Indeed.
Another example, in 2005 the 7800GTX rrp was $599 which accounting for inflation is $750 today
-
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.
** PRE-ORDER SPECIAL: GIGABYTE GTX 1080Ti OC BLACK ONLY £639 !! **
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
Indeed.
Another example, in 2005 the 7800GTX rrp was $599 which accounting for inflation is $750 today
You ask me if I'm sure. Yes, I'm sure. I would ask if you were cherry-picking one year to try to prove your point, but even the one example you gave doesn't make sense when allowing for inflation (I didn't say that I was accounting for inflation, but that's because I assumed it was obvious obvious, there is no other way to compare the price of anything over a 15-year period).
http://i.imgur.com/SE3TNqZ.png
http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics...price-history-high-end-nvidia-gpus-tabulated/
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 2,171
- Location
- Droitwich, UK
The Radeon HD 5870 launched for $380 back in 2009, which would be at most £450 with inflation. The 5850 was such a bargain.
The 280 was the top card, not the 2nd top card. You should compare it to the Titan. The 280 launched at $650 as you say. But in less than a month it had dropped to $499, after AMD launched competing cards.
The 285 was released 6 months after the 280, and was a die-shrunk card. It launched at only $349, and replaced the 280.
https://www.bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/graphics/nvidia-zotac-geforce-gtx-285-1gb/1/
These days the 285 would have been launched as the 380. But back then it wasn't, despite a die-shrink. The 280 was not sold alongside the 285, so it was never 2nd top card. When stock was gone only the 285 was available - the new top card.
Why do both those links ignore the Titan?
I just don't understand why people think the Ti cards are the top cards.... even the press!
Because everyone knows there's very little difference between the Ti and the Titan when it comes to gaming, and that's because the Titan wasn't designed as purely a gaming card. That's why in a comparison of gaming cards the Titan is generally not included, just like the Vega FE liquid at ~£1500 won't be included, and instead we'll be using the Vega 64 at half that.
Well, i think it is because they sort of blur the line between consumer gaming and pro cards (or at least they used to when they first came out). Nvidia have even pushed them back into this territory with the new driver update, now that there is actually some competition in the form of the Vega FE.
You are just overcomplicating things now. Ofcourse prices change for refreshes/after release and to react to competition.
It still doesn't change the fact that with the Titan/8800ultra being the exception, top end Nvidia card release prices have remained fairly similar for 17 years, as that Hexus link shows.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
The full chip Titan which is the newest of two Pascal Titan's is faster than the Ti. A lot of the people that spend that amount of money on a card will be watercooling it and then it's untouchable.
..and now because of some competition Nvidia have released drivers that put the Titan back into the semi-pro card territory (which is what the Titan brand was when it first came out).
I've just used that US inflation calculator as suggested. Here are my results, taking my own previous purchases as starting points.
I bought a 6800 GT (2nd top card) for £250.. the US launch price was $399 in 2004. Adjusting for inflation (at 30%) and using today's exchange rate, then adding VAT I would pay today:
£480 for a 1080 (being generous and ignoring the Titan, using 1080Ti as top card - I'm not convinced that's fair tho).
OK, moving on...
I bought a GTX 460 (3rd top card) for £150. The US launch price was $229 in 2010. Adjusting for inflation (at 13%) and using today's exchange rate, and adding VAT I would pay today:
£240 for a 1070 (using Ti as top card, 1070 is 3rd from top).
So you can see, as far as I'm concerned given the cards I've purchased previously, the current gen offers poor value for money, even after adjusting for inflation and changes in VAT.
Now the 1080 might be in the right ballpark but the 1070 is way, way, waaaaaay overpriced. The 1070 should be what they're charging for the 1060. It is at best the 3rd top card. At worst it's the 4th top card, when including Titan.
I bought a 6800 GT (2nd top card) for £250.. the US launch price was $399 in 2004. Adjusting for inflation (at 30%) and using today's exchange rate, then adding VAT I would pay today:
£480 for a 1080 (being generous and ignoring the Titan, using 1080Ti as top card - I'm not convinced that's fair tho).
OK, moving on...
I bought a GTX 460 (3rd top card) for £150. The US launch price was $229 in 2010. Adjusting for inflation (at 13%) and using today's exchange rate, and adding VAT I would pay today:
£240 for a 1070 (using Ti as top card, 1070 is 3rd from top).
So you can see, as far as I'm concerned given the cards I've purchased previously, the current gen offers poor value for money, even after adjusting for inflation and changes in VAT.
Now the 1080 might be in the right ballpark but the 1070 is way, way, waaaaaay overpriced. The 1070 should be what they're charging for the 1060. It is at best the 3rd top card. At worst it's the 4th top card, when including Titan.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,694
I feel we've almost got to the point where parents will be telling their children: "Eat your greens children, or the miners will come and take all your toys." It's almost true, as well
Ha! Absolutely cracking!!
So it seems that now you're complaining that the 1070 is too powerful and you'd have been happier if they'd made it slower but cheaper? (So like the 1060?) The gap between the 1070 and 1080 isn't massive, so it makes sense the price isn't too different.
Stop and think for a second.
Let's say for the 1100 series, nV take the 1070, make it 5% more powerful, and release that as the 1170 for the same price (£400). They then make an 1175, which is a decent chunk faster than the 1070, but also £75 more expensive than the 1070 launch price (£475).
As a 1070 owner do you: a) suck it up and buy an 1175 or b) complain that whilst there are more cards in the 11xx series, the real upgrades for you are now more expensive than ever.
Because that's what's happened over the years. Yes there are now more cards in the range. We have a Titan, and a Ti than didn't exist in the 460,470,480 days.
But whereas the 460 was a powerful card for £240* (3rd top, remember, and it chewed through all the games of its time)... the 1060 is now the 4th top for £300. And the 1060 does *not* chew through the games of its time. It's pretty feeble, truth be told, even at 1080p. The 1070 is the real equivalent of the 460, and it's £400+.
So yeah. £240 to £400 in the space of a couple generations.
*Adjusted for inflation and VAT rise. Actual price £150-£200 in 2010.
e: Just to clarify why the 1070 is the equivalent of the 460, not the 1060:
GTX 460 = GF104 (470 and 480 are GF100).
GTX 1060 = GP106 (1070 is cut-down GP104).
The 1060 is nV's 3rd-tier chip, behind GP102, GP104. The 460 was the 2nd-tier chip, behind only the GF100.
Last edited:
^ you seem to be using the current mining nonsense prices as comparisons which make things look worse. Without the mining, even with the current rubbish exchange rate, the 1070 is ~£350 card (rough starting price) and the 1060 is a ~£230 card (rough starting price). In fact even now the 3gb versions start at £210, even on OCUK - https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/graphics-cards/nvidia/geforce-gtx-1060
The mining thing isn't really Nvidia's fault and you need to be looking at what 1060's and 1070's could be had for before the mining stuff.
The 6600gt was very much mid range in 2004 but still came in at $199. There were loads of models above that as well .
The mining thing isn't really Nvidia's fault and you need to be looking at what 1060's and 1070's could be had for before the mining stuff.
The 6600gt was very much mid range in 2004 but still came in at $199. There were loads of models above that as well .
Last edited:
You started this by complaining about the price of the 1080ti (note which thread we're in). You were presented conclusive proof that the price of these top tier cards hasn't changed in the last 2 decades, so now you're trying to prove instead that current 3rd-tier cards are overpriced. This is madness. You win. I'm out
Even though your example isn't representative of what has append before. As they have always given more then 5% for the same release price. (Not counting eol discounts)
Any sensible 1070 owner shouldn't be looking to upgrade in 1 generation unless they are silly or they have become more affluent in the meantime.
If they were expecting to lose £100+ for next gen upgrade in a 12-18 months time, they should have got a 1080 to start with and got the benefit of the faster card for 18+ months.
Also don't get bogged down in naming convention and model tier of card just focus on performance.
I personally don't count Titans as they aren't available to retailers and have had the GeForce moniker removed. If you must compare tiers count the ti and titans as the same because the difference is so small.
But everybody else is using naming convention to say that cards haven't got more expensive.
Listen, all I know is that a GP106 (3rd tier chip) costs £50 more than a 2nd tier chips (GF104) adjusted for inflation, VAT and new exchange rate.
And that the xx80 cards are no longer the top tier as they once were. There is now a tier above them. Consequently all the lower tier cards (xx70, xx60) are devalued by being shunted one tier downwards. Yet the pricing does not reflect this.
If we're concentrating on performance, well a 460 as said chewed through all the games of its time. Nobody is going to say that the 1060 is all that great, even for 1080p. It's a GP106, and it performs as well as a 3rd tier chip might. It's well below what you might expect if your last xx60 was the 460/560. The 660 was the first xx60 card they squeezed out on their 3rd tier chips, and the xx60 cards have been (excuse my French) bull crap ever since.
