why is 980ti still that expensive if the 1070 beats him and is cheaper?

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

but at least nvidia they also made it more energy efficient with a die shrink and then cranked up the clockspeeds to compensate for less cuda cores...which is a good thing and also they added a couple new features namely for VR like the simultaneous multi-projection stuff that's pretty cool...

That is very true as well, nVidia still shows some "care" to the consumers hahaha, I would say they are in the right path ever since the implementation of Shadow Play, concerning themselves with the software side as much as the hardware side is a plus we don't really see much on Intel and their ludicrous limitation of 4k content with Netflix

[i_build_nanosuits]

18 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

That is very true as well, nVidia still shows some "care" to the consumers hahaha, I would say they are in the right path ever since the implementation of Shadow Play, concerning themselves with the software side as much as the hardware side is a plus we don't really see much on Intel and their ludicrous limitation of 4k content with Netflix

Also something to consider in regard to this thread is that the GTX 1080 is the replacement for the GTX 980 and in that regard it's an amazing upgrade...they double the VRAM, 2000mhz faster Vram...GDDR5X...increased performance by what? 60% or something...sure the launch price of the GTX 1080 was closer to that of the high-end sku usually and it would be great if they didn't do that...but when you have no competition and AMD scratching their monkey ass and smelling each others fingers instead of pushing out new high-end graphics chips...things like that are meant to happen...it's not nvidia that is to blame for that honestly it's the AMD monkeys.

 

and intel...not even worth talking about...that kabylake shit should have been the i5-6690K and i7-6790K and they don't even deserve a new chipset or anything...they are marginal improvements they are not even a refresh imho they are...nothing.

[JoostinOnline]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

and intel...not even worth talking about...that kabylake shit should have been the i5-6690K and i7-6790K and they don't even deserve a new chipset or anything...they are marginal improvements they are not even a refresh imho they are...nothing.

When the cost is less for those marginal improvements, I think it works out.  However, it's getting more and more difficult to increase performance just with architecture updates.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

When the cost is less for those marginal improvements, I think it works out.  However, it's getting more and more difficult to increase performance just with architecture updates.

yeah but they skewed it so that it makes for example an i7-2600K to i7-7700K sounds like it's worth it when in reality the performance bump you'd get from doing that in daily use and gaming and stuff is likely not worth that full platform overhaul like...at all...intel this is clever marketing...

[JoostinOnline]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

yeah but they skewed it so that it makes for example an i7-2600K to i7-7700K sounds like it's worth it when in reality the performance bump you'd get from doing that in daily use and gaming and stuff is likely not worth that full platform overhaul like...at all...intel this is clever marketing...

The 2600K is 6 years old.  That's not a recent bump.

[i_build_nanosuits]

10 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

The 2600K is 6 years old.  That's not a recent bump.

Yet if you look at the performance of a 4.5ghz i7-2600K vs. a 4.5ghz i7-7700K the difference is really not that big...especially when you look at the number and how many ''generations'' there is between them and how much time it took intel to get that 30% boost...where as in the past it used to be that 30% boost EVERY generations...the 7700K should be more than twice as fast as the 2600k if they would have kept working harder and spending more on R&D...but they didn't...and now they improve nothing and claim a new generation, with a new name, a new chipset etc...that's all BS.

 

Again, for that...don't blame intel...blame AMD's monkeys for this lack of competition.

[scottyseng]

3 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Again, for that...don't blame intel...blame AMD's monkeys for this lack of competition.

Yeah, I think Intel's going slow because they don't want to be a complete monopoly (They would be forced to split into separate companies, which Intel has stated it doesn't want to do).

 

Hopefully AMD picks up with Ryzen, even a bit.

 

I'm actually debating if I should get a used 2600K/2700K as a upgrade from my 2500K or pay the hefty cost and go Kaby Lake with a 7700K (Here Kaby costs the same as Skylake).

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, scottyseng said:

I'm actually debating if I should get a used 2600K/2700K as a upgrade from my 2500K or pay the hefty cost and go Kaby Lake with a 7700K (Here Kaby costs the same as Skylake).

if your motherboard can support an i7-3770K with a bios update i would go with that...

[scottyseng]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

if your motherboard can support an i7-3770K with a bios update i would go with that...

hmm, forgot about Ivy Bridge. haha. I do have a Z77 board that supports it. Time to go hunting on the used market.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, scottyseng said:

hmm, forgot about Ivy Bridge. haha. I do have a Z77 board that supports it. Time to go hunting on the used market.

you'd get the better IPC, lower power consumption, more threads, more cache...for gaming PC if you like your board and plan to make last longer i think it's worth it.

[i_build_nanosuits]

your 2500K you should be able to sell it 100$ online easy...makes it a low cost upgrade as well.