Current GPU Pricing

[RussianSensation]

Good grief, 7970 prices went down again. Just checked the egg and even aftermarket cards are around 440$, most of them are clocked 1050 to 1100....

Ya. If you notice though, the "Free 3 games" deal is missing for most HD7950/7970 cards now. While most people don't care, it's something AMD has had to pay for out of their pocket. It looks like the current 7970 cards are dropping to $429 (New MSRP for HD7970 I believe), right ahead of the launch of $499 HD7970 GE cards.

$20 more dollars price drops and HD7970 will be squarely in GTX670 territory. I wonder if the "new" $429 HD7970 cards will be as great overclockers as the "old" ones since AMD may be reallocating most of the better binned chips to the 7970 GE line. It's hard to believe that though since the 28nm node should have improved across the board and unless GE line becomes the majority of their sales, at least some 7970 should still get the better binned chips simply because on average most 7970 Tahiti chips should be made on a 6 months mature 28nm node. Hmm....

 

[greenhawk]

Which brings us back to why aren't they similarly priced? Why pay more for virtually the same performance?

supply and demand would be a good start.

Supply from issues in production (known for nVidia with there initial release) and demand which is from the customer's perceived value of the product.

 

[3DVagabond]

supply and demand would be a good start.

Supply from issues in production (known for nVidia with there initial release) and demand which is from the customer's perceived value of the product.

I totally understand supply and demand. The question is, at that price why is there still a demand? I could understand the 580. It wasn't good value, but it was the fastest and if that's what you want, that's going to cost extra. The 680 isn't, though. The 680 isn't any faster than the 670. Even if you prefer nVidia buying the 680 isn't good value.

Of course, maybe the fact that there's now so many 680's in stock means that demand isn't meeting the price. Maybe supply still sucks and people have just stopped buying it? Why isn't everyone screaming how much they are ripping us off with these prices? Where's the outcry we had when we kept hearing how AMD had to adjust their pricing because they were offering poor value? We have a smaller chip, on a cheaper PCB, with less RAM. Instead people are justifying it. "nVidia is awesome. That's why they cost more." It makes no sense. It would be different if AMD didn't offer a competitive product, but they do. At this point in time nVidia has managed to release two over priced GPU's (GK104/107), but that's OK. There was actually one response that stated the reason nVidia's top cards are so expensive is because of the price of AMD's midrange products. I think the problem is that type of mentality. People just accept what nVidia does, they'll even blame AMD, instead of questioning it. :\

 

[Jaydip]

It comes with Brand recognition, very simple.AMD unfortunately has very poor brand image which they need to take care of.

 

[lopri]

Supply and demand is obviously a good start, but don't forget that consumers have limited information as well. That's why every corporation has a "marketing" department.

I wouldn't worry about corporation's profits or others' buying behaviors. As for 670/680, it is possible that NV wanted to be as risk-free as possible, and designed 670 as a main product (kind of like Sony manufactured Cell processors with redundant SPE). Then 680 once they're confident enough.

Buy whatever is a good deal for you. Don't worry about corporations' well-being. I'm about to buy a $400 7970 and a $350 670.

 

[3DVagabond]

I'm not worrying about corporation's well being except to the point that I want competition. I do concern myself with people being taken because they've been fed bogus info though.

 

[KompuKare]

I recall I read a study in marketing that if a consumer has a bad experience with a product or service, on average he/she will tell 6 of his/her friends. If a consumer has a positive experience, he/she will on average only tell about it to 2 of his/her friends. Don't quote me on this, but I clearly understood from this study that a negative experience is far more detrimental to perceived brand value and future recommendations for that product/brand than a positive experience is. That seems to be more often the case with AMD than NV since HD2900 days.

I would think so anyway. Bad news should travel faster and farther. Good news? Not half as much. My present card (HD5770) works fine and is quieter than my last (8800GT) but I am not motivated to go singing it's praise.

However, since my 8800GT bumpgated I have been movivated to mention Nvidia's poor QA and hardware expertise here, on other forums, to friends etc.

That's what I don't understand in the NV vs AMD threads. Drivers are one thing but there has only ever been one issue which affected millions of graphic cards (plus chipsets and IGP) terminally and it was 100% Nvidia's fault.

For the size of the problem, the coverage of the initial problem was very low and Nvidia pretty much got away with it (the true cost to have sorted the mess out in Intel fashion could easily have been x10 the $250 million it cost Nvidia). The thread here at AT for the laptop settlement (note that only a small % were eligible for that settlement), by a few posts in the NV fan had already fud'ed the issue by bringing Xbox (a AMD design for which Microsoft were 100% responsible for manufacturing).

So yes, bad news travels fast and poor quality is not easily forgotten.

 

[SirPauly]

Yes. People are willing to pay more for something from nVidia. Even when the performance isn't there to justify it. I thought that we were better informed though and wouldn't just blindly accept the price disparage. We know the performance between these cards. We know the difference in BoM. Yet, we still have a lot of people who not only defend nVidia for it, but actually belly up to the bar and pay the price. If the rolls were reversed and nVidia had comparable cards priced that far below AMD, or even $10 below AMD, we'd have threads all over the place telling us how badly AMD was ripping us off. Hell, people are still blaming AMD for the pricing, even when they are markedly cheaper than nVidia.

AMD set the 28nm pricing and raised their MSRP pricing by 50 percent -- that is what I remembered. With strong competition from nVidia -- AMD had to reduce their pricing. Hopefully, with strong competition from AMD with more price flexibility may force nVidia to reduce pricing.

This 28nm generation from a historical stand-point offered poor performance/value but as 28nm is maturing and competition heats up -- improving,

 

[SirPauly]

Like right now AMD has 3GB of VRAM "free", so why isn't AMD working with Crytek to make sure AMD users get an extra high resolution texture pack for Crysis 3? That's probably because NV already won that relationship. AMD needs to be on top for newer games, like Medal of Honor Warfighter or Dishonored or Far Cry 3. But these things cost $ too. Their financial situation as a whole isn't exactly calling for marketing spending of this sort. NV almost has to since graphics is their bread and butter.

Imho,

For most of the whining about nVidia is nVidia's strength -- their pro-active nature and differentiation. If a company has an advantage or differentiation -- desire to see their developer relations help bring this to fruition for their customer base -- through work with game developers or through enhancements in the drivers.

Some may look at these as marketing exercises but for me, they're tangible benefits in the life cycle of a product -- by spending these additional resources, nVidia may be rewarded with awareness and a modest premium.

 

[guskline]

The tenor of this thread is the shock about the "overpricing" of the Nvidia cards. Funny how fleeting we are. About a month ago you had a tough time getting GTX680s so higher price wasn't a problem. Now they are more in stock and the price stays the same. I think the press extolling the 680 and especially the 670 drove demand and will likely keep the price high for quite sometime. I doubt that either AMD or Nvidia will drop the price of their high-end cards until a new generation comes out. If I've learned anything after buying a GTX 680 and also considering a Radeon 7970, cheap is not in the equation. Be prepare to open up your pocketbook AND bust open the piggy bank!:'(

 

[cmdrdredd]

The 670 may be better value but many people do not overclock their cards so a gtx 680 is still faster in stock configuration. Plus they are harder to find or were so I think people bought it for bragging rights.

Also it was mentioned before...drivers. AMD needs to get that together a little better still.

 

[BD231]

I totally understand supply and demand. The question is, at that price why is there still a demand? I could understand the 580. It wasn't good value, but it was the fastest and if that's what you want, that's going to cost extra. The 680 isn't, though. The 680 isn't any faster than the 670. Even if you prefer nVidia buying the 680 isn't good value.

Of course, maybe the fact that there's now so many 680's in stock means that demand isn't meeting the price. Maybe supply still sucks and people have just stopped buying it? Why isn't everyone screaming how much they are ripping us off with these prices? Where's the outcry we had when we kept hearing how AMD had to adjust their pricing because they were offering poor value? We have a smaller chip, on a cheaper PCB, with less RAM. Instead people are justifying it. "nVidia is awesome. That's why they cost more." It makes no sense. It would be different if AMD didn't offer a competitive product, but they do. At this point in time nVidia has managed to release two over priced GPU's (GK104/107), but that's OK. There was actually one response that stated the reason nVidia's top cards are so expensive is because of the price of AMD's midrange products. I think the problem is that type of mentality. People just accept what nVidia does, they'll even blame AMD, instead of questioning it. :\

There's nothing to question, paying $500 for a top end card is idiocy and people continue to do so when they could play the same games for $150/$200 with an xbox on a $300 dollar flat screen LCD twice the size of their computer monitor.

People are stupid, so they pay stupid price's. Latest trend video card buyers are like women who are attracted to guys that are pieces of sh t, the guy just exploits it. I'm all for selling off old hardware and upgrading I really don't care what people do with their money, in this case we have an industry full of suckers willing to pay out the rear for poor quality products or very little improvement.

It's obvious nVidia is used to this trend and AMD is trying to do the same now, if it works it works.

 

[SirPauly]

That's an interesting view. Desiring the best out of the company usually demands a premium. They're usually not value offerings and consumers that may demand less compromises. I don't think higher end gamers are stupid or gamers that demand the best that the company offers.

Tend to look at these sku's as choice to consider. If there isn't enough value to demand the price for an individual -- there are other choices that may be compelling to find the right fit for an individual based on their subjective tastes, tolerances, budget and wallet size.

 

[NIGELG]

There's nothing to question, paying $500 for a top end card is idiocy and people continue to do so when they could play the same games for $150/$200 with an xbox on a $300 dollar flat screen LCD twice the size of their computer monitor.

People are stupid, so they pay stupid price's. Latest trend video card buyers are like women who are attracted to guys that are pieces of sh t, the guy just exploits it. I'm all for selling off old hardware and upgrading I really don't care what people do with their money, in this case we have an industry full of suckers willing to pay out the rear for poor quality products or very little improvement.

It's obvious nVidia is used to this trend and AMD is trying to do the same now, if it works it works.

No.

 

[cmdrdredd]

There's nothing to question, paying $500 for a top end card is idiocy and people continue to do so when they could play the same games for $150/$200 with an xbox on a $300 dollar flat screen LCD twice the size of their computer monitor.

People are stupid, so they pay stupid price's. Latest trend video card buyers are like women who are attracted to guys that are pieces of sh t, the guy just exploits it. I'm all for selling off old hardware and upgrading I really don't care what people do with their money, in this case we have an industry full of suckers willing to pay out the rear for poor quality products or very little improvement.

It's obvious nVidia is used to this trend and AMD is trying to do the same now, if it works it works.

You can play Metro 2033, Batman Arkham city with Physx and DX11, and Battlefield 3 with 4x AA in DX11 on your Xbox at 60fps? Tell me how that works. Same game? Have fun playing Diablo 3 on your Xbox...oh wait...PC only. ENB mods in skyrim? yeah...

A $300 LCD TV? Yeah...maybe for the kid's Wii but not for my Blu Ray buddy. A $300 TV would have a terrible picture quality compared to a $300 computer monitor anyway.

People buy higher end cards because they want the graphic details and are not content with consoles. Many PC gamers also own consoles for their exclusive titles (Uncharted, Halo, Gears of War, Forza, Gran Turismo to name a few)

 

[BD231]

That's an interesting view. Desiring the best out of the company usually demands a premium. They're usually not value offerings and consumers that may demand less compromises. I don't think higher end gamers are stupid or gamers that demand the best that the company offers.

Tend to look at these sku's as choice to consider. If there isn't enough value to demand the price for an individual -- there are other choices that may be compelling to find the right fit for an individual based on their subjective tastes, tolerances, budget and wallet size.

The best never equates to quality in the video card industry, period. nVidia constantly cuts corners on their power delivery systems, AMD has consistent driver issues spanning back to before christ. If it were that simple I'd have a 680 right now, but I don't, because I know the quality I demand out of a top tier product just isn't there. Write me when nVidia/ati decide to develop a decent cooler that doesn't create a space heater out of their hardware and I'll consider buying a card for $500. As long as they continue to put crap aluminum sinks on their cards I won't bother.

You can play Metro 2033, Batman Arkham city with Physx and DX11, and Battlefield 3 with 4x AA in DX11 on your Xbox at 60fps? Tell me how that works. Same game? Have fun playing Diablo 3 on your Xbox...oh wait...PC only. ENB mods in skyrim? yeah...

A $300 LCD TV? Yeah...maybe for the kid's Wii but not for my Blu Ray buddy. A $300 TV would have a terrible picture quality compared to a $300 computer monitor anyway.

People buy higher end cards because they want the graphic details and are not content with consoles. Many PC gamers also own consoles for their exclusive titles (Uncharted, Halo, Gears of War, Forza, Gran Turismo to name a few)

You can honestly tell me you play batman and then say LCD tv's are for the kids? 1080p LCD TV picture quality is just fine. Metro 2033 sucks as far as shooters go and is clearly suited for dual GPU's just like witcher 2 as any 2 1gb gtx 460's will run that game at 90fps max settings, but I guess you don't care you spent $400 when you could have gotten triple the performance in that game spending around $200? I take it you just don't know any better.

Be logical. I only need a sub $100 dollar card to play skyrim or D3 max settings so why in my right mind would I bother with a 680 for that? BF3 looks and plays great on the XBox, which is arguably not the most popular PC shooter you can play right now, MW takes that crown and runs at about 200 fps on a 480 max settings.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The best never equates to quality in the video card industry, period. nVidia constantly cuts corners on their power delivery systems, AMD has consistent driver issues spanning back to before christ. If it were that simple I'd have a 680 right now, but I don't, because I know the quality I demand out of a top tier product just isn't there. Write me when nVidia/ati decide to develop a decent cooler that doesn't create a space heater out of their hardware and I'll consider buying a card for $500. As long as they continue to put crap aluminum sinks on their cards I won't bother.



You can honestly tell me you play batman and then say LCD tv's are for the kids? 1080p LCD TV picture quality is just fine. Metro 2033 sucks as far as shooters go and is clearly suited for dual GPU's just like witcher 2 as any 2 1gb gtx 460's will run that game at 90fps max settings, but I guess you don't care you spent $400 when you could have gotten triple the performance in that game spending around $200? I take it you just don't know any better.

Be logical. I only need a sub $100 dollar card to play skyrim or D3 max settings so why in my right mind would I bother with a 680 for that? BF3 looks and plays great on the XBox, which is arguably not the most popular PC shooter you can play right now, MW takes that crown and runs at about 200 fps on a 480 max settings.

Wait wait, what? Triple performance of a GTX 670 for $200? Show me max settings 90fps...anything above 1024x768 barely cracks 60fps and that's at a much lower resolution that most people are using. I don't see 3x the performance anywhere. The following two links are Metro 2033. First one is GTX 460SLI (1GB cards) second is MSI Power edition GTX 670.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_460_SLI/23.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_670_Power_Edition/18.html

The following link is WItcher 2 with GTX 460 SLI on a 2500k. again where is the 90fps???

http://www.overclock.net/t/1071834/the-witcher-2-gtx-460-1gb-sli-versus#post_14290790

Skyrim max on a $100 card...maybe at 1280x1024. Plus you forgot reading comprehension... ENB mods. $100 cards can't take advantage of that and high resolution textures.

Modern Warfare? Oh you're one of those 13 year olds cursing at everyone like a drunken sailor on Xbox Live when you don't get a killstreak. Popular doesn't mean good...Modern Warfare sucks so much compared to Battlefield...man I don't know what you're smoking cause you're comparing a game engine that released back in 07 (that's 5 years ago) and hasn't been updated since to a top of the line engine with most of the latest DX11 features.

Here's the thing...on a PC you have 64 players in BF3, higher resolution, not capped to 30fps, better control with mouse aim, less lag because you don't need to go through Xbox Live, better textures, higher/better AA methods, tessellation, longer view distance.

Again reading comprehension... a $300 TV vs a $300 pc monitor and the TV will look multiple times worse. Also, Batman is one of the highest rated action games in years. To joke as if it sucks shows you're inability to appreciate quality.

 

[javier_machuk]

I am considering buying a gtx 670, for $420, it's an evga FTW version, i also looked at a gigabyte windforce 7950 for $350, the thing is.. if i want to go to a multiple monitor setup, and since the majority of the monitors today lack DP inputs, if i go for the 7950 i have to take into account a dvi=>DP active adapter that hover around $40.. suddenly the price difference isn't that high..

The point is that if the AMD card doesn't come with an active DP adapter inbox, IF you're going to use a multimonitor(with non DP inputs) setup the nvidia cards doesn't seem so expensive..

 

[cmdrdredd]

I am considering buying a gtx 670, for $420, it's an evga FTW version, i also looked at a gigabyte windforce 7950 for $350, the thing is.. if i want to go to a multiple monitor setup, and since the majority of the monitors today lack DP inputs, if i go for the 7950 i have to take into account a dvi=>DP active adapter that hover around $40.. suddenly the price difference isn't that high..

The point is that if the AMD card doesn't come with an active DP adapter inbox, IF you're going to use a multimonitor(with non DP inputs) setup the nvidia cards doesn't seem so expensive..

I see you're in paraguay. WHat models of GTX 670 do you have access to. By chance can you find a Gigabyte model?

 

[SirPauly]

The best never equates to quality in the video card industry, period. nVidia constantly cuts corners on their power delivery systems, AMD has consistent driver issues spanning back to before christ. If it were that simple I'd have a 680 right now, but I don't, because I know the quality I demand out of a top tier product just isn't there. Write me when nVidia/ati decide to develop a decent cooler that doesn't create a space heater out of their hardware and I'll consider buying a card for $500. As long as they continue to put crap aluminum sinks on their cards I won't bother.

Simply don't understand! If one doesn't like the default, vanilla offerings from AMD or nVidia, well, there are their partners that offer more quality components and cooling.

I didn't like the vanilla GTX 670 sku's and did purchase a MSI power edition GTX 670.

 

[BD231]

Wait wait, what? Triple performance of a GTX 670 for $200? Show me max settings 90fps...anything above 1024x768 barely cracks 60fps and that's at a much lower resolution that most people are using. I don't see 3x the performance anywhere. The following two links are Metro 2033. First one is GTX 460SLI (1GB cards) second is MSI Power edition GTX 670.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_460_SLI/23.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_670_Power_Edition/18.html

The following link is WItcher 2 with GTX 460 SLI on a 2500k. again where is the 90fps???

http://www.overclock.net/t/1071834/the-witcher-2-gtx-460-1gb-sli-versus#post_14290790

Skyrim max on a $100 card...maybe at 1280x1024. Plus you forgot reading comprehension... ENB mods. $100 cards can't take advantage of that and high resolution textures.

Modern Warfare? Oh you're one of those 13 year olds cursing at everyone like a drunken sailor on Xbox Live when you don't get a killstreak. Popular doesn't mean good...Modern Warfare sucks so much compared to Battlefield...man I don't know what you're smoking.

Here's the thing...on a PC you have 64 players in BF3, higher resolution, not capped to 30fps, better control with mouse aim, less lag because you don't need to go through Xbox Live, better textures, higher/better AA methods, tessellation, longer view distance.

Again reading comprehension... a $300 TV vs a $300 pc monitor and the TV will look multiple times worse. Also, Batman is one of the highest rated action games in years. To joke as if it sucks shows you're inability to appreciate quality.

I owned 2 gtx 460's in sli for quite some time and averaged far better frames than any 670 can produce in Metro. A simple 800mhz OC got me 90fps in doors, 60-90 out for metro easy and the difference running with 2 GPU's is mind boggling. Take a cruise over to youtube and watch your 670 get spanked in the smoothness department by a stock 460 sli setup in both witcher 2 and metro. In fact do yourself a favor and stop reading benchmarks that are outdated the minute a new driver is released, which is what, like every month or so for nvidia?

I don't mod games, especially a repetitive title like skyrim so I can't comment on your habits there. I also don't play games based on childhood comic book hero's, I'm not 12. I've never played MW in my life, that doesn't change my point, which is the fact that it's still by far the more popular *PC* title and needs barely any hardware to run great.

1080p LCD is fine. Skyrim looks just as good on a console with a huge TV and the slight quality you loose is more than compensated for by sheer size of the screen.

 

[BD231]

Simply don't understand! If one doesn't like the default, vanilla offerings from AMD or nVidia, well, there are their partners that offer more quality components and cooling.

I didn't like the vanilla GTX 670 sku's and did purchase a MSI power edition GTX 670.

Those are crap also, 3 slot coolers and or more aluminium garbage with insufficient VRM cooling I'm not willing to pay for. I'll wait till they're priced accordingly.

 

[javier_machuk]

I see you're in paraguay. WHat models of GTX 670 do you have access to. By chance can you find a Gigabyte model?

I will buy from amazon, and then ship it to my country.. it is cheaper that way than buying locally.. i mentioned those two because they are available on amazon... but do you think that if i run surround/eyefinity is it worth to get a 7950 and a dvi to DP adapter over a gtx670? price-performance wise

 

[cmdrdredd]

I owned 2 gtx 460's in sli for quite some time and averaged far better frames than any 680 can produce in Metro. A simple 800mhz OC got me 90fps in doors, 60-90 out for metro easy and the difference running with 2 GPU's is mind boggling. Take a cruise over to youtube and watch your 670 get spanked in the smoothness department by a stock 460 sli setup in both witcher 2 and metro. In fact do yourself a favor and stop reading benchmarks that are outdated the minute a new driver is released, which is what, like every month or so for nvidia?

I don't mod games, especially a repetitive title like skyrim so I can't comment on your habits there. I also don't play games based on childhood comic book hero's, I'm not 12. I've never played MW in my life, that doesn't change my point, which is the fact that it's still by far the more popular *PC* title and needs barely any hardware to run great.

1080p LCD is fine. Skyrim looks just as good on a console with a huge TV and the slight quality you loose is more than compensated for by sheer size of the screen.

So what you're saying is you're not a gamer because the gaming industry has held up Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City in high regard.

Console skyrim isn't anywhere near the PC version. It has shorter view distances, lower texture details, lower resolution (it's not running native 1080p btw), lower framerate.

Do you know what field of view is? Sitting 2feet from a 24" monitor fills more of your FOV than sitting 6feet from 40" does.

Lastly, you said 90fps and have yet to produce evidence. No links, no charts, nothing. I produced evidence that shows way less than 90fps in the two titles you claimed.

Say what you want about my single GTX 670 but two games that run poorly on ALL hardware isn't exactly getting spanked in my book. You said an 800Mhz overclock? That means your GTX 460s were running 1578? Or you mean a 22Mhz overclock so you run at 800mhz?

Either way I'll wave to you in about a week when I'll be running SLI 670s.

I will buy from amazon, and then ship it to my country.. it is cheaper that way than buying locally.. i mentioned those two because they are available on amazon... but do you think that if i run surround/eyefinity is it worth to get a 7950 and a dvi to DP adapter over a gtx670? price-performance wise

The GTX 670 would be a better buy even though the initial cost is higher. It's faster by default than a 7950 and in my opinion has better driver support at this time.

I mentioned the Gigabyte card because it has an aftermarket cooling setup with three fans. It's generally considered a better card, but from Amazon it is a little bit more expensive than the EVGA FTW model.

 

[chimaxi83]

The best never equates to quality in the video card industry, period. nVidia constantly cuts corners on their power delivery systems, AMD has consistent driver issues spanning back to before christ. If it were that simple I'd have a 680 right now, but I don't, because I know the quality I demand out of a top tier product just isn't there. Write me when nVidia/ati decide to develop a decent cooler that doesn't create a space heater out of their hardware and I'll consider buying a card for $500. As long as they continue to put crap aluminum sinks on their cards I won't bother.



You can honestly tell me you play batman and then say LCD tv's are for the kids? 1080p LCD TV picture quality is just fine. Metro 2033 sucks as far as shooters go and is clearly suited for dual GPU's just like witcher 2 as any 2 1gb gtx 460's will run that game at 90fps max settings, but I guess you don't care you spent $400 when you could have gotten triple the performance in that game spending around $200? I take it you just don't know any better.

Be logical. I only need a sub $100 dollar card to play skyrim or D3 max settings so why in my right mind would I bother with a 680 for that? BF3 looks and plays great on the XBox, which is arguably not the most popular PC shooter you can play right now, MW takes that crown and runs at about 200 fps on a 480 max settings.

lol GTX 460's running TW2 at 90 fps Not even close. Well, unless you play at 1280*720? Metro might be "suited for dual GPU's", but those GPU's are definitely not 460's. You have no idea what you're talking about. Just because you're cheap, doesn't mean the rest of us are.