Originally posted by: Creig
Once again, you're deliberately glossing over the fact that ATI can create a less expensive video card because their GPU has fewer transistors and they use GDDR5 which eliminates the need for a 512-bit bus. ATI can sell their cards cheaper because they're less expensive to produce.
No I'm not glossing over anything as I never made any comparisons to prices of parts, not to mention by doing so you're clearly glossing over the price premium for a more advanced process, a more expensive memory type, and more expensive components. Even if Nvidia's cards were more expensive to produce, they can afford to sell them at a lower price and generate as much profit simply because they sell 2 video cards for every ATI card. Its simple economies of scale.
And how can you not take price into consideration? Nvidia still had the fastest available video card even after the 4870 was released, but they certainly couldn't keep selling them for $650. They were the ones forced to drop their price because the much cheaper 4870 could deliver 80% of the GTX280s performance at less than 50% of its price. Nvidia stopped trying to charge $650 for them because they knew that nobody would pay that much after the 4870 was released.
Uh no, there would still be a % who would be willing to pay for that premium performance, just as there is for any other components. By dropping prices they simply chose to sell more cards for less margin, to get to similar revenue and profit targets.
Again I ask, do you have a detailed breakdown showing the ATI division's profit/loss statements? ie- separate from AMD as a whole. And Nvidia's as well to show possible recession trends?
And like I said, they are available on both company's web sites for all to see, publicly available. Detailed breakouts of market segments are there as well, although they're not plainly obvious and require some experience with navigating financial statements. Feel free to dig them up and if there's anything there you don't understand I'll do my best to explain them to you.
What that little diatribe had to do with the 48X0 series forcing Nvidia to lower price on its GT200 series is beyond me.
Rofl, it directly contradicts the point that ATI forced Nvidia to drop prices, when in fact, it was Nvidia's dominance over the previous 2 years that forced AMD to misprice their first winning part in years with the 4800 with their current pricing strategy. It clearly shows ATI also charged what the market would bear throughout history when they did actually have a 1st place part. Which all changed when they were forced to DRASTICALLY cut prices on the 2900XT even before launch, to completely cancel and place the 2900XTX on vaporware status, and to launch the 3800 as a firmly low to mid-range part from the outset.
The end result is that no one will ever pay for a high-end ATI part ever again because ATI has willingly priced themselves out of the high-end by low-balling their parts so badly. Any attempt to price a part higher will just be met with a willingness to wait until ATI again drops prices in an effort to compete. The 4890 is once again perfect proof of this, as it dropped overnight from a $269 part to a $200 part AR. This will ONLY change if they start beating Nvidia on the high end for sustained periods of time, something they haven't managed to accomplish since R300.
No, the 4890 and GTX275 are roughly equal. Some sites put the 4890 ahead, some put the 275 ahead. X-bit labs, which has performed the most extensive testing on both cards I've seen to date, puts the 4890 ahead at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, the GTX275 ahead at 2560x1600. Those findings also agree with the AT review.
No, the overwhelming majority of reviews showing the 275 is the faster part. For every review you pick that favors the 4890, you'll have 1-2 more that favor the 275. If they were equal, why drop the MSRP of the 4890? Why drop its price and add a rebate before the 275 even launched? Why drop it even further in price to pre-launch 4870 prices if it was equal? There's 2 answers here, neither of which are good outcomes for AMD: either the 275 is faster and the 4890 needed to drop its price to compete or AMD doesn't know how to run a business.
Which could very well be due to the depressed state of the world's economy. Purchasing a new video card definitely falls into the "disposable income" category, which is in somewhat short supply these days. I'd imagine that Nvidia's own sales are down as well.
Yep, while that's true, the emphasis was on the part "while prices were up", meaning they're selling fewer cards that cost more to make, a direct result of having to sell their entire single-GPU mid to high-end at bargain basement prices. I've said this numerous times, but when you start at $300, there's a lot less downward pricing mobility before you start hitting break-even thresholds.....
Facebook
Twitter