• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD 69XX delayed officially ?

The GTX480 came out yonks after the HD5970 and still Nvidia charged a decent amount for it. If the HD6990 is much faster than the GTX580 AMD can price it much higher. If it is slower they charge less.

The HD6950 and the HD6970 will be the more important cards.
 
Jokester said:
Well, 580GTX was originally rumoured to be out Q1 2011, by which point AMD were releasing the 6990 which will presumably beat it hands down, so by Nvidia bringing it forward by at least three months they've found themselves needing to compete with the 6970 instead. So not only will there be a performance issue, it's likely that AMD won't now have free reign to charge as much as they like for it.
Click to expand...

AMD might not have free reign but for the next month or Nvidia does, I've just noticed on the front page the OCUK 580 GTX is going for £450 a pop (to be expected if they want to make a profit on a chip that big). I would point out thought this isn't price gouging as suggested before (which is also a term not full understood by a lot members such as TheRealDeal, jorzeh, kylew, james.Miller, Sh4rkie, rolypolyman, robskinner, nitram100, Locky, FoxEye, Cooper, straxusii)

Price gouging isn't charging £300 for a video card one week then charging £350 for it the next, price gouging would be charging £300 one week then with £500 the next. Companies are allowed to change the price of goods based on supply and demand.
 
queamin said:
What gets me if they got barts at certain speed per mm what is the point of cayman unless it is a lot bigger and a monster if it is only a bit faster over a bart, why not just do two barts, i am not really sure it is worth the R&D unless the getting 4 shader design ready for 28nm.

edit. it seams to me cayman a lot of hassle and R&D for a small speed bump over a bart,that what i find hard to belive
Click to expand...

It's all about scalability: Designing an architecture that can offer near-linear performance improvements as the design-size is scaled up. The key to this is building in increased modularity, which will cost transistors. You can't always expect the first iteration of this new design to be as efficient as the previous design (in terms of performance per transistor or performance per watt), but if it gives you a platform that you can build upon for the next few years, then it's a necessary tradeoff. You saw this from Nvidia with Fermi, and depending on how much of a departure it is from the Evergreen design, we may be seeing this from AMD with Cayman.

This has happened many times before... One example is Nvidia's FX5800 "leafblower", which evolved into the highly successful 6800 and 7800 series with relatively few major architectural changes. Another is the radeon x2900, whose basic design has scaled right up to Evergreen and even Barts. Neither of these two cards were very successful at the time, but led on to great things.

When designing a modern GPU, engineers have their eye on the next 3 generations, and die shrinks, not just "here and now" performance. This is something that people tend to forget...
 
Freddie1980 said:
AMD might not have free reign but for the next month or Nvidia does, I've just noticed on the front page the OCUK 580 GTX is going for £450 a pop (to be expected if they want to make a profit on a chip that big). I would point out thought this isn't price gouging as suggested before (which is also a term not full understood by a lot members such as TheRealDeal, jorzeh, kylew, james.Miller, Sh4rkie, rolypolyman, robskinner, nitram100, Locky, FoxEye, Cooper, straxusii)

Price gouging isn't charging £300 for a video card one week then charging £350 for it the next, price gouging would be charging £300 one week then with £500 the next. Companies are allowed to change the price of goods based on supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Tell me, what is the actual difference between £350 and £500? If the product is supposed to be £300, anything significantly over £300 simply because the demand is there is price gouging. It's an artificial price increase due to high demand with the sole purpose of increasing profit. Supply and demand price changes are different in the fact that the price has to increase to almost "calm" the demand to ensure that only those who really want said item can get it.

Price gouging is done after the manufacturer whereas increasing price with demand is often done by the manufacturer. But the main reason you can see that it's price gouging is that not every store does it, but the ones that do, know that they can get away with it by often securing first allocations of stock.
 
Freddie1980 said:
AMD might not have free reign but for the next month or Nvidia does, I've just noticed on the front page the OCUK 580 GTX is going for £450 a pop (to be expected if they want to make a profit on a chip that big). I would point out thought this isn't price gouging as suggested before (which is also a term not full understood by a lot members such as TheRealDeal, jorzeh, kylew, james.Miller, Sh4rkie, rolypolyman, robskinner, nitram100, Locky, FoxEye, Cooper, straxusii)

Price gouging isn't charging £300 for a video card one week then charging £350 for it the next, price gouging would be charging £300 one week then with £500 the next. Companies are allowed to change the price of goods based on supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Why thank you for that.

'Price gouging is a pejorative term referring to a situation in which a seller prices goods or commodities much higher than is considered reasonable or fair.'

Says it all really.:) Oh and I'd like to add that for me 'not fair' means over rrp. And I should also add that I generally buy elsewhere when this happens and I must say it seems to happen more often than it used to.:(
 
Last edited:
kylew said:
Tell me, what is the actual difference between £350 and £500? If the product is supposed to be £300, anything significantly over £300 simply because the demand is there is price gouging. It's an artificial price increase due to high demand with the sole purpose of increasing profit. Supply and demand price changes are different in the fact that the price has to increase to almost "calm" the demand to ensure that only those who really want said item can get it.

Price gouging is done after the manufacturer whereas increasing price with demand is often done by the manufacturer. But the main reason you can see that it's price gouging is that not every store does it, but the ones that do, know that they can get away with it by often securing first allocations of stock.
Click to expand...

rolypolyman said:
Why thank you for that.

'Price gouging is a pejorative term referring to a situation in which a seller prices goods or commodities much higher than is considered reasonable or fair.'

Says it all really.:) Oh and I'd like to add that for me 'not fair' means over rrp. And I should also add that I generally buy elsewhere when this happens and I must say it seems to happen more often than it used to.:(
Click to expand...

But as your definition says price gouging is when the price is set 'much higher...' if a card goes from £300 to £330 then that's only 10% a much higher increase would be at least 50% besides what's so fair about these products? It's not as if there essentials like fuel, bread, water etc.
 
£300 to £500 isn't realistic, pretty much no one would justify it and it wouldn't be in the best interests of the store to do so, where as £300 to £350 is a large increase but still justifiable to some. If it was like £2000 increased to £2050 then it's a bit more understandable to call it "not much", or if it was £30,000 to £30,200 then it's again "not much" based on the original amount, but £300 isn't a significant enough amount of money to devalue £50 to "not much".
 
Freddie1980 said:
But as your definition says price gouging is when the price is set 'much higher...' if a card goes from £300 to £330 then that's only 10% a much higher increase would be at least 50% besides what's so fair about these products? It's not as if there essentials like fuel, bread, water etc.
Click to expand...

You don't get the concept of price gauging at all. RRP is set in US dollars and reflects a suggested retail price of a product. It means that retailer's fixed mark-up is already included in the price. When retailers increase prices to double their profits, it is considered price gauging. It may also be that manufacturers are not willing to sell at a lower price that was initially taken into account with RRP due to high demand and shortages in supplies. It's usually both sides that rip-off their customers when the market allows them to and tbf, there's nothing unethical about it.

Using your example, when the said card is normally sold for £300, retailers will have their 10% of selling price. Raising the price to £330 they practically double their profits. Can you see your failed logic now? And sticking to "much higher" being 50% or more is way off the defined standards.
 
Broken Hope said:
Even if the 6970 isn't the same speed as the GTX 580, as long as it's within 10% and also around £300-£350 then it's good news for AMD and us.

But chances are with AMD's efficiency gains lately they shouldn't have much trouble at least matching the GTX 580.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I'd consider it a complete and utter fail if it isn't faster than the 580 which lets not forget is a year late. Nvidia has always been faster for the past couple of years and now is the perfect opportunity to grab the title of fastest single graphic card in the world. Forget efficiency and power draw, the 480 showed enthusiasts don't really care about that. A 250-300w Cayman is what's required to retake pole position with a vengence and show that you can't rely on incremental improvements if you want to be top dog.
 
tdream said:
the 480 showed enthusiasts don't really care about that.
Click to expand...

According to the sales figures posted here http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=476&mn=191714&pt=msg&mid=9688438 the numbers show the complete opposite. Look at the stats for the $300 and upwards cards and the shift in market share.
It shows ATI at 60.1% market share with Nvidia at 39.9%.
It also looks as though things shifted dramatically in the first and second quarter of this year.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of those statistics or that they are even representative but if they are accurate the last two tables shows that the enthuisasts money has been going ATI's direction and not Nvidias.
 
^Andy^ said:
Sorry but where in the article does it say that?
Click to expand...
It's been an open secret for weeks that the original launch date was going to be 22nd November, then slipped the other week to 29th November and now another 2 weeks to the 13th December.

Nobody under NDA will come out and say it directly and Guru will probably get their wrists slapped over it by AMD for posting that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom