The GTX 1070 will be a long step from the GTX 980 Ti to keep the pricing up on the older cards

The GTX 1070 will be a long step from the GTX 980 Ti to keep the pricing up on the older cards.

Other urls found in this thread:

hardware.fr/articles/948-15/benchmark-anno-2205.html
youtube.com/watch?v=ctOR-Bf-3Ps
youtube.com/watch?v=CUt3z9Hr6RA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>980
>$349
Where

You have to wait for the 1070 to be released.

You would have to be crazy to buy a 980 instead of a 1070 for only $30 more.

>SEVEN-POINT-FIVE-GIGABYTES

This never happens. Nvidia cut production of the 900 series already, so the rest will be sold at the same price for SLI.

An absolute madman. Or you know, someone already has a 980ti and wants sli.

1. Your graph is lying you fucking retard
2. Nvidia has already sold all of their 900-cards. They don't benefit from "keeping the pricing up" you fucking retard

...

AMD has already announced that they got cucked again and polaris will only target low-mid end "value" segments

>980 is higher than mid-end
are you sober?

This, Polaris is shit.

Vega, on the other hand. 16GB of HMB2.

>making assumptions

How's that 10% performance gap and house fire Temps doing for ya?

I fixed it for you.

Yeah, that's the point retard. Both 1070 and 1080 are way faster than 980 and AMD can't keep up.

>This meme
The full Polaris 10 chip will be close to 1070 performance for $300-$350
The cut down version will be 10-20% slower for $250
Polaris 11 will be 960/380 tier for $120 or something like that

...

What's the point of comparing unplayable fps?

you're comparing cards. retard.

My thoughts exactly. 4K might be the biggest meme in tech history

>which of these cards is LEAST unplayable
It's unrealistic and basically useless

So even with your desperately cherrypicked example, the 1080 is still ~60% faster than the 980. This confirms what I said retard. ~70% was even what nvidia claimed in their promotional material

I got this from closed sources.

Just lower settings retard. Clean picture without jaggies/shimmering is way better than ambient oclusion and godrays and whatever else bullshit they tack on top

>wasting HBM2 on Pascal
lol

>wasting HBM2 on anything amd
lol

that's literally the low-mid "value" segment you dip

I don't believe that graph is authentic, but if Vega is going to be under 500 dollaridoodoos I'm going to get one.

We're still trying to get a solid 60 at 1440p, let alone 144.

>secret-document.png
>classified screenshot
Next time try to make it believable. Vega 10 should not be cheaper than 1080. Vega 10 is supposed to have 70% more shaders than Polaris 10 and should therefore be faster than a 1080.

Meh. I'm just waiting for a future proof 1080p 60fps card, or maybe the 980Ti if it drops in price. Yes the 980Ti is overkill for 1080p, but that's kinda the point.

>maybe the 980Ti if it drops in price.
it can dropped to €550 for me

>buying nvidia
ayyy

>future proof
massive meme
>980ti for 1080p
massive overkill

not even the gtx 1080 is really overkill for 1080p, current games with maxed settings can be like 60+ fps but not like a solid 120+ fps, not all of them at least

>massive overkill
not when it'll get gimped by driver updates
>hurr don't update
then you can't run games that use new API's/featurs

evga b-stock occasionally has them

At 60fps the 1080 is overkill and stupidly expensive. It's a current 1440p, slightly over 60fps card according to Hardware.fr's benches (yes I'm an actual dirty frog). Starts here.
hardware.fr/articles/948-15/benchmark-anno-2205.html

>slightly over 60fps
not overkill

in a couple of years it will not even do 60 fps in modern games

Does this mean buying 980 Ti right before the 1080 announcement was a good or bad move?

bad. price is dropping to 550 now

>slightly over 60fps
At 1440p for most greedy games with nearly everything maxed (less greedy games go at 90-110fps maxed), not at 1080p. Not dumping 790€ (no kidding, it's on the Intro page) for that. Again, I'd be looking for a comfortable 1080p/60fps card.

the ti is quite a bit more than the 1070, dinkleberry.

yeah the gtx 1070 will probably have better value for money for 1080p

That's because barely anyone has a 1440p monitor retard. Video game graphics isn't some thing that just magically gets better. The developers chose the level of graphics so that "ultra" with a top of the line card will run at ~60fps on the most common resolutions. Once 4k monitors become common, then games will be made to run at those resolutions, regardless of if we've had 2x or 20x performance increase by then.

Same goes for you, "future proof" is such a stupid phrase. The only way something gets "future proof" is if technology stops advancing.

Are you retarded?
You have to realize that review benchmarks are run with 4xAA at 4k and other silly settings that nobody in the real world would actually use. There are graphics settings on modern games that literally cut your fps in half but provide virtually no visual difference.

Cards as expensive as a 1080 are meant for 4k gaming. For 1080p it's extreme overkill.

>2 1080s make 2160

how much is this worth (when it drops in price) when 1080 comes out?

We'll see, considering >Europe the card will most likely be sold at 500€. Gotta wait to see if some will panic sell their 980Ti. Seems unlikely given the prices and the "meh" factor around the 1080 now that the benches are out.

>try witty post
>delete it

doesn't matter how expensive they are, they're not ready for 4k

You guys are so fucking retarded.
1. All you need to do is look at an aggregate benchmark and divide the score/fps of the card with the price. The one with the highest FPS/dollar is the best. It's literally that simple. If they're even, choose the newer card since it has more features that will be relevant for longer
2. If you had any experience, not just with gfx cards but technology in general, you would know that last gen pretty much never drops to competitive prices when a new gen is released.

see

Even a 390 can do 4k @ medium settings.
A 1080 can easily do 4k on max settings with the only exceptions being a few unoptimized games in which you have to maybe turn the shadows or grass detail down to high instead of ultra.

>competitive
There is no competition.

>wow someone made a mistake
>shit never happens, what a retard!

Competitive against the new generation from the same company retard

>unoptimized
Most people who use this have no fucking clue about anything.
Path-tracing is some of the most optimized rendering code there is, yet you will get about 0.1 FPS on consumer hardware

>A 1080 can easily do 4k on max settings with the only exceptions being a few unoptimized games in which you have to maybe turn the shadows or grass detail down to high instead of ultra.
sounds delusional as fuck

if you can do it 60+ fps on relevant games i'm sold

Which one?

>EVGA

>MSI

>GIGABYTE?

and why?

The one that performs the best once reviews are out retard.
Don't be a brand-cuck

gigabyte because evga is shit (only good for customer support and tradeups, not for the hardware itself) and msi is shit tier chink shit (people only think msi is good because they had semi-fanless gtx 970 but with coil whine for cheap)

not buying a 1080 meme card, I'm going to buy a 980Ti + price drop

1070/1080 is mandatory for vr and multi monitor at least

see

It can 4k@60fps every single game on the market on at least high settings. 97% of games on ultra.

People have been running 5760*1080 monitor setups on a single 680 or 7970 5 years ago.

>People have been running 5760*1080 monitor setups on a single 680 or 7970 5 years ago.
lmfao surely you're having a laugh m8

maybe on old games but not modern (even 680-7970 era) games

also
>It can 4k@60fps every single game on the market on at least high settings. 97% of games on ultra.
funny how nvidia demoed at 1080p then, you don't think they would have mentioned 4k gaming?

VR is meme, and so is multi monitor shit

I can get a 980Ti for less than 500 euros

I run 980 SLI and I run most of my games at 60 FPS. Most run at 40-50 on Ultra settings, so it doesn't take a huge bump. A 1080 will perform very similarly when overclocked.

The only time I have issues is shit like in tomb raider where geothermal valley runs like absolute ass.

A good comparison point would be a 380 running 1080p. If you overclock or dial down settings 60 FPS is very achievable in nearly every title on the market right now.

Which is still worse FPS/dollar than a third party 1080 retard

That's because Nvidia is demoing the card to retards.

