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

[UaVaj]

the poll is correct.

this thread is about enthusiast gpu buyers.
not the average gpu buyers.

 

[Arachnotronic]

The part I always repeat -- never ever buy a $650-700 card and keep it for 4-5 years unless you don't care about resale value, or getting it as a gift or something.

Definitely.

EVGA 980Ti SC is already $475 at MicroCenter new. That means used you'd be lucky to get $450 from some noob that doesn't follow tech. That means in 12 months that's a $200 loss of value, as much as an after-market 290 cost in November 2014.

$200 "loss of resale value" isn't all that bad if you actually used that GPU and got a lot of fun out of it. GPUs are products that degrade in resale value over time, with the real value of the card coming from the fun you have using it to play games.

For most gamers, it's way better to buy a card for $250-350 and upgrade more often unless they are following the launch of new GPUs and resell at a perfect time every time.

Probably true.

For people on 1920x1200 60Hz or lower, even a 970 OC is plenty fast for so many modern games with settings lowered slightly on some. I truly think even though 1080p 60Hz is the "industry standard," it's now not even the target for $350+ cards when designing GPUs. There is no way I'd believe that AMD/NV who are pushing 4K, VR, 1440p 144Hz, HDR are aiming to make $350-400 cards for 1080p 60Hz crowd. The bar is higher than that. I think for Pascal/Vega, the $400+ cards are becoming major overkill and a big waste of GPU potential. Also, the more powerful of a GPU you add to your 1080p 60Hz system, the more the bottleneck shifts to the CPU. I cannot understand the disconnect between GPUs getting so powerful, lower end tiers becoming so affordable, 1440p monitors becoming very affordable and yet people are still stuck to 1080p. I remember when I just started PC gaming, we wanted to get a monitor upgrade once the GPU allowed it. Now, it seems so many are buying new GPUs but are stuck on 1080p. It makes no sense.

People, sadly enough, view the monitor as a necessary, but unwanted expense. I see this all the time, people building/buying great PCs and then sticking with their old piece of crap monitor or picking something up on a discount at Best Buy. It's sad.

The monitor is the thing you stare at when using your computer, it should be high quality.

The poll isn't going to be that accurate since it groups 99% of all PC gamers into just 2 categories: 0-$300 and $300-600.

Accuracy is a function of the truth of the data points. Precision, on the other hand, is what you are talking about. This poll is very imprecise

This thread needs to be made again or the poll started over.

$0-$49
$50-$99
$150-199
$200-249
$250-299
$300-$399
$400-$499
$500-$599
$600-$750
$750-1000
$1000-1500
and so on

Yes.

 

[moonbogg]

Yes.

Nope

 

[swilli89]

Yes.

Nope

Why not have both? Simply split first two into 4 categories. 0-149, 150-299, 300-449, 450-600, then keep all those higher numbers.

Why wouldn't we want to capture those data points as well while we are at it? We can both show what upper end buyers and which actual pricing bracket everyone else shops in.

 

[railven]

Why not have both? Simply split first two into 4 categories. 0-149, 150-299, 300-449, 450-600, then keep all those higher numbers.

Why wouldn't we want to capture those data points as well while we are at it? We can both show what upper end buyers and which actual pricing bracket everyone else shops in.

Because that wasn't the purpose of the poll. The reason the price brackets are so wide is because he wanted to see how many here would support edging the price brackets up. He said it a few pages back.

 

[xthetenth]

People, sadly enough, view the monitor as a necessary, but unwanted expense. I see this all the time, people building/buying great PCs and then sticking with their old piece of crap monitor or picking something up on a discount at Best Buy. It's sad.

These may just be the truest words on the forum and might be ending up in my signature. The monitor is one of the very few components that you use every second you're using the computer, and other than the chair and desk is the only one that sees a significant increase from buying a better one. Not only that but they're longer lived than the glamorous components like the GPU.

 

[moonbogg]

The poll is perfect. Here's what I learned so far.

