Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Dogbert666, 17 Oct 2016.
Soon you'll be blogging about how Nvidia and AMD need to get up to scratch for 8k 120hz Monitors...
Nvidia brings back 4 way Sli for Dual Chip Volta Titan XSuperHyperAbsurdPrice Edition
Anyway, given the performance boost from the 9x0 to the 10x0 series and considering the pound has been falling against the USD for years now it was unfortunately pretty inevitable that prices would go up.
Now we just need AMD to deliver something that triggers some pricecuts in response.
I think the gains are much too slim. My GTX 970, bought earlier this year when prices were sliding, is not going to be replaced until GTX 11xx or 12xx (or AMD equivalent) hit the market. The RPG/MMORPG games I play, tend not to be the most demanding of the GPU.
I saw a guy on another forum yesterday "upgrade" his 970 to a 1060. I so nearly posted a smart assed side grade comment.
Didn't realise there was that much in it tbh.
When I upgrade I like to see a big improvement to justify the cost. Last time it was from GTX 660ti to GTX 970, factory OCed. Together with a monitor upgrade, resolution up from 1080p to 1440p, I saw an fps increase in Skyrim of around 30+%. That's my kind of upgrade.
So, I just upgraded my 970 to a 1070, are we forgetting the trade in value of the old card? I certainly didn't pay £430...
I tend to wait for a few generations between graphics upgrades, so the cost doesn't feel as bad for me... like my recent switch from the 670 to 1070.
Normally my maximum GPU budget is somewhere in the region of 2.5x CPU cost.
Until the 1070 it was very wise to stay on the 70 series. I had two 670s they were absolutely amazing. Sadly though the 1070 is around £100 more expensive than the 970.
It's still a nice step up, but too much money IMO.
If I used your figures my max gpu cost is £780.
Still planning on selling my two Asus 970's for about £100 a piece when the 1080Ti lands.
Assuming it's going to cost the best part of £800, so with the 970's money put towards the cost.
Spending £600 will still feel painful and will no doubt induce a heavy dose of buyers remorse for a few weeks afterwards.
My ratio's not suited to everyone's budgeting but I don't do much else that requires money these days so I'm happy to splash out on tech.
In the end I only spent about 60% of my max budget though, so having a high budget like that isn't too bad.
So I sold my MSI GTX 970 and also a few other bits of tech I just wasn't using (Galaxy NotePro 12.2 tablet) - my MSI GTX 1070 ended up costing me £130 cash...
Except it didn't. It cost you £430 or whatever. You then offset that cost with money earned from the sale of other stuff. Which you could have done with any of the generations.
You've still shelled out more money for your card than you would have done had prices between the generations stayed almost the same.
I'd agree with that Only thing is I'm now buying new 1440p monitors x 2 to replace the 1080p x 2 that I was using with the 970...
MOAR MONITORS!! I like the shape of your forward sail
I said all this (whats said in this article) to you on the forum months ago about nvidia doing this with its naming and pricing and you wouldnt hear any of it. Same with most people in that thread tbh. ill take that nice big slice of i told you so right now thanks.
no one forgot, its just irreverent.
Looking at relative performance on TPU @1080, I'd argue the replacement for the 970 would actually be faster than the 1060.
780 ->980 greater than 20% increase
770 -> 970 20-25% increase
570 -> 670 greater than 25% increase (1920x1200)
580 -> 680 20-25% increase (1920x1200)
970 ->1070 36% increase
960 -> 1060 47% increase
970 ->1060 14% increase
Seems to me a 1060Ti right in the middle of the 1070 and 1060 would be in the right place for the 970 replacement giving 25% increase in performance.
Well no not really. I've not seen a decent 970 overclock when comparing the two, only the 1060 OC vs the 970.
Easier way buy what you can afford without regrets.
Separate names with a comma.