Rockstarrrr
Posts: 97 +72
Both video cards and smartphones are way overpriced. Glad that modern video games are garbage, couldn`t care less about hi-end video cards for gaming purposes.
GeForce GTX 1080 Ti arrives this week, let's unbox it ahead of the actual review
- Thread starter Julio Franco
- Start date
Both video cards and smartphones are way overpriced. Glad that modern video games are garbage, couldn`t care less about hi-end video cards for gaming purposes.
let's not get ahead of ourselves. there are plenty of great modern games that can use high end PCs. it all depends on whether you are willing to compromise visual quality (lower video settings) or not. (and if you care about money or not)
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
My point was that neither of the 2 vendors fully support Direct X 12. The person I responded to chose 1 feature they believe to be the most important (full Tier 3 resource binding and asynchronous shaders for simultaneous graphics and compute) making that "a fully capable DX12" card when there's other features not present in AMD cards.
can't to see how it'll run Minecraft
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,218 +3,072
*Looks around for the hidden camera*
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,218 +3,072
$700 is more than a fair price. Period.
Reading the comments here makes me imagine they are coming from a lot of people sitting in rocking chairs starting every story with "back in my day."
Thankfully we are no longer living in that time period. Life is good and the sun is shining. I suggest you buy some sunscreen.
Reading the comments here makes me imagine they are coming from a lot of people sitting in rocking chairs starting every story with "back in my day."
Thankfully we are no longer living in that time period. Life is good and the sun is shining. I suggest you buy some sunscreen.
amstech
Posts: 2,661 +1,824
Agreed. So much b!tching and complaining over amazing technology.
"The Price is too high", or "AMD will be better" or "its just a remake of their last architecture" (yeah cause every GPU release is ALL NEW architecture) :rolleyes.
Kids these days are so spoiled and unappreciative.
Shut your god damn mouths (sorry I should tone this comment down, feel free to remove or edit this but I am leaving it up, all the complaining grinds my gears) or fill them with Ice Cream to cool down you brain.
Last edited:
well, you are not wrong, but AMD ticks some of the more important checkboxes. too bad none of them support shader model 6.0. we don't know yet if it will need just 12.0+ level support and a driver update or new hardware (if we are lucky all GCN 2/3/4 cards will get support for it).
for 12_1 AMD (GCN3/4) needs Rasterizer Ordered Views (which helps with rendering when there are multiple transparent objects in a row) and Conservative Rasterization (which helps with collision detection algorithms - Pascal has limited Tier 2 support). Both of these are not going to bring any major benefit, at least not as big as what 12_0 has.
just as a quick trivia: AMD GCN 1.0 just needs Tiled Resource Tier 2 for 12_0 (close but no cigar)
imronburgundy
Posts: 28 +25
Pretty much anywhere on Earth 
it's indeed a lot of money for a video card, very few can afford it.[/QUOTE]
it's indeed a lot of money for a video card, very few can afford it.[/QUOTE]Why are you even here? Please go back to playing games on your Abacus.
Darth Shiv
Posts: 2,371 +886
Not everyone *needs* the fastest consumer single GPU card ever. Tad entitled to think it's going to drop for pocket change now isn't it?they are just waiting for Vega to come out before they cut the price.
pretty much anywhere on Earth
That processing power will be mainstream eventually. The fact is it takes time to improve things. That such a card even exists has me drooling.
Errr ... wut? Guessing you don't do high end gaming... I'd say high spec monitors and high end cards and a few of the top end titles look pretty damn amazing.
An interesting factoid about the Pascal line: the GP102 has not, to date, been released to aftermarket GPU makers. There are no aftermarket versions of the Titan XP - which is a change from the original Titan X, which did have aftermarket versions. So the cooling and clocking solutions for the GP-102 are stock nVidia, thus far.
Another interesting factoid: nVidia hasn't been able to meet demand for Titan XP, even given its ridiculous price. They can't make GP-102 cards fast enough.
Will either of those factoids change with the arrival of the GTX-1080 Ti? Maybe. But at this moment in time, it's fair to say that there are still unanswered questions about how nVidia will market the GTX-1080 Ti . Don't assume that MSI or ASUS or the other aftermarket guys will have tweaked GTX-1080 Ti GPUs for sale. We don't know that.
Meantime: even the Titan XP isn't adequate to get us to 60 FPS at ultra graphical settings for 4K monitors. The 1080 Ti isn't going to do that for us, either, and I seriously doubt that AMD's Vega is going to change that equation. The sweet spot for high-end gaming remains at 1440p with this generation of GPUs.
People with 1440p G-sync monitors and a GTX-1080 or even a GTX-1070 are sitting pretty; they'll get killer frame rates at ultra graphical settings. And that leads me to pose a question: who needs a 1080 Ti, exactly? Cheaper GPUs are plenty good enough for 1440p gaming, and people trying to move to 4K gaming aren't going to be any happier with the 1080 Ti than they are with a Titan XP, performance-wise. It can't do that job, unless you downgrade the graphics settings on your games or are happy with max mid-50's frame rates.
Therefore: the only item of interest in this article for gamers is the price reduction on the GTX-1080. That is a really nice development. WIth that card and a 1440p monitor, you'll get insane FPS at ultra graphical settings for just about any mass-market game out there, and the GTX-1080 is suddenly a lot more affordable. Excellent.
Now there might be demand for the 1080 Ti for other uses. The price point is much more attractive than is the case with the Titan XP, while the processing horsepower isn't much diminished. People using GPUs for artificial intelligence development might perk their ears at this announcement; same with people working on self-driving cars or setting up supercomputer clusters based on nVidia's GPU architecture. Those people might find the 1080 Ti very appealing for their various purposes.
Gamers, not so much. We don't need the GTX-1080 Ti for 1440p, and it isn't going to solve 4K gaming. For 4K, we'll have to wait for next-gen GPUs. (And larger monitors, too. 27" 4K monitors are way too hard to read.)
Brek01
Posts: 11 +2
Thats nvidias maths for you, remember the 980? 3.5gb ram? Joking aside, for the money I would consider it as I do a lot of work in maya, nuke, aftereffects and premier so can use cuda and open gl to render high quality real time previews whilst working, which will be way more affordable than Nvidias workstation cards.
Can`t wait for some gaming benchmarks. I think if it hits 40-50 FPS 4k in most demanding games, it`s very much a playable performance and a phenomenal feat for 1080ti at this price. Sure, let`s hope AMD can bring some challenge and make prices drop even lower, though I seriously doubt Vega can deliver.
theBest11778
Posts: 298 +127
While I'm on the fence about the 1080Ti in general (think Nvidia knows more about Vega than we do,) up until now the TITAN XP was the ONLY GPU capable of proper 4K gaming. Most titles can run maxed out 4K well over 60FPS on a TITAN XP. The 1080Ti will deliver the same level of performances for almost 1/2 the price. Considering 1440P is a stop gap resolution (Much like 720P,) it will be forgotten in time unlike 2160P. So investing in a 4K display is overall more cost effective as you won't need to upgrade... possibly ever again. Personally I feel 4K will be the highest resolution I'll need for a desktop monitor or television. 1080P works fine, but isn't 100% there. 1440P isn't enough of an improvement to warrant investing in to it. 2160P will be around for a very long time and worth a sizable investment.
The 1080Ti significantly brings down the initial investment to those making the move now. I'll be waiting for 4K/144hz HDR displays to hit the $399 price point before it's worth it to me, and yes there will be mid tier GPUs 1360/1370 or RX 680/690 GPUs for only $200-$300 that will provide greater than, or equal to the 1080Ti performance, but for those that want it now can pay a premium and still get that performance at a reasonable price.
On a final note the fact that there's no Founder's Edition price gauging nonsense tells me Vega will be very competitive, so if $699 is a bit steep for you, just wait a few more months and let AMD and Nvidia beat down prices to a more reasonable level.
OcelotRex
Posts: 558 +302
Important is subjective. Objectively Nvidia leads on performance. AMD leads in value. Neither has a "full DX12" card.
Someone8MyPosts
Posts: 464 +146
"As part of the announcement, the standard GeForce GTX 1080 is getting a price cut down to $499."
Ooh aah...still not buying one.
Ooh aah...still not buying one.
Umm, a lot of Titan cards never see a game... they're bought by individual pros and companies that need the computing power for other applications. And the extra money means nothing to them.
The 1080 already hit those numbers for the most part, so this card should deliver 60 fps+ in almost every title. Time will tell.
I'm confused as to why some people think this card is overpriced. Compared to what? It's $50 more than the GTX 980 Ti was at release. Do they really think it's too expensive, or truthfully is it just too expensive for their own budget?
I looked at Tom's HW review of the Pascal Titan X (which this card will match or exceed) and the Titan very consistently offered between 40-45% better performance than the 980 Ti. When was the last time a card was released that beat its immediate predecessor by 45%- at a lower TDP to boot? With nearly double the vram? How many 980 Ti owners would admit they'd have eagerly paid another $50 for this performance had it been an option?
Only in this field do people somehow expect things to get better and faster, yet cheaper. Go into a Porsche dealer and tell them you want this year's souped-up model for less than last year's, and hear them laugh so loudly while ushering you out the door that your ears bleed.
The 1080 Ti is priced lower than the total cost of my two Gigabyte 670 Windforce OC cards from 2012 that overall gave me great performance, comparable to the mighty 690 of the day but with the usual SLI drawbacks (which were few and far between for me). Today, the 690 is resting in the third tier of Tom's hierarchy chart along with the regular 980. To say this will be an upgrade is the understatement of the year. And I don't even need to upgrade my PSU! In fact, this card will use quite a bit less juice than the 670's.
I'm thrilled that the 1080 Ti is even more powerful than the rumors. I'm ecstatic that it's "only" $699. I don't care if anyone who bought a 1080/Titan somehow missed the Ti's eventual release- which has been happening for how many years now? And as soon as the Vega test results are in- giving time for 1080 Ti AIB models to surface- I'm movin' on up.
I looked at Tom's HW review of the Pascal Titan X (which this card will match or exceed) and the Titan very consistently offered between 40-45% better performance than the 980 Ti. When was the last time a card was released that beat its immediate predecessor by 45%- at a lower TDP to boot? With nearly double the vram? How many 980 Ti owners would admit they'd have eagerly paid another $50 for this performance had it been an option?
Only in this field do people somehow expect things to get better and faster, yet cheaper. Go into a Porsche dealer and tell them you want this year's souped-up model for less than last year's, and hear them laugh so loudly while ushering you out the door that your ears bleed.
The 1080 Ti is priced lower than the total cost of my two Gigabyte 670 Windforce OC cards from 2012 that overall gave me great performance, comparable to the mighty 690 of the day but with the usual SLI drawbacks (which were few and far between for me). Today, the 690 is resting in the third tier of Tom's hierarchy chart along with the regular 980. To say this will be an upgrade is the understatement of the year. And I don't even need to upgrade my PSU! In fact, this card will use quite a bit less juice than the 670's.
I'm thrilled that the 1080 Ti is even more powerful than the rumors. I'm ecstatic that it's "only" $699. I don't care if anyone who bought a 1080/Titan somehow missed the Ti's eventual release- which has been happening for how many years now? And as soon as the Vega test results are in- giving time for 1080 Ti AIB models to surface- I'm movin' on up.
Wow- first it's "Just wait until Vega gets here", and now it's "Watch out for Volta next year". Haven't you heard that AMD has a history of over-hyping their cards? And why are AMD fans always talking about what's coming up, as opposed to Nvidia fans who can talk about what's here right now?
No, playing the waiting game is like chasing a carrot, and I won't base my GPU purchases on the handful of titles currently using DX12. Besides, do you think the 1080 Ti is going to somehow struggle in those games?? Will I have to "settle" for 80 fps in a few titles while AMD can do 100? What about the other 90% of title where the 1080 Ti will likely be faster, and in some cases ridiculously faster?
I don't think we're talking about subjectivity here. it's pretty much common knowledge at the moment that AMD's implementation of DX12 is better. 2nd gen Maxwell and Pascal get close, but it's not enough (especially without proper async shader support). If you are on the 1st gen Maxwell then tough luck.
Please don't talk as if you already know performance numbers for future products. Nobody will take you seriously when you'll just throw made up percentages left and right.
Every single single new API version had a hard time gaining traction, but eventually they became the standard. At the moment DX12/Vulkan support is progressing at the expected pace. Unless you plan to upgrade your PC every 1 or 2 years (which very few do) then planning for the future is not a bad idea.
"AMD's implementation of DX12 is better"
Big deal. That gives AMD an advantage in about .01% of the total games released to date. This updated review by Hardware Canucks of the RX 480 vs 1060 shows a 5-10 fps lead by AMD in some- but not all- DX12 titles. I wouldn't hang my hat on these stats, and it certainly wouldn't affect my buying decision. The Nvidia products still delivery perfectly acceptable frame rates in these games and DX12 is being completely overhyped.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Review: Quiet Release, Dodgy Name- captaincranky replied
-
All Cybertrucks recalled because acceleration pedals can become stuck- Squid Surprise replied
-
Astronomers gather additional evidence suggesting Planet Nine is real- Lew Zealand replied
-
These credit cards feature OLEDs that light up upon payment- Uncle Al replied
