High end video card competition over the past 6 years

[MrTeal]

Compared to the Fury cards vs the 1070/1080/TitanXP in 2016, I would say the 290/290x compete much better.

The 290/290X competed extremely well with Kepler. Even at the launch of the 780Ti it was only 10% faster than the 290X (for 25% more money) while the 780 was even with 290 at a 33% list price premium.

The only competitive issue that Hawaii had for gamers was that the cards were also extremely good at making people money not running games. I got my 290 for list right at launch and it was a stellar high end card, but getting a second for the same price was all but impossible for the next few months.

 

[Thinker_145]

The original Titan X was released 21 months ago and AMD has pretty much no response to it so far.

It took ATI around 20 months to respond to the 8800GTX with the 4870 and it cost them dearly in terms of goodwill.

So the current time is indeed quite bad for AMD and it's arguably worse because the 8800GTX pretty much reigned supreme as the king for 20 months with imitators only matching it's performance like the G90 based cards.

However in the case of the Titan X Nvidia managed to increase performance quite substantially in just over a year and we know they can improve on that as well if they wanted.

 

[Bacon1]

The original Titan X was released 21 months ago and AMD has pretty much no response to it so far.

Fury X matched Titan X. The only reason the 980 Ti exists was to undercut the Fury X and the ones that do that are the aftermarket 980 Ti's which also beat the Titan X.

There is a reason that Nvidia marketed the 1000 series against the Titan X and not the 980 Ti. 980 Ti was faster and cheaper. They had to undercut themselves to prevent the Fury X from being a hit.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The original Titan X was released 21 months ago and AMD has pretty much no response to it so far.

It took ATI around 20 months to respond to the 8800GTX with the 4870 and it cost them dearly in terms of goodwill.

I would argue last year the GTX 970 hurt AMD more than any other card (look at Steam stats), and AMD had a response this year with the 480 and 470.

Also I feel like AMD's current roadmap is learning from the mistakes of 2015. I mean, they did everything they could to claim the top crown with the Fury X and failed. Even worse, the Fury X was obviously a compromise product (4GB of VRAM when the 390X has 8GB) because the HBM stacks AMD needed for a real flagship weren't ready yet.

I feel like a AMD of old would have run out a dual 480 card just to have something to compete at the high end, but today's AMD didn't do that which is progress.

AMD might never have the top crown (and the halo effect that comes with it) ever again, but they still are making gains market share-wise with the 470 and 480 (the prices of 1060s prove that).

For most people, a $200 card is a lot of money and a card more expensive than a console (ie $500+) is completely nuts. Those high end gamers are a lot of margin, but if you fall short of the mark (like AMD did with the Fury X) you won't get any of them and you are selling a flagship card for big discounts in six months (and AMD did). It is better to not run the race compared to running a race you will lose all the time.

All I want from AMD is a card that does VR worth a damn and I will be happy.

 

[Thinker_145]

Fury X matched Titan X. The only reason the 980 Ti exists was to undercut the Fury X and the ones that do that are the aftermarket 980 Ti's which also beat the Titan X.

There is a reason that Nvidia marketed the 1000 series against the Titan X and not the 980 Ti. 980 Ti was faster and cheaper. They had to undercut themselves to prevent the Fury X from being a hit.

No the Fury X does not "match" the Titan. Sure it gives it a fight but "overall" it's still not an equal card however you slice it.

A reference 980Ti is also better than Fury X as it can be oc'ed to get comfortably ahead of an already near max Fury X.

Sure the Fury X is better than the 2900XT which is why AMD isn't nearly in that bad a situation but the gap between the highest end offerings is getting bigger and time is not on the side of AMD.

 

[Thinker_145]

I would argue last year the GTX 970 hurt AMD more than any other card (look at Steam stats), and AMD had a response this year with the 480 and 470.

Also I feel like AMD's current roadmap is learning from the mistakes of 2015. I mean, they did everything they could to claim the top crown with the Fury X and failed. Even worse, the Fury X was obviously a compromise product (4GB of VRAM when the 390X has 8GB) because the HBM stacks AMD needed for a real flagship weren't ready yet.

I feel like a AMD of old would have run out a dual 480 card just to have something to compete at the high end, but today's AMD didn't do that which is progress.

AMD might never have the top crown (and the halo effect that comes with it) ever again, but they still are making gains market share-wise with the 470 and 480 (the prices of 1060s prove that).

For most people, a $200 card is a lot of money and a card more expensive than a console (ie $500+) is completely nuts. Those high end gamers are a lot of margin, but if you fall short of the mark (like AMD did with the Fury X) you won't get any of them and you are selling a flagship card for big discounts in six months (and AMD did). It is better to not run the race compared to running a race you will lose all the time.

All I want from AMD is a card that does VR worth a damn and I will be happy.

The 390 was more than an adequate response to the 970. It's just too bad the consumers didn't make the right decision and neither did the reviewers. It was honestly comical to me why anyone would buy a 970 after the 390 launched. I guess it's just the mind share you get with having the best cards in the uber high end?

 

[happy medium]

The 390 was more than an adequate response to the 970. It's just too bad the consumers didn't make the right decision and neither did the reviewers. It was honestly comical to me why anyone would buy a 970 after the 390 launched. I guess it's just the mind share you get with having the best cards in the uber high end?

I think the July 15th release of the 390 was a good late response to the year old gtx970 but I think the right decision was to buy the gtx970 in 2014 . Even when the 390 released it was no better than the cheaper 970.

Well the gtx970 was faster, used much less power , gave off much less heat, and was $30 cheaper. Oh don't forget the 970 was a super overclocker.

$30 cheaper
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/

gtx970 was faster

used less power and gave off much less heat.

ANd beat the 390 at performance per dollar.

 

[Thinker_145]

I think the July 15th release of the 390 was a good late response to the year old gtx970 but I think the right decision was to buy the gtx970 in 2014 . Even when the 390 released it was no better than the cheaper 970.

Well the gtx970 was faster, used much less power , gave off much less heat, and was $30 cheaper. Oh don't forget the 970 was a super overclocker.

$30 cheaper
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/

gtx970 was faster

used less power and gave off much less heat.

ANd beat the 390 at performance per dollar.

Yes it was late no doubt but I don't remember the 970 being cheaper than the 390 not at least where I am. I guess it wasn't long after the launch that there was no difference. And you see the performance difference is exactly what I call "immaterial" where as the VRAM is obviously not. When recommending a card people focus way too much on the current performance and that is a colossal mistake. It still happens and on this forum as well when we see people recommending 3GB 1060 and 4GB 480 to save a few bucks.

I really don't care about heat as long as the product is built to take it. The micro focus on power consumption on a desktop computer is even worse. I'll care about these things when all other variables are constant which obviously wasn't the case with the 970 vs 390.

 

[happy medium]

Yes it was late no doubt but I don't remember the 970 being cheaper than the 390 not at least where I am. I guess it wasn't long after the launch that there was no difference. And you see the performance difference is exactly what I call "immaterial" where as the VRAM is obviously not. When recommending a card people focus way too much on the current performance and that is a colossal mistake. It still happens and on this forum as well when we see people recommending 3GB 1060 and 4GB 480 to save a few bucks.

You should read my links , when the 390 launched it was more expensive than the gtx970. 4gb of memory was enough for the 290x ,the gtx980,and was enough for the 390. You need to remember these cards are almost 3 years old and for the past 3 years 4gb was good and for 99% of games still is at the 1080/1440p resolution.
You need 8gb of memory when you crossfire the 390 series.
Even the gtx1080 has 8gb of Vram, why would a 390 need 8gb?

 

[Thinker_145]

You should read my links , when the 390 launched it was more expensive than the gtx970. 4gb of memory was enough for the 290x ,the gtx980,and was enough for the 390. You need to remember these cards are almost 3 years old and for the past 3 years 4gb was good and for 99% of games still is at the 1080/1440p resolution.
You need 8gb of memory when you crossfire the 390 series.
Even the gtx1080 has 8gb of Vram, why would a 390 need 8gb?

