GeForce 9900 GTX & GTS Slated For July Launch

[mascaras]

how much will the 9900gtx cost? I know for sure I can't afford the gtx 280, so its either that or a 4870 for me

260GTX you mean?

i think he really mean to say 9900GTX

GTX280 >> GT200 séries @ 65nm

GTX 260 >> GT200 séries @ 65nm


9900GTX >> G92B @ 55nm

9800GT >> G92B @ 55m


regards

[GoldenTiger]

I bet Nvidia probably never intended the G92s to be as cheap as they were - if they had it their way, they would have kept it at big prices, but they had no other cards to compete at the 3850/3870 range until the 9600GT's. They've always favored the high expensive monolithic GPU's

We used to be able to buy top-end cards for $300 only a few years ago so this new trend of stupidly high prices SUCKS. The G92 was more in-line with historical pricing.

[BenchZowner]

We used to be able to buy top-end cards for $300 only a few years ago so this new trend of stupidly high prices SUCKS. The G92 was more in-line with historical pricing.

Unless my memory serves me bad... I remember myself paying 590$ for a LeadTek WinFast GeForce 3 Ti500 back then...
I'm not 100% sure.... but that's what my memory says

[003]

Has nvidia or any news site hinted at or reported on any kind of dual-GPU version of a GT200 based card? Like a GTX280GX2? If the GT200 turns out being faster than the RV770, which I have a feeling it will be, I want to get two of them in SLI. Unfortunately SLI does not work on intel chipsets, and I have a top end x48 board.

So my only option would be a dual-GPU solution such as the GX2 cards that nvidia has released in the past. Anybody have any info on this? I'd be willing to shell out $800+ for it, so long as it outperformed the 4870(X2).

We used to be able to buy top-end cards for $300 only a few years ago so this new trend of stupidly high prices SUCKS. The G92 was more in-line with historical pricing.

Yeah well the dollar was worth a lot more back then.

[zerazax]

Has nvidia or any news site hinted at or reported on any kind of dual-GPU version of a GT200 based card? Like a GTX280GX2? If the GT200 turns out being faster than the RV770, which I have a feeling it will be, I want to get two of them in SLI. Unfortunately SLI does not work on intel chipsets, and I have a top end x48 board.

So my only option would be a dual-GPU solution such as the GX2 cards that nvidia has released in the past. Anybody have any info on this? I'd be willing to shell out $800+ for it, so long as it outperformed the 4870(X2).


Yeah well the dollar was worth a lot more back then.

GTX280GX2 will not happen. It's way too hot. They didn't do it for G80 and waited until G92 and the shrink from 90nm to 65nm to go. You'd have to wait til at least 45nm unless you want a record-setting heat dispenser.

[tajoh111]

I bet Nvidia probably never intended the G92s to be as cheap as they were - if they had it their way, they would have kept it at big prices, but they had no other cards to compete at the 3850/3870 range until the 9600GT's. They've always favored the high expensive monolithic GPU's

So has ATI until they realized that they could not compete with NV for MAX performance and competed the only way they could, selling their top end as midrange so they could look competitive again.

ATI would sell their cards as high end if they could.

We used to be able to buy top-end cards for $300 only a few years ago so this new trend of stupidly high prices SUCKS. The G92 was more in-line with historical pricing.

The 9700 pro started at 399, and this is as far back as most people want to go.

Boo Hoo, stuff gets more expensive. The 300 dollar price range still exists, but it just means that their is a higher level of card priced above that. Who cares if all you can afford is a 300 dollar graphics card and you can't say your computer has a top of the line graphics card in it.

What putting out expensive cards does is allow us to buy higher tech earlier. It allows companies to put out crazy tech even if yeilds are bad.

If you want top of the line, wait. It will get their when yeilds are better and they go to a more efficient manufacturing process.

I have always felt videocards were a bargain compared to CPU's. Top of the line CPU have always been around a thousand dollars and here we never get what we pay for. E.g the 1000 dollar part won't smash their 400 dollar part.

[003]

I don't really care how hot it is, I am on water. If nvidia does not officially make one, perhaps a partner will? ASUS unofficially made a 3850x3, and they also make nvidia cards. Perhaps they can make a GTX280GX2?

[AliG]

So has ATI until they realized that they could not compete with NV for MAX performance and competed the only way they could, selling their top end as midrange so they could look competitive again.

ATI would sell their cards as high end if they could.



The 9700 pro started at 399, and this is as far back as most people want to go.

Boo Hoo, stuff gets more expensive. The 300 dollar price range still exists, but it just means that their is a higher level of card priced above that. Who cares if all you can afford is a 300 dollar graphics card and you can't say your computer has a top of the line graphics card in it.

What putting out expensive cards does is allow us to buy higher tech earlier. It allows companies to put out crazy tech even if yeilds are bad.

If you want top of the line, wait. It will get their when yeilds are better and they go to a more efficient manufacturing process.

I have always felt videocards were a bargain compared to CPU's. Top of the line CPU have always been around a thousand dollars and here we never get what we pay for. E.g the 1000 dollar part won't smash their 400 dollar part.

You left out a couple of key details, for one, the value of the dollar has temendously depreciated, secondly cpus offered a lot more power and value even 5/6 years ago, and third, ati and nvidia got away with $1k cards because people were willing to spend the money, if they weren't the pricing would have been lower

[GoldenTiger]

ATI would sell their cards as high end if they could.

The 9700 pro started at 399, and this is as far back as most people want to go.

Boo Hoo, stuff gets more expensive. The 300 dollar price range still exists, but it just means that their is a higher level of card priced above that. Who cares if all you can afford is a 300 dollar graphics card and you can't say your computer has a top of the line graphics card in it.
If you want top of the line, wait. It will get their when yeilds are better and they go to a more efficient manufacturing process.

I hope this post is a joke. In case it isn't, I'll respond. With the dollar depreciated, it matters a lot more on price. The line of "there's a higher card priced above that" is bull, marketing hook line and sinker.

As far as card prices? My 9700 pro ran me $320 on launch day. My Ti200 ran me about $220... my Voodoo 3 3000 ran $299, my V5 5500 ran about $350, my GF4 Ti4200 ran me about $200, I skipped the 5/6 series, 7900GT ran $250 for me at launch, 8800GTS 640 was the most expensive I ever bought at $380 and it seemed out of this world expensive. Since then I've bought a pair of 8800GT 512 cards for $250 total after a $30 rebate for SLI. The whole "but they've always been expensive!" thing is absurd and reeks of buying into marketing hype that spins things like a top.

Again, cards should not run $650... it's a *RECENT* trend with the 8800GTX and probably this GTX 280, not a long-term thing that should be coddled and appreciated for giving us tech "early" (yeah, right! early my arse). As consumers we should be appalled at such absurdly high prices... it's not like the economy is in a great time period, either, let alone the fact that it's basically ripping you off at those prices.

Try again with something reasonable, please, as to why video cards should run $650 for the high-end when they never have/had in the past?

Unless my memory serves me bad... I remember myself paying 590$ for a LeadTek WinFast GeForce 3 Ti500 back then...
I'm not 100% sure.... but that's what my memory says

Well, that's silly to do when the Ti200's were around $220 on Black Friday deals near launch and performed nearly as well when overclocked . It doesn't make it any less of a rip.

[003]

Since then I've bought a pair of 8800GT 512 cards for $250 total after a $30 rebate for SLI.

Wait, do you mean to say that you bought two 512mb 8800GTs for a total of $250??!? Since when is an 8800GT $125???

[GAR]

I bet Nvidia probably never intended the G92s to be as cheap as they were - if they had it their way, they would have kept it at big prices, but they had no other cards to compete at the 3850/3870 range until the 9600GT's. They've always favored the high expensive monolithic GPU's

If the GTX 280 lasts as long as the 8800GTX did, i will gladly pay them $650

[GoldenTiger]

Wait, do you mean to say that you bought two 512mb 8800GTs for a total of $250??!? Since when is an 8800GT $125???

Sure did... "open box" at newegg that was $150 shipped each, and they both had a $30 MIR that was validated about a week ago according to the rebate status site.

[dengyong]

Since then I've bought a pair of 8800GT 512 cards for $250 total after a $30 rebate for SLI.

Sure did... "open box" at newegg that was $150 shipped each, and they both had a $30 MIR that was validated about a week ago according to the rebate status site.

300-60=240

[tajoh111]

I hope this post is a joke. In case it isn't, I'll respond. With the dollar depreciated, it matters a lot more on price. The line of "there's a higher card priced above that" is bull, marketing hook line and sinker.

As far as card prices? My 9700 pro ran me $320 on launch day. My Ti200 ran me about $220... my Voodoo 3 3000 ran $299, my V5 5500 ran about $350, my GF4 Ti4200 ran me about $200, I skipped the 5/6 series, 7900GT ran $250 for me at launch, 8800GTS 640 was the most expensive I ever bought at $380 and it seemed out of this world expensive. Since then I've bought a pair of 8800GT 512 cards for $250 total after a $30 rebate for SLI. The whole "but they've always been expensive!" thing is absurd and reeks of buying into marketing hype that spins things like a top.

Again, cards should not run $650... it's a *RECENT* trend with the 8800GTX and probably this GTX 280, not a long-term thing that should be coddled and appreciated for giving us tech "early" (yeah, right! early my arse). As consumers we should be appalled at such absurdly high prices... it's not like the economy is in a great time period, either, let alone the fact that it's basically ripping you off at those prices.

Try again with something reasonable, please, as to why video cards should run $650 for the high-end when they never have/had in the past?



Well, that's silly to do when the Ti200's were around $220 on Black Friday deals near launch and performed nearly as well when overclocked . It doesn't make it any less of a rip.

DO you think it practical to release the 280 GTX at this point at the 300 dollar price point when the 4870 doesn't have as close to the performance and its not nearly as expensive to manufacture.

Considering on top of this, the US dollar has less buying power in supplies(NV is a US corporation), the price of things have skyrocket lately and your competition doesn't have anything competitive at the moment to challenge your top end.

Its not practical at all.

What do you want, only release cards when the manufacturing of them is cheap and the yields are fantastic, so they can sell them for cheap or your desired price range.

Sorry but I want my tech early and those who can't afford can it can wait. NV is a business, not a charity. And I highly doubt that the early Highends are what drives NV pocketbook.

I also remember the 1950xtx platinum,1900 xtx platinum being 600+ on release, as well as anything with the Ultra moniker(and the 7800 512 gtx). I will consider these marketing BS because they get 10 percent more performance for 200 dollar more. On top that we don't really get better hardware with the price increase(maybe a better cooler, or memory).

Don't put all this blame on marketing BS. I doubt Nv makes most of their money on GTX sales(sales were 3.7 billion in 2007 I doubt they sold a million gtx at 600 dollars).

To me 600 dollar cards(not the double card x2 and gx2 crap) are a sign of thing to come in the near future for performance at the mainstream(or highend mainstream). They are sign of what is to come in the lower price segments eventually when the manufacturing cost have come down. They also provide marketing muscle by glorifying the brand.

So why is the card 600 dollars?
It is expensive to make a card that has: 65nm(yields and heat) 1.4 billion transisters(yields), has a 576nm die size(yields), produces nearly 250 watts of heat( needs better cooler), 512bit memory(more complex PCB and memory controller). Lets not forget R and D.

[skinnee]

As far as card prices? My 9700 pro ran me $320 on launch day. My Ti200 ran me about $220... my Voodoo 3 3000 ran $299, my V5 5500 ran about $350, my GF4 Ti4200 ran me about $200, I skipped the 5/6 series, 7900GT ran $250 for me at launch, 8800GTS 640 was the most expensive I ever bought at $380 and it seemed out of this world expensive. Since then I've bought a pair of 8800GT 512 cards for $250 total after a $30 rebate for SLI. The whole "but they've always been expensive!" thing is absurd and reeks of buying into marketing hype that spins things like a top.

Try again with something reasonable, please, as to why video cards should run $650 for the high-end when they never have/had in the past?

You're not comparing prices of top-end cards, you are quoting prices of mid-range cards, so of course the price point is going to be lower. For instance, the 7900GTX was $550+ USD for the first 4 months, but in your post you note the GT model for $250, not the GTX. Again with the 8800 series, you are recalling the prices you paid for a GTS, not a GTX.

I understand your complaint, but your argument is not valid with the previous purchases you are citing...remember, you have to pay to play. I am scraping together money as well in order to purchase a GTX280 on launch day and I am going to have to delay other things or go without (the mortgage has to be paid though! )

One last thing...open box... Of course that doesn't count, if you're bargin hunting, the top-end card on launch day is not the place to bargin hunt.

[tajoh111]

IN addition the whole price going up, you make it sound like NV is the source of it because of their $600 8800gtx.

Lets look at the MSRP of the top end cards for a moment at time of release.

9700 Pro $399
9800 XT $499
Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition $549 or 499 for none platinum edition.
Radeon 1800xt $549
Radeon 1900xtx $649

Check these up if you want, these were the launching MSRP of these cards.

ATI only got cheaper with the 2900 xt because it didn't offer as good performance as the competition(and wouldn't have sold if it wasn't price well below competition to reflect it's decrease in performance) and the chip itself didn't make them much money as they got the hell off of making the 2900xt ASAP to 3870 because they were so much cheaper to make.

And the guy above is right, you are cherry picking deals(who find a launch card 70 dollars cheaper than MSRP), and the rest of your card are Midrange or deals.

[bill_d]

my 1950xt was 500 when first out, so ati has gone on the high side to but 600+ for a gtx280 no but not for the price but the heat the thing is going to put out
maybe after they go to 55nm

[003]

Sure did... "open box" at newegg that was $150 shipped each, and they both had a $30 MIR that was validated about a week ago according to the rebate status site.

Hmm.... I hate you.

[GoldenTiger]

IN addition the whole price going up, you make it sound like NV is the source of it because of their $600 8800gtx.

Lets look at the MSRP of the top end cards for a moment at time of release.

9700 Pro $399
9800 XT $499
Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition $549 or 499 for none platinum edition.
Radeon 1800xt $549
Radeon 1900xtx $649

Check these up if you want, these were the launching MSRP of these cards.

ATI only got cheaper with the 2900 xt because it didn't offer as good performance as the competition(and wouldn't have sold if it wasn't price well below competition to reflect it's decrease in performance) and the chip itself didn't make them much money as they got the hell off of making the 2900xt ASAP to 3870 because they were so much cheaper to make.

And the guy above is right, you are cherry picking deals(who find a launch card 70 dollars cheaper than MSRP), and the rest of your card are Midrange or deals.

Well, buying at full price is silly when you can spend 5 minutes looking online and get it much cheaper... your loss if you don't. I'm not being brand-specific, as you could see by my card history anyway. What I'm saying is it's absurd in general how much they (both companies) are charging for their high-end products compared to historical pricing. It also happens to just be ludicrously expensive. No one can argue that, except people who rake in a million+ a year, even then a half a grand isn't a penny.

[DRCRAWFISH]

Akimbo 512mb 8800gt was 130 after rebate on frys.com a few days ago

[Chickenfeed]

Do remember, even if we all are attracted to the fastest and best, these products are marketed towards and intended for the niche crowds. They don't expect the average joe to pay 600+ for a video card. They know the real earners are in the 200-300 range and this is where the company's strengths show (particularly the 8800gt and 3870 as of now).

I have no idea what the production cost of a GTX 280 would be but the profit margins are probably not high as one would think. For this reason again the profits are in the more affordable mid-low high end range which usually involves cards that both cost less to make and that are also more widely distributed and in larger quantities. You can't honestly expect anyone to believe that they'll make more on the GTX 280 than they've made with G92. Although the cards yields haven't been ideal they've sold like hotcakes and are still going strong.

Sure I don't like the idea of paying this much for a video card but thats the price of admission. If you want to pay it, its totally up to you. If not, do what 95% of everyone else does and go more the more affordable alternative. Value is in the eye of the beholder as I like to think. Even if it is steep, if these cards last as long as the GTX has, I'll gladly pay the asking price. Again its down to what your willing to pay.

I also highly doubt one will manage to find a GTX 280/260 at less than MSRP any time soon after launch, unless availability is abnormally good. Remember what the G92 pricing was like during the first month or so of its release.

[[XC] hipno650]

i hate to say it but.

6800 ultra was over $600
7800gtx was over $600
7800gtx 512 was over $700
7900gtx was close to $600
7950gx2 was over $600
8800gtx was over $600
8800 ultra was over $800
9800gx2 was about $600

granted the prices dropped (some fast) but at launch even the good e-talliers were at those prices. all newish Nvidia high end cards have been at over over $600 at launch and with the specs the GTX 280 is boasting i will gladly pay over $600 for that beast of a card. some people seem to be forgetting that it is rumored to have the second gen shadders which are up to 50% faster clock per clock tot he old ones. so you take way more shadders, faster clocj per clock shadders, more TMU's, more ROP's and bigger bus width. that's one HECK of a card you have.

[LordEC911]

some people seem to be forgetting that it is rumored to have the second gen shadders which are up to 50% faster clock per clock tot he old ones. so you take way more shadders, faster clocj per clock shadders, more TMU's, more ROP's and bigger bus width. that's one HECK of a card you have.

No, it just means they finally got the MUL working constantly...
Which should have happened over 18 months ago.

[god's_gift]

well at extreme high setting and aa on crysis is giving 43 fps with 280 in sli configuration and some quad core (no exact info) 1920x1200 resolution (dell monitor i guess it is 24")

BTW this is my 1st post

[Bo_Fox]

I hope this post is a joke. In case it isn't, I'll respond. With the dollar depreciated, it matters a lot more on price. The line of "there's a higher card priced above that" is bull, marketing hook line and sinker.

As far as card prices? My 9700 pro ran me $320 on launch day. My Ti200 ran me about $220... my Voodoo 3 3000 ran $299, my V5 5500 ran about $350, my GF4 Ti4200 ran me about $200, I skipped the 5/6 series, 7900GT ran $250 for me at launch, 8800GTS 640 was the most expensive I ever bought at $380 and it seemed out of this world expensive. Since then I've bought a pair of 8800GT 512 cards for $250 total after a $30 rebate for SLI. The whole "but they've always been expensive!" thing is absurd and reeks of buying into marketing hype that spins things like a top.

Again, cards should not run $650... it's a *RECENT* trend with the 8800GTX and probably this GTX 280, not a long-term thing that should be coddled and appreciated for giving us tech "early" (yeah, right! early my arse). As consumers we should be appalled at such absurdly high prices... it's not like the economy is in a great time period, either, let alone the fact that it's basically ripping you off at those prices.

Try again with something reasonable, please, as to why video cards should run $650 for the high-end when they never have/had in the past?



Well, that's silly to do when the Ti200's were around $220 on Black Friday deals near launch and performed nearly as well when overclocked . It doesn't make it any less of a rip.

No, the Voodoo3 3000 was never $299. I know, because I bought it at launch day for $200 from CompUSA in April 1999. Unless you were an idiot... LOL!

i hate to say it but.

6800 ultra was over $600
7800gtx was over $600
7800gtx 512 was over $700
7900gtx was close to $600
7950gx2 was over $600
8800gtx was over $600
8800 ultra was over $800
9800gx2 was about $600

granted the prices dropped (some fast) but at launch even the good e-talliers were at those prices. all newish Nvidia high end cards have been at over over $600 at launch and with the specs the GTX 280 is boasting i will gladly pay over $600 for that beast of a card. some people seem to be forgetting that it is rumored to have the second gen shadders which are up to 50% faster clock per clock tot he old ones. so you take way more shadders, faster clocj per clock shadders, more TMU's, more ROP's and bigger bus width. that's one HECK of a card you have.

Not just Nvidia!!! ATI's X800XT was at the same $500+ price point, with the rare platinum edition running at well over $650. I got my X1900XTX at $500 off Ebay when it was selling for $599 at CompUSA for many months later.

But, if you gotta blame it on Nvidia, you can say that the first $500 gaming card ever was the GeForce 2 Ultra! Remember that? Voodoo2 SLI was $500, but that was for 2 separate cards...