Nvidia's GTX 1080 is Much More Powerful Than a Titan, $400 Less

[OldNewNewOld]

What's the catch? I don't believe it's all sunshine and rainbows at nvidia.
It's $400 cheaper and much stronger. Cheap and fantastic. So it's a scam. At least from what I know. You don't get both. Excellent quality and excellent pricing. Especially not from nvidia.

 

[Creator002]

Fucking hell. I JUST[footnote]Not even a week ago.[/footnote] bought a GTX 960 for just under $AU300 because my Radeon HD 6950 died. Why does nothing to do with computers ever pan out for me simply?

 

[noobium]

Let me quote am man greater than me,

"Stop, my penis can only get so erect" - Dr. Krieger

 

[Yuuki]

Dammit, dammit, dammit. And I bought a GTX980ti just last month.

Oh well, should last me a good few years anyway and I got a good deal on it.

Fucking hell. I JUST bought a GTX 960 for just under $AU300 because my Radeon HD 6950 died. Why does nothing to do with computers ever pan out for me simply?

With graphics cards you should always keep abreast with news about upcoming cards before buying. Pascal has been generating hype on PC news sites for several months now...

What's the catch? I don't believe it's all sunshine and rainbows at nvidia.
It's $400 cheaper and much stronger. Cheap and fantastic.

The article is click-baity. It should be comparing GTX1080 (upcoming $600 gaming card) to 980 (2014 flagship gaming card released at $600)...but instead it compares it to Titan (CUDA/compute card). The article should've been titled "GTX 1080 is much more powerful than 980, costs the same". Or at the very least it should've compared 1080 to 980 Ti which is the current gaming flagship.

Titan series have never been considered to be gaming cards, from a gaming perspective they are priced TERRIBLY. Yes they can be used for gaming, but their biggest strength (and selling point) is double-precision compute performance, hence the $1000+ pricetags and huge (overkill) memory sizes/buffers. No gamer considered buying Titans for gaming, unless they fell into the extremely niche "don't know what to do with all this money" category.

So it's a scam. At least from what I know. You don't get both. Excellent quality and excellent pricing. Especially not from nvidia.

Ease up with the uninformed bias there.

 

[Saulkar]

Do not buy top end hardware... it is absolutely terrible price/performance...

The problem is that it is often only the very top model that has the most VRAM which is critical for GPU rendering using engines like VRay, Cycles, Redshift, and Octane.

Titan series have never been considered to be gaming cards, from a gaming perspective they are priced TERRIBLY. Yes they can be used for gaming, but their biggest strength (and selling point) is double-precision compute performance, hence the $1000+ pricetags and huge (overkill) memory sizes/buffers. No gamer considered buying Titans for gaming, unless they fell into the extremely niche "don't know what to do with all this money" category.

Unfortunately they gimped the double precision in the Titan X series which made them less unattractive for the professional market unless you are like me and only need the memory. A new Quadro card is being designed to run with half precision giving them double the FLOPS but half the... precision. I wonder if it will make any difference in GPU rendering, if it will have tangible benefits/drawbacks. Anyhoo...

people that think 4K textures work only with 4K displays...

I never understood where this idea came from. I guess people assume a texture is emitted like from a movie projector and so the 4K resolution is all up front instead of wrapped around the whole model with lost real-estate.

I am not saying any of the people who I am quoting do not know this, only showing this to help out anyone who does not understand how textures work.

That black square is the size of the whole texture being 1024x1024, 2048x2048, 4096x4096, or 8192x8192, it does not matter. A copy of the character or object is torn apart like a cardboard box and laid out flat where the texture coordinates (vertices) correspond to their cousins on the 3D model. As you paint on top of the individual pieces of the character laid out flat it takes that relative 2D data and projects it to the main 3D model's corresponding polygonal faces. You need to also size the individual pieces appropriately as you can make a single eye take up most of the square which means more pixel resolution for it but less for the rest of the model. Leaving you with a pristine and crisp looking single eye and a texture resolution from 1996 covering the rest of the model. You need to leverage your UVW (instead of XYZ) real-estate and scale your pieces appropriately otherwise the texture resolution will be inconsistent across the model.

 

[Creator002]

Fucking hell. I JUST bought a GTX 960 for just under $AU300 because my Radeon HD 6950 died. Why does nothing to do with computers ever pan out for me simply?

Well, Pascal and Polaris/Vega were hyped for months.

Though the actual choice of GPU within that price range aint great either mate.

Yeah. It's on me, but I don't really keep up with hardware news. Actually, all my gaming-related news comes from here.
I'm not really upset about buying another card too early. I'm happy with my GTX 960. It's definitely better than my HD 6950 (especially since that one doesn't display video anymore). It was more more of a superfluous outrage.

 

[Strazdas]

Much claims and tests, but all made by Nvidia so far so how much of that is truth is unknown. This might be the case where i end up upgrading from my 760 though if the leap is that big. Still have to see what AMD brings.

"The cost of entry to PC gaming gets cheaper and cheaper every single year"
Ermmmm ahem, a few years ago the enthusiast level graphic card costed $150 (example radeon 5850) and the TOP level card, $200 (ex. radeon 5870), how much is the 1070 again?? (the modern 5850/ gtx 460 equivalent)? How much the future top level Titan sucessor will cost? (I bet you around a thousand until the inevitable cheaper 1080ti follows making it look like "a bargain"....)

By the time 5850 cost 150 they were hardly enthusiast level anymore.

Definitely going to wait on upgrading for a good while. The GTX970 can still run almost everything on the market on Ultra with 60FPS.

Thats kinda how it works. you dont upgrade every new generation. Now a jump from 670 or in my case 760 is something worth upgrading. upgrading every 2-3 generations is how most people roll.

All this based on claims from Nvidia followed up with a basic chart saying 2x this and 3x that. Paper release is always like this. And those prices are for reference cards, which unless you're buying one to strip the reference cooler from and strap a waterblock to it, you're likely looking at $100 extra for a basic custom design.

If you dont overclock (like me) then reference coolers are fine. Not even Fermis burst into flames with reference coolers and these are 14 nm builds so power drain (and hence heat produced) are going to be lower than predecesors.

My issue isn't with the top end hardware, its not being able to guess when the top end hardware is going to stop being top end and be replaced by something new that offers flat better performance at a similar/same price point. Also if I had wanted to spend a few hundred less I would have bought a GTX 970 not a Radeon.

but you are able to guess it. The GPU cycle hass been a standard 1-1.5 years for over a decade. There is no cheap way to always stay on the top in PC gaming, but the beauty is that you dont need to stay at the top to play everything and still have great visuals. your 980 will do just fine and you will be able to max games for years to come. It wont become minimum requirements for at least 5 years anyway.

By who's benchmarks? GPUboss flat out hands it to the 970 ( http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-390-vs-GeForce-GTX-970 ) and Techspot has 390 better by a whopping 1-4 frames

Never use GPU boss. that website is cancer.

The difference between Ultra Settings and High Settings is almost impossible to see anyway. And a good mix of Medium-High-Ultra will be indistinguishable from pure Ultra in most titles less they are side by side and you know where to look.

This is heracy. even modern games are nowhere near of the graphic fidelity to reach the point where differences are not observable. Also have you bought a new monitor, because if your still using the old one your playing in subnormal resolution so your card isnt given a workout even a minimum resolution would.

What's the catch?

14 nm architecture. Less materials needed. Less heat dissipation needed. AMD is bringing 14nm as well (not revealed the card yet) so its probably gong to do the same.

Fucking hell. I JUST[footnote]Not even a week ago.[/footnote] bought a GTX 960 for just under $AU300 because my Radeon HD 6950 died. Why does nothing to do with computers ever pan out for me simply?

Dude, you bough a mid-range card. Enthusiast releases are irrelevant for you anyway.

 

[Zipa]

Much claims and tests, but all made by Nvidia so far so how much of that is truth is unknown. This might be the case where i end up upgrading from my 760 though if the leap is that big. Still have to see what AMD brings.

"The cost of entry to PC gaming gets cheaper and cheaper every single year"
Ermmmm ahem, a few years ago the enthusiast level graphic card costed $150 (example radeon 5850) and the TOP level card, $200 (ex. radeon 5870), how much is the 1070 again?? (the modern 5850/ gtx 460 equivalent)? How much the future top level Titan sucessor will cost? (I bet you around a thousand until the inevitable cheaper 1080ti follows making it look like "a bargain"....)

By the time 5850 cost 150 they were hardly enthusiast level anymore.

Definitely going to wait on upgrading for a good while. The GTX970 can still run almost everything on the market on Ultra with 60FPS.

Thats kinda how it works. you dont upgrade every new generation. Now a jump from 670 or in my case 760 is something worth upgrading. upgrading every 2-3 generations is how most people roll.

All this based on claims from Nvidia followed up with a basic chart saying 2x this and 3x that. Paper release is always like this. And those prices are for reference cards, which unless you're buying one to strip the reference cooler from and strap a waterblock to it, you're likely looking at $100 extra for a basic custom design.

If you dont overclock (like me) then reference coolers are fine. Not even Fermis burst into flames with reference coolers and these are 14 nm builds so power drain (and hence heat produced) are going to be lower than predecesors.

My issue isn't with the top end hardware, its not being able to guess when the top end hardware is going to stop being top end and be replaced by something new that offers flat better performance at a similar/same price point. Also if I had wanted to spend a few hundred less I would have bought a GTX 970 not a Radeon.

but you are able to guess it. The GPU cycle hass been a standard 1-1.5 years for over a decade. There is no cheap way to always stay on the top in PC gaming, but the beauty is that you dont need to stay at the top to play everything and still have great visuals. your 980 will do just fine and you will be able to max games for years to come. It wont become minimum requirements for at least 5 years anyway.

By who's benchmarks? GPUboss flat out hands it to the 970 ( http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-390-vs-GeForce-GTX-970 ) and Techspot has 390 better by a whopping 1-4 frames

Never use GPU boss. that website is cancer.

The difference between Ultra Settings and High Settings is almost impossible to see anyway. And a good mix of Medium-High-Ultra will be indistinguishable from pure Ultra in most titles less they are side by side and you know where to look.

This is heracy. even modern games are nowhere near of the graphic fidelity to reach the point where differences are not observable. Also have you bought a new monitor, because if your still using the old one your playing in subnormal resolution so your card isnt given a workout even a minimum resolution would.

What's the catch?

14 nm architecture. Less materials needed. Less heat dissipation needed. AMD is bringing 14nm as well (not revealed the card yet) so its probably gong to do the same.

Fucking hell. I JUST[footnote]Not even a week ago.[/footnote] bought a GTX 960 for just under $AU300 because my Radeon HD 6950 died. Why does nothing to do with computers ever pan out for me simply?

Dude, you bough a mid-range card. Enthusiast releases are irrelevant for you anyway.

Just a correction, Nvidia is using 16nm for pascal (1000 series), AMD is using 14nm for polaris.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Nvidia claims a lot of shit.

Hear! Hear!

I can't wait to find out how they crammed 6GB of VRAM onto the 1070. If the 970 was any indication, 3GB of this might be useless just like how 512 MB of every 970 is basically useless, on top of tanking performance.

AMD need to get up off of their asses and step it up though I swear. Nvidia is dominating the scene and I don't want another Intel scenario.

 

[The White Hunter]

Nvidia claims a lot of shit.

Hear! Hear!

I can't wait to find out how they crammed 6GB of VRAM onto the 1070. If the 970 was any indication, 3GB of this might be useless just like how 512 MB of every 970 is basically useless, on top of tanking performance.

AMD need to get up off of their asses and step it up though I swear. Nvidia is dominating the scene and I don't want another Intel scenario.

I got a 980 because AMD is sitting on the same Silicon asnd not really offering what I want as a consumer, I don't really want their more affordable thing, I want shiny new silicon that goes fast as hell. In maybe 3 years I'll be due an upgrade and hopefully it will be to an AMD card.

This year is CPU year though and they allegedly have new silicon in that field.

 

[Quellist]

Liking the sound of this, my faithful old 680 has been doing very well since 2012 but is starting to show its age. A big leap up is coming at around the perfect time. Just a shame $599 tends to translate to ?599 over here...

 

[Living_Brain]

An OCed 980 TI will be close to it.

An OC'd 1080 can go to 1800 mhz. That's huge, and the better binned more expensive version can go above 2 ghz.

 

[uncanny474]

Man, that graph is 100% worthless. The Y-axis is "Relative VR Gaming Performance"? What does that even mean? Those numbers have no units! What VR experiences are they testing with? And I care about how well it handles AAA games, not some VR "experience" made in Unity for college credit!

 

[Yan007]

I bought my 980 February 2015 so before anyone knew anything about these new cards.

To answer your original question:

Never assume any computer hardware you buy will be the best for more than a year. It will play games like a beast for at least 2-3 years, then will be at least great for another, then good enough. That's why I buy a new card every 5 years or so. I had a 680gtx when it came out, I'm getting the 1080gtx, then I'll get the 1480 or 1580 when it comes out.

 

[Amir Kondori]

This is all so much marketing garbage. The Titan X is a $1,000+ GPU. It is a terrible performance per dollar card. There are NO independent reviews and benchmarks of the GTX 1080 (god the name is so stupid). AMD will be releasing it's competitor, Polaris, and is looking to be targeting the small die strategy of the 4850/4870.

So before anyone goes blowing their wad over a $600 GPU keep in mind that the GTX 260 and 280 saw HUGE price cuts within weeks of their release after the 4850/4870 were nearly as fast for a lot less money. We may see this same scenario play out shortly here.

If you are die hard Nvidia fan and want to drop the money on these day one be my guest, everyone else should wait for Polaris and real benchmarks.

 

[munx13]

I'd rather have proper game benchmarks and not marketing claims.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Deceptive marketing aside, I think Nvidia has probably delivered what they had promised in terms of raw performance. AMD better have some truly remarkable products to reveal on May 26th or they won't recover from further market share loss...monopoly time for both GPUs and CPUs...ugh.

Polaris won't be able to compete with the 1080. Best case scenario, the most powerful Polaris 10 SKU (likely named R9 480x) will trade blows with the 1070 for a lower price...AMD won't have Vega on the market until early 2017. Leaked specs suggest that Vega will easily beat the 1080, but Nvidia can counter it with a new GTX Titan or 1080Ti based on either GP100 or GP102. Unfortunately, AMD has an uphill battle to survive over the next couple of years.

Paying an extra $100 for the "Founder's Edition" AKA reference cards that will be inferior to the cheaper, better cooled AIB cards released a couple of months later...just a taste of Nvidia monopoly. PC gaming (and next gen consoles come to think of it) might get a lot more expensive over the next few years...

 

[infohippie]

My 660Ti is still going strong for most games. It helps that I don't buy shitty, poorly optimised AAA games (Yes, Ubisoft, I'm talking about you), so I can run most things at medium to high settings and anything a bit older at max settings no problem. The only game I've had real trouble with was The Witcher 3, which I kind of expected, though it runs pretty well with high settings if I drop the resolution to 720p.

Now, however, might finally be the time to start thinking about upgrading. Maybe by the end of the year I will pick up one of the new cards, should be just in time to give me excellent performance for Squadron 42. Maybe even enough to drive a Rift, since that's one game that will benefit tremendously from VR.