GTX 470 Price and PSU Requirement

[Meghan54]

For one, I wish nVidia had named the thing something other than Fermi.

Every time I see Fermi, I read "Ferbi" or "Squirmi."

 

[Shilohen]

For one, I wish nVidia had named the thing something other than Fermi.

Every time I see Fermi, I read "Ferbi" or "Squirmi."

I dunno, whenever I see it I think of "fourmi", which is the French word for "ant". Seeing how they made the architecture as similar cores working together, they may have indeed gotten the name from there and, if so, it's not a bad name at all.


Regards,

 

[MarcVenice]

GTX 470 at $300 dollar could make sense. What if it is slightly faster then a HD 5850, but also consumes a lot more power? It would be a trade off between performance and energy consumption and the possible loudness of the videocard.

If the prices are true, then Nvidia is surely to lose a lot of money on each chip. Then again, there won't be many chips till may.

 

[crisium]

I hope this is true. It will drive down 5850 and 5870 prices. Not that I'm upgrading anytime soon, but it's always good to get a high level of performance for under $300.

 

[Creig]

Not sure of the accuracy of this site either, but it puts pricing more in line with what I think would be likely if Nvidia doesn't want to lose money on each one. Then again, it could be e-tailer pre-release price gouging and the GTX 470 MSRP is actually going to be $299 as previously mentioned:

http://www.sabrepc.com/c-27-desktop-graphics-video-cards.aspx?pagesize=9&sectionids=30&list=0


Let's face it. Until we get official word from Nvidia themselves, all we're doing is making semi-informed guesstimates.

 

[PingviN]

One thing I don't get it is why is Nvidia discontinuing GT200 before even Fermi hits the market. Heck, we don't even hear of the Fermi-derived budget parts yet. It doesn't seem to be a rational business decision at any angle I look at it.

A) They overestimated their ability to get GF100 out on the market on time.
B) They overestimated their ability to get GF100 out on the market on time and had a stock of GT200 they thought would last untill GF100 was released.
C) They overestimated their ability to get GF100 out on the market on time and were making a loss on each GT200 sold.
D) ?

 

[Janooo]

Not sure of the accuracy of this site either, but it puts pricing more in line with what I think would be likely if Nvidia doesn't want to lose money on each one. Then again, it could be e-tailer pre-release price gouging and the GTX 470 MSRP is actually going to be $299 as previously mentioned:

http://www.sabrepc.com/c-27-desktop-graphics-video-cards.aspx?pagesize=9&sectionids=30&list=0


Let's face it. Until we get official word from Nvidia themselves, all we're doing is making semi-informed guesstimates.

How come? Do you expect 470 to have 512 SPs?

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's possible, I suppose. But from the calculations I've seen, ATi doesn't seem to have priced their cards outrageously above production costs.

To me, either the performance of the GTX 470 isn't at HD 5870 levels or the MSRP will be higher than $299. Or both. I would have a hard time believing that neither one is true.

Or, Nvidia is plugging away hard at Fermi 2 and will sell Fermi at a loss just to get something out. They may know that Fermi is a failed product as far as being a money maker, kind of like AMD must have realized at some point with the R600. Not saying this is the case, but just another possible scenario.

 

[Creig]

How come? Do you expect 470 to have 512 SPs?

Not really. E-tailer websites have always been riddled with errors regarding SPs, clock speeds, etc., even on products they have in stock and are currently shipping. So I certainly wouldn't put money on either the price or the specs of an unreleased product listed being accurate.

 

[Blue Shift]

A thought: If nV can only put out a few 512-shader 480s (aka, if Charlie was semi-accurate), but a crap-ton of 448-shader 470s get harvested in the process, then they could have a massive oversupply of 470s that they would logically want to sell... At whatever price moves that many of them.

If this were the case, then we could realistically see $299 470s next to $600+ 480s.

