rtwjunkieIt's not an opinion. Apparently you bought into the marketing. GM204 is not the full Maxwell chip, just like GK104 was not the full Kepler. You simply have to understand Nvidia's numbering and naming scheme, and look at the chip specs to see what their high, mid-range, and low-end chips are.

The price is based on the fact that they needed a high 900 series for sale and there was no need yet to release the full Maxwell because there was nothing comparable yet from AMD.

I didn't "buy into the marketing" and i'm aware of the specs of the card. The simple fact is, the 2nd fastest (behind the Titan X) single-chip card on the market is not mid range. Sure, it may lack the specs compared to hypothetical products and may not be the fastest in the product stack, but $500+ , 2nd fastest available card is not "mid-range" regardless of the specs. You can't compare the card against products that "should" exist or "may" exist in the future.

The Titan cards are halo products and completely irrelevant to the average consumer, sort of like the Bugatti Veyron is to the Volkswagon Group. Within VW, Porsche and Lamborghini represent the "high-end", Audi as the mid-range, and VW at the bottom. No one would say that Lamborghini isn't high-end, just because it's not the most powerful car in the VW Groups portfolio.

A hard sell imho since the card only warrants water cooling for extreme clockers and max fps heads.
Surely a large proportion of which would
Think this a bit tame compared to home grown wc Or not enough at all and throw a pot on

I don't see the point of this at all. The GTX 980s don't have a noise/heat/whatevs issue, so this seems pretty wasted and cumbersome. People who want enthusiasm go full water anyway.

I don't get it, I just don't get it.

manofthemI don't see the point of this at all. The GTX 980s don't have a noise/heat/whatevs issue, so this seems pretty wasted and cumbersome. People who want enthusiasm go full water anyway.

I don't get it, I just don't get it.

Noobs will look at it and be like that looks awesome, full of 1337ness brah!!

manofthemI don't see the point of this at all. The GTX 980s don't have a noise/heat/whatevs issue, so this seems pretty wasted and cumbersome. People who want enthusiasm go full water anyway.

I don't get it, I just don't get it.

I think its mostly those people who want absolute silence and power without spending time to make a custom loop. AIO's have become quite popular in that area as they are a lot simpler to put together than building a custom loop same as just slapping this card into place.

I do see it as a bit overkill, would be nicer if the card was somehow a modified variant with higher limits to justify it.

My 2 GTX 980 Superclocks with ACX2.0 never go over 70c and are silent and I dont have to have two radiators in my case.... Oh and the clocks are the same... why wouldn't they pump more Mhz out of this!

MxPhenom 216Noobs will look at it and be like that looks awesome, full of 1337ness brah!!

I did think that these may be enticing to the initiated that do not know any better. Suckers

Also, I thought maybe that since AMD has used this type of cooler on a few models, maybe this fills that similar gap for Nvidia. The catch is Nvidia don't need it; AMD cards did need it.

Whatevs, doesn't change anything for me :laugh:

Whoa! We need to back off from the personal attacks.
There are two ways to see this discussion about where GPU's are classified. One view is that performance is the only thing that matters. The other view is that the specs and traditional product slots matter.
Nvidia, with the Kepler family, brought out the (ahem) mid-range part first at the price of the previous generation high end, instead at the price of the previous generation's midrange. (the GTX 580 came out at $500, the GTX 680 came out at $499, GTX 560 Ti was $250) It was a method used to bump the price up on the high end parts. BTW, historically, the mid-range part beats the previous gen high end. 460>285 etc. I'm not even going to get into the problem with the lack of competition coming from the red camp.
Some time ago, I heard that the GPU vendors actually make their money from the low end cards, the sub $100 cards. Now, thanks to better integrated graphics, that market has been eroded. The GTX 750 Ti actually occupies the same product slot as the 8400GS, but they're selling them for $150. The manufacturers had to move the price up on the high end GPU's. I'd love to know the rate of returns for these GPU's. (we recently had someone who said that they RMA'd a GTX 970 because of problems that are Far Cry's fault)
GTX 560 Ti $250(2011) - GTX 680/770 $400(2013) - GTX 980 $550(2014). Now that's inflation.:mad:

manofthemWhatevs, doesn't change anything for me :laugh:

epic reply ....

@Petey Plane If you are aware of the specs and how Nvidia does business, then you undoubtedly know that they do not name their top-level chip an x04. It gets a x00 or x110 designation.

The fact that they could bring their mid-level maxwell chip to market on their highest-priced card says volumes about their lack of competition. By releasing a card at the $500 price point, they are making a statement about what they can do without even bringing their big gun to the consumer market. Nvidia play their cards close to their chest. You will undoubtedly see their top Maxwell chip in a new high-end card once AMD reveals what they have. Nvidia is waiting for the chance to match and raise AMD's bet.

If it were me, and I could beat the competition's fastest high-end car with a Dodge Challenger I would do it too. The Challenger might be expensive, fast and have alot of horsepower, but that doesn't make it a high end car.

thebluebumblebeeWhoa! We need to back off from the personal attacks.
There are two ways to see this discussion about where GPU's are classified. One view is that performance is the only thing that matters. The other view is that the specs and traditional product slots matter.
Nvidia, with the Kepler family, brought out the (ahem) mid-range part first at the price of the previous generation high end, instead at the price of the previous generation's midrange. (the GTX 580 came out at $500, the GTX 680 came out at $499, GTX 560 Ti was $250) It was a method used to bump the price up on the high end parts. BTW, historically, the mid-range part beats the previous gen high end. 460>285 etc. I'm not even going to get into the problem with the lack of competition coming from the red camp.
Some time ago, I heard that the GPU vendors actually make their money from the low end cards, the sub $100 cards. Now, thanks to better integrated graphics, that market has been eroded. The GTX 750 Ti actually occupies the same product slot as the 8400GS, but they're selling them for $150. The manufacturers had to move the price up on the high end GPU's. I'd love to know the rate of returns for these GPU's. (we recently had someone who said that they RMA'd a GTX 970 because of problems that are Far Cry's fault)
GTX 560 Ti $250(2011) - GTX 680/770 $400(2013) - GTX 980 $550(2014). Now that's inflation.:mad:

I've always looked at it by die sizes, power consumption/performance capability, and relative cost to THEM. I know that's probably an odd mentality, gross margin, but I think it's a fair one.

Now, I know 28nm has gotten cheaper. I know 980 is overpriced for what it is, and that (by necessity) Hawaii chips of a similar size/cost have been priced at mid-range level, but I agree with the mindset that a fullly-enabled 400mm die with 4GB 7ghz chips that can clock to 1500+mhz and use 300w isn't exactly 'mid-range' at this juncture. I think 'performance to upper-performance' is a fair distinction, but it truly is personal and relative semantics. Just because a 600mm chip exists, of which they may release something that uses a realstic 'high-end' slice of it, doesn't mean that's always something to expect in a card family (even though I think you make a fair arguement something had to be done once entry-level was conceded to cpu IGPs). Also, that likely still equates to something I consider ridiculously priced for a graphics' card...to the point 'enthusiast' really becomes a fair term.

People forget GK204 was under 300mm2, 2GB, and for a long time relegated to (and clearly designed towards) 225w; That, I think, was fair to call a midrange chip. 970 has 3 SMs (etc, not to beleaguer the point) disabled, which when you start getting into die area after that, I could start to see as a performance/midrange sku (like G92 etc). 980, in my opinion, crosses a weird threshold that puts it slightly above the midrange marker that AMD deftly straddles with the pricing/performance of 290X...and that probably was exactly the point. GM204 straddles the mid-range/performance (mainstream/enthusiast) line between skus so the upper-end can claim distinction as a higher class (and therefore great margin). It doesn't excuse it's pricing relatively, but that also likely won't last forever...It's purely dictated by competition.

I think a very interesting question will be the pricing/perfomance of 390 (non-x). The die size usage (after subtracting 8 CUs) may not be much higher than Hawaii, but with the cost benefit of being able to use harvested chips. The fact that it will be 980's competition (even if probably slightly faster) goes further to prove my point of the class/placement of the higher-end gm204 chip, as does the fact there will probably only be one 'consumer-class' GM200 sku.

You all make my GTX660 depressed.

I'm not trying to throw fuel on the fire, but if the new high end card is as fast as the 2 previous high ends, doesn't that make it a mid range

ToothlessYou all make my GTX660 depressed.

LOL. I love your attitude. :toast:

It happens to us all though, friend. When there is actually a realistic 4k60 solution is I'm going to be depressed until it's actually 'relatively' affordable. Heck, I'm depressed waiting until a dependable 4k30 solution (with all eye-candy) is relatively affordable.

It is partially why I find the semantics of performance tiers kind of funny...Currently nothing, probably not even SLI Titan-x, could do what I want dependably. I could see why people would get defensive over the massive money they shell out for some of this stuff, though.

Hopefully 14/16nm will be kind to us all regardless of our relative affordability/worth it scales...be it 1080p, 1440p, UHD, or multi-monitor. With die sizes relatively shrinking by half, but (core, obviously HBM will be nice and may offset the price/performance discretion) performance likely only increasing a 1/3 (which if you look at current products I think that's the obvious trajectory) or so...one would hope so.

As I've kind of mentioned before, the thought of a super cheap/small 14nm 270x replacement with 1x2GB HBM chip (128gbps should be enough for something like a 270x-like product, and we already know the chips can do at least 160gbps) I find incredibly appealing. So it'd probably only be able to guarantee 1080p/30 (or maybe 1080p60 overclocked) most of the time...Does that make it 'low-end'? Not if that's all you need! For many people, for example people using up to a 60'' 1080p tv from >8ft, it would be totally fine most of the time! I don't look down at people on that end of the spectrum at all...it's still essentially a PS4 more-or-less. If anything, they, and probably yourself, have more common sense than most of us. :laugh:

nickbaldwin86My 2 GTX 980 Superclocks with ACX2.0 never go over 70c and are silent and I dont have to have two radiators in my case.... Oh and the clocks are the same... why wouldn't they pump more Mhz out of this!

Exactly my thought. Why would EVGA go back to the 'blower' design when ACX2.0 is already perfect at the exact same size as reference card?

argue about it till you're all blue in the face. the high end maxwell is the 200 and the mid ranged one is 204.

they will keep selling the mid ranged cards for high end money as long as people keep thinking they are high end cards....

Accroding to my wallet-scale, a 500 pound card is not mid range by any means. (as someone pointed, somewhere on these two pages of comments). As for the actual product, I like AIO's as an alternative for a GPU cooling. It will require extra case space though.

Apparently, the GTX 980 is a midrange card overpriced firstly because of stupid clients who are ready to throw money, and second - because of AMD's own lack of initiative for something meaningful there.

I have no idea why we need to chew one and the same thing multiple times.

GTX 980 mid range card! PERIOD!

Because if ya don't chew, you end up with a lump stuck in ya throat when you try to swallow it :roll:

Caring1Because if ya don't chew, you end up with a lump stuck in ya throat when you try to swallow it :roll:

Sure, some people need to accept that GTX 980 is only ~10% faster than R9 290X which is already selling for 300$.

High-end cards from AMD are the R9 295X2 and the upcoming R9 390X, and from nvidia - their Titan X and Titan Z.

stay on Hybrid System for High end of video card.

and thank you very much

I can't agree with the people calling the 980 "midrange", because I can't find any logic in defining "ranges" based on the used chip. It's true that it's based on the gm204 (and not not the gm200), but IMHO, the 980 is a hell of a fast card and the performance delivered what should matter and not the chip in use.
Lets say a custom card based on the gm200 would appear with 250Mhz base clock and 1.5GB of ddr3 memory... would that be a top range card then?

also, this card looks good.

IkarugaI can't agree with the people calling the 980 "midrange", because I can't find any logic in defining "ranges" based on the used chip. It's true that it's based on the gm204 (and not not the gm200), but IMHO, the 980 is a hell of a fast card and the performance delivered what should matter and not the chip in use.

Fast card compared to what? I mentioned the R9 295X2 which is of an order of magnitude faster and that they are in different leagues, so.....

But you obviously don't care about the true high-end card and because of your low standard you only see that.

RealNeilThis may be one to look for,...........

NVIDIA preparing GeForce GTX 980 Ti with 6GB VRAM, faster than Titan X

You should start your own thread! Rumor threads get started all the time, and usually promote alot of debate.

As an aside, or more on topic, thats about like I have suspected all along.