And yes--the fact that Volta is out within this generation puts the 1080 and certainly the 1070 at the upper midrange tier.
Volta is out? Had no idea...
And yes--the fact that Volta is out within this generation puts the 1080 and certainly the 1070 at the upper midrange tier.
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.
60% poor NV, they will have to put the prices up again.NVDA's record breaking margins disagree.
Volta is out? Had no idea...
A Geforce 3 used to cost ~£200, when that was the high end. Yeah, prices have gone up.
GeForce3 cards cost between US$359 and $450 as I write. Perfectly acceptable, speedy GeForce2 Pro cardsare selling for about a third of that.
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.
The good? We are mostly still stuck at 1080p so cheaper cards kick ass.
The bad? We are stuck at 1080p as an ecosystem and mindset.
Well most gamers have 1080p displays, which are cheap now.The good? We are mostly still stuck at 1080p so cheaper cards kick ass.
The bad? We are stuck at 1080p as an ecosystem and mindset.
I disagree. iGPUs are not there yet unless you are referring to DOTA level specs.Thats what I don't get, 1080p is the minimum, 1440p or higher should be what anyone with a $300+ card should be using.
Monitors are cheap compared to GPUs, and they last a lot longer. You can get 21:9 ultrawides or even 4k monitors for under $400. No one should be using a 1080p 60hz monitor with a discrete gpu.
Thats what I don't get, 1080p is the minimum, 1440p or higher should be what anyone with a $300+ card should be using.
Monitors are cheap compared to GPUs, and they last a lot longer. You can get 21:9 ultrawides or even 4k monitors for under $400. No one should be using a 1080p 60hz monitor with a discrete gpu.
Well most gamers have 1080p displays, which are cheap now.
980 ti is about 30-50% faster than 1060 6gb and 480 8gb atm. even if we get rid of game ready drivers, you stand to lose about 10-20% performance for the next 1-2 years.Even with the concept that the 980 ti is about to lose Nvidia driver optimization priority (if it hasn't already)?
.
I said Volta is out within this generation, so sometime next year. Would you be shocked if nVidia gets it out when Vega shows up?
Thats what I don't get, 1080p is the minimum, 1440p or higher should be what anyone with a $300+ card should be using.
Monitors are cheap compared to GPUs, and they last a lot longer. You can get 21:9 ultrawides or even 4k monitors for under $400. No one should be using a 1080p 60hz monitor with a discrete gpu.
I said Volta is out within this generation, so sometime next year. Would you be shocked if nVidia gets it out when Vega shows up?
Even with the concept that the 980 ti is about to lose Nvidia driver optimization priority (if it hasn't already)?.
You can call a 1080 a midrange card, but in fact it is "high end" card because there is there is no card that performs better. It really is an apples to oranges comparison though because a "high end" card from a few years ago has far fewer transistors and lower performance than similar level cards today. It also isnt valid to compare the price of a depreciated previous gen card to a new card just coming out. For instance the 1060 has similar performance to a 980. Discounting the obviously overpriced aib models, a 1060 is priced around 250.00. I dont recall the exact introductory price of the 980, but I am sure it was far more 250.00. Doesnt matter whether the cards are x60 or x80 or "high end" or "mid range" for their respective generations, the fact is similar performance costs less. Same for the 1080. Even if one calls the 1080 a midrange card, the fact is it provides higher performance than the previous gen 980ti at a similar price to the introductory price of the 980ti.
Yea, so a current "mid range" card is as fast as a previous mid/high range card, and costs much less. How is that a bad thing? I dont care about die size, one can always complain that a company could give you a better product for the same price. Bottom line is performance per dollar has increased from the previous generation. In fact I would argue that if anything, the title of this thread is backwards. Previous performance near the high end (980) has now become midrange (1060). Even the 1070 which costs 400.00 gives performance above the 600.00 plus 980Ti, when you consider introductory prices, not the current depreciated prices for the 980Ti.I totally disagree. The reason why you're able to say a GTX1060 if faster than a GTX980 is because Nvidia has been pushing mid-range cards on us since Kepler. From a technical standpoint based on die size relative to the each other, the GTX1080 would be considered a midrange card relative to the Titan XP prior to the Kepler generation. Nvidia has been slowly shifting the performance stack upward for years.
The GTX1060 3GB is a good example of pushing the stack upward. Based on the already overly inflated price, the GTX1060 3GB should be a GTX1050TI based on its reduced specs. But, yet, Nvidia is trying to pull a fast one on unsuspecting people with the naming scheme.
Heh, no. Just no. 1440p means you're now paying $400+ for decent FPS and good luck if you want 120hz+ monitors on top of that.
There is more justification to buy a 4k tv these days despite a lack of content to watch in 4k than $300 being good for 1440p.
You can call a 1080 a midrange card, but in fact it is "high end" card because there is there is no card that performs better. It really is an apples to oranges comparison though because a "high end" card from a few years ago has far fewer transistors and lower performance than similar level cards today.