Ak Gara posted:That's what I don't understand. Nvidia has already said that they don't want to compete with their own AIB partners and the FE certainly does not compete, so Mission Accomplished I guess? 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
And to fatten the margin a bit.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
I mean they get their sweet first-month markup money.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Did you just switch? Just until I buy something else. Accidentally sold my 980ti on Amazon for $490, a price I couldn't refuse. Got like a box of donated cards coming but the first is a 7770 1gb which is... I guess one can imagine. But I got a 25% overclock out of it off the bat at least  Soon 7870s 2gb coming that will hold me over to whatever comes next for me. I told the universe I was done and it said No you're not buy more
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
So I have a 760 (I actually have 2 760s, but I haven't managed to get SLI working in months -- when I turn it on, the FPS slowly degrades until whatever game I am playing hangs). I'm looking to grab either the 1080 or 1070. Given that chart from Macau, does this mean the 1080 might be better bang-for-buck, especially if you're not planning to SLI? It looks like it benches about 20% higher than the 1070 in all categories. I'm trying to decide if I want to stalk my local Microcenter this Friday.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
JerikTelorian posted:Given that chart from Macau, does this mean the 1080 might be better bang-for-buck, especially if you're not planning to SLI? It looks like it benches about 20% higher than the 1070 in all categories. I'm trying to decide if I want to stalk my local Microcenter this Friday. The 1080 is terrible bang for buck compared to the 1070, it's 55% more expensive for 20-25% more performance. 1080 - $599 MSRP / $699 Founders 1070 - $379 MSRP / $449 Founders
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
JerikTelorian posted:Given that chart from Macau, does this mean the 1080 might be better bang-for-buck, especially if you're not planning to SLI? It looks like it benches about 20% higher than the 1070 in all categories. I'm trying to decide if I want to stalk my local Microcenter this Friday.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
DrDork posted:If you have a 1080p monitor then there's no point in considering a 1080 in the first place. As always, the top cards demand a price premium simply for being the top card. Why do I keep reading things like this everywhere? Everyone kept saying the 970 was plenty for 1080p but you can't even run anti-aliasing on ultra settings in many games and still get a decent framerate. New games are only going to become more detailed and there's nothing wrong with wanting to play them at higher settings; even at low resolutions like 1080p.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
repiv posted:The 1080 is terrible bang for buck compared to the 1070, it's 55% more expensive for 20-25% more performance. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 15:22 on May 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Yeah maybe 144 fps across every possible game would I consider a 1080 for 1080p. Otherwise you'd likely be unable to tell the difference at all. Of course nobody knows anything yet but that's probably one of the safer assumptions Higher resolution then that changes things but its unlikely the 1080 will ever be a better bang for the buck specifically unless there is some glaring issue with the 1070
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Yup. Also wait for the 480/X benches to come in. Even if you hate AMD if they can get close the nvidia's performance, and its looking like they might based on the better than TitanX leaked benches, then you might see a price drop on a 1070 down to something more reasonable. I think you might be misremembering. The most recent leaked 3DMark11 benchmarks show "480x" CrossFire beating a Titan X. If the benches hold true, a 480x won't be close to a 1070.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Woops you're right! The leaked benches show a single 480X getting a bit better score than a 980. So not bad but noticeably slower than a 1070. If you don't mind spending the likely $100+ extra the 1070 would be worth to get then.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
BrandonLakeTruck posted:Why do I keep reading things like this everywhere? Everyone kept saying the 970 was plenty for 1080p but you can't even run anti-aliasing on ultra settings in many games and still get a decent framerate. New games are only going to become more detailed and there's nothing wrong with wanting to play them at higher settings; even at low resolutions like 1080p. I totally agree. I prefer to buy and hold with video cards and tend to only buy one every few years. It's entirely possible I jump on the VR bandwagon or upgrade to some giant fuckoff monitor at some point in the near future. I'd definitely be paying a premium to retain some flexibility for these theoretical scenarios that may or may not ever materialize, but I'd rather do that than have to deal with selling/upgrading whatever it is that's supposedly going to max out 1080P forever and ever amen but will chug at higher res or higher settings. I don't know if the 1080 is necessarily the card that gives me that sweet spot of price/performance/VR or monitor upgrade futureproofing or if it's the 1070 or some unknown AMD product but it sure might be.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
BrandonLakeTruck posted:Why do I keep reading things like this everywhere? Everyone kept saying the 970 was plenty for 1080p but you can't even run anti-aliasing on ultra settings in many games and still get a decent framerate. New games are only going to become more detailed and there's nothing wrong with wanting to play them at higher settings; even at low resolutions like 1080p. No, a 970 couldn't absolutely max everything on every game at 1080p and keep a unblemished 60FPS, true. However, for the vast majority of people on the vast majority of games, it did pretty damned well, and was absolutely a great bang-for-your-buck card. Really the only games it had trouble with were hilariously poorly optimized ones or ones with Hairworks (*ahem* Witcher *ahem*) that even higher-end cards struggled with to the point that almost everyone disabled the feature. The 1070 should be turning in roughly 980Ti levels of performance, which can pretty much max pretty much every game at an unblemished 60FPS at 1080p. Yeah, in a few years there will probably be something like The Witcher 4: Hairworks For All My Friends that will require you to knock some settings down. But the x70 cards have been great 1080p cards for several generations, and they are much better in the price:performance department.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:I think you might be misremembering. The most recent leaked 3DMark11 benchmarks show "480x" CrossFire beating a Titan X. If the benches hold true, a 480x won't be close to a 1070. I'd point out that it's not likely the 480X bench at all, since 67DF: C7 is a 2304SP part and not the 2560SP 67C0: C10 part. I have no idea how much that will improve performance, but it's possible to be +/-5% 980ti stock to stock. TBF, 67DF: C4 is also a 2304SP part as far as we know, so there seems to be a lack of reliability in statistical reporting and/or P10 is rather bandwidth starved if it gets nearly 2000 more points with a 75Mhz memory overclock.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
While we're concerned with P10 performance, isn't Vega due out in October? 4x0s seem like they will be short lived.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Barry posted:I don't know if the 1080 is necessarily the card that gives me that sweet spot of price/performance/VR or monitor upgrade futureproofing or if it's the 1070 or some unknown AMD product but it sure might be. You will never be able to future-proof a video card, and the x80 NVidia cards are historically a pretty bad price:performance ratio. If you really are looking to only buy a card "every few years" then you're much better off holding out for the 1080Ti and riding that train for awhile. Reselling video cards isn't exactly a big hassle, and is a great way to keep living on the edge of that performance curve without breaking the bank. Frankly, riding the x70 boat every year will give you better average performance at a lower price than simply buying the most expensive card available and holding for 4 years.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Ninkobei posted:While we're concerned with P10 performance, isn't Vega due out in October? 4x0s seem like they will be short lived. This is entirely unsubstantiated rumor.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
No they won't. If the 480X ends up being"only" ~10-15% behind a 1070 but launches at $250, they'll sell extremely well.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
DrDork posted:You will never be able to future-proof a video card, and the x80 NVidia cards are historically a pretty bad price:performance ratio. If you really are looking to only buy a card "every few years" then you're much better off holding out for the 1080Ti and riding that train for awhile. You're right, I don't think the 1080 is really that card. I think when I say future-proof, I just mean get the best possible performance that you can at the time (within some amount of reason taking price into account) so that it will last as long as possible. The benches and actual retail price aren't out for any of these products yet, but it seems like the 1070 will likely be the one sitting in the middle of my personal venn diagram. It's not a big hassle but my laziness and desire to not deal with Craigslist deadbeats or eBay scammers or Amazon overhead knows no bounds. My most recent video cards that I can remember were 8800GT -> GTX 470 -> something I'm possibly forgetting -> R9 280X and I really like that way of doing things.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:No they won't. If the 480X ends up being"only" ~10-15% behind a 1070 but launches at $250, they'll sell extremely well.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
BrandonLakeTruck posted:Why do I keep reading things like this everywhere? Everyone kept saying the 970 was plenty for 1080p but you can't even run anti-aliasing on ultra settings in many games and still get a decent framerate. New games are only going to become more detailed and there's nothing wrong with wanting to play them at higher settings; even at low resolutions like 1080p. There a bit of subjectivity to this but I don't believe anybody would say that today necessarily. Back when the 970 came out, it was quite plainly true that it was kind of a waste to buy the 980 for everyday 1080p gaming. Of course as time went on games used more GPU. But here's the thing, you'd probably say the same thing if you had a 980 too. No matter how you feel about how the 970, the 980 is just going to be 15% faster apples to apples. If 15% would make all the difference then sure you could consider it to be a better value to buy at launch but im going to guess that AA would wreck it almost as hard as it does to the 970. There is also the issue of the 1080p constant here. The 980ti at 1080p60hz is just as over the top now as when it came out. The only real way to get that card to get under 60 fps is if the game itself fucks up or if you literally make it render a higher resolution and squeeze it back down (DSR, SSAA, etC). It is basically expected that the 1070 will perform like that card. In two years could you make it struggle a bit with high resource settings like AA? Almost certainly, but the same thing would happen to the gtx1080, just 20% less (or whatever the difference ends up being). Would the greater initial investment be worth that improvement towards the end when currently you would not be able to see any difference at all at 1080p 60hz? That's up to you. I'm not even saying don't buy a 1080 for 1080p, seriously if you want it go for it. It's going to be a better card no question at some point in some situations, and especially if you change monitors later on. But since the original question included "bang for the buck" then no it just wont be that and never will be.* *unless the 1070 is a piece of poo poo *should also note the original question didn't actually say he was running 1080p at 60 hz lol
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
So currently running a monitor that is 1440 @ 144hz. Using a 690. 1080 or 1070? I would like to get 144fps.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Holyshoot posted:So currently running a monitor that is 1440 @ 144hz. Using a 690. 1080 or 1070? I would like to get 144fps. 1080ti lol, and by then we'd (hopefully) have relevant Polaris info to compare to. I mean with various settings changes though a 1080 could do that certainly but 144 fps is a shitload of fps.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
DrDork posted:Truth. At that point a CF 480X setup beats a 1080 handily and at $100-$200 less. I mean, CF and all, but it'd still be tempting, especially with the plethora of cheap(ish) FreeSync monitors out there right now. Aww why did you have to bring up the CF Sex Panther ("works all the time, 60% of the time")? All I was trying to say was solid 1080p cards should not ever cost more than $300 and should ideally be closer to $200.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
No HBM-based Pascal Ti or Titan would make me an extremely sad panda.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Durinia posted:No HBM-based Pascal Ti or Titan would make me an extremely sad panda. But a panda more likely to be able to afford them.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Lack of sufficient competition from AMD at nVidia's market segments is possibly what's keeping nVidia from going balls to the wall on rolling it out - why bother with adding more costs when you're sufficiently spanking the competition for the market segment you're happily doing business in? It's the same strategy as Apple and how they're extracting at least 75% of the mobile market's profits despite maybe half the total market share.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
DrDork posted:But a panda more likely to be able to afford them. Well, the way prices are now, any 1080ti seems to be a $1200+ proposition to begin with.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Here is the continued hope that AMD can pull off a 2fer and drop some impressive value priced GPU's as well as Zen be all we hope it can be vs Intel. To give both Intel and Nvidia a small kick in the nuts would be fantastic for everyone really.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Well, the way prices are now, any 1080ti seems to be a $1200+ proposition to begin with. Did I miss something? MSRP seems to have gone up $50 so far afaik
