We will form "The GPU prices are too damn high" party and you will elect me president. I will crack down on this crap. I won't change anything else though.
So its not AMD's fault then obviously, if people will buy it regardless.
Having had time to think about this.. I kind of don't mind these luxury GPUs. Generally speaking we all ultimately like GPUs in general Nvidia or AMD.
If people are willing to spend this much money, I am sure that money goes towards R&D and supporting the company they like. So to that end.. I do approve.
Things that do drive me nuts however are proprietary vendor lock ins, like CUDA and G-Sync.
if those are your choices I vote for 100% keep your 980 ti for 1.5 years.You've got my vote! :thumbsup:
Seems like the choices are:
1) Wait for Vega or the 1080Ti which will likely be tail end of this year or Q1 of 2017. I expect Vega will be $600-650 and the Ti will be $800-900. Vega will more than likely be 1080 to 1080+10% unless something goes really well or really poorly. 1080Ti will probably be Titan X -10%.
I keep one of those two cards for ~1yr until Volta or Navi drop and probably lose $300-400 when I sell it.
2) Buy a Pascal Titan X which will probably be the best GPU performance for the next 1.5yrs until Volta/Navi release and then sell for a $300-600 loss.
3) Keep my 980Ti for another 1.5yrs.
if those are your choices I vote for 100% keep your 980 ti for 1.5 years.
not like any games will tax the 980 ti anytime soon.
don't you need to turn settings down no matter what card you have in 4k? I still vote for keeping 980 ti.Well I game at 4k so any extra horsepower is much needed. I can always turn settings down though.
You're banking on this Titan holding value as well as the ones before it. I don't think it will for these reasons:
1) Kepler Titans had FP64, this doesn't.
2) Maxwell 2 Titan was a full, uncut chip. This is not
3) The memory gap between the Titan and all other chips was larger - it was 3 vs 6 then 6 vs 12, now its 8 vs 12
We're left in a situation where this Titan is like the Kepler OG Titan, cut chip but without the benefit of fp64. So there will probably be a Titan Black 2 which will be the full uncut gp102. This will further push down the value.
I dont think this one will keep value as well as the others have. I'd still wait for the 1080 Ti.
Elf, I'd wait for the GTX 1080Ti. It shouldn't be far behind the Titan launch wise. Let me know when you're ready to sell that 980Ti
NVIDIA has given us a few answers to the question above. We have confirmation that the FP64 and FP16 rates are identical to GP104, which is to say very slow, and primarily there for compatibility/debug purposes. With the exception of INT8 support, this is a bigger GP104 throughout.
Meanwhile we have a die size for GP102: 471mm2, which is 139mm2 smaller than GP100. Given that both (presumably) have the same number of FP32 cores, the die space savings and implications are significant. This is as best of an example as we're ever going to get on the die space cost of the HPC features limited to GP100: NVLInk, fast FP64/FP16 support, larger register files, etc. By splitting HPC and graphics/inference into two GPUs, NVIDIA can produce GP102 at what should be a significantly lower price (and higher yield), something they couldn't do until the market for compute products based on GP100 was self-sustaining.
Finally, NVIDIA has clarified the branding a bit. Despite GeForce.com labeling it "the worlds ultimate graphics card," NVIDIA this morning has stated that the primary market is FP32 and INT8 compute, not gaming. Though gaming is certainly possible - and I fully expect they'll be happy to sell you $1200 gaming cards - the tables have essentially been flipped from the past Titan cards, where they were treated as gaming first and compute second. This of course opens the door to a proper GeForce branded GP102 card later on, possibly with neutered INT8 support to enforce the market segmentation.
This level of casuistry is simply breathtaking. Why stop there? Blame Intel for nVidia's ridiculous prices because they withdrew Larrabee and refused to compete in the discrete graphics market. ppfffft!...I'm going to say that most level headed posters in here will agree, that AMD surely did participate in the pricing structure of Nvidia products by the level of it's competition and competency running their company...
This level of casuistry is simply breathtaking. Why stop there? Blame Intel for nVidia's ridiculous prices because they withdrew Larrabee and refused to compete in the discrete graphics market. ppfffft!
Mmmm. I did say level headed. So....
Not very subtle. Implying that because he doesn't agree with you he isn't level headed. Stay classy!
Is that all you're concerned about? That is isn't AMD's fault? Seriously man, get your head out of that state of mind. Not healthy.
I'm going to say that most level headed posters in here will agree, that AMD surely did participate in the pricing structure of Nvidia products by the level of it's competition and competency running their company.
>Insert car analogy here< (I'm sure there is one for this)
That said, this is a TitanX value proposition thread. Not "It isn't AMDs fault" thread.
Well I do agree that the lack of competition is the #1 reason for this ridiculous price hike, Nvidia ain't off the hook. They're clearly part of the equation. lets not forget, people buying these cards at this price are definitely encouraging such practices.
But there's one thing we all can agree on, though. This whole ordeal sucks for consumers, right? Any level headed posters would agree.
Elfear: I reread your starting thread which didn't want to turn this into a complaint about the TitanX price (good luck!) but whether it is a "smart" purchase.
As one who just bought a GTX 1080 for my own reasons but like other GTX 1080 purchasers is "chastised" for making a poor choice, I will chime in on the concept of "smart" choice.
It's in the eye of the beholder. I believe a large amount of complaining always centers around price because we all want more for less.