NVIDIA Pascal Thread

[moonbogg]

For one.. it's 2 years ago for the 980, not 15 years ago... it only costs +$150 more at launch, than the GTX-980 did at it's launch, yet it's -TWICE- as fast, just 2 year later...

Why are people complaining? Be happy they didn't decide to charge twice what the 980 debut'd for. We could easily be looking at a $1000 card for the 1080 based on it's performance.

An after market 1080 may end up closing in on that $1,000 price tag.
And overclocked 980ti that came out about a year ago is as fast as a stock 1080. The 1080 is $50 more for a reference model. That's a bad deal no matter how you cut it. Then again, this card is mostly meant for the Kepler crowd or earlier. Even people with 980/970 would be better off waiting for the real cards to show up and get another 60% or so more performance for the same money, in like what, 9 months or something?
If Vega drops in 6 months and puts the 1080 on BLAST for less money, Nvidia will likely release the 1080ti sooner than they'd like, shortening the milking cycle by several months at least and giving those sore, bleeding udders a much needed break.

 

[kithylin]

You're suggesting that a very high launch price is reasonable given the performance delta. This suggests a pricing scheme based on said delta.
Obviously you need to carry this to its logical conclusion, i.e. if nVidia had always done this, prices would be sky-high.

It makes no sense to say that because the performance is higher the price should be as well, especially when we're on a brand new architecture/node.

Why do you think the Titan X was $1000 when it came out, because it was the fastest thing available at the time. The top-end cards always cost out the ass, it's life. It's the same with about everything in the world. If you want something that performs well, you pay the price premium.. if you want something that's slow and crappy, then you buy the cheap version. Same with cpu's, ram, hard drives, ssd's, automotives, video cards... it's life.

I paid +$60 more for my 3770k from a friend of mine because it's good up to 4.8 ghz OC, I paid a big price premium for my GTX 470 water cooled cards in a SLI set a few years ago almost double market average because they too were golden with +40% OC. If I had the money I'd have no problem paying $700 for a 1080. I don't though.

 

[moonbogg]

Why do you think the Titan X was $1000 when it came out, because it was the fastest thing available at the time. The top-end cards always cost out the ass, it's life. It's the same with about everything in the world. If you want something that performs well, you pay the price premium.. if you want something that's slow and crappy, then you buy the cheap version. Same with cpu's, ram, hard drives, ssd's, automotives, video cards... it's life.

I paid +$60 more for my 3770k from a friend of mine because it's good up to 4.8 ghz OC, I paid a big price premium for my GTX 470 water cooled cards in a SLI set a few years ago almost double market average because they too were golden with +40% OC. If I had the money I'd have no problem paying $700 for a 1080. I don't though.

This is the problem I'm getting at. A few generations ago, you would have been able to buy the 1080 equivalent for $250! Yes, that's right. $250. Now its $700 and you as well as many others have been priced RIGHT THE HELL OUT of the mid range market cards on release day. GTX 560ti. Look it up. Study it. That's what Nvidia is releasing in the 1080.
Instead, people who used to be able to buy a mid range now must settle for a cheap cut down version in the form of the 1070...except its not cheap either! That's a $200 card selling for $450!

 

[Face2Face]

This German reviewer used the Accelero Xtreme IV with the 1080TI, 2.1GHz @50C:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlSeHCPd75s

Very cool video. The Power limit was all over the place. How much voltage are we allowed to add on the 1080 with the stock BIOS?

 

[wingman04]

Why do you think the Titan X was $1000 when it came out, because it was the fastest thing available at the time. The top-end cards always cost out the ass, it's life. It's the same with about everything in the world. If you want something that performs well, you pay the price premium.. if you want something that's slow and crappy, then you buy the cheap version. Same with cpu's, ram, hard drives, ssd's, automotives, video cards... it's life.

I paid +$60 more for my 3770k from a friend of mine because it's good up to 4.8 ghz OC, I paid a big price premium for my GTX 470 water cooled cards in a SLI set a few years ago almost double market average because they too were golden with +40% OC. If I had the money I'd have no problem paying $700 for a 1080. I don't though.

This is the problem I'm getting at. A few generations ago, you would have been able to buy the 1080 equivalent for $250! Yes, that's right. $250. Now its $700 and you as well as many others have been priced RIGHT THE HELL OUT of the mid range market cards on release day. GTX 560ti. Look it up. Study it. That's what Nvidia is releasing in the 1080.
Instead, people who used to be able to buy a mid range now must settle for a cheap cut down version in the form of the 1070...except its not cheap either! That's a $200 card selling for $450!

This^ I remember when the cost increase was just the cost of living increase, so it was just $10-$30 dollar increase if you want to own a new PC with a new Graphics card.

