Something to think about

C

clownshoes

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
192
Nvidia has completely warped everyone's expectations regarding the price of video cards. For the longest time the flagship single GPU cards would retail at $499. Remember when ATI released the 9700 Pro? This was a revolutionary leap in performance (arguably more so than even titan) and it retailed at $399.

In my opinion, Nvidia's goal with titan was to change consumer expectations regarding pricing so they can bump prices on cards across the board not only for this generation of cards but future generations as well. Even after the price cuts, look at the prices of their cards. Their middle of the road offering (GTX 770) is priced close to the flagship models of previous generations. The current pricing of the GTX 780 only seams reasonable due to the exorbitant pricing of the titan.

I think it's important that people realize what Nvidia is doing here. People argued the price of the titan was justified because "you were getting next generation performance today". If that's how you feel then fair enough but take a look at the GTX 780 Ti. Is the 780 Ti still considered "next generation"? It's priced $200 above the previous generation's flagship cards and people are calling it a steal and jumping to purchase one. We are going to find ourselves paying $700-$800 for the same relative performance gains we got for $400-$500 in the past.
 
$$ doesn't matter its [H] the extra fps in real world gaming is worth the premium.
 
Nobody is obligated to purchase a top-end card.

The $200 - $300 cards are still available.
 
IMHO I think it's foolish to purchase a card for $700 when the one for 550 or 400 will get you about the same performance.

This isn't the first time nvidia has set a high price for a card. Do you remember the 8800 ultra? That thing was around 800 msrp iirc.
 
Aye, thy moved the whole high end "enthusiast" price range by 150$
Just a fast comparison between the history of pricing shows OP is right

But lets not forget nvidia was able to do this because there was no competition
 
just want to point out that a 9700 pro adjusted for inflation is $506 in todays dollars.
 
VonGriffin said:
Aye, thy moved the whole high end "enthusiast" price range by 150$
Just a fast comparison between the history of pricing shows OP is right

But lets not forget nvidia was able to do this because there was no competition
Click to expand...

And people who are willing to pay for it..

Market value is only decided by what people will pay for it..

if they double their price, but only drop sales by 30% then they just increase their intake by 20%..
 
Correct me if I am wrong but when GK104 was released people didn't expect the 110 to come that soon after. Nvidia had their ducks all lined up before the 680 was released in anticipation of the next gen consoles. I knew Titan would be a waste of money.

I think it's a bit unfortunate that in the past year and a half we've practically seen 3 'flagship' cards from Nvidia. Not only is it depressing knowing that the top end card you just bought is being replaced but it diminishes any excitement for future releases. Just my two cents.
 
pandora's box said:
just want to point out that a 9700 pro adjusted for inflation is $506 in todays dollars.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I figured inflation would price it close to what we see today. Even so though, I don't remember any video card having the impact the 9700 Pro had. Seeing Doom 3 run on that thing was pretty amazing at the time.


H-street said:
And people who are willing to pay for it..

Market value is only decided by what people will pay for it..

if they double their price, but only drop sales by 30% then they just increase their intake by 20%..
Click to expand...

This is the very reason I'm making this thread. Clearly people are buying these cards at these prices but I think it's more a function of clever marketing by Nvidia than the consumer consciously deciding to spend several hundred dollars more for the same relative performance gains. Like one of the above posters mentioned, even the 290x isn't a great deal when compared to previous generations.
 
NV is a business and therefore it's completely reasonable for them to maximize their profits. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying I like this as a consumer, but no one is forcing you to buy such a product; we're not sheep. If something is too expensive, save the money and get something that is a better value. To nvidia's credit, one thing I do like about them is that they focus more on "complete package" as opposed to AMD, who focuses on raw frames per second. Nvidia generally has for the past couple of years had better software and a way better acoustic solution (for reference boards) than AMD, while AMD has gone the value and raw frames route. In the case of the 290 specifically, i'm sure a ton of folks will happily ignore the noise aspect and go for the incredible value. That's cool and fine with me, although I wouldn't consider the 290 unless it were coupled with a better cooler.

Again, i'm not saying I like high prices, but it is what it is. If you stated that the 780ti is too expensive, I would absolutely agree 100% - it's a great card but it isn't 200$ better than the GTX 780 and isn't 300$ better than the 290. There's no way I would buy a 780ti at 700$. But, it is what it is and no one forces you to buy such products - I sure won't. I'll just buy 780 OC'ed cards and call it a day ;)
 
clownshoes said:
Thanks, I figured inflation would price it close to what we see today. Even so though, I don't remember any video card having the impact the 9700 Pro had. Seeing Doom 3 run on that thing was pretty amazing at the time.
Click to expand...

Radeon 9700pro was indeed a beast. I think the only card generation jump that compares to it is Nvidia's GeForce 8800-GTX.

This is the very reason I'm making this thread. Clearly people are buying these cards at these prices but I think it's more a function of clever marketing by Nvidia than the consumer consciously deciding to spend several hundred dollars more for the same relative performance gains. Like one of the above posters mentioned, even the 290x isn't a great deal when compared to previous generations.
Click to expand...

I don't think so at all. I think what you're seeing is people purchasing video cards that meet their budget limits more than anything. Most people agree that the TITAN is a rip-off when compared to its price/performance ratio (in gaming). But the kind of people who buy TITAN aren't concerned about that. But with 290x, we finally have a flagship that sits in the $500-ish range. Before 290x, the $500 segment was empty. You went from the $400 GTX-770 to the $650 GTX-780 with nothing in between. Since $650 for what's essentially a toy is out of reach for most people, they had to settle for a lesser card or wait.

EDIT: And it just so happens that the $550 flagship card from one company competes with the $700 and $1000 flagship cards of the other.
 
I suspect NVIDIA doesn't sell as many of these top-end cards as we tend to think. If somebody is blowing a grand on a Titan [for gaming], then they're probably loaded... and then who are we to judge how they spend their excess money? This is how every industry works. The volume products are priced reasonably and the limited edition extravagant items are priced accordingly.

Frankly I think they're crazy but if I was Scrooge McDuck swimming in gold coins, maybe I'd throw in for a Titan or two myself.

Until then I stick with the $300 cards and usually wait out a generation or two. I have a 570 and maybe I'll buy into the 800s... or maybe wait for the 900 series. I'm completely satisfied. I didn't buy into the Titan or 780 and I'm not biting on a 780 Ti.

All this whining is really emasculating. What the hell happened to [H]?

Want a better video card? Be a man and drop your cable service. That's $600+ / yr you could put into new video cards.
 
^^ Or better yet, drop the internet service so that we don't have to read said whining. :D

Good point though.
 
skcnina said:
Agree. We need another price drop. Ti is overprice as compared to 290X.
Click to expand...



If there isn't a market, then the market will kill it and Nvidia will suffer the way they should suffer for it. However, if there is a market, even a "surprise" one in the sense of the HIGHLY successful Titan, then they will reap the rewards for taking a huge risk.


Only time will tell.
 
Liger88 said:
HIGHLY successful Titan
Click to expand...

HK3pQBY.png
 
I think some people are missing the point. I'm not in any way judging anybody who buys these top end cards. If you have the disposable income to purchase a titan for example and it makes you happy, all the power to you.

My point is this. Nvidia had a reason for marking the titan up like they did. They released the titan midway through the current generation's life cycle essentially giving you "next generation performance today". This was not like most releases where the current generation becomes obsolete and the newer generation replaces the current generation offering better performance at the same price. Nvidia essentially created a new "flagship" card without phasing out the current generation of cards and so in this case, a new price point was justified.

Fast forward to the current generation of cards. The GTX 780 was priced at $650 (not the $499 we usually see the flagship single GPU cards sell for). Had Nvidia refreshed their product lineup at these new price points without having "primed the consumers with titan" so to speak, the $650 price point of the GTX 680's replacement would have been met with outrage. This wasn't the case though because people were still comparing the relative performance of the GTX 780 to the titan which sells for $1000.

The relative performance gains going from the GTX 580 to the GTX 680 are no different than those going from the GTX 680 to the GTX 780. It's only because of some clever marketing on the part of Nvidia that people were happily paying $650 for the same thing they got for $499 only a year ago (and pretty much every generation before that). Do you think Nvidia planned on dropping the price of the flagship model back to $499 with the release of the GTX 880? Hell no they didn't.

People are 100% correct that there is no reason to fault Nvidia for this. They are a business and like any business, their primary objective is to maximize profits. If people are willing to pay $1000 for a titan then why the hell shouldn't they sell it for $1000?

As a consumer though, we also have a voice. Whether you prefer Nvidia or ATI, we are all on the same team. I've never understood why some people will defend a company so fiercely as to insult people who prefer the products of its competitors (not saying any of that is going on here but I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about). I value silence more than a small gain in performance and because of this, I've been going with Nvidia lately (point being, I'm not some AMD fanboy here to bash Nvidia). I'm simply pointing out Nvidia's game plan (something that can only benefit us consumers).
 
It's not whining, it's that this graphics card doesn't DESERVE to be 700 bucks, and anybody that buys it is a fucking sucker.
 
Not directly the pricing... but the bundles (both AMD and Nvidia) are a bit annoying. We know that the cost of the "free" games are built into the price of the cards. It would be nice (imho) if the companies stopped it and lowered the price of the cards instead of tacking on games that at least 50% of the people wants to sell to recoup the cost of the cards.
 
Stop acting like there has never been a >$500 gaming video card before. Seriously, it's like you guys don't remember anything before the GTX 400 series.

Nvidia 6800 Ultra Extreme $549
Nvidia 6800 Ultra 512MB $899; BFG's overclocked version $999

Nvidia 7800 GTX 256MB $599
Nvidia 7800 GTX 512MB $650
ATI X1900 XTX $650
Asustek Extreme N7800GT Dual $900

Nvidia 8800 GTX $650
Nvidia 8800 Ultra $830
GTX 280 $649
 
What was that unofficial/AIB NV card that was dual GPU and like 15" long? I'm just trying to remember..
 
NV has historically been the ones to set outrageous prices for their ultra top end cards, but don't forget, it was AMD that jumped the shark on prices the last time around with the 7970 at $550. NV released the 680 at $499 and brought prices down...which was pretty shocking. I havent seen anyone calling the ti a steal, in fact, quite the opposite. The titan, while extremely expensive too, was no more expensive than the 7990. Looking further back still, AMDs cards were no bargain at all before the 4800 series. My x800xtx was $600 if I remember right and that was 7 years ago.
 
B2BigAl said:
NV has historically been the ones to set outrageous prices for their ultra top end cards, but don't forget, it was AMD that jumped the shark on prices the last time around with the 7970 at $550. NV released the 680 at $499 and brought prices down...which was pretty shocking. I havent seen anyone calling the ti a steal, in fact, quite the opposite. The titan, while extremely expensive too, was no more expensive than the 7990. Looking further back still, AMDs cards were no bargain at all before the 4800 series. My x800xtx was $600 if I remember right and that was 7 years ago.
Click to expand...

Ungimped GPU = $150 price premium
Gimped = 1k
 
evilsofa said:
Stop acting like there has never been a >$500 gaming video card before. Seriously, it's like you guys don't remember anything before the GTX 400 series.

Nvidia 6800 Ultra Extreme $549
Nvidia 6800 Ultra 512MB $899; BFG's overclocked version $999

Nvidia 7800 GTX 256MB $599
Nvidia 7800 GTX 512MB $650
ATI X1900 XTX $650
Asustek Extreme N7800GT Dual $900

Nvidia 8800 GTX $650
Nvidia 8800 Ultra $830
GTX 280 $649
Click to expand...
Yea, this blows my mind every time people try to make some bullshit statement like "High end GPUs were never this expensive" or "$500 is the price point high end GPU's should be at" Really? Did you do any research before spewing that nonsense?

And if you really want to screw with your mind, do the inflation calculations and see what those old GPU's prices are in 2013 dollars.

Not really defending nVidia's pricing practices, because I do think they're overpricing their cards right now, but that is far more a matter of relative pricing than absolute pricing. Granted, nVidia does seem to really like pushing that envelope.
 
mobusta1 said:
IMHO I think it's foolish to purchase a card for $700 when the one for 550 or 400 will get you about the same performance.

This isn't the first time nvidia has set a high price for a card. Do you remember the 8800 ultra? That thing was around 800 msrp iirc.
Click to expand...

Back in 2007 this was what anandtech wrote about the 8800 ultra.

We do know NVIDIA has wanted to push up towards the $1000 graphics card segment for a while. Offering the top of the line for what almost amounts to a performance tax would give NVIDIA the ability to sell a card and treat it like a Ferrari. It would turn high end graphics into a status symbol rather than a commodity. That and having a huge margin part in the mix can easily generate additional profits.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what they did with the Titan.
 
290X said:
Selling out isn't particularly surprising on low-volume perceived-value items.
Click to expand...


I don't know if you're aware of this in the business world, but when you have a market that wasn't previously there (Titan) that outsells a well established market (single card dual GPU GTX 690) in 1/4th the time that's considered a pretty big success. Especially when both were selling at the exact same price point and the one doing the outselling was actually inferior in performance to the other in proper settings.

The Titan, GTX 690, GTX 680, and GTX 670 can all be considered "low-volume" items if you look at the larger scale. Sure the GTX x70 and x80 variants sell more than the x90/Titan types because of the price point, but even then the x70/x80 price points overwhelm most consumers and sales aren't as much as people think. The margins of return are higher for each one sold though.

But it all goes back to my original post. If there is a market for the GTX 780 Ti it will be successful because that door was already opened up by the Titan/GTX 780. If there isn't, then people will vote with their dollars and the product will fail because it's already competing against two other very similar products at the same price point. A price point which already has massive competition from its own line of products, not including AMD's.
 
clownshoes said:
As a consumer though, we also have a voice. Whether you prefer Nvidia or ATI, we are all on the same team. I've never understood why some people will defend a company so fiercely as to insult people who prefer the products of its competitors (not saying any of that is going on here but I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about). I value silence more than a small gain in performance and because of this, I've been going with Nvidia lately (point being, I'm not some AMD fanboy here to bash Nvidia). I'm simply pointing out Nvidia's game plan (something that can only benefit us consumers).
Click to expand...

I agree with you in some regard and that's why I mentioned that we still have the $200 - $300 GPUs, which are more than capable for this generation of gaming at 1080p.

Now if somebody is into triple displays and 1600p or 4K setups or whatever, you're really looking at a niche enthusiast market and in such cases the corresponding video cards should come with enthusiast prices as well. Those are the rich guys you squeeze extra money out of, because they can afford it... and can part with another $300 or so and not end up broke on the streets living in a cardboard box.

Like I mentioned on (I think) Engadget during the 690 reveal... when a video card costs more than a mortgage payment, I'm out. But if other people can throw that kind of money around... then hey, let them fork that over to fund NVIDIA's R&D budget, where the rest of us with reap the benefits long-term.



It's the companies that rush to the bottom and run on razor-thin margins that you really need to worry about (Dell, HP, Acer, etc.). Those businesses are always one misstep away from big trouble. We don't want NVIDIA or AMD to be in that position.
 
jwcalla said:
Now if somebody is into triple displays and 1600p or 4K setups or whatever, you're really looking at a niche enthusiast market and in such cases the corresponding video cards should come with enthusiast prices as well. Those are the rich guys you squeeze extra money out of, because they can afford it... and can part with another $300 or so and not end up broke on the streets living in a cardboard box.
Click to expand...

I just look around my office and anything I haven't used in the past 3 months, it goes up for sale! The money builds up and is spent. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not going to jump into the water first. I will wait for other users to review, OC, and share the results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top