8800gtx actually offers pretty good value

[Centurin]

I found this link quite interesting. Some evidence for my $800 prediction.

Link

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Centurin
I find it rather silly that people think the 8800GTX will be a bargain. The card will likely sell for over $800 bucks. MSRP is never a good indicator for price, especially a new product. I plan on buying an 8800GTS myself, but I don't expect that to be a bargain either. Top of the line graphics cards are never a bargain. Why you ask? Because even the latest games don't require them to play on a high graphics setting. D10 games will not be common place in 2007. The money is in DX9 until Vista becomes the staple. And by that time, newer graphics cards will be out. So I agree with Josh that 8800GTX and all flagship video cards are never a bargain when they are first released.

I'd have to disagree with you there unless you're talking about running the game at 1280x1024 or below. Oblivion, FEAR and others will make newer cards cry at high graphic settings at 1600x1200 or above.

 

[Genx87]

The amount of upgrading I am doing, 600 bucks for a GPU isnt that bad. Roll it into the cost of the system and am I still under ~1600 bucks for a nice rig that will last me the next 24-32 months.

 

[beggerking]

the price of memory, cpu, mb, hd went down so much over the years just to offset the rising price of graphic cards.. $600 is very expensive when you compare it to other parts in your pc..

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

In reality top end GPU's shouldnt even be costing $350.

But what if the card costs more than $350 to make (which it probably does)?

Are you advocating the hardware vendor sells it at a loss? Or would you prefer the hardware vendor not to release it all?

This comment is spot on. These cards aren't cheap to manufacture, and the margin is fairly low (we're talking low double digits). The margins grow smaller on the midrange cards (to the single digits).

 

[40sTheme]

Originally posted by: RobertR1
It really doesn't. If we had Vista and DX10 games out to where the card could be used for next gen performance, then you have a point.

By the time DX10 and vista roll around there will already be a refresh and the R600 out. I'll check back then. Until then, for the games I'm playing my x1900xtx does the job.

*AHEM* DX9 still exists.
This card is going to rawk DX9.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Ronin

Originally posted by: BFG10K

In reality top end GPU's shouldnt even be costing $350.

But what if the card costs more than $350 to make (which it probably does)?

Are you advocating the hardware vendor sells it at a loss? Or would you prefer the hardware vendor not to release it all?

This comment is spot on. These cards aren't cheap to manufacture, and the margin is fairly low (we're talking low double digits). The margins grow smaller on the midrange cards (to the single digits).

The prices are pretty much artificial and there is no reason for a consumer to worry about NV's margin. (Unless s/he have their stocks) I mean, why? Hardware vendors do sell stuff at a loss for various reasons but in the end it comes down to supply and demand (which in itself can be artificial, like by marketing). What NV and AIB/retailers will do is to charge as much as customers will pay. And margins are decided on that basis. As a consumer, voicing on complaints and, ultimately, voting with her/his wallet are absolutely justifiable.

I've never understood why some folks worry so much about ATI/NV's margins. Again, if they're shareholders then I can understand. Low double digits? Heh.. that's smart! :laugh:

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Ronin

Originally posted by: BFG10K

In reality top end GPU's shouldnt even be costing $350.

But what if the card costs more than $350 to make (which it probably does)?

Are you advocating the hardware vendor sells it at a loss? Or would you prefer the hardware vendor not to release it all?

This comment is spot on. These cards aren't cheap to manufacture, and the margin is fairly low (we're talking low double digits). The margins grow smaller on the midrange cards (to the single digits).

So then how can they sell a card for 800 bucks (assuming low xx.oo's there) and then later, sell it for 300?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Ronin

Originally posted by: BFG10K

In reality top end GPU's shouldnt even be costing $350.

But what if the card costs more than $350 to make (which it probably does)?

Are you advocating the hardware vendor sells it at a loss? Or would you prefer the hardware vendor not to release it all?

This comment is spot on. These cards aren't cheap to manufacture, and the margin is fairly low (we're talking low double digits). The margins grow smaller on the midrange cards (to the single digits).

So then how can they sell a card for 800 bucks (assuming low xx.oo's there) and then later, sell it for 300?

Economies of scale and process improvements. But I dont think Nvidia and ATI are really selling these things at a loss or with low margins. Nvidia operating margins are pushing 40% and ATI is about 30%.

Now the OEMs like EVGA and ASUS may be a different story.

/shrug

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

So you've got Nvidia taking the lion's share, then the OEMs, and then the retailers. The actual manufacturing cost could well be less than half of the final retail price. No one in the chain is going to lose money.

Of course there's also R&D and overhead for buildings/equipment/employees.

 

[Nelsieus]

Originally posted by: thilan29
I would never have called you a fanboy if you hadn't for some reason said "pro-reddie"... and all because I'm not as enthusiastic about a card that hasn't even been benched properly yet. Excuse my pro-reddieness for saving my enthusiasm and praise until I see proper benchmarks from sites such as AT, Xbitlabs, FS, and Techreport. WHEN this card is released in quantity and benched properly (and shows what will in all likelyhood be amazing performance)....then I'd heartily buy and recommend it to anyone.

Anyway, enough OT. Wednesday can't come soon enough. I just hope Canadian prices aren't extremely high.

Agreed.

Nelsieus

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
So you've got Nvidia taking the lion's share, then the OEMs, and then the retailers. The actual manufacturing cost could well be less than half of the final retail price. No one in the chain is going to lose money.

Of course there's also R&D and overhead for buildings/equipment/employees.

Honestly, I would be surprised if the actual manufacturing costs more than 50-70 bucks for Nvidia per chip. They probably selling for ~120-150 bucks to an OEM. Who slaps another 150-200 bucks worth of components on it then sells it to a retailer for 500 bucks who sells it you for 600.

Just a guess.

 

[Nelsieus]

Originally posted by: josh6079
I believe that price is an effect of the product's availability and if there is a good supply of cards that can be readily distributed. By introducing a GPU that costs $600 or more and whose price isn't the result of gouging and low-availability, we're not dealing with a good value, we're dealing with the normal outrageous prices that come with recently released, top-of-the-line hardware.

Yea, but as another member pointed out, as GPU technology advances and the features grow more rapid, I don't think it's that farfetched to expect an ultra-highend card around the $650 mark, and still offer desirable margins for the company. G80 is about a little more than twice the size of G71 (both of which are on 90nm).

Originally posted by: josh6079It'd be like, $1,000 for an X6800. It's the flagship and yes it has the capabilities to out-pace it's "crippled" siblings, but if you want a good price/performance the X6800 is not it. An overclocked, heck even a stock, E6600 would do just fine and cost a great deal less.

Agreed. But there will always be enthusiasts who desire the best where money really isn't a significant limit. And it's good these people have that option, while the more conservative buyers have thier choice, as well (the Geforce 8800GTS).

Originally posted by: josh6079When I said, "I mean, actually being able to buy the card and play a game instead of waiting comes hand in hand with a good video card launch, right?" it was in regards to your statement that I was: "...underestimating the value of getting a GPU and gaming on it, instead of waiting until something better came along."

When you implied that I didn't appreciate the value of being able to buy a GPU and game on it instead of waiting to get a GPU to game on, I said that I do appreciate it since such is the attribute of a good launch and I appreciate good launches. Being able to buy the GPU and game on it instead of waiting to get a GPU to game on is exactly what determines if a product has a hard-launch or a paper-launch. However, if the price becomes a conflicting factor with that decision, the waiting game becomes a totally different goal since it isn't necessarily waiting for another GPU to arrive but rather the price for the GPU that's already present to decline.

Ok, I think I get your point now, and yes, I agree.

Originally posted by: josh6079THANK YOU NELSIEUS!!! :thumbsup: :beer:

You've vaquished my concerns with nVidia's upcoming AF IQ.

**Breathes a sigh of relief**

It was going to be one of the deciding factors for me on whether I would get G80 this winter or stick it out for R600. Now I'm relieved to know I can choose the former (which means gaming sooner)

Nelsieus

 

[BFG10K]

The prices are pretty much artificial and there is no reason for a consumer to worry about NV's margin. (Unless s/he have their stocks) I mean, why?

I agree, consumers don't have to worry about nVidia's margins but nVidia certainly does. They have to recoup the millions invested into the R&D of new technologies and high-end cards are the first place to start.

So then how can they sell a card for 800 bucks (assuming low xx.oo's there) and then later, sell it for 300?

Possible reasons include better manufacturing processes and the fact that they've already made enough money at the previous value.

Honestly, I would be surprised if the actual manufacturing costs more than 50-70 bucks for Nvidia per chip.

But again manufacturing cost is just one part of the equation. The constant R&D costs for new products needs to be recouped somehow as well. Then you've got support costs like driver development as well.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: 40sTheme

Originally posted by: RobertR1
It really doesn't. If we had Vista and DX10 games out to where the card could be used for next gen performance, then you have a point.

By the time DX10 and vista roll around there will already be a refresh and the R600 out. I'll check back then. Until then, for the games I'm playing my x1900xtx does the job.

*AHEM* DX9 still exists.
This card is going to rawk DX9.

RobertR1 is a die hard fanatic (just check his post history). I doubt anything would convince him G80 is better, and frankly, there are more worthy homes for G80 than his.

 

[Nelsieus]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

The prices are pretty much artificial and there is no reason for a consumer to worry about NV's margin. (Unless s/he have their stocks) I mean, why?

I agree, consumers don't have to worry about nVidia's margins but nVidia certainly does. They have to recoup the millions invested into the R&D of new technologies and high-end cards are the first place to start.

So then how can they sell a card for 800 bucks (assuming low xx.oo's there) and then later, sell it for 300?

Possible reasons include better manufacturing processes and the fact that they've already made enough money at the previous value.

Agreed. If we look at nVidia's strategy the last two years, they've used a current architecture (NV40), made minor tweaks here and there, and carried it over to the G70 generation - where since then, they have been enjoying marvelous margins (especially with G71).

I've seen this idea mentioned before, but that G90 will be based on G80 just like G70 was to NV40. And what they loose on G80 now (since it obviously won't be delivering the margins they enjoyed with G70/G71 based on its size and complexity), they'll gain with G90 from matured manufacturing and smaller process (potentially 45nm).

Nelsieus

 

[Gstanfor]

Its been that way for a long, long time GF1-GF2 (which encompassed GF256 SDR, GF256 DDR, GF2 GTS, Pro, Ultra, MX, MX200, MX400, IGP). GF3, GF4, GF-FX. NV40, G70,71. R200 and the tangled mess that followed, R300 thru R480...

It pretty much has to be done given the costs that go into developing a GPU architecture in the first place.

Being the first of a new generation G80 will be expensive compared to what will follow. Its unavoidable. Just look at the finished PCB. What you see there doesn't come cheap.

 

[redbox]

It is my OPINION that the 8800GTX is not a good value. It is on the other hand looks to be shaping up to be a good chip. I can't wait for it to launch! Let me explain why I think the 8800GTX is not a good value chip.

1.) It is the flagship card of a new architecture and those never come cheap.

2.) The games that this card is designed to play haven't even been released yet, not to say that it won't rock in DX9 games, it most certainly will, but we have yet to see if some of the features it supports will be supported by our current games.

3.) It has no competition. This means that NV will charge as much as it can for the card. I bought a G70 card only to be disappointed by it's performance compared to it's price. I will never make the mistake of buying a card with no competition. Look at what great cards Nvidia gave us when they had competition. the 7900gt was a good card for the money, the 7950gt was good as was the 7900gs. All of those great deals where a direct result of competition with ATI. The same thing happens with ATI's cards. The GTO are great price/performance cards because of one the need to get ride of surplus cores and also the need to compete.

The 8800gts looks to be pretty good card for the value user. The 8800GTX looks to be a pretty good card for the "Got-to-have" person.

As far as the need to buy the latest and greatest to be able to play new games ideaology, try turning down a few settings. I find that to be much more value minded than to drop $600+ on a new video card just to have the game maxed out. That type of behavior is researved for extreme hardware enthusiasts not value seaking buyers.

redbox

 

[Nelsieus]

Originally posted by: redbox
1.) It is the flagship card of a new architecture and those never come cheap.

Yea, I mostly agree with you, although on this point, I don't really think something has to necisarily be cheap in order for it to be a good value.

Let's say the be-all, end-all CPU came out that would last for the rest of your life and you'd never have to upgrade again (obviously this is a hypethetical statement ). And let's say it costed $10,000. Now, $10,000 isn't cheap, but would it be a good value?

Nelsieus

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: Nelsieus

Originally posted by: redbox
1.) It is the flagship card of a new architecture and those never come cheap.

Yea, I mostly agree with you, although on this point, I don't really think something has to necisarily be cheap in order for it to be a good value.

Let's say the be-all, end-all CPU came out that would last for the rest of your life and you'd never have to upgrade again (obviously this is a hypethetical statement ). And let's say it costed $10,000. Now, $10,000 isn't cheap, but would it be a good value?

Nelsieus

LOL Ya Nelsieus in that extreme example that particular chip would be a good investment. I get your point, but I don't think it applys to the 8800GTX. You assume that the person buying it will keep it for a long time, and some of our members may plan to do exactly that. There's nothing wrong with that mindset at all. Here is the deal. The person that is going to be buying this card at it's suggested launch price is going to be an enthusiast, simple as that. The problem with enthusiasts is that they are constantly changing their rigs. The users that usually keep their cards as long as possible are those than hunt for the best deal during their buying time. I think that those buyers will be drawn more towards the 8800gts than to the 8800GTX. Simply because it offers much of the same features but with a smaller price tag.

redbox

 

[Cookie Monster]

Yet, a user in hardOCP hs bought 2 of these things. Already running them in SLi, while EVGA is trying to make him return the cards..

One 8800GTS should be fine for me.

 

[Regs]

$600.00 is by no means a good value. If you ever took elementary marketing or have the least bit of common sense you'd would know that the first one to release the product will always aim high in price. Why? Because there will always be somebody else later down the road to release that same type of product for a cheaper price.

 

[josh6079]

Yea, but as another member pointed out, as GPU technology advances and the features grow more rapid, I don't think it's that farfetched to expect an ultra-highend card around the $650 mark...

I never said that it's farfetched to have such a ultra-highend option available. Just that it's farfetched to have such a ultra-highend option have a good price/performance ratio.

This whole thread is based around what the user values more, price/performance or flagship technology. There really isn't a wrong answer unless SpeedZealot369 gives us a more specified definition as to which "value" he's meaning.

But there will always be enthusiasts who desire the best where money really isn't a significant limit.

Then they'll value the flagship technology itself more than the price/performance it gives.

...while the more conservative buyers have thier choice, as well (the Geforce 8800GTS).

Then they'll value the price per performance and practicality aspect of the product more than knowing that they'll have the latest and greatest. It's just a matter of what aspect they consider more important to them.

I don't really think something has to necisarily be cheap in order for it to be a good value.

That's why you would probably be more of the type of person who values the flagship technology itself and what it offers instead of the type of person who likes a little more practicality in a product's price tag.

I'm one of those people too, but even I have standards that I just simply won't get into the habit of doing, like paying more than ~$500 for a video card. I respect flagship offerings and the work that a company has to do in order to bring that to consumers, yet I also respect the models that are intended to be more reasonable. There's a point where the product in question becomes less of a means for a practical upgrade and more of an attraction for the devoted enthusiast, and I believe that is where the 8800GTX and 8800GTS differ.

 

[Gstanfor]

Another perspective on value for money, provided by our friends (God knows I loathe posting anything by authored by Fraud), The Inquirer (somehow I don't think apoppin would have been keen to post this one despite his love affair with the inq in general).

BEFORE the reviews start popping up on Wednesday, we got the chance to get you some games numbers for the G80.

In Open GL based Quake 4, the Geforce 8800 GTX is faster than two ATI X1950 XTX cards in Crossfire.

The Geforce 8800 GTX scores a few frames faster in every single resolution with and without FSAA 4X and Aniso 8X.

In FEAR, Crossfire keeps it nose in front by seven to eight frames, without the effects on, but at 1600x1200 or higher resolutions the 8800 GTX card is faster. In FEAR with 4X FSAA and 16X Aniso on, Crossfire wins in three from four resolutions but it is never more than seven to eight frames faster.

We also know that you can play Battlefield 2142 at 1600x1200 all effects on and have a 100 FPS all the time. Nvidia really did a great job this time, it will be a worthy upgrade.

A single Nvidia G80, Geforce 8800 GTX card can beat a pair of ATI's fastest X1950 XTX cards! I think DAAMIT might have a problem until it releases its much-delayed R600 card, next year. µ

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Another perspective on value for money, provided by our friends (God knows I loathe posting anything by authored by Fraud), The Inquirer (somehow I don't think apoppin would have been keen to post this one despite his love affair with the inq in general).

BEFORE the reviews start popping up on Wednesday, we got the chance to get you some games numbers for the G80.

In Open GL based Quake 4, the Geforce 8800 GTX is faster than two ATI X1950 XTX cards in Crossfire.

The Geforce 8800 GTX scores a few frames faster in every single resolution with and without FSAA 4X and Aniso 8X.

In FEAR, Crossfire keeps it nose in front by seven to eight frames, without the effects on, but at 1600x1200 or higher resolutions the 8800 GTX card is faster. In FEAR with 4X FSAA and 16X Aniso on, Crossfire wins in three from four resolutions but it is never more than seven to eight frames faster.

We also know that you can play Battlefield 2142 at 1600x1200 all effects on and have a 100 FPS all the time. Nvidia really did a great job this time, it will be a worthy upgrade.

A single Nvidia G80, Geforce 8800 GTX card can beat a pair of ATI's fastest X1950 XTX cards! I think DAAMIT might have a problem until it releases its much-delayed R600 card, next year. µ

:Q

Anyone feel like the news just keeps getting better and better?