There would be virtually no demand for the higher part, but that can be a good thing if there's only a small number of them to sell.

Then again, theorizing 30 minutes before this supposedly "important" announcement is a bit silly. I'll shut up now.

 

[jpeyton]

Nvidia can't delivery any real salable quantity of GTX470 units at $299 in the near future.

 

[Dribble]

It's possible, I suppose. But from the calculations I've seen, ATi doesn't seem to have priced their cards outrageously above production costs.

To me, either the performance of the GTX 470 isn't at HD 5870 levels or the MSRP will be higher than $299. Or both. I would have a hard time believing that neither one is true.

Yet they sold 4850's for $100 and 4870's for $150. The 58xx series isn't that different (die size, memory bus width, board complexity, etc). I am sure at the start the costs for the gpu chips were high but if TMSC is to be believed and yields have improved then ati could half their prices and still make money. Obviously they want to make more money then that if they can but if nvidia force prices down I'm pretty sure ati will have no trouble responding.

Nvidia 470 at $300 isn't that silly - I mean a GTX 260 only cost $150 and nvidia still made money. The board for the GTX 470 shouldn't cost much more - it's pretty similar only with a narrower memory bus (cheaper) but high power draw (more expensive). Hence it basically comes down to the gpu chip cost. If they want to price aggressively $300 isn't impossible.

It depends on how much money nvidia want to make on the consumer high end cards? I suppose nvidia could look to make their money on the quadro, telsa, and low-mid end cards, almost loss leading with the high end to drive sales across the range.

 

[tviceman]

GF100 is a disappointment if it merely stands head-to-head with Cypress. GF100 was supposed to be oh so awesome and so worth the wait. I would love GF100 to be a killer and that's what I expect from a ~530mm^2 chip. If the 3 billion transistors GF100 can't beat a 338mm^2 ~2 billion transistors chip senseless, it's a failure for Nvidia.

I have no affection towards AMD or Nvidia other than that I know both are capable of making great components, but Nvidia took a wrong turn at GT200 and seems to be doing the same thing with GF100. I know full well that R600 was a joke and RV670 barely stood up to the competition, but that doesn't change anything; RV780 and RV880 are awesome, who cares about earlier generations? Fanboys can look back at the glorious G80 days, but I don't want a G80 GPU, do you?

All your posts in this thread prior to this are speaking as if gf100's performance already proven common knowledge. Now you are backpedaling and saying "IF". It may or may not be $300, and it still may or may not be noticealby faster than the 5870. So which is it? Are you disappointed that the 470 may be $300 or are you disappointed that it may not be as fast as the 5870? It sounds like you are already disappointed no matter what.

 

[PingviN]

All your posts in this thread prior to this are speaking as if gf100's performance already proven common knowledge. Now you are backpedaling and saying "IF". It may or may not be $300, and it still may or may not be noticealby faster than the 5870. So which is it? Are you disappointed that the 470 may be $300 or are you disappointed that it may not be as fast as the 5870? It sounds like you are already disappointed no matter what.

I believe I've used "if" almost every time. I am dissapointed due to the fact that (IF) the price is set at $300, it's because they can't beat the HD5870 (PROBABLY). There is no sense in setting it so low IF they beat HD5850/HD5870. Nvidia full well knows there is no chance it will beat AMD in a price war as GF100 is much larger and complex a chip.

 

[tviceman]

I believe I've used "if" almost every time. I am dissapointed due to the fact that (IF) the price is set at $300, it's because they can't beat the HD5870 (PROBABLY). There is no sense in setting it so low IF they beat HD5850/HD5870. Nvidia full well knows there is no chance it will beat AMD in a price war as GF100 is much larger and complex a chip.

So you're disappointment is all based on assumptions? Ok.... Well, there is one good thing about your current frame of mind: if anything at all about GF100, be it price or performance, is better than what you ASSUME then you may in fact be pleasantly surprised.

But you're right, if a GTX470 - which has ddr5 ram and 87% more stream processors than a gtx285- can only compete with a 5850 (which is about 15% faster than gtx285 at playable settings) then it will be a massive disappointment.

 

[akugami]

I don't see how this website could possibly be correct. $299 for 5870 level performance from a chip that has 50% more transistors and a correspondingly lower yield?

It just doesn't seem fiscally possible. Nvidia would be taking a bloodbath loss on each unit sold.

My thoughts exactly. Likely this rumor is completely untrue.

You're right it wouldn't. Unless ATI is severely overpricing their current lineup in the face of lack of a competitors lineup.

Given that ATI's finances were roughly break-even or small profit last year with low card prices and a smaller GPU die size, it seems unlikely that ATI is drastically overpricing their current lineup. I'd say it might actually be roughly in line with what launch prices should be for a healthy company with a small margin to lower prices depending on what the competition does.

Now, if the pricing rumor is true then I'd have to seriously reconsider my stance that I'm not buying a video card in the current generation.



Basically the two plausible scenarios are, the rumor of a $300 470 is untrue. Or, they will release it at $300 knowing they have almost no supply and will discontinue it shortly with an updated card hoping this brings them a bit of positive press from both the media and users.

 

[bryanW1995]

I think that the $299 number is highly likely. AMD price 48x0 at extremely competitive prices because they HAD NO CHOICE. nvidia appears to be getting into a similar situation, they are going to price 470 and 480 at competitive market prices. AMD's strategy in summer 08 was so effective because they launched at the same time as nvidia. If nvidia would have launched fermi last fall and it had problems but was price competitive, they could have gotten away with it and done a respin later. However, since they've stalled for so long, they have much more pressure now to produce a slam dunk winner. Things are not looking good for nvidia or our wallets guys.

 

[PingviN]

So you're disappointment is all based on assumptions?

My dissapointment mainly lies in the 6+ months delay. Other than that, yes, it's all assumption, hear-say and rumors - what else is there?

 

[thescreensavers]

Man a bit off topic, but I remember spending 400 on my 6800gt, those were the days.

 

[Rezist]

They'll have such small volumes the launch price probably won't mean anything. If there waiting as some people suggest to move these to 28 nm thats a really far ways off.

 

[tviceman]

My dissapointment mainly lies in the 6+ months delay. Other than that, yes, it's all assumption, hear-say and rumors - what else is there?

Controlled nvidia supplied benchmarks! You forgot those!

 

[PingviN]

Controlled nvidia supplied benchmarks! You forgot those!

Oh right. Sorry.

GF100 will kick AMD to the curb!!!!!!!

Oh wait...

 

[MarcVenice]

A thought: If nV can only put out a few 512-shader 480s (aka, if Charlie was semi-accurate), but a crap-ton of 448-shader 470s get harvested in the process, then they could have a massive oversupply of 470s that they would logically want to sell... At whatever price moves that many of them.

If this were the case, then we could realistically see $299 470s next to $600+ 480s.

There would be virtually no demand for the higher part, but that can be a good thing if there's only a small number of them to sell.

Then again, theorizing 30 minutes before this supposedly "important" announcement is a bit silly. I'll shut up now.

That's not how silicon is produced. You don't have a chip that doesn't yield worth shit at topbin, yet only has 1 defect so that it can be sold at 90% of it's intended efficiency. If a wafer delivers very little working gpu's with 512sp's, there won't be many working gpu's at 448sp's either.

 

[cbn]

why do you look at it like that? what if the GTX470 is about as fast as the 5870 and they are just releasing at $299 to help get sales because they are late?

Yep, I think prices could be reasonable if only to get certain Radeon HD5xxx owners to think about switching over.

 

[SHAQ]

So the 480 might be only $399 if the 470 is only $299 or possibly $449. I hope they are that cheap. I could afford 2 at that price after I sell a 295 and 2 260's. lol