I am not disputing the 970's relevance or quantity of VRAM in 2014 but when the 390 came the 970 should have been done for. People weren't just buying it to save a few bucks but it was continued to be pushed as a flat out better or equalent card when it really isn't. The 390 is just 18 months old not 3 years. Nvidia should have let 8GB 970/980 come in 2015 but they didn't cuz they knew the 980Ti would seem less attractive if they did and possibly the future 10 series as well.

Who said the 1080 has optimal amount of VRAM? Maybe a card equally powerful in future with more VRAM will outperform it but the thing is we have no choice above 8GB right now. The premium on the Titan cards is way too absurd to ever consider them just for future proof. The premium on 8GB cards is not.

Why is there an 8GB 470 and 6GB 1060 then? And let's not get defensive about 4GB as a viable option in 2016. We have already seen what has happened with the 3GB 1060 it always happens with VRAM and people don't learn.

 

[happy medium]

Why is there an 8GB 470

Because there are many uniformed people out there that will buy a card because it has 8gb of memory. Because the way the cards are made they can't make them with 5gb?
The 470 does not even have the gpu grunt to play games at a decant framerate with setting that use much more than 4gb of memory. Please don't point out the 2 games with high res. texture packs that use 5gb of memory. 8gb of memory is a waste for 470, 390, 390x,480, gtx980, gtx970,gtx1060 performance cards. These cards are 1080p cards, best case 1440p cards. 8gb might help when you crossfire ,but how many people do that? 1 in a 10,000?

And yes they can make a gtx1070/1080 with 12gb or 16 gb of memory but they don't because its a waste of money and people that buy those high end cards are more knowledgeable and they know it.
They can also make a gtx1060 with 12gb of Vram.

edit:
The 390 A.K.A. the 290x 8gb is 3 years old. Its the same gpu with faster clocks and faster memory on the card. They did make 290x's with 8gb vram.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sapphire-vapor-x-r9-290x-8gb,3977.html


We are starting to derail the thread....... I think that's enough about this.

 

[magomago]

yes, competition at the high end has been in favor of nvidia for a while, and that is true to the question of the title.

But keep in mind that 90% of people don't buy top end cards. Even a RX480 and GTX1060 is beyond the vast majority of people - most people buy low-mid range cards. Outside of the 1070/1080, AMD has good offerings pretty much everywhere else.

 

[Thinker_145]

Because there are many uniformed people out there that will buy a card because it has 8gb of memory. Because the way the cards are made they can't make them with 5gb?
The 470 does not even have the gpu grunt to play games at a decant framerate with setting that use much more than 4gb of memory. Please don't point out the 2 games with high res. texture packs that use 5gb of memory. 8gb of memory is a waste for 470, 390, 390x,480, gtx980, gtx970,gtx1060 performance cards. These cards are 1080p cards, best case 1440p cards. 8gb might help when you crossfire ,but how many people do that? 1 in a 10,000?

And yes they can make a gtx1070/1080 with 12gb or 16 gb of memory but they don't because its a waste of money and people that buy those high end cards are more knowledgeable and they know it.
They can also make a gtx1060 with 12gb of Vram.

edit:
The 390 A.K.A. the 290x 8gb is 3 years old. Its the same gpu with faster clocks and faster memory on the card. They did make 290x's with 8gb vram.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sapphire-vapor-x-r9-290x-8gb,3977.html


We are starting to derail the thread....... I think that's enough about this.

Even if just 2 games benefit from it then paying $30 premium is worth it. But that's obviously not going to be only 2 games because if today there are 2 games then tomorrow there will be more.

Not sure I follow your 390 logic there. By that account the 1070 is also a 2 year old card since it's just like a Titan X. Everything is always old except the very top end.

The 390 made 8GB VRAM more accessible hence it has an important purpose.

