GPU prices go boom

[ubersonic]

I dont recall any of the *70s' being 160 quid the 670s that came a little after were 280+ brand and clock dependant the 4/500 series of cards couldnt have been much different

You could get an AIB GTX460 that performed as well as a reference GTX470 for £160, specifically the MSI GeForce GTX 460 HAWK "Talon Attack". That was obviously before Nvidia changed the system and the *60 became the *70, the *70 became the *80, the *80 became the *80ti.

 

[willhub]

I really hope I get a bonus in my job because it's the only way I'll be able to afford a GPU and save up for other things!!!

 

[Hopper-]

u think the cost can go up by 300£ in 1 month ?not rly

Retailers are going to have stonking Q1 results even with lack of supply!

 

[marco.da.man]

pretty much what a ne 1060 3gb to buy is what the 1060 6gb was selling for 6 months ago

 

[FoxEye]

You are both right The 9800 range were all 65nm versions of the G80 that the 8800 GTX. The 8800 GT was a 65nm version of the same chip.

The first 9800 GT was exactly the same as the 8800 GT, they did a 55nm version later on.

Wait a second, the 8800 GT was the G92 chip, not the G80?

And the 9800 GT was the G92b.

G92 was an evolution/derivative of G80 in the same way that Pascal was an evolution/derivative of Maxwell.

And all of them the exact same chip

You're saying G92 is the same thing exactly as G80? Any number of review sites out there beg to differ.

While not a new architecture, the GPU behind the 8800 GT has certainly been massaged quite a bit from the G80. The G92 is fabbed on a 65nm process, and even though it has fewer SPs, less texturing power, and not as many ROPs as the G80, it's made up of more transistors (754M vs. 681M). This is partly due to the fact that G92 integrates the updated video processing engine (VP2), and the display engine that previously resided off chip. Now, all the display logic including TMDS hardware is integrated onto the GPU itself.

So an evolution/derivative then, not the same chip.

 

[andybird123]

If they were making 8% on the £750 1080ti's with the codes then it's still only 20% at most for the £900 cards (VAT scales) which is a perfectly acceptable markup for a retailer when you factor in they're responsible for transit/aftersales/etc.

Except its not £900, the £750 card is £999, so its well over 30% (which is still fine with me if they can get away with it, its just not a price I am joining in on). You can't play the "aw poor retailer they only make 8%" card when its objectively completely false.

 

[FoxEye]

Except its not £900, the £750 card is £999, so its well over 30% (which is still fine with me if they can get away with it, its just not a price I am joining in on). You can't play the "aw poor retailer they only make 8%" card when its objectively completely false.

Surely that would only be true if they bought from distributors/wholesalers at the previous lower prices, then held on to the stock to sell after the prices rose. Otherwise, prices to retailers from wholesalers are going to rise as well, no? Which is the argument we've already been given from OcUK. The price they say they are buying them for is already well over RRP...?

 

[andybird123]

Surely that would only be true if they bought from distributors/wholesalers at the previous lower prices, then held on to the stock to sell after the prices rose. Otherwise, prices to retailers from wholesalers are going to rise as well, no? Which is the argument we've already been given from OcUK. The price they say they are buying them for is already well over RRP...?

It was available for both prices at the same time via a voucher code, so it was the same stock bought at the same price being sold for either 750 or 999 depending on wether you'd read the forum to get the checkout code. So no.

 

[FoxEye]

It was available for both prices at the same time via a voucher code, so it was the same stock bought at the same price being sold for either 750 or 999 depending on wether you'd read the forum to get the checkout code. So no.

Promotions sometimes are loss-making, in order to gain more business in the longer term.

It's not unusual. You don't know they made any profit at the £750 price, and I don't know they didn't. Only OcUK knows...

 

[andybird123]

Promotions sometimes are loss-making, in order to gain more business in the longer term.

It's not unusual. You don't know they made any profit at the £750 price, and I don't know they didn't. Only OcUK knows...

They said the voucher code prices were 8-10% margin, so we kinda do know they werent selling at a loss, because thats what they told us.

If you read ubersonics post that started this its exactly what i responded to.

 

[FoxEye]

They said the voucher code prices were 8-10% margin, so we kinda do know they werent selling at a loss, because thats what they told us.

If you read ubersonics post that started this its exactly what i responded to.

Got a link to that?

 

[andybird123]

Got a link to that?

Ask uber, he referenced it first.

 

[Hopper-]

Promotions sometimes are loss-making, in order to gain more business in the longer term.

Plenty of other retailers did not offer any promotions like OCUK have/did

 

[melmac]

Wait a second, the 8800 GT was the G92 chip, not the G80?

And the 9800 GT was the G92b.

They were basically the same chip, all based on the G80. The 8800 GT and first 9800GT was the G92, the second, on 55nm was G92b.

They just did a die shrink, added HD video encoding hardware and moved the NVIO chip onboard. They reduced the Shader and ROP count and also the memory bus width to 256. Couldn't have the 8800 GT card been faster than the 8800 GTX card.

But, it sort of backfired as the 9800GTX wasn't faster than the 8800 GTX either. It took the 9800 GTX+ to do that, because it was a 55nm chip and could achieve higher clocks. The first 9800 GTX was 65nm.

All those cards, the 8800 GT, 8800 GTS (512), 9800 GT, 9800 GTX, 9800 GTX+ were the same, just different clock speeds. Why do you think they were so cheap?

 

[Rroff]

All those cards, the 8800 GT, 8800 GTS (512), 9800 GT, 9800 GTX, 9800 GTX+ were the same, just different clock speeds

No the top end ones had more shaders unlocked - 112 (GT) v 128 (GTX) shaders - the G92(B) GTX cards still has the 128 as per G80 GTX.

They were all the same core but the GT cards were salvaged cores with 2 SMs fused off reusing cores with 1 or 2 failed SMs.

G92 were cut down cores in several respects and relying a lot on clock speed to make that up - for the upper mid-range/lower high end cards it actually worked out pretty well but it resulted in the top end cards being a bit lack lustre.

G92 was an evolution/derivative of G80 in the same way that Pascal was an evolution/derivative of Maxwell.

Not sure I'd entirely agree with that comparison - G80 to G92 was more like Maxwell 1 to 2 or maybe Kepler to Maxwell (though there are some reasonably significant shader enhancements there) - Maxwell to Pascal sees some fair architectural enhancements especially when it comes to threading and memory atomics (and memory handling in general).

 

[ubersonic]

All those cards, the 8800 GT, 8800 GTS (512), 9800 GT, 9800 GTX, 9800 GTX+ were the same, just different clock speeds. Why do you think they were so cheap?

Nah I explained the differences in the G80 and G92 paths on the last page:

Actually the rebrands/renames followed this path:

8800GT became 9800GT became OEM GTS240

8800GTS (512MB) became 9800GTX became 9800GTX+ became GTS250 and then finally became dodgy Chinese GTX780s lol.

 

[fat4l]

Promotions sometimes are loss-making, in order to gain more business in the longer term.

It's not unusual. You don't know they made any profit at the £750 price, and I don't know they didn't. Only OcUK knows...

they were not selling underprice. they still got profit even with the codes. its in the "magnificent 7" thread

the prices not are a joke and they are set this high artificially.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

they were not selling underprice. they still got profit even with the codes. its in the "magnificent 7" thread

the prices not are a joke and they are set this high artificially.

Margins during the Fermi era were between 30% to 40% and now they are over 60% IIRC.

 

[JediFragger]

Margins during the Fermi era were between 30% to 40% and now they are over 60% IIRC.

They're currently winning in a race with Apple for the biggest gross margin

 

[Gibbo]

Plenty of other retailers did not offer any promotions like OCUK have/did

Glad someone noticed.

We did not need to drop the 1080Ti Strix OC to £749 to give our loyal customers a chance to grab one. The simple fact is we could have left them at £1000 and still sold them all.

So yes it literally was done to try and help the genuine gamers, hence why it was kept low key and only promoted here in the VGA section of the forum.

As proof as we did not need to do it, you can see those cards are now sold out, so I essentially sold 60 cards at £250 less than I needed too losing OcUK £15,000 in potential profit we would have made.

OcUK made an attempt to get cards in the hands of gamers, which succeeded, we want to do more of it, but of course it is not easy because stock is in such short supply that some sources are charging prices higher to us than our website prices which we simply have to turn away and wait and be hopeful we can get supply direct or from more sources, but of course the direct prices have gone up considerably now, by well over £100 on a 1080Ti due to several factors which are well known.


We are trying to push manufacturers to reduce pricing or to give us volume of stock so we can activate more voucher codes to get prices more reasonable for forum members, but right now the supply is simply not enough when the supply improves we shall do as we've done several times now and launch forum codes which give considerable discount to our forum members which is something no other re-seller has done. The moment I can do more voucher codes it shall be done, hopefully sometime next month as fingers crossed supply improves now Chinese New Year is over and the factories are getting back up too speed.