Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 5933 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 ... 119  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 11:42 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Image

Got one of those too.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 11:43 
User avatar
Master of dodgy spelling....

Joined: 25th Sep, 2008
Posts: 22533
Location: shropshire, uk
Grim... wrote:
Kov's PC knowledge is improving.


I have been revising :)

_________________
MetalAngel wrote:
Kovacs: From 'unresponsive' to 'kebab' in 3.5 seconds


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 11:44 
User avatar
Master of dodgy spelling....

Joined: 25th Sep, 2008
Posts: 22533
Location: shropshire, uk
JohnCoffey wrote:
Image

Got one of those too.


Have you thought of getting a hobby that gets you outside and fitter :)

_________________
MetalAngel wrote:
Kovacs: From 'unresponsive' to 'kebab' in 3.5 seconds


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 11:51 
User avatar
Unpossible!

Joined: 27th Jun, 2008
Posts: 38439
KovacsC wrote:
Have you thought of getting a hobby that gets you outside and fitter :)

Alright Roger Bannister, no need to be rude :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 15:09 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
KovacsC wrote:
JohnCoffey wrote:
Image

Got one of those too.


Have you thought of getting a hobby that gets you outside and fitter :)


Yeah of course dude. I've lost quite a bit of weight and am far more active than I had been in years. I've also come off of one of the meds that messes with your thyroid and makes you fat :)

But yeah, been going out more than ever lately (Glastonbury Hampshire, off to Dorset this weekend) :)

My blood sugar levels are also back to normal levels as I've almost completely ditched sugar.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 15:12 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
So I'll ask the obvious question then, why get one of them when the 1080 is out later this month?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 15:28 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Hearthly wrote:
So I'll ask the obvious question then, why get one of them when the 1080 is out later this month?


A few reasons. Now that the excitement has died down and some people have realised what Nvidia actually said (I will post a link to a video in a moment) I realised that I did not need any more power from a GPU, just VRAM. Since dropping to 1440p the only issue that I am left with is that several of the new games run over the 4gb of HBM and cause terrible stuttering. This means I have to reduce settings, but not because of overall power. TBH dude a 980ti would do me fine, but I sold three GPUs (one Fury X, my old Titan Black from Mrs JC's rig and a Mars 760) and did pretty well out of it.

The 1080 is available in around three weeks time (or maybe two) however a few things were starting to become clear. A video I watched earlier shows that the 1080 according to Nvidia's chart is 22% faster than a Titan X. The "As fast as 980 SLI" only pertains to VR (watch the video when you get a chance, it explains everything). Whilst I admit that the 1080 will be faster than a Titan X it's one of those scenarios where I am asking myself, just how much power is enough? for 1440p the Titan X will batter anything..

Then we come to price. The Titan X I bought is six months old (Asus from OCUK) and still has 1.5 years warranty. I paid £500 delivered for it. The 1080 "founders edition" is basically a stock card. The price will be $699, and given gouging, stock levels, etc I would not be surprised AT ALL if it comes in at around £600, possibly even more. The other versions with a MSRP of $599 will not arrive for about a month after Nvidia have taken every one to the cleaners.

Obviously the 1070 will be far cheaper, but there is practically no information on it yet whatsoever apart from Nvidia saying that it would be as fast as a Titan X. As fast as a Titan X in what exactly? no one knows. It too however will only come as a Founder edition and that means that the aftermarket cards (and one I would want) could be two months away. That is too long. I remember when the 970 came out. It wasn't as fast as a Titan Black (close at low resolutions) had 30% less VRAM (similar to the 12 vs 8gb here) and so on. Maybe I could get a founders 1070 at launch for £400 or so but TBH? I would prefer to have the Titan X. I just don't think the 1070 will be as fast in everything. Maybe one thing? maybe more? but not all.

Then of course there's the fact that the Founders edition cards are probably the most ugly fucking cards ever, and it bothers me.

The EVGA hyrbid kit just cost me £40. So I am in for £540 and am very happy with that. Any way, watch this video dude :)


_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 15:46 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
JohnCoffey wrote:
Any way, watch this video dude :)

In this day and age I don't need to take the word of one Youtube video when I have millions at my finger tips.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 16:42 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
I would be getting the 1070 or 1080 for the power consumption alone. The Titan X looks ridiculous now.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 17:00 
User avatar
Master of dodgy spelling....

Joined: 25th Sep, 2008
Posts: 22533
Location: shropshire, uk
DavPaz wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
Have you thought of getting a hobby that gets you outside and fitter :)

Alright Roger Bannister, no need to be rude :D



:DD i was not being rude... just JC has said before he wants to get fitter

_________________
MetalAngel wrote:
Kovacs: From 'unresponsive' to 'kebab' in 3.5 seconds


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 17:13 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
KovacsC wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
Have you thought of getting a hobby that gets you outside and fitter :)

Alright Roger Bannister, no need to be rude :D



:DD i was not being rude... just JC has said before he wants to get fitter
You said it in direct response to him talking about his computer, so it was a snide insinuation that he just sits around using a PC all day and doesn't get out. So yeah, it was rude.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 19:08 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
JohnCoffey wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
So I'll ask the obvious question then, why get one of them when the 1080 is out later this month?


A few reasons. Now that the excitement has died down and some people have realised what Nvidia actually said (I will post a link to a video in a moment) I realised that I did not need any more power from a GPU, just VRAM. Since dropping to 1440p the only issue that I am left with is that several of the new games run over the 4gb of HBM and cause terrible stuttering. This means I have to reduce settings, but not because of overall power. TBH dude a 980ti would do me fine, but I sold three GPUs (one Fury X, my old Titan Black from Mrs JC's rig and a Mars 760) and did pretty well out of it.

The 1080 is available in around three weeks time (or maybe two) however a few things were starting to become clear. A video I watched earlier shows that the 1080 according to Nvidia's chart is 22% faster than a Titan X. The "As fast as 980 SLI" only pertains to VR (watch the video when you get a chance, it explains everything). Whilst I admit that the 1080 will be faster than a Titan X it's one of those scenarios where I am asking myself, just how much power is enough? for 1440p the Titan X will batter anything..

Then we come to price. The Titan X I bought is six months old (Asus from OCUK) and still has 1.5 years warranty. I paid £500 delivered for it. The 1080 "founders edition" is basically a stock card. The price will be $699, and given gouging, stock levels, etc I would not be surprised AT ALL if it comes in at around £600, possibly even more. The other versions with a MSRP of $599 will not arrive for about a month after Nvidia have taken every one to the cleaners.

Obviously the 1070 will be far cheaper, but there is practically no information on it yet whatsoever apart from Nvidia saying that it would be as fast as a Titan X. As fast as a Titan X in what exactly? no one knows. It too however will only come as a Founder edition and that means that the aftermarket cards (and one I would want) could be two months away. That is too long. I remember when the 970 came out. It wasn't as fast as a Titan Black (close at low resolutions) had 30% less VRAM (similar to the 12 vs 8gb here) and so on. Maybe I could get a founders 1070 at launch for £400 or so but TBH? I would prefer to have the Titan X. I just don't think the 1070 will be as fast in everything. Maybe one thing? maybe more? but not all.

Then of course there's the fact that the Founders edition cards are probably the most ugly fucking cards ever, and it bothers me.

The EVGA hyrbid kit just cost me £40. So I am in for £540 and am very happy with that. Any way, watch this video dude :)


Fair enough, and the Titan X is a very lust-worthy card :)

It'll be interesting to see what happens to the prices on them once the 980 hits, there could be a point where they become a tempting proposition depending on where the price of the 980 ends up. (I appreciate that point has arrived for you already :D)

I also share your reservations about '1070 is as fast as Titan X', we'll have to wait and see on that one. Maybe the 1070 really will just outclass the Titan X in everything, or as you say, maybe it'll be a bit of a 'terms and conditions apply' kind of deal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 19:48 
User avatar
Master of dodgy spelling....

Joined: 25th Sep, 2008
Posts: 22533
Location: shropshire, uk
Lonewolves wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
KovacsC wrote:
Have you thought of getting a hobby that gets you outside and fitter :)

Alright Roger Bannister, no need to be rude :D



:DD i was not being rude... just JC has said before he wants to get fitter
You said it in direct response to him talking about his computer, so it was a snide insinuation that he just sits around using a PC all day and doesn't get out. So yeah, it was rude.



Was not intended to be rude :)

_________________
MetalAngel wrote:
Kovacs: From 'unresponsive' to 'kebab' in 3.5 seconds


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 20:16 

Joined: 23rd Sep, 2010
Posts: 729
JohnCoffey wrote:
The 1080 is available in around three weeks time (or maybe two) however a few things were starting to become clear. A video I watched earlier shows that the 1080 according to Nvidia's chart is 22% faster than a Titan X. The "As fast as 980 SLI" only pertains to VR (watch the video when you get a chance, it explains everything). Whilst I admit that the 1080 will be faster than a Titan X it's one of those scenarios where I am asking myself, just how much power is enough? for 1440p the Titan X will batter anything..

I thought they'd said it was as fast as two Titan X's, when it came to VR? And surely the whole "as fast as 980 SLI" really just depends on how well SLI has been implemented into the application in the first place?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2016 20:39 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
They aimed to confuse people and they succeeded. This (Pascal) is mid range silicon but since Fermi Nvidia have become great at marketing it at higher and higher prices.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2016 18:50 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Yay for Titan X !

I was worried that I had done the wrong thing but reasoned that I could only push 70 FPS @ 1440p any way and man, it absolutely flies. None of this horse shit I was getting from the Fury X with VRAM either, Doom runs butter smooth even at Nightmare settings :) Just ordered myself one of these. I don't want to fit the hydro kit until I have one.

Image

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2016 14:23 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Reviews of the 1080 Founder's Edition have gone live; http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/0 ... 80-review/

Quote:
There's a lot to be happy about with the 1080. Across the board there's roughly a 20 to 35 percent increase in performance over the Titan X and 980 Ti, rising to over 60 percent versus the 980.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2016 14:28 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Better than I expected. However, after raking through tons of benchmarks that I feel are appropriate to me (1440p) and the games I play it's only 10-20% faster than the Titan X but looks like it is set to cost over 20% more than I paid. It could well put an end to SLi once and for all though, because the 1080p actually seems to be faster across the board than 980 SLi in pretty much everything which is quite a serious feat of engineering.

I always play with sync on, so there's only pretty much 70hz for me to contend with and the Titan X does it easily. The 1070 will be the card to have though, but I have a sneaky feeling Nvidia are going to drag their heels on that to make people crumble and pay the enormous price for the 1080.

Great though. If anything it's pushed AMD to show Vega this October, which is excellent news :)

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2016 14:36 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
They can piss off with this 'Founder's Edition' nonsense though, charging a premium for a reference card is very cheeky.

It's almost like they know they can get away with anything now, given how AMD effectively don't offer any meaningful competition.

(See also, Intel.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2016 14:38 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Hearthly wrote:
They can piss off with this 'Founder's Edition' nonsense though, charging a premium for a reference card is very cheeky.
It does have significantly higher clocks, though. It's not like it's the same.

Also: waiting a month or so for the partner cards to show up and avoid the early adopter tax doesn't feel like the biggest hardship.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2016 14:42 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Hearthly wrote:
They can piss off with this 'Founder's Edition' nonsense though, charging a premium for a reference card is very cheeky.

It's almost like they know they can get away with anything now, given how AMD effectively don't offer any meaningful competition.

(See also, Intel.)


They're really going to milk that for as long as they can. Only when they determine that pretty much every one who could crumble and have paid £620 will they launch the 1070. The overclocking potential isn't very good either. It seems that the card absolutely tops out at 2ghz and you need to run the fan pretty much 100%. Gains from overclocking are not all that great either, seems Nvidia have squeezed it to make it look as good as they can. Which means that stock is basically already sort of overclocked (within temp and noise limits) meaning when you overclock a Titan X or 980ti those gaps sure close fast.

Obviously DX12 the 1080 really takes the Titan X and 980ti and smashes them but we (well, me specifically) already kinda knew that the Titan X and 980ti were a bit shit at DX12 because my Fury X was beating a Titan X easily enough. As it happens I still have one Fury X card, so if DX12 takes off it's easy for me to run games :)

I have a feeling that once I put on my EVGA hydra cooler there really won't be much between my X and a 1080 only I've paid quite a bit less and won't have to put up with the whirr.

As I also suspected (and mostly why I sold my 4k monitor and said uncle) the 1080 is not a 4k card either. So it's either a stupid 1080p card or slightly less ridiculous 1440p card. Ridiculous because I have seen 980tis selling for £320 over the past few days and they are fantastic 1440p cards.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2016 14:46 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
It does have significantly higher clocks, though. It's not like it's the same.

Also: waiting a month or so for the partner cards to show up and avoid the early adopter tax doesn't feel like the biggest hardship.


As I understand it the Founder's Edition has standard 1080 clocks and is thus by definition set to reference clocks - there aren't going to be any running slower than the Founder's Edition. (That's what I've taken from it so far, anyway.)

I think I will be waiting for the partner cards though, just because they'll most likely be cheaper, have better cooling, and possibly run faster too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2016 14:49 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Hearthly wrote:
As I understand it the Founder's Edition has standard 1080 clocks and is thus by definition set to reference clocks - there aren't going to be any running slower than the Founder's Edition. (That's what I've taken from it so far, anyway.)

I think I will be waiting for the partner cards though, just because they'll most likely be cheaper, have better cooling, and possibly run faster too.

You are right and I am wrong. Golly. Anyone buying a Founder's Edition card wants their head read.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2016 14:56 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Hearthly wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
It does have significantly higher clocks, though. It's not like it's the same.

Also: waiting a month or so for the partner cards to show up and avoid the early adopter tax doesn't feel like the biggest hardship.


As I understand it the Founder's Edition has standard 1080 clocks and is thus by definition set to reference clocks - there aren't going to be any running slower than the Founder's Edition. (That's what I've taken from it so far, anyway.)

I think I will be waiting for the partner cards though, just because they'll most likely be cheaper, have better cooling, and possibly run faster too.


The founders edition is the Nvidia manufactured card using their parts. They are then sold to the sticker brigade (EVGA, Asus etc) and stickered and boxed. The founders edition is a vanilla reference card - that's it. No special power circuitry (only one 8 pin for example) and so on. There is absolutely nothing it can or will do that the after market cards won't. The after market cards will likely be cooler and quieter to boot, too, and in some cases will have an additional power connector for better power circuitry and more phases.

However. If you take all of the excitement and "omg best card evarr" to one side and dig deep in reviews you will see that the card only overclocks to around 2ghz. I mean yeah "only" 2ghz but that's pretty shite given the stock frequency boosts to over 1700. So that's not even 300mhz.

We had all of this before when Nvidia released the 970 and 980. It was "OMG 980 20% faster than a Titan Black !!!oneone". Yes, it was. Running much higher clocks and compared to a stock Titan Black. However, over the coming months/year since the 780ti and Titan Black have pretty much come within being level with the 980, with the 970 being a lot slower. So what was the best thing about the 980? the fact that they released the 970 which was around about as fast as a 780ti only for about 40% less.

Once again like the 980 the 1080 is a bit pointless, as how much faster do you really need to render 1080p and 1440p? it still isn't good enough for 4k and it costs far too much for a mid range part. The 1070 will once again be the card to have, but this time Nvidia are being complete fucking cunts and making people wait nearly two months for it, with every little asshole licking Youtube "reviewer" (IE salesperson) saying "OMFG 1080 fastest card ever OMG". Then you go to buy one and you are being railroaded into one card, one choice, at a fucking inflated price.

I never owned a 980 and there was a fucking good reason for that. After all of the excitement died down I realised it wasn't really that much better than my Titan Blacks, only it cost far too much for what it actually was. Oh, and the 970 to me at least was utterly pointless. The more Nvidia go on the more and more they can take the piss like Intel have recently. Only Intel are starting to show signs of not being able to get people to ditch things and spend fortunes on small performance increments.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 13:28 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
1080 Founder's Edition now on sale for..... £619.99

I believe the early adopter's tax on this has supplanted the lottery as the ultimate tax on the stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 13:34 
User avatar
Master of dodgy spelling....

Joined: 25th Sep, 2008
Posts: 22533
Location: shropshire, uk
have you ordered one :)

_________________
MetalAngel wrote:
Kovacs: From 'unresponsive' to 'kebab' in 3.5 seconds


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 20:05 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
The aftermarket cards are out and are 'cheaper'. All part of the plan to make people think they're getting a bargain.

Like £525 for a card with a nasty plastic noisy cooler is cheap.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 20:45 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
You spend £525 on gaming equipment every week.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 21:11 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
I spend mostly on headphones and headphone amps now. Pretty much all of what I've spent on computers over the past year has been cash retrieved from the PC I bought the year before.

I have been gaming lately but nowhere near like I used to. TBH I went for months without doing any gaming at all and it's only really been Fallout 4 that I've invested any serious time into. The latest DLC is really very good indeed once you get past the silly puzzle bit.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 9:29 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
JohnCoffey wrote:
The aftermarket cards are out and are 'cheaper'. All part of the plan to make people think they're getting a bargain.

Like £525 for a card with a nasty plastic noisy cooler is cheap.


Where are you seeing them for £525? The 'cheapest' 1080 I can see is £579.

Either way it's bonkers money, I'll wait for the prices to settle down before I start to seriously consider it. I'm in no hurry, and it'll be a whole new PC that I buy as I haven't had one for over a decade now.

The initial reports on UK pricing had the 1080 partner cards down at the £450 mark, which is the kind of price I'll be looking for before I jump.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 9:39 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Hearthly wrote:
JohnCoffey wrote:
The aftermarket cards are out and are 'cheaper'. All part of the plan to make people think they're getting a bargain.

Like £525 for a card with a nasty plastic noisy cooler is cheap.


Where are you seeing them for £525? The 'cheapest' 1080 I can see is £579.

Either way it's bonkers money, I'll wait for the prices to settle down before I start to seriously consider it. I'm in no hurry, and it'll be a whole new PC that I buy as I haven't had one for over a decade now.

The initial reports on UK pricing had the 1080 partner cards down at the £450 mark, which is the kind of price I'll be looking for before I jump.


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/kfa2-gef ... 87-kf.html

That is your $599 card. It should cost around £499 but quelle surprise it doesn't. This is pretty much more of the same.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/msi-gefo ... 26-ms.html

But has MSI tax on it. However, those coolers are utter rubbish. They were provided on the 980ti for a lower price but they're noisy and not very efficient. They're plastic too...

From what I have seen the biggest seller so far has been the EVGA FTW because at one point yesterday it was the cheapest card with two power connectors. People are convinced that it will do far more than 2.1ghz with better power delivery. However, from what I have seen from actual owners so far the card has shitty yields once you hit 2ghz, indicating strongly that Nvidia have basically wrung its neck.

Not only that dude but in the actual real world it's 300 points faster than an overclocked 980ti in Firestrike Extreme. The 1080 @ 2.1ghz 100% fan (or it throttles within minutes) scores around 5500 and the 980ti Amp ! clocked to 1.5ghz scores 5200.

I was trying to think of why this could be, then it dawned on me. All of the reviewers were using 5960x CPUs which really change the entire structure of Firestrike, given that it will use as many cores as you can throw at it...

Honestly, this really is 780ti - 980 all over again. When the dust settles and all is said and done this card will be about 5% faster than the 980ti.

So, with that said, I would keep an eye out for 980ti prices. If you can get one at around £350 then do so. I mean fuck I just saw one sell today for £330. Was an MSI dual fan Armor X2....

I also predict that real world numbers on the 1070 are going to be quite disappointing because not only is it clocked slower (something you don't usually see from lower end cards with less going on) but it also has a whopping 30% less shaders. There's a high chance it will not be as good as the 980ti and could cost around the same. Nvidia made mistakes with the 980 and 680 because they were both barely any faster than their "70" siblings yet both made their big brothers redundant. So I predict (well I don't, Nvidia have come out and said so) that the 1070 will be quite a chunk slower this time around and will make more people want the 1080 at its incredibly bloated price.

I also think that they are playing the wolf in sheep's clothing trick and playing "good cop bad cop". People see the price of the Flounders Edition then say "Fuck me a FTW for £30 less !" and buy. That seems to be the general consensus. One guy on OCUK posted a thread thanking OCUK for their prices on the after market cards so it all seems to have worked swimmingly.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 10:04 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Oh yeah forgot to say that I fitted my hydro kit ! The guy I bought it from negated to tell me that it was actually the 980 kit (they're all the same apart from the shrouds). So it had an unused 980 shroud. So I cracked out my plotter and bought some brushed alu vinyl and chrome vinyl and sorta made it my own.

Image

Here it is fitted.

Image

I loaded up EVGA Precision X and eventually settled for 1400 on the core with no change to the memory. This makes it dead even with the 1080. If I pushed on I would need to install a third party bios to unlock the voltage and TBH I see absolutely no point. It just eats anything I throw at it.

I bought this today too, given how well Windows 10 seems to handle multiple sound devices (I've currently got a SB XFI Titanium HD, Aune tube amp DAC (its own sound device) and a Xonar USB external powering the speakers).

Image

I will set it up so that the Graham Slee Novo (very spenny headphone amp) powers the Grado RS2E, the Aune will power my Musical Fidelity cans (very bassy good for rap and beat driven music) and these will be connected to the Asus.

Image

Which are supposedly out for delivery today :)

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 13:24 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
The 980Ti would have to be quite a lot cheaper than the 1080 to make sense though, even if the 1080 is 'only' 10% faster or something like that.

I'll stick around and wait for all the reviews and benchmarks to come in. There really isn't any hurry, especially since I still mostly play Hearthstone :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 13:38 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
JohnCoffey wrote:
I spend mostly on headphones and headphone amps now. Pretty much all of what I've spent on computers over the past year has been cash retrieved from the PC I bought the year before.

You spent £500 on a Titan X two weeks ago, and then spent more money on a hydro cooler. It doesn't matter if the cash came from other parts you sold on at a loss or cash you had in your pocket.

Ars on the GTX 1080: "Faster, cheaper, quieter than Titan X"

JohnCoffey wrote:
From what I have seen the biggest seller so far has been the EVGA FTW because at one point yesterday it was the cheapest card with two power connectors. People are convinced that it will do far more than 2.1ghz with better power delivery.
Of course they were. That's because the idiots on the forums you get all your advice from will fall for any old shitty thing. Maybe -- maybe -- nVidia actually have power delivery problems on the board. Or more likely, that second connector is the GPU equivalent of go-faster strips and a whale tail added to an Escort XR3i.


Quote:
However, from what I have seen from actual owners so far the card has shitty yields once you hit 2ghz, indicating strongly that Nvidia have basically wrung its neck.
"Oh noes my card has no headroom for overclocking and only performs at the published specified level."


JohnCoffey wrote:
Not only that dude but in the actual real world it's 300 points faster than an overclocked 980ti in Firestrike Extreme. The 1080 @ 2.1ghz 100% fan (or it throttles within minutes) scores around 5500 and the 980ti Amp ! clocked to 1.5ghz scores 5200.

I was trying to think of why this could be, then it dawned on me. All of the reviewers were using 5960x CPUs which really change the entire structure of Firestrike, given that it will use as many cores as you can throw at it...
Assuming what you've said is true, the correct conclusion here is "Firestrike is a shitty benchmark because it's CPU bound." I have no idea how you've arrived at "the GTX 1080 isn't very fast."

Quote:
Honestly, this really is 780ti - 980 all over again. When the dust settles and all is said and done this card will be about 5% faster than the 980ti.

5%, you say. Uh-huh.

Image

(122 - 95) / 95 = 28%. You can narrow that gap by overclocking the 980Ti, and you can move the numbers around a little by choosing a different game from a different GTX 1080 review, but you can't make it 5%.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 14:33 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
I tried to multi quote you but for some reason it kept all of my quotes in there too. I CBA to sort it out so I will reply to your post with bullets, providing of course you weren't just being obnoxious. If you were then just argue with yourself I have no wish to argue with you.

* I did spend £540 on a Titan X yes. However, that was not cash from my pocket and had I put it there I would have rendered two computers unusable. Maybe one day when I quit using games altogether I may sell up and pocket the cash but I would still need a PC as all of my sound equipment is driven by a computer.

* I don't get advice from forums. In fact, I have stopped posting on pretty much all computer forums because they defy logic and common sense. These days I only post on one forum I have been a member on for many years and it's not terribly exciting. I read other forums yes, and I am glad that I do. As you say, when you see idiots part with £650 you tend to learn very quickly that they should have just kept their 980tis instead of making a massive loss on them for hardly any more real world performance.

* Since when has a computer part that can not be overclocked been good? That's the whole point to overclocking, free performance. If Nvidia are doing it and charging you for it then that kind of defeats the point.

* Firestrike is CPU bound yes. However, what evidence do we have of the 1070? a Firestrike score. One that makes it look better than Titan X. A stock Titan X.

* Yes, I say 5% and yes, you can make it 5%. I've seen Firestrike Extreme (the best scenario for any GPU) scores where the 1080 hit 5500 points at 2.1ghz (on a 5820k, so the score was lower than benchmarks using the 5960x) and the overclocked 980ti managed to hit 5300. From where I'm sitting that sounds right around 5%.

Going back to that review for a moment. I figured I would benchmark my Titan X and see how close I could get by running the Tomb Raider benchmark. Only he's not given exact details just -

"Each game was tested at 1080p, 1440p, and UHD (4K) resolutions at high or ultra settings, along with both a stock and overclocked 1080."

So basically he's not going to tell me which settings he used exactly so I can't run the benchmark to find out.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 15:10 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
JohnCoffey wrote:
Since when has a computer part that can not be overclocked been good?

I can't overclocking my power supply.

I'll throw it away.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 15:26 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
I over clocked my monitor and now it's got more colours

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 15:28 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
OK I decided to bench Tomb Raider. First I benched it on high but I just got silly FPS. Like 140+. So I decided to use his 1440p benchmark. He's using DX11 (because nothing Nvidia make is very good in TR DX12) and I used ultra settings.

My GPU is overclocked to 1364mhz but for some reason in this game the clocks show lower. I am not thermal throttling though as you can see from the temps.

My score.

Image

So just over 80 FPS. This is his score.

Image

OK so he scored 90 with his 1080 overclocked. If we just took the two scores at face value we would be looking what? 10-11% yes? only there are differences. He is running a 5930k @ 4.5ghz. Whilst my CPU is pretty much the same (5820k) I can only get 4.4ghz game stable out of mine. He is also running 3000mhz ram, I am running 2133.

However the biggest issue is throttling. The guy in the review is highly likely to have used a open bench to test the 1080. Well here is what happens in a Fractal Define S....

Image

So even when the card is holding its full overclock it only scores 10-11% faster than a Titan X @ 1364mhz. If I upped the clocks obviously that gap would close but I CBA. However, most good 980ti (the Zotac card for example) can do 1500mhz. This then brings that gap in even closer.

My clocks and temps for reference.

Image

You'll also find that Tomb Raider is one of the better games for the 1080. However, if I'm able to close that gap to 10% with a two minute overclock then I'm sure I would be able to close it even more if I pushed on. I don't need to though, because I pretty much knew what Pascal was going to be before it even came out. It's just a die shrunk Maxwell on speed.

I do spend most of my free time reading up on these things and studying them. I like to see everyone's opinion (because there are no reviewers just salesmen) and from that I can garner the facts. The people who bought them on OCUK for example are pretty gutted with them, as once again they have been made out to look about as good as they can be by Nvidia but in the cold light of day they've just sold a card for £350 and bought one for £650 and gained hardly anything. And this was the case when people were panicked into selling their 780ti and buying a 980 that ended up being about 8% faster when both were overclocked. No reason at all to spend £650.

The next card to have is the 1080ti. However, Nvidia have now set a new precedent and I can guarantee it will be 800 notes or more. It would be, it's a larger die that costs much more to produce and uses more wafer than a 1080.

Couple of other things I should mention. My card is only running at X8

Image

Which could lose me 3% of full X16 performance. I know why. It's because the board I have has a very odd way of distributing the lanes. I could get X16 if I moved it down a slot but for the extra performance I would get out of it (and disrupting the entire airflow of the rig) I decided to leave it.

I have also not overclocked the memory on my Titan X either. I should be able to get it to overclock but it's something I don't really want to entertain as it could lead to damage, even without extra voltage shoved through it.

So yeah, that's about it really. Open up EVGA precision X, move a slider and you will be within 10% of the 1080, even overclocked, all of the time.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 16:06 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Quick n dirty 1414mhz.

Image

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 18:09 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
I agree that the 1080 may not be a massive performance hike over the 980Ti, but if the prices of the two cards are close, then there's no reason not to get the 1080 over the 980Ti.

Current snapshot from prices at Overclockers are £480 for the cheapest 980Ti, and £525 for the cheapest 1080 (that 'cheap' 1080 must have appeared some time this afternoon, because it wasn't there the last time I posted to this thread).

At those prices the 1080 is the obvious choice, but if the prices of the 1080 hold firm at north of £500, and the 980Ti drops down to maybe £350 or less - then yes, you could make a case for the 980Ti, as it'll be a monster at 1440p, and there's still no single GPU that can properly handle 4K, be it 980Ti or 1080. (I envisage sticking to 1440p for the foreseeable future.)

It'll be interesting to see how the prices of everything settle down, and of course the 980Ti won't be around for that much longer now either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 18:20 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
I don't think you will see massive price drops on stock already for sale. People will want to go SLI so they will probably still sell.

However, as you and I both know Hearthly OCUK do get stock later on for a fraction of the original RRP. As such both you and I gave purchased Fermi cards for a snip (£175 here for a GTX 470, £230 for a revised 6979 Lightning and your 480 was very cheap too).

Around two months back OCUK got a large shipment of MSI cards (780 gaming,780ti gaming, 6gb 780) and were selling them off cheap. IIRC it was £140 for the gaming, £165 for the 6gb and £220 for the TI).

The 980ti was a big seller so we could see remaining stock being sold on the cheap.

BTW I also got my GPU clock wrong. I am running 250mhz over stock so 1290 or so, not the much higher clocks Precision is showing.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 18:53 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Fckin auto correct *fumes*

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2016 12:21 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Did some more research last night and it seems I didn't quite get GPU Boost 2.0 (which the Titan X uses). Apparently there is the base clock (which goes up when you add mhz) then there's the boost clock (which goes up when you add mhz) and then there is some sort of Direct X game boost. So I was actually running the card at 1414mhz. I decided to wind it back 20mhz to keep the VRMs cool and instead take a look at this memory overclocking malarkey. Apparently the Titan X uses very good Samsung memory, so overclocking is easy. Didn't touch the volts and instead of going for the 500mhz extra that seems to be the norm I added 400mhz. And...

Image

So in Tomb Raider I am now within spitting distance of the 1080. In other news : 1080 buyer is absolutely gutted.

Image

That's taken from a forum I read. You can see there how much of a difference a 5960x makes to the score. I can only get about 16k with my GPU on the CPU I have.

Any way what to take of all this? well, not much really. If the 1070 were not about to launch (which obviously won't be quite as good as a 1500mhz 980ti but will be new and cheap) then it would have more of a point to it. However, the 1070 is about to launch and when it settles down it will make the 980ti look expensive, even at £330 or so. I guess if the price of the 980ti were to literally drop through the floor at around £250 then it could still be a great buy if you find somewhere selling them that cheap :)

So many gutted people across the net right now though. They fell for it. Another genius stroke from Nvidia... Take Maxwell, shrink it down and overclock it to buggery and call it Pascal. 18 months ago there was to be no "Pascal" it was Maxwell and then Volta. So no doubt now they are going to shrink down Titan X, sell that as a new Titan and 1080ti and then.... Well actually Nvidia are not using the full sized Pascal die for either card. They are going to cut it around first, so they may even be able to squeeze another launch out of it before they even get to business with Volta.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 9:53 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
Again JC I'm not really disagreeing with anything you're saying, although I can't personally remember any grand claims for Pascal ahead of release that suggested it was much more than a die shrink of Maxwell with the accompanying clock-bump. (Which given how good Maxwell is, is still pretty good.)

With AMD in the doldrums it makes no sense for Nvidia to blow their own products out of the water with the launch of the new cards. Leaving the 1080Ti up its sleeve for a few months down the line is a reasonable move too, from a business perspective at least.

Anyone who's believed the hype and dropped full price on a 1080 Founder's Edition to replace a 980Ti without even waiting for some real world benchmarks and reviews, particularly from the user community, probably has more money than sense so might not be that bothered anyway :D

Nvidia need to be properly challenged by AMD in the GPU arena, the same as needs to happen to Intel in the CPU arena - whether or not AMD is capable of that though, remains to be seen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 13:44 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Hearthly wrote:
Again JC I'm not really disagreeing with anything you're saying, although I can't personally remember any grand claims for Pascal ahead of release that suggested it was much more than a die shrink of Maxwell with the accompanying clock-bump. (Which given how good Maxwell is, is still pretty good.)

With AMD in the doldrums it makes no sense for Nvidia to blow their own products out of the water with the launch of the new cards. Leaving the 1080Ti up its sleeve for a few months down the line is a reasonable move too, from a business perspective at least.

Anyone who's believed the hype and dropped full price on a 1080 Founder's Edition to replace a 980Ti without even waiting for some real world benchmarks and reviews, particularly from the user community, probably has more money than sense so might not be that bothered anyway :D

Nvidia need to be properly challenged by AMD in the GPU arena, the same as needs to happen to Intel in the CPU arena - whether or not AMD is capable of that though, remains to be seen.


Both of them are great cards. Both of them are too expensive, especially for what they are. If you take a look at this slide you can see there is no Pascal.

Image

After Maxwell we were headed straight for Volta. Only after AMD started fucking things up all of a sudden we get Pascal.

Image

I would stick my neck out and say that Pascal is literally what that Scottish chap said it was - Maxwell on a die shrink (or on speed as he put it). It was probably just a test by Nvidia to see how Finfet production went. Yet all of a sudden AMD fuck up and it becomes a reality.

TBH? I would say fair play to them if it were not for the price and their marketing behaviour. All of the reviews are gimping the cards we had before making these cards look like must haves. For example the 1080 is clearly being marketed at every one, not the 980 users it is supposed to court. They are clearly showing it beating their Titan X by 30%. Yet in the only benchmark that gave a clue to the settings used I got within 4% or so.

And now the hype train marches on with the 1070 also "Thrashing the Titan X" as the forum user who uploaded this picture declared.

Image

Here we can clearly see it well ahead of the Titan X and even a "980ti OC". However, when we step back into reality and overclock a Titan X here is what happens.

Image

And the link.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/12239746?

Only it won't let me actually validate my score because my CPU apparently is running at 0mhz. However, all I did was boost the CPU to 4.4ghz using the Alienware tools and overclocked the GPU by 250mhz on the core (1414mhz DX11 boost speed) and 400mhz on the memory and I am within 1% of a 1080.

The 1080 and 1070 are fantastic feats of engineering, not design. The design was already done with Maxwell and the engineering was the Finfet process. And that's fantastic for everyone, all apart from the price Nvidia are asking. I just feel that they are never worth the asking price given that in theory (because the dies are far smaller and that means massive yield improvements in % over bigger dies) and that Nvidia are just taking the piss.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 14:33 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
So what you're saying is a £500 Titan X plus an aftermarket water cooler plus a hefty overclock is almost as fast in a single synthetic benchmark as a £525 1080 with the stock air cooler at normal clockspeeds? Amazing result.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 14:38 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Oh, and a new Titan X appears to be £900 on OCUK. So to summarise: you think it's outrageous that a new £525 graphics card is only very slightly faster than the old £900 graphics card, if you spend further £££ on a water cooler and overclock the £900 card without mercy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 14:54 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
So what you're saying is a £500 Titan X plus an aftermarket water cooler plus a hefty overclock is almost as fast in a single synthetic benchmark as a £525 1080 with the stock air cooler at normal clockspeeds? Amazing result.


That's not quite how it is though is it? yesterday I benched the Titan X against an overclocked 1080 using a game and came to within about 4%. I had a slower CPU and far slower ram (which does make a difference if you look here).

http://www.techspot.com/article/1171-dd ... page3.html

I managed 5 or so FPS lower than the 1080 with my overclocked Titan X. That is not synthetics that is a game (ROTTR) sadly given how scant these settings are being used I can't really compare my card to the 1080 in much else, however I would imagine that is deliberate. I benched my card in Firestrike vs the 1070 just to show that the 1070 is not actually faster like pretty much every review depicts.

On paper at the clock speeds I am running the Titan X should be up to 10% faster than the 1080. However, other factors are kicking in here like the fact that the reviews I am going up against use faster memory and higher overclocks on the CPU than I can. And that's understandable really, I'm just a lowly buyer not some one who continually has engineering samples thrown in his lap :)

I'm not exactly running a hefty overclock either. My Firestrike score was with my GPU clocked to 1414mhz Direct X 11 boost (which is higher than the clocks you can see, you work it out as you overclock and run DX11 basically) which is the clock I managed to settle on that was fully stable after two days of benching and over six hours of gameplay. I did push it higher but without adding any voltage (which I was not prepared to do as it could lead to real damage) 1414 was where I settled.

The card I am running does have an aftermarket cooler yes. However, they can be bought like this (though sit yourself down for the price).

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/evga-gef ... 87-ea.html

The cooler does help a lot but even on air users can push 200mhz extra through EVGA Precision X, which will bring them to a rough boost speed of 1364mhz in game boost mode. This is only 50mhz shy of what I managed to do with a liquid cooler, so temps are not the limiting factor with the Titan X. It's more down to the 6+2 phase design and the fact that you can not overvolt the card without adding a custom bios. However, if you are brave there's another 100mhz to be had and I've seen them clock to 1550mhz.

TBH? the best card to buy right now would probably be the 980ti. Most came with custom coolers for £520 new and most can do at least 1450mhz because they have slightly cut back cores when compared to the Titan X. I would say at around £300 or less (because they soon will be due to the 1070) they would actually be the better buy.

Just noticed your second post. I didn't pay £1050 for my card and I am comparing it to a £620 card that has serious issues due to throttling and fan speeds (see here).

https://www.techpowerup.com/222895/nvid ... ing-issues

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topi ... an-issue-/

So what I am basically saying is it's probably better to hoover up a nice cheap 980ti and overclock it yourself.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 15:03 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
You didn't pay £900 for your Titan X because you bought a second hand cut-price one. It's nonsense to compare that to a brand-new anything.

Also, you just boasted that even at £500+ for Titan X plus cooler (£1100 new, you just linked to), it was "within 1%" of the 1070. The 1070 is a $449 card. Which makes the 1070 sound amazing.

Edit -- wait there's more! $449 is the stupid Founders Edition. Third party cards will be around $379. And you're recommending a "nice cheap" £475 980Ti instead, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: PC gaming hardware thread.
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 15:33 
User avatar
Esoteric

Joined: 12th Dec, 2008
Posts: 11767
Location: On Mars as an anthropologist...
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
You didn't pay £900 for your Titan X because you bought a second hand cut-price one. It's nonsense to compare that to a brand-new anything.

Also, you just boasted that even at £500+ for Titan X plus cooler (£1100 new, you just linked to), it was "within 1%" of the 1070. The 1070 is a $449 card. Which makes the 1070 sound amazing.

Edit -- wait there's more! $449 is the stupid Founders Edition. Third party cards will be around $379. And you're recommending a "nice cheap" £475 980Ti instead, right?


I'm saying buy a second hand 980ti at around £300, or, just less than the equivalent 1070 because the 980ti is the better card. Most come highly boosted out of the box too (like the Zotac amp). I guess you are not seeing the prices I am, but on current pricing a 980ti (even before the 1070) they are going for £320.

My Titan X is not within 1% of a 1070 either, it's a good 10% faster. That's in the only benchmark I can run and get accurate results from because the rest are all very vague. I do know that only ROTTR has a built in bench and the other stuff they could bench on any level with any settings and I would not be able to accurately replicate those benchmarks/games.

When you consider that the 970 launched for £239 and on release day you could buy one with a pretty pants cooler for £250 and £281 for the MSI gaming card (which was about the most popular) $450 sounds a bit off. That will probably equate to £400 on launch for the FE cards and maybe if you are lucky you may bag one for £350 with a pants cooler. Over £100 more than they charged for the 970. And in performance terms it's pretty much the same leap from the high end card it "replaced". What I mean is it reviewed to be much faster than a GTX 780 or Titan yet when you overclocked either there wasn't much in it but at least it only cost £250 or so.

Also don't even compare that £525 card because it is even worse than the FE, which is already pretty appalling. Still waiting on real world figures for the hefty cards with enormous coolers and silly power phases.

_________________
I reject your context and reality, and substitute my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 5933 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 ... 119  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
cron
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen. RIP, MrC.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.