GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Announced: 3584 CUDA Cores, 11 GB vRAM, 11 Gbps

[nuetzel]

If you're going to spend $700 on a video card, $500 for a 4k display won't slow you down. If you're spending $700 on your gaming PC, it will. (And there's no shame in that. Aside from my RX-480, the rest of my PC is six years old.)

Let's see, new system $700, $500 gfx and _2_ new displays...--- Not worth at the moment, I think.
I'm going with RX480 or RX580 (RX485) in some weeks.

[nuetzel]

@phoronix (Michael)
You have forgotten to tell, that _former_ 1060/1070/1080 should get a 'rebrand' with faster memory, too.
Some more competition for RX560/RX580.

[schmidtbag]

If you're going to spend $700 on a video card, $500 for a 4k display won't slow you down. If you're spending $700 on your gaming PC, it will. (And there's no shame in that. Aside from my RX-480, the rest of my PC is six years old.)

Slow me down meaning what? I'm not expecting to do anything 4K on this PC if that's what you were thinking, and I don't currently own a 4K display. Regardless, I'm not willing to spend the majority of a month's pay for a setup where I can't reliably get 60FPS. That's a premium price for an experience that isn't quite premium. Meanwhile, I can get an adequate experience for the price of just the 1080Ti alone. I am effectively spending half the money for half the resolution, not including the display itself (albeit, 1/4 the pixel count).

[vortex]

Phoronix: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Announced: 3584 CUDA Cores, 11 GB vRAM, 11 Gbps

NVIDIA did their much anticipated unveiling last night at GDC of the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti graphics card as "the fastest gaming GPU ever."..

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...IA-GTX-1080-Ti

When is your review sample coming?

[WOLF308]

Well, there goes my tax refund

[starshipeleven]

nvidia cards seem to be consistently more energy efficient, compared to similar amd cards.

Not true in the more recent times.

[ssokolow]

Haha, my entire gaming PC will cost roughly $700. I don't see a reason to spend more. To me, 2K isn't enough of an upgrade from the 1080p I use now. 4K displays are too expensive. VR is still too "beta" to consider upgrading my OSVR. Linux overall isn't very optimized for 4K displays. My internet connection isn't fast enough to stream 4K videos, and not even the GTX 1080 can reliably play modern games at 4K.

I figure by the time games don't play smoothly on my GPU anymore, there will be a reasonably priced GPU out there that can play games in 4K.

Amen. When I upgrade my resolution, it'll be from a 3-monitor row (DVI-D, HDMI-to-DVI cable, passive DP-to-DVI adapter) maintained from a supply of salvaged/thrifted 1280x1024 displays to a large-format (~54" @ 4K) display to maintain roughly the same pixel density so that driving roughly twice as many pixels gives me roughly twice as much usable desktop space. (And it'll have to be either IPS or curved, given how close I'll be sitting to it.)

[starshipeleven]

To me, 2K isn't enough of an upgrade from the 1080p I use now.

Yeah, mee too. I'm waiting for 8K, that will totally rock.

[starshipeleven]

God, the amount of poverty in this thread is disgusting.

/sarcasm

[Zan Lynx]

Heh. Well, I am planning to get a 1080 Ti as soon as I can. I've been waiting for it so I can replace my pair of 980s. They can't quite drive a 4K display at 60 FPS in all the games, although they can do it for some. Not enough video RAM. Their 4 GB each is too little.

My little brother is probably getting a Ryzen and a 980 GPU for a birthday present this year. The other 980 will make a good display card for my NAS server upgrade later. Ryzen if it does ECC, Xeon if not.