GTX 880Ti Maxwell Performance Poll

[omeds]

~20% faster, ~$500, 4GB vram.

 

[rgallant]

max clocks vs max clocks + 10 - 20% over 780ti
for release benches it will show more with a higher temporary boost .

 

[skipsneeky2]

pretty much every rumor says 256 bit for GM204 so basically no chance of being 3 or 6 gb.

Oh yeah, i always forget 256 bit is like that with its memory. Guess 2gb will not be a option with 4gb being standard and 8gb being a option maybe?

 

[toyota]

Oh yeah, i always forget 256 bit is like that with its memory. Guess 2gb will not be a option with 4gb being standard and 8gb being a option maybe?

that would be my guess. lol then we will have the 4gb vs 8gb debate.

 

[Gikaseixas]

40% @ $799.99
You heard it first here

 

[RussianSensation]

RS, I always like reading your posts/opinion on pricing, so a couple questions on your opinion. So if the GTX 880 TI is around 30-35% performance increase, where do you think Nvidia might price it at and what is your opinion of where it should be priced at?
I know kind of a stuff question so if you prefer not to post a price/opinion that's fine.

I know vram amount will also be a factor, but for now lets assume its possibly turns out to be a 6GB/384 bit card for now.

TIA

Thanks for the compliment. Sorry for the long reply. I will say upfront that I probably have unrealistic expectations vs. other gamers on our forum whom seem to have accepted NV's new $499-549 and $699 price levels from historical $300-350 and $500-600.

It is very difficult to answer your question actually. Assuming it is 30-35% faster, and is based in GM204, a reasonable price for me can only be assessed in hindsight to be honest. Here are 7 reasons why it is hard to say if the price is fair:

1) Timing and price. What if 880Ti launches for $599 and we don't see GM200/210 for 1.5 years? In that case, ignoring AMD for a second, this card will be the 'flagship' until Spring 2016. That's a lot more justifiable than if GM200 launches in September 2015 for $699 with 35-40% more performance over 880Ti. Alternatively, what if Nv launches GM200 in 6-9 months but only as Titan 2 for $1000? Technically GM200/210 would be released but hardly relevant for most gamers.

2) Overclocking. What if 880Ti overclocks 25-30% with minimal effort and little voltage increase, thus not blowing power consumption into the sky? Big bonus to justify a $600 price vs. If it hardly overclocks and has voltage locked.

3) Efficiency. While I personally do not buy cards primarily based on efficiency, if 880Ti's 30-35% increase is accompanied at a ludicrous power usage of say 150W, the extra premium could be justified for users with very small / cramped cases that simply don't want a 250-270W card. Imagine 690 beating performance in a 150W power envelope.

4) It depends on what AMD launches in the next 12 months from a price/performance perspective, features and efficiency. What if AMD is late by 6-7 months and delivers a far less efficient card for only $50 less? If say 880Ti uses 180W but 390X uses 250W but they have a similar price (+/-$50) and performance, then 880Ti is the winner. Not worth waiting for vs. Buying the 880Ti right away. What if AMD releases a card that unlocks like 6950 or overclocks really well like 7950 and it offers 85-90% of the performance for $499? Then 880Ti for $599-699 would look rather expensive.

There could be some cool new features from either camp. They could be useful such as Eyefinity with multiple monitor and resolution combos or gimmicks like TrueAudio so far.

5) What if AMD or Nv throw some great game bundles into the purchase? That would make the price more justifiable if you want those games (Recall the awesome Metro, Mafia 2 and Just Cause 2 NV bundles during 470/480 gen).

6) How good is NV's and AMD's 2nd faster card? Is 870 vs. 880 going to be like 670 vs. 680 where with overclocking you get 95% of the performance? or will NV cut down the lower SKUs a lot and the gap be substantial like 8800 Ultra vs. 8800 GTS 640mb? For example for gaming R9 280X or 7970Ghz can barely beat an overclocked 7950/R9 280 which made those SKUs mostly relevant for non-overclockers, miners and bragging rights. If you wanted to overclock, 7950/R9 280 gives 770/R9 280X beating performance.
This goes to my unlocked 6950/7950 point earlier.

7) State of GameWorks vs. Mantle. This could change the standing of 390X vs. 880Ti in popular titles. If on average 880Ti is 15% faster but it's destroying the 390X in big titles like Witcher 3, next AC game, by 30% etc. then the average wouldn't be as relevant for someone who loves Witcher series. Same can be said for BF games or Dragon Age Inquisition or Star Citizen. Since we don't know the impact of Mantle or GameWorks on future titles, it will be hard to assess what 880Ti is worth vs. AMD's card.

Since we do not have the benefit of hindsight here is another perspective:

GM204 is the spiritual successor to GK204, not to GK110. In that case, 880Ti GM204 4GB would be $499 and 8GB would be $549. But 680 no longer sells as 770 replaced it. Then 880Ti would succeed that card. Since 770 sells for $300-400, and 780Ti is now $599 on Newegg, $499 is a reasonable price if we look at historical price/performance and generational GPU upgrades, then GM204 should offer 50-100% more performance over its predecessor (GK104) at a similar price.

From my perspective, Nv should not price this card above $549 because:

1) Next generation flagship leaps from Nv have been 50-100%. If 880Ti doesn't achieve that over 780Ti, it is not a true next gen flagship. This would support the theory of a gen being split into 2 halves just like Nv/AMD did 680/780Ti and 7970/290X.

2) NV is not using a more expensive 20nm node. Manufacturing cost should be far lower on a 430mm2 28nm die vs. 561mm2 28nm 780Ti now.

3) GM204 is a successor to GK104, so raising the price from $549 is once again raising the "midrange" price from the already inflated 680/7970 levels.

NV's point of view: a card more efficient, 25-35% faster, 4GB vs. 3GB, and $100 less MSRP can easily be marketed as great value to NV's customer base. That's why I think NV doesn't need to go with $499-549 level. They can get away with $599 or even $699 given how 780Ti sold.

 

[DooKey]

Why do people think only manufacturing costs go into the price of a video card? I guess people have never heard of R&D costs. Just because a card comes with a smaller die on the same process doesn't mean cost per unit will be reduced when you consider that the new gpu is also new technology outside of node process.

 

[SlickR12345]

I think its going to be 15% faster and cost $1000 if Nvidia own logic is to be followed.

It should be at least 30% faster and cost $500 if we go by history and reality and don't go full retard, but I'm afraid we are deep, deep into ultra retard mode with the Titan Z costing $3000 for a [redacted], useles GPU.

Even the Titan blacks are not worth $1000, $600 at most. Like Titan Black $600, 780ti $550, Titan $500, 780 $450, those should be the prices.

Profanity isn't allowed in the technical forums.
--stahlhart

 

[RaistlinZ]

15-20% faster, and it'll still be a crippled down 880Z/Titan/Whatever.

$900.00

 

[Mand]

Just because a card comes with a smaller die on the same process doesn't mean cost per unit will be reduced

Yes, it really does. The manufacturing cost is on a per wafer basis, so a larger die means larger cost per unit.

 

[f1sherman]

so everyone thinks GTX 880 Ti will feature GM204

I very much doubt that, UNLESS...

GM204 is truly a monster

 

[DooKey]

Yes, it really does. The manufacturing cost is on a per wafer basis, so a larger die means larger cost per unit.

I guess you missed the rest of my point. Manufacturing cost isn't the only determinate of the final cost of a video card. R&D is going up so reduced costs of smaller dies aren't reducing the overall cost of the video card.

 

[tviceman]

Thanks for the compliment. Sorry for the long reply. I will say upfront that I probably have unrealistic expectations vs. other gamers on our forum whom seem to have accepted NV's new $499-549 and $699 price levels from historical $300-350 and $500-600.

It is very difficult to answer your question actually. Assuming it is 30-35% faster, and is based in GM204, a reasonable price for me can only be assessed in hindsight to be honest. Here are 7 reasons why it is hard to say if the price is fair:

1) Timing and price. What if 880Ti launches for $599 and we don't see GM200/210 for 1.5 years? In that case, ignoring AMD for a second, this card will be the 'flagship' until Spring 2016. That's a lot more justifiable than if GM200 launches in September 2015 for $699 with 35-40% more performance over 880Ti. Alternatively, what if Nv launches GM200 in 6-9 months but only as Titan 2 for $1000? Technically GM200/210 would be released but hardly relevant for most of a gen being split into 2 halves just like Nv/AMD did 680/7

Pretty solid analysis and expectations, IMO. I think the 4gb version will be $599 and will be about 35% faster than 780 TI with a lower real-world TDP. I think an 8gb version will carry $100 price premium but won't be an actual product for several months.

 

[Mand]

I guess you missed the rest of my point. Manufacturing cost isn't the only determinate of the final cost of a video card. R&D is going up so reduced costs of smaller dies aren't reducing the overall cost of the video card.

I read it. R&D and manufacturing are independent, though. R&D being a factor doesn't mean that a larger die size means increased cost per unit.