not even worth $800. Gonna have to disagree with you here Russian. Not that I want any card to cost $800 but....
If aftermarket 980's are going for $600ish then how is a card that has a ton more performance and an extra 2 gb worth of frame buffer not worth a third more? There is plenty of overclocking headroom left in the card too. Nvidia was very cautious with the clockspeeds they gave out of box. My card easily pushes 1100 MHz on the core and close to 8 ghz on the memory without touching voltage sliders. I'll admit to get much faster than what I'm getting the card would become loud and or maybe even require water cooling.
Needless to say I'm essentially running a pair of 1.1/7.9 ghz Titan blacks. Are you trying to say that a 980 and $200 bucks in your pocket is a better deal?
Personally i feel that cards over $1k are a bit of a question mark, whether it was 295x2 (which comes with water cooling), or the TitanZ. Unless you have CUDA specific requirements, $500 in your pocket is $500 in your pocket, and 295x2 is not exactly a slouch.
I wouldn't stop one from getting one, but then again, i couldn't recommend this card unless they have someone to buy it from them at a higher price still.
Erm, Nvidia could have pushed clocks, but then they'd have to contend with heat, which may not be a problem for people in temperate regions, but what about others? There are those who will complain about power consumption. You never know if your silicon is better than most, which i would say is probable enough, as if they had better silicon, they would have released it with better clocks. I doubt that they were being deliberately conservative, and given the price gap to the next card on the market, it just doesn't add up. I would have tried to squeeze all i could minus 5% or so for OC'ers as a bone, before i put something on the market at that cost. At best now there's what 5% between the 295x2 and this?
Again though, if you need it for CUDA purposes, then i guess it makes sense. Then again, a quadro makes more sense perhaps.