Gtx 1080

[Vash The Stampede]

but didn't they say a while ago they stopped making those? i imagine that factory space has been reassigned and they can't just switch back overnight.

Nvidia and AMD have reused previous generation hardware. The reason I say this is because I don't think Nvidia was expecting AMD to make a $200 equivalent to a GTX 980. The 60 cards from Nvidia have always used 128-bit bus, but the RX 480 is 256-bit. The intended GTX 1060 would have been a speed bumped 128-bit type graphics card, but with the RX 480, Nvidia has to produce something equivalent to a 980 and fast. The smart thing to do is either reprice the 980 at $200 or make a new card based on the 980, but call it a 1060. The 1060 Nvidia was working on would become the 1050.

[Artorius]

Nvidia and AMD have reused previous generation hardware. The reason I say this is because I don't think Nvidia was expecting AMD to make a $200 equivalent to a GTX 980. The 60 cards from Nvidia have always used 128-bit bus, but the RX 480 is 256-bit. The intended GTX 1060 would have been a speed bumped 128-bit type graphics card, but with the RX 480, Nvidia has to produce something equivalent to a 980 and fast. The smart thing to do is either reprice the 980 at $200 or make a new card based on the 980, but call it a 1060. The 1060 Nvidia was working on would become the 1050.

Just rebrand the 980 as a 1060Ti and they're done with it.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Just rebrand the 980 as a 1060Ti and they're done with it.

Given the size of the chip, can nvidia even sell the 980 at 200 dollars?

[Artorius]

Given the size of the chip, can nvidia even sell the 980 at 200 dollars?

I don't think they'll have a high profit but they can afford to sell cards at a loss if it means denying AMD's market share growth.

[Vash The Stampede]

Given the size of the chip, can nvidia even sell the 980 at 200 dollars?

Cost of graphic cards don't really reflect the cost of making them. A Titan X can be brought down to a 980 Ti for less than half the price. At one point, the R9 290 was a $500 graphics card, that now sells for $300 as the R9 390. The price of the chip is dictated by AMD and Nvidia, but that's a number they make based on what you're willing to pay for.

AMD and Nvidia will claim that what you're paying for is R&D, not the actual cost of manufacturing the product. Considering how old the GTX 980 is now, I think Nvidia can certainly afford to sell it for $200.

[mrgreenthump]

Considering how old the GTX 980 is now, I think Nvidia can certainly afford to sell it for $200.

Then again you would have to go back to TSMC and ask them to restart their fab process for it. And as the amount of wafers they can make is finite and 980 being the full GM204 chip(which is quite large)..

They would just be way better off dropping the GTX 1070 price to ~$325 to make it a better deal when comparing it to the RX 480.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Cost of graphic cards don't really reflect the cost of making them. A Titan X can be brought down to a 980 Ti for less than half the price. At one point, the R9 290 was a $500 graphics card, that now sells for $300 as the R9 390. The price of the chip is dictated by AMD and Nvidia, but that's a number they make based on what you're willing to pay for.

AMD and Nvidia will claim that what you're paying for is R&D, not the actual cost of manufacturing the product. Considering how old the GTX 980 is now, I think Nvidia can certainly afford to sell it for $200.

They'd have to restart fabrication and GM204 is a pretty huge chip in terms of square millimetres of silicon wafer, especially when compared to Polaris (GM204 is 398mm² while P10 is 232mm²).

[Vash The Stampede]

Then again you would have to go back to TSMC and ask them to restart their fab process for it. And as the amount of wafers they can make is finite and 980 being the full GM204 chip(which is quite large)..

They would just be way better off dropping the GTX 1070 price to ~$325 to make it a better deal when comparing it to the RX 480.

I don't think companies threw away the 28nm tools just yet. But anyway, lets see how the size effects cost, starting with the 1080.

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...1080-chip.aspx

Doing the same calculation for the 16-nanometer GP104, but assuming a defect density of 0.015 defects per square centimeter (since it is a less mature process), yields around 164 good dies per wafer. Dividing the estimated 16-nanometer wafer costs by this figure leads to a die cost estimate of $47.43.

The 980 is 398 mm2 in size, with the 1080 at 314mm2. How much would it be if 28nm?

Now, if we assume that the 28-nanometer process, by virtue of its maturity, has a very low defect density of 0.01 defects per square centimeter, then -- using iSine's die yield calculator tool -- NVIDIA should get around 76 good chips per 28-nanometer wafer.

Dividing the wafer cost by the number of good dies yields a cost of $58.68 per chip

It's cheaper to make a 1080 than it is to make a 980. But that 980 was also the same chip used to make a 970, and the 970 sold 5x more at $320. Nvidia could take the 980 and shrink it down to a workable 16nm process, and save in cost. They also don't need as much silicon cause at 16nm they can make up for transistors with higher clock speeds.

If Nvidia has enough engineering time to make a similar cost effective chip to compete with the RX 480, then they don't need to reprice the 980 at $200. My assumption is they don't have enough time, and that's why I think they may just rebrand the 980 as the 1060. Maybe. Possibly.

BTW 1070/1080 owners, feel better knowing how much the chip costs to make your $400-$700 graphics card?

[Shinzai]

The only thing I'll say about the production costs vs retail costs, is that they don't include the costs of R&D, design, testing, sampling, wages of all involved in creating the things, advertising campaigns, promotion, packaging, printing for manuals/instructions, driver development, import and export costs and so on and so forth.

If the graphics cards existed in bubbles that just appeared in reality, then fair enough, you could complain about it. However, almost every business aims to sell its goods at a 100-200% markup, to ensure on going profits. I believe AMD will be sacrificing a huge chunk of their potential mark-up, to garner more competitive pricing.

[chrykoolaid]

just wondering , will the gtx 980 ti drop in price anytime soon

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

just wondering , will the gtx 980 ti drop in price anytime soon

If nVidia is relying on old stock to fill the (massive) gap in the market between "iGPU" and the GTX 1070 it might. If they are aiming to bring out a GTX 1060 at the 250-300 dollar price-point, then no it won't (or at least, not to the level it would need to).

[Bigvizz]

just wondering , will the gtx 980 ti drop in price anytime soon

Yes like now,

MSI GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB

- - - Updated - - -

If nVidia is relying on old stock to fill the (massive) gap in the market between "iGPU" and the GTX 1070 it might. If they are aiming to bring out a GTX 1060 at the 250-300 dollar price-point, then no it won't.

Dude answer his question directly, don't give him verbal diarrhea.

[Sorshen]

Yes like now,

MSI GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB

.

Well, the EVGA GTX 1070 ACX 3.0 is at the same price, so there's still no point in getting the 980Ti. Except, of course, stock issues :P

[Vash The Stampede]

The only thing I'll say about the production costs vs retail costs, is that they don't include the costs of R&D, design, testing, sampling, wages of all involved in creating the things, advertising campaigns, promotion, packaging, printing for manuals/instructions, driver development, import and export costs and so on and so forth.

If the graphics cards existed in bubbles that just appeared in reality, then fair enough, you could complain about it. However, almost every business aims to sell its goods at a 100-200% markup, to ensure on going profits. I believe AMD will be sacrificing a huge chunk of their potential mark-up, to garner more competitive pricing.

To be fair, the 980's are done with any R&D, design, testing, and etc. So it is essentially being sold in a bubble. AMD isn't sacrificing anything with the RX 480, because they know their market share is abysmal. If AMD were to release the RX 480 at a higher price, then Nvidia would come out with the 1060 and still sell more. Cause the way consumers purchase graphic cards, if they see AMD and Nvidia equally priced and equal performance, they will always go with Nvidia. Not only because of the Nvidia perks like GameWorks and Physx, but because everyone they know buys Nvidia.

[mrgreenthump]

because everyone they know buys Nvidia.

It starts with retailers and online personalities.. They almost always recommend Nvidia.

[Bigvizz]

Well, the EVGA GTX 1070 ACX 3.0 is at the same price, so there's still no point in getting the 980Ti. Except, of course, stock issues :P

I simply answered his question, tell him that.

[Vash The Stampede]

Hey 1080 owners, want to make easy money?

[mrgreenthump]

Hey 1080 owners, want to make easy money?

This is starting to get hilarious.. Only gives Nvidia more reason to price their next generation even higher.. At this point people will buy them at any price it seems.

[Jimmy Thick]

In the states Best Buy is stocking the new 1070 and 1080 now, I got mine yesterday.

Using the 1070 with a AMD 8320, here is my 3d Mark score:



My initial impressions, the 1070 is probably more powerful than my CPU, lol, but its not making anything I have thrown at it unplayable, the reports of bottlenecking or choking is a little to dramatic. Getting a smooth 60+ fps on Doom with no slowdown and getting insane fps on just about any game made before June 26 2016.

If you play at 1080p.

Going to 4k, I highly doubt the CPU will perform at any acceptable levels and a upgrade would definitely be needed.

TLDR, 1070 great with any processor for 1080p, anything above you need a better cpu.

[Bigvizz]

In the states Best Buy is stocking the new 1070 and 1080 now, I got mine yesterday.

Using the 1070 with a AMD 8320, here is my 3d Mark score:



My initial impressions, the 1070 is probably more powerful than my CPU, lol, but its not making anything I have thrown at it unplayable, the reports of bottlenecking or choking is a little to dramatic. Getting a smooth 60+ fps on Doom with no slowdown and getting insane fps on just about any game made before June 26 2016.

If you play at 1080p.

Going to 4k, I highly doubt the CPU will perform at any acceptable levels and a upgrade would definitely be needed.

TLDR, 1070 great with any processor for 1080p, anything above you need a better cpu.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5477482 < this is what I got for comparison.
Question, why not use fire strike, that test you ran is a old 3dmark vantage which is DX10 benchmark.