Captain_TomNever gonna happen hahaha. Nvidia has been trying to make the high-end start at $799 for a bloody decade. The 290X was the last time AMD really tried to keep prices down, and the lemmings bought the 780 Ti instead. It's over.

What about Geforce 8800 Ultra at $829 ($1008 today)
or 8800 GTX $649 ($811 today)

Captain_TomIn fact I wouldn't be surprised if AMD will continue to sit out the high-end till 2020 so that Nvidia can be blamed for price hikes, and then AMD will launch some GTX 1280 Ti competitor for $750 and everyone will think it's cheap ;).

That's some of the most absurd reasoning I've heard in a good while…
AMD is just holding back :p

Captain_TomHave you overclocked your 980 Ti? My Fury @1100/518MHz traded blows with a 1070 (And a 1080 in some games). 980 TI overclocks better too, and I have seen them match a stock 1080.

But yeah I mean my honest to god expectation is the 11xx series will only be 15-30% more powerful, and at least 20% more expensive. AMD will launch some new 12nm Polaris card for a good price, they might launch a crazy expensive 7nm Vega Card for competition against Titan Volta, and Navi is just gonna be a 7nm 120w card that competes with the 1170. We will need to wait till 2020 for any "pimp slap" from AMD...

Have you looked at what Nvidia improved from Maxwell to Pascal?

A lot of it was clock increase. Maxwell was very low clocked to begin with, but Pascal pushed it too far, these cards boost into throttling territory, requiring "unrealistic" airflow to match the performance levels seen in benchmarks.

I seriously doubt any GTX 1080 can take another 40% clock boost, or worse, a 980. GV104 will have up to 56 SMs (3584 cores), that's 40% more than GTX 1080. So, the new Volta based GPUs will primarily add more resources rather than boost clocks.

Waiting for 7nm GPU's.

Then keep on waiting. It will take a while before consumer GPUs on 7nm arrive…

TheOneIf they do raise the prices again it will only continue to damage the PC gaming market.

What damage? This nonexistant drop in PC gaming market growth of the past... well forever? Gaming is the one growth market even though PC is in decline.

Its also been researched that gamers invest more and more in high end components YoY, all Nvidia does is play along.

And it works, I mean look at this topic. We are discussing the new 1180 as if a miracle's about to happen, even though its not even the top-end card yet - the only reason we do this is because last gen's top performance is coming down in PRICE.

Why do we want AMD back in the game? So they can push down PRICE. We don't even want them for performance... we already know that whatever they bring will fall short, just want them to play the game of competition so we can buy a discounted Nvidia card. Market share confirms this.

People need to get real about what they are creating for themselves. The same people who complain about price are first in line to buy every new release. Its hypocrisy beyond belief.

efikkanThat's some of the most absurd reasoning I've heard in a good while…
AMD is just holding back :p

Yeah right. They have been holding back since Maxwell, amirite? I hope you're joking. They're simply not playing anymore.

Vayra86Yeah right. They have been holding back since Maxwell, amirite? I hope you're joking. They're simply not playing anymore.

If you read what I was quoting, the sarcasm should be obvious. I was not the one indicating AMD was holding back to drive up prices ;)

efikkanThen keep on waiting. It will take a while before consumer GPUs on 7nm arrive…

Yeah, around 2H 2019 for "1180 Ti". My 1080 Ti will last just fine till then.
I have lost hope in high-end AMD GPU's.

lasYeah, around 2H 2019 for "1180 Ti". My 1080 Ti will last just fine till then.

Nobody is forcing you to upgrade every generation. In fact, I recommend most people to skip at least one generation, and only upgrade when they need more performance.

efikkanNobody is forcing you to upgrade every generation. In fact, I recommend most people to skip at least one generation, and only upgrade when they need more performance.

Nah its much cooler saying you will upgrade every time some new announcement is made. And then complain when it gets priced too high for the wallet ;)

efikkanNobody is forcing you to upgrade every generation. In fact, I recommend most people to skip at least one generation, and only upgrade when they need more performance.

Nah nobody is forcing me, but I simply do it if it's worth it. With the none-existing competition from AMD and Nvidia's tick tock I usually can skip a generation, yes.

I always need performance, I'm a high fps gamer using 165 Hz but money will be spent on i9-9900K instead this time around.

efikkanNobody is forcing you to upgrade every generation. In fact, I recommend most people to skip at least one generation, and only upgrade when they need more performance.

In a way, buying new and selling old when it will have still value on it. That way one can keep upgrade costs reasonably down. But if you skip generation you lost the resale value of your old card and buying new card will cost you more at ones.

jabbadapIn a way, buying new and selling old when it will have still value on it. That way one can keep upgrade costs reasonably down. But if you skip generation you lost the resale value of your old card and buying new card will cost you more at ones.

No, GPUs easily last 2 years and still offer great resale value. IF they are upper midrange/high end. Beyond that, yes, it gets harder, but still. Note, 2 years in the normal world, not the current one where we're looking at Pascal longer than we should.

efikkanWhat about Geforce 8800 Ultra at $829 ($1008 today)
or 8800 GTX $649 ($811 today)


That's some of the most absurd reasoning I've heard in a good while…
AMD is just holding back :p

It seems like you are trying to start some bogus argument even though we agree lol.

-You posted the 8800 Ultra. I know, Exhibit A of Nvidia hiking up prices. In fact I am gonna call it - The GTX 1180 will be just like the 8800 GTX.
-You think it's absurd for AMD to ignore the high end? They clearly are, and it is the same thing as "holding back." LOL

Captain_Tom-You think it's absurd for AMD to ignore the high end? They clearly are, and it is the same thing as "holding back." LOL

Yes it's absurd, because AMD have no architecture capable of scaling up to compete with GTX 1080 Ti, even less so what Nvidia have right around the corner. The "normal" Vega 64 is already at 295 W, and scaling it up 50-100% would result in an "unmanufacturable" chip. Not to mention that all the scaling problems it already have will become even more obvious the further you scale it.

If you seriously think AMD is selectively ignoring the high-end, then you're misguided.

efikkanYes it's absurd, because AMD have no architecture capable of scaling up to compete with GTX 1080 Ti, even less so what Nvidia have right around the corner. The "normal" Vega 64 is already at 295 W, and scaling it up 50-100% would result in an "unmanufacturable" chip. Not to mention that all the scaling problems it already have will become even more obvious the further you scale it.

If you seriously think AMD is selectively ignoring the high-end, then you're misguided.

What do they have right around the corner?

Prince ValiantWhat do they have right around the corner?

The consumer version of "Volta", what this article calls "GTX 1180", and the rest of its family.

efikkanYes it's absurd, because AMD have no architecture capable of scaling up to compete with GTX 1080 Ti, even less so what Nvidia have right around the corner. The "normal" Vega 64 is already at 295 W, and scaling it up 50-100% would result in an "unmanufacturable" chip. Not to mention that all the scaling problems it already have will become even more obvious the further you scale it.

If you seriously think AMD is selectively ignoring the high-end, then you're misguided.

Your confidence is pretty funny considering 14nm Vega 64 has no problem competing with 12nm Volta in compute (with half the die size too).... And it can because that is what Vega was designed to do (not gaming).

Unlike you, I will avoid acting like I know the max performance of cards that don't even exist lol. But please, go look at the performance of AMD's mobile Vega APU's. They compete with Nvidia's lower-end laptop cards while using HALF the energy. Again - it's because that was a use-case AMD designed Vega for.

AMD can and has taken the gaming performance crown multiple times, but at this point it just isn't worth it. Some people around here act like they got into PC gaming 1 year ago lol...

Captain_TomYour confidence is pretty funny considering 14nm Vega 64 has no problem competing with 12nm Volta in compute (with half the die size too).... And it can because that is what Vega was designed to do (not gaming).

Unlike you, I will avoid acting like I know the max performance of cards that don't even exist lol. But please, go look at the performance of AMD's mobile Vega APU's. They compete with Nvidia's lower-end laptop cards while using HALF the energy. Again - it's because that was a use-case AMD designed Vega for.

AMD can and has taken the gaming performance crown multiple times, but at this point it just isn't worth it. Some people around here act like they got into PC gaming 1 year ago lol...

This is not about just Vega. Ever since Hawaii they have had problems with perf/watt and scaling GCN up was already beyond the pleasant range of TDP budget. This is a trend that Polaris only postponed a bit, and Vega brings nothing to the table to improve on that either.

Comparing Vega APUs and their perf/watt to that makes no sense, unless you find a way to combine a dozen of them.

Vayra86This is not about just Vega. Ever since Hawaii they have had problems with perf/watt and scaling GCN up was already beyond the pleasant range of TDP budget. This is a trend that Polaris only postponed a bit, and Vega brings nothing to the table to improve on that either.

Comparing Vega APUs and their perf/watt to that makes no sense, unless you find a way to combine a dozen of them.

You do see the mistake you are making in your logic.... right? You are assuming the only goal to strive for is better top-end gaming performance. That's not what Vega was meant for.

Vega was meant to be efficient in smaller die's (for APU's), and then to also scale its compute performance well when pushed to the limits. That's it.


Ignoring the fact that AMD's 15-25w APU's compete with a 15-25w i7 + 25w Nvidia card is pretty funny. It's impressive, even if it isn't meant for 4K gaming. It's double the performance/watt of the competition.

Vayra86What damage? This nonexistant drop in PC gaming market growth of the past... well forever? Gaming is the one growth market even though PC is in decline.

Its also been researched that gamers invest more and more in high end components YoY, all Nvidia does is play along.

And it works, I mean look at this topic. We are discussing the new 1180 as if a miracle's about to happen, even though its not even the top-end card yet - the only reason we do this is because last gen's top performance is coming down in PRICE.

Why do we want AMD back in the game? So they can push down PRICE. We don't even want them for performance... we already know that whatever they bring will fall short, just want them to play the game of competition so we can buy a discounted Nvidia card. Market share confirms this.

People need to get real about what they are creating for themselves. The same people who complain about price are first in line to buy every new release. Its hypocrisy beyond belief.

The damage from shortages and price hikes.

Captain_TomWe've been there since 2016 lol.

Not really... depends on what ya wanna play

Witcher 3 and RoTR were in low 40s on the 1080
Just Cause (low 50s)
Hitman (upper 30s)
GTAV (low 50s)
Far Cry Primal (low 40s)
Crysis 3 (mid 30s)
CoD (High 30s / Low 40s)
BF4 (mid 50s)
Anno 2205 (low 50s)
AC: Syndicate (upper 50s)

That's 75% of the games in the TPU test suite
I won't look at 4k until GFX cards can maintain frame rates high enough such that most games are above the point (75 fps) where they benefit from adaptive sync and ULMB can be used. I dunno if the 1180 Ti (or whatever name of the 1080 Ti successor is) will deliver that.

GFX card prices have been remarkably stable over the past 17 years

Captain_TomNever gonna happen hahaha. Nvidia has been trying to make the high-end start at $799 for a bloody decade. The 290X was the last time AMD really tried to keep prices down, and the lemmings bought the 780 Ti instead. It's over

Actually, when the 290x / 780 Ti came out, I bought the 780 for $490 (2 actually) because the $600 290x's heat problems and aggressive in the box clocks left it with measly OCing ability. On average the 290x was about 7 - 8 % faster than the 780 "outta the box" and everyone, including myself, was excited that AMD took the title. But that excitment faded on the test bench. The 290x only overclocked in single digits ... a typical AIB 780 could OC 32% over stock settings, obliterating the initial 'out of box' advantage of the 290x.

nVidia can charge what it wants because from the 1060 on up there's no competition. I don't understand the ire , corporations are legally required to act in the best interests of their shareholders, not to do so is malfeasance. Two things determine market pricing a) competition and b) what the market will bear. nVidia is sitting pretty ...With 7xx , they had the top 2 tiers, that grew to 3 with the 9xx and to 4 with 10xx. If you won't spring for a 1080 Ti, you will take a 1080 .... and so on to the 1070 and 1060. So any pressure on pricing is only going to come from 2 sources:

a) Someone offers something comparable cheaper. *
b) Consumers stop buying

* Note that the "value" argument is almost always oversold. Whats the better value when building a new box ?

Option 1- Let's say $500 card gets you a performance index of 500
Option 2 - Investing an extra $100, you can get to a performance index of 590

While most would say option 2, ... 18% increase in speed for a 20% increase in price. I'd say that's a false equivalency. First off, most folks would rather be in 1st place than 2nd... You don't see silver medalists on the Wheaties Box. It's also the one that everything else will be compared to ... the one that i the days of trade mags "made the cover. The one with all the "mindshare". Back in the 90s and early 00s the yearly laptop review always had the IBM A20p on the cover. It might set ya back $5k but it always topped the performance and feature charts. It didn't sell a lot but , no businessman wanted to walk into a meeting w/o that IBM Logo. At some point a bean counter @ IBM said this is unprofitable ... we don't sell enough of these to make it worthwhile. The subsequently lost the mag covers, the mindshare and eventually, the laptop business. To gain markeshare, AMD has to gain mindshare and that's gonna require more than a 2nd place or "value" showing.

More importantly, the investment on the delivery of that level of performance is delivered by your entire PC, not just the card so if you spent $800 on everything else, then that's a 7% increase in price ($390 vs $1300) ... for an 18% performance increase, that's a "no brainer'.




images.hardocp.com/images/news/1489189662xrJkzvohX8_1_1.png

Captain_TomUnlike you, I will avoid acting like I know the max performance of cards that don't even exist lol. But please, go look at the performance of AMD's mobile Vega APU's. They compete with Nvidia's lower-end laptop cards while using HALF the energy. Again - it's because that was a use-case AMD designed Vega for.

That's a new one, Vega designed for the ultra low-end.
What's next, Vega10 performs badly because AMD didn't want it to perform better?

Captain_TomAMD can and has taken the gaming performance crown multiple times, but at this point it just isn't worth it. Some people around here act like they got into PC gaming 1 year ago lol...

Having the performance crown is not relevant, but having a competitive product in the segment.

AMD have nothing today, and nothing lined up for the next three years which will even reach into the high-end. I can assure you that if AMD could, they would have released high-end products. Right now their only focus for GPUs are SOCs for the consoles. Their target are low-end GPUs for gaming consoles, and reselling some derivative products through mostly low-end OEM sales. It's kind of ironic that AMD targets one market with CPUs, and another with GPUs.

AMD should be careful in the long run, the only reason why they got the deals with Sony and Microsoft was they were the only who could deliver a CPU and GPU bundle. In a few years, Intel will be a likely contender for future consoles.

And just to remind you, the last time AMD actually had a lead performance was when Nvidia screwed up Fermi.

Yeah forget the GTX 1080 even , it's been TWO YEARS since the GP102 launched in the form of the original Pascal Titan X (AKA GTX 1080 Ti early adopters edition). Two years and still nothing from the competion that competes, that wasn't even the full chip.

Sorry state of affairs.

DammeronMiners be like: F*ck the GPUs, if I can has specialized ASICs.

You wish.

lasGPU mining is pretty much dead. ASIC mining is the way to go. This is why GPU prices are down.

Mining in general is down now.

@btarunr
Some claimed PCB shots: www.chiphell.com/thread-1889250-1-1.html

If only AMD could do with nvidia what recently did with intel cpus.
:(