Can someone explain Maxwell 750 / 750ti pricing to me?

[VirtualLarry]

Because, I just don't get the premium NV is charging. R7 260X (aka 7790) is $130. GTX 750 is the same price, maybe a little cheaper with rebates. The R7 260X is faster, and has twice the VRAM. GTX750ti is slightly faster in some games, and slightly slower in others. Yet it retails for $150-160, again, with only 1GB VRAM.

It would seems to me, that as long as you have a 6-pin, the R7 260X is significantly better from a price / performance perspective. Plus, it mines better.

 

[Silverforce11]

Power efficiency (thus less heat released), low profile variants for HTPC builds. These are good traits for some rigs.

 

[Mondozei]

Power efficiency (thus less heat released), low profile variants for HTPC builds. These are good traits for some rigs.

That, plus the usual Nvidia greed playing in.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The cheapest 260x 2gb that I saw on new egg was 140.00, not 130, and most were 150.00. Plus in this performance range, it is debatable how much difference 2gb of vram makes.

Mainly though, the 750ti is new tech, and new tech is generally expensive far a time. When you think about it, getting the performance of a 7790 without a six pin connector is amazing. Pretty much any OEM off the shelf system with a 300 watt power supply can be turned into a decent gaming rig by just adding this card. Where it should really shine though is in mobile, and could be amazing when 20 nm versions come out.

I agree though that if you have a good power supply, the 260x is a better value, but if one keeps the card a few years, the difference in power usage would mitigate the higher initial cost.

So I see it as somewhat overpriced, but not outrageous.

 

[Keysplayr]

Because, I just don't get the premium NV is charging. R7 260X (aka 7790) is $130. GTX 750 is the same price, maybe a little cheaper with rebates. The R7 260X is faster, and has twice the VRAM. GTX750ti is slightly faster in some games, and slightly slower in others. Yet it retails for $150-160, again, with only 1GB VRAM.

It would seems to me, that as long as you have a 6-pin, the R7 260X is significantly better from a price / performance perspective. Plus, it mines better.

750Ti has 2GB GDDR5. It is faster than the 260X overall. Can be found for 149 AR.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...CE&PageSize=20

750 can be had anywhere from 119 to 139.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...CE&PageSize=20

Power efficiency is stellar. That is important to many. Not all, but many. So, Not sure what you mean because it looks as though they are positioned properly or at lease within reasonable boundaries.
You also list the very cheapest I've ever seen of the 260X but it goes for 10.00 more than your estimate at it's lowest (that I've seen).

 

[VirtualLarry]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7764/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-ti-and-gtx-750-review-maxwell/24

"On a pure price/performance basis, the GTX 750 series is not competitive. If you’re in the sub-$150 market and looking solely at performance, the Radeon R7 260 series will be the way to go. But this requires forgoing NVIDIA’s ecosystem and their power efficiency advantage; if either of those matter to you, then the lower performance of the NVIDIA cards will justify their other advantages."

 

[krnmastersgt]

I think one of the other big draws is the problem my friend had using a pre-built office system and trying to add video card, not sure if enough amps on power supply, sometimes insufficient connectors, etc. One thing that nVidia is and should be marketing like crazy is that you don't have to worry about any of that because this is the most powerful card on the market that draws all it's required power from just the motherboard. About as plug and play an internal video card is going to get.

 

[3DVagabond]

I think one of the other big draws is the problem my friend had using a pre-built office system and trying to add video card, not sure if enough amps on power supply, sometimes insufficient connectors, etc. One thing that nVidia is and should be marketing like crazy is that you don't have to worry about any of that because this is the most powerful card on the market that draws all it's required power from just the motherboard. About as plug and play an internal video card is going to get.

This is the strongest feature of the card, IMO. OEM's should love it. nVidia will make a tidy sum off of it.

 

[BFG10K]

I like the power efficiency of the card and I look forward to seeing what the flagship single GPUs can do.

 

[Keysplayr]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7764/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-ti-and-gtx-750-review-maxwell/24

"On a pure price/performance basis, the GTX 750 series is not competitive. If you’re in the sub-$150 market and looking solely at performance, the Radeon R7 260 series will be the way to go. But this requires forgoing NVIDIA’s ecosystem and their power efficiency advantage; if either of those matter to you, then the lower performance of the NVIDIA cards will justify their other advantages."

Heh, not according to the benchmarks I've been seeing, or the pricing I've been seeing. The 750Ti Is usually equal to or faster than the 260X for about an average of 10 to 15 dollars more.
The 750 is of course slower than the 260X but is at around 120 dollars.
The 260X seems to be averaging around 140 dollars.

So based on these facts, the above quote doesn't really do justice to the actual price/performance rift between these cards.
I mean, this statement: "On a pure price/performance basis, the GTX 750 series is not competitive." Can't even remotely be taken seriously.

 

[jpiniero]

They are comparing the MSRP of the 750 Ti to the 265, which is theoretically $150 and is clearly faster. It would not be a shocker really if the real price rose on both the 260X and 265 so that they are in higher price brackets after the 750 Ti's release.

 

[Silverforce11]

I like the power efficiency of the card and I look forward to seeing what the flagship single GPUs can do.

Yes certainly if big Maxwell maintains this efficiency, AMD's next gen is going to look hungry, hot and pathetic in comparison! Not to mention Maxwell is a mining monster too.

Scary times ahead for AMD.

 

[TeknoBug]

Um, 750Ti with 1GB, are there any of those? Mine has 2GB.

And the 750Ti is better than a 7790, 260/260X but the 265 is about the same or better than the 750Ti and MSRP will be roughly $10 more at launch. I think pricing is about right. You know the 7770 still sells for a measly $120? Crazy.

I paid $160 for my 750Ti, can't complain, meanwhile the 260X is listed for $160 (for 1GB) to 180 (for 2GB).

 

[wand3r3r]

Heh, not according to the benchmarks I've been seeing, or the pricing I've been seeing. The 750Ti Is usually equal to or faster than the 260X for about an average of 10 to 15 dollars more.
The 750 is of course slower than the 260X but is at around 120 dollars.
The 260X seems to be averaging around 140 dollars.

So based on these facts, the above quote doesn't really do justice to the actual price/performance rift between these cards.
I mean, this statement: "On a pure price/performance basis, the GTX 750 series is not competitive." Can't even remotely be taken seriously.

How about linking these benchmarks that you are talking about which demonstrate your claim?

The price gouging phenomena isn't global, while AT is catering to a global audience.

 

[lavaheadache]

Was I out of it last night or was this thread locked?

It was locked, and later reopened.
-- stahlhart

 

[Will Robinson]

Yes certainly if big Maxwell maintains this efficiency, AMD's next gen is going to look hungry, hot and pathetic in comparison! Not to mention Maxwell is a mining monster too.

Scary times ahead for AMD.

You have some H/P/N numbers for Radeon R10?
Please elaborate.
People will buy "Big Maxwell" if its faster than R10 and similar perf/$...otherwise its all just rainbows and rocking horses.

High end gamers buy speed, not baby seal friendly "slow gen" cards.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Thanks for re-opening the thread, mods. More of my throughts around this matter got deposited in this thread, while the present one was locked.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2372568

That thread contains a link to the PaulsHardware YouTube video, with benchmarks. Note that he was benchmarking factory-overclocked cards for the 750 ti.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The 750 is of course slower than the 260X but is at around 120 dollars.
The 260X seems to be averaging around 140 dollars.

So based on these facts, the above quote doesn't really do justice to the actual price/performance rift between these cards.
I mean, this statement: "On a pure price/performance basis, the GTX 750 series is not competitive." Can't even remotely be taken seriously.

For the record, the quoted statement in my post, was taken directly from the AT web site's front-page Maxwell article, from their conclusion. I just posted it, because it coincided with what my personal conclusion was starting to form about it. See my thread about the PaulsHardware YouTube benchmarks for 750 ti for my further thoughts.

It seems that GPUs are now aiming for performance / watt, and (possibly? like CPUs?) abandoning absolute performance goals.

After all, wasn't the 650 ti Boost faster than the 750 ti in some cases (due to 192-bit memory bandwidth), and around the same price as a factory OCed 750 ti? Yet of course, less power efficiency.

Edit: The basis for my hypothesis in the OP, was basically based on these two cards I was considering in my price range:
(from my other thread)
1GB R7 260X $130
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161454
1GB 750 OC $125
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127782

Based on Pauls benchmarks, it seems like, if I have a 6-pin, I would be better off with the R7 260X.

Obviously, if you don't have a 6-pin available, then the new 750 / 750 ti are worth their weight in gold, so to speak.

I admit, my brain was a little bit fuzzy last night, and I was confusing the 1GB and 2GB models a bit. But for a $5 difference in price, based on the benchmarks on PaulsHardware, it would seem a 260X might be a wiser choice than a 750. But then you have to factor in the premium for adding a new PSU to an OEM machine (like my Lenovo i3 rig I want to upgrade). So then, it kind of becomes a comparison between "PSU + 260X" versus, 750 / 750 ti.

So I guess, part of the "premium" for the 750 ti, is saving money on a replacement PSU. Which makes more sense, I guess.

Kind of like the "premium" for AMD's APUs, because then (supposedly) you wouldn't need to spend extra on a discrete graphics card.

 

[tviceman]

The cheapest 2gb r7 260x on newegg is $139.
The cheapest 2gb gtx 750 ti on newegg is $159 + $10 MIR = $149.

The gtx 750 ti is anywhere from 5-15% faster than the r7 260x (depending on which review you read). Considering this, and the fact that it doesn't require an external power connector, makes the $10 premium justified IMO. The gtx 750's (NON-TI), however, are not price-competitive on a perf/$ standpoint vs. the r7 260x. So if you want a 1gb card, get one of the lesser expensive r7 260x. If you want a 2gb card, get the gtx 750 ti.

 

[Greenlepricon]

I personally ordered a 750ti to upgrade my HTPC/light gaming pc (currently reserved as my girlfriends SIMS 3 computer). I have a small power supply, only a little room for the card and cable management, and am really pushing for it to be quiet and power efficient. Now for those reasons, this GPU is perfect. Not only does it use almost as little power as my old 5670, it's quiet and will stay just as cool. For my main pc, I would never consider one of these cards at the price point, but I'm willing to pay a little extra for these features in my media pc.

 

[OCGuy]

They seem priced right to me. I can't wait to see what a 20/16nm shrink with the GM204/210 brings.

Fun times ahead.

 

[Subyman]

I hate to say it, but I think nvidia cards are more fluid than AMD. I'm certainly not a fan boy. My recent history is: 470 -> 6950 -> 680 -> 7970 -> 760 -> R9 290 -> 780 with a few others sprinkled in there. Every time I move back to Nvidia, my games seem to run smoother with less hitches. Vsync seems to work better and such. Maybe I'm crazy.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The cheapest 2gb r7 260x on newegg is $139.
The cheapest 2gb gtx 750 ti on newegg is $159 + $10 MIR = $149.

The gtx 750 ti is anywhere from 5-15% faster than the r7 260x (depending on which review you read). Considering this, and the fact that it doesn't require an external power connector, makes the $10 premium justified IMO. The gtx 750's (NON-TI), however, are not price-competitive on a perf/$ standpoint vs. the r7 260x. So if you want a 1gb card, get one of the lesser expensive r7 260x. If you want a 2gb card, get the gtx 750 ti.

If this was one of those question-and-answer forums, I would mark your post "the answer". Thanks for the succinct breakdown.

 

[wand3r3r]

The cheapest 2gb r7 260x on newegg is $139.
The cheapest 2gb gtx 750 ti on newegg is $159 + $10 MIR = $149.

The gtx 750 ti is anywhere from 5-15% faster than the r7 260x (depending on which review you read). Considering this, and the fact that it doesn't require an external power connector, makes the $10 premium justified IMO. The gtx 750's (NON-TI), however, are not price-competitive on a perf/$ standpoint vs. the r7 260x. So if you want a 1gb card, get one of the lesser expensive r7 260x. If you want a 2gb card, get the gtx 750 ti.

:thumbsup:

A solid post with data to back it up, well done!

 

[Keysplayr]

How about linking these benchmarks that you are talking about which demonstrate your claim?

The price gouging phenomena isn't global, while AT is catering to a global audience.

You need them? Haven't you been paying any attention to the 750 series launch? If you had, and I'm sure as an enthusiast you have, then you would not need any links. Why you require them is beyond me, but as you can see, Tviceman delivered. He is the man.