Anybody else unimpressed with new midrange Nvidia GPUs, and much higher MSRP?

[Maverick177]

1. Simple answer - No. Look up "real income", wages have not increased with inflation.

2 . Nvidia can set launch prices, as they have been, when there is lack of competition. Also, who says manufacturing is getting cheaper? Look at the R&D budget for these GPU companies...

3. Technology moves fast. Any company is going to put more resources into future product if it means greater revenue.

This man speaks the truth.

 

[Arachnotronic]

that is pretty insane.

I like NVIDIA cards but I would stop buying their products if they charged me a "driver support fee." Driver updates for a reasonable amount of time come with the package.

 

[96Firebird]

I like NVIDIA cards but I would stop buying their products if they charged me a "driver support fee." Driver updates for a reasonable amount of time come with the package.

I'm a little amazed I can still download drivers from Nvidia's website, I was told that greedy Nvidia would force me to download GeForce Experience and steal all my datas to get driver updates!

 

[boozzer]

I'm a little amazed I can still download drivers from Nvidia's website, I was told that greedy Nvidia would force me to download GeForce Experience and steal all my datas to get driver updates!

you should at the very least read vesku post before you decided to make a mocking/snide post. :thumbsdown:

 

[96Firebird]

you should at the very least read vesku post before you decided to make a mocking/snide post. :thumbsdown:

I'm sorry, was I quoting Vesku's post? No?

Glad that's cleared up...

 

[tential]

I like NVIDIA cards but I would stop buying their products if they charged me a "driver support fee." Driver updates for a reasonable amount of time come with the package.

They already do charge a driver support fee. It's called being required to own the latest Nvidia architecture or else have your cards performance drop on average relative to the performance.

Example, 780Ti now performing worse than the R9 290.

I'm not saying it's bad or wrong, it's just already happening and the cost is somewhere else. Like I've already said before, Nvidia cards are expensive initially, but they retain their value, and if you're getting poor performance with Nvidia, you deserve it because no one forced you to not sell your card and hold onto old Nvidia architectures that they will NOT prioritize.

 

[provost]

Well, of course, one would assume that driver support is part and parcel of the gpu. In fact, I would argue that a significant portion of the price paid for the hardware can be attributed to the software support, as without such support any gpu would be considered nothing more than a paper weight, given the current state of this industry ... Lol

 

[exar333]

I couldn't find ASP beyond 5 years but for 2010-2015, NV quotes CAGR of 11% for ASP. (1.11^5 = 68.5% increase in ASP from 2010). Obviously that doesn't include the price increases we are seeing with Pascal ($329 970 -> $379-449 1070 and $549 980 -> $599-699 1080, which suggests NV is continuing to increase ASP).

"On May 6, NVIDIA announced both the GeForce GTX 1070 and GeForce GTX 1080 graphics cards. The MSRP for these cards sit at $379 and $599, respectively, but the models designed and built by NVIDIA (i.e., the Founders Edition cards) will sell for $449 and $699, respectively.

At launch, the prior-generation GTX 970 and GTX 980 cards were offered at $329 and $549, respectively,..."

....

"Gamers are willing to pay for performance, and NVIDIA knows this

One of the reasons that the PC gaming market has been so good to NVIDIA is that games are continually requiring more and more horsepower in order to look their best. This means that gamers upgrade at a relatively rapid clip and, more important, are often willing to pay a bit more in order to get meaningfully more performance.

At some point I suspect there will be a ceiling for gaming-oriented graphics chip selling price increases. However, there does seem to be room for the graphics specialist to add products at higher performance/price points before the limit is reached.

For example, there's room for NVIDIA to introduce a product at the $999 price point (i.e., a next generation Titan product), and I could see a cut-down version of that Titan product slotting in at $799.

Heck, if NVIDIA is able to deliver enough performance, a product at a price point of even $1299, with a cut-down variant at, say, $899 could very well be tolerated.

Additionally, NVIDIA's previous product stack had the GTX 970 at $329 and the GTX 960 at around $199. I could see the Pascal-based successor to the GTX 960 coming in at around $249, but offering performance roughly in line with the $499 GTX 980."

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...poration-may-be-able-to-push-average-sel.aspx

Time for me to invest into more mining rigs as hedging strategy as I expect GPU prices to rise even more over the next 5 years. :sneaky:

Let's also not discount that SKU names assigned to GPUs are often arbitrary in nature. For example, never in the history of NV did a 2nd tier (x70) card was trailing the 1st tier (x80) by 20-30% but it appears that 1070 may be the first time this is happening. Based on the TFlops, it seems 1080 may only have 1920-2048 CCs at most. With only GDDR5, it's pretty much neutered compared to the 1080, where the performance delta is more akin to 660Ti vs. 680 rather than x70 vs. x80. That's another way NV raises ASPs because it manipulates SKU marketing names.

That's fantastic info! 11% CAGR is about right....it's nice to put some hard numbers to a lot of anecdotal examples. Excluding some outliers, it feels pretty spot on. One positive us that CPU, ram and HDD updates are cheaper, less frequent and last longer so it frees up a little more for GPUs.

 

[boozzer]

I'm sorry, was I quoting Vesku's post? No?

Glad that's cleared up...

the point of my post whoosh

 

[Lepton87]

Most of you are from the US so you are not affected by this but a lot of folks are from the Canada and they probably know what I'm about to write. Due to the unusually high price of dollar the prices for high-end cards more then doubled for a lot of people. For example a few years ago the dollar cost 2PLN and now it costs almost 4PLN. PLN is the currency used in my country.

 

[mohit9206]

199 gpus suck.

they're pretty much all crap.

R9 380 is pretty good.

 

[mohit9206]

Do you think there should be a cheaper 4gb model of 1070 for $330? Since according to 96Firebird, 1070 is not fast enough to utilize more than 4gb vram so i guess it would be better to have a cheaper 1070 option as well.

 

[Lepton87]

I heard from a very reputable source that is an NV's employee that the founder's edition was internally called sucker's edition.

 

[boozzer]

I heard from a very reputable source that is an NV's employee that the founder's edition was internally called sucker's edition.

god, that is actually a very, very apt name for it

 

[imaheadcase]

I would pay for driver support, IF they made better game support with it. Lets face it, most game optimizations cater to popular games and not many out of the blue games people also like.

I would also pay for driver support if they would work with the game developers to optimize certain games better. For a example i play Black Desert Online, great game, however it has issues that is clearly a physics issue that if nvidia and developer worked on would be fixed real fast.

How much would i pay for that? Depends on what you get. If we get big updates once a week for lots of new and old games might be worth it to some.

 

[Erenhardt]

I heard from a very reputable source that is an NV's employee that the founder's edition was internally called sucker's edition.

Hehe. Quoting Mr President:

Take a loan and change job!

I myself am as curious as JHH himself in how much somebody is willing to pay extra for GPU. Sky is the limit!

 

[96Firebird]

Do you think there should be a cheaper 4gb model of 1070 for $330? Since according to 96Firebird, 1070 is not fast enough to utilize more than 4gb vram so i guess it would be better to have a cheaper 1070 option as well.

Your PM to me mentioned nothing of the 1070... Here was my response to you, also no mention of the 1070...

For how powerful a single 770 is, most games/settings that push VRAM over 2GB are going to get poor performance.

It's sad we have to deal with people like you on this forum... :\


Personal attacks are not allowed.
Markfw900

 

[maddie]

Your PM to me mentioned nothing of the 1070... Here was my response to you, also no mention of the 1070...



It's sad we have to deal with people like you on this forum... :\

Someone sent a PM to you and you make it public to belittle them.

 

[96Firebird]

Someone sent a PM to you and you make it public to belittle them.

When they misquote my answer, yes I will post it. The belittlement was all on them.






You may not post PMs between members

From The Guidelines:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=60552


"9) Respect other users' privacy and do not post personal or private information of any other user without their express permission, regardless of the source. This also includes PMs between two or more members. The contents of those PMs cannot be posted in the forum unless all parties agree to it."


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Redentor]

One of the reasons that the PC gaming market has been so good to NVIDIA is that games are continually requiring more and more horsepower in order to look their best.

I would change the sentence so: "One of the reasons that the PC gaming market has been so good to NVIDIA is that console porting games are continually requiring more and more horsepower in order to look their best". LOL

 

[exar333]

I would change the sentence so: "One of the reasons that the PC gaming market has been so good to NVIDIA is that console porting games are continually requiring more and more horsepower in order to look their best". LOL

If you look back 10 years, GPUs were advancing by leaps and bounds, but we needed it. Crysis wasn't even hitting 40fps reliably for most users on top-end 1600P systems. By the time 4K was coming a year or two back, we had finally gotten to the point where you could peg 60fps pretty well on most mid-range GPUs or even lower-end ones with some eye candy removed.

Now 4K is driving more and more GPU horsepower and we need it more than ever. The next few years will likely be very good for NV/AMD with demand for GPUs to adequately power 4K displays.

It took a while, but LCD display tech started to finally get past resolutions/refreshes the rest of us were gaming on in 90's.

 

[Sonikku13]

I'm disappointed in the 1080, but maybe OCed models will convince me otherwise. I've heard rumors of a 2.4 GHz OC on air... if that happens, I may have to bite the bullet and buy a 1080.

But I'm on a Radeon R9 Nano, which is fast enough at the moment for the lone game I play, which is Final Fantasy XIV: Heavensward. Will it hold on for Battlefield 1 and Civilization VI? We'll see. If I can't max either game out at 1080p, then I'm gonna have to upgrade.

 

[Lepton87]

I'm disappointed in the 1080, but maybe OCed models will convince me otherwise. I've heard rumors of a 2.4 GHz OC on air... if that happens, I may have to bite the bullet and buy a 1080.

But I'm on a Radeon R9 Nano, which is fast enough at the moment for the lone game I play, which is Final Fantasy XIV: Heavensward. Will it hold on for Battlefield 1 and Civilization VI? We'll see. If I can't max either game out at 1080p, then I'm gonna have to upgrade.

My piece of advise, wait for the proper high-end cards, does 256bit memory bus and 7.2B transistors down from 8B on the last gen high-end card seem like such a great deal for 600-700$? NV is really trying to milk us with those prices. R9 should be pretty competitive with at least 1070 in DX12 games. Those cards should really have stayed in the same price brackets as 970 and 980 as those cards were already very expensive for upper-mainstream cards.
ps. Full-HD? Please, unless by maxing out the game you mean turning on some crazy level of AA you should be fine. Nano is a fine card and it is only going to look stronger compared to NV line-up in DX-12 games.

ps. Ever since NV started "co-operating with the developers under the game-works having all settings maxed-out as the goal is a very bad idea. Do you really need a flat wall to be very heavily tessellated resulting in the loss of more than 1/4 of frame-rate in the process? How about shadow resolution that is a few times too great for any increase to be noticed even in static screens with an hour-glass, shadows can be one of the most demanding graphics setting and they usually are. The same image just half the frame-rate. Those are just a few of many glorious graphical settings. Of course not only game-works features are guilty of this but those settings are the biggest offenders by far.

 

[Tempered81]

Someone on chiphell benched 1080 at 2.5ghz on air and says these are the scores, and also it is 46% faster than a 980Ti @ 1500/8000.

With this OC, it scores almost double the stock Titan-X

 

[linkgoron]

Someone on chiphell benched 1080 at 2.5ghz on air and says these are the scores, and also it is 46% faster than a 980Ti @ 1500/8000.

With this OC, it scores almost double the stock Titan-X

Is it ordinary to get such a linear boost in performance with OC?

2.5/1.7=1.47
31286/21828=1.43
15280/10367=1.47
7369/4998=1.47

Also, is he using a reference card? Using the base 180 watts TDP, wouldn't the card need something like 270 watts for such an OC, which I assume needs an extra power connector (someone please correct me if I'm wrong)?