Originally Posted by manolith
the 1080 is high end. why do you call it a mobile chip? it is an efficient chip and thats a plus. i thought that people wanted energy efficient gpus and now we get them and they are not high end? the 1080 doesnt have any competition other than the titan xp and the titan is today that same thing that its always been. something for a very small group of enthusiast. I think that both the 1070 and 1080 are high end gpus that will handle pretty much anything at 1440p and even 4k with out much of a sacrifice in performance. im sure that there are ALOT of people out there wishing they could afford a 1080 or 1070.
The reason why it is clearly a mid-range chip is because of the 314mm^2 die size. Mid-ranged chips are always in this die size range (say 250mm^2 - 400mm^2). High end chips are the ones that are usually past 500mm^2.
It's a mid-range chip being sold at a rip-off high end price. The price is fooling people into thinking that it is a high end chip. There's no reason why it should sell at $700 US - the only reason is because Nvidia is a monopoly and trying to milk us. Historically mid-ranged chips have sold for around $250-$350 USD.
The Titan X Pascal is now the high end chip. It is selling for perhaps double of what it should be at $1200 USD.
I'll note as well that Nvidia just released the GTX 1080M, and it is not that much changed from the desktop version:http://videocardz.com/nvidia/geforce-1000m/geforce-gtx-1080m
This is a mobile chip based on its TDP.
Originally Posted by i7monkey
So best case scenario they make enough money in
5 years then redirect it to development of products so an extra 3 years after that we'll start getting good GPUs?
At this point, they don't have a choice. AMD is short on funds. It's a death spiral situation that they have to get out of. Without enough funds, there is not enough money for R&D, which in turn means that AMD is at risk for falling further behind in both the CPU and GPU fronts. Actually, if you consider the disparity in research spending, it's quite amazing that AMD has kept up as well as it has so far.
We'd better hope they succeed - unless you want to see the $2000 Titan someday. By the way, that is not intended to be hyperbole at all. I think that Nvidia will do whatever the market will bear. The problem is that absent of competition, they will do whatever they want with limited consequences. They are more, like Intel, trying to compete with their older products, to get people to upgrade, but that is not nearly as competitive as having to deal with a strong AMD.
The best situation is a 50-50 market share between AMD-Nvidia and AMD-Intel, with both sides vying aggressively for user money. Profit share should also be comparable in the long run, so that they are forced to compete. We are far away from that and need AMD to be return.Edited by CrazyElf - 8/17/16 at 8:47pm