• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

7800GTX 512 low quantitiy

N

nunyabiz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
398
the inq

Very sad if true. Its one thing to have production problems, but to limit quantity to raise prices?
 
I call bullshit on this. If Nvidia would make more more money if they, for example, sold 100,000 cards, $500 for each card, opposed to say, 75,000 cards for $ 649
 
dagon11985 said:
I call bullshit on this. If Nvidia sells 100,000 cards for $500 dollars, they'd make more money then if they sold, say, 75,000 cards for $649.
Click to expand...

100,000 x 500 = 50,000,000
75,000 x 649 = 48,675,000
 
Not suprised. I don't think this was ever intended as a mass market product :p
 
Well there better at least be enough stock to satisfy demand or people are gonna be pissed.
 
Nvidia's only loyalty is to their investors, whether you like it or not. This explains a lot of the totally irrational (in the eyes of us enthusiasts) things that both GPU makers do, such as the decision to abandon AGP, etc.

This part is aimed squarely at securing headlines on review sites, etc. It was never intended for mass market availability. Other cards will sell better on its coattails though, which is the only reason they came out with it.
 
dagon11985 said:
I call bullshit on this. If Nvidia sells 100,000 cards for $500 dollars, they'd make more money then if they sold, say, 75,000 cards for $649.
Click to expand...


True but many manufacturers release very limited versions of things. The Enzo was only maid 400 times. @ $600,000 a pop if more was made price would be produced, but they decided they wanted it to be more exclusive then even any of their other exclusive cars.

I don't have a Problem with Limited Editions but I do have a problem with companies not telling people that its a Limited Edition.
 
Now now kids. You aren't going to be able to play this both ways. You all were wanting to bury ATI after you read the 512MB GTX clock speeds Inq article, but now you are calling BS when the Inq says things may not be as rosy as you first thought.
 
torment said:
100,000 x 500 = 50,000,000
75,000 x 649 = 48,675,000
Click to expand...


Seems like you're not including the cost of the unit in that equation. According to your logic, Nvidia would make more money by selling 1,100,000 cards at $50. Maybe the cards are not that profitable at 500... especially with the 512 megs of high speed ram.
 
torment said:
100,000 x 500 = 50,000,000
75,000 x 649 = 48,675,000
Click to expand...

The problem with those number are off a bit they aren't selling the chips at those prices, and that doesn't include manufacturering costs.

For example they would probably be selling the chips for 350 and 400 respectively. And a CPU costs about $40 a chip they are mor complex and they outsource production so maybe a $100 a chip.

so with those numbers

100,000 at 350 = 35,000,000 - 100,000 at 100 = 25,000,000

75,000 at 400 = 30,000,000 - 75,000 at 100 = 22,500,000

Which is oddly about the same for some reason I thought it might go the other way don't quite understand why I thought that way. Even then you are talking just with production cost only a difference of 2.5 mill. I am willing to bet that the cost of man power for shipping and halndling the extra 25,000 CPUs will cut that in half. Also Theirs the question on whether or not the these will sell that well considering how many people that have already purchased 7800GTXs. In the end the extra amount probably isn't worth it.
 
torment said:
100,000 x 500 = 50,000,000
75,000 x 649 = 48,675,000
Click to expand...

Your math fails to take into account the actual cost of the card.

For arguements sake let's assume $400

(500-400)*100,000=10,000,000
(649-400)*75,000=18,675,000

With higher margins, the more expensive card makes almost twice the money. Although the revenue is lower the profits are higher.
 
canis said:
Your math fails to take into account the actual cost of the card.

For arguements sake let's assume $400

(500-400)*100,000=10,000,000
(649-400)*75,000=18,675,000

With higher margins, the more expensive card makes almost twice the money. Although the revenue is lower the profits are higher.
Click to expand...

See thats what I was thinking about above but I don't think it is that bad in terms of cost. I think my numbers didn't take in account the much larger selling point. We have to remember that the price and MSRP is after 10-12 people and companies have gotten their hands on each card to get some profit.

Edit: the fact is none of us really know how low the limited supply is and how high normal supply is, We don't know Nvidias cost or selling point, and we don't know if any of this is going to affect our ability to buy it and whether or not its going to artificailly affect our prices by much.
 
DougLite said:
Now now kids. You aren't going to be able to play this both ways. You all were wanting to bury ATI after you read the 512MB GTX clock speeds Inq article, but now you are calling BS when the Inq says things may not be as rosy as you first thought.
Click to expand...

Beat me to the punch :D
Happens all the time
 
Wow....my math and logic is all fucked up?

I just did the multiplication the above poster detailed in his statement. No need to nit pick over costs of production and revenue.
 
torment said:
Wow....my math and logic is all fucked up?

I just did the multiplication the above poster detailed in his statement. No need to nit pick over costs of production and revenue.
Click to expand...

Not aimed at you but nitpicking is what the bean counters at Nvidia and ATI would do. So not for you but for the person who shouted out 75,000*$650 and 100,000*500 is only a quater of the story.
 
hrm.. how "low" is low? Nvidia has been very good about getting enough of it's 7800 series cards to the peeps who what to buy them, so I would not run un panic just yet about not being about to get a pair on release day.. after all, we (us [H] regs and other hardcore enthusiasts) do represent a fairly small market segment when compared to the world, so "low" to the world I think equates to "enough" for peeps who will really pull the trigger on a pair.. or one even. well, this is my guess. :)
 
I'm thinking of starting a site that tracks the Inq's rumors and confirms them or busts them when they're finally validated. Then we'd total the score and see what's REALLY happening.

I think we'll find that more often than not, the Inq's spot on (or pretty close). You kids get riled up whenever the Inq's off by a few megahertz or pricing situations change, and it's getting pretty annoying.
 
[RIP]Zeus said:
Don't forget to inculde tax :D
Click to expand...

Also the cost of the chip, the shipping, the costs of warehouseing, manufacturing, and pay the people that work at nvidia.
 
What the hell are you people talking about. Please, leave economics to the economists. Dagon11985 was right to begin with. You don't need to understand the principles of economics to understand this.

Companies make more money by selling more of one thing at a lower price as long as it doesn't cut into cost. But its not that simple because cost changes depending on the situation.

If a company like nvidia has a choice to sell 75,000 units at 649 MSRP or 100,000 units at 500 MSRP, you can't just come up with a cost of 400 and say they'll make more money by selling 75,000. It costs nvidia MORE money to sell only 75,000 compared to 100,000. You people aren't economists, you don't understand the concept of FIXED COSTS and VARIABLE COSTS.

If nvidia chooses to sell 75,000, that'll actually cost them MORE money because there are some costs that are fixed like advertisement, development, rent of the factory, etc. They would be better off selling millions to spread out their fixed costs.

In the case of the inquirer, it's completely false. Nvidia would want to sell as many as they could. No company would want to hold back, they'll be wasting millions of dollars in rent, development, and advertisement. If nvidia really can't make that many, then obviously the price will be higher because of all those costs I mentioned.

[RIP]Zeus said:
Don't forget to inculde tax :D
Click to expand...
lockheed2266 said:
Also the cost of the chip, the shipping, the costs of warehouseing, manufacturing, and pay the people that work at nvidia.
Click to expand...

I think obviously Zeus was joking about tax because companies don't receive tax, the state, city and government does. Hehe. But yea, lockhead, you're touching upon the things that are the real factors. The cost of the chip (raw materials) and wages are variable costs, they don't matter because they don't factor into cost if you make less. The fixed costs matter the most if you make less, so the goal of every company is to make the most, always.
 
provoko said:
What the hell are you people talking about. Please, leave economics to the economists. Dagon11985 was right to begin with. You don't need to understand the principles of economics to understand this.

Companies make more money by selling more of one thing at a lower price as long as it doesn't cut into cost. But its not that simple because cost changes depending on the situation.

If a company like nvidia has a choice to sell 75,000 units at 649 MSRP or 100,000 units at 500 MSRP, you can't just come up with a cost of 400 and say they'll make more money by selling 75,000. It costs nvidia MORE money to sell only 75,000 compared to 100,000. You people aren't economists, you don't understand the concept of FIXED COSTS and VARIABLE COSTS.

If nvidia chooses to sell 75,000, that'll actually cost them MORE money because there are some costs that are fixed like advertisement, development, rent of the factory, etc. They would be better off selling millions to spread out their fixed costs.

In the case of the inquirer, it's completely false. Nvidia would want to sell as many as they could. No company would want to hold back, they'll be wasting millions of dollars in rent, development, and advertisement. If nvidia really can't make that many, then obviously the price will be higher because of all those costs I mentioned.




I think obviously Zeus was joking about tax because companies don't receive tax, the state, city and government does. Hehe. But yea, lockhead, you're touching upon the things that are the real factors. The cost of the chip (raw materials) and wages are variable costs, they don't matter because they don't factor into cost if you make less. The fixed costs matter the most if you make less, so the goal of every company is to make the most, always.
Click to expand...


Thank you. You put that together a lot more eloquently then I would have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top