Nvidia website reveals RTX 20 series pricing and shipping dates
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
TheF34RChannel
New member
Only $1200 eh, translating to 1400 euro. They must be high over at Nvidia.
September is an effing joke.
September is an effing joke.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Ridiculous prices. They just keep raising them every launch
TheF34RChannel
New member
Who can - or wants - to afford that??
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I don't think Nvidia care that these are beyond the reach of many individuals. It's possible that because of the mining crash and the huge amount of Pascal GPUs Nvidia has left over, they've purposefully priced Turing out of reach of many, leaving Pascal to swoop in and save the day. Then when Pascal's stock is depleted at the end of the year or into 2019, Turing sees a slight price drop (at which time manufacturing costs will have dropped anyway) and possible buzz for AMD's next cards begins to stir. Or Turing will stay ridiculously expensive and consumers will have no choice but to jump aboard. That's the more likely one since I see nothing from AMD for years that will come close to competing in anything other than the low-end and midrange. I don't even know if they'll have a GTX 2070 competitor, let alone a 2080, 2080+ (if that's real), or 2080Ti.
That said, if the GTX 2070 beats the 1080Ti, that could be a very popular card, more so than anything else. And the GTX 2060 could be incredibly popular too if it beast the GTX 1080.
That said, if the GTX 2070 beats the 1080Ti, that could be a very popular card, more so than anything else. And the GTX 2060 could be incredibly popular too if it beast the GTX 1080.
ImprovizoR
New member
But guys, you gotta pay extra for that Ray Tracing gimmick. It's super duper important! That's what gimmick means, innit?
I only need a capable 1080p card. Well, need is still a strong word. There's nothing wrong with my GTX970 (other than the last 512mb of vram). It still does its job. But if a 2050 or 2050Ti turn out to be affordable and faster than my 970, I'm in.
I only need a capable 1080p card. Well, need is still a strong word. There's nothing wrong with my GTX970 (other than the last 512mb of vram). It still does its job. But if a 2050 or 2050Ti turn out to be affordable and faster than my 970, I'm in.
AlienALX
Active member
Those are the Founders prices, for cards you will rarely see. You can fully expect cards like the Strix 2080Ti to cost £1500 I reckon.
When Nvidia launched Pascal they gave prices for the FE but that is only their price for their cards. IIRC the 1080Ti was $599? something like that? the Strix was nearly £750.
So the prices you have seen are RRP only (so recommended). I would strongly imagine that by the time they hit the shelves they will cost even more.
It's just seriously silly. You could be paying up to £500 for a 60 series card. I have a mag here from 2011, when the 460 was £110.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Where did you get that from?
AlienALX
Active member
Have you been watching it? it's all "Look at this scene with RT. Now look at it without, it looks terrible".
The BF5 bit was enough for me, turned it off in disgust.
They're really pushing the hard sell, as I thought they would. However, I have noticed a distinct lack of clapping and laughing at his s**t jokes. Probably because they all got wind of the price.
Seriously, I know I exaggerate matters (I can't help it, it's autism, everything is louder, smellier etc) but £1100 RRP for a GPU you will end up paying £1300 for is just utterly absurd. Beyond any reality.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
So in the games that support RT, it will look terrible without those features? I haven't been watching the announcements so I don't know.
I understand mate. I also think these prices are ridiculous. I can't justify doing a thing with Turing right now. Maybe if the 2070 consistently beats the 1080Ti by 15-20%, I'll consider the upgrade, but the chances of that are slim. If it does offer that kind of performance, it'll only be in a small handful of unreleased games. Seeing as I'm still playing 3-4 year-old games, Turing would be a waste of money. I'd rather just snap a used 1080Ti from someone who's desperate for Turing. Or, you know, keep playing happily with a GTX 1080 because, you know, it's perfectly for 1440p/144Hz.
TheF34RChannel
New member
How about that sneaky slide that showed the Ti and said starting at 499? I nearly gobbed.
Why wasn't he bood of the stage when the prices came on?
It's the same across the web; everyone hates the pricing.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Yeah, the only people I've seen even coming close to agreeing with the prices say things like "the pricing isn't bad", and none of them have left a legitimate reason for it or a counter to the myriad of sound arguments that prove their statement false. Everyone seems to be in a tizzy. It's not just us lot.
KingNosser
New member
I kinda expected them to up the prices, well guess what I'm not paying it nvidia I'll save my money for AMD and see what they have to offer.
TheF34RChannel
New member
Yeah, the only people I've seen even coming close to agreeing with the prices say things like "the pricing isn't bad", and none of them have left a legitimate reason for it or a counter to the myriad of sound arguments that prove their statement false. Everyone seems to be in a tizzy. It's not just us lot.
I'm taking my GPU off of the sales website.
ok so when will we see how performance is compared to the 1080 GTX in games without raytracing?
it´s all fine. everybody would expect that turing is way faster with RT.
but i doubt RT will take it by storm in 2019.
so how is performance compared to pascal in games that make no use of RT?!
it´s all fine. everybody would expect that turing is way faster with RT.
but i doubt RT will take it by storm in 2019.
so how is performance compared to pascal in games that make no use of RT?!
Last edited:
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I just read that the official non-FE versions—Founder's Edition models seem to be factory overclocked and are more expensive—are $500, 700, and $1000 respectively. I have no idea what that means other than what it reads. It's still a huge price hike and almost impossible to justify at this point, but it's less than what was initially announced apparently. I could be wrong.
Similar threads
