GTX 1080 Ti May Have 10GB Of VRAM

[DPI]

AMD needs to put out superior products at better prices, over an extended period of time to erase consumer perceptions of "AMD unreliability"

Bingo. It's ponderous how many entrenched AMD zealots don't understand this basic premise.

 

[Ieldra]

NV fans need to get their game together and stop buying overpriced products so that NV will start to lower prices. Man this is getting crazy.

See what I did there?

Overpriced is a relative term. What are you comparing their products to?

 

[the_real_7]

I would guess he comparing to the average price of a gpu where it sits $400-$500 and where Nvidia has drasticaly increased into the $1000 range. I start skipping generations at these prices.

 

[Ieldra]

I would guess he comparing to the average price of a gpu where it sits $400-$500 and where Nvidia has drasticaly increased into the $1000 range. I start skipping generations at these prices.

Not sure what you're an about, 1070 is 379 and 1080 is 599, the only 1000$ range card is the Titan X which is three tiers above the best the competition offers.

I wouldn't buy a Titan X either.

You're more than welcome to buy 1000$ 1080s with prefitted water blocks or something, but in the end it will perform pretty much 5-10% faster than the cheapest 1080 available

 

[lilbabycat]

$300-400 price range guy looking from the sidelines at you crazy folk

 

[Creig]

AMD needs to put out superior products at better prices, over an extended period of time to erase consumer perceptions of "AMD unreliability"

What "AMD unreliability" are you referring to? I don't recall AMD having any reliability issues. The 290X was noisy, but it wasn't unreliable. I do recall Nvidia's Bumpgate which resulted in over $300,000,000 worth of recalls. THAT was the epitome of unreliability. Ummmm.... Oh yes, now we have EVGA 1070/1080 cards catching fire. I guess fire can make a card unreliable as well.

 

[tungt88]

What "AMD unreliability" are you referring to? I don't recall AMD having any reliability issues. The 290X was noisy, but it wasn't unreliable. I do recall Nvidia's Bumpgate which resulted in over $300,000,000 worth of recalls. THAT was the epitome of unreliability. Ummmm.... Oh yes, now we have EVGA 1070/1080 cards catching fire. I guess fire can make a card unreliable as well.

Dude, you are really trying too hard now -- I'm tempted to think that you are either a troll, or worse.

Here's a quick sample of the "reliability issues" that I am referring to:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Most-Reliable-PC-Hardware-of-2013-528/#VideoCard

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Most-Reliable-PC-Hardware-of-2014-616/#VideoCard

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Most-Reliable-PC-Hardware-of-2015-749/#VideoCard

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Failure-Rates-by-Generation-563/

Check out the "Video Card" sections -- 10% failure rate in 2013? 17.9% failure rate in 2014? 10.2% failure rate in 2015? And a 13.46% overall failure rate from 2008-2013? Those are NOT, I repeat, NOT, good numbers to have, especially when the competition (NVIDIA) has much lower failure rates. Granted, they mentioned that they sell much less AMD cards than NVIDIA cards, but it's not like the AMD sample is from 10-20 cards, ya know ...

As for "Bumpgate", that ended, as I recall, in a $2 million settlement from NVIDIA: http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/09/29/suit.covers.15..and.17.inch.models.from.07.08/
NVIDIA was hardly a shining paragon of virtue there (from all accounts), but it didn't really hurt their reputation enough to counterbalance the reputation AMD was beginning to get (ya know, lower MSRP/actual pricing & lower resale value)? The market is a very good determiner of the "true perceived value" of a product. Whether the customers are "educated enough" or not is an entirely different story (as the crappy Beats headphones show, time and again, the value of good marketing [aka good fairy tale ads from celebrities] despite many a good audio website slamming them to pieces).

As for the EVGA issue, that is isolated to EVGA, and no other AIB (EVGA's cooling setup was not adequate to the task):http://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea...vga-geforce-1080-1070-1060-graphics-card-fire
Granted, EVGA is (by far) one of NVIDIA's biggest partners, but, to their credit, they reacted quickly to the issue. And, so far, it hasn't hurt overall sales of the GTX 1070/1080 (perhaps from the EVGA end, but there are other AIB selling video cards, too). If someone is really panicked, they can still buy a NVIDIA Founder's Edition and be assured of good reliability (they contain server-grade conponents, and are very reliable [even if not built for overclocking]).

FYI Puget Systems is a boutique manufacturer of custom PCs that goes through a good amount of video cards each year.

-------------------------------

Again, to reiterate: I'd LOVE to see AMD come strong with Vega and Zen, but the price/performance needs to be there to convince me to open my wallet. And I am far from alone in this viewpoint.

 

[Creig]

Dude, you're obviously trying too hard.

So one boutique vendor has reports that their AMD cards have a higher failure rate than their Nvidia cards. That's hardly a convincing argument. Especially given that they say this:

We primarily use Asus DirectCU cards whenever possible, and the basic Asus models when there are not DirectCU versions available. It is possible that the high failure rates are limited to Asus cards, but we have used Asus as our primary supplier for video cards for a long time now.

There were issues with the DirectCU cooling which could easily account for the some of the higher return rate. Also, during that time period, AMD cards were being purchased by the pallet for mining purposes. Those cards were run full speed, 24/7 in bitcoin mining farms. Gaming video cards weren't designed with that kind of constant load in mind. Is it any wonder that AMD had higher failure rates during those years?

As for Bumpgate, IIRC that $2,000,000 was simply set aside for the class action lawsuit. Nvidia had to fork out over $300,000,000 for replacement of all the failed laptops prior to that.

 

[tungt88]

Dude, you're obviously trying too hard.

So one boutique vendor has reports that their AMD cards have a higher failure rate than their Nvidia cards. That's hardly a convincing argument. Especially given that they say this:



There were issues with the DirectCU cooling which could easily account for the some of the higher return rate. Also, during that time period, AMD cards were being purchased by the pallet for mining purposes. Those cards were run full speed, 24/7 in bitcoin mining farms. Gaming video cards weren't designed with that kind of constant load in mind. Is it any wonder that AMD had higher failure rates during those years?

As for Bumpgate, IIRC that $2,000,000 was simply set aside for the class action lawsuit. Nvidia had to fork out over $300,000,000 for replacement of all the failed laptops prior to that.

You didn't cite a single link yet that supports what you have to say.
In addition, you selectively left out the rest of what Puget Systems had to say about ASUS. For convenience's sake, I will put it down below:

"We've received some questions about what brands and models of card we used. We primarily use Asus DirectCU cards whenever possible, and the basic Asus models when there are not DirectCU versions available. It is possible that the high failure rates are limited to Asus cards, but we have used Asus as our primary supplier for video cards for a long time now. This includes NVIDIA cards as well as the Radeon HD 7xxx and Radeon HD 6xxx cards which have a much lower failure rate than the Radeon R7/R9 cards. This is a clear indication to us that Asus is not the problem, but rather something fundamental to the R7/R9 cards themselves." (highlights are mine)

Also, gee, Bumpgate didn't really put too much of a dent into NVIDIA's revenue stream (long term), for all that NVIDIA were crapping on the affected users (yes, NVIDIA's response was bull$hit). Otherwise there wouldn't be this:

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/11/15/what-nvidias-blowout-quarter-says-about-amds-comeb.aspx
http://www.gurufocus.com/news/458543/why-nvidia-is-still-better-than-advanced-micro-devices
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nvidia-profit-more-than-doubles-as-revenue-tops-guidance-1478815878


Again, to reiterate: I'd LOVE to see AMD come strong with Vega and Zen, but the price/performance needs to be there to convince me to open my wallet. And I am far from alone in this viewpoint.

 

[Mut1ny]

Why would they, when AMD's products aren't leaders, even in the price/performance section? You can't ask folks to buy products that aren't good value for their dollar simply because of "ideals". And NVIDIA has almost all the market segments tied up. It's why so many of us (including myself) are hoping that Vega will be like the 7970 was -- namely, a front-runner (even if only for a short amount of time). Being well-priced compared to NVIDIA's offerings is practically a given, at this stage of the game. NVIDIA holds practically all the cards.
Look at it this way: I'm currently running a custom GTX 980 Ti (actually, one of the best custom clocked GTX 980 Ti's out there). It's easily comparable in performance to a GTX 1070. Why would I want to get Vega, if I can easily match it? That would be a waste of money (and I don't have a FreeSync monitor).
The weaknesses (both real and perceived) of AMD are what leads us to have these sorts of discussions. If AMD wasn't in a major pitfall of it's own making (the R&D cuts to the graphics division several years ago), we wouldn't be talking.
As it stands, AMD needs to have wins both with Vega and with Zen, and they need to be strong enough to stir up the market, and get them a lot more market share than they have now.

I agree with this. After my very recent GPU hunt this AMD fan went Nvidia. Why? Because I got a Zotac Amp Extreme 980 Ti for $300...I couldn't even find a Fury X for less than $350 and everyone else wanted $250+ for their Furys or Fury Nanos.

So yeah, Nvidia is actually the best performance/price king now.

 

[tungt88]

I agree with this. After my very recent GPU hunt this AMD fan went Nvidia. Why? Because I got a Zotac Amp Extreme 980 Ti for $300...I couldn't even find a Fury X for less than $350 and everyone else wanted $250+ for their Furys or Fury Nanos.

So yeah, Nvidia is actually the best performance/price king now.

Pretty much -- the only areas where this isn't true are in the $100-$200 segment, where AMD (via rebates) actually has leverage; mostly with the RX 460/RX470 lines (even the RX 480 4GB, which has occasional rebates that take it down to $180 or so).

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/10/30/msi_geforce_gtx_1050_ti_gaming_x_vs_amd_radeon_rx_470/10

There's actually a few good AMD bargains right now in the [H]ot|DEALS section of the forum.

 

[Creig]

You didn't cite a single link yet that supports what you have to say.

Fine.

It has been brought to our attention by several readers that ASUS have transplanted this specific Direct CU II cooler from their GTX780 range of hardware. Asus have not confirmed this, however we can see by the thermal paste footprint in the images that while there are five direct touch copper heatpipes, only 3 of them are making direct contact with the AMD R9 GPU core. That said, the outer two heatpipes will be working a little via heat transference with the others.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...0-direct-cu-ii-oc-review-1600p-ultra-hd-4k/2/

The die size of the GTX 780 was 551 mm2 while the HD 290 was significantly smaller at only 438 mm2. The 290 also consumed an average of 244 watts while the 780 used 229 watts. It's obvious that a heatsink designed for a cooler, larger Nvidia die would not work as effectively on a smaller, hotter AMD card. Especially with only three heatpipes in direct contact with the core.

In addition, you selectively left out the rest of what Puget Systems had to say about ASUS. For convenience's sake, I will put it down below:

"We've received some questions about what brands and models of card we used. We primarily use Asus DirectCU cards whenever possible, and the basic Asus models when there are not DirectCU versions available. It is possible that the high failure rates are limited to Asus cards, but we have used Asus as our primary supplier for video cards for a long time now. This includes NVIDIA cards as well as the Radeon HD 7xxx and Radeon HD 6xxx cards which have a much lower failure rate than the Radeon R7/R9 cards. This is a clear indication to us that Asus is not the problem, but rather something fundamental to the R7/R9 cards themselves." (highlights are mine)

I had to get rid of all the teal coloring. It looked stupid. Besides, you were highlighting the wrong section:

"We primarily use Asus DirectCU cards whenever possible".

They only used the basic Asus models when the DirectCU wasn't available. Which means that most likely the DirectCU was the primary model sold by them. And they obviously didn't know that the GTX780 cooler was being used on the 290 and was not cooling as effectively as it did when placed on the 780. Which actually does make it an Asus issue and not an AMD derived problem. I think everyone can agree that the 290 was a hot running card and that having only 60% of the heatpipes touching the die could potentially cause issues. It's clear that the DirectCU II on the 290X was working MUCH harder and not cooling the die as effectively as it did on the 780.

You also completely ignored my mentioning the effect that Bitcoin mining had on AMD cards of that time period.

Also, gee, Bumpgate didn't really put too much of a dent into NVIDIA's revenue stream (long term), for all that NVIDIA were crapping on the affected users (yes, NVIDIA's response was bull$hit). Otherwise there wouldn't be this:

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/11/15/what-nvidias-blowout-quarter-says-about-amds-comeb.aspx
http://www.gurufocus.com/news/458543/why-nvidia-is-still-better-than-advanced-micro-devices
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nvidia-profit-more-than-doubles-as-revenue-tops-guidance-1478815878

What does any of that have to do with reliability? We're not talking about which company currently makes more money. We're talking about your statement of:

AMD needs to put out superior products at better prices, over an extended period of time to erase consumer perceptions of "AMD unreliability"

It's pretty obvious that AMD has put out superior products at better prices, over an extended period of time. It's actually Nvidia that has put out more unreliable products.

 

[big_aug]

Dude, people aren't going to spend the same amount or more on an AMD GPU that can't compete with an Nvidia GPU. You want people to buy a lesser product? That's not how this all works. Nvidia makes a high performance product at a price we are willing to pay. AMD does not.

Simple as that. PC gamers will buy the best card at the best price. Period. There are a few brand loyalists out there, but most don't give a shit. AMD has just been shit lately.

 

[DPI]

Dude, people aren't going to spend the same amount or more on an AMD GPU that can't compete with an Nvidia GPU. You want people to buy a lesser product? That's not how this all works. Nvidia makes a high performance product at a price we are willing to pay. AMD does not.

Simple as that. PC gamers will buy the best card at the best price. Period. There are a few brand loyalists out there, but most don't give a shit. AMD has just been shit lately.

Well we have that weird group with enough irrational hatred for Nvidia that they still buy the over-priced, underperforming, hot and noisy red cards out of spite. God bless them.

 

[Creig]

Dude, people aren't going to spend the same amount or more on an AMD GPU that can't compete with an Nvidia GPU. You want people to buy a lesser product? That's not how this all works. Nvidia makes a high performance product at a price we are willing to pay. AMD does not.

Simple as that. PC gamers will buy the best card at the best price. Period. There are a few brand loyalists out there, but most don't give a shit. AMD has just been shit lately.

From the latest [H] RX480 vs GTX 1060 review:

We tested both video cards in their out-of-box default performance against each other and then overclocked both of them and compared against each other. We tested in DX12 games, DX11 games and Vulkan. The results were very close in all regards. In fact, we were shocked as just how close both of these are and the gameplay experience delivered. For all intents and purposes the gameplay experience was "the same" between the video cards when we compare the best IQ settings we could game with at a given resolution.

The overall final conclusion in terms of performance is that both video cards are neck and neck, providing equivalent desktop gameplay experiences. What is going to then be the primary factors when choosing one over the other is going to come down to price, manufacturer and brand, and the highest overclock you can achieve.

I purchased a 1330 Mhz factory overclocked RX480 weeks ago for $215 after rebate. A slightly slower version of that card (1290 Mhz) is on sale right now at Newegg for the same price. And it comes with a free copy of Civ VI. Please show me a 6GB GTX1060 that's cheaper than that. Guess what? You can't. The RX480 completes just fine with the GTX1060 and is plenty powerful enough for 1080P gaming. Even at 1440P the RX480 still does well. If you need all settings maxed at 1440P or higher or want to mess around with VR, then you're probably better off getting a 1070 or higher. But for 93% of the gamers out there (1080P), an RX480 IS the best card at the best price.

 

[Creig]

Well we have to count on the wingnuts with enough irrational hate for Nvidia to buy the over-priced and underperforming hot and noisy red cards. God bless them.

You can lie all you like, but the reviews show the 8GB RX480 to be the equal of the 6GB GTX1060. Let's see.... Quiet, 2GB more VRAM and less expensive.... Hmmmm.... Yeah, that's a tough one.

NOT.

 

[Mystique]

Any reason to upgrade over my 980 Ti? I get great frames in every game at 1440p. I think I'll keep my money in my wallet if it's seriously going to cost so much, and depreciate immediately at 70$ a month.

 

[tungt88]

Any reason to upgrade over my 980 Ti? I get great frames in every game at 1440p. I think I'll keep my money in my wallet if it's seriously going to cost so much, and depreciate immediately at 70$ a month.

At 1440p, if you're currently happy with what you have on high/ultra settings, then no, I'd say there's no real need.

For 4K? A nice, custom AIB version of the GTX 1080 Ti is practically necessary as a single card solution (I manage to squeeze by on my 980 Ti AMP! Extreme).

I'm still hoping that Vega will be worth getting, but (so far) that isn't looking like a real option. We'll see.

 

[mw8t]

I always get a kick out of the people who want the latest/greatest/best... but don't want to pay for it.

We live in a free market country, you gotta learn to deal with it plain and simple.

That's like me complaining that I can't afford that Lamborghini Aventador that I've wanted for years and years. It's a top tier car that performs like no other, if they were priced like a ford focus, do you still think it would be any good?

The Pascal line offers incredible value in pretty much ANY slot from the 1050 all the way up. Pick up what you can afford and enjoy, and enjoy life man.

Nvidia isn't a chairty, they are doing what any one of us would do in that situation, sell it for what people will pay. You spend billions of dollars and years of R&D on arguably the best GPU in the world... it's stupid to expect they will just give it away. Compounding the problem are the people that think $1 will always be $1 i value. Many here remember buying top end GPUs' 10 or 15 years ago for $300? which was a ton back then for such a thing. an average of 3% inflation per year over 15 years certainly changes things as well.

This may as well read

'Dear Nvidia, i am now bent over.. please charge us more for graphics cards'

Nerds and their childish defending of their purchases Idiot