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

[Andrew Sh]

Yep pricing has gone crazy.

I remember buying my MSI R9 6970 Lighting (Top AMD single gpu at the time) for about 360euro.. That was equivalent to the GTX 580 which was the top dog back then.
I believe the 580 was about 400ish.

 

RRP for the GTX 590 was $700.. Now you can barely get a single GPU for that price.

 

NVIDIA	Price	AMD
GeForce GTX 590	$700	Radeon HD 6990
GeForce GTX 580	$480

[DocSwag]

11 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Somebody is very salty.

Good for you. There's no need to be arrogant, cocky or disrespectful.

 

since you think you're so knowledgeable in this subject, why don't you tell everybody what ALL the differences are between the 290 and the 390?

290 has half the vram of the 390.

 

290 came out of the box with lower clock speeds than the 390 and usually after overclocking the 390 would still be 50-100 MHz higher. This is most likely due to a more mature 28nm process, but it is possible there was some binning involved.

 

The 390 came out of the box with higher clocked memory than the 290, thus having more memory bandwidth. I do not have enough knowledge to know if, on average, the 390's memory after overclocking was still significantly higher clocked than the 290's after overclocked.

 

The 390 was launched at a cheaper price point.

 

The 390 had no reference card, but the 290 did and it was loud, hot, and IMO ugly.

 

The 390 was launched after the 290.

 

The 390 was intended as more mid range ish while the 290 was pointed at more performance and enthusiast.

 

The 290 and a 2 at the front. The 390 had a 3. 

 

A lot of people recommended a 390 over the 970. Not as many recommend a 290 over a 970.

 

Need me to go on?  

[YoloSwag]

6 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

290 has half the vram of the 390.

 

290 came out of the box with lower clock speeds than the 390 and usually after overclocking the 390 would still be 50-100 MHz higher. This is most likely due to a more mature 28nm process, but it is possible there was some binning involved.

 

The 390 came out of the box with higher clocked memory than the 290, thus having more memory bandwidth. I do not have enough knowledge to know if, on average, the 390's memory after overclocking was still significantly higher clocked than the 290's after overclocked.

 

The 390 was launched at a cheaper price point.

 

The 390 had no reference card, but the 290 did and it was loud, hot, and IMO ugly.

 

The 390 was launched after the 290.

 

The 390 was intended as more mid range ish while the 290 was pointed at more performance and enthusiast.

 

The 290 and a 2 at the front. The 390 had a 3. 

 

A lot of people recommended a 390 over the 970. Not as many recommend a 290 over a 970.

 

Need me to go on?  

I would agree to all of these except I actually like the look of the reference R9 290/290X. It was unique IMO

 

Also, I thought this thread was supposed to be dead yesterday it seems it's still alive and kicking lol 

[DocSwag]

7 minutes ago, YoloSwag said:

I would agree to all of these except I actually like the look of the reference R9 290/290X. It was unique IMO

 

Also, I thought this thread was supposed to be dead yesterday it seems it's still alive and kicking lol 

Lel. I don't like the flashy gamery stuff. I'm more of a minimalstic design guy so I like the Fractal Design cases in particular. Maybe it's just too dull for me. Too much black and red which I just don't like . But that's just my opinion.

[YoloSwag]

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

Lel. I don't like the flashy gamery stuff. I'm more of a minimalstic design guy so I like the Fractal Design cases in particular. Maybe it's just too dull for me. Too much black and red which I just don't like . But that's just my opinion.

I totally respect that. I like clean looks too for overall system design too. I just like the look of the reference cooler because it reminds me of something from Naruto lol.

[YoloSwag]

I think most of you would agree the R9 290/290X was like AMD's golden chips, these have aged very well (since 2013) and could still run some new games at their max or at least very high settings at 1080p.

 

Funny thing, in Anandtech's GPU bench thing the R9 290X ranks close to the GTX 780Ti which launched after the R9 290X at the $700 point just to justify their pricing of the GTX 780 which was also more expensive than the R9 290X even though it was not absolutely superior when it launched.

