Nvidia cuts prices on all their GPUs in the 900 Series

[Arachnotronic]

The lowest price is around $600 now. Too bad, you waited until this model:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127902&cm_re=980ti-_-14-127-902-_-Product

Sold out for well under $600.

This thread topic is odd, since while yes, the AMD price cuts may have been posted first here, the 980Ti was on sale BEFORE the Fiji cards.

That card was a ridiculous deal, 'grats to those who got in on it.

 

[railven]

That's AMD's fault for re-releasing the same cards again and again. Why buy the new version when you can buy it second hand for half the price with a 2 at the start of the model number not a 3. Unless you want fury (which hardly anyone does because nvidia sells a faster card for the same price) the AMD market is pretty well saturated.

Even before the R200 into R300 transition, back when HD 7970 was $550 it wasn't highly recommended. Not at that price. It only started to get the thumps up when it dropped a ~$150 and came with 6 games.

For a long time AMD was considered the bargain brand. And I think that stigma stuck when ATI cards got rebranded to AMD. Suddenly Radeon's weren't worth much over $500. And you see it now with the Fury's.

 

[Actaeon]

Yeah, so far it looks like the 980 Tis have gone up in price since I ordered last week. I keep checking since I placed my order in case I need to price match or return mine for the cheaper one, but I haven't found a better deal yet. I figured I would have seen something with Black Friday and Cyber Monday, but nope.

Ended up getting the Zotac Amp Extreme for $583 + tax = $634. With the 10% back from Amazon I landed at $570 total. Pretty satisfied with that price. No MIRs or anything.

The MSI from Newegg was also a very good price, especially when stacked with the 5% off coupon. $589 - 5% = $560~ + tax = $610. 2% back from my CC = $697 - $30 MIR = $567 total.

Killer prices considering the MSRP for reference was $650 with aftermarket cooled often going for a bit more.

I really wish I didn't live in CA sometimes. Those cards would have been $525~ each if it wasn't for taxes. Oh well.

 

[Creig]

Amd fans have pushed waiting for performance with the fx lines and gpus.
The market completely disagrees. So amd should change their strategy but they won't.

I'd say their strategy is working just fine for us consumers. The 290X was released on October 24, 2013 for $549. Two weeks later, the 780Ti arrived on the scene for $150 more at $699. The 780Ti was a bit faster than the 290X, hence the higher price.

Today, the $150 cheaper 290X isn't just faster than the 780Ti by a good margin, it's also faster than the 970 and trades blows with the 980. Meanwhile, the 780Ti has been relegated to backup PCs. And with the performance increase DX12 has shown on AMD cards, it's entirely possible that the 290X will continue to live as a viable high end gaming card for another year or two.

Personally, I much prefer AMD's approach of building cards that continue to mature over time than Nvidia's strategy of planned obsolescence.

 

[tential]

I'd say their strategy is working just fine for us consumers. The 290X was released on October 24, 2013 for $549. Two weeks later, the 780Ti arrived on the scene for $150 more at $699. The 780Ti was a bit faster than the 290X, hence the higher price.

Today, the $150 cheaper 290X isn't just faster than the 780Ti by a good margin, it's also faster than the 970 and trades blows with the 980. Meanwhile, the 780Ti has been relegated to backup PCs. And with the performance increase DX12 has shown on AMD cards, it's entirely possible that the 290X will continue to live as a viable high end gaming card for another year or two.

Personally, I much prefer AMD's approach of building cards that continue to mature over time than Nvidia's strategy of planned obsolescence.

That's great. So surely, people bought more R9 290xs than GTX 780Tis right?

I'm not denying the fact that the R9 200 series had a lot of legs to it. I'm saying that the market doesn't care. People aren't willing to wait to see what happens over the long run. They look at the performance and purchase. That's why people bought the 780Ti over the R9 290x. That's why people bought the GTX 970/980 at launch. Nvidia architects a GREAT launch in which they ensure the GPU they release does well in review titles. They optimize the drivers as much as they can to get the max performance possible, sure you see "game ready" drivers, but nothing like overall boosts we some from AMD.

So at launch, when reviews matter the most, Nvidia comes out ready to fight, and AMD says "I'll get to it 2 years from now".

If AMD had mature drivers for the R9 290x it would have been great. Actually, R9 290x, with mature drivers, and the Fury X cooler (and the whole premium "Fury" release in general to fight the Titan) would have been AMAZING. But AMD was late to the Fury branding party, late to the good cooler party, and instead launched the Fury X branding with a dud Fiji GPU, against the GTX 980Ti.

The market has shown that they'll buy Nvidia GPUs, because they review well, they have good marketing, etc. etc. etc.
The market just isn't going to wait for an active DP to HDMI 2.0 cord. It's not going to wait 2 years for AMD to have mature drivers for their GPU. They'll buy the competition, and then, when the competition isn't cutting it, they'll upgrade to the competition AGAIN, because AGAIN it will have better launch reviews.

AMD needs to learn to launch a GPU, or they won't be around selling GPUs much longer, no matter how great the underlying hardware is.

 

[Timmah!]

Yeah, so far it looks like the 980 Tis have gone up in price since I ordered last week. I keep checking since I placed my order in case I need to price match or return mine for the cheaper one, but I haven't found a better deal yet. I figured I would have seen something with Black Friday and Cyber Monday, but nope.

Ended up getting the Zotac Amp Extreme for $583 + tax = $634. With the 10% back from Amazon I landed at $570 total. Pretty satisfied with that price. No MIRs or anything.

The MSI from Newegg was also a very good price, especially when stacked with the 5% off coupon. $589 - 5% = $560~ + tax = $610. 2% back from my CC = $697 - $30 MIR = $567 total.

Killer prices considering the MSRP for reference was $650 with aftermarket cooled often going for a bit more.

I really wish I didn't live in CA sometimes. Those cards would have been $525~ each if it wasn't for taxes. Oh well.

I was considering not so long ago buying MSI 980Ti 6G Gaming. At one point it was 713 EUROs with VAT over here. Now its 793. So much for the price cuts in Europe.

 

[tviceman]

AMD needs to learn to launch a GPU, or they won't be around selling GPUs much longer, no matter how great the underlying hardware is.

This couldn't be closer to the truth.

On a side note, I feel like Nvidia left too much headroom in their Maxwell cards at reference speeds. Has any video card generation been able to overclock 20-25% on stock voltage like Maxwell? They could have easily launched with 5-10% higher clocked stock parts. Enthusiasts who overclock realize this potential, but in the face of rebadges, AMD fanatics like to point out how the gap has closed. It certainly has, but AMD has raised clock speeds along the way and comparisons are often only made to Nvidia reference models, rare as they are. Has any video card generation been able to overclock 20-25% on stock voltage like Maxwell?

 

[Actaeon]

I was considering not so long ago buying MSI 980Ti 6G Gaming. At one point it was 713 EUROs with VAT over here. Now its 793. So much for the price cuts in Europe.

What was the price of a 980 Ti at launch where you are at? If selling price is close to new, I'd hold off until the discount is worthwhile. Every day that goes by these things are worth less and less and at some point the next release is worth waiting for. But given a heavy enough discount, it worth a buy.

I would expect next year's mid-high end tier (the 970 and 980s of today) to be in the same performance range as the current 980 Ti. Very likely to be quicker at stock clocks but the 980 Ti's clocks are very conservative and has an extra 15-20% left from OCing that may even it up a bit.

I wouldn't have bought my card if it was at full price or much higher than where I got in at. I bought since I was got my card at mid-high tier pricing which I thought was fair.

 

[tential]

This couldn't be closer to the truth.

On a side note, I feel like Nvidia left too much headroom in their Maxwell cards at reference speeds. Has any video card generation been able to overclock 20-25% on stock voltage like Maxwell? They could have easily launched with 5-10% higher clocked stock parts. Enthusiasts who overclock realize this potential, but in the face of rebadges, AMD fanatics like to point out how the gap has closed. It certainly has, but AMD has raised clock speeds along the way and comparisons are often only made to Nvidia reference models, rare as they are. Has any video card generation been able to overclock 20-25% on stock voltage like Maxwell?

I had amazing Ocs on my 7950 from whatever the stock clocks were.

I think AMD was too conservative then, and Nvidia on the other hand, I think they were right to be reserved for the Maxwell line. Remember, Maxwell was competing against the R9 290/x at the time. It was already faster. Why not have it not only be faster, but also be a perf/watt king, which is a metric that is more and more important as we become more green/eco conscious or whatevver.
Nvidia took a win, and instead of winning on 1 front, decided to win on two. It decided to win not only on performance (where AMD may catch up), but on perf/watt, where AMD couldn't ever really catch Maxwell on, so I think Nvidia really played Maxwell as well as humanly possible.

