The GTX 1080 Is Real

  • Thread starter Deleted member 278999
  • Start date
schizo said:
They said $699 reference "founder's day" cards would be available May 27.

They didn't say $599 cards wouldn't be available then. That's just my inference. But it does seem logical.
Click to expand...

I agree. But that doesn't change that we will be able to buy a 1080 at $600. In either case - it is a paper launch today so why does it matter what comes out in May or June?

My guess is the 1080 does not destroy the 980 Ti/TITAN X so they're not showing direct performance comparisons.

No one has facts. Just guesses/inferences based on random info and marketing.
 
variant said:
The only thing that matters is the price performance ratio, not what they call the card. It's releasing at $700, well above the cost of a heavily overclocked 980Ti. It has the performance of an overclocked 980Ti, but costs more than said overclocked 980Ti.
Click to expand...

But the 700$ one is also overclocked if I followed correctly, a 980to OC over here cost around 719 € that's around 820$, kinda scared for the prices of the new ones.
 
Depends on what you mean by destroy, of course. If you don't think the 1080 will beat the 980ti by a solid 20%+, you're saying they flat-out lied.

That's possible-- we've been misled before, most recently with the Fury X. But while handing silicon to tech sites that same night, and not opening pre-orders immediately? Seems counterproductive.
 
Denpepe said:
But the 700$ one is also overclocked if I followed correctly, a 980to OC over here cost around 719 € that's around 820$, kinda scared for the prices of the new ones.
Click to expand...

This is why its a slippery slope to start cherry picking the info we want to use...comparing heavily OC to stock, comparing different editions versus standard MSRP, it gets messy.

schizo said:
Depends on what you mean by destroy, of course. If you don't think the 1080 will beat the 980ti by a solid 20%+, you're saying they flat-out lied.

That's possible-- we've been misled before, most recently with the Fury X. But while handing silicon to tech sites that same night, and not opening pre-orders immediately? Seems counterproductive.
Click to expand...

It's marketing speak so it could be VR performance or something else.

I'm guessing it is 10-30% faster than the 980 Ti/TITAN X. NVIDIA doesn't gain anything by pointing out that their current top cards in stores is beaten in 2-3 weeks...let's remember that.
 
sk3tch said:
I agree. But that doesn't change that we will be able to buy a 1080 at $600. In either case - it is a paper launch today so why does it matter what comes out in May or June?

My guess is the 1080 does not destroy the 980 Ti/TITAN X so they're not showing direct performance comparisons.

No one has facts. Just guesses/inferences based on random info and marketing.
Click to expand...

You may buy a $600 one at some point, but no one said it would have the same performance as the $700. All those performance examples given by Nvidia were that of the $700 "Founder's Edition" because that's the reference card.

Denpepe said:
But the 700$ one is also overclocked if I followed correctly, a 980to OC over here cost around 719 € that's around 820$, kinda scared for the prices of the new ones.
Click to expand...

The 1733Mhz boost specs seem from what we know to be the "Founder's Edition" and it may be able to overclock as they demonstrated.

You can get one for $650. The 3DMark scores placed the 1080 near a 980Ti at 1.5Ghz. We don't know if the 3DMark score is from an overclocked one or what.
 
Currently have a 970. Wish I had a 980 Ti because I game at 2160/60. Other monitor is 1080/144 but the screen size is so small I can't stand it when I go back to using it. (27" vs 50" for the 4K screen)

Would love to jump on a 1080 card right away, but knowing that supply and pricing is going to be crazy at first, and there is almost guaranteed to be a 1080 Ti at some point, I will wait.

The real question for me is to see how the 1070 benches against the 970. I'm not sure if it would be enough of a bump to bother upgrading for 6-12 months until the 1080 Ti is out.

It will also depend on where used pricing for 970's ends up. I've been very happy with my MSI Gaming 4G. Holds 1500 clock all day long. but one of the fan blades broke off and while it doesn't affect cooling at all, I'm going to have to discount the price since it is not pristine :( Unless I can find a buyer who wants to water block it and doesn't care about the stock cooler.
 
Six hundred dollars is what they used to launch cards at and it is a paper launch but if you want one you likely had to preorder them... humm... so when the cards are actually in people hands called in launched in the mean time apparently there is a contest in two days to win them for the observant... I'm actually more interested in the fact it is designed around a eight k screen....

