# [Geforce] Nvidia GTX 1080 & 1070 unveiled



## MattGordon

Inb4 it's just a huge tease and ends up being something completely unrelated to the Pascal GPUs we want.


----------



## criminal




----------



## VSG

Guess who's at the event in person?









I guess going to Dreamhack was worth it after all. Sadly no AIB has been allowed to bring cards to the event.


----------



## go4life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MattGordon*
> 
> Inb4 it's just a huge tease and ends up being something completely unrelated to the Pascal GPUs we want.


The question is will we get GP100 in Titan/TI? The 980 will be a GP104 no?


----------



## f1LL

Finally a new shield announcement?


----------



## Mad Pistol

Coming up soon! Lets bring on new GPUs!


----------



## WhyCry

Preshow livestream
https://web.facebook.com/NVIDIA/videos/10153711733848253/


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MattGordon*
> 
> Inb4 it's just a huge tease and ends up being something completely unrelated to the Pascal GPUs we want.


RealSound 2016


----------



## xP_0nex

Feel like I'm about to watch a live rave stream.


----------



## Brimlock

I need some help finding what happens since im at work with no way to watch the event


----------



## Jinto

They might as well play Sandstorm.


----------



## BulletSponge

This music......................"Do you want to touch my monkey?"

WOOT!!! Here we go!


----------



## Mad Pistol

We will try and post updates as they happen. If you can tune into this, we will try and let you know.


----------



## Dorito Bandit

Here we go!


----------



## xP_0nex

It's starting!


----------



## Mad Pistol

Here we go!


----------



## CeeeJaaay

Apparently this:



Leaked earlier so it's confirmed we'll see a 1080 announcement tonight.


----------



## verovdp

The man in the famous leather jacket is on stage now


----------



## headd

almost 35k people watching


----------



## SlackerITGuy

Are there any other streams other than the official one on twitch?


----------



## Dorito Bandit

Is the stream a little choppy for you guys?


----------



## morbid_bean

Drinking Game!!!!

Everytime he says "Innovation" and "It just works" take a drink.


----------



## xP_0nex

Steam is good!


----------



## Aggrotech

my body is ready


----------



## Mad Pistol

Get ready for a bunch of fluff before Pascal roll-out.


----------



## Dorito Bandit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Get ready for a bunch of fluff before Pascal roll-out.


Yeah, enough of the fourplay, let's se them new GPUs!


----------



## Brimlock

Found a liveblog nvm


----------



## BulletSponge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verovdp*
> 
> The man in the famous leather jacket is on stage now


Member's Only Re-Mastered Edition.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Interesting... and in-game picture-taking system. This sounds kinda cool.


----------



## CeeeJaaay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> I need some help finding what happens since im at work with no way to watch the event


http://www.anandtech.com/show/10305/the-nvidia-geforce-2016-liveblog


----------



## Dorito Bandit

C'mon, get on to the new GPUs! It'll be Monday in 3 days!


----------



## BigMack70

Now everyone can make their own bullshots


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

is this real
an in-game camera?


----------



## maltamonk

Could care less about this screen cap stuff (ansel). Where's the beef???


----------



## SlackerITGuy

That lady in the front -__-


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> RealSound 2016












called it


----------



## BulletSponge

T-minus "get to the point dammit" GPU info


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

TruAudio2016


----------



## headd

LOL did you say rocks or sucks?


----------



## sugalumps

Vr funhouse hype, worth the wait.


----------



## BulletSponge

LOL, still trying to get PhysX mainstream


----------



## TopicClocker

I have no idea how I managed to wake up in time to watch this. I was tired so I went to sleep earlier than I usually do.

It's 2AM in the UK.


----------



## zealord

just woke up from a nap. I see Lara Croft on stream. what did I miss so far?


----------



## darealist

So does the new cards gonna support HDR displays or what? Wide color gamut or get out!


----------



## ebduncan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> just woke up from a nap. I see Lara Croft on stream. what did I miss so far?


nothing other than free camera, ansel, and their version of "true audio"


----------



## zealord

there it is. good timing on my end


----------



## Squirrel

There it is!


----------



## BigMack70

This feels like a 10 minute presentation that was needlessly stretched into an hour


----------



## Mad Pistol

Finally! 1080 announcement!


----------



## xP_0nex

Its coming!


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> just woke up from a nap. I see Lara Croft on stream. what did I miss so far?


Ansel


----------



## PhRe4k

GTX 1080


----------



## Forceman

Here we go....GTX 1080


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Ansel


who is that?


----------



## drewis

adams


----------



## sugalumps

RIP AMD we have pecoseconds boyz.


----------



## Dorito Bandit

Damn! Most everyone in the crowed appears to be looking at their phones or laptops.


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

This is probably my first time watching an Nvidia event as I usually like to skip the fluff and just read a summary of the event.
Does this guy constantly repeat himself multiple times, always?
I honestly don't know if I can watch it much longer because it's quite literally giving me a headache.


----------



## denman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> RIP AMD we have pecoseconds boyz.


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> This is probably my first time watching an Nvidia event as I usually like to skip the fluff and just read a summary of the event.
> Does this guy constantly repeat himself multiple times, always?
> I honestly don't know if I can watch it much longer because it's quite literally giving me a headache.


Welcome to Jen-Hsun Huang's powerpoints.

Also, what is he smoking? The The CEO thinks the GTX 980 is the best/best performing GPU they ever built. Please tell me I heard that wrong.


----------



## sherlock

1080 faster than Titan X confirmed.


----------



## Serandur

The 980 (GM204) is the best GPU they ever created according to Jen-Hsun Huang? Oh boy, already distancing from GM200...


----------



## sugarhell

Its obvious that they compare 1080 to 980


----------



## criminal

Faster than 980 SLI! Boom!


----------



## Mad Pistol

1080 is faster than 980 SLI?!?!? Is he for real?!?!?!?


----------



## Forceman

Faster than 980 SLI!


----------



## PostalTwinkie

1080 is faster than 980 SLi!?!?


----------



## BigMack70

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sherlock*
> 
> 1080 performance isn't even good enough to have 980Ti on the same chart, LOL


The GTX 1080 is the successor to the 980, not the 980 Ti, so it makes sense. Just like the 980 was the successor to the 680, not the 780/Titan


----------



## xP_0nex

Faster than Titan X!


----------



## Edge0fsanity

faster than titan x wat


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serandur*
> 
> The 980 (GM204) is the best GPU they ever created according to Jen-Hsun Huang? Oh boy, already distancing from GM200...


He was talking about power delivery

but DAMN

faster than 980 sli, a lot faster than titan x


----------



## sugalumps

GG selling my 980ti.


----------



## TopicClocker

Faster than 980 Ti and Titan X.


----------



## mercs213

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> GG selling my 980ti.


should of sold it a month ago or two lol


----------



## criminal

$799 for sure... lol


----------



## Mad Pistol

Welp, as long as this thing doesn't cost $3000, I will be buying one.


----------



## czin125

Only 180 watts? They could put this in a laptop.


----------



## Forceman

More power than a 980 isn't great though.


----------



## BulletSponge

$749 reference I'll bet


----------



## zealord

The chart has to be wrong. According to that chart the 1080 should be like 120% faster than the GTX 980.

That simply can't be


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mercs213*
> 
> should of sold it a month ago or two lol


Nah sold my 980 just as the 980ti launched and still made nearly all of what I paid for it back


----------



## criminal

Where's those guys that said it was slower than a 980Ti... lol


----------



## Brimlock

GTX 1080 Faster than a Titan and SLI 980!!!!

IN YOUR FACE NAY SAYERS!!!!!


----------



## BigMack70

Here's the news I'm excited about... if midrange pascal is faster than two midrange maxwell... when big pascal hits, it's likely to be faster than two big maxwell...


----------



## Kriant

The chart measures performance per what, not the overall performance. Just my 2 cents


----------



## icehotshot

Faster than a Titan X.

Apparently it's insane.


----------



## Testier

This better not be 650 or even 750+....

looks like 20% faster than titan x. Not enough to charge 650 imo.


----------



## criminal

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=GTX+1080&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AGTX+1080


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kriant*
> 
> The chart measures performance per what, not the overall performance. Just my 2 cents


No, it measures both performance per watt and absolute performance


----------



## sugarhell

The graph is strange. It measures per watt. I will wait for the review for the final judgement


----------



## Brimlock

25% faster than a 980 TI, already surpassing my hopes for the 1080.


----------



## DCSRM

Welp, im ready for some hand me down 980tis


----------



## zealord

DOes someone have a picture of the graph?


----------



## Mad Pistol

He already said and announced that 1080 is faster than 980 SLI. That should tell you right there that this thing is fast.


----------



## SlackerITGuy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> DOes someone have a picture of the graph?


----------



## maltamonk

1080>980sli????
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> DOes someone have a picture of the graph?


On page 2 I think...dur me...post 38...other have it covered anyways


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> He already said and announced that 1080 is faster than 980 SLI. That should tell you right there that this thing is fast.


he could talk about games that don't support SLI


----------



## drewis

says 'relative gaming performance'

does that mean true gaming performance?


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> DOes someone have a picture of the graph?


http://www.anandtech.com/show/10305/the-nvidia-geforce-2016-liveblog


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> he could talk about games that don't support SLI


Its just a general measure of increased performance


----------



## Aggrotech

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DCSRM*
> 
> Welp, im ready for some hand me down 980tis


lol this. will pass down my 970 and pick up a 980ti without much trouble im sure.


----------



## BulletSponge

Man, there are gonna be some SWEET Black Friday Amazon Warehouse 980 Ti prices this year.


----------



## sugalumps

Think they will do it? We are due for another $100 market increase on high/mid range...............


----------



## rainzor

Looks like 175W TDP, 10W over GTX980


----------



## Kriant

All I see is the measurement of gaming performance per what.


----------



## twitchyzero

RIP Maxwell
28nm so 2012


----------



## erocker

I'm very surprised. Did not expect this. Hopefully pricing is in line with the previous models these new cards replace.... Or cheaper!!!


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drewis*
> 
> says 'relative gaming performance'
> 
> does that mean true gaming performance?


More than likely that means averaged across all the major resolutions. They can't say it's exactly a certain speed faster, because at some resolution, it will be a lie.

By putting "relative performance" it simply means it's an average.


----------



## Serandur

Comparison to a stock Titan X with no idea how much overclocking headroom the 1080 is leaves me still cautiously optimistic.

But it's certainly an exciting claim. Anyone want my G1 980 Ti? Price pending...


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> DOes someone have a picture of the graph?


----------



## DCSRM

"How much gaming performace does your card have?"

" 5"

"5 what?"

"5... Gaming units"


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serandur*
> 
> Comparison to a stock Titan X with no idea how much overclocking headroom the 1080 is leaves me still cautiously optimistic.
> 
> But it's certainly an exciting claim. Anyone want my G1 980 Ti? Price pending...


$400 right now.


----------



## overcrash

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serandur*
> 
> Comparison to a stock Titan X with no idea how much overclocking headroom the 1080 is leaves me still cautiously optimistic.
> 
> But it's certainly an exciting claim. Anyone want my G1 980 Ti? Price pending...


I'll take it


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> The graph is strange. It measures per watt. I will wait for the review for the final judgement


Look at it again.

It's measuring power on the X axis and performance on the Y axis. That's the whole point


----------



## variant

We already know from the leaked benchmark that it's as fast as a 980Ti clocked at 1500Mhz...


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DCSRM*
> 
> "How much gaming performace does your card have?"
> 
> " 5"
> 
> "5 what?"
> 
> "5... Gaming units"


LOL


----------



## BulletSponge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serandur*
> 
> Comparison to a stock Titan X with no idea how much overclocking headroom the 1080 is leaves me still cautiously optimistic.
> 
> But it's certainly an exciting claim. Anyone want my G1 980 Ti?


I'm guessing OC'ing potential will be nil on stock Bios. "Clean power, clean power, etc, etc"


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> The chart has to be wrong. According to that chart the 1080 should be like 120% faster than the GTX 980.
> 
> That simply can't be


70-80% faster. The chart starts at 1. It's 20-25% faster than a Titan X.


----------



## degenn

OH CRAP, SOME DAY HAS ARRIVED.


----------



## zealord

It's only gaming performance.

It looks like GTX 1080 is at 4.5 and GTX 980 is at like 2.6~

That is like a 80% increase or something

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gamervivek*
> 
> 70-80% faster. The chart starts at 1. It's 20-25% faster than a Titan X.


yeah something like that


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kriant*
> 
> 
> 
> All I see is the measurement of gaming performance per what.


Because you didn't notice the "Performance" label on the Y axis.


----------



## bfedorov11

Faster than 980 sli... of course, when there is no sli support anymore....


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> It's only gaming performance.
> 
> It looks like GTX 1080 is at 4.5 and GTX 980 is at like 2.6~
> 
> That is like a 80% increase or something
> yeah something like that


80% increase from one chip generation is simply amazing! I think the last time we saw something like that was the 8800 GTX.


----------



## Serandur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> $400 right now.


Sounds fair tbh. Hype has a funny way of causing mental illness.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> 80% increase from one chip generation is simply amazing! I think the last time we saw something like that was the 8800 GTX.


But I heard so many say that it wasn't possible!


----------



## drewis

yeah not so sure its that much faster but time will tell.

graph wasnt misleading but it wasnt exactly forthwith either.


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> 80% increase from one chip generation is simply amazing! I think the last time we saw something like that was the 8800 GTX.


If it actually hits that on average, I can't wait till large Pascal. I'm going to ride my 980Ti out till then since I don't game a tremendous amount to begin with.


----------



## Brimlock

And this is all based on stock performance of a reference card too.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> If it actually hits that on average, I can't wait till large Pascal. I'm going to ride my 980Ti out till then since I don't game a tremendous amount to begin with.


Game? GPU's are all about the epeen!


----------



## Kinaesthetic

2114Mhz.... ON freaking air.


----------



## Forceman

Available today?


----------



## degenn

2144mhz clock ***


----------



## Mad Pistol

***!!!! 2Ghz chip?!?!?!?!?


----------



## mingocr83

From what I''ve heard triple SLI won't be possible. There was an error during design.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> 80% increase from one chip generation is simply amazing! I think the last time we saw something like that was the 8800 GTX.


Didn't we get that from 580 to 780 too?


----------



## icehotshot

2114 Mhz!

PogChamp


----------



## vdek

Holy **** that's fast!


----------



## mercs213

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Available today?


Heard the same thing.. when can we buy them?!


----------



## Noufel

2.1 ghz air cooled !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## headd

LOOOL 2144Mhz


----------



## criminal

2114 gpu core!


----------



## mouacyk

F! that clock speed. jeez

and 11ghz gddr5x


----------



## TopicClocker

2.1GHz clock speed on the air cooler.
Incredible.


----------



## Brimlock

This thing is a BEAST!!


----------



## Doxy

65C!!!


----------



## Mad Pistol

2.2Ghz @ 67C.... dude....


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> 80% increase from one chip generation is simply amazing! I think the last time we saw something like that was the 8800 GTX.


The amazing level would depend on how big the die for this is.

2.1Ghz!!!


----------



## Noufel

love that new noooooooooooooood


----------



## b.walker36

They are making a statement, I'm hooked.


----------



## Serandur

And in the red corner, we have... a no-show who's already declared they won't show in 2016. :/


----------



## BulletSponge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BulletSponge*
> 
> I'm guessing OC'ing overhead will be nil on stock Bios. "Clean power, clean power, etc, etc"


Is that the Mythbusters dude in the audience close to the camera?


----------



## Noufel

who need a couple 980 tis


----------



## Cyro999

Those 1.7ghz core, 10ghz VRAM were not actually overclocked

OC is 2.1ghz core, 11ghz VRAM lol


----------



## variant

He talked as if the 2.1Ghz was overclocked speeds.


----------



## 12Cores

2.1 ghz, that 1070 is going to be a real problem for amd.


----------



## skummm

Gpu clocked at 2.1Ghz... aircooled... wow


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> He talked as if the 2.1Ghz was overclocked speeds.


Guess we will find out, eh?


----------



## one-shot

980 Ti market price just dropped to $300.


----------



## i7monkey

give us a price!


----------



## degenn

Overclocked or not, that is mad impressive.


----------



## Noufel

and that's on 16nm imagine what can AMD achieve with 14 nm


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> 980 Ti market price just dropped to $300.


Nah, probably about $400, but yea, it just got a lot cheaper.


----------



## velocd

Jesus, those clock speeds. I hope this card isn't $1K.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> He talked as if the 2.1Ghz was overclocked speeds.


I noticed that too, he said something about "overclocks well". so maybe it was overclocked?


----------



## zealord




----------



## axiumone

He better be saying that they'll completely rewrite nvidias approach to surround displays with his dribble.


----------



## Mad Pistol

If 2.1Ghz was an overclock, then that's fine... it was running air cooled @ 67C. That means it probably still has headroom left.


----------



## variant

So Pascal is Nvidia's Netburst.


----------



## Recipe7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> He talked as if the 2.1Ghz was overclocked speeds.


Unless they are blowing AC air right into that card, that seems to be that 21xx mhz at an insane 67C would have to be stock numbers.


----------



## criminal

GTX 1070, where you at?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Recipe7*
> 
> Unless they are blowing AC air right into that card, that seems to be that 21xx mhz at an insane 67C would have to be stock numbers.


1733mhz is stock boost


----------



## kpzero

If they price it 550 or less, AMD might be in for some trouble with that OC.


----------



## denman

God, throw two chips on one GPU please! Let me replace my GTX 690 with a 1090!!! My body is ready.


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> So Pascal is Nvidia's Netburst.


It would be...if they were still on the 28nm node. However, this is probably indicative of 16nm FinFET.


----------



## Dorito Bandit

Aren't these new GPUs supposedly to be released this month?


----------



## one-shot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Nah, probably about $400, but yea, it just got a lot cheaper.


For a new one. Used is $300 tops without a warranty if the 1080 is released at 550-600 WITH a warranty.


----------



## looniam

ok, new display features, so when is the newly supported gameworks?

ya know, the stuff to bring maxwell to it's knees.


----------



## Recipe7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> 1733mhz is stock boost


So are we assuming that a stock boost of 17xx would net 50-55C on air? That's great.

My 980Ti Hybrid hits 62C with 1.25V at 1500/4000 for my own reference.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> It would be...if they were still on the 28nm node. However, this is probably indicative of 16nm FinFET.


Why does that not happen with Intel? We have not been able to OC more since 32nm.


----------



## Randomdude

Okay, definitely buying the biggest HBM2 chip of either company. I'm sold.


----------



## drewis

not gonna be $600 USD.

gonna be 700 USD minimum for the 1080 IF the perf stats are true.


----------



## Tcoppock

LOL...I will be replacing my 670 w/1080 BOOM


----------



## Noufel

so nvidia are going to get over Async compute with brute force


----------



## variant

GTX 1080 will probably be $650.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drewis*
> 
> not gonna be $600 USD.
> 
> gonna be 700 USD minimum for the 1080 IF the perf stats are true.


$599 is plausible.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> ok, new display features, so when is the newly supported gameworks?
> 
> ya know, the stuff to bring maxwell to it's knees.


My 980 just died while watching the stream. Nvidia sent out a bug to kill Maxwell.


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

All I can think when watching this is "how is AMD going to survive?"
Incredible stuff from Nvidia, I am thoroughly impressed.
Still probably wait for the 1080 Ti because at this point I can't imagine AMD bringing anything competitive to the table now, perhaps that's just me being pessimistic.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> and that's on 16nm imagine what can AMD achieve with 14 nm


nothing. they're asleep. they're late to the party again.


----------



## sugalumps

Enjoy
WoW

Pick one.


----------



## darealist

Titan P will be truly 4k ready. All it need is HDR support for glorious 65" OLED gaming.


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Why does that not happen with Intel? We have not been able to OC more since 32nm.


That would mostly deal with CPU architecture design versus GPU architecture design. Kinda hard to explain it in easy terms. Basically think of it as this. It is hard to make many complicated things to work in harmony. Versus making many easy/simple things to work in harmony.


----------



## criminal

I hope AMD has been sitting on something great because....


----------



## Noufel

a triple gpu card ???!!!!


----------



## GrayFoxbr

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080

1 8pin? is this real? WOW


----------



## degenn

Interesting tweak on surround-display gaming.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> I hope AMD has been sitting on something great because....


If there is no 1070 or 1060 their Polaris 10/11 will be fine.


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Available today?


I think he was talking about the Unreal engine.


----------



## criminal

GEFORCE GTX 1080
GPU Engine Specs:
2560NVIDIA CUDA® Cores
1607Base Clock (MHz)
1733Boost Clock (MHz)
Memory Specs:
10 GbpsMemory Speed
8 GB GDDR5XStandard Memory Config
256-bitMemory Interface Width
320Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec)

I want one....


----------



## LBear

Unable to watch need more info.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrayFoxbr*
> 
> http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080
> 
> 1 8pin? is this real? WOW


Just notice that as well


----------



## drewis

looks like the shroud leak picture was accurate.


----------



## looniam

wicky wonky.

ok


----------



## naz2

"tom can you do x"
"shawn can you do x"


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drewis*
> 
> looks like the shroud leak picture was accurate.


A lot of these rumors came true, including GDDR5X. So it's likely the $650 price rumor is real too.


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Kinda about time someone fixed the peripheral vision in surround gaming. I'm mildly impressed.


----------



## i7monkey

performance not that good?

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080


----------



## drewis

maybe AMD will have something actually decent this time around, not to say itll beat this but.. maybe something worthwhile.

heres hoping

i want 2x 1080 NOW......(after the reviews)


----------



## headd




----------



## sugarhell

Actually i am sold at the fish eye surround fix.


----------



## Noufel

tom plz tom plz


----------



## 2010rig

LOL, Tom's in trouble

TOM, I was being sarcastic ????


----------



## degenn

Hahahahaha


----------



## ZealotKi11er

DP 1.4


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Actually i am sold at the fish eye surround fix.


Seriously. I hope AMD puts that into their Eyefinity. Because that basically makes Eyefinity way worse than Nvidia Surround.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Omg... he's ripping on Tom Peterson!!! *** Jen!!


----------



## Noufel

tom get rekt RIP tom


----------



## mouacyk

Tom's fired.


----------



## iCrap

rip tom!


----------



## drewis

I just cant get over this 'relative performance' mantra.. I keep seeing it in all the graphs... what ******* relative performance? relative to what?? energy consumed? resolution? overall average performance??? penis length??


----------



## SlackerITGuy

Is this really going on?


----------



## icehotshot

And this is why Nvidia leads and AMD follows........just the truth.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drewis*
> 
> I just cant get over this 'relative performance' mantra.. I keep seeing it in all the graphs... what ******* relative performance? relative to what?? energy consumed? resolution? overall average performance??? penis length??


Relative to tom


----------



## naz2

tom plz
plz tom


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drewis*
> 
> I just cant get over this 'relative performance' mantra.. I keep seeing it in all the graphs... what ******* relative performance? relative to what?? energy consumed? resolution? overall average performance??? penis length??


Dont question it, did you not see the line? The line went up m8.


----------



## 2010rig

Tom's gonna get slapped soon


----------



## i7monkey

tom about to get canned


----------



## ZealotKi11er

60-70% more then 980 is not enough for me especially 4K 60Hz.


----------



## Noufel

tom let me finnish my job i'll pay you what ever u want .........................................


----------



## lowfat

ROFL @ Tom


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Tom's gonna get slapped soon


Nah, too many people like Tom. He's actually a very big asset to Nvidia.


----------



## mouacyk

Simultaenous Projection versus Radeon Pro Duo.


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *icehotshot*
> 
> And this is why Nvidia leads and AMD follows........just the truth.


Because Nvidia decided to resell OC 980Ti performance at OC 980Ti price?


----------



## SlackerITGuy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Nah, too many people like Tom. He's actually a very big asset to Nvidia.


Is that right? how so?


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> Because Nvidia decided to resell OC 980Ti performance at OC 980Ti price?


Nah because amd are awlays a day late and a dollar short.


----------



## ssgtnubb

It should be interesting to see the marketplace on here the next few days, I predict a mass selling of 9 series gpus


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SlackerITGuy*
> 
> Is that right? how so?


I dunno. Jen just seemed like he was really loving on Tom, lol.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Nah, too many people like Tom. He's actually a very big asset to Nvidia.


We know it's one of his best guys, but he keeps messing up the flow, it's so funny

I lost track of the point he's trying to make


----------



## degenn

This is hilarious lol


----------



## Shogon

I wonder how well it handles [email protected] with those speeds / architecture. The single 8 pin is pretty nice as well.


----------



## Dorito Bandit

Tom better *respeck* Jen!


----------



## Noufel

next time it will be " tom ****"


----------



## Maintenance Bot

DP 1.4 oh yeah.


----------



## Noufel

he said it" 1080 has a huge perf boost against TX "


----------



## maltamonk

So with the fish eye fix. How do they tell how much to alter the image to fix it?...ie how do they know the angle you have your monitors?


----------



## renji1337

time to sell my 980 ti's by msi for 450 each -_- lol


----------



## icehotshot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> Because Nvidia decided to resell OC 980Ti performance at OC 980Ti price?


Sounds like you aren't actually watching the stream. The comment actually didn't have anything to do with the 1080 performance.

Nvidia announced many new technologies, especially for VR, that amd are obviously very far behind in and will now have to copy from Nvidia like they always do.

i.e. amd copied freesync from Gsync.


----------



## Serandur

So... 2560 shader cores x 2.1 GHz = ~10.75 TFLOPs or ~10750 GFLOPs

Obligatory:


----------



## degenn

Single pass stereo, dayum.


----------



## Kinaesthetic

So it doesn't look like the 1080 is going to THAT much faster than the 980Ti. This is taken straight from Nvidia's spec page for the GTX 1080:


----------



## vdek

So is this exclusive to the 1080 or will this work on a 980 Ti as well?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renji1337*
> 
> time to sell my 980 ti's by msi for 450 each -_- lol


If this card is $500 then 980 Ti will not be worth more then $350.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *icehotshot*
> 
> Sounds like you aren't actually watching the stream. The comment actually didn't have anything to do with the 1080 performance.
> 
> Nvidia announced many new technologies, especially for VR, that amd are obviously very far behind in and will now have to copy from Nvidia like they always do.


Ye but they will rename it first, "True Single Pass Stereo".


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vdek*
> 
> So is this exclusive to the 1080 or will this work on a 980 Ti as well?


Pascal only.


----------



## GrayFoxbr




----------



## Eldan

1080 >Titan X SLI in VR. You called it.


----------



## Doxy

Twice the perf of ttan x?


----------



## renji1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> If this card is $500 then 980 Ti will not be worth more then $350.


they will still sell for 450-500 on ebay and such. hardwareswap just had two deals finish for 450ea.

alot of people don't like waiting and the moment they see a 600$ gpu at 450, they will buy it.

it seems the 2.1ghz clock was overclocked so i can easily see 400$ if not 450still. both my 980tis hit 1450 easily


----------



## TopicClocker

2x performance and efficiency of the Titan X.


----------



## Kinaesthetic

DP 1.3 confirmed? Or am I seeing things?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Doxy*
> 
> Twice the perf of ttan x?


In VR. It does not matter much really. VR is still too new.


----------



## i7monkey

2x the perf in *VR*


----------



## Noufel

and that's the card


----------



## lowfat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shogon*
> 
> I wonder how well it handles [email protected] with those speeds / architecture. The single 8 pin is pretty nice as well.


Probably north of 1million PPD.


----------



## besthijacker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> DP 1.3 confirmed? Or am I seeing things?


1.4


----------



## icehotshot

Did he just say twice the performance of titan X?


----------



## 2010rig

Twice the performance of TX?

$599 MSRP and people cheered


----------



## TopicClocker

The biggest GPU jump we've seen in years, perhaps onpar or better than the 8800 gen.

EDIT: Hold on. The 2x faster number confused me, that's under VR. My mistake.


----------



## Brimlock

Hail to the king baby!


----------



## axiumone

$599


----------



## icehotshot

For $599


----------



## Kinaesthetic

WHAT THE HECK. $599?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Called the price $599.


----------



## looniam

$600


----------



## Forceman

The compromise $599.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

599


----------



## mercs213

Founders edition?


----------



## Mad Pistol

$599... you guys called it.


----------



## Noufel

599$ MSRP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BulletSponge

Damn!!!!! SOLD!


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vdek*
> 
> So is this exclusive to the 1080 or will this work on a 980 Ti as well?


Maxwell has something called Multi-Projection Acceleration. It was touted at its release.


----------



## skummm

$599 ....this is AWESOME


----------



## renji1337

Keep in mind guys we still dont have official benchmarks really. just an overclock 2.1 and a chart saying almost 2x performance.


----------



## KGPrime

haha, called it a month ago. $599 Called the 1070 too.


----------



## Noufel

may 27


----------



## sugalumps

.... It's over they win again.


----------



## Rich84

May 27th


----------



## mouacyk

Founder's Edition? ***?


----------



## Noufel

and more


----------



## ZealotKi11er

1070







$379.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

379 for 1070 gg amd


----------



## Shogon

gtx 1070 @ $380


----------



## Fancykiller65

Well AMD is finished.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Oh crap..... GTX 1070.... $379?!?!?!?!?!


----------



## looniam

$380 1070


----------



## Brimlock

600$ is not surprising


----------



## sugalumps

faster than titan x $379........................


----------



## icehotshot

GTX 1070 FASTER THAN TITAN X.

Confirmed.


----------



## Hequaqua

1070 349.00


----------



## Forceman

$379 for the 1070 isn't bad. A lot lower TFlops though.


----------



## skummm

1070... $379..... wow!


----------



## Noufel

1070 is the new best selling gpu


----------



## zealord

god the paid hype-people in the crowd are so cringeworthy.


----------



## 2010rig

GTX 1070 $379


----------



## iCrap

whooooooaahhh im buying a 1070.

rip amd?


----------



## variant

Founder's edition? Want it early? Pay more.


----------



## icehotshot

So more performance than Titan X for $379 seems like a good deal to me.

Anyone else think so?

RIP AMD 2016.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

There is no way 1070 is faster then Titan X. In VR not in games. Only has GDDR5.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> god the paid hype-people in the crowd are so cringeworthy.


Tell me about it, they sound so sheepish, cheering on queue


----------



## Dorito Bandit

OMG!


----------



## i7monkey

what's founders edition?


----------



## vdek

1070 is going to be awesome for VR! A bit jealous here but I will stick with my 980Ti Classified until they launch a 1080Ti.


----------



## Mad Pistol

I believe I may be getting a 1070. I just cannot stomach a 1080 at this time.


----------



## TopicClocker

Mother of God. This surpassed my expectations.

I don't know if I'll get a GTX 1070 or 1080.


----------



## jorpe

hype people are annoying.


----------



## Prophet4NO1

So, twice a titan X? Performance per watt or actual raw performance? And if that's the case, GP100 will really be a monster.


----------



## looniam

ok. now waiting for real gaming benchmarks. bet those performance percentages are different.


----------



## kcuestag

Oh well, looks like both my 980Ti's are going on sale in a moment.


----------



## renji1337

well seeing as 1080 price is 599, im hoping to get 450 ea for my 980ti gaming 6g's. atleast 400ea minimum. gotta take pics and stuff to sell now -_-. this sucks i have to live on integrated for a couple weeks haha


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

Damn, seems like AMD is finished.


----------



## sugarhell

The 1070 looks to good for the summer. Lets hope that polaris can be competitive


----------



## Noufel

i hope they are not only faster in VR


----------



## 2010rig

GG AMD


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prophet4NO1*
> 
> So, twice a titan X? Performance per watt or actual raw performance? And if that's the case, GP100 will really be a monster.


I believe its in VR. 2x performance, 3x p/w


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renji1337*
> 
> well seeing as 1080 price is 599, im hoping to get 450 ea for my 980ti gaming 6g's. atleast 400ea minimum. gotta take pics and stuff to sell now -_-. this sucks i have to live on integrated for a couple weeks haha


You won't get it.. a 1070 out performs your 980ti for 380 bucks.. who's paying 450 for your old tech?


----------



## axiumone

So, simultaneous multi projection. Does it have to be explicitly programmed in or is just a driver feature?


----------



## zealord

good event.

Nvidia knows what people want to hear.

In my opinion they nailed what they showed and the price point is perfect to not get people upset and make them buy is masses.


----------



## i7monkey

Twice the performance in *VR*

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080


----------



## BulletSponge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> 1070 is the new best selling gpu


QFT


----------



## Mad Pistol

Yea, it's obvious these cards were developed with VR in mind. However, the performance for normal gaming is nothing to sneeze at either. I cannot wait to see some actual performance numbers on these guys.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> You won't get it.. a 1070 out performs your 980ti for 380 bucks.. who's paying 450 for your old tech?


People that have not seen the presentation


----------



## renji1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> You won't get it.. a 1070 out performs your 980ti for 380 bucks.. who's paying 450 for your old tech?


we don't have any proof yet, you are all hyping it so much. -_- you guys are going off of nvidias charts which dont show resolutions, scores or anything

o_o hype is too blinding.

the first slide had the 1080 at 20% faster then a titan x btw.


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prophet4NO1*
> 
> So, twice a titan X? Performance per watt or actual raw performance? And if that's the case, GP100 will really be a monster.


He kept interchanging performance per watt and performance. The first chart that showed performance put the 1080 at 20% faster than the Titan X which is inline with the leaked benchmark.


----------



## JonnyBigBoss

I've had goosebumps for 15 minutes now. Holy smokes.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> He kept interchanging performance per watt and performance. The first chart that showed performance put the 1080 at 20% faster than the Titan X.


More like %25.


----------



## zealord

The 970 for 329$ was better than the 780 Ti for 699$ or Titan Black for 1000$. So no surprise to see the 1070 for 379$ being better than the 980 Ti for 650$ or Titan X for 1000$


----------



## Mad Pistol

I'm thinking a 1070. My 3440x1440 monitor is ready.


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> More like %25.


The chart also showed the Titan X at 180% higher than the 970... So yeah...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renji1337*
> 
> we don't have any proof yet, you are all hyping it so much. -_- you guys are going off of nvidias charts which dont show resolutions, scores or anything
> 
> o_o hype is too blinding.


There is no way 1070 is going to be faster then 980 Ti. 970 was not faster then 780 Ti.

Also these higher priced models are a bit concerning. I hope its just the cooler that's different.

1080 Ti will be $699 at minimum.


----------



## JonnyBigBoss

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renji1337*
> 
> well seeing as 1080 price is 599, im hoping to get 450 ea for my 980ti gaming 6g's. atleast 400ea minimum. gotta take pics and stuff to sell now -_-. this sucks i have to live on integrated for a couple weeks haha


Good luck. 8 hours ago I was ready to pay $450 for a used GTX 980Ti, but after the reveal a few moments ago I wouldn't even pay $200.


----------



## Serandur

What is this Founder's Edition nonsense? It seems contradictory alongside aftermarket models... there will be aftermarket models in a timely manner, right?


----------



## variant

Notice in his comparisons the 980Ti and it's overclocked versions are mysteriously missing. I wonder why...


----------



## Quasimojo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> god the paid hype-people in the crowd are so cringeworthy.


I know, right? That one chick was going bananas.


----------



## mingocr83

Well, think the 1070 is going to replace my 780. Got this from a source, triple SLI won't be possible. Nvidia sent a notification to OEMs about this. Seems there was a mistake in design.


----------



## criminal

980Ti's worth $350...lol

Pascal better be good.... or 1070 here I come.


----------



## WolfssFang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JonnyBigBoss*
> 
> Good luck. 8 hours ago I was ready to pay $450 for a used GTX 980Ti, but after the reveal a few moments ago I wouldn't even pay $200.


LOL I was about to say the exact thing! I cant stop laughing.


----------



## renji1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> There is no way 1070 is going to be faster then 980 Ti. 970 was not faster then 780 Ti.
> 
> Also these higher priced models are a bit concerning. I hope its just the cooler that's different.
> 
> 1080 Ti will be $699 at minimum.


yeah this makes sense. I'm thinking i can atleast get 400/min for my 980ti's since they are aftermarket with 2 yrs warranty left. I'm going to go for 450 with 2day shipping though


----------



## i7monkey

Why are you guys so impressed?

It's 25% faster than a Titan X, which means it does worse than the GTX 680 in relation to it's predecessor (580) and costs $100 more.

Don`t be fooled.


----------



## Shogon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lowfat*
> 
> Probably north of 1million PPD.


Now I wonder what the 1070 can do considering the price.


----------



## BulletSponge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JonnyBigBoss*
> 
> Good luck. 8 hours ago I was ready to pay $450 for a used GTX 980Ti, but after the reveal a few moments ago I wouldn't even pay $200.


Same here, I'm not even going to try and sell my 970. I'll put it in my daughters rig in place of her 760.


----------



## degenn

Guess I'll be grabbing a couple 1080's after all...









Gonna try to wait for AIB's tho.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> There is no way 1070 is going to be faster then 980 Ti. 970 was not faster then 780 Ti.
> 
> Also these higher priced models are a bit concerning. I hope its just the cooler that's different.
> 
> 1080 Ti will be $699 at minimum.


Didn't he say the 1070 was faster than TX?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Why are you guys so impressed?
> 
> It's 25% faster than a Titan X, which means it does worse than the GTX 680 in relation to it's predecessor (580) and costs $100 more.
> 
> Don`t be fooled.


About the same as GTX580 to GTX680 but this time you get $50 less then GTX980 Ti. Its prices right.


----------



## Dorito Bandit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *degenn*
> 
> Guess I'll be grabbing a couple 1080's after all...


All you need is one!


----------



## TheDude26

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mingocr83*
> 
> Well, think the 1070 is going to replace my 780. Got this from a source, triple SLI won't be possible. Nvidia sent a notification to OEMs about this. Seems there was a mistake in design.


Triple SLI for 1070 or Pascal in general?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Why are you guys so impressed?
> 
> It's 25% faster than a Titan X, which means it does worse than the GTX 680 in relation to it's predecessor (580) and costs $100 more.
> 
> Don`t be fooled.


To be fair Nvidia has no competition.

When the 680 came out the 7970 was already available.

Two completely different situations


----------



## alawadhi3000

GTX1080 9TFlops and 10Gbps VRAM.
GTX1070 6.5TFlops and 8Gbps VRAM.

GTX1080 is ~%25 faster than Titan X.

GTX1080 is ~%38 faster than GTX1070 on the core, %25 faster on the memory.

Yeah the GTX1070 will be at best as fast as a GTX980 Ti, still good for $379.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Didn't he say the 1070 was faster than TX?


Exactly, and he wasn't specifically mentioning VR when he said it either. The 1070 is simply faster than the Titan X. That means in VR, it will blow the pants off a Titan X.


----------



## czin125

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Why are you guys so impressed?
> 
> It's 25% faster than a Titan X, which means it does worse than the GTX 680 in relation to it's predecessor (580) and costs $100 more.
> 
> Don`t be fooled.


gtx 1070 379 USD to replace a 980ti?


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheDude26*
> 
> Triple SLI for 1070 or Pascal in general?


Who cares triple-sli sucks anyway!


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Didn't he say the 1070 was faster than TX?


He was all VR at the very end. People will think that but he is not wrong. Good way to deceive i think. People will go crazy buying 1070 like they did 970.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Why are you guys so impressed?
> 
> It's 25% faster than a Titan X, which means it does worse than the GTX 680 in relation to it's predecessor (580) and costs $100 more.
> 
> Don`t be fooled.


OVERCLOCKER'S DREAM

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> There is no way 1070 is going to be faster then 980 Ti. 970 was not faster then 780 Ti.
> 
> Also these higher priced models are a bit concerning. I hope its just the cooler that's different.
> 
> 1080 Ti will be $699 at minimum.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't he say the 1070 was faster than TX?
Click to expand...

yeah he said it, might be in VR though


----------



## Noufel

why nvidia







now i have to put those 980ti in the HTPC


----------



## carlhil2

I am in for two...


----------



## mingocr83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheDude26*
> 
> Triple SLI for 1070 or Pascal in general?


Pascal in General. Could be fixed when big pascal is released. As far as I know, is under investigation.


----------



## SchmoSalt

I was hoping for faster. If NVIDIA says 20% faster than the TX then it'll likely be 10-15% in the real world. I knew it was unlikely but I was hoping for the 1080 to blow the TX away so I could pick up a second TX for cheap. Now that likely won't be the case.

I hope that the 1080 Ti next year won't be as disappointing as the 1080 is today.


----------



## Randomdude

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Why are you guys so impressed?
> 
> It's 25% faster than a Titan X, which means it does worse than the GTX 680 in relation to it's predecessor (580) and costs $100 more.
> 
> Don`t be fooled.


16-20% faster according to graph.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Exactly, and he wasn't specifically mentioning VR when he said it either. The 1070 is simply faster than the Titan X. That means in VR, it will blow the pants off a Titan X.


And did we all hear correctly, he claimed the 1080 had TWICE the performance of a TX
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> OVERCLOCKER'S DREAM
> yeah he said it, might be in VR though


I missed that he meant in VR, sounded very general


----------



## Quasimojo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Why are you guys so impressed?
> 
> It's 25% faster than a Titan X, which means it does worse than the GTX 680 in relation to it's predecessor (580) and costs $100 more.
> 
> Don`t be fooled.


Even if it's only a 25% improvement, they're also claiming 3x more power efficient (whatever exactly that means). Faster card for less power at only a small price increase over the 980 ti's? I'm sold. Then again, I don't have a 980 ti to unload, so it's a no-brainer for me.


----------



## Dorito Bandit

1080 product page. http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080


----------



## TheDude26

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mingocr83*
> 
> Pascal in General. Could be fixed when big pascal is released. As far as I know, is under investigation.


That sucks.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> About the same as GTX580 to GTX680 but this time you get $50 less then GTX980 Ti. Its prices right.


680 was 35% faster than 580. And it was on a new process (28nm), and it was midrange (just like 1080), and it cost $499.

1080 jacked up the price again, and with less performance than we should be getting


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> And did we all hear correctly, he claimed the 1080 had TWICE the performance of a TX, and he wasn't specifying in VR


No, that was in VR. Normal gaming is probably around 20-30%. There are a lot of new VR techniques introducted with Pascal, which is why VR performance is so much higher.


----------



## mingocr83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheDude26*
> 
> That sucks.


Yep, unfortunate mistake, but is fixable. Guess that they will save TripleSLI for Big Pascal 1080ti and Titan PX or whatever the hell they will name it.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> And did we all hear correctly, he claimed the 1080 had TWICE the performance of a *GTX 980*, and he wasn't specifying in VR


FTFY.


----------



## sugalumps

Nah now that my hype has settled abit came to my senses, going to wait it out till the 1080ti.

There is a reason they compare it to the 980 in their product page, it's a 980 replacement not a 980ti replacement may aswell wait........ or atleast try


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quasimojo*
> 
> Even if it's only a 25% improvement, they're also claiming 3x more power efficient (whatever exactly that means). Faster card for less power at only a small price increase over the 980 ti's? I'm sold. Then again, I don't have a 980 ti to unload, so it's a no-brainer for me.


3x more power efficient in special situations.

The GTX 1080's TDP is actually higher than the 980's for what that's worth.


----------



## Aggrotech

for the ppl who recently bought 980ti's...

stay mad.


----------



## Mad Pistol

The problem I am seeing with this generation, is if they are starting the GTX 1080 @ $599+, that means the 1080 Ti may be starting at $799+. That's just too far for me to reach, which is why I'm thinking about settling on a 1070. I just need to replace this 780 SLI setup. It doesn't have enough VRAM for newer games.


----------



## Noufel

1070 will be good even with 7 gb of VRAM


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> 680 was 35% faster than 580. And it was on a new process (28nm), and it was midrange (just like 1080), and it cost $499.
> 
> 1080 jacked up the price again, and with less performance than we should be getting


AMD flagship card at that time was slightly slower @ $550, not to mention they were like 6 months late with the GTX680 so they couldn't price it more than $499.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> FTFY.


Actually, he said is was faster than 980 SLI in some unspecified game. SLI is almost never 2x as fast as a single card.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> FTFY.


It did seem too good to be true!

That presentation was hilarious, my favorite part were the Tom screw ups ???


----------



## antonio8

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Why are you guys so impressed?
> 
> It's 25% faster than a Titan X, which means it does worse than the GTX 680 in relation to it's predecessor (580) and costs $100 more.
> 
> Don`t be fooled.


Why not be impressed.

Faster and more efficient and half the cost.

What really is not to like?


----------



## ssgtnubb

I see 970s in the 100-150 range soon


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> 680 was 35% faster than 580. And it was on a new process (28nm), and it was midrange (just like 1080), and it cost $499.
> 
> 1080 jacked up the price again, and with less performance than we should be getting


Who is this "we", I thought that "we" agreed not to buy nVidia ever again? Lol


----------



## variant

So Nvidia is now reinviting the paper launch with a limited "Founder's edition" launch for $100 more.


----------



## crazysoccerman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> 680 was 35% faster than 580. And it was on a new process (28nm), and it was midrange (just like 1080), and it cost $499.
> 
> 1080 jacked up the price again, and with less performance than we should be getting


maybe you missed the memo where moore's law was ruthlessly murdered in broad daylight


----------



## Dorito Bandit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> 1070 will be good even with 7 gb of VRAM


Yep!


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> AMD flagship card at that time was slightly slower @ $550, not to mention they were like 6 months late with the GTX680 so they couldn't price it more than $499.


Ya so we're getting ripped off cause AMD`s got nothing.

$799 1080Ti?

$1199 Pascal Titan?


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> AMD flagship card at that time was slightly slower @ $550, not to mention they were like 6 months late with the GTX680 so they couldn't price it more than $499.


It was more like 3 months, not 6


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> FTFY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, he said is was faster than 980 SLI in some unspecified game. SLI is almost never 2x as fast as a single card.
Click to expand...

sorry don't recall SLI being mentioned however they did show a slide of a 980 SLI setup . .









but hey, it is past my bedtime, work comes early in the morning . .(on saturday!)


----------



## Quasimojo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> The problem I am seeing with this generation, is if they are starting the GTX 1080 @ $599+, that means the 1080 Ti may be starting at $799+. That's just too far for me to reach, which is why I'm thinking about settling on a 1070. I just need to replace this 780 SLI setup. It doesn't have enough VRAM for newer games.


Keep in mind those are also MSRP prices. We never end up paying that.


----------



## Brimlock

pricing shouldn't be based on performance, it should be based on the parts to build the device as a whole.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Who is this "we", I thought that "we" agreed not to buy nVidia ever again? Lol


I personally was never angry at the 970 debacle. It didn't decrease performance of the card except if you pushed it to the ragged edge of it's frame buffer, and drivers usually did a great job of keeping tha tin check.

Other than that, they have made a solid card now for 3+ generations. Hopefully Pascal will continue the trend.


----------



## Recipe7

Looking for something with twice the REGULAR (non-VR) performance compared to my 980Ti Hybrid.

May need to wait for Volta


----------



## TheDude26

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Ya so we're getting ripped off cause AMD`s got nothing.
> 
> $799 1080Ti?
> 
> $1199 Pascal Titan?


We probably wont see those chips until next spring.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *antonio8*
> 
> Why not be impressed.
> 
> Faster and more efficient and half the cost.


Nothing new.

Quote:


> What really is not to like?


Everyone raged when a midrange 680 performed 35% faster than a 580 and cost $499 cause midrange chips used to cost $229.

Now a midranged chip does 15-25% faster performance than it's predecessor and costs $599 and everyone's cheering.

Only in Nvidialand do people cheer as performance gains decrease and prices go up!


----------



## Cyclonic

I really want to know what they are doing at AMD right now... Laugh hard or cry hard...


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> pricing shouldn't be based on performance, it should be based on the parts to build the device as a whole.


Yeah, because that's how they maximize profits?


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Ya so we're getting ripped off cause AMD`s got nothing.
> 
> $799 1080Ti?
> 
> $1199 Pascal Titan?


Probably GTX1080 will be cheaper by the time the TI version is ready.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> It was more like 3 months, not 6


12th NOV vs 22nd MAR.

So yeah, 4 Months and 10 days to be exact.

Edit:- Sorry thats wrong, its 3 months, DEC 22nd vs MAR 22nd.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> sorry don't recall SLI being mentioned however they did show a slide of a 980 SLI setup . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but hey, it is past my bedtime, work comes early in the morning . .(on saturday!)


I wasn't watching it, but that's mentioned in the Anandtech live blog.

09:41PM EDT - Titan X: ~3.6. GTX 1080: ~4.3

09:40PM EDT - Faster than a Titan X

09:40PM EDT - (No comment on under what game, given than AFR's limitations)

09:40PM EDT - 1080 is faster than 980 SLI


----------



## crazysoccerman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> now that my hype has settled abit came to my senses


those confusing graphs didn't help


----------



## Quasimojo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> pricing shouldn't be based on performance, it should be based on the parts to build the device as a whole.


How dare you try to inject logic into this discussion!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Who is this "we", I thought that "we" agreed not to buy nVidia ever again? Lol
> 
> 
> 
> I personally was never angry at the 970 debacle. It didn't decrease performance of the card except if you pushed it to the ragged edge of it's frame buffer, and drivers usually did a great job of keeping tha tin check.
Click to expand...

I felt the same way and took a major beating in that discussion thread at the time, before deciding it just wasn't worth bothering with.


----------



## Brimlock

I'm sorry, I'll be dumb I mean good for now on. I promise!!!


----------



## ebduncan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> pricing shouldn't be based on performance, it should be based on the parts to build the device as a whole.


just not how the computer industry works at all. You pay based on performance, always will. The biggest reason to see this practice on other things is because you could go out and buy the parts yourself and build it for cheaper yourself. Good luck building a gpu yourself... you're playing for the R&D, the manufacturing plant which produces the dies and other components.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Probably GTX1080 will be cheaper by the time the TI version is ready.
> 12th NOV vs 22nd MAR.
> 
> So yeah, 4 Months and 10 days to be exact.
> 
> Edit:- Sorry thats wrong, its 3 months, DEC 22nd vs MAR 22nd.


Yeah, and 7970's weren't available until January IIRC


----------



## Dorito Bandit

I've never seen so many folks in one thread!


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dorito Bandit*
> 
> I've never seen so many folks in one thread!


You should have seen the bulldozer launch thread


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Everyone raged when a midrange 680 performed 35% faster than a 580 and cost $499 cause midrange chips used to cost $229.
> 
> Now a midranged chip does 15-25% faster performance than it's predecessor and costs $599 and everyone's cheering.
> 
> Only in Nvidialand do people cheer as performance gains decrease and prices go up!


Moore's Law is dead, and prices for the actual fabrication process has gone up dramatically.

Performance is performance. Higher performance and efficiency is better. That's the way you have to look at it in a post-Moore era of computing.


----------



## SSJVegeta

AIBs at launch?


----------



## BulletSponge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dorito Bandit*
> 
> I've never seen so many folks in one thread!


That viewing thread list is screen cap worthy


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> You should have seen the bulldozer launch thread


Best thread ever


----------



## Quasimojo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> pricing shouldn't be based on performance, it should be based on the parts to build the device as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because that's how they maximize profits?
Click to expand...

Which none of us would *ever* dream of trying to do, were we in their shoes.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ebduncan*
> 
> just not how the computer industry works at all. You pay based on performance, always will. The biggest reason to see this practice on other things is because you could go out and buy the parts yourself and build it for cheaper yourself. Good luck building a gpu yourself... you're playing for the R&D, the manufacturing plant which produces the dies and other components.


I feel like this logic should apply to me if I was an investor in the company. Not a customer. I don't pay Mcdonalds more when they don't smash my burgers with a hammer.


----------



## antonio8

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Nothing new.
> Everyone raged when a midrange 680 performed 35% faster than a 580 and cost $499 cause midrange chips used to cost $229.
> 
> Now a midranged chip does 15-25% faster performance than it's predecessor and costs $599 and everyone's cheering.
> 
> Only in Nvidialand do people cheer as performance gains decrease and prices go up!


I am over the 600 series screw job that Nvidia did, yes I had one but lets no forget that AMD had nothing to compete with the 600 series so Nvidia was able to downgrade that line up and milk it.

Don't blame Nvidia for not having competition.

And let's see how this round shakes up with AMD.

Until AMD can compete then Nvidia can do whatever they like and how and when they like.


----------



## 364901

I just want to point out the GPU temperature maximum. Guys, these things are going to be hot:

Quote:


> Thermal and Power Specs:
> *94* Maximum GPU Tempurature (in C)
> 180 WGraphics Card Power (W)
> 500 WRecommended System Power (W)3
> 8-Pin Supplementary Power Connectors


That's going to sting a little bit.


----------



## i7monkey

What's this "Founder's Edition" crap?

Non-reference cooler?


----------



## Dorito Bandit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BulletSponge*
> 
> That viewing thread list is screen cap worthy


You'd think we were watching a live stream of some hot chick pole dancing!


----------



## Cyclonic

MSI lets see a 1080 Lightning @ 27th please


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> What's this "Founder's Edition" crap?
> 
> Non-reference cooler?


Better cooler. Probably better binning, too.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> What's this "Founder's Edition" crap?
> 
> Non-reference cooler?


You get some hair and toenail clippings from JHH in the box, apart from that, it's the same. Random bin, reference cooler.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dorito Bandit*
> 
> You'd think we were watching a live stream of some hot chick pole dancing!


I was just thinking of a 1080 spinning on a pole with 1s being thrown


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> What's this "Founder's Edition" crap?
> 
> Non-reference cooler?


Reference cooler. The one with the vapor chamber design. Looks like NVIDIA will be starting their partners off with custom ones out of the gate.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CataclysmZA*
> 
> I just want to point out the GPU temperature maximum. Guys, these things are going to be hot:
> 
> That's going to sting a little bit.


In the livestream the GPU temp was ~65C-70C while pushing >60fps.


----------



## Quasimojo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> What's this "Founder's Edition" crap?
> 
> Non-reference cooler?


I believe he referred to it as "an overclocker's dream".


----------



## Dorito Bandit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> You get some hair and toenail clippings from JHH in the box, apart from that, it's the same. Random bin, reference cooler.


LOL


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> You get some hair and toenail clippings from JHH in the box, apart from that, it's the same. Random bin, reference cooler.


OMG it's JHH's used UNDERWEAR!!!!


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> In the livestream the GPU temp was ~65C-70C while pushing >60fps.


Ah, I must have missed that. I overslept and had to try catch up on the stream. I'll have to look for that chunk.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quasimojo*
> 
> Which none of us would *ever* dream of trying to do, were we in their shoes.


Exactly, just ask Intel, those dies keep getting smaller and smaller, they're barely faster, and prices have gone up.

Lack of competition doesn't help, which is the biggest contributor to these prices.


----------



## kx11

XtremeGaming 1080 in june


----------



## i7monkey

Is the Founder's Edition a better blower style cooler than the non-Founder's edition?


----------



## Triggah

What exactly was the difference between the ''standard'' and the ''founders'' edition? I didnt quite get that.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Exactly, just ask Intel, those dies keep getting smaller and smaller, they're barely faster, and prices have gone up.
> 
> Lack of competition doesn't help, which is the biggest contributor to these prices.


It is absolutely the only contribution to these prices. If samsung would go ahead and freaking buy AMD already and REBUY the x86 license we could actually have competition in CPU and GPU markets. They have the money to push R and D... AMD doesn't.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Is the Founder's Edition a better blower style cooler than the non-Founder's edition?


I don't believe they were specific on what founders card were. But I wasn't watching the stream, I had to go by the liveblog from anandtech


----------



## nSone

ok this was fun can't compute going to bed now


----------



## mkmitch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Triggah*
> 
> What exactly was the difference between the ''standard'' and the ''founders'' edition? I didnt quite get that.


That's because he didn't tell us the difference.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkmitch*
> 
> That's because he didn't tell us the difference.


Sure he did, $100 of a difference.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Sure he did, $100 of a difference.


Thank you Captain Obvious.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkmitch*
> 
> That's because he didn't tell us the difference.


I am curious about this as well. Is it just a few extra dollars to get the card early? I mean, I want a 1070, but if that's the case, I will gladly wait an extra month.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> It is absolutely the only contribution to these prices. If samsung would go ahead and freaking buy AMD already and REBUY the x86 license we could actually have competition in CPU and GPU markets. They have the money to push R and D... AMD doesn't.


Yup, I been saying this stuff for years, but people take it as if I'm dogging on AMD. It's just the reality in duopolies...

With a competitive AMD, a GP204 could not be sold for $599
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I am curious about this as well. Is it just a few extra dollars to get the card early? I mean, I want a 1070, but if that's the case, I will gladly wait an extra month.


I got the idea that it's a better binned card, with higher overclocking room, so maybe it'll come with a custom cooler or something.


----------



## Quasimojo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Exactly, just ask Intel, those dies keep getting smaller and smaller, they're barely faster, and prices have gone up.
> 
> Lack of competition doesn't help, which is the biggest contributor to these prices.
> 
> 
> 
> It is absolutely the only contribution to these prices. If samsung would go ahead and freaking buy AMD already and REBUY the x86 license we could actually have competition in CPU and GPU markets. They have the money to push R and D... AMD doesn't.
Click to expand...

I don't know that Samsung would have all that much more money to work with. It's not like they would pillage profits from other product lines to dump into R&D for CPU's. There's no way the board of directors would ever go for that.

I would love to see them try, though, if it didn't carry a risk of AMD just failing and going away. At least now we have choices at different price tiers.


----------



## lahvie

so what kind of overall percentage are we looking at
970 vs 1070
980ti vs 1080
960 vs 1060?
overclocked maxwells and stock pascal

i'm pretty happy with what i've seen.


----------



## renji1337

I want to know why they didn't compare it to the 980ti. it looks like the 1080 is 25-40% faster in just regular games?

i mean VR is nice and all, but VR gaming is pretty niche...


----------



## i7monkey

Use your heads you geeks. What's that extra $100 for?


----------



## Quasimojo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renji1337*
> 
> i mean VR is nice and all, but VR gaming is pretty niche...


Not for long.


----------



## crazysoccerman

how about we wait to see what amd's offerings are before writing their obituary?


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renji1337*
> 
> i mean VR is nice and all, but VR gaming is pretty niche...


Except Nvidia said in their presentation that with their new app, you can use any smartphone and Google VR. That means if you have a smartphone, all you have to do is buy a set of VR goggles, snap in your phone, and you have VR.

It just became stupidly accessible.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quasimojo*
> 
> Not for long.


It will be for long. Think at least another 2 years.


----------



## JonnyBigBoss

Does anyone know if in the past pre-orders are opened ahead of time? I've never ordered a GPU at launch before. I want to make sure I grab one.
Quote:


> i mean VR is nice and all, but VR gaming is pretty niche..


You seem to have no idea how powerful VR is. Let's put it this way: after buying an HTC Vive last month I have no interest in playing 2D games. It's like going from driving a car to riding a bike.


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Except Nvidia said in their presentation that with their new app, you can use any smartphone and Google VR. That means if you have a smartphone, all you have to do is buy a set of VR goggles, snap in your phone, and you have VR.
> 
> It just became stupidly accessible.


Except that's not really how it works because most phones don't have 95Hz~ OLED screens at 1200p (or greater) with precise positional tracking.
It's more of a gimmick than anything.


----------



## OmegaNemesis28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Except Nvidia said in their presentation that with their new app, you can use any smartphone and Google VR. That means if you have a smartphone, all you have to do is buy a set of VR goggles, snap in your phone, and you have VR.
> 
> It just became stupidly accessible.


I think that was just the picture they took. It wasn't like a livestream of the game live correct me if Im wrong


----------



## Kinaesthetic

@CallsignVega, in case you didn't see the bullet points, DP 1.4 and HDMI2.0b on GTX 1080/1070. Will be enough to drive the Dell OLED 4K 120Hz display off a single DP connection. And even 8K resolution once that becomes available.


----------



## guttheslayer

What shroud does the non-founder edition comes in?

Does it have a backplate too?


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OmegaNemesis28*
> 
> I think that was just the picture they took. It wasn't like a livestream of the game live correct me if Im wrong


Good point... damn, got my hopes up for nothing.


----------



## OmegaNemesis28

Their presentations are cool in that they're informal, but good lord are they also so cringy. That girl in the front row got obnoxious toward the end. Poor Tom though lol

I'm pumped. This will be my first Nvidia card since the 8800GTXs








Quote:


> Good point... damn, got my hopes up for nothing.


it'd be awesome though for sure, but latency needs to be tackled first haha


----------



## LoLomgbbq

So in NZ coin:
~$500 for 1070
~$900 for 1080

I paid 900 for my 580...im not sure if im prepared to pay that much anymore considering the lack of innovation on the gaming front.


----------



## 2010rig

They're advertising it as twice as fast in gaming


----------



## guttheslayer

Enough of talk, where is BENCHIE?


----------



## crazysoccerman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OmegaNemesis28*
> 
> That girl in the front row got obnoxious toward the end.


She kept saying JEEZZZUSSS. Obnoxious. I'm not religious but if I was Christian I might have been offended. Hopefully she isn't invited back.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoLomgbbq*
> 
> So in NZ coin:
> ~$500 for 1070
> ~$900 for 1080
> 
> I paid 900 for my 580...im not sure if im prepared to pay that much anymore considering the lack of innovation on the gaming front.


I really love you AUS and NZ guys down there, but I have to be completely honest and say that it gets a bit annoying to always hear in every thread that mentions any sort of GPU prices that you guys need to pay more for GPUs.

I honestly mean no offense, but we have to be completely honest here :

- You can't compare US Dollar and AUS Dollar or NZ Dollar 1:1.
- You guys down there have a very high monthly average income and a much higher minimum wage. In the US it's like 8$ and for you like 15$ or something. There is a huge difference
- You guys are really well off compared to countries in eastern europe where a 600$ GPU is like 3 x month salaries !


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> 
> 
> They're advertising it as twice as fast in gaming


VR gaming


----------



## magnek

Christ they actually did go with that ROG GaMERz!!! shroud design


----------



## Diogenes5

So many Nvidia fanboys. Pretty irritating. 970 was like 330 at launch and couldn't be found at a reasonable price for many months. 1070 is almost $400? I don't give a crap about Nvidia's profits; I want reasonably priced tech which to me is a decent mainstream card at around $250-300.

Hopefully ATI lights a fire under Nvidia's ass because these prices are terrible. For almost a 100% die shrink, the prices really aren't in line right now. People eager to preorder and drop $400-500 for these cards without considering the nearest alternative (which will be from AMD) are fools.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> VR gaming


2X Faster Game Performance AND VR Ready, the 2 are mutually exclusive








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> So many Nvidia fanboys. Pretty irritating. 970 was like 330 at launch and couldn't be found at a reasonable price for many months. 1070 is almost $400? I don't give a crap about Nvidia's profits; I want reasonably priced tech which to me is a decent mainstream card at around $250-300.
> 
> Hopefully ATI lights a fire under Nvidia's ass because these prices are terrible. For almost a 100% die shrink, the prices really aren't in line right now. People eager to preorder and drop $400-500 for these cards without considering the nearest alternative (which will be from AMD) are fools.


Go ahead and buy a faster card from AMD for less.


----------



## OmegaNemesis28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> So many Nvidia fanboys. Pretty irritating. 970 was like 330 at launch and couldn't be found at a reasonable price for many months. 1070 is almost $400? I don't give a crap about Nvidia's profits; I want reasonably priced tech which to me is a decent mainstream card at around $250-300.
> 
> Hopefully ATI lights a fire under Nvidia's ass because these prices are terrible. For almost a 100% die shrink, the prices really aren't in line right now. People eager to preorder and drop $400-500 for these cards without considering the nearest alternative (which will be from AMD) are fools.


I dont understand who is fanboying.
They're supposedly releasing a card that is half the price of the current market performance lead which costs $1000. That's awesome. Fanboy or not. Even if the card ends up not being as fast as the Titan X in regular benchmarks, it'll likely be close which is still awesome for GPU tech.

And if you're like me, coming from a 7 year old card or something like that, this is perfect.


----------



## i7monkey

1080 Flanders Edition


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> So many Nvidia fanboys. Pretty irritating. 970 was like 330 at launch and couldn't be found at a reasonable price for many months. 1070 is almost $400? I don't give a crap about Nvidia's profits; I want reasonably priced tech which to me is a decent mainstream card at around $250-300.
> 
> Hopefully ATI lights a fire under Nvidia's ass because these prices are terrible. For almost a 100% die shrink, the prices really aren't in line right now. People eager to preorder and drop $400-500 for these cards without considering the nearest alternative (which will be from AMD) are fools.


Different circumstances.

When the GTX 970 came out AMD had the 290 and 290X which are on par or even better.

Now the GTX 1070 has no competition if it is around 980 Ti or slightly better.

The 379$ GTX 1070 is probably better than the 650$ Fury X if that makes you less grumpy


----------



## renji1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JonnyBigBoss*
> 
> Does anyone know if in the past pre-orders are opened ahead of time? I've never ordered a GPU at launch before. I want to make sure I grab one.
> You seem to have no idea how powerful VR is. Let's put it this way: after buying an HTC Vive last month I have no interest in playing 2D games. It's like going from driving a car to riding a bike.


we have an HTC Vive and a rift at my college and i've tried both. It was nice, but it wasn't exactly mind blowing. Game software and creators are no where up to par yet with hardware.


----------



## LoLomgbbq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I really love you AUS and NZ guys down there, but I have to be completely honest and say that it gets a bit annoying to always hear in every thread that mentions any sort of GPU prices that you guys need to pay more for GPUs.
> 
> I honestly mean no offense, but we have to be completely honest here :
> 
> - You can't compare US Dollar and AUS Dollar or NZ Dollar 1:1.
> - You guys down there have a very high monthly average income and a much higher minimum wage. In the US it's like 8$ and for you like 15$ or something. There is a huge difference
> - You guys are really well off compared to countries in eastern europe where a 600$ GPU is like 3 x month salaries !


I dont care that we paid more...but 900 is not too be snuffed at regardless of whoevers AUS/NZ wage or salary you're referring to.

My main and probably only gripe is that 900 dollars when compared to the very little innovation (VR doesnt interest me the least bit) going on in the industry atm (Ai, physics, functionality, mod support at its lowest), and considering we're still playing the same games that we were 10 years ago just with better gfx and less features...500 - 900 dollars is just not worth it.

That aside, i dont see why we should be punished because other countries cant pay their workers a livable wage.

id happily pay NZ$500tops for a 1080. more so when you take into account that i could just get a ps4 or 4.5 and play the same games but without having to worry about all the unoptimized and broken ports.

Its even more frustrating when gpu prices for older cards (i refuse to buy 2nd hand been burned too many times) do not drop once new cards come out, they simply sell at the same price they released at until stock is gone.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> So many Nvidia fanboys. Pretty irritating. 970 was like 330 at launch and couldn't be found at a reasonable price for many months. 1070 is almost $400? I don't give a crap about Nvidia's profits; I want reasonably priced tech which to me is a decent mainstream card at around $250-300.
> 
> Hopefully ATI lights a fire under Nvidia's ass because these prices are terrible. For almost a 100% die shrink, the prices really aren't in line right now. People eager to preorder and drop $400-500 for these cards without considering the nearest alternative (which will be from AMD) are fools.


The GTX 670 is at $399.


----------



## crazysoccerman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> So many Nvidia fanboys. Pretty irritating. 970 was like 330 at launch and couldn't be found at a reasonable price for many months. 1070 is almost $400? I don't give a crap about Nvidia's profits; I want reasonably priced tech which to me is a decent mainstream card at around $250-300.
> 
> Hopefully ATI lights a fire under Nvidia's ass because these prices are terrible. For almost a 100% die shrink, the prices really aren't in line right now. People eager to preorder and drop $400-500 for these cards without considering the nearest alternative (which will be from AMD) are fools.


Then buy used or get out all together. You remember when he said is what the most expensive R&D for a chip in all of humanity? Remember Moore's Law having ended? We aren't talking about farm equipment here.

Quote:


> People eager to preorder and drop $400-500 for these cards without considering the nearest alternative (which will be from AMD) are fools.


As long as you can cancel who cares?


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> 2X Faster Game Performance AND VR Ready, the 2 are mutually exclusive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead and buy a faster card from AMD for less.


Not necessarily. "And" does not always denote something as "mutually exclusive".


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoLomgbbq*
> 
> I dont care that we paid more...but 900 is not too be snuffed at regardless of whoevers AUS/NZ wage or salary you're referring to.
> 
> My main and probably only gripe is that 900 dollars when compared to the very little innovation (VR doesnt interest me the least bit) going on in the industry atm (Ai, physics, functionality, mod support at its lowest), and considering we're still playing the same games that we were 10 years ago just with better gfx and less features...500 - 900 dollars is just not worth it.
> 
> That aside, i dont see why we should be punished because other countries cant pay their workers a livable wage.
> 
> id happily pay NZ$500tops for a 1080. more so when you take into account that i could just get a ps4 or 4.5 and play the same games but without having to worry about all the unoptimized and broken ports.


Gotcha. I honestly mean no offense.









maybe we will see more in official reviews.

I had hoped for a FreeSync offer for pascal. Sadly it looks like it wont happen


----------



## LoLomgbbq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Gotcha. I honestly mean no offense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe we will see more in official reviews.
> 
> I had hoped for a FreeSync offer for pascal. Sadly it looks like it wont happen


no offense taken.


----------



## Dargonplay

No benchmark info yet? I won't turn to Nvidia if it doesn't offer at least 30% extra performance compared to my 1220MHz Fury X.


----------



## Pantsu

Pretty good showing, but 599$ is a bit more than I'm comfortable with. I'll see what AMD has in store for us, and also wait for AIB boards before making my move. Is there any info on when custom AIB 1070's are available? It might be that my choice will end up between a custom P10 or 1070. AMD better deliver that 300$ 980 Ti performance if they're going to compete seriously.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> Not necessarily. "And" does not always denote something as "mutually exclusive".


Can't you guys let me pick on NVIDIA's marketing just this once? It's not often I get to do this. I'm already aware that the claim is towards VR...

BTW, no matter how we look at this chart, the 1080 is definitely faster than a TX by around 20% - 25%


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> No benchmark info yet? I won't turn to Nvidia if it doesn't offer at least 30% extra performance compared to my 1220MHz Fury X.


That is a pretty great overclock for a Fury X.

But I am sure an overclocked GTX 1080 would crush that easily depending on the games. in DX12 games maybe not, but in DX11 I am sure


----------



## Pandora's Box

so 1080 $599, founders $699. so next year when the Ti releases...$899???


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OmegaNemesis28*
> 
> I dont understand who is fanboying.
> They're supposedly releasing a card that is half the price of the current market performance lead which costs $1000. That's awesome. Fanboy or not. Even if the card ends up not being as fast as the Titan X in regular benchmarks, it'll likely be close which is still awesome for GPU tech.
> 
> And if you're like me, coming from a 7 year old card or something like that, this is perfect.


The current market performance lead is the overclocked GT 980Ti at $600 and it's not faster than that.


----------



## renji1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Can't you guys let me pick on NVIDIA's marketing just this once? It's not often I get to do this. I'm already aware that the claim is towards VR...
> 
> BTW, no matter how we look at this chart, the 1080 is definitely faster than a TX


too bad none of nvidias launch charts have been correct since the 580s o_o they always over estimate performance


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Can't you guys let me pick on NVIDIA's marketing just this once? It's not often I get to do this. I'm already aware that the claim is towards VR...
> 
> BTW, no matter how we look at this chart, the 1080 is definitely faster than a TX by around 20% - 25%


yeah if I had to guess I'd place the Titan X at around 3.6 ? and the GTX 1080 at 4.4 ?

That sounds about right and goes in line with the 20-25% you said.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandora's Box*
> 
> so 1080 $599, founders $699. so next year when the Ti releases...$899???


And Titan XL $1199


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

Now that I'm a bit more calm, it is funny how a lot of people are counting AMD out (myself included) before we've seen anything from RTG, and no real-world benchmarks for the 1070/1080 and the only performance measurements we have are some ambiguous slides.
Although it would be very disheartening if AMD actually did not have a high end part to compete with the 1080 earlier than Vega.


----------



## Pantsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> Now that I'm a bit more calm, it is funny how a lot of people are counting AMD out (myself included) before we've seen anything from RTG, and no real-world benchmarks for the 1070/1080 and the only performance measurements we have are some ambiguous slides.
> Although it would be very disheartening if AMD actually did not have a high end part to compete with the 1080 earlier than Vega.


While that is true for those few who care about $500+ GPUs, most of us aren't going to dish out that kind of money. 1070 is probably what the majority will be looking at, and that's what AMD needs to counter more than anything.


----------



## crazysoccerman

Their press release is a good one-stop for info:

A Quantum Leap in Gaming: NVIDIA Introduces GeForce GTX 1080

Quote:


> New asynchronous compute advances improve efficiency and gaming performance.


Cool. This was my main concern (justified or not).


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> Now that I'm a bit more calm, it is funny how a lot of people are counting AMD out (myself included) before we've seen anything from RTG, and no real-world benchmarks for the 1070/1080 and the only performance measurements we have are some ambiguous slides.
> Although it would be very disheartening if AMD actually did not have a high end part to compete with the 1080 earlier than Vega.


because thye are already out (atleast for this year).

They said only mainstream cards and we have seen leaks. It doesn't look good for AMD this year.

2017 may be a different story though.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Sorry to break the bad news guys but the price of GTX1080 is $699 if you compare it 1:1 with GTX980 and GTX980 Ti. No normal version start $600 with custom boards which will never be $599 unless they cheap out on eveything.


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> because thye are already out (atleast for this year).
> 
> They said only mainstream cards and we have seen leaks. It doesn't look good for AMD this year.
> 
> 2017 may be a different story though.


I know the doomsday stuff is getting old, but can AMD really afford _another_ bad year? Especially if Polaris isn't up to snuff to Pascal, whereas they went below 20% market share when their cards were actually competing and outperforming the Nvidia equivalent in quite a number of cases.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Sorry to break the bad news guys but the price of GTX1080 is $699 if you compare it 1:1 with GTX980 and GTX980 Ti. No normal version start $600 with custom boards which will never be $599 unless they cheap out on eveything.


you are maybe even right.

599$ MSRP sounds better than 699$ but we have to see if we actually are able to buy some sort of GTX 1080 cards at that price
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> I know the doomsday stuff is getting old, but can AMD really afford _another_ bad year? Especially if Polaris isn't up to snuff to Pascal, whereas they went below 20% market share when their cards were actually competing and outperforming the Nvidia equivalent in quite a number of cases.


We are not talking about a bad year.

Only a bad year for high end.

Who knows maybe they can offer GTX 980 performance for 229$ that would be great for a lot of people.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Sorry to break the bad news guys but the price of GTX1080 is $699 if you compare it 1:1 with GTX980 and GTX980 Ti. No normal version start $600 with custom boards which will never be $599 unless they cheap out on eveything.


Zotac is usually around MSRP. Now we just need to pray that CAD becomes 1:1 again.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Sorry to break the bad news guys but the price of GTX1080 is $699 if you compare it 1:1 with GTX980 and GTX980 Ti. No normal version start $600 with custom boards which will never be $599 unless they cheap out on eveything.


*Availability and Pricing*

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 "Founders Edition" will be available on May 27 for $699. It will be available from ASUS, Colorful, EVGA, Gainward, Galaxy, Gigabyte, Innovision 3D, MSI, NVIDIA. Palit, PNY and Zotac. *Custom boards from partners* will vary by region and pricing is expected to start at $599.


----------



## MattGordon

Reasonable to assume non-reference 1070s will be in the 399.99-419.99 range?

As much as i want a 1080, my jump from a 760 will be fine with a 1070







.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Zotac is usually around MSRP. Now we just need to pray that CAD becomes 1:1 again.


The reference model the we have had in the past is the FE. That will be $699. Board Partners can make cards as cheap as $599. How much where custom GTX980 cards selling for? More then reference.


----------



## Aggrotech

Anyone have any idea how much 970's will go for now? possibly 2nd hand guess aswell? Wanting to hook a friend up. hes currently living in the stone age.


----------



## maltamonk

The amount of cards being spam listed for sale on ebay and hardwareswap is quite amusing.


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crazysoccerman*
> 
> Their press release is a good one-stop for info:
> 
> A Quantum Leap in Gaming: NVIDIA Introduces GeForce GTX 1080
> Cool. This was my main concern (justified or not).


Wasn't that what Mahigan was preaching against? I remember him staunchly saying that Pascal wasn't going to be hardware capable for Async Compute. This basically dispels those rumors that he was bringing up.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> *Availability and Pricing*
> 
> The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 "Founders Edition" will be available on May 27 for $699. It will be available from ASUS, Colorful, EVGA, Gainward, Galaxy, Gigabyte, Innovision 3D, MSI, NVIDIA. Palit, PNY and Zotac. *Custom boards from partners* will vary by region and pricing is expected to start at $599.


How do you achieve $100 less price with custom boards unless you butcher the PCB and cheap out?


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoLomgbbq*
> 
> I dont care that we paid more...but 900 is not too be snuffed at regardless of whoevers AUS/NZ wage or salary you're referring to.
> 
> My main and probably only gripe is that 900 dollars when compared to the very little innovation (VR doesnt interest me the least bit) going on in the industry atm (Ai, physics, functionality, mod support at its lowest), and considering we're still playing the same games that we were 10 years ago just with better gfx and less features...500 - 900 dollars is just not worth it.
> 
> That aside, i dont see why we should be punished because other countries cant pay their workers a livable wage.
> 
> id happily pay NZ$500tops for a 1080. more so when you take into account that i could just get a ps4 or 4.5 and play the same games but without having to worry about all the unoptimized and broken ports.
> 
> Its even more frustrating when gpu prices for older cards (i refuse to buy 2nd hand been burned too many times) do not drop once new cards come out, they simply sell at the same price they released at until stock is gone.


Broken ports go both ways between PC and consoles. Lichdom Battlemage comes to mind. Also now 20 fps is considered playable by console devs, see Witcher, AC and Fallout. It can take many months for them to get the framerate to 30 (yeah, the new golden cinematic gaming standard) in problematic areas, which can be the whole game.


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> How do you achieve $100 less price with custom boards unless you butcher the PCB and cheap out?


Vapor chamber + heavy binning?


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> How do you achieve $100 less price with custom boards unless you butcher the PCB and cheap out?


Well considering GK104 was $499, they're already $100 over. This is the first time we had a "Founders card", so I really don't know, was just pointing out that they said custom boards will start at $599.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> How do you achieve $100 less price with custom boards unless you butcher the PCB and cheap out?


By not including a cooler that costs a ridiculous amount to manufacture? Also no early adopters fee.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> yeah if I had to guess I'd place the Titan X at around 3.6 ? and the GTX 1080 at 4.4 ?
> 
> That sounds about right and goes in line with the 20-25% you said.


That's what I'm getting as well. So basically in line with expectations. The only real question is how much OC headroom GP104 will have.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> *Availability and Pricing*
> 
> The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 "Founders Edition" will be available on May 27 for $699. It will be available from ASUS, Colorful, EVGA, Gainward, Galaxy, Gigabyte, Innovision 3D, MSI, NVIDIA. Palit, PNY and Zotac. *Custom boards from partners* will vary by region and pricing is expected to start at $599.


What is this "Founders Edition" BS?


----------



## VSG

I am most definitely going to pester the EVGA, MSI and Zotac guys tomorrow for more details.. Especially regarding this Founder's card.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> By not including a cooler that costs a ridiculous amount to manufacture? Also no early adopters fee.


I understand that much. Why where custom cards then as expensive or more expensive then reference 980/980 Ti? They came with the good cooler before.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> That's what I'm getting as well. So basically in line with expectations. The only real question is how much OC headroom GP104 will have.
> What is this "Founders Edition" BS?


All he said was that you'll achieve higher overclocks, so prolly highly binned chips, and better cooler?

Other than that, they're just milking at this point


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *geggeg*
> 
> I am most definitely going to pester the EVGA, MSI and Zotac guys tomorrow for more details.. Especially regarding this Founder's card.


Good keep us in the loop. I want a reference cooler card from EVGA I don't want to pay 100 bucks extra for it!


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> All he said was that you'll achieve higher overclocks, so prolly highly binned chips, and better cooler?
> 
> Other than that, they're just milking at this point


Higher stock bios power limit probably. Maybe more voltage allowable.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> Good keep us in the loop. I want a reference cooler card from EVGA I don't want to pay 100 bucks extra for it!


IIRC the 970 and 980 used a cheapo reference cooler (that looked like the titan cooler but didn't perform like it) which didn't have a vapor chamber.

They announced that at least one card would have vapor chamber cooling, they might have it for the founders edition but not the regular one.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Higher stock bios power limit probably. Maybe more voltage allowable.


GPU Boost 3 seems to have extra feature for more overclocking. I think this might be FE feature only.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Higher stock bios power limit probably. Maybe more voltage allowable.


If that's the case, I'm sure a hacked BIOS will show up


----------



## i7monkey

"titan"
"ti"
"founder's edition"

how many other ways are they going to milk their customers?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> If that's the case, I'm sure a hacked BIOS will show up


Yes a hack for an already priced high card







.


----------



## carlhil2

I HOPE that dudes have the common sense to realize the the 1080 is supposed to be 2x faster than the 980, and 2x faster than a Titan X in VR......


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> All he said was that you'll achieve higher overclocks, so prolly highly binned chips, and better cooler?
> 
> Other than that, they're just milking at this point


So now nVidia wants to make their own version of the Kingpin/Lightning/HoF/Matrix card?

No thanks, but for an extra $100, I'd much rather go with a Lightning or Kingpin, unless this time round nVidia decides to forbid these custom cards (much like they did the 780 Ti Lightning).

Also $700 for a mid-range chip.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Yes a hack for an already priced high card
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


It's ******ed that there's a $100 difference between X80 cards LOL, they better be individually signed and overclocked by JHH himself


----------



## Fuell

Won't a single 8 pin connector make OCing possibly limited? I know this is supposed to be very efficient but I get the feeling they want to make sure you can't OC these things too much and make the next "gen" of cards not look as impressive. Not needing it for stock is nice, but if it impacts OC potential I would be a little annoyed.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> I HOPE that dudes have the common sense to realize the the 1080 is supposed to be 2x faster than the 980, and 2x faster than a Titan X in VR......


I'm so confused.

This chart shows 60-70% faster than a 980 in regular games. Where are they getting this 2x as fast stuff?


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> It's ******ed that there's a $100 difference between X80 cards LOL, they better be individually signed by JHH himself


And they better come with his leather jacket, or at least a piece of it









Better yet, JHH signed leather jacket. Now THAT would truly be worthy of the $100 premium


----------



## carlhil2

Just give me the 2 cheapest refernce, or, 2 Classifieds.....


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> How can they claim 2x as fast than a 980 when this chart shows 55-70% faster in regular games?


I am just going by what he said. there are some claiming "2x faster than Titan X...", that's all....


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> Won't a single 8 pin connector make OCing possibly limited? I know this is supposed to be very efficient but I get the feeling they want to make sure you can't OC these things too much and make the next "gen" of cards not look as impressive. Not needing it for stock is nice, but if it impacts OC potential I would be a little annoyed.


No worries, the Founders Edition will come with an extra 8 pin connector to ensure those higher overclocks


----------



## OmegaNemesis28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> The current market performance lead is the overclocked GT 980Ti at $600 and it's not faster than that.


An overclocked 980 Ti. Against a reference card that they claim is faster. And you know its not faster than that already?


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> I am just going by what he said. there are some claiming "2x faster than Titan X...", that's all....


it's 2x faster on vr


----------



## kaosstar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So now nVidia wants to make their own version of the Kingpin/Lightning/HoF/Matrix card?
> 
> No thanks, but for an extra $100, I'd much rather go with a Lightning or Kingpin, unless this time round nVidia decides to forbid these custom cards (much like they did the 780 Ti Lightning).
> 
> Also $700 for a mid-range chip.


The 1080 is only a mid-range chip? I


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jprovido*
> 
> it's 2x faster on vr


Yes, exactly...or, so he is claiming....


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> I am just going by what he said. there are some claiming "2x faster than Titan X...", that's all....


I'm just trying to clear up the confusion. If it's 2x as fast as a Titan X in VR, and 2x as fast as a 980 (I'm assuming this mean in regular games), then why are those benches implying only 60-70%?


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaosstar*
> 
> The 1080 is only a mid-range chip? I


technically yes. it's small pascal. big pascal is 1080 TI, next gen titan


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaosstar*
> 
> The 1080 is only a mid-range chip? I


That is a tricky topic, but bigger chips are too be expected and we have already seen the P100 which is like 610mm². The P100 is no GeForce gaming product though.

Eventually there will be a Titan Pascal and 1080 Ti, which will be bigger and perform better.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I'm just trying to clear up the confusion. If it's 2x as fast as a Titan X in VR, and 2x as fast as a 980 (I'm assuming this mean in regular games), then why are those benches implying only 60-70%?


You would have to ask him that, I heard him say twice as fast as a 980, maybe I misheard,..lol


----------



## magnek

70% over 980 puts it at roughly 35% over 980 Ti.

So in other words, a stock 1080 will run about the same as a 980 Ti overclocked to 1500/8000.

In other other words, I still have absolutely 0 interest in this card, unless it can somehow magically OC by 50% (which it won't, not on air/water anyway).


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I'm just trying to clear up the confusion. If it's 2x as fast as a Titan X in VR, and 2x as fast as a 980 (I'm assuming this mean in regular games), then why are those benches implying only 60-70%?


Nononono

They said SLI 980

They did not say 2x 980

SLI 980 is not twice as fast as 980.

God damn it, it hurts to see Nvidia marketing wording working on people even on OCN easily


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> I am just going by what he said. there are some claiming "2x faster than Titan X...", that's all....


Yeah, I was blowing it out of proportion on purpose cuz of how it was said in the presentation. It's 2X in VR, they have politically correct wording in their Press Release...

The company's new Pascal™ architecture -- providing up to 2x more performance in virtual reality compared to the GeForce GTX TITAN X.1


----------



## thebski

$700 for a small die reference card? I never thought I'd see the day. I don't have much else to say on this one.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Nononono
> 
> They said SLI 980
> 
> They did not say 2x 980
> 
> SLI 980 is not twice as fast as 980.
> 
> God damn it, it hurts to see Nvidia marketing wording working on people even on OCN easily


Yes, sorry, that's what I meant, 1080 as fast as SLI 980....


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Yeah, I was blowing it out of proportion, it's in VR, they have politically correct wording in their Press Release...
> 
> The company's new Pascal™ architecture -- providing up to 2x more performance in virtual reality compared to the GeForce GTX TITAN X.1


politically correct wording lmao








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Yes, sorry, that's what I meant, 1080 as fast as SLI 980....


Yeah so that's about right, given that SLI scaling is typically around 70-80% in best case scenarios.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

The VR thing is good and all but dont we need cheap cards for VR to get massive? Even $380 is expensive.


----------



## i7monkey

If it's 60-70% faster than a 980, how much faster is it than a Titan X?


----------



## Pandora's Box

The PR stunt saying that the 1080 is 2x faster than the Titan X is genius. All hardware forums are screaming with posts saying "1080 TWICE AS FAST AS TITAN X".

It's twice as fast...in VR. 20-25% faster in regular gaming.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaosstar*
> 
> The 1080 is only a mid-range chip?


Yup, it's using GP204
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thebski*
> 
> $700 for a small die reference card? I never thought I'd see the day. I don't have much else to say on this one.


It's actually $599,not that it makes it any better. Where's AMD @ to counter this card? That's the only way the prices will drop


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 70% over 980 puts it at roughly 35% over 980 Ti.
> 
> So in other words, a stock 1080 will run about the same as a 980 Ti overclocked to 1500/8000.
> 
> In other other words, I still have absolutely 0 interest in this card, unless it can somehow magically OC by 50% (which it won't, not on air/water anyway).


That is a bit of a funny comment, comparing stock vs heavily OCed aftermarket card. Like comparing a fiat 500 to a porsche GT4...
An heavily OCed aftermarket 1080 will most likely beat the 980 TI OCed at 1500/8000 quite embarrassingly.


----------



## ncck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> The VR thing is good and all but dont we need cheap cards for VR to get massive? Even $380 is expensive.


Do gamers even want VR? I can see it being cool for businesses and artist and modelers and what not... but gaming on it? Cool for a little then you got a headache and just want to go back to your mouse.. maybe that's just my thoughts heh


----------



## i7monkey

Hey Jensen, let me pay you 1000 VR dollars for the 1080? Deal?


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandora's Box*
> 
> The PR stunt saying that the 1080 is 2x faster than the Titan X is genius. All hardware forums are screaming with posts saying "1080 TWICE AS FAST AS TITAN X".
> 
> It's twice as fast...in VR. 20-25% faster in regular gaming.


Lol, true, that's what I was trying to explain, but, fumbled it...


----------



## JonnyBigBoss

Are pre-orders usually available for new GPUs? Or do I just have to battle with other consumers for a day-of purchase?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ncck*
> 
> Do gamers even want VR? I can see it being cool for businesses and artist and modelers and what not... but gaming on it? Cool for a little then you got a headache and just want to go back to your mouse.. maybe that's just my thoughts heh


Rift needs to be 350 and cards like 200. I know people are super exited for these new cards but Nvidia has nothing under $380. AMD will get crazy market share. Most 970 user are more then happy with their card. They are not going to upgrade this fast.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Rift needs to be 350 and cards like 200. I know people are super exited for these new cards but Nvidia has nothing under $380. AMD will get crazy market share. Most 970 user are more then happy with their card. They are not going to upgrade this fast.


By the time AMD releases Polaris, we may be looking at a 1060 from Nvidia with 980 speed at $250 or something.


----------



## i7monkey

Nvidia: "The 1080 was going 2x as fast as Titan X!







"*

*traveling in a car going 50MPH vs 25mph for Titan X
*cooling $100 extra
*heh


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Sorry if this has been discussed already but I'm in the wrong time zone and fell asleep before the announcements, I got up to page 36 before I lost the will.

If the GTX980 was becoming memory bandwidth limited already, if this has effectively similar memory throughput as a 980TI while being 25% ish faster overall at stock, and the 1070 has good old GDDR5 isnt that going to be a major problem at resolutions higher then 1080p?

I'm waiting for reviews, it definitely sounds very impressive, and clocks over 2 ghz is crazy.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandora's Box*
> 
> The PR stunt saying that the 1080 is 2x faster than the Titan X is genius. All hardware forums are screaming with posts saying "1080 TWICE AS FAST AS TITAN X".
> 
> It's twice as fast...in VR. 20-25% faster in regular gaming.


Meh they're just setting themselves up for disappoint when the reviews drop.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> That is a bit of a funny comment, comparing stock vs heavily OCed aftermarket card. Like comparing a fiat 500 to a porsche GT4...
> An heavily OCed aftermarket 1080 will most likely beat the 980 TI OCed at 1500/8000 quite embarrassingly.


I guess I should've made it clearer I was speaking about myself. The point being I have basically been enjoying stock GTX 1080 performance for the past 7 months. And since I don't stare at FPS counters while gaming, even a 30% improvement might not be perceptible *to me*. (is 40 to 52 FPS really that much of an improvement?)

Like I said the key question is how much OC headroom there will be, and I would be _*extremely*_ surprised (and impressed) if there is a 50% OC headroom, which to my recollection has never happened, not once on either side.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> Sorry if this has been discussed already but I'm in the wrong time zone and fell asleep before the announcements, I got up to page 36 before I lost the will.
> 
> If the GTX980 was becoming memory bandwidth limited already, if this has effectively similar memory throughput as a 980TI while being 25% ish faster overall at stock, and the 1070 has good old GDDR5 isnt that going to be a major problem at resolutions higher then 1080p?
> 
> I'm waiting for reviews, it definitely sounds very impressive, and clocks over 2 ghz is crazy.


I have a feeling that this time the GTX 1080 is clearly better than the GTX 1070 unlike with 670/680 and 970/980.


----------



## Quasimojo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quasimojo*
> 
> Not for long.
> 
> 
> 
> It will be for long. Think at least another 2 years.
Click to expand...

By then it will be borderline mainstream. There is a lot of opportunity for adoption of the tech between niche and mainstream. I can only imagine how many Oculus Rifts and HTC Vives Pascal is going to help sell.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Meh they're just setting themselves up for disappoint when the reviews drop.


You would think that would be a PR nightmare for Nvidia, but it's not. Gamers will get it in their head that it's "twice as fast as a Titan X", accept the price increase, and then buy it regardless of the benchmarks.

It's crazy.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Rift needs to be 350 and cards like 200. I know people are super exited for these new cards but Nvidia has nothing under $380. AMD will get crazy market share. Most 970 user are more then happy with their card. They are not going to upgrade this fast.


Overtime prices will go down. Especially once polaris hits the market.
And with the 1070 most likely being twice as powerful if not more at high resolution vs the 970, and with new games starting to demand more and more from the GPUs, we might see an increase in sales.

Also we should expect a 1060 which will most likely still be stronger than than 970 at the lower price tag as well.


----------



## clipse84

Damn Need to get rid of my titan x now


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> You would think that would be a PR nightmare for Nvidia, but it's not. Gamers will get it in their head that it's "twice as fast as a Titan X", accept the price increase, and then buy it regardless of the benchmarks.
> 
> It's crazy.


Well, we found it hard to believe, and quickly figured out it was for VR, also, this benchmark does not in any way suggest 2 times faster.

Most people will see benchmarks and quickly realize it's not 2 times faster in gaming


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *clipse84*
> 
> Damn Need to get rid of my titan x now


Is your TX overclocked to 1500/8000? If so I _very strongly_ recommend waiting for reviews before prematurely selling your TX.


----------



## thebski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> It's actually $599,not that it makes it any better.


I was under the impression the founders edition was just the reference card. $600 version is the AIB versions with their crappy plastic coolers. No?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Overtime prices will go down. Especially once polaris hits the market.
> And with the 1070 most likely being twice as powerful if not more at high resolution vs the 970, and with new games starting to demand more and more from the GPUs, we might see an increase in sales.
> 
> Also we should expect a 1060 which will most likely still be stronger than than 970 at the lower price tag as well.


1080 has no effect on AMD at all right now. Only 1070 does. It will release June 10. I am sure Polaris will come out within 1 or 2 weeks. 1060 will come much latter than that. Nvidia will milk people 1080 and then 3 weeks later 1070 and then 2-3 months latter 1060. They do not want to have a entire product stack right away so people can chose the right card for them.


----------



## Quasimojo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ncck*
> 
> Do gamers even want VR? I can see it being cool for businesses and artist and modelers and what not... but gaming on it? Cool for a little then you got a headache and just want to go back to your mouse.. maybe that's just my thoughts heh
> 
> 
> 
> Rift needs to be 350 and cards like 200. I know people are super exited for these new cards but Nvidia has nothing under $380. AMD will get crazy market share. Most 970 user are more then happy with their card. They are not going to upgrade this fast.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows this industry is driven by the high end. With more and more people buying VR rigs, more games will support it. I own a 3D Vision kit, which I enjoyed for a while, but it has its limitations - limitations that products like the Rift have apparently eliminated.

How many people are going to spring for VR kits now, just to try and take full advantage of Pascal? I'm betting a lot.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thebski*
> 
> I was under the impression the founders edition was just the reference card. $600 version is the AIB versions with their crappy plastic coolers. No?


We don't really know what the Founders Version will be, the assumptions are highly binned chips, a better cooler, and maybe even a custom BIOS.

Yes at $599 are the custom cards


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I guess I should've made it clearer I was speaking about myself. The point being I have basically been enjoying stock GTX 1080 performance for the past 7 months. And since I don't stare at FPS counters while gaming, even a 30% improvement might not be perceptible *to me*. (is 40 to 52 FPS really that much of an improvement?)
> 
> Like I said the key question is how much OC headroom there will be, and I would be _*extremely*_ surprised (and impressed) if there is a 50% OC headroom, which to my recollection has never happened, not once on either side.


You have been enjoying GTX 1080 for 7 months? ok









And yes, 40 to 52 is a big improvement and makes gaming feels much better. Unless all you play is minecraft.
Even with just 30% limited air or water headroom, the 1080 will be 30% faster than the 980 TI. Which means more games will be 60fps with a single GPU at 4K and max settings in games which currently requires 2 OCed cards, or a single card will be faster than a 980 SLI setup.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> *You have been enjoying GTX 1080 for 7 months?* ok
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, 40 to 52 is a big improvement and makes gaming feels much better. Unless all you play is minecraft.
> Even with just 30% limited air or water headroom, the 1080 will be 30% faster than the 980 TI. Which means more games will be 60fps with a single GPU at 4K and max settings in games which currently requires 2 OCed cards, or a single card will be faster than a 980 SLI setup.


A heavily overclocked GTX 980 Ti probably is in the same ballpark as a stock GTX 1080.


----------



## 2010rig

Here's what we know about the clocks...

1607Base Clock (MHz)
1733Boost Clock (MHz)

We saw it running at 2114 MHz today on AIR


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 1080 has no effect on AMD at all right now. Only 1070 does. It will release June 10. I am sure Polaris will come out within 1 or 2 weeks. 1060 will come much latter than that. Nvidia will milk people 1080 and then 3 weeks later 1070 and then 2-3 months latter 1060. They do not want to have a entire product stack right away so people can chose the right card for them.


I doubt people who aren't going to pay 600$ for a card will be milked by nvidia with the 1080, and people who aren't going to pay 380$ for the 1070, will not be milked by nvidia as well.
Also now is not the mid and low range time of sales. That happens usually around holidays, so there is more than enough time for stocks to build up before people start to upgrade.


----------



## Master__Shake

is there a tl;dr version?

saw some things about a founders edition?

what is all this to do?


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I have a feeling that this time the GTX 1080 is clearly better than the GTX 1070 unlike with 670/680 and 970/980.


If the 1070 is faster then the Titan X I would think it would be at 1080p, I'd take a guess as the resolution goes up its going to choke quite hard, 1080 as well to a point.

I'm very tempted to pick up a 1080 though, seems that the Titan X and 980ti have been pushed down to the middle of the stack just like when the 680 came out. E: relative to 580 obviously.

1080ti/GP102/ whatever its called with HBM2 is going to be pretty serious.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Here's what we know about the clocks...
> 
> 1607Base Clock (MHz)
> 1733Boost Clock (MHz)
> 
> We saw it running at 2114 MHz today on AIR


That early leak of 3DMark with 1080 @ 1860MHz looks about right for Actual Boost speeds.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> is there a tl;dr version?
> 
> saw some things about a founders edition?
> 
> what is all this to do?


GTX 1080
2560 cuda cores
8GB GDDR5 X
599$ MSRP
699$ for Reference Founders Edition. may be better binned chips. We don't know yet.

Performance around 2x 980 SLI or around 20% better than Titan X / 980 Ti. Rough estimate, but very close.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> If the 1070 is faster then the Titan X I would think iot would be at 1080p, I'd take a guess as the resolution goes up its going to choke quite hard, 1080 as well to a point.
> 
> I'm very tempted to pick up a 1080 though, seems that the Titan X and 980ti have been pushed down to the middle of the stack just like when the 680 came out.
> 
> 1080ti/GP102/ whatever its called with HBM2 is going to be pretty serious.


could happen yeah


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> You have been enjoying GTX 1080 for 7 months? ok
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, 40 to 52 is a big improvement and makes gaming feels much better. Unless all you play is minecraft.
> Even with just 30% limited air or water headroom, the 1080 will be 30% faster than the 980 TI. Which means more games will be 60fps with a single GPU at 4K and max settings in games which currently requires 2 OCed cards, or a single card will be faster than a 980 SLI setup.


1. 980 Ti running 1530/7800 is most likely very close to stock 1080.
2. I don't play Minecraft, and the games I do play (mainly FPS), 40 to 52 is _barely_ an improvement, let alone "feels much better". (but this part is subjective, which is why I even *bolded "to me"* in my post above)
3. Games that require 2 OC's 980 Ti's to run smooth 60 FPS will still require more than a single 1080 to run smooth 60 FPS.


----------



## clipse84

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Is your TX overclocked to 1500/8000? If so I _very strongly_ recommend waiting for reviews before prematurely selling your TX.


Yes they are, all 3 of them actually. I was thinking of selling 2 and keeping 1 until big titan pascal is release next year .I'm currently rank 13 in the world


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 1. 980 Ti running 1530/7800 is most likely very close to stock 1080.
> 2. I don't play Minecraft, and the games I do play (mainly FPS), 40 to 52 is _barely_ an improvement, let alone "feels much better". (but this part is subjective, which is why I even *bolded "to me"* in my post above)
> 3. Games that require 2 OC's 980 Ti's to run smooth 60 FPS will still require more than a single 1080 to run smooth 60 FPS.


Because both suck. I want 60+. Right now @ Witcher 3 4K neither 980 Ti OCed or 1080 OCed will get 60 fps mark.


----------



## JakdMan

So 1080 is a new base. What are we on about again? Wont be truly worth it till the big chips are released you say. Meh


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> is there a tl;dr version?
> 
> saw some things about a founders edition?
> 
> what is all this to do?


Founders Edition is $699 which is supposed to achieve higher overclocks, custom cards start @ $599

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Because both suck. I want 60+. Right now @ Witcher 3 4K neither 980 Ti OCed or 1080 OCed will get 60 fps mark.


ZealotKi11er waiting for single GPU to manage 4K60fps :


----------



## magnek

I'm pretty certain GP100 will be able to pull off 4K 60, so only another 6-12 months of waiting.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> ZealotKi11er waiting for single GPU to manage 4K60fps :


The reason for my upgrade is Witcher 3. Crysis uses to be a reason before. I hate to upgrade just because with no game in mind.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I'm pretty certain GP100 will be able to pull off 4K 60, so only another 6-12 months of waiting.


For sure. A lot more cores HMB2 and if its anything like 980 vs 980 Ti it will OC like crazy from 1.5GHz to 2GHz.


----------



## one-shot

I'd buy a 980 Ti now for $200 tops. GTX 1070 is faster than Titan X for $379, new with a warranty. I can't help but LOL at those who recently purchased a high end Nvidia GPU.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> I'd buy a 980 Ti now for $200 tops. GTX 1070 is faster than Titan X for $379, new with a warranty. I can't help but LOL at those who recently purchased a high end Nvidia GPU.


Nah that is just unreasonable mate.


----------



## i7monkey

Nvidia marketing works otherwise they wouldn't be giving us less and less each generation while asking for more and more money.

There's nothing impressive about higher core counts or higher clock speeds if the performance is lacking, and it is. 20-25% over Titan X isn't great, it's not even good, it's mediocre. It's less than what we saw with the 680 over the 580 and it's $100-$200 more on a similar sized midrange chip. Their marketing even works on enthusiasts.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

So, this is basically die-shrinked maxwell? Well, I guess nVidia will have to pay most devs to implement gimpWorks for them to be competitive in the upcoming DX12 titles. And we will have games that perform worse in DX12 than DX11 (ala Tomb Raider)


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> I'd buy a 980 Ti now for $200 tops. GTX 1070 is faster than Titan X for $379, new with a warranty. I can't help but LOL at those who recently purchased a high end Nvidia GPU.


I think 780 Ti sold for like $350 to $400 after 980 came out. I still thing 980 Ti at launch will be faster then 1070.


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> GTX 1080
> 2560 cuda cores
> 8GB GDDR5 X
> 599$ MSRP
> 699$ for Reference Founders Edition. may be better binned chips. We don't know yet.
> 
> Performance around 2x 980 SLI or around 20% better than Titan X / 980 Ti. Rough estimate, but very close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> could happen yeah


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Founders Edition is $699 which is supposed to achieve higher overclocks, custom cards start @ $599
> 
> http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080


thanks guys.


----------



## one-shot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Nah that is just unreasonable mate.


You'd rather purchase a much slower card without a warranty for the same price?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> You'd rather purchase a much slower card without a warranty for the same price?


I am like the most stubborn guy with GPU and prices, but I would instantly take a 980 Ti for 200$. Even a reference 980 Ti.

Also why do you think the 980 Ti is "MUCH SLOWER" than the GTX 1070. I heavily doubt that mate.


----------



## one-shot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I think 780 Ti sold for like $350 to $400 after 980 came out. I still thing 980 Ti at launch will be faster then 1070.


The CEO of Nvidia said the 1070 is faster than Titan X. You should have informed him before he made a fool of himself on stage.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> The CEO of Nvidia said the 1070 is faster than Titan X. You should have informed him before he made a fool of himself on stage.


0.1% faster is still faster


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I am like the most stubborn guy with GPU and prices, but I would instantly take a 980 Ti for 200$. Even a reference 980 Ti.


I would too lol. Give me 2 white at it. Think about it. Even $300 you are getting a card thats 20% slower than $600 card,


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> The CEO of Nvidia said the 1070 is faster than Titan X. You should have informed him before he made a fool of himself on stage.


Maybe if you compare the Gflops only.


----------



## DADDYDC650

Sold my 980 Ti's today. Time to upgrade!


----------



## one-shot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I would too lol. Give me 2 white at it. Think about it. Even $300 you are getting a card thats 20% slower than $600 card,


The CEO of Nvidia stated the GTX 1080 has twice the performance of Titan X. Now it's clear he really messed up by not talking to you first. It's interesting you know 20% and the CEO of the company is incorrect.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DADDYDC650*
> 
> Sold my 980 Ti's today. Time to upgrade!


good timing. How much did you get?


----------



## variant

People are really going to regret selling their 980Ti for this...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> The CEO of Nvidia stated the GTX 1080 has twice the performance of Titan X. Now it's clear he really messed up by not talking to you first. It's interesting you know 20% and the CEO of the company is incorrect.


If you a OCN user did not get that much then Nvidia already won







. 2x was VR only.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> The CEO of Nvidia stated the GTX 1080 has twice the performance of Titan X. Now it's clear he really messed up by not talking to you first. It's interesting you know 20% and the CEO of the company is incorrect.


oh god here we go.

I guess we are going to hear this "twice the performance of a Titan X" PR crap a lot in the next week.

God damn it nvidia why did you have to use that phrase. It only confuses people.

Let me make it very clear.

*The GTX 1080 is not twice as fast as the Titan X.

Nvidia CEO was talking about CERTAIN VR SCENARIOS !!!!!!*


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Meh they're just setting themselves up for disappoint when the reviews drop.
> I guess I should've made it clearer I was speaking about myself. The point being I have basically been enjoying stock GTX 1080 performance for the past 7 months. And since I don't stare at FPS counters while gaming, even a 30% improvement might not be perceptible *to me*. (is 40 to 52 FPS really that much of an improvement?)
> 
> Like I said the key question is how much OC headroom there will be, and I would be _*extremely*_ surprised (and impressed) if there is a 50% OC headroom, which to my recollection has never happened, not once on either side.


The thing would have to overclock to 2700 MHz to make 50% overclock.

Spoilers: Not happening.


----------



## one-shot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> oh god here we go.
> 
> I guess we are going to hear this "twice the performance of a Titan X" PR crap a lot in the next week.
> 
> God damn it nvidia why did you have to use that phrase. It only confuses people.
> 
> Let me make it very clear.
> 
> *The GTX 1080 is not twice as fast as the Titan X.
> 
> Nvidia CEO was talking about CERTAIN VR SCENARIOS !!!!!!*


I guess you and zealot should go on stage together next time to inform the CEO that he's wrong.


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> The CEO of Nvidia stated the GTX 1080 has twice the performance of Titan X. Now it's clear he really messed up by not talking to you first. It's interesting you know 20% and the CEO of the company is incorrect.


Twice as fast in their weird VR chart that has a vague undefined axis. Though it seems to be comparing two complete rendered screens to their new VR tech, which is completely misleading.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> People are really going to regret selling their 980Ti for this...


Depends on how much they get for it.

If I had a 980 Ti I'd sell for 450$
I personally would not buy a GTX 980 Ti for more than 350$ currently.

I am pretty sure the GTX 1080 is better than the 980 Ti in every single regard.

But that is just me


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The thing would have to overclock to 2700 MHz to make 50% overclock.
> 
> Spoilers: Not happening.


Titan X has 1075 Boost Clock but 1175MHz actual Boost. This card has 1766Mhz Boots and who know what actual Boost. Overclocking is calculated after Actual boost. Going from 1766 to 2.1 is not that big.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> I guess you and zealot should go on stage together next time to inform the CEO that he's wrong.


Ok explain this graph then:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I'm so confused.
> 
> This chart shows 60-70% faster than a 980 in regular games. Where are they getting this 2x as fast stuff?


Not even 2x faster than 980 in RoTR and TW3, and here you are talking about 2x faster than Titan X


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> I guess you and zealot should go on stage together next time to inform the CEO that he's wrong.


The CEO clearly stated 25 to 30% faster than a Titan X under normal gaming circumstances. Or at least that's what I saw quoted.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> I guess you and zealot should go on stage together next time to inform the CEO that he's wrong.


*No you need to listen better and read the whole article. You are making a fool of yourself here.

Or you are a troll in that case please say so, so I can put you on my block list*


----------



## one-shot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The CEO clearly stated 25 to 30% faster than a Titan X under normal gaming circumstances. Or at least that's what I saw quoted.


I was playing CS:GO as i was listening to the event. If that's the case, that's not very impressive. Still, it's fun poking the forum residents.


----------



## bigblock990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> *No you need to listen better and read the whole article. You are making a fool of yourself here.
> 
> Or you are a troll in that case please say so, so I can put you on my block list*


Preach!


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The thing would have to overclock to 2700 MHz to make 50% overclock.
> 
> Spoilers: Not happening.


Probably not, but _if_ theyre talking about 2100 mhz while limited to a TDP of 180 on the ref PCB as it seems it could be to me. Custom 6+8 pin cards with an unlocked BIOS might be even more impressive if theyre not getting memory bandwidth limited at those clocks.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Nvidia marketing works otherwise they wouldn't be giving us less and less each generation while asking for more and more money.
> 
> There's nothing impressive about higher core counts or higher clock speeds if the performance is lacking, and it is. 20-25% over Titan X isn't great, it's not even good, it's mediocre. It's less than what we saw with the 680 over the 580 and it's $100-$200 more on a similar sized midrange chip. Their marketing even works on enthusiasts.


Maxwell & Pascal are similar, where as Fermi vs Kepler was a much higher leap in architecture and node. Remember, the 680 had 3x as many cores ( albeit weaker core for core) whereas a 1080 has about 20% Less cores vs a Titan X, and it's $400 less. Whereas 580 & 680 were the same price.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> The CEO of Nvidia said the 1070 is faster than Titan X. You should have informed him before he made a fool of himself on stage.


At that point he was talking about VR, which the 1070 will be faster. Plus, the x70 is usually within 5% of the X80, and since that will be around 20% faster, the 1070 should be faster than Titan X as well.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Maxwell & Pascal are similar, where as Fermi vs Kepler was a much higher leap in architecture and node. Remember, the 680 had 3x as many cores ( albeit weaker core for core) whereas a 1080 has about 20% Less cores vs a Titan X, and it's $400 less. Whereas 580 & 680 were the same price.
> At that point he was talking about VR, which the 1070 will be faster. Plus, the x70 is usually within 5% of the X80, and since that will be around 20% faster, the 1070 should be faster than Titan X as well.


1070 is be lucky to get within 20% of 1080. GDDR5 vs GDDR5X and a lot less Cores.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Can't wait until 1080 Ti!! That will be the card that replaces this 780 Ti.


----------



## Remij

Hmm interesting.
Quote:


> Superb Craftsmanship. Increases in bandwidth and power efficiency allow the GTX 1080 to run at clock speeds never before possible -- over 1700 MHz -- while consuming only 180 watts of power. *New asynchronous compute advances improve efficiency and gaming performance.* And new GPU Boost™ 3 technology supports advanced overclocking functionality. - See more at: http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/a-quantum-leap-in-gaming:-nvidia-introduces-geforce-gtx-1080#sthash.Jsl11e15.dpuf


http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/a-quantum-leap-in-gaming:-nvidia-introduces-geforce-gtx-1080


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> I was playing CS:GO as i was listening to the event. If that's the case, that's not very impressive. Still, it's fun poking the forum residents.


It's not exactly surprising considering a 1080 clocked at 1.86Ghz benchmark was leaked prior and it matched a 1.5Ghz 980Ti. The actual card boosts to 1.7Ghz, so it's under a 1.5Gghz 980Ti. It's not impressive at all, especially at $600.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Can't wait until 1080 Ti!! That will be the card that replaces this 780 Ti.


Yeah big Pascal is going to be a beast no question.


----------



## speedyeggtart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Can't you guys let me pick on NVIDIA's marketing just this once? It's not often I get to do this. I'm already aware that the claim is towards VR...
> 
> BTW, no matter how we look at this chart, the 1080 is definitely faster than a TX by around 20% - 25%


Looking at that graph - it looks like a performance per watt. Gaming Performance relative to wattage used. Simular to how AMD is pitching their HBM and Polaris Performance per watt I think.


----------



## Evangelion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Can't wait until 1080 Ti!! That will be the card that replaces this 780 Ti.


Same here. Been wanting to upgrade from my GTX 780 Ti ever since I picked up an ASUS PG279Q. Will definitely do that once nvidia releases the 1080 Ti.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Yeah big Pascal is going to be a beast no question.


Going to love 300W beast with a WB. Hate to watecool small 180W cards. Got to get my WC worth.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> It's not exactly surprising considering a 1080 clocked at 1.86Ghz benchmark was leaked prior and it matched a 1.5Ghz 980Ti. The actual card boosts to 1.7Ghz, so it's under a 1.5Gghz 980Ti. It's not impressive at all, especially at $600.


I mean, it's definitely an improvement over the 980 TI no question. But it's certainly not something that should cause current 980 TI owners to start fire selling their cards or anything like that. This is for people with a 980 or lower in my opinion.


----------



## speedyeggtart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I'm so confused.
> 
> This chart shows 60-70% faster than a 980 in regular games. Where are they getting this 2x as fast stuff?


Watching it live - I think this VR performance jump may have to do with Nvidia's new "VRWorks" - where it does something called single pass through?


----------



## DADDYDC650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> good timing. How much did you get?


$540 each after fees and shipping.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *speedyeggtart*
> 
> Looking at that graph - it looks like a performance per watt. Gaming Performance relative to wattage used. Simular to how AMD is pitching their HBM and Polaris Performance per watt I think.


The Y axis has the gaming performance, the TX gaming performance is at around 3.6, the 1080 is at around 4.3, hence the guesstimate.

We should focus our comparisons vs the 980, since that is the card it's replacing, and that looks like a 60% jump.


----------



## guttheslayer

This 1080 is running slower than expected for a 2560 cores at those insane speed.

Very likely we will see a reasonable bump once official drivers get released, as well as future driver maturity.


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *one-shot*
> 
> I was playing CS:GO as i was listening to the event. If that's the case, that's not very impressive. Still, it's fun poking the forum residents.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not exactly surprising considering a 1080 clocked at 1.86Ghz benchmark was leaked prior and it matched a 1.5Ghz 980Ti. The actual card boosts to 1.7Ghz, so it's under a 1.5Gghz 980Ti. It's not impressive at all, especially at $600.
Click to expand...

We all know that Nvidia cards always boost further than their stated boost clocks. I wouldn't be surprised if the 1.86GHz from the leak is what a GTX 1080 will actually boost to. That leaves ~0.25GHz of OC room to reach the 2.1GHz shown at the event today. But that was likely on the stock cooler so with a 3rd party cooler and the temperature headroom afforded by the better coolers, I'd say a 2.3GHz OC is possible.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> *No you need to listen better and read the whole article. You are making a fool of yourself here.
> 
> Or you are a troll in that case please say so, so I can put you on my block list*


Lol, and sites like OCN is supposed to be where the intelligent PCer hang out, you are wasting your fingers...







comprehension isn't a lot of peoples strong point...


----------



## HackHeaven

Who gives a **** about VR... VR should be used for porn and movies or some such thing

Waits to see AMDs magic trick $299 fury XXX that beats the titan X


----------



## Mako0312

So what is the Founders Edition? I haven't seen anything that tells me that.


----------



## n4p0l3onic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mako0312*
> 
> So what is the Founders Edition? I haven't seen anything that tells me that.


Founders Edition mean those cards will be able to shape shift


----------



## Emu105

So who wants a TX for....


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emu105*
> 
> So who wants a TX for....


I'll give you $200 for it


----------



## magnek

Well I'm selling my 980 Ti for $649 if there are any takers?

...
...
...
...
...

Nobody? Well guess I'll just have to keep it then.


----------



## kingduqc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *speedyeggtart*
> 
> Watching it live - I think this VR performance jump may have to do with Nvidia's new "VRWorks" - where it does something called single pass through?


We are talking about 20-30% over a 980ti for the same price a year later on a new node and new architecture?
 






I guess I'll wait to see big pascal and amd's offering before getting one.. 1440p and 144hz is hard to drive on a single 980ti... Aww. How much would a g1 980ti sell these days?


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> It's not exactly surprising considering a 1080 clocked at 1.86Ghz benchmark was leaked prior and it matched a 1.5Ghz 980Ti. The actual card boosts to 1.7Ghz, so it's under a 1.5Gghz 980Ti. It's not impressive at all, especially at $600.


I think youre misunderstanding how GPU boost works. At stock my cards boost clock is listed as 1290, in game it hits 1382. Boost allows the card to clock up until the point it decides the voltage is unstable, it hits TDP limits or its getting too hot, this can be different on individual cards.

I think the leaked bench was a reference clocked card.


----------



## sgs2008

Will wait for the 1080ti to upgrade my titan x


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mako0312*
> 
> So what is the Founders Edition? I haven't seen anything that tells me that.


Quote:


> The GTX 1080 will be available for $599 on May 27, and you can also snag a special NVIDIA-designed "founders edition" for $699 (which looks like it includes a stylish new cooler). Almost as an afterthought, NVIDIA also revealed that the GTX 1070 is coming on June 10 for $379 (the founders edition will run you $449).


*http://www.engadget.com/2016/05/06/nvidias-new-gtx-1080-gpu-is-even-faster-than-the-titan-x/*


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Well I'm selling my 980 Ti for $649 if there are any takers?
> 
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
> 
> Nobody? Well guess I'll just have to keep it then.


I'm sure you could sell it for around $500, just sell it on Kijiji or Craigslist, you know where they haven't heard of Pascal yet


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> This 1080 is running slower than expected for a 2560 cores at those insane speed.
> 
> Very likely we will see a reasonable bump once official drivers get released, as well as future driver maturity.


Maybe Maxwell cores are faster? I mean going from 28nm to 16nm without same major pipeline change you are not getting 2GHz+ clock speeds.


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> I think youre misunderstanding how GPU boost works. At stock my cards boost clock is listed as 1290, in game it hits 1382. Boost allows the card to clock up until the point it decides the voltage is unstable, it hits TDP limits or its getting too hot, this can be different on individual cards.
> 
> I think the leaked bench was a reference clocked card.


Boost clock is listed at 1733Mhz here.


----------



## Mako0312

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> *http://www.engadget.com/2016/05/06/nvidias-new-gtx-1080-gpu-is-even-faster-than-the-titan-x/*


$100 for a fan. No thanks.

I'm going to wait for the 1080Ti to upgrade my 780.


----------



## MoorishBrutha

*So let me get this straight*: Nvidia already lied/false advertisement about these cards having *Displayport 1.4*, where in fact, it's actually Displayport 1.2 and capable of usage with Displayport 1.3/1.4 monitors.

HDMI 2.0b has a smaller bandwidth than HDMI 2.0a

No Async Compute Engines/Schedulers

Hence, why should anyone get excited over this?


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> I'm sure you could sell it for around $500, just sell it on Kijiji or Craigslist, you know where they haven't heard of Pascal yet


pssst not in CA the country anymore, so no Kijiji, and CL is full of scammers and lowballers

but I was just joking anyways, hanging on tight to my 980 Ti until GP100/Vega, unless OC'd 1080 can give +50% performance to what I have now, which is extremely unlikely. Plus I think this time I'm actually going to keep the 980 Ti as a backup card.


----------



## Baasha

Hmm.. faster than a Titan X? When is the Titan X replacement supposed to arrive?

I would also hold out until the 1080Ti comes out - at least I will to replace the 980 Ti Classifieds I have now.










;


----------



## Ghoxt

Just woke up and missed the stream......Holy Crap! Well this is exactly where the midrange was supposed to be with New Memory, Die Shrink, and architecture. All that's left now is to see what the cards do in your hands OC with custom bios etc... Then we'll know the goods.

And I called it about Async..."What happens if Nvidia makes it a non issue by pure performance." It may not matter at all. And end up being just a great neat feature should a development house take advantage of it.

Also for the 2 of you that still do GPU Octane Rendering, make sure to test the cards with different content sizes and definitely close to max, to make sure all the memory is fast.









Not that Nvidia would deceive us...ever.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> Boost clock is listed at 1733Mhz here.


Yes but the listed boost clock is not what the actual card hits while in use, as I said.

Like this on my card.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> pssst not in CA the country anymore, so no Kijiji, and CL is full of scammers and lowballers
> 
> but I was just joking anyways, hanging on tight to my 980 Ti until GP100/Vega, unless OC'd 1080 can give +50% performance to what I have now, which is extremely unlikely. Plus I think this time I'm actually going to keep the 980 Ti as a backup card.


Kijiji is getting pretty bad too, CAD and economy is bad. Then there are the high ballers too with there high unreasonable asking prices. Like $400 for two GTX 480s in sli for example.


----------



## Shadowarez

Who wants to guess the CND price lol. $379 USD msrp at our current dollar plus shipping and retail markup im guessing north of $999 before taxes.


----------



## FLaguy954

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Because both suck. I want 60+. Right now @ Witcher 3 4K neither 980 Ti OCed or 1080 OCed will get 60 fps mark.


I gonna have to agree with you there. I am impressed that Nvidia was able to get near Titan X performance (if they aren't lying) on a $379 card. However, the 1070 and 1080 look to disappoint when it comes to 4K gaming.

Anyone who is interested in 4K, single card gaming should wait for the big dog cards from AMD/Nvidia with HBM 2.


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> Yes but the listed boost clock is not what the actual card hits while in use, as I said.
> 
> Like this on my card.


When it's compared to a 1500Mhz 980Ti, it's a 980Ti with a 1500Mhz boost clock. It's comparing apples and apples.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Maybe Maxwell cores are faster? I mean going from 28nm to 16nm without same major pipeline change you are not getting 2GHz+ clock speeds.


I been speculating to figure out if the Maxwell cores are faster...

1080 has 25% more cores, and 42% faster boost clocks, I estimate that it's around 60% faster than the 980, so the cores seem to be pretty equal, what do you think?


----------



## caenlen

damn... canada is in worse shape than i thought... British Columbia gets free electricity thanks to the hydro stuff... you think canada would be better off having that as an advantage, but meh i dunno


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shadowarez*
> 
> Who wants to guess the CND price lol. $379 USD msrp at our current dollar plus shipping and retail markup im guessing north of $999 before taxes.


I'm sure the 1080 is going to be $799 CAD here at the local computer store.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Kijiji is getting pretty bad too, CAD and economy is bad. Then there are the high ballers too with there high unreasonable asking prices. Like $400 for two GTX 480s in sli for example.


lol yeah the highballers always make me rofl, although I'd guess some part of it is due to ignorance of the hardware market as well
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shadowarez*
> 
> Who wants to guess the CND price lol. $379 USD msrp at our current dollar plus shipping and retail markup im guessing north of $999 before taxes.


Probably looking at $600+ ($650 maybe?) when all said and done. (assuming 1.3 exchange rate and 13% Ontario Highway Robbery Tax, then throw in tariffs and a bunch of other stuff)


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> When it's compared to a 1500Mhz 980Ti, it's a 980Ti with a 1500Mhz boost clock. It's comparing apples and apples.


Actually people tend to post there their actual in game or bench boost clock not the one shown in GPUz (main tab to be clear). Firestrike for example reads the actual boost clock reached during the bench, not the 'official' clock.


----------



## DaaQ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> *So let me get this straight*: Nvidia already lied/false advertisement about these cards having *Displayport 1.4*, where in fact, it's actually Displayport 1.2 and capable of used with Displayport 1.3/1.4 monitors.
> 
> HDMI 2.0b has smaller bandwidth than HDMI 2.0a
> 
> No Async Compute Engines/Schedulers
> 
> Hence, why should anyone get excited over this?


Cause the guy in the leather jacket said the x80 is twice as fast as TitanX ! No more proof needed. /thread


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Hmm.. faster than a Titan X? When is the Titan X replacement supposed to arrive?
> 
> I would also hold out until the 1080Ti comes out - at least I will to replace the 980 Ti Classifieds I have now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;


Probably next year
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghoxt*
> 
> And I called it about Async..."What happens if Nvidia makes it a non issue by pure performance." It may not matter at all. And end up being just a great neat feature should a development house take advantage of it.
> 
> Also for the 2 of you that still do GPU Octane Rendering, make sure to test the cards with different content sizes and definitely close to max, to make sure all the memory is fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that Nvidia would deceive us...ever.


In the Press Release, they state this

Superb Craftsmanship. Increases in bandwidth and power efficiency allow the GTX 1080 to run at clock speeds never before possible -- over 1700 MHz -- while consuming only 180 watts of power. *New asynchronous compute advances improve efficiency and gaming performance.* And new GPU Boost™ 3 technology supports advanced overclocking functionality.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *caenlen*
> 
> damn... canada is in worse shape than i thought... British Columbia gets free electricity thanks to the hydro stuff... you think canada would be better off having that as an advantage, but meh i dunno


Hydro sucks in Ontario, Hydro One got hit with a $125MM lawsuit last year, and our rates keep going up.

I literally went from a $100 a month bill, to $250 a month this winter.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> I'm sure the 1080 is going to be $799 CAD here at the local computer store.


Yup, the 980 Ti has been hovering at the $950+ mark with taxes


----------



## carlhil2

I have to admit, a lot of the shadier sites got some of the info correct this time, interesting.....


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> Actually people tend to post there their actual in game or bench boost clock not the one shown in GPUz. Firestrike for example reads the actual boost clock reached during the bench, not the 'official' clock.


The comparison was done on another forum specifically to try to peg the "IPC", for the lack of a better word, of the 1080. It has a lower IPC than a 980Ti, so despite faster speeds it only matched an overclocked 980Ti. This would be a good thing if the card wasn't $600.


----------



## MoorishBrutha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaaQ*
> 
> Cause the guy in the leather jacket said the x80 is twice as fast as TitanX ! No more proof needed. /thread


Just like that same guy around 2 years ago said that the GTX 970 will have 4GB of VRAM....


----------



## ozyo

1733mhz boost clock how much room left for overclocking ?


----------



## KGPrime

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Nvidia marketing works otherwise they wouldn't be giving us less and less each generation while asking for more and more money.
> 
> There's nothing impressive about higher core counts or higher clock speeds if the performance is lacking, and it is. 20-25% over Titan X isn't great, it's not even good, it's mediocre. It's less than what we saw with the 680 over the 580 and it's $100-$200 more on a similar sized midrange chip. Their marketing even works on enthusiasts.


Yeah if someones is worried about upgrading from the 900 series to this sure. If someone already owns a 980ti or Titan they shouldn't even be interested in this card as they are good well into 2017. Someone coming from 600 series the upgrade will be huge. Buying every new card at launch and hoping for massive performance increase beyond the very previous generation is stupid as it's hardly ever the case.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> The comparison was done on another forum specifically to try to peg the "IPC", for the lack of a better word, of the 1080. It has a lower IPC than a 980Ti, so despite faster speeds it only matched an overclocked 980Ti.


Well the GTX 580 had less then a third of the cores of a GTX680 and clocked lower but it wasnt 33% or less of the performance. It has a different architecture so you cant compare core to core.

1500mhz is actually a very good clock for 24/7 on a 980ti as well. 1700+ boost which will probably hit 1800 actual is the reference clock, theyve already shown one running 2100. Evenm if that is this 'Founders edition' with an improved PCB non ref custom cards will quite likely be hitting the same or even higher overclocked.

However I'm waiting to see what happens in the independent gaming reviews here, I still have a suspicion their GTX1080 25 % up numbers are for 1080p and 1440 and up will see the difference lessen relative to 980Ti, especially on the 1070 with ordinary GDDR5.


----------



## Sean W.

I just want one card that will smoke my SLI 980s.


----------



## iARDAs

What about 1070? Do we know how powerful it is?


----------



## MadRabbit

Welp, if AMD can't bring out something worth while against the 1080 then RIP. We might as well be left with one dedicated GPU provider sooner than we thought. This really bothers me but good job nVidia on the card, seems like a beast.


----------



## keikei

So whats the bottom line here? How much faster is the 1080 over the 980ti/titan x? Or do do we need to wait for vendor reviews?


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iARDAs*
> 
> What about 1070? Do we know how powerful it is?


About TitanX performance. But it's 256-bit bus, probably will choke @1440p and above


----------



## carlhil2

https://youtu.be/w3ktjT-_96c


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> So whats the bottom line here? How much faster is the 1080 over the 980ti/titan x? Or do do we need to wait for vendor reviews?


Waiting for reviews. 1080 vs T-X is a joke since T-X is slower than most factory OC'd 980 Ti's.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Waiting for reviews. 1080 vs T-X is a joke since T-X is slower than most factory OC'd 980 Ti's.


Yeah but they can say our $600 card is faster than our $1000 card


----------



## MoorishBrutha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> So whats the bottom line here? How much faster is the 1080 over the 980ti/titan x? Or do do we need to wait for vendor reviews?


It would be best to wait for 3rd party reviews between these cards and the 980Ti/Titan X anyway; in addition, it would be best if you wait for the release of *White Papers* on these cards so you can get a definitive look underneath the hood on these cards.


----------



## Serandur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Yeah but they can say our $600 card is faster than our $1000 card


I like how, during the entire presentation (even the chart with the "Maxwell Family" including the 960, 970, 980, and Titan X), they completely ignore the 980 Ti... whose reference model with GM200 launched for $50 less than the reference 1080 will be.


----------



## Pragmatist

The supreme commander slayed AMD's Polawhat.....

Enjoyed the stream a lot, and I can't wait to get my hands on the 1080.


----------



## MoorishBrutha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serandur*
> 
> I like how, during the entire presentation (even the chart with the "Maxwell Family" including the 960, 970, 980, and Titan X), they completely ignore the 980 Ti... whose reference model with GM200 launched for $50 less than the reference 1080 will be.


Trust me, you weren't the only one that notice that.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serandur*
> 
> I like how, during the entire presentation (even the chart with the "Maxwell Family" including the 960, 970, 980, and Titan X), they completely ignore the 980 Ti... whose reference model with GM200 launched for $50 less than the reference 1080 will be.


980Ti dropped at $550.00, thought that was the 980?


----------



## rony07

So... just sold off my 2 x GTX 970s for one of these. Any idea when we can preorder? Not sure how long i can hold off with this GTX 750ti lol.


----------



## PiMaster9001

Based on nVidia's TDP numbers (which don't really respond to max compute iirc) 1080 is about 67% more efficient than 980 (50 gflops/W vs 30 gflops/W). AMD demoed a low end GPU a while back that was about 2x as efficient as a 950, so it seems they may have the efficiency advantage this gen.


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Serandur*
> 
> I like how, during the entire presentation (even the chart with the "Maxwell Family" including the 960, 970, 980, and Titan X), they completely ignore the 980 Ti... whose reference model with GM200 launched for $50 less than the reference 1080 will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 980Ti dropped at $550.00, thought that was the 980?
Click to expand...

GTX 980Ti launched at $649 MSRP while GTX 980 launched at $549 MSRP. Unless, Serandur is saying the $699 Founder's Edition is what he considers the reference 1080.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> GTX 980Ti launched at $649 MSRP while GTX 980 launched at $549 MSRP. Unless, Serandur is saying the $699 Founder's Edition is what he considers the reference 1080.


Oh, ok, gotcha. because I thought maybe I was mistaken....


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> GTX 980Ti launched at $649 MSRP while GTX 980 launched at $549 MSRP. Unless, Serandur is saying the $699 Founder's Edition is what he considers the reference 1080.


Yeah, I think he's getting the 2 mixed up


----------



## Serandur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> GTX 980Ti launched at $649 MSRP while GTX 980 launched at $549 MSRP. *Unless, Serandur is saying the $699 Founder's Edition is what he considers the reference 1080*.


I sure am. Didn't get the impression that the Founder's Edition was functionally any better than the 980 Ti's reference cooler; they're both blowers, they've both got a vapor chamber, so lol.










Unless it's something entirely different from what they showed.


----------



## Unkzilla

Sold my 980 literally a few hrs before these announcements on ebay . Not bad timing







Looks like i'll have a bit of a gap between this vs the new 1080 but it looks to be worthy based on specs alone


----------



## Pragmatist

Beast! What a touchdown, seriously. It is everything I hoped it would be, we even got DP 1.4. I can only imagine how well the 1080Ti and Titan will perform.


----------



## DaaQ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> Just like that same guy around 2 years ago said that the GTX 970 will have 4GB of VRAM....


But imagine the direction this thread would go if guy's first name in that leather jacket was Roy.


----------



## forgotten one

I'm thinking of upgrading to a 1070 when its out but would my i7 950 bottleneck it?


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pragmatist*
> 
> Beast! What a touchdown, seriously. It is everything I hoped it would be, we even got DP 1.4. I can only imagine how well the 1080Ti and Titan will perform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://postimg.org/image/wkg2dwh1d/


Titan Pascal, goodness gracious...


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rony07*
> 
> So... just sold off my 2 x GTX 970s for one of these. Any idea when we can preorder? Not sure how long i can hold off with this GTX 750ti lol.


that was a good move. you're gonna get more than 970 SLI performance in a single card, and I bet that's not gonna cost you more than what you got for those cards. Thta's the way I'm prolly gonna do it with my 980Ti, get second one cheaply now and hope big pascal exists.


----------



## Clovertail100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pragmatist*
> 
> The supreme commander slayed AMD's Polawhat.....
> 
> Enjoyed the stream a lot, and I can't wait to get my hands on the 1080.


You know the marketing team is doing their job when peoples' skills of deduction amount to this.


----------



## Ding Chavez

Quote:


> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Graphics Card Unleashed - $599 US For 8 GB GDDR5X, 2.1 GHz Overclock Speeds and Performance Faster Than Titan X and 980 SLI
> 
> GTX 1080 Market Availability on 27th May


http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-launch/
Quote:


> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Announced For $379 US - Faster Than Titan X With 8 GB GDDR5 Memory, Launches on 10th June


http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-launch/

If this is all true I'm impressed better than I expected and cheaper. Not bad at all.


----------



## MoorishBrutha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaaQ*
> 
> But imagine the direction this thread would go if guy's first name in that leather jacket was Roy.


That's why Nvidia's marketing team knows how to pay these Youtuber personalities and Tech sites. It's very funny how only a few people are bring up the fact that these cards truly don't have Displayport 1.4.


----------



## prjindigo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MattGordon*
> 
> Inb4 it's just a huge tease and ends up being something completely unrelated to the Pascal GPUs we want.


These posts only work if you go back and edit them to make yourself look cool.


----------



## f33t

I'm pretty hyped too.. but need a new monitor to justify the upgrade... and by the time that comes out, the 1080 Ti will probably be dropping.


----------



## prjindigo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> That's why Nvidia's marketing team knows how to pay these Youtuber personalities and Tech sites. It's very funny how only a few people are bring up the fact that these cards truly don't have Displayport 1.4.


Maxwell 2, Distraction Boogaloo


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> That's why Nvidia's marketing team knows how to pay these Youtuber personalities and Tech sites. It's very funny how only a few people are bring up the fact that these cards truly don't have Displayport 1.4.


Nvidia knows marketing. That's why the 2x the performance of the Titan X is being perpetuated.


----------



## rony07

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> that was a good move. you're gonna get more than 970 SLI performance in a single card, and I bet that's not gonna cost you more than what you got for those cards.


That was the plan exactly. Went to a mATX build and MSI cards couldn't fit in my Carbide Air 240 case, not to mention the SLI temps were atrocious. Going to a single, more powerful card. Was lucky to sell off the 970s when I did, literally hours before this thing was announced. Now just to secure one of those MSI Founder's Day cards...


----------



## MoorishBrutha

Yea, I noticed that. It's only been a few hours removed from the event and already all I am hearing about is how the 1080 is twice as fast as the Titan X.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ozyo*
> 
> 1733mhz boost clock how much room left for overclocking ?


Well, that's the $599 question now, isn't it?


----------



## iARDAs

Hoping to score a used 1070 through OCN marketplace by mid July









I will settle with my 2 970s meanwhile. Sell them here in Turkey for the price of a used 1070 in USA so win win for me.

I might even get a 1080 who knows.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

According to the recent 3DMark benchmarks its real clock is 1860 MHz. 1733 MHz actually means nothing and those cards will probably be just like Kepler and Maxwell in terms of boost clock. In which both cases means little to nothing as the card will run all the time above the advertised speed.


----------



## prjindigo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *go4life*
> 
> The question is will we get GP100 in Titan/TI? The 980 will be a GP104 no?


The P100 is a Tesla chip - you know the really expensive ones that you can't afford that they never actually put into cards for gamer use?

My bet is on them making a dual-chip 1090 instead. The wattage is low enough on the 1080 for it to work fine.


----------



## Pragmatist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mookster*
> 
> You know the marketing team is doing their job when peoples' skills of deduction amount to this.


Go ahead and buy your Polawhatsitsname whilst looking at this touchdown.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Well, that's the $599 question now, isn't it?


Probably more than our expectations by how they showed the thing clocked @ nearly 2200MHz, which is a 27% increase over the stock boost clock of 1733MHz.


----------



## D749

I'll be selling my 2 Titan X Superclocked and picking up 2 GTX 1080 Founder Editions.


----------



## carlhil2

I hope that the 1080 Classifieds come in at $650.00...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *D749*
> 
> I'll be selling my 2 Titan X Superclocked and picking up 2 GTX 1080 Founder Editions.


$800 for the pair!!!


----------



## MadRabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pragmatist*
> 
> Go ahead and by your Polawhatsitsname whilst looking at this touchdown.


You really are one dedicated fan aren't you...


----------



## Drewminus

I like the power efficiency but damn if that inst the ugliest cooler I've ever seen


----------



## Klocek001

damn you nvidia, selling a reference GP104 for $800 and people just keep throwing money at you.


----------



## mrpurplehawk

So if I order 2 of them on the 27th, they should be shipped within a few days after that correct?


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> damn you nvidia, selling a reference GP104 for $800 and people just keep throwing money at you.


So, $600 = $800 now?


----------



## carlhil2

I had to go google "troll" just to make sure I wasn't imagining stuff...lol sorry, not trying to offend anyone, just saying...


----------



## GTRtank

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rony07*
> 
> So... just sold off my 2 x GTX 970s for one of these. Any idea when we can preorder? Not sure how long i can hold off with this GTX 750ti lol.


Haha dude, I did the same thing. Sold my 970 SSC's back in March, and been using a 750ti. Luckily it's 89% asic so it overclocked for an additional 25% performance. Now I can't wait to get a 1070!!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> So, $600 = $800 now?


Probably, where he lives.


----------



## Pragmatist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadRabbit*
> 
> You really are one dedicated fan aren't you...


I sure am, although I would call myself a fan of products aimed towards enthusiasts. Mookster decided to go on about marketing, but I don't know if he knows that AMD Roy indirectly advertised Pascal prior to the announcement.


----------



## artemis2307

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Probably, where he lives.


Where I live a GTX1080 is gonna cost 1000$ at launch


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> So, $600 = $800 now?


sorry, $700.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> sorry, $700.


Why are you ignoring the $599 cards?


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> sorry, $700.


There is custom AIB offering starting from 599.

No one ask you to get the FE card,


----------



## DaaQ

Have never ever seen reference cards cost more than the AIB cards. Especially +$100

Just a thought. Founder's editions = gddrX ? Could really only explain that premium. The reference shroud certainly does not.


----------



## iARDAs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artemis2307*
> 
> Where I live a GTX1080 is gonna cost 1000$ at launch


Same

1080 for a thousand US dollars here in Turkey as well. AT LEAST


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaaQ*
> 
> Have never ever seen reference cards cost more than the AIB cards. Especially +$100


Yeah, the FE is a mystery right now, because we don't know for sure that it will be reference, especially if they're claiming higher overclocks.


----------



## KarathKasun

Putting money on FE cards having a higher power limit and vcore limit. Thats all.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pragmatist*
> 
> I sure am, although I would call myself a fan of products aimed towards enthusiasts. Mookster decided to go on about marketing, but I don't know if he knows that AMD Roy indirectly advertised Pascal prior to the announcement.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Yeah, the FE is a mystery right now, because we don't know for sure that it will be reference, especially if they're claiming higher overclocks.


There's also no guarantee that the regular 1080 will even reach those clocks. In fact over clocks are still a complete mystery, yet people are already talking about easy 2200MHz, lol...


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> There is custom AIB offering starting from 599.
> 
> No one ask you to get the FE card,


Open your eyes. Nvidia is charging $700 for a reference GP104, that is not arguable. Sure, you can get AIB for *only* $600 (sorry, $599







) but you can probably forget about winning a lottery for a highly binned chip. I got my 980Ti with 82,4% asic for $600 last summer, now it's gonna be a lot tougher for me to get lucky with the 1080 cause binned chips will go into reference ones and be sold for $100 more, and I'll not pay $700 for a reference 1080.


----------



## DaaQ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> There's also no guarantee that the regular 1080 will even reach those clocks. In fact over clocks are still a complete mystery, yet people are already talking about easy 2200MHz, lol...


Again I'll agree from your other reply as far as marketing ploy. " here's the new card guys!! Only +$50. But for another +$100 you get twice TX performance, now throw us your money!!" "Did I mention 2 GHz guys ? ".
/sarcasm.


----------



## szeged

$600 for the regular reference card..... Well... I guess it could be worse.

Excited for pascal Titan release whenever that happens.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *szeged*
> 
> $600 for the regular reference card..... Well... I guess it could be worse.


yeah it could be 699$ for the regular reference card. That would be way worse.

Oh wait


----------



## th3illusiveman

Lucky for AMD i've been too focus on school to care about GPUs, but i'm nearing graduation, and I will start working soon and if they don't have an answer to this I'm getting a 1080. For their sake i hope they have a damn good response. If they are still substantially slower then Nvidia at 16nm, they are done.


----------



## DoktorCreepy

I thought he might eat the 1080 for a sec when he was holding it up.

Nice to see some new GPU goodies. I'm mostly interested in the non reference versions though.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

I'm hearing:

1080 is 20% faster than a 980 Ti
1070 is 5-10% slower than a 980 Ti

In actual fps. Is this correct?


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> I'm hearing:
> 
> 1080 is 20% faster than a 980 Ti
> 1070 is 5-10% slower than a 980 Ti
> 
> In actual fps. Is this correct?


no.
reviews aren't out yet. we odn't know how that performance scales to games and resolutions.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> I'm hearing:
> 
> 1080 is 20% faster than a 980 Ti
> 1070 is 5-10% slower than a 980 Ti
> 
> In actual fps. Is this correct?


Seems far too generous to the 1070. 6.5 TFLOPS vs 9 TFLOPS of the 1080. Everything else should be scaled down fairly equivalently. I'd put it leaning closer to the 980 than 980 ti.


----------



## mohit9206

25% faster than 980Ti and almost the same price.Why are people selling their 980Ti's for this? I think i already know the answer to that.
400 for 1070 and 980Ti or 980? performance.This i can accept although wish it had been $330.Not to mention 8GB Vram.Doesn't matter its only GDDR5. Fantastic upgrade for 670 and 680 owners.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

^^^^ Ok guys I thought there were some credible numbers out there.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> 25% faster than 980Ti and almost the same price.Why are people selling their 980Ti's for this? I think i already know the answer to that.
> *400 for 1070 and 980Ti performance*.This i can appreciate.Not to mention 8GB Vram.Doesn't matter its only GDDR5. Fantastic upgrade for 670 and 680 owners.
> So in all happy with 1070 and let down by 1080.


Where are you getting your performance numbers from for the 1070?


----------



## tinmann

I always said it. When they brought out the GTX 980 I said they had not yet brought out the big guns. I'll replace my SLI MSI GTX 980ti's with 2 of these. Did they mention how much vram the reference will come with?


----------



## Clovertail100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> no.
> reviews aren't out yet. we odn't know how that performance scales to games and resolutions.


Judging from all the people celebrating Pascal as the "winner" over Polaris, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Reviews are out. 1700MHz Pascal beats 800MHz Polaris.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaaQ*
> 
> Have never ever seen reference cards cost more than the AIB cards. Especially +$100
> 
> Just a thought. Founder's editions = gddrX ? Could really only explain that premium. The reference shroud certainly does not.


Nah. VC says there's a 1070 founders edition too for 70 bucks more so doubt it.

And LOL

"It is only said that it has 6.5 TFLOPs performance and that it's faster than TITAN X."

Can't wait to see all the kids with one bragging about it to the TX owners.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Seems far too generous to the 1070. 6.5 TFLOPS vs 9 TFLOPS of the 1080. Everything else should be scaled down fairly equivalently. I'd put it leaning closer to the 980 than 980 ti.


Ahem, the TX has only 6.7 TFLOPS.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mookster*
> 
> Judging from all the people celebrating Pascal as the "winner" over Polaris, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Reviews are out. 1700MHz Pascal beats 800MHz Polaris.


I'm wondering how far AMD can make Polaris scale as far as frequencies go. The less power constrained GPUs already come at 1.1-1.2GHz stock. With a process change they should hit 1.3-1.4GHz on higher end GPUs fairly easily. 2560 Polaris SP vs 2560 Pascal CUDA cores, it's going to be interesting.


----------



## mohit9206

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> ^^^^ Ok guys I thought there were some credible numbers out there.
> Where are you getting your performance numbers from for the 1070?


Yeah sorry i meant 980 performance.$379 is still too high.Should have been the same $329 as that of 970.And $499 for 1080.
But since there is no competition nothing's stopping them from pricing it high.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mookster*
> 
> Judging from all the people celebrating Pascal as the "winner" over Polaris, *I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Reviews are out.* 1700MHz Pascal beats 800MHz Polaris.


you should've put a link there.


----------



## MikeTheTiger

Just sold my Matrix GTX 980ti Wednesday for $600+. Just in time!!


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> $599 MSRB
> Available May 27


It's not horrible if it is indeed 30% faster than 980 Ti perhaps the 1070 is the value winner.


----------



## EightDee8D

How many CC that 1070 has, or it's just the DDR5/X is making all the difference ?


----------



## mohit9206

Wait we actually don't know the performance of the 1070 at all do we?980? 980Ti? Something in between?Its all speculation at this point.


----------



## MadRabbit

@Mookster
Quote:


> I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Reviews are out. 1700MHz Pascal beats 800MHz Polaris.


What?


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> Wait we actually don't know the performance of the 1070 at all do we?980? 980Ti? Something in between?Its all speculation at this point.


I'm guessing between 980 and 980Ti stock, and equal to 980TI oc'd vs oc'd @1080p, marginally slower in @1440p due to 256-bit DDR5.


----------



## davio

@mohit9206 We do not have a reputable benchmark of 1080/1070 at the moment


----------



## Mhill2029

A new SLI bridge that only works on Pascal cards that doubles bandwidth. I've heard some porkies in my time....but jesus.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> There's also no guarantee that the regular 1080 will even reach those clocks. In fact over clocks are still a complete mystery, yet people are already talking about easy 2200MHz, lol...


http://www.techpowerup.com/222294/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-specifications-released
Quote:


> The core runs at a scorching 1607 MHz, with a GPU Boost frequency of 1733 MHz. In one of its demos, NVIDIA overclocked this chip to over 2100 MHz, on its reference air cooling, and the GPU barely scraped 67 °C under stress


Granted its a marketing presentation, and theyre going to show in the best light but the speculation is not based on numbers pulled out of nowhere.

Some speculation







:

The leaked Firestrike the other day showed 1080 running at 1860 mhz, I'd wager that that's about what a ref card does when boosting, going by what my 780 and 980Ti show as their boost clock in use relative to the stock boost clocks. That roughly matches a highly overclocked 980Ti at 10000 odd graphics score

Again though, memory bandwidth could be a problem at higher resolutions particularly for the 1070 compared to the 980Ti and TX.

Now 2100 mhz going up from 1800 odd is only actually around a 15% rise. We might only be talking about something that max overclock on ambient cooling is only 10% ahead of the 980Ti on average in gaming, at least in the beginning, maybe less at 4K. That would put the 1070 probably a bit below an overclocked 980Ti depending on how much is cut.

Complete speculaltion based on what Ive seen, I'll be happy to eat my hat if it turns out to be a lot better.


----------



## barsh90

Time to unload my 2 gigabyte 980 TI gaming g1s on ebay


----------



## MoorishBrutha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> Open your eyes. Nvidia is charging $700 for a reference GP104, that is not arguable. Sure, you can get AIB for *only* $600 (sorry, $599
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) but you can probably forget about winning a lottery for a highly binned chip. I got my 980Ti with 82,4% asic for $600 last summer, now it's gonna be a lot tougher for me to get lucky with the 1080 cause binned chips will go into reference ones and be sold for $100 more, and I'll not pay $700 for a reference 1080.


I'm totally with you on this. Product binning is supposed to be a fabrication mistake, not premeditated commerce; and it definitely looks like premeditation given how Nvidia/EVGA are trying their darndest to capitalize off of it. Besides, AMD will have 14nm over Nvidia's 16nm and more cores than Nvidia.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> Yeah sorry i meant 980 performance.$379 is still too high.Should have been the same $329 as that of 970.And $499 for 1080.
> But since there is no competition nothing's stopping them from pricing it high.


yea expensive, midrange sold as entusiast.
next its 1200$ for the ti version


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> yea expensive, midrange sold as entusiast.
> next its 1200$ for the ti version


Possibly $1200 or higher, given that they'll be using HBM2 memory. I'm more concerned when the 980TI/Titan X successor comes, because if it's before Christmas 2016, that's one hell of a short shelf life for the 1080.


----------



## mrpurplehawk

I am so on the fence about this. Should I sell my 980 Ti and buy 2x 1080 or take advantage of people selling their 980 Ti @400 and wait until next year? I'd like to play new games at 1080p @144 Hz and possibly bump up to 1440 144hz gysnc soon. Opinions?


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> I'm totally with you on this. Product binning is supposed to be a fabrication mistake, not premeditated commerce; and it definitely looks like premeditation given how Nvidia/EVGA are trying their darndest to capitalize off of it. Besides, AMD will have 14nm over Nvidia's 16nm and *more cores* than Nvidia.










is this how you spell it ?

look at 2816 cores on 980Ti vs 4096 on fury x


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrpurplehawk*
> 
> I am so on the fence about this. Should I sell my 980 Ti and buy 2x 1080 or take advantage of people selling their 980 Ti @400 and wait until next year? I'd like to play new games at 1080p @144 Hz and possibly bump up to 1440 144hz gysnc soon. Opinions?


Since you play @ 1080p I think you answered your own question.


----------



## Redwoodz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrpurplehawk*
> 
> I am so on the fence about this. Should I sell my 980 Ti and buy 2x 1080 or take advantage of people selling their 980 Ti @400 and wait until next year? I'd like to play new games at 1080p @144 Hz and possibly bump up to 1440 144hz gysnc soon. Opinions?


Double the price for maybe 10% performance increase?


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> I'm hearing:
> 
> 1080 is 20% faster than a 980 Ti
> 1070 is 5-10% slower than a 980 Ti
> 
> In actual fps. Is this correct?




From NVIDIA's own graphs, relative performance is around a 4.3 on that scale. Titan X is about a 3.7, so at the least it'll be 25% faster than a GTX Titan X. Maybe not so much the GTX 980 Ti now that the Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Xtreme Gaming is out and sitting on nearly 20% more performance than a regular GTX 980 Ti, but close to that. However, it is at the right spot to be twice as fast as a GTX 980.


----------



## Fuell

Reading through comments is hilarious. So easy to see who reads and even comprehends whats being told vs those who fall for silly marketing BS.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redwoodz*
> 
> Double the price for maybe 10% performance increase?


I'm going 980Ti SLI and that's 99% decided, but I guess when reviews hit I might change the decision.

People who just bought their 980Ti just this year should keep their friggin pants on. 1080 will be faster, but it's far from revolutionary.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

When are reviews out? Hope it can oc well.


----------



## JTHMfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrpurplehawk*
> 
> I am so on the fence about this. Should I sell my 980 Ti and buy 2x 1080 or take advantage of people selling their 980 Ti @400 and wait until next year? I'd like to play new games at 1080p @144 Hz and possibly bump up to 1440 144hz gysnc soon. Opinions?


I am a sli man myself, but after reading on this site that multi gpu support is going to be left pretty much to the devs, I worry about sli in the future.
And I really want two 1070s.
If I were you, I would definitely get one of the new cards, while seeing how Dx12 pans out, while also saving for a second.
As I said, from what I read, it sounds like developers need to chide subs implement proper multi gpu support. Which if this is true, I'm sure we all know how well that will work out


----------



## Glottis

So what's the word on custom 1080s, will they be out on launch day? Not that we really need custom this time around, as reference ones perform amazingly
Quote:


> The air-cooled GTX 1080 runs at a very high clock speed or 2.11 GHz, with 10 GHz memory clocks, at a temperature of 67 degrees C.


----------



## melodystyle2003

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> When are reviews out? Hope it can oc well.


_The core runs at a scorching 1607 MHz, with a GPU Boost frequency of 1733 MHz. In one of its demos, NVIDIA overclocked this chip to over 2100 MHz, on its reference air cooling, and the GPU barely scraped 67 °C under stress._ link


----------



## Redwoodz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CataclysmZA*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From NVIDIA's own graphs, relative performance is around a 4.3 on that scale. Titan X is about a 3.7, so at the least it'll be 25% faster than a GTX Titan X. Maybe not so much the GTX 980 Ti now that the Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Xtreme Gaming is out and sitting on nearly 20% more performance than a regular GTX 980 Ti, but close to that. However, it is at the right spot to be twice as fast as a GTX 980.


If you go by that graph, then the 1080 will be less of a jump over Titan than the Titan is over the 980.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> So what's the word on custom 1080s, will they be out on launch day? Not that we really need custom this time around, as reference ones perform amazingly


https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/nvidia-announces-the-geforce-gtx-1080-faster-than-gtx-980-sli.222279/#post-3454248

2.1 core with 11000 men. Oh yes. I can't wait to buy 2.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *melodystyle2003*
> 
> _The core runs at a scorching 1607 MHz, with a GPU Boost frequency of 1733 MHz. In one of its demos, NVIDIA overclocked this chip to over 2100 MHz, on its reference air cooling, and the GPU barely scraped 67 °C under stress._ link


Thanks. Just found it in a tpu comment.


----------



## jhowell1030

Guess I'll be selling my 980 Kingpins.... Ugh


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redwoodz*
> 
> If you go by that graph, then the 1080 will be less of a jump over Titan than the Titan is over the 980.


Yup. Also,



I notice now that it's actually less than a 2x improvement in performance over the GTX 980. That's worse than SLI scaling numbers.


----------



## speedyeggtart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CataclysmZA*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From NVIDIA's own graphs, relative performance is around a 4.3 on that scale. Titan X is about a 3.7, so at the least it'll be 25% faster than a GTX Titan X. Maybe not so much the GTX 980 Ti now that the Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Xtreme Gaming is out and sitting on nearly 20% more performance than a regular GTX 980 Ti, but close to that. However, it is at the right spot to be twice as fast as a GTX 980.


That Graph shows nothing about speed... it is a Performance/Wattage efficiency graph chart. And I think its in relation to VR.


----------



## TTheuns

Glad I finally got a decent job, 2 1080s in SLI on the way. Should be a decent upgrade from a single 780Ti. With this pricing AMD might not survive


----------



## iARDAs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TTheuns*
> 
> Glad I finally got a decent job, 2 1080s in SLI on the way. Should be a decent upgrade from a single 780Ti. With this pricing AMD might not survive


Man I am so glad you got a decent job and so nice of you to gift me one of your upcoming 1080s. Thanks dude


----------



## Clocknut

Sounds like the Founder edition cards are better bins cards out of the early 16nm fab.


----------



## Shiftstealth

To everyone complaining about the price of the GTX 1070. The price is higher than the 970 almost certainly because of the added cost of 4GB more of the GDDR5. Nvidia has their margins in each market, and the extra vRAM probably ruined the margins.


----------



## KeepWalkinG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftstealth*
> 
> To everyone complaining about the price of the GTX 1070. The price is higher than the 970 almost certainly because of the added cost of 4GB more of the GDDR5. Nvidia has their margins in each market, and the extra vRAM probably ruined the margins.


If the 1070 was with GDDR5X no one will say anything bad but again GDDR5........


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeepWalkinG*
> 
> If the 1070 was with GDDR5X no one will say anything bad but again GDDR5........


Well i don't think GDDR5 got a node shrink. So i'm pretty sure 8GB is twice the cost of 4GB on the GTX 970. Thus the 40 dollar price increase.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftstealth*
> 
> Well i don't think GDDR5 got a node shrink. So i'm pretty sure 8GB is twice the cost of 4GB on the GTX 970. Thus the 40 dollar price increase.


Well , when amd charged more for extra 4gb, everyone cried.


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Well , when amd charged more for extra 4gb, everyone cried.


Make no mistake. Everyone is still crying.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftstealth*
> 
> Make no mistake. Everyone is still crying.


And it will get bigger once polaris drops, just not sure which side will be crying.


----------



## Shiftstealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> And it will get bigger once polaris drops, just not sure which side will be crying.


I don't understand why there are sides.....


----------



## MACH1NE

The million dollar question is can we justify selling 980ti for 1080 reference


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shiftstealth*
> 
> I don't understand why there are sides.....


Me neither, but in a market where you have only 2 choices, people assume sides by the products they are using. just look at comments in every cpu/gpu launch. lots of RIP/Rekt comments. heck even on Battlefield one trailer video is filled with "RIP COD".


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Me neither, but in a market where you have only 2 choices, people assume sides by the products they are using. just look at comments in every cpu/gpu launch. lots of RIP/Rekt comments. heck even on Battlefield one trailer video is filled with "RIP COD".


21st Century Internet is full of morons mostly. Had none of this nonsense back in my day....


----------



## ncck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MACH1NE*
> 
> The million dollar question is can we justify selling 980ti for 1080 reference


No because what game doesn't run with a 980ti..?


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *speedyeggtart*
> 
> That Graph shows nothing about speed... it is a Performance/Wattage efficiency graph chart. And I think its in relation to VR.


Yes it does. The Y-axis is labeled "Relative gaming performance". At similar power draws, the GTX 1080 pushes a theoretical 2x more frames in gaming. You interpret the graph in terms of how much power you're using to reach a certain level of performance, i.e. for a given amount of wattage, this is how much performance you'd get. The GTX 1080 is a sizeable bit ahead of the Titan X, and uses about half the power to reach that performance level, hence its placement.

We're also seeing a similar per-core performance boost that we got from Kepler to Maxwell v1, and that equates to a theoretical jump of around 30%. If it was performance per watt, the graph would need to be different, and would look similar to this:



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeepWalkinG*
> 
> If the 1070 was with GDDR5X no one will say anything bad but again GDDR5........


Well, 8Gib chips at 2.0GHz would equate to around 256GB/s, which is still not too shabby.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ncck*
> 
> No because what game doesn't run with a 980ti..?


not all about that. my 980Ti is a terrible overclocker, is loud and runs hot. 1080 will be amazing for silent gaming builds.


----------



## Pandora's Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> not all about that. my 980Ti is a terrible overclocker, is loud and runs hot. 1080 will be amazing for silent gaming builds.


Ofcourse its loud (assuming on stock cooler). The 980TI and Titan X are actually very quiet when not being overclocked. It's only when you crank the overclock and stay on stock cooling the cards become loud. Also headphones solve the noise problem...


----------



## KGPrime

The price is as expected and has been relatively the same for what you get for the last 16 years. But this is actually arguably a steal.
To put into perspective. The Gtx1070 is only about *40 dollars more or less* than my Gtx660 was 4 years ago, and it has *6 Gb more ram*.
Great fuggin price. This upgrade is going to be Yuuge.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Just finished watching the live stream.

*GTX 1070: FASTER THAN A TITAN X*
MSRP: $379.

I`m sooooo getting two GTX 1070`s.
Best news EVER


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandora's Box*
> 
> Ofcourse its loud (assuming on stock cooler). The 980TI and Titan X are actually very quiet when not being overclocked. It's only when you crank the overclock and stay on stock cooling the cards become loud. Also headphones solve the noise problem...


yeah.. no. my 980Ti is MSI which is one of the quietest custom 980Ti out there and it's still too loud for me. I'm not a headphone wearing online gaming dudebro any more, that's why silent and efficient gaming is important for me.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Just finished watching the live stream.
> 
> *GTX 1070: FASTER THAN A TITAN X**
> MSRP: $379.
> 
> I`m sooooo getting two GTX 1070`s.
> Best news EVER


*in VR. Don't tell anybody.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> *in VR. Don't tell anybody.


Please dont spread BS


----------



## iLeakStuff

I would love GTX 1080 in SLI but they cost $100 too much for me. $500 would be low enough.

Oh well, atleast I have the 1070s.
$760 and faster than 980Ti SLI.

SOOO glad I waited. It paid off bigtime


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Just finished watching the live stream.
> 
> *GTX 1070: FASTER THAN A TITAN X*
> MSRP: $379.
> 
> I`m sooooo getting two GTX 1070`s.
> Best news EVER


I hope the 970 fiasco doesnt repeat. Also, at 4k those 256 gb/s might be a problem.

I wonder how well gddr5x can overclock haha

1080 is the ideal card for 1440p at 144hz but if u need to scale up to dp1.4 standard of [email protected], u gotta wait for titan pascal, and a pair of them also.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Please dont spread BS


If its 1080 only 25% faster than 980TI there is now way 1070 will be faster in games than TITANX.
1070 should be 40% slower than 1080 from spec.

38% less Teraflops power and 25% less bandwidth.

The gap will be crazy HIGH around 40%.Either 1080 is 50% average faster than TITANX or 1070 will be slower than TITANX


----------



## Jure-Kure

Hello

Maybe is to soon to ask this but still i will ask I have i5 4570 and if i buy Gtx 1070 or Gtx 1080 will my Cpu botleneck one of this GPU?

Thanx for help and answer


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I hope the 970 fiasco doesnt repeat. Also, at 4k those 256 gb/s might be a problem.
> 
> I wonder how well gddr5x can overclock haha


Havent you heard? Nvidia will be using 8GHz 1GB VRAM from Samsung. Its closer to 290GB/s. Just a shy slower than 332GB/s you find on 980Ti which was enough even with heavy overclock on the 980Ti


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> If its 1080 only 25% faster than 980TI there is now way 1070 will be faster in games than TITANX.
> 1070 should be 40% slower than 1080 from spec.
> 
> 38% less Teraflops power and 25% less bandwidth.
> 
> The gap will be crazy HIGH around 40%.Either 1080 is 50% average faster than TITANX or 1070 will be slower than TITANX


How about we are right on both side. Gtx 1080 appear to be 25% faster, but as time progressed and driver mature it get to 40-50% region. And the 1070 end up edge over titan x as well.


----------



## gigafloppy

Meh. I wanted the 1070 to have 980-Ti performance with a 970 price. Looks like it's gonna be 980-Ti perf, but $50 more than a 970. That means I will _not_ buy unless there's a really good game bundled. I'm in no hurry with these prices. Let's hope Polaris 10 can bring that 1070 price down a bit.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Havent you heard? Nvidia will be using 8GHz 1GB VRAM from Samsung. Its closer to 290GB/s. Just a shy slower than 332GB/s you find on 980Ti which was enough even with heavy overclock on the 980Ti


8ghz 256 bits for gddr5 is 256 gb/s.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Havent you heard? Nvidia will be using 8GHz 1GB VRAM from Samsung. Its closer to 290GB/s. Just a shy slower than 332GB/s you find on 980Ti which was enough even with heavy overclock on the 980Ti


8Ghz with 256bit is 256GB/s


----------



## xioros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> *in VR. Don't tell anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> Please dont spread BS
Click to expand...

I'm afraid he's right... Just extrapolate the "GTX 1080, twice as fast as Titan-X" statement to the GTX 1070. In reality, it's *far* less, considering the GTX 1080 is about 80% faster compared to the GTX 980 in cherry-picked scenarios for marketing.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> 8ghz 256 bits for gddr5 is 256 gb/s.


Oh yeah, you are right. Sorry about that.
Still will be plenty enough.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> How about we are right on both side. Gtx 1080 appear to be 25% faster, but as time progressed and driver mature it get to 40-50% region. And the 1070 end up edge over titan x as well.


I dont think drivers can ADD 25% performance









But there is room for 1070TI with GDDR5X and less cut SKU.
That 30-40% gap i just so HUGE.
This 1070 looks more like 1060 how badly it is cut.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xioros*
> 
> I'm afraid he's right... Just extrapolate the "GTX 1080, twice as fast as Titan-X" statement to the GTX 1070. In reality, it's *far* less, considering the GTX 1080 is about 80% faster compared to the GTX 980 in cherry-picked scenarios for marketing.


GTX 1080 is faster than GTX 980 SLI.
Go look up results here.

There are a huge room for 1070 to still come up ahead. And that is 220GB/s 980s vs 330GB/s Titan X and they still do well on 4K.









In fact, both GTX 680 and 670 was faster than GTX 580. So don`t throw out conclusions like that


----------



## iLeakStuff

Poor AMD will have no chance against the Pascal cards now that 1070s are priced as low as $379 and is faster than Titan X.
We have heard that Polaris 10 is only as fast as 390X.

And Nvidia even have GTX 1060Ti to release for even cheaper


----------



## Glottis

Anyone wanna talk about elephant in the room? How do you think they will perform in DX12?


----------



## gigafloppy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Poor AMD will have no chance against the Pascal cards now that 1070s are priced as low as $379 and is faster than Titan X.
> We have heard that Polaris 10 is only as fast as 390X.


If Polaris 10 has a nice price it could sell really, really well. There's a huge gap between the 960 and 1070 in both price and performance.


----------



## Yop

Single height dvi? Did they show a pic of the output side?

Edit- nevermind saw it on the other side, guess I'll have to hope for an AIB with single row.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> Anyone wanna talk about elephant in the room? How do you think they will perform in DX12?


Nobody knows since Huang didnt talk about DX12 at all during the presentation


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gigafloppy*
> 
> If Polaris 10 has a nice price it could sell really, really well. There's a huge gap between the 960 and 1070 in both price and performance.


The only solution for AMD is to once again being forced to sell the cards very low since they doesnt have any cards to keep up with 1070 and 1080 if rumors are right.
Remember that they have a card that will perfom like 390X which cost what, $450 now, and they are now being forced to sell it at $250-$300 since a vastly superior 1070 will cost $379?
Is that really good news for them?


----------



## mohit9206

Just for fun how many GTX280s is one GTX1080?


----------



## gigafloppy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> The only solution for AMD is to once again being forced to sell the cards very low since they doesnt have any cards to keep up with 1070 and 1080 if rumors are right.
> Remember that they have a card that will perfom like 390X which cost what, $450 now, and they are now *being forced* to sell it at $250-$300 since a vastly superior 1070 will cost $379?
> Is that really good news for them?


It was going to be less than $450 anyway. New node remember? 390x peformance, but a smaller, cheaper die. All I'm saying is, there's a place for AMD cards even with these new Pascal monsters. At least, until Nvidia releases the 1060...


----------



## doza

too early for 'there will be a founders (spcial) edition', i mean cards are not in stores, yet there will be 2 typ's of same gpu....

it'all stinks to me that 'founders edition' cards are realy the 'normal one' Pascal cards , but they are just printing to fast these new gpu's so they can steal the customers (amd) and so there will be a lot of garbage card's (for possible rma ).

So it seams that founders edition is only way to go......

dont kill me for saying all of this, but im (gtx970 3.5gb) user so im just not so Trustworthy about Nvidia enymore...


----------



## xioros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *xioros*
> 
> I'm afraid he's right... Just extrapolate the "GTX 1080, twice as fast as Titan-X" statement to the GTX 1070. In reality, it's *far* less, considering the GTX 1080 is about 80% faster compared to the GTX 980 in cherry-picked scenarios for marketing.
> 
> 
> 
> GTX 1080 is faster than GTX 980 SLI.
> Go look up results here.
> 
> There are a huge room for 1070 to still come up ahead. And that is 220GB/s 980s vs 330GB/s Titan X and they still do well on 4K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, both GTX 680 and 670 was faster than GTX 580. So don`t throw out conclusions like that
Click to expand...

Sigh...
We're talking 980 Ti, single cards, NOT SLI.

I *highly* doubt the GTX 1070 will be (much) faster than the GTX 980 Ti/TitanX, based on the benchmarks Nvidia posted (_which should be taken with a grain of salt [source: their history on graphs]_), the statement from the ceo that a "GTX 1080 is twice as fast as a GTX Titan X", while in real world performance it's (at best) 80% faster than a GTX 980 - which is _a lot_ slower than a GTX Titan X

I assume the CEO's statements are more or less equally true (or false







), so yes: it's very reasonable to expect the GTX 1070 under the GTX 980 Ti. Remember how the GTX 970 also landed under the GTX 780 Ti?
This could however very well change with their dirty driver-practices.

Please put some solid reasoning in your statements. Because the stuff you wrote is on the same level as stating the sky is blue while discussing the color of the table.


----------



## MoorishBrutha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Nobody knows since Huang didnt talk about DX12 at all during the presentation


Well that's very convenient given that alot of DX12 games including the forthcoming Doom which uses OpenCL/GL have *Async Compute* and Nvidia is losing against AMD in these said titles.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Nobody knows since Huang didnt talk about DX12 at all during the presentation


well there's this

it shows that RotTR under DX12 has bigger gains than TW3 under DX11. of course it could also be differences between engines and such.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> GTX 1080 is faster than GTX 980 SLI.
> Go look up results here.
> 
> There are much room for 1070 to still come up ahead. And that is 220GB/s 980s vs 330GB/s Titan X and they still do well on 4K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So don`t throw out conclusions like that


I'd much rather trust Nvidia's own relative performance chart and specs, tests with different setups easily make comparisons meaningless. There's no doubt that with 6.5 TFLOPS vs 9TFLOPS the 1070 is far slower than the 1080.
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/10304/GTX1080King.jpg
Linear scaling with raw shader power would put well below the Titan X. Realistically it'll end up on par at best, unless the design is is really far off balance compared to the 1080.


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xioros*
> 
> Sigh...
> We're talking 980 Ti, single cards, NOT SLI.
> 
> I *highly* doubt the GTX 1070 will be (much) faster than the GTX 980 Ti/TitanX, based on the benchmarks Nvidia posted (_which should be taken with a grain of salt [source: their history on graphs]_), the statement from the ceo that a "GTX 1080 is twice as fast as a GTX Titan X", while in real world performance it's (at best) 80% faster than a GTX 980 - which is _a lot_ slower than a GTX Titan X


But when he said "it's twice as fast as the Titan X", he was talking about the stereo feature for VR (which Titan X lacks). He wasn't trying to deceive.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> well there's this
> 
> it shows that RotTR under DX12 has bigger gains than TW3 under DX11. of course it could also be differences between engines and such.


Where did you find that?
That shows 1080 performing indeed like 980 SLI.

With or without Async compute, I think Nvidia have some tricks up their sleeves for DX12. Huang said they used several billion dollars in developing the 1080/1070 cards, I`m sure they thought this through not 1 but hundreds of times.


----------



## xioros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *xioros*
> 
> Sigh...
> We're talking 980 Ti, single cards, NOT SLI.
> 
> I *highly* doubt the GTX 1070 will be (much) faster than the GTX 980 Ti/TitanX, based on the benchmarks Nvidia posted (_which should be taken with a grain of salt [source: their history on graphs]_), the statement from the ceo that a "GTX 1080 is twice as fast as a GTX Titan X", while in real world performance it's (at best) 80% faster than a GTX 980 - which is _a lot_ slower than a GTX Titan X
> 
> 
> 
> But when he said "it's twice as fast as the Titan X", he was talking about the stereo feature for VR. He wasn't trying to deceive.
Click to expand...

If you hold a card: "twice as fast as Titan-X", without any context, it's deceive. I knew it was about VR. But the same goes for the GTX Titan-X vs GTX 1070 comparison.


----------



## Clovertail100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> you should've put a link there.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadRabbit*
> 
> @Mookster
> What?


They must be out. I've seen a plethora of celebratory cheers about Pascal trumping Polaris in this thread. Surely, there's a basis for that.


----------



## MadRabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mookster*
> 
> They must be out. I've seen a plethora of celebratory cheers about Pascal trumping Polaris in this thread. Surely, there's a basis for that.


Well, they do. Based on rumors.


----------



## gigafloppy

Soooo, when are we going to see the reviews? May 27th, or sooner than that?


----------



## xioros

Taken that the GTX 1080 is 80% faster (1600p) than the GTX 980, let's do some math:

GTX 980 Performance in BF4: 58.9 fps
Estimated GTX 1080 performance: 58.9*1.8 = 106 fps (which, for the record, is just behind GTX 980 SLI @iLeakStuff)

GTX Titan X performance: 78.7
GTX 1080 vs GTX Titan X: 106/78.7 = 35% faster.

Am I pessimistic for not thinking that the GTX 1070 is not faster than the GTX Titan X - considering the compute performance and memory bandwidth we know?

Source - which you gave me


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> I'd much rather trust Nvidia's own relative performance chart and specs, tests with different setups easily make comparisons meaningless. There's no doubt that with 6.5 TFLOPS vs 9TFLOPS the 1070 is far slower than the 1080.
> http://images.anandtech.com/doci/10304/GTX1080King.jpg
> Linear scaling with raw shader power would put well below the Titan X. Realistically it'll end up on par at best, unless the design is is really far off balance compared to the 1080.


Take GTX 680 and GTX 670.
GTX 680 was 25% above GTX 580 like GTX 1080 is over Titan X. GTX 670 still came way above GTX 580 too.










GTX 680 had compute performance of 3.1GFLOPs
GTX 670 had 2.5GFLOPs.

The performance in games over 580 was still there although compute was much lower. This time compute is even a bit lower than 680 and 670, but there are still room to come above Titan X in some games and maybe equal in average.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xioros*
> 
> Taken that the GTX 1080 is 80% faster (1600p) than the GTX 980, let's do some math:
> 
> GTX 980 Performance in BF4: 58.9 fps
> Estimated GTX 1080 performance: 58.9*1.8 = 106 fps (which, for the record, is just behind GTX 980 SLI @iLeakStuff)
> 
> GTX Titan X performance: 78.7
> GTX 1080 vs GTX Titan X: 106/78.7 = 35% faster.
> 
> Am I pessimistic for not thinking that the GTX 1070 is not faster than the GTX Titan X - considering the compute performance and memory bandwidth we know?
> 
> Source - which you gave me


You might also want to consider that the review is over a year old now, chances are that all of the cards there are 5-10% faster now.


----------



## xioros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> I'd much rather trust Nvidia's own relative performance chart and specs, tests with different setups easily make comparisons meaningless. There's no doubt that with 6.5 TFLOPS vs 9TFLOPS the 1070 is far slower than the 1080.
> http://images.anandtech.com/doci/10304/GTX1080King.jpg
> Linear scaling with raw shader power would put well below the Titan X. Realistically it'll end up on par at best, unless the design is is really far off balance compared to the 1080.
> 
> 
> 
> Take GTX 680 and GTX 670.
> GTX 680 was 25% above GTX 580 like GTX 1080 is over Titan X. GTX 670 still came way above GTX 580 too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GTX 680 had compute performance of 3.1GFLOPs
> GTX 670 had 2.5GFLOPs.
> 
> The performance in games over 580 was still there although compute was much lower. This time compute is even a bit lower than 680 and 670, but there are still room to come above Titan X in some games and maybe equal in average.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the relative difference on the GeForce 600 series was 25%. On Pascal, it's 38%.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MACH1NE*
> 
> The million dollar question is can we justify selling 980ti for 1080 reference


you can justify a sex change operation, but not this.


----------



## xioros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MACH1NE*
> 
> The million dollar question is can we justify selling 980ti for 1080 reference
> 
> 
> 
> you can justify a sex change operation, but not this.
Click to expand...











That said, wait till Nvidia driver cripples the GTX 980


----------



## michaelius

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gigafloppy*
> 
> It was going to be less than $450 anyway. New node remember? 390x peformance, but a smaller, cheaper die. All I'm saying is, there's a place for AMD cards even with these new Pascal monsters. At least, until Nvidia releases the 1060...


And before Nvidia releases 1060 all price points below 350$ will be flooded with used 970/980/980ti/290/390/Fury cards.


----------



## iLeakStuff

GTX 980Ti owners are lucky someone even buy their cards now that GTX 1070 are soon out at $380.
Gotta go real low to be succesful or luck out on some smuck buying them now unaware of the upcoming Pascal cards


----------



## steveTA1983

I just sold my TX for $750 yesterday. Man do I feel lucky lol


----------



## renx

I'm not buying the rumor that AMD won't compete here. Of course they will.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *melodystyle2003*
> 
> _The core runs at a scorching 1607 MHz, with a GPU Boost frequency of 1733 MHz. In one of its demos, NVIDIA overclocked this chip to over 2100 MHz, on its reference air cooling, and the GPU barely scraped 67 °C under stress._ link


Imagine 2.1GHz 3.5K core monster with 1TB/s mem bandwidth
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> GTX 980Ti owners are lucky someone even buy their cards now that GTX 1070 are soon out at $380.
> Gotta go real low to be succesful or luck out on some smuck buying them now unaware of the upcoming Pascal cards


but my card is running fine. why should I sell it ?


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Take GTX 680 and GTX 670.
> GTX 680 was 25% above GTX 580 like GTX 1080 is over Titan X. GTX 670 still came way above GTX 580 too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GTX 680 had compute performance of 3.1GFLOPs
> GTX 670 had 2.5GFLOPs.
> 
> The performance in games over 580 was still there although compute was much lower. This time compute is even a bit lower than 680 and 670, but there are still room to come above Titan X in some games and maybe equal in average.


Absoutely true, but the difference this time around is a bit larger, and 970 vs 980 also showed a larger difference most likely due to more units being disabled. All and all, it'll probably end up around the Titan X on average like you said.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steveTA1983*
> 
> I just sold my TX for $750 yesterday. Man do I feel lucky lol


No angry emails yet demanding money back and reverse the sale?


----------



## xioros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> GTX 980Ti owners are lucky someone even buy their cards now that GTX 1070 are soon out at $380.


Fanboy in denial? Or are you just conveniently ignoring all the source supported statements I made to justify your hype?









That said, as for compute performance:

The GTX 680 vs 670 only lost 1 SM, nothing else.

If the GTX 1070 gets skimmed in more that just SM's (like memory controller, seems a common issue with GTX 70 cards







), we might see more performance loss.
We don't have any idea on clockspeeds yet, nor do we have a core count.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> Absoutely true, but the difference this time around is a bit larger, and 970 vs 980 also showed a larger difference most likely due to more units being disabled. All and all, it'll probably end up around the Titan X on average like you said.


Well, above or equal with Titan X, its still a so much better buy


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Well, above or equal with Titan X, its still a so much better buy


I'm starting to think your a well tuned troll from some of your postings.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Well, above or equal with Titan X, its still a so much better buy


Not surprising since the Titans are absolutely terrible from a pure perf/$ perspective.









I do hope we see some proper winners in the ~$200 department though, in a few months I'll finally have enough time to concentrate more on gaming again and this 6950 just has to go, it's ancient.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xioros*
> 
> Fanboy in denial? Or are you just conveniently ignoring all the source supported statements I made to justify your hype?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, as for compute performance:
> 
> The GTX 680 vs 670 only lost 1 SM, nothing else.
> 
> If the GTX 1070 gets skimmed in more that just SM's (like memory controller, seems a common issue with GTX 70 cards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), we might see more performance loss.
> We don't have any idea on clockspeeds yet, nor do we have a core count.


it dont need have cut memory controler.
1080 have 320GB/s
1070 have 256GBs
thats 25% more.
Add 25% less Sp to that and we will have 30-40% performance gap in 1080 vs 1070.

GTX670 was only 1SM cut 1344SP vs 1536SP and memory bandwidth was same.
Thats why 670 was only 10% slower than 680.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> I'm starting to think your a well tuned troll from some of your postings.


Angry TitanX owner checking in I see. Its allright, its allright. Atleast you can think about all the days you spent enjoying your cards while I was waiting









4x TitanX is enough anyway for many years


----------



## iLeakStuff

GTX 1080 single card isnt enough for 1440p 144Hz right?
Or 4K 60Hz?


----------



## Klocek001

lol how much do you think the $700 1080 will sell for in summer '17 ? I bet it's gonna be $50 more than 980Ti. You can't have a card that's not gonna drop in value. 1080 will get smashed in q1 2017. I don't mean it's not an impressive card. Mid-range chips sold as high end just don't last long.


----------



## tpi2007

Phew! You guys have been talking about what for the past 800+ posts?

I took a quick look yesterday and am taking one now.

1. Nice core clockspeed improvement. Is it true that it can easily overclock to 2.1 Ghz ?

2. What speed will the VRAM on the 1070 be? 7 or 8 Ghz GDDR5? There are no other specs besides FLOPS and memory type for the 1070 are there? GDDR5X for the 1080 and GDDR5 for the 1070.

3. The 1070 appears like it will be just a tad behind the 980 Ti in performance? But it's anyone's guess, right?

4. The price on the 1080 is really pushing it. I guess it's the new node + brand new GDDR5X doing the show.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Angry TitanX owner checking in I see. Its allright, its allright. Atleast you can think about all the days you spent enjoying your cards while I was waiting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4x TitanX is enough anyway for many years


This is exactly what I was talking about, you seem to be posting things to get a reaction out of people and cause an argument. I'm sure others have seen it too, try to be more professional with your postings as I see a lot of juvenile responses from you. Just my 2cents...


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Phew! You guys have been talking about what for the past 800+ posts?
> 
> I took a quick look yesterday and am taking one now.
> 
> 1. Nice clockspeed improvement. Is it true that it can easily overlcock to 2.1 Ghz ?
> 
> 2. What speed will the VRAM on the 1070 be? 7 or 8 Ghz GDDR5? There are no other specs for the 1070 are there? GDDR5X for the 1080 and GDDR5 for the 1070.
> 
> 3. The 1070 appears like it will be just a tad behind the 980 Ti in performance? But it's anyone's guess, right?
> 
> 4. The price on the 1080 is really pushing it. I guess it's the new node + brand new GDDR5X doing the show.


8GHz (2000MHz) VRAM. 1GB per DRAM and 8 of them on the GTX 1070.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> This is exactly what I was talking about, you seem to be posting things to get a reaction out of people and cause an argument. I'm sure others have seen it too, try to be more professional with your postings as I see a lot of juvenile responses from you. Just my 2cents...


I`m not looking to be professional


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Angry TitanX owner checking in I see. Its allright, its allright. Atleast you can think about all the days you spent enjoying your cards while I was waiting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4x TitanX is enough anyway for many years


man, seems like not only you have been waiting, you spent that time working double shifts as an altar boy for that card.


----------



## Tojara

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Phew! You guys have been talking about what for the past 800+ posts?
> 
> I took a quick look yesterday and am taking one now.
> 
> 1. Nice clockspeed improvement. Is it true that it can easily overlcock to 2.1 Ghz ?
> 
> 2. What speed will the VRAM on the 1070 be? 7 or 8 Ghz GDDR5? There are no other specs for the 1070 are there? GDDR5X for the 1080 and GDDR5 for the 1070.
> 
> 3. The 1070 appears like it will be just a tad behind the 980 Ti in performance? But it's anyone's guess, right?
> 
> 4. The price on the 1080 is really pushing it. I guess it's the new node + brand new GDDR5X doing the show.


1. No new info
2. No new info, most are guessing 8GHz.
3. That's just about where I'd put it. We were discussing it on the last page, the end result seems to be around Titan x +-10%.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> GTX 1080 single card isnt enough for 1440p 144Hz right?
> Or 4K 60Hz?


It isn't unless the OC headroom is to 2.5GHz+ or you are willing to sacrifice a lot of details.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> lol how much do you think the $700 1080 will sell for in summer '17 ? I bet it's gonna be $50 more than 980Ti. You can't have a card that's not gonna drop in value. 1080 will get smashed in q1 2017. I don't mean it's not an impressive card. Mid-range chips sold as high end just don't last long.


Lets follow that logic. GTX 1080Ti in March - June 2017 somewhere.
Volta GV104 checking in 2018 to smash GTX 1080Ti.

And around and around we go


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> 1. No new info
> 2. No new info, most are guessing 8GHz.
> 3. That's just about where I'd put it. We were discussing it on the last page, the end result seems to be around Titan x +-10%.
> It isn't unless the OC headroom is to 2.5GHz+ or you are willing to sacrifice a lot of details.


Yeah thats what I was thinking.
Better go with 1070SLI I guess. I was thinking about if 1080 was enough but I doubt it.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Lets follow that logic. GTX 1080Ti in March - June 2017 somewhere.
> Volta GV104 checking in 2018 to smash GTX 1080Ti.
> 
> And around and around we go


You seem to be forgetting something, what if the 1080Ti or Pascal Titan appears before the end of the year? That I can see happening for sure.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> 8GHz (2000MHz) VRAM. 1GB per DRAM and 8 of them on the GTX 1070.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tojara*
> 
> 1. No new info
> 2. No new info, most are guessing 8GHz.
> 3. That's just about where I'd put it. We were discussing it on the last page, the end result seems to be around Titan x +-10%.


Thanks!







Rep+


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> You seem to be forgetting something, what if the 1080Ti or Pascal Titan appears before the end of the year? That I can see happening for sure.


Nvidia have always taken their sweet time with the big cards though.
GTX 780Ti was 1.5 years after GTX 680.
GTX 980Ti was 9 months after GTX 980.

AMD isnt out with Volta until 2017 sometime either.
Pascal Titan might be earlier though, but considering the price of 1080 is $600, what happens to Titan price now?


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Nvidia have always taken their sweet time with the big cards though.
> GTX 780Ti was 1.5 years after GTX 680.
> GTX 980Ti was 9 months after GTX 980.
> 
> AMD isnt out with Volta until 2017 sometime either.


But it's also the first time we had a fab shrink in years, wouldn't surprise me if they rush these things out faster than ever. Something to think about....

I'm seeing November as a game changer myself.


----------



## hokk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> Phew! You guys have been talking about what for the past 800+ posts?
> 
> I took a quick look yesterday and am taking one now.
> 
> 1. Nice core clockspeed improvement. Is it true that it can easily overclock to 2.1 Ghz ?
> 
> 2. What speed will the VRAM on the 1070 be? 7 or 8 Ghz GDDR5? There are no other specs besides FLOPS and memory type for the 1070 are there? GDDR5X for the 1080 and GDDR5 for the 1070.
> 
> 3. The 1070 appears like it will be just a tad behind the 980 Ti in performance? But it's anyone's guess, right?
> 
> 4. The price on the 1080 is really pushing it. I guess it's the new node + brand new GDDR5X doing the show.


1. Likely but not confirmed

2. 7.5 maybe more likely 8 though

3. I would hope it would match the 980ti

4. Hmmm i guess


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> GTX 1080 single card isnt enough for 1440p 144Hz right?
> Or 4K 60Hz?


Depends on your graphics settings but it should be able to push that on medium/conservative settings. Though that's average not minimum FPS. A proper 4k pixel density VR isn't gonna run 90 FPS minimum anyway XD But some people don't mind the HD per eye resolution or are blind so it's gonna be fine for the VR this year and probably next.


----------



## iLeakStuff




----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*


Yeah when I saw that I started scratching my head.....


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Yeah when I saw that I started scratching my head.....


Didnt know the SLI cable was a limitation with SLI. I dont get it either


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Didnt know the SLI cable was a limitation with SLI. I dont get it either


Marketing BS at it's finest mate.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*


1080 is a better card, x70 cards are usually the worst cards for using for more than a year, and comes with fake p/$ which disappears very quickly. don't forget sli issues. and this time the difference between x80 vs x70 is even bigger even on bandwidth.

previous 670/970 owner here so i know the pain.


----------



## CalinTM

Nice card.

But im waiting for GP100/102 geforce.

Can see it right now.

3500 cores, 400-450mm2 chip, 750gb or 1tb/s hbm2, and probably the same stock boost clock, 250w tdp.

M.O.N.S.T.E.R. !!!!

want that.

It will get Tesla's P100 cores, im 100% sure. 3584 cc.

EDIT: There are more cores diff. between 1080 and 1070, than between 980 and 970. Will get +1024 cores on Big Pascal, as well vs. 1080 cores.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> But it's also the first time we had a fab shrink in years, wouldn't surprise me if they rush these things out faster than ever. Something to think about....
> 
> I'm seeing November as a game changer myself.


Yes, near Christmas time or tax time next feb march would be probable release dates. I'm thinking next spring though myself. Going to be sweet what the big boy can do!


----------



## NuclearPeace

There needs to be 1060 Ti or a 1060 Ti that doesn't suck this year... Despite the performance of these cards, its still really scary to see the prices of these cards continuing to creep up relative to the previous generations.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> There needs to be 1060 Ti or a 1060 Ti that doesn't suck this year... Despite the performance of these cards, its still really scary to see the prices of these cards continuing to creep up relative to the previous generations.


Yup, prices are increasing and shelf life is becoming shorter. Give it 6months.....1080 will be history. You saw it here first









This is why AMD needs to really do something special, because Nvidia is going to monopolize the market entirely at this rate.


----------



## sugalumps

Single 8 pin hnnnnnnn!


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> 
> 
> Single 8 pin hnnnnnnn!


Kinda strange, 980 had lower tdp but 2x6 pin and some aftermarket cards with 6+8 pin. now 1080 has more tdp but still one 8pin ( equal to 2x6 pin).
is it because they want to make it feel alot efficient or something ,while limiting at 225w?


----------



## iLeakStuff

Overclock to 2114MHz.
Only runs at 67C


----------



## Uzanar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Nvidia have always taken their sweet time with the big cards though.
> GTX 780Ti was 1.5 years after GTX 680.
> GTX 980Ti was 9 months after GTX 980.
> 
> AMD isnt out with Volta until 2017 sometime either.
> Pascal Titan might be earlier though, but considering the price of 1080 is $600, what happens to Titan price now?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> But it's also the first time we had a fab shrink in years, wouldn't surprise me if they rush these things out faster than ever. Something to think about....
> 
> I'm seeing November as a game changer myself.


I also think that Nvidia will launch GTX 1080 Ti this year.

But everything is just speculation from us, one thing to consider though is that the full GK110 GPU (GTX 780 Ti) was relased 6 months after GTX 780, so it's not impossible at all.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> I hope that the 1080 Classifieds come in at $650.00...


Doubtful since the real reference cooler (Founder's Edition) from Nvidia will be $699. Classified probably $749. Ridiculous!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> $800 for the pair!!!


Titan X value should drop like a rock. No DP to save that Titan.









The whole founder's edition is another money grab and people are falling for it hook, line and sinker. Shouldn't a mid range die that is promoted with that cooler and then advertised for $599 actual come with that cooler? Not cost an additional $100? or $50 in case of the 1070.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Uzanar*
> 
> I also think that Nvidia will launch GTX 1080 Ti this year.
> 
> But everything is just speculation from us, one thing to consider though is that the full GK110 GPU (GTX 780 Ti) was relased 6 months after GTX 780, so it's not impossible at all.


Indeed


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Doubtful since the real reference cooler (Founder's Edition) from Nvidia will be $699. Classified probably $749. Ridiculous!
> Titan X value should drop like a rock. No DP to save that Titan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole founder's edition is another money grab and people are falling for it hook, line and sinker. Shouldn't a mid range die that is promoted with that cooler and then advertised for $599 actual come with that cooler? Not cost an additional $100? or $50 in case of the 1070.


Hold on, I'm still a bit behind. $600 for old style blower and $700 for the new style blower they just showed us?


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Hold on, I'm still a bit behind. $600 for old style blower and $700 for the new style blower they just showed us?


Yep.
Quote:


> Both features come at a price though. The new cooler will only feature on "Founders Edition" cards bought directly from Nvidia.com. The GTX 1080 Founders Edition will retail for $699, with the GTX 1070 Founders Edition costing $449. Those after the lower priced cards will have to look to partners like MSI and ASUS, which will use their own cooler designs.


http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/05/nvidia-gtx-1080-1070-pascal-specs-pricing-revealed/

Which I am hoping I am wrong and cards like the Classified are actually cheaper than the Founder's edition card.

Calling it now, Titan P "Founder's Edition" $1199.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Yep.
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/05/nvidia-gtx-1080-1070-pascal-specs-pricing-revealed/


Thanks homie.
Quote:


> Those after the lower priced cards will have to look to partners like MSI and ASUS, which will use their own cooler designs.


That part worries me. I am hoping that some of the manufacturers don't ditch reference boards entirely (like EVGA with ref PCB but custom cooler). Although if EK comes out with blocks for custom cards relatively quickly might just go custom this round.


----------



## leetmode

Here's the real question...

Should I sell my 980ti classy and replace with one these, or try to pick up a used classy and hold out until 1080ti or titan?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Yep.
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/05/nvidia-gtx-1080-1070-pascal-specs-pricing-revealed/
> 
> *Which I am hoping I am wrong and cards like the Classified are actually cheaper than the Founder's edition card.*
> 
> Calling it now, Titan P "Founder's Edition" $1199.


That'd be sweet









A GTX 1080 with 1x6pin + 1x8pin with a great cooler and 599$.

Very unlikely to happen though.

Maybe some Zotac cards with standard PCB and still 1x8 pin will be that cheap. If any at all.


----------



## Prophet4NO1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *leetmode*
> 
> Here's the real question...
> 
> Should I sell my 980ti classy and replace with one these, or try to pick up a used classy and hold out until 1080ti or titan?


Im holding on to my titanX cards till Ti and Titan launch. 8GB kills me. I have a few games i can push to and above 8GB on my triple screen setup. With 8x AA GTA V gets up to around 10gb.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Thanks homie.
> That part worries me. I am hoping that some of the manufacturers don't ditch reference boards entirely (like EVGA with ref PCB but custom cooler). Although if EK comes out with blocks for custom cards relatively quickly might just go custom this round.


No problem.

So can we deduce that the 1080 could reach 2114 in the demo because of the Founder's Edition cooler or because the entire PCB is different? In other words, is 2k+ clocks going to be achievable across the whole line of 1080 cards or just ones that meet Nvidia's Founder Edition PCB design specs?


----------



## killerhz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *leetmode*
> 
> Here's the real question...
> 
> Should I sell my 980ti classy and replace with one these, or try to pick up a used classy and hold out until 1080ti or titan?


my thoughts exactly...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Yes, near Christmas time or tax time next feb march would be probable release dates. I'm thinking next spring though myself. *Going to be sweet what the big boy can do*!


^^ This.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Overclock to 2114MHz.
> Only runs at 67C


Why try to compare frequencies between architectures... completely meaningless.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Predicted outcome, another price increase... $50 price premium over the 980...


----------



## bigboy678

why god why can we not get rid of the dvi port on the back!!!. would really like a stock card taking up only 1 slot when water cooled


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> No problem.
> 
> So can we deduce that the 1080 could reach 2114 in the demo because of the Founder's Edition cooler or because the entire PCB is different? In other words, is 2k+ clocks going to be achievable across the whole line of 1080 cards or just ones that meet Nvidia's Founder Edition specs?


I'd imagine same PCB because if AIB cards are going to be priced at $600 and up, that means ones like Strix, etc. will be $625-650 and there's little possibility the Founder's Edition with 1x 8 pin is going to rock a better PCB than ones like Strix/Classy/etc. That's just my guess going by the small PCB size and 1x 8 pin connector. If it had like, another connector and an oversized PCB (vertically or horizontally), I would have some concerns.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Predicted outcome, another price increase... $50 price premium over the 980...


$150 if you include the new cooler!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> I'd imagine same PCB because if AIB cards are going to be priced at $600 and up, that means ones like Strix, etc. will be $625-650 and there's little possibility the Founder's Edition with 1x 8 pin is going to rock a better PCB than ones like Strix/Classy/etc. That's just my guess going by the small PCB size and 1x 8 pin connector. If it had like, another connector and an oversized PCB (vertically or horizontally), I would have some concerns.


Maybe so. I am looking at the 1070 anyway. I sure wish AMD would show Polaris 10 already. $400 is my self imposed budget. Whoever offers the best p/p under $400 gets my money, as long as it is a worthwhile upgrade over this 980.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigboy678*
> 
> why god why can we not get rid of the dvi port on the back!!!. would really like a stock card taking up only 1 slot when water cooled


Pfft, solder that crap off and make a custom bracket.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

2114 MHz might sound impressive, but the card already boosts to 1860 MHz out of the box. so that is "only" a 14% OC. Probably when people get their hands on the retail 1080s will be able to push them higher.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> $150 if you include the new cooler!
> Maybe so. I am looking at the 1070 anyway. I sure wish AMD would show Polaris 10 already. $400 is my self imposed budget. Whoever offers the best p/p under $400 gets my money, as long as it is a worthwhile upgrade over this 980.


AMD better do something before the 1070 drops because @ Titan X performance, I can already predict Nvidia is going to sell A LOT (hell that's what, getting into SLI 970 territory, right?). Custom coolers will be $400 which is just about what X70 cards have sold for in the past. Last gen we got near 780 Ti perf at $330 and now we have at least equal to Titan X at $380. Seems fair for pricing IMO.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

This is crazy Nvidia got such a jump on AMD again with the 1070. That is going to eat their cake with its mainstream price. Unless the Polaris 10 is $350 and has the same performance.

But when is P10 being announced? 2-3 months?


----------



## Nova.

1070 is the sweet spot here. Perfect upgrade for 700 series owners like myself who are looking for a large performance boost. Hopefully AMD has something up its sleeve to counter this.


----------



## Anth0789

Can't wait for next month, I think ill upgrade.


----------



## Elmy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> This is crazy Nvidia got such a jump on AMD again with the 1070. That is going to eat their cake with its mainstream price. Unless the Polaris 10 is $350 and has the same performance.
> 
> But when is P10 being announced? 2-3 months?


Polaris 10 in June @ 299.99 and will beat a 1070....


----------



## Scotty99

This may be the first time i spend over 5 bills on a GPU.


----------



## MaxFTW

Pls say we get a titan equivalent this year


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> $150 if you include the new cooler!


Yep +150USD for 1080 and + 120USD for 1070
Reference cost is
700USD 1080
450USD 1070

Those lower prices are only like Maybe yes and maybe dont.i cant imagine how non reference card cost less..It will cost probably same so 700USD for 1080 and 450USD for 1070.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Elmy*
> 
> Polaris 10 in June @ 299.99 and will beat a 1070....


Knowing AMD the P10 ain't releasing until July/August. By that time the market will be saturated with 1070s.

But hopefully, somehow, they get it out for June as well.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> 2114 MHz might sound impressive, but the card already boosts to 1860 MHz out of the box. so that is "only" a 14% OC. Probably when people get their hands on the retail 1080s will be able to push them higher.







This guy mentioned 2214MHz, I am not sure if it was just him making a mistake


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy mentioned 2214MHz, I am not sure if it was just him making a mistake


It is a mistake, see this quote below ....
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Overclock to 2114MHz.
> Only runs at 67C


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> $150 if you include the new cooler!
> Maybe so. I am looking at the 1070 anyway. I sure wish AMD would show Polaris 10 already. $400 is my self imposed budget. Whoever offers the best p/p under $400 gets my money, as long as it is a worthwhile upgrade over this 980.


If you realised NV was trying to pull a $700 gpu on this one, (same as 780Ti, which is a big GK110 chip).

However knowing it will cause an uproar they decide to cut cost for the reference shroud and outsource their chip with a more reasonable $599. Yet still being the most expensive mid range till date.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Elmy*
> 
> Polaris 10 in June @ 299.99 and will beat a 1070....


Where did you read that?


----------



## headd

I dont believe aftermarket cards will be 70-100USD cheaper.
I think 599 and 380 price is just pure BS.
When aftermarket cards was 100USD cheaper?


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> If you realised NV was trying to pull a $700 gpu on this one, (same as 780Ti, which is a big GK110 chip).
> 
> However knowing it will cause an uproar they decide to cut cost for the reference shroud and outsource their chip with a more reasonable $599. Yet still being the most expensive mid range till date.


Every other GPU release everyone is clamoring for AIB cards and dismissing the reference coolers. Now Nvidia is charging less for AIB and everyone is up in arms about it? Unless the founders card is binned or uses a better PCB, why does anyone care how much they are charging for it? Buy a cheaper Strix or G1, which is what people normally want anyway.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Lets follow that logic. GTX 1080Ti in March - June 2017 somewhere.
> Volta GV104 checking in 2018 to smash GTX 1080Ti.
> 
> And around and around we go


it think paying more for the big die is better.
980 was only slightly faster than 780Ti. Instead of paying $550 for 980, it was better to hold on till 980Ti,which was significantly faster than 980 for $100 more. I think it's better to skip a $600 GP104 in hope to see big pascal in Q1 with HBM2.


----------



## Menta

I wonder what performance would have 1070 with 6GB GDDR5X INSTEAD of 8 GDDR


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> I wonder what performance would have 1070 with 6GB GDDR5X INSTEAD of 8 GDDR


much better since it'd be 384-bit.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> I dont believe aftermarket cards will be 70-100USD cheaper.
> I think 599 and 380 price is just pure BS.
> When aftermarket cards was 100USD cheaper?


Quote:


> Nvidia has also finally updated its stock cooler design, which debuted with the GTX Titan back in 2013. It is, as the leaks suggested, a metallic shroud with a striking angular design that sports a single cooling fan in a blower design at the rear. Alongside the new cooler, Nvidia claims that it has improved power delivery too (120mV peak-to-peak), allowing for more stable overclocking.
> 
> Both features come at a price though. *The new cooler will only feature on "Founders Edition" cards bought directly from Nvidia.com*. The GTX 1080 Founders Edition will retail for $699, with the GTX 1070 Founders Edition costing $449. *Those after the lower priced cards will have to look to partners like MSI and ASUS, which will use their own cooler designs*.


http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/05/nvidia-gtx-1080-1070-pascal-specs-pricing-revealed/

Edit: Although that seems like it isn't true: http://videocardz.com/59674/zotac-releases-its-geforce-gtx-1080

Edit 2: This looks better:
Quote:


> The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 "Founders Edition" will be available on May 27 for $699. It will be available from ASUS, Colorful, EVGA, Gainward, Galaxy, Gigabyte, Innovision 3D, MSI, NVIDIA. Palit, PNY and Zotac. Custom boards from partners will vary by region and pricing is expected to start at $599.


http://videocardz.com/59604/nvidia-announces-geforce-gtx-1080

If it's a binned GPU, it better be like 80%+ ASIC.

Edit 3: OK. Looks like that's copied directly from Nvidia's website:

http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/a-quantum-leap-in-gaming:-nvidia-introduces-geforce-gtx-1080
Quote:


> The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 "Founders Edition" will be available on May 27 for $699. It will be available from ASUS, Colorful, EVGA, Gainward, Galaxy, Gigabyte, Innovision 3D, MSI, NVIDIA. Palit, PNY and Zotac. Custom boards from partners will vary by region and pricing is expected to start at $599.


So we'll most likely see ACX for like $600. Strix custom PCB for $620ish. G1 custom PCB for $640ish. Etc.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Every other GPU release everyone is clamoring for AIB cards and dismissing the reference coolers. Now Nvidia is charging less for AIB and everyone is up in arms about it? Unless the founders card is binned or uses a better PCB, why does anyone care how much they are charging for it? Buy a cheaper Strix or G1, which is what people normally want anyway.


That is not what is the matter here.

It is how Nvidia is doing it. They are basically putting the obligation to provide into other manufacturers hands.

We have to be completely honest and objective here.

What we know so far :

- There is a card that is called GTX 1080 Founders Edition that will cost 699$.
- No other GTX 1080 has a price tag so far. We have to wait on that.

It could happen that the whole MSRP 599$ is just a dirty marketing trick to make it sound like you can get a GTX 1080 at 599$, while in reality there won't be a single GTX 1080 available for that price.

We have to wait and see what will happen in the next 2 months.


----------



## Menta

[email protected] Then it explains it, would have to close to the 1080, instead of doing funny business withe the memory like they did on the 970 they planned this one "nicely"


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> [email protected] Then it explains it, would have to close to the 1080, instead of doing funny business withe the memory like they did on the 970 they planned this one "nicely"


I don't think so. The 1080 uses GDDR5x and the 1070 uses standard GDDR5. My guess is that's the difference in memory bandwidth. I highly doubt that nvidia will make the same mistake again.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> This is exactly what I was talking about, you seem to be posting things to get a reaction out of people and cause an argument. I'm sure others have seen it too, try to be more professional with your postings as I see a lot of juvenile responses from you. Just my 2cents...


To be honest, every other post, when discussing a gpu/cpu, is a troll post. just pay attention, you will see it.....


----------



## TheBlindDeafMute

I'm not buying it. I think the averaged it out and then measured performance per watt, which would make it faster than a titan x. But I would bet at absolute performance disregarding power usage the Titan x is still faster. I swear I'm not saying this because I own the titans, but because Nvidia is very good at marketing. Either way it makes no difference, I'm waiting for the next round of power cards for sli


----------



## Menta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I don't think so. The 1080 uses GDDR5x and the 1070 uses standard GDDR5. My guess is that's the difference in memory bandwidth. I highly doubt that nvidia will make the same mistake again.


SO THE 1080 will be better at higher resolutions, but i guess 1070 will be stellar for 2k gaming(1440p)


----------



## SuprUsrStan

As amazing as the 1080 is, I still can't get over that it's a small die.

The Pascal Titan is going to be an absolute beast once they scale out this 180W by 50% to the 287W overhead under full boost. Between HBM and the larger die, I'd expect an increase of 40% to 50% overclocked over the 1080.


----------



## NoDoz

How much time is it usually when the TI version comes out after the launch of a new series of cards?


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoDoz*
> 
> How much time is it usually when the TI version comes out after the launch of a new series of cards?


It will be 3 months after the preceding Titan.

And the Titan Pascal wont be out till late Q1 next year. Therefore the whole cycle is actually similar to GTX 600 / 700 series.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

twice the performance of 980 sli he said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB7x3cJOOeQ

Thats nothing out of the ordinary seeing a single 980ti managing like that

Hype train... now $700 for a 104 chip lol


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> It will be 3 months after the preceding Titan.
> 
> And the Titan Pascal wont be out till late Q1 next year. Therefore the whole cycle is actually similar to GTX 600 / 700 series.


I agree with this.

I'm waiting for the Titan brand myself, no 1080 ti for me.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> It will be 3 months after the preceding Titan.
> 
> And the Titan Pascal wont be out till late Q1 next year. Therefore the whole cycle is actually similar to GTX 600 / 700 series.


You DO NOT know that. Everyone keeps quoting Q1 2017, but I have a feeling we are all going to get a shock surprise earlier than we think.


----------



## Clocknut

I kinda wonder how long till GP106 come out?

We need a 960/950 replacement. It feels that Nvidia completely lost this segment and giving the market to AMD for this year.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> As amazing as the 1080 is, I still can't get over that it's a small die.
> 
> The Pascal Titan is going to be an absolute beast once they scale out this 180W by 50% to the 287W overhead under full boost. Between HBM and the larger die, I'd expect an increase of 40% to 50% overclocked over the 1080.


The HBM actually consume lesser power, giving you more headroom to OC with the same power envelop.

40-50% is not impossible. But the clock gotta match or be even higher than 1080s.


----------



## Glottis

Nvidia confirmed to youtube reviewers that 1080 is about 25% faster than 980Ti in normal gaming scenarios.

https://youtu.be/3WnmZwChW_s?t=304


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> That is not what is the matter here.
> 
> It is how Nvidia is doing it. They are basically putting the obligation to provide into other manufacturers hands.
> 
> We have to be completely honest and objective here.
> 
> What we know so far :
> 
> - There is a card that is called GTX 1080 Founders Edition that will cost 699$.
> - No other GTX 1080 has a price tag so far. We have to wait on that.
> 
> It could happen that the whole MSRP 599$ is just a dirty marketing trick to make it sound like you can get a GTX 1080 at 599$, while in reality there won't be a single GTX 1080 available for that price.
> 
> We have to wait and see what will happen in the next 2 months.


Well there must be something different about the Founder's card, because Zotac seems to be advertising a 1080 with the exact same cooler.

http://videocardz.com/59674/zotac-releases-its-geforce-gtx-1080

Maybe the founders card comes with a leather jacket.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> You DO NOT know that. Everyone keeps quoting Q1 2017, but I have a feeling _we are all going to get a shock surprise earlier than we think_.


Why? Nvidia would appear to have no competition for the 1080, so why release an even faster cared earlier than necessary? Unless Vega drops earlier than expected, we are going to be riding the 1080 for a while.


----------



## go4life

Updated OP with an extra image and link to pricing etc.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> You DO NOT know that. Everyone keeps quoting Q1 2017, but I have a feeling we are all going to get a shock surprise earlier than we think.


If there is we will be seeing some leaked source or picture. Jen Hsun already said P100 is available only after Q1

I prefer not to live in denial, because to believe we need something better than GP104, GP102 presence or even existence has to be leaked somewhere. GP100 is definitely not coming before Q1.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Well there must be something different about the Founder's card, because Zotac seems to be advertising a 1080 with the exact same cooler.
> 
> http://videocardz.com/59674/zotac-releases-its-geforce-gtx-1080
> 
> Maybe the founders card comes with a leather jacket.


Could be yeah.

Seems like the common grip on it so far is that it is better binned and overclocks better. Which is a sad thing imho









I wish they would just do a 599$ reference version.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Could be yeah.
> 
> Seems like the common grip on it so far is that it is better binned and overclocks better. Which is a sad thing imho
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish they would just do a 599$ reference version.


Unless I'm mistaken, they kind of carefully said the "founders card is available May 27th". Are we sure AIB cards will be released at the same time? Maybe you are paying for an early release.

Hmm. Anandtech noticed that distinction also:
Quote:


> NVIDIA's press release was also very careful to only attach the May 27th launch date to the Founders Edition cards.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Maybe the founders card comes with a leather jacket.
> .


For $100 I might really consider the leather jacket.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Could be yeah.
> 
> Seems like the common grip on it so far is that it is better binned and overclocks better. Which is a sad thing imho
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish they would just do a 599$ reference version.


no no, what's sad was me paying full price for a 980Ti and getting abysmal 59% ASIC. I would rather spend 100$ for much better ASIC and OCability and not feel buyers remorse or want to get rid of card. In my country there is no such thing as RMA due to bad ASIC.


----------



## CrazyElf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Every other GPU release everyone is clamoring for AIB cards and dismissing the reference coolers. Now Nvidia is charging less for AIB and everyone is up in arms about it? Unless the founders card is binned or uses a better PCB, why does anyone care how much they are charging for it? Buy a cheaper Strix or G1, which is what people normally want anyway.


You missed the point.

A midrange die goes for $600 for the GTX 1080 and $380 for the GTX 1070. Founders pays a premium on top of that. The GTX 1080 is especially a money grab, considering that the GTX 680 was $500, a price that I thought was overpriced. I'll note that the GTX 480 was $500 back in 2010.

A big part of this is because the price per transistor on the die is not getting cheaper after 28 nm with this 16/20 nm hybrid TSMC process. But another is that as Nvidia gains market share, they can resort to acting more like a monopoly rather than acting like AMD is a real competitor. I just hope that AMD is as good as Mahigan says or we are looking at a GPU monopoly here (a very big loss for consumers). We're about to find out once Vega comes out, and the details should be out by the end of this year.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> I kinda wonder how long till GP106 come out?
> 
> We need a 960/950 replacement. It feels that Nvidia completely lost this segment and giving the market to AMD for this year.


That may be a good thing if AMD can use it to scoop up some much needed marketshare. We don't want a monopoly in this segment.

Either that or we are about to see some pretty decent price cuts on Maxwell stock. Plus the used market will likely have quite a few Maxwell GPUs.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I don't think so. The 1080 uses GDDR5x and the 1070 uses standard GDDR5. My guess is that's the difference in memory bandwidth. I highly doubt that nvidia will make the same mistake again.


The 980Ti did not have the problem of the 970. Although I think Nvidia was dishonest at first in trying to cover it up, they later admitted it and so far have not made it again. It is however something that we should scrutinize closely until we get confirmation.

I think that most likely the 1070 will not have this issue.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> As amazing as the 1080 is, I still can't get over that it's a small die.
> 
> The Pascal Titan is going to be an absolute beast once they scale out this 180W by 50% to the 287W overhead under full boost. Between HBM and the larger die, I'd expect an increase of 40% to 50% overclocked over the 1080.


Personally I'd love to see an FP32 monster >600mm^2 die with the FP64 performance gimped like on the TItan X. That should be the ultimate gaming chip for any architecture, especially paired with HBM2.

Judging by the details, we'll have to wait for Volta before we see a truly Async Nvidia GPU too. Mahigan does seem to be right about this one.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> no no, what's sad was me paying full price for a 980Ti and getting abysmal 59% ASIC. I would rather spend 100$ for much better ASIC and OCability and not feel buyers remorse or want to get rid of card. In my country there is no such thing as RMA due to bad ASIC.


There is no guarantee high ASIC means can clock abysmally high.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> There is no guarantee high ASIC means can clock abysmally high.


please don't even go there. i had two 980Ti with bad and worse ASIC and both were terrible overclockers. ppl with high ASIC have high overclocks. maybe it's not 100% rule but it's damn 99% true.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

One of the nice things about reference cooler was that you can use it with any build. Also would not be surprised if custom cards come with 4GB instead of 8GB.


----------



## Mudfrog

Well these cards are good news for me. Now I need to figure out if I want to go 1070 and remain at 1080 / 60, 1080 and remain at 1080 / 60 or 1070 and invest in a 1440p monitor. I'm happy with my monitor but I'd like to try 1440p.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Also would not be surprised if custom cards come with 4GB instead of 8GB.


I would be very surprised if that happened.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CrazyElf*
> 
> You missed the point.
> 
> A midrange die goes for $600 for the GTX 1080 and $380 for the GTX 1070. Founders pays a premium on top of that. The GTX 1080 is especially a money grab, considering that the GTX 680 was $500, a price that I thought was overpriced. I'll note that the GTX 480 was $500 back in 2010.
> 
> A big part of this is because the price per transistor on the die is not getting cheaper after 28 nm with this 16/20 nm hybrid TSMC process. But another is that as Nvidia gains market share, they can resort to acting more like a monopoly rather than acting like AMD is a real competitor. I just hope that AMD is as good as Mahigan says or we are looking at a GPU monopoly here (a very big loss for consumers).


They will need the money grab to go to Mars, again.

Joke aside, I agree Intel and NV inflation are all due to AMD incompetence. Unless they really make a comeback. Its all doom and gloom for the future of PC enthusiast.


----------



## Mudfrog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> please don't even go there. i had two 980Ti with bad and worse ASIC and both were terrible overclockers. ppl with high ASIC have high overclocks. maybe it's not 100% rule but it's damn 99% true.


How do you find out what the ASIC is?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> One of the nice things about reference cooler was that you can use it with any build. *Also would not be surprised if custom cards come with 4GB instead of 8GB.*


Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah no way

absolutely no way

Why would you even think that?


----------



## darkwizard

Anything on DX12 performance on the 1080? Didn't see the livestream, I was interested on the 1080 but lost me on the $100 for the new fan design.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah no way
> 
> absolutely no way
> 
> Why would you even think that?


I hope none of the NV personel is lurking here... If not... We are in deep trouble.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mudfrog*
> 
> How do you find out what the ASIC is?


GPU-Z, click top left corner "Read ASIC Quality"


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mudfrog*
> 
> How do you find out what the ASIC is?


Just right click the top part of the gpuz border and hit Read Asic Quality:


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I hope none of the NV personel is lurking here... If not... We are in deep trouble.


Even if Jen Hsun personally is lurking right at this very moment it won't happen.

VRAM on GPUs is dirt cheap and 8GB sounds sooooooooooooooo much better than 4GB.

A 4GB GTX 1080 would sell really bad compared to an 8GB one.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Elmy*
> 
> Polaris 10 in June @ 299.99 and will beat a 1070....


Source?


----------



## Mudfrog

Gotcha, I have two Windforce 670's one is 78.9 and the other is 74.1.


----------



## mandrake88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> A 4GB GTX 1080 would sell really bad compared to an 8GB one.


a cheaper 4gb 1070 is not a bad idea for 1080p.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darkwizard*
> 
> Anything on DX12 performance on the 1080? Didn't see the livestream, I was interested on the 1080 but lost me on the $100 for the new fan design.


Just this. And something about new async capability.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Even if Jen Hsun personally is lurking right at this very moment it won't happen.
> 
> VRAM on GPUs is dirt cheap and 8GB sounds sooooooooooooooo much better than 4GB.
> 
> A.


I didnt know G5X is dirt cheap.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> Nvidia confirmed to youtube reviewers that 1080 is about 25% faster than 980Ti in normal gaming scenarios.
> 
> https://youtu.be/3WnmZwChW_s?t=304


Nice find.Also 1070 will be slower than 980TI for sure if 1080 is only 25% faster.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Just this. And something about new async capability.


there's also this bit from nvidias marketing wall of text.

"Superb Craftsmanship. Increases in bandwidth and power efficiency allow the GTX 1080 to run at clock speeds never before possible -- over 1700 MHz -- while consuming only 180 watts of power. *New asynchronous compute advances improve efficiency and gaming performance.* And new GPU Boost™ 3 technology supports advanced overclocking functionality."


----------



## Menta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mandrake88*
> 
> a cheaper 4gb 1070 is not a bad idea for 1080p.


1060 for 1080p even 2k sometimes is a better bet


----------



## Ding Chavez

OK now I want to see a Nvidia vs AMD price war, Pascal vs Polaris that would be cool. Looks like the 980ti and titan X will be liquidated as some people may feel inadequate with old obsolete cards lol.


----------



## darkwizard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> there's also this bit from nvidias marketing wall of text.
> 
> "Superb Craftsmanship. Increases in bandwidth and power efficiency allow the GTX 1080 to run at clock speeds never before possible -- over 1700 MHz -- while consuming only 180 watts of power. *New asynchronous compute advances improve efficiency and gaming performance.* And new GPU Boost™ 3 technology supports advanced overclocking functionality."


So all the hype with no facts on dx12 yet?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darkwizard*
> 
> So all the hype with no facts on dx12 yet?


Because DX12 is not ready yet?


----------



## 8800GT

599$. Which means almost 800$ in Canada. Gonna skip on this one.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8800GT*
> 
> 599$. Which means almost 800$ in Canada. Gonna skip on this one.


not sure what you mean? 599$ is 39485 Roubles, so nvidia should sell 1080 for 599 Roubles?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> not sure what you mean? 599$ is 39485 Roubles, so nvidia should sell 1080 for 599 Roubles?


It's because USD has gotten stronger. When i bough 290X i payed $550 CAD. That was $550 USD. To upgrade I have to pay $750 CAD. Huge difference for 2 years.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I didnt know G5X is dirt cheap.


Micron has strong yields of GDDR5X.

Like I don't know how much exactly, but I have read several articles and it is only slightly higher than normal GDDR5 cost and GDDR5 is already dirt cheap.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8800GT*
> 
> 599$. Which means almost 800$ in Canada. Gonna skip on this one.


Yeah direct conversion gives 774$ so 799$ sounds like a safe bet.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> not sure what you mean? 599$ is 39485 Roubles, so nvidia should sell 1080 for 599 Roubles?


They tend to inflate the prices of cards even after factoring the exchange rate in Canada.


----------



## ghostrider85

So, is this faster or slower than 980 ti? And by how much?


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ghostrider85*
> 
> So, is this faster or slower than 980 ti? And by how much?


faster, and wait for benchmarks.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ghostrider85*
> 
> So, is this faster or slower than 980 ti? And by how much?


Faster probably by around 20-30%.

Hopefully they come out with a 1080 Ti that is 35% faster than the 1080 so it can be double the seed of a 980. If that's the case I'll grab two to replace my 980's.


----------



## Ithanul

Yeah, I think I do the waiting game again. Not in the mood to drop that amount of dough on a small die chip.

I just do what I did last time. Wait for all you chaps to off load when the big dies hit then the early peeps who off load big dies when they think the next cards are about to drop.







So far that strategy been saving me money big time.









But, when some really world performances of these cards get shown? I especially want folding and compute numbers. Could really care less about gaming since I don't have anything that push my current cards nor plan to go to 4K for another several years.


----------



## sugarhell

About the new async capabilities. If you read GP100 whitepaper they improve the preemption


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> About the new async capabilities. If you read GP100 whitepaper they improve the preemption


Strangely silent about how that impacts performance though. So maybe not much or you'd think they'd be playing it up.


----------



## SoloCamo

Apologies in advance I didn't read the whole thread - any confirmed release date?


----------



## Ding Chavez

So when can we expect to see some actual reviews a week or 2?


----------



## Gdourado

I was ready to buy a xfx fury for a good price with a recent promo.
Now should I just wait for the 1070 to hit the stores?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Strangely silent about how that impacts performance though. So maybe not much or you'd think they'd be playing it up.


From the whitepaper it looks that the command processor is the same as maxwell but instead they have a way better preemption



But it's not the same as the ACEs on GCN


----------



## brandonb21

i really wanna know what the hell is the difference between founders and regular version of 1080. is it just a cherry picked gpu? with higherclocks?


----------



## DrFPS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Apologies in advance I didn't read the whole thread - any confirmed release date?


May 27 for the 1080, 1070 june 10th


----------



## carlhil2

So, if the 1080 is even close to SLI 980, it should push 4k no issue, correct? especially with an OC....my sli 980 Classifieds handled 4k like a champ..ok, MOST of the times...


----------



## Gdourado

Will there be a 1080ti shortly after?
How long it took for the 980ti to launch after the regular 980?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alpina 7

So, Guys... i have 3 options..

considering i just bought my Gigabyte Windforce 980Ti G1 Gaming 3 months ago.... do i sell now and get a 1080 in a month...

or wait for prices to drop on my card and buy another for $300Ish

or do i wait for the 1080Ti version?

decisions decisions...


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alpina 7*
> 
> So, Guys... i have 3 options..
> 
> considering i just bought my Gigabyte Windforce 980Ti G1 Gaming 3 months ago.... do i sell now and get a 1080 in a month...
> 
> or wait for prices to drop on my card and buy another for $300Ish
> 
> or do i wait for the 1080Ti version?
> 
> decisions decisions...


Wait for the real flagship.

This gpu scaled up + HBM2 = GP100/102


----------



## Clovertail100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadRabbit*
> 
> Well, they do. Based on rumors.


The only rumors I've seen are benches of an 800MHz Polaris against the 1700MHz Pascal.

That's a pretty loose basis for declaring Pascal the victor.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Wait for the real flagship but it will cost you
> 
> This gpu scaled up + HBM2 + $400 = GTX 1080Ti


Fixed it for you


----------



## MadRabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mookster*
> 
> The only rumors I've seen are benches of an 800MHz Polaris against the 1700MHz Pascal.
> 
> That's a pretty loose basis for declaring Pascal the victor.


I only know one person who said that was actually Polaris.









Secondly, it's funny how people laugh at AMD Roy when he says something but now all of the sudden what he said is the truth and nothing but the truth. That's OCN for you.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> So, if the 1080 is even close to SLI 980, it should push 4k no issue, correct? especially with an OC....my sli 980 Classifieds handled 4k like a champ..ok, MOST of the times...


By like a champ do you mean at sub 60fps and around 30-40fps most of the time?

I got a pair of them and I wouldn't want them for 4K. They are perfect for 1440p.


----------



## Ban13

How will these cards deal with DX12 and async, does AMD still stand a chance this year because of that or no?


----------



## Baasha

There is no way the 1080 can run 4K @ 60FPS. The Titan X can't do it. I highly doubt the 1080 is faster than a Titan X. Are there any new/reliable benchmarks comparing the two GPUs?

Anyway, I am going to test how the 1080s fare at 5K. Many of the games will suffer due to 8GB VRAM being insufficient. Again, when is the Titan X replacement supposed to arrive?


----------



## BulletSponge

So once launch day inventory vanishes how much will people be flipping these on eBay for? I'd do it myself and upgrade my whole rig if I didn't find that kind of price gouging so distasteful.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> There is no way the 1080 can run 4K @ 60FPS. The Titan X can't do it. *I highly doubt the 1080 is faster than a Titan X*. Are there any new/reliable benchmarks comparing the two GPUs?
> 
> Anyway, I am going to test how the 1080s fare at 5K. Many of the games will suffer due to 8GB VRAM being insufficient. Again, when is the Titan X replacement supposed to arrive?


Whaaat? Delusional much? Sorry buddy but 1080 is superior to Titan X

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BulletSponge*
> 
> So once launch day inventory vanishes how much will people be flipping these on eBay for? I'd do it myself and upgrade my whole rig if I didn't find that kind of price gouging so distasteful.


Used GTX 980Tis going for around $400 now on reddit. Including shipping


----------



## Nova.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> There is no way the 1080 can run 4K @ 60FPS. The Titan X can't do it. I highly doubt the 1080 is faster than a Titan X. Are there any new/reliable benchmarks comparing the two GPUs?
> 
> Anyway, I am going to test how the 1080s fare at 5K. Many of the games will suffer due to 8GB VRAM being insufficient. Again, when is the Titan X replacement supposed to arrive?


Some perspective on release dates for you to consider.

GeForce GTX 980 September 18, 2014
GeForce GTX 980 Ti June 2, 2015
*GeForce GTX Titan X March 17, 2015*

I would assume it would come out Q1 of next year considering the 1080 is being launched earlier.


----------



## MadRabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Whaaat? Delusional much? Sorry buddy but 1080 is superior to Titan X
> Used GTX 980Tis going for around $400 now on reddit. Including shipping


Considering that Polaris in the PS4.5 will do 4k in 30FPS (presumably) in 1080p there's no way the 1080 wouldn't do it 60fps.


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> We have heard that Polaris 10 is only as fast as 390X.


We've only seen leaked benchmarks. Whatever's currently out there is most likely an engineering sample with early alpha drivers. We'll know closer to Computex how things are going to stack up.

This whole launch and announcement felt very rushed. In fact, there were no rehearsals at all.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> Anyone wanna talk about elephant in the room? How do you think they will perform in DX12?


Fairly well I'd expect, but NVIDIA doesn't want to give concrete promises because DX12 benchmarks are still in their infancy.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Didnt know the SLI cable was a limitation with SLI. I dont get it either


It is, newer versions basically allows for much lower latency over PCI-Express and NVIDIA keeps on upping the bandwidth between cards using SLI every other generation. NVIDIA last made changes to SLI with Maxwell, and stated that they could do the same thing that AMD was able to do with XDMA, but with no interference from the rest of the components in the system.

NVLink is basically the same system, but embedded into a motherboard with its own separate ring network for the GPUs.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Kinda strange, 980 had lower tdp but 2x6 pin and some aftermarket cards with 6+8 pin. now 1080 has more tdp but still one 8pin ( equal to 2x6 pin).
> is it because they want to make it feel alot efficient or something ,while limiting at 225w?


It's more to do with the design of the power circuitry. There's another thread where it was discussed and the only reason why 2x 6-pin was preferable was because there was an extra earth pin available. Because the power regulation in Pascal is much tighter, there's no need for a 6x2 arrangement when 1x8 works just fine.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Also would not be surprised if custom cards come with 4GB instead of 8GB.


Most likely won't happen. 4GB is no longer enough for a lot of games at 1440p or even 4K, and those are the resolutions that the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 target.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Strangely silent about how that impacts performance though. So maybe not much or you'd think they'd be playing it up.


Or perhaps they're not ready to talk about the improvements just yet. It's possible that the software for that isn't ready yet and if it was, NVIDIA would have talked about it when announcing GP100.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alpina 7*
> 
> considering i just bought my Gigabyte Windforce 980Ti G1 Gaming 3 months ago.... do i sell now and get a 1080 in a month...
> 
> or wait for prices to drop on my card and buy another for $300Ish
> 
> or do i wait for the 1080Ti version?


Stick. If you can find another card for $300, that's a good buy. Maxwell will be relevant for quite a while, and two GTX 980 Tis are more than enough for 4K gaming.

Wait for the GTX 1080 Ti, if there's ever one to start with. The current cards are faster than your own, but are more of a side grade. NVIDIA is targeting people with GTX 780 Ti and GTX 970/980 cards with this launch instead.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> There is no way the 1080 can run 4K @ 60FPS. The Titan X can't do it. I highly doubt the 1080 is faster than a Titan X. Are there any new/reliable benchmarks comparing the two GPUs?


It's more than possible, but I don't know if GP104 is capable of doing it. Take a look at the results from current GPUs:



Keep in mind that running cards in SLI doesn't always result in 200% scaling. If you're able to do the same work of two cards with a single one in a more efficient way, then hitting 4K 60Hz should be doable.

Take note that Jen-Hsun also never claimed that the three games he showed on stage - Rise of the Tomb Raider, The Division, and Mirror's Edge - were running at 4K. Only "maxed out, all the knobs turned on, buttery smooth at 60Hz." If anyone's going to try lay claim to this magical goal of 4K 60Hz with a single card, it'll be AMD.


----------



## darealist

Sell ur cards now! 900 series driver gimp is inevitable.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> By like a champ do you mean at sub 60fps and around 30-40fps most of the time?
> 
> I got a pair of them and I wouldn't want them for 4K. They are perfect for 1440p.


No, I meant "like a champ". my cards were clocked to 1528 and handled the majority of the games that I played at 4k well. what one get out of their cards depends on the games that one plays. my Titan X handled 4k the smoothest though. got rid of the second one within 2 weeks...


----------



## Uzanar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadRabbit*
> 
> Considering that Polaris in the PS4.5 will do 4k in 30FPS (presumably) in 1080p there's no way the 1080 wouldn't do it 60fps.


Well, it won't in 99% of games.
PS4.5 is just for 4K media and more games at [email protected], not actual 4K gameplay.

It may run a few low demanding indie games at [email protected] though I suppose.
But bear in mind that 4K requires four times the amount of graphical horsepower of 1080p, not two times.


----------



## Rei86

lol all the hate in the rumor thread for nVidia and hard on people has for AMD, and now a total turn around.

As much as I always want to support AMD and purchase one of their cards (like the Fury X) they are always a dollar short and a day late to the party. I'm not here to start a fight, I'm just stating with the hype fire that nVidia seems always be able to start and getting to the market place so you can actually tangible makes it HUGE win vs AMD who just talks and talks and drones on.
Gonna wait for the Titan P/1080Ti this time around, but that 1070 is gonna be a monster "budget" card.


----------



## MadRabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Uzanar*
> 
> Well, it won't in 99% of games.
> PS4.5 is just for 4K media and more games at [email protected], not actual 4K gameplay.
> 
> It may run a few low demanding indie games at [email protected] though I suppose.
> But bear in mind that 4K requires four times the amount of graphical horsepower of 1080p, not two times.


That's why I said presumably. And we won't know before we actually see one.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadRabbit*
> 
> Considering that Polaris in the PS4.5 will do 4k in 30FPS (presumably) in 1080p there's no way the 1080 wouldn't do it 60fps.


Yeah presumably. It will not. if it does it will be in non-demanding games not even at max settings.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gigafloppy*
> 
> Meh. I wanted the 1070 to have 980-Ti performance with a 970 price. Looks like it's gonna be 980-Ti perf, but $50 more than a 970. That means I will _not_ buy unless there's a really good game bundled. I'm in no hurry with these prices. Let's hope Polaris 10 can bring that 1070 price down a bit.


ur talkin like its thousands to much if u dont want it no need to buy it.


----------



## keikei

Why is the 1080 founders edition $100 more than the MSRP verision? Reference vs non-reference?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> Why is the 1080 founders edition $100 more than the MSRP verision? Reference vs non-reference?


I'd think it is more like reality (699$) and marketing (599$)


----------



## Serandur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> Why is the 1080 founders edition $100 more than the MSRP verision? Reference vs non-reference?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I'd think it is more like reality (699$) and marketing (599$)


Maybe "Founders Edition" is a typo and they really meant "Funders Edition".

Or they mean by buying a Founders Edition, you help found and make possible a new era of $700 MSRP for normal mid-sized GV104/Volta chips. Founding the future, one MSRP increase at a time.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> Why is the 1080 founders edition $100 more than the MSRP verision? Reference vs non-reference?


No one knows.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I'd think it is more like reality (699$) and marketing (599$)


There are always cards available at MSRP. I don't know why you'd think it is different this time, just because they are offering a different model/version/whatever as well.

I'm inclined to believe the founders cards are coming out earlier than regular cards, and that's the price difference.


----------



## Millillion

Probably just a better binned part with possibly higher clocks.


----------



## nakano2k1

Wow... Colour me impressed! I'm still in shock with the power requirements TBH. A single 8pin connector to power such a fast card is amazing even with the process shrink.

The founders card sound like a cherry picked chips that NVidia just wants to capitalize on. Good idea though! Instead of having a third party company reap the rewards.

Well, all in all, I have to say that AMD has a tough road ahead of them. I can't see them taking the top spot and so therefore are going to have to go with pricing and market placement in order to regain market share.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Millillion*
> 
> Probably just a better binned part with possibly higher clocks.


or just a cash grab from early adopters because supplies are limited ?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Wow... Colour me impressed! I'm still in shock with the power requirements TBH. A single 8pin connector to power such a fast card is amazing even with the process shrink.


Its equal to 2x6 pins, heck it has more tdp than gtx980 so that 8 pin will going to be limiting factor for overclocking.

better wait for custom cards with more board power.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

All these cards have done is brought my hype level up to 11 for big Pascal and Vega.. The HBM2 monsters aren't that far away now, there's rumors of Vega being as close as October/November, which sounds accurate if Polaris aren't performance driven chips. Big Pascal will probably be around the same time frame too.

The 1070 looks like it's going to be a great card if the price is good. But a 1080 for $700 is infuriating, there's no way I'd drop that money on a baby chip. Although it looks like AMD won't have anything to match the outright performance of the 1080/70, they could still do very well with Polaris being extremely low power and very price friendly.


----------



## looniam

remember when the 970 and 980 were released how everyone thought AMD was screwed?

how did that work out?

this is not the GM200 replacement you are looking for (esp for GM200 prices!)

btw, i am curious what gpu load there was for that 2.1Ghz screen shot . . .


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> remember when the 970 and 980 were released how everyone thought AMD was screwed?
> 
> how did that work out?


Umm, pretty badly for AMD?


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Nothing new.
> Everyone raged when a midrange 680 performed 35% faster than a 580 and cost $499 cause midrange chips used to cost $229.
> 
> Now a midranged chip does 15-25% faster performance than it's predecessor and costs $599 and everyone's cheering.
> 
> Only in Nvidialand do people cheer as performance gains decrease and prices go up!


No they are going to be cheering in AMD land and hop on the bandwagon and charge the difference that nVidia went up.
As it was mentioned
Amd can't throw anything at this for how long?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> remember when the 970 and 980 were released how everyone thought AMD was screwed?
> 
> how did that work out?
> 
> this is not the GM200 replacement you are looking for (esp for GM200 prices!)
> 
> btw, i am curious what gpu load there was for that 2.1Ghz screen shot . . .


Didn't that happen though? In reality if you look at what 970/980 replaced they should now not sold as much as they did. 290/290X being 1 year old still walked with them. AMD wants market share back.


----------



## badrapper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> $150 if you include the new cooler!
> 
> 
> 
> Yep +150USD for 1080 and + 120USD for 1070
> Reference cost is
> 700USD 1080
> 450USD 1070
> 
> Those lower prices are only like Maybe yes and maybe dont.i cant imagine how non reference card cost less..It will cost probably same so 700USD for 1080 and 450USD for 1070.
Click to expand...

I think the founders edition are going to be binned. Theyre probably going to be only ones that clock to 2.1 = To win benches

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> 
> There is no way the 1080 can run 4K @ 60FPS. The Titan X can't do it. I highly doubt the 1080 is faster than a Titan X. Are there any new/reliable benchmarks comparing the two GPUs?


It's more than possible, but I don't know if GP104 is capable of doing it. Take a look at the results from current GPUs:




Keep in mind that running cards in SLI doesn't always result in 200% scaling. If you're able to do the same work of two cards with a single one in a more efficient way, then hitting 4K 60Hz should be doable.

Take note that Jen-Hsun also never claimed that the three games he showed on stage - Rise of the Tomb Raider, The Division, and Mirror's Edge - were running at 4K. Only "maxed out, all the knobs turned on, buttery smooth at 60Hz." If anyone's going to try lay claim to this magical goal of 4K 60Hz with a single card, it'll be AMD. 
[/quote]

Take a look at this link http://deliddedtech.com/2016/05/07/hidden-information-found-in-source-code-of-nvidias-gtx-1080-page/


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Umm, pretty badly for AMD?


NOPE - at least not nearly as bad as predicted as seen below:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Didn't that happen though? In reality if you look at what 970/980 replaced they should now not sold as much as they did. *290/290X being 1 year old still walked with them.* AMD wants market share back.


*^THAT*

hawaii and now grenada is still slapping around nvidia depending on the game. fiji is a great chip but it's been AMD's marketing that's been their achilles heel, not their products.

i wear green underwear but i can't ignore that everytime someone dig AMD's grave, they still keep breathing.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> No one knows.
> There are always cards available at MSRP. I don't know why you'd think it is different this time, just because they are offering a different model/version/whatever as well.
> 
> I'm inclined to believe the founders cards are coming out earlier than regular cards, and that's the price difference.


Let's hope I can find a good custom GTX 1080 for 599€ in europe. I am gonna trust you on this one


----------



## badrapper

Problem is If AMD did the same as nvidia`s recent event, they would be crucified by the tech sites for false information etc.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *badrapper*
> 
> Problem is If AMD did the same as nvidia`s recent event, they would be crucified by the tech sites for false information etc.


Money - it changes everything.


----------



## keikei

The 1070 looks to be the bread & butter card here. AMD maybe more concerned about that i think. What is the predicted performance for the 970 replacement?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> The 1070 looks to be the bread & butter card here. AMD maybe more concerned about that i think. What is the predicted performance for the 970 replacement?


Jen Hsun said faster than Titan X. So I think the GTX 1070 should be around 980 Ti/Titan X levels within 5%~. Depending on overclock etc.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *badrapper*
> 
> Problem is If AMD did the same as nvidia`s recent event, they would be crucified by the tech sites for false information etc.


Cry me a river.
When you make big bold claims on paper and what you actually put out doesn't actually meet thos standards ends up with people calling you a liar.


----------



## badrapper

*GTX 1080
*
The benchmarks shown on the performance tab were conducted at 2560×1600 max settings(hidden in a commented out paragraph element)
The new NVIDIA SLI bridge will be available for preorder, but are limited to 1 per customer(entire commented out preorder section)
The SLI bridge will also be available at Amazon, Microcenter, and FRYS.
Unfortunately, the price is commented out and listed as "$XXX.XX".
Maximum VGA resolution of 2048×1536(likely commented out because few people care about this except maybe CS:GO enthusiasts with CRTs)
Texture fill rate of 176 Gigatextels/sec
The "Up to 3x performance" originally had a disclaimer that it was "based on test results in graphics intensive VR gaming applications". This disclaimer was commented out

http://deliddedtech.com/2016/05/07/hidden-information-found-in-source-code-of-nvidias-gtx-1080-page/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=1WS3hSdY9DI


----------



## zealord

wait what false information are we talking about?

Nvidia used tricks and propaganda to make their products look good and confuse people, but I've seen nothing _wrong_ so far.


----------



## badrapper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> wait what false information are we talking about?
> 
> Nvidia used tricks and propaganda to make their products look good and confuse people, but I've seen nothing _wrong_ so far.


Most people dont except that to be ethical, and nvidia in its current position shouldn't need to do that. Personally I blame the Tech Sites i.e. some claiming 3x performance and 4x efficiency lol


----------



## BillOhio

Penciling myself in for a 1070 to replace 7950 XFire on a 3440 x 1440 60 Mhz. Will probably wait for the holidays and hope for a game to bundled with the card. Maybe by then prices will have dropped a bit also.


----------



## f1LL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> *Jen Hsun said faster than Titan X.* So I think the GTX 1070 should be around 980 Ti/Titan X levels within 5%~. Depending on overclock etc.


*In VR.*


----------



## Maintenance Bot

So Nvidia presented these cards last night at 2k resolution or around there??

Whats the big deal, why are people crying.


----------



## caswow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> Cry me a river.
> When you make big bold claims on paper and what you actually put out doesn't actually meet thos standards ends up with people calling you a liar.


async or 3,5 gb anyone? or the biggest tanking of the century of the kepler cards? people are so hyped for the 1070 its not even funny.


----------



## badrapper

*Anyone know if 180W and 2.1Ghz is the same card?*


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *caswow*
> 
> async or 3,5 gb anyone? or the biggest tanking of the century of the kepler cards? people are so hyped for the 1070 its not even funny.


Why are you bringing up crap that has nothing to do with about what we're talking about?

Also BTW before we start to bring up the long term/longevity performance of how great AMD cards have been performing lately. Means JACK poop a lot of people on this forum who has itchy trigger fingers on the "ADD TO CART" button. When you come out of the gates with poor performance you've already lost part of the market.


----------



## badrapper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *badrapper*
> 
> Problem is If AMD did the same as nvidia`s recent event, they would be crucified by the tech sites for false information etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Cry me a river.
> When you make big bold claims on paper and what you actually put out doesn't actually meet thos standards ends up with people calling you a liar.
Click to expand...

Eh! Are you trying to be sarcastic or what?


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *badrapper*
> 
> Most people dont except that to be ethical, and nvidia in its current position shouldn't need to do that. Personally I blame the Tech Sites i.e. some claiming 3x performance and 4x efficiency lol


Like the many times amd have released their own pre release charts and benchmarks that dont stack up. Both teams do it.

Amd apologists are the worst seriously, "nvidia are so evil amd just want to help us they no care about money".


----------



## geothangge

how does the 1080 compare to the 980ti? I think 980ti owners should hold out for the 1080ti. 1080 will by nvidia's flagship and in about a year they'll probably announce 1080ti.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> remember when the 970 and 980 were released how everyone thought AMD was screwed?
> 
> how did that work out?


AMD market share fell off a cliff.

Its important to consider that the 390 and the 390x didn't arrive until almost a year has passed since the launch of the 980 and the 970. Between that period, the 980 and the 970 sold virtually unopposed by AMD. Not only that, it took even longer for those cards to begin to challenge the 970 and the 98p.


----------



## badrapper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *badrapper*
> 
> Most people dont except that to be ethical, and nvidia in its current position shouldn't need to do that. Personally I blame the Tech Sites i.e. some claiming 3x performance and 4x efficiency lol
> 
> 
> 
> Like the many times amd have released their own pre release charts and benchmarks that dont stack up. Both teams do it.
> 
> Amd apologists are the worst seriously, "nvidia are so evil amd just want to help us they no care about money".
Click to expand...

At least you agree what went on yesterday was wrong.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *badrapper*
> 
> Most people dont except that to be ethical, and nvidia in its current position shouldn't need to do that. Personally I blame the Tech Sites i.e. some claiming 3x performance and 4x efficiency lol


its only 65% more efficient at best. ( ofc in normal gaming and no vr stuff)


----------



## cowie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Like the many times amd have released their own pre release charts and benchmarks that dont stack up. Both teams do it.
> 
> Amd apologists are the worst seriously, "nvidia are so evil amd just want to help us they no care about money".


how true

We seen the cards got a release date now we need to see how good they really are from some reviews.

by then you know amd will make more claims too then get the new chips they have out
the real fun starts in june...it will be "this" versus "that" bla bla bla


----------



## Alpina 7

so side by side... whats it looking like for us 980Ti owners....? is the 1070 AND 1080 superior.... if so, How so..?


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alpina 7*
> 
> so side by side... whats it looking like for us 980Ti owners....? is the 1070 AND 1080 superior.... if so, How so..?


Not enough to warrant the upgrade, think about it anything a 980ti cant handle going to a 1080 is not going to be enough of a difference and if you have 980ti sli you are set anyways. May aswell wait it out for 1080ti or hbm2 if they are skipping the 1080ti, unless you want the most money you can get on resale.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> $150 if you include the new cooler!


I will give it to Nvidia, they know how to baby step their followers into submission. Next generation, they can release a $750 mid grade chip and forcing reference designs until the release of the big chip. Hey, it's only a $50 price increase








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> Yep +150USD for 1080 and + 120USD for 1070
> Reference cost is
> 700USD 1080
> 450USD 1070
> 
> Those lower prices are only like Maybe yes and maybe dont.i cant imagine how non reference card cost less..It will cost probably same so 700USD for 1080 and 450USD for 1070.


This fiasco reeks of the Titan all over again... Good news for Nvidia is that people seldom bother to remember and learn from the past.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> NV was trying to pull a $700 gpu on this one, (same as 780Ti, which is a big GK110 chip).


You are basing this on what? Past experiences show that Nvidia inflates their mid range chip prices with each generation and then drops the prices a year or so later when they replace the mid range chips with their big chips. This has been the case since Maxwell.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> its only 65% more efficient at best. ( ofc in normal gaming and no vr stuff)


Might want to check your numbers again

GTX 1080: 180W. 25% faster
GTX 980Ti: 250W.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Might want to check your numbers again
> 
> GTX 1080: 180W. *25% faster*
> GTX 980Ti: 250W.


And where did you obtain said numbers?


----------



## Alpina 7

side note: Will my Corsair Ax860i PSU support 2 980Ti's in sli? (5820k/X99)

what prices you guys see the 980Tis dropping to this year?


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alpina 7*
> 
> side note: Will my Corsair Ax860i PSU support 2 980Ti's in sli? (5820k/X99)
> 
> what prices you guys see the 980Tis dropping to this year?


Of course.


----------



## VSG

Ok so turns out that the whole Founder's Edition thingy is quite new to the AIBs also. The ones I spoke to today all think it is an overclocked, binned version as well. They expect units this coming week so they will find out more then. Could be another ASIC thing as many suspected. May 27th is a hard launch for reference cards only, and AIB cards are coming later in the summer. It could be that early adopters will be stuck paying the higher price for the 1080/1070 Founder's Edition cards.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Might want to check your numbers again
> 
> GTX 1080: 180W. 25% faster
> GTX 980Ti: 250W.


GTX 980 = 165w
GTX 1080= 180w

let's assume 980 delivers 200 fps using 165w so 200/165= 1.21 fps/w

now IF 1080 is 80% faster than 980 it will deliver 200x1.8= 360fps
it will deliver 360fps by using 180w , so 360/180= 2fps /w

now 2.0/1.21= 65.2% more fps/watts efficiency, my numbers are based on nvidia's rated TDP.

And going by your numbers, it will be only 73% more efficient than 980ti, but 980ti is less efficient than 980, nvidia's claims of 3x/2x efficiency is all bogus and fake/false


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *geggeg*
> 
> Ok so turns out that the whole Founder's Edition thingy is quite new to the AIBs also. The ones I spoke to today all think it is an overclocked, binned version as well. They expect units this coming week so they will find out more then. Could be another ASIC thing as many suspected. May 27th is a hard launch for reference cards only, and AIB cards are coming later in the summer. It could be that early adopters will be stuck paying the higher price for the 1080/1070 Founder's Edition cards.


It will most likely be the same card with a factory overclock you just paying $100 extra to get it early, it really is a smart move as a ton of people here would pay that just to get the card early.


----------



## Jpmboy

Flounder's Edition.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> GTX 980 = 165w
> GTX 1080= 180w
> 
> let's assume 980 delivers 200 fps using 165w so 200/165= 1.21 fps/w
> 
> now IF 1080 is 80% faster than 980 it will deliver 200x1.8= 360fps
> it will deliver 360fps by using 180w , so 360/180= 2fps /w
> 
> now 2.0/1.21= 65.2% more fps/watts efficiency, my numbers are based on nvidia's rated TDP.
> 
> And going by your numbers, it will be only 73% more efficient than 980ti, but 980ti is less efficient than 980, nvidia's claims of 3x/2x efficiency is all bogus and fake/false


Its 85% more efficient if these numbers are right,
And 1080 is *faster* than 980 SLI.

Maybe not entirely 2x the performance/watt, but damn close


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> It will most likely be the same card with a factory overclock you just paying $100 extra to get it early, it really is a smart move as a ton of people here would pay that just to get the card early.


Actions absolved of reason, this is modern day cult behavior...


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its 85% more efficient if these numbers are right,
> And 1080 is *faster* than 980 SLI.
> 
> Maybe not entirely 2x the performance/watt, but damn close


Please point out how its 85% more efficient. and 980 sli isn't 2x/ faster than 1 980 gpu. in fact it's only 66% more than 1 gpu

compare GM204 to GP104 , don't mix less efficient 980ti here.

as i said 65% more efficient over maxwell at best, not counting vr.


----------



## ccRicers

Wonder if a 1070 mini would be possible....?

My guess is less likely than the 970 due to the extra GDDR5.


----------



## prznar1

Chip made for vr. Good and bad. Good because its the trend, bad because i dont like vr :d


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Does someone know if i can watch the announcement stream now, I was busy sleeping when it was live


----------



## Aggrotech

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> Does someone know if i can watch the announcement stream now, I was busy sleeping when it was live


https://www.twitch.tv/nvidia/v/64989878
doesnt start for awhile so just skip to that.


----------



## Ithanul

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> Chip made for vr. Good and bad. Good because its the trend, bad because i dont like vr :d


Yeah, I'm wonder how these cards handle doing other things than just VR. I'm with you on VR and even 4K, have no care in it at all (as I see that as a huge money sink atm). Plus, I don't find the idea of a heavy object stuck on ones head as a enjoyable experience.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aggrotech*
> 
> https://www.twitch.tv/nvidia/v/64989878
> doesnt start for awhile so just skip to that.


Cheers love!


----------



## PureBlackFire

more ghz, that's the way.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ccRicers*
> 
> Wonder if a 1070 mini would be possible....?
> 
> My guess is less likely than the 970 due to the extra GDDR5.


Higher density memory, so should be same number of chips as 970.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ithanul*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> Chip made for vr. Good and bad. Good because its the trend, bad because i dont like vr :d
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm wonder how these cards handle doing other things than just VR. I'm with you on VR and even 4K, have no care in it at all (as I see that as a huge money sink atm). Plus, I don't find the idea of a heavy object stuck on ones head as a enjoyable experience.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean, though, "chip made for vr"? It's just a nice card that supports VR tech. It's not like VR and everything else are mutually exclusive.


----------



## kingduqc

I wish I had 30 rep to sell some hardware here... Anyone is taking a g1 980ti for 425$ shipping end of may?


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> XtremeGaming 1080 in june


Already a custom cooler?









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> @CallsignVega
> , in case you didn't see the bullet points, DP 1.4 and HDMI2.0b on GTX 1080/1070. Will be enough to drive the Dell OLED 4K 120Hz display off a single DP connection. And even 8K resolution once that becomes available.


It is quite surprising that Pascal not only supports DP 1.3, but 1.4 as well. Too bad display manufacturers are far behind the power curve. The Dell OLED still only has a DP 1.2 port, meaning it cannot run 120 Hz 4K with these new GPU's. They would have to upgrade the DP T-Con.

I wonder what will be the first display with DP 1.3 or higher...

Maybe manufacturer's never came out with anything for DP 1.3 as they knew 1.4 wasn't far behind.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 70% over 980 puts it at roughly 35% over 980 Ti.
> 
> So in other words, a stock 1080 will run about the same as a 980 Ti overclocked to 1500/8000.
> 
> In other other words, I still have absolutely 0 interest in this card, unless it can somehow magically OC by 50% (which it won't, not on air/water anyway).


From the graphs, a ~1500 MHz 980Ti / Titan-X is about the same speed as as a stock 1080. Using a stock 980 as a reference for the baseline is pretty low/slow.

One note of interest is it looks like these Pascal cards are limited to two cards in SLI? Not that I care for more than two anymore. Interesting to see how this new 2x bandwidth SLI link will assist with scaling.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> What does that even mean, though, "chip made for vr"? It's just a nice card that supports VR tech. It's not like VR and everything else are mutually exclusive.


Remember what nvidia did with fermi? performance without regrets, then they did chips made for mobile stuff and we had nice p/w cards that run rly cool. Next is VR







nvidia was always aiming for one thing with their architecture without losing rest of things from sight.


----------



## kx11

Zotac released a press about 1080

https://www.zotac.com/product/graphics_card/geforce-gtx-1080


----------



## sugarhell




----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


So the game is running 1080p and gets around 140 frames. @ 4k, we would see 35 frames? Games looks awesome btw.


----------



## HAL900

700 US dollars or euros for a 300 mm gpu. Nvidia is a thief


----------



## nani17

Didn't see the event was there any mention of 4k?? or any videos showing how it can handle 4k gaming.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nani17*
> 
> Didn't see the event was there any mention of 4k?? or any videos showing how it can handle 4k gaming.


Well, its called GTX 1080.









ofc it can handle 4k too


----------



## fisher6

GTX 1080 looking good. The upgrade itch is starting now. Must hold onto my 980 Ti till big pascal hits.


----------



## nani17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Well, its called GTX 1080.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ofc it can handle 4k too


LOL I didn't even notice the tiny text at first. 4k at 60Fps really??


----------



## erocker

I think they'll push 4K marketing with the 1080Ti/Titan. That's not saying I don' t think the 1080 will probably be the best card for 4K up until then.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nani17*
> 
> LOL I didn't even notice the tiny text at first. 4k at 60Fps really??


oh i don't know about performance at 4k, but i assume it will be 20-30% better than 980ti. there are no benchmarks out yet. just nvidia's PR numbers. better wait for actual reviews


----------



## motoray

Well looks like it performs better than expected. Hopefully AMD will be ready to release at LOW prices.


----------



## phenom01

Good lord...I missed out on all of this. If these numbers stack up the way they look its going to be an exciting year in the PC world. A LARGE performance boost over my heavily overclocked SLI setup. I dunno if I can wait til big pascal.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

There is no need to wait for big pascal, just buy 1080 when it's out and use it until big ones come out = double the fun, yes you loose abit of money, but seriously who cares.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Need to see custom boards.


----------



## fisher6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> There is no need to wait for big pascal, just buy 1080 when it's out and use it until big ones come out = double the fun, yes you loose abit of money, but seriously who cares.


I think this is what I will end up doing. Don't even think I can bother to put back the air cooler on the 980 Ti if I get my hands on a 1080.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> remember when the 970 and 980 were released how everyone thought AMD was screwed?
> 
> how did that work out?
> 
> 
> 
> AMD market share fell off a cliff.
> 
> Its important to consider that the 390 and the 390x didn't arrive until almost a year has passed since the launch of the 980 and the 970. Between that period, the 980 and the 970 sold virtually unopposed by AMD. Not only that, it took even longer for those cards to begin to challenge the 970 and the 98p.
Click to expand...

AMD market share had already fell off a cliff and everyone were nailing their coffin lid shut. after the 970 came to market AMD dropped the 290x prices to just below it but the green team kept pumping cards out until the 3.5Gbs fiasco BUT both performed ~same since the 970 release except 1080 resolution.

but yeah the 390x had a slow start, as usual with AMD but now in some games (ok, just hitman







) its shaming both gm200 gpus.

people can spin it the way they want but AMD is still around -- it just takes them longer.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> AMD market share had already fell off a cliff and everyone were nailing their coffin lid shut. after the 970 came to market AMD dropped the 290x prices to just below it but the green team kept pumping cards out until the 3.5Gbs fiasco BUT both performed ~same since the 970 release except 1080 resolution.
> 
> but yeah the 390x had a slow start, as usual with AMD but now in some games (ok, just hitman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) its shaming both gm200 gpus.
> 
> people can spin it the way they want but AMD is still around -- it just takes them longer.


When Huang said they spent *billions* of dollars of just making the two graphic cards 1080 and 1070 and several thousands of engineers working on them for several years, you kinda get the feeling thats why AMD isnt able to keep up.

Huang said its becoming very hard to compensate and make better cards now that they reached a plateu where Moore`s law doesnt matter any more. So thats one of the reasons why we are stuck on nodes longer and why cards cost more. Because its very resource heavy to make new architectures these days.


----------



## KarathKasun

He is probably including GF, GK, and GM costs.


----------



## fat4l

subbed


----------



## looniam

if anyone cares:


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> *So let me get this straight*: Nvidia already lied/false advertisement about these cards having *Displayport 1.4*, where in fact, it's actually Displayport 1.2 and capable of usage with Displayport 1.3/1.4 monitors.
> 
> HDMI 2.0b has a smaller bandwidth than HDMI 2.0a
> 
> Hence, why should anyone get excited over this?


Where are you getting these notions?

FOr the new GPU's, DP 1.2 is the only "Certified" DP standard as there are no monitors to test and "certify" DP 1.3 and 1.4. That doesn't mean that the cards cannot do DP 1.3/1.4. Even in NVIDIA's press release video, it specifically states HDR 4K @ 120 Hz. That can only be done with DP 1.4.

Also, HDMI 2.0b does not have "smaller" bandwidth than 2.0a.


----------



## iLeakStuff

http://www.vesa.org/featured-articles/vesa-publishes-displayport-standard-version-1-4/
Quote:


> Examples of increased display resolution with the new standard include 8Kp60Hz HDR deep color and 4Kp120Hz HDR deep color.


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> http://www.vesa.org/featured-articles/vesa-publishes-displayport-standard-version-1-4/


What is the purpose of posting that?


----------



## iLeakStuff

To back up what you said


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> What is the purpose of posting that?


GTX 1080 has DP1.4


----------



## Ha-Nocri

NV had 4k @120Hz on one of the slides. Not HDR. Isn't that what DP 1.3 can do?!


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> To back up what you said


Oh, sorry I thought you were posting in reference to something else.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> GTX 1080 has DP1.4


That's what I said. I was just explaining why the new cards aren't "Certified" DP 1.3/1.4, but are still capable of running it. Some people get "certified" and "standard" confused. NVIDIA uses the proper terminology for DP 1.3/1.4 with their cards; "Ready". Now we just need display manufacturers to get off their asses!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> NV had 4k @120Hz on one of the slides. Not HDR. Isn't that what DP 1.3 can do?!


No, you need DP 1.4 for HDR with 4K @ 120 Hz. Even though the bandwidth is the same between 1.3 and 1.4, 1.4 uses DSC compression.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> No, you need DP 1.4 for HDR with 4K @ 120 Hz. Even though the bandwidth is the same between 1.3 and 1.4, 1.4 uses DSC compression.


Yes, that's what I said. They didn't say HDR. DP1.3 can do 4k 120Hz


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> if anyone cares:


I don't know anybody would care about that.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I don't know anybody would care about that.


For all the people currently upset that they were the first generation to pay $499 for a mid-range card and have held onto it.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> Oh, sorry I thought you were posting in reference to something else.
> That's what I said. I was just explaining why the new cards aren't "Certified" DP 1.3/1.4, but are still capable of running it. Some people get "certified" and "standard" confused. NVIDIA uses the proper terminology for DP 1.3/1.4 with their cards; "Ready". Now we just need display manufacturers to get off their asses!
> No, you need DP 1.4 for HDR with 4K @ 120 Hz. Even though the bandwidth is the same between 1.3 and 1.4, 1.4 uses DSC compression.


My bad then. I just jumped in and saw your post and the guy you were quoting. I should've read what came before that apologies


----------



## go4life

Added new pictures of the card to OP


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> Yes, that's what I said. They didn't say HDR. DP1.3 can do 4k 120Hz


Yes they did. In the NVIDIA video it states HDR 4K @ 120 Hz.


----------



## Elyminator

Am I the only one that wants a high end single slot card or at least potentially single slot from nvidia. drop the DVI port!


----------



## Edge0fsanity

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Elyminator*
> 
> Am I the only one that wants a high end single slot card or at least potentially single slot from nvidia. drop the DVI port!


you are definitely not alone, DVI needs to die. Hopefully P titan and 1080ti do away with it. I can't imagine buying one of those cards and using a monitor that requires DVI.


----------



## sage101

GTX 1080 is shaping up to be a beast but it seems like the hefty clock speeds is what's giving it the edge over the GTX 980Ti and Titan X. The price is a bit on the high side so i don't know why everyone here thinks it's reasonably priced, in my opinion it's $100 overpriced. With this current price it's safe to assume that the 1080Ti is going to cost in the ballpark of 750-900.


----------



## Elyminator

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Edge0fsanity*
> 
> you are definitely not alone, DVI needs to die. Hopefully P titan and 1080ti do away with it. I can't imagine buying one of those cards and using a monitor that requires DVI.


I don't need DVI to die out entirely I understand why it exists... but I run SLI in an matx case I would love to have some slots back honestly. I've often thought about removing the DVI port myself I saw a guide somewhere around here on exactly how to do it


----------



## Elyminator

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sage101*
> 
> GTX 1080 is shaping up to be a beast but it seems like the hefty clock speeds is what's giving it the edge over the GTX 980Ti and Titan X. The price is a bit on the high side so i don't know why everyone here thinks it's reasonably priced, in my opinion it's $100 overpriced. With this current price it's safe to assume that the 1080Ti is going to cost in the ballpark of 750-900.


well to be fair the 980 was launched higher and got reduced. But i do tend to agree with you right now all we know is that its "faster than a titan x" so is a 980ti under the right conditions..... and I think you're right that the clock speeds are doing the work. the question is of course what is the average over clock of all the cards and what will AIB's do with the card. Anyone know when the NDA lifts?


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I don't know anybody would care about that.


yeah . . i really don't either.


----------



## jezzer

GTX 970 all over again


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> There is no need to wait for big pascal, just buy 1080 when it's out and use it until big ones come out = double the fun, yes you loose abit of money, but seriously who cares.


It's the only way to do it. get in and out early.....


----------



## lowfat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *geggeg*
> 
> Ok so turns out that the whole Founder's Edition thingy is quite new to the AIBs also. The ones I spoke to today all think it is an overclocked, binned version as well. They expect units this coming week so they will find out more then. Could be another ASIC thing as many suspected. May 27th is a hard launch for reference cards only, and AIB cards are coming later in the summer. It could be that early adopters will be stuck paying the higher price for the 1080/1070 Founder's Edition cards.


I've heard from a reviewer that was at the demo, that reference cards = Founder's Edition. If you want a GTX1080 on launch day, expect to pay the extra $100.


----------



## gr4474

Excitement fading...and sanity returning.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> GTX 970 all over again


It's been proven fake, just search the net...


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> GTX 970 all over again


Even if it's real, I doubt anybody would care about having 0.5GB less of a 8GB card for a long time.


----------



## VSG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lowfat*
> 
> I've heard from a reviewer that was at the demo, that reference cards = Founder's Edition. If you want a GTX1080 on launch day, expect to pay the extra $100.


Yeah, that's basically what I got aside from the potential overclocking and binning which is still a guess. Also, EVGA at least has cards coming out sooner than I first thought so I don't think that the Founder's Edition exclusivity is for long.


----------



## TheDude26

On the Nvidia forums someone posted and stated that Nvidia had a 3 x 1080 setup running at their event. Not sure if the source was good or not but the bridges they are advertising don't appear to allow more than 2 SLI. I wonder if you can use a current gen SLI bridge? Or does it take a magical new SLI bridge?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheDude26*
> 
> On the Nvidia forums someone posted and stated that Nvidia had a 3 x 1080 setup running at their event. Not sure if the source was good or not but the bridges they are advertising don't appear to allow more than 2 SLI. I wonder if you can use a current gen SLI bridge? Or does it take a magical new SLI bridge?


It was not 3 way SLI.

It was 2 way SLI + phsyx.

The first and third card are in SLI. Middle is phsyx


----------



## FXformat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Elyminator*
> 
> Am I the only one that wants a high end single slot card or at least potentially single slot from nvidia. drop the DVI port!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Edge0fsanity*
> 
> you are definitely not alone, DVI needs to die. Hopefully P titan and 1080ti do away with it. I can't imagine buying one of those cards and using a monitor that requires DVI.


DVI along with USB 2.0 and Molex connectors need to go


----------



## Elyminator

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FXformat*
> 
> DVI along with USB 2.0 and Molex connectors need to go


gahhhh I hate molex connectors so much. The stupid pins never sit straight!!


----------



## MoorishBrutha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> Where are you getting these notions?
> 
> FOr the new GPU's, DP 1.2 is the only "Certified" DP standard as there are no monitors to test and "certify" DP 1.3 and 1.4. That doesn't mean that the cards cannot do DP 1.3/1.4. Even in NVIDIA's press release video, it specifically states HDR 4K @ 120 Hz. That can only be done with DP 1.4.
> 
> Also, HDMI 2.0b does not have "smaller" bandwidth than 2.0a.


Displayport 1.3 with AMD is certified so how couldn't Nvidia get certification for atleast DP1.3?

So you saying that *HDMI 2.0b* has the same bandwidth as *HDMI 2.0a* then explain this:


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> Displayport 1.3 with AMD is certified so how couldn't Nvidia get certification for atleast DP1.3?
> 
> So you saying that *HDMI 2.0b* has the same bandwidth as *HDMI 2.0a* then explain this:


They did better. Nvidia went with 1.4...


----------



## MoorishBrutha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> They did better. Nvidia went with 1.4...


NOT CERTIFIED thus it may not work with DP1.3/1.4 products.


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> Displayport 1.3 with AMD is certified so how couldn't Nvidia get certification for atleast DP1.3?
> 
> So you saying that *HDMI 2.0b* has the same bandwidth as *HDMI 2.0a* then explain this:


The standards/specification of HDMI 2.0a and 2.0b are not "Levels". HDMI 2.0 "level B" means an HDMI 2.0 chipset that can only run at 10 Gbps.

HDMI 2.0b has full 18 GBps functionality:

*http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_0/*

HDMI consortium was very wrong in ever allowing anything but 18 Gbps to be called HDMI 2.0. More marketing BS to generate sales before the hardware was ready.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> They did better. Nvidia went with 1.4...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT CERTIFIED thus it may not work with DP1.3/1.4 products.
Click to expand...

Well, it did say DP1.3/1.4 ready.

Is the glass half empty or half full?


----------



## orlfman

here's a dirty chart to give a guesstimate on the level of performance increase one would expect over the 980 ti if the 1070 and 1080 are 10 - 25% faster as claimed. you can pretty much use it anytime you want to gauge how much faster something is over "X" when you hear "Y" is "X%" faster. for example if the "980 ti" gets 65 fps in "witcher 3" then the "1080" would get 78 fps if it was "20%" faster.


----------



## Imglidinhere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MattGordon*
> 
> Inb4 it's just a huge tease and ends up being something completely unrelated to the Pascal GPUs we want.


Well you're hilariously wrong.


----------



## GHADthc

Well..this was an interesting thread to wake up to..to say the least! Seems AMD has their work cut out for them..if they dont deliver competition, its back to the green team for me.


----------



## MoorishBrutha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GHADthc*
> 
> Well..this was an interesting thread to wake up to..to say the least! Seems AMD has their work cut out for them..if they dont deliver competition, its back to the green team for me.


I think it's way too early for pre-orders. You have a get a definitive statement from Nvidia on what's going on with the Displayport only being certified at 1.2 and NOT 1.3/1.4. You have to look at White papers to positively know these cards WON'T have Async Compute/Schedulers inside of them.

Then you have to look at AMD's performance and Pricing with Polaris. You will be a fool to pre-order now based upon yesterday's event. Specifically, you will be a fool for paying $600 for pre-binned card period.


----------



## Clovertail100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadRabbit*
> 
> I only know one person who said that was actually Polaris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, it's funny how people laugh at AMD Roy when he says something but now all of the sudden what he said is the truth and nothing but the truth. That's OCN for you.


It's funny how people might not realize that you're weighing one subjective truth against another to establish the fact that _both are subjective._ Not that one is true while the other is false.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pragmatist*
> The supreme commander slayed AMD's Polawhat.....


Therefor, if the conclusion you've made boils down to this, it's based on your own bias and not reality.


----------



## bonami2

so 1070 or 1080 sli... Or Big die.... Or amd big die.....

Damn. I really need to upgrade but im not too sure about sli and surround....


----------



## GHADthc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> I think it's way too early for pre-orders. You have a get a definitive statement from Nvidia on what's going on with the Displayport only being certified at 1.2 and NOT 1.3/1.4. You have to look at White papers to positively know these cards WON'T have Async Compute/Schedulers inside of them.
> 
> Then you have to look at AMD's performance and Pricing with Polaris. You will be a fool to pre-order now based upon yesterday's event. Specifically, you will be a fool for paying $600 for pre-binned card period.


Who said anything about pre-ordering? I`ve never pre-ordered a single product in my life..I also said if AMD dont deliver competition, then I`ll go with Nvidia`s solution, I dont care about brand names, I care about performance and overclocking, I`m going to be waiting it out to see who delivers the best of both these metrics and then make my purchase..also unlike Americans complaining about it being $600...overe in my neck of the woods I`ll be looking at something closer to $800-1000 thanks to retailers price gauging and Australias economy.


----------



## Sin0822

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GHADthc*
> 
> Who said anything about pre-ordering? I`ve never pre-ordered a single product in my life..I also said if AMD dont deliver competition, then I`ll go with Nvidia`s solution, I dont care about brand names, I care about performance and overclocking, I`m going to be waiting it out to see who delivers the best of both these metrics and then make my purchase..also unlike Americans complaining about it being $600...overe in my neck of the woods I`ll be looking at something closer to $800-1000 thanks to retailers price gauging and Australias economy.


I have also never pre-ordered anything in my life. I never understood it unless there was some definite incentive.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> Just for fun how many GTX280s is one GTX1080?


when volta hits, just one


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> I think it's way too early for pre-orders. You have a get a definitive statement from Nvidia on what's going on with the Displayport only being certified at 1.2 and NOT 1.3/1.4. You have to look at White papers to positively know these cards WON'T have Async Compute/Schedulers inside of them.
> 
> Then you have to look at AMD's performance and Pricing with Polaris. You will be a fool to pre-order now based upon yesterday's event. Specifically, you will be a fool for paying $600 for pre-binned card period.


I'd suggest you take a look at this: https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/4iaxx6/private_pascal_architecture_briefing_supposedly/d2wlqck

Guy accidentally broke NDA on Beyond3D forums. @sugarhell, you might be interested in this too if you haven't seen it.

I agree that it is still early for pre-orders, but please stop espousing incorrect information on this forum. There is already enough FUD everywhere, and you aren't helping it either.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> I think it's way too early for pre-orders. You have a get a definitive statement from Nvidia on what's going on with the Displayport only being certified at 1.2 and NOT 1.3/1.4. You have to look at White papers to positively know these cards WON'T have Async Compute/Schedulers inside of them.
> 
> Then you have to look at AMD's performance and Pricing with Polaris. You will be a fool to pre-order now based upon yesterday's event. Specifically, you will be a fool for paying $600 for pre-binned card period.


Give me a link so I can pre-order.


----------



## i7monkey

so the only cards with blower style fans will be the founder's editions cards?

if i want a blower style cooler i'm forced to pay the extra $100?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> so the only cards with blower style fans will be the founder's editions cards?
> 
> if i want a blower style cooler i'm forced to pay the extra $100?


It looks like there will be a blower style fan (that looks like the GTX 1080 reference design, well it is basically the same) but has lesser material. Plastic instead of aluminum etc.


----------



## arkansaswoman22

So coming from a 670 i figure this will be a big jump in performance. A 1070 should be able to handle a 2560 x 1440p monitor whether it be 60hz or 144hz with no issues right?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arkansaswoman22*
> 
> So coming from a 670 i figure this will be a big jump in performance. A 1070 should be able to handle a 2560 x 1440p monitor whether it be 60hz or 144hz with no issues right?


2560x1440 @ 144hz (or fps in that case. Is that what you are referring to?, becuase there is a difference between 144hz and fps). You can run everything at 144hz, but 144fps won't be possible.

To put a simple :

- No, A single GTX 1070 won't get [email protected] in every single game. Not even SLI Titan X get that.

Doesn't mean it isn't worth it


----------



## ArdentDefender

Is Nvidia the one that will be selling the new Pascal GPS's as of May 27th or will they also be available from the other manufacturers on that day as well?


----------



## i7monkey

$700 for a midrange GP104? lawwl


----------



## inedenimadam

Any word on a consumer version of GP 100? I am really excited about the gains here, but I want big die!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I never got a 780 or 980 so I don't know for sure but I thought ithey came with the same Titan coolers that the upper range cards got? If so this seems like a hilariously cheap move by Nvidia to only give the $599 card plastic shrouds and force those who want the real Titan cooler to fork over $100 extra for that privilege! I wonder how many people will get suckered in with this considering that I highly doubt Nvidia will be binning chips so that FE cards OC significantly better than "lowly" $599 cards...


----------



## 2010rig

Can someone point me to the AMD Roy comments that keep getting referenced? I'm out of the loop with that


----------



## BulletSponge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Can someone point me to the AMD Roy comments that keep getting referenced? I'm out of the loop with that


That's okay, Roy's been out of the loop and his mind for years also.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Can someone point me to the AMD Roy comments that keep getting referenced? I'm out of the loop with that


There was a whole thread about it (something like "AMD confirms market position of Polaris"). It was one statement where he implied that AMD was not going to compete with the 1080 at all, but come on, this is Roy we are talking about. Since when does anybody take anything he says seriously? Oh right, whenever he says something that makes AMD look bad. That's the ONLY time Roy's statements are ever taken as gospel...


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Did some math and I figured the GTX 1080 will be about 70% faster than my 1.15Ghz R9 290 after a 25% OC on the GTX 1080. Might as well just bite the bullet lol.

1.7X perf means I can get 59.5 fps instead of 35. So much for freesync.

Also I feel like the IPC of Pascal is unchanged compared to Maxwell. 2560 core Pascal being 25% faster than Titan X is mainly due to the clock speeds.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> I'd suggest you take a look at this: https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/4iaxx6/private_pascal_architecture_briefing_supposedly/d2wlqck
> 
> Guy accidentally broke NDA on Beyond3D forums. @sugarhell
> , you might be interested in this too if you haven't seen it.
> 
> I agree that it is still early for pre-orders, but please stop espousing incorrect information on this forum. There is already enough FUD everywhere, and you aren't helping it either.


Yes actually they explain it a bit on the whitepaper. Now if a long compute work delays the pipeline they can instantly stop it and change between graphic and compute instead of waiting until the next batch . Its a better version a preemption actually. But now they have a mechanism to deal the wrong predictions. Thanks for the info


----------



## Shogon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoorishBrutha*
> 
> I think it's way too early for pre-orders. You have a get a definitive statement from Nvidia on what's going on with the Displayport only being certified at 1.2 and NOT 1.3/1.4. You have to look at White papers to positively know these cards WON'T have Async Compute/Schedulers inside of them.
> 
> Then you have to look at AMD's performance and Pricing with Polaris. You will be a fool to pre-order now based upon yesterday's event. Specifically, you will be a fool for paying $600 for pre-binned card period.


Where's that pre-order link?

Oh, and don't take out your 900 year frustrations out on others. Maybe someday you'll get Sicily back. (Then again I doubt you understand this)


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Yes actually they explain it a bit on the whitepaper. Now if a long compute work delays the pipeline they can instantly stop it and change between graphic and compute instead of waiting until the next batch . Its a better version a preemption actually. But now they have a mechanism to deal the wrong predictions. Thanks for the info


I haven't had time to read the whitepaper. Been extraordinarily busy lately.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shogon*
> 
> Where's that pre-order link?
> 
> Oh, and don't take out your 900 year frustrations out on others. Maybe someday you'll get Sicily back. (Then again I doubt you understand this)
> 
> Vesuvius?


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Can someone point me to the AMD Roy comments that keep getting referenced? I'm out of the loop with that


It was in an interview with Ars.
Quote:


> "If you look at the total install base of a Radeon 290, or a GTX 970 or above [the minimum specs required for VR], it's around 7.5 million units," explained Taylor. "But the issue is that if a publisher wants to sell a £40/$50 VR game, there's not a big enough market to justify that yet. We've got to prime the pumps, which means somebody has got to start writing cheques to big games publishers. Or we've got to increase the install TAM [total addressable market].
> 
> "The reason Polaris is a big deal," continued Taylor, "is because I believe we will be able to grow that TAM significantly. I don't think Nvidia is going to do anything to increase the TAM, because according to everything we've seen around Pascal, it's a high-end part. I don't know what the price is gonna be, but let's say it's as low as £500/$600 and as high as £800/$1000. That price range is not going to expand the TAM for VR. We're going on the record right now to say Polaris will expand the TAM. Full stop."


http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/04/amd-focusing-on-vr-mid-range-polaris/


----------



## DIYDeath

I'm waiting for user benchmarks and an additional month or two for kinks to get ironed out. Then I'll probably buy a 1080, it'll be a nice upgrade from my Titan Black.


----------



## Shogon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Vesuvius?


Even though I believe there was an eruption around that time, it didn't stop the Norman invasion much.


----------



## Aggrotech

Not sure if its been posted. Hardwarecanucks posted theyre gettin 140fps+ on 4K Reso haha.

**edit*** totally missed part of the post, blah! Thats on the new DOOM game.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aggrotech*
> 
> Not sure if its been posted. Hardwarecanucks posted theyre gettin 140fps+ on 4K Reso haha.


In what, CS:Source?


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> It was in an interview with Ars.
> 
> http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/04/amd-focusing-on-vr-mid-range-polaris/


So basically he's saying that Polaris will provide cheaper cards for VR. Doesn't sound like they're Fury X replacements? I'm guessing they will be in the $300-$400 range, plus it sounds like he was referencing GP100 in regards to the high end...


----------



## Forsakenfire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> In what, CS:Source?


Solitaire more likely.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> It was in an interview with Ars.
> 
> http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/04/amd-focusing-on-vr-mid-range-polaris/


Wow, so he never even actually says that Polaris 10 is going to be mainstream, its just inferred? Really, all he states is that AMD is going after market share which could mean any number of things. And yet we are bludgeoned incessantly with this stupid "AMD Roy admits Polaris only for mainstream" quote about every third or fourth post around here. Oh well, AMD will have their moment soon enough and we can finally put all these useless inferences, innuendos and rumors to bed once and for all...


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Can someone point me to the AMD Roy comments that keep getting referenced? I'm out of the loop with that
> 
> 
> 
> It was in an interview with Ars.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you look at the total install base of a Radeon 290, or a GTX 970 or above [the minimum specs required for VR], it's around 7.5 million units," explained Taylor. "But the issue is that if a publisher wants to sell a £40/$50 VR game, there's not a big enough market to justify that yet. We've got to prime the pumps, which means somebody has got to start writing cheques to big games publishers. Or we've got to increase the install TAM [total addressable market].
> 
> "The reason Polaris is a big deal," continued Taylor, "is because I believe we will be able to grow that TAM significantly. I don't think Nvidia is going to do anything to increase the TAM, because according to everything we've seen around Pascal, it's a high-end part. I don't know what the price is gonna be, but let's say it's as low as £500/$600 and as high as £800/$1000. That price range is not going to expand the TAM for VR. We're going on the record right now to say Polaris will expand the TAM. Full stop."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/04/amd-focusing-on-vr-mid-range-polaris/
Click to expand...

So basically, Nvidia destroyed his whole argument by having a Pascal card at a $379 price point that will offer a good increase in VR performance due to simultaneous multi-projection. This is not even counting the inevitable 1060 Pascal card that will include the same multi-projection tech but at an even lower price.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> So basically, Nvidia destroyed his whole argument by having a Pascal card at a $379 price point that will offer a good increase in VR performance due to simultaneous multi-projection. This is not even counting the inevitable 1060 Pascal card that will include the same multi-projection tech but at an even lower price.


What he actually says there is only that Polaris is going to increase their market share, period. It was not at all any statement of confirmation about performance; people have just inferred its meaning and then regurgitated their own interpretations all over the place as though AMD released official benchmarks or something. Roy says stupid stuff all the time so I don't really put much stock in what he says one way or the other. We will find out soon enough how AMD plans to counter GP104. They now know exactly what they will be facing so they should be able to plan accordingly...


----------



## Forsakenfire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aggrotech*
> 
> Not sure if its been posted. Hardwarecanucks posted theyre gettin 140fps+ on 4K Reso haha.
> 
> **edit*** totally missed part of the post, blah! Thats on the new DOOM game.


It was at 1080p, they corrected it on their twitter.


----------



## Aggrotech

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forsakenfire*
> 
> It was at 1080p, they corrected it on their twitter.


i cant see that tweet. reloaded the page multiple times, even checked on another browser. it doesnt exist for me D:


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> So basically, Nvidia destroyed his whole argument by having a Pascal card at a $379 price point that will offer a good increase in VR performance due to simultaneous multi-projection. This is not even counting the inevitable 1060 Pascal card that will include the same multi-projection tech but at an even lower price.
> 
> 
> 
> What he actually says there is only that Polaris is going to increase their market share, period. It was not at all any statement of confirmation about performance; people have just inferred its meaning and then regurgitated their own interpretations all over the place as though AMD released official benchmarks or something. Roy says stupid stuff all the time so I don't really put much stock in what he says one way or the other. We will find out soon enough how AMD plans to counter GP104. They now know exactly what they will be facing so they should be able to plan accordingly...
Click to expand...

I'm more trying to highlight Roy assuming Nvidia and Pascal won't increase/capture the VR market with his "as low as $600" statement but Nvidia has a great opportunity to do so because of the pricing of 1070, 1060, and simultaneous multi-projection.
But yes, I agree that most of what Roy says is hyperbolic non-sense and hopefully, AMD brings just as much tech and performance as Nvidia does in this new generation.


----------



## thebski

Man, I am pretty concerned about the future of PC gaming.

Here we are, introduced to a small die, single power connector card that is going to cost $700 for a reference version and people are all jacked up about it.

They're charging $700 for what should be a 1050. What planet is this again?
















Never mind my personal opinion that they tried way too hard on the cooler. The OG Titan cooler and all subsequent versions of it looked great. All they did was take it, make it look worse and charge twice as much of a premium for it. Your alternative options are the garbage that AIBs throw on their cards made of plastic and recycled beer cans.


----------



## Forsakenfire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aggrotech*
> 
> i cant see that tweet. reloaded the page multiple times, even checked on another browser. it doesnt exist for me D:


https://twitter.com/hardwarecanucks/status/729017762794774528


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thebski*
> 
> Man, I am pretty concerned about the future of PC gaming.
> 
> Here we are, introduced to a small die, single power connector card that is going to cost $700 for a reference version and people are all jacked up about it.
> 
> They're charging $700 for what should be a 1050. What planet is this again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind my personal opinion that they tried way too hard on the cooler. The OG Titan cooler and all subsequent versions of it looked great. All they did was take it, make it look worse and charge twice as much of a premium for it. Your alternative options are the garbage that AIBs throw on their cards made of plastic and recycled beer cans.


As long as people buy they will sell.


----------



## JonnyBigBoss

I must be living on a different planet because I'm amazing by the 1080. Then again, I have experience in the engineering field and have an idea of how difficult it is to push technology further in this segment. Also, the VR features will be HUGE for those of us with HTC Vive's.


----------



## thebski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> As long as people buy they will sell.


I understand that, but it's just sad to me. I'm not sure what's more valuable, the technology or their marketing team.


----------



## USlatin

So if we get 140+ fps on DOOM @ 1080p we might stay close to 50 fps on three monitors with one card running off of one 8-pin and keeping it cool on air... but yea, sure, this card sucks :facepalm:


----------



## i7monkey

For those who have crappy case airflow and don't want to shell an extra $100 for the BendOvers Edition, is the 1080 small enough in heat output that a non-reference radial style cooler would be doable without cooking your case?


----------



## i7monkey

I'm concerned with the future of gaming too.

$700 for what used to be a $199 midrange card?

$1100 for 1080Ti?

$1499 for Titan?

$899 for midrange Volta?









People used to be able to build a good system for $1000, now that's the cost of one component.


----------



## thebski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *USlatin*
> 
> So if we get 140+ fps on DOOM @ 1080p we might stay close to 50 fps on three monitors with one card running off of one 8-pin and keeping it cool on air... but yea, sure, this card sucks :facepalm:


I didn't say it sucked. It's just not a $700 card. Remember when new technology replaced old technology in the same price brackets?


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thebski*
> 
> I didn't say it sucked. It's just not a $700 card. Remember when new technology replaced old technology in the same price brackets?


It's hard to get through to them. At this rate we'll be paying $1000 for an entry level GTX 1560


----------



## USlatin

I can build you a KICK ASS system for 1080p with $1,000. We are in the adolecent years of 4K. If we want to play at 4K before 4K gets really affordable and mainstream then we are asking for it.

Once 4K becomes the broadcast standard (what "everyone" has at home) you will be able to do that again.

If the card only draws 180W you can survive with decent case airflow, as long as you don't have your rig in a hot room like a loft with poor air flow or something like that. If you have crappy airflow I would recommend you first get that squared away to keep your components safe, because that system will be with you for much longer than a GPU or MoBo or CPU or RAM or storage.


----------



## i7monkey

I tried a radial cooler style GTX 590 once and it nearly cooked my case. Seriously. I opened it up and the tubing was super soft almost like glue, the water inside was bubbly, it almost sounded like I was searing a steak lmao. Never went back to a radial cooler again.

Now that Ngreedia wants 100 bucks for their BendMeOver Edition I'm starting to consider other options.


----------



## thebski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> It's hard to get through to them. At this rate we'll be paying $1000 for an entry level GTX 1560


You're not far off. In 2011 we were paying $500 for the best an architecture and process had to offer. 5 short years later, people are ecstatic to pay $700 for what would have been an x50 card then.

With no competition from AMD in sight, the nvidia conditioning train will roll on and it very well may get to that point.


----------



## USlatin

The GTX590 uses 365W,

that is 5W more than SLI GTX1080's would use


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I'm concerned with the future of gaming too.
> 
> $700 for what used to be a $199 midrange card?
> 
> $1100 for 1080Ti?
> 
> $1499 for Titan?
> 
> $899 for midrange Volta?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People used to be able to build a good system for $1000, now that's the cost of one component.


Lets inflate numbers because... well... real numbers are boring. Right?

The GTX 1080 will be 600$ (a bit over what the 980 released, but it will go down once polaris comes out)
The GTX 1070 will be 380$ (similar)
There is no price for the 1080 TI but I doubt 1100$, same with titan.

So stop making stuff up.

There never was a "$199 midrange card" which was several good %% above previous gen top end card.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Lets inflate numbers because... well... real numbers are boring. Right?
> 
> The GTX 1080 will be 600$ (a bit over what the 980 released, but it will go down once polaris comes out)
> The GTX 1070 will be 380$ (similar)
> There is no price for the 1080 TI but I doubt 1100$, same with titan.
> 
> So stop making stuff up.
> 
> There never was a "$199 midrange card" which was several good %% above previous gen top end card.


if you want reference and you want to get the card early you're going to have no choice but to pay $700 for the 1080 FE.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> if you want reference and you want to get the card early you're going to have no choice but to pay $700 for the 1080 FE.


And people keep ignoring the -suggested- in MSRP. I'd bet many AIB versions are still going to be all over that $600-700 range. Nvidia has done something a little genius with the $700 FE reference, making anything less with a decent AIB cooler seem like a killer deal.


----------



## Smokey the Bear

And I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least $1000 in Canada if not more.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> I will give it to Nvidia, they know how to baby step their followers into submission. Next generation, they can release a $750 mid grade chip and forcing reference designs until the release of the big chip. Hey, it's only a $50 price increase
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This fiasco reeks of the Titan all over again... Good news for Nvidia is that people seldom bother to remember and learn from the past.
> You are basing this on what? Past experiences show that Nvidia inflates their mid range chip prices with each generation and then drops the prices a year or so later when they replace the mid range chips with their big chips. This has been the case since Maxwell.


Base on what? The fact that the reference cooler comes with $699, not clear enough? lol.


----------



## Serandur

Next time Nvidia are hosting a GPU announcement event, we should all get tickets and fill up the audience then stand up and start booing when they announce the price. We can do that, right?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

If I were building a new rig soon I'd certainly be waiting on Zen and big Pascal/Vega. There's just too much big stuff on the horizon over the next year for me to want to heavily invest in current hardware.

Of course I still have a pretty powerful rig right now to hold me over. That's not the case for some I understand.


----------



## Pragmatist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Lets inflate numbers because... well... real numbers are boring. Right?
> 
> The GTX 1080 will be 600$ *(a bit over what the 980 released, but it will go down once polaris comes out)*
> The GTX 1070 will be 380$ (similar)
> There is no price for the 1080 TI but I doubt 1100$, same with titan.
> 
> So stop making stuff up.
> 
> There never was a "$199 midrange card" which was several good %% above previous gen top end card.


Everything points towards Polaris being a cheap gateway to VR, they even said so themselves. However, the AMD fanboys aren't even reading what AMD stated and keep going on and on about how "great" Polaris is whilst crying their hearts out on the forums, or so it seems. That said, I don't think the 1080 will have any competition whatsoever this summer. If all the rumors and AMD's statement holds true they will go up against the 1060Ti, or possibly the 1070.

Time will tell, I guess.


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pragmatist*
> 
> Everything points towards Polaris being a cheap gateway to VR, they even said so themselves. However, the AMD fanboys aren't even reading what AMD stated and keep going on and on about how "great" Polaris is whilst crying their hearts out in the forums, or so it seems. That said, I don't think the 1080 will have any competition whatsoever this summer. If all the rumors and AMD's statement holds true they will go up against the 1060Ti, or possibly the 1070.
> 
> Time will tell, I guess.


What's "cheap"? I don't remember anyone at AMD using such a word.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thebski*
> 
> Man, I am pretty concerned about the future of PC gaming.
> 
> Here we are, introduced to a small die, single power connector card that is going to cost $700 for a reference version and people are all jacked up about it.
> 
> They're charging $700 for what should be a 1050. What planet is this again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind my personal opinion that they tried way too hard on the cooler. The OG Titan cooler and all subsequent versions of it looked great. All they did was take it, make it look worse and charge twice as much of a premium for it. Your alternative options are the garbage that AIBs throw on their cards made of plastic and recycled beer cans.


Yep pc gaming sucks last 5 years.And it is worse every new generation.We already paying 700USD for GTX560TI like card(1080 is just GTX560TI in fermi generation nothing more).I dont want even know how GPUs are priced in next 5 years.I think they will cost like car.
GPUs cost more than rest PC because nGreedia and their sheep followers buy everything they throw at them and bad competetion from AMD.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pragmatist*
> 
> Everything points towards Polaris being a cheap gateway to VR, they even said so themselves. However, the AMD fanboys aren't even reading what AMD stated and keep going on and on about how "great" Polaris is whilst crying their hearts out on the forums, or so it seems. That said, I don't think the 1080 will have any competition whatsoever this summer. If all the rumors and AMD's statement holds true they will go up against the 1060Ti, or possibly the 1070.
> 
> Time will tell, I guess.


The only way for GTX 1080 to drop is when P10 beat GTX 1070 and price it at US$349.

In this way the 1080 will slip to $499 and 1070 will be cheaper at $329. But we all know this is not happening. At least based on what is leaked so far.


----------



## Pragmatist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> What's "cheap"? I don't remember anyone at AMD using such a word.


To increase the TAM you'd have to make the product affordable (cheap) for the regular Joe.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serandur*
> 
> Next time Nvidia are hosting a GPU announcement event, we should all get tickets and fill up the audience then stand up and start booing when they announce the price. We can do that, right?


I'd buy the ticket and the transatlantic flight for the comedy value alone. Earnestly however, I'm less about booing the price tag and more about pontificating on how the pricing will shake out. I do so enjoy guessing-games.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pragmatist*
> 
> To increase the TAM you'd have to make the product affordable (cheap) for the regular Joe.


That's still just an assumption based on a comment from a known unreliable source. We don't have any actual solid evidence one way or the other about Polaris. Increasing market share is undoubtedly one of AMD's goals but it's not necessarily their only goal.


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pragmatist*
> 
> To increase the TAM you'd have to make the product affordable (cheap) for the regular Joe.


That's not the word cheap. His entire quote told us that he thinks the Pascal is going to be $600 or over and that the Polaris would be less than that. It states absolutely nothing about how powerful it is other than it will be VR level or exactly how much less it will be


----------



## KGPrime

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thebski*
> 
> You're not far off. In 2011 we were paying $500 for the best an architecture and process had to offer. 5 short years later, people are ecstatic to pay $700 for what would have been an x50 card then.
> 
> With no competition from AMD in sight, the nvidia conditioning train will roll on and it very well may get to that point.


All of the top end Nvidia cards since the year 2000 have been in between 500 and 600 dollars at launch.
Geforce 2 Ultra was about $550 bucks at launch when it came out in 2000 and had like *64Mb ram*,( Voodoo 5 6000 was about $600 bucks), Gtx 8800 was between $550/$600 *512Mb* iirc, Gtx 280 $550 *768Mb* iirc, Gtx 480 $500 ish, Gtx 580 same, Gtx 680 same *2Gb*, Gtx 780 $600, Gtx 980 $550 *4Gb*, Gtx 1080 $599 *8 Gb ram*.
Prices came down a little around 400- 500 series, but the average has still always been around $550.
Think you are getting hosed or something ? From 64Mb ram to 8 Gb and still around the same price, that's amazing really.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> if you want reference and you want to get the card early you're going to have no choice but to pay $700 for the 1080 FE.


There is always a price for being impatient.
I dont care if someone is too rush to get the next gen card on day one. That is still not what the price of the actual card going to be.

So it is irrelevant. The price is still going to be 600$ or maybe a bit less, and most likely afternarket cards will be just as good as the FE or maybe better.


----------



## greg1184

All I can say is thank goodness for EVGA's step up program. Just bought the 980ti Classified. Hopefully EVGA will show their lineup soon.


----------



## Pragmatist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> That's still just an assumption based on a comment from a known unreliable source. We don't have any actual solid evidence one way or the other about Polaris. Increasing market share is undoubtedly one of AMD's goals but it's not necessarily their only goal.


So, the source being an AMD representative is not an actual solid source for you? Instead you, a regular forum member claim that AMD made stuff up for laughs and giggles? C'mon dude, seriously.


----------



## Pragmatist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> That's not the word cheap. His entire quote told us that he thinks the Pascal is going to be $600 or over and that the Polaris would be less than that. It states absolutely nothing about how powerful it is other than it will be VR level or exactly how much less it will be


"*The reason Polaris is a big deal," continued Taylor, "is because I believe we will be able to grow that TAM significantly. I don't think Nvidia is going to do anything to increase the TAM, because according to everything we've seen around Pascal, it's a high-end part. I don't know what the price is gonna be, but let's say it's as low as £500/$600 and as high as £800/$1000. That price range is not going to expand the TAM for VR. We're going on the record right now to say Polaris will expand the TAM. Full stop."*

^ Based on him saying that Pascal is an high-end part, and also saying that they're going to set the price lower leads me to believe that Polaris is going to be less powerful. Do you honestly think that they'd release a card that could perform as well as the 1080 for less than $500/600?


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pragmatist*
> 
> "*The reason Polaris is a big deal," continued Taylor, "is because I believe we will be able to grow that TAM significantly. I don't think Nvidia is going to do anything to increase the TAM, because according to everything we've seen around Pascal, it's a high-end part. I don't know what the price is gonna be, but let's say it's as low as £500/$600 and as high as £800/$1000. That price range is not going to expand the TAM for VR. We're going on the record right now to say Polaris will expand the TAM. Full stop."*
> 
> ^ Based on him saying that Pascal is an high-end part, and also saying that they're going to set the price lower leads me to believe that Polaris is going to be less powerful. Do you honestly think that they'd release a card that could perform as well as the 1080 for less than $500/600?


That guy has never told truth, always lying. but now he is putting amd in a bad position so let's believe what he says. lol

and ati/amd has released better products for less money in past. so for market share they can do that again. why not just wait for the cards ? we don't even
know how much faster 1080 is in real world gaming.


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> AMD market share had already fell off a cliff and everyone were nailing their coffin lid shut. after the 970 came to market AMD dropped the 290x prices to just below it but the green team kept pumping cards out until the 3.5Gbs fiasco BUT both performed ~same since the 970 release except 1080 resolution.
> 
> but yeah the 390x had a slow start, as usual with AMD but now in some games (ok, just hitman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) its shaming both gm200 gpus.
> 
> people can spin it the way they want but AMD is still around -- it just takes them longer.


the biggest mistake AMD do is the price increase for 300 series rebrand.

IMO, they should have keep the price equal to 200 series.


----------



## carlhil2

I am waiting to see who puts out the "2G Edition" pascal gpu......anyways, congrats nVidia for putting out the first gpu to hit that number on air....


----------



## Klocek001

Help me with my math calculation cause I'm certenly doing sth wrong.
980Ti stock runs at 1200MHz GPU boost. 1500MHz OC would be 25% higher clock.
Now 1080 runs 1850MHz GPU boost (3D Mark entry), 2100MHz would be 13.5% improvement, 2200MHz 19%. Would have to hit +2300MHz to gain the same 25%. Hope it'll be able to.

well now on second thought if you get a 19% imprevement from a card that's already 25% faster stock, then you probably are getting more improvement than a 25% slower card from 25% OC.

We got 780 GHz from Gigabyte, now it's gonna be 1080 2GHz







Impressive to see such a clock spped improvement just in 2 generations.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> Help me with my math calculation cause I'm certenly doing sth wrong.
> 980Ti stock runs at 1200MHz GPU boost. 1500MHz OC would be 25% higher clock.
> Now 1080 runs 1850MHz GPU boost (3D Mark entry), 2100MHz would be 13.5% improvement, 2200MHz 19%. Would have to hit +2300MHz to gain the same 25%. Hope it'll be able to.


That 2200mhz was probably not the best it could do i think ( those guys aren't the best for oc) with better drivers and modded bios + some voltage tweaks it will probably achieve 2.3-2.4ghz. but that's just my opinion. still though i never thought i could see a gpu with over 2ghz. since they have so many COREZ


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> That 2200mhz was probably not the best it could do i think ( those guys aren't the best for oc) with better drivers and modded bios + some voltage tweaks it will probably achieve 2.3-.24ghz. but that's just my opinion. still though i never thought i could see a gpu with over 2ghz. since they have so many COREZ


I could see that under water...I think maxwell/pascal has similar OC headroom...


----------



## 364901

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> Help me with my math calculation cause I'm certenly doing sth wrong.
> 980Ti stock runs at 1200MHz GPU boost. 1500MHz OC would be 25% higher clock.
> Now 1080 runs 1850MHz GPU boost (3D Mark entry), 2100MHz would be 13.5% improvement, 2200MHz 19%. Would have to hit +2300MHz to gain the same 25%. Hope it'll be able to.
> 
> well now on second thought if you get a 19% imprevement from a card that's already 25% faster stock, then you probably are getting more improvement than a 25% slower card from 25% OC.
> 
> We got 780 GHz from Gigabyte, now it's gonna be 1080 2GHz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impressive to see such a clock spped improvement just in 2 generations.


The official base clock is 1607MHz, and boost is 1733MHz. Re-do your calculations based on those numbers and see what you come up with.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CataclysmZA*
> 
> The official base clock is 1607MHz, and boost is 1733MHz. Re-do your calculations based on those numbers and see what you come up with.


Card will always run above 1733mhz, and most likely around 18xxmhz. unless nvidia has removed 2nd boost.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Card will always run above 1733mhz, and most likely around 18xxmhz. unless nvidia has removed 2nd boost.


And maxwell boost is dpendant on it's asic. one of my 980Tis boosted to 1404, the other, 1418...it's a shame that one is gone and the other is going back to the shop...


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> And maxwell boost is dpendant on it's asic. one of my 980Tis boosted to 1404, the other, 1418...it's a shame that one is gone and the other is going back to the shop...


That asic thingy is mostly a myth, i had 2 970s last year, 77% and 54% but lower one can reach 1518mhz and higher one could only do 1480mhz. and you will find lots of example like this in owner's club.

oh, you are talking about boost.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> That asic thingy is mostly a myth, i had 2 970s last year, 77% and 54% but lower one can reach 1518mhz and higher one could only do 1480mhz. and you will find lots of example like this in owner's club.
> 
> oh, you are talking about boost.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CataclysmZA*
> 
> The official base clock is 1607MHz, and boost is 1733MHz. Re-do your calculations based on those numbers and see what you come up with.


I don't think we should use the official bease clock for that. In that case 1510/1075, my card has 40% overclock on stock voltage.
I think it's better to use the default gpu boost value in more or less standard temperatures, and I've seen it around 1.2GHz for reference 980Ti
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> And maxwell boost is dpendant on it's asic. one of my 980Tis boosted to 1404, the other, 1418...it's a shame that one is gone and the other is going back to the shop...


mine is 81.4% asic but only boosts to 1380MHz out of the box.


----------



## ozyo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Elmy*
> 
> Polaris 10 in June @ 299.99 and will beat a 1070....


announced or release ?


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I don't think we should use the official bease clock for that. In that case 1510/1075, my card has 40% overclock on stock voltage.
> I think it's better to use the default gpu boost value in more or less standard temperatures, and I've seen it around 1.2GHz for reference 980Ti
> mine is 81.4% asic but only boosts to 1380MHz out of the box.


I have/had Classifieds...


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I don't think we should use the official bease clock for that. In that case 1510/1075, my card has 40% overclock on stock voltage.
> I think it's better to use the default gpu boost value in more or less standard temperatures, and I've seen it around 1.2GHz for reference 980Ti


Wouldn't the problem with doing that be that NVIDIA can't guarantee the clock speeds of their partners, and therefore there's a large margin of clock speeds that are considered to be the "default" boost clock? I'd much rather base my calculations from NVIDIA's efforts, because there's at least the guarantee that it'll never be lower than 1733MHz in a boosted state.

As it is, every card is minutely different and has different boost clock speeds in a well-regulated environment. You can't take the scores from a MSI Gaming card, for example, and consider that to be the default boost clock to work off from. It should be the numbers that NVIDIA publishes. The fact that none of their partners will ship a card with 1607MHz base clocks, therefore pushing the numbers higher, shouldn't be factored into the math.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CataclysmZA*
> 
> Wouldn't the problem with doing that be that NVIDIA can't guarantee the clock speeds of their partners, and therefore there's a large margin of clock speeds that are considered to be the "default" boost clock? I'd much rather base my calculations from NVIDIA's efforts, because there's at least the guarantee that it'll never be lower than 1733MHz in a boosted state.
> 
> As it is, every card is minutely different and has different boost clock speeds in a well-regulated environment. You can't take the scores from a MSI Gaming card, for example, and consider that to be the default boost clock to work off from. It should be the numbers that NVIDIA publishes. The fact that none of their partners will ship a card with 1607MHz base clocks, therefore pushing the numbers higher, shouldn't be factored into the math.


I agree, ...


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pragmatist*
> 
> "*The reason Polaris is a big deal," continued Taylor, "is because I believe we will be able to grow that TAM significantly. I don't think Nvidia is going to do anything to increase the TAM, because according to everything we've seen around Pascal, it's a high-end part. I don't know what the price is gonna be, but let's say it's as low as £500/$600 and as high as £800/$1000. That price range is not going to expand the TAM for VR. We're going on the record right now to say Polaris will expand the TAM. Full stop."*
> 
> ^ Based on him saying that Pascal is an high-end part, and also saying that they're going to set the price lower leads me to believe that Polaris is going to be less powerful. Do you honestly think that they'd release a card that could perform as well as the 1080 for less than $500/600?


The problem with this is that if the gtx 1080 at stock, brings higher performance than a pretty heavily OCed 980 TI, we might get the stock GTX 1070 to perform similar to a stock 980 TI, which is a 380$ card.

So even with mid/high/whatever range 1080 to be 600$, a 980 TI similar performance 1070 (if this will be its performance range) will hit right were AMD are claiming they are targeting. And that is before the 1060/TI version which we will expect to come out in a couple of months.


----------



## Unkzilla

Going to be interesting to see what happens to current GPU prices over the next few weeks

I've seen a 980TI price dropped by 15% during the weekend already by one retailer in Aus

AMD cards would potentially need a 30% price drop in comparison to this new 1070 to remain a plausible purchase... whether or not they slash prices that far will be interesting to see


----------



## iLeakStuff

Reviews will be out May 17th


----------



## Klocek001

Pascal boost is 7.8% (1607/1733)
Maxwell is 7.5% (1000/1075)

However, in Maxwell reaches 1200MHz realistically, which is 11.6% over 1075MHz
We don't have info on Pascal, but if you take the 3Dmark leak number (1860MHz) that's 7.3% over 1733MHz.

Taking it further, 2100 is only 13% over 1866 while 1500 is 25% over 1200.
980Ti has a 384-bit bus, which would mean that 8GHz DDR5 would be equivalent to 12GHz 256-bit DDR5 on 1070, while I've seen 11GHz.

I come to the conclusion that I should rather look for a nice deal on a used 980Ti for SLI if I want more performance from two cards or 1070 SLI if I wanted less heat/power consumption.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Reviews will be out May 17th


that'd verify what I just calculated from the top of my head


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Reviews will be out May 17th


Now we're cooking with gas. Looking forward to seeing 1080/1070 put through their paces.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> Pascal boost is 7.8% (1607/1733)
> Maxwell is 7.5% (1000/1075)
> 
> However, in Maxwell reaches 1200MHz realistically, which is 11.6% over 1075MHz
> We don't have info on Pascal, but if you take the 3Dmark leak number (1860MHz) that's 7.3% over 1733MHz.
> 
> Taking it further, 2100 is only 13% over 1866 while 1500 is 25% over 1200.
> 980Ti has a 384-bit bus, which would mean that 8GHz DDR5 would be equivalent to 12GHz 256-bit DDR5 on 1070, while I've seen 11GHz.
> 
> I come to the conclusion that I should rather look for a nice deal on a used 980Ti for SLI if I want more performance from two cards or 1070 SLI if I wanted less heat/power consumption.
> that'd verify what I just calculated from the top of my head


So basically same thing as 780ti vs 970 ? drivers and dx12 will play a huge role here. well 10 days to go if may 17 news is legit.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> Pascal boost is 7.8% (1607/1733)
> Maxwell is 7.5% (1000/1075)
> 
> However, in Maxwell reaches 1200MHz realistically, which is 11.6% over 1075MHz
> We don't have info on Pascal, but if you take the 3Dmark leak number (1860MHz) that's 7.3% over 1733MHz.
> 
> Taking it further, 2100 is only 13% over 1866 while 1500 is 25% over 1200.
> 980Ti has a 384-bit bus, which would mean that 8GHz DDR5 would be equivalent to 12GHz 256-bit DDR5 on 1070, while I've seen 11GHz.
> 
> I come to the conclusion that I should rather look for a nice deal on a used 980Ti for SLI if I want more performance from two cards or 1070 SLI if I wanted less heat/power consumption.
> that'd verify what I just calculated from the top of my head


You are saying, once both are OCed, sli 980Ti will be faster than sli 1080?


----------



## iLeakStuff

Batman Arkham Knight


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Batman Arkham Knight


Is this proven legit?


----------



## mkclan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Batman Arkham Knight


fake


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkclan*
> 
> fake


Doesn't that look like sli 980s? even though fake, I wouldn't be surprised by similar performance....


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Doesn't that look like sli 980s? even though fake, I wouldn't be surprised by similar performance....


GTX 1080 performed 32% better.
Thats some seriously horrible SLI scaling from hell if that was the case

Edit:
Oh GTX 980 SLI. Well idk. Could be that, could be real. Who knows


----------



## mkclan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Batman Arkham Knight


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Doesn't that look like sli 980s?


Just check that youtube chanel and no reason believe to this video.
Sry my english


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkclan*
> 
> Just check that youtube chanel and no reason believe to this video.
> Sry my english


I see he have GTX 980Ti SLI though.
Cant be using that.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Batman Arkham Knight


I'd tend to agree with Klockek here, because he worked it out pretty much the same as I did. If that video is a stock 980Ti you can add 25-30% to the clock rate

If the heavily overclocked 980Ti is around the same performance as the stock 1080 and the 2100 1080 we've seen on the presentation is clocking 15% faster then the ref we saw in the 3d mark bench. Theres around a 10% improvement.

Not accounting for Async improvements and other new tech that might work better on the newer cards.

I reckon it will be similar to the 980 vs 780Ti again, 10-15 % faster getting further away as time progresses.

If I'm horribly wrong I might buy one.


----------



## Newbie2009

PRICEY


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> I'd tend to agree with Klockek here, because he worked it out pretty much the same as I did. If that video is a stock 980Ti you can add 25-30% to the clock rate
> 
> If the heavily overclocked 980Ti is around the same performance as the stock 1080 and the 2100 1080 we've seen on the presentation is clocking 15% faster then the ref we saw in the 3d mark bench. Theres around a 10% improvement.
> 
> Not accounting for Async improvements and other new tech that might work better on the newer cards.
> 
> I reckon it will be similar to the 980 vs 780Ti again, 10-15 % faster getting further away as time progresses.
> 
> If I'm horribly wrong I might buy one.


Just because it overclock at 2.1GHz with 67 deg C on a reference cooler doesnt mean that is the max OC. It could go till 2.3GHz or more if its on Water cooling with higher temps. Of cos the limit for voltage lockdown will be another issue.

I putting my safe bet on 2.4GHz on max headroom. Similar to 980 Ti, which has a total 50% OC headroom as compared to BASE CLOCK.


----------



## iLeakStuff

GTX 1080 and the rest of the Pascal cards will come with a new Boost algorithm than previous cards.

"GPU Boost 3.0"


----------



## n4p0l3onic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Lets inflate numbers because... well... real numbers are boring. Right?
> 
> The GTX 1080 will be 600$ (a bit over what the 980 released, but it will go down once polaris comes out)
> The GTX 1070 will be 380$ (similar)
> There is no price for the 1080 TI but I doubt 1100$, same with titan.
> 
> So stop making stuff up.
> 
> There never was a "$199 midrange card" which was several good %% above previous gen top end card.


Geforce 4 ti 4200
6600Gt
8800Gts
Gtx275
Gtx470

Those were the $200-300 cards that beat the previous flagships


----------



## barsh90

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Batman Arkham Knight


fake


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Just because it overclock at 2.1GHz with 67 deg C on a reference cooler doesnt mean that is the max OC. It could go till 2.3GHz or more if its on Water cooling with higher temps. Of cos the limit for voltage lockdown will be another issue.
> 
> I putting my safe bet on 2.4GHz on max headroom. Similar to 980 Ti, which has a total 50% OC headroom as compared to BASE CLOCK.


I just have a feeling if they could clock it that high on ambient cooling they already would have to show off.

Perhaps Pascal doesn't scale with voltage that well.


----------



## carlhil2

You dudes are buggin', 1080 will be at least 25% faster than 980Ti reference against reference, about 22% faster than Titan X....


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> You dudes are buggin', 1080 will be at least 25% faster than 980Ti reference against reference, about 22% faster than Titan X....


But they can just overclock the GTX 980Ti.
Because you know, GTX 1080 cant overclock. Only 980Ti can.









So much BS on this forum lately. The trolls are everywhere


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> But they can just overclock the GTX 980Ti.
> Because you know, GTX 1080 cant overclock. Only 980Ti can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much BS on this forum lately. The trolls are everywhere


Like nVidia couldn't improve on the maxwell formula, they are all but guaranteeing 2000G.....


----------



## thebski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KGPrime*
> 
> All of the top end Nvidia cards since the year 2000 have been in between 500 and 600 dollars at launch.
> Geforce 2 Ultra was about $550 bucks at launch when it came out in 2000 and had like *64Mb ram*,( Voodoo 5 6000 was about $600 bucks), Gtx 8800 was between $550/$600 *512Mb* iirc, Gtx 280 $550 *768Mb* iirc, Gtx 480 $500 ish, Gtx 580 same, Gtx 680 same *2Gb*, Gtx 780 $600, Gtx 980 $550 *4Gb*, Gtx 1080 $599 *8 Gb ram*.
> Prices came down a little around 400- 500 series, but the average has still always been around $550.
> Think you are getting hosed or something ? From 64Mb ram to 8 Gb and still around the same price, that's amazing really.


Sigh. This just proves my point exactly. I am basing a "top end" card on being the best a current technology has to offer (architecture and process). You are basing top end on the number their marketing team carves into the cooler. You think this GPU is anywhere near a top end 16nm Pascal GPU? Spoiler: this card will be a joke compared to the best 16nm Pascal has to offer.

Through Fermi, their marketing "best" and technological best were basically the same. With Kepler, we saw the beginning of the nvidia milking and consumer conditioning program. They realized it didn't matter where a GPU really stood relative to current technology. As long as they slapped an x80 sticker on the side and it could beat the previous best by a few points they could charge a flagship price and the sheeple would lap it up. It's working wonders obviously.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> But they can just overclock the GTX 980Ti.
> Because you know, GTX 1080 cant overclock. Only 980Ti can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much BS on this forum lately. The trolls are everywhere


I forming your own opinion based on what you've seen trolling?

Just want to see something concrete before I start waving a flag around.


----------



## hokk

So the GTX970 was £230 here

what will the 1070 be? 300+ ?







though it is a bit step up in performance.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> But they can just overclock the GTX 980Ti.
> Because you know, GTX 1080 cant overclock. Only 980Ti can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much BS on this forum lately. The trolls are everywhere
> 
> 
> 
> I forming your own opinion based on what you've seen trolling?
> 
> Just want to see something concrete before I start waving a flag around.
Click to expand...

GTX 1080 can't be overclocked confirmed.


----------



## SirWaWa

so which card is the fully unlocked one?


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> GTX 1080 can't be overclocked confirmed.


Intel gtx 1080k prebinned. Epic. I know that intels aproach will someday screw overclocking on other things.


----------



## Gdourado

I have the money in my pocket from selling my 390x.
I was ready to buy a xfx air-cooled fury but now I don't know.
I can get the fury for 360 euros.
The 1080 will be better. By how much, I don't know.
But here in Europe it can cost big money, like 600 or 650 euros.
That is a lot of money.
The 1070 might cost around 350 to 400 euros. But will it be better than the fury?
In this scenario, what is the best option?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> GTX 1080 can't be overclocked confirmed.


Now that's trolling, confirmed


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

1070 will be faster than Fury for sure.


----------



## barsh90

Did I miss something? Is the 1080 gtx locked and can't be overclocked?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *barsh90*
> 
> Did I miss something? Is the 1080 gtx locked and can't be overclocked?


No I was being sarcastic.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> 1070 will be faster than Fury for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> every amd fan right now
> [URL=http://htw.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2775423/width/500/height/1000%5B/IMG]htw.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2775423/width/500/height/1000[/IMG[/URL]][/QUOTE]
> 
> $750 Pro Duo incoming...
Click to expand...


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> $750 Pro Duo incoming...


Still it won't sell that much.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gdourado*
> 
> I have the money in my pocket from selling my 390x.
> I was ready to buy a xfx air-cooled fury but now I don't know.
> I can get the fury for 360 euros.
> The 1080 will be better. By how much, I don't know.
> But here in Europe it can cost big money, like 600 or 650 euros.
> That is a lot of money.
> The 1070 might cost around 350 to 400 euros. But will it be better than the fury?
> In this scenario, what is the best option?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


150W vs 250W
Titan X performance vs 15-20% lower performance
Good overclocking vs poor overclocking

GTX 1070 is the obvious choice.


----------



## mkclan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> 150W vs 250W
> Titan X performance vs 15-20% lower performance
> Good overclocking vs poor overclocking
> 
> GTX 1070 is the obvious choice.


there is no info about OC and performance, just speculation.
But I think 1070 will outperform the Fury.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gdourado*
> 
> I have the money in my pocket from selling my 390x.
> I was ready to buy a xfx air-cooled fury but now I don't know.
> I can get the fury for 360 euros.
> The 1080 will be better. By how much, I don't know.
> But here in Europe it can cost big money, like 600 or 650 euros.
> That is a lot of money.
> The 1070 might cost around 350 to 400 euros. But will it be better than the fury?
> In this scenario, what is the best option?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


It's a pretty safe bet that the 1070 will outperform the Fury by quite a bit, despite my 'complaining'







.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkclan*
> 
> there is no info about OC and performance, just speculation.
> But I think 1070 will outperform the Fury.


I am pretty sure 1070 will be faster than Fury. The 980 already gives Fury(non X) a run for its money.

Edit: I see you edited your post.


----------



## caswow

or the old 390x gives the 980 a run for its money.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *caswow*
> 
> or the old 390x gives the 980 a run for its money.


True, which makes the Fury that much more of a joke.


----------



## iLeakStuff

This is how Nvidia clear stocks now


----------



## Mudfrog

Just saw a used 980 ti for $439. It's dropping quick.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> This is how Nvidia clear stocks now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [URL=http://httw.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2775443/width/500/height/1000%5B/IMG]httw.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2775443/width/500/height/1000[/IMG[/URL]][/QUOTE]
> 
> What cards are those?


----------



## flopper

still not beating the radeon pro duo.
ah well.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mudfrog*
> 
> Just saw a used 980 ti for $439. It's dropping quick.


In all honesty, are they really worth more than max $350 at this point? You can get a brand new 1070 for $380 in a months time.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> What cards are those?


GK104 probably


----------



## airfathaaaaa

pretty sure they wont launch a regular 1070 at june 10 so no its not 380..


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> pretty sure they wont launch a regular 1070 at june 10 so no its not 380..


Pretty sure I saw that they will launch both reference and AIBs at the same time, so yes it is 380


----------



## xzamples

they've already started sending out review samples

a writer for forbes got one


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xzamples*
> 
> they've already started sending out review samples
> 
> a writer for forbes got one


yeah I've heard that aswell.

Let's hope the NDA ends next week and not May 27th


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Pretty sure I saw that they will launch both reference and AIBs at the same time, so yes it is 380


they havent said a single word about regular cards being launched together with the founders...they only said regular 1080 will come with some partners would be pretty stupid to launch together a card for *early adopters* as they said and at the same time launch the very same card only less factory clocked


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Hardwareluxx has there review sample. They speak of Founder Edition having higher quality material selection and processing to justify price increase. Sounds like binned chips maybe?

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hardwareluxx.de%2Findex.php%2Fnews%2Fhardware%2Fgrafikkarten%2F39116-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-in-der-redaktion-eingetroffen.html&edit-text=&act=url


----------



## killerhz

so will the 1080 outperform my 980Ti Classified? If so warrant me to upgrade?


----------



## headd

I really want to know why there is zero information about 1070.Why they keep it so secret?Its 1070 just so bad and it will perform 10-15% above GTX980?SO it will be epic fail.Or they have some surprise like 1070 also have DDR5X?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *killerhz*
> 
> so will the 1080 outperform my 980Ti Classified? If so warrant me to upgrade?


It probably does outperform it, but I don't know if that warrants an upgrade for you.

If you go GTX 1080 then wait for Classified 1080 when you upgrade from 980 Ti Classified.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> they havent said a single word about regular cards being launched together with the founders...they only said regular 1080 will come with some partners would be pretty stupid to launch together a card for *early adopters* as they said and at the same time launch the very same card only less factory clocked


Oh so wait another week then. Whats the big deal.

Also since you doesnt seem to have paid attention: The Founder`s version have better build quality and will be sold throughout the products life cycle. Not being sold and replaced. Its will be there among AIB versions.
People will pay premium for aluminium + better components + vapour chamber


----------



## KGPrime

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Batman Arkham Knight


Regardless if legit or not, 1080 non Ti isn't going to be better than that anyway, if even that good. 20ish Fps over a 980Ti is VERY optimistic, and 30-40fps is reserved for 1080Ti. Been owning Geforce cards since Geforce 1, always the same basic thing year after year.
Geforce 2 Ultra vs Geforce 3 non Ti 10-30fps increase depending on title "Opengl" ect http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce3-performance,311-8.html
480 vs 580 10 fps average increase http://www.techspot.com/review/359-nvidia-geforce-gtx-560ti/page6.html
580 vs 680 10 fps average increase http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review/11
580, 680, 780, 10 fps increase average between each http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review/12
680,780, 980 10 fps average increase http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review/12

Sometimes the x80Ti versions still beat the next regular x80 series. In other words a 980Ti could still beat a regular 1080 in some circumstances. Expect it. The 1080Ti will be the one to sht on the 980Ti. If you have a 980Ti or Titan X, this release should be meaningless to you.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thebski*
> 
> Sigh. This just proves my point exactly. I am basing a "top end" card on being the best a current technology has to offer (architecture and process). You are basing top end on the number their marketing team carves into the cooler. You think this GPU is anywhere near a top end 16nm Pascal GPU? Spoiler: this card will be a joke compared to the best 16nm Pascal has to offer.
> 
> Through Fermi, their marketing "best" and technological best were basically the same. With Kepler, we saw the beginning of the nvidia milking and consumer conditioning program. They realized it didn't matter where a GPU really stood relative to current technology. As long as they slapped an x80 sticker on the side and it could beat the previous best by a few points they could charge a flagship price and the sheeple would lap it up. It's working wonders obviously.


As above.
I do understand what you mean, but reality is it started long ago with like Geforce 2 Geforce 3Ti500 ect. As above i clearly understand what you are getting at. And i've said many times, anyone with a 980Ti shouldn't be giving a single fk about this release. I don't personally buy the 600 dollar card anymore so i don't care. I buy the 350 dollar card and run it for 3-4 years and get every penny worth i can out of it, and an upgrade is a true upgrade then. Gtx 1070 will be a massive upgrade and totally worth the 380 or whatever bucks i get it on sale at. 1080 or 1080Ti iDGAF about. Though someone else with a 660 or 770 ect might want the 1080 Now and and yet it would still be a huge upgrade. Sure they could wait save and spend more for better. There will always be the bigger better thing ( which is why i won't spend 600 dollars on a card anymore) and the people who don't have patience or have money to burn, let them. Not sure so many are so duped "sheeple" as you are making them out to be though, a lot of them probably just don't care or have different needs and were going to spend that money anyway.

Commence Circle Jerk.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Oh so wait another week then. Whats the big deal.
> 
> Also since you doesnt seem to have paid attention: The Founder`s version have better build quality and will be sold throughout the products life cycle. Not being sold and replaced. Its will be there among AIB versions.
> People will pay premium for aluminium + better components + vapour chamber


not really its either "being a better chip" that a site says or "for early adopters" as nvidia says (not that im debunking the "Better chip" but they cant sell a card like that and expect the aftermarket ones to have any sale it doesnt add up at all )
and since pretty much only 2-3 sites so far has been right on rumors i guess what jhh said is the truth (at least this is what people on beyond3d belives too mainly because gddr5x isnt really on full swing on this 11/12gb/s )


----------



## killerhz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> It probably does outperform it, but I don't know if that warrants an upgrade for you.
> 
> If you go GTX 1080 then wait for Classified 1080 when you upgrade from 980 Ti Classified.


cheers bro... might be best i wait it out anyways/


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mudfrog*
> 
> Just saw a used 980 ti for $439. It's dropping quick.


My face when I saw 980Ti Matrix Platinum and MSI Gold Edition on auction site today


Do those people even understand what they're doing ? with current PLN - USD rate they're gonna pay *more* for the 1080 than they did last year for 980Ti, and they're selling their platinum/gold edition cards for scraps.

Well, the better for me. I feel like I'm on supermarket sweep


----------



## iLeakStuff

heehehehehehehe

http://www.ebay.com/itm/EVGA-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980-Ti-6GB-Superclocked-ACX2-0-Boost-Graphics-Card-/272236439237?hash=item3f628e66c5:g:2NoAAOSwubRXLpk2


----------



## kcuestag

Has there been any official word on what the difference is between the normal 1080 and the founders edition?


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kcuestag*
> 
> Has there been any official word on what the difference is between the normal 1080 and the founders edition?


besides being a better chip and the various eye kandy it will be a highly clocked card 2+ghz


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kcuestag*
> 
> Has there been any official word on what the difference is between the normal 1080 and the founders edition?


Not Nvidia but pretty solid
https://hardforum.com/threads/gtx-1080-founders-edition.1898941/#post-1042280214


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kcuestag*
> 
> Has there been any official word on what the difference is between the normal 1080 and the founders edition?


yes the $100 price premium


----------



## doza

founders edition is suposed to be gold...

normal ones are suposed to be... well normal ones


----------



## Klocek001

maybe the moderator knows


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> heehehehehehehe
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/EVGA-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980-Ti-6GB-Superclocked-ACX2-0-Boost-Graphics-Card-/272236439237?hash=item3f628e66c5:g:2NoAAOSwubRXLpk2


I will laugh so hard if 1070 turns out to be slower than 980TI.We have zero information about 1070 except it have 38% less Teraflops power vs 1080 and use slow DDR5 so 25% less memory bandwidth.

Also why Nv keep 1070 so secret?It will be fail(like 15% faster than GTX980)?Or why they do this?


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> I will laugh so hard if 1070 turns out to be slower than 980TI.We have zero information about 1070 except it have 38% less Teraflops power vs 1080 and use slow DDR5 so 25% less memory bandwidth.
> 
> Also why Nv keep 1070 so secret?It will be fail(like 15% faster than GTX980)?Or why they do this?


The Tflop is pretty close to Titan X Tflop.

Most of this hectic rush to sell their 980 Ti is becz they wanted to upgrade to 1080, i think.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> I will laugh so hard if 1070 turns out to be slower than 980TI.We have zero information about 1070 except it have 38% less Teraflops power vs 1080 and use slow DDR5 so 25% less memory bandwidth.
> 
> Also why Nv keep 1070 so secret?It will be fail(like 15% faster than GTX980)?Or why they do this?


I think most people who sell their 980 Ti's are upgrading to a GTX 1080 anyways.

The GTX 1070 is going to be a sidegrade coming from the 980 Ti, but the GTX 1080 will be an update. Maybe in terms of raw performance it won't obliterate the 980 Ti, especially those that are heavily overclocked, but once the GTX 1080 is overclocked aswell it will be the better card in every possible regard and will only get better in the future with DX12 and better drivers.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> I will laugh so hard if 1070 turns out to be slower than 980TI.We have zero information about 1070 except it have 38% less Teraflops power vs 1080 and use slow DDR5 so 25% less memory bandwidth.
> 
> Also why Nv keep 1070 so secret?It will be fail(like 15% faster than GTX980)?Or why they do this?


To have all the attention on the GTX 1080.
GTX 1070 is the card with clearly the best value. Can`t have that ruining the show.
I think the focus was about the GTX 1080 because its the fastest. That was important for Nvidia to show

Could be reviews for both GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 at the same time though. Who knows.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I think most people who sell their 980 Ti's are upgrading to a GTX 1080 anyways.
> 
> The GTX 1070 is going to be a sidegrade coming from the 980 Ti, but the GTX 1080 will be an update. Maybe in terms of raw performance it won't obliterate the 980 Ti, especially those that are heavily overclocked, but once the GTX 1080 is overclocked aswell it will be the better card in every possible regard and will only get better in the future with DX12 and better drivers.


Yes but 1080 will cost 700USD in first few weeks anyway.So why sell 980Ti so cheap?







They must think 1070 will be faster so they selling it at 1070 price.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> Yes but 1080 will cost 700USD in first few weeks anyway.So why sell 980Ti so cheap?


because you can't get more for it.

Nobody is going to pay you more than 500$ for a 980 Ti now.

Hell I woudn't even pay 400$ for a 980 Ti right now, because :

- for 200$ more you will be able to get a GTX 1080 that is better and will get even better in the future. More VRAM. GDDR5X. new architecture. Pascal features, better DX12 etc.

- for 20$ less you will be able to buy a GTX 1070 which is basically on par with a 980 Ti.

Especially people who are playing on surround or VR are benefiting greatly from Pascal. In surround and VR I'd dare to say that a 980 Ti is completely outmatched against a GTX 1080. It's not even close.


----------



## Imouto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> I will laugh so hard if 1070 turns out to be slower than 980TI.We have zero information about 1070 except it have 38% less Teraflops power vs 1080 and use slow DDR5 so 25% less memory bandwidth.
> 
> Also why Nv keep 1070 so secret?It will be fail(like 15% faster than GTX980)?Or why they do this?


The GTX ~70 series has become the new bread winner for Nvidia they will make anything to make it look good.

- Release a crappy perf/$ GTX ~80 and make the the GTX ~70 look golden when it's still overpriced by not so many years ago standards. Try to make enough to meet the demand because you're selling them like hotcakes.
- Release a GTX Titan variant with an even more crappy perf/$ ratio.
- Release a GTX ~80 Ti matching the GTX Titan and doubling the GTX ~70 performance but keeping the same perf/$ and sell buttloads of them.
- Shout from the roofs that the new GTX ~70 matches the previous GTX Titan performance at a fraction of the price. Gamers will throw their panties at you.
- Raise the price for each tier a bit every year.
- Rinse and repeat.

At the end you have the GTX ~80 and GTX Titan thrown to the dogs to make their counterparts look good. People will love and hate you.

Nvidia you genius.


----------



## sugarhell

Also there is a big price gap between 1070 and 1080 for that reason.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imouto*
> 
> make the the GTX ~70 look golden when it's still overpriced by not so many years ago standards.


The 1070 is not overpriced.

Prices are not set arbitrarily by deities. They're set by the industry and the market in which they're relevant.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> The 1070 is not overpriced.
> 
> Prices are not set arbitrarily by deities. They're set by the industry and the market in which they're relevant.


If nvidia released the whole lineup the 1070 should be a 1060 and the 1080 should be a 1060ti. Just like 560 and 560ti.

But with this way the GP104 is a medium range gpu with a high end price. I expect AMD to do the same


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> The 1070 is not overpriced.
> 
> Prices are not set arbitrarily by deities. They're set by the industry and the market in which they're relevant.


450 isnt overpriced?


----------



## NuclearPeace

Yeah, i'm just completely jaded with pricing from the last few generations. Both AMD and NVIDIA show no interest in making the sub $300 or the $250 GPU market competitive again when you can squeeze more money out of people by shifting the sweet spot to $330.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Yeah, i'm just completely jaded with pricing from the last few generations. Both AMD and NVIDIA show no interest in making the sub $300 or the $250 GPU market competitive again when you can squeeze more money out of people by shifting the sweet spot to $330.


I think it sounds like AMD is exactly planing to target the sub 300$ segment with Polaris 10.


----------



## jezzer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> besides being a better chip and the various eye kandy it will be a highly clocked card 2+ghz


Can u link to the official word? Cant find it


----------



## bfedorov11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> Can u link to the official word? Cant find it


https://hardforum.com/threads/gtx-1080-founders-edition.1898941/#post-1042280214

Custom pcb?

Maybe it is possible OC will be controlled by power delivery. Didn't Jen mention that was the key to the high clock speeds?


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> heehehehehehehe
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/EVGA-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980-Ti-6GB-Superclocked-ACX2-0-Boost-Graphics-Card-/272236439237?hash=item3f628e66c5:g:2NoAAOSwubRXLpk2






A few TX have sold for ~$650. Crazy. Not a single 4k bench out there..


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> heehehehehehehe
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/EVGA-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980-Ti-6GB-Superclocked-ACX2-0-Boost-Graphics-Card-/272236439237?hash=item3f628e66c5:g:2NoAAOSwubRXLpk2


They're selling 980Tis in Canada for $309 USD ($400 CAD)









http://www.kijiji.ca/v-electronics/city-of-toronto/gigabyte-gtx-980ti-6gb/1163021659?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> They're selling 980Tis in Canada for $309 USD ($400 CAD)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.kijiji.ca/v-electronics/city-of-toronto/gigabyte-gtx-980ti-6gb/1163021659?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true


Thats not a bad price hehe

He even mention GTX 1070.
Bet anyone thats after cheap 980Ti`s use that as a negotiation to get price down


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Thats not a bad price hehe
> 
> He even mention GTX 1070.
> Bet anyone thats after cheap 980Ti`s use that as a negotiation to get price down


Maybe waiting for super cheap previous gen flagships to flood the market is a great strategy. You can buy 2 980Tis for the price of a single 1080.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfedorov11*
> 
> https://hardforum.com/threads/gtx-1080-founders-edition.1898941/#post-1042280214
> 
> Custom pcb?
> 
> Maybe it is possible OC will be controlled by power delivery. Didn't Jen mention that was the key to the high clock speeds?
> 
> A few TX have sold for ~$650. Crazy. Not a single 4k bench out there..


What a crock of... Seriously? $100 more for a "better" PCB and "better" cooler.



ASUS 980 Ti Strix: $20 over reference: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_STRIX_Gaming/
MSI 980 Ti Gaming: $30 over reference: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Ti_Gaming/
GIGABYTE 980 Ti G1 Gaming: $40 over reference: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_G1_Gaming/

Not even counting the reference PCB but custom cooler models that EVGA, Palit, and Zotac launched that were basically the same price as reference cards.


----------



## Alonjar

As somebody with a GTX 570 in his current budget rig, but has been wanting to make the leap to VR... I cant wait to buy a 1070.


----------



## phaseshift

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> What a crock of... Seriously? $100 more for a "better" PCB and "better" cooler.
> 
> 
> 
> ASUS 980 Ti Strix: $20 over reference: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_STRIX_Gaming/
> MSI 980 Ti Gaming: $30 over reference: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Ti_Gaming/
> GIGABYTE 980 Ti G1 Gaming: $40 over reference: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_G1_Gaming/
> 
> Not even counting the reference PCB but custom cooler models that EVGA, Palit, and Zotac launched that were basically the same price as reference cards.


I just came here to ask who she is?


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phaseshift*
> 
> I just came here to ask who she is?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Fernandez-Versini Thank @2010rig


----------



## kingduqc

Has anyone mentioned that the 1080 has lower Memory Bandwidth? Isn't that odd


----------



## nani17

When is AMD going to announce their cards


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> Has anyone mentioned that the 1080 has lower Memory Bandwidth? Isn't that odd


Than what? The 256-bit bus means it would need to run at 10500 to match 980 Ti, if that's what you mean.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nani17*
> 
> When is AMD going to announce their cards


No one knows. Maybe Computex.


----------



## bonami2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> They're selling 980Tis in Canada for $309 USD ($400 CAD)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.kijiji.ca/v-electronics/city-of-toronto/gigabyte-gtx-980ti-6gb/1163021659?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true


It still 600-800$ used in quebec..

Damn


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> heehehehehehehe
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/EVGA-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980-Ti-6GB-Superclocked-ACX2-0-Boost-Graphics-Card-/272236439237?hash=item3f628e66c5:g:2NoAAOSwubRXLpk2
> 
> 
> 
> They're selling 980Tis in Canada for $309 USD ($400 CAD)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.kijiji.ca/v-electronics/city-of-toronto/gigabyte-gtx-980ti-6gb/1163021659?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true
Click to expand...

I don't know why they would even sell it this cheap considering the exchange rate. A 379 US 1070 will cost 550CAD after tax.


----------



## michaelius

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> I'm not buying the rumor that AMD won't compete here. Of course they will.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Than what? The 256-bit bus means it would need to run at 10500 to match 980 Ti, if that's what you mean.


It's running at 10000 so pretty close already and Nvidia might have improved compression algorithms.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I don't know why they would even sell it this cheap considering the exchange rate. A 379 US 1070 will cost 550CAD after tax.


Some people just want to be done quickly with the transaction, so price it low and get rid of it fast. I usually take a bigger loss than most when I sell on kijiji for the same reasons.

Just don't want to think about it anymore than I need to.


----------



## Star Forge

I know I am a tad late to the party but I am impressed with Pascal so far. However, I am personally waiting for the 1080Ti on GP100 with HBM2. I think that card is going to be the ultimate game-changer for what Pascal can do. Well time to sell my Kepler Titans regardless!


----------



## i7monkey

And sometimes pricing it higher and waiting for the best offer will get you less. I sold my 980Ti a month ago for $750 so I'm happy. Not sure why people waited for 1080 before selling their 980ti.


----------



## jezzer

Does anyone know the performance LN cooled maxwell card?

Curious cuz;

"The only faster GPU is a Maxwell GPU immersed in liquid nitrogen," Huang said.

And that is compared to a 1080 running above 2000mhz


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> Does anyone know the performance N2o cooled maxwell card?
> 
> Curious cuz;
> 
> "The only faster GPU is a Maxwell GPU immersed in liquid nitrogen," Huang said.


Wasn't he just talking about clock speed?


----------



## jezzer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> Wasn't he just talking about clock speed?


Not sure, would be pointless to even speak of it was only about that


----------



## Ithanul

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Elyminator*
> 
> Am I the only one that wants a high end single slot card or at least potentially single slot from nvidia. drop the DVI port!


They better the god damn hell don't. Otherwise I have keep a old card around to use two of my high end monitors (they may be older, but they still great monitors). I rather not have to replace one of them that was not cheap to start off with.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> My face when I saw 980Ti Matrix Platinum and MSI Gold Edition on auction site today
> 
> 
> Do those people even understand what they're doing ? with current PLN - USD rate they're gonna pay *more* for the 1080 than they did last year for 980Ti, and they're selling their platinum/gold edition cards for scraps.
> 
> Well, the better for me. I feel like I'm on supermarket sweep


Basically me on craigslist. Hehe, most if not all my hardware is 2nd hand owned.







I have not paid full retail price in years now. I just wait when peeps off load their 1070s and 1080s when big die drops. Then when Volta drops and off load their big die Pascals. So far this strategy been working very good for me at keeping more money in bank.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> Does anyone know the performance LN cooled maxwell card?
> 
> Curious cuz;
> 
> "The only faster GPU is a Maxwell GPU immersed in liquid nitrogen," Huang said.
> 
> And that is compared to a 1080 running above 2000mhz


Titan X or 980 Ti under LN2 can break 2Ghz.

IPC is the same, so of course 2.1Ghz 2560 core is slower than 2Ghz 2816 / 3072 core.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> Does anyone know the performance LN cooled maxwell card?
> 
> Curious cuz;
> 
> "The only faster GPU is a Maxwell GPU immersed in liquid nitrogen," Huang said.
> 
> And that is compared to a 1080 running above 2000mhz


Well, since the 1080 can reach 2G on air, he is correct....


----------



## jdstock76

Told y'all it wasn't going to be more than $600.


----------



## Zantrill

2x 1070's and I'm good

Current situation


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> Wasn't he just talking about clock speed?


yeah I am pretty sure he did. He said achieve higher overclocks or something along the lines.

He didn't talk about performance. Only clock speed


----------



## jezzer

Yea well its the same as performance, don't think a 1080 will beat a 980 ti clocked on the same clocks lol

EDIT

Pretty sure the chance is bigger 980 Ti will win over the 1080









They can wake me up when they break the OC circle, if u know what i mean


----------



## carlhil2

I am sure that includes performance also....


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> Yea well its the same as performance, don't think a 1080 will beat a 980 ti clocked on the same clocks lol
> 
> EDIT
> 
> Pretty sure the chance is bigger 980 Ti will win over the 1080
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can wake me up when they break the OC circle, if u know what i mean


Yeah but comparing a Zombie 980 Ti LN2 cooled card with a reference design air cooled 1x8 pin power connector GTX 1080 is kinda pointless.

We all know that people are going to push the GTX 1080 much further than 2114 mhz.

The GTX 1080 will probably break all the 980 Ti records pretty easily.

Maybe in a couple of months someone managed to get the GTX 1080 running at 3GHZ. Maybe.

(oh you are a 980 Ti owner. Then I can understand your comment .. lol







)


----------



## jdstock76

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Yeah but comparing a Zombie 980 Ti LN2 cooled card with a reference design air cooled 1x8 pin power connector GTX 1080 is kinda pointless.
> 
> We all know that people are going to push the GTX 1080 much further than 2114 mhz.
> 
> The GTX 1080 will probably break all the 980 Ti records pretty easily.
> 
> Maybe in a couple of months someone managed to get the GTX 1080 running at 3GHZ. Maybe.
> 
> (oh you are a 980 Ti owner. Then I can understand your comment .. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


I don't understand why people think 980ti owners are butthurt about the "theoretical" performance of the 1080.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdstock76*
> 
> I don't understand why people think 980ti owners are butthurt about the "theoretical" performance of the 1080.


Maybe you shouldn't generalize. Not all 980 Ti owners are upset. Most of the 980 TI owners aren't upset. They bought the 980 Ti a long time ago.
Some sell their 980 Ti and buy a GTX 1080
Some buy a GTX 1080 because they buy all Nvidia cards.
Some stick to their 980 Ti and don't buy a GTX 1080.
Some are butthurt.
Some are not.

Looks pretty easy to me to differntiate


----------



## bonami2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Maybe you shouldn't generalize. Not all 980 Ti owners are upset. Most of the 980 TI owners aren't upset. They bought the 980 Ti a long time ago.
> Some sell their 980 Ti and buy a GTX 1080
> Some buy a GTX 1080 because they buy all Nvidia cards.
> Some stick to their 980 Ti and don't buy a GTX 1080.
> Some are butthurt.
> Some are not.
> 
> Looks pretty easy to me to differntiate


Yea that life for those owner of 980ti.

Everyone as issue with gpu... Im with 7950 and thinking of getting 2 1080. Since the 1070 may be heavily cut down. But maybe the 1080ti will be better..... Or amd..... Or... Damn so many or....

Im never gonna upgrade if i wait


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bonami2*
> 
> Yea that life for those owner of 980ti.
> 
> Everyone as issue with gpu... Im with 7950 and thinking of getting 2 1080. Since the 1070 may be heavily cut down. But maybe the 1080ti will be better..... Or amd..... Or... Damn so many or....
> 
> Im never gonna upgrade if i wait


get a 1080 and be happy. You have a good CPU. If you wait any longer your CPU will be outdated too.


----------



## bonami2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> get a 1080 and be happy. You have a good CPU. If you wait any longer your CPU will be outdated too.


Yea i know.. But still cpu lifespan is longer these days.. Not like core 2 era

Mine can clock up to 4.9 and im with 2400 ram.. I reach almost stock 5820k score


----------



## SuprUsrStan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *bonami2*
> 
> Yea that life for those owner of 980ti.
> 
> Everyone as issue with gpu... Im with 7950 and thinking of getting 2 1080. Since the 1070 may be heavily cut down. But maybe the 1080ti will be better..... Or amd..... Or... Damn so many or....
> 
> Im never gonna upgrade if i wait
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get a 1080 and be happy. You have a good CPU. If you wait any longer your CPU will be outdated too.
Click to expand...

Get a single 1080. When the 1180 reassess and see if you should pick up a single 1180 or another 1080.









*Assuming you're playing either 1080 or 1440. If 4K consider going SLI 1080.


----------



## bonami2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> Get a single 1080. When the 1180 reassess and see if you should pick up a single 1180 or another 1080.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Assuming you're playing either 1080 or 1440. If 4K consider going SLI 1080.


Yea I never purchased a full price gpu yet so it do make sense.. See if the next upgrade is worth it.. And if yes sell or go sli.

Im at 5760x1080 so 25% less power than 4k. Im doing well with a 7950. In crossfire i get the minimum fps i want so a 1080 should give me like 150+ % of performance.. And in sli im good for at least 4-5 years +


----------



## SuprUsrStan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bonami2*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Syan48306*
> 
> Get a single 1080. When the 1180 reassess and see if you should pick up a single 1180 or another 1080.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Assuming you're playing either 1080 or 1440. If 4K consider going SLI 1080.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I never purchased a full price gpu yet so it do make sense.. See if the next upgrade is worth it.. And if yes sell or go sli.
> 
> Im at 5760x1080 so 25% less power than 4k. Im doing well with a 7950. In crossfire i get the minimum fps i want so a 1080 should give me like 150+ % of performance.. And in sli im good for at least 4-5 years +
Click to expand...

Oh you're almost at 4K.

It really depends on how much money you want to drop right now. 1080 SLI isn't a bad way to spend money if you've got it.

Personally, I run a 32" 4K G-Sync monitor with triple 980 Ti's and found that a single 980ti was just not enough for 4K. I'm guessing even with a single GTX 1080 you might be stressing the card and unless you're running g-sync you'll need a second. I debated between two Titans X or three 980Ti's and I went with the latter just because it fills out the case better and looks better.

Next round, I'm leaning towards turning in my 980ti's for two GP Titans. Between better scaling and better performance of two titans vs three 1080Ti, I think it'll be pretty comparable in most games since they've just got piss poor 3 way scaling. However, in broken SLI titles, a single GP Titan > GTX 1080Ti.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> Does anyone know the performance LN cooled maxwell card?
> 
> Curious cuz;
> 
> "The only faster GPU is a Maxwell GPU immersed in liquid nitrogen," Huang said.
> 
> And that is compared to a 1080 running above 2000mhz


It takes a bit to navigate the site, but HWBot has quite a few of the top OC guys on there. I didn't dig around much, just looked at #1 guy overall, found an entry for him with a 980Ti

2100

http://hwbot.org/submission/3188488_

Trouble is, the 1080 does that on air, the logistics of a 24/7 LN2 rig to keep the 980Ti @ 2100 would be daunting.


----------



## SuprUsrStan

I only go as far as 1500 even under water. 2000mhz+ is certainly in LN2 territory. Pascal is utterly amazing in raw clocks.


----------



## kx11

according to nowinstock.net GTX 1080 was in stock on amazon.com 2 months ago

http://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/nvidia/gtx1080/full_history.php


----------



## zGunBLADEz

So guys what we are guessing be the overclock potential on this card with only 1-8pin connector ? we are talking abot 150 watts plus 75 watts pciex power..max TDP of 225 with a hacked bios maybe a lil bit more pushing it thru a bios mod if possible?

This would remind us of the TITAN OG days when we saw people unplugin gpu fan to squeeze those extra watts out?


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> Not sure, would be pointless to even speak of it was only about that


He was talking about hitting 2ghz+ on air, and comparing it to LN2 maxwell, nobody cares about performance on LN2 except to get a number for a leaderboard. The comparison was very obviously about clock speed.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zGunBLADEz*
> 
> So guys what we are guessing be the overclock potential on this card with only 1-8pin connector ? we are talking abot 150 watts plus 75 watts pciex power..max TDP of 225 with a hacked bios maybe a lil bit more pushing it thru a bios mod if possible?
> 
> This would remind us of the TITAN OG days when we saw people unplugin gpu fan to squeeze those extra watts out?


The 2114mhz for the Founders Edition may already be a very best case scenario for 1x8 pin.


----------



## cdoublejj

No DVI-I, think i'll pass. and no active adapters aren't fast enough if that's what your thinking.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> No DVI-I, think i'll pass. and no active adapters aren't fast enough if that's what your thinking.


Yeah. That will be an issue when you time travel back to 1993. Need that analog still.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Yeah. That will be an issue when you time travel back to 1993. Need that analog still.


my 120hz rate monitor also has only DVI as input









But to be fair I'd upgrade to 1440p 144hz IPS G-Sync if I were to buy a GTX 1080.


----------



## cdoublejj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Yeah. That will be an issue when you time travel back to 1993. Need that analog still.


specialized emissive display monitors (think OLED) . until now Nvidia has been pretty good about including at least DVI-I port.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Yeah. That will be an issue when you time travel back to 1993. Need that analog still.


I still have room on my desk for a CRT, and it's lower latency than any LCD.


----------



## Imouto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> The 1070 is not overpriced.
> 
> Prices are not set arbitrarily by deities. They're set by the industry and the market in which they're relevant.


You're right, it's no use crying over spilled milk. This tier pricing is here to stay.

I just hope AMD is able to put a bit of pressure and for TFSM's sake stay around for a bit.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> my 120hz rate monitor also has only DVI as input
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to be fair I'd upgrade to 1440p 144hz IPS G-Sync if I were to buy a GTX 1080.


He was saying he wants analog output from the video card without an adapter. DVI-I has the analog portion while DVI-D, what Nvidia is switching to, is digital only.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> specialized emissive display monitors (think OLED) . until now Nvidia has been pretty good about including at least DVI-I port.


Analog only though? Seems legit.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> I still have room on my desk for a CRT, and it's lower latency than any LCD.


Does that even matter unless you're a professional gamer and do they even use CRTs at all for those contests?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> He was saying he wants analog output from the video card without an adapter. DVI-I has the analog portion while DVI-D, what Nvidia is switching to, is digital only.


Oh I am an idiot.

Yeah I have DVI-D.

My bad. Apologies


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Oh I am an idiot.
> 
> Yeah I have DVI-D.
> 
> My bad. Apologies


Although if you didn't have DVI on your card, you could do HDMI or DP to DVI. I think a passive adapter works for up to 1 monitor then it needs an active adapter. No idea how much (if any) an active adapter adds to lag.


----------



## michaelius

http://www.overclock.net/t/1599467/deliddedtech-hidden-information-found-in-html-source-code-of-nvidia-s-gtx-1080-page

this thread mention analog signal output on 1080

Passive HDMI to DVI adapters don't work for 2560x1440 displays and those would be the ones most worth keeping


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Maybe you shouldn't generalize. Not all 980 Ti owners are upset. Most of the 980 TI owners aren't upset. They bought the 980 Ti a long time ago.
> Some sell their 980 Ti and buy a GTX 1080
> Some buy a GTX 1080 because they buy all Nvidia cards.
> Some stick to their 980 Ti and don't buy a GTX 1080.
> Some are butthurt.
> Some are not.
> 
> Looks pretty easy to me to differntiate


I feel for Titan X owners, sitting with a card that's barely worth the price considering the low price/performance ratio compared to the GTX 980 Ti.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *michaelius*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1599467/deliddedtech-hidden-information-found-in-html-source-code-of-nvidia-s-gtx-1080-page
> 
> this thread mention analog signal output on 1080
> 
> Passive HDMI to DVI adapters don't work for 2560x1440 displays and those would be the ones most worth keeping


The TCONs are still in there, I'll bet. It'll be up to the AIB partners to add in DVI support as necessary.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Only people that should be upset that bought the 980ti recently, if you bought it when it came out you had an awesome card for a year.


----------



## Serandur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> And sometimes pricing it higher and waiting for the best offer will get you less. I sold my 980Ti a month ago for $750 so I'm happy. Not sure why people waited for 1080 before selling their 980ti.


Woah, woah... mate, you come into literally every Pascal thread and complain about people not understanding how much of a rip-off buying a mid-range chip for increasingly flagship prices is... and yet you preemptively sold your 980 Ti in preparation for buying said mid-range chip for flagship price?









Words ≠ Actions


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CataclysmZA*
> 
> I feel for Titan X owners, sitting with a card that's barely worth the price considering the low price/performance ratio compared to the GTX 980 Ti.


I don't feel for Titan X owners.

Someone who can spend 1000$ on a GPU probably is pretty well off and doesn't worry about rent, food, etc.

Also there is a very small niche of gamers who simply "have to" go with multiple Titan X if they want certain resolutions.

Like surround 4K or higher does go quite well with 12GB of VRAM.


----------



## bonami2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I don't feel for Titan X owners.
> 
> Someone who can spend 1000$ on a GPU probably is pretty well off and doesn't worry about rent, food, etc.
> 
> Also there is a very small niche of gamers who simply "have to" go with multiple Titan X if they want certain resolutions.
> 
> Like surround 4K or higher does go quite well with 12GB of VRAM.


Lot of people can spend 1k+

It all depend on priority.

Minimum salary + relationship... 1400$ + 1400$ 2800$ With 1500$ you can live and maintain a used car. You still have 1200$ to spend. Montly

Sure get new car new house new new new...

And now look at 0$









Sure food is the issue... Can cost 300$ for two or 1000$ All depend on what you eat


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bonami2*
> 
> Lot of people can spend 1k+
> 
> It all depend on priority.
> 
> Minimum salary + relationship... 1400$ + 1400$ 2800$ With 1500$ you can live and maintain a used car. You still have 1200$ to spend. Montly
> 
> Sure get new car new house new new new...
> 
> And now look at 0$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure food is the issue... Can cost 300$ for two or 1000$ All depend on what you eat


Correction.....single people w/o kids may


----------



## bfedorov11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CataclysmZA*
> 
> I feel for Titan X owners, sitting with a card that's barely worth the price considering the low price/performance ratio compared to the GTX 980 Ti.


I was ok with 980ti prices at release. On 4k I would want more than 6g anyway. I went through that situation with 2x 780ti which I had for well less than a year.

Still waiting for 4k benchmarks with the 1080. There is no way I would consider upgrading unless it is ~30% more frames in 4k. If I get a year and a half or two years out of them, I'll be happy.


----------



## bonami2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> Correction.....single people w/o kids may


Oh yea that count too.... $$$ go down with kid very fast i suspect. But even then.. Some parent kinda give nothing to their kid except food.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Base on what? The fact that the reference cooler comes with $699, not clear enough? lol.


Get at me in 2 years


----------



## Aggrotech

OC'd to 2.1GHz @ 67C according to Awesomesauce. Stated they had graphs up to prove it. cray


----------



## V1ct1m1z3r

Yassss! Do want!



Cant wait for those 4K benches...


----------



## sugalumps

Someones msi 980ti gaming went for £440 on ebay tempted to sell mine, bets on what price the aftermarket 1080's will be? I am hoping about £540 at max as I dont mind putting £100 towards the upgrade. Basically means we rented our 980ti for a year.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bonami2*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> Correction.....single people w/o kids may
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yea that count too.... $$$ go down with kid very fast i suspect. But even then.. Some parent kinda give nothing to their kid except food.
Click to expand...

wow.

just wow.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CataclysmZA*
> 
> I feel for Titan X owners, sitting with a card that's barely worth the price considering the low price/performance ratio compared to the GTX 980 Ti.


It's funny to me, as an owner of both TitanX and 980Ti, that anyone would be concerned for how I spend my money. With every other GPU (or CPU, or floppy disk drive) I've ever bought, I never harbored any notion that it would reign supreme for eternity. They were great cards last Thursday, they didn't cease to function Saturday morning (and yeah, somebody is sure to bring up driver gimping, got it).

On top of all of this, I'm as pumped as anybody about the Pascal cards. I'll have some of them at some point, count on it. I'm not going to run out and buy any first day any more than I'm going to declare my current cards inoperable that same day. Let other guys work out the bugs, figure out the bios mods, and I'll slide in when the big boy Pascals come along.

And you know what? Somebody will, without a doubt, post how they feel sorry for the big Pascal guys when the next gen hits.









On the other hand, I'm befuddled by people who would buy computer gear and worry about what they can sell it for tomorrow. To me, that's like buying a set of tires for you car and wondering what you can sell them for tomorrow. The last set of tires I bought cost about what a TitanX does, and I'll have to pay a fee to get rid of them when I am finished running them. Sure, I'll sell gear I no longer have any use for - I recently sold a 680 Lightning some months after replacing it (and giving the other away here to a guy who had been ripped off trying to buy one elsewhere).

I still run a 65" 1080p plasma TV, even though 4K TVs are out. My TV didn't stop working, in fact it still serves me very well - I have no idea what I could sell it for, I don't care. Likely a fraction of what it cost, but it never crossed my mind that I should sell it. If it's still running when all programming is 4K, I'll replace it.

So don't feel sorry for me, I'm still running some of the stoutest gear around, and when I feel the need, I'll have some of the stoutest gear again. All without having to worry what I can get for what I currently run.

And I'm not rich, somebody is sure to make that accusation. House paid for, car paid for, retirement funded, but no winters on the French Riviera.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *CataclysmZA*
> 
> I feel for Titan X owners, sitting with a card that's barely worth the price considering the low price/performance ratio compared to the GTX 980 Ti.
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny to me, as an owner of both TitanX and 980Ti, that anyone would be concerned for how I spend my money. With every other GPU (or CPU, or floppy disk drive) I've ever bought, I never harbored any notion that it would reign supreme for eternity. They were great cards last Thursday, they didn't cease to function Saturday morning (and yeah, somebody is sure to bring up driver gimping, got it).
> 
> On top of all of this, I'm as pumped as anybody about the Pascal cards. I'll have some of them at some point, count on it. I'm not going to run out and buy any first day any more than I'm going to declare my current cards inoperable that same day. Let other guys work out the bugs, figure out the bios mods, and I'll slide in when the big boy Pascals come along.
> 
> And you know what? Somebody will, without a doubt, post how they feel sorry for the big Pascal guys when the next gen hits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I'm befuddled by people who would buy computer gear and worry about what they can sell it for tomorrow. To me, that's like buying a set of tires for you car and wondering what you can sell them for tomorrow. The last set of tires I bought cost about what a TitanX does, and I'll have to pay a fee to get rid of them when I am finished running them. Sure, I'll sell gear I no longer have any use for - I recently sold a 680 Lightning some months after replacing it (and giving the other away here to a guy who had been ripped off trying to buy one elsewhere).
> 
> I still run a 65" 1080p plasma TV, even though 4K TVs are out. My TV didn't stop working, in fact it still serves me very well - I have no idea what I could sell it for, I don't care. Likely a fraction of what it cost, but it never crossed my mind that I should sell it. If it's still running when all programming is 4K, I'll replace it.
> 
> So don't feel sorry for me, I'm still running some of the stoutest gear around, and when I feel the need, I'll have some of the stoutest gear again. All without having to worry what I can get for what I currently run.
> 
> And I'm not rich, somebody is sure to make that accusation. House paid for, car paid for, retirement funded, but no winters on the French Riviera.
Click to expand...

I appreciated reading your post. Have some rep.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

i just wonder what kind of tires are those that costs so much as a titan x lol


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> i just wonder what kind of tires are those that costs so much as a titan x lol


Probably good and big.


----------



## V1ct1m1z3r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> i just wonder what kind of tires are those that costs so much as a titan x lol


Depends on the wheel size, what you will use the tire for, and mileage rating. For example, 22" tires may run $200 -400 apiece, depending on if you want low profile or off road rated and if you want high mileage. My 22's cost $175 apiece, are low profile, and warrantied for 40k miles. But we are getting off topic.


----------



## cdoublejj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> He was saying he wants analog output from the video card without an adapter. DVI-I has the analog portion while DVI-D, what Nvidia is switching to, is digital only.
> Analog only though? Seems legit.
> Does that even matter unless you're a professional gamer and do they even use CRTs at all for those contests?


it is indeed analogue only. 1440p @ 85hz with emissive display. darker darks than VA and brighter brights than IPS and half the latency if even that.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> i just wonder what kind of tires are those that costs so much as a titan x lol


Set of 4 mounted, balanced, tax, disposal fee, new valve stems - $180/ea tires turn into $1000/set pretty quick.


----------



## Pandora's Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bonami2*
> 
> Lot of people can spend 1k+
> 
> It all depend on priority.
> 
> Minimum salary + relationship... 1400$ + 1400$ 2800$ With 1500$ you can live and maintain a used car. You still have 1200$ to spend. Montly
> 
> Sure get new car new house new new new...
> 
> And now look at 0$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure food is the issue... Can cost 300$ for two or 1000$ All depend on what you eat


Single + company car = moneh for Titan X


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> i just wonder what kind of tires are those that costs so much as a titan x lol


I just paid 40,000$ for a set of new tires for my Bugatti Veyron.

They are all right.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Set of 4 mounted, balanced, tax, disposal fee, new valve stems - $180/ea tires turn into $1000/set pretty quick.


a toyo r888 set here on the most richest country of the world(greece) is 1100(depending ) a titan x here costs 1400 almost lol


----------



## doritos93

Maybe it's me, maybe I'm a little messed up, but I can't seem to figure out why people are selling their cards cheap based such little performance information ? Not a single review, bench, chart exists the can tell us how the 1070 or 1080 actually stack up against the skus their replacing and people are going mad? We essentially got their prices and vague slides about VR to go off. Am I missing something ??


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doritos93*
> 
> Maybe it's me, maybe I'm a little messed up, but I can't seem to figure out why people are selling their cards cheap based such little performance information ? Not a single review, bench, chart exists the can tell us how the 1070 or 1080 actually stack up against the skus their replacing and people are going mad? We essentially got their prices and vague slides about VR to go off. Am I missing something ??


The GTX 1080 is 20-25% faster than the Titan X.
The GTX 1080 is faster than 980 SLI.

Both of those statements have nothing to do with VR. I think Luke, Paul, JayZtwocents even said so on an after stream when they talked to nvidia people.

In VR the GTX 1080 is twice as fast as a Titan X.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doritos93*
> 
> Maybe it's me, maybe I'm a little messed up, but I can't seem to figure out why people are selling their cards cheap based such little performance information ? Not a single review, bench, chart exists the can tell us how the 1070 or 1080 actually stack up against the skus their replacing and people are going mad? We essentially got their prices and vague slides about VR to go off. Am I missing something ??


They shouldn't. But their mindset is like this; They think the 1070 will match and out perform a GTX 980Ti (and from all the hype reports and if we believe it, it will) with the hype train. So the fear is when it does come out with the MSRP of the GTX 1070 being 380ish dollars their cards (GTX980, 980Ti and Titan X) won't sell for anywhere near that amount. So people are trying to get out of the game now and get as "much" as they think for their cards now before the release of the GTX 1070 and 1080 launch.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Fernandez-Versini Thank @2010rig


Isn't she great? That pic serves its purpose, always
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I just paid 40,000$ for a set of new tires for my Bugatti Veyron.
> 
> They are all right.


Pics or it didn't happen ?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> They shouldn't. But their mindset is like this; They think the 1070 will match and out perform a GTX 980Ti (and from all the hype reports and if we believe it, it will) with the hype train. So the fear is when it does come out with the MSRP of the GTX 1070 being 380ish dollars their cards (GTX980, 980Ti and Titan X) won't sell for anywhere near that amount. So people are trying to get out of the game now and get as "much" as they think for their cards now before the release of the GTX 1070 and 1080 launch.


The GTX 1070 is definitively going to push down the price of the 980 Ti.

Nvidia said it loud and clear on stage :

*"The GTX 1070 is faster than the Titan X".*

and they are not talking about VR only.

https://www.techpowerup.com/222280/nvidia-also-announces-usd-379-faster-than-titan-x-gtx-1070

https://www.vg247.com/2016/05/07/nvidia-reveals-geforce-gtx-1080-and-gtx-1070-both-faster-than-titan-x/

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-launch/

and so on..

It may only be ever so slightly faster, but we all know how it will end with Maxwell once Pascal cards come out.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> The GTX 1070 is definitively going to push down the price of the 980 Ti.
> 
> Nvidia said it loud and clear on stage :
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> *"The GTX 1070 is faster than the Titan X".*
> 
> and they are not talking about VR only.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/222280/nvidia-also-announces-usd-379-faster-than-titan-x-gtx-1070
> 
> https://www.vg247.com/2016/05/07/nvidia-reveals-geforce-gtx-1080-and-gtx-1070-both-faster-than-titan-x/
> 
> http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-launch/
> 
> and so on..
> 
> It may only be ever so slightly faster, but we all know how it will end with Maxwell once Pascal cards come out
> 
> 
> .


And I'm sad to say this but I actually believe them. I think the GTX 1070/1080 will come out swinging and take the W. Unlike another group who likes to string us a long for months and when it actually drops its just good enough.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> And I'm sad to say this but I actually believe them. I think the GTX 1070/1080 will come out swinging and take the W. Unlike another group who likes to string us a long for months and when it actually drops its just good enough.


I am not doubting Nvidia to win.

Nvidia is great at selling their GPUs and binding people to their products.


----------



## xzamples

for those of you wondering what "founders edition" is or means... it basically is:

founders edition = reference

http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2427-difference-between-gtx-1080-founders-edition-and-reference


----------



## Rei86

Wait it out this time around for the Ti reference card.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xzamples*
> 
> for those of you wondering what "founders edition" is or means... it basically is:
> 
> founders edition = reference
> 
> http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2427-difference-between-gtx-1080-founders-edition-and-reference


Can't wait to hear about ppl buying them, then putting water blocks on them.


----------



## doritos93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> The GTX 1070 is definitively going to push down the price of the 980 Ti.
> 
> Nvidia said it loud and clear on stage :
> 
> *"The GTX 1070 is faster than the Titan X".*
> 
> and they are not talking about VR only.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/222280/nvidia-also-announces-usd-379-faster-than-titan-x-gtx-1070
> 
> https://www.vg247.com/2016/05/07/nvidia-reveals-geforce-gtx-1080-and-gtx-1070-both-faster-than-titan-x/
> 
> http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-launch/
> 
> and so on..
> 
> It may only be ever so slightly faster, but we all know how it will end with Maxwell once Pascal cards come out.


Ah! Why did you link 3 articles citing the same presentation from nVidia we all saw? We know what nVidia said but...

I mean real benches, real world performance, since when do we take the manufacturers word as gospel? Wouldn't it be safer to see the 1070 best the TX in any and all applications for yourself instead of making your decision based on PR events hosted by manufacturers?

Looking forward to them numbers


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doritos93*
> 
> *Ah! Why did you link 3 articles citing the same presentation from nVidia we all saw? We know what nVidia said but...*
> 
> I mean real benches, real world performance, since when do we take the manufacturers word as gospel? Wouldn't it be safer to see the 1070 best the TX in any and all applications for yourself instead of making your decision based on PR events hosted by manufacturers?
> 
> Looking forward to them numbers


That is a good question









Well we have to take Nvidias word for it. I don't think they are straight up lying to us about it.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandora's Box*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *bonami2*
> 
> Lot of people can spend 1k+
> 
> It all depend on priority.
> 
> Minimum salary + relationship... 1400$ + 1400$ 2800$ With 1500$ you can live and maintain a used car. You still have 1200$ to spend. Montly
> 
> Sure get new car new house new new new...
> 
> And now look at 0$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure food is the issue... Can cost 300$ for two or 1000$ All depend on what you eat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Single + company car = moneh for Titan X
Click to expand...

pretty sure if on perc of the job is a car then $1K is less than weekly salary.

on the flip side i did some research for one of those "why people pirate games thread" and found:

for the cost of living for a couple with 2 kids it take a minimum of $24 an hour (40 hrs week / 52 weeks year @~17% taxes) to afford 2 $60 games on steam in that year.

i make less than half of that, bought a cheap house in an economically depressed neighborhood, so ~$1K will buy *just the shingles* i need to fix my leaking roof or a new gpu. the furnace is dead but ran a gas pipe to a wall heater since only use one room anyhow and i hope the water heater holds out a while longer or its going to be some cold showers for awhile.









its's like people thinks money grows on trees. (and i ought to add) and there are minimum expenses in life.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xzamples*
> 
> for those of you wondering what "founders edition" is or means... it basically is:
> 
> founders edition = reference
> 
> http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2427-difference-between-gtx-1080-founders-edition-and-reference


It appears to be a $100 premium for buying early before the release of reference cards. I have a feeling that we won't see non-reference designs until AMD releases Polaris... Milk it for all it's worth...


----------



## jdstock76

Edit: Cleaned


----------



## carlhil2

Lol, wow, the over reactressing over Pascal by some is unreal.....


----------



## Quasimojo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Nvidia marketing works otherwise they wouldn't be giving us less and less each generation while asking for more and more money.
> 
> There's nothing impressive about higher core counts or higher clock speeds if the performance is lacking, and it is. 20-25% over Titan X isn't great, it's not even good, it's mediocre. It's less than what we saw with the 680 over the 580 and it's $100-$200 more on a similar sized midrange chip. Their marketing even works on enthusiasts.


It's impressive enough, if you haven't upgraded in a couple generations. If you have, then you just have to decide for yourself if it's worth the cost. For some it is, for others it's not. Not sure what the angst is about. If it's not good enough for you, don't buy it. Wait for the next one or the one after. What exactly do you find offensive about that?


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quasimojo*
> 
> It's impressive enough, if you haven't upgraded in a couple generations. If you have, then you just have to decide for yourself if it's worth the cost. For some it is, for others it's not?


I am using gtx 670, hmm i wonder would that be a big jump worthy of upgrade? My card is starting to show its age already with some random artifact and i last check the warranty is out. Ugh!


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I am using gtx 670, hmm i wonder would that be a big jump worthy of upgrade? My card is starting to show its age already with some random artifact and i last check the warranty is out. Ugh!


Really big. 2.5X big. Mostly because Kepler sucks now.


----------



## looniam

the good deal NOW is getting a gently used 980TI for ~half the price of 1080 FE.


----------



## nani17

I've been waiting for Pascal for a long time now but I really wanted HBM2 memory now I have to decide to I want to wait another 6 or 7 months for possibly a card that will cost 1000


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Going from 680 Lightning SLI to a 980Ti was a huge upgrade for me, I can only imagine the move from a single 670 to any 10XX would be pretty sweet.


----------



## behappy

I am getting on the bandwagon with this new card. 9 teraflops of single-precision floating point performance, Sold for $399 in June. Lets see a titan or a 1070 for one third of the cost.....


----------



## antonio8

I still don't get all the fuss why some are mad or thinking this is not worth it. Sure if you have a Titan X or a 980ti then the prices might seem absurd but no one is saying go out and buy it on day one.

Nvidia said they spent over 2 billion dollars on this chip through R&D. People really thought it would be a $350 dollar card on the 1080. New tech always cost more to those early adopters. OLED tv's was around $6,000 when they came out now under $2,500.

The 1070 even if it is at a Titan X in games, not VR is a heck of a deal. If you say it's not you are kidding yourself. A mid-mid range card and a mid range card is keeping up and beating the top card from Nvidia with a lower price and complaining. Let me ask this. Who would go out today and buy a 980ti at $649 or a Titan X at $1,100? I bet not too many.

Scream all you want. If you don't like it don't buy or buy AMD.

For some of us without a 980ti or Titan X then these cards are worth it. Again don't go out on day 1 and buy it at $699. Wait a few weeks.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> the good deal NOW is getting a gently used 980TI for ~half the price of 1080 FE.


1080/1070 are great for me.







I'm going to get something nice for my backup rig to replace the 470 off the second-hand sales deluge.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> 1080/1070 are great for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to get something nice for my backup rig to replace the 470 off the second-hand sales deluge.


yeah, after peeking at your sig rig and seeing a 4K screen, you would benefit from the newest more than someone on 1440 or less. maybe i ought not have phrased that as a "one size fits all" statement.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> the good deal NOW is getting a gently used 980TI for ~half the price of 1080 FE.


And suffer as Maxwell driver support start to fade away?


----------



## Ithanul

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> Probably good and big.


Probably. I know I'm selling one of my cards of my herd of GPUs and using the money for new motorcycle tires. I get way more enjoyment out of the motorcycle than a video card.


----------



## FXformat

I'm running a single 40" 4K right now at 60hz...i plan on adding 2x 24" and have it vertically next to the 40"...will a single 1080 drive all of these at 60hz?


----------



## USlatin




----------



## Robilar

Haven't been keeping up, is the GTX1080 faster than a 980Ti?


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Really big. 2.5X big. Mostly because Kepler sucks now.


Well if u compare 1080, which has 90% more cores with 80% more speed, and accounting for 20% ipc from kepler to maxwell.

Its actually 4x faster in thereotical performance.

Alot of modern game i am playing current run at 30-40 fps at 1080p. Which is quite in line with 1/4 the power of gtx 1080.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> Haven't been keeping up, is the GTX1080 faster than a 980Ti?


20-30% faster.


----------



## Robilar

That's good news. What is the hardware release date?

Also my 980ti will be up for sale







71% ASIC and never overclocked...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> wow.
> 
> just wow.


Eh, little Billy doesn't need clothes or school supplies, I got me a couple Titans to buy!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> It's funny to me, as an owner of both TitanX and 980Ti, that anyone would be concerned for how I spend my money. With every other GPU (or CPU, or floppy disk drive) I've ever bought, I never harbored any notion that it would reign supreme for eternity. They were great cards last Thursday, they didn't cease to function Saturday morning (and yeah, somebody is sure to bring up driver gimping, got it).
> 
> On top of all of this, I'm as pumped as anybody about the Pascal cards. I'll have some of them at some point, count on it. I'm not going to run out and buy any first day any more than I'm going to declare my current cards inoperable that same day. Let other guys work out the bugs, figure out the bios mods, and I'll slide in when the big boy Pascals come along.
> 
> And you know what? Somebody will, without a doubt, post how they feel sorry for the big Pascal guys when the next gen hits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I'm befuddled by people who would buy computer gear and worry about what they can sell it for tomorrow. To me, that's like buying a set of tires for you car and wondering what you can sell them for tomorrow. The last set of tires I bought cost about what a TitanX does, and I'll have to pay a fee to get rid of them when I am finished running them. Sure, I'll sell gear I no longer have any use for - I recently sold a 680 Lightning some months after replacing it (and giving the other away here to a guy who had been ripped off trying to buy one elsewhere).
> 
> I still run a 65" 1080p plasma TV, even though 4K TVs are out. My TV didn't stop working, in fact it still serves me very well - I have no idea what I could sell it for, I don't care. Likely a fraction of what it cost, but it never crossed my mind that I should sell it. If it's still running when all programming is 4K, I'll replace it.
> 
> So don't feel sorry for me, I'm still running some of the stoutest gear around, and when I feel the need, I'll have some of the stoutest gear again. All without having to worry what I can get for what I currently run.
> 
> And I'm not rich, somebody is sure to make that accusation. House paid for, car paid for, retirement funded, but no winters on the French Riviera.


Yeah, don't worry about it. People felt sorry for me when the 780Ti and 980 came out but whatever, my OG Titans still serve me just fine on my 1440p monitors and I really don't have a need to upgrade them unless I go for new monitors anyway. Like I said when Maxwell launched, I'd rather stick with full fat chip flagship (and more memory) than sell them and buy mid-grade little chips for a flagship price. The same applies here; I'd much rather have your Titan X's than this 1080, regardless that it will be a little faster OC to OC. They are Titan X's for God sake!


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> That's good news. What is the hardware release date?
> 
> Also my 980ti will be up for sale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 71% ASIC and never overclocked...


May 27th for the 1080 rip off edition. June 10th for 1070.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> The GTX 1070 is definitively going to push down the price of the 980 Ti.
> 
> Nvidia said it loud and clear on stage :
> 
> *"The GTX 1070 is faster than the Titan X".*
> 
> and they are not talking about VR only.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/222280/nvidia-also-announces-usd-379-faster-than-titan-x-gtx-1070
> 
> https://www.vg247.com/2016/05/07/nvidia-reveals-geforce-gtx-1080-and-gtx-1070-both-faster-than-titan-x/
> 
> http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-launch/
> 
> and so on..
> 
> It may only be ever so slightly faster, but we all know how it will end with Maxwell once Pascal cards come out.


Well I bet they were talking at stock clocks (in which case the Titan X is clocked very low). We shall see if that holds up once both are OC'd...


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Eh, little Billy doesn't need clothes or school supplies, I got me a couple Titans to buy!


True Enthusiasts sold their kids for the next big gpu release. Sold grandma last year and wife is next year. We only really care for our gpus.


----------



## i7monkey

Someone with good knowledge please explain this to me.

If GPUs take years to design and produce and it's performance is ultimately a crapshoot, how does Nvidia always keep their chips within a specific performance envelope so consistently?

Do they gimp their drivers after reaching a certain performance threshold?

Ie. The 1080 and 1070 are a massive success. The 1080 performs decently better than a Titan X but not by too much so it doesn't hamper GP100 sales and the 1070 is a success because it beats the Titan X, but barely, probably within 5%, but that's all they need.

How do they come so close to their optimal level of performance given how unpredictable GPU production can be?

If they're able to predict their performance way out in advance and they intentionally never exceed a certain performance level, they would have to know what AMD's bringing to the table, but how?


----------



## Forceman

Because they have very smart people working for them who are good at what they do, same as AMD.


----------



## USlatin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> That's good news. What is the hardware release date?
> 
> Also my 980ti will be up for sale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 71% ASIC and never overclocked...


Hi Robilar, I'd take your card if I were in the market for one. Best looking, great cooler and I trust you.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Someone with good knowledge please explain this to me.
> 
> If GPUs take years to design and produce and it's performance is ultimately a crapshoot, how does Nvidia always keep their chips within a specific performance envelope so consistently?
> 
> Do they gimp their drivers after reaching a certain performance threshold?
> 
> Ie. The 1080 and 1070 are a massive success. The 1080 performs decently better than a Titan X but not by too much so it doesn't hamper GP100 sales and the 1070 is a success because it beats the Titan X, but barely, probably within 5%, but that's all they need.
> 
> How do they come so close to their optimal level of performance given how unpredictable GPU production can be?
> 
> If they're able to predict their performance way out in advance and they intentionally never exceed a certain performance level, they would have to know what AMD's bringing to the table, but how?


If you have the inside info on their architecture, planned core count, etc (info that the Nvidia engineers eat, breathe and sleep daily) its probably pretty easy to design the chips to perform just exactly as well as you need them to and nothing more...


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> And suffer as Maxwell driver support start to fade away?


Easy, just never update drivers again.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Someone with good knowledge please explain this to me.
> 
> If GPUs take years to design and produce and it's performance is ultimately a crapshoot, how does Nvidia always keep their chips within a specific performance envelope so consistently?
> 
> Do they gimp their drivers after reaching a certain performance threshold?
> 
> Ie. The 1080 and 1070 are a massive success. The 1080 performs decently better than a Titan X but not by too much so it doesn't hamper GP100 sales and the 1070 is a success because it beats the Titan X, but barely, probably within 5%, but that's all they need.
> 
> How do they come so close to their optimal level of performance given how unpredictable GPU production can be?
> 
> If they're able to predict their performance way out in advance and they intentionally never exceed a certain performance level, they would have to know what AMD's bringing to the table, but how?


I imagine you push your design to the envelope to figure out what the absolute limits are, then cull back performance so it fits within a reasonable thermal envelope, and after that fine tune the culling depending on its intended purpose and how you want to configure the product stack.

I mean it's always much easier to trim away excess performance than to engineer more in.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> And suffer as Maxwell driver support start to fade away?
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, just never update drivers again.
Click to expand...









to both of you.

but yeah i was thinking that and truth be told - i would still slap my old(ish) 780TI back in my rig and game on that.

wouldn't be pleased but, would do it.


----------



## KillerBee33

Recently slaped EVGA Hybrid on my reference 980 , would it be possible to install it on a 16MM? After this little project i don't think i'll ever come back to AIR coolers


----------



## USlatin

Hybrids are the future. Plug and play, faster, quiet. And with 180W what's the use of a custom loop?

I am not buying anything until someone trustworthy puts out a water cooled version


----------



## MadRabbit

I'm actually thinking of picking up a 980Ti now. The market for used ones is being flooded and to be honest, at 1080p I don't need nothing bigger, sure the itch to buy something new is there but...meh.


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadRabbit*
> 
> I'm actually thinking of picking up a 980Ti now. The market for used ones is being flooded and to be honest, at 1080p I don't need nothing bigger, sure the itch to buy something new is there but...meh.


Don't think you'll find a 980Ti for good price for another 6-8 months


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *USlatin*
> 
> Hybrids are the future. Plug and play, faster, quiet. And with 180W what's the use of a custom loop?
> 
> I am not buying anything until someone trustworthy puts out a water cooled version


More than sure EVGA has it cooked up already


----------



## MadRabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Don't think you'll find a 980Ti for good price for another 6-8 months


Considering there are a couple at €400 here currently and brand new ones are at €700 still..It's a steal


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

People are already selling their 980 TI's on here for around $400. That's a damn compelling buy in my opinion especially considering the lukewarm performance increase of the 1080 in my opinion.


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadRabbit*
> 
> Considering there are a couple at €400 here currently and brand new ones are at €700 still..It's a steal


Just don't see a HUGE advantage for 980ti owners to sell. Personally waiting for 1080Ti or a TITAN


----------



## Chargeit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Just don't see a HUGE advantage for 980ti owners to sell. Personally waiting for 1080Ti or a TITAN


People flip out when the new stuff is coming out. I'll be waiting for the 1080ti/titan also.

Wasn't planning on selling my 980 ti anyway so the resale value going up or down doesn't really bother me. My 980ti will see its retirement being ran like a dog by my ol'lady in her mmo's. Will make a great combo for her with the XB270HU Gsync monitor I passed onto her... Damn, must be nice. Here, have this expensive Gsync gaming monitor. And take this 980 ti while you're at it.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> People are already selling their 980 TI's on here for around $400. That's a damn compelling buy in my opinion especially considering the lukewarm performance increase of the 1080 in my opinion.


If I see one local around that price, it's getting bought up and tossed into the backup rig, just on principle.


----------



## Pragmatist

I'll buy two 1080's, and hopefully it'll be good enough for my three monitor setup. I've got two PG279Q's, and an old BenQ monitor that I'll replace shortly.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> People are already selling their 980 TI's on here for around $400. That's a damn compelling buy in my opinion especially considering the lukewarm performance increase of the 1080 in my opinion.


It's a great buy to hold you over for big Pascal


----------



## 364901

Quote:
Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie* 

It's funny to me, as an owner of both TitanX and 980Ti, that anyone would be concerned for how I spend my money. With every other GPU (or CPU, or floppy disk drive) I've ever bought, I never harbored any notion that it would reign supreme for eternity. They were great cards last Thursday, they didn't cease to function Saturday morning (and yeah, somebody is sure to bring up driver gimping, got it).

...

And you know what? Somebody will, without a doubt, post how they feel sorry for the big Pascal guys when the next gen hits.









On the other hand, I'm befuddled by people who would buy computer gear and worry about what they can sell it for tomorrow. To me, that's like buying a set of tires for you car and wondering what you can sell them for tomorrow. ...


> ...


I should have elaborated that I felt sorry for the people who bought a Titan X and expected to sell it second-hand for at least $500 a year later, given the card's value and status. People who bought the original Titan or Titan Black will still get a lot of their money back through selling second-hand because of the card's FP64 capabilities. In fact, those cards are still worth a premium price, and will likely still sell well in the second-hand market because of NVIDIA's gimping of FP64 capabilities in consumer cards.

As for your befuddledness about people buying computer parts and selling them later on, that's how a lot of markets function, and how people are able to justify to themselves and others the purchase of high-end hardware. Several of my pro overclocker friends buy the hardware they need for entering competitions, and sell it three to six months later for about 75% of the retail price the week they put the advert up. Because it's a costly hobby, they make their purchases carefully and try calculate how much money they're going to be losing through pursuing it. The same goes for other markets like cars, cell phones, even brand name handbags.

If you're happy with your purchases though, and are able to afford your hobby without considering the resale value of your hardware when it comes to the time to upgrade, then you're reasonably well off and easily able to ignore the depreciation. Most people aren't in the same position to look at it from your perspective.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> And suffer as Maxwell driver support start to fade away?


Maxwell driver support is going to be a lot better than Kepler in the long run. AFAIK, the same asynchronous compute fixes coming to Pascal will work on Maxwell, but it can't bring up Kepler's performance because it was an inefficient architecture anyway, given the current software landscape.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CataclysmZA*
> 
> I should have elaborated that I felt sorry for the people who bought a Titan X and expected to sell it second-hand for at least $500 a year later, given the card's value and status.


Don't feel sorry for those that bought Titan X's, people who buy those cards usually can afford to buy what they want when they want. And couldn't care less about losses.

I have no intention of upgrading myself, not until at least Big Pascal anyway....Personally I feel people are jumping the fence far too soon and selling GPU's off. We have no real game performance to go on at all, and yet people are selling cards. That's complete madness.

I think people should wait until they see solid reviews of the cards before making a decision anyway.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Don't feel sorry for those that bought Titan X's, people who buy those cards usually can afford to buy what they want when they want. And couldn't care less about losses.
> 
> I have no intention of upgrading myself, not until at least Big Pascal anyway....Personally I feel people are jumping the fence far too soon and selling GPU's off. We have no real game performance to go on at all, and yet people are selling cards. That's complete madness.
> 
> I think people should wait until they see solid reviews of the cards before making a decision anyway.


Well, given the node, it's obvious that anything new is going to be an improvement. Yeah, you can wait for Polaris, before making a decision on what to buy, but it might be hard to sell by then.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

There is an EVGA 980TI Hybrid on sale used here for 500€ as tempting as it is I might want to wait for the 1080 since im playing on 1440p and 144hz.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

first aots bench(its for async compute not async timewrap dont confuse them)
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/personas/4a36165f-4e15-4c4f-af35-7340095285f5/match-details/eb04c772-0095-4429-b1de-199d6e00c4c6 (notice the lower shadow quality)
in comparison a 390
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/personas/cb0080bf-3651-475e-8fd2-1f6d5a23f075/match-details/149a528b-5079-4273-9bc4-bdf4854dbf74
a 980ti
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/personas/65439a3c-bb61-4ee8-9da4-8f172939c77e/match-details/74597f0a-e02a-4dc0-aeea-f4080b56591b
a fury
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/personas/c61585eb-b3d4-46a3-84c8-60bb0b39489c/match-details/58179511-64ac-4c06-8dd2-e5cf571d72b8
and a titan x
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/personas/be90374c-38c8-44fc-8b3f-1a28b3095657/match-details/f07fc990-5002-487d-a96e-c41d5548f68a


----------



## MadRabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> first aots bench(its for async compute not async timewrap dont confuse them)
> http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/personas/4a36165f-4e15-4c4f-af35-7340095285f5/match-details/eb04c772-0095-4429-b1de-199d6e00c4c6 (notice the lower shadow quality)
> in comparison a 390
> http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/personas/cb0080bf-3651-475e-8fd2-1f6d5a23f075/match-details/149a528b-5079-4273-9bc4-bdf4854dbf74
> a 980ti
> http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/personas/65439a3c-bb61-4ee8-9da4-8f172939c77e/match-details/74597f0a-e02a-4dc0-aeea-f4080b56591b
> a fury
> http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/personas/c61585eb-b3d4-46a3-84c8-60bb0b39489c/match-details/58179511-64ac-4c06-8dd2-e5cf571d72b8
> and a titan x
> http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/personas/be90374c-38c8-44fc-8b3f-1a28b3095657/match-details/f07fc990-5002-487d-a96e-c41d5548f68a


So the 390 is actually faster than the 1080 in that game? Kinda hard to believe..







By an FPS or so but still..


----------



## spyshagg

so is every other card. Early times.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

notice the settings....even the card that is suppose to win by 20-30% (980ti) is maxed out and it has 30 more fps...on everything ultra..


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> so is every other card. Early times.


its a maxwell how much time they need? its not like they introduced a new uarch lol


----------



## Sleazybigfoot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> This is exactly what I was talking about, you seem to be posting things to get a reaction out of people and cause an argument. I'm sure others have seen it too, try to be more professional with your postings as I see a lot of juvenile responses from you. Just my 2cents...


That's what he's been doing since he's on here. I don't check his posts anymore unless it's about something big like new GPU's.


----------



## MadRabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> notice the settings....even the card that is suppose to win by 20-30% (980ti) is maxed out and it has 30 more fps...on everything ultra..


I'm thinking this has something to do with drivers. There's no way nVidia would be boasting it's 2X AS FAST results when in reality it gets stomped by both the Ti and Fury. Even neck to neck with an 390.


----------



## Xuper

oh my god!!! I didn't notice ! wow! GTX 1080 on high settings not Ultra!


----------



## carlhil2

is mGPU SLI?


----------



## MadRabbit

Duh. Never mind.


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> its a maxwell how much time they need? its not like they introduced a new uarch lol


when results present such a disparity, it is wise to refrain from judgement until new data is presented, and consider the context (unreleased card)


----------



## carlhil2

Same version of game as the 1080 was tested using .. lol, can't upload photo.. http://www.ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/ladders/benchmark/overall/Crazy_1440p?viewType=myself&filters={%22cpu%22:%22Intel%28R%29%20Core%28TM%29%20i7-5930K%20CPU%[email protected]%203.50GHz%22,%22api%22:%22DirectX%2012%22,%22gameVersion%22:%221.10.19388.0%22} you have to copy and paste link for it to work I guess.. there are only 6 results with these settings in this version of bench...


----------



## Shatun-Bear

^^^^

So Nvidia's claim that the 1080 has full async compute functionality is clearly a lie









No seriously, I find that hard to believe. Who are the people that uploaded those benches?


----------



## Swiftes

looking forward to picking up a 2nd 970 cheap for SLI


----------



## jdstock76

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *antonio8*
> 
> I still don't get all the fuss why some are mad or thinking this is not worth it. Sure if you have a Titan X or a 980ti then the prices might seem absurd but no one is saying go out and buy it on day one.
> 
> Nvidia said they spent over 2 billion dollars on this chip through R&D. People really thought it would be a $350 dollar card on the 1080. New tech always cost more to those early adopters. OLED tv's was around $6,000 when they came out now under $2,500.
> 
> The 1070 even if it is at a Titan X in games, not VR is a heck of a deal. If you say it's not you are kidding yourself. A mid-mid range card and a mid range card is keeping up and beating the top card from Nvidia with a lower price and complaining. Let me ask this. Who would go out today and buy a 980ti at $649 or a Titan X at $1,100? I bet not too many.
> 
> Scream all you want. If you don't like it don't buy or buy AMD.
> 
> For some of us without a 980ti or Titan X then these cards are worth it. Again don't go out on day 1 and buy it at $699. Wait a few weeks.


I haven't seen anyone complaining about these cards. I think there is some skepticism on their performance numbers though.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> Haven't been keeping up, is the GTX1080 faster than a 980Ti?


Quick and dirty version .... Yes.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> 20-30% faster.


Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's see some real world 4k benchmarks and in game performance numbers. I'd be excited about 15-20% faster.


----------



## Robilar

10-20% faster than my 980Ti is fine with me. I'm currently running 2560x1080 at 200hz and the 980Ti manages it fine but I'll likely be upgrading monitors this year at some point.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> 10-20% faster than my 980Ti is fine with me. I'm currently running 2560x1080 at 200hz and the 980Ti manages it fine but I'll likely be upgrading monitors this year at some point.


Nvidia told Luke, Paul, JayZTwoCents that the GTX 1080 is 25% faster than Titan X.

I guess everything stock. Stock Titan X is ever so slightly faster than stock 980 Ti isn't it?

So 27%~ could be realistic for the GTX 1080 over the 980 Ti

I know its pretty vague, but thats the best I've heard so far that can be considered a ranking for this card.


