Nvidia Should Be Held Accountable For OverCharging With Lower Performance.

[tajoh111]

This issue is completely different. In the case your presenting, the consumer can do research before hand by looking at reviews to evaluate price/performance.

In this case of this runt frame issue, they could not do research until recently. If it was a minor issue effecting a single game it would not be a big issue. However it affects a decent amount of games(half in the review I showed).

Your idea in your title is short sighted. AMD pricing is particularly low this generation and honestly this division is making very little money for their revenue. E.g they made 22 million last quarter and 18 million the quarter before that off of 326 million revenue and 342 million revenue. What is causing AMD to make this little money, is a combination of the pricing and the gaming evolved program. Forcing other companies make just as little money, would simply be tyrannical.

AMD cards have to be priced lower at the moment because they are the lesser brand and have to be priced lower to sell because of public perception. Having lower pricing allows their products to sell, albeit at lesser margins.

Your idea if implemented would hurt AMD far more than hurt Nvidia.

If the big dogs were forced to price their products in line with AMD or be charged, AMD would be gone in less than a year. E.g If intel started pricing their superior products to match AMD CPUs, AMD CPU division would be toast.

Although a slower death, Nvidia pricing their cards(while offering similar bundles to AMD) would really kill AMD sales. One of the biggest reasons people buy AMD cards right now is value, remove that from the equation and AMD graphics division dies a slow death.

For AMD sake, Nvidia pricing their cards high makes them easier to look like a value card(which appeals to alot of consumers). Pricing their cards high and losing price/performance advantage caused a disaster in sales to happen like what happened to the 7970 sales after the gtx 680 came out. AMD cannot price itself as the premium product right now. It was only after there was a massive price drop and the gaming bundles were attached and the performance drivers were added did sales pick up.

I think it was a mistake to removed the ATI name and put it under the AMD banner for AMD's videocards. Nvidia is accepted as the premium brand and thus people will pay a premium for it. People I have talked to that are not into computers as much, regarded AMD CPU's as junk. AMD budget reputation likely carried itself into the videocard world.

 

[Kaori]

funniest thing on this thread is nvidia fanboys thinking they're using premium just because they pay more..

 

[socialjazz]

funniest thing on this thread is nvidia fanboys thinking they're using premium just because they pay more..

Exactly. I used to have a AMD 5870 and it did not give me any problem, at least not more than what nVidia gave me. Apart from physX and the poor performance 3D tech, I see very little difference in the single GPU performace of AMD and nVidia cards. By comparing AMD to Ford and nVidia to Merc is giving nVidia too much credit, and AMD too little.

 

[demowhc]

funniest thing on this thread is nvidia fanboys thinking they're using premium just because they pay more..

They're not? Premium is too strong a word but in essence I think they are.

AMD offer a value solution with less features and support. Nvidia offer a "premium" solution with more features and support. Thats all there is to it really.

Theres a reason AMD have to undercut Nvidia in pricing to compete, and its not because they're the fluffy bunny foundation who like to make less money because they love you. If they could charge more for their products and remain competitive, they would.

 

[Krenum]

Until AMD fixes their Vsync issues I will buy Nvidia.

 

[Battleneter2]

funniest thing on this thread is nvidia fanboys thinking they're using premium just because they pay more..

The cost difference between comparable AMD and Nvidia products is usually not huge, lets keep some perspective, if the diff is $50 that doesn't even get close to covering a night out on the piss.

Most gamers I know have owned Nvidia and ATI/AMD at different times, the only "fan boy" I see in this thread is the OP, but good on him for being passionate about video card brands lol

 

[SonicTron]

funniest thing on this thread is nvidia fanboys thinking they're using premium just because they pay more..

nvidia and amd card owner here

People with high end nvidia cards are indeed "using premium" compared to amd offerings. Far, far better driver support. More intuitive and usable tri+ monitor support (and I've used both). More support for GPU accelerated editing software (amd completely unsupported with Adobe). Actual working multi-card solution.

I will be trading out my AMD cards for more Nvidia soon.

 

[Fooshnik]

Exactly. I used to have a AMD 5870 and it did not give me any problem, at least not more than what nVidia gave me. Apart from physX and the poor performance 3D tech, I see very little difference in the single GPU performace of AMD and nVidia cards. By comparing AMD to Ford and nVidia to Merc is giving nVidia too much credit, and AMD too little.

Well if you pay more for the same thing you have to justify it. A lot people never got AMD cards to work. When it's work paying for things I used to always buy Nvidia. Now I usually buy whichever is on sale at the time. Lately AMD has been a better value. I've yet to hear anyone mention they don't like their brand of video card.

 

[Rauelius]

nvidia and amd card owner here

People with high end nvidia cards are indeed "using premium" compared to amd offerings. Far, far better driver support. More intuitive and usable tri+ monitor support (and I've used both). More support for GPU accelerated editing software (amd completely unsupported with Adobe). Actual working multi-card solution.

I will be trading out my AMD cards for more Nvidia soon.

As an owner of both current mid/High-End AMD(7930) and nVidia(GTX670), I haven't had any issues with either and both work incredibly well. Point of fact, I played Tomb Raider mostly on my 7930 powered machines and I found Dirt Showdown to also run better, on the Flipside I played Borderlands 2 and Batman AC on the GTX670 machine. When enabling vsync I found both to be pretty much identical. I struggle to understand the problems with drivers people have with either. I've never ever come across any problems with either companies graphics card, and I have been building machines since my original Duron [email protected] with a 3Dfx Voodoo5...at least one system built a year for myself since then.

Point of fact, AMD actually has to correct their prices. The 7850 barely competes with the GTX655Ti(that's what I'm calling the GTX650Ti w/Boost, because apparently nVidia and AMD have no idea how to name their video cards) and is priced a bit more for the same performance. I can get a GTX655Ti for $170 and the similar performing 7850 is $200. The only argument that I would understand for the 7850 to have an artificially(meaning same or lesser performance but charging more) higher price than the GTX655Ti is that it does come with two awesome games, and the GTX655Ti comes with a $75 coupon for nothing.

 

[LigTasm]

Owned several of both within the last 6 months:

4x7970
3x7950
1x7870
5xGTX 670
3x GTX 680
1x GTX 690
2x GTX 660

Out of all of those cards, I had one that overheated at idle right out of the box for no apparent reason and very shortly after died. One had bad display ports. One would not output over the dual-link DVI port with the BIOS switch in dual link mode. The drivers on two of them caused Skyrim to be completely unplayable, and made it nearly impossible to run three screens with any sort of consistency. The thing they had in common? All of them were the AMD cards. I kept an open mind and kept trying them, but frustration builds after over half a dozen cards having some issue or another. Meanwhile, my Nvidia cards have been flawless with a much bigger sample size. My only complaint was the minor annoyance of stock 660/670 reference style fans.

I'm sure people have a great experience with AMD cards, unfortunately I'm not one of them. I still recommend them where the price and performance are right but I don't think I will buy another one for myself until the HD8000 series comes out.

 

[Rauelius]

Owned several of both within the last 6 months:

4x7970
3x7950
1x7870
5xGTX 670
3x GTX 680
1x GTX 690
2x GTX 660

Out of all of those cards, I had one that overheated at idle right out of the box for no apparent reason and very shortly after died. One had bad display ports. One would not output over the dual-link DVI port with the BIOS switch in dual link mode. The drivers on two of them caused Skyrim to be completely unplayable, and made it nearly impossible to run three screens with any sort of consistency. The thing they had in common? All of them were the AMD cards. I kept an open mind and kept trying them, but frustration builds after over half a dozen cards having some issue or another. Meanwhile, my Nvidia cards have been flawless with a much bigger sample size. My only complaint was the minor annoyance of stock 660/670 reference style fans.

I'm sure people have a great experience with AMD cards, unfortunately I'm not one of them. I still recommend them where the price and performance are right but I don't think I will buy another one for myself until the HD8000 series comes out.

Are we twins separated at birth? I went through about the same amount of cards last year and into this...No issues here....some of us are lucky, some of us aren't I guess...Though I will say on the CPU side I had 2 FX 8120's and 2 FX 8150's burn-out the day I got them...Was weary of AMD's CPUs for a while so I see where your coming from. I got a different bad-luck-lottery than you. However, I will not discount AMD's CPU's because of my bad-luck with them...I'm to intelligent for that...Now I have an FX 8350 running happily because I didn't let past experience ruin my views of the future.

 

[SonicTron]

As an owner of both current mid/High-End AMD(7930) and nVidia(GTX670), I haven't had any issues with either and both work incredibly well. Point of fact, I played Tomb Raider mostly on my 7930 powered machines and I found Dirt Showdown to also run better, on the Flipside I played Borderlands 2 and Batman AC on the GTX670 machine. When enabling vsync I found both to be pretty much identical. I struggle to understand the problems with drivers people have with either. I've never ever come across any problems with either companies graphics card, and I have been building machines since my original Duron [email protected] with a 3Dfx Voodoo5...at least one system built a year for myself since then.

Point of fact, AMD actually has to correct their prices. The 7850 barely competes with the GTX655Ti(that's what I'm calling the GTX650Ti w/Boost, because apparently nVidia and AMD have no idea how to name their video cards) and is priced a bit more for the same performance. I can get a GTX655Ti for $170 and the similar performing 7850 is $200. The only argument that I would understand for the 7850 to have an artificially(meaning same or lesser performance but charging more) higher price than the GTX655Ti is that it does come with two awesome games, and the GTX655Ti comes with a $75 coupon for nothing.

That's great and all. Do you use 3+ monitor setups? Do you use crossfire or sli? Do you use your cards for any sort of GPU accelerated productivity? Or are you just telling me that your AMD card works better when you play the only game on the market that had severe issues playing on nvidia cards at release.

 

[Final8ty]

After I burn my brother-in-law on a 5970, I will never recommend an AMD. I will pay the price to drivers that work for SLI configuration.

The Official NV Forum must have been hacked.
Plenty of issues with SLI there.

 

[Rauelius]

That's great and all. Do you use 3+ monitor setups? Do you use crossfire or sli? Do you use your cards for any sort of GPU accelerated productivity? Or are you just telling me that your AMD card works better when you play the only game on the market that had severe issues playing on nvidia cards at release.

Yes across the board.
I have 600+ Steam games, and no issues on any of them on a variety of hardware throughout the years.

I've been running Triple-Monitor since the Radeon 5850...It's part of the reason I picked up a 2nd GPU so quickly(like a month later...would have gotten another one earlier but 5850's were tough to come by in late 2009).

I also:
BitCoin Mining(it's exploded today...so if your not mining....get CRACKING!!)
Folding
Physx where applicable

SLI'd 7800GTO, 8800GT's, 8800GTS, 9800GTX+s, GTX275's, GTX 460's, GTX560Ti's, GTX670's(sold one to a friend a month ago) and currently run my GTX670 with a GTX460 for Physx-runs flawlessly.

Crossfired 2600XT, 2900XT, 3850, 4850, 4870, 4890, 5770, 5850, 6850, 6870, 7770, 7930. I will say that crossfire on the 2600xt and 2900xt was "gnarly" to say the least, but 4870 onwards...no issues. In fact I had the most fun during the 48xx era. I crossfired 4850's with 4870 and 4890's and all worked(going up to 3-4 cards is where issues came up) "well enough" with some over/under clocking, but nothing ran better than identical cards.

No issues on any of them...I could list off the games I played...but it would read off like a PC Game of the year list...so if your interested...look up a PC game of the year list(for the last 12 years) and theirs a 90% chance I ran it and played the hell out of it.

I also have 5 Origin games...I'll list those....Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Need For Speed Most Wanted, Mass Effect 3, Battlefield 3...yeah...they ran fine on my Radeons and Geforces...

Quick reminder...Tomb Raider now runs better on the GTX670 than the 7930....a little better.....

 

[LigTasm]

Are we twins separated at birth? I went through about the same amount of cards last year and into this...No issues here....some of us are lucky, some of us aren't I guess...Though I will say on the CPU side I had 2 FX 8120's and 2 FX 8150's burn-out the day I got them...Was weary of AMD's CPUs for a while so I see where your coming from. I got a different bad-luck-lottery than you. However, I will not discount AMD's CPU's because of my bad-luck with them...I'm to intelligent for that...Now I have an FX 8350 running happily because I didn't let past experience ruin my views of the future.

I agree at not discounting them altogether as well, I still recommend them to others but I'm not going to try another one for a few months. I try to go with the best performance to price but it becomes difficult when I have to go through 4 different 7970's in one week.

 

[Zarich]

Can I have some money. You guys all seem to have enough money to buy a zillion cards.
For the rest of us.. we have to pick one. Our past experience usually dictates our future purchase.
My history nvidia ti ..err something.. I still have it(old pci card with a tiny fan), Voodoo 3000, 9800pro, 8800gts 320, 5850, 670.

Had more AMD/ATI driver issues. So I picked the 670.
I paid a $40 premium. Because of my past experience.
Does that make AMD bad, NO.
Does that make Nvidia a bad value, NO.

Who will I pick next time? Voodoo.

 

[J Macker]

...I looked at the GTX660 Ti and the Radeon 7930(what the 7870-LE should have been called) and with the bundled games (a $110 value in reallity...not the $150 value AMD is trying to peddle). The 7930 came to only cost me $100 (Picked up the Myst card when it was $209.99), and it's at an even higher performance level than the $300 GTX660Ti. So, for 1/3rd the price of the nVidia card I have a much better performing card.

This is the only part of your statement that's not true. You can buy the Bioshock Inf. / Tomb Raider codes easily for <$35 each. Current rates are $30 each or $50-$60 combo on ebay. So it's not $100 value in games, not $110, but only $60 in games. Of course, the prices wouldn't be so low unless AMD didn't bundle them with the cards. So we can thank AMD for reducing the prices of $50-$60 games at launch to $30.

Plus, there's sales tax added if purchasing the 670 from Dhell. So add another $20-$25

 

[Rauelius]

This is the only part of your statement that's not true. You can buy the Bioshock Inf. / Tomb Raider codes easily for <$35 each. Current rates are $30 each or $50-$60 combo on ebay. So it's not $100 value in games, not $110, but only $60 in games. Of course, the prices wouldn't be so low unless AMD didn't bundle them with the cards. So we can thank AMD for reducing the prices of $50-$60 games at launch to $30.

Plus, there's sales tax added if purchasing the 670 from Dhell. So add another $20-$25

I was obviosly talking about retail prices...

http://www.amazon.com/Square-Enix-4...F8&qid=1365019040&sr=8-3&keywords=Tomb+Raider

http://www.amazon.com/2K-Games-BioS...=1365019078&sr=8-1&keywords=Bioshock+Infinite

Unless I have my math wrong....$50+$60=$110

I understand what your talking about though, but you seem to miss the point. Most people I recommend hardware to are uncomfortable with forum purchases, and a card that comes with Arguably the two best games this year so far makes it a great purchase with no worry due to over-paranoia.

Taking your thought process to the next level, I usually give extra pack in games I have to friends, so in their situations...they pay $0...but in reality that can't be factored in when talking about value, just as your example can't, in spite of how realistic that proposal is for US, but for a large contingent of gamers buying games or even hardware(both of which I've done) on a forum is a tough prospect to swallow.

Besides, even if you discount the games, the $209.99(on sale) Radeon 7930 still handsomely surpases the GTX660Ti for a good bit less money. Like the [H] review said, I'm paraphrasing "The Radeon 7870 Myst is on a higher performance level than the GTX660Ti.."

 

[J Macker]

I was obviosly talking about retail prices...
Unless I have my math wrong....$50+$60=$110

I understand what your talking about though, but you seem to miss the point.

No, I just find it funny that you were criticizing about the $50 or $150 price difference between a HotDeal and paying MSRP between the 670 and 7950. Then you go and use MSRP value for the games when it's obviously easy to get it for less.

I didn't miss the point. I'm just being realistic about the value of the video card.
Did you pay $110 for your games? yes you did. Could you have paid $60 for both? most certainly. So your 7870 (7930) didn't cost you $110. It cost you $160.

I bought the same card 7870 you did. The value seems excellent. I sold my 6950 for $140 and sold bioshock, so the upgrade wasn't too expensive.

 

[Zarich]

The ftp cash is selling for $40-$60 as well.

 

[Rauelius]

No, I just find it funny that you were criticizing about the $50 or $150 price difference between a HotDeal and paying MSRP between the 670 and 7950. Then you go and use MSRP value for the games when it's obviously easy to get it for less.

I didn't miss the point. I'm just being realistic about the value of the video card.
Did you pay $110 for your games? yes you did. Could you have paid $60 for both? most certainly. So your 7870 (7930) didn't cost you $110. It cost you $160.

I bought the same card 7870 you did. The value seems excellent. I sold my 6950 for $140 and sold bioshock, so the upgrade wasn't too expensive.

Yes, you did miss the point...I was talking in basic terms for eTail/Retail purchase. Was the Radeon 7930 on sale for $209.99 from a reputable reseller that I could recommend to my less tech-enthusiast friends and consumers? Yes. Was Bioshock Infinite(for $30) and Tomb Raider(for $30) available from a reputable reseller that I could recommend to my less tech-enthusiast friends and consumers? No.

I easily sent a link via Facebook to people I know looking for a GPU upgrade and I'd say about 10 of the sales of the 7930 were directly due to me suggesting it. However if I sent a link to the For Sale/Trade thread here to those same people they would dismiss it.

I think the disconnect between us is that I'm talking about the general population and not the PC-Enthusiast Master Race we are

Also...did you stop reading after my little equation? I explained my reasoning right under it.

 

[J Macker]

Yes, you did miss the point...I was talking in basic terms for eTail/Retail purchase.
..Also...did you stop reading after my little equation? I explained my reasoning right under it.

No. Let's recap your original post I commented on:

However, if you take bundles into account, then nVIdia is completly outclassed. I planned on getting Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite anyway and wanted to upgrade my system. I looked at the GTX660 Ti and the Radeon 7930(what the 7870-LE should have been called) and with the bundled games (a $110 value in reallity...not the $150 value AMD is trying to peddle). The 7930 came to only cost me $100 (Picked up the Myst card when it was $209.99), and it's at an even higher performance level than the $300 GTX660Ti. So, for 1/3rd the price of the nVidia card I have a much better performing card.

The ONLY thing I picked you apart for was your claim that the 7930 only cost you $100. That is outright FALSE. YOU perfectly KNEW that you could have purchased the game codes for $30 each. Therefore, your total cost to purchase the card was $210 - $60 = $150.

If you, as an elite member of PC-enthusiast crowd, choose to pay MSRP for two games, that's your own fault. But don't try to put the spin on it to another elite-PC enthusiast that the games are actually worth $110. You couldn't have sold the games for $110. If they were worth that much, then you should have purchased more of the cards and sold the cards on craigslist for $150 and sold the codes for $110 to make money.

I don't give a rat's ass that your non-PC gamer buddy doesn't know how to search ebay or how to find a good deal. You didn't say that the card cost HIM $100. You said it only cost YOU $100.

THAT'S MY POINT. And YOU keep missing it!

 

[Rauelius]

No. Let's recap your original post I commented on:


The ONLY thing I picked you apart for was your claim that the 7930 only cost you $100. That is outright FALSE. YOU perfectly KNEW that you could have purchased the game codes for $30 each. Therefore, your total cost to purchase the card was $210 - $60 = $150.

If you, as an elite member of PC-enthusiast crowd, choose to pay MSRP for two games, that's your own fault. But don't try to put the spin on it to another elite-PC enthusiast that the games are actually worth $110. You couldn't have sold the games for $110. If they were worth that much, then you should have purchased more of the cards and sold the cards on craigslist for $150 and sold the codes for $110 to make money.

I don't give a rat's ass that your non-PC gamer buddy doesn't know how to search ebay or how to find a good deal. You didn't say that the card cost HIM $100. You said it only cost YOU $100.

THAT'S MY POINT. And YOU keep missing it!

Yeah...I'm a little embarrassed...but I didn't even think about hopping on here to check out the for sale/trade forums...I did for DmC and Crysis 3 afterwards tho!! However, it appears that we are two trains on different tracks, I agree to disagree.

 

[J Macker]

I do agree with you wholeheartedly though about the piddly value of nVidia's "game" bundle.
AMD's bundles are by far better.

Sometimes I think I'd like to try a GTX 670 and see if it plays Path of Exile better, but then I realize it's so overpriced that it's not worth it.

 

[Zarich]

Not true.. again
ebay - amd bundle $50-60
Ebay - Nvidia bundle $40-$50 (actually I have found you can sell each separately and get $55)

Value on a dollar basis is really on $5-10 diff.

Actually looking again at Ebay both bundles have dropped by $10. Value is plummetting due to oversaturation.

 

[Ironhand]

People make good points here.

I will however point out the fact that several have not had recent experience with AMD cards while others have.

It seems alot bring up driver support. But I will remind people that the next Gen consoles will be completely AMD based. You think Nvidia will have better drivers then AMD when the Devs have to port down to the AMD based consoles? Driver support from AMD is quickly becoming better and with the consoles it will get even better, so that gap will close down.

Would you still pay the extra for the "Green Team" when that happens?

 

[yossarian]

I've had both, but have been with ATI since the 9800. Almost got the GT 670 last Summer, but they were hard to find in stock, carried a price premium, and the reviews were full of complaints of coil whine and fan noise. In the end, I bought a XFX HD 7950 with a game promo and a discount for almost $100 less than the 670. I since moved that card into the Family computer and got two MSI HD 7950s for X-fire. Next time, who knows? I look for the best value and I haven't been disappointed yet.

 

[Zarich]

People make good points here.

I will however point out the fact that several have not had recent experience with AMD cards while others have.

It seems alot bring up driver support. But I will remind people that the next Gen consoles will be completely AMD based. You think Nvidia will have better drivers then AMD when the Devs have to port down to the AMD based consoles? Driver support from AMD is quickly becoming better and with the consoles it will get even better, so that gap will close down.

Would you still pay the extra for the "Green Team" when that happens?

AMD GPU in consoles != AMD PC drivers.

 

[mutantmagnet]

People make good points here.

I will however point out the fact that several have not had recent experience with AMD cards while others have.

It seems alot bring up driver support. But I will remind people that the next Gen consoles will be completely AMD based. You think Nvidia will have better drivers then AMD when the Devs have to port down to the AMD based consoles? Driver support from AMD is quickly becoming better and with the consoles it will get even better, so that gap will close down.

Would you still pay the extra for the "Green Team" when that happens?

At first I was thinking the same way but when you really think about it AMD can't do anything to leverage that type of advantage because consoles are architecturally so different from a PC.


We buy GPUs we add in through the PCIE ports. The GPUs on all console platforms are connected directly to the CPU. It doesn't help matters that the RAM and cache architecture are so significantly different from what we use.

On top of all that is the overhead of the operating system for a PC.

So AMD isn't going to create some special sauce specific to their GPUs and CPUs. If AMD does gain any benefit from this it will only be to the detriment of Intel's SoCs.

AMD GPU in consoles != AMD PC drivers.

To elaborate on this point. Drivers help software find the location of addresses in system and gpu memory and help coordinate timing issues when shifting data around cache, ram, the processor, etc.

The drivers needed to direct the flow of information to PC parts obviously can't apply to specialized APUs.

 

[Mr Mean]

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?

Well to sum it up. It's Nvidias name brand that is selling. They can sell a product that is equivalent or less than equivalent and charge a premium for it and people will pay. I have seen more Nvidia intro logos in my past and present games than I have seen AMD logos. So the marketing does work and joe average who doesn't know anything about computers will know one thing. His favorite game will run best on so and so hardware.

 

[Fooshnik]

No. Let's recap your original post I commented on:


The ONLY thing I picked you apart for was your claim that the 7930 only cost you $100. That is outright FALSE. YOU perfectly KNEW that you could have purchased the game codes for $30 each. Therefore, your total cost to purchase the card was $210 - $60 = $150.

Oh snap, he's using CAPS.

$150 is still $100 less than a 660Ti BTW.

 

[GoldenTiger]

They're not? Premium is too strong a word but in essence I think they are.

AMD offer a value solution with less features and support. Nvidia offer a "premium" solution with more features and support. Thats all there is to it really.

Theres a reason AMD have to undercut Nvidia in pricing to compete, and its not because they're the fluffy bunny foundation who like to make less money because they love you. If they could charge more for their products and remain competitive, they would.

Exactly.... this post is spot-on.

 

[GoldenTiger]

Yeah it would be awesome, I switch back and forth from AMD/Nvidia and I have both gaming consoles PS3 and Xbox 360. If you read most forums this is the equivalent of cheering for both teams at a Yankees vs Red Sox game. Some people would probably even claim blasphemy.

Yep, same here.... though I sold the PS3 and am selling the 360 now to keep just a Wii U . I've gone with both AMD and nVidia nearly every generation, but tend to end up with nVidia cards once both companies have launched their stuff. However, I don't outright dismiss one card or another without either trying them or there being major well-known issues with them. I actually have owned 7970, 7950, gtx 680, gtx 670, this generation... in the end I'm on a single gtx 670 gigabyte windforce 3 heavily oc'd, because it represented, while working well still without major driver issues, the best value.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

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..

LMAO. Entitlement syndrome is a disease nowadays.

They charge what the market demands. People buy their products at that price, therefore Nvidia charges accordingly. Read up on supply and demand and perceived value.

In my opinion, I believe Toyota's and Honda's are overpriced and under perform compared to American cars in the same price bracket. However, people perceive them as worth the price they pay. The reasons vary, and I'm not here to argue those reasons. I am trying to make a comparison you might understand.

 

[Ironhand]

LMAO. Entitlement syndrome is a disease nowadays.

They charge what the market demands. People buy their products at that price, therefore Nvidia charges accordingly. Read up on supply and demand and perceived value.

In my opinion, I believe Toyota's and Honda's are overpriced and under perform compared to American cars in the same price bracket. However, people perceive them as worth the price they pay. The reasons vary, and I'm not here to argue those reasons. I am trying to make a comparison you might understand.

So what your saying is that Nvidia is overpriced and under perform like Toyotas and Hondas and they only carry perceived valve.


And no entitlement syndrome, just able to speak my mind willingly. I put on a uniform for years to defend that freedom and I wont give that up, even on the internet.

 

[GoldenTiger]

LMAO. Entitlement syndrome is a disease nowadays.

They charge what the market demands. People buy their products at that price, therefore Nvidia charges accordingly. Read up on supply and demand and perceived value.

In my opinion, I believe Toyota's and Honda's are overpriced and under perform compared to American cars in the same price bracket. However, people perceive them as worth the price they pay. The reasons vary, and I'm not here to argue those reasons. I am trying to make a comparison you might understand.

Sir, I'm afraid I'm going to have to order you to step away from the keyboard.... what, what's that? You're being charged with "logical sense", you have the right to remain silent... .

 

[ICDP]

LMAO. Entitlement syndrome is a disease nowadays.

They charge what the market demands. People buy their products at that price, therefore Nvidia charges accordingly. Read up on supply and demand and perceived value.

In my opinion, I believe Toyota's and Honda's are overpriced and under perform compared to American cars in the same price bracket. However, people perceive them as worth the price they pay. The reasons vary, and I'm not here to argue those reasons. I am trying to make a comparison you might understand.

I would say that in some cases Nvidia get away with charging more for less because some PC enthusiasts perceive AMD products to be sub-standard. Of course perception is not to be confused with reality because the vast majority of consumers care not one jot for brand recognition and can be swayed either way depending on value. There is only so far brand recognition can take you. Nvidia and AMD both know this or prices wouldn't be so competitive right now.

People have a selective memory because when Tahiti released they were more expensive than the competing Nvidia products. Nvidia are not always overpriced compared to AMD, GTX680 was priced lower than HD 7970 on release and beat it on price/perf. It offered much better value for money as did the GTX670 when compared to the HD 7950. AMD were beat on price/perf and were forced to lower their prices to compete. Circa one year later we have the following scenario. Bear in mind these are stock speeds and I am using US prices, OC potential is not being considered here.

7970 GE and GTX 680 can be purchased for similar prices depending on brand. This is where the Nvidia brand recognition helps to overcome the very small performance deficit of the GTX680.

7970 Non GE performance falls under 7970 GE and is = to a GTX 680. It is priced below both but once again this is where the Nvidia brand recognition helps to overcome the the fact that it gives similar performance to a HD 7970 non GE but is slightly more expensive.

GTX670 is priced slightly lower than 7970 non GE because it is slower again. Anyone seeing a pattern yet?

HD 7950 boost is priced lower than GTX670 and again is slower in performance.

HD 7950 non boost editions and GTX660Ti are priced lower again based on their lower perfomance level.

So AMD and Nvidia have priced their cards roughly the same according to performance in the following order. 7970GE/GTX680 > 7970 > GTX670 > 7950 boost > 7950/GTX660Ti

Like I said, perception is not always reality.

 

[Rauelius]

I would say that in some cases Nvidia get away with charging more for less because some PC enthusiasts perceive AMD products to be sub-standard. Of course perception is not to be confused with reality because the vast majority of consumers care not one jot for brand recognition and can be swayed either way depending on value. There is only so far brand recognition can take you. Nvidia and AMD both know this or prices wouldn't be so competitive right now.

People have a selective memory because when Tahiti released they were more expensive than the competing Nvidia products. Nvidia are not always overpriced compared to AMD, GTX680 was priced lower than HD 7970 on release and beat it on price/perf. It offered much better value for money as did the GTX670 when compared to the HD 7950. AMD were beat on price/perf and were forced to lower their prices to compete. Circa one year later we have the following scenario. Bear in mind these are stock speeds and I am using US prices, OC potential is not being considered here.

7970 GE and GTX 680 can be purchased for similar prices depending on brand. This is where the Nvidia brand recognition helps to overcome the very small performance deficit of the GTX680.

7970 Non GE performance falls under 7970 GE and is = to a GTX 680. It is priced below both but once again this is where the Nvidia brand recognition helps to overcome the the fact that it gives similar performance to a HD 7970 non GE but is slightly more expensive.

GTX670 is priced slightly lower than 7970 non GE because it is slower again. Anyone seeing a pattern yet?

HD 7950 boost is priced lower than GTX670 and again is slower in performance.

HD 7950 non boost editions and GTX660Ti are priced lower again based on their lower perfomance level.

So AMD and Nvidia have priced their cards roughly the same according to performance in the following order. 7970GE/GTX680 > 7970 > GTX670 > 7950 boost > 7950/GTX660Ti

Like I said, perception is not always reality.

Unfortunately it breaks apart when you get down to the GTX650Ti w/boost. The 2GB version of that card goes for $170 on average, while the slightly slower 7850-2GB goes for, on average, $200.

 

[Zarich]

LMAO. Entitlement syndrome is a disease nowadays.

They charge what the market demands. People buy their products at that price, therefore Nvidia charges accordingly. Read up on supply and demand and perceived value.

In my opinion, I believe Toyota's and Honda's are overpriced and under perform compared to American cars in the same price bracket. However, people perceive them as worth the price they pay. The reasons vary, and I'm not here to argue those reasons. I am trying to make a comparison you might understand.

But you would be wrong. Most Toyotas and Hondas have historically been known to have longer life spans (for those of us who drive our cars into the ground). My honda has 150k and is 12 years old and is just getting started. My wifes toyota has 130k and is also 12 years old and the only issue it has ever had is my kid breaking the door handle (which I replaced for $20).

 

[mutantmagnet]

I would say that in some cases Nvidia get away with charging more for less because some PC enthusiasts perceive AMD products to be sub-standard. Of course perception is not to be confused with reality because the vast majority of consumers care not one jot for brand recognition and can be swayed either way depending on value.

Brands do matter. When Mitsubishi tried to merge with Chrysler it created a ton of brand confusion because one brand manufactured higher end cars and the other created cars for middle class people. Usually mergers end with one company consuming another but in this case the public perception was so bad (rich people thought it meant any Chrysler being made from that time period was going to be made with less luxury minded comforts and middle class people expected to be overcharged for Mitsubishi cars) that the companies broke apart to save each other.

Brands exist as a means of quickly identifying the quality of service and goods you are receiving, the type of customer service you get when problems occur and the payment method that matches what you economically can do.

People have a selective memory because when Tahiti released they were more expensive than the competing Nvidia products.

Maybe most people have forgotten too quickly this time period but you citing an outlier in history doesn't mean much. Nvidia has a history of being priced more than AMD and that is part of what defines these two brands. The Tahiti incident just points out the flaw in our nature to try to categorize something so simply we run the risk of not observing fast enough a behavior that is the opposite of what we expect. That aspect of our behavior is also why, for example, prejudice exists.

I'll stop at this point in being a little philosophical in this thread.