• 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.

Jenson wants higher margins for his GPU's, here is how he's going to do it.

Out of interest.... for those who don't want a monopoly and believe in supporting the "peoples champion" when it comes to companies, I presume yous also don't buy anything from amazon either then?

Daytrader said:
Deffo must be placeholders, 4090 should be 1500 max, but more like 1000, as come the next few days, mining ends for gpus, so no reason to be that high even, there predicting 3090 used at 200/400 dollars hitting ebay, there are millions in circulation with no use soon
Click to expand...

Yup the 3090s have tanked far more and far sooner than I was expecting :eek:

Getting the popcorn ready for all the cheeky offers in MM come 40xx announcement :cry:
 
CuriousTomCat said:
Well I care that there's a monopoly so I've categorically refused to buy anything from Nvidia since they became a monopoly. Just like I refused to buy from Intel when they were a monopoly.

I'm 100% certain that GPU prices would be lower and performance would be higher if Nvidia and AMD had closer to 50% market share between them.

At the moment, Nvidia can charge high prices because the consumers have no other option but to pay it (the majority don't see Radeon as an option unfortunately).

Most people seem to think that AMD are also to blame for high prices because they're just as bad. But I don't see how AMD can turn a profit by lowering prices if their market share is only 17%. Surely it's the highly lucrative and profitable CPU business that helps keep the Radeon side a float?

If AMD lower Radeon prices, they'll still have a very poor market share. So what is the point? If they thought a 20% price reduction would get their market share up to 50% then I'm sure they would in a heartbeat because they'd get their 20% back. But it wouldn't happen. The majority would still buy Nvidia.
Click to expand...
All you should care about is if you can afford a GPU and if it meets the requirements. Anything more is just stupid.

Tough crap. Make crap drivers, get lower share. Be 1 step behind and you hav less to offer too.
Welcome to reality.

Awaiting the obligatory "but AMD 6k no issues".

And I will say too little too late. Consumers don't care other than for a better product that is reliable.

Everyone has a choice. Nvidia hold no ransoms and neither do AMD LOL. Some weird fetish going on for victimisation?
 
It's quite a simple equation that might get more simpler this winter depending on fuel prices. You can either afford it or you can't. If you can afford it then you either want to pay it or you don't.

Personally I'm in a very fortunate position where I can afford a 3090Ti but won't be indulging in any of the GPUs at these prices and if that means I end up with a very old GPU in a few years time so be it, I'll eventually give up and move over to console gaming and leave the PC market until, if or when it becomes a bit more sensible. Some might see that as cutting off your nose to spite your face but I just refuse to pay these prices.

It reminds me a lot of the early to mid 90s where a decent PC cost a fortune before the boom of the computer markets that helped drive down prices to a more sensible level.

I hope it will return to a more sensible level in the future.
 
The consumer dictates the price not AMD or Nvidia so boils down to what people are prepared to pay as these companies are looking to extract the maximum profits they can.

The fact that some nvidia cards still haven't dropped below msrp shows people are prepared to pay that, on the other hand AMD would have liked to keep prices above msrp but haven't been able to as people were not willing to buy them.
 
Nexus18 said:
So you're saying that if a certain brand offered you a better product for whatever reason, you won't buy because they have a monopoly? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes because Nvidia would stop innovating if they get too big. When Intel had a dominant monopoly, the i7 was a quad core CPU. I'm sure todays 12700k would also be a quad core if AMD didn't make a come back. The CPU market would be horrible in my opinion.

I dont want that kind of situation to happen to the GPU market with tiny 5% generational improvements. I worry that it will happen if Nvidia gets too big and competition stops due to a lack of sales.
 
CuriousTomCat said:
Yes because Nvidia would stop innovating if they get too big. When Intel had a dominant monopoly, the i7 was a quad core CPU. I'm sure todays 12700k would also be a quad core if AMD didn't make a come back. The CPU market would be horrible in my opinion.

I dont want that kind of situation to happen to the GPU market with tiny 5% generational improvements. I worry that it will happen if Nvidia gets too big and competition stops due to a lack of sales.
Click to expand...

They have been too big for a long time (they have had around 80% market share for quite a while now) yet are still innovating far more than amd are in the desktop gpu space.... Although I think that will change going forward now since the current gen consoles are out of the way so amd can hopefully now focus on the pc space.

CICwcsF.png


AMD are the ones who need to start innovating and not following or rather playing catch up all the time on nvidia unless again people are happy to settle for less and wait months/years for amd to catch up, see recent news with amds dx 11 improvements.... That's not nvidias fault, only amd are to blame there.

Don't forget as well, desktop gpus is nvidias main focus, amd have their fingers in many pies so Nvidia have a lot more to lose than amd thus it is in their best interests to not do an Intel.
 
Nexus18 said:
They have been too big for a long time (they have had around 80% market share for quite a while now) yet are still innovating far more than amd are in the desktop gpu space.... Although I think that will change going forward now since the current gen consoles are out of the way so amd can hopefully now focus on the pc space.

CICwcsF.png


AMD are the ones who need to start innovating and not following or rather playing catch up all the time on nvidia unless again people are happy to settle for less and wait months/years for amd to catch up, see recent news with amds dx 11 improvements.... That's not nvidias fault, only amd are to blame there.

Don't forget as well, desktop gpus is nvidias main focus, amd have their fingers in many pies so Nvidia have a lot more to lose than amd thus it is in their best interests to not do an Intel.
Click to expand...
That RX 6000 series share of hardware is surprising. There was a good 18 months where people would have bought any of their GPUs if they produced them in enough volume to give people the opportunity to buy them.
 
Daytrader said:
Deffo must be placeholders, 4090 should be 1500 max, but more like 1000, as come the next few days, mining ends for gpus, so no reason to be that high even, there predicting 3090 used at 200/400 dollars hitting ebay, there are millions in circulation with no use soon
Click to expand...

Mining doesn't end.
 
Why is anyone pretending this is about irrational loyalty to AMD? The OP was clearly referring to nvidia because it was about a statement from nvidia about nvidia's plans. That has nothing to do with AMD. The OP didn't even mention AMD. Pretending it's about AMD is a false narrative.

The graphics card market is mainly about nvidia because nvidia dominate that market. It's not quite a monopoly, but it's close to one. Which is a large part of the problem. Although a duopoly, if one existed, would be little different because AMD isn't fundamentally different to nvidia. Neither company gives a rat's arse about PC gaming or about their customers other than other large companies and even then they only actually care about the money. Company X buying £10M of product matters. Joe Bloggs with £400 to spend doesn't. Large businesses are not your friends. They don't care about you.

If nvidia offer a product I consider worth the price I will buy it. If AMD offer a product I consider worth the price I will buy it. If Intel offer a product I consider worth the price I will buy it. If some other company offers a product I consider worth the price I will buy it. None of those companies care about me. I don't care about any of those companies. None of those companies have any loyalty to me. I don't have any loyalty to those companies. I don't care what companies are currently fashionable.

I'm in a fortunate position financially. I could pay £3K for a graphics card and not care. But I won't. I'm buying indie games for £5-£15 apiece and enjoying them on my now rather archaic PC, which runs them well enough. I'm spending a lot more on books than I am on PC gaming. I've cut my hours at work to have more life.

I might buy a new PC for gaming. Or I might not. If I do, it will be no more than £1K. Not because I can't afford it but because I'm not interested in maintaining the profit margins of companies that don't care if I live or die. If consoles properly supported mouse and keyboard I'd buy a console instead. They're far better value for money. If I die with money in the bank, I'm not going to care because I'll be dead. It's not like I have to spend everything I have.
 
Angilion said:
Why is anyone pretending this is about irrational loyalty to AMD? The OP was clearly referring to nvidia because it was about a statement from nvidia about nvidia's plans. That has nothing to do with AMD. The OP didn't even mention AMD. Pretending it's about AMD is a false narrative.

The graphics card market is mainly about nvidia because nvidia dominate that market. It's not quite a monopoly, but it's close to one. Which is a large part of the problem. Although a duopoly, if one existed, would be little different because AMD isn't fundamentally different to nvidia. Neither company gives a rat's arse about PC gaming or about their customers other than other large companies and even then they only actually care about the money. Company X buying £10M of product matters. Joe Bloggs with £400 to spend doesn't. Large businesses are not your friends. They don't care about you.

If nvidia offer a product I consider worth the price I will buy it. If AMD offer a product I consider worth the price I will buy it. If Intel offer a product I consider worth the price I will buy it. If some other company offers a product I consider worth the price I will buy it. None of those companies care about me. I don't care about any of those companies. None of those companies have any loyalty to me. I don't have any loyalty to those companies. I don't care what companies are currently fashionable.

I'm in a fortunate position financially. I could pay £3K for a graphics card and not care. But I won't. I'm buying indie games for £5-£15 apiece and enjoying them on my now rather archaic PC, which runs them well enough. I'm spending a lot more on books than I am on PC gaming. I've cut my hours at work to have more life.

I might buy a new PC for gaming. Or I might not. If I do, it will be no more than £1K. Not because I can't afford it but because I'm not interested in maintaining the profit margins of companies that don't care if I live or die. If consoles properly supported mouse and keyboard I'd buy a console instead. They're far better value for money. If I die with money in the bank, I'm not going to care because I'll be dead. It's not like I have to spend everything I have.
Click to expand...
And still the reality is, the only competition Nvidia have is AMD, this is why we stated AMD, ignoring it don't take it away from being relevant.
 
eddyr said:
Wow, so much corpo-apologist anti-consumer drivel and that's just the first page.
Click to expand...
Wow, so much brain dead self victimization because you as a consumer can't consume with intelligence and control yourself.
Can't have a GPU!!!! Someone please raise a Go Fund Me!

Just buy Radeon and settle for less, no harm in doing so, I don't care what you game with, don't complain when you have problems though since we are shills, anti-consumer etc etc and all the other rhetoric you all go through so you don't have to face your silly selves.
 
Nexus18 said:
Those who value the extra 10-15% performance for 50+% extra cost over the lower end gpu will happily do it, right @TNA ;) :D :cry:

Most likely is just placeholders though, ocuk/gibbo has done the same with previous launches.
Click to expand...
Back in 2010 I got the GTX 480 just as the 580 was due out and caught it on a clearance sale from a well known competitor of this site.
The 480 was cheaper than the 5870 by 70 pounds, was it a hot running card? 85c yes, was it loud? Yes.

I put a GELID Icy Vision REV 2.0 on it and clocked it to 900mhz, it could keep pace with lightly overclocked GTX 580's, that card left all 5870's in the dust.

I own a 5870 right now, I use it in my Core 2 Duo rig, good card, much more power efficient, but absolute dog turd for DX11 games that require tessellation grunt.
 
I don't expect to find any 4090 below £1999 and yes MSRP would be $1499/£1499 with their paper launch ;)
When the whole 30 fade away 40 series prices will go down to normal. End of 2023 :cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom