If that's accurate I'm totally out unless I can afford 2 and hope sli works well with witcher 3 and other current demanding games.
-
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.
GTX 1070 - any takers?
- Thread starter skywalker909
- Start date
If that's accurate I'm totally out unless I can afford 2 and hope sli works well with witcher 3 and other current demanding games.
Why would you get two instead of just a single 1080?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 3,034
The 970 was slighty faster than a gtx 780 which was released at £550. No different.
But it isn't the 980ti replacement. It's the replacement for the 970 and possibly 980.
I think it is a little overpriced for what it is personally and it's a bit worrying that nvidia consider the 1070 and 1080 pricing to be acceptable, especially the European pricing.
I'd guess because a single 1080 wont give him the fps he is after
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,042
It doesn't matter what it's a replacement for, it's supposed to be as fast as a 980 Ti for maybe £200 less, that's what's important to the forum member. Not only that but it'll give them 980 Ti performance with some cool new features and of course the new 16nm...for less money.
There's nothing wrong with the pricing. Regarding the 1080 it's clear initial stock are low for whatever reason (GDDRX?) and demand is high. Given that people seem to expect daft money for second hand 1 year old last gen top end cards (which also seem to sell) it's further evidence people are prepared to pay up for graphic cards. if AMD can't rise fully to the challenge then again, further evidence Nvidia's producing fantastic products that people are prepared to pay for.
1080 is I believe faster than a TX for £300 less....again it doesnt matter what it's a replacement for as at the moment no other faster cards exist in the range.
I do believe new prices will come down a bit though - maybe £540 for a reference 1080 especially when new products come out and supply iissues are resolved.
Consumers will likely disagree but if you were in a business with the edge Nvidia has you'd charge for your products/services what you can get away with too.
In London it can cost £1500+ a month to rent a small 1 bed flat for example and often that doesn't include parking. People pay it....you have to. That's kinda buying a service than a product but supply/demand and charging what they can get away with.....
Last edited:
So by that logic, a ps4 should have cost around £800-1000 at launch because it's spec'd exponentially higher than the ps3 and the ps3 launch price was £450. In reality things don't usually work that way fortunately and nor should they.
Of course you will start to see cheaper deals come about over the next few months, to an extent it has already happened and nobody in their right mind would pay £620 for a Founders 1080 by August/September. It's nvidia's rrp and what that represents that counts though.
We're now at a stage where nvidia are pretty much flying solo and competing with no one and surely that can't be a good thing for consumers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,042
No because market research would have probably revealed they wouldn't sell many PS4 at £800-1000. Also,consoles are always relatively cheap (IMO) and profiits can be made from the games too.Wasn't there also direct competition too?Nvidia doesn't have that right now.Did PS4 have supply issues too? If you can only for example supply 1000 cards but you know there'll be demand for 2000 in a month, what do you do? You have to optimise profits from the 1000 you can deliver. Companies owe it to their employees and investors to make the highest profit they can from what they can sell. THis is why I think the price will come down too
(supply will increase, new cards will come tomarket)Also, depending on how you look at it, my logic could mean consoles get cheaper (first card of new range will be cheaper than top of previous range for more performance),if they were able to produce different models in a range but they don't, one console lasts 5 years or so ...
Your final statement is totally correct, but that's not the fault of nvidia so their pricing is not wrong, it's business.
Last edited:
And that's the only reason?
Surely implementation of generational price hikes benefits nobody but the manufacturer.
It's bizarre because in all other areas of tech prices are coming down. GPUs are the only exception to that rule that I can think of and it is because one manufacturer pretty much has an unhindered monopoly on the market.
THis is why I think the price will come down too
It was confirmed a while ago that the FE RRP will remain the same indefinitely, at least in the US anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,042
And that's the only reason?
Surely implementation of generational price hikes benefits nobody but the manufacturer.
It's bizarre because in all other areas of tech prices are coming down. GPUs are the only exception to that rule that I can think of and it is because one manufacturer pretty much has an unhindered monopoly on the market.
No, I gave other reasons too - please don't pick up on one part of a message to suit your own thoughts. I hinted at PS4 having competition, raised the question of whether PS4 had supply issues....... **EDIT** poster didnt necessarily see my other points as I edited a few times, sorry**
But Nvidia's place in the market is not their fault is it? You would do the same, would you sell your products cheaper out of generousity knowing you coould charge a lot more especially if you had investors investing in you who expect you to make the most profit you can? No
But anyway,the point I was making is 1070 vs 980 Ti in reponse to someone saying trying to put someone off of the 1070 because it was not a direct replacement....it's not, and it doesn't matter, but it's probably faster and cheaper with new tech.
What was said about the PS4 being 800-£1000 was rubbish as it was not a comparable scenario.
If people aren't happy with the pricing then dont buy. If people want compeition then go out and buy an AMD product right now
...and I think people should as I want to see more competition too and agree lack of it at the moment is not healthy but it's nobody's fault, nobody is being ripped off, nobody is over charging....the market is what is is and Nvidia are seemingly doing very well and the products are selling very well.
Last edited:
You edited and posted your argument in several stages so I think my response was fair.
And to say that Nvidia aren't to blame 'because .....capitalism' seems a bit off to me.
As long as they realise what they are doing is damaging on the whole. The main argument against the merits of PC gaming for years has been that the components have a short life span and are overpriced and the pricing of these cards play right into that argument.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,042
Oh, I apologise re:Editing, yes, I am doing multiple things at once so did edit and repost a few times - when I posted my reply I did wonder if that was the reason you didnt see other points, sorry
.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,042
However, don't components last a lot longer these days? No need to upgrade CPU's as you had to in the past which improved gaming. A lot of the old gen cards for the majority of 1080p gamers are still pretty good for a while yet. I remember the days when new games became unpayable quickly and new cards had to be bought. Look at the original STALKER release for example - that brought everything at the time to a slow crawl.
I'm not sure, but I think graphic cards have a longer lifespan of usefullness these days but people upgrade because they want to. We have higher resolutions of course so at the top end of those (4K) the story is probably the same as always (have to upgrade) but for lower resolutions a top end card is probably good for a few years now.
Last edited:
I don't know that's necessarily true. You can keep the same GPU for 5 years if you want to but you would be seeing diminished returns on it in terms of performance throughout those 5 years.
E.g. you may have been able to play bf4 on a 970 at 2k wth the settings cranked up but don't hold out any hope of getting the same from bf1.
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2015
- Posts
- 224
Lets be clear pricing of 1070 and 1080 is a joke. Whoever thinks it is not is either new to the graphics card game, isn't familiar with "monopoly" term or have not analysed previous releases and where they stand in the product portfolio.
There is another thread that I stareted that is discussing pricing of 1080/1070 "£700 for gtx 1080 (aka new 980) - ehmmm..no thank you!"
Basically nvidia released mid tier 1080 and priced it higher than the high end card just because they can. And yes of course its (marginaly) faster than anything else, what did you expect? slower? that's the way it is with the technology these days.
Personally, I will be happy with MSI/Asus anything below £400 not because I think it a fair price but because I come into terms with Nvidia's monopoly and arising from this rip off and disrespectfull practises. If there was a serious competition I would ditch nvidia in the blink of an eye.
There is another thread that I stareted that is discussing pricing of 1080/1070 "£700 for gtx 1080 (aka new 980) - ehmmm..no thank you!"
Basically nvidia released mid tier 1080 and priced it higher than the high end card just because they can. And yes of course its (marginaly) faster than anything else, what did you expect? slower? that's the way it is with the technology these days.
Personally, I will be happy with MSI/Asus anything below £400 not because I think it a fair price but because I come into terms with Nvidia's monopoly and arising from this rip off and disrespectfull practises. If there was a serious competition I would ditch nvidia in the blink of an eye.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2015
- Posts
- 224
Not really, graphics cards don't have longer lifespan these days. It's just marketing blurb working on you. My "military grade componenets" MSI 970 died after 1.5 years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,042
No, I mean performance wise, not quality
. I didn't make that clear enough for those skimming. In the "old days" I seem to remember having to upgrade a GPU because new games just became unplayable even in short space of time. These days that's not such an issue. The STALKER example is an example from fairly recent memory. I had a good card at the time but STALKER was just a slow jerky mess even with the settings lowered a lot and that was playing at something like 1280*960.