GeForce GTX 1070 Looks Great, At Least Under Windows

[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]

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.)

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[bug77]

It's not sided in any direction, obviously it just lists single GPU cards. Who cares about dual GPU anyway?
690 was 1k$, like the 7990. Next duel would be Titan Z (3k$) vs 295X2 (1.5k$). It's not "sided" when there are the facts.

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.
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.
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.

[hajj_3]

Ill stick with my 970 until I decide if I jumpship to Polaris or Vega.

Some polaris 10 benchmarks leaked yesterday, it is slightly faster than gtx980/r390 so you wouldn't be getting much of a performance increase than your gtx970. Vega will bring a big advantage though.

[juno]

I see pretty much a naïve AMD sided graph

AMD releases $999 versions almost every gen
http://www.zdnet.com/article/amd-unv...s-card-beast/#!

Only the 6990 was $699

It's not sided in any direction, obviously it just lists single GPU cards. Who cares about dual GPU anyway?
690 was 1k$, like the 7990. Next duel would be Titan Z (3k$) vs 295X2 (1.5k$). It's not "sided" when there are the facts.

I remember 5 years ago the top cards were like 550 Euros. Now it's 800 Euros, most likely do to the poor euro/dollar ratio.

That's only a part of the "problem". Just look at the graph, MSRPs in USD also increased a lot.