• 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.

When the Gpu's prices will go down ?

In those days 3D engines were more like the Ray tracing Nvidia was blowing its trumpet about in the RTX20 series. Nice to have but utterly unusable.

Yes once 3Df. And directX had proper 3D engines there was no stopping it tbh

It’s a matter of technology becoming mainstream and compute power keeping up with it.
 
Would be interested to know if everyone converting old card prices in today's money can find out what those cards were selling for a year or 18months after release.

I remember card gens turning over much more quickly back then and 2 year upgrades is what I did. These days 3-4 year old cards sell at or close to mssp.
 
Would be interested to know if everyone converting old card prices in today's money can find out what those cards were selling for a year or 18months after release.

I remember card gens turning over much more quickly back then and 2 year upgrades is what I did. These days 3-4 year old cards sell at or close to mssp.

I remember GPU gens being updated every 6-8 months at one point and in some cases even faster when one competitor steps on another's lead they suddenly release a faster card. The 2 year to 2 and a half year cycle is pretty recent in the time of graphics cards.

It was pretty funny and sad you would order a card and by the time you got it, it was not the fastest card at the time anymore :cry: as it was such a niche market for some of the top end cards it took ages to get hold of one and in most cases they even sold as OEM in a brown box or envelope at the time as you could only buy some of them from system builders or OEM PC makers.

I remember buying this card (hercules) and it came in a brown padded envelope in a brown box with the cable and manuals, never saw a retail version in UK.


and a few months later (about 12 months) these came out and destroyed them by the time I got the hercules prophet 2 ultra in UK even.



Before the hercules I had a matrox millennium g400 max.



Also maybe there was another card between the hercules and ati 9800 pro but can't remember but remember the hercules was replaced with the ati 9800 pro back then and remember wasn't that long between the upgrades for some reason and was annoyed and gave the hercules card as a gift to a friend back then too. Also I remember coming from the matrox card to the hercules nvidia card the 2D video quality was terrible compared to the matrox but 3D was faster and better so compromised and when I went back to ATI again video quality was so much better again and I promised myself to stay away from Nvidia back then.
 
Last edited:
Erm, did you read what you were replying to? Where did the post you reply to mention anything about Nvidia? Plus you've not even attempted to address the salient and most important point that i raised with you, you know the one about what you consider "stupidly expensive" to even be.

The price i 'saw' in 1998 wasn't what i saw it's what i paid and Nvidia's first foray into GPUs would suck for at least another 2 years and cost roughly the same as their competitors ($250 for the RIVA TNT).

Why you've brought up ATI cards is anyone's guess, if anything it proves that your "hardware was historically stupidly expensive" claim is rubbish because as I've pointed out you could buy GPUs for half the price of those. It's like trying to claim that cars have been historically stupidly expensive by listing the prices of Mercs or Rolls-Royce while totally ignoring the fact that you can buy cars for half the price.

TBH I'm not even sure what or why you're even trying to argue as you close out your post by saying exactly what i said, that graphics cards were not historically stupidly expensive as they used to cost $500 adjusted for inflation not the $1.6k that we're paying today, exactly what i said.

This is about Jensen's comments. Don't enter a conversation if you don't know the context or what I originally posted about.

Feel free to follow the quotes up.

Paying $500+ for a 63mm^2 in todays money is ridiculously expensive btw. I'd rather pay $1.6k for a >500mm^2 die.

Moore's law says you pack more transistors in the same die area, as the cost of transistors go down, doubling every X years. If you then increase the die area that increases costs.
 
Last edited:
Not quite the whole story; S3 with the Trio and the Virge have a pretty good claim - almost any PC in the mid-90s came with one those. Along with Matrox and ATI.

Their first commercial card was a flop iirc.

I'm not saying that nvidia were the only competitor. But they were the largest entrant at that time. ATI were actually one of the incumbents charging loads.
 
Last edited:
This is about Jensen's comments. Don't enter a conversation if you don't know the context or what I originally posted about.

Feel free to follow the quotes up.

Paying $500+ for a 63mm^2 in todays money is ridiculously expensive btw. I'd rather pay $1.6k for a >500mm^2 die.

