Nvidia has a brand advantage over AMD kind of like Bose has a brand advantage over Klipsch. It doesn't matter if they sell an inferior product, people will buy it because they parrot advertising.
No, earning a profit to the detriment of others is, a situation that socialism can be one tool to help with.So earning profit is bad now? socialism all the way
Well done to everyone who religiously defends Nvidia's pricing.
54.4% margins helped by Keplar.
Im sure Titan will push that up further!
No, earning a profit to the detriment of others is, a situation that socialism can be one tool to help with.
Offering good value, and making a profit doing it, is fine, especially when it's going to go into R&D. Like the 3M example: 3M anything is expensive, but when was the last time you bought a 3M adhesive or abrasive, and it wasn't up to snuff? Compare that to when you save money on the off-brands.
nV obviously has their marketing down, these days. Of course, all the free games w/ Radeons reeks of desperation, too.
I don't get why people buy the more expensive ones, since nV doesn't win by as much as they lose, with the 670 and 680, but the 640 (for non-gamers), 650 Ti, 650 Ti BOOST, and 660 Ti are good values, ATM, depending on games, and while nV does exaggerate their improvements per gen, they don't do so by enough that anyone can call them out as lying, so AMD's going to have a hard time of it as nV's 700 (refreshes) meet the 7000 and 8000 series, and then nV's 800 comes along with much improved efficiency.
I agree. I just don't get why people do it, without specific driving features/performance (such as needing CUDA).You always have a choice don't you? if you game at 720P and buy a titan it is not NV's fault exactly.NV is not telling you to not look at their product reviews.If a consumer is misinformed the blame lies with them not NV.
I agree. I just don't get why people do it, without specific driving features/performance (such as needing CUDA).
Yes, but the way they like to look at it is the small high-margin niches bringing profit, with the high volume bringing revenue. IE, Tegra and the small discretes pay to keep the lights on, while Quadro, Tesla, and Titan make the profit.Titan and the 690 have virtually no impact on Nvdias gross margins (as inferred by some), they are pretty much a niche product, a tiny segment of their overall sales. Their SoC business is probably the bulk of their sales by now.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/nvidi...a-sales-kepler-architecture-in-focus-cm216879
No, earning a profit to the detriment of others is, a situation that socialism can be one tool to help with.
Offering good value, and making a profit doing it, is fine, especially when it's going to go into R&D. Like the 3M example: 3M anything is expensive, but when was the last time you bought a 3M adhesive or abrasive, and it wasn't up to snuff? Compare that to when you save money on the off-brands.
Yep, and the biggest reason to be approving = ties to NV, biggest reason to dislike it = consumer seeing price increases.
No rational consumer would be excited about this.
Was the wall clean? I've used them on wallpaper and latex paint, and consider them to be magic.That's easy, I just bought about $100 on 8 packs of Command Wall Strips by 3M. The strips according to 3M can hold up to 16lbs.
I have a large Galaxy Map and World Map (each are 3 piece posters), each of them couldn't possibly weigh more than a few ounces. I literally stamped the back of each poster with $50 worth of these strips (about 16 of them each).
Guess what, within a few hours, both posters had peeled off the wall and fell off the ground. What a piece of crap. Judging by the materials I'd be surprised if it even cost 3M 25 cents in materials for the $100 msrp they charge on these things.
Titan and the 690 have virtually no impact on Nvdias gross margins (as inferred by some), they are pretty much a niche product, a tiny segment of their overall sales. Their SoC business is probably the bulk of their sales by now.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/nvidi...a-sales-kepler-architecture-in-focus-cm216879
Then what is your objective? To let everyone in a technical forum know the profit margins of Nvidia?
In other words, what is your goal here.
Silly thread - companies have to make money to survive. AMD is on the knife edge of going under, if Nvidia join them then what are you left with - Intel for all your gaming graphics needs?
Intel's margin is around 65%. But that is before R&D, administration and capital expenditures. Their actual margin is around 25%
Just think - these profits would be higher if AMD wasn’t around (as would Intel’s). That’s why we need competition, people.
Compared to Intel's historical pricing and competition, they actually make the world's most efficient, fastest and still reasonably priced gaming CPUs. $225 for 3570K is a bargain in the context of historical CPU pricing, longevity and its overclocking and efficiency. NV's products do not fit into this context except for efficiency. 680 is gimped on the overclocking front, the stock cooler and PCB on the 670 is sub-par, voltage is locked, VRAM is gimped, HD7950 OC wipes the floor with 660Ti. In almost all cases under $550, NV offers worse performance and price/performance than the competitor. Perhaps GTX650Ti Boost is the sole exception.
Regarding comparing Intel's higher margins to NV's, GPUs won't last as long as CPUs either. Therefore, people don't care as much that Intel is making a killing on CPUs. Also $225-325 CPUs is not comparable to $400-550 GPUs that are outdated in 2 years. 2500K/3570K or even 2600K/3770K are justifiable by virtue of them lasting at least 3-4 years. Just look at i7 Nehalem @ 3.75ghz in games:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,7.html
Furthermore, Intel's CPUs hold their value very well. You can sell a 3570K that you paid $225 for $125 2 years later without a problem. The total cost of ownership over the useful life of the CPU is very minimal. With a GTX480, you paid $500 at launch and 1.5 years later it was going for $175-225 on Newegg. With GTX580 you paid $500 and in 1.5 years later HD7850 OC delivered that performance for $250.
With NV, you pay more for slower performance and in many cases less features (less VRAM for mods), no ability to bitcoin mine. This is not the NV I know. The NV I know gave us the awesome GeForce 4200Ti, 6800 non-ultra unlock, 6800GT, 8800GT, GTX460 and GTX560Ti. NV's brand positioning this round is more Apple than NV. They pretty much said screw price/performance and screw top performance for at least 12 months. The Titan regained the single GPU performance crown but they still have no card anywhere near the status of those cards I listed above.
I want to meet people who are willing to pay $360 in May 2013 for a reference GTX670, after a rebate.
No rational consumer would be excited about this.
I want to meet those people who are willing to pay $360 in May 2013 for a reference GTX670, after a rebate.
What is your objective here? To stir things up? You know these results are posted here almost every quarter, right?
Comical - It's quite obvious what's he's saying. Profit Margins up, Die sizes down = Nvidia charging more than previous generations - Wishes prices were lower for what we are getting. Nobody mentioned AMD, so why does it always have to be about AMD? AMD is probably doing the same. It's nonsense and you know it, but continue to try to start silly flame wars.
I see nothing wrong with the post.