A History of Nvidia GeForce

[tamz_msc]

You can say it doesn't matter, but no business can stay in business for very long if they sell their product for less than the cost to make it. Nvidia's motivation for higher prices may not be to help out AMD, but it does allow for AMD to make a little money.

Interestingly, I recalled there being a lawsuit against Nvidia in the past about prices, and I found this https://community.futuremark.com/fo...s-in-the-US-Class-Action-Slapped-Against-them

It would appear they had cooperated on prices in the past. I'm betting the lawsuit is why they'd be so adamant about saying they do not set prices based on AMD.

You don't seem to get what I'm suggesting. Suppose a successor to Polaris 10 with a similar die size allows AMD to get near-1080Ti performance. The chances of this happening today are very slim, but that is not the point. The point is that if AMD can charge 300$ for that kind of performance, it doesn't mean that the potential loss of sales of the 1080Ti would hurt NVIDIA in a negative way. They'd instead be compelled to come up with a product that is a proper response to AMD. This is what actually happened during the period of the lawsuit that you've liked to, but the lawsuit itself was a different matter.

The lawsuit deals with the state of the GPU market during a flurry of releases starting with the G92 based 8800GT, which not only made the 400$ 2900XT irrelevant, but also made one question the G80 based products. ATI quickly retaliated with the HD 3870, which allowed them to compete with the 8800GT, but then NVIDIA introduced the G92-refresh of the entire lineup, the 9000 series. All this happened within a short period of time, and resulted in an increase in prices due to supply/demand. The lawsuit is specifically about that, and the plaintiffs are ordinary customers, who accused both NVIDIA and ATi/AMD of deviating from earlier GPU release cycles. So this hearing isn't a complaint that one company priced the other one out of the competition.

 

[f2bnp]

You can tell I've triggered many Nvidia fans by the fact that pretty much everyone retaliated with an AMD call-out. I never even mentioned AMD.
The fact that you see nothing wrong with this strategy and instead choose to defend your buying habits speaks volumes. Meanwhile, Nvidia is simply pulling an Intel for years now.

 

[96Firebird]

Looks like they're killin' it!

 

[bystander36]

You don't seem to get what I'm suggesting. Suppose a successor to Polaris 10 with a similar die size allows AMD to get near-1080Ti performance. The chances of this happening today are very slim, but that is not the point. The point is that if AMD can charge 300$ for that kind of performance, it doesn't mean that the potential loss of sales of the 1080Ti would hurt NVIDIA in a negative way. They'd instead be compelled to come up with a product that is a proper response to AMD.

Isn't that the point of the matter. It's not easy to reach that performance, or they would have already. The more they struggle, the harder it is to come up with competing ideas, as funding for R&D gets less and less (possibly why things are the way they are now).

 

[tamz_msc]

Isn't that the point of the matter. It's not easy to reach that performance, or they would have already. The more they struggle, the harder it is to come up with competing ideas, as funding for R&D gets less and less (possibly why things are the way they are now).

There is earlier precedence that the barrier to reaching that level of performance isn't about overcoming a technological brick wall, but taking decisions that fly in the face of commonly held beliefs, along with a dedicated vision to carry out that plan, even if it meant risking one's career in the process. That's precisely what happened with RV770; and under the right circumstances, it can happen again. Anand has a couple of very interesting articles about the making of that chip, I suggest you read those to see where I'm coming from.

But the more important issue here is that something radical must happen for customers to take notice. If Ryzen 5 was a quad-core chip competing with the i5s, it would have been a blip in the radar. But offer 50% more cores at the same price and people will start noticing.

Nobody believed that Zen would deliver, let alone exceed, the targets AMD set for it. RTG needs a Zen moment very soon if it's to return to competition and profitability.

 

[bystander36]

There is earlier precedence that the barrier to reaching that level of performance isn't about overcoming a technological brick wall, but taking decisions that fly in the face of commonly held beliefs, along with a dedicated vision to carry out that plan, even if it meant risking one's career in the process. That's precisely what happened with RV770; and under the right circumstances, it can happen again. Anand has a couple of very interesting articles about the making of that chip, I suggest you read those to see where I'm coming from.

But the more important issue here is that something radical must happen for customers to take notice. If Ryzen 5 was a quad-core chip competing with the i5s, it would have been a blip in the radar. But offer 50% more cores at the same price and people will start noticing.

Nobody believed that Zen would deliver, let alone exceed, the targets AMD set for it. RTG needs a Zen moment very soon if it's to return to competition and profitability.

I'm not saying AMD couldn't survive, it's a matter of probability. Those risks are called risks for a reason. They usually don't pan out. It's a gamble. It also appears that is what they did with Vega. So far it doesn't seem to be panning out.

 

[Sable]

no differentiation of geforce 3, ti200 and ti500? What a hack.

 

[GaiaHunter]

DX11 is a 8 year old API.

Soon AMD and NVIDIA will have to start making their own game engines..

NVIDIA and AMD GPUs used to be exclusively graphic cards, these days the bigger models aren't.

 

[Headfoot]

You can say it doesn't matter, but no business can stay in business for very long if they sell their product for less than the cost to make it. Nvidia's motivation for higher prices may not be to help out AMD, but it does allow for AMD to make a little money.

Interestingly, I recalled there being a lawsuit against Nvidia in the past about prices, and I found this https://community.futuremark.com/fo...s-in-the-US-Class-Action-Slapped-Against-them

It would appear they had cooperated on prices in the past. I'm betting the lawsuit is why they'd be so adamant about saying they do not set prices based on AMD.

Allegedly. It settled out in 09 so we'll never know

 

[bystander36]

Allegedly. It settled out in 09 so we'll never know

In a business where performance determines price, despite the cost to create the devices, it seems a bit of fair play would be needed to allow both companies to make a decent profit every generation. I would be surprised if they didn't work together in the past, and just as surprised if they didn't continue to try to avoid undercutting each other in good faith, even without directly orchestrating it.

 

[tamz_msc]

I'm not saying AMD couldn't survive, it's a matter of probability. Those risks are called risks for a reason. They usually don't pan out. It's a gamble. It also appears that is what they did with Vega. So far it doesn't seem to be panning out.

The problem is that AMD's approach and NVIDIA's approach has clearly reached a stage where only one is delivering on both performance and power efficiency. AMD is still figuring out how best to implement SIMD while NVIDIA has almost perfected what they like to call 'SIMT'. In this kind of a situation, one really needs a radical departure from doing things the old way and look at the problem from a new perspective. Doing so entails risks, but having the courage to take those risks is the only way forward now for AMD.

 

[GaiaHunter]

The problem is that AMD's approach and NVIDIA's approach has clearly reached a stage where only one is delivering on both performance and power efficiency. AMD is still figuring out how best to implement SIMD while NVIDIA has almost perfected what they like to call 'SIMT'. In this kind of a situation, one really needs a radical departure from doing things the old way and look at the problem from a new perspective. Doing so entails risks, but having the courage to take those risks is the only way forward now for AMD.

The funny thing is AMD is as good as it has been for years as a company.
They have a competitive CPU.
They have a GPU that despite being "bad" compared to the competition will sell as many units as they can produce at higher prices than gamers would pay, while still having the consoles to have a say in the gaming market.

I expect that now that Zen is out and making money, the resources that were taken from RTG will be coming back.

 

[tential]

Yeah, these are pretty well done.

But, as always, some people will just completely ignore the fact that Nvidia has been selling mid-range chips at high-end/enthusiast prices .

Seriously?
This argument is used ONLY when it suits those trying to trash Nvidia.

People conveniently call the GTX 1070/1080 midrange when it suits their needs of calling Nvidia an evil company, but then they'll say it's high end when they want to compare it to AMD because it's a high end chip and you don't want to make Vega look bad. I'm pretty sure even that this was considered TROLLING when I suggested the EXACT thing that you stated.

I'm fine if you want to consider a GTX 1070/1080 midrange.
Just realize that if you do so, Vega is midrange performance being sold at ridiculous high end prices, and it's the height of AMD embarassment while if you're quick, you can STILL pick up great deals like this just expired GTX 1070 deal:
https://slickdeals.net/f/10566112-g...9-99-newegg?src=SiteSearchV2_SearchBarV2Algo1

At this point, Nvidia isn't price gouging you at all, they're delivering performance and you do have to pay for that. It doesn't come free or at bargain prices.
If you want bargain prices, you need to wait for a long long time to get the chip from AMD.

 

[amenx]

I'm fine if you want to consider a GTX 1070/1080 midrange.
Just realize that if you do so, Vega is midrange performance being sold at ridiculous high end prices, and it's the height of AMD embarassment...

This.The Nvidia 'mid-range' argument is the most duplicitous, ridiculous tripe ever posted in a forum as it completely ignores what it goes against in terms of $/performance. Plus, what a ringing indictment of AMD if their best high end GPUs can only match Nvidias mid-range. I'll bet the argument would switch to "Nvidia trying to kill off AMD with dumping practices" if their 'mid-range' 1070/1080 were set at RX570/580 prices.

 

[railven]

AdoredTV put out a new video, and he has some commentary on these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DES_U4ODpYQ

Seems he realizes what some of us old AMD/ATI fans realized a while back. AMD isn't going to give us performance at good prices anymore. That part didn't bother me (dropped $550 for HD 7970 without hesitation). Anyways, seems he's lost his passion. Wonder where he will go from here. Casting hate on Intel/Nvidia isn't going to get him very far.

To quote an urban proverb: "hate the game, not the playa"

 

[Borealis7]

In my opinion, nVidia "withholding" performance by releasing cut chips first is no different that day-1 DLC, as in: "it should've been included in the final product."
an educated buyer should know to wait for the fully enabled chips (GOTY edition ). nevertheless, if you rarely upgrade (like i do, once every 3-4 years) you could still get that x2-x3 performance boost even with those "midrange" chips.

 

[tamz_msc]

Seriously?
This argument is used ONLY when it suits those trying to trash Nvidia.

People conveniently call the GTX 1070/1080 midrange when it suits their needs of calling Nvidia an evil company, but then they'll say it's high end when they want to compare it to AMD because it's a high end chip and you don't want to make Vega look bad. I'm pretty sure even that this was considered TROLLING when I suggested the EXACT thing that you stated.

I'm fine if you want to consider a GTX 1070/1080 midrange.
Just realize that if you do so, Vega is midrange performance being sold at ridiculous high end prices, and it's the height of AMD embarassment while if you're quick, you can STILL pick up great deals like this just expired GTX 1070 deal:
https://slickdeals.net/f/10566112-g...9-99-newegg?src=SiteSearchV2_SearchBarV2Algo1

At this point, Nvidia isn't price gouging you at all, they're delivering performance and you do have to pay for that. It doesn't come free or at bargain prices.
If you want bargain prices, you need to wait for a long long time to get the chip from AMD.

Uh..he's always been clear what he meant by mid-range, which simply stated, means that there exists something bigger. By that definition, GP104 IS mid-range, but Vega IS NOT.

 

[Qwertilot]

Well I guess that GV100 makes everything else mid range then

 

[tamz_msc]

Well I guess that GV100 makes everything else mid range then

GV100 doesn't even enter into this discussion as it's something with a completely different purpose. By that logic a Xeon Phi would make every other Intel CPU mid-range.

It isn't about absolute die size, nobody is claiming something like - if it's less than 300mm^2, then it's mid-range. The point is whether the said gaming chip is the largest gaming chip either AMD or NVIDIA has to offer at launch? Starting with the Kepler refresh, the answer to that question is a resounding NO as far as NVIDIA is concerned.

 

[Qwertilot]

I was pointing out how silly this all is

As it happens, at launch, the 9/1080 very much were the largest gaming chips either company offered.

The Maxwell titan launched 6 months after the 980, the Pascal one 3. Not that I'd really count the titans as gaming chips with their silly prices. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if they genuinely couldn't have launched the Pascal titan as a mainstream chip (so 1080ti) at the time they launched the titan. Yields etc.

 

[amenx]

Uh..he's always been clear what he meant by mid-range, which simply stated, means that there exists something bigger. By that definition, GP104 IS mid-range, but Vega IS NOT.

Sure.. but what he leaves out may be the issue.. ie, at what price should it be vs AMDs lineup, both mid and high end? It does no good to say 'mid-range' and leave it at that, and hope viewers go on the premise that they are being ripped off regardless of the alternatives from the other side. That seems to be his intent, to make his audience feel like Nvidia is a rip-off regardless of what AMD comes up with. His last vid pretty much says that his main motivation is to go against any tech company with monopolistic tendencies (or what he interprets as such). Therefore his bias is quite clear and evident in what he leaves out as much as what he puts in. You can make any argument on any subject and be entirely truthful BUT misleading as hell by leaving out context or vital details.

 

[tamz_msc]

Sure.. but what he leaves out may be the issue.. ie, at what price should it be vs AMDs lineup, both mid and high end? It does no good to say 'mid-range' and leave it at that, and hope viewers go on the premise that they are being ripped off regardless of the alternatives from the other side. That seems to be his intent, to make his audience feel like Nvidia is a rip-off regardless of what AMD comes up with. His last vid pretty much says that his main motivation is to go against any tech company with monopolistic tendencies (or what he interprets as such). Therefore his bias is quite clear and evident in what he leaves out as much as what he puts in. You can make any argument on any subject and be entirely truthful BUT misleading as hell by leaving out context or vital details.

Prices will no doubt reflect the state of competition in the present market - when the GTX 1080 FE launched at 700$, of course it had no immediate competition. But it doesn't mean that we as consumers have to lap it up, no questions asked. When you accept that as the norm, you get a situation where, mining craze notwithstanding, prices drop by 200$, and something 35 percent faster is introduced at the old price point. Because of this, NVIDIA has an almost unprecedented room to play with their margins, and it's so watertight that there's no room for anyone else to compete at the same price point. AMD as it stands now is dead in the water when it comes to GPUs which compete at this price point.

As much as it's AMD's failure in making a good GPU to challenge NVIDIA in this space, for whatever reasons, it is also a fact that by accepting the pricing structure of NVIDIA in this Pascal generation, consumers have ensured that there will never be a competitor in the high-end GPU space. This was the entire point of his videos.

As this becomes the norm, I wouldn't be surprised if consumer Volta doesn't even happen and all we get by the end of Q1 2018 is a Pascal refresh.

 

[amenx]

Prices will no doubt reflect the state of competition in the present market - when the GTX 1080 FE launched at 700$, of course it had no immediate competition. But it doesn't mean that we as consumers have to lap it up, no questions asked. When you accept that as the norm, you get a situation where, mining craze notwithstanding, prices drop by 200$, and something 35 percent faster is introduced at the old price point. Because of this, NVIDIA has an almost unprecedented room to play with their margins, and it's so watertight that there's no room for anyone else to compete at the same price point. AMD as it stands now is dead in the water when it comes to GPUs which compete at this price point.

As much as it's AMD's failure in making a good GPU to challenge NVIDIA in this space, for whatever reasons, it is also a fact that by accepting the pricing structure of NVIDIA in this Pascal generation, consumers have ensured that there will never be a competitor in the high-end GPU space. This was the entire point of his videos.

As this becomes the norm, I wouldn't be surprised if consumer Volta doesn't even happen and all we get by the end of Q1 2018 is a Pascal refresh.

Fair enough.. but the argument is really against 'standard business practice' rather than one side ripping off its consumers (as some seem to state outright or imply). It can apply to all products/businesses. If anyone recalls when Intel could not better AMDs products back in 2004-2005, this is what we were paying for mid-range CPUS from AMD:

Athlon64 3000+ 2.0 GHz 512 kB 754 $ 173
Athlon64 3000+ 1.8 GHz 512 kB 939 $ 173
Athlon64 3200+ 2.0 GHz 1 MB 754 $ 227
Athlon64 3200+ 2.0 GHz 512 kB 939 $ 227
Athlon64 3400+ 2.2 GHz 512 kB 754 $ 288
Athlon64 3500+ 2.2 GHz 512 kB 939 $ 346
Athlon64 3700+ 2.4 GHz 1 MB 754 $ 507
Athlon64 3800+ 2.4 GHz 512 kB 939 $ 643
Athlon64 4000+ 2.4 GHz 1 MB 939 $ 729
Athlon64 FX-53 2.4 GHz 1 MB 939 $ 729
Athlon64 FX-55 2.6 GHZ 1 MB 939 $ 827

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd,902-2.html

Cant recall any similar arguments vs AMD back then over this. If the situation were reversed with Nvidia today, we can bet AMD would be doing the same just as well.. or face the wrath of their shareholders.

 

[railven]

Cant recall any similar arguments vs AMD back then over this. If the situation were reversed with Nvidia today, we can bet AMD would be doing the same just as well.. or face the wrath of their shareholders.

Problem is AMD did a good job of cultivating a particular type of supporter. They got huge back lash for when they did try to get more for their superior product. The HD 7970 launched at $550, $50 more than the slower GTX 580 1.5GB that was the current top performer. And it got bashed for it.

It wasn't uncommon to see pro AMD supporters go on to state things like Zen 8 Cores with 8GB HBM APUs for <$250 or Zen 8C/16T for $300. Don't forget that Polaris was expected to rival GTX 1080 for half the price. AMD is between a rock and a hard place. And it seems they're just going to go with the better margin options going forward. They need the money.

From my point of view, everyone wrapped themselves up in the consumer flag they forgot these corporations never once cared about us. And now that one is struggling and the other is doing business as usual, they've made themselves believe one is better than the other.

 

[tamz_msc]

Problem is AMD did a good job of cultivating a particular type of supporter. They got huge back lash for when they did try to get more for their superior product. The HD 7970 launched at $550, $50 more than the slower GTX 580 1.5GB that was the current top performer. And it got bashed for it.

You seem too eager to bring up this point of AMD fans bashing the HD 7970 at launch, without going into the details as to why it was the case. Here, let me quote from the AT review:

At the end of the day the 7970 is specifically targeted as a gaming workhorse. Regardless of any architecture changes, what’s important is how fast the card is, how much it costs, whether it works correctly, and what its physical attributes are like. With respect to all of these aspects AMD has made an acceptable card, but this is not a groundbreaking product like we’ve seen in the past.

The fact of the matter is that since 2008 we’ve become spoiled by AMD’s aggressive pricing. More than anything else the low prices of the Radeon HD 4870 and Radeon HD 5870 made those products superstars thanks to their performance for the price and their undercutting of NVIDIA’s competing cards. The Radeon HD 5870 was definitely fast, but at $379 it was a steal, which is part of the reason prices for it never stabilized at that low a level.

At the same time the 7970 is not the 5870. The 5870 relative to both NVIDIA and AMD’s previous generation video cards was faster on a percentage basis. It was more clearly a next-generation card, and DX11 only helped to seal the deal. Meanwhile if you look at straight averages the 7970 is only around 15-25% faster than the GTX 580 in our tests, with its advantage being highly game dependent. It always wins at 2560 and 1920, but there are some cases where it’s not much of a win. The 7970’s domination of the 6970 is more absolute, but then again the 6970 is a good $200 cheaper at this point in time.

The 7970 was a clear deviation for AMD's product positioning from previous two generations(I count two because the HD 6000 series was an evolution of HD 5000). So of course it received a backlash, especially when the GTX 680 retook the performance crown just over three months later, while being much more efficient. With the launch of Kepler and Tahiti, AMD and NVIDIA basically swapped positions when it came to small-die, high efficiency vs. large-die low efficiency. Tell me why the backlash isn't justified.

It wasn't uncommon to see pro AMD supporters go on to state things like Zen 8 Cores with 8GB HBM APUs for <$250 or Zen 8C/16T for $300. Don't forget that Polaris was expected to rival GTX 1080 for half the price.

We actually got Zen 8C/16T at 300$. Rumored plans for HBM-equipped APUs exist as enterprise-oriented devices. Nowhere was it claimed that Polaris would give GTX 1080 performance at half the price. The only place where these two are mentioned together is a misleading E3 demo with Crossfired-RX 480s up against a GTX 1080 in Ashes of the Singularity. What was hyped up was the achievable clock speeds, with claims like 1400MHz being 'easily attainable'.