Nvidia Should Be Held Accountable For OverCharging With Lower Performance.

I

Ironhand

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
102
Alittle Balance To The Threads Posted.

Typically Nvidia's cards have cost more then their AMD counterparts all while having less VRAM and producing Lower FPS. With performance per dollar used in various reviews and guides, how does someone feel about paying more for less?

Discuss..
 
Hahahaha... let me grab my popcorn. Please post a link where nVidia admits to not doing competitive analysis for stuttering. Oh wait.
 
Ironhand said:
Alittle Balance To The Threads Posted.

Typically Nvidia's cards have cost more then their AMD counterparts all while having less VRAM and producing Lower FPS. With performance per dollar used in various reviews and guides, how does someone feel about paying more for less?

Discuss..
Click to expand...

I have to agree with the op and lets not even get into the whole bump-gate fiasco... nvidia always over promises and under delivers while overchargeing
 
So I guess the OP was butt hurt from what he read in other threads.

I get it.
 
Ironhand said:
Alittle Balance To The Threads Posted.

Typically Nvidia's cards have cost more then their AMD counterparts all while having less VRAM and producing Lower FPS. With performance per dollar used in various reviews and guides, how does someone feel about paying more for less?

Discuss..
Click to expand...

Troll. Theres no accountability to be had, and theres nothing to discuss. Your other option is to buy an AMD card which you believe is faster and cheaper anyway. If someone wants to pay more for less, they need to be held accountable for being stupid.
 
Ironhand said:
Typically Nvidia's cards have cost more then their AMD counterparts all while having less VRAM and producing Lower FPS. With performance per dollar used in various reviews and guides, how does someone feel about paying more for less?
Click to expand...

If you bought a car based solely on performance per dollar, you would buy a Ford Mustang. Funny thing, though - not everybody buys a Ford Mustang.
 
nVidia's driver support alone makes them worth more than anything AMD makes. I had AMD cards before my 680s and hated their drivers, especially multi-gpu. Also games are much smoother with SLI with both mobile and desktop GPUs, there's no comparison. Given the fact that AMD's multi-GPU has runt frames, I don't see why anyone would want to buy their cards right now. Maybe when/if they get around to remedying the issue it'll make them worth looking at.
 
Last edited:
Haha, buthurt AMD owners attempt to balance out the slagging.

Doesn't matter, as it's recently come to light that in SLI I'm getting far greater performance than the AMD alternative due to NV's superior SLI implementation - I'll gladly pay more for that privilege.;)
 
Ironhand said:
Alittle Balance To The Threads Posted.

Typically Nvidia's cards have cost more then their AMD counterparts all while having less VRAM and producing Lower FPS. With performance per dollar used in various reviews and guides, how does someone feel about paying more for less?

Discuss..
Click to expand...

Better driver support, less or no microstutter, MUCH better multi card scaling,....


Yup I gladly pay more.;)

**edit**

Had to check, yup the OP has a AMD card. Lol I understand the butt hurt, with all the threads exposing AMD's poor drivers and poor multi card performance.
 
I think we should be mad at Matrox for not staying as a possible option.......
 
It's a no-brainer really. If you are strapped for cash, you pick AMD and overclock. If you have money, you buy a Titan. I am still amazed by the thought processes of someone who picks up a 650 Ti over a just-slightly-more-expensive 7850 (yeah, I happen to know such a person).
 
I paid more for more with my GTX 680.

I get CUDA, PhysX and 3D Vision all of which I use. I'll gladly pay the $100 more or so to gain those 3 things over the 7970 GHz. GTX 680 overclocks just as well IMO. I have my EVGA 680 running at 1300MHz.

If all you care about is performance per dollar then sure, buy the AMD. But if you want more features, the nVidia makes perfect sense.
 
wyqtor said:
It's a no-brainer really. If you are strapped for cash, you pick AMD and overclock. If you have money, you buy a Titan. I am still amazed by the thought processes of someone who picks up a 650 Ti over a just-slightly-more-expensive 7850 (yeah, I happen to know such a person).
Click to expand...

there will always be ppl who have no idea how to spend money on their hardware. Friend 2 years ago bought a i7 980x cpu.. Cost him over a grand for just a cpu. He even set up a custom water loop for it but.. he REFUSES to overclock it because he says "i shouldn't have to oc anything". A couple of days ago, he mentioned that he wants to upgrade his cpu......
 
The real deal is 660s in SLI..;) ..beats a Titan.
I prefer one large ATI ..ewps..AMD card myself.
 
If OP's logic were correct we would be suing Apple as well.

Apparently there is price premium for products that just work and are simple to use.
 
doug_7506 said:
If OP's logic were correct we would be suing Apple as well.

Apparently there is price premium for products that just work and are simple to use.
Click to expand...

OP's point is that some of the threads started in this forum lately have been retarded (this one included of course, that is how he is making his point.)
Especially since the last pcper.com article basically stated what everyone knew.
-Single card 7970ghz is marginally faster than gtx680. (even using their new FCAT frame time measurements)
-SLI performs better than crossfire, in fact crossfire sucks balls without vsync/tweaking

Pretty sure this has all been common knowledge for quite some time. People have just been embarrassing themselves spamming bullcrap on here to make some noise.
 
jmilcher said:
Better driver support, less or no microstutter, MUCH better multi card scaling,....


Yup I gladly pay more.;)

**edit**

Had to check, yup the OP has a AMD card. Lol I understand the butt hurt, with all the threads exposing AMD's poor drivers and poor multi card performance.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

picket23 said:
OP's point is that some of the threads started in this forum lately have been retarded (this one included of course, that is how he is making his point.)
Especially since the last pcper.com article basically stated what everyone knew.
-Single card 7970ghz is marginally faster than gtx680. (even using their new FCAT frame time measurements)
-SLI performs better than crossfire, in fact crossfire sucks balls without vsync/tweaking

Pretty sure this has all been common knowledge for quite some time. People have just been embarrassing themselves spamming bullcrap on here to make some noise.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not really what people are talking about... I'd recommend reading said articles before commenting. And, just because people are talking about yet more reasons to avoid AMD, doesn't mean they're "embarassing" themselves, unless you're a complete fanboy of one company or the other. Discussion is what forums are for, and that's what's (mostly) taking place.
 
Pretty sure this has all been common knowledge for quite some time. People have just been embarrassing themselves spamming bullcrap on here to make some noise.
Click to expand...

I thought people were simply discussing the issue more now that technical evidence has come to light confirming and explaining the existence of the problem?:rolleyes:

Is physical proof that CF has some major performance issues resulting in people discussing the issue further cause for butthurt? If so, are AMD users really as mature as they like to claim to be?

Because as an NV user I've copped it in every way, shape and form over everything from woodscrews through to hot running, power consuming 480's and I never felt the need to balance the butthurt out with a thread like this?! At the end of the day, only good can come from the majority of enthusiasts jumping up and down, openly discussing the problem and telling AMD it just isn't good enough - People have been complaining of this issue for years, and AMD did nothing about it.
 
Last edited:
Value of a product = what people are willing to pay.
Hence some cars are more expensive than other simply because people are willing to pay more.
AMD users need to understand that if AMD is successful in a while they will be paying a premium over Nvidia for no other reason than AMD has a better name at that time.
 
DogsofJune said:
I think we should be mad at Matrox for not staying as a possible option.......
Click to expand...
I think there's something else to be mad at Matrox about.

http://shopmatrox.com/usa/products/datasheet.asp?ID=886

Either I've clearly missed an important detail or something just doesn't add up; USD $600 for that? It doesn't help that the rest of their cards (in similar specification) are also priced exorbitantly high, like this AGP card. The price premium of the FirePro and Quadro cards pales in comparison!
 
Last edited:
evilsofa said:
If you bought a car based solely on performance per dollar, you would buy a Ford Mustang. Funny thing, though - not everybody buys a Ford Mustang.
Click to expand...

That's why we go for a BMW M3 instead, for the overall performance + smoother ride, wait... smoothness.... amd microstutter...... wait a sec, so basically AMD is like the Ford Mustang GT and nVidia is like an BMW M3, which would you buy?

But in all seriousness, both companies offer good products, I think AMD is more on the competing for prices. IMO, yes MY opinion, nVidia cards are smoother, thus I got rid of my 7970 GHz to replace with this GTX 680 Lightning, the 680 does better in some benchies, the 7970 does better in others, it doesnt matter, go with which you prefer.
 
Every thread on this forum has an intent to troll or turn into a troll thread by page two. So I don't see a problem.

I thought Nvidia and ATI were both quality products. I've always leaned Nvidia because they have better card makers. When AMD took over ATI, I saw a general downhill trend off sacrificing quality for performance. I see these polls up all the time and Nvidia is usually sitting at 60% while AMD sits at 40%. Higher demand for Nvidia products, so they charge more.

Also, they have historically focused on different price brackets. Nvidia has always been the $200-$300 or $400+ cards. AMD focuses on $100-$200 and $300-$400. Since I've always been the $200-$300 range, Nvidia always offers a better product in that category IMO. I recently flirted with a 7870 Tahaiti only to be rewarded with a no post after two weeks of stock use.
 
Nvidia cards offer better gaming experiences, that's why they're more expensive.
 
sobe88 said:
That's why we go for a BMW M3 instead, for the overall performance + smoother ride, wait... smoothness.... amd microstutter...... wait a sec, so basically AMD is like the Ford Mustang GT and nVidia is like an BMW M3, which would you buy?

But in all seriousness, both companies offer good products, I think AMD is more on the competing for prices. IMO, yes MY opinion, nVidia cards are smoother, thus I got rid of my 7970 GHz to replace with this GTX 680 Lightning, the 680 does better in some benchies, the 7970 does better in others, it doesnt matter, go with which you prefer.
Click to expand...

Where does Corvette come into this?
 
Lol at this thread. Nvidia charge more because they offer more, its as simple as that.
 
demowhc said:
Lol at this thread. Nvidia charge more because they offer more, its as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Yeah, you'd get some people buying for "brand name", but the bulk of purchases go to nVidia because of the quality.
 
What a fantastic thread. A good 7950 will run you about $210 after you sell the games vs a decent 670 which will cost you $360 for the same or worse performance. That's a $150 difference. Clearly Nvidia owes their customers a refund for having scammed them out of 70% more money for nothing.
picket23 said:
OP's point is that some of the threads started in this forum lately have been retarded (this one included of course, that is how he is making his point.)
Click to expand...
Some people are a little slow.
 
Or like how you can buy a used 7970 for ~$300 but can't find a used 680 for under $400...
 
Fooshnik said:
What a fantastic thread. A good 7950 will run you about $210 after you sell the games vs a decent 670 which will cost you $360 for the same or worse performance. That's a $150 difference. Clearly Nvidia owes their customers a refund for having scammed them out of 70% more money for nothing. Some people are a little slow.
Click to expand...

ROFL, and how do you explain this? http://slickdeals.net/f/5936068-PNY...0-2-GB-GDDR5-with-Assassin-s-Creed-III-290-AR

That's $260 for a GTX 670 after selling the game ;). A $50 difference, not 150. Nice job trying to make a (false) case though by comparing hot deal prices to everyday pricing! :p Another one would be http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=72414 NCIX @ ~$250 after selling games/credits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top