This was posted 8 years 6 months 9 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 980 G1 Gaming 4GB $639 Delivered from ShoppingExpress

611
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 980 G1 Gaming 4GB $639 Delivered from ShoppingExpress
Go to Deal
scotty on 13/05/2016 - 13:05 shoppingexpress.com.au (791 clicks)

ShoppingExpress has a price drop on this product to $639 with free shipping (was $719), as part of the Gaming Clearance sale. One of the cheapest GTX 980 card on the market now. 79% 5-star reviews on Amazon. Just note that GTX 980 might get even cheaper as GTX 1080 will be released in 2 weeks.

Overview

  • WINDFORCE 3X 600W cooling system
  • Flex Display Technology(patent-pending)
  • Powered by NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 GPU
  • Integrated with industry's best 4GB GDDR5 memory 256-bit memory interface
  • Features Dual-link DVI-I / DVI-D / HDMI / DisplayPort*3
  • BASE: 1228 MHz / BOOST: 1329 MHz
  • System power supply requirement: 600W(with two 8-pin external power connectors)
Computing Computer Component Gigabyte Video Card

Related Stores

Shopping Express
Shopping Express

closed Comments

  • dione on 13/05/2016 - 13:12
    +56

    Not recommend to buy this as new NVIDIA 1070 and 1080 is coming out soon, if you can wait.

    • scotty on 13/05/2016 - 13:20
      +7

      Yeah I even have that in my post. GTX 1080 end of this month and 1070 later in June.

      • dione on 13/05/2016 - 13:44
        -2

        Sorry didnt noticed that.

        Should be in bold? lol

        • Calvin27 on 13/05/2016 - 15:50
          +4

          Just going to put it out there - there is a huge chance we will also be surprised by price of the new cards, if not performance.

        • Lafrin on 13/05/2016 - 19:06
          +1

          @Calvin27: Not really. I mean performance maybe since the info given was a bit…targeted I guess, but price is not a concern. Even if aussie cards get an unreasonable price increase, the price to buy international + shipping should be around what we're already expecting AU cards to cost.

    • konakona on 13/05/2016 - 13:23
      +5

      Piggybacking to say that the GTX1070 at MSRP $379USD (even with shipping from the US accounted for should still cheaper than the deal) will be around 30% faster than the GTX 980 (judging by their claims of "faster than a Titan X"), and will be available in early June.

      • iridiumstem on 13/05/2016 - 13:33
        +4

        MSRP pretty much means nothing though, since Nvidia is going to release the "Founders Edition" (which are more expensive than MSRP). I don't think you'd be able to find GTX1070 or 1080 at MSRP easily, especially on release.

        Kinda peeved about it, since I was thinking of grabbing 1070 at one point (obviously not as soon as it's released, but you know, at some point when the price becomes stabilised).

        http://videocardz.com/59718/nvidia-gtx-1080-gtx-1070-founder…

        • konakona on 13/05/2016 - 13:58
          +2

          Well Founders edition basically just means the reference cooler edition directly from Nvidia, but yeah on release it is likely that will be the only version available as most board partners wouldn't have had time to design/test their own custom cards yet, plus the usual price premium on newly released/in-demand products. I've seen a cheap looking GTX1080 with a plastic blower cooler from Galax already though, so if stuff like that are available at launch it might be possible to grab one for actual MSRP.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/05/2016 - 15:21

          Nvidia are positioning Founders edition (replacing "reference card") as a "premium" offering as not to undercut OEM partners. Otherwise everyone would get Founders Edition. There WILL be MSRP cards, even if it is only budget brands, and there will NOT be any air cooled cards more expensive than Founders Edition (that wouldn't make sense to be more expensive than Nvidia themselves). The biggest issue initially will be supply.

        • ryang on 13/05/2016 - 16:03

          @konakona: >but yeah on release it is likely that will be the only version available as most board partners wouldn't have had time to design/test their own custom cards yet

          Wot. You realise that every card manufacturer out there would already have their cards in production, ready to rock. This isn't their first rodeo.

        • konakona on 13/05/2016 - 16:12

          @ryang: In the sense that even the third party manufacturers will likely only be releasing reference editions and simple blower style cards just with their brand/sticker on the box. True custom cards (coolers like WF3, Strix, ACX, etc. and custom PCB/power delivery/high factory OC'd cards) will probably arrive later on.

        • iridiumstem on 14/05/2016 - 03:43

          @The Land of Smeg: I think you've pretty much summed up what I hate about this "FE" business. They give little reasons for manufacturers to produce things at MSRP. To paraphrase you (please excuse me if I am doing this incorrectly), nvidia is not "undercut[ting] OEM partners" to produce their cards at MSRP. Supply is expected to be low and demand is expected to be high on release, "premium" products have higher profit margin on them (more than often at least). I think I am not being unreasonable when I expect the prices on 1070 and 1080 cards to linger above MSRP.

          There might be few cards that are at MSRP, but since nvidia is not releasing a card that's at MSRP, I wouldn't be too surprised if the quality you get from those are worse than what you'd expect from a card at MSRP.

      • Diji1 on 13/05/2016 - 15:00
        +6

        will be around 30% faster

        According to Nvidia who make the card.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/05/2016 - 15:21
          -5

          Some benchmarks were leaked which pretty much confirms it

    • cdaddy on 13/05/2016 - 16:06
      -4

      new cards gonna be +$1000 AUD for like 15% max performance improvment

      • inusure on 13/05/2016 - 16:21

        Where did u get that estimation?

      • Powershopz on 13/05/2016 - 17:06

        Yeah, I'm skeptical until we see a lot of independent reviews with actual game play scores not rumored 3D Mark scores.

        I'm thinking the 1080 will probably be parked around the $900 mark.

      • gromit on 13/05/2016 - 19:57

        New cards are priced around the 450-700 dollars Australian mark for 30-50% performance increase according to benchmarks released by NVidia as well as the leaked benchmarks, supposedly the NDA for the benchmarks comes off this weekend too.

      • fatpizza on 14/05/2016 - 09:46

        You're wrong about the power levels, but either way if the new cards are overpriced in Australia just import from Amazon. At $379US it should cost less than $550 plus shipping.

    • mattydogge on 14/05/2016 - 22:04

      (profanity) yeah, it's literally running Doom at 200fps at 4k it's totally insane! It'll easily last you for almost a decade. No, not the old Doom(the would be unsurprising), the new Doom! You're bonkers if you're gonna get a gtx 980 right now.

  • PlagueistheCheap on 13/05/2016 - 13:18
    +9

    Yeah sorry scotty although this is the current cheapest 980, this is not a bargain

    • chyawala on 13/05/2016 - 13:43

      Is the Ti not better bang for buck?

      • dione on 13/05/2016 - 13:47

        Dont think so.

        So many improvement on 1080, more performance (higher clock speed), stable voltage, low power, etc.
        Also dont forget 980Ti price will dropping fast.

        • Agret on 13/05/2016 - 14:38

          GTX 980 Ti on the second hand market will be a sweet deal when the 1080 comes out. Hold onto that until the 1080ti comes out then upgrade :D

        • static on 13/05/2016 - 16:15

          @Agret: You'd be lucky to find any value in the 980ti's even second hand. The 1070 is "supposedly" about as fast if not faster than a 980ti and will be retailing locally for around $500.

          If people are willing to part with their $1000+ cards for less than $350 then it might be considered good value but it'd still be pretty temping to go for the newer, more efficient model for $150 more, especially if it ends up being faster as claimed

      • Powershopz on 13/05/2016 - 15:04
        -1

        No. Definitely not bang for buck. Ti version has always been a higher premium for a slight performance gain.

        • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 13/05/2016 - 15:17

          Not always true. If you look at the "60s" vs the "60ti", the ti will often use the same cores as the 70s and 80s, but the 60 will go with the "midrange" core. Eg 660ti uses the GK107 and the 660 uses the GK106. The GK107 is used in the 670 and 680/690 I think

        • Powershopz on 13/05/2016 - 17:16
          +2

          @nairdajun:

          I was talking about the 980ti's specifically or any x80 series for that matter. They 600 series had some amazing ti and OC models. I only upgraded my 670 DC02 about 6 months ago.

          Bang for buck is about relative performance per $

          e.g. I'm building a new PC and comparing card - a 970, a 980 and a 980 ti. I use the 970 as my base reference (or whatever card I currently have) and look up performance increases. I'll find a whole bunch of test scores for the most common games I like to play.

          970 might do 50 fps, 980 55 fps, 980ti 60 fps

          980 gives 10% more performance than the 970 and costs $100 more
          980ti gives 20% more performance than the 970 and costs $300 more

          In this example you'd argue the 980 is better bang for buck than the 980ti as I can get 1% performance gain per $10 where as the 980ti is 1% per $15.

        • KnifeEnthusiastBoi on 13/05/2016 - 17:44

          @Powershopz: Good explanation! But i did say "Not Always"

      • MyEducation on 13/05/2016 - 16:14
        +1

        Technically the better bang for buck "top end" GPUs currently would probably by the regular GTX 970's.

        Chart reference

  • inusure on 13/05/2016 - 13:18
    +2

    Hahaha!!! Good deal, but 1070 and 1080 will kill the deal soon!!!
    There is nothing wrong with the deal at the moment, it's just that NVDIA new GPUs are going to be pretty damn good.
    Last month, i nearly pulled a trigger for R9 390x, but managed to restraint myself!

    • Axelstrife on 13/05/2016 - 13:23

      same here i had the money for 390x but kept reading about the new gpus.

      im going GTX 1070 i think.

  • Brouw3r on 13/05/2016 - 13:37
    +2

    Obviously wait for pascal/polaris, but at this price point; the R9 390x is faster and cheaper. Benchmarks are similar but 390x has double (8gb) the VRAM.

      • ProspectiveDarkness on 13/05/2016 - 15:40
        +3

        Because some people need more VRAM than others. These benchmarks didn't require more than 4GB RAM, therefore there was no performance distinction. If the applications needed more then 4GB (while relatively rare), the 980 would be bottlenecked and the 390X would prevail. It's essentially saying that you're getting more potential for your money.

        VRAM isn't everything, but it isn't nothing either.

      • Dr PhilGood on 13/05/2016 - 15:42
        +2

        A GPU with 1MB VRAM will offer the same performance as a potato. Also, you missed the bit where he said it was faster and cheaper.

        Generally 8gb VRAM is for people who run super high resolution monitors or multi-monitor set ups for gaming.

        • misu p on 13/05/2016 - 16:29
          -2

          I did not miss that, read my comment again.

        • Agret on 13/05/2016 - 17:17

          Also when you add a second card for SLI/Crossfire it is limited to the memory amount on one card. If you got 2x 4GB card they couldn't use that as 8GB VRAM, you only get 4GB VRAM still so it makes sense to get more VRAM if you think you will add a second card when the price decreases (or in the case of the 390x when it's already a good deal). It's less expensive than going for a high end video card but can offer similar performance.

      • Brouw3r on 13/05/2016 - 16:15

        That's like saying a 120gb SSD performs the same as a 500gb…

        • misu p on 13/05/2016 - 16:28
          -3

          yes, that is because it does. It performs exactly the same. The quantity of info it can hold is bigger, but it performs the same way (read write is the same).

        • Brouw3r on 13/05/2016 - 16:47

          @misu p: I just pointed out that it has double the capacity of the 980 and it's faster, for $100 less. If I offered you a 120gb SSD for $150 and a 250gb for $50, which would you take? If you don't use the extra VRAM, no worries; but if you do then it's there.

          With people getting their 4k or 144Hz monitors and running something like texture mod and multiple monitors, more VRAM is more or less a requirement.

        • misu p on 13/05/2016 - 16:56
          -3

          @Brouw3r: Sure you can argue that the "value" of the 120gb SSD is worse than 250gb. But you cannot argue that the performance is different. And benchmarks like that just test performance, not value.

          I fully agree that if 390x performs the same way as a GTX 980 and is cheaper I would take the 390x all day every day no problem. And if you do run "4k or 144Hz monitors and running something like texture mod and multiple monitors" you should take a look at benchmarks that test exactly that and compare the GPU based on that. However if a new GPU would come on the market, and have only 1mb of VRAM but with some magic would perform the same way as the 390x and have the same price, purely the fact that one has more VRAM does not make a difference. The performance is the same.

        • Agret on 13/05/2016 - 17:26

          @misu p:

          Sure you can argue that the "value" of the 120gb SSD is worse than 250gb. But you cannot argue that the performance is different.

          On many SSDs of the same model the higher capacity ones benchmark faster, not sure why but might have to do with the garbage collection routine of the SSD. of course same capacity between different models and vendors will benchmark faster/slower so it's up to you to work out the best price/performance for your needs.

          However if a new GPU would come on the market, and have only 1mb of VRAM but with some magic would perform the same way as the 390x and have the same price, purely the fact that one has more VRAM does not make a difference. The performance is the same.

          Depends on the game. Sure it might perform the same as the 390x in a snes emulator that only uses 1MB vram but if you tried to play any real games on it then it would be laggy as hell since there would be constant paging of the disk trying to get stuff into nonexistent VRAM.

          Let's just use a hypothetical example and say you are playing Battlefield 4 at ultra settings, your card is awesomely specced and runs the game perfectly at 60fps. Battlefield 5 comes out and your card is easily fast and powerful enough to run it, the game plays perfectly on the highest settings. Unfortunately the textures are too large to fit into VRAM and every time you walk through to a certain area of the map or back again the FPS plummets, the game lags and you get killed because you can't even turn the mouse while its locked swapping out the texture paging from your HDD. Your card is perfectly capable but the VRAM has limited it, we call this hitting a ceiling.

          I am not saying that a GPU with 1MB will act the same way…. I am just pointing out that IF IT BENCHMARKS THE SAME WAY WHO CARES HOW MUCH [INSERT ANY STUPID PROPERTY HERE] it has.

          I'm not sure why you are even arguing over this. The 390x is cheaper than the 980, performs better AND has more VRAM which is a positive thing especially if you later decide to get a second one to do crossfire then you won't be running into a VRAM ceiling. Just because it performs well in one benchmark doesn't mean it won't be held back by the VRAM which is far from a 'stupid property' like shader count, triangle count or the meaningless gflops/second. VRAM is a real property of the card like core speed and one of the things that will actually make a difference.

        • Brouw3r on 13/05/2016 - 17:48
          +5

          @misu p:

          but with some magic would perform the same way

          My bad. I forgot about magic, disregard everything I said.

        • misu p on 14/05/2016 - 09:21
          -5

          @Brouw3r: I disregarded you a long time ago… no worries.

        • airzone on 14/05/2016 - 09:47
          +1

          @Agret:

          On many SSDs of the same model the higher capacity ones benchmark faster, not sure why but might have to do with the garbage collection routine of the SSD. of course same capacity between different models and vendors will benchmark faster/slower so it's up to you to work out the best price/performance for your needs.

          The reason a higher capacity SSD will generally outperform one of the model's lower capacity variants is due to the parallelism employed with the memory chips.. Simply a 120gb ssd might have 8 flash chips, and a 240gb ssd might have 16. As each chip has a maximum level of performance, the controller can spread the load out over more chips, effectively doubling aggregate performance.

          It's done this way for cost reasons - a 120gb ssd has the same board and flash chips as the 240gb unit, just half the flash chips. As they get higher in capacity, the designs incorporate higher capacity flash chips rather than more, so the performance doesn't improve any further.

      • misu p on 13/05/2016 - 16:38
        -3

        Logic eludes people…. a GPU with 1MB with the same stupid benchmarks acts in the same way…. 5 big monitors connected to any of the 2 GPUs will act the same stupid way as "THEY HAVE THE SAME BENCHMARKS RESULTS".

        I am not saying that a GPU with 1MB will act the same way…. I am just pointing out that IF IT BENCHMARKS THE SAME WAY WHO CARES HOW MUCH [INSERT ANY STUPID PROPERTY HERE] it has.

        Let me simplify it more.

        Premise: you got 2 cards, in all the tests they perform exactly the same way. 1 has 1MB, the other has 1000000GB.

        I say that how much VRAM they have does not matter. You guys say it does, although THEY PERFORM IN THE SAME WAY.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 13/05/2016 - 21:21
          +3

          The only person logic is eluding here is you.

          No one is arguing that the extra memory benefits the card where less memory is sufficient. Obviously performance is the same if lots of VRAM isn't a requirement. It's the cases the extra memory is needed that make the difference.

          Premise: you got 2 cards, in all the tests they perform exactly the same way. 1 has 1MB, the other has 1000000GB.

          Only if those tests required less than 1MB of VRAM. They say nothing for the tests that do need more.
          Of course your conclusion is "VRAM doesn't matter" when your premise asserts a case where VRAM doesn't matter. This is such an idiotic discussion.

        • misu p on 14/05/2016 - 09:19
          -4

          @ProspectiveDarkness: damn, i did not figure that "all the tests" is hard for people to understand.. My fault for arguing on the internet… I keep forgetting about people outside my bubble.

        • airzone on 14/05/2016 - 10:22
          +2

          @misu p: Your view is too simplistic. Why do some people want terrabytes of disk space when we have 100mb/s nbn and can download whatever game on demand… We can watch everything on youtube / netflix / pornhub. You're missing that people have different value on different things and sometimes "more" for the same price is better.. e.g. the guy want to run skyrim with the highest definition mods on… A 4gb card isn't enough at any acceptable level of performance. The home CAD user will certainly enjoy the additional memory if they don't have the dosh to splash out on a workstation card. Then what about games in the next 12 - 18 months?

          Also your example sucks big time… If you were to say a 2gb GPU then fine… Your standard 32 bit FHD display requires ~8mb of video memory for a single frame buffer… And windows will generally double-buffer so make that 16mb of vram… So your 1mb example will not even run windows at 640x480 resolution at 32 bits.. Enjoy the shocking performance that comes along with swapping textures from vram into system memory.. Like thousandfold level of performance drop. You might as well use the crappy integrated GPU on your CPU because at least it has direct access to the CPU's memory controller.

          On the internet we take you literally. And you will occasionally run into a guy who used to write video games in the early 2000's who had to work with 1mb cards vs the luxury of 4 and 8mb units and had the hassle of dynamic prioritising texture memory and aggressively swapping to system memory so that the guys with povo 1mb cards could get more than 5 fps. At 320x240x16 resolution. lol

        • doodo477 on 14/05/2016 - 12:36

          @airzone: Firstly his spot on. Also the other major thing that the guy isnt aluding too with ATI/AMD cards is the poor and lack-luster support in to most triple AAA games.

          Nvidia activity does support and provide technology free of charge under a exclusive license (without source code). There is vulkon on the horrizon though the number of games supporting that API is only one to my knowledge and that is Doom just released.

          Considering that we're going to be moving into a world where quite simply the NORM is about 16gb of ram on your system with a quad core cpu and VR (If you believe its going to be the next best thing) then I would rather a gpu with a large vram as possible I can get my hands on. Yes you can argue the average or argue that designers are targeting 2gb or 4gb vram cards. That is now and may not be the situation in 6 months time when the norm is 8gb. So just considering purchasing (everything considered) a card with more Vram is going to make your purchase future proof and also enable designers to do more vram on the GPU.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 14/05/2016 - 13:14
          +2

          @misu p:

          Sure, blame other people for your terrible and circular argument, that'll help your case.

  • Shermanpk on 13/05/2016 - 14:49
    +1

    I'd probably sell someone my Gigabit GTX 980 (I think it's this exact card) for around $600.
    But as others have pointed out GTX 1080 and Pascal/Polaris right around the corner it would be prudent to hold off buying any GPU for a few months, unless you REALLY need one and even then ebay is probably getting slamed already.

  • montorola on 13/05/2016 - 14:58
    +5

    Thanks OP, bought two to use in an SLI configuration for Minesweeper

    • scrimshaw on 13/05/2016 - 15:01

      I reckon we should have a big budget game studio like Epic or Ubisoft to release a first person, VR-capable game about clearing realistic minefields using a modern game engine.

      Then we can finally ask questions on the internet about whether a GPU is capable of playing Minesweeper.

  • dy4me on 13/05/2016 - 15:02

    bit off topic here but is Pascal better than the polaris/vega10(and every other name that AMD chooses?)?

    • Carbon Door on 13/05/2016 - 15:29
      -1

      apple vs oranges, red vs green, each have their strengths and weaknesses.

    • Dr PhilGood on 13/05/2016 - 15:44

      According to rumours, the upcoming polaris cards will be targeted at the mid-range segment for around $300USD. No solid indications regarding performance though.

  • QW3RTY on 13/05/2016 - 15:04
    +1

    I cannot wait to finally upgrade my AMD 7850. Sorry 980, you're the old washed up cousin of the 1080.

    • Carbon Door on 13/05/2016 - 15:29
      +1

      AMD 7790 checking in!

    • Slippery Otter on 13/05/2016 - 16:02
      +1

      Same here!!!!!

    • Brouw3r on 13/05/2016 - 16:20
      +1

      7870 reporting in. Will probably upgrade after the AMD benchmarks are out.

    • inusure on 13/05/2016 - 16:22
      +2

      7970 OC checking in! I may have to wait for AMD, because im using Freesync Acer XR34CK.

    • A Banana4scale on 13/05/2016 - 16:27
      +1

      another 7970 checking in. Also might get a Vive if the GPU price isn't too high!

    • iridiumstem on 13/05/2016 - 18:00
      +1

      Ditto. 7850 reporting in, kinda thinking about getting a new card. Though, I'd wait till Polaris at least, just in case Polaris is something decent at a reasonable price. :)

    • Dpx on 13/05/2016 - 18:09
      +2

      ….. 6850 checking in…

    • edfoo on 13/05/2016 - 23:58
      +2

      Still running on 5850 here and proud of it.

    • QW3RTY on 16/05/2016 - 12:16

      So many friends! Looking forward to seeing you on the other side!

  • isthisreallife22 on 13/05/2016 - 15:33

    Wow that's a lot of money

    • theguyrules on 13/05/2016 - 15:33

      It's not a lot of money for what it is.

  • south cross on 13/05/2016 - 15:58

    Because the new NVIDIA card will come out very soon, so that's why the supply and distributor need clearance the old model.

  • giventofly on 13/05/2016 - 16:27
    +1

    After seeing the trailer for Battlefield 1 (and the fact I've not yet played GTA V) - Imma gonna have to get a 1080.

  • striker5950 on 13/05/2016 - 16:37

    1070 will beat this in price and performance

  • ChickenAdobo on 13/05/2016 - 16:38
    +1

    You are better off waiting for polaris and see what they have to offer. After that decide where you will spend your money from there

    • CyberGenesys on 13/05/2016 - 16:49
      +2

      2016 - The year of waiting and seeing ;)

  • MrMcHairyHead on 13/05/2016 - 16:50

    Not really a good deal at all, 1070 will be much better for cheaper and not far away. Hell, in a few months you might get a 1080 for not much more than that.

  • hpwqust on 13/05/2016 - 16:56

    The upcoming GTX 1070 is said to be faster than the Titan X, which will definitely beat this by 20%-30% in performance. While for the price, probably the same.

  • samojed on 13/05/2016 - 17:18

    A graphic card for the price of two Xbox Ones? :O

    • scrimshaw on 13/05/2016 - 17:31
      +1

      You don't need a 600 dollar GPU to enjoy games. It's only for the super-enthusiast who really want to amp their gaming experience with resolutions beyond 1080p or are trying out / developing VR.

      That being said, consoles for the past decade or so are seemingly holding back the spec requirements of many games nowadays. Had consoles not existed, many PC games would look downright amazing, but to really see the games at their maximum potential you'd have to own pretty expensive enthusiast grade hardware.

      But due to the fact that consoles are 'long-lived' products that only see hardware updates once every 6-7 years, game studios have to make games that run on outdated hardware.

      • Kelberos on 13/05/2016 - 18:18

        Yup… you just need it every 3-4 years maybe? Can go for longer periods at a time if you don't play graphics intensive games.

    • DrStinge on 13/05/2016 - 18:37
      +1

      An Xbox for the price of three 3Ds!?

  • [Deactivated] on 13/05/2016 - 18:19
    +10

    Not a bargain whatsoever. GTX1070 to be released on 10th June for $379 US which will cream this card, as well as AMD Polaris cards being released at the end of May @ Computex. You'd have to be mad to buy a 900 series card atm.

    • wisc on 13/05/2016 - 19:19
      +1

      Do they have "benchmarks" out already?

      • Cobalt_ on 13/05/2016 - 19:29
        +2

        http://videocardz.com/59882/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-3dmark-o…

        Just some 3D Mark leaks for your synthetic benchmark scores. Will have to wait for the NDA to lift before seeing real/credible performance metrics.

      • gromit on 13/05/2016 - 20:01
        +1

        I believe this weekend the NDA for the benchmarks comes off.

        • Smaster on 13/05/2016 - 22:10
          +2

          I believe the NDA is on the 17th May. So a couple more days.

        • Hahuh on 13/05/2016 - 22:13
          +1

          @Smaster: make that the 18th for us Aussies. Probably benchmarks by the 19th

        • gromit on 14/05/2016 - 09:19
          +2

          @Hahuh: If you think Websites will sit on their benchmarks one minute longer than they have to you are dreaming. At the latest we will see them during the evening of the 17th Aussie time if it is a 17th NDA lift.

        • Hahuh on 14/05/2016 - 22:15

          @gromit: why not throw a shoe at my head while youre at it 😂

    • MHLoppy on 13/05/2016 - 22:29
      +3

      Eh, while it's true that when it's released it'll be much better value than a 980, some people need a system now and can't afford to wait a month (like people who depend on their system for work purposes).

      • freakatronic on 14/05/2016 - 11:22
        +2

        I didn't think of that, but it's literally the only reason anyone could buy right now.

  • bxpressiv on 13/05/2016 - 18:59
    +2

    I think if you're on a budget you're better off trying to pick up a second hand GTX 980 for ~$450. Gumtree and eBay has a fair bit of activity with people getting ready to switch.

  • Zylam Marex on 13/05/2016 - 19:42

    1070.

  • noise36 on 13/05/2016 - 20:22
    +1

    As others have said you will be able to get a 1070 at this price which will be much faster within a couple of months.

    • biozet on 13/05/2016 - 21:57
      +1

      wont the 1070 be considerably cheaper than this..even in Australia? what is the estimate once prices settle?

      • noise36 on 14/05/2016 - 01:14
        +2

        $379USD will probably be about $550 here I suppose?

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 14/05/2016 - 02:32
          +3

          Current currency conversion is ~$520. Then add GST, so ~$570. Then the AU tax, so $600. Then add the fact most vendors probably won't charge MSRP. So IMO, between $600 - $650, for budget - higher end sellers, respectively.

  • Hahuh on 13/05/2016 - 22:12
    +5

    It's cute how people think we aren't going to gouged here for pascal

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join