On their actual product page they even listed the recommended resolution for the fucking 980 as 4K, let alone the 1080.

gtx 1080 is barely better than 980 SLI, 40-50 fps is not ok, that's what you'd expect after owning it for several years, not on launch day

are you sure?

Are you 12 years old? youtube.com/watch?v=ctOR-Bf-3Ps

Nvidia's marketing strategy is to convince poorfags with cheap ass 1080p monitors to spend all their money on a new GPU instead of buying a new monitor.

980
or
1070?
Performance wise, not price

The GTX 1080 is on average 5-10% slower than 980 SLI. 980 SLI also overclocks ~15-20% while it remains to be seen what kind of performance gains the 1080 will see from overclocking. (Due to lower IPC)

40-50 FPS on ultra settings is perfectly playable. 60 with minor reductions is absolutely playable.

In the history of PC gaming it has never been common place for high end videos to run perfect 60 FPS on brand new ultra settings titles. Maybe we had a couple years in the twilight years of the PS3/360, but go back a decade and that wasn't the case.

Here's a good example:
youtube.com/watch?v=CUt3z9Hr6RA

This is the kind of performance a high end 2006 PC would have got you in the most common resolution.

1070

>500€ for the 1070
If it doesn't floor the 980 (which shouldn't be hard), NVidia can put that card up their ass.

I can get a 980Ti for €475. should I?

fuck i hate Sup Forums

bunch of poorfag kids that can only see the world from their own perspective

you don't think a rock solid 60 fps is nice? you don't think 120+ fps is nice? stay mad at those sour grapes

It's outperforming the Ti by almost 20% on average. And that's the reference design on a card that looks very overclockable
MRSP of 600$ -20% is 428€.
Did you drop out of high school?

MSRP for the 1070 """should""" be around 500€. If the 1070 is on par with the 980Ti...

>MRSP of 600$
>using the performance of a 699 card
>using the MSRP of 600 as example

Is 1060 a thing? Currently have a 960 and it's mostly good enough, probably will switch to 1070 though

>If the 1070 is on par with the 980Ti...
see the 980Ti is almost on par with the 1080

>20% on average
wrong. see: not yet, eventually

>a 699 card
That's the reference design I was talking about retard, the 3rd party ones will be both cheaper and faster because nvidia decided to cash in on early adopter faggots.
Let me guess, you haven't actually read anything but you still go on Sup Forums and call people stupid for knowing more than you

that was the post I was quoting retard. Do the numbers yourself

Can't you guys count? We know IPC of Pascal, we know core and bus of 1070 and we know number of cores.
It's trash.

>the 980Ti is almost on par with the 1080
According to HW.fr benches (yes I'm that filthy frog) with all the superfluous stuff at 1440p, it's 30% more performances than a reference 980Ti, and 18% over the EVGA SC+ version. Obviously if you live in Europe you get the short end of the stick pricing wise anyway, but 475€ new seems like a good deal regardless if the 1070 is in between the 980 and the 980Ti for 500€ (which wouldn't be a good value IMO).

Your eyes can't tell the difference between 60 and 120 fps.

but his autism can

for you

linus did a test on it too, he can see the difference

A 980ti still cant run modded skyrim at a solid 60 frames at 1080p. The 1080 will be a great skyrim card though due to the memory advantage, as skyrim can eat upwards of 16gb vram. Def go for the 1080

on youtube, i instantly notice if it's 60 fps video instead of 30 fps, the difference is dramatic even for video, and for games it's not only about the visuals, it's about latency too and the "feel" of the game

And I feel completely fine with my GTX 950 that cost me the equivalent of $75 in a store liquidation here in beanland.

>modded skyrim
>this meme in the current year

Jaggies haven't been a thing since maxed out AA at sensible 1080p screen sizes. 4K is a fucking scam. Enjoy your washed out medium detail textures and "playable" fps.

This reminds me of the audiophile madness. Many people claim they can distinguish 44 kHz and 96 kHz.
Soon you might need some gold-plated DP cables.