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

[XenosTech]

4 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?

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

Look back to the the time of the 5870 and 5850 you'll see

[Morgan MLGman]

On 12/28/2016 at 3:46 AM, App4that said:

A R9 390 cost 300 damn dollar, a top of the line RX 480 gets pretty close to 300 damn dollars. They perform the same...

I disagree with this, with current drivers an RX 480 beats a 390X at 1080p on average.

[DocSwag]

13 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Look back to the the time of the 5870 and 5850 you'll see

Against the 470 and 480?

[XenosTech]

16 minutes ago, MageTank said:

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. 

I didn't watch the whole vid he started to ramble at some point and I zoned out so i missed out on the boycotting part, but for the part where he was talking about nvidia charging premium price for a cut down chip even when they had competition he had a point there. Yeah I know 480's aren't up there for 4k and 1440p it's decent and all we can say is wait for vega and hope it's good enough to shake up the market.

But honestly as consumers we make or break companies, without our support they don't make money to pump into R&D to bring us still to get all thrilled about to buy.

4 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Against the 470 and 480?

No by that time nvidia had pulled ahead but amd was giving consumers cards that beat nvidia's offerings by a lot but ppl still opted to buy nvidia prior to that.

[MageTank]

7 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

I didn't watch the whole vid he started to ramble at some point and I zoned out so i missed out on the boycotting part, but for the part where he was talking about nvidia charging premium price for a cut down chip even when they had competition he had a point there. Yeah I know 480's aren't up there for 4k and 1440p it's decent and all we can say is wait for vega and hope it's good enough to shake up the market.

But honestly as consumers we make or break companies, without our support they don't make money to pump into R&D to bring us still to get all thrilled about to buy.

No by that time nvidia had pulled ahead but amd was giving consumers cards that beat nvidia's offerings by a lot but ppl still opted to buy nvidia prior to that.

The cut-down chip was still faster though. He even said that in the video. He said that Nvidia saw that their cut-down chip was capable of competing with AMD's flagship, so they used that instead. Business is like a game of chess, you don't risk your stronger pieces if you can take something out with a pawn. Releasing the Titan first in that regard, would have absolutely dwarfed AMD, and probably hurt competition sooner rather than later, as it would have forced AMD to either rush a competing product quickly (which, they only had a dual-GPU to answer it) or simply lose market share in that segment almost entirely. 

 

Again, because I have to keep repeating myself, its not your job to support a company. Not even slightly. It's their job to earn your money. If you honestly use the words "supporting a company" when making a purchase decision, you are already doing it wrong. You may think you are aiding in their R&D and that you will somehow be a part of their comeback, and help breed competition, but all you are actually doing, is letting them know it's okay to release disappointing products, because people like yourself will always be there to hold them up for the sake of competition. 

 

This is my problem with fans in general. They often believe that they (and those around them) owe the companies for using their products, when it's the other way around.

[XenosTech]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

The cut-down chip was still faster though. He even said that in the video. He said that Nvidia saw that their cut-down chip was capable of competing with AMD's flagship, so they used that instead. Business is like a game of chess, you don't risk your stronger pieces if you can take something out with a pawn. Releasing the Titan first in that regard, would have absolutely dwarfed AMD, and probably hurt competition sooner rather than later, as it would have forced AMD to either rush a competing product quickly (which, they only had a dual-GPU to answer it) or simply lose market share in that segment almost entirely. 

 

Again, because I have to keep repeating myself, its not your job to support a company. Not even slightly. It's their job to earn your money. If you honestly use the word "supporting a company" when making a purchase decision, you are already doing it wrong. You may think you are aiding in their R&D and that you will somehow be a part of their comeback, and help breed competition, but all you are actually doing, is letting them know it's okay to release disappointing products, because people like yourself will always be there to hold them up for the sake of competition. 

 

This is my problem with fans in general. They often believe that they (and those around them) owe the companies for using their products, when it's the other way around.

The way I look at it is if you buy something you support the company doesn't matter if they sell food, clothes, etc. I wasn't meaning it as you should go out and buy that brand explicitly even though you can go get more for less.

[MageTank]

Just now, XenosTech said:

The way I look at it is if you buy something you support the company doesn't matter if they sell food, clothes, etc. I wasn't meaning it as you should go out and buy that brand explicitly even though you can go get more for less.

The way I look at it is: the company sold a product that fit your needs, so you bought it. Support of the company shouldn't be on your mind. Looking further at that video, and his comments in the comment section, it's evident that the guy has no idea what he is talking about. Now his comparisons are not based on them being flagships, but rather, comparing the die sizes and factoring in manufacturing costs (while completely ignoring R&D costs). It's the very top comment in the video, if anyone is curious.

[WhiteSkyMage]

42 minutes ago, MageTank said:

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. 

Actually mate, the consumers themselves have a fault too. Remember there is this "nameshare" of "nvidia" going around. Now, AMD doesn't have the cash to do that much of advertising, as nVidia does. And yet the worst thing of all is, if you look at the odds, look at how much nvidia earned with their GTX 260, and then with their really bad Fermi line up, while AMD had the 5870s, Nvidia could barely match them, YET, they made 2x more money for just 3 months that AMD made in 3 years!

 

It is not AMD's fault. It's the stupid consumer market. "nvidia" sounds in people's ears, that's what they buy, noone compares, they just buy what they are TOLD it's good, and F the competition. Even when AMD won, they still lost. The enthusiast market can't hold the market in a balance when there are 1000s of nvidia fanboys around. 

 

For that reason, I don't care if Vega 10 wins or not whatever high end card their competitors have, I am just gonna buy it and not care if it can or can not be compared to GTX Titan X(P) or GTX 1080Ti. And keep in mind that Intel will use AMD Radeon iGPU for their future CPUs (they've given enough to nVidia at this point every year). In other words, AMD will have a big cash flowing in, they will supply iGPUs for Intel CPUs and for the consoles, as well as high end server CPUs that now they have a hands with Ryzen - and so they have now only 1 competitor - nVidia, or to be more precise, the mindshare of nvidia.

[XenosTech]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

The way I look at it is: the company sold a product that fit your needs, so you bought it. Support of the company shouldn't be on your mind. Looking further at that video, and his comments in the comment section, it's evident that the guy has no idea what he is talking about. Now his comparisons are not based on them being flagships, but rather, comparing the die sizes and factoring in manufacturing costs (while completely ignoring R&D costs). It's the very top comment in the video, if anyone is curious.

I'll look at the vid when I get home from work and not fall asleep. I think of it as supporting the company in any regard. As the consumer you still have the option to totally ignore it and knee cap yourself buy the brand you like even with the additional cost with no benefit.

[MageTank]

17 minutes ago, WhiteSkyMage said:

Actually mate, the consumers themselves have a fault too. Remember there is this "nameshare" of "nvidia" going around. Now, AMD doesn't have the cash to do that much of advertising, as nVidia does. And yet the worst thing of all is, if you look at the odds, look at how much nvidia earned with their GTX 260, and then with their really bad Fermi line up, while AMD had the 5870s, Nvidia could barely match them, YET, they made 2x more money for just 3 months that AMD made in 3 years!

 

It is not AMD's fault. It's the stupid consumer market. "nvidia" sounds in people's ears, that's what they buy, noone compares, they just buy what they are TOLD it's good, and F the competition. Even when AMD won, they still lost. The enthusiast market can't hold the market in a balance when there are 1000s of nvidia fanboys around. 

 

For that reason, I don't care if Vega 10 wins or not whatever high end card their competitors have, I am just gonna buy it and not care if it can or can not be compared to GTX Titan X(P) or GTX 1080Ti. And keep in mind that Intel will use AMD Radeon iGPU for their future CPUs (they've given enough to nVidia at this point every year). In other words, AMD will have a big cash flowing in, they will supply iGPUs for Intel CPUs and for the consoles, as well as high end server CPUs that now they have a hands with Ryzen - and so they have now only 1 competitor - nVidia, or to be more precise, the mindshare of nvidia.

The irony is, you are the very consumer you complain about. Blind devotion, regardless of the facts. It's not a consumers fault that fanboys exist. It's not their fault for buying ANY product on their own accord. Reviews exist for a reason, and it's the consumers job to research for themselves, and to ultimately make that decision themselves. That's the extent of their involvement in this. It's not the consumers fault that AMD failed in their marketing, and that playing the moral high ground failed for them. 

 

You can blame this on Nvidia fanboys all you want, but ultimately the blame rests on the companies, not the consumers. 

[jjohnthedon1]

Can to read all of this but basically they doubled each cards performance with more vram and new features and better overclocking and thermals so I think double Is fair in this instance 

[Praesi]

No, but that´s happen when no competition is there.

[Paradine Sage]

4 hours ago, XenosTech said:

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)

That's nice. My general use case for a current generation computer has an x34 as the minimum acceptable monitor setup. To drive that monitor to its maximum (much less anything higher end) I need at least 1070 performance as a starting point, and realistically a 1080.

 

Would I have purchased an AMD graphics card? Sure, but then they aren't producing anything that meets my performance targets so it is irrelevant.

 

Honestly AMD's biggest problems are on the business side. They should not have tried to match the 1060 this generation, they should have tried to match the 1080 and/or Titan. Cost per chip is roughly the same but you can push your profit margin on the higher end cards to a point 3 to 4 times higher than what you can do on the 1060 level cards, and nVidia can't significantly undercut your price because that harms the 1060 sales. By choosing to compete against the 1060, AMD cost themselves the really profitable market and chose to directly compete in a market where advertising is much more relevant.

 

People buying video cards that cost more than the outright majority of computers sold in the US in a year tend to do significantly more research than those going for "entry level" gaming builds.

[App4that]

4 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I disagree with this, with current drivers an RX 480 beats a 390X at 1080p on average.

Very convenient that the RX 480 beating the 390x after a few months is viewed as driver improvement, but if the 1060 all of a sudden started beating the 980 it would be because Nvidia gimped the 980.

 

Hmmm. Convenient, or troubling? 

 

 

[smokefest]

You can set the price you want when you have the best bread to sell  

Basics

[XenosTech]

26 minutes ago, Paradine Sage said:

That's nice. My general use case for a current generation computer has an x34 as the minimum acceptable monitor setup. To drive that monitor to its maximum (much less anything higher end) I need at least 1070 performance as a starting point, and realistically a 1080.

 

Would I have purchased an AMD graphics card? Sure, but then they aren't producing anything that meets my performance targets so it is irrelevant.

 

Honestly AMD's biggest problems are on the business side. They should not have tried to match the 1060 this generation, they should have tried to match the 1080 and/or Titan. Cost per chip is roughly the same but you can push your profit margin on the higher end cards to a point 3 to 4 times higher than what you can do on the 1060 level cards, and nVidia can't significantly undercut your price because that harms the 1060 sales. By choosing to compete against the 1060, AMD cost themselves the really profitable market and chose to directly compete in a market where advertising is much more relevant.

 

People buying video cards that cost more than the outright majority of computers sold in the US in a year tend to do significantly more research than those going for "entry level" gaming builds.

Not everyone at that buys at that price point does research.... Had a idiot I met who bought the first titan because he heard it was the most expensive gpu he could buy as a gamer. Some people just buy for bragging rights or just because they can and I've met too much of the latter in my line of work.

[Paradine Sage]

28 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Not everyone at that buys at that price point does research.... Had a idiot I met who bought the first titan because he heard it was the most expensive gpu he could buy as a gamer. Some people just buy for bragging rights or just because they can and I've met too much of the latter in my line of work.

It's the difference between 10% buying without research and 90% buying without research.

 

The 480 is a straight up better buy at the price point than the 1060 and yet the 1060 is massively outselling the 480. Look at the Steam hardware survey for November of this year, the 1060 has 1.53% market share while the RX 480 has .37% market share and the 1060 increased its share by .5% for the previous month while the 480 went up by .09%. Literally in the month of November, more people purchased 1060's than purchased 480's in the entire lifespan of that card to date.

 

AMD can not beat nVidia marketing at that price level and the profit margins per card really just aren't that high.

 

The 1080 has .86% market share while the 1070 has 1.59% market share. If AMD had offered something around the five hundred dollar price point that was better than the 1070 but somewhat worse than the 1080 then they would probably have sold at least as many units as they moved 480's but the per unit profit margin would be about three times as high.

 

---

The computer gaming market skews closer to 30 than 20 these days, and the money in the gaming market skews overwhelming closer to 30 than 20. If AMD wants to make money then they need to compete in the high end market where the customers willing to spend upwards of four hundred bucks on a graphics card reside. They will never beat nVidia's branding and marketing for the lower end market, at least not in any way that will let them show a profit, so compete in the high end.

 

They are going to try with Vega but the problem there is that the 1080 will have already been out for six months plus by the time it hits the stores and so the target market has already made their purchase for this generation.

[XenosTech]

2 minutes ago, Paradine Sage said:

It's the difference between 10% buying without research and 90% buying without research.

 

The 480 is a straight up better buy at the price point than the 1060 and yet the 1060 is massively outselling the 480. Look at the Steam hardware survey for November of this year, the 1060 has 1.53% market share while the RX 480 has .37% market share and the 1060 increased its share by .5% for the previous month while the 480 went up by .09%. Literally in the month of November, more people purchased 1060's than purchased 480's in the entire lifespan of that card to date.

 

AMD can not beat nVidia marketing at that price level and the profit margins per card really just aren't that high.

 

The 1080 has .86% market share while the 1070 has 1.59% market share. If AMD had offered something around the five hundred dollar price point that was better than the 1070 but somewhat worse than the 1080 then they would probably have sold at least as many units as they moved 480's but the per unit profit margin would be about three times as high.

 

---

The computer gaming market skews closer to 30 than 20 these days, and the money in the gaming market skews overwhelming closer to 30 than 20. If AMD wants to make money then they need to compete in the high end market where the customers willing to spend upwards of four hundred bucks on a graphics card reside. They will never beat nVidia's branding and marketing for the lower end market, at least not in any way that will let them show a profit, so compete in the high end.

 

They are going to try with Vega but the problem there is that the 1080 will have already been out for six months plus by the time it hits the stores and so the target market has already made their purchase for this generation.

I don't disagree with their approach with the polaris cards the problem is they need a better marketing team to let people know they exist. Most of the money lies in the main stream and budget sections of the market. You basically want people to mindless buy your product with out going through the hassle of doing reseach and Nvidia has that over AMD at that price point. Not enough people exist in the top 5% for AMD to be aggressive up there in the position. I mean yes it would have been nice to have a flagship AMD card but what happens when it flops ?

[Paradine Sage]

3 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

I don't disagree with their approach with the polaris cards the problem is they need a better marketing team to let people know they exist. Most of the money lies in the main stream and budget sections of the market. You basically want people to mindless buy your product with out going through the hassle of doing reseach and Nvidia has that over AMD at that price point. Not enough people exist in the top 5% for AMD to be aggressive up there in the position. I mean yes it would have been nice to have a flagship AMD card but what happens when it flops ?

No, the money doesn't reside in the main stream and budget sections of the market.

 

A 1080 costs nVidia somewhere around a hundred and fifty bucks to make and they can sell it on to the board partners at somewhere around 300 to 350 bucks, for a 150 dollar per card profit margin. A 1060 costs nVidia somewhere around seventy to a hundred bucks to make and they can sell it onto the board partners at somewhere around 150 bucks, for a 50 to 80 dollar profit margin. nVidia makes somewhere around 3 times as much money for every 1080 that they sell compared to every 1060 that they sell, and 1060's aren't outselling 1080's at a 3 to 1 margin (it's about 2 to 1).

 

Most computer users do not use a discrete graphics card in the first place, so all of those people are totally irrelevant when talking about the GPU market.

 

For the discrete GPU market, the primary drivers are gaming, professional graphics work, and high end workstation tasks. If you need a GPU for professional work then the extra three hundred or so dollars for a 1080 as opposed to a 1060/480 is literally nothing, it's only when you get into the question of SLIed 1070's or 1080's vs. Titan XP's that price to performance starts playing a role in that market. If you are driving four+ 32" monitors at 1080p then you are looking at a 1070 as your minimum spec, and again the few hundred dollars just really does not matter.

 

The 1060 level card is only relevant in the gaming market but the problem in that market is that it can't drive current generation display setups. 4K, 1440 ultrawide or at 144 hertz, VR, etc. The money in the PC gaming market is with the 26+ year old professional sector, the people who grew up playing video games and who think relatively little about dropping a few thousand dollars on their computer setup every few years.

 

AMD does not have any offerings that have any appeal to the segments of the discrete GPU market willing to spend money. For the 1060 level marketing is the driving force for sales, for everything above that marketing becomes a lot less relevant. Not that it is really needed given AMD's inability to currently compete at that level.

[Energycore]

On 12/27/2016 at 2:47 PM, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

Well they do Nvidia only have to focus on developing GPU'S, AMD on the other hand are like spinning plates with two hands (GPU's in one hand and CPU'S in the other) 

This just tells me that you have no idea about the history of either company.

[sgloux3470]

Nvidia's pricing for Pascal is a joke.

 

Artificially low MSRP but then they chagred an extra $100 for reference cards.  Surprise surprise most AIB's priced their cards atleast where the reference cards were priced.

 

But that's what happens when AMD only releases competition in the mid range.  Nvidia is price gouging now and will drop prices when AMD comes out with comparative cards.  Just like how they launched the 980Ti at a much cheaper price point (undercutting TitanX sales and butchering 980 sales) to compete with the FuryX.  If FuryX was $650 and 1080Ti was $850 then the contest between the two would have been more interesting.

[79wjd]

41 minutes ago, Paradine Sage said:

The 480 is a straight up better buy at the price point than the 1060 and yet the 1060 is massively outselling the 480. Look at the Steam hardware survey for November of this year, the 1060 has 1.53% market share while the RX 480 has .37% market share and the 1060 increased its share by .5% for the previous month while the 480 went up by .09%. Literally in the month of November, more people purchased 1060's than purchased 480's in the entire lifespan of that card to date.

 

You're overlooking one GIANT detail. A LOT (I'd bet far more than half) of GPUs that are sold are sold through some OEM (Dell, Alienware, Asus, etc...). It's not necessarily that people don't know or are unwilling to buy AMD, but rather than Nvidia has better deals with OEMs. And then you also have to keep in mind the dGPU laptop market -- a place where AMD is practically non-existent across the board. 

[Energycore]

6 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I disagree with this, with current drivers an RX 480 beats a 390X at 1080p on average.

[citation needed]

[App4that]

45 minutes ago, Paradine Sage said:

The 480 is a straight up better buy at the price point than the 1060 and yet the 1060 is massively outselling the 480.

Straight up wrong. The RX 480 and GTX 1060 perform the same, and will perform the same through their life cycles. At the same price buying either is a good buy, where they are not at the same price obviously get the cheaper. And price depends on region, and sales.

 

The ONLY advantage the RX 480 has is crossfire support. I will never forgive Nvidia for not having SLI on a card who's GPU supports it. 

[Paradine Sage]

5 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You're overlooking one GIANT detail. A LOT (I'd bet far more than half) of GPUs that are sold are sold through some OEM (Dell, Alienware, Asus, etc...). It's not necessarily that people don't know or are unwilling to buy AMD, but rather than Nvidia has better deals with OEMs. And then you also have to keep in mind the dGPU laptop market -- a place where AMD is practically non-existent across the board. 

Again, there is zero competition to the performance level of the 1070 and 1080. If you want that performance level then you get an nVidia card.

 

If you are buying a gaming PC right now, regardless of whether you build it yourself or buy one from an OEM, then you are very likely to want post 1080p performance. If you didn't then your previous gen computer is probably good enough, or at worst you can buy a 1060/480 and make it that good.

 

If AMD offered a card at the performance point that people want then they would sell, but AMD doesn't do that and so they suffer.