GPU enthusiasts, how much are you actually willing to spend?

[Ancalagon44]

That is actually sort of the point a number of people are making.

For each chip architecture there are a few different actual chips - usually a small one for low end cards, a medium sized one for the mid range, and a big one for the high end. NVIDIA used to launch all of the chips around the same time, and price their product stack according to which chip was on each card. Now, however, they launch cards based on the medium chip first, brand them as the high end, and charge the high end price. Then, usually about a year later, they are launching the big chip, and once again branding it a high end card with the high end price.

The problem that some people have is that they are essentially holding back the big chip in order to artificially inflate the relative performance and value of the mid sized chip. The counter point to this is that the mid sized chip may be smaller than the previous big chip, but if its performance is superior it's still worth the money.

Regardless of where you stand and what you choose to buy, the fact of the matter is that NVIDIA has successfully raised the price on what used to be their mid tier chips.

I get that. I guess what I meant is that, based on the price that a medium/mid range chip costs, they are way too expensive for me to call them mid range. Even if you could buy a GTX1080 for $399 and not $699, that would be enough money for me to call it a high end card. I suppose I'm basing that on how much money I'm willing to spend. Even $399 is far enough out of my price range that I consider it high end, let alone a true high end card like GM100 and GP100.

Maybe we're both saying the same thing, I don't know.

 

[railven]

Don't you realize that some people who have no problem in spending that quantum prefer it that way? It's an instant differentiator in who's the BOSS.

More like some of us who have been supporting AMD/ATI for the last half decade already got use to the price hikes

 

[poofyhairguy]

The elites want to be bigger and badder [not misspelt].

They want to be PERCEIVED as being bigger and badder [sic]. The reality doesn't matter, only the perception. Hence the term status symbol.

The Titan OG is a perfect example. Top tier price for a cut down card. The perception was it was the greatest card of all time, reality was it wasn't the best Kepler GPU sold.

 

[Genx87]

Or don't buy THEIR $400 card.

I plan to buy a Polaris 10 the first day I can. I don't care if I don't have a benchmark to go by. I don't care if I don't have the card that "wins" completely on that day in that price bracket.

What sold me on the Polaris 10 was the 7870. Watching the same card compete with the 670, and then the 960 was incredible. The same card competed for two Nvidia generations, or three if you count the 770. THAT is what I want in my next card and I will give AMD the benefit of the doubt they will do it again. But the next card I buy I plan to keep for three plus years, which is why I feel that way.

That would be a fun poll- how long do you keep your cards on average?

Good for you. So we can mark you down as not caring about 400 dollar cards then.

 

[Genx87]

That is actually sort of the point a number of people are making.

For each chip architecture there are a few different actual chips - usually a small one for low end cards, a medium sized one for the mid range, and a big one for the high end. NVIDIA used to launch all of the chips around the same time, and price their product stack according to which chip was on each card. Now, however, they launch cards based on the medium chip first, brand them as the high end, and charge the high end price. Then, usually about a year later, they are launching the big chip, and once again branding it a high end card with the high end price.

The problem that some people have is that they are essentially holding back the big chip in order to artificially inflate the relative performance and value of the mid sized chip. The counter point to this is that the mid sized chip may be smaller than the previous big chip, but if its performance is superior it's still worth the money.

Regardless of where you stand and what you choose to buy, the fact of the matter is that NVIDIA has successfully raised the price on what used to be their mid tier chips.

What makes you believe back then their mid range wasnt their high end as well? Because they created a product stack and told you the high end was the high end? The product stack is what it is. High end is still high end based on a price and performance snapshot.

 

[boozzer]

Price gouging is just the gpu industry copying intel's pricing format. Remember those 1000+ cpus that does almost nothing? at least recently, they give buyers 2x the number of cpu cores for the top end model.

and then nv/amd went a few steps further once they realized it works. nv especially, I rate their marketing team at master level. So it is just business as usual. squeezing out as much money as possible from a smaller pie.

 

[Genx87]

I fully agree and I won't do that. What I am willing to do is actually buy AMD next round. All they have to do is provide a good card that meets my needs. If they provide slow card that has no OC head room, then no, I won't torture myself and be a martyr for them since it won't help anyway. Here's to hoping Vega is badass. Regarding Gsync, who cares. I'll sell the stupid monitor and replace it with a reasonably priced equivalent or better.
People say Nvidia's prices are high due to lack of competition, and that may be true, but it doesn't help that people continue to buy. If they faced a significant backlash and got a clear message that their core enthusiast customers won't take it anymore, then that may have some influence on them if its strong enough.
People running out to snatch up a mountain of $700 mid range cards is not helping. That's why I am talking about it because some people don't realize what the history of such cards was like.
Nvidia charges high end prices 2 or 3 times per generation and we end up with cards that don't last nearly as long in terms of relative performance and driver optimization. Its really bad for us and really good for them, period.

Check this out. Anyone who buys a $700 1080 is going to get absolutely wrecked when the big chips come out and maybe sooner than that if AMD does something interesting. How would you feel if you bought $700 1080 a month from now, and then 6 or 9 months later, possibly 12 months later, a big die chip comes out for the same price and almost TWICE as fast? Jesus that would suck. That's the fail train that is hauling ass right toward future 1080 owners.

Eh did you start following the GPU market last week? Welcome to 1996 and beyond.

This line of complaining is actually really amusing because back in the day the product cycles were much shorter and the performance difference larger. Instead of 18+ months between products, it was 12 months. And instead of 20-40% difference it was 100% difference in performance.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Good for you. So we can mark you down as not caring about 400 dollar cards then.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion from what I said. My current top card is a 390x, which today is a $400 card new. I even said in the thread my limit was $400, so I care about $400 cards.

$650 cards I don't care about, well other than some sort of indicator of where $400 cards will be in a few years.

 

[Genx87]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion from what I said. My current top card is a 390x, which today is a $400 card new. I even said in the thread my limit was $400, so I care about $400 cards.

$650 cards I don't care about, well other than some sort of indicator of where $400 cards will be in a few years.

Great, 650 dollar cards then.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Great, 650 dollar cards then.

Even $600 is too much for me really.

Anything above $400 and I think "damn I could have had a brand new launch console and a controller for the price of that GPU." It makes me question my value system. At $400 and less I don't even think about that.

 

[exar333]

Price gouging is just the gpu industry copying intel's pricing format. Remember those 1000+ cpus that does almost nothing? at least recently, they give buyers 2x the number of cpu cores for the top end model.

and then nv/amd went a few steps further once they realized it works. nv especially, I rate their marketing team at master level. So it is just business as usual. squeezing out as much money as possible from a smaller pie.

Intel provides great value for the $$. For the past few years, the extreme edition has provided 2 more cores vs. non extreme. For non extreme, a cheaper option with 6C was pretty much on-par in pricing with the 4C/8T mainstream option.

I doubt any SB/IB/HW K-edition owner is pressed to 'need' a new CPU. They have been great performers.

 

[exar333]

Even $600 is too much for me really.

Anything above $400 and I think "damn I could have had a brand new launch console and a controller for the price of that GPU." It makes me question my value system. At $400 and less I don't even think about that.

I do agree with this...

I was hoping for ~$500 budget for my next GPU, but not sure the 1070 will really cut it vs. a used 980Ti. Unless P10 is amazing, the 1080 may just be enough to tide us over until HBM2 cards are released (non Titan versions). Does extend the budget somewhat though...

 

[moonbogg]

They want to be PERCEIVED as being bigger and badder [sic]. The reality doesn't matter, only the perception. Hence the term status symbol.

The Titan OG is a perfect example. Top tier price for a cut down card. The perception was it was the greatest card of all time, reality was it wasn't the best Kepler GPU sold.

I know its been said, but lets take a quick look at it again. Normally there is 1 flagship card per generation that cost the most, occasionally followed by an "Ultra" version for a little more money or something like that. That has happened quite a few times, but lets look at Kepler.

Here's how it went:

680 - $500 flagship price
670 - $400 cut down flag ship price
Titan - INSANE $1,000 price!
780 - $650 - top range flagship price
780Ti - $700 - out of bounds flagship price

ALL OVERPRICED GARBAGE
That's a lot of flagship pricing for one generation.

Lets look at what it should have looked like

Titan - TURD - should not exist
780Ti - $600
780 - $500
680 - $350
670 - $250

Even these are top range, high prices, but at least its without trickery and deception.

Oh wait..I forgot "Titan Black" LOL MAHA. Bah.

 

[swilli89]

[/b]

Eh did you start following the GPU market last week? Welcome to 1996 and beyond.

This line of complaining is actually really amusing because back in the day the product cycles were much shorter and the performance difference larger. Instead of 18+ months between products, it was 12 months. And instead of 20-40% difference it was 100% difference in performance.

Uhh no you don't get to just generalize like that. There have been huge variations in that trend over the last two decades .

You are correct though in how previous generations used to be a 50% jump every 6 months. So if we truly are looking at a 100% jump in <12 months, then its even more important to not get screwed like that. In a time where 20% increases each year is normal, why upgrade for 20% when you KNOW 75-100% is coming in something like 8 months from now? Especially when the 980ti was the same price a year ago?

 

[jantjeuh]

About $400-500, though most I've spent so far was around $300 for a new 7870 XT.

Anything above $500 just doesn't seem good value to me, even though I could afford it.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I know its been said, but lets take a quick look at it again. Normally there is 1 flagship card per generation that cost the most, occasionally followed by an "Ultra" version for a little more money or something like that. That has happened quite a few times, but lets look at Kepler.

Here's how it went:

680 - $500 flagship price
670 - $400 cut down flag ship price
Titan - INSANE $1,000 price!
780 - $650 - top range flagship price
780Ti - $700 - out of bounds flagship price

ALL OVERPRICED GARBAGE
That's a lot of flagship pricing for one generation.

Nvidia only did that once because the Titan OG was such a strange animal (how it could do real work unlike Titan X). Look at Maxwell:

980 - $550 flagship (up $50)
970 - $330 bargain (down $70)
Titan X - $1000 same
980 ti - $650 new tier

That is a different product lineup. The only real similarity was that the X80 card was the worst value of the generation (other than the Titan). Draw your own conclusions what that means for these first Pascal cards.

 

[jlee]

I know its been said, but lets take a quick look at it again. Normally there is 1 flagship card per generation that cost the most, occasionally followed by an "Ultra" version for a little more money or something like that. That has happened quite a few times, but lets look at Kepler.

Here's how it went:

680 - $500 flagship price
670 - $400 cut down flag ship price
Titan - INSANE $1,000 price!
780 - $650 - top range flagship price
780Ti - $700 - out of bounds flagship price

ALL OVERPRICED GARBAGE
That's a lot of flagship pricing for one generation.

Lets look at what it should have looked like

Titan - TURD - should not exist
780Ti - $600
780 - $500
680 - $350
670 - $250

Even these are top range, high prices, but at least its without trickery and deception.

Oh wait..I forgot "Titan Black" LOL MAHA. Bah.

Meanwhile, at nVidia...

 

[swilli89]

Meanwhile, at nVidia...

Are you a video card enthusiast or an investor? Unless the conversation turns into bankruptcy risk, why should we care about their stock performance? Gouging consumers in a monopoly would definitely help a company out, are you saying that we should be ok with that?

 

[railven]

I know its been said, but lets take a quick look at it again. Normally there is 1 flagship card per generation that cost the most, occasionally followed by an "Ultra" version for a little more money or something like that. That has happened quite a few times, but lets look at Kepler.

Here's how it went:

680 - $500 flagship price
670 - $400 cut down flag ship price
Titan - INSANE $1,000 price!
780 - $650 - top range flagship price
780Ti - $700 - out of bounds flagship price

ALL OVERPRICED GARBAGE
That's a lot of flagship pricing for one generation.

Lets look at what it should have looked like

Titan - TURD - should not exist
780Ti - $600
780 - $500
680 - $350
670 - $250

Even these are top range, high prices, but at least its without trickery and deception.

Oh wait..I forgot "Titan Black" LOL MAHA. Bah.

Let's say nvidia did release their Kepler stack as normal. The gtx 680 already beat the $550 7970 do you expect a 780 that would be even faster by a wide margin to also cost less than the $550 7970?

If you answered yes, congrats you're using AMDs business plan. May the market reward you justly.

Edit: actually can you imagine if Nvidia did do that. AMD be screwed suddenly their $550 flagship would have to cost <$300. Woof.

 

[oussama-tn]

Well i built my first Rig 7 months ago and i bought an r9 390 nitro for 335euros (375 usd). For the time being my card is doing the job ( 45fps + @ 1440 ultra) in most demanding games i'm thinking about getting a second r9 390 when/if prices drop below 300dollars ( 250 would be perfect)
Ps (off topic): I recently joined anandtech and i was wondering how can i insert my rig(in comments) like most of you are doing.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Edit: actually can you imagine if Nvidia did do that.

They did. The $330 970 matched the $600 780 ti and beats the pants off the regular $500 780.

 

[jlee]

Are you a video card enthusiast or an investor? Unless the conversation turns into bankruptcy risk, why should we care about their stock performance? Gouging consumers in a monopoly would definitely help a company out, are you saying that we should be ok with that?

Straw man.

What nVidia "should" do is not a decision to be made by people whining on the internet because their boutique product costs more money than they like. nVidia does not have a monopoly and you are free to support another company if you so wish.

I am an investor, but I don't see how that's relevant. nVidia will act in the best interest of their business, which is to be expected.

Well i built my first Rig 7 months ago and i bought an r9 390 nitro for 335euros (375 usd). For the time being my card is doing the job ( 45fps + @ 1440 ultra) in most demanding games i'm thinking about getting a second r9 390 when/if prices drop below 300dollars ( 250 would be perfect)
Ps (off topic): I recently joined anandtech and i was wondering how can i insert my rig(in comments) like most of you are doing.

Go here: http://forums.anandtech.com/profile.php?do=editsignature

 

[CakeMonster]

$600.
SLI is never worth it.
Good custom cooler with low noise.

 

[MrTeal]

They did. The $330 970 matched the $600 780 ti and beats the pants off the regular $500 780.

The 970 was a bit of an anomaly in terms of nVidia's product stack and history though. It was an unprecedented value relative to the 980. nVidia is going to do a better job this time bringing buyers back up to the $350+ price point that the 70 series has usually occupied.

 

[Killer_Croc]

I know its been said, but lets take a quick look at it again. Normally there is 1 flagship card per generation that cost the most, occasionally followed by an "Ultra" version for a little more money or something like that. That has happened quite a few times, but lets look at Kepler.

Here's how it went:

680 - $500 flagship price
670 - $400 cut down flag ship price
Titan - INSANE $1,000 price!
780 - $650 - top range flagship price
780Ti - $700 - out of bounds flagship price

ALL OVERPRICED GARBAGE
That's a lot of flagship pricing for one generation.

Lets look at what it should have looked like

Titan - TURD - should not exist
780Ti - $600
780 - $500
680 - $350
670 - $250

Even these are top range, high prices, but at least its without trickery and deception.

Oh wait..I forgot "Titan Black" LOL MAHA. Bah.

What about the pricing of flagship dual-GPU cards such as the Titan Z and others? Even older generation dual-GPU cards were generally quite affordable and do not reflect what pricing generally is set as now for dual-GPU video cards. This is part of the reason why I stopped upgrading so often because prices kept going up.

If we follow the example of the Fermi series we are looking at the most of $499 for the flagship (GTX 480/580) with lower end parts being cheaper. This is really the best spot in my opinion but what I've noticed is that ever since the GTX Titan the trend has been reversing and we are now seeing the opposite in pricing as it increases even for low-mid end video cards. It's even more apparent in Canadian dollars due to the low exchange rate (as it's dictated in US dollars for retailers who pass the costs to Canadians in Canadian dollars).