Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Report: GeForce GTX 980 Will Cost $599

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Components
  • Nvidia
Last response: in News comments
Share
a b U Graphics card
September 16, 2014 8:41:29 AM

The rumor mill has churned out some pricing info for the upcoming GTX 980 and GTX 970.

Report: GeForce GTX 980 Will Cost $599 : Read more

More about : report geforce gtx 980 cost 599

September 16, 2014 9:09:14 AM

Seeing as the 780 ti can be had for just over $600, I can't see the 980 being priced at $599 with performance a little lower than the 780 ti as leaked benchmarks are suggesting. What would be the point?
m
15
l
September 16, 2014 9:16:52 AM

Quote:
Seeing as the 780 ti can be had for just over $600, I can't see the 980 being priced at $599 with performance a little lower than the 780 ti as leaked benchmarks are suggesting. What would be the point?


They'll probably lower the price of the 780 ti, just like what happened with the 780 when the 780 ti was released.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 16, 2014 9:21:37 AM

I'm sorry but this generation is kind of a fail on desktop if the 980 truly is no stronger than the 780 Ti. Now Laptops will get a VERY nice boost, but still this leaves Nvidia open for a massive reaming from AMD if they are not careful. If AMD really does release a 3072 SP monster with 7GHz memory and Tonga improvements they could stomp the 980 by at least 20-30%. That would be worth the power consumption too for ANY enthusiast.
m
2
l
September 16, 2014 9:22:15 AM

Having read the German article, they're basing those numbers on pre-listings which are usually over-inflated so hopefully the originally rumoured price of $499 is what the 980 will actually be sold at.
m
1
l
September 16, 2014 9:23:24 AM

Quote:
Seeing as the 780 ti can be had for just over $600, I can't see the 980 being priced at $599 with performance a little lower than the 780 ti as leaked benchmarks are suggesting. What would be the point?


The point would be to milk every penny from consumers until R9 3xx comes along.
m
9
l
a c 84 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 9:25:59 AM

Nvidia Geforce must not be focusing too much on performance (just compare the 980 to 780 ti and there isn't much of a performance increase), but mainly targeting high resolution monitors and lower tdp. Which is good since 4k is gona get really popular really fast so I'd say it's good they are sticking to focusing on memory and bandwidth.
m
0
l
September 16, 2014 9:36:37 AM

Its almost like Nvidia is doing a tick tock cycle like Intel, they innovate on a tick and then shrink and reduce power consumption on a tock.
m
2
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 9:43:31 AM

we all knew this wasn't going to be the flagship maxwell gtx1000 or gtx1000ti based on the gm210 which will likely carry a 275w tdp and at least a 30% performance improvement over gk110. we will have to wait another year for that.

that said… a 180w tdp is a huge improvement of worthy praise.
m
2
l
a c 247 U Graphics card
a c 94 Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 9:55:27 AM

The highest rated 780 Ti (aside from highly specialized versions aka KingPin) has been $600 every other week or so on newegg for 4-5 months. Asus 780 Ti is $580, Gigabyte's is $600.

The 980 is what it is intended to be, a card faster than anything offered by the competition. The Ti or whatever card nVidia holds in it's back pocket won't be released till after AMD shows it's hand. To quote Yogi .... "It's déjà vu all over again"

The question I am seeking to have answered is how much overclocking headroom they have will they leave .... stick with the typical 25% or drive the clocks up closer to the edge like the R9 series.

Gotta read more closely before you draw conclusions on performance differences. The article is misleading in that it isn't comparing apples and apples. The 780 Ti in the graph that it is being compared with is overclocked. The base clock of the 780 Ti is 876 Mhz. The ones shown in the graph are at 928 (5.9% OC) and 1150 (31.3% OC). The stock 980 is 3% slower than the 31 % overclocked 780 Ti not the stock 876 Mhz 780 Ti. The 980's base clock is 1126/1127 depending on source.

The 5.6% (1190 / 1126) OC on the 980 scores 13005
The 5.9 % (928 / 876) OC on the 780 Ti score is 11096

That's a 17% performance difference at the same ~ 6% OC
m
9
l
September 16, 2014 9:57:57 AM

Instead of tic tock they should only do the Tock ... but likes some one above said .. they need to milk people for money. This way it would be worth buying new stuff...
Or consumers need to get smart (yeah right) and buy only on the tock.

And i always hate fan boys living in a fairy tale where they see their brand with over 30% more performance over the competition... you have nothing to base your assumptions on and you still make them ....
m
-1
l
September 16, 2014 9:59:30 AM

The GTX 980 is shown to be better than the 780TI according to the numbers, why does the guy who makes these articles keep insisting it's slower?
m
1
l
a c 247 U Graphics card
a c 94 Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 10:01:02 AM

chaospower said:
The GTX 980 is shown to be better than the 780TI according to the numbers, why does the guy who makes these articles keep insisting it's slower?


It's all in how you interpret the data.... the graphs just say a 31% OC'd 780 Ti is 3% faster than a stock 980. See two posts up.

m
3
l
September 16, 2014 10:13:43 AM

I did see that, all it means is that only someone who doesn't understand the concept of overclocking would interpert the data as stated in the article. Aka, wrongly.
m
2
l
September 16, 2014 10:20:16 AM

Wow kind of a fail, I had actually kicked around the idea of upgrading my 780 to the 980 but the performance gains (stock) just aren't there and for $600 give me a break. I may wait until the non reference TI's come out, if price is better and OC potential is high I may reconsider.
m
-1
l
a c 247 U Graphics card
a c 94 Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 10:35:07 AM

pills161 said:
Wow kind of a fail, I had actually kicked around the idea of upgrading my 780 to the 980 but the performance gains (stock) just aren't there and for $600 give me a break. I may wait until the non reference TI's come out, if price is better and OC potential is high I may reconsider.


The 980 is 17% faster according to the charts at same OC level ..... The 780 was 21% faster than the 680 in TPUs game summary .... not sure about firestrike.... we'll know in a few days. Still not much of a surprise.....certainly typical.


chaospower said:
I did see that, all it means is that only someone who doesn't understand the concept of overclocking would interpert the data as stated in the article. Aka, wrongly.


Well I can understand the rush to publish something and maybe missing the fact that none of the 780 Tis they put in the comparison chart were at stock settings. I agree author should have checked put videocardz.com shuda made that clear too.

Then again, I'll bet the rash of articles poo pooing the 980 will run 2nd only to those poo pooing Apples new phone :) . We saw the same thing when the R9 series was released. All the focus was on power and heat and less on the fact that AMD was overclocking the crap outta these cards and providing a warranty on that performance. If you have ever had to argue with a manufacturer about a factory OC'd card not being able too run at factory OC, it's laborious.

The fact that we only see a 6% OC in that chart I wonder if that's indicative of nVidia following suit.

But 180 TDB .... dang you water cool a pair of those with a lot less radiator....a 360mm rad with 1250 rpm fans and ya done .... or even a 280 at 1400 rpm.

I wouldn't doubt if nVidia does bump the price up $100 given the price of the 290x, if there's enough stock around still, why sabotage what they are getting for the 780 / 780 Ti. No doubt they have room to sell it at $499 and that's where it will go when AMD answers. Good for those that wait ..... not so good for early adopters.

m
2
l
September 16, 2014 11:03:28 AM

I want DP 1.3 and HDMI 2.0 with atleast 4g of memory with 15,000 3DMark GPU Score to even think of upgrading. Right now, R290 is my go to card mostly because of the 4g of video.
m
2
l
a b U Graphics card
September 16, 2014 11:05:07 AM

makes me wish I hadn't sold my old GTX 980 on ebay several years ago....
m
-2
l
a c 91 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 11:09:38 AM

Quote:
we would expect the GTX 980 to sit right between the two, while the GTX 970 will perform slightly slower than the GTX 780. This product stack placement is supported by the calculated benchmark scores.


No, Tom's, it's not supported by the benchmark scores. Go look at what the site that you're using AS YOUR VALIDATION says... out of three tests of the 980, two of them are faster than a 780ti, and one of them is 3% slower. That's not "between the 780ti and the 780."

Do some research, or at least please read the articles that you're putting in your own stories.

In addition, those are synthetic benchmarks. We have no idea how well these things are actually going to perform, which means that all articles like these are doing is adding fuel for the trolls and misinformed. (Who are mostly misinformed from your own incorrect articles.)
m
2
l
a c 247 U Graphics card
a c 94 Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 11:12:14 AM

Lamontiego said:
I want DP 1.3 and HDMI 2.0 with atleast 4g of memory with 15,000 3DMark GPU Score to even think of upgrading. Right now, R290 is my go to card mostly because of the 4g of video.


Have you found anything that shows a performance increase at 4 GB. Other than this, which shows that some games will show 1 fps or so gain at 5760 x 1080 at 4 GB, I haven't found anything indicating a performance advantage. Yes as it says in last paragraph, some games will use more than 2 GB, but the performance didn't change at all # 5760 going from 2 to 4 GB

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-teste...

Quote:
There is one last thing to note with Max Payne 3: It would not normally allow one to set 4xAA at 5760×1080 with any 2GB card as it claims to require 2750MB. However, when we replaced the 4GB GTX 770 with the 2GB version, the game allowed the setting. And there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s.


With this such a common subject of conversation, it's surprising that there is such a dearth of test data on the subject.
m
1
l
September 16, 2014 11:19:05 AM

Just about the only reason to upgrade would be for the larger RAM if you're going to play at 1440p or above. That's the reason I'm waiting, at least. Of course, I have a pair of radeon 5850s sitting around right now - ANYTHING will beat the pants off of these two stalwarts.
m
0
l
September 16, 2014 11:33:48 AM

I'd like to buy the GTX 980 for $400 dollars, Alex! I'd also pay $300 for the GTX 970. Come on NVIDIA, don't make me pay over $400 for one of these and have to go on a cracker and water diet for 2 months!
m
1
l
a c 247 U Graphics card
a c 94 Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 12:08:26 PM

The original source actually quotes 165 watts

http://videocardz.com/52362/only-at-vc-nvidia-geforce-g...

And for those that asked about DP .... disappointment follows:

Quote:
GeForce GTX 980 has 2048 CUDA cores, 128 TMUs and 64 ROPs. Card is equipped with 4GB GDDR5 memory and 256-bit interface. It has a bandwidth of GTX 770, which is 224 GB/s. By comparing it to Kepler parts, we notice that Maxwell-based graphics cards arrive with relatively higher clock speeds, GTX 980 has a base clock of 1126 MHz and boost clock of 1216 MHz.

The biggest news here is that GTX 980 has only a TDP of 165W. That’s amazing power reduction compared to 250W GK110.

Last but not least, I can now confirm that GeForce GTX 980 has HDMI 2.0 support. And if you somehow missed my previous news, GTX 980 has 5 display outputs: DVI-I, HDMI2.0 and three DisplayPorts 1.2 (not 1.3).

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 will be released on September 19th. Card is expected to cost around $599 USD (unconfirmed).
m
1
l
September 16, 2014 12:19:03 PM

We are comparing stock clocked 980 to overclocked 780 Ti. Id like to see what factory overclocked GTX 980s can do before we declare it a failure.
m
1
l
September 16, 2014 12:20:39 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
Lamontiego said:
I want DP 1.3 and HDMI 2.0 with atleast 4g of memory with 15,000 3DMark GPU Score to even think of upgrading. Right now, R290 is my go to card mostly because of the 4g of video.


Have you found anything that shows a performance increase at 4 GB. Other than this, which shows that some games will show 1 fps or so gain at 5760 x 1080 at 4 GB, I haven't found anything indicating a performance advantage. Yes as it says in last paragraph, some games will use more than 2 GB, but the performance didn't change at all # 5760 going from 2 to 4 GB

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-teste...

Quote:
There is one last thing to note with Max Payne 3: It would not normally allow one to set 4xAA at 5760×1080 with any 2GB card as it claims to require 2750MB. However, when we replaced the 4GB GTX 770 with the 2GB version, the game allowed the setting. And there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s.


With this such a common subject of conversation, it's surprising that there is such a dearth of test data on the subject.


I went from a 2g to a 4g because of higher resolution prospects for down the road. I do monitor how much memory is cashed in the video memory and often it does exceed 2g's and I have seen it as high as almost 4g's at 1080p. I do want to game at 4k eventually, when it is affordable, and I can do it at 60hz for now in a CF configuration. Now I understand with the new DP 1.3 can provide 120hz so It's now the graphic cards and panel/monitor/TV makers turn to supply the interface. So, if you're OK with 1080p resolution, then going over 2g's of video memory might be unnecessary in most current games but what about games released in the next year or two? I would avoid 2g cards for the enthusiast gamer.
m
-2
l
September 16, 2014 12:21:14 PM

if this retails for more than a 290x that has a decent 3rd party cooling solution, personally that's a fail for me. ignorant masses may snatch one up on the nomenclature alone (see?! it's a 980! that's _TWO_ generations over the 780!! /sarcasm ) but energy savings really isn't saving if it costs as much if nor more than the current-gen flagships. I'll reserve my final verdict til they actually release but the 980 needs to be a sub $500 card.
m
0
l
September 16, 2014 12:29:39 PM

And if they profit and do 1 dollar = 1 euro I will not be able to afford it.
m
0
l
a c 273 U Graphics card
a c 173 Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 12:45:48 PM

chaospower said:
I did see that, all it means is that only someone who doesn't understand the concept of overclocking would interpert the data as stated in the article. Aka, wrongly.


