Are next gen highend GPU's going be priced like the Titan ??

[adolf hamster]

support... none of the price of a tesla is for the card, most of the money they charge for all the extra (niche) tools and support they give with a professional card
if you buy a GTX you can do a lot of the same things, if you know what you are doing, but Nvidia won't give you anywhere near the level of help and support that they do if you buy a pro-series card

true, although given the way buisnesses can spend [worked in a place that had a £5million still that had never been used] i think its probably more because they can, i mean whats £3k to a multi-billion corporation?

 

[melmac]

No, this won't affect next generation prices at all. It's just a special once off card.

Saying that, I could see Nvidia releasing a custom card like this again if the Titan sells well. A card catering for the extreme benchmarking ethusiasts and the rich!!

 

[dave_beast]

and it's taken them the best part of 12 months to get their drivers in shape

by the same token, you could assume that titan drivers are immature at this point

Wrong, GCN was a new architecture whereas Kepler isn't

 

[Freddie1980]

To be fair to Nvidia they spent $2 billion on R&D for Keplar an shareholders are going to want to see a return on that investment which is probably why prices on the 6 series hasn't changed a great deal.

As for historical pricing I remember the Geforce 3 ti500 was around £350 when it came out, the 8800 GTX was £500 on release so it's not like high prices for new hardware is anything new although Titan has set a new record for a niche card.

 

[The Asgard]

I also suspect Nvidia are testing the water to see if there is a market for such a high end card.

Its been interesting to see the reaction to Titan. Intel do it with their top end processors and nobody bats an eyelid.

Personally I think its great. You pay your money and make your choice. Its not like there isn't a choice.

 

[Wh00pS]

I also suspect Nvidia are testing the water to see if there is a market for such a high end card.

That's the problem most people are having a reaction to though, it's just not that "high end".
It isn't that far in front of a 7970 although this may change as drivers mature, but it certainly is not worth a 500 premium over the competition unless your a high res multi monitor user.

 

[Rusty0611]

In the benchmark threads the 680s were still marginally faster once clocked up pre 12.11 IIRC.

Tommy likes to paste that review everywhere but I tend to go on user results.

 

[LtMatt]

In the benchmark threads the 680s were still marginally faster once clocked up pre 12.11 IIRC.

Tommy likes to paste that review everywhere but I tend to go on user results.

Considering that review is done by H who blatantly favour Nvidia id say that it must be true.

 

[Rusty0611]

Considering that review is done by H who blatantly favour Nvidia id say that it must be true.

Not necessarily.

As I said, I'm just going on user reviews.

 

[LtMatt]

Not necessarily.

As I said, I'm just going on user reviews.

Don't even get me started Rusty. I'll never forget when they told me Sleeping Dogs runs better on Nvidia Hardware.

 

[Rusty0611]

Don't even get me started Rusty. I'll never forget when they told me Sleeping Dogs runs better on Nvidia Hardware.

I'm not sure they did, did they? From memory they used lower settings on the nVidia card which resulted in higher FPS on their "max playable settings" test but on their "apples to apples" test it showed that it was slower.

Tried to find those user results and I remember what happened now. Gregster did 1920*1080 results which pre 12.11 were a touch faster than the 7970 but got accused effectively of making them up so he took them offline. Of course post 12.11 it reversed the trend but this talk of April is nonsense.

Andy's point holds true though. New architecture aside, I'm not sure why anyone becomes defensive when talking about when the 680 and 7970 were even. The 7970 SHOULD be a decent amount faster. So April, July or September it's still a long time.

 

[LtMatt]

I'm not sure they did, did they? From memory they used lower settings on the nVidia card which resulted in higher FPS on their "max playable settings" test but on their "apples to apples" test it showed that it was slower.

Tried to find those user results and I remember what happened now. Gregster did 1920*1080 results which pre 12.11 were a touch faster than the 7970 but got accused effectively of making them up so he took them offline. Of course post 12.11 it reversed the trend but this talk of April is nonsense.

Andy's point holds true though. New architecture aside, I'm not sure why anyone becomes defensive when talking about when the 680 and 7970 were even. The 7970 SHOULD be a decent amount faster. So April, July or September it's still a long time.

From memory they mixed matched settings on a 7970/680 so that they concluded that the nvidia card provided better performance on a gaming evolved title. It was in complete contradiction with user reviews and official reviews every where. The fact i was playing that game extensively myself at the time enabled me to see the spin they put on it to make Nvidia look good and AMD look bad.

I think they were pretty close before. Nvidia won some AMD won some. You cannot say in my opinion that nvidia were clearly faster. The general consensus is they were pretty even. Maybe Nvidia did have a slight advantage in a few current titles. BF3 certainly springs to mind. The main difference was the price though. Now amd are faster in the majority (not all -TWIMTBP titles spring to mind) and are even cheaper than they were originally. If AMD were more expensive than Nvidia back when it was close or Nvidia had a slight edge, then i hear you.

 

[Rusty0611]

From memory they mixed matched settings on a 7970/680 so that they concluded that the nvidia card provided better performance on a gaming evolved title. It was in complete contradiction with user reviews and official reviews every where. The fact i was playing that game extensively myself at the time enabled me to see the spin they put on it to make Nvidia look good and AMD look bad.

I think they were pretty close before. Nvidia won some AMD won some. You cannot say in my opinion that nvidia were clearly faster. The general consensus is they were pretty even. Maybe Nvidia did have a slight advantage in a few current titles. BF3 certainly springs to mind. The main difference was the price though. Now amd are faster in the majority (not all -TWIMTBP titles spring to mind) and are even cheaper than they were originally. If AMD were more expensive than Nvidia back when it was close or Nvidia had a slight edge, then i hear you.

I didn't say that. But bar a couple of AMD titles it was a touch faster across the board albeit extremely close. As we then know 12.11 changed things considerably. Especially when as you say, you consider the price.

 

[Orangey]

[H] do their "real world" tests with max playable settings for each card... was this something else they did though?

 

[Rusty0611]

[H] do their "real world" tests with max playable settings for each card... was this something else they did though?

Not AFAIK.

 

[mnet674]

This was what I paid in release week for a dual gpu card, things seem a tad expensive these days

 

[AndyOcUK]

I've been wondering about this recently, I remember paying £400 for a top end GPU in late 2003. I wonder what that equates to these days in real terms allowing for inflation and exchange rate changes?

^This.

Also bear in mind that the Titan and the GTX 690 both use expensive exotic materials/ metals in the heatsink. They are extremely expensive and few will be made. Rather like a Bugatti Veyron or McLaren F1.......Mental performance, VERY limited production and a price tag to make your eyes bleed......but the elite few absolutely WILL buy them.

 

[Orangey]

*img snip* This was what I paid in release week for a dual gpu card, things seem a tad expensive these days

That was when ATi were recovering from getting mullered during the 2900XT days though, the 4000 series put them back on track but the prices were low still because they needed to get back market share.

 

[Wh00pS]

^This.

Also bear in mind that the Titan and the GTX 690 both use expensive exotic materials/ metals in the heatsink. They are extremely expensive and few will be made. Rather like a Bugatti Veyron or McLaren F1.......Mental performance, VERY limited production and a price tag to make your eyes bleed......but the elite few absolutely WILL buy them.

No point comparing it to a veyron though as VW sold each veyron at a $2.3m loss just so they could have the fastest production car in the world.
http://www.automechanicschools.net/blog/supercars-are-they-worth-it-for-companies-to-make

 

[spoffle]

^This.

Also bear in mind that the Titan and the GTX 690 both use expensive exotic materials/ metals in the heatsink. They are extremely expensive and few will be made. Rather like a Bugatti Veyron or McLaren F1.......Mental performance, VERY limited production and a price tag to make your eyes bleed......but the elite few absolutely WILL buy them.

The materials cost would be quite negligible in relation to the cost of the card.

The materials do cost more but not enough is used to actually make an appreciable difference in the cost to manufacture.

The build materials thing, to put it bluntly is just a trick to make people think they are getting their monies' worth.