-BirdiE-

Yeah. I was more just showing that they have one to review. They got it pretty quickly, so it's definitely possible it's a review sample from Nvidia... But maybe Nvidia just let them buy it early. Who knows..

-snip-

Interesting related article I just found. EFF suing US government regarding restrictions on decryption http://www.myce.com/news/eff-suing-us-government-regarding-restrictions-decryption-80011/ It's getting absurd, the amount of control companies expect to have over their products once people have bought it from them... Someone is free to take this and turn it in to its own post in Tech News/Reviews. I'm just too lazy.

Yeah. People will buy it. Thing is, paying like.. $300 instead of waiting for the 1080ti, or getting the 1080 for half the price seems silly to the average person... But there are people out there who make a LOT of money, and $300 extra is nothing... "Extra half day of work for 23% more performance on my GPU? NBD." All depends on your situation, and what the value is to you... Cost to Nvidia is not really relevant.

It's nice that you're trying to paint a nice little picture for us, but throwing facts into a story does not prove the rest of the story is true.. I could include a true statement "Nvidia released the 580 in 2010" into a story "Nvida released the 580 in 2010 because they are part of the KKK".... But having a fact in there doesn't make the rest of it true. You're stating facts, but concluding things from them using no logic or proof. And why are you so obsessed with what chip they used? If, at the x80 level, the consumer saw the same 20-30% jump in performance, then it's irrelevant and your argument is invalid. You keep claiming to be looking at things from the consumer's point of view, but if you're getting the same thing you always have, what difference does it make that Nvidia found a more cost effective way to do it? I'll concede, at $649, the 780 was overpriced on launch... But that's a single outlier over 6 generations. To say "Nvidia has been bumping up the prices for years" or "the 10 series GPUs are overpriced" is entirely inaccurate. You were the one who brought up perceived value (you also included a chart for us)... I've been actually calculating value. Based on the assumptions we were operating off of at the time, I proved, using flawless logic, that the Titan XP was actually not over priced. And despite that you kept stating that it was overpriced based on nothing. "It is the most expensive yet, therefore it is overpriced" is still an invalid logical statement... Made especially worse by the fact that I had already logically proved it wasn't. The fact that someone brought new numbers to our attention that tell a different story does not mean that you were any less wrong. Baseless statement... This is just your interpretation based on nothing. You can't argue based on naming scheme of the chip. I've already shown the x80 segment did not change from the 480 through the 980. AND I've already shown that the inclusion of the Titan did not affect this segment. 1) The 1080 launched with a $599 MSRP, 2)This exactly counters your argument that the x80 series has been "degraded". The relative performance people are getting with the x80 series has actually increased. 3) I've already shown that the 1080 shifted the x80 segment up in performance slightly, and they're under priced for what this segment should be. 4) You keep bringing up the fact that the x80 is no longer the highest tier chip. I've already explained that it changes nothing about it's segment. If you get "X" amount of something for a price, and someone else spends more to get more, it doesn't mean that you got any less. Firstly, no need to link the 1060 graph. I fully understand how BS Nvidia marketing is. That graph made me cringe harder than ever before. If you want to argue that we have no clue what performance a Titan XP is going to have, so we can't draw conclusions... Then that literally invalidates your argument that it's overpriced, because we don't have half the equation. <- Proof of this. If AMD launched a card that was 5000x faster than the 1080, and charged $1300 for it... Would the fact that it is the most expensive yet make that overpriced? Absolutely not. We can either go on the most credible number we have, or we can't make any statements about it at all, especially "It's overpriced". The CORRECT argument to make here is: We can agree that Nvidia manipulates data to make their products look better than they are... yes? If you agree with that (which I'm sure you do), then that tells us there is zero chance that the Titan XP is MORE than 60% faster than the Titan XM. We now know that, if we use the 60% figure, we know we're using a best possible case scenario. Looking at the 60% figure... We know that the 1080 is 30% faster than the Titan XM, so the fastest the Titan XP can possibly be is 23% faster than the 1080 (1.6/1.3) I think, without even needing to do the math, we can all agree that a 23% increase in performance for 200% increase in price will make it overpriced. Therefore, in a BEST case scenario, the Titan XP is overpriced. This means we can conclude that, no matter what, the Titan XP will be overpriced. Just because you know the number won't be indicative of real world performance doesn't mean you can't extrapolate information from it. Showm above why this is wrong. This is a merky one. While it shares some of the characteristics of price skimming, I'd argue that it may not be. Releasing GPUs, and then releasing new GPUs with the same performance for less $$ with a relatively short turn around is standard practice for the industry. Essentially what is happening is customers are paying to have a given amount of performance "X" amount of time earlier, than if they had just waited for the next card to come out. That's how the GPU market works. Unless you can show Nvidia is creating a cost to the customer that is significantly greater than the industry norm, then I don't think you can call it price skimming. The metric you're looking for is % of card's value per month. You also want to factor in price/performance curve, since values lower down the curve will have a smaller delta than ones higher up the curve. If you can show me the math for that, or a logical deduction that shows it's significantly greater than the industry norm, I will concede that it very much resembles price skimming. (Not a trap. Being genuine. I just don't have the time to do the math, and you're the one making the claim... so the onus is on you to prove it.) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ But alas, this is getting exhausting. I am officialy done. The only argument I'm willing to concede on is the price skimming. I know the rest of my logic is sound, and that's going to have to be enough for me. No point in trying to explain color to a blind man. Anyone with an understanding of logic and rational argument will be able to see what actually happened here.

Hey Fellow LTTers, I've been debating between the GTX 1080 (because it's a hell of a card), and the Titan XP (because I'm an idiot) for my next GPU which I plan to water cool. As far as I can tell, at least at the start, the Titan XP will only be available to buy directly from Nvidia. I know some manufacturers (EVGA) allow you to remove the stock cooler without voiding the warranties, while others (ASUS) don't. I emailed Nvidia asking them, and got a response saying you couldn't remove it... But the email was strangely worded, and the person didn't seem super knowledgeable. It seems silly to me that they'd sell a $1,200, ultimate card... But not let anyone water cool it without voiding the warranty of their very expensive card. Can anyone confirm Nvidia's warranty terms on Titan products?

While "too expensive" in itself doesn't really mean anything, it does when you make it relative to something. In the GPU market, if you take all the price and performance numbers of GPUs and their relative performance, you can make a curve that shows the performance you'd expect for $1200. We both agreed that you can create a curve that shows what a reasonable price for the market is. This curve will obviously show diminishing performance per extra dollar spent as you go up in performance. My argument (based on what we thought was the best information at the time, 50% increase over the 1080), was that, if you do the math, the cost per extra unit of performance is the same from the 1070 to the 1080, as it is from the 1080 to the Titan XP. Therefore, given that the curve shows DIMINISHING performance per dollar, we can logically deduce that it would fall below the curve. Beautiful graph, I know... Not exact, but it illustrated the idea. His argument, on the other hand, was "No. It's the most expensive ever... So it's overpriced and Nvidia is price gouging." He was making baseless, absolute statements based on nothing but his own opinion stated as fact. "The curve is set too high by the overpriced 10 series" <- proven wrong "Nvidia has been pumping up the prices for years" <- proven wrong "The Titan XP lies above the curve" <- based on zero calculations or knowledge (and wrong based on the assumptions we were operating under at the time) "Nvidia is price gouging" <- baseless statement "The only thing these cards could ever be is a ripoff" <- baseless statement It's not that he is sharing his opinion, which I may not agree with... It's that he's stating all these things as facts. Well said. Good points. Gotta love a person who can actually construct a logical argument.

Just because it's not exactly the same as what AMD does with rebranding doesn't mean it's not the same practice. They take a chip they've designed, and repackage it at a lower cost. It doesn't take any extra design work to disable a few CUDA cores. Nvidia created a new product for a new market segment because they felt there was a consumer demand for it... That is literally how every product and business gets created. Again... You're basing these statements on... what? You have literally not used any facts or logic to support any of your claims of this. It's just statements being made by you that "they are charging too much". Just adding "obviously" or stating that it's "ridiculous" does not make it a valid argument. If you're going to come out and say that "Nvidia's margins are too big" or "Nvidia is charging too much for their 10 series cards and the Titan" then back those statements up with some kind of proof. We're not just going to take your word for it because you said "obviously". Clearly you weren't following along. Inflation shows that from the GTX 580 to the GTX 980 (all following the same 20-30% performance increase between generations) did not actually go up in price when measuring in real dollars. <- Undeniable fact. The purpose of that, specifically, was to establish a baseline metric for the progression of GPUs. Again, x80 market segment... 20-30% performance increase for the same price in real dollars. I was establishing this fact to support a later argument I would make. This is how you build VALID arguments . At no point did I even come close to saying that inflation was the reason the Titan market segment was created. Dear lord... Again, you keep arguing with your invalid logic, even though I've already disproved it... but just MAYBE this time you'll get it. The presence of the Titan does not degrade anything. To look at it as "the x80 was the highest, and now it's not, so it does not occupy the same market segment" is not valid logic. This is where my previous statement comes into play (handy)... From the 580 to the 680, consumers saw an increase in performance of 20-30%. The introduction of the Titan did not change the fact that consumer got a 20-30% increase in performance with the 780 for the same amount. And the release of the Titan X did not change the fact that the consumer got a 20-30% increase in performance with the 980 for the same amount. ^^ Now we've established that the creation of a new market segment with the titan did not affect the previous market segment, or degrade it in any way. This is based entirely in fact. *recall your 10 series is priced too high comment* Now the 10 series hits. THIS is where the segments start to shift. Why do they shift? Because the x80 no longer falls into the 20-30% performance increase. It is actually double the standard generational performance increase. Now time for some math From what previous generations have told us, we should expect a 20-30% increase for ~$549. Let's be generous and say we should expect a 30% performance increase (1.3). What we get is a 60% performance increase (1.6). From that we can easily calculate what is a reasonable price for the 1080. 1.6/1.3 = ~1.23 <- So that tells us that the 1080 is 23% faster than the card we should have expected based on previous generations 549*1.23 = ~675 With the same price/performance of the card we should have expected based on the pattern of the GPU market over the past decade, the 1080 should cost $675. This shows that, based on previous generations of cards, all the way back to at least the 580, that $599 MSRP for the 1080 is actually underpriced for new segment. (Yes, obviously the FE is overpriced) This valid logic, based in fact, disproves your claims that the 10 series cards are overpriced. "It is the highest priced consumer single GPU gaming card ever made" Yes. That is a fact. But it is not a valid logical conclusion to say "It is the most expensive, therefore it is overpriced". Whether the Titan xp IS overpriced is a whole different discussion... But the fact that it's the most expensive yet is NOT proof of that. I literally handed you an argument on a silver platter, and you still managed to screw it up. Look at how the other guy laid out his argument. It was essentially: Directly from Nvidia is a credible source (number may be deceptive, but not technically a lie) It is reasonable to assume Nvidia (based on their best interests and past actions) would select a best case scenario, making it 60% at best and likely lower in a lot of scenarios A 60% increase over the XM shows it is only a 23% increase over the 1080, not the rumored 50%. Double the price for only a 23% performance gain is not reasonable, even at that performance level. Perfectly valid argument... And I agreed with him. That essentially disproves the 50% over the 1080 rumor, and makes the Titan XP overpriced. And.... We're back to baseless statements. "Nvidia CAN price gouge, therefore they ARE price gouging" is not a logical statement or proof of anything. To say that they'd price it as high as the market forces will allow because there is no competition at this moment is a very narrow-minded statement. The Titan GPUs are probably the companies most visible GPUs (flagship, poster boy), yet probably account for the smallest amount of total revenue due to the low volume. I imagine they could charge much higher than $1200 and people would still buy it.. But is it worth the shitty PR to make an extra small amount (by Nvidia revenue standards) because you have a temporary window with little competition? Probably not... but I don't actually know. The problem is, you don't actually know if they're price gouging either.. or have any proof either way, but you keep stating it as fact. Le sigh. The worst part about this all is that, given the Nvida blog post numbers, the Titan XP probably IS going to be overpriced... But it doesn't make anything you've said valid... especially since you didn't have those numbers, and we were operating under the assumption of a 50% performance increase. It's like.. If you had a friend who is about to flip a coin and says "I know with 100% certainty it's going to be heads". And you tell him he's wrong. He flips the coin, it's heads, and now he thinks that proves he was right.

What a valid argument looks like...

85-90C? I hope not... (Sorry, I'm Canadian) I mean, I could easily get away with less (4770k and whatever GPU I decide on will be in the loop).. But I have fun pushing my hardware to the limits, and I want to make sure thermals aren't the limiting factor. All I do is overkill.

That's my hope. The 1080 overclocks well, but is generally more limited by the chip itself, and not temperatures... If the Titan XP is clocked slower due to thermals (too many of dem CUDA cores), then throwing a waterblock on it and cooling it with my 5x120mm worth of Rad space should be enough to get a decent overclock. Although.. If it's only 23% faster than a 1080 to begin with.... I think I might have trouble dishing out $1200 USD for it...

These all seems like very reasonable assumptions. That's disappointing. Because, ya, if the 1080 is 30% faster than the Titan XM, and the Titan XP is 60% faster than the Titan XM... Then (1.6/1.3 = 1.23) the Titan XP is only 23% faster than the 1080.

It's really hard to say... But I feel like 60% faster than a Maxwell Titan X is the floor for the card, and 50% faster than a 1080 is the ceiling. If it's only 60% faster than a Titan XM, then that means it's ~23% faster than a 1080... which would make it overpriced.... If it's 50% faster than a 1080, that's actually a pretty good price. I guess it all depends where the rumor is coming from... If it's coming from Nvidia's marketing department, it's going to be an inaccurate, cherry picked statistic.... If it's coming from someone who has actually tested the card and broke the NDA, then it might be accurate (the 50% faster than a 1080 that is).

It has 60% more TFLOPS than the previous Titan X, but that doesn't translate directly to gaming performance. The only rumor out there on its actual performance is 50% faster than a GTX 1080... But until benchmarks are out, it's just that... A rumor.

That's adorable. You found a chart online and tried to interpret it. Yes, companies can price skim, that's very observant of you... But in this case, it's very easy to create the curve for the market with measurable GPU performance and price... And the Titan XP falls below that curve. And you still have not addressed the face that the value of GPU performance drops rapidly, which is why both companies do things like the rebranding of chips, to minimize R&D as a cost. Yes. Nvidia has to recoup the $1.4 billion they spent on developing Pascal, and then become profitable for investors so they can continue to develop products. And how do you fail to see the relevance of rebranding? It doesn't matter if it's "full fat", a variation of the chip, whatever... It's the fact that they develop a chip, sell it at a price, and then later re-package it at a much lower price. It's the same practice. And if you can't understand why you don't sell the lower priced, re-packaged chip first.. there's no helping you... You can't argue any of that at all... When new market segments emerge, it doesn't shift the old ones... Before the Titan series, the x60s, x70s, x80s were all seing 20-30% generational improvements, and that level of performance (factoring in generational improvements) has a certain price associated with it. They still occupy the same segment performance and price wise. From the 580 to the 980, the MSRP went from $499, to $549... and.. what do you know? That matches inflation almost exactly... You'd be correct in saying that the 1080 doesn't, but that's because the 1080 has shifted from it's usual segment. The usual 20-30% performance increase became 60%, justifying the extra $50 not accounted for by inflation. The fact that they stayed on the 28nm process for longer than usual is irrelevant because we were still seeing the same performance increases as standard per the industry. Especially if you're "viewing things from the customer's perspective". If the current gen Titan was a 30% improvement over the last x80, then you could safely say that the Titan has shifted to take over the x80 segment.. But that has never been the case. And I can fully argue that the performance delta between the x80 and the Titan has increased, and that justifies a greater price for the Titan... That's basic economics and math. As you showed in your pretty graph... As perceived value increased (i.e. relative market performance) so does the acceptable price. Really? With you talking about what the price should be because of the cost to the companies, and how this generational gap was bigger because of a node change (irrelevant to the consumer), it seems like you're very much not talking from the consumer perspective. As shown above, prices are still very much in line with what the consumer has come to expect from the industry over the past decade... So I'm not sure why all of a sudden things are worse for them because you don't think Nvidia is pricing appropriately compared to their costs.. Doesn't seem to be from a consumer perspective. Also, in regard to your comment as a whole. You keep talking about how the Titan XP is overpriced, and how the Titan XP is way above the curve... But at no point are you providing any facts or numbers to show that that is the case... The fact that we know the curve shows diminishing returns in terms of performance per dollar, and we know the cost of additional performance per dollar is nearly the same between the 1070 and the 1080, as it is between the 1080 and the Titan XP... Logically we can deduce that the Titan XP falls below the curve.

Each product will have it's own supply and demand, which can be graphed. But there is also a price/performance function for the GPU market, which is made up of all the relevant market offerings. If you lie above that curve, you product is priced higher than expected for that market. If you lie below it, you product is priced lower than expected for that market. Every new product affects the function, but does not define it... Which allows it to lie above or below the curve. When have I, at any point, said the Titan is priced where it is specifically because of manufacturing costs? I have specifically said that manufacturing costs is only a very small part of the cost calculation. Most of it is trying to recoup R&D expenses. People who spend more money get the benefits sooner... that's how it always works... Again, this is why rebranding is a thing.... When AMD rebranded their 7000 card for most of the R 200 series... The price of the same chips dropped. Was that because the cost to manufacture them went down? No. Was it some shady ploy by AMD? No. It's because now that it was "x" amount of time later, that level of graphics performance was valued at less. Price to performance, of course, drops with every generation. When has anyone been debating that? The price/performance curve is set by the RX 460-480, and the GTX 1060-1080, and is a function of RELATIVE price to performance for that generation (or the current prices of cards on the market)... The price/performance of irrelevant cards from previous generations is not a part of it. The performance delta between the x80 and the Titan has increased, which is why the price of the Titan increased. The Titan was a new market segment created by Nvidia. Before that the flaship x80 card would have a performance increase of 20-30% per generation. As evidenced by the 680 and 780 following that pattern, the Titan was a new, higher performance, market segment that didn't previously exist, and obviously commanded a higher price. Man. It's super obvious you've never taken an economics course...

As Patrick said, GameWorks did not gimp AMD cards.. It was technology created by Nvidia to capitalize on something their GPUs excelled at (tessellation). It's unfortunate that AMD cards sucked at it, but it doesn't mean Nvida and game developers shouldn't include it as an option so Nvidia cards can be used to their full extent. It's similar to Async compute and Maxwell. It's not AMD's fault that Maxwell sucked at async... And just because Maxwell sucked at Async doesn't mean AMD shouldn't be able to implement it so their cards can be used to their fullest extent.

Yes. Having an ACTUAL degree is business. I understand supply and demand. Yes, but if you create a price/performance curve based on current GPUs in the market from both vendors, and another card is launched that lies below that line, then you can say that the price of that product is lower than what the market dictates. What do you think re-branding cards is? The cost to manufacture the card is such a small part of the equasion. The majority of the price of a GPU is trying to recoup the R&D expenses. The market dictates what a reasonable price is. And you're right in saying that a company can charge whatever they want if they have no competition, but Nvidia clearly hasn't done that, since the price of this card actually falls below the standard price/performance function set by existing cards.

But... There's people on the internet.... and they're wrong....

Logical conclusion based on what? "Nvidia is intentionally gimping supply so they can charge way more than the card is worth" is not a logical conclusion... It's a statement based on no evidence. And you clearly don't have a Masters in business... maybe you took an introductory business course while taking your masters for something else... If you did you'd understand, as I mentioned earlier, that based on the price/performance curve for GPUs, that the Titan XP is actually reasonably priced.

Source? Sounds like you're just talking out of your ass... And you don't have to worry about industrial espionage, because you don't have "such information".

I was thinking Volta was 2017 as well, but according to Nvidia's roadmap it's 2018... http://wccftech.com/nvidia-volta-succeed-pascal-2018/ Given, that's from nearly a year ago... Things may have changed.

I agree with the statement in general. Don't really think that's the case with the Titan XP though.... You get about the same extra performance per dollar by going from the 1080 to this, as you do going from the 1070 to the 1080. Goes against the diminishing returns you'd expect. I do, however, think that's the case with the $1,750 Intel i7-6950X... Such a stupid price for that processor...

Please. Enlighten us with your knowledge of their cost to produce... Don't forget to include all of manufacturing, R&D, and distribution. Based on market prices of GPUs, the price for that card makes sense. This was in reference to your comment about them later releasing the 1080ti for less. This is what I wrote earlier to someone... So if you don't know, why are you speaking to it? Does the Titan need different drivers to be able to do these things? They are branded under the Geforce logo because it's intended for regular consumers, not enterprise. "Prosumers". If you'll look above, you'll see someone give a perfect example of a use case. You're not... You're giving baseless opinions to support your pro AMD stance. If you have any actual numbers or factual arguments, let me know... But as it stands right now I've shown that it does have a valid target market, the price is not unprecedented, and based on the GPU market the pricing is actually lower than would be expected for that performance.