http://www.ebay.com/itm/QNIX-UHD321...657012?hash=item1a183acf34:g:g~YAAOSwtnpXoZnZ
According to the steam survey, the 970 is the most popular GPU. If someone bought it for MSRP, they don't really have a normal upgrade path today. The 1060 is basically performing close to a 980, which is too close.
The 1070 is far too expensive to be replaced at similar MSRPs. The 480 is too weak. If you got a 960 last generation, then the 1060 is a great upgrade. However, that is mostly because the 960 was extremely poor.
Too many people refuse to learn the history of GPUs and thus continue to make flawed comparisons.
RX 480 is a successor to the R9 380
GTX1060 is a successor to the GTX960
Neither of those cards was
ever supposed to be a successor to the R9 390/390X/970/980. AMD never even compared RX 480 to the Hawaii as their marketing slides correctly referenced RX 480 against R9 380. NV decided to use marketing and position GTX1060 as fast as the GTX980. In any event, both of these are low end GPUs that are now providing last gen's mid-range (390/970/980) level of performance. A new generation usually brings previous tier of performance to lower price levels but since prices are rising, suddenly AIB RX 480 and GTX1060 are encroaching on last generation's prices of R9 390/970. That does NOT mean that RX 480 and GTX1060 should be directly compared to R9 390/970.
It simply means prices per each GPU tier are rising, not that performance is stagnating.
The question is if the 970 was unusually good for its price at the time of release of if there is something with this generation that is different.
You already know the answer to this question but you continue to either ignore it because it hurts to accept the truth or purposely brush the facts aside:
Upper-Mid-Range
GF1
04 GTX460
$229 / GF114 GTX560Ti $249 -> 2012 GK1
04 $499 GTX680 -> 2014 GM2
04 $549 GTX980 -> 2016 GP1
04 $629-699 GTX1080
:
This tier experienced a 40% price increase from 2012, and a 2.53-3.05X price increase since Fermi GTX460 ($629 1080 / $249 560Ti)
Upper-Low-End
GF106 GTS450
$129 -> 2012 $229 GK106 GTX660 -> 2014 $199 GM106 GTX960 -> 2016
$249 GP106 GTX1060
This tier experienced a 9% price increase from 2012, and a 93% price increase since Fermi GTS450
Where does GTX970 come in? It's actually a nothing special videocard. The logical comparison is a cut-down GF104, which is either a GTX460 768MB for $199 or a GTX560 for $199. That means GTX970 wasn't actually a great deal despite all the NV marketing. It was a $199 lineage card priced at $329. Since it sold like hot cakes, NV decided to raise the price another $120 to $449 this generation.
In conclusion, the reasons we do not yet have a GTX970/R9 290 "killer" card this generation are:
1)
NV has been able to use marketing to introduce/relabel lower tiers as "fake" x70 tier cards starting with Kepler generation. The GTX670 was not a true x70 series card like the GTX275/GTX470/570 were. Despite this blatant marketing game, this strategy worked and as a result NV was able to continue with this strategy during Maxwell and now Pascal generations. This is now widely accepted as a new norm in GPU generations - bifurcating a generation into parts strategy.
2)
Lack of competition/poor execution from AMD has allowed NV to pull off #1. Since AMD has not been able to launch next gen products on time and with good enough efficiency, NV has been able to continue with price increases. Because there is no Vega competitor to GTX1070, NV was able to increase GTX970's already inflated prices another $100-120.
3)
Lack of competition/poor execution from AMD has allowed NV to increase the performance gap between the already fake x70 and x80 marketing series. The performance gap between GTX670 and 680 was much closer than it is between the GTX970 and 980 / GTX1070 and 1080.
4)
Profitability/margins due to shrinking dGPU market - this affects both AMD and NV. Trend wise, the total amount of dGPUs sold per quarter and per year has been decreasing continuously for the last 10 years. To make up for lost revenue/margins on lower tier products, NV's goal has been to raise ASP (average selling prices) per each tier. They are essentially positioning GPUs as a commodity/premium product. If you want to play games with quality above consoles, then pay a premium for it. Since AMD cannot compete on price wars anymore, they cannot engage in price/performance levels of HD4000-6000 series. This has ensured both companies' goals are now to raise ASP as high as possible.
5)
Likely shortages of 14nm/16nm wafers - Let's face it neither the RX 460-480 nor the GTX1060-1080 line-ups are anything special in terms of history of GPU generations. The fact that they are all selling out is an indicator that demand is far outstripping supply. As a result, there is little pricing pressure from AMD/NV to lower prices during the start of this generation. As a result, you have a perfect storm of market participants supporting high prices; and thus lower chances for an R9 290/GTX970 "killer" at $299-329.
I predict prices to rise even more considering AMD and NV are probably thinking they hit it out of the park this generation as everything is selling out. Fact of the matter is this generation is one of the worst, if not the worst as far as prices are concerned but GPUs are selling out. The best way now to get a killer deal are 3 fold:
1) Wait for sales on last gen's high-end cards. EVGA recently had $330 980Tis on their website. Unfortunately, this isn't accessible to most people worldwide.
2) Go into the used market.
3) Wait longer to upgrade. This strategy isn't a bad one since PC games aren't becoming exponentially more demanding. Most of the market is still on 'peasant' 1080p 60Hz monitors which means GTX970 OC can probably last until 2017 or even 2018 with Volta. Why upgrade for the sake of upgrading if the card is still performing well?
4) Use (ethereum) mining to earn money with GPUs which makes existing/future GPU upgrades more affordable.
Either way, the days of buying a high-end tier flagship card like $259 HD4890 or $259 HD5850 or $299 HD6950 2GB and getting 90% of the performance of a Titan X (GTX280/285/480/GTX580) are over and not coming back.
Another way to look at it from a positive perspective is that the more expensive high-end GPUs become, the easier it is to skip a generation. i.e., in less than 3 years we can now buy a $200-240 RX 480 or a $250 GTX1060 that both beat a $700 780Ti in games. Despite rising GPU prices, price/performance continues to improve and even a $100 GTX950 provides a superior gaming experience on the PC than do either the PS4 or the XB1 S.
That's why I continue to encourage mining with GPUs on the side. IMHO, it eliminates the bias and brand attachment, as well as the disappointment out of the GPU upgrade path with the current environment of rising prices. Since GPUs make $ on the side, it means by the time a next gen game requires a new GPU upgrade, that next gen GPU can be either fully or partially subsidized by the $ earned from the previous generation. Unfortunately, this perk won't last forever which means sooner or later we are all back to paying high prices for next gen GPUs. I think AMD/NV will continue to raise prices even more as we enter the 4K 60-120Hz, HDR displays, VR era of computing/gaming where the demand for higher end GPUs will continue to outstrip supply.
4K 32" monitors continue to fall in price. Sooner, more and more gamers will want to ditch their peasant 1080p 60Hz and even 1440p panels and upgrade to 3440x1440 or 4K. This should only fuel the demand for even more powerful (and expensive) videocards. Then, in 3-4 years we will have PS5/XB2 and the cycle will start again.
Facebook
Twitter