GPU enthusiasts, how much are you actually willing to spend?

[provost]

Yes exactly. Nvidia should just be honest and tell us. I would respect them more for that and probably become more confident in them. They should admit that they fully intend on wrecking Maxwell performance so people will be persuaded to buy Pascal, just like they did with Kepler.
If they admit that and offer people a subscription service for driver optimizations, for a monthly fee, then I might pay that and I will feel superior to all those folks who can't afford a monthly fee.
Those folks will get regular drivers, the generic kind that only exist to prevent your previous generation GPU from blue screening your ass as soon as you try to load a game. The leet folks who pay will get proper performance improvements.
Honesty would go a long way here.

I don't know about feeling superior, but I would certainly not feel like an idiot for dropping upfront cash on a piece of hardware that is heavily dependent at the mercy of the gpu company, without an accompanying promise of optimization support, explicitly spelled out. No need for subscription service, you can present value the optimization support and bake it into the price of the gpu, as long as the "optimization support" is clearly spelled out in the purchase agreement.

 

[swilli89]

I don't know about feeling superior, but I would certainly not feel like an idiot for dropping upfront cash on a piece of hardware that is heavily dependent at the mercy of the gpu company, without an accompanying promise of optimization support, explicitly spelled out. No need for subscription service, you can present value the optimization support and bake it into the price of the gpu, as long as the "optimization support" is clearly spelled out in the purchase agreement.

Two kinds of people in this world.

The people that get their product wrecked after they spent money on it; say screw this and decide to go to a different company.

The people that get their product wrecked after they spent money on it; say screw this and support the same company.

Which one makes sense and which one seems insane?

 

[moonbogg]

I will skip all mid-range GPUs priced at $549-699 flagship prices out of principle as I don't support such business practices. If it's a true flagship, for example this gen's HBM2 parts, I'd consider paying $549-649. I don't care that 1070 and 1080 are X% faster than the Titan X because Titan X is just a marketing gimmick. GTX460 also outperformed the GTX285 (Titan X predecessor) and GTX470 destroyed the 285. Those NEXT GEN Fermi cards cost $229-249 and $349. Now what used to be GTX460/560Ti class costs $379-699. :sneaky:

Anyway, my solution now is to buy AMD cards since they pay for themselves much quicker than NV's cards. Haven't spent any of my real $ on any GPU since HD4800 series. Once this awesome perk ends, I'll probably start buying in the x70 class (970/1070 series cards).

There are some concerns I have for future GPU upgrades. As the PS4/XB1 generation is reaching its mid-point, more and more games are just console ports and many of them are unoptimized. I am far more likely to spend $600 on a GPU if the next Crysis 4 or something comes out vs. $400-700 to max out ARK Survival Evolved because it's poorly optimized. I am also waiting for 4K + 60/120Hz + HDR monitors in 32-40" sizes to launch and become reasonably affordable. If next gen games start to WOW and there is a monitor revolution, I wouldn't mind even buying 3x$600 cards.

I picked $300-600 assuming that mining ends in 2017 and I have to buy the card out of pocket. I predict that 4K 120Hz HDR monitors won't be cheap by then yet and most games will still be made for PS4/XB1, in which case a $300-600 2017 card should max almost every game at 1440p from 2017-2018.

Basically, my upgrades will be primarily driven by PC gaming software and PC monitor revolution. Since I don't buy Day 1 AAA games for $60-120 with all the DLC, I also don't need to have the latest and greatest GPUs every 12 months.

All good points. I will never buy an expensive mid range die card again either. I won't do it. The last time I did was with 670's. At least they were "only" $400 lol.
You posted the chart and listed the legacy prices of mid range cards like the 1080 and 1070, but people don't seem to care. That truly blows my mind. It really does.
How people can, for many years, get used to paying a certain amount for mid range cards and then suddenly the price more than doubles and they don't care? Or they buy anyway? I am unable to understand it.
I can't do anything other than wait for a real card to be released. I don't consider these real cards. They are jokes intended to make us look stupid. Imagine a 560-Ti selling for $700??? Holy crap. That card was $250.

 

[Piroko]

I wanted to spend 650&#8364; on a Fury X but the pump noise said no, so I went and bought in my usual price lot of <300&#8364; (<300$).

I don't have a specific limit, but a product has to really intrigue me from an engineering standpoint to justify a price that is much higher.

 

[provost]

Two kinds of people in this world. <br />
<br />
The people that get their product wrecked after they spent money on it; say screw this and decide to go to a different company. <br />
<br />
The people that get their product wrecked after they spent money on it; say screw this and support the same company. <br />
<br />
Which one makes sense and which one seems insane?

<br />
<br />
Probably neither, as we are talking about gpus here after all, and not a matter of life and death, from a consumer's perspective. I think the definition of insanity is different for every person when it comes to things such as a hobby, etc... Lol. But, some people don't like rewarding the counter party(or a company in this case) for bad behavior, and I happen to be one of them...or may be this hobby just got under my skin... Lol

 

[guskline]

$600 to $1000 because that is where the higher end cards are landing. If I only had one rig I would be more likely to upgrade to a 1080 BUT I want to keep one rig with AMD and since Polaris will unlikely exceed 2 R9 290s I will wait for Vega.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Dude this poll is not very useful.

the 1000+ should all be the same. To a person making 50k a year is a lambo different than a bugatti?

Why not 0-149, 150-200, 200-300, 300-449, 450-600, then 1k+? I mean according to this poll someone maybe willing to spend $315 is the same as $599 which are drastically different.

That isn't what he is going for. Moon is trying to figure out how many people basically don't have a set budget, and would give Nvidia a kidney to game in 4K on a single card.

 

[deanx0r]

I spent about $400 on my last GPU purchase (GTX970) which I still think is way too much for the amount of gaming I do. The ability to run games maxed out is nice, but the gaming experience overall isn't that much improved with ultra settings.

I am looking to upgrade again this year for freesync, but my hard limit will be $250. I was looking at the GTX1080 announcement, and various enthusiasts thought it was a bargain given the performance you are getting. You'd really have to drink the nVidia coolaid to think $599/699 is reasonable pricing for a video card that most only buy to play games.

 

[Head1985]

All good points. I will never buy an expensive mid range die card again either. I won't do it. The last time I did was with 670's. At least they were "only" $400 lol.
You posted the chart and listed the legacy prices of mid range cards like the 1080 and 1070, but people don't seem to care. That truly blows my mind. It really does.
How people can, for many years, get used to paying a certain amount for mid range cards and then suddenly the price more than doubles and they don't care? Or they buy anyway? I am unable to understand it.
I can't do anything other than wait for a real card to be released. I don't consider these real cards. They are jokes intended to make us look stupid. Imagine a 560-Ti selling for $700??? Holy crap. That card was $250.

I think its because Nvidia renamed cards.
If todays 1080 was 1060 in name then people wont buy it for 700USD thats for sure.But its 1080 and x80 part was expensive in past.I remember x80 parts cost 500-600 max in past.And those cards buy people with more money than brain and they just dont care if it cost 500 or 700USD.
You know its x80 part...
If they rename next volta low-end like 750TI as 1080TI and it will be 5% faster than 1080 with less power and cost 850USD some people will still buy it.But No one will buy it as 750TI for 850USD.


Also nvidia using Titan brand to increase price to 1000USD and then already overpriced cards looks better.And they using it in marketing..You know look at how they comparing 1000USD TITANX vs GTX1080.It cost less than 1000USD TITANX bla bla bla....But we all knows They have 980TI with same performance for 650USD.But vs 650USD 980TI it dont look that good that 700USD 1080.

 

[topmounter]

In the almost prehistoric days of PC tech, enthusiasts by and large spent less and maximized use. Those days are dead.

The requisite car analogy is the tinkerers extracting the most from their low/mid rides. Now, enthusiast is becoming a Ferrari purchaser. A new world.

That's actually an interesting distinction. I definitely consider myself in the former camp in a variety of ways. I certainly could drop $699 on a 1080 FE, but it would be overkill for my setup and I'd soon have a major case of buyer's remorse. I always seem to be happier with any purchase when it is closer to the sweet spot of the price / performance curve.

In this age of fairly capable integrated graphics, I consider anyone purchasing and installing a discrete 3D video card to be an enthusiast on some level.

 

[moonbogg]

That isn't what he is going for. Moon is trying to figure out how many people basically don't have a set budget, and would give Nvidia a kidney to game in 4K on a single card.

Correct. I want to know how much people would throw out there for a card, especially a mid range card like the new ones. If I had to guess, I'd say around $1,200.00 is where people would finally start to feel that something may be a little off.

I think its because Nvidia renamed cards.
If todays 1080 was 1060 in name then people wont buy it for 700USD thats for sure.But its 1080 and x80 part was expensive in past.I remember x80 parts cost 500-600 max in past.And those cards buy people with more money than brain and they just dont care if it cost 500 or 700USD.
You know its x80 part...
If they rename next volta low-end like 750TI as 1080TI and it will be 5% faster than 1080 with less power and cost 850USD some people will still buy it.But No one will buy it as 750TI for 850USD.

Absolutely correct. They started selling mid range cards as high ends. People became conditioned to associate the name of a card with its place on the performance charts. Now, with high end cards simply being absent upon release of a new product cycle, they are free to simply tell us that the mid range cards are really the high end option.
We are trained like fish in a tank. If you place a plate of glass in the middle of the tank, the fish will eventually learn that they can't cross it. You then remove it and they behave as if its still there, and they won't cross.
We were trained to believe that a product named a certain way deserves a certain price tag. They removed the product and replaced it with a cheaper one, but kept the name and charged the same old high price. The name is like the plate of glass. We don't blink an eye. We just pay like always.

 

[DooKey]

Polaris 10 crossfire will be within 10% of 1080sli.
Polaris 10 trifire will crush 1080sli.

Look at the prices and make your choice.

Sli scaling just makes me cry inside for those who go 1070/1080sli this gen only to be outperformed by a Polaris 10 cheap gpu in crossfire.

Nvidia needs to fix sli because this will be embarrassing this time around.

The problem is that multi-gpu just isn't supported well anymore regardless of the tech from either company. That's what I meant by looking at the SLI landscape. IMO it's not worth going CF or SLI right now unless you are just wedded to a particular game that supports it.

Also, much like you I have a gsync monitor (you have freesync) and I'm more likely to go NV for the current generation unless AMD gives me a better single card experience than NV. Polaris isn't going to do that. I'll re-evaluate when Vega/Big Pascal are released.

 

[Arachnotronic]

The problem is that multi-gpu just isn't supported well anymore regardless of the tech from either company. That's what I meant by looking at the SLI landscape. IMO it's not worth going CF or SLI right now unless you are just wedded to a particular game that supports it.

Also, much like you I have a gsync monitor (you have freesync) and I'm more likely to go NV for the current generation unless AMD gives me a better single card experience than NV. Polaris isn't going to do that. I'll re-evaluate when Vega/Big Pascal are released.

I hate to agree with this, but mGPU support in games in general is going to the dogs. I am going to buy two 1080s because I play a lot of CoD and want 144fps pegged at all times at max IQ @ 2560x1440, but yeah...lots of games don't support it well

 

[spinejam]

I wanted to spend 650€ on a Fury X but the pump noise said no, so I went and bought in my usual price lot of <300€ (<300$).

I don't have a specific limit, but a product has to really intrigue me from an engineering standpoint to justify a price that is much higher.

My first Fury X was a Gigabyte which I RMA'd b/c it had a noisy (fish tank-like) pump, but my replacement Asus Fury X has been whisper quiet. :thumbsup:

 

[VirtualLarry]

My limit is right around $150 ea., for each of my machines.

Screw the NV "lets market the hell out of low-end/mid-range dies" tax though. (I'm probably never going NV again anytime soon.)

 

[UaVaj]

reallie depends on the display resolution and the level of eye candy.

currently running exotic resolution with all the eye candy. so have to coin up.

$500 per gpu x4 is the target.
$750 per gpu x4 is the max.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

It all depends on what games are coming out. Currently I'm in a weird spot waiting for 4k monitors to mature, waiting for VR to mature, and waiting for a worthwhile upgrade to my 2500k at 4.5ghz.

The sad fact is that at my current resolution hardware has completely outrun demand for graphics and CPU power. I always bought single card flagships until recently I buy whatever cut down version of a chip is out that gives better price/performance than the high price flagship. Guess that puts me around $350-450.

I really have no need to upgrade until I finally move on a 4k freesync monitor or a vr headset. At that point I'll look for a whole new build. This one is over 4 years old now which is crazy when I built new every 2 years like clockwork for a decade.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

 

[RussianSensation]

All good points. I will never buy an expensive mid range die card again either. I won't do it. The last time I did was with 670's. At least they were "only" $400 lol.

Here is the kicker, even though 670 was $400, it outperformed 580 (aka a Full Fat Fermi) by 20%. Is 1070 going to outperform the Titan X by 20%?

Remember how back then people ripped 7970 apart for being "barely" faster than a 580? It's a joke since now the same people are praising 1070/1080 and their overclocking to 2.1-2.2Ghz on air. When 7970 overclocked from 925mhz to 1.26Ghz on air launch day and beat 580 by 48-80% that was not good enough for only $50 over the 580!?

Let's pull those benchmarks with "garbage" GCN launch drivers.

That was NEW node, mid-range die and it was ripped apart like no tomorrow. Even if we ignore 7970 completely, GTX680 reference was $499 and a GTX1080 reference is $699 straight up! That's a 40% price hike for a reference card in just 4 years.

You posted the chart and listed the legacy prices of mid range cards like the 1080 and 1070, but people don't seem to care. That truly blows my mind. It really does.

I would classify that into 3 groups.

1) Reviewers whose job depends on selling us new junk at all costs. If they tell us some new CPU/GPU isn't worth upgrading to, wait another 12-15 months, they have nothing to sell us/review. They also get pampered by NV/AMD around launches. It's a conflict of interest in the entire industry. Expect them to say that 1080 delivers the most unprecedented improvement in years, blah blah blah, when in fact it's worse than $499 680, which already brought the smallest increase in performance from 1 gen flagship to another in NV's entire history.

2) NV users are very loyal. You can see already on this forum the people who are most excited about 1070/1080 aren't objective/AMD users, but people who own Fermi (GTX580), Kepler (670/680/780/780Ti) and Maxwell (970/980 users).

For example, if I bought a $450 770 4GB or a $650 780 or a $700 780Ti and then saw what happened over the last 1.5 years, I wouldn't buy a next gen NV card out of principle. Them, they line up to buy MORE. Did you also wonder how many of them are locked into the NV eco-system with G-Sync? I bet many are. That means AMD isn't even an option for them, no matter the price, the performance, etc. I mean considering AMD cards also made/make $ and they dipped to 20% market share, that should tell you that the vast majority of NV users wouldn't take any AMD card for free. I wouldn't be shocked if some of them would spend $700 on a 1080 than take a free Vega.

3) Newcomers to PC gaming that have little to no recollection of what GPU landscape was like prior to 2011-2012. They actually truly believe that "the fastest card NV/AMD has is its flagship". Hence, they actually believe 680 was flagship, 780 was flagship, 780Ti was flagship, 980 was flagship, and 1080 is flagship. Hence they think $550-700 prices are justified. They don't actually break the chips or look at the lineage; only look at marketing names and performance. Think about it, if you are 15-27 and migrated to PC from consoles in the last 3-4 years, you don't know **** about past GPUs or how things were. You actually think the way NV launched Kepler was always the norm, how all AMD GPUs run hot and loud, etc. etc.

How people can, for many years, get used to paying a certain amount for mid range cards and then suddenly the price more than doubles and they don't care? Or they buy anyway? I am unable to understand it.

Explained partially above. Marketing, lack of research/understanding of old GPU generations, locked into NV eco-system with ShadowPlay, GSync, TXAA, PhysX, etc. I also think because now NV has an 80% market share, the loyalists no longer even shy away from preferring NV. Instead of outright saying that they'll never buy AMD, they just keep buying NV. Now if you are in the NV eco-system, you don't care if Polaris 10 or Vega 10 could demolish 1070/1080 in any metric because all you care about is when GP100/102 launches. If you start looking at things like that, the NV-only buyer is now faced with either buying a 1070/1080 or waiting 9-12 months. This is EXACTLY why NV's eco-system lock with GameWorks, ShadowPlay, GSync, TXAA was so dangerous. Now they have these customers completely hooked and instilled the bifurcating a generation as the new normal.

I can't do anything other than wait for a real card to be released. I don't consider these real cards. They are jokes intended to make us look stupid. Imagine a 560-Ti selling for $700??? Holy crap. That card was $250.

Ya, you cannot because millions more voted for this new way of GPU launches. I am afraid NV will repeat the Kepler launch and milk this gen for all its worth. First 680 = 1080, then cut-down Big Pascal 780/OG Titan replacement, then the fully unlocked Big Pascal. Heck, why even launch the fully unlocked Big Pascal when 980Ti sold like hot cakes for $650 and it was just a GTX570 successor. See what I mean? They don't even need to try anymore. Since 1080 launches at $599, even a 3200-3500 CUDA core Big Pascal at $699 now looks like a bargain.

NV has now successfully ensured that throughout the entire 1.5-2 year generation they have 1, 2 or even 3 flagships. Since buying a $600-700 card and holding it is now too expensive (i.e., because mid-range is overpriced day 1 causing massive erosion of value in 1.5 years), while the true flagship only has 1 year or so life left in it before its value is also destroyed (aka, $699 780Ti -> $330 970 and now $650 980Ti -> $380 1070), it leaves gamers little choice but to upgrade even more often to preserve the resale value. More or less the success of 680 and 980 destroyed the old way GPUs are launched. Since AMD is strapped for resources, they cannot compete like the old ATI could. This means NV has no competition from exercising this strategy over and over and over. The only way it'll stop is if AMD does something but considering they lose $, it's unrealistic to expect anything different.

More or less, you basically have to upgrade more often now or stop caring about depreciation. Another alternative is to buy last gen cards used. EVGA B-stock had 780Ti for $189-230 about a year after 970 launched. So if you don't need a cutting edge card all the time, there is a lot of $ to be saved from upgrading strategically.

 

[tential]

The problem is that multi-gpu just isn't supported well anymore regardless of the tech from either company. That's what I meant by looking at the SLI landscape. IMO it's not worth going CF or SLI right now unless you are just wedded to a particular game that supports it.

Also, much like you I have a gsync monitor (you have freesync) and I'm more likely to go NV for the current generation unless AMD gives me a better single card experience than NV. Polaris isn't going to do that. I'll re-evaluate when Vega/Big Pascal are released.

No freesync yet I will get one though. I was going to get one with p10 but it's kept fast enough to justify going 4k. I'm trying to hold off for Korea to make me a 65 Inch monitor with freesync. But looks like vega now will be my freesync monitor purchase.

You could no joke get 1 1080 and 2 Polaris 10 for the price of 1080sli though lol. Give you the best of both worlds.

AMDs largest problem. Is single card performance because it won't woo people like yourself.

Although tbh I've said it so many times before. Once you have gsync or freesync who cares? If you're on Nvidia you know you only have to pay more, otherwise both provide smooth gaming and they should be everyone's primary focus.

 

[Slaughterem]

()Whatever my 3 kids want to give me for a fathers day present, 300 - 600 as of now and as the last one graduates college I expect more. LOL

 

[DDH]

I bought a 290x reference for approx 700AUD. Happy with it at the time, still use it.

Happy to pay that again if I have a good reason for it. But I really only play BF4 and probably BF5(1) when it comes out. So unless I have to run it all on low to get some decent FPS then I doubt ill be shelling out anytime this year.

I enjoy watching and reading about the tech though, perhaps a little too much. Last year the hype for fury and 300 series was mad until it was released and then didnt quite live up to it. This year feels like its starting the same way. Trying to not get invested either way at the moment. Only 3 weeks to go until official AMD launch. I stayed up late last year to watch the Fury/300 series event. It was awful. Watched the nvidia event the other day as it was on at a reasonable time(12pm Aus). It was pretty bad too. Doubt Ill do that again.

Problem with Aus is that with a 300USD card it will be 500 here. 600 card is usually 900, 1000 sometimes. Exchange rate doesnt really factor, we just pay much much more.

So although Id like to change from the 290x (Been a solid card for its lifetime), have no real reason to do so, unless P10 is such good value I cant refuse

 

[YBS1]

2) NV users are very loyal. You can see already on this forum the people who are most excited about 1070/1080 aren't objective/AMD users, but people who own Fermi (GTX580), Kepler (670/680/780/780Ti) and Maxwell (970/980 users).

For example, if I bought a $450 770 4GB or a $650 780 or a $700 780Ti and then saw what happened over the last 1.5 years, I wouldn't buy a next gen NV card out of principle. Them, they line up to buy MORE. Did you also wonder how many of them are locked into the NV eco-system with G-Sync? I bet many are. That means AMD isn't even an option for them, no matter the price, the performance, etc. I mean considering AMD cards also made/make $ and they dipped to 20% market share, that should tell you that the vast majority of NV users wouldn't take any AMD card for free. I wouldn't be shocked if some of them would spend $700 on a 1080 than take a free Vega.

G-Sync isn't locking me into the nVidia ecosystem, the only thing really locking me in is nVidia's reliability at having release day ready drivers and SLI profiles. AMD has made outstanding hardware since the 79xx generation, they really just need to make sure it's hitting at full speed from the get go rather than 4-6 months after release. nVidia can't even claim better multicard scaling since the 290 generation came out, though what they can lay claim to is it almost always works and works right out of the gate, something AMD sometimes fumbles with. I'm envious of Crossfire scaling and of the long legs the hardware as of late seems to have, the previously mentioned things are all that prevent me from going back to AMD. With every AMD release I hope they crush it, it can only benefit us all.

Back to the gsync thing, I recently got a 2560x1440 gsync monitor after listening to all you guys go on and on about gsync/freesync and 1080p being a peasant resolution.....my general feeling is "meh". I guess the monitor is ok, but I haven't been wowed, not much of a leap from my Asus VG278H IMO. I guess the additional desktop real estate is nice, but I've been unimpressed in games. I previously said I was going to wait for a curved 34" 3440x1440 21:9 120Hz capable monitor before I upgraded but curiosity got the better of me, I should have waited...I think that's what it's going to take for me to go "wow".

 

[nerp]

I tend to buy cards that sink nicely in the mid-range price/performance sweet spot. That price ranges from $150 to $250 depending on the age of the current generation.

But I might just have to grab a 1070 now. Too impressive. My GTX950 would make a fine card for my daughter's first dedicated PC/Minecraft box.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Dude this poll is not very useful.

the 1000+ should all be the same. To a person making 50k a year is a lambo different than a bugatti?

Why not 0-149, 150-200, 200-300, 300-449, 450-600, then 1k+? I mean according to this poll someone maybe willing to spend $315 is the same as $599 which are drastically different.

You can always start your own thread

 

[Makaveli]

Since i'm a single GPU guy $600 is my limit.