If Fury is overpriced, why is a $1000 Titan-X acceptable?

[BFG10K]

So its halo because NV says it is, not that its faster than custom 980Ti.

That's the point BFG is making, double standards.

AMD thinks Fury X is halo because its got great performance in a great package. As long as its sold out, they are justified.

It's also interesting that the only single GPU with reference watercooling and HBM doesn't count as a halo, but whatever features the Titan-X has, those are "halo" and justify $350 for marginal extra performance.

If it didn't have performance or VRAM, just watch the "it's halo because it has gsync and PhysX" arguments come out, as happens with other nVidia products that are priced higher than AMD parts, but perform slower.

The answer that I was looking for is in fact: "nVidia is the halo, regardless of the product". The only thing surprising is how quickly I was proven right.

For the record, I don't think either is a good product for the price, but there's a serious bias where the Fury is meticulously dissected from a perf / cost standpoint while Titan-X is practically immune to such scrutiny, despite having a horrifically worse ratio.

 

[frozentundra123456]

BFG you know the answers to every question you posed in the OP. Why post this thread? Was it just to express outrage over Halo tax?

There is no double standard. Titan X is in a position all by itself at the top. At least for now.

And once again, the massive disappointment was due to the mega-hype for the product that didnt deliver. Something we've come to know as an AMD synonym.

Im very curious as to how you could not know any of this?
Please enlighten?

P.S. Also, didnt you buy an original Titan?
I assume you bought it used or heavily discounted. Scratch and dent maybe?

Exactly. FuryX is not badly overpriced. The problem is, it is slightly slower than 980Ti overall, while usually even at the same performance nVidia commands a price premium, whether AMD fans like it or not. The water cooler adds some value. Unfortunately it does not seem to allow superior overclocking. I also think the 4gb of vram is a negative for such an expensive card meant for 1440 or 4k. But yes, Fury is mainly a "disappointment" because of failing to live up to the usual hype from AMD marketing, and especially from AMD fans in forums. As for Titan X, yes it is overpriced, but really irrelevant to this discussion. If Titan X were the only card comparable to FuryX, then fury would be hailed as a great value. It is the 980 Ti that makes Fury pricing questionable.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Why would HBM and water cooling count as halo?

It doesnt matter performance wise if its HBM1 or GDDR5. And water is something you can always do if need be.

Stop shifting the goalposts. The Fury X just isnt the hype it was made to be. And by the looks of it AMD originally wanted 849$ for it before the 980Ti launch.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1496?vs=1513
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1447?vs=1513

 

[YBS1]

When AMD was on top in the CPU arena (pre conroe) what did they set as msrp on their flagship processor?

Seems like I recall models such as the AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 being around the $1000 dollar mark. Funny, the people that claim good old AMD is the only thing keeping these other greedy evil companies from ripping us off seem to forget that given the chance AMD is totally willing to bend us over and stick one in us. These companies don't care about us guys, they only care about getting your money.

Titan is even worse though, it's an early adopter tax, I'm not paying it.

 

[Enigmoid]

The titan X is overpriced. But its like an apple product; those who buy one simply don't care about the price.

 

[ultimatebob]

The Titan X is a CUDA developer card that also happens to play games well.

Anyone crazy enough to spend the extra money on it over a 980 Ti just for playing games is probably the same kind of person who spends $200 on gold plated HDMI cables for their home theatre system.

 

[BFG10K]

Why would HBM and water cooling count as halo?

Because I said so.

The Fury X just isnt the hype it was made to be.

Because you said so? Again, neither was the Titan-X. Because I said so.

And by the looks of it AMD originally wanted 849$ for it before the 980Ti launch.

And by the looks of it, 980Ti was launched to pre-empt the Fury.

 

[wand3r3r]

Why would HBM and water cooling count as halo?

It doesnt matter performance wise if its HBM1 or GDDR5. And water is something you can always do if need be.

Stop shifting the goalposts. The Fury X just isnt the hype it was made to be. And by the looks of it AMD originally wanted 849$ for it before the 980Ti launch.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1496?vs=1513
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1447?vs=1513

Remember the "criteria" thrown around to justify the Titan price?

Performance -> TI (custom cards)
Noise -> (TI custom cards) Fury X not close
Heat -> (TI custom cards) Fury X not even close
DP -> nope not anymore (remember the attempts to "halo" price it?)

It fails to deliver any all of them.

What about the 7970/290 vs. 680/780 2GB vs. 3 GB? Were you attributing more ram to a price premium?

Water is actually worth a premium since it costs a lot.

Then to use "rumors" to add to the FUD and pretend like AMD is really bad for "supposedly" considering a higher price point, according to mythical forum knowledge.

Who's moving the goalposts?

 

[YBS1]

For the record, I don't think either is a good product for the price, but there's a serious bias where the Fury is meticulously dissected from a perf / cost standpoint while Titan-X is practically immune to such scrutiny, despite having a horrifically worse ratio.

I don't think that's the case, I think it's not scrutinized because almost universally it's agreed it's a horrible choice for the money, no need to debate it. It's like everyone agreeing water is wet.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Whats the rational of this thread again?

That the 3rd fastest card should have what, the highest price? And thats assuming we look past the other parts that devalue the Fury X further.

Just stop creating hyperboles and we wouldnt have this thread.

 

[ultimatebob]

Honestly, I think that the 980 Ti and Fury X are both overpriced as well. The idea of paying more than $500 on a video card that's going to be obsolete in 2 years is just baffling to me.

It's overpriced gaming hardware like this that is causing new gamers to migrate to consoles.

 

[Abwx]

When AMD was on top in the CPU arena (pre conroe) what did they set as msrp on their flagship processor?

The positive sentiment in Germany is due to Computerbase.de extensive review, with a vast panel of games tested at various res and settings their readers have a better picture of the product...

 

[Pia]

So its halo because NV says it is, not that its faster than custom 980Ti.

You are implicitly claiming that pure gaming speed is the only thing that should ever determine the pricing of a videocard, which is nonsense.

If a product is the best on the market on even one metric, and no other product can completely replace it, then the manufacturer can charge whatever the market can bear and there's no way to say it's an objectively wrong price, "overpriced" or "underpriced". The Titan X launched as a market leader on multiple metrics. It remains the clear leader in VRAM, which is significant in some compute uses, and is also tied with the Ti for fastest card.

Even if there was no difference as big as having double the VRAM, the scenario would be no different than the fact that the nicest car in a manufacturer's lineup is always really expensive compared to the model below regardless of how tiny their differences are. I don't see car enthusiasts bitching about that. What is it about GPUs?

 

[TeknoBug]

I'd hate to say it but I think AMD lost this round, which is really bad news for them.

The R9 380 is probably the only card that I'd consider but even then the Nvidia 9xx's has a better price-performance-consumption ratio than most of the new AMD cards.

 

[YBS1]

The positive sentiment in Germany is due to Computerbase.de extensive review, with a vast panel of games tested at various res and settings their readers have a better picture of the product...

Yeah well, there was positive sentiment in Germany for following Hitler into the abyss as well.........


Sorry, it's the internet.....It had to be done!

 

[guskline]

If the Titan X is "garbage" send it my way! And prior to the release of the GTX980TI it was the talk of the town for high end chips.

As to a double standard I see BFG10K's point if you compare the Fury X to the Titan X. The problem is the GTX980TI. Nvidia's releasing it and pricing it almost identical to the Fury X (or AMD pricing the Fury X identical to theGTX980TI) really puts the heat on AMD to show "why" the Fury X is superior to the GTX 980TI.

So far, I really haven't seen compelling reasons to spend $$$ on a Fury X if you can buy a GTX 980 TI.

Overclocking? So far the GTX 980TI from day 1 release has been a very good OCer. Fury X? Not so great despite Joe Macri's ill-advised comments on 6/16/2015 boasting it's a great OCer. I have seen a number of reviews and so far 100mhz? OC is max. Why set yourself up for a fall like that? Was the enthusiasm for finally having a big chip with potential to go toe-to-toe with Nvidia so great that you lost it? (Perhaps now that the NDA is lifted Joe can enlighten us on what he meant)

I have dual R9 290s in my main rig below because the price was right, they were factory OC's from reference, my Sapphire Tri-Xs are 1000 core/1300 memory vs 947 core/1250 memory reference. I owned for a short time a GTX 970 and sent it back because Nvidia's marketing department just wasn't straight with the 3.5 +.5 memory issue. Despite my personal concerns, the GTX970 OCed MUCH more with the Maxwell chip than my 290s with the Hawaii chip.
Enter the "Big Chip arena GM200 (Titan X; GTX980 TI) vs Fiji (So far Fury X). The indications so far are the GM200 chips have MUCH more headroom to OC while Fiji is limited (so far!) "Oh help us please Joe Macri -Heaven holds a place ... -apologies to Simon & Garfunkle"

The 4G HBM Vram on Fury X vs the 6G DDR5 of the GTX980TI appears to be a wash except in most gamers minds who want to run 4k it's been drilled in our heads you need more Vram. Obviously the Titan X with 12 G is a non issue BUT it is $350 more than the other 2.
Again the HBM was bantered about as revolutionary and it ultimately may be. However, from what I see in game benchmarking it doesn't give a compelling reason to choose a Fury X over a GTX 980TI. 6G DDR5 seems more compelling than 4 G HBM1

Finally cooling. I openly admit I like custom water cooling and reference air cooling can be a problem unless you have a good cooler. Most will tell you the reference Titan X/GTX 980 TI cooler is superior to the reference R9 290/290x cooler. The chip heat output obviously affects this. I give AMD credit for using a very good AIO cooler for the Fury X. It appears to be built to handle some serious OCing. On the Nvidia side the reference cooler is not bad for OCing and a custom water block allows you to really crank it up. Where is the compelling reason for Fury X vs GTX980TI in the cooling area? Especially since Fury X Ocing appears to be very limited so far?

I have always favored AMD as the under dog, but that being said, it's real tough right now to say buy a Fury X over a GTX980TI.

 

[iiiankiii]

Whats the rational of this thread again?

That the 3rd fastest card should have what, the highest price? And thats assuming we look past the other parts that devalue the Fury X further.

Just stop creating hyperboles and we wouldnt have this thread.

Yo! Kinda like how the 2nd faster card (Titan Z) was $3000 and the fastest card R9 295x2 was $1500. Hyperboles in da house. What was the rational from Nvidia, again?

Oh, that's right. The Titan Z was the halo card because Nvidia said so even when it was clearly slower. Clearly, it isn't about performance. It must be something else. what could it be....?

 

[Keysplayr]

The positive sentiment in Germany is due to Computerbase.de extensive review, with a vast panel of games tested at various res and settings their readers have a better picture of the product...

Camels can carry incredible amounts of weight. They are called the desert horse.

See. I can do it to.

Here is the question again. Unless you meant to quote someone else.

When AMD was on top in the CPU arena (pre conroe) what did they set as msrp on their flagship processor?

 

[Pia]

It's overpriced gaming hardware like this that is causing new gamers to migrate to consoles.

wat

This is like the mirror image of the ridiculous complaints that a PC game like Crysis is "unoptimized" simply because the complainers chose to turn on every single optional feature the game shipped with, and that the hardware of the time was not yet strong enough to run properly. Cards at every price point keep getting better than the previous ones were. The fact we now have a more expensive option available that's even nicer than the ones we have at what used to be the highest price is just that - an option.

 

[BFG10K]

Yo! Kinda like how the 2nd faster card (Titan Z) was $3000 and the fastest card R9 295x2 was $1500. Hyperboles in da house. What was the rational from Nvidia, again?

Oh, that's right. The Titan Z was the halo card because Nvidia said so even when it was clearly slower. Clearly, it isn't about performance. It must be something else. what could it be....?

This post absolutely nailed it, bravo. :thumbsup:

 

[Goatsecks]

BFG, the Titans are overpriced.

Fury is overpriced because, at least in the uk, the EVGA 980ti hybrid is the same price.

 

[YBS1]

Yo! Kinda like how the 2nd faster card (Titan Z) was $3000 and the fastest card R9 295x2 was $1500. Hyperboles in da house. What was the rational from Nvidia, again?

Oh, that's right. The Titan Z was the halo card because Nvidia said so even when it was clearly slower. Clearly, it isn't about performance. It must be something else. what could it be....?

And how many Titan Z's do you think they sold??? Just because they ask it doesn't mean there are many idiots to pay it....

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yo! Kinda like how the 2nd faster card (Titan Z) was $3000 and the fastest card R9 295x2 was $1500. Hyperboles in da house. What was the rational from Nvidia, again?

Oh, that's right. The Titan Z was the halo card because Nvidia said so even when it was clearly slower. Clearly, it isn't about performance. It must be something else. what could it be....?

The Titan Z was a sales failure for the same reason. But you forget that it seems.

Instead we have to hear some nonsense from someone that got hurt over that the Fury didnt live up to the hype with anger projection on other products.

The Fury X is pretty much a big fail at its current price with all metrics besides the water cooler against it.

 

[BSim500]

By all accounts, the Titan-X is overpriced garbage given it's marginally faster than a 980Ti, but costs a whopping $350 more. That's more than the cost of an entire GTX970

I thought it was general consensus that the Titan X has effectively been replaced by the 980Ti in every practical "what most high end gamers buy as the top-GPU" sense? Sometime early in the year, nVidia obviously caught wind that AMD's top card would be faster than a "vanilla" 980 but priced much lower than a Titan. Hence the 980Ti, at which point it's really no longer about Fury vs Titan regardless of what price tag the Titan has slapped on it. The 980Ti effectively is the "new Titan" in most high-end gamers eyes. The "official" branded Titan is purely for ultra-enthusiasts willing to pay a crazy premium for extra VRAM for whatever reason.

 

[spinejam]

Honestly, I think that the 980 Ti and Fury X are both overpriced as well. The idea of paying more than $500 on a video card that's going to be obsolete in 2 years is just baffling to me.

It's overpriced gaming hardware like this that is causing new gamers to migrate to consoles.

Quite true, ...PS4 and XBox1 games are looking better and better to me lately, especially w/ my shitty eyesight - Ha! :biggrin: