Are you buying a GTX 1070/1080?

[biostud]

I'm still wondering how third party custom cards are going to cost less than reference cards. I mean, has this ever happened in the history of GPUs where a custom AIB card cost less than a reference card? Am I a potato for asking this question? Because it seems like none of the journalists bothered to ask nVidia this question in the press conference.

There has been something about a vapor chamber reference cooler. But most likely it is early adopter or SLI tax.

 

[Termie]

I'm still wondering how third party custom cards are going to cost less than reference cards. I mean, has this ever happened in the history of GPUs where a custom AIB card cost less than a reference card? Am I a potato for asking this question? Because it seems like none of the journalists bothered to ask nVidia this question in the press conference.

I hate to say this guys, but I'm with badb0y on this. I'm pretty sure that Nvidia setting the price of the Founders Edition so high gives AIB the go-ahead to run way past that $600 MSRP that had jaws dropping (and journalists drooling) when the 1080 was announced.

And yes, I also purchased my 780 Ti and 980 Ti reference cards for MSRP. Only the 970 and 980 reference models commanded a premium.

I was going to buy a 1080 day one at $600, but I'm pretty sure that $600 cards will be very hard to find for a while, if they ever actually arrive.

 

[HiroThreading]

You need to look at this from an economic and business perspective.

You base launch pricing on initial performance, not future performance and upon launch the 7970 only beat the gtx 580 by 15%. Basing it on future performance requires hindsight so pricing a card based on future performance is just plain stupid.

Additionally, AMD is the value brand and with this comes certain expectation with launches from consumers, or they will wait and not buy your product. What is universally expected for the value brand is they offer superior price to performance. When the brand recognized for their value discards this characteristic and launches their product at a high price. What do you think is likely to happen when the brand with more prestige launches a product with better performance and generally all around better characteristics, particularly in a duopoly?

And this is why much of the price increases are atleast half AMD fault. Launching their product at 550 when it was only performing 15% better than the competition while being the value brand was an incredibly dumb move on their part. There was little possibility, that Nvidia was not going to do better than that at launch. So when this came true, it was not unexpected for Nvidia to start charging more for their midrange. Thus following AMD leads and increasing their price for their midrange is what is expected and is simply business. This is because Nvidia is the more prestigious brand. The brand with the higher good will with the consumer is allowed and is supposed to charge more for their product.

If the prestige brand didn't, the second brand marketshare and margins would get smaller and smaller until they went bankrupt. We got a preview of this effect at 28nm. This is what kind of happened when the gtx 670 launched with similar performance to a 7970 and a 150 dollar lower price. And what happened when the gtx 970 launched vs the 290x with a 220 dollar lower price point. AMD got the crap smacked out of them as far as profit and marketshare go and if this pattern continues, we know what will happen.

In a duopoly, it's up to the value brand to keep the prestige brand price in check. If they try to raise pricing, this give every right for the prestige brand to increase pricing because the floor pricing for a certain level of pricing is determined by what the value brand is willing to sell it for. This is because at equal pricing/performance, the prestige brand will vastly outsell the value brand. This is the right of the prestige brand. Hence, the concession for the prestige brand is they raise their prices to have higher margins, which allows the value brand to continue to exist or make money at lower margins. Thus when AMD raised pricing, Nvidia did as well and they put pricing on one of their products lower than AMD to get the second effect as well.

Lets take AMD brand out of the equation(since this might be distorting your view of this situation) and put up a similar example. Lets pretend Vizio and Samsung were the only two tv makers. Lets say Vizio next year, decided to raise the pricing of their products to a price above samsung because it had slightly better picture quality than the samsung. Samsung releases a tv with even better picture quality, so what do you expect pricing to be like for this tv considering there is no alternative brands out there?

Prestige brands can get away with certain behavior the value brand cannot. Thus AMD raising the price with their entire initial 28nm line is what doomed pricing for the consumer. It doesn't mean AMD is stuck as the value brand.

The only way AMD can raise pricing, is if they launch an absolutely superior product that the competition has no chance of beating within a reasonable time frame. Do a enough of these in a row and a few marketing trick and they can become the premium brand.

Very well said. Classic economic game theory.

