First GTX 1080 Review is HERE!

[Unhelpful]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

 

Really though, you are getting pretty bad. Try to shake the bias. The 1080 appears to be a very good flagship with improvements across the board. You, for some reason, try to paint everything as a negative. This card will be available for $600 shortly after it's launch. The reference cooler actually looks like it'll be pretty good, as the 780 and 980 reference coolers were (yes they actually were, sorry to inform you of that, they were better than the 7950 reference cooler). And you just come here and shit on a launch.

[patrickjp93]

3 hours ago, Notional said:

We are talking about a double node shrink here. With that in mind, it really isn't THAT impressive. It means the IPC is pretty much unaltered (PCPer review), so yeah. Pascal as an architecture is not impressive, just the double node shrink that NVidia didn't make.

It's hardly a double. 16nm FF is only slightly denser than 20nm planar from TSMC. Pascal is also the original design Maxwell was meant to be before TSMC failed to bring 20nm high power. No one should have expected big gains. Now, the asynchronous compute performance improvement is good, and being able to dispatch kernels to individual SMMs and be able to reschedule as needed is a big bonus. Some features will go unused in the meanwhile.

[Unhelpful]

4 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

 

It is an increase, yup. It's priced higher than the 980, but lower than the 780. It will probably be about $580 for an after market one, if the past is any indication.

 

I agree, but the point is that it can do it. Plus some people don't care about noise. I have a large floor fan in my room with servers and switches on over in the corner, so I don't care a ton about noise atm (once I have an apartment where I can put my rack in the closet, I'll go for a silent rig).

 

And even then, it's still performing like a beast. It looks like it's worth $600 to me. Not $700, absolutely not $700. But it seems like a good value for $600.

 

I'm waiting for one more generation, personally.

[Energycore]

2 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

Anyone who is saying these benchmarks are disappointing is off their rocker.

 

Obviously nVidia's marketing team is going to try and create as much hype as possible, but if you ignore everything nVidia said and focus on what the card actually is, it's super impressive.

 

For the past... forever... GPUs have generally outperformed their previous iteration by around 15-20%. This GP104 card comes out, and not only does it outperform the GM204 by over 60%, but it also outperforms the full GM200 by 20-30%, and people are calling it a disappointment?

 

I don't know what people were expecting, but if they were expecting more than that they're definitely on something that's not good for them.

When a company over-promises it's hard to not compare the benchmarks to what they promised.

 

Is it fine when a company advertises a product to be much better before launch than it actually ends up being? Game journalists disagree, with every game that doesn't look as good as its previews taking a lot of flak. Nvidia got the attention of all of us with their slides and failed to deliver on them.

 

We're not dissapointed in the card, we're dissapointed in the marketing that was done on it.

[Kimmers]

I don't see where people got this notion that a card has to be the same price as the card it supposedly replaces.

[MilfShake]

1080 is like a half-ass card. People that already maxing out @1440p @60fps on 980ti don't need it, and people who want 4k @60fps might not buy it either since it cannot reach 60 fps in most games according to benchmark.
It is for people that have 144hz monitors, really.

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

That's the 1080 - I was refering to the 980.

Oh, you mean the 980 which also had a maximum GPU temperature of 98 degrees?

 

You're like the AMD equivalence of zMeul...

[Unhelpful]

2 minutes ago, Kimmers said:

I don't see where people got this notion that a card has to be the same price as the card it supposedly replaces.

Because consistency is nice, and they have done that with the X70 lineup for a while. The 470 was $350. The 570 was $350, the 670 deviated at $400, the 770 was back to $350, the 970 was also $350.

[Energycore]

3 minutes ago, Kimmers said:

I don't see where people got this notion that a card has to be the same price as the card it supposedly replaces.

From the past trends - it has been the case (give or take) for quite a number of generations now.

 

Also there's the fact that at launch, no card will be $600. So Nvidia stating that the card will be $600 on launch is a straight up lie (i'm ready to be proven wrong by the launch prices but I'm not expecting much).

[Unhelpful]

2 minutes ago, MilfShake said:

 

Nobody is maxing out 1440p @60fps with a 980ti.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Oh, you mean the 980 which also had a maximum GPU temperature of 98 degrees?

 

You're like the AMD equivalence of zMeul...

I mean, there's gotta be balance in the force

[-BirdiE-]

3 minutes ago, Energycore said:

When a company over-promises it's hard to not compare the benchmarks to what they promised.

 

Is it fine when a company advertises a product to be much better before launch than it actually ends up being? Game journalists disagree, with every game that doesn't look as good as its previews taking a lot of flak. Nvidia got the attention of all of us with their slides and failed to deliver on them.

 

We're not dissapointed in the card, we're dissapointed in the marketing that was done on it.

Implying it's any different than every other year.... nVidia and AMD both do it, not to mention pretty much every other tech company that exists. Why don't we just be objective and judge products based on the released product instead of depending on marketing for our information?

[Mew]

 

1 hour ago, don_svetlio said:

The listings on Nvidia's stie state 86*C max safe temp....

 

54 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1080

Press Specs -> click "view full specs" -> scroll to the bottom.

 

You beat me to it lol. I'm finally caught up.

[Unhelpful]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

 

He's really not that bad. He always recommends 980ti over Fury (X) and the 950 over the 370. He has a slight bias and it seems like this launch rustled his jimmies a bit.

[Unhelpful]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

 

It's not a straight up lie... They said that the founders card is $700 and aftermarket is $600. There will be aftermarket shortly after the founders launch. Where is the lie?

[Prysin]

10 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

Anyone who is saying these benchmarks are disappointing is off their rocker.

 

Obviously nVidia's marketing team is going to try and create as much hype as possible, but if you ignore everything nVidia said and focus on what the card actually is, it's super impressive.

 

For the past... forever... GPUs have generally outperformed their previous iteration by around 15-20%. This GP104 card comes out, and not only does it outperform the GM204 by over 60%, but it also outperforms the full GM200 by 20-30%, and people are calling it a disappointment?

 

I don't know what people were expecting, but if they were expecting more than that they're definitely on something that's not good for them.

it is also a DOUBLE node jump.

Initially, we were supposed to go 28 -> 20 -> 16/14

Instead we went 28 -> 16/14

meaning it is nothing more then expected for the node shrink, perhaps even a little underwhelming. But since we never got a 20nm, we dont know how much more performance one would get jumping from 28 to 20

[Mew]

1 minute ago, JoeyDM said:

He's really not that bad. He always recommends 980ti over Fury (X) and the 950 over the 370. He has a slight bias and it seems like this launch rustled his jimmies a bit.

Considering how predictable graphic card launches are (in the past), the new 490x should perform the same and priced similarly. I wonder if he will be just as disappointed then.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, -BirdiE- said:

Implying it's any different than every other year.... nVidia and AMD both do it, not to mention pretty much every other tech company that exists. Why don't we just be objective and judge products based on the released product instead of depending on marketing for our information?

I'm not saying that it's not common. I'm saying that I'm not cool with it. Not because I fall for it but because a lot of other people do (mods literally had to sticky a post titled "Do not post about Graphics Cards on General Discussion because of the massive tide of GP104 threads).

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, kurahk7 said:

Considering how predictable graphic card launches are (in the past), the new 490x should perform the same and priced similarly. I wonder if he will be just as disappointed then.

You bet. More so even if it's 14nm LPP

[Unhelpful]

Just now, kurahk7 said:

 

Eh, the 290(x) was a large leap, as was the 780. I'm hoping that the 490(x) will be at least a 20%-30% improvement, which I am expecting it to be.

[-BirdiE-]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

it is also a DOUBLE node jump.

Initially, we were supposed to go 28 -> 20 -> 16/14

Instead we went 28 -> 16/14

meaning it is nothing more then expected for the node shrink, perhaps even a little underwhelming. But since we never got a 20nm, we dont know how much more performance one would get jumping from 28 to 20

Going from 28 to 16 seems pretty similar to going from 48 to 28. Not to mention, who cares? As a consumer, it's over a 60% improvement over what you could buy for around the same price last month....

[Kimmers]

1 minute ago, JoeyDM said:

Because consistency is nice, and they have done that with the X70 lineup for a while. The 470 was $350. The 570 was $350, the 670 deviated at $400, the 770 was back to $350, the 970 was also $350.

Consistency is nice but if Nvidia is in a position to price their card higher because it outperform both their own lineup and its competition by a considerable margin then they have every right to. AMD is the mirror of this where their cards aren't as fast so they price it lower.

 

3 minutes ago, Energycore said:

From the past trends - it has been the case (give or take) for quite a number of generations now.

 

Also there's the fact that at launch, no card will be $600. So Nvidia stating that the card will be $600 on launch is a straight up lie (i'm ready to be proven wrong by the launch prices but I'm not expecting much).

Also I'm not sure where you're getting your "facts" from. MSRP and true retail prices are not the same and the cards haven't even launched yet. How is Nvidia guilty before any evidence has been shown? 

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, -BirdiE- said:

Going from 28 to 16 seems pretty similar to going from 48 to 28. Not to mention, who cares? As a consumer, it's over a 60% improvement over what you could buy for around the same price last month....

Actually - it's 30% improvement over the 980 Ti as the 980 is MUCH cheaper at 450$

[Unhelpful]

Just now, Kimmers said:

 

I agree. Being the first one to the table gives you pricing rights, and now AMD will have to price their lineup to account for nvidia. It's smart, it just leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths.

[-BirdiE-]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

I'm not saying that it's not common. I'm saying that I'm not cool with it. Not because I fall for it but because a lot of other people do (mods literally had to sticky a post titled "Do not post about Graphics Cards on General Discussion because of the massive tide of GP104 threads).

Fair enough. It sucks that they do it, but I think it's mostly driven by consumers who are eager to make up their mind before they ever see the product in action. But to each their own.

 

I'm still pretty excited for the 1080, as well as to see what AMD comes out with soon. Going to be a good fight.