# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Won't be $500 Cheap: Report



## btarunr (May 2, 2013)

Late last month, we learned that NVIDIA plans to unveil its GeForce GTX 7-series desktop GPU family just a little later this month. According to a new report by SweClockers, the company plans to take full advantage of AMD's lethargy or console-fixation, in launching its next GPU generation much later this year. The premium GeForce GTX 780, which is reportedly based on the GK110 silicon, could command a price much higher than the $499.99 GeForce GTX 680 started out on, when it launched last March. 

Pricing of the GeForce GTX 780 could be closer to that of the GeForce GTX TITAN, than today's GTX 680, according to the report. It asks us not to be surprised if the card is priced on-par with the TITAN, making us wonder if TITAN remains NVIDIA's fastest single-GPU graphics card for long, or if NVIDIA is re-branding TITAN to GTX 780, or even if it ends up being the fabled "TITAN Ultra."

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Kaynar (May 2, 2013)

When AMD launched the 7970 and 7950 their price was also rediculously high. The facts that they where not easily found in stock and also they had the monopoly (as nvidia was 3 months "behind schedule") allowed them to have the cards about £200 more expensive than they are today.

This time it is nVidia's turn to be in this situation/advantage. I just hope this won't mean that AMD will rush some half-finished new series because of the GTX700 series.

I don't disagree with £1000 single GPU's... as long as people want buy them and mostly as long as a £200 solution (7950) is also available and will run all current games with ease...


----------



## dj-electric (May 2, 2013)

You have to be crazy to think something named GTX780 will be """500$ cheap"""


----------



## btarunr (May 2, 2013)

Kaynar said:


> When AMD launched the 7970 and 7950 their price was also rediculously high. The facts that they where not easily found in stock and also they had the monopoly (as nvidia was 3 months "behind schedule") allowed them to have the cards about £200 more expensive than they are today.
> 
> This time it is nVidia's turn to be in this situation/advantage. I just hope this won't mean that AMD will rush some half-finished new series because of the GTX700 series.



But 7970 wasn't priced at $1000, just $550, which at the time was not much more than what NVIDIA's GTX 580 asked for.


----------



## adulaamin (May 2, 2013)

I was hoping to jump to the green side if their prices would be around $450 for a 780 but with news like this I'll have no choice but to stay put. I can max out all my games on the resolution I play at atm so my 7970 will last me until prices go down. Or if cards are gonna be priced like Titans I might just buy a console .


----------



## Kaynar (May 2, 2013)

btarunr said:


> But 7970 wasn't priced at $1000, just $550.



In the UK the Titan is priced £800 in special offers, £870 normally. In February 2012 the HD7970 was priced £550, quite close and also this means roughly $850.

I bought my 7970 for £500 back then. It's a great card, I'm satisfied, but I am not paying that much for a GPU again anyway.


----------



## HR_The_Butcher (May 2, 2013)

btarunr said:


> GeForce GTX 780, which is reportedly based on the GK110 silicon, could command a price much higher than the $499.99 GeForce GTX 680 started out on



Tnx, but no.


----------



## OnePostWonder (May 2, 2013)

Business as usual.

"LOL no competition?  Okay we set the prices!"

It's the price (pun intended?) of little regulation in the States.

Criticism welcome.  I really want to believe there exists a justifiable side to it.


----------



## blibba (May 2, 2013)

HR_The_Butcher said:


> Tnx, but no.



The thing with Nvidia's new-found fondness for "luxury" cards is that they really don't need many people at all to buy them for them to be profit-maximising.

Be pleased that there are cards like the 7950 and 660Ti (and 7850 and 650Ti!) in the same order of magnitude for performance at a fraction of the cost.


----------



## badtaylorx (May 2, 2013)

wow...worst news ive seen in some time.  this sucks...


----------



## FrustratedGarrett (May 2, 2013)

*doesn't matter*

Nothing unexpected here. They're gonna milk the cow alone while they can. But who spends +/$500 on a graphics card? What games do we have that require that much graphics horse-power? 

Battlefield 4 is coming out much later this year, and it doesn't look like a different game visually from BF3, and the new Radeons will probably be out around then (rumors suggest late September release). The upcoming next generations console games are designed to run on 7870 class gpus, and I5 2500K class cpus (eight out of order dual issue cores at 2GHz).   

I for one am planning on waiting for the new Radeons and the 120Hz backlight-strobed displays coming out this year. 

Lastly, I happen to have a high IQ, so my opinion matters!


----------



## NHKS (May 2, 2013)

if this turns out true, i wish nV rather not launch the 'Kepler refresh' series and directly jump to Maxwell..
rather than raise the performance/price bar with each series, nV is just trying to super-inflate the price envelope of the GTX 780, just because it uses the big-sized & supposedly low-yield GK110 chip.. 

anything above 600$ for card with GTX x80 branding is just not right.. 
nV should just leave/reserve the GK110 chips for TITAN-branded cards if they cannot control the price of the card..


----------



## Protagonist (May 2, 2013)

Anything above $500 launch price for the 780 or any GPU from now henceforth I'd rather keep my money and pay $1000 for PS4 and XBOX 720 heck I might even throw in a few more $ and get Nintendo Wii U, Have a full fleet consoles with a large number of games to play not to forget the exclusive titles to consoles.

How many exclusive PC titles are there...?
Intel IGP is now starting to make sense once again to me as I might not need a add on GPU if i purchase the the next gen consoles, all i might need is an Intel CPU with R and i will be set.


----------



## blibba (May 2, 2013)

NHKS said:


> nV should just leave/reserve the GK110 chips for TITAN-branded cards if they cannot control the price of the card..



They can and are controlling the price. This is what's optimal for them - they're trying to make money. Novel, I know!



Protagonist said:


> Anything above $500 launch price for the 780 or any GPU from now henceforth I'd rather keep my money and pay $1000 for PS4 and XBOX 720 heck I might even throw in a few more $ and get Nintendo Wii U, Have a full fleet consoles with a large number of games to play not to forget the exclusive titles to consoles.



Who says you have to have the latest and greatest? You can buy a graphics card for $100-$200 that will turn your office PC into an excellent gaming machine.

Consoles generally only get the AAA titles - if they're not your sort of thing, and they're certainly not mine, consoles are not a viable alternative at all.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 2, 2013)

As long as I can get the same performance for cheaper I will not care too much on how they charge their top end card. Competition will bring the price down eventually.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 2, 2013)

Nothing new, Nvidia gouging as usual... Blaming AMD/ATi all the way


----------



## blibba (May 2, 2013)

m1dg3t said:


> Nothing new, Nvidia gouging as usual... Blaming AMD/ATi all the way



AMD did the same when they had the chance (see Athlon FX, Athlon X2). Any sensible company would - this is the game they're forced to play.


----------



## Protagonist (May 2, 2013)

blibba said:


> *Who says you have to have the latest and greatest?* You can buy a graphics card for $100-$200 that will turn your office PC into an excellent gaming machine.
> 
> Consoles generally only get the AAA titles - if they're not your sort of thing, and they're certainly not mine, consoles are not a viable alternative at all.



It's not a must to have latest and greatest is my point, as for games all the games I play are always on the consoles too, If i go the console rout i will save lots of money as the consoles take several years before they are refreshed/upgrades.

On the other hand if i go the console rout i don't need a PC with a GPU at all the Intel IGP will be sufficient to play Angry Birds, Zuma. etc. heck i can play them on my android phone, anyway the thing is for such prices on a GPU if you are a gamer like me Consoles is the cheaper rout., as i don't use my PC for bench marks mostly just encoding and Intel quick sync and i7 is just the remedy or anything equivalent.


----------



## blibba (May 2, 2013)

Protagonist said:


> It's not a must to have latest and greatest is my point, as for games all the games I play are always on the consoles too, If i go the console rout i will save lots of money as the consoles take several years before they are refreshed/upgrades.
> 
> On the other hand if i go the console rout i don't need a PC with a GPU at all the Intel IGP will be sufficient to play Angry Birds, Zuma. etc. heck i can play them on my android phone, anyway the thing is for such prices on a GPU if you are a gamer like me Consoles is the cheaper rout., as i don't use my PC for bench marks mostly just encoding and Intel quick sync and i7 is just the remedy or anything equivalent.



Personally, I'd have a desktop PC whether or not I played games.

If I go the console route, every 5 years or so I have to buy a new console, and I'd need a TV and controllers, and games are fairly expensive.

If I go the PC route I need to spend £40 on a GPU every two years (this is actually what I do, GTX460 I have now was £40 earlier this year, card before that was a competition prize, card before that was £40, 5 years ago). Many of the games I have played in that time have been unavailable on console. In fact, I can only think of one game I've played at any length that was on console, and that's Oblivion. Mostly my games are £5-£10 or F2P.

TL;DR: 
*£300 every 5 years + expensive games*, or *£40 every 2 years + cheap games*.


----------



## EpicShweetness (May 2, 2013)

*NOT SURPRISED!*
​


----------



## TRWOV (May 2, 2013)

huh? If the Titan = 780 then why launch the Titan in the first place? I think this is going to flop, even if 780 is Titan LE anything pushing >$600 is too much... but then again we said the same when the 7970 launched at $550.

nVidia is taking a bet, if they can raise the top tier base price then the midrange segment (which is where most of the sales get going) would be much more profitable for them.


----------



## Protagonist (May 2, 2013)

blibba said:


> Personally, I'd have a desktop PC whether or not I played games.
> 
> If I go the console route, every 5 years or so I have to buy a new console, and I'd need a TV and controllers, and games are fairly expensive.
> 
> If I go the PC route I need to spend £40 on a GPU every two years (this is actually what I do, GTX460 I have now was £40 earlier this year, card before that was a competition prize, card before that was £40, 5 years ago). Many of the games I have played in that time have been unavailable on console. In fact, I can only think of one game I've played at any length that was on console, and that's Oblivion. Mostly my games are £5-£10 or F2P.



Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to get rid of my PC, what I'm saying is if GPU prices are that high i might get rid of the GPU completely from my PC in favor of the consoles.
 And i don't play that much games anyway and at times i play mostly exclusives eg Metal Gear Solid, God Of War, Metroid etc.


----------



## blibba (May 2, 2013)

Protagonist said:


> what I'm saying is if GPU prices are that high i might get rid of the GPU completely from my PC in favor of the consoles.



Well what I'm saying is that *GPU prices aren't that high*. They're cheaper than they've ever been. It's just the most expensive ones that are more expensive.

You can get a GPU today that'll run any game for the price of one PS3 game.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 2, 2013)

blibba said:


> AMD did the same when they had the chance (see Athlon FX, Athlon X2). Any sensible company would - this is the game they're forced to play.



Nvidai are serial rapists. There is NO way to compare their tactics to anyone other than Intel. Even then, Intel could stand to learn something from them.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 2, 2013)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> ...Lastly, I happen to have a high IQ, so my opinion matters!



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729103.000-time-to-get-smarter-about-stupidity.html

Usual rumour mill.  Let's wait until they release hard facts.  As for pricing?  They're both doing it now.  The 7990 at £800 is also pretty steep considering the base price of the 7970's.  But it's all a matter of perspective.  If you want an item and have the money to spend, that's your choice.  If that bothers someone else, that's their problem.


----------



## Protagonist (May 2, 2013)

blibba said:


> Well what I'm saying is that *GPU prices aren't that high*. They're cheaper than they've ever been. It's just the most expensive ones that are more expensive.
> 
> *You can get a GPU today that'll run any game for the price of one PS3 game.*



I totally agree with you, but a console in its place for the same price is better, hence why i said Intel's IGP is more than enough for a casual gaming PC no need for GPU for the price of PS3 if you have a PS, XBOX or WII that just seems redundant.


----------



## blibba (May 2, 2013)

m1dg3t said:


> Even then, Intel could stand to learn something from them.



Well that's just it. Under the system we live in, Nvidia are, if you're correct, the ones doing it right.



Protagonist said:


> I totally agree with you, but a console in its place for the same price is better, hence why i said Intel's IGP is more than enough for a casual gaming PC no need for GPU for the price of PS3 if you have a PS, XBOX or WII that just seems redundant.



I play many games that would run very unsatisfactorily even on HD4000, and I cannot afford a console, or console game prices.

Even if I could afford a console, I don't agree that they're better for the price. I can spend £200-£300 on a console (ignoring current EoL discounts), or I can spend £40 on a graphics card to play the same games at higher image quality, then spend the change on a weekend away.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 2, 2013)

In this thread: butthurt people who cannot stand how a capitalist market works, and people who cannot understand that there are console games which will never be made available to PC, or poorly ported.


----------



## blibba (May 2, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> ...there are console games which will never be made available to PC, or poorly ported.



I understand that, but I also understand that it works the other way round too, and not just for "casual" games. I'm not arguing against having a PC AND a console, I'm arguing for the PC is a better alternative if money is tight and you can only afford one.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 2, 2013)

That's Okay. I'll Just Get Another 680 For SLI.


----------



## v12dock (May 2, 2013)

For an extra $500 you too can get 10% more performance!


----------



## Protagonist (May 2, 2013)

blibba said:


> I understand that, but I also understand that it works the other way round too, and not just for "casual" games. I'm not arguing against having a PC AND a console, *I'm arguing for the PC is a better alternative if money is tight and you can only afford one.*



The thing is I can afford both a PC and 3 consoles eg Should i spend $1,600 on 7990 Devil and play console ports and 1 or 2 PC exclusives or $1,500 on PS4, XBOX720 & WII U and play the console game plus console exclusives.

And also own a PC at the same time with no GPU.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 2, 2013)

blibba said:


> I understand that, but I also understand that it works the other way round too, and not just for "casual" games. I'm not arguing against having a PC AND a console, I'm arguing for the PC is a better alternative if money is tight and you can only afford one.



It works the other way round too. I can get a 2nd hand rubbish computer (some early core duo model) for less than £100 including monitor for general usage, and spend another £140 on an Xbox 360. Unless you are absolutely broke (in which case play on whatever you can afford), consoles and PC costs similar enough for both to be viable at budget prices. At this time most people would already have a PC at home, it is easy to either drop a graphics card to make gaming viable (if rig is not too old), or just get a console if it is (instead of rebuilding PC).


----------



## Lightofhonor (May 2, 2013)

Protagonist said:


> The thing is I can afford both a PC and 3 consoles eg Should i spend $1,600 on 7990 Devil and play console ports and 1 or 2 PC exclusives or $1,500 on PS4, XBOX720 & WII U and play the console game plus console exclusives.
> 
> And also own a PC at the same time with no GPU.



Why would you ever get a 7990 to play console ports? 7770-650 is all you really need for that. 1/10th the price. 7850 if you want to be sure, but even that is overkill for anything out right now at 1080p. That and a cheap i3 or quad core and you are playing what they produce.


----------



## blibba (May 2, 2013)

Protagonist said:


> Should i spend $1,600 on 7990 Devil and play console ports and 1 or 2 PC exclusives or $1,500 on PS4, XBOX720 & WII U and play the console game plus console exclusives.



Neither - why would anyone restrict themselves to such a stupid set of alternatives?

As for "one or two PC exclusives", here are the games I've played in the last year or two, that I can recall:


Rig of Rods
Torchlight
Dishonored
Euro Truck Simulator 2
Kerbal Space Program
League of Legends
Starcraft II
Diablo II
Beat Hazard
Legend of Grimrock
Orcs Must Die II
Dungeon Defenders
Skyrim
There are two console ports on that list. Of course consoles have their exclusives too, but ported games end up better on a £40 graphics card than any console, so why pick the expensive option?

If you can afford both, I'd say the one or two consoles and a cheap graphics card makes more sense than three consoles and an IGP. Both make way, way more sense than >£300 graphics cards and the like.



Fourstaff said:


> At this time most people would already have a PC at home, it is easy to either drop a graphics card to make gaming viable (if rig is not too old), or just get a console if it is (instead of rebuilding PC).



I don't know if this was intended as an argument against me, but it's almost exactly my point. I say almost because most games run fine on 5-7 year-old CPUs at this point, and this is a tech forum, so most of us have desktops.

As for the situation where you can only afford an Xbox 360 or a major PC refresh, I'd say it then comes down to which platform you tend to prefer the exclusives on. Xbox 360 might be cheaper to start with, but the PC will earn it back on cheaper games.


----------



## FrustratedGarrett (May 2, 2013)

m1dg3t said:


> Nvidai are serial rapists. There is NO way to compare their tactics to anyone other than Intel. Even then, Intel could stand to learn something from them.



Totally true! The fact that they're still pushing Cuda to become more relevant when Open-CL, a cross-platform and standard API, is around tells tales about that company.  

Anyhow, I've been using AMD graphics cards for the last 5 years and since AMD will most likely have better offerings this time around, as anything 50% or more faster than Titan they come up with will do to beat the GTX 780.


----------



## Dent1 (May 2, 2013)

blibba said:


> AMD did the same when they had the chance (see Athlon FX, Athlon X2). Any sensible company would - this is the game they're forced to play.



No they didn't. The Pentium 4 and Pentium D cost more or as much as AMD's faster alternatives.



Fourstaff said:


> In this thread: butthurt people who cannot stand how a capitalist market works, and people who cannot understand that there are console games which will never be made available to PC, or poorly ported.



It works both way, there are plenty of PC exclusive games which will never see light on a console. i.e. Guildwars, World of Warcraft, Diablo ...just to name a few.

The people that are complaining are the people whom feel they need to own every generation of high end video card. They need to breath and step back and realise that they can skip a few series. My 5850 CF as good as the high end cards today and I have no intention of upgrading until I absolutely have to.


----------



## Lionheart (May 2, 2013)

Hugs $299 AUD HD7950


----------



## Fourstaff (May 2, 2013)

blibba said:


> I don't know if this was intended as an argument against me, but it's almost exactly my point. I say almost because most games run fine on 5-7 year-old CPUs at this point, and this is a tech forum, so most of us have desktops.
> 
> As for the situation where you can only afford an Xbox 360 or a major PC refresh, I'd say it then comes down to which platform you tend to prefer the exclusives on. Xbox 360 might be cheaper to start with, but the PC will earn it back on cheaper games.



There is a subtle difference between my point and yours: you are assuming that upgrading will be applicable to most, and conveniently ignores those who cant. If, for example, I have a need for a light laptop for me to carry around daily. Instead of getting another desktop for gaming I might as well get a console, which will be cheaper (unless you get one of those super expensive VAIO Z laptops). 

As for games, its highly variable. I play Dota 2, world of tanks and StarCraft 2 99% of my time, so that is total spent of £35. I play gundam vs exclusively on ps3, that is about £30.


----------



## blibba (May 2, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> No they didn't. The Pentium 4 and Pentium D cost more or as much as AMD's faster alternatives.



And the 7990 costs just as much as Nvidia's faster (!?) alternatives.



Fourstaff said:


> There is a subtle difference between my point and yours: you are assuming that upgrading will be applicable to most, and conveniently ignores those who cant. If, for example, I have a need for a light laptop for me to carry around daily. Instead of getting another desktop for gaming I might as well get a console, which will be cheaper (unless you get one of those super expensive VAIO Z laptops).



Yes, I was assuming a modern desktop being available. In that situation, I would endorse buying a console (though if it was me I might be tempted to just not bother).

That conclusion is not the fault of inflated GPU prices, though, which is where this all started - someone saying they'd buy a console because the 780 was going to be so expensive.



Fourstaff said:


> As for games, its highly variable. I play Dota 2, world of tanks and StarCraft 2 99% of my time, so that is total spent of £35. I play gundam vs exclusively on ps3, that is about £30.



But you're comparing one game with 3! Incidentally I didn't pay that much for my copy of SC2.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 2, 2013)

blibba said:


> But you're comparing one game with 3! Incidentally I didn't pay that much for my copy of SC2.



And the other 2 is free  

My point still stands: we cannot bring in the cost of games into equation, unless we know the behaviour of game - buying. I have been playing Dota for as long as I can remember, picked up Starcraft II only because I think I could do ok with it (ended my "career" with top 25 masters in 2 consecutive seasons, stopped after that because I can't improve much more unless I go pro).  

Regardless, I think GPUs nowadays are plenty powerful, they have outran the resolution curve for the time being. There is a need for a company to produce a premium product to improve their brand image, which is why Nvidia is going to charge an outrageous price for their offering.


----------



## Dent1 (May 2, 2013)

blibba said:


> And the 7990 costs just as much as Nvidia's faster (!?) alternatives.



The only card faster than the 7990 is the GTX 690. Both cards trade blows with each other, they're very close performers and they are priced similarly. Both performance and price are in the same ballpark of around $1,000.

The difference being the high Pentium 4 was getting outperformed consistently by low end Sempron, but Intel still jacked up the price to match the Athlon XP/64.  I don't see the high end ATI 7990 getting out performed by the low end GT 440 like the Sempron/P4 scenario.

As far as pricing goes, consoles in the long run can cost more. The cost of Xbox Live points for example, or paying to unlock certain game features or exclusive content, it all adds up. On PC aside from a few suscription games the online experience is generally FREE.  I can remember picking up Half-Life 2 Episode on release for £25 and got Orange Box free, an equivalent game would have cost me almost £50 on Xbox at the time.

PC is only expensive for the guys chasing the latest and greatest when their current rig is capable of doing fine for years to come.


----------



## tastegw (May 2, 2013)

Would not be a wise move to price the 780 at anything over $700US.


----------



## GreiverBlade (May 2, 2013)

positive point for my 7950 ... no competition rofl, AMD compet just right with right price, i guess going green isnt an option for my next "upgrade", cheap 7950 xfire incomming (i know i know AMD didnt fixed xfire problems, sooo what?)

i just hope 780 will not be based on titan or kepler ... titan is basically a 685 (since the 690 name is allready taken) otherwise it would be a bit sad that a 780 has the same perf lvl as a Titan...


----------



## Dave65 (May 2, 2013)

Will be an excellent reason to go back to AMD for my graphics..


----------



## EarthDog (May 2, 2013)

blibba said:


> AMD did the same when they had the chance (see Athlon FX, Athlon X2). Any sensible company would - this is the game they're forced to play.


+1. Also their 79xx series was $500+ as well upon release. They dropped the price multiple times to be more competitive. 

This isnt an AMD/Nvidia thing... muppets.


----------



## BigMack70 (May 2, 2013)

This is just what happens when there's no competition; I am not surprised.

I'll wait for Maxwell for an upgrade, though. An overpriced rebrand (assuming they're cutting down performance from the Titan substantially) doesn't interest me.


----------



## Casecutter (May 2, 2013)

tastegw said:


> Would not be a wise move to price the 780 at anything over $700US.


Have to say if Nvidia needs to find homes for the GK110 Geldings, this is probably their plan, use that Titian LE for the 780.  I expect $700-750 price for a card the might offer 15-20% more performance over the current GTX680, while probably the same 15-20% below Titan. Twenty percent more than GTX680's would cause a more logical price of ~$600, but I don't see that, as that would undercut their needed ROI, and Titan prices.

Then nothing more than rebadge the GK114's up a rung on the ladder the GTX770 will get the full "1536" Cuda count of the 680, while perhaps a smidgen more clock/boost and other refinements to Dynamic clocks. We'd be lucky if the 770 price would work out a $450, but IDK.  Then the 760Ti gets the GTX670 specs and 256-bit and same boost refinements, with a $370 price.  The 760 (non-Ti) will base from the current GTX660Ti (1344 Cuda part/192-Bit part) for $280.  While what Nvidia plans for the GTX650Ti Boost on down is probably more of the same. 

I honestly don't think AMD is being "lethargic or has console-fixation" (more banter :shadedshu), but saying (in an Italian accent) _*No please, I insist you's go first...*_  AMD has gone first the last two times and Nvidia's just played "one-up's-man-ship". I sense AMD would rather wait and see what Nvidia does, then could they go all "4870" on them.


----------



## erocker (May 2, 2013)

Nvidia is smart. Creating an entire new line out of existing silicon. They'll sell it at a premium and people will buy it up! Then towards the end of the year their competition will have new cards and prices with change a bit. The 670/680 seems to sell quite well even though Nvidia's competition has cards that are now faster and sell for cheaper! Not to mention come with much better game bundles. 

Really though, like I said they're smart. This "7 series" launch will make their shareholders happy.


----------



## KainXS (May 2, 2013)

well we did kinda see it coming, its not the first time nvidia have done this you know


----------



## GreiverBlade (May 2, 2013)

kinda funny to see people keeping doing the "there is no competition" thing ...

what a funny joke ... AMD keep it up and cut price Nvidia keep it up and ... f***k with price, i think we have a winner ...

ask any computer tech AMD and Nvidia are on par (in some game AMD does better in other Nvidia does) just perf to perf Nvidia charge 150-200$ premium (just like apple does??? oh god another monster is born... oh wait ... apple charge $$$ over average perf lvl ... so no... Nvidia is nicer)


----------



## D007 (May 2, 2013)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> That's Okay. I'll Just Get Another 680 For SLI.



My sentiments exactly...


----------



## Casecutter (May 2, 2013)

erocker said:


> entire new line out of existing silicon


That not true it seems they're moving their top silicon back into the fold of the existing matrix, like the GTX580 was. Titan wasn't that either really, as they vaulted the GK110 it didn't fit the existing product standing while making it not commercially viable ROI in their existing product pricing stance.  So they create the illusion of a demand by going up market and a $1000 price, which now seems to justify the gelding a home at $700-750.  15-20% performance increase for 40-50% more cash.  It feels like ruse to influence folk into taking them off their hands and feeling happy they didn’t spend a Grand.



erocker said:


> This "7 series" launch will make their shareholders happy.


Yep, finally saying we have a place for these expensive chips we've been binning, for something like last year. Hopefully they can vanquish that flock of Albatross's.  Although, I don’t see them leaving in droves.


----------



## Crap Daddy (May 2, 2013)

I am personally not too worried about whatever price the 780 will be. Nvidia has found out that they can ask 1000$ for a card and still sell a lot. It's business and it ain't my business.


----------



## MicroUnC (May 2, 2013)

lol

they milk us in turn.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 2, 2013)

btarunr said:


> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Won't be $500 Cheap


When did $500 become cheap?


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 2, 2013)

if it's based on same Titan it will be crappy, high power usage just like old times


----------



## Hizzyshizzylizz (May 2, 2013)

*Supply and Demand*



OnePostWonder said:


> Business as usual.
> 
> "LOL no competition?  Okay we set the prices!"
> 
> ...



If there is a short supply and/or no competition there will be a high price.  No-one is forcing you to buy the item, and let me put it this way.  If there is no-one willing to pay that high a price for the item then one of two things will happen: the price will come down until the market sees it as a proper price, or they will stop manufacturing them as they do not bring enough of a (or any) profit.

It is rumored the GTX780 is a variant of the Titan,  the die is so huge on that chip that there is no possible way they could make money off it priced an $500.  After all this is a corporation and they are not here to just break even or to give stuff away, they are here to make money and if it can't be done with a certain product, it will have a very short life-cycle.


----------



## Casecutter (May 2, 2013)

Hizzyshizzylizz said:


> if it can't be done with a certain product, it will have a very short life-cycle


In this case as long as they make/need to supply their Tesla product volumes, there will be some amount geldings that need a home.  I'd assume today there's probably many fewer chips arriving  that aren't able to go directly into Telsa (cash cow) offering.  I don't think Nvidia would still be tolerating crappy yields at this size/cost of chip from TSMC.  It used to be Nvidia paid TSMC only for good chips, although with the 28Nm TSMC stopped that and Nvidia buys per wafer and works or finds products to sell them.  They have to make up for the not only the dudes but even the Lemons. (AMD is in that Boat)  They know they’ve amassed a quantity of the 2496 Cuda parts, that they can supply the demand for a enough of a period, and given that supply they figure they can still divest themselves of all at "X" price.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 2, 2013)

They can charge 2k for this.. I'm happy with my GTX 680! It handles console ports like a champ! Nobody will need a 780 for a single monitor @ 1080p, until we have 4k monitors..  I hope 4k monitors get here sooner than later, but when they do amd will have something ready and prices will drop.


----------



## Jacez (May 2, 2013)

I'm sorry..

500$ *CHEAP*..? Isn't that an oxymoron?


----------



## OneCool (May 2, 2013)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> *
> 
> Lastly, I happen to have a high IQ, so my opinion matters!*





Im with them


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 2, 2013)

Casecutter said:


> Then nothing more than rebadge the GK114's up a rung on the ladder the GTX770 will get the full "1536" Cuda count of the 680, while perhaps a smidgen more clock/boost and other refinements to Dynamic clocks. We'd be lucky if the 770 price would work out a $450, but IDK.  Then the 760Ti gets the GTX670 specs and 256-bit and same boost refinements, with a $370 price.  The 760 (non-Ti) will base from the current GTX660Ti (1344 Cuda part/192-Bit part) for $280.  While what Nvidia plans for the GTX650Ti Boost on down is probably more of the same.


I think your pricing is a little off. If GTX 660Ti is starting to settle at the $250-280 price, then Nvidia aren't going to offer the same card/same performance at a higher price. The same can be said for the GTX 760 Ti/ GTX 670. Why would the new card be priced at $370 when the existing overclocked product sits at a lower price (i.e Gigabyte and MSI )...especially bearing in mind that larger suppliers will further drop prices as the "new" GTX 700's enter the retail channel.


Casecutter said:


> I honestly don't think AMD is being "lethargic or has console-fixation" (more banter :shadedshu)


Why? Is it because AMD have an excess of R&D funds and staff and don't need to prioritize their efforts for maximum return? Isn't that the sum total of the text in the Book of Rory ?


Casecutter said:


> but saying (in an Italian accent) _*No please, I insist you's go first...*_  AMD has gone first the last two times and Nvidia's just played "one-up's-man-ship".


I also seem to remember that AMD (taking their cues from Charlie D) was under the impression that a fully enabled Fermi die wasn't possible. AMD have a history of underestimating their competition ( Core 2, GTX 580, GTX 690, GK 110). AMD might be first to cross the line with a new process, but the next series of cards aren't on a new process- just second generation on an existing process, where Nvidia have a reasonable record of late.


Casecutter said:


> I sense AMD would rather wait and see what Nvidia does, then could they go all "4870" on them.


You mean AMD are going to wait until a new process node is here?( HD 4870 = 55nm versus GTX 280 on 65nm)


----------



## Casecutter (May 2, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> GTX 660Ti is starting to settle at the $250-280 price, then Nvidia aren't going to offer the same card/same performance at a higher price.


I think you missed what I said about moving up the ladder...  The 760Ti moniker will replace what is the GTX670, that MSRP at $400, and I say they’d be smart to set the new card at $370.



HumanSmoke said:


> just second generation on an existing process, where Nvidia have a reasonable record of late


 Late yea they where late... with Kepler, Fermi,



HumanSmoke said:


> fully enabled Fermi die


Was the first GTX 480... or just bad on power and hot? It wasn't until the GTX580 that they got the full 512 Cuda parts right? 

So GTX5X0 weren't re-badges with only slight generation on an existing Fermi process?  Don't make this into a AMD/Nvidia thing.  Nvidia will take their spin on the floor first. Is AMD holding back because they are limited on R&D staff and funding and need to prioritize their efforts for maximum return? Absolutely, they need to stay lean but having Nvidia go first is probably not a bad thing right now. Just like the GTX5X0 to GTX6X0 what Nvidia sells won't see any bump.  So, if AMD can stretch profit from 7XXX series a few months and have still have decently fresh product until the next shrink comes.  Who known who has the best plan?


----------



## Fluffmeister (May 2, 2013)

Hayder_Master said:


> if it's based on same Titan it will be crappy, high power usage just like old times



Titan doesn't use that much power in the first place. In fact for a 7.1 billion transistor monster it's very good.

Either way... haha!


----------



## TRWOV (May 3, 2013)

Not like I needed more power anyway. The  usual suspects will buy this and that's it.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 3, 2013)

Casecutter said:


> I think you missed what I said about moving up the ladder...  The 760Ti moniker will replace what is the *GTX670, that MSRP at $400*, and I say they’d be smart to set the new card at $370.


MSRP at this stage is largely immaterial. It's the actual selling price that consumers are going to notice...including yourself. I didn't see you referencing the HD 7790's MSRP when comparing to the segments pricing- rather you referenced store pricing after mail-in rebate.
In light of that, I count 14 different GTX 670 SKU's under $400, Eleven of which are factory overclocked. Safe to say that MSRP isn't an that much of an indicator.
Now given that you can get a reasonable selection of GTX 670's for $360-370 (w/overclock*), how does an equal performance* GTX 760 Ti make marketing sense at $400 given that GTX 670's aren't going to increase in price once the GTX 760 Ti makes an appearance?....are you expecting the GTX 670 -for example- to increase in price once the new parts arrive?

Historically, this makes no sense whatsoever either. The only part that carries the price premium is the flagship card. The second, third, fourth...tiers are closely matched at a performance-per-price level. The GTX Titan will remain that flagship for Nvidia unless a fully enabled GK 110 GPU enters the GeForce lineup.


----------



## NutZInTheHead (May 3, 2013)

There are always people who buy 1 or 2 or more of these $500+ cards.
For the rest of us, the GTX660 or 66Ti is more than enough to run almost all games at max at 1080p. And thats what most gamers game at.

Nvidia and AMD have and always will continue this trend.


----------



## SIGSEGV (May 3, 2013)

LOL

i ain't crazy therefore i don't want to buy this stuff. 
i would consider to wait amd rolls out their newest card (also their never settle reloaded bundled ).


----------



## radrok (May 3, 2013)

Let's hope that ATI launches a nVidia killer GPU so they will be slapped back to earth with pricing.

No one is happy to pay twice what should have been a GTX 680 from the start.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 3, 2013)

Anyone who spends 500+ bones on a GPU to play console ports deserves everything they get.....or don't get I should say. Pointless GPU is pointless.


----------



## radrok (May 3, 2013)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Anyone who spends 500+ bones on a GPU to play console ports deserves everything they get.....or don't get I should say. Pointless GPU is pointless.



Find me a sub 500 bones alternative that can play surround 1600p and I'll agree with you :|


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 3, 2013)

radrok said:


> Find me a sub 500 bones alternative that can play surround 1600p and I'll agree with you :|



670 will do about 46 FPS with 4xAA at 1600 in BF3. Turn off the AA and it will close in on 60 FPS.


----------



## erocker (May 3, 2013)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 670 will do about 46 FPS with 4xAA at 1600 in BF3. Turn off the AA and it will close in on 60 FPS.



7680x1600? No. He said surround 1600p.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 3, 2013)

erocker said:


> 7680x1600? No. He said surround 1600p.



Surround doesn't even work that well. So pay for 500+ GPU that still runs ports like crap. Again....pointless GPU is pointless.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (May 3, 2013)

It is on a league of its own indeed. Much like 8800GTX was priced back then.. so I am not surprised about this one which smashes current AMD gpu.


----------



## silapakorn (May 3, 2013)

Now I feel kinda glad that I went all-out for the 6xx series. See you again when 8xx comes, NV.


----------



## jigar2speed (May 3, 2013)

WhiteLotus said:


> When did $500 become cheap?



It's cheap when Daddy's paying it.


----------



## 15th Warlock (May 3, 2013)

Hayder_Master said:


> if it's based on same Titan it will be crappy, high power usage just like old times



A single Titan consumes less power than a 7970GHz, while soundly beating it in performance, am I missing something here? 

As for this rumor, well who knows what Nvidia is planning for the 780, the fact is a cut down version of the GK110 exists (AKA Titan LE) and this has been rumored to be the 780 for quite a while now, I don't see the green team charging $500 for it, particularly not with AMD being late to the party. 

This is business as usual, anyone here remembers the original 7970 selling for $550 on release date while offering a minor performance improvement over the previous generation, just because Kepler was delayed? how about the 8800 Ultra retailing for $800 just because AMD didn't have any card remotely close to it in terms of performance when it was released?

Both companies play this game, and will for the foreseeable future... it's called capitalism, and if any of you guys think one team cares less about profits than the other, let me tell you, you're being delusional  

Anyways, my prediction is Nvidia releases the GTX780 (Titan LE) for $600~700, the Titan Ultra for $1000, and lowers the MSRP of the regular Titan to $850~$900, Then AMD releases the HD8000 series later this year at a much lower retail price, undercutting Nvidia and bursting its bubble


----------



## ViperXTR (May 3, 2013)

blibba said:


> AMD did the same when they had the chance (see Athlon FX, Athlon X2). Any sensible company would - this is the game they're forced to play.


hard times for Intel back then


----------



## NeoXF (May 3, 2013)

LOL, nVidia is either going for a quick cash grab before the new consoles and AMD's software dominance (kinda smart, but IDK...) ...OR is just braindead and really wants to commit financial suicide. Are they that confident in the mobile market?

Remember Intel is also pushing faster and faster integrated graphics, do you really think someone will pay 650$ for 150-200% more FPS? The price/performance gaps are widening... and make no sense.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 3, 2013)

I don't care any more.  Nvidea is price gouging, and people are eating it up.  I'm tired of hearing this story again and again.


Nvidea and AMD are creeping prices up every generation.  A $500 expenditure two generations ago got you one heck of an amazing card.  The 5xx series versus the 6xxx series, I can't see anyone asking for the "low price of $500" for any single GPU card without being asked what a "reasonable" price might be.


Now we've got Titan.  It costs $1000 out of the gate, and it doesn't perform twice as good as a $500 card.  Nvidea wants to release another generation of cards so shortly after introducing Titan, and have its new flagship more expensive than the last generation's flagship.  Get real.  If I buy the flagship model from Nvidea I want something more reasonable.  


I understand that research costs money.  They used that explanation last generation.  I understand silicon yields aren't great.  They've had a year to find ways to fix that.  I understand that they are currently beating out AMD in performance.  A Lamborghini beats out a Hyundai on acceleration, but that doesn't mean the price difference at several orders of magnitude is worth it.  

I like AMD's approach.  You won't get new silicon this year, but when we release next year it will be worth spending money on.  It makes me tech loving side's nuts blue, but the actual release will be so much better for the wait.  Hopefully Nvidea can come along and give AMD even competition then, so that prices don't just wildly swing in favor of a different manufacturer.


----------



## NeoXF (May 4, 2013)

15th Warlock said:


> A single Titan consumes less power than a 7970GHz, while soundly beating it in performance, am I missing something here?



Oh really!?














http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...eview-power-temps-noise-and-overclocking.html

And as long as it doesn't beat the Radeon in every scenario (like DiRT Showdown) and only edges it a lot of cases (like Max Payne 3, Sleeping Dogs, Metro 2033 etc), I wouldn't say "soundly" ...especially when its 125%+ more expensive, thank you.



Sooo... this is year is going to be a disaster for high end gaming I reckon? same 400-550$ GPUs from a year and a half ago... no performance bumps (ignoring the ones trough driver updates) and if you want more, guess what, you have to go into the thousands of bucks... f off nVidia and f off AMD.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 4, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> In this thread: butthurt people who cannot stand how a capitalist market works, and people who cannot understand that there are console games which will never be made available to PC, or poorly ported.



This ^^ for me? I understand perfectly well how the market works. I'm not even 35 and have been "retired" for the last 6 years. What do you do? 

2nd part of your comment, a 5870/480 is still plenty to play. For majority of consumers. So the last 2 gens could have been skipped, if one desired. To be honest. Ports are AWESOME! 

Could have even skipped the last couple gens of CPUs if all a person does is game...

It aint 2001 anymore! Anything over $500/$600 for a GFX is straight up robbery. If you want to stroke your epeen by dishing out egregious amounts of $$$ for a GFX card, go right ahead! 

7950 @ ~$300 with the current game bundle is the best deal going ATM. Truth be told, the 7950 has been roughly that price since last spring/early summer. I picked up my TwinFrozr for $315 after MIR last June/July! 

Couple quotations:

"A sucker is born every minute"

"A fool, and his money, are easily seperated"


----------



## cdawall (May 4, 2013)

blibba said:


> AMD did the same when they had the chance (see Athlon FX, Athlon X2). Any sensible company would - this is the game they're forced to play.



Bad comparison considering the worse performing P4's cost the same amount. AMD hit the same price points with a better product then. Now they hit a better bang for the buck price point.



m1dg3t said:


> This ^^ for me? I understand perfectly well how the market works. I'm not even 35 and have been "retired" for the last 6 years. What do you do?
> 
> 2nd part of your comment, a 5870/480 is still plenty to play. For majority of consumers. So the last 2 gens could have been skipped, if one desired. To be honest. Ports are AWESOME!
> 
> ...



Hence why I still have a set of GTX470's back home. Work well and only cost electricity. I purchased a 7950 recently for less than what you paid since they are a great deal. Probably the best deal on the market right now.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 4, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Bad comparison considering the worse performing P4's cost the same amount. AMD hit the same price points with a better product then. Now they hit a better bang for the buck price point.



This is usually the case for AMD/ATi, and people bitch them out for it!


----------



## OnePostWonder (May 4, 2013)

m1dg3t said:


> This ^^ for me? I understand perfectly well how the market works. I'm not even 35 and have been "retired" for the last 6 years. What do you do?



If there wasn't a joke I missed, I'm really curious what _*you*_ do.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 6, 2013)

OnePostWonder said:


> If there wasn't a joke I missed, I'm really curious what _*you*_ do.



Nothing. That was the point. I'm retired.


----------



## 15th Warlock (May 6, 2013)

NeoXF said:


> Oh really!?
> 
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/graphics/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan/zpw-xbt.png
> http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1361407369LgJkN5z5XL_10_1.gif
> ...



From W1zzard's own GTX Titan review you can find in the TPU website:

*Power consumption:*






























7970 GHz beat by Titan in terms of power consumption in _every single scenario_

*Relative performance (average of every single 3D benchmark on every resolution):*


























7970 GHz soundly beat by Titan in relative performance _in every single resolution_ (and that's even before the whole FCAT fiasco that would make the 7970 real numbers look even worse)

I rest my case.

P.S. Anyways, I would recommend anyone waiting to upgrade to a new card to wait for the HD8000 series or Maxwell if you want to make your upgrade worthwhile.


----------



## johnspack (May 6, 2013)

Wow,  just even longer I have to wait to upgrade.   Will have to sit and wait to nab a decent priced 680 when the time is right......  At the prices of these Titans and 7xx series it's looking like a long wait for me.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 6, 2013)

johnspack said:


> Wow,  just even longer I have to wait to upgrade.   Will have to sit and wait to nab a decent priced 680 when the time is right......  At the prices of these Titans and 7xx series it's looking like a long wait for me.



I too am waiting for the 7xx series arrival to see how much prices will lower on the 670 in particular.  Not that I *need* another 670


----------



## Casecutter (May 6, 2013)

More I think about it Titan has done exactly what Nvidia wanted it to do.  They got GK110 production parts to release Tesla and its lesser variant to market, but had chips that don't make the grade. (There's nothing wrong with that… that's a reality). The problem how can they create enough demand in the gaming world to justify the price that recoups their costs, without giving them away.  Sure they could sell a Titan LE for $600 make nothing and watch them all go flying out the door.

I think Nvidia knew if they used some of the Tesla offerings in a Premium Gaming offering, provide a card for every "Tom, Dick, and Harry reviewer" they could create enough of salivating-buzz to make it worthwhile.  They saw they could find enough Uber market buyers pay for board PCB/cooler development, at a price/volume they could get them bought up, while justifying the stratospheric price.  What Nvidia really wanted was the advertising and marketing to vindicating $1000 single chip card, while not sacrificing a ton of loss per chip.  (I wonder how many of the reviewers of Titans' got to keep one?)

This then sets a precedence that a card that's 15-20% less performance is a good deal at $750?  Now Nvidia has a path to selling gelded GK110 as GTX780's.  If a year ago Nvidia would've said, we have a GK110 card that's 15-20% better than a GTX680, but it's $700 would folks been as excited... I think not!  Now all they need to do is just keep feeding a few Titan to market, as now they're not really needed because whoever wanted one have one.  While those not as ostentatious with money can/will spend $250-300 less and feel great.  Nvidia won't look to EoL Titan, but with this news it kind of is.  Now Nvidia can go back selling those chip as high margin Tesla, Titan has done its' job...


----------



## radrok (May 7, 2013)

Casecutter said:


> More I think about it Titan has done exactly what Nvidia wanted it to do.  They got GK110 production parts to release Tesla and its lesser variant to market but had chips that don't make the grade. (There's nothing wrong with that… that a reality) The problem how can they create enough demand in the gaming world to justify the price that recoups the price, without giving them away.  Sure they could sell a Titan LE for $600 make nothing and watch them all go flying out the door.
> 
> It think Nvidia knew that if the use some of the Tesla offering and put them in a Premium Gaming offering at a price/volume that the Uber market can create a buzz, salivate and buy out, while still not sacrificing a ton of loss on each chip.  This then sets a precedence that a card that 15-20% less performance is a good deal at $750.  Now Nvidia has a path to selling gelded GK110 as GTX780.   If a year ago Nvidia would’ve said, we have a GK110 card that’s 15-20%  better than a GTX680, but it’s $700 would folks been as excited, I think not!  Now all they need to do is feed a few Titan as need not really EoL but kind of, and keep selling those chip as high margin Tesla, as it did its job…



I think they have a VERY good margin selling 2688 Titans.


----------



## Casecutter (May 7, 2013)

radrok said:


> I think they have a VERY good margin selling 2688 Titans.



But not anything approaching what that 2688 chip brings in a Tesla K20x form.


----------



## radrok (May 7, 2013)

Casecutter said:


> But not anything approaching what that 2688 chip brings in a Tesla K20x form.



I don't think they are using low leakage GK110 for Titans at all so there is no problem if it's like that.

In theory GK110 that do not meet the voltage requirements for K20x go into Titan.


----------



## TheHunter (May 7, 2013)

> It looks like the GeForce GTX 770 will use the same cooler as TITAN. That’s totally unexpected. This top-notch, high-end cooler, which is worth $1000 has been installed for $400 worth GTX 770? Well NVIDIA is surely going to sell a lot of these.
> 
> According to the leaker, the rumors of the GTX 680 rebrand are true. The card is in fact a higher clocked GeForce GTX 680. Only now, it has a fancy cooler installed. GeForce GTX 770 would therefore feature a GK104 GPU with 1536 CUDA cores on board. Not surprisingly, the card is only equipped with 2GB GDDR5 memory (across 256-bit interface). It does not mean there won’t be 4GB models, in fact, that’s almost obvious. However, the reference model doesn’t come with such configuration. The new model is slightly faster than GTX 680, about 5%. At least it will be priced lower — somewhere between $399 to $449.
> 
> ...



http://videocardz.com/41297/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-pictured


----------



## m1dg3t (May 7, 2013)

^^ No surprise on the rebranding, at least they throw in a "modded" cooler this time 

Whats the window for? To keep an eye on dust? Just blow the damn thing out every few months :shadedshu 



15th Warlock said:


> 7970 GHz soundly beat by Titan in relative performance _in every single resolution_ (and that's even before the whole FCAT fiasco that would make the 7970 real numbers look even worse)
> 
> I rest my case.



At the price they're asking, it fookin better!


----------



## Crap Daddy (May 7, 2013)

What if the 780 is not based on GK110?


----------



## m1dg3t (May 7, 2013)

bta did a Ninja?


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 7, 2013)

radrok said:


> I don't think they are using low leakage GK110 for Titans at all so there is no problem if it's like that.


True enough. If anything Titan GPUs are high leakage. GK 110's that aren't specced to operate within the 235W (K20X) thermal envelope reliably


radrok said:


> In theory GK110 that do not meet the voltage requirements for K20x go into Titan.


And probably another layer of binning for error detection/ run-time validations. Can't clear the Tesla/Quadro qualification bar? Hello GeForce!


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 7, 2013)

Crap Daddy said:


> What if the 780 is not based on GK110?



I thought the 780 was the rumored Titan LE, I may be wrong and nvidia may yet release another card.


----------

