I don't think there will even be a 1080 Ti. Not enough room between 1080 and Titan X to slot in a worthwhile 1080 Ti.
Of course there will be a ti. Nvidia is not going to design and produce a chip just for a $1200 gaming card that hardly anyone buys. This cycle has been repeated multiple times and it plays out the same way each time. First a Titan and then a GTX card.
I don't think there will be a 1080 Ti either, but for slightly different reasons.
There just isn't any competition from AMD to force Nvidia to deploy a 1080 Ti.
The original 780 Ti was a response to the R9 290X, and the 980 Ti was a response to the Fury X. There is no big GPU from AMD arriving this year to force Nvidia to deploy a "Ti class" card.
The chip will sell in nice volumes as a Tesla M40 successor.
System Preferences -> About this Mac
There's nothing wrong with the naming scheme. I'd actually say it's better than some arbitrary numbering scheme like 1070/980 Ti/295 X2.
Actually, I wish Apple would drop the 6/6s/7 from its iPhone (not to mention the iPad line) naming scheme and just stick to the MYs like they do with the MacBooks.
We have only had two previous times where a chip was launched by Nvidia first as a prosumer card and then as a consumer card, and only in one of those cases was the prosumer card cutdown with the consumer card being the full version.
Titan to 780 Ti - $700
Titax X to 980 Ti - $650
The new Pascal Titan X is most reminiscent of the Titan to 780 Ti example (cutdown to full version), so assuming a 20% price hike (The new Titan X is $1200 vs. the $1000 of the original Titan) we get a price of $840.
My guess (which I don't appear to be alone with in this thread) is $800 MSRP and $900 Founders edition for a theoretical 1080 Ti.
I don't want to see $1723 consumer GPUs like we do with Intel CPUs, and that's what a monopoly gets you.
The 8800GTX is a much larger die than the 1080/1070, it's a true flagship card in the way that the 104s aren't. The 8800 Ultra was a halo product and was dismissed by most reviews from what I can see. The nice thing is that the fanboy/halo product was introduced after the normal consumer product, which is far more 'scrupulous' in my book. Plus, both of those coexisted with the 8800GT - the 1080 equivalent of the day, which costed $350 ($406 now) upon its introduction. Considerably less than even a 1070. All this without ATI providing any real competition at the time either (I think).Actually the need to make a profit is exactly what has resulted in the prices we are seeing today.
A lot of people seem to be of the mistaken opinion that the prices we are seeing right now are unprecented, but that is really not the case at all. Back in 2007 the 8800 Ultra launched for $830, which today would be equal to $965 (probably not far off from what a FE 1080 Ti will launch for), from 2001 (Geforce 3) until 2007 (GTX 8800) Nvidia flagship prices when adjusted for inflation was in the $600-700 range (same as the 1080 today).
Honestly at 1440p 144hz I'm still looking for any extra performance I can get.
You can't compare die sizes like that.. because the yield thresholds are completely different. Especially since the yield thresholds don't scale linearly with the die shrink. For instance a process that's 50% the size of the old process might only have about 40% equivalent yield threshold.The 8800GTX is a much larger die than the 1080/1070, it's a true flagship card in the way that the 104s aren't. The 8800 Ultra was a halo product and was dismissed by most reviews from what I can see. The nice thing is that the fanboy/halo product was introduced after the normal consumer product, which is far more 'scrupulous' in my book. Plus, both of those coexisted with the 8800GT - the 1080 equivalent of the day, which costed $350 ($406 now) upon its introduction. Considerably less than even a 1070. All this without ATI providing any real competition at the time either (I think).
Exactly. I want the best card that gives me 144hz@1440p. No more mGPU crap. Just brute freaking force. Unfortunately this is all there is for at least several months.
I already have a buyer for my FE that can wait till I get my Pitan X. F5 here I come.
If you read the wccftech story, it seems Nvidia is saying there may be 2 Pascal based Titans. One with a GP102 & another with GP100, and supposedly the latter is to come with HBM2.That would be the card that used the chip that was also found in the Titan X and.. 980ti. Thinking there will not be a GTX card using GP102 is the same thought process nvidia likes to encourage at every Titan launch; that you're getting something exclusive with a corresponding price tag.
Then they launch a GTX 780 or a GTX 980ti a few months later like they did with Titan and TX, like we'll see them do with GP102. It will likely be just like the first Titan. The initial GTX card cut down further from the TX and then a full GP102 later, probably once AMD releases Vega. The volume on the GTX card will be much higher and they'll make more money selling those than they will selling a Titan X for $1200.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij3m7Vr2rEkIf you read the wccftech story, it seems Nvidia is saying there may be 2 Pascal based Titans. One with a GP102 & another with GP100, and supposedly the latter is to come with HBM2.
Good information. I won't deny my ignorance on that subject.You can't compare die sizes like that.. because the yield thresholds are completely different. Especially since the yield thresholds don't scale linearly with the die shrink. For instance a process that's 50% the size of the old process might only have about 40% equivalent yield threshold.
Let's take the identical sized defect on two different processes. That same defect may only nick a transistor substrate on a bigger process while on a smaller process it may completely kill a transistor or two.
That's a simplistic view but similarly things get more complicated on FinFet because there are more steps in the process and more opportunity for impurities/defects.
This is why expecting die shrinks to give us more transistors each generation is unsustainable.. mGPU will be the only way forward.
The price hikes on GPUs are completely unwarranted. Maybe that's the wrong word - they are not motivated by the need to make a profit (as may be the case for your supermarket, as there is likely no shortage of competition there), they are motivated by a desire to make more and more and even more profit. This not a long term change due to inflation or other reasons, this is simply jacking up prices. 25-30% price increases on 70/80 series, and now a 980 Ti successor (this new Titan has no qualities of the previous Titans) for 85% more than we paid for it a year and a month ago?
What's doubled in price at your local supermarket, and relative to when?
Even if the competition is doing a worthless job at keeping NV in line (which only but the most stalwart would deny), there's nothing unreasonable about consumers being ticked off when they pull this. If consumers are unhappy, then the business is doing something wrong, as far as they should be concerned. I just wish NV would starts to feel it...
Well that's to be seen.. I happen to think that rx480 rx470 and rx460 will sell like hotcakes. And all the mobile polaris chips for laptops..
I see AMD going from 25% of the marketshare to up to 40% of the market with them.
Time is AMD's friend right now.. with growing Vulkan/DX12 adoption things are going in their favor. When they are finally ready to release Vega it will come in a good time and there will be a bigger AMD base to upgrade from.
I'm not too sure about this.right, and this is what you see happen here when there is a complete monopoly on one end of this industry, and what will happen if we continue to allow network, cable, airline, etc companies to continue to merge into singular entities.
nVidia is, quite simply, doing what an unrestrained market economy allows them to do. I'm not saying that there needs to be legislation to stop that (outside of the SEC preventing any kind of takeover), only that AMD really needs to get it together and start competing at that end.
Granted, it isn't "too big of a deal" right now because that is a very small part of the market and, quite frankly, cards in this class tend to exist primarily for industry, data centers, whatever--where they are simply going to pay more for what they need, if they determine that they need it.
But this certainly isn't good for the consumer in any way if this trend continues throughout the other tiers of the market (high-end/low-enthusiast is now considered "mid-range" for some reason). I have no doubt that 480 pricing is what brought the 1060 down to the $300-350 that nVidia wanted to charge for it.
Make no mistake--customers claiming that paying these prices are fine to them because they are simply willing to pay for it are fooling themselves/lying to others. Given the choice between the same card "reasonably" priced at $800 and extortionately priced at $1200, everyone knows which price they would prefer. There's really no reason to support this kind of pricing because there is no rational reason for nVidia being generous and reasonable for their customers when there is no competition forcing them to, and that's where we are.
This isn't a criticism so much of nVidia--I fully believe AMD would be engaging in the same practices if the roles were reversed because, why wouldn't they be? these guys aren't out to spread flowers and design toys out of the kindness in their hearts--but that there really isn't any reason for them not to price cards at extortionate levels when they have no competition. This is the history of free markets.
even you can't deny that amd had more cards at this launch cycle?Time on their side?...Are you serious?...1 card released which is hard to get and with great competition from NV?...
NV have all the headlines and product range already...Are you not over the waiting game everytime AMD release a card for the performance or the new API or the better drivers to come etc, etc?
Time on their side?...Are you serious?...1 card released which is hard to get and with great competition from NV?...
NV have all the headlines and product range already...Are you not over the waiting game everytime AMD release a card for the performance or the new API or the better drivers to come etc, etc?
If you read the wccftech story, it seems Nvidia is saying there may be 2 Pascal based Titans. One with a GP102 & another with GP100, and supposedly the latter is to come with HBM2.
Why does even an enthusiast need a 6950X? Why do they need a Titan XP? An OC'd 6850K (or even a bargain bin 5830K) @4.4+GHz is a much more sensible option, but people are still howling over the price of the very limited 6950X, as if they're entitled to one, no matter their budget.
And by the same token, a solo 1070 is perfect for 1440p, >60Hz gaming, and a pair of them will handle 60Hz 4K gaming with ease, neither option will break the bank. In fact, 4 months ago it would have cost $600 (a single 980Ti) for seamless 1440p, and $1200 for 4K. Now? $430. Yet again, however, people are up in arms because they feel that they should be able to buy the new forthcoming also-limited Titan, for "reasons".
Why should anyone be upset about the pricing of "bragging rights", luxury products? It makes no sense. You can't afford a 6950X or Titan XP? So what? Are you angry over not being able to buy a Ferrari or Gulfstream G650, as well?
Wheres that 16gb of hbm2?
Here's an easy way to look at it. AMD has hit rock bottom. 18% dGPU share in a quarter vs NV recently. Now they are creeping up, in quarters prior to Polaris, so we're talking the same stuff, 380, 390/X etc that caused them to lose marketshare in the first place having a resurgence.
How do you attribute old tech regaining marketshare? There's a change in perception out there, the masses are coming to the realization about DX12/Vulkan, they buy with future proof in mind. I've seen many comments like this on forums and reddit.
So yes, time is actually on AMD's side, when you're rock bottom, the only way is up (unless you fold, Intel/Apple buys RTG heh)...
I do think AMD will win back more marketshare in the coming quarters, but NV is going to win with record margins & profits. I guess it's a win-win situation. Except for gamers looking for reasonably priced mid-range & high-end GPUs, they are the real losers.