THANK YOU BASED NVIDIA

>$350

Holy fuck Jensen what are you doing, I'm just gonna get a 1060.

nah

OH NONONONO

Remember when the gtx970 came out at $329? Pepperidge farm remembers

The 1060 was $250 MSRP wtf

AMD 7nm GPUs when?

Stop giving nvidia money

My standards aren't low enough to fall for AMD shilling.

Besides, I'm gonna buy a used 1060 6GB anyways, unless the 2050/2050ti is 1060 level for a good price.

They broke. Finally. Monitor selection is shit though.

Attached: untitled-2.png (725x349, 146K)

hopefully soon. looking to upgrade and really dont want to buy the RTX meme.

Imagine if you owned one of the failed 388 monitors

People will be wondering why it failed and why it isn't up to Nvidia standards, subconsciously putting the idea that Nvidia have higher standards than amd in their minds

Genius

Computex probably. Or August.

I have mg279q. A monitor way better than all that TN trash in their list.

I don't think i can wait that much, i might end buying a 2060 if it ever goes down $300.

just get a 1070 for $300 now.

If it's so good why did it fail

>My standards aren't low enough
>buys a 1060 6gb

No you're just a retard.

as a 1060 6GB owner, you're a fucking retard

Give me the normal cards without RTX meme already.

Enjoy your GTX 1150TI

wouldn't this be improved with drivers?

so who is g/free/a-sync targeted for? what kind of person would be looking to buy?
genuinely curious, as i've never seen g-sync first hand

probably a lot of competitive gamers but also people who hate stutter in games.
vsync is shit and we've put up with it for a long time.

Before gsync/freesync we had to choose between:
running without vsync and getting stutter from the frames not matching the refresh rate
running with vsync and have your framerate half of your monitors refresh because you have drops (i.e you will drop to 30fps instead of maintaining 54-60fps)
or you will have massive input lag.

I play on a 144hz monitor, and get 144+ fps on any game @ 1080p using a 2080ti, v-sync always off. I've never noticed a reason to go g-sync. Is it worth paying the sync tax?

I'd think competitive gamers (FPS players not MOBAs) would avoid any sort of sync...

Attached: torvalds_bird.jpg (471x308, 26K)

Please delete this image immediately, it violates the CoC.

variable refresh sync just refreshes your display in time with the fps.
It would be the same as uncapped framerate expect with less stutter.
I play on 144hz as well and freesync made it so much better.

But how high does the syncing go? Say if I'm playing Counter strike at 500+fps, I don't think the monitor is going to sync its display @ 500+hz , which is what it sounds like you're saying.

absolutely pointless card. worse average performance than a 1070, more expensive than a 1070, less vram than a 1070, sucks at anything RTX enabled.

we really need fucking competition in the GPU space, monopolies suck ass.

it's for when you dip below your display's advertised max hz

The entire RTX series is too fucking expensive.

God nvidia are slipping it's slower than a 56 and 1070 what a garbage card

God my 1080 is looking shit now.

what is this benchmark of?

It's equivalent - marginally better than the 1070 tho.
I have a 1070, I wish it'll stay relevant long enough.
I don't care about ray tracing, but I'm jelly of the tensor cores of the Turing architecture.

when will 1440p 144fps be mid range?

At this rate? Never.

AMD is so shit Nvidia has to compete against itself

Imagine thinking you're a jewing Nvidia by buying the 1070 instead of the 2060

Attached: tapestry,940x-bg,f8f8f8-c,110,110,705,602.2.jpg (705x602, 65K)

Computex launch.

God i hope amd can manage to produce something that gives nvidia a kicking in the gtx 1080 performance range.

But why? Even the 2080ti can't ray trace.

They will, then no one will buy it and you're back to square one.

I tried bfv multiplayer today with raytrace on at ultra settings 1080p. Was getting 120-140 fps

it got patched, at release it was far worse but to be fair they removed a lot of raytracing to make it perform so much better, effectively removing more distant effects.

>no one will buy it
dunno, im noticing more and more people getting sick of nvidias ridiculous pricing.

>dunno, im noticing more and more people getting sick of nvidias ridiculous pricing.
Doesn't mean they would ever touch AMD dGPUs.

>Nvidia Graphics Device
Wut

>AMD release card with 1080 performance for 300 bucks
>Nvidia just slash prices by 100 and no one buys the AMD card

Happened all the time in the past

Not for 1440p it isn't

I have a 1070 and want to play major releases like rage 2 doom eternal etc at 4k. What card should I get? Do I have to buy a 2080ti for $1300

>adopts AMDs technology because they know it's for the better for all gamers
>AMD still refuses to adopt g-sync, basically giving everyone who switched from nvidia to AMD a huge middlefingler

So why is Nvidia evil again?

VESA AS isn't an AMD technology.

Attached: 1546849357562.png (500x501, 52K)

epic :^)

If they want it to take off, they need to add it to as many cards as possible.
Otherwise it will never be picked up by game developers.
Doesn't matter if it is actually powerfull enough to run it in real time.

Vulkan games run vastly better on AMD cards. Wait for Navi/Vega 2

It won't be picked by game developers as long as it's not on consoles.
Which it isn't.

>early 2019!
>computex, august at the latest!
>early 2020 for sure!
fuck off fags

When are those cards releasing? g always says wait then six months from now I should wait for something else

Computex.

Might hear something in two days at AMD CES press.

If not I'm going 2070, not going on the AMD wait train again after Polaris and Vega disappointments.

>Polaris
>disappointments

You can probably get a 1080ti secondhand for the same or less than a 2070.

The 2080 seems to be my best option, I can't justify spending $500 more for 10 more frames in most games. I think this DLSS and rtx shit is snakeoil to sell overpriced cards but my 1070 chokes at 4k

Same price as the 290/970 was in 2015 with the same performance.

I bought a 290 for £220 in 2015, I still don't think I can buy anything at the same price point that's a decent chunk better.

>Same price as the 290/970 was in 2015 with the same performance.
Not if we're talking MSRPs.
Street prices are of little matter in dGPU affairs.

Yeah the used 1080ti cost about the same as a new 2070, I'm just not a fan of spending so much on a used gpu.

Turing also is much better in dx12/vulkan, wouldn't surprise me to see the 2070 matching or beating the ti in games like doom eternal.

That's why I said in 2015. 290 released in 2013 and 970 in 2014, Polaris gave us the same performance at the same price we had for a year+ before it's release.

Plus not like Polaris was at MSRP for more than a couple weeks until the mining shit kicked in

>That's why I said in 2015. 290 released in 2013 and 970 in 2014, Polaris gave us the same performance at the same price we had for a year+ before it's release.
Street prices are of little affair in dGPU game.
>Plus not like Polaris was at MSRP for more than a couple weeks until the mining shit kicked in
It was for a year until mining kicked in somewhere Q2 2017.

Based nvidia, cant wait to pair it with Zen 2

>Street prices are of little affair in dGPU game.
According to this logic the 2060 is a bargain then since the 1070tis MSRP is 450

MSRP doesn't mean shit anymore and hasnt for years in GPUs

>According to this logic the 2060 is a bargain then since the 1070tis MSRP is 450
It kind of is, especially given that GP104 has ceased production.
>MSRP doesn't mean shit anymore and hasnt for years in GPUs
It matters for vendors making said dGPUs.

>It matters for vendors making said dGPUs.
Not since founders MSRP was introduced. No one prices their cards at the regular MSRP unless it's a plastic single fan blower card, it's all founders MSRP or higher.

People buy from the green jew because the red jew doesn't make any high end hardware