To you it might not seem interesting but to many it very well might;
Earlier the gpu-race was about to get to '1440p 60-144fps' ultra (which 1080Ti does pretty well in almost anything on the market)
The "NEXT" challenge is 4K at 144 fps; Not 4K at 60fps+ because 1080Ti already does that too.
So right now the main reason to get a card that performs better than 1080Ti is if you own on of the new 4K 144hz screens (priced at 3000 dollars), or if you have some other graphichintensive purpose that only a 1080Ti+ can solve (but gaming is not one of them.) The thing is that the 4k 144hz screens will take years before they are down in price and until that happens to a growing part of people 1080Ti performance is "good enough" for any game, any screen out there (unless you are ultrawidescreen 4096x1440 or something). My be is that we will see a slowdown in performance leaps for some years and a more competitive focus on price. So the big question is; can AMD price their GPU competitive and can they keep miners away from them?
I have a 1440p 165 hz screen with gsync and a 1080Ti. If I got a card that was twice as good = cool, but in almost any game i would never notice since my fps would be 100+ and with gsync on anyway. Im not arguing your opion, im just saying that I think alot of other people will puts value for money first (and as said before the focus will shift back to value for money since we are in a valley where king of the hill performance does not "take any hills the others will not be able to climb anyway" (you can quote me on the last part that was brilliant of me....)...
Yup. Cool story bro. Meanwhile there are even 1440p games where 1080ti falls short, but keep living the dream. And next year, there will be lots more.
Stagnation in GPU =
a step back. And the result of that is that playable performance at all levels becomes more expensive. If GPUs don't get more powerful each gen on EACH tier in the product stack, it means you will pay the same or even
more for the same performance as last year and this does not just apply to the 1080ti performance level... Why? Because games do get more demanding over time and they will edge closer to a higher GPU tier every year. Pascal is already out for nearly two years now and there is no news about anything that will top it. Turing and an 1180? Same-ish performance most likely. AMD's Vega? Not a gaming GPU (surely you don't still think they will keep trying that).. and it never was.
Your statement that the next challenge is 4K144fps is complete and utter nonsense. You're talking about a top 1% that might consider that between now and the next 2-3 years. If its even that. It combines a GPU and CPU bottleneck with a near-guarantee that you won't ever comfortably hit that target. If you want to burn everything on computer hardware... Either way, AMD is not going to move us closer to that target with Vega; not with 35% more performance and not even with 50% more performance.
In other news...
https://wccftech.com/exclusive-amd-navi-gpu-roadmap-cost-zen/
Mind you I don't usually link WCCFtech but this seems legit. Additionally, this article speaks of Radeon Instinct which is not the gaming GPU and everybody knows that if AMD tries to pull another Vega for gamers after the silly show called HBM-based gaming SKUs they have literally lost the plot. The only reason we got Vega in the first place (and the reason it was so badly optimized and still is) is for AMD to have a bucket to toss the leftovers into that didn't make it into Frontiers or MI25 cards. Because those do sell for 2-3x the price. This was already clear months ago, but nobody wanted to believe it (blaming lack of cards on 'miners and HBM supply', when in reality the cards never even got to the marketplace).... And here we are, today.
