GPU enthusiasts, how much are you actually willing to spend?

[railven]

They did. The $330 970 matched the $600 780 ti and beats the pants off the regular $500 780.

I meant at the start of the 28nm generation. If NV just went all out. AMD would have been stuck selling the 7970 for <$300 for almost 2 years.

 

[nitromullet]

I get that. I guess what I meant is that, based on the price that a medium/mid range chip costs, they are way too expensive for me to call them mid range. Even if you could buy a GTX1080 for $399 and not $699, that would be enough money for me to call it a high end card. I suppose I'm basing that on how much money I'm willing to spend. Even $399 is far enough out of my price range that I consider it high end, let alone a true high end card like GM100 and GP100.

Maybe we're both saying the same thing, I don't know.

A product's position in the market is defined by its place/price relative to other comparable products, not by what you can or cannot afford.

What makes you believe back then their mid range wasnt their high end as well? Because they created a product stack and told you the high end was the high end? The product stack is what it is. High end is still high end based on a price and performance snapshot.

...because prior to GTX 680 they never launched a bigger chip from the same architecture after launching the flagship card.

With Maxwell, they sold us the GM204 based GTX 980 as the flagship for a year, and then they introduced another flagship based on GM200 in the Titan X and GTX 980 ti cards. If they had launched GM200 and GM204 at the same time, GM204 would have been the chip used for the mid-range card.

I'm not sure why I even bothered answering this because I know you already know this.

edit: to be clear, I'm not saying the mid-range chip cards aren't worth their flagship status (I owned a GTX 680, GTX 770, and a GTX 970), but it is a fact that NV have managed to elevate their previous mid-range chips to flagship status and price through a staggered launch approach that did not exist before.

 

[bigboxes]

Seems like about $175 is the limit my brain sets. I bought a GTX 460 768 for about that price. I tried to buy a GTX 970 a couple of years back, but I just couldn't justify the price, so I bought a 750Ti instead.

We'll see if I find something compelling enough to pay more this cycle.

My limit used to be $200. I find that a true midrange card cost close to $300 these days. Same with sub $100 cards. It makes no sense in new rigs since the on-board gpu is powerful enough not to need the power of a sub $100 card. And if you're going for $1000+ does it really matter which increment of a thousand you fall into? The OP has the scale all out of whack. Should be:

$0 - $200
$200 - $300
$300 - $400
$400 - $500
$500 - $600
$600 - $700
$700+

 

[poofyhairguy]

I meant at the start of the 28nm generation. If NV just went all out. AMD would have been stuck selling the 7970 for <$300 for almost 2 years.

I would argue Maxwell was like a new node (aka massive power consumption improvement) without the new node.

 

[boozzer]

A product's position in the market is defined by its place/price relative to other comparable products, not by what you can or cannot afford.



...because prior to GTX 680 they never launched a bigger chip from the same architecture after launching the flagship card.

With Maxwell, they sold us the GM204 based GTX 980 as the flagship for a year, and then they introduced another flagship based on GM200 in the Titan X and GTX 980 ti cards. If they had launched GM200 and GM204 at the same time, GM204 would have been the chip used for the mid-range card.

I'm not sure why I even bothered answering this because I know you already know this.

edit: to be clear, I'm not saying the mid-range chip cards aren't worth their flagship status (I owned a GTX 680, GTX 770, and a GTX 970), but it is a fact that NV have managed to elevate their previous mid-range chips to flagship status and price through a staggered launch approach that did not exist before.

that is the very definition of milking a product by a business. If you own nv stock and it went up or more dividends, you would cheer it on. as a gamer/consumer the hate is justified imo. As a gamer who doesn't own a single stock in either company, so it is clear where I stand on this horrible practice.

 

[maddie]

Do you realize that those (5) $6000+ buyers are worth more than the $0 - $300 group. Wow.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

I am willing to spend zero for integrated graphics LOL

 

[Arachnotronic]

Are you a video card enthusiast or an investor? Unless the conversation turns into bankruptcy risk, why should we care about their stock performance? Gouging consumers in a monopoly would definitely help a company out, are you saying that we should be ok with that?

I'm both, although I currently have no position in either AMD or NVIDIA.

I think that understanding the business performances of both companies serves as an interesting reality check. Don't discourage people from discussing things from potentially unique perspectives.

 

[DooKey]

that is the very definition of milking a product by a business. If you own nv stock and it went up or more dividends, you would cheer it on. as a gamer/consumer the hate is justified imo. As a gamer who doesn't own a single stock in either company, so it is clear where I stand on this horrible practice.

If NV was the only company selling dGPU I could understand the hate. However, you have a choice whether to buy their product or not and have another company to buy product from. Vote with your wallet and quit acting like either company owes you a favor. They don't.

 

[Arachnotronic]

that is the very definition of milking a product by a business. If you own nv stock and it went up or more dividends, you would cheer it on. as a gamer/consumer the hate is justified imo. As a gamer who doesn't own a single stock in either company, so it is clear where I stand on this horrible practice.

What, the horrible practice of NVIDIA trying to make some money for its shareholders by providing products that people value?

It's a two-way street. Consumers want to get as much as possible while paying as little as possible, while businesses want to get paid as much as possible while providing as little as possible.

A good business is able to find the point at which both its shareholders and its customers win.

 

[Arachnotronic]

If NV was the only company selling dGPU I could understand the hate. However, you have a choice whether to buy their product or not and have another company to buy product from. Vote with your wallet and quit acting like either company owes you a favor. They don't.

^^ this.

Seriously, if one thinks that the GTX 1080 or whatever is too expensive, then go buy a product from some other company.

 

[oussama-tn]

Go here: http://forums.anandtech.com/profile.php?do=editsignature[/QUOTE]

Thank you, but i get this msg ''Sorry, you are not permitted to have a signature.'' ...

 

[UaVaj]

Do you realize that those (5) $6000+ buyers are worth more than the $0 - $300 group. Wow.

the poll should have been public so we know who is running $6000+ in just gpu. :whiste:

 

[casiofx]

$300-600 is fine for me, it'll be used for like 2 years.

Current one was $480 when i bought it and 2 years plus, most of the time just for playing dota 2...

 

[nitromullet]

Do you realize that those (5) $6000+ buyers are worth more than the $0 - $300 group. Wow.

That doesn't mean they are willing to pay $6k for a GTX 1070 and let NV keep the margin.

It just means that some people are apparently willing to pay up to $6k for a graphics solution. Given current pricing and options available, any setup in the $6k range would have to consist of multiple high end (probably binned) cards and water (or LN2) cooling.

The cost of producing these systems for a few people is high and consist of products from multiple sources (NV doesn't get any money for that EK waterblock). I'm sure the margins are good, but you can't look at one person willing to spend $6k on an elaborate system as being worth more as a customer than nine people willing to spend $600 on a single mass produced product just because 6,000 > 5,400.

 

[Ranulf]

I would really like to know how many of those 78 people (almost 44%) voted for $300-600 actually would spend more than $350-400.

I voted in that bracket and I wouldn't spend more than $350-400. It used to be $250-300, 300 being the absolute top, really going back to the days of my asus geforce1 card. Given the past 3-4 years, nvidia and their marketing can go screw itself. That or offer 2-3 good games with their cards.

 

[Makaveli]

If I could get a single card solution that would easily run 60fps @ 4k/max with modern games, I'd consider going to 600.

This!

 

[JustMe21]

At times, I think I'd buy a $600+ video card if the drivers were only 20 MB.

 

[Ancalagon44]

A product's position in the market is defined by its place/price relative to other comparable products, not by what you can or cannot afford.

I know, you're right, it is irrational, and as I said, I know its not the accepted classification scheme. It's just how my mind works.

 

[techne]

Do you realize that those (5) $6000+ buyers are worth more than the $0 - $300 group. Wow.

It's highly probable that no one in the 0-$300 group is lying.

Or, just to put in another perspective, it's highly improbable that someone has voted in the 0-$300 group just to mess with the results.

What about the $6000+ group? :whiste:

 

[ShintaiDK]

Not a fixed number as such since it depend son the metrics offered. But around 600$ +/- 100$ usually. Power consumption is my main limitation rather than cost.

 

[boozzer]

If NV was the only company selling dGPU I could understand the hate. However, you have a choice whether to buy their product or not and have another company to buy product from. Vote with your wallet and quit acting like either company owes you a favor. They don't.

What, the horrible practice of NVIDIA trying to make some money for its shareholders by providing products that people value?

It's a two-way street. Consumers want to get as much as possible while paying as little as possible, while businesses want to get paid as much as possible while providing as little as possible.

A good business is able to find the point at which both its shareholders and its customers win.

I don't understand why my post is that hard to understand, I even provided perspectives from both sides. explained why a gamer like me would hate the practice. I didn't even criticize the other side, just explaining the incentive to the cheering side. at least that is the only explanation that makes sense in my mind.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Most I ever spent was around $550 or so, for a pair of 6870s back when I was way too enthusiastic about eyefinity.

In General, I try to keep it around $200-$300.
Essentially, I like to have 2 machines capable of gaming at decent resolutions.

 

[Squeetard]

I miss the days when I was dropping $500 every six months on a new GPU. Why? because the new cards were beasts with a 50%+ (sometimes close to double the increase).
I've had my xfire 7970's for almost 3 years now. Gonna get a 1080. Probably going to cost me around a grand canadian. Hopefully that will last me another few years.
Gone are they days when the top of the line most expensive gpu could not play games on ultra. I remember playing Max Payne on my new $600 geForce 3 and still had to dial back the graphics to avoid a slide show. So I snapped up the very next gen. This is no longer the case.

 

[RussianSensation]

Price gouging is just the gpu industry copying intel's pricing format. Remember those 1000+ cpus that does almost nothing? at least recently, they give buyers 2x the number of cpu cores for the top end model.

The part I always repeat -- never ever buy a $650-700 card and keep it for 4-5 years unless you don't care about resale value, or getting it as a gift or something.

EVGA 980Ti SC is already $475 at MicroCenter new. That means used you'd be lucky to get $450 from some noob that doesn't follow tech. That means in 12 months that's a $200 loss of value, as much as an after-market 290 cost in November 2014.

For most gamers, it's way better to buy a card for $250-350 and upgrade more often unless they are following the launch of new GPUs and resell at a perfect time every time.

GTX970 is already at $225-229 and prices for 970/980/980Ti will drop more.

For people on 1920x1200 60Hz or lower, even a 970 OC is plenty fast for so many modern games with settings lowered slightly on some. I truly think even though 1080p 60Hz is the "industry standard," it's now not even the target for $350+ cards when designing GPUs. There is no way I'd believe that AMD/NV who are pushing 4K, VR, 1440p 144Hz, HDR are aiming to make $350-400 cards for 1080p 60Hz crowd. The bar is higher than that. I think for Pascal/Vega, the $400+ cards are becoming major overkill and a big waste of GPU potential. Also, the more powerful of a GPU you add to your 1080p 60Hz system, the more the bottleneck shifts to the CPU. I cannot understand the disconnect between GPUs getting so powerful, lower end tiers becoming so affordable, 1440p monitors becoming very affordable and yet people are still stuck to 1080p. I remember when I just started PC gaming, we wanted to get a monitor upgrade once the GPU allowed it. Now, it seems so many are buying new GPUs but are stuck on 1080p. It makes no sense.

The poll isn't going to be that accurate since it groups 99% of all PC gamers into just 2 categories: 0-$300 and $300-600.

For example, someone might max out at $200-225 but they wouldn't buy a $299 card. Also, someone would be willing to buy a $350-400 card but not a $550-600 one.

This thread needs to be made again or the poll started over.

$0-$49
$50-$99
$150-199
$200-249
$250-299
$300-$399
$400-$499
$500-$599
$600-$750
$750-1000
$1000-1500
and so on