Geforce GTX 780, 770 coming in May

[Sliver]

I want to know what NVIDIA do with the GPU names once the 900 series reaches end of life.

They could start with the 'A' series. Should give them about 26 years.

 

[PhysicsMan94]

Makes sense to me

I want to know what NVIDIA do with the GPU names once the 900 series reaches end of life.

I'd quite like to see them start expressing graphics card names in terms of complex numbers - could be a nice change from just boring real numbers!

Anyway, this is interesting news - if they do so happen to release the GTX-780 before I start building my new system sometime in early June then I might opt for one (or two) of them instead of a Titan. We'll see though.

 

[Mr Krugga]

And inflation doesn't really apply for tech product anyway...I mean a Pentium 200MMX PC cost like what....nearly £1000 20 years ago, and if we were to apply the concept of inflation to computers, then I guess PC today in general would be all pricing at around £2000 now? And what about the pricing of the TFT monitors?

Anyway, I'll leave it at that.

Actually, a Pentium MMX 200 launched in 1997 at $550, which is around $781 in today's money. Which is about what Intel charges for their top end CPUs.

The $ to £ exchange rate was around 0.600 for the most of 1997, which would amount to £330 fair value + 17.5% VAT, so around £388 in total. That's £580 in today's money.

 

[Rusty0611]

Actually, a Pentium MMX 200 launched in 1997 at $550, which is around $781 in today's money. Which is about what Intel charges for their top end CPUs.

The $ to £ exchange rate was around 0.600 for the most of 1997, which would amount to £330 fair value + 17.5% VAT, so around £388 in total. That's £580 in today's money.

I knew somebody would have some links to back up what I was saying. To be honest, I couldn't believe I was having a conversation where the effects of inflation were being denied .

Thanks

 

[TheRealDeal]

I sold my 480 for £110 on a popular auction site, and bought my 660OC for £150 on sale

Performance is about the same (I ran my 480 overclocked) and it is silent, runs very cool in comparison to my 480, and uses about half the power

My guess would be gtx god mode, gtx goliath, gtx superman and gtx leviathan to name a few.

 

[1kiwi]

Actually, a Pentium MMX 200 launched in 1997 at $550, which is around $781 in today's money. Which is about what Intel charges for their top end CPUs.

The $ to £ exchange rate was around 0.600 for the most of 1997, which would amount to £330 fair value + 17.5% VAT, so around £388 in total. That's £580 in today's money.

Ahhhh perspective. Having the latest gear has always been expensive.

 

[Akagi]

My guess would be gtx god mode, gtx goliath, gtx superman and gtx leviathan to name a few.

What if they ditch the GT, GTS, GTX naming conventions too?

Mind = blown

They might go back to using FX, though that might be a difficulty with AMD's new CPU's around.

 

[andybird123]

What if they ditch the GT, GTS, GTX naming conventions too?

Mind = blown

They might go back to using FX, though that might be a difficulty with AMD's new CPU's around.

BLASPHEMY!

 

[Marine-RX179]

I knew somebody would have some links to back up what I was saying. To be honest, I couldn't believe I was having a conversation where the effects of inflation were being denied .

Em...I don't see how it back you up at all. £388 back then or £580 today's money, is higher price than the nearly 20 years later current mainstream consumer level CPU (i.e. i5 3770K at £200 ish, not talking about super enthusiast level CPU such as i7 980X, i7 3970X). I don't think any average users would happily open up their wallet and pay £580 for a CPU, and accept it as perfectly normal due to "inflation".

Inflation does exist, but that doesn't mean it is normal to expect tech stuffs to rise in price accordingly because of it; just look at the price of monitors, camera, memory crashes comparing to their initial high prices...this is mostly due to lower production cost and high competition. The launch prices of graphic cards going up on the other hand is most due to lack of competition with the Nvidia and AMD monopolising the graphic market, and as someone put it having a "secret handshake under the table" and pushing the price of graphic cards up.

Yes exchange rate of pounds to dollars ain't that great comparing to the peak back then, but even if you look at the launch price of the cards in dollars, it is still 5870 at $399 vs 7970 at $549- with just something like a 2 years gap. The price rise is more much to with price dictation, and inflation in comparison would play a very small part in it.

I'm not declining the effect of inflation itself, but to put it across as the main contribution toward huge price hike is not something I would agree with.

Anyway, my original post in the very beginning was not even mainly focusing on the price, but about the performance jump each new gen nowadays will not be able to match the kinda of performance jump back in those days; and if it does happen, people would have to pay a price premium for it.

 

[Rusty0611]

It does back up my point as do the other people who bothered to chime in too. Your argument above assumes the production costs and/or mid market exchange rates have remained constant. Both of which is untrue. Or you're trying to look at them in isolation which is not correct. You're trying to over-simplify it.

My original interruption was that you were price moaning without taking into account inflation and as such your argument was a touch wonky. Whether you agree with it or not is not really relevant because it's an undeniable fact. You can under-estimate its effect but that doesn't do anything to help your argument; in fact it undermines it completely.

Inflation accounts for a huge price hike in just 10 years at ~3% inflation. I say "price hike" but this is not technically true as it's an alignment to the cost in today's terms - by price hike I mean in pure numeric terms. If you go back further this would only increase it. You then went on to say that inflation doesn't affect PC component that much.... but it affects everything. If companies want to keep their profits in line with inflation they increase prices roughly in line with it. Otherwise a £100m profit in 1990 is suddenly not that much in today's money.

If you're going to compare against prices from back in the day you have to account for what the thing being discussed cost is in today's money. Without that you're missing a large part of the equation. You also have to consider exchange rates another thing you're missing.

If you feel prices are too high then fine, whinge away about it but you strayed from this topic and you have been pulled up for it.

If you look back through the archives of websites, the 8800 Ultra came in at a whopping £489 at launch. Chuck on some RPI/CPI and Titan isn't far off what would be expected. I know it doesn't work like that (RPI at well over 4% for a number of years but average pay increases ~ 2%).

I am looking at these prices as the norm now sadly.

You need to stop talking prices in GBP because AMD doesn't set their RRP in GBP.

If you want to compare prices, compare the USD RRP prices.

Because otherwise you have to take in to account inflation, and the fluctuations of the exchange rate, something you're not currently doing.

Inflation plus a weak pound to the dollar means higher prices for products bought and sold wholesale in USD.

A bit of inflation and a drop in exchange rate has a massive effect on prices.

 

[Marine-RX179]

It does back up my point as do the other people who bothered to chime in too. Your argument above assumes the production costs and/or mid market exchange rates have remained constant. Both of which is untrue. Or you're trying to look at them in isolation which is not correct. You're trying to over-simplify it.

My original interruption was that you were price moaning without taking into account inflation and as such your argument was a touch wonky. Whether you agree with it or not is not really relevant because it's an undeniable fact. You can under-estimate its effect but that doesn't do anything to help your argument; in fact it undermines it completely.

Inflation accounts for a huge price hike in just 10 years at ~3% inflation. I say "price hike" but this is not technically true as it's an alignment to the cost in today's terms - by price hike I mean in pure numeric terms. If you go back further this would only increase it. You then went on to say that inflation doesn't affect PC component that much.... but it affects everything. If companies want to keep their profits in line with inflation they increase prices roughly in line with it. Otherwise a £100m profit in 1990 is suddenly not that much in today's money.

If you're going to compare against prices from back in the day you have to account for what the thing being discussed cost is in today's money. Without that you're missing a large part of the equation. You also have to consider exchange rates another thing you're missing.

If you feel prices are too high then fine, whinge away about it but you strayed from this topic and you have been pulled up for it.

You clearing ignore my 3rd paragraph from my last post for your own convenient:

Yes exchange rate of pounds to dollars ain't that great comparing to the peak back then, but even if you look at the launch price of the cards in dollars, it is still 5870 at $399 vs 7970 at $549- with just something like a 2 years gap. The price rise is more much to with price dictation, and inflation in comparison would play a very small part in it.

And stop trying to dump the blame of going off topic on me- while I do admit I was partly responsible (getting caught in the whole inflation discussion thing), I wasn't exactly singing solo. You keep calling me whining about prices, when all along from the very beginning was simply agreeing with someone that:

The jumps we see in the future will be smaller than jumps seen in the past. They'll be much more like bunny-hops.

Facts
a) Improvement on performance per gen is getting lesser and lesser comparing to in the pass- we can all see that happened/happening
and I merely stated that:
b) If a card come along that offer the performance increase similar to back in the GeForce 7000 series to 8000 series days (i.e. GTX580 to Titan), companies WILL take the opportunity to charge a huge premium for it.

Yes...I am whining whining whining about prices for pointing that out, when I have bigger beef with the pitiful performance increase per gen rather than price The biggest issues for graphic cards these days is not mainly pricing, but what people get in return for those prices. For people that already had card like 5850, performance wise the 7950 was what one would expect for upgrading two years later (bearing in mind that 7950 wasn't as quick as it is now). Even with the worsen exchange rate and inflation considered, comparing to the £220 5850, one would expect the 7950 to be at no more than £280-£300 max; but no, it was launched at £350, and the price only started to drop to around that level around 5-6 months after launch, and 12.11 driver didn't come till 9 months after launch. By then most people would have considered it was too late, as at the time people were expecting new gen cards would come at the end of the year (but of course, nobody expected AMD would completely break the thread, and extend the product life of the 7000 series from traditional 1 year to 2 years.)

Bottom line is had AMD launched 7950 at £280-£300 with 12.11 driver performance, many of 5850/5870 owners (myself included) or older cards owner would had most likely already made the jump over a year ago, rather than stuck at the odd position of between gens we are at now. So rather than keep insisting on calling me whining about pricing, how about questioning why AMD couldn't get the drivers right with the launch of their products, and price it higher than even the highest the customer would expect them to to come in at? (ironically, the 7990 falls under this as well...)

 

[Rusty0611]

You clearing ignore my 3rd paragraph from my last post for your own convenient:

I'm not ignoring it I'm just still seeing that you're under estimating its effect. That's OK but I am still going to point it out.

And stop trying to dump the blame of going off topic on me- while I do admit I was partly responsible (getting caught in the whole inflation discussion thing), I wasn't exactly singing solo. You keep calling me whining about prices, when all along from the very beginning was simply agreeing with someone that:

I didn't? I just said you were pulled up for price whinging by me and then the inflation thing by others and me as well. Look you're transgressing way, way from my original objection that I posted. I'm not going to go round in circles for no reason. Let's leave it at that .

 

[riskyfrisky]

The sooner VAT goes back down to 17.5% the better too - remember that partly explains the higher prices we're seeing at the moment.

 

[andybird123]

The sooner VAT goes back down to 17.5% the better too - remember that partly explains the higher prices we're seeing at the moment.

it won't... VAT is 20% across most of Europe... they might have used "ah but deficit" as an excuse to put it up, but there is a snowballs chance of it coming back down

I'm actually in favour of this - lower income tax with higher VAT means that you get more money in your pocket up front and you only pay tax when you spend it, allowing you to actually cover living costs (as things like rent/mortgage and food are VAT exempt) easier meaning less people needing benefits to make up a short fall, and people with more disposable cash choosing to pay more tax when they spend more of it

 

[humbug]

it won't... VAT is 20% across most of Europe... they might have used "ah but deficit" as an excuse to put it up, but there is a snowballs chance of it coming back down

I'm actually in favour of this - lower income tax with higher VAT means that you get more money in your pocket up front and you only pay tax when you spend it, allowing you to actually cover living costs (as things like rent/mortgage and food are VAT exempt) easier meaning less people needing benefits to make up a short fall, and people with more disposable cash choosing to pay more tax when they spend more of it

We are one of the most taxed developed world people on earth, you just don't know it as most are stealth taxes.

 

[1kiwi]

One would think this an economic forum or something. Is there any more news regarding the 780?

 

[Vegeta]

I was looking at getting a 670, worth waiting for these to come out first? Will the 770 be priced like the current 670?

 

[illuz]

I was looking at getting a 670, worth waiting for these to come out first? Will the 770 be priced like the current 670?

Highly doubt it, I would wait and pick up a 670/80 once the 770 is out. Performance will be pretty much spot on (If rumours are true)

 

[Helbore]

I'd been waiting (and given up on waiting) for the 700 series for quite a while. I'd been off PC gaming for a few years due to financial reasons and just got back into it. The new Tomb Raider forced me to upgrade to an Asus 670 Top a couple of weeks ago and I felt a little buyers remorse as it still didn't manage to let me run everything at max with a good framerate (including that framerate-killing, but beautiful TressFX feature).

I was planning on building a completely new gaming rig in the summer, once Haswell materialises, but keeping my 670 from my current PC and SLI-ing it with another to push its capabilities up to a level I'd be more happy with. I'm fairly sure that will still be better than dropping it in favour of a 780. Obviously two 780s would be better (or two Titans for that matter!), but I think that would be excessively expensive.

I think I'm pretty much talking to myself here, but would people agree that the cost of an extra 670 and running SLI would be better than replacing my existing 670 with a 780? (also accepting that we don't actually know the official capabilities of the 780, but we can take educated guesses at what it will likely be)

 

[PhysicsMan94]

The 780 is rumoured to have a 30% performance gain over the 680 plus it's going to use the GK110 Kepler Architecture (this is what the Titan is based on) and will apparently have 5GB GDDR5 VRAM; so, essentially, the 780 is the "Titan LE". And if rumours of its price are correct (~$500 as suggested on techpowerup) then I will be very happy, although that seems slightly optimistic.