Like I said before, gross margin in a poor was to measure the semiconductor business.
That strikes me as somewhat insane. I remember when the HD4850 512MB was mid-range, and it was released at $200 retail. I paid $150 for mine, BB had a 25% off sale on VisionTek cards, the week before the card was supposed to be released. Some stores got the cards in early, and could be convinced to let you buy them.
I paid $190 ea for my Gigabyte WindForce GTX460 1GB OC cards.
That's the price range that I am comfortable paying. NOT $400-500. That's nuts. If video cards alone are going to cost as much or more than a high-end console, I'll switch to consoles.
Three months for $1000? What kind of crap jobs do you guys have? I can understand raising a family and paying a mortgage is not easy but even a half decent job leaves enough disposable income to buy more than one titan. I'm in my last year of med school and I bought two of them with cash.
Um, the poster implied he is not from a first world country. There are plenty of Eastern European, Middle Eastern and South East Asian countries where earning $4,000/year rather than $40,000/year is average for most people.
Three months for $1000? What kind of crap jobs do you guys have? I can understand raising a family and paying a mortgage is not easy but even a half decent job leaves enough disposable income to buy more than one titan. I'm in my last year of med school and I bought two of them with cash.
This is just extreme speculation:
When nVidia did see the asking price and performance of the HD 7970 - the nVidia collective was dancing in the halls in Santa Clara.
AMD was first to market so their pricing was higher.
Imho,
Indeed! And why nVidia was dancing in the halls of Santa Clara! We can ask this much for our GK-104?
nVidia does not care that AMD beat them with time to market. There was not enough supply for them anyway at the start of 2012.
AMD allowed nVidia to put their products a price segment higher than in the previous generation. Would be great if people stop ignoring this fact.
This doesnt make much sense to me.
How did AMD allow Nvidia to do anything?
AMD basically beat them to market and did the same this time around.
Because AMD was slow this generation Nvidia's mid-range competed directly with it?
Do you think Nvidia should have released GK104 at it's $250 price point, given it was faster than the fastest 28nm chip AMD had out, which was 550-600 dollars?
Would AMD have sent out 50% cash back offers for early adopters?
What really makes me laugh is how you keep saying GK104 was a mid range chip. When has anyone ever said this was mid range?
GK110 was never going to be the 680 GTX. There is no other GPU that could have been the 680 GTX.
GK104 was always going to be Nvidias flagship GPU for this generation. Its missing all of the compute silicon which no one ever uses anyway.
AMD has done this to Nvidia before. They used a smaller and more efficient GPU to beat Nvidias big hot GPU loaded full of useless compute silicon.
[/b]
And still lost.
No im pretty sure they didnt lose. AMD was able to sell their cards at significantly cheaper prices and higher perfomance.
This is why i owned the 4870 X2, it was the winner of that generation.
Your definition of winning is you getting a good deal? The rest of the world looks at market share and profit as winning. AMD has been a perennial loser in this regard. At some point you have to call a loser a loser. The sooner you do, the sooner you can relax and stop defending a loser non-stop on msgboards.
Anyone still denying gk 104 is a mid range card after it got spanked by Titan is just delusional trying to cover for their team.