This mining rush might kill the pc gaming industry, when a gamer cannot find a single high performance card at msrp prices, they will just flock to the xbox one x or ps4 pro, this is outrageous.
I'm not a gamer so I'm more wide eyed at a the idea of a video card that draws 80 watts at idle and over 300 under load...more than my whole system under load. And upwards of $500? Wow. I guess I'm sort of glad I'm not a gamer. :)
Yup, those power numbers are terrible. The desire for improvement in visual quality and competition between the two remaining dGPU manufactures has certainly done us no favors when it comes to electrical consumption and waste heat generation in modern PCs. Sadly, people often forget that good graphics don't automatically imply tons of fun will be had at the keyboard and they consequently create demand that causes a positive feedback loop that make 200+ watt TDP GPUs viable products. I remember the many hours I killed playing games on my Palm IIIxe and it needed a new pair of AAA batteries once every 3 or so weeks. Not everyone feels that way though and for an obviously large number of consumer buyers, graphics and resolution mean the world to them no matter the price of entry or the power consumption.
I feel like you're ignoring cards like the 1050ti/1050 in order to better match your narrative. Both of those require no power connectors (75W TDP) and will reach 1080p60 easily for modern AAA games and 144 FPS on esports titles. Yes, both companies are making power hungry monster cards to satisfy high-end demand that get a lot of headlines, but the chip designs scale down incredibly well. Performance for low/mid-end systems has never been as good as it is now.
Yes yes, everybody should still be using teletype terminals and typewriters. Or even better, go back to scratching lines into cave walls with rocks, because that uses no power and creates no heat.
Bought mine at $499 (EVGA FTW2). Don't feel gouged at all. If it's gouging, they'd still be on the shelf. I'm guessing they'll be out of stock shortly. If they priced like you want, they'd have quarterly reports like AMD.. ROFL. That should not be the goal for NV, but rather to price as high as the market will accept...PERIOD. It is actually their JOB to do this.
Sounds like you need to upgrade your job so you can afford better toys ;) AMD has lost $8B in the last 2 decades and looks like they only made money for a single quarter this time. They are predicting a down Q yet again (how can you have a bad xmas Q?) and just after all these launches. YOU ARE PRICING YOUR STUFF TOO LOW AMD!
Well, that's not entirely accurate, AMD has had some nominally profitable quarters before this - not to the level of Intel for sure, but saying they've lost money every single quarter in the past 20 years is patently untrue. There were many times 'in the past two decades' when they were actually eating Intel's lunch, so enough of the hyperbole.
Yes, they've not had an easy time since then, and have been in the dumps especially with their previous generation designs which, well, sucked. (caveat, the 8 core 8000 series actually did well on video encoding but that wasn't nearly enough)
As for pricing stuff too low? They HAVE to right now. Their issue is one of market share, and with their previous generation u-arch it couldn't remotely compete with Intel, and that pitiful share is the result. Now that they have a u-arch which is close to parity from power and performance, just wait to see what happens in the notebook space where the Intel IGP is pitifully bad compared to the Mobile Vega. Besides - the main 'desktop' space is, while not dying, it is without a doubt somewhat stagnant as most people have a laptop which is powerful enough to get stuff done, while being portable.
That is the larger market, and one that the Ryzen APU's will have a much better chance at picking up share in.
I know this is an old article but I had to comment on the desktop space being "stagnant". That's mostly true for general consumers and corporate buyers but absolutely not true for med/higher end systems targeted at gamers (and miners). Those two markets are pushing massive demand for high performance desktop CPUs and GPUs (which you can see in AMD and NV's pricing and availability on their GPUs). The year over year performance improvement in CPUs is pretty boring right now but GPUs are still pretty exciting and still seem to have some big leaps left in them. I'm interested in seeing if Intel is going to be able to bring out a capable 3rd option in the discrete GPU space in the next few years. Their track record isn't good so far but having a 3rd player in the GPU/Compute space could really shake things up.
I'm with you on the Ryzen APUs. If AMD can manage to make an APU with 1050/1060 level performance that fits in a thin and light notebook that could be a real game changer for many of us. I've mostly given up on gaming laptops because they end up being more of a portable then a mobile system and for most things I do on a laptop I'd just prefer the really thin and light setup. If I can manage to get both thin and light *and* decent gaming performance (even if you need to be plugged in to maintain battery life when gaming) then that would be killer.
The only problem I see is the push for 4k monitors on these little laptops. No APU is going to be able to push 4k anytime soon, but I've never tried gaming at 1080p on a 4k panel and since its still a square pixel at 1080p, it might look fine, in which case it would be a non-issue.
That just makes no sense and heres why. First off, If you're paying over MSRP then you are not paying Intel or Amd or Nvidia or whatever. You are paying that distributor or the retailer or whoever gets those cards from the manufacturer. Second, if the manufacturer quotes an MSRP then this price already covers the costs and whatever the manufacturer wants to charge you for. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can afford it. Thats irrelevant. And if you're wondering WHY the vendor charges over MSRP is because 1) they can, 2) they know the demand is high so they know there are suckers like you who are willing to pay.
To demand a higher price, they would need to compete with NVidia with cards that ran cooler/quieter, used less power and outperformed NVidia cards for the same price
The MSRP seems a bit high. The MSRP is a bit irrelevant as miners will push up the price even further. For me, it's a still a good purchase because of the blower cooler which I need for my SFF PC, all other Founder Edition cards are unavailable.
It wasnt like this a year ago. This year we just have a couple phenomenons overlapping and the result is this...a market where the demand is high and supply is low. Maybe next year things will change but this year is not consistent with the past couple years where a videocard would drop significantly in price 6 months after release.
I remember splurging on an original TNT with 16MB of VRAM. It was a Diamond Viper V550, I think...but paying $130 or so for it back then felt like an awful lot. It was passively cooled by a tiny little heatsink, but was among the highest performing video cards at the time. Heh, I did want to shove a pair of Voodoo2s in the system behind it for Glide titles. Anyhow, I think economic inflation can account for some of the cost increase in higher end video cards, but certainly not all of it.
Now its $2.14. The Feds have been printing money so fast its essentially become water and diluted. That's why gas and video cards are going up (its true inflation, not the one fed by propaganda outlets). Unless you switch to using the gold standard where it was $290 in 1999 and now its ~$1500. https://goldprice.org/gold-price-usa.html
So really if you wanted to buy the TNT2 today, instead of $200 it would be $400+, in short get the gtx1060 6gb and be happy.
Price is dictated by the basic market supply/demand rule. Being a so basic rule, I can't understand why people continuously whine about too high prices. Do you think you are better than the entire nvidia marketing team? Do you think that lowering the prive as you suggest is going to make nvidia gain more money?
Why should Nvidia's goal be to make any less money than the most that they can make? I'm not saying that I like this system.. I too wish there was more competition from AMD, and GPU prices were lower.. but the harsh reality is that profits are the ultimate decider, and every business will try to maximize the same.. it doesn't make them bad or evil people.
Come on, this card shouldn't even exist. Only because miners have created supply shortages has NV decided to put another something out there. It's purely a cash grab. 1 less SM than a 1080? No factory overclocks because it could cannibalize 1080 sales? The only people looking for new 1080s are probably miners once again. And compete against Vega56? Come on. No one can GET a Vega56 at MSRP.
You are getting it wrong. People here whine about how the things should work and indeed they work that way. Companies exists to make money (rule number one companies based on capitals) and whining because they try to make more of them is quite useless like whining about the fact that if you leave your smartphone it will fall down.
So constantly speaking about wrong or right prices from OUR point of view is useless and quite stupid. I can't see people whining about the fact that the gravity is too high and that falling smartphones can't be grabbed before they touch the ground. They are basic rules that makes things work (one the economics, the other one the universe) so it is really useless to point about wrong prices. People have learnt that whining about gravity won't change the effects, but it appears that they have still not understood that good prices is a simple supply/demand affair. We all would like a GTX1080/Vega to cost $50 and that smartphones would not fall so fast, but that is our vain wish, not what can be either possible or even clever to discuss on a technical forum like this one. More if you do not understand economics.
These cards are marketed to gamers. However the "demand" (what is driving up the price) is not from gamers, it's from miners. So the high prices are artificial - if miners weren't snapping up all the cards, they would be lower. Heck, the cards can't even get down to MSRP - we can at least complain about that. At least I bought my 1060 at MSRP, and it is still good enough for now.
I was at Microcenter a month ago when the Vega56 was just becoming available at retail, and this guy was talking to the sales clerk about how it's his fifth one for mining and I just wanted to punch him. He'd apparently been coming back to the store repeatedly to buy them all.
That's why I can't find any fucking video cards to upgrade my GTX970/980. And considering it still plays everything (albeit at medium detail in some stuff) I'm just going to ride this GPU gravy train out.
Just when they reach a point of convergent evolution with Intel designs, they seem to slip away on GPUs. Maybe AMD just can't sustain three tentpolls (counting APUs) at once? Spin-out?
Nvidia is spending 3 billion on each new architecture (and in that cost, spliting compute architectures from gaming architectures), while AMD I don't think is even hitting the big B on new architectures, and keeping one for both sides. Too bad, but no wonder results are like this.
Anyways, per the 1070TI, I don't suppose the MRSP will be anywhere near realistic for a while as eth miners are still snapping up any good cards.
AMD doesn't have a 1080TI fighter, cant compete on efficiency, and the cards came too little too late. It wasn't enough to match year old cards, they needed to beat them. Miners are their only saving grace right now.
That being said, there were some design choices made with integration in mind ala RR, and I think it will pay off in the long run but it wont move cards into gamers hands right now.
Asf or the 1070TI, I don't see the point but I get why NVidia is doing it. Adds an option, crowds out the 56, gives them something to do with those other chips.
IF they actually sell at what they're supposed to sell at, I don't see why you wouldn't spring for the 1080. Price/Perf diff isn't worth the savings when spending that much.
Nvidia has a ton of flawless GP104 dies stockpiled and the 1080's are selling because they use GDDR5X memory which is slower for mining. This makes perfect sense if what i describe is true. You get rid of all those extra GP104 dies by paring it with lower latency GDDR5. This card was built with miners in mind, particularly with the GDDR5 implementation. .
Your logic is somehow faulty. The chip mounted on this 1070Ti is far for allowing them to recycle any stockpile of defective chips: it requires the chip to be fully functional but a single SM (5% of the chip). nvidia could sell much more faulty chips with the original 1070 card at whatever price seen the miners do ask for them as if they were slices of bread. What nvidia is doing here is just creating a card that on benchmarks runs better than the concurrent card using slightly faulty chips (or disabling them on purpose), selling the card at higher price than the 1070 and just a little below the 1080.
If nvidia had lots of defective GP104 to get rid they could just have created a 1060Ti. But that would be a useless card that would compete with none but 1070, that is they would lose money by doing do.
AMD has had a long road to get everything integrated together but things finally seem to be falling into place with a common on-die fabric. Their previous SoC designs still had a proprietary bus for the on-die GPU. Infinity fabric is also being pushed to the GPU team for scaling up their designs as well. Long term, I would predict some GPUs falling into the same sockets as their processors for HPC workloads. This long term idea probably won't happen until they use multiple GPU dies on a single interposer.
AMD had to do all this work while the company was in in the red but it looks like the results are paying off with a competitive CPU architecture again and some gains on the GPU side too. They're back in the black but I don't think AMD can afford to allocate the resources to a pure enterprise compute project. They won't ignore that market, but the base architecture will stem from the gaming side.
I agree it's too expensive as well. I think this should have been set at $399. The sad part is that it's going to be impossible to find at even the MSRP in short order. I'm content to stick with my overclocked GTX 970 until this mining fad is over - or until the current crypto formats become resistant to GPU-based mining.
This means nvidia is not going to sell GP104 with more than a single SM broken... which is a great waste of money for them. So no, they will keep the old card in stock and this Ti version, in fact, will be rarely found, as it is created just for looking better on charts against a no available card from the concurrent. So it does not need to be produced in mass (and probably cutting that single SM on purpose on a perfectly good die, as I do not think that the availability of GP104 with 1 bad SM can be higher that with 5 bad SM).
There's also the Quadro P4000 which at 14 SM enabled is the lowest end GP104 part on the market.
But yeah the 1070 TI only having a single disabled SM almost certainly speaks to much higher yields since the product first launched a year and a half ago.
This review was a really good read. I also like that the game screenshots were dropped from it since they didn't exactly add much, but do eat a little of my data plan when I'm reading from a mobile device.
As for the 1070 Ti, agreed its priced a bit too high. However, I think most of the current-gen GPUs are pushing the price envelope right now. Except maybe the 1030 of course which has a reasonable MSRP and doesn't require a dual slot cooler. That's really the only graphics card outside of an iGPU I'd seriously consider if I were in the market at the moment, but then again I'm not playing a lot of games on a PC because I have a console and a phone for that sort of thing.
Lack of a good way to run dual link DVI displays via HDMI/DP is probably keeping it around longer than originally intended. This includes both relatively old 2560x1600 displays that predate DP or HDMI 1.4 and thus could only do DL-DVI, and cheap 'Korean' 2560x1440 monitors from 2 or 3 years ago. The basic HDMI/DP-DVI adapters are single link and max out at 1920x1200. A few claim 2560x1600 by overclocking the data rate by 100% to stuff it down a single link worth of wires; this is mostly useless though since other than HDMI1.4 capable displays (which don't need this) virtually no DVI monitors can actually take a signal that fast. Active DP-DLDVI adapters can theoretically do it for $70-100, but they all came out buggy to one degree or another and sales were apparently too low to justify a new generation of hardware that fixed the issues.
This is actually precisely why I don't mind DVI too much, because I have and still use a 1-DVI-input-only Korean 1440p A- monitor from 3 years ago, overclocked to 96Hz. DVI probably needs to go away at some point soon, but maybe not too soon :)
So, that DVI port really ruins everything for ya? What are you, 14??
There are tons of overclockable 1440p Korean monitors out there that only have one input- DVI. Adding a DVI port doesn't increase cost, slow down performance, or increase heat levels- so what's your imaginary problem again?
I'm older than 14, and I wish the DVI port wasn't' there, as it is work to strip them off when I make my GPUs into single-slot water-cooled versions. Removing / modifying the bracket is one thing, but pulling out those DVI ports is another.
Because the MSRP's of both the cards are same. Vega 56 beats 1070 in almost all games.yes it consumes more power and noiser too. But for some people it doesnt matter it gives 10-15% more performance than 1070. When Overclocked you can extract more from Vega 56 too.
It beats the reference GTX 1070, but a factory overclocked 1070 pulls ahead again, especially overclocked on top of the factory overclock. Vega 56 (or 64 for that matter) does not have that type of overclocking headroom. This has long been an advantage for Nvidia. AMD GPUs have a history of being terrible overclockers. My old EVGA GTX 970 SSC ACX 2.0+ could be overclocked to 980 performance without even touching the voltage for example.
Vega 56 BIOS can be upgraded to the Vega 64 BIOS for another 20% speed boost. Vega can only do 5% max. With Vega 56 lower price point by over $50, cheaper Freesync monitor options, and 2x the availability of GSync, Vega 56 is still making a lot of sense for new buyers.
Good showing. At MSRP, a good argument (from these tests at least) can still be made for Vega 56. Not sure if 1070ti is worth $50.00 more, but you do get a little bit better performance, and most important to me, a lower noise profile at load. Keeping it interesting for sure!
So.... it is essentially a direct Vega 56 competitor except that it will be available on store shelves for purchase? Really hoping that this will cause the normal 1070 prices to drop a bit *fingers crossed*. I picked up a 4k monitor last year and my gaming has been quite limited on it with my GTX 960. A 1070 will fill in quite nicely for now, and next year when the new cards come out I'll pick up a 2nd 1070 for SLi to really make 4K gaming smooth.
SLI doesn't seem like a good solution these days given tepid support from the GPU manufacturers and very few modern titles that are optimized to take advantage of a 2nd graphics card. You might have a better experience if you set aside the first 1070's cost until next year and then use the funding from both to purchase a 1080 or just hang on to see what happens with Volta since there'll likely be consumer GPUs available sometime in 2018.
Easiest check to see potential mining impact is toss a ti and non in a pc and test with some miner program. Nicehash legacy is probably the best for comparative stats. Run their benchmark on both cards on precise and compare the results. There will be some variance, but it should provide a decent reference. Nvidias are typically used on ones that are more gpu intensive, with Zcash probably the largest. AMD works off their bandwidth and are favored for corresponding currencies like Etherium and Monero. The nice hash legacy will test against most of the major ones including Ethereum, Monero, and ZCash. Given the increased CPU performance, it is probably being tested mining wise as we speak
Remember to overclock and undervolt. Energy effeciency is a large factor. 1070's seem to be run between 65-70% power limit. A voltage meter on the outlet may be useful in this case as you can look at the voltage change for each test for each card
You're exaggerating the price differences a little. You can get a 1060 6 GB for $260, and the 1080 does start at $500. And if you had a 2 GB 660 that's a bit like the 3 GB 1060, which can be had for $205.
DDR3 prices per bit are close to where they were 3 years ago, and significantly higher than 5 years ago. I'm not sure how GDDR5 prices compare for then and now, but it's a safe bet that demand outstripping supply in the memory market has affected GDDR5 as well. Then consider that the GTX 1070 has twice the VRAM as the GTX 970.
I think cryptocurrency was responsible for the high prices of graphics cards earlier this year, but as of now perhaps it's memory prices that are keeping them high. The closeness in price of the 1080 and 1070 and the big difference in price of the 1060 3 GB and 1060 6 GB probably still have to do with cryptocurrency. The 1080 and 1070 are based on the same GPU, and the pricing is affected by the yield and the demand for each card.Cryptominers demand the 1070,but not the 1080. If the 1070 is in demand relative to the the 1080 at a high ratio than the yield ratio of the GPU, it makes economic sense for the price of the 1070 to move upwards. Perhaps this situation is one reason the 1070 Ti only has one SM disabled. A similar situation exists for the 1060 3 GB/6 GB pair, pushing the 6 GB version up in relation to the 3 GB (cryptominers demand the 6 GB, I believe)
Tons of graphs are presented for each game and they all measure the timings on average and minimum. Have a look at the small pics below the big graphs.
Which world is freer, one where we spend our time thinking of which technologies to ban and how to ban them, then implementing bans and spending our efforts enforcing the ban? Or one where we let technology progress and then work to integrate the technology in a beneficial way (which may require changes in laws after a period of disruption)? I'd argue that the second way is freer. How we use the technology is up to us. One could argue, I guess, that the Amish face no dangers regarding facial recognition policing (although maybe that's one technology they would like, because I think the reason they reject technologies is because they don't want individuals to have the power to be free from the Amish group structure).
The link for EVGA GTX 1070 Ti FTW2 opens up an Amazon page that in turn leads to the Buying Option FULLFILLED BY AMAZON of only $1,099.99. That way we get to save 0.01 cents. Isn't it Amaz ing?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
78 Comments
Back to Article
moxin - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Still think it's a bit expensiveSpunjji - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Agreed. This should be 1070 price, 1070 down to the 970's original MSRP... Anything less is gouging.Yojimbo - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
I think it should cost $20.edlee - Friday, January 12, 2018 - link
This mining rush might kill the pc gaming industry, when a gamer cannot find a single high performance card at msrp prices, they will just flock to the xbox one x or ps4 pro, this is outrageous.Ryan Smith - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Hey everyone, please watch your language. (not you specifically, Spunjji, I removed a comment below you)CiccioB - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
I think that any comment whining about prices should be removed ASAP.Ratman6161 - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
I'm not a gamer so I'm more wide eyed at a the idea of a video card that draws 80 watts at idle and over 300 under load...more than my whole system under load. And upwards of $500? Wow. I guess I'm sort of glad I'm not a gamer. :)DanNeely - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Those are total system numbers, not the card itself.CaedenV - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
The card by itself idles at ~20W and load at ~250WStill quite a bit compared to a small desktop or a laptop though lol
BrokenCrayons - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Yup, those power numbers are terrible. The desire for improvement in visual quality and competition between the two remaining dGPU manufactures has certainly done us no favors when it comes to electrical consumption and waste heat generation in modern PCs. Sadly, people often forget that good graphics don't automatically imply tons of fun will be had at the keyboard and they consequently create demand that causes a positive feedback loop that make 200+ watt TDP GPUs viable products. I remember the many hours I killed playing games on my Palm IIIxe and it needed a new pair of AAA batteries once every 3 or so weeks. Not everyone feels that way though and for an obviously large number of consumer buyers, graphics and resolution mean the world to them no matter the price of entry or the power consumption.Destoya - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
I feel like you're ignoring cards like the 1050ti/1050 in order to better match your narrative. Both of those require no power connectors (75W TDP) and will reach 1080p60 easily for modern AAA games and 144 FPS on esports titles. Yes, both companies are making power hungry monster cards to satisfy high-end demand that get a lot of headlines, but the chip designs scale down incredibly well. Performance for low/mid-end systems has never been as good as it is now.The_Assimilator - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
Yes yes, everybody should still be using teletype terminals and typewriters. Or even better, go back to scratching lines into cave walls with rocks, because that uses no power and creates no heat.Lord of the Bored - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
Actually, it does create heat. Thermodynamics is a harsh mistress.catavalon21 - Thursday, January 10, 2019 - link
+1sonny73n - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
Graphic and resolution mean the world to them because they have no life.theuglyman0war - Saturday, November 4, 2017 - link
I thought it was because God gave us two eyes that can see? ( the same reason I get my prescription glasses updated every year. Fidelity. )Is Lo Fi hip again?
Ranger1065 - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
You should be removed ASAP dear Ciccio.TheJian - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Bought mine at $499 (EVGA FTW2). Don't feel gouged at all. If it's gouging, they'd still be on the shelf. I'm guessing they'll be out of stock shortly. If they priced like you want, they'd have quarterly reports like AMD.. ROFL. That should not be the goal for NV, but rather to price as high as the market will accept...PERIOD. It is actually their JOB to do this.Sounds like you need to upgrade your job so you can afford better toys ;) AMD has lost $8B in the last 2 decades and looks like they only made money for a single quarter this time. They are predicting a down Q yet again (how can you have a bad xmas Q?) and just after all these launches. YOU ARE PRICING YOUR STUFF TOO LOW AMD!
bill.rookard - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Well, that's not entirely accurate, AMD has had some nominally profitable quarters before this - not to the level of Intel for sure, but saying they've lost money every single quarter in the past 20 years is patently untrue. There were many times 'in the past two decades' when they were actually eating Intel's lunch, so enough of the hyperbole.Yes, they've not had an easy time since then, and have been in the dumps especially with their previous generation designs which, well, sucked. (caveat, the 8 core 8000 series actually did well on video encoding but that wasn't nearly enough)
As for pricing stuff too low? They HAVE to right now. Their issue is one of market share, and with their previous generation u-arch it couldn't remotely compete with Intel, and that pitiful share is the result. Now that they have a u-arch which is close to parity from power and performance, just wait to see what happens in the notebook space where the Intel IGP is pitifully bad compared to the Mobile Vega. Besides - the main 'desktop' space is, while not dying, it is without a doubt somewhat stagnant as most people have a laptop which is powerful enough to get stuff done, while being portable.
That is the larger market, and one that the Ryzen APU's will have a much better chance at picking up share in.
webdoctors - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
You;re right, there was I guess maybe 40% quarters were profitable last 10 years:https://ycharts.com/companies/AMD/eps
Bp_968 - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
I know this is an old article but I had to comment on the desktop space being "stagnant". That's mostly true for general consumers and corporate buyers but absolutely not true for med/higher end systems targeted at gamers (and miners). Those two markets are pushing massive demand for high performance desktop CPUs and GPUs (which you can see in AMD and NV's pricing and availability on their GPUs). The year over year performance improvement in CPUs is pretty boring right now but GPUs are still pretty exciting and still seem to have some big leaps left in them. I'm interested in seeing if Intel is going to be able to bring out a capable 3rd option in the discrete GPU space in the next few years. Their track record isn't good so far but having a 3rd player in the GPU/Compute space could really shake things up.I'm with you on the Ryzen APUs. If AMD can manage to make an APU with 1050/1060 level performance that fits in a thin and light notebook that could be a real game changer for many of us. I've mostly given up on gaming laptops because they end up being more of a portable then a mobile system and for most things I do on a laptop I'd just prefer the really thin and light setup. If I can manage to get both thin and light *and* decent gaming performance (even if you need to be plugged in to maintain battery life when gaming) then that would be killer.
The only problem I see is the push for 4k monitors on these little laptops. No APU is going to be able to push 4k anytime soon, but I've never tried gaming at 1080p on a 4k panel and since its still a square pixel at 1080p, it might look fine, in which case it would be a non-issue.
Hxx - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
That just makes no sense and heres why. First off, If you're paying over MSRP then you are not paying Intel or Amd or Nvidia or whatever. You are paying that distributor or the retailer or whoever gets those cards from the manufacturer. Second, if the manufacturer quotes an MSRP then this price already covers the costs and whatever the manufacturer wants to charge you for.It has nothing to do with whether or not you can afford it. Thats irrelevant. And if you're wondering WHY the vendor charges over MSRP is because 1) they can, 2) they know the demand is high so they know there are suckers like you who are willing to pay.
"Bullwinkle J Moose" - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Higher prices would destroy AMDTo demand a higher price, they would need to compete with NVidia with cards that ran cooler/quieter, used less power and outperformed NVidia cards for the same price
That's just not happening anytime soon
Hixbot - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
The MSRP seems a bit high. The MSRP is a bit irrelevant as miners will push up the price even further.For me, it's a still a good purchase because of the blower cooler which I need for my SFF PC, all other Founder Edition cards are unavailable.
Wwhat - Sunday, November 12, 2017 - link
I think any device relying on Nvidia or AMD drivers/software should reflect that, and they should not dare to sell anything over $500.Samus - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
I’m glad I’m not the only one who finds it ridiculous that the mainstream cards are now $100-$150 more than they used to be...These price brackets have just gotten ridiculous. I’d like to go back 15-20 years to when the most expensive cards were $200 (TNT2 Ultra :)
Hxx - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
It wasnt like this a year ago. This year we just have a couple phenomenons overlapping and the result is this...a market where the demand is high and supply is low. Maybe next year things will change but this year is not consistent with the past couple years where a videocard would drop significantly in price 6 months after release.BrokenCrayons - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
I remember splurging on an original TNT with 16MB of VRAM. It was a Diamond Viper V550, I think...but paying $130 or so for it back then felt like an awful lot. It was passively cooled by a tiny little heatsink, but was among the highest performing video cards at the time. Heh, I did want to shove a pair of Voodoo2s in the system behind it for Glide titles. Anyhow, I think economic inflation can account for some of the cost increase in higher end video cards, but certainly not all of it.webdoctors - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
The TNT2 was awesome and the best bang per buck at the time. However, the average price of gas (including state taxes) was $1.14 in 1999.https://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-...
Now its $2.14. The Feds have been printing money so fast its essentially become water and diluted. That's why gas and video cards are going up (its true inflation, not the one fed by propaganda outlets). Unless you switch to using the gold standard where it was $290 in 1999 and now its ~$1500.
https://goldprice.org/gold-price-usa.html
So really if you wanted to buy the TNT2 today, instead of $200 it would be $400+, in short get the gtx1060 6gb and be happy.
RiZad - Monday, November 6, 2017 - link
counting for inflation they are ~1% more expensive. based on the tnt2 ultra that launched at $299 not $199CiccioB - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Price is dictated by the basic market supply/demand rule.Being a so basic rule, I can't understand why people continuously whine about too high prices.
Do you think you are better than the entire nvidia marketing team?
Do you think that lowering the prive as you suggest is going to make nvidia gain more money?
kmmatney - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Why should our goal be to make NVidia more money?nyquaxyla - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Why should Nvidia's goal be to make any less money than the most that they can make?I'm not saying that I like this system.. I too wish there was more competition from AMD, and GPU prices were lower.. but the harsh reality is that profits are the ultimate decider, and every business will try to maximize the same.. it doesn't make them bad or evil people.
darckhart - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Come on, this card shouldn't even exist. Only because miners have created supply shortages has NV decided to put another something out there. It's purely a cash grab. 1 less SM than a 1080? No factory overclocks because it could cannibalize 1080 sales? The only people looking for new 1080s are probably miners once again. And compete against Vega56? Come on. No one can GET a Vega56 at MSRP.CiccioB - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
You are getting it wrong.People here whine about how the things should work and indeed they work that way.
Companies exists to make money (rule number one companies based on capitals) and whining because they try to make more of them is quite useless like whining about the fact that if you leave your smartphone it will fall down.
So constantly speaking about wrong or right prices from OUR point of view is useless and quite stupid. I can't see people whining about the fact that the gravity is too high and that falling smartphones can't be grabbed before they touch the ground.
They are basic rules that makes things work (one the economics, the other one the universe) so it is really useless to point about wrong prices. People have learnt that whining about gravity won't change the effects, but it appears that they have still not understood that good prices is a simple supply/demand affair.
We all would like a GTX1080/Vega to cost $50 and that smartphones would not fall so fast, but that is our vain wish, not what can be either possible or even clever to discuss on a technical forum like this one. More if you do not understand economics.
kmmatney - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
These cards are marketed to gamers. However the "demand" (what is driving up the price) is not from gamers, it's from miners. So the high prices are artificial - if miners weren't snapping up all the cards, they would be lower. Heck, the cards can't even get down to MSRP - we can at least complain about that. At least I bought my 1060 at MSRP, and it is still good enough for now.babadivad - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
I still think the Vega 56 is the best value card out there. Granted you can find one.Samus - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
I was at Microcenter a month ago when the Vega56 was just becoming available at retail, and this guy was talking to the sales clerk about how it's his fifth one for mining and I just wanted to punch him. He'd apparently been coming back to the store repeatedly to buy them all.That's why I can't find any fucking video cards to upgrade my GTX970/980. And considering it still plays everything (albeit at medium detail in some stuff) I'm just going to ride this GPU gravy train out.
tipoo - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Just when they reach a point of convergent evolution with Intel designs, they seem to slip away on GPUs. Maybe AMD just can't sustain three tentpolls (counting APUs) at once? Spin-out?
Nvidia is spending 3 billion on each new architecture (and in that cost, spliting compute architectures from gaming architectures), while AMD I don't think is even hitting the big B on new architectures, and keeping one for both sides. Too bad, but no wonder results are like this.
Anyways, per the 1070TI, I don't suppose the MRSP will be anywhere near realistic for a while as eth miners are still snapping up any good cards.
Manch - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
AMD doesn't have a 1080TI fighter, cant compete on efficiency, and the cards came too little too late. It wasn't enough to match year old cards, they needed to beat them. Miners are their only saving grace right now.That being said, there were some design choices made with integration in mind ala RR, and I think it will pay off in the long run but it wont move cards into gamers hands right now.
Asf or the 1070TI, I don't see the point but I get why NVidia is doing it. Adds an option, crowds out the 56, gives them something to do with those other chips.
IF they actually sell at what they're supposed to sell at, I don't see why you wouldn't spring for the 1080. Price/Perf diff isn't worth the savings when spending that much.
Morawka - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Nvidia has a ton of flawless GP104 dies stockpiled and the 1080's are selling because they use GDDR5X memory which is slower for mining. This makes perfect sense if what i describe is true. You get rid of all those extra GP104 dies by paring it with lower latency GDDR5. This card was built with miners in mind, particularly with the GDDR5 implementation. .Morawka - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
**Miners are not buying gtx 1080 due to slower GDDR5X. Nvidia re-engineers 1080 for better mining performance.CiccioB - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
Your logic is somehow faulty.The chip mounted on this 1070Ti is far for allowing them to recycle any stockpile of defective chips: it requires the chip to be fully functional but a single SM (5% of the chip).
nvidia could sell much more faulty chips with the original 1070 card at whatever price seen the miners do ask for them as if they were slices of bread.
What nvidia is doing here is just creating a card that on benchmarks runs better than the concurrent card using slightly faulty chips (or disabling them on purpose), selling the card at higher price than the 1070 and just a little below the 1080.
