The FE pricing is such a scum bag move for consumers imo. It artificially added $70 premium on top of a $379 1070 and $100 premium on top of a $599 1080. Since every open-air cooled AIB 1070/1080 was superior to the FE cards, we ended up with grossly overpriced AIB cards for months. When my Strix 1070 came out, it was $449-459 iirc. Later on, once the early adopters are milked, to maintain market demand, AIBs were forced to drop prices closer to MSRP. Later on rebates were added, bringing prices even lower. This is capitalism at its finest but it's shocking soooo many PC gamers didn't vote with their wallets. To make matters worse, the performance of FE coolers was attracious in terms if tempeatues and noise levels. My Strix 1070s @ 2025-2080mhz don't even go above 63C and I can't hear them. By gamers buying FE cards, they literally sent a message to NV that YES we love this direction form you. It's amazing how little patience some PC gamers have -- and because of it NV as a business should strive to raise price even more!
I disagree. Had I owned Fury X or 980Ti, I would have dumped both before the release of Pascal. Why would I have done that? Very simple - history of $550 R9 290X / $700 780Ti -> $330 970 already showed that buying flagship cards and holding them is the worst strategy. The week 1070/1080 were released, the resale value of 980Ti dropped from $600-650 to $400, further dropping to $300-350 over the next couple of months.
Wut. You just got done lambasting people for not having patience and jumping on the first-launched Pascal parts. Now you're flat-out saying you would have done the same while criticizing the patience of people who don't do that.
TPU shows a reference 1080 beating a reference 980Ti by 38% at 1440p and by 39% at 4K.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_1080_Amp_Extreme/29.html
That's nice, but you know full well no one cares about the reference 980 Ti except those trying to make some dumb cherry-picked point of unrealistic justification. Most remotely informed people with 980 Tis got aftermarket models which drastically close the gap against aftermarket 1080s and you know it, forgetting people with reference 980 Tis may just tap into that clocking headroom themselves. Why you're trying to spin it as otherwise
when you just finished criticizing people for impatiently upgrading is beyond me. Aftermarket 980 Ti to 1080 comparisons show the real gap to be a more minuscule ~18-23% and the 980 Ti to more than hold its own against the 1070 directly (by mostly and slightly edging it out, aftermarket to aftermarket).
A 1.5Ghz overclocked 980Ti uses 330-350W of power, has less VRAM and non-existent DX12 Async Compute graphical functionality (confirmed by AT in their Pascal review).
An overclocked 980 Ti doesn't use an amount of power that those who use it cannot handle and therefore they have no reason to care about a potential upgrade for that reason. The 6 GBs of VRAM the 980 Ti has is plenty for literally every game out there at settings the 980 Ti can feasibly handle and any future-proofing from more certainly won't be a factor for someone who upgrades every generation (if not twice a generation) as your hypothetical scenario sets up. That DX12 asynchronous nonsense functionality is pointless considering it adds a measly 5-10% at best (literally only 5% on the 1070 according to Anandtech in their test) and has only demonstrated such an ability in a very small select group of AMD marketing favorites. Even
if it were to become more prominent and actually contributed to a significant advantage in the future, that's the future... by which time a consumer would have already upgraded again in your theoretical scenario.
AIB 980Ti could have been sold for $550 US/Euro 1 month before the launch of the 1080, then $150 US/EUR could have been added to buy a $700 US/EUR 1080. Based in rumours, we had a good idea when 1080 would launch.
Now you finally acknowledge the AIB 980 Ti... when its vastly different performance profile from the reference stock model is not being analyzed in a way that would undermine your 1080 sales pitch (which is really confusing considering you're also criticizing it). Let's get a few things straight. One, going from an AIB 980 Ti to an FE $700 1080 is stupid (performance gap there is puny, cooling efficiency/aesthetic choice take a massive nosedive). By your own opinion, the 1080 FE or other $700 launch 1080s are a bad buy... and yet you're trying to justify them? Make up your mind. Two, even ignoring the fact that having a "good idea" of when a card will launch still isn't having a concrete idea, nor a concrete idea about pricing, nor an idea about availability, nor an idea about launch models, etc., that's a whole month at least without a high-performance video card for the group of people who deliberately bought an expensive card for its performance (but did not however shell out an extra few hundred bucks for a Maxwell Titan X, because they're not
that desperate for miniscule performance gains; the overclocked 1080's extra miniscule amount over an overclocked Titan X surely isn't going to break that barrier).
A whole month, maybe (still a non-concrete time frame) on top of the complete gamble that is committing yourself to an upgrade before you even have any real details of what you're upgrading to all for the purpose of what, not feeling like you lost a couple hundred dollars in resale value after enjoying a performance class the plain x70/x80 tier GPUs are only reaching a year after the original 980 Ti purchase? A few extra hours at work is more than worth hanging on to high-performance gaming for a month.
$150-200 upgrade cost for almost a 40% increase in performance and a reduction of 100W+ of power usage is a cheap cost for the customer base which purchased the $650 980Ti.
And right after you mention the AIB 980 Ti, you go right back to pretending the reference 980 Ti is remotely relevant. There is no almost 40% increase in performance from an AIB 980 Ti to an AIB 1080 and certainly not to the initial FE 1080. Not even close. Various reviews comparing the two have shown more like 18-23% AIB to AIB, OC to OC. Max. In fact, here's the latest GPU ball-busting title on the market and how it performs across the two GPUs at its most GPU-limited 4K resolution. 16%. That AIB 1080 is a measly 16% faster than an AIB 980 Ti here:
And power usage... lol, people aren't going to swap out an existing card for a newer and more expensive one that barely performs better just because it consumes a bit less power 1 year later unless they grossly underestimate their ability to properly cool/power such a power-hungry card in the first place. Those people exist, but big-die GPU holdouts generally know what they're doing.
If this gamer upgrades every 12 months for 5 years => $150x5 =$750. Buying a flagship $700 card and keeping it beyond the next release is going to cost $250-350 in lost resale value in just 1 (!) generation. In 5 years from 980Tis launch, the card will be worth $80-100.
No one's talking about 5 years from the 980 Ti's launch. We don't even remotely know the name of the microarchitecture that'll be out in mid 2020. Seriously, please stick to the topic and please keep the sidetracked ramblings about how you believe everyone should upgrade like you would to yourself. It's getting really irksome over and over again seeing it in any thread you can copy-paste your latest variation on a wall of self-absorbed declarations of what everyone should do.
The gamers who dumped 980Ti/Fury X for 1080 and who will dump 1080 for 1080Ti are better off than those who bought $650-700 980Ti/Fury X and are still using them.
The gamers who dumped a 980 Ti for the 1080 got way less than one who dumped the Fury X for one. The 980 Ti owners who didn't gamble and prematurely sell their 980 Ti for an absolutely miniscule upgrade are doing exactly what you want them to do by not lining Nvidia's pocket for an overpriced mid-range chip... and yet you're criticizing them as well as those who do what you seem to be recommending by upgrading to the 1080 anyway. Again, what are you doing? Make up your mind.
The frequent upgrade strategy allows TOTL performance for $150-200 or so cash outlay every 12 months or so
No it doesn't. The Maxwell Titan X came out like 6 months after the 980 and the Pascal Titan X launched a mere 2 months after the 1080. Nvidia don't even have to actively hide the fact than GM204 and GP104 are mid-range chips, they've been releasing their real high-end right alongside it and apparently even you didn't realize it. Even the x80 to x80 Ti jumps occur well under 12 months (including the 780 Ti, 980 Ti, and the rumored January release of the 1080 Ti)... but the x80 Ti to the next x80 jumps have been the longest and take a full 12 months in recent history (980 and 1080 both).
- this is cheaper than holding onto a $700 flagship card for 5 years.
No one's talking about hanging on to a $700 flagship card for 5 years. They're at worst talking about a scenario where Nvidia goes ballistic on their 1080 Ti prices and, as you should be applauding considering how strongly you feel about people and their supposed lack of patience, they're deciding they might just wait until around 2.5-3 years after the 980 Ti's release for a worthwhile Volta upgrade at a sane price.
Also, holding onto 980Ti for Volta isn't a solution since mid-range x80 Volta should cost $700 just like a 1080 did. If 980Ti users skips Volta 2018 GV104 and waits for the 2019 GV102/100 Ti version, by then the 980Ti will be worth $150-200 max (probably lower).
It is absolutely an option. No idea why you think it isn't. And of course video cards degrade in resale value over the course of years. So what?
The purchasing model of buying a flagship card and holding it is now completely outdated since we now get "marketing" flagships 2x in the same generation. The only good strategies left are buying the x70 level card (because the cost of entry is lower at $400) and upgrading to the next x70 card; OR buying the x80 'flagship' and upgrading every x80/x80Ti to reinvest as much of the resale value as possible into the next card. Because of this, technically NV can raise the price of the 1080Ti to even $899-999. As long as the total carrying / cost of ownership cost remains at $150-200, TOTL GPU users will just continue flipping and "reinvesting."
This is some real nonsense right here. If Volta is anything like Pascal, the new GV104 "flagship" will barely even beat the previous GP102 one, AIB to AIB. I know you know the AIB 980 Ti's are much closer to the AIB 1080's than reference to reference are to the point where it's barely even worth a second glance to the informed overclocker. Why you're ignoring that to form this strange narrative is beyond me. And again, downtime without a high-end GPU for absolutely miniscule/nebulous/rumored gains may not be a problem
for you, but for many whose investments in PC gaming are a primary hobby, that seems like masochistic nonsense. There is nothing wrong with going from an x80 Ti part to an x80 Ti part, considering the AIB 980 Ti's performance is still firmly planted not too far behind AIB 1080s and considering said 1080s and their mediocre performance gains don't even get you bragging rights for having the best with the Titan X around anyway.
And yet again, you're criticizing people who do vote with their wallets and do not impatiently jump on whatever Nvidia's new "flagship" is in favor of holding out for more substantial gains even though you also always criticize people for not doing that.
Since most NV TOTL users don't cross-shop AMD, what AMD does has little impact on the price of x80/80Ti cards. Even if Vega 10 offers 85-89% of 1080Ti's performance for $549-599, NV can easily sell 1080Ti for $799-899.
Wut. This is bullcrap. How the heck else do you explain GT200, GF100, GF110, GK110, and GM200's pricing with respect to the competition? As well as GF104's initial pricing and GM204's price drop? That last and most recent big-die one especially... the AIB 980 Ti destroyed the Fury X in bang for buck as well as all-around otherwise. People were pleasantly surprised at how aggressive Nvidia were being against AMD with the chip's pricing. There's a reason it gets lauded as one of the most impressive flagships in recent years around here and it has nothing to do with Nvidia and their users not paying attention to what AMD does. I'm sensing a rather blatant presupposition of what you think Nvidia flagship buyers are like or think. You criticize them for rapidly buying new "flagships", then turn around and criticize them if they hang on for the real one.
You're ignoring the actual history of Nvidia and AMD's competition to make some blatantly biased statement regarding Nvidia's ability to price things. Nvidia absolutely, 100% do pay very close attention to how AMD price things and price their own stuff accordingly. The only thing they never officially lower is the price of the Titan line because that would be harmful to its brand image, but the TOTL users you're criticizing aren't those select few who always shell out for a Titan, they're those with more grounded limitations on what they can/will spend who either buy the mid-range "flagship" or the real cut-down big-die "Ti" flagships. And if Nvidia can charge substantially more for those and/or sell way more of them than their AMD counterpart, perhaps it should occur to you that maybe it's because Nvidia have more often than not flat-out beaten AMD at the high-end even with pricing taken into consideration for years now.
Nvidia TOTL users might not have an actually good reason to cross-shop AMD, it doesn't mean they're not open to the idea (just that AMD haven't delivered) and Nvidia's competitive pricing whenever AMD has actually been a threat is more than enough to suggest it.