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Bleh Maestro posted:I cant wait to see if the new Titan really has 24GB of ram. That's more than my system memory G.Skill(?) had 16x2GB of RAM for sale recently for around $110. I imagine when those cards come out we're going to see people doing 32-64GB RAM systems with SLI'd Titans or something equally insane.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:Did I miss something? MSRP seems to have gone up $50 so far afaik The rumored 1080ti is about 50% more powerful in comparison to GP104, and due to die size on 16nmFF+ I'd expect that to command quite a premium over the current $599 MSRP, especially since AMD will flat out have nothing comparable, if we're trying to compare cards now a 4096 SP Vega has about as much lead over the 1080 as the 1080 over the 980ti, and will trail the GP102 by at least 15-20%. So charging above $1000 for the 1080ti doesn't seem unquestionable, especially since it seems Pascal will have more headroom and increase it's lead over Vega.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:Did I miss something? MSRP seems to have gone up $50 so far afaik Maybe I'm crazy, but I think street price should be considered undefined until we see what the 3rd party vendors do with their non-reference pricing. If they stick to $50 at each segment remains to be seen. Very soon, hopefully! Either on Friday or Computex, I guess
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:The rumored 1080ti is about 50% more powerful in comparison to GP104, and due to die size on 16nmFF+ I'd expect that to command quite a premium over the current $599 MSRP, especially since AMD will flat out have nothing comparable, if we're trying to compare cards now a 4096 SP Vega has about as much lead over the 1080 as the 1080 over the 980ti, and will trail the GP102 by at least 15-20%. So charging above $1000 for the 1080ti doesn't seem unquestionable, especially since it seems Pascal will have more headroom and increase it's lead over Vega. I agree its reasonable to think but, at least they haven't done it so far and they certainly could have fozzy fosbourne posted:Maybe I'm crazy, but I think street price should be considered undefined until we see what the 3rd party vendors do with their non-reference pricing. If they stick to $50 at each segment remains to be seen. Very soon, hopefully! Either on Friday or Computex, I guess True but MSRPs are a good metric to compare to especially at launch. What happens to street price is a different story of course. What I'm referencing is the launch msrp for 770/970/1070 is $399/$329/$379 , x80's was $600/$550/$600 and x80 Ti's are $699/$649/[???]. Pretty amazing to me honestly, big picture wise, that doesn't get a lot of press over other things. An important note here is they seemingly had no great reason (from a greedy company perspective) to keep prices so flat for this many years after Kepler, which I consider the last gen with true top to bottom competition and yet it had the highest average MSRP's. The 1070 is releasing cheaper than the 770 from 3 years ago. I guess there's some logic to the idea the 980ti was priced so well to compete at the idea of the Fury at the time, but to actually drop the price on the 970? Considering the performance there was nothing on the horizon at all to compete with it. Anyway I haven't had many complaints with nvidia and pricing. I've had more pricing issues with AMD, but I consider them mild to negligible as well. Outside of price fixing im unaware, GPU's have it pretty good. The most glaring thing I've ever seen is the $100 Founders Edition, which would tarnish their record for the first time in a while... if aftermarkets aren't available pretty much immediately. But all that is irrelevant for any prediction of mine for the 1080ti since anything can change at the drop of a hat. I am getting a little de ja vu here though, remember what we predicted the titan x would be priced at when the benches leaked penus penus penus fucked around with this message at 17:44 on May 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Pushing the Ti to $1000 would put the Titan up to what, $1200 range? At that point it would probably hurt Nvidia to even release the two as both cost more than most entire systems, and while the Titan was able to command that price for specific reasons, the Ti just doesn't belong there even if it's performance is comparable. Even around $799 alone is pushing it for a Ti even if there is no competition in that high end market. At least the 980ti was price and performance "reasonably' and sold rather well vs the late and short lived, high priced 780Ti.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
I was wondering how the 1070s lack of GDDR5X would affect it, and it turns out to have more bandwidth than the 1080 core-for-core. Who knew vvcode:
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
So if I want to get a 1080, which one should I be waiting for?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 18:53
|
|
fletcher posted:So if I want to get a 1080, which one should I be waiting for? We don't know enough about any of the aftermarket ones to say yet. Usually MSI's TwinFrozr, Gigabyte's Windforce and ASUS's Strix designs are good, EVGA stumbled with their ACX coolers last gen so those are an unknown quantity right now. But really it's wait and see at this point.
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Wait for someone to put out a non-blower, preferably without a hard power cap at 180W. EVGA or MSI are likely your best bets. Rest assured, when boards are announced, this thread will be all over them. My money will likely be going towards a Twin Frozr or some high end EVGA card. Or maybe I'll just keep the 290X around for a little longer.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 19:02
|
|
