gk104 in production, April release? [fud]

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Can someone explain to me how this is not price fixing? AMD goes up 50% on msrp. That just happens to coincide with not disturbing nvidia's offerings. So nvidia is still able to unload all their last gen parts as is AMD. Now speculation is that gtx 670ti is going to fall right in line with what AMD has offered performance/price wise. Still able to unload all last gen parts, not upsetting the apple cart, etc..

If that isn't price fixing between the only two manufacturers of discrete gpu's I don't know what is?

 

[tviceman]

Can someone explain to me how this is not price fixing? AMD goes up 50% on msrp. That just happens to coincide with not disturbing nvidia's offerings. So nvidia is still able to unload all their last gen parts as is AMD. Now speculation is that gtx 670ti is going to fall right in line with what AMD has offered performance/price wise. Still able to unload all last gen parts, not upsetting the apple cart, etc..

If that isn't price fixing between the only two manufacturers of discrete gpu's I don't know what is?

Nobody here knows for sure what the price of this card is yet. I wouldn't start calling price fixing yet. If it's any consolation, Nvidia did monitor reviews of the hd79xx cards and did point out in their internal news letters that price/performance of the new high end cards were not any better than the current market offerings.

 

[SirPauly]

I didn't know that, thanks! On another note: nVidia decreased their guidance on margins down to around 49.2 percent. One may imagine, if nVidia was going to increase pricing noticeably, margins may increase as well.

 

[imaheadcase]

I agree. I'm sure in the end they'll try to squeeze every red dime we have. But I'm only saying that because of all the crap AMD got for how they priced their HD 7-series.

Imagine if the GTX 670 Ti is marginally faster than an GTX 580 and priced in the $400+ spectrum? Woof. So many would dine on crow. Worse if it's slower than the GTX 580/HD 7950 and still $400+.

I just want a GTX 580 like card for $350, and I'd be happy. Even if that means the GTX 580 itself getting to $350 haha, which might be possible.

If Its faster than a single GTX 580 by considerable amount. I will sell you one for that price

 

[railven]

What a way to garner new sales.

I dunno, have you not seen this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=3020

There are a good chunk of people here already pledging to buy a Kepler product without knowing a lick about it, outside of it being from nVidia.

 

[SirPauly]

Probably, and even some may strongly defend it as well.

 

[taltamir]

I think he was just stating that the wording actually means in March. If something is released "by April", technically that means "before the beginning of".

in real english, yes.
In computer marketing it means "april 30th, maybe... most likely a month or two after it"

 

[krumme]

Probably, and even some may strongly defend it as well.

Yeaa, but not nearly so many. NV sell using their gforce brand. Its the major value of the company. They invest a lot in the brand. Whatfore?, well to sell less performance for more, to earn more profit. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, on the contrary, they earn a lot more doing so. So why is it so difficult for people to accept the fact that you get less performance for your money?

Well the answer is simple, thats what a good executed brand strategy does with the mind.

 

[taltamir]

So why is it so difficult for people to accept the fact that you get less performance for your money?

1. your opinion is not fact.
2. MSRP is not indicative of actual pricing at the store.
3. AMD also invests in their brand for the same reason as nvidia (although rather poorly and amaturishly, and they keep on scrapping brands)
4. average FPS is not the only measure of quality. People are willing to pay more for other things, such as driver quality or min FPS or customer service (board partners).

All of the above being said, AMD currently has quite a winner on their hand. The move to 28nm did them good and nvidia has no response to it other then cutting prices. But as one of the anandtech editors always says, there is no bad video card only a badly priced one.

There are a good chunk of people here already pledging to buy a Kepler product without knowing a lick about it, outside of it being from nVidia.

They are not pledging to do so.
They are saying they PLAN on doing so. But no plan survives first contact.
If it's performance does not live up to their expectation they will scrap the plan, with few exceptionally dedicated nvidia fans.
Such dedicated fans exist for all brands though. AMD has them too.

 

[SirPauly]

Yeaa, but not nearly so many. NV sell using their gforce brand. Its the major value of the company. They invest a lot in the brand. Whatfore?, well to sell less performance for more, to earn more profit. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, on the contrary, they earn a lot more doing so. So why is it so difficult for people to accept the fact that you get less performance for your money?

Well the answer is simple, thats what a good executed brand strategy does with the mind.

And the reason why their brand earns a modest premium is because they're pro-active with developers and pro-active with out-of-the-box abilities. Do more you may be rewarded with a modest premium.

Why is it difficult to understand that performance is usually redefined with a substantial and significant node change with a new arch and to continue the status quo 40nm price/performance and defend it is odd.

Even nVidia noted this there hasn't been really any performance/value according to tviceman. A link would be welcomed.

 

[tviceman]

Even nVidia noted this there hasn't been really any performance/value according to tviceman. A link would be welcomed.

I can't find it, sorry. It was basically an internal newsletter to their employees pulling quotes from various reviews of the hd7970 that hit on it's cons (mainly lack of value vs. current 40nm offerings and not as big a jump over the previous best single GPU). It certainly doesn't mean that Nvidia won't price their new GPU's sky high as well, but it at least shows they notice and read what reviewers say.

 

[SirPauly]

Thanks anyway.

 

[railven]

They are not pledging to do so.
They are saying they PLAN on doing so. But no plan survives first contact.
If it's performance does not live up to their expectation they will scrap the plan, with few exceptionally dedicated nvidia fans.
Such dedicated fans exist for all brands though. AMD has them too.

Well aware of that, which is what my post was intended to illustrate. Of course, nothing is written in stone, but the simple fact of casting a vote (or pledge, regardless of word semantics) based on zero information supports - regardless of information, there is an audience waiting to buy.

 

[toyota]

Well aware of that, which is what my post was intended to illustrate. Of course, nothing is written in stone, but the simple fact of casting a vote (or pledge, regardless of word semantics) based on zero information supports - regardless of information, there is an audience waiting to buy.

you are making too much out of it anyway. that thread is about planning to buy Kepler. those plans can and will change for people depending on how the card actually performs and what it cost. I am sure many people were planning to buy the 7970 and 7950 too but changed their minds once they saw the price.

 

[Homeles]

Can someone explain to me how this is not price fixing? AMD goes up 50% on msrp. That just happens to coincide with not disturbing nvidia's offerings. So nvidia is still able to unload all their last gen parts as is AMD. Now speculation is that gtx 670ti is going to fall right in line with what AMD has offered performance/price wise. Still able to unload all last gen parts, not upsetting the apple cart, etc..

If that isn't price fixing between the only two manufacturers of discrete gpu's I don't know what is?

Why the conspiracy theory?

28nm pricing isn't really up to either AMD or Nvidia. When 28nm wafer production picks up and yields improve, you'll see price drops. Right now, it's much more expensive than 40nm, which has been in volume production since 2008.

That's a horrendously long time in fab years, and with all the competition for 28nm wafers, neither AMD or Nvidia are getting the quantity of wafers they would like. The process is also quite new, and yields aren't going to be the best.

So you being disappointed in the pricing of the next gen cards is a bit ridiculous. Wafer costs will go down, more wafers will be produced, and more functional dies will be yielded from those wafers. This takes time, however TSMC is ramping up production pretty quickly.

Finally, it really wouldn't make sense for AMD to sell their cards for less when they're selling out pretty frequently on newegg.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I didn't think wafer cost was a major factor in overall cost, I could be wrong, but the sand isn't the expensive part.

If fab was lucrative than those companies would be mega super powers in the economy, but they simply are not. They make money through mass production of low cost items (wafers), like McDonald's does with cheeseburgers. $1 isn't much, but selling billions of them a year quickly adds up.

 

[SirPauly]

Right now, it's much more expensive than 40nm, which has been in volume production since 2008.

How much more expensive?

 

[Quantos]

I didn't think wafer cost was a major factor in overall cost, I could be wrong, but the sand isn't the expensive part.

If fab was lucrative than those companies would be mega super powers in the economy, but they simply are not. They make money through mass production of low cost items (wafers), like McDonald's does with cheeseburgers. $1 isn't much, but selling billions of them a year quickly adds up.

Hmm, I don't know...

We seem to hear a lot along the lines of: "X foundry is having trouble with X process". Perhaps the raw material isn't very expensive, and the profit potential is immense, but it doesn't seem exactly very simple. They definitely make companies pay for their trouble.

Also, they're probably not mega super powers because they don't deal with random people, only with corporations. There are many companies like that which are very big and powerful, but mostly unknown to most people because they just have no interest in the field (stuff like Level 3).

 

[taltamir]

Can someone explain to me how this is not price fixing? AMD goes up 50% on msrp. That just happens to coincide with not disturbing nvidia's offerings. So nvidia is still able to unload all their last gen parts as is AMD. Now speculation is that gtx 670ti is going to fall right in line with what AMD has offered performance/price wise. Still able to unload all last gen parts, not upsetting the apple cart, etc..

If that isn't price fixing between the only two manufacturers of discrete gpu's I don't know what is?

for it to be price fixing they have to actually get together and make an agreement.
If AMD raises the price, nVidia can choose to raise the price as well... as long as they don't actually make an agreement to both raise the price then there is no price fixing.

 

[Homeles]

I didn't think wafer cost was a major factor in overall cost, I could be wrong, but the sand isn't the expensive part.

If fab was lucrative than those companies would be mega super powers in the economy, but they simply are not. They make money through mass production of low cost items (wafers), like McDonald's does with cheeseburgers. $1 isn't much, but selling billions of them a year quickly adds up.

No, the raw material isn't any more expensive. However, McDonalds doesn't have to spend more and more money to figure out how to make their hamburgers smaller and smaller every year.

Why would anyone use 40nm if it cost the exact same as 28nm? You get more dies per wafer, and if the wafers cost the same, there would be absolutely no point. TSMC has to do something to keep demand in check, and raising prices does just that.

How much more expensive?

I don't know exact prices. Wafer prices are generally not made public. They are going up between each generation though. That graph says $6000, which seems about right.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

@Homeles your graph doesn't account for the amount of possible good dies available with each reduction. Smaller fab means more dies per wafter.


How many actual major outsource fabs are there? I can only think of GloFo and TSMC.

There is a lot of overhead when designing, producing, and selling graphics cards...

ASUS wants a cut, Nvidia/AMD need their share, all the parts besides the gpu (ram) on the boards aren't free either... Newegg needs a cut too...

Say we take the 5870, it was around $350 MSRP at release... How much of that went into actually building the card, designing it, and how much of that also went to newegg and ASUS? How much is left there to actually account for fab costs of the gpu die itself? Personally I don't think it's a lot. I could be wrong, but I don't imagine either company is paying a lot per die.

 

[toyota]

No, the raw material isn't any more expensive. However, McDonalds doesn't have to spend more and more money to figure out how to make their hamburgers smaller and smaller every year.

http://chipdesignmag.com/images/uploads/0911CderFig2_Wafer_Cost.jpg


I don't know exact prices. Wafer prices are generally not made public. They are going up between each generation though.

speaking of which, I swear their burgers have gotten smaller over the years.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I didn't think wafer cost was a major factor in overall cost, I could be wrong, but the sand isn't the expensive part.

One wafer can be up to $5000.

A lot of factors indicate that there is demand towards 28nm process technology and it can well exceed supply. SemiAccurate web-site reports that TSMC's "yields on 28nm are not all that great", which means that the company's ability to fulfill the demands are constrained. As a consequence, TSMC decided to increase prices for 28nm chips "by somewhere between 15% - 25%. Given that a wafer processed using latest process technologies can cost $4000 - $5000, it is not hard to guess that the increase may significantly affect the costs of forthcoming graphics cards or consumer electronics.

 

[taltamir]

I didn't think wafer cost was a major factor in overall cost, I could be wrong, but the sand isn't the expensive part.

The sand is dirt cheap... it has to be purified in expensive machinery to be 99.999% pure (IIRC its three 9s after the zero) and cast into perfectly shaped large cylindar. Then this has to go through machinery that cost billions. A current gen factory costs 6 billion dollars. And only has so many years before it is obsolete.

The price of the waffer then is not the cost of the raw material, but the cost of machinery and labor.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

One wafer can be up to $5000.

Yeah I saw that, it will be interesting to see how it plays out... But Nvidia reportedly had poor yields, and paid by the wafer for 40nm, and that cost $5000 per wafer as well.

Assuming Kepler is doing better than Fermi did (which was reportedly the case), and the increased nodes per wafer (smaller die), costs shouldn't be as high as 40nm for Nvidia..

I mean I'm just assuming here, I have no facts only what I've heard.