Introducing the NVIDIA TITAN RTX GPU

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
5,921
Add this to the litany of reasons (proprietary everything, GSync tax and proprietary-ness, sky high prices all round, aging like old milk instead of fine wine, hardware fuckups etc..) that Nvidia has to be reeled in. I know its difficult for us [H] types, but just bite the bullet and buy AMD even if they're not the absolute tip top of the e-peen stack, or things will never get better. In DejaWiz's categories, AMD is competitive and/or actually comes out on top at everything below Halo tier. The 570, 580, 590 are great cards (recently the [H] review showed the 590 refresh's viability) for their markets, and Vega 56 / 64 may not be a 1080Ti competitor, but against the 1070Ti and 1080, it offers an equal or better experience. Hopefully new GPUs built on the 7nm process such as Navi will compete favorably with the 2080 / 2080 Ti lineup; they don't need to totally overpower them, but if they can do equal or even come within 10-20% across the board yet come in at vastly cheaper prices, AMD should win the generation. Imagine if their highest end Navi card comes in somewhere between the 2080 and 2080 Ti, yet was available in good AIB versions for $500-700?!

AMD isn't perfect (I wish they'd allow disabling of the PSP within their Ryzen processors, verified), but they have been following a lot more consumer friendly path when it comes to both pricing and technology...which seems to be the opposite of Nvidia at just about every turn. If Nvidia thrives with the RTX 2000 series, that means their proprietary extensions or way of doing raytracing will gain a foothold, as well as letting them continue to jack prices. An overall failure of RTX 2000 combined with AMD sweeping in resurgent with quality products would be a great move in the right direction.
 

iamjanco

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
456
Heard at the office today: "This new Titan RTX will speed up the work we do for Pornhub five-fold!"
 

Pitbull#2

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
380
AND more Bullshit from the Shade that is Nvidia. Yep spend 3k on a chip that might run BFV at 4K at 60FPS? You Sir Can Suck It!
 

DPI

Nitpick Police
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
10,960
Don't they have to prove that the 2080ti is viable BEFORE launching this one?
The market decides what's viable. Look at 2080Ti pricing and availability right now - price hasn't budged and availability still an issue. Look at Pascal pricing right now - higher than it was even a few months ago, new 1080Tis selling for over MSRP. There's your answer.

Forum echo-chambers full of zealots with an axe to grind, or just bickering gamers that act like a company shouldnt even make a GPU if it doesn't conform to their personal hierarchy of needs and budget, can create a distorted sense of the reality of the marketplace. Brigading is low effort and therapeutic.

Titan RTX will sink or swim on its own merits, the market will decide if it's overpriced or not.
 
Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
I know its difficult for us [H] types, but just bite the bullet and buy AMD
When AMD makes the right product for the job, I will buy and recommend them.

AND more Bullshit from the Shade that is Nvidia. Yep spend 3k on a chip that might run BFV at 4K at 60FPS? You Sir Can Suck It!
Well, if you try to do that on AMD or Intel, you get zero FPS, so there's that ;)
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,971
First, again, in your first post you never mentioned it being marketed for business or professional. An ellipsis does not equate to a statement. Saying nvidia needs to make up their mind with an ellipsis does not really say anything. Your next sentence talks about it being the king of the gaming market. You then go on to say its an outrageous price for a gaming card. All of this would lead one to believe you are arguing their marketing for gaming and the pricing is out of line... You continue to further this argument as people point out that the pricing is great for those using them as prosumer cards. So if your point is they are shifting the marketing and that makes no sense, you should talk strictly to that rather than muddying your message....

Also, Quadro comes with professional support, the Titan cards do not. If they market it as a Quadro, they now have to provide professional support. This has been mentioned numerous times. This is one of the main reasons Quadro cards are so expensive. So why wo9uld they market a prosumer card as a business card that they now have to provide extra support for?
You are arguing semantics for the simple sake of arguing, because now you are arguing about things such as my usage of an ellipsis...fucking LOL.

This is where comprehension comes into play. My first sentence I said that nVidia needs to make up their mind, and I left it at that, because most everyone in the PC enthusiast hardware community is very well aware that the Titan was originally a GAMING card, but the past couple/few iterations have been shifted over to their business segment (with business pricing), but still have come with the capability of being a fully-fledged gaming GPU, unlike the Quadro offerings, for the most part.

You don't get to dictate my thought process on how I feel nVidia needs to get their own shit together regarding the naming conventions of the products within their differing target segments of their overall product portfolio, in lieu of their past attempt(s) to control the naming conventions of the AIBs (and resellers) of their GPU ICUs/PCBs. If you either don't understand my viewpoint (which I've expanded and elaborated on numerous times now, and mostly just for you) or simply won't accept that this is my own viewpoint which differs from yours, then that it solely on you.

With that said, let's continue the actual conversation: If calling it a Quadro would mean a much higher price tag, then explain how Quadro P400 and P600 series exist for under $200 that get certified drivers and this oh so amazing extra super duper support simply for bearing the Quadro name, so that notion is bullshit.
 
Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
Titans have always been crossover products. Really not sure where the confusion is, except in the context of a blind attempt to bash Nvidia because of reasons.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,971
Titans have always been crossover products. Really not sure where the confusion is, except in the context of a blind attempt to bash Nvidia because of reasons.
I think you're wrong about it always having been a crossover product, based on my interpretation of nVidia's original marketing slides of the 1st gen Titan.

HardOCP Review said:
The fact that this video card doesn't have a model number, but relies solely on the one word "TITAN" branding, indicates how NVIDIA wants you to think about this new video card. It is its own entity, and the purpose of this video card is to be the fastest single-GPU video card for gaming.
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/02/21/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_video_card_review


HardOCPTitanReview.gif
 
Last edited:

tayunz

[H]ard DCoTM October 2018
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
1,343
Titans have always been crossover products. Really not sure where the confusion is, except in the context of a blind attempt to bash Nvidia because of reasons.
I think everyone got mixed up over what the actual argument is. Overall, the price doesn't warrant it's features. The cheaper than Titan V argument doesn't work because the V has FP64.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
With that said, let's continue the actual conversation: If calling it a Quadro would mean a much higher price tag, then explain how Quadro P400 and P600 series exist for under $200 that get certified drivers and this oh so amazing extra super duper support simply for bearing the Quadro name, so that notion is bullshit.
You can get the exact same performance and everything on a Quadro card for under $200? So get a Quadro card. But first perhaps you should show me the Quadro card that is under $200. Also I am curious, have you ever used Quadro or Tesla cards for projects, have you ever even used the professional support or seen what comes from it?
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,971
You can get the exact same performance and everything on a Quadro card for under $200? So get a Quadro card. But first perhaps you should show me the Quadro card that is under $200. Also I am curious, have you ever used Quadro or Tesla cards for projects, have you ever even used the professional support or seen what comes from it?
Comprehension...again.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
Comprehension...again.
Yes, your comprehension is severely lacking, as is your ability to write out what you really mean.

The RTX Quadro cards you listed are not comparable to the RTX Titan. The only one that comes close is the P6000, which is priced at $5k and still has less CUDA cores. So the RTX Titan is actually far cheaper than comparable Quadro cards. So I fail to see your logic at all.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,971
Yes, your comprehension is severely lacking, as is your ability to write out what you really mean.

The RTX Quadro cards you listed are not comparable to the RTX Titan. The only one that comes close is the P6000, which is priced at $5k and still has less CUDA cores. So the RTX Titan is actually far cheaper than comparable Quadro cards. So I fail to see your logic at all.
Aside from you projecting on to me, let me spell this out:

Where the fuck did I mention anything about performance?

My statement was regarding Quadro cards with their special certified drivers and their special support could be found even on their sub-$200 models, so it's a bullshit argument that the new $2500 Titan can't be called a Quadro (despite now being categorized as a business product) and also can't get certified drivers and special support, or nVidia would have to raise it's price even higher.
 

AlphaQup

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
360
Every time a new professional/prosumer card comes out, people complain about the price...

These types of cards have to be viewed as a tool to make money for a business, where the faster you're able to perform your task, the more tasks you can perform in a given time. Cut down on idle engineer/worker time, the worker can get more done, and make the business more money (to put it simply).

Very easy to see the ROI of these types of cards, and it's reflected in the price. Usually the price of this card (I've done it with P6000's) is eclipsed extremely fast by diminishing idle times for workers, everything after that is profit.

This isn't a tool for your own personal enjoyment (unless you have crazy deep pockets and truly HAVE to have the best), it just can't be viewed in that light.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,495
Every time a new professional/prosumer card comes out, people complain about the price...

These types of cards have to be viewed as a tool to make money for a business, where the faster you're able to perform your task, the more tasks you can perform in a given time. Cut down on idle engineer/worker time, the worker can get more done, and make the business more money (to put it simply).

Very easy to see the ROI of these types of cards, and it's reflected in the price. Usually the price of this card (I've done it with P6000's) is eclipsed extremely fast by diminishing idle times for workers, everything after that is profit.

This isn't a tool for your own personal enjoyment (unless you have crazy deep pockets and truly HAVE to have the best), it just can't be viewed in that light.
The only thing I think that could have happened is that Nvidia shifted the Titan focus with the Titan V. Clearly the marketing slides for the Titan Xp were about gaming, and suddenly the higher cost Titan V was about compute. Now this Titan seems to follow the Titan V with more of a compute focus.

Then on the lower end, the Ti fills the "gaming Titan" space, and the vanilla 2080 is the old "Ti" space, etc. down the product stack. Now that might not be what they are trying to do, but that's how they are pricing the cards. Just ends up being confusing for the consumer.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
Aside from you projecting on to me, let me spell this out:

Where the fuck did I mention anything about performance?

My statement was regarding Quadro cards with their special certified drivers and their special support could be found even on their sub-$200 models, so it's a bullshit argument that the new $2500 Titan can't be called a Quadro (despite now being categorized as a business product) and also can't get certified drivers and special support, or nVidia would have to raise it's price even higher.
Again please show me their sub $200 models. The cheapest RTX Quadro is $2300. So your "bullshit argument" argument is "bullshit". Again your comprehension is truly lacking in this area.

Let me put it this way, if you have a card that has half the hardware as the Titan, you can sell it for less and still mark it up for the driver support.

For better clarity:

Geforce RTX 2070 is comparable to the RTX Quadro P5000. The Geforce is $600, the Quadro is $2300. Now in fairness there are some hardware differences, but those are the comparable models. So you are saying there is absolutely no markup for professional support?

Also since this is about Titan:

Geforce RTX Titan ($2500) Specs:

CUDA Cores: 4608
Tensor Cores: 576
RT Cores: 72
GPU Memory: 24GB

Quadro RTX 5000 ($2300) Specs:

CUDA Cores: 3072
Tensor Cores: 384
RT Cores: 48
GPU Memory: 16GB

Quadro RTX 6000 ($6300) Specs:

CUDA Cores: 4608
Tensor Cores: 576
RT Cores: 72
GPU Memory: 24GB

Certainly seems there is a significant markup for the comparable RTX Quadro card (more than 2x the cost). Want to revise your argument?
 
Last edited:

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,971
Again please show me their sub $200 models. The cheapest RTX Quadro is $2300. So your "bullshit argument" argument is "bullshit". Again your comprehension is truly lacking in this area.

Let me put it this way, if you have a card that has half the hardware as the Titan, you can sell it for less and still mark it up for the driver support.

For better clarity:

Geforce RTX 2070 is comparable to the RTX Quadro P5000. The Geforce is $600, the Quadro is $2300. Now in fairness there are some hardware differences, but those are the comparable models. So you are saying there is absolutely no markup for professional support?

Click the link at the bottom of this post.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,331
Titan RTX will sink or swim on its own merits, the market will decide if it's overpriced or not.
Availability has a major effect.
Now if they can make more than 3 ...
;)
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,495
Titans have always been crossover products. Really not sure where the confusion is, except in the context of a blind attempt to bash Nvidia because of PRICING.
FTFY. Let's face it if this came in at $1,200-1,300 nobody would be complaining.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
Titan used to be a gaming brand. How many segment do they need?
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
5,009
They'll probably hack half the ram off and sell it as a gaming gpu for $2k at some point. :rolleyes:
 

AlphaQup

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
360
The only thing I think that could have happened is that Nvidia shifted the Titan focus with the Titan V. Clearly the marketing slides for the Titan Xp were about gaming, and suddenly the higher cost Titan V was about compute. Now this Titan seems to follow the Titan V with more of a compute focus.

Then on the lower end, the Ti fills the "gaming Titan" space, and the vanilla 2080 is the old "Ti" space, etc. down the product stack. Now that might not be what they are trying to do, but that's how they are pricing the cards. Just ends up being confusing for the consumer.
Not going to argue that in the slightest, I completely agree with ya man. They keep shifting what the Titan name means I totally agree its confusing as all get out at a glance.

Marketing is having their fun, that is quite clear, and we're left not being able to take card names at face value.

I think the "budget" deep learning/compute cores should tip those of us off that read a touch bit deeper that this is more of a developer/professional class card then a gaming card.
 
Last edited:

Formula.350

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
1,102
The only thing I think that could have happened is that Nvidia shifted the Titan focus with the Titan V. Clearly the marketing slides for the Titan Xp were about gaming, and suddenly the higher cost Titan V was about compute. Now this Titan seems to follow the Titan V with more of a compute focus.

Then on the lower end, the Ti fills the "gaming Titan" space, and the vanilla 2080 is the old "Ti" space, etc. down the product stack. Now that might not be what they are trying to do, but that's how they are pricing the cards. Just ends up being confusing for the consumer.
Not going to argue that in the slightest, I completely agree with ya man. They keep shifting what the Titan name means I totally agree its confusing as all get out at a glance.

Marketing is having their fun, that is quite clear, and we're left not being able to take card names at face value.

I think the "budget" deep learning/compute cores should tip those of us off that read a touch bit deeper that this is more of a developer/professional nap card then a gaming card.
This wouldn't be the case if nVidia would've gotten away with been able to carry out their plan to subjugate the graphics card branding market brand the cards to differentiate between AMD and nVidia products with GPP. [/heavy sarcasm]

lol No doubt this'll be blamed on AMD as well. "If AMD put out a competitive product, we wouldn't have to keep changing the scope of the Titan..."
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,971
No, and that link has no merit to the conversation. Look at what I posted above. I literally compared the apples to apples RTX Titan to RTX Quadro. You are simply wrong on this point.
Ah, ok. You're completely missing my point.

My point is (for those saying that nVidia can't make this Titan part of their bonafide business Quadro lineup because it would add to much cost), well if that was truly the case, then why are those "expensive" certified drivers and special support somehow also available on their sub-$200 Quadro parts?

Going from the RTX 2080Ti's 544 Tensor cores and 11GB GDDR6 to RTX Titan's 576 Tensor cores and 24GB of GDDR6 mandates double the price?

...but then, somehow, merely changing the RTX Titan to the actual RTX Quadro offering (pretty much the apples to apples specs) increases the price about 2.5-fold by adding their special business certified drivers and support (again, also available on their sub-$200 Quadro parts), and you're not going to call out bullshit on that?

You are the quintessential customer in nVidia's eyes.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
Titan used to be a gaming brand. How many segment do they need?
Look at the software: you have a very wide range of popular games that benefit from an AIC.

Look at the desired output: everything from 1080p60 to 4k120, to VR.

Product of the two means that everything from a GTX1030 (or MX150) up to the 2080Ti and beyond actually has an application that it can be used for. AMD has solutions up until the top two or three performance brackets, but also has more competent IGPs than Intel, for the moment.


Also note that some of the gaming interest in this Titan RTX, despite its pricing, is that even though it's still not fast enough, it's faster than the 2080Ti.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,859
Eh, they just changed Ti to be the new Titan and the original Titan is not a gaming card anymore. There will probably be another "Ti" card in a few months, just not called the same. Since mobile industry is following the "+" trend, my bet is it's going to be called 2080Ti+.
 

trandoanhung1991

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,112
Click the link at the bottom of this post.
P400 has no GeForce equivalent, since it only has 256 CUDA cores. Cheapest Pascal GeForce is GT 1030, at $80. P400 costs $120.
P600 is equivalent to the GT 1030, cheapest SKU costs $170, while the GT 1030 costs $80.

Are you being dense on purpose? There's clearly a huge markup for professional cards, and that markup is for customer support costs.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,971
P400 has no GeForce equivalent, since it only has 256 CUDA cores. Cheapest Pascal GeForce is GT 1030, at $80. P400 costs $120.
P600 is equivalent to the GT 1030, cheapest SKU costs $170, while the GT 1030 costs $80.

Are you being dense on purpose? There's clearly a huge markup for professional cards, and that markup is for customer support costs.
Perhaps you should read the last comment I made just a few posts above and report back, so we can get assurance that you posses adequate comprehension capability.
 

trandoanhung1991

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,112
Perhaps you should read the last comment I made just a few posts above and report back, so we can get assurance that you posses adequate comprehension capability.
Double the price because the other half of it is for professional drivers and professional support, which you adamantly argue should cost $0. Even your examples are flawed, as shown by me. The professional mark-up is across the product stack, Quadro vs GeForce.

Even your sub-$200 part has over 100% markup price-wise, compared to their GeForce counterparts. So who's lacking comprehension capability? P600 = GF 1030, one has MSRP $80, the other is costing $170 right now.

BTW, the Quadro equivalent of the T-Rex is the Quadro RTX 6000, listed at $6300. So the T-Rex is a hell of a deal if you don't need support and pro drivers.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,971
Double the price because the other half of it is for professional drivers and professional support, which you adamantly argue should cost $0. Even your examples are flawed, as shown by me. The professional mark-up is across the product stack, Quadro vs GeForce.

Even your sub-$200 part has over 100% markup price-wise, compared to their GeForce counterparts. So who's lacking comprehension capability? P600 = GF 1030, one has MSRP $80, the other is costing $170 right now.

BTW, the Quadro equivalent of the T-Rex is the Quadro RTX 6000, listed at $6300. So the T-Rex is a hell of a deal if you don't need support and pro drivers.
Please, point out where I specifically stated that it should cost $0.

RTX 2080Ti = $1250 (no signed drivers).

RTX Titan = slightly more cores and 24GB GDDR6 for $2500 (no signed drivers), now priced well into business segment territory and being marketed as a business product, so why no signed drivers?

RTX Quadro = with same core count as Titan $6300 (signed drivers).

GF 1030 = $80 (no signed drivers)
Quadro P600 = same as 1030 $170 (signed drivers)

So, you're telling us that the same $90 signed drivers and support for the Quadro version of the 1030 should add $3800 to the Quadro equivalent of the RTX Titan, despite going through the same validation and certification process to get merely added to the driver INF, just because it has more horsepower under the HSF?

How does that even make sense?
 
Last edited:

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
Ah, ok. You're completely missing my point.

My point is (for those saying that nVidia can't make this Titan part of their bonafide business Quadro lineup because it would add to much cost), well if that was truly the case, then why are those "expensive" certified drivers and special support somehow also available on their sub-$200 Quadro parts?

Going from the RTX 2080Ti's 544 Tensor cores and 11GB GDDR6 to RTX Titan's 576 Tensor cores and 24GB of GDDR6 mandates double the price?

...but then, somehow, merely changing the RTX Titan to the actual RTX Quadro offering (pretty much the apples to apples specs) increases the price about 2.5-fold by adding their special business certified drivers and support (again, also available on their sub-$200 Quadro parts), and you're not going to call out bullshit on that?

You are the quintessential customer in nVidia's eyes.
Because you again are comparing apples to oranges. The lower end of Quadro cards aren't built the same as the upper end. They also don't take as much support specifically because they aren't designed to do as much. You can't compare cost the way you are trying to compare it. Any idiot can go find outliers to a dataset, but those don't disprove the dataset. I gave you apples to apples comparisons and you refuse to learn. There is easy to find information out there on the differences between Quadro and Geforce that help explain the cost difference and make it easy to understand why making a Titan Quadro card (which they have btw, I even mentioned it above in the apples to apples comparison) would cost significantly more. But just to give a few examples. They use different parts for the Quadro cards, they use heavier lead lines, they use more solder to make contacts sturdier, they go through much more rigorous testing, they get special certified drivers, etc. etc. They also get additional professional support not provided for consumer cards. All of that goes into the price again, as was shown by the apples to apples comparison where the RTX Quadro that is the equivalent of the RTX Titan costs $6000.

If you choose to remain willfully ignorant on the topic when the data has been given to you a number of times, I don't know what else to say, that is your choice.
 
Last edited:

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,971
Because you again are comparing apples to oranges. The lower end of Quadro cards aren't built the same as the upper end. They also don't take as much support specifically because they aren't designed to do as much. You can't compare cost the way you are trying to compare it. Any idiot can go find outliers to a dataset, but those don't disprove the dataset. I gave you apples to apples comparisons and you refuse to learn. There is easy to find information out there on the differences between Quadro and Geforce that help explain the cost difference and make it easy to understand why making a Titan Quadro card (which they have btw, I even mentioned it above in the apples to apples comparison) would cost significantly more. But just to give a few examples. They use different parts for the Quadro cards, they use heavier lead lines, they use more solder to make contacts sturdier, they go through much more rigorous testing, they get special certified drivers, etc. etc. They also get additional professional support not provided for consumer cards. All of that goes into the price again, as was shown by the apples to apples comparison where the RTX Quadro that is the equivalent of the RTX Titan costs $6000.

If you choose to remain willfully ignorant on the topic when the data has been given to you a number of times, I don't know what else to say, that is your choice.

EDIT: Here is a link about the differences between geforce and quadro just to help you understand better.
I'm just calling out what I see as nVidia's predatory practices, which has always been evident in the pricing of their business lineup, trickled into their consumer lineup with the 8800 Ultra, continued in the consumer lineup with the very first Titan, and now clearly evident in the entire RTX lineup released so far.

Is that being ignorant, or is that being equivocal?
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
I'm just calling out what I see as nVidia's predatory practices, which has always been evident in the pricing of their business lineup, trickled into their consumer lineup with the 8800 Ultra, continued in the consumer lineup with the very first Titan, and now clearly evident in the entire RTX lineup released so far.

Is that being ignorant, or is that being equivocal?
That is a different argument. You keep changing your argument, and now you are back on about pricing, which is what I took you to task for initially and you tried to say wasn't your point... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

If your argument is pricing, then why criticize the RTX Titan? It is literally less than half the price of its "professional" counterpart. It is an excessive card for gamers, but not all gamers need it or should buy it. On the other hand, there are many reasons why someone would buy it for professional needs, especially if they don't care about the higher quality parts or the extra support. So in reality the Titan is priced well for many people, it just isn't a product for everyone and has never been marketed that way.

Now, if you want to have a conversation about the pricing of Quadro cards and FirePro cards, that is an entirely different matter. They are probably overpriced, but I have also seen the extensive amount of support that is given for them. I understand first hand the amount of time and money that is put into supporting those products, especially for very complex projects that the cards weren't exactly designed to handle. They make special drivers for clients, they sometimes make additional programs, and they give advanced advice on programming methods, algorithms and options. None of that is available through their Geforce line of cards.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
19,971
That is a different argument. You keep changing your argument, and now you are back on about pricing, which is what I took you to task for initially and you tried to say wasn't your point... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

If your argument is pricing, then why criticize the RTX Titan? It is literally less than half the price of its "professional" counterpart. It is an excessive card for gamers, but not all gamers need it or should buy it. On the other hand, there are many reasons why someone would buy it for professional needs, especially if they don't care about the higher quality parts or the extra support. So in reality the Titan is priced well for many people, it just isn't a product for everyone and has never been marketed that way.

Now, if you want to have a conversation about the pricing of Quadro cards and FirePro cards, that is an entirely different matter. They are probably overpriced, but I have also seen the extensive amount of support that is given for them. I understand first hand the amount of time and money that is put into supporting those products, especially for very complex projects that the cards weren't exactly designed to handle. They make special drivers for clients, they sometimes make additional programs, and they give advanced advice on programming methods, algorithms and options. None of that is available through their Geforce line of cards.
I've been engaged with discussing multiple points throughout most of this thread, instead of focusing on a single issue.

As for the special drivers and advice/support given: why charge everyone the same ridiculous amount when everyone's needs and usage will vastly vary, even if it's amongst a huge number of customers of the exact same Quadro model number?
They (nVidia) are forcing everyone to essentially pre-purchase the most expensive level of special driver and special support, regardless if most customer won't (and most of them don't) use it to that extent. Record profits due to predatory practices.
 

tajoh111

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
210
Add this to the litany of reasons (proprietary everything, GSync tax and proprietary-ness, sky high prices all round, aging like old milk instead of fine wine, hardware fuckups etc..) that Nvidia has to be reeled in. I know its difficult for us [H] types, but just bite the bullet and buy AMD even if they're not the absolute tip top of the e-peen stack, or things will never get better. In DejaWiz's categories, AMD is competitive and/or actually comes out on top at everything below Halo tier. The 570, 580, 590 are great cards (recently the [H] review showed the 590 refresh's viability) for their markets, and Vega 56 / 64 may not be a 1080Ti competitor, but against the 1070Ti and 1080, it offers an equal or better experience. Hopefully new GPUs built on the 7nm process such as Navi will compete favorably with the 2080 / 2080 Ti lineup; they don't need to totally overpower them, but if they can do equal or even come within 10-20% across the board yet come in at vastly cheaper prices, AMD should win the generation. Imagine if their highest end Navi card comes in somewhere between the 2080 and 2080 Ti, yet was available in good AIB versions for $500-700?!

AMD isn't perfect (I wish they'd allow disabling of the PSP within their Ryzen processors, verified), but they have been following a lot more consumer friendly path when it comes to both pricing and technology...which seems to be the opposite of Nvidia at just about every turn. If Nvidia thrives with the RTX 2000 series, that means their proprietary extensions or way of doing raytracing will gain a foothold, as well as letting them continue to jack prices. An overall failure of RTX 2000 combined with AMD sweeping in resurgent with quality products would be a great move in the right direction.
The RX 590 is not a great card, not at the price it is set at.

Similarly to the RTX series, it caused no shift in pricing with the rest of cards for consumers. Why? This is because the price to performance was no better than existing cards already on the market. In fact it was worse than the previous gen RX 580 even when compared to the RX 580's initial MSRP which is a favorable comparison that does not reflect reality. It's even worse when compared to the street pricing of cards.

In addition, there should be no reason the RX590 should be more expensive then previous cards. Polaris technology has been milked dry and at this point little to no R and D expediture was inputted beside the move to 12nm. There is no reason this should cost more. Look at the 1800x to 2700x transition which had a similar move from 14nm to 12nm, but a shift in pricing from 499 dollars to 329 dollars with better performance. Better performance for the dollar add from what I understand, there was changes to the architecture in this case.

The RX 590 launch looks more similar to the RTX launch because there isn't an increase in price to performance for consumers. However, atleast with the RTX series, your paying for new technology, larger dies and the R and D spent on an entirely new generation. Thus there is some justification for the price increase, not to the extent for the RTX 2080 ti series, but from a business perspective it makes sense. This is because Nvidia is competing with itself primarily and with a tonne of cards on the market, they will do more damage then good for itself by pricing the RTX series too low with so many cards on the market.

Let say the RTX came at 799 550 and 350 dollar pricing. Yes consumers would be happier, but Nvidia shareholders would be angry. Why?

The RTX 2070 at 350 dollar pricing would cause the gtx 1080 to fall to 300 and the gtx 1070 to fall to 200 and the GTX 1060 to 120 dollars. How would such massive price drops be possible? This would have to come in the form of massive rebates for partner, massive write downs for existing inventory(inventory being worth half as much) which are both substantial because of an over supply in the market.

To make these problems worse, the RTX 2070 cost much more than a GTX 1080 considering the die is 40% bigger and it has newer memory which is low in supply.

You think a competent company would want to obsolete their own product with something that cost more to produce but sell it for less than the outgoing product? Considering the R and D expense spent on the new product and the fact that Nvidia has no competition, why would they do do this? It would be a self inflicted blow essentially wasting billions. This includes writing down the value of its inventory in half, sending out a similar amount or more to partners to make the price drops possible and then not monetizing the value of it's new IP by pricing it below the outgoing products while costing more to make.

This is not like the gtx 780/780 ti to gtx 980/gtx970 where the outgoing cards are smaller or have a lot of cards disabled. Here, the RTX 2070 is most similarly sized to Nvidia previous consumer flagship the gtx 1080 ti which means the RTX series was never going to be cheap.

If Nvidia MSRP was more along the lines of the none founder edition pricing, I think the price would be fair considering the lack of competition.

AMD is simply too far behind in terms of performance with the RTX series which exerts no pressure.

relative-performance_3840-2160.png


https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/10/14/msi_geforce_rtx_2070_gaming_z_performance_review/12

Radeon RX Vega 64 Falling Behind

"One thing has become clear, Radeon RX Vega 64 (even factory overclocked) is falling behind quite harshly with the level of performance factory overclocked GeForce RTX 2070 is producing. We are seeing over 20% performance advantages from MSI GeForce RTX 2070 GAMING Z over ASUS ROG STRIX RX Vega 64 OC Edition in every game at 1440p and 4K. These are big and noticeable differences.

ASUS ROG STRIX RX Vega 64 OC Edition is in an entirely different set of playable gameplay settings, and that is always below MSI GeForce RTX 2070 GAMING Z by a wide margin. The ASUS ROG STRIX RX Vega 64 OC Edition can’t even keep up with the MSI GeForce GTX 1080 GAMING X video card in most cases here today. Performance is starting to suffer for Vega 64. The GeForce RTX 2070 is not a good thing for AMD. It not only gives AMD intense competition, but does so without any apologies. It’s fierce competition. AMD needs to be worried about the GeForce RTX 2070."

AMD needs to exert pressure on the market for lower pricing to occur and the RX 590 does not do it.

The price to performance is middling literally.

performance-per-dollar_2560-1440.png


It's barely better than a RTX 2070 in terms of price to performance which should not be the case for another Polaris card. The only saving grace for this polaris card is the game bundle but the problem is the rest of AMD line up is getting game bundles as well and Nvidia is starting to bundle games which you can play today. Add in the used market which is saturated with cards with performance along the lines of the RX 590 and the RX 590 is just as competitively priced as the RTX series without the excuse of being new tech.

AMD is not your friend and they would price their cards high if they could. The 7970, 7950 and 7870 are proof of this. These midrange/mainstream GPU dies were the catalyst for the price increase for Nvidia to start pricing their own midrange dies into flagship ones.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/28.html

perfdollar_1920.gif


The 7xxx series relative position of price to performance of their cards compared to cards existing on the market are very similar to the RTX series.

performance-per-dollar_2560-1440.png


AMD paid greatly for trying to price their cards high with main stream as flagship ones. As it polarized consumers accustomed to lower pricing for AMD and people waited for Nvidia to fire back.

What AMD needed to do if they wanted to increase the pricing of their cards is launch Hawaii first at the 550 to 600 dollar pricing. The 290x was first GPU from AMD in a long time that deserved to compete in the same segment as the 500+ as Nvidia high end. A true flagship. It would have been resulted in more marketshare for them and a more competitive market for them today. The 7970 deserved pricing more along the lines of the 5870 launch(the die size reflected this). But because they launched the 7970 at 550, it turned Nvidia into the good guys even with their increase in pricing for their midrange because theirs performed better at the time and because it was 50 dollars cheaper. What made it spectacular hit for the consumer is the Nvidia brand and it took home the performance/ efficiency crown at the same time. AMD deserved the marketshare hit at the time because AMD got too cocky for what was a 3 month lead in product release not the year plus lead Nvidia has today along with the mindshare advantage.
 
Top