How low does the 7900 XT have to go before it's a good value?

[xFluing]

Just now, Dedayog said:

Where is the logic that something is to be better yet costs the same?  

 

If I improve a product, I am going to recoup my R&D into that improvement. 

 

Unless there is a large cost saving initiative that happened, costs have to be passed on.

Look at the cost of cards pre-crypto. All cards from the same tier had the same MSRP or in the rough ballpark.

 

The "if i improve i am going to recoup my money" is bullshit - you recoup it from the sales anyway anything else is just corporate bullshit and excuses to squeeze out the consumer for the last penny

[YoungBlade]

1 minute ago, xFluing said:

The logic is that if the 7900 XT is supposed to replace the 6800 then it should be at the same MSRP as the 6800 (and even then nowadays it would still be a bad price as the 6800 MSRP was ballooned by the crypto bubble to all hell to begin with)

The 6800 MSRP was announced before the crypto bubble happened. And its generational improvement vs the RX 5700 XT was seen as excellent in spite of it costing more. When I say that the $580 was seen as "at worst... iffy" I mean that. Basically every outlet praised the RX 6800 as a great value card. Only a few gave pause due to the RTX 3070 being cheaper and having better RT performance, but otherwise, the RX 6800 was seen as the superior option.

 

When in history has there ever been an uplift of 50% over the previous gen, that also came with a 15% price drop vs the previous MSRP, and the newer card also offered more features and VRAM?

[xFluing]

Just now, YoungBlade said:

The 6800 MSRP was announced before the crypto bubble happened. And its generational improvement vs the RX 5700 XT was seen as excellent in spite of it costing more. When I say that the $580 was seen as "at worst... iffy" I mean that. Basically every outlet praised the RX 6800 as a great value card. Only a few gave pause due to the RTX 3070 being cheaper and having better RT performance, but otherwise, the RX 6800 was seen as the superior option.

 

When in history has there ever been an uplift of 50% over the previous gen, that also came with a 15% price drop vs the previous MSRP, and the newer card also offered more features and VRAM?

OK I had no idea of that but still, yeah it's iffy BECAUSE it's a higher price, when it should have been the same as the previous generation.

[YoungBlade]

7 minutes ago, xFluing said:

OK I had no idea of that but still, yeah it's iffy BECAUSE it's a higher price, when it should have been the same as the previous generation.

Why?

 

Look up the reviews of the GTX 1080Ti, a high end card that came out $50 more expensive than the launch price of the GTX 980Ti and offering about 60% more performance with nearly double the VRAM. The 1080Ti is legendary for its great value at the $700 price point - a lot of people even call it a "mistake" on the part of Nvidia for releasing such a good value card. GN will often joke that "Nvidia's not going to make that mistake again."

 

And yet, despite being legendary for its value, it was still more expensive than the previous gen by 8%.

 

To say that the norm should be 50%+ performance for the same price as last gen, when you look at the context of the history of GPU pricing, is strange to me.

[xFluing]

Just now, YoungBlade said:

Why?

 

Look up the reviews of the GTX 1080Ti, a high end card that came out $50 more expensive than the launch price of the GTX 980 Ti and offering about 60% more performance with nearly double the VRAM. The 1080Ti is legendary for its great value at the $700 price point - a lot of people even call it a "mistake" on the part of Nvidia for releasing such a good value card. GN will often joke that "Nvidia's not going to make that mistake again."

 

And yet, despite being legendary for its value, it was still more expensive than the previous gen by 8%.

 

To say that the norm should be 50%+ performance for the same price as last gen, when you look at the context of the history of GPU pricing, is strange to me.

That's just called corporate dumbfuckery. Any argument against cards staying the same price is just some suit trying to add 1 penny to a company's bottom line, moreover it's dumb to say THAT, instead of following the trend of past generations. And it's not even 50%, in some cases a performance increase of 100% but without competition nvidia won't EVER do that again (especially since, technically, every x80 card since the 780 is a midrange card sold for high end prices)

[YoungBlade]

4 minutes ago, xFluing said:

That's just called corporate dumbfuckery. Any argument against cards staying the same price is just some suit trying to add 1 penny to a company's bottom line, moreover it's dumb to say THAT, instead of following the trend of past generations. And it's not even 50%, in some cases a performance increase of 100% but without competition nvidia won't EVER do that again (especially since, technically, every x80 card since the 780 is a midrange card sold for high end prices)

In that case, the GPU market has never been fair, it's always been a scam, and the majority of the tech community is composed of suits.

 

Again, the 1080Ti was praised heavily by Gamers Nexus - are you really going to argue that Gamers Nexus is pro-corporate and not pro-consumer?

 

It is not a bad thing for these companies to make money. If they stop making money, then they stop making products, and then we have nothing. The issue is when they act in ways that are anti-consumer (like having the GT 1030 DDR4, RX 580 2048SP, RTX 3060 8GB, etc) or when they price things in ways that are out of line with the market and the expectations of the community.

[Mark Kaine]

3 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

, that would make it much cheaper than even the RX 6800, which had an MSRP of $580, and was not considered a rip-off

yeah, but what im saying is gpus are generally way overpriced, shouldn't really cost more than ~700 for top end. look at intel for that,  i think thats more realistic pricing (i hope it stays that way)

[Dedayog]

1 hour ago, xFluing said:

Look at the cost of cards pre-crypto. All cards from the same tier had the same MSRP or in the rough ballpark.

 

The "if i improve i am going to recoup my money" is bullshit - you recoup it from the sales anyway anything else is just corporate bullshit and excuses to squeeze out the consumer for the last penny

I don't completely agree but we can each look at things differently.  

 

 

[YoungBlade]

9 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah, but what im saying is gpus are generally way overpriced, shouldn't really cost more than ~700 for top end. look at intel for that,  i think thats more realistic pricing (i hope it stays that way)

The reason that the top Intel card is $330 is because it competes with the RTX 3060 and RX 6650XT in terms of performance, and those cards sell around that price point (although the 6650XT has fallen in price since the A770 was released and now sells for less, but at the time it was around that price)

 

I agree that the current generation is overpriced, but stupid high-end options have always existed. It's just that they used to call them "Titan" cards instead, so fewer people cared. Now that they're called "GeForce XX90" it's a problem.

[xFluing]

5 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

The reason that the top Intel card is $330 is because it competes with the RTX 3060 and RX 6650XT in terms of performance, and those cards sell around that price point (although the 6650XT has fallen in price since the A770 was released and now sells for less, but at the time it was around that price)

 

I agree that the current generation is overpriced, but stupid high-end options have always existed. It's just that they used to call them "Titan" cards instead, so fewer people cared. Now that they're called "GeForce XX90" it's a problem.

Thats not the problem and you are completely missing the point, furthermore the "titans" used to be regular ass cards. Look at the GF-200 in the gtx580 and then the GK104 in the 780 and then GK100 in the titan. They intentionally offset the stack so they can charge more for an 80 class card without backlash. A 580 was never $700

[YoungBlade]

12 minutes ago, xFluing said:

Thats not the problem and you are completely missing the point, furthermore the "titans" used to be regular ass cards. Look at the GF-200 in the gtx580 and then the GK104 in the 780 and then GK100 in the titan. They intentionally offset the stack so they can charge more for an 80 class card without backlash. A 580 was never $700

I don't think I have. Here's a topic I made back in October about the poor value of the, then upcoming, "RTX 4080 16GB" card. I compared it to the past generations all the way back to the GTX 480 and referred to the pricing as "catastrophic."

 

 

I agree that the current models are overpriced - where we disagree is by how much.

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

On 3/8/2023 at 9:46 AM, YoungBlade said:

The RX 7900 XT has become readily available at the $800 price point. Plenty of cards are still priced over that, however, it looks like the cards still aren't selling out at $800. This must mean that a lot of people don't think that's a low enough price to pull the trigger.

 

Do you think that the RX 7900 XT has reached a reasonable price point, yet? If not, how low does it need to go? And at what point does it become a great value card that's easy to recommend?

 

It's got about $100 more to go IMO. At $700, I'd consider upgrading my 3060ti. At $650, I WOULD upgrade my 3060ti, if that makes any sense. Not even considering a 4070ti with its measly 12gb of VRAM. Modern games are being handicapped big time by the lack of VRAM.

 

Anyone who is buying a 4070ti right now is silly IMO. The 7900xt is such a better value it's not even funny at the same exact price.