Question are video card prices headed down yet?

Page 146 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
28,664
21,172
146
Tim at Hub weighs in on gpu prices, namely that they suck. Puts the 3050 6Gb at $110. Basically says gpu's are $50-100 overpriced compared to previous gens and expectations of performance.

I appreciate his work, but it is no surprise to anyone here that GPU vendors and their partners are on the long list of corpo scum price gouging the consumer.

I'm don't like to overly rely on Ferengi math either, as it lacks nuance. There are features in some generations that add value for many perspective buyers those charts don't fully valuate. Nor the poll data fully reflect. If the buyer knows the gpu will be working hard an average of 30hrs+ a week, energy savings on their electric bill may be part of the equation. They may desire features exclusive to the new generation, adding to the value of the product for them.

For example: The chart showing improvement over time between the GTX 1070 and 4060ti 16GB is an effort in futility. So many features have been added, the ram has doubled; Ferengi math can't calculate that.
 
Feb 11, 2024
58
13
41
Tim at Hub weighs in on gpu prices, namely that they suck. Puts the 3050 6Gb at $110. Basically says gpu's are $50-100 overpriced compared to previous gens and expectations of performance.

But we all know the prices are fine except for budget. I am in a conundrum about what to buy. A 7600 rx for 250to save power a 6650xt for 200ish used or 240 new. A 6700 for 245. (Looks good? )
Nvidia looks more expensive and more power hungry but not for sure.
But compare that with what you got for 250 5 years ago. A 1070?
 

Aapje

Golden Member
Mar 21, 2022
1,434
1,954
106
@DAPUNISHER

I'm don't like to overly rely on Ferengi math either, as it lacks nuance.

The graphs actually already introduce nuance, like the distinction between inflation-compensated prices and non-compensated prices. The spoken text contains a lot more nuance still.

So I don't agree with your complaint. These kinds of comparisons actually provide a way to compare sentiments against fact, or simply give you a way to reflect on why you feel a certain way, even if those facts don't paint the full picture and can be interpreted differently.

They may desire features exclusive to the new generation, adding to the value of the product for them.

This only matters to the comparisons if the newer cards actually provide substantially better features than previous generations. Surely the people who answered the polls at HUB already factored in that they expect similar feature improvements as in the past. I'm not sure that this argument helps you much, because the VRAM increases have come more slowly, which is a common complaint. VRAM is obviously one of the main features that newer cards tend to improve upon. Stagnating VRAM would, all else being equal, make the newer cards worse upgrades than previous generations.

And one of the main touted features, RT, is considered to be a pretty mediocre feature by many & is something that is taking forever to trickly down the stack to more affordable price levels. This is something that Nvidia seems to strongly believe that we should be willing to pay a lot more for, but which actual buyers seem to not be so hot on, for the most part.

DLSS 2 is a majorly appreciated feature of the 20-series and up. On the other hand, in many cases it has helped older cards as well, extending their useful life, which makes newer cards less enticing. Even for the cards that don't support DLSS, you now have FSR 2.

I can't speak for others, but more me, raw horsepower + VRAM + strong drivers are way important than all the other features.

For example: The chart showing improvement over time between the GTX 1070 and 4060ti 16GB is an effort in futility. So many features have been added, the ram has doubled; Ferengi math can't calculate that.

But the 'Ferengi math' actually clearly shows one of the issues that people have with newer generations. The price increase of the 16 GB card over the 8 GB version means that you have to choose between a doubling of the performance in three generations for the same money, which people were used to, or actually getting a memory increase.

If you go back three generations from the 1070, you have the 670MX with 1.5 or 3 GB VRAM. So featurewise, someone who upgraded after three generations to the 1070 would get 2.5 to 5 times as much VRAM. If they then upgraded from the 1070 to the 4060 Ti, they would get 1-2 times as much VRAM, so less of an improvement in all cases. And if they upgraded to the 4070, they would get only 1.5 times as much VRAM. And of course, between the 670MX and 1070, other new features were introduced as well.

So I'm not seeing this amazing improvement in features that should cause us to want to upgrade more readily than the price/performance improvement would entice us to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,388
1,270
136
The graphs actually already introduce nuance, like the distinction between inflation-compensated prices and non-compensated prices. The spoken text contains a lot more nuance still.

So I don't agree with your complaint. These kinds of comparisons actually provide a way to compare sentiments against fact, or simply give you a way to reflect on why you feel a certain way, even if those facts don't paint the full picture and can be interpreted differently.

I can agree overall with your point I guess. I don't take more inflation numbers seriously as it itself is so variable and I haven't trusted the US CPI for over 15 years. Ultimately these are luxury goods and I'm going to compare their prices to historical trends and especially to other computer parts prices at the time of purchase. A midrange $500-600 card costs what a mid range or so cpu/ram/mobo costs.
 

Aapje

Golden Member
Mar 21, 2022
1,434
1,954
106
I don't take more inflation numbers seriously as it itself is so variable and I haven't trusted the US CPI for over 15 years.
That why I like that he added both the inflation-adjusted and raw dollar values, so you can judge for yourself how much you think that inflation should impact your willingness to pay more, by picking your own point between these two extremes.
 
Feb 11, 2024
58
13
41
How do 'we' know this?

You state something as if it is fact, that many people disagree with. At the very least you should support this statement with actual arguments.
I did compare a 4gb 300$ card with a 12gb card that is 50x faster for 300. Also 300 is worth like 200 now. So ... ya we are doing great for 100$ youbcan get a 5500 / 5500xt that will play amazing compared to a 8200gs that I paid 130 for. ;) really I have no budget for my next card. I put a 6800xt for the 7 year old and 5 year old gets the next card. A 300+$ 6800 doesn't sound best tho was hoping for 1 power connector.
 
Feb 11, 2024
58
13
41
I can agree overall with your point I guess. I don't take more inflation numbers seriously as it itself is so variable and I haven't trusted the US CPI for over 15 years. Ultimately these are luxury goods and I'm going to compare their prices to historical trends and especially to other computer parts prices at the time of purchase. A midrange $500-600 card costs what a mid range or so cpu/ram/mobo costs.
While it seems true. A 600 card is going to give you amazing high fps@4k. This was not even possible 10 years ago. A midrange setup should be 200 100 100 cpu mobo ram. If you want a fancy motherboard and not midrange then 200+ foe the board. I'm eyeing a 7700x 650-p pro gigabyte board with 32gb 6000mhz ram for 570 but that seems more than midrange. How much did you pay for your 6800gt and 2600k?
 

Aapje

Golden Member
Mar 21, 2022
1,434
1,954
106
I think that a major part of the dissatisfaction is that the mining boom made the 30-series short in supply and overpriced for most of the generation. So despite the 30-generation being quite decent, for the MSRP, lots of people missed out on it. Then they logically expected that if they waited for Ada just a little longer, they would at least be rewarded with another decent improvement in price/performance. When that didn't happen, they felt taken advantage of by Nvidia.
 
Feb 11, 2024
58
13
41
Hardware Unboxed got an average result of less than 58 FPS at 4K with a 4070 Super and 61 FPS with a 6900 GRE. So where are those $600 cards that giving high FPS at 4K?
Well a used 7900xt is 650 ;) I don't know what fps it will get but my 6800xt does amazing in cyberpunk unless u want raytracing shadows I think you will do great at 4k with a $600 gpu.

Checked out a review for 1080fe for $700 7 years ago. With cheesy games it did 30 fps or less @4k. Not playable.
So is a 7900gre for 500 a better deal 7 years later? I guess depends on your expectations. I'm just happy there are more than 2 choices.
 
Last edited:

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,388
1,270
136
Well, if I had a 4k monitor it might be a good deal, finally years later (4k was a joke for PC until maybe the 1080ti) but its not the great achievement you say it is. 1440p was being sold at $330 ten years ago. These days if you want a good 1440p card that isn't 1-2 years old tech you're paying $500-600. 5 years ago that was $400. Of course, those prices are on the two year upgrade plan in my opinion if we're talking about maintaining 60fps at your target resolution no matter it being HD, 2k, or 4k. If you want 120hz/fps you buy up a level in performance and screen resolution.

Every cpu I've bought in the last 15 years got 3 years minimum of use. In the last ten, I've had cpu's last 6-10 years. Buying cards meant for 1440p/top end 1080p has meant I've gotten 3-4 years of use out of them. The last good deal that wasn't crypto crash related was the gtx 1060 6GB at $250 retail and the RX 480/580 8GB at $270 (or 30+ less if u went reference cards).
 
Feb 11, 2024
58
13
41
Well, if I had a 4k monitor it might be a good deal, finally years later (4k was a joke for PC until maybe the 1080ti) but its not the great achievement you say it is. 1440p was being sold at $330 ten years ago. These days if you want a good 1440p card that isn't 1-2 years old tech you're paying $500-600. 5 years ago that was $400. Of course, those prices are on the two year upgrade plan in my opinion if we're talking about maintaining 60fps at your target resolution no matter it being HD, 2k, or 4k. If you want 120hz/fps you buy up a level in performance and screen resolution.

Every cpu I've bought in the last 15 years got 3 years minimum of use. In the last ten, I've had cpu's last 6-10 years. Buying cards meant for 1440p/top end 1080p has meant I've gotten 3-4 years of use out of them. The last good deal that wasn't crypto crash related was the gtx 1060 6GB at $250 retail and the RX 480/580 8GB at $270 (or 30+ less if u went reference cards).
So what fps do you want for 1440p? I pulled the trigger ok a rx 6700 for 240 xfx tri fan (also a good r3ason for higher prices better components backplate better cooling better power delivery. I am hoping my 5 year old will be ok with it at 1440. I like to turn off water reflections and particles floating in the air so it should be a solid 70-90fps @1440p in demanding games for $240. I think a 1060 for 250 is a terrible deal (even 1080p gaming wasn't great) compared to the rx 6700 at same price. Crypto definitely messed up the market but I kept a 1080ti since it was released.
 

DaaQ

Golden Member
Dec 8, 2018
1,333
957
136
Hardware Unboxed got an average result of less than 58 FPS at 4K with a 4070 Super and 61 FPS with a 6900 GRE. So where are those $600 cards that give high FPS at 4K?
I don't disagree with the sentiment. But I feel like HWUB has kinda went whirlpooling down the drain over the years. Do not like to give them views.

I would like to get a 7900XTX just to make it last 10 years like this GTX780 is doing atm. But I am going to have to buy a waterblock also, since the pre waterblocked ones seem to be OOS.

I only took the 780 because I could not get a R290X at MSRP at minimum. crypto had started.
 
Jul 27, 2020
16,824
10,772
106
I would like to get a 7900XTX just to make it last 10 years like this GTX780 is doing atm.
If you had gotten it at launch, that would've been fine. But at this point, waiting for RDNA4 seems better even if it's slower. You'll get longer period of driver support and it may have better raytracing and other updated features.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Ranulf

DaaQ

Golden Member
Dec 8, 2018
1,333
957
136
will see what's announced when i would be able to grab one. if prices go up from tiny box AH then won't consider it.