I would agree that this would be enough if MSRP was still representing something but sadly nowadays this is no more the case . Both Nvidia and more lately AMD have shown that their MSRPs are becoming at best very optimistic if not straight made up ! Indeed as shown by the 6800XT ( just as the latest example ) AMD is claiming 650$ MSRP when board partners such as Asrock or Sapphire claim they are unable to hit said MSRP despite hitting record low margins , so this is not because said 3rd partners got greedy and decided to profit from the current global situation .
What does this mean ? Well it clearly means that the MSRP is becoming a bait and switch tool . Just as an example you know your latest and greatest GPU ( product A ) will be sold at no less than 800$ by 3rd party partners ( which you advertise is where the vast majority of your die allocation is going towards) , this would put you in a disadvantage compared to your competition ( product B ) in the eyes of reviewers for various reasons and obviously this will be harmfull for your product , so naturally you pull a 100/150/200$ lower MSRP which is what said reviewers are going to take into account to make their final recommendation , so magically your GPU ends-up being the recommended product deptite intrinsically being the inferior product .
This is where this new TPU methodology comes to play and this is why i foundamentaly agree with the principle . By showing both advertised MSRP and actual market pricing not only reviewers can wash their hands knowing they are no longer making recomandations based on false values but also customers ( readers ) can easely evaluate themselves how far X or Y product actual value is from it's advertised MSRP and make puchasing decisions based on this . This will push reviewers to put much more emphasis on such practices and ultimately this will push companies to stop with said practices or at the very least advertise realistic MSRP values !
This new quoting is a PITA to pick things out........ or I suck at it... 'thumbsdown'.
This is the best post I've seen supporting it, but still not convinced. Off the top, I don't buy the deep state bait and switch argument. These prices are market condition driven and there is always some play among brands - water...is wet.
Let me ask this to W1z....is the price going to get updated in the old reviews as time goes on? If those don't get updated, is that dataset any better than the static MSRP in the first place? What happens if you review a product later in the cycle when availability and pricing is different than the early part of a launch? If someone looks at an older review of said model, they'll find the pricing price to perf. ratio off. In essence, the only place you'll find accurate price to perf. information is from the newest GPU review. That stinks when looking at a specific card... in order to get appropriate data for purchasing you'd read the review with old data, then you'd need to read a, perhaps an unrelated, article to see what the current situation is. So does it add any value, current pricing, even out of the gate?
The chart (the one one the first page of a review, the specs) should have the MSRP listed and a link, where possible to the card. You can use the conclusion or the value section to get your point across about availability and scalping and whatnot... but for main chart, list MSRP and link to NE or Amazon (both of these you can sort by sells by and ships by NE/Amazon... this removes the 3rd party sellers where prices can be wonky - if a user wants to use them, they can do so). Pricing varies wildly anyway by country and vendor... it's not making things any more accurate for most users.
The charts later in the review (example in 1st post) should just be MSRP. If you want to inform the masses, give them a handy equation to check themselves... otherwise with static data, it's just as stale forcing readers to find the latest GPU review to see where it now stands. Good for getting more linking to the latest reviews, for sure.
And please, I just read the first post again, don't estimate scalpers prices for cards...any cards. Rattling it off in text in the article, sure, but using it in a chart... and again with static data... just doesn't age well and is 'obsolete' the second a new review comes out.
As I understand things (which may be the problem... how I'm understanding it).. the new process just feels like it is overcomplicating things for very little ROI to the end user. I'd rather see the time searching for prices and pondering how much a scalper would sell a card, go into cleaning up the (all) articles (fact checking... typos...etc) than this.
