Nvidia GeForce GTX 1000 Series (Pascal) MegaThread: FAQ and Resources

Page 111 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I have yet to find an OEM Desktop PC that is able to fit a single slot card sold to regular consumers and most cases nowadays are regular full-size slot. And most businesses are moving onto laptops anyway. I know am not that off the mark saying it's a small market now.

Cheers!
 
i think at some point they will be available. but board partner usually more interested to push their card with excessive cooling (with much more higher price tag) first before coming up with more cheaper options. i just hope board partner did not make low profile form factor as "premium" where they intend to charge extra just for offering low profile design.
 

tarmiricmi

Reputable
Aug 3, 2015
155
0
4,690
2


Using that logic, GPU vendors should abandon the market completely, because PC (either desktop or laptop) are being pushed off by the tablets&hybrids. Which is not going to happen, at least in a decade from now.

 

tarmiricmi

Reputable
Aug 3, 2015
155
0
4,690
2


Playing in 1080p, I would argue, why anyone in this moment would go with the better card than 1050ti? To be able to go over 60 fps?! BS=wasting $.
 

lucas_7_94

Admirable
Dec 16, 2015
2,898
0
7,960
533


Some reasons:

- Depends which games the costumer will play, or inclusive, which monitor he will use. At today, you have a plenty list of available monitors with different refresh rate, so , if you have a 1080p 144hz monitor, a better card will be necessary to have a 'stable' fps gameplay.

- Futureproof. strange term in today tech, but well, some people buy a high end GPU card to be able to push it at the end of their life.

- the costumer is bill gates (literally) and love to waste money, like you said.
 

tarmiricmi

Reputable
Aug 3, 2015
155
0
4,690
2
Yeah I agree on that, but we must recognize the fact that the PC industry development (particularly hardware) has stalled. The fact that PC from the 2010 can play&run pretty much everything (thinking of desktop, not workstation terms) given the right GPU, is astonishing.
 

Math Geek

Glorious
Herald
the real falicy to your argument tarmiricmi about business pc's is that those small pc's are not made for gaming and are never intended to hold a discrete gpu. the build in igp is plenty of gpu power for an office pc. anything that needs dedicated graphics (like rendering or high end video/audio/photo editing is not made in a sff like normal office pc's

now true old office pc's are often sold in bulk after a company upgrades, newegg is full of them, but that does not mean it all of a sudden now a gaming pc. it's still designed as an office pc and resold as one. but as i said above, at times some sff pc's have riser cards to get bigger cards into small spaces. other than cutting the case, this may be the only way you can go to convert the office pc to a gaming rig.

you can hate on oem's all you want but it does not change the facts at all. there is a market for small cases but they have already been designed to accommidate average gpu's. like the cooler master cases and many others designed for small pieces other than average sized gpu's
 

tarmiricmi

Reputable
Aug 3, 2015
155
0
4,690
2


I think it is, especially if the forecast from this market share research is proved right:



Neither CPU nor GPU progress are not what they're used to be. Moore's Law is long dead (regarding CPU advancement). With GPU in mind, for instance, NVIDIA took 2 years to advance from Maxwell to Pascal which is not bad at all, but in that time, we've had 4 generations of mobile cpu/gpus. Software development in the PC industry has stalled as well (especially regarding OS), with majority of users still using Windows 7 and XP (to draw a line, who uses Win CE on mobile?! Or Symbian?).


 

tarmiricmi

Reputable
Aug 3, 2015
155
0
4,690
2


Yeah I agree totally but c'mon man small is beautiful. Average user does not want/need a big tower case, this is relic of the past. More and more people want something like mini-ITX case (doesn't need to be an OEM PC) and in fact they can contain a lot of power these days (stick i7-6700K & 1050TI and you get the ultimate small gaming machine).

 


Just curious...how do you infer that???
 

tarmiricmi

Reputable
Aug 3, 2015
155
0
4,690
2


Use first-gen i5/i7, put 8/16 GB ram, and some modern GPU. Problem solved.
 

manleysteele

Reputable
Jun 21, 2015
286
0
4,810
14
I've been trying to sell my self on the $260 difference in value between the GTX 1070 and the GTX 1080 for weeks. I can't seem to make the sale. I'm about ready to call it a deal and buy a 1070. Problems for a skinflint. lol
 


I meant, the "PC industry development stalled" part.
 


There is a point that in the 90s every few year all hardware was totally obsolete within a few years, early 2000s clock speeds still ramping up fast then mid-late 2000s dual and quad cores introduced and improved but in the 2010s only incremental performance increases anywhere outside of GPUs (which also ramped up in price at the same time). RAM in real world performance never had more than slow incremental performance increases since the original DDR.

Also my Phenom II (unlocked 550BE to 4 core @ 3.6GHz cost under £80 in 2010) is still just about holding up till next year and has been paired with a 4870 then 6950 and now 7970 and doesn't seem to hold any of them back in a major way.

