The money I'd spend for the 980ti now is worth it just to have the card an extra month or more. Just got back and ended up getting an EVGA SC+ BP for $410, guy who sold it showed up in an absurd Lotus Exige S 260 and is planning on upgrading to SLI 1080's for his Vive. Now I can stop obsessing over such absurd things and just settle into some Doom/Witcher.
Getting SLI for VR at this time is probably the dumbest thing to do and I already think SLI in general is pretty dumb. Support for normal SLI is already very lacking, I doubt it will be much better for VR any time soon at least.
Posts like this are hilarious to me, because you literally don't know what you're talking about. I spent $550 on an ATI Radeon X1900XTX in 2006. You can do the math on how much that is in 2016 dollars with inflation. Spoiler for people incapable of math:
It's $652.75, which is not coincidentally close to how much a 1080 costs at launch. See, Nvidia can do math too!
The top shelf has always been brutal in pricing. That's how enthusiast tier works in PC gaming and how it always has. People are forgetting when AMD was pricing the Athlon 64 FX at $999 back in 2003 for God's sakes, like AMD doesn't price things high too when they have the performance advantage over their competitor. If anything Intel pricing the top HEDT Haswell-E CPU also at $999 today in 2016 means they are taking a loss on profit compared to AMD with the FX in 2003 because of inflation!
More nonsense from you yet again. Why on earth are you bringing inflation into things when the GTX 980 released September 2014? It's $550 release price is what we can directly compare to the 1080 releasing now.
How your little story about buying ATI Radeon X1900XTX in 2006 has any relevance to the 1080 price beats me. I got a story for you though if you want to play that game - I bought an AMD 9800 Pro back in 2003, before you'd even touched a PC probably, for £150. But who cares.
AMD has nothing to do with this - the complaint is with the price of an Nvidia card and its effect on the market in general going forward.
More nonsense from you yet again. Why on earth are you bringing inflation into things when the GTX 980 released September 2014? It's $550 release price is what we can directly compare to the 1080 releasing now.
How your little story about buying ATI Radeon X1900XTX in 2006 has any relevance to the 1080 price beats me. I got a story for you though if you want to play that game - I bought an AMD 9800 Pro back in 2003, before you'd even touched a PC probably, for £150. But who cares.
AMD has nothing to do with this - the complaint is with the price of an Nvidia card and its effect on the market in general going forward.
So you don't have any idea what I'm talking about still. Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
It's not about Nvidia vs. AMD, I just gave examples of AMD doing the same thing because it's supporting my argument that everybody has priced enthusiast parts high at launch. Intel, AMD, Nvidia, nobody is free of guilt. But no, let's run with the narrative that Nvidia is evil even though it's a bullshit narrative easily disproved with examples from all other companies!
I'm probably older than you are because I owned an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro too, which I bought for Half-Life 2. AMD didn't acquire ATI until long after the Radeon 9800 Pro. Also you shouldn't have the Who Touched A PC First dickwaving contest with me, I'm pretty sure I've already won unless you know what the difference between 386SX and DX is without Googling.
I don't think anyone complains about that. The thing is that nvidia turned the Pascal performance jump in higher margins for them instead of more value to the consumer.
This is a mainstream card with enthusiast pricing. Don't let the x80 moniker fool you. This is a mid-range card through and through. Back in 2011 we would call this a 1060 Ti and the Titan class GPU would be $500.
I don't think anyone complains about that. The thing is that nvidia turned the Pascal performance jump in higher margins for them instead of more value to the consumer.
And why wouldn't they? Especially since they are competing with their own previous products. Until the competition comes with a good / better alternative there is little reason for nvidia to cut into their own margins
I don't think anyone complains about that. The thing is that nvidia turned the Pascal performance jump in higher margins for them instead of more value to the consumer.
In a world where Apple makes 95% of the profits from smartphones despite having around 15% market share I don't really know how Nvidia can be faulted for seeking additional margins to pay for the many billions of dollars they have spent on R&D to develop Pascal.
And why wouldn't they? Especially since they are competing with their own previous products. Until the competition comes with a good / better alternative there is little reason for nvidia to cut into their own margins
In a world where Apple makes 95% of the profits from smartphones despite having around 15% market share I don't really know how Nvidia can be faulted for seeking additional margins to pay for the many billions of dollars they have spent on R&D to develop Pascal.
Don't get me wrong, I'd do the same thing if I were them and wait for AMD to make a move. But the reality is that now a as consumer it doesn't benefit me at all and some people are talking about Pascal as the second coming.
I don't think anyone complains about that. The thing is that nvidia turned the Pascal performance jump in higher margins for them instead of more value to the consumer.
This. The 1080 is not the top of the line, that will be the 1080ti and new titan. I expect a big performance increase with a smaller process node, for roughly the same price.
And he FE 1080 is 200€ pricier then the 980 at release here in Germany, and partner cards will probably not much cheaper then the FE.
Pretty much. The fact that there have merely been teases and basically no official reveals (no, the cheap ass GALAX blower card doesn't count lol) is slightly disheartening. Add in the uncertainity in regards to pricing and availability...
This. The 1080 is not the top of the line, that will be the 1080ti and new titan. I expect a big performance increase with a smaller process node, for roughly the same price. And he FE 1080 is 200€ pricier then the 980 at release here in Germany.
But the 1080 is the top of the line right now. This is the part I don't get, why are people complaining 1080 is some midrange part when it outruns the Titan X, Nvidia's 2015 $1000 top shelf card? Is there now some kind of die size test for how midrange a GPU is? Only a GPU with a certain minimum die size can be categorized as top shelf? That's ridiculous.
Assuming AMD isn't planning on having Vega 10 out until 2017, we can expect there won't be a Pascal Titan until 2017 and a 1080 Ti 3-6 months after that. So the 1080 will be top of the line for all of 2016.
If AMD prices Vega 10 like a top shelf enthusiast card, AND THEY WILL, then no one should be pretending Nvidia will feel any pressure to undercut and they will price Titan and 1080 Ti just as high. AMD has plenty of R&D costs to recoup too, anyone who thinks Vega 10 will debut at $500 or some other mythical past top shelf price point is delusional.
Assuming AMD isn't planning on having Vega 10 out until 2017, we can expect there won't be a Pascal Titan until 2017 and a 1080 Ti 3-6 months after that.
If AMD prices Vega like a top shelf enthusiast card, AND THEY WILL, then no one should be pretending Nvidia will feel any pressure to undercut and they will price Titan and 1080 Ti just as high. AMD has plenty of R&D costs to recoup too, anyone who thinks Vega 10 will debut at $500 or some other mythical past top shelf price point is delusional.
This. The 1080 is not the top of the line, that will be the 1080ti and new titan. I expect a big performance increase with a smaller process node, for roughly the same price.
And he FE 1080 is 200€ pricier then the 980 at release here in Germany, and partner cards will probably not much cheaper then the FE.
I'm not sure I follow this mindset. You're saying unannounced cards are faster than the 1080. In that case, when the 1080ti and new Titan do get announced, wouldn't the unannounced future GTX 1180 be faster?
Edit: Isn't the 1080 over 2x faster than the 980 according to Nvidia? I mean $600 USD isn't cheap but it doesn't seem like like Nvidia is charging a ridiculous amounts for it?
You should just use Dollar costs instead of pegging to the Euro to get a realistic sense of how prices have changed without muddling it with currency fluctuations.
980 launched at $549.
Titan X launched at $999.
980 Ti launched at $649 but by then 980 price had been reduced to $499.
1080 is launching at $599 (non-FE).
If the $50 difference between 1080 and 980 launch price is something to scream about to the high heavens I don't really know what to say. Yes the FE is inflated by another $100. But unless someone has a gun to your head and is forcing you to buy it, you can just ignore it and wait for a $599 1080.
I know with the dollar prices it doesnt look so bad, but i still have to pay 780 to get one
And i also think decent partner cards will be more in the price range of the FE, but we will see.
Oh wow, I am reading through this PCGH review of the GTX 1080 and at 1440p the overclocked 980 Ti and Titan X actually decrease the performance gap immensely and actually overtake the 1080 in some games.
Oh wow, I am reading through this PCGH review of the GTX 1080 and at 1440p the overclocked 980 Ti and Titan X actually decrease the performance gap immensely and actually overtake the 1080 in some games.
It makes me question the motive of LinusTechTips. They seriously cherrypicked specific benchmarks to show the greatest advantage possible to 1080. I'm not really sure why they only focused on 4k settings and left out the 980ti entirely either.
All of my buddies are pointing this out as the trusted source on the performance etc. Just seems a bit odd, when the video is about GTX 1080 performance review in general, and not just at 4k.
Don't get me wrong, I'd do the same thing if I were them and wait for AMD to make a move. But the reality is that now a as consumer it doesn't benefit me at all and some people are talking about Pascal as the second coming.
Unless another card comes around this seems to be the best option right now for me? Though I agree it is hardly the second coming. The benefit is mainly for those owning <970 cards.
Oh wow, I am reading through this PCGH review of the GTX 1080 and at 1440p the overclocked 980 Ti and Titan X actually decrease the performance gap immensely and actually overtake the 1080 in some games.
It makes me question the motive of LinusTechTips. They seriously cherrypicked specific benchmarks to show the greatest advantage possible to 1080. I'm not really sure why they only focused on 4k settings and left out the 980ti entirely either.
All of my buddies are pointing this out as the trusted source on the performance etc. Just seems a bit odd, when the video is about GTX 1080 performance review in general, and not just at 4k.
The sad thing is, that LTTs 1080 review is by far the most watched on youtube. And not only do they have a limited amount of Benchmarks, they also compare the price/performance wise to a titan x and SLI 980, instead of a 980ti and 980.
They also dont use the price of the card the tested and instead used the MSRP of 599$, which would be fine, if the would have/test a card, that would cost that much.
Unless another card comes around this seems to be the best option right now for me? Though I agree it is hardly the second coming. The benefit is mainly for those owning <970 cards.
They are OCing the 980 and Titan but not the 1080. Would be fairer to also OC the 1080.
In a world where Apple makes 95% of the profits from smartphones despite having around 15% market share I don't really know how Nvidia can be faulted for seeking additional margins to pay for the many billions of dollars they have spent on R&D to develop Pascal.
IIRC there was a thread a while ago saying that Apple was pretty much the only mobile manufacturer making a profit, so those stats don't seem that far off.
I'm too lazy to search it though.
IIRC there was a thread a while ago saying that Apple was pretty much the only mobile manufacturer making a profit, so those stats don't seem that far off.
I'm too lazy to search it though.
IIRC there was a thread a while ago saying that Apple was pretty much the only mobile manufacturer making a profit, so those stats don't seem that far off.
I'm too lazy to search it though.
Comparing the price of the GM204, a GPU released at the tail end of a very mature manufacturing process, directly with the first GPU on a cutting-edge finFET process is not smart.
It doesn't matter very much what the customer's price expectations are, the manufacturer has real costs to cover. The situation of increasing cost has been discussed for years and should not be a surprise.
Intel are ahead of everyone here and articles this year have said that the only new technologies even close to being put into production will only improve power usage and may even reduce performance, compared to transistors made from silicon alone.
Listen to AMD, who have said plainly that the financials of large GPUs going forwards do not work and that they will be expecting to push the importance of multiple smaller GPUs in parallel. I don't know how that's going to work out, because of the increased software engineering effort needed, but there you go.
The exact numbers vary from quarter to quarter, but about 95% and 15% are good ballpark figures. Remember that I'm talking about worldwide numbers, not just USA and Japan where Apple have much higher market share overall.
We are entering in dangerous territory, Intel has the monopoly on the CPU business, every new line of mainstream cpus add 10% increase in IPC at best, an overclocked i7 920 still gets the job done playing the latest games, on q4 2016 this cpu will be 8 years old. Can you imagine in 2008 playing the latest games with a P4 1.5ghz? Nope
Same is happening with the GPU market, but even worse since we are already paying almost 800€ in Europe for a GPU that is not a huge upgrade compared to a GPU released 1 year ago and people are going crazy with how awesome the 1080 FE is, a GPU with a "premium cooler" (as stated by nvidia) that cant even cool 180W!
Does anyone believe that a proper custom 1080 will be cheaper without any kind of competitor? Anyone can dream. Be prepared to pay Titan prices for 1080ti, and titan will get a new high record price for consumer GPU.
So every one that trashed AMD all this must time be really happy with the results, the fault is on AMD, not saying the contrary, but seeing some users trash AMD even if it´s dissimulated are the ones that are mostly happy with this "beast" called 1080 Reference Card, sorry "Founders Edition".
If Vega\Polaris\Zen fail and if you dont have deep pockets you better forget High End PC gaming.
Yeah it's basically the same situation : effective monopoly from one of the vendors
The only difference is: intel keep selling sidegrades (5-10 percent increases) at the same (well 5-10 percent increases in price as well, the i5 2500k was 190 euros , the 6600k is 250 euros, which makes the performance/dollar exactly the same xD)
While nvidia just keep inflating prices, either way performance/dollar doesn't really increase until eventually amd comes up with a competing card. The exact same thing happened when the 28nm gpus launched; Amd's drivers were guttertrash so their cards grossly underperformed, gpu prices went up a good 30-40 percent, until eventually amd competed with the 290 and prices fell.
I think few people remember this but all the way up to the r9 290 price drop the hd4770 remained the highest performance/dollar gpu you could buy
And you can spend as much as you want, just stop claiming with great authority that everyone else should be willing to pay such outrageous prices or that they are justified.
It all started with the gtx680, just because Nvidia could. In another timeline where AMD 7970 drivers were matured from the start, the gtx680 would probably be sold as a gtx660ti or gtx670.
Same thing is happening with 1080, priced as a >Ti card from the start, and Nvidia sneaking in the FE tax, when will Nvidia price gouging ends?
A $599 1080 just aint happening unless AMD release Vega this year. Even so, a $599 small die gp104 is very bad gpu inflation, just because Nvidia can...
Things like VR and 4K graphics will take ages with these kind of pricing.
Now the 7850 is a good 60 percent faster than the 5870. (to show just HOW bad the initial drivers were underperfoming, 20 percent gains over the lifetime of a gpu isn't unheard of for amd , they had that with the 6xxx and 5xxx series, but 60? lol)
Nvidia could easily outperform the hd7970 with their small chip and thus began the kind of gouging we haven't seen since the last time amd started releasing dud cards (somewhere around 2005 with the x1800 series)
We're just seeing a repeat of it with vega not being ready till 2017 so now all we can hope for is that big vega is on par with the 1080 ti , like how the r9 290 competed with the titan/780ti.
Posts like this are hilarious to me, because you literally don't know what you're talking about. I spent $550 on an ATI Radeon X1900XTX in 2006. You can do the math on how much that is in 2016 dollars with inflation. Spoiler for people incapable of math:
It's $652.75, which is not coincidentally close to how much a 1080 costs at launch. See, Nvidia can do math too!
The top shelf has always been brutal in pricing. That's how enthusiast tier works in PC gaming and how it always has. People are forgetting when AMD was pricing the Athlon 64 FX at $999 back in 2003 for God's sakes, like AMD doesn't price things high too when they have the performance advantage over their competitor. If anything Intel pricing the top HEDT Haswell-E CPU also at $999 today in 2016 means they are taking a loss on profit compared to AMD with the FX in 2003 because of inflation!
1: you're cherrypicking the one gen of insane inflation between the godlike value radeon 9800 pro and the godlike value 8800gt, followed by more amazing value with the hd4870-4890 , 5870, 6970. I'm pretty sure you know this very well, which makes it all the more sleazy and dishonest.
2: 300mm² and a 256 bit bus is not top shelf, those are mainstream mass market specs and that memory bus is a compromise to save costs.
601mm2 for the 980ti, that is top shelf
520mm² for the gtx 580 , that is top shelf
The 1080ti will be top shelf when it comes out. And these days even the actual top shelf cards are priced way above what used to be top shelf prices.
1: you're cherrypicking the one gen of insane inflation between the godlike value radeon 9800 pro and the godlike value 8800gt, followed by more amazing value with the hd4870-4890 , 5870, 6970. I'm pretty sure you know this very well, which makes it all the more sleazy and dishonest.
2: 300mm² and a 256 bit bus is not top shelf, those are mainstream mass market specs and that memory bus is a compromise to save costs.
601mm2 for the 980ti, that is top shelf
520mm² for the gtx 580 , that is top shelf
The 1080ti will be top shelf when it comes out. And these days even the actual top shelf cards are priced way above what used to be top shelf prices.
It's like I read your mind and traveled back in time 30 minutes to reply to you. I must have the Reading Steiner or something. Maybe I'm actually Okabe Rintarou.
But the 1080 is the top of the line right now. This is the part I don't get, why are people complaining 1080 is some midrange part when it outruns the Titan X, Nvidia's 2015 $1000 top shelf card? Is there now some kind of die size test for how midrange a GPU is? Only a GPU with a certain minimum die size can be categorized as top shelf? That's ridiculous.
Assuming AMD isn't planning on having Vega 10 out until 2017, we can expect there won't be a Pascal Titan until 2017 and a 1080 Ti 3-6 months after that. So the 1080 will be top of the line for all of 2016.
If AMD prices Vega 10 like a top shelf enthusiast card, AND THEY WILL, then no one should be pretending Nvidia will feel any pressure to undercut and they will price Titan and 1080 Ti just as high. AMD has plenty of R&D costs to recoup too, anyone who thinks Vega 10 will debut at $500 or some other mythical past top shelf price point is delusional.
You know something better than FinFIT? Do tell. The whole industry is searching pouring billions of dollars into this and they haven't really found anything better.
It's like I read your mind and traveled back in time 30 minutes to reply to you. I must have the Reading Steiner or something. Maybe I'm actually Okabe Rintarou.
A hypothetical here, what would be your response to say the x60 line being released first at $500? Would you then class that as a high end card? Would you have any issues with that price?
A hypothetical here, what would be your response to say the x60 line being released first at $500? Would you then class that as a high end card? Would you have any issues with that price?
But the 1070 is already $380, launching June 10. Why would the 1060 be $500? You can't speak in hypotheticals which aren't even within the realm of possibility. Well, okay I guess you can. But I can't exactly debate about the impossible, so I'll just leave it at that.
I will say that eventually, one day the x60 line might debut at $500, because of this pesky inflation thing. You can't expect everything to cost the same forever when the value of money is constantly decreasing over time. When I was a kid, I could buy a can of Coke for 75 cents. I'm not acting like I should be able to buy a can of Coke for 75 cents today.
But the 1070 is already $380, launching June 10. Why would the 1060 be $500? You can't speak in hypotheticals which aren't even within the realm of possibility. Well, okay I guess you can. But I can't exactly debate about the impossible, so I'll just leave it at that.
I will say that eventually, one day the x60 line might debut at $500, because of this pesky inflation thing. You can't expect everything to cost the same forever when the value of money is constantly decreasing over time. When I was a kid, I could buy a can of Coke for 75 cents. I'm not acting like I should be able to buy a can of Coke for 75 cents today.
Unless another card comes around this seems to be the best option right now for me? Though I agree it is hardly the second coming. The benefit is mainly for those owning <970 cards.
The whole leadup to this card has certainly been a rollercoaster. I'm pretty excited to get my hands on it. The performance relative to the card I have now is so vast that I can only be excited. I'm sure I'd have more reservations if I was comparing it to a more recent card, but this is gonna be pretty damn sweet.
It's actually neat that you brought this up because one big reason why a lot of "mid-tier" gaming has vanished is because game production costs ballooned during the PS360 era and revenues couldn't keep up. Since then indies have risen up but the market today consists of indies and AAA franchises, with none of the mid-tier that existed in the PS2 era. Game sales have not steadily risen, in fact fewer consoles were sold in the PS360 era (with correspondingly lower software sales) than in the PS2/GC/Xbox era.
A number of the ideas which have emerged to try and boost revenues include expansion packs, DLC, pre-order bonuses (when the game is still full price), and even elimination of the used games trade in order to direct all revenue lost in the secondhand market to new game sales. As a last resort, what was previously one game has been divided over multiple games, such as the Half-Life 2 "Episodes" or even extending Starcraft II into a 3-game trilogy.
Make no mistake, the gaming industry has been facing a growing existential crisis for over a decade now as revenues have dramatically failed to keep up with costs. If game prices were indexed to inflation, a new game would cost $100 today to match the $50 it cost in 1990. Combine that with the enormous cost of producing a Call of Duty or Destiny and you can see why all that remains in the industry today are Call of Duty, Destiny, and indie Kickstarters.
)
