Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by Agg, Jan 6, 2017.
With settings turned down...
I just want a decent card at a decent price to use with VR
It really depends how you use it.
For the right price its the perfect 1080p 120hz or 1440p 60hz video card.
I would be choosing the 1080 Ti for 4k, 1440p and virtual reality.
Well put it this way, my 1080 is only just good enough for VR in the quality settings and games I want, and thats with all the nvidia technologies giving huge performance increases and not even running it as high quality as I would like.
. but we really need something better.
VR can make good use of a card twice as powerful as the 1080. Super high resolution Elite Dangerous at Ultra? yes please.
Yeah I know, but until they get to 800AUD I won't be raising any eyebrows at them. If your careful with settings the 1080ti can do 60fps most times, its only when you get silly and ad on SSAO Ultra or Ultra GodRays and 4x FSAA MSAA that things really disappoint.
In saying that there are games that can't achieve 60fps with the 1080ti still, such as the latest deus ex game. But lets face it some games are just very poorly optimized and its not the cards fault.
PS. If you run SMAA via ReShade you can get really smooth edges at 4k without the crazy fps hit that most games FSAA options give.
It was $852 AUD on the 09/07/2017, $828 AUD with todays conversion
Prices won't come down until there are enough cards available though.
Yeah true, I play with my settings for most games to get at least 100fps.
I personally will never go 4k because my eyes are shitty, 1440p will probably be the highest res I go. Then again I said the same thing about 1080p so who knows .
Wont be surprised if the price of the 1080Ti never comes down, $828 with conversion but it's $1200 - $1550 depending on the version right now, so that's at least 40 - 60% price gouging being done once you take out all the import fees and crap.
Edit, I'll just um... leave this here for you guys to watch...
1. LG IPS Gysnc vs SVA Samsung freesync so they can inflate price difference and possible performance difference between panel tech.
2. Doom is game that can easily maintain 120+ fps on either gfx card on two 100hz panels.
3. lol..motion blur being enabled and people complaining about tracking enemy.
A better comparison would have used 144hz identical panels with freesync/Gsync and BF1 on ultra in multiplayer.
Even then Battlefield 1 is highly optimised on AMD and Nvidia and Frostbite has been around for a long time.
A real comparison is a game that isn't on the very small list of DX12 compatible games.
No no no, guys a real competition would be something like Ark Survival Evolved at 1080p 144Hz.
The reason I say this, it's an incredibly badly optimised game however it runs smoother on Nvidia because it uses a lot of Nvidia tech .
BF1 on Ultra in a mp 64 player server will causes significant dips in fps with all the action and it does not favor either graphics card.
Lol Nice try at diverting the conversation to nviida biased games.
But you cant accurately note stability in mp games like that.
Hey, even though Ark has Nvidia tech it still runs shit on Nvidia cards, even a 1080Ti cant run this thing at 100fps maxed out on 1080p.
I think the important thing here is that its better to test it on difficult to run games rather then test it on super optimised games that are not very GPU intensive.
Who cares about 90fps vs 110fps.
I care about 30fps vs 40fps.
Like AMD showing off Vega running Prey, that's really cute, my 290 can run that at 80 - 100fps maxed out on 1080p.
I'd be more impressed with seeing Vega vs 1080 / Ti on Deus Ex because that game is hard to run (and no not because its "badly optimised").
All I can say is I hope this blind testing shenanigans does not carry on post-NDA. but it already appears to be just an admission that raw numbers won't be selling this card.. not minimum fps, not a strong 4K showing.
As much as we take the piss out of AMD marketing - there Marketing department are in a challenging position here. If they had there way they'd price this card at below 1080 , maybe 1070 levels, and there job would be relatively easy. It seems this won't be the case though. A. Because margins will be too small, and B. they would certainly NOT want to enter a price war @ the 1080 performance tier.. Not when the ti above is already quite reasonably priced.
where are you getting your prices from? converted US prices hover around very high 800s to low 900s. I picked up a Ti FE locally for AU$924 after cashback, but took some waiting for the right ebay sale
You can't really call the ti reasonably priced when we can't remember what competitively priced looks like. For all we know NV could reduce the price by 50% and still be making profit.
They were on Amazon.
Any release date info for the Gaming Vega card?
The whole situation is ridiculous.
1. They are trying to imply that FPS doesn't matter, just what looks smooth on the games they pick.
2. They are implying that the value of their video cards doesn't matter because Freesync monitors are cheaper.
3. They are trying to change how consumers see their new card by excluding facts and hyping it up, which specifically dehypes anyone who has technical knowledge about computers.
What their pricing fails to address is that the AMD Video card and Freesync experience is not up to Nvidia's standard.
They should either hire the staff required to compete with Nvidia or price their cards accordingly.
Don't need to remember, can look it up
290x vs 780: $549 vs $649
780ti : $699
Fury X vs 980ti : $649 vs $649
When you consider the completed wafer costs of a 16nm FF, 471mm2 GPU -it's reasonable $ for a halo part with such a large performance.
The lowest you could expect a genuine Ti competitor to come in and undercut it at would be the same $649 bracket Fury X came in at.
I don't think one sales like that really count for the purpose of discussion though, and that doesn't include shipping
It seems performance on screen is subjective watching that video and in favor of the Freesync option. I cant tell but i can't give my personal opinion on that setup. Not having used a G-Sync or Freesync LCD for a period time myself i cant say one is better than the other for the price mind you.
But i do have an mixed opinion on what NV have done by having gsync tech in the lcds. Segmenting the market is a odd and wrong way for us. It's not innovating from a buyers perspective to have to spend money on a NV chip just to have "smooth" or "smoother" gameplay than the opposition.
It should be a standardized platform just like x86/PCI-E is on the desktop. But on the flip side its great they offer a "premium" experience and push their own tech to achieve it, but IDN man just not the right way to do it. Its costing us and giving us a mixed mindset on what we should be buying.
It might be a totally different situation if we had like 3-4 companies making desktop commercial grade video cards though but we don't.
This is why i didn't change from my u2711 to the u3415 in gaming technology on the LCD side. I now have free reign on my video card and didn't pay extra or am locked into a technology that changes all the time.
their is my 2 cents i guess. (maybe im jealous i cant invest into a $1000+ lcd )
A couple of days away, but its a paper launch, expect another month or two at least before you might be able to purchase one.
Or maybe the release date should be 'when its done' and AMD can keep dangling the carrot in front of your face.