Member when....

tviceman said:
Give AMD some credit too. They launched the 7970 10 weeks ahead of the GTX 680 for $550 and was 10% slower out of the gate. Had the 7970 been more in line with 6970 prices ($379-399) OR had much better drivers, GTX 670/680 would have been cheaper and/or not well received.
Click to expand...

I already gave AMD credit. Because they are non-competitive, prices continue to rise, not just stagnate.

If AMD is non competitive with Vega, we can expect reference "Founder's Edition" 1080Ti for $999, while the "MSRP" custom 1080Ti to be $899 or something insane.
 
Bahanime said:
I already gave AMD credit. Because they are non-competitive, prices continue to rise, not just stagnate.

If AMD is non competitive with Vega, we can expect reference "Founder's Edition" 1080Ti for $999, while the "MSRP" custom 1080Ti to be $899 or something insane.
Click to expand...


I'll make sure I use the [H] Amazon link when I order two.
 
Bahanime said:
If you look at that chart, 14/16nm is very close to 28nm in cost already and it's quite early in the node. Within another year, maturity ensures 14/16nm will be cheaper.

Phones have dropped in price, except for the few flagship Apple/Samsung devices. Brick phones used to cost several thousands. These days a cheap smartphone has more features and is faster than previous flagships.

As for the expense of Apple/Samsung, they are now no longer consumer electronics, but a luxury or even fashion item. It got there due to marketing.

It's clear that NV marketing wants consumers to think of GPUs as a luxury item, not to be compared to regular PC hardware. It's how they justify exorbitant prices and why people like you jump in to defend their rising costs. ;)
Click to expand...

I dont think you read the charts right. Its transistor cost and IC design cost.

To put it simple. If you got 3½ billion transistors on a 300mm2 28nm IC design and you now make a 7 billion transistors 300nm 14/16nm part. You not only pay twice the price for the chip, you also paid twice the IC design cost. Why do you think AMD only got 2 chips per year?

And here is an example from MediaTek for "10nm".
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20170114PB201.html?mod=0

Companies are falling of left and right on nodes because they cant pay for it or make money on it.
 
Last edited:
Bahanime said:
I already gave AMD credit. Because they are non-competitive, prices continue to rise, not just stagnate.

If AMD is non competitive with Vega, we can expect reference "Founder's Edition" 1080Ti for $999, while the "MSRP" custom 1080Ti to be $899 or something insane.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing $799/$899 for AIB / Founders. That's $200 more than the 1080 intro'd at 8 months ago.
 
Bahanime said:
I feel dirty that I even thought about buying a GTX 1080 for $649 a few months ago. A fraken small mid-range chip that would have gone for $299 a few gen ago.
Click to expand...


uhhhh how many generations ago? An 8800 ultra was $829, even the 8800gtx was $600-$650. You literally paid the same amount (not even considering the extra $100 in inflation) for your high end GTX 1080 as you would have for a high end 8800GTX 10 years ago (9ish gpu gernations).

Sure TVs have come down in price but you are talking about taking old existing tech and finding ways to produce it cheaply. That's not what we look for in graphics cards.
 
Kardonxt said:
uhhhh how many generations ago? An 8800 ultra was $829, even the 8800gtx was $600-$650. You literally paid the same amount (not even considering the extra $100 in inflation) for your high end GTX 1080 as you would have for a high end 8800GTX 10 years ago (9ish gpu gernations).
Click to expand...

The 8800 Ultra is an extreme example and a statistical outlier. Historically it is far more common for top-end cards to be around $400-$500.
 
MavericK said:
The 8800 Ultra is an extreme example and a statistical outlier. Historically it is far more common for top-end cards to be around $400-$500.
Click to expand...

And NVIDIA did it b/c AMD didn't have anything remotely close to compare (2900 was a dud).
The release of Titan in 2013 showed that there is a viable "prosumer" market for ultra-high end stuff (surpassing even the 8800 Ultra, in a manner of speaking).
Right now, with Vega not coming anytime soon (at least for 2-3 months minimum), NVIDIA has that window of opportunity once again.
I'm pretty darn sure that NVIDIA will take advantage of that, if only to keep their shareholders happy, and to have capital in hand should Vega actually be a bonafide hit (supposedly it's all Pascal refreshes for this year, and Volta possibly late this year or early/mid next year).
That way, they hedge their bets, and still make money.
AMD would do the same if their positions were reversed.
 
tungt88 said:
And NVIDIA did it b/c AMD didn't have anything remotely close to compare (2900 was a dud).
The release of Titan in 2013 showed that there is a viable "prosumer" market for ultra-high end stuff (surpassing even the 8800 Ultra, in a manner of speaking).
Right now, with Vega not coming anytime soon (at least for 2-3 months minimum), NVIDIA has that window of opportunity once again.
I'm pretty darn sure that NVIDIA will take advantage of that, if only to keep their shareholders happy, and to have capital in hand should Vega actually be a bonafide hit (supposedly it's all Pascal refreshes for this year, and Volta possibly late this year or early/mid next year).
That way, they hedge their bets, and still make money.
Click to expand...

Nv is already making money hand over fist man.
 
tungt88 said:
Never heard of a big company saying that they didn't need more money ... shareholders always like to see more on their returns, as it is.
Click to expand...

Just making the distinction that they already make mad money and their stock is fucking silly high. They do keep gouging because that's what they do not because they need or have to. My gawd, just look at that stock at Jan 2016 to now, insane. I'm pretty sure their stock holders are way freaking happy. My uncle bought a load at 60 a share and he's giddy. I talked him into it and also got him to buy some AMD lol. And they're pissing Intel off by taking big chunks of the markets that they compete directly in.
 
MavericK said:
Historically it is far more common for top-end cards to be around $400-$500.
Click to expand...

You have to go back to the 5950/9800 generation for that statement to be true. You are talking 13+ years now.... The top cards have been $500 or more at launch for a long time now.

X1900XTX launched at $650, $550 for the XT.
X850XT PE $550

Etc.etc.

I wouldn't call something historically more common when it has not occurred in over 13 years.
 
Dan said:
Kyle is drunk, Just laugh and slowly walk away
Click to expand...
At least you didn't get an email from him reminding you to have a valid email address..that's not replyable because it's read-only.

Sounds like he's commenting on AMD not releasing any Ryzen price, performance, benchmark or hard release date. No Vega details, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top