Originally Posted by magnek
Well, if GPUs also only improved 5-10% per year, then they'd have a much longer shelf life.
There was clearly sufficient demand for a $999 card that nVidia kept selling it and people kept buying it.
Unfortunately, nVidia has gotten to the point where nothing short of a Bulldozer style disaster would have any impact whatsoever. Remember Bumpgate from 8-9 years ago? That was a much, much worse issue than the 970 vram fiasco, and nVidia barely had 50% of the market back then, and still it had minimal impact on nVidia.
The point about the 1060 3GB is that we would never know if it was even a thing to begin with. Them not telling us about it =/= they designed it, then recanted due to the backlash. I mean really this is nVidia we're talking about here. They tried to sell Titan Z for $3K, and when that failed, they quietly
slashed prices by 50% 6 months later
I'm not defending anybody, simply being realistic about the situation. I mean I get it, we as consumers should
boycott the card and tell JHH to go sniff a dog's ass, but that's simply too idealistic for more reasons than one. I mean, half the thread is people trying to reason with others on why they should hold off on buying such a card, and you can see how that all went.
I'm not arguing that there was not a relative demand for the video card, but that the supply made it unjustifiable at that price. Unless one should believe JHH's words when he says "there will only be a few made" - same thing they say in those silly as seen on TV adverts. On a 28nm mature process, I would be hard pressed to believe that the quantity justified the price of 999. As a consumer, we could have demanded that we receive more. Even from the end user experience, it was a so-so product. It ran warm, it was overclocking limited
(compared to the 980 ti), and was touted as the premium product? The GTX 580 was a better product at a better price. We can demand that. They are telling us "You've got to pay to play".. how does that benefit anyone but them, and how is repeating it of benefit?
Had reviewers and owners complained instead of justified the purchase to themselves and their peers, they would have done a better job on the price of the TXP. Even now, people somehow feel as though they are being attacked for buying the product of questionable the value, and their reason for the purchasing of the card. If any, I am fighting for them by telling NV that it was not that great, because the other owners themselves won't do it for themselves.
How can you not feel bad about losing ~500 dollars in a year on a video card, only to have it be surpassed next year at a 700 dollar premium again? Why are we fighting amongst ourselves about value when we should blame NV?
I disagree, about the impact of bumpgate being minor. Do you realize how much it costs to spin things after losing 200 million as a small company, like NV after bumpgate? That is not minor. It's consumers and reviewers at work. Look at the products they released afterward, and how much of a rough patch it was for the next two GPU generations.We can do that again
, but we actively need to be holding NV to greater standards by scrutinizing their methods.
Your point about the GTX 1060 is the same as mine. It is NV we are talking about here, a corporation, that will only give minimal benefits unless pushed. Are we to believe they were going to give us 3GB out of good graces? Let's say we agree.
I would hate to say it, but I think you are being cynical, rather than realistic. I am not an optimist, but we can not afford to give up ground by repeating JHH's words about how being in a duopoly justifies prices. As I have said, it is doing their PR work for them, and it is defending their position without any foreseeable benefit to the consumer.Edited by junkman - 7/27/16 at 5:16pm