 

[Ajay]

This is the problem I'm getting at. A few generations ago, you would have been able to buy the 1080 equivalent for $250! Yes, that's right. $250. Now its $700 and you as well as many others have been priced RIGHT THE HELL OUT of the mid range market cards on release day. GTX 560ti. Look it up. Study it. That's what Nvidia is releasing in the 1080.
Instead, people who used to be able to buy a mid range now must settle for a cheap cut down version in the form of the 1070...except its not cheap either! That's a $200 card selling for $450!

Probably true, but the costs of designing and manufacturing the GPU have increased quite a bit in the last couple of generations. If the PC market were still growing, that'd hold prices down - but it's doing the opposite. In a declining market - you charge the highest reasonable amount you can if you are Nvidia (~80% market share).

 

[wingman04]

Probably true, but the costs of designing and manufacturing the GPU have increased quite a bit in the last couple of generations. If the PC market were still growing, that'd hold prices down - but it's doing the opposite. In a declining market - you charge the highest reasonable amount you can if you are Nvidia (~80% market share).

Nvidia said the gaming market is increasing 300,000,000 people playing, I don't think there hurting for money like AMD and AMD keep there cost low.

 

[kithylin]

Probably true, but the costs of designing and manufacturing the GPU have increased quite a bit in the last couple of generations. If the PC market were still growing, that'd hold prices down - but it's doing the opposite. In a declining market - you charge the highest reasonable amount you can if you are Nvidia (~80% market share).

Personally I don't see any problem with the price increases. It's been quite a while since we've had cards that are a full +30% to +40% performance with a new mid-range card over the previous family's top-end cards.

If I remember right.. last time this happened was the 8800 GTX vs previous cards before it.

 

[wingman04]

I had a $219.99 8800GT Superclocked and it ran close to the same speed as a 8800GTX, that was value.

 

[Aristotelian]

This German reviewer used the Accelero Xtreme IV with the 1080TI, 2.1GHz @50C:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlSeHCPd75s

Thanks for that. 2GHz core and up, doom 4 at 4k everything maxed out (completely) and around 50C temps with that cooler. He comments that he finds the card "power limited" and that it can be pushed even farther. Very interesting.

 

[Timmah!]

Thanks for that. 2GHz core and up, doom 4 at 4k everything maxed out (completely) and around 50C temps with that cooler. He comments that he finds the card "power limited" and that it can be pushed even farther. Very interesting.

So perhaps those 2,4GHz OC rumors may turn out true in the end...one can hope.

 

[Sweepr]

With the GTX 1080 media embargo lifted yesterday, NVIDIA is spending today getting out more details on the GTX 1070 that will begin shipping in early June.

NVIDIA has confirmed that this GP104-based graphics card will have 1920 CUDA cores, 120 TMUs, 64 ROPs. On the memory side there is 8GB of GDDR5 (not GDDR5X) clocked at 2GHz on a 256-bit interface. The GTX 1070 GP104 core will run at 1506MHz while the GPU Boost will be up to 1683MHz.

The GTX 1070 has a 150 Watt TDP. The GTX 1070 should be a very nice upgrade over the GeForce GTX 970 and older x70 models. As has been known already, the GeForce GTX 1070 retail cards are expected to begin shipping 10 June. The GTX 1070 Founder's Edition will set you back $449 USD while the AIB partners will offer up their own cards at $379 USD.

First benchmarks, from NVIDIA's website. According to PCGH the Geforce GTX 1070 will have the same number of ROPs, L2 cache and Delta-C compression as the Geforce GTX 1080.

Also, 4 SKUs for the Geforce GTX 1080: Founder's Edition, AIB air cooling, AIB advanced air cooling, AIB water cooling.

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-4...f-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1080-graphics-cards.html

 

[linkgoron]

First benchmarks, from NVIDIA's website. According to PCGH the Geforce GTX 1070 will have the same number of ROPs, L2 cache and Delta-C compression as the Geforce GTX 1080.

Also, 4 SKUs for the Geforce GTX 1080: Founder's Edition, AIB air cooling, AIB advanced air cooling, AIB water cooling.

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-4...f-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1080-graphics-cards.html

LOL, those bars look exactly identical to the 980 vs 1080 bars, they just renamed the labels and changed the background picture. (Please forgive my inaccurate mspaint cropping skills):

 

[Head1985]

Real numbers(most likely 40-50% vs 970) will look bad so why dont use GTX 1080 vs 980 performance instead?
Oh that nv marketing

 

[Ajay]

Nvidia said the gaming market is increasing 300,000,000 people playing, I don't think there hurting for money like AMD and AMD keep there cost low.

# gamers != GPU sales:

http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/jpr_aib_q2_2015.png

AMD prices are lower due to perceived lower value - sucks for AMD. Nvidia has built a stronger brand.

 

[Sweepr]

Just checked with Dan Baker. Async is still functionally disabled on Ashes when it detects an NVIDIA card, including the GTX 1080 (since they don't have one to test against yet).

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1915300

Ps: First post updated with Geforce GTX 1080 (Founder's Edition) reviews!

 

[wingman04]

Nvidia said the gaming market is increasing 300,000,000 people playing, I don't think there hurting for money like AMD and AMD keep there cost low.

# gamers != GPU sales:

http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/jpr_aib_q2_2015.png

AMD prices are lower due to perceived lower value - sucks for AMD. Nvidia has built a stronger brand.

I find this vary interesting there are a total population of 323.500.000 living in the USA. 1 card for each person almost.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

This^ I remember when the cost increase was just the cost of living increase, so it was just $10-$30 dollar increase if you want to own a new PC with a new Graphics card.

It's inflation.

Look back at arguably the last truly great (relative) jump in power that Nvidia offered, probably the 8800 GTX/Ultra in 2007, they were retailing at $599 at launch but inflation adjusted to today that'd be $692.

Remember that inflation is cumulative, it stacks, so each year it's just getting worse. It's nearly 40% since the year 2000, so a $600 card now would have cost about $430 back then. You have the government printing money and messing with the economy to thank for that.

 

[Freddy1765]

Remember that inflation is cumulative, it stacks, so each year it's just getting worse. It's nearly 40% since the year 2000, so a $600 card now would have cost about $430 back then. You have the government printing money and messing with the economy to thank for that.

Lol.
Positive inflation is a sign of a healthy economy. It's not a joke that most central banks target ~2% annual inflation.

 

[selni]

LOL, those bars look exactly identical to the 980 vs 1080 bars, they just renamed the labels and changed the background picture. (Please forgive my inaccurate mspaint cropping skills):

<snip graphs>

Wow yeap, they're exactly the same - it's a HTML chart:

<div id="bar1" class="chart-bar bar-type1" style="width: 25%; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0.55s;"></div>
<div id="bar2" class="chart-bar bar-type2" style="width: 70%; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0.65s;"></div>
<div id="bar3" class="chart-bar bar-type1" style="width: 25%; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0.8s;"></div>
<div id="bar4" class="chart-bar bar-type2" style="width: 45%; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0.9s;"></div>
<div id="bar5" class="chart-bar bar-type1" style="width: 25%; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 1.05s;"></div>
<div id="bar6" class="chart-bar bar-type2" style="width: 42.5%; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 1.15s;"></div>
<div class="chart-bottom-bar" id="bar7"></div>


<div id="bar1" class="chart-bar bar-type1" style="width: 25%; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0.55s;"></div>
<div id="bar2" class="chart-bar bar-type2" style="width: 70%; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0.65s;"></div>
<div id="bar3" class="chart-bar bar-type1" style="width: 25%; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0.8s;"></div>
<div id="bar4" class="chart-bar bar-type2" style="width: 45%; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0.9s;"></div>
<div id="bar5" class="chart-bar bar-type1" style="width: 25%; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 1.05s;"></div>
<div id="bar6" class="chart-bar bar-type2" style="width: 42.5%; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 1.15s;"></div>
<div class="chart-bottom-bar" id="bar7"></div>

Oooops...

 

[antihelten]

This is the problem I'm getting at. A few generations ago, you would have been able to buy the 1080 equivalent for $250! Yes, that's right. $250.

What is this magical generation where you could buy a card that was 30-35% faster than the previous generations flagship for only $250? I sure can't remember that ever being the case.

Just for fun, here is the perf/$ improvements/regression for the last 10 years worth of Nvidia flagship GPUs (based on TPU performance numbers and launch prices, node jumps in bold):

980 Ti to 1080: 48% (at $600 price point)*
980 to 980 Ti: 6%
780 Ti to 980: 34%
780 to 780 Ti: 12%
680 to 780: -3%
580 to 680: 30%
480 to 580: 16%
285 to 480: 14%
280 to 285: 75% (mainly due to the large price drop)
9800 GTX to 280: -19% (mainly due to the large price increase)
8800 GTX to 9800 GTX: 89% (entirely due to the price drop)
7900 GTX to 8800 GTX: 46%

Average improvement (geomean): 26%
Average improvement only counting node jumps (geomean): 49%

The closest you will get to your $250 price point is the 9800 GTX ($300) and GTX 285 ($400), but those were nowhere near 30% faster than their predecessor.

All in all, the 1080 is the third biggest flagship perf/$ improvement Nvidia has delivered in the last 10 years, and well above average. Even if you only count cards that benefited from node jumps, 1080 is simply average, neither good nor bad.

*If comparing to the 980 instead of the 980 Ti, then the improvement is 53%.

 

[wingman04]

It's inflation.

Look back at arguably the last truly great (relative) jump in power that Nvidia offered, probably the 8800 GTX/Ultra in 2007, they were retailing at $599 at launch but inflation adjusted to today that'd be $692.

Remember that inflation is cumulative, it stacks, so each year it's just getting worse. It's nearly 40% since the year 2000, so a $600 card now would have cost about $430 back then. You have the government printing money and messing with the economy to thank for that.

Since 1979 the wages are stagnant or declined for most Americans.

According to a 2015 report issued by the Economic Policy Institute, a pro-labor think tank based in Washington, D.C., "ever since 1979, the vast majority of American workers have seen their hourly wages stagnate or decline. This is despite real GDP growth of 149 percent and net productivity growth of 64 percent over this period. In short, the potential has existed for ample, broad-based wage growth over the last three-and-a-half decades, but these economic gains have largely bypassed the vast majority."
True, adjusted for inflation, average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector (closest approximation for the quintessential blue-collar worker that I could find) have barely changed between 1979 and 2015. In October 1979, average hourly earnings stood at $6.51 or $21.20 in 2015 dollars. In October 2015, average hourly earnings stood at $21.18 – slightly below the inflation adjusted 1979 level.
http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/19/cost-of-living-vs-wage-stagnation-in-the

 

[exar333]

What is this magical generation where you could buy a card that was 30-35% faster than the previous generations flagship for only $250? I sure can't remember that ever being the case.

Just for fun, here is the perf/$ improvements/regression for the last 10 years worth of Nvidia flagship GPUs (based on TPU performance numbers and launch prices, node jumps in bold):

980 Ti to 1080: 48% (at $600 price point)*
980 to 980 Ti: 6%
780 Ti to 980: 34%
780 to 780 Ti: 12%
680 to 780: -3%
580 to 680: 30%
480 to 580: 16%
285 to 480: 14%
280 to 285: 75% (mainly due to the large price drop)
9800 GTX to 280: -19% (mainly due to the large price increase)
8800 GTX to 9800 GTX: 89% (entirely due to the price drop)
7900 GTX to 8800 GTX: 46%

Average improvement (geomean): 26%
Average improvement only counting node jumps (geomean): 49%

The closest you will get to your $250 price point is the 9800 GTX ($300) and GTX 285 ($400), but those were nowhere near 30% faster than their predecessor.

All in all, the 1080 is the third biggest flagship perf/$ improvement Nvidia has delivered in the last 10 years, and well above average. Even if you only count cards that benefited from node jumps, 1080 is simply average, neither good nor bad.

*If comparing to the 980 instead of the 980 Ti, then the improvement is 53%.

Nice analysis. Gives a lot of perspective...

 

[MrTeal]

What is this magical generation where you could buy a card that was 30-35% faster than the previous generations flagship for only $250? I sure can't remember that ever being the case.

Just for fun, here is the perf/$ improvements/regression for the last 10 years worth of Nvidia flagship GPUs (based on TPU performance numbers and launch prices, node jumps in bold):

980 Ti to 1080: 48% (at $600 price point)*
980 to 980 Ti: 6%
780 Ti to 980: 34%
780 to 780 Ti: 12%
680 to 780: -3%
580 to 680: 30%
480 to 580: 16%
285 to 480: 14%
280 to 285: 75% (mainly due to the large price drop)
9800 GTX to 280: -19% (mainly due to the large price increase)
8800 GTX to 9800 GTX: 89% (entirely due to the price drop)
7900 GTX to 8800 GTX: 46%

Average improvement (geomean): 26%
Average improvement only counting node jumps (geomean): 49%

The closest you will get to your $250 price point is the 9800 GTX ($300) and GTX 285 ($400), but those were nowhere near 30% faster than their predecessor.

All in all, the 1080 is the third biggest flagship perf/$ improvement Nvidia has delivered in the last 10 years, and well above average. Even if you only count cards that benefited from node jumps, 1080 is simply average, neither good nor bad.

*If comparing to the 980 instead of the 980 Ti, then the improvement is 53%.

What resolution are you using for numbers here? Even at $600, the increase listed seems high.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/28.html
1080 over 980Ti (1080) - 36%
1080 over 980Ti (1440) - 43%
1080 over 980Ti (2160) - 43%

 

[96Firebird]

What resolution are you using for numbers here? Even at $600, the increase listed seems high.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/28.html
1080 over 980Ti (1080) - 36%
1080 over 980Ti (1440) - 43%
1080 over 980Ti (2160) - 43%

I believe he did MSRP at launch, not current prices like TPU does.