A History of Nvidia GeForce

[Head1985]

Everyone should watch this
Part1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j6TiSdKT0A
Part2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd1bp9eSfwo&t=

 

[f2bnp]

Yeah, these are pretty well done.

But, as always, some people will just completely ignore the fact that Nvidia has been selling mid-range chips at high-end/enthusiast prices .

 

[Tup3x]

Yeah, these are pretty well done.

But, as always, some people will just completely ignore the fact that Nvidia has been selling mid-range chips at high-end/enthusiast prices .

Using that logic AMD seems to sell high-end GPUs as mid-range chips but with enthusiast prices.

 

[OatisCampbell]

Yeah, these are pretty well done.

But, as always, some people will just completely ignore the fact that Nvidia has been selling mid-range chips at high-end/enthusiast prices .

If you had a product with no competition, would you sell it for less money than you could get for it?

Until someone delivers products that offer a compelling alternative NVIDIA will charge highh prices and vendors will mark them up more.

When prices reach a point customers won't pay they will drop in the absence of competition.

Also, what would you have them do other than ignore?

The only "complaint" that can possibly have any effect is refusal to buy.

 

[Dribble]

He is a bit disingenuous with his Nvidia did 70% then AMD stopped competing and Nvidia did 30%. If you look there are 4 hardware ways of increasing performance:
1) process
2) die size
3) power consumption
4) architecture

Basically during the 70% time Nvdia and AMD were increasing die size from early chips being less then 100mm2 to over 500mm2, and power from not a lot to about 250W. Once they both hit approx 500mm2 and 250W those 2 two methods were pretty well maxed. Then with only process and architecture left the improvements drop to 30%.

He also doesn't touch on software. So at first software was simple, both companies had similar performing software, by about the 680 Nvidia's software is a lot better and I guess a year ahead of AMD in that on release the 680 was competing with the 290, but you can improve software over time and given sufficient time AMD's software caught up and the 290 pulled away.

More recently AMD have fallen further behind and for example in DX11 have never had software as good as Nvidia's. That's another reason Nvidia has been able to get away with less - better software.

Finally for software I'd say Nvidia got really rich off the back of pro and HPC sales, and that was basically again software. The pro market values reliability and quick bug fixes, Nvidia has stayed well ahead of AMD here and hence they get all the pro sales even if AMD have just as good hardware. The HPC market requires specialist software, Nvidia have invested heavily in CUDA and that's basically why they own that market - not hardware.

So it was Nvidia's decision to invest heavily in software that enabled them to beat AMD (get rich) more then anything else imo. Obviously once you get ahead, just like in any strategy game you can then start to steamroll due to better finances so everything ends up better, but when it was tight in the 480-680 days it was investing in software that gave them the critical advantage.

 

[amenx]

Yeah, these are pretty well done.

But, as always, some people will just completely ignore the fact that Nvidia has been selling mid-range chips at high-end/enthusiast prices .

Yep.. and as we all know, when AMD released the 7970 at $549 and Nvidia the 680 at $499 which beat it, it really should have priced it at $350... because it was a mid-range card. The 7970 OTOH was fully justified being at $549 because.. it was a high end card. Performance should never be a factor in pricing it seems in our alternate reality.

 

[piesquared]

'nvidia geforce' Well that really rolls off the tongue doesnt it lol.

 

[railven]

I don't get why he was showing inflation values. It's not like the cost of hardware increased with the performance. If in 2002 $500 bought me X-performance, in 2017, $750 buys me 30X-performance. What's the point he was trying to make with this? EDIT: If anything, it more supports NV is pricing with inflation in mind versus screwing over consumers (and I know which NV is doing haha.)

Kicker was him stating he wouldn't make an AMD/ATI version of the videos. Probably wouldn't like what he sees there either.

My recap:
Video1-good info, loved the demos he through in.
Video2-sour grapes. Guess we should all be supporting AMD because they need money. I was supporting AMD/ATI for years. But he's out of his freaking mind if he thinks I should buy Vega just because AMD is struggling to compete. I'd rather work an extra day of overtime and get a $1500 Volta Titan than support a bad product [EDIT: because around here it needs to be pointed out, bad product - in my opinion.].

Guess I'm part of the problem, now.

 

[OatisCampbell]

Yep.. and as we all know, when AMD released the 7970 at $549 and Nvidia the 680 at $499 which beat it, it really should have priced it at $350... because it was a mid-range card. The 7970 OTOH was fully justified being at $549 because.. it was a high end card. Performance should never be a factor in pricing it seems in our alternate reality.

There's some decent logic here, and it illustrates further the problem we as consumers face in the absence of competing products.

Theoretically if the lowest end "poor Volta" beats 1080Ti by 20% NVIDIA can release it for $999, and then just start working their way up the ladder.

It's not "wrong" of them to do so, it's just business to use competitive advantage for maximum profit. Look at what LG has been doing for years with OLED tvs as an example. If you want that inky black and contrast ratio, pony up 2-3X what other tvs cost.

 

[OatisCampbell]

I don't get why he was showing inflation values. It's not like the cost of hardware increased with the performance. If in 2002 $500 bought me X-performance, in 2017, $750 buys me 30X-performance. What's the point he was trying to make with this? EDIT: If anything, it more supports NV is pricing with inflation in mind versus screwing over consumers (and I know which NV is doing haha.)

Kicker was him stating he wouldn't make an AMD/ATI version of the videos. Probably wouldn't like what he sees there either.

My recap:
Video1-good info, loved the demos he through in.
Video2-sour grapes. Guess we should all be supporting AMD because they need money. I was supporting AMD/ATI for years. But he's out of his freaking mind if he thinks I should buy Vega just because AMD is struggling to compete. I'd rather work an extra day of overtime and get a $1500 Volta Titan than support a bad product [EDIT: because around here it needs to be pointed out, bad product - in my opinion.].

Guess I'm part of the problem, now.

I don't think Vega in a vacuum is a bad product, it's really good enough for almost everyone.

Vega's problem is 1080/1080Ti are very GOOD products comparatively. (and Vega doesn't exist by itself)

 

[bystander36]

Some people whine and whine that Nvidia over charges for their GPU's, at the same time, will go on about how AMD loves us and gives a great deal for what you get.

Now image what would happen if Nvidia charged the prices you think they should. Let's say their 1080ti costs $400, 1080's at $300 and 1070's at $240. What would happen if Nvidia did this? AMD would not be capable of selling any cards, as they couldn't make a profit selling at a competitive price. AMD would go out of business, and Nvidia could charge what ever they wanted.

Are they being helpful to us, or hurtful to us for allowing AMD to exist, by charging higher prices than you think they should?

 

[tamz_msc]

I don't get why he was showing inflation values. It's not like the cost of hardware increased with the performance. If in 2002 $500 bought me X-performance, in 2017, $750 buys me 30X-performance. What's the point he was trying to make with this? EDIT: If anything, it more supports NV is pricing with inflation in mind versus screwing over consumers (and I know which NV is doing haha.)

Kicker was him stating he wouldn't make an AMD/ATI version of the videos. Probably wouldn't like what he sees there either.

My recap:
Video1-good info, loved the demos he through in.
Video2-sour grapes. Guess we should all be supporting AMD because they need money. I was supporting AMD/ATI for years. But he's out of his freaking mind if he thinks I should buy Vega just because AMD is struggling to compete. I'd rather work an extra day of overtime and get a $1500 Volta Titan than support a bad product [EDIT: because around here it needs to be pointed out, bad product - in my opinion.].

Guess I'm part of the problem, now.

It's my understanding that the showed the prices with inflation to point out how the price of ultra high-end GPUs hasn't changed much at all, but more importantly how a mid-range chip(compared to what we got previously) can now command a 700$ price(1080 FE), which hasn't happened before. This has also resulted in AMD asking higher prices than before for objectively worse cards - Vega 64 and to a lesser extent Vega 56.

Nowhere does he state in the second video that one should buy Vega as charity to AMD. He admits that AMD can only hope to sell them to hardcore fans like those on r/AMD. He concludes by saying that he doesn't see AMD return to the high-end in the foreseeable future.

 

[railven]

It's my understanding that the showed the prices with inflation to point out how the price of ultra high-end GPUs hasn't changed much at all, but more importantly how a mid-range chip(compared to what we got previously) can now command a 700$ price(1080 FE), which hasn't happened before. This has also resulted in AMD asking higher prices than before for objectively worse cards - Vega 64 and to a lesser extent Vega 56.

If his aim where to show the price increases, he should have shown more "GTX 460 was $230" clips instead of inflation images.

Nowhere does he state in the second video that one should buy Vega as charity to AMD. He admits that AMD can only hope to sell them to hardcore fans like those on r/AMD. He concludes by saying that he doesn't see AMD return to the high-end in the foreseeable future.

You must have missed his complaint regarding enthusiasts.

 

[Head1985]

He is a bit disingenuous with his Nvidia did 70% then AMD stopped competing and Nvidia did 30%. If you look there are 4 hardware ways of increasing performance:
1) process
2) die size
3) power consumption
4) architecture

Basically during the 70% time Nvdia and AMD were increasing die size from early chips being less then 100mm2 to over 500mm2, and power from not a lot to about 250W. Once they both hit approx 500mm2 and 250W those 2 two methods were pretty well maxed. Then with only process and architecture left the improvements drop to 30%.

He also doesn't touch on software. So at first software was simple, both companies had similar performing software, by about the 680 Nvidia's software is a lot better and I guess a year ahead of AMD in that on release the 680 was competing with the 290, but you can improve software over time and given sufficient time AMD's software caught up and the 290 pulled away.

More recently AMD have fallen further behind and for example in DX11 have never had software as good as Nvidia's. That's another reason Nvidia has been able to get away with less - better software.

Finally for software I'd say Nvidia got really rich off the back of pro and HPC sales, and that was basically again software. The pro market values reliability and quick bug fixes, Nvidia has stayed well ahead of AMD here and hence they get all the pro sales even if AMD have just as good hardware. The HPC market requires specialist software, Nvidia have invested heavily in CUDA and that's basically why they own that market - not hardware.

So it was Nvidia's decision to invest heavily in software that enabled them to beat AMD (get rich) more then anything else imo. Obviously once you get ahead, just like in any strategy game you can then start to steamroll due to better finances so everything ends up better, but when it was tight in the 480-680 days it was investing in software that gave them the critical advantage.

I think problem was GCN not software.GCN is just bad for dx11 gaming.It need low level API to even work at decent speed.
ATI always have reserves in drivers but even with bad drivers x1800XT just dostroyed 7800GTX because that architecture was just so much better than what Nv have at that time.With GCN AMD have both bad drivers and bad architecture to work with.
Btw nv manages better performance gain with kepler than with 8800GTX.
GTX680 was 189% faster than GTX560TI(both were mid range cards, only GTX680 was renamed form GTX660 to 680)
https://www.computerbase.de/2012-03/test-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680/12/
8800GTX was 186% faster than 7900GTX
https://www.computerbase.de/2006-11...gtx/28/#abschnitt_performancerating_qualitaet

Kepler was pretty much like R300 or 8800GTX.And AMD did release only bad GCN vs that.thats why Nv was able sell GTX660 as GTX680 and started this crazy prices with titan and so on.

 

[Qwertilot]

I don't think Vega in a vacuum is a bad product, it's really good enough for almost everyone.

Vega's problem is 1080/1080Ti are very GOOD products comparatively. (and Vega doesn't exist by itself)

For nearly everyone I think the current Vega would get implicated as 'bad' just for its crazy mad power draw - once you go quite that big you really need to hit your performance targets. Much more room further down.

Of course made a bit smaller, clocked sanely etc then it'd be OK

 

[tamz_msc]

If his aim where to show the price increases, he should have shown more "GTX 460 was $230" clips instead of inflation images.

His aim wasn't to show that there have been price increases. His point was that, taking inflation into account, ultra high-end cards have always been around 700-750$, and now a mid range GP104 costs the same.

You must have missed his complaint regarding enthusiasts.

His complaint regarding enthusiasts wasn't that they don't buy AMD, but that they normalized 700$ GP104 instead of voting with their wallets. He repeatedly points out that tech press has contributed to this as well, the old timers like Anand and Derek Wilson would've never accepted what's happening today. Why else does he repeatedly quote them from old reviews?

 

[bystander36]

But what if they sold the GP104 at $400 and the rest of their GPU's accordingly. What would AMD be able to do to compete? They base their pricing on relative performance of AMD's offerings. If they didn't, AMD would be in big trouble right now.

 

[tamz_msc]

But what if they sold the GP104 at $400 and the rest of their GPU's accordingly. What would AMD be able to do to compete? They base their pricing on relative performance of AMD's offerings. If they didn't, AMD would be in big trouble right now.

Then AMD has to make a product worth competing at 400$. NVIDIA publicly acknowledges that in their GPU roadmaps they wait for no one, but if Vega 56 was out in June last year we wouldn't have had the FE crap.

Intel crushing AMD back in the days of Bulldozer didn't result in AMD going out of the CPU business.

 

[bystander36]

Then AMD has to make a product worth competing at 400$. NVIDIA publicly acknowledges that in their GPU roadmaps they wait for no one, but if Vega 56 was out in June last year we wouldn't have had the FE crap.

Intel crushing AMD back in the days of Bulldozer didn't result in AMD going out of the CPU business.

If Intel priced their CPU's super cheap, they probably would have. My point is if the company with a superior product went into a price war, the weaker company would have a very hard time surviving. Of course there could be anti competitive laws to prevent that.

Nvidia pricing their GPU's based on their competitions price and performance is not bad for us. It allows AMD to exist, and be able to compete in the future.

 

[tamz_msc]

If Intel priced their CPU's super cheap, they probably would have. My point is if the company with a superior product went into a price war, the weaker company would have a very hard time surviving. Of course there could be anti competitive laws to prevent that.

Nvidia pricing their GPU's based on their competitions price and performance is not bad for us. It allows AMD to exist, and be able to compete in the future.

NVIDIA repeatedly claims that it's product placement has nothing to do with AMD, so AMD isn't surviving out of pity on NVIDIA's part. A similar thing has happened before, like the 8800GT vs 2900XT. ATI survived back then and came back with RV670 and then following it up with the RV770.

I don't see why AMD would have to resort to trade laws and regulations to survive now, unless they're incapable of coming up with an answer that is.

 

[bystander36]

NVIDIA repeatedly claims that it's product placement has nothing to do with AMD, so AMD isn't surviving out of pity on NVIDIA's part. A similar thing has happened before, like the 8800GT vs 2900XT. ATI survived back then and came back with RV670 and then following it up with the RV770.

I don't see why AMD would have to resort to trade laws and regulations to survive now, unless they're incapable of coming up with an answer that is.

And during that era you brought up, did Nvidia price the 8800GT like prior top products? No they didn't, they increased the prices.

Your examples are not representative of Nvidia pricing an 1080ti at $500, or a 1080 at $400 or so. Those are examples of the status quo. They are pricing their products based on their competition's level of competitiveness.

 

[tamz_msc]

And during that era you brought up, did Nvidia price the 8800GT like prior top products? No they didn't, they increased the prices.

Your examples are not representative of Nvidia pricing an 1080ti at $500, or a 1080 at $400 or so. Those are examples of the status quo. They are pricing their products based on their competition's level of competitiveness.

GPU launches were different back then. Both companies launched the biggest chip they could afford, there were no Titan-then-Ti shenanigans. 8800GTX was 600$ at launch, the real kicker being the 8800GT which upended the whole G80 lineup. That's better performance than a 400$ 2900XT but only at 250$.

Some time later the opposite happened with RV770 and GT200.

I'm not questioning the present status-quo, only your contention that NVIDIA maintaining that status-quo is what is allowing AMD Radeon to survive.

 

[bystander36]

GPU launches were different back then. Both companies launched the biggest chip they could afford, there were no Titan-then-Ti shenanigans. 8800GTX was 600$ at launch, the real kicker being the 8800GT which upended the whole G80 lineup. That's better performance than a 400$ 2900XT but only at 250$.

Some time later the opposite happened with RV770 and GT200.

I'm not questioning the present status-quo, only your contention that NVIDIA maintaining that status-quo is what is allowing AMD Radeon to survive.

If Nvidia and Intel wanted to remove AMD, which probably would be an Anti-trust issue, they'd simply enter a price war. AMD could only survive so long before they'd be out. They are not in the strongest position. They might handle a few years, but it would crush them eventually.

 

[tamz_msc]

If Nvidia and Intel wanted to remove AMD, which probably would be an Anti-trust issue, they'd simply enter a price war. AMD could only survive so long before they'd be out. They are not in the strongest position. They might handle a few years, but it would crush them eventually.

They didn't enter into a price war because they're more interested in keeping their lucrative margins. However, you're ignoring the fact that both companies have previously launched products at prices that made the competitor's much more expensive alternative irrelevant. ATi had some it's largest market share in history exactly when the HD 4870 made the GTX 280 irrelevant because it gave 85-90 percent of the performance of the 600$ GTX 280 while costing only 300$.

AMD can never improve it's high-end market share by competing at the same price points as NVIDIA. Nobody but dedicated fans buy high-end AMD cards. If AMD can make an RX 580 successor that offers 1080Ti Performance at 300$, only then would people take notice.

 

[bystander36]

They didn't enter into a price war because they're more interested in keeping their lucrative margins. However, you're ignoring the fact that both companies have previously launched products at prices that made the competitor's much more expensive alternative irrelevant. ATi had some it's largest market share in history exactly when the HD 4870 made the GTX 280 irrelevant because it gave 85-90 percent of the performance of the 600$ GTX 280 while costing only 300$.

AMD can never improve it's high-end market share by competing at the same price points as NVIDIA. Nobody but dedicated fans buy high-end AMD cards. If AMD can make an RX 580 successor that offers 1080Ti Performance at 300$, only then would people take notice.

You can say it doesn't matter, but no business can stay in business for very long if they sell their product for less than the cost to make it. Nvidia's motivation for higher prices may not be to help out AMD, but it does allow for AMD to make a little money.

Interestingly, I recalled there being a lawsuit against Nvidia in the past about prices, and I found this https://community.futuremark.com/fo...s-in-the-US-Class-Action-Slapped-Against-them

It would appear they had cooperated on prices in the past. I'm betting the lawsuit is why they'd be so adamant about saying they do not set prices based on AMD.