Gaming benchmarks: Core i7 3770 hyperthreading test (20 games tested)

[Vayra86]

However, just because something leads the naming scheme and price does not mean that it is a high end card. Everyone who knew anything about which CHIP was used knew that the 680 was not a true high end card. It was merely the highest performing of that series. Same with 970 and 980...when released, again, top performers of 9 series, but done using their mid-tier chip. So my point stands too.

I think you fail to make the distinction beyond high end, which is the 'enthusiast segment'. You underlined this yourself: 970 runs everything at max at the current most used resolution. That is a definition of high end for gaming. Going beyond that basic res has always been a thing for PC gaming, and we call those guys 'enthusiasts'. The fact that you can do this on a single panel today does not change that fact either. 1440p panels are still pricy, and the grunt needed to max it out on that res is still significant. Back when 670/680 released, enthusiast segment was the dual-gpu solution. And then, we got the Titan class cards of which everyone agreed it was a huge cash grab for the ultra rich. Now you say 'this is the high end' but the reality is, if that is really high end, it is unreachable for everyone but a mere 5% of all gamers. It is unrealistic and completely out of place to say that thát comprises the entire high end market.

Another analogy: CPU. Today the marketing slides tell us we need an X99 board for gaming, because, you know, this is the real thing to have. Does that make it high end all of a sudden, when before any kind of E-chipset was purely workstation oriented? NO. If a gamer gets X99 he is an enthusiast, he runs multi-GPU or he runs a big chip, or both. Did the marketing of X99 change anything about the positioning of the 'normal' i5 or i7? Look at Skylake prices and you have your answer. It didn't. The i5 is still the mid range CPU, the i7 is still high end, and the E-proc is still enthusiast or workstation. The same thing happened for GPU with the launch of big chips as an integral part of the naming scheme.

You are letting the marketing take a run with your wallet and your mind if you tout only the big chips as high end. Also, the first sentence of your previous reply... do you realise how silly it is what you are saying there??? You are saying flagship releases, which 680 has been for a LONG time, are not high end releases.... 690, which had a price tag of 1000 euro, in your mind was made up of two mid-range cards. I know its monday morning, but really? Our tech-savvy reality is not the market's reality. Here at TPU we are lining up for the newest of cards, so our bottom line has shifted to a higher price point. It is good to keep that in mind.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Lol, yes really. There is nothing silly. If your memory will serve you correctly, many people decried Nvidia releasing the 680 as their flagship, knowing that Nvidia deliberately gave us their mid-range chip.

As to whether the 970 can max all settings at normal resolution, which is 1080p, it can't. And I made that distinction earlier in the thread as well. In fact in my house, I found I could outperform a 970 with a 780 at 1080p over 70% of the time.

Please remember, how much a product costs and where it falls on the naming scheme has no relation to which chip is used. Nvidia themselves would tell you GM 204 is their mid-tier chip, GM 206 their lower end chip, and GM200 the high-end chip. See how that works?

You have merely been confused by marketing, based on the fact that such high performance was wrung out of the GM 204.

 

[Vayra86]

Fine, let's agree to disagree, I guess.

We are pretty off topic anyway Let's call it here

 

[rtwjunkie]

Fine, let's agree to disagree, I guess.

We are pretty off topic anyway Let's call it here

Sounds good! Having differing opinions and debating, then agreeing to disagree is a wonderful thing. Happy Monday!