** NVIDIA GTX 1070Ti NOW AVAILABLE FOR PRE-ORDER FROM £419.99 **

[Nexus18]

Yup that is my problem, in order for me to get a real successor to my 290 that will last at least 2 years, I need to be spending at least £400........ I got my 290 for £300 (after selling 3 games, it cost me £260) and if I had waited just another 2 months, I could have got a 290 for £200 with all the epic deals gibbo had (which came with 4/5 games too!!!!!) and as said, lets remember that this was 4 years ago, possibly even over 4 years ago now since the 290 purchase......

I could get a 1070 for £350 but imo, a 1070 is just about enough these days, in 1-2 years time, it won't be, certainly not for max settings and a consistent 60+ FPS anyway, which is what "PC gaming" is all about.....

And then when you look at things like this:

Does the PC look that much better than the ps 4 pro? Not really imo.

 

[jigger]

You clearly spend a lot more money on your PC(s) than I will ever be able to. But you must look at this from the perspective of your average gamer, not the enthusiast who thinks nothing for buying not one but two £1000+ systems to put in his sig

We're not necessarily talking about putting together a full system anyhow.

We're talking about a single upgrade - from 290/390 to a 2017 mid-range GFX card - costing more than a current gen console.

Let's not delude ourselves here - this situation is worse than I've ever known it in all my adult life. Mid-range to mid-range GPU upgrades used to cost between £150 and £180, and you got a super boost in perf.

Can we just remind ourselves that the 290 is a 4 year old card now. For 3 of those years you could but it for about £240. So... 3/4 years later, you should be able to buy a card that wrecks the 290 for £250. Right? Right? Oh wait... a card that performs the same as a 290 is... £240 from nV, between £250 and £300 from AMD.

OK, so if I want a good upgrade from my 290 what do I have to spend in 2017? Well, between £400 and £600, depending on how big an upgrade you'd like. And to add insult to injury, the £600 card is the one that's 2nd-from-top in the line-up, as the 290 was. The £400 card is 4th from top. Not even an apples-to-apples upgrade.

So yeah, this situation is worse than before, the comparison is between upgrading a single component of your PC and buying a console, and the console is cheaper. And you say I'm "whining"

Glad it's not just me noticing this. The saddest part is if you want to push 4k the DX11 graphics path makes its almost impossible and you have to start looking at overpriced Intel chips

 

[Dirk Diggler]

You clearly spend a lot more money on your PC(s) than I will ever be able to. But you must look at this from the perspective of your average gamer, not the enthusiast who thinks nothing for buying not one but two £1000+ systems to put in his sig

I didn't buy those systems to put in my signature, and I haven't tried to belittle you by making the point that you can't afford the systems, so why try to belittle me because I can? We all make choices based on various personal factors.

Anyway, you could buy the 5930k/980ti system second hand now for a decent price so consoles aren't the only option here. I would also argue that anyone who has amassed a sizeable Steam library or a monitor capable of more that 1080p 60Hz would be silly to move to console gaming. And that's another point, your console cost is subsidised by the price of the games you buy.

So to sum up (and I really don't want to be posting much more on the subject), if prices are too high for some then simply sit it out. If they actually are too high, then they will be lowered as a result else Nvidia would never sell any.

 

[FoxEye]

Looking at the Steam hardware survey, 1080p is by far the most common res, at 56% of all users. 1440p and higher collectively makes up less than 6%. The rest is *lower than* 1080p.

Again (and I'm not belittling you, really) you're looking at this from the perspective of a high-end enthusiast. "You don't want a console because going from 1440p/144 to 1080p/60 is a huge downgrade". Well yes, it would be, but your "average" gamer is on 1080p/60 or less. It's not a valid concern for most of us.

People with 4K, multi-monitor, or 1440p/144 are already spending way more than your average gamer on their rigs. They aren't going to be tempted by consoles - they were never going to be because of their spending power.

 

[lovelyhead]

I upgraded my 290X to a 1080 but only because I have an Oculus Rift. You really need the power with VR or you are going to have a bad time.

If it wasn't for VR I would have stuck with the 290X and reduced settings for newer games.

I am also rocking a 2600K which I have no plans on upgrading until I absolutely have to. Not interested in paying rip off prices for RAM, CPU and Motherboard for minimal performance increases.

The price and variety of games on PC is also a another reason I don't just get a console.

 

[ZenBaz]

Been building and upgrading PCs for 20+ years, before that... Amiga, AtariST, CPC464, C64, Speccy, VIC-20, and had almost every console released since the Atari 2600 to the PS4 (not pro)... you could say I'm a ancient die-hard gamer and enthusiast. But I work hard for my moola and don't like being taken for a mug i.e. I like getting good bang for my buck.

So my last few GPUs have been carefully timed, typically getting the flasgship of a generation *just* before/as the new gen gets launched. I got my current R9 290X for £220 using this tactic. A few GPUs before that I got myself a £400 when new GTX480 for £160 (from OCUK iirc) when the 500 series came out. Meant you got a great card that would last a couple years for massive savings from the price when launched.

So for the first time in my life I'm way overdue an upgrade. I held out for Vega... but well, we know how that launch went... so then I even ordered a GTX1080, but felt too dirty/ashamed with myself and refused delivery.

I can't believe I'm saying this... but I'm ready for giving up on PC gaming... well staying current anyway (have a steam backlog to clear ) If I hadn't finally upgraded my i5 2500k to a Ryzen in May, and bought an Oculus Rift in the summer sale, I can safely say the 290X would have been my last GPU for the foreseeable future. But I feel obliged to get my money's worth out of them so I'm praying for finding a sensible price/deal on something soon... I'd hoped the 1070ti might do it, or trigger it at least but sadly not.... if I could even get a Vega56 for £350 that might tempt me but given what I've spent in the past for massive performance gains it still seems overpriced. /sigh

I was starting to think I was in the minority of people who feel this way about PC gaming... i.e. sad about the prospect of giving up on my lifelong love because greedy companies are taking us for a ride.... but it's nice to see so many of you expressing these feelings... I'm now starting to suspect there is a massive untapped market of people who would snap up a new GPU if they weren't quite so ridiculously priced.... but hey ho.

 

[jigger]

Looking at the Steam hardware survey, 1080p is by far the most common res, at 56% of all users. 1440p and higher collectively makes up less than 6%. The rest is *lower than* 1080p.

Again (and I'm not belittling you, really) you're looking at this from the perspective of a high-end enthusiast. "You don't want a console because going from 1440p/144 to 1080p/60 is a huge downgrade". Well yes, it would be, but your "average" gamer is on 1080p/60 or less. It's not a valid concern for most of us.

People with 4K, multi-monitor, or 1440p/144 are already spending way more than your average gamer on their rigs. They aren't going to be tempted by consoles - they were never going to be because of their spending power.

Laptops...

 

[Kirby Wurm]

Such mindless comments. It's cheaper than the competition can do, and it's been shown that AMD are making a loss on their cards to sell at this price. So maybe it's time to acknowledge that the base price of this technology is expensive?

It's a faster card than the 980ti was, albeit just over 2 years later, and for £130 cheaper. I agree that isn't staggering progress, but it is both cheaper and faster than the previous generation's top-end so either you accept it or you don't, but it's clearly not a stitch up.

Approaching 2.5 years later I'd expect a lot more over the 980Ti. And let's not forget that the 1070/1080 are 18 months old and it does nothing but sit between them without any price/performance improvement. Stagnation of this kind is detrimental for the consumer (of course not Nvidia's fault but they are profiting from the situation).

 

[ubersonic]

One might aswell just buy a 1080, the 1070ti @ 419 is a pointless card in every respect.

Completely untrue, it costs less than a 1080 and is more profitable for mining than a 1070/1080, that's a plus point for miners, and technically as mining demand for the 1070ti should reduce demand for 1070/1080/AMD cards (and thus the prices) it's good for gamers too.

 

[jigger]

Been building and upgrading PCs for 20+ years, before that... Amiga, AtariST, CPC464, C64, Speccy, VIC-20, and had almost every console released since the Atari 2600 to the PS4 (not pro)... you could say I'm a ancient die-hard gamer and enthusiast. But I work hard for my moola and don't like being taken for a mug i.e. I like getting good bang for my buck.

So my last few GPUs have been carefully timed, typically getting the flasgship of a generation *just* before/as the new gen gets launched. I got my current R9 290X for £220 using this tactic. A few GPUs before that I got myself a £400 when new GTX480 for £160 (from OCUK iirc) when the 500 series came out. Meant you got a great card that would last a couple years for massive savings from the price when launched.

So for the first time in my life I'm way overdue an upgrade. I held out for Vega... but well, we know how that launch went... so then I even ordered a GTX1080, but felt too dirty/ashamed with myself and refused delivery.

I can't believe I'm saying this... but I'm ready for giving up on PC gaming... well staying current anyway (have a steam backlog to clear ) If I hadn't finally upgraded my i5 2500k to a Ryzen in May, and bought an Oculus Rift in the summer sale, I can safely say the 290X would have been my last GPU for the foreseeable future. But I feel obliged to get my money's worth out of them so I'm praying for finding a sensible price/deal on something soon... I'd hoped the 1070ti might do it, or trigger it at least but sadly not.... if I could even get a Vega56 for £350 that might tempt me but given what I've spent in the past for massive performance gains it still seems overpriced. /sigh

I was starting to think I was in the minority of people who feel this way about PC gaming... i.e. sad about the prospect of giving up on my lifelong love because greedy companies are taking us for a ride.... but it's nice to see so many of you expressing these feelings... I'm now starting to suspect there is a massive untapped market of people who would snap up a new GPU if they weren't quite so ridiculously priced.... but hey ho.

Pretty much the point Im at. Would be happy with a Vega card for around the price I paid for the 290. I'll stick with PC gaming for while and keep buying games as long as my 290 can run 2560x1440 around 50FPS.

I was hoping to be able to move to a 4-5K screen but with the state of monitor QC and price of graphics I think a PS4Pro or Xbox One X and a 4K TV or 50" Korean monitor will be the way I go.

 

[Kei]

TBH, the way it's felt for me is that nvidia have managed to sneakily push what should have been mid tier components out under the banner of high tier products with the high tier price tag.

IMO, this is the way it should be both models and prices:
GTX 1050 should be the 1030 (The POS that the 1030 is shouldn't even exist)
GTX 1060 should be the 1050
GTX 1070 should be the 1060
GTX 1080 should be the 1070
GTX 1080 Ti should be the 1080
GTX Titan Xp should be the 1080 Ti
GTX Titan XP remains as is

Heck, they even nobbled the memory bus on the 1080 Ti from 384 bit to 352 bit. My GTX 780 has the same 384 bit bus as the original titan, all it was missing was a few SM's, TMU's and 3GB vram. The current 10 series equivalent for my 780 doesn't even exist as it would lie between the 1080 and the 1080 Ti. (By equivalent I mean silicon equivalent) I'll admit that the 780 was too expensive 4.5 years ago when I bought it. If I'd waited two more weeks, the 290X would have been out which was a better card for less money. I can't deny that a big part of the problem here lies with the fact that AMD have been concentrating too heavily on HBM which still hasn't paid off as it's just too damn expensive. In a lot of respects, it's the mid to low end range where the prices seem to be the most skewed, especially when you consider the dinky die size of 200mm² on the 1060.

 

[Telecaster]

Ever increasing resolution has caused a lot of these problems.

People complain about no massive jumps in performance, but big gains were easy when everyone was playing in potato vision.

They just get on top of making cards that monster 1080p and people are already on ultrawide and 4k.

 

[Bluntwrapped]

If Volta is as good as it’s rumoured to be, all the 10 series cards are going to worth next to nothing in the next year or so.

Things sure have got boring recently.

My GTX 480 could max out most games (at least the ones I was playing) at 1080p 7 years ago. Isn’t it about time 4K became the new standard? Especially for this kind of money.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

The performance boost between iteration is around 35%. An iteration for me is X80ti to X80ti. What other component in your PC increases in performance at that rate? That's the very reason I'm still using 2 or 3 year old CPU's; the performance boost just isn't there... From 6700k to 8700k it's a boost of 1fps!

The price might be higher for various reasons, but if you go generation to generation then the performance boost can't be criticised, surely?

 

[orbitalwalsh]

I wonder how many review sites will include GTX 1080 11Gbps version against the 70Ti .... Mine and my friends zotac/aorus could almost hit 12Gbps ram overclock and 2080hz overclock on the core .
from some early leaks overcloced 70ti just comes short of stock 1080 -

 

[Davedree]

The performance boost between iteration is around 35%. An iteration for me is X80ti to X80ti. What other component in your PC increases in performance at that rate? That's the very reason I'm still using 2 or 3 year old CPU's; the performance boost just isn't there... From 6700k to 8700k it's a boost of 1fps!

The price might be higher for various reasons, but if you go generation to generation then the performance boost can't be criticised, surely?

Only If you are looking at Nvidia then you could say at least they are making gains but taking the mick with pricing at the same time, let;s not forget Gp104 is a laptop chip. For Amd they stagnated from Hawaii to Fiji- Polaris and Vega was then late and lacking in gains over the Fiji.

 

[TallPaul1878]

Ever increasing resolution has caused a lot of these problems.

People complain about no massive jumps in performance, but big gains were easy when everyone was playing in potato vision.

They just get on top of making cards that monster 1080p and people are already on ultrawide and 4k.

That's a fair point to a degree. We are demanding 40k 60Hz or 1440p 144Hz for our monitors and that's a big increase over 1080p 60Hz that the masses of PC gamers are using.

Enthusiasts live in a bubble, it's a rich man's game and we are lucky to sit at the top table when it comes to buying the very best parts available.

That said, it is correct when someone said Nvidia have been selling mid-tier cards as top tier. The x80 line has always been top end, it has featured Nvidia's flagship GPU at the time and all other derivatives from x70 down have been cut down versions.

But now the x80 uses the cut down GPU with all other versions cut down even further. Only the x80ti and Titans are using Nvidia's flagship GPU and we are expected to pay through the nose for that luxury.

At the same time AMD are just incapable of winning the minds of the mass public. I talk to a lot of my gamer friends and they all say that they buy nVidia "because of the drivers". Nvidia are like Apple, you will have an incredibly hard time convincing someone to switch regardless of how much better the competition is at the time.

I think the price points have been set now. Buyers are accustomed to paying £250+ for the lower-mid range GTX 1060 and well over £350 for the GTX 1070. I remember paying £260 for my previous GTX 970 so that's almost a £100 mark up from one generation to the next.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Nvidia are like Apple, you will have an incredibly hard time convincing someone to switch regardless of how much better the competition is at the time.

Are you suggesting AMD are better but we just don't realise it? What should I buy to replace my 1080ti?

 

[arby1]

At the same time AMD are just incapable of winning the minds of the mass public. I talk to a lot of my gamer friends and they all say that they buy nVidia "because of the drivers". Nvidia are like Apple, you will have an incredibly hard time convincing someone to switch regardless of how much better the competition is at the time.

I agree the drivers comment is a little erroneous, but the end result isn't too far off. I've had many AMD cards in the past, but the current gen has very few redeeming qualities if you're not locked in through a freesync purchase. And as for the driver comment, have you been in any Vega thread? They're full of people trying to figure out how to get the cards working out of the box as they should.

 

[ubersonic]

I remember paying £260 for my previous GTX 970 so that's almost a £100 mark up from one generation to the next.

I remember paying £160 from OCUK for an AIB GTX460 that was faster than a reference GTX470, this was back when the GTX470 was the second fastest GPU on the market.