Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Video Cards and Graphics

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals
· Free Stuff
· Contests and Sweepstakes
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-13-2013, 04:19 PM   #1026
sontin
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,892
Default

And the GTX680 was faster 5 months and cheaper nearly 2 months.
And people who waited 3 months from the 7950 got a cheaper and >10% faster card.
BTW: In BF3 the GTX680 was 10-25% faster than the 7970 after 2 1/2 months. On the other hand the 7970 was 10-20% faster than the GTX580 after 14 months.

I know you ignore the fact, that we have those prices because of AMD.
sontin is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 04:26 PM   #1027
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 13,930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post
And people who waited 3 months from the 7950 got a cheaper and >10% faster card.
People who waited 9 months saved almost $400 on the HD4890 over GTX280. What were you saying about rip-off launch prices again? 7800GTX 512MB going for $700 at launch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post
BTW: In BF3 the GTX680 was 10-25% faster than the 7970 after 2 1/2 months. On the other hand the 7970 was 10-20% faster than the GTX580 after 14 months.
Cherry-picking individual games? What's even the point of responding to that? How is your 580 doing now? Nice to know cards like HD7850 OC deliver that level of performance for $350 less?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post
I know you ignore the fact, that we have those prices because of AMD.
You keep ignoring that NV overpriced GTX580 which allowed AMD to raise the price of HD7970 to $549 (using your own biased logic).

You are just upset because you now have to spend $900 for an upgrade. Isn't that the same as people who were upset about HD7970 prices after HD6970? Guess what, some of them just patiently waited until prices dropped to more attractive levels instead of blaming NV for not having launched GTX680 on Jan 9th and putting price pressure on HD7970. You should write NV a letter with your complaints (using your own comments earlier).
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1

Last edited by RussianSensation; 02-13-2013 at 04:46 PM.
RussianSensation is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 04:35 PM   #1028
sontin
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
People who waited 9 months saved almost $400 on the HD4890 over GTX280. What were you saying about rip-off launch prices again? 7800GTX 512MB going for $700 at launch.
And had people waited 6 weeks, they had saved $150.

Quote:
Cherry-picking individual games? What's even the point of responding to that? How is your 580 doing now? Nice to know cards like HD7850 OC deliver that level of performance for $350 less?
Right, let us compare 40nm cards to 28nm cards. How good was the 7850OC in December 2010? I mean you see the card as competition to the GTX580...

Quote:
You keep ignoring that NV overpriced GTX580 which allowed AMD to raise the price of HD7970 to $549 (using your own biased logic).
Right, because never in history provided a process shrink more transistors on the same space.
Going by your logic every new gen should increase the price because it will be faster than the previous one.

Quote:
You are just upset because you are an NV fanboy and now you have to spend $900 for an upgrade. Go write NV a letter with your complaints. (using your own comments earlier).
And you pay more for your AMD card, too. But that is good because AMD needs all the money.
sontin is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 04:56 PM   #1029
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 13,930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post
Going by your logic every new gen should increase the price because it will be faster than the previous one.
Nope. I said HD7970 was overpriced (didn't blame NV) and I am saying the Titan is overpriced (not blaming AMD). I am only commenting on the Titan's larger increase in price going from 580 than HD7970 did from 6970. It seems you are overly upset about the Titan's price. I merely commented that I thought it was too high like many other posters in this thread. Sounds like you waited 12 months for an upgrade from a 580 and now you are butthurt NV is charging $900 for that. Then you shift the blame to AMD. None of that changes anything about you either having to pull the trigger on the Titan at $900 or not. Not only that you didn't buy a single AMD GPU in the last 6 years, thus not giving them any $ to advance their R&D or advance their resources. Then you still come up with some insane excuse for AMD for not being competitive enough.

I already told you that 8800GTX was $599 when it launched and it beat HD2900XT by about 50%. Why didn't NV price that card at $899? You seem to not be able to connect the dots that supply-demand is a factor. NV conditioned the market with $500 GTX680 / $1K GTX690 and since those cards sold well, they'll do it again. If NV priced its products very high and NV fans keep buying, the only people you have to blame for those high prices are the consumers who continue to buy regardless of what price NV sets. Now NV is charging 2.2-2.3x more over a 50% slower HD7970GE and people will still buy the Titan. You aren't seeing how supply-demand is working there on the consumer / company side in the free market system? If you don't like the price, don't buy, keep waiting for a cheaper GK110 product. Blaming Titan's price on AMD alone is ludicrous. AMD hasn't made a 500mm2 ever, which means Titan's direct 28nm AMD competitor HD7000-8000 series was never in the cards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post
And you pay more for your AMD card, too. But that is good because AMD needs all the money.
Nope. I got the HD7970 way later when its price/performance was superior to GTX680. I never purchased them at launch because I thought it was too expensive.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1
RussianSensation is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:02 PM   #1030
absolutezero
Junior Member
 
absolutezero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post
And had people waited 6 weeks, they had saved $150.
Ignoring the overclocking and flashing ability of 7970 to 7970ghz. Has people waited for 6 more weeks, they would have had a much better card at the same price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post
Right, let us compare 40nm cards to 28nm cards. How good was the 7850OC in December 2010? I mean you see the card as competition to the GTX580...
Still loling at the 400 dollar GTX 580s on newegg. HD 7850OC is not a competition cause it outright thrashes GTX 580 on price/perform. HD 7870 beats it on all front.

You can live in the past as much as you like. It is what it is. HD 7850OC and HD 7870 are much better than GTX 580 and cheaper.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post
Going by your logic every new gen should increase the price because it will be faster than the previous one.
What?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post
And you pay more for your AMD card, too. But that is good because AMD needs all the money.
I hope you meant Nvidia, cause AMD is owning them on price/perform for almost all cards currently.
absolutezero is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:08 PM   #1031
Raghu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 359
Default

No one asked about the Titan at the NVIDIA earnings conference call. Record revenue for the year.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....ventId=4905669

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...F8VHlwZT0z&t=1

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...F8VHlwZT0z&t=1
Raghu is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:19 PM   #1032
Rvenger
VC&G Moderator
 
Rvenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post
And the GTX680 was faster 5 months and cheaper nearly 2 months.
And people who waited 3 months from the 7950 got a cheaper and >10% faster card.
BTW: In BF3 the GTX680 was 10-25% faster than the 7970 after 2 1/2 months. On the other hand the 7970 was 10-20% faster than the GTX580 after 14 months.

I know you ignore the fact, that we have those prices because of AMD.
EDIT: Quit derailing the thread and turning threads into a vs. thread. Your posts lack any substance and are irrelevant to the discussion. Especially above.
__________________
i7-4770k @ 4ghz - Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H - 16gb GSkill 2133mhz - Powercolor R9 290x - 128gb Sandisk Ultra Plus - 256gb Adata SP900 - 2tb WD Green - NZXT 850w Modular PSU - CM Storm Stryker

Last edited by Rvenger; 02-13-2013 at 05:29 PM.
Rvenger is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:27 PM   #1033
chimaxi83
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
snip

Quote:
Originally Posted by absolutezero View Post
snip
You guys are arguing with a bright green unmoving wall, I wouldn't even bother.
__________________
Mine: 3770K - MSI Z77 MPower - Gigabyte 290 CF - 16GB Samsung - M4 256GB/Caviar Black 1TB - XFX Core Pro 1050W - NZXT Switch 810 - Auria IPS 27" 2560x1440 - Custom loop
Kiddo: 3770K - MSI Z77A-G43 - 7870 Tahiti LE - 8GB Samsung - M4 64GB/Caviar Black 1TB - Antec Neo Eco 620W - HAF 922
chimaxi83 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:31 PM   #1034
sontin
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
Nope. I said HD7970 was overpriced (didn't blame NV) and I am saying the Titan is overpriced (not blaming AMD). I am only commenting on the Titan's larger increase in price going from 580 than HD7970 did from 6970.
Titan will be nearly twice as fast as the GTX580 instead of 50-60%. The price increase will be right in line with that what AMD did last year.

Quote:
It seems you are overly upset about the Titan's price. I merely commented that I thought it was too high like many other posters in this thread. Sounds like you waited 12 months for an upgrade from a 580 and now you are butthurt NV is charging $900 for that. Then you shift the blame to AMD. None of that changes anything about you either having to pull the trigger on the Titan at $900 or not. Not only that you didn't buy a single AMD GPU in the last 6 years, thus not giving them any $ to advance their R&D or advance their resources. Then you still come up with some insane excuse for AMD for not being competitive enough.
Yeah...
I have a Gigabyte GTX670 which was cheaper than a 7970 and is faster at stock.

Quote:
I already told you that 8800GTX was $599 when it launched and it beat HD2900XT by about 50%. Why didn't NV price that card at $899?
I guess you ignore the 8800 Ultra for $869 right before the 2900XT was released...

Quote:
You seem to not be able to connect the dots that supply-demand is a factor. NV conditioned the market with $500 GTX680 / $1K GTX690 and since those cards sold well, they'll do it again. If NV priced its products very high and NV fans keep buying, the only people you have to blame for those high prices are the consumers who continue to buy regardless of what price NV sets.
It is always the fault of the consumer.
People bought a GTX680 for $499 because it was cheaper and faster than the competition at the launch.

Quote:
Now NV is charging 2.2-2.3x more over a 50% slower HD7970GE and people will still buy the Titan. You aren't seeing how supply-demand is working there on the consumer / company side in the free market system? If you don't like the price, don't buy, keep waiting for a cheaper GK110 product. Blaming Titan's price on AMD alone is ludicrous. AMD hasn't made a 500mm2 ever, which means Titan's direct 28nm AMD competitor HD7000-8000 series was never in the cards.
People buying Titan because they want the performance. It's AMD fault that they can deliver this and so nVidia can take whatever money they want.

Quote:
Nope. I got the HD7970 way later when its price/performance was superior to GTX680. I never purchased them at launch because I thought it was too expensive.
And yet you blaming the same people for nVidia's prices that forced AMD to lower theirs. Quite ironic, i guess.
sontin is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:41 PM   #1035
SolMiester
Diamond Member
 
SolMiester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Napier, New Zealand
Posts: 4,647
Default

AFAIK, AMD does not stipulate the pricing of NV GPUs....its just nonsense!...NV will sell for what they think they can get, same with AMD.....
IMO, AMD are a lot more receptive to adjusting prices than NV anyway...I cant think when NV last adjusted their prices due to competition, 4xxx series?...
Who give a sh*te anyway, NV will once again have its rightful place as the king of GPUs...and that IMO, will piss off the fanboi's no end.....so we can all rejoice!...Yay...LOL
__________________
HOME-LianLi PC-9F,ASRock P67Pro3, i5 2500k @4Ghz, 8Gb HyperX, GTX660, Corsair Force 120 SSD HP L2045w, HP ML350G5 2012 Host-Plex/W8/MINT..
WORK-Silverstone PS07 ASRock Z77 Pro4-M, i5 3470 @4Ghz, 16GB HyperX, GT630, 3 x Samsung S22B420
My Super 6 Calais
SolMiester is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 06:09 PM   #1036
Rvenger
VC&G Moderator
 
Rvenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post

Yeah...
I have a Gigabyte GTX670 which was more expensive than a 7950 and is faster at stock.



ftfy

You obviously don't know how AMD cards perform to make a comment that a 7970 is slower than a 670. Again, you are living in the past and looking at old reviews with old drivers.
__________________
i7-4770k @ 4ghz - Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H - 16gb GSkill 2133mhz - Powercolor R9 290x - 128gb Sandisk Ultra Plus - 256gb Adata SP900 - 2tb WD Green - NZXT 850w Modular PSU - CM Storm Stryker
Rvenger is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 06:16 PM   #1037
blastingcap
Diamond Member
 
blastingcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,570
Default

Single GPU is easier to deal with and has fewer issues/bugs/microstuttering/etc. than multi-GPU. This will appeal to those with deep pockets who want the best gaming experience possible on a single GPU. If you aren't one of those people, who cares, move along. Needless bickering in this thread.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoFox View Post
We had to suffer polygonal boobs for a decade because of selfish corporate reasons.
Main: 3570K + R9 290 CF + Crucial 16GB 1866 + AsRock Extreme4 Z77 + Eyefinity 5760x1080 eIPS

NAS and HTPC/workstation: Supermicro MBD-X9SCM + G530 + 16GB ECC; ASUS P8B WS + i3-3220; 1.1TB of Intel/Crucial/Samsung SSDs + 26TB of WD/Hitachi HDDs
blastingcap is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 07:21 PM   #1038
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
 
BallaTheFeared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raghu View Post
Record revenue for the year.
[IMG]http://2**************.com/-uqIMvHKt-TU/TdstJyro7YI/AAAAAAAAAao/cud286m79V4/s1600/GD9313478%2540Title-BOY-NAMED-CHARL-8397.jpg[/IMG]
BallaTheFeared is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 07:31 PM   #1039
GodisanAtheist
Senior Member
 
GodisanAtheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 855
Default

Its unfortunate that we're watching a two horse race in an ever shrinking market. The Titan and all the resulting hot air (and the inevitable car analogies somewhere along the way) got me thinking how fun it would be if GPU designers got into "stock card races" the way car manufacturers get into stock car races. AMD and NVIDIA would design the beefiest gpus their respective teams could muster and silicon could support, they'd crank out say 10K of them (so they could be considered "stock") and pit them head to head in a battery of graphics and compute tests.

All consideration of viability, end user price, $/Perf blah blah blah would get thrown out the window and it would all come down to which engineering team could come up with the fastest GPU possible. Whatever inventory is built up gets sold at exorbitant prices as limited run items.

I was never a huge fan of AMD's sweet spot strategy for a number of reasons (although my wallet would disagree) but Titan really makes me reminisce to the days when ATI and Nvidia would both compete for the Halo position...
__________________
The Mothership:
Intel Q9550 @ 3.8Ghz | Gigabyte EP45-UD3L | Corsair H50 | 8Gb Gskill @ 900Mhz 4/4/4/12 |XFX HD7950 [925/1250/SV]| 1x Samsung 830 120gb/1x Spinpoint F3 1TB/1x Spinpoint F4 2tb
R.I.P. MSI GTX460. Your years of dedicated service will be missed.
GodisanAtheist is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 08:21 PM   #1040
Zanovar
Golden Member
 
Zanovar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
[IMG]http://2**************.com/-uqIMvHKt-TU/TdstJyro7YI/AAAAAAAAAao/cud286m79V4/s1600/GD9313478%2540Title-BOY-NAMED-CHARL-8397.jpg[/IMG]

Are you gonna buy it or what Balla? make your mind up,you are worse than my gf and her panties picking
__________________
i5 3570k@4.5|GA-Z77X-UD4H|8GB Samsung 2200@ 9-10-10-28 1t|Sapphire 290 Tri-X |Samsung 840 pro 128|2x4tb Seagate barracuda|AX750|Arc Midi.

"The first cruise I came on was Tom Cruise"-Tom Baker aka the doctor.

Zanovar is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 09:59 PM   #1041
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 13,930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raghu View Post
No one asked about the Titan at the NVIDIA earnings conference call. Record revenue for the year.
Well this is going to be fun going forward:

"Since the first quarter of fiscal year 2011, we have been reporting three primary financial reporting segments – GPU, Professional Solutions Business, and Consumer Products Business. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013, we began reporting two primary financial reporting segments – GPU and TegraŽ Processor."

This means now it's going to be impossible to isolate mobile/desktop GPU revenues/profits from the Professional Solutions (Tesla and Quadro lines) without getting equity research reports.

They hit record revenue but if you look at Q4 2012, there are slowdowns.

-- Most of the growth in 2012 came from Tegra, not the GPU business. This highlights NV's desire to seek growth in other market segments. Notebook GPUs grew, desktop ones, not so much. More details below. "Revenue for fiscal 2013 was a record at $4.28 billion, up 7.1 percent from the prior fiscal year. This increase was largely attributable to record revenue for our Tegra Processor business, which increased 29.3 percent from the previous year."

-- Overall GPU business grew just 2% in all of 2012, Nvidia's desktop GPUs grew 5.9% in 2012.

-- Quarter over Quarter (Q4 2012 vs. Q3 2012) is where you can see that NV didn't have a stellar quarter. Revenues were down, OPEX up, net income down. Specifically, the GPU business had revenue of $832.5 million, down $61.7 million or 6.9 percent sequentially. The sequential decline stems from desktop GPUs (pg. 4)

-- Operating expenses for fiscal 2013 (2012 year) were $1.58 billion, up $169.9 million, or 12.1 percent, from the prior year. The increase in operating expenses was primarily due to investments in our Tegra Processor business. This includes efforts to build next-generation energy-efficient computing architectures, such as Tegra 4.

Problem is Tegra 4 is having trouble getting any significant design wins.

Overall investors are unlikely to be impressed by this. The desktop GPU market shows weakness, and Tegra 4 seems like a miss compared to Tegra 3, and Quadro GPU sales are down due to general weakness in Western Europe. Nvidia is also forecasting a 'nothing special' Q1 2013 (FY Q1 2014).

