Do you agree with nVidia's GPU pricing... - IT HAS DOUBLED!

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Paradine Sage said:

Again, there is zero competition to the performance level of the 1070 and 1080. If you want that performance level then you get an nVidia card.

 

If you are buying a gaming PC right now, regardless of whether you build it yourself or buy one from an OEM, then you are very likely to want post 1080p performance. If you didn't then your previous gen computer is probably good enough, or at worst you can buy a 1060/480 and make it that good.

 

If AMD offered a card at the performance point that people want then they would sell, but AMD doesn't do that and so they suffer.

That's not exactly true though. Even when AMD has offered competition to Nvidia, OEMs still tended to have more Nvidia options. 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Paradine Sage said:

Again, there is zero competition to the performance level of the 1070 and 1080. If you want that performance level then you get an nVidia card.

 

If you are buying a gaming PC right now, regardless of whether you build it yourself or buy one from an OEM, then you are very likely to want post 1080p performance. If you didn't then your previous gen computer is probably good enough, or at worst you can buy a 1060/480 and make it that good.

 

If AMD offered a card at the performance point that people want then they would sell, but AMD doesn't do that and so they suffer.

AMD is gaining market share without high end cards. Buy two RX 480 and you just spend 500 bucks and have 1080 level performance. Shop wisely and you can do it for 400. 

[Paradine Sage]

4 minutes ago, App4that said:

Straight up wrong. The RX 480 and GTX 1060 perform the same, and will perform the same through their life cycles. At the same price buying either is a good buy, where they are not at the same price obviously get the cheaper. And price depends on region, and sales.

 

The ONLY advantage the RX 480 has is crossfire support. I will never forgive Nvidia for not having SLI on a card who's GPU supports it. 

No, the 480 edges the 1060. Especially looking forward. It also generally costs less.

 

Why in the world would you SLI 1060's? A 1080 will end up costing you about the same and will have as good or better performance.

 

It's like watercooling a 1060 or 480, why in the world are you wasting the money on that?

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Paradine Sage said:

No, the 480 edges the 1060. Especially looking forward. It also generally costs less.

 

Why in the world would you SLI 1060's? A 1080 will end up costing you about the same and will have as good or better performance.

 

It's like watercooling a 1060 or 480, why in the world are you wasting the money on that?

You're new. Performance can be cherry picked, but then you give up the facts and have beliefs in their place. 

 

Nvidia isn't going to never release drivers again, my god man we're getting them almost weekly. The Rx 480 and GTX 1060 will trade blows. Game to game, driver to driver. 

[Dabombinable]

28 minutes ago, App4that said:

Straight up wrong. The RX 480 and GTX 1060 perform the same, and will perform the same through their life cycles. At the same price buying either is a good buy, where they are not at the same price obviously get the cheaper. And price depends on region, and sales.

 

The ONLY advantage the RX 480 has is crossfire support. I will never forgive Nvidia for not having SLI on a card who's GPU supports it. 

Nvidia used to have bridge-less SLI on some cards (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1014141/nvidia-bridgeless-sli-sli-aa-appear) so there is actually no excuse for not having bridge-less SLI possible on any GPU manufactured since 2005.

[Paradine Sage]

26 minutes ago, App4that said:

AMD is gaining market share without high end cards. Buy two RX 480 and you just spend 500 bucks and have 1080 level performance. Shop wisely and you can do it for 400. 

Where are you getting the idea that AMD is gaining market share?

 

nVidia sold more 1060's in November than AMD sold 480's in the 480's entire lifespan. Hell, nVidia sold more 1070's in November than AMD sold 480's in October.

 

In point of fact, AMD is loosing market share per the Steam Hardware Survey.

 

As for two 480's equaling a 1080, that is very game dependent. More broadly and generally it equals a 1070 performance wise (or it exceeds it by less than a 1080 often exceeds the Crossfire 480's), for a comparable price point.

 

That performance comes at the cost of power and the hassles of Crossfire as well.

 

There is a reason that most of the reviews recommend buying a single 1070 over duel 480's, and it's not because they are all nVidia shills.

 

24 minutes ago, App4that said:

You're new. Performance can be cherry picked, but then you give up the facts and have beliefs in their place. 

 

Nvidia isn't going to never release drivers again, my god man we're getting them almost weekly. The Rx 480 and GTX 1060 will trade blows. Game to game, driver to driver. 

 

The 480 is better optimized for DirectX 12 and Vulcan than the 1060 is, and Dx12 support is something that more and more new titles are going to have. The end result is that the 480 is slightly better positioned going forward.

 

If you want 1080p gaming then the 480 is a straight up better buy at the same price when compared to the 1060, and can usually be had for a lower price anyways.

 

If you want anything beyond 1080p gaming then you don't buy AMD.

[AlTech]

 

7 hours ago, DocSwag said:

So they were two different dies and the only difference was that then?

they were 2 different dies. somehow the smaller die had more cuda cores.

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

This just tells me that you have no idea about the history of either company.

I hope you are not going to try to compare Nvidia's SoC endeavors to AMD's CPU's. That'd be silly. 

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

I hope you are not going to try to compare Nvidia's SoC endeavors to AMD's CPU's. That'd be silly. 

Why don't you compare AMD's SOC endeavors to Nvidia's SOC endeavors?

 

The only console in recent memory which used/will be using an Nvidia SOC is the Nintendo Switch. Meanwhile; the OG PS4, PS4 Slim, PS4 Pro, Xbox One and Xbox One S use AMD SOCs.

[MadyTehWolfie]

53 minutes ago, Paradine Sage said:

No, the 480 edges the 1060. Especially looking forward. It also generally costs less.

 

Why in the world would you SLI 1060's? A 1080 will end up costing you about the same and will have as good or better performance.

 

It's like watercooling a 1060 or 480, why in the world are you wasting the money on that?

Nope bought a 1060 SSC from EVGA for 230 flat. Two would cost 460 which is a lot cheaper then my 1080.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

Why don't you compare AMD's SOC endeavors to Nvidia's SOC endeavors?

 

The only console in recent memory which used/will be using an Nvidia SOC is the Nintendo Switch. Meanwhile; the OG PS4, PS4 Slim, PS4 Pro, Xbox One and Xbox One S use AMD SOCs.

Very good point. The markets in which AMD competes has them spread very thin compared to Nvidia, and is partly why they struggle to remain competitive everywhere.

[Paradine Sage]

5 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Nope bought a 1060 SSC from EVGA for 230 flat. Two would cost 460 which is a lot cheaper then my 1080.

And for $460 you could get an EVGA hybrid 1070 and overclock it to about the same performance point, with none of the downsides of multiple cards.

[MageTank]

Just now, Paradine Sage said:

And for $460 you could get an EVGA hybrid 1070 and overclock it to about the same performance point, with none of the downsides of multiple cards.

I own a highly overclocked 1070, and it certainly does not equate to having two 1060's. That being said, frametime with mutli-cards is an issue, but don't try to deceive others into thinking a 1070 can match the raw performance of two 1060's. It's not like Pascal scales with voltage or water either, it's simply luck of the draw.

[App4that]

2 hours ago, Paradine Sage said:

-snip-

 

 

Again, you're wrong.

 

Radeon does not have an optimization advantage with DX12. DX11 to DX12 ports are not representative of DX12 performance. For that look at games developed ONLY using DX12, and there you will find Radeon and Nvidia equal.

 

AMD has gained 10% of the market from Nvidia since the release of the 300 series, once Vega comes out and kicks Nvidias teeth in. Well expect the two to be on equal terms.

 

 

[Energycore]

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

I hope you are not going to try to compare Nvidia's SoC endeavors to AMD's CPU's. That'd be silly. 

It's more the fact that AMD and ATI were separate at first until 2008 ish

[MageTank]

2 minutes ago, Energycore said:

It's more the fact that AMD and ATI were separate at first until 2008 ish

That just makes your point even more ironic though, considering they acquired ATI in 2006, not 2008. Besides, the date that AMD acquired ATI is irrelevant to his point. His point is, they are focusing on both CPU's and GPU's, which spreads them thin. What does knowing their history have to do with what they are doing now?

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

That just makes your point even more ironic though, considering they acquired ATI in 2006, not 2008. Besides, the date that AMD acquired ATI is irrelevant to his point. His point is, they are focusing on both CPU's and GPU's, which spreads them thin. What does knowing their history have to do with what they are doing now?

Perhaps I missed the point. I don't see how it's being spread thin as long as both divisions are separate, although dedicating all their engineers to one division may possibly yield better results.

[MageTank]

16 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Perhaps I missed the point. I don't see how it's being spread thin as long as both divisions are separate, although dedicating all their engineers to one division may possibly yield better results.

The divisions (AMD and RTG) share the same resources. R&D funds being used for Zen, may detract from R&D funds being used on Vega. Then there is the issue with marketing, with a majority of AMD's recent press appearances being used mostly on Zen, with Vega taking the backseat. This was his point, and it's a very valid concern. We don't know for certain if that is how it works, but it's a pretty safe assumption to make, given the circumstances. 

[Energycore]

Just now, MageTank said:

The divisions (AMD and RTG) share the same resources. R&D funds being used for Zen, may detract from R&D funds being used on Vega. Then there is the issue with marketing, with a majority of AMD's recent press appearances being used mostly on Zen, with Vega taking the backseat. This was his point, and it's a very valid concern. We don't know for certain if that is how it works, but it's a pretty safe assumption to make, given the circumstances. 

Yeah where is the Vega stuff? Or is Vega just not exciting enough so they don't hype it up? AMD has been known to hype up products that are terrible, but perhaps they have learned from their Bulldozer trainwreck

[MageTank]

Just now, Energycore said:

Yeah where is the Vega stuff? Or is Vega just not exciting enough so they don't hype it up? AMD has been known to hype up products that are terrible, but perhaps they have learned from their Bulldozer trainwreck

We saw a sneak preview of it at the latest Zen showing, which was good for Vega, and bad for Zen. They showed Zen running that new Battlefront DLC in 4k (which tells us little about the CPU) but they did say it was a single Vega GPU, and it was running the game quite well (you can see screen tearing, so it's running above the native resolution of that monitor)

 

For comparisons sake, here is a GTX 1080 running Battlefront on 4k at 2100mhz (2050mhz after GPUBoost 3.0 throttle) with very similar framerates (though, v-sync on)

 

It's safe to assume whatever Vega card is in this system, will likely match or exceed the 1080, but it's unknown whether or not it will exceed the Titan XP, or it's cutdown Ti SKU. Frankly, Vega is too little too late in my opinion, as we are likely going to see Pascal 2.0, or Volta sometime in 2017, and AMD will be behind once again. The good news is, until monitors get better, we likely won't care about faster cards, as we have already hit the 1440p @ 120/144 sweetspot on current cards, and 4k monitors have yet to really exceed 60hz, so it's gonna get stagnant for a little while. 

[Energycore]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

snipped

It's weird, the place we're going. The "experience per dollar", as Raja calls it, is not really improving anymore because there's a limit imposed to what experience it can be. I'm giving people $600 boxes that very well can max out 1080p or come close. 4K and higher resolutions ultimately stop mattering when the pixel density is over the threshold of what our eyes can perceive. The only place I could see an improvement is on the fidelity of graphics, we're still not there on lifelike trees, or faces (we do a damn good job with hair though).

 

It is thus that I'm not surprised Nvidia wants to sell their silicon to other enterprises. There's just no reason or need for P100 on the consumer market for now. It may be time for game devs to step up, they may have become lazy as publishers adopt a strategy of see what works and make a billion instances of it since people will buy anyway.

 

Me personally, I'm glad to be able to get the experience I want with a mere $220

[MageTank]

4 minutes ago, Energycore said:

It's weird, the place we're going. The "experience per dollar", as Raja calls it, is not really improving anymore because there's a limit imposed to what experience it can be. I'm giving people $600 boxes that very well can max out 1080p or come close. 4K and higher resolutions ultimately stop mattering when the pixel density is over the threshold of what our eyes can perceive. The only place I could see an improvement is on the fidelity of graphics, we're still not there on lifelike trees, or faces (we do a damn good job with hair though).

 

It is thus that I'm not surprised Nvidia wants to sell their silicon to other enterprises. There's just no reason or need for P100 on the consumer market for now. It may be time for game devs to step up, they may have become lazy as publishers adopt a strategy of see what works and make a billion instances of it since people will buy anyway.

 

Me personally, I'm glad to be able to get the experience I want with a mere $220

It becomes even more pointless once you factor in G-Sync or Freesync, which makes 30fps feel as smooth as 60+. Why bother upgrading, when the experience feels just as good? lol.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

It becomes even more pointless once you factor in G-Sync or Freesync, which makes 30fps feel as smooth as 60+. Why bother upgrading, when the experience feels just as good? lol.

I wouldn't go as far, but it makes 30 feel like 45 (in my experience which is limited)

 

Seems like the market is hitting a bit of a bump in the road.

[arnavvr]

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

I own a highly overclocked 1070, and it certainly does not equate to having two 1060's. That being said, frametime with mutli-cards is an issue, but don't try to deceive others into thinking a 1070 can match the raw performance of two 1060's. It's not like Pascal scales with voltage or water either, it's simply luck of the draw.

 

What's the point when your ITX and can't SLI 1060s anyways?

[MageTank]

Just now, Energycore said:

I wouldn't go as far, but it makes 30 feel like 45 (in my experience which is limited)

 

Seems like the market is hitting a bit of a bump in the road.

Oh, G-Sync makes 30 feel like 60 to me, lol. Part of the reason why I am getting one of these bad boys come February: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-S2417DG-YNY1D-24-Inch-LED-Lit/dp/B01IOO4SGK