Prices fall on Nvidia’s Maxwell cards, but deals they’re not

The launches of the GeForce GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 didn't make retail inventory of Nvidia's Maxwell graphics cards disappear, and it looks like the first waves of major price cuts are starting to hit those cards as we speak. Those cuts are deepest at what used to be the top end of the market. A glance at Newegg shows GeForce GTX 980 Tis are now selling for anywhere from $430 to $450 at their lowest, and cheaper GTX 970s can be had starting from $240.

These price drops might look good on their faces, so we'll be blunt: there's virtually no reason to buy any Maxwell card for the same price as one with a Pascal chip. The GeForce GTX 980 Ti and the GTX 1070 perform about the same, to be sure, but the Maxwell card doesn't benefit from Pascal's architectural or process improvements. Nvidia's latest chip has some especially tantalizing features tailored specifically to the needs of VR, and it appears better-positioned to handle asynchronous workloads compared to the last generation of GeForces. The GTX 1070 also needs just 150W to do its thing, compared to the GTX 980 Ti's 250W board power. Even for the slightly inflated prices they're selling for right now, custom GTX 1070s are just more appealing than a GTX 980 Ti.

Looking to lower-end parts like the GeForce GTX 970, the ground is shifting there, as well. While you can get those VR-capable cards for as little as $220 right now with rebates, AMD's soon-to-launch Radeon RX 480 will carry a $200 suggested price when it arrives on June 29. We don't know a whole lot about how that card will perform yet, but the rumor mill suggests it'll land somewhere between a GTX 970 and a GTX 980 in raw performance. If that's the case—and it's a big if—we'd certainly pick the newer part and pocket some savings if RX 480 prices at retail stick close to AMD's suggested price.

It seems likely that prices on Maxwell cards and older Radeons will continue to fall as time goes on, but unless those cuts result in some really compelling deals, we'd sit tight and see what the full product lineup from both the red and green teams looks like before giving in to an impulse decision on prior-generation hardware. Don't expect to see many graphics cards in our deals-of-the-week posts for a while.

Comments closed
    • TheMonkeyKing
    • 4 years ago

    Again at the risk of being downvoted again, we, the general populace won’t see those AMD cards at $200 any time soon, especially if they match their intended specs. Maybe by the time Thanksgiving rolls around…

    So I guess the key takeaway is that unless you need a card right now (your current one died), you might as well wait for Christmas.

    • Wonders
    • 4 years ago

    Thank you Jeff – recommendations on purchasing coming from folks who monitor these developments for a living, such as yourself, are always timely and valuable. We just had a Maxwell card die in a gaming rig and were unsure which way to call it. (Or whether to sneak it in an employer’s reflow oven).

    • deruberhanyok
    • 4 years ago

    For the performance improvement the Pascal cards provide, these would have to drop much further in price before they’d be a deal.

    I mean, GTX 970 for under $150 kind of price drop. Clearance prices, basically.

    • ronch
    • 4 years ago

    I’d just go for the newer Polaris cards, or Pascal if NV puts out price-competitive parts.

      • f0d
      • 4 years ago

      yep
      imo both polaris and pascal are a better choice than 390/390X/fury or 970/980/980ti

      whichever pricepoint you are looking for get polaris/pascal instead of the old 28nm cards

    • TwoEars
    • 4 years ago

    From what I’ve seen you can buy a 980Ti card for about the same as a 1070 card. Which isn’t really a deal… really. I mean the performance is very close but one is last gen and one isn’t.

    • DragonFli
    • 4 years ago

    Waiting on a $150 GTX 970 to upgrade my rig.
    1080P gaming still works for me.

      • Bensam123
      • 4 years ago

      So you’re waiting for the $150 AMD 470 in two weeks…

        • DragonFli
        • 4 years ago

        Perhaps! I’m open to alternatives.

    • Tristan
    • 4 years ago

    NV cards are very popular, and inventories will be empty soon. How AMD want to flush their inventories from old 390X ? It may take some time.

      • DoomGuy64
      • 4 years ago

      lol. They’re still relevant having 8gb and dx12, while maxwell just got completely obsoleted.

      Still, there’s no reason for anyone to buy last gen outside of fire sales, because next gen blows them out of the water in every metric.

      edit: Lol. Irrational nvidia fanboys downvoting logic. Enjoy your Maxwell “deals”.
      New opinion: PLEASE DO BUY THEM. [spoiler<]IT MAKES THE I TOLD YOU SO, SO MUCH SWEETER.[/spoiler<]

        • f0d
        • 4 years ago

        8GB is too much when its pretty much impossible to use more than 4GB with a usable frame rate (when i say usable i mean over 60 all the time) and maxwell is also DX12

        maxwell cards are just as relevant as 390/390X will be when RX480 comes out

          • DoomGuy64
          • 4 years ago

          Just because Maxwell “supports” dx12 doesn’t mean the two architectures are equal when it comes to dx12 performance. They’re not. AMD has the advantage. Especially with async.

          Framerate isn’t [i<]that[/i<] dependent on texture size either. Graphic effects and resolution are more important. Shadow of Mordor can use more than 4 GB on it's highest setting, and that doesn't kill the 390. This is simply a myth perpetuated by nvidia to excuse their mid-range cards from only having 4 GB of memory. It's closer to planned obsolescence, instead of those cards not being able to use the memory. Polaris continues the 390's trend of including 8GB, and it's a mid-range card. If 8gb wasn't feasible, AMD would have made Polaris 4-6gb. The truth is, anything in the 390 performance range can handle 8GB, and it only becomes useless with slower cards like the 380/X, which rightfully have 2-4GB. Framerates lower than 60 are also usable with a freesync monitor, or slower games that don't need 60 fps, but I doubt that will be a big issue with dx12. Anyway, my point is that the 390 is going to outlive Maxwell, and that point is quite obvious to people who aren't fact denying fanboys. Doesn't mean you should buy one today instead of polaris or pascal, but the 390 will obviously outlive it's maxwell brethren. AMD does not need to "flush" it's inventory like Nvidia does, because the 390 is still relevant today in terms of it's capabilities.

            • f0d
            • 4 years ago

            for starters i have a 290 and a freesync monitor and i can tell you right now low framerates still look like low framerates when at under 60 fps – sure they are smoother but you can easy tell they are low framerates and higher framerates look MUCH better

            i have trouble getting usable (60) framerates on my 290 thats pretty heavily overclocked (and watercooled) using more than 2gb let alone using 4gb and above and i dont know about shadow of mordor but i cant see me ever using more than 3 gb of vram on my 290 with decent performance

            async isnt the be all and end all of dx12 features in fact out of all the dx12 games out atm only aots is the only one to use it as far as i know so just because one game has it doesnt mean all games will use it and it will be able to show massive gains like aots, you also have to remember that aots is an amd sponsored game so theres probably some bias there
            there are also dx12 features that amd doesnt have that maxwell does that could also prove to be useful – even amd themselves have said they dont support all of the dx12 features yet
            [url<]http://wccftech.com/amd-full-support-dx12-today-fury-missing-dx12-features/[/url<] fact is gpu's from both manufacturers are quite similar in price/performance and current performance in certain games dont always translate into future performance in all games

            • DoomGuy64
            • 4 years ago

            I have a 390+MG279. No trouble with framerates whatsoever. It all depends on what game and what settings. I’ll give you a good example: Warhammer Vermintide pretty much uses 4GB when maxed out. However, texture resolution has nothing to do with that game’s performance on my card.

            What causes the hit then?
            SSAO. It’s a performance HOG. Turning it off gives me a sizable performance boost. Is this a necessary feature for this game? No. Not in the slightest. Neither is motion blur. Turning off unnecessary and performance sucking features like SSAO allows me to max out more important settings like textures that actually make a difference.

            If you can’t understand basic things like this, and blame your performance issues on VRAM, then it’s your loss. The 290 has a 512-bit bus. You’re NOT maxing it out. SSAO/Gameworks is maxing out your GPU, not your memory. Turn the useless garbage off, and you can easily max out textures on that card. Textures != performance loss.

            As far as Maxwell’s dx12 features, they’re pretty much relegated to gameworks exclusivity, and they’re either unnecessary or performance hogs. Voxel lighting for one, gets you ~30 fps on the 980Ti. AMD hasn’t implemented it for good reason.

            Async on the other hand, will indeed be implemented in nearly all dx12 titles. Consoles are implementing the feature right now, so dx12 ports will support it as well. AMD’s console monopoly doesn’t account for nothing. They’re taking full advantage of it, so future PC games will support Async. Win10+dx12 in general will also boost AMD’s framerate simply because it’s more efficient than dx11. Nvidia doesn’t get AMD’s dx12 boost because their cards are designed primarily for dx11. So like I said, the 390 has plenty of headroom that simply doesn’t exist on Maxwell.

            • mesyn191
            • 4 years ago

            The 290, and GCN in general, is more shader and tessellation limited vs Maxwell which is what more modern games are emphasizing at the moment.

            Over time that will change and you’ll see your 290 age quite gracefully, which is typical for AMD hardware, and other DX12 features will come into play. So top being fixated on VRAM usage. There are many more factors at play here which can limit performance.

            • f0d
            • 4 years ago

            im not the one fixated on vram usage, in fact i think vram has very little to do with performance in modern graphics cards as hardly any games seem to use any more than 2 or 3gb and pretty much every modern graphics card has that

            • DoomGuy64
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]i think vram has very little to do with performance[/quote<] I don't disagree. However, you said earlier: [quote<]i cant see me ever using more than 3 gb of vram on my 290 with decent performance[/quote<] So [i<]something's[/i<] going on here. If you meant VRAM in terms of rendering 4k resolutions, then yes. The 390 cannot render 4k with decent performance. However, that definition of VRAM usage is completely disingenuous. I never said, nor implied rendering current games @ 4k. I'm specifically talking about HD game assets, which is not related to shader effects or resolution, and only has a minimal impact on performance. [quote<]hardly any games seem to use any more than 2 or 3gb and pretty much every modern graphics card has that[/quote<] Today. Right now there are a few games that hit 4gb with HD textures, but as we move forward more games will support 6-8gb. 8gb assets are not going to run on 4gb cards. The option will most likely be unavailable, and you will be forced to use assets that fit in your cards memory.

            • f0d
            • 4 years ago

            yes i am talking about higher resolutions or higher levels of AA or VSR as i havnt seen any games that use more than 2 or 2.5gb of vram on normal resolutions

            you say higher resolution textures will drive up memory usage but by the time the majority of games do that then the 290 will be too slow anyways as it will be too old
            how long do you think until the majority of games will require 4gb or more to be able to play them? 2 years? 4 years? 8 years?

            since most games are still using around 2gb of memory and 2gb graphics cards came out around 2010 im going to go ahead and guess that by the time it does happen i will have a new card by then and any current card will be too slow for those games anyways

            also notice im using words like “majority” because fringe cases of one or two games that have extreme settings to use more than 4gb to make very little difference dont count imo

            also i was just wondering what framerate are you getting when using over 4gb of memory? and can you list the games so i can test myself?