 

Now what does it say about pricing? If you say the pricing is directly proportionate to the performance cards give then why the disparity?

 

This has been the reality for a long time now - Nvidia = Marketed as a premium product with premium pricing whereas AMD (Radeon) would give as close as possible or sometimes better than the competitor's performance at a cheaper price with a drawback being it consumed a bit more power. That particular drawback has been exploited and more often than not, blown out of proportion by fan boys.

 

Nvidia took advantage of the fact that they had a strong fan base and could impose ridiculous pricing on the high end sector. This is very much present now as the GTX 1080s and GTX 1070s don't have competitors. Nvidia will continue to do such and will sell more at every segment as long as their flagship always wins, no matter how expensive that is. It doesn't matter if a competitor's product in a different segment beats them, as long as their flagship wins (no matter the cost) the fan boys will generalize Nvidia to be superior.

[XenosTech]

On 12/27/2016 at 10:23 PM, 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.  

 

No sir, he is correct with is anology. The gtx 480 is comparable to the TitanX(P) based on the fact that these are supposed to be the fully unlocked chips as the gtx 480 was back in its day and now nvidia are making a joke of them by releasing them at the same price point but targeted at gamers (basically them saying that gamers are stupid and would buy it since they are gonna be foaming at the mouth to get the best possible fps and have bragging rights.)

 

 

And people saying AMD has no offerings that may be true but how do you expect a company to compete up there with no money, consumers have proven to AMD that they will go team green even if they were the worst performing of the 2 (you could blame advertising department for that) but it still stands that people don't want to buy AMD products. In almost every AMD thread you see people just saying they want Vega to do well so the price of Nvidia cards will drop but how is that gonna help the market if you aren't going to buy it in the first place ?

[DocSwag]

33 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

No sir, he is correct with is anology. The gtx 480 is comparable to the TitanX(P) based on the fact that these are supposed to be the fully unlocked chips as the gtx 480 was back in its day and now nvidia are making a joke of them by releasing them at the same price point but targeted at gamers (basically them saying that gamers are stupid and would buy it since they are gonna be foaming at the mouth to get the best possible fps and have bragging rights.)

 

 

And people saying AMD has no offerings that may be true but how do you expect a company to compete up there with no money, consumers have proven to AMD that they will go team green even if they were the worst performing of the 2 (you could blame advertising department for that) but it still stands that people don't want to buy AMD products. In almost every AMD thread you see people just saying they want Vega to do well so the price of Nvidia cards will drop but how is that gonna help the market if you aren't going to buy it in the first place ?

How is the GTX 480 comparable to the Titan XP? Nvidia has stated it isn't meant for gaming but rather for compute workloads. That's like saying the hd 5870 is comparable to the Fire pro series. Wat. Nvidia hasn't released a,Pascal based GPU comparable to the GTX 480 yet. They made the 480 for gaming. They didn't make the Titan XP for gaming. NONE of the Titan cards are meant for gaming.

 

How do you expect them to compete with no money? First of all, it's their fault for having no money, second of all, they CAN compete up there. Ever heard of the fury x? How about the r9 290x? Those cards were straight up with the flagship Nvidia GPUs. They may not have been quite as powerful but they were pretty close and not as close to how far away the 5870 was from the 480.

 

We NEVER said we don't want to buy AMD cards. When the hell did we say that? We want vega to do well so that WE can buy it. I plan on getting vega unless it totally flops (I have a freesync monitor and 970 right now). 

 

We should have no obligation to buy a company because they aren't doing well. We should just get the card that has the best value at the price we are willing to pay. We shouldn't have to buy from one company because they're "doing bad." Did you guys advocate to buy fx CPUs 2 years ago? Probably not, because they're trash. But you don't apply that argument to CPUs, but now you apply it to GPUs. Wat.

 

Half a year ago I was like you, telling people to buy AMD cards to go against gimpworks and stuff. But then I REALIZED that that's not the way it should be done and now I'm basically neutral. One day, (hopefully) you will learn too and stop advocating for AMD because all you're doing is what people have done forever, vote for the underdog because they're not doing well, when in reality they shouldn't be using the support of others and be able to stand up for themselves. /rant

[WolfDeville]

Truth is, AMD doesn't really have anything fantastic to offer as their flagship card. NVIDIA can get away with it because they know they're currently the king of the hill and probably will be for quite some time. Even though I'm getting sick of my 980's, I won't be upgrading for a long time because what they're doing is disgusting.

[XenosTech]

14 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

How is the GTX 480 comparable to the Titan XP? Nvidia has stated it isn't meant for gaming but rather for compute workloads. That's like saying the hd 5870 is comparable to the Fire pro series. Wat. Nvidia hasn't released a,Pascal based GPU comparable to the GTX 480 yet. They made the 480 for gaming. They didn't make the Titan XP for gaming. NONE of the Titan cards are meant for gaming.

If you used your eyes properly you would of seen where I said that comparing it to the 480 based on the fact that they were supposed to be "full chip" as the 480 was, I didn't mention anything about either card being gamer specific and I had the "P" in brackets as the original poster did.

 

17 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

How do you expect them to compete with no money? First of all, it's their fault for having no money, second of all, they CAN compete up there. Ever heard of the fury x? How about the r9 290x? Those cards were straight up with the flagship Nvidia GPUs. They may not have been quite as powerful but they were pretty close and not as close to how far away the 5870 was from the 480.

How are you gonna compete in an area where 9/10 times people will buy the other card vs yours... If you ask some people if they even know who AMD is they'll be completely clueless as to who they are, hence why I said blame their marketing team (again if you would have used your eyes and read you would of seen that)

 

21 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

We NEVER said we don't want to buy AMD cards. When the hell did we say that? We want vega to do well so that WE can buy it. I plan on getting vega unless it totally flops (I have a freesync monitor and 970 right now). 

Sigh again look in most of the forum or any where for that fact you will see the typical "Hope vega does good so nvidia will lower their prices" which states that person really isn't that interested in AMD's offerings they just wanna get a nvidia gpu on the cheap...

 

24 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

We should have no obligation to buy a company because they aren't doing well. We should just get the card that has the best value at the price we are willing to pay. We shouldn't have to buy from one company because they're "doing bad." Did you guys advocate to buy fx CPUs 2 years ago? Probably not, because they're trash. But you don't apply that argument to CPUs, but now you apply it to GPUs. Wat.

Where did I say you had to buy something because a company was failing ? When AMD was ahead of nvidia no one was buying their gpu even though is was better in performance, cheaper and ran a lot cooler, there's a shit ton of evidence to prove that. I don't even argue about cpu's... I realised a while ago that an amd cpu sometimes show up the same way as an intel cpu saying 4 cores 8 threads even though the cpu was a true 8 core and there's evidence to prove that also. 2 years ago I didn't even care about cpu's I just wanted a gpu to game and a cpu to render my art work and run apps that i coded effortlessly.

 

30 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Half a year ago I was like you, telling people to buy AMD cards to go against gimpworks and stuff. But then I REALIZED that that's not the way it should be done and now I'm basically neutral. One day, (hopefully) you will learn too and stop advocating for AMD because all you're doing is what people have done forever, vote for the underdog because they're not doing well, when in reality they shouldn't be using the support of others and be able to stand up for themselves. /rant

I don't advocate for either side. I tell ppl buy what their money can afford and then make suggestions based on what they are looking for but since I know none of my friend upgrade that often they all have amd gpu since most people know that amd lends driver support longer than nvidia.

 

If you're gonna rant please don't pick and chose, it makes you look like certain people who shall remain nameless.

[DocSwag]

4 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

If you used your eyes properly you would of seen where I said that comparing it to the 480 based on the fact that they were supposed to be "full chip" as the 480 was, I didn't mention anything about either card being gamer specific and I had the "P" in brackets as the original poster did.

You said the gtx 480 is comparable to the Titan XP. I said it was not. If you're admitting the Titan is not gamer specific, then that just proves my point.

6 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

How are you gonna compete in an area where 9/10 times people will buy the other card vs yours... If you ask some people if they even know who AMD is they'll be completely clueless as to who they are, hence why I said blame their marketing team (again if you would have used your eyes and read you would of seen that)

People buying at the top end aren't usually blind fools. Less than half the people out there that bought a 980 ti bought it because they knew nothing about the fury x. They did their research and found that the 980 ti was a better card. If you'll note, there are a lot of people out there that got an r9 290x, and I believe there are currently more people out there that own a 290x than a 780 ti.

7 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Sigh again look in most of the forum or any where for that fact you will see the typical "Hope vega does good so nvidia will lower their prices" which states that person really isn't that interested in AMD's offerings they just wanna get a nvidia gpu on the cheap...

You're mis-interpreting it. I've said that before too. It's because I want Vega to do well so Nvidia will have to lower prices so it's more fierce competition and in the end we purchase either AMD or Nvidia and we, the consumer, win. I guarantee, if you ask most of the people that said that on the forum they didn't mean that they 100% will not buy an AMD card.

 

9 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Where did I say you had to buy something because a company was failing ? When AMD was ahead of nvidia no one was buying their gpu even though is was better in performance, cheaper and ran a lot cooler, there's a shit ton of evidence to prove that. I don't even argue about cpu's... I realised a while ago that an amd cpu sometimes show up the same way as an intel cpu saying 4 cores 8 threads even though the cpu was a true 8 core and there's evidence to prove that also. 2 years ago I didn't even care about cpu's I just wanted a gpu to game and a cpu to render my art work and run apps that i coded effortlessly.

Not really. AMD had a pretty big comeback in terms of market share during the 4000 and 5000 series. And for the AMD CPU part, that's because of how the architecture is designed. CMT means there are only 4 FPUs but there are 8 ALUs, so different apps report it differently. 

 

18 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

I don't advocate for either side. I tell ppl buy what their money can afford and then make suggestions based on what they are looking for but since I know none of my friend upgrade that often they all have amd gpu since most people know that amd lends driver support longer than nvidia.

 

1 hour ago, XenosTech said:

And people saying AMD has no offerings that may be true but how do you expect a company to compete up there with no money, consumers have proven to AMD that they will go team green even if they were the worst performing of the 2 (you could blame advertising department for that) but it still stands that people don't want to buy AMD products. In almost every AMD thread you see people just saying they want Vega to do well so the price of Nvidia cards will drop but how is that gonna help the market if you aren't going to buy it in the first place ?

This sounds quite contradictory. It sounds to me in here like you're advocating people to support team red. 

20 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

If you're gonna rant please don't pick and chose, it makes you look like certain people who shall remain nameless.

I'm not sure what you mean by pick and choose...

[XenosTech]

2 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

You said the gtx 480 is comparable to the Titan XP. I said it was not. If you're admitting the Titan is not gamer specific, then that just proves my point.

People buying at the top end aren't usually blind fools. Less than half the people out there that bought a 980 ti bought it because they knew nothing about the fury x. They did their research and found that the 980 ti was a better card. If you'll note, there are a lot of people out there that got an r9 290x, and I believe there are currently more people out there that own a 290x than a 780 ti.

You're mis-interpreting it. I've said that before too. It's because I want Vega to do well so Nvidia will have to lower prices so it's more fierce competition and in the end we purchase either AMD or Nvidia and we, the consumer, win. I guarantee, if you ask most of the people that said that on the forum they didn't mean that they 100% will not buy an AMD card.

 

Not really. AMD had a pretty big comeback in terms of market share during the 4000 and 5000 series. And for the AMD CPU part, that's because of how the architecture is designed. CMT means there are only 4 FPUs but there are 8 ALUs, so different apps report it differently. 

 

 

This sounds quite contradictory. It sounds to me in here like you're advocating people to support team red. 

I'm not sure what you mean by pick and choose...

Pick and choose just means you just picked out certain things while ignoring the rest of what I said to make an argument.

 

Believe me, I don't advocate for either side that would kinda put my freelance work at risk a side from my regular job.

 

6 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

You said the gtx 480 is comparable to the Titan XP. I said it was not. If you're admitting the Titan is not gamer specific, then that just proves my point.

It is comparable if you solely look at it from the point that the 480 was a fully unlocked chip and they titans now are coming as cut down versions of another card. Pretty sure someone mentioned that early up in the thread.

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, XenosTech said:

No sir, he is correct with is anology. The gtx 480 is comparable to the TitanX(P) based on the fact that these are supposed to be the fully unlocked chips as the gtx 480 was back in its day and now nvidia are making a joke of them by releasing them at the same price point but targeted at gamers (basically them saying that gamers are stupid and would buy it since they are gonna be foaming at the mouth to get the best possible fps and have bragging rights.)

 

 

And people saying AMD has no offerings that may be true but how do you expect a company to compete up there with no money, consumers have proven to AMD that they will go team green even if they were the worst performing of the 2 (you could blame advertising department for that) but it still stands that people don't want to buy AMD products. In almost every AMD thread you see people just saying they want Vega to do well so the price of Nvidia cards will drop but how is that gonna help the market if you aren't going to buy it in the first place ?

No, he is still wrong with his analogy. The GTX 480 was NOT the fully unlocked Fermi (GF110) but rather GF104. You cannot compare that to GK110, Kepler's completely uncut product. Just like OP's analogy involved a GTX 680 (GK104) and was comparing it to GK110, another incorrect comparison. Fully unlocked Fermi had 512 cuda cores, not 480 (This is obvious from looking at the Quadro 7000, the cards in which the cutdown GF110 comes from). 

 

My point is, you cannot compare the flagship of the first revision of an architecture, to a flagship from the second revision of a different architecture, and expect it to be apples to apples. The GTX Titan is considered the 700 series, not 600, so even mentioning the 680 is simply incorrect from a comparison standpoint. The GTX 480 is basically a GTX 570, so you can't even make that comparison. At best, you have to compare the GTX 580 to the Titan.

[XenosTech]

4 minutes ago, MageTank said:

No, he is still wrong with his analogy. The GTX 480 was NOT the fully unlocked Fermi (GF110) but rather GF104. You cannot compare that to GK110, Kepler's completely uncut product. Just like OP's analogy involved a GTX 680 (GK104) and was comparing it to GK110, another incorrect comparison. Fully unlocked Fermi had 512 cuda cores, not 480 (This is obvious from looking at the Quadro 7000, the cards in which the cutdown GF110 comes from). 

 

My point is, you cannot compare the flagship of the first revision of an architecture, to a flagship from the second revision of a different architecture, and expect it to be apples to apples. The GTX Titan is considered the 700 series, not 600, so even mentioning the 680 is simply incorrect from a comparison standpoint. The GTX 480 is basically a GTX 570, so you can't even make that comparison. At best, you have to compare the GTX 580 to the Titan.

You can compare them to notice the pattern up to this point and I'm not speaking in terms of performance just them being fully unlocked chips

[DocSwag]

18 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Pick and choose just means you just picked out certain things while ignoring the rest of what I said to make an argument.

 

Believe me, I don't advocate for either side that would kinda put my freelance work at risk a side from my regular job.

 

It is comparable if you solely look at it from the point that the 480 was a fully unlocked chip and they titans now are coming as cut down versions of another card. Pretty sure someone mentioned that early up in the thread.

So, who cares? Nvidia will probably sell a 1080 ti for $700, why shouldn't that be the card it should be compared to? Why shouldn't it be compared to a 980 ti instead of Titan x Maxwell?

 

And you didn't address any of my other points.

[DocSwag]

10 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

You can compare them to notice the pattern up to this point and I'm not speaking in terms of performance just them being fully unlocked chips

You're comparing them based on the fact that they're unlocked chips? So you're saying you could compare a GTX 480 to a GTX 960?!?

15 minutes ago, MageTank said:

No, he is still wrong with his analogy. The GTX 480 was NOT the fully unlocked Fermi (GF110) but rather GF104. You cannot compare that to GK110, Kepler's completely uncut product. Just like OP's analogy involved a GTX 680 (GK104) and was comparing it to GK110, another incorrect comparison. Fully unlocked Fermi had 512 cuda cores, not 480 (This is obvious from looking at the Quadro 7000, the cards in which the cutdown GF110 comes from). 

 

My point is, you cannot compare the flagship of the first revision of an architecture, to a flagship from the second revision of a different architecture, and expect it to be apples to apples. The GTX Titan is considered the 700 series, not 600, so even mentioning the 680 is simply incorrect from a comparison standpoint. The GTX 480 is basically a GTX 570, so you can't even make that comparison. At best, you have to compare the GTX 580 to the Titan.

Actually the 480 is based on GK100 (I think that's the flagship, not GK110), but it is a cut down GK100 at 480 SPs whereas the full GPU is 512 SPs.

[MageTank]

7 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

You can compare them to notice the pattern up to this point and I'm not speaking in terms of performance just them being fully unlocked chips

GF100 was not the fully unlocked chip though. GF110 was. With your logic, GK104 was the fully unlocked kepler flagship. 

 

The only comparison you can make between the two, is prices. You cannot possibly compare different architecture chips with each other. This entire concept is silly. Nvidia prices their flagships that high, for two reasons:

 

#1. They have no competition in the high end at the moment

#2. People pay for it

 

The Titan cards are the only outliers when it comes to pricing on the NVidia consumer lineup. It's okay to nitpick the details as long as it fits an agenda, right? Let's be real. People worried about price:performance never look at flagships, and if you buy flagships (even the older ones) you didn't do so because they were priced reasonably. You bought them because you wanted the best, and were willing to pay for it. Sure, Nvidia's flagship is twice the price (100% higher) as their older flagships, but AMD's current flagship (R9 Fury X) is also 71% higher than it's older flagships. Sure, Nvidia's is 29% higher, but are we now supposed to turn a blind eye to AMD's flagship inflation because it's still less than Nvidia's? Come on people. That video's premise is weak, and his message is absolutely bonkers. You do NOT give your hard earned money for an inferior product, just because it might help competition. It's not your job to promote competition by giving your money away to a company. It's the companies job to promote superior products and fight for your money. Whether it's AMD or Nvidia, buy the product that gives you the best performance for your dollar. Do not let this video tell you otherwise. 

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

You're comparing them based on the fact that they're unlocked chips? So you're saying you could compare a GTX 480 to a GTX 960?!?

Actually the 480 is based on GK100 (I think that's the flagship, not GK110), but it is a cut down GK100 at 480 SPs whereas the full GPU is 512 SPs.

My apologies, I confused it with the GTX 460 (GF104). Still, GF100 is not the fully unlocked Fermi, that goes to the GF110 (Quadro 7000/ GTX 580). Just like GK104 was not the fully unlocked Kepler (GK110), and just like Pascal's GP104 (1070/1080) AND GP102 (Titan XP / 1080 Ti) isn't the fully unlocked Pascal core (GP100). People act like this trend just started, and act like AMD hasn't done this same practice before.

[XenosTech]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

GF100 was not the fully unlocked chip though. GF110 was. With your logic, GK104 was the fully unlocked kepler flagship. 

 

The only comparison you can make between the two, is prices. You cannot possibly compare different architecture chips with each other. This entire concept is silly. Nvidia prices their flagships that high, for two reasons:

 

#1. They have no competition in the high end at the moment

#2. People pay for it

 

The Titan cards are the only outliers when it comes to pricing on the NVidia consumer lineup. It's okay to nitpick the details as long as it fits an agenda, right? Let's be real. People worried about price:performance never look at flagships, and if you buy flagships (even the older ones) you didn't do so because they were priced reasonably. You bought them because you wanted the best, and were willing to pay for it. Sure, Nvidia's flagship is twice the price (100% higher) as their older flagships, but AMD's current flagship (R9 Fury X) is also 71% higher than it's older flagships. Sure, Nvidia's is 29% higher, but are we now supposed to turn a blind eye to AMD's flagship inflation because it's still less than Nvidia's? Come on people. That video's premise is weak, and his message is absolutely bonkers. You do NOT give your hard earned money for an inferior product, just because it might help competition. It's not your job to promote competition by giving your money away to a company. It's the companies job to promote superior products and fight for your money. Whether it's AMD or Nvidia, buy the product that gives you the best performance for your dollar. Do not let this video tell you otherwise. 

But we both know that a while back people gave their hard earned money for an inferior card simply because they saw nvidia logos plastered every where and that  gave nvidia the power to dominate the gpu market as it does now. Nvidia prices are still insane on a whole, where I live stores refuse to stop 1080's and they have a handful of 1070's, you mostly find 1060's, 1050's and you can find the whole amd line with ease new or used. 

 

I don't buy in the flagship range of cards so I rarely look at them, 1060's, rx 480's and 470's fall more into where I would willingly release my money to buy them since I don't really buy new games every year (last time I bought a game was when bf3 was new and I just got r6 and bf1 as the newest game titles I own)

 

Sidenote: Need to pm you on some advice.

[DocSwag]

18 minutes ago, MageTank said:

GF100 was not the fully unlocked chip though. GF110 was. With your logic, GK104 was the fully unlocked kepler flagship. 

 

The only comparison you can make between the two, is prices. You cannot possibly compare different architecture chips with each other. This entire concept is silly. Nvidia prices their flagships that high, for two reasons:

 

#1. They have no competition in the high end at the moment

#2. People pay for it

 

The Titan cards are the only outliers when it comes to pricing on the NVidia consumer lineup. It's okay to nitpick the details as long as it fits an agenda, right? Let's be real. People worried about price:performance never look at flagships, and if you buy flagships (even the older ones) you didn't do so because they were priced reasonably. You bought them because you wanted the best, and were willing to pay for it. Sure, Nvidia's flagship is twice the price (100% higher) as their older flagships, but AMD's current flagship (R9 Fury X) is also 71% higher than it's older flagships. Sure, Nvidia's is 29% higher, but are we now supposed to turn a blind eye to AMD's flagship inflation because it's still less than Nvidia's? Come on people. That video's premise is weak, and his message is absolutely bonkers. You do NOT give your hard earned money for an inferior product, just because it might help competition. It's not your job to promote competition by giving your money away to a company. It's the companies job to promote superior products and fight for your money. Whether it's AMD or Nvidia, buy the product that gives you the best performance for your dollar. Do not let this video tell you otherwise. 

My apologies, I confused it with the GTX 460 (GF104). Still, GF100 is not the fully unlocked Fermi, that goes to the GF110 (Quadro 7000/ GTX 580). Just like GK104 was not the fully unlocked Kepler (GK110), and just like Pascal's GP104 (1070/1080) AND GP102 (Titan XP / 1080 Ti) isn't the fully unlocked Pascal core (GP100). People act like this trend just started, and act like AMD hasn't done this same practice before.

What's the difference between gf100 and gf110? I just got a little confused by all this . Is gf110 just gf100 with a few small improvements here and there?

4 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

But we both know that a while back people gave their hard earned money for an inferior card simply because they saw nvidia logos plastered every where and that  gave nvidia the power to dominate the gpu market as it does now. Nvidia prices are still insane on a whole, where I live stores refuse to stop 1080's and they have a handful of 1070's, you mostly find 1060's, 1050's and you can find the whole amd line with ease new or used. 

 

I don't buy in the flagship range of cards so I rarely look at them, 1060's, rx 480's and 470's fall more into where I would willingly release my money to buy them since I don't really buy new games every year (last time I bought a game was when bf3 was new and I just got r6 and bf1 as the newest game titles I own)

 

Sidenote: Need to pm you on some advice.

What inferior card? I'd like to know which one you're referring to.

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

But we both know that a while back people gave their hard earned money for an inferior card simply because they saw nvidia logos plastered every where and that  gave nvidia the power to dominate the gpu market as it does now.

 

Nvidia prices are still insane on a whole, where I live stores refuse to stop 1080's and they have a handful of 1070's, you mostly find 1060's, 1050's and you can find the whole amd line with ease new or used. 

It doesn't help matters that AMD drivers used to be complete shit. 

 

That still has a lot more to do with regional issues rather than Nvidia -- else you would see the same trend in the US too, which you don't.

 

3 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

What's the difference between gf100 and gf110? I just got a little confused by all this . Is gf110 just gf100 with a few small improvements here and there?

AFAIK, GF100 had 1 cluster disabled (32 cuda cores), which was enabled on GF110. 

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

It doesn't help matters that AMD drivers used to be complete shit. 

 

That still has a lot more to do with regional issues rather than Nvidia -- else you would see the same trend in the US too, which you don't.

 

AFAIK, GF100 had 1 cluster disabled, which was enabled on GF110. 

Wait, so they really were the same chip?

 

EDIT: As in die.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

Wait, so they really were the same chip?

Well, the GF110 has 6.7% more cuda cores (512 vs. 480).

[XenosTech]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

It doesn't help matters that AMD drivers used to be complete shit. 

 

That still has a lot more to do with regional issues rather than Nvidia -- else you would see the same trend in the US too, which you don't.

Actually stores here have to buy from the US since they're way closer to us and yes the drivers weren't always bad but yeah that didn't help either

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Well, the GF110 has 6.7% more cuda cores (512 vs. 480).

So they were two different dies and the only difference was that then?

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, XenosTech said:

But we both know that a while back people gave their hard earned money for an inferior card simply because they saw nvidia logos plastered every where and that  gave nvidia the power to dominate the gpu market as it does now. Nvidia prices are still insane on a whole, where I live stores refuse to stop 1080's and they have a handful of 1070's, you mostly find 1060's, 1050's and you can find the whole amd line with ease new or used. 

 

I don't buy in the flagship range of cards so I rarely look at them, 1060's, rx 480's and 470's fall more into where I would willingly release my money to buy them since I don't really buy new games every year (last time I bought a game was when bf3 was new and I just got r6 and bf1 as the newest game titles I own)

 

Sidenote: Need to pm you on some advice.

It's very true that they tend to undermine their own cards, but here's my question in return: If the previous "known" flagship's performance was worth what you paid for it then, why is it all of a sudden not worth it, once a stronger card comes out afterwards? If that bothers you, then clearly you did not buy the card because of it's price:performance, you bought it because it was the fastest. This is the entire underlying point I have been making. The cards are priced as high as they are because they are the fastest, period. If their competition had a similarly performing card, they would cut prices to match it. They did it with the 980 Ti. AMD launched the Fury X, which made the Titan X look awful in nearly every regard, so Nvidia answered with yet another slightly cutdown card, to match the Fury X. 

 

The solution offered by that video is nonsense. His entire plan to force Nvidia to lower prices, is to boycott their entire product line, because a single card in the lineup is too high? Answer this for me. What single AMD card can you purchase, to play 1440p games at high refresh rates (100+) on most titles? Better yet, what single AMD card can you purchase, to properly drive 4k at medium-high settings? Sure, you can crossfire cards to get the jobs done, and in the 4k scenario, frametime wouldn't exceed 16ms often, so it wouldn't be a big deal, but in the 1440p 100hz scenario, frametime could very well be an issue. 

 

AMD simply does not have an answer to Pascal's high end yet. It's not Nvidia's fault, it's not the consumers fault, it's AMD's alone. They are fighting two fronts (CPU's and GPU's) and are slightly in over their heads. That being said, I think they hit the nail on the head with the $100-$250 price points, and are absolutely dominating in that regard. If they can do the same in the high end with Vega, then AMD should be fine. The problem is, they are behind in regards to release schedules, so Pascal 2.0 (or Volta) will likely answer whatever AMD releases. 

 

The guy in that video can claim he isn't a fanboy of either side, but his solution certainly begs to differ. His solution is far more anti-consumer than Nvidia's high prices, as he expects consumers to settle for less and serve as a crutch for a company that did not deliver competing products for them to buy. That's not the answer to this problem at all, and never should be.