GTX260s losing money now...GTX295 dead

[thilanliyan]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inq...a-gtx260s-losing-money

Lots of cost related numbers...no idea if it's true though.

 

[OCGuy]

Oh god here we go again. :roll:

I blame everyone who links to that site for continuing the crap spew that comes out of there.


I thought the 8800GTX would need a 2nd power source?

I though nV couldnt sell the GTX280 for under $600 and make money?

I thought nV was going to hide the 55nm Core 216s so you couldnt tell which was which?

I thought nV was in the x86 market?

I though the GT200 gx2 card was dead?






The only links he gives are too his own site. No sources. It is a blog, and people treat it as news.

/rant

 

[Sable]

To be fair, he was bang on the money on the part failures.

 

[exar333]

o O (Please, please, please, God have the Inquirier fold in this hellish economy or just downsize and fire Charlie so we don't have to listen to his crap)

/prayer

 

[OCGuy]

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

 

[alcoholbob]

9800GX2 only lasted for 2 months, right? These are temporary solutions, just two cards taped together. The 4870X2 on the other hand, is a 2-core card.

 

[WelshBloke]

Frankly I couldnt care less how much a company makes/loses on a product, as long as its cheap for me to buy.

The vid card market at the moment is fantastic for buyers of either make.

 

[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.

 

[nitromullet]

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.

I'm pretty sure that if there were only 10 GTX 295s between Newegg and ZZP, Newegg probably wouldn't be offering a $20 discount when you order them in quantity.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814130449

Quantity Pricing
Units Price Shipping
1 $509.99 $7.92
2+ $489.99 $6.37 ea.

...although, they do limit the total number 10.

 

[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.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Jacen
As much as the Inq is wrong they are often just as right.

Ah so, as long as they hit 50%, we are good to go!

 

[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.

 

[chizow]

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.

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.

 

[SlowSpyder]

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

I thought it was pretty much determined that all G92 cards do use the same bumps? No? The way I see it a desktop part will almost always have better cooling, so it may not exhibit this issue for a loooong time, maybe never at all. The way it was constructed may be fine for desktop parts, so I wouldn't call those parts 'defective'. But they may still use the same construction methods. Basically if I had a G92 card in my desktop, I wouldn't worry.

 

[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.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: chizow

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.

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.

And you think GM is burning through cash because its head honcho's aren't aware of that idea? Or when AMD was slashing prices on their CPU's, it was because they could easily afford to do so?

 

[dreddfunk]

Even though the purpose of a business is to make a profit, that doesn't imply that it will never sell a product at a loss.

It makes a great deal of sense to sell at a loss to prevent the erosion of market share, i.e. if the choice is selling at a loss or not making a sale, businesses will take the latter every day. In the first instance, the loss is the manufacturing cost minus the reduced sales price. In the second instance, the loss is the entire manufacturing cost.

Normally, it wouldn't make much sense to sell at a loss to increase market share, but there are exceptions (e.g. start-up enterprises looking to build initial market share with venture capital).

What we don't know is the cost of delivering these cards. And there is no way to know what the break-even point is for either AMD or Nvidia. So we can't really know when they are selling a card at a loss.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Maybe nVIDIA is stock piling the chips for the GTX275 for a hard launch, since the new SKU might use the same GT200 cores used in the GTX295. The latter SKU is quite a niche product, so its not as bad as the INQ makes it out to be. nVIDIA might be willing to take this risk since the market GTX275 is aiming for is much more important than the $499 market.

 

[Schmide]

Geeze people the inq is just an unfiltered rumor mill. If you don't read it, you truly don't know what's going on. If you believe everything you read there, you truly don't know what's going on.

Take it for what it is.

 

[darXoul]

Originally posted by: chizow

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.

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.

Well, I'm also pretty sure that one of the first business classes you take also covers the fact that losing money temporarily or even for an extended period on a product or product line is not uncommon at all, and price drops are often a simple measure allowing to minimize/decrease losses.

 

[Leyawiin]

Please stop linking that site and articles from that "journalist" (and I use that term very, very loosely). The majority of the time is unsubstantiated tripe from a biased person with an axe to grind. He's like Rush Limbaugh with the Democrats. Regardless what they do he will always slam them.

 

[palladium]

I wonder what Charlie's comments about nVidia were when they release the 8800GTX..........

 

[MarcVenice]

So, instead of attacking charlie's reputation (which about everyone seems to be doing, including the comments on charlie's article) how about you attack the numbers charlie came up with. Let's forget about the gtx295, he's most likely wrong about that one, although one guy sais as a UK vendor he can barely get any in stock.

Focus on the GTX260 for a second, focus on the numbers charlie 'supposedly' pulled out of his ass. Do you really think he made up the ASIC bundle's price of $110-120? Then focus on the costs the boardpartners have to make. Really, I don't think his numbers are all that far fetched. If Nvidia isn't losing money on the GTX260, it probably isn't making a lot of money on it either.

 

[Keysplayr]

Looking back, I bet Charlie regrets using the Mercedes metaphor. Because that might indicate a quality product for little money.
I wonder if he'll go back and change it to Chevy Impala.

/comic relief

 

[SlowSpyder]

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.

I think AMD's stadegy was a good one, but I think it looks even better than it really is due to how the economy turned out. Had times been booming and Nvidia was able to get just a bit more clock speed they may have really been the better choice overall this gen too. When Nvidia was planning the GTX2x0 cards they probably had no idea how bad things would be today. I'm willing to bet AMD can cut prices more than Nvidia and still turn a buck which is a big plus for a luxury item in a bad economy. There is no way I would have spent $450-$650 for GTX260 192 - GTX280 performance. But I got same/better than GTX260 216 performanace for about $200 at my res (granted this was a few months after launch, so GTX2x0 prices may have dropped by than even if AMD wasn't competitive with the 48x0 cards).

Regarding Charlies numbers, I don't know... I would tend to believe he's in the ball park, but we all know he seems to have a bias against Nvidia. But at the same time I bet he has access to information we don't, so his numbers probably aren't too far off. I dont' suppose Zap wants to tell us what they pay for kit?