Pascal offers no IPC gain?

cageymaru said:
Well most of us here have never heard a reference card from Nvidia, AMD, ATi, 3DFX, Matrox, etc that ran at 80% fan speed and was quiet. I recycled the fans from a Corsair H100i GT onto my custom loop that I'm building, and they are driving me crazy at less than 50% speed. I only installed two of the 6 that I intended to. On a good note my temps dropped 20 degrees. But it sounds like a damn airplane. I bet some people would say they are quiet. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah custom only for me as well, fan noise and also whine (happened in past for both manufacturers) is a big no no for me.
Funny my friend is not bothered by any of that and would happily put up with a reference 290x.. OMG :)

Cheers
 
pippenainteasy said:
Show me a single vendor that has a GTX 1080 listed at $599, in or out of stock.

Price wise the 1080 is a 980 ti replacement.
Click to expand...

This is the part that a lot of people are failing or choosing not to understand. The announced $599 MSRP isn't real if not one card launched at that price. Now, I'm not going to be tacky. If a card is an AIB model with custom cooling, a mild OC, and is $10-$20 over that MSRP (as is typically thee case), I'd call that MSRP. The 980ti launched at $649, but most were $10-$20 over that for the same reasons. But as has been noted, at least so far, only $699 FE were available day one. The $599 MSRP isn't real until a card sells at or near that price. I expect that to be within 2-3 weeks, which is certainly "launch window" if not launch day.

But it's only a handful of people here who are saying that the $599 MSRP is real as of today. These same individuals were looking at the Polaris benchmarks (showing it faster than 390x, so approaching 1070 in some cases) and saying that $299 was too much (but apparently, $449 launch will be OK...).
 
Daniel_Chang said:
This is the part that a lot of people are failing or choosing not to understand. The announced $599 MSRP isn't real if not one card launched at that price. Now, I'm not going to be tacky. If a card is an AIB model with custom cooling, a mild OC, and is $10-$20 over that MSRP (as is typically thee case), I'd call that MSRP. The 980ti launched at $649, but most were $10-$20 over that for the same reasons. But as has been noted, at least so far, only $699 FE were available day one. The $599 MSRP isn't real until a card sells at or near that price. I expect that to be within 2-3 weeks, which is certainly "launch window" if not launch day.

But it's only a handful of people here who are saying that the $599 MSRP is real as of today. These same individuals were looking at the Polaris benchmarks (showing it faster than 390x, so approaching 1070 in some cases) and saying that $299 was too much (but apparently, $449 launch will be OK...).
Click to expand...

EVGA has 1 SKU for $609 featuring a blower cooler.

ASUS Strix non-OC will be $620.
 
Brent_Justice said:
if you really want to compare A to A, you'd have to compare 1080 with 980, not 980 Ti
Click to expand...

Have to disagree when the cards are $699. If anything I would say that it is the next step up from a 980ti based solely on pricing; not considering performance at all. If a partner GTX 1080 card is $629 then it is $20 less than a 980ti. That's a typical 980ti rebate that you'd find on NewEgg last year. So the GTX 1080 is for all intensive purposes going to be compared to the 980ti until one of the following happens:

Nvidia lowers the price to GTX 980 levels.
Nvidia does something special like the AMD Nano where it becomes a niche product.


If Nvidia were to slot a card into the $549 slot it would be compared to the GTX 980. That's the way I think. Of course other opinions are welcome and appreciated.
 
You couldn't get 649 980tis on launch either. They cost around 900 euros on launch here.
 
Ieldra said:
You couldn't get 649 980tis on launch either. They cost around 900 euros on launch here.
Click to expand...

$699 is the MSRP for the GTX 1080 that is available for purchase. $649 is the MSRP for the GTX 980ti. The $699 cards are guaranteed to be made as long as the cards are sold according to Nvidia. I'm NOT talking about inflated prices due to price gouging. That's another subject altogether. We can bring that into the conversation when and if it happens.

The GTX 1080 available today is on another higher tier price wise in comparison to the GTX 980ti. I'm not talking about performance at all.
 
cageymaru said:
$699 is the MSRP for the GTX 1080 that is available for purchase. $649 is the MSRP for the GTX 980ti. The $699 cards are guaranteed to be made as long as the cards are sold according to Nvidia. I'm NOT talking about inflated prices due to price gouging. That's another subject altogether. We can bring that into the conversation when and if it happens.

The GTX 1080 available today is on another higher tier price wise in comparison to the GTX 980ti. I'm not talking about performance at all.
Click to expand...

The 1080 is $599, not $699... The FE is another beast. It's priced high so it doesn't compete with AIB. It's sort of like a collector's edition. Case in point; EVGA ACX $609
 
Ieldra said:
The 1080 is $599, not $699... The FE is another beast. It's priced high so it doesn't compete with AIB. It's sort of like a collector's edition. Case in point; EVGA ACX $609
Click to expand...


$550 - GTX 980
$600 - GTX 1080 that currently doesn't exist
$650 - GTX 980ti
$700 - GTX 1080 FE

$610 is $60 more than a GTX 980
$610 is $40 less than a GTX 980ti

$610 is closer to a GTX 980ti in price than a GTX 980.
$610 video card should be compared to it's closest relative; the GTX 980ti.

This is assuming that this $610 video card actually exists. I haven't heard of one before. Where is one available for sale today?

Also the $699 cards just part of the $599 - $699 price range that you can purchase a GTX 1080. Just like the GTX 980ti has a range of say $649 (stock) - $$750 (awesome cooler). $699 will be sold until the end of the production run. It is NOT a collector's edition.
 
cageymaru said:
$550 - GTX 980
$600 - GTX 1080 that currently doesn't exist
$650 - GTX 980ti
$700 - GTX 1080 FE

$610 is $60 more than a GTX 980
$610 is $40 less than a GTX 980ti

$610 is closer to a GTX 980ti in price than a GTX 980.
$610 video card should be compared to it's closest relative; the GTX 980ti.

This is assuming that this $610 video card actually exists. I haven't heard of one before. Where is one available for sale today?

Also the $699 cards just part of the $599 - $699 price range that you can purchase a GTX 1080. Just like the GTX 980ti has a range of say $649 (stock) - $$750 (awesome cooler). $699 will be sold until the end of the production run. It is NOT a collector's edition.
Click to expand...

Precisely because they intend to sell it for the whole run, it's priced high so as not to compete with AIB solutions. The FE is the BEST blower type cooler, and will likely be the top choice for SLI solutions.

Your logic is just weird... This is the 980 replacement, the custom high end boards announced so far cost LESS than the FE.

In the UK the gigabyte G1 gaming costs 50gbp less than the FE

These cards should be shipping on the 10th of June.

The MSRP is $599 for everything except the FE. $599.
 
Last edited:
cageymaru said:
$550 - GTX 980
$600 - GTX 1080 that currently doesn't exist
$650 - GTX 980ti
$700 - GTX 1080 FE

$610 is $60 more than a GTX 980
$610 is $40 less than a GTX 980ti

$610 is closer to a GTX 980ti in price than a GTX 980.
$610 video card should be compared to it's closest relative; the GTX 980ti.

This is assuming that this $610 video card actually exists. I haven't heard of one before. Where is one available for sale today?

Also the $699 cards just part of the $599 - $699 price range that you can purchase a GTX 1080. Just like the GTX 980ti has a range of say $649 (stock) - $$750 (awesome cooler). $699 will be sold until the end of the production run. It is NOT a collector's edition.
Click to expand...

I really don't get why a few of you are beating this dead horse so much. Multiple cards under $620 have been announced, just because you can't get one RIGHT NOW during a supply constrained launch doesn't mean they aren't real. This is about as stupid as going into the VR threads and claiming VR headsets don't exist at $600 because you can't drive down to Target and buy an Oculus Rift this very second.

If someone wants to buy that $620 EVGA ACX 3.0 or ASUS Strix, they will be able to get one with some patience.
 
Ocellaris said:
I really don't get why a few of you are beating this dead horse so much. Multiple cards under $620 have been announced, just because you can't get one RIGHT NOW during a supply constrained launch doesn't mean they aren't real. This is about as stupid as going into the VR threads and claiming VR headsets don't exist at $600 because you can't drive down to Target and buy an Oculus Rift this very second.

If someone wants to buy that $620 EVGA ACX 3.0 or ASUS Strix, they will be able to get one with some patience.
Click to expand...


People need to justify then obtuse view that NVIDIA is some kind of master manipulator and is making everyone bend over and take a good fisting

7000/5200 = 34% higher transistor count.

Price per transistor is around 12% higher (conservative estimate, just manufacturing cost)

That's 134x1.12 = 150

50% more expensive to produce than the gm204
 
Ocellaris said:
I really don't get why a few of you are beating this dead horse so much. Multiple cards under $620 have been announced, just because you can't get one RIGHT NOW during a supply constrained launch doesn't mean they aren't real. This is about as stupid as going into the VR threads and claiming VR headsets don't exist at $600 because you can't drive down to Target and buy an Oculus Rift this very second.

If someone wants to buy that $620 EVGA ACX 3.0 or ASUS Strix, they will be able to get one with some patience.
Click to expand...


I'm just saying that it should be compared price wise to the GTX 980ti rather than the GTX 980. Nothing more. Nothing less. Look up a few posts and you will see where I made my original point. I don't care how many more transistors it has or what the cost of those parts are. The price of the product dictates what it is compared against.
 
cageymaru said:
I'm just saying that it should be compared price wise to the GTX 980ti rather than the GTX 980. Nothing more. Nothing less. Look up a few posts and you will see where I made my original point. I don't care how many more transistors it has or what the cost of those parts are. The price of the product dictates what it is compared against.
Click to expand...


So what do you want to compare the new Titan and the 980ti when it comes out, nothing?

Prices have shifted that's it.

I would rather have the $50 card increase than what AMD (when they had the lead) and Intel CPU's go for in respective market tiers........

By your logic, they should never have compared the gtx 980 to the the 780ti (it was launched at $699), but they did must have been a mistake.
 
Last edited:
cageymaru said:
I'm just saying that it should be compared price wise to the GTX 980ti rather than the GTX 980. Nothing more. Nothing less. Look up a few posts and you will see where I made my original point. I don't care how many more transistors it has or what the cost of those parts are. The price of the product dictates what it is compared against.
Click to expand...

Well even if you compare to the 980Ti, it's faster, cheaper and the high end boards still cost less than MSRP of reference 980Ti, so really your point is 100% moot

You wouldn't believe how many people had to eat their own words after the prices for the custom boards leaked. So many assholes talking about how $699 is now the entry level for the high end, NV is a cancer for the industry etc etc.

MRW GBT Xtreme Gaming costs less than FE

Spiderman-Peter-Parker.jpg
 
Ieldra said:
Well even if you compare to the 980Ti, it's faster, cheaper and the high end boards still cost less than MSRP of reference 980Ti, so really your point is 100% moot

You wouldn't believe how many people had to eat their own words after the prices for the custom boards leaked. So many assholes talking about how $699 is now the entry level for the high end, NV is a cancer for the industry etc etc.

MRW GBT Xtreme Gaming costs less than FE

/QUOTE]
Click to expand...



Can you arithmetic? Tell you what.

Show me how $609 is closer to $549 than $649 mathematically. Awaiting your response.
 
cageymaru said:
Can you arithmetic? Tell you what.

Show me how $609 is closer to $549 than $649 mathematically. Awaiting your response.
Click to expand...

You're not going to "win" this argument. You're 100% correct, but he either cannot or does not want to see that. Best to move on. But I will leave with this. The user that you're arguing with has made the two following points:

  1. The GTX 1080 should be compared to the GTX 980 due to naming convention. Price is irrelevant.
  2. Polaris 10 (RX 480) should be compared to the Radeon R9 390 due to similar performance, and the upper end of leaked pricing. Naming convention is irrelevant.

What you have here is someone who cannot apply the same logic to both sides. I believe that the proper term is, "fanboy." These people cannot be convinced. Let him enjoy his logic.
 
cageymaru said:
Can you arithmetic? Tell you what.

Show me how $609 is closer to $549 than $649 mathematically. Awaiting your response.
Click to expand...


Do you have any logic in your posts? It was compared to the 980ti, its faster than the 980ti at a cheaper price! It was even compared to the Titan X which was a grand, it was faster than that too!

Lets pull up all the reviews out there, and see which review sites didn't have a 980ti or Titan X in their review when they reviewed the gtx 1080.

I don't see a single site here that doesn't have a 980ti or Titan X do you?

Doesn't matter what you compared the 1080 to its either faster by a lot (gtx 980) with a small price bump or its faster and cheaper or its faster and much cheaper (TitanX).

Common to all of these is its faster.
 
Last edited:
Ieldra said:
Architectural changes are needed to allow the design to clock higher. EVERYONE keeps making this mistake, and talking as if all you need to do is "translate" the 28nmFD-SOI maxwell design onto the new 16nm FF process and that's it, higher clocks. THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.
Click to expand...
No, I'm pretty sure you just put the masks on the photocopier and enter a scaling factor. ;)

cageymaru said:
I'm just saying that it should be compared price wise to the GTX 980ti rather than the GTX 980. Nothing more. Nothing less. Look up a few posts and you will see where I made my original point. I don't care how many more transistors it has or what the cost of those parts are. The price of the product dictates what it is compared against.
Click to expand...
It's compared against the 980ti not because of price, but because the 1080 is now the fastest single Nvidia video card you can buy and the 980ti was the prior fastest video card you could buy (we'll ignore the Titan for now).
 
Daniel_Chang said:
You're not going to "win" this argument. You're 100% correct, but he either cannot or does not want to see that. Best to move on. But I will leave with this. The user that you're arguing with has made the two following points:

  1. The GTX 1080 should be compared to the GTX 980 due to naming convention. Price is irrelevant.
  2. Polaris 10 (RX 480) should be compared to the Radeon R9 390 due to similar performance, and the upper end of leaked pricing. Naming convention is irrelevant.

What you have here is someone who cannot apply the same logic to both sides. I believe that the proper term is, "fanboy." These people cannot be convinced. Let him enjoy his logic.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being facetious.

I never said the the naming convention is what determines the bracket. I never said the price is irrelevant. I never said Pol10 should be compared to 390. Ever.

I said Polaris 10 offering ~390X performance (compute) + the promised doubling in geoemtry performance for ~$250 would be a great deal.

If I'm not mistaken you're the guy I roasted for claiming 980Ti isn't ~60% faster than a 970. I remember you.
I can see why you want to discredit me.

cageymaru said:
Can you arithmetic? Tell you what.

Show me how $609 is closer to $549 than $649 mathematically. Awaiting your response.
Click to expand...

Straw man


Stereodude said:
No, I'm pretty sure you just put the masks on the photocopier and enter a scaling factor. ;)
Click to expand...

Import your design into Cadence suite. Go to the settings pane, 'Node' tab.

Select 16nm from the dropdown menu.

Hit "Redesign"

Done.

Yet there still are misfits who claim that IC design is an expensive business
 
Last edited:
Ieldra said:
If I'm not mistaken you're the guy I roasted for claiming 980Ti isn't ~60% faster than a 970. I remember you.
I can see why you want to discredit me.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. You never roasted me. You merely tried and were ignored. We had several adults discussing the subject using actual tests and math. You tried to inject yourself into the conversation but were largely ignored due to failing at math.

The consensus was, from those who actually looked at apples to apples results, was:

The GTX 980ti is 60% faster than the GTX 970 on paper (specs) clock for clock.

In real world tests across many games (games only, no synthetic benchmarks), the GTX 980ti averaged 45% faster than a 970 at 4k, 40% at 1440p, and 35% at 1080p. While most agreed that this could be due to diminishing returns, CPU limitations, or a combination thereof, it was a real result.

One person was able to show a cherry picked result of the GTX 980ti beating the GTX 970 by 55%. This was in a cherry picked game, with the GTX 970 on a rig with a Core i7 Haswell at stock speed, and the 980ti on a Haswell-E rig that was grossly overclocked. Even then it couldn't hit your 60% target.

And the fact that you're still crying about it is, well, satisfying :)
 
Daniel_Chang said:
You are mistaken. You never roasted me. You merely tried and were ignored. We had several adults discussing the subject using actual tests and math. You tried to inject yourself into the conversation but were largely ignored due to failing at math.

The consensus was, from those who actually looked at apples to apples results, was:

The GTX 980ti is 60% faster than the GTX 970 on paper (specs) clock for clock.

In real world tests across many games (games only, no synthetic benchmarks), the GTX 980ti averaged 45% faster than a 970 at 4k, 40% at 1440p, and 35% at 1080p. While most agreed that this could be due to diminishing returns, CPU limitations, or a combination thereof, it was a real result.

One person was able to show a cherry picked result of the GTX 980ti beating the GTX 970 by 55%. This was in a cherry picked game, with the GTX 970 on a rig with a Core i7 Haswell at stock speed, and the 980ti on a Haswell-E rig that was grossly overclocked. Even then it couldn't hit your 60% target.

And the fact that you're still crying about it is, well, satisfying :)
Click to expand...

I study math:
A12zeDv.png


And yes, you were looking at cases in which the gpu was not the limiting factor in the first place, which is pretty stupid.

Fresh one right here. 56%

Shut it. Dimwit.
index.php



index.php
 
you're in college lol ;) those file extensions, I recognize them used as an open source PDF format mostly used for college text books.
 
razor1 said:
your in college lol ;) those file extensions, I recognize them used as an open source PDF format mostly used for college text books.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I made a collection of about 10k books so i can avoid going to the library all the time :D
 
Another single, cherry picked game and you STILL couldn't hit your claimed 60%. And you're calling me the dimwit?

PM me when you figure out this complex thought process that still eludes you. I won't further derail this thread.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
Another single, cherry picked game and you STILL couldn't hit your claimed 60%. And you're calling me the dimwit?

PM me when you figure out this complex thought process that still eludes you. I won't further derail this thread.
Click to expand...

TBH you are both right as it depends what variables you consider.
The 60% is only being hit when you specifically look at custom AIB 970 vs custom AIB 980ti, and also critically the newer games where some may be more generic with regards to optimisation HW due to consoles or techniques moving on from over a year ago.

Just quickly here are a few examples at 1440p that either get very close to 60% (just 5% shy in a couple of games) or actually over it, but they meet the criteria I say above.
Warhammer DX12 but 1080p: Total War: Warhammer - Vorab-Benchmarks mit DirectX 12
Hitman DX11 1440p: Hitman (2016) Episode 2: DX12 mit bis zu 60 Prozent Leistungsplus - und Problemen
Division 1440p: The Division PC im Techniktest: Benchmarks von 17 Grafikkarten plus CPU-Kernskalierung
Quantum Break 1080upscaling enabled: Quantum Break PC im Nachtest: Neue Benchmarks mit Patch 1 [Update]
Witcher 3 Blood & Wine (game engine overhauled) 1440p: The Witcher 3: Blood & Wine - Technisches Preview und Benchmarks von 18 Grafikkarten

Cheers
 
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Reviews:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Video Reviews:
 
From a pure engineering perspective, I cannot add anything to this discussion.

However, as much of this thread has turned into a business discussion; pricing of FE vs. Other, I would like to chime in here.

I think the product manager of the GTX 1080 just received a hefty bonus and/or raise. He figured out how to take a reference card and get $100 more from it on launch with zero cost to design, development, research, or implementation. Calling it a Founders Edition is just icing on the cake as far as I am concerned.

The fact is, they could have just as easily called it the "You get it 7 days early edition," and would have still sold out. At the end of they day, that is exactly what happened. You get the absolute base model card 7 days earlier than anyone waiting for an AIB. There is obviously a market for bragging rights, and they may have even underestimated the demands of this market. It is irrelevant how good the AIB cards will be, the product manager took a gamble that they would sell out regardless.

I think 10,000 units sold is a very conservative estimate here. If you owned a business and an employee (executive or other) comes up with an idea to make a free $1,000,000 that will cost you nothing; you are going to do it. It is literally costing them nothing to do this. Even with bad press, the GTX 1080/1070 will be the card of the year even if it is under an AIB configuration. Who cares if they never sell another FE version. They made a good choice from a business perspective.

As far as general pricing; I think the GTX 1070 @ $379 is a good deal as from performance data, it pretty much competes with and matches the GTX 980Ti for all intensive purposes. Last month, if you wanted the performance of a GTX 980Ti, you were spending $650.

It is also important to note that there has always, is now, and will always be a contentious nature between seller and buyer. The buyer wants it as cheap as possible. The seller wants to make as much money as possible. The end result us usually (if successful) a middle ground where an equilibrium is made that the most product can be moved and the highest price. People can complain about price all they want; at the end of the day I can assure you a company as large as NVidia has done there research to find the perfect price point between supply and demand.

-Ray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top