Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 49 to 64 of 65

Thread: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

  1. #49
    Senior Member MrRockliffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    1,585
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked
    132 times in 111 posts
    • MrRockliffe's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Z270i Strix
      • CPU:
      • i7 6700K
      • Memory:
      • 16GB DDR4 Vengeance
      • Storage:
      • 500GB 850 Evo, 500GB 860 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 1070 Ti Gaming
      • PSU:
      • 550W Supernova G2
      • Case:
      • NZXT H200
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus PB278Q
      • Internet:
      • Hyperoptic 150Mb

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    The problem seems to me that it's been roughly 4 years, and we have seen a similar gain in performance from year on year cards, and they've decreased the node. I would have expected much more performance from 4 years in the making. Mobile chips see much greater performance increases year on year. I think people are so blinded by the great PR from NVIDIA that they're forgetting that it's taken 4 years to get what, 20% performance increase over 28nm, and have increased the price, so relative cost to performance probably more like 10-15%? It's just not good enough.

    Interesting to read about polaris introducing VR ready performance for <$200, however I'm a little skeptical as to what they mean by it.
    XBOX Live - Sheep Sardine | Origin - MrRockliffe | Steam - MrRockliffe |

    Add me

  2. Received thanks from:

    CAT-THE-FIFTH (06-06-2016)

  3. #50
    HEXUS.timelord. Zak33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I'm a Jessie
    Posts
    35,172
    Thanks
    3,120
    Thanked
    3,159 times in 1,920 posts
    • Zak33's system
      • Storage:
      • Kingston HyperX SSD, Hitachi 1Tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia 1050
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster 800w
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT01
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Internet:
      • Zen FTC uber speedy

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    Quote Originally Posted by MrRockliffe View Post
    The problem seems to me that it's been roughly 4 years, and we have seen a similar gain in performance from year on year cards, and they've decreased the node. I would have expected much more performance from 4 years in the making. Mobile chips see much greater performance increases year on year. I think people are so blinded by the great PR from NVIDIA that they're forgetting that it's taken 4 years to get what, 20% performance increase over 28nm, and have increased the price, so relative cost to performance probably more like 10-15%? It's just not good enough.
    Is it really just 20%

    If you bought a new game 4 years ago...with a new nvidia,card.... Would a,new nvidia,card today only give you 20% more speed?

    Or would it also now be a mid range....not a,top level....and hence ge cheaper? And would it not use less power too? And be more capable of holding a,usable frame rate on a brand new game bought today where the older card might now struggle?

    On that train of thought....I wonder if anyone has a 2012 card and a new one to do just that?

    Which games would be best to test?

  4. #51
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,849
    Thanks
    1,828
    Thanked
    3,329 times in 2,674 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    Quote Originally Posted by MrRockliffe View Post
    The problem seems to me that it's been roughly 4 years, and we have seen a similar gain in performance from year on year cards, and they've decreased the node. I would have expected much more performance from 4 years in the making. Mobile chips see much greater performance increases year on year. I think people are so blinded by the great PR from NVIDIA that they're forgetting that it's taken 4 years to get what, 20% performance increase over 28nm, and have increased the price, so relative cost to performance probably more like 10-15%? It's just not good enough.

    Interesting to read about polaris introducing VR ready performance for <$200, however I'm a little skeptical as to what they mean by it.
    Without being blinded by nVidia PR (as an AMD fan, that's kind of impossible), I don't agree that it's "just not good enough" - I don't think it's reasonable to expect a perpetually linear increase in performance for the same price given a shrinking market. We've never seen it in any other tech field - experience from everything else suggests that things actually speed up and slow down in development over the years as disruptive tech appears or as existing technology paradigms are fully mined and the new gains become smaller. But above all there is that market question - in a reducing market space you can't use economies of scale to finance the ever increasing R&D needed to counter diminishing returns of a well understood technology.

    So your only options are to a) increase margins per unit and/or b) reduce the improvements year on year.

    In this specific situation GPU improvements are driven by a combination of node shrinks and architectural improvements. All tech producers are struggling with transitions to ever smaller nodes - Intel recently said they would be staying on the same node for longer than before for example, and in GPUs case the 20nm and smaller problems led them to stay on 28nm for far longer than hoped. Both camps therefore split what they hoped would be their new node products into a late generation 28nm product and a relatively less developed 16/14nm product. In such a case we've effectively got either half the improvements that we would expect, or the same improvement but over twice the length of time.

    So - pretend that 390X, Fury and 900 series etc. didn't happen. Now imagine that the 1080/1070 and Vega are actually out last year. That's kind of where these companies would be without the hiccups, and to me, that's certainly 'good enough' - compare a 770 to a 1070 for example.

    But of course we don't live in that world, we live in the one where the delay did happen, so it is still 'good enough'? That's entirely in the eye of the beholder. As buyers we simply judge what we can get for our money, and that value argument isn't something someone can objectively say is right or wrong. All I can say is that for my money today (well, in months time) I can get a much better graphics card than I could have done a few months ago. And I (personally) do mean 'much' better - for a desired power usage and budget I can get a faster card. CPUs in comparison haven't had anything like the improvement - I was expecting to replace mine some time ago, but I just don't see the point. Cars likewise.

  5. #52
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,849
    Thanks
    1,828
    Thanked
    3,329 times in 2,674 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zak33 View Post
    On that train of thought....I wonder if anyone has a 2012 card and a new one to do just that?
    Hello

    Well, OK, not a new one yet. But my 7870 is prime example of a 2012 card. 480 or 1070 is exactly the upgrade I'm looking for - the latter will be the similar $MSRP in real terms ($350/$365 inflation adjusted then vs $380 now), and the former significantly cheaper.

    It really is that simple - the 1070 is competing for the same dollar that my 7870 addressed.

  6. #53
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,791
    Thanks
    3,833
    Thanked
    5,108 times in 3,941 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    The GTX1070 isn't that compelling if we look at historical improvements. The GTX670 was 20% faster than than the GTX580 at the last node shrink,so in the end it is a poor upgrade after nearly 5 years and a third generation 20NM shrink. Nvidia is making nearly 60% margins and could survive on the early 30s 5 years ago. People also forget the PC market has been only reducing since 2009 - many of those years before we had less sales than the years after it. We still had decent jumps before then in a smaller market.



    Also,the GTX1070 is still not the best improvement:

    https://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/Ge..._1920_1080.png



    The GTX1070 is close to Titan X level.

    After nearly 4.5 years,it is a 2.5X increase at $400 over a midrange card like an HD7870. Compare that to the GTX670 and it is even worse looking.

    Remember some of us do upgrade more often,and if the RX480 was not being released at $199 to $229,it was most likely the GTX960 replacement would probably not any better than going from a GTX660 to a GTX960 which I did. [/B]

    The GTX670 was a 2.85X over a ATI/AMD midrange card like an HD5770. That happened after 20 months including ONE FAILED half node shrink at 32NM.

    So a lower increase happening over 4.5 years is not that great. Remember 45NM to 28NM was also a bit meh in terms of price/performance as it had plenty of price reduced earlier gen cards by then,unlike now. AMD and Nvidia have made sure prices are maintained this time.

    I think all the "we need to pay more for worse increases" is really weird - lots of companies have to deal with market forces. Everytime you buy a 2 for 1 offer,or buy something reduced or buy something during a sale in a shop or an online,somebody or some company is making less money. You don't go and say,we should pay full RRP just so we can help them out??

    If you started saying "I want to pay more to preserve their profits" during a Black Friday promotion at a John Lewis store,etc people would look at you weirdly.

    Companies are here to lighten your wallet - consumers are here to get the most for their wallet.

    If people keep expecting companies to milk them more,companies will do so.

    It also means by extension people like me have to wait longer and longer to just get a decent value for money increase over what we have,or we just have to stump up even more money unless we just don't bother with some games and wait longer.

    Comparing to other tech is not really as relevant - game development is the main push here. Comparing to cars is not a good strategy - a car will still do 60MPH on a motorway even if it is 2006 model.Try running The Witcher 3 or some new game on a 2006 card and you will see why.

    Loads of other tech has become "good enough" including cars - we will never reach "good enough" cards until game graphics development grinds to a halt and nobody concentrates on any level of graphics.

    Plus if you think that the PC community getting smaller is good,there is even less incentive for a dev to target PC.

    It is only with computer tech that you find people saying we need to pay for worse and worse increases.

    Lisa Su or JHH are not your mates - remember that. AMD or Nvidia hardly employ many people here compared to many other companies - so they don't even have as much impact on the UK job scene.

    How many here are saying we should all of a sudden shop more at BHS to save the company and save 1000s of UK jobs,or make a donation to our steel companies to save loads of jobs??

    Nope,but for tech companies we must pay MORE to save them,when they were still making enough money years ago and loosing hundreds of millions or probably billions or failed chips.

    This is also why,we should be caring more about getting best value for money.

    There are actually three more GP104 SKUs:

    GP104-725-A1 / GP104-PS-DT
    GP104-950-KD-A1 / GP104-PR-DT
    GP104-975-A1 / GP104-QS-9XX


    This means unlike the GK104 which is fully launched,the GP104 is going to be milked even more. Don't give them an excuse!!

    Also:
    1.)45NM partially enabled 332MM2 GF104 in 2010 costs $229 in the GTX460 which is $251 today
    2.)45NM fully enabled 332MM2 GF114 in 2011 costs $250 in the GTX560TI
    3.)28NM fully enabled 296MM2 GK104 in 2012 costs $499 in the GTX680
    4.)16NM partially enabled 314MM2 GP104 in 2016 costs $599 to $699 in the GTX1080

    People can only buy the $699 dollar FE version,meaning the launch price is $699 and the other versions are still on pre-order. So for launch to launch in six years - a 2.78X increase in realworld price.

    This is why the RX480 looks "good value" and it is only because the Nvidia GTX1070 and GTX1080 have allowed it to be that way.

    Nvidia pricing the GTX1070 at the same dollar price as the GTX970 and the GTX1080 at the same price as the GTX980, would have made these cards look somewhat better.

    The problem as I mentioned earlier they have PR managed what people expect by releasing OTT cards like the Titan X and quietly have been increasing the dollar price of other cards in the range and rebranded the naming scheme. AMD has done exactly the same. The Fury X rescued AMD Hawaii based cards and their pricing which were in decline.

    You could argue in some ways its a brilliant strategy for making your own customers pay more and expect less.

    It is far cheaper than reducing pricing or fighting a price war!

    Quote Originally Posted by MrRockliffe View Post
    The problem seems to me that it's been roughly 4 years, and we have seen a similar gain in performance from year on year cards, and they've decreased the node. I would have expected much more performance from 4 years in the making. Mobile chips see much greater performance increases year on year. I think people are so blinded by the great PR from NVIDIA that they're forgetting that it's taken 4 years to get what, 20% performance increase over 28nm, and have increased the price, so relative cost to performance probably more like 10-15%? It's just not good enough.

    Interesting to read about polaris introducing VR ready performance for <$200, however I'm a little skeptical as to what they mean by it.
    Agreed!



    The $330 GTX970 matched the $590 GTX780TI and beat the $1000 Titan on the same node.

    So a $379 to $449 GTX1070,which is realistically going to be $449 at launch if you want one(going by what is happening with the AIB GTX1080 cards which are still on pre-order),is matching a $550 GTX980TI and a $1150 Titan X on the a third generation 20NM process with Finfets.

    45NM to 28NM was moving from one planar node to another. This node increase is moving from planar to "3D" transistors and is the third iteration of TSMC 20NM too. So it is probably more refined at this stage than 28NM was at that time,especially with the 4 and a half years since 28NM debuted.

    It makes me worried what we might actually get with the RX480 now,when I come to think of it!
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 06-06-2016 at 05:17 PM.

  7. Received thanks from:

    Biscuit (06-06-2016)

  8. #54
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    87
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    16 times in 12 posts

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    CAT-THE-FIFTH

    You have posted a wealth of numbers, prices and historical comparisons - not to mention your exceptionally strong opinion on the matter.

    What is your bottom line statement though? Because from what I have read of what you have typed (TLDR it all) your position boils down to the following points:

    1. You are not impressed by the performance increase of this year's tech
    2. You are not impressed by the performance increase offered generationally of the tech over the last half-decade
    3. You feel there is a negative trend toward increasing cost and decreasing gain
    4. You feel consumers are foolish for buying PR and also for buying the products and being happy with them
    5. You are outraged at the PR and expectation shaping you claim these companies are partaking in


    Who is right in all that? What's your solution - that we should all bitch and moan more? Gamers are already tarred with the "unrealistic expectations" brush. Or shall we stop buying these products because obviously that will spur these companies into creating something that is compelling in both performance and value. Or will it? I am not so sure.

    No offence but you seem very quick to tell everybody here that they should expect more, pay less, but so far I've yet to see you put across an argument for why that would happen all of a sudden. You paint this picture of deceit - "they're cranking them out cheap" you cry. Right. And? That's how these companies make money. I don't think they'd be open to your ideas of how it would be better to make less money but keep people like you sweet. I mean, are you like a gaming anarchist, or perhaps a gaming hippy - you feel that private companies should only make X amount of profit and anything above that is an attack on the good will and ignorance of paying customers. I don't really understand where you're coming from and the more I think about it, it seems like you've got a very loud voice but that it's not really saying anything.

  9. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Scotland
    Posts
    539
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    17 times in 12 posts
    • jnutt's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSi X570
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32gig DDR 3600
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 1tb NVME M.2 SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 2070Super
      • PSU:
      • Stock
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master
      • Operating System:
      • Windows10 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 32" and 24"
      • Internet:
      • Cable 350mb

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    I'm having one just as soon as MSi release there range of cards

  10. #56
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    Still debating on whether to get this, the RX 480 price is very tempting, but it doesnt make much sense to upgrade from my (now sold) GTX 970 to something around GTX 980 performance.

  11. #57
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,849
    Thanks
    1,828
    Thanked
    3,329 times in 2,674 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    Not sure what's going on with the prices here. According to the Hexus review, partner cards should be at $379 MSRP, a $70 saving on the founders edition. But actually they're coming out more expensive than the F.E... So not only is someone apparently pocketing that $70, they're pocketing even more.

    Compare MSI FE card at £399:
    https://www.scan.co.uk/products/msi-...-graphics-card

    With the low end OEM version from MSI (no fancy cooler) at £407:
    https://www.scan.co.uk/products/msi-...-graphics-card

    Or going for a non-blower model from MSI at £404:
    https://www.scan.co.uk/products/msi-...-graphics-card


    At this moment in time it's becoming disengenious to consider the F.E. a special high price - it's actually at the low end of things, and takes the 1070 into a much worse place as far as value is considered.

  12. #58
    IQ: 1.42
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    old trafford
    Posts
    1,340
    Thanks
    132
    Thanked
    94 times in 80 posts
    • Tunnah's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus somethingorother
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3600
      • Storage:
      • Various SSDs, 90TB RAID6 HDDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 1080Ti
      • PSU:
      • Silverstone 650w
      • Case:
      • Lian-Li PC70B
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Internet:
      • 40mbit Sky Fibre

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    Not sure what's going on with the prices here. According to the Hexus review, partner cards should be at $379 MSRP, a $70 saving on the founders edition. But actually they're coming out more expensive than the F.E... So not only is someone apparently pocketing that $70, they're pocketing even more.

    Compare MSI FE card at £399:
    https://www.scan.co.uk/products/msi-...-graphics-card

    With the low end OEM version from MSI (no fancy cooler) at £407:
    https://www.scan.co.uk/products/msi-...-graphics-card

    Or going for a non-blower model from MSI at £404:
    https://www.scan.co.uk/products/msi-...-graphics-card


    At this moment in time it's becoming disengenious to consider the F.E. a special high price - it's actually at the low end of things, and takes the 1070 into a much worse place as far as value is considered.
    I noticed this myself.

    I'm not one to believe in conspiracies (it's my fave thing to mock) but I'm starting to think this was all planned.

  13. #59
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,849
    Thanks
    1,828
    Thanked
    3,329 times in 2,674 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tunnah View Post
    I noticed this myself.

