Yeah, sometimes I feel like an alien on this forum xD I do not watercool anymore and stopped overclocking, too :( I've become too sensible :(Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
Yeah, sometimes I feel like an alien on this forum xD I do not watercool anymore and stopped overclocking, too :( I've become too sensible :(Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
Anyone scoop one up from ncix?
$625 ouchh
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=222...phire&catid=10
This is a somewhat dangerous pricing precedent. Say if Nvidia gk 104 comes out and it performs similarly to 7970 and as a result, instead of trying to undercut the 7970, they charge the same price. What happens to the pricing of gk112 when it comes out? Will it be 699 then? The last time this was happening was during NV/ATI price fixing days. I remember ATI's most expensive product ever was the 850 xt platinum edition. This card came out at a MSRP of 549 dollars. This was during the price fixing era. This chip is not a monolith and from rumors, yields are better at 28nm, then they ever were at 40nm. This card is priced as a monolith but it is clearly not one. I find the 500 dollar price tag, is a good number for the most expensive chips to start at. However the pricing t this level is in my opinions should be reserved for monoliths because if a card happens to be 60% bigger or so, from what I have read on this board and other boards, the yields go exponentially down. The more area, the greater chance for errors, and it goes up unproportionally.Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
Do people want to go back to the 700 dollar graphics cards. With AMD pricing their cards not particularly improving their price to performance level compared to last generation, we could see a huge increase across the board of all of AMD's products. The rumored price that went along with the $549 7970 was a $449 7950. The 7870 if it's slightly faster than the 6970, could easily take between the 350-400 dollar price point. With the reduction in GCN cores and a likely drop in frequency, we re looking at a 7950 that could be around 20 percent slower than the 7970 and a 7870 card slightly faster than a 6970 would fit the 350-400 price point considering the high end pricing from AMD. For a chip that is in the mid 200's in nm2, this is simply too expensive.
The non aggressive pricing on AMD helps Nvidia out big time. Because they barely have to drop the price of their cards to be competitive. It allows Nvidia to raise the price of their cards in the future as well. Without AMD taking the value stance overall, I can see the price fixing era part 2 occurring again.
When you compare prices, you have to compare HD7970 to the GTX580 3GB, the HD7970 is cheaper and performs better, you cannot compare it to the 1.5GB GTX580.
So taking that into account, I don't see why you call the card expensive.
Form a business point of view, AMD needs to make up for the loss incured with Bulldozer.
How would this set a precedent? Remember, the GTX 280 was priced @ $649.
You aren't taking everything into account though. Just because yields might be better than the early 40nm process doesn't mean the costs are the same. Wafer costs have gone up multiple times.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
AMD just increased their bus size for the first time in a long time. Tahiti is more of a highend/enthusiast GPU that we aren't use to seeing from AMD, recently.
Edit- Generally GPUs are priced based on performance, as you well know, just because they didn't follow that guideline in past releases doesn't mean they always will do so.
Pricing is partially affected by the amount of VRAM (3GB of GDDR5). It could probably easily be $500 if the cards were equipped with just 2GB (somehow).
Yes but, that was completely overpriced and it was corrected by AMD value proposition with the 4870. Without that pressure from AMD, the gtx 8800 and the gtx 280 had super high prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
If neither company puts pressure on the other, prices will rise. AMD hasn't had a 549 dollar card in years and it matches the highest price it ever had. Also both cards, the gtx 8800 and gtx 280, killed their predecessor for performance, the 7970 does not create the gap with the old generation compared with the new generation. It made the old cards at the high end completely unsellable and take price nose dives of hundreds of dollars. The 4870 was a godsend and it brought about the value era. When some thing a bit slower than the absolute fastest could be had for about 300 dollars. Those days may be gone with this newest generation.
Selling the cards at a high price would be excellent business for AMD and a sucky thing for us. But market forces don't generally support two competitors frequently raising prices unless they are coordinating and price fixing which is illegal. I think you'll find that prices will come down soon enough with competition but until kepler does not arrive, the only one to be blamed for AMD's high price is Nvidia.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
I agree with you and said it earlier. It is good for business but bad for the consumer. What I am worried about however is if kepler doesn't take a value proposition and cost 550 dollars as well. I have to disagree though, we cannot blame only NV for this high price. It was their decision and NV was definitely blamed for increasing prices back in their hey day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
The problem is I can see keplar being(the non monolithic under 400nm one) as fast as the 7970 very easily. It should be relatively easy for Nvidia(as long as they don't crap the bed) to make a gtx 460/560 sized chip that competes reasonably well with the 7970. A bit more shaders and more clocks on even the old fermi architecture, it could definitely be possible. I.e With 7 percent more shaders and 10% more clocks = 15 percent speed boost between fermi generation(gtx480 and 580)and 28nm would definitely get NV up to significantly higher clocks, and more shaders while maintaining a under 400nm size).
Having a lower price would also be smart business for AMD. If you look at when AMD priced the 5870 lower, they stole the directx 11 generation. They picked up market share like crazy and put one of NV biggest partners out of business(BFG). A lower price would also get early adopter to get the card and thus refuse keplar when it came out. Having a higher price makes a lot of people sit on the fence.
Why is it bad for the consumer?
Those who dont want to spend the money can wait 2-6 months for the prices to drop to more "acceptable" levels.
I've always found these price arguments to be rather confusing (as to why they happen). Top end new stuff costs money. New top end stuff brings previous top end stuff down in price. If there is no or little competition then you need to pay what the manufacturer thinks their product is worth. If not enough people are paying then they receive poor cash flow and either lower the price to get more transfer (10 people at $500 is more than 8 people at $600 for example) or tough it out.
end of story.
We are consumers. We vote with our wallet.
The performance is fantastic for such a low power requirement and temperature, almost my ideal graphics card if it wasnt for the lack of physx (once tried in a few games, I cant play without it now).
However, IMO its only worth about £50 more than a GTX 580, and not £100-200 more as it is looking like it will be.
The thing is if the 6970 launches at £450+, this isnt going to bring prices down on the previous cards, it really ought to be £300 with the GTX 580 dropping to £250, though I'm sure that will never be the case, at least not until kepler is released.
Anything that causes the consumer to spend more money is bad for the consumer, I don't see how you don't get this. Higher prices overall means everyone is spending more. Similarly, having to wait for longer for a certain level of performance or technology is also a bad thing. It should be pretty clear that when smaller group of consumers get to enjoy a particular level of performance or technology, it is not bad for the consumer. In addition with development cycles as long as they are, priced drops can take a long time to happen, especially without competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
If there is no or little competition then you need to pay what the manufacturer thinks their product is worth.
The thing is that this is a monopoly, atleast in principle, pricing can get to unfair levels because there is no competition and the manufacturer gets to name the price.
Even the top end customer who is willing to pay 650 dollar to get the top of the line product right away can benefit from lower prices.Even though that said person was willing to pay 650, lets say that said person only had to pay 500 dollars. This means that person now has an extra 150 dollars in their product and over multiple upgradings, these can build up to significant levels. Having more money in your pocket is a good thing and with the consumer always wanting to get their most for their money, this is ultimately why higher videocard pricing is bad for the consumer.
what is it about physx you like so much?Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
from what i have seen the only thing it can do that a cpu hasnt been capable of in other games is a nice fog effect that i would miss
cant help but wonder how 7950 will go this time as the 6950 has been a great value card
also wish that beefed up cards for overclocking like the msi lightning would get here sooner rather than latter when another revision is on the horizon
Batman and Alice Madness Returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by dasa
It does make a large difference in Arkham City.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
IF this were a need and not a luxury I would probably agree with you. However this is a luxury item and you have the privilege to buy it, or the right to not as based on your personal wealth management.
Price drops are driven by market cash flow, development cycle, and competitor cycle. Wanting to pay less for something doesnt make it cost less, especially in a capitalist system.
This is in no way, shape, or form a monopoly. If you want to purchase a similar performing product from another manufacturer you can go do that today (but it will cost you more).
If you saved $150 would you really hold onto it for 2+ years it would take to save up another $500 to get your next high end card? It would be spent eventually, so your choice is to pay now, or wait until one of the three large price factors pushes prices down. You can complain until you're blue in the face if you want in the mean time, but its just inefficient in the face of the facts of how the market works.
The game runs well for me on my 5870,no artifacts. This is a benchmark I had done a while back http://www.xfire.com/profile/tom455o...view#117250298 Settings. http://www.xfire.com/profile/tom455o...view#117250297Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
The benchmark is easier to run than actual game play.
Here is some game play on high settings and latest patch. http://www.xfire.com/video/4ddfde/
I have friends that play gta4 on ati cards and the game runs fine. That 7970 would be a good card for gta4,it looks like it will have the power to really max out the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
Yea its strange especially BF3, but then I saw they used only 4gb ram and we all know BF3 MP is memory hungry whoe lol, it can eat up to 5-6gb :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
I think you are confusing what is bad for the consumer for what it is bad for people in general. A huge basis of your argument is, that because it is a luxury item, it really doesn't effect the consumer. If the consumer only purchased items that are needs, such as food, shelter and utilities, the capitalist market as we known it would not exist and even more primitive markets would fall apart. Having the choice to spend money or not doesn't make saving money not a good thing for the consumer.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
If what your saying is true about because things are luxuries, consumers are not worse off because they have a choice to pay a higher price or not, monopolies are not bad and do not effect the consumer really. For example if AMD went out of business with Intel and Nvidia slowing down their development cycles and generally raised their prices, the consumer would not be worse off.
If we take the heart of your argument, we can also interpret this as, as long as people get to live above the poverty line, they really don't need to worry about anything else and the pricing of luxury goods(most things are this) doesn't effect them because they have the choice to spend money or not and money saved means nothing.
Your justification for higher prices not being bad is, it is not a luxury item so the consumer can wait and has a choice to pay or not. What a monopoly does in most consumer cases is increase prices on what is typically a luxury item and slow down development cycles. But according to your argument, the consumer can simply wait things out. This does not make sense, because waiting things out is already bad for the consumer, saving money should always be a plus for the consumer. I don't think there can be an argument against this. This doesn't involve economics at all. It is just common sense.
Your argument below is a blanket statement.
You can complain until you're blue in the face if you want in the mean time, but its just inefficient in the face of the facts of how the market works.
Anytime the consumer saves more money, it gives them more wealth to either spend on true needs, semi luxuries like schooling, housing or more money saved for a rainy day, expensive prescriptions or retirement. Saving money is cumulative, so saving any chance a person can get is good.
I would surely label any flagship card a "luxury like" item when there is not enough market supply (scarcity can turn ordinary item into special items), there is a high demand, hence suppliers can charge anything they want within permissible limits.
I for one would not complain about the price, and secondly we all sound like a bunch of grannies arguing over pennies. Its a flagship item (since 7990 is not out yet), so the supplier is more than entitled to charge whatever it likes, don't like it? don't buy it then!, end of the story.
People are consumers of something... There is no differentiation necessary. There is a difference between Goods that are basic to survival and goods that you can live without. You are completely forgetting about the Producer which is the only reason why the product exists in the first place. They have a right to sell the item at whatever cost they think its worth. If people pay for it thats good for both parties. Since both Groups are benefiting from the transaction. Though if the Producer realizes he isn't selling enough then he'll reduce the price in order to get more income/profit for his work.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Well if the price is too high for people, people wont pay for it. Lets say for example if Intel and Nvidia increased the price for their PC goods because of the lack of competition it'll just drive more and more people away towards other platforms such as ARM, Consoles, etc.. Other example Alcoa had a Monopoly on Aluminum in the world for many years... They couldn't charge too much because consumers just bought steel instead.Quote:
If what your saying is true about because things are luxuries, consumers are not worse off because they have a choice to pay a higher price or not, monopolies are not bad and do not effect the consumer really. For example if AMD went out of business with Intel and Nvidia slowing down their development cycles and generally raised their prices, the consumer would not be worse off.
Monopolies are not bad in themselves they are the sole producer of the good. If another corporation wants to come in to compete and can provide lower cost goods they can do so. A monopoly always has to be mindful of this.Quote:
If we take the heart of your argument, we can also interpret this as, as long as people get to live above the poverty line, they really don't need to worry about anything else and the pricing of luxury goods(most things are this) doesn't effect them because they have the choice to spend money or not and money saved means nothing.
Your justification for higher prices not being bad is, it is not a luxury item so the consumer can wait and has a choice to pay or not. What a monopoly does in most consumer cases is increase prices on what is typically a luxury item and slow down development cycles. But according to your argument, the consumer can simply wait things out. This does not make sense, because waiting things out is already bad for the consumer, saving money should always be a plus for the consumer. I don't think there can be an argument against this. This doesn't involve economics at all. It is just common sense.
They can't charge too much for a product or they'll attract a competitor as soon as they charge too high of a price. The wait for a product isnt that long... It takes just a few years for a product to be RD and put out to be sold.
Most electronics can last at least 10 years with proper maintenance so there is no need to upgrade. (Still using computers from 2001 in my work). If the monopoly charges too high a price they also can delay upgrade cycles for the consumers.
These are all true... though you are obviously against the businesses who provide the good/service and feel entitled to their labor.Quote:
Anytime the consumer saves more money, it gives them more wealth to either spend on true needs, semi luxuries like schooling, housing or more money saved for a rainy day, expensive prescriptions or retirement. Saving money is cumulative, so saving any chance a person can get is good.
You do not deserve a lower price. If the producer/seller lowers the price then you buy it! Vote with your wallet trying to garner Morality because you think the price is too high is short sighted and foolish.
^^
adding to that, the price is too high for whom?
- average user?
- xtreme bencher?
- person who upgrades to the latest every 6 months?
- HTPC user?
see? what you see as expensive for you might be pocket change for somebody else.
Well said... i guess - but even more normal user can have an opinion on high-end products... and that's their opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by kuroikenshi
We live in "sick times" if those that are richer find complaints about certain prices (no that accessible and for a product "with no future") irritating.
It makes a far bigger difference in Alice:Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1sI8ovRIFY
This is the game that made me decide against buying AMD cards again, or until they have Physx.
Also after that with Skyrim - Nvidia had compatible SLI profiles a day before the game launched and SLI works wonderfully in that and every other game. I'm not even sure if crossfire support for Skyrim has been added by AMD yet, and also when I had Xfire 4870s, they didnt work until I got a VGA bios update from the manufacturer. My 5770s also had the 'grey screen' crash / freezing in windows and I had to wait ages for a new bios again to fix those, and I had a lot of visual corruption and severe artifacting in one of the 3D marks across several Xfire setups. So I have learned that ATI / AMD were / are fine if you only plan on using a single GPU, but if you want to use two, Nvidia is the way to go, plus you get Physx and the option to run either SLI or dedicated GPU physx on the second card which is super sweet.
Historically I've always been a 'red team' fan, and I dont have anything against them, but after having used my GTX 460s and 560s for so long, I've been converted to the green team and cant go back now.