How low can it go? The ATi vs. nVidia price war is really heating up

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
Originally posted by: Jumpem
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
These are really good prices for people with cards a few generations back, or for those looking to get into PC gaming. I can't see a need for most users to upgrade from the G80 or G92 type cards to these new ones.
AoC at 1920x1200.
Underlined.
 

MarcVenice

Moderator Emeritus <br>
Apr 2, 2007
5,664
0
0
My 8800gts 320mb I think is killing me at 1680*1050 though. Bought that piece of junk, because that's what it is right now, for 280 euro's ONE year ago. Right now, half that money buys me a much better card, even compared to the competition. To bad though, because the GTX260 still runs you 240 euro's in Holland, it should cost 160 euro's if we keep the dollar/euro conversion in mind. 160 euro's, and I'd buy one, right now ... A HD4870 or a GTX260 that is...
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
My 8800gts 320mb I think is killing me at 1680*1050 though. Bought that piece of junk, because that's what it is right now, for 280 euro's ONE year ago. Right now, half that money buys me a much better card, even compared to the competition. To bad though, because the GTX260 still runs you 240 euro's in Holland, it should cost 160 euro's if we keep the dollar/euro conversion in mind. 160 euro's, and I'd buy one, right now ... A HD4870 or a GTX260 that is...
And there it is......a case of buyer's remorse impacting current comments and outlook on a certain vendor. No offense Marc, but how does current pricing have anything to do with the quality/value of a product you bought over a year ago? Not to mention I'm quite positive you were warned about the low frame buffer on that card impacting performance going forward by myself and others, especially since reviews explicitly showed performance tanking at higher resolutions. The GTS 320MB was viewed as a great value at the time, sub-$300 pricing on G80 which absolutely destroyed anything else....provided you didn't run out of frame buffer. You think you'd be any happier right now with a 2900pro that you paid 280 euros for?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
My 8800gts 320mb I think is killing me at 1680*1050 though. Bought that piece of junk, because that's what it is right now, for 280 euro's ONE year ago. Right now, half that money buys me a much better card, even compared to the competition. To bad though, because the GTX260 still runs you 240 euro's in Holland, it should cost 160 euro's if we keep the dollar/euro conversion in mind. 160 euro's, and I'd buy one, right now ... A HD4870 or a GTX260 that is...
Really? I have the same card and am running at the same resolution. Apart from Crysis, the performance is quite smooth across the board. I generally use 2xAA and "high" settings in most games. I think the 320 is fine at that resolution. If I had a bigger monitor, I would have gotten the 640 instead.

- woolfe
 

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
My 8800gts 320mb I think is killing me at 1680*1050 though. Bought that piece of junk, because that's what it is right now, for 280 euro's ONE year ago. Right now, half that money buys me a much better card, even compared to the competition. To bad though, because the GTX260 still runs you 240 euro's in Holland, it should cost 160 euro's if we keep the dollar/euro conversion in mind. 160 euro's, and I'd buy one, right now ... A HD4870 or a GTX260 that is...
And there it is......a case of buyer's remorse impacting current comments and outlook on a certain vendor. No offense Marc, but how does current pricing have anything to do with the quality/value of a product you bought over a year ago? Not to mention I'm quite positive you were warned about the low frame buffer on that card impacting performance going forward by myself and others, especially since reviews explicitly showed performance tanking at higher resolutions. The GTS 320MB was viewed as a great value at the time, sub-$300 pricing on G80 which absolutely destroyed anything else....provided you didn't run out of frame buffer. You think you'd be any happier right now with a 2900pro that you paid 280 euros for?
Actually, the more I really go back and think about it, the more I realize just how much nVidia was making on these cards. Only now is pricing in the 'fair' range, IMO. No doubt that at the time, the 8800GTS 320MB was a good deal, but that was relative to the more expensive GTS 640MB and GTX 768MB... Remember the 8600GTS? Those cards were ridiculously priced. I mean, $200 for those cards was a huge rip...

I guess in the end it doesn't really matter. I don't a company for making money, they need to make money in order to invest research, but still, I think nVidia lost focus of the greater goal as a result of their land slide victory over the R600. If R600 released at the same time, it would have better a different outcome... The fact that the R600 was only 80% of the GTX wasn't what caused it to fail, it was the fact that it was several months late, which allowed nVidia to gauge the market with overpriced G80 cards.

Again, ATi would have done the same thing if it were in that position too. So, it isn't like the company is evil, but I do believe nVidia's better days have come and gone...

The time to be a gamer is NOW! Such affordable parts... We should start to see some really incredable graphics are a result of such powerful graphics cards on the cheap... Great time to be a consumer, but still isn't much incentive to upgrade from current G80 owners, IMO. It is all relative. Someone will tell me I am wrong, and that is fine, but not running the very highest of settings in most games versus one notch done doesn't have that large of am impact. I believe BenSkywalker made a really long post about diminishing returns in that area...
 

MarcVenice

Moderator Emeritus <br>
Apr 2, 2007
5,664
0
0
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
My 8800gts 320mb I think is killing me at 1680*1050 though. Bought that piece of junk, because that's what it is right now, for 280 euro's ONE year ago. Right now, half that money buys me a much better card, even compared to the competition. To bad though, because the GTX260 still runs you 240 euro's in Holland, it should cost 160 euro's if we keep the dollar/euro conversion in mind. 160 euro's, and I'd buy one, right now ... A HD4870 or a GTX260 that is...
And there it is......a case of buyer's remorse impacting current comments and outlook on a certain vendor. No offense Marc, but how does current pricing have anything to do with the quality/value of a product you bought over a year ago? Not to mention I'm quite positive you were warned about the low frame buffer on that card impacting performance going forward by myself and others, especially since reviews explicitly showed performance tanking at higher resolutions. The GTS 320MB was viewed as a great value at the time, sub-$300 pricing on G80 which absolutely destroyed anything else....provided you didn't run out of frame buffer. You think you'd be any happier right now with a 2900pro that you paid 280 euros for?
I just underlined the part where I mentioned the GTX260 as a possibly buy if it was 160 euro's, the same amount you guys pay in dollars? The HD4870 is also 200 euro's at best, to much compared to you guys. I'm not in bed with ATI, or Nvidia. The gts 320mb was just fine for me a year ago, in fact, it only tanks in AoC right now. Crysis is really a no go either, at high and 2x aa, you're FPS will suck, but I don't care for Crysis.

I'd not be happier with anything else, I only would have been happy being able to buy such a high end card, like the HD4850 or perhaps the 9800gtx ( 160 euro's vs 140 for the HD4850 ) for 140 euro's a year ago. In fact, 2 years ago I bought a 7600gs for 140 euro's. In the end, all I'm saying is how prices rock right now. And no buyers remorse, because no other card could have ran all the games I played like my 8800gts 320mb, unless I paid even more ;)
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Actually, the more I really go back and think about it, the more I realize just how much nVidia was making on these cards. Only now is pricing in the 'fair' range, IMO. No doubt that at the time, the 8800GTS 320MB was a good deal, but that was relative to the more expensive GTS 640MB and GTX 768MB... Remember the 8600GTS? Those cards were ridiculously priced. I mean, $200 for those cards was a huge rip...

I guess in the end it doesn't really matter. I don't a company for making money, they need to make money in order to invest research, but still, I think nVidia lost focus of the greater goal as a result of their land slide victory over the R600. If R600 released at the same time, it would have better a different outcome... The fact that the R600 was only 80% of the GTX wasn't what caused it to fail, it was the fact that it was several months late, which allowed nVidia to gauge the market with overpriced G80 cards.

Again, ATi would have done the same thing if it were in that position too. So, it isn't like the company is evil, but I do believe nVidia's better days have come and gone...

The time to be a gamer is NOW! Such affordable parts... We should start to see some really incredable graphics are a result of such powerful graphics cards on the cheap... Great time to be a consumer, but still isn't much incentive to upgrade from current G80 owners, IMO. It is all relative. Someone will tell me I am wrong, and that is fine, but not running the very highest of settings in most games versus one notch done doesn't have that large of am impact. I believe BenSkywalker made a really long post about diminishing returns in that area...
Well I don't think there's any doubt NV was making a huge profit on $600 8800GTXs and even $450 GTS. They're not in the business of losing money and despite all the haters and reports claiming NV was losing money on each G80 sold, NV still posted record profits in the YTD from G80's launch. Their ability to sell a sub-$300 GTS 320MB confirmed this as they pushed into the mid-range market.

Fair really has nothing to do with it. G92 allowed them to decreased production prices even further and ATI managed to finally produce a part they were going to mass produce in the RV670. At this point NV had made their killing on G80 with high margins and recouped much of their sunk R&D so they instead targeted high gross sales and lower margins with G92.

With GT200 you are seeing just how low they can cut their margins. Even at $400-450 (about $100-150 less than G80 GTX) per card, they're probably not *losing* money. You see the very bottom levels of profitability with the GTX 260 selling for $225-250. They're probably pushing break-even on those parts, but its clear NV has committed to winning a price war with ATI and selling for a slight loss is clearly better than not selling at all in the eyes of NV.

Also keep in mind that part pricing isn't done in a vacuum. NV and ATI do have pull with their suppliers....again with the same mentality that NV would rather sell at a lower margin than not sell at all, the same is true of their suppliers. If NV tells TSMC their cards aren't selling at $XXX per chip they're certainly going to renegotiate wafer price rather than risk losing all GT200 business from NV. Same for RAM, PCB, ICs and anything else.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
I just underlined the part where I mentioned the GTX260 as a possibly buy if it was 160 euro's, the same amount you guys pay in dollars? The HD4870 is also 200 euro's at best, to much compared to you guys. I'm not in bed with ATI, or Nvidia. The gts 320mb was just fine for me a year ago, in fact, it only tanks in AoC right now. Crysis is really a no go either, at high and 2x aa, you're FPS will suck, but I don't care for Crysis.

I'd not be happier with anything else, I only would have been happy being able to buy such a high end card, like the HD4850 or perhaps the 9800gtx ( 160 euro's vs 140 for the HD4850 ) for 140 euro's a year ago. In fact, 2 years ago I bought a 7600gs for 140 euro's. In the end, all I'm saying is how prices rock right now. And no buyers remorse, because no other card could have ran all the games I played like my 8800gts 320mb, unless I paid even more ;)
I don't know exact conversion rates on individual parts now vs a year ago, I do know that the rest of the world is paying more for PC parts than the US because of the weak dollar and conversion rates strictly adhering to MSRP in US dollars. My issue was your choice of wording as that "piece of junk" was clearly the best part you could buy for 280 Euros whenever you bought it. Current and future pricing is always going to change, I can guarantee you now that a 4870 or GTX 260 purchased today will look like a "piece of junk" in 12-18 months when compared to a 5870 or GTX 360. Does that mean we shouldn't buy today? Of course not.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
you know i am not too sure calling the prices now "fair" is fair, yea they made a killing compared to MANUFACTURING cost, but there is R&D that needs to be done.
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
0
0
I think Nvidia made more money including what they spent on R&D. $500 for a circuit board with transistors on it? I doubt they pay even 15% of that in China where they make millions of these boards.

R&D is basically wages for the employees. Unless they actually bought other companies in the process of making a chip, it's not money Nvidia wasn't spending in the first place to fuel their employees. They were making a killing.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
ofcourse they made money, they are a business, their goal is making money. but the more they make the more they also spend on R&D. or rather, the inverse is also true, in hard times companies tend to have firing rounds. Less engineers means lower quality next gen parts.
 

shangshang

Senior member
May 17, 2008
830
0
0
Usually, there is always a casualty in a price war, like in any war. I don't know who this casualty will be, but it's usually the one that has a weaker financial sheet to begin with.
 

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,606
134
106
I guess no one doubts that the 4850 and the 4870 are the best card for the price since the Ti4200. Probably even better.

It was time for high-end features drop the $500 mark and that the performance range was under $300.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Originally posted by: Azn
I think Nvidia made more money including what they spent on R&D. $500 for a circuit board with transistors on it? I doubt they pay even 15% of that in China where they make millions of these boards.

R&D is basically wages for the employees. Unless they actually bought other companies in the process of making a chip, it's not money Nvidia wasn't spending in the first place to fuel their employees. They were making a killing.
That has got to be the most naive comment I've read on these forums, outside OT and P&N, in a long time.

Price for a card isn't just a PCB and some transistors. It isn't even about wages paid to employee's, although that can be a fairly high amount.

The price for R&D is just that. It's a gloss over term to be sure, but I'll spell it out. NV and ATI usually don't make the cards at all. They make the GPU chips. Just like Intel and AMD make chips, your CPU, ATI (well now AMD) and Nv make GPU chips.

Yah, the actual material cost of a chip is cheap as dirt. Hell it's a kind of dirt, silicon. But creating a processing chip from "dirt" is no cheap task. Especially, finding new ways to do so and improve upon old ways. Please just google and read how this is done because it might surprise you how much cost goes into creating manufacturing plants, assembly lines and retooling machines year after year to create something completely different. The 7800 and a 9800 are basically silicon chips, each are made from the same materials and using similar techniques. However, a machine designed to make one isn't designed to make another. That's like saying a bandsaw and a lathe do the same thing, cut wood. A bandsaw and a lathe can cut wood but each does it so differently that trying to compare them is stupid.

Basically, everytime they come up with a new chip design, it means making a brand new machine to create that chip along with other things. The cost involves in these cards are NOT the material costs, as that is negligible.
 

Peelback79

Senior member
Oct 26, 2007
452
0
0
Hopefully this "Who's is the smallest" competition between the green and the red continues for a while. I only have a 19" widescreen (1440x900 I think) and an 8800GTS is still doing great for me. But if prices go any lower it'd be foolish to not pick up a newer card.

Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: jaredpace
4. R700 for $450 - $550
Funny you should say that... the big bad R700 that has been driving down prices is only set to releast on the 12th... more then two weeks from now.
10 days later the 55nm G200b is supposed to be released.

Regardless of how happy I remain, after the G200b comes out, it will be buy time.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY