Yes, we need a high volume reasonably priced decent common denominator that lets the average gamer enjoy games in their full 1080p glory. Not the 1050/1650 crap.
Dannar26
Senior member
- Mar 13, 2012
- 754
- 142
- 106
Why stop there? Maybe the poors shouldn't be able to buy those either, they can rent consoles.
But that's just it my friend, they've pretty much abandoned the mid-lower end. When they finally get around to pushing out the xx60 class cards, they're now 400-500 MSRP. The stuff you could afford now if you could afford a 1060 back in the day? The untouchable segment. 3050...6500...terrible products. There was a reason their class was about $70 before this insanity set in. You could buy new RX 580s & 570s during holiday 2019 for around and even below $150. Ask me how I know
. My kids are still playing pretty much anything they're interested in at 1080p. In between card purchases I've gamed on them as well --a solid experience all around. Even if you're not in the segment, it's always sad to see the death of a segment. Even if you're the guy buying 4090's on launch day, you don't want the market to be comprised of only people like you. You'd see PC gaming start to dry up...and it would only be matter of time before the luxury halo high end starts not making sense to even your budget. You know, depending on how deep your pockets are. I mean, who wouldn't be pumped for GPUs as expensive as new cars!
We all know that cost of manufacture has gone up gen to gen. But... the 4090 has only gone up 8% in price over the 3090. While the much smaller die 4080 a whopping 70% over the 3080. Normally, the lower you go down in tiers, the higher sales volume generated. So whats their plan here? Produce more low margin, low yield, large die 4090s as thats where the demand is? While keeping the much lower cost 4080s @ $1200 and sell much fewer of them just to keep the price high? Sounds like a solid business plan.
coercitiv
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2014
- 7,257
- 17,098
- 136
Sure you do. Frame generation is one example. You are actively promoting the idea that frame generation is a fake performance uplift. I happen to fully agree with you, yet this puts us both at odds with expert engineers and scientists from Nvidia. These people have studied PC gaming latency in ways you and I cannot imagine in our wildest dreams. Nvidia had scientists develop DLSS3 and made sure to find ways to compensate for the latency penalty incurred during frame generation. The subjective experience of people using this tech seems to confirm it.
Feeling like an armchair expert yet?
What if I told you that senior executives at Nvidia, experts in their field, failed to properly name a card and had to unlaunch it. Sounds crazy, these people have decades of experience between them, there's no way they could behave like amateurs. And yet here we are. We all know how little expertise matters when some high level execs smell the scent of
So here's how I see things: you're fully entitled to your opinion that major cost increases are the main driver for the GPU price hikes. In the absence of clear information about production costs all we can do is guess based on second hand info. We're essentially guessing the origins of the tsunami by collectively reading ripples on the water surface all around the globe. No matter how strongly we feel about it, we all need to see the evolution of (several) quarterly financial reports to understand what is happening. But please, stop with the name calling and telling people they are delusional. Just because you disagree with me on a topic does not mean I'm having a meltdown.
Heartbreaker
Diamond Member
- Apr 3, 2006
- 5,049
- 6,620
- 136
It was reading NVidia's own information where I first found out how it was implemented and what the latency was.
So I'm not arguing with them on the facts of latency, or how it works, which I found out from NVidia themselves.
It's the misleading marketing of this feature that approaches false advertising that I disagree with.
I'm also not arguing they aren't good at marketing either. Their marketing experts are doing a great job of misleading people, so again, I am not claiming I know marketing better. In fact, I lament how good they have been at this.
I'm just saying that misleading people is not a good thing to do. I guess when can bring a expert in moral philosophy to chastise me on that one.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 22,768
- 12,776
- 136
I look forward to the day when I have to pay a subscription to activate the heated seats on my next video card.
Or not.
Stuka87
Diamond Member
- Dec 10, 2010
- 6,240
- 2,559
- 136
MPO causes issues for both nVidia and AMD GPUs. Forums are full of people complaining about issues in Chrome for both GPUs.
Aapje
Golden Member
- Mar 21, 2022
- 1,530
- 2,106
- 106
How good is their marketing really when their products are still the best if you disregard the nonsense?
Fanboys declaring that whatever poop 'their' company sells smells like roses and tastes of sweet candy is hardly something specific to Nvidia.
Heartbreaker
Diamond Member
- Apr 3, 2006
- 5,049
- 6,620
- 136
True for 7900 XTX, over XT, but the 4080 has better perf/$ than the 4090, so I think 4090 is just people will to pay for the Best of a generation:
Can you elaborate on this so-called "buggy silicon?" I'm out the loop.The extra 20% covers the bonuses for the hero engineers for shipping the card out despite being stuck with buggy silicon that badly needed a respin
Sorry, my bad. I was thinking of the RX 7900 XT. My brain totally didn't process "4070 Ti"
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,578
- 10,215
- 126
Doubling down oon my previous comments. If you want to buy new "high end", your options are limited:
RX 6800 XT: $750 if you manage to find one that might be available in a couple of weeks, of course more expensive models are available like for $1000
RX 69x0 XT: $920 if you are lucky but again, mostly out of stock or left-overs with remaining insane pricing >$1000
RX 7900 XT: $1010 best case if in stock
RX 7900 XTX: $1300 is cheapest supposedly possibly available within couple weeks (which also makes the XT not that bad compared to MSRP price difference)
RTX 4070 TI: $900 with a bit searching, $950 tons of stock
RTX 4080: $1450 for the ones in stock or higher
RTX 4090: >$2200 there are actually some available
What do you do with these prices?
Step down to a 67x0 XT for $470ish? Seems like the only sensible thing but then I want to get a new display and a 67xo XT on 4k? Despite all the reviews the 7900 XT doesn't look that bad. easy choice over 4070 TI just because of the vram. 6800 XT has the risk that you wait for 6 weeks only to realize it's not available or now a lot cheaper.
RX 6800 XT: $750 if you manage to find one that might be available in a couple of weeks, of course more expensive models are available like for $1000
RX 69x0 XT: $920 if you are lucky but again, mostly out of stock or left-overs with remaining insane pricing >$1000
RX 7900 XT: $1010 best case if in stock
RX 7900 XTX: $1300 is cheapest supposedly possibly available within couple weeks (which also makes the XT not that bad compared to MSRP price difference)
RTX 4070 TI: $900 with a bit searching, $950 tons of stock
RTX 4080: $1450 for the ones in stock or higher
RTX 4090: >$2200 there are actually some available
What do you do with these prices?
Step down to a 67x0 XT for $470ish? Seems like the only sensible thing but then I want to get a new display and a 67xo XT on 4k? Despite all the reviews the 7900 XT doesn't look that bad. easy choice over 4070 TI just because of the vram. 6800 XT has the risk that you wait for 6 weeks only to realize it's not available or now a lot cheaper.
Aapje
Golden Member
- Mar 21, 2022
- 1,530
- 2,106
- 106
My advice would be to not get a 4k display. That solves a lot of problems
Heartbreaker
Diamond Member
- Apr 3, 2006
- 5,049
- 6,620
- 136
Country? These seem a bit higher than USA pricing.
blckgrffn
Diamond Member
I guess those AMD direct 6900XTs for what, $650, are looking less shabby now? It's annoying when past pricing gets you more than current offerings. It's very counter intuitive. Welcome to the new age, I suppose.
Here is to hoping the new AMD midrange top SKU is at least cheaper than $650, is at least as fast as a 6900XT yet uses less power and has a cleaner power usage profile in general.
Big dreams here. /s
Here is to hoping the new AMD midrange top SKU is at least cheaper than $650, is at least as fast as a 6900XT yet uses less power and has a cleaner power usage profile in general.
Big dreams here. /s
GodisanAtheist
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2006
- 8,169
- 9,458
- 136
My advice would be to not get a 4k display. That solves a lot of problems
- You joke but this is actually really good advice. I went with a 1440p monitor instead of 4K back when I still had my 980ti cause it was not only a lot cheaper but there was also no way in hell my 980Ti was going to handle 4K.
The card aged much more gracefully, my new (used) card (6800XT) still feels like a massive upgrade, and I still have a larger monitor (27") with reasonable PPI.
Going 4K at this stage in the game is just asking to be one of those "The end of PC Gaming is nigh!" manic street preachers at this point.
My advice would be to not get a 4k display. That solves a lot of problems
It's just personal preference, but I like the extra vertical real-estate of 1440p. For some reason 1080p/2160p@16:9 feels "cramped" in the vertical department.
I'd much rather have a 5K (2880p) monitor, then a 4K one.
You guys realize that 1440p and 4k and 1080p are all the same aspect ratio, right?
GodisanAtheist
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2006
- 8,169
- 9,458
- 136
- A lot of ultrawide monitors get pitched as "4K" monitors, which can really muddle up the debate and understanding of what people are talking about when they say "4K".
It depends on what you use your monitor for. Only gaming? Sure, stick with 1440p. I've been using a 4k (27") monitor since 2018 and wouldn't go to a lower resolution. I use my computer for work 90% of the time and stare at it all day. When I got the 4k, I also bought a 1440p monitor to compare and decide which to keep. It was an easy decision. I've been using a 1070 this whole time (so same as your 980ti). Yes, I mainly played older games, but with the games backlogs everyone has that's not much of a loss. I'm getting a 7900xt tomorrow and will start playing newer games then. If you cannot see the difference between 4k and 1440p or don't care, that's great. But 4k is a big improvement, especially outside of gaming.
My advice would be to not get a 4k display. That solves a lot of problems
that is likley what I will do especially since for 4k means either huge TV-like monitor or dpi scaling defeating the purpose of having more workspace. (currentyl 144 hz 1080p 24" display)
Somewhere in Europe so yes prices are higher. price is with sales tax but it isn't that high, single digit compared to >20% in other EU countries.
Aye. Any 16:9 monitor still feels "cramped", but 1440p less so. I think it's the extra 360 vertical pixels compared with 1080p. I can't explain why 2160p feels exactly like 1080p to me.
I'd still rather work on a 16:10 monitor, but those seem to have died out.
biostud
Lifer
- Feb 27, 2003
- 19,808
- 6,898
- 136
Because you run 4k @ 200% dpi scaling?
Because you run 4k @ 200% dpi scaling?
That would be hilarious and it makes so much sense given the comment. Is also the second reason besided GPU prices for going 1440p vs 4k. 4k displays are usually 32 inch, way to high PPI for my taste so I would need to use DPI scaling. 4k has about same ppi at 42 vs a 27 1440p. so you either need a TV size monitor, good eyes or dpi scaling. even for 1440p I'm considering 32" (same ppi as the bog standard 24" 1080p I have now and at work)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter