BIOS/Drivers. I sure know Nvidia got upset with EVGA with the whole BIOS and EVBot thing. Happy I grabbed one before they stopped selling them.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> Titan xp runs at 1600Mhz.If aftermarket 1080TI runs at 1900-2000Mhz it will be 20% faster just like aftermarket 980TI is 20% faster than TITANX.


Titan x doesnt run at 1600mhz, in fact alot of them easily boost to 1.8ghz as long as the temp stay cool.

Titan x can be easily oced.

Regardless of titan, 1080ti or 1080. All 16nm ff based gpu hit a cap of 2.1ghz (+-50 mhz) regardless of cooler, power intake, pcb size or whatsoever. Unless nvidia uses radically different vrm or the node for 16nm has really becoming more efficient. This trend will remain.

1080 ti will not be faster than titan x, except maybe marginally faster in stock clock, and marginally slower in max oc.


----------



## looniam

again, if they cut a full GPC and ROPs/MCs the card will be complete junk and won't be worth bringing to market; ~12% over the 1080.

but how nvidia polishes turds . . it's not beyond them.

though harvesting chips with 4 more failed SM units than titanXP keeping ROPs and bandwidth intact (as they have done with titan/780 AND titanX/980ti mind you) will give them a "budget" 4k card to the masses . . who has $900.


----------



## blue1512

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> again, if they cut a full GPC and ROPs/MCs the card will be complete junk and won't be worth bringing to market; ~12% over the 1080.
> 
> but how nvidia polishes turds . . it's not beyond them.
> 
> though harvesting chips with 4 more failed SM units than titanXP keeping ROPs and bandwidth intact (as they have done with titan/780 AND titanX/980ti mind you) will give them a "budget" 4k card to the masses . . who has $900.


Why not a Titan>780>780ti this time? They can easily put a 1180(or 2080) at ~12% over the 1080, and rebrand 1080 as a 1170 with better binned. The full GP102 can easily be the 1180ti as well.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blue1512*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> again, if they cut a full GPC and ROPs/MCs the card will be complete junk and won't be worth bringing to market; ~12% over the 1080.
> 
> but how nvidia polishes turds . . it's not beyond them.
> 
> though harvesting chips with 4 more failed SM units than titanXP keeping ROPs and bandwidth intact (as they have done with titan/780 AND titanX/980ti mind you) will give them a "budget" 4k card to the masses . . who has $900.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not a Titan>780>780ti this time? They can easily put a 1180(or 2080) at ~12% over the 1080, and rebrand 1080 as a 1170 with better binned. The full GP102 can easily be the 1180ti as well.
Click to expand...

look at the past chip configurations. as far as the "big chip" NV hasn't touched the ROPs/MCs no matter how they cut SMs. even the Gxx04 chip were left alone in kepler but then they got the idea to "bin" gm104 chips for the 970 with a whacky config and . . . .

that went well, huh?

but again, sure anything is possible but a 80ROP 320bit bus will be crap compared to the cards just below/above. it will be crap like a 970/660ti/550ti cards. at least then they screwed the pooched on mid range cards.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Not to get off topic here nor do I know how credible this is so take this with a grain of salt. Saw this on my FB feed the other day. It was a head scratcher to say the least.



Once I clicked on the link it brought me to this page.



Now by any means is this intended to bash EVGA or Nvidia. I'm a huge supporter and very happy customer with EVGA. Was just wondering if anyone else has heard or saw something similar or was this some hoax AD?

For all we know it was a armchair computer building lawyer who caught a black screen and doesn't know wth he is doing and is now suing. lol


----------



## looniam

^ go post that here:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1614403/guru3d-evga-ftw-1080-and-1070-have-overheating-issues/0_50

its good for a laugh.


----------



## Asus11

so im guessing Nvidia is playing the gtx 1080 as the (780) but they released it before the titan.. then 1080 ti as the (780ti)

different between a 1080 and 1080 ti should be like that of a 780 and 780ti

not sure what theyre doing tbh when a titan XP is 30% faster than a 1080 .. so 1080 ti will be 20-25%?

can only see this working if the 1080 ti goes in the place of the 1080 and the 1080s drop in price


----------



## inedenimadam

So CES 2017? I sure hope so. 4k with SLI 980s is just about at the end of its rope. I seriously need more VRAM, and hopefully enough power in only one card to outrun current set up...so I can then buy two and be good for a couple more years.


----------



## blue1512

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> so im guessing Nvidia is playing the gtx 1080 as the (780) but they released it before the titan.. then 1080 ti as the (780ti)
> 
> different between a 1080 and 1080 ti should be like that of a 780 and 780ti
> 
> not sure what theyre doing tbh when a titan XP is 30% faster than a 1080 .. so 1080 ti will be 20-25%?
> 
> can only see this working if the 1080 ti goes in the place of the 1080 and the 1080s drop in price


780 is cut down from a Titan, while 1080 is a full 104 chip and not related to Titan XP.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> so im guessing Nvidia is playing the gtx 1080 as the (780) but they released it before the titan.. then 1080 ti as the (780ti)
> 
> different between a 1080 and 1080 ti should be like that of a 780 and 780ti
> 
> not sure what theyre doing tbh when a titan XP is 30% faster than a 1080 .. so 1080 ti will be 20-25%?
> 
> can only see this working if the 1080 ti goes in the place of the 1080 and the 1080s drop in price


GTX1080 is same a GTX980. The only difference is Titan XP was released 4-6 months ahead of time unlike Titan X with a price increase. 1080 Ti will be same as GTX980 Ti.


----------



## looniam

but it wouldn't be the first time nvidia slid a lower tiered chip into a higher end card . .would it?


----------



## GTXJackBauer

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/11/04/nvidia-corporation-reportedly-planning-to-launch-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-soon.html
Quote:


> On the Beyond3D forums, user Erinyes, who has provided accurate information about NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA) graphics processors in the past, recently said the following in apost:
> 
> "A little birdie tells me that the GTX 1080 Ti launch is around the corner ... which makes sense since the holiday season is almost upon us."


----------



## Somasonic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/11/04/nvidia-corporation-reportedly-planning-to-launch-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-soon.html
> 
> On the Beyond3D forums, user Erinyes, who has provided accurate information about NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA) graphics processors in the past, recently said the following in apost:
> 
> "A little birdie tells me that the GTX 1080 Ti launch is around the corner ... which makes sense since the holiday season is almost upon us."


This would make me extremely happy, but I'm taking it with the prerequisite grain of salt


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Somasonic*
> 
> This would make me extremely happy, but taking it with the prerequisite grain of salt


Going to wait and see what Vega has to offer before getting 1080 Ti. There is no reason for 1080 Ti right now unless Vega is faster.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Going to wait and see what Vega has to offer before getting 1080 Ti. There is no reason for 1080 Ti right now unless Vega is faster.


I hope Vega is a bit faster or as fast with obviously more Vram which many speculate will be around 16 Gigs of HBM and I hope it's priced around at $500-$600, forcing Nvidia to mark down their pricing. It's been a while since we've seen this type of competition and hope it goes as planned for the consumer.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> I hope Vega is a bit faster or as fast with obviously more Vram which many speculate will be around 16 Gigs of HBM and I hope it's priced around at $500-$600, forcing Nvidia to mark down their pricing. It's been a while since we've seen this type of competition and hope it goes as planned for the consumer.


16GB is a bit much unless they want $1000 card. I mean Titan XP is just 12GB of G5X and is $1200.


----------



## Somasonic

If Vega is on par or faster that would explain a Ti release around now, longer to milk the consumer for premium prices before they're forced to mark everything down...


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> I hope Vega is a bit faster or as fast with obviously more Vram which many speculate will be around 16 Gigs of HBM and I hope it's priced around at $500-$600, forcing Nvidia to mark down their pricing. It's been a while since we've seen this type of competition and hope it goes as planned for the consumer.


There is a 0% chance of a 16GB HBM2 card priced at $500-600.


----------



## blue1512

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Somasonic*
> 
> If Vega is on par or faster that would explain a Ti release around now, longer to milk the consumer for premium prices before they're forced to mark everything down...


Traditionally Ti cards are not for milking, but to crush AMD counter. Comprared to x80, the price of Ti cards are normally more reasonable. (still overpriced though)


----------



## SuprUsrStan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/11/04/nvidia-corporation-reportedly-planning-to-launch-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-soon.html
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> On the Beyond3D forums, user Erinyes, who has provided accurate information about NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA) graphics processors in the past, recently said the following in apost:
> 
> "A little birdie tells me that the GTX 1080 Ti launch is around the corner ... which makes sense since the holiday season is almost upon us."
Click to expand...

The question is before Christmas or after Christmas during CES 2017?


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> The question is before Christmas or after Christmas during CES 2017?


That is the million dollar question.







They are speculating around the corner and so is AMD so we'll see I guess. Are they going to release around the same time frame or month, I don't see why not.


----------



## dieanotherday

i think RD has become too high cost and difficult


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> There is a 0% chance of a 16GB HBM2 card priced at $500-600.


I am pretty sure AMD has to release at least 2-3 Vega card to compete with 1070, 1080 and 1080 Ti. At the very least they need a R 290 card which will be very close to 1080 for ~ 450-500 and another card that is close to 1080 Ti for 1080 price.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/11/04/nvidia-corporation-reportedly-planning-to-launch-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-soon.html
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> On the Beyond3D forums, user Erinyes, who has provided accurate information about NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA) graphics processors in the past, recently said the following in apost:
> 
> "A little birdie tells me that the GTX 1080 Ti launch is around the corner ... which makes sense since the holiday season is almost upon us."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is before Christmas or after Christmas during CES 2017?
Click to expand...

i think sweden celebrates christmas (jul) until the 13th of january . . so it won't be after.









(at least for them)


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> i think sweden celebrates christmas (jul) until the 13th of january . . so it won't be after.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (at least for them)


...What? You know, it's on the 24th of December like in the other Nordics.


----------



## looniam

well, that serves me right for reading wikipedia.









https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jul_(Sweden)


----------



## dieanotherday

just realized weve been paying 1.2k for an gtx 8800 grade card


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> just realized weve been paying 1.2k for an gtx 8800 grade card


No we paying 1,2K for GTX570 like card.Its cutdown big SKU.
8800GTX was full SKU.

GTX570-350USD
TITANXP-1200USD

This is how MONOPOLY looks like.


----------



## DIYDeath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> No we paying 1,2K for GTX570 like card.Its cutdown big SKU.
> 8800GTX was full SKU.
> 
> GTX570-350USD
> TITANXP-1200USD
> 
> This is how MONOPOLY looks like.


Yeah Nvidia do basically have a monopoly right now. AMD is not competing, releasing product that doesn't compete with the current generation consistently.


----------



## cutty1998

I wonder how much the GTX 1080Ti Lightning will sell for ? $899 ?


----------



## LaBestiaHumana

I'm done with SLI forever. Just gonna go ahead and buy one of these if the price is right.


----------



## mouacyk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaBestiaHumana*
> 
> I'm done with SLI forever. Just gonna go ahead and buy one of these if the price is right.


And if the price isn't right, nose dive right back into sorrowful SLI comfort.


----------



## LaBestiaHumana

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mouacyk*
> 
> And if the price isn't right, nose dive right back into sorrowful SLI comfort.


I'll just keep mine until an upgrade is actually needed. Or find them used on CL.


----------



## Strat79

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaBestiaHumana*
> 
> I'm done with SLI forever. Just gonna go ahead and buy one of these if the price is right.


That's why I'm waiting on the 1080 Ti. I'm done with SLI unless they start getting a lot better support in newer games anyway. I love and have no problems with older games but anything within the last year or more has been so hit and miss it hasn't been worth having 2+ GPU's for me. Fun for benchmarking but current gaming, too many lacking proper support to justify the extra money for me. I'd be fine with my two 780 Ti's if not for the memory wall I hit in almost all games now running at 3440x1440. I don't think even a 1080 Ti will fully max games out at my res and refresh rate(95hz atm) but I can deal with a few settings turned down to get the 95 FPS cap I always use if it means not having to worry about SLI support.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Strat79*
> 
> I'd be fine with my two 780 Ti's if not for the memory wall I hit in almost all games now running at 3440x1440.


My thoughts exactly. I game on 1080p @ 60Hz atm but could go 5760x1080 with my Classified 780s but the 3 GBs on them is the deal breaker for me. I know I have the horsepower but the Vram, if only I could upgrade that I'd be ecstatic.


----------



## renejr902

Cool the 1080ti will have 128gb gddr5x .... LoL

http://christiandaily.com/article/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080ti-features-and-details-release-date-may-be-sooner-than-expected/59221.htm


----------



## meson1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> just realized we've been paying 1.2k for an gtx 8800 grade card


I see what you're trying to say there. But no, we haven't.

The GTX 8800 was the top end mainstream consumer graphics card of it's day. At the time of writing, it's modern equivalent is the GTX 1080; not the Titan. If the card that is the subject of this thread gets released, then it'll be the 1080 Ti that will become the modern 8800.

The Titan series is a whole new tier of cards created several years ago to be entry level compute products. The way Nvidia position them, they are not supposed to be a mainstream consumer offering. Of course, Nvidia know perfectly well what they are doing and 'dangle' the price point low enough to tempt consumers with deep enough pockets to buy it for GPU use anyway. But don't mistake Titan for an 8800.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meson1*
> 
> I see what you're trying to say there. But no, we haven't.
> 
> The GTX 8800 was the top end mainstream consumer graphics card of it's day. At the time of writing, it's modern equivalent is the GTX 1080; not the Titan. If the card that is the subject of this thread gets released, then it'll be the 1080 Ti that will become the modern 8800.
> 
> The Titan series is a whole new tier of cards created several years ago to be entry level compute products. The way Nvidia position them, they are not supposed to be a mainstream consumer offering. Of course, Nvidia know perfectly well what they are doing and 'dangle' the price point low enough to tempt consumers with deep enough pockets to buy it for GPU use anyway. But don't mistake Titan for an 8800.


Agree. The chips in the Titan are basically a slight cut down of the chips used on the enterprise GPU's.


----------



## looniam

newsflash:
nvidia has always used the same chip for consumers and works station cards.

the first titan was made "special" because it was late to market do to yield issues. and even then, had AMD not gotten their act together and starting slapping around nvidia's mid range chips, it may never have arrived.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> newsflash:
> nvidia has always used the same chip for consumers and works station cards.


Newsflash : Who said otherwords?


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> newsflash:
> nvidia has always used the same chip for consumers and works station cards.
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash : Who said otherwords?
Click to expand...

ooops stayed up too late wathcing election results. my bad.

does that answer the "newsflash" format also?


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> ooops stayed up too late wathcing election results. my bad.
> 
> does that answer the "newsflash" format also?


No worries. It happens.







I was also in the loop on what going on. Make America Great Again and get those dam prices down a bit!







Better yet, get us to quantum computing quick for better performance.


----------



## Imglidinhere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobotDevil666*
> 
> January ??!! so just outside my EVGA step up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> first GOW 4 offer comes few days after I bought my 1080's now this, come on now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also why January ? to miss out on all the Christmas sales ? does not compute ....


You poor baby. Whine more please about how your rig cannot possibly play every game at 4k at 60 fps constant without issue... and how you're so left out from this free upgrade to your already over-the-top-compensator-rig build sitting at $4000 easy... God the irony here is awesome...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> No worries. It happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was also in the loop on what going on. Make America Great Again and get those dam prices down a bit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet, get us to quantum computing quick for better performance.


Only way for prices to go down is for US dollar to fail.


----------



## LaBestiaHumana

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Only way for prices to go down is for US dollar to fail.


Won't that make thing more expensive, since the dollar is worth less?


----------



## mouacyk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaBestiaHumana*
> 
> Won't that make thing more expensive, since the dollar is worth less?


No he uses bit coins.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mouacyk*
> 
> No he uses bit coins.


Bit coins still a thing? Thought that stuff was just used for shady things now days.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> newsflash:
> nvidia has always used the same chip for consumers and works station cards.


Well, mostly.

GP100 vs. GP102 is the first notable exception in a long time.

All the old professional only GPU makers are dead because they didn't have the volume, and the revenue, provided by consumer sales to drive R&D...and just making consumer cards would sacrifice the huge profit margins of professional hardware.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Bit coins still a thing? Thought that stuff was just used for shady things now days.


BTC is still a thing and will remain so until some superior crypto gains widespread acceptance and there is no telling how long that will take.

Most cryptocurrency isn't used for anything particularly shady.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LaBestiaHumana*
> 
> Won't that make thing more expensive, since the dollar is worth less?


Not really because prices are based on US and US still leader.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Only way for prices to go down is for US dollar to fail.


Yeah and that would kill all trades, etc. The dollar is used mostly in this world by the majority. While I don't like the printing and weakening of the dollar, wishing for a total collapse would be bad for us all. You'd be stuck with your PC for a long time, and thats hoping if the power stays on.


----------



## PatrickCrowely

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> No we paying 1,2K for GTX570 like card.Its cutdown big SKU.
> 8800GTX was full SKU.
> 
> GTX570-350USD
> TITANXP-1200USD
> 
> This is how MONOPOLY looks like.


Yeah, I think I might wait till the next gen of cards come out. I have no problem playing everything right now @ 4K


----------



## oxidized

There's still chance we will get this at a msrp of 699$ ?


----------



## mouacyk

naddachance


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> There's still chance we will get this at a msrp of 699$ ?


Only and only if Vega.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mouacyk*
> 
> naddachance


Rip

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Only and only if Vega.


I'm obviously waiting for VEGA, but i don't think AMD will try and battle nvidia on 1080ti/titan x level


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> There's still chance we will get this at a msrp of 699$ ?


Yes... Q1 2018


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> Rip
> I'm obviously waiting for VEGA, but i don't think AMD will try and battle nvidia on 1080ti/titan x level


It kind of has to compete with those cards. They did it with 290X and 290. Most people did not think AMD could build a card faster than Titan OG back in the day.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Yes... Q1 2018


Kappa
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> It kind of has to compete with those cards. They did it with 290X and 290. Most people did not think AMD could build a card faster than Titan OG back in the day.


Well i'm not sure, about that, maybe they built something faster than titans, but a year later, or a gen or two later, pretty sure they won't get faster than the latest titan so soon or so easily. I hope i'm wrong tho


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> Kappa


?


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> ?


twitch stuff


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> twitch stuff


Oh. What's it mean?


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Oh. What's it mean?


Sarcasm or irony, depends on the situation. It could also be used as a newer troll face sometimes

/OT


----------



## XxOsurfer3xX

Damn, I'm sick of waiting for Vega. It is going to be really difficult to hold out for AMD after this card is released, it is for me the perfect 4K card, the only thing holding me back will be price. No doubt this is going to be overpriced to hell and back.


----------



## c0nsistent

AMD is taking its sweet time and it sucks... I'm getting tired of this GTX 980 and I've been tempted to go with a used one for a cheap 1080 level performance metric instead of going for a $580 1080 right before the Ti launches.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

They are taking their time because the obvious and old reason, they have nothing worthwhile to show.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *c0nsistent*
> 
> AMD is taking its sweet time and it sucks... I'm getting tired of this GTX 980 and I've been tempted to go with a used one for a cheap 1080 level performance metric instead of going for a $580 1080 right before the Ti launches.


I hope they realise they don't have the luxury to procrastinate in their situation
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> They are taking their time because the obvious and old reason, they have nothing worthwhile to show.


Hope it's not the case


----------



## motoray

Amd needs to bring back the dual gpu cards every generation like they used to. The original "titans"


----------



## Somasonic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> They are taking their time because the obvious and old reason, they have nothing worthwhile to show.


If I understand how this works correctly then surely they're building up an inventory of GP102 chips that aren't making the Titan grade - what are they doing with those? Maybe there aren't enough to do anything with. I don't know.


----------



## mouacyk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Somasonic*
> 
> If I understand how this works correctly then surely they're building up an inventory of GP102 chips that aren't making the Titan grade - what are they doing with those? Maybe there aren't enough to do anything with. I don't know.


What now? AMD is building up an inventory of GP102 that aren't making the Titan grade... and... turning them into Vega? I'll be danged.


----------



## Somasonic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mouacyk*
> 
> What now? AMD is building up an inventory of GP102 that aren't making the Titan grade... and... turning them into Vega? I'll be danged.


argh sorry, misread and thought he meant Nvidia... comprehension fail







although that strategy would probably work out in AMDs favor


----------



## Asus11

I think the 1080 ti will be Nvidias card in the back pocket, AMD will hopefully be using HBM2 and will probably be just as fast as the 1080 with maybe the top card faster hence then Nvidia will release the 1080ti to be back in the lead yet again


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asus11*
> 
> I think the 1080 ti will be Nvidias card in the back pocket, AMD will hopefully be using HBM2 and will probably be just as fast as the 1080 with maybe the top card faster hence then Nvidia will release the 1080ti to be back in the lead yet again


1080 Ti with 12GB and 3840 cores.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *motoray*
> 
> Amd needs to bring back the dual gpu cards every generation like they used to. The original "titans"


http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-pro-duo-benchmarks

Two Nanos on 1 card. But its 1500 and = to an OC 1080.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-pro-duo-benchmarks
> 
> Two Nanos on 1 card. But its 1500 and = to an OC 1080.


I always thought multi gpu cards are trash, that's probably because both AMD and nvidia stopped making them, in the end it's better having 2 cards in SLI/CF


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> I always thought multi gpu cards are trash, that's probably because both AMD and nvidia stopped making them, in the end it's better having 2 cards in SLI/CF


It is for design, power and temp reasons.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> It is for design, power and temp reasons.


Yes, i know, and i guess that performance can be put in since temp and power are there.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> I always thought multi gpu cards are trash, that's probably because both AMD and nvidia stopped making them, in the end it's better having 2 cards in SLI/CF


Ya, you could get a titan XP water cooler it and still be cheaper with higher performance.

Even 1080 SLI on water would be cheaper.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Ya, you could get a titan XP water cooler it and still be cheaper with higher performance.
> 
> Even 1080 SLI on water would be cheaper.


Yeah because Nanos are last generation. Still impressive card if it was not for the high price.


----------



## motoray

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-pro-duo-benchmarks
> 
> Two Nanos on 1 card. But its 1500 and = to an OC 1080.


Thats not the same tho. Back then they were MUCH MUCH more comparable in price to 2 cards. You can get a nano fury X on newegg for 350right now .... u could quadfire for the price of that.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

I honestly really like dual GPUs. Would love to see a smaller Nano like one, since it seems totally possible with HBM packages to cut the card length down a bit than how traditionally long duals are.


----------



## kariverson

r9 295x2 is still badass. Was king of the hill for single PCB cards quite a while. But Crossfire simply has too many problems software wise. I had an HD7990 before my 980ti and it would feel like suicide going back to a dual AMD gpu.


----------



## meson1

I've never really been a fan of dual GPU cards. All they are are SLI/Crossfire in one package with all the problems you get associated with SLI and Crossfire.

If, on the other hand, they (Nvidia and/or AMD) were to come up with a chip architecture whereby two or more chips could be more closely and seamlessly linked on one PCB so that they behaved like one GPU, instead of two in SLI/CF, THAT would be the proper way to do it. It would be, as they say, the proverbial bomb.


----------



## MrKoala

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meson1*
> 
> If, on the other hand, they (Nvidia and/or AMD) were to come up with a chip architecture whereby two or more chips could be more closely and seamlessly linked on one PCB so that they behaved like one GPU, instead of two in SLI/CF, THAT would be the proper way to do it. It would be, as they say, the proverbial bomb.


AMD did say "scalability" will come with Navi, which is exactly what you described.


----------



## meson1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrKoala*
> 
> AMD did say "scalability" will come with Navi, which is exactly what you described.


Not quite. Perfect scalability, while a desirable consequence, isn't the thing of it. The point is that SLI and CF have to be written for and not everything is multi-gpu compliant. In fact many software titlles just whig out when confronted with two or more adapters.

What I am talking about is a baking in the multi-chip capability into the hardware design. Think of it like this.(by the way, in the following hypothetical examples, please ignore the technical practicalities that might make these examples impossible like space on the PCB and power consumption etc)

Right now, if you were to put two, GP102 chips onto a beast of a card, currently it would present as two adapters in SLI each with 3840 Cuda cores and a half share of 12GB GDDR5X VRAM.

But what if the GP102 chips were designed to talk directly to each other so closely, and share their processing resources and memory in such a way that they look and behave like one massive 7680 cuda core chip with full view of all 12GB GDDR5X VRAM? No turning on SLI or CF mode to use it, instead it's just like having one chip that is double the size and presents to the OS as one single adapter.. Now would that be worth something to ya, laddie?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Dual GPU are same as Dual Core CPU. You just have to program to take advantage of Dual GPU. Only problem is that people need to move to Dual GPU which will not happen unless having single GPU solution in the future becomes too expnsive to expand performance.


----------



## CluckyTaco

So.. I've been wondering if hypothetically the 1080ti is released during CES 2017 so when would we see the Hybrid versions from vendors come to the market? 3 months.. 6 months because I'd rather get the hybrid versions outright rather than "founders"


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Considering the fiasco with the 1080 aftermarket versions, compared to the founders, im gonna grab a founders 1080ti and slap a cooler on it myself, the aftermarket cards are a waste of time overclock like crap and take ages to hit the market.


----------



## JakdMan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> Considering the fiasco with the 1080 aftermarket versions, compared to the founders, im gonna grab a founders 1080ti and slap a cooler on it myself, the aftermarket cards are a waste of time overclock like crap and take ages to hit the market.


I don't think it's anywhere near that bad or drastic to to each their own in the end.


----------



## mouacyk

Without an unlocked BIOS, a 1080TI is not enthusiast-worthy. People forget quickly how handicapped Titan X Pascal is by its locked power target. The 1070/1080 didn't suffer as much, naturally due to their lower TDP design. Plenty of people are going to be disappointed if they think 1080TI is the second coming. Again, locked BIOS and insufficient DX12 features.


----------



## motoray

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mouacyk*
> 
> Without an unlocked BIOS, a 1080TI is not enthusiast-worthy. People forget quickly how handicapped Titan X Pascal is by its locked power target. The 1070/1080 didn't suffer as much, naturally due to their lower TDP design. Plenty of people are going to be disappointed if they think 1080TI is the second coming. Again, locked BIOS and insufficient DX12 features.


I think that depends. For those on air, i absolutely agree. For those with custom loops u get a bit more range to play. Tho i agree that no high end card should have those restrictions. If i am willing to chance damaging a card that i paid for that is my choice.


----------



## TopicClocker

Damn, Pascal Titan X performance has me salivating, and the performance is just stupid when overclocked.

A GTX 1080 Ti featuring Pascal Titan X performance at £700 would make me bite, it probably wouldn't be as fast the Pascal Titan X but it will still be pretty good if it's within 10% of it.

The Pascal Titan X when OC'd is damn near 2x a GTX 1070, oh man!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mouacyk*
> 
> Without an unlocked BIOS, a 1080TI is not enthusiast-worthy. People forget quickly how handicapped Titan X Pascal is by its locked power target. The 1070/1080 didn't suffer as much, naturally due to their lower TDP design. Plenty of people are going to be disappointed if they think 1080TI is the second coming. Again, locked BIOS and insufficient DX12 features.


The limitations are a real shame. I wonder what they'd truly capable of if they weren't so limited?


----------



## Dragonsyph

I had the HD 5970 back in the day and it cost me 700 when it came out. Thing was beast mode back then, but it did sound like a jet engine and heated my office to sweating temps.


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> The limitations are a real shame. I wonder what they'd truly capable of if they weren't so limited?


Plenty of people have done the shunt mod, which completely removes any power limitation. There is a boost in very heavy power loads but it isn't that significant, mine is usually stability limited when gaming and extra volts doesn't seem to help overclocking very much, if at all. The BIOS lock, while very sad, isn't that significant of a performance hit for most cards.

What it really hurts is the golden cards' performance for those unwilling to do a hardware mod.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asmodian*
> 
> Plenty of people have done the shunt mod, which completely removes any power limitation. There is a boost in very heavy power loads but it isn't that significant, mine is usually stability limited when gaming and extra volts doesn't seem to help overclocking very much, if at all. The BIOS lock, while very sad, isn't that significant of a performance hit for most cards.
> 
> What it really hurts is the golden cards' performance for those unwilling to do a hardware mod.


Oh I see, damn.


----------



## renejr902

A Strong Rumor just be posted:

http://videocardz.com/64303/rumor-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-with-10gb-memory

Is it means the 1080ti will use standard GDDR5 memory ??? What do you think guys?


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renejr902*
> 
> A Strong Rumor just be posted:
> 
> http://videocardz.com/64303/rumor-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-with-10gb-memory
> 
> Is it means the 1080ti will use standard GDDR5 memory ??? What do you think guys?


Its value is also at 1050 dollars lol.


----------



## SuprUsrStan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renejr902*
> 
> A Strong Rumor just be posted:
> 
> http://videocardz.com/64303/rumor-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-with-10gb-memory
> 
> Is it means the 1080ti will use standard GDDR5 memory ??? What do you think guys?


The common belief is that they would use a 320 bit bus with 10GB memory but the manifest says 384 bit which is interesting.
Quote:


> FOC / PG611 SKU0010 GPU / *384-BIT* *10240MB* GDDR COMPUTER GRAPHICS CARDS, 699-1G611-0010-000


that said, 10GB and 384 bit is definitely plausible. I do think this is our baby that we were looking forwards to.


----------



## DADDYDC650

http://videocardz.com/64303/rumor-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-with-10gb-memory


----------



## xioros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *renejr902*
> 
> A Strong Rumor just be posted:
> 
> http://videocardz.com/64303/rumor-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-with-10gb-memory
> 
> Is it means the 1080ti will use standard GDDR5 memory ??? What do you think guys?
> 
> 
> 
> The common belief is that they would use a 320 bit bus with 10GB memory but the manifest says 384 bit which is interesting.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> FOC / PG611 SKU0010 GPU / *384-BIT* *10240MB* GDDR COMPUTER GRAPHICS CARDS, 699-1G611-0010-000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that said, 10GB and 384 bit is definitely plausible. I do think this is our baby that we were looking forwards to.
Click to expand...

So, big die, GTX 780/980 Ti grade card at the expected price of a Titan?
Yes, that's what we've all been waiting for


----------



## Benny89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renejr902*
> 
> A Strong Rumor just be posted:
> 
> http://videocardz.com/64303/rumor-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-with-10gb-memory
> 
> Is it means the 1080ti will use standard GDDR5 memory ??? What do you think guys?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Its value is also at 1050 dollars lol.


If both are true I am skipping this. Seriously NVIDIA, there is limit of how much you can rip off people. I won't pay more than 850-900 USD at MOST, and only with GDDR5X.

If not I will have to just grab second 980Ti and wait for Volta (from second hand of course so NIVIDA won't get money lol).


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> that said, 10GB and 384 bit is definitely plausible. I do think this is our baby that we were looking forwards to.


10GB and 384 bit is not plausible without more memory shenanigans which I would hope Nvidia would avoid at this point.

With GDDR5(X) a 384 bit bus uses 12 32-bit memory chips, 10GB would require 853.33MB memory chips unless there was segmentation again. Since they only come in 1GB, or the older 512MB chips, 10GB on a 384 bit is unlikely.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benny89*
> 
> If both are true I am skipping this. Seriously NVIDIA, there is limit of how much you can rip off people. I won't pay more than 850-900 USD at MOST, and only with GDDR5X.
> 
> If not I will have to just grab second 980Ti and wait for Volta (from second hand of course so NIVIDA won't get money lol).


Are you really expecting them to offer volta for free ? They will probably increase their prices even further, because pascal sells like hotcakes.


----------



## Benny89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benny89*
> 
> If both are true I am skipping this. Seriously NVIDIA, there is limit of how much you can rip off people. I won't pay more than 850-900 USD at MOST, and only with GDDR5X.
> 
> If not I will have to just grab second 980Ti and wait for Volta.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> Are you really expecting them to offer volta for free ? They will probably increase their prices even further, because pascal sells like hotcakes.


I am not expecting Volta for free. Where did I wrote something like that? I meant that I won't buy premium GPU (because Ti and X are premium ones) with old memory and for a price that is too high for having only normal GDDR memory.

I can buy premium products no problem, but they better be premium, that is all.


----------



## thebirdybird

well, just be glad they haven't decided to charge titan z level prices yet for a 80 ti or titan. can you imagine having to pay $2000-3000 for one of those in the future? i sure wouldn't..


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benny89*
> 
> I am not expecting Volta for free. Where did I wrote something like that? I meant that I won't buy premium GPU (because Ti and X are premium ones) with old memory and for a price that is too high for having only normal GDDR memory.
> 
> I can buy premium products no problem, but they better be premium, that is all.


I agree, if it has 10GB I don't see why Nvidia would put GDDR5 instead of GDDR5X on it. A 320-bit bus with 10GB of GDDR5X would be plenty to differentiate if from the Titan X. However, 12GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus would also make sense and it would might be fast enough for a 3328 core GP102.

It might be that making good PCBs for GDDR5X is actually enough harder that they feel a "big 1070" would be more profitable because I don't think the chips themselves are that much more expensive. It would still be very fast and much closer to the Titan X than the 1070 is to the 1080, 3328/3584 = 92.9%, 1920/2560 = 75%.









edit: I would still much rather have 10Gbps GDDR5X with 26 SMs, even at 320-bit, than 12GB of 8Gbps GDDR5. The Titan XP has 107.1% the bandwidth per SM compared to the 1080. A 26 SM (3328 core) GP102 with 12GB of 8Gbps GDDR5 would have 92.3% the bandwidth per SM compared to the 1080, but 10GB of GDDR5X on a 320-bit bus would give it 96.2% the bandwidth per SM. As an aside, the 1070 has 106.7% the bandwidth per SM compared to the 1080.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

320-bit 12GHz G5X.


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 320-bit 12GHz G5X.


That would give it 107.7% the bandwidth per SM of the Titan XP, almost exactly the same ratio the 1070 has to the 1080.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asmodian*
> 
> That would give it 107.7% the bandwidth per SM of the Titan XP, almost exactly the same ratio the 1070 has to the 1080.


They either downgrade the core count of memory/bandwidth and not both.


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> They either downgrade the core count of memory/bandwidth and not both.


Good point, they don't seem to ever drop the bandwidth per SM below the 16Gbps of the 1080 or P6000, both the 6 and 3GB 1060s have 120% and 133% the bandwidth per SM respectively. I imagine dropping the bandwidth per SM below 16Gbps is not really a good idea with the Pascal architecture, they seem to have a very balanced design and some of their driver optimizations probably require a specific bandwidth ratio to be effective.

10GB of 12Gbps GDDR5X would be ideal from their point of view, I suspect 2GB of memory to be a more significant differentiator than the memory technology in most people's minds and it would keep real world performance very close to the Titan XP.


----------



## kariverson

1070 ti coming, to maximize profits!!


----------



## Benny89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kariverson*
> 
> 1070 ti coming, to maximize profits!!


Actually I think this is part of their plan for "refresh" of Pascal in 2017- 1070Ti (probably 1080 performance), 1080Ti (Titan X performance), and something like TITAN XP Black/WHITE/TURBO/RAPID/YOUMUSTHAVELONGESTEPEEN







(joking).

Or they will release 1070 and 1080 with GDDRX memory and higher clockes as "refresh". You know- Intel Tactic :/

Well, we will see what January brings, it is not that far away


----------



## Nestala

What happend to Volta? Wasn't Volta supposed to release 2017?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nestala*
> 
> What happend to Volta? Wasn't Volta supposed to release 2017?


2017 Q4 is very possible.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

I worry that the announcement at CES 2017, means the supposed 1080 Ti not being released till May-June which I've seen in the passed with some of the top tier GPUs. I truly hope it comes right away or I'm not sure I'll be waiting that long for it.

I did notice on some 3rd party mfger sites that the 10xx series has pretty much sold out so there doesn't seem to be too much stock of it left, which is a good sign for the 1080 Ti.


----------



## GTXJackBauer

Looks like some might have been right about 10 GB of Vram.

http://wccftech.com/gtx-1080-ti-10-gb-vram-zauba/


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'm sure the 1080Ti will be an incredible card performance-wise but I worry about pricing. The 1080's price was already mental so I have little hope we will see this new card debut for any less than $800 or so. When my 3.5 year old Titans are still plenty for all my games at 1440p there is just no reason to spend that kind of money for the 1080Ti. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTXJackBauer*
> 
> Looks like some might have been right about 10 GB of Vram.
> 
> http://wccftech.com/gtx-1080-ti-10-gb-vram-zauba/


If it does have 10GiB of VRAM it's either some lopsided configuration, or more likely a 320-bit memory bus, with either two memory ICs missing or disabled.


----------



## OccamRazor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I'm sure the 1080Ti will be an incredible card performance-wise but I worry about pricing. The 1080's price was already mental so I have little hope we will see this new card debut for any less than $800 or so. When my 3.5 year old Titans are still plenty for all my games at 1440p there is just no reason to spend that kind of money for the 1080Ti. But that's just my opinion.


Hi Eric! Hows it going man!?!?!? Long time no see!









Yap, price will be close/over 1000$ for sure! And there´s more... All of you waiting for Volta better not hold your breath as Nvidia will still milk this generation with another die shrink, as Samsung has 14mn ready to go...








I got my Seahawk at 600$ second hand (someone was desperate to sell), sold my Titans and still got some money back!








Im playing at [email protected] average some games have to lower some settings but still i will only get the hipotetical 1080Ti IF will come at a reasonable price!
If AMD doesnt step up with Vega, im afraid these prices will keep scaling up and away...

Cheers

Occamrazor


----------



## Derek1

Here is a new one.

http://videocardz.com/64303/rumor-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-with-10gb-memory


----------



## SuprUsrStan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nestala*
> 
> What happend to Volta? Wasn't Volta supposed to release 2017?
> 
> 
> 
> 2017 Q4 is very possible.
Click to expand...

Especially if we are getting this card around CES 2017.


----------



## SuprUsrStan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asmodian*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> that said, 10GB and 384 bit is definitely plausible. I do think this is our baby that we were looking forwards to.
> 
> 
> 
> 10GB and 384 bit is not plausible without more memory shenanigans which I would hope Nvidia would avoid at this point.
> 
> With GDDR5(X) a 384 bit bus uses 12 32-bit memory chips, 10GB would require 853.33MB memory chips unless there was segmentation again. Since they only come in 1GB, or the older 512MB chips, 10GB on a 384 bit is unlikely.
Click to expand...

They could literally just disable two memory chips either through the bios or not install them. Sure its a waste of 384 bit but its not like they've never done that before.


----------



## MrKoala

At that point they might as well just ignore a part of the memory space, so all physical memory chips still get used evenly with no reduction in bandwidth, but the driver deliberately starts swapping to host memory beyond 10GB utilization even though there is still space left to use.


----------



## SuprUsrStan

Maybe because this card was so cut down they really did have a 10+2 issue so rather than risk running into that again, they just disabled 2GB?


----------



## thebirdybird

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> If it does have 10GiB of VRAM it's either some lopsided configuration, or more likely a 320-bit memory bus, with either two memory ICs missing or disabled.


well its either one of 2 things

1. it will be confirmed as 384 bit with 2 of the 12 gb disabled to make it 10 gb

or

2. nvidia has decided to use asymmetrical memory technique again for the 1080 ti, which means the total could actually be 9gb of the normal ram + 1 gb of slower ram, which would not be surprising since they have done it in the past for the 970, 660 ti, 550ti and so on.


----------



## paskowitz

IMO the bigger reason not to upgrade is the fact that unless you have a 4K/60/G-Sync monitor, 4K HDR TV or 3x surround 1440p/144hz, current cards are serving you quite well. From 1080p to 3440x1440, 60-144hz a 1080 or even 1070 (980 Ti) will serve you just fine. Until we get substantially better monitors 4K/120Hz or 3440x1440/144hz I just don't think the price of admission is worth the marginally better gaming experience.

Personally, I am waiting for a successor to the Acer X34 or equivalent. >30'', 3440x1440p, HDR, 144hz, G-sync, etc.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> They could literally just disable two memory chips either through the bios or not install them. Sure its a waste of 384 bit but its not like they've never done that before.


That would still leave them with a 320-bit bus.

They may disable the channels, or they may simply leave them unfilled (which would save 20% of the VRAM cost on each board), but there is no way to get 384-bits out of ten 32-bit devices.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrKoala*
> 
> At that point they might as well just ignore a part of the memory space, so all physical memory chips still get used evenly with no reduction in bandwidth, but the driver deliberately starts swapping to host memory beyond 10GB utilization even though there is still space left to use.


Possible to just cap the upper range of memory addresses, but this begs the question why? 10 vs. 12GiB in and of itself is not going to provide any market segmentation, especially if it costs the same to make.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thebirdybird*
> 
> 2. nvidia has decided to use asymmetrical memory technique again for the 1080 ti, which means the total could actually be 9gb of the normal ram + 1 gb of slower ram, which would not be surprising since they have done it in the past for the 970, 660 ti, 550ti and so on.


I think this is the least likely scenario.

The 970 was the way it was because it had disabled ROPs and partially disabled memory controllers, but still had the same amount of enabled memory. That won't be the case with the 1080 Ti unless they are disabling some ROP/memory controller clusters entirely, then leaving one partially enabled, or some other very bizarre configuration that would probably leave performance of the part too close to the vanilla 1080 to justify the cost of a GP 102 board.

The 660 and 550 had different size memory ICs installed in different channels to reach multiple of two memory sizes on boards with memory controllers in multiples of three. That's not necessary here.

The easiest and most cost effective way to slot a 10GiB 1080Ti between the 1080 and TXP is to disable two ROP clusters (giving the card 80 ROPs) and two 32-bit memory channels entirely (320-bit rather than 384-bit total memory bus width), while leaving no memory connected to the disabled channels (optional, but would save money unless they are relabeling already assembled TXP boards).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> Maybe because this card was so cut down they really did have a 10+2 issue so rather than risk running into that again, they just disabled 2GB?


If they can partially disable ROP/memory clusters on Pascal and were going to use full TXP boards, this could be the case. The only way to knock out ROPs and still leave the memory attached to the MC that ROP cluster controlled would be to do what they did with the 970.

They could well have decided that true 10GiB/320-bit interface was wiser than being able to technically advertise 384/12 but to have another 970-like fiasco.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Oh great a 1080 TI with 9GB of memory.

10 GB MEANS 10 GB>>>>>


----------



## looniam

the party moved:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1615870/tweaktown-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-spotted-with-10gb-of-ram/0_50


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thebirdybird*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> If it does have 10GiB of VRAM it's either some lopsided configuration, or more likely a 320-bit memory bus, with either two memory ICs missing or disabled.
> 
> 
> 
> well its either one of 2 things
> 
> 1. it will be confirmed as 384 bit with 2 of the 12 gb disabled to make it 10 gb
> 
> or
> 
> 2. nvidia has decided to use asymmetrical memory technique again for the 1080 ti, which means the total could actually be 9gb of the normal ram + 1 gb of slower ram, which would not be surprising since they have done it in the past for the 970, 660 ti, 550ti and so on.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you say it is either of those two options. Architecturally there is a more sensible third option available.









1) This is a 320-bit bus, you cannot have a 384-bit bus with two chips disabled. This is like saying $100 without one of the 5 twenty dollar bills; it is only $80.

2) This is possible but it would not be helpful in the same way it was on the 970. The 970 had half a ROP cluster with its L2 cache and memory controller's access to the crossbar disabled, basically half a ROP cluster disabled but the memory controller left enabled. They needed to do this because they wanted to disable some bad L2 cache or ROPs but didn't want to disable all of them in the cluster, 52 was too few ROPs. A similar 1080Ti with partitioned memory would have 11 GB of fast memory and 1 GB of slow memory. To get partitioned memory with 10GB they would have to disable one and a half ROP clusters for a total of 72 ROPs. I seriously doubt they would do that given they would already be able to disable an entire ROP cluster, disabling another half a cluster would probably not allow them to harvest enough more dies to be worth the PR nightmare.

*3)* Simply disable one entire ROP cluster, with all of its L2 cache and memory controllers. This gives you 10GB of fast memory with 80 ROPs and no memory shenanigans for people to disparage.


----------



## Nestala

I'm still waiting for a not cut down big die card with HBM that packs a punch.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> the party moved:
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1615870/tweaktown-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-spotted-with-10gb-of-ram/0_50


So, who's going to eat all of these appetizers?


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> the party moved:
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1615870/tweaktown-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-spotted-with-10gb-of-ram/0_50
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, who's going to eat all of these appetizers?
Click to expand...

have at it but i think the veggie dip went bad.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> have at it but i think the veggie dip went bad.


If that what smells? For a second i thought it was Nvidias pricing.


----------



## djriful

:c sorry money went to iPhone 7... best gaming hardware! (joke)


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OccamRazor*
> 
> Hi Eric! Hows it going man!?!?!? Long time no see!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yap, price will be close/over 1000$ for sure! And there´s more... All of you waiting for Volta better not hold your breath as Nvidia will still milk this generation with another die shrink, as Samsung has 14mn ready to go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got my Seahawk at 600$ second hand (someone was desperate to sell), sold my Titans and still got some money back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im playing at [email protected] average some games have to lower some settings but still i will only get the hipotetical 1080Ti IF will come at a reasonable price!
> If AMD doesnt step up with Vega, im afraid these prices will keep scaling up and away...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Occamrazor


Occam, long time no see buddy! How ya been doing? Haven't had much reason to go to the old OG Titan Club thread for a while so its good to see you still on here!


----------



## Krulani

Do we have a price yet?


----------



## Profiled

10 $ per month


----------



## DADDYDC650

So nvidia wants me to pay $120 a year to possibly get some good game keys and slight discounts on video cards?


----------



## SuprUsrStan

It's amazing this thread has survived so long on such a weak rumor back from September.


----------



## Somasonic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> It's amazing this thread has survived so long on such a weak rumor back from September.


People are obviously keen


----------

