You said the increase was measly not that perf/$, which I wouldn't have disagreed with but Titan is nearly 100% of the 580, and a large increase over the $500 mid-range 680.
Why are you ignoring the existence of the GTX680? GTX280 was $649, 1 month later dropped to $499, 7 months later GTX285 came out for $349, 2 months later HD4890 came out with GTX280 level of performance for $259, 6 months later HD5850 came out for $269 besting GTX285 and HD5870 crushed the 285 for $370, then 6 months later GTX470 came out for $350. That's a healthy GPU market of trading blows back and forth and price drops and/or continuous performance increases.
vs.
Today's stagnating GPU market from both AMD and NV.
HD7970 came out at $549, then 2.5 months later GTX680 at $499, then 3 months later HD7970GE for $470 in retail. Then from June 21, 2012 to now, there has been almost no price drops on 7970GE/680 cards. Terrible. For a gamer, this generation is one of the worst in a long time. Bitcoin mining is the only thing that made it bearable.
February 2010 - I got my HD6950 for $230 and it unlocked into a 6970.
May 2013 - GTX660Ti on a very good sale is
$205 but it only offers
24-25% more performance, maybe 35% more when overlcocked. How are you not seeing this?
In 3 years and 3 months, there is almost nothing you can get that's 75-90% faster than HD6950 unlocked for $230. You need to pay ~$290 for a 7950 and overclock it.
If Titan isn't enough for 1600p then why has the 7970 been pitched since day 1 as a 1600p product. You linked 1600p benchmarks relentlessly against the 680 to show the 7970 in a better light.
Already stated this before: In 2012, for those people who were against multiple GPUs and specifically wanted to game on 1440P/1600P monitors, our forum often recommended HD7970 / 7970 OC because that was the fastest solution. That doesn't mean HD7970 was a fast enough solution. No one ever stated HD7970 OC is fast enough for 2013-2014 games at that resolution. In fact, a lot of us recommended getting GTX670 for those users since they could add a 2nd one later since we already anticipated that future games would level HD7970 OC at 1440P. I guess you missed those notes that came with the recommendations for the last 1.5 years regarding high rez monitor gaming.
Price wise it's a total win for Nvidia, high margin products are what every company wants and that's exactly what Titan is.
I don't work for AMD, Intel or NV. I want good value, not $ for NV's or AMD's shareholders. I am not blaming NV here. NV found a market niche that's willing to pay $1000 for GPUs. I just didnt' realize they were that many people who would pay $600 more for a 35% performance increase.
What you're saying about Titan is true for every other card, why buy a 7850 for $250 when you can get a 8850 for $250 with 60-100% more performance, with better efficiency? Why buy anything at all in this industry, it's all outdated sooner rather than later?
Buying a $250 card and it becoming outdated is a $250 cash outlay, not $1,000. How are these 2 even remotely comparable unless to you $250 and $1,000 is the same thing? There are certain times when it's better to buy a GPU. In the example you provided, if a gamer, and they could only afford a $250 GPU, they should have purchased HD7850 2GB for $250 in February of 2012 instead of waiting for 15-18 months to buy that GPU for $180 in 2013. The opportunity cost of waiting 15-18 months is not worth saving $70 in that case if they could already afford $250 in Feb of 2012. At a certain point on the technology curve, if you pay attention to GPUs, it becomes evident that certain GPUs are overpriced. For example, we knew HD7970 was overpriced at launch since NV didn't show its hand yet and we knew it carried the early adopter price premium. Many commented on it. We also knew that starting September 2011, GTX580 for $450 was overpriced since rumors of impeding HD7970 launch were around the corner. It's up to the consumer to sift through the information and make informed decisions.
The Titan is coming 1.5 years after 28nm GPUs launched. If it came out for $1,000 around January 2012, that would be totally different. You cannot rationally justify the Titan's price against HD7970/GTX680 since all of those GPUs are also overpriced today on the price/performance Moore's law/technology curve. In
July 2012, HD7970GE was $470, HD7950 was $320, GTX670 was about $350-380, GTX680 was $470-500. Fast forward and in May 2013 the 7950 is selling for $280-320, HD7970GE for $410, GTX680 for $450-470, GTX670 for $360-380. That makes all HD7950/7970/7970GE/670/680 overpriced today. By waiting nearly 12 months, the gamer would have only saved $40-50 on these cards. Since GPUs get cheaper over time for a similar level of performance and we are not seeing this with current prices for 28nm tech, that means GPU prices are a point of stagnation - i.e., the worst time to buy a GPU. This should not happen in the GPU market with rational consumers because the consumers are paying 2012 prices for 1-1.5 year old 28nm tech in May 2013. Why would someone do that, especially in the summer months when a lot of people go travelling and are outdoors, reducing the number of hours devoted to gaming? Think about it when HD7970GE after-market cards were $450 in summer of 2012 and almost 12 months later they are still $410. That's not irrational to you?
Not fast enough for the settings, but neither are the dual cards. So what's next, no cards are fast enough for these games or Titan is fast enough with proper settings?
The dual cards are fast enough if a single GPU was capable of putting down those frames without CF/SLI. In those benches, they are putting down 30-40% more performance than the Titan which is the 75-90% range from GTX680/7970GE I was talking about.
You're concerned about turning down settings with Titan, but ignoring the fact that every other card has to as well.
That's why in May 2013, GTX690/7990/Titan are all overpriced because GTX690 was available for $1000 more a year ago. Think of it this way if we expect GPU performance to increase 70-80% every 18-24 months, then in 12 months, the price of GTX690 has to either fall by 35-40%, or a GPU with 35-40% higher performance needs to come out at $1000. Neither of this happened which means that level of performance for $1000 is overpriced.
In Summary: on average GPUs have never been more overpriced than they are in 2013. Performance has not increased at all since June 2012 in the sub-$600 level. The Titan doesn't even count since it's <1% of the market. Normally we either get price drops, or 15-20% refresh bumps. These prices were acceptable in 2012 since that was the first half of 28nm generation. By mid-2013, these prices are no longer acceptable if we look at the price/performance technology curve since we are deep into the 2nd half of 28nm generation and prices have barely moved in 12 months. Unacceptable. Maybe GTX700 series will change this.
Facebook
Twitter