            • DoomGuy64
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]yes i am talking about higher resolutions or higher levels of AA or VSR as i havnt seen any games that use more than 2 or 2.5gb of vram on normal resolutions[/quote<] Cause that's obviously the first thing that comes to everyone's mind when we say VRAM. [quote<]you say higher resolution textures will drive up memory usage but by the time the majority of games do that then the 290 will be too slow anyways as it will be too old[/quote<] Bullcrap. Tell that to Fermi users. Those cards could have gotten an extra year of use with another gig tacked on. [quote<]how long do you think until the majority of games will require 4gb[/quote<] Right NOW. Go buy Warhammer: Vermintide. It uses 4GB. Games that are developed for PC in mind have these assets today. Consoles have 8gb of ram, and all next gen cards have 8gb of ram. You can't honestly say games won't use larger assets when the obvious next step is [i<]exactly that.[/i<] Here's another way to look at things: Saying games won't use 8GB is to saying games won't use VR or DX12. That's nonsense. We all know it's going to happen, but it's probably not going to be a "requirement". [quote<]since most games are still using around 2gb of memory and 2gb graphics cards came out around 2010 [/quote<] Gee, I wonder [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_One<]why[/url<]. Release date: November 22, 2013 [quote<] i will have a new card by then[/quote<] Completely arbitrary and unrelated. If you buy a new card, that will have nothing to do with current cards using 8gb. Not to mention, you won't be able to use 8gb anyway, since you don't have it in the first place. [quote<] any current card will be too slow for those games anyways[/quote<] Stop repeating this unintelligent FUD. We already know your brain is incapable of making the distinction of VRAM usage being used for assets, and [i<]every single time[/i<] we mention VRAM you have a Pavlovian response to cards using 4K. Fermi is EXHIBIT: A. Current video cards are indeed powerful enough to use 8 GB of textures. 4k has nothing to do with it. Get it in your head: 8GB is not about performance or resolution, it's about texture detail levels. [quote<] because fringe cases [/quote<] Oh, you mean Console ports, because consoles now have 8GB of ram? Or PC exclusive titles that take advantage of the PC's capabilities? Oh, yeah. Those. "Fringe" cases. We never raise the bar for graphics here. Graphics will never improve since last year after all. I mean we just got this new OS called windows 10 that comes with dx12, but LALLALALALALA *STICKS HEAD IN SAND* [quote<]also i was just wondering what framerate are you getting when using over 4gb of memory? and can you list the games so i can test myself?[/quote<] I get whatever framerate I want, because I disable gameworks and useless features like SSAO. Warhammer: Vermintide will just about use 4GB, and it's not an expensive game. Try it out. That said you're still missing the point. You cannot test a single 8GB game "yourself" without owning a 8GB card. The option is unavailable to you, because your card does not have 8GB. The only games you can currently run are 4GB, with perhaps the exception of moddable titles that have texture packs. Those games probably won't stop you from using 8GB texture packs, but you won't be able to run them regardless. PCI-E is not fast enough to handle that, so any game you force to use 8GB of textures will be unplayable. [url<]http://www.pcgamesn.com/welcome-to-the-vram-apocalypse[/url<] [quote<]So how do we fix it? The simple answer is you can’t. [/quote<] [quote<]The only real option is for Nvidia and ATi to increase the VRAM available on the cards they’re selling[/quote<]

            • Waco
            • 4 years ago

            +3’d. You’re right, he’s wrong, I have no idea why you were negative.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 4 years ago

            Fanboys. Fanboys everywhere. Logic, facts, and reason are not welcome in fanboyland.

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 4 years ago

            Consoles [i<]games[/i<] don't have 8GB of RAM. Your point still stands despite.

            • travbrad
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]Right NOW. Go buy Warhammer: Vermintide. It uses 4GB. [/quote<] Everything I can find about that game seems to indicate it runs horribly even on very high end systems, [url=https://steamcommunity.com/app/235540/discussions/1/483368526580600278/<]even those with more than 4GB of memory such as a 980ti[/url<]. So you are kinda proving f0d's point that once games use that much memory the current cards won't be fast enough anyway. I wouldn't buy Maxwell right now (it's much better to wait for 1070/1080 non-FE or Polaris at this point), but when you can only name one game (which almost no one is playing) that uses 4GB+ I'd hardly call all cards with 4GB of VRAM "obsolete". Will those cards be able to play brand new AAA games at high settings a few years from now? Probably not, but the 390 won't either and it has nothing to do with how much VRAM it has.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 4 years ago

            LOL @ 35FPS! I get ~90! That’s exactly why I said to turn off Gameworks and SSAO. The HD textures do not affect performance anywhere near what SSAO does. Also, you’re digging up necro posts from last year. Both the game and drivers have received updates since then.
            Top link seems less compressed:
            [url<]http://uploads.im/uGdAl.jpg[/url<] [url<]https://s31.postimg.org/x6uct77qz/20160618122828_1.jpg[/url<] 8GB doesn't, and will not "obsolete" 4GB cards. That's not how it works. It merely allows you higher resolution textures in cases where the developer has provided them for you. Also, in cases where games uses at or near 4GB, 8GB runs smoother with less stuttering. [quote<]Will those cards be able to play brand new AAA games at high settings a few years from now? Probably not, but the 390 won't either and it has nothing to do with how much VRAM it has.[/quote<] More of the tired, rehashed, and debunked 4k argument I see. The ONLY thing 8GB gives you is the capability to use HD textures. Nothing else. And if you really want to go there, games down the road will use dx12 and async, which will only improve performance on the 390. The 390 is going to age like a fine wine, while Maxwell has been obsoleted today.

            • travbrad
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]And if you really want to go there, games down the road will use dx12 and async, which will only improve performance on the 390. The 390 is going to age like a fine wine, while Maxwell has been obsoleted today.[/quote<] If you really want to go there the 390 won't perform well in new games by then either. The 390/290 might be slightly less terrible than a 900 series/maxwell card by the time DX12 is commonplace (assuming the couple DX12 games we have now are actually representative of DX12 in general), but I don't play PC games and spend money on hardware for "a bit better than terrible" performance. I'd rather just get a new card than limp along with an old one that doesn't hit acceptable framerates anymore. I've only seen benchmarks for 2 DX12 games so far (AoS and Forza 6 Apex) but neither of them run well on any of those cards, and I doubt they are going to get any less demanding a few years from now. If you want to hold onto graphics cards for 5 years and get mediocre performance you should have just bought a console.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 4 years ago

            Doesn’t work like that. You’re claiming that games on the PS4.5 will be unplayable. LOL. Not gonna happen.

            The 390 isn’t going to have some massive performance drop off like you claim. The only scenario where that will happen is on Maxwell, because Nvidia released Pascal. Pascal is going to get all the future driver optimizations, and cards like the 1070 are going to handily beat the 980Ti in benchmarks. This isn’t going to happen with GCN because not only is it future proof enough to last another year, but AMD is going to continue properly supporting it in the drivers. There is no evidence to suggest the 390 is going to get slower, other than Gameworks, which is avoidable.

            I just provided a real screenshot of my 390 getting 80-some FPS in Vermintide, while the 980Ti was claimed to get 35 FPS. Obsolete? Not my card. If anything, I’d say this is a potential trend, where future games on the 980Ti will get 35 FPS, while my 390 continues to push framerate up in the 90’s. ;-P

            • travbrad
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]Shadow of Mordor can use more than 4 GB on it's highest setting, and that doesn't kill the 390.[/quote<] TR tested it awhile ago and they had to use resolutions ABOVE 4K before 4GB of VRAM started becoming a bottleneck (and by that point the performance was atrocious anyway). [quote<]This is simply a myth perpetuated by nvidia to excuse their mid-range cards from only having 4 GB of memory.[/quote<] AMD's high-end cards (Fury/Fury X) right now also only have 4GB. Are they perpetuating this "myth" too?

            • DoomGuy64
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]TR tested it awhile ago[/quote<] TR did not prove anything other than current games do not NEED more than 4GB of ram. That's 100% true. That's why it's perfectly fine for AMD's Fury to have 4GB. The ACTUAL "myth" is that using more than 4gb is a bottleneck, and TR did not test for that. The only way to test this is to play a game with texture detail high enough to use more than 4GB. 4K resolutions might indeed max out 4GB, but that's more of a GPU problem, and not a ram issue. Having 8GB of ram has nothing to do with performance. It simply means the difference between being able to use "Ultra" and "High" on games that have large assets.

            • travbrad
            • 4 years ago

            So it’s okay for Fury to have 4GB but it was stupid for Nvidia to “only” put 4GB on the worse-performing 980/970.

            Okay I think I get the picture. AMD GOOD NVIDIA BAD

            • DoomGuy64
            • 4 years ago

            You’re projecting, and I’ve already addressed that non-point strawman. If you actually read what I said, you’d know that I’m not talking about either case. What I’m specifically talking about is the benefit of having 8GB, which has NOTHING to do with 4k resolution, or performance in current games. 8GB is NOT MAGIC. Having an extra 4GB does NOTHING for your performance in higher resolutions. The ONLY thing it does period, is allow you to use higher resolution TEXTURES, IF the developers give you that option, while 4GB cards are simply not allowed to use that setting. Can’t benchmark a setting you’re not allowed to use, now can you?

            • travbrad
            • 4 years ago

            Can you point to some benchmarks of games that are using over 4GB of VRAM at good framerates on a 390? I understand how VRAM works and that theoretically more VRAM gives you room for higher res textures. I just haven’t seen any game that can use more than 4GB that performs well. You specifically mentioned that Shadow of Mordor can earlier, but then I mentioned that TR tested it and suddenly that one didn’t count anymore.

            Among the games I actually own/play I haven’t even found one that uses more than 3GB, and most are more like 1.5-2GB with the highest quality textures. My most played game uses about 800MB, although admittedly that one is a few years old.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]I understand how VRAM works[/quote<] No you don't. You have no clue. If you did, you wouldn't be attempting to equate 4K VRAM use as 8GB texture use, or trying to insinuate that 8GB is unusable because there haven't been benchmarks. [quote<]You specifically mentioned that Shadow of Mordor can earlier, but then I mentioned that TR tested it and suddenly that one didn't count anymore.[/quote<] I think the evidence rather speaks for itself. Shadow of Mordor doesn't actually need more than 4GB, but claims it does. I don't know if the HD texture pack installed correctly on my machine, but I don't notice any difference when using Ultra. None. The textures aren't higher res, nor does my Vram increase. If Ultra truly NEEDS 6GB, then it better use more than 4, and it doesn't. [quote<]Among the games I actually own/play I haven't even found one that uses more than 3GB, and most are more like 1.5-2GB with the highest quality textures. [/quote<] Straw Man. Irrelevant to the point. We don't get next gen PC games until after next gen console games. No games prior to 2013 are relevant. You may also notice that games that use 3 GB of textures perform the same as games that use 1-2 GB of textures. That right there is proof that texture size does not affect your framerate. The only VRAM usage scenario that effects FPS is 4k. It's completely unrelated to texture size VRAM usage. [url<]https://techreport.com/blog/28800/how-much-video-memory-is-enough[/url<] [quote<] Crucially, Mordor also has a nifty feature that will let us push these video cards to their breaking points. The game's settings allow one to choose a much higher virtual resolution than the native resolution of the attached display. The game renders everything at this higher virtual resolution and then downsamples the output to the display's native res, much like Nvidia's DSR and AMD's VSR features. Downsampling is basically just a form of full-scene anti-aliasing, and it can produce some dramatic improvements in image quality. Using Mordor's settings menus, I was able to test at 2560x1440, 3840x2160 (aka 4K) and the higher virtual resolutions of 5760x3240 and 7680x4320. That last one is a staggering 33 megapixels, well beyond the pixel count of even a triple-4K monitor setup. I figured pushing that far should be enough to tease out any memory capacity limitations.[/quote<] READ THE ARTICLE. They're testing resolution scaling. EVERY SINGLE GRAPH SAYS RESOLUTION SCALING.

            • Klimax
            • 4 years ago

            Funny how are you completely avoiding thing called DirectX 12.1. How inconvenient that one is for your BS-ridden idiotic post.

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 4 years ago

            You mean the part of DX12 that Nvidia probably paid for directly or indirectly?

        • the
        • 4 years ago

        When I say ‘I told you so’, it isn’t very sweet.

        • chuckula
        • 4 years ago

        Yeah, so if Maxwell with 4GB or 6GB of RAM is obsolete then uh… what does that make the $650 Fury X with four (count them 4!) GB of RAM?

        Incidentally, your concerns about RAM capacity are utterly touching. Where the hell were you when Scott went out of his way to write the article about how having 4GB of RAM isn’t so bad after the Fury X launched?

        You know, this article: [url<]https://techreport.com/blog/28800/how-much-video-memory-is-enough[/url<] I didn't see you in there jumping up and down about the inadequacies of the Fury. I wonder why.

          • Waco
          • 4 years ago

          That’s all resolution scaling though – for games that actually have X GB of assets to load, more than X GB of VRAM reduces stuttering quite effectively.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 4 years ago

            He already knows that. I was ignoring his post because this is ol chuck’s standard M.O., and there’s no sense in arguing with someone who ignores facts and logic to deliberately make misleading statements. It’s so predictable that you have to wonder if it’s scripted, because the talking points never change.

            I think f0d’s going to go on my ignore list as well, although he claims to have a 290. So maybe temporary ignore list of people who can’t be reasoned with. Like I said earlier, [i<]something fishy[/i<] is going on, since he made two contradictory statements. [quote<]i think vram has very little to do with performance[/quote<] [quote<]i cant see me ever using more than 3 gb of vram on my 290 with decent performance[/quote<] Whoops? Cat's out of the bag, or he's just that dense. 4k uses ram, yes. However the point of having 8GB of VRAM on mid-range cards was never for rendering 4k, because it was for textures. 8GB is not a requirement for 4K. If you want to run 4K, you need a fast card with high bandwidth / memory compression. Developers have been pretty conservative with textures so far, so 4GB is enough to run today's games. From what I gather, 4GB cards are not even going to be allowed to run 8GB texture settings because of the stuttering. Developers are going to just grey out the option. Of course there are all kinds of hacks you can use like virtual texturing, but having the ram to begin with will still work better. The 4-8GB thing is going to play out like the PS4 vs PS4.5, except with textures. 4GB cards will get standard texture settings, and 8GB cards will get HD settings. That's it. Everything else is GPU related.

      • beck2448
      • 4 years ago

      They’ve already stopped making 980 970 series.
      Nvidia will sell them all . Some people will get great deals. but the kind of enthusiasts that read tech sites and get excited about gpus are a small %
      of the market. That’s why marketing muscle is so important in the sales channel.

    • Kingcarcas
    • 4 years ago

    Hoping used ones will trickle down.

      • nanoflower
      • 4 years ago

      If you want a used one now is a good time to start looking. There are a LOT of 970s hitting EBAY for $200-220 already and if you look you can find many deals under $200.

    • neverthehero
    • 4 years ago

    At Microcenter (Columbus,OH) They never lower prices. I talked to one of their sales reps and they explained that since they hardly paid for them, it’s a hard pill to swallow to just cut.. But like this article says, it’s relatively pointless to pay same price….

      • NoOne ButMe
      • 4 years ago

      They probably look at the cost they pay and the price they can sell. There is back room dealing. Microcenter get will get near or exact the difference in price from original to new price be in rebates on future cards, or one time payment from Nvidia or another incentive. But the money they get will be about what they “lost”. But this information won’t be visible to the salesmen.

      It might even be from Nvidia to AIBs who pass it to retailers.

      • BoilerGamer
      • 4 years ago

      The Cincinnati Microcenter just dropped their EVGA GTX980Ti Classified down to 539.99(down from $800) and you can get a $25 MIR on top of that. Still not a good value but I picked up one so I can step it up into a 1080 ACX later.

    • anotherengineer
    • 4 years ago

    [url<]http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487136&cm_re=gtx_970-_-14-487-136-_-Product[/url<] Cheapest non-refurbished GTX 970 from newegg.ca $400, well that's better than the 450-500 they have been, but it's still $452 after 13% tax.

      • mynameispepe
      • 4 years ago

      [url<]http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=43_1200_557_559&item_id=084152[/url<] $335.00 after rebate [url<]http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=43_1200_557_559&item_id=076658[/url<]

      • UberGerbil
      • 4 years ago

      NCIX [url=http://www.ncix.com/search/?qcatid=0&q=gtx+970<]appears to do better[/url<] than that.

        • anotherengineer
        • 4 years ago

        They typically always do. I don’t know what’s up with newegg.ca, most of their prices seem like a gouge compared to NCIX and others. Occasionally they have a good deal on an item, but I could always pricematch with NCIX anyways.

        Also a lot of those prices on NCIX are *after rebates*, I usually don’t take rebates into consideration unless they are instant rebates and not MIR.

          • f0d
          • 4 years ago

          newegg in australia is the same, the prices are quite average in comparison to other local places you can shop

    • NoOne ButMe
    • 4 years ago

    And the 980 is still stuck at an incredibly weird price… $375 for a 980 or $419 for a 980ti…

      • nanoflower
      • 4 years ago

      Which makes you wonder who would go for a 980 if a 980TI is available for just 44 dollars more? I suppose someone that wasn’t aware of the performance difference but you would think any spending that much money would have some idea of the relative performance of the various GPUs.

    • TwistedKestrel
    • 4 years ago

    From experience, when the prices of these cards DO make them into good deals, inventory disappears very quickly.

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      I’m not sure about the smaller maxwell parts, but rumor has it that Nvidia has stopped production of the GM200 dies for GTX-980Ti parts, so they are really trying to clean out the old inventory at this point.

    • LocalCitizen
    • 4 years ago

    This is the first of many cuts to come, until they work down their inventory.

    ed: missed by a few seconds

      • Fonbu
      • 4 years ago

      I believe this also. Those Maxwell’s will become even cheaper sooner than later as Pascel Floods the market.

        • mesyn191
        • 4 years ago

        Polaris 10 at $220-300 would have a bigger impact I would think than Pascal.

    • chuckula
    • 4 years ago

    [quote<]AMD's soon-to-launch Radeon RX 480 will carry a $200 suggested price when it arrives on June 29. We don't know a whole lot about how that card will perform yet[/quote<] Wink wink, nudge nudge. Say no more, say no more! #KampmanDefendedTheNDA

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This