• 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.

NVIDIA ‘Ampere’ 8nm Graphics Cards

FoxEye said:
I could afford any of them if I wished (people who know me sometimes ask why I don't spend more on myself). Most of that stems from not having kids, btw, rather than earning a fortune :p

As a child of the 80s, I've been gaming since the C64 and Atari 2600.

I wouldn't dream of spending more than £300 on a GPU (or a CPU for that matter). Why? When I look at today's market, I don't see value for money. I see corporate greed.

And I refuse to be a part of that. A part of enabling that to continue.
Click to expand...

This person talks sense, read and listen and if necessary listen again
 
chaparral said:
In one way i love to see the 3090ti get released at £1499 or £1999 so i can have lots of fun reading all the posts about it in here :D

But of cause i no want to see it released at that kind of price as i may need to buy one myself ;)
Click to expand...

Which is in a range of stoopid to borderline offensive. You want prices to go up for the sport, would rather they didn't but hey I can afford it so sod everyone else if it comes to it?

Yeah thanks for that input.
 
Grim5 said:
he will definitely understand, if he's been gaming that long then he comes from the real dark ages we're games cost double what they do today
Click to expand...
Funny you should say that, I remember buying PC games in the 90s for £12.99 from mail order in PC Zone. Or Computer Shopper (remember that?)

UFO: Enemy Unknown was £12 or £13. I think when CD-ROM became the norm prices went up a bit.

But I do remember PC games being <£20 brand new on release in the early 90s.
 
FoxEye said:
Funny you should say that, I remember buying PC games in the 90s for £12.99 from mail order in PC Zone. Or Computer Shopper (remember that?)

UFO: Enemy Unknown was £12 or £13. I think when CD-ROM became the norm prices went up a bit.

But I do remember PC games being <£20 brand new on release in the early 90s.
Click to expand...

Not talking about 90s though - he said he's from the Atari 80s era - that's long before PC gaming was a thing.

Back then a console costed $300usd and the AAA games cost $30usd. Now let's convert that into 2020 money using inflation

That 1980 game consoles is $1000usd today and the games for it are $100usd today.

But in 2020 we aren't paying this price, our game consoles $350usd and games $60usd, like I said the 80s were the dark ages
 
BigBANGtheory said:
This person talks sense, read and listen and if necessary listen again
Click to expand...

That's his opinion, not sense. If everyone followed that advice then nVidia/AMD might not be able to recoup the costs of development, and so would simply cease improving their products and just keep churning out RX580 level performance for eternity - all for the £300 he's willing to spend.

You're all just sore that the highest performing products are going to be out of the budget your wife lets you have. Sack up and tell her to get you a cuppa while you set aside a couple of grand for the latest hardware, and if she doesn't like it you will cut her spending money and you'll have less of her lip.

If £300 is all that you are willing to spend there's nothing wrong with that, you can get solid performance in many games for that by just lowering the settings a bit. But you will only get increased performance at that price because of other people who are willing to spend higher to push the envelope. It's those people who fund the increased development on these chips, which filters down to the mid-range and budget sectors. It's always been this way, and always will be, and is why an innovative society needs people with significant disposable income. You may not like it, it may make you run crying to your socialist teacher, but it's the truth.
 
I never intended to buy this generation, I paid £500 for a second hand 1080 Ti just over a couple of years ago and am waiting for something with 70% more performance at QHD for around £500-£700. If I'm lucky that will be realistic the next gen after this, by which time my model of card will be close to 5 years old. Really highlights how slow progression is these days, along with how the focus has shifted to new features. Then again I'm not even gaming much these days and am once again happy to lower IQ after years staying reasonably close to the very top end, so who knows if I'll bother.

Personally I won't be moving to console and would sooner consider the second hand and b-grade market which has served me well (along with the gfx card my 1440p 165Hz monitor was 60% of the new price at purchase and is still going strong 4.5 years later).
 
Jimmy Weirdarms said:
That individual mentions the C64, which had a launch price of £399 in 1982, equivalent to over £1400 now...

But £300 on a GPU is now the upper reasonable limit. Not sure that makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but a c64 was the entire computer system. Not just a video adapter.

Plus computer kit was just way more niche and expensive in the 80s and 90s than it is now even taking inflation into account.

FWIW I had a commodore 64 in the 80s and I wouldn't spend over £300-400 on a video card now either !

Don't really see the point when you can spend £400 on a console which plays the same games with equivalent graphics quality anyway.
 
Jimmy Weirdarms said:
So much entitlement in this thread.

I should be able to have X by now for Y pounds!

Really, you think that stuff just happens by magic? Like there's some underlying law of the universe that means a graphics card with huge performance gains can be manufactured for half the price every two years, rather than being the result of huge investment and the hard graft of thousands of people?

Oh, and everyone that is willing to pay for the fruits of that development is either stupid, or just trying to make up for something. Absolutely.

Simple challenge, I mean if it's so easy and so obvious that you should be entitled to get more performance for less money by now - tell me, when are you taking your competitor solution to market?
Click to expand...

Yea, and let’s look at it from another point view. Nvidia shares have gone up massively. Profits are up. Should we be happy to be giving our hard earned money so the rich get richer?

If it was purely the case that prices are up only due to r&d then I would not have a problem with what you are saying, but that clearly is not the case at all.

Explain this, how is it that until the release of Turing prices were somewhat similar with each release looking at the dollar cost and taking inflation into account? Was it only with Turning that r&d budget increased? Was it only with Turing that the cost of smaller manufacturing process caused prices to go up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom