Next Gen GPU's will be even more expensive

[3valatzy]

The 6700 XT launched for $479. Then, the 7800 XT that is 50% faster launched for $499. How much more performance would you want for the same price?

This is not a fair apples-to-apples comparison. When the RX 6700 XT was launched, it was the coronavirus and mining craze time. It was out of stock, or scalped for 3x or 4x that price!

 

[AusWolf]

This is not a fair apples-to-apples comparison. When the RX 6700 XT was launched, it was the coronavirus and mining craze time. It was out of stock, or scalped for 3x or 4x that price!

I'm comparing MSRP here, not Scalper Joe's Ebay shop prices. Nothing is a fair comparison when you put scalpers into the picture, which you shouldn't.

Edit: Oh wait... if you say that the 6700 XT was let's say $800 because of scalpers, then the 50% faster 7800 XT for $499 is really an awesome deal, isn't it?

 

[freeagent]

This is not a fair apples-to-apples comparison. When the RX 6700 XT was launched, it was the coronavirus and mining craze time. It was out of stock, or scalped for 3x or 4x that price!

So was all the other GPUs.. I don't know many people who got Ampere right away, I paid more for my Ampere than I did my Ada. And was from a legit brick and mortar, I bought my Ada from Amazon.

Ampere was a BS launch, with BS prices, and BS excuses.

 

[igormp]

No. The consumer sees the 4090 / 5090, etc, starts drooling at the sheer performance, and buys one whether he needs one or not. This is the mass psychosis on the high-end, and that's why Nvidia doesn't care about the low-end. Why would they when their most expensive gear is selling like hotcakes for insane prices anyway?

Yes, those products sell. No, it's not selling like hotcakes for gamers, just take a look at any place that shows a product's market share and you will notice that's not the case.
I believe you're really overestimating how many people can/want to afford such halo product, specially when those are meant to be used just for games.
Those products are selling like hotcakes for prosumers, who actually make a profit out of this thing, and thus make its value seem cheap due to that.

 

[JustBenching]

I think that's bullshit, so let's not even follow that logic (I do think the 4080 came massively overpriced, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it a 4070).


The 6700 XT launched for $479. Then, the 7800 XT that is 50% faster launched for $499. How much more performance would you want for the same price?


No. The consumer sees the 4090 / 5090, etc, starts drooling at the sheer performance, and buys one whether he needs one or not. This is the mass psychosis on the high-end, and that's why Nvidia doesn't care about the low-end. Why would they when their most expensive gear is selling like hotcakes for insane prices anyway?

You can come up with favorable comparisons sure, but so can I. Eg. , 3080ti launched for 1200$, 4080super launched for 999$ while being 35% faster. 4090 is 40% faster than the 3090ti while being 400$ cheaper. Is that convincing to you?

Also, the 4080 came massively overpriced you say. Ok, how massively? How much do you reckon it should cost?

 

[AusWolf]

You can come up with favorable comparisons sure, but so can I. Eg. , 3080ti launched for 1200$, 4080super launched for 999$ while being 35% faster. 4090 is 40% faster than the 3090ti while being 400$ cheaper. Is that convincing to you?

Also, the 4080 came massively overpriced you say. Ok, how massively? How much do you reckon it should cost?

The 4080 Super is actually a good card at a relatively reasonable price (which proves how bad the original 4080 was). I think I've said it all.

I don't know why you seem to assume that I'm against all things Nvidia. It is certainly not the case.

 

[JustBenching]

I don't know why you seem to assume that I'm against all things Nvidia. It is certainly not the case.

Because your posts are trying to make amd look more favorable, like your comparison between 6700xt vs 7800xt. If the 800xt replaces the 6700xt then the 7900xt replaces the 6800, which translates to a 55% price increase for a 55% performance increase, literally 0 increase in performance per dollar. Yet you didn't mention that, instead you went to the more favorable comparison

 

[oxrufiioxo]

You can come up with favorable comparisons sure, but so can I. Eg. , 3080ti launched for 1200$, 4080super launched for 999$ while being 35% faster. 4090 is 40% faster than the 3090ti while being 400$ cheaper. Is that convincing to you?

Also, the 4080 came massively overpriced you say. Ok, how massively? How much do you reckon it should cost?

I mean even Nvidia technically thought it was too expensive if not we wouldn't have gotten a 4080 super for 999... Same with the 4070ti super that while not a ton faster is still a much better product than it's launch version. Maybe they were both planned from the start who knows but the $999 the super cost was significantly better although it wasn't overly easy to get at that price in most territories.


For me the 4080 $1200 price served Nvidia one purpose to upsell them to the 4090 it worked on me honestly.

Once they realized more than gamers were buying 4090 they threw gamers a bone and released two slightly better options at 8-1000.

Because your posts are trying to make amd look more favorable, like your comparison between 6700xt vs 7800xt. If the 800xt replaces the 6700xt then the 7900xt replaces the 6800, which translates to a 55% price increase for a 55% performance increase, literally 0 increase in performance per dollar. Yet you didn't mention that, instead you went to the more favorable comparison

I think most would agree outside the 4090 last generation sucked as a whole leaving people to make meh decisions if they wanted to upgrade.

 

[tugrul_LordOfDrinks]

Perhaps 4080 super was a cropped 4090 because of manufacturing defects and became cheaper? Did original 4080 overclock better as its not cropped?

 

[JustBenching]

I mean even Nvidia technically thought it was too expensive if not we wouldn't have gotten a 4080 super for 999... Same with the 4070ti super that while not a ton faster is still a much better product than it's launch version. Maybe they were both planned from the start who knows but the $999 the super cost was significantly better although it wasn't overly easy to get at that price in most territories.


For me the 4080 $1200 price served Nvidia one purpose to upsell them to the 4090 it worked on me honestly.

Once they realized more than gamers were buying 4090 they threw gamers a bone and released two slightly better options at 8-1000.



I think most would agree outside the 4090 last generation sucked as a whole leaving people to make meh decisions if they wanted to upgrade.

The 4080s was probably a response to the 4080 not selling that well (contrary to what people said in the previous pages) and the xtx dropping its price.

And no, I don't think most people would agree, that's the issue. Haven't you read the previous page? It's the 4090 buyers that ruin the market. I mean this week alone I've read that thing 4-5 times in this very forum, it's people that buy high end nvidia cards that are responsible for the prices

 

[Sir Beregond]

I think that's bullshit, so let's not even follow that logic (I do think the 4080 came massively overpriced, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it a 4070).

I think 4070 Ti really should have been the base 4070 and what was the 4070 should have been the 4060 Ti. But basically they shifted everything down in the silicon tiering and up in the price tiering / branding lol.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

The 4080s was probably a response to the 4080 not selling that well (contrary to what people said in the previous pages) and the xtx dropping its price.

And no, I don't think most people would agree, that's the issue. Haven't you read the previous page? It's the 4090 buyers that ruin the market. I mean this week alone I've read that thing 4-5 times in this very forum, it's people that buy high end nvidia cards that are responsible for the prices

All I meant was for buyers in the 1500 class of product the 1% of us it was the only card that clearly offered a meaningful improvement for around the same money MSRP vs MSRP the 3090 was actually 50-100% more expensive most it's life....

4060... 15-20% faster but 50% less vram. AMD 7600 also sucks

4060ti... 5-10% faster same price at least I guess. Expensive for an 8GB card. 7700XT ok raster terrible launch price

4070... It was ok 100 usd savings to get 3080 like performance two years later. 7800XT came pretty late with a stupid name but was an ok product

4070ti. 800 but you got ballpark 3090 performance but expensive for a 12GB card. 7900XT 900usd lmao

4080. 50% more performance than the 3080 awesome but 70% more cost not so awesome. 7900XTX was ok but only because the 4080 was a terrible value and yet still wasn't a good enough option to deter from the Nvidia option.

4090. 100 usd more to murder the 3090 finally an actually outright better product. AMD didn't even try but it's fanboys will defend that saying nobody buys amd cards above 1000 anyways...... Yet they offered a flagship alternative 1 gen previously for what they charged for the 7900XTX.....


How anyone could say either side is for the gamerz is beyond me unless they mean nobody buys amd cards so they drop in price shortly after launch is AMDs plan....

 

[x4it3n]

What we need is people to stop buying expensive shit that they don't need. Everybody cries about prices, but most end up buying the latest x90 Nvidia card on a loan anyway. Why?

I bought a 4090 (at MSRP) but I had the cash for it. Also the 4090 was the only "good value" back then! I have a 4K QD-OLED 240Hz monitor so I try to play at Native 4K as much as I can, therefore the 4090 was my goal anyway. But most of NVIDIA sales are not x90 GPUs, the x60 and x70 are supposed to be the big sellers but their value except the 4070 SUPER are all terrible. The only reason why x90 sold well is because most Professionals who can't afford a QUADRO buy a 4090 for the 24GB VRAM.

 

[AusWolf]

Because your posts are trying to make amd look more favorable, like your comparison between 6700xt vs 7800xt.

I'm not trying to look AMD more favourable. I'm trying to give credit where credit is due.

The world isn't black and white (red and green) you know.

Why does every conversation have to devolve into accusations of fanboyism? Why is it so hard to have an educated conversation on GPUs these days? Ugh.

If the 800xt replaces the 6700xt then the 7900xt replaces the 6800,

I based my comparison on a similarity in price. What did you base this comparison on?

 

[Bobaganoosh]

I don't think that'd be a good idea. AMD is already having a hard time with fab allocation, no reason to try to push for more GPUs with low profit margin when you can sell tons of CPUs and Instinct enterprise GPUs at high margins instead.

If anything, they'll focus on the iGPU offerings instead.

^This. AMD only has so much allocation and they haven't been able to ship anything in volume except for consoles in years. So for them, they need to crank up the profit per part as much as they can and they do that with every launch. If they have the best part, it is not priced competitively or to gain market-share, it is priced to profit. Nvidia obviously does the same. They both do a little more price competition in the mid-range, which is why there were tons of people losing their damn minds when ryzen prices started going up after they began winning the benchmarks. People got used to AMD being a bargain brand (or perf/price winner) and for some reason expected them to keep pricing low even if their parts were better than Intel's. If AMD had the fastest GPU coming, it would also be priced really high. They don't, Nvidia does, and without competition, Nvidia will price it high and expect people to pay it. That's how supply and demand works in a capitalism-dominated world.

You can also always see AMD launch at the highest price they think people will pay...then when they start sitting around on shelves, they drop the prices. Sure, they may have sold some more if they started with lower pricing, but they knew a good chunk of people would buy at the initial prices so that's where they started.

None of these companies are our friends or have our hopes and desires (or wallets) in mind...other than wanting whatever money we're willing to fork over.

 

[3valatzy]

^This. AMD only has so much allocation and they haven't been able to ship anything in volume except for consoles in years. So for them, they need to crank up the profit per part as much as they can and they do that with every launch. If they have the best part, it is not priced competitively or to gain market-share, it is priced to profit. Nvidia obviously does the same. They both do a little more price competition in the mid-range, which is why there were tons of people losing their damn minds when ryzen prices started going up after they began winning the benchmarks. People got used to AMD being a bargain brand (or perf/price winner) and for some reason expected them to keep pricing low even if their parts were better than Intel's. If AMD had the fastest GPU coming, it would also be priced really high. They don't, Nvidia does, and without competition, Nvidia will price it high and expect people to pay it. That's how supply and demand works in a capitalism-dominated world.

You can also always see AMD launch at the highest price they think people will pay...then when they start sitting around on shelves, they drop the prices. Sure, they may have sold some more if they started with lower pricing, but they knew a good chunk of people would buy at the initial prices so that's where they started.

None of these companies are our friends or have our hopes and desires (or wallets) in mind...other than wanting whatever money we're willing to fork over.

Then foes!
This is not a sustainable behaviour which sooner or later will result in bankruptcy. Nothing lasts forever. The high performance semiconductor businesses are going to die off.

 

[Jetster]

Not more than covid did

 

[Zazigalka]

Negativity is being spewed because the current situation is dire, on many fronts... of course someone will piss over the sunshine. And it gets tiring, yes. But reality is a b*tch.

There are very few positives to be said about the current GPU market, you've even underlined this yourself, having to buy several tiers below what you would have wanted over the years. I feel very little need nor motivation to sprinkle positives here to be honest. And when you enter a topic called 'next gen GPUs will be even more expensive' .... yeah.

Perhaps in forum land the solution is to underline the requirement to make clear and descriptive opening posts and topic titles, so you can more deliberately swing the ban hammer if people rain on a positively intended parade. (or whatever parade with a certain intent)

I do get every bit of hate for what NVIDIA have been doing after Pascal - the prices, the planned obsolescence of 3080/3070. What I don't get is portraying AMD as this great alternative choice that's just always being unfairly snubbed by people. What have they really contributed ? They sat 2080Ti, the first one to cost $999, out with a mid range card, and then as soon as they made a really great, competitive gpu like 6900xt, they too priced it at $999. 7900xtx was $999 too, and an equivalent to, surprise surprise, nvidia's $999 4080 but with worse RT, efficiency and worse upscaling. Yet still people acted like the blame was on one side only, when to my eyes it has always been on both in equal measure.
What is also true is all this negativity did not start just now, the people you see xomplaining here have been green team haters for a long time, even when 1080Ti was absolutely killing it in value. I too decided to change things just to try, upgrading a 3060Ti to 6800. And you know what ? It was absolutely meaningless when a card with 16GB of vram fell flat on its face whenever I tried running max settings in new games, because they all required Ray traced GI, reflections and shadows. The numbers were actually worse on 6800, and unplayable on both cards.

 

[Waldorf]

@eidairaman1
was on the east coast, close to DC.

@Sound_Card
so i shouldn't buy a card fast enough (3090 gets ~40 fps), so i can play games like MS FS in UHD at decent frame rate?
and buying one thats above 4070S (lets say i saved up since i got my 2080S) makes me, according to you, not so smart?
i guess i need to start convincing myself that i dont need cuda (turns off setting in editing sw), and i cant care less about (any) FG stuff.
so yeah, let me buy the superior amd card, because it really fits my use. right


when i worked at the airport and could get "cheap" tickets, i paid ~3x more to get 1st class, not because im getting faster to my destination (+8h), not because i wanted to get pics to brag,
but because i had no added cost for anything (all food/desert/ice cream/drinks/multiple movies), no ppl yapping around me, no crying kids, and enough legroom without bumping my knees (6.3).
i could have gotten coach and saved enough, and allowed for another trip the same year.
never cared for it, because i would have never traveled as much.

so while its true, the masses are ignorant and buy things they dont really need (raw perf), doesnt mean everyone that owns expensive stuff, like a 4090, is a moron when it comes to
decision making or throwing money away.

 

[Sir Beregond]

Perhaps 4080 super was a cropped 4090 because of manufacturing defects and became cheaper? Did original 4080 overclock better as its not cropped?

4090 is AD102 silicon. Both 4080 and 4080 Super are AD103 silicon. 4080 Super was just the full AD103 while the original 4080 was slightly cut down. Want to say it was only about a 5% difference.

Unless they are starting to do some one offs with bad bins of AD102 towards the end here...and seems possible looking at the GPU DB, the 4090 was the lowest tier AD102 was ever going to be at. It was otherwise also used in much more profitable workstation / pro cards such as RTX 5000, RTX 6000, etc. 4080 Ti for example never happened because why did it need to? AMD had nothing at that tier they needed to compete with, and Nvidia definitely didn't want to sell AD102 for less than they were selling it for with a 4090.

 

[sn2x]

The 6700 XT launched for $479. Then, the 7800 XT that is 50% faster launched for $499. How much more performance would you want for the same price?

By the time 7800 XT launched, 6700 XT was already ~$320 for months.
So you pay 55% more for 45% more performance.

By the time the 7800 XT launched, the 6800 XT was also already around the same price for several months. So you pay close to the same price for something that's been at that price for months for basically the same performance (okay, yeah, sure, the 7800 XT was 4% faster...).

 

[Zazigalka]

4090 is AD102 silicon. Both 4080 and 4080 Super are AD103 silicon. 4080 Super was just the full AD103 while the original 4080 was slightly cut down. Want to say it was only about a 5% difference.

Unless they are starting to do some one offs with bad bins of AD102 towards the end here...and seems possible looking at the GPU DB, the 4090 was the lowest tier AD102 was ever going to be at. It was otherwise also used in much more profitable workstation / pro cards such as RTX 5000, RTX 6000, etc. 4080 Ti for example never happened because why did it need to? AMD had nothing at that tier they needed to compete with, and Nvidia definitely didn't want to sell AD102 for less than they were selling it for with a 4090.

Yeah, 4090, fast as it was, was still only 88% of ad102 iirc. Technologically, NVIDIA will now theoretically be able to make Blackwell cards that are 2-3x faster than fastest AMD will offer. If that's where things stand now, there was never any real chance of them not sucking our wallets dry.

 

[Sir Beregond]

Yeah, 4090, fast as it was, was still only 88% of ad102 iirc. Technologically, NVIDIA will now theoretically be able to make Blackwell cards that are 2-3x faster than fastest AMD will offer. If that's where things stand now, there was never any real chance of them not sucking our wallets dry.

Yep exactly. As fast as the 4090 is, it is only using 16384 cores out of the max 18432 AD102 has which 12% sounds right. They certainly had no reason to cut down even more and sell a lower cost theoretical 4080 Ti. It's going to be the same thing with the 50-series. 5090 is the bone thrown to the gamer who will pay anything for the best and the prosumer market.

 

[Zazigalka]

Yep exactly. As fast as the 4090 is, it is only using 16384 cores out of the max 18432 AD102 has which 12% sounds right. They certainly had no reason to cut down even more and sell a lower cost theoretical 4080 Ti. It's going to be the same thing with the 50-series. 5090 is the bone thrown to the gamer who will pay anything for the best and the prosumer market.

No, its going to be even worse, at least for me. I could stomach 1000eur for a 4080/S, but I bet 5080 will start at 1200, if not 1250 or 1300. And I guess upgrading a 4070 S to 9070xt would be quite meaningless too, just like 3060ti to 6800 I wrote about.

 

[Sir Beregond]

No, its going to be even worse, at least for me. I could stomach 1000eur for a 4080/S, but I bet 5080 will start at 1200, if not 1250 or 1300.

That's my guess as well, sadly.