Moore's law says you pack more transistors in the same die area, as the cost of transistors go down, doubling every X years. If you then increase the die area that increases costs.
I know it is, why can't you focus long enough to respond to what you're quoting, yet again. Look, I'll help you out, as you obviously have issues with maintaining attention on one thing for any period of time. Jensen claimed in a video that Nvidia brought 3d acceleration to the masses by making it affordable, i said that IMO he was trying to rewrite history because it was 3DFX who brought 3D acceleration to the masses, and then you waded in by spouting some nonsense about how you "don't get how people think hardware wasn't historically stupidly expensive (when converted to today's money)."

A point i refuted and had nothing to do with Jensen trying to rewrite history or 3DFX being the ones who brought 3D acceleration to the masses, and is entirely false for the reason i and others have pointed out to you.

You then decided to go off on one simply because i asked you to define what you meant by "stupidly expensive", a question you've still not even come close to answering because you've got yourself tied up in knots and decided to go off on one.

Also, that's not what Moore's law says. :rolleyes:
 
That's as much down to mocap and 3D modelling/rendering of the non game play parts being 'high quality' versus the 'in game' content (models, textures etc) being rather average to low res in relative terms. Basically the animated 'story' wasn't rendered in the same way as the game parts and ends up being far better than what the game will be.... just think of it like a mobile game advert showing this brilliant trailer but you end up playing another candy crush clone lol
Neah, they're hyping it too much
“In some games,” Mark says, “you look at the cinematics and you say, ‘That looks amazing!’ And then you see the gameplay and you say, ‘That does not look the same!’ That’s typical; we’ve lived with that for a long time in video games. But in our game, the quality is super-close. You’re watching an in-game cinematic and then the camera flies into Jack’s head and you assume first-person control—and everything looks the same. The visual fidelity is one-to-one, with only some changes to depth of field, motion blur, and other cinematic cutscene effects. Everything is in real time.”

Even in their trailers doesn't look that good. For instance that grass has no shadow/AO.



 
Neah, they're hyping it too much


Even in their trailers doesn't look that good. For instance that grass has no shadow/AO.


I was purely talking about the video earlier... that comment from the dev is comical though, to do what he's saying basically requires a small server farm, something every gamer has in their basement lol.
 
I know it is, why can't you focus long enough to respond to what you're quoting, yet again. Look, I'll help you out, as you obviously have issues with maintaining attention on one thing for any period of time. Jensen claimed in a video that Nvidia brought 3d acceleration to the masses by making it affordable, i said that IMO he was trying to rewrite history because it was 3DFX who brought 3D acceleration to the masses, and then you waded in by spouting some nonsense about how you "don't get how people think hardware wasn't historically stupidly expensive (when converted to today's money)."

A point i refuted and had nothing to do with Jensen trying to rewrite history or 3DFX being the ones who brought 3D acceleration to the masses, and is entirely false for the reason i and others have pointed out to you.

You then decided to go off on one simply because i asked you to define what you meant by "stupidly expensive", a question you've still not even come close to answering because you've got yourself tied up in knots and decided to go off on one.

Also, that's not what Moore's law says. :rolleyes:

Cards were much more expensive in the early 90s as I've shown. Nvidia produced cards that were cheaper than those prices after they launched in 1993. Those prices adjusted for inflation would be $500+ today. Those prices on a per mm^2 basis today would be astronomical. Nvidia/AMD could easily produce cheap 100mm^2 dies and say they are delivering prices that are much cheaper than the 90s.

Computing is not more expensive than the 90s.

As for 3dfx, since we are talking about rewriting history


their first card was released in 1996, a year after nvidia. Their card releases were spotty, struggling to make sales and they quickly went out of business and had to be bought.


Nostalgia and anti-nvidia bias is so strong here.

Here is an actual article on the issue from the time.


3dfx was a favorite company of gamers in the mid-1990s, but the company then delayed a few products and received tepid reviews for others, crimping sales. In recent years, the company changed CEOs and began laying off employees.

"I'm sad that 3dfx is exiting the business," said MicroDesign Resources analyst Peter Glaskowsky. "3dfx did a lot of good work over the years, but unfortunately they didn't keep up with the good work Nvidia was doing."

Nvidia has become the company to beat in graphics over the past few years, fueled by strong sales and premier design wins. In November, the Santa Clara, Calif.-based company passed ATI Technologies to become the top manufacturer of graphics chips, according to Mercury Research. Production and performance are the company's hallmarks.

"Even if you go back two or three years ago, Nvidia was producing chips at a faster rate than ATI," Glaskowsky said. "They were producing more chips and improving them at a faster rate."

Yeh this sounds like we have 3dfx to thank for the massive gaming market we have today.... It has been Nvidia and ATI reacting to competition.

There is also a separate question, on what was really the first consumer GPU, with a complete rasterisation pipeline. That one would also go in nvidia's favour.
 
Last edited:
Wow. What a wall of text that I'm not going to read because it still doesn't answer what you think "stupidly expensive" is.

e: Although having looked through your post history i guess i shouldn't expect anything more as it seems you're a professional troll.

Stupidly expensive is a 63mm^2 die costing ~$500 in today's money.

Or if we take something more like towards the end of the decade


A 139mm^2 die costing $450 in today's money.

My posts tend to give evidence for anything I say. Especially when asked. I've yet to see you say anything other than, "you are rewriting history" after missing the crux of the conversation at the beginning.
 
Last edited:
The problem is aluminium was worth more than gold 100s of years ago,and Penicillin was ridiculously expensive 80+ years ago. Air travel was a luxury only the super rich could afford. Computers were the size of small houses and costed millions of quid 50+ years,and a modern smartphone probably has more processing power than the Apollo 11 flight computer(which was state of the art at the time),and is much more cheaper. Technology moves on.

Now look at the margin companies like Nvidia made today - they have skyrocketed over the last 10 years,and their gross margins are more than Apple. That shows you they are selling their products for far more than any production cost increase has done.
 
Last edited:
if a us retailer is selling 6950xt for $599 and making a profit, it shows how much margain there is in a gpu as that was a $1000 card. someone is making a **** ton of money somewhere

There is a reason Nvidia makes higher gross margins than Apple. People overestimate the costs. Oh noes! TSMC XYZ cOsTs MoRe ThAn Samsung XYZ. But if that means only $100 more for the die,but the other parts now cost $50 less,and then the price goes up by $200(for the GPU tier),then they are making far more bank.
 
Last edited:
if a us retailer is selling 6950xt for $599 and making a profit, it shows how much margain there is in a gpu as that was a $1000 card. someone is making a **** ton of money somewhere

Yep was my point but the response (in the other thread) showed they didn't understand the memo... :cry:
 
Last edited:
Stupidly expensive is a 63mm^2 die costing ~$500 in today's money.
So a 64mm^2 die costing ~$500 in today's money wouldn't be stupidly expensive?
A 139mm^2 die costing $450 in today's money.
Nope, it now seems 139mm^2 die costing $450 is also stupidly expensive! Does that now mean 140mm^2 die costing $450 is not?
My posts tend to give evidence for anything I say. Especially when asked. I've yet to see you say anything other than, "you are rewriting history" after missing the crux of the conversation at the beginning.
ROFL. :cry: :cry: Sure you post 'evidence', what of only you seem to know as you're making up arguments in your own head. I assume because you can't stay focused long enough to address the salient points of the posts you're replying too. I mean take this latests conversation, it's taken you days and multiple posts to even come close to an answer and even then you've struggled to define what "stupidly expensive" is because one moment it's "a 63mm^2 die costing ~$500 in today's money." and then the next it's "a 139mm^2 die costing $450 in today's money".

If you can't define what you meant how on earth do you expect others to know?
 
Yeh of course it is expensive. That is my point.

Prices have come down loads. From the really high prices in the early 90s to last decade.

I'm not sure why I'm the one who has to defend the fact prices have come down.

It's easy to just criticise Jensen's statement without providing any evidence, like several people in this thread are doing.

If we had ATI prices from the early 90s, $1600 cards wouldn't be exceptional but the norm.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom