IT'S NOT FAIR 1080 WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OUR ELITE STANDARD

>>62204577
Vega need some love before volta electric funeral.

>>62204577
What is this autistic shit trying to show? Cheaper GPUs get lower FPS? Really groundbreaking stuff, OP

>>62204577
you can almost get a 1080 Ti for that price
also MSRP for a 1080 is $499, too

>>62204617
>lower FPS

Vega 64 costs me ~$1000 CAD
Vega 56 is ~$800 CAD

They're both a good $200-300 over their MSRP.

A GTX660 (What I currently have) still sells for ~$300 CAD

I bought it for less than that 5-6 years ago when it first came out. GPU prices are fucking bonkers. I might as well just buy a goddamn console at this point.

File: iIgnwO.jpg (401KB, 1164x1604px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1164x1604px

>>62204707

>>62204577
This entire pic is retarded.
>still higher performance
>Vega price is >$700
>1080 price is between 500 and 700
>vega power consumption is retarded

>>62204577
How does that statement make sense? The 1080 is a mid-range GPU that was and probably still is priced like a high-end GPU. Nvidia could sell it at 250-300 dollars and make mad bank.

People might have paid high-end price for a mid-range part, but it's in all actuality a total pleb tier GPU.

>>62204877
>The 1080 is a mid-range GPU
I hate this meme so much

>>62204912
It literally is, though. Look at the die size of the part. Nvidia can make dies 2x as big and sell them at the same price, and there is historical precedent to them doing so. AMD also sells GPUs that have dies 2x as big for the same price. It's a slightly bigger die than a GTX 760, a mid range part.

Die size has the biggest impact on yields and by consequence also a substantial impact on the price of the graphics card itself.

>>62204577
I'm still laughing at the idiots who bought the 1080 for premium prices and A FEW MONTHS later jewvidia fucked them with the 1080ti

1080 is a locked down piece of midrange shit being sold for flagship prices.