 

Math Geek

Glorious
Herald
with windows xp there was no need to get faster and faster hardware. what you had was fine. so folks instead got other stuff they liked such as printers and other peripherals. was little reason to upgrade hardware. windows vista was the answer to that problem. overnight all hardware was not good enough and we had to upgrade to run it.

still wonder how specific the collusion was between MS and the hardware makers for that little os release to happen. oly thing i ever could imagine was the point of vista other than to make all pc hardware obsolete all of a sudden...

but anyway,



the only use for a 1080 is for 4k gaming. if that's not your goal, then the 1070 is plenty ample. use that cash saved to buy some new games to enjoy on the 1070 you're gonna buy :D
 

anort3

Titan
Moderator
I disagree. In fact I'm holding off on upgrading my 980 Ti until the 1080 Ti ( or whatever they call it ) is released and I have no plans on going over 1440p in the foreseeable future. The 1080 is a great 1440p card but it's not overkill at all. It's insufficient for 4K.
 

opio

Honorable
May 10, 2013
602
0
11,010
13
I must say I understand where vtarmiricmi is coming from, my little brother has an X58 mobo w/ 12gb triple channel ram, core i7 920 and then a GTX 980 and it runs everything great, his first gen i7 is still going strong (and it overclocks like a beast!)

That's why with my setup, I don't plan on upgrading anything major for the next 2 or three years, I just simply don't need to, I didn't even need to upgrade to a GTX 1080 from x2 GTX 760 SLI, I just wanted to, because SLI sucks. It just does. If at all possible. Never SLI unless you want to be disappointed by all the shitty (or nonexistent) SLI profiles for a lot of AAA games.

And I agree, I don't like full ATX mobos or towers either. I'm mATX all the way baby and by the time I'm ready to do a whole other build in 2 or 3 years, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm able to get all I want/need out of an ITX mobo/case since by that time GPU's will more than likely be using high bandwidth memory (which means top tier cards can be MUCH smaller due to the ability to 3 dimensionally stack VRAM. Just look at the R9 Fury Nano. That card was easily the best ITX card I'd ever seen, until I saw Gigabyte's GTX 1070 ITX edition.

The point is is that everything is getting smaller, and contrary to what vtarmiricmi says Moore's Law has not stagnated. It has slowed down sure, and companies like Intel and IBM have stated that they can get the lithography on their CPU's down to around 7nm-5nm before quantum tunneling becomes a problem, but technology will find a way.

Technological Singularity FTW!
 

Math Geek

Glorious
Herald
remember a 1070 is a bit more than a maxwell titan x card. vr minimum was 970 with a 980 being more ideal. so a 1070 is well above that and plenty strong enough for vr, especially with the recent changes that have lowered the needed specs further.
 

tarmiricmi

Reputable
Aug 3, 2015
155
0
4,690
2


Yes it is. So called Moore's Law (it actually isn't physics law, moreover it isn't any law) puts number of transistors and time into relationship. There are no more doubling of the CPUs number of transistors every two years. 1st gen. i7 quad (2010) had cca. 750 mil. of them, 6th gen Skylake i7 quad (2015) has cca. double of that. Even Intel's best CPU to date, 10core i7-6950x has a 3,4 bil. of transistors.
According to Moore's Law, starting from 750 mil. transistors in i7 2010., 6th gen Skylake should have 48 bil.
Even if we neglect Intel's own generations of CPUs and take in the equation only number of years (what states ML), 2010 750 mil., 2012. 1,5 bil., 2014. 3 bil., 2016 6 bil.

So what we can conclude here:
1. Moore's Law is not valid anymore,
2. Intel's so-called CPU generations are actually not generations because their gradual performance (=number of transistors) is very low (around 10% in each 'generation'), which says itself that CPU development has stalled, explaining that the term 'generations' is market-term only.

Now I am not into conspiracy theories at all, but somehow I think that Intel back in the 2010 could produce CPU that could have had a 50% performance advancement, that is, to go from the core2quad to the ivy bridge cpus, and from that to go to the skylake-like cpu. That mean they could actually have had a 2010 ivy-bridge performance level, and for instance, 2014, skylake performance line. Instead 2 real generations (by 'real' I mean, significant CPU performance advancement), they had 6 'generations'. I think that is bad, even from the marketing point-of-view, because customers are not stupid; they realize that new CPU generation does not bring revolutionary advance (even not evolutionary), and are skipping and postponing upgrade (from 1,2 to 5,6 gen for instance).

Completely another story is that even if the Moore's Law is right, that would not bring advancement into the whole PC industry, because software is not following. 20 years ago, I've thought that in the 2020, we would have have 'real' and functioning AI, that the voice recognition systems would be usual thing in the OSs, followed with the virtual reality and other stuff. But that is not happening, or very very slowly. So those issues cannot be solved with the 100-core CPU.
 


Interesting, I didn't know that. Just searched it: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601102/intel-puts-the-brakes-on-moores-law/
 

Math Geek

Glorious
Herald
yah was declared over a while ago. was fun while it lasted but they are focusing more on better use of resources than more resources and speed. they knew a long time ago they would hit a point where simply shrinking size would not be possible to keep doing at that pace. we'll still see more shrinkage but will take longer to and longer to make it happen.

more speed is not as needed as better use of that speed.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS