General Discussion forked from Nvidia Quadro P6000 Review

[DamZe]

MOD NOTE DO NO DELETE

These posts have been moved from the Nvidia Quadro P6000 thread as they're general in nature rather than topical.

AT Moderator ElFenix



It's sad how nVidia these days can demand sky high prices for cards that are essentially low to midrange within the architecture. I know one can slightly up the asking Price due to inflation and increased R&D costs, but not by these margins. $600-700 for a midrange chip (1080) $1200 for the higher end one (Titan XP) and what about the full big chip? Nope can't have it unless you can pay around 5 grand for it. Disgusting really, the modern-day GPU market helmed by nVidia has one goal and that is to deceive the consumer into overpaying, the days of $500 8800GTX and GTX580 are over. How far are consumers willing to tolerate this before they check out because the prices are spinning out of control. A couple of years back before nVidia introduced this trend I was a firm believer in the x80 cards, you bought one for a semi reasonable price and felt you could ride it out because that was the best the architecture had to offer, never buying an X80 card ever again from nVidia. Vega can’t come soon enough, because if it can compete it automatically will draw in the enthusiasts as is GCN truly DX12/Vulkan ready, that has to somehow break the mind share nVIdia has.

 

[OatisCampbell]

It's sad how nVidia these days can demand sky high prices for cards that are essentially low to midrange within the architecture. I know one can slightly up the asking Price due to inflation and increased R&D costs, but not by these margins. $600-700 for a midrange chip (1080) $1200 for the higher end one (Titan XP) and what about the full big chip? Nope can't have it unless you can pay around 5 grand for it. Disgusting really, the modern-day GPU market helmed by nVidia has one goal and that is to deceive the consumer into overpaying, the days of $500 8800GTX and GTX580 are over. How far are consumers willing to tolerate this before they check out because the prices are spinning out of control. A couple of years back before nVidia introduced this trend I was a firm believer in the x80 cards, you bought one for a semi reasonable price and felt you could ride it out because that was the best the architecture had to offer, never buying an X80 card ever again from nVidia. Vega can’t come soon enough, because if it can compete it automatically will draw in the enthusiasts as is GCN truly DX12/Vulkan ready, that has to somehow break the mind share nVIdia has.

This all makes perfect sense, and AMD would do it as well if roles were reversed. (actually did- I think I paid over $1000 for my FX cpu when that was the thing to have)

Pretty tough to say what chip designers "could" sell us boards for these days, but what you describe is exactly what every company on the planet would do given the opportunity.

Hopefully Vega launches soon and gives those of us with shallower pockets a chance to upgrade.

(or forces the release of this apparently insanely powerful chip at consumer level)

 

[poofyhairguy]

Wow... Well that's scary for amd.

Good for consumers though when we can get another generation of AMD hardware for discount prices.

I predict that AMD will release the 490 that barely beats a 1080 and then Nvidia will come out with a 1080 ti that just crushes their soul.

I can't wait to buy a 490 for sub-$400 six months after release.

 

[tential]

Good for consumers though when we can get another generation of AMD hardware for discount prices.

I predict that AMD will release the 490 that barely beats a 1080 and then Nvidia will come out with a 1080 ti that just crushes their soul.

I can't wait to buy a 490 for sub-$400 six months after release.

If you're saying the 490 will be the flagship amd card then yes, I won't be surprised if I can buy it heavily discounted. But I become spiteful if I have to do this. Then, I refuse to buy from a vendor because I don't want amd selling new chips on the market for a product I wasn't necessarily happy with.

I then buy on the second hand market instead. Obviously I'm a minority customer that does this purposely but this doesn't mean a number of amd buyers won't do this. Then is it really good for consumers if amd can't sell as many new chips and therefore is less competitive in the long run?

Things being "good for consumers" is a very blanket used term that doesn't really dive in to the details.

 

[poofyhairguy]

If you're saying the 490 will be the flagship amd card then yes, I won't be surprised if I can buy it heavily discounted. But I become spiteful if I have to do this. Then, I refuse to buy from a vendor because I don't want amd selling new chips on the market for a product I wasn't necessarily happy with.

I don't really see the problem. Hell I would have bought a discount Fury X if it didn't have less VRAM than my 390x.

All I care about at the end of the day is performance per dollar. Nvidia won't give it to me, and hell AMD doesn't want to give it to me, but they will if they have to.

 

[RussianSensation]

Good for consumers though when we can get another generation of AMD hardware for discount prices.

I predict that AMD will release the 490 that barely beats a 1080 and then Nvidia will come out with a 1080 ti that just crushes their soul.

I can't wait to buy a 490 for sub-$400 six months after release.

It would be odd for RX 490 to be the flagship since RX480 supersedes HD7850/7870/R9 380 line, implying RX 490 (or 590) is a HD7950/R9 290 successor. We still would need HD7970/Fury X line above it. However, with AMD, everything has become pretty confusing. I think a market exists for $400-600 cards like the GTX1070/1080 aimed at 1080-1440p and for $700-1200 cards aimed at 4K users. Since OG Titan/680/7970 generation, we have to readjust what a mid-range card is nowadays. If flagship ultra high end is $750-1200 segments and low-end are $100-250, new mid-range is minimum $300-500 [this is where 1070 falls in right now]. Another way to look at it is last generation Fury X, Titan X Maxwell and 980Ti were flagships and R9 290X/980/390X were mid-range. RX480/1060 now match last geneation's mid-range cards but every tier moves 1 down with a new generation. That makes RX 480/1060 low-end, 1070/1080 mid-range/upper mid-range and 1080Ti/Vega/Titan XP high-end/flagship.

Despite the firm opposition, I continue to view 1080 as upper mid-range; and think the card shouldn't have cost more than $499, given it's a spiritual predecessor to the 680.

Good to see that potential is there for a 3840 CC GTX1080Ti. However, I only see NV releasing a full GP102 if AMD's Vega performs WELL above expectations; or they introduce a new $1200-1500 Titan X Black. For the consumer market, I am expecting a cut-down 1080Ti.

I am getting more excited about Volta. Pascal is Maxwell+ and this GPU generation is very uneventful for now since we still do not have any true next generation PC games/exclusives. The actual graphics IQ of a GTX1070 and Titan XP is more or less the same at 1080p/1440p. The extra performance just gets one more FPS, but not really much better graphics/settings. I wish we had a true next gen PC game exclusive like Crysis 1, that needed a P6000 level GPUs in SLI to run it maxed out at 1080p 30-40 fps [and of course have the best graphics and physics out of any game in the world].

It's probably virtually guaranteed that NV will have the performance crown this generation for 2016 & 2017, which reduces chances for a serious price war on the high-end. We probably won't get a huge improvement in price/performance from $300-400 GTX980Ti/1070 until Volta GP104 in 2018. GTX1070 is a whopping 63-67% faster than 970, but I don't see any card 60-70% faster than 1080 in 2018.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_1080_Amp_Extreme/29.html

Volta and next gen games can't get here fast enough. This 2nd half of the 8th console generation is characterized by AAA console to PC ports (some of which are poorly opinized) one after the other

 

[Bacon1]

I wish we had a true next gen PC game exclusive like Crysis 1, that needed a P6000 level GPUs in SLI to run it maxed out at 1080p 30-40 fps [and of course have the best graphics and physics out of any game in the world].

I think that game is going to be star citizen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ROL0pei6Po

 

[moonbogg]

Star Citizen has officially achieved Duke Nukem Forever status IMO. Its a failed, never ending project that needs to just die already. I wouldn't use that half finished tech demo to base any GPU purchasing decision on.

 

[happy medium]

It would be odd for RX 490 to be the flagship since RX480 supersedes HD7850/7870/R9 380 line, implying RX 490 (or 590) is a HD7950/R9 290 successor. We still would need HD7970/Fury X line above it. However, with AMD, everything has become pretty confusing. I think a market exists for $400-600 cards like the GTX1070/1080 aimed at 1080-1440p and for $700-1200 cards aimed at 4K users. Since OG Titan/680/7970 generation, we have to readjust what a mid-range card is nowadays. If flagship ultra high end is $750-1200 segments and low-end are $100-250, new mid-range is minimum $300-500 [this is where 1070 falls in right now]. Another way to look at it is last generation Fury X, Titan X Maxwell and 980Ti were flagships and R9 290X/980/390X were mid-range. RX480/1060 now match last geneation's mid-range cards but every tier moves 1 down with a new generation. That makes RX 480/1060 low-end, 1070/1080 mid-range/upper mid-range and 1080Ti/Vega/Titan XP high-end/flagship.

Despite the firm opposition, I continue to view 1080 as upper mid-range; and think the card shouldn't have cost more than $499, given it's a spiritual predecessor to the 680.

Good to see that potential is there for a 3840 CC GTX1080Ti. However, I only see NV releasing a full GP102 if AMD's Vega performs WELL above expectations; or they introduce a new $1200-1500 Titan X Black. For the consumer market, I am expecting a cut-down 1080Ti.

I am getting more excited about Volta. Pascal is Maxwell+ and this GPU generation is very uneventful for now since we still do not have any true next generation PC games/exclusives. The actual graphics IQ of a GTX1070 and Titan XP is more or less the same at 1080p/1440p. The extra performance just gets one more FPS, but not really much better graphics/settings. I wish we had a true next gen PC game exclusive like Crysis 1, that needed a P6000 level GPUs in SLI to run it maxed out at 1080p 30-40 fps [and of course have the best graphics and physics out of any game in the world].

It's probably virtually guaranteed that NV will have the performance crown this generation for 2016 & 2017, which reduces chances for a serious price war on the high-end. We probably won't get a huge improvement in price/performance from $300-400 GTX980Ti/1070 until Volta GP104 in 2018. GTX1070 is a whopping 63-67% faster than 970, but I don't see any card 60-70% faster than 1080 in 2018.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_1080_Amp_Extreme/29.html

Volta and next gen games can't get here fast enough. This 2nd half of the 8th console generation is characterized by AAA console to PC ports (some of which are poorly opinized) one after the other

and this has what to do with the Nvidia Quadro P6000 REVIEW?

 

[Headfoot]

and this has what to do with the Nvidia Quadro P6000 REVIEW?

It shows the performance of a full unlocked GP102, which would be a prime competitor....

 

[poofyhairguy]

It would be odd for RX 490 to be the flagship since RX480 supersedes HD7850/7870/R9 380 line, implying RX 490 (or 590) is a HD7950/R9 290 successor. We still would need HD7970/Fury X line above it.

The 290X was AMD's top card for a while.

I expect a Fury X replacement in 2018.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I don't really see the problem. Hell I would have bought a discount Fury X if it didn't have less VRAM than my 390x.

All I care about at the end of the day is performance per dollar. Nvidia won't give it to me, and hell AMD doesn't want to give it to me, but they will if they have to.

Performance per dollar...is the GTX 1070 not a good perf/dollar card?

 

[poofyhairguy]

Performance per dollar...is the GTX 1070 not a good perf/dollar card?

At its $380 average price? Nah. For a Black Friday $330-ish price? Sure. But those kind of deals aren't consistent. The only 1070 near that price on Newegg right now is a refurb. Every full sized 1070 on there is $370 or more.

The king of performance per dollar right now is the non X Fury which keeps being sold for sub-$250 ($240 on Newegg right now). That is what I base my value scale on because it has been near that price for a while.

When AMD has been selling hardware for far under MSRP for years now it tips the value scale. The problem is AMD doesn't offer anything faster than a 1070, which means the value scale above that level is completely crazy. I am looking forward to the 490 because hopefully I will be able to buy 1080 performance for less than $500 ($400-$450 would be right on the money) before 2017 is over.

 

[Keysplayr]

490 is much more likely a competitor for current 1080. Fury"V" if anything, would be the "logical" competitor for 1080Ti or TitanXP or P6000 desktop variant.

But it is even more likely, that 490 will be competing against something much worse than 1080, and FuryV against 1080ti. AMD is looking like it will be squarely 1 gen behind Nvidia for the foreseeable future.

Ok, sorry for the off topic magnetism. P6000, or fully unlocked GP102 is a monster. amazing what 300+ CUDA cores could do....

 

[96Firebird]

At its $380 average price? Nah. For a Black Friday $330-ish price? Sure. But those kind of deals aren't consistent. The only 1070 near that price on Newegg right now is a refurb. Every full sized 1070 on there is $370 or more.

1070 FE for $340AR currently...

https://slickdeals.net/f/9616620-340-gtx-1070-gigabyte-newegg-com-40-rebate?v=1

 

[Bacon1]

1070 FE for $340AR currently...

https://slickdeals.net/f/9616620-340-gtx-1070-gigabyte-newegg-com-40-rebate?v=1

$40 MIR which is a lot. Too bad it's the FE not the custom gigabyte model, that would be a very good deal.

 

[Ghost of Cyrix]

Glorious GPU that will never fully see the light of day for consumers. Watch GV104 barely match/beat a full GP102 a year or more later, yet get touted by Nvidia as being revolutionary or something for $700+ in 2018 because all they fed us up until then was a neutered GP102. For a similar example, see GP104 vs GM200 and GM204 vs GK110... or GF104 vs GT200. I'm sad now.

Thread-specific Edit: And AMD aren't even close to matching this. GCN just isn't capable of it without creating some massively cost-inefficient, 500-600mm^2-sized, HBM2-dependent thing.

 

[Keysplayr]

$40 MIR which is a lot. Too bad it's the FE not the custom gigabyte model, that would be a very good deal.

It's a great deal anyway.

 

[Keysplayr]

Glorious GPU that will never fully see the light of day for consumers. Watch GV104 barely match/beat a full GP102 a year or more later, yet get touted by Nvidia as being revolutionary or something for $700+ in 2018 because all they fed us up until then was a neutered GP102. For a similar example, see GP104 vs GM200 and GM204 vs GK110... or GF104 vs GT200. I'm sad now.

Thread-specific Edit: And AMD aren't even close to matching this. GCN just isn't capable of it without creating some massively cost-inefficient, 500-600mm^2-sized, HBM2-dependent thing.

As per history, GV104 will likely edge out TitanXP or full GP102. Nothing new.Happened with 980, 1080, why not 1180 or whatever GV104 will be called.

 

[casiofx]

As per history, GV104 will likely edge out TitanXP or full GP102. Nothing new.Happened with 980, 1080, why not 1180 or whatever GV104 will be called.

Because 1180 is refresh pascal?

 

[happy medium]

or whatever GV104 will be called

Because 1180 is refresh pascal?

gtx 1280!?

 

[tential]

Because 1180 is refresh pascal?

How do we know it's a simple refresh? How do we know a refresh won't allow Nvidia to shift chips around as yields improve along Nvidia release line?

I will bet even a refresh of pascal will yield significant improvements somehow.

 

[Ghost of Cyrix]

As per history, GV104 will likely edge out TitanXP or full GP102. Nothing new.Happened with 980, 1080, why not 1180 or whatever GV104 will be called.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.

 

[bearxor]

I'm just going to echo some statements earlier in the thread talking about AMD delivering price/perf over nVidia. One of the biggest pain points for me has been monitors in this regard.

I don't want to talk about Gsync vs Freesync from a technical standpoint because gsync is better... but is it $400 better?

I scored a sweet deal on a GTX 1080 from BB's price mistake, switched out my dual 390 setup for a 1080 and sold my FreeSync monitors and picked up a Predator x34. That's an awful lot of money to drop and I basically regretted it the moment it came in.

FreeSync works perfectly fine for just about everything. There was no noticeable difference between my XG270HU and my x34. I regretted switching to nVidia because the value, even at $250 off a 1080 just wasn't there. I can pick up a 34" 1440 FreeSync monitor for $400 cheaper than a Gsync version.

And that's what nVidia' stranglehold on the top end of the video card market has really gotten us. People who pick up a 1070 because it's a little bit faster and newer with more VRAM than a Fury and the. You're locked in to the nVidia ecosystem where you have to spend extra money just to get an optimal gaming experience.

I returned the X34 because I am in wait and see mode for Vega. If a RX 490 hits the market and is somewhere between a 1070 and a 1080 (or better) I'm ditching my 1080 and switching back. At this point I suspect that Vega will deliver a solid trouncing of the 1080 with DX12 games, will probably be $100 cheaper and will give me a MUCH wider selection of monitors to goose from.

Or nVidia could support VESA Adaptive Sync on the desktop and I'll keep my 1080 and be perfectly happy but that's probably not happening.

My wife is going to kill me, BTW.

 

[OatisCampbell]

Another way to look at it is last generation Fury X, Titan X Maxwell and 980Ti were flagships and R9 290X/980/390X were mid-range. RX480/1060 now match last geneation's mid-range cards but every tier moves 1 down with a new generation. That makes RX 480/1060 low-end, 1070/1080 mid-range/upper mid-range and 1080Ti/Vega/Titan XP high-end/flagship.

Despite the firm opposition, I continue to view 1080 as upper mid-range; and think the card shouldn't have cost more than $499, given it's a spiritual predecessor to the 680.

Good to see that potential is there for a 3840 CC GTX1080Ti. However, I only see NV releasing a full GP102 if AMD's Vega performs WELL above expectations; or they introduce a new $1200-1500 Titan X Black. For the consumer market, I am expecting a cut-down 1080Ti.

There is no other way to look at it.

Last gen Fury X came fairly close 980Tis, and this gen the 1080 is already the 3rd fastest GPU NVIDIA sells, soon to be the fourth. Fourth fastest is definitely mid range.

I'll be shocked if Vega beats 1080 based on how far below 1080 the 480 8GB is:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_1080_Amp_Extreme/29.html

If the 490 is twice as fast as the 480 it will barely be faster than a 1080 factory OC. That would be OK if the MSRP is $499, but if AMD comes with that level of performance at $599-$699 this generation officially becomes the worst for consumers ever.

1080Ti will be $899/$999, Titan Ps will stay $1200, and to be computer gamers will blow. (unless a person likes paying $1000 for each generation high end)

The end of SLi and CF in DX12 just cements this, no buying two mid range cards and getting high end performance. Used to be NV and AMD would work with devs (readay) to get good multi gpu support, apparently no longer.