Nvidia GTX1080 Ti Founders Edition Review

The whole point of the Titan is you got that performance 7 months ago and even now they are still the top card.

Having said that the 1080 Ti at £699 is fantastic value for money.

It is not.
Spending that much on any hardware is not value for money. Though this depends on your perspective of value, of which for most it is not.
And just because there is no AMD competition at this level, doesn't automatically make it great value. If anything it's worse.
 
Show me an equivalent AMD card that can compete on price and performance.

Vega does not count in the same way as Volta does not.

Nothing counts, they're too expensive. Maybe not to you, but to any enthusiast who doesn't have your money we have been completely priced out of the market.
 
It is not.
Spending that much on any hardware is not value for money. Though this depends on your perspective of value, of which for most it is not.
And just because there is no AMD competition at this level, doesn't automatically make it great value. If anything it's worse.
Agreed. This is an obvious case of Nvidia taking advantage of the no-competition situation right now. This card sure as hell isn't a "deal" in any way. Comparing the price to the retardedly over-priced Titan isn't justification either.
 
£700 to play this round of classic console slop. Um ya, no thanks.

So we go to the next "cheapest" option. The 1080. Which Nvidia have just "discounted" to £500 even. Still utterly ridiculous. For £350 I can get a PS4 Pro entire machine that will knock out games looking pretty much identical to this crap.

Seriously, for all of the years I have been into PC gaming (since around 1994) I can't remember a time where things were this bad.

Every single move being made (by hardware manus and game devs) is just pushing me further and further away.
 
I look at the price and tom's results then consider how long gaming at 1080p I'd get out of it before I'd have to turn settings down to low or upgrade, I think I'd get my money's worth out of it. If Vega performs as well as this I'd bet the price will not be that much cheaper probably £625
 
I look at the price and tom's results then consider how long gaming at 1080p I'd get out of it before I'd have to turn settings down to low or upgrade, I think I'd get my money's worth out of it. If Vega performs as well as this I'd bet the price will not be that much cheaper probably £625

Nvidia are now knocking out a £700 card every seven months. So that's £1400 a year they are getting out of PC gamers with the cash to pay it. £1400 a year? lmao. Seriously. lmao.

Because there's just this enormous great stack of amazing looking games worth paying £1400 a year for.
 
Nvidia are now knocking out a £700 card every seven months. So that's £1400 a year they are getting out of PC gamers with the cash to pay it. £1400 a year? lmao. Seriously. lmao.

Because there's just this enormous great stack of amazing looking games worth paying £1400 a year for.

You have to take into account the Nvidia fandom. People love to upgrade to the newest and greatest even if they don't need it.
 
You have to take into account the Nvidia fandom. People love to upgrade to the newest and greatest even if they don't need it.

The thing is they need it. But my problem isn't that they need it it's why they need it.

For 1440p ultra I need a 1080ti. But it's only like twice as expensive as it needs to be for it to be affordable. And why? because games have taken a massive nose dive thanks to the new consoles.

£1400 a year just to play console games at a decent FPS.
 
I have to laugh at some of the comments about the value of the 1080 Ti.

If NVidia had priced it at £500 there would still be people complaining !!!

If NVidia had priced it at £400 there would still be people complaining !!!

On another respected website review it is actually pointed out that the 1080 Ti offers better bang for buck @2160p than a 390X or a GTX980 Ti and several other popular cards for that matter.
 
The thing is they need it. But my problem isn't that they need it it's why they need it.

For 1440p ultra I need a 1080ti. But it's only like twice as expensive as it needs to be for it to be affordable. And why? because games have taken a massive nose dive thanks to the new consoles.

£1400 a year just to play console games at a decent FPS.

I know what you mean.

I've been using a Fury at 1440p for going on two years now. It's flown by. I'm ready to upgrade, but I'm happy to wait as well as the games I'm playing don't need any more horsepower. And the games that do ask for a little more, I'm happy to turn settings down to compensate. While I must admit I am quite attached to how high FPS (90+) feels, I'm not willing to spend any more than £600 every 18 months to achieve it. I'd rather turn settings down than spend that much. The 1080ti makes me want to upgrade to a GPU as powerful as that because of greed and lust, not necessity.
 
I have to laugh at some of the comments about the value of the 1080 Ti.

If NVidia had priced it at £500 there would still be people complaining !!!

If NVidia had priced it at £400 there would still be people complaining !!!


On another respected website review it is actually pointed out that the 1080 Ti offers better bang for buck @2160p than a 390X or a GTX980 Ti and several other popular cards for that matter.

Speaking for myself, that is absolute nonsense. A £400 or £500 1080ti would make me sell my Freesync monitor and move over to Nvidia. £600 would tempt me. £700 doesn't interest me. And cards like the ASUS Strix will likely be even more.

As I said already, $700 is decent value (not good, not great, but solid); £700 is not. That is less a problem with Nvidia and more a problem with the currency exchange.
 
If Nvidia made this card £400 that would put the 1080 at about £250 and the 1070 £150 say good bye to AMD, why would you buy anything Amd when the 1070 is so cheap
 
Speaking for myself, that is absolute nonsense. A £400 or £500 1080ti would make me sell my Freesync monitor and move over to Nvidia. £600 would tempt me. £700 doesn't interest me. And cards like the ASUS Strix will likely be even more.

As I said already, $700 is decent value (not good, not great, but solid); £700 is not. That is less a problem with Nvidia and more a problem with the currency exchange.

Freesync or G Sync monitors should not even be taken into consideration when debating the bang for buck of a graphics card.

NVidia are also not responsible for the exchange rate.

The funny part about all this is a lot of people were expecting NVidia to price the 1080 Ti at around £850, if this had happened the cards still would have sold but people would be saying that £700 would have been a more fair price.

People always want something for nothing !!!
 
There really is no need to bother with G-sync. Adaptive Vsync to me is just as good. I really worried about getting a Freesync only monitor but my worry was pointless.

As for people expecting Nvidia to charge £850? erm yes, they were being sarcastic. I think you will find that a whole ton of people have been priced out, so hey, may as well have a laugh.

If I said to you that flour was becoming increasingly hard to come by so I am going to have to charge £50 for a loaf of bread would you actually think it was cheap if I dropped the price to £40?

Of course not.

I note you are the only person on this forum trying to explain away Nvidia's massive gouging. Must be nice to be you.
 
I note you are the only person on this forum trying to explain away Nvidia's massive gouging. Must be nice to be you.

I am not trying to explain anything away.

I don't even need a 1080 Ti as I have something that gives better performance anyway so I have no axe to grind.

NVidia are charging £699 for a 1080 Ti compared to a launch price (when the exchange rate was better) of £619 for the 1080. Considering the Ti is 35% faster than a 1080 I would say you are getting a lot of extra performance for an extra £80.

And there were loads of people who did not have a problem paying the 1080 asking price of £619 or more.
 
Value is very dependant on many factors. If you buy one every time they come out then it's pretty poor value for money.

I'm still running my GTX 680. I would say after 4 years I've gotten good value. If I now buy a 1080ti and use it for 4 years then once again I'd say I've gotten good value.

Upgrading every single generation or iteration of a PC component has NEVER been good value for money so it surprises me that people still make this argument.

That said, thanks for the review and the graphs. It's a beast of a card and I'd love to upgrade my 680 to it but it also looks like very interesting times for those who can sit on their hands for a few months for the vendor versions and competition (and isn't that always the way, there's always something "just around the corner" haha).
 
I am not trying to explain anything away.

I don't even need a 1080 Ti as I have something that gives better performance anyway so I have no axe to grind.

NVidia are charging £699 for a 1080 Ti compared to a launch price (when the exchange rate was better) of £619 for the 1080. Considering the Ti is 35% faster than a 1080 I would say you are getting a lot of extra performance for an extra £80.

And there were loads of people who did not have a problem paying the 1080 asking price of £619 or more.

When you compare what you can get with £700 outside of the PC industry it's not great value. Within the market it's true, but I still don't think that is a good enough reason, from a consumer level, to lie down and accept these absurd prices.
 
Back
Top