-
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.
Why are GPUs so expensive?
- Thread starter Guest2
- Start date
Yeah definitely show signs of being CPU limited which is a shame because it was not able to use all the threads effectively. I have a save where I am getting 40fps+ and changing the gfx settings only seemed to affect the GPU usage rather than improving the frame rate much 
Curious if much more recent intel/amd offerings fare better with their modern ipcs.
Curious if much more recent intel/amd offerings fare better with their modern ipcs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 2,645
I have a Panasonic plasma still going strong and great for TV incl HD, its not a PC gaming monitor for me though
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 2,645
XCOM 2 is procedural which is CPU heavy. Nothing is actually calculated until you look at it
It’s also turn based so any drops in frame rate aren’t a big deal, even my 980Ti will play XCOM2 at 4k
Tbf, AAA is just aiming for the widest reach possible, and they have to in order to make back money (so PC exclusivity makes little sense, especially as the high-end PC market is even smaller). There's still the exception here and there (VR stuff ala HL:Alyx, Star Citizen, etc.). Luckily it's not gonna be as much of a problem going forward, what with consoles getting Zen 2 CPUs & SSDs. Hell, if the rumours about Xbox Lockhart pan out, that's gonna be insane CPU & storage power as a baseline for $249-299, which is gonna raise the floor immensely for game developers, so PC won't suffer from getting gimped (by hardware) games as a result.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,389
There's another side to that - system is not pushed, then system doesn't need an upgrade, ergo no need so spend $1k+ on nVIDIA latest.
With that said, you still get the higher frame rate, resolution options (personally I play on a triple display, so no console will give that), tuning of the settings so you can get the experience that you want (iq or speed when both are not available), or simply play the game later with new hardware. For instance, I've played Assassin's Creed Unity in Eyefinity with 2500k and a r290 @30fps +/- (consoles were struggling to hit 30 fps at under 1080p res if I remember correctly) and now i can get solid 60fps with 2600x and rtx2080. On consoles will always "suck", while now is ok on the PC.
Also, a lot of people don't have high end hardware! The bulk of PCs are around consoles specs, so why would a developer target high end stuff? This is why seeing some people defending the higher prices makes no sense: higher prices -> smaller install base -> not much point in owning high end hardware (except some marginal cases), if games are not on par.
Another thing: Crysis needed some years to sell a few million copies. That's not an option today.
Squadron 42/Star Citizen is pretty much the only one pushing boundaries; seeing people wishing for it to fail boggles the mind...
Surely I'll want the games to target the PC hardware specs more, but for that to happen we need 2 things (at least):
1. PC hardware to be available at a lower price point.
2. Gamers actually buying (those) games on PC and not on consoles!
PS: There were times when people were mad, because they needed to upgrade every 2 years +/-, now that such action is not required anymore we ask "why did they took it away from us"?
LE: Playing now FEAR. Incredible how an old game can be this good (even with old graphics) compared to the new and shinny stuff. And it even scales well on the displays available (!) while newer games fail to do so!
Some of us have been banging on about this for years, but it's a lost cause.
A number of people like having a £1500 GPU as a badge of honour. See the various "roll of honour" threads. You don't find them for the low-end GPUs... but there's always one for the latest Titan, etc.
Same people are notorious for saying, "If you don't think a mid-range GPU should be £450, buy a console instead and bog off."
It's about exclusivity, feeling good that you can afford expensive things, and the consequences of a shrinking market are not really high on their list of concerns.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
I have been defending higher priced graphics cards simply because it's there for people who are happy to pay for it.
My pc is around average spec. My GPU cost £201. It makes absolutely no difference to me that a 2080ti costs £1200. I don't care. Why should the average person who buys "console spec" pcs care about ultra high spec prices?
I certainly don't care about the price of premium jeans when I buy my usual Asda special etc. I've never been bothered about the price of any premium product.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,389
When you have the 2080ti at $1000+, you'll not gonna have the 2080 at $349 and then 2060 at $249. Everything else gets pushed up, ergo much less performance for gamers and game developers in the middle and lower end market.
You want the most expensive stuff because you can? Then buy the latest water cooled, overclocked, super dupper limited edition at $1000+ and let the normal one sit at $549.
Would you like your £201 to be able to buy more performance in a few years? Do you expect progress in that regard?
I want progress at every price point, and the "progress" we got last generation was meh.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 59
You'll see a lot of this happening.
Final death-rattle for sanity was AMD flogging the 690 as the 5700xt, whacking a gargantuan premium on it with the name change and Lisa Su tax before nvidia crapped in their cheerios with the super series. Even now it's still more than what it should be.
Well my PS4 Pro was great value at £200 new with an extra controller and 3 games
The PS5 is going to cost more, maybe £500.
But then I look at what I'd need to spend to match or better it on the PC. For a completely system rebuild and aiming for better-than-console perf, we're probably looking at:
£250-300 CPU
£150 mobo
£100 ram
£300-£400 gpu
So my estimate would be £800 to £950 on the core components alone.
Vs keeping my existing PC for productivity and just buying a console.
When the PC has mostly ports of console titles anyhow, (plus millions of Steam PC exclusives that you could play on an Apple Watch or Casio calculator), the console looks great.
But it looks great because we've allowed PC pricing to get way out of hand. Each price increase has been met by more people giving up on PC, and the rest just saying, "I will pay whatever it takes to stay on the platform."
Eventually that latter camp will realise they are a tiny, tiny minority, that nobody wants to optimise for, any everyone else moved to other platforms. Including the devs.
The last stats I saw showed the PC gaming market was actually increasing (based on revenue, which doesn't necessarily translate to more people, but it can't be shrinking that much). And it is money that retains the developers
We'll see what happens in the run up to/post the next console launch. That will be make or break.
If mid-range GPUs are going for £400 at that time, then that's going to hurt the PC market. If people end up paying a chunk of cash on a PS5 or Xbox SX, and it delivers a kick-ass 1080p/1440p experience, it's going to be brutal for PC. This gen's consoles were pretty weak with their Jaguar cores and so-so GPUs. But we're looking at a big boost next gen. And an uncertain future for both nVidia's and AMD's new cards, as shrinks get harder and harder, and extra raw perf is more difficult to find (and more difficult to fully exploit on Windows).
Basically mid-range needs to return to sane levels before then. And the mid-range needs to keep up with PS5/XSX in terms of perf offered too. No more stagnation in the mid-range, trying to re-sell the same perf at the same price every damn year for half a decade. If mid-range PC GPUs get trounced by the consoles it almost wouldn't be surprising, tbh. PC is a cash cow now.
So in short, the next mid-range GPU can't be £400+ from either team. And it needs to be good. Better-than-console good.
Otherwise, yeah, watch this space.
If mid-range GPUs are going for £400 at that time, then that's going to hurt the PC market. If people end up paying a chunk of cash on a PS5 or Xbox SX, and it delivers a kick-ass 1080p/1440p experience, it's going to be brutal for PC. This gen's consoles were pretty weak with their Jaguar cores and so-so GPUs. But we're looking at a big boost next gen. And an uncertain future for both nVidia's and AMD's new cards, as shrinks get harder and harder, and extra raw perf is more difficult to find (and more difficult to fully exploit on Windows).
Basically mid-range needs to return to sane levels before then. And the mid-range needs to keep up with PS5/XSX in terms of perf offered too. No more stagnation in the mid-range, trying to re-sell the same perf at the same price every damn year for half a decade. If mid-range PC GPUs get trounced by the consoles it almost wouldn't be surprising, tbh. PC is a cash cow now.
So in short, the next mid-range GPU can't be £400+ from either team. And it needs to be good. Better-than-console good.
Otherwise, yeah, watch this space.
When it comes to pulling wool over people's eyes they only have themselves to blame - I can't believe how much focus people put on the naming convention as though it matters a jot what the number on the end is. I'll happily buy a RTX3010 if it offers great performance at a good price, even if that price level is more than a 1660S or whatever.
Don't forget the "GTX" moniker itself at one time was used to denote high end parts costing many hundreds of dollars. Worry about the performance for the price, not the labels. People get all hot under the collar about the "70" range or whatever getting more and more expensive, just imagine it was called the "95 Super-Ultra-Ti-XXXTREME" range or whatever if it makes it easier.
I think one of the problems is that today, if you want to jump up a res (say from 1080p to 1440p) you have to (pretty much) add 50-100% to your GPU budget. You have to move up a GPU tier.
Meanwhile - until very recently, perhaps - "1080p cards" (£220-£250) have had the same perf for half a decade - and the same price. Nobody is getting "free" resolution upgrades anymore. You want to jump up in res, you have to jump up a GPU tier. Not wait until your preferred tier gets the grunt it needs for a "free" upgrade.
In that time tho, you've gone from buying the 2nd/3rd tier card (or chip) to the 6th/7th tier chip. For the same price. For the same perf.
We can only assume that each new gen was just about earning more and more profit on each card, whereas the consumer wasn't getting any benefit from the new technology.
This is (again) talking about the mid-range.
Meanwhile - until very recently, perhaps - "1080p cards" (£220-£250) have had the same perf for half a decade - and the same price. Nobody is getting "free" resolution upgrades anymore. You want to jump up in res, you have to jump up a GPU tier. Not wait until your preferred tier gets the grunt it needs for a "free" upgrade.
In that time tho, you've gone from buying the 2nd/3rd tier card (or chip) to the 6th/7th tier chip. For the same price. For the same perf.
We can only assume that each new gen was just about earning more and more profit on each card, whereas the consumer wasn't getting any benefit from the new technology.
This is (again) talking about the mid-range.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 686
Yeah, trying to sell what should be a £200/250 GPU is just taking the proverbial ****.
I just get the feeling AMD would rather people buy a console, since they produce the tech, than trying to be more competitive in the GPU market.
Let be honest, Radeon is ***** brand and has a stigma attached to it. I know people that wouldn't go near their GPUs. It's an issue AMD need to sort out. Quick-style.
5700 XT is the ideal name that fits in the grand scheme of things - X570 chipsets, N7 process, Ryzen 7 3700 CPU, sevens and fives everywhere
Also, if you think about its price - it offers 74% of the RTX 2080 Ti speed for only 34% of the latter price!
My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £348.89 (includes shipping: £9.90)
Well my PS4 Pro was great value at £200 new with an extra controller and 3 games
The PS5 is going to cost more, maybe £500.
But then I look at what I'd need to spend to match or better it on the PC. For a completely system rebuild and aiming for better-than-console perf, we're probably looking at:
£250-300 CPU
£150 mobo
£100 ram
£300-£400 gpu
Do you mean match the PS4 Pro or PS5?