Do you agree with nVidia's GPU pricing... - IT HAS DOUBLED!

[VagabondWraith]

I'm still debating to sell my 1080 now for $550, or wait for the 1080 Ti announcement and sell it for $350. I keep hearing an announcement at CES, which is just a few weeks away. But if I sell it now and strike out on any announcement, I've got a long wait using HD 530 graphics.

[App4that]

29 minutes ago, Cheddle said:

I'm mainly gaming in VR - SLI dosn't work at all in VR, not even forced AFR. 

 

per eye mGPU isnt real life yet - only two titles support it. Croteam and Nvidia themselves offer it. and the scaling isn't great.

 

I actually went from a 1080 to 2-way 980ti and then 3-way 980ti in my quest to see if SLI was worth bothering with - and here I am today... back on a single 1080.

Yeah, I don't get the hype around VR. The games look over 10 years old and you can't move around, you have to warp everywhere. I'm a sit back with a beer and chill gamer.

[Deli]

9 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

I'm still debating to sell my 1080 now for $550, or wait for the 1080 Ti announcement and sell it for $350. I keep hearing an announcement at CES, which is just a few weeks away. But if I sell it now and strike out on any announcement, I've got a long wait using HD 530 graphics.

There is a possibility of initial short supply and sky high price for the 1080 Ti for the first couple of months. Make your bet.

[VagabondWraith]

4 minutes ago, Deli said:

There is a possibility of initial short supply and sky high price for the 1080 Ti for the first couple of months. Make your bet.

I'll buy the reference (er founders) directly from NVidia. That way I can slap my AIO on it immediately. I'll have to wait til February for income tax to help pay for it, but having $550 to apply over $350 seriously helps quite a bit.

 

This will be my last GPU until Volta. Even if NVidia does a Pascal "refresh." So I'll definitely need more horsepower to drive 1440p 165Hz for 1-1/2 years.

 

I think I'll put the stock cooler on tomorrow and place it on eBay. I can wait (ugh it will be tough) a month or month and a half with no dGPU. I'm not really playing any games right now, well except Arkham Knight and Splinter Cell: Blacklist.  But I've already beaten both 2 times already. Lol

[Carclis]

5 hours ago, KWelz said:

I watched this video the other night and could only shake my head the entire time.  He really doesn't seem to understand either economics or the industry at all.  The entire video is built on a false premise.  That being the idea of a current Generation Titan X(P) being the equivalent of a GTX480 when it was released.  This is of course completely false.  The modern equivalent of a 480 is the 1080.  Which is not only priced similarly but targets the same exact audience.  

 

What Nvidia has done is Expand their offering.  They now take their lineup higher and lower than they used too.  

 

His video is the computer equivalent of complaining that a 2017 Acura TL costs more than a 2010 Honda Accord did when it was released.   They are different products targeting a different segment of the market.  

 

That's exactly what Nvidia would like you to believe. The Titan series of cards used to be a higher tier offering with something different with their FP64 performance but that was axed with Maxwell. Now you have a flagship that is called a Titan with a higher price than the previous versions and none of the features.

 

They are doing this with the GTX 1080 as well by selling it as a 980ti replacement when it's actually the tier below. If Vega proves to be good what you'll see is the 1080ti dropping into the same spot in the market where the 1080 sits.

 

Again, this isn't anything you cam blame Nvidia for really as they're just a business trying to make money and their competition isn't really pushing them. But at the end of the day you really can't deny that it's actually happening and that they're withholding upper levels of performance (1080ti) or just selling it for a ludicrous price (Titan X).

[kiwibacon]

I bought 980 ti first Nvidia card in years not impressed. U cant even turn sli off and on with apps running.If only fury x had hdmi 2.0. 

I have gotten g sync monitor but I don't care i can't stand Nvidia Bullshit tactics. 

Vote with ur wallet

 

[DocSwag]

10 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Pst....it doesn't help AMD's case when they rebrand an entire generation of cards in a manner that doesn't make it obvious to most people that they are rebrands. Instead of shifting them down a tier or 2....

I really wouldn't say that the 390/390x (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) was a total rebrand. It seems to me that (most likely) a more mature 28nm process allowed them to significantly increase the clock speeds and they also boosted the memory bandwidth to create a card that was probably 5-10% better than the 290/290x (I'd also say that the 390 is comparable in performance to the 290x, not the 290).

[Mr.Meerkat]

17 hours ago, WhiteSkyMage said:

did they ever sell a gaming GPU for $1000+?

If you include dual GPUs then yes, the 295X and the pro duo both costed more than  1 grand when they were launched  

[DocSwag]

5 hours ago, Carclis said:

That's exactly what Nvidia would like you to believe. The Titan series of cards used to be a higher tier offering with something different with their FP64 performance but that was axed with Maxwell. Now you have a flagship that is called a Titan with a higher price than the previous versions and none of the features.

 

They are doing this with the GTX 1080 as well by selling it as a 980ti replacement when it's actually the tier below. If Vega proves to be good what you'll see is the 1080ti dropping into the same spot in the market where the 1080 sits.

 

Again, this isn't anything you cam blame Nvidia for really as they're just a business trying to make money and their competition isn't really pushing them. But at the end of the day you really can't deny that it's actually happening and that they're withholding upper levels of performance (1080ti) or just selling it for a ludicrous price (Titan X).

I don't think they ever said the 1080 was a 980 ti replacement. They've always compared it against the 980 or 980 sli.

9 hours ago, MageTank said:

Both sides are equal in my eyes. To be a fanboy means you are already thinking irrationally. You, as a consumer, should never be loyal to a brand, only to whatever option provides you the most for your dollar. No side has any more knowledge than the other, and neither side is right. Both sides are wrong, as they choose blind devotion over all else.

 

I see it all the time, not just with computer tech, but with cars and other products. People often recommend what they use, as a means to justify their own purchase decisions. Those who give in, often repeat that same exact cycle to again, justify their purchases. Nobody wants to be told they made a terrible decision, and nobody wants to feel inferior to others, but in fan wars, you see this all the time. "Your card is slower than mine" or "I paid less and got more". These two scenario's come up often, and it's mostly people comparing paper metrics, and not the experiences themselves. You have people that vastly over-pay for hardware that they can't even fully utilize, just to trash talk those with "lower" setups, who end up with more or less the exact same experience. I see people blow $500-$700 on a GPU, and pair it with a terrible monitor (sometimes without Free/G-Sync) and boast about how much stronger their GPU is, but end up with a worse experience than someone that split their GPU/Monitor funding and ended up with a mid-high GPU and Free/G-Sync. This isn't exclusive to AMD or Nvidia, both sides make these mistakes, and it's almost always the devote fanboys making them.

 

At the end of the day, brand should not be a problem. Unless the brand has a serious quality control issue or bad warranty/RMA practices, you shouldn't really be paying them any mind. I know some of you moral warriors will often avoid a brand based on their business practices, and believe that by giving your hard earned money for a sub-par product you will somehow fight the system, but you are not helping. Instead, you are acting as an enabler, letting a company know it's okay to release sub-par products, and that they will be supported regardless because they play the moral high-ground. Business is business, and these companies should be fighting for your money, not the other way around, with you fighting to protect their brands.

I agree that both sides of the fanboys are equally uninformed and not to be trusted, but personally I find the AMD fanboys to be a little more annoying since they seem to tend to be a little more aggressive than the Nvidia fanboys. Just my own opinion.

 

I personally don't mind fanboys but ONLY when they are reasonable and don't try to force their opinion onto you. Then it's annoying AF, but I'm totally fine with it if the fanboy is civil and won't try to impose their opinion on what product YOU should buy onto you.

 

The only company I might fanboy towards a little right now is Google. I just like their products and what they're doing (find, I didn't like the huge budget cuts to Google X and the cancelling of Project Ara without a public announcement directly from Google about why (I'm also guessing the cancellation of it had to do with the massive budget restrictions brought in by their new CFO)). That doesn't stop me from recommending a smartphone outside of a Pixel though. And personally, me being kind of a Google fanboy doesn't mean I'll buy a pixel smartphone no matter how bad it is and how expensive it is. It just means I like the company. That's it. It doesn't influence my buying decisions at all.

 

I think that's what a fanboy should become. If you want to become a fanboy and like one company more than other? Fine. But don't let it influence your purchasing decisions. You can like the company more than others, but you don't always buy their products. You can be an AMD fanboy and like the company itself a lot more than Nvidia but when Maxwell came out you still bought a 970. I think that's what a fanboy should be, not the annoying-ass preacher who invades all the forums telling everyone of Saint *Insert Name of Company Here* and how their rival, Devil *Insert Name of Other Company Here*, is hurting the consumer and how we need to be enlightened and follow Saint *Insert Name of Company Here* and boycott the other company, but a person that likes a company but makes their purchasing decisions without bias.

 

However, I still feel justified in wanting a pixel to be my next smartphone since I want the android experience (iOS is just too locked down; too little customizability and no emulators or apps other than the App Store can be downloaded) without having to wait 7 months after its release for Marshmallow (I'm looking at you, OnePlus). But that's besides the point.

 

Also your last paragraph is interesting and gave me some thinking to do . Hmph, maybe I should quote that and add it to my (currently empty) signature.

 

 

[Guest]

Stumbled on one of those videos the other day (came up on my recommended - hey, youtube doing something right for once!). 

 

But, they are both guilty, it's not like you can get an AMD GPU for MUCH cheaper than nvidia for the same performance. 

 

While a monopoly doesn't exist, two companies is hardly enough to have a fair market. People will keep paying the price and the only savior is gaming needing much less to perform the same - which we are already seeing with entry level cards playing at 1080p. 

 

Graphics have a long way to go (I'm not not talking about 2D applications). 

[Suika]

Oh boy, this again.

 

Anybody remember how much the GTX 280 launched for?

 

Anybody remember the HD 5970? How much did that start out at?

 

How about the card that isn't even all that old, the GTX 780 Ti? God damn, that card was more expensive than the GTX 1080 at launch, including the inflated price.

 

The Titan is an exception that we don't talk about, it's not exactly marketed for ordinary consumers despite its amazing gaming performance. What is the Titan Pascal actually marketed for right now? Wasn't it for deep learning or something?

[Carclis]

23 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

I don't think they ever said the 1080 was a 980 ti replacement. They've always compared it against the 980 or 980 sli.

It's not what they have said, but where it is priced. I mean it's actually $50 more than the 980ti  if you want to be exact. With that said, we know there exists a 1080ti and it's pretty obvious that it will only rear its head once there is a product that is at least competitive with the 1080. 

[typographie]

18 hours ago, WhiteSkyMage said:

Look back in history and tell me, what was the price of GTX 480? What was it's price. As I remember having one of those, it was somewhere around $500. By the way - This was a 1st Tier GPU! Yes, 1st tier, meaning the best performance GPU from that generation. It was a TITAN effectively.

Ehh, you lost me here. The Titan is a SKU that didn't even exist back then, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to assume the GTX 480 was "the Titan of its day." If, next generation, Nvidia adds another SKU called the "Atlas" (to stick with the Titan theme, you see), should we try to compare the value of the GTX 480 against it? Is the GTX 480 suddenly the "Atlas of its day" instead, just because it was the fastest GTX 400 card? This could keep going every time Nvidia adds another tier to their lineup.

 

You'd still have a good case to make if you just kept it x80 card vs. x80 card. Prices have gone up up SKU for SKU, but I think it takes some logical gymnastics to say prices have doubled, though. And a think supply/demand issues contributed to the cards being even more expensive than Nvidia actually intended.

 

I would argue that the Pascal lineup are faster cards relative to today's games than Maxwell were versus their own launch year's games, and therefore may be worth a somewhat higher price. For example, the GTX 1070 is still widely and somewhat fairly considered a "1440p card" by the masses, whereas the GTX 970 was generating a lot of hate and being questioned even at 1080p by this point its life. I don't remember there ever being a point when anyone was recommending a 970 for 1440p, honestly.

[Carclis]

5 minutes ago, Suika said:

How about the card that isn't even all that old, the GTX 780 Ti? God damn, that card was more expensive than the GTX 1080 at launch, including the inflated price.

 

The Titan is an exception that we don't talk about, it's not exactly marketed for ordinary consumers despite its amazing gaming performance. What is the Titan Pascal actually marketed for right now? Wasn't it for deep learning or something?

Didn't the 780ti launch at $700 just like the 1080. Regardless, it was actually superior to the Titan at the time in terms of gaming performance making it the flagship card.

 

The later Titans (Maxwell and Pascal) are really just part of the standard GEForce lineup and would only be marketed as deep learning cards by virtue of being larger GPUs.

[Suika]

23 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Didn't the 780ti launch at $700 just like the 1080.

It launched at $700, unlike the 1080 which launched at $600.

[DocSwag]

1 hour ago, Carclis said:

It's not what they have said, but where it is priced. I mean it's actually $50 more than the 980ti  if you want to be exact. With that said, we know there exists a 1080ti and it's pretty obvious that it will only rear its head once there is a product that is at least competitive with the 1080. 

MSRP of 1080s is $600, so they inflated the 1080 by $50 over the 980. I wouldn't be surprised if when the 1080 ti comes out the 1080 drops to $550 MSRP.

[Carclis]

34 minutes ago, Suika said:

It launched at $700, unlike the 1080 which launched at $600.

That's a pretty questionable claim. The 1080 launched with only Founders Edition cards which were $700 and only a month later did non reference cards arrive. Furthermore, they were not much cheaper until production ramped up since it was basically a paper launch.

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, Carclis said:

That's a pretty questionable claim. The 1080 launched with only Founders Edition cards which were $700 and only a month later did non reference cards arrive. Furthermore, they were not much cheaper until production ramped up since it was basically a paper launch.

You could also then make the arguement that most 980 tis launched at above $650.

[Carclis]

4 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

You could also then make the arguement that most 980 tis launched at above $650.

I wouldn't argue with that, although the 980ti is above the 1080 in terms of product tier.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, Carclis said:

That's a pretty questionable claim. The 1080 launched with only Founders Edition cards which were $700 and only a month later did non reference cards arrive. Furthermore, they were not much cheaper until production ramped up since it was basically a paper launch.

AIB 1080s were available less than two weeks after founders edition cards were available and the reason for the delay was likely due to low yields on the new 16nm process. The 1080 still launched at $600 -- you just had to be willing to wait two whole weeks for AIB cards to start coming out (and at that point, it's up to AIBs how they choose to price their cards). 

[DocSwag]

1 hour ago, Carclis said:

I wouldn't argue with that, although the 980ti is above the 1080 in terms of product tier.

Nvidia upped all the pricing of their GPUs by $50 this gen. 1060 is $249 vs GTX   960's $200, 1070 is $379 vs 970's $329, and 1080 is $600 vs 980's $549. Nvidia definitely upped the pricing this gen. 980 ti still launched higher than 1080, but it's getting closer and I hope Nvidia won't raise the prices again with Volta. Most likely the 1080 ti will be $699; if it isn't, it will only be more expensive than that.

[MageTank]

3 hours ago, DocSwag said:

snip

There's nothing wrong with having a preferred brand. I certainly have one for most things I buy, mostly based on customer service interactions. EVGA is an example of this, as I tend to lean towards them if the price difference between their product and a competitors is minimal. That being said, if their design fails to fit my needs (kinda like the Z170 Stinger board did), i'll go with a different brand entirely (in this case, Asrock). For GPU's, I still prefer EVGA (my 1070 is from EVGA) but I've bought Zotac (750 Ti), MSI (GTX 770), XFX (9800GT), Nvidia Reference (GTX 560 Ti), and Sapphire (ATI HD 2400 Pro). I missed a few GPU's in between, only because I no longer own them, and cannot remember their brands, but my point is, even with having a preference to a brand, if price:performance and features is superior on a competing brand, and as long as their CS isn't notoriously bad (ASUS), it's probably wiser to go with the competing brand. If your preferred brand offers you peace of mind, or fits your aesthetics, and you are willing to pay more, or sacrifice features for it, that's fine too, just don't expect others to do the same.

 

I agree with you, that as long as people try not to force their opinions on to others, that they are perfectly fine showing loyalty to a brand (even if I myself don't really understand the benefit in doing so). I still believe that I don't owe a company anything, so I wouldn't go out of my way to defend them unless someone blatantly lies about them to boost their preferred brands. Always ask for evidence if someone makes a claim about a company. 

 

I expect someone to ask for my ASUS bad CS evidence. They will be flooded, lol.

[App4that]

10 hours ago, kiwibacon said:

I bought 980 ti first Nvidia card in years not impressed. U cant even turn sli off and on with apps running.If only fury x had hdmi 2.0. 

I have gotten g sync monitor but I don't care i can't stand Nvidia Bullshit tactics. 

Vote with ur wallet

 

Why is it people with less than a few hundred posts seem to be the ones posting garbage like this? 

 

You can't turn crossfire off ether without entering Crimson. Used to be worse. 

 

But I look forward to you buying AMD and finding out they are a company too.

[Dabombinable]

6 hours ago, DocSwag said:

I really wouldn't say that the 390/390x (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) was a total rebrand. It seems to me that (most likely) a more mature 28nm process allowed them to significantly increase the clock speeds and they also boosted the memory bandwidth to create a card that was probably 5-10% better than the 290/290x (I'd also say that the 390 is comparable in performance to the 290x, not the 290).

The entire R9 300 series-they kept the cards at the same tier as the R9 200 series. and 50MHz isn't a significant increase, and is easily managed by the R9 200 series. The only real change was more+higher binned vRAM being used on some models. And the R9 290X has the exact same die as the 390X.

[App4that]

6 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

The entire R9 300 series-they kept the cards at the same tier as the R9 200 series. and 50MHz isn't a significant increase, and is easily managed by the R9 200 series. The only real change was more+higher binned vRAM being used on some models. And the R9 290X has the exact same die as the 390X.

My Vapor X 290 beat my Nitro 390 in most titles. The 290 even matched the memory speed of the 390. Only real difference I ever found was the 390 had 8g of VRAM.