they nerfed the 1070?

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, awesomeness10120 said:

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.

Well, I'll give you that one.

 

But the general pattern is everything in the next generation is +1 the previous generation. There are some rare instances of a +2.

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Well, I'll give you that one.

 

But the general pattern is everything in the next generation is +1 the previous generation. There are some rare instances of a +2.

Node jumps are bigger. 660 was faster than a 580. 460 was faster than a 280.

[awesomeness10120]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

Well, I'll give you that one.

 

But the general pattern is everything in the next generation is +1 the previous generation. There are some rare instances of a +2.

That's been a pattern for the past few years, but I'm kinda disappointed by the performance gain with the node shrink. Same performance increase that came from 780 Ti to 980: 15 to 20 percent. AMD you got this. Give us another 4870 please.

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Node jumps are bigger. 660 was faster than a 580. 460 was faster than a 280.

According to http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/660?vs=517 the 660 was slightly worse.

 

Either way: I'm not the one foaming at the mouth that the upper mid-tier card supposedly isn't getting the last gen's halo card's performance. Wait for the benchmarks, then start foaming at the mouth.

 

And really if you don't like it, don't buy it. Don't support it.

[ivan134]

7 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

According to http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/660?vs=517 the 660 was slightly worse.

 

Either way: I'm not the one foaming at the mouth that the upper mid-tier card supposedly isn't getting the last gen's halo card's performance. Wait for the benchmarks, then start foaming at the mouth.

 

And really if you don't like it, don't buy it. Don't support it.

http://www.techspot.com/review/572-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660/

[awesomeness10120]

20 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

According to http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/660?vs=517 the 660 was slightly worse.

 

Either way: I'm not the one foaming at the mouth that the upper mid-tier card supposedly isn't getting the last gen's halo card's performance. Wait for the benchmarks, then start foaming at the mouth.

 

And really if you don't like it, don't buy it. Don't support it.

 

13 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

http://www.techspot.com/review/572-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660/

Calm down. The GTX 660 trades blows with a GTX 580.

[KingKeith55]

If the 1070 is better priced than the 970 then I probably will be picking up one for sure.

[alphaproject]

Yea... the 1070 seems at first glance either too nerfed... or too expensive.

 

This seems to be the whole deal.

 

The 1080 is so good compared to the previous gen, except... this always seems to happen on completely diff die sizes but in the NOW generation most people tend to forget about it.

 

So at $599 the 1080p is still expensive as hell actually but since it beats last years Titan X card, it's a good deal?  No. It should not work that way.  The Titan X and 980 Ti were both underachievers in my opinion at their price point.

 

The 970 at $299 is a good card but since the 1070 just came out, it's not a good price now.

 

The 1070 isn't a good price at $379 UNLESS you look at the 970.

 

1080 - still overpriced.

1070 - overpriced

 

Nvidia will still sell shitloads.

 

Either way, the smarter folks with the last gen Maxwells "should" keep their cards and wait until the 2nd gen Pascals or wait until the price comes down. Early adopters have money to burn so they aren't in the conversation.  Hard earned cash peeps shouldn't buy either card if they have a 980 Ti or 980.

[dfg666]

8 hours ago, ivan134 said:

2304 - 1536 = 768

768 / 1536 = 0.5

Well that makes things even more worse, holy crap the 770 has such poor dollar value...

[Prysin]

10 hours ago, niofalpha said:

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

its the same arcitecture as the 1080.

you can basically calculate relative performance by just calculate hardware difference and reduce the % diff with the 1080 FPS numbers to get a pretty accurate measurement.

 

Its not rocket science, and it works for every SIMILAR architecture.

[TheGamingBarrel]

10 hours ago, Hunched said:

If people think it will only have the performance of a 980, that's terrible.

980 Ti's are already going for $550-$600 new and the prices haven't even dropped yet, and they already had a way better price/perf ratio than the 980, as does the 970.

 

The 970 is as good as a 780 Ti if not slightly better.

As far as I'm concerned the 1070 is a failure if it's only as good as a 980, just wait for AMD in that case if you're not getting a 1080.

780 Ti Beats 970.

[ybriK]

22 minutes ago, TheGamingBarrel said:

780 Ti Beats 970.

They're somewhat equal. However there are some cases where the 970 wins.

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

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_primal_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/the_division_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html

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

 

Synthetic: http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+970/review

[othertomperson]

10 hours 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.

Boy howdy, I hope you aren't comparing differences across entirely different architectures, with differences between different SKUs of the exact same chip.