I will receive my Evga GTX 1080 tomorrow, upgraded from a Titan X (crazy some might say) but since Raceroom has increased the amount of AI cars you can have in a race, when I max out I do dip below 60fps in places with my Titan X at 1080p, where as before I never used to. With the GTX 1080 having more raw power than even the Titan X I hope this will no longer be the case. Roll on tomorrow
I would be interested to hear what you think on the upgrade performance between the titan X and the 1080...exciting times ahead
@gongo might really want to wait for the benchmarks to show up and prices to stabilize a bit, 1070 TDP is 100 Watts less than 980 TI... unless the additional heat/power doesn't matter to you and you may also benefit from Pascal's VR features if that is of general interest. It's a bit of maybe as of course it depends on what games make use of that, but if the prices end up similar and you can "wait", seems better to invest in (my ) future. Am on a 970 as well, and will wait until prices of 1080 come down a tad, as I really want to "double" perf over what I had before without sucking much more watts (although 2x the cost of a 970...)
Waiting for AMD and refuse to pay a premium for what is essentially Maxwell on speed with a die shrink.... Let the flame war begin! In all seriousness though, I have nothing against nVidia, they are class leading cards (for DirectX 11 based applications) but, I cannot agree with their pricing structure, $100 premium for a reference card (Founders edition)? Wait until the 3rd party manufacturers start selling their versions (MSI, ASUS etc), faster cards at a lower price point with better cooling, I could be tempted then, IF AMDs Polaris isn't very good or they haven't released the Vega10 cards (Pascal 1080 competition) by October/November.
Seriously thinking about a MSI GTX 1080 Sea Hawk, but have to see the pricing first... Also very curious what AMD will come up with. Usually im an AMD fun, nothing against Nvidia, but i believe AMD architecture much better, even if they don't have the raw pwr geforces... And my Rift should arrive in 2 weeks, will see how my r9 390 will perform, if i will not be satisfied...well probably red will turn to green
Im not sure whats my next buy. Maybe 2 32 tvs to complete my triple setup because my r290x can still handle it. I want to wait that the Prizes calm down.
How much was the GTX 970 before the 10xx release? Quick google search shows it as (cheapest) £212 at the moment ($309.99) plus shipping. Is that more or less than it used to be... it's a EVGA card and not their best. I've often noticed that cards which are no longer in production (the first year after at least) tend to go up in price before they come down.
Not interested in VR (at this stage), will be gaming at 1080p for a while yet and my GTX 780 is still a very solid performer, so I don't need to upgrade. The 1080 prices are horrific in my view so I'll pass on that, but if the 1070 can offer the same excellent price/performance as the 970 then I could be tempted by that.
While I'm tempted by the 1080, the nvidia policy of releasing the minimum possible improvement and charging the maximum they can get away with does rather take the piss. But theres just no viable alternative now they have a complete monopoly on the high performance market
I am very tempted by the 1070 but will wait to see if sims like R3E implement the new Simultaneous Multi-Projection option that will give us triple screen users a better FOV. Jason.
Somewhat doubtful that the multi-projection feature will be made available to DX9, in the last years new features come either for DX11 via NVAPI or as extensions for OpenGL/Vulkan.
I don't think that's a fair statement, I get the critique on pricing (founders edition not being a traditional cheaper reference card), taking the pricing level of a 980 Ti at launch, but the chips are not compromised in any way. It costs way too much to develop them to put on breaks. A 1070 will give you 980 Ti like perf for 100 Watts less at a price similar to its predecessor. Prices will go down the longer/more chips are produced (first gen on 16nm) and availability of the custom boards improves. Just looked at the perf gains from 680 to 780 to 980 to 1080 http://www.3dcenter.org/news/schneller-performance-ueberblick-der-28nm-grafikkarten and the jump was bigger this time.
Still a lot of rumor and conjecture about the real world performance of both the 1080 and 1070, to say nVidia have the monopoly on high end cards as things stand at the moment, may be a bit naive. It's not just R3E you need to think about when it comes to DX12, it's already becoming the standard, so most new titles (at least titles in development) will probably be built on it, looking at things as they are right now, the majority of games already out and built on DX11 or older, then yeah, for the highest performance you really should go with nVidia but, looking ahead do you really want to go with a card that isn't really built for DX12 or do you wait and see what a card made for DX12 from the ground up looks like while also seeing if the original problems with older DX versions have been addressed? It's this kind of subject I enjoy reading what @pixeljetstream has to say, he works for nVidia yet still seems to remain neutral, having someone like that, who knows what they are talking about can be very beneficial.
There is no "card from the ground up" you are talking billion dollars chip design, there is no "ground up" everything is incremental changes, how the chip looks like was decided one to three years ago (Great article on the topic here http://techreport.com/review/28126/semiconductors-from-idea-to-product) There is lots of cool things you could put in the chip, you have a very long list of concrete ideas and you need to make the cut at some place. Each division will say what they want and how much money they think they can make of it, or lose by not having, or can save costs by redesigning old or whatnot. So everything is a gamble, you improve on your weaknesses, you add some "new" stuff that you hope will be picked up, you remove some that didn't work out, you wrestle with microsoft to get as much of your past gambles in the standard and fingers crossed it all works Chances are you have some features your competitor doesn't have, or not so well, so you put marketing on that to make sure it gets traction. It's very hard to be subjective on that front, whatever you have your competitor will say is irrelevant, whatever you don't have, they will say is the most important. There is hardly a ground truth here, because architectures are very different internally. What is easy for one and helps them, may be hard for the other and actually give little benefit. It may look so similar in the end given benchmarks come up not super crazy different, and they all run some versions of dx and whatnot, but that is because you see the final tweaked frames from the games. You don't care where within a frame one architecture is faster than the other, only the result matters. As for DX12 it's still relatively fresh, I don't think we have crossed the line where engines are designed for DX12 only (also win10 adoption not there yet I think). The big engines will support any api that is relevant anyway, and chances are they already have abstract renderers that make use of "modern" principles. Thanks for the "somewhat neutral" rating, as engineer I can see the good work in many big companies. In things like OpenGL/Vulkan you work with engineers from your competitors, engineers may switch companies... it's just like in sports. Whether the companies are successful or not in the long run is more of a management topic, "foreseeing" growth market, a good deal of luck, but also trying to put your destiny in your own hands whenever possible. The "balance of power" is the actual fabrication costs, and the fact that no one knows the future and that you don't have that amount of cash to just throw out, the stock market will put pressure on your decisions regardless.