2016 GPUs 1070/1080 and 480/490
- Thread starter ECA
- Start date
TdC
Trem's hunky sex love muffin
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 30,925
imo the real world top cards have always cost about the same amount of money, relatively speaking. I seem to recall paying something like 500 euros for Gforce 5...40(?) TI. I have two 970's atm. together they cost me about...700 euros I guess. I expect the 1080 to outperform them by about 40%, so yeah, I'd say it's a fair deal. relatively speaking ofc.
Wij
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 18,404
No. Crush the capitalist polygon-botherers. Free graphics for all!!
Raven
Fuck the Tories!
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,860
No, because it is still not 60fps @ 4k, its nearly there but not quite. I would wait for the 1080ti. It just doesn't seem worth it when existing cards can push 90fps at 1080 or 1440.
The 1070 is a good replacement for the 980ti though. I would be all over it if I hadn't just upgraded.
ECA
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 9,452
- Thread starter
- #68
AMD Prices 3-D Tech to Spur Virtual Reality Market
Paywall shit:
Advanced Micro Devices Inc. is angling to lower the cost of virtual reality, targeting the field with a new line of graphics hardware priced at $199—half or less the cost of comparable products. AMD said the first chips based on its new Polaris design are expected to arrive in graphics cards for personal computers at the end of June. The company aims to help push the starting cost of PCs that can deliver VR experiences as low as $799 from above $1,000. Consumers also face the cost of the latest generation of VR headsets—$599 for the Oculus Rift from Facebook Inc. ’s Oculus VR unit, for example, or $799 for HTC Corp. ’s Vive.
But the need for a PC with an add-in card that includes a beefy 3-D graphics chip is another barrier that stands in the way of widespread adoption of VR. An online survey conducted in April by the Advanced Imaging Society found that 68% of respondents said VR equipment was too expensive. “Less than 1% of PC users have systems that are capable of doing VR,” said Raja Koduri, senior vice president and chief architect of AMD’s Radeon technologies group. “The entry point is very, very high.” AMD said its new Radeon RX cards, certified for use in VR by HTC and Oculus VR, deliver performance equivalent to that of $500 graphics cards used for VR. Patrick Moorhead, an analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy briefed on AMD’s strategy, estimated that the current minimum price on cards comparable to AMD’s new models is $399. He said the $199 pricing comes as a surprise. “It’s great for getting more people into VR,” said Kelt Reeves, president of Falcon Northwest Computer Systems Inc., a boutique maker of gaming PCs that serves the market. AMD competes with Nvidia Corp. in the chips known as graphics processing units, or GPUs. Mercury Research estimates that Nvidia had 70.6% of shipments in the first quarter of 2016 to 29.4% for AMD, though the latter’s share is up three percentage points from the fourth quarter. Standard practice in the GPU business has been to start new product lines with high-end cards that command hefty prices and profit margins. Mr. Koduri said AMD hoped that breaking from tradition by starting with a lower-cost model could have a bigger impact. For one thing, he said, computer retailers prefer to stock machines for less than $999. Nvidia on May 7 introduced a new flagship model called the GTX 1080 at a $599 price tag that is expected to succeed a $1,000 model called the Titan X. Nvidia also introduced a $379 model called the GTX 1070, which is likely to be seen as competition to the new AMD model. “It’s up to Nvidia to come up with a lower-priced card,” Mr. Moorhead said. An Nvidia spokesman had no immediate comment. AMD, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., plans to formally announce the new chips early Wednesday at the Computex trade show in Taiwan.
480 for $199? If it even comes close to 1070 performance wheeeeee.
Paywall shit:
Advanced Micro Devices Inc. is angling to lower the cost of virtual reality, targeting the field with a new line of graphics hardware priced at $199—half or less the cost of comparable products. AMD said the first chips based on its new Polaris design are expected to arrive in graphics cards for personal computers at the end of June. The company aims to help push the starting cost of PCs that can deliver VR experiences as low as $799 from above $1,000. Consumers also face the cost of the latest generation of VR headsets—$599 for the Oculus Rift from Facebook Inc. ’s Oculus VR unit, for example, or $799 for HTC Corp. ’s Vive.
But the need for a PC with an add-in card that includes a beefy 3-D graphics chip is another barrier that stands in the way of widespread adoption of VR. An online survey conducted in April by the Advanced Imaging Society found that 68% of respondents said VR equipment was too expensive. “Less than 1% of PC users have systems that are capable of doing VR,” said Raja Koduri, senior vice president and chief architect of AMD’s Radeon technologies group. “The entry point is very, very high.” AMD said its new Radeon RX cards, certified for use in VR by HTC and Oculus VR, deliver performance equivalent to that of $500 graphics cards used for VR. Patrick Moorhead, an analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy briefed on AMD’s strategy, estimated that the current minimum price on cards comparable to AMD’s new models is $399. He said the $199 pricing comes as a surprise. “It’s great for getting more people into VR,” said Kelt Reeves, president of Falcon Northwest Computer Systems Inc., a boutique maker of gaming PCs that serves the market. AMD competes with Nvidia Corp. in the chips known as graphics processing units, or GPUs. Mercury Research estimates that Nvidia had 70.6% of shipments in the first quarter of 2016 to 29.4% for AMD, though the latter’s share is up three percentage points from the fourth quarter. Standard practice in the GPU business has been to start new product lines with high-end cards that command hefty prices and profit margins. Mr. Koduri said AMD hoped that breaking from tradition by starting with a lower-cost model could have a bigger impact. For one thing, he said, computer retailers prefer to stock machines for less than $999. Nvidia on May 7 introduced a new flagship model called the GTX 1080 at a $599 price tag that is expected to succeed a $1,000 model called the Titan X. Nvidia also introduced a $379 model called the GTX 1070, which is likely to be seen as competition to the new AMD model. “It’s up to Nvidia to come up with a lower-priced card,” Mr. Moorhead said. An Nvidia spokesman had no immediate comment. AMD, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., plans to formally announce the new chips early Wednesday at the Computex trade show in Taiwan.
480 for $199? If it even comes close to 1070 performance wheeeeee.
Zarjazz
Identifies as a horologist.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2003
- Messages
- 2,417
Well if you look at the benchmarks not even the 1080 can do a constant 60fps at 1440p in plenty of games, Witcher 3 for example, at high/ultra settings. I think there is still some way to go before we get to 60+fps @ 4k with good visual quality. Maybe a Ti model with HBM2 will get close, maybe.
Raven
Fuck the Tories!
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,860
Not seen many, most are around 55 and with fidelity getting better and better I can't see that improving.
Hitman, CARS And Rise Of The Tomb Raider Results - Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Pascal Review
Some fairly straightforward benchmarks there, the vast majority are 55/56 which means you would need to downscale to 1080 or 1440 for 60fps/max settings. Will be interesting to see how the crossfire 4xx cards do when properly evaluated. I think we are probably a year or so away from proper, reliable 4k 60fps.
Personally, spreading the cost, I will be getting a 4k panel at the end of the year and then upgrading the GPU this time next year when hopefully some decent ti versions are about. I will probably try and pick up another 980ti if the prices crash over the next couple of months.
Hitman, CARS And Rise Of The Tomb Raider Results - Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Pascal Review
Some fairly straightforward benchmarks there, the vast majority are 55/56 which means you would need to downscale to 1080 or 1440 for 60fps/max settings. Will be interesting to see how the crossfire 4xx cards do when properly evaluated. I think we are probably a year or so away from proper, reliable 4k 60fps.
Personally, spreading the cost, I will be getting a 4k panel at the end of the year and then upgrading the GPU this time next year when hopefully some decent ti versions are about. I will probably try and pick up another 980ti if the prices crash over the next couple of months.
Zarjazz
Identifies as a horologist.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2003
- Messages
- 2,417
ECA
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 9,452
- Thread starter
- #77
View: http://imgur.com/a/xEj2M
top pic is a 1080, bottom pic is 2x 480, so $480 of 480 crossfire > $700 1080.
Moriath
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 16,209
BloodOmen
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 18,159
give it a few weeks and we'll see some proper benchmarks popping up, AMD said their aiming for the end of June some where so press will be receiving reference models for review purposes soon i'd imagine.
that said, if more benchmarks do show 2x 480's to be faster than a single 1080 at a fraction of the price then i'll likely just buy 2x 480's for cheaper, seems like a no brainer.
that said, if more benchmarks do show 2x 480's to be faster than a single 1080 at a fraction of the price then i'll likely just buy 2x 480's for cheaper, seems like a no brainer.
old.user4556
Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 16,163
Investing in this thread.
Just a quick question related to the new cards / resolutions / monitors:
I was going to go down the widescreen monitor route rather than a 4k panel as Lightroom is my primary use, but once I get a video card upgrade I really want to do a lot more PC gaming now that I have the time and inclination. My concern is running a monitor in a lower, non-native resolution which (used to, at least...) looks crap, so I'd want to run at native if possible. That would mean gaming at 4k all the time - if I run at 1080p (exactly a quarter of 4k) will it look OK with no interpolation? I don't see why not?
Does that make sense? I'm trying to future proof my panel choice, and I think a 4k panel might be the way to go longer term.
Just a quick question related to the new cards / resolutions / monitors:
I was going to go down the widescreen monitor route rather than a 4k panel as Lightroom is my primary use, but once I get a video card upgrade I really want to do a lot more PC gaming now that I have the time and inclination. My concern is running a monitor in a lower, non-native resolution which (used to, at least...) looks crap, so I'd want to run at native if possible. That would mean gaming at 4k all the time - if I run at 1080p (exactly a quarter of 4k) will it look OK with no interpolation? I don't see why not?
Does that make sense? I'm trying to future proof my panel choice, and I think a 4k panel might be the way to go longer term.
TdC
Trem's hunky sex love muffin
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 30,925
I just bought a new screen. I wanted to go for the wiiiiiide panel, but after some thought I cancelled and bought a 4K / Gsync panel. It's great tbh.