Regular price for most part of last year was 279-299$. And for the most part for BETTER AIB models than that one.
I have no problem i just corrected you that "its pretty cheap" is, well, really "pretty standard" and that its far from "good deal", i dont really know why youre dragging this on *shrug*
You also have that other guy who apparently thinks 350 is standard price for GTX970 lol
Old hardware usually doesn't really see a price decrease when it gets superseded. You may catch a few inventory reduction sales as retailers clear shelf space for the newer SKUs (and that may well be what this Best Buy sale was), but by and large prices actually tend to rise slightly once the product is out of production.
$280 for a GeForce GTX 970 is a good deal, but not a great one. You can often find it in that ballpark, or even a little cheaper if you're willing to count rebates. This isn't exactly the $140 for a Radeon HD 5850 steal from April 2011.
I've been watching the Anand page for the Nvidia. There 1070 is supposed to retail for $379 for the Founders edition (I guess that's the reference card). They didn't show benchmarks for the 1070. The 1080 outperforms Titan by about 25% for a little more power draw than the 980. They list it at $599 and $699 for the reference version. They both use GDDR5X not HBM2 which I find disappointing, but not unexpected.
So we should see prices drop a little, but I doubt they will go down a lot at first. $279 isn't bad for a sale right now imo.
1070 *449 for founders 379 retail, NOT GDDRX5, just GDDR5
279 for GTX970 is not recommended buy right now, 1070 100$ more for supposed double performance and AMD will for sure have card for around that price with 50-70% more performance very soon.
Unless your card died or something and you have to get GPU right now and cant wait for a month or two more.
I agree with that Malabooga, for the most part. If you can wait, just wait a bit. Now that we actually have an official product announcement with a maybe/sorta delivery date - if they actually ship en masse then, and not some restricted availability (like the 680 was).
Polaris is still slated for Fall, and I kinda have a feeling that we won't really see Pascal in any real numbers until around then as well. I think a few will ship on their target date, people will be able to order, but they will remain sold out because their production numbers simply won't be that high. I hope not, but there's a lot of variables in nVidia's claims...
Which, in some people's estimation, the fact that it remains sold out means it's a huge total success, I guess, and not a failure in the production/logistics chain.
I agree with that Malabooga, for the most part. If you can wait, just wait a bit. Now that we actually have an official product announcement with a maybe/sorta delivery date - if they actually ship en masse then, and not some restricted availability (like the 680 was).
Polaris is still slated for Fall, and I kinda have a feeling that we won't really see Pascal in any real numbers until around then as well. I think a few will ship on their target date, people will be able to order, but they will remain sold out because their production numbers simply won't be that high. I hope not, but there's a lot of variables in nVidia's claims...
Which, in some people's estimation, the fact that it remains sold out means it's a huge total success, I guess, and not a failure in the production/logistics chain.
What makes you say that Polaris isn't coming until Fall? They showed off working Polaris 10 and 11 publicly in early January, and even if they needed two more respins after that silicon, that wouldn't preclude a Summer launch. They're using GDDR5, so memory supply isn't an issue. If yields are terrible or Global Foundries otherwise can't manufacture the chips, that could cause arbitrarily long delays. But the latest public guidance from AMD is around the middle of this year.
The fact that AMD has targeted Back-To-School as the target date for release. Sure, it could come sooner, but so far everything AMD has said about Polaris has indicated a late 2Q/3Q release.
The fact that AMD has targeted Back-To-School as the target date for release. Sure, it could come sooner, but so far everything AMD has said about Polaris has indicated a late 2Q/3Q release.
Back to school sure sounds like Summer to me. Most schools start in the summer, at least in the United States, and if you're buying a new computer for school, you generally want to buy it before school starts. Further, if you want to target the back to school season, you need widespread availability by then, not just a soft launch in late August.
The fact that AMD has targeted Back-To-School as the target date for release. Sure, it could come sooner, but so far everything AMD has said about Polaris has indicated a late 2Q/3Q release.
On a last financial report call they said Polaris is Q22016 product
The reason why i dont recommend buying old gen (unless you stumble on some dirt cheap cards) is that i know vast majority of people buy for longer term of 2-3 years and 1-2 months wait is not much compared to that for far superior product. in addition to that, its somewhat given that AMD will have something in that price range. NVidia will release something in that price range in Q3/Q4.
The fact that AMD has targeted Back-To-School as the target date for release. Sure, it could come sooner, but so far everything AMD has said about Polaris has indicated a late 2Q/3Q release.
On a last financial report call they said Polaris is Q22016 product
The reason why i dont recommend buying old gen (unless you stumble on some dirt cheap cards) is that i know vast majority of people buy for longer term of 2-3 years and 1-2 months wait is not much compared to that for far superior product. in addition to that, its somewhat given that AMD will have something in that price range. NVidia will release something in that price range in Q3/Q4.
It's likely that neither Polaris 10 or 11 nor the GTX 1070 will be meaningfully faster than what you can buy today. The GTX 1080 isn't going to be available until probably late this year, while GP100 and Vega are probably 2017 products. So if you want something faster than available today, you're waiting half a year or more. That's quite a while.
Now, getting a given level of performance in 100 W rather than 200 W isn't nothing, but in a desktop, it's really not that big of a deal. Once it gets to be days away, I'll probably recommend waiting, but months is quite a while.
No, you are right Torval, he is just too busy making shit up out of thin air to be honest. All the information about Polaris, including direct statements from AMD, has said they have 0 intention of competing on the high end market with the initial Polaris releases. Their goal is to get VR capable cards at a good price point for people who can't afford the high end parts. Even after Polaris, they're still keeping the r9 fury as their high end part. So any new cards they release on Polaris are going to be slower than the R9 Fury, although they will likely be a vastly better price/perf value.
"The reason Polaris is a big deal, is because I believe we will be able to grow that TAM [total addressable market] significantly," said Taylor. "I don't think Nvidia is going to do anything to increase the TAM, because according to everything we've seen around Pascal, it's a high-end part. I don't know what the price is gonna be, but let's say it's as low as £500/$600 and as high as £800/$1000. That price range is not going to expand the TAM for VR. We're going on the record right now to say Polaris will expand the TAM. Full stop."
"If you look at the total install base of a Radeon 290, or a GTX 970, or above, it's 7.5 million units. But the issue is that if a publisher wants to sell a £40/$50 game, that's not a big enough market to justify that yet. We've got to prime the pumps, which means somebody has got to start writing cheques to big games publishers. Or we've got to increase the install TAM."
So my guess from all of that is they're going to try to offer GTX 970 performance at a $200-250 price point, alongside excellent power efficiency. Which again, will be fantastic for gamers, particularly people who are budget limited.
Second comment is it's a little weird IMO that they're trying to corner the market on VR as those headsets are already ungodly expensive, and realistically the type of people who are gonna drop $800 on a VR headset aren't likely to scoff much at a $600 video card to power it.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
I thought Polaris wasn't even competing in the high end market, but was targeted at standard consumer desktops. Am I wrong? If not why is it even in the discussion? I thought the AMD high end was coming with Vega and HBM2 early next year. I guess maybe I'm missing something with AMD and this fall.
Depending on architeture, Polaris 10 (as far as die size goes) should be somewhere around 1070 performance. Thats would be "R9 480x" around 350$. The "sweet spot" would be "R9 480" at 299$ price point. Also AMD is supposed to release Polaris 11 as "470" line and lower at 249,199 mabye even 149 parts.
When people say "it isnt much perfromance" its generally referred to 1080 which doesnt have very good price/perfromance ratio (from wha is known so far), but thats almost always true with higher end cards.
1070, OTOH is much superior in that departement (25% less performance for 40% lower price, 380$ vs 600$) so you can see how drastic that jump is. Lower price GPU tiers have even higher price/performance ratio. Thats why i would say 300$ GPU might be "sweet spot" and this thread is about "280$ GPU". GTX970 was "sweet spot" year and half ago at 329$.
"Performance" is done strictly on basis of GPU specs (2560 cuda cores for 1080 and 2048 cuda cores for 1070 which would be 25% less cuda cores for 1070), and AMD is done on base of die size as 1070 and Polaris 10 have roughly equal effective die size (GP104 is 317mm2, 25% "less" for 1070=237mm2 effective, Polaris 10 is (still rumored) 232mm2
Comments
I have no problem i just corrected you that "its pretty cheap" is, well, really "pretty standard" and that its far from "good deal", i dont really know why youre dragging this on *shrug*
You also have that other guy who apparently thinks 350 is standard price for GTX970 lol
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
$289 with a $30 MIR was the best I was able to find today, seems most all models are averaging around $300 +/- a bit, according to HoverHound.
I'd say $279 isn't a bad deal. It's not OMG MUST BUY but not bad for a pretty capable video card.
279 for GTX970 is not recommended buy right now, 1070 100$ more for supposed double performance and AMD will for sure have card for around that price with 50-70% more performance very soon.
Unless your card died or something and you have to get GPU right now and cant wait for a month or two more.
Polaris is still slated for Fall, and I kinda have a feeling that we won't really see Pascal in any real numbers until around then as well. I think a few will ship on their target date, people will be able to order, but they will remain sold out because their production numbers simply won't be that high. I hope not, but there's a lot of variables in nVidia's claims...
Which, in some people's estimation, the fact that it remains sold out means it's a huge total success, I guess, and not a failure in the production/logistics chain.
The reason why i dont recommend buying old gen (unless you stumble on some dirt cheap cards) is that i know vast majority of people buy for longer term of 2-3 years and 1-2 months wait is not much compared to that for far superior product. in addition to that, its somewhat given that AMD will have something in that price range. NVidia will release something in that price range in Q3/Q4.
Now, getting a given level of performance in 100 W rather than 200 W isn't nothing, but in a desktop, it's really not that big of a deal. Once it gets to be days away, I'll probably recommend waiting, but months is quite a while.
No, you are right Torval, he is just too busy making shit up out of thin air to be honest. All the information about Polaris, including direct statements from AMD, has said they have 0 intention of competing on the high end market with the initial Polaris releases. Their goal is to get VR capable cards at a good price point for people who can't afford the high end parts. Even after Polaris, they're still keeping the r9 fury as their high end part. So any new cards they release on Polaris are going to be slower than the R9 Fury, although they will likely be a vastly better price/perf value.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/04/amd-polaris-will-be-a-mainstream-gpu/
"The reason Polaris is a big deal, is because I believe we will be able to grow that TAM [total addressable market] significantly," said Taylor. "I don't think Nvidia is going to do anything to increase the TAM, because according to everything we've seen around Pascal, it's a high-end part. I don't know what the price is gonna be, but let's say it's as low as £500/$600 and as high as £800/$1000. That price range is not going to expand the TAM for VR. We're going on the record right now to say Polaris will expand the TAM. Full stop."
"If you look at the total install base of a Radeon 290, or a GTX 970, or above, it's 7.5 million units. But the issue is that if a publisher wants to sell a £40/$50 game, that's not a big enough market to justify that yet. We've got to prime the pumps, which means somebody has got to start writing cheques to big games publishers. Or we've got to increase the install TAM."
So my guess from all of that is they're going to try to offer GTX 970 performance at a $200-250 price point, alongside excellent power efficiency. Which again, will be fantastic for gamers, particularly people who are budget limited.
Second comment is it's a little weird IMO that they're trying to corner the market on VR as those headsets are already ungodly expensive, and realistically the type of people who are gonna drop $800 on a VR headset aren't likely to scoff much at a $600 video card to power it.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
When people say "it isnt much perfromance" its generally referred to 1080 which doesnt have very good price/perfromance ratio (from wha is known so far), but thats almost always true with higher end cards.
1070, OTOH is much superior in that departement (25% less performance for 40% lower price, 380$ vs 600$) so you can see how drastic that jump is. Lower price GPU tiers have even higher price/performance ratio. Thats why i would say 300$ GPU might be "sweet spot" and this thread is about "280$ GPU". GTX970 was "sweet spot" year and half ago at 329$.
"Performance" is done strictly on basis of GPU specs (2560 cuda cores for 1080 and 2048 cuda cores for 1070 which would be 25% less cuda cores for 1070), and AMD is done on base of die size as 1070 and Polaris 10 have roughly equal effective die size (GP104 is 317mm2, 25% "less" for 1070=237mm2 effective, Polaris 10 is (still rumored) 232mm2