I think £600 will only fly if it’s at least 20% faster than a 4070 as traditionally £500 got you a card equivalent to the previous gen top tier model of which the 4070 has a defect of over 25% to the 3090ti.
-
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 ?
- Thread starter sys6em
- Start date
That would put it only 10-15% slower than the 7900xt though so AMD have to be careful there (seen as it has dropped to £750).
To be honest, a good slot for it would likely be around 4070/3080 performance for £500. Maybe even 5-10% faster than the 4070 at that price even. That still leaves a decent price and perf gap between it and the 7900xt.
Last edited:
Tbf the 7900XT should really be around £600, I think last gen the 6800 was around £550 msrp and that was 10-15% faster than a 2080ti.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,335
- Location
- Eltham
How? Scalpers were only able to operate profitably because there were terrible supply issues, without those why would anyone need to turn to scalpers? If there were cheap cards you'd simply see a return to what was considered normal 6+ years ago and there'd be little or no margin for scalpers when you can just buy retail.
Sure the highest performance parts are expensive, I don't see anyone complaining about Titan pricing on that class of product but when everything from the mid way up has that inflated pricing is I think when people start complaining. Who benefits from treating the market as just extremes of high end and cheaper end? It isn't us.
It should be but it isnt.
It will likely stay that way, unless Nvidia blink first and make the 4070ti £600....which seems unlikely.
Pray tell what consumer GPUs existed in the early 1990s. We also aren't talking display adapters, but actual acceleration of graphics.
You go on to state 1998, 5 years after nvidia and others launched competitive consumer cards.
And I'm supposedly the one revising history. Not surprised you get likes, as most people here aren't really interested in actual facts.
I wouldn't jump into a conversation midway. A lot of us here by the way were building enthusiast PCs btw in the late 90s once it became mainstream.
Last edited:
Making comparisons to 25+ year old GPU’s and adding inflation isn’t very sensible. While I agree everything has got too expensive, GPU’s are infinitely more complex to design and build now than they’ve ever been, plus all the associated software that goes with it, not to mention the physical difference between a card from back then to now in sheer material alone.
It’s true that Nvidia have pushed the market upwards for years, especially after they released Titan. But it was only the last generation when they released the 3060Ti at £370, which was a fantastic card at that price point (if you could get one). I’m not going to defend this gen though as it’s obviously gone all a bit Pete tong. Not the first time in history either. Nvidia have had plenty of sketchy generations and products alongside genuine game changers (like arguably the 4090).
I remember quite vividly just how expensive ‘high end’ PC’s have pretty much always been. Back then, they were just as expensive as they are today, in some ways, more so. Pentium II 450 released in 98 and was around 650 dollars at release.
It’s true that Nvidia have pushed the market upwards for years, especially after they released Titan. But it was only the last generation when they released the 3060Ti at £370, which was a fantastic card at that price point (if you could get one). I’m not going to defend this gen though as it’s obviously gone all a bit Pete tong. Not the first time in history either. Nvidia have had plenty of sketchy generations and products alongside genuine game changers (like arguably the 4090).
I remember quite vividly just how expensive ‘high end’ PC’s have pretty much always been. Back then, they were just as expensive as they are today, in some ways, more so. Pentium II 450 released in 98 and was around 650 dollars at release.
Last edited:
Even at £600 I wouldn't consider the 4070ti a particularly good deal. 17% faster than my 2.5 year 3080 at a 50 quid discount isn't exactly game changing.
Exactly. But some think I am being harsh with the prices I think these GPU’s cost. To me the only one that can command silly moneys is the 4090 which is head and shoulders above the rest.
Cars are also infinitely more complex to design and build now than they’ve ever been and use software that didn't even exist back then but for some reason you can still buy a new Ford for basically the same price, adjusted for inflation, as their very first car.
TBH I'm really not sure why this 'the new thing is better so it must cost more' comes from, that's simply not how capitalism or advancements work. If you can't make something better for the same or less money then someone else will and you'll find yourself out of business, plus everything humans do is an iterative process, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Yes things are way more complex than they used to be but we've not gone from no understanding of something to infinitely more complex overnight.
Honestly i despair at how someone people seem to actually want to be taken advantage of.
It does to an extent. When things require more investment in terms of research and development, their price inevitably rises. Imagine how many engineers it took to create the Riva 128 compared to the RTX 4090. The cost isn’t going to be comparable, the product is more expensive to manufacturer, that’s the reality. It doesn’t seem logical to compare GPU prices from 25-20 years ago and expect them to stay entirely the same except adjusted for inflation.
Not a sensible comparison. A 1909 Model T cost 850 dollars at a time when the average America annual wage was about 500 dollars. The economies of scale are totally different.
That doesn’t work when you are in an industry where there’s literally a handful of companies with the knowledge and expertise to be able to design and manufacturer this stuff. You can’t just make a start up and start offering an equivalent product at an undercut price.
Last edited:
Well keep banging your head against the wall I guess and see how much difference the dent makes.
Like I said, the reality is this stuff is outright expensive, it always has been expensive, and it will always go on to be expensive. This is inevitably the case when you are dealing with products that only a handful of companies in the world are able to design and manufacturer to compete at this level.
There is absolutely a level of movement within these prices, that’s why already the 4070 has seen some flux so imminently from launch. But it’s not easy for there to be a disrupter all of a sudden and for the landscape to be shook up.
Like I said, the reality is this stuff is outright expensive, it always has been expensive, and it will always go on to be expensive. This is inevitably the case when you are dealing with products that only a handful of companies in the world are able to design and manufacturer to compete at this level.
There is absolutely a level of movement within these prices, that’s why already the 4070 has seen some flux so imminently from launch. But it’s not easy for there to be a disrupter all of a sudden and for the landscape to be shook up.
The 4090 is the only proper next gen gpu so far this time around, everything else is closer to a 3090ti than they are to the 4090.
It’s also the only card that’s not had its die dropped a tier but sees the smallest overall price % increase.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
I disagree. I think ~30% from one gen to the next is decent and the 4080 does that.
The performance is there. The price, however, is an insult.
PC gaming didn’t start with 3D accelerators. You are full of crap on your idea that Nvidia saved PC gamers from high GPU prices because many of us were gaming years before Nvidia existed. You were the one who listed pro cards from the early 90s implying that was indicative of typical PC graphics card prices.
Stop digging the hole, you are making a fool of yourself with the Nvidia saved us ********.
Who said PC gaming started with 3D accelerators?
Why are you changing the point of discussion away from GPUs? Nvidia is the company they are today because what they did in the 90s when they took on dominant incumbents like ATI, and succeeded massively at it, overtaking them by the end of the decade.
It's also funny I'm the only one naming cards and actually providing evidence. Your argument is "your are wrong, trust me".
Are you claiming graphics cards weren't expensive in the early 90s? Because that was my claim which you refuting. Don't switch it for "PC gaming" suddenly.
One could argue, cars aren't 10x the size they used to be though. They are however significantly more advanced and complex as you've said. GPU chips today are up to 10x larger (die area) whilst also significantly more advanced and complex (packing in orders of magnitude more transistors for the same area, i.e. moore's law).
Last edited:
I’m making no claims at all, I’m simply correcting your nonsensical claim that Nvidia somehow single-handedly brought cheaper PC graphics cards to the masses.
S3
3DFX
Matrox
Diamond Multimedia
Just some of the names that were well known for decent and not expensive graphics cards among early PC enthusiasts.
S3
3DFX
Matrox
Diamond Multimedia
Just some of the names that were well known for decent and not expensive graphics cards among early PC enthusiasts.
Last edited: