# [Chiphell]Possible GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 price revealed



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> According to a Taiwanese insiders revealed (do not know the dealers or partners), GTX1070 public version will sell for NT $ 19990, GTX1080 will sell for NT $ 27990.


In comparison:
http://www.newegg.com.tw/item?itemid=533505GTX 980Ti sell for around NT $ 27000
http://www.newegg.com.tw/item?itemid=129836GTX 980 sell for around NT $ 20000

So if this is true, expect $500 for GTX 1070 and $650 for GTX 1080.
Did not expect this...

Source:
https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1570932-1-1.html


----------



## iARDAs

I am looking for something that has 6gb ram and exceeds my 970 and cost 400 bucks. One can hope.


----------



## EightDee8D

So these cards must be 40-50% faster than 980ti, otherwise fail.


----------



## iLeakStuff

That GTX 1080 better perform. Thats all I got to say :/

Gonna be one expensive season ahead. Yikes


----------



## Exeed Orbit

$650 for a GP104... I'll pass. I don't care how good it is, that means that the TI equivalent will cost well in the $800-$900 range. Absurd.


----------



## Shaitan

Has an x70 series card ever historically sold for that much?


----------



## kael13

I seem to recall there being a jump in price around the time 28nm came out. This wouldn't surprise me. However I hope the enthusiast market is smart enough to tell Nvidia to sod off.


----------



## sledge

Sweet baby jesus, $500 for a X70 card...


----------



## Creator

I'm a little bit shocked by $500 for the GTX 1070. The X70 is supposed to be the mainstream card affordable to the masses. At that price, I imagine the GTX 970 will remain a popular card for a long time. And NV won't even need to drop on the 970.


----------



## zealord

The worst thing is I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia priced a mid-range sized GPU, disguised as a high end card, at 650$.

Also 650$ leaves absolutely no room for doubt that this card would absolutely obliterate the 980 Ti.


----------



## maltamonk

Ive seen 980tis for $530 lately so their prices are down. Mediocre bump in performance at $650 seems realistic.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> Ive seen 980tis for $530 lately so their prices are down. Mediocre bump in performance at $650 seems realistic.


imho needs to be atleast 25% at 650$.

I expected 25% at 550$. So for me personally to be interesting at 650$ it would need to be 35% better than 980 Ti stock vs stock.

The good news is. There will also be new AMD cards


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> The worst thing is I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia priced a mid-range sized GPU, disguised as a high end card, at 650$.
> 
> Also 650$ leaves absolutely no room for doubt that this card would absolutely obliterate the 980 Ti.


This was expected it's the GTX680 scenario again. It's a midrange GPU sold for an obscene price and then in Q4 Ti and Titan equivalent will knock it out the water.


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Somehow, people magically expect prices on a brand new node, that has very low yields compared to the previous node, to be cheaper or even with previous generations? Yields are going to be tremendously low (5-8% at best at the start of a node shrink). Wafer prices are at darn near an all time high to begin with. And both companies have to somehow make back money on the R&D that went into creating an architecture for these node shrinks.





















































































?

I don't get OCN sometimes.


----------



## GoLDii3

Maybe the currency has something to do with it. The GTX 980 you've linked apparently sells for 600 dollars once you convert them.

USA's newegg has the same card for 500 dollars. Or a Gigabyte version for 430 dollars.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Somehow, people magically expect prices on a brand new node, that has very low yields compared to the previous node, to be cheaper or even with previous generations? Yields are going to be tremendously low (5-8% at best at the start of a node shrink). Wafer prices are at darn near an all time high to begin with. And both companies have to somehow make back money on the R&D that went into creating an architecture for these node shrinks.
> 
> I don't get OCN sometimes.


It's not just here. People don't care at all if it's harder or whatever. All they care about is performance and price.


----------



## bfedorov11

IMO the kicker will be, it will only out perform the 980ti on paper because it will be clocked higher and will have less oc head room.

Price has nothing to do with increase of performance. They price it at what people will pay for it. If it is ~980ti, why would they price it less?

Anyone remember the pricing when the shrunk 8800gts launched? Was it the same price as the old 8800gts?

Think I will be switching side this go around. It has been too long.. and liquidvr looks more promising.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Somehow, people magically expect prices on a brand new node, that has very low yields compared to the previous node, to be cheaper or even with previous generations? Yields are going to be tremendously low (5-8% at best at the start of a node shrink). Wafer prices are at darn near an all time high to begin with. And both companies have to somehow make back money on the R&D that went into creating an architecture for these node shrinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> I don't get OCN sometimes.


I am a costumer.
I am a consumer.
I don't care about Nvidia and AMD or Intel on a personal level. I don't care about their CEOs or employees. I don't care if they drive a Lamborghini or Prius.
I want a good GPU for a good price.
I don't care what lengths they have to go through. I don't care if they have a low profit on GPUs. I don't care if they have to perform "miracles" in order to make more powerful GPUs.

Get that in your head you people that are defending big companies.


----------



## corky dorkelson

And again, I don't think we will get 980ti performance at the $300 mark. I really don't see it happening. You guys said no sweat, I say BULLOCKS!


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Somehow, people magically expect prices on a brand new node, that has very low yields compared to the previous node, to be cheaper or even with previous generations? Yields are going to be tremendously low (5-8% at best at the start of a node shrink). Wafer prices are at darn near an all time high to begin with. And both companies have to somehow make back money on the R&D that went into creating an architecture for these node shrinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> I don't get OCN sometimes.


So by that logic even if 1080 performance is the exact same as 980Ti, it should cost the exact same as what a 980Ti launched at 10 months ago? I understand that costs will be up on this die shrink, but performance still needs to be significant enough to warrant the price. Otherwise what's the point of technological advances?


----------



## Steffek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Somehow, people magically expect prices on a brand new node, that has very low yields compared to the previous node, to be cheaper or even with previous generations? Yields are going to be tremendously low (5-8% at best at the start of a node shrink). Wafer prices are at darn near an all time high to begin with. And both companies have to somehow make back money on the R&D that went into creating an architecture for these node shrinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> I don't get OCN sometimes.


It is a lot of kids. 98% of the people on here do not understand basic economics. I have tried to explain in simple terms what is going to happen with he PS4K since I used to work in the market and people would rather boo me then listen to reason.


----------



## y2kcamaross

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfedorov11*
> 
> IMO the kicker will be, it will only out perform the 980ti on paper because it will be clocked higher and will have less oc head room.
> 
> Price has nothing to do with increase of performance. *They price it at what people will pay for it. If it is ~980ti, why would they price it less?*
> 
> Anyone remember the pricing when the shrunk 8800gts launched? Was it the same price as the old 8800gts?
> 
> Think I will be switching side this go around. It has been too long.. and liquidvr looks more promising.


Because people won't pay the same price for a new 1080 as a 980ti if its the same performance level, it makes no sense, by your logic, we'd be paying $100,000 for a 1tb hard drive and the same for a new i7 processor


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> So by that logic even if 1080 performance is the exact same as 980Ti, it should cost the exact same as what a 980Ti launched at 10 months ago? I understand that costs will be up on this die shrink, but performance still needs to be significant enough to warrant the price. Otherwise what's the point of technological advances?


I'm not arguing performance warranting price. Cut the performance part out of the argument for a second.

I'm arguing that *new-crap-that-is-hard-to-produce is going to be more costly than old-crap-that-is-easy-to-produce*.

I don't get how you and others cannot see this logic at all.

Time spend creating something completely new, that is harder to produce...is ALWAYS going to be more expensive than something that the R&D has already been paid off for, and that is very easy to produce now.

Like damn, this is basic economics at work right here.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I am a costumer.
> I am a consumer.
> I don't care about Nvidia and AMD or Intel on a personal level. I don't care about their CEOs or employees. I don't care if they drive a Lamborghini or Prius.
> I want a good GPU for a good price.
> I don't care what lengths they have to go through. I don't care if they have a low profit on GPUs. I don't care if they have to perform "miracles" in order to make more powerful GPUs.
> 
> Get that in your head you people that are defending big companies.


Get it in your head that I'm just defending logic. Could give less than a damn about the two companies. Your and many other people's logic on OCN does NOT MAKE SENSE. See the above response to @criminal. If you can't get that logic, then that is not my problem at all.

Also, I'm pretty sure your job isn't a costumer. Halloween isn't here for another 6 months. And I'm pretty sure you don't work in the showbiz. Just saying.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Here is the thing. GTX980 came out 1 year after GTX780 Ti bearing ~ 5-10% while having much smaller die at same 28nm process. That means GTX980 was technically cheaper to make then GTX780 Ti especially considering 400mm^2 die has higher yields and 1 year later it cost less per mm^2. GTX980 was $550 vs $700 of GTX780 Ti (Fully Unlocked). It would have been $650 if it was like GTX980 Ti which was slightly locked like OG Titan. So 5-10% faster while being $100 less.

Take GTX1080. To achieve speeds 5-10% faster then GTX980 Ti it would probably cost 16nm die about the same cost. No savings there for Nvidia. If they make it 20-30% faster than for sure the card will have to have a more expensive die then GTX980 Ti even though its smaller. This would mean $650 is about right for this card. They cant undercut GTX1070 to $400 because the cost of the die. The bad news could be that the difference might be smaller then something GTX580/GTX680 had. Reason I think is because Maxwell to Pascall is not a huge architecture change. Fermi to Kepler was a huge drop in Compute while Pascal is introducing compute back. Things do not add up because Maxwell was 100% tailers to SP gaming performance so Pascall will have a hard time being faster if its hads compute to GP104. Either way not getting this card $650. If all is true GP100 will probably $100 like GTX980 Ti was over 980. Don't give Nvidia your money or AMD if they expect us this much.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> I'm not arguing performance warranting price. Cut the performance part out of the argument for a second.
> 
> I'm arguing that *new-crap-that-is-hard-to-produce is going to be more costly than old-crap-that-is-easy-to-produce*.
> 
> I don't get how you and others cannot see this logic at all.
> 
> Time spend creating something completely new, that is harder to produce...is ALWAYS going to be more expensive than something that the R&D has already been paid off for, and that is very easy to produce now.
> 
> Like damn, this is basic economics at work right here.
> 
> Get it in your head that I'm just defending logic. Could give less than a damn about the two companies. Your and many other people's logic on OCN does NOT MAKE SENSE. See the above response to @criminal
> . If you can't get that logic, then that is not my problem at all.
> 
> Also, I'm pretty sure your job isn't a costumer. Halloween isn't here for another 6 months. And I'm pretty sure you don't work in the showbiz. Just saying.


Margins had to be pretty incredible on the final wave of 28nm cards. It is a no brainer these cards are going to be more expensive to produce. Nvidia and AMD are well aware of what the market will bear. So even if margins are ultra thin this round, prices can't go up very much. People won't pay it. The way I see it, this pricing is all wrong or like I said earlier, the performance is pretty substantial. We pay more to get to get more. Normal consumers don't give a crap what it cost the company.


----------



## DETERMINOLOGY

This thread is way over cooked and price rumors are way to early....Lets get some strong info before making 10+ page threads


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DETERMINOLOGY*
> 
> This thread is way over cooked and price rumors are way to early....Lets get some strong info before making 10+ page threads


nah those threads are the best thing.

speculating, arguing, hearing other peoples expectations.

Honestly only concrete facts would be the most boring thing that could happen to any forum.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Margins had to be pretty incredible on the final wave of 28nm cards. It is a no brainer these cards are going to be more expensive to produce. Nvidia and AMD are well aware of what the market will bear. So even if margins are ultra thin this round, prices can't go up very much. People won't pay it. The way I see it, this pricing is all wrong or like I said earlier, the performance is pretty substantial. We pay more to get to get more. Normal consumers don;t give a crap what it cost the company.


Basically we get more performance each year for set amount of $ but slowly the performance increase we get is getting smaller and smaller. Instead of getting 50 increase in p/p we are going to get 20% p/p taking into account launch GTX980 Ti pricing. God dam this is pathetic if this cards is $650. In the end of the day its actually has nothing to do with performance. If this is $650 that mean the Big Pascall will be more raising the bar even higher.


----------



## Omicron

I totally understand R&D costs and yields factor into these prices. No issues there. However, doesn't mean I would even vaguely entertain the idea of purchasing a GP104 (midrange small die) card of this price. Simple as that. Unless they can pull out some sort of magical 7XXX -> 8XXX series performance increase again.

Price the card like that? Totally your choice. Am I going to buy it? No, my choice. Essentially a simple if conditional statement.

Of course, this is still a rumor, so no telling if this is actually accurate or not.


----------



## carlhil2

Lol, this is just a rumor and you guys are ready to explode, that photo of that shroud must be real also, and, those Youtube "1070" benches, yup, believe it all. entertaining...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

It's a TRAP This is just like GTX980 Ti launch. They will price this card $550 or $500 and people will go "What a good deal"


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> It's a TRAP This is just like GTX980 Ti launch. They will price this card $550 or $500 and people will go "What a good deal"


Good point









Like with Titan X when they said 1350$ and the card was 999$ and the fanboys were happy with making a _steal_.

_* puts tinfoil hat on *_


----------



## aalvisk

here goes my dream of a <249$ GTX 1060 with GTX 970 performance

damn this speculation got me all worried


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aalvisk*
> 
> here goes my dream of a <249$ GTX 1060 with GTX 970 performance
> 
> damn this speculation got me all worried


I have seen GTX 970 being sold for 260€ with The Division code.

€ and $ isn't that different. I don't know how you guys do it in the US, but there are basically deals on GPUs every week in europe.

Fury Triple Dissipation for 415€ or R9 390X for 330€ or GTX 970 for 260-280€.

Doesn't Best Buy or Microcenter have those kind of deals where you get selected GPUs for cheap?


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> People like Goldii, Kineticstic and Steffek please stop acting all smart and superior.
> 
> You are looking at the issues like you are the CEO of Nvidia and thinking you are all smart and clever.
> 
> Try looking at it from a consumers perspective and stop acting condescending.
> 
> We get it. You guys think you are some business managers that understand the world


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Hello AMD...if this is true...


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> Hello AMD...if this is true...


every year i read exact same sentence on all hardware forums/websites and every year nvidia gpus are out of stock for weeks when they come out


----------



## p4inkill3r

ib4 the 1070 becomes the greatest selling card of all time.


----------



## carlhil2

Well, the Broadwell-E price rumor may be true, so.. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38177902&postcount=3580


----------



## DunePilot

I wonder if I should just keep my 980Ti that does 1571 core on stock BIOS...
Any idea when the Ti equivalent would be coming out? What is the general time line, 6 months later, a year later?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DunePilot*
> 
> I wonder if I should just keep my 980Ti that does 1571 core on stock BIOS...
> Any idea when the Ti equivalent would be coming out? What is the general time line, 6 months later, a year later?


1 year from now Pascal Titan. 2-3 months faster GTX980 Ti replacement.


----------



## aalvisk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I have seen GTX 970 being sold for 260€ with The Division code.
> 
> € and $ isn't that different. I don't know how you guys do it in the US, but there are basically deals on GPUs every week in europe.
> 
> Fury Triple Dissipation for 415€ or R9 390X for 330€ or GTX 970 for 260-280€.
> 
> Doesn't Best Buy or Microcenter have those kind of deals where you get selected GPUs for cheap?


I'm from EU as well, haven't seen any GPUs that cheap though locally in northern/eastern EU. Then again haven't really looked into it much

Mind sharing the sites you get those prices from? Would love to browse a bit


----------



## Ghoxt

Quote:
Originally Posted by *zealord* 


> Like with Titan X when they said 1350$ and the card was 999$ and the fanboys were happy with making a steal.
> 
> * puts tinfoil hat on *


Hey! you are bursting my $2000 bubble









Truth is I didn't care at the time. What I trusted & hoped for was that OCN member gurus would band together and custom bios the cards which they of course did (1500Mhz SLI on water). Stock /ptooey

My focus was on the games I played which damn near all of them supported SLI and ran excellent at 4K.



That said, my personal focus for this next gen is a single card Q4 16 / Q2 17. With my current rig I'm expecting to sit on the sidelines and wait this one out.

Good luck guys with the 1070 and 1080. Like many of you, I see the initial consumer Pascal chips coming first topping the current gen of course...why wouldn't it. Then Ti and Titan's much later for the milkage to continue.

GPU Purchase rules

Rule #1: For the love of god, make up your own minds and buy what you can afford that fits your needs/wants for your household from any of the vendors.

Rule #2: Once Rule #1 fails, buy the Wife or GF red bottomed shoes and say surprise honey, I knew you wanted them, yes they cost $900. (Afterwards make sure you install the new GPU and get rid of the GPU box discreetly.) Bribe the kid, who will surely sing like a canary! "Daddy bought a new computer!! Yay! Let's play Candy game!


----------



## DunePilot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 1 year from now Pascal Titan. 2-3 months faster GTX980 Ti replacement.


So if we can't expect Pascal Titan until Q2 next year then Wouldn't the Ti be like Q4? That's a year and a half away. I think the last two were about two full quarters apart. I might just keep this 980Ti if it'll be that far down the road.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghoxt*
> 
> Hey! you are bursting my $2000 bubble
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is I didn't care at the time. What I trusted & hoped for was that OCN member gurus would band together and custom bios the cards which they of course did (1500Mhz SLI on water). Stock /ptooey
> 
> My focus was on the games I played which damn near all of them supported SLI and ran excellent at 4K.
> 
> 
> 
> That said, my personal focus for this next gen is a single card Q4 16 / Q2 17. With my current rig I'm expecting to sit on the sidelines and wait this one out.
> 
> Good luck guys with the 1070 and 1080. Like many of you, I see the initial consumer Pascal chips coming first topping the current gen of course...why wouldn't it. Then Ti and Titan's much later for the milkage to continue.
> 
> GPU Purchase rules
> Rule #1: For the love of god, make up your own minds and buy what you can afford that fits your needs/wants for your household from any of the vendors.
> Rule #2: Once Rule #1 fails, buy the Wife or GF red bottomed shoes and say surprise honey, I knew you wanted them, yes they cost $900. (Afterwards make sure you install the new GPU and get rid of the GPU box discreetly.) Bribe the kid, who will surely sing like a canary! "Daddy bought a new computer!! Yay! Let's play Candy game!


If I had enough money I would buy Titans too.

5960 X. SLI Titan X water cooled, 4K DELL 120hz OLED etc.

Sadly I can't afford such a rig without thinking twice about it


----------



## NFL

So much for buying 1070, there's no way in hell I'm spending $500 on what will be a mid-range card


----------



## DunePilot

I was honestly wanting to buy two X80s in June along with a the 6950X but I might just stick with the 980Ti now since I have a really good one. Try to go SLI Pascal Titan when it launches in another 6 months to a year. I guess another option would be to sell my Ti now and pick up a single X80 if it's at least 25%-50% better (it would have to clock high though since mine can do 1571).

Decisions...


----------



## Redwoodz

Been saying all along Pascal was going to pay for it's compute abilities. Then add on a new node from TSMC,which could be yeilding terrible for all we know. Based on these prices I would guess 1080 5-8% over 980Ti, 1070 10% over 980.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redwoodz*
> 
> Been saying all along Pascal was going to pay for it's compute abilities. Then add on a new node from TSMC,which could be yeilding terrible for all we know. Based on these prices I would guess 1080 5-8% over 980Ti, 1070 10% over 980.


Both cards fail all day long with that performance at those prices.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Both cards fail all day long with that performance at those prices.


yeah. I don't know how well the 1080 overclocks, but 5-8% is nothing. It's not even worth a setting increase in any game at all









it's like 2 fps more


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DunePilot*
> 
> So if we can't expect Pascal Titan until Q2 next year then Wouldn't the Ti be like Q4? That's a year and a half away. I think the last two were about two full quarters apart. I might just keep this 980Ti if it'll be that far down the road.


GeForce GTX 980 Ti on June 2, 2015
GeForce GTX Titan X on March 17, 2015

2 months 16 days

GeForce GTX 780 on May 23, 2013
GeForce GTX Titan on February 19, 2013

3 months 4 days


----------



## guttheslayer

Nvidia now is selling a cut down chip of a mid range GPU at the price of previous flagship in 2011. Amazing...

$500 for a effin mainsteam performance card like X70!

Also whoever said 5-8% better than 980 Ti at $650 should be shot. Like really? Compared to a product that is 12 months old and only 5-8% at the same price?

And yes they will definitely fail if that is true. Time for AMD to shine.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Nvidia now is selling a cut down chip of a mid range GPU at the price of previous flagship in 2011. Amazing...
> 
> *Whoever said 5-8% better than 980 Ti at $650 should be shot.*
> 
> And yes they will definitely fail if that is true. Time for AMD to shine.


Well that is a bit drastic, but lets hope AMD does indeed shine in 2016 and 2017


----------



## DunePilot

I'll probably wait until two way SLI
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> GeForce GTX 980 Ti on June 2, 2015
> GeForce GTX Titan X on March 17, 2015
> 
> 2 months 16 days
> 
> GeForce GTX 780 on May 23, 2013
> GeForce GTX Titan on February 19, 2013
> 
> 3 months 4 days


1Q apart, thanks. Well I guess I will be patient for now... I see no sense in upgrading until you can crack 40k Firestrike with 2 way SLI.
I guess I will stick with my 980 Ti for now unless we get thrown a curve ball with higher perf than expected. .


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Well that is a bit drastic, but lets hope AMD does indeed shine in 2016 and 2017


Its only make sense if 1080 is 40-50% faster than GTX 980 Ti, which isnt impossible given the clock speed of P100 Tesla.

I dont like a card being that fast solely base on clock speed. What's the point if it comes with 1.4GHz clock and died at 1.5GHz when overclocking.

To justify for that $650 price after 12 month, it gotta be something that is similar clocked but perform drastically better (clock to clock). To top it off it has to OC damn well too.


----------



## L36

I don't know why people are so up in arms over the price. If the 1080 performs 10-20% better than the 980 Ti then the price is justifiable. Sure its a mid range chip but with these smaller nodes we can forget about big chip launches first.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L36*
> 
> I don't know why people are so up in arms over the price. If the 1080 performs 10-20% better than the 980 Ti then the price is justifiable. Sure its a mid range chip but with these smaller nodes we can forget about big chip launches first.


Because the 980 Ti is 20000000% better than the Voodoo 2.

Should the 980 Ti be 200 million $ ?


----------



## L36

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Because the 980 Ti is 20000000% better than the Voodoo 2.
> 
> Should the 980 Ti be 200 million $ ?


You got a problem with it? Vote with your wallet.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *p4inkill3r*
> 
> ib4 the 1070 becomes the greatest selling card of all time.


They'd need to lie about the specs for that to happen








Quote:


> I dont like a card being that fast solely base on clock speed. What's the point if it comes with 1.4GHz clock and died at 1.5GHz when overclocking.


Well, A large portion of the Maxwell performance gains over Kepler was due to clock speed. Common clocks for Kepler vs Maxwell were about 1300 vs 1500 core at 1.225v on the same 28nm node, which is about a 15% increase.


----------



## DunePilot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Because the 980 Ti is 20000000% better than the Voodoo 2.
> 
> Should the 980 Ti be 200 million $ ?


I still have my voodoo 2 mouse pad... back when they were made of that plastic textured crap to make the track ball grip better... yes... before the Microsoft laser mouse.
Unrelated but the VD2 reference.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L36*
> 
> You got a problem with it? Vote with your wallet.


That is what I have done so far.

If the GTX 1080 is 650$ and only 5-10% better than the 980 Ti then I definitely *WON'T* buy it. Period.


----------



## bucdan

Gone are the days where you get your $500 card then a $400 card, then a $300 card, then a $200 card where the new gen after it, the new $400 card would be the same performance as the old $500 card, and the new $300 card would be the same performance as the old $400 card. And so on.

Now... a Mid range card is priced at $500, claimed to be better than the $550 980ti, but it's still a mid range card for $500. So, we can expect the high end to be $1000 for a 1080ti? then $1500 for a titan? Lol. Can't believe some people here that are supporting this tactic and hiding it behind "basic economics". I really hope AMD undercuts them, but nVidia Fan boys will be fanboys til the end. With this pricing structure, consumers will lose because they are essentially creating a generation gap and trying to justify pricing with it.

I think the overhype price is a trap in the end. The 1070 will be released at $400 and that'll be the new norm as nvidia is going to try to make it with the 1060 at $300. So the gullible will think it's a "better deal".


----------



## Emotional Post-it Note

People are really freaking out over this. Speculation is fun but it's a little dangerous to get too emotionally involved at this point, since we don't have any actual performance figures. Can't we just assume that Nvidia probably knows what it's doing with pricing? I doubt they'd arrive at a $650 price point if it didn't offer an appropriate performance benefit.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emotional Post-it Note*
> 
> People are really freaking out over this. Speculation is fun but it's a little dangerous to get too emotionally involved at this point, since we don't have any actual performance figures.


Or actual prices.


----------



## t00sl0w

hey guys, remember when the 100/110 tier chips were on the x80 cards and companies didnt play games? back when we actually got good deals on GPUs? i remember.
now, not only are 104s the new x80 tier, BUT the CUT DOWN version of the x80, the x70, is now at the same price tier as the x80 was previously AND multiple levels lower in class than what an x80/this price point was a couple years ago.

but oh, lets defend this company who is continuing to make massive profits...i dont see a single thing showing that they are suffering and therefore "need" to increase the cost of any of their cards or continue to shift the scale up on what chips are placed in what price range.

--i understand we have zero solid ground to stand on yet with this...this is mainly aimed at people who seem to forget where we are coming from and dont realize what these companies ARE ACTUALLY doing.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emotional Post-it Note*
> 
> People are really freaking out over this. Speculation is fun but it's a little dangerous to get too emotionally involved at this point, since we don't have any actual performance figures. Can't we just assume that Nvidia probably knows what it's doing with pricing? I doubt they'd arrive at a $650 price point if it didn't offer an appropriate performance benefit.


don't worry mate.

I think you are overthinking it. Nobody here gets too emotional. it is hard to read emotions from chat.

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.

Some people maybe chose a few unfitting words, but I am sure nobody wishes anyone any harm.

We are all PC enthusiasts who like graphics cards here


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L36*
> 
> You got a problem with it? Vote with your wallet.


Maybe its customer like you which is why we are seeing trend of ever increasing price toward infinity.

Sorry I am voting with my wallet and will go red this time.

Btw over at Chiphell forum, there is also a uproar on the pricing. Apparently they all disagree its $650 unless Jen Hsun no longer want to sell cards.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> That is what I have done so far.
> 
> If the GTX 1080 is 650$ and only 5-10% better than the 980 Ti then I definitely *WON'T* buy it. Period.


Agree, and if the Red show the same pricing range with better performance. I will buy even MORE! Just to show my disdain with the green.

Green Goblin anyone?


----------



## keikei

Why stop @ 650? Go for 750. People will buy it anyways.


----------



## zealord

The funny thing is that it would sell well for 650$, but there are 2 conditions :

- It has to beat the 980 Ti by quite a bit. 10% won't be enough. I expect it to be better than that though!
- It has to better than anything that AMD offers by quite a bit.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Maybe its customer like you which is why we are seeing trend of ever increasing price toward infinity.
> 
> Sorry I am voting with my wallet and will go red this time.
> 
> Btw over at Chiphell forum, there is also a uproar on the pricing. Apparently they all disagree its $650 unless Jen Hsun no longer want to sell cards.


He has the money for it no doubt, look at his build. He pretty much is the prime example why this style of pricing happens. Some people like him will spend whatever they can for the best, then there are others that try to stretch their dollars a bit more with value.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Sell it for $250, then in a couple of years we can all gather around and say people should buy nVidia to keep them from going out of business.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Sell it for $250, then in a couple of years we can all gather around and say people should buy nVidia to keep them from going out of business.


While I do appreciate humor I think this belongs in the goofy category that simply isn't funny, because it is too far from the reality.

You are trying to critizie AMD and customer behavior with your post but sadly fall short on logic with this example


----------



## LoLomgbbq

GTX 980ti still goes for NZ$1100+ here. I wonder how much this will cost in NZ


----------



## TrueForm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoLomgbbq*
> 
> GTX 980ti still goes for NZ$1100+ here. I wonder how much this will cost in NZ


Yeah no kidding. I'm looking to buy a new video card in the coming months and this will defo hurt my wallet.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> While I do appreciate humor I think this belongs in the goofy category that simply isn't funny, because it is too far from the reality.
> 
> You are trying to critizie AMD and customer behavior with your post but sadly fall short on logic with this example


Sue me


----------



## SharpShoot3r07

Not bad at all. People were freaking out over the rumored 980 Ti costing $800, only to have it come out at $650


----------



## iLeakStuff

If Nvidia launch a $650 card that beats $650 GTX 980Ti by say a lousy 10-20%, they can stick it where the sun don`t shine.
There is freaking no way Im supporting a company with these outrageous prices just because its finFET.
The chip could be made of Jello for all I care if the performance was there.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Sue me


"That would be the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit."
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> If Nvidia launch a $650 card that beats $650 GTX 980Ti by say a lousy 10-20%, they can stick it where the sun don`t shine.
> There is freaking no way Im supporting a company with these outrageous prices just because its finFET.
> The chip could be made of Jello for all I care if the performance was there.


I am right there with you. Hopefully more of us are. IF this pricing is true and performance increase is 20% or less, people need to vote with their wallets and not buy the junk. Nvidia would rather cut margins than sales.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Sue me


nah your rig tells me you have enough money to get better lawyers than I do


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> "That would be the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit."
> I am right there with you. Hopefully more of us are. IF this pricing is true and performance increase is 20% or less, people need to vote with their wallets and not buy the junk. Nvidia would rather cut margins than sales.


Yes. The very definition of a new architecture AND much smaller transistors is more performance per dollar. Not less watt/performance and stuff like that which it may brew down to if this price is true.
Watch Nvidia make these efficiency charts and play on that to sell cards.
No freaking way I`m buying a card based on that. Its nice, I wont lie, but ultimately the goal is to get more FPS for less money.

There are people here that say "watch GTX 1070 become the most sold card with the $500 price" and sadly I can`t say that they are wrong. I believe Nvidia got too strong hold of the market to almost do whatever they want.
I hope these prices are wrong. :/


----------



## gigafloppy

No way Nvidia would be dumb enough to price these cards this high. $500 is way, _way_ too much for customers who are used to $300-$400 x70 cards. Personally, if Nvidia can't deliver at least 980-Ti performance and memory capacity for a 970 price, I will not buy. Period.


----------



## KeepWalkinG

Only when we know the performance then we can say the price is good or too high.


----------



## nakano2k1

Wow... I can't say that i'm shocked about the possible pricing... But, well.... I'm not really. NVidia will try and recoup their costs as fast as they can. They could possibly have poor yields currently and so they want to sell the chips that they have at the highest price possible to make a positive impression at the next stock holder meeting. With the market share that NVidia has in the GPU market right now and the borderline fanatical fan base they have, they can initially set their own price.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gigafloppy*
> 
> No way Nvidia would be dumb enough to price these cards this high. $500 is way, _way_ too much for customers who are used to $300-$400 x70 cards. Personally, if Nvidia can't deliver at least 980-Ti performance and memory capacity for a 970 price, I will not buy. Period.


1060 might be the new x70 card


----------



## KeepWalkinG

yeah gp 106 (gtx 1060) can be faster than gtx 970 and for 300$ will be new best buy cards!!!


----------



## Olivon

Prices are communicated to partners at the last moment so I think it's just another AW from Chiphell who knows in fact nothing.


----------



## bigjdubb

Meh, the validity of those prices are a coin toss. This has slightly less of a chance of being true than it does of being bogus.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> *Prices are communicated to partners at the last moment* so I think it's just another AW from Chiphell who knows in fact nothing.


Based on what?
Launch is what, 1 month from now tops according to rumors? I`d rather guess that most AIBs already know roughly the MSRP they plan to do, +/- a small margin.


----------



## p4inkill3r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Based on what?
> Launch is what, 1 month from now tops according to rumors? I`d rather guess that most AIBs already know roughly the MSRP they plan to do, +/- a small margin.


Wishful thinking on their part, I agree.

The non-Ti 980's success lets nvidia charge $499+ for a midrange SKU.


----------



## dVeLoPe

anyone care to inform me the difference between a 980ti and a 1080p lol


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dVeLoPe*
> 
> anyone care to inform me the difference between a 980ti and a 1080p lol


A 980Ti is a GPU, 1080p is a monitor resolution.

You're welcome!


----------



## Deout

Has it been confirmed that these are the same performance and people would be better off getting a 980 ti while they are still available and cheaper?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deout*
> 
> Has it been confirmed that these are the same performance and people would be better off getting a 980 ti while they are still available and cheaper?


of course not.

If you only go by official confirmation then you have the following information :

- The new architecture is called Pascal
- New GPUs come out in 2016

I think that is probably everything that Nvidia has confirmed so far


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deout*
> 
> Has it been confirmed that these are the same performance and people would be better off getting a 980 ti while they are still available and cheaper?


Even if GTX 1080 is faster by 5-10% than GTX 980 Ti but costs 650 USD it's not worth it.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Even if GTX 1080 is faster by 5-10% than GTX 980 Ti but costs 650 USD it's not worth it.


Agree


----------



## Forceman

These leaks always come out, and they are always high by $100 or more. Remember the $1300 Titan X? Rumors of the 980 were $600+ also. Same goes for AMD - $800 Fury anyone? It's pointless to base any speculation on this type of leak.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Agree


Yep. I care about Nvidia's manufacturing costs and R&D investments precisely as much as Nvidia cares about my salary or housing costs, i.e. not at all. If they can't put out a substantially better-performing card than their current performance leaders at a price that I'm willing to pay, that's their problem. I don't eat 960's. I don't sleep on a bed of Titans. Unless games suddenly begin to overpower my current GPU's, I have no incentive to buy 5% performance increases at equivalent cost, nor do most buyers who might be able to get equivalent performance from the second-hand market at a nice discount.

Of course, Nvidia will likely move new GPU's in droves regardless. That's fine, they've done a great job of building their brand. I just think it's silly that some people advocate for capitalism and yet lecture fellow consumers about seeing things from the company's point of view. That's not our job as consumers. Our job is to request absurd performance at a miserly price whilst the the producer's job is to attempt to maximise margins to the point that the market will bear. In between this tug o' war we should (nominally) find the reasonable price and performance for the product.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Yep. I care about Nvidia's manufacturing costs and R&D investments precisely as much as Nvidia cares about my salary or housing costs, i.e. not at all. If they can't put out a substantially better-performing card than their current performance leaders at a price that I'm willing to pay, that's their problem. I don't eat 960's. I don't sleep on a bed of Titans. Unless games suddenly begin to overpower my current GPU's, I have no incentive to buy 5% performance increases at equivalent cost, nor do most buyers who might be able to get equivalent performance from the second-hand market at a nice discount.
> 
> Of course, Nvidia will likely move new GPU's in droves regardless. That's fine, they've done a great job of building their brand. I just think it's silly that some people advocate for capitalism and yet lecture fellow consumers about seeing things from the company's point of view. That's not our job as consumers. Our job is to request absurd performance at a miserly price whilst the the producer's job is to attempt to maximise margins to the point that the market will bear. In between this tug o' war we should (nominally) find the reasonable price and performance for the product.


If certain Nvidiots think it is okay to pay $650 for a 1080 that performs 5% better than a 980Ti just because it cost Nvidia more money to make the 1080 than it did the 980Ti, I weep for this hobby.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> If certain Nvidiots think it is okay to pay $650 for a 1080 that performs 5% better than a 980Ti just because it cost Nvidia more money to make the 1080 than it did the 980Ti, I weep for this hobby.


Then it isn't worth it to game anymore.

If prices like 650$ for a GTX 1080 (that only performs 5-10% better than a 980 Ti) become reality then I will go full console.

Although I still expect it to be much better than the 980 Ti, especially at 650$. At 650$ I'd expect 25-30% above 980 Ti like I mentioned earlier.

Even that would be a disappointment in my eyes. Looking at the last jump in manufacturing node from 40nm to 28nm the GTX 680 was 30% faster and "only" 499$. That was a tragedy aswell, but for other reasons.

Best scenario : 550$ and 35% better than 980 Ti

Worst scenario : 650$ and 15% better than 980 Ti.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

If GTX1080 is 5-10% faster then GTX980 Ti and $650 it will still sell just fine. Nvidia are not asking for GTX980 Ti owners to upgrade. This is a card for someone that does not have a Maxwell card. What if you have GTX780 or GTX780 Ti? If you wanted to upgrade to GTX980 Ti but 1080 is 10% faster why not get that? Nvidia is 80/20 in share.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> If GTX1080 is 5-10% faster then GTX980 Ti and $650 it will still sell just fine. Nvidia are not asking for GTX980 Ti owners to upgrade. This is a card for someone that does not have a Maxwell card. What if you have GTX780 or GTX780 Ti? If you wanted to upgrade to GTX980 Ti but 1080 is 10% faster why not get that? Nvidia is 80/20 in share.


because if it is 30% faster then they can also grab the extra $$$ from the 980 Ti, Titan X, Fury and Fury X users.

Even if it is only 10% faster than the 980 Ti at launch. Eventually it will be much faster than the 980 Ti lol


----------



## gigafloppy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> If GTX1080 is 5-10% faster then GTX980 Ti and $650 it *will still sell just fine*.


Are you nuts? Have you seen the steam hardware survey? The 970 sold 5x as much as the 980. If they put a 980 price ($500) on the 1070, it will _not_ sell very well compared to GTX 970.


----------



## carlhil2

http://www.zolkorn.com/news/nvidia-might-launch-geforce-gtx-1000-series-soon "NVIDIA Pascal GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 could come sooner than expected. See you next month!"


----------



## PontiacGTX

2017 Geforce Pascal100 with HBM 2 16GB 1TB/s for 1500 because of a bigger die and "new memory technology"(from amd)


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> http://www.zolkorn.com/news/nvidia-might-launch-geforce-gtx-1000-series-soon "NVIDIA Pascal GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 could come sooner than expected. See you next month!"


yeah we have seen some other rumors saying mid-may for GTX 1080. A special dedicated event for Pascal then

But there is one guy on OCN, forgot his name sorry, but I remember he is from Sri Lanka, who said that the GTX 1070 does launch in August


----------



## DaaQ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> If GTX1080 is 5-10% faster then GTX980 Ti and $650 it will still sell just fine. Nvidia are not asking for GTX980 Ti owners to upgrade. This is a card for someone that does not have a Maxwell card. What if you have GTX780 or GTX780 Ti? If you wanted to upgrade to GTX980 Ti but 1080 is 10% faster why not get that? Nvidia is 80/20 in share.


I have a 780, the fact that it is gp104 is confirmation that a bigger die will be coming. I will not upgrade at $650 for the lesser die regardless of its performance period.

It would not surprise me if the price leaks are part of their marketing in order to avoid sticker shock, meaning leak a higher price than you intend on selling at so that when final price is revealed it would "appear" as a better deal even tho the price class has shifted upwards.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gigafloppy*
> 
> Are you nuts? Have you seen the steam hardware survey? The 970 sold 5x as much as the 980. If they put a 980 price ($500) on the 1070, it will _not_ sell very well compared to GTX 970.


Yes GTX970 sold more but who made more money for Nvidia? If each GTX970 made Nvidia $50 then each GTX980 made Nvidia $200. Either way the point is this card is not designed for people that care about money. They want the best even if its 10% faster. Also you are forgetting the power a Deoptimization.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaaQ*
> 
> I have a 780, the fact that it is gp104 is confirmation that a bigger die will be coming. I will not upgrade at $650 for the lesser die regardless of its performance period.
> 
> It would not surprise me if the price leaks are part of their marketing in order to avoid sticker shock, meaning leak a higher price than you intend on selling at so that when final price is revealed it would "appear" as a better deal even tho the price class has shifted upwards.


Because you know what the core is but the average person cant tell the difference between 680, 780 , 980 and 1080 and which has a mid range die. You think Nvidia has 80/20 because people thing logically? If facts where put down for all buyer of GPUs then Nvidia would not be in the same position.


----------



## Death Saved

to get a real idea of the pricing we need to see how much the 970 and 980 cost on release in taiwan, that way we can account for regional differences in pricing.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Death Saved*
> 
> to get a real idea of the pricing we need to see how much the 970 and 980 cost on release in taiwan, that way we can account for regional differences in pricing.


It's all pre-release speculation and means nothing. Here's a headline from 2 weeks before the 970 launched.
Quote:


> Geforce GTX 970 And 980 Pricing Leaked, $399 and $499 Respectively - Zotac GTX 970 Pictured


Then a week later we got this:
Quote:


> Update]NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Official MSRP Will Be $299 US


It's all guessing at this point.


----------



## Xuvial

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> $650 for a GP104... I'll pass. I don't care how good it is, that means that the *TI equivalent will cost well in the $800-$900 range*. Absurd.


Nope. The Ti version will take the price bracket of non-Ti version at $650, while the non-Ti version will be dropped to $500-550. Basically it will be a repeat of what nVidia did with 780 / 780 Ti. Calling it now.









It's a pretty clever tactic of dragging out release dates and baiting consumers into spending $650 for the "current flagship" card. It will be successful for sure.


----------



## Sir Beregond

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kael13*
> 
> I seem to recall there being a jump in price around the time 28nm came out. This wouldn't surprise me. *However I hope the enthusiast market is smart enough to tell Nvidia to sod off*.


Maybe this is the cynical part of me, but as much as I wish that too, it's unlikely to happen and these ridiculous pricing schemes will continue as they have since the GTX 780.


----------



## spinFX

Is it safe to assume that either of these cards will be more powerful than SLI 780Ti?
The 980Ti was pretty close to being equivalent to two 780Ti's, but they still seemed to have the edge over the single card.
I'll definitely be upgrading to a 1070 or 1080 if a single one will give me a decent performance increase over the SLI setup.


----------



## DaaQ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Yes GTX970 sold more but who made more money for Nvidia? If each GTX970 made Nvidia $50 then each GTX980 made Nvidia $200. Either way the point is this card is not designed for people that care about money. They want the best even if its 10% faster. Also you are forgetting the power a Deoptimization.
> Because you know what the core is but the average person cant tell the difference between 680, 780 , 980 and 1080 and which has a mid range die. You think Nvidia has 80/20 because people thing logically? If facts where put down for all buyer of GPUs then Nvidia would not be in the same position.


Average Joe absolutely can tell the difference based on the price. OEMs play a big part in that 80/20 tho. Avg Joe buys based off price and you can't build your own laptop unless you order it, but then you're probably not an avg Joe if your speccing out your laptop.


----------



## i7monkey

but guise, geforce 2 ultra cost $500 and GTX 1080 I'm sure is 500 times faster so be thankful we're not paying $250 000 for it


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> but guise, geforce 2 ultra cost $500 and GTX 1080 I'm sure is 500 times faster so be thankful we're not paying $250 000 for it


Inflation!


----------



## Pantsu

Isn't it a bit too soon for the overpriced pre-order listings threads? It's the same dance we go through every single release. Someone finds a listing for a new graphics card, and it's insanely overpriced because the reseller has no clue about the actual price of an unreleased product and just make one up. Then there's a 20 page "discussion" about said price that amounts to absolutely nothing.


----------



## i7monkey

Seriously, $830CAD for GP104?

How much for 1080Ti? $1500CAD?

$2000CAD for Titan?


----------



## jeffblute

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I have seen GTX 970 being sold for 260€ with The Division code.
> 
> € and $ isn't that different. I don't know how you guys do it in the US, but there are basically deals on GPUs every week in europe.
> 
> Fury Triple Dissipation for 415€ or R9 390X for 330€ or GTX 970 for 260-280€.
> 
> Doesn't Best Buy or Microcenter have those kind of deals where you get selected GPUs for cheap?


The Best Buy by me is still showing a higher price on the 980 then what I paid for my 980 Ti, and they really like to argue about price matching anything. So no, nothing for cheap ever comes from them. I would kill for a Micro Center or something around here.

And on the 1070/80 pricing. I will stick with what I got for now, no need to upgrade yet.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Seriously, $830CAD for GP104?
> 
> How much for 1080Ti? $1500CAD?
> 
> $2000CAD for Titan?


why not ? people will buy it.


----------



## i7monkey

You guys remember when a *TWO GF110* gpu GTX 590 cost $699US?

Now a single GP104 costs almost that.

Outrageous!


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Somehow, people magically expect prices on a brand new node, that has very low yields compared to the previous node, to be cheaper or even with previous generations? Yields are going to be tremendously low (5-8% at best at the start of a node shrink). Wafer prices are at darn near an all time high to begin with. And both companies have to somehow make back money on the R&D that went into creating an architecture for these node shrinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> I don't get OCN sometimes.


the first brand new card on 28nm was 550.

i know that because i bought 2 at launch.

this is just nvidia being nvidgreedia


----------



## i7monkey

We got TWO friggin GF 110 chips inside a GTX 590 and it cost $699. Now we get ONE midrange pile of junk for $650? Hell outta here Nvidia.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> this is just nvidia being nvidgreedia


No, it's pre-release pricing being unreliable, like always.


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> No, it's pre-release pricing being unreliable, like always.


i would be shocked it it wasn't 650 dollars us.

shocked.

also i think i can do better than nvidgreedia.

ngreedia.

that's better.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> We got TWO friggin GF 110 chips inside a GTX 590 and it cost $699. Now we get ONE midrange pile of junk for $650? Hell outta here Nvidia.


also this.

talk about inflation. the titan z was what 3000? and abandoned quite quickly.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> We got TWO friggin GF 110 chips inside a GTX 590 and it cost $699. Now we get ONE midrange pile of junk for $650? Hell outta here Nvidia.


Iirc, you own a cutdown gpu priced at 650$ ? lol what's the point of this mimimimi when you will buy it anyway ?


----------



## carlhil2

Whole lot of dramatics going on in this thread, Lol....


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuvial*
> 
> Nope. The Ti version will take the price bracket of non-Ti version at $650, while the non-Ti version will be dropped to $500-550. Basically it will be a repeat of what nVidia did with 780 / 780 Ti. Calling it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty clever tactic of dragging out release dates and baiting consumers into spending $650 for the "current flagship" card. *It will be successful for sure*.


Well I'd say that you are likely correct but you are not factoring in AMD into your statement. If the 490X matches (or even beats outright) the 1080 at a more traditional $500-$550 price point then you could see the Nvidia card suffer. Likewise with the 1070 and 490. It is highly probable, though, that given that circumstance, Nvidia would very quickly lower their pricing to match or undercut AMD. Of course its also possible that we see expensive AMD cards on par with the 1080/1070 so really, who knows?


----------



## Serandur

Well, got some pictures of GP104:


----------



## Edge0fsanity

cute little gpu


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Wow that is tiny!


----------



## Vowels

How big physically is a GDDR5 chip? Someone who knows, do a rough estimate of the GP104 die size please!


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> How big physically is a GDDR5 chip? Someone who knows, do a rough estimate of the GP104 die size please!


According to Micron's datasheet, they are 12x14mm or 168 mm^2. The die looks to be less than double that size by eye, which is 336 mm^2. So around 300? Roughly GK104 size.

Are those PCB substrates all the same size? Might be easier to compare based on that. But that GP104 lettering looks kind of fake to me.


----------



## Serandur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> How big physically is a GDDR5 chip? Someone who knows, do a rough estimate of the GP104 die size please!


It's 12mm x 14mm, or 168mm^2, for a single GDDR5 chip. There was another image floating around that is identical to the new ones (except the PCB color). They already measured and came up with ~290mm^2 - 300mm^2. Looks about right.


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> How big physically is a GDDR5 chip? Someone who knows, do a rough estimate of the GP104 die size please!
> 
> 
> 
> According to Micron's datasheet, they are 12x14mm or 168 mm^2. The die looks to be less than double that size by eye, which is 336 mm^2. So around 300? Roughly GK104 size.
> 
> Are those PCB substrates all the same size? Might be easier to compare based on that. But that GP104 lettering looks kind of fake to me.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serandur*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> How big physically is a GDDR5 chip? Someone who knows, do a rough estimate of the GP104 die size please!
> 
> 
> 
> It's 12mm x 14mm, or 168mm^2, for a single GDDR5 chip. There was another image floating around that is identical to the new ones (except the PCB color). They already measured and came up with ~290mm^2 - 300mm^2. Looks about right.
Click to expand...

Decided to take matters into my own hands!

Using my trusty ruler on the leaked image of the chip, I measured the GDDR5 chip at 18mm x 15mm = 270mm^2. left side chips are 20mm x 15mm whereas right side chips are 18mm x 15mm. I'll take the middle at 19mm x 15mm = 285mm^2

The ratio of real:image size is 168mm^2/285mm^2 = ~0.59

The dimensions of the GP104 chip in the image as measured are approximately 27mm x 24mm = 648mm^2

Then scaling down to the real size is 648mm^2 * 0.59 = ~382mm^2

Maybe the old leaked images were of GP106?


----------



## Forceman

Well, I'm no artist, but assuming the PCB substrate is the same size, it's a little bigger than GK104.


----------



## Fullmetalaj0

Only real problem I have is with 2x GTX 980ti classifieds I am not really hurting for a performance increase. There's nothing at 3440x1440 that I really cant run pretty much flawlessly. I know there's a very small percentage of super high end people who need to run 4k+ displays but really price to performance right now can you really even beat a 970 now that they are sub 300 bones? That card is amazing.

I really wish we had some games coming that push the graphic envelope.


----------



## Clocknut

that price...... I hope it beat 980Ti by 20%


----------



## Serandur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> Decided to take matters into my own hands!
> 
> Using my trusty ruler on the leaked image of the chip, I measured the GDDR5 chip at 18mm x 15mm = 270mm^2. left side chips are 20mm x 15mm whereas right side chips are 18mm x 15mm. I'll take the middle at 19mm x 15mm = 285mm^2
> 
> The ratio of real:image size is 168mm^2/285mm^2 = ~0.59
> 
> The dimensions of the GP104 chip in the image as measured are approximately 27mm x 24mm = 648mm^2
> 
> Then scaling down to the real size is 648mm^2 * 0.59 = ~382mm^2


I think I know why you're getting those results. I saved the image to my PC, opened it up in paint, and ballooned it up so I could measure by selecting an area and having paint calculate the dimensions in pixels. Here's an illustration:



I'm guessing you roughly measured the area in blue. However, the area in red would be more accurate because although this picture is a little too blurry to see what I mean, here's a clearer shot of the die:



Notice the part reflecting in black (the die) is surrounded by a sizable gray outline where the die connects to the package. In the first picture with the RAM chips, this area gets blurred into the die and makes it appear a bit larger than it is. I tried the calculations for both areas (multiplying the dimensions to get pixels^2 first) by dividing by the average size of a RAM chip on the right and one on the left. The final value was multiplied by 168mm^2 (using GDDR5 chip size as a reference) to get an estimate for the die size:

Just the die (red) - 7695/[(4514+4260)/2] --> final value multiplied by 168mm^2 --> ~294.7mm^2 = pretty close to that old Chiphell calculation

The die and the surrounding outline (blue) - 9752/[(4514+4260)/2] all multipled by 168mm^2 = ~373.5 mm^2 = pretty close to your calculation

So yeah, that makes a pretty big difference. We should keep in mind that the picture is somewhat angled (hence the RAM chip size disparity) and it's still pretty blurry so it's not exact (and obviously small measurement differences make a huge final difference), but I think that's what happened. Had to count pixels with the thing filling up my screen, but I tried my best to find the actual edges of the chip.

Quote:


> Maybe the old leaked images were of GP106?


I'm 100% positive that they're not. The amount and configuration of surface mount devices on the packages in both pictures are identical, they must be the same chip. We've already got pictures of GP106 too and it's much smaller/different-looking.


----------



## KeepWalkinG

Now with this leaks they tested us to see how we react for the price. Sometimes companies are involved in this speculation.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Well, I'm no artist, but assuming the PCB substrate is the same size, it's a little bigger than GK104.


Looks smaller to me. Take a look at the green stuff on the side of the two dies. Its hard to get a good look since the pictures are different but it looks bigger on the GP104


----------



## Tonza

in what world you guys are living in?, do you really think that Nvidia will release predecessor for 980ti (their best card currently) for much less and is like 50% faster like you speculate. I can tell you a secret, no nvidia will not release card priced like that, prepare for 970 and 980 prices and deal with it, then later on they release Pascal Titan which costs same as the current Titan X, following couple months and then they will release pascal Ti with GTX1080 price tag (and forums will explode how Pascal Titan owners are getting rolled by nvidia).


----------



## Wishmaker

Its good! Too Cheap in my opinion!


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Wow that is tiny!


Tiny for a $500 price, and a cut down somemore, not GP104-400.

Yucks.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Well boys, it's all still just pure speculation at this point. Unfortunately were just not gonna know until we know.


----------



## guttheslayer

We have a mid range chip that is going for $650

And we have a Intel EE processor that cost $1499.

Looks like PC is really dead lol...

Feel like giving up all this PC stuff till carbon nano tube PC roll in.


----------



## EightDee8D

It's a good strategy though. hype up the price by 150-170$ and then at launch, price it 100$ more. so people think it's a steal. but actually they will pay 100 more. it worked with tx. and now with x70.

Amd should wait and launch their gpus after Nvidia if they are confident about polaris10 being a better card than GP104.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> We have a mid range chip that is going for $650
> 
> And we have a Intel EE processor that cost $1499.
> 
> Looks like PC is really dead lol...
> 
> Feel like giving up all this PC stuff till carbon nano tube PC roll in.


Well, you don't really need top of the line high end stuff to enjoy games.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> We have a mid range chip that is going for $650
> 
> And we have a Intel EE processor that cost $1499.
> 
> Looks like PC is really dead lol...
> 
> Feel like giving up all this PC stuff till carbon nano tube PC roll in.


GTX 1080 + the cheapest broadwell-e is like $1200 lol


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I am a costumer.
> I am a consumer.
> I don't care about Nvidia and AMD or Intel on a personal level. I don't care about their CEOs or employees. I don't care if they drive a Lamborghini or Prius.
> I want a good GPU for a good price.
> I don't care what lengths they have to go through. I don't care if they have a low profit on GPUs. I don't care if they have to perform "miracles" in order to make more powerful GPUs.
> 
> Get that in your head you people that are defending big companies.


Slow clap







exactly.


----------



## StarGazerLeon

GTX 1080Ti priced at no more than £600 and at LEAST 50% faster than the 980Tt? Anything less than that, Nvidia, and you'll not get my money.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> We have a mid range chip that is going for $650
> 
> And we have a Intel EE processor that cost $1499.
> 
> Looks like PC is really dead lol...
> 
> Feel like giving up all this PC stuff till carbon nano tube PC roll in.


PC gaming is dead because extreme enthusiast / prosumer CPU that isn't even targeted for gaming is expensive? yeah ok


----------



## Wishmaker

I guess another 5 years for 4k to become affordable for people







!


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> *I am a costumer.
> I am a consumer.
> I don't care about Nvidia and AMD or Intel on a personal level. I don't care about their CEOs or employees. I don't care if they drive a Lamborghini or Prius.
> I want a good GPU for a good price.
> I don't care what lengths they have to go through. I don't care if they have a low profit on GPUs. I don't care if they have to perform "miracles" in order to make more powerful GPUs.
> *
> 
> Get that in your head you people that are defending big companies.


that's why you're still running a 290, and from the looks of it you have another year unless you are willing to drop some serious cash. Not trying to judge the situation right or wrong, just pointing out what's hapenning right now. If AMD stays on the 290X/390X level of performance for the fourth year only with power savings we're not gonna see nvidia cut prices on the 1080 and 1070 cause they'll be faster. And I remind everyone that 390X to Fury X is not a big difference at any resolution, 980 to 980Ti is twice as big.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> In comparison:
> http://www.newegg.com.tw/item?itemid=533505GTX 980Ti sell for around NT $ 27000
> http://www.newegg.com.tw/item?itemid=129836GTX 980 sell for around NT $ 20000
> 
> So if this is true, expect $500 for GTX 1070 and $650 for GTX 1080.
> Did not expect this...
> 
> Source:
> https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1570932-1-1.html


should cost 300. thats just absurd.


----------



## Rob27shred

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> If GTX1080 is 5-10% faster then GTX980 Ti and $650 it will still sell just fine. Nvidia are not asking for GTX980 Ti owners to upgrade. This is a card for someone that does not have a Maxwell card. What if you have GTX780 or GTX780 Ti? If you wanted to upgrade to GTX980 Ti but 1080 is 10% faster why not get that? Nvidia is 80/20 in share.


You hit the nail on the head. This is basically what I've been saying all along proved even further by the fact Nvidia has stopped producing GM200 chips. This 1st wave of Pascal cards will be aimed squarely at those who haven't upgraded in a while. The more I think about it, it feels like a very strategic move by NV to stop producing the GM200 chips so used 980ti prices don't go completely down the drain & end up cannibalizing the 1080 (god I hope they change the name before launch) sales. With yields being so low this early in the 16nm process they can't afford to have any of them sitting on store/warehouse shelves.

Funny thing is when I got my 980ti almost 6 months ago all I heard was "you should've waited for Pascal/Polaris, you wasted your money". Well considering I have been gaming at absurd settings for a single card for the last 6 months & it's now looking like that will be the case for the rest of this year for us 980ti owners, I feel like I made the right decision. I just feel bad for all those who have waited & waited for the crap that is seemingly starting to be shoveled our way. The lesson I learned with the 980ti is big die or nothing for me, yes they are expensive but the flagship cards offer the best price to performance & longest future proofing available IMHO. I'm almost left thinking a Titan X would've been the best GPU investment but at the $1k price point & with the cherry picked ultra high end 980tis surpassing it in gaming performance that is up for debate.


----------



## glina

Should cost ... because?

They are going to price it in a way which gives them the best cost to profit ratio. Not a dollar less, not a dollar more. This is business.
Intel recently manages an average of 5% of boost per year and keeps the business rolling. For the same reason Nvidia can charge 10% more for a 15% increase of performance for as long as they find clients. When the market dynamics change (competition, loss of sales, loss of the novelty effect etc) so will the prices.


----------



## Clocknut

I am gonna be interested in the $150 segment. I hope it has 970 performance level.


----------



## CalinTM

Hahaha, what a joke. 8 billion transistors, ddr5, 300'ish mm2 chip







)) And at 650$ ? For a mid-range chip ?

I can spend +200$ more for a real pascal chip, with hbm2. Not this joke. And 500$ for the x70







)))


----------



## LoLomgbbq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rob27shred*
> 
> You hit the nail on the head. This is basically what I've been saying all along proved even further by the fact Nvidia has stopped producing GM200 chips. This 1st wave of Pascal cards will be aimed squarely at those who haven't upgraded in a while. The more I think about it, it feels like a very strategic move by NV to stop producing the GM200 chips so used 980ti prices don't go completely down the drain & end up cannibalizing the 1080 (god I hope they change the name before launch) sales. With yields being so low this early in the 16nm process they can't afford to have any of them sitting on store/warehouse shelves.
> 
> Funny thing is when I got my 980ti almost 6 months ago all I heard was "you should've waited for Pascal/Polaris, you wasted your money". Well considering I have been gaming at absurd settings for a single card for the last 6 months & it's now looking like that will be the case for the rest of this year for us 980ti owners, I feel like I made the right decision. I just feel bad for all those who have waited & waited for the crap that is seemingly starting to be shoveled our way. The lesson I learned with the 980ti is big die or nothing for me, yes they are expensive but the flagship cards offer the best price to performance & longest future proofing available IMHO. I'm almost left thinking a Titan X would've been the best GPU investment but at the $1k price point & with the cherry picked ultra high end 980tis surpassing it in gaming performance that is up for debate.


Im on a 580, not interested in upgrading for these absurd prices when i take into account the constantly poor ports or even if a stable port, they more often than not still require a high end card just to keep 1080p60fps+ at max settings. Im not paying such a price to have to dial down settings and play sub 60fps at 1080/1440p.

Then, taking into account that todays game are imo, utter rubbish compared to what i was playing pre 2010, I now spend more time emulating and playing pc games from 1990 through to 2008/10. Todays games have all the bells and whistles, but no substance..yet require 4gb vram min just to run consoles ports that look slightly if at all better than the console version beyond rez and fps.

Nvidia and developers have yet to give me a reason to upgrade from my 580 since it started to struggle with the latest games and these excessive prices have pretty much sealed the deal in me *not* upgrading anytime soon, but if i was, id rather just get a secondhand gtx980.

These cards arent worth the prices they're asking when i take into account the mediocre games that are released these days.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rob27shred*
> 
> You hit the nail on the head. This is basically what I've been saying all along proved even further by the fact Nvidia has stopped producing GM200 chips. This 1st wave of Pascal cards will be aimed squarely at those who haven't upgraded in a while. The more I think about it, it feels like a very strategic move by NV to stop producing the GM200 chips so used 980ti prices don't go completely down the drain & end up cannibalizing the 1080 (god I hope they change the name before launch) sales. With yields being so low this early in the 16nm process they can't afford to have any of them sitting on store/warehouse shelves.
> 
> Funny thing is when I got my 980ti almost 6 months ago all I heard was "you should've waited for Pascal/Polaris, you wasted your money". Well considering I have been gaming at absurd settings for a single card for the last 6 months & it's now looking like that will be the case for the rest of this year for us 980ti owners, I feel like I made the right decision. I just feel bad for all those who have waited & waited for the crap that is seemingly starting to be shoveled our way. The lesson I learned with the 980ti is big die or nothing for me, yes they are expensive but the flagship cards offer the best price to performance & longest future proofing available IMHO. I'm almost left thinking a Titan X would've been the best GPU investment but at the $1k price point & with the cherry picked ultra high end 980tis surpassing it in gaming performance that is up for debate.


if that's the case I'm waiting for the suckers to offload their 980Ti's at a bargain and going SLI this summer. They already sell at $550 so no way am I going to sell mine for even less just to get $650 1080. I can live with my 980Ti being 15% slower than 1080, overclocked it would be equal. Thank God I bought a 850W PSU for some upgrade room.


----------



## fisher6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rob27shred*
> 
> You hit the nail on the head. This is basically what I've been saying all along proved even further by the fact Nvidia has stopped producing GM200 chips. This 1st wave of Pascal cards will be aimed squarely at those who haven't upgraded in a while. The more I think about it, it feels like a very strategic move by NV to stop producing the GM200 chips so used 980ti prices don't go completely down the drain & end up cannibalizing the 1080 (god I hope they change the name before launch) sales. With yields being so low this early in the 16nm process they can't afford to have any of them sitting on store/warehouse shelves.
> 
> Funny thing is when I got my 980ti almost 6 months ago all I heard was "you should've waited for Pascal/Polaris, you wasted your money". Well considering I have been gaming at absurd settings for a single card for the last 6 months & it's now looking like that will be the case for the rest of this year for us 980ti owners, I feel like I made the right decision. I just feel bad for all those who have waited & waited for the crap that is seemingly starting to be shoveled our way. The lesson I learned with the 980ti is big die or nothing for me, yes they are expensive but the flagship cards offer the best price to performance & longest future proofing available IMHO. I'm almost left thinking a Titan X would've been the best GPU investment but at the $1k price point & with the cherry picked ultra high end 980tis surpassing it in gaming performance that is up for debate.


This. I had a 970 then just bought the 980 Ti (under water) and been very happy with it at 1440p. It's impossible for me now to go back to non Ti/Titan version for future GPUs. Gonna keep my 980Ti till Nvidia drops big Pascal and then upgrade. Also, despite these high prices for the 1070/1080 (if true), people will still buy them and Nvidia will still make tons of money.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

They are (allegedly) launching 3 cards around June: http://videocardz.com/59009/rumor-nvidia-plans-three-gp104-skus-in-june Perhaps we will see something like this although I don't think so:

GTX 1060 - $399 Matches a 980 Ti
GTX 1070 - $499 Beats a 980 Ti
GTX 1080 - $599-650 Beats the 1070

It is weird if they stick with the naming scheme and launch a $500 70 card but is there really anything that's _that_ cutting edge with these cards? No HBM2, _maybe_ GDDR5X (doubtful). Keep in mind, the GTX 980 launched at $550. The 980 Ti is about 24% faster: http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/images/perfrel_2560_1440.png Now, the cards should almost be guaranteed to be faster than their 900 counterparts. So 1080 > 980, 1070 > 970, etc. IIRC, Nvidia usually has around 30% over previous cards so I'm thinking we may see ~5% faster for cheaper ($550) than the 980 Ti while it gets EOL'd. Just like when the 980 launched and EOL'd the 780 Ti as it had more VRAM, was slightly faster, more power efficient, cheaper, etc.


----------



## Rob27shred

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoLomgbbq*
> 
> Im on a 580, not interested in upgrading for these absurd prices when i take into account the constantly poor ports or even if a stable port, they more often than not still require a high end card just to keep 1080p60fps+ at max settings. Im not paying such a price to have to dial down settings and play sub 60fps at 1080/1440p.
> 
> Then, taking into account that todays game are imo, utter rubbish compared to what i was playing pre 2010, I now spend more time emulating and playing pc games from 1990 through to 2008/10. Todays games have all the bells and whistles, but no substance..yet require 4gb vram min just to run consoles ports that look slightly if at all better than the console version beyond rez and fps.
> 
> Nvidia and developers have yet to give me a reason to upgrade from my 580 since it started to struggle with the latest games and these excessive prices have pretty much sealed the deal in me *not* upgrading anytime soon, but if i was, id rather just get a secondhand gtx980.
> 
> These cards arent worth the prices they're asking when i take into account the mediocre games that are released these days.


Well I can't really argue with your logic there. I do not agree that video games have become complete trash but can not deny that there has been a very sharp downward turn in the overall quality of games. Especially with the slew of terribly done PC ports. Overall I do see your point & agree that if you have very little interest in newer games you would be best off just grabbing a used GPU from the current gen once prices bottom out in the used market.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> if that's the case I'm waiting for the suckers to offload their 980Ti's at a bargain and going SLI this summer. They already sell at $550 so no way am I going to sell mine for even less just to get $650 1080. I can live with my 980Ti being 15% slower than 1080, overclocked it would be equal. Thank God I bought a 850W PSU for some upgrade room.


Agreed!







For us 980ti owners anything under 20% more performance from the 980ti to 1080 would make getting a 1080 more of a side step than upgrade.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fisher6*
> 
> This. I had a 970 then just bought the 980 Ti (under water) and been very happy with it at 1440p. It's impossible for me now to go back to non Ti/Titan version for future GPUs. Gonna keep my 980Ti till Nvidia drops big Pascal and then upgrade. Also, despite these high prices for the 1070/1080 (if true), people will still buy them and Nvidia will still make tons of money.


Nice to see some people share my view on that! Although you are right about people buying the 1080/1070 despite the high price & small performance gains (if things shake out the way they seem to be going). Someday though Nvidia or AMD will cross a line that we as a whole find unacceptable & have to step back on their prices or really start giving us the full performance of the chips right out of the gate.


----------



## Luciferxy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> That is what I have done so far.
> 
> If the GTX 1080 is 650$ and only 5-10% better than the 980 Ti then I definitely *WON'T* buy it. Period.


relax, nvidia will find a way to make the gap between 1080 & 980 Ti grow bigger by each driver releases, you could find 980 Ti magically lagging by 20~30 % within the space of 6-12 months after 1080 being release









I'm definitely jumping ship this time


----------



## LoLomgbbq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Luciferxy*
> 
> relax, nvidia will find a way to make the gap between 1080 & 980 Ti grow bigger by each driver releases, you could find 980 Ti magically lagging by 20~30 % within the space of 6-12 months after 1080 being release
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm definitely jumping ship this time


This, just google the "fix" for getting Dark Souls 3 playable on the 4 and 5 series gpus and its obvious Nvidia are taking the mickey.


----------



## Luciferxy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoLomgbbq*
> 
> This, just google the "fix" for getting Dark Souls 3 playable on the 4 and 5 series gpus and its obvious Nvidia are taking the mickey.


yeah I've read that. 314.22 ... how "funny" is that


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> if that's the case I'm waiting for the suckers to offload their 980Ti's at a bargain and going SLI this summer. They already sell at $550 so no way am I going to sell mine for even less just to get $650 1080. I can live with my 980Ti being 15% slower than 1080, overclocked it would be equal. Thank God I bought a 850W PSU for some upgrade room.


Do you recall kepler and maxwell?
Now is Maxwell and Pascal


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> if that's the case I'm waiting for the suckers to offload their 980Ti's at a bargain and going SLI this summer. They already sell at $550 so no way am I going to sell mine for even less just to get $650 1080. I can live with my 980Ti being 15% slower than 1080, overclocked it would be equal. Thank God I bought a 850W PSU for some upgrade room.


If these rumored prices are true, no reason to sell your 980Ti and "upgrade" to a 1080. What a waste that would be.

*But some will do it anyway.*


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> Do you recall kepler and maxwell?
> Now is Maxwell and Pascal


yes I am aware the previous arch was replaced by the current one, which will in turn be replaced by the next one coming soon.

do you recall 7970, 280X and 380X ? AMD must be some kind of a miracle worker cause they resurrected a EOL card twice.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> If these rumored prices are true, no reason to sell your 980Ti and "upgrade" to a 1080. What a waste that would be.
> 
> *But some will do it anyway.*


It's not only about the rumored prices. It's about the perfromance. With 256-bit DDR5 and less sp than 980Ti, 1080 is probably not gonna be +30% faster. I prefer single card solutions and would gladly take a 30% faster 1080 for $600 but if it's like 10% then no way.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> yes I am aware the previous arch was replaced by the current one, which will in turn be replaced by the next one coming soon.
> 
> *do you recall 7970, 280X and 380X ? AMD must be some kind of a miracle worker cause they resurrected a EOL card twice.*


Its performance is still relevant compared to Nvidia's similar offerings though.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> yes I am aware the previous arch was replaced by the current one, which will in turn be replaced by the next one coming soon.
> 
> do you recall 7970, 280X and 380X ? AMD must be some kind of a miracle worker cause they resurrected a EOL card twice.


And it beat 670-680 now matches 780-titan. same thing with 290x which is now matching or beating a 980. heck i think it will *BEAT* 980ti too in native dx12 games next year.









But that longevity is also keeping people from upgrading. and those who want an upgrade switches to nvidia's short term performance.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> And it beat 670-680 now matches 780-titan. same thing with 290x which is now matching or beating a 980. heck i think it will *BEAT* 980ti too in native dx12 games next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that longevity is also keeping people from upgrading. and those who want an upgrade switches to nvidia's short term performance.


yes that's correct. but most of people here aren't interested in comparing 5 year old hardware.
and what would be those dx12 native games again?


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> yes I am aware the previous arch was replaced by the current one, which will in turn be replaced by the next one coming soon.
> 
> do you recall 7970, 280X and 380X ? AMD must be some kind of a miracle worker cause they resurrected a EOL card twice.


previous card should be still performing the same not being worse than they are because of a new card release, specially since their performance is so close, now you can expect the same on Maxwell worse performance given they will be pushing Pascal.

btw the 380x isnt an old card as the tahiti ones. And hasnt gottten same level of driver impovements that 380 got
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> yes that's correct. but most of people here aren't interested in comparing 5 year old hardware.
> and what would be those dx12 native games again?


They werent interested in sidegrading only because games were done by biased developers
The ones that nvidia has trouble with asynchronous compute?


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> yes that's correct. but most of people here aren't interested in comparing 5 year old hardware.
> and what would be those dx12 native games again?


lol. Almost 1 year after Windows 10 was released and DX12 games still haven't got off the ground.


----------



## Redwoodz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> lol. Almost 1 year after Windows 10 was released and DX12 games still haven't got off the ground.


Some of us remember DX7. Don't worry it will happen.

Comparing back to 780/770 pricing translates to a $649 1080 and $399 1070.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> They werent interested in sidegrading only because games were done by biased developers
> The one*s* that nvidia has trouble with asynchronous compute *but 980Ti DX11 still runs faster than Fury X DX12*?


FTFY

it's all facts, no hostility from me.
I only compare high end cards cause that's what matters to me and I am aware you'll call me biased before I finish this sentence, but I got no interest or time to compare all segments.

biased developers







, you think you take a dx11 game, say the magic line that Raja wrote and boom all that magic and async happens... from what I read the developers of Hitman (AMD biased if you wanna call it that way) had a really hard time implementing async to give it more than a 10% boots even though it's used in AO, AA and one more thing so I'd call it a fairly good use.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> FTFY


Are you referring to Ashes Of The Singularity? Because if you do:



or what about Hitman?


----------



## Lays

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> $650 for a GP104... I'll pass. I don't care how good it is, that means that the TI equivalent will cost well in the $800-$900 range. Absurd.


You do know the 980 launched for $650 as well right? Once 980 TI came out, it was priced at 650 and the 980 had moved down to the 500 range.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> You do know the 980 launched for $650 as well right? Once 980 TI came out, it was priced at 650 and the 980 had moved down to the 500 range.


nah

980 launched at 549$


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redwoodz*
> 
> Some of us remember DX7. Don't worry it will happen.
> 
> Comparing back to 780/770 pricing translates to a $649 1080 and $399 1070.


how can you compare a 770 with a 1070?

the 770 was a year old card that was a rebrand.

you are more apt to compare this to the 980/970 same chip cut down but same family.

or even the 680/670.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lays*
> 
> You do know the 980 launched for $650 as well right? Once 980 TI came out, it was priced at 650 and the 980 had moved down to the 500 range.


Some of you people need to use the power of Google before commenting: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review

$549 right there. Next time take 5 seconds to research your claim.


----------



## umeng2002

Names don't matter, performance/price does.

But, I have a feeling AMD, can and will undercut them.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> biased developers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , you think you take a dx11 game, say the magic line that Raja wrote and boom all that magic and async happens...


Dx11 doesnt allow asynchronous shaders.

Quote:


> from what I read the developers of Hitman (AMD biased if you wanna call it that way) had a really hard time implementing async to give it more than a 10% boots even though it's used in AO, AA and one more thing so I'd call it a fairly good use.


They have to write a patch for every GPU, they said it was due to being more work it was hard.


----------



## Anarion

If those prices are real they will probably translate into 600 euros for 1070 and 750 euros for 1080 in Europe. Absurd. Mid range card with High end pricing. A big no for me if this is the case.


----------



## SuperZan

The inherent inconsistency of fanboys claiming that async capability is pointless and that total performance is all that matters, but AMD rebrands are laughable despite offering good total performance.

I'm not a fan of re-badging either but logical consistency is a good thing.


----------



## Zzyzx

Well, since the Ti was released to be the _new_ top of the market, they may be figuring that there won't be a 1080 Ti and making the 1080 the new top of the line model, unless AMD comes up with something they need to out-perform between generations. Since they can sell the top of the segment production for $650 now, I'm sure they figure they can sell the new top of the market segment unit for the same price.

Before the 780 Ti and 980 Ti, we only ever saw things like the 660 Ti, but there wasn't a 680 Ti or a 580 Ti, for example, even though we had 660 Ti and 560 Ti. I don't think Nvidia ever planned to make x80 Ti pieces to begin with. The 780 Ti only came out because they needed to compete with the R9 290X and when the 980 Ti came out, you could get a Radeon R9 295X2 for $600 plus Radeon was announcing a new card when Nvidia came out with it, so I'm sure it was to try and beat them to the punch for the R9 300 series.

Right now, AMD doesn't really have something super-competitive, especially at a single-chip, single-card level. It could also be that they're planning on either no longer making the Titan or making the Titan as a prosumer double-precision card again, so if there is a 1080 Ti, it could be designed to replace the Titan X in their pricing model and put the Titan back as a double-precision monster.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zzyzx*
> 
> Right now, AMD doesn't really have something super-competitive, especially at a single-chip, single-card level. It could also be that they're planning on either no longer making the Titan or making the Titan as a prosumer double-precision card again, so if there is a 1080 Ti, it could be designed to replace the Titan X in their pricing model and put the Titan back as a double-precision monster.


depends on what you look at.

R9 380 matches the 960 for 10-30usd less
R9 380x beats the 960 at the same price
R9 390 beat/matches a GTX 970 at the same price and it has 2x vram
R9 390x matches a GTX 980 and costs less while having 2x vram
R9 Nano beats the GTX 980, and costs less. it is baiscally a fury x on air cooling
R9 Fury doesnt have anything to compete with

Most powerful single card
Radeon Pro Duo, 1500usd has no competition


----------



## Zzyzx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> depends on what you look at.
> 
> R9 380 matches the 960 for 10-30usd less
> R9 380x beats the 960 at the same price
> R9 390 beat/matches a GTX 970 at the same price and it has 2x vram
> R9 390x matches a GTX 980 and costs less while having 2x vram
> R9 Nano beats the GTX 980, and costs less. it is baiscally a fury x on air cooling
> R9 Fury doesnt have anything to compete with
> 
> Most powerful single card
> Radeon Pro Duo, 1500usd has no competition


That's why I was careful to say "single-chip, single-card" meaning single GPU offerings.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Back in HD 4870 days AMD released a Mid-Range Chip for $300. Nvidia released the more powerful GTX280 and priced it $650. It did not last long.


----------



## xx9e02

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zzyzx*
> 
> That's why I was careful to say "single-chip, single-card" meaning single GPU offerings.


So, discounting the Radeon Pro Duo on Pontiac's list there, wouldn't the rest of them be "single-chip, single-cards"? Or did you mean at 980Ti/TitanX level


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Back in HD 4870 days AMD released a Mid-Range Chip for $300. Nvidia released the more powerful GTX280 and priced it $650. It did not last long.


you got that backwards.

nvidia released the 280 first.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> you got that backwards.
> 
> nvidia released the 280 first.


Within 1 week or 2. Yes GTX260/280 released at 400/650 and HD 4870 came out @ $300 beating GTX260 and coming very close to GTX280.


----------



## looniam

IIRC these are the same EXACT prices the 980/970 were SUPPOSE to have just prior to their release.

i'm sure there is a thread about that but i'm too lazy and tired from work to go look for it.

so yeah, $350 and $500 - book it.









edit:
i don't care about the price of the X80 but if it isn't 20%-25%>980ti; *its a fail.*


----------



## bigjdubb

$400 and $550 is more likely but $350 and $500 would make for a decent amount of people throwing money at their monitor.


----------



## CalinTM

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> IIRC these are the same EXACT prices the 980/970 were SUPPOSE to have just prior to their release.
> 
> i'm sure there is a thread about that but i'm too lazy and tired from work to go look for it.
> 
> so yeah, $350 and $500 - book it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit:
> i don't care about the price of the X80 but if it isn't 20%-25%>980ti; *its a fail.*


Will be dont worry. The thing is that 600$ for x80 should be the right price.

Also u need to think that in time drivers will get better for pascal, and worse for maxwell, like nvidia did in the past. So more than 25% over 980ti.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CalinTM*
> 
> Will be dont worry. The thing is that 600$ for x80 should be the right price.
> 
> Also u need to think that in time drivers will get better for pascal, and worse for maxwell, like nvidia did in the past. So more than 25% over 980ti.


idk, i'm pretty adamant about $500 for a mid range chip; could stretch to $550.

and that 25% is before the latest gameworks games are released.


----------



## waylo88

The performance jump better be huge to justify those prices, assuming they're real, otherwise I'll be sticking with my 970 for a bit longer.


----------



## Jeazy

As expected for newer cards, but here's the problem with my country.

In Canada, currently, the exchange is indeed different hence more expensive cards. The thieves at NCIX are still charging 30-40% extra on a lot of expensive components. The dollar used to be that different but it is not anymore. I wouldn't surprised if these show up on NCIX Canada for 800+.

Lucky for me, and those Canadians reading this, you are WAY better off purchasing a mailbox address in the Usa and crossing the border to pick it up. I use pacific mail and parcel and pay only 3 bucks to grab a package, If you live within 2 hours of a border crossing, I highly suggest it.

Nevertheless, I also suggest picking up a 780TI or 980TI used from these wonderful members here who might upgrade


----------



## Zzyzx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xx9e02*
> 
> So, discounting the Radeon Pro Duo on Pontiac's list there, wouldn't the rest of them be "single-chip, single-cards"? Or did you mean at 980Ti/TitanX level


Well, the Titan X and the 980 Ti are the fastest single GPU cards out there. The 980 Ti is about 5% faster at 2160p and about 10% faster at 1440p than the R9 Fury X, and the R9 Fury X was $649 when it was released, and it's always been difficult to even find the card to buy it.


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zzyzx*
> 
> Well, the Titan X and the 980 Ti are the fastest single GPU cards out there. *The 980 Ti is about 5% faster at 2160p* and about 10% faster at 1440p than the R9 Fury X, and the R9 Fury X was $649 when it was released, and it's always been difficult to even find the card to buy it.














and your claims of 1440p are dubious at best.


----------



## sKorcheDeArtH

That 1080 better damn well perform like a $650 card.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and your claims of 1440p are dubious at best.


The OC'ed 980Ti is a beast. I mean, it just wipes the floor. hope that Pascal can OC as well....


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> The OC'ed 980Ti is a beast. I mean, it just wipes the floor. hope that Pascal can OC as well....


They never show OCed Fury X or Titan X because they are both Reference.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> They never show OCed Fury X or Titan X because they are both Reference.


True. I don't understand why the stock Maxwell parts are included when there are AIB cards that, out of the box, are like 15+% faster. it just leads to false rhetoric, because, more people own those cards than reference. I am not even talking OC'ing once you buy the card, I am talking only the cards sold with an OC, because, in actuality, the reference 980Ti isn't the fastest 980Ti....I know, I turned this into a ramble, my bad...


----------



## StrongForce

You want to know the fun part ? the fun part is that regardless if it's 650 or even 700 there still going to be people buying it, I can already see the Ti OC models at 900+ .. well let's hope not.

So much for the overinflated 780 ti prices and Titans etc, yet they still sold well.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StrongForce*
> 
> You want to know the fun part ? the fun part is that regardless if it's 650 or even 700 there still going to be people buying it, I can already see the Ti OC models at 900+ .. well let's hope not.
> 
> So much for the overinflated 780 ti prices and Titans etc, yet they still sold well.


Aren't there already $900+ 980Ti s? Kingpins or Classifieds or something.


----------



## StrongForce

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Aren't there already $900+ 980Ti s? Kingpins or Classifieds or something.


yea but these are fancier models, I'm talking about the regular OC models, the cheaper ones


----------



## carlhil2

980Ti Classifieds go for $700.00.... well, $650.00 now, but, I am talking upon release. http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-CLASSIFIED-Installed-Backplate-06G-P4-4998-KR/dp/B010GK3YYC


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> 980Ti Classifieds go for $700.00.... well, $650.00 now, but, I am talking upon release. http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-CLASSIFIED-Installed-Backplate-06G-P4-4998-KR/dp/B010GK3YYC


$568 open box. Not a bad deal considering they are usually like brand new from Amazon.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> $568 open box. Not a bad deal considering they are usually like brand new from Amazon.


Dudes dumping them for Pascal...







speaking of, I will say it again, I don't know why some are sleeping on Pascal....


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Dudes dumping them for Pascal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> speaking of, I will say it again, *I don't know why some are sleeping on Pascal*....


Because the reality of the market is that 14/16nm is going to be here for a while (likely longer even than 28nm was) and Nvidia (or AMD either really) can't go squeezing every last drop of performance out of these chips so early on and they know it. They have to keep plenty in reserve for the next two or even three generations of 14/16nm chips they will be making over the next 5+ years.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> 980Ti Classifieds go for $700.00.... well, $650.00 now, but, I am talking upon release. http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-CLASSIFIED-Installed-Backplate-06G-P4-4998-KR/dp/B010GK3YYC


Yeah, I must have been thinking of Kingpin

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/46525/evgas-super-insane-geforce-gtx-980-ti-kingpin-cost-up-1050/index.html


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Because the reality of the market is that 14/16nm is going to be here for a while (likely longer even than 28nm was) and Nvidia (or AMD either really) can't go squeezing every last drop of performance out of these chips so early on and they know it. They have to keep plenty in reserve for the next two or even three generations of 14/16nm chips they will be making over the next 5+ years.


True, but, I am referring to the "1080" variant compared to GM200. just adding GDDR5X and a clock of, say, 1480 alone, to the 980Ti reference, would be much faster than a 980Ti Classified at stock. then, say, OC the 980Ti with GDDR5X to 1600, it should still smoke the Classy clock for clock. now, add the new arch to that....


----------



## EightDee8D

Maybe 1070-80 both have same amount of CC but different types of memory ? like GDDR5-1070/GDDR5x-1080 ?
maybe that's the reason why 1070 could cost 500$ ?. amd has done something like that with GDDR3/5 in 4xxx series iirc.


----------



## badtaylorx

@ these prices you can expect the new silicon to outperform their AIB partner's high-end (lightning/classy/matrix) cards by 15-20 % .

Price ALWAYS reflects performance at launch.


----------



## renji1337

Is it worth selling both my 980tis now?


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renji1337*
> 
> Is it worth selling both my 980tis now?


I already sold one of mine, will be moving the other one in a Month....


----------



## renji1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> I already sold one of mine, will be moving the other one in a Month....


i'm still debating on mine ;O idk if it's gonna be worth it or not at this point


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renji1337*
> 
> i'm still debating on mine ;O idk if it's gonna be worth it or not at this point


"1080 " will have GDDR5X, so, that helps... http://wccftech.com/nvidia-pascal-gp104-gpu-gddr5x-leak/


----------



## Serandur

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> "1080 " will have GDDR5X, so, that helps... http://wccftech.com/nvidia-pascal-gp104-gpu-gddr5x-leak/


Interesting. The question is how fast those GDDR5X chips will run and how high they can be overclocked. It's still a 256-bit memory bus, so total bandwidth might not be much higher than the 980 Ti (384 vs 336 GB/s at stock) if the rumored 12 Gbps figure was true. Still, if it maintains that ~14% bandwidth advantage when overclocked, there would be a good 5-10% performance gain for the chip if all else was equal.


----------



## hollowtek

i think it's fair to assume that the 1070 variant won't be costing $500. Anyways, I'll probably be getting this until a true 1080ti variant is out, since the x70's hold their value much better than the x80


----------



## dubldwn

GDDR5X! I wonder what availability will be like...and if AMD will show up to the party.


----------



## zealord

seems like some custom 980 Ti designs are at 599€ now in europe. Like the KFA2 Black Edition. It is probably the cheapest I've seen so far.

I think the 980 Ti launched at around 700€ for reference design here.

From the looks of it I'd wager to say the GTX 1080 will definitely replace the 980 Ti in terms of performance.


----------



## carlhil2

"Micron originally promised to start sampling of its GDDR5X with customers in Q1 and the company has formally delivered on its promise. What now remains to be seen is when designers of GPUs plan to roll-out their GDDR5X supporting processors. Micron claims that it is set to start mass production of the new memory this summer, which hopefully means we're going to be seeing graphics cards featuring GDDR5X before the end of the year..." http://www.anandtech.com/show/10193/micron-begins-to-sample-gddr5x-memory?_ga=1.174682786.1699067348.1453711822 maybe nVidia got a deal on some early chips?


----------



## dubldwn

They must have. 256 bit 8Gbps won't work for the top dog. They need 384 bit 8Gbps or 256 bit GDDR5X. Even if they have to trickle them out I'll wait. We're too close and they might as well take advantage of it now or they'll miss the transition phase. It's in the lab. It's tested. They do probably need over 10,000 sets for it not to be a paper launch, though.


----------



## Pantsu

They might launch the GDDR5 models in June and wait until they get enough GDDR5X volume before releasing the top dog a bit later.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *badtaylorx*
> 
> @ these prices you can expect the new silicon to outperform their AIB partner's high-end (lightning/classy/matrix) cards by 15-20 % .
> 
> Price ALWAYS reflects performance at launch.


But these prices are just rumor. I repeat, these prices are just rumor.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> But these prices are just rumor. I repeat, these prices are just rumor.


Nonsense! Make binding plans post-haste.


----------



## carlhil2

http://videocardz.com/59310/leaked-gp104-400-is-from-msi-geforce-gtx-1080-gaming-8g  But, but, "GDDR5X isn't in production yet..."


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> http://videocardz.com/59310/leaked-gp104-400-is-from-msi-geforce-gtx-1080-gaming-8g  But, but, "GDDR5X isn't in production yet..."


$500 and you got yourself a customer Nvidia


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> $500 and you got yourself a customer Nvidia


They have no reason to sell the GTX 1080 for 500$ if the rumors we've heard so far (about Pascal and Polaris) are true


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> They have no reason to sell the GTX 1080 for 500$ if the rumors we've heard so far (about Pascal and Polaris) are true


I disagree from a customer`s perspective. Never have any Gx104 card been priced above $500 :/
But you might be right. Bet they will use GDDR5X as an excuse to make it super exclusive or something. If the performance is there though, well that changes things.
That may be the pudding


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> So if this is true, expect $500 for GTX 1070 and $650 for GTX 1080.
> Did not expect this...


What were you expecting? Has history taught you nothing? Nvida has been releasing 104 chips at a premium and then releasing their big 100 chip down the line and reducing prices on the smaller chips to compensate. Been like this since Kepler...


----------



## Klocek001

1080 for $650 will be one of the worst buys ever if it delivers only 10-15% more than 980Ti. However, if the difference turns out to be equal or bigger to 980 -> 980Ti*, I'll consider purchasing it for $650 but only because I don't mind paying more for a single card to spare myself of any dual gpu issues.

witcher 3 1440p, max
980 - 48 fps
980Ti - 61 fps
27% faster

61 fps x 1.27 = 77 fps which makes me think it's worth ~ $150


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> I disagree from a customer`s perspective. Never have any Gx104 card been priced above $500 :/
> But you might be right. Bet they will use GDDR5X as an excuse to make it super exclusive or something. If the performance is there though, well that changes things.
> That may be the pudding


yeah, but even if these are still rumors we can be pretty certain that the GTX 1080 has 8GB GDDR5X VRAM and is faster than the 980 Ti.

I think reasonable assumptions/expectations are :

- between 499$ and 649$
- 8GB GDDR5X VRAM
- Faster than 980 Ti. How much no idea, but should be faster by atleast 15%. I'd guess somewhere between 15-35%.
- more features than Maxwell (this is a no brainer)

If we then look at Polaris, there are 3 options :

- Polaris 10 will be slower than GTX 1080
- Polaris 10 will be on par with GTX 1080
- Polaris 10 will be faster than GTX 1080

I know there are a lot of "ifs" in my post. but sadly the reality is that these assumptions are not far fetched. It all comes down to AMD. There is no reason for Nvidia to release a card that is better than the 980 Ti, but a lot cheaper and kill their own sales, if AMD has nothing to challenge at that performance level.

I hate the thought of Gx104 cards priced at 650$ too. All we can do is hope for better prices and/or vote with our wallets.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> They have no reason to sell the GTX 1080 for 500$ if the rumors we've heard so far (about Pascal and Polaris) are true


It will depend on AMD.
If AMD brings an equal to the playground, nvidia will sell similar or according to its performance (less or more).
If AMD performance is good but not as good, nvidia will sell high, as they always do.


----------



## gigafloppy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> There is no reason for Nvidia to release a card that is better than the 980 Ti, but a lot cheaper and kill their own sales, if AMD has nothing to challenge at that performance level


Sure there is. After one year I doubt the market for the $650 GTX 980-Ti is as large as it once was, and certainly a lot smaller than the potential market for say a ~$500 GTX 1080.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gigafloppy*
> 
> Sure there is. After one year I doubt the market for the $650 GTX 980-Ti is as large as it once was, and certainly a lot smaller than the potential market for say a ~$500 GTX 1080.


What I meant to say with that sentence was :

If Nvidia releases a card that is better than the 980 Ti by like 25% (and with that it is the best GPU) then Nvida will try to get as much profit out of it as possible.


----------



## gigafloppy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> What I meant to say with that sentence was :
> 
> If Nvidia releases a card that is better than the 980 Ti by like 25% (and with that it is the best GPU) then Nvida will try to get as much profit out of it as possible.


I get that. But if they price it the same as the current 980 Ti, the people who buy it will be that same, small, 980 Ti crowd. I may be wrong, but unless they have huge yield problems, one would think Nvidia wants to sell 970/980 numbers with a 330mm2 chip.


----------



## TheHorse

Uh yeah no.

You can only pull that stupid stuff off for so long. Increasing price 30-50% and performance 5%... Not gonna happen, nvidia.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHorse*
> 
> Uh yeah no.
> 
> You can only pull that stupid stuff off for so long. Increasing price 30-50% and performance 5%... Not gonna happen, nvidia.


where do you get only 5% performance increase from?









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gigafloppy*
> 
> I get that. But if they price it the same as the current 980 Ti, the people who buy it will be that same, small, 980 Ti crowd. I may be wrong, but unless they have huge yield problems, one would think Nvidia wants to sell 970/980 numbers with a 330mm2 chip.


yeah who knows how many cards they have.

The first batch always sell well. Especially in the US, no matter what price. There are cards in stock all over europe, but on forums I read from the US guys "All Nvidia cards are sold out, I hammer F5 all day, but I can't get one!"

I see competitive prices only happening if AMD has something to challenge it

I won't be an early adopter. I will definitely wait for new CPUs and Polaris. Maybe I'll even delay my new rig to Q1-Q2 2017, because not many good PC games come out in the remaining of 2016.


----------



## gigafloppy

The only way a $650 GTX 1080 could work is if the GDDR5X gives it Titan-class performance compared to the lower cards. The 1070 and "1060-Ti" (GDDR5) would be the actual 1080/1070 we've been expecting. Then the pricing makes sense, somewhat. Still don't like it, if true.


----------



## carlhil2

"1080 = 135% 5500RMB level
1070 = 110% 4000RMB grade
980 Ti = 100%
Desktop Polaris P10 = 80% 3000RMB level " - [Chiphell user gtx9] Ready for a $500.00 1070? Lol


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> "1080 = 135% 5500RMB level
> 1070 = 110% 4000RMB grade
> 980 Ti = 100%
> Desktop Polaris P10 = 80% 3000RMB level " - [Chiphell user gtx9] Ready for a $500.00 1070? Lol


ugh let's hope Polaris 10 is not that disappointingly bad.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> "1080 = 135% 5500RMB level
> 1070 = 110% 4000RMB grade
> 980 Ti = 100%
> Desktop Polaris P10 = 80% 3000RMB level " - [Chiphell user gtx9] Ready for a $500.00 1070? Lol


That 1070 is worth $400 max


----------



## iLeakStuff

Looking at the shipping info, it almost seems like GTX 1070 will be a lot cheaper than GTX 1080.

GTX 1080?
GP104-400


GTX 1070?
GP104-200


Tesla P100 I think


----------



## sinholueiro

Getting more than 11 times X70s than X80s. The price per unit has to come down if you buy more units.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sinholueiro*
> 
> Getting more than 11 times X70s than X80s. The price per unit has to come down if you buy more units.


Hmmm, the value have varied a bit.
38 000 is the cheapest I could find.
https://www.zauba.com/import-699-1g411-0000-100-hs-code.html


----------



## zGunBLADEz

So im reading this right... Some people defending and willing to pay the rumored prices of the x70/x80 chips because they are 15-25% faster than the 980ti??
So $650 for a x80 its ok as long is faster than 980TI so that means the x80TI if theres any would be costing like 800-900 and the titan would be like 1,300-1400 lol..

No wonder why nvidia keep doing what they doing.. GG GUYS

SO TITAN OG 1,000k a year some months later 970 costing 1/3 of what that TITAN OG costed..


----------



## Death Saved

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Hmmm, the value have varied a bit.
> 38 000 is the cheapest I could find.
> https://www.zauba.com/import-699-1g411-0000-100-hs-code.html


That's the Insurance value and not the price of the unit.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zGunBLADEz*
> 
> So im reading this right... Some people defending and willing to pay the rumored prices of the x70/x80 chips because they are 15-25% faster than the 980ti??
> So $650 for a x80 its ok as long is faster than 980TI so that means the x80TI if theres any would be costing like 800-900 and the titan would be like 1,300-1400 lol..
> 
> No wonder why nvidia keep doing what they doing.. GG GUYS
> 
> SO TITAN OG 1,000k a year some months later 970 costing 1/3 of what that TITAN OG costed..


They bargain against their own wallets for some reason. Also as if their dad works at Nvidia or something.

We'll be paying $1999 for Volta Titan in 2019


----------



## carlhil2

I will be buying a "1080", or, two..you dudes can keep on preaching, or, whatever you choose to call it.my money, I earn it, I spend it as I want. thank you for your concerns though.....


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> They bargain against their own wallets for some reason. Also as if their dad works at Nvidia or something.
> 
> We'll be paying $1999 for Volta Titan in 2019


wait you could get a GTX Titan Y Pascal for only 4500usd on 2017


----------



## carlhil2

All that I am saying is, some are trying to make the point that we, collectively, should boycott buying mid range cards at flagship prices. but, that ship has left the dock. remember the 680? I skipped that one. anyways, shouldn't you guys wait til you know the ACTUAL price first before complaining against said price? lastly, some of you guys would have a legit beef, if you didn't have agendas, and, it's EASY to tell who those guys are, it's obvious. they have no shame..Lol heck, I might be priced out of the 6950x, might have to settle for another 8-core Broadwell-E, but, hey, I am not going to cry/complain about it. why? because, I have OTHER, cheaper options.I wasn't promised/guaranteed a 10-core chip, even though I wish that I were..hurry up, Zen ..


----------



## i7monkey

People are so quick to justify even the most ridiculous prices (rumors or not) for the most ridiculous reasons it's beyond sickening.

Do people not realize the concept of technological advancement? We're supposed to get improvements, chips are supposed to get smaller, faster, and cheaper. HBM2 is not a favor to us. We didn't do a custom order it. Nvidia didn't give us any "miracles".

Prices aren't supposed to go up like this. We're paying much more and we're getting mediocre advancements. This isn't the way it's supposed to be.

But you guys go ahead and fight against your own interests, or better yet actually get paid for shilling their stuff if you're not already.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> People are so quick to justify even the most ridiculous prices (rumors or not) for the most ridiculous reasons it's beyond sickening.
> 
> Do people not realize the concept of technological advancement? We're supposed to get improvements, chips are supposed to get smaller, faster, and cheaper. HBM2 is not a favor to us. We didn't do a custom order it. Nvidia didn't give us any "miracles".
> 
> Prices aren't supposed to go up like this. We're paying much more and we're getting mediocre advancements. This isn't the way it's supposed to be.
> 
> But you guys go ahead and fight against your own interests, or better yet actually get paid for shilling their stuff if you're not already.


Man, you complain in EVERY cpu/gpu release thread that I can remember, like clock work, then, proceed to tell everyone how you don't actually USE your gear,. stop...lol


----------



## kaosstar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> But you guys go ahead and fight against your own interests, or better yet actually get paid for shilling their stuff if you're not already.


Says the guy with the Nvidia logo as his avatar. Just sayin.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

It's not the rumored price. It's the people excusing if it become reality. If is truth or not.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zGunBLADEz*
> 
> It's not the rumored price. It's the people excusing if it become reality. If is truth or not.


I keep hearing this rhetoric, link me where there are guys in this thread "excusing.." high gpu prices for mid range chips, please...thanks....like I said before, if you think that the price is too high for what it is, move on, buy something else, there are plenty of choices, why stress yourself over something so simple as the price of an item being sold by money hungry Companies? I mean, these Companies are in the business of making money, not being a charity organization...there are some that drop major coin on mice, keyboards, watercooling, etc, etc. never heard "why are you spending $100.00 on a mouse, you can get them for as low as $10.00, what a waste...."it is what it is. you don't HAVE to play the game, just buy something else, or, as I like to say, stay in your lane.....














look at the name of this thread, and, they seem a happy bunch, no anti-keyboard hate over there http://www.overclock.net/t/538389/official-mechanical-keyboard-club-because-saving-money-is-boring/0_20 if there were to be a gpu thread with that name, some here would riot, "you are enabling them.." it would be a troll fest...lol anyways,I am sure that there are people here that blow more loot on drugs/alcohol.. sorry for the essay..


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> All that I am saying is, some are trying to make the point that we, collectively, should boycott buying mid range cards at flagship prices. but, that ship has left the dock. remember the 680? I skipped that one. anyways, shouldn't you guys wait til you know the ACTUAL price first before complaining against said price? lastly, some of you guys would have a legit beef, if you didn't have agendas, and, it's EASY to tell who those guys are, it's obvious. they have no shame..Lol heck, I might be priced out of the 6950x, might have to settle for another 8-core Broadwell-E, but, hey, I am not going to cry/complain about it. why? because, I have OTHER, cheaper options.I wasn't promised/guaranteed a 10-core chip, even though I wish that I were..hurry up, Zen ..


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> I keep hearing this rhetoric, link me where there are guys in this thread "excusing.." high gpu prices for mid range chips, please...thanks....like I said before, if you think that the price is too high for what it is, move on, buy something else, there are plenty of choices, why stress yourself over something so simple as the price of an item being sold by money hungry Companies? I mean, these Companies are in the business of making money, not being a charity organization...there are some that drop major coin on mice, keyboards, watercooling, etc, etc. never heard "why are you spending $100.00 on a mouse, you can get them for as low as $10.00, what a waste...."it is what it is. you don't HAVE to play the game, just buy something else, or, as I like to say, stay in your lane.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> look at the name of this thread, and, they seem a happy bunch, no anti-keyboard hate over there http://www.overclock.net/t/538389/official-mechanical-keyboard-club-because-saving-money-is-boring/0_20 if there were to be a gpu thread with that name, some here would riot, "you are enabling them.." ..lol


That's not quite the same thing. I wouldn't pay $300 for a $150 DAS keyboard just because DAS decided they were going to price them that high to test the market. That's basically what Nvidia does and people still buy their cards like crazy. There has to be an arbitrary line in the sand we enthusiast have to set to get companies to wake up to the fact that they can't just raise prices "because" and expect us to buy. Anyway, I haven't seen anyone tell you what to buy. All I have seen is people say it isn't the smartest choice or the best choice to pay $650 for such a small die chip. Yep the price is a rumor, but you are already defending it... lol


----------



## i7monkey

we've heard it all before:

boutique pricing
supply and demand
halo card
some silly 'car analogy'
no one's forcing you to buy it
'stay in your lane' (all the lanes have changed, we're paying more and getting less in each lane)
free market

there's nothing competitive about this market. it's a duopoly, they've raised and fixed prices and there's nowhere else to go but quit buying.

but by all means, you've guys go ahead and justify a $650 pricetag for a midrange pile of junk that used to cost $199 and $229 just a few short years ago. remember that a *dual-flagship-GF110* GTX 590 cost $699. enjoy your $3000 titan z's and $650 gp104s


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> That's not quite the same thing. I wouldn't pay $300 for a $150 DAS keyboard just because DAS decided they were going to price them that high to test the market. That's basically what Nvidia does and people still buy their cards like crazy. There has to be an arbitrary line in the sand we enthusiast have to set to get companies to wake up to the fact that they can't just raise prices "because" and expect us to buy. Anyway, I haven't seen anyone tell you what to buy. All I have seen is people say it isn't the smartest choice or the best choice to pay $650 for such a small die chip. Yep the price is a rumor, but you are already defending it... lol


Nah, not defending, just trying to honestly find out what all the whining is about. as kept being said, we don't know the actual price. it just seems like a lot of www noise to me. every release, the same cast of characters. you would think that those guys had moved on to consoles by now. ever since the OG Titan dropped. people are still buying though, including yourself...anyways, I am done, see you guys in the "Pascal Owners Thread." whine on, people...


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> we've heard it all before:
> 
> boutique pricing
> supply and demand
> halo card
> some silly 'car analogy'
> no one's forcing you to buy it
> 'stay in your lane' (all the lanes have changed, we're paying more and getting less in each lane)
> free market
> 
> there's nothing competitive about this market. it's a duopoly, they've raised and fixed prices and there's nowhere else to go but quit buying.
> 
> but by all means, you've guys go ahead and justify a $650 pricetag for a midrange pile of junk that used to cost $199 and $229 just a few short years ago. remember that a *dual-flagship-GF110* GTX 590 cost $699. enjoy your $3000 titan z's and $650 gp104s


THIS guy, Lol....


----------



## i7monkey




----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> I will be buying a "1080", or, two..you dudes can keep on preaching, or, whatever you choose to call it.my money, I earn it, I spend it as I want. thank you for your concerns though.....


You can do whatever you want with your money but you can never come here and justify a purchase like that. If you remove the $ limiter then this forum is pointless for any discussion. We should all just own $5M homes, drive Ferraris etc. It would be boring.


----------



## Clocknut

If 1080 is $650, I wonder if they will actually try $749 for GP100/102 1 year later. They tried $699 for GK110 on 780ti. So no harm to try a price tag $50 higher.


----------



## i7monkey

Nobody is telling anyone what to do with their money. We're discussing price raising and price fixing in a non-competitive market and consumer's stubborn willingness to defend these outrageous prices. No amount of "don't like it don't buy it" statements can dismiss this.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I will concede that if the price truly ends up being $650 for the 1080 then the performance is almost guaranteed to be far more than I have been guessing it will be (likely 30% more than 980Ti or more). The 980 (which was a total side grade to the 780Ti/Titan on release) was $550; they didn't attempt to charge "Ti" pricing for it at the time because they knew it wouldn't fly. This time around I expect similar performance gains for the 1080 over the 980Ti so a $550 price makes sense. If they release it for the same price as the 980Ti then it will certainly be a large enough upgrade in performance to justify that same price.


----------



## lolfail9001

Guys, transistors are getting cheaper, but not that cheaper.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Nobody is telling anyone what to do with their money. We're discussing price raising and price fixing in a non-competitive market and consumer's stubborn willingness to defend these outrageous prices. No amount of "don't like it don't buy it" statements can dismiss this.


Just saying: transistors are not getting exponentially cheaper, while they do grow exponentially in amount.

So, if you want to claim that price is fixed, you are correct. But don't trip that 200 millions transistors used to cost half the price 8 billions do now.


----------



## HackHeaven

Mid-range to to poor people: $150-~220
Mid-range to rich kids: $330~630
Mid-Range to bank robbers: $630+

Does your job pay more when these cards come out or something?
If a gfx card costs more then your whole pc (WITH A GFX CARD) something is wrong... we all may as well just buy a $300 console that does the same thing as our $4000 pc (half of that is just one gfx card Kappa)

If i was a bank robber i would buy it tho cause having the newest best things makes me feel cool inside


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HackHeaven*
> 
> we all may as well just buy a $300 console that does the same thing as our $4000 pc


go ahead.I'd prefer to game on a $150 CPU and $200 GPU than a console.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> You can do whatever you want with your money but you can never come here and justify a purchase like that. If you remove the $ limiter then this forum is pointless for any discussion. We should all just own $5M homes, drive Ferraris etc. It would be boring.


Although it would be really sad to see a midrange card cost the same as a high end card from last architecture, sadly we will have many many people just like him that will get 1 or 2 GTX 1080s.
People that had 980Ti in their hands but waited for GTX 1080 most certainly get a better deal this time. A lot worse deal than if Nvidia priced the 1080 $500 like previous architectures, but its still a better buy than GTX 980Ti non the less because the card will undoubtly be a good deal faster.

The sad part of it all is that Nvidia can do whatever the heck they want with the pricing. They will get a huge crowd which will be really pissed off that it doesnt cost $500 and is out of their price range with $650, but Nvidia`s market share is so huge, there will always be someone buying the damn cards anyway. The rest will just have to settle with, say GTX 1060.
The only way of reversing this development in price, is to buy an alternative to GTX 1080 and GTX 1070. And that is where AMD comes in.
But if AMD can`t match GTX 1080 or even GTX 1070 with Polaris 10, then checkmate for Nvidia. Its nothing we can do. Refuse to buy the cards would work somewhat, but as long as there are customers for Nvidia and these expensive cards, it will take years and patience from us that are pissed off. Meaning we refuse to buy Nvidia, wait until AMD release Vega in 2017, buy those cards, AMDs market share goes up, years pass by, Nvidia get the message since AMD have grown bigger in market share, then maybe, just maybe, the next architecture in 2019-2020 it will go back to the normal price range again, aka $500 for midrange.
Until then, there will be a lot of weak people that will be tempted by Nvidia`s Pascal cards expensive or not, because they are brand new, they have really good efficiency, and they are available right there on the shelf for people to buy while waiting for AMD to release Vega.

In the end, our refusal to buy GTX 1080/1070 will only be limited in impact as long as AMD doesnt have a competive card right there next to GTX 1080/1070. So Nvidia can really run the show anyway they damn like


----------



## Klocek001

what's sad about a guy buying two 1080s is that you won't have them.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> In the end, our refusal to buy GTX 1080/1070 will only be limited in impact as long as AMD doesnt have a competive card right there next to GTX 1080/1070. So Nvidia can really run the show anyway they damn like


boycotts online always make me laugh and remind me of this every time









http://kotaku.com/5403286/what-modern-warfare-2-boycotters-are-playing


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> boycotts online always make me laugh and remind me of this every time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://kotaku.com/5403286/what-modern-warfare-2-boycotters-are-playing


haha exactly









There are big words of never buying a product from a company ever again, but the temptation is just too big for the majority of them as long as there are no alternatives.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> we've heard it all before:
> 
> boutique pricing
> supply and demand
> halo card
> some silly 'car analogy'
> no one's forcing you to buy it
> 'stay in your lane' (all the lanes have changed, we're paying more and getting less in each lane)
> free market
> 
> there's nothing competitive about this market. it's a duopoly, they've raised and fixed prices and there's nowhere else to go but quit buying.
> 
> but by all means, you've guys go ahead and justify a $650 pricetag for a midrange pile of junk that used to cost $199 and $229 just a few short years ago. remember that a *dual-flagship-GF110* GTX 590 cost $699. enjoy your $3000 titan z's and $650 gp104s


i 100% agree


----------



## cowie

yeah I am guilty of wanting to play with the new cards








it sucks that they have transformed the mid range cards prices so close to yesterdays high end but 1k cards can make you feel like its a great deal lol
it is a hobby for me thou
I do not cater to the game makers/game devs at least.,thats a whole other brand of evil on a higher level.


----------



## zealord

What I am wondering is. Is the Radeon Duo Pro a gaming card at all?

Because with the GTX 1080 coming out soon and AMD are so late to the party with the Radeon Duo Pro how are they going to make that card interesting for gamers?

For most games I could see the GTX 1080 being pretty close to the Radeon Duo Pro in games.

Or is the Radeon Duo Pro more of a workstation card?


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> What I am wondering is. Is the Radeon Duo Pro a gaming card at all?
> 
> Because with the GTX 1080 coming out soon and AMD are so late to the party with the Radeon Duo Pro how are they going to make that card interesting for gamers?
> 
> For most games I could see the GTX 1080 being pretty close to the Radeon Duo Pro in games.
> 
> Or is the Radeon Duo Pro more of a workstation card?


It's for vr developers, not pure gamers.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> What I am wondering is. Is the Radeon Duo Pro a gaming card at all?
> 
> Because with the GTX 1080 coming out soon and AMD are so late to the party with the Radeon Duo Pro how are they going to make that card interesting for gamers?
> 
> For most games I could see the GTX 1080 being pretty close to the Radeon Duo Pro in games.
> 
> Or is the Radeon Duo Pro more of a workstation card?


With that price and the mediocre compute capabilities, its not interesting for many users.

Have no idea why they even made it this close to Pascal. Much of what AMD does is a mystery. I think they messed up with the timing. It was meant to launch before xmas and it would make a little more sense then, but since VR was postponed and they spent big bucks on designing it, they have to follow through and launch it despite.
Price should fall rapidly after Pascal launches

My 10 cents


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> Guys, transistors are getting cheaper, but not that cheaper.
> Just saying: transistors are not getting exponentially cheaper, while they do grow exponentially in amount.
> 
> So, if you want to claim that price is fixed, you are correct. But don't trip that 200 millions transistors used to cost half the price 8 billions do now.


I get what you're saying but my point is that tech gets faster, better, and cheaper. Cars today don't cost a trillion dollars because they're a trillion times better than the first Model T.

We're supposed to get a lot more while paying the same.

Why can't some of these guys understand this? As performance goes up generation to generation, the price stays the same or else we'd be paying $50 000 for 980ti cause it's that much better than a Geforce 2 Ultra.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I get what you're saying but my point is that tech gets faster, better, and cheaper. Cars today don't cost a trillion dollars because they're a trillion times better than the first Model T.
> 
> We're supposed to get a lot more while paying the same.
> 
> Why can't some of these guys understand this? As performance goes up generation to generation, the price stays the same or else we'd be paying $50 000 for 980ti cause it's that much better than a Geforce 2 Ultra.


Maybe give it a rest until the *actual* price is known? We get it, you think it's overpriced.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I get what you're saying but my point is that tech gets faster, better, and cheaper. Cars today don't cost a trillion dollars because they're a trillion times better than the first Model T.
> 
> We're supposed to get a lot more while paying the same.
> 
> Why can't some of these guys understand this? As performance goes up generation to generation, the price stays the same or else we'd be paying $50 000 for 980ti cause it's that much better than a Geforce 2 Ultra.


Hehe GTX980TI is faster than TNT2 ULTRA.It need cost billion becuase its so much faster than 400USD TNT2 ULTRA!!!
i agree with you.Those Nv sheeps whos defending prices are really lame.They just dont understand basics of tech advancement.

Why is GTX970 even cheaper than flagship 400USD TNT2 ULTRA and still have like 1000x better performance?How is that possible?








Should GTX970 cost 400 000 because its 1000x faster than TNT2 ULTRA?

ALso GTX970 have 125x more memory that should also increase price







32MB vs 4GB.
Jesus people stop deffending this.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HackHeaven*
> 
> If a gfx card costs more then your whole pc (WITH A GFX CARD) something is wrong... we all may as well just buy a $300 console that does the same thing as our $4000 pc (half of that is just one gfx card Kappa)


Someone stepped off their Twitch to troll OCN. How cute!


----------



## sledge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> Someone stepped off their Twitch to troll OCN. How cute!


I dont get it. Aren't the top 4 or 5 Twitch games on PC?


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I get what you're saying but my point is that tech gets faster, better, and cheaper. Cars today don't cost a trillion dollars because they're a trillion times better than the first Model T.
> 
> We're supposed to get a lot more while paying the same.
> 
> Why can't some of these guys understand this? As performance goes up generation to generation, the price stays the same or else we'd be paying $50 000 for 980ti cause it's that much better than a Geforce 2 Ultra.


Faster, better and cheaper. Pick two.

Cars today don't cost a trillion dollars, but they are still quite costlier than cars back in 70s, in case you did not know.

And no, you are not supposed to get anything. You may choose not to pay anything for something you deem not good enough, that's your power.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> Hehe GTX980TI is faster than TNT2 ULTRA.It need cost billion becuase its so much faster than 400USD TNT2 ULTRA!!!
> i agree with you.Those Nv sheeps whos defending prices are really lame.They just dont understand basics of tech advancement.
> 
> Why is GTX970 even cheaper than flagship 400USD TNT2 ULTRA and still have like 1000x better performance?How is that possible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should GTX970 cost 400 000 because its 1000x faster than TNT2 ULTRA?
> 
> ALso GTX970 have 125x more memory that should also increase price
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32MB vs 4GB.
> Jesus people stop deffending this.


The one and only reason GTX970 even exists is that nV needs to sell stuff regularly to exist.

If they don't improve significantly (new products, that is), ya'll have your way with not upgrading (Intel, kek) and nV will have to start cutting losses, just like Intel did.

But don't confuse it by entitled to have better stuff to buy every year.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I get what you're saying but my point is that tech gets faster, better, and cheaper. Cars today don't cost a trillion dollars because they're a trillion times better than the first Model T.
> 
> We're supposed to get a lot more while paying the same.
> 
> Why can't some of these guys understand this? As performance goes up generation to generation, the price stays the same or else we'd be paying $50 000 for 980ti cause it's that much better than a Geforce 2 Ultra.


Perhaps a counter to this argument if i may. With SLI/CF dying a quick death in DX12 perhaps the idea is single gpu's go up in price. The enthusiasts gpu ends up as costly as multi gpu was and its performance is in line as well. So perhaps a single gpu that can avg 60 fps @ 4k becomes as costly as 2 in SLI from previous gen. You have no way to measure what SLI can do anymore if scaling is gone or even no longer supported(SLI). Just a thought.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> Faster, better and cheaper. Pick two.


I know nothing about manufacturing but components should become smaller, more efficient, faster, and overall cheaper to produce.

Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way but is there any other market in the tech industry where prices just magically double in every segment just because?

There isn't.


----------



## Klocek001

The situation is really bad when AMD has to lower the price of their GPUs like they did with the whole Fury lineup, but they still don't sell. R9 Nano's are 2000PLN is Poland, which is less than a new, reference 980. If you think they sell better now, then you'll be sorely disappointed. Meanwhile we're on the verge of Pascal premiere, but 980Ti's still sell like hot cakes. Logic doesn't work here, marketing does.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I know nothing about manufacturing but components should become smaller, more efficient, faster, *and overall cheaper to produce*.
> 
> Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way but is there any other market in the tech industry where prices just magically double in every segment just because?
> 
> There isn't.


I am not completely sure, so pardon my ignorance, but I think it has something to do with how many transistors a GPU chip has. While 1 transistor on 16nm is cheaper/as expensive as 1 transistor on 28nm, you can put more transistors on a 300mm² 16nm die compared to a 300mm² 28nm die. And that makes the 300mm² 16nm chip more expensive than the 28nm one.

So it could be that a 320mm² 16nm chip is more expensive for Nvidia than a 600mm² 28nm chip. I don't have the actual numbers.

Like I said before multiple times, that I don't care about that stuff, because I am consumer, but I think it is something along the lines. Has also something to do with yield issues etc.

But I am pretty sure that Nvidia could sell the GTX 1080 for as low as 349$ and still make profit off it.

Sadly AMD doesn't give them a reason to do so


----------



## Klocek001

well, $650 is hell of a price to ask for a xx80 card, but if it delivers 30% over 980Ti and clocks as good as Maxwell then I'm buying it and that's that.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> The situation is really bad when AMD has to lower the price of their GPUs like they did with the whole Fury lineup, but they still don't sell. R9 Nano's are 2000PLN is Poland, which is less than a new, reference 980. If you think they sell better now, then you'll be sorely disappointed. Meanwhile we're on the verge of Pascal premiere, but 980Ti's still sell like hot cakes. Logic doesn't work here, marketing does.


Fury X cost the same as GTX 980Ti here.
Nano cost more or less like GTX 980 but that is to be expected since the card isnt worth any more with that small build and tiny cooling system. It was overpriced from the launch. Actually both GTX 980 and Nano still is.

I wonder where you get the information that 980Ti still sell like hot cakes and Fury X doesnt? I would rather guess that both cards are selling rather poorly now due to Pascal and Polaris both arriving soon. Its a reason why Nvidia have cut off production of GM200 chips. They know it isnt selling much these days


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> I know nothing about manufacturing but components should become smaller, more efficient, faster, and overall cheaper to produce.
> 
> Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way but is there any other market in the tech industry where prices just magically double in every segment just because?
> 
> There isn't.


Let's put it this way: transistors are more expensive in FinFET process than in 28nm.

And there is at least as many transistors in GP104 as there are in GM200, considering doubled density in transition.

If you want it to be cheaper, wait, because right now, it's like asking nV to drop retail prices on 980 Ti to 300$ because you want so.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> I wonder where you get the information that 980Ti still sell like hot cakes and Fury X doesnt?


Cause I got an internet connection in my house and I can browse it.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> Cause I got an internet connection in my house and I can browse it.


Then you can link to that information as well...


----------



## Klocek001

no, I can't cause I made it up.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> no, I can't cause I made it up.


Yeah thats what I thought


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Yeah thats what I thought


You really think the Fury X sells like hotcakes?


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> You really think the Fury X sells like hotcakes?


No, I think neither does at this point.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Yep the price is a rumor, but you are already defending it... lol


/Topic

XD


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Yeah thats what I thought


nah,but now for real....



it's from my favorite online shop. the number I put in the red box is the number of items sold.
they sold 338 980Ti's (all brands) and 12 Fury *AND* Fury X cards so far.
And this is in a country where 980Ti costs 2.5x minimum monthly salary.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> No, I think neither does at this point.


Idk. On the Steam Survey it looks like the 980 Ti almost doubled from .49% to .89% in 5 months: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/ Obviously not everyone runs Steam or participates but that seems like a big jump for an expensive card.


----------



## zealord

yeah I am pretty sure the 980 Ti outsells the Fury, Fury X and Nano (even alltogether) by a lot.

It probably still sells well, but it should be slowing down a bit currently.

No matter where I browse, where I look at pictures, what rigs I look, youtube videos, comments, etc. etc. it seems to be like a 20:1 ratio in favor of the 980 Ti. I have no doubt about that.

It is the best GPU out there currently, the price/performance ratio is better than that of the 980 (which is laughable) and the competitive products are simply less desirable.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> nah,but now for real....
> 
> 
> 
> it's from my favorite online shop. the number I put in the red box is the number of items sold.
> they sold 338 980Ti's (all brands) and 12 Fury *AND* Fury X cards so far.
> And this is in a country where 980Ti costs 2.5x minimum monthly salary.


Dont get me wrong. I know 980Ti have by far outsold Fury X. You can go at nowinstock and compare there how many times they went out of stock etc on both chips.
That doesnt show the units sold today. And I think it have slowed down a lot on both camps

Why the heck are you buying a video card that cost over what you make for an entire month btw? Thats crazy
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Idk. On the Steam Survey it looks like the 980 Ti almost doubled from .49% to .89% in 5 months: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/ Obviously not everyone runs Steam or participates but that seems like a big jump for an expensive card.


Its 62k more users out of 125M users. Its an increase for sure, but the percentage is so small it could be variations based on other factors like: less users in total, dead cards etc.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Nah, not defending, just trying to honestly find out what all the whining is about. as kept being said, we don't know the actual price. it just seems like a lot of www noise to me. every release, the same cast of characters. you would think that those guys had moved on to consoles by now. ever since the OG Titan dropped. *people are still buying though, including yourself..*.anyways, I am done, see you guys in the "Pascal Owners Thread." whine on, people...


Just to clarify, I bought my 980 4 months after release when I found a nice deal on an open box for $430 (the most i would have ever paid for a 980 was $450 because that was all it was ever worth). And the only reason I did that was because I had sold my 780 before the bottom fell out on its pricing, so the 980 only cost me $55 to "upgrade" to. I haven't overpaid for a Nvidia card since August 2013. If I get Pascal, it will be because Polaris sucks and the wait for Vega gets to much for me.


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its 62k more users out of 125M users. Its an increase for sure, but the percentage is so small it could be variations based on other factors like: less users in total, dead cards etc.


Uhhh, 62k out of 125m? That math doesn't seem right going from ~.5% to ~1%.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxdarkreap3rxx*
> 
> Uhhh, 62k out of 125m? That math doesn't seem right going from ~.5% to ~1%.


Oh sorry, one 0 too much.
625k


----------



## NuclearPeace

Its really gotten this bad that the 1080 will cost $650.

Looks like I'm in it for the long haul with my 380x until either party conjures up something that has equal value per money.

It really is a shame on how pricing has gotten this bad. It used to be that the second largest chip from NVIDIA used to cost $250. Now that's almost tripled in a span of 5 years. Even AMD is slipping when it comes to offering affordable cards with good value. The 390 raised the prices of Hawaii PRO and the 380 and the 380x brought nothing new in terms of performance per dollar since you could have gotten a 280 or a 280x at the same prices for years before the Tongas released.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Its really gotten this bad that the 1080 will cost $650.


Finally, somebody with actual confirmed pricing!


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Finally, somebody with actual confirmed pricing!


It was foretold that one day a prophet would reveal the truth.

Speculating though, $650 US for a significant increase over the 980 Ti would sell in droves. $500 for a moderate increase would probably do much the same. That's the benefit of winning at the high-end, your next-gen product builds off of a price/performance baseline that you establish. I hope for competition's sake that AMD is keeping this in mind.


----------



## Zzyzx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> It was foretold that one day a prophet would reveal the truth.
> 
> Speculating though, $650 US for a significant increase over the 980 Ti would sell in droves. $500 for a moderate increase would probably do much the same. That's the benefit of winning at the high-end, your next-gen product builds off of a price/performance baseline that you establish. I hope for competition's sake that AMD is keeping this in mind.


The AMD/ATi merge killed the competitive edge of both CPUs and GPUs from the AMD camp, unfortunately. Plus it pushed Intel and Nvidia closer together and we lost things like third-party chipsets for our motherboards.


----------



## paulerxx

Whatever happened to mid range:
$150-200(6600GT)
$200-250(970/8800GT) Upper Mid range
(980/800GTS):$300-400: High range
(980t/8800GTX) $450-500.
Ultra Range(TITAN/8800 Ultra)$550-600

For example..

8800 Ultra
8800GTX
8800GTS
8800GT
8800GS
8600GTS
8600GT
8600GS
8500GT
8400GS

all these cards WERE BEAST! A 8600GTS(960 would be more $100 expensive then what the 8600GTS launched for, just so you can put that into perspective!) and if I remember correctly beat every last generation card, or was 5% away....That's just wow..I wish I could drop $250 and get a video card that is superior to nearly last generation card!
These all had the perfect performance ratio...It made sense to spring extra money for a GTX. We need another 8xxx series in the video card department and another i7/Core 2 Duo(bloomfield/Yorfield) in the CPU departmant.


----------



## Clocknut

or you can stick on your budget, Nvidia wont get more money out of you if you stick on the budget.

just because 970 is a sick deal doesnt mean you need to step up your original budget to buy it. Dont fall into that step up trick.


----------



## MadRabbit

So does nVidia know something that we don't? I mean like Polaris wise that it won't be a threat to them so they can price mid range as they wish again? That's the only reason I see behind this. Unless they both will sell mid range at that price then I'm off for the whole gen.


----------



## DunePilot

I'll be waiting for 40k Firestrikes in 2 way SLI for under $2k.... I might be waiting awhile. Hopefully the Titan or X80Ti will be able to meet that goal though... one of the two.


----------



## kaosstar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadRabbit*
> 
> So does nVidia know something that we don't? I mean like Polaris wise that it won't be a threat to them so they can price mid range as they wish again? That's the only reason I see behind this. Unless they both will sell mid range at that price then I'm off for the whole gen.


They know they have virtually complete control of the GPU market right now. It will be up to AMD to steal away some customers. No matter what, there will be a premium price to pay for Nvidia hardware. Hopefully AMD brings the heat, and we can have competitive pricing all around.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadRabbit*
> 
> So does nVidia know something that we don't? I mean like Polaris wise that it won't be a threat to them so they can price mid range as they wish again? That's the only reason I see behind this. Unless they both will sell mid range at that price then I'm off for the whole gen.


They probably had a pretty good idea before, but now AMD Roy has pretty much acknowledged that P10 isn't a GP104 competitor.
Quote:


> "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.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> Whatever happened to mid range:
> $150-200(6600GT)
> $200-250(970/8800GT) Upper Mid range
> (980/800GTS):$300-400: High range
> (980t/8800GTX) $450-500.
> Ultra Range(TITAN/8800 Ultra)$550-600
> 
> For example..
> 
> 8800 Ultra
> 8800GTX
> 8800GTS
> 8800GT
> 8800GS
> 8600GTS
> 8600GT
> 8600GS
> 8500GT
> 8400GS
> 
> all these cards WERE BEAST! A 8600GTS(960 would be more $100 expensive then what the 8600GTS launched for, just so you can put that into perspective!) and if I remember correctly beat every last generation card, or was 5% away....That's just wow..I wish I could drop $250 and get a video card that is superior to nearly last generation card!
> These all had the perfect performance ratio...It made sense to spring extra money for a GTX. We need another 8xxx series in the video card department and another i7/Core 2 Duo(bloomfield/Yorfield) in the CPU departmant.


From the rumors it would appear that AMD is going to make an effort to bring back a resurgent mid-range GPU class with Polaris 10. Talks of 980Ti performance at 150W and for only $300 are very exciting for the budget-conscious while Nvidia apparently only cares about those who will shell out at least $650+ anymore...


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> From the rumors it would appear that AMD is going to make an effort to bring back a resurgent mid-range GPU class with Polaris 10. Talks of 980Ti performance at 150W and for only $300 are very exciting for the budget-conscious while Nvidia apparently only cares about those who will shell out at least $650+ anymore...


I don't think it's really a matter of Nvidia only caring about those people. I think it's probably their only option at this point if they want to get a consumer card out. They probably have limited space at TSMC and they benefit more from having a small number of upper end cards than a small number of mainstream cards. My guess is they are taking what is roughly what would be a 1070 card and putting GDDR5X samples on it and then releasing it as a 1080 card at $600+. It will perform a little above a 980Ti, the GDDR5X giving it a slight boost in frame rate under certain conditions.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> I don't think it's really a matter of Nvidia only caring about those people. I think it's probably their only option at this point if they want to get a consumer card out. They probably have limited space at TSMC and they benefit more from having a small number of upper end cards than a small number of mainstream cards. My guess is they are taking what is roughly what would be a 1070 card and putting GDDR5X samples on it and then releasing it as a 1080 card at $600+. It will perform a little above a 980Ti, the GDDR5X giving it a slight boost in frame rate under certain conditions.


I can almost certain for sure say it will be much faster than that.

25% or more is what I hv been emphasizing. Its been 12 months since 980 Ti. Its a big fail after 12 months and release smth performing at the same level and the same price.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> I can almost certain for sure say it will be much faster than that.
> 
> 25% or more is what I hv been emphasizing. Its been 12 months since 980 Ti. *Its a big fail after 12 months and release smth performing at the same level and the same price.*


They did just that with the 980 being only marginally faster than the 780Ti not even 2 years ago. Precedent has certainly been established for a marginally faster flagship card at a similar price as the one it's replacing (granted the 980 was $100 cheaper but it's definitely possible they do the same thing with the 1080).


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> They did just that with the 980 being only marginally faster than the 780Ti not even 2 years ago. Precedent has certainly been established for a marginally faster flagship card at a similar price as the one it's replacing (granted the 980 was $100 cheaper but it's definitely possible they do the same thing with the 1080).


that is becz we are talking about same 28nm. There was simply not much room to alleviate performance.

Now they have.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

We shall see. But, just as I'm not getting my hopes up for a $300 980 TI equivalent from AMD, you should probably prepare yourself to be disappointed if you're expecting a 40% increase over the 980 TI from Nvidia.


----------



## HarrisLam

top tier users are pretty much used to $6xx top of line cards, but the 970 was so goldenly economical, Nvidia simply cannot release a new x70 product with a $500 price tag and expect users to just suck it up. Doesn't work like that.

the 970 is only $300, at most $350 right now. For the 1070 to be $500, it has to be 50-60% more powerful / efficient than the 970 which is quite frankly impossible (cuz by the time of its release, the price of "old" 970 should further drop another $20)

So I would tend to think that :

1) this is fake
2) this is real, but only the regional price for TW. Probably cheaper in US, like $400 - 450


----------



## fak1t

The 1070 is going to rock atleast 35-45% vs the gtx 970 and in 1440p + probably 10% better than the 980ti


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> top tier users are pretty much used to $6xx top of line cards, but the 970 was so goldenly economical, Nvidia simply cannot release a new x70 product with a $500 price tag and expect users to just suck it up. Doesn't work like that.
> 
> the 970 is only $300, at most $350 right now. For the 1070 to be $500, it has to be 50-60% more powerful / efficient than the 970 which is quite frankly impossible (cuz by the time of its release, the price of "old" 970 should further drop another $20)
> 
> So I would tend to think that :
> 
> 1) this is fake
> 2) this is real, but only the regional price for TW. Probably cheaper in US, like $400 - 450


They have already charged 400$ for 670/770. so i won't be surprised with 1070 being 450-500$. not that im going to buy it anyway,


----------



## fak1t

The 970 was 390 as well


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> They have already charged 400$ for 670/770. so i won't be surprised with 1070 being 450-500$. not that im going to buy it anyway,


Some things can't "go back"

If you were once low cost and efficient, ppl gonna remember that, especially when shops and sites still have stock of that old card, informed customers will know what to pick (i'm assuming ppl that would hunt for high end cards to be more likely well informed than not)

I really do think you have to beat the price : performance ratio of the equivalent, one way or another.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> Some things can't "go back"
> 
> If you were once low cost and efficient, ppl gonna remember that, especially when shops and sites still have stock of that old card, informed customers will know what to pick (i'm assuming ppl that would hunt for high end cards to be more likely well informed than not)
> 
> I really do think you have to beat the price : performance ratio of the equivalent, one way or another.


Well, 570 was 330$ than 400$ 670/770, than again 330$ 970. it can go either way.


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> Some things can't "go back"
> 
> If you were once low cost and efficient, ppl gonna remember that, especially when shops and sites still have stock of that old card, informed customers will know what to pick (i'm assuming ppl that would hunt for high end cards to be more likely well informed than not)
> 
> I really do think you have to beat the price : performance ratio of the equivalent, one way or another.


I think your right. Also, this mid range card is an excellent option for NVidia to give us. Its a rock solid card and had an awesome price. Maybe the x80 will come out with a litter bump over the TI, but if they release a x70 card that performs in a similar price / performance bracket (compared to x80 not 970), then I will still be happy with that direction. Who knows, it seems like nvidias grip on amd is getting tighter according to what someone linked from the conversation with Roy from AMD.

But I think this x70 card will be AMD's only competition, so that's why I see NVidia keeping this line going. Keeping their beefy marketshare, keeping a presence in the new gen middle class, and dominating the top end.

I also think theres a certain mindset that goes with buying something like a midrange chip that the 970 hit really well on. I think those buyers will keeping coming back yearly if they can justify the price / performance ratio.
Most people can't justify dropping bank on a 980ti every year, but way more can justify a yearly upgrade if it doesn't break the bank and offers a reasonable increase in performance.

(still pulling for amd


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Creator*
> 
> I'm a little bit shocked by $500 for the GTX 1070. The X70 is supposed to be the mainstream card affordable to the masses. At that price, I imagine the GTX 970 will remain a popular card for a long time. And NV won't even need to drop on the 970.


umm I do believe the Mainstream title actually really belongs to the x60 series.


----------



## zealord

The X70 cards are definitively not mainstream. (atleast by definition)


----------



## Glottis

x70 is mainstream among lower income serious gamers. x60 and below is mainstream for anyone who occasionally plays a game or two.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> The X70 cards are definitively not mainstream. (atleast by definition)


In terms of specificaltions something like GTX970 is what 6600 GT, 7600 GT , GTX460 where for their time.


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> In terms of specificaltions something like GTX970 is what 6600 GT, 7600 GT , GTX460 where for their time.


Yes. My reference was simply to Maxwell with the 970 to 980/ti performance - cost

I don't care what they call it, and I think most don't. Its all about the performance sheet at the end of the day. At least I hope people dropping 200$ or more on a computer part are smart enough to look up before complaining about anything else.


----------



## prjindigo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Somehow, people magically expect prices on a brand new node, that has very low yields compared to the previous node, to be cheaper or even with previous generations? Yields are going to be tremendously low (5-8% at best at the start of a node shrink). Wafer prices are at darn near an all time high to begin with. And both companies have to somehow make back money on the R&D that went into creating an architecture for these node shrinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> I don't get OCN sometimes.


and they may not even be releasing the "1080" card in June at that. They've shown us the "1070" chip.

There's all sorts of stupid "if it was this ratio it will be this ratio" garbage going around. People comparing prices on model numbers, people comparing die sizes between nodes with completely different process structures... people comparing different concentrations of atmospheric gas when the different concentrations have different ratios of effect... you'd almost think that scientific thought isn't taught anymore because independent thinking disrupts religions of "doing the right thing"...

Very sad.

Good news is that there will be several hundred million graphics cards putting 150w less heat energy into the air for air conditioners to more than double before venting outside. Say 500,000,000 cards times 140w each for 140000000000w reduction of heat input to atmosphere equivalent to a reduction of 425,829,268m^2 or 427 square kilometers of solar heated Earth's surface. Like throwing shade on New York City. All of it.

smaller nodes are good for the environment! remember to upgrade and save the planet!

please, God, kill this thread I'm becoming tempted...


----------



## iLeakStuff

The dude that leaked the die shots of GP104 have revealed the 3 upcoming GP104 cards launching now soon.
No Ti card. Instead GTX 1060 is GP104 and not GP106.
Quote:


> GTX1080,GTX1070 之后还有 GTX1060:
> 
> 1. GTX1080 GP104-400-A1 DDR5X 8G
> 
> 2. GTX1070 GP104-200-A1 DDR5 8G
> 
> 3. GTX1060 GP104-150-A1 DDR5 6G


https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1576337-1-1.html


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> The dude that leaked the die shots of GP104 have revealed the 3 upcoming GP104 cards launching now soon.
> No Ti card. Instead GTX 1060 is GP104 and not GP106.
> https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1576337-1-1.html


sweet. would be nice if they also had 16GB GTX1080 variant. maybe a bit later?


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> sweet. would be nice if they also had 16GB GTX1080 variant. maybe a bit later?


16GB GDDR5X sounds expensive.


----------



## iLeakStuff

If Pascal is like Kepler, GTX 1060 will be as fast as GTX 980Ti. And it will cost $300
Count me in on 2 of those if true









https://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/images/perfrel.gif


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> The dude that leaked the die shots of GP104 have revealed the 3 upcoming GP104 cards launching now soon.
> No Ti card. Instead GTX 1060 is GP104 and not GP106.
> https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1576337-1-1.html


There's something is wrong with that. The GP104 is supposed to have a 256 bit GDDR5X, 256 bit GDDR5, _and_ a 384 bit GDDR5 controller? If that's the case, no wonder it's 323mm2, it needs to be just for the memory controllers.


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> If Pascal is like Kepler, GTX 1060 will be as fast as GTX 980Ti. And it will cost $300
> Count me in on 2 of those if true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/images/perfrel.gif


That sounds really good. It makes dropping 650$~ on a x80 sound even better.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> There's something is wrong with that. The GP104 is supposed to have a 256 bit GDDR5X, 256 bit GDDR5, _and_ a 384 bit GDDR5 controller? If that's the case, no wonder it's 323mm2, it needs to be just for the memory controllers.


The 1060 would use a cut down 192-bit bus, not 384-bit. They just disable one of the controllers.


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> The 1060 would use a cut down 192-bit bus, not 384-bit. They just disable one of the controllers.


That would be a complete pointless waste of 6GB of RAM and it would still take an additional memory controller, albeit smaller than 382 bit.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lahvie*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ileakstuff*
> If Pascal is like Kepler, GTX 1060 will be as fast as GTX 980Ti. And it will cost $300
> Count me in on 2 of those if true smile.gif
> 
> https://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/images/perfrel.gif
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds really good. *It makes dropping 650$~ on a x80 sound even better.*
Click to expand...

nooooooooooo









are you guys falling this bad for nvidia's marketing? you just basically justified a *$650* price tag for a *GTX 680*!


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> That would be a complete pointless waste of 6GB of RAM and it would still take an additional memory controller, albeit smaller than 382 bit.


That's not how it works. It's not a single 256-bit memory controller, it is four 64-bit controllers. They disable one and bang, 192-bit memory bus. They've done it that way forever.

And a 1060 is probably as fast as a 980, so using 3GB (your other option with 192-bit) isn't really feasible. So it'll be 6GB.


----------



## magnek

Or they could use that goddamned segmented memory config yet again.


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> nooooooooooo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you guys falling this bad for nvidia's marketing? you just basically justified a *$650* price tag for a *GTX 680*!


I know its going to be expensive when x80 drops, but if I can see a 35% increase over my ti, id be happy with that (especially since i'm highly skeptical about SLI). Or I suppose I could wait another X amount of unknown months wondering why I did not buy the card in the first place. ( i don't know what is coming and don't know if that will happen in such a way )

Justifying the cost of the x80 would be like justifying the cost of the titan when it was in the wazoo end of inflation. you really can't justify the cost of anything other than the performance / cost ratio (i think) that is more aggressively priced with lower margins. It's the best, its cost is going to be disproportional.
I can't really say I know the markets past as well as probably all of you, but if it follows anything like the past, we don't know whats coming. Maybe I could get a ti version for that same price if I wait 6-7 months? (wild guess) and get 20% more performance, or go those X months without the 35% performance I wanted in the first place.

The cost of the gpu market has obviously become inflated but thats just the price you pay to play. i think my wild speculation and hopes are worth adding just because I think we all need some positivity. for every 100 posts I read, I post 1. so I've seen the doom and gloom. just glad to foliow along with this community b/c i am mega bored at work, and love gpu's.
But I do really think this 1 of 2 will happen
1. we see a reasonably priced x80 with a reasonable gain over 980ti and see a x80ti (or whatever they call it) come shortly after with a higher price tag
2. we see a x80 drop with an inflated tag, and will see the x80ti follow sometime down the road and take its price point. After all, we know polaris is not going to bring anything to this end of the table anytime soon (ty roy)


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> I know its going to be expensive when x80 drops, but if I can see a 35% increase over my ti, id be happy with that


http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/52616-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-review-29.html

The GTX 680 (GK104) was 36% faster than a GTX 580 and cost $499, which is ridiculous itself because GX104 chips used to sell for $199 and $229.

Now you're saying that a GP104 that performs 35% faster than a 980Ti would be reasonable to price at $650?!!!?! Why?!!!!!



If we got the same improvement over Maxwell with Pascal as Kepler did over Fermi, and both chips are midrange chips, why should we pay $150 dollars more????? How can you justify this?


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/52616-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-review-29.html
> 
> The GTX 680 (GK104) was 36% faster than a GTX 580 and cost $499, which is ridiculous itself because GX104 chips used to sell for $199 and $229.
> 
> Now you're saying that a GP104 that performs 35% faster than a 980Ti would be reasonable to price at $650?!!!?! Why?!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> If we got the same improvement over Maxwell with Pascal as Kepler did over Fermi, and both chips are midrange chips, why should we pay $150 dollars more????? How can you justify this?


Actually if you compared with 980 Ti, the new 1080 is priced exactly the same as 980 Ti. In reference to your 580 vs 680. They are at the same price as well.

So to NV a 35% improvement at the same MSRP is justified. It might apply to GTX 1080 since it directly replaces 980 Ti. Just like how 680 replaces 580.


----------



## i7monkey

$499 580 + 35% improvement = $499 midrange GX104 680

in others words

*previous gen flagship + 35% improvement = $499 midrange GX104*

980ti + 35% improvement = $499 1080, *not* $650

You can't justify an extra $150.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> The dude that leaked the die shots of GP104 have revealed the 3 upcoming GP104 cards launching now soon.
> No Ti card. Instead GTX 1060 is GP104 and not GP106.
> https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1576337-1-1.html


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> If Pascal is like Kepler, GTX 1060 will be as fast as GTX 980Ti. And it will cost $300
> Count me in on 2 of those if true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/images/perfrel.gif


If the 1060 is indeed GP104 and not GP106 that would indicate that the rumors of a $300 killer performance card from AMD (near the 980Ti) may be on the money indeed. Nvidia not using GP106 for the 1060 could mean that they are worried that AMD's midrange chip is too powerful for it to compete with. Just food for thought...


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Actually if you compared with 980 Ti, the new 1080 is priced exactly the same as 980 Ti. In reference to your 580 vs 680. They are at the same price as well.


lol, you can't keep inflating prices and then say, "hey but it's the same price as the previous gen. prices didn't go up". they did go up.

let's pretend the 1080 gets $650 price tag.

$499 480
$499 580
$499 680
$549 980
$650 1080

ok, so.....

$650 GTX 1080

$1299 Titan Pascal

$1000 GTX 1080 Ti

*$1000 Midrange GV104 1180???????* It's the same price as the previous gen 1080ti and 35% faster, is it not? $1000 for a midrange GV104 would be fair since it's 35% faster than the 1080ti and costs the same, right?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

[/quote]
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> lol, you can't keep inflating prices and then say, "hey but it's the same price as the previous gen. prices didn't go up". they did go up.
> 
> let's pretend the 1080 gets $650 price tag.
> 
> $499 480
> $499 580
> $499 680
> $549 980
> $650 1080
> 
> ok, so.....
> 
> $650 GTX 1080
> 
> $1299 Titan Pascal
> 
> $1000 GTX 1080 Ti
> 
> *$1000 Midrange GV104 1180???????* It's the same price as the previous gen 1080ti and 35% faster, is it not? $1000 for a midrange GV104 would be fair since it's 35% faster than the 1080ti and costs the same, right?


You're fighting a war that was lost all the way back in 2012 with the launch of the GTX680. Might as well just get used to the fact that as long as Nvidia claims such an insurmountable market share advantage over AMD that they will price their products however the hell they want to and don't give two craps about our complaints about it on tech forums (as we proudly display their expensive flagships in out sigs anyway)...


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> You're fighting a war that was lost all the way back in 2012 with the launch of the GTX680. Might as well just get used to the fact that as long as Nvidia claims such an insurmountable market share advantage over AMD that they will price their products however the hell they want to and don't give two craps about our complaints about it on tech forums (as we proudly display their expensive flagships in out sigs anyway)...


Look at how they're justifying these crazy prices though. It's insanity.

We paid

*$500* for a dual *high end* chip gtx 295

*$699* for a dual *high end* chip gtx 590

*$1000* for a dual *mid range* chip gtx 690

*$3000* for a dual *high end* chip titan z

See the pattern?

We used to get two high end chips in a 295 for $500 total. Now these guys are content paying $650 for a single midrange gpu.

It's maddening how these guys can justify almost any price.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Well to be fair it will be a flagship in performance if not in hardware.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> If the 1060 is indeed GP104 and not GP106 that would indicate that the rumors of a $300 killer performance card from AMD (near the 980Ti) may be on the money indeed. Nvidia not using GP106 for the 1060 could mean that they are worried that AMD's midrange chip is too powerful for it to compete with. Just food for thought...


Or maybe they have a lot of defect chips that couldn't make the cut for 1070 and decided to just use them for the 1060.

Or since they are using GDDR5X on the 1080 they figured they could still make two GDDR5 cards with GP104. Although that would tend to indicate a higher price bracket for 1080 possibly.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Look at how they're justifying these crazy prices though. It's insanity.
> 
> We paid
> 
> *$500* for a dual *high end* chip gtx 295
> 
> *$699* for a dual *high end* chip gtx 590
> 
> *$1000* for a dual *mid range* chip gtx 690
> 
> *$3000* for a dual *high end* chip titan z
> 
> See the pattern?
> 
> We used to get two high end chips in a 295 for $500 total. Now these guys are content paying $650 for a single midrange gpu.
> 
> It's maddening how these guys can justify almost any price.


Protest:stop buying nVidia brand gpu= you win...







you don't game anyways, it'll be an easy decision for you...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Or maybe they have a lot of defect chips that couldn't make the cut for 1070.


Anything is possible at this point.


----------



## provost

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Look at how they're justifying these crazy prices though. It's insanity.
> 
> We paid
> 
> *$500* for a dual *high end* chip gtx 295
> 
> *$699* for a dual *high end* chip gtx 590
> 
> *$1000* for a dual *mid range* chip gtx 690
> 
> *$3000* for a dual *high end* chip titan z
> 
> See the pattern?
> 
> We used to get two high end chips in a 295 for $500 total. Now these guys are content paying $650 for a single midrange gpu.
> 
> It's maddening how these guys can justify almost any price.


It's pretty simple, and no one needs to think so hard, on behalf of any company, in order to justify higher prices on these forums... Lol
Juts look at any company's margins quarter over quarter for the last 2-3 years, and if that trend line looks like it's going up at a rate higher than the industry average, than most likely the trend line of your cash in the wallet
is going down proportionately as the said company's loyal customer... Lol..
this is after all a zero sum game... Lol..assuming all things being equal, i.e, the company not chasing kooky out of space ideas on flying cars, etc.etc.etc.....


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Protest:stop buying nVidia brand gpu= you win...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don't game anyways, it'll be an easy decision for you...


$2000 Titan Volta anyone? In a tech market where every other component keeps giving better tech and better performance at the same price, GPUs for some reason are doubling, tripling, and eventually quadrupling in price for no reason other than price fixing.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Anything is possible at this point.


The GDDR5X wrinkle is really confusing things.


----------



## i7monkey

In a few years we'll be paying $2000 for a Titan Volta to put in our $350 8700k computers. What the hell happened to this hobby?


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> In a few years we'll be paying $2000 for a Titan Volta to put in our $350 8700k computers. What the hell happened to this hobby?


You are doing it wrong..Lol, anyways, I spend WAY more loot on software than I EVER could on PC parts...


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> You are doing it wrong..Lol


You're right I could just wait 9 more months for the next midrange GX104 chip and that Titan Volta will perform as fast as a gtx 280 for some reason with their new drivers


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> You're right I could just wait 9 more months for the next midrange GX104 chip and that Titan Volta will perform as fast as a gtx 280 for some reason with their new drivers










THAT'S the spirit...


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Yields are going to be tremendously low (5-8% at best at the start of a node shrink).


What are you talking about? Nobody goes to production on a new node at less than 90% viable raw dies. As a matter of fact, Samsung's error rate is 0.2 errors per square centimeter.


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lahvie*
> 
> I also think theres a certain mindset that goes with buying something like a midrange chip that the 970 hit really well on. I think those buyers will keeping coming back yearly if they can justify the price / performance ratio.
> Most people can't justify dropping bank on a 980ti every year, but way more can justify a yearly upgrade if it doesn't break the bank and offers a reasonable increase in performance.


That's pretty much me (minus the yearly part, still holding onto my 570 on life support)

the x70 model really does hit a sweet spot for me. I'm a graphic guy that can't afford to throw too much money into gaming, therefore I can't be getting the top tier card (the gap between the x70 and the next card is always huge), and I can't be upgrading often. I also only play RPGs among graphically demanding games. You know, dragon age, witcher

X70 fits my situation perfectly. Very good price performance ratio just like X60, but is the better card of the two.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> umm I do believe the Mainstream title actually really belongs to the x60 series.


the price difference between the 2 aren't that crazy, some of the more dedicated gamers don't mind jumping up that one tiny tier.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> And a 1060 is probably as fast as a 980, so using 3GB (your other option with 192-bit) isn't really feasible. So it'll be 6GB.


Sounds too good to be true if you ask me.....

unless it's $450 lol...


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> In a few years we'll be paying $2000 for a Titan Volta to put in our $350 8700k computers. What the hell happened to this hobby?


Well, AMD was a great competitor in CPU, just like ATI for GPU.
AMD bought ATI.
AMD is now plumetting, doesn't play their competitor role anymore. They bet on consoles and it represents now ~ half their revenue.
Intel and nVidia can now do what they want.
Simple as that.


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Look at how they're justifying these crazy prices though. It's insanity.
> 
> We paid
> 
> *$500* for a dual *high end* chip gtx 295
> 
> *$699* for a dual *high end* chip gtx 590
> 
> *$1000* for a dual *mid range* chip gtx 690
> 
> *$3000* for a dual *high end* chip titan z
> 
> See the pattern?
> 
> We used to get two high end chips in a 295 for $500 total. Now these guys are content paying $650 for a single midrange gpu.
> 
> It's maddening how these guys can justify almost any price.


I'm really really lost, can someone fill me in to what this guy is saying?

No offense, I'm not a tech expert. I don't even know what GP104 and GP106 means

All I really know is how to read performance charts.

I bought a 570 5 years ago at around $330. Right now 970 is going for an average of $330 as well. I feel justified that an upgrade is due so I'm now hunting for a card because I feel like the progress that graphics card at the same price point is decent enough (970 exactly doubles the performance of a 570)

I'm not a pro at this, seriously, and when someone says the new 1080 will be 35%faster, but less than 35% more expensive, I think it is improvement. Maybe 35% faster and 10% more expensive would be more reasonable, but I just don't see how "which chip it is" matters in the performance vs price argument.


----------



## kpzero

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> I'm really really lost, can someone fill me in to what this guy is saying?
> 
> No offense, I'm not a tech expert. I don't even know what GP104 and GP106 means
> 
> All I really know is how to read performance charts.
> 
> I bought a 570 5 years ago at around $330. Right now 970 is going for an average of $330 as well. I feel justified that an upgrade is due so I'm now hunting for a card because I feel like the progress that graphics card at the same price point is decent enough (970 exactly doubles the performance of a 570)
> 
> I'm not a pro at this, seriously, and when someone says the new 1080 will be 35%faster, but less than 35% more expensive, I think it is improvement. Maybe 35% faster and 10% more expensive would be more reasonable, but I just don't see how "which chip it is" matters in the performance vs price argument.


Basically what people have issue with is that they have created a higher price tier and used what used to be lower tier sized chips on what used to be high end cards(980/970 for example) without lowering the price for those cards.

As an example, your 570 is a very large high end chip that was cut down a small amount. The 970 (and especially the 770 before it) is a significantly smaller chip that was also cut down even further and yet they were released for about the same price.


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kpzero*
> 
> Basically what people have issue with is that they have created a higher price tier and used what used to be lower tier sized chips on what used to be high end cards(980/970 for example) without lowering the price for those cards.
> 
> As an example, your 570 is a very large high end chip that was cut down a small amount. The 970 (and especially the 770 before it) is a significantly smaller chip that was also cut down even further and yet they were released for about the same price.


For the rest of us it is performance that matter, I could care less what the chip size is. I feel like my 970's were a better bang for the buck than my 570's, smaller chip and all. Maybe it was the 980's somewhat underwhelming performance increase over the 970 while costing $200 more that made it feel that way.


----------



## kpzero

I
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> For the rest of us it is performance that matter, I could care less what the chip size is. I feel like my 970's were a better bang for the buck than my 570's, smaller chip and all. Maybe it was the 980's somewhat underwhelming performance increase over the 970 while costing $200 more that made it feel that way.


I guess the disconnect between the two sides is that one side is saying that your 970 would have been the performance of a 980 ti while the other side either doesnt think so or doesnt care. If you like the 970 bang for buck then you would have loved that.


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kpzero*
> 
> Basically what people have issue with is that they have created a higher price tier and used what used to be lower tier sized chips on what used to be high end cards(980/970 for example) without lowering the price for those cards.
> 
> As an example, your 570 is a very large high end chip that was cut down a small amount. The 970 (and especially the 770 before it) is a significantly smaller chip that was also cut down even further and yet they were released for about the same price.


Thanks for the explanation.

I understand what you said. However

If the 570 was a high end chip "minus 1" and has a performance of 100 (with 580 being the true high end), and if the 970 can have a performance of 200 even though it is high end chip minus god knows how much.....

then where is the card with the real high end chip that's supposed to have the performance of like 400 or something?

I mean after all im with the ppl who say "performance is what matters", but I'm not understanding where the good cards go if the ones I thought were great cards are actually mid tier.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> I understand what you said. However
> 
> If the 570 was a high end chip "minus 1" and has a performance of 100 (with 580 being the true high end), and if the 970 can have a performance of 200 even though it is high end chip minus god knows how much.....
> 
> then where is the card with the real high end chip that's supposed to have the performance of like 400 or something?
> 
> I mean after all im with the ppl who say "performance is what matters", but I'm not understanding where the good cards go if the ones I thought were great cards are actually mid tier.


The big chips that Nvidia used to put in cards like the 480 and 580 are now reserved for cards like the Titan X and 980 TI @up to twice the price that they use to charge for their top cards. The 980 and 970 use the smaller chips that used to be reserved for cards like in the 460 and the 560 TI. You still get the expected relative performance of high-end cards out of the smaller chips nowadays but people complain because we could be getting even better high and cards with bigger chips (and for less $$$) had they stuck to the old model they used during Fermi.


----------



## zealord

Different times though. I am a huge defender of voting with your wallet and not spending 1000$ on a video card, but sadly Nvidia can do so because AMD can't keep up.

The sad reality is that if AMD has nothing to compete with the GTX 1080 then Nvidia has not to compete with the price.

It was different with GTX 480 when the 6970/6950 were cheaper and performing the same.

Let's see what will happen. Though if we go by recent rumors then AMD will be heavily invested in the mainstream section. Probably cards that are 300$ and below. That leaves room for Nvidia for everything that is better than Polaris 10.


----------



## carlhil2

Now that I think about it, what's the issue? Polaris 10 is supposed to be competitive with the overpriced nVidia part.[1070/1080], if you need more power than that, just get two. it's not like everyone is pushing 4k, one P10 should suffice for most users, no? give the Fury X 8gb HBM2, it would have been the 4k card of choice. AMD makes gpu's just as good as nVidia...


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Different times though. I am a huge defender of voting with your wallet and not spending 1000$ on a video card, but sadly Nvidia can do so because AMD can't keep up.
> 
> The sad reality is that if AMD has nothing to compete with the GTX 1080 then Nvidia has not to compete with the price.
> 
> It was different with GTX 480 when the 6970/6950 were cheaper and performing the same.
> 
> Let's see what will happen. Though if we go by recent rumors then AMD will be heavily invested in the mainstream section. Probably cards that are 300$ and below. That leaves room for Nvidia for everything that is better than Polaris 10.


Performance jump from GTX 580 to 7970 was similar to what was 7970 to titan, but Amd only asked 50$ more than GTX 580, on the other hand nvidia charged 500$ extra. still everyone blames amd for higher 28nm prices. it's not amd/nvidia's fault but consumer and so called Enthusiasts with more money than brain. get offended all you(not you) want but it is the truth.

Edit: looking at now how 7970 is close to beating/matching vs titan, that 50$ extra actually worth it. but 500$ extra for titan was biggest ripoff.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Now that I think about it, what's the issue? Polaris 10 is supposed to be competitive with the overpriced nVidia part.[1070/1080], if you need more power than that, just get two. it's not like everyone is pushing 4k, one P10 should suffice for most users, no? give the Fury X 8gb HBM2, it would have been the 4k card of choice. AMD makes gpu's just as good as nVidia...


No polaris 10 is not competitive with 1070/1080. AMD even said so.

I think Polaris 10 will be a little bit slower than 980 Ti and both the 1070 and 1080 will be faster than the 980 Ti

(I am very sure of that).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Performance jump from GTX 580 to 7970 was similar to what was 7970 to titan, but Amd only asked 50$ more than GTX 580, on the other hand nvidia charged 500$ extra. still everyone blames amd for higher 28nm prices. it's not amd/nvidia's fault but consumer and so called Enthusiasts with more money than brain. get offended all you(not you) want but it is the truth.


Yeah and that is one of the problems sadly. The 7970 was not competitive with the Titan. (Funny thing is now it is haha, but on release the Titan smashed the 7970).
AMD simply couldn't price the 7970 at much higher than the GTX 580. It didn't even sell well at 550$. They also knew the 7970 wouldn't be the best card for long.

Before people get me wrong. I am not defending either of them here, but here is what I think went wrong with the 28nm generation and pricing ever since :

- Well first off Nvidia cards are more expensive than equivalent AMD cards (most of the time), because Nvidia has more loyal "fanboys" who are sworn to buy only green products. I don't know why, but sadly it is the reality
- AMD RADEON HD 7970 came out in December2011/January2012. It was priced at 550$, which I found to be pretty expensive.
- People already knew the GTX 680 was coming. Lot's of rumors at that time.
- The 7970 didn't sell well, mostly because the jump over the GTX 580 was not revolutionary and 550$ is a lot for an AMD card, considering the 6970 was like 349$ when it launched.
- The GTX 680 came out 3 months after the 7970 and was better. There are no two ways about it. All reviews said so. It was about 8-10% faster.
- AMD screwed up. The drivers for the 7970 simply weren't good and the card was clocked to low.
- The damage was already down. The 7970 GHZ, which then was better than the 680, didn't help much.
- Kepler was more effective in all areas. Performance, temperature, noise etc.
- Boost helped a lot and sadly reviewers didn't test the 680 like they should have. (Warmed the card up in a close case, to simulate a more realistic gaming scenario)
- The 680 could always make use of the full boost. That is also why the reviews differ so much. Some only show a 24% gain over the GTX 580, while others show a 36% gain.
- I can't say if the GK104 was supposed to be the GTX 680 or if it was some last minute decision done by Nvidia when they saw how the 7970 performed.
- Maybe the GTX 680 like we know it was supposed to be a GTX 660 Ti ?
- Then Nvidia released the GTX Titan one year later. It was the best card. It had a lot of VRAM and a special halo name. People fell for a fancy name. They also want the best. (No judgement from me here. If I were rich and making 6 digits a year then I'd probably buy a Titan too)
- Nvidia has free reign over pricing. The Titan was an experiment and it was succesful. They were testing the waters on how much people would spend and they saw that people are ready to spend a lot for the best
- The 290X came later that year. It is a great chip. Sadly completely ruined by the reference design. It never could recover from the bad reputation of running hot and very loud.
- And then Maxwell happened and I don't feel like writing much more

TL;DR : Nvidia priced the cards according to performance compared to AMD cards and not how much a card cost for them to make. A smart business move. Sadly bad for the consumers. I hate to say it, but AMD definitively does take a big part of the fault as to why we have high prices. They screwed up the launch of all 28nm cards in my opinion. The 7970, 290X and Fury X. All cards with great potential, but they ultimately fall short because of bad marketing and cooling decisions.

The only option we have is to vote with our wallets and stop buying overpriced cards or hoping for AMD to deliver stronger products. Sadly it looks like neither of those is going to happen this year.


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Different times though. I am a huge defender of voting with your wallet and not spending 1000$ on a video card, but sadly Nvidia can do so because AMD can't keep up.
> 
> The sad reality is that if AMD has nothing to compete with the GTX 1080 then Nvidia has not to compete with the price.
> 
> It was different with GTX 480 when the 6970/6950 were cheaper and performing the same.
> 
> Let's see what will happen. Though if we go by recent rumors then AMD will be heavily invested in the mainstream section. Probably cards that are 300$ and below. That leaves room for Nvidia for everything that is better than Polaris 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Performance jump from GTX 580 to 7970 was similar to what was 7970 to titan, but Amd only asked 50$ more than GTX 580, on the other hand nvidia charged 500$ extra. still everyone blames amd for higher 28nm prices. it's not amd/nvidia's fault but consumer and so called Enthusiasts with more money than brain. get offended all you(not you) want but it is the truth.
> 
> Edit: looking at now how 7970 is close to beating/matching vs titan, that 50$ extra actually worth it. but 500$ extra for titan was biggest ripoff.
Click to expand...

On the flip side, one could say AMD charged $250 extra for the HD 7970 because the GTX 680, using a chip class that prior to Kepler would be <$300, beat the 7970 in performance and efficiency at its launch.
AMD's poor pricing allowed Nvidia to move the GX104 chips up a price tier.

Also, at launch, the jump from GTX 580 to 7970 was ~10%.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/28.html

7970GE (not even launch 7970) to Titan was ~25%
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan/27.html


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> On the flip side, one could say AMD charged $250 extra for the HD 7970 because the GTX 680, using a chip class that prior to Kepler would be <$300, beat the 7970 in performance and efficiency at its launch.
> AMD's poor pricing allowed Nvidia to move the GX104 chips up a price tier.
> 
> Also, at launch, the jump from GTX 580 to 7970 was ~10%.
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/28.html
> 
> 7970GE (not even launch 7970) to Titan was ~25%
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan/27.html




They didn't charge 250$ extra but 50$, as people like to point out "compare prices against competition" or only nvidia has that privilege ? amd's pricing wasn't as bad as nvidia, because after 680, 7970's price dropped as low as 390$ at titan launch.

when titan launched 7970ge was 29% faster than 580, and titan was 26% faster than 7970ge. for more than 500$ extra.

Amd charged 50$ above competition, Nvidia charged 500$. simple as that. it's getting ot, so i'll stop here.


----------



## Raghar

Titan was a compute card. The difference between Tesla, and cheaper Titan was ability of network linked computing in Tesla. (and also different support package)

Obviously comparing Titan and high version of AMD offer is quite misleading. Titan was a cheaper version of the "you gotta be kidding how expensive it was" card. Titan was half price or something like that...

(You needed to switch it into compute mode in drivers, otherwise it used the gaming mode to improve it's speed in games by 1/5 in comparison to proper compute mode. Or at least this's what people who played with Titan control panel settings were saying.)


----------



## guttheslayer

The whole price inflation thing was also becz of higher operating / process / manufacturing cost.

Its really expensive to shrink die now, and going to lower node doesnt help alot to save power or efficiency too.

Its all depend on how AMD deliver now. If they did the same for Polaris 10, by pricing it $349 like HD6970. They might have a chance to force NV to drop back to the $500 flagship pricing.

But hopefully, the cooling, bad marketing and driver doesn't damage it like how it was in the past 2 generation release. If AMD repeat the same mistake, den I would say bye bye to price friendly GPU in this generation.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Look at how they're justifying these crazy prices though. It's insanity.
> 
> We paid
> 
> *$500* for a dual *high end* chip gtx 295
> 
> *$699* for a dual *high end* chip gtx 590
> 
> *$1000* for a dual *mid range* chip gtx 690
> 
> *$3000* for a dual *high end* chip titan z
> 
> See the pattern?
> 
> We used to get two high end chips in a 295 for $500 total. Now these guys are content paying $650 for a single midrange gpu.
> 
> It's maddening how these guys can justify almost any price.


NV sheeps


----------



## iLeakStuff

Calling it now.

GTX 1060:
$300 and perfom like Polaris 10. Will put up a fight against AMDs performance/dollar strategy since they have no cards to counter 1070 and 1080.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kpzero*
> 
> I guess the disconnect between the two sides is that one side is saying that your 970 would have been the performance of a 980 ti while the other side either doesnt think so or doesnt care. If you like the 970 bang for buck then you would have loved that.


Yep GTX570 was todays GTX980TI.It was cutdown flagship card.
GTX970 is GTX560 in fermi days.GTX980 is GTX560TI.

Nv just change names and people take that Bait
GTX980Ti in fermi days will cost 330-350USD...
GTX980 220USD
Poeople just dont realize this, because nv changes names.

Worst on that is some nv sheeps even defending it and want next GTX560TI cost 650USD








This is why some people who know whats going on are mad.Like me and I7 monkey ....


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> NV sheeps


Lol, really man? you guys who cherish one company over another need to get a life, for real...







calling someone sheep because of how they chose to spend their money is weak..you don't sound "mad", you come off sounding salty, for whatever reason.....what, you dudes financial advisors now? Lol


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> For the rest of us it is performance that matter, I could care less what the chip size is. I feel like my 970's were a better bang for the buck than my 570's, smaller chip and all. Maybe it was the 980's somewhat underwhelming performance increase over the 970 while costing $200 more that made it feel that way.


BUT think about if they stuck with pricing chip size:

the 970(GM104) would be ~$150 and the 980ti(GM100) would be ~$330.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> Look at how they're justifying these crazy prices though. It's insanity.
> 
> We paid
> 
> *$500* for a dual *high end* chip gtx 295
> 
> *$699* for a dual *high end* chip gtx 590
> 
> *$1000* for a dual *mid range* chip gtx 690
> 
> *$3000* for a dual *high end* chip titan z


Lets see

We paid
*$550* for a dual *high end* chip Radeon 4870 X2 (slower than GTX 295)

*$699* for a dual *high end* chip Radeon 6990

*$1000* for dual *mid range* chip Radeon 7990 (slower than GTX 690)

Dont even try to put the blame on Nvidia. AMD have been just as bad, minus Titan Z. The problem is the industry in general and that people are actually willing to pay this amount of money for the cards.


----------



## carlhil2

I wouldn't care if nVidia or AMD were to put a penny onto a pcb, if they got it to run 25+% faster than a 980Ti, I would pay them accordingly.....


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> Yep GTX570 was todays GTX980TI.It was cutdown flagship card.
> GTX970 is GTX560 in fermi days.GTX980 is GTX560TI.
> 
> Nv just change names and people take that Bait
> GTX980Ti in fermi days will cost 330-350USD...
> GTX980 220USD
> Poeople just dont realize this, because nv changes names.
> 
> Worst on that is some nv sheeps even defending it and want next GTX560TI cost 650USD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why some people who know whats going on are mad.Like me and I7 monkey ....


Hate to be the one to break it to you but the majority of top end buyers are enthusiasts who know exactly what you do.

The problem is we have only two choices for various reasons. We can buy it or not buy it because it's not going to change.

One thing is for sure. Whining and labeling others isn't going to stop it.

For me, there is a really good chance I'm going to stop. I'm not interested in funding Nvidia's car research. And their competition is lacking although lately they show some very positive signs of life.


----------



## iluvkfc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> nooooooooooo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you guys falling this bad for nvidia's marketing? you just basically justified a *$650* price tag for a *GTX 680*!


If it has the same performance increase as 580 -> 680 I couldn't care what's under the hood, I have $650 for it. But for some reason I don't think it will be.


----------



## headd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> Hate to be the one to break it to you but the majority of top end buyers are enthusiasts who know exactly what you do.
> 
> The problem is we have only two choices for various reasons. We can buy it or not buy it because it's not going to change.
> 
> One thing is for sure. Whining and labeling others isn't going to stop it.
> 
> For me, there is a really good chance I'm going to stop. I'm not interested in funding Nvidia's car research. And their competition is lacking although lately they show some very positive signs of life.


You can always buy AMD.390x lately is faster than 980TI in dx12 games like AOS, Hitman and quantum break.


----------



## i7monkey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iluvkfc*
> 
> If it has the same performance increase as 580 -> 680 I couldn't care what's under the hood, I have $650 for it. But for some reason I don't think it will be.


How tech progression works is that prices stay the same (or go down) while we get better performance.

We're supposed to get a performance boost from Pascal, and prices aren't suppose to go up.

If prices went up every time based on a raw performance boost, we'd be paying $50 000 for a GTX 980Ti because it's 1000x faster than a Geforce 2 Ultra which cost $500 at the time back in 2000.

You guys don't seem to get it. You're happy paying higher prices for no reason. You're happy settling for less hardware at double or triple the prices.


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> How tech progression works is that prices stay the same (or go down) while we get better performance.
> 
> We're supposed to get a performance boost from Pascal, and prices aren't suppose to go up.
> 
> If prices went up every time based on a raw performance boost, we'd be paying $50 000 for a GTX 980Ti because it's 1000x faster than a Geforce 2 Ultra which cost $500 at the time back in 2000.
> 
> You guys don't seem to get it. You're happy paying higher prices for no reason. You're happy settling for less hardware at double or triple the prices.


Tech progression has nothing to do with pricing, it has everything to do with supply/demand, however.

"They"'re happy to pay higher prices for precise reason of getting more. If for some reason 1080 at that rumored price tag of $500+ won't be better than 970, nobody is going to be happy buying it, if anyone at all will buy it.


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> Yep GTX570 was todays GTX980TI.It was cutdown flagship card.
> GTX970 is GTX560 in fermi days.GTX980 is GTX560TI.
> 
> Nv just change names and people take that Bait
> GTX980Ti in fermi days will cost 330-350USD...
> GTX980 220USD
> Poeople just dont realize this, because nv changes names.
> 
> Worst on that is some nv sheeps even defending it and want next GTX560TI cost 650USD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why some people who know whats going on are mad.Like me and I7 monkey ....


"That's the price you pay to play." Your opinion is going to become worthless if you carry that kind of attitude. The purpose of this forum and others related is to talk about whats out, whats coming out, and where things are going. The fact that your upset about the way the market has shifted and that you can't contain it like an adult ruins everything you say in some degree.

I don't think anyone here is happy that GPU's cost 300, 500, 700, 1000, 1500... Like do you honestly think anyone is excited to buy at these prices?
Your upset that the prices have inflated? Have you even considered the growth of this market increasing that value tremendously. How much has the gaming market grown in the past ten years?

If you want to play AAA titles at 1080p and 1440p and 4k with bleeding edge technology, then your going to pay what they charge because ultimately you don't have a choice. You can play last generation games with high settings with your lower end graphic card, hey that's awesome for you, I'm happy for you.

But your spending preferences and thoughts about what should cost X because it used to be X... sounds like a kid whining because he friend has a bike that his dad couldn't afford so his bike was slower and he couldn't keep up with Jimmy. Save your money Timmy and buy the inflated bike if that's what you want.

I agree the cost of these graphics cards could be aggressively priced at much lower margins. But ALL of us are playing at a premium. 3, 4 generations old tech will work fine, use it, don't complain that newer stuff costs more. its simple.

Hope that hits home


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7monkey*
> 
> How tech progression works is that prices stay the same (or go down) while we get better performance.
> 
> We're supposed to get a performance boost from Pascal, and prices aren't suppose to go up.


$500 (550) bought you a 280, a 480, a 580, a 680, and a 980. Seems like performance increased across the board at that price bracket.

I don't know why you are so convinced that $650 rumor is true.

Edit: and yes, the die size changed, but you still got a performance increase at the given price point.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> $500 (550) bought you a 280, a 480, a 580, a 680, and a 980. Seems like performance increased across the board at that price bracket.
> 
> I don't know why you are so convinced that $650 rumor is true.


I think it is likely to be true (not saying it definitively is) because of :

- AMD has nothing to challenge it according to what AMD Roy said.
- 980 Ti is 650$
- GTX 1080 will be better than 980 Ti. It isn't confirmed, but that is a very very likely given.
- Selling a card at 499$, without being forced to do so by the competition, simply means less profit for Nvidia and they are known to price their GPU exactly so that people don't want to buy them but have to.

Personally I am pretty convinced that it will be somewhere between 550$ and 650$. I don't like it, but I don't see 499$ happening if we go by what we all know to be true very soon


----------



## Forceman

Maybe, but I'm sticking with 10 years of history that says a x80 is $500ish.

Of course the exception was when Nvidia had no competition for the 780, so who knows.

Edit: but I'm expecting 980 Ti +10-15%, not the +40% some people seem to be expecting. If it ends up that fast then $650 seems more likely.

And looking back, the 780 seems like a weird release. Wonder if they just had so many failed GK110 chips they had to release something to use them.


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Maybe, but I'm sticking with 10 years of history that says a x80 is $500ish.
> 
> Of course the exception was when Nvidia had no competition for the 780, so who knows.
> 
> Edit: but I'm expecting 980 Ti +10-15%, not the +40% some people seem to be expecting. If it ends up that fast then $650 seems more likely.


This is very much so the case. It's confirmed.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lahvie*
> 
> This is very much so the case. It's confirmed.


Where? By who?


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> You can always buy AMD.390x lately is faster than 980TI in dx12 games like AOS, Hitman and quantum break.


By the time DX12 actually becomes the backbone of the majority of games being built, both AMD and Nvidia will have cards that make the 390x obsolete.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Maybe, but I'm sticking with 10 years of history that says a x80 is $500ish.
> 
> Of course the exception was when Nvidia had no competition for the 780, so who knows.
> 
> Edit: but I'm expecting 980 Ti +10-15%, not the +40% some people seem to be expecting. If it ends up that fast then $650 seems more likely.
> 
> And looking back, the 780 seems like a weird release. Wonder if they just had so many failed GK110 chips they had to release something to use them.


I expect the GTX 1080 8GB GDDR5X (650$) to be 25% better than the GTX 980 Ti (both at stock clock).

Currently thinking about it. A good G-Sync monitor is 850$ and a GTX 1080 probably 650$. That already is 1500$.

I also need to following :

- DDR4 RAM atleast 16GB with good timings/mhz.
- 1TB SSD
- CPU
- Mainboard
- Cooling

I could reuse PSU and CASE, but I don't know if I want to. God damn it's so expensive. I don't feel like it is worth it.
In the end it may very well be north of 3000$.

I have to blindly guess if it will be worth it to wait until Q1 2017, buy in summer with Pascal/Broadwell-E or ditch PC gaming in favor of console gaming.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> You can always buy AMD.390x lately is faster than 980TI in dx12 games like AOS, Hitman and quantum break.


Until you OC the 980Ti...







showing reference maxwell in these "benches" is a joke, most buy the AIB versions...let me see, for an example, a stock 980Ti Classified or similar in these "benches"...


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Until you OC the 980Ti...


it overclocks 25% and 390x can oc 20%, still doesn't make much difference







.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> it overclocks 25% and 390x can oc 20%, still doesn't make much difference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Prove it...







It will go something like this.. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/23.html the Gigabyte for example...which could be OC'ed even further...


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Prove it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will go something like this.. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/23.html the Gigabyte for example...


in hitman dx12, 390x is 10% faster than 980ti,

add 25% for 980ti = 72 fps

add 20% for 390x= 76 fps

390x is still 5% faster, so as i said it doesn't make any difference.









i guess you already know 980ti runs at 1200-1250mhz in game already, without any tweaks. and i took 1500mhz as average oc , that makes 25% oc on top of 1200mhz.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> in hitman dx12, 390x is 10% faster than 980ti,
> 
> add 25% for 980ti = 72 fps
> 
> add 20% for 390x= 76 fps
> 
> 390x is still 5% faster, so as i said it doesn't make any difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess you already know 980ti runs at 1200-1250mhz in game already, without any tweaks. and i took 1500mhz as average oc , that makes 25% oc on top of 1200mhz.


Lol, NO....show me an OC'ed or AIB 980Ti against the OC'ed 390x in ANY bench...the 390x is a great card but, going up against an OC'ed 980TI or Titan X, I can't see it,...


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Lol, NO....show me an OC'ed or AIB 980Ti against the OC'ed 390x in ANY bench...the 390x is a great card but, going up against an OC'ed 980TI or Titan X, I can't see it,...


who is talking about 390x being better than tx/980ti? it's obvious those cards are faster overall.

i was talking about dx12 benches someone posted where 390x is faster than 980ti. you said oc 980ti will beat it and i gave you rough estimates that it cannot "in those specific benches".

how much core frequency your 980ti has on default with no tweaks? i guess 1200-1250mhz ? how much you can overclock ? if 1500mhz then that means 25% oc on top of 1200mhz . that's what you can expect performance to increase at max. cuz performance doesn't scale linearly.

point is, 980ti should not even need any oc for performing faster than 390x. if it does , that's just pathetic. and i think i don't need to explain why it's pathetic.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> who is talking about 390x being better than tx/980ti? it's obvious those cards are faster overall.
> 
> i was talking about dx12 benches someone posted where 390x is faster than 980ti. you said oc 980ti will beat it and i gave you rough estimates that it cannot "in those specific benches".
> 
> how much core frequency your 980ti has on default with no tweaks? i guess 1200-1250mhz ? how much you can overclock ? if 1500mhz then that means 25% oc on top of 1200mhz . that's what you can expect performance to increase at max. cuz performance doesn't scale linearly.
> 
> point is, 980ti should not even need any oc for performing faster than 390x. if it does , that's just pathetic. and i think i don't need to explain why it's pathetic.


The Classified that I have, sold the other one, boost to 1418 out of the box, I game at 1528...and, no, I wouldn't have to OC it for it to be fast, it already is....







and, now it's a penalty for being able to OC? Lol. as I said, show me an AIB 980Ti losing to the 390x in a D12 bench, and, I will be greatly impressed...







and I will truly appreciate the greatness of AMD, even though I like their graphics cards anyways..I used the Fury Nano in 2 SFF builds for family members...


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> The Classified that I have, sold the other one, boost to 1418 out of the box, I game at 1528...and, no, I wouldn't have to OC it for it to be fast, it already is....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and, now it's a penalty for being able to OC? Lol. as I said, show me an AIB 980Ti losing to the 390x in a D12 bench, and, I will be greatly impressed...










, dude , a reference 980ti runs around 1200mhz which is obviously lower than your card i get it. but that reference card can achieve 1500mhz too even if it cannot. just add 25% more fps in that benchmark and you'll get fps numbers of 980ti running @1500mhz which is still lower than 20% oc 390x. what's so hard to understand here ?

besides, that's not the point here. a 650$ card loosing to a 350$ 2-3 year old card is pathetic. if you still don't get it than imagine 780 beating 980ti and you are saying "just oc that 980ti it will be faster" doh


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> besides, that's not the point here. *a 650$ card loosing to a 350$ 2-3 year old card is pathetic.* if you still don't get it than imagine 780 beating 980ti and you are saying "just oc that 980ti it will be faster" doh


careful there:



grenada/hawaii makes a fiji look . .not so great in dx12/hitman.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> careful there:
> 
> 
> 
> grenada/hawaii makes a fiji look . .not so great in dx12/hitman.


yes, and fiji even though still faster is pathetic, what's your point here ? at least it's faster.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> yes, and fiji even though still faster is pathetic, what's your point here ? at least it's faster.


True, til you get it home, and, into your rig...







while it's still in the box, on the shelf, it's very fast...


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> True, til you get it home, and, into your rig...


Meh, if i want any gpu this time it would be something that can run 3d vision + 4k video. this gt210 can play 3d vision for movies but can't run 4k videos







( i know it's pathetic too)

My gaming days are gone for at least 3-4 years


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> yes, and fiji even though still faster is pathetic, what's your point here ? at least it's faster.


fiji is usually ~10% faster at 4k than maxwell (which equates to ~3fps, whooo hoo but a win is a win, right?) so the point is it seems most dx12 games are favoring certain arch(es) over others even at the cost of the same manufacturer.

EDIT:
so yeah dx12 being closer to metal is very picky about what arch it's running on.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Meh, if i want any gpu this time it would be something that can run 3d vision + 4k video. this gt210 can play 3d vision for movies but can't run 4k videos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( i know it's pathetic too)
> 
> My gaming days are gone for at least 3-4 years


It's ok, I will soon be pushing a 750Ti for a while, getting rid of my last Classified, yup, kicking it to the curb....


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> fiji is usually ~10% faster at 4k than maxwell (which equates to ~3fps, whooo hoo but a win is a win, right?) so the point is it seems most dx12 games are favoring certain arch(es) over others even at the cost of the same manufacturer.


Not just dx12, but other console ports as well. i guess that's why nvidia moved to similar SM structure as GCN's cu. 64cc/sm. but we'll see how it goes.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Not just dx12, but other console ports as well. i guess that's why nvidia moved to similar SM structure as GCN's cu. 64cc/sm. but we'll see how it goes.


not sure if you saw my edit but i'm getting at dx12 being closer to metal even a difference between gcn 1.2 and 1.3 have performance . .disparages. at least thats what i recall in early dx12 benches of hitman, not sure how much as been fixed since.

but IF SO then that could lead to one manufacturer to have half their product stack under performing. fwiw, amd's future looks bright w/DX12, more so than nvidia's at the moment and i don't think NV will be catching up anytime soon.

but my concern is devs coding enough for more than one arch . . . if i am making sense.


----------



## carlhil2

Six Days before release party, benches soon after, hard release in June. I'll take 2 please...


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Six Days before release party, benches soon after, hard release in June. I'll take 2 please...


you are so cheerful (towards Nvidia). You are not working for Nvidia, are you?


----------



## looniam

who do you think designs Jen-Hsun Huang's jackets?


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> you are so cheerful (towards Nvidia). You are not working for Nvidia, are you?


What are you even talking about? no "fanboy" here. it's a new gpu, new arch, what makes you want to hit me with that? chill with the disrepecting..


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> not sure if you saw my edit but i'm getting at dx12 being closer to metal even a difference between gcn 1.2 and 1.3 have performance . .disparages. at least thats what i recall in early dx12 benches of hitman, not sure how much as been fixed since.
> 
> but IF SO then that could lead to one manufacturer to have half their product stack under performing. fwiw, amd's future looks bright w/DX12, more so than nvidia's at the moment and i don't think NV will be catching up anytime soon.
> 
> but my concern is devs coding enough for more than one arch . . . if i am making sense.


Well , those devs are going to be familiar with console hw/coding. and for past 2-3 years amd is still getting improvements for gcn maybe because consoles ? don't know for sure. but dx12 need some good selling game with graphixxx. something like crysis 1 to make some impact i think, maybe bf5 will help.

But yeah Amd does seem to have a better chance. just hope they can do something like what 48xx/970 did. otherwise they will lost a pretty good chance.

Nv can always fight back with money and GW







. unless their hw really suck which i doubt will be.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> What are you even talking about? no "fanboy" here. it's a new gpu, new arch, what makes you want to hit me with that? chill with the disrepecting..


It's all good no offense buddy









I was just wondering why I never see you in any Polaris thread or any AMD thread for that matter. (Also your past 5 GPU purchases speak a clear language







)

We all love new GPUs don't we


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> It's all good no offense buddy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just wondering why I never see you in any Polaris thread or any AMD thread for that matter. (Also your past 5 GPU purchases speak a clear language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> We all love new GPUs don't we


Umm, I go with what's fastest at the time? also, hanging out in AMD threads for what, web-banging? I pass, don't need that noise in my life. I am not down with the AMD/nVidia/intel flame wars.....


----------



## Malinkadink

I'm not buying unless the 1070 is $399.99 or less and gives 980 Ti performance clock for clock. If Nvidia can't meet that then i'll sit on my 970 until either the 1080 Ti and splurge on that or if the 1070 does meet my performance requirements but costs $500 then i'll wait for the inevitable price drops.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headd*
> 
> You can always buy AMD.390x lately is faster than 980TI in dx12 games like AOS, Hitman and quantum break.


interesting how 390X is faster than my 980Ti in 3 games that I have no interest in buying. is this some kind of freak coincidence?
AoS - super niche RTS subgenre that doesn't interest me.
Hitman - broken always online single player game.
Quantum Break - broken always online single player game with UWP virus.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Malinkadink*
> 
> I'm not buying unless the 1070 is $399.99 or less and gives 980 Ti performance clock for clock. If Nvidia can't meet that then i'll sit on my 970 until either the 1080 Ti and splurge on that or if the 1070 does meet my performance requirements but costs $500 then i'll wait for the inevitable price drops.


That is probably a good decision.

But what if the GTX 1070 is 499$ and 10%-15%~ faster than the 980 Ti (both stock clock). Would you grab one then?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Umm, I go with what's fastest at the time? also, hanging out in AMD threads for what, web-banging? I pass, don't need that noise in my life...


AMD also has new GPUs and new arch. That is something you like, don't you?


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> That is probably a good decision.
> 
> But what if the GTX 1070 is 499$ and 10%-15%~ faster than the 980 Ti (both stock clock). Would you grab one then?
> AMD also has new GPUs and new arch. That is something you like, don't you?


So, you are saying that I should wait on the hopes that AMD will come to market, soon, with something faster? how did that work for the guys who said "wait til Fiji drop, THEN decide.." and then proceeded to buy the Fury X over the 980Ti ANYWAYS? Lol, stop playing...


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> So, you are saying that I should wait on the hopes that AMD will come to market, soon, with something faster? how did that work for the guys who said "wait til Fiji drop, THEN decide.." and the proceeded to buy the Fury X over the 980Ti ANYWAYS? Lol, stop playing...


I did not say that. I just noticed a pattern and asked you a question which you didn't even answer. I would prefer a 980 Ti over a Fury X aswell.

We are all nice people here who love GPUs. I only hope people are genuine


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I did not say that. I just noticed a pattern and asked you a question which you didn't even answer. I would prefer a 980 Ti over a Fury X aswell.
> 
> We are all nice people here who love GPUs. I only hope people are genuine


" I go with what's fastest at the time? " in case you missed it the first time ..







anyways, enough of this chitter chatter, release the hounds...


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> " I go with what's fastest at the time? " in case you missed it the first time ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyways, enough of this chitter chatter, release the hounds...


You know that scene in movies where they ask "Are you a police officer?" and they have to answer truthfully. I really like those scenes


----------



## iLeakStuff

May 6th

http://wccftech.com/geforce-gtx-1080-gtx-1070-launching-6th-may-market-june/


----------



## iLeakStuff

Performance slide for mobile cards arrive
(Mobile GTX 980 = GTX 980 desktop)


----------



## PontiacGTX

Spoiler: OT



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> careful there:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: OT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grenada/hawaii makes a fiji look . .not so great in dx12/hitman.


AMD Fiji is ROP bottlenecked and also the Front End remains kinda limited compared to the R9 390x
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> not sure if you saw my edit but i'm getting at dx12 being closer to metal even a difference between gcn 1.2 and 1.3 have performance . .disparages. at least thats what i recall in early dx12 benches of hitman, not sure how much as been fixed since.
> 
> but IF SO then that could lead to one manufacturer to have half their product stack under performing. fwiw, amd's future looks bright w/DX12, more so than nvidia's at the moment and i don't think NV will be catching up anytime soon.
> 
> but my concern is devs coding enough for more than one arch . . . if i am making sense.


Hitman really doesnt use as much compute power,and some slides shows that Fiji has less ACEs than Hawaii and if they really didnt use as much compute (asynchronous shaders) then there shouldnt be a big difference,without counting the ROP/Raster bottleneck


----------



## yelnah

Here is the MSRP of the x60, x70, x80 cards at launch:



Referring to the above MSRP prices I don't get how some people think the gtx 1070, specifically, is going to cost upwards of $499. People simply wouldn't pay that much and sales would be negatively impacted, especially considering it is a mid-range card.

Even if you look at the maximum selling price of the cards from the tables above, the absolute most I could see the gtx 1070 going for is $400 (going by the pricing structure in the past). The gtx 780 broke the trend due to it going for $649, well over the typical $499-$549 price, however I don't see them pricing the gtx 1080 anymore than $599. This is especially true if it's going to be on par with the performance of the gtx 980 ti.

I will also say that it's laughable when people say that the gtx 1070 will replace the gtx 980, as the gtx 970 was already near the performance of the gtx 980 when overclocked. I would say that the gtx 1070 will be between the gtx 980 and gtx 980 ti.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: OT
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> careful there:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: OT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grenada/hawaii makes a fiji look . .not so great in dx12/hitman.
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Fiji is ROP bottlenecked and also the Front End remains kinda limited compared to the R9 390x
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> not sure if you saw my edit but i'm getting at dx12 being closer to metal even a difference between gcn 1.2 and 1.3 have performance . .disparages. at least thats what i recall in early dx12 benches of hitman, not sure how much as been fixed since.
> 
> but IF SO then that could lead to one manufacturer to have half their product stack under performing. fwiw, amd's future looks bright w/DX12, more so than nvidia's at the moment and i don't think NV will be catching up anytime soon.
> 
> but my concern is devs coding enough for more than one arch . . . if i am making sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hitman really doesnt use as much compute power,and some slides shows that Fiji has less ACEs than Hawaii and if they really didnt use as much compute (asynchronous shaders) then there shouldnt be a big difference,without counting the ROP/Raster bottleneck
Click to expand...

ok, i see what you're saying.

maybe i'll cruise back over to the hitman thread sometime so that discussion can be on topic.


----------



## carlhil2

Aren't Hitman 2016 DX11 and DX12 results almost similar? http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/hitman_2016_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html .. http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/hitman_2016_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Aren't Hitman 2016 DX11 and DX12 results almost similar? http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/hitman_2016_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html .. http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/hitman_2016_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html


Remember when Mantle was going to save the day?


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Remember when Mantle was going to save the day?


I remember listening on and on and on about how amds next technology is going to blow nVidia out the water for the past 8 years


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels*
> 
> On the flip side, one could say AMD charged $250 extra for the HD 7970 because the GTX 680, using a chip class that prior to Kepler would be <$300, beat the 7970 in performance and efficiency at its launch.
> AMD's poor pricing allowed Nvidia to move the GX104 chips up a price tier.
> 
> *Also, at launch, the jump from GTX 580 to 7970 was ~10%.*
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/28.html
> 
> 7970GE (not even launch 7970) to Titan was ~25%
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan/27.html


That is just blatantly false. I moved up from a pair of GTX 580 Lightnings to a pair of 7970 Lightnings in February 2012 and can most assuredly promise you that when OC'd there was at least a 25-30% difference in performance between them (God TPU charts are so overused and so overrated around here). My 580's never would hit 1GHz while my 7970 Lightnings would do nearly 1300MHz. That's a huge difference...


----------



## alexze89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I expect the GTX 1080 8GB GDDR5X (650$) to be 25% better than the GTX 980 Ti (both at stock clock).
> 
> Currently thinking about it. A good G-Sync monitor is 850$ and a GTX 1080 probably 650$. That already is 1500$.
> 
> I also need to following :
> 
> - DDR4 RAM atleast 16GB with good timings/mhz.
> - 1TB SSD
> - CPU
> - Mainboard
> - Cooling
> 
> I could reuse PSU and CASE, but I don't know if I want to. God damn it's so expensive. I don't feel like it is worth it.
> In the end it may very well be north of 3000$.
> 
> I have to blindly guess if it will be worth it to wait until Q1 2017, buy in summer with Pascal/Broadwell-E or ditch PC gaming in favor of console gaming.


Dude sit it out regardless, Microsoft and Sony have next gen variant consoles for 4K HD support in the works ATM, so by next summer like youre talking about potentially buying next gen GPU and supporting core hardware, the consoles will be out as well, so that way you dont jump ship early. Or if you do, Trade me a 980 for my PS4 and PSN account and we'll just swap the e-mail and password to you and i'll mail my stuff to you lol.

But seriously, hold off man. Theres a lot of big changes coming, not the constant minor changes, but entire architecture changes with Intel going to 10nm processes and Pascal and Polaris 10 and 4K HD consoles releasing by Q2 2017...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Maybe, but I'm sticking with 10 years of history that says a x80 is $500ish.
> 
> Of course the exception was when Nvidia had no competition for the 780, so who knows.
> 
> Edit: but I'm expecting 980 Ti +10-15%, not the +40% some people seem to be expecting. If it ends up that fast then $650 seems more likely.
> 
> *And looking back, the 780 seems like a weird release. Wonder if they just had so many failed GK110 chips they had to release something to use them*.


I think this is almost certainly how we ended up with the 780. Early huge die 28nm (such as the case with GK110) had pretty bad yields at the time iirc. In fact rumor was that GK100 just plain didn't work (not a fact, just a rumor) and they were forced to delay almost a year before they could even release Titan, which is another likely cause of their pricing and marketing strategy of that card in early 2013. They just couldn't make enough fully functional GK110's to meet a $500-$600 price and even the Titan was still not a fully enabled chip. They definitely had a slew of failed GK110's at the time leading to the creation of a "true" X80 Kepler card, the GTX 780. Its just too bad that history didn't repeat itself with Maxwell with the 980 being a cut down GM100 rather than the small-die GP204, a strategy they had used with the 680. Then again, if we had gotten a $550 980 with GM100 in it back in fall 2014 instead of a $650 980Ti in spring 2015 AMD would likely have gone bankrupt!


----------



## alexze89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Malinkadink*
> 
> I'm not buying unless the 1070 is $399.99 or less and gives 980 Ti performance clock for clock. If Nvidia can't meet that then i'll sit on my 970 until either the 1080 Ti and splurge on that or if the 1070 does meet my performance requirements but costs $500 then i'll wait for the inevitable price drops.


and the inevitable BIOS tweaks that add a few % of performance over that 6 month period.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Hell, I'm not buying anything this year. Period! My two Titans are still serving their functions more than well enough and if I hang onto them for a couple more years (something that seems plenty doable for me at 1440p) then finally the $2k I spent on them might actually begin to be justified. They still have 6GB of memory and can still easily play any game out at max settings at 1440p...


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Hell, I'm not buying anything this year. Period! My two Titans are still serving their functions more than well enough and if I hang onto them for a couple more years (something that seems plenty doable for me at 1440p) then finally the $2k I spent on them might actually begin to be justified. They still have 6GB of memory and can still easily play any game out at max settings at 1440p...


It sucks that we've waited for three years (or it feels like it anyway) for this die shrink, and now that it's here, we have to wait another 6-9 months for the real power chips. My upgrade money has already burned through my pocket and is working on my shoe.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I agree with you dude but your 290(X) should still be fine for most things...


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HackHeaven*
> 
> Mid-range to poor people: $150-~200
> Mid-range to sensible people: $175-$300
> Mid-range to fanboys: $250-$450
> Mid-range to rich kids: $300~630
> Mid-Range to bank robbers: $630+


FTFY


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I agree with you dude but your 290(X) should still be fine for most things...


Its the upgrade itch gone over 9000. I just build a PC for a friend with a Skylake and man It was 3 years without handling new parts for me. The smell the felling and everything that comes from new parts.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Its the upgrade itch gone over 9000. I just build a PC for a friend with a Skylake and man It was 3 years without handling new parts for me. The smell the felling and everything that comes from new parts.


True, hard to argue with you there! If I hadn't spent $10k on my new bike last year I'm sure I'd be rocking a 5960X and two Titan X's right now...


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yelnah*
> 
> Here is the MSRP of the x60, x70, x80 cards at launch:
> 
> 
> 
> Referring to the above MSRP prices I don't get how some people think the gtx 1070, specifically, is going to cost upwards of $499.


Adjusting for inflation gives you a more accurate picture. More to the point, if you track by node jumps you can clearly observe an initial price spike followed by a regression, although there are aberrations that I think have a lot to do with nVidia marketing shenanigans. Something else to keep in mind is that this is the first node jump where there isn't an initial price reduction over the previous node, in fact it's a lot more expensive. TSMC's wafers are also more expensive than Samsung's in the 14/16nm region.

Inflation Adjusted Prices (2016 US Dollars)
GTX 460: $250
GTX 560: $210
GTX 660: $238
GTX 760: $244
GTX 960: $200

GTX 470: $381
GTX 570: $381
GTX 670: $414
GTX 770: $407
GTX 970: $328

GTX 480: $545
GTX 580: $545
GTX 680: $518
GTX 780: $663
GTX 980: $549

GTX 590: $741
GTX 690: $1,036
GTX Titan: $1,021
GTX Titan Black: $1,004
GTX Titan Z: $3,018
GTX Titan X: $999


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Adjusting for inflation gives you a more accurate picture. More to the point, if you track by node jumps you can clearly observe an initial price spike followed by a regression, although there are aberrations that I think have a lot to do with nVidia marketing shenanigans. Something else to keep in mind is that this is the first node jump where there isn't an initial price reduction over the previous node, in fact it's a lot more expensive. TSMC's wafers are also more expensive than Samsung's in the 14/16nm region.
> 
> Inflation Adjusted Prices (2016 US Dollars)
> GTX 460: $250
> GTX 560: $210
> GTX 660: $238
> GTX 760: $244
> GTX 960: $200
> 
> GTX 470: $381
> GTX 570: $381
> GTX 670: $414
> GTX 770: $407
> GTX 970: $328
> 
> GTX 480: $545
> GTX 580: $545
> GTX 680: $518
> GTX 780: $663
> GTX 980: $549
> 
> GTX 590: $741
> GTX 690: $1,036
> GTX Titan: $1,021
> GTX Titan Black: $1,004
> GTX Titan Z: $3,018
> GTX Titan X: $999


Erm Titan X shouldnt be in the Dual GPU group.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fyrwulf*
> 
> Inflation Adjusted Prices (2016 US Dollars)
> *GK106 -->GM206*
> GTX 660: $238
> GTX 960: $200
> 
> *GF104 --> GF114 --> GK104 --> GM204*
> GTX 460: $250
> GTX 560: $210
> GTX 680: $518 --> rebrand GTX 770: $407
> GTX 670: $414
> GTX 760: $244
> GTX 970: $328
> GTX 980: $549
> 
> *GF100 --> GF110 --> GK110 --> GM200*
> GTX 470: $381
> GTX 480: $545
> GTX 580: $545
> GTX 570: $381
> GTX Titan: $1,021
> GTX 780: $663
> GTX Titan Black: $1,004
> GTX Titan X: $999
> 
> *2x GK104*
> GTX 690: $1,036
> 
> *2x GF110 --> 2x GK110*
> GTX 590: $741
> GTX Titan Z: $3,018


Re-aranged that for you by chip size in chronological order.


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Erm Titan X shouldnt be in the Dual GPU group.


The only dual gpu Titan is the Titan Z....


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Re-aranged that for you by chip size in chronological order. I am only seeing a gradual increase. With the exception of the Titan X, there is no price regression.


At some point everyone is just going to have to accept that Kepler marked a step-change in price/mm^2 because of the significant change in perf/mm^2, and that there is no going back.


----------



## Fyrwulf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Erm Titan X shouldnt be in the Dual GPU group.


No, but it would've been in the "90" group, if nVidia had stuck with that nomenclature.


----------



## alexze89

So how cheap do you think 2nd hand gtx 980 & 980 Ti will hit after pascal hits official release?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alexze89*
> 
> So how cheap do you think 2nd hand gtx 980 & 980 Ti will hit after pascal hits official release?


Asking the real questions! I can tell you one thing, if people start dumping their 980 TI's here on OCN for $300 or something silly like that I'm going to be the first one in line to get a couple of them myself.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> At some point everyone is just going to have to accept that Kepler was a step-change in performance/mm^2, and that there is no going back.


You act like performance per area doesn't improve drastically with every generation... Especially ones that are accompanied by node changes...


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Asking the real questions! I can tell you one thing, if people start dumping their 980 TI's here on OCN for $300 or something silly like that I'm going to be the first one in line to get a couple of them myself.


Picked up a new-in-box Fury off an acquaintance for just over £200 earlier this week. I'd say the fire-sales have begun in earnest.


----------



## p4inkill3r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Picked up a new-in-box Fury off an acquaintance for just over £200 earlier this week. I'd say the fire-sales have begun in earnest.


I'll be picking up another Fury X if I can find one for such a beautiful price as that.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> You act like performance per area doesn't improve drastically with every generation... Especially ones that are accompanied by node changes...


Yes, but the performance change from 6970 to 7970GE was roughly the same as the change from 480 to 680. However, the die size change was 389 to 365 for AMD compared to 529 to 294 for Nvidia. See the difference?

For comparison, the previous similar die shrink for Nvidia was 285 to 460, and the 460 was about 10% slower than the 285. The similarly sized 680 was almost 20% faster than the 580. Again, significant difference.

You can blame Fermi for that if you want, but it is still a significant out-of-character change in performance.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Yes, but the performance change from 6970 to 7970GE was roughly the same as the change from 480 to 680. However, the die size change was 389 to 365 for AMD compared to 529 to 294 for Nvidia. See the difference?


The price gouging was due to lack of competition and collusion. We know well enough of AMDs failures to deliver competitive products on both the gpu and cpu front. AMD and Nvidia was price fixing and were slapped with a modest fine of $2 million while they profited massively.

Do you think it coincidental that AMD launched a mediocre product (7970) accompanied by a massive price increase ($180 higher, 49% increase, than the launch price of the 6970) just months before the GTX 680?


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> At some point everyone is just going to have to accept that Kepler marked a step-change in price/mm^2 because of the significant change in perf/mm^2, and that there is no going back.


Still stuck on stage 2 unfortunately. And by the looks of things, I may never progress from there.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Sigh, the 7970 was not mediocre. Stock clocks were too low and GCN was brand new so it took some time to get the drivers right. The 7970 ultimately bested everything Nvidia had for that year (2012-2013). The 6970 couldn't say the same, thus the price increase.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Sigh, the 7970 was not mediocre. Stock clocks were too low and GCN was brand new so it took some time to get the drivers right. The 7970 ultimately bested everything Nvidia had for that year (2012-2013).


No... It kept pace with Nvidia's midgrade chip for the year. Yes, it overclocked well. But so did the 680...


----------



## renji1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Picked up a new-in-box Fury off an acquaintance for just over £200 earlier this week. I'd say the fire-sales have begun in earnest.


there still selling for 500 i think


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Sigh, the 7970 was not mediocre. Stock clocks were too low and GCN was brand new so it took some time to get the drivers right. The 7970 ultimately bested everything Nvidia had for that year (2012-2013). The 6970 couldn't say the same, thus the price increase.


I loved my 7970's. I had a pair of XFX ones with the lifetime warranty that started out roughly equal to the GTX 770's I had simultaneously. When I sold both sets end of last year the 7970's were consistently better in most games. If Hawaii has legs, Tahiti has stilts.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renji1337*
> 
> there still selling for 500 i think


Yep, then add in the VAT I'd normally have to pay and you're looking at ~$660 USD. It was a great deal courtesy of karma as I try to do the same for my acquaintance circle.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *p4inkill3r*
> 
> I'll be picking up another Fury X if I can find one for such a beautiful price as that.


nothing better than insecure ppl dumping them before next gen mid range chips arrive


----------



## p4inkill3r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> nothing better than insecure ppl dumping them before next gen mid range chips arrive


Happens like clockwork.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Spoiler: OT!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The price gouging was due to lack of competition and collusion. We know well enough of AMDs failures to deliver competitive products on both the gpu and cpu front. AMD and Nvidia was price fixing and were slapped with a modest fine of $2 million while they profited massively.
> 
> Do you think it coincidental that AMD launched a mediocre product (7970) accompanied by a massive price increase ($180 higher, 49% increase, than the launch price of the 6970) just months before the GTX 680?


it could be because the HD 6970 wasnt a high end product, it barely matched a GTX 570, so AMD offfering a high end GPU for 500usd was a thing that would give them space for a HD 6970 repacement for slighly less than the old MSRP, also the performance of the 7970 required 1 year of driver improvements to match a GTX 680 and then beat it when it was rebranded


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *p4inkill3r*
> 
> Happens like clockwork.







Love getting that second card towards the end of a gen.







I'm not a day-one midnight gamer anyhow.


----------



## erocker

Seems about right for Nvidia.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Basically we get more performance each year for set amount of $ but slowly the performance increase we get is getting smaller and smaller. Instead of getting 50 increase in p/p we are going to get 20% p/p taking into account launch GTX980 Ti pricing. God dam this is pathetic if this cards is $650. In the end of the day its actually has nothing to do with performance. If this is $650 that mean the Big Pascall will be more raising the bar even higher.


Since the introduction of "Titan" models, prices seemed to have jumped about a hundred bucks with other models.. Specifically what used to be the top two cards.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *p4inkill3r*
> 
> Happens like clockwork.


That's my upgrade path right there. Can't wait to snap up a couple of 980Ti's for about $600 from some desperate fanboy! Because of this I really do hope the 1080 is a monster must-have card that beats the 980Ti by 40% and costs $500! 980Ti prices will absolutely plummet!


----------



## p4inkill3r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love getting that second card towards the end of a gen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a day-one midnight gamer anyhow.


No doubt.


----------



## superkyle1721

Wow this thread is out of control. Not only are people's speculations way out of proportion it just doesn't make sense. And all of the people screaming it's time for AMD to make a breakthrough obviously haven't tried to buy either card at launch. Nvdiagreed cards will be OOS for months causing people to way overspend. And hey if I'm wrong about it I'm wrong but my guess is a flat 10% jump across the board. 1080 10% increase over 980 TI so on and so on. Prices will increase on comparative launch prices from previous cards by $50. Don't believe the price leaks bc if anything they are to make you feel better about spending your hard earned money when the cards launch $100+ cheaper than the leak price. What's gets me is how do these people have the brains to make the money these cards cost but yet lack the common sense to spend it wisely...oh yeah credit...Fail

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> it could be because the HD 6970 wasnt a high end product, it barely matched a GTX 570, so AMD offfering a high end GPU for 500usd was a thing that would give them space for a HD 6970 repacement for slighly less than the old MSRP, also the performance of the 7970 required 1 year of driver improvements to match a GTX 680 and then beat it when it was rebranded[/SPOILER]


The HD 6970 was a larger die than the HD 7970. The HD 6970 launch price was $20 more than the GTX 570, which it outperformed at 1080p, and $130 less than the GTX 580. The performance of the card was around 7% less than the GTX 580. Yes, AMD was behind in performance this generation. They fell further behind with the HD 7970. Hence why Nvidia could afford to price gouge a mid-grade chip since there wasn't any competition at the high end. Nvidia has been farming ever since


----------



## alexze89

Dave Ramsey said always find a deal and always pay with cash, hence why I'm excited for pascal... it'll make the gotta have the best guys and fan boys sling their 980 Ti cards for $300 just to get rid of them and buy the new ****. I'll plan on buying two or three to SLI for 4K ultra 60fps


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alexze89*
> 
> Dave Ramsey said always find a deal and always pay with cash, hence why I'm excited for pascal... it'll make the gotta have the best guys and fan boys sling their 980 Ti cards for $300 just to get rid of them and buy the new ****. I'll plan on buying two or three to SLI for 4K ultra 60fps


Sorry but you'll have to beat me to those $300 980 TI's.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The HD 6970 was a larger die than the HD 7970. The HD 6970 launch price was $20 more than the GTX 570, which it outperformed at 1080p, and $130 less than the GTX 580. The performance of the card was around 7% less than the GTX 580. Yes, AMD was behind in performance this generation. They fell further behind with the HD 7970. Hence why Nvidia could afford to price gouge a mid-grade chip since there wasn't any competition at the high end. Nvidia has been farming ever since


you are comparing 2 different architecture with 2 different nodes and yet the 28nm dies like a r9 290 have similar die size that has a 6970 but it is 3.5x faster and. 70% more SP yet the 6970 wasnt really a high end gpu,if you compare to a 5870 it has less SP and the die is bigger but really didnt achieve a boost you expect from a new architecture ,but if amd had worse performance was due to the need of improvement of DX11 driver which later matched and beat it


----------



## carlhil2

Where is everyone, out selling those GM200 cards? Lol jk, anyways, seems official.. http://orderof10.com/humanityshallbeenlightened who would have thought that nVidia would drop first?


----------



## alexze89

I'm not surprised, don't they always drop first?
I'm just annoyed with the whole HBM/HBM2 thing. Seriously nVidia, yall bit he's should've put DDR5X on all mainstream cards, and HBM on the 1080, and HBM2 on the 1080 Ti/Titan


----------



## FlyingSolo

Damn so many choices. Sell my 970 and get a 980 ti for cheap for my arcade rig. And then get a 1070 or 1080 for my gaming rig. Now where do i go and find them $300 980 ti


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlyingSolo*
> 
> Damn so many choices. Sell my 970 and get a 980 ti for cheap for my arcade rig. And then get a 1070 or 1080 for my gaming rig. Now where do i go and find them $300 980 ti


Looks like I may have started a bit of an unreasonable expectation here! Really depends on how good the 1080/1070 end up performing (and costing) before we will have any chance at those mythical $300 980Ti's! But anybody who wants to dump theirs, please PM me!


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *carlhil2*
> 
> Where is everyone, out selling those GM200 cards? Lol jk, anyways, seems official.. http://orderof10.com/humanityshallbeenlightened *who would have thought that nVidia would drop first?*


I had the feeling that basically everyone expected Nvidia to bring out new cards first


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Looks like I may have started a bit of an unreasonable expectation here! Really depends on how good the 1080/1070 end up performing (and costing) before we will have any chance at those mythical $300 980Ti's! But anybody who wants to dump theirs, please PM me!


I Thot the 1080 was gonna be 100% faster than ti making you want 3, 2 for your rig, 1 for self driving upgrade on any vehicle, no?


----------



## alexze89

Quote:


> Looks like I may have started a bit of an unreasonable expectation here! Really depends on how good the 1080/1070 end up performing (and costing) before we will have any chance at those mythical $300 980Ti's! But anybody who wants to dump theirs, please PM me!


I don't expect $300 980 Ti cards unless the 1070 and 1080 perform as I expect them to. If they still beat them but aren't up to what I expected then they'll likely wind up with $350-400 used 980 Ti cards floating around.
I'm talking used though, not new. Same as before.


----------



## Diogenes5

Really looks like Nvidia is trying to act like a monopolist thanks to their ridiculous spike to 80% marketshare after the release of the GTX 970. The 1070 and 1080 are ridiculously priced. At best, they are releasing these cards at high prices to clear out 970 and 980 stock without having to discount heavily. It will work in part because lots of gamers now act like Nvidia's the only GPU maker out there even though in terms of $ to performance, AMD beats them. Gsync also is ridiculously expensive and proprietary.

I'm really glad I stuck to AMD and got a freesync monitor. Polaris looks to kill Nvidia in not only price to performance this generation but also in terms of power effeciency and heat generated. I just hope AMD is getting enough economies of scale out of making gpu's for the NX and PS4 Neo and Macbooks so we can get even lower prices on Polaris 10 and 11 in the desktop market.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Somehow, people magically expect prices on a brand new node, that has very low yields compared to the previous node, to be cheaper or even with previous generations? Yields are going to be tremendously low (5-8% at best at the start of a node shrink). Wafer prices are at darn near an all time high to begin with. And both companies have to somehow make back money on the R&D that went into creating an architecture for these node shrinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> I don't get OCN sometimes.


We are customers, not charity. We want stuff that is worthy to buy. We wont give $ for free.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> Really looks like Nvidia is trying to act like a monopolist thanks to their ridiculous spike to 80% marketshare after the release of the GTX 970. The 1070 and 1080 are ridiculously priced. At best, they are releasing these cards at high prices to clear out 970 and 980 stock without having to discount heavily. It will work in part because lots of gamers now act like Nvidia's the only GPU maker out there even though in terms of $ to performance, AMD beats them. Gsync also is ridiculously expensive and proprietary.
> 
> I'm really glad I stuck to AMD and got a freesync monitor. Polaris looks to kill Nvidia in not only price to performance this generation but also in terms of power effeciency and heat generated. I just hope AMD is getting enough economies of scale out of making gpu's for the NX and PS4 Neo and Macbooks so we can get even lower prices on Polaris 10 and 11 in the desktop market.


What are you going on about? GTX10** isn't priced, we don't know performance, we don't know price/perf or perf/watt. Are you form the future?


----------



## carlhil2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> Really looks like Nvidia is trying to act like a monopolist thanks to their ridiculous spike to 80% marketshare after the release of the GTX 970. The 1070 and 1080 are ridiculously priced. At best, they are releasing these cards at high prices to clear out 970 and 980 stock without having to discount heavily. It will work in part because lots of gamers now act like Nvidia's the only GPU maker out there even though in terms of $ to performance, AMD beats them. Gsync also is ridiculously expensive and proprietary.
> 
> I'm really glad I stuck to AMD and got a freesync monitor. Polaris looks to kill Nvidia in not only price to performance this generation but also in terms of power effeciency and heat generated. I just hope AMD is getting enough economies of scale out of making gpu's for the NX and PS4 Neo and Macbooks so we can get even lower prices on Polaris 10 and 11 in the desktop market.


Lol, you guys don't quit.....


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> you are comparing 2 different architecture with 2 different nodes and yet the 28nm dies like a r9 290 have similar die size that has a 6970 but it is 3.5x faster and. 70% more SP yet the 6970 wasnt really a high end gpu,if you compare to a 5870 it has less SP and the die is bigger but really didnt achieve a boost you expect from a new architecture ,but if amd had worse performance was due to the need of improvement of DX11 driver which later matched and beat it


By what measure is a R9 290X 3.5x faster than a HD 6970? And yes, AMD had worst performance... they let the Titan, the actual successor to the GTX 580, sit as top performer for over 8 months with performance deltas over 30% from the HD 7970...


----------



## lahvie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> Really looks like Nvidia is trying to act like a monopolist thanks to their ridiculous spike to 80% marketshare after the release of the GTX 970. The 1070 and 1080 are ridiculously priced. At best, they are releasing these cards at high prices to clear out 970 and 980 stock without having to discount heavily. It will work in part because lots of gamers now act like Nvidia's the only GPU maker out there even though in terms of $ to performance, AMD beats them. Gsync also is ridiculously expensive and proprietary.
> 
> I'm really glad I stuck to AMD and got a freesync monitor. Polaris looks to kill Nvidia in not only price to performance this generation but also in terms of power effeciency and heat generated. I just hope AMD is getting enough economies of scale out of making gpu's for the NX and PS4 Neo and Macbooks so we can get even lower prices on Polaris 10 and 11 in the desktop market.












edit - - im sorry that was rude

You are going off your gut feeling of disgust toward NVIDIA about 100 rumors, none of which are confirmed. Don't ever open a business.

NVIDIA needs amd to do well in business also. They are not monopolizing the market. If they wanted to, we would see x80's hit the shelves so low AMD would only sell to fanboys.

Just two thoughts.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lahvie*
> 
> They are not monopolizing the market.


Having 82% market share does afford monopoly power.


----------



## jdstock76

This same thing happened when the Fury came out, when the TX released, and when the 980ti released.

*MARKETING folks!*


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdstock76*
> 
> This same thing happened when the Fury came out, when the TX released, and when the 980ti released.
> 
> *MARKETING folks!*


AMD does not have a great marketing track record to be sure but the real disadvantage they have is a simple lack of resources with which to compete competently. We are talking about a company with a share price hovering around $1-2 a share for YEARS! Its easy to dominate (even marketing) when you simply have orders of magnitude more cash to spend than your competitor.


----------



## Rei86

Well... with the paper launch most of us where WRONG









1070 meeting and beating the Titan X for under 400 bucks.. great.


----------



## alexze89

Now its the mental battle:

Do I buy...
-This used Gigabyte 980 that was likely abused for $260
-This new MSI 970 Gaming 4G for $250 ($225 after rebate)
-Wait for the non-reference 1070 to release and buy that for ~$350-400
-Or sit tight and keep grinding with this R9 280 that is driving me bat-**** until the 1080 Ti non-reference cards are released and have been out for 6-months for prices and drivers to stabilize?

So much brain-fuggling


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alexze89*
> 
> Now its the mental battle:
> 
> Do I buy...
> -This used Gigabyte 980 that was likely abused for $260
> -This new MSI 970 Gaming 4G for $250 ($225 after rebate)
> -Wait for the non-reference 1070 to release and buy that for ~$350-400
> -Or sit tight and keep grinding with this R9 280 that is driving me bat-**** until the 1080 Ti non-reference cards are released and have been out for 6-months for prices and drivers to stabilize?
> 
> So much brain-fuggling


Going R9 280 -> GTX 970 isn't worth it imho. The GTX 970 is better than the R9 280, but won't be good for long. It's a pretty short-lasting card looking at it now. It was a different story end of 2014 when it was released.

R9 280 -> GTX 980 is a bit better and $260 doesn't sound too bad, but no idea how much it was used.

R9 280 -> GTX 1070 is a good upgrade (probably), but 350$ sounds unlikely. I think the lowest you can hope for is 379$ for a cheap design. 400$-450$ is more likely

R9 280 -> waiting for 1080 Ti is the biggest upgrade by far, but very expensive and no idea how long you need to wait. Could be 4 months, but could more likely be 10-12 months.

Why aren't you considering R9 280 -> GTX 1080 ?


----------



## alexze89

Quote:


> R9 280 -> GTX 980 is a bit better and $260 doesn't sound too bad, but no idea how much it was used.
> 
> R9 280 -> GTX 1070 is a good upgrade (probably), but 350$ sounds unlikely. I think the lowest you can hope for is 379$ for a cheap design. 400$-450$ is more likely
> 
> R9 280 -> waiting for 1080 Ti is the biggest upgrade by far, but very expensive and no idea how long you need to wait. Could be 4 months, but could more likely be 10-12 months.
> 
> Why aren't you considering R9 280 -> GTX 1080 ?


I'd be expecting to wait about 2 years for the 1080 Ti that I'd be expecting, or at least 1 year. The end point is in 1-2 years getting a non-reference 1080 Ti OC type, so with a 970 or 980, either would only last me long enough to get the 1080 Ti that I'm hoping for. I'm just getting annoyed with 1080p60 @ medium settings, or high settings @ 1080p25. I have an obsession for detail, I don't need 4k, just high detail and textures and AA and reflections... I know the 970 is a big leap from my R9 280 though.

That GB 980 I would only assume has seen some heavy use, and possibly has an unknown history as the guy has like 6 GPUs he's selling, 2 of them are the GB 980 cards, but I can't justify $550 on a pair of GPUs when I'll be upgrading in a year or two, I can stomach $300 for 1080p60 Ultra, or 1440p60 high, but not quite that $500 range, especially without just going single GPU and getting an open box 980 Ti at microcenter or something.

I'm on the fence about R9 280 -> 1080 due to the knowledge that in a year there will be a 1080 Ti that will likely be $700, just like the 1080 will be when it releases next week, not that there wont be something else around the corner then too, but rather that my goal would be ultimately to get the 1080 Ti and keep it for 4-5 years before upgrading again.


----------



## Jimbags

Selling my 970 tomorrow and getting a 1070 at launch :-D


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jimbags*
> 
> Selling my 970 tomorrow and getting a 1070 at launch :-D


If that is what your heart desires I'm not telling you to not do it....

But if you wait for the AMD cards to release i have a feeling you can get that 1070 for cheaper, and or you will find yourself able to have a 1070ti for slightly more money that nips at the heels of a 1080.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> If that is what your heart desires I'm not telling you to not do it....
> 
> But if you wait for the AMD cards to release i have a feeling you can get that 1070 for cheaper, and or you will find yourself able to have a 1070ti for slightly more money that nips at the heels of a 1080.


or a Vega that crushes the 1080.
many options


----------



## Jimbags

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> If that is what your heart desires I'm not telling you to not do it....
> 
> But if you wait for the AMD cards to release i have a feeling you can get that 1070 for cheaper, and or you will find yourself able to have a 1070ti for slightly more money that nips at the heels of a 1080.


Dont confuse me even more. Haha jk. Im not usually this impulsive and ill prob regret it, I actually completely agree with you. Either way it will beat my 970 and have more vram though. How long does one wait? There is always something new around the corner, right?
My 970 is actually an awesome card. My main monitor is 2560x1440, 1070 will be me for a while anyway








1070ti? Last 2 gens only x80ti though oh and the gloriously low powered 750ti


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jimbags*
> 
> Selling my 970 tomorrow and getting a 1070 at launch :-D


good choice !

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> or a Vega


probably only in 2017


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Why aren't you considering R9 280 -> GTX 1080 ?


Because for example in Europe you can buy 7x280 or 1x1080


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> or a Vega that crushes the 1080.
> many options


I want that to happen so I see that over-crazy expensive FE get slash to no tml <$499 or even 400.


----------



## Norlig

One webshop released a price for the 1080 today.

$912us in norway. (7600NOK)

Hopefully my work will send me on a US trip soon


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Norlig*
> 
> One webshop released a price for the 1080 today.
> 
> $912us in norway. (7600NOK)
> 
> Hopefully my work will send me on a US trip soon


now it is fine to buy a midrange gpu for almosy 95% price of the old gen high end?


----------



## Norlig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> now it is fine to buy a midrange gpu for almosy 95% price of the old gen high end?


Can you rephrase that? (or add some info from your thoughts)


----------



## one-shot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Norlig*
> 
> Can you rephrase that? (or add some info from your thoughts)


He's referring to the price of large dies in past generation, to the price of a mid sized die in current the current generation.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Norlig*
> 
> Can you rephrase that? (or add some info from your thoughts)


nvidia is selling midrange gpus at the price of the high end gpus (600usd, 50usd less than the 980ti, and 700usd the same MSRP of the GTX 780 ti) meanwhile the 104/114/204 are just midrange gpus and 100/100/200/210 are high end, usually the high end have 384 bit or more, and the midrange 256 bit, with 33% or 50% less ROPs and there is a 25-35% gap in performance between them (460 to 480 and 560ti to 580, 680/770 to 780ti, 980 to 980 ti)

*2010 to 2011*

*Mid-range gpu Marketed as Mid-range*

(Reference) GTX 460 229 USD
(Reference) GTX 560 TI 249 USD

*High-end marketed as Mid-range*

(Reference) GTX 465 279 USD
(Reference) GTX 560 TI 448 289 USD
*Dual Mid-range GPU*

GTX 460x2 519 USD
GTX 560 Ti x2 519 USD

*High end GPUs*

(Reference) GTX 480 500 USD
(Reference) GTX 580 500 USD
*Dual High-End GPUs*

(Reference) GTX 590 700 USD

*2012 to 2013*

*Mid-range GPU marketed as High end*

(Reference ) GTX 680 500 USD
*Mid-range GPU marketed as Mid-range*

(Reference)GTX 770 400 USD

*Dual Mid-range GPUs*

(Reference) GTX 690 1000 USD

*High-end GPUs*

(Reference)GTX 780 (with performance slower than the enthusiast) 650 USD
(Reference)GTX 780 Ti 700 USD

*High-end GPU marketed as "enthusiast" (Slower than High end)*

(Reference)GTX Titan 1000 USD
*Dual High-End GPU*

(Reference) GTX Titan Z 3000 USD

*2014 to 2015*

*Mid-range GPU marketed as High end*

(Reference) GTX 980 550usd
*High-End GPU*
(Reference) GTX GTX 980 Ti 650 USD

*High-End GPU Marketed as Enthusiast*
(Reference) GTX Titan X 1000 USD

*2016*

*Mid-Range GPU marketed as High-End*

GTX 1080 600 USD (Reference) GTX 1080 700 USD


----------



## xxdarkreap3rxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> nvidia is selling midrange gpus at the price of the high end gpus (600usd, 50usd less than the 980ti, and 700usd the same MSRP of the GTX 780 ti) meanwhile the 104/114/204 are just midrange gpus and 100/100/200/210 are high end, usually the high end have 384 bit or more, and the midrange 256 bit, with 33% or 50% less ROPs and there is a 25-35% gap in performance between them (460 to 480 and 560ti to 580, 680/770 to 780ti, 980 to 980 ti)
> 
> *2010 to 2011*
> 
> *Mid-range gpu Marketed as Mid-range*
> 
> (Reference) GTX 460 229 USD
> (Reference) GTX 560 TI 249 USD
> 
> *High-end marketed as Mid-range*
> 
> (Reference) GTX 465 279 USD
> (Reference) GTX 560 TI 448 289 USD
> *Dual Mid-range GPU*
> 
> GTX 460x2 519 USD
> GTX 560 Ti x2 519 USD
> 
> *High end GPUs*
> 
> (Reference) GTX 480 500 USD
> (Reference) GTX 580 500 USD
> *Dual High-End GPUs*
> 
> (Reference) GTX 590 700 USD
> 
> *2012 to 2013*
> 
> *Mid-range GPU marketed as High end*
> 
> (Reference ) GTX 680 500 USD
> *Mid-range GPU marketed as Mid-range*
> 
> (Reference)GTX 770 400 USD
> 
> *Dual Mid-range GPUs*
> 
> (Reference) GTX 690 1000 USD
> 
> *High-end GPUs*
> 
> (Reference)GTX 780 (with performance slower than the enthusiast) 650 USD
> (Reference)GTX 780 Ti 700 USD
> 
> *High-end GPU marketed as "enthusiast" (Slower than High end)*
> 
> (Reference)GTX Titan 1000 USD
> *Dual High-End GPU*
> 
> (Reference) GTX Titan Z 3000 USD
> 
> *2014 to 2015*
> 
> *Mid-range GPU marketed as High end*
> 
> (Reference) GTX 980 550usd
> *High-End GPU*
> (Reference) GTX GTX 980 Ti 650 USD
> 
> *High-End GPU Marketed as Enthusiast*
> (Reference) GTX Titan X 1000 USD
> 
> *2016*
> 
> *Mid-Range GPU marketed as High-End*
> 
> GTX 1080 600 USD (Reference) GTX 1080 700 USD


Very good. +rep


----------



## supergamer

Gonna run out of visible color spectrum soon.... HTML doesn't support any infrared color does it ?


----------



## incog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Norlig*
> 
> Can you rephrase that? (or add some info from your thoughts)
> 
> 
> 
> nvidia is selling midrange gpus at the price of the high end gpus (600usd, 50usd less than the 980ti, and 700usd the same MSRP of the GTX 780 ti) meanwhile the 104/114/204 are just midrange gpus and 100/100/200/210 are high end, usually the high end have 384 bit or more, and the midrange 256 bit, with 33% or 50% less ROPs and there is a 25-35% gap in performance between them (460 to 480 and 560ti to 580, 680/770 to 780ti, 980 to 980 ti)
> 
> *2010 to 2011*
> 
> *Mid-range gpu Marketed as Mid-range*
> 
> (Reference) GTX 460 229 USD
> (Reference) GTX 560 TI 249 USD
> 
> *High-end marketed as Mid-range*
> 
> (Reference) GTX 465 279 USD
> (Reference) GTX 560 TI 448 289 USD
> *Dual Mid-range GPU*
> 
> GTX 460x2 519 USD
> GTX 560 Ti x2 519 USD
> 
> *High end GPUs*
> 
> (Reference) GTX 480 500 USD
> (Reference) GTX 580 500 USD
> *Dual High-End GPUs*
> 
> (Reference) GTX 590 700 USD
> 
> *2012 to 2013*
> 
> *Mid-range GPU marketed as High end*
> 
> (Reference ) GTX 680 500 USD
> *Mid-range GPU marketed as Mid-range*
> 
> (Reference)GTX 770 400 USD
> 
> *Dual Mid-range GPUs*
> 
> (Reference) GTX 690 1000 USD
> 
> *High-end GPUs*
> 
> (Reference)GTX 780 (with performance slower than the enthusiast) 650 USD
> (Reference)GTX 780 Ti 700 USD
> 
> *High-end GPU marketed as "enthusiast" (Slower than High end)*
> 
> (Reference)GTX Titan 1000 USD
> *Dual High-End GPU*
> 
> (Reference) GTX Titan Z 3000 USD
> 
> *2014 to 2015*
> 
> *Mid-range GPU marketed as High end*
> 
> (Reference) GTX 980 550usd
> *High-End GPU*
> (Reference) GTX GTX 980 Ti 650 USD
> 
> *High-End GPU Marketed as Enthusiast*
> (Reference) GTX Titan X 1000 USD
> 
> *2016*
> 
> *Mid-Range GPU marketed as High-End*
> 
> GTX 1080 600 USD (Reference) GTX 1080 700 USD
Click to expand...

The reason prices are gettting inflated is because people are buying new cards every single generation.

I'm holding on to my 7970 since I bought it like 3 years ago. The last GPU I bought was a refurbished 7950 which cost me €100.

Not everyone does it like me, I'm sure that many people went from Tahiti to Kepler / Hawaii, Maxwell / Fiji and now people are already gearing up to buy Pascal and Polaris when those come out.

It's true that the performance gains are there, but if you're upgrading every generation, then you're feeding GPU makers a LOT of cash.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it will lead to Nvidia and AMD jacking up prices. The demand just justifies it.

Personally I've had my 7970 for a few years now, it's no longer the top dog (heck, it wasn't when I bought it), but it's still giving me very relevant performance for 1080p144. Many people aren't like me in that regard though.


----------



## mcg75

Since we already know what the pricing is for the cards, the thread has run it's course.

Locked.


----------

