Nvidia cuts prices on all their GPUs in the 900 Series

[3DVagabond]

That custom-cooled MSI 980 Ti for $559 at Newegg is just wow. Unlike all the other 900-series GPUs the 980 Ti isn't gimped in DX12. There's no way a Fury X can compete at those prices since it's an objectively worse card than the 980 Ti by any fair measure.

The problem for AMD is that just seeing more sales isn't enough if most of those sales are in the sub-$300 space because the margins are poor. Even if your revenue increases a lot but you still post large net income losses, what has changed? AMD needs net profit more than anything.

That means they need to sell high-margin chips, a.k.a their Fury GPUs over the 980 Ti. NV barely waited a single day to respond, and so now it's a race to the bottom and we all know which company has a fat belly and which is starving on the street.

AMD really needs a new investor at this stage and to cut their CPUs loose. They can't compete in this way and NV knows it.

All Maxwell, including the 980 ti are gimped in DX12. They still can't do async compute. We've been told that the console devs are seeing 30% gains with async compute. Once they start leveraging it in PC you'll see a decline in nVidia performance relative to AMD.

 

[tviceman]

All Maxwell, including the 980 ti are gimped in DX12. They still can't do async compute. We've been told that the console devs are seeing 30% gains with async compute. Once they start leveraging it in PC you'll see a decline in nVidia performance relative to AMD.

The sky is falling! The sky! We've all been told! The proof is there!

Back to reality, aka today and facts. 980 TI overclocks 25%, consumes less power, can be had for less. Fury X overclocks 5%, consumes more power, is more expensive. But water though, amirite? Tough choices... tough choices....

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Give up with the "no one buys AMD because everyone is a dumb" arguments for once. They are not dumb, most lower end setups are constrained by cooling, power and size as it's just some shop bought or low end pc. The nvidia cards hit that target market very well.

The AMD card's were fine at the high end where everyone has custom setups and builds their own pc's but that market bottoms out at about the GTX 970 which is what everyone is buying. Under that size, power requirements and heat output becomes a much more major concern and trying to sell say a 380 even if it does have good performance and a low price becomes tricky.

No, most people are dumb, and follow a herd mentality. This is popular, so it must be good, so I will do that. Then after awhile the herd turns on the ones that don't conform, thus creating an element of peer pressure which further reinforces the herd mentality. That basically continues until some radical event shakes up the social norm.

Why do you think Nvidia spends so much on marketing? It's all for the sheep! You, me, and probably everyone else here wouldn't buy a GPU, because we saw "the way it's meant to be played" advertisement. We realize it's bullshit marketing, and we will choose our components via qualitative data.

 

[Pariah]

Why do you think Nvidia spends so much on marketing?

Not sure. What did Nvidia spend on marketing last year, and how did it compare to AMD?

 

[3DVagabond]

Not sure. What did Nvidia spend on marketing last year, and how did it compare to AMD?

It doesn't matter what AMD spent. They simply suck at it and waste most of the money anyway.

They've got Larry and Curly on Facebook (I think Moe was too smart and turned them down). Not sure what else they do that is actual marketing. They do come out with some good hardware and software, tell people about it, but they are really bad at marketing it. It's often said it's a byproduct of having engineers run the company. I can understand that and it fits looking at them from the outside in. They believe that "If you build it they will come". Unfortunately, it doesn't really work that way.

 

[sontin]

All Maxwell, including the 980 ti are gimped in DX12. They still can't do async compute. We've been told that the console devs are seeing 30% gains with async compute. Once they start leveraging it in PC you'll see a decline in nVidia performance relative to AMD.

And yet a gimped GTX980TI is faster in DX12 than a Fury X. :\

Oh and AMD cards dont support CR, ROV und Tiled Ressources Tier 3 which boost performance, too.

 

[3DVagabond]

And yet a gimped GTX980TI is faster in DX12 than a Fury X. :\

Oh and AMD cards dont support CR, ROV und Tiled Ressources Tier 3 which boost performance, too.

You mean the Ashes bench that when AMD was faster was only one beta and was meaningless? OK.

Also, note what I said. "Once they start leveraging async compute". The devs have already said they use very little async compute at this point in time. And feel free to quote me anytime. We'll see how long nVidia has any advantages. It won't be long.

 

[Actaeon]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9659/fable-legends-directx-12-benchmark-analysis/2

DX12 with Unreal Engine 4

Updated game code and driver optimization could change things, but as it sits the 980 Ti slaps Fury X around at stock non-OC settings.

 

[sontin]

There are only Alpha and Beta benches from DX12 games right now...

 

[Pariah]

Also, note what I said. "Once they start leveraging async compute". The devs have already said they use very little async compute at this point in time. And feel free to quote me anytime. We'll see how long nVidia has any advantages. It won't be long.

Are they going to start leveraging in the next 3 or 4 months? That's about how much time AMD will have to make any tangible gains. I don't expect either side to release their next gen until the 2nd half of 2016, but based on Nvidia getting the GTX980 to market about 10 months before the Fury X (closer to a year if go by Fury X availability in the US), you'd have to be borderline retarded to think Nvidia won't beat AMD to market this time too.

 

[sontin]

And the new Hardware features of Maxwell are supported by DX11.3. So unlike Async Shaders which needs DX12 developers can use Maxwell architecture advantages under more APIs.

 

[3DVagabond]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9659/fable-legends-directx-12-benchmark-analysis/2

DX12 with Unreal Engine 4

Updated game code and driver optimization could change things, but as it sits the 980 Ti slaps Fury X around at stock non-OC settings.

Until that point, a PR team got in contact with us regarding the upcoming Fable Legends title using the Unreal 4 engine, and an early access preview benchmark that came with it. Here are our results so far.

Do they tell us who's PR team?

AMD sent us a note that there is a new driver available specifically for this benchmark which should improve the scores on the Fury X, although it arrived too late for this pre-release look at Fable Legends

Such a shame it wasn't with optimized drivers.

And the new Hardware features of Maxwell are supported by DX11.3. So unlike Async Shaders which needs DX12 developers can use Maxwell architecture advantages under more APIs.

Only talking DX12.

 

[boozzer]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9659/fable-legends-directx-12-benchmark-analysis/2

DX12 with Unreal Engine 4

Updated game code and driver optimization could change things, but as it sits the 980 Ti slaps Fury X around at stock non-OC settings.

how did you not notice how much 290x is kicking ass in that benchmark?

it seems like you either spend around 600$ for a 980 ti or you buy amd for everything below.

 

[Actaeon]

Do they tell us who's PR team?


Such a shame it wasn't with optimized drivers.

Don't know, I kind of assumed the developer at first, but good question. I agree it is a shame it wasn't using optimized drivers. It is still early and code changes and driver optimization can change things significantly but I thought the results were still interesting.

Unless those drivers gives Fury X a 20% boost, I still don't think it is is a great value compared to a 980 Ti. The Ti was 10% faster across the board at stock clocks on this benchmark and it has plenty left in the tank via OC.

If AMD can price Fury X at $500, splitting the 980 Ti & 980, it makes a far stronger case for itself. But at equal pricing to the Ti, it is a tough sell.

how did you not notice how much 290x is kicking ass in that benchmark?

it seems like you either spend around 600$ for a 980 ti or you buy amd for everything below.

The 290Xs are kick ass cards and offer tremendous value for the money. They have certainly aged the best of any GPU I can remember. They came out two years ago and are still very powerful today. DX12 will do wonders for Hawaii.

I wonder if they used a reference card and whether it was in 'Uber' mode or not. I found that depending on the card a reviewer used it would alter the results significantly. Reference cards throttle much more aggressively than aftermarket cooled ones. A good cooler like on my Tri-X don't throttle at all and stay very cool even with a nice overclock. If this a reference card was used in the test, I bet the 290Xs with non-reference coolers that most people have would see even better performance.

And yeah, I agree with you. The 390X/290X makes a strong case for any purchase under $600. The 980 is a great card too and trades blows with the Hawaii cards but comes at a higher cost. There is nothing better in a meaningful way until you get to $600 w/ the 980 Ti.

 

[ShintaiDK]

All Maxwell, including the 980 ti are gimped in DX12. They still can't do async compute. We've been told that the console devs are seeing 30% gains with async compute. Once they start leveraging it in PC you'll see a decline in nVidia performance relative to AMD.

And it turned out to be BS. Even AMD sponsored AOTS shows NVidia in front. Hard times for the ADF.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Haven't these prices and the AMD prices been reflected in the Newegg deals that have been available all week now? Great job being days late with the breaking news. Gotta get those clicks. For extra clicks, split it up into two articles. Big deal.

Why people ever click that site is unbelievable. But its like the gossip magazines I guess. Despite being made up crap, some still gubble it up without any sense of criticism. Its the lemmings effect.

 

[railven]

Why people ever click that site is unbelievable. But its like the gossip magazines I guess. Despite being made up crap, some still gubble it up without any sense of criticism. Its the lemmings effect.

When they started reporting how good AMD hardware is against Nvidia, I recall some posters saying they've become more legit. Prior to that, I always knew it as a shill site. People's opinions flip flop depending on the news. Sad.

 

[ShintaiDK]

When they started reporting how good AMD hardware is against Nvidia, I recall some posters saying they've become more legit. Prior to that, I always knew it as a shill site. People's opinions flip flop depending on the news. Sad.

Reminds me of their junk about Prescott to Conroe performance for Skylake. Not to mention the "Morphcore" BS. Nobody believed that. Now its a certain other product, then its an entirely different matter.

Just like these "price cuts" they somehow discovered on Newegg. And then put it into 2 useless articles that well, certain people click in either desperation for news, or simply too ignorant to know any better.

You can make wccftech post anything if it got sensationalism in it.

 

[tential]

So essentially, I should purchase Fury X, because sometime in the future, at an unknown date, it will be faster than the 980Ti.
I remember people saying this about the FX series AMD processors....
What is it with people who promote AMD products and telling people to "Wait for XYZ release/product and then you'll see how good this AMD product is!!!!" (Active DP to HDMI 2.0, Voltage unlocking for Fury X, I have a list for awhile.....).

The latest, "Wait for games to use Async and you'll see AMD will jump ahead of Nvidia!!!!!" is just the latest round of fanboyism and now, when Nvidia is ahead today, all of a sudden "It's just a beta benchmark!" The thing I was saying the WHOLE time AMD was ahead, now AMD fans are saying it when Nvidia is ahead. Now, AOTS doesn't use enough Async, and we'll need a game to use even more to show Fury X's true potential?

Fury X has ONE scenario where it's a match to the 980Ti, and that's Crossfire.
If you need Freesync at the high end for AMD, that's another option.

Otherwise, no one should be mentioning Fury X as a worthwhile GPU.

Oh, and I also love how before, people should purchase the 7950 over the Nvidia GTX 600 series (which I did thankfully!) because of more VRAM, but now, 4GB of VRAM is ENOUGH! NO EXCEPTIONS. And 6GB of VRAM from the 980Ti isn't worth it... at the SAME PRICE.

Lets not even get started on Fury X vs the GTX 970 ( not in performance). We recommend the R9 390 over the GTX 970 so we don't have to deal with Nvidia memory management which may stop at any time with the gtx 970's segmented memory junk. AT the same time, 4GB of VRAM is perfectly cool on Fury X, because AMD dedicated engineers for VRAM management? What happens when they have 8GB of VRAM in 2016, and that's no longer necessary for HBM? Jesus, what happens when VRAM jumps next year on all cards and in 2016, games at the high end expect 5+ GB of VRAM? It has ZERO longevity, and AMD fans love to talk about Longevity, and Fury X has ZERO OF THIS in the VRAM department. ZERO.

So much hypocrisy from both sides, it's ridiculous people actually get this blinded by love for either of these companies when Nvidia and AMD are both not ANY of our friends, and BOTH have HUGE issues they can fix to make their products better.

 

[tviceman]

Tential spot on as usual. :thumbsup:

 

[tviceman]

We'll see how long nVidia has any advantages. It won't be long...mwa ha ha ha

Fixed your post for you, Dr. Evil.

 

[railven]

Tential with the truth! :thumbsup:

I bought so much into the Fury X Hype when it finally released the shock shattered my red tinted glasses. No way I was paying the same amount of money for something slower, with less memory, and used more power.

Maybe when DX12 is actually a common place feature I'd revisit it, but I doubt Fury X would be the top AMD card by then.

 

[tential]

Tential with the truth! :thumbsup:

I bought so much into the Fury X Hype when it finally released the shock shattered my red tinted glasses. No way I was paying the same amount of money for something slower, with less memory, and used more power.

Maybe when DX12 is actually a common place feature I'd revisit it, but I doubt Fury X would be the top AMD card by then.

Remember this article?
http://www.gamersnexus.net/gg/2114-chris-roberts-star-citizen-on-dx12-vulkan-and-tech
"Both Dx12 and Vulkan, formerly “OpenGL Next,” benefit games of large-scale nature by improving lower-end hardware performance. For the time being, games will still be split between Dx11 and Dx12 support, so we may not see the full effect of migration for a while yet. Asking Roberts about this, the CIG CEO confirmed for us that pipeline tuning for Dx12 would still yield performance gains for Dx11 users – users on older Windows installs and hardware:"

DX12 won't magically change the world right now.

"“It's pretty easy [to integrate Dx12] if you do it the same way you did with Dx11, but you're not going to get the full power. The issue is that most game engines were not really written with a massively parallel architecture in mind, and that's fundamentally what you need to do to really get the best benefit out of the next-generation of graphics APIs. [That nex generation] is just that you can be feeding lots of stuff at the same time to the graphics card and you're not bottlenecked by just one thread."

So we're not just waiting for DX12 games for Fury X to be some magical amazing GPU. We're waiting for well written DX12 engines that play to Fury X strengths.

*Looks at Assassin's Creed Unity and Ubisoft games in general*

If you think Fury X is going to change the world when games like these are still being made just because DX12 is now out (and not even in any fully released games yet), then just lol.

 

[CakeMonster]

If there was enough games that catered to my tastes, I'd shell out for a 980Ti today.

Even though I upgrade on average every 18 months (used to be 12 but then things stopped happening), I don't completely disregard the future. The 4Gb on the 980 helped push me in the direction of an upgrade over the 780, along with the memory compression tech that increased b/w a lot. The 6Gb on the 980Ti makes it tempting so if there were enough games I wanted to play, I'd probably have gotten it. Would I have needed that amount of memory at the time I got it? Probably not, but its still in the equation for me.

 

[3DVagabond]

So essentially, I should purchase Fury X, because sometime in the future, at an unknown date, it will be faster than the 980Ti.
I remember people saying this about the FX series AMD processors....
What is it with people who promote AMD products and telling people to "Wait for XYZ release/product and then you'll see how good this AMD product is!!!!" (Active DP to HDMI 2.0, Voltage unlocking for Fury X, I have a list for awhile.....).

The latest, "Wait for games to use Async and you'll see AMD will jump ahead of Nvidia!!!!!" is just the latest round of fanboyism and now, when Nvidia is ahead today, all of a sudden "It's just a beta benchmark!" The thing I was saying the WHOLE time AMD was ahead, now AMD fans are saying it when Nvidia is ahead. Now, AOTS doesn't use enough Async, and we'll need a game to use even more to show Fury X's true potential?

Fury X has ONE scenario where it's a match to the 980Ti, and that's Crossfire.
If you need Freesync at the high end for AMD, that's another option.

Otherwise, no one should be mentioning Fury X as a worthwhile GPU.

Oh, and I also love how before, people should purchase the 7950 over the Nvidia GTX 600 series (which I did thankfully!) because of more VRAM, but now, 4GB of VRAM is ENOUGH! NO EXCEPTIONS. And 6GB of VRAM from the 980Ti isn't worth it... at the SAME PRICE.

Lets not even get started on Fury X vs the GTX 970 ( not in performance). We recommend the R9 390 over the GTX 970 so we don't have to deal with Nvidia memory management which may stop at any time with the gtx 970's segmented memory junk. AT the same time, 4GB of VRAM is perfectly cool on Fury X, because AMD dedicated engineers for VRAM management? What happens when they have 8GB of VRAM in 2016, and that's no longer necessary for HBM? Jesus, what happens when VRAM jumps next year on all cards and in 2016, games at the high end expect 5+ GB of VRAM? It has ZERO longevity, and AMD fans love to talk about Longevity, and Fury X has ZERO OF THIS in the VRAM department. ZERO.

So much hypocrisy from both sides, it's ridiculous people actually get this blinded by love for either of these companies when Nvidia and AMD are both not ANY of our friends, and BOTH have HUGE issues they can fix to make their products better.

I'm not telling you or anyone to do anything. I'm merely stating my opinion. You see the difference between me and the marketers running around this board is I don't care at all what you buy. You want to buy nVidia and buy into everything that company does. Go for it. I hope the few games a year the AMD has to take some time to optimize because nVidia has planned it that way, is worth all of the other baggage that comes along.

You make it sound like AMD performs like crap now or something. It doesn't. The 650 ti is slightly faster overall. Nothing anyone in a true double blind test would ever be able to notice. I'll buy what I want and you do the same. We'll both post why we decide the way we do here. I will never care who buys what card. I do get concerned with the bald face lying that goes on by some purely to try and sway other's buying decisions. But that's only because it's not fair to the people who get mislead. That and these forums allow it, bothers me too.

Why is VRAM going to jump next year? Are the consoles going to have more? AMD optimizes for VRAM usage and it hasn't been a problem. There are probably a fringe case or two that could be manufactured. Besides that is only one instance, the 980 ti vs Fiji. Again, pick whichever $600+ card you want to and buy it. It's a purely fabricated objection that hasn't materialized at all in the real world. Add to that it's looking like DX12 is going to deal with that and AMD is better prepared for DX12. Don't make it sound like it's AMD cards vs. nVidia cards overall though.