Is the demand that great, or the production that limited? I have no source for either, so I cannot comment on either.
Actually I would have thought even the most rabid nvidia fan would agree that these are a rather elegant solution.
Low power, quiet, dx11 and decent fps.
From what I have seen all but the most devoted ATi apologists admit they are profoundly bad parts at their current price points. They are thoroughly outclassed by the parts they replace in pretty much every performance metric.
I think the price premium has less to do with their performance and more to do with the DX11 capability. Are they worth the premium to me? heck no, but they must be to some or else they wouldnt be selling. :shrug; Heres to hoping that nV dx11 products hit the selves soon and send prices down.
What? How? I agree their price/performance ratio isn't anything to write home about, but they aren't "bad parts" so to speak. What are these other "performance metrics" that they're being outclassed in? People have to remember that the 5770 and 5750 are mid-range parts offering nearly the performance of last generations high-end parts. While their price/performance isn't competitive (partially due to the "new tax"), they bring a lot more to the table over their predecessors, including dramatically reduced power consumption, smaller size, DX11 and other features, better/quieter cooling, etc.From what I have seen all but the most devoted ATi apologists admit they are profoundly bad parts at their current price points. They are thoroughly outclassed by the parts they replace in pretty much every performance metric.
I think at the lower-end market where they GT240 is oriented, the competition is even stiffer so it sticks out more. It seems like NVIDIA tried to do the same as AMD here, but they overshot the price-point by a little too much.The GT240 is lower power, less noise and a higher DX level then the parts it replaces too, doesn't change the fact that at its' price point it is a steaming pile of shit
Do you have the .55nm revenues?
From what I have seen all but the most devoted ATi apologists admit they are profoundly bad parts at their current price points. They are thoroughly outclassed by the parts they replace in pretty much every performance metric.
The GT240 is lower power, less noise and a higher DX level then the parts it replaces too, doesn't change the fact that at its' price point it is a steaming pile of shit
From what I have seen all but the most devoted ATi apologists admit they are profoundly bad parts at their current price points. They are thoroughly outclassed by the parts they replace in pretty much every performance metric.
It seems AMD is hardly charging a premium, it's a bit slower than the GTX295 and is priced well below it.
The 5850 gives you generaly better performance than the GTX285 and came out about $50 cheaper than the cheapest GTX285 you could find at the time.
The 57xx parts are not remotely comparable. They are easily bested by the 48xx parts they replace and are the same price to more expensive. They are just like the GT240, simply terrible at their current price point.
Hmmm, both are entry-level 40nm-based parts...the price/performance disadvantage they both have in common could be a reflection of the underlying elevated cost structure that 40nm represents at this time in its process maturity timeline.
Could it also be a more straight-to-the-point approach in business terms (at least for AMD) such as: "Let's price it this much first, at least at launch when people expect it to have a high initial price, and so we can get rid of the remaining 48xx cards we have left." ?
The 58xx parts are in an utterly different league then the 57xx parts. You can check my posting history, right now any enthusiast looking for a new board is best served by the 5850 without a doubt on an overall best card basis(factoring in price, performance, features etc). The only criticism that I can offer for the 58xx parts is their scarce availability. No, I don't think the 5870 is a good buy, nor the 5970, but again- you can check my post history, the only time I ever reccomended the 285 or 295 was when someone wanted the absolute fastest single GPU or single card solution with cost being no object.
The 57xx parts are not remotely comparable. They are easily bested by the 48xx parts they replace and are the same price to more expensive. They are just like the GT240, simply terrible at their current price point.
From what I have seen all but the most devoted ATi apologists admit they are profoundly bad parts at their current price points. They are thoroughly outclassed by the parts they replace in pretty much every performance metric.
The GT240 is lower power, less noise and a higher DX level then the parts it replaces too, doesn't change the fact that at its' price point it is a steaming pile of shit
The 57xx is very good for footprint, features (dx11), power, heat, noise and speed.
Price will come down when competition forces them to.
If only fps in current games mattered they would buy the 58xx.
Let's face it, ATI is not a charity. I think some people were spoiled by their low pricing of the 4xxx series. Heck, some card makers were complaining that the 4xxx series had razor thin margins. We knew a price boost was coming. Anyone could see it even if they were hoping for low prices.
No, it's not at all what's happening here. For some reason, you and others are expecting a mid-range part to beat last generation's high-end part in every comparative metric, which current technology simply won't allow (and generally hasn't happened in the past). There also have been very few instances where next generation's high-end part was slower and more expensive than the previous generation's high-end part (I can't even think of any off the top of my head), so to make such a comparison is useless.If Fermi comes out slower and more expensive then the 285 who here would be foolish enough to defend nVidia? That is precisely what is happening here.
No, it's not at all what's happening here. For some reason, you and others are expecting a mid-range part to beat last generation's high-end part in every comparative metric, which current technology simply won't allow (and generally hasn't happened in the past). There also have been very few instances where next generation's high-end part was slower and more expensive than the previous generation's high-end part (I can't even think of any off the top of my head), so to make such a comparison is useless.
Unless the 5870 was slower than the 4870, or the 5770 was slower than the 4770, then that's not exactly what's happening here. Of course, if you specifically said "mid-range Fermi derivative", then you would have remained consistent.If Fermi comes out slower and more expensive then the 285 who here would be foolish enough to defend nVidia? That is precisely what is happening here.
No, it's not at all what's happening here. For some reason, you and others are expecting a mid-range part to beat last generation's high-end part in every comparative metric, which current technology simply won't allow (and generally hasn't happened in the past).
Unless the 5870 was slower than the 4870, or the 5770 was slower than the 4770, then that's not exactly what's happening here. Of course, if you specifically said "mid-range Fermi derivative", then you would have remained consistent.
Stated like that, hard to argue with it, I pretty much agree. Perhaps the only problem with it would be that it should actually be "have more value" instead of " be faster", and for different people, "value" may not necessarily be measured in FPS alone.No, more expensive newer tech should be faster then less expensive older tech- every time.
No, more expensive newer tech should be faster then less expensive older tech- every time.
Stated like that, hard to argue with it, I pretty much agree. Perhaps the only problem with it would be that it should actually be "have more value" instead of " be faster", and for different people, "value" may not necessarily be measured in FPS alone.
That's a fundamental flaw in logical reasoning and economics - this can't happen and if you ran a business like this, it would fail very quickly. If you constantly trump yourself by releasing better and faster parts at lower price, you'll run yourself into the ground. Companies have never done this and never will.No, more expensive newer tech should be faster then less expensive older tech- every time.
Exactly. And "value" isn't directly related to price-comparison. Therefore, a 5770 priced higher than a 4870 can actually have more "value" to some consumers.Stated like that, hard to argue with it, I pretty much agree. Perhaps the only problem with it would be that it should actually be "have more value" instead of " be faster", and for different people, "value" may not necessarily be measured in FPS alone.
Yup, but and I think Idc has a good summary of the situation:In this case is a question of price - the 5750 is too expensive and the 5770 was too expensive for some time.
If the 5770 is same price as the 4870, since they perform pretty much the same, the 5770 gets the nod. Currently, the 4870/GTX 260 seems to be rising up a bit making the 5770 a better value. But, if you find 4870/GTX 260 a lot cheaper or 4890 at the same price point, unless your PSU can juice them up, the 5770 is a worse buy.
The 5750 needs to be at around $100 or less to be a good buy. If it drops to that point, it pretty much slaughters everything around that price.
Still impressive though, how the 5770 with half the bandwidth (even if its memory and core are clocked faster) is pretty much equal to the 4870.
Exactly. We have an interesting situation now due to the supply constraints stemming form the issues at TSMC. Once those are resolved, it'll move more towards a standard model.Not going to disagree with the logic but I will add that its the consumers, not the business, that play the role in forcing such market conditions to become reality. If left up to the sales and marketing divisions of any given company they would certainly be happy selling ever steamier piles of crap for ever higher ASPs.
They don't, or rather can't, because customers and competition work in direct opposition to these "gross margin enhancement" efforts.
That said, which is nothing you guys don't already know, I draw your attention to the existence of "niche" high-margin boutique equipment sellers such as Apple and Alienware (before their M&A w/Dell).
These guys (Apple/Alienware) can sell refrigerators to Eskimos, and they can do it because the market accommodates them. That Nvidia and AMD aspire to follow in some well trod footsteps is of no surprise.
But the only reasoning they have to not do this is if the market doesn't support/reward their efforts...and the fact that prices have yet to decline on these specific SKU's under discussion would suggest the markets are not providing the sort of negative response we feel it should be providing in a perfect world of efficient market theory where consumers always make the most intelligent informed purchasing decisions.
This works so long as the volumes are limited, Apple will never gain 50% market share with their current product strategy and business model. If and when AMD or Nvidia wish to make their 57xx and 240 products be their "volume" products I suspect we'll see prices move down to promote that supply/demand equilibrium pricepoint.