Huh, maybe I wont need to debate whether to go 1440p@144hz or 4k@60hz since Asus is apparently going to roll out a 4k@144hz monitor. I dont know how its putting out 144hz since I think Display Port 1.3 only goes up to 120, but either way you should see the smooth benefits of the higher refresh rate.'
Huh, maybe I wont need to debate whether to go 1440p@144hz or 4k@60hz since Asus is apparently going to roll out a 4k@144hz monitor. I dont know how its putting out 144hz since I think Display Port 1.3 only goes up to 120, but either way you should see the smooth benefits of the higher refresh rate.'
Huh, maybe I wont need to debate whether to go 1440p@144hz or 4k@60hz since Asus is apparently going to roll out a 4k@144hz monitor. I dont know how its putting out 144hz since I think Display Port 1.3 only goes up to 120, but either way you should see the smooth benefits of the higher refresh rate.'
Fingers crossed it wont cost $1500+
I will take the over, and then some.
That seems almost guaranteed. Especially since even then, the initial run will probably get snapped up.
I'm blessed that over 60 FPS, it's very hard for me to tell the difference. Resolution, though, I can see that forever.
Huh, maybe I wont need to debate whether to go 1440p@144hz or 4k@60hz since Asus is apparently going to roll out a 4k@144hz monitor. I dont know how its putting out 144hz since I think Display Port 1.3 only goes up to 120, but either way you should see the smooth benefits of the higher refresh rate.'
Fingers crossed it wont cost $1500+
DP1.4 will go up to 144hz@4k (provided the monitor adheres to DSC standards).
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Huh, maybe I wont need to debate whether to go 1440p@144hz or 4k@60hz since Asus is apparently going to roll out a 4k@144hz monitor. I dont know how its putting out 144hz since I think Display Port 1.3 only goes up to 120, but either way you should see the smooth benefits of the higher refresh rate.'
Fingers crossed it wont cost $1500+
DP1.4 will go up to 144hz@4k (provided the monitor adheres to DSC standards).
Yeah, I saw that, but the standard was just set in March of this year. I have no idea how long it takes to go from standard approved to product available. Not to mention the current gen of video cards are only 1.3 compliant. Maybe the 1080ti will support 1.4.
Re pricing, yeah its probably going to be crazy expensive. I'm hoping itll be around 1500 or so which I might be willing to spend just because its going to be the thing I actually look at for the next 5-10 years. Like, the only reason I'll need to replace my 5 year old monitor when I build a new system is because the person I'm giving my old system to doesn't have a monitor. Hell, up until a couple of months ago I was still using the Ultrasharp monitor I bought in 2005 as a second monitor and the only reason I'm not still doing that is because of desk space.
Huh, maybe I wont need to debate whether to go 1440p@144hz or 4k@60hz since Asus is apparently going to roll out a 4k@144hz monitor. I dont know how its putting out 144hz since I think Display Port 1.3 only goes up to 120, but either way you should see the smooth benefits of the higher refresh rate.'
Fingers crossed it wont cost $1500+
DP1.4 will go up to 144hz@4k (provided the monitor adheres to DSC standards).
Yeah, I saw that, but the standard was just set in March of this year. I have no idea how long it takes to go from standard approved to product available. Not to mention the current gen of video cards are only 1.3 compliant. Maybe the 1080ti will support 1.4.
Re pricing, yeah its probably going to be crazy expensive. I'm hoping itll be around 1500 or so which I might be willing to spend just because its going to be the thing I actually look at for the next 5-10 years. Like, the only reason I'll need to replace my 5 year old monitor when I build a new system is because the person I'm giving my old system to doesn't have a monitor. Hell, up until a couple of months ago I was still using the Ultrasharp monitor I bought in 2005 as a second monitor and the only reason I'm not still doing that is because of desk space.
Speaking of current gen video cards, 1.3 is about all that's needed. All of the gaming benchmarks I've seen for the 1080 show that it struggled even hitting 60fps at 4k (the only modern game exception was Doom which is showing 60-65fps with dips into the mid-50s).
So yeah, I'm thinking 1.4 would make more sense on the 1080ti.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
As I do more research in monitors I begin to think maybe I should just get a 4k instead of 1440p. I won't have max settings or top 60Hz with my 1070, but I mostly play RPGs and strategy games, where lots of screen feels more important than high frame rate. It also means I can hope to use the monitor for longer.
I wish there were someplace I could go to try out these different monitor options before I buy one. I'm waiting for Black Friday regardless, but I have no way of knowing if I can tell the difference between 60 and 144 Hz screens.
As I do more research in monitors I begin to think maybe I should just get a 4k instead of 1440p. I won't have max settings or top 60Hz with my 1070, but I mostly play RPGs and strategy games, where lots of screen feels more important than high frame rate. It also means I can hope to use the monitor for longer.
I wish there were someplace I could go to try out these different monitor options before I buy one. I'm waiting for Black Friday regardless, but I have no way of knowing if I can tell the difference between 60 and 144 Hz screens.
Have you thought about going ultrawide? I gpt ahold of a 21:9 monitor a short time ago and I don't think I could ever go back.
Not all games support 2560x1080 or 3440x1440, so you might get vertical bars on either side of a 16:9 image, but compatible games on an ultrawide display are incredible.
Also, movies or TV shows that are filmed in ultrawide ratios between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 will display in fullscreen without the horizontal bars you would get on a 16:9 monitor.
My RMA is getting processed. I'll hold off on upgrading to the GTX 1080, because my 980 isn't even a year old. And since its summer I'll be fine without a PC for a while: I've barely touched Monster Hunter Generations
The Titan X almost doesn't count but man nVidia seems set in stone on making every GPU segment more expensive this time around and that is a very bad precedent to set.
So, everything's still working fine--might as well say, if anyone wants to pick up an EVGA GTX 970 SC (with an ACX 2.0 cooler, which you may have heard of) on the cheap, please let me know.
I'm surprised by the prices they're still going on eBay.
+1
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
Or hell. Just buy a 980ti and wait for the next generation.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Yeah I'm certainly not going to bother with the 1080Ti if it doesn't have HBM2, unless it's a HUGE upgrade in some other way.
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
The Titan X almost doesn't count but man nVidia seems set in stone on making every GPU segment more expensive this time around and that is a very bad precedent to set.
Whut?
The 1080 offers better than (last gen) Titan X performance for $600 - $700.
The 1070 offers better than 980 performance for $380 - $450
The 1060 offers better than 970 performance for $250 - $330
That is an across the board dramatic drop in price:performance ratio.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
The Titan X almost doesn't count but man nVidia seems set in stone on making every GPU segment more expensive this time around and that is a very bad precedent to set.
Whut?
The 1080 offers better than (last gen) Titan X performance for $600 - $700.
The 1070 offers better than 980 performance for $380 - $450
The 1060 offers better than 970 performance for $250 - $330
That is an across the board dramatic drop in price:performance ratio.
Sure, but the equivalent levels were notably cheaper at all steps. And none of the cards are selling for the non-founders MSRP yet, even.
Like the 970 launched at $330 and you can't get a 1070 for less than $440 right now.
The Titan X almost doesn't count but man nVidia seems set in stone on making every GPU segment more expensive this time around and that is a very bad precedent to set.
Which is patently wrong.
It's hardly Nvidia's fault that supply and demand is allowing manufacturers to crank up the pricing for the first couple months. Within the next couple months, pricing will be down significantly and you'll be getting so much more value than last generation.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Like the 970 launched at $330 and you can't get a 1070 for less than $440 right now.
Launch MSRP for non-reference designs was $330 to $350, but they were initially hitting $400. The surge didn't last as long, though, and they quickly fell back down to where they should be. You know why? Because the 9XX series was a pretty underwhelming upgrade from the 7XX series, where as the 10XX series is a much bigger, more exciting jump in performance per dollar.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
I didn't play super close attention to video cards, or even more than passing attention, until I started putting together my system, and until 3 months ago I legit thought Ti was just short for Titan. How is this a reasonable naming scheme?
I didn't play super close attention to video cards, or even more than passing attention, until I started putting together my system, and until 3 months ago I legit thought Ti was just short for Titan. How is this a reasonable naming scheme?
Hehe...tradition. Way way back when, nVidia put out the Geforce 2 Ti cards as part of their high-end lineup (Ti and Ultra were the two high-end versions). The last time the Ti bit was used, it was used as part of the common model number of the 4000-series cards (Ti 4200, Ti 4400, Ti 4600 (which was an awesome card), Ti 4800). Since then, the Ti part hasn't been used until the 500-series and was picked up again to denote that the Ti is better/faster than the base model (560 vs. 560ti).
But, as you said, if you haven't been paying much attention to video cards over the past 15-20 years, you'd probably have missed the rationale.
Erlkönig on
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
I didn't play super close attention to video cards, or even more than passing attention, until I started putting together my system, and until 3 months ago I legit thought Ti was just short for Titan. How is this a reasonable naming scheme?
Hehe...tradition. Way way back when, nVidia put out the Geforce 2 Ti cards as part of their high-end lineup (Ti and Ultra were the two high-end versions). The last time the Ti bit was used, it was used as part of the common model number of the 4000-series cards (Ti 4200, Ti 4400, Ti 4600 (which was an awesome card), Ti 4800). Since then, the Ti part hasn't been used until the 500-series and was picked up again to denote that the Ti is better/faster than the base model (560 vs. 560ti).
But, as you said, if you haven't been paying much attention to video cards over the past 15-20 years, you'd probably have missed the rationale.
I mean, if Ti came first, that's fine. It's just, that being the case, couldn't Nvidia have found a word that didn't start with "Ti" to designate their new super top of the line card back when the first Titan was released?
On a similar note -- so this card is the NVIDIA Titan X, and the last gen version was the GTX Titan X? Even though they're still using GTX for the 1060/70/80? Was confusing people one of the design goals?
Orogogus on
0
Options
BouwsTWanna come to a super soft birthday party?Registered Userregular
Found this on the WCCFtech website, MSRP's have typically hovered around the $350 range, and we were spoiled with a $299 MSRP on the 970. Taking the current price gouging due to high demand / low volume out of the equation, I don't think the MSRP pricing has been out of whack, especially if you consider how long the price has been stagnant and not been increasing with inflation. Something had to break the cycle, and it was likely the ultra performance on the 10xx series cards that emboldened them to seek a higher price.
I didn't play super close attention to video cards, or even more than passing attention, until I started putting together my system, and until 3 months ago I legit thought Ti was just short for Titan. How is this a reasonable naming scheme?
Hehe...tradition. Way way back when, nVidia put out the Geforce 2 Ti cards as part of their high-end lineup (Ti and Ultra were the two high-end versions). The last time the Ti bit was used, it was used as part of the common model number of the 4000-series cards (Ti 4200, Ti 4400, Ti 4600 (which was an awesome card), Ti 4800). Since then, the Ti part hasn't been used until the 500-series and was picked up again to denote that the Ti is better/faster than the base model (560 vs. 560ti).
But, as you said, if you haven't been paying much attention to video cards over the past 15-20 years, you'd probably have missed the rationale.
I mean, if Ti came first, that's fine. It's just, that being the case, couldn't Nvidia have found a word that didn't start with "Ti" to designate their new super top of the line card back when the first Titan was released?
On a similar note -- so this card is the NVIDIA Titan X, and the last gen version was the GTX Titan X? Even though they're still using GTX for the 1060/70/80? Was confusing people one of the design goals?
Maybe they're colluding with eBayers so that they can sell their old Titan Xes at new Titan X prices. If nothing else, it seems like this is going to help scammers.
I will admit that the Titan name didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I mean, when I think Titan I think of a big beefy card...but these days, all the mid and high end cards are big and beefy. Now all nVidia needs to do is make a Titan Ti...
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
the 1060 is $250 MSRP, the 960 launched at $200 MSRP
The 1070 is $379 MSRP, the 970 launched at $300 MSRP
The 1080 is $650 MSRP, the 980 launched at $550 MSRP
And this doesn't include the founders edition Tax.
The Titan X is $1200, the previous gen Titan X was $1000. I barely count it because it's not a mass market card, but the increase is there too.
I'm not sure how anyone can say that nVidida didn't increase prices for this round, even before you take supply shortages into account.
the 1060 is $250 MSRP, the 960 launched at $200 MSRP
The 1070 is $379 MSRP, the 970 launched at $300 MSRP
The 1080 is $650 MSRP, the 980 launched at $550 MSRP
And this doesn't include the founders edition Tax.
The Titan X is $1200, the previous gen Titan X was $1000. I barely count it because it's not a mass market card, but the increase is there too.
I'm not sure how anyone can say that nVidida didn't increase prices for this round, even before you take supply shortages into account.
For fairness, you should also include one more generation back and their MSRPs...
760 - $249
770 - $399
780 - $649
Ehh...why not keep going.
660 - $230
660Ti - $300
670 - $400
680 - $500
Erlkönig on
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Posts
Fingers crossed it wont cost $1500+
I will take the over, and then some.
That seems almost guaranteed. Especially since even then, the initial run will probably get snapped up.
I'm blessed that over 60 FPS, it's very hard for me to tell the difference. Resolution, though, I can see that forever.
DP1.4 will go up to 144hz@4k (provided the monitor adheres to DSC standards).
Yeah, I saw that, but the standard was just set in March of this year. I have no idea how long it takes to go from standard approved to product available. Not to mention the current gen of video cards are only 1.3 compliant. Maybe the 1080ti will support 1.4.
Re pricing, yeah its probably going to be crazy expensive. I'm hoping itll be around 1500 or so which I might be willing to spend just because its going to be the thing I actually look at for the next 5-10 years. Like, the only reason I'll need to replace my 5 year old monitor when I build a new system is because the person I'm giving my old system to doesn't have a monitor. Hell, up until a couple of months ago I was still using the Ultrasharp monitor I bought in 2005 as a second monitor and the only reason I'm not still doing that is because of desk space.
Speaking of current gen video cards, 1.3 is about all that's needed. All of the gaming benchmarks I've seen for the 1080 show that it struggled even hitting 60fps at 4k (the only modern game exception was Doom which is showing 60-65fps with dips into the mid-50s).
So yeah, I'm thinking 1.4 would make more sense on the 1080ti.
I wish there were someplace I could go to try out these different monitor options before I buy one. I'm waiting for Black Friday regardless, but I have no way of knowing if I can tell the difference between 60 and 144 Hz screens.
Does he have a chromecast or something similar? There are some network enabled devices that can power a computer on from sleep on demand.
Have you thought about going ultrawide? I gpt ahold of a 21:9 monitor a short time ago and I don't think I could ever go back.
Not all games support 2560x1080 or 3440x1440, so you might get vertical bars on either side of a 16:9 image, but compatible games on an ultrawide display are incredible.
Also, movies or TV shows that are filmed in ultrawide ratios between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 will display in fullscreen without the horizontal bars you would get on a 16:9 monitor.
Holy crap, does that thing light up in the inside of my case.
I doubt it, I'll mention it to him, but everyone here has already put more effort into fixing it than he has for months.
Size comparison with the ever-popular GTX 970.
Got it on rotating LED color mode. Ridiculous and opulent next to the rest of my build.
Since I can't do much playing around on my 4K TV in the next room, here are my benchmarks.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10510/nvidia-announces-nvidia-titan-x-video-card-1200-available-august-2nd
All yours, for only $1,200! aka what I spent building my PC...
hm
nice and all
not sure if I would've paid $1200 for it
$900 for sure though
I'm surprised by the prices they're still going on eBay.
Whut?
The 1080 offers better than (last gen) Titan X performance for $600 - $700.
The 1070 offers better than 980 performance for $380 - $450
The 1060 offers better than 970 performance for $250 - $330
That is an across the board dramatic drop in price:performance ratio.
Sure, but the equivalent levels were notably cheaper at all steps. And none of the cards are selling for the non-founders MSRP yet, even.
Like the 970 launched at $330 and you can't get a 1070 for less than $440 right now.
Right. And they still are. But you're getting a huge step up in performance.
I was responding to:
Which is patently wrong.
It's hardly Nvidia's fault that supply and demand is allowing manufacturers to crank up the pricing for the first couple months. Within the next couple months, pricing will be down significantly and you'll be getting so much more value than last generation.
Launch MSRP for non-reference designs was $330 to $350, but they were initially hitting $400. The surge didn't last as long, though, and they quickly fell back down to where they should be. You know why? Because the 9XX series was a pretty underwhelming upgrade from the 7XX series, where as the 10XX series is a much bigger, more exciting jump in performance per dollar.
Hehe...tradition. Way way back when, nVidia put out the Geforce 2 Ti cards as part of their high-end lineup (Ti and Ultra were the two high-end versions). The last time the Ti bit was used, it was used as part of the common model number of the 4000-series cards (Ti 4200, Ti 4400, Ti 4600 (which was an awesome card), Ti 4800). Since then, the Ti part hasn't been used until the 500-series and was picked up again to denote that the Ti is better/faster than the base model (560 vs. 560ti).
But, as you said, if you haven't been paying much attention to video cards over the past 15-20 years, you'd probably have missed the rationale.
I mean, if Ti came first, that's fine. It's just, that being the case, couldn't Nvidia have found a word that didn't start with "Ti" to designate their new super top of the line card back when the first Titan was released?
On a similar note -- so this card is the NVIDIA Titan X, and the last gen version was the GTX Titan X? Even though they're still using GTX for the 1060/70/80? Was confusing people one of the design goals?
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-official-msrp-299-nonreference-models-retail-329349/
The Titan series cards have always been $Texas, and will continue to shock and awe forevermore.
Maybe they're colluding with eBayers so that they can sell their old Titan Xes at new Titan X prices. If nothing else, it seems like this is going to help scammers.
I will admit that the Titan name didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I mean, when I think Titan I think of a big beefy card...but these days, all the mid and high end cards are big and beefy. Now all nVidia needs to do is make a Titan Ti...
The 1070 is $379 MSRP, the 970 launched at $300 MSRP
The 1080 is $650 MSRP, the 980 launched at $550 MSRP
And this doesn't include the founders edition Tax.
The Titan X is $1200, the previous gen Titan X was $1000. I barely count it because it's not a mass market card, but the increase is there too.
I'm not sure how anyone can say that nVidida didn't increase prices for this round, even before you take supply shortages into account.
For fairness, you should also include one more generation back and their MSRPs...
760 - $249
770 - $399
780 - $649
Ehh...why not keep going.
660 - $230
660Ti - $300
670 - $400
680 - $500
is this a good choice/price for a 1440/144Hz monitor?