Mid range has turned into high end

[ConsoleLover]

The issue with the newest generation of graphic cards is that these supposed mid ranged GPU's have turned into high end products.

The average price of 1060 6GB is around $300(newegg still has the lowest average prices, but is US only), while the RX 480 8GB average price is around $280.

The 480 4GB is around $240, the 1060 3GB around $240 as well with the RX 470 average prices being $210.

Essentially becoming higher end cards, that only enthusiast can afford. What was supposed to be mainstream cards became not so mainstream, that the masses can't afford at these prices.

Realistically the 1060 3GB should be $150, RX 470 $150, RX 480 4GB $200, RX 480 8GB $220, 1060 6GB $220

 

[XavierMace]

Not another one of these dumb threads....

$280 has never been "high end" nor do the "masses" need any of the cards mentioned. The "masses" need enough video card to surf the web and watch movies. That can be accomplished by onboard video.

 

[ConsoleLover]

Not another one of these dumb threads....

$280 has never been "high end" nor do the "masses" need any of the cards mentioned. The "masses" need enough video card to surf the web and watch movies. That can be accomplished by onboard video.

Over 1 billion people play games on PC, sure many of those are online flash based games, but at least 500 million play PC desktop games.

$280 is on the upper scale, and unless you are really young and inexperienced as in preteen, you'd know that $300 for a GPU like GTX 970 or R9 290 was/is considered high end.

 

[Samwell]

Realistically the 1060 3GB should be $150, RX 470 $150, RX 480 4GB $200, RX 480 8GB $220, 1060 6GB $220

As the productions cost are fundamentally higher then at earliers shrinks this is just not possible. At 16nm a transistor costs about the same as in 28nm because of higher wafer prizes and lower yield. It's not like before, where a shrink reduced the production costs by 50% per transistor. Prizes will get lower over time, but the good times are over. 10nm and so on are only going to get worse.

 

[Yakk]

The poor monetary exchange rates in many countries, combined with the extremely high demand for AMD cards suffering vendor price creep, and nvidia's non-official substantial price increase have really reshaped the mid-range GPU landscape this year IMHO. Although the high-end is still around $500+ to the silly $700+; the mid-range price bracket has indeed gone up in most places around the world.

 

[showb1z]

As the productions cost are fundamentally higher then at earliers shrinks this is just not possible.

NVDA's record breaking margins disagree.

 

[Sonikku]

AMD isn't competitive in the upper tier any more. That is why. Nvidia certainly isn't hurting for profits and could easily lower prices if they felt the heat from a competitor. They don't.

 

[Arachnotronic]

NVDA's record breaking margins disagree.

Be careful here, the margin increase has a lot to do with the fact that inherently higher margin businesses have grown significantly while the company's lower margin businesses have fallen off a cliff (i.e. PC OEM).

 

[NTMBK]

Not another one of these dumb threads....

$280 has never been "high end" nor do the "masses" need any of the cards mentioned. The "masses" need enough video card to surf the web and watch movies. That can be accomplished by onboard video.

A Geforce 3 used to cost ~£200, when that was the high end. Yeah, prices have gone up.

 

[Markfw]

A $1000 Titan X is ultra high end, and the 1080 is high end. The 1060 is the mid to low range. And considering inflation, the prices are about the same.

 

[cyclohexane]

For sure. Another problem is the proliferation of the uber cards.

Back in 2002, the absolute best card you can buy was a $300 Radeon 9700Pro. There was nothing better, or cost more. Now the Titans and Furys have dragged prices for all cards up, across the board.

 

[Bacon1]

A $1000 Titan X is ultra high end, and the 1080 is high end. The 1060 is the mid to low range. And considering inflation, the prices are about the same.

It started with the 8800 Ultra (aptly named)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2222

Not only will NVIDIA's new part offer higher performance than the current leader, but it will introduce a new price point in the consumer graphics market moving well beyond the current $600 - $650 set by the 8800 GTX, skipping over the $700 mark to a new high of $830. That's right, this new high end graphics card will be priced $230 higher than the current performance leader. With such a big leap in price, we had hoped to see a proportional leap in performance. Unfortunately, for the 38% increase in price, we only get a ~10% increase in core and shader clock speeds, and a 20% increase in memory clock.

We do know NVIDIA has wanted to push up towards the $1000 graphics card segment for a while. Offering the top of the line for what almost amounts to a performance tax would give NVIDIA the ability to sell a card and treat it like a Ferrari. It would turn high end graphics into a status symbol rather than a commodity. That and having a huge margin part in the mix can easily generate additional profits.

Price gaps larger than performance increases are not unprecedented. In the CPU world, we see prices rise much faster than performance, especially at the high end. It makes sense that NVIDIA would want to capitalize on this sort of model and charge an additional premium for their highest performing part. This way, they also get to introduce a new high end part without pushing down the price of the rest of their lineup.

Unfortunately, the stats on the hardware look fairly similar to an overclocked 8800 GTX priced at $650: the EVGA e-GeForce 8800 GTX KO ACS3. With core/shader/memory clock speeds at 626/1450/1000, this EVGA overclocked part poses some stiff competition both in terms of performance and especially price. NVIDIA's G80 silicon revision might need to be sprinkled with magic fairy dust to offer any sort of competition to the EVGA card.

Regarding inflation though, $830 then is worth ~$960 today, yet the Titan is $1200.

 

[crisium]

How much inflation has there been since 2010-2011? Remember, the equivalent of the 1080 and 1070 are the 560 Ti and 560. $250/$200. The card names have been inflated, but the chip names give it all away (both x04).

That truly was the best time for video cards. AMD 6000 vs Nvidia 500 series provided the best competition.

 

[boozzer]

AMD isn't competitive in the upper tier any more. That is why. Nvidia certainly isn't hurting for profits and could easily lower prices if they felt the heat from a competitor. They don't.

doesn't matter. even if amd is competitive, the prices will still go up. remember the prices of 7970 before nv release a competing card?

both companies will gouge you, the gamers to death if they can. it is why I wish we have at least 2 more companies making gpus, but the patents/copy rights pretty much gave these 2 companies a duopoly.

the last 2-3 years has been really painful because amd really messed up for the last 2-3 generation of gpus. and nv marketing has been able to pound it into the ground.

 

[RussianSensation]

A $1000 Titan X is ultra high end, and the 1080 is high end. The 1060 is the mid to low range. And considering inflation, the prices are about the same.

This is absolutely false. The mistake you are making is you are assuming today's high-end is in any way representative of high-end of the past in terms of tier and market positioning. The "high-end" cards in the segment of GTX680/980/1080 are not high-end at all but mid-range cards with a marketing x80 series name and a corresponding price. Maybe you already forgot that a next generation mid-range $200 card in the form of 6600GT was faster than the previous generation's flagship 5950 Ultra and 9800XT cards? There is nowhere to purchase a $299 2016 card today that beats last generation's 980Ti/Fury X or Titan X Maxwell in modern games. It's not as far as production positioning or pricing strategies are concerned. You just haven't traced the fact that GTX1070/1080 are predecessors to $199 GTX560 and $249 GTX560Ti.

GeForce x06/x116 series = Traditionally low-end segment

Fermi 2010
GF106 = GTS450 $129
=> its 2011 refresh was GF116 = GTX550Ti $149

Kepler 2012
GK106 = GTX660 $229

Maxwell 2014
GM206 = GTX960 $199 (But this is the worst x60 card made by NV since 8600GT/8600GTS. The pricing never truly reflected how awful this product was)

Pascal 2016 replacement is the GP106 GTX1060 6GB = $249-299 (reference card is $299).

GTS450->GTX550Ti->GTX660->GTX960*->GTX1060:

For this market segment, prices increased from $129-149 in 2010 to $249-299 in 2016. Realistically, we are looking at a price increase from $129 for GTS450 to $249 for the GTX1060, or a 93% price increase in 6 years.

*GTX760 is NOT a x06 series card.

GeForce x04/x114 series = Traditionaly mid-range and upper-mid-range segment

Fermi 2010
GF104 = GTX460 1GB $229 & GTX460 768MB $199
=> 2011 refreshes were GF114 = GTX560 1GB $199 and GTX560Ti 1GB $249

*As a point of reference, $229 GTX460 matched last gen's flagship GTX280, and the refreshed cut-down GTX275, and was just 10% slower than the GTX285. That would be the equivalent of a GTX1060 $249 card today with the performance of a GTX980Ti and only 10% slower than a Titan X. Today, the 1060 not only costs more, but it's nowhere close to a 980Ti or the Titan X.

We can even use another generation to show that x60 segment is getting worse and worse. GTX680 was 41% faster than GTX660 was at 1440p/1600p (highest resolution tested by TPU at the time), while GTX1080 is now a whopping 62% faster than the GTX1060 at 1440p and 67% at 4K (higher resolution tested by TPU today). Even though GTX1060 is praised as a 'good' $250 card, that's because of how awful the 960 was. If we look at history, GTX1060 isn't even a good $250 card, which by definition means RX 480 is even worse at $240.

Emphasis by AnandTech that x04 segment is a mid-range market segment -- this is key once we go down the list:

"With that said, this launch is going to be more chaotic than usual for an NVIDIA mid-range product launch. While NVIDIA and AMD both encourage their partners to differentiate their mid-range cards based on a number of factors including factory overclocks and the cooler used, these products are always launched alongside a reference card. However for the GTX 560 this is going to be a reference-less launch: NVIDIA is not doing a retail reference design for the GTX 560. This is a fairly common situation for the low-end, where we’ll often test a reference design that never is used for retail cards, but it’s quite unusual to not have a reference design for a mid-range card."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4344/nvidias-geforce-gtx-560-top-to-bottom-overclock

Kepler 2012
>3 GK104 SKUs.

GTX660Ti $299, GTX670 $399, GTX680 $499
=> Refreshes $249 GTX760 = successor to the 660Ti, and GTX680 successor was the $399-449 GTX770 2-4GB.

Here, it's important to note that GTX680 (upper-mid-range) GK104 SKU was 9.2-9.3% faster than the $399 GTX670 was at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600. Compared to the GTX660Ti, GTX680 was 25.5% and 26.6% faster than GTX660Ti.

I'll explain later why this matters for pricing***.

Maxwell 2014
GM204 = GTX970 $329 & GTX980 $549

Pascal 2016
GP104 = GTX1070 $399 & GTX1080 $619. Here I am actually extremely fair to NV as I am using the lowest non-promo 1070/1080 prices, despite most people paying more than $400 and $620 for those cards during the first 1-2 months of launch.

This segment is tricky to compare. Since I already showed that $650 GTX280 and $229 GTX460 1GB were tied at launch of GTX460, GTX560Ti beat GTX460 by 35%. Since Titan X Maxwell never had a refresh like GTX285 did over the 280, if we straight up compare GTX1080 to the Titan X, we get a performance increase of 31.6%. Either way you slice it, the spiritual predecessor to GTX1080 are essentially GTX460/560Ti lineage cards that used to cost $229-$249. Then what is the GTX1070? Comparing to Fermi generation, it would be an even more cut-down $199 GTX460 768MB, GTX560 or a successor to the GTX660Ti.

*** It's not reasonable to compare the $399 GTX670 to the $399 GTX1070 because only 8-9% separated the 670 and 680 for a $100 price difference and GTX670 was 20% faster than last gen's NV flagship - the GTX580. In comparison, the GTX1070 is only 7.5-10% faster than the Titan X but trails the 1080 by 21-22%, and by much more in modern titles (1080 leads 1070 by 33-34% in the Division and 30-35% in DE:MD). This means the GTX1070 is NOT a true x70 series card but rather a GTX1060Ti and/or it isn't a $399 tier card either. In other words, GTX1070 is a gimped x70 series card, the worst x70 series card since GTX470.

Another point of reference if you don't want to go back to Fermi generation is Kepler.

$299 GTX660Ti => $399 GTX1070 or a $100 / 33% price increase in just 4 years
$499 GTX680 => $619 GTX1080 or a 24% price increase. No way that's in-line with inflation. But again, it's impossible to ignore that GTX680 was a lineage successor to the $249 GTX560Ti.

GTX460 768MB -> GTX560 -> GTX660Ti -> GTX760 -> GTX970 -> GTX1070:
GTX460 1GB -> GTX560Ti -> GTX680 -> GTX770 -> GTX980 -> GTX1070:

For this market segment, prices increased from $199-229 in 2010 (460/560/660Ti) to $399 in 2016 for the GTX1070. Not only has NV articifically called GTX1070 a x70 series card, when it isn't even deserving of the name, but we are looking at a 74-100% price increase, and comparing reference GTX1070 to reference GTX460, a 96% increase in 6 years. This is remarkably consistent with NV's 93% price increase for the low-end tier. It's also evident that starting with Kepler generation, NV simply made up x70 and x80 marketing names for GTX670/680. Those were simply GTX660/660Ti cards moved up full tiers with a corresponding massive price increase.

GeForce x00/x102/x110 series = High-end market segment

Fermi 2010
GF100 = GTX470 $349 & GTX480 $499
=> Refresh GF110 = GTX570 $349 & GTX580 $499. NV also released a further cut-down GF110 in the form of a GTX560Ti 448 Core $289.

Kepler 2013
GK110 = GTX780 $649 (later dropped to $499) & GTX780Ti $699, and $999 Titan Black. There was also the original Titan for $999 but that's not going to make a great case for NV in terms of reasonable price increases...

Bonus trivia: I actually never connected the dots back then with the $650 GTX780 vs. GTX560Ti 448 but now we can.

GTX560Ti 448 Core vs. GTX580:
87.5% CCs
87.5% TMUs
83.3% ROPs
89.8% memory bandwidth

GTX780 vs. GTX780Ti
80% CCs
80% TMUs
100% ROPs
85.7% memory bandwidth

In many ways, the $649 GTX780 was a spiritual successor to the $289 GTX560Ti 448 core, not even the GTX570. That's a 2.25X price increase.

Maxwell 2015
GM200 = GTX980Ti $649 and Titan X $999
Here you can debate if you think GTX980Ti is a true successor to the GTX570 (NV offered GTX580 3GB and a cut-down flagship via GTX570 1.28GB. One can argue that GTX980Ti is similarly a cut-down Titan X 12GB with only half the VRAM and cut-down specs).

Pascal 2016
GP102 = $1200 Titan X or as we call it Titan XP.

2nd tier flagship:
$350 GTX470/570 -> $650 GTX780 or $999 OG Titan Kepler -> $650 980Ti -> placeholder: $1200 Titan XP

I wouldn't even put GTX780 in there as I view it as a GTX560Ti 448 core successor and the more obvious comparison would be $350 GTX570->$650 GTX980Ti. Since GTX1080Ti has not released, I put the $1200 Titan XP as a placeholder because it is not even a true fully unlocked flagship Pascal chip either. But without competition from AMD, we might not even see one.

1st tier flagship:
$500 GTX480/580 -> $700 780Ti / $999 Titan Black -> $999 Titan X Maxwell -> we do not have a true successor yet. It may end up being $1200 Titan XP if NV never released a full fledged Pascal. For the time, I'll just assume Titan XP will be NV's flagship during the Pascal generation as we have no other data.

Then, 2nd flagship tier increased from $350 to $650 with 980Ti, or an 86% price increase. This excuses cut-down OG Titan and Titan XP but if we include them, it's akin to going from a $350 tier to a $1000-1200 one. One caveat is that if we go back to Tesla generation, the 2nd tier flagship could be views as the $400 GTX260 (but that dropped in price $100 to $299 once 4870 launched) or the 2nd tier flagship was a $250 GTX275.

The 1st tier flagship tier increased from $500 to $1000-1200, or a 100-140% price increase. Even if we assume Fermi was an outlier, the flagship GeForce 3 Ti 500 cost $349-399, GeForce 4 Ti 4600 cost $399, GeForce 5900 Ultra was $499, GeForce 6800 Ultra was $499 (6800 Ultra Extreme had a $540 market price), GeForce 7800GTX 256MB was $599, 7900GTX was $499. Some argue that GTX280 debuted at $649 but it only 2-3 weeks before it dropped to $499.

Many people present 8800GTX Ultra's price of $830 as a point of reference but it's an exception, not the rule. The regular 8800GTX could be overclocked easily to Ultra's speeds and it cost $600-650. The 8800GTX Ultra was just a marketing gimmick and one of the first ways NV tried to get free $ from enthusiasts. But, if someone uses $650-830 8800GTX/Ultra as proof that flagship cards always used to cost $700-800 (already proven false above), one MUST then mention that only 13 months later, 9800GTX+ was faster for only $229. Can I buy a $229 card today that's as fast or faster than the 980Ti/Titan X Maxwell? No, I thought so.

In conclusion, NV has increased prices for every tier. Inflation and more expensive manufacturing nodes CANNOT account for such dramatic price increases despite NV increasing profit margins from sub-30% to almost 60% in the a same period of time.

NVidia is now at nearly 60% gross margins.

Be careful here, the margin increase has a lot to do with the fact that inherently higher margin businesses have grown significantly while the company's lower margin businesses have fallen off a cliff (i.e. PC OEM).

Not a sufficient explanation. NV has increased prices almost 100% in the low and mid-tier segments and one can easily argue that they increased prices even more ($249 GTX560Ti -> $599-699 GTX1080). I have outlined a detailed history of NV GPUs since Fermi and thus far your position holds no water. NV is making more $ on every single tier from $150-1000 they make. They have also successfully rebranded certain cards to hide these facts (GTX660/660Ti became GTX670/680). Today, NV is arguably selling a $375 GTX570 2.5GB level card for $1200 in the Titan XP. GTX1080 is now selling for $620-700, pricing tier reserved exclusively for flagship cards such as GTX780Ti (or cut-down GTX980Ti even). NV has not only raised prices tremendously from 2010-2014, but they increased prices a lot this generation too. Considering how much you have defended reference blower cards, then you should mention how GTX1080 now costs 27% more than the GTX980 and 40% more than the GTX680. To exacerbate the situation, the GTX1070 is not a true x70 series card, but rather more in-line with GTX660Ti linage given its performance delta with the 1080. The reality is that the 1080 is grossly overpriced and the 1070 is under-powered and overpriced at the same time when we look at historical generations of NV cards.

I expect real rebuttal with facts, but I have a feeling all I am going to get is that "As long as customers keep paying, these prices are fair and reasonable," and "it's AMD's fault that I now have to pay $XXX." It doesn't matter whose fault it is, or if customers keep paying these prices. We are ONLY analyzing if prices increases have occurred or not and how much more expensive it is now to own similar tier cards.

==============
To answer the OP's question, both RX 480 and GTX1060 are nothing special video cards in a new era of GPU prices where $250-300 buys you a low-end tier card. Sorry, but these are just the facts. The main difference now is that these low-end tier cards can play many games well at 1080P 60Hz, which makes more expensive GPUs more of a luxury, rather than a necessity. In that past, one could launch Crysis 3 on $1600 8800GTX Ultra SLI and it would choke at 1280x1024 maxed out. Today, it's possible to play many games at 4K close to 60 fps on a $1200 cut-down high-end Pascal. What has happened is the high-end tier cards have become a lot less relevant for a good gaming experience than in the past where you practically needed a new one or a powerful one just to play next gen titles. Today, we can play next gen titles with a few settings turned down even on an RX480 or the GTX1060. That's one reason why NV/AMD can price lower tiers so much higher now -- the user experience even on low end cards like RX 480 and 1060 is still very good. In the past, it wasn't possible to purchase a $250 GPU and play that gen's games at 1080p with a couple settings down. Also, PC gamers' budgets for GPUs have possibly increased since CPU/platforms from Intel now last 4-5, or even 6 years. There are still gamers contemplating buying an RX 480/1060 for Nehalem (2008), Lynnfield (2009) and Sandy Bridge platforms (2011). That's unheard of in the past to pair a $250-300 2016 GPU with a 5-8 year old CPU.

At least PC gaming saves you $ on the software side compared to consoles

 

[boozzer]

to be honest, if you can find a used non reference 980 ti, they are 300$ or less now, it is better than everything under 300$ right now.

 

[RussianSensation]

Essentially becoming higher end cards, that only enthusiast can afford. What was supposed to be mainstream cards became not so mainstream, that the masses can't afford at these prices.

If you are not mining for $ with RX 480/1060 and cannot find a good deal on these cards, be a smart consumer and just save a bit more for a $360 after-market 980Ti or buy a used 980Ti. Since GTX1060 ~ 980, an after-market 980Ti is going to be ~45%+ faster than a GTX1060 6GB.

$360 / $250 = 44%. That means any RX 480 / GTX1060 that costs more than $250 has worse price/performance than an AIB GTX980Ti, especially the Classified version I linked. Alternatively, just wait a bit more for prices on 480/1060 to subside or to find a good deal on a used 980Ti. There is no need to pay these prices if you aren't happy with them! Vote with your wallet. Keep an eye out on eVGA B-stock deals as well as I've seen 980Ti for $320.

I do disagree with your assertion though that $300 is enthusiast level pricing. I also hate to rub it in but you could have enjoyed 2 years of after-market R9 290 for $200 or R9 290X for $255 had you followed the Hot Deals more closely. During November 2014, there were amazing deals with the best R9 290 cards going for $250, bundled with 3-4 games. All those PC gamers who didn't listen to advice got burned either buying trash R9 380/950/960 or holding on to even slower cards and now they are going to pay at least $230+ for barely faster RX 480/1060 cards than those AIB 290/290X cards.

Generally speaking, you will almost never get the best GPU deal on new GPUs during the start of a new generation. Right now, you will inherently be paying the higher premiums on RX 470/480/1060/1070/1080 level cards. This is because to enjoy the latest and greatest, AMD/NV and AIBs charge extra $. It's why barely a year ago Fury X and 980Ti cost $650. RX 480/1060 are like those Fury X/980Ti cards (cutting edge generation) but from a different tier. During the beginning of a new generation, new tiers are almost always overpriced because that's how the GPU industry works. Unfortunately this generation, AMD has no $ for price wars, is well behind in rolling out their true mid-range and high-end cards, while NV currently has superior products which puts little pressure for them to include great game bundles or cut prices. It's the perfect storm for high prices and no incentives to sell cards.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

RX 460 is around $130. It will play the resolution of the masses (1080) for all the recent games at medium(ish) settings. If it's a DX12 title you get even more bang for the buck. The price to performance ratio has never been better.

I suppose if you only look at the naming conventions for the card makers your theory holds water. Step outside that box and find that PC gamers can build a more powerful box for less money than ever before.

 

[Bacon1]

Yep the 480 and 1060 are hard sells over 980 ti / $300 (or even $275) Fury Nitro)

 

[Sonikku]

At least PC gaming saves you $ on the software side compared to consoles

Yarrr Ye be right matey!

 

[Carfax83]

I suppose if you only look at the naming conventions for the card makers your theory holds water. Step outside that box and find that PC gamers can build a more powerful box for less money than ever before.

Bingo. Saying a GTX 1080 (or even a 1070) is a midrange card is absolutely ridiculous, as a GTX 1080 handles 1440p with ease, and offers good performance at 4K. NVidia and AMD both price their GPUs based on absolute as well as relative performance to the competition, and not on vague semantics concerning perceived tier..

 

[Bacon1]

Bingo. Saying a GTX 1080 (or even a 1070) is a midrange card is absolutely ridiculous, as a GTX 1080 handles 1440p with ease, and offers good performance at 4K. NVidia and AMD both price their GPUs based on absolute as well as relative performance to the competition, and not on vague semantics concerning perceived tier..

Well one could also say that 1080p is minimal, 1440p is mid tier and 4k is high end gaming.

After all monitor prices have fallen massively while GPU prices have skyrocketed. You can get a 4k monitor for $300, but to game on it? 2-3x that much.

 

[poofyhairguy]

to be honest, if you can find a used non reference 980 ti, they are 300$ or less now, it is better than everything under 300$ right now.

Even with the concept that the 980 ti is about to lose Nvidia driver optimization priority (if it hasn't already)?

Unfortunately this generation, AMD has no $ for price wars

Seems like stock is more a problem. They started a price war with a $200 480 and they couldn't keep it in stock.

 

[zinfamous]

I think your pricing estimates are way off. Honestly, while that midrange does seem to have creeped up a bit (yes--midrange was solidly $200-250 max not too long ago), now it is more like $250-300, we are also getting last gen's ~$400-500 performance at that $250 price.

I think that's pretty damn good, especially considering that the 480/1060 are impressive 1080p cards that sometimes dabble at 1440 reasonably well (for some people, anyway). I think the real price inflation has incurred in that upper midrange-super enthusiast region, but this is only because AMD has utterly failed here to remain competitive, so it shouldn't be surprising. The Fury is a good card, but most would reasonably recommend a 980 Ti over it, despite Maxwell's growing limitations, that one still has enough raw power to outlast its cousins, I believe.

And yes--the fact that Volta is out within this generation puts the 1080 and certainly the 1070 at the upper midrange tier. I mean, if they aren't, then what is Volta supposed to be? What are they if the TitanX is not enthusiast/high end? That's where you see the real price scalping begin to occur again, expectedly, because AMD has nothing to offer. I think 1070 is reasonably priced (when you can find it at MSRP), assuming you consider the 480/1060 to be reasonably priced. (none of these price increases include this ludicrous "FE" scheme--that's another bizzarro world discussion )

 

[Carfax83]

Well one could also say that 1080p is minimal, 1440p is mid tier and 4k is high end gaming.

If it fits your narrative sure. Personally I prefer to say that 1080p is standard, 1440p high end, and 4K ultra high end.

After all monitor prices have fallen massively while GPU prices have skyrocketed. You can get a 4k monitor for $300, but to game on it? 2-3x that much.

Indeed, which reinforces what I've said. 4K is a tough nut to crack for GPUs, even with the release of Titan X Pascal. You still can't crank up all the settings at 4K, and will have to sacrifice a few things. 4K likely won't be mastered until Volta, and HBM2 I think..

This is why GPU prices are strongly correlated with absolute performance and capability, because games are rendered in real time and as pixel resolution has increased and games have become much larger and more complex, GPUs have had to dramatically increase in performance to be able to offer the same standard of experience that PC gamers have come to expect.

A more accurate method would be to compare GFlops. Using RS's example, the GTX 560 Ti was 1.2 TFlops, compared to the GTX 1080's 9 TFlops..

See how silly that comparison is now?