Gtx 1080

[Gaidax]

Hm, I remembered when Maxwell was being crowned the perf/watt and made a huge deal out of it, now it doesn't matter? *scratch head*.

Yes, right now it does not matter. Who cares what was there a year ago, five years ago or fifteen years ago? 3Dfx used to rule the market with it's Voodoo 2... look how relevant that is today.

What is important is what there is right now and denying the fact that Nvidia is full of win right now with their kickass 1080/1070 lineup is almost comically silly.

The ball is on AMD's side now, they need to get their shit together and pull out a big one or else Nvidia will take all the cream and leave them with some leftovers.

The official AMD response to Nvidia's Pascal release

[Remilia]

At least nice to know that the priorities shift cause reasons. At least it'll test that theory out that x doesn't matter if nvidia doesn't champion it.

I don't get why you're getting extremely worked up though. Just wait for the cards and see how it does. I don't get what's so hard about that other than running around talking about how rumors are truth. Goes for pretty much any product.

[Uselessrouge]

They just announced the GTX 1070 for $379, and it's faster than Titan X...

that is cheap , i want i want i want !


have been waiting some time to upgrade my card this is like a sing of the gods :>

[Gnosk]

The ball is on AMD's side now, they need to get their shit together and pull out a big one or else Nvidia will take all the cream and leave them with some leftovers.

It's been that way for years now. When was the last time AMD out sold Nvidia? if ever?

[Vash The Stampede]

Oh please, as if AMD is a frikkin' angelic company that absolutely never resorts to dirty underhanded stuff... The thing is - both obfuscate, lie and distort truth all the time - every time some news break out and there is PR bullshit and counter-bullshit coming out in droves, like for example 970's VRAM which AMD seriously tried to turn into some huge issue as if it dooms all 970s or something, which was bullshit, because time proved that 970 is one of the best cards of 2015.

If AMD had the capitol, they would do the same thing, if not worse. But when you're the underdog, it's better to play on the side of good. With AMD it's harder to point out their deviant business practices because, AMD's graphics is relatively new. ATI on the other hand has a few in their closet. And I can certainly point out a number of unethical business practices that ATI has performed, as far back as the ATI Rage chips.

The Founders Edition is a deviant business practice. One that doesn't favor the consumer at all. You get the privilege to purchase a reference graphics card for an inflated $100. That's pretty evil, no matter how you spin that. But like Apple consumers, Nvidia consumers will lap it up. You have Nvidia's marketing department to thank for this. And there's so much misinformation that some people believe there's higher quality components on these cards.

But you know what? Out of all the lies and bullshit, Nvidia's lie is sweeter, because right now it's backed by a GPU clocking near 2Ghz on air releasing in like 2 weeks from now, while AMD is all *cricket cricket* at the moment with Polaris being aimed at "efficiency per watt!" (which in GPU business basically means that it's not going to blow everyone out of the water with benchmarks) and coming sometime this year, no idea when.

First of all, clock speed isn't everything. Why 2Ghz, when we know these turbo to 1700Mhz? You don't know how well it overclocks until we see it in action, and done by a 3rd party. That clock speed is attributed to the 16nm FinFET manufacturing. TSMC got their act together and is able to do 16nm. AMD will have 14nm FinFET. So guess who can achieve higher clocks? Like it matters.

Secondly, AMD's Polaris release isn't meant to beat a 980 Ti or even the 1080. These are aimed at the main stream market. You know, the graphic cards we actually buy. As much as you want to praise the 1080, we really should be looking at the 1070. Cause like the 970, the 1070 could be the next big mainstream card. Though in my opinion the card is a little high in price for that. The 970 was released at $320, with the 1070 at $380.

Remember that while we have nothing on Polaris, we also have nothing on Pascal. Despite the press releases and marketing done, I have seen zero benchmarks for these cards. The only thing I know for sure about the 1080's and 1070's is their clock speeds, and that they're 25% faster than the 980 Ti. Most people spreading clock speeds are claiming 2+Ghz when that's not their default clock speed. The 25% faster speed is totally arbitrary and that's coming from a very biased Nvidia announcer. And remember, the GTX 1080 releases on May 27th with the GTX 1070 is June 10th. AMD will announce Polaris between 26th – 29th of May. Nvidia releases the NDA for benchmarks on May 17th.

Wait until May 17th to tell me how amazing Nvidia's new cards are, cause until then we know as much about them as we do about Polaris. Then when AMD releases their info about Polaris on the 26th, you can tell me how much they're going to fail. Until then, everything is just noise.

- - - Updated - - -

It's been that way for years now. When was the last time AMD out sold Nvidia? if ever?

Almost never. Even when AMD has a clear winner in price and performance.

[Gaidax]

There are plenty of benchmarks already for 1080 at least and partners are revealing clocks for products. Polaris on the other hand? Dam, bro, we don't even know the name of the actual thing that will hit the shelves at some future unannounced date!

At this point saying there is no real info about 1080 is silly. 1070? That I can believe, much less info about that out there, but 1080 performance and overclock ability is already documented by multiple sources.

[Vash The Stampede]

Sometimes I wonder if AMD's marketing team isn't just their Engineering team when they have extra time lol.

I know AMD forum trolls with engineers at Phoronix.com. But they actually tell you they're engineers that work for AMD, and they're very civil. So yea, engineers with extra time.

[Gaidax]

At least nice to know that the priorities shift cause reasons. At least it'll test that theory out that x doesn't matter if nvidia doesn't champion it.

I don't get why you're getting extremely worked up though. Just wait for the cards and see how it does. I don't get what's so hard about that other than running around talking about how rumors are truth. Goes for pretty much any product.

For me priority is simple - I am buying the biggest and baddest GPU I reasonably can every three years and then make it last these 3 years.

So every time new GPU comes out I am not interested in how efficient or eco-friendly it is or how Nvidia is evil and AMD are the rebels or whether it has some bullshit shader that makes your hair extra fuzzy in whole 2 games - I care about bloody performance and speed, because that is what makes the thing last for my designated 3 years.

Last winner and good pick I had was 290X and I am really happy with what it did, but the time to upgrade is coming and if AMD does not get something that interests me now, then it's back to team green.

Also, as AMD customer, I actually do want them to get their shit together, but I don't have AMD logo tattooed on my forehead.

As for your other point, people argue to death about stuff they like. Technology, cars, football, whatever...

[Remilia]

If you want to get what's best for yours, it's still wait until it's out. I mean saying x is better than y without any official reviews, then what's the point of saying whichever company is doing better or worse. It's why we wait for actual reviews first. Sure it takes the fun out of talking about rumors, but taking it as fact doesn't help anyone. Just wait and see if it's good or not.

[Vash The Stampede]

There are plenty of benchmarks already for 1080 at least and partners are revealing clocks for products. Polaris on the other hand? Dam, bro, we don't even know the name of the actual thing that will hit the shelves at some future unannounced date!

At this point saying there is no real info about 1080 is silly. 1070? That I can believe, much less info about that out there, but 1080 performance and overclock ability is already documented by multiple sources.

There are no benchmarks for the 1080. Leaked benchmarks which could be photoshop. If there's real info then collect me all the known facts there are. Keyword here is facts.

[Gaidax]

There are no benchmarks for the 1080. Leaked benchmarks which could be photoshop. If there's real info then collect me all the known facts there are. Keyword here is facts.

Oh please... well whatever really, you will see your facts in a week or so, wonder what then will be the song here. Bought reviews? Evil Nvidia trolls assaulting our minds?

There is plenty of evidence that 1080 is a real deal, but okay, we can wait one week for you to confirm.

[Artorius]

Oh please... well whatever really, you will see your facts in a week or so, wonder what then will be the song here. Bought reviews? Evil Nvidia trolls assaulting our minds?

There is plenty of evidence that 1080 is a real deal, but okay, we can wait one week for you to confirm.

Is there even someone saying that the 1080 is bad? The bad part about it is the supposedly bad DX12 performance and the ridiculously absurd price for a mid-range GPU.

What they're telling you is that making conclusions after the actual benchmarks for both companies is better than making conclusions based on rumors and marketing.

[Gaidax]

Price is not absurd simply because there is no viable alternative. It would be absurd to price a card that shits on just about anything out now any less than that.

And it will stay that price for a long time, unless AMD (highly unlikely) drops off something comparable.

[Vash The Stampede]

Oh please... well whatever really, you will see your facts in a week or so, wonder what then will be the song here. Bought reviews? Evil Nvidia trolls assaulting our minds?

You mean May 17th, when the NDA is released? You're a freakin genius. Why didn't I think of that?

There is plenty of evidence that 1080 is a real deal, but okay, we can wait one week for you to confirm.

I have no doubt the 1080 is the real deal. I'm very certain it will be the fastest graphics card in the market. How much faster will it actually be? The devil is in the details. But because I know this, the 1080 isn't what I'm interested in. It's the fastest, it costs $600. It's the 1070 I want to know about. Also the architecture would be nice.

[Fascinate]

I was interested in the 1070 but its gonna be 450 bucks for a few months or more after release, not worth it at that price. Im gonna try and snag a 970 or 390 for sub 200 bucks new, which im sure will pop up here and there.

[Vash The Stampede]

Price is not absurd simply because there is no viable alternative. It would be absurd to price a card that shits on just about anything out now any less than that.

That price is based on marketing knowledge that there are people out there who are tools. Any graphics card in that price range is for tools. Sorry to those who own Fury and 980/980 Ti cards, but it's true. Except for Apple products, electronics don't retain their value. The 1070 is faster than all those cards, and cheaper. Especially if you bought one of those cards earlier this year, then you're gonna feel like you made a mistake.

If you buy the Founders Edition, now you're a tool shed.

And it will stay that price for a long time, unless AMD (highly unlikely) drops off something comparable.

AMD might realize that it's focus shouldn't be the high end market. Nvidia has that cornered. Everytime AMD tries to be the faster graphics card, Nvidia comes out with a better product. AMD releases R9 290X, Nvidia releases GTX 980. AMD pathetically released R9 X2 295, and Nvidia releases the 980 Ti. AMD releases the FuryX, and Nvidia does nothing cause the FuryX isn't faster than a 980 Ti.

This happens every time. Nvidia is prepared to take back that #1 crown. The 980 Ti is really a crippled Titan X. There's a massive price difference between the two, and hardly any performance difference. Nvidia sacrificed the Titan X, to win against AMD. Just goes to show you how important it must be to be the fastest.

Meanwhile Nvidia has only produced the 950 and 960 for the mainstream market. That's it, they're done. AMD hasn't done a thing for that market. Instead, what used to be the fastest, gets pushed down. The 290X was a $550 graphics card, and now the 390X is faster and $400. So it makes sense for AMD to do this backwards, cause everything they've done with high end graphics has always left them the loser. There's no second place for $600 graphics. Anyone in the market for a $600 card is getting the fastest.

[Artorius]

AMD might realize that it's focus shouldn't be the high end market. Nvidia has that cornered. Everytime AMD tries to be the faster graphics card, Nvidia comes out with a better product. AMD releases R9 290X, Nvidia releases GTX 980. AMD pathetically released R9 X2 295, and Nvidia releases the 980 Ti. AMD releases the FuryX, and Nvidia does nothing cause the FuryX isn't faster than a 980 Ti.

The Radeon Pro Duo beats the 980Ti/Titan X by 60% if we're allowed to use ridiculous cards at your high-end comparison. And it even uses less power which is comically impressive.

Being the fastest is important because the average Joe buys whatever is sold by the company that sells the best. People don't know anything about computers, they know that CPUs are made by Intel and that the GeForce cards are supposed to be good.

Ever heard about the 4gb 8400GS? That card was genius.

[Evolixe]

The Radeon Pro Duo beats the 980Ti/Titan X by 60% if we're allowed to use ridiculous cards at your high-end comparison. And it even uses less power which is comically impressive.

Being the fastest is important because the average Joe buys whatever is sold by the company that sells the best. People don't know anything about computers, they know that CPUs are made by Intel and that the GeForce cards are supposed to be good.

Ever heard about the 4gb 8400GS? That card was genius.

Nice. Comparing a dual chip card to single ones. Seems like a fair comparison.

As of power efficiency; if that's something you're looking for.. then you should definitely consider that.
Other people might just want raw horsepower and don't care about gas mileage, if you catch my drift.

[Deleted]

Nice. Comparing a dual chip card to single ones. Seems like a fair comparison.

As of power efficiency; if that's something you're looking for.. then you should definitely consider that.
Other people might just want raw horsepower and don't care about gas mileage, if you catch my drift.

if you only care about horsepower its absolutely fair to compare a dual chip to single chip.

[Evolixe]

if you only care about horsepower its absolutely fair to compare a dual chip to single chip.

Not really, I've had a Dual GPU configuration before and I didn't like all the complications it came with. And I'll not likely ever do that again.

Let me tell you this way:

I'd rather have a single chip card give me 100% performance than a dual chip card give 120% performance with 30% less energy consumption.