- Jun 21, 2005
- 11,912
- 2,130
- 126
http://www.theinquirer.net/inq...a-gtx260s-losing-money
Lots of cost related numbers...no idea if it's true though.
Lots of cost related numbers...no idea if it's true though.
Originally posted by: Sable
To be fair, he was bang on the money on the part failures.
Originally posted by: Jacen
As much as the Inq is wrong they are often just as right. Generally it is hit or miss. They still get this "bad rep" from years ago when they made current bias look like Fox News.
The GTX 295 bit is interesting. 10 in stock between Newegg and ZipZoom? Was this just a quick release to make it seem like they had the top card around when they couldn't supply them long term?
Definitely has me curious.
Quantity Pricing
Units Price Shipping
1 $509.99 $7.92
2+ $489.99 $6.37 ea.
Originally posted by: Jacen
As much as the Inq is wrong they are often just as right.
Originally posted by: chizow
Rofl the basis of the Inq article makes about as much sense as Charlie paying people to visit his site. Which is about what it'd take nowadays to increase his readership.
Yes, one assumption is that a firm operates to make money, not lose it. I'm pretty sure this is covered in the first business class you take.Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: chizow
Rofl the basis of the Inq article makes about as much sense as Charlie paying people to visit his site. Which is about what it'd take nowadays to increase his readership.
It makes about as much sense as your assumption that NV is still making money just because they're dropping prices.
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Sable
To be fair, he was bang on the money on the part failures.
Really? All G92s are bad, not just mobile?
Here is his closer: "I wonder if they can ever come clean and survive."
Meanwhile, his favorite company made the list of businesses in danger of failing:
http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/09...html?.&.pf=family-home
Originally posted by: chizow
Yes, one assumption is that a firm operates to make money, not lose it. I'm pretty sure this is covered in the first business class you take.Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: chizow
Rofl the basis of the Inq article makes about as much sense as Charlie paying people to visit his site. Which is about what it'd take nowadays to increase his readership.
It makes about as much sense as your assumption that NV is still making money just because they're dropping prices.
Originally posted by: chizow
Yes, one assumption is that a firm operates to make money, not lose it. I'm pretty sure this is covered in the first business class you take.Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: chizow
Rofl the basis of the Inq article makes about as much sense as Charlie paying people to visit his site. Which is about what it'd take nowadays to increase his readership.
It makes about as much sense as your assumption that NV is still making money just because they're dropping prices.
Originally posted by: tvdang7
"The problem is the same one we told you about almost a year ago, the GT200 die is too damn big. Even with a shrink, it is still too damn big, almost twice the size of its closest rival, the ATI R770/4870. Even with poor yields and an expensive board, the card loses to its much more economical rival from ATI. This means Nvidia has to fight a price war against an an opponent with lower costs."
Wow i guess amd Did good strategy wise doing there midranged smaller die cards. At first i thought they were dumb cuz they didnt want to compete but now i see that its smart.