That fits some stuff that been floating aorund.
if priced at 300$ the 1070 seems dead in water.
Gentlemen,
Khalid moammar at wccf is claiming with a high degree of confidence that 1300-1400mhz is the core clock of uncut p10 reference.
If in fact that is true, and the uncut die has 36 or 40 compute units, it seems likely it will compete and likely be faster than the 1070. (7+ tflops vs 6.1)
Anybody know if the sisoft bench we've seen online is accurate in reporting number of cores?
Cynical Unicorn posted this interesting observation on Overclock.net forum
Rounded to the nearest integer:
The 1070 has 25% fewer CUDA cores than the 1080
The 970 has 20% fewer CUDA cores than the 980
The 780 has 14% fewer CUDA cores than the OG Titan
The 670 has 12% fewer CUDA cores than the 680
The 570 has 6% fewer CUDA cores than the 580
The 470 has 7% fewer CUDA cores than the 480
Notice how the gap keeps getting bigger?
What isn't getting much bigger is the price difference. Looking at launch prices:
The 1070 is $220 less than the 1080
The 970 is $220 less than the 980
The 670 is $100 less than the 680
The 570 is $150 less than the 580
The 470 is $150 less than the 480
The 1070 saves $9 per %CUDAs lost
The 970 saves $11 per %CUDAs lost
The 780 saves $25 per %CUDAs lost
The 670 saves $8 per %CUDAs lost
The 570 saves $25 per %CUDAs lost
The 470 saves $21 per %CUDAs lost
Yeah, i'm at a loss as to what was going on with those replies. To go through all that analytical trouble and completely fail to realize, or intentionally ignore the 1070 is by far the leader in terms of priceerformance for high end GPU's is a little dubious. Granted, this may all change when AMD shows us it's cards, but to pass off the 1070 as a "bad buy" given what we currently know about it is silly.
BRB one sec while I fork over the price of a new car for my next chip. After all, GPUs have been here a long time and there's no expectation of generational increases in price/performance which this could be judged by.
If the 1070 is the leader in terms of price/performance as Jabroni said, then by definition there must have been an increase in price/performance.
Whether or not this increase is comparable to historical increases, well you tell me.
Heh... $700 for a videocard, when you think about it, you can build the rest of the computer, CPU/RAM/Mobo/SSD/PSU/Case for about that much money.
Sad to say this, but I think it's finally getting to the point where I might give up on gaming. I'm not playing as often as I used to and I'm not willing to plop that kind of money just to be able to casually game every once in a while...
Hopefully AMD will provide a better value.
Personally I believe GTX 1070 may be a good product (unlike GTX 1080) but it should be closer to $350. I will wait for the official reviews but i believe a lot of people will be extremely happy with the perf/$ (at $379) and perf/watt.
Also i would really like to see it against Polaris and see each cards pros and cons.
Ya you're right. Better get that 300 mobo for the irresponsible amounts of overclocking performance.Yeah, assuming you don't mind buying the cheapest, lowest quality and lowest performance CPU, motherboard, RAM, SSD & PSU on the market. If you want quality, higher-performing components, you'll easily spend close to twice that.
Right. You also need to turn in your driver's license and stop driving, since Rolls Royce and Bugatti both are selling higher performance, higher cost cars this year. They are the only two cars available to be bought, at any price, so you quite obviously can no longer afford to drive, exactly like GPUs.
Nope, not gonna come from AMD, either. The only GPU AMD has announced plans on releasing this year that has more performance than a $180 380X or GTX 960 will be priced at $299, according to AMD. BTW, both of AMD's last two fastest cards (of that generation) have/had a $1,499 MSRP, upon their release.
Yeah, assuming you don't mind buying the cheapest, lowest quality and lowest performance CPU, motherboard, RAM, SSD & PSU on the market. If you want quality, higher-performing components, you'll easily spend close to twice that.
Nope, not gonna come from AMD, either. The only GPU AMD has announced plans on releasing this year that has more performance than a $180 380X or GTX 960 will be priced at $299
That isn't even remotely true. You can easily get high quality versions of all of those components for $700:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/J6c2Q7
AMD has made zero announcements about final performance or price other than extremely vague ones about VR performance and increased TAM.
Although I would never consider any i5 ever made 'high performance', nor would I ever recommend anyone ever mail off the right to sell their personal information, in hopes that a $10 or $20 rebate will arrive, which most never do, I've noticed, I'd say that only $860 for an i7-6700k and the other components your list included is not at all a bad price. With a non-stolen copy of Windows, plus re-using your last case, you'd still be under $1,000 total for the entire new system, or a hair under $2,500 if one wanted the fastest AMD video card made to go along with that system...although it would definitely require a more potent PSU to power said GPU.
Ahh, my mistake. I guess I had just heard repeated enough times around here the numerous posts from wccftech about the Polaris 10 being priced @ $299.
Right. He's saying that leading price/perf at all is a major win. However there's an increasing trend as new generations come out (thanks for the numbers btw), and by that standard, it's not nearly that exciting. Thus the sarcasm towards either neglecting to note that it's the first card of a new generation or somehow not noticing that new generations bring price/performance increases.
It'll be real interesting to see how things stand when the whole first wave of cards come out.