 

[RussianSensation]

Enthusiasts who overclock realize this potential, but in the face of rebadges, AMD fanatics like to point out how the gap has closed.

It has, even with Maxwell OCing. If you followed the posts on this forum, stock vs. stock and OC vs. OC performance has been fairly accounted for along with respective price/performance. Do you think people blindly recommend R9 390 over 970 without already seeing reviews where a 1.5Ghz 970 still lost to an overclocked 390? You think people haven't read reviews like this one where 390 is so far ahead at 1440P, that it'll take a max overclocked 970 just to catch up? They have.

Your post made it sound as if people are leaving 15-18% Maxwell overclocking off the table when this is straight up false. We've seen 950/960 OC vs. 280X OC. 280X still wins. 750/750Ti max OCed can't beat 270/270X.

So that means:

R9 270 > 750/750Ti
R9 280/R9 380 > 950
R9 380 > 960
R9 280X > 960
390 > 970
390X smashes 980 in price/performance but if you feel like spending $100 more, go right ahead
Fury/Nano > 980
Fury X < 980Ti

Stock vs. stock or OC vs. OC, the results do not change.

The only card that is untouchable in NV's line-up is the 980Ti. That's the only situation that applies to your example and again objective PC gamers have long acknowledged its 25% OCing headroom.

AMD's major problem is execution, not drivers, not performance, not price/performance.

Type Core i5 6600K in Newegg, you get 42 results. Of these 3 are AMD-based rigs, 0 combos.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cription=core+i5+6600k&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Page=1

Type Core i7 6700K in Newegg, you get 3 results. Of these 4 are AMD-based rigs, 0 combos.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cription=core+i7+6700k&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Page=2

That means if someone is buying a bunch of PC parts in a combo doing a similar search for a new Skylake build, NV gets 100% market share, not 80%, not 90%, 100%.

You can make the best product in the world in all metrics but if OEMs/wholesalers aren't selling it for you, it doesn't matter. AMD's biggest problem is OEM design wins and execution, even bigger than brand name.

It's the same problem Android manufacturers have in US/Canada -- execution is terrible. Unlike Asia and Middle-east, I cannot just walk into an electronics store and buy an unlocked brand new LG G4, Samsung S6, Note 5, Sony Z5 Premium and get 1-2 year warranty. If you don't know how to sell your product or worse, your suppliers don't care to sell it, it doesn't matter if you made the best thing in 2015, it'll never sell in large #s.

That's exactly why if 390 was $199, 390X was $249, Nano/Fury was $299, Fury X was $399, AMD would never outsell NV. It's not possible if you don't have OEM/design wins and a supplier network in place.

When I worked in Central Asia, you couldn't buy any modern AMD cards period. You'd have to order them from Taiwan. Market share in that country was 99%+ NV automatically. If you don't show up to sell, you lose automatically.

Marketing also plays a major role in sales, way more than performance. Right now in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, NV teamed up with Intel for a photo contest where all you have to do is put up a picture of yourself with what your profession is and you can win prizes. So literally post up a picture of yourself, win a 980Ti, 980, 970, 960.

How can AMD compete with that? They cannot. They have no $ for that.

You know better than anyone that while NV makes great cards, that's not anyone complains about. It's when NV has garbage products like GeForce 5 or 7 or sells overpriced and slow junk like GeForce 4 MX 420/FX5200/GTS450/GTX550/650/650Ti, then it becomes obvious there is A LOT more to it than AMD's drivers or anything really.

NV and Intel are like the Apple of the PC. They make great products, but even when they make garbage, it still sells and sells really really well.

 

[Timmah!]

What was the price of a 980 Ti at launch where you are at? If selling price is close to new, I'd hold off until the discount is worthwhile. Every day that goes by these things are worth less and less and at some point the next release is worth waiting for. But given a heavy enough discount, it worth a buy.

I would expect next year's mid-high end tier (the 970 and 980s of today) to be in the same performance range as the current 980 Ti. Very likely to be quicker at stock clocks but the 980 Ti's clocks are very conservative and has an extra 15-20% left from OCing that may even it up a bit.

I wouldn't have bought my card if it was at full price or much higher than where I got in at. I bought since I was got my card at mid-high tier pricing which I thought was fair.

I did not pay attention to its price, when it was new and fresh. i only assume it was more or less the same as it is now, in the 700-850 EUROs pricing range depending on the features. I decided to wait up for Pascal anyway, so whatever...they can sell it for 5000 as far as i am concerned.

I dont think there will be any heavy discount - that 713 EUROs price was pretty much it. It wont get much cheaper than that. They still sell used GTX690 for 790 EUROs over here, last piece mind, i wonder who is going to buy it at that price anyway.

 

[3DVagabond]

It has even with Maxwell OCing. If you followed the posts on this forum, stock vs. stock and OC vs. OC performance has been fairly accounted for along with respective price/performance. Do you think people blindly recommend R9 390 over 970 without already seeing reviews where a 1.5Ghz 970 still lost to an overclocked 390?

Interesting that even @ 1080 the 390 is faster than the 970. That's supposedly where nVidia's driver advantage shows up.

The only game that the 970 beats it at is BF4 (only at 1080). You know the Dice game that is headed up by the AMD mouthpiece Johan Andersson.

So, people who are under the impression that you need to wait for DX12 to get good performance from AMD are wrong. You can have superior (or equal) performance now with the piece of mind that it's most likely to improve and stay relevant over time.

 

[Actaeon]

I did not pay attention to its price, when it was new and fresh. i only assume it was more or less the same as it is now, in the 700-850 EUROs pricing range depending on the features. I decided to wait up for Pascal anyway, so whatever...they can sell it for 5000 as far as i am concerned.

I dont think there will be any heavy discount - that 713 EUROs price was pretty much it. It wont get much cheaper than that. They still sell used GTX690 for 790 EUROs over here, last piece mind, i wonder who is going to buy it at that price anyway.

Waiting for Pascal is a safe bet and I hope the high end chip arrives soon. I am looking forward to a single card capable of good minimum framerates with 4k & max settings. I think a 980 Ti is almost there, not quite. Some games can max settings, others need to turn a few things down.

I would say keep looking and see if a big discount comes up or look for a used one. Your low price was only 10% off so not too heavy of a discount. It took a discount of 25% off of mine before I went to buy. If no discount was waiting for Pascal too.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do

 

[Actaeon]

They could have easily launched with 5-10% higher clocked stock parts. Enthusiasts who overclock realize this potential, but in the face of rebadges, AMD fanatics like to point out how the gap has closed. It certainly has, but AMD has raised clock speeds along the way and comparisons are often only made to Nvidia reference models, rare as they are.

In addition to the increased clock speeds of the 390 series, keep in mind that the many of the original 290 and 290X benchmarks were with the reference cooler which we know was not good at keeping the clock speeds in check. In regular mode it would throttle clock speeds to manage heat. In uber mode, it would usually stay at 1GHZ but the noise was unbearable. In some reviews it isn't clear what mode the card is being tested in. No matter what mode you were in, it was a lose-lose situation for AMD.

Hawaii's true potential is unlocked with aftermarket coolers. AMD was wise to relaunch the 390 without specifying a reference cooler, ensuring that every 390 is aftermarket cooled allowing for full speed and quiet operation. These cards were then tested and we're seeing what the 290/390s were really capable of with a good cooler.

In other words, I think both NV and AMD left a bit on the table during the initial release of the their 290290X & 970/980 cards.

 

[railven]

Waiting for Pascal is a safe bet and I hope the high end chip arrives soon. I am looking forward to a single card capable of good minimum framerates with 4k & max settings. I think a 980 Ti is almost there, not quite. Some games can max settings, others need to turn a few things down.

I would say keep looking and see if a big discount comes up or look for a used one. Your low price was only 10% off so not too heavy of a discount. It took a discount of 25% off of mine before I went to buy. If no discount was waiting for Pascal too.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do

This is how I'm feeling. I'd love to have a single GPU capable of driving 4K @ 60hz. 980 Ti handles 1440p great but it definitely can't do 4K, at least not all the current games I play.

Hopefully AMD/NV's next cards bring their A-game.

 

[Actaeon]

This is how I'm feeling. I'd love to have a single GPU capable of driving 4K @ 60hz. 980 Ti handles 1440p great but it definitely can't do 4K, at least not all the current games I play.

Hopefully AMD/NV's next cards bring their A-game.

Thanks for sharing your experiences. What games are you playing where 4K isn't smooth? Do you need 60fps? I am OK with 30~fps minimums and almost all of the benchmarks at 4K have that. I think Witcher 3 with Hairworks On was the toughest I saw, but disabling Hairworks makes 30fps very doable.

I used the reviews below to see the minimum framerates @ 4k meet my criteria. I can't speak based on experience or usage. I don't have my card yet, it was delayed until tomorrow, so I am curious to see what you are seeing.

Sadly I don't think the 'mid-range' Pascal will the one to deliver the super smooth 4K single card solution we want. I think we'll need to wait for Big Pascal.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/72...extreme-edition-video-card-review/index8.html

 

[tviceman]

It has even with Maxwell OCing. If you followed the posts on this forum, stock vs. stock and OC vs. OC performance has been fairly accounted for along with respective price/performance. Do you think people blindly recommend R9 390 over 970 without already seeing reviews where a 1.5Ghz 970 still lost to an overclocked 390? You think people haven't read reviews like this one where 390 is so far ahead at 1440P, that it'll take a max overclocked 970 just to catch up? They have.

Your post made it sound as if people are leaving 15-18% Maxwell overclocking off the table when this is straight up false. We've seen 950/960 OC vs. 280X OC. 280X still wins. 750/750Ti max OCed can't beat 270/270X.

So that means:

R9 270 > 750/750Ti
R9 280/R9 380 > 950
R9 380 > 960
R9 280X > 960
390 > 970
390X smashes 980 in price/performance but if you feel like spending $100 more, go right ahead
Fury/Nano > 980
Fury X < 980Ti

You're either purposefully exaggerating the price difference with the 390x or are falling off your game. I hope you're not exaggerating like so many other people do around here when trying to prove a point, it just exposes their obvious predispositions and biases. The cheapest 980 is $430 after MIR, the cheapest 390x is $360 after MIR. The 980 comes with a new(ish) AAA game while the 390x does not (I'd rate that at a $20 value). So yeah, I'd gladly spend the extra $50 for a max OC'd 980 (~20% faster at 1080p, ~15% faster at 1440p) over a max OC'd space heating, slower, and probably louder 390x. And if I'm playing at 1080p, I'd gladly save the extra $50 going with a 980 over a Fury, as an OC'd 980 will give an OC'd Fury a run for it's money at 1080p. At 1440p though, Fury is definitely a better choice for $50 more.

Other comparisons you made that I disagree with:
cheapest 380x - $230
cheapest 4gb 960 - $195 + 20 MIR ($175)
Max OC'd 960 is 10% slower than max OC'd 380x. 960 is still better perf/$ and for anyone that is considering OCing I will always recommend the 960 over the 380x because the ultimately small performance difference and wattage saved.

270 vs. 750 TI Of course the 270 is clearly faster, but if someone jumps in here asking what they can run with an OEM PSU and you or whoever else chimes in saying they should get a new PSU on top of getting new video card, that clearly raises the amount of money out of pocket to get the faster setup, skewing the perf/$ comparison significantly. I have no problem recommending a 270 or 270x over a 750 TI so long as the user doesn't need to upgrade their PSU. But if a person has a 250 watt HP OEM PSU, I will recommend the 750 TI every time instead of advising the user to sink even more money into buying multiple components for a computer that likely uses an equally crappy motherboard, ram, cooling system, and hard drive.

Other than that, I've never been big on the 970 since the 3.5gb fiasco was revealed. When the card os $220 and come with games and someone is set on Nvidia, then it's easy to recommend. But I don't think you'll find anything in my post history saying "970 is better than 390."

 

[Teizo]

It has even with Maxwell OCing. If you followed the posts on this forum, stock vs. stock and OC vs. OC performance has been fairly accounted for along with respective price/performance. Do you think people blindly recommend R9 390 over 970 without already seeing reviews where a 1.5Ghz 970 still lost to an overclocked 390?

That 970 was run at 1442...not 1.5 ghz, and if he would have overclocked the memory it would have gotten even more fps. 970s and 980s easily reach 8ghz on the memory for most cards.

I like Jay, but I am not going to take his word over [H] when [H] overclocks both the core and Vram to give a better overall view of overclocked performance.

Bottom line...both cards are very close in performance, but the 390 is barely cheaper than the 970 it is really silly to argue endlessly over $20. Why is it cheaper though? Because that is the only way AMD can sell it. The Fury's price shows that AMD will charge more if they feel they can.

/I will give you though that @ 1440p the 390 is a better choice than the 970...but most people who have 1440p monitors are going to opt for the 390x/980 or higher.

 

[3DVagabond]

That 970 was run at 1442...not 1.5 ghz, and if he would have overclocked the memory it would have gotten even more fps. 970s and 980s easily reach 8ghz on the memory for most cards.

I like Jay, but I am not going to take his word over [H] when [H] overclocks both the core and Vram to give a better overall view of overclocked performance.

Bottom line...both cards are very close in performance, but the 390 is barely cheaper than the 970 it is really silly to argue endlessly over $20. Why is it cheaper though? Because that is the only way AMD can sell it. The Fury's price shows that AMD will charge more if they feel they can.

/I will give you though that @ 1440p the 390 is a better choice than the 970...but most people who have 1440p monitors are going to opt for the 390x/980 or higher.

This comment tells me you have missed the whole point. People perceive nVidia's performance as being better even though it's not. How are we lead to believe this? It's not the fans on forums. It's much bigger than that.

I'm going to list some comments from a review for the Nixeus VUE24A from Hardware Canucks.

Talking about Nixeus not being as big as Asus, Dell, and Acer.

There may be some sacrifices in after-sales support but after some of the horror stories we’ve heard of tier-one manufacturers and their warranty service, the true benefits of higher priced alternatives may be minimal.

He goes on to say that there may not be, but why even say it in the first place? There needs to be some citation made to warrant the comment. As it is he's just casting doubt on the integrity of Nixeus' service. This is enough to turn sales towards the major players and hurt the small guys through nothing they've done. This might seem subtle to some, or even innocent, but people who are mastered in communication (journalists, politicians...) do these things purposely.

He goes on to say

It may not use IPS technology, but it does make use of a good TN panel with specifications that rival some of the better 21:9 monitors we have recently looked at with a 72% NTSC color gamut.

Anyone know what a 72% NTSC color gamut is? It doesn't sound too good, does it? I mean we are far more used to seeing 100% sRGB listed, aren't we? And 100% must be better than 72%. Well, in this case it's not. It's exactly the same spec. You know what? I've seen the spec 100% sRGB used a lot, pretty much all of the time, in monitor reviews. It's not even mentioned in this review. Again, subtle? Yes. Not accidental, though.

Still in the intro to the review talking about freesync

Provided you have a Radeon GPU capable of feeding more than 60FPS to the NX-VUE24A, you’ll see a massive difference between this monitor and one that doesn’t include FreeSync.

Blatantly false. The Freesync rate in this monitor goes down to 30Hz. At 40fps, 50fps, etc... this monitor isn't going to look better than one without Freesync? Now that isn't even subtle anymore.

The input selection may not be quite as spectacular but covers all the bases nicely with a single DisplayPort 1.2, single HDMI 1.4, DVI-D, and even a VGA port. Considering the very limited selection offered on some G-SYNC monitors, this is a breath of fresh air. Just remember that FreeSync is only available through the DisplayPort input.

So, on a VRR monitor support for 4 types of inputs isn't spectacular and the "very limited selection on some Gsync monitors"? Almost all, not some, Gsync monitors have only offered a single DP input (I know that's changing). Compared to that it's a huge improvement.

Another interesting addition here is a full 3 year warranty which is something of a rarity for inexpensive monitors from second tier manufacturers.

Again slanders Nixeus for no reason. He hasn't shown any evidence that Nixeus won't offer their customers an outstanding ownership experience. He sure alludes to it though.

That was just during the Intro to the review. I'll stop there but if you read it you will see many references to the reviewer feeling some other brand is better, simply because he prefers them and with no quantitative measurements to back his claims. This is how we end up with perceiving something is either better or worse than what it really is.

The review overall is glowing for this monitor, because he couldn't actually find anything to mark it down on. But he throws all of these innuendos in throughout the review that just makes it sound like the monitor isn't really that great.

AMD suffers from this too. I firmly believe it's because they don't give the sites as much "support" (free equipment, trips to events, etc...) as nVidia. Just like Nixeus vs. the top tier manufacturers.

 

[railven]

Thanks for sharing your experiences. What games are you playing where 4K isn't smooth? Do you need 60fps? I am OK with 30~fps minimums and almost all of the benchmarks at 4K have that. I think Witcher 3 with Hairworks On was the toughest I saw, but disabling Hairworks makes 30fps very doable.

Oddly enough, FFXIV on Max settings drops my 980 Ti @ 1505/2805 to the upper 40s when I set it to 4K. I can reduce two settings and nail 60 FPS, but then I lose some nifty shadows

ArcheAge is also a rather unoptomized mess. At times I can get 60 FPS @ 4K and turn my camera a little, mind you there isn't anything visibly different (I understand something else is being rendered or something) and tank to about upper 30s.

Indie games and the sort, no problem 4K, but those really don't benefit much from it. Fall Out 4 also tanks at 4K with high settings, new to use medium. Even 1440p takes a huge hit with Godrays above medium in some spots.

EDIT: Just thought about my recent experiment with SW:TOR, 3K shadows option tanks my performance at 1440p, but I get 60 FPS when set down to 2K shadows option. And honestly, the shadows look almost the same. Basically, shadows tank performance, period. Haha.

I used the reviews below to see the minimum framerates @ 4k meet my criteria. I can't speak based on experience or usage. I don't have my card yet, it was delayed until tomorrow, so I am curious to see what you are seeing.

Sadly I don't think the 'mid-range' Pascal will the one to deliver the super smooth 4K single card solution we want. I think we'll need to wait for Big Pascal.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/72...extreme-edition-video-card-review/index8.html

I actually haven't touched Witcher 3 since the recent Hairworks slider. I don't know why I thought I'd like Witcher 3, I wasn't a big fan of 1 or 2. With Hairworks off, 60 @ 1440p was easy with the 980 Ti OC'd.

 

[adairusmc]

I ordered a 980Ti FTW card this morning, and the price did drop in the last week as it has been sitting in my amazon shopping list - only about $20 though.

 

[Actaeon]

Oddly enough, FFXIV on Max settings drops my 980 Ti @ 1505/2805 to the upper 40s when I set it to 4K. I can reduce two settings and nail 60 FPS, but then I lose some nifty shadows

ArcheAge is also a rather unoptomized mess. At times I can get 60 FPS @ 4K and turn my camera a little, mind you there isn't anything visibly different (I understand something else is being rendered or something) and tank to about upper 30s.

Indie games and the sort, no problem 4K, but those really don't benefit much from it. Fall Out 4 also tanks at 4K with high settings, new to use medium. Even 1440p takes a huge hit with Godrays above medium in some spots.

I actually haven't touched Witcher 3 since the recent Hairworks slider. I don't know why I thought I'd like Witcher 3, I wasn't a big fan of 1 or 2. With Hairworks off, 60 @ 1440p was easy with the 980 Ti OC'd.

Cool, thanks for sharing your experiences. I think 60+FPS is sweet but I think I am content with upper 30s and upper 40s . Maybe on a twitch shooter I'd opt for 60fps, but I don't really play online anymore.

I only have Fallout 4 installed (Witcher 3 is after FO4) of the games you mentioned, I've been playing @ 1080p with Ultra settings including Ultra Godrays on my 290X and I've been satisfied with the performance. Most of the time it hovers around 60fps but I've seen it dip into the low 30s in some demanding situations. 30fps is not as smooth as a locked 60+fps but the dips were temporary and I thought the overall increased visual quality was worth it. I haven't seen it dip below low 30s, but less than 30 would be a problem.

I'll give it a try 4k @ Ultra and see how it goes. The benchmarks I saw made me think it was going to be fine but your first hand experiences is also revealing. It is possible the benchmarks were not in the demanding situations I've seen. I guess I'll find out later today.

Thanks again!

EDIT: Just thought about my recent experiment with SW:TOR, 3K shadows option tanks my performance at 1440p, but I get 60 FPS when set down to 2K shadows option. And honestly, the shadows look almost the same. Basically, shadows tank performance, period. Haha.

I also find there are alot of these silly settings which offer almost zero increase in visual quality but a huge performance hit. This will require some experimentation to determine the right balance of visual settings and performance. Shadows and fancy hair physics are a good place to start

 

[ocre]

I ordered a 780Ti FTW card this morning, and the price did drop in the last week as it has been sitting in my amazon shopping list - only about $20 though.

780ti ftw? Or did you mean 980ti?

Just thought i would ask....thread title and all

 

[adairusmc]

780ti ftw? Or did you mean 980ti?

Just thought i would ask....thread title and all

Oh yes, sorry. 980Ti.

It is replacing a 780Ti, which probably explains the typo. I will fix that.