GTX 1070/1080 cost the same as 680/670 (after FX & inflation)

[Rusty0611]

We know there is going to be a 1080ti and Titan. We know the GP102 is out there. There are already specs for both chips circulating along with the 1060 specs.

I know the GPU exists but to all intents and purposes it looks like this generation will mimic Kepler in terms of hierarchy and release schedule.

 

[Gregster]

When the 780 launched, it was a lot of money ($649), some time after, the 780Ti launched @ $699 and the 780 had a big price reduction. I fully expect the same thing to happen with the 1080/Ti. You won't see me whinging that my card has lost value and that is the price of early adoption.

 

[philo-sofa]

If something is £120 inc VAT you divide by 1.2 to see the price is £100 without VAT.

Ach, thanks for the correction; I always forget how much VAT is here.

**very comprehensive list**

Now, if see from the info above, the 560ti, 560, the 680, 670 and the 1080,1070 are all on the same tier. Made from the second tier chip etc. So going by that your price comparison is valid. But the only problem I have with your comparison is that you should have started at the 560ti and 560.

Why? because it was from the 560ti to the 680 that the big price increase happened. The 560ti was $249 on release, the 680 was $499 on release.

But, since the release of the 1080 and 1070, the chip used is not important. And is not a valid method of deciding where a card should be in Nvidia's line up. I have argued otherwise, but have been told that it didn't matter.

Dead interesting reply melmac I think though that we absolutely should use consider die sizes when comparing cards. At its release the GK-110 (780Ti) was simply the biggest chip that had ever been stuffed into a graphics card, so large it's smaller GK-104 cousins were still bigger than most previous 'top-tier' chips. That makes it hard to equate the modern Ti or Fury-X cards with previous chips like the 480 or 7800 GTX, rather they're kind of 'supercards'. This pattern has continued all the way until now with the 1080 die size being similar to previous top cards to a GTX 680 or 7800 GTX. The 600 series comparison is valid IMO, but it would be good to see others.

Looking back at your list, it very true the 200, 400 and 500 series' muddied the water; they were gigantic compared to their predecessors. Nvidia wanted to start their 'big die' strategy with the 200 series cards iirc, but when their first unified architecture failed to perform they released their big chip as a mainstream product. Nvidia did release 500mm^2 cards as '70 and '80 series, for all that it was because they had no other choice.

So the point you make is an excellent one; and we would ideally look at all previous chips as there isn't quite a one-to-one mapping. But again the main point for me (sorry to be a broken record) is that we do need to incorporate inflation and exchange rates in such comparisons.

 

[melmac]

Dead interesting reply melmac I think though that we absolutely should use consider die sizes when comparing cards. At its release the GK-110 (780Ti) was simply the biggest chip that had ever been stuffed into a graphics card, so large it's smaller GK-104 cousins were still bigger than most previous 'top-tier' chips. That makes it hard to equate the modern Ti or Fury-X cards with previous chips like the 480 or 7800 GTX, rather they're kind of 'supercards'. This pattern has continued all the way until now with the 1080 die size being similar to previous top cards to a GTX 680 or 7800 GTX. The 600 series comparison is valid IMO, but it would be good to see others.

I am not sure what you are trying to say about the large chip? Every generation aside from the 1st generation Kepler has had a large chip. The 580, 480 and 280 were all much bigger die sizes than the 680. The 780ti was no more a super chip than the 580 GTX. The 780Ti was no bigger than the Titan chip. They were both GK110. You know the 780 was also based off the GK110 chip too.

There are no supercards, the titan and ti are just the high end cards based on the high end chip. If the Titan and ti cards are super cards, then the 580 and 570, 480 and 470 etc were supercards too.

Again, if you want to base your price comparison on chip size then the 1080/1070 compared to 680/670 is valid, except that the price hike started on the switch over from the 500 series to the 600 series.

But if you are basing it on lineup then you have to compare it to the second tier cards which are the 660ti and the 660.

But again the main point for me (sorry to be a broken record) is that we do need to incorporate inflation and exchange rates in such comparisons.

Yes of course, but you don't need to go back any further than the 500 series cards. It was the move from the 500 series to the 600 series that the name change occurred. The x60ti and x60 were renamed the x80 and x70.

So just do your price analysis between the 560ti/560 and the 1080 and 1070.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

So to summarise:

 

[Jono8]

So to summarise:

nice

 

[philo-sofa]

I am not sure what you are trying to say about the large chip? Every generation aside from the 1st generation Kepler has had a large chip. The 580, 480 and 280 were all much bigger die sizes than the 680. The 780ti was no more a super chip than the 580 GTX. The 780Ti was no bigger than the Titan chip. They were both GK110. You know the 780 was also based off the GK110 chip too.

Obviously every generation has it's largest chip. But the GK-110 was about 8% larger than even the 500 series chips by surface area, and (EDIT: was not the largest piece) of silicon ever used in a GPU. GK-110 and it's successors also represented a fracturing of the enthusiast market, from what had been a two chip to a three chip strategy. On those bases I think it's fairer to treat the GK-110 and the cards it powered as being meaningfully different

Yes of course, but you don't need to go back any further than the 500 series cards. It was the move from the 500 series to the 600 series that the name change occurred. The x60ti and x60 were renamed the x80 and x70.

As above, neither the GK 104 nor 110 chips eactly matched their predecessors in size, one was smaller and the other bigger, so it's a little more complicated than saying it was a renaming of the '60 and '70 models. As mentioned Nivida had wanted to create a 'really ****ing huge' chip for the 200 series, but ended up releasing it for the mainstream. Thus in some ways the 200, 400 and 500 series were unusual.

So just do your price analysis between the 560ti/560 and the 1080 and 1070.

The thread title is 'GTX 1070/1080 cost the same as 680/670 (after FX & inflation)'. This was chosen as they were the most recent point, where we had a new architecture + new manufacturing process occurring at the same time. If you'd like to perform another comparison go ahead do it;'d be interesting.

Visual Pun

Maybe 2deer 4U... But not any more dear than the 600 series.

 

[melmac]

Obviously every generation has it's largest chip. But the GK-110 was about 20% larger than even the 500 series chips by surface area, and was (iirc) the largest piece of silicon ever used in a GPU. GK-110 and it's successors also represented a fracturing of the enthusiast market, from what had been a two chip to a three chip strategy. On those bases I think it's fairer to treat the GK-110 and the cards it powered as being meaningfully different


As above, neither the GK 104 nor 110 chips eactly matched their predecessors in size, one was smaller and the other bigger, so it's a little more complicated than saying it was a renaming of the '60 and '70 models. As mentioned Nivida had wanted to create a 'really ****ing huge' chip for the 200 series, but ended up releasing it for the mainstream. Thus in some ways the 200, 400 and 500 series were unusual.


The thread title is 'GTX 1070/1080 cost the same as 680/670 (after FX & inflation)'. This was chosen as they were the most recent point, where we had a new architecture + new manufacturing process occurring at the same time. If you'd like to perform another comparison go ahead do it;'d be interesting.

What's this two chip to three chip strategy? there has always been numerous chips each generation. If it's a strategy, it didn't last long, It was two cards per chip for Maxwell and it's looking the same for Pascal.

And the 200 series, they were talking about the G80 been the biggest baddest chip ever, just like when the GF110 was released they claimed the same thing and again for the GK110, again, the biggest baddest chip ever. They did release a monster chip for the 200 series and in no way was it mainstream, it was very expensive.

There is nothing different or special about the GK110. It's the biggest chip they could make on the technology and process at the time, just like the GF110 was, just like the G80 was.

And no card generation has exactly match their the previous generation in size after a die shrink. You know why? Because there has been a die shrink. And a lot of the time they are not exactly the same size during a generational refresh either.

Look at the 1080 and 1070, they are replacing the 980 and 970. Why? because they are both based off the Gxxx4 chip. See my table in a previous post.

Just like the 560ti and 560(GF114) were replaced by the 680 and 670 (GK104). Not complicated at all, just a name change. It's just marketing, I don't think anybody would have paid $499 for the 680 if it had been called the 660ti? There certainly would have been a huge uproar about it.

I don't need to work anything out, I know the price has increased massively. We are getting charged high end prices for second tier cards. And that all started with the switch from the 500 series to the 600 series. That's why your comparison is flawed. You need to work it out from when the actual big price hike occurred, there is no point in doing it after it occurred as it's too late.

 

[melmac]

I guess we will agree to disagree, You will pick the 680/670 to 1080/1070 price comparison as it suits your argument, to show that there has been no price increase. I will pick the 560ti/560 to either the 680/670 or the 1080/1070 comparison as it suits my argument. Or even where they occur in the Nvidia line up as that suits my argument too.

 

[Orangey]

They structure their lineup based on profit and certain other strategic goals. I'm sure the marketing/sales depts have ideas about how they would like to sell the stuff but it all depends on how the chips fall, to coin a phrase.

 

[philo-sofa]

What's this two chip to three chip strategy? there has always been numerous chips each generation. If it's a strategy, it didn't last long, It was two cards per chip for Maxwell and it's looking the same for Pascal.

This strategy is a well known one. Nvidia previously used a two chip strategy for the enthusiast segment (among other names, 104 and 106) post GK-110 there have been three. Enthusiast Maxwell definitely had three: GM-206, GM-204 and GM-200.

I don't need to work anything out, I know the price has increased massively. We are getting charged high end prices for second tier cards.

Actually you do need to work things out, otherwise all you have is an intuition. I've gone to the trouble to make a comparison to the 600 Series, is it too much to ask that you do the same?

I guess we will agree to disagree, You will pick the 680/670 to 1080/1070 price comparison as it suits your argument, to show that there has been no price increase. I will pick the 560ti/560 to either the 680/670 or the 1080/1070 comparison as it suits my argument.

No I'm not doing that; as I've said a half dozen times now my main point is that there has been no significant price increase since the 600 series and that we need to include inflation and FX in our calculations. I thinkt this is interesting and may inform people's understanding of the value offered by the 10 Series.

You are getting increasingly aggrevated because you wish the analysis to be done using the 500 series; in contrast I accept this would be interesting and complementary to my brief analysis. But again I'd prefer you do this work. You also appear to wish us to accept wholesale your suppositions about there having been a numbering change between the 500 series and 600 series, however the situation appears much more complex than that, for the reasons outlined above.

 

[philo-sofa]

They structure their lineup based on profit and certain other strategic goals. I'm sure the marketing/sales depts have ideas about how they would like to sell the stuff but it all depends on how the chips fall, to coin a phrase.

That's pretty much how it seems to work eh.

 

[JTrickle]

Wow I found my old Leadtek Geforce 5950 Ultra order price £387

You paid £387 for that bit of bread board and plastic? ;p

the pound in Oct 2003 was $1.68, not that much different to current $1.41 rate.

Not that much different? About £60 different! [after VAT change and inflation inc]

 

[Orangey]

I miss the 2:1 days.

 

[tommybhoy]

So to summarise:

(Scottish accent)Twa deer-???

 

[Jamielicious]

I do remember at the time the 670 being criticised for being overpriced and being an impressive and highly overclockable but mid-range card dressed up as high range.

Then the 7870 and 7950 came along and the prices tumbled.

 

[Gregster]

(Scottish accent)Twa deer-???

You not watching the Footy? Ohhh yer lol

 

[David Bisset]

Comparing now to the GK 204 release (GTX 680/670) in May/June 2012:

- VAT is identical at 20%
- The pound is worth 90% of what it was (in US dollars)
- Inflation increased prices by c 4.% (US inflation as otherwise we are double counting via the exchange rate)
- Thus a pound now is roughly 90% * 96% = 86% of what it was in 2016
(EDIT: to be clear this is assuming no one buys FE)
...

quantitatively it matters little but to handle 4% inflation you don't multiply by 0.96, you divide by 1.04, same mistake as with calculating the ex-VAT prices.

 

[philo-sofa]

quantitatively it matters little but to handle 4% inflation you don't multiply by 0.96, you divide by 1.04, same mistake as with calculating the ex-VAT prices.

I was using a deflationary table for the inflation rate and the reciprocal of 1.042 rounds out as 0.96 For GST... I uhh just *cough* got the wrong number for the UK, my bad.

 

[David Bisset]

Fairy snuff