Some Perspective: Zarathustra's Nvidia Price History

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,413
Every single time a brand new high end NVIDIA GPU is launched, we always have the same responses. Some people think it is too expensive while others think it is well worth the price considering the performance. What is, and isn't worth it to you, is obviously a very subjective matter, and as such we are not here to tell you what to think. It is however beneficial to have a common set of data to go back to when we have these discussions. And you know how HardOCP likes data! For about 7 years now, we have been compiling pricing data in the NVIDIA price history chart seen below, taking into account inflation, that way we are making an "apples to apples" comparison of older GPUs and new GPUs.

Our method is simple; pick NVIDIA's top end GPU introduction price for each era and estimate inflation using the Bureau of Labor and Statistics published values for the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) based on the launch date of each GPU. The end period used is January 2017, as these are the most recent published figures. (I doubt there has been much inflation since then.) Once done, we figure out the price in 2017 dollars for every card at launch, and chart those on a graph. The astute reader will notice that Titan cards are absent from this comparison. This was a conscious decision, as Titan cards appear to be in a "halo class" of their own, and the pricing doesn't seem to obey the normal laws of physics (err, normal pricing trends) resulting in the analysis looking odd. We also made the conscious decision to start in 2000, as that seemed like a nice round year to start things at.

Without further ado, let's look at the data:

As we can see from this chart, current pricing for the 1080 Ti is pretty much inline with where NVIDIA has typically been. When adjusted for inflation the 1080 Ti almost exactly matches the price of the GeForce 2 Ultra from back in 2000. We have some notable fluctuation over the years, which mostly seems to coincide with when NVIDIA had true competition in the market place. When NVIDIA were on top, and the competition had nothing, the prices went up, as we can see with the 8800 Ultra. Other times, during periods of higher competition in the market, pricing was lower. You could argue that the 1080 Ti is actually under-priced for the market climate. Argue whichever way you want about the appropriateness of NVIDIA's pricing, but this information does show a trend much in line with the relative market position of the brand.
 
Last edited:

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
21,061
the difference today is that we have multiple high end cards...back in the day there was just 1 top end card from Nvidia/ATI...now we have Titan and Ti cards plus the standard 1080 and I guess you can also had SLI/Crossfire to the mix...so comparing prices today is a bit different
 

azuza001

Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
697
My only complaint (1st world problems) is theb1080 ti is so much faster than a 1080 I don't think giving it just a Ti moniker does it justice. It should be a 1090 to me, the performance is that different.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,238
As we can see from this chart, current pricing for the 1080ti is pretty much inline with where Nvidia has typically been.

I dunno, the graph kind of looks all over the place to me.

But I get what you're saying, it's not wildly out of line with historical values for the most part.
 

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
Man those prices are insane. I don't remember 8800 Ultras being $800 but I'll take your word for it. I always bought cheap shit and overclocked it.
 

Shmee

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2014
Messages
1,148
Heh last GPU I bought was a GTX 285. Just retired it for a GTX 1060. I didn't even realize how many generations I skipped until you posted that chart. :eek:

It is hard to keep up. The GTX 285 was/is a great card though, so I am sure there was no hurry to upgrade.
 
D

Deleted member 245375

Guest
Most expensive card I ever bought was a GeForce 2 Pro for $380 around 2000 or so, swore I'd never do that again and I haven't since but then again I don't play games anymore - even in those days the only games I bothered with were the Quake series and that was it, had a lot of fun in those days but that was a long time ago. Nowadays I only use business class laptops so I do my best to ensure that whatever I'm interested in (for future purchases) has an Nvidia Quadro in it since I do some 3D work from time to time and I do still dabble in Quake III sometimes for shits and giggles but the reflexes just ain't what they used to be. :)
 

chenw

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
3,977
I actually thought nVidia would release 1080ti at no less than $799 FE, and drop 1080 by $100 at most, given the total lack of options from AMD for even 1080, let alone 1080ti (at least Fury X has a c few titles that go between 1070 and 1080, 1080ti would have been completely untouchable), so I was genuinely surprised when 1080ti was launched at $699.
 

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,576
Yeah that chart is pretty much the story of my GPU life, new card every 3 gens... in 2000 I had a Voodoo 5 5500 (think it was $300 or 350) though.
 

bman212121

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
1,815
Man those prices are insane. I don't remember 8800 Ultras being $800 but I'll take your word for it. I always bought cheap shit and overclocked it.

The chart and the table are conflicting. The 8800gtx was $600 at it's launch, and the 8800 Ultra was over $800 at it's launch. The issue with history is determining with one was actually the important card. In that chart the 5900 and the 7900 were not launch cards for the new architecture, nor was the 8800U. There was a 5800 and a 7800 card that launched the new architecture before a revised one came along. The table seems to suggest the most expensive part released for each series, even though that's not technically accurate either.

For what it's worth, I think the 1080ti is actually pretty good value. It offers a huge step up in performance and still comes in at a great price. There is no doubt this card is going to be around for a long time and we'll see lots of cards that slide in below it's performance before we see something that is faster. (And way more expensive)
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,413
The chart and the table are conflicting. The 8800gtx was $600 at it's launch, and the 8800 Ultra was over $800 at it's launch. The issue with history is determining with one was actually the important card. In that chart the 5900 and the 7900 were not launch cards for the new architecture, nor was the 8800U. There was a 5800 and a 7800 card that launched the new architecture before a revised one came along. The table seems to suggest the most expensive part released for each series, even though that's not technically accurate either.

For what it's worth, I think the 1080ti is actually pretty good value. It offers a huge step up in performance and still comes in at a great price. There is no doubt this card is going to be around for a long time and we'll see lots of cards that slide in below it's performance before we see something that is faster. (And way more expensive)


You are correct. These became very difficult decisions to make when creating this history. In the end I just had to pick one in some cases. Product cycles are not as straight forward and simple in practice as they are in theory. Any analysis like this is always going to be an approximation.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
I don't think it makes sense to compare them by inflationary dollars because computer parts generally run in the OPPOSITE direction of inflation.

Comparing them to inflation is just making excuses for NVidias price gouging.

As is leaving the Titans off the chart. NVidia just figured out how to do even more ridiculous price gouging, but we will just conveniently ignore it.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
59,605
The way I see it, I just bought two GTX 1080Ti's. In the past I've paid less for new cards and often times I paid more. I've owned a great deal of the cards on that list.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,073
I don't think anyone is complaining about the price of the top tier, but I'd like to see (performance wise) how the mid range has gone per inflation. $250 used to buy you a good card, these days that is lower end. The GTX 960 was fairly under performing as was the 1060. These days you more or less need to pay $400-420 if you want max settings at the lower tier resolutions (1920x1080).
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
Man those prices are insane. I don't remember 8800 Ultras being $800 but I'll take your word for it. I always bought cheap shit and overclocked it.

they were lol and they were expensive to produce on top of that. but they were amazing cards at the time that's for sure.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the price of the top tier, but I'd like to see (performance wise) how the mid range has gone per inflation. $250 used to buy you a good card, these days that is lower end. The GTX 960 was fairly under performing as was the 1060. These days you more or less need to pay $400-420 if you want max settings at the lower tier resolutions (1920x1080).

inflation isn't what will effect those prices at the midrange, it's the amount of options available to buyers. the mid range tends to cross over between multiple generations of cards with performance.. before when each generation came out it was whole sale performance increases across the board for the entire generation, now it's not. for nvidia the last time that happened was between the 200 and 400 series where only the GTX 285 was able to compete with any of the 400 series cards released.. 500 series was a slight boost in performance/efficiency, same with the 500 to 600 series and so on.. even the 900 series competes with most of the 1k series GPU's. so you run into the issue undercutting previous gen cards which retailers don't like since they're usually trying to offload the remaining cards they have in stock even after the new generation cards come out.. so in doing so that has caused the typical mid range price to stay relatively high. on top of that the days of seeing 20-30% performance increases with each new generation are long gone with the release cycle of GPU's so you're seeing more and more cross over between each generation so they're more relent on features than actual performance at the mid range.
 
Last edited:

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,576
My 8800 Ultra is still running strong on a 2ndary computer :)

Doing what, playing COD Modern Warfare 1? Those had like 512MB right? I had an 8800 GTS with 384MB and I thought that was the pinnacle of awesome back then. 2005?
 

Romeomium

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
209
What would be interesting is to add the relative performance increase for each generation. Obviously, this would be ridiculously difficult to obtain, but it would be really cool to show how things have progressed over the years.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,413
I don't think anyone is complaining about the price of the top tier, but I'd like to see (performance wise) how the mid range has gone per inflation. $250 used to buy you a good card, these days that is lower end. The GTX 960 was fairly under performing as was the 1060. These days you more or less need to pay $400-420 if you want max settings at the lower tier resolutions (1920x1080).


That could be a good follow-up. It will have some of the same difficulties associated with it, as the results will vary greatly with how you define midrange.

I'd argue midrange has been the x60 cards (since the new naming scheme). The early cards are easy. GeForce 2 GTS was clearly the mid range, with the 3 series it's pretty simple too. Get to the 7xxx, 8xxx and 9xxx series and damn were there a lot of SKUs, and which one of them is the true "mid range" is going to be rather subjective.

So, challenging, not impossible. I'll look at it.
 

SvenBent

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
3,310
GDI ZARA
I will spank you for using .jpg on this kind of images... PNG is your friend.
You don't get all those horrible artifacts in high contract areaa and you end up with a smaller file :D


i might be a bit hypersensitive because I have 65 books with aprox. 200 pages each they some guy scanned into .jpg :banghead:and i have to clean em up and save them is .png.
 

Nolan7689

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
1,694
Doing what, playing COD Modern Warfare 1? Those had like 512MB right? I had an 8800 GTS with 384MB and I thought that was the pinnacle of awesome back then. 2005?
2006/7 I think. Near Crysis, And I'm pretty sure the Ultra had 768mb. Then came along the 8800GT with 512 and half the price of the GTX. Great times.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
59,605
2006/7 I think. Near Crysis, And I'm pretty sure the Ultra had 768mb. Then came along the 8800GT with 512 and half the price of the GTX. Great times.

The 8800GTX and Ultra had 768MB of RAM. The Ultra just had higher clocks and more overclocking headroom. The GTX was a value considering how much cheaper it was compared to the Ultra. The 8800GT was a good value too. I put a lot of them in friend's machines.
 

WhoBeDaPlaya

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
2,485
The 8800GTX and Ultra had 768MB of RAM. The Ultra just had higher clocks and more overclocking headroom. The GTX was a value considering how much cheaper it was compared to the Ultra. The 8800GT was a good value too. I put a lot of them in friend's machines.
Funny - I just pulled two single-slot eVGA 8800GT SCs from my servers last night (replaced them with single-slot XFX 7750s).
 

Insula Gilliganis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,461
WOW.. I am thinking like "Krusher" Kyle Bennett (better that than like "Rowdy" Ryan). Yesterday I started doing somewhat of the same analysis based on what has happened during the past 5 years as I was wondering if I could make an accurate prediction on when the next Nvidia X80 (I assume the "2080") card would be released and at what price. I didn't get too far into the pricing analysis but my Captain Obvious observation was that when Nvidia was in a weaker position compared to AMD's offerings, Nvidia had lower prices ($499 for the 680 and $549 for the 980 models) while when feeling they were superior, prices were either $649 or $699.

I got a bit farther in my "release dates" analysis..

Name - Date Released
==================================
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 - 22-Mar-12
Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan - 19-Feb-13
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 - 23-May-13
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti - 7-Nov-13
Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan Black - 18-Feb-14
Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 - 18-Sep-14
Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan X - 17-Mar-15
Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti - 15-Jun-15
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 FE - 17-May-16
Nvidia Titan X - 2-Aug-16
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FE - 9-Mar-17

Disregarding the Titan Z, the average time between Titan releases has been 420 (like far out wow man) days, or 14 months..

Name - Date Released - Days between releases
========================================================
Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan - 19-Feb-13
Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan Black - 18-Feb-14 - 364
Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan X - 17-Mar-15 - 392
Nvidia Titan X - 2-Aug-16 - 504

We can see that the time between Titan releases has been steadily increasing.. was 8% (392/364) longer between the Titan Black and Titan X than between the original Titan and Titan Black, while increasing to 38% (504/364) longer between GTX Titan X and Titan X. If the average of 420 days passes until the next new Titan, that would be September 26, 2017 .. but if it is again 504 days, then that would make for a December 19, 2017 release.


Now to the X80 cards..

Name - Date Released - Days between releases
=========================================================
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 - 22-Mar-12
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 - 23-May-13 - 437
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti - 7-Nov-13 - 168
Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 - 18-Sep-14 - 315
Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti - 15-Jun-15 - 270
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 FE - 17-May-16 - 337
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FE - 9-Mar-17 - 296

The above data leads to these averages..

Avg days between X80 cards - 506
Avg days between X80 & X80 Ti cards - 245
Avg days between X80 Ti cards - 609

The 506 day average between X80 releases would make a GeForce GTX "2080" hit the market around October 5, 2017. But the interval between X80 releases has been increasing with each release.. 427 days between 680 & 780, 483 days between 780 & 980, and 607 days between 980 & 1080. Repeating a 607 day interval between the 1080 & 2080 gives us a date of January 14, 2018.

Just thought I would share this noodling around on my crystal Excel.. kind of interesting speculating how soon the 1080 Ti will be eclipsed by Nvidia's next new process. Sorry if any of my Excel juju, above data, or even my half-a$$ conclusions are wrong.. feel free to correct or come up with your own analysis/conclusions/predictions. Thanks Kyle for the great analysis and insight. Probably been a rough long week or two for you and Brent, so both of you, crack open some cold ones and take the weekend off!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ncjoe
like this

Master_shake_

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
17,795
where are the titan cards?

do they not count?

people acting like a 900 dollar 8800 was bad. lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

BeavermanA

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
2,740
The good news is I make a lot more than I did in the year 2000. The bad news is I have a lot more expenses.

That said, I ordered a 1080 Ti today :D.
 

Master_shake_

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
17,795
also you messed up the price on the 1080

the MSRP was a joke and no one used it.

FE's were 100 more and AIB were even more than that.
 

Vegas P11

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
1,448
This is an awesome comparison Zarathustra[H]. I am sure a ton of work went into this chart. The only issue I have is that NVidia has kept changing their top of the line cards. It was the x80 series until the Titan series came out and then after that the ti series hit. I absolutely agree with you on the relative price of their top end cards, but they keep changing which series it is. Also this is coming from a guy who has only owned NVidia card for the last 20 years or so.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,566
But I don't like inflation.... :(

I feel that the 1080Ti is a killer deal for what you're getting. However, being an adult and have bought a TNT2 Ultra and/or GeForce 2 Ultra, it just feels more expensive.

I'm working on upgrading to a nice 4K monitor, though. I gave mine to my son when he bought a 1070. I want a larger than 27", though. Once I upgrade to that, then I'll get a nice video card to support it.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
59,605
where are the titan cards?

do they not count?

people acting like a 900 dollar 8800 was bad. lol.

It sort of was. The 8800GTX was basically the same thing and although it didn't clock as high, it was substantially less expensive and the performance difference was minimal. Around 7-11% or something if I recall correctly. It was about like having the Pascal Titan X come out after the 1080Ti and giving the overclocking headroom to the Titan X and keeping their price differential the same as it is now.
 
Top