Setting a msrp lower than their own released product is unusual isnt it? Has this ever occurred with either AMD or nvidia?
I can imagine the reference "founder" card using a vapour chamber costing more to produce and hence an additional cost. But AIBs will incur costs for high performance coolers as well. AIBs can obviously charge more, but are we really going to see GTX 1080 for 599 once it releases?
AIBs have (on occasion) released superior custom versions to the reference while costing less. And we'll probably see more instances of that as supplies become more abundant. However price gouging on new products with limited initial availability can be expected.I can imagine the reference "founder" card using a vapour chamber costing more to produce and hence an additional cost. But AIBs will incur costs for high performance coolers as well. AIBs can obviously charge more, but are we really going to see GTX 1080 for 599 once it releases?
DOOM on Vulcan with Pascal GTX1080.
It's Vulkan. It's a name, names are never translated or corrected. When a germans last name is Fuchs, you don't call him mr. Fox but mr. Fuchs. Same applies here.
I know we haven't seen any reviews yet. But from what we have seen do you think you'll be in on two? Again, just from what we've seen so far, hypothetically. Not gonna hold you to anything.
I really, really really, want to go back to a single GPU. Before I sold one of my 980ti I was using just one almost all the time, there have been maybe 5 games in the past year where I've used SLI.
I'll be getting one for sure, I doubt two, just to wait on the GP100 GeForce. SLI is just no good most of the time, stutters, doesn't work in a lot of games now, rarely working at launch. Not worth it anymore in my experience.
If you're going for the big GP100, why not just hold onto the 980TI, at OC speeds I doubt you can tell the difference in games.
Who knows, maybe Vega will be your return to AMD.
1080 is 10% faster than furyx
http://www.overclock3d.net/articles/gpu_displays/gtx_1080_ashes_of_the_singularity_benchmarks/1
Hmmm? Nah!
Older game version for Fury X. Not sure if the newer version is any faster or not. Just a point of difference. Also, do we know the clocks of the 1080? Is it stock, I assume?
And I love how people justify comparing a new midrange product to the old high end product price. You are supposed to get more performance in the same category, a new midrange card is supposed to be faster than the old midrange card...for the same price.
So what if the new midrange card can compete with the old high end...that's what it's supposed to do. The doesn't justify raising the midrange price bracket into the old high end price bracket (and in this case even beyond that).
Hmmm? Nah!
Yeah, no kidding. I don't think Groove has owned AMD on his primary rig since I started posting here.
@Topic:
This thread is running out of gasoline. It's pretty simple why NV is doing it. And they'll meet huge success with it (shoot I swung the Gaf and already know it's a success.)
AMD's turn to milk it's audience. They can use the money, seriously.
Who cares about Nano? We are talking about Pascal. So, enlighten us, why is NVIDIA going to kill their sales mid-range up just to paper launch Pascal? Because they are worried about Polaris?
Of course there will be cards cheaper than the founders edition card. The whole point is that if you want the card, you HAVE to get the founders edition, or wait until Nvidia gives cards to AIBs....
AIBs have (on occasion) released superior custom versions to the reference while costing less. And we'll probably see more instances of that as supplies become more abundant. However price gouging on new products with limited initial availability can be expected.
I agree. Just think about that bold section. How possible is it to repeatedly keep doing that?The last AMD card I really enjoyed was the 5870. They've been releasing cards at bad times, or in a poor state, for a while now. I was looking forward to the 7970 when it came out and it was not much faster than the 580. I was looking forward to the Fury X and it was slower than a 980ti.
They need to score another 5870 type release for themselves. Something that is close to nvidia's best, but a lot cheaper and maybe more efficient.
The last AMD card I bought was a 7950 and it is sitting dormant, replaced it with a 970 for my wife to use. I'll put my remaining 980ti in her machine when I get a 1080 and put the 970 in our HTPC.
Probably because Polaris would kill NV's mid-range sales anyway. It's better for them to announce early and show off that their new card will offer the best performance until someone ships a bigger die.
Even if they end up doing a paper/soft launch of the card, it will get people to wait for better availability.
Sure they could wait to announce and release in July/August when they'll have enough stock to meet the demand, but Polaris 10 is probably a good enough chip that it will kill off most of NVidia's existing product stack anyway. In such a world it doesn't cost Nvidia anything to paper launch and helps keep their customers by assuring them that new cards are on the way and probably keeps some people from buying AMD cards since they know NV's cards are definitely better, even if it's not really possible to buy one easily.
If you hold onto your card for that long, then you really have no right buying Nvidia products. You just are pledging yourself to horrendous performance for long periods of time. Get the 1080Ti if you want, but if you're going to wait 2 generations inbetween high end Nvidia purchases, you're getting outperformed by cards half the price, regularly, and that's highly disappointing.
Polaris will be published at the Computex - three weeks after nVidia's event. nVidia had no reason to announce their new cards if they would fear AMD.
Why would AMD be able to supply the market with Polaris at $300 but nVidia wouldnt?
nVidia could have launched after AMD with better products. nVidia is not in a hurry to replace Maxwell.
Because AMD has better supply. They've shown working hardware well in advance of NVidia so it's hardly a stretch to imagine that they have been in production longer. They're also selling a smaller chip which means more GPUs per wafer as well as better yields, so more overall supply availability. Whether they can actually satisfy demand is another question entirely, but it seems far more likely that they're in a better position to do it.
Polaris will likely be good enough to compete against most of NV's current product stack. At $300 it's enough of a step up from anything else that you're justified in paying extra to get that performance level while at the same time making almost everything else priced above it not worth the extra cost.
Then it just becomes a question of whether it's better to wait to announce until after AMD launches or to preempt AMD's announcement. That's debatable, but we know which option Nvidia went with.
Because AMD has better supply. They've shown working hardware well in advance of NVidia so it's hardly a stretch to imagine that they have been in production longer. They're also selling a smaller chip which means more GPUs per wafer as well as better yields, so more overall supply availability. Whether they can actually satisfy demand is another question entirely, but it seems far more likely that they're in a better position to do it.
That is pure speculation.
Polaris is not announced. It will be announced in three weeks. So killing off the whole current lineup doesnt make any sense.
There doesnt exist any argument for announcing products three weeks in advance when you cant deliver in huge quantities on time.
AMD has not shown any quantities. They have shown only two cards. There are no leaks from the chips outside of AMD. There is no proof that Polaris is ready for mass production.
If it makes you upset that Nvidia products have 0 staying power that's fine but that's the truth. No 780ti owner is getting good performance today. If you want to argue otherwise be my guest.SO basically you have no idea what you are talking about. Got it.
If it makes you upset that Nvidia products have 0 staying power that's fine but that's the truth. No 780ti owner is getting good performance today. If you want to argue otherwise be my guest.
You'll just prove my point that I know exactly what I'm talking about. Got it?
It's also reasonable from what information we do have. They had shown of working Polaris 10 in march and had working Polaris 11 before that, suggesting they're further along in production.
We also have pretty good information to suggest a smaller die size, so unless that's completely wrong we know they'll have more chips per wafer. Yields between Samsung and TSMC as well as wafer availability are going to be different so it's certainly imaginable that AMD doesn't have better supply, but it's within reason to imagine that they do have better supply. It might not be great supply or enough supply, but you'd be really hard pressed to claim that it's not better supply.
Three weeks really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Nvidia could have waited longer, but I'm guessing that they wanted to preempt AMD and didn't know exactly when AMD would announce.
I guess we'll know in three weeks, but based on all of the information, rumors, leaks, etc. it seems more probable than not that Polaris has much wider availability than NVidia does. Again, whether it's sufficient to satisfy demand is another question completely, but for AMD to not have more supply means that a lot more of the previous information we have has to be wrong.