Maximum Digital Resolution: 7680x4320@60Hz
Standard Display Connectors: DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVI
Multi Monitor: Yes
HDCP: 2.2

That is a new display port, a new HDMI connector... if the memory is as fast as it looks likely the biggest issue is going to be getting info to the card to draw... likely meaning that the industry is still trying to figure a pci-e agp port issue, the pci-e is fast but if it has to be redesigned how do you get people to buy cards on the old setup until you have cards, motherboards and cpus able to run new stuff while getting new monitors on connectors so that when they are ready people can upgrade the parts as they have money. I am thinking that nvidia just decided to make the card run as fast in the current system as possible target the current value lines so that people that are [H]ard will simply upgrade and when the new mother boards come up grin and say I am happy it was not another thousand dollar card to replace every year. I'm curious to see what the new chipset can do just based on the number of pixels it can render... being able to draw sixteen ten eighty p screen sixteen times a minute has to be maxing out both of those specs... and hundred twenty hertz is twice that so I am thinking most people will adopt this tech and they are targeting two years from now for most people to start building eight k rigs based on faster tech... just guessing based a few pieces of eye candy I had seen in the works....
 
Are 1070's or 1080's cards available to buy today? No. Has there been a demonstration of future hardware, specs, performance? Yes = Paper launch. Good grief who cares, I thought the Nano paper launch which AMD clearly said was a paper launch was over blown here but I also understood Kyle view as well which I agree with.

Makes me wonder why Nvidia chose to do this without the cards available? To me that tells me they are not ready. So then why do it? To figure out potential sells and future orders which will affect current hardware pricing maybe. If someone is going to buy current generation then next generation will most likely not be bought too. This paper launch may help push the sellers to get rid of old stock fast with good sells (I hope).

Until real testing is done, I have not gotten too much real info from the presentation. It is all interwoven with VR performance without any actual VR presentation or testing - looks to be mostly marketing (Which I am hoping is way more accurate than AMD's FuryX performance slide previously).

This time around Nvidia 1070 may have direct competition with AMD Polaris 10. If the 490 performs slightly better at the same price that would be a win for AMD. If AMD can get Vega out earlier vice later they will recapture the performance crown.
 
Crosshairs said:
call it whatever you like, its not out yet and no where does it say that it is.

1080....Available May 27th 2016
1070....Available June 10th 2016
Click to expand...
Most of the other "Paper Launches" followed that same path. PR babel with a release date for later that month or early the next month.
 
Marcdaddy said:
Why are you so sure you will need 2???? You may not.
Click to expand...

You get 200 fps at 1080p, so if you quadruple the resolution, you quarter the frame rate. So 50 fps. Okay, it doesn't actually work that linearly, but it's a decent enough first approximation.
 
funkydmunky said:
Don't want to interrupt the Nvidia vs. Nvidia fight, but... Doom looked like a giant bore fest. Maybe with VR it might be fun, but, same old, same old ya know.
Click to expand...

More to the point, one of the most fun elements of the original Doom was setting the monsters against each other. Remember E2M9? You could run around and set the Barons of Hell against the Cacodemons. In Doom 2 there was a level where you could set a Cyberdemon against a large number of Barons of Hell. You just grabbed the Invulnerability Sphere and ran around them.

I saw none of that in the demo.
 
Creig said:
I guess the definition of a PAPER Launch changes whether it's AMD or Nvidia doing the launching. Because AMD did the same thing with the NANO and [H] made sure to put the words "PAPER Launch" in big, bold, capitalization in the title of the article.

On August 27th, AMD officially announced the release date for the NANO as being September 10th. Yet the August 27th NANO [H] headline read:

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card PAPER Launch
AMD Radeon R9 Nano - AMD Radeon R9 Nano Video Card PAPER Launch



AMD had given no specific release date in its initial unveiling on June 16th other than to say it expected to release the card sometime in "summer". No actual release date was given.


Yesterday, May 6th, Nvidia officially announced the release date for the GTX 1080 and 1070 as being May 27th and June 10th respectively. And yet the [H] headline reads:

NVIDIA GTX 1080 and 1070 Announcement
Introduction - NVIDIA GTX 1080 and 1070 Announcement

NO mention of a PAPER Launch in the article title. NO mention that all you had to share were slides and photographs from Nvidia along with pricing and availability.

Either an official video card announcement with a specified release date and no stock available is a PAPER Launch or it isn't.

Please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

When you treat the press like piss, expect the same treatment back. This whole mess started when AMD started treating reviewers like crap and basically spat in their face by giving their products to social media people and not reviewers with alot more credibility and a better testing protocol. On top of this, AMD is being pretty dishonest and petty if they are only giving it to website where they expect a more favorable review. Add is the slap in the face where AMD emails these website and says, oh by the way, can you do us a favor even those your not getting a card, is to write some sort of article about this new card that we have coming up to hype up our card. Here's a PDF/powerpoint slide deck. Trust us, the numbers are real and so is the hype. Bu bye.

AMD in this manner is using the press and this is just not how it works. Hardware vendors and Reviews have a symbiotic relationship.

Basically by not giving cards to reviewers early, forcing them to buy the cards and reduces the review revenue dramatically because the most hits are on launch day. Buying and waiting for a card and forcing reviewers to rush their reviews is in some ways the worse crime. A reviewer is forced to either compromise between doing a good reviews or rush to get a review out early to get scrap page hits. This is not a choice that an honest reviewer that is passionate about their job should have to make. Add in the website's bills to pay; the writer of the review, the webhosting services and the card and by getting the card late, reduces their revenue, don't expect good treatment.

If AMD gives a review website a card and the review is favorable, expect them to get more in return than the less than retail price it costs to give the card to the reviewer. On a website like this with lots of hits, a good review can produce 10,000's of sales which translates into millions of dollars.

Compare this to being flown out, having your accommodations being taken care of, then being hand delivered the card and being given two weeks to write the review. It's no F'ing wonder there is such a sharp contrast in how the tone of the article is. Hardocp isn't stupid, when your being used, they are going to call them out on it. And guess what, even those Hardocp was mistreated and insulted during the Fury nano launch, it didn't interfere with the honesty of their review.

Hardocp's nano review was one of the most positive on the internet. It received Hardocp's highest rating gold award. So in the end AMD hurts themselves the most and we can all blame this on them.
 
tajoh111 said:
Compare this to being flown out, having your accommodations being taken care of, then being hand delivered the card
Click to expand...
Yeah, these sorts of press junkets always leave a bad taste in my mouth. If you watch the linustechtips video, they were all flown out to Austin, put up in hotels, then shown a great day of waterskiiing, horseback riding, target shooting, and so on. The video had them eating a beautifully catered meal too.

Obviously you hope that all these guys are professionals, and [H] certainly won't purposefully allow that to change their reaction-- but I can't help but feel that influence must come through at some point. Obviously it wouldn't save crap hardware. But for many of the smaller-time youtubers, it might turn a 7.5 into an 8.0, in IGN-speak.
 
tajoh111 said:
When you treat the press like piss, expect the same treatment back. This whole mess started when AMD started treating reviewers like crap and basically spat in their face by giving their products to social media people and not reviewers with alot more credibility and a better testing protocol. On top of this, AMD is being pretty dishonest and petty if they are only giving it to website where they expect a more favorable review. Add is the slap in the face where AMD emails these website and says, oh by the way, can you do us a favor even those your not getting a card, is to write some sort of article about this new card that we have coming up to hype up our card. Here's a PDF/powerpoint slide deck. Trust us, the numbers are real and so is the hype. Bu bye.

AMD in this manner is using the press and this is just not how it works. Hardware vendors and Reviews have a symbiotic relationship.

Basically by not giving cards to reviewers early, forcing them to buy the cards and reduces the review revenue dramatically because the most hits are on launch day. Buying and waiting for a card and forcing reviewers to rush their reviews is in some ways the worse crime. A reviewer is forced to either compromise between doing a good reviews or rush to get a review out early to get scrap page hits. This is not a choice that an honest reviewer that is passionate about their job should have to make. Add in the website's bills to pay; the writer of the review, the webhosting services and the card and by getting the card late, reduces their revenue, don't expect good treatment.

If AMD gives a review website a card and the review is favorable, expect them to get more in return than the less than retail price it costs to give the card to the reviewer. On a website like this with lots of hits, a good review can produce 10,000's of sales which translates into millions of dollars.

Compare this to being flown out, having your accommodations being taken care of, then being hand delivered the card and being given two weeks to write the review. It's no F'ing wonder there is such a sharp contrast in how the tone of the article is. Hardocp isn't stupid, when your being used, they are going to call them out on it. And guess what, even those Hardocp was mistreated and insulted during the Fury nano launch, it didn't interfere with the honesty of their review.

Hardocp's nano review was one of the most positive on the internet. It received Hardocp's highest rating gold award. So in the end AMD hurts themselves the most and we can all blame this on them.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more with this. And before anyone takes the message of "treat [H] well and you'll get a favourable review", that is not at all what tajoh111 said, nor is it reality. Reality is that AMD pissed all over HardOCP and yet they still got a very favourable review because their hardware was decent (albeit overpriced). The Nano review was not affected by the way AMD treated [H], and nor will the 1080 / 1070 reviews. Calling AMD out over their statements and the way they treated [H] was an entirely separate thing to the reviews. Ultimately, as tajoh111 stated, all AMD did with their treatment of a number of hardware review sites was shoot themselves in the face. Again.

Seems appropriate:
 
Quartz-1 said:
You get 200 fps at 1080p, so if you quadruple the resolution, you quarter the frame rate. So 50 fps. Okay, it doesn't actually work that linearly, but it's a decent enough first approximation.
Click to expand...

Those were more max frame rates then average. Looking at the video I see it go in the 11x range which would be the minimums. At 4K = 4x the pixels, min of around 30. That is if that was GPU restricted vice CPU (since using Vulcan I doubt it should be CPU restricted). We are going to have to wait and see and get some good sampling of data. I expect it to be a great performer though.

AMD side the hardware has been greatly updated so this may get very interesting. Should AMD PAPER Launch as well? - except maybe it will be labelled as that as head lines :).
 
variant said:
You may buy a $600 one at some point, but no one said it would have the same performance as the $700. All those performance examples given by Nvidia were that of the $700 "Founder's Edition" because that's the reference card.
Click to expand...

Again - no one knows the facts 100% right now including you. The "Founders Edition" has been labeled a binned card, a reference card that ships early, and more - lots of conflicting info.

Case in point: NVIDIA GTX 1080 & GTX 1070 'Founders Edition' explained | VideoCardz.com

From that link:
Founders Edition is nothing more than typical reference edition. It is not using higher quality components, it is not overclocked nor does it use higher binned chips. It simply is reference edition that will ship before custom solutions.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you're so hell bent on shitting on the 1080 versus the 980 Ti. We just don't know enough yet to know what's up. I have a dude that was going to sell me his 980 Ti Golden Editions (2x) for $600 but now he's backing out because of all the new and conflicting info swirling around. Dude was ready to jump based on a PR preso.
 
tajoh111 said:
When you treat the press like piss, expect the same treatment back. This whole mess started when AMD started treating reviewers like crap and basically spat in their face by giving their products to social media people and not reviewers with alot more credibility and a better testing protocol. On top of this, AMD is being pretty dishonest and petty if they are only giving it to website where they expect a more favorable review. Add is the slap in the face where AMD emails these website and says, oh by the way, can you do us a favor even those your not getting a card, is to write some sort of article about this new card that we have coming up to hype up our card. Here's a PDF/powerpoint slide deck. Trust us, the numbers are real and so is the hype. Bu bye.

AMD in this manner is using the press and this is just not how it works. Hardware vendors and Reviews have a symbiotic relationship.

Basically by not giving cards to reviewers early, forcing them to buy the cards and reduces the review revenue dramatically because the most hits are on launch day. Buying and waiting for a card and forcing reviewers to rush their reviews is in some ways the worse crime. A reviewer is forced to either compromise between doing a good reviews or rush to get a review out early to get scrap page hits. This is not a choice that an honest reviewer that is passionate about their job should have to make. Add in the website's bills to pay; the writer of the review, the webhosting services and the card and by getting the card late, reduces their revenue, don't expect good treatment.

If AMD gives a review website a card and the review is favorable, expect them to get more in return than the less than retail price it costs to give the card to the reviewer. On a website like this with lots of hits, a good review can produce 10,000's of sales which translates into millions of dollars.

Compare this to being flown out, having your accommodations being taken care of, then being hand delivered the card and being given two weeks to write the review. It's no F'ing wonder there is such a sharp contrast in how the tone of the article is. Hardocp isn't stupid, when your being used, they are going to call them out on it. And guess what, even those Hardocp was mistreated and insulted during the Fury nano launch, it didn't interfere with the honesty of their review.

Hardocp's nano review was one of the most positive on the internet. It received Hardocp's highest rating gold award. So in the end AMD hurts themselves the most and we can all blame this on them.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but no company owes a review website anything.

If a company chooses to hand out review samples, that is optional. If a company chooses to fly reviews out to some exotic location to hand deliver samples, that is optional. If a company chooses to send review samples to only selected sites, that is optional. On the flip side, review sites can choose whether or not to review any hardware they want. Yes, there is benefit to be seen by both sides.

But in no way should free samples, free trips or the lack thereof influence the results or tone of an article written by a review website.

If a hardware review site wishes to remain known as accurate and neutral, nothing should affect the results or tone of their articles other than data at hand. You seem to think that companies can buy favorable reviews by treating reviewers like kings. I would hope the majority of review websites give honest reviews no matter what bonuses or perks they may, or may not, receive.
 
A company is responsible to their stock holders and nothing else, which is what you are saying which is correct. But by making themselves look bad with the press, you think that makes the stock holders happy?

Who is going to be helping them sell their hardware? Ok let AMD alienate the hardware and tech sites, and see how well they sell their wares afters that?
 
Creig said:
Excuse me, but no company owes a review website anything.

If a company chooses to hand out review samples, that is optional. If a company chooses to fly reviews out to some exotic location to hand deliver samples, that is optional. If a company chooses to send review samples to only selected sites, that is optional. On the flip side, review sites can choose whether or not to review any hardware they want. Yes, there is benefit to be seen by both sides.

But in no way should free samples, free trips or the lack thereof influence the results or tone of an article written by a review website.

If a hardware review site wishes to remain known as accurate and neutral, nothing should affect the results or tone of their articles other than data at hand. You seem to think that companies can buy favorable reviews by treating reviewers like kings. I would hope the majority of review websites give honest reviews no matter what bonuses or perks they may, or may not, receive.
Click to expand...

It doesn't influence the results nor should it, if the reviewer is professional, as seen in the nano review on this website. How Nvidia treats their reviewers are typical of those found in the industry. Press events for major launches often have press flown in with their accommodations being taken care of to cover a launch. AMD used to do this as was the case with the Hawaii Launch. AMD flew people in, with accommadations to hawaii, did it buy AMD favorable reviews? No it didn't, they were called out for putting such a cheap cooler on their product and the product was subsequently improved.

Being flown out and having your accommodation covered are optional. Giving out free samples to reviews is not optional, if you want a successful product launch, particularly when your an underdog company like AMD who needs all the positive press it can get. Reviews for graphics cards are the lifeblood on which most people base their decision purchases on, particularly custom builders who buy parts and put them in their system. This particular market is all that AMD has right now for the desktop graphics card market. General public and etc, go for what the popular brand is.

Not giving reviews samples is stupid because it costs them so little money for so much publicity. People smash products on you tube which cost 500 dollars, so they can get a few thousand dollars in ad revenue. A good review will sell 10's of thousands of cards on a website like this or techpowerup. AMD general failure to get review samples for their laptops over the years is what has costed them the market. Try to find reviews on AMD laptops and they are far rarer, particularly reviews made by big websites like cnet, pcmagazine, engadget, the verge etc.

In addition, giving it to some social media puppet shows a lack of respect on AMD part, particularly with the following point.

If a hardware company removes what is an essential part of business for a hardware review website, don't expect that said company to do your dirty work. Giving a reviewer a slide deck to essentially build an free ad for AMD is a slap in the face. You cannot be cheap/disrespectul and expect the free word of mouth, particularly one that has been filtered by the companies manipulation. Being called out on such behavior is what most I would actually expect from Hardocp.

What HardOCP has been doing is basically calling out their the manipulation of the media. AMD has been on a downwards slope when it comes to the media recently. From shenigans like this to partial NDA, which only allow a reviewer to show results for the favorable portion of a product from them. E.g For their APU products, some of their NDA only permitted reviewers to release the results from the graphic portion of the APU and not the CPU. If no one is to call out AMD on such behavior, then they are free to manipulate the media as much as they want which would be worse for everyone.
 
razor1 said:
A company is responsible to their stock holders and nothing else, which is what you are saying which is correct. But by making themselves look bad with the press, you think that makes the stock holders happy?

Who is going to be helping them sell their hardware? Ok let AMD alienate the hardware and tech sites, and see how well they sell their wares afters that?
Click to expand...
What does it matter? It's still up to AMD or Nvidia or Insert-some-random-company-name-here to decide if they wish to send out review samples or not. Whether the stock holders are happy or not is completely irrelevant to writers posting an accurate and unbiased review.
 
So it was ok for what Roy Taylor stated then about certain websites?

WTF are you here then?

I'm just wondering because he trashed [H], techreport and tech power up.
 
tajoh111 said:
It doesn't influence the results nor should it, if the reviewer is professional, as seen in the nano review on this website. How Nvidia treats their reviewers are typical of those found in the industry. Press events for major launches often have press flown in with their accommodations being taken care of to cover a launch. AMD used to do this as was the case with the Hawaii Launch. AMD flew people in, with accommadations to hawaii, did it buy AMD favorable reviews? No it didn't, they were called out for putting such a cheap cooler on their product and the product was subsequently improved.

Being flown out and having your accommodation covered are optional. Giving out free samples to reviews is not optional, if you want a successful product launch, particularly when your an underdog company like AMD who needs all the positive press it can get. Reviews for graphics cards are the lifeblood on which most people base their decision purchases on, particularly custom builders who buy parts and put them in their system. This particular market is all that AMD has right now for the desktop graphics card market. General public and etc, go for what the popular brand is.

Not giving reviews samples is stupid because it costs them so little money for so much publicity. People smash products on you tube which cost 500 dollars, so they can get a few thousand dollars in ad revenue. A good review will sell 10's of thousands of cards on a website like this or techpowerup. AMD general failure to get review samples for their laptops over the years is what has costed them the market. Try to find reviews on AMD laptops and they are far rarer, particularly reviews made by big websites like cnet, pcmagazine, engadget, the verge etc.

In addition, giving it to some social media puppet shows a lack of respect on AMD part, particularly with the following point.

If a hardware company removes what is an essential part of business for a hardware review website, don't expect that said company to do your dirty work. Giving a reviewer a slide deck to essentially build an free ad for AMD is a slap in the face. You cannot be cheap/disrespectul and expect the free word of mouth, particularly one that has been filtered by the companies manipulation. Being called out on such behavior is what most I would actually expect from Hardocp.

What HardOCP has been doing is basically calling out their the manipulation of the media. AMD has been on a downwards slope when it comes to the media recently. From shenigans like this to partial NDA, which only allow a reviewer to show results for the favorable portion of a product from them. E.g For their APU products, some of their NDA only permitted reviewers to release the results from the graphic portion of the APU and not the CPU. If no one is to call out AMD on such behavior, then they are free to manipulate the media as much as they want which would be worse for everyone.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that by not sending out free samples, AMD should be "called out" for it. Which is complete BULLSHIT. Being provided a free sample to review is a perk, not a requirement. Whether you or I think it's stupid not to send the samples is irrelevant and should have nothing at all to do with the content of a review article.
 
Creig said:
You keep saying that by not sending out free samples, AMD should be "called out" for it. Which is complete BULLSHIT. Being provided a free sample to review is a perk, not a requirement. Whether you or I think it's stupid not to send the samples is irrelevant and should have nothing at all to do with the content of a review article.
Click to expand...

It's not bullshit at all. By forcing certain sites to have to buy reference cards to review, they delay the reviews. By delaying the reviews, it's easy to have, on launch day, nothing but good reviews. Many people impulse buy during the first few days, and if there's nothing but good reviews, they cash in. Once the more fair/unbiased reviews are out, the initial rush is over.

They sell more cards this way, believe it or not.
 
GDDR5x seems very immature right now. Some expected it to double GDDR5 performance out of the gate but most knew better. Still, I am suprised that the 256 bit GDDR5x on the 1080 can't match the bandwidth of the 384 bit GDDR5 on the 980ti.

These cards look amazing. I still think it is funny that an HD 7970 has the best dual precision performance to date. What's up with that?
 
Creig said:
You keep saying that by not sending out free samples, AMD should be "called out" for it. Which is complete BULLSHIT. Being provided a free sample to review is a perk, not a requirement. Whether you or I think it's stupid not to send the samples is irrelevant and should have nothing at all to do with the content of a review article.
Click to expand...

Nvidia sends Phoronix review samples so that they can do Linux benchmarks of Unigine and Quake 3.

AMD couldn't be bothered to send samples to [H]. Dunno. Sounds weird to me.

Nihilus1 said:
I still think it is funny that an HD 7970 has the best dual precision performance to date. What's up with that?
Click to expand...

Just completely useless for a graphics card, so it's being chopped off.
 
Titan and Titan Black (disabled in other Gk110 SKUs) have higher theoretical FP64 performance than Tahiti.

Hawaii also has higher but it is disabled for consumer variants.
 
Creig said:
You keep saying that by not sending out free samples, AMD should be "called out" for it. Which is complete BULLSHIT. Being provided a free sample to review is a perk, not a requirement. Whether you or I think it's stupid not to send the samples is irrelevant and should have nothing at all to do with the content of a review article.
Click to expand...

No man, no, the problem you are unable to see is that isn't exactly the fact that AMD didn't provide samples for reviewers, it was the freaking reason they decided to not sample for CERTAIN reviewers, because YES, they delivered samples but only under CERTAIN conditions forcing people to do test in THE AMD "Recommended" Scenarios, in certain part of the games, with AMD selected Settings and/or configuration, even with a FREAKING review procedure guide that the reviewer had to follow in order to being able to make publish the review, that's the big problem, that's the big issue here, is the fact that AMD decided to exclude reputable/honest sites in order to only receive favorable reviews from kids on youtube and guess what, they admitted that situation, that's why Roy Taylor suddenly banished from any Public Media and AMD sent public apologies..

it seems that you are unable to see this, is not the fact of a paper launch is the fact that AMD tried in a stupidly wrong way to "blackmail" the press,, [H]OCP called out that situation, TechReport did it, Techpowerup did it because it was a strongly bad situation for the press.. so the bullshit in this moment is from your side who are unable to see the things defending AMD so blindly... AMD could have said to everyone "hey we will not provide review samples to anyone" hey cool.. all fine. but instead "they we will not provide a review sample to certain sites, because we want AMD based reviews that we will call "Fair reviews" and we will not provide any sample to the most reputable sites on the web, we want only public advertisement from unknown guys in forums to post their build logs and impressions" what the heck man? you think that's right?.
 
trandoanhung1991 said:
It's not bullshit at all. By forcing certain sites to have to buy reference cards to review, they delay the reviews. By delaying the reviews, it's easy to have, on launch day, nothing but good reviews. Many people impulse buy during the first few days, and if there's nothing but good reviews, they cash in. Once the more fair/unbiased reviews are out, the initial rush is over.

They sell more cards this way, believe it or not.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt it. But to say AMD should be called out for not sending certain sites free cards to review IS bullshit. It's their damned cards to send to whomever they feel like sending them to. Nobody is "forcing" anybody to buy anything. If [H] doesn't want to do a review article about AMD hardware, should they be "forced" to? No. If AMD doesn't want to send a free sample card to [H], should they be "forced" to? No.

It is completely up to AMD to send cards to whomever want and it is completely up to [H] to decide what hardware they wish to write reviews about. But regardless whether or not free samples were sent, I expect [H] to compose a neutral and unbiased article about whatever hardware it is they have chosen to review. Which is why I questioned the difference between AMD's so-called PAPER Launch and Nvidia's so-called Announcement since they're both essentially the same situation.
 
Creig said:
I don't doubt it. But to say AMD should be called out for not sending certain sites free cards to review IS bullshit. It's their damned cards to send to whomever they feel like sending them to. Nobody is "forcing" anybody to buy anything. If [H] doesn't want to do a review article about AMD hardware, should they be "forced" to? No. If AMD doesn't want to send a free sample card to [H], should they be "forced" to? No.

It is completely up to AMD to send cards to whomever want and it is completely up to [H] to decide what hardware they wish to write reviews about. But regardless whether or not free samples were sent, I expect [H] to compose a neutral and unbiased article about whatever hardware it is they have chosen to review. Which is why I questioned the difference between AMD's so-called PAPER Launch and Nvidia's so-called Announcement since they're both essentially the same situation.
Click to expand...

is in your ample knowledge, the fact that most of the time "FREE SAMPLE" doesn't exist? a lot, I mean A LOT OF TIME, those test and review samples are required to be returned between certain to certain period and not only directly by AMD or NVIDIA, this tend to be a typical AIB behavior with their highest cards, "they we will provide this card for a review form this date to this date, be sure to have a review ready to that day" brent has pointed sometimes some rushed reviews made due to that reason..

Again is not the fact of not provide FREE samples, its the reason behind that.. it take time to know the hardware and do a proper review and that's why the review samples are provided with a at least 2 Week margins specially to avoid issues later, a damaged card, a glitching driver, etc etc..

Creig said:
Which is why I questioned the difference between AMD's so-called PAPER Launch and Nvidia's so-called Announcement since they're both essentially the same situation.
Click to expand...

I have already explained you what's a paper launch and what's a fully announcement.. =)
 
I have a 980ti its all good ... not gonna run for this thing. I only play @ 1920x1200 so no biggie for me
 
Araxie said:
is in your ample knowledge, the fact that most of the time "FREE SAMPLE" doesn't exist? a lot, I mean A LOT OF TIME, those test and review samples are required to be returned between certain to certain period and not only directly by AMD or NVIDIA, this tend to be a typical AIB behavior with their highest cards, "they we will provide this card for a review form this date to this date, be sure to have a review ready to that day" brent has pointed sometimes some rushed reviews made due to that reason..

Again is not the fact of not provide FREE samples, its the reason behind that.. it take time to know the hardware and do a proper review and that's why the review samples are provided with a at least 2 Week margins specially to avoid issues later, a damaged card, a glitching driver, etc etc..
Click to expand...
What part of "AMD can choose to give review cards to whomever they want" are you not comprehending?

Araxie said:
I have already explained you what's a paper launch and what's a fully announcement.. =)
Click to expand...
Your paper launch/announcement explanation made zero sense.
 
Creig said:
What part of "AMD can choose to give review cards to whomever they want" are you not comprehending?


Your paper launch/announcement explanation made zero sense.
Click to expand...

oh so you are one of "those"... nevermind.. no reason to keep explaining things to who don't want to understand reasons and just decide to defend blindly their brand royalty..
 
Creig said:
What part of "AMD can choose to give review cards to whomever they want" are you not comprehending?


Your paper launch/announcement explanation made zero sense.
Click to expand...

AMD announced the damn cards twice, both times without review samples.

NVIDIA announced the cards once, and review samples are already out to reviewers, with NDA lifting on the 17th.

Oh and AMD called their announcment paper launching, while NVIDIA called it an announcement.

What's so hard to understand about these differences?

And sure, AMD can do whatever they want. Just that people will think it's a dishonest practice, is all. As the underdog that's not been profitable since the dawn of time, do you really want to tack on the 'dishonest' badge on top of the 'cheap alternative', 'bad drivers', 'hot and loud' badges?

What will eventual consumers think when there's a huge disparity between launch day reviews and reviews 2 weeks later?

Hardware reviews is a huge, integral part of marketing btw. Just so you know.
 
Creig said:
I guess the definition of a PAPER Launch changes whether it's AMD or Nvidia doing the launching. Because AMD did the same thing with the NANO and [H] made sure to put the words "PAPER Launch" in big, bold, capitalization in the title of the article.

NO mention of a PAPER Launch in the article title. NO mention that all you had to share were slides and photographs from Nvidia along with pricing and availability.

Either an official video card announcement with a specified release date and no stock available is a PAPER Launch or it isn't.

Please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

Steve said:
  • a.) I wrote this.
  • b.) This is news coverage of a launch event, not an editorial or evaluation.
  • c.) As far as this whole "Why call AMD's product a paper launch and not NVIDIA," that has been explained time and time again, AMD was the one that actually used those exact words "paper launch."
  • d.) Personally, I'm waiting until we've tested these cards before making any comments on an unreleased product.
Click to expand...

AMD PR said:
Hi Kyle,

AMD has not yet issued any samples of the card. Thursday is the paper launch of the R9 Nano, but it will not be on shelf for a few weeks. AMD will be connecting with press directly regarding sampling.

Please let me know if you’re interested in learning more about AMD’s small form factor GPU and are available for a briefing tomorrow at 1 p.m. PT.
Click to expand...


imo if AMD call it a paper launch who are [H]ardocp to argue?
if [H]ardocp DIDDNT call it a paper launch then wouldnt it be going against what AMD themselves said? and be telling fibs and lies?

the whole paper launch issue would have carried more merit if AMD themselves diddnt call it a paper launch
 
It's almost a paper launch for the 1070 + 1080, with the 'I'm an idiot paying for a reference $100 blower cooler edition' being the only card immediately available next month. I can hear the cream churning from here.
 
Oh man, theres so much conflicting info flying around at the minute. Really can't decide if its worth the extra cash to move from my 980Ti to a 1080. I game at 1440p, and if I sell now I can still try to keep some of my 980Ti's value so hopefully I'd only have to spend £200-300 on top to get a card.

This founders edition business is souring me though and due to conflicting info I'm not even sure I'll see enough of a performance boost to warrant it. Might just let my card depreciate some more and spend a bit more cash on the next round of card or the 1080Ti in a few months (although that would mean I'm spending more out cash as I'll lose more value on the 980Ti).
 
Blackfyre1987 said:
Oh man, theres so much conflicting info flying around at the minute. Really can't decide if its worth the extra cash to move from my 980Ti to a 1080. I game at 1440p, and if I sell now I can still try to keep some of my 980Ti's value so hopefully I'd only have to spend £200-300 on top to get a card.

This founders edition business is souring me though and due to conflicting info I'm not even sure I'll see enough of a performance boost to warrant it. Might just let my card depreciate some more and spend a bit more cash on the next round of card or the 1080Ti in a few months (although that would mean I'm spending more out cash as I'll lose more value on the 980Ti).
Click to expand...


If you wanted to retain as much value for the 980ti you should have sold it about 2 weeks ago when everyone knew nothing about where things were going. Not trying to be rude, but just how the economics of tech worked. I sold off my xfire 290 setup 1+ month ago for the very same reason. (backup gaming on 970m via display port)

Edit: On the flipside, if you don't need the bleeding edge, wait a few more weeks and pickup a 980ti for $100 less than what they are going for now. My guess is that a 980ti will fall at or below where the 1070 sits MSRP.

The AMD media shitfest that's been going on is interesting. Overall I'm very happy to be going back to team green and a single card solution of badassitude. With AMD's treatment of certain websites, imagine if there's a new car coming out and you are invited to "review it". Well you are given the keys, but you can't rev the engine, you can't drive over 40mph, you can't go down that road over there to see how it handles. You'd probably be pretty annoyed. Just imagine if you jump through all their hoops and then in the fine print it says "you can only talk about the cupholders and the radio on your website" based on common sense alone, I'd wager it was a pretty shitty car.

My money goes to the first retailer that gets an MSI non-reference design 1080 in stock :) Hoping it's amazon because I get 3% cashback on everything there, no tax, and free shipping :) Hell even if it's $650 due to high demand I'll still come out head with the tax savings and cashback bonus :)
 
Remon said:
In VR, overclocked.
Click to expand...

In most games, you only need about to 1.7x performance to get SLI performance, which was shown for the normal games. 980 SLI performance sounds much better than "slightly above 980ti"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top