GeForce GTX 1070 Looks Great, At Least Under Windows

[juno]

Are you making fun of me?

And then you realize most people don't even buy the highest end (personally, I always buy in the $200-250 range and once I have paid ~$300), making the graph almost completely irrelevant.

The graph states the "Graphics Cards Price Trend 1995-2015: Launch Pricing for new Top Models". Who said something about cards in lower ranges (fun fact: that's where AMD won like every time when it comes to perf/price for the recent years)?

The graph says it's showing how Nvidia is more expensive than AMD. Then proceeds to list every Nvidia card (including the Titan line, which is an outlier), but excludes some of AMD's cards (their dual cards, which is how AMD chose to respond to Titan - we don't do one big chip, but get two more tame chips to do the same job). That's why it's skewing the big picture.

The graph doesn't say it shows that Nvidia is more expensive. It just does list the prices, nothing more, nothing less. It is data, not interpretation

The rest ist just wrong info and FUD. AMD discontinued their small-die strategy. Hawaii was not as big as GK110 because the density is way higher and it was more modern, had architectural advantages that got more perf. out of less space compared to Kepler. The same applies on GM204 vs Hawaii - does NV have a small-die strategy?
And for the most recent High-End GPUs, Fiji and GM200 are almost identically the same size. What do you want to tell me?
Nvidia does also build and sell multi-GPU cards. Are you really suggesting to recreate that graph, including the 6990 and 7990 but not the 690 and Titan Z? That's ridiculous, what would justify that decision?

If you take Titan out of the picture, Nvidia is just a bit more expensive than AMD for the most part. And that price premium is justified, because Nvidia has been a bit faster traditionally.

Why would you take the Titans out but not the Fury X?
Just because it is way overpriced doesn't put it in another category that makes it uncomparable. The GTX Titan is clearly positioned as a gamer product, as all the other listed cards are. The Titan X doesn't even have better FP64 performance.
What exactly does justify the price premium? Original Titan was 20-30% faster than 7970 GHz, which is perfectly normal for a new generation. Hawaii did excel the original Titan.

I really don't get what you want. Somebody asked about the prices and you are making a completely biased AMD vs Nvidia discussion out of this.

[dlq84]

were cards always this expensive? I remember a new midcard being around 100(in USD probably around 150. Inflation much?

More like temporary lack of competition, it doesn't look like Polaris will be able to compete in this segment. We have to wait for Vega which might be released in October. And that's just a rumor right now.

[bug77]

Are you making fun of me?

...

The graph doesn't say it shows that Nvidia is more expensive. It just does list the prices, nothing more, nothing less. It is data, not interpretation

...

Why would you take the Titans out but not the Fury X?

...

So it's ok to cherry pick, as long as it proves your point. That's how you prove your point. TYVM.

[devius]

Are you really suggesting to recreate that graph, including the 6990 and 7990 but not the 690 and Titan Z? That's ridiculous, what would justify that decision?

Blind fanboyism?

I really don't get what you want.

To distort reality until it fits some predetermined outcome.

BTW, the 1070 still looks good in terms of performance/price but I'm sure that figure will change in a few months once more GPU models come out as always happens. If I was still into that sort of thing I'd probably get one of these, but considering the last GPU I bought brand new when it came out was a GeForce4 Ti4200-8x that's not going to happen.

[juno]

So it's ok to cherry pick, as long as it proves your point. That's how you prove your point. TYVM.

Where am I cherry picking? Can you quote the passage for me?

You are the only one cherry picking, demanding the Titan to take out, putting in 6990/7990 but not the 690/"790" alias Titan Z.
That's just ridiculous, TYVM

BTW, the 1070 still looks good in terms of performance/price

Yeah, I already said that the 1070 seems OK for me, but I'll have to wait if the Founder's Edition crap works out or not. For the 1080, it seems like the AIB partners seem ok with the new strategy, there are some cheaper 1080s already.
Also, for the cheap cards there is less to be potentially done wrong. The stock cooler works out quite nicely on the 1070 even without the vapor chamber.
I'm curious when tiny ITX versions will be released. It's already rated at 150 Watt max. TDP. I don't get why Nvidia puts a 8-Pin connector on.
<150 W, 1*6-Pin connector, 8*GDDR5, "simple" power supply and there comes the Nano killer...

[bug77]

Where am I cherry picking? Can you quote the passage for me?

The graph is not including all the cards.
The graph is not including cards with similar performance.
The graph is only including the most expensive cards, but at the top, 10% more performance will command way more than a 10% price hike, thus exaggerating a perceived price difference.
You're throwing some numbers implying that Nvidia is more expensive simply because the green line is above the red line.

If AMD has been selling for less, it's because they couldn't get away with more. Between slightly less performance and lower power efficiency, they simply had to lower their prices. Remember, AMD has been in the red for years, they need every penny they can get.
Realistically speaking, the difference between mid-range cards has been mostly a non issue. At the top, the faster card has always sold for more $.

(Yeah, I get it, you didn't make that graph, you've only posted what you could find.)

[smitty3268]

The graph is not including cards with similar performance.
The graph is only including the most expensive cards

Well, that was the entire point of the chart, yes. To see how prices have changed over time for the most expensive cards.

It doesn't make sense to only look at cards with the same performance as one that came out 10 years ago - obviously newer tech is driving the price/perf line down, the question was whether the total cost was rising. And it is - as you would expect, purely from inflation if nothing else.

[bug77]

Well, that was the entire point of the chart, yes. To see how prices have changed over time for the most expensive cards.

It fails even at that. Because we've always had high, mid and low end. But Titan is in a league of its own (it retained compute abilities even when consumer cards did not) and is being thrown in there to make it look like the prices have risen. Yes, the most expensive card has become more expensive, but only because a new performance tier is available now.

[erendorn]

No, Nvidia is raising the prices every gen, especially since they sell their mid-range chip (Gxyz4) with the high marketing labels (GTX x80)*. Now the Founder's Edition is just one more clever marketing trick.

*if not familiar, I made a post about this here: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...ommended/page2



Not yet in this chart are the 1070/FE for 379/449$ and 1080/FE for 599/699$

Don't get me wrong, the 1070 is a great card, reaching the previous-gen top dogs with ~150 Watts. It's just that imho both GP104 cards are insanely overpriced.


AMD actually did deliver for the last years, however "980 Ti performance with half the price and power usage" has never been stated anywhere public, so don't feed the troll

Well, inflation between 1999 and 2016 says that 400$ back then correspond to 574$ now. So top end graphic cards have increased a bit more than inflation, but not that much more (except for the two titans, but they are clearly outliers). Way less than "top end phone", for example.

[juno]

It fails even at that. Because we've always had high, mid and low end. But Titan is in a league of its own (it retained compute abilities even when consumer cards did not) and is being thrown in there to make it look like the prices have risen. Yes, the most expensive card has become more expensive, but only because a new performance tier is available now.

Once more, this is only about higher-end, which this thread is all about.
No. The original Titan had more FP64 performance which was nice, but that's it. And you still lack the software support of Quadro/Tesla cards. The newer Titan X has no abilities that other consumer cards don't have at all - apart from more memory, of course. AMD mostly had more memory and never took a premium charge for that.

Well, inflation between 1999 and 2016 says that 400$ back then correspond to 574$ now. So top end graphic cards have increased a bit more than inflation, but not that much more (except for the two titans, but they are clearly outliers). Way less than "top end phone", for example.

No, Titans are no outliners, they are the perfectly normal big chip sold at incredible price, even as salvage(!), starting with Kepler. They are just labelled outliners from the marketing to rise prices.
What would make you think, these are outliners from a technical view? The performance can't definately be it. 20-30% above 7970 GHz, then below the 290X for the original Titan, on par with Fury X for the Titan X.

The 1080/1070 are not the new high-end cards, those will be the upcoming 1080 Ti and Titan. So you can't really say that prices have not increased before these are out. And it's quite obvious that the 1080 Ti would be priced higher than the 1080, which is already priced above the 980 Ti.

You do realise, which cards you have to compare?
1080 is the successor of the 980, 680, 560 Ti
1070 is the successor of the 970, 670, 560
1080 Ti will be the successor of 980 Ti, 780, 570
Titan (Pascal) will be the successor of Titan X, Titan Black and 580

Don't get yourself fooled by advertising