----------



## barsh90

The cake is a lie...


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Nvidia told Luke, Paul, JayZTwoCents that the GTX 1080 is 25% faster than Titan X.
> 
> I guess everything stock. Stock Titan X is ever so slightly faster than stock 980 Ti isn't it?
> 
> So 27%~ could be realistic for the GTX 1080 over the 980 Ti
> 
> I know its pretty vague, but thats the best I've heard so far that can be considered a ranking for this card.


stock to stock titan x is 8-9% faster than a 980ti so 1080 must be 34% faster than a 980ti


----------



## rbarrett96

I thought they were releasing a card on par with the 980 ti for $300? I'm assuming this was supposed to be the 1070 right?


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rbarrett96*
> 
> I thought they were releasing a card on par with the 980 ti for $300? I'm assuming this was supposed to be the 1070 right?


MSRP of the GTX 1080 is 599 USD and the GTX 1070 is 379 USD.


----------



## jdstock76

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rbarrett96*
> 
> I thought they were releasing a card on par with the 980 ti for $300? I'm assuming this was supposed to be the 1070 right?


No one ever said that. Some speculated it would actually cost $650-700.

Edit: That was for the 1080. I believe some said 1070 may be $400. $379 is close enough.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> MSRP of the GTX 1080 is 599 USD and the GTX 1070 is 379 USD.


launch price of the GTX 1080 is 699 USD and the GTX 1070 is 479 USD. later both will drop 100$. nice trickery from nvidia though.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> launch price of the GTX 1080 is 699 USD and the GTX 1070 is 479 USD. later both will drop 100$. nice trickery from nvidia though.


That for FE and will remain 450/700 for the life of the card.


----------



## carlhil2

Rumor going around that AIB cards might be clocked up to 2.4GHz......


----------



## Millillion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> MSRP of the GTX 1080 is 599 USD and the GTX 1070 is 379 USD.
> 
> 
> 
> launch price of the GTX 1080 is 699 USD and the GTX 1070 is 479 USD. later both will drop 100$. nice trickery from nvidia though.
Click to expand...

Do we have actual confirmation that the more expensive FE will be the only thing available at launch?


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rbarrett96*
> 
> I thought they were releasing a card on par with the 980 ti for $300? I'm assuming this was supposed to be the 1070 right?


That was the rumor for AMD's Polaris 10.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> That for FE and will remain 450/700 for the life of the card.


And thats the only card that will be available at launch. so yeah 699/479.


----------



## Gdourado

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> And thats the only card that will be available at launch. so yeah 699/479.


And that is in US dollars...
Here in Europe I'm guessing the 1080 will go for more than 750 euros and the 1070 might be close to 500 euros...
Not such a good deal I guess


----------



## jdstock76

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> launch price of the GTX 1080 is 699 USD and the GTX 1070 is 479 USD. later both will drop 100$. nice trickery from nvidia though.


Those are the Founders Edition prices.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Millillion*
> 
> Do we have actual confirmation that the more expensive FE will be the only thing available at launch?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> And thats the only card that will be available at launch. so yeah 699/479.


Source?


----------



## Mudfrog

When the 1070 is released on June 10, is that going to be only reference models or will that be with aftermarket coolers, etc?


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Millillion*
> 
> Do we have actual confirmation that the more expensive FE will be the only thing available at launch?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdstock76*
> 
> Those are the Founders Edition prices.
> 
> Source?


Doesn't say only, but it specifically says FE:
Quote:


> Pricing and release date: Previously known as the reference cards, the Nvidia-manufactured versions of these new cards will be known as Founders Edition. They're really rather pretty, with aggressive, angled designs and the now-iconic backlit green GeForce GTX logo.
> 
> The GTX 1080 will cost $699 (around £580 including VAT) in Founders specification, while third-party manufacturers will vary, although it's expected the cheapest will cost $599 (around £511 including VAT). Founders Edition cards will start shipping on May 27th.
> 
> The GTX 1070, meanwhile, will be priced at $449 (around £391 inc VAT) in Founders spec, while third parties are expected to start from $379 (around £314 inc VAT). Founder Edition cards will start shipping on June 10th.


http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-1070-pascal-specs-price-release-date


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdstock76*
> 
> Those are the Founders Edition prices.
> 
> Source?


http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2427-difference-between-gtx-1080-founders-edition-and-reference#!/ccomment
Quote:


> There are not two GTX 1080 models made by nVidia. Only the "Founder's Edition" exists; there is not a cheaper card made by nVidia than the *$700 Founder's Edition, which ships first*.


So as i said, launch prices are 699/479$.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2427-difference-between-gtx-1080-founders-edition-and-reference#!/ccomment


Early adopter fee...


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> launch price of the GTX 1080 is 699 USD and the GTX 1070 is 479 USD. later both will drop 100$. nice trickery from nvidia though.


How long has it been and how forgetful are you guys?

Since the GTX 780 the REFERENCE cooler design that we all dubbed the "Titan" cooler was more EXPENSIVE to purchase than their partners cheap plastic blower style. EVGA was the ONLY one in the USA offering up a cheap blower style cooler WITH the reference design at the time. Not only that on the forums we had big movement for them to release the REFERENCE IE TItan style cooler for the GTX 770 and the reason why most partners didn't offer it since it was MORE expensive.

This is really no different to me. THE MSPR is still 599 and 379. Just hold off if you don't want reference board and cooler.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> How long has it been and how forgetful are you guys?
> 
> Since the GTX 780 the REFERENCE cooler design that we all dubbed the "Titan" cooler was more EXPENSIVE to purchase than their partners cheap plastic blower style. EVGA was the ONLY one in the USA offering up a cheap blower style cooler WITH the reference design at the time. Not only that on the forums we had big movement for them to release the REFERENCE IE TItan style cooler for the GTX 770 and the reason why most partners didn't offer it since it was MORE expensive.
> 
> This is really no different to me. THE MSPR is still 599 and 379. Just hold off if you don't want reference board and cooler.


so by your logic, 7970 costed 400$, 780 550$ ,290/x 350-499$ ? lol yeah


----------



## Illusive Spectre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Early adopter fee...


Nvidia fanboi fees.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Illusive Spectre*
> 
> Nvidia fanboi fees.


That too.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> so by your logic, 7970 costed 400$, 780 550$ ,290/x 350-499$ ? lol yeah


By your logic wut? MSRP is MSRP and for all the early buyers willing to pay more for street price was up to them.
Its not logic, nVidia is charging you more for pleasing aesthetic designs that we all know Computer geeks love. Also take into account a full metal shroud is gonna cost more than a box of plastic


----------



## Mudfrog

Are the blower style coolers still extremely loud? The last one I had was on a 4890 and I swore never again.


----------



## sugarhell

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/geforce-gtx-1070-1080-founders-edition-explained.html


----------



## Mudfrog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/geforce-gtx-1070-1080-founders-edition-explained.html


Well that's a let down.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/geforce-gtx-1070-1080-founders-edition-explained.html


Again Nvidia is telling their AIB make a $599 card which is worse then Reference. There is no other way.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/geforce-gtx-1070-1080-founders-edition-explained.html


Marketing at its best... paying a premium for branding...


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mudfrog*
> 
> Are the blower style coolers still extremely loud? The last one I had was on a 4890 and I swore never again.


I am also curious about this. Cage style fans always seem to be the loudest.


----------



## Ithanul

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> People are already selling their 980 TI's on here for around $400. That's a damn compelling buy in my opinion especially considering the lukewarm performance increase of the 1080 in my opinion.


Yep, especially at that price they are asking for on a 1080. I just plan to sell off one or two of my other cards and get me some Raspberry Pis to play around with instead. The idea of an auto waterier for my garden I am making should be a good enough project to hold be out for quite some time. Especially if I rig one up for the hydrophonics garden I plan to build this year.









Been keeping a eye out on used 980Tis around local, but so far none have shown up yet. I would not mind nabbing a third and using it in my folder rig.


----------



## jdstock76

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Doesn't say only, but it specifically says FE:
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-1070-pascal-specs-price-release-date


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2427-difference-between-gtx-1080-founders-edition-and-reference#!/ccomment
> So as i said, launch prices are 699/479$.


So everything Jen-Hsun Huang said and everything the media said during and after the event is a lie? Someone isn't telling/giving accurate information.

I will now(for a brief moment) ride the Nvidia "hate" wagon.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdstock76*
> 
> So everything Jen-Hsun Huang said and everything the media said during and after the event is a lie? Someone isn't telling/giving accurate information.
> 
> I will now(for a brief moment) ride the Nvidia "hate" wagon.


It is rather lame to say the least. Nvidia playing this stupid game. I don't want to support that behavior, but damn AMD just can't seem to get competitive enough. And DX12 is a wash until it becomes the standard.


----------



## doza

HH at guru3d explained what founder edition is realy about ...

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/geforce-gtx-1070-1080-founders-edition-explained.html

so if yur smart you are just gonna pick up a 'normal' one as there is no 'binned chips' etc....


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> It is rather lame to say the least. Nvidia playing this stupid game. I don't want to support that behavior, but damn AMD just can't seem to get competitive enough. And DX12 is a wash until it becomes the standard.


Why is amd is not competitive enough? I am just curious about your opinion


----------



## jdstock76

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> It is rather lame to say the least. Nvidia playing this stupid game. I don't want to support that behavior, but damn AMD just can't seem to get competitive enough. And DX12 is a wash until it becomes the standard.


Totally agree. I had no intention of buying the 1080 but the 1080ti if there is one. Though if the price was right perhaps a custom 1080 from GB or Asus. Rethinking that atm. I paid $679 for the G1 980ti. So if the G1 1080 came in close to that I suppose it wouldn't be a bad deal given the performance increase. Decisions decisions. Stupid Nvidia.


----------



## guttheslayer

The founder edition should changed name to failure edition.

Can't believe they decided to charge extra premium for that reference cooler.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Why is amd is not competitive enough? I am just curious about your opinion


They're competitive enough on the hardware front, it's their software (which has turned around drastically lately), mind-share, marketing, and product timing/management that has seriously hurt them. Things are improving though, Polaris is shipping with Macs and will probably be a price/performance hit, while Vega will most likely be a monster, and the console market will naturally benefit them on the PC front.

They also don't do enough quad biking etc., adventures for YouTubers, so they miss out on nice thumbnails like this:


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Why is amd is not competitive enough? I am just curious about your opinion


+

I find myself wondering why this misconception exists. Somehow not being competitive on the business front (market share) has made people think they aren't competitive on the performance front as well.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Why is amd is not competitive enough? I am just curious about your opinion


You think they are? They have 20% of the market... lol

Fury barely faster than the 980, comes out 6-8 months later than the 980 for $550+. Who buys that card?
Fury X slower and less vram than the 980Ti, same price. Who buys that card?
Fury Nano... way overpriced!
390/390x rebadged 290/290x and increase in price. Who buys those cards?

You should know I don't hate AMD and I am no Nvidia fanboy. Just the way I see things. If Polaris 10 is AMD's only card this year, there better be a sku there that is at least faster than the 390x, otherwise what's the point? Even then they are hurting themselves because that's Fury territory. Best case scenario Polaris 10 is $300 and within 5% of 980Ti and AMD EOL all cards starting at 390 and go up.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> You think they are? They have 20% of the market... lol
> 
> Fury barely faster than the 980, comes out 6-8 months later than the 980 for $550+. Who buys that card?
> Fury X slower and less vram than the 980Ti, same price. Who buys that card?
> Fury Nano... way overpriced!
> 390/390x rebadged 290/290x and increase in price. Who buys those cards?
> 
> You should know I don't hate AMD and I am no Nvidia fanboy. Just the way I see things. If Polaris 10 is AMD's only card this year, there better be a sku there that is at least faster than the 390x, otherwise what's the point? Even then they are hurting themselves because that's Fury territory. Best case scenario Polaris 10 is $300 and within 5% of 980Ti and AMD EOL all cards starting at 390 and go up.


Agreed with the Fury X, pretty irrelevant next to a Ti, the usual waiting game aside.

But the others?

Fury pretty much sits by itself.

390X matches the 980 while having double the Vram and being cheaper.

390 vs the 970 isn't even worth arguing about.

On the hardware side of things the only tier Nvidia is downright better is the 980 Ti. That's of course completely ignoring perf/watt.


----------



## maltamonk

How much of the overall market do the $300 on up segments make up?


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> How much of the overall market do the $300 on up segments make up?


1%

pulling from my behind


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Fury pretty mutch sits by itself.
> 
> 390X matches the 980 while having double the Vram and being cheaper.
> 
> 390 vs the 970 isn't even worth arguing about.
> 
> On the hardware side of things the only tier Nvidia is downright better is the 980 Ti. That's of course completely ignoring perf/watt.


True to an extent, but who upgrades to those cards? They all were released months after the 980/970. By then most people who were upgrading had already upgraded. 290/290x users really had nothing compelling to upgrade to, because Fury wasn't that much faster. They definitely weren't upgrading to 390/390x. If the 390/390x/Fury had been released at the same time as the 980/970, I can see what you are saying. But by the time Fury launched that performance was old news.

And the last part, I do agree. The best card out right now is the 980Ti. Below that I have to hand it to AMD. But again, who upgrades to those cards? Not many it appears.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> You think they are? They have 20% of the market... lol
> 
> Fury barely faster than the 980, comes out 6-8 months later than the 980 for $550+. Who buys that card?
> Fury X slower and less vram than the 980Ti, same price. Who buys that card?
> Fury Nano... way overpriced!
> 390/390x rebadged 290/290x and increase in price. Who buys those cards?
> 
> You should know I don't hate AMD and I am no Nvidia fanboy. Just the way I see things. If Polaris 10 is AMD's only card this year, there better be a sku there that is at least faster than the 390x, otherwise what's the point? Even then they are hurting themselves because that's Fury territory. Best case scenario Polaris 10 is $300 and within 5% of 980Ti and AMD EOL all cards starting at 390 and go up.


But the whole argument is about fury/x/nano.

390 now is one of the best price/performance cards until 1070 arrives.

Below that amd is way better choice over nvidia.

Also they increased their marketshare the last months. But for me marketshare is irrelevant. Nvidia has way better marketing dept . Look the trick with the 1080 founder edition.

They are competitive just not that much in the absolute high -end. Also if you didint want to deal with nvidia and their tricks you could buy a fury x . There is nothing wrong to have a card that is 5-10% slower. At the end of the day fury x can play the same games at the same quality as the 980ti.

By the way i am still waiting for the big gpus not this medium range gpus with high-end prices


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> True to an extent, but who upgrades to those cards? They all were released months after the 980/970. By then most people who were upgrading had already upgraded. 290/290x users really had nothing compelling to upgrade to, because Fury wasn't that much faster. They definitely weren't upgrading to 390/390x. If the 390/390x/Fury had been released at the same time as the 980/970, I can see what you are saying. But by the time Fury launched that performance was old news.


100% agreed, that's what i was alluding to in my previous post. I took his question to mean purely hardware to hardware, but on the business/marketshare side we're on the same page.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> They are competitive just not that much in the absolute high -end. Also if you didint want to deal with nvidia and their tricks you could buy a fury x . There is nothing wrong to have a card that is 5-10% slower. At the end of the day fury x can play the same games at the same quality as the 980ti.


This is true. And that was my intent. I bought this 980 open box for cheap enough as a hold over card waiting on AMD to release Fury. But honestly performance for Fury was kinda of meh compared to this 980 and I decided to just want for AMD's next card. But if Polaris 10 is going to be around the same performance of a 390x/980, what would be the point of upgrading to that? I am planning on waiting for Vega if I can, but at the same time I am ready for a new toy. AMD is behind on their release cycle and it sucks for the market.

If Vega releases in Q1 2017 with GTX1080 performance, who upgrades besides the loyal fanboys and a few others? AMD needs to release something competitive now. Polaris 10 needs to be 1070 level performance or who cares?


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> This is true. And that was my intent. I bought this 980 open box for cheap enough as a hold over card waiting on AMD to release Fury. But honestly performance for Fury was kinda of meh compared to this 980 and I decided to just want for AMD's next card. But if Polaris 10 is going to be around the same performance of a 390x/980, what would be the point of upgrading to that? I am planning on waiting for Vega if I can, but at the same time I am ready for a new toy. AMD is behind on their release cycle and it sucks for the market.


Pol 10 is not meant for anyone with a 970/390 or higher card. Those people already are a part of the segment Pol 10 is aiming to expand. It is meant to get more people into the vr performance sector, which would mean it would only be focused on people that have less than 970/390 performance level cards.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> This is true. And that was my intent. I bought this 980 open box for cheap enough as a hold over card waiting on AMD to release Fury. But honestly performance for Fury was kinda of meh compared to this 980 and I decided to just want for AMD's next card. But if Polaris 10 is going to be around the same performance of a 390x/980, what would be the point of upgrading to that? I am planning on waiting for Vega if I can, but at the same time I am ready for a new toy. AMD is behind on their release cycle and it sucks for the market.
> 
> If Vega releases in Q1 2017 with GTX1080 performance, who upgrades besides the loyal fanboys and a few others? AMD needs to release something competitive now. Polaris 10 needs to be 1070 level performance or who cares?


For what it's worth I feel like we know a lot less about Polaris than we did about Pascal leading up to the launch. I don't put a lot of stock into that weirdly-clocked bench that puts it behind 390x. All we have for AMD-sky-is-falling is Roy's tweets or whatever, and it's just so hilariously convenient that nobody takes him seriously until he says "GAEM OVER AMD". I also think that Vega will be a very different part as compared to Pol 10/11.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> Pol 10 is not meant for anyone with a 970/390 or higher card. Those people already are a part of the segment Pol 10 is aiming to expand. It is meant to get more people into the vr performance sector, which would mean it would only be focused on people that have less than 970/390 performance level cards.


Well it better be priced right.

And one other thing, right now AMD has the best lineup of cards except for the 980Ti. Well we know the 1070 is launching on June 10. 1070 makes ever card over $450 irrelevant in my opinion. Price cuts from AMD or Polaris 10 is the only thing helping AMD when that day comes.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Well it better be priced right.
> 
> And one other thing, right now AMD has the best lineup of cards except for the 980Ti. Well we know the 1070 is launching on June 10. 1070 makes ever card over $450 irrelevant in my opinion. Price cuts from AMD or Polaris 10 is the only thing helping AMD when that day comes.


For the targeted market, price is a huge factor. If the $300 cards didn't do it, AMD will need to price pol 10 well below $300. I'm putting my money on <$250 and even that price is hard to swallow for that market segment to expand.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> Pol 10 is not meant for anyone with a 970/390 or higher card. Those people already are a part of the segment Pol 10 is aiming to expand. It is meant to get more people into the vr performance sector, which would mean it would only be focused on people that have less than 970/390 performance level cards.


if they bring a "980ti" level of perf on a low card pretty sure many people will jump on it (assuming its stock and has enough room for OC)


----------



## Forceman

I find it interesting that Nvidia didn't say anything about new or improved memory bandwidth management. They have the 1080, a quite a bit faster than 980 Ti card, with less memory bandwidth, and the 1070, supposedly a 980 Ti level card, with significantly less memory bandwidth, and they've said nothing about how that's going to work out? Maybe it'll come out in the editor meetings, but seems strange to have nothing about it yet.

Same goes for AMD for the P10, how are they going to manage 980 Ti speed with GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus?


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> if they bring a "980ti" level of perf on a low card pretty sure many people will jump on it (assuming its stock and has enough room for OC)


That's what Nvidia is doing with the 1070 - $400 for Titan X performance. Hopefully AMD will deliver a card that's within 15% of the 980 Ti and inexpensive. I'm thinking it might not happen just because Roy T said they want to increase the amount of VR capable systems which is done by releasing inexpensive cards, and not like what Nvidia is doing by releasing "high end" Pascal cards.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Well it better be priced right.
> 
> And one other thing, right now AMD has the best lineup of cards except for the 980Ti. Well we know the 1070 is launching on June 10. 1070 makes ever card over $450 irrelevant in my opinion. Price cuts from AMD or Polaris 10 is the *only thing* helping AMD when that day comes.


That may be true unfortunately..

But a huge aspect of these markets is mindshare, I don't know about you but I've noticed a lot more cynicism towards Nvidia on forums, Youtube, etc. Such as yourself thinking about waiting for Vega, and me too. Vega is rumored to drop as early as October/November, the 1070/80 won't hit AMD anywhere near as hard as the 970/80 did, assuming Vega comes out sooner than later at a "decent" price. That Maxwell situation was a damn massacre..

I also think there's a lot of consumers like myself wanting to jump on 4k, and the 1080 won't cut it for that (single GPU on high/ultra @ 60 anyway). There may be a lot more people less willing to jump on "baby" Pascal as quickly as they did Maxwell. The low-end is also where the biggest market is, AMD are targeting that heavily this time, and they need that market back desperately.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> That's what Nvidia is doing with the 1070 - $400 for Titan X performance. Hopefully AMD will deliver a card that's within 15% of the 980 Ti and inexpensive. I'm thinking it might not happen just because Roy T said they want to increase the amount of VR capable systems which is done by releasing inexpensive cards, and not like what Nvidia is doing by releasing "high end" Pascal cards.


thats the problem if and im going to stretch the IF those aots benches are real
1070 has no way of reaching a 980ti let alone a titan x on a regular basis(no gameworks and certenly no dx12)


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> For what it's worth I feel like we know a lot less about Polaris than we did about Pascal leading up to the launch. I don't put a lot of stock into that weirdly-clocked bench that puts it behind 390x. All we have for AMD-sky-is-falling is Roy's tweets or whatever, and it's just so hilariously convenient that nobody takes him seriously until he says "GAEM OVER AMD". I also think that Vega will be a very different part as compared to Pol 10/11.


Sounds just like the GTX 700 series vs AMDs new naming line up of the R series.
Again sounds just like how the GTX 900 series vs the Fury line up.

I'm with criminal all the way. Most of will buy the newest and greatest off the bat. Some of the people in this thread with such salty feelings towards nVidia for making the FE edition won't matter as a great majority of people in the world will buy it anyways just to have the latest and greatest and will these people buy a AMD Polaris cards in 5~10 months from now? Again AMD is always a day late and dollar short.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> Sounds just like the GTX 700 series vs AMDs new naming line up of the R series.
> Again sounds just like how the GTX 900 series vs the Fury line up.
> 
> I'm with criminal all the way. Most of will buy the newest and greatest off the bat. Some of the people in this thread with such salty feelings towards nVidia for making the FE edition won't matter as a great majority of people in the world will buy it anyways just to have the latest and greatest and will these people buy a AMD Polaris cards in 5~10 months from now? *Again AMD is always a day late and dollar short.*


I think we all agree on their poor marketing and bizarre timing. The hardware is usually pretty solid though. I don't know, I'm patient enough to wait and see what Pol 10/11 actually have to offer but I know that some people are already spring-loaded for 1080 FE. I don't hold that against them, I hope they love it. I don't hate Nvidia either, I own Nvidia products, I've bought from both vendors since 2004. Not loving the precedent of the FE though, and so instead of snapping up a 1070 for my backup rig, I'm going to wait to see all of the options. Also, I sincerely doubt Pol 10 is 5-10 months away, and Vega is intended to compete with 1080 Ti / Titan, I'm fairly certain of that, and neither of those cards are announced yet either.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I think we all agree on their poor marketing and bizarre timing. The hardware is usually pretty solid though. I don't know, I'm patient enough to wait and see what Pol 10/11 actually have to offer but I know that some people are already spring-loaded for 1080 FE. I don't hold that against them, I hope they love it. I don't hate Nvidia either, I own Nvidia products, I've bought from both vendors since 2004. Not loving the precedent of the FE though, and so instead of snapping up a 1070 for my backup rig, I'm going to wait to see all of the options. Also, I sincerely doubt Pol 10 is 5-10 months away, and Vega is intended to compete with 1080 Ti / Titan, I'm fairly certain of that, and neither of those cards are announced yet either.


HD 5870, HD 7970 both came early. Did nothing really. Nvidia fanbase too strong


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> HD 5870, HD 7970 both came early. Did nothing really. Nvidia fanbase too strong


4870 came later than the GTX280/260 and hurt Nvidia pretty bad. Let's hope that is what Polaris 10 is going to do. Fingers crossed.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> 4870 came later than the GTX280/260 and hurt Nvidia pretty bad. Let's hope that is what Polaris 10 is going to do. Fingers crossed.


Like 2 weeks after.


----------



## rbarrett96

Is that a future card or a different segment this gen?


----------



## rbarrett96

Nevermind, that was AMD, lol


----------



## jdstock76

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> 4870 came later than the GTX280/260 and hurt Nvidia pretty bad. Let's hope that is what Polaris 10 is going to do. Fingers crossed.


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdstock76*


All those 200$ Gsync modules. Someone is swimming in money at our expense


----------



## stahlhart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> All those 200$ Gsync modules. Someone is swimming in money at our expense


What do you mean, "our expense"? What did you purchase?


----------



## spyshagg

We, the gamers.
Using a free standard to arrest the customer to your product, segmenting the market and making money out of it. Its actually brilliant. My nº 1 reason preventing me to "try" nvidia. You can no longer try. You can only commit.


----------



## iLeakStuff

http://videocardz.com/59778/gigabyte-teases-geforce-gtx-1080-xtreme-gaming

http://videocardz.com/59771/gigabyte-and-galax-announce-its-geforce-gtx-1080-founders-editions


----------



## stahlhart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> We, the gamers.
> Using a free standard to arrest the customer to your product, segmenting the market and making money out of it. Its actually brilliant. My nº 1 reason preventing me to "try" nvidia. You can no longer try. You can only commit.


Stop using the word "we".

I asked you what _you_ purchased.


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> Stop using the word "we".
> 
> I asked you what _you_ purchased.


Speak with ease, I am not obligated to oblige your condescending tone.

If you are not a gamer then you are not interested on gsync/freesync to begin with. Where do you wan't to go with this?

I am locked out of trying different gpu brands for owning an adaptive sync monitor. How is this good for us?


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Speak with ease, I am not obligated to oblige your condescending tone.
> 
> If you are not a gamer then you are not interested on gsync/freesync to begin with. Where do you wan't to go with this?
> 
> I am locked out of trying different gpu brands for owning an adaptive sync monitor. How is this good for us?


So you didn't buy anything then.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Speak with ease, I am not obligated to oblige your condescending tone.
> 
> If you are not a gamer then you are not interested on gsync/freesync to begin with. Where do you wan't to go with this?
> 
> I am locked out of trying different gpu brands for owning an adaptive sync monitor. How is this good for us?


Its pretty bad for you since AMD won`t be competing against GTX 1070 or 1080 this year by the looks of it


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> So you didn't buy anything then.


"I am locked out" its what I said above.

I have and am forced to switch monitors If I wan't to test a GPU, and then again if I wan't to go back. Brilliant


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its pretty bad for you since AMD won`t be competing against GTX 1070 or 1080 this year by the looks of it


It doesn't matter. He won't be buying AMD anyway since he'll get locked into FreeSync.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdstock76*


what is the point of this image? It is from Q2 2013 and on... The 4870 was released in June 2008...

Here is a better depiction:


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> 4870 came later than the GTX280/260 and hurt Nvidia pretty bad. Let's hope that is what Polaris 10 is going to do. Fingers crossed.


The release of the 4870 had a slight gain in market share for a quarter but it was a failure in the long run as illustrated by the 10% market share loss from Q3 2008 to Q1 2009...

So, lets not hope for Polaris 10 being similar to the 4870...


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> It doesn't matter. He won't be buying AMD anyway since he'll get locked into FreeSync.


You are being obtuse. Its not me with freesync. Its everyone with either freesync or gsync. We are locked out unless we shell out more money. We, gamers.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its pretty bad for you since AMD won`t be competing against GTX 1070 or 1080 this year by the looks of it


By the looks of what? There is zero evidence about the performance of polaris 10/11 at the moment. What about to wait for the release instead of spamming these threads with "leaks" without context.

The only evidence is that it can max out hitman at [email protected], just like 1080 can max out games at 1440p from the press conference.


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its pretty bad for you since AMD won`t be competing against GTX 1070 or 1080 this year by the looks of it


should I give 200€ more for the same monitor? Its an anti-consumer barrier nvidia put in front of us. For those in or out of gsync. Once your in, you cant get out.

I couldn't try 1080 even if I wanted and change 4 months later to AMD. There will always by a 600€ monitor involved.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> should I give 200€ more for the same monitor? Its an anti-consumer barrier nvidia put in front of us. For those in or out of gsync. Once your in, you cant get out.
> 
> I couldn't try 1080 even if I wanted and change 4 months later to AMD.


I agree that is bad that they dont use the same standard, but at the same time its more about not working together imo.
Nvidia thinks their module is the only way of getting smooth frames. AMD thinks Freesync is good enough.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> You are being obtuse. Its not me with freesync. Its everyone with either freesync or gsync. We are locked out unless we shell out more money. We, gamers.


You don't need FreeSync or G-Sync. Most do fine without it at all. If it's such an issue, just buy a monitor with FreeSync and a second with G-Sync.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> what is the point of this image? It is from Q2 2013 and on... The 4870 was released in June 2008...
> 
> Here is a better depiction:
> 
> 
> The release of the 4870 had a slight gain in market share for a quarter but it was a failure in the long run as illustrated by the 10% market share loss from Q3 2008 to Q1 2009...
> 
> So, lets not hope for Polaris 10 being similar to the 4870...


If HD 4870 could not do it nothing can.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> You don't need FreeSync or G-Sync. Most do fine without it at all. If it's such an issue, just buy a monitor with FreeSync and a second with G-Sync.


Yeah, Freesync is nice to have but it's not the be-all. I'd love it if Nvidia would drop Gsync and use their own software implementation of the VESA standard but I'm not going to turn down a superior price/performance option from Nvidia because my monitor is Freesync.


----------



## Robilar

Time flies but people will always find something to argue about...

It used to be we argued about intel vs. AMD cpu's. Eventually that dropped off.

Then it was monitors. There were a few hardcore guys on here that swore up and down that overclockeable Catleap/Shimean etc monitors that would do 100hz or higher with IPS screens were the absolute be all and end all of monitors. Now that we have true high end, high refresh rate IPS and VA monitors (albeit at a high price), that seems to have dropped off a fair bit as well.

Add to that the debates between FreeSync, Gsync and adaptive synce, which again have dropped off a fair bit because for the most part Freesync and Gsync work quite well and are close in performance.

GPU arguments however have never stopped. The irony is, both AMD (or ATI for us older lads) and Nvidia both make excellent products. Freesync/G-Sync does muddy the waters a bit but ultimately who cares? I've been on this forum for over 10 years and the bickering doesn't stop - it just changes flavors









Don't even get me started on Crossfire vs. SLI, that was plain ugly for a long time...

Again I say who cares? Get hardware that works for what you want to do within your budget and move on...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Yeah, Freesync is nice to have but it's not the be-all. I'd love it if Nvidia would drop Gsync and use their own software implementation of the VESA standard but I'm not going to turn down a superior price/performance option from Nvidia because my monitor is Freesync.


I have seen a lot of people here love VRR monitors. I played with a FreeSync 30-144Hz range monitor for 1 day and was super hard for me to make a difference. Maybe I was doing something wrong.


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> You don't need FreeSync or G-Sync. Most do fine without it at all. If it's such an issue, just buy a monitor with FreeSync and a second with G-Sync.


Once your in, you cant get out. Its an issue that affects dedicated gamers only. Its such an huge issue I can't get my head warped around having to switch monitors everytime we wan't to test a GPU.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Yeah, Freesync is nice to have but it's not the be-all. I'd love it if Nvidia would drop Gsync and use their own software implementation of the VESA standard but I'm not going to turn down a superior price/performance option from Nvidia because my monitor is Freesync.


Its not a better price/performance offering from nvidia once you have to put 200€ more on the monitor. It loses every advantage it had.

Its surreal we face ourselves in this situation and let it continue. Slowly boiling the frog and no one notices.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> The only evidence is that it can max out hitman at [email protected], just like 1080 can max out games at 1440p from the press conference.


And that's not even evidence because AMD never confirmed the settings (and refused to when asked). Some rumor site said it was Ultra and everyone ran with it.


----------



## Robilar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Once your in, you cant get out. Its an issue that affects dedicated gamers only. Its such an huge issue I can't get my head warped around having to switch monitors everytime we wan't to test a GPU.
> Its not a better price/performance offering from nvidia once you have to put 200€ more on the monitor. It loses every advantage it had.
> 
> Its surreal we face ourselves in this situation and let it continue. Slowly boiling the frog and no one notices.


$200 euros between freesync and gsync? What country are you in? Here in Canada this difference in price for example with Acer 27" units is $120 CADwhich is about $80 Euros. Yes there is a price delta but nowhere near what you are indicating.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Yeah, Freesync is nice to have but it's not the be-all. I'd love it if Nvidia would drop Gsync and use their own software implementation of the VESA standard but I'm not going to turn down a superior price/performance option from Nvidia because my monitor is Freesync.


I'm just surprised AMD hasn't collaborated with TV manufacturers to get FreeSync on them. I think all the consoles pretty much use AMD hardware these days and given how many owners there are I could see it taking off and beating G-Sync. Plus it would mean I could buy a new TV to use as a monitor with variable refresh rates (finally).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I have seen a lot of people here love VRR monitors. I played with a FreeSync 30-144Hz range monitor for 1 day and was super hard for me to make a difference. Maybe I was doing something wrong.


I had the ROG Swift (and the Acer FreeSync equivalent), it felt like the only noticeable difference was at the lower refresh rates. Again, another good reason why I think FreeSync TVs should exist. Console games usually have mediocre FPS and would benefit from it.


----------



## TTheuns

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> $200 euros between freesync and gsync? What country are you in? Here in Canada this difference in price for example with Acer 27" units is $120 CADwhich is about $80 Euros. Yes there is a price delta but nowhere near what you are indicating.


Take your price, convert it to Euros, add shipping costs, and then add another 21% tax on that total price. Europe sucks for this kind of stuff.


----------



## lahvie

Each time I look at the cooler it looks sexier and sexier


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Once your in, you cant get out. Its an issue that affects dedicated gamers only. Its such an huge issue I can't get my head warped around having to switch monitors everytime we wan't to test a GPU.


Son, this isn't the mafia. And like I said, you don't *need* either one. In fact, "gamers" have been using static refresh rate LCDs for over a decade.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> And that's not even evidence because AMD never confirmed the settings (and refused to when asked). Some rumor site said it was Ultra and everyone ran with it.


the same goes for doom too we have no refrence of the game since the current version is locked on 60 fps..


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Nvidia Pushes Chip Speed Higher, *Price Lower
*
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nvidia-pushes-chip-speed-higher-price-lower-1462594938?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> If HD 4870 could not do it nothing can.


You need a performance leader to gain market share. Pure and simple. Most people will find out which card is the best on the market and then pick a lower priced card from said company...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> Nvidia Pushes Chip Speed Higher, *Price Lower
> *
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/nvidia-pushes-chip-speed-higher-price-lower-1462594938?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp


WOW... talk about peddling misinformation...


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> Nvidia Pushes Chip Speed Higher, *Price Lower
> *
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/nvidia-pushes-chip-speed-higher-price-lower-1462594938?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp


What's bad is that people really believe that!

If that was the case then we would be paying $100k for a 1080 because it is 100 faster than the flagship card from 15 years ago... lol


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Son, this isn't the mafia. And like I said, you don't *need* either one. In fact, "gamers" have been using static refresh rate LCDs for over a decade.


"gamers" have been using whatever is available. What kind of reasoning are you trying to pass on? come on man.

Once you tried you cannot go back.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> "gamers" have been using whatever is available. What kind of reasoning are you trying to pass on? come on man.
> 
> Once you tried you cannot go back.


I never tried for that reason. I can deal with a little tearing so I don't have to be held hostage to one gpu manufacturer.









That's basically what they are saying.


----------



## spyshagg

Exactly. Having to be held hostage is such an high cost when considering the tech is free for all to use.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> I never tried for that reason. I can deal with a little tearing so I don't have to be held hostage to one gpu manufacturer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's basically what they are saying.


That I agree with. It kinda makes me think of heroin lol. I hear it's fantastic at first, but I don't really want to get hooked and pay that price.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> "gamers" have been using whatever is available. What kind of reasoning are you trying to pass on? come on man.
> 
> Once you tried you cannot go back.


I've tried both. Went back to my 40" TV that has neither option. Like I've stated numerous times, you don't *need* it.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> That I agree with. It kinda makes me think of heroin lol. I hear it's fantastic at first, but I don't really want to get hooked and pay that price.


Yep. Same reason I don't have a 4k monitor. Got to have most gpu power to max out settings at 4k or die!


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Yep. Same reason I don't have a 4k monitor.


Yep. Went with a 4K curved 40" TV. I don't think I'll ever buy anything smaller or non-curved ever again. Sucks because it takes a lot of horsepower to run current games :/ Would rather not be spending so much paper when I game once every few weeks.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Exactly. Having to be held hostage is such an high cost when considering the tech is free for all to use.


The tech is,the implementation isn't.


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> I've tried both. Went back to my 40" TV that has neither option. Like I've stated numerous times, you don't *need* it.


Are you in a star wars movie? trying to use the force are you?

Are you so locked into you reasoning you cannot see a single instance why would any one need a freesync monitor? good luck with vsync + latency + 60hz + hdtv on a BF4 match. Its great for playing minecraft i'll give you that. Don't try to tell me what is or isn't needed as per your opinion,


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Are you in a star wars movie? trying to use the force are you?
> 
> Are you so locked into you reasoning you cannot see a single instance why would any one need a freesync monitor? good luck with vsync + latency + 60hz + hdtv. Great for playing minecraft i'll give you that.


If you want to get technical, we don't need a gaming computer at all. It is all luxury. I just choose to not invest in the part of the luxury that you do. You did and now you are stuck with thinking you "need" it. Want is a terrible drug.


----------



## spyshagg

No one needs it = the issue does not exist.
Carry on oc.net


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Are you in a star wars movie? trying to use the force are you?
> 
> Are you so locked into you reasoning you cannot see a single instance why would any one need a freesync monitor? good luck with vsync + latency + 60hz + hdtv on a BF4 match. Its great for playing minecraft i'll give you that. Don't try to tell me what is or isn't needed as per your opinion,


Yeah, we all know you need that variable refresh rate so you can go above 1:1 in BF4 and upload your CAL-O videos for your 14 dedicated YouTube subscribers. For some strange reason, you seem to think that if you purchase a monitor with G-Sync or FreeSync, you're automatically locked into Nvidia or AMD cards with no way out. You ever think about buying a 2nd monitor with the other option? Or how about selling it and buying the other side's monitor?


----------



## bigjdubb

Meh. I just run Vsync for now, input lag/latency isn't noticeable to me.


----------



## Ithanul

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> should I give 200€ more for the same monitor? Its an anti-consumer barrier nvidia put in front of us. For those in or out of gsync. Once your in, you cant get out.
> 
> I couldn't try 1080 even if I wanted and change 4 months later to AMD. There will always by a 600€ monitor involved.


Or just don't buy a freesync or gsync. I have a 1440p monitor and its neither of those. Since I could care less about funky proprietary crap like that.

I'm waiting on folding numbers and compute performance on the new cards. But seems I will have to wait a few more months. But I plan to wait for the big dies anyways, don't see the point in buying little chips. Then again my priorities with video cards is different. As gaming with them is 3rd or 4th on my list.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Yep. Same reason I don't have a 4k monitor. Got to have most gpu power to max out settings at 4k or die!


Yep, I don't do 4K either, the tech is still a huge money sink if I ever saw one. Plus, I can go far longer without needing new hardware.









Only reason I would buy a 4K monitor would be to use for professional use and not even game with it (like I do with my huge 30inch Dell Ultrasharp at 1600P)


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I have seen a lot of people here love VRR monitors. I played with a FreeSync 30-144Hz range monitor for 1 day and was super hard for me to make a difference. Maybe I was doing something wrong.


It made a bigger difference when I was on one card at 4k, still comes in handy with the odd duck that won't let me use Crossfire (RS:S mostly).


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> No one needs it = the issue does not exist.
> Carry on oc.net


Sorry but here's some of what you've written so far:

"Once your in, you cant get out."

"Its such an huge issue"

"Its surreal we face ourselves in this situation and let it continue."

Climate change, terrorism, unemployment rates, the fragile economy, etc. Those are huge issues. Only being able to take advantage of either FreeSync or G-Sync is not as big of an issue as you think it is.


----------



## Robilar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TTheuns*
> 
> Take your price, convert it to Euros, add shipping costs, and then add another 21% tax on that total price. Europe sucks for this kind of stuff.


That doesn't make sense though??? I was talking about the difference in price between freesync and gsync monitors. The shipping costs (if any) would be the same right? The difference in taxes on 80 Euros is what another $16?


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I think we all agree on their poor marketing and bizarre timing. The hardware is usually pretty solid though. I don't know, I'm patient enough to wait and see what Pol 10/11 actually have to offer but I know that some people are already spring-loaded for 1080 FE. I don't hold that against them, I hope they love it. I don't hate Nvidia either, I own Nvidia products, I've bought from both vendors since 2004. Not loving the precedent of the FE though, and so instead of snapping up a 1070 for my backup rig, I'm going to wait to see all of the options. Also, I sincerely doubt Pol 10 is 5-10 months away, and Vega is intended to compete with 1080 Ti / Titan, I'm fairly certain of that, and neither of those cards are announced yet either.


But this year AMD hyped the Fury series. And before they could even paper launch the darn thing, nVidia took the wind out of their sails and brought us the the GTX 980Ti and before that the Titan X. It pretty much made the Fury cards meh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> HD 5870, HD 7970 both came early. Did nothing really. Nvidia fanbase too strong


The HD7970 was an amazing card and it did come early, about three-ish months. However the Kepler hype pretty much took away from GCN.


----------



## ALiShaikh

Looks like its named after the max resolution it runs at.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



shamelessly stolen from reddit


----------



## Vesku

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Sorry but here's some of what you've written so far:
> 
> "Once your in, you cant get out."
> 
> "Its such an huge issue"
> 
> "Its surreal we face ourselves in this situation and let it continue."
> 
> Climate change, terrorism, unemployment rates, the fragile economy, etc. Those are huge issues. Only being able to take advantage of either FreeSync or G-Sync is not as big of an issue as you think it is.


Fallacious thinking, we aren't discussing general problems of the universe. Vendor lock in is very bad for those buying products and currently there is a vendor lock in problem when it comes to VRR.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> But this year AMD hyped the Fury series. And before they could even paper launch the darn thing, nVidia took the wind out of their sails and brought us the the GTX 980Ti and before that the Titan X. It pretty much made the Fury cards meh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Fury X, sure, it lost to the Ti. Nano was overpriced at launch; the price at which it ended up made it a pretty good buy. Air-cooled Fury was always a winner, worth the small premium over the 980, especially at my res (4k).


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vesku*
> 
> Fallacious thinking, we aren't discussing general problems of the universe. Vendor lock in is very bad for those buying products and currently there is a vendor lock in problem when it comes to VRR.


I agree it's a problem but this is mainly for video games (entertainment). Sorry if I don't see it as anything other than a minor inconvenience.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> I agree it's a problem but this is mainly for video games (entertainment). Sorry if I don't see it as anything other than a minor inconvenience.


Agree.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Fury X, sure, it lost to the Ti. Nano was overpriced at launch; the price at which it ended up made it a pretty good buy. Air-cooled Fury was always a winner, worth the small premium over the 980, especially at my res (4k).


Thought the R9-390/X with 8GB was actually the better buy over all the fury line


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> Thought the R9-390/X with 8GB was actually the better buy over all the fury line


Both good choices, but Fury comes near stock 980 Ti / Fury X performance at 4k which makes it a great value at a res where you're often buying two cards. Overall I think it's quite strong and was on offer frequently through the past year. $475 US isn't bad for perf between 980 and 980 Ti


----------



## pompss

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150768&cm_re=r9_duo-_-14-150-768-_-Product

just on time









Really bad timing like always


----------



## Serandur

If anyone cares, here are some charts showing a few extra details on the 1080's specs:





Source

The charts show that the 1080 will have 64 ROPs, 2MBs of L2 cache, and 160 TMUs (4 TMUs per SM x 40 SMs = 160 TMUs).


----------



## FlyingSolo

What is the GTX1080 and GTX1070 Founders Edition?


----------



## Millillion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlyingSolo*
> 
> What is the GTX1080 and GTX1070 Founders Edition?


Well then, that's interesting.

And disappointing.


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pompss*
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150768&cm_re=r9_duo-_-14-150-768-_-Product
> 
> just on time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really bad timing like always


I feel sorry for AMD. Two 1080's in SLI would completely obliterate that thing for far less cost.


----------



## whitrzac

So 20% faster than a 980ti for a similar price at launch?


----------



## carlhil2

Ahh, the HD 4870, my favorite ATI gpu.....rocking my AMD rig back then...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *whitrzac*
> 
> So 20% faster than a 980ti for a similar price at launch?


New Architecture, 16nm , G5X and slightly better performance/$ then GTX980 Ti. 1080 is a failure if you look at it that way.


----------



## nani17

When does the nda agreement end? Looking forward to benchmarks especially 4k ones.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nani17*
> 
> When does the nda agreement end? Looking forward to benchmarks especially 4k ones.


The day its comes out so May 27th. They should use a non-reference GTX980 Ti vs this card. The best against the new best. Reference 980 Ti is pointless at this point.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nani17*
> 
> When does the nda agreement end? Looking forward to benchmarks especially 4k ones.


Reports are that the embargo for reviews get lifted the 17th.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> The day its comes out so May 27th. They should use a non-reference GTX980 Ti vs this card. The best against the new best. Reference 980 Ti is pointless at this point.


Do you mean, like they did when the Fury was released?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Do you mean, like they did when the Fury was released?


What did they do. Do not quite remember.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> What did they do. Do not quite remember.


Well, they DIDN'T bench/review it on release against non reference 980Ti...they didn't do that for the 980 againt the non reference 780Ti, etc..why switch the game up now?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Well, they DIDN'T bench/review it on release against non reference 980Ti...they didn't do that for the 980 againt the non reference 780Ti, etc..


But the difference there was Reference 980 Ti was still available. Its not so much now.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> But the difference there was Reference 980 Ti was still available. Its not so much now.


Sounds like some are moving the goal post...reference vs refence, OC vs OC, as it should be done..going by past history...







those pascal clocks have people shook,...


----------



## whitrzac

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> New Architecture, 16nm , G5X and slightly better performance/$ then GTX980 Ti. 1080 is a failure if you look at it that way.


$/perf doesn't really matter to me.... How much faster than a 980ti is it?


----------



## pompss

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> I feel sorry for AMD. Two 1080's in SLI would completely obliterate that thing for far less cost.


.

$299 less and more performance.

Yeah Nvidia just killed amd pro duo sells.

This is what happens if you wait 9 months after announcing a video card. i still didn't get how AMD can be so stupid.

For sure someone will get fired very soon.


----------



## KillerBee33

Humm nVidia Doubled the Performance of 980 with 1080. Why is everyone compairing it to 980Ti and saying it';s a falure? Wait for 1080Ti and see the difference








You wouldn't compare Porsche Boxter to Porsche GT3 , to me that sound exactly what people are doing now


----------



## looniam

could be because nvidia calls the 1080 the new king and is pricing it like a 980TI.


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> could be because nvidia calls the 1080 the new king and is pricing it like a 980TI.


But it isTHE NEW KING as of Today............
And Reference 980 was always 549$ [email protected]!!!!!!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> I feel sorry for AMD. Two 1080's in SLI would completely obliterate that thing for far less cost.


Two Fury X's in CF would likely beat it as well and for far less $$$. Just another indicator to me that the Pro Duo was conceived of and engineered a long while back and they already had too much invested to simply jump ship with it once market realities became clear so they are just trying to get back whatever money they can and hope nobody really kills them too hard about it...


----------



## nani17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> The day its comes out so May 27th. They should use a non-reference GTX980 Ti vs this card. The best against the new best. Reference 980 Ti is pointless at this point.


Well I expect lots of youtubers will do that


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Sounds like some are moving the goal post...reference vs refence, OC vs OC, as it should be done..going by past history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those pascal clocks have people shook,...


Definitely a moving goalpost. By this logic the fury x should have been compared to OC gtx 980 ti, the 390x series should have been compared to the overclocked gtx 980/970.

AMD dumped reference designs besides the fury nano and everything comes preoverclocked now with a none reference cooling. There needs to be a consistent review protocol for reviews to be comparable and accountable to one another.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> I feel sorry for AMD. Two 1080's in SLI would completely obliterate that thing for far less cost.


A single overclocked 1080 might be within 10% of an fury pro duo overall because of the games not compatible with CF. It would just take 20% oc which I believe to be possible with a none reference cooler. What this means is the Fury Pro Duo has the potential to actually be an advertising point for Nvidia. E.g very similar performance for vastly cheaper in a single card and with the improved VR capabilities of the 1080, possible better VR performance.

I could see the reviews already saying for the aftermarket cards, similar performance to Fury pro duo at less than half the price.

The Fury pro duo is simply one of the worst launches for execution. The thing is, it's actually probably the best Fury based product. It doesn't have a peer, particularly if this was launched in fall and it appears to be the most efficient Fury design.

It just bad pricing and timing is what did it in. Whoever said lets delay this until VR launches when they were showing this card off in July of 2015 deserves to be fired.

What I don't understand is, why AMD said lets delay this launch until VR comes about and then say this card is for VR developers. Hint AMD: VR developers already had the VR oculus hardware before the official oculus launch.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> Definitely a moving goalpost. By this logic the fury x should have been compared to OC gtx 980 ti, the 390x series should have been compared to the overclocked gtx 980/970.
> 
> AMD dumped reference designs besides the fury nano and everything comes preoverclocked now with a none reference cooling. There needs to be a consistent review protocol for reviews to be comparable and accountable to one another.


True...lets do all of the reviews over, omit the nVidia reference for custom, see how that work out. I am sure that AMD wouldn't appreciate it.....


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Sounds like some are moving the goal post...reference vs refence, OC vs OC, as it should be done..going by past history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those pascal clocks have people shook,...


What Pascal clocks? We've seen one report of 2100Mhz and one set of leaked benches at 1800Mhz. Other than that Nvidia has been pretty tight-lipped so far about any specifics and we really know very little about overall clockspeeds (when considering non-ringer average consumer cards) and we are also conveniently forgetting that Polaris will certainly enjoy higher clockspeeds as well simply due to the node shrink. All I'm saying is let's at least wait until we get cards in the hands of OCN members before we start fantasizing about 2500Mhz and resort to baseless gloating. Then, if we actually do see speeds around here anything like 2500Mhz I will readily admit that Pascal is an amazing feat of engineering...


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> But it isTHE NEW KING as of Today............
> And Reference 980 was always 549$ [email protected]!!!!!!


since around the first of the year one could catch specials on new egg of~$600- $620 for a 980ti.

and really atm it's nothing until it hits retail shelves.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> What Pascal clocks? We've seen one report of 2100Mhz and one set of leaked benches at 1800Mhz. Other than that Nvidia has been pretty tight-lipped so far about any specifics and we really know very little about overall clockspeeds (when considering non-ringer average consumer cards) and we are also conveniently forgetting that Polaris will certainly enjoy higher clockspeeds as well simply due to the node shrink. All I'm saying is let's at least wait until we get cards in the hands of OCN members before we start fantasizing about 2500Mhz and resort to baseless gloating. Then, if we actually do see speeds around here anything like 2500Mhz I will readily admit that Pascal is an amazing feat of engineering...


Common sense tells me that all 1080 chips will, at least, hit 2G,..., but, hey, lets wait and see...







also, who is talking 2.5G? lol last I heard, pascal was "maxwell 3.0", so, in that case, the OC headroom should be the same, or, better, correct?


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> could be because nvidia calls the 1080 the new king and is pricing it like a 980TI.


Yeah the new "high price" king


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> Definitely a moving goalpost. By this logic the fury x should have been compared to OC gtx 980 ti, the 390x series should have been compared to the overclocked gtx 980/970.


It's uncouth to bench a FuryX against an overclocked 980Ti (talking "pro" reviews, obviously the unwashed masses can do what they please).


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> since around the first of the year one could catch specials on new egg of~$600- $620 for a 980ti.
> 
> *and really atm it's nothing until it hits retail shelves*.


No you are doing it wrong! What you do instead is you immediately lose your mind about marketing claims from Nvidia and start spouting off about how the card will be 50% faster than max-OC Titan X's, will clock to 3GHz+ and that Polaris will be slower than the 390X, all based on basically zero verifiable 3rd party info. Or, in other words, react exactly like Nvidia fanboys do at every new launch (though, to be fair, they have indeed been vindicated more often than not in recent years)....


----------



## antonio8

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> What Pascal clocks? We've seen one report of 2100Mhz and one set of leaked benches at 1800Mhz. Other than that Nvidia has been pretty tight-lipped so far about any specifics and we really know very little about overall clockspeeds (when considering non-ringer average consumer cards) and we are also conveniently forgetting that Polaris will certainly enjoy higher clockspeeds as well simply due to the node shrink. All I'm saying is let's at least wait until we get cards in the hands of OCN members before we start fantasizing about 2500Mhz and resort to baseless gloating. Then, if we actually do see speeds around here anything like 2500Mhz I will readily admit that Pascal is an amazing feat of engineering...


http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=08G-P4-6180-KR

Here we go. Click on the Details and we have all the info we want.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Humm nVidia Doubled the Performance of 980 with 1080. Why is everyone compairing it to 980Ti and saying it';s a falure? Wait for 1080Ti and see the difference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't compare Porsche Boxter to Porsche GT3 , to me that sound exactly what people are doing now


Sure but GTX980 is 2 years old and was $150 less expesnive. How is that innovation. Next Gen 104 will be like $800 the way Nvidia is moving. Keep in min Naiming does not matter anymore. Its all about performance. With $699 price 1080 is coming hot towards 980 Ti. 980 came $150 less then 780 Ti.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *antonio8*
> 
> http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=08G-P4-6180-KR
> 
> Here we go. Click on the Details and we have all the info we want.


Well there you have it folks! Undisputed confirmation of 3GHz OC's right there!









All I said was let's see how these cards actually perform in the real world once released rather than simply assuming stuff. Is that so much to ask?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Humm nVidia Doubled the Performance of 980 with 1080. Why is everyone compairing it to 980Ti and saying it';s a falure? Wait for 1080Ti and see the difference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't compare Porsche Boxter to Porsche GT3 , to me that sound exactly what people are doing now


+65-80% is not double. The price is at the old 980 Ti level. How is that a success?


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> No you are doing it wrong! What you do instead is you immediately lose your mind about marketing claims from Nvidia and start spouting off about how the card will be 50% faster than max-OC Titan X's, will clock to 3GHz+ and that Polaris will be slower than the 390X, all based on basically zero verifiable 3rd party info. Or, in other words, react exactly like Nvidia fanboys do at every new launch (though, to be fair, they have indeed been vindicated more often than not in recent years)....


sorry, i'll do better next time.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *antonio8*
> 
> http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=08G-P4-6180-KR
> 
> Here we go. Click on the Details and we have all the info we want.


naked PCB shot or go home!


----------



## antonio8

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Well there you have it folks! Undisputed confirmation of 3GHz OC's right there!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I said was let's see how these cards actually perform in the real world once released rather than simply assuming stuff. Is that so much to ask?


Oh.

You said there was 'little" info on clock speeds or anything along those lines.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Well there you have it folks! Undisputed confirmation of 3GHz OC's right there!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I said was let's see how these cards actually perform in the real world once released rather than simply assuming stuff. Is that so much to ask?


Yes. Jen-Hsun will be by in the morning to collect your leather jacket. The hype is funny though, nothing like a new GPU release for being called "fanboy" for saying that the new card looks good but might not be our new Lord and Saviour. I look forward to the full battery of third-party tests, and also some concrete information about Polaris. Comparing real-world numbers is always more satisfying than tilting at windmills.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *antonio8*
> 
> http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=08G-P4-6180-KR
> 
> Here we go. Click on the Details and we have all the info we want.


1607 MHz Base Clock
1733 MHz Boost Clock

Also, when did frequencies mattered so much? There is no practical sense in comparing the frequency of one architecture vs another.

Another thing to consider, much like the 980, overclock may be power limited...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> 1607 MHz Base Clock
> 1733 MHz Boost Clock
> 
> Also, when did frequencies mattered so much? There is no practical sense in comparing the frequency of one architecture vs another.
> 
> Another thing to consider, much like the 980, overclock may be power limited...


No, no, no! Nvidia claims a boost clock of 1733MHz so OBVIOUSLY the card will OC at least 100% to 3400MHz or so. Come on man, what are you, some kind of noob or something?


----------



## SuperZan

Astronauts working on the ISS are reporting sightings of 3GHz+ 1080's in low orbit. Seriously though, the clock speeds are impressive but as @Slomo4shO points out clock speeds mean different things to different architectures.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Impressive clock speeds for sure but I fully expect similar gains in clock speed for AMD's 14nm chips as well. I'm not even disputing that the 1080 may well end up blowing all our socks off, I'm just saying there are a lot of "internet warrior" claims being made about it based on really no 3rd party info as yet. Reminds me so much of the 980 launch where everybody was losing their minds about it yet once the cards were actually released and benched by regular enthusiasts it really wasn't all that impressive compared to the 780Ti and Titan (at least right at release). But at least the 980 was significantly cheaper than the 780Ti then; this 1080 is actually MORE expensive than the 980Ti!!!


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> No, no, no! Nvidia claims a boost clock of 1733MHz so OBVIOUSLY the card will OC at least 100% to 3400MHz or so. Come on man, what are you, some kind of noob or something?


You are the only one proclaiming those crazy clocks, nVidia said something about hitting 2G...


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> You are the only one proclaiming those crazy clocks, nVidia said something about hitting 2G...


2.1 is nothing, percentage wise, from stock boost levels of ~1830. If that was all they could get out of a demo unit, OC headroom is gonna be bad.


----------



## Brimlock

Fortunately for me I can just pick up a 1070 cheap and ride out for Vega/Volta. 1070 is still an astronomical upgrade to my 780


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> You are the only one proclaiming those crazy clocks, nVidia said something about hitting 2G...


1733MHz is Boost Clock, Acatual Boost Clock is probably ~ 18XXMHz. 2.1GHz % wise is very weak. People just seem to like high numbers like in P4 era. I am sure 16nm is not the only reason for Pascal to hit 2.1GHz. Probably some changes in architecture.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> You are the only one proclaiming those crazy clocks, nVidia said something about hitting 2G...


Its hyperbole, I admit that. But an 1800MHz 1080 was basically on par with several OCN member's 1500MHz+ 980Ti's so just exactly how much more of a gain do you really think that extra 200MHz would get them? I just don't think you are going to be seeing these 30% gains over the 980Ti/Titan X unless the 1080 can hit at least 2300-2400MHz...


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 2.1 is nothing, percentage wise, from stock boost levels of ~1830. If that was all they could get out of a demo unit, OC headroom is gonna be bad.


I expect you to say this....


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Its hyperbole, I admit that. But an 1800MHz 1080 was basically on par with several OCN member's 1500MHz+ 980Ti's so just exactly how much more of a gain do you really think that extra 200MHz would get them? I just don't think you are going to be seeing these 30% gains over the 980Ti/Titan X unless the 1080 can hit at least 2300-2400MHz...


Pretty much that but that is only true of Nvidia still optimizes for Maxwell. We know in 4-6 months they will just drop optimizations for Maxwell and only optimize Pascal.


----------



## looniam

just because . .


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Pretty much that but that is only true of Nvidia still optimizes for Maxwell. We know in 4-6 months they will just drop optimizations for Maxwell and only optimize Pascal.


True, but I am talking about right now. They're not going to stop optimizing for Maxwell immediately...


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Its hyperbole, I admit that. But an 1800MHz 1080 was basically on par with several OCN member's 1500MHz+ 980Ti's so just exactly how much more of a gain do you really think that extra 200MHz would get them? I just don't think you are going to be seeing these 30% gains over the 980Ti/Titan X unless the 1080 can hit at least 2300-2400MHz...


Everything that you said is based on rumors...


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 2.1 is nothing, percentage wise, from stock boost levels of ~1830. If that was all they could get out of a demo unit, OC headroom is gonna be bad.


But we don't know if that was max OC, or just a comfortable little bump, so to speak, that they could be sure wouldn't crash or overheat during the demo. I seriously doubt they ran that thing up until it crashed, backed of a couple of clicks in P-X and ran their demo.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> just because . .


Lol, that site, anything for hits...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> True, but I am talking about right now. They're not going to stop optimizing for Maxwell immediately...


Easy to spot. If Fury X start getting faster then 980 Ti then there is something going on.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Lol, that site, anything for hits...


Well the Daily Mail doesn't cover GPU releases!







Somebody's got to do it.


----------



## carlhil2

Anyways, for some to think that pascal is going to have LESS OC headroom from stock than maxwell is just hoping that this was the case, for the obvious reasons. I see straight through you dudes, just to let you know..


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Anyways, for some to think that pascal is going to have LESS OC headroom from stock than maxwell is just hoping that this was the case, for the obvious reasons. I see straight through you dudes, just to let you know..


Define OC headroom? % OC or MHz OC? Kepler had more OC headroom then Maxwell but Maxwell had higher MHz sealing.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Define OC headroom? % OC or MHz OC? Kepler had more OC headroom then Maxwell but Maxwell had higher MHz sealing.


Serious question, are you even looking to buy a pascal card, or, are you just hoping for a fail?


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Anyways, for some to think that pascal is going to have LESS OC headroom from stock than maxwell is just hoping that this was the case, for the obvious reasons. I see straight through you dudes, just to let you know..


The only thing that concerns me is operating at these high frequencies requires some tight signals. Much was made about the better power delivery, how the memory signals looked like noise on the scope, all that. It might not take too much OC to screw yon pooch.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Serious question, are you even looking to buy a pascal card, or, are you just hoping for a fail?


I hope 1080 fails hard. It's a price point that has gone beyond my reach. Just cant accept mid-range dies to sell for $700.


----------



## carlhil2

I just want the fastest gpu, Today. when the next fastest comes, I will get that, and so on......


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I hope 1080 fails hard. It's a price point that has gone beyond my reach. Just cant accept mid-range dies to sell for $700.


Well then, stick to AMD, they got you covered, what's the issue? I know for a fact that, if I weren't interested in, say, polaris, I wouldn't be in a polaris thread complaining about what polaris would cost, or, it's performance.. I would never go into a thread of a product that I have no interest in, just to be critical..


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I hope 1080 fails hard. It's a price point that has gone beyond my reach. Just cant accept mid-range dies to sell for $700.


1080 isn't considered mid-range, if you put it in the mid-range for high end cards I would agree, and then state the 1070 would be the low end of high ranged or high end of mid ranged card.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Well then, stick to AMD, they got you covered, what's the issue?.


That is kinda screwed up, probably hundreds of posts dedicated to a product he admits he has no interest in. I probably have a couple dozen posts in all AMD threads combined - and some of those are discussing AMD CPUs that I thought highly of.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Easy to spot. If Fury X start getting faster then 980 Ti then there is something going on.


Stock vs stock it's already faster than 980ti. 2-4k


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Stock vs stock it's already faster than 980ti. 2-4k


Kind of depends how you define stock. If you mean reference, maybe, but an out-of-the-box AMP! or Matrix is also "stock".


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> That is kinda screwed up, probably hundreds of posts dedicated to a product he admits he has no interest in. I probably have a couple dozen posts in all AMD threads combined - and some of those are discussing AMD CPUs that I thought highly of.


Why are you even on OCN? This is a place of discussion. We are not discussing here trying to convince each other to buy a certain GPU or come here to find valid reason why you should buy a GPU. Just because you are buying the GPU does not give you the right to call other people that are not. I do not go out of my way in invade Nvidia owners threads.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Kind of depends how you define stock. If you mean reference, maybe, but an out-of-the-box AMP! or Matrix is also "stock".


yeah , i meant reference because Fury x is only available in that flavor.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> yeah , i meant reference because Fury x is only available in that flavor.


Trades blows @ 4K but generally is slower then Reference 980 Ti @ 1440p and most definitely slower @ 1080p. Yes there are some new tittles with DX12 and such that are not 100% clear.


----------



## nani17

Will AMD go with HBM2 out of the gate or will they GDDRX


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> yeah , i meant reference because Fury x is only available in that flavor.


And there's where the controversy always starts. You want to compare Fury X to reference 980 Tis because that's all that is available for Fury X, but at the same time people are criticizing Nvidia for comparing the 1080 to reference Titan X (and calling for reviewers to compare it to AIB 980 Tis, even though only reference 1080 cards will be available at launch). There kind of needs to be a consistent approach.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nani17*
> 
> Will AMD go with HBM2 out of the gate or will they GDDRX


At this point it sounds like neither, and that they will use regular GDDR5.


----------



## carlhil2

https://youtu.be/10_vi8G9ES0 Goodbye GTX 980Ti


----------



## n4p0l3onic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> what is the point of this image? It is from Q2 2013 and on... The 4870 was released in June 2008...
> 
> Here is a better depiction:
> 
> 
> The release of the 4870 had a slight gain in market share for a quarter but it was a failure in the long run as illustrated by the 10% market share loss from Q3 2008 to Q1 2009...
> 
> So, lets not hope for Polaris 10 being similar to the 4870...


The ati/amd gpu marketshare downfall was more because of the software than pure hardware failure, they never truly escaped from the bad software stigma ever since radeon 8500 days (maybe even before), then the shader model 2.0b vs shader model 3.0 fiasco ruined their momentum to truly gained the upper hand post nv fx5000 disaster era, ever since then ati/amd started making some blunders with late and underperforming products, from there nv delivered the sucker punch with physx, sli and g80, since that moment ati/amd was cornered on almost yearly basis, they only came close to gained some momentum with the hd4000 series but it was already quite late since nv was already created their apple like ecosystem, while ati/amd was struggling on 2 fronts (cpu+gpu)

Ati/amd should've invested on better marketing and software division back then when 9700 pro wqs a huge hit and nv made huge mistake with fx5000

What a glorious era that was in 2003-2004 when amd and ati roflstomped nv and intel *sigh*


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Why are you even on OCN? This is a place of discussion. We are not discussing here trying to convince each other to buy a certain GPU or come here to find valid reason why you should buy a GPU. Just because you are buying the GPU does not give you the right to call other people that are not. I do not go out of my way in invade Nvidia owners threads.


Yeah, didn't know I was buying one - not a 1070/1080 at least. Maybe next year!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Serious question, are you even looking to buy a pascal card, or, are you just hoping for a fail?


Interesting. So you are saying that only Nvidia fanboys should be allowed to post in Nvidia threads and the same for AMD threads? I mean just because I may not have any interest in buying pascal does not mean that I have no right to post in Pascal threads.

And I am not dumping on the 1080 at all. I'm just trying to bring things back to reality a bit. The 1080 may well end up being a genuine breakthrough for video card technology but we can't just assume that based on the limited information we have so far. There's nothing wrong with waiting for actual results to come in before proclaiming it the undisputed champion of this generation.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Interesting. So you are saying that only Nvidia fanboys should be allowed to post in Nvidia threads and the same for AMD threads? I mean just because I may not have any interest in buying pascal does not mean that I have no right to post in Pascal threads.
> 
> And I am not dumping on the 1080 at all. I'm just trying to bring things back to reality a bit. The 1080 may well end up being a genuine breakthrough for video card technology but we can't just assume that based on the limited information we have so far. There's nothing wrong with waiting for actual results to come in before proclaiming it the undisputed champion of this generation.


Lol, who was even referring to you? actually, no, one shouldn't go into a thread just to troll..I was in the Pro Duo thread, I want one of those dead chips, bad. I didn't leave any negative comments in my wake though....there is never nothing wrong with having a discussion, but, that's not what happens in these threads, it turns to name calling and hurt feelings, that's all...men getting all sensitive and emotional over some tech...not a good look...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Interesting. So you are saying that only Nvidia fanboys should be allowed to post in Nvidia threads and the same for AMD threads? I mean just because I may not have any interest in buying pascal does not mean that I have no right to post in Pascal threads.
> 
> And I am not dumping on the 1080 at all. I'm just trying to bring things back to reality a bit. The 1080 may well end up being a genuine breakthrough for video card technology but we can't just assume that based on the limited information we have so far. There's nothing wrong with waiting for actual results to come in before proclaiming it the undisputed champion of this generation.


Got to ask you something. What cards did you have before the Titans? HD 7970? Before that GTX580 maybe? Why no 980 Ti? Is there a reason? Does spending 1K on Titan, or GPUs being more expensive in general made you skip a generation? I mean it might be wrong of me to assume but usually you always save money for this hobby and only allocate that money to something else if you do not bealive in the current pricing/system of GPUs.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Got to ask you something. What cards did you have before the Titans? HD 7970? Before that GTX580 maybe? Why no 980 Ti? Is there a reason? Does spending 1K on Titan, or GPUs being more expensive in general made you skip a generation? I mean it might be wrong of me to assume but usually you always save money for this hobby and only allocate that money to something else if you do not bealive in the current pricing/system of GPUs.


I got a brand-new ZX6R back in the summer of 2014 so most of my expendable cash has gone into that as of late. The truth of the matter is my old Titans still perform more than well enough for me in all the games that I play at the resolution that I play at. My system is also custom watercooled so buying new hardware has extra costs and hassle associated with it to consider.


----------



## Somasonic

Dat price tho









Seriously though I was thinking of sidegrading to 1080 Ti for a cooler, quieter system. Looking at the pricing of the 1080 I'm skeptical that I could get enough from selling both 980 TI's to afford a 1080 Ti...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Somasonic*
> 
> Dat price tho
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though I was thinking of sidegrading to 1080 Ti for a cooler, quieter system. Looking at the pricing of the 1080 I'm skeptical that I could get enough from selling both 980 TI's to afford a 1080 Ti...


In your case you probably have to wait like I did for Big Volta lol.


----------



## nani17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> And there's where the controversy always starts. You want to compare Fury X to reference 980 Tis because that's all that is available for Fury X, but at the same time people are criticizing Nvidia for comparing the 1080 to reference Titan X (and calling for reviewers to compare it to AIB 980 Tis, even though only reference 1080 cards will be available at launch). There kind of needs to be a consistent approach.
> At this point it sounds like neither, and that they will use regular GDDR5.


Oh really not what I was expecting


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Interesting. So you are saying that only Nvidia fanboys should be allowed to post in Nvidia threads and the same for AMD threads?.


Should be allowed vs should, I think is the difference. I rarely post in AMD threads, I even make it a point to avoid posting in them - nothing that concerns me there currently. Same with Linux threads, phase change cooling threads, advanced basketweaving threads. I read them, but sort of figure that I don't have to put my $.02 in.

Ron White said it best. He was being arrested for public intoxication: "At that point, I had the right to remain silent. But I didn't have the ability". The difference between me and Ron White, I guess.


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> +65-80% is not double. The price is at the old 980 Ti level. How is that a success?


980Ti is still over $600 and 1080 beats it by good 20-30% , so what you saying is you'd rather pay 645$ for 2 YO 980Ti than 599$ for much better,newer 1080? WHAT???
http://www.evga.com/Products/ProductList.aspx?type=0&family=geforce+900+series+family&chipset=gtx+980+ti


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Should be allowed vs should, I think is the difference. I rarely post in AMD threads, I even make it a point to avoid posting in them - nothing that concerns me there currently. Same with Linux threads, phase change cooling threads, advanced basketweaving threads. I read them, but sort of figure that I don't have to put my $.02 in.
> 
> Ron White said it best. He was being arrested for public intoxication: "At that point, I had the right to remain silent. But I didn't have the ability". The difference between me and Ron White, I guess.


And there lies the difference. I visit GPU threads not Nvidia or AMD threads. What you are saying is that you are bend over Nvidia so really its makes any point you contribute clouded. We have enough clouded opinion outside OCN. I like this place and people here to be more intelligent towards the hardware they buy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> 980Ti is still over $600 and 1080 beats it by good 20-30% , so what you saying is you'd rather pay 645$ for 2 YO 980Ti than 599$ for much better,newer 1080? WHAT???
> http://www.evga.com/Products/ProductList.aspx?type=0&family=geforce+900+series+family&chipset=gtx+980+ti


That is a given. The difference is time is not free. 980 Ti is already 1 year old. If you are buying now 1080 makes sense.


----------



## Gonzalez07

I was so excited about buying one of these cards and then I find out they dropped vga support.


----------



## dsmwookie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gonzalez07*
> 
> I was so excited about buying one of these cards and then I find out they dropped vga support.


VGA needs to be put out to pasture it is old as sin!


----------



## KillerBee33

@ZealotKi11er
"That is a given. The difference is time is not free. 980 Ti is already 1 year old. If you are buying now 1080 makes sense."

What does that even mean? 980 came out on TOP and the only competitor was 780Ti , 1080 came out on top and there are NO competitors! 980 was 549$ 1080 is 599$ i don't know where you went OFF TRACK


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> 980Ti is still over $600 and 1080 beats it by good 20-30% , so what you saying is you'd rather pay 645$ for 2 YO 980Ti than 599$ for much better,newer 1080? WHAT???
> http://www.evga.com/Products/ProductList.aspx?type=0&family=geforce+900+series+family&chipset=gtx+980+ti


The 1080 is $700. You can get an overclocked 980Ti that performs roughly the same for cheaper than that.

How many people buy stock clocked 980Tis?


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> The 1080 is $700. You can get an overclocked 980Ti that performs roughly the same for cheaper than that.
> 
> How many people buy stock clocked 980Tis?


GET IT RIGHT!!!!
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/geforce-gtx-1080


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> GET IT RIGHT!!!!
> http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/geforce-gtx-1080


Get what right? It performs about 25% better than a stock Titan X and it will cost $700. What am I getting wrong?


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> Get what right? It performs about 25% better than a stock Titan X and it will cost $700. What am I getting wrong?


Why are you speaking? you already posted a wrong Price!!! 599MSRP and if you wish for a Nice Aluminum Reference Design you can pay 699


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Why are you speaking? you already posted a wrong Price!!! 599MSRP and if you wish for a Nice Aluminum Reference Design you can pay 699


An MSRP is a price Nvidia suggests, and they aren't even following their own suggestion. The "Founder's Edition" is a reference card, that's all. Nvidia won't be producing a cheaper card and there is no signs that any 3rd party retailer will be producing a $600 version either. EVGA already announced their reference card at $700.


----------



## KillerBee33

Wanted to check out this forum for some info all i got is people whining about 50$ and bad mouthing a PAPER PRODUCT.
I'll see you all on Official GTX1080 Owners forum in 4 months!


----------



## Mirotvorez113

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Why are you speaking? you already posted a wrong Price!!! 599MSRP and if you wish for a Nice Aluminum Reference Design you can pay 699


Suggested retail price is $599, which we will never see. Just makes no sense for AIB partners to charge less $700 for superior cooling and PCB. As far as performance goes, once Nvidia stated that 1080 will beat 980 SLI, I knew the information presented is skewed. I will be waiting for actual reviews before I believe anything. If leaked benchmarks are to be believed tho, 1080 is only about 30% faster than decently overclocked 980.


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mirotvorez113*
> 
> Suggested retail price is $599, which we will never see. Just makes no sense for AIB partners to charge less $700 for superior cooling and PCB. As far as performance goes, once Nvidia stated that 1080 will beat 980 SLI, I knew the information presented is skewed. I will be waiting for actual reviews before I believe anything. If leaked benchmarks are to be believed tho, 1080 is only about 30% faster than decently overclocked 980.


Where did you see SUGGESTED?
Are you an AIB partner?
Where do you get your facts from?


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Where did you see SUGGESTED?
> Are you an AIB partner?
> Where do you get your facts from?


MSRP stands for manufacturer's suggested retail price.


----------



## DIYDeath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Where did you see SUGGESTED?
> Are you an AIB partner?
> Where do you get your facts from?


I'm hoping he's wrong. The MSRP should be followed. Otherwise what's the point of the MSRP? To make people think they're getting ripped off?


----------



## Somasonic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Where did you see SUGGESTED?
> Are you an AIB partner?
> Where do you get your facts from?


MSRP = Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price

The 1080 is replacing the 980, it should be priced accordingly. I'm really not looking forward to seeing the price on the 1080 Ti....

Edit: Ninja'd


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mirotvorez113*
> 
> Suggested retail price is $599, which we will never see. Just makes no sense for AIB partners to charge less $700 for superior cooling and PCB. As far as performance goes, once Nvidia stated that 1080 will beat 980 SLI, I knew the information presented is skewed. I will be waiting for actual reviews before I believe anything. If leaked benchmarks are to be believed tho, 1080 is only about 30% faster than decently overclocked 980.


Here READ UP!!!
Does that say 549$ for a 980?
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/maxwell-architecture-gtx-980-970

Again if you don't know it , just don't say it!


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> what is the point of this image? It is from Q2 2013 and on... The 4870 was released in June 2008...
> 
> Here is a better depiction:
> 
> 
> The release of the 4870 had a slight gain in market share for a quarter but it was a failure in the long run as illustrated by the 10% market share loss from Q3 2008 to Q1 2009...
> 
> So, lets not hope for Polaris 10 being similar to the 4870...


Well, if you look past that, 4870 did pretty good after the initial GTX 260 C216 rush. The last card to come that totally annihilate market share was not the GTX 900 series. It was a single card. The 750 Ti.

The data will lag the launch by at least a quarter if not two.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> 980Ti is still over $600 and 1080 beats it by good 20-30% , so what you saying is you'd rather pay 645$ for 2 YO 980Ti than 599$ for much better,newer 1080? WHAT???
> http://www.evga.com/Products/ProductList.aspx?type=0&family=geforce+900+series+family&chipset=gtx+980+ti


No. I can get an overclocked card NEW for $530 $550.


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> No. I can get an overclocked card NEW for $530.


I can ask 5 Crackheads to snag one from BestBuy and 3 of 5 will do it for 100$ , Does that mean it's a 100$ Card?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> I can ask 5 Crackheads to snag one from BestBuy and 3 of 5 will do it for 100$ , Does that mean it's a 100$ Card?


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500382&ignorebbr=1 $550
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127895&ignorebbr=1 $560

Both are non-refurb cards.
The AMP! was $530 a day or two ago.
The MSI comes with a $30 rebate FWIW, putting it at $530.

How about you educate yourself before you talk.


----------



## velocd

So the 1000 series don't support 3-way or 4-way SLI, only 2-way SLI, and the new bridge is required for highest bandwidth. Are there any TRI or QUAD builders out there disappointed by this?

I did TRI SLI for the GTX 580s and regretted it. I knew the scaling was going to be bad, and it was. It was curiosity. I don't care if they go 2-way only from now on, but those with disposable incomes and wanting the best of the best performance probably won't be happy.


----------



## KillerBee33

Unsubscribing, this is absolutely Pointless Thread filled with absurd assumptions and people with no common sense!!!


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Unsubscribing, this is absolutely Pointless Thread filled with absurd assumptions and people with no common sense!!!


Bai, dont forget to take your straw man arguments when you go!


----------



## KG101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Unsubscribing, this is absolutely Pointless Thread filled with absurd assumptions and people with no common sense!!!


Yeah too many people in this thread speakin of whatever heads, and spreading rumors that cause bestbuy to tighten security to crazy levels thus raising prices on gtx1080/gtx1070 for those of us who are ready to purchase one , You know the normal consumer type way ..

Very good job tho buzzybuzzbuzzbrah, Ay at this point I'm not even for sure if you spelled unsubbing correctly


----------



## Mirotvorez113

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Where did you see SUGGESTED?
> Are you an AIB partner?
> Where do you get your facts from?


Those are not facts, nothing is a fact right now. I just use common sense and make assumptions on previous outcomes. There is one fact tho, I like the old shroud design a lot, not the new one


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

It's really hard to speculate about this new pricing structure from Nvidia because honestly I've never seen anything like it. The reference card being $100 more than the AIB versions is uncharted territory as far as I know. Still, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the AIB cards end up being significantly more than the $599 MSRP. Somebody already linked to EVGA's non reference 1080 at $700.


----------



## Clockster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> It's really hard to speculate about this new pricing structure from Nvidia because honestly I've never seen anything like it. The reference card being $100 more than the AIB versions is uncharted territory as far as I know. Still, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the AIB cards end up being significantly more than the $599 MSRP. Somebody already linked to EVGA's non reference 1080 at $700.


Which is exactly what''ll happen.
The AIB cards will come in around $700 and more. This whole "Founder Edition" bull is just so they could make it sound better than saying "Reference". Same goes for the 1070, those cards won't retail anywhere near $380..

The scariest part is still to come..When the 1080Ti launches (which it will), it'll launch with HBM 2 which is expensive, slap on 8GB of the stuff and we'll probably be looking at $1000.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clockster*
> 
> Which is exactly what''ll happen.
> The AIB cards will come in around $700 and more. This whole "Founder Edition" bull is just so they could make it sound better than saying "Reference". Same goes for the 1070, those cards won't retail anywhere near $380..
> 
> The scariest part is still to come..When the 1080Ti launches (which it will), it'll launch with HBM 2 which is expensive, slap on 8GB of the stuff and we'll probably be looking at $1000.


But, but, Nvidia said $599???


----------



## Clockster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> But, but, Nvidia said $599???


lol Yeah bud they "Say" a lot of things


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> It's really hard to speculate about this new pricing structure from Nvidia because honestly I've never seen anything like it. The reference card being $100 more than the AIB versions is uncharted territory as far as I know. Still, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the AIB cards end up being significantly more than the $599 MSRP. Somebody already linked to EVGA's non reference 1080 at $700.


I see it the same way.

And at 700$ for a mid-range GPU I am out. I can buy a TV + console with 3 games, extra controller, and 50 hot pockets for that









The GTX 1080 will feel like the 680, 780 and 980 soon. It looks good at first and then a couple months down the road the GPU is suddenly not good enough.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clockster*
> 
> lol Yeah bud they "Say" a lot of things


they also claimed 67c on a vsync demo with half of the memory clock that they rest of the cards had


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> they also claimed 67c on a vsync demo *with half of the memory clock that they rest of the cards had*


what do you mean by that?

The memory is overclocked to 11016 mhz


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> what do you mean by that?
> 
> The memory is overclocked to 11016 mhz


what you are seeing is the effective speed...the current stock is 10.000mhz its literally half of the speed


----------



## Clockster

Well I was an idiot and sold my 980Ti's already before the 2nd hand pricing tanked hard. I've back ordered 2x Gigabyte 1080 cards...Hopefully I didn't make a mistake lol


----------



## Malinkadink

Can we all just wait till May 17th to see some benchmarks and determine if the card is going to be worth its price? If you guys think AIB will be $699 like the "Reference Founder Edition" then i think y'all are nuts. Maybe the classified, kingpins, lightnings or whatever will hit that price point but i'm pretty sure AIB partners want to sell cards and if $599 is the MSRP then we'll see the vast majority of the cards in the $600-650 range.

For a card that will have the same price as a 980 Ti but is guessed to be 25% faster or more is pretty reasonable if you ask me. When the 1080 Ti comes out it will replace the 1080 in that price sector and the 1080 will drop to $500-550. This is of course all after the $1k+ Titan (insert arbitrary letter here) has its few months to shine before the Ti.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> what you are seeing is the effective speed...the current stock is 10.000mhz its literally half of the speed


Monitoring tools show it differently don't they? my Afterburner says 1350mhz for my 290X, but it's running at 5400mhz.

Or maybe I am not getting what you are saying


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Monitoring tools show it differently don't they? my Afterburner says 1350mhz for my 290X, but it's running at 5400mhz.
> 
> Or maybe I am not getting what you are saying


5400mhz is the effective speed of the memory
1350 is the actual speed
what you see on the photo is the effective speed
we know that that micron chips can go up to 2.3/2.4ghz (effective 11/12gb/s)


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Monitoring tools show it differently don't they? my Afterburner says 1350mhz for my 290X, but it's running at 5400mhz.
> 
> Or maybe I am not getting what you are saying


1350 is the actual "clock". NV seems to report the clock x2. The actual data rate is the base clock x4. So, it is purely semantics.


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Monitoring tools show it differently don't they? my Afterburner says 1350mhz for my 290X, but it's running at 5400mhz.
> 
> Or maybe I am not getting what you are saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5400mhz is the effective speed of the memory
> 1350 is the actual speed
> what you see on the photo is the effective speed
> we know that that micron chips can go up to 2.3/2.4ghz (effective 11/12gb/s)
Click to expand...

My GTX 670 reports 3.6GHz in the Rivatuner OSD but I know it's effectively running at 7.2GHz (dual data rate). So for the Pascal demo, they might be running at an effective 10.8GHz if still in dual data rate (DDR) mode or even 21.6GHz in quad data rate (QDR) mode.
Maybe I misread something in my research though so correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT: The official specs say the GTX 1080 is running at 10GHz so definitely not running QDR mode.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> My GTX 670 reports 3.6GHz in the Rivatuner OSD but I know it's effectively running at 7.2GHz (dual data rate). Since GDDR5X allows for quad data rate vs GDDR5's double data rate, the Pascal in the demo might actually be running at an effective 4 x 5.4GHz = 21.6GHz which is pretty close to the 2.3GHz number.


i fail to see how a 21.6ghz is close to 2.3 ghz









(micron has already stated that they go up to 11/12 effective)


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> My GTX 670 reports 3.6GHz in the Rivatuner OSD but I know it's effectively running at 7.2GHz (dual data rate). Since GDDR5X allows for quad data rate vs GDDR5's double data rate, the Pascal in the demo might actually be running at an effective 4 x 5.4GHz = 21.6GHz which is pretty close to the 2.3GHz number.
> 
> 
> 
> i fail to see how a 21.6ghz is close to 2.3 ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (micron has already stated that they go up to 11/12 effective)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I posted that and edited it out once I noticed what I posted haha.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> My GTX 670 reports 3.6GHz in the Rivatuner OSD but I know it's effectively running at 7.2GHz (dual data rate). So for the Pascal demo, they might be running at an effective 10.8GHz if still in dual data rate (DDR) mode or even 21.6GHz in quad data rate (QDR) mode.
> Maybe I misread something in my research though so correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> EDIT: The official specs say the GTX 1080 is running at 10GHz so definitely not running QDR mode.


It is, the base clock is 2500. NV drivers report 2x that, so 5000. Actual data rates are 10,000. 10,000mhz/gt/whatever you call it is QDR, the bus runs at 2500.

NV just reports the doubled baseclock, so 3600 on your 670 is actually 1800. 1800 base clock on GDDR5 gets you a data rate of 7200.


----------



## barsh90

Should I sell my pair of 980 TIs to upgrade to 1080gtx?


----------



## darealist

Yes. Ur cards will degrade in value even more as days go by and nvidia will end driver support. I wouldn't be surprised if Fury X overtakes 980ti in a few months on new games.


----------



## Dair76

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *velocd*
> 
> So the 1000 series don't support 3-way or 4-way SLI, only 2-way SLI, and the new bridge is required for highest bandwidth.


I had assumed the cards could be used with either the old bridge or new HB SLI bridges, but you'd be limited to dual cards if you chose the latter.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Man my hope for this card at 500 was completely misplaced. Cant really hope much from Big Pascal. Only hope is AMD can compete. Knowing 1080 will be the fastest GPU until BP and Vega you know its price is a uncapped one. 980 Ti 650 was all a result to shut Fury X. 1080 does not that competition.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> Yes but 1080 will cost 700USD in first few weeks anyway.So why sell 980Ti so cheap?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They must think 1070 will be faster so they selling it at 1070 price.


Because people have to get the best of the best on day one regardless of price. It is not uncommon. See every time apple are releasing a new iPhone lines around blocks are filled with just previous gen owners, trying to get the brand new thing, and not because what they have is horrible or moving slow.

It is a consumer pushed market. And people are eating it up. Nothing will really change.


----------



## carlhil2

Just had a thought. IF this card truly is faster than SLI-980, which can give you an idea of it's power, then, this thing would smoke a Ti, we will see....


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *velocd*
> 
> So the 1000 series don't support 3-way or 4-way SLI, only 2-way SLI, and the new bridge is required for highest bandwidth. Are there any TRI or QUAD builders out there disappointed by this?
> 
> I did TRI SLI for the GTX 580s and regretted it. I knew the scaling was going to be bad, and it was. It was curiosity. I don't care if they go 2-way only from now on, but those with disposable incomes and wanting the best of the best performance probably won't be happy.


Is there any information about restrictions or it is just an unfounded post?

980 could run at quad sli.
On the 700 series I remember nvidia restricted quad sli on the 780 and lower cards, but they changed their minds on the 900 series after all the backlash they got from it and allowed it on the 980 and 970.
So I doubt the 1080 will be restricted to 2 way only. That will really be a shot in the foot for nvidia.
It might require a specific bridge, but we have to wait to get reviews to see if it actually does or does not support over 2 way.


----------



## USlatin

Defoler, don't listen man... don't let all the BS get to you

BTW, 3 way SLI is confirmed


----------



## jezzer

Founder Editions announced by some of the Partners who will sell it

http://www.gigabyte.co.nl/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5910#kf

http://www.galax.net/GLOBAL/1080.html

http://www.inno3d.com/products_detail.php?refid=235


----------



## kx11

what is Nvidia's GPU Boost 3 ?? in Galax product page it says GPU Boost 2 !!!!!


----------



## skummm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Unsubscribing, this is absolutely Pointless Thread filled with absurd assumptions and people with no common sense!!!


Jesus!

What do you expect coming in here foaming at the mouth ranting and raving.

95% of this is *guaranteed* to be FUD and speculation until the NDA is lifted and we get the review data.

Calm down please and await the data dump


----------



## MegaTheJohny

Are we gonna be able to buy 1080 for 599$ for water cooling ? or that option is only for board partners? I don't need founders edition for 699$, if I want to use water block on it anyway ? Or am I wrong ? can someone explain this ...thanks

EDIT: ok I read few post before, and I got it


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Well then, stick to AMD, they got you covered, what's the issue? I know for a fact that, if I weren't interested in, say, polaris, I wouldn't be in a polaris thread complaining about what polaris would cost, or, it's performance.. I would never go into a thread of a product that I have no interest in, just to be critical..


We all need to be critical of this 1080 pricing because it is ridiculous. Some of you act like you are the only ones that can criticize a product, just because you are buying one. We can all criticize a product especially when it deserves it.


----------



## Menta

Nvidia confused the ha hell out of people with the founders edition ,lol

just stick with reference!


----------



## sugarhell

Actually i think that the 980 was a better gpu than the 1080. They do the same (beating the previous flagship @170 watt ) but the 980 does it on the same node and without Gddr5x.


----------



## Menta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Actually i think that the 980 was a better gpu than the 1080. They do the same (beating the previous flagship @170 watt ) but the 980 does it on the same node and without Gddr5x.


NO....The 980 was a weak card because the 970 was that good!

1080 has much more raw power mate


----------



## f1LL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> Nvidia confused the ha hell out of people with the founders edition ,lol
> 
> just stick with reference!


I guess that was the point. This way people got confused instead of immediately angry


----------



## jdstock76

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> It doesn't matter. He won't be buying AMD anyway since he'll get locked into FreeSync.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> what is the point of this image? It is from Q2 2013 and on... The 4870 was released in June 2008...
> 
> Here is a better depiction:
> 
> 
> The release of the 4870 had a slight gain in market share for a quarter but it was a failure in the long run as illustrated by the 10% market share loss from Q3 2008 to Q1 2009...
> 
> So, lets not hope for Polaris 10 being similar to the 4870...


.
So much hostility. Y'all need to chill out ASAP.


----------



## Menta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *f1LL*
> 
> I guess that was the point. This way people got confused instead of immediately angry


I see the board partners doing the same thing announcing the FOUNDER edition and most likely the charge premium price


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Why would anyone pay the premium ? For that you could slap an EK FC block on it, thats way better then any air ever.


----------



## aludka

Wow, this thread is getting really heated over what amounts to speculation at this point.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdstock76*
> 
> .
> So much hostility. Y'all need to chill out ASAP.


Actually, that was a great joke.


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *USlatin*
> 
> Defoler, don't listen man... don't let all the BS get to you
> 
> BTW, 3 way SLI is confirmed


Source?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Well, the FE did accomplish its goal. Now all the Nvidia fanboys are running around acting like $599 for the base 1080 is a STEAL!!!


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Well, the FE did accomplish its goal. Now all the Nvidia fanboys are running around acting like $599 for the base 1080 is a STEAL!!!


I honestly have a feeling we'll see $600 cards like ACX a short while after launch.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Well, the FE did accomplish its goal. Now all the Nvidia fanboys are running around acting like $599 for the base 1080 is a STEAL!!!


You are correct....lol

"Hey check this out guys, I can get a EVGA ACX GTX1080 for $689. What a great deal!"








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> I honestly have a feeling we'll see $600 cards like ACX a short while after launch.


As there should be since Nvidia did announce a $599 MSRP. But it is still funny that the normal card got a $100 premium just because.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> As there should be since Nvidia did announce a $599 MSRP. But it is still funny that the normal card got a $100 premium just because.


Reminds me of the 1500$ of the 295x2 which got price reduced to barely 700$ within a few months.

Prices are high intentionally to milk as much as possible from extreme eager and early adopters. I don't see any problem with that.
Just like AMD cut the price of the 290x from 400$ to 300$.

Prices will go down once polaris 10 is also in the market.
If the MSPR price was 700$ for any version, I would say that yes, it is way overpriced. But since we will get 600$ cards soon after, it means nothing. FE buyers will exist because they can afford it. Just like the few people who bought the titan Z for 3500$.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> You are correct....lol
> 
> "Hey check this out guys, I can get a EVGA ACX GTX1080 for $689. What a great deal!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As there should be since Nvidia did announce a $599 MSRP. But it is still funny that the normal card got a $100 premium just because.


Because NVidia most likely doesn't have enough GTX 1080 chips to spread around to their partners. That and the fact that GDDR5X given that it's only made by one company and it's still relatively new and the yields aren't yet known is most likely why they went with GDDR5X on the 1080 only and left the 1070 out in cold.

The "founders edition" is just NVidia getting day one adopters to shell out more cash to pay for the "priviledge" of having a shiny new GTX 1080 in their rig. They hide the fact behind a "shiny cool reference cooler.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

And really, even $599 is not something we should all be jumping for joy about when you consider this is just an X80 card. We have seen prices go from $499 for the 580 and 680 to $549 for the 980 and now $599 (really $699 for reference) and people are genuinely thinking its some kind of great deal! Nvidia must be laughing themselves silly at some of these posters. Laughing all the way to the bank, that is...


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Reminds me of the 1500$ of the 295x2 which got price reduced to barely 700$ within a few months.
> 
> Prices are high intentionally to milk as much as possible from extreme eager and early adopters. I don't see any problem with that.
> Just like AMD cut the price of the 290x from 400$ to 300$.
> 
> Prices will go down once polaris 10 is also in the market.
> If the MSPR price was 700$ for any version, I would say that yes, it is way overpriced. But since we will get 600$ cards soon after, it means nothing. FE buyers will exist because they can afford it. Just like the few people who bought the titan Z for 3500$.


At least amd don't call 295x2 's price 700$ .

are you seriously trying to make those cases similar ? lol

nvidia here is telling msrp is 599 even though it's 699. launch price is 699$ just like 1500$ for 295x2. have some sense.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> As there should be since Nvidia did announce a $599 MSRP. But it is still funny that the normal card got a $100 premium just because.


Yeah :/ Only thing that worries me is that the reference PCB will be limited to Founder's Edition cards. I just want to get blocks quickly without having to pay an extra $100 for a FE card. Unless some manufacturers reuse previous PCBs like EVGA and having the EK block support: "GTX 780 Classy, GTX 780 Ti Classy, GTX 780 Ti Kingpin, and 980 Ti Classified". Would buy 2x 1080 Classy in a heartbeat if it was same PCB + $650. Only thing is GDDR5X isn't the same size as GDDR5, a bit smaller but "The GDDR5X package maintains the same 1.1mm height as the predecessor." http://www.anandtech.com/show/10017/micron-reports-on-gddr5x-progress so maybe EVGA reuses the Classy PCB again and makes it compatible with existing blocks


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And really, even $599 is not something we should all be jumping for joy about when you consider this is just an X80 card. We have seen prices go from $499 for the 580 and 680 to $549 for the 980 and now $599 (really $699 for reference) and people are genuinely thinking its some kind of great deal! Nvidia must be laughing themselves silly at some of these posters. Laughing all the way to the bank, that is...


Yeah I agree. But when there is so many out there that think because faster = worth more $, things will never change.

Check this out.... lol:
Quote:


> With a price of $600 for the GeForce GTX 1080, NVIDIA remains in the usual high-end range for consumer cards. However, with performance exceeding that of a Titan X, it is an extraordinary achievement and an equally extraordinary value to the end-user.


http://www.ubergizmo.com/articles/geforce-gtx-1080-speed-price/

Unbelievable!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Yeah :/ Only thing that worries me is that the reference PCB will be limited to Founder's Edition cards. I just want to get blocks quickly without having to pay an extra $100 for a FE card. Unless some manufacturers reuse previous PCBs like EVGA and having the EK block support: "GTX 780 Classy, GTX 780 Ti Classy, GTX 780 Ti Kingpin, and 980 Ti Classified". Would buy 2x 1080 Classy in a heartbeat if it was same PCB + $650. Only thing is GDDR5X isn't the same size as GDDR5, a bit smaller but "The GDDR5X package maintains the same 1.1mm height as the predecessor." http://www.anandtech.com/show/10017/micron-reports-on-gddr5x-progress so maybe EVGA reuses the Classy PCB again and makes it compatible with existing blocks


If EVGA releases a $650 1080 Classified, that would be the same price as the 980 Classified. Those would sale like mad!


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And really, even $599 is not something we should all be jumping for joy about when you consider this is just an X80 card. We have seen prices go from $499 for the 580 and 680 to $549 for the 980 and now $599 (really $699 for reference) and people are genuinely thinking its some kind of great deal! Nvidia must be laughing themselves silly at some of these posters. Laughing all the way to the bank, that is...


Yeah but look at performance leaps... 980 ($550) was ~30% over 780 ($650) which was ~19% over the 680 ($500) which was ~19% over the 580 ($500) which was ~11% over the 480 ($500). Now 1080 ("$600") is over 50% better than the 980. Putting it into that perspective, the 780 looks grossly overpriced (as it's a big die GPU) for the 20% bump while the 980, being $50 more than the 580/480 launch prices has a bigger jump over the previous gen's 780. Now we're getting over 50% more performance over the 980 and it's $50 higher (assuming the $599 MSRP doesn't go to hell) than it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> If EVGA releases a $650 1080 Classified, that would be the same price as the 980 Classified. Those would sale like mad!


Yeah I think the 980 Classy was $100 more and the 980 Ti Classy was only $50 more. Hoping only $50 more this time (if EVGA decides to release a Classy for it).


----------



## nycgtr

There will be 599 cards with the crappy blowers or base acx coolers. Can't look at ref cooler cards from aibs. They are just reboxed and we all know this so of course they are going to be 699. NV ref cards usually have cost more directly from NVidia. No difference here. I think a lot of buyers like me, usually avoid the stock cooler cards majority of the time. Wouldn't surprise me if the windforce, g1s, acx sc, etc be around 649.99.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Yeah but look at performance leaps... 980 ($550) was 30% over 780 ($650) which was 20% over 580 ($500) which was 10% over the 480 ($500?). Now 1080 ("$600") is over 50% better than the 980. Putting it into that perspective, the 780 looks grossly overpriced (as it's a big die GPU) for the 20% bump while the 980, being $50 more than the 580/480 launch prices has a bigger jump over the previous gen's 780. Now we're getting over 50% more performance over the 980 and it's $50 higher (assuming the $599 MSRP doesn't go to hell) than it.


FYI... the 780 was 49% faster than the 580.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_780/26.html


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> FYI... the 780 was 49% faster than the 580.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_780/26.html


Ahh crap, I meant 680. That whole thing is fudged now.

OK, edited it. It should be (from techpowerup results):

Code:



Code:


$600 1080 ~50% over 980
$550 980  ~30% over 780
$650 780  ~19% over 680
$500 680  ~19% over 580
$500 580  ~11% over 480 ($500)

Just going solely by those numbers, it would make sense if the 780 was released @ $500. The $50 increase (relative to $500) for the 980 is somewhat justified being 30% more instead of 10-20%. $100 increase (relative to $500) for the 1080 no longer seems that out of place given the huge leap between the 980. Am I making any sense or crazy talk?


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Ahh crap, I meant 680. That whole thing is fudged now.
> 
> OK, edited it. It should be (from techpowerup results):
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> $600 1080 ~50% over 980
> $550 980  ~30% over 780
> $650 780  ~19% over 680
> $500 680  ~19% over 580
> $500 580  ~11% over 480 ($500)
> 
> Just going solely by those numbers, it would make sense if the 780 was released @ $500. The $50 increase (relative to $500) for the 980 is somewhat justified being 30% more instead of 10-20%. $100 increase (relative to $500) for the 1080 no longer seems that out of place given the huge leap between the 980. Am I making any sense or crazy talk?


I figured you might have.









There is still an issue. The only fully unlocked, big die chip in your comparison is the 580. If we go by the base chip, instead of what Nvidia has started labeling them since the 6 series (GTX680), the price differences are much more insane.









Also to be fair, 780 & 680 were both Kepler and the 580 & 480 were both Fermi. There really weren't many (any) added feature to the architecture between the chips. Meaning 680=780 no node shrink, no updated feature set. Same applies to 480=580 more or less.

Basically Nvidia devised the perfect scheme (scam?) in transitioning their small die part into a x80 part and increasing prices substantially. Can't blame them for doing such a thing because it has made them tons of money.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> I figured you might have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is still an issue. The only fully unlocked, big die chip in your comparison is the 580. If we go by the base chip, instead of what Nvidia has started labeling them since the 6 series (GTX680), the price differences are much more insane.


Yeah at least the 780 is 100% to 84% 680 which is 100% to 84% 580 (same % jump). I just updated my post directly above yours btw (thoughts?). I do agree, for the base chip, we're paying more, a lot more for medium sized dies and even more for big sized dies.


----------



## mav451

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And really, even $599 is not something we should all be jumping for joy about when you consider this is just an X80 card. We have seen prices go from $499 for the 580 and 680 to $549 for the 980 and now $599 (really $699 for reference) and people are genuinely thinking its some kind of great deal! Nvidia must be laughing themselves silly at some of these posters. Laughing all the way to the bank, that is...


But you're one of the active Titan users in this thread








The most I ever spent on a GPU was the 780 (pre-290 launch), so yeah, not trying to make another $650 for X80 mistake again


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> 1080 isn't considered mid-range, if you put it in the mid-range for high end cards I would agree, and then state the 1070 would be the low end of high ranged or high end of mid ranged card.


Oh so now a 317mm sq die is no longer a mid range?


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Oh so now a 317mm sq die is no longer a mid range?


Hey if you wanna call the soon to be strongest card on the market mid range, by all means be my guest.


----------



## ChevChelios

on what planet is 1080 a midrange ?? lol

sq die doesnt matter compared to price and how the card is positioned


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> Hey if you wanna call the soon to be strongest card on the market by all means, be my guest.


Yes its a Mid Range Die. Nvidia has not done this but By AMDs numbers 78XX is the die Nvidia had while 79XX is the very high end. If they named the card properly it would have been 980 and 990 and not 980 Ti. 1080 still big enough die to be called 1080 if 1090 is Big Pascal.


----------



## krel

Nvidia charges what they think they can get. AMD does the same. Neither of them worry about keeping money in the consumer's pocket, they want to vacuum out as much as they possibly can. Why would anyone expect different?


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Well, the FE did accomplish its goal. Now all the Nvidia fanboys are running around acting like $599 for the base 1080 is a STEAL!!!


I'm just wondering how many gimmicks and cheap tricks they're trying to pull off against customers.

Regular midrange = High end 680

Regular high end = Ultra Super Duper Titan at twice the price for no reason

Regular reference card = "Founders Edition" + $100 more

Sends $699 FE card to reviews, markets it at a $599 card.

"Screw FE", $599 "is a great price". Meanwhile it's already higher than before.

GX104's went from $229 to $499 to $549 to $599 and now $699


----------



## nani17

Did he just give us a hint about the 1080 being faster than 980 in sli when he says that's right.

https://youtu.be/uWvmt9wk0n4?t=8m28s


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I'm just wondering how many gimmicks and cheap tricks they're trying to pull off against customers.
> 
> Regular midrange = High end 680
> 
> Regular high end = Ultra Super Duper Titan at twice the price for no reason
> 
> Regular reference card = "Founders Edition" + $100 more
> 
> Sends $699 FE card to reviews, markets it at a $599 card.
> 
> "Screw FE", $599 "is a great price". Meanwhile it's already higher than before.
> 
> GX104's went from $229 to $499 to $549 to $599 and now $699


GTX460 was faster then GTX280 right? They could have launched that first and sold it for $500 too lol.


----------



## Scotty99

So realistically what do you guys think?

An average overclocking 980ti vs 1080 avg clocker are we talking 20% gains give or take? 1070 being on par or slightly above fury x? This all sound about right?


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> So realistically what do you guys think?
> 
> An average overclocking 980ti vs 1080 avg clocker are we talking 20% gains give or take? 1070 being on par or slightly above fury x? This all sound about right?


Find out on next week's episode of... NDA Lifted.


----------



## Sleazybigfoot

So is there a known date when the NDA get's lifted?

Also lol at the anger in this thread. Been reading from around page 150, so much salt.


----------



## -terabyte-

Usually they don't keep selling the "reference" card for long, but this time Nvidia wants to keep selling it for the lifetime of the card/chip. They priced it 100$ higher to NOT compete with the AIBs. It has been mentioned multiple times already, have also a look at JayzTwoCents youtube video about the Founder's card where he explains it (after having talked to Nvidia directly).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sleazybigfoot*
> 
> So is there a known date when the NDA get's lifted?
> 
> Also lol at the anger in this thread. Been reading from around page 150, so much salt.


NDA on reviews lifts on 17th MAy.


----------



## nycgtr

There's a simple solution. Don't buy it.


----------



## CallsignVega

Another GPU thread devolves into price/value arguing. No surprise there. I think future news about GPU releases should have two separate threads. One thread that actually talks about the GPU and it's architecture, release date etc, the other thread solely a place for people to squabble about "price/value".


----------



## Gdourado

These cards look good, but I am having a hard time thrusting nvidia.
My last two cards have been amd. Got a 290x reference and then a 390x sapphire.
I am happy with amd support on the drivers and the increase in performance since launch.
While nvidia gimped Kepler with drivers, discontinued support to force upgrades and so on...
As good as the cards might be, I don't think I can support nvidia shaddy business practices.


----------



## ikjadoon

I want a $400 GTX 1070, power unlocked with an 8-pin + 6-pin, some nasty massive 3-fan behemoth, 11+ inches, 3 slots.

Or, it could be well-binned 2-slot that I can strap a 240mm CLC to.

You all seemed to have missed that GPU Boost 3.0 has optimizations for water-cooling (see the EVGA page for the 1080 FE).

Hmm.....hmm....If it overclocks as well I want, hopefully this baby can put out 120FPS @ 1080P on Ultra on BF1.


----------



## Scotty99

Ok i am confused about the "kepler" driver killer nonsense. I have a 760 ive noticed no drop in performance in any of the games i play, can someone reiterate what happened with that?


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Ok i am confused about the "kepler" driver killer nonsense. I have a 760 ive noticed no drop in performance in any of the games i play, can someone reiterate what happened with that?


do you see any performance increase ? or have you noticed in latest games it performs worse compared to its competition ? that's what people mean with kepler killer driver.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Ok i am confused about the "kepler" driver killer nonsense. I have a 760 ive noticed no drop in performance in any of the games i play, can someone reiterate what happened with that?


tinfoil hat theories


----------



## Sleazybigfoot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> tinfoil hat theories


Well I think there is some truth to it, it's how you look at it.

You could say Nvidia is gimping their older cards but you could also say AMD is increasing the performance of their older cards with driver updates. (the 290x/390x on par with 980's now.)


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Ok i am confused about the "kepler" driver killer nonsense. I have a 760 ive noticed no drop in performance in any of the games i play, can someone reiterate what happened with that?


My Keplers lost performance from my benchmark test I ran. Far from nonsense because even the Nvidia forums were blowing up from upset purchasers. This prompted the Kepler fix, that didn't fix everything. I was running the 600 series at the time and I'll never forget the experience.


----------



## Gdourado

For example
https://hardforum.com/threads/nvidia-gimping-older-gen-card-to-make-the-900-series-look-better.1863253/

Also, once upon a time 7 series cards used to beat amd cards.
Then they started to fall behind.
And it wasn't just amd optimizing drivers.
It was nvidia making maxwell look better.
Just search the Web...


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> And there lies the difference. I visit GPU threads not Nvidia or AMD threads. What you are saying is that you are bend over Nvidia so really its makes any point you contribute clouded. We have enough clouded opinion outside OCN. I like this place and people here to be more intelligent towards the hardware they buy.
> That is a given. The difference is time is not free. 980 Ti is already 1 year old. If you are buying now 1080 makes sense.


You must have missed the part where I said, "I rarely post in AMD threads... ...I read them, but sort of figure that I don't have to put my $.02 in."

See, I visit GPU threads, too, just don't feel the need to post in all of them.


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> GTX460 was faster then GTX280 right? They could have launched that first and sold it for $500 too lol.


this is exactly what nvidia has been doing since kepler.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gdourado*
> 
> For example
> https://hardforum.com/threads/nvidia-gimping-older-gen-card-to-make-the-900-series-look-better.1863253/
> 
> Also, once upon a time 7 series cards used to beat amd cards.
> Then they started to fall behind.
> And it wasn't just amd optimizing drivers.
> It was nvidia making maxwell look better.
> Just search the Web...


great. so provide a link where there's absolutely *NO COMPARATIVE BENCH MARKS* and claim it as proof?









then suggest to search the web for similar FUD.









ah wait, but TPU pretty much covers all that as they use the most recent drivers for ALL the cards they bench for reviews, the surprise you'll find is that over time kepler also increased performance. whenever it lost a few fps, so did maxwell.


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> great. so provide a link where there's absolutely *NO COMPARATIVE BENCH MARKS* and claim it as proof?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then suggest to search the web for similar FUD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah wait, but TPU pretty much covers all that as they use the most recent drivers for ALL the cards they bench for reviews, the surprise you'll find is that over time kepler also increased performance. whenever it lost a few fps, so did maxwell.


Same PC settings.
Tested on 7-2-2015 - GTX 670 2-way SLI

*Ice Storm:*
P198567 = 337.50 Driver 4-7-2014
P192385 = 344.48 Driver 10-22-2014 [Post Maxwell 900 series]
P185572 = 353.06 Driver [Suppose to fix Kepler] - 5-31-2015

*Fire Strike*
11205 = 331.82 Driver 11-19-2013
10796 = 344.48 Driver 10-22-2014 [Post Maxwell 900 series]
10930 = 353.06 Driver [Suppose to fix Kepler = Did better than 344.48, but still lost to older 331.82 driver] - 5-31-2015

There were also other issues with the drivers like color bleeding, unstable overclocks and I actually thought my cards or one of my cards were defective. Well they were not defective because when I loaded my older drivers prior to Maxwell the performance magically came back and I had no image quality or crashing issues.

I usually run my own test to get my own results and this really made a big difference for me when it was time to upgrade to either the GTX 970, 980 Ti or Fury X.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

I've also never seen solid proof of this supposed "Nvidia gimping"..

I think some of the outrage about it is more the owners of those cards watching the competition outperform them badly, especially in recent titles. And a combination of very vocal AMD loyal's looking for an issue where there is none.

AMD loosing the self-inflicted (well i guess they expected DX12/Vulkan- like API's to come a lot sooner than they did) disadvantage they had with driver overhead thanks to low-level API's, is giving their older cards a big advantage.

So it's not "Keplar gimping" or whatever, it's just GCN being GCN, and probably also has a lot to do with the amount of Vram games are using, thanks to both consoles having 8GB's available.


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I've also never seen solid proof of this supposed "Nvidia gimping"..
> 
> I think some of the outrage about it is more the owners of those cards watching the competition outperform them badly, especially in recent titles. And a combination of very vocal AMD loyal's looking for an issue where there is none.
> 
> AMD loosing the self-inflicted (well i guess they expected DX12/Vulkan- like API's to come a lot sooner than they did) disadvantage they had with driver overhead thanks to low-level API's, is giving their older cards a big advantage.
> 
> So it's not "Keplar gimping" or whatever, it's just GCN being GCN, and probably also has a lot to do with the amount of Vram games are using, thanks to both consoles having 8GB's available.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Have people forgot that the 290X was simply a beast when it released [even better when the non-refs cards released]. It was basically a $1000 Titan performance for nearly half the price when it came to the performance. The 780 Ti was $700+. At the time I was running my GTX 670s in SLI so I didn't need to upgrade them, but if I were in the market back then I would probably be rocking a 290X right now based on the 290X performance back then. To see the 290\290X still continue to get better must feel great for 290\290X purchasers, especially after the price drops.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> great. so provide a link where there's absolutely *NO COMPARATIVE BENCH MARKS* and claim it as proof?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then suggest to search the web for similar FUD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah wait, but TPU pretty much covers all that as they use the most recent drivers for ALL the cards they bench for reviews, the surprise you'll find is that over time kepler also increased performance. whenever it lost a few fps, so did maxwell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same PC settings.
> Tested on 7-2-2015 - GTX 670 *2-way SLI*
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> *Ice Storm:*
> P198567 = 337.50 Driver 4-7-2014
> P192385 = 344.48 Driver 10-22-2014 [Post Maxwell 900 series]
> P185572 = 353.06 Driver [Suppose to fix Kepler] - 5-31-2015
> 
> *Fire Strike*
> 11205 = 331.82 Driver 11-19-2013
> 10796 = 344.48 Driver 10-22-2014 [Post Maxwell 900 series]
> 10930 = 353.06 Driver [Suppose to fix Kepler = Did better than 344.48, but still lost to older 331.82 driver] - 5-31-2015
> 
> 
> There were also other issues with the drivers like color bleeding, unstable overclocks and I actually thought my cards or one of my cards were defective. Well they were not defective because when I loaded my older drivers prior to Maxwell the performance magically came back and I had no image quality or crashing issues.
> 
> I usually run my own test to get my own results and this really made a big difference for me when it was time to upgrade to either the GTX 970, 980 Ti or Fury X.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> the surprise you'll find is that over time kepler also increased performance. whenever it lost a few fps, so did maxwell.


and did you compare those bench scores to maxwell? (not to mention SLI can have it's own set of issues.) and iirc _that kepler fix was strictly for TW3_ - since i had a 780TI at the time, yeah, it increased my FPS ~ 7%.

and for your results to be "valid" it would be nice for some links to those scores - no offence but anyone with a keyboard can type.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> Hey if you wanna call the soon to be strongest card on the market mid range, by all means be my guest.


Big Pascal already exists in the form of Tesla P100, it has 56 SMs and 3584 CUDA cores enabled...

Just because Nvidia baited you into buying their mid-range chip at a premium price doesn't mean that the chip is top dog...


----------



## ikjadoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Big Pascal already exists in the form of Tesla P100, it has 56 SMs and 3584 CUDA cores enabled...
> 
> Just because Nvidia baited you into buying their mid-range chip at a premium price doesn't mean that the chip is top dog...


At this point, we're starting to move into "architecture is more important than performance".

The only thing that should matter is whether the price v. performance makes a worthy upgrade. I don't care what all happens "behind the scenes" in the GPU. How many frames per dollar?

Once you reach flagship territory, x80 and x80 Ti cards, the price v performance discussion has entered a totally different realm.


----------



## killerhz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> because you can't get more for it.
> 
> Nobody is going to pay you more than 500$ for a 980 Ti now.
> 
> Hell I woudn't even pay 400$ for a 980 Ti right now, because :
> 
> - for 200$ more you will be able to get a GTX 1080 that is better and will get even better in the future. More VRAM. GDDR5X. new architecture. Pascal features, better DX12 etc.
> 
> - for 20$ less you will be able to buy a GTX 1070 which is basically on par with a 980 Ti.
> 
> Especially people who are playing on surround or VR are benefiting greatly from Pascal. In surround and VR I'd dare to say that a 980 Ti is completely outmatched against a GTX 1080. It's not even close.


im hoping to see people selling off thier 980 Ti Classifieds so can SLI LOL!!!


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> and did you compare those bench scores to maxwell? (not to mention SLI can have it's own set of issues.) and iirc _that kepler fix was strictly for TW3_ - since i had a 780TI at the time, yeah, it increased my FPS ~ 7%.
> 
> and for your results to be "valid" is would be nice for some links to those scores - no offence but anyone with a keyboard can type.


The link to the scores are to my review topic in the middle of thousands of posts. I ran the benchmarks when the discussion came up in my topic. Turns out my performance decrease was real.

I didn't give a rats butt about Maxwell performance at the time. I was worried about MY GTX 670 Kepler performance and used my benchmarks+drivers for the comparison.

Well I'll tell it to you as simple this, if you want to believe the websites feel free to. I run my own benchmarks with the hardware that I own. The drop in performance was real from my very own benchmarks. You don't have to believe anything I benchmark or report back on, but I'm not paid by any company or affiliated with either Nvidia or AMD. I guess you are getting your results from websites that aren't affiliated either right? Didn't think so. I have no reason to lie about things I've spent my money on. That's the point, when I spend my money I don't want to be "forced" to upgrade with bad drivers or non-optimized drivers.

I was checking out the GTX 970 for a possible SLI setup, but I'm glad I dodged that 970 bullet.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> Another GPU thread devolves into price/value arguing. No surprise there. I think future news about GPU releases should have two separate threads. One thread that actually talks about the GPU and it's architecture, release date etc, the other thread solely a place for people to squabble about "price/value".


That's funny. We can't talk about price because it doesn't matter to some.









The fact is that people believe that the price is fine because "Hey look we get more performance than Titan X for less money!" despite the fact that prices are higher than ever for this tier gpu. Just look at some of the articles out there. They are praising Nvidia for giving more performance for a cheaper price. How absurd is that type of thinking? IMHO talking about price helps educate certain people that wouldn't know otherwise. They still may not care, but I think it adds substance to the thread.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> The link to the scores are to my review topic in the middle of thousands of posts. I ran the benchmarks when the discussion came up in my topic. Turns out my performance decrease was real.
> 
> I didn't give a rats butt about Maxwell performance at the time. I was worried about MY GTX 670 Kepler performance and used my benchmarks+drivers for the comparison.
> 
> Well I'll tell it to you as simple this, if you want to believe the websites feel free to. I run my own benchmarks with the hardware that I own. The drop in performance was real from my very own benchmarks. You don't have to believe anything I benchmark or report back on, but I'm not paid by any company or affiliated with either Nvidia or AMD. I guess you are getting your results from websites that aren't affiliated either right? Didn't think so. I have no reason to lie about things I've spent my money on. That's the point, when I spend my money I don't want to be "forced" to upgrade with bad drivers or non-optimized drivers.
> 
> I was checking out the GTX 970 for a possible SLI setup, but I'm glad I dodged that 970 bullet.


well if you are going to advocate that NV was gimping kepler for the sake of maxwell - guess what? comparative maxwell benches would be pertinent.







sorry if you get offened that i will take _the majority of evidence_(read not just websites!) then even my own anecdotal evidence since you know; user error.

you know some pretty simple stuff to avoid FUD.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> At this point, we're starting to move into "architecture is more important than performance".
> 
> The only thing that should matter is whether the price v. performance makes a worthy upgrade. I don't care what all happens "behind the scenes" in the GPU. *How many frames per dollar?*
> 
> Once you reach flagship territory, x80 and x80 Ti cards, the price v performance discussion has entered a totally different realm.


That's an interesting metric, but not useful by its self. You still need to ask:
What's the cheapest card that hits my required performance level?
If that is unattainable, what's the fastest card that fits within my budget?
Is it worth sacrificing something else to increase that budget?


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Big Pascal already exists in the form of Tesla P100, it has 56 SMs and 3584 CUDA cores enabled...
> 
> Just because Nvidia baited you into buying their mid-range chip at a premium price doesn't mean that the chip is top dog...


First, the Tesla P100 is not a consumer card so why even bother putting it in the same class?
Second, I haven't put any money down on any cards, so what makes you think I've been "baited"?

I'm actually leaning more towards the 1070 than the 1080. But please, continue assuming and making yourself look like an ass.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> At this point, we're starting to move into "architecture is more important than performance".
> 
> The only thing that should matter is whether the price v. performance makes a worthy upgrade. I don't care what all happens "behind the scenes" in the GPU. *How many frames per dollar?*
> 
> Once you reach flagship territory, x80 and x80 Ti cards, the price v performance discussion has entered a totally different realm.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting metric, but not useful by its self. You still need to ask:
> What's the cheapest card that hits my required performance level?
> If that is unattainable, what's the fastest card that fits within my budget?
> Is it worth sacrificing something else to increase that budget?
Click to expand...

TL;DR

Look benchmark

Search card

Go buy


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> well if you are going to advocate that NV was gimping kepler for the sake of maxwell - guess what? comparative maxwell benches would be pertinent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry if you get offened that i will take _the majority of evidence_(read not just websites!) then even my own anecdotal evidence since you know; user error.
> 
> you know some pretty simple stuff to avoid FUD.












Is there something completely wrong with you? Let me state this clearly. *clear throat*

-Old drivers = Normal & Good Performance. No color bleeding or driver crashing.
-Drivers after Maxwell GPUs released = Bad Performance. Color bleeding and occasional crashing drivers. Bad performance in certain games as well.

-Reload older drivers again just to make sure I'm not crazy = Normal & Good Performance.
-Reload the latest drivers at the time after Maxwell release = Bad Performance. Color bleeding and occasional crashing drivers. Bad performance in certain games as well.

I used the same versions of the program and games. Stop talking to me about Maxwell performance. I'm clearly stating the benchmarks I ran using drivers on the hardware that I own. I'm not offended at all by the way. You can come up with any defense you want to defend Nvidia. I clearly don't care and run my own benchmarks.


----------



## Scotty99

Am i the only one that is more interested to see what happens to 970 pricing in a couple months? I play mostly mmo's and light shooters like overwatch and i dont need a crazy amount of GPU horsepower. If the 970 gets down to a better price/performance ratio than a 1070 id be def cool with buying one.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> well if you are going to advocate that NV was gimping kepler for the sake of maxwell - guess what? comparative maxwell benches would be pertinent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry if you get offened that i will take _the majority of evidence_(read not just websites!) then even my own anecdotal evidence since you know; user error.
> 
> you know some pretty simple stuff to avoid FUD.


I don't think gimping happened. I think Nvidia just stopped optimizing for Kepler sooner than they needed to because it helps sell newer cards. Both are still wrong, but one is worse than the other.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Am i the only one that is more interested to see what happens to 970 pricing in a couple months? I play mostly mmo's and light shooters like overwatch and i dont need a crazy amount of GPU horsepower. If the 970 gets down to a better price/performance ratio than a 1070 id be def cool with buying one.


They will EOL 970's, so the price drop won't be a big one (or at all). Best bet is to find a good deal on a used one. After 1070 a used 970 shouldn't be worth more than $200 I would think.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something completely wrong with you? Let me state this clearly. *clear throat*
> 
> -Old drivers = Normal & Good Performance. No color bleeding or driver crashing.
> -Drivers after Maxwell GPUs released = Bad Performance. Color bleeding and occasional crashing drivers. Bad performance in certain games as well.
> 
> -Reload older drivers again just to make sure I'm not crazy = Normal & Good Performance.
> -Reload the latest drivers at the time after Maxwell release = Bad Performance. Color bleeding and occasional crashing drivers. Bad performance in certain games as well.
> 
> Stop talking about Maxwell performance to me. I'm clearly stating the benchmarks I ran using drivers on the hardware that I own. I'm not offended at all by the way. You can come up with any defense you want to defend Nvidia. I clearly don't care and run my own benchmarks.


clearly you don't understand that i am talking about the comparative performance between maxwell and kepler with driver(s) optimizations. if you are going to only compare kepler then you are only telling half the story.

if you are going to reply to me then understand what i am talking about.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> I don't think gimping happened. I think Nvidia just stopped optimizing for Kepler sooner than they needed to because it helps sell newer cards. Both are still wrong, but one is worse than the other.


well, does it happen to any product?

yeah but, i'll agree its not excusable nor right.


----------



## mouacyk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *killerhz*
> 
> im hoping to see people selling off thier 980 Ti Classifieds so can SLI LOL!!!


you sly (pun) dog slol... I bet you're the only one


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Am i the only one that is more interested to see what happens to 970 pricing in a couple months? I play mostly mmo's and light shooters like overwatch and i dont need a crazy amount of GPU horsepower. If the 970 gets down to a better price/performance ratio than a 1070 id be def cool with buying one.


The 970 is dead now. Don't expect to see them much longer. The 390 has been putting the nails in the 970 coffin for awhile now anyways.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> clearly you don't understand that i am talking about the comparative performance between maxwell and kepler with driver(s) optimizations. if you are going to only compare kepler then you are only telling half the story.
> 
> if you are going to reply to me then understand what i am talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, does it happen to any product?


I'm sorry. I should've made myself even more clearer when I said I don't care above. Well quite frankly I don't care. Please don't make me repeat it.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> That's funny. We can't talk about price because it doesn't matter to some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that people believe that the price is fine because "Hey look we get more performance than Titan X for less money!" despite the fact that prices are higher than ever for this tier gpu. Just look at some of the articles out there. They are praising Nvidia for giving more performance for a cheaper price. How absurd is that type of thinking? IMHO talking about price helps educate certain people that wouldn't know otherwise. They still may not care, but I think it adds substance to the thread.


Exactly. Comparing price/performance to the last-gen Titan is silly when making a purchasing decision for a new gen. AMD/Nvidia don't get bonus points for making new mid-range beat old flagship. That's to be expected, not least on a new process node with improved VRAM and a revised architecture. Sure, look at 1080 vs 980 Ti / Titan X as a reference for how much the 1080 has improved over them, but beating them doesn't make it a flagship or great value, especially when we don't have the rest of the product range available for reference.

And yeah, different people have different levels of disposable income. Price/performance is a very relevant topic of discussion, particularly when we're talking about a mid/mid-high product like a 1080. This is not a halo product like the Titan.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> I'm sorry. I should've made myself even more clearer when I said I don't care above. Well quite frankly I don't care. Please don't make me repeat it.


no need to apologize, you did make it quite clear you'll say what you want regardless of the discussion you're replying to.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> The 970 is dead now. Don't expect to see them much longer. The 390 has been putting the nails in the 970 coffin for awhile now anyways.
> I'm sorry. I should've made myself even more clearer when I said I don't care above. Well quite frankly I don't care. Please don't make me repeat it.


Why would you say the 970 is dead? From benchmarks ive seen it swaps wins with the 390. And the games i play it seems to fare better like mmo's and blizz games. I get this is an enthusiast forum but does price/performance ratio not have a place here? Even a 970 is massive overkill for the games i play.


----------



## Mrip541

I dont see a reason to buy a 1080 instead of a 980ti.


----------



## d0mini

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> I dont see a reason to buy a 1080 instead of a 980ti.


It would be...cheaper? More VRAM, slightly higher performance? Any of those factors hitting the mark?


----------



## KG101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Why would you say the 970 is dead? From benchmarks ive seen it swaps wins with the 390. And the games i play it seems to fare better like mmo's and blizz games. I get this is an enthusiast forum but does price/performance ratio not have a place here? Even a 970 is massive overkill for the games i play.


Very true, Just as people still on 2500k are not literally' far behind' they still have machines that run fine for typical user

All teh guys stuck on MUST upgrade , and must have the highest end of specs are really out of touch somewhat 970 aint doing anything for someone who NEEDS to play sonic hedgehog on 4k , but the luxury aspect aside anything is playable at just about any resolution lower it is just what one is used to that dictates whether they are willing ot or not..

but a TRUE GAMER [not talkin competitive or lanparty junkie] is gonna play on just about anything so long as it's playable fps wise and the response is decent

But yeah 4k is ultra resolution bigscreen tv material, Only reason I even understand it is someone just wants the best just to have it or used to doing so.. Or they don't like the transition-differance from a bigscreen tv and pc gametime.

I have no problem adjusting playing on a single 24" LG 144 even though dual would be nice, and I didn't mind playing on a 'normal 60' monitor either not really a big deal with me ..

The 970 is still a top rate videocard, just on the mid-lower end of top ten type rating lol.

I'm not giving my 970gtx up anytime soon and 1920x1080 standard is high as I'm going res wise, Anytime soon.

For 'a normal' pc builder - everyday gamer type I cant lie, Even switching from dvi to DP kinda wowed me, and ips panels are very nice.

--There are levels to this shidd
Game on gamer friends.
Gaame Onn

okay lemme quit bs'n myself and you guys too,lol I'm REALLY looking fwd to getting a gtx1070, not even cuz I need it no all the above are true facts just or fact I have had this one so long.. Something new always feels good, and better if improved also yep.

Gtx750 was awesome, gtx950 a nice surprise tweaked version refresh - and gtx1080/gtx1070 are awesomness.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d0mini*
> 
> It would be...cheaper? More VRAM, slightly higher performance? Any of those factors hitting the mark?


^^That Too.


----------



## Mrip541

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d0mini*
> 
> It would be...cheaper? More VRAM, slightly higher performance? Any of those factors hitting the mark?


Guess I should read more. Was seeing comparisons to 980 not ti.


----------



## Kana-Maru

The 970 will be going EOL
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> no need to apologize, you did make it quite clear you'll say what you want regardless of the discussion you're replying to.


Yup.......there is something wrong with you. I understand now.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Why would you say the 970 is dead? From benchmarks ive seen it swaps wins with the 390. And the games i play it seems to fare better like mmo's and blizz games. I get this is an enthusiast forum but does price/performance ratio not have a place here? Even a 970 is massive overkill for the games i play.


What I'm saying is that I don't expect their to be a price drop. They already dropped the price to compete with the 390. They are going to clear the shelves [EOL]. The 970 is massive overkill, but so is the 390. From the benchmarks I remember seeing the 390 was basically beating the 970.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> I dont see a reason to buy a 1080 instead of a 980ti.


Lol, of COURSE you don't....


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> The 970 will be going EOL
> Yup.......there is something wrong with you. I understand now.
> What I'm saying is that I don't expect their to be a price drop. They already dropped the price to compete with the 390. They are going to clear the shelves [EOL]. The 970 is massive overkill, but so is the 390. From the benchmarks I remember seeing the 390 was basically beating the 970.


Umm no it wont, there is no way. 970 needs to stick around to compete with AMD's mid range stuff. And they will have to drop the price, you cant have a titan-x equivalent 1070 at 380 bucks and a 970 at 330, its gonna come down for sure the question is how fast.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> First, the Tesla P100 is not a consumer card so why even bother putting it in the same class?
> Second, I haven't put any money down on any cards, so what makes you think I've been "baited"?
> 
> I'm actually leaning more towards the 1070 than the 1080. But please, continue assuming and making yourself look like an ass.


Frist, how does one put money down on a product that isn't even available?
Second, leaning towards the 1070 over the 1080 is still leaning towards a purchase decision for a bad buy.
Third, the P100 is not a consumer card but it is a reflection of what is to come with big pascal.
Fouth, the choice to release a mid-grade chip before the top chip is a business decision that Nvidia has deployed since Kepler. It is there to milk the market for as much as possible.

Lastly, if you purchased a GTX 680, 670, 980, or 970 near their release dates, you already are on Nvidia's hook...


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> I dont see a reason to buy a 1080 instead of a 980ti.


surround correction is a big feature for those who play on 3 monitors.

Night and day difference imho


----------



## ITAngel

Is it even worth selling your GTX 980Ti Classified to jump on a 1080? What are the performance differences versus cost?


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> I dont see a reason to buy a 1080 instead of a 980ti.


If you're in the market for either then it's pointless getting a Ti, it's older. But if you already own a Ti then upgrading will be up to the individual, I'm personally not buying all the hype. When the card actually drops and we get real-world benches, not synthetics that play to an architectures strength, or "x faster in _this_ situation _when_ using VR". I think well see a 10-20% average improvement across titles, and the Ti isn't exactly a slouch either, so it'll probably win a few games too. If you own a Ti then you're on the "Big Die" cycle, and that's the right place to be imo.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d0mini*
> 
> It would be...cheaper? More VRAM, slightly higher performance? Any of those factors hitting the mark?


Doubt it's going to be cheaper.. The new reference is $699, and just because $599 is the "MSRP" doesn't mean that AIB's are going to charge that for their custom boards, that will probably perform better. The whole $599 just seems like another one of Nvidias marketing tactics..


----------



## coelacanth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ITAngel*
> 
> Is it even worth selling your GTX 980Ti Classified to jump on a 1080? What are the performance differences versus cost?


We'll know once the card is launched and reviews are out.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ITAngel*
> 
> Is it even worth selling your GTX 980Ti Classified to jump on a 1080? What are the performance differences versus cost?


Big Maxwell to mid-tier Pascal isn't a very practical buy... Especially considering the higher costs of mid-tier Pascal...


----------



## ITAngel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coelacanth*
> 
> We'll know once the card is launched and reviews are out.


Okay cool thanks!


----------



## ITAngel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Big Maxwell to mid-tier Pascal isn't a very practical buy... Especially considering the higher costs of mid-tier Pascal...


Oh good call my friend. Thanks!


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Umm no it wont, there is no way. 970 needs to stick around to compete with AMD's mid range stuff. And they will have to drop the price, you cant have a titan-x equivalent 1070 at 380 bucks and a 970 at 330, its gonna come down for sure the question is how fast.


The 970 is EOL. The 1060 would/should replace it and be faster for around $250 or less. The 970 won't be needed.


----------



## poii

http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=08G-P4-6180-KR

EVGA lists the 1080 for $699.99...


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poii*
> 
> http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=08G-P4-6180-KR
> 
> EVGA lists the 1080 for $699.99...


So will every other manufacturer.... Being reference makes it premium


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poii*
> 
> http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=08G-P4-6180-KR
> 
> EVGA lists the 1080 for $699.99...


Well yeah, it's the reference "Founders Edition"... Only difference is you go through EVGA support instead of another AIB or Nvidia directly.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> The 970 is EOL. The 1060 would/should replace it and be faster for around $250 or less. The 970 won't be needed.


Eh thats fine and dandy if it existed? We haven't even heard a murmur about when its coming out and not everyone spends 400 bucks on a GPU there has to be a price drop in the next couple months in the absense of a 1060.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Eh thats fine and dandy if it existed? We haven't even heard a murmur about when its coming out and not everyone spends 400 bucks on a GPU there has to be a price drop in the next couple months in the absense of a 1060.


AMD are directly targeting that market with Polaris. I'm not so sure NV will be able to compete well there this time around, from what we've heard it should be extremely power efficient, and will probably have a very good price too. Apple picking them for their Macbooks, etc., may give us an idea of who will be better in that segment.

Very few consumers are willing to spend $300+ on a GPU, for PC to remain a healthy platform the low-end needs a massive overhaul. The current cards in that segment are pretty bad, especially on the Vram side.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> AMD are directly targeting that market with Polaris. I'm not so sure NV will be able to compete well there this time around, from what we've heard it should be extremely power efficient, and will probably have a very good price too. Apple picking them for their Macbooks, etc., may give us an idea of who will be better in that segment.


Sooo nvidia wont have anything at that price point? 400 bucks is still too much for me to spend on a GPU given the games i play, im gonna have to buy an AMD card you are saying? You are sure polaris is going to come in at 250-300 range and have 980 performance? If that is the case wouldnt nvidia just drop price of 980 to compensate?


----------



## bigjdubb

They will release a 1060 at some point, maybe June/July. You probably won't see anything from AMD until around that time as well so there isn't much need for them to lower the 970 and 980 price.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> GTX460 was faster then GTX280 right? They could have launched that first and sold it for $500 too lol.


Yes GTX460 was faster than GTX280.
You know 230USD GTX460 was faster than 650USD GTX280.They should launch it at 800USD from todays NV marketing and call it new flagship.Meanwhile hold ALL GTX480 to HPC and tesla cards only and then year or so later launch GTX480 as new TITAN flagship for 1000USD instead of 500USD.

This is basically what they are doing since GTX680(last 5 years) and people are happy...


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Sooo nvidia wont have anything at that price point? 400 bucks is still too much for me to spend on a GPU given the games i play, im gonna have to buy an AMD card you are saying? You are sure polaris is going to come in at 250-300 range and have 980 performance? If that is the case wouldnt nvidia just drop price of 980 to compensate?


No, i doubt they wouldn't have cards in that tier, it has the highest demand after all. I just don't think they'll be able to match Polaris, from the rumors/what AMD have been saying (as usual take with large amounts of salt) they are targeting that market, not the high-end. So they should have an automatic advantage there, Vega is AMD's high-end chips.

We'll see, i just hope both brands deliver on the low-end side, i'm sick of 1-2GB and pathetically weak products holding the rest of PC back.


----------



## Klocek001

lol ppl selling 980Ti Xtreme CLC for what a used 980 cost up unitl last week. Suckers.
I'll go down to 970 price this summer easily for my second 980Ti.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Be ready guys for gimped drivers for 980ti users


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Frist, how does one put money down on a product that isn't even available?
> Second, leaning towards the 1070 over the 1080 is still leaning towards a purchase decision for a bad buy.
> Third, the P100 is not a consumer card but it is a reflection of what is to come with big pascal.
> Fouth, the choice to release a mid-grade chip before the top chip is a business decision that Nvidia has deployed since Kepler. It is there to milk the market for as much as possible.
> 
> Lastly, if you purchased a GTX 680, 670, 980, or 970 near their release dates, you already are on Nvidia's hook...


You used bait as if I'm already throwing money at Nvidia. Also you don't know whats in my computer so you don't know whats a "bad buy" for me. You still can't compare the P100 to consumer based cards regardless of what the cut down versions are going to be compared to the 1080 and 1070, its just so different. The 1070 will be nothing more than an intermediary card for me while I wait for the next gen or maybe big chip pascal at a much cheaper price point than the 1080, and it will still be an astronomical upgrade for me, because I know whats in my PC and you don't. Its a strategic purchase, not a blind flailing of my wallet. And again you're doing so much assuming.


----------



## Scotty99

Ya no kidding, i play mmo's/rpg's/light shooters and i dont need a 400+ dollar GPU. I was hoping to find a 970 on sale for 200-225 new but its not looking that way if what people say in this thread to be true. I also would not like to wait until july for a 1060 or polaris card, sigh.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> lol ppl selling 980Ti Xtreme CLC for what a used 980 cost up unitl last week. Suckers.
> I'll go down to 970 price this summer easily for my second 980Ti.


Yeah, I would rather just keep the 980Ti as a backup than sell it that cheap. glad I don't have that problem. dudes got to learn, if you love to upgrade on every new release, you have to get in early, and, out early, simple. or, buy at MC., or, use your American Express....


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Ya no kidding, *i play mmo's/rpg's/light shooters and i dont need a 400+ dollar GPU.* I was hoping to find a 970 on sale for 200-225 new but its not looking that way if what people say in this thread to be true. I also would not like to wait until july for a 1060 or polaris card, sigh.


Yup, i think most consumers are that way, most just want to play a game now or then / have a lot more expenses to worry about besides a GPU. $400 is the price of an entire console.. Both vendors have seriously neglected the low-end segment, to the point where most techies don't even recommend them, because these days anything cheaper than $250 is usually complete garbage and it's better to save a bit more.

Let's hope there's something good for those guys this time, and i think there will be.


----------



## Slay

So 1080=980 SLI right? So judging by multi-GPU support of latest games we can expect the performance to be somewhere around the 950.


----------



## carlhil2

I had SLI-980 Classifieds, they were pretty fast to be honest, I just wanted more ram....


----------



## looniam

now how much do you have?


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> Yes GTX460 was faster than GTX280.
> You know 230USD GTX460 was faster than 650USD GTX280.They should launch it at 800USD from todays NV marketing and call it new flagship.Meanwhile hold ALL GTX480 to HPC and tesla cards only and then year or so later launch GTX480 as new TITAN flagship for 1000USD instead of 500USD.
> 
> This is basically what they are doing since GTX680 and people are happy...


This is argument is hilarious from a business perspective.

Why should I send out my A Squad in a match when my B Squad is just as good as my rivals A Squad?
It was a calculated decision that nVidia decided to make when they released the GK104 vs GCN Tahiti (mind you the HD7970 was already out by this point for about three months). And guess what? It paid off as GK104 was more than enough to match the HD7970.


----------



## ikjadoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> That's an interesting metric, but not useful by its self. You still need to ask:
> What's the cheapest card that hits my required performance level?
> If that is unattainable, what's the fastest card that fits within my budget?
> Is it worth sacrificing something else to increase that budget?


Sure, sure, for _individual buying decisions_. But, if we're talking about overall value from one generation to the next, frames per dollar is the only important metric.

I'm excited to put a 1070 under water and crank that baby. 2400MHz? 2500MHz?! I don't like that NVIDIA's being coy with the specs.

Reviewers already have 1070s, right?


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Its ok ppl lets justify the 104 chip @ $600 msrb dont worry everything its all alright as it is faster than titan-x or 980ti in a new node its ok


----------



## carlhil2

As a consumer, you have two choices, buy, or, don't buy, everything else is dramatics...


----------



## Kriant

So let me see if I got it right. the REFERENCE design is $699 usd and the MSRP $599 is for whatever the arguably cheaper non-refs that the partners will be able to come up with? 0_o. Ar they for real?


----------



## d0mini

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *d0mini*
> 
> It would be...cheaper? More VRAM, slightly higher performance? Any of those factors hitting the mark?
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I should read more. Was seeing comparisons to 980 not ti.
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it, there's a lot to read!


----------



## Scotty99

Man people are going a bit ham in here lol. We dont even know for sure how fast these cards are, thread started out as how amazing the cards were for 599 now people are sayings its an absolute ripoff lol!

I say yall chill for a bit and wait for the benches


----------



## ikjadoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zGunBLADEz*
> 
> Its ok ppl lets justify the 104 chip @ $600 msrb dont worry everything its all alright as it is faster than titan-x or 980ti in a new node its ok


I don't give a crap about GP104 or GP110. I want frames per dollar and I want it under $400 and I want it soon. I don't care what the GPU does inside or how much is disabled/enabled. I'm not sure why all of you do, either.

I think you all are stuck in "specification gratification". You just want a full-fat card because you know NVIDIA has one and they aren't giving it to you, lol. I'll be laughing when they release that GP110 card in 9 months, and you'll all proclaim, "SEE? This is why I waited!!! You know, forget about those 9 months, whatever. It's full fat and I am going to compare to cards released in June 2016 because those are the little brothers. ha. ha. ha."
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> As a consumer, you have two choices, buy, or, don't buy, everything else is dramatics...


Thank you.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kriant*
> 
> So let me see if I got it right. the REFERENCE design is $699 usd and the MSRP $599 is for whatever the arguably cheaper non-refs that the partners will be able to come up with? 0_o. Ar they for real?


You get the new cooler, bro. That's a clutch purchase. It'll look stunning in your case. That's worth $100, right? We realize you could literally buy a CLC, VRM heatsinks + 120mm fan, and hook all that up for cheaper + cooler + faster, but that doesn't matter. You get the cool polygons on your cooler.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Man people are going a bit ham in here lol. We dont even know for sure how fast these cards are, thread started out as how amazing the cards were for 599 now people are sayings its an absolute ripoff lol!
> 
> I say yall chill for a bit and wait for the benches


For some reason there are people jumping into the thread and just ripping on people. Like the ones who are just saying the drivers are going to kill older cards. Which makes no sense because, you don't have to update drivers so if you lose performance on your card because of bad drivers from NVidia the you have only yourself to blame. You can also roll back to previous drivers so if you do install new drivers that suck you still only have yourself to blame.


----------



## Gdourado

Once nvidia drop the support for maxwell and amd continues to develop catalyst, the fury will obliterate the 980ti.
Just like the 290x with time destroyed the 780ti and made such an excellent long time purchase.
That's the problem with nvidia.
If you don't upgrade every cycle, you're in trouble


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gdourado*
> 
> Once nvidia drop the support for maxwell and amd continues to develop catalyst, the fury will obliterate the 980ti.
> Just like the 290x with time destroyed the 780ti and made such an excellent long time purchase.
> That's the problem with nvidia.
> If you don't upgrade every cycle, you're in trouble


Is this a troll post or something lol? I have a 760 it performs as well as same day i got it, a year and a half ago i was using a gtx 465 and it was handling games just fine too.


----------



## caswow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Is this a troll post or something lol? I have a 760 it performs as well as same day i got it, a year and a half ago i was using a gtx 465 and it was handling games just fine too.


its not about the gimping. its about the perf relativly to its competition. kepler cards except maybe 780ti are way behind its competition. for example my 660 was just as fast as a 7870 they were both equal. today the 7870 simply destroys the 660 its not even funny. my 660 wasnt gimped but it somehow didnt evolve like amds 7870. same goes for 670 680 780


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Is this a troll post or something lol? I have a 760 it performs as well as same day i got it, a year and a half ago i was using a gtx 465 and it was handling games just fine too.


The theory is that once Nvidia comes out with a new series of GPU's they stop working on driver improvements for the older cards. Some will go so far as to say that Nvidia begins to intentionally cripple the performance of those older cards in order to make the new cards more appealing.

This will be my first generation in quite a while where I will be able to see for myself, usually I'm buying the new cards and already ditching my old ones before more than a driver or two gets released.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> The theory is that once Nvidia comes out with a new series of GPU's they stop working on driver improvements for the older cards. Some will go so far as to say that Nvidia begins to intentionally cripple the performance of those older cards in order to make the new cards more appealing.
> 
> This will be my first generation in quite a while where I will be able to see for myself, usually I'm buying the new cards and already ditching my old ones before more than a driver or two gets released.


My Fermi card continued to improve in newer games for a while after Kepler dropped, until the 700's parts I'd say as a rough empirical estimate. My 770's definitely stopped seeing significant optimisation before my 7970's did, but I don't feel that they were crippled so much as ignored. There's also the fact that the 7970's had a larger VRAM buffer and without tailored driver optimisations to help the 770's along they lost relative performance steadily to the 7970's. 780 Ti's still look good but they're just very strong cards with the brute force to handle 1920x1080 for a while yet.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *caswow*
> 
> its not about the gimping. its about the perf relativly to its competition. kepler cards except maybe 780ti are way behind its competition. for example my 660 was just as fast as a 7870 they were both equal. today the 7870 simply destroys the 660 its not even funny. my 660 wasnt gimped but it somehow didnt evolve like amds 7870. same goes for 670 680 780


Pretty much.


----------



## bigjdubb

I always buy a new card when they come out and give away the old one instead of keeping them laying around in boxes. I have no interest in how a video card will perform 2 or 3 years down the road so I have never paid any attention to or formed an opinion on the matter. There does seem to be a difference between how much improvement AMD cards see over time vs. Nvidia cards over that same time but I can't really say if that is intentional or not.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> I always buy a new card when they come out and give away the old one instead of keeping them laying around in boxes. I have no interest in how a video card will perform 2 or 3 years down the road so I have never paid any attention to or formed an opinion on the matter. There does seem to be a difference between how much improvement AMD cards see over time vs. Nvidia cards over that same time but I can't really say if that is intentional or not.


Similar, I typically buy something new most generations, move anything that's a huge improvement to one of my other rigs, and give away anything that won't be used. Still, because I run a couple of rigs with older GPU's for longer it's something I've looked at just because I can. It doesn't really factor into my purchase decisions, but for those who keep GPU's for a long time and play less-demanding games, it's something to be aware of.


----------



## Somasonic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-terabyte-*
> 
> Usually they don't keep selling the "reference" card for long, but this time Nvidia wants to keep selling it for the lifetime of the card/chip. *They priced it 100$ higher to NOT compete with the AIBs*. It has been mentioned multiple times already, have also a look at JayzTwoCents youtube video about the Founder's card where he explains it (after having talked to Nvidia directly).
> 
> NDA on reviews lifts on 17th MAy.


I find it hilarious that anyone thinks Nvidia is pricing their card out of the market out of the goodness of their hearts. ROFL.

Anyway, anyone care to speculate on when we will see a Ti, what it will cost and how it will perform? I ask because there are people in here who know way more about this than me and can likely draw better conclusions. Cheers


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Somasonic*
> 
> I find it hilarious that anyone thinks Nvidia is pricing their card out of the market out of the goodness of their hearts. ROFL.
> 
> Anyway, anyone care to speculate on when we will see a Ti, what it will cost and how it will perform? I ask because there are people in here who know way more about this than me and can likely draw better conclusions. Cheers


Likely Q4 2016 - Q1 2017, as for price point I would put it at 750$-850$.


----------



## jezzer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> I dont see a reason to buy a 1080 instead of a 980ti.


Driver abuse.... Main reason why i would prefer to spend more to upgrade to a single 1080 over buying an extra 980 Ti to run SLI


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> You used bait as if I'm already throwing money at Nvidia. Also you don't know whats in my computer so you don't know whats a "bad buy" for me. You still can't compare the P100 to consumer based cards regardless of what the cut down versions are going to be compared to the 1080 and 1070, its just so different. The 1070 will be nothing more than an intermediary card for me while I wait for the next gen or maybe big chip pascal at a much cheaper price point than the 1080, and it will still be an astronomical upgrade for me, because I know whats in my PC and you don't. Its a strategic purchase, not a blind flailing of my wallet. And again you're doing so much assuming.


The only time generalized statements using the word "you" ever offends someone is when a nerve is struck.

I don't care what you buy. I don't care what you have in your system. I don't care how you justify your decisions. Just have the common courtesy to carry out the discussion in the mirror before seeking vindication...


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The only time generalized statements using the word "you" ever offends someone is when a nerve is struck.
> 
> I don't care what you buy. I don't care what you have in your system. I don't care how you justify your decisions. Just have the common courtesy to carry out the discussion in the mirror before seeking vindication...


Before you get all high and mighty do remember that you're the one who began this whole debacle. I didn't try making a comparison between 2 differently classed cards, you did. And if you truly don't care about anything like you said then you wouldn't be going around telling people what is and isn't a good buy.


----------



## f1LL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> Sure, sure, for _individual buying decisions_. But, if we're talking about overall value from one generation to the next, frames per dollar is the only important metric.
> 
> I'm excited to put a 1070 under water and crank that baby. 2400MHz? 2500MHz?! I don't like that NVIDIA's being coy with the specs.
> 
> Reviewers already have 1070s, right?


I'm pretty sure that the most frames per Dollar will be had for far less than $400. That metric only get's worse the more you pay.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> Before you get all high and mighty do remember that you're the one who began this whole debacle.


Seems you did:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> 1080 isn't considered mid-range, if you put it in the mid-range for high end cards I would agree, and then state the 1070 would be the low end of high ranged or high end of mid ranged card.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> I didn't try making a comparison between 2 differently classed cards, you did.


You still don't seem to understand the what a mid-range card is...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> And if you truly don't care about anything like you said then you wouldn't be going around telling people what is and isn't a good buy.


I need to care about you personally to assess the value of a product? The 1080 at $699 is a bad buy. The 1070 at $450 is a bad buy.... Hell, even the 680 at $500 was a bad buy... It's what got most people comfortable with these inflated prices to begin with...

I apparently need to give a damn about you in order to be a consumer advocate...


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Seems you did:
> 
> You still don't seem to understand the what a mid-range card is...
> I need to care about you personally to assess the value of a product? The 1080 at $699 is a bad buy. The 1070 at $450 is a bad buy.... Hell, even the 680 at $500 was a bad buy... It's what got most people comfortable with these inflated prices to begin with...
> 
> I apparently need to give a damn about you in order to be a consumer advocate...


The 1080 reference card is 699$ same goes for the 1070 you listed, and as I said before you don't know what is currently in my computer so you can't tell me what is and isn't a bad buy, if I had wanted advice on what would be a good purchase I would of created a separate thread and asked directly. If you had said something more along the lines of "if you have 900 series card itd be better to skip this generation" that would of been more preferential to "oh you're making a **** purchase.". And I do get what a mid-range card is, but CONSUMER wise the 1080 will be the strongest card to come out putting it on top and since we already know that Polaris 10 isn't going to be competing directly against it I'm pretty sure I can place the 1080 on the high spectrum until something actually comes along to dethrone it. However I am done with this school yard bickering as it appears all you care about is making snarky comments at people.


----------



## Robilar

So do we know if they 1080's are going to be available for sale in May?


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> The 1080 reference card is 699$ same goes for the 1070 you listed, and as I said before you don't know what is currently in my computer so you can't tell me what is and isn't a bad buy, if I had wanted advice on what would be a good purchase I would of created a separate thread and asked directly. If you had said something more along the lines of "if you have 900 series card itd be better to skip this generation" that would of been more preferential to "oh you're making a **** purchase.". And I do get what a mid-range card is, but CONSUMER wise the 1080 will be the strongest card to come out putting it on top and since we already know that Polaris 10 isn't going to be competing directly against it I'm pretty sure I can place the 1080 on the high spectrum until something actually comes along to dethrone it. However I am done with this school yard bickering as it appears all you care about is making snarky comments at people.


He is making a general statement. You shouldn't be taking it personal. A 1080 @ $699 is a bad buy in general, no matter what card you currently have. He nor I don't need to know anything about anyone to make that statement.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> So do we know if they 1080's are going to be available for sale in May?


May 27 for the Sucker's Edition....


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> So do we know if they 1080's are going to be available for sale in May?


May 27th for the Founder's cards. No idea on any others.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> He is making a general statement. You shouldn't be taking it personal. A 1080 @ $699 is a bad buy in general, no matter what card you currently have. He nor I don't need to know anything about anyone to make that statement.
> May 27 for the Sucker's Edition....


So presumably a 980 Ti and Fury X are also? Since they are $650 for even less performance.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> So presumably a 980 Ti and Fury X are also? Since they are $650 for even less performance.


LOL... here we go.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> So presumably a 980 Ti and Fury X are also? Since they are $650 for even less performance.


Raising prices of high end products from $500 to $1000 and then dropping them down to $650 isn't exactly a sound value proposition...


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> LOL... here we go.


You said that the 1080 is a bad buy no matter what anyone's circumstances are. I don't see how the 1080 can be a definitive bad buy unless the 980 Ti and Fury X are also.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Raising prices of high end products from $500 to $1000 and then dropping them down to $650 isn't exactly a sound value proposition...


I don't think anyone is saying they are a good value, but that's not the same as saying they are a bad buy. If I have a 4K monitor and I want the best possible performance to drive that expensive monitor, what am I supposed to do? SLI/Crossfire and hope they actually work? Wait who knows how long for the now attaining mythical status Vega or GP100/2? What if I want to play games now, and for the next 6 months?

Is the 1080 a good choice for everyone? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it's a bad choice for everyone either.


----------



## BulletSponge

New toys announced......


24 hours later in forums world-wide....


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> You said that the 1080 is a bad buy no matter what anyone's circumstances are. I don't see how the 1080 can be a definitive bad buy unless the 980 Ti and Fury X are also.


You know exactly what I mean. Prices aren't suppose to go up every generation because performance increases. It has been said so many times and I will repeat it again, if that was the case we would be paying $10-15k for current top end gpus because the 8800 Ultra was $800.

To add to what you wrote above, the 1080 is not a bad choice if someone needs that gpu power, but no matter what it is a bad buy. Inflation, cost to make, performance per inch, power savings... nothing justifies the price. But that can be said of other things as well. Doesn't me we can't have an opinion about it.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> You know exactly what I mean. Prices aren't suppose to go up every generation because performance increases. It has been said so many times and I will repeat it again, if that was the case we would be paying $10-15k for current top end gpus because the 8800 Ultra was $800.


Then say what you mean. Don't make sweeping statements about how you know everyone else's value situation.

The number of "I wouldn't buy it, so anyone who does is a sucker/dumb" posts here is out of control lately.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Then say what you mean. Don't make sweeping statements about how you know everyone else's value situation.


So you buying one? I think I have seen you say something about needing more performance than the 980Ti offers. So this is right up your alley.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> So you buying one? I think I have seen you say something about needing more performance than the 980Ti offers. So this is right up your alley.


Probably not. I don't want to spend more than 500-$550 for a new card. But that doesn't mean I'm going to poke fun/question the intelligence of anyone who makes a different choice than me.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Probably not. I don't want to spend more than 500-$550 for a new card. But that doesn't mean I'm going to poke fun/question the intelligence of anyone who makes a different choice than me.


Where did I question someone intelligence?

Oh, my joke to Robilar. Well I am sorry.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> You said that the 1080 is a bad buy no matter what anyone's circumstances are. I don't see how the 1080 can be a definitive bad buy unless the 980 Ti and Fury X are also.


He did say the 1080... Not that every card at $699 is a bad buy.

The Ti and Fury X are somewhat justifiable, they are both massive chips that pushed the limits of what 28nm can offer, the Fury X also has HBM to boot. If the 1080 isn't an inflated and exorbotant price then we should all be happy when the 1080Ti is $1199 right? And when the Titan is $1399..

Look at the 980, it cost like $50 less than a 980Ti when it launched, Nvidia's baby chips offer terrible value, their track record has proved that over and over again. I also don't see anyone saying "anyone who buys this is clearly a moron etc.". But there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, this card is a bad buy at $699.

I hope to see all those that defend these prices have one in their sigs on launch day.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Where did I question someone intelligence?


Not you specifically, but others have. Although saying it is a bad buy for anyone no matter what the circumstances kind of implies it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> He did say the 1080... Not that every card at $699 is a bad buy.
> 
> The Ti and Fury X are somewhat justifiable, they are both massive chips that pushed the limits of what 28nm can offer, the Fury X also has HBM to boot.


So having a lesser amount of "fancy" memory justifies the price, but having more sheer performance doesn't? Having a larger die, even if it is cheaper to manufacture, justifies a higher price? If that's the case, the aluminum shroud in the Founder's card justifies that higher price also, right?


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Not you specifically, but others have. Although saying it is a bad buy for anyone no matter what the circumstances kind of *implies it*.


Wow... really? No, I didn't imply anything about anyone. I implied the card is a bad value and nothing else.


----------



## jezzer

It al depends how u look at it. Are u buying a card or are u buying fps?

Its all in dem fps


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Then say what you mean. Don't make sweeping statements about how you know everyone else's value situation.
> 
> The number of "I wouldn't buy it, so anyone who does is a sucker/dumb" posts here is out of control lately.


They are, also saying things like people are getting baited into a product. Its demeaning regardless of what the commentator says or thinks.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> So presumably a 980 Ti and Fury X are also? Since they are $650 for even less performance.


Here ya go 980ti brand spanking new $475 AR ($25) EVGA 980ti FTW. Kinda makes a $699 1080 look pretty bad


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> I don't think anyone is saying they are a good value, but that's not the same as saying they are a bad buy. If I have a 4K monitor and I want the best possible performance to drive that expensive monitor, what am I supposed to do? SLI/Crossfire and hope they actually work? Wait who knows how long for the now attaining mythical status Vega or GP100/2? What if I want to play games now, and for the next 6 months?
> 
> Is the 1080 a good choice for everyone? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it's a bad choice for everyone either.


Now we are quailing over semantics?

Just found this survey on techpowerup:


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Now we are quailing over semantics?
> 
> Just found this survey on techpowerup:


Ok so lets compare the price/performance of a 1080 vs a 980,and stop comparing it to the 980 TI since it literally makes no sense to compare it except bragging rights, because all I see is people pitting it against the 980 TI.


----------



## carlhil2

Question, what gpu IS actually worth it's price? this is for the "bad buy" people. also, no need to get aggressive, just trying to find what gpu is actually worth you guys loot....


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Question, what gpu IS actually worth it's price? this is for the "bad buy" people. also, no need to get aggressive, just trying to find what gpu is actually worth you guys loot....


Well speaking for myself, +/- 10% of what I paid for the last GPU but with +50% improvement in performance.

Which means I'll probably end up buying every other generation given where we're headed atm.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> Ok so lets compare the price/performance of a 1080 vs a 980,and stop comparing it to the 980 TI since it literally makes no sense to compare it except bragging rights, because all I see is people pitting it against the 980 TI.


why? comparing 1080 to 980 makes no sense. You always compare stuff from same price range. Its like comparing VW golf with Veyron.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> why? comparing 1080 to 980 makes no sense. You always compare stuff from same price range. Its like comparing VW golf with Veyron.


Because the 1080 is the direct successor to the 980 not the 980 TI, people aren't going to compare the 1080 TI to the Titan X when it comes out, they'll do it against the 980 TI. You should be doing direct comparisons, otherwise the results are skewed. Does the performance match the price inflation of the 980?


----------



## ToTheSun!

Are we really still talking about this? Jesus Christ, people, chill.

One comes here to get info on upcoming cards and all one sees is this bickering back and forth. If you think it's too expensive, no one is forcing you to buy it. If enough people don't buy it, the market and Nvidia will adjust prices accordingly eventually.


----------



## coelacanth

People were content buying 980 Tis at $650. $700 is a 7.7% price increase for what is looking like a much better than 7.7% improvement in performance. Not to mention power savings. It's nice to see a card with a single 8-pin power connection.

It seems like the 1080 is an even better value proposition than the 980 Ti was at launch.

Price / performance ratio is going to be better nowadays for the 980 Ti vs. the shiny new 1080. For people who don't need the top of the line, the 980 Ti's value is getting even better.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> Here ya go 980ti brand spanking new $475 AR ($25) EVGA 980ti FTW. Kinda makes a $699 1080 look pretty bad


That is a sweet deal. Gotta wait and see what P10 brings though.


----------



## burticus

I cannot believe this thread is 185 pages and counting..... I also can't believe I read most of it, but hey I was bored at work.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> Because the 1080 is the direct successor to the 980 not the 980 TI, people aren't going to compare the 1080 TI to the Titan X when it comes out, they'll do it against the 980 TI. You should be doing direct comparisons, otherwise the results are skewed. Does the performance match the price inflation of the 980?


Who cares if its direct successor. Price of 1080 is same as 980 ti, im not going to compare it to cheaper 980 just because it is a successor. Also if it is, then why nvidia is not pricing 1080 with similar price of 980.

Infact i think there wont be 1080 ti. Untill now, all non ti x80 models were not full gpu, one of blocks were disabled. This 1080 is full at start. So either nvidia will give us new chip, or it will stay like it is - and that is why we get such high price.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> So having a lesser amount of "fancy" memory justifies the price, but having more sheer performance doesn't? Having a larger die, even if it is cheaper to manufacture, justifies a higher price? If that's the case, the aluminum shroud in the Founder's card justifies that higher price also, right?


Seriously Forceman? Of course those things justifies a higher price. You seem to want to argue about this just for the sake of being argumentative..

Again, i don't see anyone being derogatory against an individuals decision to buy one or not, that's up to them. Go look at my posts i made in the Titan X thread when it launched, i was merely trying to explain what Criminal meant, instead of arguing semantics.. If someone wants to buy one then fine, and they may have the disposable income to justify it. If you choose to make your standard of value what an individuals income/wealth is then it's pointless arguing about it, my standard of value is based upon previous generations of GPU's and the tech that went into making them.

So yes, i think a Fury X that has state of the art memory with an interposer etc., with a chip that pushed 28nm passed 600mm, while being the biggest die and therefor deserving to be a flagship, with a custom CLC for $649 - Has more value than a midrange GP104 (midrange is literally in the name) 300mm chip with GDDR5 memory with an X on the end, and a standard blower cooler for $699.

That's without using both AMD's and Nvidias previous generation full-chip to full-chip comparisons. Nvidia obviously took your own train of thought when they launched the 680, "it performs better so it should cost more", so instead of getting top-end chips that give 2x the performance, we get midrange chips every other year for the same price or there about, that the much harder to produce big ones cost.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coelacanth*
> 
> People were content buying 980 Tis at $650. $700 is a 7.7% price increase for what is looking like a much better than 7.7% improvement in performance. Not to mention power savings. It's nice to see a card with a single 8-pin power connection.
> 
> It seems like the 1080 is an even better value proposition than the 980 Ti was at launch.
> 
> Price / performance ratio is going to be better nowadays for the 980 Ti vs. the shiny new 1080. For people who don't need the top of the line, the 980 Ti's value is getting even better.


This is all true, 1080 seems to be well designed, but im still waiting for polaris tho


----------



## carlhil2

Most are here , I will put it kindly, complaining to complain, some have legit issues and, some are here to troll. the rest just want to buy the next fastest gpu.. you would think that the AMD only, I hate nVidia crowd would be in their own thread celebrating the impending release of Polaris....


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Most are here to, I will put it kindly, complaining to complain, some have legit issues and, some are here to troll. the rest just want to buy the next fastest gpu.. you would think that the AMD only, I hate nVidia crowd would be in their own thread celebrating the impending release of Polaris....


You would think, but common sense is dead. This is clearly an example of thread hijacking for the purpose of messing with people.


----------



## stahlhart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Again, i don't see anyone being derogatory against an individuals decision to buy one or not,


http://www.overclock.net/t/1599440/geforce-nvidia-gtx-1080-1070-unveiled/1840#post_25148530


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> Who cares if its direct successor. Price of 1080 is same as 980 ti, im not going to compare it to cheaper 980 just because it is a successor. Also if it is, then why nvidia is not pricing 1080 with similar price of 980.
> 
> Infact i think there wont be 1080 ti*. Untill now, all non ti x80 models were not full gpu, one of blocks were disabled.* This 1080 is full at start. So either nvidia will give us new chip, or it will stay like it is - and that is why we get such high price.


nope the 780 was the only x80 card w/o a full chip.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Most are here to, I will put it kindly, complaining to complain, some have legit issues and, some are here to troll. the rest just want to buy the next fastest gpu.. you would think that the AMD only, I hate nVidia crowd would be in their own thread celebrating the impending release of Polaris....


Some of us just love to break down the product stack from every angle! And yes, plenty of people just complaining to complain, but don't confound them with people bringing up legitimate points. These threads get boring fast if it's just a bunch of people blindly throwing money at their monitors.  There are all kinds: price/perf people, % increase people, long-term buyers who like to cover their bases. All are valid as long as they're not making up unfounded nonsense to carry out an agenda.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> Ok so lets compare the price/performance of a 1080 vs a 980,and stop comparing it to the 980 TI since it literally makes no sense to compare it except bragging rights, because all I see is people pitting it against the 980 TI.


The $229 460 was roughly 5% faster than the 280 at release

The $499 680 was roughly 16% faster than the 580 at release

The $549 980 was roughly 7% faster than the 780 Ti at release:



These are all examples of mid-grade chips surpassing their previous generation of high end chips.

The GTX 1080 will likely fall somewhere between 7-15% faster than the GTX 980 Ti. Do you see that the only trend is the price inflation?


----------



## degenn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Then say what you mean. Don't make sweeping statements about how you know everyone else's value situation.
> 
> *The number of "I wouldn't buy it, so anyone who does is a sucker/dumb" posts here is out of control lately.*


Hear, hear! +rep


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Some of us just love to break down the product stack from every angle! And yes, plenty of people just complaining to complain, but don't confound them with people bringing up legitimate points. These threads get boring fast if it's just a bunch of people blindly throwing money at their monitors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are all kinds: price/perf people, % increase people, long-term buyers who like to cover their bases. All are valid as long as they're not making up unfounded nonsense to carry out an agenda.


as I said, some have legit beefs, but, most of the rhetoric in this thread, and, others like it, is just theatrics....


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1599440/geforce-nvidia-gtx-1080-1070-unveiled/1840#post_25148530


Posting someones comment after i made my statement is a little pointless, no?









Besides, i wasn't speaking for the internet, there's a lot of brand partisans all over the place, i just meant those in that little circle that Forceman was responding too.


----------



## ikjadoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> You said that the 1080 is a bad buy no matter what anyone's circumstances are. I don't see how the 1080 can be a definitive bad buy unless the 980 Ti and Fury X are also.
> I don't think anyone is saying they are a good value, but that's not the same as saying they are a bad buy. If I have a 4K monitor and I want the best possible performance to drive that expensive monitor, what am I supposed to do? SLI/Crossfire and hope they actually work? Wait who knows how long for the now attaining mythical status Vega or GP100/2? What if I want to play games now, and for the next 6 months?
> 
> Is the 1080 a good choice for everyone? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it's a bad choice for everyone either.


Thank you. A voice of reason.

Frames per dollars, guys, frames per dollar. Doesn't matter what generation or what GPU node or whether any SMs are disabled or anything. Literally just frames per dollar.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> You know exactly what I mean. Prices aren't suppose to go up every generation because performance increases. It has been said so many times and I will repeat it again, if that was the case we would be paying $10-15k for current top end gpus because the 8800 Ultra was $800.
> 
> To add to what you wrote above, the 1080 is not a bad choice if someone needs that gpu power, but no matter what it is a bad buy. Inflation, cost to make, performance per inch, power savings... nothing justifies the price. But that can be said of other things as well. Doesn't me we can't have an opinion about it.


Anyone can have an opinion, haha. But, some of them are of varying quality, we could say.

It's not frames per dollar absolutely. It's frames per dollar on current games and at current resolutions. That metric, I think, has been steady for a while. You want a consistent 60FPS on all games at the highest settings at a high resolution / with AA from a stock GPU? You're paying $550+. That's always been true.

Forget about generational lineup. Forget about GP104 and GP110. It's literally just frames per dollar. Yes, there may be some generations that are slightly more expensive or slightly more cheaper. But, otherwise, it's pretty consistent.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The $229 460 was roughly 5% faster than the 280 at release
> 
> The $499 680 was roughly 16% faster than the 580 at release
> 
> The $549 980 was roughly 7% faster than the 780 Ti at release:
> 
> 
> 
> The GTX 1080 will likely fall somewhere between 7-15% faster than the GTX 980 Ti. Do you see that the only trend is the price inflation?


I'm fully aware of the price inflation on newer generations of GPUs, but I for one do not believe that the price can be fully projected against the performance of the cards alone. Parts also have to have a factor, and the performance gains are faltering because Moore's Law is clearly dying. Intel is facing the same problem and is doing similar things with their CPUs.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *burticus*
> 
> I cannot believe this thread is 185 pages and counting..... I also can't believe I read most of it, but hey I was bored at work.


Go into preferences and set number of post per page to 100








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> I'm fully aware of the price inflation on newer generations of GPUs, but I for one do not believe that the price can be fully projected against the performance of the cards alone. Parts also have to have a factor, and the performance gains are faltering because Moore's Law is clearly dying. Intel is facing the same problem and is doing similar things with their CPUs.


Again, you don't have to rationalize your purchase decisions to me. Only to yourself.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Seriously Forceman? Of course those things justifies a higher price. You seem to want to argue about this just for the sake of being argumentative..
> 
> Again, i don't see anyone being derogatory against an individuals decision to buy one or not, that's up to them. Go look at my posts i made in the Titan X thread when it launched, i was merely trying to explain what Criminal meant, instead of arguing semantics.. If someone wants to buy one then fine, and they may have the disposable income to justify it. If you choose to make your standard of value what an individuals income/wealth is then it's pointless arguing about it, my standard of value is based upon previous generations of GPU's and the tech that went into making them.
> 
> *So yes, i think a Fury X that has state of the art memory with an interposer etc., with a chip that pushed 28nm passed 600mm, while being the biggest die and therefor deserving to be a flagship, with a custom CLC for $649 - Has more value than a midrange GP104 (midrange is literally in the name) 300mm chip with GDDR5 memory with an X on the end, and a standard blower cooler for $699.*
> 
> That's without using both AMD's and Nvidias previous generation full-chip to full-chip comparisons. Nvidia obviously took your own train of thought when they launched the 680, "it performs better so it should cost more", so instead of getting top-end chips that give 2x the performance, we get midrange chips every other year for the same price or there about, that the much harder to produce big ones cost.


That's the kind of bigger-picture perspective I tend to take. Performance is one of the main things I look at with new products, sure, but innovation and value are important to me as well. Speaking of the 1080 specifically in that context, yes I think it's impressive that they've got so much performance out of a cut die compared to the massive Fury X die. However, I also see the price that this cut die commands. I look at what's upcoming, like Big Pascal and Vega. Taking all of that into account, I can't, for myself, justify buying a 1080 when I have the two Furies in my case. We're nowhere near another node shrink, the kind of performance we should expect from x80 Ti and Vega should be prodigious and have some serious staying power. They'll also bring HBM2 to the party. That's the kind of performance gain and technological innovation I want to encourage in the $650+ bracket so that's where my money will go in accordance.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> That's the kind of bigger-picture perspective I tend to take. Performance is one of the main things I look at with new products, sure, but innovation and value are important to me as well. Speaking of the 1080 specifically in that context, yes I think it's impressive that they've got so much performance out of a cut die compared to the massive Fury X die. However, I also see the price that this cut die commands. I look at what's upcoming, like Big Pascal and Vega. Taking all of that into account, I can't, _for myself,_ justify buying a 1080 *when I have the two Furies in my case.* We're nowhere near another node shrink, the kind of performance we should expect from x80 Ti and Vega should be prodigious and have some serious staying power. They'll also bring HBM2 to the party. That's the kind of performance gain and technological innovation I want to encourage in the $650+ bracket so that's where my money will go in accordance.


Uhhh I hope those furries are in your case out of their own volition, because other it'd be unlawful detainment.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> That's the kind of bigger-picture perspective I tend to take. Performance is one of the main things I look at with new products, sure, but innovation and value are important to me as well. Speaking of the 1080 specifically in that context, yes I think it's impressive that they've got so much performance out of a cut die compared to the massive Fury X die. However, I also see the price that this cut die commands. I look at what's upcoming, like Big Pascal and Vega. Taking all of that into account, I can't, _for myself,_ justify buying a 1080 when I have the two Furies in my case. We're nowhere near another node shrink, the kind of performance we should expect from x80 Ti and Vega should be prodigious and have some serious staying power. They'll also bring HBM2 to the party. That's the kind of performance gain and technological innovation I want to encourage in the $650+ bracket so that's where my money will go in accordance.


I agree with this completely and believe that upgrading from a 780 to a 1080 or even a 1070 are easily justifiable.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Uhhh I hope those furries are in your case out of their own volition, because other it'd be unlawful detainment.


Papers were signed. I am strict but fair.









DISCLAIMER: I kid, I kid!

I just can't bring myself to type "Fury's"! Maybe I will start using the term "Erinyes" from the Ancient Greek.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> They'll also bring HBM2 to the party. That's the kind of performance gain and technological innovation I want to encourage in the $650+ bracket so that's where my money will go in accordance.


You do realize that generation to generation performance increases have stayed just about the same even though prices have skyrocketed?


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> You do realize that generation to generation performance increases have stayed just about the same even though prices have skyrocketed?


Do you know the cost of parts and labor it takes to make the devices? Or the cost of R&D that needs to be made back for the creation of these cards? I'm saying you can't directly relate the price to performance gain no matter how much you want to. So if you don't think the price to performance gain is a legitimate enough reason for you to upgrade you device, then that's fair by you. I however clearly have a different perception on the value of these cards because of my personal machine.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> Do you know the cost of parts and labor it takes to make the devices? Or the cost of R&D that needs to be made back for the creation of these cards? I'm saying you can't directly relate the price to performance gain no matter how much you want to. So if you don't think the price to performance gain is a legitimate enough reason for you to upgrade you device, then that's fair by you. I however clearly have a different perception on the value of these cards because of my personal machine.


Do you notice a trend?



Again, the only one you need to rationalize to is yourself. We are, after all, more inclined to lie to ourselves than to others.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> You do realize that generation to generation performance increases have stayed just about the same even though prices have skyrocketed?


I think it's basically accepted that generational performance increases have essentially been codified to certain percentage ranges. At this point it's determining how quickly you need to upgrade and deciding which increase range you're comfortable waiting for. If it's been a long time since last you upgraded and you've got a hard $650 limit, or you just like the new hotness and sell it off once newer hotness drops, a 1080 can make sense. If you're coming from something less than a 980, the perf. increase to 1080 is exceptional. If you're coming from 980 Ti, the increase is solid but you might need to wait to 1080 Ti to get your "expected" increase.


----------



## ikjadoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> It al depends how u look at it. Are u buying a card or are u buying fps?
> 
> Its all in dem fps


Thank you. Where has the sanity gone?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The Ti and Fury X are somewhat justifiable, they are *both massive chips that pushed the limits of what 28nm can offer*, the Fury X also has HBM to boot. If the 1080 isn't an inflated and exorbotant price then we should all be happy when the 1080Ti is $1199 right? And when the Titan is $1399..


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Seriously Forceman? *Of course those things justifies a higher price*. You seem to want to argue about this just for the sake of being argumentative..
> 
> So yes, i think a Fury X that has *state of the art memory with an interposer etc., with a chip that pushed 28nm passed 600mm, while being the biggest die* and therefor deserving to be a flagship,


I'd *hate* to see you all try to buy GPUs from "blind tests". You just get to play on a PC with an unknown GPU and then someone gives you a price. I can just see the sweat dripping, the popped nerves, the inevitable question: "OK, it plays great, I know, I know, but does it have HBM2? I need to know! Please. Just tell me: IS IT HBM2 OR GDDR5X?!?"

Let's make it even more trickier. No FPS counter,
















I think you all got bitten once with buyer's remorse and it's causing some miswiring now. This is not a difficult discussion.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Do you notice a trend?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the only one you need to rationalize to is yourself. We are, after all, more inclined to lie to ourselves than to others.


This proves nothing other than Nvidia is making more money. It could mean they are making it by gouging their customers. Or it could just be evidence that they have a larger portion of a growing gaming community. You can't call me ignorant just by pasting an image with little context.


----------



## ikjadoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> This proves nothing other than Nvidia is making more money. It could mean they are making it by gouging their customers. Or it could just be evidence that they have a larger portion of a growing gaming community. You can't call me ignorant just by pasting an image with little context.


And where's that profit coming from? NVIDIA makes a lot more money in other markets (like HPC with Tesla, design wins on their SoCs, etc.), I think, besides consumer GPUs.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> And where's that profit coming from? NVIDIA makes a lot more money in other markets (like HPC with Tesla, design wins on their SoCs, etc.), I think, besides consumer GPUs.


Exactly, don't just throw a graph in my face and declare victory when it doesn't prove your point. This graph goes back to 2003, the gaming community has exploded in numbers since then.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Papers were signed. I am strict but fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DISCLAIMER: I kid, I kid!
> 
> I just can't bring myself to type "Fury's"! Maybe I will start using the term "Erinyes" from the Ancient Greek.


I'd just stick with Furies tbh, I have a tendency to crack bad jokes so don't let what I wrote put you off. (or if you wanted to be super awesome, use furries instead







)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> Thank you. Where has the sanity gone?
> 
> I'd *hate* to see you all try to buy GPUs from "blind tests". You just get to play on a PC with an unknown GPU and then someone gives you a price. I can just see the sweat dripping, the popped nerves, the inevitable question: "OK, it plays great, I know, I know, but does it have HMB2? I need to know! Please. Just tell me: IS IT HBM2 OR GDDR5X?!?"
> 
> *Let's make it even more trickier. No FPS counter,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> I think you all got bitten once with buyer's remorse and it's causing some miswiring now. This is not a difficult discussion.


This is exactly why I don't upgrade until I know there's at least a 50% improvement over what I have. I don't game with the FPS counter on half the time, and when I do, it's only because it's part of AB's OSD, and occasionally I might use it to figure out if the jerkiness is due to sudden frame drops or some other reason.

If you're wondering about the 50% figure, it's because 60 is a 50% increase over 40.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> This proves nothing other than Nvidia is making more money. It could mean they are making it by gouging their customers. Or it could just be evidence that they have a larger portion of a growing gaming community. You can't call me ignorant just by pasting an image with little context.


I am not going to explain how little you understand about business, your comment already manages to do that just fine on its own.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> I am not going to explain how little you understand about business, your comment already manages to do that just fine on its own.


Again this fails to do anything for your argument. All you've just done is prove that Nvidia is a continually growing company with a healthy profit margin. Explain how that proves your point. Where are these profits coming from. Is it directly from the GPU branch of the company? AMD quarterly profits have been horrible and their cards aren't all that better priced than Nvidia.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:
Originally Posted by *magnek* 

I'd just stick with Furies tbh, I have a tendency to crack bad jokes so don't let what I wrote put you off. (or if you wanted to be super awesome, use furries instead







)


> This is exactly why I don't upgrade until I know there's at least a 50% improvement over what I have. I don't game with the FPS counter on half the time, and when I do, it's only because it's part of AB's OSD, and occasionally I might use it to figure out if the jerkiness is due to sudden frame drops or some other reason.
> 
> If you're wondering about the 50% figure, it's because 60 is a 50% increase over 40.


Kinda leaning towards Furries now if I'm being honest.









And agreed on upgrading. I need to see something similar like that performance-wise, and when something with that kind of performance crops up I'm already feeling the need in-game.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> This is exactly why I don't upgrade until I know there's at least a 50% improvement over what I have.


It used to be the case that each generation brought about a ~50% gain in performance over the last generation. This all changed when Nvidia stopped releasing their big chips first with the release of the GTX 680...


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It used to be the case that each generation brought about a ~50% gain in performance over the last generation. This all changed when Nvidia stopped releasing their big chips first with the release of the GTX 680...


Its changing because we are reaching a point where technology can't make those leaps easily anymore. I'm sorry you apparently feel betrayed by Nvidia? There's plenty of information readily available that'll tell you the exact same thing across pretty much the entire silicon industry. If AMD throws out cards that stomp NVidia and their own previous cards into the dust you may with my complete consent, belittle the hell out of me and throw it in my face.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Kinda leaning towards Furries now if I'm being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And agreed on upgrading. I need to see something similar like that performance-wise, and when something with that kind of performance crops up I'm already feeling the need in-game.


Furries FTW!!!









And yeah exactly, I literally _feel_ the need to upgrade when it comes to that point.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> Its changing because we are reaching a point where technology can't make those leaps easily anymore. I'm sorry you apparently feel betrayed by Nvidia? There's plenty of information readily available that'll tell you the exact same thing across pretty much the entire silicon industry.


For Kepler you could've argued 28nm wasn't mature enough for behemoth chips to launch right out the gate, but how do you explain Maxwell launching with GM204 first with GM200 being delayed by 6 months (or 8 months for the more sane option)?


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> And yeah exactly, I literally _feel_ the need to upgrade when it comes to that point.
> For Kepler you could've argued 28nm wasn't mature enough for behemoth chips to launch right out the gate, but how do you explain Maxwell launching with GM204 first with GM200 being delayed by 6 months (or 8 months for the more sane option)?


I don't work for Nvidia I can't give you an explanation for that.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> Its changing because we are reaching a point where technology can't make those leaps easily anymore. I'm sorry you apparently feel betrayed by Nvidia? There's plenty of information readily available that'll tell you the exact same thing across pretty much the entire silicon industry. If AMD throws out cards that stomp NVidia and their own previous cards into the dust you may with my complete consent, belittle the hell out of me and throw it in my face.


What are you talking about?

GTX 580 --> GTX 780 Ti was nearly double the performance

GTX 780 Ti --> GTX 980 Ti was around a 50% boost...

Edit: just noticed that you are a troll that just joined a few weeks ago... going on ignore. Good luck debating yourself.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> I don't work for Nvidia I can't give you an explanation for that.


Or you're just avoiding the obvious answer.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Or you're just avoiding the obvious answer.


If you want me to say something, I have no idea what it is. It could of easily just been them giving the GM204 series some time before the GM200. All I find is articles relating it to production issues, but if you're asking me to prove that, I can't. I skipped the 900 series so I didn't pay much attention to what was going on with it.

Also apparently me being a recent member marks me as a troll?


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It used to be the case that each generation brought about a ~50% gain in performance over the last generation. This all changed when Nvidia stopped releasing their big chips first with the release of the GTX 680...


I like how Nvidia gets all of the blame for this, even though AMD was the one that launched a card 35% faster than the previous card at a 50% higher price. I was one of those that spoke out strongly against the 7970 pricing, and was shouted down by a chorus of "it's faster than the 580 so the price is justified" comments. Heck, you still hear people using that justification today. How is that different than what Nvidia is doing - maximizing their revenue using the chips they have available.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> For Kepler you could've argued 28nm wasn't mature enough for behemoth chips to launch right out the gate, but how do you explain Maxwell launching with GM204 first with GM200 being delayed by 6 months (or 8 months for the more sane option)?


If you have two chips, and both are faster than the competition, why would you launch the best one first? AMD is getting kudos for releasing P10 before Vega, but Nvidia making the same choice makes them evil or something?


----------



## guttheslayer

Reason for all price hike is more of a monopolisation rather than rise in manufacturing cost.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Reason for all price hike is more of a monopolisation rather than rise in manufacturing cost.


Yes raise the prices win the customers. Quick tell Nvidia to raise the prices of all their GPUs, that's why people are buying their cards. Because they are more expensive. In all honesty raising prices only works when you have a decent product to raise prices for. And since Nvidia has the market to do that they can. Until AMD can match or beat Nvidia that isn't going to change. Its called business and that's how it goes.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> I dont see a reason to buy a 1080 instead of a 980ti.


I agree with you in my own personal situation because i find inherent value in owning the very best (in terms of technology and design) even if it is not the "fastest" when compared to new mid range selections. That said, if I am recommending a card for someone (particularly someone like a new forum member) who is building a new rig and doesn't already own a card and is looking for absolute best performance for the money I would definitely recommend the 1080 for its price range. The 1080 undoubtedly provides impressive performance and should serve a new owner well for at least a couple years if they don't always have to have the latest and greatest. If you are a more seasoned member and are in any way considering Vega and Big Pascal next year (or already own a 980Ti or Titan X) I'd recommend sticking with whatever you have and waiting it out as I believe the performance increases coming with those two is going to be off the charts and not just a 10-20% side grade like the 1080 is (over Big Maxwell).

At the end of the day people are absolutely free to spend their money however they see fit and I won't criticize anybody who decides to pull the trigger on a 1080 or two. Hell, I spent over $2k on my Titans way back in early 2013 so I definitely understand the motivation to have the very best even if it is terrible value for money. The 1080 is not terrible value for money but it is disappointing to see Nvidia fully abandon the $500-$600 range that has historically been the realm of x80 cards in the past...


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> Thank you. Where has the sanity gone?
> 
> I'd *hate* to see you all try to buy GPUs from "blind tests". You just get to play on a PC with an unknown GPU and then someone gives you a price. I can just see the sweat dripping, the popped nerves, the inevitable question: "OK, it plays great, I know, I know, but does it have HBM2? I need to know! Please. Just tell me: IS IT HBM2 OR GDDR5X?!?"
> 
> Let's make it even more trickier. No FPS counter,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you all got bitten once with buyer's remorse and it's causing some miswiring now. This is not a difficult discussion.


A blind test would be fine as I'd pick the 1080, but obviously for your little experiment to be relevant, you would of course have to give the cards away for free, right? Because outside of your experiment, these cards actually cost money, and their prices are going up, that's the whole point..

There's obviously a willful ignorance for some of you to see others points of view.. I'm not arguing about fps here... And I'll take a stab in the dark and say Slomo isn't either..

If you want to justify _your_ own purchase based on a 15% increase in performance and a $50 increase in price for a "baby" chip then that's fine, your prerogative. I haven't said anything to the contrary.. But that is entirely your point of view, based on your own decisions and income. It has nothing to do with what is being argued.

I'd carry on here but Slomo has already posted everything i would, if you still don't get the other side of the argument then it's pointless to go on.

The numbers show the profit margins Nvidia make on these baby chips, and the past will show you how things used to be done. So yeah, you want something that performs better? Then go for a 1080, that's obvious, it's the new chip after all.. All the other mid-range chips outperformed their high-end predecessors too, difference is they didn't cost the same. I'd never buy one, nor would i recommend a friend to either, but it's not like i'm running around calling people dumb who do.

No buyers remorse here, i can see whats going to be good value for me based on fact and evidence/history, and i don't fall for hype. It's the big-chip cycle for me. Others won't be bothered as they live in countries where there is market demand to sell their old cards and upgrade every year, i can't. But more power to them, they get to have the best every year, i wish i could do the same. But thanks to new business "tactics" (whats being argued here), i can only afford to upgrade every two years as i can't sell my old stuff (i still have a 570..). And gaming isn't worth $700 a year on GPU's alone to me.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I
> At the end of the day people are absolutely free to spend their money however they see fit and I won't criticize anybody who decides to pull the trigger on a 1080 or two. Hell, I spent over $2k on my Titans way back in early 2013 so I definitely understand the motivation to have the very best even if it is terrible value for money. The 1080 is not terrible value for money but it is disappointing to see Nvidia fully abandon the $500-$600 range that has historically been the realm of x80 cards in the past...


They've only abandoned it if you are counting the Founders card and I don't see a lot of people aside from the extreme enthusiasts who don't feel like waiting any longer for a new card. it's like a special edition where the special edition is having it before everyone else. Assuming it comes out before 3rd party cards, still somewhat unclear on the whole founder's thing.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> If you have two chips, and both are faster than the competition, why would you launch the best one first? AMD is getting kudos for releasing P10 before Vega, but Nvidia making the same choice makes them evil or something?


And this is the obvious answer I was referring to.

Who's giving kudos to AMD for releasing Polaris first before Vega?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> I always buy a new card when they come out and give away the old one instead of keeping them laying around in boxes. I have no interest in how a video card will perform 2 or 3 years down the road so I have never paid any attention to or formed an opinion on the matter. There does seem to be a difference between how much improvement AMD cards see over time vs. Nvidia cards over that same time but I can't really say if that is intentional or not.


Well one could argue that AMD simply plays catch up over time considering that their release day performance is usually far worse than Nvidia's and therefore there is more room for improvements over time vs Nvidia, whose cards are typically close to as fast as they will ever be at launch. As usual the truth is probably somewhere between the two arguments...


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The numbers show the profit margins Nvidia make on these baby chips, and the past will show you how things used to be done. So yeah, you want something that performs better? Then go for a 1080, that's obvious, it's the new chip after all.. All the other mid-range chips outperformed their high-end predecessors too, difference is they didn't cost the same. I'd never buy one, nor would i recommend a friend to either, but it's not like i'm running around calling people dumb who do.


There is nothing on the graph that he posted that proves they are profit margins for GPUs. And I asked him to prove it and all he did was laugh at me call me a troll for being new and blocked me. If you can prove it then I would love for you to do so.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> I like how Nvidia gets all of the blame for this, even though AMD was the one that launched a card 35% faster than the previous card at a 50% higher price. I was one of those that spoke out strongly against the 7970 pricing, and was shouted down by a chorus of "it's faster than the 580 so the price is justified" comments. Heck, you still hear people using that justification today. How is that different than what Nvidia is doing - maximizing their revenue using the chips they have available.


The 7970 vs xx104 chips like the 680 etc., is definitely apples to apples..








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> If you have two chips, and both are faster than the competition, why would you launch the best one first? AMD is getting kudos for releasing P10 before Vega, but Nvidia making the same choice makes them evil or something?


If AMD charge $700 for their baby chips then I'll be saying the same things, i wonder if you will?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> There is nothing on the graph that he posted that proves they are profit margins for GPUs. And I asked him to prove it and all he did was laugh at me call me a troll for being new and blocked me. If you can prove it then I would love for you to do so.


A graph isn't needed, you really think a 980 cost anywhere near what a 780Ti or 980Ti cost to make? It's obvious Nvidia will be making massive margins on their baby chips. 980 class cards like the 460 cost $229 (which i bought for $250 which was still great) but now we pay $700 for the same tier GPU.. Sorry, i think it's ridiculous, and the proof is how the low-range cards these days are complete garbage, when they actually used to be awesome like the 460. If anything these new tactics have hurt the lower-end segments more than the enthusiast ones.

I don't think you're a troll, you just have a different point of view. I get where you're coming from, i just disagree.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> They've only abandoned it if you are counting the Founders card and I don't see a lot of people aside from the extreme enthusiasts who don't feel like waiting any longer for a new card. it's like a special edition where the special edition is having it before everyone else. Assuming it comes out before 3rd party cards, still somewhat unclear on the whole founder's thing.


The 1080 is the most expensive small-die x80 card ever as far as I know, even if you are referring to the $599 base price (that I highly doubt we will actually see from AIB's anyway). Granted the 780 was an outlier but at least it had a version of the Titan GK110 full fat chip in it and not a GX104 grade GPU like the 1080.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The 7970 vs xx104 chips like the 680 etc., is definitely apples to apples..


It was faster and cheaper. How is that not apples to apples? When did die size become more important than actual performance?

If P10 is faster than the 1080 and $50 cheaper, is there going to be an outcry against AMD because it is a smaller die?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> I like how Nvidia gets all of the blame for this, even though AMD was the one that launched a card 35% faster than the previous card at a 50% higher price. I was one of those that spoke out strongly against the 7970 pricing, and was shouted down by a chorus of "it's faster than the 580 so the price is justified" comments.


Come on man, you know exactly why that is a flawed analogy. Why would AMD adhere to another manufacturer's pricing strategy? The problem with Nvidia's strategy is that they themselves have set precedence with their own previous generation products. Of course either side is free to charge a premium over their competitors if they capture the performance crown (which is exactly what Nvidia has done with the 1080). The problem is that they have done the same thing for 4 generations in a row so one has to ask, will we see a day of the x80 being $999? If every version that beats its predecessor enjoys a price increase that is where we are headed.

And btw, if you were making that argument AGAINST the 7970 why have you changed that opinion with the 1080? Is it because that was AMD and this is Nvidia?









Edit - Sorry I misunderstood your post and thought you were referring to the 580. Still, we all know that the reason the 7970 was priced the way it was: It was the fastest card available at the time and they knew they had a window of opportunity where they would be the "only game in town" and jumped at the chance to make some (sorely needed) cash. Neither was really right to do so but the 1080 seems much more egregious than the 7970 was. It only seems like less of a price increase because the entire x80 lineup has been gaining in price steadily since 2011 whereas the 7970 was priced 50% higher than its immediate predecessor.


----------



## Forceman

Stupid mobile site.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> I like how Nvidia gets all of the blame for this, even though AMD was the one that launched a card 35% faster than the previous card at a 50% higher price. I was one of those that spoke out strongly against the 7970 pricing, and was shouted down by a chorus of "it's faster than the 580 so the price is justified" comments. Heck, you still hear people using that justification today. How is that different than what Nvidia is doing - maximizing their revenue using the chips they have available.


Like you, I have argued against both. Logic falls on deaf ears in these forums...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Lets see what history can teach us... ATI was acquired by AMD in 2006 and the acquisition was completed on July 24.
> 
> Let us compare the launch price and die size of each generation of top high end cards since the acquisition:
> 
> May 2007
> HD 2900 XT = $399 420mm
> June 2007
> HD 2600 XT = $149 153mm
> 
> November 2007
> HD 3870 = $249 192mm
> Jan 2008
> HD 3870X2 = $449 192mm (dual chip, no true high end chip this generation)
> 
> Jun 2008
> HD 4870 = $299 256nm
> August 2008
> HD 4870X2 = $549 256mm (dual chip)
> 
> April 2009
> HD 4890 = $250 282mm
> 
> September 2009
> HD 5870 = $379 334mm
> November 2009
> HD 5970 = $599 334mm (dual chip)
> 
> October 2010
> HD 6870 = $239 255mm
> December 2010
> HD 6970 = $369 389mm
> March 2011
> HD 6990 = $699 389mm (dual chip)
> 
> January 2012
> HD 7970 = $549 352mm
> March 2012
> HD 7870 = $349 212mm
> April 2012
> HD 7990 = $1000 352mm (dual chip)
> 
> October 2013
> R9 290X = $549 438mm
> April 2014
> R9 295X2 = $1500 438mm (dual chip)
> September 2014
> R9 285 = $249 359mm
> 
> The US inflation rate from 2007 to 2014 was 14.2%... The price of GPUs far outpaced the inflation rates...
> 
> 
> Also, lets not forget that AMD and Nvidia were sued for price fixing... If you think a $1.7 million slap on the wrist prevented these companies from engaging in similar activities since then, you must be naive...
> 
> Bottom line, the duopoly has and will continue to engage in anti-consumer practices...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*


Yeah, see my edit. My apologies.


----------



## provost

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> There is nothing on the graph that he posted that proves they are profit margins for GPUs. And I asked him to prove it and all he did was laugh at me call me a troll for being new and blocked me. If you can prove it then I would love for you to do so.


Sorry to insert myself in this discussion, but are you asking a rhetorical question? Where else would these margins come from, Intel royalty, money losing Tegra, incubation stage deep learning, developing stage self driving cars, a large piece of secret Corporate gpu business or some kind of consulting services that no one is aware of? He can't provide you with the data that Nvidia doesn't publicly disclose, but we can make a guesstimate based on knowing how Nvidia's bread gets buttered in terms of % of revenues from the consumer segment vs others , so to speak... Lol


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And btw, if you were making that argument AGAINST the 7970 why have you changed that opinion with the 1080? Is it because that was AMD and this is Nvidia?


I was mostly upset about the 7970 because the price increase was more than the performance increase, so you were getting less value for the money. I don't like the ever escalating prices anymore than anyone else, but at least the perf/$ is still increasing (against the high-end parts, of course mainstream parts have better absolute perf/$). It's a lot lower increase than we are used to, but that's been happening (with a few notable exceptions) for a while now. Used to be you'd get big increases every 6 months (think the Riva/Geforce256 days), not small increases every two years, but that low hanging performance fruit is running out.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> I was mostly upset about the 7970 because the price increase was more than the performance increase, so you were getting less value for the money. I don't like the ever escalating prices anymore than anyone else, but at least the perf/$ is still increasing (against the high-end parts, of course mainstream parts have better absolute perf/$). It's a lot lower increase than we are used to, but that's been happening (with a few notable exceptions) for a while now. Used to be you'd get big increases every 6 months (think the Riva/Geforce256 days), not small increases every two years, but that low hanging performance fruit is running out.


Fair point.









I would say that we at least got value for money with the 7970 in the fact that to this day AMD is finding performance increases out of the card so if you bought one for $550 on release you'd still have a decently performing card (and one that absolutely obliterates its former chief rival, the 680).


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> It was faster and cheaper. How is that not apples to apples? When did die size become more important than actual performance?
> 
> If P10 is faster than the 1080 and $50 cheaper, is there going to be an outcry against AMD because it is a smaller die?


It's not more important, see my edit to Brimlock. I'm not talking about performance increases either, that's a given. I'm talking about Nvidia/AMD ( i say AMD because it's pretty obvious they will be going the same way..) moving every tier up a notch, charging $999 for the real big chips, and replacing the low-end with complete... You know what.

If you still don't get where I'm coming from then lets just leave it here.

If we get decent low-end cards moving forward, then i wouldn't have a problem with even $2k tier cards, they wouldn't be for me but at least not everyone underneath them would suffer. A healthy low-end segment is the most important thing.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Fair point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that we at least got value for money with the 7970 in the fact that to this day AMD is finding performance increases out of the card so if you bought one for $550 on release you'd still have a decently performing card (and one that absolutely obliterates its former chief rival, the 680).


Yeah, I was just going to edit my post to point out that, in hindsight, the 7970 was totally worth the cost increase, we just didn't know it then. Same thing with the 290/290X,and likely P10/Vega also. Only the Fury X seems to be bucking that trend.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> It's not more important, see my edit to Brimlock. I'm not talking about performance increases either, that's a given. I'm talking about Nvidia/AMD ( i say AMD because it's pretty obvious they will be going the same way..) moving every tier up a notch, charging $999 for the real big chips, and replacing the low-end with complete... You know what.


We'll have to see what P10 brings, but it kind of seems like AMD has decided it isn't worth getting into a price war, and they and Nvidia have reached a gentleman's agreement to avoid significantly undercutting the other. I'm not optimistic that we are going to see a 980 Ti level P10 for $300 for just that reason.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I think its obvious that most everyone would like to see the 1080 release for $499 and the P10 for no more than that (if it were to somehow be faster). It would be nice if there was a static and capped price on x80/x90X performance that both companies adhered to but that is not the way capitalism works, unfortunately. The thing that is particularly egregious in my eyes is this whole FE business and the utterly transparent attempt by Nvidia to rip off its customers even more (while winking and assuring us all that the base price is "only" $599). They really have no shame at this point and aren't even really trying to hide the gouging anymore. Can't blame them because they are in the market position to do whatever they want, but its still crappy business ethic and they deserve to be called on it.

I have no room to argue this though, considering the GPU's in my sig rig!


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Sorry to insert myself in this discussion, but are you asking a rhetorical question? Where else would these margins come from, Intel royalty, money losing Tegra, incubation stage deep learning, developing stage self driving cars, a large piece of secret Corporate gpu business or some kind of consulting services that no one is aware of? He can't provide you with the data that Nvidia doesn't publicly disclose, but we can make a guesstimate based on knowing how Nvidia's bread gets buttered in terms of % of revenues from the consumer segment vs others , so to speak... Lol


It isn't that difficult to find...


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Sorry to insert myself in this discussion, but are you asking a rhetorical question? Where else would these margins come from, Intel royalty, money losing Tegra, incubation stage deep learning, developing stage self driving cars, a large piece of secret Corporate gpu business or some kind of consulting services that no one is aware of? He can't provide you with the data that Nvidia doesn't publicly disclose, but we can make a guesstimate based on knowing how Nvidia's bread gets buttered in terms of % of revenues from the consumer segment vs others , so to speak... Lol


I'm not saying they are completely wrong, I'm only defending my point on what I plan to purchase, and that lead to so much other stuff that hardly relates. Its only partially rhetorical, I get it Nvidia has hiked their prices over recent years on their cards and some people can't find it justifiable. But my point does stand that they can't just post a graph and say "This is proof" when all it shows in Nvidia is still growing. They hold the majority of a still growing market so of course the numbers are going to grow, some people argue that the economy is stabilizing and that influences people to spend more money which in turn generates more revenue. Its not just from rising prices in GPUs, and I'm not going to ignorantly accept that all of Nvidia's revenue is from price gouging, but i'm also not going to be stubborn and say none of it is. What I would like to know, which I know they can't get is how much of it is because of the rising prices. I'm not trolling, I being open and standing my ground on my opinion, whether it be wrong or right.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> It's a lot lower increase than we are used to, but that's been happening (with a few notable exceptions) for a while now. Used to be you'd get big increases every 6 months (think the Riva/Geforce256 days), not small increases every two years, but that low hanging performance fruit is running out.


I got called a troll for pointing this out.


----------



## USlatin

Re: 3-way SLI being confirmed
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> Source?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjPU3IrAvCs&feature=youtu.be&t=15m33s


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It isn't that difficult to find...


Be nice to see a version of that with profits instead of revenues.


----------



## provost

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brimlock*
> 
> I'm not saying they are completely wrong, I'm only defending my point on what I plan to purchase, and that lead to so much other stuff that hardly relates. Its only partially rhetorical, I get it Nvidia has hiked their prices over recent years on their cards and some people can't find it justifiable. But my point does stand that they can't just post a graph and say "This is proof" when all it shows in Nvidia is still growing. They hold the majority of a still growing market so of course the numbers are going to grow, some people argue that the economy is stabilizing and that influences people to spend more money which in turn generates more revenue. Its not just from rising prices in GPUs, and I'm not going to ignorantly accept that all of Nvidia's revenue is from price gouging, but i'm also not going to be stubborn and say none of it is. What I would like to know, which I know they can't get is how much of it is because of the rising prices. I'm not trolling, I being open and standing my ground on my opinion, whether it be wrong or right.


I think you may be conflating different concepts which is part of the confusion; revenue growth doesn't necessarily mean higher GM ( it may mean higher EBiTDA margin) unless Nvidia has baked in a great deal of Corp overhead into the cogs, which doesn't seem plausible. The only way to increase GM is to lower variable cost, increase prices or change the product mix towards more profitable higher marginal contribution products. We do know that with OEM business going away, Nvidia now relies more on direct to consumer segment via its AIBs. It's fairly well known fact that the margin increase has been attributed to Nvidia increasing prices with its "successful" gpu releases. But, Nvidia doesn't necessarily breakdown GM by business line.

So, we can reasonably conclude that the consumer segment has been contributing to the higher margins, unless someone (the company) provides an alternative disclosure. Essentially, the GPU segment is subsidizing, shall we say, more adventurous pursuits of cars, Tegra and deep exploration or what not , and thus the profit impact.....lol

But, all of this is neither here nor there. If people are willing to pay Nvidia for a product they perceive is "worth it" than so be it. Some people maybe disagree. Don't we love freedom of speech and free markets .. Lol


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Be nice to see a version of that with profits instead of revenues.


As would I. Considering that outside of their professional cards, which haven't seen much revenue increase, all other revenue channels are low margin products...

Nvidia currently has a 56.46% gross profit margin as of Jan 2016:
Markup = margin / (1 - margin)
Markup = 0.5646 / (1-0.5646)
Markup = 0.5646 / 0.4354
Markup = 1.297
Markup = 130%

130% is currently the average markup over cost. There are likely products that are much lower and much higher. I imagine you can deduce where the 1080 will fall on that spectrum.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coelacanth*
> 
> People were content buying 980 Tis at $650. $700 is a 7.7% price increase for what is looking like a much better than 7.7% improvement in performance.


Performance will always go up in the future. It's inevitable. In the next decade GPUs will perform 10x times faster. Should we pay 10x more too since performance went up 10x? A $7000 GTX 1880 sound good to you?

Be reasonable and use logic.

Prices DO NOT go up as tech gets better. They stay the same or get cheaper.


----------



## carlhil2

If they released a 980Ti 2G Edition, dudes would have ate it up at $1000+, no question....


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I think its obvious that most everyone would like to see the 1080 release for $499 and the P10 for no more than that (if it were to somehow be faster). It would be nice if there was a static and capped price on x80/x90X performance that both companies adhered to but that is not the way capitalism works, unfortunately. The thing that is particularly egregious in my eyes is this whole FE business and the utterly transparent attempt by Nvidia to rip off its customers even more (while winking and assuring us all that the base price is "only" $599). They really have no shame at this point and aren't even really trying to hide the gouging anymore. Can't blame them because they are in the market position to do whatever they want, but its still crappy business ethic and they deserve to be called on it.
> 
> I have no room to argue this though, considering the GPU's in my sig rig!


Why hasn't the social justice mob gone after Nvidia with petitions and campaigns against their business practices? They do it to everyoen else.

Or does no one care about nerd gamers?


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Why hasn't the social justice mob gone after Nvidia with petitions and campaigns against their business practices? They do it to everyoen else.
> 
> Or does no one care about nerd gamers?


It's almost as if the 'social justice mob' isn't omnipotent. Even if it were a thing, "nerd gamers" wouldn't have won any favours in that regard.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> If they released a 980Ti 2G Edition, dudes would have ate it up at $1000+, no question....


Of course there are going to be buyers at every price point. The point is to maximize profits. This is realized when marginal revenue equals marginal cost.


----------



## carlhil2

https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1582985-1-1.html might be some benches soon...


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1582985-1-1.html might be some benches soon...


Weee, about time for some gaming/benching numbers.


----------



## ikjadoon

This thread is getting absolutely inane.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> A blind test would be fine as I'd pick the 1080, but obviously for your little experiment to be relevant, you would of course have to give the cards away for free, right? Because outside of your experiment, these cards actually cost money, and their prices are going up, that's the whole point..
> 
> There's obviously a willful ignorance for some of you to see others points of view.. I'm not arguing about fps here... And I'll take a stab in the dark and say Slomo isn't either..
> 
> If you want to justify _your_ own purchase based on a 15% increase in performance and a $50 increase in price for a "baby" chip then that's fine, your prerogative. I haven't said anything to the contrary.. But that is entirely your point of view, based on your own decisions and income. It has nothing to do with what is being argued.
> 
> I'd carry on here but Slomo has already posted everything i would, if you still don't get the other side of the argument then it's pointless to go on.
> 
> The numbers show the profit margins Nvidia make on these baby chips, and the past will show you how things used to be done. So yeah, you want something that performs better? Then go for a 1080, that's obvious, it's the new chip after all.. All the other mid-range chips outperformed their high-end predecessors too, difference is they didn't cost the same. I'd never buy one, nor would i recommend a friend to either, but it's not like i'm running around calling people dumb who do.
> 
> No buyers remorse here, i can see whats going to be good value for me based on fact and evidence/history, and i don't fall for hype. It's the big-chip cycle for me. Others won't be bothered as they live in countries where there is market demand to sell their old cards and upgrade every year, i can't. But more power to them, they get to have the best every year, i wish i could do the same. But thanks to new business "tactics" (whats being argued here), i can only afford to upgrade every two years as i can't sell my old stuff (i still have a 570..). And gaming isn't worth $700 a year on GPU's alone to me.


Interesting...in a blind test you'd pick the GTX 1080. But, after you get all into the specifications, then it's no longer worth it...hmm.....so, in your mind, the specification is more important than what performance you get. No amount of performance will dissuade you of that?

Are you reading my posts? I wrote, "I'd hate to see you all try to buy..." Of course I'm talking about buying. My last 3 posts mention "frames per dollar".

Not talking about FPS? See! That's exactly the problem we're debating. If you don't want to listen to that, sure, but hopefully others can see the other side of the coin as they make purchasing decisions. It doesn't matter what's inside the GPU (besides features): it's literally just FPS (and its variance). It's just FPS.

Profit margins on baby chips? Well, you are really reading in that graph, aren't ya?! I'd hate to see you read benchmarks. "That's the extra shader core on the 5th block that's increasing the FPS." You don't know that.

So, you're telling me right now, if a friend wanted to buy a new GPU that's faster than the GTX 980 Ti, they should not consider a GTX 1080? Man, I'd hate to be your friend,







Just because, in 9 months, faster cards will come out? Or, you know, in 9 more months, magically, we'll get even faster cards.

Big-chip cycle....see, specifications again. Are you trying to argue longevity? Is that it? Somehow, if you only buy big-chip cycle, you'll get longer lasting performance? But, obviously, you will pay more!

See, because of your insistence of big-chip cycle, you have to pay a much higher $ per frame. NVIDIA will never decrease the price to satisfy you all, if the supply/demand curve shows that they can still sell full-fat cards at $700. That cannot and will not happen. That's now how economics works. I think, psychologically, it's OK not to have a full-fat card. Because that's money in my pocket.

It's a business tactic, sure....used by every business ever. Raise the price until people stop buying....you know, "what the market will bear".

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Sorry to insert myself in this discussion, but are you asking a rhetorical question? Where else would these margins come from, Intel royalty, money losing Tegra, incubation stage deep learning, developing stage self driving cars, a large piece of secret Corporate gpu business or some kind of consulting services that no one is aware of? He can't provide you with the data that Nvidia doesn't publicly disclose, but we can make a guesstimate based on knowing how Nvidia's bread gets buttered in terms of % of revenues from the consumer segment vs others , so to speak... Lol


Huh...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It isn't that difficult to find...


The only honest way to do this is profit *per card*. Of course revenue and profits overall went up. They're selling more cards!!! We need it *per* card.

That's it. Other than that, it's conjecture. So, wait, if that info is not publicly available, then guesses are we have.

If we want to go deeper, we can look at the Cost of Goods Sold, which is the total cost of materials + labor + overhead for all goods sold. So, at least, that will tell us a bit more. Interestingly, that increased 18% from 2014 to 2016 (financial years)....

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nvda/financials


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> This thread is getting absolutely inane.
> 
> The only honest way to do this is profit per card. Of course revenue and profits overall went up. They're selling more cards!!! We need it *per* card.
> 
> If we want to go deeper, we can look at the Cost of Goods Sold, which is the total cost of materials + labor + overhead for all goods sold. So, at least, that will tell us a bit more. Interestingly, that increased 18% from 2014 to 2016 (financial years)....


I agree, this thread is getting insane... you are arguing about topics that you have absolutely no understanding of...

This is how you derive gross profit margins:

(Revenue - Cost of Goods Sold) / Revenue


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1582985-1-1.html might be some benches soon...


pretty sure you were on the PCper 1080 preview thread . .you know the video where the last thing they said, it's just a paper weight until they get a driver?


----------



## provost

@ikjadoon
Slomo is right...
Meaning GM is higher in spite of the higher variable cost which further supports the fact that Nvidia's higher margins are not due to lower costs, but rather due to higher prices/ product mix. Well, thanks for backing up the argument, I guess... Lol

Anyway, we are way off topic and probably putting the rest of the forum to sleep... Lol


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> This thread is getting absolutely inane.
> Interesting...in a blind test you'd pick the GTX 1080. But, after you get all into the specifications, then it's no longer worth it...hmm.....so, in your mind, the specification is more important than what performance you get. No amount of performance will dissuade you of that?
> 
> Are you reading my posts? I wrote, "I'd hate to see you all try to buy..." Of course I'm talking about buying. My last 3 posts mention "frames per dollar".
> 
> Not talking about FPS? See! That's exactly the problem we're debating. If you don't want to listen to that, sure, but hopefully others can see the other side of the coin as they make purchasing decisions. It doesn't matter what's inside the GPU (besides features): it's literally just FPS (and its variance). It's just FPS.
> 
> Profit margins on baby chips? Well, you are really reading in that graph, aren't ya?! I'd hate to see you read benchmarks. "That's the extra shader core on the 5th block that's increasing the FPS." You don't know that.
> 
> *So, you're telling me right now, if a friend wanted to buy a new GPU that's faster than the GTX 980 Ti, they should not consider a GTX 1080? Man, I'd hate to be your friend,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because, in 9 months, faster cards will come out? Or, you know, in 9 more months, magically, we'll get even faster cards.*
> 
> Big-chip cycle....see, specifications again. Are you trying to argue longevity? Is that it? Somehow, if you only buy big-chip cycle, you'll get longer lasting performance? But, obviously, you will pay more!
> 
> See, because of your insistence of big-chip cycle, you have to pay a much higher $ per frame. NVIDIA will never decrease the price to satisfy you all, if the supply/demand curve shows that they can still sell full-fat cards at $700. That cannot and will not happen. That's now how economics works. I think, psychologically, it's OK not to have a full-fat card. Because that's money in my pocket.
> 
> It's a business tactic, sure....used by every business ever. Raise the price until people stop buying....you know, "what the market will bear".
> Huh...
> The only honest way to do this is profit *per card*. Of course revenue and profits overall went up. They're selling more cards!!! We need it *per* card.
> 
> That's it. Other than that, it's conjecture. So, wait, if that info is not publicly available, then guesses are we have.
> 
> If we want to go deeper, we can look at the Cost of Goods Sold, which is the total cost of materials + labor + overhead for all goods sold. So, at least, that will tell us a bit more. Interestingly, that increased 18% from 2014 to 2016 (financial years)....
> 
> http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nvda/financials


New cards do not come every 9 months. Its 12-18 for any kind of real performance upgrade usually. Buying in between the big performance shakeups is usually the best way to get products that are immediately obsolete. 1080 is not the big performance jump going to 16nm, that will be whatever the next Titan and Titan-light are.

If you are looking for the "best performance" card, 1080 is something worth skipping outright. Especially considering that the next Titan light is going to cost $850-$900.


----------



## USlatin

We saw that a while back, and people are reluctant to believe it because too many called out fake, but it isn't hard to believe a 34% average fps increase at 1440p... either way it doesn't mean much without knowing the OC of each card, etc


----------



## duganator

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2977/nvidia-s-geforce-gtx-480-and-gtx-470-6-months-late-was-it-worth-the-wait-
Remember that? No? Too short sighted? There's a reason they don't release big chips on a new process from the get go.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> Yes GTX460 was faster than GTX280.
> You know 230USD GTX460 was faster than 650USD GTX280.They should launch it at 800USD from todays NV marketing and call it new flagship.Meanwhile hold ALL GTX480 to HPC and tesla cards only and then year or so later launch GTX480 as new TITAN flagship for 1000USD instead of 500USD.
> 
> This is basically what they are doing since GTX680(last 5 years) and people are happy...


----------



## Nilareon

Why does Nvidia always skimp out of the width of the memory bus... why 256bit on a 1080... should atleast be 384.... I mean really.... 8gb of ram on a 256bit memory bus? ........cheap these the x80 xx80 cards are only meant to milk you... they know you'll buy the 1080ti even if you own a 1080.


----------



## Sleazybigfoot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BulletSponge*
> 
> New toys announced......
> 
> 
> 24 hours later in forums world-wide....


I liked this one. +rep hahahaha


----------



## ArdentDefender

Absolutely agree that this thread is absolutely insane.


----------



## Scotty99

So apparently there are no competitors for the 1080 being announced at computex:

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/52056/rumor-amd-partners-showing-polaris-cards-computex/index.html

So i need some advice from you guys, do i grab a used gtx 970 for 200 on craigslist (EVGA model so it has a warranty) or wait for the r9 490 announcment? Does anyone have a educated guess as to its launch price? 250?


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> So apparently there are no competitors for the 1080 being announced at computex:
> 
> http://www.tweaktown.com/news/52056/rumor-amd-partners-showing-polaris-cards-computex/index.html
> 
> So i need some advice from you guys, do i grab a used gtx 970 for 200 on craigslist (EVGA model so it has a warranty) or wait for the r9 490 announcment? Does anyone have a educated guess as to its launch price? 250?


That's how they're able to sell you the Sucker's Edition for $700


----------



## Scotty99

huh?


----------



## antonio8

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ArdentDefender*
> 
> Absolutely agree that this thread is absolutely insane.


Naw.

Wait until May 17th.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> So i need some advice from you guys, do i grab a used gtx 970 for 200 on craigslist (EVGA model so it has a warranty) or wait for the r9 490 announcment? Does anyone have a educated guess as to its launch price? 250?


I posted this somewhere....maybe in this thread maybe in another....tbh with all the similar discussions in multiple threads it gets confusing. Just an educated guess:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> The performance range of the 390 and the 970 are what they are trying to expand. Simply put they won't be able to if they keep the same $300 price point. So they would need at least 970/390 performance at a lesser price than what is currently available. Increasing the price to that level would not achieve that goal so much even if much increased performance was there.
> 
> I believe (and I know that doesn't really me squat here) that the larger pol10 at anything over $250 will fail. If it's closer to the $250 price it'll need fury/980 performance. If it's around $200 then 390/970 levels. Those would be acceptable ratios. Anything better than that is bonus and much worse than that and imo it'll fail.
> 
> IMO*
> bigger pol10 $200-250 (970/390-980/fury performance)
> smaller pol10 $150-200 (380x-970/390 performance)
> Larger pol11 $100-150 (380/960-380x performance)
> smaller pol11 up to $100 (270x/950-380/960 performance)


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nilareon*
> 
> Why does Nvidia always skimp out of the width of the memory bus... *why 256bit on a 1080*... should atleast be 384.... I mean really.... 8gb of ram on a 256bit memory bus? ........cheap these the x80 xx80 cards are only meant to milk you... they know you'll buy the 1080ti even if you own a 1080.


That's just the nature of a mid-range chip.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> I posted this somewhere....maybe in this thread maybe in another....tbh with all the similar discussions in multiple threads it gets confusing. Just an educated guess:


Thats about what i was thinking too. Man its hard to pass up on this used 970 given its an EVGA with warranty im sure i could talk the guy down to 200. On flip side maybe r9 490 launches at 230 bucks and has 980 performance. Come on already amd lol.


----------



## doza

here we go!!
















http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-reference-pcb-photos.html

I dont thing we are going to wait for 17-27 may for benches


----------



## rv8000

Did NVidia exclusively state which manufacturer the GDDR5X chips were from, or which they are using on the 1080?


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Did NVidia exclusively state which manufacturer the GDDR5X chips were from, or which they are using on the 1080?


http://videocardz.com/59839/micron-gddr5x-memory-enters-mass-production
http://videocardz.com/59813/first-custom-geforce-gtx-1080-is-here-gp104-400-confirmed

I don't think Samsung/Hynix/Elpida are making any (yet).


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> The performance range of the 390 and the 970 are what they are trying to expand. Simply put they won't be able to if they keep the same $300 price point. So they would need at least 970/390 performance at a lesser price than what is currently available. Increasing the price to that level would not achieve that goal so much even if much increased performance was there.
> 
> I believe (and I know that doesn't really me squat here) that the larger pol10 at anything over $250 will fail. If it's closer to the $250 price it'll need fury/980 performance. If it's around $200 then 390/970 levels. Those would be acceptable ratios. Anything better than that is bonus and much worse than that and imo it'll fail.
> 
> IMO*
> bigger pol10 $200-250 (970/390-980/fury performance)
> smaller pol10 $150-200 (380x-970/390 performance)
> Larger pol11 $100-150 (380/960-380x performance)
> smaller pol11 up to $100 (270x/950-380/960 performance)


I think that's low. They talk about power efficiency, but I think they'l stilll try to push clocks hard and match Fury X on their top product.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Nilareon*
> 
> Why does Nvidia always skimp out of the width of the memory bus... *why 256bit on a 1080*... should atleast be 384.... I mean really.... 8gb of ram on a 256bit memory bus? ........cheap these the x80 xx80 cards are only meant to milk you... they know you'll buy the 1080ti even if you own a 1080.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just the nature of a NEW (temporary) KING mid-range chip.
Click to expand...


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> http://videocardz.com/59839/micron-gddr5x-memory-enters-mass-production
> http://videocardz.com/59813/first-custom-geforce-gtx-1080-is-here-gp104-400-confirmed
> 
> I don't think Samsung/Hynix/Elpida are making any (yet).


Yea, that's what it is looking like. All the 1080 reference PCB shots have been too blurry to make out any labels. The MSI 1080 Gaming leak shot shows micron chips in the same layout as the reference board, only decent evidence I can find.

I was secretly hoping that Hynix and or Samsung were getting close to releasing to vendors as well


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Yea, that's what it is looking like. All the 1080 reference PCB shots have been too blurry to make out any labels. The MSI 1080 Gaming leak shot shows micron chips in the same layout as the reference board, only decent evidence I can find.
> 
> I was secretly hoping that Hynix and or Samsung was getting close to releasing to vendors as well


Why? I thought Micron was tits. At least way back with the Micron D9's (RAM).


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Why? I thought Micron was tits. At least way back with the Micron D9's (RAM).


A secret desire to be surprised by uncut p10 showing up with GDDR5X for the sake of competition. I know it won't happen, but I can dream


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*





Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## looniam

nice kitty.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> This thread is getting absolutely inane.
> Interesting...in a blind test you'd pick the GTX 1080. But, after you get all into the specifications, then it's no longer worth it...hmm.....so, in your mind, the specification is more important than what performance you get. No amount of performance will dissuade you of that?
> 
> *Are you reading my posts?* I wrote, "I'd hate to see you all try to buy..." Of course I'm talking about buying. My last 3 posts mention "frames per dollar".
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Not talking about FPS? See! That's exactly the problem we're debating. If you don't want to listen to that, sure, but hopefully others can see the other side of the coin as they make purchasing decisions. It doesn't matter what's inside the GPU (besides features): it's literally just FPS (and its variance). It's just FPS.
> 
> Profit margins on baby chips? Well, you are really reading in that graph, aren't ya?! I'd hate to see you read benchmarks. "That's the extra shader core on the 5th block that's increasing the FPS." You don't know that.
> 
> So, you're telling me right now, if a friend wanted to buy a new GPU that's faster than the GTX 980 Ti, they should not consider a GTX 1080? Man, I'd hate to be your friend,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because, in 9 months, faster cards will come out? Or, you know, in 9 more months, magically, we'll get even faster cards.
> 
> Big-chip cycle....see, specifications again. Are you trying to argue longevity? Is that it? Somehow, if you only buy big-chip cycle, you'll get longer lasting performance? But, obviously, you will pay more!
> 
> See, because of your insistence of big-chip cycle, you have to pay a much higher $ per frame. NVIDIA will never decrease the price to satisfy you all, if the supply/demand curve shows that they can still sell full-fat cards at $700. That cannot and will not happen. That's now how economics works. I think, psychologically, it's OK not to have a full-fat card. Because that's money in my pocket.
> 
> It's a business tactic, sure....used by every business ever. Raise the price until people stop buying....you know, "what the market will bear".
> Huh...
> The only honest way to do this is profit *per card*. Of course revenue and profits overall went up. They're selling more cards!!! We need it *per* card.
> 
> That's it. Other than that, it's conjecture. So, wait, if that info is not publicly available, then guesses are we have.
> 
> If we want to go deeper, we can look at the Cost of Goods Sold, which is the total cost of materials + labor + overhead for all goods sold. So, at least, that will tell us a bit more. Interestingly, that increased 18% from 2014 to 2016 (financial years)....
> 
> http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nvda/financials


Agreed, this thread is insane..

Are you reading mine?









You are arguing from a subjective point of view, those like myself are arguing from a factual one.. Which is why none of you can make a concrete argument to disprove what is being said. I'm dropping this now, I've made my position very clear, no point going in circles.


----------



## axiumone

2 way sli limit confirmed. - http://forums.evga.com/FindPost/2477871

I suspect that this will be a limit for all pascal based gpus and that's a massive letdown.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> 2 way sli limit confirmed. - http://forums.evga.com/FindPost/2477871
> 
> I suspect that this will be a limit for all pascal based gpus and that's a massive letdown.


I like that he says that the new sli bridge gives more performance than the previous 2 way sli. Nice marketing

Still you are limited at 2x1080 performance maximum


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> 2 way sli limit confirmed. - http://forums.evga.com/FindPost/2477871
> 
> I suspect that this will be a limit for all pascal based gpus and that's a massive letdown.


How is that a letdown for you? This is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> 2 way sli limit confirmed. - http://forums.evga.com/FindPost/2477871
> 
> I suspect that this will be a limit for all pascal based gpus and that's a massive letdown.


As much as I would love to go triple or quad just to have bragging rights....
When have they actually really supported SLI above two? Usually two is the sweet spot for anyone that wants more powa but anything beyond that usually brings upon issues in the real world.

This is really only gonna effect people who are going for synthetic benchmark records.


----------



## Ghoxt

Custom Bios:

Not sure if any of the guys will be even buying these cards to do a custom bios. (Sheyster, JPMboys, Cyclops) Those guys did wonders and basically finished what Nvidia could have done from the start on their Titan X / 980 series of cards by making them stable (no downclocking) at various settings including max OC on air and water.

Right now even thinking about it is the cart before the horse but that's where the top end performance we have seen period on all Nvidia cards the last few gens. Like buying a high powered rifle with no scope...










OT: Doom downloading now on Steam!

Forgive me but I had to include a small reference to some of you in this thread.



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## axiumone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> As much as I would love to go triple or quad just to have bragging rights....
> When have they actually really supported SLI above two? Usually two is the sweet spot for anyone that wants more powa but anything beyond that usually brings upon issues in the real world.
> 
> This is really only gonna effect people who are going for synthetic benchmark records.


I beg to differ. 2 cards is in no way, shape or form enough to run the crazy rigs I like to build. Sure the scaling is not perfect, but a 3 or a 4th card still provides a very respectable boost at above 4k resolutions.


----------



## DR4G00N

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> 2 way sli limit confirmed. - http://forums.evga.com/FindPost/2477871
> 
> I suspect that this will be a limit for all pascal based gpus and that's a massive letdown.


Yeah, that's kind of stupid.







I understand from a regular consumer perspective since going above 2-way yields lower gains and sometimes even slower performance in games. But for workstation's or benching having the ability to use up to 4 gpu cores is very nice to have.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> I beg to differ. 2 cards is in no way, shape or form enough to run the crazy rigs I like to build. Sure the scaling is not perfect, but a 3 or a 4th card still provides a very respectable boost at above 4k resolutions.


Holding off on 4K as I rather have as much FPS as I can over max resolution right now, as 1440p is enough for me right now.

Maybe hold off till the Titan/Ti release. That's what I'm gonna do. Give my friends the 980 and off to Titans again. Unless AMD really finally has an answer.


----------



## y2kcamaross

.


----------



## axiumone

Videocardz posted some pictures of the pcb with the heatsink off. Interesting that they've decided not to use a shim around the die like before.

http://videocardz.com/59818/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-taken-apart


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> I think that's low. They talk about power efficiency, but I think they'l stilll try to push clocks hard and match Fury X on their top product.


Low on the performance and price or just on the performance side of things?


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> This thread is getting absolutely *inane.*


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> I agree, this thread is getting *insane*... you are arguing about topics that you have absolutely no understanding of...
> 
> This is how you derive gross profit margins:
> 
> (Revenue - Cost of Goods Sold) / Revenue


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ArdentDefender*
> 
> Absolutely agree that this thread is absolutely *insane.*


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> [/SPOILER]
> 
> Agreed, this thread is *insane*..
> 
> Are you reading mine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are arguing from a subjective point of view, those like myself are arguing from a factual one.. Which is why none of you can make a concrete argument to disprove what is being said. I'm dropping this now, I've made my position very clear, no point going in circles.


Dammit people inane (NOT in*s*ane) is a word, and IMO it describes this thread better! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inane

...I'll see myself out now


----------



## Ghoxt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DR4G00N*
> Yeah, that's kind of stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand from a regular consumer perspective since going above 2-way yields lower gains and sometimes even slower performance in games. *But for workstation's or benching having the ability to use up to 4 gpu cores is very nice to have.*


[edit] I think Nvidia might be trying to say for workstation class work, this is not the droid you are looking for.

It doesn't sound like we know for sure if this is Nvidia's plan for a feature to be found only on big Pascal... IE NVlink and all that it "Could" bring to the table, if they decide it's worth it. The reason it exists is for cards to communicate much faster than PCI-E. Everyone assumes compute business of course in Nvidia's monster business machines with 16 cards.

4U Compute Accelerator with GeForce GTX Titan X



I could see them leaving NVLink off Midrange Pascal making the disparity even larger for the performance gain with big Pascal if they allowed NVlink GPU to GPU. Total speculation as is all of the performance of Pascal, small medium and large.


----------



## ikjadoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> I agree, this thread is getting insane... you are arguing about topics that you have absolutely no understanding of...
> 
> This is how you derive gross profit margins:
> 
> (Revenue - Cost of Goods Sold) / Revenue


No--cost is important because we don't have sales numbers. This entire conversation is useless without sales numbers; all of you trying to guess from absolute profit/revenue, "look, their cards are overpriced!" While completely ignoring NVIDIA's increases in market share (i.e., more cards sold -> obviously more profits). Costs can help show whether increased profits are coming from increased sales (which would mean increased costs) or increased markups. But, as I admitted in my post, all of this is conjecture without per card breakdowns.

Interesting...no comment on the rest of my post,








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> @ikjadoon
> Slomo is right...
> Meaning GM is higher in spite of the higher variable cost which further supports the fact that Nvidia's higher margins are not due to lower costs, but rather due to higher prices/ product mix. Well, thanks for backing up the argument, I guess... Lol
> 
> Anyway, we are way off topic and probably putting the rest of the forum to sleep... Lol


Or....you know...they just sold more cards, too. That's easy to see: an increase in cost and, huh, an increase in revenue and an increase in profits.

True. Maybe we can just judge from what we can understand well, instead of economics: frames per dollar.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> New cards do not come every 9 months. Its 12-18 for any kind of real performance upgrade usually. Buying in between the big performance shakeups is usually the best way to get products that are immediately obsolete. 1080 is not the big performance jump going to 16nm, that will be whatever the next Titan and Titan-light are.
> 
> If you are looking for the "best performance" card, 1080 is something worth skipping outright. Especially considering that the next Titan light is going to cost $850-$900.


"immediately obsolete"

"12-18 [months] for any kind of real performance upgrade usually"









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Agreed, this thread is insane..
> 
> Are you reading mine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are arguing from a subjective point of view, those like myself are arguing from a factual one.. Which is why none of you can make a concrete argument to disprove what is being said. I'm dropping this now, I've made my position very clear, no point going in circles.


Sure. I think we've reached a conclusion, too. Some people buy for specifications and big chips; others don't care about the specifications and just want performance.


----------



## ikjadoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Dammit people inane (NOT in*s*ane) is a word, and IMO it describes this thread better! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inane
> 
> ...I'll see myself out now


bahahaha, thank you, I did mean inane, but everyone just went with insane. Maybe it's both now, after all my posts









Anyways, from every reviewer I've seen, they don't have GTX 1070s. Only 1080s.







We might be waiting a while for these....


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I can see 1180 having 3072 SP, Higher Clocks, 14GHz 256-Bit G5X.


----------



## ikjadoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I can see 1180 having 3072 SP, Higher Clocks, 14GHz 256-Bit G5X.


Isn't HBM2 the next upgrade? I thought they _just_ put it off because it hadn't reached volume production just yet?


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> Isn't HBM2 the next upgrade? I thought they _just_ put it off because it hadn't reached volume production just yet?


Could be a cost issue(How expensive are silicon interposers?) Maybe GP104 isn't bandwidth limited by gddr5x.


----------



## ikjadoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghoxt*
> 
> Not sure if any of the guys will be even buying these cards to do a custom bios. (Sheyster, JPMboys, Cyclops) Those guys did wonders and basically finished what Nvidia could have done from the start on their Titan X / 980 series of cards by making them stable (no downclocking) at various settings including max OC on air and water.
> 
> Right now even thinking about it is the cart before the horse but that's where the top end performance we have seen period on all Nvidia cards the last few gens. Like buying a high powered rifle with no scope...


True.







But, they do mention GPU Boost 3.0 working better for water-cooled cards. Ever since EVGA started that Hybrid line, maybe NVIDIA's taking overclocking a bit more seriously.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> True. Maybe we can just judge from what we can understand well, instead of economics: frames per dollar.


http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980_Ti/33.html

Frames per dollar... isn't that the same thing as performance per dollar? Even then the 1080 is going to be a bad value. If you really want the best frames per dollar, a pair of 290s would be your best bet. Unless I am just missing your point?


----------



## ikjadoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980_Ti/33.html
> 
> Frames per dollar... isn't that the same thing as performance per dollar? Even then the 1080 is going to be a bad value. If you really want the best frames per dollar, a pair of 290s would be your best bet. Unless I am just missing your point?


Absolutely! But, performance...it's too abstract a word, haha. Let's get right to it. In the games that you play at the settings you have, how much will you pay for each frame?

And, yes! I mentioned this earlier; once you get to flagship cards, we're in a different realm of price/performance. But, if you are playing at 4K, you're stuck in that realm. So, then, you should look for price/performance inside this "bracket".

That chart...eh. It's too simple. It uses FPS averages (1% frame times? variance? FCAT? years of benchmarking improvements and we're still using FPS averages?) And it doesn't exclude "useless" frames. Like, I don't think that 270X was doing anything useful at 4K, haha, but its frames are still counted as providing "performance."

It needs a lot tighter "brackets"--that's all I'm saying.

EDIT:

"Bad value" -- hold on. It depends on your needs. We can't say "bad value" overall (except maybe for the TITAN X, haha). If you push a high resolution, sure, it's a "bad value" compared to every card available, but for every card that fits your need, it might be the best value.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> "Bad value" -- hold on. It depends on your needs. We can't say "bad value" overall (except maybe for the TITAN X, haha). If you push a high resolution, sure, it's a "bad value" compared to every card available, but for every card that fits your need, it might be the best value.


Not going down that road again. I think that horse got beat to death yesterday in this thread...lol


----------



## fat4l

So I went through some data.
Nvidia claims that 1070 will be > Titan X.

Me personally, I dont see it happening.

Looking at *1080 vs Titan X,* we can get some rough numbers.
1080 provides 35% more TFLOPS but 5% less bandwidth and this gives it "ONLY" about 22% more performance.

Now lets look at the *1070*.
It has 2% less TFLOPS and 31% less bandwidth.

Having said that, I dont see 1070 being faster than Titan X. If it is faster, that would mean that 1080 has to be much more faster than Titan X an not only by 22%.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980_Ti/33.html
> 
> Frames per dollar... isn't that the same thing as performance per dollar? Even then the 1080 is going to be a bad value. If you really want the best frames per dollar, a pair of 290s would be your best bet. Unless I am just missing your point?


What else can you go by? lol I don't think TPU gives min/max/frametimes. Just average FPS so it's safe to say performance = average fps.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fat4l*
> 
> So I went through some data.
> Nvidia claims that 1070 will be > Titan X.
> 
> Me personally, I dont see it happening.
> 
> Looking at *1080 vs Titan X,* we can get some rough numbers.
> 1080 provides 35% more TFLOPS but 5% less bandwidth and this gives it "ONLY" about 22% more performance.
> 
> Now lets look at the *1070*.
> It has 2% less TFLOPS and 31% less bandwidth.
> 
> Having said that, I dont see 1070 being faster than Titan X. If it is faster, that would mean that 1080 has to be much more faster than Titan X an not only by 22%.


Maybe OC models will be faster then Titan X.


----------



## Ghoxt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fat4l*
> 
> So I went through some data.
> Nvidia claims that 1070 will be > Titan X.
> 
> Me personally, I dont see it happening.
> 
> Looking at *1080 vs Titan X,* we can get some rough numbers.
> 1080 provides 35% more TFLOPS but 5% less bandwidth and this gives it "ONLY" about 22% more performance.
> 
> Now lets look at the *1070*.
> It has 2% less TFLOPS and 31% less bandwidth.
> 
> Having said that, I don't see 1070 being faster than Titan X. If it is faster, that would mean that 1080 has to be much more faster than Titan X an not only by 22%.


However it's a different Architecture, and Die shrunk. We have no idea how much just yet that will play into performance until reviews drop in another week. It's not equal to Maxwell that's for sure.

Also Nvidia does some really nice things with compression with their bandwidth to memory. Again it's all speculation until reviews drop.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

The 1070 may well end up not being faster than the Titan X when you factor in OC's. I'm sure the statement of it being faster was referring to stock clocks and Titan X still has plenty of headroom for much more performance than stock. We don't really have any idea how the 1070 will OC so it is at least plausible that at max OC the Titan X still beats the 1070. Just have to wait til people actually get the cards in their hands and start really OCing to find out for sure (I don't personally trust any of the review sites around an Nvidia launch)...


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> 2 way sli limit confirmed. - http://forums.evga.com/FindPost/2477871
> 
> I suspect that this will be a limit for all pascal based gpus and that's a massive letdown.


I posted this in response over at the EVGA forums:

Look's like the SLI fingers on the PCB are identical to previous generations. All this means is that the new bridge leverages both fingers at the same time for double the bandwidth over the single finger solution before. This should lead to better SLI scaling as I am sure the old single link solution was tapped out (hence poor scaling).

This also means you don't need to purchase the new bridges. Just use two current flexible SLI bridges and connect each respective finger to one another.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> I posted this in response over at the EVGA forums:
> 
> Look's like the SLI fingers on the PCB are identical to previous generations. All this means is that the new bridge leverages both fingers at the same time for double the bandwidth over the single finger solution before. This should lead to better SLI scaling as I am sure the old single link solution was tapped out (hence poor scaling).
> 
> This also means you don't need to purchase the new bridges. Just use two current flexible SLI bridges and connect each respective finger to one another.


Was the bridge the problem for scaling though? SLI and CFX scaling is all down to drivers and games support.


----------



## CallsignVega

Bandwidth plays a role, especially once you add a 3rd or 4th card (X99) or add a second card that drops PCI-E down to 8x (with MB's that have less PCI-E lanes than X99). NVIDIA did this for a reason, I am sure they needed to up the SLI link bandwidth and they did precisely that.

I would have prefered a total redesign of the SLI link, but it appears just doubling up the current tech proved sufficient. Remember, these SLI/Crossfire link technologies are very old.


----------



## ikjadoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fat4l*
> 
> So I went through some data.
> Nvidia claims that 1070 will be > Titan X.
> 
> Me personally, I dont see it happening.
> 
> Looking at *1080 vs Titan X,* we can get some rough numbers.
> 1080 provides 35% more TFLOPS but 5% less bandwidth and this gives it "ONLY" about 22% more performance.
> 
> Now lets look at the *1070*.
> It has 2% less TFLOPS and 31% less bandwidth.
> 
> Having said that, I dont see 1070 being faster than Titan X. If it is faster, that would mean that 1080 has to be much more faster than Titan X an not only by 22%.


You're forgetting the massive increase in stock clocks. ~1000 to ~1500, right? Err, wait, that's in the teraflops total already. Hmm....
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> What else can you go by? lol I don't think TPU gives min/max/frametimes. Just average FPS so it's safe to say performance = average fps.


Exactly; so, it's just an OK graph,







I'd like better ones, maybe from TechReport or PCPer, which analyze frame times.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> Bandwidth plays a role, especially once you add a 3rd or 4th card (X99) or add a second card that drops PCI-E down to 8x (with MB's that have less PCI-E lanes than X99). NVIDIA did this for a reason, I am sure they needed to up the SLI link bandwidth and they did precisely that.
> 
> I would have prefered a total redesign of the SLI link, but it appears just doubling up the current tech proved sufficient. Remember, these SLI/Crossfire link technologies are very old.


Yeah but AMD dropped the bridge Internally. If anything Dual GPUs prove that the communications between GPU make not difference in fps or frame times.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fat4l*
> 
> So I went through some data.
> Nvidia claims that 1070 will be > Titan X.
> 
> Me personally, I dont see it happening.
> 
> Looking at *1080 vs Titan X,* we can get some rough numbers.
> 1080 provides 35% more TFLOPS but 5% less bandwidth and this gives it "ONLY" about 22% more performance.
> 
> Now lets look at the *1070*.
> It has 2% less TFLOPS and 31% less bandwidth.
> 
> Having said that, I dont see 1070 being faster than Titan X. If it is faster, that would mean that 1080 has to be much more faster than Titan X an not only by 22%.


never underestimate the power of special Nvidia drivers


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Yeah but AMD dropped the bridge Internally. If anything Dual GPUs prove that the communications between GPU make not difference in fps or frame times.


I cannot speak for AMD,

SLI BRIDGE
What is the function of the SLI connector?
The SLI connector is a proprietary link between GPUs that transmits synchronization, display, and pixel data. The SLI connector enables inter-GPU communication of up to 1GB/s, consuming no bandwidth over the PCI Express bus.

So now we should have 2GB/s over that link. Like I said, NVIDIA found a need for the increased bandwidth.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> I cannot speak for AMD,
> 
> SLI BRIDGE
> What is the function of the SLI connector?
> The SLI connector is a proprietary link between GPUs that transmits synchronization, display, and pixel data. The SLI connector enables inter-GPU communication of up to 1GB/s, consuming no bandwidth over the PCI Express bus.
> 
> So now we should have 2GB/s over that link. Like I said, NVIDIA found a need for the increased bandwidth*more money* .











/s


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /s


Do you mean because of selling the new type of SLI bridge? I think overall they will lose money as there won't be anyone going 3/4-way SLI with the 1080. Although, those numbers are pretty miniscule.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> I cannot speak for AMD,
> 
> SLI BRIDGE
> What is the function of the SLI connector?
> The SLI connector is a proprietary link between GPUs that transmits synchronization, display, and pixel data. The SLI connector enables inter-GPU communication of up to 1GB/s, consuming no bandwidth over the PCI Express bus.
> 
> So now we should have 2GB/s over that link. Like I said, NVIDIA found a need for the increased bandwidth.


Iirc and correct me if i am wrong but you need to buy this new SLI connector.

If it was really a must then it shouldnt be the default connector from now on if the 1GB/s was a limitation for 1080 2 way sli?

It seems to be a marketing thing but whatever we will see.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> No--cost is important because we don't have sales numbers. This entire conversation is useless without sales numbers; all of you trying to guess from absolute profit/revenue, "look, their cards are overpriced!" *While completely ignoring NVIDIA's increases in market share (i.e., more cards sold -> obviously more profits)*. Costs can help show whether increased profits are coming from increased sales (which would mean increased costs) or increased markups. But, as I admitted in my post, all of this is conjecture without per card breakdowns.


You are a prime example of the need for education reform. You have no understanding of even basic economics... Please go educate yourself.

Marginal costs increase as production increases. Greater market share will lower gross profit margins once marginal costs cross marginal revenue.


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> never underestimate the power of special Nvidia drivers


don't tell that to early adopters and quick buys, dying to upgrade to the next mid range futureproof

They said it will be faster.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> You are a prime example of the need for education reform. You have no understanding of even basic economics... Please go educate yourself.
> 
> Marginal costs increase as production increases. Greater market share, unless paired with price increases, will usually lower gross profit margins once marginal costs cross marginal revenue.


Well... They don't actually teach that in school. Maybe as an elective in HS.


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Iirc and correct me if i am wrong but you need to buy this new SLI connector.
> 
> If it was really a must then it shouldnt be the default connector from now on if the 1GB/s was a limitation for 1080 2 way sli?
> 
> It seems to be a marketing thing but whatever we will see.


The SLI connectors are the same. You can still use the old single link SLI connector, but with reduced performance. The new bridge allows dual finger use for double the bandwidth. I would highly suspect you could just take two regular flexible SLI links and pair them together and not have to buy the new bridge. This will save you $30+ if you already have the flexible SLI ribbon cables. Old "hard" style SLI connectors will not work in the "increased bandwidth" mode as they only utilize single SLI finger communications between cards.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Well... They don't actually teach that in school. Maybe as an elective in HS.


Hence the need for reform. You would think that a subject as critical as economics would be part of the general curriculum...

Also, the Groucho Marx is the originator of the following quote, not blameless:
Quote:


> "I intend to live forever, or die trying." - Blameless


----------



## tommi6o

If I can get 790€ for my Titan X's including EK waterblock and backplate should I sell them? If I can pick up a GTX1080 for 600€+150€ for the new waterblock and backplate I would save a few bucks but would it be faster?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tommi6o*
> 
> If I can get 790€ for my Titan X's including EK waterblock and backplate should I sell them? If I can pick up a GTX1080 for 600€+150€ for the new waterblock and backplate I would save a few bucks but would it be faster?


we can only speculate on what we know so far, but it is *VERY DAMN LIKELY* that the GTX 1080 is better in every single aspect than the Titan X besides naming.

In terms of gaming performance it is a no-brainer decision.


----------



## krel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> The SLI connectors are the same. You can still use the old single link SLI connector, but with reduced performance. The new bridge allows dual finger use for double the bandwidth. I would highly suspect you could just take two regular flexible SLI links and pair them together and not have to buy the new bridge. This will save you $30+ if you already have the flexible SLI ribbon cables. Old "hard" style SLI connectors will not work in the "increased bandwidth" mode as they only utilize single SLI finger communications between cards.


Has there been anything said about tri or quad SLI?


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Hence the need for reform. You would think that a subject as critical as economics would be part of the general curriculum...
> 
> Also, the Groucho Marx is the originator of the following quote, not blameless:


Agreed. There's so much left out of the curriculum that would be beneficial to life in the real world.

on the quote:


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Hence the need for reform. You would think that a subject as critical as economics would be part of the general curriculum...
> 
> Also, the Groucho Marx is the originator of the following quote, not blameless:


my favorite cs pub quote

why try? oh I loved the kids who decided to passively waste their spare time in life my reply was

why play


----------



## jezzer

Sell TitanX for 790 euro YES. But u will not buy a 1080 for a long long long time for 600 euro.

599 msrp in $ means around 750 euro (850$) retail unless u buy tax free or smuggle the card in your millenium falcon

Not even talking about the 699 FE

But u can kinda trade your titan x for a 1080 if u can get 790 for it so that does sound good

EDIT

Wait.. 790 a piece or for both? if ita for both i will buy them for 800 lol


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krel*
> 
> Has there been anything said about tri or quad SLI?


It is not supported. At least, for now in high bandwidth SLI mode with the new bridge. EVGA confirmed.


----------



## lahvie

economics was an elective in my school, which makes sense

since, being successful, is also an elective in life


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

If I had two Titan X's right now I wouldn't even be considering buying the 1080. That's plenty of performance for anything out right now or for the next year or so and the "improvement" in performance of the 1080 will not likely be any more than 5-10FPS in most games, at the most. Stick with those Titan X's til at least Big Pascal would be my advice...


----------



## romanlegion13th

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> If I had two Titan X's right now I wouldn't even be considering buying the 1080. That's plenty of performance for anything out right now or for the next year or so and the "improvement" in performance of the 1080 will not likely be any more than 5-10FPS in most games, at the most. Stick with those Titan X's til at least Big Pascal would be my advice...


yeah


----------



## y2kcamaross

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> The SLI connectors are the same. You can still use the old single link SLI connector, but with reduced performance. The new bridge allows dual finger use for double the bandwidth. I would highly suspect you could just take two regular flexible SLI links and pair them together and not have to buy the new bridge. This will save you $30+ if you already have the flexible SLI ribbon cables. *Old "hard" style SLI connectors will not work in the "increased bandwidth" mode as they only utilize single SLI finger communications between cards*.


Wait..so those cheap junk flexible ones should work, but not the nice EVGA sli bridges that I bought?


----------



## tommi6o

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> Sell TitanX for 790 euro YES. But u will not buy a 1080 for a long long long time for 600 euro.
> 
> 599 msrp in $ means around 750 euro (850$) retail unless u buy tax free or smuggle the card in your millenium falcon
> 
> Not even talking about the 699 FE
> 
> But u can kinda trade your titan x for a 1080 if u can get 790 for it so that does sound good
> 
> EDIT
> 
> Wait.. 790 a piece or for both? if ita for both i will buy them for 800 lol


For a piece







I bought my Titan X's for 1020€. That's why I assumed GTX 1080 would also cost the same in euros. Well we'll know for sure when they are for sale


----------



## y2kcamaross

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> If I had two Titan X's right now I wouldn't even be considering buying the 1080. That's plenty of performance for anything out right now or for the next year or so and the "improvement" in performance of the 1080 will not likely be any more than 5-10FPS in most games, at the most. Stick with those Titan X's til at least Big Pascal would be my advice...


Dunno, if you can still somehow sell your Titan X's for more than you would pay for the 1080's, so basically upgrade performance while making some money, I'd do it, depending on the hassle involved


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *y2kcamaross*
> 
> Dunno, if you can still somehow sell your Titan X's for more than you would pay for the 1080's, so basically upgrade performance while making some money, I'd do it, depending on the hassle involved


That would be the only scenario that I would even consider but I don't think its likely for 99% of Titan X owners at this point. The time to sell was a month or two ago...


----------



## looniam

dat 12Gbs of vram doe . . .


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *y2kcamaross*
> 
> Wait..so those cheap junk flexible ones should work, but not the nice EVGA sli bridges that I bought?


Correct. But the flexible SLI links aren't really "cheap". A lot of high end hardware uses ribbon cables.


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> If I had two Titan X's right now I wouldn't even be considering buying the 1080. That's plenty of performance for anything out right now or for the next year or so and the "improvement" in performance of the 1080 will not likely be any more than 5-10FPS in most games, at the most. Stick with those Titan X's til at least Big Pascal would be my advice...


Don't think that's a good idea because you can go and sell those Titans X for 700$ or so right now and then buy two 1070s with the price of one Titan X, with each 1070 being just as powerful or more than your Titan Xs

Sticking with your Titan Xs at this point is throwing money away, sell them now while you still can.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Don't think that's a good idea because you can go and sell those Titans X for 700$ or so right now and then buy two 1070s with the price of one Titan X, with each 1070 being just as powerful or more than your Titan Xs
> 
> Sticking with your Titan Xs at this point is throwing money away, sell them now while you still can.


I actually have original Titans so that shows you how long I've held onto my cards!


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I actually have original Titans so that shows you how long I've held onto my cards!


If I wasn't stupid and sold off my Titan's in anticipation of the R9-290X.... I would probably still have them.... or actually not.


----------



## soth7676

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I actually have original Titans so that shows you how long I've held onto my cards!


I am still on my gtx680's...been really wanting a upgrade....Just need something that justifies me shelling out the cash for it


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> I cannot speak for AMD,
> 
> SLI BRIDGE
> What is the function of the SLI connector?
> The SLI connector is a proprietary link between GPUs that transmits synchronization, display, and pixel data. The SLI connector enables inter-GPU communication of up to 1GB/s, consuming no bandwidth over the PCI Express bus.
> 
> So now we should have 2GB/s over that link. Like I said, NVIDIA found a need for the increased bandwidth.


Yes but PCIE 3.0 does not bottlenck cards. PCIE 3.0 has 16GB/s available. 1GB/s or 2GB/s is still more then fine to allocate.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Agreed. There's so much left out of the curriculum that would be beneficial to life in the real world.
> 
> on the quote:


The "o" kinda looks like an "i".

Just sayin'. Quote works either way.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> The "o" kinda looks like an "i".
> 
> Just sayin'. Quote works either way.


What?


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *soth7676*
> 
> I am still on my gtx680's...been really wanting a upgrade....Just need something that justifies me shelling out the cash for it


Sniper Elite Zombie army brought my GTX 680 Classifieds in SLi to their knees, which is why i tossed them for a GTX Titans.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> What?


One of the words, the "o" looks very compressed, and so if you squint, it kinda looks like an "i".


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> The "o" kinda looks like an "i".
> 
> Just sayin'. Quote works either way.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> What?


Haha


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> One of the words, the "o" looks very compressed, and so if you squint, it kinda looks like an "i".


Haha


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Haha


Yeah you just have to sit with it for a minute.


----------



## Prophet4NO1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> One of the words, the "o" looks very compressed, and so if you squint, it kinda looks like an "i".


Guess I should head to the bathroom.


----------



## fat4l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fat4l*
> 
> So I went through some data.
> Nvidia claims that 1070 will be > Titan X.
> 
> Me personally, I dont see it happening.
> 
> Looking at *1080 vs Titan X,* we can get some rough numbers.
> 1080 provides 35% more TFLOPS but 5% less bandwidth and this gives it "ONLY" about 22% more performance.
> 
> Now lets look at the *1070*.
> It has 2% less TFLOPS and 31% less bandwidth.
> 
> Having said that, I dont see 1070 being faster than Titan X. If it is faster, that would mean that 1080 has to be much more faster than Titan X an not only by 22%.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghoxt*
> 
> However it's a different Architecture, and Die shrunk. We have no idea how much just yet that will play into performance until reviews drop in another week. It's not equal to Maxwell that's for sure.
> 
> Also Nvidia does some really nice things with compression with their bandwidth to memory. Again it's all speculation until reviews drop.


Well I used slides from nvidia for performance calculations. I'm their slides 1080 is 22% faster than titan x.
Titan x is about 2-3% faster than 980ti.
Ppl that were there on the presentation said that 1080 is about 25% faster that 980ti. All the numbers add up. I don't see 1070 beating titan x in games. I suppose it to be ~10% slower.

Overclocking may change things.

Also I guess the difference between 1080 and 1070 will be about 30%.
Theoretical core difference is 37% and bandwidth is 25%. Big difference.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fat4l*
> 
> Well I used slides from nvidia for performance calculations. I'm their slides 1080 is 22% faster than titan x.
> Titan x is about 2-3% faster than 980ti.
> Ppl that were there on the presentation said that 1080 is about 25% faster that 980ti. All the numbers add up. I don't see 1070 beating titan x in games. I suppose it to be 10-15% slower.
> 
> Overclicking may change things.


GTX 1080 has similar memory bw to Titan X and 980 Ti but faster GPU performance hence faster. 1070 seems to have similar GPU performance but slower memory. Titan X and 980 OC a lot.


----------



## Prophet4NO1

The more info that slips out, the more I am glad I did not jump on the TitanX/980Ti fire sale bandwagon. I really can not see a justifiable reason to get a 1080 if you have a TitanX or 980Ti already. Except, maybe, VR. If you already have a Rift or Vive that is.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prophet4NO1*
> 
> The more info that slips out, the more I am glad I did not jump on the TitanX/980Ti fire sale bandwagon. I really can not see a justifiable reason to get a 1080 if you have a TitanX or 980Ti already. Except, maybe, VR. If you already have a Rift or Vive that is.


You can sell Titan X and get a free upgrade to 1080 right? What about people that sold 980 Ti 2-3 weeks before this?


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prophet4NO1*
> 
> The more info that slips out, the more I am glad I did not jump on the TitanX/980Ti fire sale bandwagon. I really can not see a justifiable reason to get a 1080 if you have a TitanX or 980Ti already. *Except, maybe, VR. If you already have a Rift or Vive that is.*


^that!

this is sooooo 780ti to 980 all over again except for VR.

sure the newer uarch will get better driver optimizations down the line, but by the time it really leaves maxwell in the dust, the big boy ought to be out.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> Isn't HBM2 the next upgrade? I thought they _just_ put it off because it hadn't reached volume production just yet?


That will be GV104

For 2nd gen pascal mid range:

GP204

GTX 1170
Cores: 2560
Boost clock: 1800+ MHz
Memory: 8/16 GB
Memory type: 12 gbps GDDR5X
Memory bandwidth: 384 GB/s
MSRP: $399


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prophet4NO1*
> 
> The more info that slips out, the more I am glad I did not jump on the TitanX/980Ti fire sale bandwagon. I really can not see a justifiable reason to get a 1080 if you have a TitanX or 980Ti already. Except, maybe, VR. If you already have a Rift or Vive that is.


This is what I have been saying all along. The only way I'd trade in TX's or 980Ti's for 1080's would be if it were something crazy like 50% faster max OC to max OC. But its not going to be anywhere near that (IMO) so might as well stay pat with what are still really great cards (GM200) until something that is a real upgrade arrives...


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> This is what I have been saying all along. The only way I'd trade in TX's or 980Ti's for 1080's would be if it were something crazy like 50% faster max OC to max OC. But its not going to be anywhere near that (IMO) so might as well stay pat with what are still really great cards (GM200) until something that is a real upgrade arrives...


Yep. Particularly with Nvidia wanting high-end coin for the cut die. If you're going to spend high-end cash you might as well get a legitimate high-end product.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Yep. Particularly with Nvidia wanting high-end coin for the cut die. If you're going to spend high-end cash you might as well get a legitimate high-end product.


I had a window in 2014 to sell my OG Titans before the 980 released but I felt the same way back then as I do now and held onto my slightly slower but much more premium cards and actually still have them almost two years later. Looking back I'm glad I stuck with these cards for so long because they still perform well enough to max most games at 1440p and that is all I really need until I eventually upgrade monitors. Big Pascal will be pretty tempting however (or maybe Vega too, if it competes)...


----------



## provost

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ikjadoon*
> 
> Or....you know...they just sold more cards, too. That's easy to see: an increase in cost and, huh, an increase in revenue and an increase in profits.
> 
> True. Maybe we can just judge from what we can understand well, instead of economics: frames per dollar.
> "


Not sure if serious or just messing about , boy
But, by god, that used car salesman pitch of "dollar per fps" just gave me a massive migraine before going to bed... all I can picture is some guy in a cheap suit in a used car lot keeps yelling, over here, over here, come get them fps for unbelievable prices before them are all gone.... LMAO.. but my head hurts at the same time


----------



## ZealotKi11er

PCPer killed it like always. The only people I know in the Internet that really are unbiased. Their look of 1080 was the best by far compare to all the other Youtube Nvidia shills.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Not sure if serious or just messing about , boy
> But, by god, that used car salesman pitch of "dollar per fps" just gave me a massive migraine before going to bed... all I can picture is some guy in a cheap suit in a used car lot keeps yelling, over here, over here, come get them fps for unbelievable prices before them are all gone.... LMAO.. but my head hurts at the same time


Lol, I totally agree with you there! Seems to me like it would be ideal if tiers were static and you knew, for instance, that if you bought an x80 card it would be $499, a, x70 $349, an x60 $199 etc regardless of how much the performance increases generation to generation. This idea that its fine for a new generation to increase price simply because it beats the prior generation card in performance is crazy! By that logic we would see price increases with every single release...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Lol, I totally agree with you there! Seems to me like it would be ideal if tiers were static and you knew, for instance, that if you bought an x80 card it would be $499, a, x70 $349, an x60 $199 etc regardless of how much the performance increases generation to generation. This idea that its fine for a new generation to increase price simply because it beats the prior generation card in performance is crazy! By that logic we would see price increases with every single release...


I was fine with that even Ti model hitting $650 and Titan at 1K. Making x80 $700 is just stupid.


----------



## carlhil2

nVidia has been selling midrange /cut chips for a premium since the 680/OG Titan. if I didn't like what they are selling, I just don't buy, simple really.....


----------



## Prophet4NO1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> You can sell Titan X and get a free upgrade to 1080 right? What about people that sold 980 Ti 2-3 weeks before this?


It's not really an upgrade. Especially when I have games that use more than 8GB of RAM in my triple screen setup.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prophet4NO1*
> 
> It's not really an upgrade. Especially when I have games that use more than 8GB of RAM in my triple screen setup.


That is a fair point. You just have to wait for Big Pascal and should be set with 16GB HBM2.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> nVidia has been selling midrange /cut chips for a premium since the 680/OG Titan. if I didn't like what they are selling, I just don't buy, simple really.....


It doesn't mean we can't discuss them in a discussion forum. People don't have to like the practice to talk about it.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

This is 300mm^2 die from what I have been hearing. What the hell are they going to charge for 600mm^2 with lower yield?


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> It doesn't mean we can't discuss them in a _discussion_ forum. People don't have to like the practice to talk about it.


Umm, don't know what you are talking about, I am adding to the discussion. it's not me to tell anyone what the should or shouldn't be doing.I am just a consumer who buys what I want, regardless of how someone else feels about it. I also respect everyone else s freedom to do so ...


----------



## Prophet4NO1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> That is a fair point. You just have to wait for Big Pascal and should be set with 16GB HBM2.


That is the plan. Hoping to put about 5K into a new build after big Pascal hits.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Umm, don't know what you are talking about, I am adding to the discussion.....


Apologies if I'm remembering incorrectly but I feel like you pop in to any discussion about the 1080 to say that if people don't like it they shouldn't buy it. It's like clockwork as soon as anybody mentions the die size.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> This is 300mm^2 die from what I have been hearing. What the hell are they going to charge for 600mm^2 with lower yield?


Not much more probably.. I'd say $799 for the Ti, and like usual $999 for the Titan, if there is even big Pascal for consumers this time.

The cut down chips are just bad value in comparison, and current pricing just downright sucks either way..


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Apologies if I'm remembering incorrectly but I feel like you pop in to any discussion about the 1080 to say that if people don't like it they shouldn't buy it. It's like clockwork as soon as anybody mentions the die size.


Nah, you are just being overly sensitive, that's all....







as I have stated before, I wouldn't care if AMD or Nvidia were able to somehow get a copper penny onto a pcb and have it run 25+% faster than a 980Ti, I would buy it from them...I try to stay out of the AMD vs nVidia warz...I leave that to the Pro's....


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Not much more probably.. I'd say $799 for the Ti, and like usual $999 for the Titan, if there is even big Pascal for consumers this time.
> 
> The cut down chips are just bad value in comparison, and current pricing just downright sucks either way..


That's just it. Moving the *80 die to the price segment people associate with the high-end makes it a curious proposition. If there is a Pascal though I'd appreciate a gaming/compute beast like the OG Titan. I could see a pair of those to replace the Furries as they'd last me longer than pure gaming cards. Either way, 1080 Ti will almost certainly be Nvidia's best value proposition in the $600+ price-range.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Nah, you are just being overly sensitive, that's all....


Oh, okay.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Not much more probably.. I'd say $799 for the Ti, and like usual $999 for the Titan, if there is even big Pascal for consumers this time.
> 
> The cut down chips are just bad value in comparison, and current pricing just downright sucks either way..


$899 for Founder Edition? GTX980 was $550 but has mm² die. GTX680 had 294 mm². GTX1080 @ 300mm² means the MSRP is +200. GTX780 which was the Big Kepler was $700. What this means is we can expect $200 price increase for GTX1080 Ti. $600+200 = $800. That is spot on. Titan might go for $1200 though.


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Yes but PCIE 3.0 does not bottlenck cards. PCIE 3.0 has 16GB/s available. 1GB/s or 2GB/s is still more then fine to allocate.


Not when you add a third card, X99 drops the third card down to 8x speed. So you are now effectively running the entire 3 way SLI at 8x speed as with AFR, you are only as fast as the slowest card. Now suddenly that double of SLI bridge bandwidth becomes much more crucial. Also, most 2-way SLI setups are on sub-X99 chipsets IMO. This means both cards start off at only 8x speed with dual GPU's.


----------



## Prophet4NO1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> Not when you add a third card, X99 drops the third card down to 8x speed. So you are now effectively running the entire 3 way SLI at 8x speed as with AFR, you are only as fast as the slowest card. Now suddenly that double of SLI bridge bandwidth becomes much more crucial. Also, most 2-way SLI setups are on sub-X99 chipsets IMO. This means both cards start off at only 8x speed with dual GPU's.


There has been more than enough test put out there to show 8x and 16x perform pretty much the same in both single and SLI configs. Pretty much a non issue.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> Not when you add a third card, X99 drops the third card down to 8x speed. So you are now effectively running the entire 3 way SLI at 8x speed as with AFR, you are only as fast as the slowest card. Now suddenly that double of SLI bridge bandwidth becomes much more crucial. Also, most 2-way SLI setups are on sub-X99 chipsets IMO. This means both cards start off at only 8x speed with dual GPU's.


Just in.. GTX1080 no more then SLI. 3-Way and 4-Way are gone.


----------



## USlatin

Did everybody see this alleged leak? Seems pretty bogus


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *USlatin*
> 
> Did everybody see this alleged leak?


Lol, heard that the 1080 was OCed and ran on low settings...what I want to know is, how could that ugly cooler get leaked, and, a legit bench can't?


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> $899 for Founder Edition? GTX980 was $550 but has mm² die. GTX680 had 294 mm². GTX1080 @ 300mm² means the MSRP is +200. GTX780 which was the Big Kepler was $700. What this means is we can expect $200 price increase for GTX1080 Ti. $600+200 = $800. That is spot on. Titan might go for $1200 though.


Yup, that's what i was trying to point out during the whole "value discussion".. Nvidia simply bumped every chip up a tier, so it inevitably ruins the low-end, and makes the midrange (which the 1080 is) exorbitantly priced in comparison.

Whether or not AMD delivers with Vega will influence the prices heavily. If Vega delivers this time it's going to be funny if the 1080Ti ends up cheaper at launch than the 1080 FE..


----------



## Master__Shake

really hope polaris is faster than a 980ti for 299.

would really put in to perspective how bad of a deal the 1080 is.


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Just in.. GTX1080 no more then SLI. 3-Way and 4-Way are gone.


kinda like a 460 or 560ti or 960... weird.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> kinda like a 460 or 560ti or 960... weird.


1080 showing its roots as a jumped up midrange card perhaps?


----------



## i7monkey

i remember paying $535 Canadian after taxes for a fully unlocked big die GTX 580 flagship. this midrange crap after shipping + tax + exchange rate will be almost $1100 Canadian


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> 1080 showing its roots as a jumped up midrange card perhaps?


we all knew it was...

just act surprised.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> really hope polaris is faster than a 980ti for 299.
> 
> would really put in to perspective how bad of a deal the 1080 is.


I wouldn't get my hopes up for that at all, the 980 Ti is a seriously impressive card, and Polaris are tiny chips in comparison.

It sounds nonsensical to enthusiasts like us, but the best case scenario for the industry is that Polaris delivers for the mainstream market, if they deliver 390/X performance for $150- $250 then it will flip the market on it's head, and will benefit us far more in the long run. AMD deploying two architectures so close together makes me think that's the plan.

Assuming you can wait for Vega/Big Pascal, if not then Nvidia will be the only ones on the market with performance targeted chips for a few months, so people who "need" to upgrade won't really have a choice but to go green.


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prophet4NO1*
> 
> There has been more than enough test put out there to show 8x and 16x perform pretty much the same in both single and SLI configs. Pretty much a non issue.


You mean all of those "tests" that take a crappy computer and play some lowly game at 1080p and say there is no difference? My testing under demanding circumstances has shown there is a significant difference:










I also think that is one of the main reasons why 3 and 4 way SLI scale so poorly. You go from 16x/16x SLI (X99) and effectively drop the entire SLI array down to 8x speed once you add that third card.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Just in.. GTX1080 no more then SLI. 3-Way and 4-Way are gone.


I am aware. I think this will wash out as if you want the new "double speed" SLI link you are limited to two cards in SLI as both fingers are used on each card. 3/4 may still work, just the old single finger link SLI.


----------



## USlatin

Interesting to see a cuda core count for the GTX1070 claiming 2048 CUDA Cores

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-dx12-benchmarks/


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> i remember paying $535 after taxes for a fully unlocked big die GTX 580 flagship. this midrange crap after shipping + tax + exchange rate will be almost $1100 Canadian


I've always been willing to spend on hardware but here we pay 1/5th the cost of the product over again in tax. It's really made me look at price/performance far more, just on principle.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I've always been willing to spend on hardware but here we pay 1/5th the cost of the product over again in tax. It's really made me look at price/performance far more, just on principle.


If amd polaris 10 able to make a dent in 1000s with its performance and price. You will be almost assured 1080 will drop from $599 to $499 and maybe $549 for FE.

1070 might drop to $329.

If rumor hold true for vega coming in Q4, den pretty sure the 1080ti might be available just before 2017, and will be a very badly cut down gp100 (for the sake of yield, somewhere around 3200 SPs with disabled compute)

Titan will still be similar timeframe as p100, somewhere feb/march timeframe. If AMD offers nothing as usual, with vega being late and slower than expected. The supposed 1080 Ti will get pushed back to June 2017 and rebranded as GTX 1180. Gtx 1080 becomes gtx 1170 etc.

I am pretty sure this is nvidia strategy. Regardless of AMD performance, no cheap prices for gp100 cut down. Expect $700 and above.


----------



## Baasha

I just had a few minutes to read more about the GTX-1080.

So, what is DP 1.4? I thought we were going to get DP 1.3? I assume 1.4 is even better now? I don't see any news of 8K monitors so...

Also, is it true that the 1080 can only be SLI'd up to two cards? So no more 4-Way SLI? Really? I have been faithfully doing 4-Way SLI on the Uber Rig since GTX-580 Classified. I just hope this is a rumor...

More importantly, is the Dell 4K 120Hz OLED monitor coming out w/ DP 1.4 ports? I sure as hell hope it is... time for some OLED 4K Surround madness!









Then again, if we're allowed to SLI only two cards, that kind of defeats the purpose...hmm..


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> I just had a few minutes to read more about the GTX-1080.
> 
> So, what is DP 1.4? I thought we were going to get DP 1.3? I assume 1.4 is even better now? I don't see any news of 8K monitors so...
> 
> Also, is it true that the 1080 can only be SLI'd up to two cards? So no more 4-Way SLI? Really? I have been faithfully doing 4-Way SLI on the Uber Rig since GTX-580 Classified. I just hope this is a rumor...
> 
> More importantly, is the Dell 4K 120Hz OLED monitor coming out w/ DP 1.4 ports? I sure as hell hope it is... time for some OLED 4K Surround madness!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, if we're allowed to SLI only two cards, that kind of defeats the purpose...hmm..


You need the horse power of titan pascal sli at least to drive 4k 120 hz for latest games. Let alone talk about triple 4k oled surround.


----------



## USlatin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> If amd polaris 10 able to make a dent in 1000s with its performance and price. You will be almost assured 1080 will drop from $599 to $499 and maybe $549 for FE.
> 
> 1070 might drop to $329.
> 
> If rumor hold true for vega coming in Q4, den pretty sure the 1080ti might be available just before 2017, and will be a very badly cut down gp100 (for the sake of yield, somewhere around 3200 SPs with disabled compute)
> 
> Titan will still be similar timeframe as p100, somewhere feb/march timeframe. If AMD offers nothing as usual, with vega being late and slower than expected. The supposed 1080 Ti will get pushed back to June 2017 and rebranded as GTX 1180. Gtx 1080 becomes gtx 1170 etc.
> 
> I am pretty sure this is nvidia strategy. Regardless of AMD performance, no cheap prices for gp100 cut down. Expect $700 and above.


Agreed


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> If amd polaris 10 able to make a dent in 1000s with its performance and price. You will be almost assured 1080 will drop from $599 to $499 and maybe $549 for FE.
> 
> 1070 might drop to $329.
> 
> If rumor hold true for vega coming in Q4, den pretty sure the 1080ti might be available just before 2017, and will be a very badly cut down gp100 (for the sake of yield, somewhere around 3200 SPs with disabled compute)
> 
> Titan will still be similar timeframe as p100, somewhere feb/march timeframe. If AMD offers nothing as usual, with vega being late and slower than expected. The supposed 1080 Ti will get pushed back to June 2017 and rebranded as GTX 1180. Gtx 1080 becomes gtx 1170 etc.
> 
> I am pretty sure this is nvidia strategy. Regardless of AMD performance, no cheap prices for gp100 cut down. Expect $700 and above.


I could see any of this happening plausibly.


----------



## fat4l

I edited my post so just to make sure u saw it....

"I don't see 1070 beating titan x in games. I suppose it to be ~10% slower.

Also I guess the difference between 1080 and 1070 will be about 30%.
Theoretical core difference is 37% and bandwidth is 25%. Big big difference.

This should logically put 1070 below titanX/980Ti"


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fat4l*
> 
> I edited my post so just to make sure u saw it....
> 
> "I don't see 1070 beating titan x in games. I suppose it to be ~10% slower.
> 
> Also I guess the difference between 1080 and 1070 will be about 30%.
> Theoretical core difference is 37% and bandwidth is 25%. Big big difference.
> 
> This should logically put 1070 below titanX/980Ti"


We really just don't know much of anything yet about the 1070 so it's really hard to predict where its performance is going to line up exactly. I guess that it's going to be somewhere around the performance of the Titan X, either a little bit faster or a little bit slower. We should know soon enough.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I could see any of this happening plausibly.


Its actually what happen during the 600 / 700s where AMD has nothing to offer for almost 2 years after 7970.

The 780 were very badly cut down gk110.

At the end, nvidia offer the inflated price becz the market has nothing to compete against them. I am very sure the original intention of msrp was $499 for 1080. But AMD was late, as usual.

I can forsee jen hsun saying this 10 years later in his new diamond laced jacket:

"Our most advanced new gpu has overtake our fastest titan 10x. A mid range beating our $2000 product. Can you believe that? All for a nice price of $1200!"

"For the amount we spent in this, in R&D, we would reached titan, the largest saturn moon, i am very sure!"


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> So, what is DP 1.4? I thought we were going to get DP 1.3? I assume 1.4 is even better now? I don't see any news of 8K monitors so...


DP1.4 is better. You also need extra bandwidth for HDR, part of a standard that will be included in a lot of display being released moving forward.

DP1.4 is one of the most exciting things about the 1080, if i'm being honest. "4K 120 Hz HDR", quoting the slides Nvidia used. Apparently, DP1.3 wasn't enough for this.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> DP1.4 is better. You also need extra bandwidth for HDR, part of a standard that will be included in a lot of display being released moving forward.
> 
> DP1.4 is one of the most exciting things about the 1080, if i'm being honest. "4K 120 Hz HDR", quoting the slides Nvidia used. Apparently, DP1.3 wasn't enough for this.


So much for AMD promoting such big hype on DP 1.3, only to become obsolette by nvidia.

If there is anything i am impressed with nvidia, is they talk less and deliver more.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> So much for AMD promoting such big hype on DP 1.3, only to become obsolette by nvidia.
> 
> If there is anything i am impressed with nvidia, is they talk less and deliver more.


Like DX11.2 ? or 10.1 ? or 256b/64rop ? you want more ? guess what when the time comes they always fall short. it's no DP1.4 certified but "ready". it's only DP 1.2 certified.
just like hd ready tv's it's not fully dp1.4. because there's no hardware to testify it.

Moving forward lol, when those displays will be out these card will be weak and obsolete. and iirc future performance never mattered, what matters is the performance in present.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Like DX11.2 ? or 10.1 ? or 256b/64rop ? you want more ? guess what when the time comes they always fall short. it's no DP1.4 certified but "ready". it's only DP 1.2 certified.
> just like hd ready tv's it's not fully dp1.4. because there's no hardware to testify it.
> 
> Moving forward lol, when those displays will be out these card will be weak and obsolete. and iirc future performance never mattered, what matters is the performance in present.


Delivering in term of performance. Run faster and cooler without aio cooling.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Delivering in term of performance. Run faster and cooler without aio cooling.


I didn't know every Amd card comes with aio and runs slower than it's competitive card. nice changing goal posts tho.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> I didn't know every Amd card comes with aio and runs slower than it's competitive card. nice changing goal posts tho.


I know not all comes with aio but its a fact nth from amd is faster than 1080 now.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I know not all comes with aio but its a fact nth from amd is faster than 1080 now.


And it's also a fact that not everyone buys a flagship card. so it's actually irrelevant for the most buyers. and it will irrelevant even when amd does make something better than 1080, because not everyone will buy that card too.


----------



## Ghoxt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> If I had two Titan X's right now I wouldn't even be considering buying the 1080. That's plenty of performance for anything out right now or for the next year or so and the "improvement" in performance of the 1080 will not likely be any more than 5-10FPS in most games, at the most. Stick with those Titan X's til at least Big Pascal would be my advice...


Like you said. Titan-X SLI, Cyclops Bios, 1500Mhz on water. Not even remotely thinking about pulling this thing apart for midrange Pascal. My sole thought is the games I play now are all near maxed out at 4K60. Just like my OG Titan played everything great including Watch Dogs downtown with the 6G memory when everyone else cried. (Bad example game I know but it stands even as a not full Fat chip)

I think the OG Titan was my best purchase ever and was a better buy than the T-X from a resale value. (but I don't plan on sell. not about money) I didn't replace it until the T-X came out. There's also the pain in the ass factor. What did I do with the T-X shrouds lol? I moved homes so they are in a square plastic Tote Box...somewhere.


----------



## jexux

http://videocardz.com/59857/zotac-teases-geforce-gtx-1080-pgf-edition-and-new-firestorm


----------



## Tcoppock

Looks like the NDA will end on the 17th, then we will really see what these cards can do!


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> This is what I have been saying all along. The only way I'd trade in TX's or 980Ti's for 1080's would be if it were something crazy *like 50% faster max OC to max OC.* But its not going to be anywhere near that (IMO) so might as well stay pat with what are still really great cards (GM200) until something that is a real upgrade arrives...


Yeah that's just not happening. Max OC on 980 Ti is pretty much stock 1080, so there's no way you're going to get a 24/7 usable 50% OC on that.


----------



## fcman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghoxt*
> 
> I think the OG Titan was my best purchase ever


Agreed, I can still run just about everything on high-max at 1600p. This generation is the first time I've seriously considered upgrading in the 3 years since I bought my OG Titan.


----------



## disq

Zotac PGF 1080 has Power Boost 2.0 capacitors? Wasn't it supposed to be 3.0?


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *disq*
> 
> Zotac PGF 1080 has Power Boost 2.0 capacitors? Wasn't it supposed to be 3.0?


Pay no attention to meaningless version numbers.


----------



## antonio8

http://videocardz.com/59871/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-3dmark-firestrike-and-3dmark11-performance

Rumor mill.

SIAP.


----------



## spinFX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> why nvidia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now i have to put those 980ti in the HTPC


heh, should have no trouble rendering those h.265 videos








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Nothing new.
> Everyone raged when a midrange 680 performed 35% faster than a 580 and cost $499 cause midrange chips used to cost $229.
> 
> Now a midranged chip does 15-25% faster performance than it's predecessor and costs $599 and everyone's cheering.
> 
> Only in Nvidialand do people cheer as performance gains decrease and prices go up!


Is it reasonable to expect performance to continue to increase at the same rate? I understand that there may be some fault with Nvidia, that they are taking advantage of their position in the market, however it might also be the case that they are starting to hit some limitations and it's not as easy for them to make the same performance leaps from generation to generation while keeping the R&D budget equivalent.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

1860MHz-1880Mhz Boost Clock. Nvidia showed 2115MHz. Thats a 13% OC.
For GTX980 Ti Boost ~ 1200MHz and can OC to 1500MHz. Thats a 25% OC.

So if GTX1080 has 25% advantage at stock. Both Cards OCed it will be less then 15%. Also Custom GTX980 Ti will come very close to "Reference GTX1080"


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 1860MHz-1880Mhz Boost Clock. Nvidia showed 2115MHz. Thats a 13% OC.
> For GTX980 Ti Boost ~ 1200MHz and can OC to 1500MHz. Thats a 25% OC.
> 
> So if GTX1080 has 25% advantage at stock. _Both Cards OCed it will be less then 15%_. Also Custom GTX980 Ti will come very close to "Reference GTX1080"


You are assuming that getting to 2100 on a 1080 is the same likelihood as getting to 1500 on a 980 Ti (in other words, that 2100 is about the top end of the overclock range), but we don't know if that is the case or not. They may normally get to 1900, or 2300 or who knows what.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> You are assuming that getting to 2100 on a 1080 is the same likelihood as getting to 1500 on a 980 Ti (in other words, that 2100 is about the top end of the overclock range), but we don't know if that is the case or not. They may normally get to 1900, or 2300 or who knows what.


1500MHz is common for all Maxwell cards.


----------



## carlhil2

Going by those recent VC leaks, that's about 32% faster than 980Ti, about 68% over an 980, or, my math is wrong....I am suspect of those leaked results though...


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 1500MHz is common for all Maxwell cards.


1500 may be common, but you don't see too many much above that, or at least not that I've seen. What's top end without pretty fancy cooling, like 1550 or so?

I guess the question is, did Nvidia push the clocks for the demo so it looked impressive, or go easy on the clocks so it didn't risk crashing.


----------



## carlhil2

I am under water, both my cards maxed stable in all games that I play running at 1528...I only have one now, same OC..


----------



## trek554

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> 1500 may be common, but you don't see too many much above that, at least not that I've seen.


I had two different 980 Ti cards and neither could do 1500 in all demanding games at settings that fully stressed the card. many people run a bench or two and play at 1440 or 1080 and claim 1500+ fully stable.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Going by those recent VC leaks, that's about 32% faster than 980Ti, about 68% over an 980, or, my math is wrong....I am suspect of those leaked results though...


nVidia themselves showed 1080 to be about 70-80% faster than 980, so the numbers seem to add up.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> 1500 may be common, but you don't see too many much above that, or at least not that I've seen. What's top end without pretty fancy cooling, like 1550 or so?
> 
> I guess the question is, did Nvidia push the clocks for the demo so it looked impressive, or go easy on the clocks so it didn't risk crashing.


Probably the happy medium, something every factory overclocked card could achieve. I mean if you do the math, 2100 is only 13% over 1860 anyway, so that's a very mild overclock. Most factory OC's 980 Ti's are overclocked by more than that.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> 1500 may be common, but you don't see too many much above that, or at least not that I've seen. What's top end without pretty fancy cooling, like 1550 or so?
> 
> I guess the question is, did Nvidia push the clocks for the demo so it looked impressive, or go easy on the clocks so it didn't risk crashing.


I am sure its close to MAX. You might get 2200 but do not expect more. Could be wrong though. Look at Maxwell OC. Any card can do 1400Mhz like very easy.


----------



## carlhil2

Go by the FS, FSE and FSU scores....


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Go by the FS, FSE and FSU scores....


3DMark is basically the best gains between same brand. If I want to show OC numbers and clocks 3DMark scales the best.


----------



## carlhil2

I just think that the higher rez is going to tell the tale of the 1080...dudes start OCing that ram...should be able to keep a 25+% lead, OC to OC...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> You are assuming that getting to 2100 on a 1080 is the same likelihood as getting to 1500 on a 980 Ti (in other words, that 2100 is about the top end of the overclock range), but we don't know if that is the case or not. They may normally get to 1900, or 2300 or who knows what.


Anything is possible since we don't have actual facts to talk about yet. But don't forget the hysterical fanboys running around claiming 2500MHz+ for the 1080 as fact. I think its at least fair to base our expectations on the demo Nvidia they themselves showed to the public (2100MHz) with the assumption being that they would likely want to show the card in the best light possible at its announcement event...


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Anything is possible since we don't have actual facts to talk about yet. But don't forget the hysterical fanboys running around claiming 2500MHz+ for the 1080 as fact. I think its at least fair to base our expectations on the demo Nvidia they themselves showed to the public (2100MHz) with the assumption being that they would likely want to show the card in the best light possible at its announcement event...


My personal belief is that it is like someone said earlier, a safe overclock that isn't really stretching the card, but probably represents a decent average number. I think they probably used some of Maxwell's OC overhead for stock performance this time around, and we won't see as high clocks on a percentage basis. Maybe 2200/2300 on water?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> My personal belief is that it is like someone said earlier, a safe overclock that isn't really stretching the card, but probably represents a decent average number. I think they probably used some of Maxwell's OC overhead for stock performance this time around, and we won't see as high clocks on a percentage basis. Maybe 2200/2300 on water?


If you are right then we will most certainly NOT be seeing a 1080 beat a Titan X on air by anything like the 30-40% people seem to be expecting at max OC...


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> My personal belief is that it is like someone said earlier, a safe overclock that isn't really stretching the card, but probably represents a decent average number. I think they probably used some of Maxwell's OC overhead for stock performance this time around, and we won't see as high clocks on a percentage basis. Maybe 2200/2300 on water?


Well just sit down and crunch the numbers. 980 Ti's average in-game boost is around 1167 MHz going by AnandTech's results, and 1500 MHz seems to be a pretty attainable "max" OC. So that's a 28.5% OC.

Pascal is supposed to OC like we've never seen before (on LN2 anyway), so it pretty much has to OC to at least 2390 MHz on air to even claim parity with Maxwell.

edit: Sat down and actually crunched the numbers instead of eyeballing AnandTech's results because I _just know_ somebody's gonna do the math and call me out on it


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Well just sit down and crunch the numbers. 980 Ti's average in-game boost is around 1150 MHz going by AnandTech's results, and 1500 MHz seems to be a pretty attainable "max" OC. So that's a 30.4% OC.
> 
> Pascal is supposed to OC like we've never seen before (on LN2 anyway), so it pretty much has to OC to at least 2425 MHz on air to even claim parity with Maxwell.


The over clockers dream speculation came from that largely discredited guy who has since run away and hid. Besides, overclocking on LN2 and air are two very different things. That's why force man and myself have both speculated that it's possible that Nvidia is using up much of the overclocking headroom of Pascal in their boost clocks to make the card look faster at stock for those oh so important reviews coming up. Don't worry, the truth will out very soon once some of the respected benchmarkers here on OCN get these cards in for testing.


----------



## magnek

Yeah LN2 clocks are meaningless to me because a) you don't LN2 your card for 24/7 use and b) too many variables, too much cherrypicking.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Yeah LN2 clocks are meaningless to me because a) you don't LN2 your card for 24/7 use and b) too many variables, too much cherrypicking.


You don't have hot and cold running LN2 at your house? Where do you live, North Korea?


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Yup, it all depends on what overclocks Pascal gets (on air/water obviously).. If 2.1Ghz is a pretty decent overclock for it then this bench result isn't too good at all. I'm inclined to think Nvidia did put a good overclock on it, otherwise why overclock it at all? They probably wanted to show off 2Ghz (which is definitely cool) and build hype for it. Which ended up working for them.

30% over a stock 980Ti while boosting to nearly 1.9Ghz (3.0 so boost will go higher than Maxwell), and "only" having 30% in a synthetic doesn't give a lot of confidence for real games.. It will easily beat a Ti obviously, but it is a let down compared to all the 16nm hype. Especially after Nvidias 2x performance charts..


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> You don't have hot and cold running LN2 at your house? Where do you live, North Korea?


I have to sweep my test bench area for yetis and penguins at least twice a week.







#firstworldproblems


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 1080 to anybody who is considering a new build or has an older card in their rig already, provided they can find one of those unicorn $599 1080s that is. For anyone who has bought a high-end card over the last year or so, though, I would recommend waiting for the real flagships coming up next year. Had Nvidia just priced this card the same as they did the 980 I would be much more enthusiastic about what is actually a very impressive piece of hardware.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> You don't have hot and cold running LN2 at your house? Where do you live, North Korea?


Heh I hate to say this but sometimes I feel as if California isn't too far away from becoming North Korea

ok so that's a gross exaggeration, but let's just say everything causes cancer in California (a bottle of sand has the warning "This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer". yes SAND, and I mean normal, regular sand of the beach variety), and the amount of environmentalism is just mind-numbing and way too in-your-face.


----------



## USlatin

Then your North Korea analogy is wrong... hahaha









Also, *** are you guys talking about HAHAHAHAAH









Any more leaks since yesterday? Lemme kno


----------



## KenjiS

will wait for real world benchmarks

But overall excited, IF true, we have a 980 Ti class card available for the masses (GTX1070) which means finally, 4k is going to become the new norm for PC gaming...

Which makes me excited for the 1080 Ti, i dont get mad over it, i have had a lot of enjoyment from my 980 Ti and a lot of times ive seriously regretted not having a 4k screen (from what i can tell for me personally, 4k 60 is easier than 1440p 144 due to engine limitations of games i play)

Definitely wanna see if nVidia does better in DX12 by the way, and i want to see what AMD has cooking up in the kitchen..

I am Khorne, I care not from where the performance flows!

More tears from the fanboys! More butts for the butthurt throne!


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Yeah LN2 clocks are meaningless to me because a) you don't LN2 your card for 24/7 use and b) too many variables, too much cherrypicking.


LN2 is useless as far as showing max usable overclocks will be on a paticularly node, but they do gives some indication of how well an architecture will overclock on a more advance node. Look at the gtx 280ln(980mhz) vs overclocked gtx 480/580(980mhz h20) for example and now the gtx 980ln2 clocks vs what the 1080 does. The gtx 980/980 ti could get to 2300 on a very good ln2 bench run. 2200 are a more normal result. This could very well mirror what we get for the overclocks of the gtx 1080.

What I suspect is what 14nm finfet will show is AMD needs a big redesign to use get bigger clocks because with every new iteration of GCN where they add more functionality, the worse the clocks get. GCN 1.0 could get to 1800mhz on ln2. GCN 1.3 or fiji, even those it is made on a better process only gets to 1450mhz on ln2. GCN is just not an architecture designed to go as fast as maxwell. The cores are smaller and the pipelines are shorter but as a result, they can put more cores.


----------



## go4life

Added this to OP! OC results along with stock:
http://videocardz.com/59882/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-3dmark-overclocking-performance


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *go4life*
> 
> Added this to OP! OC results along with stock:
> http://videocardz.com/59882/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-3dmark-overclocking-performance


24% perf increase from 18-20% oc ? wut


----------



## airfathaaaaa

doesnt really add up tho
firestrike perf is up to 21%
extreme is up on 25.2%
and ultra is on 22%
ill call bs on this


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> 24% perf increase from 18-20% oc ? wut


From 13% because 1080 runs at stock at 1860Mhz.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> From 13% because 1080 runs at stock at 1860Mhz.


Where did 1860 come from? Nvidia's site says 1733 Mhz boost clock. http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080

What were the memory overclocks?


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> Where did 1860 come from? Nvidia's site says 1733 Mhz boost clock. http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080


Because nvidia gpus since kepler run well 8-9% above their stated boost clock. so in this case it runs ~ 1860mhz. i thought people know this by now.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Because nvidia gpus since kepler run well 8-9% above their stated boost clock. so in this case it runs ~ 1860mhz. i thought people know this by now.


So a stock card goes higher than its specified boost clock without any overclocking?


----------



## y2kcamaross

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> So a stock card goes higher than its specified boost clock without any overclocking?


Only for the last 4 years...


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> So a stock card goes higher than its specified boost clock without any overclocking?


Yes. Since GTX 600 series.
My EVGA GTX 670 FTW has an advertised boost clock of 1084 MHz but boosts to 1228 MHz without any OC. EVGA GTX 780 Ti SC ACX has an advertised max boost of 1071 MHz but can go as high as 1150 MHz out of the box, MSI GTX 980 Ti Gaming advertised as 1279 MHz but can go as high as 1367 MHz in games.
It is also different from card to card even if they are the same sku, higher ASIC quality cards boost more than lower ASIC quality ones. For example some MSI GTX 980 Ti Gaming easily boost to 1400 MHz+ out of the box but my card maxes out at 1367 MHz.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *y2kcamaross*
> 
> Only for the last 4 years...


I haven't had an Nvidia card in the last 4 years, so it never came up.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *y2kcamaross*
> 
> Only for the last 4 years...


Pretty much this, this is also why some people say nvidia cheats in reviews which i don't really agree but they could have stated about having 2nd level of boost clock.


----------



## y2kcamaross

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Pretty much this, this is also why some people say nvidia cheats in reviews which i don't really agree but they could have stated about having 2nd level of boost clock.


AMD and Nvidia just do things differently, Nvidia lists minimum boost, as in every card WILL boost to that speed at the bare minimum, AMD doesn't do it that way


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *y2kcamaross*
> 
> AMD and Nvidia just do things differently, Nvidia lists minimum boost, as in every card WILL boost to that speed at the bare minimum, AMD doesn't do it that way


Exactly. AMD sets a maximum frequency and Nvidia a minimum. They both do it a different way and neither way is "cheating".

