Nvidia, AMD accused of conspiracy to keep graphics pricing high

[cky2k6]

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36258
I'm not liking this one bit, as suing the pants off ati/nvidia will not bring any positive changes that werent already happening. intel is getting back in the stand alone game, so the monopoly will surely take a hit, and although im sure they do try to keep the prices high, i dont see ati or nvidia making extraordinary profits on their products. if this crap goes through, i dont think the r&d budget will remain too high... instead of stiffling development on the gpu front, why dont the doj pursue exxon? oh right, i forgot, the government is in bed with them.

[Kanavit]

haha, i like this theory. but to be honest, it's just ludicrous that high -end graphics now retails at $499-$599. only reason why i'm still using my trusty old video card setup now. I won't pay more than $399 for one high-end card anymore.

[cky2k6]

some people do though, and its because of them that the prices are high, if there are people willing to pay, they will sell them at that price. its not like if this lawsuit goes through that we're gonna start seeing jumps like from the 7900gtx to the 8800gtx for only 399 for the highest performing card. if theyre gonna charge us less, theyre gonna do less... so id rather see them battle it out at the top, and have the mid range cards recieve the trickle down effect. this is just a money-grabbing scheme that will hurt us more than ati/nvidia in the long run.

[VulgarHandle]

welcome to a free market, if they will pay, they will charge

don't wanna pay? don't

[gOJDO]

it is from the_INQ...

[cky2k6]

ati and nvidia did get subpoenas, thats not just inquirer rumor, and this makes sense. why else would they get subpoenad? theres also the chance that its related to the memory makers, as ati and nvidia do have close relations with samsung/infeneon, but i suspect that this is probably the reason for the subpoenas. http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~114493,00.html http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_37789.html

[kemist]

haha, i like this theory. but to be honest, it's just ludicrous that high -end graphics now retails at $499-$599. only reason why i'm still using my trusty old video card setup now. I won't pay more than $399 for one high-end card anymore.

Contrast this with a 1000$ processor, which is about 10x more ludicrous given they can generally sell the same thing at 100$ and still make a good profit.

With a video card at least your price is somewhat approaching your BOM considering you are paying for a pcb, large amounts of memory, a die thats larger than those $1000 processors, voltage regulators, etc. You also see much more drastic performance improvements with high end video cards compared to low end video cards than you do for high/low processors.

Realistically we'd all like to pay less, but the price of processors is much more ludicrous IMO.

[M.Beier]

I belive its true..

It seems quite obvious that if not caught Nvidia & ATI would make a cartel, eventhough they are competetors.. - The marketform is a duopol, or nearly, its a differentiated oligopol, with ATI & NVIDIA as only firms that makes graphic cards for gaming usage..
So yeah, ofcause it can be true..

And those GFX prices, man, they're FAR FETCH!!
- one cant purchase a high-end gfx product at sub-750$ in Denmark!!

- Back in the GF4, and 9700/9800pro days, they were actually buyable..

[red]

There is a pretty legit PDF link attached..

[Kobalt]

Contrast this with a 1000$ processor, which is about 10x more ludicrous given they can generally sell the same thing at 100$ and still make a good profit.



You have no clue about business or the stock market...

[situman]

High development costs are self imposed by GPU makers. No one said you have to refresh your gpu every six months. Nothing wrong with releasing a gpu that's two to three times faster than the curent generation AFTER a year and half and sell it for $350 or so.

[xenolith]

Originally Posted by kemist
Contrast this with a 1000$ processor, which is about 10x more ludicrous given they can generally sell the same thing at 100$ and still make a good profit.

You have no clue about business or the stock market...

You beat me to it. :toast:

With this same logic, Microsoft could sell their latest OS for $2 and still make tons of money. After all, it only cost them about $1 for the disk, processing, and packaging costs, and they still would be making a 100% profit. :ROTF:

I shouldn't laugh. I've seen too many people make this kind of argument. It's sad really. :wth:

[STEvil]

considering a CPU takes about $22/die on a wafer to make....

Well, thats actually old numbers from the P4/XP days, but if its gone up substantially the market would be hurting. It isnt, so probably hasnt changed a lot.

[kemist]

You beat me to it. :toast:

With this same logic, Microsoft could sell their latest OS for $2 and still make tons of money. After all, it only cost them about $1 for the disk, processing, and packaging costs, and they still would be making a 100% profit. :ROTF:

I shouldn't laugh. I've seen too many people make this kind of argument. It's sad really. :wth:

Yup you guys are geniuses :rolleyes: Nvidia/DAMMIT both have packaging, marketing, R&D, indirectly fund TSMC's Fab upgrades, have much shorter design cycles, etc. Yet right now you can get a 7950gx2 for $425, that includes 1gb of fast GDDR2, 2 dice, 2 large pcbs, voltage regulation,heatsinks etc.

in contrast intel is selling conroe cores with same die size and packaging as their recent flagship X6800 as E6300's for $180 retail. Wonder what their good buddies the Tier 1 distributors get them for? But they arent making any profit are they? None at all right? Oh wait the majority of Intel's profit comes from the volume of the low end and they sell very small amounts of X6800? Oh and on top of that their design cycles are much longer than graphics companies. But the X6800 at $1000 isnt ludicrous even though the performance increase compared to the low end is very small and the production costs are the same. Really it isnt. Right.

Look at intel's revenues then look at what percentage of that the x6800 makes up. Like i said high end processor prices are ludicrous compared to high end video cards.

P.S. none of my comments have to do with how intel runs their business, or how they deal with the stock market, obviously they want to price at what the market will bear. i'm talking from an enthusiasts point of view on price/performance and costs of materials for each product.

[gn0s1s]

You beat me to it. :toast:

With this same logic, Microsoft could sell their latest OS for $2 and still make tons of money. After all, it only cost them about $1 for the disk, processing, and packaging costs, and they still would be making a 100% profit. :ROTF:

I shouldn't laugh. I've seen too many people make this kind of argument. It's sad really. :wth:

I didn't see that he missed anything.... he was pointing out that the corporate mandate to be only accountable to shareholders profit at any cost is what causes these pricing attrocities... much like most of the worlds problems.:slapass:

[xenolith]

I didn't see that he missed anything.... he was pointing out that the corporate mandate to be only accountable to shareholders profit at any cost is what causes these pricing attrocities... much like most of the worlds problems.:slapass:

Oh, then thank you for the education. So we're all victims to big silicon, like Nvidia, ATI/AMD, Intel... like all corporations in general which are solely accountable only to shareholders ... which are the cause of most of the world's problems... like global warming and wars... I see... :hm:

... :rolleyes:

[blink hi]

instead of stiffling development on the gpu front, why dont the doj pursue exxon? oh right, i forgot, the government is in bed with them.

contrary to popular belief, big oil companies usually only hang around 10% profit margins.. as opposed to google, with 30%...

edit: and stifling the "gpu front" has much less impact on, say, the economy of the country as a whole than trying to punish gigantor operators :) it still maintains the image of the govt cracking down on unfair trade practices. except its own of course ;)

I didn't see that he missed anything.... he was pointing out that the corporate mandate to be only accountable to shareholders profit at any cost is what causes these pricing attrocities... much like most of the worlds problems.:slapass:

profit is what drives progress. if i produce soemthing and am forced to sell it at cost or just above cost, i make no money and can't go on to make anything else. yes, they are greedy, but so are you. when you sell an old piece of hardware, you don't sell it just above shipping cost, you try to sell it as close to what you paid for it as possible. intel had to pay for r&d to get a dependable and efficient process for producing 65nm features. they pass that cost on to the consumer. don't like it? don't consume.

[onewingedangel]

The lawsuit seems stupid - both ati and nvidia offer gpus at every conceivable pricepoint, so the argument that prices are artificially high would be ludicrous. The highest end graphics are being priced higher because people are willing to pay more - and in return the extra profit goes into r+d and allows product refreshes every six months or so. All that extra r+d benefits everyone from the high end down to entry level.

Personally i wouldn't pay more than £200 for a graphics card, because I'd rather be a year behind the absolute leader in peformance (sometimes the difference isn't even that great), and pay half as much for the card, sell that card when I upgrade down the line to another mid range card more powerful than the highest end was at the time of the original purchase happy in the knowledge that I have a faster gpu that cost me less than the depreciation on the highest end models.

[DilTech]

The lawsuit seems stupid - both ati and nvidia offer gpus at every conceivable pricepoint, so the argument that prices are artificially high would be ludicrous. The highest end graphics are being priced higher because people are willing to pay more - and in return the extra profit goes into r+d and allows product refreshes every six months or so. All that extra r+d benefits everyone from the high end down to entry level.


The bolded statement is exactly why this lawsuit is for real...

Pricing higher merely because people are willing to pay more is a form of price fixing, and is against the law. This isn't a supply and demand issue, as there's plenty of high end cards as of late.

I think the real one that caught the DOJ's attention was NVidia releasing the 7900GTX, which was noted to be much cheaper to produce than the x1900xtx, but at the same time they charged the same amount or more for the GTX. If they were trying to really compete on price NVidia could've drastically undercut ATi with the GTX, we all know it, but instead they charged the same as ATi.

Now mind you, I did buy a 8800GTX, but I see what their case is, and it is legit.

[djgandy]

Well lets all file suits against Ferrari because their cars are too expensive. I mean they are priced high because people are willing to pay that ;)

If you want the best, you pay for it, or.....use American culture and sue for it.

[M.Beier]

Cartel is illigal in most contries in the world, and thats what they're being accused of.. Right?

[DilTech]

Well lets all file suits against Ferrari because their cars are too expensive. I mean they are priced high because people are willing to pay that ;)

If you want the best, you pay for it, or.....use American culture and sue for it.

Ferrari's are also hand built, each and every one of them. Human labor costs a LOT more than a factory line. Besides, you don't see other car companies also matching up to their high-prices, do you?

This is nothing like that one.

[topaimz]

What? How is this NEWS?!

We all knew what we were getting ourselves into when we started
to spend over $400 on graphic cards :P
We all knew it was scams!

jks :p:

[arisythila]

instead of stiffling development on the gpu front, why dont the doj pursue exxon? oh right, i forgot, the government is in bed with them.

OT:
LOL....... Soooo true.Seriously why the hell are we still using gas power vehicles.

I think some people are just willing to pay high prices. Maybe for the same reason, I bought 3 PS3's and sold each one of them for about 3500 a pop. People are stupid i guess.

~Mike

[M.Beier]

exxon?
Now what is that?

Btw, if its OPEC and the olie market, keep in mind that those contries dont have any laws against cartel, USA + all European contries does, and I think australia + asia is about the same..

[[XC] leviathan18]

so i guess the same is with the new memory prices....

[M.Beier]

so i guess the same is with the new memory prices....

hehe, now that would truely be a neat trick..

Seriously, you guys dont seem to have a clue about the theory...
My exams are in january, so belive me when I say, the odds of DDR1/2 manufactures being able to form a cartel is zero, please.

[aMp]

The oil industry has a lot more problems than just Exxon, and when Exxon and Mobil merged a couple years back Justice and the FTC were involved from the start, forcing both companies to divest themselves of assets.

Anyway, these class action suits are the sort of the thing that make me want to smack the lawyers bringing them. They saw the news stories about the subpoenas the government issued to AMD and nVidia, looked around for five people who bought high-end GPUs recently, and filed a lawsuit without knowing a damned thing. They expect to ride the coattails of the government investigation and base their "case" on whatever the government finds out. I think that's unethical as hell.

If the FTC finds something, then maybe file a lawsuit. After all, if they overcharged buyers by anticompetitive behavior, those buyers should have some remedy, and a class action is the only way to recover twenty or fifty bucks. But this is garbage.

[[XC] leviathan18]

why? most of them use same ram samsung n others

[cky2k6]

exxon?
Now what is that?
only the biggest coroporation in the world...

[iddqd]

it is from the_INQ...
you don't say? :rolleyes:

[Eastcoasthandle]

7800GTX (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=7800gtx&btnG=Search&lmode=online&scoring=r)
7900GTX (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=7900gtx&btnG=Search)
x1800XT (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=x1800xt&btnG=Search)
x1900XTX (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=x1900xtx&btnG=Search)
Are still $500-$600+ at most places online, enough said!

[[XC] Lead Head]

7800GTX (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=7800gtx&btnG=Search&lmode=online&scoring=r)
7900GTX (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=7900gtx&btnG=Search)
x1800XT (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=x1800xt&btnG=Search)
x1900XTX (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=x1900xtx&btnG=Search)
Are still $500-$600+ at most places online, enough said!

7800GTXs and x1800XTs aren't even made anymore! of course the price is going to be high!

Also look at this.
7900GTX (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121023)
x1900XT (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121554)

The most expensive x1950XTXs are about $420, those prices seem pretty reasonable to me....

[Eastcoasthandle]

7800GTXs and x1800XTs aren't even made anymore! of course the price is going to be high!

Also look at this.
7900GTX (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121023)
x1900XT (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121554)

The most expensive x1950XTXs are about $420, those prices seem pretty reasonable to me....

Just because 78800GTX/X1800XT are no longer made has nothing to do with the higher price. Supply and demand remains unchanged for these 2 products. If there is no demand for the x1800xt/7800GTX (do to better VCs at the same/lower price point) why is the price still high? As I posted there are stores still selling these units. These are not ebay auctions. Most e-tailers would have sold them on ebay if they thought they could get the money for them. Point being is simple the x1800xt under performs vs x1900xtx yet the price is similar. That was why I posted it, to reflect similarity even though the price/performance ratio is well below it's proceeding big brother. Can it be that e-tailers are being greedy? Or, can it be that e-tailers are looking to maximize what they paid for them?

[mascaras]

it is from the_INQ...

Not from INQ , its for real :


--NVIDIA Receives Subpoena from U.S. Department of Justice Regarding Investigation Into Market for Graphics Processors
http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_37789.html


--AMD Receives Subpoena From U.S. Department of Justice Regarding Investigation of Graphics Processing Market
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~114493,00.html


:fact: :fact:


regards

[djgandy]

Ferrari's are also hand built, each and every one of them. Human labor costs a LOT more than a factory line. Besides, you don't see other car companies also matching up to their high-prices, do you?

This is nothing like that one.

There are plenty of companies that match ferraris prices. They make a huge chunk of profit. You say handbuilt, but have you seen how much it costs to have stuff like a sports pack? They charge the earth for something you could do yourself in a day! The components that make up the car are made by machine, all those gadgets etc.

Lets look at other things in the world then. Clothing? Top designer brands....lets guess where a lot of it is made...China. Do you think the people in China get paid £120 ($230) for each pair of jeans they make?

The prices are expensive for top range cards, but there are plenty of models in between you can buy if you don't want to shell out that money. Thats the way the world works, if you want the best you pay the price.

[zabomb4163]

hehe, now that would truely be a neat trick..

Seriously, you guys dont seem to have a clue about the theory...
My exams are in january, so belive me when I say, the odds of DDR1/2 manufactures being able to form a cartel is zero, please.

uh the dram manufactures WERE convicted of price fixing (wonder what the chances are that of all of the examples you could have used you picked one where there was a conviction)

[keiths]

There hasn't been A conviction, there's been multiple convictions. The cost of the fines, in the millions, are dwarfed by the billions they rake in from price fixing. Until the penalty for doing so outways the reward, they've shown they won't stop.

[gn0s1s]

contrary to popular belief, big oil companies usually only hang around 10% profit margins.. as opposed to google, with 30%...

edit: and stifling the "gpu front" has much less impact on, say, the economy of the country as a whole than trying to punish gigantor operators :) it still maintains the image of the govt cracking down on unfair trade practices. except its own of course ;)



profit is what drives progress. if i produce soemthing and am forced to sell it at cost or just above cost, i make no money and can't go on to make anything else. yes, they are greedy, but so are you. when you sell an old piece of hardware, you don't sell it just above shipping cost, you try to sell it as close to what you paid for it as possible. intel had to pay for r&d to get a dependable and efficient process for producing 65nm features. they pass that cost on to the consumer. don't like it? don't consume.





profit is what drives progress. if i produce soemthing and am forced to sell it at cost or just above cost, i make no money and can't go on to make anything else. yes, they are greedy, but so are you. when you sell an old piece of hardware, you don't sell it just above shipping cost, you try to sell it as close to what you paid for it as possible. intel had to pay for r&d to get a dependable and efficient process for producing 65nm features. they pass that cost on to the consumer. don't like it? don't consume.

So for example, the oil conglomerates, buying up the natural arterial routes into LA, or buying effiencient engine patents and shelving them, or the pharmecutical companies only researching patentable compounds, and shelving /banning meds that are too effective, that would be called progress?
The problem is, corps have the powers of a person, but none of the responisibility or accountability of a person. They were designed to promote in frontier societies ie early america in the absence of a proper governing bodies.

Getting back... the problem is that, because they are only accountable to profit, "progress" metered by what makes money. So it is indeed in intels best interest, amd's ati, nvidia's to make the market less competitive, and the lawsuit is just a calculated risk. And therein lies the problem. Its a race to become a monopoly, and muscle out your competition, as opposed to create a better product. this comes at the cost of third world countries, and even us the consumer, having to pay exhorbitant amounts of money for performance. True progress, would be a measured success, ie corps used to have to be accountable to the public once their 5 year contract was up, and show how they benefited society, if they wanted their license to be renewed. With that in place, producing the best product, at the highest value, would be to their advantage, because their survival would depend on it, and thus true progress would happen, because tech would be available to the most people, not just the wealthiest.

[DTU_XaVier]

The prices are actually not relatively higher today than they were even 5 years ago...
Case in point:
My family bought a PC in 2001, with an ASUS v8200 GeForce 3 GFX... It cost them 4300 dkr (approx. 680$ by today's exchange-rate)...

When the GeForce 6 series came out, the price for a 6800 Ultra also was ~4300 dkr...

1½ week ago, I helped a friend build a new system, we went with an ASUS 8800GTX... And guess what?? It was 4300 dkr... :)
Admittably, it's the cheapest we could find, but my point still stands....

Best Regards :toast:

[nn_step]

considering a CPU takes about $22/die on a wafer to make....

Well, thats actually old numbers from the P4/XP days, but if its gone up substantially the market would be hurting. It isnt, so probably hasnt changed a lot.
actually less than that for the actual die, the real cost is design.

[zabomb4163]

actually less than that for the actual die, the real cost is design.

and fab facilities. 65nm facility cost billions

[blink hi]

So for example, the oil conglomerates, buying up the natural arterial routes into LA, or buying effiencient engine patents and shelving them, or the pharmecutical companies only researching patentable compounds, and shelving /banning meds that are too effective, that would be called progress?
The problem is, corps have the powers of a person, but none of the responisibility or accountability of a person. They were designed to promote in frontier societies ie early america in the absence of a proper governing bodies.

even the best heat engines aren't really that wonderfully efficient. and with these newer energy "source" engines, the fuels that they run on must still be derived from raw materials, which will require a lower rung energy source.

and as for your pharmaceutical company, yes, that is progress. because, if one of them researched this fantastic compound that they couldn't patent, they'd waste their r&d money because others can produce it cheaper since they don't have to recuperate research investment, and then they'd go out of business and there'd be no more drugs from them.

Getting back... the problem is that, because they are only accountable to profit, "progress" metered by what makes money. So it is indeed in intels best interest, amd's ati, nvidia's to make the market less competitive, and the lawsuit is just a calculated risk. And therein lies the problem. Its a race to become a monopoly, and muscle out your competition, as opposed to create a better product. this comes at the cost of third world countries, and even us the consumer, having to pay exhorbitant amounts of money for performance. True progress, would be a measured success, ie corps used to have to be accountable to the public once their 5 year contract was up, and show how they benefited society, if they wanted their license to be renewed. With that in place, producing the best product, at the highest value, would be to their advantage, because their survival would depend on it, and thus true progress would happen, because tech would be available to the most people, not just the wealthiest.

you sound like a socialist. it's exactly that "race to become a monopoly" that drives progress. by trying to make the market less competitive, they have to consistently outperform their rivals by innovating. the idea is that neither side can completely remove all other competitors. if they do, the government is there to break it up and bring back the competition. when both sides compete to out-do the other, we get great products and price wars.

this current situation isn't a race to become a monopoly, it's a conspiracy amongst producers.. entirely different situations..

and on a total tangent...your idea of "true progress" is about everyone getting the absolute best, but that's impossible in america. if personal skills aren't rewarded, if effort isn't rewarded, if ambition and achievement aren't rewarded, then there's no point for me to work harder. if i can get the same great stuff and live the same great life by doing less work, i'll surely do less work.

third world countries paying exorbitant amounts of money for performance? uh, no? why in the world would someone in angola need a top of the line computer if they don't even have food to eat. third world countries need to get clean water and electricity to their people before you can even begin to talk about getting higher range personal technology to them...

[oshox]

If nvidia wanted to charge twice what they are for their high-end cards, it wouldn't be illegal. There's nothing illegal about making huge profits (I'd love to see THAT bill come in front of the Senate)

The allegations aren't that they charge too much, but that they were in cahoots to keep prices at inflated levels. It sounds pretty wonky to me. DeBeers has been creating an artificial diamond shortage for decades, and no-one has subpoenaed them.

And if they're getting documents from as far back as 1990, wouldn't they be charging ATI? AMD can claim the good ol' "Well, that kind of thing won't happen under *our* management" defense, which should hold up.

[gn0s1s]

even the best heat engines aren't really that wonderfully efficient. and with these newer energy "source" engines, the fuels that they run on must still be derived from raw materials, which will require a lower rung energy source.

So that justifies buying and shelving engines that work, or buying up land that could be used for public transit.

and as for your pharmaceutical company, yes, that is progress. because, if one of them researched this fantastic compound that they couldn't patent, they'd waste their r&d money because others can produce it cheaper since they don't have to recuperate research investment, and then they'd go out of business and there'd be no more drugs from them.

Well, since you are not in the medical field, my uncle is a doctor, and i am currently finishing my degree in BioPsychology and Cognitive Science... let me tell you, that the drugs they create, are made with blanketing effects, and are deliberately designed with side effect profiles so you have to take them in groups. Let alone that many of the "psychological" conditions the DSM contains are advocated by the pharmacutical companies, as more disease = more $$.
Pfizer will never go out of business, illness will always exist to some degree. They again, are subject to the corporate mandate, of only catering to shareholders... and do not have to care about the welfare of their patients. Look at gulf war syndrome, add, the list goes on. The inciedence of suicide of people on ssri's. I m not going to bother argueing on this front further, as i m sure you have not done research into it and thus, heresay will get us no where.


you sound like a socialist. it's exactly that "race to become a monopoly" that drives progress. by trying to make the market less competitive, they have to consistently outperform their rivals by innovating. the idea is that neither side can completely remove all other competitors. if they do, the government is there to break it up and bring back the competition. when both sides compete to out-do the other, we get great products and price wars. I dont believe that the race to become a monopoly does drive progress. And the second sentence you said is a complete paradox... what is happening is it is more profitable to artificially inflate the market, and attack competition through patent infringements and bogus lawsuits, than it is to actually innovate. That is where my issue with "progress" lies. I think you confuse progress with the word profit.. And no i m not a socialist, unless by socialist, you mean i dont agree with profit at the expense of human beings.


this current situation isn't a race to become a monopoly, it's a conspiracy amongst producers.. entirely different situation The net effect to the consumer is the same?.... its a paper difference, monopoly or collusion.


and on a total tangent...your idea of "true progress" is about everyone getting the absolute best, but that's impossible in america. if personal skills aren't rewarded, if effort isn't rewarded, if ambition and achievement aren't rewarded, then there's no point for me to work harder. if i can get the same great stuff and live the same great life by doing less work, i'll surely do less work. Well being american... drive by your home depot in the morning... those people work just as hard, but get paid 3-4 $ an hour...but they re willing to work for that wage... so what happens when that same mentality hits the tech sector, and not just fast food and construction. I mean look at the level of outsourcing going on to india, by your "benevolent" corps, your middle class is dying and the economy will die as a result, and this is caused by profit margins, as its more profitable to outsource jobs and hire illegal workers than it is to pay union wages, or american workers because the standard of living is higher... lol you should listen to Lou Dobbs, but by the sounds of it, your a bush fan. lol.


third world countries paying exorbitant amounts of money for performance? uh, no? why in the world would someone in angola need a top of the line computer if they don't even have food to eat. third world countries need to get clean water and electricity to their people before you can even begin to talk about getting higher range personal technology to them...
Well just like the american corps that have privatized water in Columbia, and Venezuela, and peru... so the people cant get rain water, the corps own the rights to it, and thus, they work just to pay for water... and I dont consider Denmark or the rest of Non America third world countries.. just take the G8 for example.. they are charging more than the performance they are offering warrants.. the plain fact is they are greedy, and as a result we are paying.

[gn0s1s]

If nvidia wanted to charge twice what they are for their high-end cards, it wouldn't be illegal. There's nothing illegal about making huge profits (I'd love to see THAT bill come in front of the Senate)

The allegations aren't that they charge too much, but that they were in cahoots to keep prices at inflated levels. It sounds pretty wonky to me. DeBeers has been creating an artificial diamond shortage for decades, and no-one has subpoenaed them.

And if they're getting documents from as far back as 1990, wouldn't they be charging ATI? AMD can claim the good ol' "Well, that kind of thing won't happen under *our* management" defense, which should hold up.

LoL, i think Blood Diamonds are more of a pressing matter and the fact that most of the civil wars in Africa are a result of our demand for Coltan (columbite-tantalite) used in Capacitors.

[Kingcarcas]

I may not know much, but i do know this guy ^ knows alot :D I've always suspected those white collared thugs, no surprise here:nono:

[Revv23]

The bolded statement is exactly why this lawsuit is for real...

Pricing higher merely because people are willing to pay more is a form of price fixing, and is against the law. This isn't a supply and demand issue, as there's plenty of high end cards as of late.

I think the real one that caught the DOJ's attention was NVidia releasing the 7900GTX, which was noted to be much cheaper to produce than the x1900xtx, but at the same time they charged the same amount or more for the GTX. If they were trying to really compete on price NVidia could've drastically undercut ATi with the GTX, we all know it, but instead they charged the same as ATi.

Now mind you, I did buy a 8800GTX, but I see what their case is, and it is legit.

microsoft charges $60 for games now instead of $50, because people are willing to pay more.

Micrsoft argues that there are more features in the new games.

On that same note, ati/nvidia can argue that there are new features in the cards.

This will never hold up in court unless someone can prove that nvidia and ati were deliberatly collaborating to hold the price where it is. Which IMO is crazy considering how competitive these two companies have been over the past four years.


My exams are in january, so belive me when I say, the odds of DDR1/2 manufactures being able to form a cartel is zero, please.


Oh really? How very interesting. http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=27993

[Kanavit]

i could by 10 games costing $60 each instead of buying 1 8800 GTX 768mb.

don't know which is better?

[M.Beier]

Thought we spoke of mem market, not chip producers..
Micron, Hynix, samsung etc. etc. is oligopol, or differentiated oligopol, while mem market is M.K (G.skill, Corsair, OCZ etc. etc.)
- Big difference..

As what was said was "mem prices", I thought of that buisness, not the suppliers to the buisness..

EDIT: Please, dont consider me being wrong, just ask why my oppinion is so, and I'll gladly tell..

[Gunslinger]

Dug this thread up from the ashes as the news seems to relevent again.

http://www.techpowerup.com/65970/ATI_(AMD)_and_NVIDIA_Fix_Prices_in_the_US_Class_Ac tion_Slapped_Against_them.html

I received unsolicited class action papers in the mail yesterday about joining the suit. I would assume they are legit, and not some kind of scam, but it really kind of caught me off guard.

[BrowncoatGR]

Dont you think it should say ATi(AMD) in the title since this is about the pre-AMD era ATi?

[cky2k6]

i wonder how much actual proof they have... someone who is pissed at having to pay high gpu prices can allege there is a conspiracy, but how exactly would they prove that there is price fixing? its not just amd/nvidia who makes video cards, there's tons of other companies involved who all want profit as well. i doubt nvidia/ati make high profit margins, hell ati has been losing money for quite a while now... this is a frivolous suit, and an ill timed one at that for amd...

[cky2k6]

Dont you think it should say ATi(AMD) in the title since this is about the pre-AMD era ATi?

its the article's title.. and besides, it is an ongoing suit, so amd will be the one that is undergoing litigation, as they bought ati's liabilities as well as their assets.

[Gunslinger]

Apparently there were a few very damaging Nvidia/AMD/ATi employee emails read aloud in the courtroom by the judge, so I wouldn't be so quick to call it frivolous.