46% of people who voted would say "hell no" to the price of the new GTX1080, the best mid range GPU this generation. Even if you found one at $600, chances are you would say no because the only ones for $600 will likely be crappy models with cheap plastic blowers.
Some of those same 46% of people were able to afford the best mid range GPU of the 600 and 900 series and many generations before, but you have since been price out. You guys don't even get a full mid range GPU anymore. The best you get is a cut down GTX 670, GTX 970, or GTX 1070 which isn't nearly as good as the 1080 this round.
Only 14% of you are willing or able to buy a full mid range chip this round. That's where we are now.
Almost all of us used to be willing and able to buy a full blown mid range chip, but not any more. For 46% of you, your performance per dollar spent is now in the lower mid range to low end area. This absolutely sucks whether you buy Nvidia or AMD, because similar performing AMD chips would likely be priced higher than legacy pricing as well. This is because an insane precedent has been set now.
This is why the kind of ridiculous pricing we have seen lately for mid range chips being branded as high end chips is bad for all of us. And I do mean all of us except for the remaining 2 to 4% who don't seem to have any real budget at all.
Even die hard enthusiasts like myself who have occasionally bought two full blown flagships can't even do that now that they cost $1,000.00 and cut down versions pushing $700. Cut down versions costing $700 is crazy.
This is all bad for gamers and enthusiasts alike. I won't buy over priced mid range parts ever again. The 670 was the first and last time. I'll never buy a $1,000.00 flagship either, no matter how amazing and $1,000.00 is well within my price range for a GPU solution and I won't do it.

 

[Gryz]

You make a lot of deep conclusions out of just a simple list of numbers. Maybe you should go into journalism .... Or marketing. Or politics.

 

[moonbogg]

You make a lot of deep conclusions out of just a simple list of numbers. Maybe you should go into journalism .... Or marketing. Or politics.

I'm a deep guy. I'm full of deepness. But I think I'll just remain a gamer and GPU enthusiast, although that's getting pretty sad these days with these skull exploding prices.
Think about how insane the following statement is. I am a gamer who is willing to spend up to $2,000 freaking dollars on GPUs to PLAY VIDEO GAMES, and my ass is being priced out of high end GPUs. 2 grand isn't enough or soon won't be for flagship dual GPU's anymore LOL! Yeah, that's not ridiculous or anything. Nope not at all. Nothing wrong here.

Why would people fight me on this? I am your soldier, your warrior. I bleed and shed tears for you. I am going to war so you can have the freedom to buy a full mid range chip. You should support and share my hatred of recent pricing these last several years.

 

[cbrunny]

For me it has more to do with a relative increase rather than a base dollar amount. I'd consider a (for me) large investment of ~$800 CDN ($65 USD) if it meant a substantial improvement over my existing setup. But that's just not really going to happen. I run 7970 in CF, which is still plenty of power for games that support crossfire. At 1080p or 3 x 1080p, its still more than enough for the games I play. 60 Hz.

If I could get a single card for that price that outperformed my two together, I'd be interested, but it'd have to outperform significantly to make me want to consider dropping $800 CDN. And the tech just isn't there yet. Or the games, maybe. The $600 and below range doesn't outperform my CF 98% of the time in real-world usage.

 

[UaVaj]

Think about how insane the following statement is. I am a gamer who is willing to spend up to $2,000 freaking dollars on GPUs to PLAY VIDEO GAMES, and my ass is being priced out of high end GPUs. 2 grand isn't enough or soon won't be for flagship dual GPU's anymore LOL! Yeah, that's not ridiculous or anything. Nope not at all. Nothing wrong here.

$750 for a FuryX/980ti level of performance is just too rich. that should have been a $500 part.

given the current trend. Vega10/BigPascal will be $1000 part. that will be too too too rich.

 

[tential]

I'm a deep guy. I'm full of deepness. But I think I'll just remain a gamer and GPU enthusiast, although that's getting pretty sad these days with these skull exploding prices.
Think about how insane the following statement is. I am a gamer who is willing to spend up to $2,000 freaking dollars on GPUs to PLAY VIDEO GAMES, and my ass is being priced out of high end GPUs. 2 grand isn't enough or soon won't be for flagship dual GPU's anymore LOL! Yeah, that's not ridiculous or anything. Nope not at all. Nothing wrong here.

Why would people fight me on this? I am your soldier, your warrior. I bleed and shed tears for you. I am going to war so you can have the freedom to buy a full mid range chip. You should support and share my hatred of recent pricing these last several years.

Lol moonbogg. I'm not sure how anyone can get excited over a ridiculous priced midrange set of gpus.

Like I said, I expect Polaris 10 to destroy these chips and you know when it comes crossfire and sli Polaris 10 do even better and for people who buy multi configuration gpus I don't get how I can get a 1080 sli when I could get Polaris 10 quad fire for a similar price. That's not a position I like.

 

[Makaveli]

At times, I think I'd buy a $600+ video card if the drivers were only 20 MB.

I don't understand why drivers size matters.

This isn't 1996.

You can buy a 1 TB Hard drive for under $100 these days.

 

[moonbogg]

Lol moonbogg. I'm not sure how anyone can get excited over a ridiculous priced midrange set of gpus.

Like I said, I expect Polaris 10 to destroy these chips and you know when it comes crossfire and sli Polaris 10 do even better and for people who buy multi configuration gpus I don't get how I can get a 1080 sli when I could get Polaris 10 quad fire for a similar price. That's not a position I like.

Also, I caught wind in the Pascal thread that these mid rangers won't even support SLI beyond two cards. lawls? I say lawls. Maybe its not true, but if it is, that has mid range stamped all over it. More money for them but if you are a hardcore enthusiast you can't tri or quad them? I know at least a few guys who might be a little pissed. At least with the 980's you could tri them, right?

 

[nitromullet]

given the current trend. Vega10/BigPascal will be $1000 part. that will be too too too rich.

Not if Vega and Big Pascal actually compete... Look at last gen, NV was happily selling the GTX 980 for $549 and Titan for $999, but as soon as the Fury X threat was imminent, they released a $649 GTX Ti.

Now, $649 is still pretty steep for a lot of people, but it's within range and adjusted for inflation it's actually pretty reasonable if you look at the last decade of high end cards.

 

[tential]

Also, I caught wind in the Pascal thread that these mid rangers won't even support SLI beyond two cards. lawls? I say lawls. Maybe its not true, but if it is, that has mid range stamped all over it. More money for them but if you are a hardcore enthusiast you can't tri or quad them? I know at least a few guys who might be a little pissed. At least with the 980's you could tri them, right?

At the same time it's annoying amd is releasing a below midrange chip and can't beat Nvidia to market. Their execution is just so bad but I'm in no rush to get a new card anyway.

 

[RussianSensation]

If I upgrade to this small die generation, it will be more to push a couple of my 980TIs down to my son's rig than to improve mine. I have yet to see anything even make mine flinch at 2560x1440, maximum settings yet.

Breaking NEWS for Tri-/Quad-SLI owners.

The GTX 1080 will not support any higher than 2-way SLI configurations

Below is a quote from EVGATech_ChrisB, a member of EVGA Tech support and a moderator of the EVGA Forums.

"We can confirm that 1080 cards only support up to 2-way SLI and anything above this will not work, no matter the SLI bridge."

"When Nvidia announced their new HB (High-bandwidth) SLI bridge, we noted that Nvidia did not showcase a 3-way or four-way SLI variant of this new SLI bridge design. It seems that Nvidia may be dropping support for anything greater than two-way SLI simply because it may not be worth their investment in creating SLI profiles and drivers for such an uncommon system configuration."

Source

Direct Source - EVGA Post

-----

This is HUGE news for 4K owners with 3-4 980Ti/Titan X cards planning on upgrading to 1080s.

 

[UaVaj]

wrong thread Russian. that info should go on the 1080 thread.

 

[YBS1]

Breaking NEWS for Tri-/Quad-SLI owners.

The GTX 1080 will not support any higher than 2-way SLI configurations

Below is a quote from EVGATech_ChrisB, a member of EVGA Tech support and a moderator of the EVGA Forums.

"We can confirm that 1080 cards only support up to 2-way SLI and anything above this will not work, no matter the SLI bridge."

"When Nvidia announced their new HB (High-bandwidth) SLI bridge, we noted that Nvidia did not showcase a 3-way or four-way SLI variant of this new SLI bridge design. It seems that Nvidia may be dropping support for anything greater than two-way SLI simply because it may not be worth their investment in creating SLI profiles and drivers for such an uncommon system configuration."

Source

Direct Source - EVGA Post

-----

This is HUGE news for 4K owners with 3-4 980Ti/Titan X cards planning on upgrading to 1080s.

Doesn't really bother me that much, I'm pretty much leaning toward Vega assuming they deliver a somewhat competitive solution. I won't cut off my nose to spite my face though, it needs to be competitive. The only thing that really entices me about the 1080 is some of the insane clock speeds that are being reported. I'm honestly not in a rush though, three 980TIs are pretty hard for anything to tax as of yet unless I go nuts in the nVidia control panel....you can make most anything run poorly if that's your goal.

Your news probably means they lost four sales to Adam though......

 

[maddie]

wrong thread Russian. that info should go on the 1080 thread.

Nope.

It should ALSO go in the 1080 thread.

 

[RussianSensation]

wrong thread Russian. that info should go on the 1080 thread.

9 people in this thread voted for > $2000 GPUs which isn't possible with upcoming 1070/1080s unless the info is wrong. If 3-way and 4-way SLI goes out the window starting with Pascal, I doubt the same people will be spending $2000+ on GPUs moving forward unless we are talking 2-way Titan Pascal water cooled.

$750 for a FuryX/980ti level of performance is just too rich. that should have been a $500 part.

given the current trend. Vega10/BigPascal will be $1000 part. that will be too too too rich.

It's way worse for people in foreign countries where the USD to local currency is raising prices even more. In the US, it's still possible to order from Newegg and pay no taxes. In Canada, it's now 30% FX uplift and taxes everywhere.

Right now Newegg.ca is having a Shell Shocker deal on an Asus Strix 970 for .... $430 CAD after taxes and rebates. The cheapest 980Ti is over $900 CAD after taxes and rebates and the card is a year old.

If NV/AMD raise prices even more in 2017-2018, people in foreign countries could be looking at $1300-1500 local currency for a Big Flagship chip.

But there is no Crysis 4 to play.

 

[poohbear]

lol why even put a $2000 $6000 GPU option. I mean really? The price brackets shoulda been much more differentiated below $1000

 

[IEC]

At the same time it's annoying amd is releasing a below midrange chip and can't beat Nvidia to market. Their execution is just so bad but I'm in no rush to get a new card anyway.

We have no official launch... no benchmarks... no reviews. Therefore, there can be no evaluation about execution being "bad" when we haven't yet seen the results of said execution.

If AMD delivers performance in the same ballpark as 1070/1080 at a better price, I'll buy three of them.

If not, I wait for Big Pascal and Big Vega to make my choice. Either way, 3 or 4 cards for me.

 

[UaVaj]

$4000 should had been the ceiling with Quad Titan X.

not sure who is spending more than $4000 on just gpu.

perhaps those 5 folks are crypto coin mining with 7 Radeon Pro Duo.

 

[moonbogg]

Someone who has 3 or 4 980ti's/TitanX's might be frustrated a little if they want an upgrade right now. They are in the same situation that an Intel customer is in: Buy 4 faster cores or get 6 slower ones? It all depends on scaling and software and maybe one is faster in one situation while the other is faster in another. Frustrating. Two 1080's or 3 or 4 980ti's? Damn.

Regarding the poll and why it doesn't max out at $4,000, Its because I asked how much someone is willing to spend. If a Titan cost $1,500 next time would they buy 4? Some people said yes, why yes they would. They might even water cool them. That's why its $6,000+