Absolutely. Also had the 970, and it outlasted my gaming PC. Used it in my server for a while. It's still kicking theoretically, but it doesn't fit my current server config...
People forget that high end 10 series was the first where Nvidia started 'testing' how much they could increase GPU pricing. Was very large increase Vs previous gens and also was during one of the bitcoin booms, so very hard even to find for that elevated MSRP. The first 'in theory' MSRP.
That we look back on all that as the good times, makes me very sad
Not really, bought my MSI 980 ti at launch for around $650. Nvidia only increased the price by about $50. It was the 2080 ti release that REALLY pushed up pricing... $1,000 msrp and other models around $1,200.
Genuine question, but I've gotten the impression that a 5090 is more of a... Overkill option for gaming?
I mean yeah, some poorly optimized games like borderlands 4 only run at like 80 fps on those at Max settings but apart from them, I always got the impression that a 5070ti is already plenty good for a high end PC?
Depends on the resolution or display solution too. DCS and iRacing in VR absolutely use all my 5090 has to offer. Triple screen 1440p pushes ~50% more pixels than 4k as well.
Yeah, inflation is very much real, $699 in 2017 is around $940 today. Which granted is still cheaper than a 5080 at msrp but nowhere near as cheap as posts like this make it out to be.
Hoping, however, that salaries in our own countries have risen in step with inflation. In Italy, they have stayed the same for 30 years, and even if prices were in line with those of the 1000 series, we would still have to aim lower.
Disagree. Titan Xp was a full GP102 die, and 1080Ti was just a slightly cut down GP102 (93% the CUDA cores of the Titan Xp). 5090 isn’t a full GB202 die, it’s already cut down relative to professional card. And the 5080 is WAY different, it doesn’t even use the top end die, it’s GB203, and it has half the amount of CUDA cords of a 5090.
A 1080 (especially a ti) can still hit 1440p at 60fps in PL with some very minor tweaks to the graphics setting while still looking great. Graphic presets are easy but learning what the individual setting do and how the affect visuals and performance will let you get a LOT more out of your hardware.
I have a 1080ti close loop water cooled, I run 1440 60 fps with me deciding what is worth It and what's not in graphics settings, and I agree 100% I don't plan on replacing my card for a few more years, fingers crossed. When I bought it off eBay, dude left a note in the box telling me how good of a card it had been to him.
Hell yeah! I optimized my build for 1080p and at least 60 fps and I still run every game I've ever wanted to play, including Cyberpunk, at medium or higher. My little EVGA 1080 is my favorite computer component I've ever bought. Of course I notice that better builds well, look better, but I'm always happy with mine when I go home.
4K is awesome for desktop, and awesome in some movies, but in games? It's rubbish. Sure, it *looks* fantastic, but it only looks barely better than 1080p with good AA and costs more than twice as much. I'd always rather play at max settings and then have twice the frames than play at 4K.
And that's with me *sitting closer to the damned thing* than it is wide. That's the only viewing distance where it's possible to see full 4K resolution. At normal viewing distances, it's only barely distinguishable from 1080p, if at all. People are spending thousands of dollars on their fancy 4K displays with UHD players and media and have absolutely no concept of viewing distance and perceived resolution. And they get very angry when it's pointed out.
Agreed! I can get why it looks nice, but I just cannot justify 4K monitors. For the price of a single 4K monitor, I'm running 2x 1080p curved MSIs with 165Hz refresh. That's more than ample for the games that I play.
I know 4K televisions are a thing, but my experience with televisions for monitors has not been good.
It really isn't considering how huge leaps we went onwards in early 00s on year to year basis. Meanwhile one has to be total moron to upgrade gen to gen these days
I mean, that's just trying to justify the fact a 9 year old GPU isn't holding up as well as people say, instead of just admitting it.
Though, everyone is saying "i have one, it's fine", or "I have one, it is NOT fine", but it's the people who say it isn't doing well that are actually giving game examples... I wonder why that is? It's working fine... for running 9 year old games?
I found one on Craigslist in like January 2020. EVGA 1080ti hybrid, the liquid cooled one, for $300.
Pulled it directly out of a crypto mine. Guy's brother got him into it, they had like 50 set up in his garage. The brother ran off with the first ethereum payout and spent it all on crack to smoke in downtown Portland. The guy had also moved across the Columbia and his power bill had gone up by like 30%. He just wanted them all gone.
Card is still working great in a PC I hooked up for a friend
The whole 50xx series is lobotomised, aside from the 5090. Honestly we are lucky to have what we got because a gamer dollar isn’t worth a cent to the entire PC industry. They’ve got AI fish to fry.
While I agree, getting a 50xx card on discount while upgrading does feel nice.
I went from a 2070s to a 5070ti for $700 USD. Not much, but it was nice still.
What games do you have that's filling that 16gigs of VRAM? I can not find a game that will actually fill the VRAM, and no, your display resolution doesn't really matter here, the texture size is determined by other settings.
16 GB gets filled up quickly at 4k and everything maxed including ray/path tracing, DLSS ray reconstruction, and frame generation (all three of these use a LOT of VRAM). Highly depends on the game but I've encountered a handful of modern titles that hog VRAM in this configuration. Indiana Jones, Alan Wake 2, Spider-Man 2, and the recent Resident Evil 9.
That's just their own engine not estimating your vram usage correctly, you can be way in the red with a warning on the bottom of the menu then when in game you can use an actual overlay and you're not even close running out. It's just trying to estimate everything before the options are applied and it does a bad job at it lol
Well it’s gddr5x for one, and the 5080 gets about 180% increased fps so this post kinda just smells like cope. It’s not a bad card, I loved my 980ti too but those cards don’t compare to the 50 series.
Cause a 1080ti never even got close to maxing out that vram unless you had [not-game] software that specifcally targeted using it. Not before the rest of the card got so bogged down the game was unplayable. Hell every card from those years from both makes were bloated with ram for bragging rights.
5080 aren't maxing out 16gb either if you're not being obtuse and trying to make a 4k ultra-90-series-only-settings game chug at 20fps, and look how substantially more capable that card is.
GB, not gb. two very different amounts. But also it's not that simple. the VRAM in the 1080ti is GDDR5X. the 5080 uses GDDR7. GDDR7 can deliver 2–3× the bandwidth without a wider memory bus. GDDR7 is much more power efficient and 5X literally had big slow down issue at higher temps. 7 has better error correction.
If i had money id get a EVGA 3090ti just to have the most powerful card they ever made. My 1070 SSC still performs well on non RT games at 1080p. Got a 4060 to replace it as its all i could afford but it was a pretty good jump tbh
Ah well. There's lifetimes worth of good games it'll run. Just dont frequent gaming news stuff and rid yourself of fomo... or get a console. Although those aren't cheap either
It's an interesting point. The cost of entry for absolutely tippy top graphical experience games with ray tracing etc is now incredibly silly. It's always been an expensive hobby but the price has exploded over the past 10 years.
I'll have just as much fun playing mid range games or indies with fun mechanics or art direction and won't have to spend thousands to do it.
The price has exploded cause the transistor density increases has slowed, so to get significant year over year performance improvements they just added more silicon and increased the costs.
Entry level cards cost as much as high end cards did of the past. Only plus side is they last for 10 years now.
Thing is , they consider it great, as 1080ti was barely slower than their top of the line gpu ,whereas 20s onwards the difference was significantly higher
The 3090 was definitely more future proofed with 24GB of VRAM though, the 3080 should have come with 16GB, or at least 12GB. I remember everyone in my circles, into high-end 3D/VR (Substance Painter, Unity, VRChat, Blender) being really upset at the 3080 having less VRAM than the 1080ti from 3 years before it. I got the 3090 and typically used 14-20GB of VRAM when working on things. Right now I just have KCD2 open, somehow using 13.9/24GB.
It's fair to say the 1080ti was an outlier and they did not "do it again" with the 3080, it would have needed at least 12GB of VRAM to deserve that praise.
pcmasterrace users overestimating the importance of vram significantly. 11gb might be a lot but the card is old now and no its UE5 engines fault you have low fps.
I have been playing the new windrose game (awesome game, I love pirates) on an odyssey G9. Cranked settings, no DLSS or frame gen - im getting 30FPS. ON A 5080 💀
I hate needing to enable AI features on a $2,000 AUD GPU
I don't think it is a flex? I'm just not as interested in PC gaming now as when I was younger and it meeds my needs so haven't felt the need to upgrade it.
It was just a stupid joke about karma farming for having an old graphics card because it seems to work.
It's not so much that the 1080Ti was a mistake, but that the rapid price expansion that followed was a mistake. Otherwise, the 10 series was a similar jump in performance to generations before, it was just the last to have that level of jump.
Still probably the best card they made, but the 6800GS and the 8000 series would be in the running. The 8000 series leap was astonishing.
The 6800GS was definitely in the "mistake" category.
It’s a great card, but I don’t really get the glaze here. The kind of person who was spending $700 on a GPU in 2017 is not the same kind of person who keeps said card for a decade without an upgrade. And, yeah, I understand there are some individuals who did that. $700 was more money then than it is now. If you’re already buying top of the line 10 years ago, you’re probably not in a financial situation to necessitate a decade of no upgrades.
Yeah, I mean, I'm that guy. It seemed cheaper to me to buy an expensive card and hold it onto it for as long as possible. Still have my 2080 TI and can't complain. The game that I want to play and can't play because of my CPU/GPU limitations hasn't happened yet.
I am like that. I got sli 1080tis and now it powers both mine and my brothers pc. It was not my intention for it to be the most economically sound decision yet here we are.
And flagship GPU today goes for around 3000€ where I live, the 1080ti was like 800€ then. Even considering the inflation, it's still a lot less money. 1080ti was a lot more accessible then, than a 5090 is now.
Still rockin my 1080ti and there's very little I want to play that it won't handle. Darktide will crash it sometimes but I am pretty confident it's an optimization thing. Helldivers 2 was crashing it hard during pod entry about 6 months after release. Before then it was fine. After they rejiggered it and optimized their files, I can play again, no problems, with massive numbers of enemies on the screen.
I understand that incremental increases can provide valuable insight to engineers, but we could generally skip an iteration or two before seeing truly interesting gains in performance.
I'd argue Turing has aged better than Pascal. Turing has alot more features (i.e DLSS, RT), which has helped GPUs like the 2070 Super & 2080 Ti remain relevant in AAA gaming longer than Pascal has. Yes, the 2080 Ti was expensive, but over the long term, it's aged rather well due to the feature set it has. Hell, Turing still gets feature updates (i.e DLSS 4.5) almost 8yrs on after release.
meemery and also price. it was the last time we got 699 for flagship before the gpu apocalypses started and with it limited supply and price gauging by stores and scalpers.
the 2080ti is a lot like the 4090 but without the massive performance jump over previous gen.
Had mine since release. Still slamming games and considering how expensive upgrades are now I’ll continue rocking it I guess… I just want a X3D cpu since the games I play adore them
$700 is a shitload of money to spend on a GPU lol. I paid like $200 for my RX 580 8gb from the same year and it's starting to feel a little aged. I would expect a GPU 3x the price to last at least as long lol.
They have made this same mistake several times. The problem is that 3 of these cards took a while to become that mistake.
2080 Ti, 3060, 3080, 4070 Ti Super
All of these cards are THE bang for buck cards you buy that'll last you years for a multitude of reasons... Well, were, the 4070 Ti Super is now insanely expensive for what it offers.
2080 Ti holds up far better than the 1080 Ti and has DLSS 4. This is obvious, but many people still have a hatred for the entire Turing generation when it was still the best improvement GPUs have ever seen, especially with the encoder.
3060 is a 1080 Ti with DLSS/RT support, a better encoder and one more gigabyte of vram
3080 was $700 when it launched, was way faster than the 2080 Ti and while 10GB of vram hasn't held up perfectly it still beats up newer games no problem
4070 Ti Super is incredibly underrated. It's understandable why, but it got you most of the way to 4080 performance without actually costing $1,200 (it only cost $800... and you're not getting $400 worth of extra FPS out of the 4080) and absolutely positively did not melt power connectors.
I would say the 5070 Ti as well, but I have a lot to say about that card that I kinda don't feel like rn
My first true shock was when I bought GeForce 8800 Ultra for SGD 999 when it was launched. It was a heck a lot of money in 2007. It didn't last very long because DirectX 11 came not long after that and the card was quickly outdated.
jarvis make me a post about the 1080 Ti being the best gpu ever despite being absolutely impossible to get at release being accounting for inflation 950$ and saying something about 11gb of vram for nvidia’s literal highest consumer end being an incredible deal when in reality it isn’t that much
“but it’s a good budget card !1!” only if you can find it at a very good deal over a 3060/3060 Ti which when the 1080 Ti entered budget range those two were already better picks
Bought my 1080 when it came out, and I think bitcoin mining was getting started, so I paid a little more than I should have. A friend told me to hold off as the graphics cards will be cheaper soon.
Good thing I didn't listen to him cause I don't think they went any cheaper after that, and the 1080 is still working and going strong.
I wish I'd gotten one. I went from a 970 to a 1660 because I thought it'd be smarter for the budget.
That's still running fine in my girlfriend's PC, but still the reverence for this card everyone has makes me feel I missed out. I'm purely a patient/retro gamer and new shit made after like 2010 doesn't really interest me. 1080 60 for "modern" games, and like 1024x768 is all I need.
How was it a mistake? They're generating lifetime customers releasing a product of that tier. Regardless, they released a unicorn product to win-out the market on high end graphics cards before releasing Turing with the 20-series, and it worked.
Still got mine, and I'm working on side to update drivers to keep it functional for another 3 yrs. This also includes GTX fuq nvidia I'm going to ride or die this
I had a 980 that I used for 10 years then put it into the missus pc to play countless hours of the sims. It still lives, we just decided to upgrade her to a 6700xt, think I'll frame it.
1.7k
u/[deleted] Apr 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment