980/970 6/8gb edition and 980ti?

[hunkeelin]

http://www.kdramastars.com/articles/65114/20141231/gtx-980-and-970-8gb-release-date.htm

How much of a performance increase 980 4gb vs 980 8gb? in 2560 x 1440 for example?

And is the release date state in the article accurate? 980ti will be 2016? .....

 

[Techhog]

For 970, you mean 7GB+1GB.

 

[.vodka]

For 970, you mean 7GB+1GB.

In which case the 970's problem disappears into thin air since nobody will be able to fill 7GB of vram for the foreseeable future.

 

[Techhog]

In which case the 970's problem disappears into thin air since nobody will be able to fill 7GB of vram for the foreseeable future.

Doesn't solve the false advertising problem though. Not to mention the fact that you're likely talking about a $50+ premium.

 

[.vodka]

Exactly. It's fix for those who are blindly loyal to the lying green team.

 

[hunkeelin]

Anyone. Can anyone answer my question?

 

[ChuckFx]

Its only rumors, no one will confirm you this at the moment...

 

[Techhog]

Its only rumors, no one will confirm you this at the moment...

This. Nobody knows except Nvidia.

 

[alcoholbob]

http://www.kdramastars.com/articles/65114/20141231/gtx-980-and-970-8gb-release-date.htm

How much of a performance increase 980 4gb vs 980 8gb? in 2560 x 1440 for example?

And is the release date state in the article accurate? 980ti will be 2016? .....

Considering engineering samples have been out for a while, what purpose would there be for Nvidia delaying this product until 2016?

 

[Pneumothorax]

Considering engineering samples have been out for a while, what purpose would there be for Nvidia delaying this product until 2016?
...[/img]

Milking the enthusiasts with the Kepler plan of course....Why sell this now when they're able to charge $550+ for a 980 all day long?

Enthusiast buying pattern:
2015-
980 for $550
2016
sells 980 for $350 and then spends $750 on 1080ti

or
2015
1080ti for $750

Which one makes more money for Nvidia and their AIB's?

 

[boozzer]

Milking the enthusiasts with the Kepler plan of course....Why sell this now when they're able to charge $550+ for a 980 all day long?

Enthusiast buying pattern:
2015-
980 for $550
2016
sells 980 for $350 and then spends $750 on 1080ti

or
2015
1080ti for $750

Which one makes more money for Nvidia and their AIB's?

damn, that is pretty sinister. I guess it only works because of the sizable I want the best of the best no matter what crowd?

 

[hunkeelin]

i guess we need amd r390 to give some pressure if not it does seems 2016 it is.

 

[hunkeelin]

But so far the x80 and the x80ti is 6 month in between, we are already close to that.

 

[3DVagabond]

But so far the x80 and the x80ti is 6 month in between, we are already close to that.

We need the 980 to morph into the 1070 first (like gk104) if you follow that plan.

 

[ocre]

Milking the enthusiasts with the Kepler plan of course....Why sell this now when they're able to charge $550+ for a 980 all day long?

Enthusiast buying pattern:
2015-
980 for $550
2016
sells 980 for $350 and then spends $750 on 1080ti

or
2015
1080ti for $750

Which one makes more money for Nvidia and their AIB's?

You must mean the AMD GCN plan. Release the mid grade HD 7970, charge all their die hard fans $550 as long as they can. Then overclock their mid size Tahiti chips and keep getting as close to 500$ as possible. you know, milk their customers as long as they possibly can before they finally release their true big die GCN Hawaii.

See how that works. Lets just throw mud all over nvidia when the same can be said for AMD.

Fun fact, the gm204 is actually larger than Tahiti. It's a bigger die.

Fun fact number 2, the gm200 wasn't ready when the gm204 was. Just like Hawaii wasn't ready when Tahiti was. If nvidia started naming their internal GPU codes as islands instead of numbers, would you still be so harsh on them and completely be cool with AMD releasing a smaller die than the gm204 and pricing it at 550?

Double standard?

Oh, but that is way different... Cause its AMD???

The gm204 launched in October because it was ready. The gm200 is a massive die size. Large chips like that aren't easy to make, that is why the Hawaii came later than Tahiti. You also seem to forget when AMD went from 5870 flagship to 6870 mid ranged. At this time I think AMD learned a lesion.......

it seems people will get bent out of shape if you use a comparable numbering scheme sometimes. It really, this day and age things are a little different. The gm204 isn't such a small die and it was priced to sell in the time frame in exist in. It's not at all a small dies when you compare it to Tahiti

Tahiti wasn't the large, big die GCN card. There is a lot more to it than what your making it. The Kepler plan? I think you should really look how all this played out, it was the mid size Tahiti that set the stage and every since then we can see how it all played out.

I say these things not in criticism of AMDs pricing and tactics. But I just want to see people being real about stuff. AMD launched their not so big Tahiti and priced it like the 580 which it was only 20-25% faster in. Fast forward with the gm204, it is the exact same tactic. Nvidia launched the gtx980 and priced it right in line with the 290x which it was only 20-25% faster than. Now think a out it for a minute before everyone immediately tries to refuse this or muddy it up.

There are many ways to choose to look at things. If your all about one sided viewing angles, then I guess that is all you will see. Or take the time to thoroughly see how things play out. It's way more fascinating....

 

[flexy]

I am obviously LESS than thrilled about anything Nvidia at the moment but a 970 w/ 8GB ram would be good.

Even if it would only turn out a "7GB+1GB" it would solve all the current problems with memory access in certain situations. It would also be the most economical and viable solution for NV without having to admit anything is wrong with the architecture of the 970s (which they will never do) or having to redesign their architecture. I therefore think that 8GB cards are likely to come VERY SOON.

 

[RussianSensation]

I don't believe much in that article. It's dated 2014 and it uses WCCFTECH as support for info. This is also the first time I've heard of this site. It doesn't seem like a credible source. NV delaying GM200 to 2016 makes no sense when Pascal is slated for 2016/early 2017. NV is supposed to combat 380X for 6+ months with a 980? Unlikely. While plans for 8GB cards seem reasonable for 2015, along with price drops on the 980, I don't see many logical reasons for NV to delay the launch GM200 by 1 year, when they could launch it in 2015 at $799, and its loyal customer base would eat it up like hot cakes!

 

[garagisti]

damn, that is pretty sinister. I guess it only works because of the sizable I want the best of the best no matter what crowd?

There were clearly times that amd had jen hsun looking like a muppet(not that holding card with wooden screws helped, or other such), but Nvidia has done well regardless no matter controversies. I mean you have to be rather thick to not save close to $100 while getting similar performance, never mind that 970 will most likely suffer as cards from 7th series and worse. Yet you will see people buying it, despite the false advertisements and what not.

I think next year (second half?) Nvidia is coming up with pascal, so it's just daft if they're sitting on their hands. Given the loyalty of their buyers, if I was at Nvidia, i'd price gaming version of gm200 somewhere around 750-800 for cut version and 900 odd for full chip. Titan 2 is to come at 1300 or so I think, so i don't think that their sales will suffer much, if any. Heck, people were recommending titanz when 295x2 was half the price. No, I'm not speaking of those who used it for cuda.

 

[dangerman1337]

I don't believe much in that article. It's dated 2014 and it uses WCCFTECH as support for info. This is also the first time I've heard of this site. It doesn't seem like a credible source. NV delaying GM200 to 2016 makes no sense when Pascal is slated for 2016/early 2017. NV is supposed to combat 380X for 6+ months with a 980? Unlikely. While plans for 8GB cards seem reasonable for 2015, along with price drops on the 980, I don't see many logical reasons for NV to delay the launch GM200 by 1 year, when they could launch it in 2015 at $799, and its loyal customer base would eat it up like hot cakes!

I think Nvidia will release a GM200 Titan (though If they release a non-professional 1000+ USD 28nm cut down chip and market as gaming card again that'd be pathetic) first and milk it for a few months and then release a 990/990ti in the summer competing against top-end R300.

 

[garagisti]

You must mean the AMD GCN plan. Release the mid grade HD 7970, charge all their die hard fans $550 as long as they can. Then overclock their mid size Tahiti chips and keep getting as close to 500$ as possible. you know, milk their customers as long as they possibly can before they finally release their true big die GCN Hawaii.

See how that works. Lets just throw mud all over nvidia when the same can be said for AMD.

Fun fact, the gm204 is actually larger than Tahiti. It's a bigger die.

Fun fact number 2, the gm200 wasn't ready when the gm204 was. Just like Hawaii wasn't ready when Tahiti was. If nvidia started naming their internal GPU codes as islands instead of numbers, would you still be so harsh on them and completely be cool with AMD releasing a smaller die than the gm204 and pricing it at 550?

Double standard?

Oh, but that is way different... Cause its AMD???

The gm204 launched in October because it was ready. The gm200 is a massive die size. Large chips like that aren't easy to make, that is why the Hawaii came later than Tahiti. You also seem to forget when AMD went from 5870 flagship to 6870 mid ranged. At this time I think AMD learned a lesion.......

it seems people will get bent out of shape if you use a comparable numbering scheme sometimes. It really, this day and age things are a little different. The gm204 isn't such a small die and it was priced to sell in the time frame in exist in. It's not at all a small dies when you compare it to Tahiti

Tahiti wasn't the large, big die GCN card. There is a lot more to it than what your making it. The Kepler plan? I think you should really look how all this played out, it was the mid size Tahiti that set the stage and every since then we can see how it all played out.

I say these things not in criticism of AMDs pricing and tactics. But I just want to see people being real about stuff. AMD launched their not so big Tahiti and priced it like the 580 which it was only 20-25% faster in. Fast forward with the gm204, it is the exact same tactic. Nvidia launched the gtx980 and priced it right in line with the 290x which it was only 20-25% faster than. Now think a out it for a minute before everyone immediately tries to refuse this or muddy it up.

There are many ways to choose to look at things. If your all about one sided viewing angles, then I guess that is all you will see. Or take the time to thoroughly see how things play out. It's way more fascinating....

All this while you forget that Hawaii wasn't just a bigger chip, but there were changes made to gcn itself. True audio has dedicated hardware on die, which Tahiti doesn't and there are more smaller changes. On the other hand, gm204 is merely shrunken maxwell, minus some compute. So while on the surface it may seem similar, the difference is indeed there. It was a good attempt but you must try harder.

 

[wand3r3r]

All this while you forget that Hawaii wasn't just a bigger chip, but there were changes made to gcn itself. True audio has dedicated hardware on die, which Tahiti doesn't and there are more smaller changes. On the other hand, gm204 is merely shrunken maxwell, minus some compute. So while on the surface it may seem similar, the difference is indeed there. It was a good attempt but you must try harder.

There were some fundamental differences intentionally ignored with his strawman.

Titan was released then 780, then 780 ti, which they withheld as long as possible to milk the market, that cannot be denied. These are the same GPUs which had been available for a long time as they ran the oak ridge supercomputer. They did sell the 680 for a long time while they had the real high end selling in the under another line, quite obviously as mentioned.

The 290x was gcn 1.1, a new iteration of the 7970. The big kepler was around for a long time while they milked the market before they finally released the 780 ti. Big difference.

Not that I like the $550 7970, NV's pricing since has made it look a lot better ($1k titan, $3k titan z).

 

[RussianSensation]

I think Nvidia will release a GM200 Titan (though If they release a non-professional 1000+ USD 28nm cut down chip and market as gaming card again that'd be pathetic) first and milk it for a few months and then release a 990/990ti in the summer competing against top-end R300.

That sounds a lot more reasonable than a delay to 2016 and using 980 to compete with a 380X for 6+ months. Also, that article talks about 16nm for Q4 2015. :sneaky: Why would NV even need 16nm in 2015? They could repeat Kepler strategy and launch GM200 variants at $550-800 and move the 980 down to $399-429.

For example:
R9 370X @ $349
980 4GB @ $349
980 8GB @ $399-429
R9 380 @ $499
GM200 780 successor @ $549
R9 380X @ $599-649
GM200 780TI successor @ $699-799

AMD launched their not so big Tahiti and priced it like the 580 which it was only 20-25% faster in. Fast forward with the gm204, it is the exact same tactic. Nvidia launched the gtx980 and priced it right in line with the 290x which it was only 20-25% faster than. Now think a out it for a minute before everyone immediately tries to refuse this or muddy it up...

In 1 post you managed to downplay 7970's advantages, and exaggerate 980's to make your comparison. You also didn't talk about how 99% of 7970's could overclock to 7970Ghz on stock voltage and a lot of them hit 1.15-1.2Ghz overclocks, which means that against an overclocked 580 the performance grew to 40-80%. Astonishing.

In 2011 there were a lot of 'cakewalk in the park' style games that didn't allow 7970 to show its true potential. For example, as soon as you tested it at 2560x1600, it was 33% faster than a 580.
http://www.computerbase.de/2011-12/test-amd-radeon-hd-7970/10/

Come on now, you know for a fact that a 7970's true potential for enthusiasts was well beyond 20-25% you quoted once taking into account demanding titles and overclocking.

7970Ghz 41% faster than a 580 by June 2012.

Context: 5 months from launch, how does the situation look for a 980 vs. a 290X?

22% faster when comparing a reference 290X against a Gigabyte G1 (!), but stock for stock 980 is just 12% faster (in fact latest review at TPU shows that lead shrinking to just 10% - shockingly bad :thumbsdown.

You also forgot 3 factors:

1) A lot of people on our forum complained about 7970's pricing. It's not like people thought $549 for a 925mhz 7970 was amazing until you considered point #2:

2) Bitcoin mining ensured that even if 7970 cost $1000-1500, it didn't matter since the card paid for itself and made $. A lot of us who bought 7970's didn't even look at that $550 price as a deterrent since the eventual cost of ownership was $0.

3) 7970 came with 3GB of VRAM. Cards like the $450 580 1.5GB became gimped soon and 3GB versions costs $550. 290X comes with the same VRAM as a 980 and today costs $300.

The situation for a 980 is completely different:

1) Its performance in stock vs. stock or OC vs. OC states against the 290X is far less impressive than 7970 vs. stock 580 or 7970 OC vs. 580 OC.

2) 980 doesn't come with double the VRAM of a 290X for only $100 more. In fact we can't even buy 8GB 980s today.

3) 5 months from 980's launch you can now buy 2x 290X MSI Lightning for nearly the same price as a single Gigabyte G1 980. You could not buy dual 580 3GB cards for the price of a single 7970Ghz 5 months from 7970's launch!

4) Stock 290Xs in CF/295X2 at high resolutions annihilate a 1329mhz Gigabyte G1 gaming, but look how close 7970Ghz was to a 590. Even if you took 580s max overclocked, I already linked above that a 7970 OC was 40-80% faster than a single 580 OC.

5) Look how long the 7970 OC card was near the top of the GPU pyramid -- more than a year it traded blows with the 680 OC until the Titan. The 980 will be dethroned by this summer. 980 will not have any of the staying power of the 7970 OC, nowhere close. Look at benches of dual 7970s OC today and that setup still flies when CF scales.

The best dual card setups today - 980 SLI/290X CF are 50-60% faster than 3 year old 7970s! Are you willing to go on record that 980 SLI will only be beaten by 50-60% by September 2018 by the fastest dual card setup at that time?

Staying power: look how strong the 7970Ghz is still today despite the card turning 3 years old. There is no way I would bet that by September 2018, the fastest single GPU from AMD/NV will only outperform the 980 by just 46% (980 = 186% vs. 7970Ghz = 127%). 7970 is one of the most epic cards ever made; and it's not because I happen to own them. It's almost an insult to compare a 980 to a 7970.

---

I think that even if NV lowers 980's pricing and introduces 8GB VRAM versions, with the rate that AMD's 2nd best tier card drops in price, the 980 might not be a slam dunk buy at $399-429 from July 2015 to October 2016. I am sure if R9 380 is $499, it will be a 'no brainer' to pay $100 extra for 15-20% more performance considering people today pay DOUBLE over the 290X for 10-15% more performance; or maybe I am putting too much faith in the brand agnostic GPU market. All I know if I purchased a 980 at $550 USD, I would be dumping that card real fast by June 2015, before its value tanks.

 

[ocre]

Exactly what advantages?
Here we go again. Can we please focus.

At launch

7970 vs 580
Smaller die size
Uses less power
20-25% faster at stock
Overclocks well
Priced about the same


At launch,
Gtx980 vs 290x
Smaller die size
Uses less power
20-25% faster at stock
Overclocks well
Priced about the same

Geez guys, please focus.

I am not trying to say anything negative about the 7970. Absolutely nothing negative about it.. Calm down.

Just saying that a lot of rubbish gets said about this and that. But take the time to look at the situation in relation to the time frame at which it happen. The 7970 was priced directly line with the competitors product, just as the 980 was. These situations aren't drastically different.

People just want to invent and make up stuff all the time. If you really look at how things came to be and then the way people try to manipulate afterwards........why?

 

[Techhog]

Exactly what advantages?
Here we go again. Can we please focus.

At launch

7970 vs 580
Smaller die size
Uses less power
20-25% faster at stock
Overclocks well
Priced about the same


At launch,
Gtx980 vs 290x
Smaller die size
Uses less power
20-25% faster at stock
Overclocks well
Priced about the same

Geez guys, please focus.

I am not trying to say anything negative about the 7970. Absolutely nothing negative about it.. Calm down.

Just saying that a lot of rubbish gets said about this and that. But take the time to look at the situation in relation to the time frame at which it happen. The 7970 was priced directly line with the competitors product, just as the 980 was. These situations aren't drastically different.

People just want to invent and make up stuff all the time. If you really look at how things came to be and then the way people try to manipulate afterwards........why?

The old "keeps saying the same incorrect thing over and over until it's true" tactic. Truly a genius tactic.


Wait, I meant insane. Sorry.

 

[RussianSensation]

Ocre, read my post again. Your 20-25% faster figures are BS. Taking a 1 day snapshot of a launch review when we have post-launch data is meaningless today. In the context of overwhelming review data, overclocking data, it is impossible to correlate 980 to a 7970 and conclude they were similarly as fast over the last gen flagships.

Your argument also fails completely because when you compare 980, you purposely use 290X's data at launch review instead of 780Ti.

You need to be consistent in your comparison. If you compare 980 at launch, it needs to be compared to the fastest card at launch -- that's the 780Ti. Otherwise, we might as well start pulling out benchmarks of 7970 vs. 6970.

As I said, launch reviews only matter at launch. Once newer reviews with latest games become available, we start getting a much better picture. Fast forward 5 months from 7970's launch vs. 580 and 980's launch vs. 290X, the 980 is total garbage in comparison. It barely beats the 780Ti/290X by 15%. Max overclocked 980 manages to beat a max overclocked 290X by 20-25%, and I bet that shrinks to 15-20% against the 780Ti.

HD7970 OC consistently mopped the floor with an overclocked 580 by 40-80% from day 1. You keep ignoring this. In fact an overclocked 7970 today is at least as fast as HD6970CF. Even a 1700mhz 980 won't match 295X2/290X CF in performance. I'll let that sink in for you.

All other factors of longevity, VRAM, you also missed. It's an insult to compare the midrange 980 to the 7970 that when all is said and done took out both the 680 and 770 in performance. 980 will forever be remembered as an overpriced mid-range card. This stigma will never be attached to the 7970.

Even the 680 outperformed 580 by 30-35%. 980 is hands down in the list of the most overpriced single chip next gen NV cards ever made, along with the Titan. Never in the history of NV has a true next gen gaming card (not a semi-pro card) provided so little performance gain for such a high price. Whether you want to admit it or not, the 980 is just a 960Ti. Once R9 300 and GM200 drop, it will become obvious that this is a fact. Once the true next gen flagship cards of this gen launch, GM204 or GM204B (rev2) will slot into its rightful mid-range market segment, unless you think 300 series will be a total flop and NV will launch GM200 at $800+, leaving 980 at $500-550 for another 12 months?

Since you love to keep sticking to launch reviews, keep this in mind then:

- It took a whopping 10 months for the 980 to beat the previous king 780Ti by only 7-10%, for $150 less.

I have a feeling for $150 more, 10 months from 980's launch GM200 and 300 series flagship will beat the 980 by more than 10%. That's why the original 980 at $550 was an overpriced product with too little performance. With prices of 290X and 970 where there are at today, one doesn't even need to wait for GM200/390X's performance to see that 980 is horrendously overpriced. Not even the 480/580 had such gross premiums attached to them against the 470/570.

ocre, it's 100% obvious that you could care less about $ or price/performance so you don't see how much of a rip-off the 980 is.

MSI Gaming 980 = $550 (2.12x more expensive)
MSI Gaming 290X = $260

For 10% more performance. This is the most ludicrous pricing disparity in ATI/NV/AMD GPU history. Never has any single-chip NV card had so little performance advantage at more than double the price! Uber fail.