Gtx 1080

[Barnabas]

You would have to buy it used to get it cheaper and even then..., The cheapest I've seen it is 530$ on ebay new 475$ used. Where the msrp for the 1070 is 380$. Anyone with any sense will buy a AIB card which will vary 380-440$. Also the FE is 450 still 70 - 80$ cheaper on average new anyhow.

Pcpartpicker

Ebay 980ti new.

Ebay 980ti used

Personal opinion: I hate buying anything used if I can avoid it. MY 2 cents on that.

You could wait another month and prices will drop and supplies wont be so weak.

[Remilia]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Nvidia...eis-1196360/2/
heres a review which has a 1430 Mhz 980Ti included for comparison

they have the 1430Mhz MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning being ~12-13% faster (in some games less than 10%, in some more than 15%) than a stock (says 1683Mhz) 1070 in 1440p


so a well OCed 980Ti only beats a stock 1070 by 10%+

By the way, 1070 boosts to 1770MHz~. PCGH only lists the sheet spec, not the actual clock speed.
Overclock on the two samples settled below around 1980 with both memory and core clock OC. Leaving memory OC of course you can increase core clock but card needs memory bandwidth. The 980Ti at 1450Mhz would still beat it, even if by a tiny margin.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews...-review/page-5
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphic...nd-Overclockin

[Life-Binder]

By the way, 1070 boosts to 1770MHz~

there is no set value, its dynamic and depends on throttling

if the computerbase.de guys listed 1683 as their stock then thats probably the avg boost value their 1070 had


either way from what Im seeing OC 980Ti vs OC 1070 is pretty much head to head and depends a lot on silicon lottery, how far each given chip will go .. and even a difference is going to be only 3-5% or so

also the 1070 has no bandwidth problems @ 1440p even if you leave stock memory .. and I honestly dont care about 4K results here

[Denkou]

The none founders cards seem a bit highly priced don't they? £650 for MSI. I was expecting £500-550 0o

ASUS Strix GTX 1080 will reportedly be $620/£423, OC'd version for $640/£437. Not bad at all, a little above MSRP but significantly cheaper than the Founders Edition.

http://www.engadget.com/2016/05/28/a...more-colorful/

Of course the price in pounds I just got from Google to show the equivalent in your currency, it'll probably be much higher than that due to prices of parts in Europe being typically higher than here in the states. But for the U.S., the pricing is reason for us to be happy; better cards with better coolers for cheaper than reference.

[Deleted]

ASUS Strix GTX 1080 will reportedly be $620/£423, OC'd version for $640/£437. Not bad at all, a little above MSRP but significantly cheaper than the Founders Edition.

http://www.engadget.com/2016/05/28/a...more-colorful/

Of course the price in pounds I just got from Google to show the equivalent in your currency, it'll probably be much higher than that due to prices of parts in Europe being typically higher than here in the states. But for the U.S., the pricing is reason for us to be happy; better cards with better coolers for cheaper than reference.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus-...gx-401-as.html

[Drunkenvalley]

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus-...gx-401-as.html

Yep, that's anything but the £432, and as much as I hear people say "they'll drop in price, don't worry", I don't see any reason compelling them to do that anytime soon. I recall last time it was said in regards to AMD, and in the end AMD just chose to up the prices too instead of being extremely aggressive.

[Vash The Stampede]

Yep, that's anything but the £432, and as much as I hear people say "they'll drop in price, don't worry", I don't see any reason compelling them to do that anytime soon. I recall last time it was said in regards to AMD, and in the end AMD just chose to up the prices too instead of being extremely aggressive.

It's good to be the King. And this is why we should hope that AMD's Polaris does the most amazing job ever. If not, hopefully someone buys them up and puts out the most amazing product ever. Cause otherwise, we're Nvidia's bitch.

the only relatively lackluster (compared to Fury X) DX12 performance Im seeing from Pascal is from 2 games - Ashes and Hitman .. a heavy async and an AMD title ...

rest (like QB and the like, even not counting DX12 Tomb Raider) looks ok on Pascal

To be fair, DX12 and Vulkan both revolve around AMD's Mantle is some shape or form. Should it really shock anyone that DX12 games run better on AMD hardware? As for Tomb Raider, well I hear that games graphics is a giant mess. Big surprise, it's a game that Nvidia got involved with.

the real good upcoming AAA stuff like BF1, Andromeda etc. will run very well on Pascal, I have no doubt of that, same for Mafia 3, Dishonored 2, Lawbreakers, UT4, Titanfall 2, Watch Dogs 2 ...

Why? Are those GameWorks games?

games like Mirrors Edge 2 and new Deus Ex wont be very demanding at all looking at their predecessors so any decent GPU will handle those, maybe even stuff like 390X or 980 .. same for Dawn of War 3

Are they on the PS4? Of course those games aren't demanding.

[Life-Binder]

To be fair, DX12 and Vulkan both revolve around AMD's Mantle is some shape or form. Should it really shock anyone that DX12 games run better on AMD hardware? As for Tomb Raider, well I hear that games graphics is a giant mess. Big surprise, it's a game that Nvidia got involved with.

not all DX12 games, just those 2 games ...

and Vulkan runs perfect on Pascal, they already showed Vulkan DOOM 150-200 fps Ultra on a 1080

also Pascal has DX 12_1, 3XX and Fury cards dont


as for the bolded - you heard wrong

Tomb Raider 2 looks amazing graphically (one of the prettiest games out right now) and runs great on DX11

its AMDs problem if they cant get it to work on the DX12 patch (they can still use DX11 patch though their DX11 performance is worse then Nvidias across the board)

Why? Are those GameWorks games?

because previous entries of these titles ran great on Nvidia, because they are DX11/UE4 games and because PC devs will make sure they run well on Nvidia since majority of their PC userbase with discreet gaming GPUs is on Nvidia

Are they on the PS4? Of course those games aren't demanding.

almost every game I named is on PS4, obviously .. its kind of the driving force in the industry atm

[Deleted]

Hmmm I thought ROTR DX12 issue actually stems from the Vram usage, a Titan X at high resolution beats every GPU because I think jayz2cents said it used like 9 GB of vram or something stupid.

Otherwise the only game that was built from DX12 from the ground up shows AMD at the advantage here, this is why AOTS is such an important title to bench with, AMD or not, its the only game that is not DX12 ported right now, it is the title that has the strongest influence from DX 12 because again, it was developed from scratch with DX 12, every other game can be thrown aside except this for DX 12 performance for this reason.

[Life-Binder]

Ashes has very heavy async usage, thats why its good for AMD


not every DX12 game even from the ground up is going to have that assuming we even get any such games in the near future

[Deleted]

IMO not having Async with DX 12 is pointless to have DX 12 in the first place, granted there are other things among DX12 but one of the reasons for having DX 12 is for improved performance and async provides that, I honestly don't care which vendor does better at it, it should be among the games backbone to have since its part of the DX 12 standard and all GPUs need to follow suit.

Its just in this case Nvidia shot it self in the foot, it could of had both brute force and proper async support, but it didn't and thats what makes it annoying, AOTS was never made to be favoured for AMD, AOTS just delivered on actually having DX 12 feature set support because it is the only current game that was made with DX 12 from the ground up and AMD had the right hardware configuration for it, Nvidia didn't.

To try convince people that async is a bad thing because Nvidia can't cope with it is silly, every game from the ground up calling it self DX 12 can only be taken seriously as a proper DX 12 title if it has the async featureset, otherwise they might as well just stick with DX11, I fail to see why a game can't future proof it self with free performance gains with async.

[Wildpantz]

Atm in swden 1080 founders 7699kr asus or evga custom 1080 7499kr didnt exspect it usally we get screwed.

[Deleted]

Ashes has very heavy async usage, thats why its good for AMD


not every DX12 game even from the ground up is going to have that assuming we even get any such games in the near future

Can't both consoles use async compute? weird that there aren't more (console) games that use it notably yet.

Who knows maybe in a few years, but i guess by that time nvidia will have caught up so it will be a moot point by then.

[Remilia]

Can't both consoles use async compute? weird that there aren't more (console) games that use it notably yet.

Who knows maybe in a few years, but i guess by that time nvidia will have caught up so it will be a moot point by then.

There are. Naughty Dog for example is one dev to push software tech further like in Uncharted. Return of the Tomb Raider for example, actually does have Asynchronous Compute used on Xbone. PC however it got stripped out, most likely due to Nvidia is my guess. Instead VXAO was implemented cause you know, 30% performance nerf on GPUs for 0 IQ is such a great thing.

It's reportedly possible to gain 30%+ performance just due to this on the console. Hardware variance on PC is a bit more iffy at the moment which is why 5-10% performance gain is more typical for these early usages.

Hmmm I thought ROTR DX12 issue actually stems from the Vram usage, a Titan X at high resolution beats every GPU because I think jayz2cents said it used like 9 GB of vram or something stupid.

Otherwise the only game that was built from DX12 from the ground up shows AMD at the advantage here, this is why AOTS is such an important title to bench with, AMD or not, its the only game that is not DX12 ported right now, it is the title that has the strongest influence from DX 12 because again, it was developed from scratch with DX 12, every other game can be thrown aside except this for DX 12 performance for this reason.

VRAM is part of it, it was like early Mantle where essentially everything was being dumped into VRAM but since the driver isn't handling much of it, it capped the VRAM out and spilled into system RAM. Other part is just poor implementation.

[Life-Binder]

Who knows maybe in a few years, but i guess by that time nvidia will have caught up so it will be a moot point by then.

^ pretty much


DX12 will overtake the industry eventually, but it'll be a slow process

[Gaidax]

Price will remain pretty crazy for some time, it will go down a bit once supply catches on, but I would not expect MSRP any time soon.

Only chance for reasonable price is AMD offering a competitive product with similar performance, but that is not going to happen until November at best.

[Life-Binder]

technically there is a plain EVGA 1080 for $609 which is almost the MSRP of $599

but it may be sold out immediately


and Europe definitely wont get that price

[Drunkenvalley]

It's good to be the King. And this is why we should hope that AMD's Polaris does the most amazing job ever. If not, hopefully someone buys them up and puts out the most amazing product ever. Cause otherwise, we're Nvidia's bitch.

No, it's not really a king thing. AMD had good cards, they just chose to settle for being at the same price as nVidia rather than forcing prices much lower.

[Fascinate]

So i thought my system was underperforming in overwatch til i realized i had limit fps checked lol. I keep vsync on anyways for lower heat + power consumption, but with those settings off im still getting nearly 100 fps on ultra. I know OW isnt some really demanding game, but its still cool an older setup like this can pull those kind of numbers. I prob wont even upgrade til gen after pascal.

Oh, my system is a mildly OC'd 2500k and a evga SC 760.

[Vash The Stampede]

No, it's not really a king thing. AMD had good cards, they just chose to settle for being at the same price as nVidia rather than forcing prices much lower.

This is part of the hubris of AMD, in that they rarely lower prices. For example I have a FX 8350, which I bought for $150 about 2-3 years ago. It is currently $160 on NewEgg. According to PCPartPicker, it's $150 at SuperBiiz. Considering how many generations of Intel CPUs that have been released, why is AMD holding the price for this CPU so high? The same goes for AMD's motherboards for the FX chips. The 970 chipset should be dead and gone, while the 990FX is the new standard. If we extend this to AMD's GPUs, the R9 290 is $250 brand new, but AMD introduced the R9 390 with 4GB of extra useless memory and an extra increase in clock speed. But of course, this bumped the price back up to $300.

There's clearly nothing wrong with AMD's hardware, but their pricing doesn't reflect the situation well. Which is faster, a R9 390 or a GTX 970? We could debate this all day, but the fact is the GTX 970 has Nvidia's marketing team behind it, as well as GameWorks and features like ShadowPlay. Clearly the 390 should be cheaper, but a quick look shows that the 390 is actually more expensive compared to the 970. If AMD priced their parts notably cheaper, their lack of sales wouldn't be such an issue. Someone at AMD really doesn't like to drop prices. ATI would have dropped prices to compete.

This brings me back to my king statement. Like it or not, Nvidia here is clearly faster, We could thrown in DX12 and it wouldn't matter because the new 1070 and 1080's are faster in everything, especially for their price. Right now the cheapest Fury X is $600, which isn't really worth it over the 1070 at $380. BTW, the release price of the Fury X was $650, but the new MSRP price is $600. Most of the Fury X cards are well past that price, and some go as high as $700. What kind of crack is AMD smoking here? You'd think with all this news of Nvidia's new GPU's that AMD would announce some price drops, but nothing so far.