AMD should not have discarded the ATI brand -- especially as the AMD brand was getting pummelled by Intel following Conroe (Core 2), the Quad FX platform fumble, Barcelona launch (slow clocks, TLB bug) and later the Bulldozer launch. ATI carried enough prestige to do battle with NVIDIA. For example:
Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition vs GeForce 6800 Ultra
Radeon X1950 XTX vs GeForce 7900 GTX

Heck, AMD probably should have accepted NVIDIA's terms for the merger back in 2006 IIRC -- that is, JHH would be the CEO of the merged AMD and NVIDIA. In hindsight, he would have been much better than Hector Ruiz and Derek Meyer.

 

[RussianSensation]

You base launch pricing on initial performance, not future performance and upon launch the 7970 only beat the gtx 580 by 15%. Basing it on future performance requires hindsight so pricing a card based on future performance is just plain stupid.

False. HD7970 OC beat 580 OC by 48-80% Day 1. Now if someone wanted to play Half Life 2 that day, that's not 7970's problem is it.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012...verclocking_performance_review/7#.VzrT3vkrJD8

2560x1440 4AA

33% win for a stock 925mhz 7970 over a 580:
http://www.computerbase.de/2011-12/test-amd-radeon-hd-7970/10/

People on this forum LOVE downplaying how good the 7970 was. It's easy to see why because most of them bought the inferior GTX670/680. Even with "broken" drivers, 7970 wiped the floor with the 580. Same people who hyped Kepler and Maxwell 980Ti overclocking and are now hyping up Pascal's ignored that 800mhz HD7950 overclocked to 1150-1250mhz and 925mhz HD7970 overclocked to 1150-1200mhz on air. These were common overclocking ranges.

To suggest that 7970 outperform 580 by only 15% is absurd. You may find some review that used outdated games and low resolutions where this may be true but no one buys a next gen $550 card and plays old games at 1080p 60Hz with 0AA.

Basing it on future performance requires hindsight so pricing a card based on future performance is just plain stupid.

You just needed to know where to look to see 7970's true potential in early 2012. How do you test a card that's so far ahead of the outdated games of that time before PS4/XB1 even showed up? You need to find the most demanding GPU scenarios then.

Bulletstorm - SSAA - stock 7970 outperformed 580 by 41%
Skyrim - SSAA - stock 7970 outperformed 580 by 64%
http://www.computerbase.de/2011-12/test-amd-radeon-hd-7970/12/

Just because people had blinders on during 7970's launch and wanted to link CPU limited reviews doesn't mean 7970 wasn't ridiculously fast on launch day even. FYI, 7970 with just a 1050mhz overclock was already 41% faster than GTX580 at 2560x1600. As I said, many cards hit 1150-1200mhz easily. Both of mine hit 1150mhz on stock voltage.

Also, I love how it's conveniently ignored that 7970 OC outperform last gen's flagship cards in SLI - the GTX590 and HD6990. Let me know how that goes for GTX1080 OC against GTX980Ti SLI/Titan X SLI.

The same people such as myself who were not happy with 7970's price of $549 are consistent today. I have said 7970 at launch was too expensive, same for 680, same for 980 and the same for 1080. 9 months later 980Ti came out and for just $100, after-market 980Ti cards obliterated the 980. It was well worth it to skip the 980 entirely (perhaps get an R9 290/290X/GTX970 as a stop-gap). However, other people who ripped 7970 apart despite that card smashing the last gen's fastest card -- 580 - by 30-33% at 1600p at stock and 48-80% at high resolutions max overclocked are not saying anything of the sort regarding an even more expensive 1080. The same people today who are sitting on GTX970/980/780/780Ti cards and are salivating at the thought of a 1070/1080 upgrade were on these boards criticizing a stock 7970 outperforming GTX580 by 30-35% as not good enough. And once we find out that GTX1070 is the most neutered x70 series card in a decade, if not ever, it's price increase from $329 to $379-449 will also be forgiven since it'll be compared to $999 Titan X as justification. It's hypocrisy or worse brand loyalty. Why didn't NV say that GTX1070 reference brings $610 Fury X beating performance for $450? Because to the masses it sounds waayyy better to compare a $379 card to a $999 Titan X.

 

[Aristotelian]

Because per NV's own stats, 70% of their own customers are using pre-Maxwell GPUs. That means only 30% of their customer base keep GPus for 1.5 years or less. That means a large fraction of gamers would have benefited had Fermi and Kepler aged better long-term given their pricing premiums over that generation.

You're right. I have been using GTX 580s in SLI since their release and spent over EUR 1000 to buy them. I am now in a situation where the 1080 looks appealing from a performance perspective but not a price one - and this is more about the principle because the fact is I am rather flush with cash. But, it comes to a point where spending time researching and building a PC, and making sure I eke every bit of performance I can out of it, is undermining actual game time. I probably should've just bought a 5960x a while ago with 980Tis in SLI and just said "**** it" but for those of us who are still on old Nvidia GPUs and who want to purchase a premium experience, things just aren't that easy any more.

And the fact of the matter is things just feel more and more like the consumer base for PC gamers is being milked (or rather, the enthusiast/gamers). From Intel's price increase for the 6950X (which I predicted); to the trend here with Nvidia's video cards (Probably EUR 699 1080, 899 or so TI, 1199 Titan?), it comes to a point where - unless we are going to get a couple of solid years for the hardware we buy - are we really going to be spending upwards of EUR 3000 every two years or so to ensure that we keep up a premium experience? I didn't take into account the selling of old hardware and checking ebay prices etc, but this is related to the comment I made above where the 'time investment' in premium pc gaming (from an efficiency perspective) seems to be taking more and more time.

 

[showb1z]

I agree with you about the milking part. But holding on to 580's for 5 years is far from a premium experience. I had SLI 570's for a while but didn't take that long for VRAM to become an issue.
If you had gotten a 970/390 or even better a 290 you would've had a much better experience for years for €300-350.
I take ages to make decisions like this as well. But maybe it's time to change your buying pattern?

 

[OatisCampbell]

People on this forum LOVE downplaying how good the 7970 was. It's easy to see why because most of them bought the inferior GTX670/680. Even with "broken" drivers, 7970 wiped the floor with the 580.

People on this forum also love to discuss old products as if they have some relevance currently.

I had two 7970s in CF, and CF was so bad then I got rid of one.

On a 290 Ice-Q now, but I have to say the 1070 looks like a good value. I'll wait to see what AMD releases and pick what has better bang for buck.

 

[tential]

I hate to say this guys, but I'm with badb0y on this. I'm pretty sure that Nvidia setting the price of the Founders Edition so high gives AIB the go-ahead to run way past that $600 MSRP that had jaws dropping (and journalists drooling) when the 1080 was announced.

And yes, I also purchased my 780 Ti and 980 Ti reference cards for MSRP. Only the 970 and 980 reference models commanded a premium.

I was going to buy a 1080 day one at $600, but I'm pretty sure that $600 cards will be very hard to find for a while, if they ever actually arrive.

The thread on Neogaf actually is taking this tone and they lean Nvidia quite hard.

I think it will take awhile for us to hit the lower msrp or when amd launches competitive products Nvidia will cut the higher msrp away officiallly

 

[tential]

Also I agree in the milking part too. We haven't gotten any jump in performance, just small incremental increases from both camps.

 

[Grooveriding]

I mentioned the same in a post here. Even though we have the suggested MSRP, what is going to stop AIBs from pricing off the $100 inflated reference card price ? Considering many aftermarket AIB cards are superior to reference cards, it wouldn't be a tough to justify price position.

Once they start coming out it's going to be interesting to see if they actually price at MSRP or just price off the reference card MSRP+$100 price because they are providing a superior product.

The idea that a reference card demands a premium makes no sense to me. They are generally not as well designed and robust as AIB cards. The only reason I've used them in the past is for waterblock compatibility or because I bought at launch and it was all that was available. I'm getting a 1080, but I'm not buying until EVGA has their Classified model available.

 

[Silverforce11]

I mentioned the same in a post here. Even though we have the suggested MSRP, what is going to stop AIBs from pricing off the $100 inflated reference card price ? Considering many aftermarket AIB cards are superior to reference cards, it wouldn't be a tough to justify price position.

Nothing is going to stop them. Custom cards are superior, no doubts about it. Certainly unless you're a mITX guy, the reference card with its 5 VRM setup and blower is very meh.

Expect most custom variants to be around the FE's price. Some really crap variant can be MSRP but do you really want a recycled reference 670/970 crap blower?

 

[selni]

I mentioned the same in a post here. Even though we have the suggested MSRP, what is going to stop AIBs from pricing off the $100 inflated reference card price ? Considering many aftermarket AIB cards are superior to reference cards, it wouldn't be a tough to justify price position.

Once they start coming out it's going to be interesting to see if they actually price at MSRP or just price off the reference card MSRP+$100 price because they are providing a superior product.

The idea that a reference card demands a premium makes no sense to me. They are generally not as well designed and robust as AIB cards. The only reason I've used them in the past is for waterblock compatibility or because I bought at launch and it was all that was available. I'm getting a 1080, but I'm not buying until EVGA has their Classified model available.

The same thing that stopped AIBs from being priced $100 above RRP when Nvidia wasn't directly selling cards - competition. If that doesn't exist then sure partners can charge what they want, but in that case they could have done that regardless of reference card RRP then.

There's a few possible explanations for the founders cards being $100 higher - perhaps to be less competitive because Nvidia's partners are less than happy that nvidia is selling cards directly? Or perhaps it is just opportunism while they have the only 16nm GPU around.

 

[Unoid]

No, I plan to buy something else instead (please elaborate in thread).

Why buy a card now when there is no competition (nvidia will charge highest prices as they can). Waiting until Vega to see where competition is and prices will be lower.

Ideally wait for the GP100 consumer version to release and see where competition is at then.

 

[exar333]

False. HD7970 OC beat 580 OC by 48-80% Day 1. Now if someone wanted to play Half Life 2 that day, that's not 7970's problem is it.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012...verclocking_performance_review/7#.VzrT3vkrJD8

2560x1440 4AA

33% win for a stock 925mhz 7970 over a 580:
http://www.computerbase.de/2011-12/test-amd-radeon-hd-7970/10/

People on this forum LOVE downplaying how good the 7970 was. It's easy to see why because most of them bought the inferior GTX670/680. Even with "broken" drivers, 7970 wiped the floor with the 580. Same people who hyped Kepler and Maxwell 980Ti overclocking and are now hyping up Pascal's ignored that 800mhz HD7950 overclocked to 1150-1250mhz and 925mhz HD7970 overclocked to 1150-1200mhz on air. These were common overclocking ranges.

To suggest that 7970 outperform 580 by only 15% is absurd. You may find some review that used outdated games and low resolutions where this may be true but no one buys a next gen $550 card and plays old games at 1080p 60Hz with 0AA.



You just needed to know where to look to see 7970's true potential in early 2012. How do you test a card that's so far ahead of the outdated games of that time before PS4/XB1 even showed up? You need to find the most demanding GPU scenarios then.

Bulletstorm - SSAA - stock 7970 outperformed 580 by 41%
Skyrim - SSAA - stock 7970 outperformed 580 by 64%
http://www.computerbase.de/2011-12/test-amd-radeon-hd-7970/12/

Just because people had blinders on during 7970's launch and wanted to link CPU limited reviews doesn't mean 7970 wasn't ridiculously fast on launch day even. FYI, 7970 with just a 1050mhz overclock was already 41% faster than GTX580 at 2560x1600. As I said, many cards hit 1150-1200mhz easily. Both of mine hit 1150mhz on stock voltage.

Also, I love how it's conveniently ignored that 7970 OC outperform last gen's flagship cards in SLI - the GTX590 and HD6990. Let me know how that goes for GTX1080 OC against GTX980Ti SLI/Titan X SLI.

The same people such as myself who were not happy with 7970's price of $549 are consistent today. I have said 7970 at launch was too expensive, same for 680, same for 980 and the same for 1080. 9 months later 980Ti came out and for just $100, after-market 980Ti cards obliterated the 980. It was well worth it to skip the 980 entirely (perhaps get an R9 290/290X/GTX970 as a stop-gap). However, other people who ripped 7970 apart despite that card smashing the last gen's fastest card -- 580 - by 30-33% at 1600p at stock and 48-80% at high resolutions max overclocked are not saying anything of the sort regarding an even more expensive 1080. The same people today who are sitting on GTX970/980/780/780Ti cards and are salivating at the thought of a 1070/1080 upgrade were on these boards criticizing a stock 7970 outperforming GTX580 by 30-35% as not good enough. And once we find out that GTX1070 is the most neutered x70 series card in a decade, if not ever, it's price increase from $329 to $379-449 will also be forgiven since it'll be compared to $999 Titan X as justification. It's hypocrisy or worse brand loyalty. Why didn't NV say that GTX1070 reference brings $610 Fury X beating performance for $450? Because to the masses it sounds waayyy better to compare a $379 card to a $999 Titan X.

I appreciate your attention to detail, but you REALLY push the 7970 is almost every thread.

As one who bought a 670 instead of a 7970, I did it because I saved almost $100 and it was faster in the games I got it for (Skyrim). I don't buy my cards for performance 4 years later, generally because I need the performance NOW.

I will say that I purchased a 7950 a few months later for a different build, following the 7970/7950 price cuts, as that was a better deal vs. the 670.

You have to be careful about blanket statements and so forth. There are in fact those who buy cutting edge and keep for a long time, but generally those folks who buy top-tier cards, especially in multiples, are ready to upgrade on a more regular basis. Performance now is what matters. Performance later is a bonus, but not my main consideration.

Top Priorities:
-Performance
-Price
-OC ability
-Temp/Noise

Secondary:
-Efficiency
-Longevity

 

[Lepton87]

Do you people still consider NV to be a prestigious brand? Because to me the exact opposite is true and with everything being equal I would choose the competition every time.

 

[xthetenth]

There are in fact those who buy cutting edge and keep for a long time, but generally those folks who buy top-tier cards, especially in multiples, are ready to upgrade on a more regular basis. Performance now is what matters. Performance later is a bonus, but not my main consideration.

That's a structural problem with the market worth bringing up. Enthusiasts don't care as much about long term performance, and the people who do care tend to ask the enthusiasts, who undervalue longevity, or worse, ape them when the usage is going to be markedly different.

 

[littleg]

I'm in no hurry so i'll wait and see what Polaris / Vega bring to the table I think.

 

[Raising]

Not sure if I should be happy or sad that the guy that was going to buy one of my msi 6g 980Ti cards gave up from the deal at last minute.. think I'll keep my two Tis until 1080ti or Volta.

Currently using a i7 980x, should I just get a skylake now or wait for broadwell-e ?

 

[Arachnotronic]

Not sure if I should be happy or sad that the guy that was going to buy one of my msi 6g 980Ti cards gave up from the deal at last minute.. think I'll keep my two Tis until 1080ti or Volta.

Currently using a i7 980x, should I just get a skylake now or wait for broadwell-e ?

I would get Skylake now. I stepped "down" from a 5960x to a 6700K and couldn't be happier.

 

[beginner99]

Do you people still consider NV to be a prestigious brand? Because to me the exact opposite is true and with everything being equal I would choose the competition every time.

Everything hasn't been equal in ages meaning AMD has offered better performance/$ for years the best being 290x deals for $250. While those deals were limited to US, I still could buy used 290x (not used for mining, with warranty) for that price here. So a GTX 1080 that will sell for about $810 here,yes no joke, would need to offer over triple the performance if a 290x to match it in performance/$.

Long story short, no I do not consider them prestigious brand because even if all things are equal now history tells us one brands cards will start to tank in performance rather sooner than later.

 

[swilli89]

I would get Skylake now. I stepped "down" from a 5960x to a 6700K and couldn't be happier.

What made you do this?

 

[krumme]

None. The reviews show 1080 is really fast but relatively tanking in dx12. Its a no go for me. And i am especially worried about bf1 comming with stronger dx12 usage.

 

[Madpacket]

I would get Skylake now. I stepped "down" from a 5960x to a 6700K and couldn't be happier.

Can I ask why you didn't just grab a 5820/30K?

 

[exar333]

I would get Skylake now. I stepped "down" from a 5960x to a 6700K and couldn't be happier.

Same here.

At the end of the day, I just wasn't getting the value from the X99 platform that I got from X58/X79. Gaming-wise, it wasn't providing an appreciable advantage and I have moved most my storage to the NAS. Even non-K Skylake boosts to great levels and unless I move up to 8C, I like the advantage of the newest CPU gen and lower power needs.

With 1TB M2 drives now pretty much the best performers around for the $ (excluding very $$$ PCIe options) there wasn't a need for me.

Going Skylake/Skull Canyon also allowed me to go modular and have a very minimalist build. SLI/CF is so crappy now, outside of e-peen benchmarking, I don't feel like I am losing anything in terms of performance.

 

[Grooveriding]

Not sure if I should be happy or sad that the guy that was going to buy one of my msi 6g 980Ti cards gave up from the deal at last minute.. think I'll keep my two Tis until 1080ti or Volta.

Currently using a i7 980x, should I just get a skylake now or wait for broadwell-e ?

BW-E is coming out soonish isn't it ? I usually like to get the HEDT platform whenever it launches a new chipset, but still think if you're buying today you'll be better served with HEDT over the mainstream platform. 6+ core is showing gains now in newer games over 4 core, so it's becoming more relevant for gaming.

I still tend to recommend HEDT with a new chipset launch, so the next one will be Skylake-e. I do think motherboard manufacturers will update their X99 boards for BW-E though. Some new features will likely be added to what is on those boards right now.