How much does your graphics card really cost?

[andybird123]

I know you think we're all super rich here, but "most" OcUK PC gamers don't spend anywhere near £2k on their GPU.

You can't honestly believe that the majority of members here spent anywhere near that much on a GPU, surely?

That isnt what he or I said. Reading and comprehension failure, or just a poor attempt at trolling again.

 

[Geck0]

Why pointless? What are the determinants of something being expensive? Something that's expensive for me may not be for you. At a fundamental level If I buy something expensive and expect it to fulfill a certain level of performance, and then I get 2 months use out of it, then looking at the value I got out of my purchase It's not been a good purchasing decision, and I would think it expensive. If it was peanuts for something that was that disposable then the loss isn't so bad. Part of what I pay for is longevity.

If you buy a 3GB 1060 at a slightly over RRP £230 because you have a small monitor, play at 1080 and are only interested in minimally demanding games, and your tastes don't change and it lasts you 6 years or two full GPU generations, despite it seeming like you paid slightly over the odds it it's lasted you and you can make a case that whilst you could have paid less, it has been a good investment. However, if your tastes or setup changes and you need a better GPU within 8 months, and that superior 1070 costs you £429, then you've only had 8 months of joy from your expensive 1060 and in relative terms scored a much better deal on your next GPU (which hopefully will last you) that's a poor price. It makes sense to attribute value to things, but of course it's personal. If I could make my own GPU then buying one would likely be expensive at any price!

Looking at just the price tag in isolation isn't the sole determinant of value for money.

You still haven't told me why you are paying your spectacles off. The rest of your post sort of sinks the premise of the thread, which is based on calculating what you paid upfront, then making a patently flawed calculation by simply dividing by the number of days you have owned it. It's not accurate, completely pointless and the only reason I can see anyone doing it is to assuage a sore wallet, however incorrect the numbers may be. Go play some games, or talk to your family.

This thread's premise is nothing but a time sink & isn't even accurate. I just stated my opinion, if you have no buyers remorse and just love to waste your time making flawed mathematical calculations then go knock yourself out - some people get their jollies doing more hurtful things to themselves I guess.

 

[andybird123]

You still haven't told me why you are paying your spectacles off. The rest of your post sort of sinks the premise of the thread, which is based on calculating what you paid upfront, then making a patently flawed calculation by simply dividing by the number of days you have owned it. It's not accurate, completely pointless and the only reason I can see anyone doing it is to assuage a sore wallet, however incorrect the numbers may be. Go play some games, or talk to your family.

This thread's premise is nothing but a time sink & isn't even accurate. I just stated my opinion, if you have no buyers remorse and just love to waste your time making flawed mathematical calculations then go knock yourself out - some people get their jollies doing more hurtful things to themselves I guess.

Yes, come on to a forum whose sole purpose is to provide a platform for people to discuss and share and tell everyone that discussing something is tantamount to self harming. Practice what you preach maybe?

You guys crack me right up

 

[Curlyriff]

I bought 3 years ago - before the crypto boom.



How long do you intend to keep the card? If you plan on keeping it 30 months - 2.5 years - it will have cost you £10 a month.

Good, because I'm not; what I am interested in is finding out how expensive they are over the longer term.

Sadly true.

Okay but that is just the GPU and you cannot do anything without the rest of the system. So £900 for PC or £300 for console. Both last 3-5 years before replacing. Monthly the console is still significantly better.

Why does it matter what it costs you per month compared to a console. The console has approx 5 year lifespan so assuming I use it for those 60 months that is £5 a month. Now the GPU is also the same cost. It doesn't matter if you do it as a one off cost or over months it still works out **** to be buying a GPU at the prices they are comparing performance. Especially this gen when console games and PC games are really not that far apart if you are going for the £300 GPU.

If you want to get a marked improvement over consoles then the GPU almost doubles to £500-600 to get that extra detail then.

 

[andybird123]

Okay but that is just the GPU and you cannot do anything without the rest of the system. So £900 for PC or £300 for console. Both last 3-5 years before replacing. Monthly the console is still significantly better.

Why does it matter what it costs you per month compared to a console. The console has approx 5 year lifespan so assuming I use it for those 60 months that is £5 a month. Now the GPU is also the same cost. It doesn't matter if you do it as a one off cost or over months it still works out **** to be buying a GPU at the prices they are comparing performance. Especially this gen when console games and PC games are really not that far apart if you are going for the £300 GPU.

If you want to get a marked improvement over consoles then the GPU almost doubles to £500-600 to get that extra detail then.

Because that isnt the comparison most people are making. People not in the "console" camp are expressing that a console can't do what they do with their PC, so "PC vs Console" isn't a thing to begin with. So it becomes a comparison of "I have a choice between these main hobbies". A lot of hobbies involve a repeating cost and/or a capital outlay, so you have to come up with a way of assigning a comparable value between several dissimilar things/activities. What it comes down to is "I enjoy this the most so I'm willing to spend x on it". People are discussing different ways in which they attempt to evaluate relative costs. And are copping loads of salty flak over it.

 

[x-st]

You still haven't told me why you are paying your spectacles off. The rest of your post sort of sinks the premise of the thread, which is based on calculating what you paid upfront, then making a patently flawed calculation by simply dividing by the number of days you have owned it. It's not accurate, completely pointless and the only reason I can see anyone doing it is to assuage a sore wallet, however incorrect the numbers may be. Go play some games, or talk to your family.

This thread's premise is nothing but a time sink & isn't even accurate. I just stated my opinion, if you have no buyers remorse and just love to waste your time making flawed mathematical calculations then go knock yourself out - some people get their jollies doing more hurtful things to themselves I guess.

I don't want to argue about it as I simply don't feel that strongly (plus you're deliberately misconstruing my point), and it's never been my intent to try and make other people feel worse or inferior during a discussion. My view is simply divergent to yours...part of the way that I decide upon purchasing anything is how long that item will last. If I paid £250 for an item and it broke or didn't live up to my expectations after 4 months it'd be an expensive purchase....conversely if whatever I bought lasted me 5 years then it's a good investment. It's not buyers remorse, it's the fact that I don't have much disposable income and my buying decisions reflect that. The amount of use you get out of something, and what you're using it for, is surely related to the price you pay?

I'm not saying your argument is flawed or irrational, but the way you've responded is not acknowledging the validity of any viewpoint other than your own and somewhat demeaning of disparate views.

Do you pay for your glasses in monthly instalments, tho?

I quite happily spend £200 or so on my glasses, for the same reasons as you. But I don't start telling myself they were "only £17 a month", which would be bizarro. £200 is £200 is £200, which is what they cost. Not £17 a month.

I mean, if I buy them up front and you expect them to last 3 years, do I start telling myself they only cost £6 a month? That would be even weirder. They cost £200. That was how much I hand to hand to the shop-keeper to take them away with me Surely attempting to put a monthly cost on them is pointless/nonsense?

I suppose that it's not so black and white as that, and I doubt OP meant it in such a definite manner. It's just that If my prescription was changing every three months, and I needed an update, would I pay the same amount for glasses? No. Surely I'm not losing the plot factoring in the longevity of any purchase with the total price paid? (Of course if one has limitless funds the point is moot! )

 

[WantoN]

If I paid £250 for an item and it broke or didn't live up to my expectations after 4 months it'd be an expensive purchase....conversely if whatever I bought lasted me 5 years then it's a good investment.

Exactly. Time in service is a valid metric for measuring value, why are people so ****y!

 

[Psycho Sonny]

it cost me nothing as it made more profit from mining than what i paid for it.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

Sale Price - (Manufacturing costs + components price + retailer markup) is the equation I'd like to see i.e. exactly how large is the profit margin on these things to Nvidia?

 

[andybird123]

Sale Price - (Manufacturing costs + components price + retailer markup) is the equation I'd like to see i.e. exactly how large is the profit margin on these things to Nvidia?

Nvidia don't build the cards, so you don't need to know any of that, you only need to know how much a wafer costs, how many chips per wafer and then what they sell to AIB's for. End result is you won't get any of that info either, but nvidias accounts are public info, so you can see exactly how much profit they are making.

 

[Griffildur]

That old chestnut eh?

wall of text with no importance whatsoever

you missed the "apologise and move on part" ... wasn't asking for your life story.

 

[ScottMC7000]

My Nvidia GTS Palit 250 1Gig card has cost me just less than 93 pence per month to own over the past 8 and a bit years, from the original £90 I paid for it..

 

[Sao_Sin]

My 1050Ti mini was £120

 

[Disco_P]

I paid £530 for a 1080 on launch. Checked my order history today and I still paid £530 for it.

 

[Reality|Bites]

Thread topic has the basis of OP bought his card on credit and not just bought it outright like most of us do as by this time next year the same card cost half of what you bought the credit agreement for.
Yeah this time around that statement doesn't work but usually this is the case.

 

[Quartz]

Thread topic has the basis of OP bought his card on credit

Not true.

 

[muon]

I paid £530 for a 1080 on launch. Checked my order history today and I still paid £530 for it.

But the longer you own it, the cheaper it actually cost according to some people in this thread.

 

[Quartz]

But the longer you own it, the cheaper it actually cost according to some people in this thread.

Don't confuse 'cheaper' with 'cost-effective'.

 

[McGraw]

I paid £530 for a 1080 on launch. Checked my order history today and I still paid £530 for it.

If you sold it now for £530, what would it have cost you to own?

If you buy something 2nd hand for £100 that you know you can sell for double, what has that cost you?

 

[melmac]

If you sold it now for £530, what would it have cost you to own?

If you buy something 2nd hand for £100 that you know you can sell for double, what has that cost you?

If I pay £530 for a GPU, it has cost me £530, doesn't matter if I keep it for 2 days or 2 years.

If I buy something for a £100, it has cost me £100. What I sell if for doesn't change that.