Because they are cheaper and produce a bigger margin of profit? You seem to be deluded into thinking corporations are there to please you by taking a hit on their bottom line. I would sell an abacus for $9000 if I thought I could. Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo are just selling $9000 abacuses.
By the way welcome to TPU. I'm TheMailMan.
Profitability isnt exclusive to those 3 companies/corporations. Which in-directly willingly or not you make my point.
1) Was the GK104 so power hungry to begin with they couldnt lower its power envelop further. Can only imagine how power hungry the supposed GK110 would be.
-GF104 introduced at 150 - 200
-GF114 introduced at 150 - 170
-GK104 introduced at 195 - ? < Something very fishy considering its still with-in the revisions they do for previous --4 SKUs
Couple of explanations.
No GK110, This is best they could do hence the increase power usage and the large price hike everyone is paying for them. Still the consumer gets the short end of the stick like always.
2) AMD went for power consumption sacrificing performance and it cost them in comparable performance.
-Barts introduced at 127
-Pitcairn introduced at 130
Now AMD has driver issues and Nvidia looks like it wants to go back to the old GeForce bundle when it use to do calculation dumps with driver recognition.
Its like politics. As a consumer you want to go with the least sleazy one out of the two.
My sugguestion is why not look into it from both camps.
Now if Nvidia introduces this card the GTX 690 at above 365 you know they are just screwing everyone over, some more willing then others ofcourse.
