they nerfed the 1070?

[thekeemo]

2 minutes ago, manikyath said:

its napkin math, its great to get a rough idea, but it wont give you the exact number of bricks needed for the great wall of china. (go look that one up, some dude in china went nuts on math back then...)

Lol

There are notable exceptions like the 680*/770 beating the 960

 

*which I mention for no reason 

[Mira Yurizaki]

26 minutes ago, niofalpha said:

He's going by percentage of CUDA cores cut. Just going by specs, not performance.

Boy howdy, I hope that person didn't look at the GTX 980 with its 2048 cores and assumed it was going to be worse than the GTX 780 Ti with it's 2800+ something cores.

[harrynowl]

well yes they are selling it for less what did they expect...

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Boy howdy, I hope that person didn't look at the GTX 980 with its 2048 cores and assumed it was going to be worse than the GTX 780 Ti with it's 2800+ something cores.

That's not what he did and people are not even bothering to actually listen to what he's saying. He's talking about performance difference between a full card and its cut down.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

That's not what he did and people are not even bothering to actually listen to what he's saying. He's talking about performance difference between a full card and its cut down.

So then it's a click bait title because it's business as usual. :\

[ivan134]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

So then it's a click bait title because it's business as usual. :\

No. 980 had 23% more cores than a 970 and was approximately 20% faster than a 970. The difference in CUDA cores between a full chip and its cut down is a fairly accurate way to gauge the performance difference between them. This time the 1080 has 33% more CUDA cores than a 1070. The complaint is that, this time, this is a much bigger cut down than previous generations and it's massively overpriced.

[VagabondWraith]

IMO, this is good they cut it down so far. Cut off 500-600 cores between the full and then cut down chip. Target a specific price bracket for everyone that way no one feels ripped off. Like a 970 getting close to a 980 and a 980 Ti rendering the Titan useless. Creating discernible performance difference is probably a better business decision. Otherwise you have nobody buying a 980 or 390X. Make the performance 20-25% difference at all times. No more overclocking a 970 to roughly equal a 980.

[ybriK]

5 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

IMO, this is good they cut it down so far. Cut off 500-600 cores between the full and then cut down chip. Target a specific price bracket for everyone that way no one feels ripped off. Like a 970 getting close to a 980 and a 980 Ti rendering the Titan useless. Creating discernible performance difference is probably a better business decision. Otherwise you have nobody buying a 980 or 390X. Make the performance 20-25% difference at all times. No more overclocking a 970 to roughly equal a 980.

I never saw the point of buying Titan class cards anyway other than "look I have more money than you". I mean look at what happened with the GTX Titan, it got murdered by the 780 Ti. If they're making excuses of "but muh 3D rendering work", you really think there would be a massive difference in performance when you spend an extra $300-$400? Unless they got it used for really really cheap then that's when it's worth it.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

No. 980 had 23% more cores than a 970 and was approximately 20% faster than a 970. The difference in CUDA cores between a full chip and its cut down is a fairly accurate way to gauge the performance difference between them. This time the 1080 has 33% more CUDA cores than a 1070. The complaint is that, this time, this is a much bigger cut down than previous generations and it's massively overpriced.

Was he here to complain about the 770? It had 66% the cores of a 780.

[ybriK]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Was he here to complain about the 770? It had 66% the cores of a 780.

And 770 was priced at $400 LUL!

[ivan134]

5 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Was he here to complain about the 770? It had 66% the cores of a 780.

They're not the same chip and it seems you still don't even grasp what the argument is.

[Mira Yurizaki]

5 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

They're not the same chip and it seems you still don't even grasp what the argument is.

That NVIDIA is a doodoo head because they cut off 25% of the cores from the GTX 1080 to make the GTX 1070 and this is a larger amount from the previous generation?

 

So was this person there for the GTX 770? Because NVIDIA's done this before. That's my point.

 

*The GTX 1070 has 1920 cores, that's 75% of 2560.

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

That NVIDIA is a doodoo head because they cut off 25% of the cores from the GTX 1080 to make the GTX 1070 and this is a larger amount from the previous generation?

 

So was this person there for the GTX 770? Because NVIDIA's done this before. That's my point.

 

*The GTX 1070 has 1920 cores, that's 75% of 2560.

Are you serious? The 770 is a cutdown? Are you trolling or?

[dfg666]

10 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

They're not the same chip and it seems you still don't even grasp what the argument is.

But it's the same architecture, what difference does it make if the chips aren't the "same"? The 770 was overpriced for the performance it gave compared to a 280X. Or 780.

[ivan134]

Just now, dfg666 said:

But it's the same architecture, what difference does it make if the chips aren't the "same"? The 770 was overpriced for the performance it gave compared to a 280X. Or 780.

A huge difference actually.

[dfg666]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

A huge difference actually.

Not in gaming performance I'm assuming?

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_970_gaming_review,17.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page3.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/23.html

[ivan134]

7 minutes ago, dfg666 said:

Not in gaming performance I'm assuming?

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_970_gaming_review,17.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page3.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/23.html

Umm, I used the techspot benchmark to save time. 780 has 50% more cores and is 15% faster in GTA 5. So yea, big difference.

[dfg666]

3 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Umm, I used the techspot benchmark to save time. 780 has 50% more cores and is 15% faster in GTA 5. So yea, big difference.

40%*. I don't know it doesn't add up to me, 40% more cores but only 15% faster? something doesn't seem right here. For $150 more than a 770 I'd expect higher.

 

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, dfg666 said:

40%*. I don't know it doesn't add up to me, 40% more cores but only 15% faster? something doesn't seem right here. For $150 more than a 770 I'd expect higher.

 

2304 - 1536 = 768

768 / 1536 = 0.5

[App4that]

This escalated quickly.

 

The 1070 will not beat a 980ti, I so tire of hearing people say 980ti. That's literally like saying Mustang. So if I say "my Nissan Versa can beat a Mustang in 1/8 mile drag race" You're going to ask some pretty ****ing obvious questions. But somehow that **** flies with graphics cards.

 

The 1070 has one job, beat a 490. Not a Titan X, not a 980ti, a 490x. Because in 6 months that's the card it will be up against. Not a Titan X. Not a 980ti.

 

So it's not nerfed.

[aisle9]

2 hours ago, ivan134 said:

Obviously, but that is not the argument he's making in the video. Obviously the 1070 will still be better perf/$ than those cards, but the argument is it could be better considering how small GP104 is and how cut down the 1070 is. The perf/$ of the 1070 would only be good in a vacuum where there wasn't a competitor also making GPUs.

To play Devil's advocate here, the MSRP for the 1070 is $379. The MSRP for the 1080 is $599. Low-end 1070s will cost 37% less than low-end 1080s. That's a pretty steep price cut. NVIDIA almost had to nerf the 1070. If they'd released a card that benched within 10% of the 1080 for 2/3rds the price, would anyone but the uber fanbois even have bothered with the 1080, or would we all have bought a 1070 and waited to see what the 1080 Ti looked like?

[ivan134]

32 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

To play Devil's advocate here, the MSRP for the 1070 is $379. The MSRP for the 1080 is $599. Low-end 1070s will cost 37% less than low-end 1080s. That's a pretty steep price cut. NVIDIA almost had to nerf the 1070. If they'd released a card that benched within 10% of the 1080 for 2/3rds the price, would anyone but the uber fanbois even have bothered with the 1080, or would we all have bought a 1070 and waited to see what the 1080 Ti looked like?

Then a theoretical 1060 ti would be 980 performance for price of a 970. That's a shitty performance jump, especially considering this is a node shrink. 

[aisle9]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Then a theoretical 1060 ti would be 980 performance for price of a 970. That's a shitty performance jump, especially considering this is a node shrink. 

I'm not saying I like it, but I do understand the business reasons for NVIDIA not maxing out the 1070 with such a low price point. If the 1070 were too good, people would just buy it instead of the 1080, and if it were too good and had a price low enough that the price/performance was there, they'd just buy two 1070's and SLI them instead of messing around with a higher-end card. They had a similar balancing act to do with the 970 and 980, and even more so (imo) with the 960 and 970.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Both sides have a trend: the performance tier of a card shifts +1 with each generation. A GTX 1070 should be the same as a GTX 980. The GTX 970 was the same as a GTX 780, the GTX 770 was the same as a GTX 680, etc. The R9 390 was the same as the R9 290X. The R9 280 was the same as the HD 7950.

 

If you were expecting the GTX 1070 to be on GTX 980 Ti performance levels, then I don't really know what to tell you.

[awesomeness10120]

3 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Both sides have a trend: the performance tier of a card shifts +1 with each generation. A GTX 1070 should be the same as a GTX 980. The GTX 970 was the same as a GTX 780, the GTX 770 was the same as a GTX 680, etc. The R9 390 was the same as the R9 290X. The R9 280 was the same as the HD 7950.

 

If you were expecting the GTX 1070 to be on GTX 980 Ti performance levels, then I don't really know what to tell you.

Well, the GTX 680 literally was a GTX 770 in every way. Same for the 7950 and the R9 280. Those were straight up rebrands.