Q1 2012 revenue was $925 Million and Nvidia is forecasting just $940 million for Q1 2013. That's not a particularly strong guidance which likely means no new products in the GPU space from NV in all of Q1 2013. The Titan won't even make a dent to matter here. Sounds like refresh GK114 won't be launching Q1 2013 then with such a low guidance.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1

Last edited by RussianSensation; 02-13-2013 at 10:08 PM.
RussianSensation is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:26 PM   #1042
tviceman
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
Problem is Tegra 4 is having trouble getting any significant design wins.
I'm not about to get into a deep financial discussion, but Tegra 4 isn't even out yet. Nvidia has said several times Tegra 4 has more design wins at this stage than Tegra 3 did. Neither you nor I have any idea what products Tegra 4 is going to end up in other than Shield.
tviceman is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:31 PM   #1043
notty22
Diamond Member
 
notty22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Beantown
Posts: 3,263
Default

Wait, financials are a sore point for some in the VCg forum? And now, good results are really not? lol/
__________________
I5 750@3940mhz , Gigabyte p55 ud4p
1600mhz ddr3 4GB
GTX 660 2gb SC
Let's make sure history never forgets... the name... 'Enterprise'. Picard out.
notty22 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:32 PM   #1044
tviceman
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodisanAtheist View Post
Its unfortunate that we're watching a two horse race in an ever shrinking market.
CFO commentary from the quarterly results:
Quote:
The GPU business grew 2.0 percent over the prior fiscal year, despite the $173.1 million decline in revenue from chipset products, which were discontinued. Excluding chipset product revenue, the GPU business grew 8.0 percent.
8% growth is not shrinking.
tviceman is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 10:33 PM   #1045
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
 
BallaTheFeared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
Q1 2012 revenue was $925 Million and Nvidia is forecasting just $940 million for Q1 2013.
Wut?
BallaTheFeared is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 11:25 PM   #1046
Raghu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
-- Quarter over Quarter (Q4 2012 vs. Q3 2012) is where you can see that NV didn't have a stellar quarter. Revenues were down, OPEX up, net income down. Specifically, the GPU business had revenue of $832.5 million, down $61.7 million or 6.9 percent sequentially. The sequential decline stems from desktop GPUs (pg. 4)
This is seasonal and expected every year. The Q next to holiday season is always leaner than the holiday Q. Comparing to the Q from last year should be a better metric.
Raghu is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 11:42 PM   #1047
blastingcap
Diamond Member
 
blastingcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by notty22 View Post
Wait, financials are a sore point for some in the VCg forum? And now, good results are really not? lol/
You may jokes about this but it's no laughing matter to me. AMD drivers have long been shakier than NV's for multi-GPU, and if the company is dragged down by the crappy CPU results, it may mean fewer and fewer resources left for AMD's GPU staff to the point where even single-GPU drivers are negatively impacted.

For similar reasons, I always think twice about buying high-end camera gear from a manufacturer that isn't doing well financially. I don't want to be stuck with a bunch of gear made by a defunct company (losing a lot of resale value in the process). AMD cards wouldn't lose TOO much value overnight if AMD went into bankruptcy, but the loss of support and parts for RMA and such, would make me nervous.

I'm also worried about the implications for price/perf in the long term if AMD goes into Ch. 11 (reorg) or Ch. 7 bankruptcy (liquidation). If NV has a de facto monopoly on desktop GPUs, what is to keep them from jacking up prices and given a worse price/perf ratio?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoFox View Post
We had to suffer polygonal boobs for a decade because of selfish corporate reasons.
Main: 3570K + R9 290 CF + Crucial 16GB 1866 + AsRock Extreme4 Z77 + Eyefinity 5760x1080 eIPS

NAS and HTPC/workstation: Supermicro MBD-X9SCM + G530 + 16GB ECC; ASUS P8B WS + i3-3220; 1.1TB of Intel/Crucial/Samsung SSDs + 26TB of WD/Hitachi HDDs
blastingcap is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 11:59 PM   #1048
OCGuy
Lifer
 
OCGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: CA
Posts: 26,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
How did you manage that?
See the post below your response...was F5ing Newegg, who got Fermi first...had it early delivery next morning....was posting screen shots on this forum by afternoon. Couldnt find anyone else who claimed to have a retail card delivered by that point. Obviously doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I had to be one of the first.

Edit: Found the thread. Reading through it, there was very limited availability. I remember 480 selling out almost instantly it seemed:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthre...ghlight=gtx480


Bring on Titan..
__________________
4670k @ 4.2
MSI Gaming GTX770 @ 1246/7500

Last edited by OCGuy; 02-14-2013 at 12:04 AM.
OCGuy is offline  
Old 02-14-2013, 12:07 AM   #1049
GodisanAtheist
Senior Member
 
GodisanAtheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tviceman View Post
CFO commentary from the quarterly results:


8% growth is not shrinking.
I'm assuming that's in reference to Nvidia, since AMD still makes chipsets and their quarterly reports never have the words growth and revenue in them *Zing*

Anyhow, I am unsurprised that Nvidia is seeing revenue growth in GPUs by cutting production cost (die size) while increasing/holding steady the price. I also am not sure whether the term "GPU Market" also includes their relatively successful Tesla line of cards as well. Lastly, Nvidia's revenue growth could very well be coming at the expense of AMD. Nvidia could gain 8%, total card revenue for all vendors can drop 10% and that would just mean AMD is getting slaughtered (which keeps happening) absorbing Nvidia's gains into their marketshare along with a shrinking market.

Anyhow, that was probably the most marginal point in my entire post.
__________________
The Mothership:
Intel Q9550 @ 3.8Ghz | Gigabyte EP45-UD3L | Corsair H50 | 8Gb Gskill @ 900Mhz 4/4/4/12 |XFX HD7950 [925/1250/SV]| 1x Samsung 830 120gb/1x Spinpoint F3 1TB/1x Spinpoint F4 2tb
R.I.P. MSI GTX460. Your years of dedicated service will be missed.
GodisanAtheist is offline  
Old 02-14-2013, 04:03 AM   #1050
Ibra
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
$549 / $369 is a 48.78% price increase.

1) Fastest single GPU in the hands of enthusiasts 13 months since launch, delivered at historical NV/ATI price levels (nothing unusual);

2) Paid itself off with bitcoin mining (and still making $);

3) Sufficient 3GB VRAM for mods, something that NV charges for extra on GTX680 4GB;

4) Still superior resale residual/staying value to $499 GTX480, $499 GTX580 or $649 GTX280. 1.5 years since 480 launched it was on sale on Newegg for $175-225. GTX280 launched for $649, 1 month later NV had to drop prices to $499, 9 months later HD4890 matched it for $259 (GTX285 was going for $350 just 9 months after 280 launched); GTX580 was $499 and about 17 months later HD7850 delivered this level of performance for $175 with OC. There is no card in sight for $175 that can beat an HD7970 with OC;

5) Beats the 680 consistently at 1600P and in multi-monitor gaming, including in most demanding PC games (Metro 2033, Crysis 1-2, BF3, DirectCompute titles, etc.)

6) Shipped with enthusiast overclocking features for no extra cost (dual bios switch, voltage unlock).

7) NV is raising the price from $499 of GTX580 to $899 for the Titan (80.16% increase) (this is actually unusual).

8) If AMD didn't raise prices on their products, the higher cost of 28nm wafers would have likely made sure their GPU division lost $ every single quarter in 2012 and 2013. If AMD goes bankrupt, Point #7 becomes $899 ---> $1,499 for flagship NV GPUs or NV releases new generations at a much slower pace, milking minor performance bumps.

9) NV couldn't get GK100/110 out on time last year under any circumstances (Proof: 6 months delay for the entire GTX660Ti and below desktop line, corporate clients like Oak Ridge only started getting deliveries of K20 chips by late Fall 2012 suggesting a huge backlog of Tesla cards from unfulfilled contracts, limited 10K unit launch for Titan in early 2013 ==> means this GK110 Titan chip was unmanufacturable in March 2012).

10) If people thought GTX680 was really mid-range, and NV purposely held back GK110, why did the proceed to give NV $500 of their $ for a mid-range chip and then blame AMD for these prices? A rational consumer would then find both HD7970 and 680 overpriced and skip them entirely assuming they truly believe that both companies are overcharging them. No one put a gun to anyone's head to buy GK104 for $500 or GTX690 for $1K. Since people did, NV knows people will pay those prices, so why lower them? You seem to be placing the high prices 100% as AMD's fault.....NV's consumers had nothing to do with buying mid-range GK104 at $500 you are saying?

11) 8800GTX beat HD2900XT/3870 by about 50%, similar to what the Titan is rumored to beat HD7970GE for. NV priced 8800GTX at $599 though, not $899. You still blaming AMD for letting NV raise the price given a similar differential in performance between 8800GTX and 2900XT/3870? Not logical.

Any questions?
No questions. Just fact: AMD still loosing money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by badb0y View Post
Do nVidia Focus Group members get all the new hardware or is it at the discretion of nVidia?
Ask RussianSensation. If he doesn't write AMD Focus Group under the sig doesn't mean he's not into it. Both Groups can't have big differences.
Ibra is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.