Mid range has turned into high end

[PontiacGTX]

if you mean that GF104/GF114 used to be 180usd-250usd, GF100/GF110 were 500usd and then GK104/GM204 turned 550usd and then GP104 is 700usd, yes, mid tier GPUs/Cutdown midrange are tagged as high end.

 

[boozzer]

I liked how RussianSensation pointed out that we are analyzing whether the prices have increased or not and NOT whether the prices are fair.Both are two very different things.
So yes obviously prices have increased a lot for the same tier of cards no doubt about that.But let's also be honest that the prices are indeed fair considering how fast the cards are selling out.So we have ourselves to blame not Nvidia as its a buyer's market and buyers set the prices not the company.

that is some epic logic u got going there. /s

 

[Annisman*]

Just nabbed a 200$ 1060 for my htpc so....

 

[maddie]

Something to keep in mind: intel has stolen the low end away from nvidia and AMD. They can't use $50-75 card sales to help pay for new chip designs because that market has gone to integrated for both desktops and laptops.

Both nvidia and AMD need to make more per card out of the sales that are left in order to cover design costs.

This is a very important observation, that's lost by many. Some get so caught up in seeing margins that they miss the importance of revenue streams to fund expenditure.

However, AMD has the ability in this scenario to share R&D with the APU products. That's why ZEN will be a huge factor for both divisions succeeding [GPU & CPU].

 

[exar333]

I think the point everyone is missing is the assumption that we can (and should) continue to get more (performance) for the same ($) over time. It doesn't appear that this a trend that is either possible with technology, palatable for a company to continue pursue, or both.

RS provided some great stats. I would caution that price spikes and changes have always happened since dGPUs have been around. I paid the same for my x800 xt card 12 years ago as I did my for 1080. Just an example. However, 2-3 years earlier, the 9700Pro was <$300 and was a beast.

15 years ago, a 'decent' monitor was also $500-700 and a 'nice' one was $800+. We have a lot of affordable display options now, from $100 to $3000, and everywhere in between. I do acknowledge the GPUs tend to be $100-200 more, but you have iGPUs 'for free' on the low end and your other components are not too bad (anyone still rocking a i5 2500?). If you JUST focus on the GPU, sure things are a little more expensive, but we have a LOT more choices too.

 

[Head1985]

if you mean that GF104/GF114 used to be 180usd-250usd, GF100/GF110 were 500usd and then GK104/GM204 turned 550usd and then GP104 is 700usd, yes, mid tier GPUs/Cutdown midrange are tagged as high end.

this

 

[MajinCry]

I think the point everyone is missing is the assumption that we can (and should) continue to get more (performance) for the same ($) over time. It doesn't appear that this a trend that is either possible with technology, palatable for a company to continue pursue, or both.

I remember finding this argument before. The response tae it, is consoles. Compare 'em at the same points in their life cycle, and they cost about the same, nay?

BoE has an inflation calculator, if ya gits are interested.

PS1 Launched @ £300 = £520 in 2015
--
N64 Launched @ £250 = £433 in 2015

PS2 Launched @ £300 = £455 in 2015
Xbox Launched @ £300 = £447 in 2015
Gamecube Launched @ £130 = £193 in 2015

PS3 Launched @ £425 = £554 in 2015
Xbox 360 Launched @ £280/£210 = £365/£274 in 2015
Wii Launched @ £180 = £235 in 2015

PS4 Launched @ £350 = £361 in 2015
XBox One Launched @ £430 = £444 in 2015
Wii U Launched @ £250 = £266 in 2015


Even before/after inflation, they're all in the same ballpark 'cept for ol' Ninty.

 

[Carfax83]

^^
Regarding the consoles, I also attribute them to the rise in prices for "capable" GPUs. Last gen consoles were so weak that it was rare to find AAA games where you couldn't max out the detail (or come close to), and get high FPS on midrange hardware.

But with the PS4 and Xbox One being much more modern devices (comparatively speaking) than the Xbox 360 and PS3, suddenly the bar is now much higher. Now you typically need high end hardware to get both high FPS and above console detail, because games are WAY more complex and much larger than anything on the previous generation, due to not only the more powerful GPUs in the PS4 and Xbox 360, but the fact that damn near all triple AAA titles are 64 bit rather than 32 bit.

So to get the same experience that PC gamers had before with the last gen consoles, requires a LOT more power.

How much more? RS claimed that the GTX 1080 is midrange, and so is more or less related to previous midrange GPUs like the 560 Ti. However, when you look at the processing power of these two GPUs, the GTX 1080 is leaps and bounds faster by several hundred percentages.. To be more specific, the GTX 560 Ti had 1.2 T/flops to the GTX 1080's 9-10 T/flops depending on the model.

When you look at it from that perspective, it seems foolish to even put the two in the same sentence, let alone the same category.

GPUs have become so much more powerful and capable than ever, out of necessity. Games are larger and more complex than they've ever been, plus the added effect of much higher pixel resolution monitors..

This requires enormous processing power (and lots of R&D), and that isn't going to be cheap my friends..

 

[mooncancook]

Years ago I purchased a x1800xt for $550. So I always consider high end to be around $500, $300 to be mid, $400 to be mid-high, $200 and under to be low end. I've never again bought high end again since I found that the mid or mid-high is the sweet spot where it is more reasonable yet still satisfy my gaming needs.

 

[beginner99]

As the productions cost are fundamentally higher then at earliers shrinks this is just not possible. At 16nm a transistor costs about the same as in 28nm because of higher wafer prizes and lower yield. It's not like before, where a shrink reduced the production costs by 50% per transistor. Prizes will get lower over time, but the good times are over. 10nm and so on are only going to get worse.

That's what they want consumers to believe. At least Intel has debunked this. Yes doesn't mean it's true for TSMC processes as well. But the main point showing this is plain wrong is to look at Nvidias profits and especially margins. Both have been growing over the last couple years in the exact same time they started to jack-up prices. That high price you pay for you NV GPU goes directly to the high exec suits and shareholders. The process thing is just a neat excuse to make you pay 2x the price for midrange products compare to just like 5 years ago. GTX 580 vs current Titan X, both flagships of their generation: GTX 580 released at $500 and titan x at $1200 (actually more than 2x increase).

NV Profits:

2010 was release year of the GTX 580. You need to be blind to not see this.

Even more telling is profit margin:

No prices aren't rising due to process but that the suits and shareholders can buy expensive cars and houses.