Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,236
- Location
- Scotland
Had the £ not just crumbled it would be a lot less ridiculous though, comparable to previous Titans and dual card solutions that Nvidia peddled a few years back.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Have Graphics cards really got more expensive?
- Thread starter DarkMatter
- Start date
Had the £ not just crumbled it would be a lot less ridiculous though, comparable to previous Titans and dual card solutions that Nvidia peddled a few years back.
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 628
- Location
- Rugby
I wonder if Nvidia had changed things and never released the 1080 or titan X what the reviews would have been like....
Rebrand the product stack as such:
1070 as 1080 @ $399
1060 6gb as 1070 @ $250
1060 3gb as 1060 @ $200
The performance of each product is good enough in comparison to the 980/970/960.
Rebrand the product stack as such:
1070 as 1080 @ $399
1060 6gb as 1070 @ $250
1060 3gb as 1060 @ $200
The performance of each product is good enough in comparison to the 980/970/960.
When there's no competition this is what happens.
970 was as fast as the 780 Ti at release, and the GTX 980 was a lot faster, so this wouldn't have fooled anyone.
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 628
- Location
- Rugby
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1060/26.html
980 99% compared to 1070 134% (35% increase in performance is enough for 1080 label IMO) even if you compare to TI at 118% a 16% increase is enough to be a 1080
970 86% compared to 1060 100% - 14% performance increase at the $250 price point? Doesn't seem to bad to me. If it was the 1070 and priced the same as the 970 I can't see how people could have slated it that much.
Looks more to me a shift in scaling of the product stack more than anything.
980 99% compared to 1070 134% (35% increase in performance is enough for 1080 label IMO) even if you compare to TI at 118% a 16% increase is enough to be a 1080
970 86% compared to 1060 100% - 14% performance increase at the $250 price point? Doesn't seem to bad to me. If it was the 1070 and priced the same as the 970 I can't see how people could have slated it that much.
Looks more to me a shift in scaling of the product stack more than anything.
Well the GTX 970 was as fast as the GTX 780 Ti, so the GTX 1070 should have been as fast as the GTX 980 Ti, which it was. The GTX 980 was 30% faster than the GTX 780 Ti, so the GTX 1080 should have been 30% faster than the GTX 980 Ti, which it wasn't. Not sure why you would say a certain % of performance increase is what constitutes a particular model. Nvidia could have course change the system whenever they want, but it seems pretty clear to everyone that the new GTX *70 is always as fast as the previous architecture's GTX *80 Ti model, and the GTX *80 is 20-30% faster.
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 628
- Location
- Rugby
We lost the 8xx series's which might explain some of the higher jumps going from 7xx to 9xx?
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,212
- Location
- Solihull
Just branding really. Someone decided they didn't like the number 8. They also skipped 3XX.
Same reason there's not a windows 9.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,212
- Location
- Solihull
Just saw another well known site now selling 4gb Sapphire Nitro+ 480s at £189. So prices are not going up everywhere it seems
Are a lot of the 4gb ones actually 8gb still, or have those all gone?
Only the reference 4gb models shipped with 8gb and could be flashed.
Kicking myself really as I should have got a few at the time.
Was the 8** series not supposed to be mobile/laptop type cards?
Check NVIDIA's own UK website, the FE prices haven't shifted a penny since release.
Obvious the AIB cards have, as retailers are free to do whatever they like with those due to no competition from NVIDIA themselves.
Hate to think what the Chinese thought about the 4xx series as far as naming goes.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_290X_Direct_Cu_II_OC/24.html
680 vs 780, decent gains and they went and released a TI version which much further. The 1080 doesn't not deserve it's 80 range, it's more like a 1075 or 70 ti.
And I do think it's because ATI/AMD playing catch up and losing talent.
LOL aside from having decent VRAM the 1080 would otherwise be a 460, GTS250, 9600GSO/8800GS, 7600GT, etc. in any generation before 28nm. The GP100 shows even fairly early on 600mm2 cores are feasible even if not cost effective and how quickly they made the Pascal Titan demonstrates that ~500mm2 cores are doable in reasonable enough yield.
Last edited:
The 1080 uses a full fat GP104 chip that is 2/3 the spec of a full fat GP102 chip.
This is exactly the same as the 980 v the Maxwell Titan.
The 1080 deserves its title.
I'm not so sure. I don't think that just because it is a built to spec chip means it deserves the to be pinned up as the top of the range. Wasn't it AMD's 285 that was a new design and that wasn't pinned as the forerunner although AMD were in a weak position at that point with reportedly power guzzling cards.
Well Nvidia prices have clearly gone from already-expensive to extortionate. I have the budget for a Titan but the price is so ludicrous I'd rather spend the money on another holiday adventure instead.
However, AMD releasing their new RX 480 for £199 is very good value.
However, AMD releasing their new RX 480 for £199 is very good value.
Agreed. Nvidia basically knows their naming-scheme better than anyone else.