GeForce Titan coming end of February

[sontin]

$549 / $369 is a 48.78% price increase.

GTX 680 <> GTX560 TI.

You know what's incredible? Even with that price incease the GTX680 was still faster and cheaper than the 7970. :whiste:

 

[RussianSensation]

GTX 680 <> GTX560 TI.

You know what's incredible? Even with that price incease the GTX680 was still faster and cheaper than the 7970. :whiste:

Yes, that's how the GPU industry generally works: GPUs get cheaper and/or faster over time. Like when GTX280 was $650 and HD4890 matched it for $260 less than a year later. Welcome to the industry. You also discounted the 2.5 months when 7970 owners enjoyed class leading performance and the fact that HD7970 OC > GTX680 OC 13 months later. $50 extra for that was worth it for many people, not to mention bitcoin mining, which you continue to discount since obviously you have no rebuttal. 13 months later HD7970 x2 = $0, GTX680 SLI = $1,000. $500 GTX580's level of performance can now be head in a $200 HD7870 2GB. You seem to be cherry-picking a specific case when GTX680 delivered superior value vs. HD7970 ignoring all other scenarios (like GTX580's price to 7970 at launch, etc.) to prove a point, but missed all those other cases when NV's original launch prices were a huge rip-off (GTX280/480/580 all come to mind). Using the exact same logic you applied, one can blame NV for 'allowing' AMD to raise the price of HD7970 to $549 because NV was purposely overpricing GTX580 at $450. You didn't say a word about NV's overpriced 580 affecting HD7970's launch price 13 months ago? :hmm:

Keep derailing the thread about HD7970's price though. Did you realize that 1Ghz HD7970 cards are going for $380? That means a 60% faster Titan will cost 2.3x more? Sounds like way worse value than going from HD6970/GTX580 to HD7970 $549. Keep spinning.

 

[blackened23]

Don't feed, it will grow.

Pretty much.

 

[sontin]

And the GTX680 was faster 5 months and cheaper nearly 2 months.
And people who waited 3 months from the 7950 got a cheaper and >10% faster card.
BTW: In BF3 the GTX680 was 10-25% faster than the 7970 after 2 1/2 months. On the other hand the 7970 was 10-20% faster than the GTX580 after 14 months.

I know you ignore the fact, that we have those prices because of AMD.

 

[RussianSensation]

And people who waited 3 months from the 7950 got a cheaper and >10% faster card.

People who waited 9 months saved almost $400 on the HD4890 over GTX280. What were you saying about rip-off launch prices again? 7800GTX 512MB going for $700 at launch.

BTW: In BF3 the GTX680 was 10-25% faster than the 7970 after 2 1/2 months. On the other hand the 7970 was 10-20% faster than the GTX580 after 14 months.

Cherry-picking individual games? What's even the point of responding to that? How is your 580 doing now? Nice to know cards like HD7850 OC deliver that level of performance for $350 less? :hmm:

I know you ignore the fact, that we have those prices because of AMD.

You keep ignoring that NV overpriced GTX580 which allowed AMD to raise the price of HD7970 to $549 (using your own biased logic).

You are just upset because you now have to spend $900 for an upgrade. Isn't that the same as people who were upset about HD7970 prices after HD6970? Guess what, some of them just patiently waited until prices dropped to more attractive levels instead of blaming NV for not having launched GTX680 on Jan 9th and putting price pressure on HD7970. You should write NV a letter with your complaints (using your own comments earlier).

 

[sontin]

People who waited 9 months saved almost $400 on the HD4890 over GTX280. What were you saying about rip-off launch prices again? 7800GTX 512MB going for $700 at launch.

And had people waited 6 weeks, they had saved $150. :awe:

Cherry-picking individual games? What's even the point of responding to that? How is your 580 doing now? Nice to know cards like HD7850 OC deliver that level of performance for $350 less? :hmm:

Right, let us compare 40nm cards to 28nm cards. How good was the 7850OC in December 2010? I mean you see the card as competition to the GTX580...

You keep ignoring that NV overpriced GTX580 which allowed AMD to raise the price of HD7970 to $549 (using your own biased logic).

Right, because never in history provided a process shrink more transistors on the same space.
Going by your logic every new gen should increase the price because it will be faster than the previous one.

You are just upset because you are an NV fanboy and now you have to spend $900 for an upgrade. Go write NV a letter with your complaints. (using your own comments earlier).

And you pay more for your AMD card, too. But that is good because AMD needs all the money. :twisted:

 

[RussianSensation]

Going by your logic every new gen should increase the price because it will be faster than the previous one.

Nope. I said HD7970 was overpriced (didn't blame NV) and I am saying the Titan is overpriced (not blaming AMD). I am only commenting on the Titan's larger increase in price going from 580 than HD7970 did from 6970. It seems you are overly upset about the Titan's price. I merely commented that I thought it was too high like many other posters in this thread. Sounds like you waited 12 months for an upgrade from a 580 and now you are butthurt NV is charging $900 for that. Then you shift the blame to AMD. None of that changes anything about you either having to pull the trigger on the Titan at $900 or not. Not only that you didn't buy a single AMD GPU in the last 6 years, thus not giving them any $ to advance their R&D or advance their resources. Then you still come up with some insane excuse for AMD for not being competitive enough.

I already told you that 8800GTX was $599 when it launched and it beat HD2900XT by about 50%. Why didn't NV price that card at $899? You seem to not be able to connect the dots that supply-demand is a factor. NV conditioned the market with $500 GTX680 / $1K GTX690 and since those cards sold well, they'll do it again. If NV priced its products very high and NV fans keep buying, the only people you have to blame for those high prices are the consumers who continue to buy regardless of what price NV sets. Now NV is charging 2.2-2.3x more over a 50% slower HD7970GE and people will still buy the Titan. You aren't seeing how supply-demand is working there on the consumer / company side in the free market system? If you don't like the price, don't buy, keep waiting for a cheaper GK110 product. Blaming Titan's price on AMD alone is ludicrous. AMD hasn't made a 500mm2 ever, which means Titan's direct 28nm AMD competitor HD7000-8000 series was never in the cards.

And you pay more for your AMD card, too. But that is good because AMD needs all the money. :twisted:

Nope. I got the HD7970 way later when its price/performance was superior to GTX680. I never purchased them at launch because I thought it was too expensive.

 

[absolutezero]

And had people waited 6 weeks, they had saved $150.

Ignoring the overclocking and flashing ability of 7970 to 7970ghz. Has people waited for 6 more weeks, they would have had a much better card at the same price.

Right, let us compare 40nm cards to 28nm cards. How good was the 7850OC in December 2010? I mean you see the card as competition to the GTX580...

Still loling at the 400 dollar GTX 580s on newegg. HD 7850OC is not a competition cause it outright thrashes GTX 580 on price/perform. HD 7870 beats it on all front.

You can live in the past as much as you like. It is what it is. HD 7850OC and HD 7870 are much better than GTX 580 and cheaper.

Going by your logic every new gen should increase the price because it will be faster than the previous one.

What?

And you pay more for your AMD card, too. But that is good because AMD needs all the money. :twisted:

I hope you meant Nvidia, cause AMD is owning them on price/perform for almost all cards currently.

 

[Raghu]

No one asked about the Titan at the NVIDIA earnings conference call. Record revenue for the year.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=116466&p=irol-EventDetails&EventId=4905669

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTcxNjMzfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTcxNjM4fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1

 

[Rvenger]

And the GTX680 was faster 5 months and cheaper nearly 2 months.
And people who waited 3 months from the 7950 got a cheaper and >10% faster card.
BTW: In BF3 the GTX680 was 10-25% faster than the 7970 after 2 1/2 months. On the other hand the 7970 was 10-20% faster than the GTX580 after 14 months.

I know you ignore the fact, that we have those prices because of AMD.

EDIT: Quit derailing the thread and turning threads into a vs. thread. Your posts lack any substance and are irrelevant to the discussion. Especially above.

 

[chimaxi83]

snip

snip

You guys are arguing with a bright green unmoving wall, I wouldn't even bother.

 

[sontin]

Nope. I said HD7970 was overpriced (didn't blame NV) and I am saying the Titan is overpriced (not blaming AMD). I am only commenting on the Titan's larger increase in price going from 580 than HD7970 did from 6970.

Titan will be nearly twice as fast as the GTX580 instead of 50-60%. The price increase will be right in line with that what AMD did last year.

It seems you are overly upset about the Titan's price. I merely commented that I thought it was too high like many other posters in this thread. Sounds like you waited 12 months for an upgrade from a 580 and now you are butthurt NV is charging $900 for that. Then you shift the blame to AMD. None of that changes anything about you either having to pull the trigger on the Titan at $900 or not. Not only that you didn't buy a single AMD GPU in the last 6 years, thus not giving them any $ to advance their R&D or advance their resources. Then you still come up with some insane excuse for AMD for not being competitive enough.

Yeah...
I have a Gigabyte GTX670 which was cheaper than a 7970 and is faster at stock. :whiste:

I already told you that 8800GTX was $599 when it launched and it beat HD2900XT by about 50%. Why didn't NV price that card at $899?

I guess you ignore the 8800 Ultra for $869 right before the 2900XT was released... :|

You seem to not be able to connect the dots that supply-demand is a factor. NV conditioned the market with $500 GTX680 / $1K GTX690 and since those cards sold well, they'll do it again. If NV priced its products very high and NV fans keep buying, the only people you have to blame for those high prices are the consumers who continue to buy regardless of what price NV sets.

It is always the fault of the consumer.
People bought a GTX680 for $499 because it was cheaper and faster than the competition at the launch.

Now NV is charging 2.2-2.3x more over a 50% slower HD7970GE and people will still buy the Titan. You aren't seeing how supply-demand is working there on the consumer / company side in the free market system? If you don't like the price, don't buy, keep waiting for a cheaper GK110 product. Blaming Titan's price on AMD alone is ludicrous. AMD hasn't made a 500mm2 ever, which means Titan's direct 28nm AMD competitor HD7000-8000 series was never in the cards.

People buying Titan because they want the performance. It's AMD fault that they can deliver this and so nVidia can take whatever money they want.

Nope. I got the HD7970 way later when its price/performance was superior to GTX680. I never purchased them at launch because I thought it was too expensive.

And yet you blaming the same people for nVidia's prices that forced AMD to lower theirs. Quite ironic, i guess.

 

[SolMiester]

AFAIK, AMD does not stipulate the pricing of NV GPUs....its just nonsense!...NV will sell for what they think they can get, same with AMD.....
IMO, AMD are a lot more receptive to adjusting prices than NV anyway...I cant think when NV last adjusted their prices due to competition, 4xxx series?...
Who give a sh*te anyway, NV will once again have its rightful place as the king of GPUs...and that IMO, will piss off the fanboi's no end.....so we can all rejoice!...Yay...LOL

 

[Rvenger]

Yeah...
I have a Gigabyte GTX670 which was more expensive than a 7950 and is faster at stock. :whiste:

ftfy

You obviously don't know how AMD cards perform to make a comment that a 7970 is slower than a 670. Again, you are living in the past and looking at old reviews with old drivers.

 

[blastingcap]

Single GPU is easier to deal with and has fewer issues/bugs/microstuttering/etc. than multi-GPU. This will appeal to those with deep pockets who want the best gaming experience possible on a single GPU. If you aren't one of those people, who cares, move along. Needless bickering in this thread.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Record revenue for the year.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Its unfortunate that we're watching a two horse race in an ever shrinking market. The Titan and all the resulting hot air (and the inevitable car analogies somewhere along the way) got me thinking how fun it would be if GPU designers got into "stock card races" the way car manufacturers get into stock car races. AMD and NVIDIA would design the beefiest gpus their respective teams could muster and silicon could support, they'd crank out say 10K of them (so they could be considered "stock") and pit them head to head in a battery of graphics and compute tests.

All consideration of viability, end user price, $/Perf blah blah blah would get thrown out the window and it would all come down to which engineering team could come up with the fastest GPU possible. Whatever inventory is built up gets sold at exorbitant prices as limited run items.

I was never a huge fan of AMD's sweet spot strategy for a number of reasons (although my wallet would disagree) but Titan really makes me reminisce to the days when ATI and Nvidia would both compete for the Halo position...

 

[Zanovar]

Are you gonna buy it or what Balla? make your mind up,you are worse than my gf and her panties picking

 

[RussianSensation]

No one asked about the Titan at the NVIDIA earnings conference call. Record revenue for the year.

Well this is going to be fun going forward:

"Since the first quarter of fiscal year 2011, we have been reporting three primary financial reporting segments &#8211; GPU, Professional Solutions Business, and Consumer Products Business. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013, we began reporting two primary financial reporting segments &#8211; GPU and Tegra® Processor."

This means now it's going to be impossible to isolate mobile/desktop GPU revenues/profits from the Professional Solutions (Tesla and Quadro lines) without getting equity research reports.

They hit record revenue but if you look at Q4 2012, there are slowdowns.

-- Most of the growth in 2012 came from Tegra, not the GPU business. This highlights NV's desire to seek growth in other market segments. Notebook GPUs grew, desktop ones, not so much. More details below. "Revenue for fiscal 2013 was a record at $4.28 billion, up 7.1 percent from the prior fiscal year. This increase was largely attributable to record revenue for our Tegra Processor business, which increased 29.3 percent from the previous year."

-- Overall GPU business grew just 2% in all of 2012, Nvidia's desktop GPUs grew 5.9% in 2012.

-- Quarter over Quarter (Q4 2012 vs. Q3 2012) is where you can see that NV didn't have a stellar quarter. Revenues were down, OPEX up, net income down. Specifically, the GPU business had revenue of $832.5 million, down $61.7 million or 6.9 percent sequentially. The sequential decline stems from desktop GPUs (pg. 4)

-- Operating expenses for fiscal 2013 (2012 year) were $1.58 billion, up $169.9 million, or 12.1 percent, from the prior year. The increase in operating expenses was primarily due to investments in our Tegra Processor business. This includes efforts to build next-generation energy-efficient computing architectures, such as Tegra 4.

Problem is Tegra 4 is having trouble getting any significant design wins.

Overall investors are unlikely to be impressed by this. The desktop GPU market shows weakness, and Tegra 4 seems like a miss compared to Tegra 3, and Quadro GPU sales are down due to general weakness in Western Europe. Nvidia is also forecasting a 'nothing special' Q1 2013 (FY Q1 2014).

Q1 2012 revenue was $925 Million and Nvidia is forecasting just $940 million for Q1 2013. That's not a particularly strong guidance which likely means no new products in the GPU space from NV in all of Q1 2013. The Titan won't even make a dent to matter here. Sounds like refresh GK114 won't be launching Q1 2013 then with such a low guidance.

 

[tviceman]

Problem is Tegra 4 is having trouble getting any significant design wins.

I'm not about to get into a deep financial discussion, but Tegra 4 isn't even out yet. Nvidia has said several times Tegra 4 has more design wins at this stage than Tegra 3 did. Neither you nor I have any idea what products Tegra 4 is going to end up in other than Shield.

 

[notty22]

Wait, financials are a sore point for some in the VCg forum? And now, good results are really not? lol/

 

[tviceman]

Its unfortunate that we're watching a two horse race in an ever shrinking market.

CFO commentary from the quarterly results:

The GPU business grew 2.0 percent over the prior fiscal year, despite the $173.1 million decline in revenue from chipset products, which were discontinued. Excluding chipset product revenue, the GPU business grew 8.0 percent.

8% growth is not shrinking.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Q1 2012 revenue was $925 Million and Nvidia is forecasting just $940 million for Q1 2013.

Wut?

 

[Raghu]

-- Quarter over Quarter (Q4 2012 vs. Q3 2012) is where you can see that NV didn't have a stellar quarter. Revenues were down, OPEX up, net income down. Specifically, the GPU business had revenue of $832.5 million, down $61.7 million or 6.9 percent sequentially. The sequential decline stems from desktop GPUs (pg. 4)

This is seasonal and expected every year. The Q next to holiday season is always leaner than the holiday Q. Comparing to the Q from last year should be a better metric.

 

[blastingcap]

Wait, financials are a sore point for some in the VCg forum? And now, good results are really not? lol/

You may jokes about this but it's no laughing matter to me. AMD drivers have long been shakier than NV's for multi-GPU, and if the company is dragged down by the crappy CPU results, it may mean fewer and fewer resources left for AMD's GPU staff to the point where even single-GPU drivers are negatively impacted.

For similar reasons, I always think twice about buying high-end camera gear from a manufacturer that isn't doing well financially. I don't want to be stuck with a bunch of gear made by a defunct company (losing a lot of resale value in the process). AMD cards wouldn't lose TOO much value overnight if AMD went into bankruptcy, but the loss of support and parts for RMA and such, would make me nervous.

I'm also worried about the implications for price/perf in the long term if AMD goes into Ch. 11 (reorg) or Ch. 7 bankruptcy (liquidation). If NV has a de facto monopoly on desktop GPUs, what is to keep them from jacking up prices and given a worse price/perf ratio?