Argh, AMD/nVIDIA pricing is infuriating me

[kitch9]

Just wait until price stabilises.

 

[Migi06]

Hi everyone,

I've been around computers for over a decade now, but I'm starting to see a trend regarding AMD's latest GPUs' pricing that I don't like; I'm talking about the HD7000 series.

Because the HD7900 series is priced so highly due to its performance advantage over the GTX580 in most games, this has meant that AMD have increased the prices of the other series in the HD7000 generation out of sync with what we usually expect.

http://hothardware.com/News/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-280-Price-Dropping-to-499/

Just wait until price stabilises.

 

[ALXAndy]

Just wait until price stabilises.

That won't happen until Kepler releases and competes.

Note the two mysterious words.

Release.

Compete.

Both of which no one knows because Nvidia have said nothing. It's all speculation.

AMD won't drop their prices on speculation they will want hard evidence. That won't happen until the rumoured April and even then it can't be certain how Kepler will perform or compete.

 

[555BUK]

Don't get why people keep whining. It's normal for the expensive flagship stuff to arrive first and pricing is the same as it's always been.

The 7970 is the same price as the GTX 580 3GB but it's a much better card.
The 7950 is just a tad more expensive than the GTX 570 2.5GB but again, it's a far better card.

Since when were the GTX580 3GB and GTX570 2.5GB NVidia's mainstream top-end cards? Both are niche products, best avoided.

AMD are holding back their 1.5GB 7900 cards for two reasons.
i). There will be zero preformance between 1.5GB abd 3GB versions, unless gaming at extreme resolutions within very demanding titles (same applies for GTX580 1.5 and 3GB versions).
ii). AMD would not be able to use the 3GB VRAM as an EXCUSE to charge ASTRONOMICAL prices for AVERAGE next gen cards.

It is pointless comparing 7900 pricing to GTX580 3GB and GTX570 2.5GB cards. They are niche cards made for the tiny minority with more money than sense.

 

[LeJosh]

Since when were the GTX580 3GB and GTX570 2.5GB NVidia's mainstream top-end cards? Both are niche products, best avoided.

AMD are holding back their 1.5GB 7900 cards for two reasons.
i). There will be zero preformance between 1.5GB abd 3GB versions, unless gaming at extreme resolutions within very demanding titles (same applies for GTX580 1.5 and 3GB versions).
ii). AMD would not be able to use the 3GB VRAM as an EXCUSE to charge ASTRONOMICAL prices for AVERAGE next gen cards.

It is pointless comparing 7900 pricing to GTX580 3GB and GTX570 2.5GB cards. They are niche cards made for the tiny minority with more money than sense.

I literally don't know if you're serious or not.

 

[chief barker]

I literally don't know if you're serious or not.

He sounds like somebody that wants one but can't afford it?.

 

[ALXAndy]

Since when were the GTX580 3GB and GTX570 2.5GB NVidia's mainstream top-end cards? Both are niche products, best avoided.

AMD are holding back their 1.5GB 7900 cards for two reasons.
i). There will be zero preformance between 1.5GB abd 3GB versions, unless gaming at extreme resolutions within very demanding titles (same applies for GTX580 1.5 and 3GB versions).
ii). AMD would not be able to use the 3GB VRAM as an EXCUSE to charge ASTRONOMICAL prices for AVERAGE next gen cards.

It is pointless comparing 7900 pricing to GTX580 3GB and GTX570 2.5GB cards. They are niche cards made for the tiny minority with more money than sense.

I see. So given your logic of AMD using vram to bloat prices, where is the 2gb 7770 that we all know exists?

 

[tommybhoy]

AMD would not be able to use the 3GB VRAM as an EXCUSE to charge ASTRONOMICAL prices for AVERAGE next gen cards.

It is pointless comparing 7900 pricing to GTX580 3GB and GTX570 2.5GB cards. They are niche cards made for the tiny minority with more money than sense.

AMD are not using the 3Gb as any excuse for the high prices in the exact same way that Nvidia were charging last round for being the gpu king.

It's the dearest because it's the current FASTEST gpu with ZERO competition, that's the sole reason for the pricing, end of!

The 7970 is a niche card the same as the Nvidia cards you mentioned.

 

[panyan]

He sounds like somebody that wants one but can't afford it.

+1

 

[arc@css]

AMD are not using the 3Gb as any excuse for the high prices in the exact same way that Nvidia were charging last round for being the gpu king.

It's the dearest because it's the current FASTEST gpu with ZERO competition, that's the sole reason for the pricing, end of!

The 7970 is a niche card the same as the Nvidia cards you mentioned.

+1

Pretty much this.

 

[ALXAndy]

Gotta say my favourite bad attitude is the -

"But how dare AMD charge that much because only Nvidia are allowed to do that"

 

[gurusan]

Since when were the GTX580 3GB and GTX570 2.5GB NVidia's mainstream top-end cards? Both are niche products, best avoided.

AMD are holding back their 1.5GB 7900 cards for two reasons.
i). There will be zero preformance between 1.5GB abd 3GB versions, unless gaming at extreme resolutions within very demanding titles (same applies for GTX580 1.5 and 3GB versions).
ii). AMD would not be able to use the 3GB VRAM as an EXCUSE to charge ASTRONOMICAL prices for AVERAGE next gen cards.

It is pointless comparing 7900 pricing to GTX580 3GB and GTX570 2.5GB cards. They are niche cards made for the tiny minority with more money than sense.

Even so, comparing the 7900 to the 1.5GB GTX580 it's obvious why the 7900 is drastically more expensive. It's faster, with no competition!

My point was I don't understand how people can whine about pricing when it's ALWAYS been like this?

A lot of you people seem to have 2 second memory or something. The GTX 280 was 650 usd on launch yet the 4870 was 299 and there was very little between the 2 in terms of performance. How's that for pricing/performance discrepancies?

Yet many nvidiots were happy to pay the 650 because it was THE FASTEST, often using platitudes like "well you have to pay to play".

 

[Randomface74]

I thought the 7900GT was top-end when I bought it for ~ £180. It that not true?

 

[gurusan]

The 7900GTX was top end NVIDIA during that time and had a MSRP of 499 usd. The X1900XTX was the much better card and MSRP was 650 usd.

So to you people whinging about prices....you are either very young or very forgetful. GPU pricing really hasn't changed at all.

 

[muon]

The 7900GTX was top end NVIDIA during that time and had a MSRP of 499 usd. The X1900XTX was the much better card and MSRP was 650 usd.

So to you people whinging about prices....you are either very young or very forgetful. GPU pricing really hasn't changed at all.

Exactly and the GTX 280 was also $649.

X850XT PE was $549 and the 6800 Ultra was $499.

7970 sits at $549.

 

[555BUK]

Makes you wonder why the 7900's are not selling well when the performance and pricings are so great compared to previous NVidia cards? I mean, AMD have said that supplies of 28nm silicon are very low, which means not many cards are being produced, yet all retailers have plenty of stock.

So why are they not selling?

The truth is that neither the 7950 nor 7970 offers a good enough "next gen performance boost" to justify the high pricing compared to previous gen cards. In a similar way that iPad3's would flop if they cost 50% more than iPad2's, yet were only 30-40% faster. Sure, some die-hards will buy them whatever the price, but most people expect more performance for the same money or thereabouts when a new gen product arrives.

 

[DamoTourettes]

Makes you wonder why the 7900's are not selling well when the performance and pricings are so great compared to previous NVidia cards? I mean, AMD have said that supplies of 28nm silicon are very low, which means not many cards are being produced, yet all retailers have plenty of stock.

So why are they not selling?

The truth is that neither the 7950 nor 7970 offers a good enough "next gen performance boost" to justify the high pricing compared to previous gen cards. In a similar way that iPad3's would flop if they cost 50% more than iPad2's, yet were only 30-40% faster. Sure, some die-hards will buy them whatever the price, but most people expect more performance for the same money or thereabouts when a new gen product arrives.

*BANG ON*

A *lot* of people would have jumped from GTX 580 to 7970 if they offered a straight up 50-70%+ increase in performance straight out of the box, HOWEVER they do not, and to get anything even remotely in the ball park you need to overclock the crap out of them, and they still come up short.

This raises the big question as to why it was that AMD released a card that can clearly do faster than it's default clocks yet came out at 900Mhz - AMD worried about longevity? Trying to have something in reserve for Kepler? The first answer is plausible, whilst the second just smacks of idiotic business sense - why try and win over customers when your competitor has something on the market when you can clock your initial offering higher and take all people sitting on the fence before they even release anything? Something's wrong here.

 

[SheepBeast]

Makes you wonder why the 7900's are not selling well when the performance and pricings are so great compared to previous NVidia cards? I mean, AMD have said that supplies of 28nm silicon are very low, which means not many cards are being produced, yet all retailers have plenty of stock.

So why are they not selling?

The truth is that neither the 7950 nor 7970 offers a good enough "next gen performance boost" to justify the high pricing compared to previous gen cards. In a similar way that iPad3's would flop if they cost 50% more than iPad2's, yet were only 30-40% faster. Sure, some die-hards will buy them whatever the price, but most people expect more performance for the same money or thereabouts when a new gen product arrives.

^ This is true. But also the problem is that we have no games which are really pushing the current gen so people are happy with the cards they've already got. Total sales of graphics cards are declining rapidly (admittedly also in part due to built in GPU getting 10x better over the past couple of years).

Until we get a "killer app" game which everyone wants and which really needs a top end card to run well, such as Crysis for example, the new generation will have a slow start. Everyone thought that was BF3 but it turned out to run pretty well on even a mediocre computer.

 

[SheepBeast]

This raises the big question as to why it was that AMD released a card that can clearly do faster than it's default clocks yet came out at 900Mhz - AMD worried about longevity? Trying to have something in reserve for Kepler? The first answer is plausible, whilst the second just smacks of idiotic business sense - why try and win over customers when your competitor has something on the market when you can clock your initial offering higher and take all people sitting on the fence before they even release anything? Something's wrong here.

One word: yields.

 

[TAC4U]

There are lots of factors. When the 5xxx series was released VAT was at 15%; currently it stands at 20%. Admittedly that's only around £20 extra on a £350 pre-tax card but it shouldn't be underestimated. ATI also underpriced their cards, which may have been great from a consumer perspective but isn't good in the long run.

That said, the current pricing just isn't sensible. They're still in stock everywhere, which normally isn't the case with a new generation. And every review pointed out that they're overpriced. nVidia cards have been overpriced for years and for AMD to copy that model seems like bad business, as it's not going to win them any followers.