Overclock.net banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
One thing that comes up regularly with new GPU announcements is that a handful of people keep on whining about Nvidia or AMD ripping consumers off by passing off the performance gains of mid range cards as big gpu dies.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the specific way they are saying it but there is definitely a faction that doesn't like that smaller dies are being sold for higher than what they believe is normal prices.

So are these people justified in complaining? Isn't the whole reason we have smaller dies a consequence of processing shrinks and a push to make GPU chips more heat and power complaint with the mobile sector? Why care? Obviously the performance gains year over year have declined but no where near as badly as it plummeted when CPU designers also went after the mobile market.

What performance jumps did these people expect if bigger dies were sold as they traditionally did? What prices were they hoping for?
 

·
What should be here ?
Joined
·
5,729 Posts
What I understand from what they are saying is this :

-Prior to the big 28nm shift, any new chip would bring ~2x the performance improvements compared to the last chip it replaced. This chip was a direct replacement for the one prior (say 980ti replacing 780ti) and that would bring said improvements at power efficiency. What happened with 28nm and forward is that you did get the power efficiency, but the performance part went missing. Think 980 to replace the 780ti. It sure did perform better, but compared to what performance the 980ti would bring, it was underwhelming. Thus, power efficiency is being used to cover up the lack of performance being not delivered that used to be up until last node.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
You got it right in you first sentence. It's whining which is passed off as informed debate here at OCN. Here are a couple of counterpoints:

1. There are a lot of direct and indirect costs that go in to making these GPUs. It's very unlikely that they stay the same year after year, especially when silicon process nodes have gotten harder and harder to shrink. Yet the whiners think every card should be fixed in price according to the die size.
2. AMD is getting squeezed out of market share badly. They'd do anything to grab some business back from Nvidia. But no, they want to sell overpriced midsize die GPUs with tons of margin? Doesn't make sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,248 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck100 View Post

You got it right in you first sentence. It's whining which is passed off as informed debate here at OCN. Here are a couple of counterpoints:

1. There are a lot of direct and indirect costs that go in to making these GPUs. It's very unlikely that they stay the same year after year, especially when silicon process nodes have gotten harder and harder to shrink. Yet the whiners think every card should be fixed in price according to the die size.
2. AMD is getting squeezed out of market share badly. They'd do anything to grab some business back from Nvidia. But no, they want to sell overpriced midsize die GPUs with tons of margin? Doesn't make sense.
no, its not whining at all and it is informed.
starting with kepler nvidia started selling the 104 range chips as the x80 when before the 100/110 level chips were the x80 level.
they tested it with the 680, saw that people would bite and then made up an entirely new tier level with the titans....then, surprised everyone yet again with the resurgence of the TI labeled cards which are now some weird grey area in "being a titan but not one."

nvidia did in fact re-org everything and it was 100% not because they needed to, they did it simply because they own the market and can....consumers have a right to be mad and to be vocal about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,628 Posts
They keep adding the real performance gains to 20% more expensive GPUs, shifting the midrange up. 7850, then 280 was upper midrange, now r9 390/gtx 970 is.

Though understandable, given we've been on the same process size for all the time... I don't expect new price tiers for a while now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by huzzug View Post

What I understand from what they are saying is this :

-Prior to the big 28nm shift, any new chip would bring ~2x the performance improvements compared to the last chip it replaced. This chip was a direct replacement for the one prior (say 980ti replacing 780ti) and that would bring said improvements at power efficiency. What happened with 28nm and forward is that you did get the power efficiency, but the performance part went missing. Think 980 to replace the 780ti. It sure did perform better, but compared to what performance the 980ti would bring, it was underwhelming. Thus, power efficiency is being used to cover up the lack of performance being not delivered that used to be up until last node.
Except they are ignorant as history actually shows. It's never been 2x the performance. 1.5x perhaps at the very best. 10-20ps give or take if that much depending on game on a new counterpart chip IE: 770 to 970, non Ti, and 20-30fps on Ti versions and has basically been in the same ballpark since the turn of the century. Also take into account often new systems the video cards are tested with, being at times older cards tested with previous generation cpus, ram, mobos, Hds ect.

Geforce 2 Ultra vs Geforce 3 non Ti 10-30fps increase depending on title http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce3-performance,311-8.html Evolva 1600x1200 32 bit color Bump mapping.
MDK2 1600x1200x32 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce3-performance,311-9.html

1080p as reference.
480 vs 580 10 fps average increase http://www.techspot.com/review/359-nvidia-geforce-gtx-560ti/page6.html
580 vs 680 10 fps average increase http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review/11
580, 680, 780, 10 fps increase average http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review/12
680,780, 980 10 fps average increase http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review/12

580 - 980
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1675&page=3
Difference between a gtx 580 and a gtx 980 about 45fps in BF4 1920x1080. 3

I don't and haven't really cared about the very next gen video card for at least a decade as i already know what the performance increase will be, because it's always been basically the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by t00sl0w View Post

no, its not whining at all and it is informed.
starting with kepler nvidia started selling the 104 range chips as the x80 when before the 100/110 level chips were the x80 level.
they tested it with the 680, saw that people would bite and then made up an entirely new tier level with the titans....then, surprised everyone yet again with the resurgence of the TI labeled cards which are now some weird grey area in "being a titan but not one."

nvidia did in fact re-org everything and it was 100% not because they needed to, they did it simply because they own the market and can....consumers have a right to be mad and to be vocal about it.
This is really the main point. When the 280x came out it was $625 very high price BUT it was the flagship in 65nm. It was lowered very quickly when the 4850 and 4870 ATI cards came out.
Then the 480 flagship came out and then a couple years later the 580 came out. These were priced as the flagship cards they were.
Then Nvidia did something sneaky. It came out with the 680 touting it as a flagship card replacement for the 580. But it was not it was not a full core card like the rest of the x80 cards were.
Of course when the 7970 came out for AMD then Nvidia brings in the 780gtx which supposedly is the NEW flagship card, but that was not either. The 780TI of course followed. Many 780 buyers were not happy!
Now with the 9 series most gamers have gotten Nvidia figured out. 970,980 as high mid cards but most of us knew that Nvidia would follow up later with at TI card. (980TI)
10 series card the same thing.

The issues started with the 680. Before that the x80 always meant flagship. Now Nvidia has/is pricing the 680,980,1080 at flagship price levels. They can with ATI not competitive in market share.
I think the 970 and 1070 are priced well but there is too much gap price wise between them and the 980 and 1080. 65-70% of the price at 85% of the performance.
These cards (970,980,1070,1080) are more of a 460, 560,660 type card. Even the 270,470,570, were closer to the flagship cards then the 680, 980 were. (Core count to flagship core count)

Sorry for the long post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I think this is more fundamental than amd/nvidia pricing.

The market has changed as well.

Gamers are getting older so have more disposable income.
Plus there are new international markets that buy much more than ten years ago.

People are willing to spend more and the market is larger, therefore prices are higher.

I think previous there was little or no market for these ultra expensive cards.
If they can only produce a limited number of the high end cards (yeald) then they will charge as much as the market will bear.

Personally I'll never buy those top end cards, too rich for my blood but I don't blame manufacturers for selling them.

I think we are fairly well served by the market.
I'd like more performance for less money, who wouldn't but things could be worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Holst brings up an interesting 3rd view point but I will focus on the two other more common points which have also been expressed partially in other threads. If videocards really had double the performance gains I would understand why people feel ripped off but I suspect when I do look at benchmarks over the last 2 decades the performance gains will be closer to 50% than 100. The other argument being made is that Nvidia was able to sell a lower specced card even with competition from AMD.

I feel both parties are culpable for the state of gpu prices and since ATI defeinitely had the technical skills to do what Nvidia was creating I get the sense that the way pricing ended up the way it did very little for difference in engineering skill and more due to Nvidia had greater business sense and knew how to offer more compelling products at all price points. Nvidia didn't grow to the size it did by selling $600+ GPUs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by t00sl0w View Post

no, its not whining at all and it is informed.
starting with kepler nvidia started selling the 104 range chips as the x80 when before the 100/110 level chips were the x80 level.
they tested it with the 680, saw that people would bite and then made up an entirely new tier level with the titans....then, surprised everyone yet again with the resurgence of the TI labeled cards which are now some weird grey area in "being a titan but not one."

nvidia did in fact re-org everything and it was 100% not because they needed to, they did it simply because they own the market and can....consumers have a right to be mad and to be vocal about it.
This is the truth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
The problem seems to be that nvidia is much more ahead of AMD that they started to fake their flagship cards. Meaning, lets say the 1080, that we all know is a 104 chip because it says on the chip, its a flagship. and its a cut version of full pascal. Price 699 by nvidia. FULL DIE 980ti was cheaper than that. More so, in a year, they will release the 1080ti with same price and charge the same again. It was the same with 980 and 780. Amd doesnt do that, they do other stupid stuff but Nvidia is on a whole new level with this. If they werent so far ahead from AMD they wouldnt do that because they would have to get all their cards at once so a TI version would be like a super binned super clocked version of the same chip but a bit bitter on the clocks. Here they sell the small die as their king card, but they already have a stronger card which is big pascal.

and what is driving those discussions is the fact that we, the buyers, we know they have big pascal because they already are selling it as tesla to another not gaming market, we know that were paying this X amount of money and we know we are gonna be charged the same again with the Ti for a way more bigger chip.

to put it in simpler terms, its like selling Mercedes C class as the E class, and the E class as the S class.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
The argument is stupid and ignorant. This has been the case for well over a decade, as shown time and again. Some of you guys were apparently born yesterday.

It's also called business. Yes, they stretch the tech out. Just because you know that they will release another more powerful card in 6 months to a years doesn't make THIS card non flagship. It IS the current flagship model. It's their top tier card TODAY. Buy it or don't, wait until the TI version. Which will then be superseded yet again months down the road, just like it always has been. You guys are frothing at something that has ALWAYS been the case.

2000
"The GeForce 2 GTS actually fits in the perfect spot between the Voodoo5 5500 and what we can expect from the Voodoo5 6000. With a price tag of around $349 at its launch, the GeForce 2 will obviously be more expensive than the sub $300 Voodoo5 5500 but it also outperforms the 5500. At the same time, the V5 6000, judging entirely by its clearly superior fill rate, will most likely offer a huge performance increase over the GeForce 2 but at the same time will carry a price tag close to $600. This leaves the GeForce 2 in the middle of the two as an expensive, yet powerful solution.

Geforce 2 Gts, Geforce 2 DDr, Geforce 2 SDR

"At close to $350 it will be a tough call, if you currently have a DDR GeForce, you'll probably want to hang on to your investment. If you have a SDR GeForce, TNT2, or Voodoo3 you may want to go for the cheaper Voodoo5 5500 solution which does offer FSAA in Direct3D in today's games. Then again if FSAA was never really your game, or you're mainly into first person shooters, the GeForce 2 is probably the card you'll want to get.

For now, NVIDIA has the fastest solution available, upon the release of the Voodoo5 6000 that will change but there are only so many people that are willing to spend $600 on a video card so the GeForce 2 may end up being a more practical solution.

There is always the option of waiting, in 6 months we'll see NV20 from NVIDIA and with any luck, ATI's Radeon 256 and then we'll be able to run through this whole video card competition all over again."

And in Sept 2000, the Geforce 2 Ultra Debuts at $550-600 US dollars.

2001

"the Titanium series GeForce cards segmented NVIDIA's GeForce2/3 product line into no less than 12 distinct chips: GeForce3 Ti 500, GeForce3, GeForce3 Ti 200, GeForce2 Ti 200, GeForce2 Ti, GeForce2 Ultra, GeForce2 Pro, GeForce2 GTS, GeForce2 MX 400, GeForce2 MX, GeForce2 MX 200, and GeForce2 Go"

2002
"Just six months ago we were writing about NVIDIA's revolutionary GeForce3; and in spite of how revolutionary the product was we didn't recommend it as a card to purchase. The first cards were priced too high and the added features and performance the card offered would not give you any tangible improvement in the majority of today's games. For those of you that purchased for the long run and don't plan on upgrading your video cards for a while, you probably made the right decision. For everyone else that did purchase GeForce3s recently, will NVIDIA's marketing line from one of the three cards being announced today will make you want to kick yourself? We're going to show you if the line "GeForce3 performance, at half the price" can really hold true.

This fall we are all getting the "refresh" to the GeForce3 line that we told everyone to wait for months ago. While this refreshed GeForce3 line means greater performance, it also means lower prices for GeForce3 class performance which is never a bad thing.
Relaxed Marketing: Titanium

NVIDIA has rarely had any problems with the branding on their products and their fall line continues the tradition of simple marketing by adding the "Titanium" name to all new products.

As we just mentioned, there are three products being announced today all of which will be available immediately. The products are:

GeForce3 Ti 500
GeForce3 Ti 200
GeForce2 Ti 200"

Nvidias is a business. They put billions into this tech. The pricing is not unusual, and this product cycle didn't just start with the 680. It has been this way practically from the start. Again, There is always the option of waiting, in 6 months we'll see NVXX

http://www.anandtech.com/show/537/27
http://www.anandtech.com/show/873
http://www.anandtech.com/show/831
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_2_series
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top