GTX 1080 Price

[iPC]

Hi, I was just wondering what the price will most likely be on the Geforce GTX 1080. Thank you!

[suchamoneypit]

look up the price of a GTX 980 at release

[don_svetlio]

550$

[Aereldor]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

550$

Really? I thought it'd be a bit higher than the GTX 980 Ti right now.

[Imakuni]

[l__T__l]

11 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Really? I thought it'd be a bit higher than the GTX 980 Ti right now.

Why?

[SteveGrabowski0]

16 minutes ago, suchamoneypit said:

look up the price of a GTX 980 at release

And then add $100

[SteveGrabowski0]

4 minutes ago, l__T__l said:

Why?

Nvidia had pretty strong competition from Hawaii when Maxwell launched. But 232mm^2 Polaris probably isn't going to be anywhere near the 320mm^2 GP104, so GTX 1070/1080 will likely be running unopposed in the highend segment until Vega.

[Aereldor]

8 minutes ago, l__T__l said:

Why?

It follows the trend of previous generations. 780 a little faster than the 680, and more expensive at release. The GTX 980 was a bit faster than the 780 Ti, as well as more expensive at release. The GTX 1080 will, in all likelihood, be slightly faster than the 980 Ti, as well as more expensive at release.

Please correct me if I'm wrong- I'd certainly be happier if the GTX 1080 goes for $550 at release.

[QFA350]

Don't even worry about pricing or anything to do with the 1080 right now. It has not been released yet and so nobody will know. The leaked pictures of the cooler could be anyone good with a CNC and photo editing tools so don't get your hopes up to high right now.

[Aereldor]

2 minutes ago, Warning said:

Don't even worry about pricing or anything to do with the 1080 right now. It has not been released yet and so nobody will know. The leaked pictures of the cooler could be anyone good with a CNC and photo editing tools so don't get your hopes up to high right now.

But it isn't as mysterious as you make it out to be. The pricing of the GTX 1080 is more than 'anyone's guess'. We can make an educated guess at how much it's going to cost based on trends in the pricing and succession of high-end cards in the last few generations of NVidia GPUs. There's a small possibility of this trend being turned on its head (the card being sold for $550), but NVidia's history appears to stack the odds against it.

[Enderman]

the same as the 980 was when it launched

[SteveGrabowski0]

3 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

It follows the trend of previous generations. 780 a little faster than the 680, and more expensive at release. The GTX 980 was a bit faster than the 780 Ti, as well as more expensive at release. The GTX 1080 will, in all likelihood, be slightly faster than the 980 Ti, as well as more expensive at release.

Please correct me if I'm wrong- I'd certainly be happier if the GTX 1080 goes for $550 at release.

The 980 was quite a bit cheaper than the 780 Ti, at $550 vs the 780 Ti selling at mostly $650-$700. But that was when AMD had a lot more market share and when Hawaii was a huge threat. Now Nvidia owns the dgpu market. I initially thought maybe we'd get a repeat of Maxwell with an awesome 70 series card for $350 or less for them to try to kill AMD off, but they've pretty much done it already.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

I will say it might be like the 780. $600~ ish

[Aereldor]

10 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

The 980 was quite a bit cheaper than the 780 Ti, at $550 vs the 780 Ti selling at mostly $650-$700. But that was when AMD had a lot more market share and when Hawaii was a huge threat. Now Nvidia owns the dgpu market. I initially thought maybe we'd get a repeat of Maxwell with an awesome 70 series card for $350 or less for them to try to kill AMD off, but they've pretty much done it already.

I'm inclined towards AMD in the long run, though. Their mainshare will likely skyrocket due to their complete acquisition of consoles with their APUs. As a result, people are going to be developing for consoles, which have AMD hardware, and it will no longer make sense to use NVidia cards for game development. As developers move to AMD hardware- and possibly the mantle API- NVidia will be fighting a losing battle, and their performance will probably start to affect their mainshare. Face it- since the PC market is smaller, most PC games are console ports, and when all console hardware comes from AMD, what's going to perform better on PC?

Take into consideration that an R9 390 HAMMERS a GTX 970 in DirectX 12 games like Ashes of the Singularity, and even catches up with a much higher-end GTX 980 Ti.

More on this here- (an excellent video series by AdoredTV on YouTube).

 

In summation, unless NVidia captures the value-oriented section of the market by dropping prices drastically, this is going to come into effect sooner than we realize.

EDIT: Disclaimer- it's balance that I want. I'm no fanboy- I know that a balanced market share will push each company towards innovating their technology rather than trying to steal a larger chunk of the market through marketing and gimmicks. I only said I was 'inclined' towards AMD as right now, NVidia has upset that balance with their massive mainshare, and they can afford to get lazy with their technology as well as their prices.

[WFMG]

I think it will be like the 980 a generation ago. I plan on buying the 1080 at that price, and that's what I'll tell the cashier, no matter what it says. (Using it as a gender-neutral pronoun as a protest to the grammatical abomination that is using 'they' for this purpose.)

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 minute ago, Aereldor said:

I'm inclined towards AMD in the long run, though. Their mainshare will likely skyrocket due to their complete acquisition of consoles with their APUs. As a result, people are going to be developing for consoles, which have AMD hardware, and it will no longer make sense to use NVidia cards for game development. As developers move to AMD hardware- and possibly the mantle API- NVidia will be fighting a losing battle, and their performance will probably start to affect their mainshare. Face it- since the PC market is smaller, most PC games are console ports, and when all console hardware comes from AMD, what's going to perform better on PC?

Take into consideration that an R9 390 HAMMERS a GTX 970 in DirectX 12 games like Ashes of the Singularity, and even catches up with a much higher-end GTX 980 Ti.

More on this here- (an excellent video series by AdoredTV on YouTube).

 

In summation, unless NVidia captures the value-oriented section of the market by dropping prices drastically, this is going to come into effect sooner than we realize.

Nvidia has drastically increased their market share since these AMD consoles came out though. Are the consoles much of a cash cow for AMD? I could swear I read they don't make much off them.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Nvidia has drastically increased their market share since these AMD consoles came out though. Are the consoles much of a cash cow for AMD? I could swear I read they don't make much off them.

Do remember that they resigned the deal for the next gen ones as well.

[Aereldor]

3 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Nvidia has drastically increased their market share since these AMD consoles came out though. Are the consoles much of a cash cow for AMD? I could swear I read they don't make much off them.

That was the story with DirectX 11, but now that AMD is more or less in control of game development, we can really see the changes come into immediate, tangible effect. Quantum Break is, as the host of the aforementioned videos said (please watch those), 'Quantum Broken' on NVidia hardware. The story is the same with Ashes of the Singularity. It's really starting to show that these games were developed on AMD hardware, and in time, it's going to affect the dGPU market as well, and from the scale of the difference in performance, it probably won't be a small change either.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Just now, Aereldor said:

That was the story with DirectX 11, but now that AMD is more or less in control of game development, we can really see the changes come into immediate, tangible effect. Quantum Break is, as the host of the aforementioned videos said (please watch those), 'Quantum Broken' on NVidia hardware. The story is the same with Ashes of the Singularity. It's really starting to show that these games were developed on AMD hardware, and in time, it's going to affect the dGPU market as well, and from the scale of the difference in performance, it probably won't be a small change either.

Eh, Quantum Break is pretty bad on AMD too. It looks like the 2016 Arkham Knight.

[don_svetlio]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Eh, Quantum Break is pretty bad on AMD too. It looks like the 2016 Arkham Knight.

What about Ashes? So far people have claimed it's a fantastically optimized game yet Nvidia cards lose performance on it

[typographie]

36 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

I'm inclined towards AMD in the long run, though. Their mainshare will likely skyrocket due to their complete acquisition of consoles with their APUs. As a result, people are going to be developing for consoles, which have AMD hardware, and it will no longer make sense to use NVidia cards for game development. As developers move to AMD hardware- and possibly the mantle API- NVidia will be fighting a losing battle, and their performance will probably start to affect their mainshare. Face it- since the PC market is smaller, most PC games are console ports, and when all console hardware comes from AMD, what's going to perform better on PC?

This whole comment reads like something that would have made a lot more sense in 2013, when the AMD-based consoles were actually something new. The games you're talking about are already out, and we've been playing them with Nvidia hardware all this time.

 

Also, the PC market as a whole is getting smaller, because that metric includes people who can comfortably replace their primary PC with a mobile device. But PC gaming is growing.

[Aereldor]

25 minutes ago, typographie said:

This whole comment reads like something that would have made a lot more sense in 2013, when the AMD-based consoles were actually something new. The games you're talking about are already out, and we've been playing them with Nvidia hardware all this time.

 

Also, the PC market as a whole is getting smaller, because that metric includes people who can comfortably replace their primary PC with a mobile device. But PC gaming is growing.

We have indeed, but when comparing benchmarks between similarly priced NVidia and AMD cards, it's clear that the latter have the advantages in the games I mentioned. I never said they flat-out won't work with NVidia hardware- I just said they work better on AMD hardware.

I feel I didn't need to specify that I was referring to PC gaming specifically, but just to be clear, that is what I meant. When talking about PCs next to consoles, I thought it was implied.

 

Consider watching the two videos I mentioned to understand what I based my argument on.