Nvidia doesn't want to just dominate the graphics card market, it wants to own it

[humbug]

Yes, but nothing indicates people are going to pay $1000 for a $100 product. As has been pointed out repeatedly, PC gaming isn't the only gaming, if Nvidia started trying to charge $1000 for a 950 then people wouldn't pay it, so its irrelevant. People don't upgrade for 4-5 gens of Intel as it is now, Intel can get away with that because the overall PC market is massive compared with GPU's. A market is self regulating and doesnt run purely on hyperbole.

People pay $1000 for an Nvidia GPU day in day out and think they are getting a good deal.

In two years time those same people would pay $1500 and think its a good deal.

People pay $150 extra for a screen that has VBlank tech because they have no intention of making any-other brand a choice.

Those people get milked, they know it and they don't care, they belong to eco system which fits their tribal needs.

Others pay $3500 for a computer whose off the shelf components cost no more than $400 and they think its brilliant because Steve told them it is.

 

[D.P.]

Your naivety is breathtaking, any company will suck as much money as they can out of potential customers, if that company can sell the product 100x at $1000 or 300x at $100 they will go for the first option.

They are not your friend, you are a cash-cow.

But since 100 people wont pay $1000 they will keep prices around the $100 and try small shifts, perhaps they can get 290 people paying $120,or maybe they can get 400 at $80.

And then there is the fact that there are pros and cons to selling more or less even if revenue was equal, they may prefer 300 customers and than. 300 happy customers with more money in their pocket and more willingness to spending $100 next year and the ear after, while those paid $1000 will hold out much longer unless there are major performance increases, oh there we go, exactly why nvidia will still need to innovate.

Your ignorance of economics if breathtaking.

 

[humbug]

Your forgetting Nvidia already charge $1000 for their GPU's

 

[LambChop]

lol - is eco system the new ******** buzz phrase of the day ?

 

[andybird123]

Your forgetting Nvidia already charge $1000 for their GPU's

Not for an equivalent of something they could sell for $100 though, durr
You are overloading the hyperbole to try to make a point, but failing

You are trying to apply examples from a different albeit related market to try to make a point and ignoring all other factors... Intel and NVIDIA already charge what they think they can get away with and AMD are having little to no impact on that, saying they will multiply prices if AMD aren't there is just nonsense

 

[humbug]

Not for an equivalent of something they could sell for $100 though, durr
You are overloading the hyperbole to try to make a point, but failing

I never said it was, i used it as an extreme example of what they would do if they could, if they think you will pay that thats what they will charge.

With the amount of lock-ins Nvidia are inventing you will have less and less freedom about what you pay for your GPU's, and that in part is the whole point.
They are not giving you something to serve your interests, its about their interests.

 

[andybird123]

People with a $300 budget for a GPU aren't going to pay $1000 for a GPU just because its the only one on the market, and people with a $300 budget aren't going to spend that $300 on a 10% improvment, so if NVIDIA try to go that route their sales will shrink, regardless of there being no PC alternative and its pure hyperbole to suggest that as a viable strategy.

Nvidia's interests are to sell product. They still need to offer performance improvements at certain price points to sell product, regardless of what AMD are doing.

 

[Gregster]

People with a $300 budget for a GPU aren't going to pay $1000 for a GPU just because its the only one on the market, and people with a $300 budget aren't going to spend that $300 on a 10% improvment, so if NVIDIA try to go that route their sales will shrink, regardless of there being no PC alternative and its pure hyperbole to suggest that as a viable strategy.

Nvidia's interests are to sell product. They still need to offer performance improvements at certain price points to sell product, regardless of what AMD are doing.

Humbug knows this but just arguing for the sake of it.

 

[Ian Evey]

Gee wizz. Maybe someone should start an amd donation thread or something, might keep the useful threads tidy.

 

[D.P.]

Your forgetting Nvidia already charge $1000 for their GPU's

Of which almost no one buys it, that is a completely irrelevant statement. most sales Go to 950 type cards, the $100-200 price range is exactly where Nvidia will continue to sell most their cards irrespective of AMD.

 

[SiDeards73]

Read the first few posts, skipped to the last page read a few more... LOL'd hard.

 

[humbug]

Humbug knows this but just arguing for the sake of it.

Do you like your G-Sync Monitor?
Do you like GameWorks?
Do you like being bent over?

That's what proprietary is.

Lock-in's serve no other purpose than to fleece you.
Now that you have your G-Sync Screen all that is left for Nvidia to ask is how much will you pay to keep it?, how much more will you pay over the competition to remain in that eco system?

Tell me, and this is a genuine question, if XXXXX AMD card in the performance band you are looking for cost £600 how much on top of that are you willing to pay to stay with Nvidia and your G-Sync, £100? £200? £400?

They have you by the proverbials, but this is the bit that i love, you paid them $150 to inflict that upon you. genius on their part!

And we can expend on it, how much are you willing to pay to have your Batman Smoke?

 

[murah]

I don't have an issue with GFE in it's current form, but if they add bloat to it I won't be so forgiving

 

[D.P.]

People with a $300 budget for a GPU aren't going to pay $1000 for a GPU just because its the only one on the market, and people with a $300 budget aren't going to spend that $300 on a 10% improvment, so if NVIDIA try to go that route their sales will shrink, regardless of there being no PC alternative and its pure hyperbole to suggest that as a viable strategy.

Nvidia's interests are to sell product. They still need to offer performance improvements at certain price points to sell product, regardless of what AMD are doing.

And beyond that, nvidia have to keep increasing performance to stay competitive in the HPC bussiness.

AMD have pretty much no effect on Nvidia going forwards really. Intel is going to chew up low end discrete GPUs and Intel Phi is giving Nvidia a run for their money in the compute world.

As long as Compute cores and GPUs have enough similarity, which going forward would appear to be the case as GPUs become more and more general compute devices, then nvidia will keep pushing performance boundaries as fast as ever before.


I don't want AMD to go but if they do it wont be this nightmare scenario some brand addicted followers ignorantly proclaim. things will definitely change, and things might not be quite as good, but for the most part it wont be hugely different and some things might get better. there will be no need for paper launches and zero stock for months after release. Release dates will be set by stock availability rather than meaningless deadlines. Drivers will also be mature at launch. If a process node is delayed we wont end up with any Frankenstein GPUS like the FuryX and FX5800, the GPU will be delayed until the process is ready and/or maxwell like parts will be released as interim.

 

[andybird123]

So gsync was invented so nvidia could charge extra for GPU's... That must explain why the 980ti is so much more expensive than a FuryX... No, wait...

The conversation was about NVIDIA pricing if AMD ceased to exist... How can gsync affect NVIDIA pricing if AMD don't exist, if there is no alternative GPU its irrelevant if you have gsync or not

And gsync is another good example of a self regulating market - not everyone IS buying a gsync monitor and prices do come down to a point where sales increase

 

[humbug]

So gsync was invented so nvidia could charge extra for GPU's... That must explain why the 980ti is so much more expensive than a FuryX... No, wait...

The conversation was about NVIDIA pricing if AMD ceased to exist... How can gsync affect NVIDIA pricing if AMD don't exist, if there is no alternative GPU its irrelevant if you have gsync or not

And gsync is another good example of a self regulating market - not everyone IS buying a gsync monitor and prices do come down to a point where sales increase

I'll answer all that by asking you the same question.

if XXXXX AMD card in the performance band you are looking for cost £600 how much on top of that are you willing to pay to stay with Nvidia and your G-Sync

 

[varkanoid]

Its a bit like Microsoft forcing you to use IE in Windows. We all know how that ended.
It could backfire on Nvidia to some extent and force customers the other way!

 

[andybird123]

I'll answer all that by asking you the same question.

I can only answer that by pointing out my 980ti's were cheaper than FuryX's
How things play out next year is anyone's guess, but if I had any confidence in AMD delivering a similar or better experience for less money me already having a gsync monitor wouldn't be a primary consideration. I find it unlikely though given past experience and continued reading.

Regardless of AMD's or Nvidia's pricing, I will only upgrade if doing so gives me tangible benefits.

 

[humbug]

I can only answer that by pointing out my 980ti's were cheaper than FuryX's
How things play out next year is anyone's guess, but if I had any confidence in AMD delivering a similar or better experience for less money me already having a gsync monitor wouldn't be a primary consideration. I find it unlikely though given past experience and continued reading.

Regardless of AMD's or Nvidia's pricing, I will only upgrade if doing so gives me tangible benefits.

What people think of AMD / Nvidia as products is besides my point, some of those arguments are true while others not and tribal needs mean no one will ever agree.

My only point being the reasons for locking into a product line, its a way to tilt product choice and pricing toward ones self.

while many and including yourself may be happy to give up the G-sync Screen, may even be happy to put up with Nvidia sponsored games running like a bucket of rusty nails up hill many many more will pay Nvidia something over the odds to remain with them

This is the reason why Nvidia are pushing proprietary so hard. the only question remaining is; how much?

 

[Orangey]

You've actually pointed out why the first thing won't really happen - PC isn't the only gaming platform, people won't buy a new £550 GPU for a 5-10% improvement

980

Even if AMD do go under, it isn't like PC gaming has no competition and Nvidia still need to generate revenue so they will have to do that by delivering a reason to upgrade.

900 series gave no reason to upgrade but the masses, who probably don't even read benchmarks, all threw their money at it.

It's sickening to see people defending this just like every other power play NV make, you're killing PC gaming.