You what?
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/26.html
37% faster at 1440p and 4k.
-
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.
Do nvidia downgrade performance on older card
- Thread starter This never ends well
- Start date
You what?
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/26.html
37% faster at 1440p and 4k.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,053
Now imagine where AMD would be with NVIDIA's budget
Who knows. Like all technology, the extra % can come at a huge expensive. Look at Formula 1 for example. Not sure if it's the same today but used to be the case that the budgets of the top teams are absolutely huge compared to the small teams......yet the following year the small teams often have or get close to the performance the top teams had the year before(with their much, much smaller budgets).
So, it can take a huge amount of £ to gain the extra bit of performance. And secondly, technology gets cheaper with time, hence I really hope AMD don't release a card that just about beats a 1080 and prices it similarly because the R&D should have been less (in theory anyway) as by the time the faster AMD cards arrive the 1080 would have been around for nearly a year already. And if AMD do that then Nvdiai with their by then aging Pascal might just drop the prices dramatically as they will be able to by then.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
The cause doesn't really matter the fact is it's happening so people need to take that into consideration if they keep there cards for a long time.
There's no guarantee it won't start to happen with AMD once they move away from the GCN architecture. But for now AMD cards hold up pretty well.
Boosting 680 beats stock 7970 horror...
The 7970 went from 925Mhz to 1100Mhz (mostly)without voltage, both oc'ed they were matched from the off...
Where's your 'who overclocks any more' thread?
How can you always play catchup when you surpass the competition?...
How can you always play catchup when your 30% slower turns out 30% faster?...
How can you always play catchup when your AMD gpu doesn't have a stutter bug for 6 months?
How can you always play catchup when your AMD gpu has the advertised specs?
How can it take 10 months to catch up when it was faster after beta drivers/ a bios update 6 months after release/3 months after the competition arrived?...
What lunatic gets ****ed when comparing the performance metric between say 290/780 for example and concludes they perform roughly the same@launch?
Is it the one that listened to the 'vram don't matter' crowd and bought the lesser specced more expensive gpu?...
Two threads this week about Nv's questionable driver optimisation/performance over time, where's the 'AMD performance gimping' threads?
Last edited:
I don't see the issue. Sure it would be great to have more of a chips potential available from launch. But if you purchased based on the performance data you have at the time and you liked the product/it was competitive, then the fact that they were able to improve performance months down the line is nothing but a plus. I do not see how it can be considered a negative. You had already happily bought the product at X price with Y performance.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
But wouldn't the people who bought the 7970 before the 680 released have been happy with how it performed at the time or else they wouldn't of bought it? The 680 coming along and beating it is part and parcel of the graphics card game, There always trying to leap frog each other, I get your point but when the 7950 first release it must have done okay or else why did anyone buy it?
This.
The 7970 launched a month ish before the 680 and I was coming from a 560Ti, so waited to see what was what before making my decision. Had the 7970 showed a lead, that would have got my hard earned but it didn't and the 680 was cheaper, so I went with that. Those who went with the 7970 had decent performance from the off of course but their cards were capable of far more performance and 10 months is a long time to wait for that deserved performance. If the owners were happy though, that's fair enough.
Now imagine where AMD would be with NVIDIA's budget
They've made a fair few strategic blunders, etc. that would likely still happen with any amount of money.
Precisely my thoughts exactly. By the card on advertised specs at the time of purchase. Improvements over the course of time are a bonus. That must be why my 7850 keeps going. That only has 1gb ram as well.
It's pretty logical that these 'blunders' you speak of are related to their relatively puny budget.
Go compare AMD and NVIDIA's financials, it should be logical that NVIDIA can afford far more personnel, Q&A, etc which would obviously give them far more choice when it comes to strategic decisions and overall presentation.
To be honest, it's rather embarrassing for NVIDIA that AMD, upto Pascal launch at least, have been able to compete neck and neck with NVIDIA in performance, given their R&D investment difference.
Be aware I'm typing this as a desktop 1070 and laptop 980M owner, not some raving AMD fanboy
I think part of the perception of driver gimping is somewhat due to the fact that some of the shader optimisations in Maxwell are simply more efficient - potentially upto around 30% so though usually when optimised for in games about 15% over Kepler and due to the nature of those efficiency differences it isn't something you can simply overclock Kepler and make up the difference. In some games once proper drivers were out for Maxwell they simply jumped ahead of an otherwise equivalent Kepler card.
A lot of that seems to come down to nVidia trickling out hardware specs at the consumer's expense - the 680 was long way down on what they could have produced on 28nm even at the time of launch, etc.
A lot of that seems to come down to nVidia trickling out hardware specs at the consumer's expense - the 680 was long way down on what they could have produced on 28nm even at the time of launch, etc.
Last edited:
It's the other titles though.
W3 and quite a few others got a performance boost after Kepler owners kicked up a stink, Nv know full well there is a percentage that won't wait for fixes and will upgrade for massive heavily anticipated and endorsed Nv titles where Nv have total control on the performance overhead in both game Engine proprietary black box code and at hardware side.
+1
W3 and quite a few others got a performance boost after Kepler owners kicked up a stink, Nv know full well there is a percentage that won't wait for fixes and will upgrade for massive heavily anticipated and endorsed Nv titles where Nv have total control on the performance overhead in both game Engine proprietary black box code and at hardware side.
To be honest, it's rather embarrassing for NVIDIA that AMD, upto Pascal launch at least, have been able to compete neck and neck with NVIDIA in performance, given their R&D investment difference.
Be aware I'm typing this as a desktop 1070 and laptop 980M owner, not some raving AMD fanboy
+1
W3 is the only one where I'm aware of that being the case - there have been 1-2 other games where Kepler owners have complained of not getting full performance (but a good number weren't seeing to supposed slowdowns) with a fix appearing in later drivers but on my 780 I never saw the problem (posting now I do wonder if the issues didn't affect B1 Kepler cards i.e. the 780ti and later 780s).
I think its more nVidia don't focus on optimising EOL cards. So the gap gets bigger from current gen to last gen. Can't say for sure if they intentionally gimp their own cards such as kepler but i'm sure they dont keep on optimising their old cards for newer games and such.
The driver pipeline is largely unified - I think it is more that with newer architectures after awhile they find ways to increase performance with it while the older architecture is already matured and largely tapped out - there have been the odd exception to that but IMO it is largely the case more than nVidia significantly backing off focus - aside from W3 and The Division (which seem to be some of the more common problem areas and also games I haven't really played) I was seeing improvements to my 780 with driver updates all up until I changed to the 1070.
Seems to be a bit of GREEN rage going on here 
I bought a 290 happily knowing that it was neck in neck with the 780 for considerably less (even more so by the time games were sold) with more vRAM and soundly beaten by the 780ti/970 but over the last several months, I am even more happy to see that my 290 is surpassing a 780 (regardless of vRAM) rather easily and in quite a few of the latest games, even matching or surpassing a 970/780ti
And that is not even including dx 12/vulkan titles 
Who knows, when/if we see a lot more dx 12/vulkan titles (especially exclusive titles), we might even see a 290 matching a 980ti at some point
It is this.
It happens in every single industry, EOL products don't get anywhere as much support as newer gen. It doesn't make any financial sense for a company to do this other than to keep their older customers satisfied and build up a loyal customer base, imo, this will pay off in the long run though. As I have said before, nvidia are all about short term goals where as AMD are more about long term goals.
I bought a 290 happily knowing that it was neck in neck with the 780 for considerably less (even more so by the time games were sold) with more vRAM and soundly beaten by the 780ti/970 but over the last several months, I am even more happy to see that my 290 is surpassing a 780 (regardless of vRAM) rather easily and in quite a few of the latest games, even matching or surpassing a 970/780ti
And that is not even including dx 12/vulkan titles Who knows, when/if we see a lot more dx 12/vulkan titles (especially exclusive titles), we might even see a 290 matching a 980ti at some point
It is this.
It happens in every single industry, EOL products don't get anywhere as much support as newer gen. It doesn't make any financial sense for a company to do this other than to keep their older customers satisfied and build up a loyal customer base, imo, this will pay off in the long run though. As I have said before, nvidia are all about short term goals where as AMD are more about long term goals.
Last edited:
Nvidia cards definitely have a short useful life, due to either gimping or just not bothering to write drivers for them any more. Look what happened with the 780, right when the 9 series got released performance seemed to drop below AMD's equivalent when previously it was doing better.
Which is why I'm switching to AMD for my next card. Prices are going up, so I need a card that is going to be good for longer. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.
Which is why I'm switching to AMD for my next card. Prices are going up, so I need a card that is going to be good for longer. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.
Last edited:
Note the admittance in using 'fixes'.
PCars and GTAV got boosts too iirc, at the end of the day they fixed it.
Last edited:
Money had nothing to do with one of the lead designers, getting everyone's hopes up live on stage, at the launch with that now infamous overclockers dream comment.
Nor many of the oops I didn't actually mean that, I had better clarify my comments, moments from Mr Huddy.