Or there might be an NDA in place restricting what and how things can be said?
m
0
l
September 16, 2014 1:11:27 PM

Quote:
I'm sorry but this generation is kind of a fail on desktop if the 980 truly is no stronger than the 780 Ti. Now Laptops will get a VERY nice boost, but still this leaves Nvidia open for a massive reaming from AMD if they are not careful. If AMD really does release a 3072 SP monster with 7GHz memory and Tonga improvements they could stomp the 980 by at least 20-30%. That would be worth the power consumption too for ANY enthusiast.


Why would it be a fail? You're comparing apples to oranges here. The 980 GTX is the replacement for the 780 GTX, Not the 780ti GTX. The 980 GTX will be about 20% faster than the 780 GTX is, and then Nvidia will probably release a 980TI GTX sometime down the road that will be 15 - 20% faster than the 780ti GTX.

I'm not sure why you're comparing a TI to a non-TI.

Also, hopefully this generation we'll get a dual GPU card at a reasonable price point. That's what I'm holding out for. I want 2x 990 GTXs for Quad SLI so I can push over 144 FPS in new games on my ROG Swift. Hopefully at around a $1000 per-card price point.

The last one we got was the Titan Z, which was priced at $3000 for a hybrid gamer/professional card.

I'm waiting for something like the 690 GTX, but in the latest 900 series.
m
1
l
September 16, 2014 1:15:51 PM

So what happened to GTX 880, is generation 8 being skipped?
m
0
l
September 16, 2014 1:35:47 PM

The TDP will definitely support dual GPU cards for 980...
m
0
l
September 16, 2014 1:53:23 PM

At $500 i was thinking of purchasing 2 to replace my aging gtx 690 but at 600 a pop ill just wait for the r9 390x or 980 tis price wars
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 2:02:11 PM

airborne11b said:
Quote:
I'm sorry but this generation is kind of a fail on desktop if the 980 truly is no stronger than the 780 Ti. Now Laptops will get a VERY nice boost, but still this leaves Nvidia open for a massive reaming from AMD if they are not careful. If AMD really does release a 3072 SP monster with 7GHz memory and Tonga improvements they could stomp the 980 by at least 20-30%. That would be worth the power consumption too for ANY enthusiast.


Why would it be a fail? You're comparing apples to oranges here. The 980 GTX is the replacement for the 780 GTX, Not the 780ti GTX. The 980 GTX will be about 20% faster than the 780 GTX is, and then Nvidia will probably release a 980TI GTX sometime down the road that will be 15 - 20% faster than the 780ti GTX.

I'm not sure why you're comparing a TI to a non-TI.

Also, hopefully this generation we'll get a dual GPU card at a reasonable price point. That's what I'm holding out for. I want 2x 990 GTXs for Quad SLI so I can push over 144 FPS in new games on my ROG Swift. Hopefully at around a $1000 per-card price point.

The last one we got was the Titan Z, which was priced at $3000 for a hybrid gamer/professional card.

I'm waiting for something like the 690 GTX, but in the latest 900 series.


aberkae said:
At $500 i was thinking of purchasing 2 to replace my aging gtx 690 but at 600 a pop ill just wait for the r9 390x or 980 tis price wars


the 980ti, if it exists, would be the full gm204 chip without any gimps. the gm210 chip will likely be the gtx1000 and 1000ti in its full and gimped form, and maybe some in-between double floating point version like the titan.
m
0
l
September 16, 2014 2:09:35 PM

I have a i7 4770K and 16GB DDR3 1600Mhz with two GTX 780 SC on SLI. I play at 1080p on a 32" HDTV and like playing with everything maxed out (ultra). Do you think that at said resolution I would experience a difference if I buy two GTX 980 to replace my two GTX 780 or should I stick with those cards and wait for 4K to become more common and buy the newest video cards by then and a 4K display?
m
0
l
September 16, 2014 2:42:51 PM

burmese_dude said:
So what happened to GTX 880, is generation 8 being skipped?


yes
m
0
l
a c 247 U Graphics card
a c 94 Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 2:57:05 PM

zankuto said:
We are comparing stock clocked 980 to overclocked 780 Ti. Id like to see what factory overclocked GTX 980s can do before we declare it a failure.


From the data, a 6% OC'd 980 is 17% faster than a 6% OC'd 780 Ti ..... Ti's can OC 30% ./.... dunno what 980's will do.


airborne11b said:
Why would it be a fail? You're comparing apples to oranges here. The 980 GTX is the replacement for the 780 GTX, Not the 780ti GTX. The 980 GTX will be about 20% faster than the 780 GTX is, and then Nvidia will probably release a 980TI GTX sometime down the road that will be 15 - 20% faster than the 780ti GTX. I'm not sure why you're comparing a TI to a non-TI.


People are comparing a 31 % overclocked 780 Ti to the stock 980.

The same graph includes a 6% OC 980 and a 6% OC 780 Ti .... the 980 w/ 6% OC is 17% faster than the 780 Ti w/ 6% OC.


Quote:
So what happened to GTX 880, is generation 8 being skipped?


On the desktop yes ..... there are various 8xxM models ... 820M, 830M, 840M, 850M, 860M, 870M and 880M.






m
1
l
a c 247 U Graphics card
a c 94 Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 3:16:49 PM

Lamontiego said:


I went from a 2g to a 4g because of higher resolution prospects for down the road. I do monitor how much memory is cashed in the video memory and often it does exceed 2g's and I have seen it as high as almost 4g's at 1080p. I do want to game at 4k eventually, when it is affordable, and I can do it at 60hz for now in a CF configuration. Now I understand with the new DP 1.3 can provide 120hz so It's now the graphic cards and panel/monitor/TV makers turn to supply the interface. So, if you're OK with 1080p resolution, then going over 2g's of video memory might be unnecessary in most current games but what about games released in the next year or two? I would avoid 2g cards for the enthusiast gamer.


Yes DP1.3 should bring 144 Hz triple monitors to AMD .... never did quite understand why nVidia could do it and AMD couldn't, as i recall was related to the fact that Eyefinity required DP. Unfortunately no DP 1.3 on the 980. I don't have a horse in the race so to speak having 3 GB cards but I just don't understand with all the talk about VRAM, ya think more sites would have tested it.

Used to be easy back in the old days ..... resolution x color depth / 8

I remember when I bought a $2.1k Eizo 1600 x 1200 ..... and looking for cards with a then whopping 8 MB of VRAM :) 

1600 x 1200 x 32 / 8 = 7.68 MB


faive123 said:
I have a i7 4770K and 16GB DDR3 1600Mhz with two GTX 780 SC on SLI. I play at 1080p on a 32" HDTV and like playing with everything maxed out (ultra). Do you think that at said resolution I would experience a difference if I buy two GTX 980 to replace my two GTX 780 or should I stick with those cards and wait for 4K to become more common and buy the newest video cards by then and a 4K display?


General wisdom is, you need to jump at least 3 tiers to 'notice" a difference in performance. The 780 is two tiers above a 580 so that would one one short..... the 480 would be 4 tiers....a 3 tier jump from the 480 to the 770 is 3 tiers.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

Quote:
I don’t recommend upgrading your graphics card unless the replacement card is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel, and you may not even notice any worthwhile difference in performance.


The tiered rankings are on that link.

So .... carrying that forward, to really notice a difference, you'd be looking to upgrade to a pair of 170s (980, 1080, 1170) assuming no more skippies.

m
0
l
September 16, 2014 4:37:05 PM

Give me 6-10 gb of vram. (For zbrush) I would be a happy camper.
m
0
l
September 16, 2014 4:56:05 PM

Quote:
Seeing as the 780 ti can be had for just over $600, I can't see the 980 being priced at $599 with performance a little lower than the 780 ti as leaked benchmarks are suggesting. What would be the point?

Exactly.

Every generation for the last many generations it always goes like this:
GTX 460 = GTX 280
GTX 570 = GTX 480
GTX 670 = GTX 580
It's always a one or so bump in the product SKU

These companies like Nvidia know exactly what they are doing before launching new products. Why do you think the GK110 was withheld and branded as GTX 700 series instead of being released as the 680? Because it was so much more powerful than the GK104 branded parts that make up the lower GTX 600 series
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
September 16, 2014 6:02:24 PM

http://cdn.eteknix.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/gtx98...

these are final specs and it just a slower 780ti that is much more efficient. this info originates at videocardz.com

looks like 800 fewer unified cores than the 780ti and r9 290x.

I am glad that people care about power consumption but i would rather put on some good headphones and get solar panels than give up performance.

this new card is seriously clocked
m
-1
l
a c 247 U Graphics card
a c 94 Î Nvidia
September 16, 2014 7:46:49 PM

Those final specs came from the videocardz site linked above.....CHECK THE GRAPHS.

The author compared the reference 980 with a 780 Ti THAT WAS OVERCLOCKED 31%

Quote:
these are final specs and it just a slower 780ti


No. No. No. The reference 980 is 3% slower than the 780 Ti with a 31% overclock. The reference 980 was never compared with a referEnce 780 Ti.



The reference 980 (1127 Core Clock) is shown getting a score of 12,328
The next highest 980 (1178 Core Clock) is shown getting a score of 12,847 with a 4.5 % overclock
The highest 980 (1190 Core Clock) is shown getting a score of 13,005 with a 5.5 % overclock

The reference 780 ti (876 core clock) is NOT shown
The lowest clocked 780 Ti (928 Core Clock) is shown getting a score of 11,096 with a 5.9 % overclock
The highest 780 Ti (1150 Core Clock) is shown getting a score of 12,702 with a 31.2 % overclock

The 980 (w/ 5.5% OC) with a score of 13,005 beats the 780 Ti (w/higher 5.9% OC) with a score of 11,096 by 17.2% ! That is faster not slower.
m
2
l
September 16, 2014 8:36:49 PM

So basically if you already own a 780 or 780 Ti its not worth an upgrade. Playing at 4K res with 2 GTX 780 classifieds will do me fine well into 2015 then.
m
-2
l
September 16, 2014 11:57:01 PM

Really hoping they pulled some magic to make the 980 more powerful than the 780ti, though it's seeming like an over priced low power usage 780, I'd love one to replace my 760, but it's seeming like I should just wait till a 980ti variant comes out.....
m
-1
l
September 17, 2014 2:10:46 AM

I think some of you need a reminder what Maxwell was supposed to be, which is, an improvement in efficiency over the current generation. Wasn't supposed to be a powerhouse. I do believe Volta is the solution there.
m
1
l
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2014 7:08:39 AM

This thing better beat the 780ti by quite a margin for it to stand a chance to compete.
m
0
l
September 17, 2014 7:41:39 AM

It's obvious that Nvidia is holding back its tech and waiting for AMD to see what they have. If AMD brings out a faster gpu then expect Nvidia to answer them within months with a 980 Ti model that's faster. In other words, Nvidia is milking their gpu for all it is worth. If AMD gave Intel any challenge on their cpu then expect Intel to do the same.
m
0
l
September 17, 2014 8:03:15 AM

Hey gang--As you can see above, we've updated this article to address some errors that you folks astutely found.

We want our coverage to be the best you can find anywhere, and we work very hard to be as accurate as possible; even so, sometimes we fall short, which we did here. Rather than hide from our mistake and pull this post, though, we wanted to acknowledge our error and fix it, instead.

Part of what makes Tom's Hardware a special site is our community, which is deeply engaged and frequently displays an extremely high level of knowledge. That's you guys. Your collective sharp eye helps us do better.

Thanks for caring about our content as much as we do.
m
3
l
a c 91 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
September 17, 2014 8:48:01 AM

scolaner said:
Hey gang--As you can see above, we've updated this article to address some errors that you folks astutely found.

We want our coverage to be the best you can find anywhere, and we work very hard to be as accurate as possible; even so, sometimes we fall short, which we did here. Rather than hide from our mistake and pull this post, though, we wanted to acknowledge our error and fix it, instead.

Part of what makes Tom's Hardware a special site is our community, which is deeply engaged and frequently displays an extremely high level of knowledge. That's you guys. Your collective sharp eye helps us do better.

Thanks for caring about our content as much as we do.


Glad to see that, mate.

Hopefully this will get some of the commentators to chill out and realize that not only are they getting what they wanted, but that it's more than enough of a jump in power, efficiency, and a drop in price... and that nobody reasonable expects to upgrade from one generation to the next anyways.
m
1
l
September 17, 2014 7:27:40 PM

well I have a 760 that is doing everything I want. I run SWTOR mostly and it looks fine. I would like to go to 4k someday so I can wait a small bit.
m
0
l
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!