$379 USD for the non-Sucker Edition. That's $500 CAD. And I thought the $400-$450 prices of the 970s were absolutely outrageous for a card that's the bottom of what's realistically necessary for acceptable settings at 1440p. With tax that's $565 for a lower-midrange card. Pass. And before anyone says anything about it not being towards the lower end due to how it performs compared to the last gen... No **** it should blow away the previous generation, hasn't it been like 20 months since the release of the last gen? That doesn't change the fact this 1070 is what would have been labled something like 1060 LE in the past due to its relative place in the actual spectrum. If Vega doesn't save the day I guess I'll buy a Neo PS4 or something. Cheaper than a low-mid range video card.

$379 USD for the non-Sucker Edition. That's $500 CAD. And I thought the $400-$450 prices of the 970s were absolutely outrageous for a card that's the bottom of what's realistically necessary for acceptable settings at 1440p. With tax that's $565 for a lower-midrange card. Pass. And before anyone says anything about it not being towards the lower end due to how it performs compared to the last gen... No **** it should blow away the previous generation, hasn't it been like 20 months since the release of the last gen? That doesn't change the fact this 1070 is what would have been labled something like 1060 LE in the past due to its relative place in the actual spectrum. If Vega doesn't save the day I guess I'll buy a Neo PS4 or something. Cheaper than a low-mid range video card.

Boo hoo, I paid $500 CAD for a Radeon 9800 Pro back in 2003. $500 CAD in 2016 isn't so bad. That being said, you have a GTX 970 already, so you might as well just skip a generation.

Something tells me the GTX 1070 will cost between €500-600. Mark my words. I seriously hope I'm wrong.

If Vega doesn't save the day I guess I'll buy a Neo PS4 or something. Cheaper than a low-mid range video card.

I don't think consoles gonna catch up with 970 perfomance any time soon. But yeah, sometimes you need to go really low to understand how happy you were. Playing on lowest PC settings with 30 fps cap and even lagging on some titles... I know for sure I won't be able to tolerate it going from 96 fps / 96 hz panel.

I don't think consoles gonna catch up with 970 perfomance any time soon. But yeah, sometimes you need to go really low to understand how happy you were. Playing on lowest PC settings with 30 fps cap and even lagging on some titles... I know for sure I won't be able to tolerate it going from 96 fps / 96 hz panel.

If anything is true about the gpu inside that upcoming ps4 it should actually have more tflop performance then stock 970. So all in all that piece of machine should very well perform better then a computer with 970. 36cu amd gpu @ 911mhz would be roughly 4.2 tflops and even overclocked 970 @ 1500 is just nearing 5tflops.

I want better performance and I want it to cost less and I want a pony and I want it right now.

I want better performance and I want it to cost less and I want a pony and I want it right now.

You ain't getting any ponies!

I want better performance and I want it to cost less and I want a pony and I want it right now.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/11314373.jpg :D

Boo hoo, I paid $500 CAD for a Radeon 9800 Pro back in 2003. $500 CAD in 2016 isn't so bad. That being said, you have a GTX 970 already, so you might as well just skip a generation.

The 9800 Pro was a high end card. The 1070 isn't. Huge difference. That was most of the point of what I was saying. A 1070 at $500 is like paying that much for a Radeon 9600 in 2003. The price isn't the problem, what we're getting for the price is; their 4th card down the line with a deceptive name. While we're playing the pricing game, I paid less than $400 CAD ($350?... don't remember) for a GTX 280 months before the GTX 285 was available. The 280 was the full blown chip, no cuts, not a lower architecture, nothing. The 285 was just a higher binned version in the future that managed higher stock clocks. There was no 280 Ti or Titan, the 280/285 were near identical and the highest end cards available; no naming agenda/scheme to try to pass a lower card as the high end. It's not that easy for me to skip a generation considering my monitor res is 1440p. Though I'm going to do it anyway. If I have to drop to 30 fps and make my eyes bleed or play on a console then so be it.

I want better performance and I want it to cost less and I want a pony and I want it right now.

*Shrug* Well enjoy paying higher prices every generation then. The fact that people are okay with nVidia gradually selling lesser and lesser cards as the "high end" for constantly increasing prices is why they can get away with it. If they saw even a 20% drop in sales do you think they'd continue?

Im expecting atleast 450€ in EU. Gonna wait for Polaris before i make my choice.

Boo hoo, I paid $500 CAD for a Radeon 9800 Pro back in 2003. $500 CAD in 2016 isn't so bad. That being said, you have a GTX 970 already, so you might as well just skip a generation.

can't agree more if you think the product is over priced satisfied with your 970 skip this gen. I'm more and more convinced of keeping my 980Ti until an actual performance jump, possibly until HBM2 product is there, specially i' still gaming 1080p, don ask:3eyes:. over 100Fps :infinity: maybe i'lll get another used 980Ti and finally upgrade to UHD, again performace to $ sounds more of a wise choice so far 🤓

Im expecting atleast 450€ in EU. Gonna wait for Polaris before i make my choice.

Founder Edition will be 500+ for sure. AIB's around there. Maybe some XFX with crappy coolers for less.

If anything is true about the gpu inside that upcoming ps4 it should actually have more tflop performance then stock 970. So all in all that piece of machine should very well perform better then a computer with 970. 36cu amd gpu @ 911mhz would be roughly 4.2 tflops and even overclocked 970 @ 1500 is just nearing 5tflops.

More performance is nice. So they gonna raise the cap to 60fps? Damn i bet those peasants gonna complain about lacking cinematic experience.. Or... they gonna enjoy 4k at 30fps. Holy **** 4 times bigger cinematic experience.. Peasants dream! :banana:

IVe got bit hopes for this one, but it all depends on the price. I wish it was something like £300-350 😀 But i would imagine its going to be in £450 region

*Shrug* Well enjoy paying higher prices every generation then. The fact that people are okay with nVidia gradually selling lesser and lesser cards as the "high end" for constantly increasing prices is why they can get away with it. If they saw even a 20% drop in sales do you think they'd continue?

Hmmmm ... aren't AMD doing exactly the same thing? There's not been a massive difference in pricing structures for either company, since AMD is currently relatively on the brink why aren't they smashing Nvidia to pieces with a "High end" card priced well. Whilst price gouging is obviously playing a part, this really indicates to me that the costs of development has relatively risen and unless some new technology comes along, we're never going to see old school pricing ever again.

nvidia have cut the gtx 1070 down a little too much i think they should have give the gtx 1070 more cuda cores than the gtx 980, and the price u.k it probably gonna be £400 , the problem for me with pascal is we know nvidia is gonna release that 1080 TI in few months and it probably have 12 or 16gb vram and be much faster and good price point just like the gtx 980 ti was , im gonna stick with gtx 970 for now and wait for the gtx 1080 TI

The 9800 Pro was a high end card. The 1070 isn't. Huge difference. That was most of the point of what I was saying. A 1070 at $500 is like paying that much for a Radeon 9600 in 2003. The price isn't the problem, what we're getting for the price is; their 4th card down the line with a deceptive name. While we're playing the pricing game, I paid less than $400 CAD ($350?... don't remember) for a GTX 280 months before the GTX 285 was available. The 280 was the full blown chip, no cuts, not a lower architecture, nothing. The 285 was just a higher binned version in the future that managed higher stock clocks. There was no 280 Ti or Titan, the 280/285 were near identical and the highest end cards available; no naming agenda/scheme to try to pass a lower card as the high end. It's not that easy for me to skip a generation considering my monitor res is 1440p. Though I'm going to do it anyway. If I have to drop to 30 fps and make my eyes bleed or play on a console then so be it. *Shrug* Well enjoy paying higher prices every generation then. The fact that people are okay with nVidia gradually selling lesser and lesser cards as the "high end" for constantly increasing prices is why they can get away with it. If they saw even a 20% drop in sales do you think they'd continue?

9800XT was the high end, not the Pro. There is also an entirely new gap now with 4K being available, yet not the overwhelming standard. There are going to be people looking for single card 60fps experiences there and in order to deliver that kind of performance the chips are going to have to be really big. Couple that with moore's law ceasing to scale properly and the complexity of the architecture/chip manufacturing increasing + inflation of the economy in general and it seems pretty reasonable that the prices have gone up. I bought a 8800GTX in 2006 for $600, that's $712 now with inflation.

Something tells me the GTX 1070 will cost between €500-600. Mark my words. I seriously hope I'm wrong.

Yeah, it's going to be $490 CAD + tax. The current exchange rate is 1.3. the Founders 1080 is $699 USD, and stores in Canada have it pre-order at $909 CAD (exactly $699 x 1.3)

The 9800 Pro was a high end card. The 1070 isn't. Huge difference. That was most of the point of what I was saying. A 1070 at $500 is like paying that much for a Radeon 9600 in 2003. The price isn't the problem, what we're getting for the price is; their 4th card down the line with a deceptive name. While we're playing the pricing game, I paid less than $400 CAD ($350?... don't remember) for a GTX 280 months before the GTX 285 was available. The 280 was the full blown chip, no cuts, not a lower architecture, nothing. The 285 was just a higher binned version in the future that managed higher stock clocks. There was no 280 Ti or Titan, the 280/285 were near identical and the highest end cards available; no naming agenda/scheme to try to pass a lower card as the high end. It's not that easy for me to skip a generation considering my monitor res is 1440p. Though I'm going to do it anyway. If I have to drop to 30 fps and make my eyes bleed or play on a console then so be it. *Shrug* Well enjoy paying higher prices every generation then. The fact that people are okay with nVidia gradually selling lesser and lesser cards as the "high end" for constantly increasing prices is why they can get away with it. If they saw even a 20% drop in sales do you think they'd continue?

The 2xx Series had the GTX 295 as the top card though, and it was $799 CAD when I bought it in 2009 (Yes the 280/285 was high end single GPU)

9800XT was the high end, not the Pro. There is also an entirely new gap now with 4K being available, yet not the overwhelming standard. There are going to be people looking for single card 60fps experiences there and in order to deliver that kind of performance the chips are going to have to be really big. Couple that with moore's law ceasing to scale properly and the complexity of the architecture/chip manufacturing increasing + inflation of the economy in general and it seems pretty reasonable that the prices have gone up. I bought a 8800GTX in 2006 for $600, that's $712 now with inflation.

The 9800 Pro was still a high end card with nothing cut, the 1070 is a joke compared to what the Titan will be. The 9800 XT was just 32MHz higher on the core and 25MHz on the memory - http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=36&card2=32# The 8800GTX/Ultra was the top end single GPU card, that's the equivalent of the current Titans by every metric but price. At least back then when they sold the Ultra binned version at a stupid price it was barely any different in actual performance, it was just a few MHz faster (37MHz LOL) like the 9800 Pro Vs XT example from earlier, but even less of a difference % wise. Now you'll get an entirely different architecture that has shaders cut to boot.

The 2xx Series had the GTX 295 as the top card though, and it was $799 CAD when I bought it in 2009 (Yes the 280/285 was high end single GPU)

Yeah, I'm only talking about apples to apples, single GPU cards. I honestly don't even bother remember dual GPU cards, I've intentionally avoided multi GPU setups. Maybe DX12/Vulkan/whatever will change that with the change in processing style. The bottom line is: Either nVidia/AMD's research/development is unsustainable in terms of the result in market prices at the rate they're going, or they're just abusing the niche market for every drop they can squeeze out. The truth is often somewhere in the middle, but I'm having an impossible time believing AMD/nVidia couldn't do much better if they really wanted.

Bang for buck relative to consoles has plummeted hard in the latest years, I remember I could easily play xbox games at twice console resolution (480i vs 768p) on my ati 8500 and friends with the fx5200 did it too, pff I was able to play call of duty 2 on dx7 40/60 @1024x768 smoothly. Then a couple of years after the xbox360 arrived one could get a $80 hd4670 (don´t remember the nvidia equivalent) and easily play console games at twice console resolution as well (1024p vs 540p). But today it seems that nvidia and amd have decided that you need to drop a small fortune to get the same amount of physical memory of the consoles and play at the same walmart tv 1080p resolution, oh and if you want smooth gameplay you better grab a new gsync/freesync monitor, because the card wont get you there by itself. IMO these two need to go under investigation again, because they are known to be naughty.