Again you are flat out ignoring the fate of the 3GB 1060 only a few months ago the same arguments were made that it has enough VRAM and blah blah? One should always try to have overkill amount of VRAM if all it costs is $20. 8GB may not be necessary for some of the cards but they sure as well benefit by having more than 4GB. Now I don't know the technicalities but GPU VRAM variants have always been in double size so I am not sure how NV and AMD are supposed to release 5GB cards for their existing 4GB designs.

And as I said the price to pay for 8GB over 4GB is no more than $30 these days so it's just plain stupidity to buy a 4GB card now. It makes no negative difference if you have overkill VRAM but once you run out of it then it really really sucks.

 

[ddogg]

I voted for 2016 as well as I don't think I've seen such a weak/no response in the GPU space in a long time. Had AMD released a competing product to the 1080, the Titan XP might have been priced at $999 and the 1080Ti might have debuted already at ~$650. Nvidia can now release the 1080Ti at $800 and I bet it will still sell like hot cakes among enthusiasts.
I'm hoping 2017 is a better year for the high-end market.

 

[tential]

I voted for 2016 as well as I don't think I've seen such a weak/no response in the GPU space in a long time. Had AMD released a competing product to the 1080, the Titan XP might have been priced at $999 and the 1080Ti might have debuted already at ~$650. Nvidia can now release the 1080Ti at $800 and I bet it will still sell like hot cakes among enthusiasts.
I'm hoping 2017 is a better year for the high-end market.

I couldn't play graphically intense video games for 2016 because and didn't release a high end gpu suitable for me to use this is annoying. 2017 will also suck since Vega is late to the party.
Unless amd gets their act together, Nvidia will milk the high end and be extremely competitive in the lower margin areas. Great for you midrange users, but I'm crying at the high end at the lack of performance or options

 

[happy medium]

I couldn't play graphically intense video games for 2016 because

you didn't buy the right monitor and a $365 gtx1070.
Was it worth it? j/k

 

[ddogg]

I couldn't play graphically intense video games for 2016 because and didn't release a high end gpu suitable for me to use this is annoying. 2017 will also suck since Vega is late to the party.
Unless amd gets their act together, Nvidia will milk the high end and be extremely competitive in the lower margin areas. Great for you midrange users, but I'm crying at the high end at the lack of performance or options

I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. I'm not a midrange user but I skipped the 1080 because I refuse to pay $700 for midrange performance. The Titan XP at $1200 is a waste of money to me so I'm eagerly waiting for the 1080ti/vega to drop. I game at 4k requiring me to drop most settings to medium to get 30-40 fps.

 

[happy medium]

I skipped the 1080 because I refuse to pay $700 for midrange performance.

SO let me get this straight........
You didn't buy a $650 gtx1080 and are going to go without a proper gpu FOR A WHOLE YEAR to buy a Vega mid range chip that is about gtx1080 performance anyway, that could possibly be $150 cheaper.
really ! is this what your saying?

or you waited almost a year to spend at least $750 on a gtx1080ti that's only ~ 30% faster than a gtx1080.

I would have bought a $400 gtx1070, overclocked it, had a decent gaming box for 10 months. Sold the gtx1070 before the gtx1080ti/Vega released for 300$.
At least I would have had a great gaming card for 10 months, for what $100? I would have at least put my expensive 4k monitor to good use, not let it goto waste for almost a year.

 

[ddogg]

SO let me get this straight........
You didn't buy a $650 gtx1080 and are going to go without a proper gpu FOR A WHOLE YEAR to buy a Vega mid range chip that is about gtx1080 performance anyway, that could possibly be $150 cheaper.
really ! is this what your saying?

Not sure where I said in my post I was looking to buy a vega midrange chip. I said I'm eagerly waiting for the 1080ti/vega.
Unless you work for amd and have some inside information that the high end vega is going to be midrange?

 

[happy medium]

Not sure where I said in my post I was looking to buy a vega midrange chip. I said I'm eagerly waiting for the 1080ti/vega.
Unless you work for amd and have some inside information that the high end vega is going to be midrange?

Lets say by some miracle the big Vega is somehow 10% faster than the so called mid range gtx1080, does that make it a high end card?
ANd what if Nvidia doesn't release a 1080ti because the Vega underperforms?

That means you wasted a year of high priced computer equipment for basically nothing, no I forgot ~ $150 you saved by waiting for Vega, if your lucky.

edit:
and you had 2 gtx780's to sell? Well now they are worth basically nothing ans by the time Vega comes out. My old gtx 960 4gb would sell for more money.

 

[ddogg]

Lets say by some miracle the big Vega is somehow 10% faster than the so called mid range gtx1080, does that make it a high end card?
ANd what if Nvidia doesn't release a 1080ti because the Vega underperforms?

That means you wasted a year of high priced computer equipment for basically nothing, no I forgot ~ $150 you saved by waiting for Vega, if your lucky.

edit:
and you had 2 gtx780's to sell? Well now they are worth basically nothing ans by the time Vega comes out. My old gtx 960 4gb would sell for more money.

If they don't release a 1080ti and Vega turns out to be a dud, then I agree I would have wasted a year on just waiting. However, seeing how Nvidia has released their cards the past few years I will be shocked if they don't.
Also, I don't intend to sell my 780s as they are going in another machine so I'm not bothered about resale value on them.

 

[tential]

you didn't buy the right monitor and a $365 gtx1070.
Was it worth it? j/k

Well the 1070 is a midrange chip so don't really care =D. But I'm livid still I didn't get the GTX 980Ti Gaming X 980ti. If I had the 980Ti, I wouldn't have gone freesync probably.

Lets say by some miracle the big Vega is somehow 10% faster than the so called mid range gtx1080, does that make it a high end card?
ANd what if Nvidia doesn't release a 1080ti because the Vega underperforms?

That means you wasted a year of high priced computer equipment for basically nothing, no I forgot ~ $150 you saved by waiting for Vega, if your lucky.

edit:
and you had 2 gtx780's to sell? Well now they are worth basically nothing ans by the time Vega comes out. My old gtx 960 4gb would sell for more money.

I think it's disingenous to say that Big Vega wouldn't be int he performance caliber as Titan XP/1080Ti. Just like Fury X, and the 290x it's not like AMD can't compete at the high end.
The issue isn't that at all.
THe issue is that even if AMD releases Big Vega that is on par (or within striking distance) or the TitanXP/1080Ti, Volta is right around the corner. Nvidia will be releasing a midrange chip soon that will be close to or on par with the TitanXP/1080ti. So even if you buy high end Vega when it releases, it won't have much time on the market as being the fastest chip.

It's like saying would you buy a 1080Ti in february/march?
Probably not, since we already will have heavy volta rumours by then. Navi would need to be close to release in early half of 2016 to be comparable, and since it's not, then Big Vega will be competing with Volta 2070...

That's the major issue.

 

[tential]

To make this point clearly:
I believe that even if Big Vega was 10% faster than a 1080Ti, it would still be a failure.

 

[ddogg]

To make this point clearly:
I believe that even if Big Vega was 10% faster than a 1080Ti, it would still be a failure.

I think if big vega is 10% faster and is priced right it wouldn't necessarily be a failure. But I agree, they are a full cycle behind Nvidia at this point.

 

[happy medium]

To make this point clearly:
I believe that even if Big Vega was 10% faster than a 1080Ti, it would still be a failure.

WOw that statement takes guts, now get ready to duck, as soon as the AMD fanatics see that, they will report you, send you hate mail, and kick you while your down while the mods are infracting you. J/K guys, don't send me hate mail.

I gave that post a like, for having balz.


On topic , it seem the winner is 2016 because AMD was out to lunch in the high end, and 2015 being the runner up probably because the gtx980ti overclocked through the roof and gave the Fury x a beat down at about the same price. .

Warning issued for callout -shmee