And this is why the good reviewers started getting the cards to gaming temperature before running the test.


----------



## Forceman

Nvm

Read first, post second


----------



## krel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Heh I hate to say this but sometimes I feel as if California isn't too far away from becoming North Korea


Nah, I was there not that long ago, and they let me leave afterwards. Of course, they took all my money and brainwashed my kids first.

Wait, that last part was Disneyland.


----------



## ondoy

NVIDIA GTX 1080 GPU-Z specs


----------



## carlhil2

Rumor has it that the Gaming G1 will be able to hit 2.4G....


----------



## HAL900

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Rumor has it that the Gaming G1 will be able to hit 2.4G....


Billion immediately xD


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Rumor has it that the Gaming G1 will be able to hit 2.4G....


Per my other post, hitting 2.4 GHz on 1080 is akin to hitting 1500 MHz on 980 Ti, still not exactly that exciting.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Well just sit down and crunch the numbers. 980 Ti's average in-game boost is around 1167 MHz going by AnandTech's results, and 1500 MHz seems to be a pretty attainable "max" OC. So that's a 28.5% OC.
> 
> Pascal is supposed to OC like we've never seen before (on LN2 anyway), so it pretty much has to OC to at least 2390 MHz on air to even claim parity with Maxwell.
> 
> edit: Sat down and actually crunched the numbers instead of eyeballing AnandTech's results because I _just know_ somebody's gonna do the math and call me out on it


----------



## spyshagg

OC puts it close to my 2x290x crossfire scores, but still 3000 points away. I will only upgrade to a >30k firestrike card


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> OC puts it close to my 2x290x crossfire scores, but still 3000 points away. I will only upgrade to a >30k firestrike card


Yes but FS is like the best for CFX scaling. In games its not that good.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Per my other post, hitting 2.4 GHz on 1080 is akin to hitting 1500 MHz on 980 Ti, still not exactly that exciting.


Yep, the big numbers are neat to see but we can't lose sight of the fact that Pascal's redesign necessitates 1600+ clocks to achieve the desired performance increase over stock 980 Ti. As you say, not that exciting put into context.


----------



## Dargonplay

Can someone do a rough estimate of how does a 1200 980Ti compares to Pascal? And what I mean is that whats the equivalent of a 1200MHz 980Ti to Pascal? 1500MHz?

Whats the frequency necessary for Maxwell to have the same performance as a 1800MHz Pascal.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Can someone do a rough estimate of how does a 1200 980Ti compares to Pascal? And what I mean is that whats the equivalent of a 1200MHz 980Ti to Pascal? 1500MHz?
> 
> Whats the frequency necessary for Maxwell to have the same performance as a 1800MHz Pascal.


A bit more than 1320mhz because per cc performance is less in pascal.

Edit: ~1600mhz maxwell = 1800mhz pascal.


----------



## Kriant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Can someone do a rough estimate of how does a 1200 980Ti compares to Pascal? And what I mean is that whats the equivalent of a 1200MHz 980Ti to Pascal? 1500MHz?
> 
> Whats the frequency necessary for Maxwell to have the same performance as a 1800MHz Pascal.


For a 1800mhz Pascal you roughly need around 1540ish/1950ish clocks on your 980ti. Tested Firestrike regular, extreme and ultra and I get similar Graphics scores with those clocks as the scores of alleged GTX 1080 seen on the videocardz.com chart


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Of course those are only synthetic scores in which both architectures are going to have been very optimized for. We will probably see varying results an actual games.


----------



## go4life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Of course those are only synthetic scores in which both architectures are going to have been very optimized for. We will probably see varying results an actual games.


Pretty much this! Wonder how they will fare in games and especially in SLI.


----------



## Scotty99

http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/12/nvidia-ceo-says-a-holistic-effort-beyond-graphics-chips-will-make-it-dominant-in-pc-gaming/
Quote:


> "Nvidia chief executive Jen-Hsun Huang said that his company's graphics chips are "further ahead [of the competition] than at any other time in our history."


Dude has to know exactly what AMD has in the pipeline, 1080 is probably gonna be king for a long long time.


----------



## SuperZan

"Our PC gaming platform, GeForce, is strong, and it's getting stronger than ever," he said. "Our GPU architecture is just superior. We dedicated an enormous amount of effort to advancing our GPU architecture. The engineering of Nvidia is exquisite. Our craftsmanship is unrivaled anywhere."










I'm not saying he's wrong or anything but this reads like he's been taking lessons in public speaking from a certain US Presidential candidate. Excepting of course the fact that his vocabulary is multi-syllabic.


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/12/nvidia-ceo-says-a-holistic-effort-beyond-graphics-chips-will-make-it-dominant-in-pc-gaming/
> Dude has to know exactly what AMD has in the pipeline, 1080 is probably gonna be king for a long long time.


_"Our PC gaming platform, GeForce, is strong, and it's getting stronger than ever," he said. *"Our GPU architecture is just superior.* We dedicated an enormous amount of effort to advancing our GPU architecture. The engineering of Nvidia is exquisite. Our craftsmanship is unrivaled anywhere."
_
DirectX 12 & Vulkan so far thinks otherwise. Dare I say async......nah. We will see which GPU architecture is the best once since there's plenty of DX12 and\or Vulkan games coming and already in the market.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/12/nvidia-ceo-says-a-holistic-effort-beyond-graphics-chips-will-make-it-dominant-in-pc-gaming/
> Dude has to know exactly what AMD has in the pipeline, *1080 is probably gonna be king for a long long time.*


yeah. Since Nvidia has no history of ultra-milking in recent time and they are basically NEVER releasing a new "king" every couple of months .

Nvidia wouldn't do that. They just release the GTX 1080 and it will be king for the next 3 years.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> yeah. Since Nvidia has no history of ultra-milking in recent time and they are basically NEVER releasing a new "king" every couple of months .
> 
> Nvidia wouldn't do that. They just release the GTX 1080 and it will be king for the next 3 years.


They aren't gonna release a 1080ti for a LONG time. If you read between the lines this guy is saying AMD is dead in the water. They wont be catching nvidia on the high end this generation they will probably wait a year before we see a 1080ti when AMD finally gets a product to compete with the 1080.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> They aren't gonna release a 1080ti for a LONG time. If you read between the lines this guy is saying AMD is dead in the water. They wont be catching nvidia on the high end this generation they will probably wait a year before we see a 1080ti when AMD finally gets a product to compete with the 1080.


And that is EXACTLY what Jen Hsun Huang / Nvidia wants everyone to think









Also I don't consider one year a "long long time" like you've said in your previous post.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> And that is EXACTLY what Jen Hsun Huang / Nvidia wants everyone to think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also I don't consider one year a "long long time" like you've said in your previous post.


What does it matter what we think? Either AMD puts out a competing product or they dont. One year is a hell of a long time for a card to be at the top with no competition, has that ever happened?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> What does it matter what we think? Either AMD puts out a competing product or they dont. One year is a hell of a long time for a card to be at the top with no competition, has that ever happened?


because if people think that the GTX 1080 will be the best card then they are more likely to buy it instead of waiting/postponing.

One year is not happening. No way. Either VEGA or Titan Pascal will release earlier than that and dethrone it.

I give the GTX 1080 about 9 months at most and it even that could be too long if VEGA really releases in October.

(only my opinion/speculation)


----------



## looniam

lets see . the 780ti still ahead of anything (single gpu) and nvidia releases the 980 . .980 still ahead of everything and nvidia releases the titanX.

no they would NEVER knock the crown off their own head.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> because if people think that the GTX 1080 will be the best card then they are more likely to buy it instead of waiting/postponing.
> 
> One year is not happening. No way. Either VEGA or Titan Pascal will release earlier than that and dethrone it.
> 
> I give the GTX 1080 about 9 months at most and it even that could be too long if VEGA really releases in October.
> 
> (only my opinion/speculation)


If AMD has competition ready we would have heard about it from them by now. I can't even remember a time when one card was at the top for a few months, but like the article says nvidia is further ahead of AMD than at any time in history a year of 1080 superiority honestly wouldnt surprise me. The only things ive seen from AMD reps is them holding onto dx12 features, they are not hyping their hardware at all.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> lets see . the 780ti still ahead of anything (single gpu) and nvidia releases the 980 . .980 still ahead of everything and nvidia releases the titanX.
> 
> no they would NEVER knock the crown off their own head.


Nvidia loves their customers.

As long as they are paying for the latest hardware









But it's not like I can blame them. If I were CEO I'd do the same. I swear I'd buy every single Porsche and McLaren if I had that kinda money.

Especialyl G-Sync is genius. It binds people to buy Nvidia cards again if they want to use G-Sync again with their monitor.

Also releasing small cards first and then release like 50 cards within a generation that are slightly better each time is pretty smart.

On 28nm alone Nvidia went from :

GTX 680 -> GTX Titan -> GTX 780 Ti / Titan Black -> GTX 980 -> Titan X / GTX 980 Ti

Will be the same with GTX 1080. It will be as useless and left 4 dead as fast as the GTX 680.

I remember when I bought the GTX 680 it was reviewed as a card that is fast enough to use for 2560x1440 with AA.

Somehow nowadays it doesn't even manage to get 30fps in 1080p in modern games when you crank the settings.


----------



## BigMack70

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Somehow nowadays it doesn't even manage to get 30fps in 1080p in modern games when you crank the settings.


We hit a generational jump in graphics owing to the new generation of consoles, a generation jump that midrange Kepler was never prepared for. The 7970 was always the far better card, and it still holds up OK at 1080p. Also, the 7970/680 are 4 years old, which is quite a lot in the world of PC GPUs.


----------



## doza

i dont trust that man, he knows AMD is gonna be late to party with vega so he's just trolling couse he think's people will jump on 1080p..... couse he says 1080p is best .......


----------



## Imouto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Nvidia wouldn't do that. They just release the GTX 1080 and it will be king for the next 3 years.


The OG GTX Titan -> GTX 780 -> GTX 780 Ti in 8 months was just hilarious.

- Release the GTX Titan at $1000. (Nvidia loyalists scream in joy and ecstasy)
- Offer 90% of its performance 3 months later with the GTX 780 at $650. (Omaigosh Nvidia so cool they let us get Titan performance so cheep) (GTX Titan buyers not so happy)
- Release the GTX 780 Ti 5 months later with the fully enabled GK110 chip at $700. (At this point GTX Titan buyers realized how much they were screwed over)

Not to talk about the 7 months lapse between the GTX 480 and the GTX 580.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BigMack70*
> 
> We hit a generational jump in graphics owing to the new generation of consoles, a generation jump that midrange Kepler was never prepared for. The 7970 was always the far better card, and it still holds up OK at 1080p. Also, the 7970/680 are 4 years old, which is quite a lot in the world of PC GPUs.


That is very true.


----------



## prznar1

About the 2way sli only.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doza*
> 
> i dont trust that man, he knows AMD is gonna be late to party with vega so he's just trolling couse he think's people will jump on 1080p..... couse he says 1080p is best .......


He's trolling no one, AMD said themselves they aren't competing on the high end market. AMD is opening themselves up to the low-mid tier to try and influence more people to PC gaming. AMD outed themselves until next year. I want to say they'll have something competitive for the 1080, but I'm not completely confident.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doza*
> 
> i dont trust that man, he knows AMD is gonna be late to party with vega so he's just trolling couse he think's people will jump on 1080p..... couse he says 1080p is best .......


Jen Hsun doesn't think 1080p is best.

He is probably gaming at 4K surround









If he is still gaming which I heavily doubt.


----------



## magnek

He's too busy leather jacketing and Ferraring for games.

I mean gaming is so _peasant_ yo


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> He's too busy leather jacketing and Ferraring for games.
> 
> I mean gaming is so peasant yo


And practising his adjectives evidently. The quotes from the article a couple of pages back looked like a thesaurus entry.


----------



## magnek

Logophiles and their bombastic lexicon


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> He's too busy leather jacketing and Ferraring for games.
> 
> I mean gaming is so _peasant_ yo


Pfft prob not even. Why would he drive that poor mans sports car when he has a Koenigsegg ccx? Things worth like 10 Ferraris.


----------



## jprovido

"leaked" overclocked benchmarks. that's a healthy 24% bump


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jprovido*
> 
> "leaked" overclocked benchmarks. that's a healthy 24% bump


With a 21% clockspeed increase...

and that's only over the paper boost clock. Actual boost is probably in the 1800s.


----------



## carlhil2




----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imouto*
> 
> The OG GTX Titan -> GTX 780 -> GTX 780 Ti in 8 months was just hilarious.
> 
> - Release the GTX Titan at $1000. (Nvidia loyalists scream in joy and ecstasy)
> - Offer 90% of its performance 3 months later with the GTX 780 at $650. (Omaigosh Nvidia so cool they let us get Titan performance so cheep) (GTX Titan buyers not so happy)
> - Release the GTX 780 Ti 5 months later with the fully enabled GK110 chip at $700. (At this point GTX Titan buyers realized how much they were screwed over)
> 
> Not to talk about the 7 months lapse between the GTX 480 and the GTX 580.


I actually didn't feel screwed over by the 780 or 780Ti to be honest. The 780 was no where near 90% of OG Titan cards with the flashed bios and 1300+ MHz clockspeeds and the 780Ti similarly suffered with OC's for a while when Nvidia changed voltage controllers to prevent bios hacks. That's not even bringing up the paltry 3GB of memory those cards had compared to the still relevant 6GB the OG Titan still enjoys today. But at the end of the day I had nobody to blame for buying Titans other than myself. Nvidia didn't twist my arm to do so, I did so voluntarily with the expectation that they would certainly release something faster and cheaper down the line. Now I'm still sitting here with these cards that still do everything I need them to do 3 years later and I actually consider them the best GPU buy I've ever made. I have no intention to upgrade before at least Big Pascal and even then I may just wait til Volta...


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I actually didn't feel screwed over by the 780 or 780Ti to be honest. The 780 was no where near 90% of OG Titan cards with the flashed bios and 1300+ MHz clockspeeds and the 780Ti similarly suffered with OC's for a while when Nvidia changed voltage controllers to prevent bios hacks. That's not even bringing up the paltry 3GB of memory those cards had compared to the still relevant 6GB the OG Titan still enjoys today. But at the end of the day I had nobody to blame for buying Titans other than myself. Nvidia didn't twist my arm to do so, I did so voluntarily with the expectation that they would certainly release something faster and cheaper down the line. Now I'm still sitting here with these cards that still do everything I need them to do 3 years later and I actually consider them the best GPU buy I've ever made. I have no intention to upgrade before at least Big Pascal and even then I may just wait til Volta...


The point is, you need it at that instance.

Its doesnt matter the price, are you willing to fork out another $300 more for a card that got release earlier and its one of the best around?

If I wanted to game at 4K120 Hz (assume a new panel get release soon) and I know no GPU in today era can do that, would I be waiting till it finally release with a reasonable price, or just get the strongest one around, and experience it as close to that dream as possible.

Suddenly the Titan become relevant. cos at the point in time, it becomes the only card that can let you experience it the closest.

Sometime its not about waiting, cos waiting will never end.


----------



## Imouto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I actually didn't feel screwed over by the 780 or 780Ti to be honest. The 780 was no where near 90% of OG Titan cards with the flashed bios and 1300+ MHz clockspeeds and the 780Ti similarly suffered with OC's for a while when Nvidia changed voltage controllers to prevent bios hacks.


In denial much? You could hack a GTX 780 too and should check its owners club thread at this very forum.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> That's not even bringing up the paltry 3GB of memory those cards had compared to the still relevant 6GB the OG Titan still enjoys today.


You're free to spend your money as you please. If you're glad spending $350 for an extra 3GB of VRAM I'm no one to burst your bubble.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

A hacked 780 was never going to be as fast as a hacked Titan. But you're right, I made my decision to overspend on these cards over 3 years ago so nothing I can do about it now. i'm just glad that they still offer me plenty of performance at 1440 P all these years later.


----------



## Scotty99

Good news for you 3/4 way SLI peeps:


----------



## prznar1

Posted video some time ago where Jay from JaysTwoCents was saying that.


----------



## USlatin

And before that I told you guys it was cool when Jay2cents first mentioned it........ 3-way was never an issue


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Good news for you 3/4 way SLI peeps:


Soon to be available in Geforce Experience as part of our new micro-transactions system. Pay only for the performance that you want!

KIDDING.


----------



## USlatin

If you go to around 10:30 on the video you can tell that he was a little worried he might have spilled a bit of NDA-protected beans when he says that in Tom Raider and Witcher the 1080 gets about x1.5 to x1.7 the performance of 980SLI

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3070453/hardware/the-full-nerd-episode-0-nvidias-geforce-gtx-1080-battlefield-1-and-4-core-vs-8-core-build.html


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Soon to be available in Geforce Experience as part of our new micro-transactions system. Pay only for the performance that _you_ want!
> 
> KIDDING.











You think you can get away with saying that over the Internet? Think again, as we speak I am contacting my secret network of developers across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your rig. You're PC is dead kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can out-bench you in over seven hundred games, and that's just with my GTX 960. I'll have you know I graduated top of my class at Nvidia University, and I've been involved in numerous secret deals with game developers, and I have over 300 confirmed TFLOPS. I am trained in async warfare and I'm the top engineer in the entire Nvidia family. You are nothing to me but just another peasant. I will compute the dickens out of you with double precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. Not only am I extensively trained in Gameworks, but I have access to the entire SDK of the Nvidia Gameworks Program and I will use it to its full extent to gimp your miserable butt off the face of the continent. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price. I will poop on your Fury X and all over you and you will drown in it. You're wrecked, kiddo.

saw this on reddit and had to post it after cleaning it up some.

cheers.


----------



## Pragmatist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think you can get away with saying that over the Internet? Think again, as we speak I am contacting my secret network of developers across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your rig. You're PC is dead kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can out-bench you in over seven hundred games, and that's just with my GTX 960. I'll have you know I graduated top of my class at Nvidia University, and I've been involved in numerous secret deals with game developers, and I have over 300 confirmed TFLOPS. I am trained in async warfare and I'm the top engineer in the entire Nvidia family. You are nothing to me but just another peasant. I will compute the dickens out of you with double precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. Not only am I extensively trained in Gameworks, but I have access to the entire SDK of the Nvidia Gameworks Program and I will use it to its full extent to gimp your miserable butt off the face of the continent. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price. I will poop on your Fury X and all over you and you will drown in it. You're wrecked, kiddo.
> 
> saw this on reddit and had to post it after cleaning it up some.
> 
> cheers.


Oh my goodness this is pure gold. hahahahaaaa









It has to be a joke though, but I'm probably stating the obvious, or so I hope. +1


----------



## SuperZan

That's amazing, there's a Liam Neeson movie in that.

"They called in to tech support, but they never could have known that he would answer."


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Best post in months.


----------



## USlatin

Funny, pls link the original though


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> That's amazing, there's a Liam Neeson movie in that.
> 
> "They called in to tech support, but they never could have known that _he_ would answer."


No, he's old as dirt. It's like Bruce Willis with Die Hard... just die already, old man. If anything the plot would be geezer Liam Neeson trying to buy some lawn chairs online from Home Depot, clicking the wrong link, and get infected with Cryptowall. Queue him up calling:

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my files go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.


----------



## paskowitz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think you can get away with saying that over the Internet? Think again, as we speak I am contacting my secret network of developers across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your rig. You're PC is dead kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can out-bench you in over seven hundred games, and that's just with my GTX 960. I'll have you know I graduated top of my class at Nvidia University, and I've been involved in numerous secret deals with game developers, and I have over 300 confirmed TFLOPS. I am trained in async warfare and I'm the top engineer in the entire Nvidia family. You are nothing to me but just another peasant. I will compute the dickens out of you with double precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my words. Not only am I extensively trained in Gameworks, but I have access to the entire SDK of the Nvidia Gameworks Program and I will use it to its full extent to gimp your miserable butt off the face of the continent. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price. I will poop on your Fury X and all over you and you will drown in it. You're wrecked, kiddo.
> 
> saw this on reddit and had to post it after cleaning it up some.
> 
> cheers.


Thank you. I needed a good laugh.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> No, he's old as dirt. It's like Bruce Willis with Die Hard... just die already, old man. If anything the plot would be geezer Liam Neeson trying to buy some lawn chairs online from Home Depot, clicking the wrong link, and get infected with Cryptowall. Queue him up calling:
> 
> I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my files go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.


That's all part of the charm! Unintentionally funny action films are the best sort.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> That's all part of the charm! Unintentionally funny action films are the best sort.


I'm just being realistic. They had a dozen cuts of him taking 6 seconds to jump over a fence.






Taken 4 gonna be his family taking him to a nursing home.


----------



## KG101

And why exactly is it dudes' headphones have uh ,tookover his face.. Are 7506 that serious wow or are those V6 bro that isn't even gtx energy drink jeesh


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just being realistic. They had a dozen cuts of him taking 6 seconds to jump over a fence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taken 4 gonna be his family taking him to a nursing home.


Even the young can fail..






nah, I agree, he's long in the tooth. I don't watch enough action movies to know who'd replace him.


----------



## romanlegion13th

when are the benches going to be here?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *romanlegion13th*
> 
> when are the benches going to be here?


less than 3 days


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *romanlegion13th*
> 
> when are the benches going to be here?


After midday on the 17th I reckon.


----------



## invincible20xx

i'm so excited, wondering if this stock will be faster than my 290's in crossfire @ 1.15 ghz, also wondering if i go crazy and get 2 of these for my 4k 50 incher, would those be bottle necked by my now age old cpu .... just wondering lol


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *invincible20xx*
> 
> i'm so excited, wondering if this stock will be faster than my 290's in crossfire @ 1.15 ghz, also wondering if i go crazy and get 2 of these for my 4k 50 incher, would those be bottle necked by my now age old cpu .... just wondering lol


If the 2.5GHz rumors are to be believed then its likely it will be faster. Then again, who knows if that rumor is even true or if the performance will scale perfectly with clock speed? My only assumption that is a lock to happen in my mind is that the cards will hit 2GHz on air and do really well in 3DMark. Oh, and that the usual Nvidia sycophant review sites will immediately proclaim the 1080 as "a product with performance the likes of which we have never seen before!"


----------



## invincible20xx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> If the 2.5GHz rumors are to be believed then its likely it will be faster. Then again, who knows if that rumor is even true or if the performance will scale perfectly with clock speed? My only assumption that is a lock to happen in my mind is that the cards will hit 2GHz on air and do really well in 3DMark. Oh, and that the usual Nvidia sycophant review sites will immediately proclaim the 1080 as "a product with performance the likes of which we have never seen before!"


i'm actually so excited for the benchmarks, if one 1080 can beat my dual card setup at 4k i will probably upgrade, but really wondering if my cpu will be good enough for 2 of these cards should i decide to go that route in the future, i believe one card will not be enough to hold a minimum of 60 fps at 4k at all times in all games at max settings with 2x AA


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *invincible20xx*
> 
> i'm actually so excited for the benchmarks, if one 1080 can beat my dual card setup at 4k i will probably upgrade, but really wondering if my cpu will be good enough for 2 of these cards should i decide to go that route on the future, i believe still one card will not be enough to hold a minimum of 60 fps at 4k at all times in all games at max settings with 2x AA


I am running a gen behind you on an i5 and i still have no reason to upgrade, you are good to go.


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *invincible20xx*
> 
> i'm actually so excited for the benchmarks, if one 1080 can beat my dual card setup at 4k i will probably upgrade, but really wondering if my cpu will be good enough for 2 of these cards should i decide to go that route on the future, i believe still one card will not be enough to hold a *minimum of 60 fps at 4k at all times in all games at max settings with 2x AA*


That would be asking a lot, some games are just terrible when it comes to performance.


----------



## invincible20xx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> That would be asking a lot, some games are just terrible when it comes to performance.


well how about with no AA ? u think one overclocked card can pull that off ?


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> If the 2.5GHz rumors are to be believed then its likely it will be faster. Then again, who knows if that rumor is even true or if the performance will scale perfectly with clock speed? My only assumption that is a lock to happen in my mind is that the cards will hit 2GHz on air and do really well in 3DMark. Oh, and that the usual Nvidia sycophant review sites will immediately proclaim the 1080 as "a product with performance the likes of which we have never seen before!"


From benchmark, at 2.1GHz its about as fast as Pro Duo, which is already faster than 295X2, or a CF 290X.

So yes it will be faster, maybe not as big gap as shown in 3DMark, but in games with 2.4-2.5GHz, it should be noticeably faster


----------



## invincible20xx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> From benchmark, at 2.1GHz its about as fast as Pro Duo, which is already faster than 295X2, or a CF 290X.
> 
> So yes it will be faster, maybe not as big gap as shown in 3DMark, but in games with 2.4-2.5GHz, it should be noticeably faster


which benchmark ?


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *invincible20xx*
> 
> which benchmark ?


3d mark


----------



## ondoy




----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Why's he wearing a surgical mask? He have SARS or bird flu?
> 
> Edit: Nvm, not Chinese
> 
> Great video though. Loved all the focus changes. The card looks really aesthetically pleasing too, both on its own and inside the chassis. Seems the sharp angles instead of curves make it look thicker and more beefy in the case (1:38 in the vid). Shame its 700.


970 is only $449.


----------



## FlyingSolo

If the 1080 can give the same performance as a 980 sli on 4k. I'll pick it up for my new build.


----------



## HAL900

http://gpuz.techpowerup.com/16/05/15/v2t.png


----------



## Frosted racquet

^Sorry if I'm missing something, but what's interesting about the above picture?


----------



## SSJVegeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *invincible20xx*
> 
> i'm actually so excited for the benchmarks, if one 1080 can beat my dual card setup at 4k i will probably upgrade, but really wondering if my cpu will be good enough for 2 of these cards should i decide to go that route in the future, *i believe one card will not be enough to hold a minimum of 60 fps at 4k at all times in all games at max settings with 2x AA*


Single 1080 Ti probably, not a single 1080.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SSJVegeta*
> 
> Single 1080 Ti probably, not a single 1080.


No 2x AA den is possible. Even with 40% process power of 1080Ti and assuming clock scale as well as 1080, den most likely can maintain 60 fps min, provided no 2X AA.


----------



## Menta

A friend of mine that works in a computer store told me to expect 600 euros"ish" for the non founder edition, Asus, Msi CUSTOM CARDS, two weeks after 27 may...Around 720 euros for the founder on 27may


----------



## FlyingSolo

For some reason i think the first cards out would better binned chips.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> A friend of mine that works in a computer store told be to expect 600 euros"ish" for the non founder edition, Asus, Msi CUSTOM CARDS, two weeks after the 27 may...Around 720 euros for the founder on 27may


Damn i hope its not more then £500 for the 1080


----------



## Menta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlyingSolo*
> 
> For some reason i think the first cards out would better binned chips.
> Damn i hope its not more then £500 for the 1080


So do i mate









This is getting out of hand, but i remember when maxwell launched they had good competition from AMD 290\290x.


----------



## FlyingSolo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> So do i mate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting out of hand, but i remember when maxwell launched they had good competition from AMD 290\290x.


Yeah. But this time they have no competition. Since there are no new AMD cards coming out soon.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> They aren't gonna release a 1080ti for a LONG time. If you read between the lines this guy is saying AMD is dead in the water. They wont be catching nvidia on the high end this generation they will probably wait a year before we see a 1080ti when AMD finally gets a product to compete with the 1080.


LMAO GTX 1080 is supposed to be 25% faster than 980 Ti...Vega is coming out in 2017 if not sooner,just lol at thinking AMD won't be able to catch up to GTX 1080.


----------



## kx11

So what's FastSync ?? Nvidia's new Vsync replacement ?


----------



## Robilar

Gsync is nvidia's Vsync replacement. Not sure what fastsync is.


----------



## provost

Fastsync refers to "pay as you go" instant driver updates, and this "feature" is only available on FE cards....

Just j/k


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Fastsync refers to "pay as you go" instant driver updates, and this "feature" is only available on FE cards....
> 
> Just j/k


Introducing new "FASTSYNC", syncs your bank account to jhh's jacket funding account for speedy transactions after you get 10% performance increase* after 4-5 driver updates^

*actually 1% but we like no. 10.
^only in vr and GW titles.

n/k


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> So what's FastSync ?? Nvidia's new Vsync replacement ?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> Gsync is nvidia's Vsync replacement. Not sure what fastsync is.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Fastsync refers to "pay as you go" instant driver updates, and this "feature" is only available on FE cards....
> 
> Just j/k


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Fastsync refers to "pay as you go" instant driver updates, and this "feature" is only available on FE cards....
> 
> Just j/k
> 
> 
> 
> Introducing new "FASTSYNC", syncs your bank account to jhh's jacket funding account for speedy transactions after you get 10% performance increase* after 4-5 driver updates^
> 
> *actually 1% but we like no. 10.
> ^only in vr and GW titles.
> 
> n/k
Click to expand...

http://www.overclock.net/t/1600243/vc-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-final-specifications-and-launch-presentation/
http://videocardz.com/59962/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-final-specifications-and-launch-presentation

Looks like Fast Sync is a real thing if the slides are true. Could be targeted to VR.


----------



## Somasonic

Ugh, there still seems to be confusion over what the pounded edition is:

Quote:


> The image Colorful released today shows what appears to be Nvidia's Founder's Edition reference blower design. Colorful hasn't shared the price, but considering what Nvidia said about the $100 price jump for the Founder's Edition, this card should cost $699 and feature premium components and better overclocking potential.


http://www.tomshardware.com/news/colorful-gtx-1080-founders-edition-cooler,31799.html


----------



## Robilar

I find it hard to believe that nvidia is charging 100 dollar premium for stock cooler and clockspeeds.


----------



## one-shot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> I find it hard to believe that nvidia is charging 100 dollar premium for stock cooler and clockspeeds.


People will pay for it. It's believable.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> I find it hard to believe that nvidia is charging 100 dollar premium for stock cooler and clockspeeds.


1) People were ready to pay 1000$ for a cut down Kepler card just because of fancy name.

2) People love fancy looking cooler

3) People love new tech

4) People love having the best

5) People love having things earlier than others

6) We still have to wait and see if we can actually buy a card for 599$.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> 1) People were ready to pay 1000$ for a cut down Kepler card just because of fancy name.
> 
> 2) People love fancy looking cooler
> 
> 3) People love new tech
> 
> 4) People love having the best
> 
> 5) People love having things earlier than others
> 
> 6) We still have to wait and see if we can actually buy a card for 599$.


7) People love Nvidia. and actually get profit from their market share*

based on trillions posts regarding market share like it gives a new life to crappy driver support to the old products.


----------



## invincible20xx

any leaked benchmarks so far ? rumor has it the 1080 is only 25% faster than a titan x, in that case the 1070 is probably going to match it, no ?, i feel the need to upgrade i need to cap my frame rate at 60 fps at 4k maxed out with no AA at least but if the 1080 is only 25% faster than a titan x then i will probably not gain that much more compared to what i already have in terms of pure fps ( 2 x 290 ) and will probably need to go dual gpu again ? would 2 x 1070 be a better value and cap me at 60 fps 4k without AA, release the benchmarks already lol !


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *invincible20xx*
> 
> any leaked benchmarks so far ? rumor has it the 1080 is only 25% faster than a titan x, in that case the 1070 is probably going to match it, no ?


Yep, pretty much like every other new generation x70 card that matches or beats the previous generation flagship. Nothing special.


----------



## invincible20xx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Yep, pretty much like every other new generation x70 card that matches or beats the previous generation flagship. Nothing special.


but then at this point for me to see an increase in fps i'm pretty much bound to go dual gpu again ? i was hoping for a single gpu this time around to cap me at 60 fps, would 2 titan x now do that at 4k at the moment ? just wondering cause this could be representative of what i can expect from a dual 1070 setup


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *invincible20xx*
> 
> but then at this point for me to see an increase in fps i'm pretty much bound to go dual gpu again ? i was hoping for a single gpu this time around to cap me at 60 fps, would 2 titan x now do that at 4k at the moment ? just wondering cause this could be representative of what i can expect from a dual 1070 setup


I won't every recommend dual GPUs because I am very sensitive to microstutter and if a game lacks dual GPU support you suffer. I think if you want a really good 4k experience with the best chance of 60fps, wait for big Pascal or Vega.


----------



## carlhil2

http://videocardz.com/59962/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-final-specifications-and-launch-presentation Looking at the charts, nVIDIA is pegging the 1080 as 70% faster than the 980, sort of matches some of the leaked benches...


----------



## JohnLai

10bit HEVC encode......yeah right....with majority of main 'features' of HEVC totally not supported for some reason.

I am quite skeptical with nvidia nvenc claim after maxwell v2 8bit HEVC encoding. Missing B-frame, no SAO, no 64 CTU, limited intraprediction.....etc


----------



## KenjiS

So guys..I'm not going to say the GTX1080 isnt powerful (Because it is..and that 2.1ghz core clock is insane) but to me the 1 million zeni question is still DX12 performance

So far nVidia has done... less than well with DX12.. enough for me to now say its concerning

Before I get labelled an AMD fanboy: 980 Ti, 970 SLI, 970, 770 SLI, 770, 570, and a 460 are my last GPUs since anything from the red camp (A 5850 i NEVER got to run) so yes, I'm totally a butthurt AMD fanboy picking on nVidia









But regardless, im no fool, the numbers I've seen from Quantum Break, Hitman and Ashes of the Singularity have NOT been showing a good day for the green team... Before I would want to plonk down the money for the 1080 I want to see nVidia demonstrate their DX12 performance deficit solved (Be it down to an architectural problem or driver issues)


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KenjiS*
> 
> So guys..I'm not going to say the GTX1080 isnt powerful (Because it is..and that 2.1ghz core clock is insane) but to me the 1 million zeni question is still DX12 performance
> 
> So far nVidia has done... less than well with DX12.. enough for me to now say its concerning
> 
> Before I get labelled an AMD fanboy: 980 Ti, 970 SLI, 970, 770 SLI, 770, 570, and a 460 are my last GPUs since anything from the red camp (A 5850 i NEVER got to run) so yes, I'm totally a butthurt AMD fanboy picking on nVidia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, im no fool, the numbers I've seen from Quantum Break, Hitman and Ashes of the Singularity have NOT been showing a good day for the green team... Before I would want to plonk down the money for the 1080 I want to see nVidia demonstrate their DX12 performance deficit solved (Be it down to an architectural problem or driver issues)


That's what reviews are for. they would have been out before you have spent your money, so, you are good....


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KenjiS*
> 
> So guys..I'm not going to say the GTX1080 isnt powerful (Because it is..and that 2.1ghz core clock is insane) but to me the 1 million zeni question is still DX12 performance
> 
> So far nVidia has done... less than well with DX12.. enough for me to now say its concerning
> 
> Before I get labelled an AMD fanboy: 980 Ti, 970 SLI, 970, 770 SLI, 770, 570, and a 460 are my last GPUs since anything from the red camp (A 5850 i NEVER got to run) so yes, I'm totally a butthurt AMD fanboy picking on nVidia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, im no fool, the numbers I've seen from Quantum Break, Hitman and Ashes of the Singularity have NOT been showing a good day for the green team... Before I would want to plonk down the money for the 1080 I want to see nVidia demonstrate their DX12 performance deficit solved (Be it down to an architectural problem or driver issues)


This is exactly the same things I addressed in a few topics. Nvidia is living it up at DX11, but once you hit DX11 @ 1440p\4K things quickly get competitive between Nvidia and AMD in some games, sometimes there's a tie. DX12 is clearly something Nvidia hasn't really been talking about. They've shown one game running Vulkan and their DX12 performance is simply odd since they have been claiming to support DX12 for some time now. Apparently 1920x1080p is a "thing" again for cards that cost more than $400+, but when comparing the GTX 1080 FireStrike results things just wasn't so clear after looking at the high core clock and the overall percentage.

For instance: 3DMark11 Performance Graphic Score: 67.6% Core clock difference between the Fury X Stock and the GTX 1080, yet the overall graphic score difference is 10.63% difference.
Then when you go up to FireStrike Ultra there is a 61.2% Core clock difference between the Fury X Stock and the GTX 1080, but the overall graphic score difference is only 8.3%.

That's DX11, but when you add in the DX12 + GTX 1080 performance that "magically" leaked on AotS the signs are more telling:
A Fury [NOT X] @ 1150 running a i7-4790K Quad @ 4Ghz + 1440p Crazy + *Ultra* vs a GTX 1080 running i7-5930K Hexa @ 3.5Ghz + 1440p Crazy + *High* [not Ultra] only beats the Fury by 2.8%!

So let's get this straight, in DX12, a Fury + Quad running Ultra 1440p vs a GTX 1080 running only HIGH settings [unfair] will only get you an additional 2.8%. The Fury could actually come out ahead if the GTX 1080 was actually running Ultra settings. These are the issues that I'm seeing long term for Nvidia. So in this case with DX12 and a whopping 51% core clock difference only gets you a unfair 2.8% difference in performance. That lead for the GTX 1080 could be because it was running "High" and the Fury was running "Ultra". Actually I think that's the only reason the GTX 1080 won. Those results still tell more than I need to know about Nvidia and their marketing\PR. Fanboys get hype, but I'm looking at this launch from a different perspective.

At this point it appears Nvidia still has no answer for DX12 and they are using crazy high Core clocks to cover their architecture flaws. This has been apparent since "1920x1080p" became a "thing" again with mid to high end cards and the fact that a GTX 1080 is struggling to beat a Fury [non X] with lower settings in AotS.

Who cares about DX12 though right? It's all about the overclocking and high core clocks right? Synthetic e-peen FTW??

Oh and before anyone tries to call me a fanboy as well GTX 400 - GTX 600 series. I didn't get the GTX 700 series because I ran dual GTX 670s until the 980 Ti and the Fury X dropped. I made my decision based on several factors from there. DX12\Vulkan was one of those factors by the way.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> This is exactly the same things I addressed in a few topics. Nvidia is living it up at DX11, but once you hit DX11 @ 1440p\4K things quickly get competitive between Nvidia and AMD in some games, sometimes there's a tie. DX12 is clearly something Nvidia hasn't really been talking about. They've shown one game running Vulkan and their DX12 performance is simply odd since they have been claiming to support DX12 for some time now. Apparently 1920x1080p is a "thing" again for cards that cost more than $400+, but when comparing the GTX 1080 FireStrike results things just wasn't so clear after looking at the high core clock and the overall percentage.
> 
> For instance: 3DMark11 Performance Graphic Score: 67.6% Core clock difference between the Fury X Stock and the GTX 1080, yet the overall graphic score difference is 10.63% difference.
> Then when you go up to FireStrike Ultra there is a 61.2% Core clock difference between the Fury X Stock and the GTX 1080, but the overall graphic score difference is only 8.3%.
> 
> That's DX11, but when you add in the DX12 + GTX 1080 performance that "magically" leaked on AotS the signs are more telling:
> A Fury [NOT X] @ 1150 running a i7-4790K Quad @ 4Ghz + 1440p Crazy + *Ultra* vs a GTX 1080 running i7-5930K Hexa @ 3.5Ghz + 1440p Crazy + *High* [not Ultra] only beats the Fury by 2.8%!
> 
> So let's get this straight, in DX12, a Fury + Quad running Ultra 1440p vs a GTX 1080 running only HIGH settings [unfair] will only get you an additional 2.8%. The Fury could actually come out ahead if the GTX 1080 was actually running Ultra settings. These are the issues that I'm seeing long term for Nvidia. So in this case with DX12 and a whopping 51% core clock difference only gets you a unfair 2.8% difference in performance. That lead for the GTX 1080 could be because it was running "High" and the Fury was running "Ultra". Actually I think that's the only reason the GTX 1080 won. Those results still tell more than I need to know about Nvidia and their marketing\PR. Fanboys get hype, but I'm looking at this launch from a different perspective.
> 
> At this point it appears Nvidia still has no answer for DX12 and they are using crazy high Core clocks to cover their architecture flaws. This has been apparent since "1920x1080p" became a "thing" again with mid to high end cards and the fact that a GTX 1080 is struggling to beat a Fury [non X] with lower settings in AotS.
> 
> Who cares about DX12 though right? It's all about the overclocking and high core clocks right? Synthetic e-peen FTW??
> 
> Oh and before anyone tries to call me a fanboy as well GTX 400 - GTX 600 series. I didn't get the GTX 700 series because I ran dual GTX 670s until the 980 Ti and the Fury X dropped. I made my decision based on several factors from there. DX12\Vulkan was one of those factors by the way.


I don't think that any serious poster has ever said that DX 12 doesn't matter. Just that it doesn't matter very much today. It will probably be another couple years or so before we see widespread DX 12 adoption.


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I don't think that any serious poster has ever said that DX 12 doesn't matter. Just that it doesn't matter very much today. It will probably be another couple years or so before we see widespread DX 12 adoption.


What does that have to do with my post????? If you are talking about "Who cares about DX12 though right?", that was sarcasm. I'm sure most will figure that out.

Nvidia appears to be covering their DX12 issues with higher clock speeds from what I'm gathering. They are releasing a lot of slides and info, but it doesn't appear to be that impressive based on the Nvidia team DX12 "leaks". Years or not, DX12 is here and there's more DX12 games releasing this year. There's already a handful so far. A lot of gaming engines are getting or already has DX12\Vulkan support already.


----------



## Gdourado

Saw this:
http://www.thecountrycaller.com/54407-leaked-slides-reveal-nvidia-corporation-nvda-may-have-overestimated-geforce-gtx-1080s-performance/
Quote:


> Contrary to what we have been told, GTX 1080 is not faster than GTX 980 SLI


----------



## Frosted racquet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gdourado*
> 
> Saw this:
> http://www.thecountrycaller.com/54407-leaked-slides-reveal-nvidia-corporation-nvda-may-have-overestimated-geforce-gtx-1080s-performance/


One could argue if 1080 has smoother frame-times instead of higher average FPS vs 980 SLI it is considered faster.


----------



## -terabyte-

The "faster than 980 SLI" part applies only to VR, it's been said tons of times already


----------



## nycgtr

50% faster than a 980 in games means realistically across titles at best 30%. So pretty much big Maxwell. NV's own game performance slides are usually beefed up. All those ppl who sold their 980tis to side grade for 2gb vram


----------



## ChevChelios

25-30% over 980Ti is not a sidegrade

and thats without the added perks of Pascal


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-terabyte-*
> 
> The "faster than 980 SLI" part applies only to VR, it's been said tons of times already


And they mean when using reprojection; when you move your head but there isn't a new frame from the GPU yet it warps the old 2D frame in such a way that you think you got a new frame and don't get nauseous. Pascal has new hardware for this so it is much faster now.. but it isn't real 3D shader horsepower.


----------



## nycgtr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> 25-30% over 980Ti is not a sidegrade
> 
> and thats without the added perks of Pascal


The graph is showing vs a 980. A 980ti/titan is already 30% ish faster than a 980.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nycgtr*
> 
> The graph is showing vs a 980. A 980ti/titan is already 30% ish faster than a 980.


?

a 1080 is like ~60%++ over a stock 980

and 25-30% over 980Ti


----------



## nycgtr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nycgtr*
> 
> The graph is showing vs a 980. A 980ti/titan is already 30% ish faster than a 980.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> ?
> 
> a 1080 is like ~60%++ over a stock 980
> 
> and 25-30% over 980Ti


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nycgtr*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *nycgtr*
> 
> The graph is showing vs a 980. A 980ti/titan is already 30% ish faster than a 980.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> ?
> 
> a 1080 is like ~60%++ over a stock 980
> 
> and 25-30% over 980Ti
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thanks for reinforcing his point.


----------



## nycgtr

Okay nvm fail on my behalf. Only glanced at it didn't see it was over the 1.5


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Thanks for reinforcing his point.


Lol


----------



## KenjiS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I don't think that any serious poster has ever said that DX 12 doesn't matter. Just that it doesn't matter very much today. It will probably be another couple years or so before we see widespread DX 12 adoption.


I dont think DX12 is going to be as far off as you think

I can almost guarantee Battlefield 1 is going to be DX12 out of the gate (If not Vulkan), Deus Ex Mankind Divided is also supposedly DX12 (The Dawn Engine is based on Glacier 2) and given the way things are going I can see DX12 being shoved out there FAR faster than DX10 or 11 was... I'd actually put a solid wager on THAT being the real reason to delay AC this year (Building a DX12 engine from scratch) as DX12 development cuts costs

I saw ONE leak pop up relating to 1080 supporting Async Compute

Look I wanna wait for benchmarks, I remember how we all thought the 980 was going to be "not that great" when we saw leaks... I also anticipate AMD is keeping their cards close to their chest

*edit* I should mention I have little interest in VR right now, I tried a Samsung Gear VR headset and it took all of 5 minutes wearing it before i got massively sick and fell over... Im not sure I can ever use a VR headset and i sure as heck will not invest the $600+ to find out...


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KenjiS*
> 
> *edit* I should mention *I have little interest in VR right now*, I tried a Samsung Gear VR headset and it took all of 5 minutes wearing it before i got massively sick and fell over... Im not sure I can ever use a VR headset and i sure as heck will not invest the $600+ to find out...


Yeh, call me when we've got the holodecks up and running and I'll be very keen on VR.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> 25-30% over 980Ti is not a sidegrade
> 
> and thats without the added perks of Pascal


Like what, _real_ async compute?









But anyways whether it's a sidegrade or not is subjective. For example 40 to 52 FPS really isn't that much of an improvement in the games I play, so *for me*, an upgrade has to be 50% or more to be worth it.


----------



## KenjiS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Yeh, call me when we've got the holodecks up and running and I'll be very keen on VR.


Irony here is im the type of guy who LITERALLY likes to sit a good 3 feet from a 65" TV, Im the kind of guy who if asked my viewing distance will have a guy go "Oh well heres the 40" TV section" but immediately buy a 60" (I currently regret not ponying up the extra $400 for the 64" F8500)I LOVE immersion and one of the few that probubly can make the legit claim that 4k resolution probubly has a benefit for me due to my viewing distance

So you'd think VR would be the bees knees for me!

I think its because my parents handed me down a 65" CRT 1080i RPTV when they got their first LCD, i cleaned up the lenses, aligned the guns as best i could and had one heck of a nice new TV







it stuck out a good 3 feet from the wall, LITERALLY, so i sat rather on top of it.. Of course it was actually dying (it also had a few nasty burn in spots, the guns wouldnt stay aligned, and started not wanting to power on) but it lasted me enough to save up for a nice Plasma.. Regardless, i have fond memories of that TV!


----------



## Swolern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KenjiS*
> 
> I should mention I have little interest in VR right now, I tried a Samsung Gear VR headset and it took all of 5 minutes wearing it before i got massively sick and fell over... Im not sure I can ever use a VR headset and i sure as heck will not invest the $600+ to find out...


You can't compare a cell phone VR experience to a high-end PC VR experience. It is true, if everything is not perfect in the VR experience for your mind and body to believe, then yes it will make
You sick. The new Oculus Rift have somewhat resolved this and the Vive nearly perfected the experience( as far as the nausea aspect). You really won't understand how compelling the experience is until you try it though. They are setting up Vive demos @ Gamestops & Rift demos @ Best Buys. I encourage people to check them out if there is one near you. It's awesome to experience how far the technology has come.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KenjiS*
> 
> *Irony here is im the type of guy who LITERALLY likes to sit a good 3 feet from a 65" TV*, Im the kind of guy who if asked my viewing distance will have a guy go "Oh well heres the 40" TV section" but immediately buy a 60" (I currently regret not ponying up the extra $400 for the 64" F8500)I LOVE immersion and one of the few that probubly can make the legit claim that 4k resolution probubly has a benefit for me due to my viewing distance
> 
> So you'd think VR would be the bees knees for me!
> 
> I think its because my parents handed me down a 65" CRT 1080i RPTV when they got their first LCD, i cleaned up the lenses, aligned the guns as best i could and had one heck of a nice new TV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it stuck out a good 3 feet from the wall, LITERALLY, so i sat rather on top of it.. Of course it was actually dying (it also had a few nasty burn in spots, the guns wouldnt stay aligned, and started not wanting to power on) but it lasted me enough to save up for a nice Plasma.. Regardless, i have fond memories of that TV!


Yes! I wouldn't have it any other way. It feels like I'm actually staring through the eyes of my character instead of staring at a monitor that's showing the perspective of the character on screen.


----------



## KenjiS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swolern*
> 
> You can't compare a cell phone VR experience to a high-end PC VR experience. It is true, if everything is not perfect in the VR experience for your mind and body to believe, then yes it will make
> You sick. The new Oculus Rift have somewhat resolved this and the Vive nearly perfected the experience( as far as the nausea aspect). You really won't understand how compelling the experience is until you try it though. They are setting up Vive demos @ Gamestops & Rift demos @ Best Buys. I encourage people to check them out if there is one near you. It's awesome to experience how far the technology has come.


I'll agree to give it a shot in a store.. its just most things like 3D and that screw with my system...


----------



## mouacyk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KenjiS*
> 
> *edit* I should mention I have little interest in VR right now, I tried a Samsung Gear VR headset and it took all of 5 minutes wearing it before i got massively sick and fell over... Im not sure I can ever use a VR headset and i sure as heck will not invest the $600+ to find out...


That's not good. You probably jumped too quickly into BF4 or Doom -- body probably wasn't taking the new reality very well. Shoulda taken it slow with Myst or Riven first.


----------



## KenjiS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mouacyk*
> 
> That's not good. You probably jumped too quickly into BF4 or Doom -- body probably wasn't taking the new reality very well. Shoulda taken it slow with Myst or Riven first.


LOL no it was the uhm.. entry thing, it was like a living room, i put it on thought "ok so far so good": then iirc it tells you to trn your head and i went completely over

I am however the first to admit im highly sensitive, i remember the first time i tried a 3DS i got very sick, 3D Movies are near impossible for me to watch on every set I've tried


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

The EK GTX 1080 blocks are on pre-order on NCIX, but the GTX 1080 itself is nowhere to be found.

What a time to be alive.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> The EK GTX 1080 blocks are on pre-order on NCIX, but the GTX 1080 itself is nowhere to be found.
> 
> What a time to be alive.


Wonder if any of the $600 1080s will have reference PCBs. Hopefully we get some good OC numbers tomorrow. I'm really not liking a single 8 pin connector. And on the topic of watercooling, that's another reason to move towards HBM. Could use universal blocks and wouldn't need heatsinks on the VRAM as it's right next to the die. Only issue is cooling of VRMs at that point. Imagine only needing to buy a single GPU block, like only buying a single CPU block (Heatkiller, Supremacy Evo, Raystorm, etc.).


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KenjiS*
> 
> LOL no it was the uhm.. entry thing, it was like a living room, i put it on thought "ok so far so good": then iirc it tells you to trn your head and i went completely over
> 
> I am however the first to admit im highly sensitive, i remember the first time i tried a 3DS i got very sick, 3D Movies are near impossible for me to watch on every set I've tried


I know from my Vive that the tracking is amazingly perfect, it is actually sort of odd how good the tracking is. 3D is different too, there is absolutely zero crosstalk, I never liked 3D displays even in theaters. This isn't like any of the weaker VR experiences, you need the perfect 3D tracking (not just rotational) to have it work. Judge VR after you try, at worst, a Vive or Rift CV1.

Now we just need much better lenses and screens and VR will be ready for prime time.


----------



## DETERMINOLOGY

Getting to a point to where this thread is over cooked and nothing to see here...Lets see what benchmarks leak etc then we can talk...


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Wonder if any of the $600 1080s will have reference PCBs. Hopefully we get some good OC numbers tomorrow. I'm really not liking a single 8 pin connector.


whats wrong with a single 8-pin connector?


----------



## doza

cards will draw less power than maxwell (28vs16nm), 8 pin is all it needs....

this is not like strix970(one 8 pin) which at 1500hmz is peaking and throttling couse it needs more power....

Pascal wont have that kind of problems for sure.


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doza*
> 
> cards will draw less power than maxwell (28vs16nm), 8 pin is all it needs....
> 
> this is not like strix970(one 8 pin) which at 1500hmz is peaking and throttling couse it needs more power....
> 
> Pascal wont have that kind of problems for sure.


This would make sense, but just like you said a big part of electronics in todays market are being developed to be just as powerful or more powerful while using less energy.


----------



## ikjadoon

Hmm? I think nearly every custom overclocking-oriented 1080 will ship with a second power input. I don't see how an moderately overclocked 1080 is staying under 225W, what the rated power is. Sure, some guy will claim he can push 300W from a single 8-pin + bus power, but that's not typical. 8-pin + 6-pin + bus power give you a very nice 300W rating with additional headroom as you push past the rating.


----------



## ZimFreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KenjiS*
> 
> I'm not sure I can ever use a VR headset and i sure as heck will not invest the $600+ to find out...


It'd be a shame to never find out but luckily it won't cost you anything. You should look for a Best Buy near you that's holding free demos. I'm actually planning on driving almost 4 hours to get to a the nearest one to me.

https://live.oculus.com/bestbuy/search


----------



## MikeDuffy

@Kana-Maru

Those AotS numbers that you have for Pascal paint a poor picture of Nvidia's performance in DX12 - do you have a link to these specific tests?

If Pascal fails to decisively take the performance from the Fury in DX12, then it's huge embarrassment for Nvidia. All that R&D wasted for a tie with an AMD Fury is not progress and I hope Journalists test their DX12 claims thoroughly.


----------



## fewness

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MikeDuffy*
> 
> @Kana-Maru
> 
> Those AotS numbers that you have for Pascal paint a poor picture of Nvidia's performance in DX12 - do you have a link to these specific tests?
> 
> If Pascal fails to decisively take the performance from the Fury in DX12, then it's huge embarrassment for Nvidia. All that R&D wasted for a tie with an AMD Fury is not progress and I hope Journalists test their DX12 claims thoroughly.


Where are the numbers, if you could point out please?


----------



## Brimlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MikeDuffy*
> 
> @Kana-Maru
> 
> Those AotS numbers that you have for Pascal paint a poor picture of Nvidia's performance in DX12 - do you have a link to these specific tests?
> 
> If Pascal fails to decisively take the performance from the Fury in DX12, then it's huge embarrassment for Nvidia. All that R&D wasted for a tie with an AMD Fury is not progress and I hope Journalists test their DX12 claims thoroughly.


We could see better performance with later drivers though.


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MikeDuffy*
> 
> @Kana-Maru
> 
> Those AotS numbers that you have for Pascal paint a poor picture of Nvidia's performance in DX12 - do you have a link to these specific tests?
> 
> If Pascal fails to decisively take the performance from the Fury in DX12, then it's huge embarrassment for Nvidia. All that R&D wasted for a tie with an AMD Fury is not progress and I hope Journalists test their DX12 claims thoroughly.


I've been talking about this for weeks and some people have listened to me. I doubt any paid\sponsored journalist will speak about it, but I will write something up about this on my blog and other issues surrounding this GTX 1080. I just have a lot going on right now.

Those results came from a user running a Fury while comparing the it to the GTX 1080. I dug into the results and found that it was only a 2.8% increase after addressing the CPU difference since it was a Quad being used on the Fury and a Hexa core being used on the GTX 1080. Other Nvidia fanboys were releasing leaks, obviously from Nvidia PR team if you go by the upload names and the performance increases were hilarious for DX12. I came to conclusion that Nvidia is hiding their problems by using brute force, crazy high core clocks to hide their DX12\Vulkan flaws.

Here are the results that showed the 2.8% once you work out the CPU difference:

Fury [non X] @ 1150Mhz-*Ultra* vs GTX 1080 1733Mhz-*High*
http://cdn.overclock.net/8/86/866c1f31_Capture.PNG


----------



## Malinkadink

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> Fury [non X] @ 1150Mhz-*Ultra* vs GTX 1080 1733Mhz-*High*
> http://cdn.overclock.net/8/86/866c1f31_Capture.PNG


Oh man if thats legit then Nvidia is gonna be working overtime on gameworks for future titles









AMD is definitely doing it right by trying to push async compute, they unlike Nvidia seem to realize that brute force is not going to be able to carry performance too much further as its becoming increasingly difficult to squeeze more and more out of silicon. AMD seems to be going for the Apple approach where less is more in terms of available hardware by using that hardware as efficiently as possible. If my data structures course has taught me anything when it comes to writing code, efficiency is paramount, even more so when you're working with weaker hardware.

I dont think Nvidia is totally out of the race with Pascal as im sure a 2k+ clocked 1080 will be able to keep up just fine in DX12 titles whilst lacking the same level of async compute of GCN.


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Malinkadink*
> 
> Oh man if thats legit then Nvidia is gonna be working overtime on gameworks for future titles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD is definitely doing it right by trying to push async compute, they unlike Nvidia seem to realize that brute force is not going to be able to carry performance too much further as its becoming increasingly difficult to squeeze more and more out of silicon. AMD seems to be going for the Apple approach where less is more in terms of available hardware by using that hardware as efficiently as possible. If my data structures course has taught me anything when it comes to writing code, efficiency is paramount, even more so when you're working with weaker hardware.
> 
> I dont think Nvidia is totally out of the race with Pascal as im sure a 2k+ clocked 1080 will be able to keep up just fine in DX12 titles whilst lacking the same level of async compute of GCN.


Oh it's legit. Nvidia fanboys have been posting leaks as they are uploaded across the net, which really does make you think if some of the people here are on the payroll. Their timing is always on point with the upload. Even at DX11 the increases aren't enough to make me go out and spend more money and give up my current GPU, but DX12 definitely shows that there's more to DX12\Vulkan than crazy high overclocks. As I said I'm planning on writing an article on some of the things revolving around the GTX 1080\1070, but I'd like to wait for benchmarks are release to further prove a few points I'm had in the back of my head.

If you want more results just go compare GTX 1080 vs AMDs Fury\Fury Nano\Fury X results. It's going to be hard, but the averages are normally with a few percentages of one another. I currently don't have AotS or Doom so I can't personally compare them at the moment. I'm planning on getting Doom in a few days though [pretty much for single player].


----------



## Malinkadink

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> Oh it's legit. Nvidia fanboys have been posting leaks as they are uploaded across the net, which really does make you think if some of the people here are on the payroll. Their timing is always on point with the upload. Even at DX11 the increases aren't enough to make me go out and spend more money and give up my current GPU, but DX12 definitely shows that there's more to DX12\Vulkan than crazy high overclocks. As I said I'm planning on writing an article on some of the things revolving around the GTX 1080\1070, but I'd like to wait for benchmarks are release to further prove a few points I'm had in the back of my head.
> 
> If you want more results just go compare GTX 1080 vs AMDs Fury\Fury Nano\Fury X results. It's going to be hard, but the averages are normally with a few percentages of one another. I currently don't have AotS or Doom so I can't personally compare them at the moment. I'm planning on getting Doom in a few days though [pretty much for single player].


Doom looks fun i watched a stream of it last night, but i think i'll hold off on it till it gets cheaper, looking forward to overwatch in another week so i'll be playing that more. I have an MG278Q coming in tomorrow so i'm definitely looking at AMD since i want to use freesync, but i'll go with whomever gives me a GPU with better value under $400. If Polaris 10 can get near 980 Ti levels and they sell it for $299.99 i'll eat that up as its probably around an 80% jump in performance over my 970. Would benefit from 8gb of Vram at 1440p as well. This week will be interesting for sure with more concrete benchmarks for Pascal and info for Polaris coming.


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Malinkadink*
> 
> Oh man if thats legit then Nvidia is gonna be working overtime on gameworks for future titles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD is definitely doing it right by trying to push async compute, they unlike Nvidia seem to realize that brute force is not going to be able to carry performance too much further as its becoming increasingly difficult to squeeze more and more out of silicon. AMD seems to be going for the Apple approach where less is more in terms of available hardware by using that hardware as efficiently as possible. If my data structures course has taught me anything when it comes to writing code, efficiency is paramount, even more so when you're working with weaker hardware.
> 
> I dont think Nvidia is totally out of the race with Pascal as im sure a 2k+ clocked 1080 will be able to keep up just fine in DX12 titles whilst lacking the same level of async compute of GCN.


Why do you think Async is so significant? A 10% boost isn't going to get us past any silicone performance walls. So far it hasn't been that significant and if overused it hurts performance for everyone. Async is good when the developers don't know how to optimize something; just put it in as an async call and let the GPU hardware (or drivers







) figure out how to schedule it.

I also do not understand your idea of brute force v.s. efficient. Does AMD's use of hardware scheduled Async compute offer more performance per transistor than Nvidia's use of their transistor budget? Is higher clocked but fewer transistors more or less brute force? For GCN v.s. Maxwell it seems the other way around with GCN as the brute force architecture (great FLOPS) and Maxwell as the efficient one with only the hardware needed to play DX11 games really well (great FPS). Right now Nvidia has their driver team to do the optimizations AMD hopes will be done in the future by their hardware's support for Async compute.

Anyway, those two AotS benchmarks are using very different settings and very different CPUs, so with very little difference between them I don't think they tell us anything.


----------



## magnek

Where are the people who kept saying stuff like

_it's just one terrible game that nobody cares about_

and

_even with async the visuals look like ***_

?

Also so much of this:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *^THAT^* was the song of love sang by all the nvidia . ."enthusiasts" since last year.
> 
> now after one wiff of pascel doing "some sort" of a-sync, it suddenly becomes relevant so everyone should buy! buy! buy!


As someone/multiple people correct predicted, it doesn't matter until nVidia can do it better, then you won't hear the end of it.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asmodian*
> 
> Why do you think Async is so significant? A 10% boost isn't going to get us past any silicone performance walls. So far it hasn't been that significant and if overused it hurts performance for everyone. Async is good when the developers don't know how to optimize something; just put it in as an async call and let the GPU hardware (or drivers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) figure out how to schedule it.
> 
> I also do not understand your idea of brute force v.s. efficient. Does AMD's use of hardware scheduled Async compute offer more performance per transistor than Nvidia's use of their transistor budget? Is higher clocked but fewer transistors more or less brute force? For GCN v.s. Maxwell it seems the other way around with GCN as the brute force architecture (great FLOPS) and Maxwell as the efficient one with only the hardware needed to play DX11 games really well (great FPS). Right now Nvidia has their driver team to do the optimizations AMD hopes will be done in the future by their hardware's support for Async compute.
> 
> Anyway, those two AotS benchmarks are using very different settings and very different CPUs, so with very little difference between them I don't think they tell us anything.


I find it amusing why 10% disadvantage and everyone loses their mind. Not as if amd is superior currently becz it has async.

If the perf is good and is leading, i will still buy the card, as long as its the fastest. Period.

Although price can be smth to consider, it has nth to do with async


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asmodian*
> 
> Anyway, those two AotS benchmarks are using very different settings and very different CPUs, so with very little difference between them I don't think they tell us anything.


What? That benchmark tells us A LOT, as well as other DX12 benchmarks. The Fury was running Ultra against a highly clocked GTX 1080 running high. The Fury was at several disadvantages including a different game version and running higher graphical settings. You would expect the GTX 1080 to actually perform much better due to the fact that it was running a 6 core processor and lower graphical settings. It's very possible that the Fury could have beaten the GTX 1080 if the they were running the same system and the same settings. Or the results could've been even closer to less then 1%.

You are free to ignore the benchmarks, but the benchmarks don't lie. Nvidia want's the data out there and it is. All I'm doing is analyzing what I see.


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> What? That benchmark tells us A LOT, as well as other DX12 benchmarks. The Fury was running Ultra against a highly clocked GTX 1080 running high. The Fury was at several disadvantages including a different game version and running higher graphical settings. You would expect the GTX 1080 to actually perform much better due to the fact that it was running a 6 core processor and lower graphical settings. It's very possible that the Fury could have beaten the GTX 1080 if the they were running the same system and the same settings. Or the results could've been even closer to less then 1%.
> 
> You are free to ignore the benchmarks, but the benchmarks don't lie. Nvidia want's the data out there and it is. All I'm doing is analyzing what I see.


Two data points, with a faster 4-core v.s. a slower 6-core, and running different settings.









A highly clocked GTX 1080? What clock speed was it?

Benchmarks do not lie but too many variables have changed between these two to make any new conclusions. Also it is early, async is probably still disabled Oxide's Nvidia path.


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asmodian*
> 
> Two data points, with a faster 4-core v.s. a slower 6-core, and running different settings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A highly clocked GTX 1080? What clock speed was it?
> 
> Benchmarks do not lie but too many variables have changed between these two to make any new conclusions. Also it is early, async is probably still disabled Oxide's Nvidia path.










The 6 core was apparently faster & performed better than the Quad core in the test. Try harder.
















What do you think the actual\boost clock for the GTX 1080 is? Oh I'm sure you think it was running at the "core" clock and not it's actual clock at 1733Mhz right? 1.7Ghz over 1.15Ghz isn't highly clocked to you is it? It's a 50.69% difference for crying out loud.
















I stated that their were some difference between the results, but you didn't even mention the fact that the GTX 1080 was running High vs the Fury Ultra settings or the fact that the GTX 1080 was running on a newer version of the game than the Fury.






























< See how easy that is.

LIke I said you are free to ignore the facts, but DX12 isn't looking to hot right now based on the latest Nvidia leaks.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I find it amusing why 10% disadvantage and everyone loses their mind. Not as if amd is superior currently becz it has async.


I know. 10% gain for async and its the greatest advance in GPU history, meanwhile 1080 is 30% faster than 980 Ti and it's "meh, not worth the upgrade".
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the actual\boost clock for the GTX 1080 is? Oh I'm sure you think it was running at the "core" clock and not it's actual clock at 1733Mhz right? 1.7Ghz over 1.15Ghz isn't highly clocked to you is it? It's a 50.69% difference for crying out loud.


You aren't seriously saying it is "highly clocked" just because it is running faster clock speed than a Fury X, are you? Because, you know, that whole different architectures thing.


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> You aren't seriously saying it is "highly clocked" just because it is running faster clock speed than a Fury X, are you? Because, you know, that whole different architectures thing.


No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I would expect more performance out of the GTX 1080 based on its stock core clock. If I'm seeing around a 50% difference in clock speed I expect a large increase in performance.

However, that goes back to "that whole difference architecture thing". One architecture might not require a high core clock, but another architecture might require a high core clocks to reach the same performance as the architecture that doesn't require a high core clock.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I would expect more performance out of the GTX 1080 based on its stock core clock. If I'm seeing around a 50% difference in clock speed I expect a large increase in performance.
> 
> However, that goes back to "that whole difference architecture thing". One architecture might not require a high core clock, but another architecture might require a high core clocks to reach the same performance as the architecture that doesn't require a high core clock.


So you are just ignoring the 60% more shaders on the Fury X and focusing solely on the clock speed difference.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> So you are just ignoring the 60% more shaders on the Fury X and focusing solely on the clock speed difference.


~8.6t vs 9t, it's supposed to be way faster than furyx. because it's more efficient. just like how 980 ti performs better even though t has less teraflops.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> So you are just ignoring the 60% more shaders on the Fury X and focusing solely on the clock speed difference.


It's pointless comparing shader counts and clocks between two vastly different architectures. Just wait for benchmarks. Same principle as not comparing core counts on a cell phone SOC to a desktop part, or not comparing the clock speed of a CPU to a GPU. GPU workloads are highly parallel, so it's an entirely valid design decision to use a lot of small cores as it is to use fewer bigger cores with higher individual performance.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Its obvious to me (at least if the leaks have been accurate so far) that the 1080 is 100% dependent on its insane clocks to get its performance. If this card had only reached Maxwell-like speeds it would've been the biggest fail in GPU history. Just points to weak IPC aided by stratospheric clock speeds (and also makes me still wonder just how much headroom Nvidia have left for overclockers to play with). If that 2100MHz demo was nearly topped out the 1080 will look very unimpressive vs highly overclocked Maxwell cards IMO, especially considering it is benefiting from the first node shrink in 4+ years and GDDR5X...


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> ~8.6t vs 9t, it's supposed to be way faster than furyx. because it's more efficient. just like how 980 ti performs better even though t has less teraflops.


Maybe at least wait for apples to apples comparisons before declaring that it underperforms. Besides, isn't DX12 supposed to allow AMD to improve their efficiency? Isn't that why the 390X gets so much better?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> Seems like marketing just pull
> It's pointless comparing shader counts and clocks between two vastly different architectures. Just wait for benchmarks. Same principle as not comparing core counts on a cell phone SOC to a desktop part. GPU workloads are highly parallel, so it's an entirely valid design decision to use a lot of small cores as it is to use fewer bigger cores with higher individual performance.


Exactly my point. Saying it underperforms just because it has high clock speeds while ignoring the other architecture differences if kind of pointless.


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> So you are just ignoring the 60% more shaders on the Fury X and focusing solely on the clock speed difference.


What are you talking about? Who said anything about a Fury X? You must mean "40%" more shaders than the FURY and yes I'm waiting on benchmarks.

More specifically DX12 benchmarks.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kana-Maru*
> 
> What are you talking about? Who said anything about a Fury X? You must mean "40%" more shaders than the FURY and yes I'm waiting on benchmarks.
> 
> More specifically DX12 benchmarks.


Sorry, assumed you were talking about Fury X.

I guess we'll find out tomorrow one way or another.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Its obvious to me (at least if the leaks have been accurate so far) that the 1080 is 100% dependent on its insane clocks to get its performance. If this card had only reached Maxwell-like speeds it would've been the biggest fail in GPU history. Just points to weak IPC aided by stratospheric clock speeds (and also makes me still wonder just how much headroom Nvidia have left for overclockers to play with). If that 2100MHz demo was nearly topped out the 1080 will look very unimpressive vs highly overclocked Maxwell cards IMO, especially considering it is benefiting from the first node shrink in 4+ years and GDDR5X...


Well I don't think that 2.1GHz is topped out. But yes I do agree it does seem most of the performance is simply derived from raw clockspeed.


----------



## Kana-Maru

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Sorry, assumed you were talking about Fury X.
> 
> I guess we'll find out tomorrow one way or another.


The only thing I've talked about was the GTX 1080 vs that Fury. I understand that Nvidia stans will write it off, but the numbers don't lie. I expect nothing less of a big show from Nvidia running 1.7Ghz stock core clocks. I can see DX11, but I hope they include some DX12 games as well. We already have access to a lot of the AotS GTX 1080 results in DX12 thanks to Nvidia.


----------



## MikeDuffy

@asmodian
Asynchronous Shaders are universally seen to be a net positive by those within the industry. Have you ever heard of a single reputable developer that said it was detrimental? The answer is no!

Now about Direct x12 - I sure hope Pascal wipes the floor in DX12 cause it's going to be a tremendous failure if Nvidia still can't get multi-engine working after all this time.

If the Fury is close to the 1080, then how bad do you think it's going to get against Vega?


----------



## Scotty99

AMD fanboys are legit delusional lol. Common sense denotes even if asynch compute took off nvidia would likely come up with a software implmentation that is at least as good. Beyond that even, its likely developers wouldn't even put nvidia in that position because they know they have the vast marketshare among PC users.

AMD is dead in the water on the PC front, there is no getting around this.


----------



## Vowels

By the time DX12 and asynchronous shaders are prevalent in games, Nvidia will likely have Volta ready for release with a hardware scheduler and full support for proper asynchronous compute. All of this red vs. green will just be a faint memory when the two sides reach parity.

If Volta releases without any of that though, what the hell are you doing, Nvidia?!


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> AMD fanboys are legit delusional lol. Common sense denotes even if asynch compute took off nvidia would likely come up with a software implmentation that is at least as good. *Beyond that even, its likely developers wouldn't even put nvidia in that position because they know they have the vast marketshare among PC users.*
> 
> AMD is dead in the water on the PC front, there is no getting around this.


Once again, software async = oxymoron.

Re bold part: But developers have no qualms about putting AMD in "that" position because they have a minority marketshare right?


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Once again, software async = oxymoron.
> 
> Re bold part: But developers have no qualms about putting AMD in "that" position because they have a minority marketshare right?


Man all i gotta say is if you actually think about it, nvidia is not going to be at any sizable disadvantage at any point in dx12 lifetime and the people who buy AMD GPU's on the notion they will be are simply delusional.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Man all i gotta say is if you actually think about it, nvidia is not going to be at any sizable disadvantage at any point in dx12 lifetime and the *people who buy AMD GPU's on the notion they will be are simply delusional.*


Like the people who bought not-980 Ti NV cards because Nvidia has a sick performance lead?


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Man all i gotta say is if you actually think about it, nvidia is not going to be at any sizable disadvantage at any point in dx12 lifetime and the people who buy AMD GPU's on the notion they will be are simply delusional.


I'm not clairvoyant so I can't predict the future, but more power to you I guess.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I'm not clairvoyant so I can't predict the future, but more power to you I guess.


I am not predicting the future here man, i am using my brain lol. If its true AMD has a sizable advantage in dx12 titles what developer would even have the balls to code a AAA game to the point it would put nvidia at such a disadvantage?


----------



## MikeDuffy

Nvidia DX12 performance has been severely lacking - Pascal will help this without a doubt. Look to the posts by Mahigan, Sebbi, and Zlatan.

Not sure what this means for the mighty Maxwell, but I guess they are screwed if history is any indication.

Anyways, I'm more concerned about the 1070 - I mean, leaks have it as being 30% cut from a 1080. It looks as though it will be a horrible successor to the 970 at $400 and after two node shrinks.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I am not predicting the future here man, i am using my brain lol. If its true AMD has a sizable advantage in dx12 titles what developer would even have the balls to code a AAA game to the point it would put nvidia at such a disadvantage?


they will have too since porting to dx12/vulkan will be way way way more easy than before from consoles...eventually paying the devs to code for dx11 while the game is dx12 will prove inneffective afterall we are talking about one company (nvidia) against 7 that is pushing dx12/vulkan/metal on all the platforms


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MikeDuffy*
> 
> Nvidia DX12 performance has been severely lacking - Pascal will help this without a doubt. Look to the posts by Mahigan, Sebbi, and Zlatan.
> 
> Not sure what this means for the mighty Maxwell, but I guess they are screwed if history is any indication.
> 
> Anyways, I'm more concerned about the 1070 - I mean, leaks have it as being 30% cut from a 1080. It looks as though it will be a horrible successor to the 970 at $400 and after two node shrinks.


What? A 380 dollar titan x is a bad deal? Drugs much?


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I am not predicting the future here man, i am using my brain lol. If its true AMD has a sizable advantage in dx12 titles what developer would even have the balls to code a AAA game to the point it would put nvidia at such a disadvantage?


So nVidia is holding the industry back then is what you're saying?


----------



## carlhil2

If the 1080 smokes the Titan X by 30+%, then, who needs async? Lol, calm down, jk....


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> they will have too since porting to dx12/vulkan will be way way way more easy than before from consoles...eventually paying the devs to code for dx11 while the game is dx12 will prove inneffective afterall we are talking about one company (nvidia) against 7 that is pushing dx12/vulkan/metal on all the platforms


I agree with part of what you say, sure a lot of PC games are console ports but that does not mean nvidia is automatically at a disadvantage here. We are still wayyyyy early in dx12 life cycle is there even a single AAA dx12 EXCLUSIVE title on the market yet? None that i know of. Its gonna take years before dx12 is mainstream ill go ahead and base my GPU purchase on the games i actually play.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> If the 1080 smokes the Titan X by 30+%, then, who needs async? Lol, calm down, jk....


on which occasion?
1)gameworks titles?
2)neutral dx11 titles?
3)dx12 titles?
4)on solitaire?'honestrlyi expect 1080 to everything for 25 to 30 only on gamecrap titles on the other occasions i really doubt it


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> on which occasion?
> 1)gameworks titles?
> 2)neutral dx11 titles?
> 3)dx12 titles?
> 4)on solitaire?'honestrlyi expect 1080 to everything for 25 to 30 only on gamecrap titles on the other occasions i really doubt it


Nah, it's going to smoke GM200 and the Fury line...it WILL be closer at high rez against the TX though, but, not too close....


----------



## THEROTHERHAMKID

When can I order a 1080 in the UK? Where from nvadia?


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I agree with part of what you say, sure a lot of PC games are console ports but that does not mean nvidia is automatically at a disadvantage here. We are still wayyyyy early in dx12 life cycle is there even a single AAA dx12 EXCLUSIVE title on the market yet? None that i know of. Its gonna take years before dx12 is mainstream ill go ahead and base my GPU purchase on the games i actually play.


i think they are waiting for the next consoles...i bet that when the summer ends we will start to see a lot more quite a lot more


----------



## MikeDuffy

A 30% cut 1080 will not be enough to beat a 980ti - especially at 1440p.

Don't know why so many people believe the 1070 will beat a TitanX


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MikeDuffy*
> 
> A 30% cut 1080 will not be enough to beat a 980ti - especially at 1440p.
> 
> Don't know why so many people believe the 1070 will beat a TitanX


Eh because the nvidia press conference said exactly that? He literally said a 1070 is faster than a titan x. As the CEO of a company you cant just go around spouting lies people will pick up on that.


----------



## carlhil2

My theory is that, because of it's past issues with the truth, nVIDIA was conservative with their performance expectation charts, that's just me......


----------



## KenjiS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZimFreak*
> 
> It'd be a shame to never find out but luckily it won't cost you anything. You should look for a Best Buy near you that's holding free demos. I'm actually planning on driving almost 4 hours to get to a the nearest one to me.
> 
> https://live.oculus.com/bestbuy/search


Theres one that i believe is near the IKEA im planning to go to in PA...

Maybe one closer to us will have the experience however.. One of our stores is a Magnolia, the second one is getting Magnolia soon and has the complete Digital Imaging department with all the GOOD stuff

Not sure when ill get to that Ikea... I spent my night in the ER


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Eh because the nvidia press conference said exactly that? He literally said a 1070 is faster than a titan x. As the CEO of a company you cant just go around spouting lies people will pick up on that.


Calm down man, he wasn't talking about a 1500 MHz Titan X.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Calm down man, he wasn't talking about a 1500 MHz Titan X.


Come on now, obviously the comment was a stock titan x vs stock 1070. Id fare a wager a max oc'd titan x will be behind a max oc'd 1070. Even if i am wrong its gonna be close , which means its a win for the consumer.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Come on now, obviously the comment was a stock titan x vs stock 1070. Id fare a wager a max oc'd titan x will be behind a max oc'd 1070. Even if i am wrong its gonna be close , which means its a win for the consumer.


I would argue that it's no more of a win for the consumer then any previous X70 card from Nvidia has been in the past. In fact, when you consider the massive node shrink of pascal and the price hike it seems to me like a far less impressive X70 card than the 970 was.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I would argue that it's no more of a win for the consumer then any previous X70 card from Nvidia has been in the past. In fact, when you consider the massive node shrink of pascal and the price hike it seems to me like a far less impressive X70 card than the 970 was.


On the surface you might have a point, but the 1070 is going to have a MUCH longer usable lifetime than the 970 did.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> On the surface you might have a point, but the 1070 is going to have a MUCH longer usable lifetime than the 970 did.


I think AMD and Polaris 10 might have something to say about that. But I'm guessing you forgot all about them.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Eh because the nvidia press conference said exactly that? He literally said a 1070 is faster than a titan x. As the CEO of a company you cant just go around spouting lies people will pick up on that.


well if 1070 is faster on only one game from titan x he is rechnically right but the outrage will require tons of popcorn


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I think AMD and Polaris 10 might have something to say about that. But I'm guessing you forgot all about them.


Well now you are making no sense, all rumors point to polaris 10 competing with last gen while having greater power savings. My guess is that polaris 10 is a gtx 980 at 280 dollar price point.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Well now you are making no sense, all rumors point to polaris 10 competing with last gen while having greater power savings. My guess is that polaris 10 is a gtx 980 at 280 dollar price point.


well the problem is we wont know for sure who has a better utilisation of its node till p10 comes...if they actually delives on the x2 from 16nm and 2.5/2.2x from 28 well that means nvidia has failed on 16nm for some reason
if its lower for amd then amd has failed on its node quite a bit...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Well now you are making no sense, all rumors point to polaris 10 competing with last gen while having greater power savings. My guess is that polaris 10 is a gtx 980 at 280 dollar price point.


There's also a rumor that it will be a $300 980TI. The point is we don't have any idea how fast Polaris 10 is going to be so you can't just discount it out of hand. Especially if the performance comes close to a 1070 at a significantly lower price.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> well the problem is we wont know for sure who has a better utilisation of its node till p10 comes...if they actually delives on the x2 from 16nm and 2.5/2.2x from 28 well that means nvidia has failed on 16nm for some reason
> if its lower for amd then amd has failed on its node quite a bit...


Ok sure, but ive heard zero rumors about polaris 10 even competing with the 1070. Does no one else have a problem with this? Polaris 10 is going to have to come in very cheap at this point unless they pull a rabbit out of their hat.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> There's also a rumor that it will be a $300 980TI. The point is we don't have any idea how fast Polaris 10 is going to be so you can't just discount it out of hand. Especially if the performance comes close to a 1070 at a significantly lower price.


That isn't going to happen. The fastest polaris 10 GPU is going to be called a r9 480x and it will be gtx 980 performance or a little higher for~ 300 bucks. Nvidia is on another level right now, it honestly would not surprise me if AMD's next top end single GPU card barely competes with the 1080 10 months after it released....and by then nvidia will just release the 1080ti.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Ok sure, but ive heard zero rumors about polaris 10 even competing with the 1070. Does no one else have a problem with this? Polaris 10 is going to have to come in very cheap at this point unless they pull a rabbit out of their hat.


Really? You've never heard of this thread:

http://www.overclock.net/forum/newestpost/1598515


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Ok sure, but ive heard zero rumors about polaris 10 even competing with the 1070. Does no one else have a problem with this? Polaris 10 is going to have to come in very cheap at this point unless they pull a rabbit out of their hat.


from what we know (rumors) p10 is beating 1080 and p10 cant beat 980ti...its all over the place we only have few data and some "hide and seek" benches on aots that is about half of the power of a 390
and this is all we know to be honest


----------



## Scotty99

If polaris 10 is even close to 1080ti performance ill eat a dookie on twitch tv. Book it.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> If polaris 10 is even close to 1080ti performance ill eat a dookie on twitch tv. Book it.


pretty sure it will be near on neutral dx11 and dx12 games.. and on overtesselated games also too (implying that the new geometry cpu is actually working quite well and can cull sub pixels triangles fast enough)


----------



## carlhil2

If anything P10 will compete with the 1070, maybe. as far as the 1080, it's going to tough for AMD to have something to compete with it til Vega drops. reading the writing on the wall, the 1080 is going to be more powerful than even nVIDIA is claiming. all just rumors though.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> If polaris 10 is even close to 1080ti performance ill eat a dookie on twitch tv. Book it.


What's a 1080TI?


----------



## Scotty99

Its not even gonna compete with the 1070, how could it? Literally all rumors point to it being super impressive power consumption but the performance gains are simply not there for this generation. Seriously, if AMD even had a competitor for the 1070 why wouldnt they be tweeting about it and shouting from the rooftops, all ive seen from AMD is them talking about async compute and dx12 which literally has no value in todays current market of games.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Its not even gonna compete with the 1070, how could it? Literally all rumors point to it being super impressive power consumption but the performance gains are simply not there for this generation. Seriously, if AMD even had a competitor for the 1070 why wouldnt they be tweeting about it and shouting from the rooftops, all ive seen from AMD is them talking about async compute and dx12 which literally has no value in todays current market of games.


I was giving a best case scenario...I mean, you could never know, AMD may have something..


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

They are actually supposed to be having a press event about Polaris 10 on May 18, IIRC.


----------



## Scotty99

I understand this, but isnt the point of these conversations to see who the higher degree of intellect (common sense)? P.S, jeopardy trivia isnt intellect. Shazam!


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> If polaris 10 is even close to 1080ti performance ill eat a dookie on twitch tv. Book it.


Nobody has ever claimed that P10 would be equal to 1080Ti. You're literally the first one to say that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Its not even gonna compete with the 1070, how could it? Literally all rumors point to it being super impressive power consumption but the performance gains are simply not there for this generation. Seriously, if AMD even had a competitor for the 1070 why wouldnt they be tweeting about it and shouting from the rooftops, all ive seen from AMD is them talking about async compute and dx12 which literally has no value in todays current market of games.


1.Because we know no concrete information about 1070's performance.
2. Because when you're in AMD's position, you play your cards very close to your chest.


----------



## Scotty99

Yo magnek, scroll back a page a dude definitely said P10 was going to compete with 980ti. (and pretty sure he linked a thread where people were agreeing on this).


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Its not even gonna compete with the 1070, how could it? Literally all rumors point to it being super impressive power consumption but the performance gains are simply not there for this generation. Seriously, if AMD even had a competitor for the 1070 why wouldnt they be tweeting about it and shouting from the rooftops, all ive seen from AMD is them talking about async compute and dx12 which literally has no value in todays current market of games.


how do you know? thats the freaking problem WE DONT KNOW anything if p10 is running on 850-900 ghz like rumors says and it will be able to reach 980ti then its pretty clear of what is going on...

afterall the only measure point we have is how the snapdragons are perfoming from 20 to 16 to 14 nm its a steady increase of perf and at the same time an impressive decrease of power usage this is were most people are counting this is what glofo has provide them now if it doesnt work for amd then i dont know..


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> If polaris 10 is even close to *1080ti* performance ill eat a dookie on twitch tv. Book it.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Yo magnek, scroll back a page a dude definitely said P10 was going to compete with *980ti.* (and pretty sure he linked a thread where people were agreeing on this).


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> how do you know? thats the freaking problem WE DONT KNOW anything if p10 is running on 850-900 ghz like rumors says and it will be able to reach 980ti then its pretty clear of what is going on...
> 
> afterall the only measure point we have is how the snapdragons are perfoming from 20 to 16 to 14 nm its a steady increase of perf and at the same time an impressive decrease of power usage this is were most people are counting this is what glofo has provide them now if it doesnt work for amd then i dont know..


Again, its common sense. Take everything into consideration AMD has no dog in this race. I cant point to one certain thing, i just know they have nothing right now. Nvidia CEO stating they have never been so far ahead in this gen than any past gen has something to do with my conclusion.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*


lol come on man you know i meant 980ti, was a mistype.


----------



## magnek

Well I clearly wasn't the only one who got confused.


----------



## Scotty99

Surely you didnt think i meant 1080ti.

Either way we will know in a few days the real story. This is my prediction:

1080:
35% faster than a 980ti both OC'd to max values
1070:
5-10% faster than a titan x both OC'd to max values
R9 480x:
10% faster than gtx 980 for a good price.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Surely you didnt think i meant 1080ti.
> 
> Either way we will know in a few days the real story. This is my prediction:
> 
> 1080:
> 35% faster than a 980ti both OC'd to max values
> 1070:
> 5-10% faster than a titan x both OC'd to max values
> R9 480x:
> 10% faster than gtx 980 for a good price.


You also have to remember, the 480x will have higher base clocks, and, hopefully, OC better.. if true, that alone changes things...I am just saying, it shouldn't be out of the possibility of being right there with the 1070....it's all about the price with the two...


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> You also have to remember, the 480x will have higher base clocks, and, hopefully, OC better.. if true, that alone changes things...


Well it doesnt change anything lol. Even a great overclocking 480x wont be anywhere near a 1070, what this all boils down to is what these cards prices turn out to be.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Well it doesnt change anything lol. Even a great overclocking 480x wont be anywhere near a 1070, what this all boils down to is what these cards prices turn out to be.


Yeah, I edited in about the pricing...


----------



## Scotty99

No matter how nvidia fanyboyish i come off as, i am more excited to see polaris 10 price/performance numbers. I play mmo's/rpgs/shooters and a 1070 or 1080 does not make sense to me. For me its either a used 970 or a new polaris card.

That said, AMD is so ridiculously behind nvidia at the high end you should be embarrased to even mention them at this point.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> I play mmo's/rpgs/shooters and a 1070 or 1080 does not make sense to me. For me its either a used 970 or a new polaris card.


Good performance in games does not make sense to you or what did you mean?


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Again, its common sense. Take everything into consideration AMD has no dog in this race. I cant point to one certain thing, i just know they have nothing right now. Nvidia CEO stating they have never been so far ahead in this gen than any past gen has something to do with my conclusion.


again
we dont know anything about polaris literally NOTHING there is no common sense no point to measure a card that isnt out yet me you and everyone else is just speculating and nothing more you cant measure a card that is out to a card that it will be out


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> Good performance in games does not make sense to you or what did you mean?


What i mean is they are overkill. I still play on a 1080p 60 hz monitor its simply too much horsepower.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> again
> we dont know anything about polaris literally NOTHING there is no common sense no point to measure a card that isnt out yet me you and everyone else is just speculating and nothing more you cant measure a card that is out to a card that it will be out


Nah if you have been paying attention common sense definitely plays a part in this.

1. AMD literally has said nothing on twitter about hardware.
2. All the rumors have pointed to polaris 10 being an energy efficient 390x+
3. Nvidia CEO said this is the farthest ahead of AMD they have been in their history.

Add that all up and it says something.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> What i mean is they are overkill. I still play on a 1080p 60 hz monitor its simply too much horsepower.


idk, I think 1070 (aka a Titan X/980Ti) is ok for a fully maxed out Witcher 3 1080p with AA

it might be overkill depending on how much AA you put

but a 970 will not give you a solid 60 fps there (even on 1080p) if you truly maxing out


----------



## Scotty99

If you buy a 1070 or 1080 and are running a 1080 60 hz monitor you need to rethink your life.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Nah if you have been paying attention common sense definitely plays a part in this.
> 
> 1. AMD literally has said nothing on twitter about hardware.
> 2. All the rumors have pointed to polaris 10 being an energy efficient 390x+
> 3. Nvidia CEO said this is the farthest ahead of AMD they have been in their history.
> 
> Add that all up and it says something.


so wait you are basing your train of thought on
1)literally nothing
2) literally nothing (since the rumors are all over the place)
3)a statement from someone that runs a company that never lied (







)

seems logical


----------



## ChevChelios

yes well maybe you first buy the card and then buy the monitor when you can

or you buy a 1070 so that it will run 1080p games fully maxed out even 2-3 years from now without bothering to upgrade to a mid/low-range Vega/Navi/Volta


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> so wait you are basing your train of thought on
> 1)literally nothing
> 2) literally nothing (since the rumors are all over the place)
> 3)a statement from someone that runs a company that never lied (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> seems logical


Its not nothing, its what we have seen so far. Ill be the first guy to cheer for AMD if they pull a rabbit out of their hat, but its looking grim for them at this point in time.


----------



## Newbie2009

When does the NDA lift? Is it today?


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Its not nothing, its what we have seen so far. Ill be the first guy to cheer for AMD if they pull a rabbit out of their hat, but its looking grim for them at this point in time.


so again your whole train of thought is comparing nothing to a card that is out
and then you call us out for being unrealistic like you have some info we dont

isnt that ironic


----------



## ChevChelios

NDA lifts in .. less then 5 hours ?


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> so again your whole train of thought is comparing nothing to a card that is out
> and then you call us out for being unrealistic like you have some info we dont
> 
> isnt that ironic


Not at all man i want AMD to do well but all signs point to nvidia domination at the high end for a LONNGGG time.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Not at all man i want AMD to do well but all signs point to nvidia domination at the high end for a LONNGGG time.


let amd launch their card so we can have a better look at things and then we can debate as much as you want

but going on now without proper info is really moot we are just speculating from things we saw on mobile soc's(well the only time glofo actually delivered for once instead of being an incopetent saudi arabia lapdog..)


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> What i mean is they are overkill. I still play on a 1080p 60 hz monitor its simply too much horsepower.


no true. i've been hearing same story for years, but now in year 2016 and with 980Ti i find myself lowering graphical settings to play latest games at 1080p 60fps. maybe for you fps drops below 60 is acceptable, for me it isn't. it's all relative i guess what you can tolerate.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> no true. i've been hearing same story for years, but now in year 2016 and with 980Ti i find myself lowering graphical settings to play latest games at 1080p 60hz.


Bull****, what game. And that isnt even the point to be honest. If you are spending 400+ on a GPU at least have the decency to own either a 1440 screen or a 144hz panel to justify the purchase. Monitors last 10 years, get your priorities in order.


----------



## haefen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> no true. i've been hearing same story for years, but now in year 2016 and with 980Ti i find myself lowering graphical settings to play latest games at 1080p 60fps. maybe for you fps drops below 60 is acceptable, for me it isn't. it's all relative i guess what you can tolerate.


I feel you man.
I habe 1080p 144hz monitor and I fell in love with.

I'm thinking GTX1080 when it comes out to be able to run games as close to 144hz as possible for a little while.


----------



## Scotty99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> don't tell me how to spend my money. 1440 res is meaningless to me. i game on a HDTV only, not bent over keyboard on a tiny IPS monitor with glowing corners and bad black levels. i have good wireless mouse and keyboard as well as controller when i need it.


Not only will i tell you how to spend your money but i will laugh at you if you buy a 1070 or 1080 and are still rocking a 60hz 1080p screen. I asked you what games you arent pegging 60 fps on a 1080p monitor with a 980ti and you didnt reply.


----------



## carlhil2

Firestrike:
16,794 Regular score
9,317 Extreme score
5,032 Ultra score

Heaven:
155.7 1080 Ultra
36.6 4k Ultra

Metro Last Light (vey high):
150.7 avg fps (1080)
30 fps avg (4k)

GTA V (max settings, msaa 8x etc)
76.73 (1080)
24.47 (4k)

83 degrees under load.

Don't know if legit... https://hardforum.com/threads/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-rumor-mill-just-blew-up.1893909/page-22 "If I was excited about the GTX 1080.....I'm now done the OC testing and...." https://twitter.com/hardwarecanucks/status/732424263555293184


----------



## spyshagg

doubtfull. My oced 290x can almost catch that firestrike score


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> Nah if you have been paying attention common sense definitely plays a part in this.
> 
> 1. AMD literally has said nothing on twitter about hardware.
> 2. All the rumors have pointed to polaris 10 being an energy efficient 390x+
> 3. Nvidia CEO said this is the farthest ahead of AMD they have been in their history.
> 
> Add that all up and it says something.


Give amd a major role in the market and be prepare to get monopolised by its competitor. Can prepare to give up pc hardware already as a hobby.

I hope amd will not be a major player in the next generation pc era. Would have prefer samsung or other tech giant.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *haefen*
> 
> I feel you man.
> I habe 1080p 144hz monitor and I fell in love with.
> 
> I'm thinking GTX1080 when it comes out to be able to run games as close to 144hz as possible for a little while.


tbh do you really need 144 Hz in *any* game ?

I feel like 144 Hz is for games like MOBAs, CS GO, Overwatch, CoD, etc. fast shooters, maybe Battlefields at 80-100 fps .. DOOM too since it runs so well on even weaker cards

all those graphics heavy single player titles like RotTR, Witcher 3, Quantum Break etc. - do they even need 100+ Hz ? IMO not really, 60+ with perfect sync is very good for them, not worth trying to get 120-144 in those games


----------



## Asmodian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MikeDuffy*
> 
> @asmodian
> Asynchronous Shaders are universally seen to be a net positive by those within the industry. Have you ever heard of a single reputable developer that said it was detrimental? The answer is no!
> 
> Now about Direct x12 - I sure hope Pascal wipes the floor in DX12 cause it's going to be a tremendous failure if Nvidia still can't get multi-engine working after all this time.
> 
> If the Fury is close to the 1080, then how bad do you think it's going to get against Vega?


Of course Asynchronous Shaders support is very good, and it is better when it is fully hardware too. However, it cannot add 30% performance.
Probably only a 10% boost at best. I really hope Pascal's support is good enough that at least most developers do bother implementing it well.

Vega should be very interesting, Volta too. We don't know too much about them yet. I am hopeful we will see another change in GPUs. We have had a long run of very similar GPUs, with unified shaders and GDDR, since 2007 for AMD (Radeon HD 2000 series) and 2008 for Nvidia (GeForce 8000 series). I hope Vega, Volta, or maybe Navi, offers a step change, tocks can be good.


----------



## jezzer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> tbh do you really need 144 Hz in *any* game ?
> 
> I feel like 144 Hz is for games like MOBAs, CS GO, Overwatch, CoD, etc. fast shooters, maybe Battlefields at 80-100 fps .. DOOM too since it runs so well on even weaker cards
> 
> all those graphics heavy single player titles like RotTR, Witcher 3, Quantum Break etc. - do they even need 100+ Hz ? IMO not really, 60+ with perfect sync is very good for them, not worth trying to get 120-144 in those games


Those games dont need it. Can u see and feel the difference? Yes.

Even dragging a window on your desktop is so much different.

When people are used to >60 fps they will notice

Do i need 144 fps in any game? No. Do i want as much fps i can get? Yes


----------



## Mudfrog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scotty99*
> 
> If you buy a 1070 or 1080 and are running a 1080 60 hz monitor you need to rethink your life.


Why? Some of us only upgrade every three to four years. I feel confident that in 3-4 years the 1070 / 1080 will struggle at 1080 / 60.


----------



## jbmayes2000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mudfrog*
> 
> Why? Some of us only upgrade every three to four years. I feel confident that in 3-4 years the 1070 / 1080 will struggle at 1080 / 60.


Not at 1080p. 1440p and higher maybe.


----------



## Mudfrog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jbmayes2000*
> 
> Not at 1080p. 1440p and higher maybe.


Well.. in that case here's to hoping this is the last GPU I will need for a very long time.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

where did guru3d found that uber alles jump on dx12?
http://www.computerbase.de/2016-05/geforce-gtx-1080-test/7/#diagramm-ashes-of-the-singularity-3840-2160


----------



## mcg75

http://www.overclock.net/t/1600401/various-gtx-1080-reviews

Locked.


----------

