word on the street is no live stream so an announcement of new card is doubtful.

They have no reason to release a 1080ti just now. They can sit and wait and see how fast Vega is and then they can release a gaming card that is faster or slower than the Titan X. Or release a Titan XX. Or a Titan Whoopty Fucking Do X.

If you look at how fast the Titan X is, a 1080 ti can be faster with better power and cooling. If Vega isn't faster than Titan X, well hell, Nvidia will not make the 1080ti a super card.

I just hope Vega is 1080 level at least and 3/4 the price.

the54thvoidI just hope Vega is 1080 level at least and 3/4 the price.

Dream on then. Vega is easily over 1080 level and has a way bigger die and also HBM2 making it expensive to produce - way more expensive than the 1080. It has to be a lot better or it's simply a fail too. The lowest Vega can "afford to be" is 10-20% over 1080 level, being right under the Titan X or equal and a competitor to a possible 1080 Ti with only 3072 shaders or maybe 3328 shaders activated, with better cooling being as fast as the Titan X or even a tad faster, exactly like the 980 Ti was compared to the original Titan X.

Nonsense. R9 Fury was also thought to be so much more expensive because of HBM and in the end it wasn't and it even came with AiO cooler by default. And it's still an amazing card powered by pretty darn good Fiji core. And lets face it, HBM was more of a novelty back then, than it is now. Vega will only have 2 stacks of HBM2 which means complexity is actually down. And what NVIDIA can't do even with GDDR5X is make super compact card. If AMD gets thermals right, they can create a tiny flagship because they have no memory on the PCB itself. And this also allows vendors to still make big versions with huge coolers that run at ridiculously low speeds. R9 Nano was their pilot project back then and surely, they'll build on that. Considering the price and occasional thermal issues, that card was pretty damn popular.

RejZoRNonsense. R9 Fury was also thought to be so much more expensive because of HBM and in the end it wasn't and it even came with AiO cooler by default. And it's still an amazing card powered by pretty darn good Fiji core. And lets face it, HBM was more of a novelty back then, than it is now. Vega will only have 2 stacks of HBM2 which means complexity is actually down. And what NVIDIA can't do even with GDDR5X is make super compact card. If AMD gets thermals right, they can create a tiny flagship because they have no memory on the PCB itself. And this also allows vendors to still make big versions with huge coolers that run at ridiculously low speeds. R9 Nano was their pilot project back then and surely, they'll build on that. Considering the price and occasional thermal issues, that card was pretty damn popular.

What a utterly senseless comment, because the R9 Fury was very expensive (580-630€ at release in Germany which still is one of the cheap countries in Europe), so you're trying to call me out on nonsense and are rather providing more proof for what I said. Nice job.

Vega will be more expensive than 1080 because it performs superior. Only a GTX 1080 TI can bring the price down, so if Vega is released more expensive than 1080 because it's faster, the 1080 TI has to be faster than Vega to bring prices of Vega and GTX 1080 down. In the end 500-600 bucks for Vega and 400-500 for GTX 1080 and the new 1080 Ti being 600-700 or even more, somewhat similar to 980 Ti pricing.

Lol, I bought my GTX 980 from Germany. It was 650€. And that wasn't even on the release day or around it, it was quite later when it should be even cheaper. And R9 Fury was a direct competitor of GTX 980. It also performed around the same. Try again.

EDIT:
Besides, if Vega will be faster, AMD is entitled to have higher prices. NVIDIA does that all the time and it doesn't bother anyone, but if AMD does it when it has the lead, it's somehow inconvenient... Double standards much...

RejZoRLol, I bought my GTX 980 from Germany. It was 650€. And that wasn't even on the release day or around it, it was quite later when it should be even cheaper. And R9 Fury was a direct competitor of GTX 980. It also performed around the same. Try again.

You're not making any sense, as nothing you stated contradicts anything I said. Too bad.

EDIT:
Besides, if Vega will be faster, AMD is entitled to have higher prices. NVIDIA does that all the time and it doesn't bother anyone, but if AMD does it when it has the lead, it's somehow inconvenient... Double standards much...

Childish AMD vs Nvidia debates are your mind set, not mine, anything I said has nothing to do with that. You're totally weird at this point.

You're spazzing out here for no reason and I'm the weird one for stating basic economics and logic... R9 Fury wasn't "very expensive", it was priced around the same as GTX 980. Which it was also competing with. And it's not AMD vs NVIDIA "childish mindset" but facts. If one is in the lead, they have the upper hand for shaping prices. Everyone bloody does it. Meaning, AMD can price Vega higher, because it'll be the fastest card on the planet. For as long as it lasts anyway. Again, stating facts and market basics. What do you have to offer other than really weird attacks at me?

RejZoRYou're spazzing out here for no reason and I'm the weird one for stating basic economics and logic... R9 Fury wasn't "very expensive", it was priced around the same as GTX 980. Which it was also competing with. And it's not AMD vs NVIDIA "childish mindset" but facts. If one is in the lead, they have the upper hand for shaping prices. Everyone bloody does it. Meaning, AMD can price Vega higher, because it'll be the fastest card on the planet. For as long as it lasts anyway. Again, stating facts and market basics. What do you have to offer other than really weird attacks at me?

Who started the weird attacks? Strange guy. GTX 980 started at about 450-500 bucks, it was not comparable to R9 Fury which started at a 580-620 price point (XFX being cheapest, also cheap cooler, Sapphire and Asus being mostly over 600 bucks expensive, with Asus being the most expensive ofc). R9 Fury was situated in the middle of enthusiast grade / highend cards being at a unique price point. I would know because I actually live here, your informations are simply wrong.

Who said that AMD isn't allowed to do anything? I didn't say that. Go and read my comments again, and next time get your strange AMD/Nvidia biased "enemy thinking" down first. I was talking generally about GPUs and price points they have, that's it.

Whatever, Vega will be expensive, just wait and see. Anyone hoping a over 500mm² 14nm GPU with HBM2 tech will be 25% cheaper than GTX 1080 (which is also slower) will be totally disappointed soon.

So, you're comparing a garbage reference cooler GTX 980 price to an AiO cooled premium R9 Fury X. What mate!? Besides, where have I ever said Vega will be cheaper than GTX 1080? I don't even know where people get such dumb ideas. Maybe Vega11, but certainly not Vega10. That wouldn't make absolutely no sense, especially if it's faster.

RejZoRSo, you're comparing a garbage reference cooler GTX 980 price to an AiO cooled premium R9 Fury X. What mate!? Besides, where have I ever said Vega will be cheaper than GTX 1080? I don't even know where people get such dumb ideas. Maybe Vega11, but certainly not Vega10. That wouldn't make absolutely no sense, especially if it's faster.

Not really, actually I'm comparing custom 980 (not the most expensive ones, but still good customs) to R9 Fury, not Fury X, at release date of R9 Fury ofc, which is the earliest date where you can start comparing them to one another.

You didn't say that, someone else did, can you actually read the thread first before you start attacks on people?

You fucking started attacking me. Are you dense or something?

RejZoRYou fucking started attacking me. Are you dense or something?

Hahaha, you're the one who is dense, scroll up and look for yourself. You started this by calling me "nonsense".

WHAT DA FAQ. I called your so called "argument" nonsense. And now that's somehow an attack on YOU. Jesus christ... I'm out.

RejZoRWHAT DA FAQ. I called your so called "argument" nonsense. And now that's somehow an attack on YOU. Jesus christ... I'm out.

Of course it is. Okay, bye!

as long as nvidia does not announce that they started supporting FreeSync... I do not care! :D

the54thvoidThey have no reason to release a 1080ti just now. They can sit and wait and see how fast Vega is and then they can release a gaming card that is faster or slower than the Titan X. Or release a Titan XX. Or a Titan Whoopty Fucking Do X.

If you look at how fast the Titan X is, a 1080 ti can be faster with better power and cooling. If Vega isn't faster than Titan X, well hell, Nvidia will not make the 1080ti a super card.

I just hope Vega is 1080 level at least and 3/4 the price.

AMD has already showcased the performance level of the full Vega 10, it will be a GP104 competitor which will pull ahead of GTX 1080 in AMD favoring titles like Doom. The size of the chip will be comparable to GP102, and will use HBM2, so it will be much more expensive to manufacture than GTX 1080/1070(/1060) which will be it's competitors. So AMD can't push the prize too low, they might be trying to position the cards slightly above the competition to attract some value oriented customers. It wouldn't compete with Pascal in terms of efficiency anyway.

Nvidia is not holding back GTX 1080 Ti because of Vega, it wouldn't be a competitor anyway. The binning for GTX 1080 Ti was decided more than 6 months ago, so the hardware configuration is set in stone. The only parameters Nvidia can tweak at this point is clock, voltage, fan profile, etc. But the cards have already been in production for a couple of months, so the final specs are all set. At this point Nvidia is just filling up the stocks for the release.

Nvidia should release GTX 1080 Ti soon, because if they delay it again it will be too close to the first Volta("GV104") cards arriving one year from now, which will probably come close to it.

GTX 1080 Ti will not be faster than Titan X, it will be slightly slower. It is a lower binning, but will have higher base clocks and higher boost.