- Joined
- 22 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 1,089
Okay but are you open to an answer to that question? Without that, questioning seems a bit empty...
-
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.
GTX 1070/1080 cost the same as 680/670 (after FX & inflation)
- Thread starter philo-sofa
- Start date
You should change your name to whataboutery as you first went of topic with mortgages! 970gtx had a launch price of $329 1070 has a launch price of $380 that not 48% not even close...
Even if you going to look at the FE that's $449 which is 27.7% more so still nowhere your figure.
So blaming it all on bad 'ol NVidia won't wash...
Last edited:
Soldato
It's not bad old anyone, Nvidia are a company attempting to maximise their capital just like any other. Judging by the reaction of most people, they've pushed it too far. This is why most people do not want to pay the prices as they currently are. I've attempted to explain to you why I think that is, and you clearly disagree.
I don't feel the need to post any further on the topic as I've clearly made my point, and you yours.
If your bank manager told you that your mortgage would rise from £1000 per month to £1480 in the space of eighteen months, well....
And it might if we Brexit....................
Hell, if you take the worst case scenario 1080 might be £1000 before the end of the year so I would complain about £600 now
They (1070's) are pretty much sold.out everywhere so people are willing to pay evidently.
It's not a matter of subjective opinion either my previous link shows actual launch prices in dollars which show your 48% isn't just NVIDIA maximising there margins as you imagine them doing
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 1,089
Not quite right; to reduce prices by 20% you have to multiply by 80% not divide by 120%. Using your pound prices that would make for:
970 = £289 * 0.8 = £231 @ 1.6 = $369
1070 = £429 * 0.8 = £343 @ 1.42 = $487
Moreover this example that you are basing your opinion on, arbitrarily chooses a single model (the Gigabyte G1 gaming) whose price has increased dramatically, most 1070 models have not increased by anywhere near that much.
The observation is that the question (judgement is probable a better term) is biased in favour of self interest.
The error with claiming 'you forget its a business' is that it forgets what a consumer is.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 1,089
I think I get this, you're saying the question of why prices have risen is something driven by the rational self interest of a consumer?
That's not really a claim I've made, although I guess I don't generally expect companies to cover exchange rate fluctuations.
Rather my thinking is that inflation and exchange rates explain all of the current (no-FE) prices. There's no question about why prices have risen; there's a clear explanation. As there has been no price rise pushed by Nvidia itself there's also no question of whether we're being ripped off by a profit-mad company. Hence the only question we have left - self interest or no - is whether we are willing to pay the number of pounds a 1070 costs, given currency fluctuations and inflation.
But you should be comparing the 1070 and 1080 price to the 660ti and 660 price or else its not really a fair comparison. The 680 and 670 were the highest performing cards of the first generation Kepler.
680/670 top tier
660ti/660 one tier down.
We know the 1080 and 1070 aren't the top cards from Pascal. There is a Titan and a Ti coming.
Titan/ti - top tier.
1080/1070 - one tier down.
680/670 top tier
660ti/660 one tier down.
We know the 1080 and 1070 aren't the top cards from Pascal. There is a Titan and a Ti coming.
Titan/ti - top tier.
1080/1070 - one tier down.
Yes
I know, its highly repetative claim made on the forum, thought I would slip it in. Lots of decent papers online on the subject. That would place some of the observations you have made in a wider context.
Bit silly comparing cards like that just because there's X amount of cards above and below and in any event you have forgotten the 690 in your list.... The 670 and 680 were launched in March 2012 with the 670 being a cut down 680 and the 660Ti being launched later the same year as a cut down version of the 670 with a cut memory bus width down from 256bit to 192bit. The 1080 isn't a cut down chip its a fully functional GP104 die
And as much as I have railed against comparing die size and memory bandwidth the 1080 and 680 are very comparable here
1080 - 256 bit / 314mm2
680 - 256bit / 294mm2
There wasn't a 'big' consumer Kepler '600' series card we had the dual GPU 690 that launched at $999 to fill the market segment later filed by the Titan/ Ti to some degree... NVIDIA haven't made consumer high end dual card solutions since the 690 largely for this reason with the original Kepler Titan (more aligned with the 700 series) being the first 'big' die card with a similar (ish) pattern with the 900 series with the Titan X and 980ti being similar to the Titan Black and original Titan albeit launched the other way around in terms of the full die vs the slightly cut down die version.
The 670 and 680 were the initial high performance cards of their generation just like the 1080 and 1070 are for their generation so sorry trying to compare the 1080 and 1070 to the 660ti and 660 doesn't wash
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 1,089
I've tried to avoid this topic as the main thrust (giggidy) is that when people compare cards they don't fake into account FX rates or inflation. That having been said I have to agree with what you're saying. The Big Fermi chip and its successors are obviously a new market segment based on die size and memory bandwidths.
I'm vaguely aware of the wider contexts given I'm an Economist
Again though the main point is that there's little to no Nvidia driven price rise, it's all factors external to the Green team.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 2,742
You're right that to reduce prices by 20% you need to do that, but that isn't how VAT works.
If something is £120 inc VAT you divide by 1.2 to see the price is £100 without VAT.
The 690 was a dual gpu card, just like the 590, just like the 295, Just like the 9800 GX2 just like the titan z. The 690 was released to fill that dual GPU role, something they nearly always do and is outside the single card lineup.
Second, you can't have it every way. Either the chip and die size indicate what level the cards are at or where Nvidia place them is what counts. I have argued that the chip used and the die size etc is how we know what level a card should be placed it, but, I have been shot down time and time again. So we can only place GPUs in whatever way Nvidia has placed them.
If die size and the chip the cards are made from suddenly do matter to suit your argument, then the 680 and 670 cards were overpriced. Because they should have been called the 660ti and 660 as they were based on the GK104. The 560 and 560ti were based on the GF114, the 460 was built on the GF104.
The 560ti was $249 on release, the 680 was $499. $249 price increase in a year?? Same chip level, GF114, 256 bus width etc.
But, as said, none of that matters apparently. It's strictly based on where Nvidia put them in their lineup. So the 680 and 670 were the top cards that generation and the 660ti and 660 were the next tier down.
And We know that there is a titan and ti card coming, the GP102 is already been discussed, so they will be the top cards of this generation, the 1080 and 1070 are one tier down. Which makes the comparison with the 660ti and more valid than comparing them with the 680 and 670 as they are on the same tier.
So which is it? The position relative to the other cards of the same generation or the chip used?
"I'm an Economist"
I will go with you're expertise. Word of mouth negativity is low cost method of coping with negative emotion. The company involved in this kind of 'product fail' is generally the target. Unfairness is something people directly feel much more easy to identify than a fairness in price.
I think the factor here is 980, 1080 and comparative bias. The 1080 should be £450 perhaps £550 at launch its not a Ti. I think this is the form of comparison being made.
I will go with you're expertise. Word of mouth negativity is low cost method of coping with negative emotion. The company involved in this kind of 'product fail' is generally the target. Unfairness is something people directly feel much more easy to identify than a fairness in price.
I think the factor here is 980, 1080 and comparative bias. The 1080 should be £450 perhaps £550 at launch its not a Ti. I think this is the form of comparison being made.
Soldato
And these are the highest performing cards of the first generation of Pascal. Nothing to say nvidia won't do what they did for Kepler and rebrand the 1080 to 1170 and then release big pascal as 1180/1180Ti + Titan.
So I think it's s valid comparison here.
They aren't a new market segment, just a name change. There was always a big chip. Some examples
Fermi, 1st generation big chip - GF100
Cards - 480GTX, 470 GTX
Fermi Second generation big chip - GF110
Cards - 580 GTX, 570 GTX
Kepler - 1st generation big chip (never saw the light of day)
Kepler Second Generation big chip - GK110
Cards - Titan, 780
Kepler Second generation refresh, big chip GK110B
Cards - 780Ti, Titan Black
Maxwell Big chip - GM200
Cards -Titan-X, 980Ti.
Pascal Big Chip - GP102
Cards - titan pascal, 1080ti
Ok, now the cards and that based on the medium chips so to speak.
Fermi First generation, medium chip -GF104
Cards - 460, 460SE
Fermi Second Generation, medium chip - GF114
Cards - 560ti, 560, 555
Kepler first generation, medium chip - GK104
Cards 680, 670, 660ti, 660
Kepler Second Generation, Medium chip - GK104 (refresh)
Cards - 770, 760ti 760
Maxwell medium chip - GM204
Cards - 980, 970
Pascal Medium Chip - GP104
Cards 1080, 1070
Now, if see from the info above, the 560ti, 560, the 680, 670 and the 1080,1070 are all on the same tier. Made from the second tier chip etc. So going by that your price comparison is valid. But the only problem I have with your comparison is that you should have started at the 560ti and 560.
Why? because it was from the 560ti to the 680 that the big price increase happened. The 560ti was $249 on release, the 680 was $499 on release.
But, since the release of the 1080 and 1070, the chip used is not important. And is not a valid method of deciding where a card should be in Nvidia's line up. I have argued otherwise, but have been told that it didn't matter.
So again, if you aren't using chip size then you only go by what Tier Nvidia has released the cards. The top tier for the Kepler generation was the 680 and 670, then came the 660ti and 660. The top tier for Pascal will be the titan and the 1080ti, then the 1080 and 1070.
Because of that You will have to use the 660ti and 660 in your price comparison.
We know there is going to be a 1080ti and Titan. We know the GP102 is out there. There are already specs for both chips circulating along with the 1060 specs.
Last edited: