# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Specifications Leaked, Inbound for Holiday 2016?



## btarunr (Sep 15, 2016)

NVIDIA is giving finishing touches to its next enthusiast-segment graphics card based on the "Pascal" architecture, the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti. Its specifications were allegedly screengrabbed by a keen-eyed enthusiast snooping around NVIDIA website, before being redacted. The specs-sheet reveals that the GTX 1080 Ti is based on the same GP102 silicon as the TITAN X Pascal, but is further cut-down from it. Given that the GTX 1080 is unflinching from its $599-$699 price-point, with some custom-design cards even being sold at over $800, the GTX 1080 Ti could either be positioned around the $850-mark, or be priced lower, disrupting currently overpriced custom GTX 1080 offerings. By pricing the TITAN X Pascal at $1200, NVIDIA appears to have given itself headroom to price the GTX 1080 Ti in a way that doesn't cannibalize premium GTX 1080 offerings.

The GTX 1080 Ti is carved out of the GP102 silicon by disabling 4 out of 30 streaming multiprocessors, resulting in 3,328 CUDA cores. The resulting TMU count is 208. The card could retain its ROP count of 96. The card will be endowed with 12 GB of GDDR5 memory across the chip's 384-bit wide memory interface, instead of GDDR5X on the TITAN X Pascal. This should yield 384 GB/s of memory bandwidth, significantly lesser than the 480 GB/s bandwidth the TITAN X Pascal enjoys, with its 10 Gbps memory chips. The GPU is clocked at 1503 MHz, with 1623 MHz GPU Boost. The card's TDP is rated at 250W, same as the TITAN X Pascal.






*GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Specifications:* 
16 nm GP102 silicon
3,328 CUDA cores
208 TMUs
96 ROPs
12 GB GDDR5 memory
384-bit GDDR5 memory interface
1503 MHz core, 1623 MHz GPU Boost
8 GHz (GDDR5-effective) memory
384 GB/s memory bandwidth
250W TDP

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## aldo5 (Sep 15, 2016)

"*GTX* *1080* is unflinching fro its $599-$*699* price-point, with some custom-design cards even being sold at over *$800*, the *GTX 1080 Ti* could either be positioned around the $*850*-mark, or be priced lower, disrupting currently overpriced custom GTX 1080 offerings. By pricing the *TITAN* X Pascal at *$1200*"

plz AMD give us Vega (and it better be decent) or else prices above will be accepted as norm and probably will see increase over that in next gen (such a ridiculous prices for gpu, that still will not be able to run 4K at 60 in fricken 2017.)


----------



## qubit (Sep 15, 2016)

Price point of $850. Right where I thought it would be and more than I'm willing to spend on a graphics card.

Judging by the TITAN X Pascal review on TPU, the performance gain won't be all that much either, especially as it's gonna be slower than the TXP.


----------



## WhyCry (Sep 15, 2016)

This was posted one month ago on reddit then -> wccf -> oc3d -> techpowerup.


----------



## R00kie (Sep 15, 2016)

Is it going to make me dinner and cuddle up with me when I cry?


----------



## Uzair101 (Sep 15, 2016)

I'd be a shame if they skip GDDR5X


----------



## BirdyNV (Sep 15, 2016)

Honestly a graphics card that is more than 500 dollars isn't really worth it IMO. (Blankets most 1080s, titans, and even the pro duo from AMD). I don't see a point for something being priced so high when a card that's half the price delivers a respectable gaming experience, yes I am strictly speaking about gaming. Beyond the fact of just having one to have it. I don't know maybe its the hardware hipster in me, but I don't think AMD or NVIDIA should continue this kind of trend. Considering you can buy a R9 Fury X for 389.99 right now, and a 1070 for just over 400. Meh.


----------



## 64K (Sep 15, 2016)

I was pretty certain Nvidia would release this GPU. They are fairly predictable with their product stack for the last couple of generations. They needed something high end besides the Titan X because there are customers that want something close to the top but just will not pay $1,200 for it. With non reference coolers it will be a beast.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 15, 2016)

If GTX 1080 goes for 800 and Titan XP for 1200, expect 1000 for GTX 1080Ti...


----------



## BirdyNV (Sep 15, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> If GTX 1080 goes for 800 and Titan XP for 1200, expect 1000 for GTX 1080Ti...


GTX 1080 a shaved down Titan XP!...GTX 1080Ti a slightly less shaved down Titan XP!!


----------



## CounterZeus (Sep 15, 2016)

Sad, they are using gddr5x for gtx1080, which yields 320GBps memory bandwidth on a bus that is way smaller.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 15, 2016)

BirdyNV said:


> GTX 1080 a shaved down Titan XP!...GTX 1080Ti a slightly less shaved down Titan XP!!



It might seem that way, but 1080 is built on an entirely different chip.


----------



## BirdyNV (Sep 15, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> It might seem that way, but 1080 is built on an entirely different chip.


Very true, but even then that chip is a shaved down version of the same chip used in the Titan XP. GP 104 vs GP 102. (not sure if those are the right images of the architecture)


----------



## qubit (Sep 15, 2016)

gdallsk said:


> Is it going to make me dinner and cuddle up with me when I cry?


Yes.



BirdyNV said:


> Very true, but even then that chip is a shaved down version of the same chip used in the Titan XP. GP 104 vs GP 102. (not sure if those are the right images of the architecture)


It might seem that way, but rtwjunkie is right, it's not a big chip with bits disabled, but a physically smaller chip with nothing missing on GP104.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Sep 15, 2016)

LOL not the least bit surprising. the fe will go for 900$ imo and its msrp will probably be 800$


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 15, 2016)

qubit said:


> Price point of $850. Right where I thought it would be and more than I'm willing to spend on a graphics card.
> 
> Judging by the TITAN X Pascal review on TPU, the performance gain won't be all that much either, especially as it's gonna be slower than the TXP.


just like we discussed in the MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X review thread  a TXP is not far ahead from a decently OC'ed 1080 so the Ti will be in the middle the 1080 will be able to reach and surpass it (ofc a Ti will be OC'able too but ... to what extent? ) and the Ti will be overpriced no matter what.

bottom line?

you want a 1080? get a 1070 and OC it later ... it's sufficient for now (up to 1440p ) for me it translate into a ~400chf price reduction

you want a 1080Ti? get a 1080 and OC it later ... it's sufficient for now (up to 4k if not too hardcore on settings ... come on ... FXAA/MSAA/TXAA are not needed for it  ) it would have been a ~200chf price reduction

you want a Titan X Pascal? think again .... or get a 1080 and OC it ... or wait the 1080Ti and OC it but the price reduction would not be really worth it ... IF ..., a big *IF*,  the MSRP would be respected ... pfahahahaha, at MSRP that would be a ~200chf price reduction (out of MSRP : 50 to 100chf price reduction i bet ...  )



$ReaPeR$ said:


> LOL not the least bit surprising. the fe will go for 900$ imo and its msrp will probably be 800$


nah ... 800$ MSRP maybe ... but 1000+ price ... pfahahaha (country dependent ... ofc )
TXP are 1400-1500chf  where i am (1541.17$ opposed to 1200$ ) unless nvidia store ...


----------



## BirdyNV (Sep 15, 2016)

qubit said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> It might seem that way, but rtwjunkie is right, it's not a big chip with bits disabled, but a physically smaller chip with nothing missing on GP104.


True...


----------



## R00kie (Sep 15, 2016)

qubit said:


> Yes.



It better, for a price like that


----------



## BirdyNV (Sep 15, 2016)

BirdyNV said:


> True...


I guess we will see. If it doesn't provide any benefit over a 1080 then it will flop :\


----------



## Outback Bronze (Sep 15, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> just like we discussed in the MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X review thread  a TXP is not far from a decently OC'ed 1080 so the Ti will be in the middle the 1080 will be able to reach and surpass it (ofc a Ti will be OC'able too but ... to what extent? ) and the Ti will be overpriced no matter what.
> 
> bottom line?
> 
> ...



This is exactly why I chose GTX1070 Sli. Should beat just about anything with value to boot.

When I purchased a GTX 980 a while back, I thought what a sweet card. Then the GTX 970 comes out at pretty much half the price with almost same performance and then a couple of months later a 980 Ti comes out.

This combination of released NVidia GPU's made my card pretty much obsolete overnight.

I didn't want the same issue to happen again so played it safe...


----------



## xorbe (Sep 15, 2016)

month old rumor source


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 15, 2016)

I don't believe for a second a 1080 ti wouldn't use GDDR5X, when the 1080 does.  Bogus info all round methinks and as people are saying, TPU doing some regurgitating.

A 1080 ti has no place in the market until Vega arrives.   Even then, I don't believe anyone would actually pay for a middle ground between a 1080 and a Titan X.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 15, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> If GTX 1080 goes for 800 and Titan XP for 1200, expect 1000 for GTX 1080Ti...


True. And still there are some people considering those prices norm for a gods damn video card!


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 15, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> I don't believe for a second a 1080 ti wouldn't use GDDR5X, when the 1080 does.  Bogus info all round methinks and as people are saying, TPU doing some regurgitating.
> 
> A 1080 ti has no place in the market until Vega arrives.   Even then, I don't believe anyone would actually pay for a middle ground between a 1080 and a Titan X.


It does seem a bit ridiculous, however they maybe assuming since it has the bigger bus its not necessary and that's how they keep the cost down.  I would find it ridiculous as well, but this would not completely surprise me if its true.

That being said, way to early to judge.

If this does turn out to be true, well it will still be a decent card just not as great as people had hoped.


----------



## efikkan (Sep 15, 2016)

"GTX 1080 Ti" is scheduled for Q4. It will probably perform ~30% over GTX 1080 or better.



aldo5 said:


> plz AMD give us Vulcan (and it better be decent) or else prices above will be accepted as norm and probably will see increase over that in next gen (such a ridiculous prices for gpu, that still will not be able to run 4K at 60 in fricken 2017.)


Do you mean Vega? Coming in March or later…



BirdyNV said:


> Very true, but even then that chip is a shaved down version of the same chip used in the Titan XP. GP 104 vs GP 102. (not sure if those are the right images of the architecture)


GTX 1080 is using GP104 which is a scaled down Pascal architecture, not a shaved down chip.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 15, 2016)

GhostRyder said:


> It does seem a bit ridiculous, however they maybe assuming since it has the bigger bus its not necessary and that's how they keep the cost down.  I would find it ridiculous as well, but this would not completely surprise me if its true.
> 
> That being said, way to early to judge.
> 
> If this does turn out to be true, well it will still be a decent card just not as great as people had hoped.


looking at your syspecs i wonder about clock speed ... you write 2025 but it's totally not that  it's like for me to write 2100 while the core is actually 1700, i wish people would drop max boost clock and use the regular clock 

other than that, enjoying your TXP? (i hope so ... it's still "THE beast" of the actual lineup )



efikkan said:


> "GTX 1080 Ti" is scheduled for Q4. It will probably perform ~30% over GTX 1080 or better.


aherm ... ~30% over a 1080 is already what a TXP give .... soooo ... sure?

since the TXP is not "way" ahead a 1080 ...

although the 780Ti and 980Ti did also made Titan and Titan X owner sad because they where so close, and even above in some case involving a better OC'ability, for a "fraction" of the price (not for me ... most Ti were priced like a Titan counterpart ... at my retailer/etailer nonetheless )


----------



## efikkan (Sep 15, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> aherm ... ~30% over a 1080 is already what a TXP give .... soooo ... sure?
> 
> since the TXP is not "way" ahead a 1080 ...


Titan X (Pascal) performs 35% over GTX 1080 when placed in a closed case and pre-warming benchmarks, which most benchmarkers don't do.


----------



## GhostRyder (Sep 15, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> looking at your syspecs i wonder about clock speed ... you write 2025 but it's totally not that  it's like for me to write 2100 while the core is actually 1700, i wish people would drop max boost clock and use the regular clock
> 
> other than that, enjoying your TXP? (i hope so ... it's still "THE beast" of the actual lineup )
> 
> ...


Well, thats what the boost is telling me it does when overclocked .  Normally though even around there it hovers around 1950mhz, I am more displaying its max boost it shows on the MSI graph while playing.

Yea I am enjoying it, great card with very little issues to speak of with it.  Will be water cooling it soon enough but I am waiting until I first get the G-Sync monitor and then decide if I want a second one since I don't want to rebuild the GPU part of the loop twice.

Its going to be probably around 20-25% better than the GTX 1080 based on the leaks if we believe them completely.


----------



## qubit (Sep 15, 2016)

WhyCry said:


> *This was posted one month ago on reddit* then -> wccf -> oc3d -> techpowerup.


Really? Got a link for it?


----------



## 64K (Sep 15, 2016)

History is pretty much repeating itself here.

Maxwell Titan X was 24% faster than a 980 at 4K and 23% faster than a 980 at 1440p



Spoiler: Maxwell















Pascal Titan X is 24% faster overall than a 1080 at 4K and 21% faster overall than a 1080 at 1440p



Spoiler: Pascal














There is room for a 1080 Ti

I expect a non reference factory overclocked 1080 Ti to be a little slower than a reference Pascal Titan X but faster than a non reference 1080. Pretty much the same story as the Maxwell Titan X , 980 Ti, 980.

Whether it's worth the $$$ over the 1080 is unknown yet.


----------



## Slizzo (Sep 15, 2016)

GhostRyder said:


> It does seem a bit ridiculous, however they maybe assuming since it has the bigger bus its not necessary and that's how they keep the cost down.  I would find it ridiculous as well, but this would not completely surprise me if its true.
> 
> That being said, way to early to judge.
> 
> If this does turn out to be true, well it will still be a decent card just not as great as people had hoped.



It makes no real sense. Major sticking point for GDDR5X existing, is that it doesn't cost a great deal more than traditional GDDR5, while allowing greatly increased bandwidth. I'm not even sure that GP102 has a GDDR5 memory controller anyway, I thought it only has a GDDR5X memory controller.


----------



## Ascalaphus (Sep 15, 2016)

Yeah. Odd that they would be using GDDR5 instead of GDDR5X. Could it be cost??


----------



## efikkan (Sep 15, 2016)

Ascalaphus said:


> Yeah. Odd that they would be using GDDR5 instead of GDDR5X. Could it be cost??


If true, it's simply because it doesn't need more bandwidth.


----------



## chodaboy19 (Sep 15, 2016)

It's a fake as others have pointed out.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 15, 2016)

GhostRyder said:


> Its going to be probably around 20-25% better than the GTX 1080 based on the leaks if we believe them completely.


which would place it directly on a TXP performances ... meeeeehhhh bummer.

(sooo my 1070 clock better than that TXP, max boost 2100 sustained boost 2078, although OC not needed at all 1556 is fine 1700 is for benchies only   )




efikkan said:


> Titan X (Pascal) performs 35% over GTX 1080 when placed in a closed case and pre-warming benchmarks, which most benchmarkers don't do.



well ... nope number say otherwise although (and case to case scenario are not optimal for review soooo basically : it's like that )



64K said:


> History is pretty much repeating itself here.
> 
> Maxwell Titan X was 24% faster than a 980 at 4K and 23% faster than a 980 at 1440p
> 
> ...



room? is 24% and 23% enough to place one Ti in between that? that card will be redundant to a factory OC 1080 or a stock TXP (well ... my 980 was fine ... a 980Ti would not have been a significant upgrade so then i would only have considered the Titan X if the price would've been nicer  )
although yep that's what nvidia will do ... "f*ck up" early TXP adopter with a XX80Ti


----------



## BiggieShady (Sep 15, 2016)

64K said:


> Maxwell Titan X was 24% faster than a 980 at 4K and 23% faster than a 980 at 1440p


If Titan X is 100% and 980 is 76%, it is 100/76=1.315789... which is approximately 31.58 % faster (not 24 % by simple subtraction, these are ratios - subtraction is bad m'kay)


----------



## 64K (Sep 15, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> room? is 24% and 23% enough to place one Ti in between that? that card will be redundant to a factory OC 1080 or a stock TXP (well ... my 980 was fine ... a 980Ti would not have been a significant upgrade so then i would only have considered the Titan X if the price would've been nicer  )
> although yep that's what nvidia will do ... "f*ck up" early TXP adopter with a XX80Ti



The difference in overall performance between the Maxwell Titan X and the 980 warranted the release of a 980 Ti for a lot less than a Titan X. Note the 980 Ti had 6 GB VRAM over the 980 4 GB. 50% more VRAM.

The difference between the Pascal Titan X and a 1080 in overall performance is nearly the same so why not a 1080 Ti that will be close the the performance of a Titan X for a lot less money? Note the 1080 Ti will have 12 GB VRAM over the 1080 8 GB. The same 50% more VRAM for those that need it..

It's when you look at the small difference in performance between a manufacturer overclocked non reference 1080 Ti compared to a reference Titan X for the much cheaper 1080 Ti that I can see it making some sense. You can still overclock both also so they should remain about the same difference in performance if you do that to both.


----------



## 64K (Sep 15, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> If Titan X is 100% and 980 is 76%, it is 100/76=1.315789... which is approximately 31.58 % faster (not 24 % by simple subtraction, these are ratios - subtraction is bad m'kay)



No, the Titan X is 24% faster than the 1080 in that example. What you are thinking of is how much faster would the 1080 have to be to equal the Titan X. 76% x .3158 +76%= 100% so the 1080 would have to be 31.58% faster than it is to equal the Titan X.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 15, 2016)

64K said:


> so why not a 1080 Ti that will be close the the performance of a Titan X for a lot less money?



actually .... nope ... the Ti will be just 200$ under the TXP which is not by any mean "a lot less" nor "much cheaper" more realistically as i saw more 980Ti priced closer, even above sometime, a TXM, i can take a wild guess that the TI will be 100 to 50$ cheaper at consumer level.

i don't care about RAM and performances on that level, only the pricing make it wrong (and i am glad that i got a custom 1070 for 415chf ... )

overpriced is the qualificatif for the 1080/1080Ti/TXP indeed, only some 1070 are priced almost correctly ... thanks to nvidia and the idiotic FE pricing placement at a premium over MSRP (while they are nothing desirable nor have anything to value over a custom so ... logically the FE price became the MSRP )



64K said:


> No, the Titan X is 24% faster than the 1080 in that example. What you are thinking of is how much faster would the 1080 have to be to equal the Titan X. 76% x .3158 +76%= 100% so the 1080 would have to be 31.58% faster than it is to equal the Titan X.


i think he mean the rule of 3 .... but i am not sure myself ... tho it still give me right on my affirmation where i said the TXP already gave us ~30% more on a 1080 so if the Ti would be 30% faster ... it would also be redundant to a TXP, if lower ... then not really worth it over a 1080 (IF THE MSRP WAS RESPECTED  ) ok ... +4gb RAM for the elite that run a tri4K setup ... (but will still stutter like mad (joking))

out.


----------



## 64K (Sep 15, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> actually .... nope ... the Ti will be just 200$ under the TXP which is not by any mean "a lot less" nor "much cheaper" more realistically as i saw more 980Ti priced closer, even above sometime, a TXM, i can take a wild guess that the TI will be 100 to 50$ cheaper at consumer level.
> 
> i don't care about RAM and performances on that level, only the pricing make it wrong (and i am glad that i got a custom 1070 for 415chf ... )
> 
> overpriced is the qualificatif for the 1080/1080Ti/TXP indeed, only some 1070 are priced almost correctly ... thanks to nvidia and the idiotic FE pricing placement at a premium over MSRP (while they are nothing desirable nor have anything to value over a custom so ... logically the FE price became the MSRP for the AIB )



I don't care about 12 GB VRAM either but some people do for whatever reason they need more than 8 GB.

Price isn't known for sure right now but if it is $850 as the article here speculates, and that seems right, then that is $350 cheaper than a Titan X here. The difference in other countries will probably be different so it may be not be so much. Maybe $350 isn't a lot but it certainly is significant if the performance turns out to be close to the Pascal Titan X as the 980 Ti was close to the Maxwell Titan X.

But, yeah from my point of view the 1080 and Titan X are overpriced and the 1080 Ti will be as well. Competition from AMD is badly needed.


----------



## BiggieShady (Sep 15, 2016)

64K said:


> No, the Titan X is 24% faster than the 1080 in that example. What you are thinking of is how much faster would the 1080 have to be to equal the Titan X. 76% x .3158 +76%= 100% so the 1080 would have to be 31.58% faster than it is to equal the Titan X.


Really? Didn't you write yourself:


64K said:


> Maxwell Titan X was *24%* faster than a 980 at 4K and *23%* faster than a 980 at 1440p





64K said:


> Pascal Titan X is *24%* faster overall than a 1080 at 4K and *21%* faster overall than a 1080 at 1440p


And the graph says:


> TitanX: *100*, 980: *76* at 4k
> TitanXP: *100*, 1080: *76* at 4k


and


> TitanX: *100*, 980: *77* at 1440p
> TitanXP: *100*, 1080: *79 *at 1440p


Your numbers are wrong, they should be in the thirties or so ... like this:

Maxwell Titan X was 32% faster than a 980 at 4K and 30% faster than a 980 at 1440p
Pascal Titan X is 32% faster overall than a 1080 at 4K and 26,6% faster overall than a 1080 at 1440p

If Titan X were 24% faster than 980 in 4k, that would mean 76 * 1.24 would have to be 100, and it's not .. it's 94.24

Also, saying "1080 would have to be 31.58% faster than it is to equal the Titan X" is same as saying "Titan X is 31.58% faster than 1080"


----------



## fynxer (Sep 15, 2016)

No way i am investing in a further cut down GP102 with only GDDR5. Nvidia is fu**ing us over again. Nvidia knows there is no alternative until VEGA in 2017 so they figured why not do a half baked card and squeeze some quick money out of some unsuspecting morons before x-mas and VEGA in 2017.

Do not buy this card, you will be disappointed, within 6-8 months Nvidia will release a more powerful card to counter VEGA.

If VEGA turns out to be a powerful monster you will either see an GP102+ with all cuda cores at 14nm OR a first introduction of Volta for gaming.

The key here is AMD's VEGA, if AMD screws up VEGA then we are all fu**ed. Nvidia will halt the release of any new cards and delay Volta for gaming to around Q3 2018


----------



## 64K (Sep 15, 2016)

fynxer said:


> No way i am investing in a further cut down GP102 with only GDDR5. Nvidia is fu**ing us over again. Nvidia knows there is no alternative until VEGA in 2017 so they figured why not do a half baked card and squeeze some quick money out of some unsuspecting morons before x-mas and VEGA in 2017.
> 
> Do not buy this card, you will be disappointed, within 6-8 months Nvidia will release a more powerful card to counter VEGA.
> 
> ...



I doubt Vega will disappoint next year but then Nvidia releases Volta months later and off we go again chasing expensive Nvidia cards.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Sep 15, 2016)

.......as we squabble and debate price, necessity, performance.........Nvdia:





                                                                       &




especially if Amd takes the two "reasonable" cards to beat one approach again.....


----------



## 64K (Sep 15, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> Really? Didn't you write yourself:
> 
> 
> And the graph says:
> ...



It depends on how the word problem is worded.

If you ask how much faster is the Titan X than the 1080 then the answer is 100% - 76% = 24% so the Titan X is 24% faster than the 1080.

If you ask how much faster would the 1080 have to be to match the performance of the Titan X then the answer is:

Let N = the percent needed to be as fast as the Titan X

(76% x N) +76% = 100%
(76% x N) +76% - 76% = 100% - 76%
(76% x N) = 24%
(76% x N) / 76% = 24% / 76%
N = 31.578 ~ 32%

So the answer to that question is that the 1080 would have to be ~32% faster than it is to equal the Titan X but my statement that the Titan X is 24% faster than the 1080 is correct.


----------



## BiggieShady (Sep 15, 2016)

64K said:


> If you ask how much faster is the Titan X than the 1080 then the answer is 100% - 76% = 24% so the Titan X is 24% faster than the 1080.


Sorry, it doesn't work that way. It cannot be interpreted as both, your second calculation is the correct one.
The source of all data is number of frames per second. If one card gets 100 fps and another 76 fps ... that data would produce 100% and 76% in percentages (normalized for faster card as in the graphs) ... you cant say one is 24% faster just because difference is 24. As you see 100fps/76fps=1.31578


----------



## 64K (Sep 15, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> Sorry, it doesn't work that way. It cannot be interpreted as both, your second calculation is the correct one.
> The source of all data is number of frames per second. If one card gets 100 fps and another 76 fps ... you cant say one is 24% faster just because difference is 24 ... that data would produce 100% and 76% in percentages.



It's not interpreted as both. They are two separate questions. 

What you are looking at is "How much faster would the 1080 have to be to equal the Titan X" and what I was saying was looking at it from an entirely different direction. "How much faster is the Titan X than the 1080."

But, this is pretty much off topic so I will just say that you are right and I am wrong and we can put aside the math misunderstanding.


----------



## BiggieShady (Sep 15, 2016)

64K said:


> But, this is pretty much off topic so I will just say that you are right and I am wrong and we can put aside the math misunderstanding.


Yeah we shouldn't, but it's funny how what you consider two separate questions "How much faster would the 1080 have to be to equal the Titan X" and "How much faster is the Titan X than the 1080.", math considers completely the same thing. As in no difference ... 
I'm not usually finicky about stuff, must be some childhood education trauma surfacing


----------



## HammerON (Sep 15, 2016)

I find the possible lack of GDDR5X memory disappointing if in fact it is true.  We will just have to wait until it comes out and is reviewed by W1z to see how well it performs...


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 15, 2016)

As an Nvidia owner since the original Titan, if the 1080ti comes in at anywhere above the current 1080 price, I'll buy a fucking PS4. 

Even I am getting sick and tired of this. Think I'll move in with @RejZoR. Vega better deliver or the pricing structures will be horrendous. And even then, AMD aren't guaranteed to price Vega at a point we need.

£800 Founder Edition 1080ti? Drop dead.


----------



## Dave65 (Sep 15, 2016)

I'm snug as a bug in a rug with my Gigabyte G1 1070


----------



## Hood (Sep 15, 2016)

BirdyNV said:


> Honestly a graphics card that is more than 500 dollars isn't really worth it IMO. (Blankets most 1080s, titans, and even the pro duo from AMD). I don't see a point for something being priced so high when a card that's half the price delivers a respectable gaming experience, yes I am strictly speaking about gaming. Beyond the fact of just having one to have it. I don't know maybe its the hardware hipster in me, but I don't think AMD or NVIDIA should continue this kind of trend. Considering you can buy a R9 Fury X for 389.99 right now, and a 1070 for just over 400. Meh.


I agree for the most part, but let's not forget 4K gaming - the TXP and now the more reasonable 1080 Ti are the only single card solution available that can handle 4k 60Hz playing the more demanding titles.  I believe that most people would rather skip 4K if it means running 2 cards in XFire or SLI and all of those possible problems, driver issues, and cooling issues.  Right now there is no $500 card that will run a 4K monitor at decent frame and refresh rates, so what can you do but wait for a card like the 1080 Ti, although prices won't come down until the GTX 1180 is released (which will be even more capable at 4K and probably the same price as 1080).  Either way, 4K will become as affordable as 1440p is now, maybe sooner than you think.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Sep 15, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> just like we discussed in the MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X review thread  a TXP is not far ahead from a decently OC'ed 1080 so the Ti will be in the middle the 1080 will be able to reach and surpass it (ofc a Ti will be OC'able too but ... to what extent? ) and the Ti will be overpriced no matter what.
> 
> bottom line?
> 
> ...


that's what i said, 800$ MSRP and a 900$ founders edition.. but yeah, as for the price it will probably be around the 1000$ mark, and above it for europe.


----------



## BlueFalcon (Sep 15, 2016)

64K said:


> It's not interpreted as both. They are two separate questions.
> 
> What you are looking at is "How much faster would the 1080 have to be to equal the Titan X" and what I was saying was looking at it from an entirely different direction. "How much faster is the Titan X than the 1080."



You are incorrect. If we assume Titan X's 100% = 100 fps, and 1080's 76% = 76 fps, then:

1) How much faster is the Titan X's performance compared to the GTX 1080?

Titan X = New, GTX 1080 = Old/Base, formula is (New - Base) / Base x 100% = (100 - 76) / 76 x 100% = 31.58% faster. As was outlined above by an astute member, the shortcut approach is simply 100%/76% = 31.58% greater. You absolutely cannot subtract percentages as you have done since the videocards are represented relative to each other's in terms of their performance. What this means in mathematics is that GTX1080 achieves 76% of the performance of the Titan X @ 100%.

2) How much slower is the GTX1080's performance compared to the Titan X?

GTX 1080 = New, Titan X = Base, (New - Base) / Base x 100% = (76 - 100) / 100 x 100% = - 24% or 24% slower than the Titan X.

Since the discussion is centered on how much faster the GTX1080Ti/Titan X are relative to the GTX 1080, the formula in the first example is the correct one to use.

------------

Yet another overpriced NV card due to lack of competition this generation. Even if NV released the 1080Ti with the exact same specs of the Titan X for $799-899, it would still be a rip-off because a cut-down Titan X is more in-line with historical 2nd tier flagship $349-399 GPUs aka GeForce 4400, 5900XT, 6800GT, 8800GTS 512MB, GTX275, GTX570. Since Kepler, NV has doubled the prices for each GPU tier and used marketing names to obfuscate the true hierarchy of GPUs. AMD cannot compete which creates a market situation where PC gamers who want cutting edge 1440p 144-165Hz, 3440x1440 or 4K gaming need high-end GPUs. NV is simply taking advantage of the market as these gamers will continue purchasing the cards anyway. In slightly more than a year the $650 Fury X and GTX980Ti have dropped to $360-390 on Newegg and GTX1070 can be had for $400. A $450 GTX1070 successor should be a better card than the 1080Ti for about half the price. 

High-end cards now are aimed strictly at consumers for whom gaming is their #1 hobby and/or inelastic high-income earners who will buy a GTX1080Ti even if it cost $999+. On the positive side, for the vast majority of PC gamers who are still using console 1080p resolution, there is no need to buy anything faster than a $400 GTX1070 this generation. As usual, future-proofing with an $800 1080Ti or a $1200 Titan X will prove to be a waste of time and $ as we have already seen with the GTX580/780Ti/980Ti generations. Future proofing on the high-end never works well.


----------



## qubit (Sep 15, 2016)

Looking properly at the block diagram, I can see just how much the GPU has been crippled - ugh.  It's barely wider than the GP104. I reckon this card will perform 10-20% better than the GTX 1080, tops. Seems hardly worth it and that 12GB RAM will be overkill for the GPU performance, yet add significantly to the cost. Not convinced that memory type will be only GDDR5 and not GDDR5X as on the GTX 1080 though.

Come on AMD, compete properly with NVIDIA to bring prices down and performance up.


----------



## Ungari (Sep 15, 2016)

The big question is:

"How much will the Paxwell 1080Ti sell for on the Used Card market when Volta comes out?".


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 16, 2016)

Where are you crybabies?

I said the 1080 Ti would have GDDR5 and it does!

Deal with it!


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 16, 2016)

Ungari said:


> The big question is:
> 
> "How much will the Paxwell 1080Ti sell for on the Used Card market when Volta comes out?".



The same answer for Nvidia cards as always:  Too much.

You can get used 7970's on ebay for $100.    Yet 680's sell for $150 while offering 2/3rd's the performance.


----------



## qubit (Sep 16, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> You can get used 7970's on ebay for $100. Yet 680's sell for $150 while offering 2/3rd's the performance.


That's because NVIDIA is better. 

3... 2... 1... I get accused of being an NVIDIA fanboy.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 16, 2016)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> that's what i said, 800$ MSRP and a 900$ founders edition.. but yeah, as for the price it will probably be around the 1000$ mark, and above it for europe.




Yeah I am guessing $800 - $900.  Due to GDDR5 it might actually cost the same to make as the 1080 since it has GDDR5X.  So I wouldn't be surprised if they priced it at $800 to get people to pay more for the 1080 Ti.

Same as before - the 980 and Titan X prices were placed to get people to buy the 980 Ti.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 16, 2016)

qubit said:


> That's because NVIDIA is better.



Hahaha good joke.  I love that the 680 is vastly weaker than the 7970, and yet people bought it because it is "The Way It's Meant to be Played".


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 16, 2016)

Dave65 said:


> I'm snug as a bug in a rug with my Gigabyte G1 1070



I'm extra snug with my stronger Fury I paid $310 for.


----------



## qubit (Sep 16, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Hahaha good joke.  I love that the 680 is vastly weaker than the 7970, and yet people bought it because it is "The Way It's Meant to be Played".


Not quite a joke. There's other things besides raw framerate, such as fan noise, heat, drivers, features etc.

For example, I had a HD 4870 in 2009 and was quite pleased with it overall. I then got the legendary 8800 GTX used for about £60 to play with. It was certainly slower at rendering frames, but the games still felt more fluid many times. I couldn't believe it. I then realized why NVIDIA cards usually cost more. They're just better.

That 4870 soon found itself on eBay and I then became the proud owner of a GTX 285 which felt like the 8800 GTX on steroids. Never looked back since and had very few problems with the various NVIDIA cards I have bought since.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 16, 2016)

qubit said:


> Not quite a joke. There's other things besides raw framerate, such as fan noise, heat, drivers, features etc.
> 
> For example, I had a HD 4870 in 2009 and was quite pleased with it overall. I then got the legendary 8800 GTX used for about £60 to play with. It was certainly slower at rendering frames, but the games still felt more fluid many times. I couldn't believe it. I then realized why NVIDIA cards usually cost more. They're just better.
> 
> That 4870 soon found itself on eBay and I then became the proud owner of a GTX 285 which felt like the 8800 GTX on steroids. Never looked back since and had very few problems with the various NVIDIA cards I have bought since.



Haha ok buddy tell yourself whatever.


I can't speak for cards from 10 years ago, but I can say that if you look at Deus Ex: MD DX12 benchmarks the GTX 1070 is trading blows with the 480 while having the same frametimes.  Not only that but GTX cards almost always fall apart in performance after 1 year, they can't use Freesync, and they lack basic features like 10-bit color.

In 2016 Nvidia just flat out doesn't make good cards.  It's funny because I used to own Nvidia cards, but I cannot with good conscience recommend them to anyone anymore.  I have a lot of friends building right now, and they have all come to the same conclusion:  Nvidia cards age like potatoes and they can't use any of the monitors I want.


----------



## HammerON (Sep 16, 2016)

I think we are getting off topic here a bit.  Please keep on topic.


----------



## qubit (Sep 16, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> *Haha ok buddy tell yourself whatever.*
> 
> 
> I can't speak for cards from 10 years ago, but I can say that if you look at Deus Ex: MD DX12 benchmarks the GTX 1070 is trading blows with the 480 while having the same frametimes.  Not only that but GTX cards almost always fall apart in performance after 1 year, they can't use Freesync, and they lack basic features like 10-bit color.
> ...


I'm not "telling myself" anything. Or do you think I just lied about my experience? I found that NVIDIA worked better so switched sides. What's so hard to understand?

"In 2016 Nvidia just flat out doesn't make good cards." Garbage. Now you sound like an AMD fanboy. Have you read the graphics card reviews on TPU this year? NVIDIA consistently outperform AMD in framerates and other ways. AMD's best now has only about half the framerate performance of a GTX 1080 and consumes a lot of power doing it, too. It's just embarrassing. Let's hope the next gen makes a significant improvement and gives NVIDIA some competition, eh?

I've run up quite a few of my old NVIDIA cards and they continue to work very well. None of this "falling apart" that you claim. Sure, framerate lacks sometimes and they can't show as much detail due to a smaller video memory, but that's to be expected from any card as technology moves on.

What's this about 10-bit colour? What game uses it? What monitor supports it? Not the high framerate gaming ones, that's for sure. Give me some evidence for this point and I'll take you seriously.

Finally, I agree it would be great if NVIDIA would adhere to an open adaptive sync standard, but proprietary lock-in is the nature of competition sometimes and I don't like it either. 

@HammerON Just seen your comment after I posted. Happy to leave it here.


----------



## Kissamies (Sep 16, 2016)

Nah, my 780Ti rocks just fine.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 16, 2016)

9700 Pro said:


> Nah, my 780Ti rocks just fine.


Yeah, for 1080p is perfect.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 16, 2016)

qubit said:


> I'm not "telling myself" anything. Or do you think I just lied about my experience? I found that NVIDIA worked better so switched sides. What's so hard to understand?
> 
> "In 2016 Nvidia just flat out doesn't make good cards." Garbage. Now you sound like an AMD fanboy.



No more than you did with your comment lol.  You haven't looked at benchmarks of the latest games have you?


----------



## ppn (Sep 16, 2016)

GTX 770 7GBps. and GTX 780 6GBps memory, 
GTX 1080 10GBps, 1080 Ti 8GBps. See lower memory clock, higher end card.

Makes sense. Next year 1080 could very well end up being 1170,  1080Ti to  be re branded as 1180.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 16, 2016)

ppn said:


> Makes sense. Next year 1080 could very well end up being 1170, 1080Ti to be re branded as 1180.



Actually, that's how Nvidia cards have been working for the past 4 generations.  Next year's 1170 will beat a 1080, and so on.  

Their cards are beaten in next generation by the model occupying one step down.


----------



## Nima (Sep 16, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Haha ok buddy tell yourself whatever.
> 
> 
> I can't speak for cards from 10 years ago, but I can say that if you look at Deus Ex: MD DX12 benchmarks the GTX 1070 is trading blows with the 480 while having the same frametimes.  Not only that but GTX cards almost always fall apart in performance after 1 year, they can't use Freesync, and they lack basic features like 10-bit color.
> ...



This is a benchmark comparing GTX 1070 with Fury X and RX 480 in Deus Ex: MD DX12 .
http://techreport.com/review/30639/...x-12-performance-in-deus-ex-mankind-divided/3

Where do you see 480 trading blows with 1070?


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Sep 16, 2016)

This appears to be fake...Hibert from Guru3d said:

_** UPDATE, after further examination of the screenshot (click the thumbnail at the bottom), we think it was tempered with, this information looks to be FAKE as far as I can tell. Look at the 3328 CUDA cores in the screenshot, you'll notice that 28 is placed lower in there compared to 33._

So no reliable information about 1080Ti just yet_ _


----------



## qubit (Sep 16, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> No more than you did with your comment lol.  You haven't looked at benchmarks of the latest games have you?


This is off topic, so take it to pm if you really want to continue arguing about this. And you'll have to properly address my points too, not just give me a half baked reply like this one.


----------



## Dethroy (Sep 16, 2016)

The entire current generation is boring me to death. Don't have high hopes for Vega as well.
I imploringly hope Volta and Navi won't disappoint.


----------



## MustSeeMelons (Sep 16, 2016)

The pricing makes me sick.. Can we please boycott Nvidia?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Sep 16, 2016)

Heh. Such drama over products no one is forced to buy.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Sep 16, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Yeah I am guessing $800 - $900.  Due to GDDR5 it might actually cost the same to make as the 1080 since it has GDDR5X.  So I wouldn't be surprised if they priced it at $800 to get people to pay more for the 1080 Ti.
> 
> Same as before - the 980 and Titan X prices were placed to get people to buy the 980 Ti.



well, yes indeed. with no competition they are raping the consumer with every chance they get.



MustSeeMelons said:


> The pricing makes me sick.. Can we please boycott Nvidia?



LOL, i said the same thing some time ago. hell will freeze over before people do that, sadly.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 16, 2016)

MustSeeMelons said:


> The pricing makes me sick.. Can we please boycott Nvidia?



It's not a boycott.  You simply don't buy the products they price so high - it's called financial sense.  If I had a lot more money, I would have already bought a Titan XP and a Broadwell 10 core chip.  I can afford but the margin of cost is encroaching silly levels at the top end.



Fluffmeister said:


> Heh. Such drama over products no one is forced to buy.



Yeah.  I don't like the pricing one bit, it does annoy me but ultimately, it's a product I don't need and hence, I 'll save my cash for now.  That and the fact we KNOW a higher functioning Vega card will do very well in appropriate scenarios so Nvidia will release Volta as soon as possible and that WILL have the DX12 hardware.  I won't lie - I am again waiting for AMD's next card (which I have been doing for some years now) but I have a bad feeling it wont be the card I buy next because it wont be the best card to buy.  Just like before.


----------



## Parn (Sep 16, 2016)

The prices are getting ridiculous. 

Sincerely hope AMD delivers Vega on time and its performance on par with the hype.


----------



## Ungari (Sep 16, 2016)

Dethroy said:


> Don't have high hopes for Vega as well.



Why not?
Polaris pushed forward the performance envelope at the low to mid range market and is ready for the new APIs.
Vega will only be better as it is geared for high end enthusiast market.


----------



## 64K (Sep 16, 2016)

I agree with the members that simply say don't buy the 1080 Ti if you feel the price is too high. As far as most companies are concerned "money talks and bullshit walks" so speak the language that companies understand and just don't buy it. It's not even a question of if it's affordable or not. It will be affordable to a lot of people but is it worth the $$$ to you or would a 1080 be enough for what you want as far as eye-candy and what FPS you are comfortable with at your resolution assuming you want an upgrade right now.

I've already decided that I have enough GPU for my gaming needs for now and wait on Volta and Navi and by then we should have a better idea what will be required for the average DX12 game.


----------



## ratirt (Sep 16, 2016)

Well the only truth is that games are developing way more faster in terms of details and performance demands but can't say similar for GPU's developing fast enough to deliver proper performance in a reasonable price range :/ Too bad 




64K said:


> I agree with the members that simply say don't buy the 1080 Ti if you feel the price is too high. As far as most companies are concerned "money talks and bullshit walks" so speak the language that companies understand and just don't buy it. It's not even a question of if it's affordable or not. It will be affordable to a lot of people but is it worth the $$$ to you or would a 1080 be enough for what you want as far as eye-candy and what FPS you are comfortable with at your resolution assuming you want an upgrade right now.
> 
> I've already decided that I have enough GPU for my gaming needs for now and wait on Volta and Navi and by then we should have a better idea what will be required for the average DX12 game.



Your comfortable resolution? None of the cards is able to deliver 60fps in all the games at 4k I f that's somebody's comfy res. Not talking about chess master since that most will manage. Games are developing so fast while cards don't. Buying titan xp for 1200$ or 1080 or TI makes no sense for me. Those are already down 60FPS in new games. What about those to come? even worse.
Blame it on 4k possibility or bad performance of cards. At least what I see, AMD marks their products at a price range affordable for most users. Hope Vega will kill Nvidia in some point with their attitude. Even though I've never had an AMD card i'd love to try it and maybe save some cash. GO AMD


----------



## 64K (Sep 16, 2016)

ratirt said:


> Your comfortable resolution? None of the cards is able to deliver 60fps in all the games at 4k I f that's somebody's comfy res.



True. There are a small handful of games that even a single Titan X can't max at 4K with average 60 FPS whether from being very demanding or poorly optimized and there will probably be a few more before Volta and Navi. When you look at maxing every single game at 4K 60 FPS it's time to look at SLI/Crossfire.

Like I said in my post that you quoted the " FPS that you are comfortable with."


----------



## ratirt (Sep 16, 2016)

I don't think SLI/Xfire is a solution over here. Most new games take no benefit from SLI nor Xfire. actually in some titles the performance is worse than on a single GPU. Besides we could see the approach of multi GPU back in the days and there were always problems with it. I don't think that moving for multi gpu is a great idea. Besides nobody knows if future games will support Multi GPU. Coding game for Multi GPU takes time and money and companies producing games will try to avoid spending additional money for that. especially if they know that multi GPU users is rather a few % of the Video card market. Also getting a 2x1080 for 4k games is rather stupid. Not mentioning most players can't afford it or simply won't buy it anyway. So companies are going to skip multi GPU coding. What I really see valuable is API like Vulcan. That really kicks things up a notch in FPS count


----------



## MustSeeMelons (Sep 16, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> It's not a boycott. You simply don't buy the products they price so high - it's called financial sense. If I had a lot more money, I would have already bought a Titan XP and a Broadwell 10 core chip. I can afford but the margin of cost is encroaching silly levels at the top end.



If enough people start doing it, it will be. If i had money for a Titan XP I'd still not by it, way too much for a GPU..


----------



## Vlada011 (Sep 16, 2016)

I will never even think to buy NVIDIA before AMD show up their cards.
If they repeat same as HD7970 >R9-290X after Fury X they will beat both and TITAN and GTX1080.
Because of that waiting AMD to show their improvements and than we will see. 
I give you warranty if AMD launch card with 16GB and HBM2 10% slower than TITAN X many people will change sides.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 16, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> Heh. Such drama over products no one is forced to buy.


I really hate those type of comments. Seriously!

Dude, at first glance sure, nobody is putting a gun to your head and say buy the card. However, if you have a top monitor with 1440p or 4K resolution and you want to play latest games on full details, are you still telling me that nobody forces to buy?!? WTF? You have to buy it, because there is no frickin' alternative. Not unless you want to fully use that monitor...


----------



## Ungari (Sep 16, 2016)

Vlada011 said:


> I will never even think to buy NVIDIA before AMD show up their cards.



Are you the same Vlad from EVGA Forums?
If so, you are my favorite poster over there!


----------



## Fluffmeister (Sep 16, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> I really hate those type of comments. Seriously!
> 
> Dude, at first glance sure, nobody is putting a gun to your head and say buy the card. However, if you have a top monitor with 1440p or 4K resolution and you want to play latest games on full details, are you still telling me that nobody forces to buy?!? WTF? You have to buy it, because there is no frickin' alternative. Not unless you want to fully use that monitor...



No one is forced to by a "top monitor" either. Fact is nVidia have the fastest cards on the market and again they have no competition at the moment.

It's also a free market, don,'t like it?

Tough


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 16, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> No one is forced to by a "top monitor" either. Fact is nVidia have the fastest cards on the market and again they have no competition at the moment.
> 
> It's also a free market, don,'t like it?
> 
> Tough



True enough, however even if is a free market, if is no competition, then what do you do? You are forced to buy in the end whatever product there is on that time if you really need it, right?
Imagine a world where you only have 1 big car producer. What do you do if you want to go to work? Take the local bus for a 2 hour ride to the office, or buy the expensive car for a 15 mins ride?  See? Nobody is forcing you to buy the car. You can always take the slower solution....


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 16, 2016)

qubit said:


> Price point of $850. Right where I thought it would be and more than I'm willing to spend on a graphics card.
> 
> Judging by the TITAN X Pascal review on TPU, the performance gain won't be all that much either, especially as it's gonna be slower than the TXP.



I would totally pay $1000 for a graphics card if it was 2x stronger than the $400 dollar cards, and would remain the champion for 1.5 years.  However that has never happened.  (Closest to this being reality is when the $600 7970 managed to be the halo card for over a year straight).

Vega may be able to do it though.  AMD tends to only release a flagship every 1.5 years, and if they go buck-wild I could see the top Vega being a 6144-SP, 8-16GB HBM2 monster.  We will see though, and I wouldn't get my hopes up for anything anymore.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Sep 16, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> True enough, however even if is a free market, if is no competition, then what do you do? You are forced to buy in the end whatever product there is on that time if you really need it, right?
> Imagine a world where you only have 1 big car producer. What do you do if you want to go to work? Take the local bus for a 2 hour ride to the office, or buy the expensive car for a 15 mins ride?  See? Nobody is forcing you to buy the car. You can always take the slower solution....



Imagine a world where people have more disposable income than you, and they can afford to get to work on time.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 16, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> Imagine a world where people have more disposable income than you, and they can afford to get to work on time.



You are completely missing the point of what he is saying.  He isn't saying no one has enough money!

He is saying that if you gain control over a part of the market you can essentially force people to pay more money as long as there is an illusion of choice.


That is exactly what Nvidia is doing right now.  They are pricing their x60 and x80 cards terribly so that people are encouraged to pay more for the x70 and x80 Ti parts.  The sad thing is: they are really just x60 and x80 parts called something stronger!!!  Classically Nvidia would make the first 256-bit card their x60 part, and their next highest part either the x60 Ti or x70.  But instead they are calling (What would be) the 1060 a 1070 so that you are willing to pay an extra $150 for it, and they are about to convince people to pay $800 for what would be a 1080!!!   


Then the Titan line is just one big hilarious joke where they add maybe 5-10% more junk and call it a "Titan".   These "Titans" of gaming still get beaten by AMD's cards within 6 months of their release, and yet people pay $1100+  for em.   The saddest thing of all is that Nvidia could likely produce a $2000/16GB HBM/6000-SP/350w monster right now, but it is cheaper to just sell something less than half as strong for over half the price.  After all, people seem to only care about the name...


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 17, 2016)

bottom line?

you want a 1080? get a 1070 and OC it later ... it's sufficient for now (up to 1440p ) for me it translate into a ~400chf price reduction

you want a 1080Ti? get a 1080 and OC it later ... it's sufficient for now (up to 4k if not too hardcore on settings ... come on ... FXAA/MSAA/TXAA are not needed for it  ) it would have been a ~200chf price reduction

you want a Titan X Pascal? think again .... or get a 1080 and OC it ... or wait the 1080Ti and OC it but the price reduction would not be really worth it ... IF ..., a big *IF*,  the MSRP would be respected ... pfahahahaha, at MSRP that would be a ~200chf price reduction (out of MSRP : 50 to 100chf price reduction i bet ...  )


nah ... 800$ MSRP maybe ... but 1000+ price ... pfahahaha (country dependent ... ofc )
TXP are 1400-1500chf  where i am (1541.17$ opposed to 1200$ ) unless nvidia store ...[/QUOTE]I


I like what you say, but I can sum it up much more succinctly if with much less details; If you have any graphics card but particularly if you have a gtx 908ti or any gtx 900 series....skip this generation...done!  Great cards, but wait till AMD can compete, drive prices down, and one more generation goes by and Nvidia gives us price, performance, AND efficiency, whereas this generation you have about 1.5 of those things at this point..


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 17, 2016)

dalekdukesboy said:


> bottom line?
> 
> 
> I like what you say, but I can sum it up much more succinctly if with much less details; If you have any graphics card but particularly if you have a gtx 908ti or any gtx 900 series....skip this generation...done!  Great cards, but wait till AMD can compete, drive prices down, and one more generation goes by and Nvidia gives us price, performance, AND efficiency, whereas this generation you have about 1.5 of those things at this point..




Want the performance of what the $1200 Titan X will give you in a year?  Buy a Fury X.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 17, 2016)

huh? Fury X? Either I misunderstand you entirely or you're joking.


----------



## qubit (Sep 17, 2016)

dalekdukesboy said:


> huh? Fury X? Either I misunderstand you entirely or you're joking.


AMD cards conquer all according to our captain.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 17, 2016)

Um...yeah. I think he's smoking something unless he's talking about the old Titans from previous generation then MAYBE he'd be close.  Otherwise he's thinking if you put a fury x under ice and it clocks 200% beyond normal maybe it could have a prayer of reaching the ridiculously priced Titan.  But love it or hate it the titan is fastest card on the planet for the moment and it doesn't have a competitor...except overclocking 1080's lol.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 17, 2016)

dalekdukesboy said:


> Um...yeah. I think he's smoking something unless he's talking about the old Titans from previous generation then MAYBE he'd be close.  Otherwise he's thinking if you put a fury x under ice and it clocks 200% beyond normal maybe it could have a prayer of reaching the ridiculously priced Titan.  But love it or hate it the titan is fastest card on the planet for the moment and it doesn't have a competitor...except overclocking 1080's lol.



Dude it's already close to the 1080 in Vulkan/DX12, and lol it smokes the old Titans.


Call me crazy all you want - but the 7970 is stronger than the original Titan, and thus it isn't insane to think it's possible the Fury X will come close to the new Titan in a while.  Seems to happen to all of Nvidia's cards.


----------



## BiggieShady (Sep 17, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> it isn't insane to think it's possible the Fury X will come close to the new Titan


As you can see, in DX12 game made using GCN asynchronous engines (which is the best case for AMD) they're not even close


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Sep 17, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> As you can see, in DX12 game made using GCN asynchronous engines (which is the best case for AMD) they're not even close
> View attachment 78902 View attachment 78903


right..


 

as for performance in Vulkan, which is much closer to what AMD hoped for in an API



 

you can see that the fury x has 2/3 of the performance for half the price. 
to the point though, all this conversation is a pointless red vs green fight. we are the consumers, and as such, we should be outraged with the insane prices of both Nvidia and intel. i suggest voting with our wallets and leaving aside any personal feelings of misguided loyalty to whatever corporation.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/...e_tomb_raider_directx_12_performance_review/6
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_radeon_rx_480_g1_gaming_review,16.html


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 17, 2016)

Maybe this will be what 780Ti was for the first Titan, instead of what 980Ti was for the next Titan ... 
Knowing nVidia this would hardly be called a surprise.


----------



## xorbe (Sep 17, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Maybe this will be what 780Ti was for the first Titan, instead of what 980Ti was for the next Titan ...
> Knowing nVidia this would hardly be called a surprise.



I was wondering the same thing.  ie, maybe 1080Ti will be 3840 cores, fully enabled like the 780Ti was.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 17, 2016)

...methinks Captain Tom has been in space too long, must be Major Tom from Space Oddysey/David Bowie.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 17, 2016)

as for performance in Vulkan, which is much closer to what AMD hoped for in an API



you can see that the fury x has 2/3 of the performance for half the price.
to the point though, all this conversation is a pointless red vs green fight. we are the consumers, and as such, we should be outraged with the insane prices of both Nvidia and intel. i suggest voting with our wallets and leaving aside any personal feelings of misguided loyalty to whatever corporation.


I removed the graphs don't seem necessary everyone can go back and see the obvious plus you state it, the point for me was simply to state I have no idea how Tom's original statement is even vaguely close to reality.  That was really it, it's not pro-green or anti-red it's simply me looking at the facts as I have them and how the cards' perform even in best case scenarios.  You proved that with your graph which is arguably the best at this point in time you can do with ATI and worst you can do for team green.  Even with that you still get as you said 2/3's the performance...hardly close or even more as Tom's original post said, that is what I was addressing.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 17, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Maybe this will be what 780Ti was for the first Titan, instead of what 980Ti was for the next Titan ...
> Knowing nVidia this would hardly be called a surprise.



Just picked up at 980ti actually.  Seemed to be best performance I could get at a relatively reasonable price especially second hand, truthfully other than efficiency gains (massive granted) I'm not at all impressed with performance of 1000 series; you can basically overclock a 980ti and a 1080 and the ti nips at it's heels or at least stays closer than 2/3's .  Regardless it is good enough that they at first didn't include ti numbers in the 1000 series reviews because it would look too good compared to their new GPU's performance.  As I said only real hit on last gen vs. this gen of Nvidia is the efficiency is greatly improved.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 17, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> As you can see, in DX12 game made using GCN asynchronous engines (which is the best case for AMD) they're not even close
> View attachment 78902 View attachment 78903



Nice cherry picking.   Tombraider got its DX12 support LONG after launch, and it was more or less a half implementation.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 17, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Nice cherry picking.   Tombraider got its DX12 support LONG after launch, and it was more or less a half implementation.



Ok what about Reaper who argued both camps suck on pricing and railed against us being on any side...is he cherry picking? Doesn't sound like he would based on his own words and sentiments.  He picked figures a bit more favorable than BiggieShady but still as he pointed out AMD still only got to about 2/3's the performance of the titan.  If the fury X was so wonderful and AMD was half as confident as you that they could have ANY and I mean ANY of their cards vaguely compete with titan for obviously way less cash I think they'd be touting it to the hills which obviously they aren't.


----------



## efikkan (Sep 17, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Dude it's already close to the 1080 in Vulkan/DX12, and lol it smokes the old Titans.
> 
> 
> Call me crazy all you want - but the 7970 is stronger than the original Titan, and thus it isn't insane to think it's possible the Fury X will come close to the new Titan in a while.  Seems to happen to all of Nvidia's cards.


Crazy is indeed the word.
There is nothing in Direct3D 12 nor Vulkan which will greatly benefit GCN more than Pascal. The primary reason why AMD show greater _relative gains_ in some games is that Nvidia brought most of the Direct3D 12 improvements to all APIs.
All the games shown this far favoring GCN has been AMD exclusives and are clearly biased. And there will be a handful of these, as there will be many console ports ahead.
Even with these biased games, it still wouldn't make a GPU twice as fast. That's just a crazy idea spread by fans.


----------



## qubit (Sep 17, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Nice cherry picking.   Tombraider got its DX12 support LONG after launch, and it was more or less a half implementation.


Look, it's so easy for you to put @BiggieShady in his place: these are objective measurements, so just show some graphs of AMD beating or even equaling NVIDIA in DX12 and include a link to their origin. You'll then have won your argument hands down and he'll look a fool.

I predict a deathly silence follows or more strawman arguments. Place your bets!


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 17, 2016)

qubit said:


> Look, it's so easy for you to put @BiggieShady in his place: these are objective measurements, so just show some graphs of AMD beating or even equaling NVIDIA in DX12 and include a link to their origin. You'll then have won your argument hands down and he'll look a fool.
> 
> I predict a deathly silence follows or more strawman arguments. Place your bets!



http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,9.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_1060_STRIX_OC/12.html

Those are the latest well-built new-API games.  BF1 will get DX12 and then we will have another good comparison.   

I am here saying that in a year the Fury X will match the 1080 in most of the latest games.  If I am wrong you can say so


----------



## BiggieShady (Sep 17, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Nice cherry picking. Tombraider got its DX12 support LONG after launch, and it was more or less a half implementation.


No problem, let's cherry pick from the cherry picked scenarios ... meaning the good case scenarios for AMD (dx12 or vulkan) ... what we get is: the best case scenario for AMD is when Titan XP is 1.5 times faster than Fury X and worst when it's double the performance.
Interestingly enough there are several newer DX11 titles where Titan XP is *only *1.5 times faster. (mindblown, I know, seems like you can optimize for gpu architecture even in dx11)
The point is that gap is way too big and fury x is 28 nm chip ffs 


$ReaPeR$ said:


> you can see that the fury x has 2/3 of the performance for half the price.


Yeah, the price is completely different argument here because every company sets the product's price to the highest amount consumers are ready to pay considering the market at the time. Price changes much more than relative performance level and high fps in games isn't the only thing that makes this kind of product desirable


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 17, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> No problem, let's cherry pick from the cherry picked scenarios ... meaning the good case scenarios for AMD (dx12 or vulkan) ... what we get is: the best case scenario for AMD is when Titan XP is 1.5 times faster than Fury X and worst when it's double the performance.
> Interestingly enough there are several newer DX11 titles where Titan XP is *only *1.5 times faster.
> The point is that gap is way too big and fury x is 28 nm chip ffs



The Fury is a $300 28nm chip.    The Titan is a $1200 16nm chip.   It is 50% stronger.   That is pathetic.


----------



## BiggieShady (Sep 17, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> The Fury is a $300 28nm chip. The Titan is a $1200 16nm chip. It is 50% stronger. That is pathetic.


Oh Captain my captain, aren't you repeating what I just said? Why are you comparing them in the first place then  also don't you know Maxwell Titan is faster than Fury? Additionally, don't you know what price is, and what value is?
You see, the way you value graphics cards is somewhat limited ... and that also goes for all people that use Titan for gaming.
If you ask nvidia, having a gpu that market is willing to pay $1200 for is exactly opposite of pathetic. (How is this possible, have people ever heard of how good fury x is? How could nvidia brainwash so many people at once, have they been putting chemicals into water supply? I wonder how well Radeon Pro Duo sells ... but at least you don't see people gaming on those )


----------



## qubit (Sep 17, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,9.html
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_1060_STRIX_OC/12.html
> 
> ...


Ok, I'm pleasantly surprised. 

Those Guru3D results clearly shows it comfortably beating a GTX 1080 which is what we wanna see. Perhaps it should actually be beating the TITAN X Pascal if we are comparing the top models of both brands? Not sure on this one, but it's still a really good result and the kind of competition that I wanna see. Just imagine, a reasonably priced high end NVIDIA card that doesn't sport a crippled GPU, lol.

We need all new games to perform like this ideally and keep the two companies head-to-head for the best deals. But then they'll get into a little cartel... No, let's not go there lol.

The TPU graph isn't really valid as the best NVIDIA card there is only a GTX 1070 which is some way behind the 1080.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 17, 2016)

qubit said:


> Ok, I'm pleasantly surprised.
> 
> Those Guru3D results clearly shows it comfortably beating a GTX 1080 which is what we wanna see. Perhaps it should actually be beating the TITAN X Pascal if we are comparing the top models of both brands? Not sure on this one, but it's still a really good result and the kind of competition that I wanna see. Just imagine, a reasonably priced high end NVIDIA card that doesn't sport a crippled GPU, lol.
> 
> ...





LOL I am so tired of feeling like an AMD fanboy when I just flat out am not.  I have owned plenty of Nvidia cards, and some of them I liked a lot.

But the fact is that it is obvious to me that these Paxwell cards will fall off a cliff in performance by spring.   


When it comes to actual final performance numbers (Once the dust settles: I think the best indicators you can look at are a combination of TFLOPS and Bandwidth.

-Fury OC / Fury X will = 1080

-480 will be like 10% behind the 1070

-470 will beat the 1060 by at least 20%

-460 will probably equal the 1050


What you really need to think about is that Vega should easily be 50% faster than the Fury X, and that will likely put it a tad above the Titan XP.   Then Nvidia will launch the 1180 with HBM in July 2017 .    The real question is if Nvidia can get Volta (With true DX12 support) out before 2018.   If not....I am not so sure the 1180 will be able to beat Vega.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 17, 2016)

fury x = 1080 after/will be etc, so not a totally known quantity #1, and #2 you said fury essentially was on par with titan...now you're saying 1080, big difference between those two chips even with the crap stock cooler the titan comes with that limits it.  Anyway all good I want AMD competitive, but atm with games and direct x/vulcan etc as it is that just isn't the case, will it be? Well, maybe what you said is accurate, however again we don't know for sure or exactly how it will shake out your guestimating however well educated the guess is based on facts.


----------



## efikkan (Sep 17, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> But the fact is that it is obvious to me that these Paxwell cards will fall off a cliff in performance by spring.
> 
> When it comes to actual final performance numbers (Once the dust settles: I think the best indicators you can look at are a combination of TFLOPS and Bandwidth.
> 
> ...


You are talking about peak FLOP/s, which is computational power, *not* rendering performance.
For an AMD GPU to scale as well as Pascal they need to overcome the following:
*1) Saturate the GPU*
Computational power is useless unless your scheduler is able to feed it, analyze data dependencies and avoid stalls. Nvidia is excellent at this, while GCN is not. Nothing in either Mantle, Direct3D 12 nor Vulkan exposes these features, so no such API will have any impact on this.
*2) Efficient rendering avoiding bottlenecks*
One of the most clear examples where Nvidia chose a more efficient path is when it comes to rasterizing and fragment processing. AMD processes it in screen space, which means the same data has to travel back and forth between GPU memory and L2 cache multiple times during one frame rendering, which means memory bandwidth, cache misses and data dependencies becomes an issue. Nvidia on the other hand, has since Maxwell rasterized and processed fragments in regions/tiles, so the data can be mostly kept in L2 cache until it's done, and thereby keeping the GPU at peak performance all throughout rasterizing and fragment processing, which after all is most of the load when rendering.

If AMD were to achieve their peak computational power during rendering, they would need to overhaul their architecture. Only then can this performance level be achieved. It doesn't matter if you have the most theoretical power in the world, if you are not able to utilize it.

So RX 480 will always perform close to GTX 1060, it will never rise above it.



Captain_Tom said:


> What you really need to think about is that Vega should easily be 50% faster than the Fury X, and that will likely put it a tad above the Titan XP.  Then Nvidia will launch the 1180 with HBM in July 2017 .  The real question is if Nvidia can get Volta (With true DX12 support) out before 2018.  If not....I am not so sure the 1180 will be able to beat Vega.


Both Maxwell and Pascal have more complete Direct3D 12 support than any other. Stop spinning the lie of a "missing feature", when everybody knows it has been proven that Nvidia supports it.



Captain_Tom said:


> LOL I am so tired of feeling like an AMD fanboy when I just flat out am not.  I have owned plenty of Nvidia cards, and some of them I liked a lot.


The problem is that you are clearly misguided and biased when discussing the subject. A person can own something and still be biased against them


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Sep 17, 2016)

dalekdukesboy said:


> as for performance in Vulkan, which is much closer to what AMD hoped for in an API
> 
> 
> 
> ...



indeed, but my point was mainly price/perf argument, meaning, the titan is clearly overpriced even when one takes into account the extra perf. based on perf versus the fury x, the titan should cost less than 1000$. as for the argument "fury x vs titan x", for me, its a non-starter since both cards are in different price segments and their perf is differentiated by a large margin (as expected), so no point in comparing them directly. unless one makes the comparison relative to their architectures and how  they perform as such in different APIs.



dalekdukesboy said:


> Ok what about Reaper who argued both camps suck on pricing and railed against us being on any side...is he cherry picking? Doesn't sound like he would based on his own words and sentiments.  He picked figures a bit more favorable than BiggieShady but still as he pointed out AMD still only got to about 2/3's the performance of the titan.  If the fury X was so wonderful and AMD was half as confident as you that they could have ANY and I mean ANY of their cards vaguely compete with titan for obviously way less cash I think they'd be touting it to the hills which obviously they aren't.



indeed they aren't, because yes it is not faster than the titan, but that wasn't their goal to begin with. for a 1 gen behind card its doing pretty well IMO. also, i think its a bit pointless for a company to brag about how well their older gen card is ageing.


----------



## 64K (Sep 17, 2016)

efikkan said:


> A person can own something and still be biased



Well said.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 18, 2016)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> indeed, but my point was mainly price/perf argument, meaning, the titan is clearly overpriced even when one takes into account the extra perf. based on perf versus the fury x, the titan should cost less than 1000$. as for the argument "fury x vs titan x", for me, its a non-starter since both cards are in different price segments and their perf is differentiated by a large margin (as expected), so no point in comparing them directly. unless one makes the comparison relative to their architectures and how  they perform as such in different APIs.
> 
> Yes I know but that isn't what Tom was saying, he didn't mention prices at all, just started with the idea that a fury x was as good or even better than a titan by suggesting if we wanted performance of what titan might do in future ( I assume with driver updates etc) we'd actually should get a fury x...so obviously that infers the fury x is as good and even better than titan so we should buy it.  I agree I won't ever get a titan price is way above what I'd ever get for a card. Yes that also is something I didn't say but should have is that they aren't even in same class/price so that is another reason why I thought it was a joke.
> 
> ...



Yes, not only is it not faster than a titan, it can't even come close to tying a titan.  True it is an older gen card but at this point it's all they got, literally.  So yeah maybe they'd not be touting older cards, but I was simply making a point maybe they would if it showed the card favorably and minimized the titan's value/relative performance etc.  So yeah a non-starter is best way to put it for all the reasons you cited as well as I and others.  For now we only have Nvidia in high end new cards and we have to wait for AMD to get the fork out of its' ass and make something vaguely comparable.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 18, 2016)

efikkan said:


> You are talking about peak FLOP/s, which is computational power, *not* rendering performance.
> For an AMD GPU to scale as well as Pascal they need to overcome the following:
> *1) Saturate the GPU*
> Computational power is useless unless your scheduler is able to feed it, analyze data dependencies and avoid stalls. Nvidia is excellent at this, while GCN is not. Nothing in either Mantle, Direct3D 12 nor Vulkan exposes these features, so no such API will have any impact on this.
> ...




I don't inherently disagree with the points you are making, but I have to say that your counter-argument is deeply flawed.

Everything you just said is based in the idea that what I am saying is theoretical.  But it isn't - look at some bloody benchmarks of the latest games.  In DX12/Vulkan it seems like AMD is indeed taking full advantage of the computational power of their GPU's.  In fact your 1060 vs 480 argument is a perfect example - already the 480 is "Rising above the 1060", and in fact at launch they were already trading blows.

Furthermore it seems like you haven't noticed that once games get harder to run they do in fact saturate AMD's hardware.  Just look at how the 7970 beat the 680, then the 780, and now the 780 Ti / 970.    Also the 290X crushes the 780 Ti now, and the 390X is close to matching the 980 Ti.   There is a pattern of AMD cards rising FAR above their initial competition a year after launch, and it isn't because Nvidia is gimping anything.


----------



## mcraygsx (Sep 18, 2016)

Seems to be good 30% boost from 1080 but I wish NVidia would stick to GDDRx, GTX 1080 still has outstanding 320 GB/sec.


----------



## efikkan (Sep 18, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Everything you just said is based in the idea that what I am saying is theoretical.  But it isn't - look at some bloody benchmarks of the latest games.  In DX12/Vulkan it seems like AMD is indeed taking full advantage of the computational power of their GPU's.  In fact your 1060 vs 480 argument is a perfect example - already the 480 is "Rising above the 1060", and in fact at launch they were already trading blows.
> 
> Furthermore it seems like you haven't noticed that once games get harder to run they do in fact saturate AMD's hardware.  Just look at how the 7970 beat the 680, then the 780, and now the 780 Ti / 970.    Also the 290X crushes the 780 Ti now, and the 390X is close to matching the 980 Ti.   There is a pattern of AMD cards rising FAR above their initial competition a year after launch, and it isn't because Nvidia is gimping anything.


What you are describing is totally impossible. The new APIs will not and can not counter the inefficiencies in the GCN architecture, and will not result in a 50% relative gain for AMD vs Nvidia. The architectural inefficiencies in GCN are not software, it's hardware design.

The only path forward is architectural overhaul. Volta is going to be a bigger architectural change than Pascal, while AMD has stuck to their GCN since the Kepler days of Nvidia.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 18, 2016)

Comparing cards using the Deus Ex MD benchmark isn't demonstrative of actual game performance. There are other Deus Ex MD reviews that show Fury X behind 1080. Cherry picking Guru 3D, who AMD fans often slag off for some reason doesn't illustrate anything.

Also, using Doom Vulkan is an excellent gauge for the future. Made with explicit AMD extensions (because Nv don't have them) shows about the best case scenario, IMO, for AMD's future performance). So, given that it's hard to see how much farther GCN can go (and Navi won't have it) and Titan XP (unrealistic card but shows Nvidia's fastest) is far ahead even in Vulkan, it's very hard to see Captain Tom's future.

Then there is the elephant in the room which few have had the reasoning to spot. The AMD resurgence is clearly based on the move from DX11 to DX12 and one game using Vulkan (again with explicit AMD extensions).  Using this new paradigm, we can expect no similar performance improvements from AMD over Pascal in these API's.
The situation of graphics cards will remain as it has with DX11. A game developed with assistance from AMD or Nv will favour that card. Hitman and Deus Ex both favour AMD. Both were developed in the Nvidia classic style of, 'lets hamper the competition'. Just like TWIMTBP games tend to highlight Nv abilities at the expense of AMD.
Dx12 etc will help AMD achieve greater parity but given the Titan XP with fewer shaders than Fury X still soundly beats it in everything (faster clocks but like peeps say, no Async or DX12 magic) then you have to wonder how bad it might be when Nvidia bring back a little parallel async compute based hardware...

And yes. I can compare Pascal to Fiji because all a die shrink does is (simplistically) reduce power use and increase the ability to throw on more hardware. Nv used the shrink to keep the die reasonably clean but bring up clocks. 

Anyway, it'll be fun when Vega arrives because with Fury X level of cores on 14nm, it should be clocked far higher.  That alone with some GCN tweaks should overtake the 1080. But then Nvidia will react with 'something'. 2017 is worth talking about because Vega will give us some solid numbers to discuss but this will ring true - if in 2017, a Titan XP beats Vega in an AMD Vulkan game, AMD are in trouble. If on the other hand Vega beats Titan, AMD will rightly be confident of a rosy future.

Until Vega is out, all of these awful conversations (including mine) are about as insightful as a cat farting.  The proof of science is in the testing and we can't test that future till it's here.


----------



## Melvis (Sep 18, 2016)

I wish it was that price here in Aus, the GTX 1080 is already around $1000-$1300, so this is going to be around $1200-$1500, no thank you! ill just get another second hand GTX 970 for $250 and call it a day.


----------



## efikkan (Sep 18, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> Also, using Doom Vulkan is an excellent gauge for the future. Made with explicit AMD extensions (because Nv don't have them) shows about the best case scenario, IMO, for AMD's future performance). So, given that it's hard to see how much farther GCN can go (and Navi won't have it) and Titan XP (unrealistic card but shows Nvidia's fastest) is far ahead even in Vulkan, it's very hard to see Captain Tom's future.


You are talking about an edge case. Of course, all the PR departments of Intel, AMD, Nvidia, etc. loves to bring up these cases which displaces the competition and sheds the best possible light on their own product.
The problem with GCN is architectural inefficiencies, and cases such as Doom does nothing to fix that:
- Vendor "optimized" pipelines (e.g. console ports) just makes the competition less efficient, not GCN actually that much better.
- Vendor specific extensions might include tricks, but still does not help the architectural inefficiencies. Most such tricks does not apply to all most cases.



the54thvoid said:


> Then there is the elephant in the room which few have had the reasoning to spot. The AMD resurgence is clearly based on the move from DX11 to DX12 and one game using Vulkan (again with explicit AMD extensions).  Using this new paradigm, we can expect no similar performance improvements from AMD over Pascal in these API's.


Similar to what? Doom Vulkan vs. OpenGL? Do I need to remind you that AMD's OpenGL support is extremely unstable?

Why would "the new paradigm" suddenly dissipate the architectural problems of GCN? Don't you know that the APIs have nothing to do with how internal GPU scheduling (on the level each GPU thread), GPU memory fetches, etc.? And if the APIs were holding AMD back all these years, how come Nvidia were not held back? You better explain yourself.



the54thvoid said:


> The situation of graphics cards will remain as it has with DX11. A game developed with assistance from AMD or Nv will favour that card. Hitman and Deus Ex both favour AMD. Both were developed in the Nvidia classic style of, 'lets hamper the competition'. Just like TWIMTBP games tend to highlight Nv abilities at the expense of AMD.


Oh conspiracies!
No one "ever" intentionally "hamper the competition". The real problem is when a game is developed with no or little testing on the other vendor throughout the whole development cycle. If the day-to-day development and testing is all done on one vendor, then it's easy to do design-choices which puts the other vendor at a disadvantage. This typically results in bottlenecks and scaling issues for the other vendor. It might not be easy to fine tune this later. We have always had some AMD(/ATI) and Nvidia biased games, but the amount of AMD biased games has increased because of both PS4 and Xbox One being AMD based.



the54thvoid said:


> Dx12 etc will help AMD achieve greater parity but given the Titan XP with fewer shaders than Fury X still soundly beats it in everything (faster clocks but like peeps say, no Async or DX12 magic) then you have to wonder how bad it might be when Nvidia bring back a little parallel async compute based hardware...


Please explain precisely what will make GCN suddenly grow past it's design faults?

This kind of reminds me of the good old Bulldozer days, when all the fans were screaming that new software will make AMD overcome all the issues.  It did of course never happen, and AMD finally have discarded the inefficient architecture in favor of a architecture more similar to the competition.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 18, 2016)

efikkan said:


> You are talking about an edge case. Of course, all the PR departments of Intel, AMD, Nvidia, etc. loves to bring up these cases which displaces the competition and sheds the best possible light on their own product.
> The problem with GCN is architectural inefficiencies, and cases such as Doom does nothing to fix that:
> - Vendor "optimized" pipelines (e.g. console ports) just makes the competition less efficient, not GCN actually that much better.
> - Vendor specific extensions might include tricks, but still does not help the architectural inefficiencies. Most such tricks does not apply to all most cases.
> ...



All your replies shall serve as the counter arguments to other posts arguing against mine. My post is a best case scenario for AMD using 'populist' beliefs about API's and hardware.  Thank you for laying them bare!


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 18, 2016)

efikkan said:


> What you are describing is totally impossible. The new APIs will not and can not counter the inefficiencies in the GCN architecture, and will not result in a 50% relative gain for AMD vs Nvidia. The architectural inefficiencies in GCN are not software, it's hardware design.
> 
> The only path forward is architectural overhaul. Volta is going to be a bigger architectural change than Pascal, while AMD has stuck to their GCN since the Kepler days of Nvidia.




What 50% gain?   At launch (And Stock settings) the Fury X was trading blows with the 980 Ti/Titan X.  The 1080 is only 25% stronger than those cards, so the Fury X would only need to gain 25% relative performance, which isn't a big number at all.

Even that OG Titan vs 7970 example isn't as big as you are describing:  The OG Titan was only 35-40% stronger than the 7970 lol.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 18, 2016)

mcraygsx said:


> Seems to be good 30% boost from 1080 but I wish NVidia would stick to GDDRx, GTX 1080 still has outstanding 320 GB/sec.



The only thing I want to point out is that GDDR5 overclocks WAY WAY better than GDDR5X.   The highest I have EVER seen GDDR5X get to is 11,000 Effective, whereas plenty of GDDR5 chips can hit 9600.   That only puts the GDDR5X 15% faster, while it costs a decent amount more.


1080 Ti is a mass market chip so I actually think it is a very good decision considering they will sell just as many to the lemmings either way.


----------



## 64K (Sep 18, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> 1080 Ti is a mass market chip so I actually think it is a very good decision considering they will sell just as many to the lemmings either way.



Very few people buy high end GPUs for gaming. It's not a big income generator for Nvidia or AMD.

Probably that greedy Nvidia wants to make a profit so that they can stay in business unlike the saints at AMD that only want to sell everything to cheap to make a decent profit and go bankrupt.


----------



## efikkan (Sep 18, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> What 50% gain?  At launch (And Stock settings) the Fury X was trading blows with the 980 Ti/Titan X.  The 1080 is only 25% stronger than those cards, so the Fury X would only need to gain 25% relative performance, which isn't a big number at all.
> 
> Even that OG Titan vs 7970 example isn't as big as you are describing:  The OG Titan was only 35-40% stronger than the 7970 lol.


Have you forgotten your own claims from yesterday:


Captain_Tom said:


> When it comes to actual final performance numbers (Once the dust settles: I think the best indicators you can look at are a combination of TFLOPS and Bandwidth.
> -Fury OC / Fury X will = 1080
> -480 will be like 10% behind the 1070
> ...


They would need a 40-50% gain to achieve this, and it will never happen.

Even if you moderate yourself to "only" 25% now, how will Fury X be able to achieve that?


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 18, 2016)

64K said:


> Very few people buy high end GPUs for gaming. It's not a big income generator for Nvidia or AMD.
> 
> Probably that greedy Nvidia wants to make a profit so that they can stay in business unlike the saints at AMD that only want to sell everything to cheap to make a decent profit and go bankrupt.




Considering the price gouging AMD pulled in old FX days, I wouldn't call them saints buddy.


----------



## RJ (Sep 19, 2016)

I expect 1080ti to launch somewhere between $649-799, perform within 5% of the Pascal Titan X but have less VRAM, pretty much the same deal as with Titan X and 980ti.

It's not quite the card to master 4K/60 although it will get very close. The next x80 card NV launches will get it done but by then 4K/60Hz+ will be a thing.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 19, 2016)

RJ said:


> I expect 1080ti to launch somewhere between $649-799, perform within 5% of the Pascal Titan X but have less VRAM, pretty much the same deal as with Titan X and 980ti.
> 
> It's not quite the card to master 4K/60 although it will get very close. The next x80 card NV launches will get it done but by then 4K/60Hz+ will be a thing.



Idk this time the specs are different enough that I think this will be 10-20% weaker at stock.   However like I previously said: GDDR5 overclocks better than GDDR5X, and the better coolers will allow slightly better core clocks.  Overall I would expect a 7-10% difference when both are overclocked (Whereas before they were nearly equal).

This card will be 15-20% stronger than the 1080 and cost $750 with $850 for the Founders Edition.  Thus $800 price in reality.


----------



## ppn (Sep 19, 2016)

RJ said:


> I expect 1080ti to launch somewhere between $649-799, perform within 5% of the Pascal Titan X but have less VRAM, pretty much the same deal as with Titan X and 980ti.



Less RAM. Could it be halved, 6GB vs 12. just like 980Ti/TitanX. No. If they released Titan PAscal as 24GB, Yes. But they didn't.

Remember how GTX 770 was released in may 2013 and GTX 970 September 2014 that was exactly 60% faster. Much like 1080Ti is to be exactly 60% faster than GTX 1070. 

1080Ti can't be more expensive than the SLI that it replaces. 1070 will probably drop to GTX 1160 level. just like GTX670 did as GTX 760 was very close .

The lesson, Can't make the GTX 970 SLI work for longetivity, it was replaced by 980Ti soon after, and the 980Ti reference was replaced by GTX 1060 @ 2.2Ghz. 

Can't make the GTX 1070 work, it will be replaced by 1080Ti, and 1080Ti reference will be replaced by....


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 19, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> Comparing cards using the Deus Ex MD benchmark isn't demonstrative of actual game performance. There are other Deus Ex MD reviews that show Fury X behind 1080. Cherry picking Guru 3D, who AMD fans often slag off for some reason doesn't illustrate anything.
> 
> Also, using Doom Vulkan is an excellent gauge for the future. Made with explicit AMD extensions (because Nv don't have them) shows about the best case scenario, IMO, for AMD's future performance). So, given that it's hard to see how much farther GCN can go (and Navi won't have it) and Titan XP (unrealistic card but shows Nvidia's fastest) is far ahead even in Vulkan, it's very hard to see Captain Tom's future.
> 
> ...




I like the post overall, mostly true and self-depricating considering you lump your own lengthy post in with the rest being as useful as a cat fart. However I disagree with the idea people (like me) missed any elephant trouncing around, we mentioned heavily Vulkan, and dx12 I believe was mentioned and if not it intrinsically goes in hand with DX12 and that pair is what Major Tom from outer space is very faultily basing a cat fart-type argument on.


----------



## RJ (Sep 19, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Idk this time the specs are different enough that I think this will be 10-20% weaker at stock.   However like I previously said: GDDR5 overclocks better than GDDR5X, and the better coolers will allow slightly better core clocks.  Overall I would expect a 7-10% difference when both are overclocked (Whereas before they were nearly equal).
> 
> This card will be 15-20% stronger than the 1080 and cost $750 with $850 for the Founders Edition.  Thus $800 price in reality.


 I forgot that the 980TI launched at $699, I thought it was $649. I agree it's likely to launch at $749 and the founder version will again be the first in stock, at a premium.
The rise in pricing as Nvidia captured market share has led me to approach upgrades differently:
I just bought my second 980TI for $300. A SLI setup can be had for $600, 50% of Pascal Titan's price, at 25%-33% more performance than a $1200 Pascal Titan.

Reference for numbers are here: http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-titan-x-pascal-review,26.html and in my system specs.
9K Pascal graphics score, my 980TI SLI does 12K: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14930947


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 19, 2016)

dalekdukesboy said:


> I like the post overall, mostly true and self-depricating considering you lump your own lengthy post in with the rest being as useful as a cat fart. However I disagree with the idea people (like me) missed any elephant trouncing around, we mentioned heavily Vulkan, and dx12 I believe was mentioned and if not it intrinsically goes in hand with DX12 and that pair is what Major Tom from outer space is very faultily basing a cat fart-type argument on.



What is this "Captain_Tom's Future" you guys are talking about?  I am saying the Fury X will roughly match the 1080 within a year - again if I am wrong you can remind me later.   I never expect the Fury X to match the Titan XP, but if it did I wouldn't  be completely surprised.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 19, 2016)

I just got my first 980 ti for same sum, exactly 300 dollars, pretty hard to find them at that price but if you're luck you can find them and get
a good deal right now.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 19, 2016)

dalekdukesboy said:


> I just got my first 980 ti for same sum, exactly 300 dollars, pretty hard to find them at that price but if you're luck you can find them and get
> a good deal right now.



Just curious where are you finding these deals?  My friend is building right now...


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 19, 2016)

I just lucked out on Ebay. No idea where the other bloke got his from obviously but he said same amount.  I just checked on ebay few that are slightly under 300 most way over and all on auction, mine was a  buy it now at that price so I just jumped on it I needed a new card my 980 had died.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 19, 2016)

dalekdukesboy said:


> I just lucked out on Ebay. No idea where the other bloke got his from obviously but he said same amount.  I just checked on ebay few that are slightly under 300 most way over and all on auction, mine was a  buy it now at that price so I just jumped on it I needed a new card my 980 had died.



Brand of 980?



And yeah I got lucky a couple years ago when I was crypto mining.  Found a bunch of 7950's for $100 each lol  (This was in 2014, even today that would be an insane deal).  They all overclocked to 1150/1800!


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 19, 2016)

My croaked card? was a gaming 980 Msi, dead silent, great cooler, clocked well just a good card in every way same as review Wiz had of it.  Yeah I had a 7970 I used for quite a while sold that to upgrade to the 980 about a year ago.  980 would still be in the pc but stray fan clip (metal) touched the back of it and no backplate, yeah fried that card...first ever card I bricked.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 19, 2016)

dalekdukesboy said:


> My croaked card? was a gaming 980 Msi, dead silent, great cooler, clocked well just a good card in every way same as review Wiz had of it.  Yeah I had a 7970 I used for quite a while sold that to upgrade to the 980 about a year ago.  980 would still be in the pc but stray fan clip (metal) touched the back of it and no backplate, yeah fried that card...first ever card I bricked.



Shit there's some bad luck - sorry.   Personally I wish there was a dominator like the 7970 @ 1220/1830 I had.  At those clocks in 2012 I was laughing at the framerates I was getting...

Only paid $390 for it too.


----------



## RJ (Sep 19, 2016)

I bought my 980TI on ebay too because I kept missing the sales on forums, happened to be the same model as the other card I bought earlier on a tech forum.

Speaking of old cards, my 970 was nothing special but the previous card is unbeatable in terms of value over time, a 7950 MSI TF3. Got it on Amazon for $309, as soon as they launched. Paid itself off via bitcoin and then some. Eventually upgraded to 970, put a system together from old parts with the 7950 and gave it to a friend, still going strong. Had a great ASIC score too, needed little voltage and even on air it overclocked to 1250/1850, a stock card comes in at 880 on the core, this is a link to the tests I ran: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/radeon-hd-7950-owners-thread.2259333/page-10#post-33822143


----------



## Vayra86 (Sep 19, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> Hahaha good joke.  I love that the 680 is vastly weaker than the 7970, and yet people bought it because it is "The Way It's Meant to be Played".



Eh... what?

http://www.babeltechreviews.com/hd-7970-vs-gtx-680-2013-revisited/3/

They're about equal, with the 7970 only winning in heavily AMD favored DIRT and at 4K, where both cards produce unplayable frame rates. Meanwhile in Dying Light, the 680 scores a good 15 fps more. Overall the 680 can definitely be considered a better choice as it OC"s better and at the time, 3GB was overkill for most games and resolutions.

At launch, the 680 was overall 10% faster than the 7970. They both age well to be honest. The reason you wouldn't buy the 680 was a different one: price. The much cheaper 670 could do almost as well as the 680.


----------



## RJ (Sep 19, 2016)

My 7950 was faster than the stock blower 7970's because the cooling and the binning were better, it's OC gave it the legroom to go beyond what some 7970's could achieve on stock or mediocre cooling. It was faster than a 680 @1.2 and not many 680's went beyond 1.2 GHz while selling at a mid range price of $309. I estimate to have made $450 mining, had I been more patient, it could have been a few thousand.

AC Unity was the first game for me that demanded heavy compromises for the 7950 and other AMD cards to run it with playable frame rates, later patches improved it a bit.  The 970 after that wasn't as impressive, the price was in similar range but the value quickly evaporated.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 19, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> Eh... what?
> 
> http://www.babeltechreviews.com/hd-7970-vs-gtx-680-2013-revisited/3/
> 
> ...



I genuinely think the 670 was a good card for most of its life, but again I just can't get behind almost any argument for the 680 (Besides it being cheaper and a bit stronger at launch).

But Idk what you are talking about with regards to overclocking.  A 7970 at 1250/1850 is a monstrous 35% overclock, it was so high that my card was trading blows with a 970 (when the 970 came out, now it would roflstomp it in Vulcan/DX12 games).

I also checked a benchmark for Dying Light The Following: The 680, 7970, 780, and 7970 GHz all get about the same framerate.    But let's not go here because I can find A LOT of benchmarks from the past 2 years that show a 7970 destroying a 680 (in fact the 7870 roughly matches the 680).


----------



## HammerON (Sep 19, 2016)

HammerON said:


> I think we are getting off topic here a bit.  Please keep on topic.


I posted the above message on page 3 of the this thread.  It appears that we are having difficulties staying on topic.  Warnings will be given out if this continues.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Sep 19, 2016)

HammerON said:


> I posted the above message on page 3 of the this thread.  It appears that we are having difficulties staying on topic.  Warnings will be given out if this continues.



We're on page 7, like we remember page 3?


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 20, 2016)

Does anyone else find it weird this uses GDDR5?  I mean, doesn't even the 1080 use GDDR5X?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 20, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Does anyone else find it weird this uses GDDR5?  I mean, doesn't even the 1080 use GDDR5X?



Yes, which is why I call bullshit on this rumor.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 20, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Yes, which is why I call bullshit on this rumor.



The rumor mill must be working hard these days...


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 20, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> The rumor mill must be working hard these days...



If they use GDDR5X the Titan will look stupid since the amount of VRAM will be the same between the 1080 Ti and Titan.

Thus they NEED to give it normal GDDR5 in order to differentiate the products.   Furthermore this isn't at all new:  the 770 had faster ram than the 780, and yes it is the same situation.  Call it whatever you want: speed is speed, and GDDR5X only offers 25% more bandwidth (it overclocks worst to).


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 20, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> If they use GDDR5X the Titan will look stupid since the amount of VRAM will be the same between the 1080 Ti and Titan.
> 
> Thus they NEED to give it normal GDDR5 in order to differentiate the products.   Furthermore this isn't at all new:  the 770 had faster ram than the 780, and yes it is the same situation.  Call it whatever you want: speed is speed, and GDDR5X only offers 25% more bandwidth (it overclocks worst to).



I mean, couldn't they just have halved the VRAM and saved more cost?

None of this makes sense.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 20, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> I mean, couldn't they just have halved the VRAM and saved more cost?
> 
> None of this makes sense.



6GB of ram when the 1080 has 12?  Nope.

The fact is the new Titan should have 18 or 24GB of VRAM (Or 16GB of HBM2 actually).

But Nvidia cheaped out so they could launch the Titan a few months early (So it could sit a little while without competition).  Thus they now need to skimp on the 1080 Ti as well.

The only other option I see is going with a 320- it bus and 10GB of GDDR5X.  Idk if there design allows for this though, and no rumors have pointed to this being the case.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 20, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> 6GB of ram when the 1080 has 12?  Nope.
> 
> The fact is the new Titan should have 18 or 24GB of VRAM (Or 16GB of HBM2 actually).
> 
> ...



For some reason I thought the 1080 had 6 gigs.  Doh!


----------



## 64K (Sep 20, 2016)

Captain_Tom said:


> 6GB of ram when the 1080 has 12?  Nope.
> 
> The fact is the new Titan should have 18 or 24GB of VRAM (Or 16GB of HBM2 actually).
> 
> ...



GTX 1080 has 8 GB VRAM. imo 12 GB for 1080 Ti and Titan X is plenty. I don't know of a situation where you would need more than 12 GB VRAM for gaming with a 1080 Ti.


----------



## xorbe (Sep 20, 2016)

Maybe the 1080Ti will just be 1080 + moar cores (ie, also 8GB 256 bit). Totally random thought.


----------



## ratirt (Sep 21, 2016)

xorbe said:


> Maybe the 1080Ti will just be 1080 + moar cores (ie, also 8GB 256 bit). Totally random thought.


I'd rather go with that option. more cores more vram. BTW I don't think 12 Vram will be needed that much. I know games develop pretty fast and steady phase but the fact is that 12 Vram is  more of a marketing scam for people to think its faster. Even if we need more than 8GB( and I think there's no game atm needing that much) there's also speed we need to add to that equation. You may have 24GB Vram but if your card sucks in speed it's pointless.


----------



## Slizzo (Sep 21, 2016)

xorbe said:


> Maybe the 1080Ti will just be 1080 + moar cores (ie, also 8GB 256 bit). Totally random thought.



Not possible. The GP104-400 that the GTX 1080 uses is a fully enabled core. To have more shaders it'd have to be a GP100 or derivative core (like GP102 is).

Also, I believe GP102 only has a GDDR5x memory controller if memory serves?


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 22, 2016)

Why does everybody thinks that the 1080Ti will be slower than the latest Titan?
I have a feeling it will be 780Ti vs 1st Titan again.


----------



## ratirt (Sep 22, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Why does everybody thinks that the 1080Ti will be slower than the latest Titan?
> I have a feeling it will be 780Ti vs 1st Titan again.


That also may be right. Nvidia wanna sell Titan first to get some cash out of it. I'm sure some people will buy it. On the other hand maybe there will be another version of Titan when 1080Ti gets released matching Titan XP performance. Then Nvidia will improve titan XP (more shaders or something) and give the highest of prices ever seen


----------



## Caring1 (Sep 22, 2016)

ratirt said:


> That also may be right. Nvidia wanna sell Titan first to get some cash out of it. I'm sure some people will buy it. On the other hand maybe there will be another version of Titan when 1080Ti gets released matching Titan XP performance. Then Nvidia will improve titan XP (more shaders or something) and give the highest of prices ever seen


So we can expect an XP TiT?


----------



## 64K (Sep 22, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Why does everybody thinks that the 1080Ti will be slower than the latest Titan?
> I have a feeling it will be 780Ti vs 1st Titan again.





ratirt said:


> That also may be right. Nvidia wanna sell Titan first to get some cash out of it. I'm sure some people will buy it. On the other hand maybe there will be another version of Titan when 1080Ti gets released matching Titan XP performance. Then Nvidia will improve titan XP (more shaders or something) and give the highest of prices ever seen



Could be. They did that with the 780 Ti and original Titan as pointed out above. The 780 Ti had more cores and a non reference cooler for faster clocks than the Titan and was faster in gaming for $350 less than a Titan. Then came the Titan Black which matched the 780 Ti but cost $450 more than a 780 Ti.

I'm expecting the 1080 Ti to come with less cores than the Titan XP but will probably only be a little slower than the Titan XP due to the superior non reference cooler. That's how it played out with Maxwell anyway. With Titan XP being $1,200 then $850 sounds about right for the 1080 Ti. Too much $$$ imo but not for some I guess.


----------



## ratirt (Sep 22, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> So we can expect an XP TiT?


Not sure what you after bro asking this. Titan xp aka titan x pascal  been thinking about different version like it used to be. Titan z  or titan black , titan x now x pascal. Maybe there will be titan x black 


64K said:


> Could be. They did that with the 780 Ti and original Titan as pointed out above. The 780 Ti had more cores and a non reference cooler for faster clocks than the Titan and was faster in gaming for $350 less than a Titan. Then came the Titan Black which matched the 780 Ti but cost $450 more than a 780 Ti.
> 
> I'm expecting the 1080 Ti to come with less cores than the Titan XP but will probably only be a little slower than the Titan XP due to the superior non reference cooler. That's how it played out with Maxwell anyway. With Titan XP being $1,200 then $850 sounds about right for the 1080 Ti. Too much $$$ imo but not for some I guess.



I totally agree with you. And what i think about it may be that There will be another version of titan. Like improved


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 22, 2016)

64K said:


> GTX 1080 has 8 GB VRAM. imo 12 GB for 1080 Ti and Titan X is plenty. I don't know of a situation where you would need more than 12 GB VRAM for gaming with a 1080 Ti.



Last time I checked the point of the "Titan" was to have far more than a normal graphics card.   No Titan has ever delivered on the performance front, but at least the Titan had 6GB and the Titan X had 12GB - far more VRAM than any card out at the time.  Now they don't even have that.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 23, 2016)

Crazy ideea: What if the 1080Ti is actually a dual GPU 1080 card?? 
...
Neeh, maybe not. That would just be called Titan Z Pascal XP. Or something... ))


----------



## ratirt (Sep 23, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Crazy ideea: What if the 1080Ti is actually a dual GPU 1080 card??
> ...
> Neeh, maybe not. That would just be called Titan Z Pascal XP. Or something... ))


I know that was an AMD trick to surpass or match with NVIDIA latest models. I'm sure the 1080Ti will be single core but tweaked a bit. Although I remember 690 which was a dual core.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Sep 23, 2016)

ratirt said:


> I know that was an AMD trick to surpass or match with NVIDIA latest models. I'm sure the 1080Ti will be single core but tweaked a bit. Although I remember 690 which was a dual core.



After seeing the success of the Titan Nvidia is just done making double cards.    It's far cheaper for them to just add like 10% more SP's and some RAM than it is to put two high end cores on one PCB.   

And apparently if they call it "Titan", morons think it is one.


----------



## Fx (Sep 29, 2016)

I swear to god it better not be >$800. I really want this card, but if these generational price increases continue, I'll be more than happy to stay with 1080-1440p gaming. Shit, I may just jump back to AMD to suit my graphic needs after having just switched from AMD to Nvidia for one generation. I refuse to be a sucker.


----------



## GlenZup (Oct 5, 2016)

Привіт! Я використовую 980 і я радий! Відьмак 3, все по максимуму і волосся також максимальне здатність 1440 на зображення = 40-42 FPS! Я не бачу причин для поновлення цього покоління, чи не так?)


----------



## erixx (Dec 7, 2016)

We need moar news on this!!!!!


----------



## Vlada011 (Dec 7, 2016)

Yes we need more news about GTX1080Ti. 
Only I think something else... If price of GTX1080 drop to 500$ I would rather pay than 800 euro for GTX1080Ti.
We will see... Depend a lot from AMD and their "Vincent Vega".


----------



## ratirt (Dec 7, 2016)

What if price won't drop and it turns out that 1080TI is competing against titan. 1080Ti price will be lower than titan's so all those that got Titan x will get screwed a bit inmo. Hope that wont happen.


----------

