GTX 1080 - Several models in at ~$710. A few models that are still sold out, but if you wanted a 1080 you can find one now pretty easily without having to pay way over MSRP. You are still over MSRP, but it's not huge markup like we've seen in the past. I'm going to call these widely available, finally.
GTX 1060 - A few models available in the $270-300 range. I don't think this card makes a whole lot of sense at this price range, but until the RX480 supply issue is cleared up there isn't much competition.
RX480 - sold out. Still
RX470 - several models at $199. Again, this card makes a lot more sense at $180 than $200, but until the RX480's get sorted out, this is what we will likely continue to see.
GTX 1080 - Several models in at ~$710. A few models that are still sold out, but if you wanted a 1080 you can find one now pretty easily without having to pay way over MSRP. You are still over MSRP, but it's not huge markup like we've seen in the past. I'm going to call these widely available, finally.
GTX 1060 - A few models available in the $270-300 range. I don't think this card makes a whole lot of sense at this price range, but until the RX480 supply issue is cleared up there isn't much competition.
RX480 - sold out. Still
RX470 - several models at $199. Again, this card makes a lot more sense at $180 than $200, but until the RX480's get sorted out, this is what we will likely continue to see.
I'm not sure I agree, according to anandtech, the 1060 is on average 12% faster than a 480, which, again at MSRP there's no contest that the 1060 is a better card for the money. However, at the inflated prices, then you have to do the whole cost benefit analysis, so $240 for a 480 x 1.12 = $268.80, which means a 1060 at $270 is roughly equivalent (although 2gb less vram).
Again, for the most popular price point, which is $200-250 for video cards, once things even themselves out as far as supply issues for both parties involved, I think AMD is going to lose this battle against the 1060.
Another advantage on the 1060 is it is a true 6 pin card, it's got a 130w TDP and shouldn't have any throttling issues like the 480 does.
I was really hoping that AMD would really put the burn on Nvidia at this price point, but unfortunately it doesn't look like they have.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Nowhere near 12%, on average 5-6% and 1060 loses badly in new DX12/Vulkan games. Looking at a single review is misleading as it hugely depends on what they tested.
This picture here says a lot
second poit you forget are 470 and 480 4GB, which are currently much much cheaper than 1060 and really put 1060 in no sense category as shown on picture below based on 26 tested games, all cards at their lowest MSRP (only thing missing is 480 4GB but as AIBs costs 249€ and are faster than 1060 its easy to put it on the graph). And thats cheapest 249$/279€ 1060.
NVidia absolutely has no competition for 470 and 480. It would need to be much faster or much cheaper to actually be worth buying (it would have to be on line that goes through 470 so either much higher (faster, going well out of graph boundary, or moved to the left to ~239€ range to actualy compete with 470/480)
I was really hoping that AMD would really put the burn on Nvidia at this price point, but unfortunately it doesn't look like they have.
This part I can agree with.
AMD can't keep up with 480s for whatever reason.
The rumors of nVidia going over to the same Samsung 14nm process the 480 is made on is a bit muddy, but may can shed some light on the nature of the supply issues AMD is experiencing. Next month's Steam Hardware survey should also put some perspective on it.
If the issue is that AMD is cranking out these cards and they are just selling out like gangbusters, good on AMD, we'll see a big uptick in ownership in the Hardware Survey. If they are having some production problems, low yields, or whatever else, then we'll see that too, and that doesn't bode so well for AMD.
Either way, without the 480 being widely available, it's not putting any pressure on the prices for the 1060 or the 470
GTX 1080 - Several models in at ~$710. A few models that are still sold out, but if you wanted a 1080 you can find one now pretty easily without having to pay way over MSRP. You are still over MSRP, but it's not huge markup like we've seen in the past. I'm going to call these widely available, finally.
GTX 1060 - A few models available in the $270-300 range. I don't think this card makes a whole lot of sense at this price range, but until the RX480 supply issue is cleared up there isn't much competition.
