You should make up your mind.
Also GV104 is probably launching a year after 1080 Ti, that's a significant time in the GPU world. Keep playing the waiting game if the fact that something better is right around the corner bothers you so much.
When the GTX 1070 matches the performance of the flagship GTX 980 Ti at half the price after just one year...
Then why were 980Tis selling for 300$ on eBay when Pascal launched?
Then why were 980Tis selling for 300$ on eBay when Pascal launched?
Since it seems so hard to find the argument in the question I posed, let me do the same and present it more clearly:
If the people who bought the GTX 980Ti in mid-2015 for 650-700$ were selling them for 300$ a year later to presumably get a GTX 1080, who's to say that the same thing won't happen with the GTX 1080 Ti and GV104?
And if that happens, how does it reflect on the value of these NVIDIA flagships as a purely monetary investment? If you buy the GTX 1080Ti for 900$ and then find that the same performance can be had a year later in a GTX 1170 at half the price, then does that not make you pause to think whether that money spent was really worth it in the first place?
If this argument is swept aside using the premise that "GPU product-cycles are like this only" and you have to "pay up to get the best performance at this moment", then why argue about NVIDIA cards costing more after each generation, when it is clear who contributed to the problem in the first place?
Ten years ago, wasn't everyone who was a fan of NVIDIA recommending an 8800GT over the 8800GTX for the very same reasons I described in my earlier comments?
Tell me what has changed since then?
It will, that's the nature of technology. New stuff comes out that makes the old stuff less valuable.
This is computer hardware, and it always goes down in value over time
The answer to your question though really depends on how much you value your gaming. If high end gaming is something you do regularly and you get a lot of joy from your GPU, then paying a premium for the 1080 Ti today will be worth it.
Why shouldn't NVIDIA and AMD charge more for more performance?
Why does rapid technological innovation indicate something is wrong with the industry? I might agree if there were standards issues where your old GPU isn't compatible with new games after an upgrade cycle, but that's not the case here. Obligatory car analogy, if every year new cars could go 40% further on a tank of gas than the previous model year it might seem crappy that your two year old car is half as fuel efficient as a new model, but step back look at how amazing that is.I don't know about you, but there is something wrong in the industry if a high-end product becomes mid-range in less than a year.
It depends of course, but how much do you value your time?For the sake of argument, let's suppose that I also do high-performance compute that is CPU-intensive and multi-threaded. Does it justify the premium of an i7 6950X over an E5 2630v4?
It depends of course, but how much do you value your time?
Why does rapid technological innovation indicate something is wrong with the industry?
You'd pay 900$ for a product that would last half a year? I get that its your money - you decide how you spend it, but don't you think that's unacceptable?
When AMD charged more for the HD 7970, everyone was crying "overpriced". Right now people are clamoring on these forums that Vega would be overpriced if it's more than 500$. Does NVIDIA's pricing elicit the same kind of responses?
I never said the product would last half year.
Enjoy the 1080Ti for half a year.
Since it seems so hard to find the argument in the question I posed, let me do the same and present it more clearly:
If the people who bought the GTX 980Ti in mid-2015 for 650-700$ were selling them for 300$ a year later to presumably get a GTX 1080, who's to say that the same thing won't happen with the GTX 1080 Ti and GV104?
And if that happens, how does it reflect on the value of these NVIDIA flagships as a purely monetary investment? If you buy the GTX 1080Ti for 900$ and then find that the same performance can be had a year later in a GTX 1170 at half the price, then does that not make you pause to think whether that money spent was really worth it in the first place?
If this argument is swept aside using the premise that "GPU product-cycles are like this only" and you have to "pay up to get the best performance at this moment", then why argue about NVIDIA cards costing more after each generation, when it is clear who contributed to the problem in the first place?
Ten years ago, wasn't everyone who was a fan of NVIDIA recommending an 8800GT over the 8800GTX for the very same reasons I described in my earlier comments?
Tell me what has changed since then?
No, I refuse your argument sorry. This goes far beyond this partisanship. I'm tired of people rewriting history. Nvidia has had better flagship and high end offerings at the time of release than amd and its not even close. There is no amd option usually to compete. People saying that you should just wait for amd don't factor in the cost of waiting for a new gpu, how long amd takes, and whether the gpu even ends up being competing or takes years later to do so.Some simply prefer Nvidia, some have gsync monitors. And why would 1080ti owners need to do anything at all when GV104 releases?
All of this applies to amd too. Only difference is when you buy a highend amd gpu, the next best thing is even closer around the corner.Since it seems so hard to find the argument in the question I posed, let me do the same and present it more clearly:
If the people who bought the GTX 980Ti in mid-2015 for 650-700$ were selling them for 300$ a year later to presumably get a GTX 1080, who's to say that the same thing won't happen with the GTX 1080 Ti and GV104?
And if that happens, how does it reflect on the value of these NVIDIA flagships as a purely monetary investment? If you buy the GTX 1080Ti for 900$ and then find that the same performance can be had a year later in a GTX 1170 at half the price, then does that not make you pause to think whether that money spent was really worth it in the first place?
If this argument is swept aside using the premise that "GPU product-cycles are like this only" and you have to "pay up to get the best performance at this moment", then why argue about NVIDIA cards costing more after each generation, when it is clear who contributed to the problem in the first place?
Ten years ago, wasn't everyone who was a fan of NVIDIA recommending an 8800GT over the 8800GTX for the very same reasons I described in my earlier comments?
Tell me what has changed since then?
What will you do with your 980Ti after the 1080Ti is launched? Suppose you want the performance of the Titan X Pascal, which is almost twice as fast at 4K compared to reference GTX 980Ti. Assuming you got the 980 Ti for 650$, would you sell it for 300$ and spend another 600$ for a 1080Ti for a total of 1250$ on GPU upgrades over a period of two years?Why would 1080Ti owners have to do anything?
All of this applies to amd too. Only difference is when you buy a highend amd gpu, the next best thing is even closer around the corner.
Implied that after enjoying the 1080 ti for half a year, it would be time to move on to the next thing.
What will you do with your 980Ti after the 1080Ti is launched? Suppose you want the performance of the Titan X Pascal, which is almost twice as fast at 4K compared to reference GTX 980Ti. Assuming you got the 980 Ti for 650$, would you sell it for 300$ and spend another 600$ for a 1080Ti for a total of 1250$ on GPU upgrades over a period of two years?
If NVIDIA convinces you in that route - then they've pulled an Apple level ripoff.
You posted a statement and then contradicted it in another statement. I disregarded the latter which contradicts your original statement and it led me to the logical conclusion as stated above. I never had to assume anything.So you took what I wrote and added a big fat assumption onto the end.
I'm not talking about ancient history. I'm talking about now. People love to bring up some super old card when complaining about amd high end. I don't care. I'd say the vast majority of users shopping for a gpu now don't care, or remember what the HD4000 series. Amd hasn't had a viable competitive high end offering at launch in years that hurts. It hasn't even had something to truly compete against the Nvidia midrange "but I'm high end card because I'm the fastest on the market even though I'm clearly a midrange gpu" gpus.Except that AMD high-end is usually cheaper than NVIDIA high end, but when it's not, like the examples you gave with the Fury X and the R9 290X, it sends everyone into a frenzy until AMD drops prices.
AMD had many of us convinced that high-end GPUs are terrible in value ever since the days of the HD 4870, but the problem is that you're up against a wall whenever you try to point this out.
The point I was making when I brought up ancient history is that AMD has been operating in a different price bracket for years, at least when it comes to their single-GPU flagship vs NVIDIA's single-GPU flagship. Competition is much more fierce in the sub-250$ segment. This is not because AMD is forced to like it does with its current CPU lineup. With AMD cards you may not have the fastest product, but the alternative would be of much better value that it would make the fastest product from NVIDIA irrelevant.I'm not talking about ancient history. I'm talking about now. People love to bring up some super old card when complaining about amd high end. I don't care. I'd say the vast majority of users shopping for a gpu now don't care, or remember what the HD4000 series. Amd hasn't had a viable competitive high end offering at launch in years that hurts. It hasn't even had something to truly compete against the Nvidia midrange "but I'm high end card because I'm the fastest on the market even though I'm clearly a midrange gpu" gpus.
Amd just hasn't had the grunt to compete at the high end.
As for the dollar amounts you're talking about... I regret not buying a 980ti at launch in hindsight right now. Why would I care about the 1070?
Also,what do you say to the tons of people who will pick up the amd competitor to the gtx 1070? Will you berate them for not getting a 1070 that had been out for months or ask them why they ignored a perfectly good gpu to wait a year to get the amd equivalent?
Also, why am I getting a high end gpu to last me years upon years? I need a good fast gpu now for the next 1-2 years tops. Not a gpu that comes into its own performance wise after 1-2 years.
. The 980ti is such a good value card it broke the perception of high end cards having poor performance to cost. Even the 1070 has done well on tech power up graphs.
Now you're telling me I should upgrade my gpu less frequently?Except it is an illusion that games have been progressing at that same pace in terms of visual fidelity that warrants a GPU upgrade every 1-2 years. Another poster has already said this.