Nvidia could be readying GTX 1080 Ti for CES 2017 launch

By Scorpus ยท 9 replies
Sep 30, 2016
Post New Reply
  1. A report from Chinese site Zol, as spotted by TechPowerUp, suggests that Nvidia could be preparing the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti for launch at the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2017.

    The GTX 1080 Ti would be the second graphics card to use Nvidia's Pascal GP102 silicon, which was first used in the Titan X. This new report suggests that for the GTX 1080 Ti, 26 of 30 SMs will be enabled, leaving the card with 3,328 CUDA cores and 208 TMUs. In contrast, the Titan X has 28 SMs enabled for 3,584 CUDA cores.

    The GPU will reportedly come with a base clock of 1,503 MHz and a boost clock of 1,623 MHz. As for the memory interface, we're expecting to see 384-bit GDDR5X providing 480 GB/s of bandwidth, attached to 12 GB of VRAM.

    With this sort of specification sheet, the GTX 1080 Ti will be an expensive graphics card, especially considering the GTX 1080 already retails for $599. There's no word on exact pricing just yet, but it could end up costing $700-800 in Nvidia's current line-up. The Titan X, which is Nvidia's most powerful graphics card, already retails for a huge $1,199.

    Between now and CES 2017, Nvidia is expected to launch the GTX 1050 and, if a new report is correct, the GTX 1050 Ti. Both cards will slot beneath the $250 GTX 1060 in Nvidia's mid-range and entry-level line-up. The GTX 1050 Ti will reportedly pack 768 CUDA cores, while the GTX 1050 will use 640, down from 1280 cores in the GTX 1060.

    Permalink to story.

  2. Theinsanegamer

    Theinsanegamer TS Evangelist Posts: 859   +874

    So $900 for the ones you can actually buy.

    Remember when $650 was a lot for a x80ti?
    Teko03, ForgottenLegion and Reehahs like this.
  3. Blakey

    Blakey TS Booster Posts: 33   +53

    Normally the x80 and below shift down in price when the x80ti takes the x80 price spot I thought. and the titan always stays where it is of course.
    mbrowne5061, Reehahs and EEatGDL like this.
  4. EEatGDL

    EEatGDL TS Evangelist Posts: 568   +241

    That is a trend that began with the 780 Ti. It was released a little above 780's initial price if I remember correctly, the 780 dropped its price, and the Titan stayed there.
  5. robb213

    robb213 TS Maniac Posts: 330   +100

    It would also help if AMD had their high-end tier cards out too. Lack of competition in this segment just gives either side (in this case Nvidia) free reign when it comes to price gouging.
    Reehahs likes this.
  6. EEatGDL

    EEatGDL TS Evangelist Posts: 568   +241

    AMD better be better overall without doubt, else there is no point in taking that long to respond to NVIDIA. Fury cards weren't that appealing, except for the Nano. We now forget that the x80 was AMD's top tier, now it is mid range and they have to come with what would be called an "extreme" line of products (Fury) and even then they have a hard time with NVIDIA's high end.

    I'm guessing AMD will have a better chance in CPUs due to the lack of improvement from Intel in the last generations; whereas NVIDIA hasn't rest on its laurels and is very aggressive on all fronts. It would be a shame to see AMD finally releasing an answer to Pascal just to have Volta a few months later obliterating it.
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2016
    Reehahs likes this.
  7. Reehahs

    Reehahs TS Guru Posts: 574   +316

    AMD could have done better with pricing the 4xx series to make 1060 look bad. They could also release the Fury cards on new process and competitive pricing against 1070.
  8. EEatGDL

    EEatGDL TS Evangelist Posts: 568   +241

    The problem is that NVIDIA came after AMD and AMD didn't adjust accordingly. NVIDIA tested the waters, saw where to position the 1060 and set the price. Even if AMD did an initial offer of $30 USD less in initial price for the RX 480, NVIDIA coming next would set another price (lower than the current) accordingly; even if they come even. Leading companies want to protect the market share at any cost, revenue comes later.

    AMD has been clearly against the ropes since Maxwell, there was hope when Kepler -and the last iteration (700 series) was not bad. That's why AMD would be much more welcome in the CPU side if it delivers; Intel seems to be sleeping rabbit expecting the turtle to not beat it in the finish line, no matter what. I'm not saying that AMD should quit in graphics like it did against Intel with the Bulldozer; I'm saying it's way too hard with diminishing returns.

    I'm waiting to buy a GTX 1080 Ti after it comes wide available and with a stabilized price, and I don't expect to see the same from AMD's Vega by that time. I waited for Zen, but a time-window opportunity was closing with Intel (I have my reasons), so I went for Haswell-E seeing that Broadwell-E was the same and more expensive. Time to market is something very important, prime examples of big companies failing for taking too long: Intel and MS in smartphones, separately.
    Reehahs likes this.
  9. trajan2050

    trajan2050 TS Rookie Posts: 19   +7

    Plus new full and fat Titan X with higher clocks and 38++ Cuda cores
  10. mbrowne5061

    mbrowne5061 TS Evangelist Posts: 747   +357

    AMD has been wrapping up some fat IP licensing contractors to some server OEMs - they're doing better than most realize. But those licensing agreements will give them the revenue stream to invest in their products again. My money is on CPUs first. They are probably aiming for a new class of processor meant for the new convertible/tablet laptops that are becoming so common - light, low-TDP, but good performance for web browsing and basic productivity. If they can achieve parity with Intel there, and undercut their prices, they'll start to claw back market share in a growing form factor.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...