RX480 - sold out. Still
RX470 - several models at $199. Again, this card makes a lot more sense at $180 than $200, but until the RX480's get sorted out, this is what we will likely continue to see.
I'm not sure I agree, according to anandtech, the 1060 is on average 12% faster than a 480, which, again at MSRP there's no contest that the 1060 is a better card for the money. However, at the inflated prices, then you have to do the whole cost benefit analysis, so $240 for a 480 x 1.12 = $268.80, which means a 1060 at $270 is roughly equivalent (although 2gb less vram).
Again, for the most popular price point, which is $200-250 for video cards, once things even themselves out as far as supply issues for both parties involved, I think AMD is going to lose this battle against the 1060.
Another advantage on the 1060 is it is a true 6 pin card, it's got a 130w TDP and shouldn't have any throttling issues like the 480 does.
I was really hoping that AMD would really put the burn on Nvidia at this price point, but unfortunately it doesn't look like they have.
It depends on what you regard as the MSRP. If you're comparing a 4 GB RX 480 for $200 to a 6 GB GTX 1060 for $250, the latter is 25% more expensive, but nowhere near 25% faster. It does have more memory, though.
If you're comparing an 8 GB RX 480 for $240 to a 6 GB GTX 1060 for $250, then the GTX 1060 is only 4% more expensive, but often more than 4% faster. That makes it look like a better deal if you ignore memory. But if you ignore memory, then why are you using an 8 GB RX 480 for comparison?
You could argue that moving from 4 GB to 6 GB matters more than moving from 6 GB to 8 GB, simply because there are diminishing returns. But you can't really argue that moving from 4 GB to 6 GB is hugely important, but going over 6 GB is irrelevant.
The real answer is that, with all three of the cards in stock at MSRP, a reasonable person could make a case for any of them. Of course, at the moment, none of those cards are exactly in stock at MSRP. At the moment, the cheapest RX 480 and GTX 1060 on New Egg are both $290.
GTX 1080 - Several models in at ~$710. A few models that are still sold out, but if you wanted a 1080 you can find one now pretty easily without having to pay way over MSRP. You are still over MSRP, but it's not huge markup like we've seen in the past. I'm going to call these widely available, finally.
GTX 1060 - A few models available in the $270-300 range. I don't think this card makes a whole lot of sense at this price range, but until the RX480 supply issue is cleared up there isn't much competition.
RX480 - sold out. Still
RX470 - several models at $199. Again, this card makes a lot more sense at $180 than $200, but until the RX480's get sorted out, this is what we will likely continue to see.
I'm not sure I agree, according to anandtech, the 1060 is on average 12% faster than a 480, which, again at MSRP there's no contest that the 1060 is a better card for the money. However, at the inflated prices, then you have to do the whole cost benefit analysis, so $240 for a 480 x 1.12 = $268.80, which means a 1060 at $270 is roughly equivalent (although 2gb less vram).
Again, for the most popular price point, which is $200-250 for video cards, once things even themselves out as far as supply issues for both parties involved, I think AMD is going to lose this battle against the 1060.
Another advantage on the 1060 is it is a true 6 pin card, it's got a 130w TDP and shouldn't have any throttling issues like the 480 does.
I was really hoping that AMD would really put the burn on Nvidia at this price point, but unfortunately it doesn't look like they have.
It depends on what you regard as the MSRP. If you're comparing a 4 GB RX 480 for $200 to a 6 GB GTX 1060 for $250, the latter is 25% more expensive, but nowhere near 25% faster. It does have more memory, though.
If you're comparing an 8 GB RX 480 for $240 to a 6 GB GTX 1060 for $250, then the GTX 1060 is only 4% more expensive, but often more than 4% faster. That makes it look like a better deal if you ignore memory. But if you ignore memory, then why are you using an 8 GB RX 480 for comparison?
You could argue that moving from 4 GB to 6 GB matters more than moving from 6 GB to 8 GB, simply because there are diminishing returns. But you can't really argue that moving from 4 GB to 6 GB is hugely important, but going over 6 GB is irrelevant.
The real answer is that, with all three of the cards in stock at MSRP, a reasonable person could make a case for any of them. Of course, at the moment, none of those cards are exactly in stock at MSRP. At the moment, the cheapest RX 480 and GTX 1060 on New Egg are both $290.
All excellent points. I do think that 6gb is probably fine for what that card is targeted at. If you're trying to do 4k or 1440p gaming, you should really be moving up to a 1070 or higher. That being said yes, there are other factors to consider outside of pure framerate.
I guess my main point is I was hoping that AMD would have a product that was a clear cut winner compared to NVidia, and it just doesn't look like they've achieved that.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Probably my last update - the only card still being tracked is the 480, and while I'd still not call it "available", this thread is titled "GTX 1080 for sale".
I have finally seen a 4G 480 model on Newegg. It's sold out, but this is the first model I've seen listed there with 4G
There are 2 8G models in stock- one at $299 and one at $399.
I just thought to bump this old thread, it may be interesting to some people.
I think this will most closely parallel the 3080 release - it's got a lot of similar things going for it. New memory standard, a decent bump in performance from the previous model, etc.
So, pretty much just like nVidia said, expect a few months before 3080 availability gets stable.
The shortage of a new memory standard is a critical comparison here, but there are also a number of other differences. For starters, GDDR5X was farther into its development cycle at the launch of the GTX 1080 than GDDR6X is today--and possibly a lot farther.
GDDR5X started sampling more than two months before the launch of the GTX 1080. GDDR6X started sampling a few weeks before the launch of the RTX 3080/3090. That's a huge difference. A major reason why some board partners launched RTX 3080s that weren't stable is that they only had a few weeks between when they could first build and test cards and when the completed cards were expected to be in stores for launch. Things that would normally have been caught and fixed before launch weren't because of the compressed time frame.
Meanwhile, GDDR5X entered mass production when the GTX 1080 launched. A few weeks after the launch of the RTX 3080, GDDR6X still isn't in mass production. That could happen any day, or it could still be several months away. When Nvidia said to expect shortages to continue into 2021, they didn't say how far into 2021, largely because that isn't knowable today. Even Micron can't know when their problems will be fixed until they've fixed them.
With GDDR5X, Nvidia got lucky that Micron was able to deliver it quickly. They might yet get lucky with GDDR6X and have a similarly short time gap between sampling and mass production. But it's out of their hands, and depends on what Micron can do and when. Depending on how long it takes Micron to fix whatever problems are delaying mass production, we might still have shortages into next Summer, not just shortages that clear up in January. If things get sufficiently out of hand, Nvidia might yet launch an RTX 3080 Ti with a 384-bit GDDR6 memory bus and reserve GDDR6X for the RTX 3090 alone.
That's not the only time that we've had GPUs waiting on a new memory standard. Something similar happened with AMD hoping Hynix could deliver GDDR5 quickly. AMD got lucky then, and was able to dominate that generation as a result, with a Radeon HD 4870 that was about as fast as a GeForce GTX 260 in about 40% of the die size. That allowed AMD to cut prices dramatically, and things got so out of hand that Nvidia actually discontinued one lineup several months before the next launched, completely vacating the $150+ market for several months.
But memory isn't the only difference. Another major difference is that AMD is probably going to be a lot more competitive this time. The Radeon RX 480 was actually slower than AMD's previous generation flagship, and merely competitive with the Radeon R9 290X that had launched nearly three years prior. It would be absolutely shocking if Big Navi isn't the fastest GPU AMD has ever made and by a wide margin, if only because doing nothing more than scaling up the Navi architecture to use a bigger die would accomplish that.
But there's also a difference of process nodes. With the launch of the GTX 1080, Nvidia surely struggled with TSMC's then-new 16 nm process node. In contrast, Samsung's 10 nm node is by now very mature, as we're about 3 1/2 years past the launch of the Galaxy S8 that used it. Samsung's "8 nm" node that Nvidia is using for Ampere is just a tweaked version of 10 nm. So Nvidia shouldn't be struggling with an immature process node for Ampere the way they probably did with Pascal.
Shortages of the RTX 3070 could easily happen just because of how much time has or hasn't passed between the time Nvidia gave the order for mass production and launch day. But if there are shortages of the RTX 3070, they should clear up quickly unless something weird goes horribly wrong. Of course, something weird going horribly wrong seems like the norm for 2020.
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
GTX 1080 - Several models in at ~$710. A few models that are still sold out, but if you wanted a 1080 you can find one now pretty easily without having to pay way over MSRP. You are still over MSRP, but it's not huge markup like we've seen in the past. I'm going to call these widely available, finally.
GTX 1060 - A few models available in the $270-300 range. I don't think this card makes a whole lot of sense at this price range, but until the RX480 supply issue is cleared up there isn't much competition.
RX480 - sold out. Still
RX470 - several models at $199. Again, this card makes a lot more sense at $180 than $200, but until the RX480's get sorted out, this is what we will likely continue to see.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I'm not sure I agree, according to anandtech, the 1060 is on average 12% faster than a 480, which, again at MSRP there's no contest that the 1060 is a better card for the money. However, at the inflated prices, then you have to do the whole cost benefit analysis, so $240 for a 480 x 1.12 = $268.80, which means a 1060 at $270 is roughly equivalent (although 2gb less vram).
Again, for the most popular price point, which is $200-250 for video cards, once things even themselves out as far as supply issues for both parties involved, I think AMD is going to lose this battle against the 1060.
Another advantage on the 1060 is it is a true 6 pin card, it's got a 130w TDP and shouldn't have any throttling issues like the 480 does.
I was really hoping that AMD would really put the burn on Nvidia at this price point, but unfortunately it doesn't look like they have.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
This picture here says a lot
second poit you forget are 470 and 480 4GB, which are currently much much cheaper than 1060 and really put 1060 in no sense category as shown on picture below based on 26 tested games, all cards at their lowest MSRP (only thing missing is 480 4GB but as AIBs costs 249€ and are faster than 1060 its easy to put it on the graph). And thats cheapest 249$/279€ 1060.
MSPRs
Powercolor Devil 470 - 219€ (available)
RX 480 8GB reference - 269€ (available)
GTX1060 lowest AIB MSRP - 279€ (not available/preorder)
RX 480 4GB - 249€ (not available/preorder)
NVidia absolutely has no competition for 470 and 480. It would need to be much faster or much cheaper to actually be worth buying (it would have to be on line that goes through 470 so either much higher (faster, going well out of graph boundary, or moved to the left to ~239€ range to actualy compete with 470/480)
AMD can't keep up with 480s for whatever reason.
The rumors of nVidia going over to the same Samsung 14nm process the 480 is made on is a bit muddy, but may can shed some light on the nature of the supply issues AMD is experiencing. Next month's Steam Hardware survey should also put some perspective on it.
If the issue is that AMD is cranking out these cards and they are just selling out like gangbusters, good on AMD, we'll see a big uptick in ownership in the Hardware Survey. If they are having some production problems, low yields, or whatever else, then we'll see that too, and that doesn't bode so well for AMD.
Either way, without the 480 being widely available, it's not putting any pressure on the prices for the 1060 or the 470
If you're comparing an 8 GB RX 480 for $240 to a 6 GB GTX 1060 for $250, then the GTX 1060 is only 4% more expensive, but often more than 4% faster. That makes it look like a better deal if you ignore memory. But if you ignore memory, then why are you using an 8 GB RX 480 for comparison?
You could argue that moving from 4 GB to 6 GB matters more than moving from 6 GB to 8 GB, simply because there are diminishing returns. But you can't really argue that moving from 4 GB to 6 GB is hugely important, but going over 6 GB is irrelevant.
The real answer is that, with all three of the cards in stock at MSRP, a reasonable person could make a case for any of them. Of course, at the moment, none of those cards are exactly in stock at MSRP. At the moment, the cheapest RX 480 and GTX 1060 on New Egg are both $290.
These vendors selling the units are not paying inflated wholesale prices for these units. They are price gouging.
I hope people take that into consideration when they decide which vendors to purchase their products from.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
All excellent points. I do think that 6gb is probably fine for what that card is targeted at. If you're trying to do 4k or 1440p gaming, you should really be moving up to a 1070 or higher. That being said yes, there are other factors to consider outside of pure framerate.
I guess my main point is I was hoping that AMD would have a product that was a clear cut winner compared to NVidia, and it just doesn't look like they've achieved that.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Probably my last update - the only card still being tracked is the 480, and while I'd still not call it "available", this thread is titled "GTX 1080 for sale".
I have finally seen a 4G 480 model on Newegg. It's sold out, but this is the first model I've seen listed there with 4G
There are 2 8G models in stock- one at $299 and one at $399.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I think this will most closely parallel the 3080 release - it's got a lot of similar things going for it. New memory standard, a decent bump in performance from the previous model, etc.
So, pretty much just like nVidia said, expect a few months before 3080 availability gets stable.
GDDR5X started sampling more than two months before the launch of the GTX 1080. GDDR6X started sampling a few weeks before the launch of the RTX 3080/3090. That's a huge difference. A major reason why some board partners launched RTX 3080s that weren't stable is that they only had a few weeks between when they could first build and test cards and when the completed cards were expected to be in stores for launch. Things that would normally have been caught and fixed before launch weren't because of the compressed time frame.
Meanwhile, GDDR5X entered mass production when the GTX 1080 launched. A few weeks after the launch of the RTX 3080, GDDR6X still isn't in mass production. That could happen any day, or it could still be several months away. When Nvidia said to expect shortages to continue into 2021, they didn't say how far into 2021, largely because that isn't knowable today. Even Micron can't know when their problems will be fixed until they've fixed them.
With GDDR5X, Nvidia got lucky that Micron was able to deliver it quickly. They might yet get lucky with GDDR6X and have a similarly short time gap between sampling and mass production. But it's out of their hands, and depends on what Micron can do and when. Depending on how long it takes Micron to fix whatever problems are delaying mass production, we might still have shortages into next Summer, not just shortages that clear up in January. If things get sufficiently out of hand, Nvidia might yet launch an RTX 3080 Ti with a 384-bit GDDR6 memory bus and reserve GDDR6X for the RTX 3090 alone.
That's not the only time that we've had GPUs waiting on a new memory standard. Something similar happened with AMD hoping Hynix could deliver GDDR5 quickly. AMD got lucky then, and was able to dominate that generation as a result, with a Radeon HD 4870 that was about as fast as a GeForce GTX 260 in about 40% of the die size. That allowed AMD to cut prices dramatically, and things got so out of hand that Nvidia actually discontinued one lineup several months before the next launched, completely vacating the $150+ market for several months.
But memory isn't the only difference. Another major difference is that AMD is probably going to be a lot more competitive this time. The Radeon RX 480 was actually slower than AMD's previous generation flagship, and merely competitive with the Radeon R9 290X that had launched nearly three years prior. It would be absolutely shocking if Big Navi isn't the fastest GPU AMD has ever made and by a wide margin, if only because doing nothing more than scaling up the Navi architecture to use a bigger die would accomplish that.
But there's also a difference of process nodes. With the launch of the GTX 1080, Nvidia surely struggled with TSMC's then-new 16 nm process node. In contrast, Samsung's 10 nm node is by now very mature, as we're about 3 1/2 years past the launch of the Galaxy S8 that used it. Samsung's "8 nm" node that Nvidia is using for Ampere is just a tweaked version of 10 nm. So Nvidia shouldn't be struggling with an immature process node for Ampere the way they probably did with Pascal.
Shortages of the RTX 3070 could easily happen just because of how much time has or hasn't passed between the time Nvidia gave the order for mass production and launch day. But if there are shortages of the RTX 3070, they should clear up quickly unless something weird goes horribly wrong. Of course, something weird going horribly wrong seems like the norm for 2020.