Something super is coming...

[tyler_jrb]

Owning a 1080 Ti I still don't feel any need to upgrade to a 2xxx card. I did spot a 2080 Ti yesterday for around £570 new and I was about to buy then I talked myself out of it. I think it was a pricing error as it's back to over £1000 now. Kinda wish I would have given it a go but my mate just went from a 1080 Ti to a 2080 Ti and thinks he's getting 15-20 % better performance which doesn't really warrant the RRP IMO.

There have been some games that have played excellently with the 2080Ti at 4k 60hz where the 1080Ti has struggled a little.

Obviously still an extremely fast card for the price. 30-40% faster from experience which you are typically seeing on the 2080Ti may be worth it. Has been for me but then again it depends on what you value.

 

[ChrisD.]

There have been some games that have played excellently with the 2080Ti at 4k 60hz where the 1080Ti has struggled a little.

Obviously still an extremely fast card for the price. 30-40% faster from experience which you are typically seeing on the 2080Ti may be worth it. Has been for me but then again it depends on what you value.

I'm on ultra wide (3440x1440) so I'm not sure I'm going to see a huge difference, certainly not to warrant the cost I don't think. There's only been one or two games where I've had to dial back some settings to get over 60 fps.

 

[DragonQ]

So is this summary correct?:
- 2060 Super introduces a new price bracket, worse perf/price than 2060 so not terribly interesting
- 2070 Super replaces 2070 and makes 2080 pointless (until 2080 Super comes out I imagine)
- At low end Vega 56 still rules perf/price until it goes out of stock
- Navi is going to struggle against these cards at their launch MSRPs

 

[StriderX]

I hate this line of thinking people put out. "It doesn't matter what AMD put out". For anyone at the high end, AMD have been non existent apart from their 24-month-late-1080ti contender (which ended up being more expensive than a 1080ti).

This is an enthusiast forum where obviously people will gravitate towards the company which caters towards the higher end of gaming with the best experiences.

Why should we stop buying graphics cards with the best performance when we want the best performance? I want 4k gaming and ultrawide 1440p gaming at a decent FPS. I'd like to be able to delve into features like RTX for a window into the next level of lighting engines for AAA games which consoles will probably get in a couple of years time.

Sure Nvidia are charging a premium and to hold off buying Nvidia stock to allow price adjustments is fine.

But I'm not going to stop buying GPUs so AMD can try and play catchup when at every oppurtunity in the GPU side of things, they've looked to take a healthy slice of the pie too despite their products being commonly later, similarly priced and sometimes even inferior.


____

My next build is an AMD CPU most likely. They've made great strides there and been competitive with pricing, awesome with upgradability and commitment to sockets/platforms. They don't mimic this in GPU land.

The fact AMD got little to no flack for the over priced 24 month too late Radeon VII with god knows how much VRAM which none of us will ever use outside of prosumer applications whilst commanding a high fee is beyond me. Yet this forum is supposedely anti-AMD?

I think most users on this forum are anti-no one and just pro-themselves. We want the best products balancing the line between value and performance whilst remaining fairly cutting edge, whether its resolution, graphical or FPS.

The statistics don't lie, people inherently think of Nvidia when talking about GPU's even when ATI were doing well it never stuck. Why should they focus so much attention at the very top 1% of the 1% of performance when only 15% (currently AMD's share, i'm sure it's lower really) of that 1% is even going to buy it? It would take an absolutely dominant Flagship to unseat Nvidia's image.

The sheer length of time it would take would mean other things get in the way, AMD have clearly realised the growth in Cloud services instead of chasing entrenched opinion in the enthusiast space. It's a sad reality, but the vast majority will be on that ecosystem rather than spending thousands in a single purchase play newer games, the publishing giants are also seriously pushing this as a means to get solid revenue.

It doesn't mean the enthusiast market is dead, but i'd be damned if it doesn't start getting gouged hard with increased cost of manufacturing 7-1 nm parts, which I guess is partly why Nvidia is researching chiplet cores as well. Also doesn't necessarily mean AMD is out of that bracket either, but it's clear as day they aren't doing themselves any favours competing there without a serious advantage.

 

[Gregster]

I disagree. AMD have had numerous products over the years that have been extremely competitive on both price and performance (like the RX 470/570/480/580 for example), yet they've still been massively outsold by their Nvidia counterparts. It "isn't even close" if you only choose to limit yourself to the ultra high end in order to suit your argument. Even then AMD had very competitive products (and often significantly cheaper - the $549 290X vs the $699 780 Ti for instance) prior to Maxwell in the high end market, yet were still massively outsold by Nvidia. Even during the Thermi era Nvidia sold more, and those cards were absolute trash. It has nothing to do with value or performance, and everything to do with what's on the box.

If you look back through history, you will see when AMD had competitive products at competitive prices, they did very well. I will even get a site to show it....

https://www.google.com/search?q=AMD+V+NVidia+market+share+through+the+years&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=AkHFUvdAt32GLM%3A%2Chrdh9upwHO0Q3M%2C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRH_M2qoSnqmgy_ZbaHpAtShVh9Gw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIkaWY7JjjAhWDiFwKHUfgDgcQ9QEwEHoECAQQCA#imgrc=0V3k4gRV3p7udM:&vet=1

Not gonna host the image but back in the day, AMD were competing with products that matched. I feel things like PhysX and GameWorks have swayed people to the green side in modern years but I still stand by AMD turning market share in their favour should they release a blinding product at a good price. 5700/XT are not what I consider either of that!

Edit:

And just to add, I went with the 680 over the 7970, as it was cheaper and performed better (for the first year anyways), I then went a bit mid-life-crisis and grabbed a pair of Titans, where a 290X would have done nicely (albeit they were a bit hot and loud but performed well). I still have a 290X, which is a decent card (MSI Twin Frozr gaming).

 

[JediFragger]

but my mate just went from a 1080 Ti to a 2080 Ti and thinks he's getting 15-20 % better performance which doesn't really warrant the RRP IMO.

Yup, anything below 4k and they bottleneck badly inc UW (in most games at least). Better with a 2080 Super imo.

 

[Prozn]

No one's expecting a top range GPU for £200.
But we should have a price/performance replacement of the 480 by now. That should be at least the 5700 performance.

If you inflation adjust current prices back to 2010, we are at 480 prices. And the pricing would be even better if the GBP exchange rate hadn't been trashed from 1.6 to 1.3 - I expect the GTX2060 would have cost about £250 (inflation adjusted).

The hysteria over pricing in the mid-range seems a little overblown to me, probably driven by the fairly expensive Titan pricing.

I agree there is a little hole in the ~£250 price point, however, you can get RAM for £60 cheaper now than a year ago. SSDs are dropping like a stone. I just don't agree with with the being priced out argument.

 

[ChrisD.]

Yup, anything below 4k and they bottleneck badly inc UW (in most games at least). Better with a 2080 Super imo.

So at my res I may get the same performance between a 2080 Super and a Ti?

 

[4K8KW10]

If you inflation adjust current prices back to 2010, we are at 480 prices. And the pricing would be even better if the GBP exchange rate hadn't been trashed from 1.6 to 1.3 - I expect the GTX2060 would have cost about £250 (inflation adjusted).

The hysteria over pricing in the mid-range seems a little overblown to me, probably driven by the fairly expensive Titan pricing.

I agree there is a little hole in the ~£250 price point, however, you can get RAM for £60 cheaper now than a year ago. SSDs are dropping like a stone. I just don't agree with with the being priced out argument.

The inflation is 2-3%, not more, if any, and if present at all. Very misleading comment.

 

[Scooter72]

Yup, anything below 4k and they bottleneck badly inc UW (in most games at least). Better with a 2080 Super imo.

Can you explain that Jedi - it does not make sense to me that a more powerful card will underperform at lower resolutions

 

[Prozn]

The inflation is 2-3%, not more, if any, and if present at all. Very misleading comment.

Those inflation numbers are taken from the Bank of England, so not misleading at all. And the pound has dropped 20% since 2015 to compound the UK pricing issues.

 

[Rroff]

If you inflation adjust current prices back to 2010, we are at 480 prices. And the pricing would be even better if the GBP exchange rate hadn't been trashed from 1.6 to 1.3 - I expect the GTX2060 would have cost about £250 (inflation adjusted).

The hysteria over pricing in the mid-range seems a little overblown to me, probably driven by the fairly expensive Titan pricing.

I agree there is a little hole in the ~£250 price point, however, you can get RAM for £60 cheaper now than a year ago. SSDs are dropping like a stone. I just don't agree with with the being priced out argument.

It isn't just the prices at the named tiers but the performance tiers themselves - an xx80 card is really just a midrange card dressed up these days whereas back in the day it was generally close to the max possible from the silicon - if you took it back to even Fermi days the RTX2080 would barely be positioned above the 460 not even close to the 470 let alone 480.

 

[HRL]

Can you explain that Jedi - it does not make sense to me that a more powerful card will underperform at lower resolutions

Because it’s more CPU limited at lower res. At 4K it can stretch it’s legs.

It won’t perform worse, but it’ll only perform a bit better at lower res. At 4K the margin is much larger.

 

[Kaapstad]

Can you explain that Jedi - it does not make sense to me that a more powerful card will underperform at lower resolutions

Because it bounces off the CPU a lot more causing inefficiency.

 

[Martini1991]

If you inflation adjust current prices back to 2010, we are at 480 prices. And the pricing would be even better if the GBP exchange rate hadn't been trashed from 1.6 to 1.3 - I expect the GTX2060 would have cost about £250 (inflation adjusted).

The hysteria over pricing in the mid-range seems a little overblown to me, probably driven by the fairly expensive Titan pricing.

I agree there is a little hole in the ~£250 price point, however, you can get RAM for £60 cheaper now than a year ago. SSDs are dropping like a stone. I just don't agree with with the being priced out argument.

Radeon 480. Not GTX

 

[ChrisD.]

So for me at 3440x1440 with an 8086k CPU at 5 Ghz, a 2080 Super would be a better choice than a 2080 Ti? I don't mind the price of it, it's the same that I paid for my 1080 Ti in March 2017. But I don't want to be spending north of a grand (including waterblock etc).

 

[aoaaron]

The statistics don't lie, people inherently think of Nvidia when talking about GPU's even when ATI were doing well it never stuck. Why should they focus so much attention at the very top 1% of the 1% of performance when only 15% (currently AMD's share, i'm sure it's lower really) of that 1% is even going to buy it? It would take an absolutely dominant Flagship to unseat Nvidia's image.

The sheer length of time it would take would mean other things get in the way, AMD have clearly realised the growth in Cloud services instead of chasing entrenched opinion in the enthusiast space. It's a sad reality, but the vast majority will be on that ecosystem rather than spending thousands in a single purchase play newer games, the publishing giants are also seriously pushing this as a means to get solid revenue.

It doesn't mean the enthusiast market is dead, but i'd be damned if it doesn't start getting gouged hard with increased cost of manufacturing 7-1 nm parts, which I guess is partly why Nvidia is researching chiplet cores as well. Also doesn't necessarily mean AMD is out of that bracket either, but it's clear as day they aren't doing themselves any favours competing there without a serious advantage.

Statistics also don't like that AMD haven't offered us nothing competitive and on time at the high end of gaming for years.

If they don't want to focus on it, fine but don't cry about it.

 

[aoaaron]

So for me at 3440x1440 with an 8086k CPU at 5 Ghz, a 2080 Super would be a better choice than a 20180 Ti?

The 2080 super is an unknown quantity unless I've missed some benchmarks but you would be right. 2080tis will get no price drops, they are a hard card to justify on release and they're hard to sell now. I'm currently trying to balance whether to grab a 2070 super or a 2080 super for that resolution.

On one hand, having an extra bit of juice is always welcome but on the other hand, I really want to kick the habit of spending over £500 for a GPU and Nvidia are finally offering us that. I feel like I'm almost price gouging myself at that point if I pick a 2070 super over a 2080 super. I also don't feel like these cards which have the longest lifespan. Maybe 12 months at a push. Also I'm not sure how big of a difference the 2070 super and 2080 super will be. 10%? for £250?

 

[HRL]

So for me at 3440x1440 with an 8086k CPU at 5 Ghz, a 2080 Super would be a better choice than a 2080 Ti? I don't mind the price of it, it's the same that I paid for my 1080 Ti in March 2017. But I don't want to be spending north of a grand (including waterblock etc).

No, the Ti will be more powerful, but at your res, slightly less noticeable.

 

[gpuerrilla]

I disagree. Look at what AMD has done with the CPU side of things and brought out performance at a decent price. Sadly with the GPU front, it isn't even close however, if they did the same as the CPU division, people will buy AMD. I find only people who can't see past bias tend to think like you!

I hate this line of thinking people put out. "It doesn't matter what AMD put out".

You can disagree but the constant blaming AMD for poor price market and stagnant progression is pretty neanderthal like. Far more factors involved than just one other competitor.

Why should we stop buying graphics cards with the best performance when we want the best performance?

Pay it if you like, I dont care; not stopping you! My message on threads like this is stop whining (not aimed at you directly) as people are clearly still buying this inflated trickle of tiers which is continuing the problem.

I disagree. AMD have had numerous products over the years that have been extremely competitive on both price and performance (like the RX 470/570/480/580 for example), yet they've still been massively outsold by their Nvidia counterparts. It "isn't even close" if you only choose to limit yourself to the ultra high end in order to suit your argument. Even then AMD had very competitive products (and often significantly cheaper - the $549 290X vs the $699 780 Ti for instance) prior to Maxwell in the high end market, yet were still massively outsold by Nvidia. Even during the Thermi era Nvidia sold more, and those cards were absolute trash. It has nothing to do with value or performance, and everything to do with what's on the box.

^ precisely. @Gregster its a bit rich calling anyone on this forum biased - we dont need to cut you to see what colour you would bleed.