Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 Graphics Card Prices

Ok, not really an "article" but more of a list of video cards with referral links. Maybe tomshardware can start a new section called clickbait and put it there, as to not confuse readers looking at articles since this is posted under "articles" on the main page. Nice quick money grab though. I'm sure there will be at least a few suckers who will click those links for you.

Meh. Its an article to me, a person who is interested in the increasing prices of Nvidia mid range cards such as this. Personally, it tells me a lot about the cards and how well they are selling as well as the mining issue and how long until Volta is released. The face that Pascal is no longer being manufactured to the amount to keep up with pricing tells me that volta is under 6 months away for sure, and I would bet 4 months until its revealed.

I have no complaints about it in part because the headline is completely accurate and the contents were exactly what I expected. If it had said review, or roundup, or something other than prices at the end I might feel differently.

Could use some plots of price over time. pcpartpicker has those, but only for specific models and not overall trends.

How dare you place self updating prices for the Nvidia Geforce GTX 1070 in an article about Nvidia Geforce GTX 1070 prices

That handy chart showing the technical details of all of the Nvidia cards was also completely out of line


In all seriousness I didn't know the Geforce 1050 and the 1030 were made on a smaller process node than the others.

Seems odd they would use totally different manufacturing methods for the low end and not just use the worst of the 1060s with the defected areas disabled, but I'm sure they have their reasons.

No issues with article, title clearly explained its intent.

Plus I just used these types of articles last month when I built my new rig for price comparisons.

Huh, I was thinking those prices seemed kind of high for a 1070...

Until I saw the prices for Micro Center (http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?N=4294966937+4294840904&NTX=&NTT=&NTK=all&page=1&sortby=pricelow)...

I guess semi-good news, they actually have RX 570 & 580 cards in stock, & their prices are back to being comparable (RX 570 = 1060 3GB, RX 580 = 1060 6GB). No Vega 56 cards, though, just the Vega 64 air-cooled models (single fan?!? & not on AMD reference cards, but on the partner model!?!)... & at their prices, you can get a 1080TI for the same price (or, get a 1080 for the price of a 1070).

20123319 said:

How dare you place self updating prices for the Nvidia Geforce GTX 1070 in an article about Nvidia Geforce GTX 1070 prices

That handy chart showing the technical details of all of the Nvidia cards was also completely out of line


In all seriousness I didn't know the Geforce 1050 and the 1030 were made on a smaller process node than the others.

Seems odd they would use totally different manufacturing methods for the low end and not just use the worst of the 1060s with the defected areas disabled, but I'm sure they have their reasons.

I'm glad to see that the majority of readers see value in these articles and understand their purpose. We have been creating several of these to assist people with new PC builds, by making it easy to find the best prices on parts online. We hastened production of these GPU price lists due to the shortage, and it does help in keeping an eye on the GPU shortage as well.

@derekullo: It was surprising when Nvidia announced the use of 12nm transistors in its lower-end 1000 series GPUs. I am curious if the 14nm process offered notable advantages in power consumption and die area over the 16nm process. I suspect it might have, and Nvidia made the decision to go with 14nm on those lower-end GPUs to better serve laptops. I don't have anything to support that idea, but just a thought. It is noteworthy that the 14nm parts do have lower clock speeds than the 16nm parts. Just a general observation.

20125530 said:

I am curious if the 14nm process offered notable advantages in power consumption and die area over the 16nm process. I suspect it might have, and Nvidia made the decision to go with 14nm on those lower-end GPUs to better serve laptops.

Power efficiency (in GFLOPS/W) of the GTX 1050's is actually worse than most of AMD's GPUs, while the GTX 1030 and 1060 match the bottom of their curve at about 32. The 1050 delivers 23 GFLOPS/W, while the 1050 Ti achieves 26. The 1080 is far more efficient, at about 46 GFLOPS/W, though it's usually the bigger GPUs that are most efficient. Vega 56 is AMD's best, at about 40 GFLOPS/W.

Anyway, this leads me to suspect that the reason for using 14 nm was cost-based, and because GPUs this small aren't so much limited by power or thermals (except in laptops).

It certainly could be price.