Where is this info coming from? You're basing a lot of your assumptions on this '10-15% weaker'. Last I checked Vega is poised to be around 1080 levels according the rumors, the 1080Ti is 25% faster than that. I'm genuinely curious if you saw other sources. Perhaps to you. You're also the man who found the Fury X to be more attractive, even though the 980Ti was objectively superior at that price point. Come now, don't exaggerate. We all want AMD to be competitive, but most of us at this point are a bit concerned by that 'nice' statement. AMD tends to hype their products, an adjective such as 'nice' is uncharacteristic of them. Don't tell me you're not even a bit concerned around AMD's statement. I see where you're coming from with this, but the CPU market was pretty different. People just got tired of Intel's same old sh!t so they just didn't upgrade. You still have a 2500k, surely you understand what I'm saying. You couldn't justify the price for an upgrade, just like I couldn't. The only reason I'm holding off an upgrade right now is because my gut tells me CPUs are going to boom again in 1-2 years due to fresh competition. And my 970 is still packing a decent punch. I want to maximize the performance difference when I do decide to go for an upgrade. I don't know man, in Romania the prices haven't been this good in a long time. The 1080Ti can be found for around 770 EUR which you might say is ****ing bad - but the 980Ti couldn't be found under 900EUR back in the day. And this is with the price premium that the 1080Ti is carrying compared to the 980Ti. I'm tempted but I don't see the reason to change my 970 yet. Haven't been lulling it in graphically demanding games lately. Eeh, I think it's the weaker Vega. They could have gotten 1070 performance from scaling up Polaris if they really wanted to, albeit with worse perf/W. But they're not afraid of doing stuff like that so.. Either that or the clocks are in an incipit stage.