Here's the biggest problem with the 8800GTS pricing

[yacoub]

http://rtpe.anandtech.com/img/plot/5164_182.png

Compare that with:

http://rtpe.anandtech.com/img/plot/5066_182.png

Within about a month of release the 640MB models started to drop in price and have continued to come down overall. The 320MB models have been out over three months and haven't really dropped at all overall.

Friggin' 320MB models need to start dropping in price already so those 640MB models can continue to drop.

 

[Chadder007]

Either the market will take care of that with oversupply of the 320's, or the 320 meg version will be dropped.

 

[fern420]

they usually dont drop the prices on the models they sell the most of. as long as they are selling theres no need to drop the price. im sure its a part of their price fixing lawsuit.

 

[RussianSensation]

Newegg.com:

320mb - $260
640 mb - $330

The price difference is $70 and for a while it used to be around $100. Seems reasonable considering that memory prices have fallen over the last couple months.

I suppose you can make the argument that the 320 mb card should have dropped as well then, but the price reduction should be greater on the 640mb version since there is more ram onboard.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: fern420
they usually dont drop the prices on the models they sell the most of. as long as they are selling theres no need to drop the price. im sure its a part of their price fixing lawsuit.

How is it price fixing to not drop prices of your best seller? Unless you have an oversupply of that part, that's just supply and demand.

 

[manimal]

Until there is a similar card from a competitor that is cheaper or they release a card that exeeds the specs of the 320 there is no reason for them to mess with a good thing.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Newegg.com:

320mb - $260
640 mb - $330

The price difference is $70 and for a while it used to be around $100. Seems reasonable considering that memory prices have fallen over the last couple months.

I suppose you can make the argument that the 320 mb card should have dropped as well then, but the price reduction should be greater on the 640mb version since there is more ram onboard.

You're including MIRs (but the result is still the same). I was talking about what you actually pay the vendor to purchase the card. $290 and $350, respectively, for the 320MB and 640MB. As shown in the RTPE trend graphs I posted links to.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: fern420
they usually dont drop the prices on the models they sell the most of. as long as they are selling theres no need to drop the price. im sure its a part of their price fixing lawsuit.

That practice is not illegal price fixing. It's called "supply and demand" and is a core pillar of capitalism.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: yacoub

You're including MIRs (but the result is still the same). I was talking about what you actually pay the vendor to purchase the card. $290 and $350, respectively, for the 320MB and 640MB. As shown in the RTPE trend graphs I posted links to.

Correct, but at the end of the day I care how much it costs me not how much the vendor pays. I think if the 640mb version cost $260 that would be a heck of a deal. Don't worry, by mid summer it will. The only one to blame for 8800 pricing is ATI really.

Not only did they introduce a horrible HD 2900XT card which is hot, runs loud and is at best matching 8800GTS 640's performance, but it's priced way out of the park. But let's forget the high end, ATI has no midrange or low end products and the specs of the ones in the pipeline are just embarrassing. This generation has been won by Nvidia hands down. Let's move on to R700. Ati need to start from scratch and consider that games actually do benefit from texture throughput. Realistically speaking if ATI simply went with X1950XT design and just increased the number of pipes by a factor of 2 to 96 and texture units to 32, they would have done far better than to have implemented their fancy unified shader design. A 128 shader 8800GTX in the 600mhz gpu range destroys a 320 shader card which is clocked at 750mhz. If you worked at ATI you'd have to stand back and ask yourself what was your engineering team thinking? I can't believe those employees get paid 6 figures. It's not rocket science to realize that putting 320 shaders on a card and just 16 texture units is not a balanced approach, or that games are most gpu speed limited so going with 512-bit memory was a waste of $$$ again.

So if there is anyone to blame for lack of pricing competitiveness, blame ATI, not the consumer.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: fern420
they usually dont drop the prices on the models they sell the most of. as long as they are selling theres no need to drop the price. im sure its a part of their price fixing lawsuit.

That practice is not illegal price fixing. It's called "supply and demand" and is a core pillar of capitalism.

 

[Matt2]

Why not write a letter to AMD telling them to hurry the eff up and release a HD2900XL at around $250?

That should get the 8800GTS 640mb down to about $300 OTD.

 

[AnotherGuy]

U prolly can still get the 640mb for $295 at buy.com... check hot deals... Mine already arrived... and its friggin huge... not installed yet, waiting for rest of system to get here to put it on.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
So if there is anyone to blame for lack of pricing competitiveness, blame ATI, not the consumer.

I didn't blame the consumer, I was just expressing disappointment that the 640MB pricing hasn't come down further and I see the 320MB holding its price as the reason why.

 

[conlan]

I understand your frustration, but think of it this way, if you were selling a product for say $300 as fast as you could deliver them, would you drop the price?

 

[lopri]

Well, I'm personally more pissed-off @GTX price. It hasn't moved a dime for the past 6 months. Ugh.

 

[nitromullet]

The other thing to remember here is that the GTS 320MB was priced to be competitive from its beginning, while the 640MB was priced in accordance with the GTX. Had they originally priced it too much lower than the GTX, that would have been a bit odd also. Picture this: NV launches the GTX at $600 MSRP and the GTS 640MB at $300... Sure, it's not quite the performer that the GTX is, but it's no slouch either. I know I wouldn't have bought a GTX at launch (which I did) had I been able to pick up the GTS for $300... Basically, it makes sense for the 640MB to drop in price because it started out overpriced...

 

[UF Matt]

The 640mb was overpriced to start with, while the 320mb was more reasonable. Besides, without intense competition, demand will keep prices up.

 

[Keysplayr]

350.00 for the GTS is pretty nice. After rebates, it gets nicer. Ultimately, you'll only pay 330.00 for the card. And the 320GTS is selling like there is about to be a G80 famin. No way will the prices be dropped if they are selling soooo well. If the price works, and people in droves keep buying them, would you see any reason to lower the price? No way.
The 640GTS price is lowering because most are going for the 320 version and 640 sales may have suffered a bit. But it seems that folks will pay the extra 60 to 70 bucks for another 320MB of GDDR3 without any quams. I should know, I was in the same decision boat and opted for the 640GTS at the last second. I said, "If I'm gonna do it, might as well do it right (for my needs anyways).".

 

[yacoub]

640MB model also came down more because RAM prices are dirt cheap so the extra RAM costs them less to manufacture, thus the price can be dropped further without incurring reduced profits.

I'm just hoping to see 640MB hit $300 w/o needing MIRs. Instant rebates are fine.