NVIDIA Working on Second GK110-based GeForce Graphics Card for Summer

[Jacez]

Okay, I'm not sure why you're nit-picking my post.

My point was about the GTX 590 and onwards, not the preceding generations. Their only purpose was to build up a case.

But I thought I'd respond anyway.

Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose what model is defined as the top SKU.

Well, it's my comparison, so yes, in fact.. I do get to choose.

The XTX was clocked higher in core and memory than the XT, and is also marginally faster because of it.

Define "marginally". It was no more than a 2% overclock on an "OC" edition card that typically adds 10$ to the stock price. Except this time, it was 200$.. which is why an XTX was a good way to tell whether someone was a hardware enthusiast or not.

$649....as was the 7800GTX 512MB-as I noted. The 256MB version was $600

You can quote links all you like - the MSRP wasn't correct in the 7800 GTX 512's case.

The R600 card was priced lower, because it was little faster than the preceding series, and priced in accordance with the 8800GTS 640MB

Thanks for the history lesson, but I was alive in 2007, as well.

The HD 3870 was $249 at launch- I presume you mean HD 3870 X2

Yes, I did.

As well as the HD 5970 ($699-799), HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 ($479).
GTX 590 - 700$ / HD 6990 - 700$
GTX 680 - 500$ / HD 7970 - 500$ (note: the 7970 was $549 at launch)
GTX 690 - 1,000$ / HD 7990 - 1,000$
GTX Titan - 1,000$ / N/A

I didn't have room for the HD 5970, because the HD 5000 series was more of an inbetween than a rival, since the GTX 200 series was GPU-for-GPU for powerful and the GTX 400 series was late.

Yes, HD 7970 started at 550$, but when GTX 680 came out the price dropped to 500$.. which is what counts.

Not really. These things tend to cyclic. The userbase as a general rule doesn't allow the price to stay at peak levels- it simply isn't pervasive enough. If it was we'd be paying a lot more than $1K for any enthusiast single GPU graphics card.

(I can accept "tend to be cyclic", but "tend to cyclic" simply doesn't sound right.)

Yes, they tend to be. Yes, it is a general rule. That is precisely the issue.
You're missing the point with your lax generalizations. The only reason graphics cards won't cost 2,000$ is because the international over-arching consumer hyperbole of demand cannot extend that far. At a certain point, raising a price on a product with a hard-demand inclination does lower its demand, and no one is going to pay 2,000$ for a graphics card.
This does not mean that we're not already in deep shit. 1,000$ for a graphics card that would have cost 500$ 3 years ago, is ridiculous. The cycle has clearly changed.

The $500 single GPU card has been around for a few generations, and for some reason people think that the price has always been in vogue. Once upon a time, $280-300 bought a top of the line card

You're making my point for me. Yes, prices have been going up for some time now. This is bad.

You might also note that an SLI solution could cost $1800-2500 scarcely two years later ( Google Quantum3D Obsidian Pro 100DB-4440 or 100SB-4440V for instance), then factor in inflation.

Yes, a company that priced its cards at 2,500$ could not compete and now no longer exists.

Miracles do occur.

You might also note that ATi's All-In-Wonder's progenitors were generally amongst the trendsetters in incrementally raising prices towards (and past) the $500 mark in the first place for the volume production high end.

And ATi's All-in-Wonder cards are also extinct.

 

[tokyoduong]

Making that generalization is insulting and in a lot of cases is not true. This is uncalled for and immature. People who are obese don't need you telling them what to do either, so I would can it before you really get yourself in trouble if you haven't already.

As for the price, it's a valid concern and there are a lot of people bring it up. It shows how many people have it on their mind. Just because we can justify why nVidia did it doesn't mean that nVidia did the right thing, which is what I'm gathering from what people are saying.

It's not insulting or generalizations. It's called exaggeration because everyone is complaining about pricing of a product that is obviously going to be overpriced.

If you want to analyze this from a economic/financial stand point.

Top 3 reasons this product will be priced high:

Low Volume: manufacturing involves fixed cost + variable cost so economy of scales great vary cost per unit produced. The higher the volume the less the fixed cost have an effect on each unit.

Cost Push: due to low volume, complexity, bleeding edge tech requirements, and very limited # of facilities that can actually produce this. The cost per chip will be higher not because of anything besides a lack of options. That cost will be passed onto the customer

Small market: demand is very low for this product, even in this forum there's only a handful that will actually think about buying it. Even a smaller amount will actually buy it.

Let's talk about why initial pricing doesn't matter because of equilibrium and substitute goods.

If price is higher than equilibrium then consumers won't buy or buy less of it. There will be a surplus. Since this is low volume then # of unsold units will have a higher % impact than a high volume product. You will bet that retailers/eseller/oem will cut orders and it will look drastic since a store would only order 20 and they cut it to 5, it will look like a 75% drop in demand. That kind of %s will raise eyebrows of statisticians at NVIDIA immediately. They will adjust prices accordingly almost immediately. Why? NVIDIA doesn't want fire sales and stacks of their flag ship cards in all stores and tarnish their "superior goods" image.

Second, you have many options for substitute goods. NVIDIA has substitute goods themselves such as SLI of several different products that can match or exceed the same performance by this card. You also have choices of AMD cards and their CF. Then you also have consoles and their coming next gen launch.

Conclusion: they can price it whatever they want but it won't matter so stop complaining. It's not like they're the only one making graphics chips and consumers have no choice.

 

[jihadjoe]

Gtx780!

 

[HumanSmoke]

My point was about the GTX 590 and onwards, not the preceding generations. Their only purpose was to build up a case.....Well, it's my comparison, so yes, in fact.. I do get to choose [what card is designated as the top SKU]...I didn't have room for the HD 5970....Yes, HD 7970 started at 550$, but when GTX 680 came out the price dropped to 500$.. which is what counts.

Ah, I see. Cherry picking a time range using cherry picked parameters that don't bear any relationship to the vendors actual card hierarchy using your own personal pricing conventions that bear little in common with reality- an argument you're bound to win ...An example:

You can quote links all you like - the MSRP [$650] wasn't correct in the 7800 GTX 512's case.

You mean like this one:
...a bargain considering nVIDIA’s current pricing for the 7800GTX 512MB of $699USD
Or this, or this, or this, or this, or this...
Feel free to post some proof that the 7800GTX 512MB was selling below MSRP

If we're cherry picking- or to use your rationale "Well, it's my comparison, so yes, in fact.. I do get to choose", here's another taking into account limited production run cards for the uber-enthusiast:
6800 Ultra Extreme 512MB...$899
7800 GTX Black Pearl....$999
8800 Ultra Leviathan...$899
HD 5970 4GB...$1000-1199
Asus Mars....$1500
Asus Ares......$1000
Asus Mars II...$1499
HD 7970 6GB...$700
HD 7990......$799-899
Asus Ares II...$1699
GTX 690......$1000
GTX Titan....$1000

 

[badtaylorx]

ahhhh.....i think nvidia means to say they're launching the GTX 770 this summer???

or was the titan just a 680ti???

 

[Jacez]

Ah, I see. Cherry picking a time range using cherry picked parameters that don't bear any relationship to the vendors actual card hierarchy using your own personal pricing conventions that bear little in common with reality- an argument you're bound to win ...An example:

You mean like this one:
...a bargain considering nVIDIA’s current pricing for the 7800GTX 512MB of $699USD
Or this, or this, or this, or this, or this...
Feel free to post some proof that the 7800GTX 512MB was selling below MSRP

If we're cherry picking- or to use your rationale "Well, it's my comparison, so yes, in fact.. I do get to choose", here's another taking into account limited production run cards for the uber-enthusiast:
6800 Ultra Extreme 512MB...$899
7800 GTX Black Pearl....$999
8800 Ultra Leviathan...$899
HD 5970 4GB...$1000-1199
Asus Mars....$1500
Asus Ares......$1000
Asus Mars II...$1499
HD 7970 6GB...$700
HD 7990......$799-899
Asus Ares II...$1699
GTX 690......$1000
GTX Titan....$1000

Are you for real..?

So, I disagree with you about the price of the 7800 GTX 512 and HD 7970, both of which have no bearing on my overall summation in any way, and that's all you want to talk about?

It's like saying "I think we should feed starving children in Africa" and someone getting pissed off at you, completely forgetting your point, because "they're technically toddlers, not children."

Listen, if you ever fill out that prescription, drop me a line, alright?

 

[HumanSmoke]

So, I disagree with you about the price of the 7800 GTX 512 and HD 7970, both of which have no bearing on my overall summation in any way, and that's all you want to talk about?

Hell no.
The fact that you can't accept that you got called out for quoting cherry picked- and some obviously false price points to bolster your argument. I provided relevant links to educate and forestall any unsubstantiated claims. As for what I wanted to talk about- how about a whole babble of hyperbole that stems from your first post:

Does that mean that GTX 780 will cost 2,000$? GTX 880 will cost 4,000$?

And, no, it does not. EVERY time an expensive limited production hardware arrives, some knee-jerk reactionaries seem unable to stop themselves from donning the "The End is Nigh" sandwich board.
For someone so concerned about conciseness and relevancy in posting, I'd also note that you were quite happy to wander (way) off topic and make some deal over an obvious typo:

(I can accept "tend to be cyclic", but "tend to cyclic" simply doesn't sound right.)

Anyhow I done. Feel free to call my attention to the pricing of the GTX 780 if it retails anywhere close to $2000.

 

[HammerON]

Alright folks, let's stop the bickering and move along.

 

[Jacez]

Alright folks, let's stop the bickering and move along.

Sorry, Hammer.. but I can't let such pretentiousness continue. Feel free to delete our posts if you see fit.

Hell no.
The fact that you can't accept that you got called out for quoting cherry picked- and some obviously false price points to bolster your argument. I provided relevant links to educate and forestall any unsubstantiated claims.

Lol. Don't you just love it when you can tell the egomaniacs by their over-used vocabulary?

You chose to completely divert the attention from the topic at hand because you *gasp* took issue with 2 (out of the 20) numbers I put up.

Well, congratulations. You were right! The 7800 GTX 512 did retail for 650$.

Would you like that (1) internet now or after you've finished gratifying yourself at the thundering roar of your own awesomeness?

And, no, it does not. EVERY time an expensive limited production hardware arrives, some knee-jerk reactionaries seem unable to stop themselves from donning the "The End is Nigh" sandwich board.

Generalizing me into a pool of people you don't respect does not denote that you're right.

The fact is, your broad understatement of the situation only trivializes a very important issue.

Yes, USUALLY price increases don't last, but USUALLY they are the cause of a lack of competition, which is entirely understandable (i.e. 8800 Ultra)..

But now we have a precedent. Both companies are heightening their prices of competing products. It's no different than price fixing, except that it is not intentional and thus not illegal. It does, however, suck majorly for the consumer.

Anyhow I done. Feel free to call my attention to the pricing of the GTX 780 if it retails anywhere close to $2000.

Why does it matter?! 1,000$ is too much!

 

[Aquinus]

It's not insulting or generalizations. It's called exaggeration because everyone is complaining about pricing of a product that is obviously going to be overpriced.

If you want to analyze this from a economic/financial stand point.

Top 3 reasons this product will be priced high:

Low Volume: manufacturing involves fixed cost + variable cost so economy of scales great vary cost per unit produced. The higher the volume the less the fixed cost have an effect on each unit.

Cost Push: due to low volume, complexity, bleeding edge tech requirements, and very limited # of facilities that can actually produce this. The cost per chip will be higher not because of anything besides a lack of options. That cost will be passed onto the customer

Small market: demand is very low for this product, even in this forum there's only a handful that will actually think about buying it. Even a smaller amount will actually buy it.

Let's talk about why initial pricing doesn't matter because of equilibrium and substitute goods.

If price is higher than equilibrium then consumers won't buy or buy less of it. There will be a surplus. Since this is low volume then # of unsold units will have a higher % impact than a high volume product. You will bet that retailers/eseller/oem will cut orders and it will look drastic since a store would only order 20 and they cut it to 5, it will look like a 75% drop in demand. That kind of %s will raise eyebrows of statisticians at NVIDIA immediately. They will adjust prices accordingly almost immediately. Why? NVIDIA doesn't want fire sales and stacks of their flag ship cards in all stores and tarnish their "superior goods" image.

Second, you have many options for substitute goods. NVIDIA has substitute goods themselves such as SLI of several different products that can match or exceed the same performance by this card. You also have choices of AMD cards and their CF. Then you also have consoles and their coming next gen launch.

Conclusion: they can price it whatever they want but it won't matter so stop complaining. It's not like they're the only one making graphics chips and consumers have no choice.

I'm not saying your wrong so don't go getting defensive, you're pandering to the wrong person. I'm just saying if you have a point, you can make it without insulting people and making insulting generalizations about people. Keep your posts mature and thoughtful and I typically won't have a problem with them. There is a reason why a mod deleted the post, and I'm sure it's not because of your stance on this issue.

Sorry, Hammer.. but I can't let such pretentiousness continue. Feel free to delete our posts if you see fit.

You're asking for an infraction. When a moderator asks you to do something (or not to do something) on the forum, it's usually unwise to disobey them in public as opposed to messaging him or her in private.

 

[Jacez]

You're asking for an infraction. When a moderator asks you to do something (or not to do something) on the forum, it's usually unwise to disobey them in public as opposed to messaging him or her in private.

Yuppers. That's why I replied to him specifically in my post.

 

[Aquinus]

Yuppers. That's why I replied to him specifically in my post.

Which is not private. Read the rules, please.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/announcement.php?f=14

Reporting and complaining

• All posts have a "report post" button on the left side of the post, click it when you feel something is inappropriate.
• If you disagree with moderator actions contact them via PM, if you can't solve the issue with the moderator in question contact a super moderator. Don't start public drama.
• Each forum has several moderators, contact them when you feel there is something wrong.
• If you can't work something out with a moderator a supermod will be happy to try to solve the issue.
• Administrators are really busy people, don't bug them unless your issue can't be solved otherwise.

 

[Casecutter]

Besides, if you're using a performance-per-dollar metric based solely on gaming you obviously aren't part of the intended market for the card. Given your distain for anything Nvidia it beats me why you even bother with the argument- it's not as if you'd buy an Nvidia card even if it came with a 100% rebate voucher.

It took all your cut-and-paste-wordy-ness of a bunch of who' knows of their credibility reviews to supposedly make your point. I'm not contesting the pricing of the Titian, a Halo card is whatever...

I went by the W1zzard, and a 2560x the minimum resolution anyone would think of buying something like that for. I wish W1zzard would've average out his 5760x1080 results.

I do understand your "other possible workload the cards' user base might employ... intended market for the card" for Titian, and in that realm it's a no-brainer against dedicated workstation hardware. Although, does Nvidia propagandize this gelding it as such, it will chiefly tested for gaming. Sure it's a part of the claim, but truly a small foundation of the marketing, and we what to see how a 13 SMX (14% less) provides against the 7970 architecture.

I'm not against the Nvidia design or performance, just their Green Team Marketing that continues to live off the "G92 Glory Years".

I am a fan of the GTX670 the best card Nvidia has produce in many moon’s; a nice reference design is a great purchase when it can be had for $320. I also like the GTX650Ti, but really only a sensible buy when you can find say a MSI PE for $130 and add a little oomph.

Titian is having it's time on the mount as well it should, however the "Runt of Titian"… sorry it doesn't appear to have any "trickle-down" affect, not unless Nvidia surprises with a $600 price point.

 

[Xzibit]

Starting public drama is HumanSmoke modus operandi with anything Nvidia.

Even when you point out hes wrong he switches to something else to point out hes right all along

You have my sympathy Jacez and welcome to Techpowerup. Get used to him...

 

[Hood]

Thats why i'm on Radeons for years now...

I'm on Nvidia for years now, because the equivalent Radeon cards are hotter running, noisier and more power hungry. But the real deal-killers are the perennially buggy drivers and software supplied by AMD. CCC is a joke, I've never seen a program that crashed so often and for no apparent reason (several versions/cards). For this reason alone, I avoid ATI/AMD like the plague. If you make your choice because of a few lousy dollars saved, my advice is save up for an extra week or two and always buy Nvidia.

 

[Aquinus]

I'm on Nvidia for years now, because the equivalent Radeon cards are hotter running, noisier and more power hungry. But the real deal-killers are the perennially buggy drivers and software supplied by AMD. CCC is a joke, I've never seen a program that crashed so often and for no apparent reason (several versions/cards). For this reason alone, I avoid ATI/AMD like the plague. If you make your choice because of a few lousy dollars saved, my advice is save up for an extra week or two and always buy Nvidia.

nVidia was pretty bad with power consumption and heat prior to the GTX 600 series cards. The GTX 500 and 400 series loved to eat power. I've had more issues with nVidia drivers than I have had with AMD drivers. AMD has also never fried any of my hardware. I have a GeForce 8600 GTS that fried the DDC on one of my displays at work. I also don't need to update my drivers for my AMD cards nearly as often as I did with nVidia, so its a double edged sword. My experiences with AMD have been pretty good.

I've never had CCC crash on me and drivers will fail very rarely and when it does it's usually related to my overclock and running crossfire at the same time, not my drivers.

So all in all, I'm sorry that you've had a bad experience but I haven't experienced what you have with AMD, and I think it is worse that nVidia damages hardware rather than just crashing.

So yeah, even if my AMD video cards did crash a couple times, I would prefer that to my nVidia card bricking a display. It also wouldn't be the first time that I had a nVidia card that didn't work right.

---

With all of this said though, this thread isn't a Red vs Green thread so we should stop this argument right here. If you really want to continue it then I think it calls for a new thread or a PM war, but I won't be arguing the point beyond this post.

 

[EpicShweetness]

Cool, a $900 card.

Hella! That's the first price that popped into my head with the obscene pricing NVIDIA has been doing lately. :shadedshu

 

[Casecutter]

nVidia was pretty bad with power consumption and heat prior to the GTX 600 series cards.

My sediments exactly, that might have been the case with AMD before the RV770 (4870) since then not true, and when you look at Keplers under actual gaming load it's not that noteworthy, better but super outlandish.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/01/08/asus_geforce_gtx_670_directcu_ii_4gb_gpu_review/9

 

[HumanSmoke]

I went by the W1zzard, and a 2560x the minimum resolution anyone would think of buying something like that for. I wish W1zzard would've average out his 5760x1080 results.

I think W1zzard has commented before that it is because of the relative lack of cards for comparison at that resolution- 5760x1080 only recently being added to the benchmarks. If you're wanting a graphic boiled down to a single number, you'll have to keep a few bookmarks handy - a comparison of sites also throws up a wider range of games/apps, and driver issues, which are more prevalent with multi-monitor gaming.
Aside from TPU, Anandtech, Hardware Canucks, ComputerBase, Alienbabeltech, Sweclockers, HardwareLUXX, Hardware.info, bit-tech, OCC, Tom's Hardware and HiTech Legion also benched at 5760x1080. HardwareLUXX also benched a fairly gruelling 5760x1080 using sparse grid super sampling (SGSSAA).

I do understand your "other possible workload the cards' user base might employ... intended market for the card" for Titian, and in that realm it's a no-brainer against dedicated workstation hardware. Although, does Nvidia propagandize this gelding it as such, it will chiefly tested for gaming. Sure it's a part of the claim, but truly a small foundation of the marketing

And both you and I are part of the explanation. Look at the sheer number of forum threads, arguments, and postings in mainstream tech sites whose bread and butter is gaming orientated hardware concerning the Titan. The PR value Nvidia has reaped from the Titan far outweighs any profit from the cards themselves. If they sell 10,000 cards and make $500 off each one (doubtful unless yields are spectacular), that nets them $5m. PR and the halo effect probably outweigh the monetary return.
How much discussion takes place regarding Quadro and Tesla cards in comparison on tech sites ? Virtually nil in comparison- pro users generally have a more concise idea of their needs -and they certainly aren't the same tyre-kickers and flamers that frequent mainstream forums commenting on hardware they will never own. Pro graphics/math co-processors don't really need PR -just a solid support base and a given feature set. A pro user isn't going to be debating the cards merits on gaming forums- they're more likely to fire of an email to Boxxtech, Amax, HP, or whomever their last contract was with ( The user can configure workstations using Tesla, Quadro or GeForce in a lot of instances)
Even with minimal "conventional PR", Nvidia are going to sell a hell of lot more pro boards than GeForce branded ones. Leaving aside every Tesla K20 upgrade from 2050/2070/2090, OEM workstation sales, probable Quadro sales, and whatever number of boardsPiz Daint will require, the count already stands at ~22000 ( ORNL's Titan,NCSA's Blue Waters, and CSCS's Todi).

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Maybe NVIDIA should stop releasing pointless cards and start making cheaper cards with same performance. Pretty much EVERY single card from NVIDIA is overpriced compared to similar performing Radeons. Every time i'm buying new gfx card i look at both and see that all GeForces are too expensive for what they offer. Thats why i'm on Radeons for years now...

as my freind told me :"you buy amd if you want power, and nvidia if you want stability." After running an AMD laptop for a year now....he was right. AMD may be more powerful, but the constant driver issues and buggy performance (dont get me started on AMD's linux performance) drove me to nvidia. now, everything just works.

 

[Aquinus]

as my freind told me :"you buy amd if you want power, and nvidia if you want stability." After running an AMD laptop for a year now....he was right. AMD may be more powerful, but the constant driver issues and buggy performance (dont get me started on AMD's linux performance) drove me to nvidia. now, everything just works.

Really? I've had good experience with nVidia's Windows drivers but nVidia's dual-monitor support for linux is horrid which is what turned me off. fglrx and radeon drivers do multi-monitor out of the box just fine and lately fglrx has been working great on all the AMD GPUs I have, which is a pleasant surprise.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Really? I've had good experience with nVidia's Windows drivers but nVidia's dual-monitor support for linux is horrid which is what turned me off. fglrx and radeon drivers do multi-monitor out of the box just fine and lately fglrx has been working great on all the AMD GPUs I have, which is a pleasant surprise.

I think it might depend on the program. although, i had the exact opposite issue with nvidia and amd. FGLRX runs fine with ubuntu, but not other distros, like mint (personal favorite). never had an issue with nvidia and dual monitor in linux though. not quite sure why.

FWIW: minecraft will NOT run with fglrx without massive amounts of tweaking to get it to stop crashing.

 

[Jacez]

as my freind told me :"you buy amd if you want power, and nvidia if you want stability." After running an AMD laptop for a year now....he was right. AMD may be more powerful, but the constant driver issues and buggy performance (dont get me started on AMD's linux performance) drove me to nvidia. now, everything just works.

I've been running an HD 6950 for a year now. Never had a problem with the drivers.

 

[Xzibit]

The great driver debate...

This sums it up

 

[jihadjoe]

http://xkcd.com/386/
Apparently, duty calls.