    I'm not one to believe in conspiracies (it's my fave thing to mock) but I'm starting to think this was all planned.
    But by whom?

    1) nVidia *might* be charging more than they said they were going to, in which case the $379 is essentially a fantasy MRSP to try and stop reviewers from saying 'nice product, but way too expensive so we don't recommend it' - how many reviews mention the $379 and use that in their bank for buck arguments?

    2) partners *might* be charging more - massively increasing the margins given they don't have to buy the ref cooler from nVidia either. Very hard to see why they would do this since this is the most competitive portion of the sale.

    3) retailers *might* be charging more - if they have limited allocation then they stand to gain nothing by selling out at a cheaper price when they could sell out at a higher price anyway. Restrictions on FE pricing by agreement with nVidia may cap that, while they are given more freedom with partner board pricing.

    If option 3, prices will come down once more stock arrives - I'm surprised since I didn't think there would be any allocation problems with the 1070, being a higher yield part. If option 1.. well that's just sneaky and not a nice thing to contemplate, but one can only hope that AMD release enough information about Vega to persuade nVidia to sell at lower prices.

  14. #60
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,231
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    I personally suspect that the $379 specification would require card manufacturers to compromise on pretty much every aspect of the build quality - fewer power phases, thinner PCBs, smaller coolers - potentially leading to lower boost clocks and no OC overhead. Which card manufacturer is going to want to be known for producing the "cheap and cheerful" version of a £350+ graphics card? Chances are that all the partner cards available are - according to the $379 spec - over-specified and over-engineered, and the Founder's Edition price is actually realistic for a well-made card.

    So, essentially, the Founder's Edition is really the base specification for creating the card, but nvidia have published a lower engineering specification that partners can adopt if they want to produce a cheaper card. So far, no manufacturer has wanted to build down to nvidia's spec, which probably tells you a lot about what nvidia are trying to pull to get cheaper cards out there...!

  15. #61
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,849
    Thanks
    1,828
    Thanked
    3,329 times in 2,674 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    Possibly, but then why aren't they a little bit below the FE price in any case? It must surely be cheaper for OEMs to stick their own coolers on compared to using nVidia's 'premium' ref cooler?

  16. #62
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,231
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    Possibly, but then why aren't they a little bit below the FE price in any case? It must surely be cheaper for OEMs to stick their own coolers on compared to using nVidia's 'premium' ref cooler?
    Only if you believe that nvidia's cooler really is "Premium", rather than just an excuse to charge more for a reference card.

    It's mostly a cunning marketing ploy AFAICT - they haven't actually changed anything in practical terms. The Founder's Edition card is just an ordinary reference card, built to a decent base standard, and all the partner cards we've seen so far are built to the same or higher standards, so they start at the same price as the Founder's Edition. The $379 cards would, presumably, have to be built to a lower standard than the reference cardFounder's Edition, which is something that I don't think nvidia have allowed before.

    It's really brilliant PR manipulation from Nvidia - they lower the minimum standard of engineering they allow on a card; that allows them to announce the possibility of lower priced cards, regardless of whether any partner would produce such an under-engineered card. And then it's the card partners who take the rap for the cards being more expensive, despite the fact that they're actually charging the correct price for the quality of engineering they're putting in, because nvidia have announced that cards can be made available from $379, when that price is unrealistic for a well-built 1070.

  17. #63
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,849
    Thanks
    1,828
    Thanked
    3,329 times in 2,674 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    Then we can only hope that good review sites like Hexus judge the cards accordingly.

  18. Received thanks from:

    scaryjim (21-06-2016)

  19. #64
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,231
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 (16nm Pascal)

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    Then we can only hope that good review sites like Hexus judge the cards accordingly.
    *fingers crossed*

    tbh, I hope someone does produce a minimal spec $379 GTX 1070 - I'd love to see exactly what you'd need to trim to get down to that price and how it would impact the performance. Manufacturer's have been hugely over-engineering cards for a long time now (e.g. a GTX 750 with a huge dual-slot, dual-fan cooler), and it'd be nice to see what, if any, benefit it brings...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •