ATI partners don't want to reduce prices

[thilanliyan]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14527

I think it's good for ATI to win back some market share...if they sell a lot of cards at a lower price, they should make about the same profit as selling fewer cards at a higher price. And lower prices have the added benefit of mind share and possibly future sales.



Locking this up before it degenerates into another back and forth argument irrelevant to the topic.

AmberClad
Video Moderator

 

[nosfe]

which is exactly the point of the article, the board partners think that there's no need for a price cut because the cards are still selling well. I don't think there could be any other reason for the board partners to not want to cut the price, right?

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: nosfe
which is exactly the point of the article, the board partners think that there's no need for a price cut because the cards are still selling well. I don't think there could be any other reason for the board partners to not want to cut the price, right?

You're right...but they can sell MORE couldn't they if they lower the price?

 

[exar333]

I think AMD has put these companies in a hard place, with (I know it is strange to say) but too good of products at too reasonable a cost. LOL - not a problem for us though!

Anyway, looking at AMD's lineup, this is what you have:

4870x2
4870 1GB
4870 512MB
4850 1GB
4850 512MB
4830
4670

There is now only $75.00 between the 4870 and the 4830 in real street prices. That is basically a different SKU for every $10-15 range. Just like Nvidia has right now, AMD has too many mid-range cards overlapping in performance and pricing. The odd thing is that the community was complaining a few years back that there were'nt ENOUGH mid-range cards. This was when the 8800GTX and 8800 Ultra were king at $500.00 and everything else was much slower and cheaper.

With AMD coming out with the new 4890, I think the manufacturors know this will put downward pressure on the top two cards (4870 1GG and the x2).

It would be more beneficial to cut some of the cards and have a more simple product lineup (as follows):

4870x2
4890
4870 1GB
4850 512MB
4830
4670

This would better differentiate between the 4870 and the 4850, and allow the 4890 to slip in as the "top" single-GPU. It probably would make sense to replace the 4870 with the 4890 over time, but I know some people here might call that heresy...

Edit: SP

 

[MarcVenice]

They probably don't believe they can sell more, and see no reason to lower their margins. The GTX260 216c just start selling for $160 AR (MSI) and $170 AR (XFX) though. And there's some HD4870's 512mb cards selling for 155/165 dollar. There's one $170 1GB HD4870. The next one is $200. Those prices will have to lower a little to compete against $160-170 GTX260 216c-cards.

 

[error8]

Wow, 160 $ for a C216 gtx 260 is just beautiful.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
They probably don't believe they can sell more,

That could be true...if that's the case then yeah they shouldn't reduce the price.

 

[exar333]

Please don't flame me for this comment, but I amost see that AMD *HAS* to stay very competitive with prices to entice buyers. The reason being is that the Nvidia cards do come with a few extra features that many people like (such as CUDA and SLI). I have owned both companies cards and like them equally, but I would choose a comparably priced and comparably performing Nvidia card over the AMD equivalent because I do find CUDA to be very useful to me.

I think some of these companies also think that they may "cheapen" the image of the card as well. Average-Joe consumer might choose a GTX 260 over a 4870 because it costs $20 more and they translate that into being "Better", even though they are pretty much tied in performance.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
They probably don't believe they can sell more, and see no reason to lower their margins. The GTX260 216c just start selling for $160 AR (MSI) and $170 AR (XFX) though. And there's some HD4870's 512mb cards selling for 155/165 dollar. There's one $170 1GB HD4870. The next one is $200. Those prices will have to lower a little to compete against $160-170 GTX260 216c-cards.

Agreed. They should be $155-$170 to stick with the GTX260's. No reason to spend more on a 4870 when you can get a GTX260 for $160.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Please don't flame me for this comment, but I amost see that AMD *HAS* to stay very competitive with prices to entice buyers. The reason being is that the Nvidia cards do come with a few extra features that many people like (such as CUDA and SLI).

These are all just your personal impressions. I, for one, don't give a rat's ass for CUDA. There is nothing important that I can do with that.
Why are you saying that SLI is a special feature? Crossfire is the same with SLI, for the most part.

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

I think some of these companies also think that they may "cheapen" the image of the card as well. Average-Joe consumer might choose a GTX 260 over a 4870 because it costs $20 more and they translate that into being "Better", even though they are pretty much tied in performance.

The average Joe concept, usually translates into the unknowing person that buys a videocard from the store, without putting too much work into that. The average Joe can buy a 7300 GT with 2 gb of ram over the GTX 285, just because it has more ram, so that must be a powerful card. There is no pattern for the average Joe, he can do chaotic buys. :laugh: The average geek, however, will know what is what and will always make a smart buy.

 

[Lonyo]

They might see that lowering prices (and margins) would result in the same profit for them, but then you have to think that maybe they will lose future sales.
If everyone upgrades right now to a super cheap HD4870, then there is less scope for people upgrading again later this year.
If they sell less HD4870's at a higher price (resulting in the same money overall) and people don't buy anything else, then there is scope for them buying new products later in the year, so the company makes the same money now and more money later.
If they sell a very good product for cheap now, people will already have a very good product and be less likely to buy a slightly better product later.
That's pure speculation though.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Please don't flame me for this comment, but I amost see that AMD *HAS* to stay very competitive with prices to entice buyers. The reason being is that the Nvidia cards do come with a few extra features that many people like (such as CUDA and SLI).

These are all just your personal impressions. I, for one, don't give a rat's ass for CUDA. There is nothing important that I can do with that.
Why are you saying that SLI is a special feature? Crossfire is the same with SLI, for the most part.

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

I think some of these companies also think that they may "cheapen" the image of the card as well. Average-Joe consumer might choose a GTX 260 over a 4870 because it costs $20 more and they translate that into being "Better", even though they are pretty much tied in performance.

The average Joe concept, usually translates into the unknowing person that buys a videocard from the store, without putting too much work into that. The average Joe can buy a 7300 GT with 2 gb of ram over the GTX 285, just because it has more ram, so that must be a powerful card. There is no pattern for the average Joe, he can do chaotic buys. :laugh: The average geek, however, will know what is what and will always make a smart buy.

I would argue that "SLI" is more of a brand-name than "Crossfire". We (enthusiasts) understand these to be more or less equal, but MORE people have heard the term SLI and I would argue is more valuable from a marketing perspective.

Many people here on the forums DO care about other features such as CUDA. I find it a great addition to the Nvidia's products. It DOES add value to a product, but may NOT add value for a specific person. Don't confuse the two.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Many people here on the forums DO care about other features such as CUDA. I find it a great addition to the Nvidia's products. It DOES add value to a product, but may NOT add value for a specific person. Don't confuse the two.

I never said that CUDA is useless . It's only useless for me and probably for other persons too. CUDA is great for those that use it, like you for example and if I would have used it myself, of course that I would have bought a Nvidia card, there is no doubt about that. But as long as you don't need it, you might turn your eyes into the other camp, when buying a videocard, especially if it's cheaper.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
I think AMD has put these companies in a hard place, with (I know it is strange to say) but too good of products at too reasonable a cost. LOL - not a problem for us though!

Anyway, looking at AMD's lineup, this is what you have:

4870x2
4870 1GB
4870 512MB
4850 1GB
4850 512MB
4830
4670

There is now only $75.00 between the 4870 and the 4830 in real street prices. That is basically a different SKU for every $10-15 range. Just like Nvidia has right now, AMD has too many mid-range cards overlapping in performance and pricing. The odd thing is that the community was complaining a few years back that there were'nt ENOUGH mid-range cards. This was when the 8800GTX and 8800 Ultra were king at $500.00 and everything else was much slower and cheaper.

With AMD coming out with the new 4890, I think the manufacturors know this will put downward pressure on the top two cards (4870 1GG and the x2).

It would be more beneficial to cut some of the cards and have a more simple product lineup (as follows):

4870x2
4890
4870 1GB
4850 512MB
4830
4670

This would better differentiate between the 4870 and the 4850, and allow the 4890 to slip in as the "top" single-GPU. It probably would make sense to replace the 4870 with the 4890 over time, but I know some people here might call that heresy...

Edit: SP

You're forgetting the 4850x2.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Many people here on the forums DO care about other features such as CUDA. I find it a great addition to the Nvidia's products. It DOES add value to a product, but may NOT add value for a specific person. Don't confuse the two.

I never said that CUDA is useless . It's only useless for me and probably for other persons too. CUDA is great for those that use it, like you for example and if I would have used it myself, of course that I would have bought a Nvidia card, there is no doubt about that. But as long as you don't need it, you might turn your eyes into the other camp, when buying a videocard, especially if it's cheaper.

I think we agree.

That's why I originally went with a GTX 260 was due to it's price coming in right at the same as the 4870, but I had gotten used to the CUDA functionality. If the 4870 price cuts had hit a few months ago, I would honestly probably picked that up instead. The no-brainer here is the economy too, but the price cuts should help get their products out there.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333


I think we agree.

That's why I originally went with a GTX 260 was due to it's price coming in right at the same as the 4870, but I had gotten used to the CUDA functionality. If the 4870 price cuts had hit a few months ago, I would honestly probably picked that up instead. The no-brainer here is the economy too, but the price cuts should help get their products out there.

Actually, I originally wanted to buy a GTX 260. It seemed like a beast back then ( in the summer). But where I live, at that time, the difference in price between the Nvidia card and the 4870 was huge. I just couldn't afford the green team card no matter what. So I went with ATi for this once and I don't regret it. It gave me the same level of performance, but for less $ and that is a just a great thing.

But now prices are dropping on both sides like there is no tomorrow. It's a great time to buy a videocard.

 

[MarcVenice]

Any1 have good links to a review of a 4870 512mb vs a GTX260 216c ?

 

[SunnyD]

This explains why 4870 spot prices have gone up rather than down over the last week and a half. 3 weeks ago there were numerous 4870 1GB models under $200. This week - I think 2, with the vast majority having actually gone up in price $20-40.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Any1 have good links to a review of a 4870 512mb vs a GTX260 216c ?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3517&p=6


This review is one of Anandtech's newest and has both cards on the chart.

 

[Termie]

I've been watching this pretty carefully. In the last 10 days, the HD4870 1GB (Sapphire) went from $225 to $250 to $190 to $200. In the past 5 days, the HD4870 512MB (Sapphire) went from $150 to $170 to $180 (it sold out immediately at $150, but is back in stock). This may all have been a reaction to the GTS250 pricing announcement last week and the eventual listings on the web...now that they are selling for up to $25 more than they were announced at (GTS 250 1GB is $150-$175 on Newegg), ATI's board partners probably thought "what the heck were we afraid of?" Until all of those GTS250s (aka 9800GTX) cards come down in price to what Nvidia announced them at, I don't think we'll see the HD4870 go down to $150. Most here would agree that the HD4870 should be priced about a GTS250.

Frankly, Nvidia really has to get its act together. There is no reason that a GTS250 1GB should be listed at $175 on Newegg when GTX260s are available for $160-170. The GTX260 is clearly a good deal, and the GTS250 clearly has no place in the market above $150. Same goes for the GTS250 512MB - why oh why are these listed on Newegg from $130-$155? Unfortunately, ATI partners probably took the hint, leading to what seems to be an increase in HD4850 prices over the past week, pushing into 4870 territory.

Advice to anyone looking to buy...wait until this all blows over...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Any1 have good links to a review of a 4870 512mb vs a GTX260 216c ?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3517&p=6


This review is one of Anandtech's newest and has both cards on the chart.

Wow, when you look at the 1680x1050 res (a lot of us use that res) the 4870 512MB seems to be more of a competitor to the GTX280 than 260. At 1920 res it's a bit more even.

 

[Falloutboy]

couldn't this be more ati putting more pressure on nvidia? atis parts are cheaper ot make atm as far as I know, so forcing nvidia to match the lower prices might hurt them more, and would be a wash for ati if they pick up marketshar

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
couldn't this be more ati putting more pressure on nvidia? atis parts are cheaper ot make atm as far as I know, so forcing nvidia to match the lower prices might hurt them more, and would be a wash for ati if they pick up marketshar

I don't think Nvidia cards are more expensive then ATi's. Now GTX 260, 285, 250 are all made on 55 nm, the PCB is also cheaper then it was before, if I'm not mistaken. These cards should be on par at production costs with 4850, 4870 cards.

 

[nosfe]

doesn't quite matter which is cheaper to produce when both companies are hurting for cash as they didn't turn in a profit last quarter which makes these price wars all the more weirder, not that i'm complaining

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Termie
Frankly, Nvidia really has to get its act together. There is no reason that a GTS250 1GB should be listed at $175 on Newegg when GTX260s are available for $160-170. The GTX260 is clearly a good deal, and the GTS250 clearly has no place in the market above $150. Same goes for the GTS250 512MB - why oh why are these listed on Newegg from $130-$155? Unfortunately, ATI partners probably took the hint, leading to what seems to be an increase in HD4850 prices over the past week, pushing into 4870 territory.

probably because nvidia is trying to milk the 250 for as much money as they can.
personally, i'm interested in a 250, but not at the release price. i'm waiting for the 1gb model to hit $115, which i predict will happen in 2 months (with rebates probably).