Anybody else unimpressed with new midrange Nvidia GPUs, and much higher MSRP?

[exar333]

Crossfire issues are what pushed me to the green side to begin with. Recent Crossfire scaling has me intrigued though.

The scaling difference isn't huge. It is more if multi-GPU is completely broken or actually working on the games you play.

 

[airfathaaaaa]

Do you know something we don't?

we can quote the guy and send it to videocardz pretty sure it will make a nice news for them ()


https://i.redditmedia.com/hcCwDSauRhRguDIGK-9KhsGDYe4IarlOwrfpDISV_Hs.jpg?w=1024&
apparently its a 3 way 1080 2 on sli and one doing physx and ray tracing

 

[mohit9206]

Anyone remember the 780ti launch? $699 for being 15% faster than $399 R9 290. Look at the massive price/performance difference. Yet many bought 780ti justifying the fact it did run cooler, less noisy, better oc headroom, etc. If AMD couldn't convince gpu enthusiasts back then, what chance do they have now?
Nvdia could realistically have priced 1080 at $799 instead of $599 and still got away with it. Afterall faster than $1000 titan X for $200 less! Faster than 980sli for $100 less! That would be enough to convince gpu enthusiasts to buy the 1080 for $800.
So in a way its kind of generous for Nvdia to set the base price of 1080 at $599.
Compared to the rip off that was 780Ti which many enthusiasts fell for, this is surprisingly not ridiculous pricing by Nvdia. Even Ryan Smith said this in his 780ti review " At $700 it’s by no means cheap – and this has and always will be the drawback to NVIDIA’s flagships so long as NVIDIA can hold the lead."
Unfortunately this lead will continue with Pascal giving Nvdia free reign over pricing their cards however they like.

 

[swilli89]

Anyone remember the 780ti launch? $699 for being 15% faster than $399 R9 290. Look at the massive price/performance difference. Yet many bought 780ti justifying the fact it did run cooler, less noisy, better oc headroom, etc. If AMD couldn't convince gpu enthusiasts back then, what chance do they have now?

Yep, blows my mind.

 

[Vaporizer]

Yep, blows my mind.

You get what you are paying for. Hahaha.
But anyway most Enthusiasts sell the card after one year. And you should not hold a NV card any longer....

 

[William Gaatjes]

Do some research for your next card to protect yourself. Gigabyte Xtreme series have Aerospace PCB coating, which makes them water resistant.

http://ca.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5726#kf

Might want to look into that series of cards next time.

Or get some hold on humiseal. Stinks when applied and you need proper ventilation, but it will make your pcb with components almost water resistant(connectors excluded). It is however, also an insulator. So not good for parts that get hot and need airflow. Otherwise, humiseal protects perfectly against moisture and rain, even an environment near salt water. Of course, connector pins cannot be brushed with humiseal for then there would be no longer any electrical contact. Can withstand some mechanical damage and can also be removed with a little effort for component repair / replacement.

http://www.humiseal.com/products/acrylics/1b12/

It is expensive material.

 

[tential]

Anyone remember the 780ti launch? $699 for being 15% faster than $399 R9 290. Look at the massive price/performance difference. Yet many bought 780ti justifying the fact it did run cooler, less noisy, better oc headroom, etc. If AMD couldn't convince gpu enthusiasts back then, what chance do they have now?
Nvdia could realistically have priced 1080 at $799 instead of $599 and still got away with it. Afterall faster than $1000 titan X for $200 less! Faster than 980sli for $100 less! That would be enough to convince gpu enthusiasts to buy the 1080 for $800.
So in a way its kind of generous for Nvdia to set the base price of 1080 at $599.
Compared to the rip off that was 780Ti which many enthusiasts fell for, this is surprisingly not ridiculous pricing by Nvdia. Even Ryan Smith said this in his 780ti review " At $700 it’s by no means cheap – and this has and always will be the drawback to NVIDIA’s flagships so long as NVIDIA can hold the lead."
Unfortunately this lead will continue with Pascal giving Nvdia free reign over pricing their cards however they like.

I actually to keep thinking it's priced at $800. $700 is not bad for a flagship card with no competitors.

 

[exar333]

I actually to keep thinking it's priced at $800. $700 is not bad for a flagship card with no competitors.

You can expect some rather large (think 980 last year) price cuts when Vega comes out.

 

[MrTeal]

Or get some hold on humiseal. Stinks when applied and you need proper ventilation, but it will make your pcb with components almost water resistant(connectors excluded). It is however, also an insulator. So not good for parts that get hot and need airflow. Otherwise, humiseal protects perfectly against moisture and rain, even an environment near salt water. Of course, connector pins cannot be brushed with humiseal for then there would be no longer any electrical contact. Can withstand some mechanical damage and can also be removed with a little effort for component repair / replacement.

http://www.humiseal.com/products/acrylics/1b12/

It is expensive material.

Is there much additional benefit with something like Humiseal, vs a conformal coating that's more readily available like the MG Chemicals ones?

 

[RussianSensation]

isn't 2 way SLI plenty for everyone? How much of the market is 3+ SLI?

I can totally understand why they want to focus on 2-way SLI as more targeted approach may result in the best dual-GPU scaling ever. However, I am puzzled why they didn't give 1070 the same HB SLI bridges. Furthermore, doubling the SLI bandwidth to 2GB/sec is still nothing worth talking about when the competition is doing up to 16GB/sec without the bridges. New bridges, higher cost of cards ($329 970 to $379-449 1070; $499/549 680/980 to $599-699) -- these costs start to add up. As a consumer, this is highly annoying and discouraging seeing where the industry is going.

Not trying to turn any of it into the investor discussion but time and time again I am hearing how costs of new nodes are so expensive blah blah blah. None of it adds up to reality because NV's margins are now at 56.13%, record high. This means while NV is raising prices left right and center, they are also NOT passing on the cost savings of transistor density via Moore's Law to consumers. What they are doing is padding the pockets of their shareholders. You cannot have a situation where you claim that rising/escalating costs are forcing you to raise prices to stay competitive, and yet have record gross margins.

If Apple's massive success has taught us anything, it should be that industrial design matters. A lot. Whether it performs better or not, an elegant aluminum shroud is going to look a lot more "premium" than cheap plastic.

Also, while the AMD heatsink may have a larger surface area, the Nvidia heatsink has wider fin spacing. Narrow fins like on the AMD cooler require high static pressure, and therefore more noise. A wider spacing is optimized for lower airflow.

That's great. What's going to be a response when AIBs bring cards more powerful, run cooler and quieter than reference and cost the same or less?

Face it, $70-100 price hike no FE is a money grab because NV knows many of its customers are like Apple customers.

Look, it's about time we start saying the truth in the open. AMD charged a $100 price premium for a full Fury X with an AIO CLC. NV is charging $100 premium for a blower. Give me a break. This is just NV establishing a new FE card via marketing for the purpose of forever charging premiums on these cards with Volta unless consumers vote with their wallets.

Anyone remember the 780ti launch? $699 for being 15% faster than $399 R9 290. Look at the massive price/performance difference. Yet many bought 780ti justifying the fact it did run cooler, less noisy, better oc headroom, etc. If AMD couldn't convince gpu enthusiasts back then, what chance do they have now?

0 chance. That's why I don't even view 40-50% of NV customers and the types of people who buy AMD (could be any other GPU company if we had 3rd or 4th or 5th) as overlapping. I'd say AMD could be selling Vega 10 for $199 with 1070's performance and 1070 would still outsell it, even 1060Ti would.

Nvdia could realistically have priced 1080 at $799 instead of $599 and still got away with it. Afterall faster than $1000 titan X for $200 less! Faster than 980sli for $100 less! That would be enough to convince gpu enthusiasts to buy the 1080 for $800.
So in a way its kind of generous for Nvdia to set the base price of 1080 at $599.

They don't want to shock the market outright. Don't worry, with Volta, they can try $749-799 for GV104.

Compared to the rip off that was 780Ti which many enthusiasts fell for, this is surprisingly not ridiculous pricing by Nvdia. Even Ryan Smith said this in his 780ti review " At $700 it’s by no means cheap – and this has and always will be the drawback to NVIDIA’s flagships so long as NVIDIA can hold the lead."
Unfortunately this lead will continue with Pascal giving Nvdia free reign over pricing their cards however they like.

Does this mean now the x70 tier will be significantly below the x80 tier moving forward? Well if gamers accept these prices, NV has no reason to change for Volta. Recall that there was a 27% advantage for a $499 680 over a $299 660Ti (119/94) @ 1600p (GPU test).

Now it appears there may be a 20-25% difference between the 1070 and 1080, maybe more. NV's margins keep rising to record levels but their fans defend it as "Higher cost of newer nodes". What's happening is NV isn't passing on the cost savings of Moore's Law to consumers under forum shills/fanbois that defend rising prices. 56.13% now in that 3rd chart here: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/03/30/nvidia-corp-stock-in-3-charts.aspx

Perhaps most concerning is that AMD's market share is barely moving, if at all. That means the vast majority of PC gamers have turned away from AMD; and newcomers to PC gaming aren't even considering AMD at all. I've been able to dodge the bullet of these rising prices for the last 8 years through mining. Checking electricity costs in North America and Europe suggests it was possible to make $ with AMD cards for the last 8 years and yet AMD's market share has fallen to 20%. Considering less than 10M people own 970/290X or higher, this proves that most people are price conscious but then why weren't they mining with AMD cards to get free $500 flagships over 8 years? Literally right now 3 Hawaii cards generate $10 USD a day or easily over $200 USD a month after electricity costs! The fact that most of the world isn't buying AMD cards and using this perk suggests MOST PC gamers are not knowledgeable at all. This is why it's so easy for NV to use marketing to get the vast majority of customers.

The reason I advocate mining so much isn't because I get $ from it. My earnings fall the more people join. Still, I don't want you guys to waste money on PC hardware when it can be subsidized or even free over time. It's become so advanced, you can throw the earnings on your Debit card.

The fact that 80% of PC gamers have been throwing $ at NV and ignoring that AMD cards earn $ is mind-blowing to me. As a finance professional, I cannot understand why I would spend money on a depreciating asset while another depreciating asset earns cash flow over time. Even if the NV card is faster by 30-50%, it's worthless because the existing AMD cards make $ to get next gen AMD cards that are also 30-50% faster, but the upgrade cost is $0. I don't care about the masses of sheep but you guys, on our forum, CAN get high-end cards for a fraction of the cost if you just listen to what we've been saying for the last 8 years. Next time AMD launches Vega for $700, who cares, it's gonna be free.

Only dedicated forums such as ours, etc. can truly educate consumers. NV's marketing slides and reviewers who are really just marketers will NEVER do. They make $$$ selling us new tech, it's as simple as it gets. It's their job to RECOMMEND us to SPEND $$$. It's a joke that these same people "we trust" to give us honest advice are gushing over a 1080 card that now costs $699, up from $499 680 and hyping it the biggest improvement from NV in decades while a $499 680 beat 580 by 30% on launch day.

Not a single one of these Professional Reviewers criticized NV for charging $100 extra for the FE card by instead bundling it with a far superior AIO CLC. Why? I bet it's damn hard to do when NV paid for your flights, hotels, food, horseback riding, kayaking, etc. How are you in a position to criticize a product when you just got pampered the entire weekend?! This is basically Bribing the Press.

NV showed off what the new cards are capable in of Doom 2016.

"If $200 is in the budget, and PCI Express is a necessity, the 6600 GT is absolutely the way to go."

Flashback time -- 6600GT (today's 1080) cost $200 USD and destroyed FX5950 and 9800Pro by almost 2X in Doom 3. 9800XT and 5950U were $500 USD cards (last gen's flagships).

This is really what happened in the GPU industry:

6600GT $199 -> $249 560Ti -> $499 680 -> $549 980 -> $599/699 1080. FACT.

Let's connect the dots now. In September 2004, NV launched 6600GT for $199 and that card obliterated last gen's flagship cards by a lot more than 1080 outperforms the Titan X. Back then NV's gross margins were < 30%. Today they are almost at 60%.

NV has used marketing, forum focus group members, YouTubers/Twitch Gamers and Professional Reviewers who are really not journalists but basically marketers to raise prices on a 2004 $200 mid-range card all the way to $700 USD in 2016.

Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to be happy with the way the GPU industry is moving forward for anyone who is impartial and has followed all of this unfolding in-front of our eyes.

The fact that new cards destroy last gen's flagship isn't special; it's the bare minimum that happened for 1.5 decades.

 

[Ranulf]

Heh RS you beat me to it. I was going to link that video discussion from jayztwocents, Luke from LTT etc.. It was interesting to watch them gush at times. Ignoring the mid to low end market or justifying the founders edition and the price increases. Two years ago everyone seemed so giddy over $329.

This is a repeat of Maxwell and no doubt 1080 owners will get six months at best of being on top.

 

[jlee]

This is really what happened in the GPU industry:

6600GT $199 -> $249 560Ti -> $499 680 -> $549 980 -> $599/699 1080. FACT.

How do you go from 6600GT to GTX 980?

 

[crisium]

Great post RS, besides the militant mining defense. Some people just aren't interested. It's not quite the same as chastising people for not having a retirement account.

Nvidia prices has skyrocked, and the consumers get less choice with larger performance and price gaps between cards.

How do you go from 6600GT to GTX 980?

6600GT, 560 Ti, 980, etc are all relatively the same thing. The full chips of the "medium" architecture. 6600GT is NV43, while the 6800 Ultra is NV40. 980 is GM204, Titan X is GM200.

Mid range chips are now sold at or above the prices that used to be reserved for actual Flagships, i.e. 980 priced at more than double the 560 Ti and even more than the flagship 580. The true 580 replacement is the Titan X, which also doubled. Prices more than doubled in just a few years. And now they continue to climb.

 

[RussianSensation]

How do you go from 6600GT to GTX 980?

It's called thousands of engineers and Moore's Law. The same way a $700 mirrorless camera today destroys a $7000 camera from 2004.

If you don't like the 6600GT comparison and want to use 6800/6800GT, it's even worse.

X800XL = $299
6800GT = $399
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1567/3

6800GT was 60% faster than 5950U.

Today $379-449 1070 is going to beat 980Ti by what 5-10%?

That means either 1070 is not a true x70 card or NV purposely low-balled its performance or NV isn't passing on the Moore's Law savings to consumers while also raising prices. Take your pick or all of them. Do you have any other explanations why NV's gross margins nearly doubled but a $450 1070 is only marginally better than a 980Ti?

Great post RS, besides the militant mining defense. Some people just aren't interested. It's not quite the same as chastising people for not having a retirement account.

Fair enough. I still think more people would buy AMD if they knew AMD cards make $, especially poorer PC gamers who cannot afford $300-600 cards would suddenly be able to buy them. Well 8 years have passed so cannot get that time back.

Nvidia prices has skyrocked, and the consumers get less choice with larger performance and price gaps between cards.

Fermi summer 2010, 6 years ago. According to NV themselves, only 14% of PC gamers purchased GPUs above $199.

6600GT, 560 Ti, 980, etc are all relatively the same thing. The full chips of the "medium" architecture. 6600GT is NV43, while the 6800 Ultra is NV40. 980 is GM204, Titan X is GM200.

Mid range chips are now sold at or above the prices that used to be reserved for actual Flagships, i.e. 980 priced at more than double the 560 Ti and even more than the flagship 580. The true 580 replacement is the Titan X, which also doubled. Prices more than doubled in just a few years. And now they continue to climb.

In fairness it took them 4 years, more than a few.

 

[jlee]

It's called thousands of engineers and Moore's Law. The same way a $700 mirrorless camera today destroys a $7000 camera from 2004.

If you don't like the 6600GT comparison and want to use 6800/6800GT, it's even worse.

X800XL = $299
6800GT = $399
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1567/3

6800GT was 60% faster than 5950U.

Today $379-449 1070 is going to beat 980Ti by what 5-10%?

That means either 1070 is not a true x70 card or NV purposely low-balled its performance or NV isn't passing on the Moore's Law savings to consumers while also raising prices. Take your pick or all of them. Do you have any other explanations why NV's gross margins nearly doubled but a $450 1070 is only marginally better than a 980Ti?

Your smartass response does nothing for my question, but thanks for the effort. However, I do want to point out that $399 in 2004 is $629 in today's dollars...so you're much better staying with the 6600GT example ($250 adjusted for inflation).

I'm quite confident that the bolded is the case - people continue to pay, so what incentive does nVidia have to charge less money?

Great post RS, besides the militant mining defense. Some people just aren't interested. It's not quite the same as chastising people for not having a retirement account.

Nvidia prices has skyrocked, and the consumers get less choice with larger performance and price gaps between cards.

6600GT, 560 Ti, 980, etc are all relatively the same thing. The full chips of the "medium" architecture. 6600GT is NV43, while the 6800GT is NV40. 980 is GM204, Titan X is GM200.

Mid range chips are now sold at or above the prices that used to be reserved for actual Flagships, i.e. 980 prices at more than double the 560 Ti and even more than the flagship 580. The true 580 replacement is the Titan X, which also doubled. Prices more than doubled in just a few years. And now they continue to climb.

Ahh okay, that makes sense.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Is there much additional benefit with something like Humiseal, vs a conformal coating that's more readily available like the MG Chemicals ones?

At work we use only one type of coating(forgot the part number, if i not forget it i will post about it next week) to protect system circuit boards that need an extreme reliability. Cannot go into details for it is not our merchandise but from a customer. But we also use it in our own devices that operate in the open air at the sea coast, almost at the beach so to speak. It extends the life of the product with several years. It works very well. A colleague applied it after he repaired the circuitboard for his washing machine.

I think humiseal has some special approvals because they also have coatings for military and aerospace approved use. I have no experience with mg chemicals. I cannot comment on that.

At home i used kontakchemie (German Brand) plastic 70 for some of my home made stuff. But i would be hesitant to use this on any board inside a pc. It is a spray container and you really have to make sure that stuff does not get into the connectors like pci-e.

The humiseal we use at work can be applied perfectly with a pencil brush.
Just tape off the parts of the pcb you do not want to be covered with humiseal and make sure there is no dust on the pcb you want to humiseal or the humiseal will not stick properly.


EDIT:

I should note that if anybody wants to do this with humiseal, be extremely careful.
For example , you have to tape off the parts that you do not want to be covered with humiseal.
For example the pci-e connector. But you will have very strict demands for the tape.
First of all, it must not build up any charge when applying it to the pcb or when you remove it.
Ordinary plastic tape can build up electrical charge to create voltages in excess of 1000V when you pull it of a surface.
If you apply such tape to the pci-e connector of a gpu card, this can/will damage and even destroy your 500 dollar gpu card instantly.
Second of all, it must not leave behind trace amounts of residue.
But this can be over come by cleaning with a cleaning solvet like isopropyl alcohol.
And always ground yourself with an esd bracelet to the gnd of the gpu card or motherboard/pc. Always try to maintain the same potential as the gnd plane of the pcb you are holding.

 

[SPBHM]

6600GT, 560 Ti, 980, etc are all relatively the same thing. The full chips of the "medium" architecture. 6600GT is NV43, while the 6800 Ultra is NV40. 980 is GM204, Titan X is GM200.

I think it the mid chip from Nvidia is closer now to the largest one than it was back in 2004, if you look at specs the 6600GT is more distant from a 6800GT (8vs16 pipelines, 128 vs 256bit memory, but sure the 6600GT was clocked higher) than a 980 is to a 980 ti, actually the 6600GT looks more like something bellow the 970 and above the 960 in terms of specs compared to a 980 ti I would think, which adding inflation doesn't make things look to absurd!?

from the review posted earlier

compare the difference from the 6600gt to the high end cards like the 6800GT

I think you will have to work really hard to find the 980 so much slower than a 980 ti.

 

[crisium]

True, if you go too far back there's a lot of discrepancies. Really, it's Fermi that set a standard that we wish we still had. Full Big Chip $500, Full Medium Chip $250. Good spacing between tiers (even a 560 Ti 448 to narrow the gap).

Kepler brought us the $500 Medium Chip, but at least there was still good spacing with 4 variants of it (660, 660 Ti, 670, 680). Now we only get two variants of the Medium chip. And even higher prices.

 

[mohit9206]

That was a good post RussianSensation. Just reading the 780ti review thread and you were one of the few people who were rightly criticizing the price to performance. Even Crisium was fighting the good fight. Rest were just eating up the 780ti and outright dismissing the 290.People justifying the 780ti price calling it a halo card and whatnot.
One guy even wrote a detailed post on power usage and efficiency of 780ti sli and saving electric costs vs 290x crossfire. I mean who the hell cares about power usage. Like you really care about power savings but paying $300 extra for 15% more performance is not an issue. its still great fun to sometimes go back and read old forum threads for perspective and for the lolz.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2352166

 

[Ajay]

EDIT:

I should note that if anybody wants to do this with humiseal, be extremely careful.
For example , you have to tape off the parts that you do not want to be covered with humiseal.
For example the pci-e connector. But you will have very strict demands for the tape.
First of all, it must not build up any charge when applying it to the pcb or when you remove it.
Ordinary plastic tape can build up electrical charge to create voltages in excess of 1000V when you pull it of a surface.
If you apply such tape to the pci-e connector of a gpu card, this can/will damage and even destroy your 500 dollar gpu card instantly.
Second of all, it must not leave behind trace amounts of residue.
But this can be over come by cleaning with a cleaning solvet like isopropyl alcohol.
And always ground yourself with an esd bracelet to the gnd of the gpu card or motherboard/pc. Always try to maintain the same potential as the gnd plane of the pcb you are holding.

LOLZ! Looks like it's a better move just to spend some extra $$s on that Gigabyte GPU.

 

[tential]

LOLZ! Looks like it's a better move just to spend some extra $$s on that Gigabyte GPU.

Actually what he described isn't that bad.

Tape areas you don't want humisealed
Apply Humiseal
Remove Tape
Clean GPU

I mean, that's not bad at all.

 

[William Gaatjes]

LOLZ! Looks like it's a better move just to spend some extra $$s on that Gigabyte GPU.

and

Actually what he described isn't that bad.

Tape areas you don't want humisealed
Apply Humiseal
Remove Tape
Clean GPU

I mean, that's not bad at all.

In all honesty, i think one 5litre can of that stuff is just as expensive as a midrange gfx card. So, Ajay has a point.

But if one would setup a business around it, it could be worth it. Also for other stuff than just pc stuff. Anything electronical near the salt water coast benefits form it.

 

[exar333]

It's called thousands of engineers and Moore's Law. The same way a $700 mirrorless camera today destroys a $7000 camera from 2004.

If you don't like the 6600GT comparison and want to use 6800/6800GT, it's even worse.

X800XL = $299
6800GT = $399
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1567/3

6800GT was 60% faster than 5950U.

Today $379-449 1070 is going to beat 980Ti by what 5-10%?

That means either 1070 is not a true x70 card or NV purposely low-balled its performance or NV isn't passing on the Moore's Law savings to consumers while also raising prices. Take your pick or all of them. Do you have any other explanations why NV's gross margins nearly doubled but a $450 1070 is only marginally better than a 980Ti?



Fair enough. I still think more people would buy AMD if they knew AMD cards make $, especially poorer PC gamers who cannot afford $300-600 cards would suddenly be able to buy them. Well 8 years have passed so cannot get that time back.

Nvidia prices has skyrocked, and the consumers get less choice with larger performance and price gaps between cards.

Fermi summer 2010, 6 years ago. According to NV themselves, only 14% of PC gamers purchased GPUs above $199.

6600GT, 560 Ti, 980, etc are all relatively the same thing. The full chips of the "medium" architecture. 6600GT is NV43, while the 6800 Ultra is NV40. 980 is GM204, Titan X is GM200.



In fairness it took them 4 years, more than a few.

I appreciate the fantastic information and detail provided.

That said, the chart is awfully old (2010). Looking at more recent feedback, the message from AIBs is the $$$ is being made in high-end, rather than low-end. I think NV understands this trend and is taking advantage. Not saying it is right or not, just pointing that out. I would be interested to see hard numbers on ASPs over the last 10 years. Word is they continue to increase and I think they will continue to do so.

Since 2010, a LOT of lower-end GPUs have all been completely integrated to the CPU. That 14% is probably a lot higher. Also, ASP is a lot more important metric rather than % of sales. One 980Ti is a 'more desireable' sale vs. a $100 entry-level card.

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/graphics/38483-overall-gpu-shipments-down-11-percent

edit: I also don't think those categories make much sense now. I would do the following:
-$<$99
-$100-$199
-$200-399
-$400-799
-$800+

 

[mohit9206]

Hmm this is indeed very interesting. This totally contradicts the fact that gtx970 is the most popular graphics card among Steam users. So either people got richer in the last 6 years or Nvdia got a whole lot smarter. Lol.

 

[Erenhardt]

I appreciate the fantastic information and detail provided.

That said, the chart is awfully old (2010).

Fair enough:

Not much change since fermi.
10%>$300
vs
14%>$200