If nvidia had lots of defective GP104 to get rid they could just have created a 1060Ti. But that would be a useless card that would compete with none but 1070, that is they would lose money by doing do.
Kevin G - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
AMD has had a long road to get everything integrated together but things finally seem to be falling into place with a common on-die fabric. Their previous SoC designs still had a proprietary bus for the on-die GPU. Infinity fabric is also being pushed to the GPU team for scaling up their designs as well. Long term, I would predict some GPUs falling into the same sockets as their processors for HPC workloads. This long term idea probably won't happen until they use multiple GPU dies on a single interposer.AMD had to do all this work while the company was in in the red but it looks like the results are paying off with a competitive CPU architecture again and some gains on the GPU side too. They're back in the black but I don't think AMD can afford to allocate the resources to a pure enterprise compute project. They won't ignore that market, but the base architecture will stem from the gaming side.
cwolf78 - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
I agree it's too expensive as well. I think this should have been set at $399. The sad part is that it's going to be impossible to find at even the MSRP in short order. I'm content to stick with my overclocked GTX 970 until this mining fad is over - or until the current crypto formats become resistant to GPU-based mining.extide - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Honestly, I see nvidia phasing out the vanilla 1070 over the next few months and then sliding the 1070 Ti into the $399 price slot.CiccioB - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
This means nvidia is not going to sell GP104 with more than a single SM broken... which is a great waste of money for them. So no, they will keep the old card in stock and this Ti version, in fact, will be rarely found, as it is created just for looking better on charts against a no available card from the concurrent. So it does not need to be produced in mass (and probably cutting that single SM on purpose on a perfectly good die, as I do not think that the availability of GP104 with 1 bad SM can be higher that with 5 bad SM).zepi - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Such chips could still be used sa GTX1070M, so there is still a product where they can be used.Not to mention that at this point of the GP104 manufacturing they should be having very nice yields already.
DanNeely - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
There's also the Quadro P4000 which at 14 SM enabled is the lowest end GP104 part on the market.But yeah the 1070 TI only having a single disabled SM almost certainly speaks to much higher yields since the product first launched a year and a half ago.
znd125 - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Great writing and review.BrokenCrayons - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
This review was a really good read. I also like that the game screenshots were dropped from it since they didn't exactly add much, but do eat a little of my data plan when I'm reading from a mobile device.As for the 1070 Ti, agreed its priced a bit too high. However, I think most of the current-gen GPUs are pushing the price envelope right now. Except maybe the 1030 of course which has a reasonable MSRP and doesn't require a dual slot cooler. That's really the only graphics card outside of an iGPU I'd seriously consider if I were in the market at the moment, but then again I'm not playing a lot of games on a PC because I have a console and a phone for that sort of thing.
Communism - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Literally the same price as a 1070 non-Ti was a week ago.Those cards sold so well that retailers are still gouging them to this day.
Communism - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
And I should mention that the only reason that retail prices of 1070, Vega 56, and Vega 64 went down is due to the launch of 1070 Ti.timecop1818 - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Still got that fuckin' DVI shit in 2017.DanNeely - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Lack of a good way to run dual link DVI displays via HDMI/DP is probably keeping it around longer than originally intended. This includes both relatively old 2560x1600 displays that predate DP or HDMI 1.4 and thus could only do DL-DVI, and cheap 'Korean' 2560x1440 monitors from 2 or 3 years ago. The basic HDMI/DP-DVI adapters are single link and max out at 1920x1200. A few claim 2560x1600 by overclocking the data rate by 100% to stuff it down a single link worth of wires; this is mostly useless though since other than HDMI1.4 capable displays (which don't need this) virtually no DVI monitors can actually take a signal that fast. Active DP-DLDVI adapters can theoretically do it for $70-100, but they all came out buggy to one degree or another and sales were apparently too low to justify a new generation of hardware that fixed the issues.Nate Oh - Saturday, November 4, 2017 - link
This is actually precisely why I don't mind DVI too much, because I have and still use a 1-DVI-input-only Korean 1440p A- monitor from 3 years ago, overclocked to 96Hz. DVI probably needs to go away at some point soon, but maybe not too soon :)ddferrari - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
So, that DVI port really ruins everything for ya? What are you, 14??There are tons of overclockable 1440p Korean monitors out there that only have one input- DVI. Adding a DVI port doesn't increase cost, slow down performance, or increase heat levels- so what's your imaginary problem again?
Notmyusualid - Sunday, November 5, 2017 - link
@ ddferrariWhat are you - ddriver incarnate?
I'm older than 14, and I wish the DVI port wasn't' there, as it is work to strip them off when I make my GPUs into single-slot water-cooled versions. Removing / modifying the bracket is one thing, but pulling out those DVI ports is another.
Silma - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
How can you compare the Vega 56 to the GTX 1070 when it's 7 dB noisier and consumes up to 78 watts more ?sach1137 - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Because the MSRP's of both the cards are same. Vega 56 beats 1070 in almost all games.yes it consumes more power and noiser too. But for some people it doesnt matter it gives 10-15% more performance than 1070. When Overclocked you can extract more from Vega 56 too.Nfarce - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
"Vega 56 beats 1070 in almost all games."It beats the reference GTX 1070, but a factory overclocked 1070 pulls ahead again, especially overclocked on top of the factory overclock. Vega 56 (or 64 for that matter) does not have that type of overclocking headroom. This has long been an advantage for Nvidia. AMD GPUs have a history of being terrible overclockers. My old EVGA GTX 970 SSC ACX 2.0+ could be overclocked to 980 performance without even touching the voltage for example.
LastQuark - Saturday, November 4, 2017 - link
Vega 56 BIOS can be upgraded to the Vega 64 BIOS for another 20% speed boost. Vega can only do 5% max. With Vega 56 lower price point by over $50, cheaper Freesync monitor options, and 2x the availability of GSync, Vega 56 is still making a lot of sense for new buyers.B-Real - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
According to this theory, you can't compare the 1070 to the Vega56, as the 1070 is 5 degrees Celsius hotter...damonlynch - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
It should be "nonetheless", not "none the less", in the introduction to the Final Words ;-)jardows2 - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Good showing. At MSRP, a good argument (from these tests at least) can still be made for Vega 56. Not sure if 1070ti is worth $50.00 more, but you do get a little bit better performance, and most important to me, a lower noise profile at load. Keeping it interesting for sure!CaedenV - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
So.... it is essentially a direct Vega 56 competitor except that it will be available on store shelves for purchase?Really hoping that this will cause the normal 1070 prices to drop a bit *fingers crossed*. I picked up a 4k monitor last year and my gaming has been quite limited on it with my GTX 960. A 1070 will fill in quite nicely for now, and next year when the new cards come out I'll pick up a 2nd 1070 for SLi to really make 4K gaming smooth.
BrokenCrayons - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
SLI doesn't seem like a good solution these days given tepid support from the GPU manufacturers and very few modern titles that are optimized to take advantage of a 2nd graphics card. You might have a better experience if you set aside the first 1070's cost until next year and then use the funding from both to purchase a 1080 or just hang on to see what happens with Volta since there'll likely be consumer GPUs available sometime in 2018.vladx - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
AMD has no chance at all, a RX Vega 56 in my country is $150 more expensive than the newly released GTX 1070 Ti.Sorjal - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Easiest check to see potential mining impact is toss a ti and non in a pc and test with some miner program. Nicehash legacy is probably the best for comparative stats. Run their benchmark on both cards on precise and compare the results. There will be some variance, but it should provide a decent reference. Nvidias are typically used on ones that are more gpu intensive, with Zcash probably the largest. AMD works off their bandwidth and are favored for corresponding currencies like Etherium and Monero. The nice hash legacy will test against most of the major ones including Ethereum, Monero, and ZCash.Given the increased CPU performance, it is probably being tested mining wise as we speak
Sorjal - Thursday, November 2, 2017 - link
Remember to overclock and undervolt. Energy effeciency is a large factor. 1070's seem to be run between 65-70% power limit. A voltage meter on the outlet may be useful in this case as you can look at the voltage change for each test for each cardjrs77 - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
God those GPU-prices are extreme. All across the board they're some 30% too high imho.The last GPU I bought was a GTX660, which cost just a tad under $200. Now the 1060 costs $100 more than that.
The GTX1070 should cost $350 and the GTX1080 $500. These are the price-brackets that existet just a couple years ago.
Yojimbo - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
You're exaggerating the price differences a little. You can get a 1060 6 GB for $260, and the 1080 does start at $500. And if you had a 2 GB 660 that's a bit like the 3 GB 1060, which can be had for $205.DDR3 prices per bit are close to where they were 3 years ago, and significantly higher than 5 years ago. I'm not sure how GDDR5 prices compare for then and now, but it's a safe bet that demand outstripping supply in the memory market has affected GDDR5 as well. Then consider that the GTX 1070 has twice the VRAM as the GTX 970.
I think cryptocurrency was responsible for the high prices of graphics cards earlier this year, but as of now perhaps it's memory prices that are keeping them high. The closeness in price of the 1080 and 1070 and the big difference in price of the 1060 3 GB and 1060 6 GB probably still have to do with cryptocurrency. The 1080 and 1070 are based on the same GPU, and the pricing is affected by the yield and the demand for each card.Cryptominers demand the 1070,but not the 1080. If the 1070 is in demand relative to the the 1080 at a high ratio than the yield ratio of the GPU, it makes economic sense for the price of the 1070 to move upwards. Perhaps this situation is one reason the 1070 Ti only has one SM disabled. A similar situation exists for the 1060 3 GB/6 GB pair, pushing the 6 GB version up in relation to the 3 GB (cryptominers demand the 6 GB, I believe)
damianrobertjones - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
I NEED to see the minimum frame rate on each of the games. It's pretty much silly to show me 565+ fps when it dips to 42fps.CiccioB - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
Tons of graphs are presented for each game and they all measure the timings on average and minimum. Have a look at the small pics below the big graphs.letmepicyou - Friday, November 3, 2017 - link
Not a big fan of how nVidia is creating facial recognition technology to help usher in the police state...Yojimbo - Saturday, November 4, 2017 - link
Which world is freer, one where we spend our time thinking of which technologies to ban and how to ban them, then implementing bans and spending our efforts enforcing the ban? Or one where we let technology progress and then work to integrate the technology in a beneficial way (which may require changes in laws after a period of disruption)? I'd argue that the second way is freer. How we use the technology is up to us. One could argue, I guess, that the Amish face no dangers regarding facial recognition policing (although maybe that's one technology they would like, because I think the reason they reject technologies is because they don't want individuals to have the power to be free from the Amish group structure).r13j13r13 - Tuesday, November 7, 2017 - link
5 fpsGastec - Tuesday, February 20, 2018 - link
The link for EVGA GTX 1070 Ti FTW2 opens up an Amazon page that in turn leads to the Buying Option FULLFILLED BY AMAZON of only $1,099.99. That way we get to save 0.01 cents. Isn't it Amaz ing?