Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Video Cards and Graphics' started by Rikard, Jan 21, 2013.
384bit bus on 6GB SUX for $1k!
If the 50% gain over the 680 is true, it won't be unprecedented. The 8800GTX was easily 100% over 7900GTX. The 7970 was 40% over 6970.
The 7900GTX was botched and the 7970 got a new architecture and a new process.
So not really the same.
Maybe the 690 will be discontinued.
While that would make sense, right now everyone is talking about a single card that isn't even a xxx moniker just "titan".
0.89% of steam users have 680s
690 doesn't even return a hit.
1.20% have 670s... So there is almost no market for a $1000 card, a decent one for $500 or less cards... According to steam more people have 670 and 680s than people have 660's and 660 Ti's...
Perhaps Nvidia means to rectifie this problem of limited interest and low adoption rates compared to Fermi, which has more 560 Ti's than all the 660, 660ti, and 680 combined according to steam. :hmm:
There's an expanded section for Steam's hardware survey that returns more results: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/directx/ It indicates that 0.18% of people with a DX10 or 11 card have a GTX 690.
nVidia is not seeing a reason to put GK110 into the $500 land when AMD is not really a competition.
There are two reason nVidia is forced to lower the price:
AMD is putting something out which is 15% slower and cost only half the price or
AMD is lowering the prices of the existing cards in a huge way.
Until then nVidia is using the time to sell a 296mm^2 chip for over $400 instead of $200
OK, you brought it up, so lets not go into how (in)accurate is Steam.
Now look again DirectX 10/11 for January 2013.
GTX 680 = 1.46%
GTX 670 = 1.96
GTX 690 = 0.18
690 vs 670 ~ 1 : 10
Wanna bet that 680 volume profit on that chart easily dwarfs and other chip?
So much for high-end being not very profitable niche...
GOOD GRIEF, nobody is asking nvidia to put the GK110 in 500$ land Please point to a post of someone suggesting that, because I sure didn't. I haven't seen ANYONE suggest that. The fact of the matter is, if the Titan does perform as well as the GTX 690 as rumors claim there will obviously be a price premium for such a part. This I don't have a problem with, I like premium parts - this is why I purchased 2x MSI lightning 680s. Premium parts, with the best aftermarket cooling and overclocking available.
I'm asking the question of value proposition versus the GTX 690. If both perform the same and cost the same - what's nvidia's angle? Why should one get a GTX 690 if Titan is the same price? and vice versa. I think it's a valid and reasonable question, isn't it?
Or let's say the Titan is 900$. What happens to the GTX 690? Furthermore, if Titan is more expensive yet performs as the 690 - what's the value proposition? More features than the 690? What? I'm just trying to figure out where this all fits within nvidia's price and product scheme.
1.No multi gpu issues
2.Less power draw
3.More vram and possibly better dp performance
I've seen 2304 for the GK110, but not for the GK104. I think 1536 was the only number for the GK104 I saw associated with the no hot clock rumors.
I don't think number 1 is an issue, but that may be subjective; I certainly did not see MS on the 690 in my brief ownership and I haven't seen complaints about it. Regardless, if I concede that argument for the time being -- let's say nvidia does 1-3 for the same price as the 690. Will the 690 go down in price?
Basically, i'm just thinking of the price and performance differential between the GTX 690 and Titan. One should affect the other, I believe.
That's what I look at it but sort "change by month"
I will! nVidia, can ya please put the Gk-110 in 500 dollar land?
You have a valid point.If I consider compute 690 will have better sp performance.I beilve it is probably going to be eoled after titan debuts or if it is marginally faster will rest on a slightly higher echelon.
Who is in for the 'Geforce Titan X2' dual-GPU card?
I don't see the difference, the lastest shows the 680 at 1.57% with a .1% increase over last time. I was using overall, not just DX11/10 numbers.
There is no question per sale GK104 is probably their best gpu ever, the question I have is if they're happy with these numbers... Overall Kepler did not sell that well, so while their per sale is higher their total sales seem to be lower. The only possible way to address that really is to return things to normal, bring in GK110 at $550, then a cut version for $370-400, followed by a GK114 refresh into mainstream, better perf than GK104, way better pricing...
I'm not a business man though, but I can't help but think Nvidia isn't happy with the adoption rate of Kepler. Or people like me calling it mid-range for the past year :whiste:
I know people like to feel like they have an impact but I highly doubt nVidia cares about a small handful of people calling the 680 mid range.
Here is some confusion/clarity on pricing. Pro cards.
The K10 retailed higher than the K20x or K20, I'm not sure from the article.
But Nvidia has pricing discounts, and they sold @Amazon for 3,200
Nvidia probably won't EOL the GTX 690. It is almost identical , reference Nvidia board that is also made in to the K10. This article shows how there was demand for both Tesla products. As to gaming board prices? Who Knows?
edit: I stated something in reverse. sorry.
ASP are about the same right now with the 600 series cards as they were with the 500 series cards. The gtx670 launched $50 higher, and the gtx660ti launched higher too, but the price for both cards have come down somewhat since then. Overall though, very similar prices if not a smidge higher. Nvidia's' GPU revenue has been up substantially since Kepler's first full quarter of market availability. Q1 had GK104 coming out in the second half of the quarter so I won't count that, but since then it's been up and up:
Q2 2012: $638.5 - Fermi
Q2 2013: $668.3 - Kepler
up 4.7% year over year, probably similar sales volume with slightly higher ASP
Q3 2012: $644.8 - Fermi
Q3 2013: $739.6 - Kepler
up 14.7% year over year, definitely has to be because of higher sales volume regardless of ASP
How much you wanna bet Q4 2013 is up over Q4 2012? Q4 2012 was $621.5 million. Neither AMD nor Nvidia's latest cards are invading the steam hardware survey at a breakneck pace, but Nvidia's revenue figures show that Kepler is selling quite well compared to how Fermi was selling in the same quarter of the previous year. IF Kepler wasn't selling well, we'd see Nvidia coming out with the crazy good bundles like what AMD has been doing. (Bundles are definitely more cost effective at moving product than straight up lowering prices.)
GeForce GTX Titan Inbound, Already Listed at Online Retailer
@TH news. Source is WCCF tech
edit: this was referenced earlier in the thread, it seems.
I swear if I bought one of these my wife would divorce me.
Just tell her how much good it could do for the world while it Folds when you sleep!
How can she say no to that?!
I'm not implying that Titan will be a failure because it doesn't get the same gains as past generations, I'm saying the performance increase isn't unprecedented. I was questioning the reasoning behind a 100% price increase because of a 50% rumored performance increase. We've had similar if not better gains in the past without the massive price hike so why the justification from Crap Daddy (unless Titan will be a very limited run of cards)?
Because now they are selling a 296mm^2 chip with 8 memory chips and much cheaper PCB for $499.
You are saying GPUs shouldn't get faster at the same price or cheaper over time? Instead, prices should keep increasing for faster GPUs every generation? GTX680 is not worthy its $499 price today. Just because some people are buying it doesn't make it reasonably priced. GTX580 was going for $450 at the end of its life and most of us were aware that it was overpriced. Using GTX680/690's pricing to justify Titan's price makes no sense unless you think NV should adopt Apple's school of product pricing. This is an even worse situation than HD6970 --> HD7970. HD7970 OC is 79% faster than 6970 is at 1600P. AMD raised the price from $370 to $550, or 49%. Many people here claimed that HD7970 was overpriced at launch. Now NV wants to raise the price from $500 to $900, or 80% and the Titan OC may not even be 80% faster than a GTX680. What NV is doing is just raising prices knowing their loyal userbase will pay them. One of the companies JHH loves is Apple. I think all of the products in his household are Apple to. I can imagine he strives as hard as possible to make NV like Apple is (i.e. charge as much as possible for the brand name). While at it should Maxwell's flagship beat the Titan, is it OK for it to be priced at $1,250-1,500?
For people who have GTX680 SLI / GTX690 / HD7970/GE in CFX, how is the Titan an improvement in price/performance despite launching a year after? Ok sure it doesn't have the downsides of micro-stutter but that's not really a great justification for a $900 price of a card that might only match a 690. $699-749 would have be progress.