jabbadapI have hard to believe that demand of quadro p6000 and tesla p40s are that high that all full working gpus are going there.

People are amazed that consumer video cards (i.e. most of us) are not the majority of the moneymaking business in GPU production and sales.

efikkanIt was actually mentioned on Nvidia's web page.

Oh, okay. I never saw that. Link for convenience?

the54thvoidThis for me is 980ti versus Fury X all over. I passed on the 980ti when it released and waited for the Fury X because it was going to piss all over Nvidia. Obviously I went 980ti as it pissed all over Fury X (given the clocks that were achievable).
So if 1080ti is out in March, I'll 'have' to wait to see Vega in May. Then I'll buy my card. Got a really bad feeling I'll stump up cash for a 1080ti. I WANT Vega to be the better card but even AMD peeps are saying 'not aiming to be better than 1080ti'.

If 1080 ti is like £800 (UK price) and customs go skyward of £900, I'll buy a Titan X instead if it proves to be faster.

Meh, waiting for actual releases and buying based on actual performance. You're clearly insane ;)

the54thvoidOh, okay. I never saw that. Link for convenience?

A number of web pages reported it:
www.pcworld.com/article/3151113/components-graphics/nvidia-job-posting-mentions-gtx-1080-ti-premium-club-geforce-elite-subscription.html

rtwjunkiePeople are amazed that consumer video cards (i.e. most of us) are not the majority of the moneymaking business in GPU production and sales.

Well you might want to look last quarter results and think again:
www.anandtech.com/show/10825/nvidia-announces-record-q3-fy-2017-results

jabbadapWell you might want to look last quarter results and think again:
www.anandtech.com/show/10825/nvidia-announces-record-q3-fy-2017-results

Good to know! However, it's their highest level chips that are being used for a majority of the non-consumer sales, and likely to account for some shortage of full GP102. I wouldn't pass up those expensive sales!

atomicusNvidia played this well. VEGA isn't going to touch the 1080Ti (which launches sooner), it's only just going to beat the 1080, if that. Nvidia are untouchable now, no matter what anyone says. They have HUGE coffers, they know how to make product and they know how to market it. AMD just can't compete at the top tier level, they simply can't. If you want the best, you go Nvidia. That fact won't be changing for the foreseeable future. AMD will remain the budget brand and I expect VEGA to increase their market share and see them re-enter the fold somewhat, but they are still competing in the mid-range. Nvidia are not worried, they know exactly what they're doing.

Nvidia lately have had the shitty habit of crippling previous generation cards, while AMD has been increasing performance of last gen cards, including the now ~7 year old 7xxx series, witch with the lates drivers (16.12.2) get a massive 25-40% boost (depending on model), especially in current games. Have you tried playing fallout 4 on a GTX 760? It's a slideshow. Now try playing it on a HD 7950. At launch, the GTX 760 was 10% faster and more expensive, but it's aged badly due to lazy nvidia driver support and crap like gameworks.

Now what I always wonder is - why do you give a shit if nvidia has the fastest card on the market? Are you going to buy a 1080 or 1080ti? 99% of gamers won't. They are too expensive and make for a bad investment. What people do buy in mass is stuff like the GTX 1050, RX 460, and to some extent the 1060 / RX 470 / RX 480. That's where the money is. Sure, there are huge margins on top end GPUs, but sales are so poor, money is made in the mid-end. And for the mid-end, the most recent driver updates have brought the RX 480 on par with the 1060 6GB in DX11, and gave it a 20-25% edge in DX12 / vulcan. In fact a 4GB 480 I recently tested impressed me by catching up to my GTX 1070 in Doom (using vulkan - ultra settings, 1080p, FSAA8X). That's a huge performance improvement since launch.

Right. Looking at the two company's history, in 2002 nvidia took an ass whopping from ATi's Radeon 9700. What did nvidia have back then? The Geforce 4 ti 4600, witch the 9700 PRO nuked. A few months later, nvidia rushed the FX series witch bombed. Bad. The FX 5800 was hot, loud and slow. They released the FX 5950XT a few months later, but ATi countered with the 9800 PRO witch dominated until the release of the Geforce 6 series. ATi then released the X800 and X850 witch took the performance crown away from the 6800. Then it was the X19xx vs the 79xx where they were tied (the 7950GT were great cards - had one back in the day - my first high end video card). ATi lost it with the 2xxx series, but they weren't far behind. The 2900XT while using more power, was cooler, cheaper and placed between the 8800GTS and the 8800GTX (both great cards but suffered from manufacturing challenges of the time - crappy ROHS solder). Later still, nvidia launched the GTX 280 - hot as hell, louder then a vacuum cleaner, expensive, but very, very fast. AMD countered with the HD 4xxx series witch were amazing. Cheap, cool, efficient, reliable, and the 4870 DDR4 offered 85% percent of the 280's performance. It was the best buy by far. Nvidia cocked up again later with the GTX 480 witch like the 280 was really hot, but lost the performance crown to the more expensive 5870.

What I'm trying to get at is nvidia and ati (now AMD) will always be in a sort of balance. What people missed at the VEGA demo was that AMD showed off "little vega" the 8GB cut down version. This fits their style since they seem to have a habbit of releasing slower cards first, with the fastest ones coming later. It's very possible that the bigger vega chip is not ready to showcase, and will probably launch in Q3 or Q4 2017.

tl;dr - nvidia tend to be dicks, and their products don't last as long as the competition (right now) because of lack of performance optimizations for previous generation cards in new drivers as well as crap like gameworks. They don't care about you, the consumer - they care about your money, and how they can get more of it as soon as possible. AMD doesn't care about you either, but if they have to fight each other with good products, we the consumers win.

jabbadapWell you might want to look last quarter results and think again:
www.anandtech.com/show/10825/nvidia-announces-record-q3-fy-2017-results

Those results represent overall earnings, not earnings from GPU sales. In fact nvidia made so much money lately by getting into IoT, AI, self driving cars and the server market - good decisions all. GPU's don't really bring in that much revenue anymore.

Launching GTX1080Ti before new Radeon series is risky.
Number of CUDA cores, performance and price should be estimate nicely before they launch anything or many buyers could finish on Vega 10.
Maybe AMD have almost same performance as TITAN Pascal. What then? Only full chip as GTX780Ti could be competitive.

kanecvrNvidia lately have had the shitty habit of crippling previous generation cards, while AMD has been increasing performance of last gen cards, including the now ~7 year old 7xxx series, witch with the lates drivers (16.12.2) get a massive 25-40% boost (depending on model), especially in current games. Have you tried playing fallout 4 on a GTX 760? It's a slideshow. Now try playing it on a HD 7950. At launch, the GTX 760 was 10% faster and more expensive, but it's aged badly due to lazy nvidia driver support and crap like gameworks.

th 7970 launched in December 2011, making it a little over 5 years old. But the fact that its still a capable card over 5 years after launch is impressive.

Vlada011Launching GTX1080Ti before new Radeon series is risky.
Number of CUDA cores, performance and price should be estimate nicely before they launch anything or many buyers could finish on Vega 10.
Maybe AMD have almost same performance as TITAN Pascal. What then? Only full chip as GTX780Ti could be competitive.

The estimated performance of Vega based on throughput compared to previous GCN chips puts it under Titan X performance. The joker is AMDs new scheduler and memory architecture.
Nvidia is probably getting on it not working that good.

efikkanAt the moment the huge demand for Tesla P40s are sucking the supply dry, even the supply of Titan X (Pascal) is limited.
GTX 1080 Ti will be a <3584 SP GP102.

Neh, the demand is not that big, however the stock is very small.

kanecvrNvidia lately have had the shitty habit of crippling previous generation cards, while AMD has been increasing performance of last gen cards, including the now ~7 year old 7xxx series, witch with the lates drivers (16.12.2) get a massive 25-40% boost (depending on model), especially in current games. Have you tried playing fallout 4 on a GTX 760? It's a slideshow. Now try playing it on a HD 7950. At launch, the GTX 760 was 10% faster and more expensive, but it's aged badly due to lazy nvidia driver support and crap like gameworks.

Now what I always wonder is - why do you give a shit if nvidia has the fastest card on the market? Are you going to buy a 1080 or 1080ti? 99% of gamers won't. They are too expensive and make for a bad investment. What people do buy in mass is stuff like the GTX 1050, RX 460, and to some extent the 1060 / RX 470 / RX 480. That's where the money is. Sure, there are huge margins on top end GPUs, but sales are so poor, money is made in the mid-end. And for the mid-end, the most recent driver updates have brought the RX 480 on par with the 1060 6GB in DX11, and gave it a 20-25% edge in DX12 / vulcan. In fact a 4GB 480 I recently tested impressed me by catching up to my GTX 1070 in Doom (using vulkan - ultra settings, 1080p, FSAA8X). That's a huge performance improvement since launch.

Right. Looking at the two company's history, in 2002 nvidia took an ass whopping from ATi's Radeon 9700. What did nvidia have back then? The Geforce 4 ti 4600, witch the 9700 PRO nuked. A few months later, nvidia rushed the FX series witch bombed. Bad. The FX 5800 was hot, loud and slow. They released the FX 5950XT a few months later, but ATi countered with the 9800 PRO witch dominated until the release of the Geforce 6 series. ATi then released the X800 and X850 witch took the performance crown away from the 6800. Then it was the X19xx vs the 79xx where they were tied (the 7950GT were great cards - had one back in the day - my first high end video card). ATi lost it with the 2xxx series, but they weren't far behind. The 2900XT while using more power, was cooler, cheaper and placed between the 8800GTS and the 8800GTX (both great cards but suffered from manufacturing challenges of the time - crappy ROHS solder). Later still, nvidia launched the GTX 280 - hot as hell, louder then a vacuum cleaner, expensive, but very, very fast. AMD countered with the HD 4xxx series witch were amazing. Cheap, cool, efficient, reliable, and the 4870 DDR4 offered 85% percent of the 280's performance. It was the best buy by far. Nvidia cocked up again later with the GTX 480 witch like the 280 was really hot, but lost the performance crown to the more expensive 5870.

What I'm trying to get at is nvidia and ati (now AMD) will always be in a sort of balance. What people missed at the VEGA demo was that AMD showed off "little vega" the 8GB cut down version. This fits their style since they seem to have a habbit of releasing slower cards first, with the fastest ones coming later. It's very possible that the bigger vega chip is not ready to showcase, and will probably launch in Q3 or Q4 2017.

tl;dr - nvidia tend to be dicks, and their products don't last as long as the competition (right now) because of lack of performance optimizations for previous generation cards in new drivers as well as crap like gameworks. They don't care about you, the consumer - they care about your money, and how they can get more of it as soon as possible. AMD doesn't care about you either, but if they have to fight each other with good products, we the consumers win.



Those results represent overall earnings, not earnings from GPU sales. In fact nvidia made so much money lately by getting into IoT, AI, self driving cars and the server market - good decisions all. GPU's don't really bring in that much revenue anymore.

In the past both Nvidia and AMD have released some great GPUs and some not so great GPUs. The problem we have for a while now is that we lack competition from AMD in the mid range area too. Comparative to the 1060 AMD offers a 480 but the argument could be made that a 1060 is really an upper end entry level GPU (looking at the bus). Whether you consider the 1060 to be an upper end entry level or a lower end mid range card there is no answer from AMD even now for the 1070 or the 1080. Yes, in DX12 and Vulkan the 480 gains traction and performs but how many games does that apply to? Very, very few for now.

We have Vega on the way and if it performs on par with Nvidia's upper end mid range 1080 and assuming the MSRP is reasonable and availability is good so that retailers don't gouge then we finally have a solid mid range competitor for the 1080. A slightly gimped Vega could be aimed at the 1070 I guess.

By the release of Vega and most likely the 1080 Ti we will probably be hearing more about Volta and Volta will be big imo. god only knows what the price for Voltas will be if AMD stays too far behind though.

I agree 100% that the vast majority of gamers buy entry level or mid range GPUs and a high end GPU is for a small group of gamers that want more and can afford more but for a while now and months into the future even the mid range market is almost completely owned by Nvidia. That's bad for all of us.

kanecvr...
Those results represent overall earnings, not earnings from GPU sales. In fact nvidia made so much money lately by getting into IoT, AI, self driving cars and the server market - good decisions all. GPU's don't really bring in that much revenue anymore.

Well read the chart, Gaming was where the most revenue were coming and what you mentioned is all separated to the own rows.


Well of course there might be some different aspects still under the gaming, but I don't think that some tegra tablets or tegra gaming consoles are the things that brings the most of that revenue for them.

Prima.VeraNeh, the demand is not that big, however the stock is very small.

Nvidia don't sell a similar quantity of Teslas as GeForce cards, but the demand for Teslas is greater than ever, consuming everything Nvidia can deliver. Nvidia can't get enough higher binnings of GP102 at this point.

efikkanNvidia don't sell a similar quantity of Teslas as GeForce cards, but the demand for Teslas is greater than ever, consuming everything Nvidia can deliver. Nvidia can't get enough higher binnings of GP102 at this point.

is it really though? It says that demand is declining

phanbueyis it really though? It says that demand is declining

Try again. It says it has tripled over the past year…

efikkanTry again. It says it has tripled over the past year…

Maybe it quadrupled the year before that? ;)

efikkanTry again. It says it has tripled over the past year…

Yeah wasn't looking at Datacenter.

Brusfantometth 7970 launched in December 2011, making it a little over 5 years old. But the fact that its still a capable card over 5 years after launch is impressive.



The estimated performance of Vega based on throughput compared to previous GCN chips puts it under Titan X performance. The joker is AMDs new scheduler and memory architecture.
Nvidia is probably getting on it not working that good.

Yeah, I f*ed up my math since I wrote that at 5 in the morning. Looking around it seems that vega might indeed be disappointing (performance-wise). Shame. In that case, it's only saving grace will be price. If it performs as well as a 1080 (non-ti) but costs as much as a 1070, it's a win in my book.

64KIn the past both Nvidia and AMD have released some great GPUs and some not so great GPUs. The problem we have for a while now is that we lack competition from AMD in the mid range area too. Comparative to the 1060 AMD offers a 480 but the argument could be made that a 1060 is really an upper end entry level GPU (looking at the bus). Whether you consider the 1060 to be an upper end entry level or a lower end mid range card there is no answer from AMD even now for the 1070 or the 1080. Yes, in DX12 and Vulkan the 480 gains traction and performs but how many games does that apply to? Very, very few for now.

... I agree with you on all points except how you categorize the cards - I believe the 1060 / RX 470/480 are mid-ra nge parts, not upper-mid, because the GTX 1070 exists - witch is what I consider to be upper mid range. (with the 1080 being high end and the Titan X enthusiast range). Nvidia did release the 1050ti, but it's far to slow to compete with the RX 470 - about 40-50% slower to be precise... right now the 1060 / 480 / 470 are cards you can buy for about 200-250 euro witch provide great 1080p framerate at full detail and with some aa in most games, so they are more then enough for most gamer - but as you mentioned above, we're missing a performance bracket - it should have been filled out by the 1050ti, but it performs really bad in some AAA titles, while costing close to 200 euro for some models (I think the cheapest 1050 ti is about 160 euro). The 1050ti should have been ~ 25% slower then the aforementioned mid end cards. Not to mention AMD has nothing to counter it... or do they? In some rare cases the RX 470 and the 1050ti meet at allmost the same price point - as I mentioned above, I got a RX 470 (Powercolor RedDevil V2) for 179 euro - while the high end 1050ti models (particularly the Asus Strix model) sold for more then that.

64KBy the release of Vega and most likely the 1080 Ti we will probably be hearing more about Volta and Volta will be big imo. god only knows what the price for Voltas will be if AMD stays too far behind though.

That would be disastrous for us consumers. The thing is, looking back at nvidia's strategy since the GTX 4xx series, I'm not sure volta will bring that much of an improvement. I think it will be a streamlined version of pascal, with higher clocks and better efficiency.

64KI agree 100% that the vast majority of gamers buy entry level or mid range GPUs and a high end GPU is for a small group of gamers that want more and can afford more but for a while now and months into the future even the mid range market is almost completely owned by Nvidia. That's bad for all of us.

I agree. But right now AMD is holding strong in the mid-end with the 470 and 480, keeping the 1060 prices down to earth (saving nvidia fan's wallets). Otherwise I'm pretty sure the 1060 would cost 300-350 euro.

It feels like AMD is slacking in the GPU department - possibly because they have been focusing on ZEN (RyZen) witch seems to be very good (if leaks and rumors are to be believed). Hopefully, after Ryzen's launch, they will shift some money and manpower over to the GPU side, otherwise they will not be able to compete with nvidia.

I also believe that AMD bit off more then they can chew when they bought ATi. They don't have enough money or manpower to make both good GPUs and CPUs, and it's pretty obvious there's more money to be made in processors and mainboards then there is in video cards, since most computers don't need a GPU, and gaming PCs are a niche in the computer industry. Practically what kept them afloat so far is the console deals with micro$oft an $ony.

I strongly believe they should sell off ATi and their GPU division, to focus on making chipsets and processors, and properly compete with intel.

atomicusNvidia played this well. VEGA isn't going to touch the 1080Ti (which launches sooner), it's only just going to beat the 1080, if that. Nvidia are untouchable now, no matter what anyone says. They have HUGE coffers, they know how to make product and they know how to market it. AMD just can't compete at the top tier level, they simply can't. If you want the best, you go Nvidia. That fact won't be changing for the foreseeable future. AMD will remain the budget brand and I expect VEGA to increase their market share and see them re-enter the fold somewhat, but they are still competing in the mid-range. Nvidia are not worried, they know exactly what they're doing.

Imo, AMD is actually doing pretty well; mid-tier graphics cards is where the largest consumer base is. Also, I and almost every other consumer should hope AMD will perform well and force Nvidia to lower prices, causing a better situation and healthier market for both AMD and Nvidia fanboys.

kanecvr... I agree with you on all points except how you categorize the cards - I believe the 1060 / RX 470/480 are mid-ra nge parts, not upper-mid, because the GTX 1070 exists - witch is what I consider to be upper mid range. (with the 1080 being high end and the Titan X enthusiast range)

Then you undoubtedly are unaware of how NVIDIA themselves categorize their chips. The chip is what determines the tier. GP104 is mid range, thus making the 1070 a solid mid-range card and the 1080 the upper mid-range card.

NVIDIA frequently delay and sometimes don't see the need to release the high-end chip of a generation. Also, keep in mind, the scale moves with each generation. What was mid-tier last gen will likely be low-tier this gen.

Grant D.Imo, AMD is actually doing pretty well; mid-tier graphics cards is where the largest consumer base is. Also, I and almost every other consumer should hope AMD will perform well and force Nvidia to lower prices, causing a better situation and healthier market for both AMD and Nvidia fanboys.

Having something to compete with the 1080 in 2016 would have done the job.

I don't buy the argument that AMD intentionally failed to deliver a high end part. Nobody has ever, ever done that. Plus, the move certainly hasn't made them more cash than it would have should their line up include a high end card. AMD simply botched Polaris and ended up with a design that simply didn't scale past RX 480.

bugHaving something to compete with the 1080 in 2016 would have done the job.

I don't buy the argument that AMD intentionally failed to deliver a high end part. Nobody has ever, ever done that. Plus, the move certainly hasn't made them more cash than it would have should their line up include a high end card. AMD simply botched Polaris and ended up with a design that simply didn't scale past RX 480.

Design wasn't really the problem, now the fabbing... It just wasn't ever gonna work and they didn't bother.

TheGuruStudDesign wasn't really the problem, now the fabbing... It just wasn't ever gonna work and they didn't bother.

True, but a design that can't be made is still flawed in my eyes.
Now I know those people aren't stupid. Most likely under pressure somewhere along the way they just went a bridge too far.