Now that ATI/AMD Lost the war....

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Matt2
This is the worst part about R600.

A lot of people are pimping the HD2900XT because it performs well at a decent price.

What they dont realize is that Nvidia has 2 SKUs that are not even in the same ballpark as AMD's fastest offering.

As a result, Nvidia will continue to charge $850 for their fastest video card. People will complain about Nvidia overcharging and that Nvidia is the devil and anyone who likes Nvidia is a viral marketer, etc.. In reality, it's no one's fault except AMD. They bought the GPU company that bested Nvidia for the most part of three generations and this is the best they could come up.

So it's AMDs fault that Nvidia chooses to not only keep the MSRP of the GTX high, but also come out with the ridiculous high MSRP on the Ultra?

I don't think so.

It's totally up to Nvidia what they want to set the MSRP of their products at. If they want to pass the savings of a maturing die on to their consumers, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. Obviously they've decided not to.

 

[Zinthar]

I'm very disappointed with these early results of R600. It it's just bad drivers, that's one thing. But if the part is poorly engineered, then ATI has a lot of catching up to do.

My current card is the X1900 XT, and I love it -- better performance than the 7900GTX had at $150 cheaper when I bought it. I was hoping that ATI would bring enough to the table over current G80 parts to force NVidia to do a refresh of their entire line quickly, and then get into a price war that would push high-end DX10 gear under $300 before Crysis hits, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I really just don't understand how this could happen when ATI has been the performance and image quality leader in the market for the past 3 generations. Apparently the XT overclocks better than the GTS, so I'll wait for a 65nm refresh and see what does best in Crysis.

 

[Bet]

Yes the HD2900XT does very well and even costs the same as a 8800 GTS, I am glad I waited!

I'm angry I waited, since we were given the impression that ATI would have something to rival and beat the GTX. Now we have the same GTX price and no indication that there will even be a drop. Flat price for 4+ months on the GTX, unbroken. GTS speeds are too slow for me to justify the upgrade from my 7900GT.

 

[Bet]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
runs hotters, yes, uses more power ? Doubtfull ... I just read toms hardware review and the r600 actually drew less system power then the 8800gtx, during game tests, http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/14/...lly_dx10_hardware_from_ati/page26.html

Can it be improved, for sure, does it suck ? No. Has ati lost the war, give me a break. Could ati have done things different and better, yes. Would I have to buy a new gpu now, I would be very much doubting between a 8800 gts 320 mb or a 2900 xt.

And both AnandTech and Tech Report show the 2900XT being considerably more power hungry than the 8800GTX under load. Both of those sites combined add up to ten times the credibility of Toms Hardware. There's a reason why Toms Hardware is considered The Inquirer of hardware review sites.

The GTX overclocked to 8800 Ultra speeds just matches the draw of the stock 2900XT, for reference.

 

[lyssword]

How can you say it lost the war? 95% of the people would not buy a $350-650 card anyways, and would be happy with a 100-$200 card, like me. I'm waiting for that said card.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Bet

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
runs hotters, yes, uses more power ? Doubtfull ... I just read toms hardware review and the r600 actually drew less system power then the 8800gtx, during game tests, http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/14/...lly_dx10_hardware_from_ati/page26.html

Can it be improved, for sure, does it suck ? No. Has ati lost the war, give me a break. Could ati have done things different and better, yes. Would I have to buy a new gpu now, I would be very much doubting between a 8800 gts 320 mb or a 2900 xt.

And both AnandTech and Tech Report show the 2900XT being considerably more power hungry than the 8800GTX under load. Both of those sites combined add up to ten times the credibility of Toms Hardware. There's a reason why Toms Hardware is considered The Inquirer of hardware review sites.

The GTX overclocked to 8800 Ultra speeds just matches the draw of the stock 2900XT, for reference.

Per who?

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Matt2
This is the worst part about R600.

A lot of people are pimping the HD2900XT because it performs well at a decent price.

What they dont realize is that Nvidia has 2 SKUs that are not even in the same ballpark as AMD's fastest offering.

As a result, Nvidia will continue to charge $850 for their fastest video card. People will complain about Nvidia overcharging and that Nvidia is the devil and anyone who likes Nvidia is a viral marketer, etc.. In reality, it's no one's fault except AMD. They bought the GPU company that bested Nvidia for the most part of three generations and this is the best they could come up.

So it's AMDs fault that Nvidia chooses to not only keep the MSRP of the GTX high, but also come out with the ridiculous high MSRP on the Ultra?

I don't think so.

It's totally up to Nvidia what they want to set the MSRP of their products at. If they want to pass the savings of a maturing die on to their consumers, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. Obviously they've decided not to.

lol, except for sound business sense. they won the round, rather handedly, so they reap the profit and continue to invest in innovation. nv is saying (and acting like) they are in it for the long haul and you could argue they are the weakest link vs. amd and intel. so they won this battle, doesn't mean they're positioned that greatly for the future.


don't whine about them not lowering prices when they have no need.

 

[Wreckage]

ATI lost "the war" when they got bought out.

However if you look at the 2900 as AMD's first step into the high end graphics market, it's far better against NVIDIA than any other company out there.

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
However if you look at the 2900 as AMD's first step into the high end graphics market, it's far better against NVIDIA than any other company out there.

yeah, but why look at it that way? this is ati's baby and amd's execution. not pretty on either acct.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Matt2
This is the worst part about R600.

A lot of people are pimping the HD2900XT because it performs well at a decent price.

What they dont realize is that Nvidia has 2 SKUs that are not even in the same ballpark as AMD's fastest offering.

As a result, Nvidia will continue to charge $850 for their fastest video card. People will complain about Nvidia overcharging and that Nvidia is the devil and anyone who likes Nvidia is a viral marketer, etc.. In reality, it's no one's fault except AMD. They bought the GPU company that bested Nvidia for the most part of three generations and this is the best they could come up.

So it's AMDs fault that Nvidia chooses to not only keep the MSRP of the GTX high, but also come out with the ridiculous high MSRP on the Ultra?

I don't think so.

It's totally up to Nvidia what they want to set the MSRP of their products at. If they want to pass the savings of a maturing die on to their consumers, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. Obviously they've decided not to.

Yep. It's AMD's fault Nvidia is charging over the top prices.

AMD's lack of any kind of presence at the true high end gives Nvidia no reason to lower prices on either the GTX or the Ultra.

Imagine if R600 had beat the GTX. The GTX would have come crashing down to under $450 and the Ultra would have come down to whatever price R600 was retailing for.

But since Nvidia still, after six months has no competition for the GTX or the Ultra, they have no reason to lower their prices. This is what any business based on capitalism would do.

AMD did it with their CPUs, now Nvidia is doing it with their GPUs.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: rise

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Matt2
This is the worst part about R600.

A lot of people are pimping the HD2900XT because it performs well at a decent price.

What they dont realize is that Nvidia has 2 SKUs that are not even in the same ballpark as AMD's fastest offering.

As a result, Nvidia will continue to charge $850 for their fastest video card. People will complain about Nvidia overcharging and that Nvidia is the devil and anyone who likes Nvidia is a viral marketer, etc.. In reality, it's no one's fault except AMD. They bought the GPU company that bested Nvidia for the most part of three generations and this is the best they could come up.

So it's AMDs fault that Nvidia chooses to not only keep the MSRP of the GTX high, but also come out with the ridiculous high MSRP on the Ultra?

I don't think so.

It's totally up to Nvidia what they want to set the MSRP of their products at. If they want to pass the savings of a maturing die on to their consumers, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. Obviously they've decided not to.

lol, except for sound business sense. they won the round, rather handedly, so they reap the profit and continue to invest in innovation. nv is saying (and acting like) they are in it for the long haul and you could argue they are the weakest link vs. amd and intel. so they won this battle, doesn't mean they're positioned that greatly for the future.


don't whine about them not lowering prices when they have no need.

Doesn't bother me if you want to continue to pay abnormally high prices on video cards. Go right ahead.

But AMD is not in charge of Nvidia's MSRP as Matt2 is claiming.

 

[rise]

if they offered a copelling reason to lower the price, then nv would. as it is, the 8800gts 640 which i bought 6 months ago has dropped more than $100, with little to no competition.

blame amd if anyone. and as i said before, i'll probably by a 2900 in a month or so, if drivers improve. but right now, there is no compelling reason to buy any amd card.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Matt2
This is the worst part about R600.

A lot of people are pimping the HD2900XT because it performs well at a decent price.

What they dont realize is that Nvidia has 2 SKUs that are not even in the same ballpark as AMD's fastest offering.

As a result, Nvidia will continue to charge $850 for their fastest video card. People will complain about Nvidia overcharging and that Nvidia is the devil and anyone who likes Nvidia is a viral marketer, etc.. In reality, it's no one's fault except AMD. They bought the GPU company that bested Nvidia for the most part of three generations and this is the best they could come up.

So it's AMDs fault that Nvidia chooses to not only keep the MSRP of the GTX high, but also come out with the ridiculous high MSRP on the Ultra?

I don't think so.

It's totally up to Nvidia what they want to set the MSRP of their products at. If they want to pass the savings of a maturing die on to their consumers, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. Obviously they've decided not to.

Yep. It's AMD's fault Nvidia is charging over the top prices.

AMD's lack of any kind of presence at the true high end gives Nvidia no reason to lower prices on either the GTX or the Ultra.

Imagine if R600 had beat the GTX. The GTX would have come crashing down to under $450 and the Ultra would have come down to whatever price R600 was retailing for.

But since Nvidia still, after six months has no competition for the GTX or the Ultra, they have no reason to lower their prices. This is what any business based on capitalism would do.

AMD did it with their CPUs, now Nvidia is doing it with their GPUs.

IT IS TOTALLY UP TO NVIDIA TO CHARGE WHAT THEY FEEL IS RIGHT FOR THEIR PRODUCT. NOBODY ELSE CAN SET THEIR PRICES FOR THEM.

If Nvidia suddenly decided that they wanted to cut the prices on their entire lineup by 25% they would not have to consult AMD beforehand in order to do so.

Why not blame the high price on all the people who have already bought an 8800GTX? That makes more sense to me. If Nvidia couldn't sell enough of their product then prices would fall to a point to sustain a sales figure acceptable to the Nvidia beancounters. But obviously so many people are shelling out $550 apiece for these cards that Nvidia is simply sitting back rubbing their hands in glee at the money rolling in. Nobody is forcing people to pay that amount of money for a video card.

It's the consumers fault for willing paying the high price of the 8800GTX, not AMDs.

 

[rise]

holy hell Creig, have you no concept on how capitalism, even at its most basic levels work?

of course nv can charge wht they want but if it doesn't sell, they won't be doing it for long. figured people learned this concept when they set-up their first lemonade stand or haggled over the price of cutting your neighbors lawns. anyway...

that arguement is failing so now you say basically say the prices are too high because people are buying them

:laugh:

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: rise
holy hell Creig, have you no concept on how capitalism, even at its most basic levels work?

of course nv can charge wht they want but if it doesn't sell, they won't be doing it for long. figured people learned this concept when they set-up their first lemonade stand or haggled over the price of cutting your neighbors lawns. anyway...

that arguement is failing so now you say basically say the prices are too high because people are buying them

:laugh:

Go back over your argument again. S-L-O-W-L-Y this time. Your two statements are identical to what I just said.

Nvidia can charge what they want. If nobody bought them then they would lower the price. But because people ARE buying them, Nvidia feels no compulsion to drop the MSRP. Therefore, the price is going to REMAIN high until either Nvidia feels like dropping the price or demand slacks off to the point that the card supply outpaces the demand and retailers start stockpiling them.

So yes, I DO understand the concept of capitalism. Obviously better than you do.

 

[jpeyton]

Nvidia didn't lose the war when the FX5800 came out.

They just went back to the drawing boards.

Which is what AMD will undoubtedly do with the R700.

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: rise
holy hell Creig, have you no concept on how capitalism, even at its most basic levels work?

of course nv can charge wht they want but if it doesn't sell, they won't be doing it for long. figured people learned this concept when they set-up their first lemonade stand or haggled over the price of cutting your neighbors lawns. anyway...

that arguement is failing so now you say basically say the prices are too high because people are buying them

:laugh:

Go back over your argument again. S-L-O-W-L-Y this time. Your two statements are identical to what I just said.

Nvidia can charge what they want. If nobody bought them then they would lower the price. But because people ARE buying them, Nvidia feels no compulsion to drop the MSRP. Therefore, the price is going to REMAIN high until either Nvidia feels like dropping the price or demand slacks off to the point that the card supply outpaces the demand and retailers start stockpiling them.

So yes, I DO understand the concept of capitalism. Obviously better than you do.

uggh. we all know nv can charge whatever the hell they want, competition is what keeps companies in check. monopolies?

you were saying nv charges too much and people are paying too much blah blah blah, instead of seeing that its soley amd's fault for bringing what seems to be a clearly inferior product 6 months late to the party.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: rise

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Matt2
This is the worst part about R600.

A lot of people are pimping the HD2900XT because it performs well at a decent price.

What they dont realize is that Nvidia has 2 SKUs that are not even in the same ballpark as AMD's fastest offering.

As a result, Nvidia will continue to charge $850 for their fastest video card. People will complain about Nvidia overcharging and that Nvidia is the devil and anyone who likes Nvidia is a viral marketer, etc.. In reality, it's no one's fault except AMD. They bought the GPU company that bested Nvidia for the most part of three generations and this is the best they could come up.

So it's AMDs fault that Nvidia chooses to not only keep the MSRP of the GTX high, but also come out with the ridiculous high MSRP on the Ultra?

I don't think so.

It's totally up to Nvidia what they want to set the MSRP of their products at. If they want to pass the savings of a maturing die on to their consumers, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. Obviously they've decided not to.

lol, except for sound business sense. they won the round, rather handedly, so they reap the profit and continue to invest in innovation. nv is saying (and acting like) they are in it for the long haul and you could argue they are the weakest link vs. amd and intel. so they won this battle, doesn't mean they're positioned that greatly for the future.


don't whine about them not lowering prices when they have no need.

Doesn't bother me if you want to continue to pay abnormally high prices on video cards. Go right ahead.

But AMD is not in charge of Nvidia's MSRP as Matt2 is claiming.

In another thread you gave AMD credit for keeping Intel and Nvidia prices down and inovation up when AMD released credible competitors. But in this thread you don't give AMD blame when Nvidia doesn't lower prices because AMD didn't release a credible competitor for 6 months. You can't have it both ways, either AMD doesn't deserve credit for pushing prices down, or it does deserve blame for keeping prices high.

And I don't think AMD lost the war, but maybe an important battle.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Matt2
This is the worst part about R600.

A lot of people are pimping the HD2900XT because it performs well at a decent price.

What they dont realize is that Nvidia has 2 SKUs that are not even in the same ballpark as AMD's fastest offering.

As a result, Nvidia will continue to charge $850 for their fastest video card. People will complain about Nvidia overcharging and that Nvidia is the devil and anyone who likes Nvidia is a viral marketer, etc.. In reality, it's no one's fault except AMD. They bought the GPU company that bested Nvidia for the most part of three generations and this is the best they could come up.

So it's AMDs fault that Nvidia chooses to not only keep the MSRP of the GTX high, but also come out with the ridiculous high MSRP on the Ultra?

I don't think so.

It's totally up to Nvidia what they want to set the MSRP of their products at. If they want to pass the savings of a maturing die on to their consumers, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. Obviously they've decided not to.

Yep. It's AMD's fault Nvidia is charging over the top prices.

AMD's lack of any kind of presence at the true high end gives Nvidia no reason to lower prices on either the GTX or the Ultra.

Imagine if R600 had beat the GTX. The GTX would have come crashing down to under $450 and the Ultra would have come down to whatever price R600 was retailing for.

But since Nvidia still, after six months has no competition for the GTX or the Ultra, they have no reason to lower their prices. This is what any business based on capitalism would do.

AMD did it with their CPUs, now Nvidia is doing it with their GPUs.

IT IS TOTALLY UP TO NVIDIA TO CHARGE WHAT THEY FEEL IS RIGHT FOR THEIR PRODUCT. NOBODY ELSE CAN SET THEIR PRICES FOR THEM.

If Nvidia suddenly decided that they wanted to cut the prices on their entire lineup by 25% they would not have to consult AMD beforehand in order to do so.

Why not blame the high price on all the people who have already bought an 8800GTX? That makes more sense to me. If Nvidia couldn't sell enough of their product then prices would fall to a point to sustain a sales figure acceptable to the Nvidia beancounters. But obviously so many people are shelling out $550 apiece for these cards that Nvidia is simply sitting back rubbing their hands in glee at the money rolling in. Nobody is forcing people to pay that amount of money for a video card.

It's the consumers fault for willing paying the high price of the 8800GTX, not AMDs.

I dont know why you are having such a hard time grasping this concept creig.

If R600 would have been competitive, then it would have driven 8800GTX and 8800U prices down due to stiff competition.

R600 is NOT competitive with 8800GTX and 8800U, so prices stay up.

Why should Nvidia lower prices when AMD failed to deliver a product that competes?

 

[dreddfunk]

I think pinning the 'blame' for high 8800gtx prices on AMD is a bit of a twisting of how the system works. Yes, good competition reduces prices. Yes, the absence of competition can lead to price gouging. Blaming your competition for the price gouging that occurs, however, is simply silly.

The market's ability or inability to check a company's behavior does not constitute a de facto referendum on that company's conduct. More plainly put, 'checked' behaviors are not always 'bad' nor are 'unchecked' behaviors always 'good'.

Would I expect AMD or nVidia to act against their best interests? Not necessarily. It would be ridiculous for them to eschew making a profit. Yet consumers remember when companies use the transient leverage created by a competitive void in order to engage in price gouging.

That said, I'd have to look at nVidia's internal R&D, production and overhead costs to determine if they are really 'gouging' with prices on the 8800gtx. Given that $500 high-end cards have been around a while, even if those internal figures showed that they were making a large profit, it would be more appropriate to say that nVidia was exploiting the small market willing to pay those prices, rather than gouging consumers who inherently didn't want to--or couldn't--pay them.

Did we all want more downward pressure on pricing? Sure. But let's not go overboard crucifying AMD for every bad thing going on in the market. They could have had an impact, to be sure, but nVidia is in charge of their own pricing, and they are the ones measuring the benefits of market share and consumer satisfaction versus profits.

That's not to say that they don't have both right now, merely that a reduction in current prices would lead to both more market share and some serious increased consumer satisfaction, as well as a reduction in profit--that's the way pricing decisions work quite often: market penetration and customer satisfaction versus profitability.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: rise
holy hell Creig, have you no concept on how capitalism, even at its most basic levels work?

Actually he does and he's right: the consumer sets the price primarily. That is why it is more accurate to blame the people who buy over-priced products and encourage the producer to sell them at such prices. Sure AMD is a factor, but not the way the people buying the product are. Face it, if no one bought the product at such ridiculous prices they would be forced to lower the price without question.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: rise
holy hell Creig, have you no concept on how capitalism, even at its most basic levels work?

Actually he does and he's right: the consumer sets the price primarily. That is why it is more accurate to blame the people who buy over-priced products and encourage the producer to sell them at such prices. Sure AMD is a factor, but not the way the people buying the product are. Face it, if no one bought the product at such ridiculous prices they would be forced to lower the price without question.

But if a $530 video card offers substantially more performance than a $400 one, is it still over priced?

If R600 matched the performance of 8800GTX at a price point of $400, then I would consider 8800GTX over priced.

AMD's lack of competition at the high end is what is making people buy "over priced" 8800GTXs.

 

[v8envy]

And thusly we introduct the concept of 'value pricing.' Having the absolute best product available has intrinsic value. Techies call it the epeen factor. So the basic question is: how much is the pride of having the undisputed best of the best worth?

In the case of the Ultra, apparently about $300. Doesn't seem that bad, in the grand scheme of things.

 

[dreddfunk]

To use a mundane example of what I'm talking about:

If I'm one of two bakers in a town and I make tons of great bread for the week, while the other baker ruins his batch for the week, I'll likely be able to charge whatever I want, being the only game in town that week. If I decide to charge $50/loaf, when $2/loaf was standard, I can go ahead, as long as people need the bread enough to buy it. There is no 'check' left in the market in the absence of competition other than consumer behavior.

In any event, the absence of a 'check' on my behavior does not make it 'moral'; it simply means no one can 'check' it. My power in the market to set my own price is unchallenged. That does not make my decision inherently a 'moral' one, no matter what my choice. If I push the families in my town to the brink of poverty, simply because I can, that isn't a 'moral' choice.

Having said all of that, nVidia is not doing that here. The GTX was launched at a price-point that has been seen before (if not by much), so this is not a case of finding out that one has no competition and then gouging consumers. It's a case of there being no competition-inspired downward pressure on pricing.

The real reason I made this analogy is to clearly articulate that the absence of a market 'check' on my behavior is not the only moral litmus test whereby a company's (or a person's) behavior in the market is to be judged. Transferring the moral culpability for 'checking' my behavior in the market to my competitor is thus a ridiculous suggestion. Certainly my behavior is affected by my competitor's, but my competitor's behavior--good or bad--does not absolve me of responsibility for my own.

Again, in this particular case, nVidia is doing just fine in my book. This is not some underhanded bash on the company. If they took this opportunity to start increasing prices on their shipments to vendors, then I'd be upset, but I highly doubt that is going to happen. We might see some of their vendors slowly increase prices, but time will tell.

It's ridiculous to 'blame' nVidia's actions on AMD, just as it is to assume that a lack of downward pressure on pricing equates to price gouging.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: dreddfunk
To use a mundane example of what I'm talking about:

If I'm one of two bakers in a town and I make tons of great bread for the week, while the other baker ruins his batch for the week, I'll likely be able to charge whatever I want, being the only game in town that week. If I decide to charge $50/loaf, when $2/loaf was standard, I can go ahead, as long as people need the bread enough to buy it. There is no 'check' left in the market in the absence of competition other than consumer behavior.

In any event, the absence of a 'check' on my behavior does not make it 'moral'; it simply means no one can 'check' it. My power in the market to set my own price is unchallenged. That does not make my decision inherently a 'moral' one, no matter what my choice. If I push the families in my town to the brink of poverty, simply because I can, that isn't a 'moral' choice.

Having said all of that, nVidia is not doing that here. The GTX was launched at a price-point that has been seen before (if not by much), so this is not a case of finding out that one has no competition and then gouging consumers. It's a case of there being no competition-inspired downward pressure on pricing.

The real reason I made this analogy is to clearly articulate that the absence of a market 'check' on my behavior is not the only moral litmus test whereby a company's (or a person's) behavior in the market is to be judged. Transferring the moral culpability for 'checking' my behavior in the market to my competitor is thus a ridiculous suggestion. Certainly my behavior is affected by my competitor's, but my competitor's behavior--good or bad--does not absolve me of responsibility for my own.

Again, in this particular case, nVidia is doing just fine in my book. This is not some underhanded bash on the company. If they took this opportunity to start increasing prices on their shipments to vendors, then I'd be upset, but I highly doubt that is going to happen. We might see some of their vendors slowly increase prices, but time will tell.

It's ridiculous to 'blame' nVidia's actions on AMD, just as it is to assume that a lack of downward pressure on pricing equates to price gouging.

I really enjoy your posts dreddfunk. You're very articulate.

IMO people are complaining more about the lack of price drops on the 8800GTX rather than it's high price to begin with. In six months the card has dropped less than ~$100 which is not a lot.

The lack of price drops is a direct result of there being no competition for the last six months. Now that R600 is out and it still fails to compete in the high end, gives Nvidia no reason to drop prices. AMD thinks their high end GPU is worth $400, so why should Nvidia not think that their undisputedly faster GPU is worth $500+?

To think Nvidia would drop prices without feeling any real threat from AMD is pretty absurd.

When was the last time you saw a price drop on Microsoft XP? Vista?

The truth is, IMO, if AMD could have launched a product that could compete, it would have sparked a price war. Now that it hasn't, Nvidia is content on making a nice margin. That's what I would do. I think that's what any company would do.