Its going to cost alot i still say over $700. When the released the GF2 it was outragously priced but people still bought them, and then that high price became the norm.
I don't know why you're all talking about such high prices, when the GF2 GTS 32mb came out it cost me £230 (about $350 i suppose), so the NV20 should be around the same price for the standard model. Admittedly there will be extra options i.e. 64mb / 128mb / Ultra but the standard model shouldn't be that expensive.
Especially not $700, thats Voodoo 6000 range, theoretically though since it don't exist anymore
I would be VERY surprised if the standard model (be it 32/64) cost anymore than 400 of your fancy American dollars.
Especially not $700, thats Voodoo 6000 range, theoretically though since it don't exist anymore
I would be VERY surprised if the standard model (be it 32/64) cost anymore than 400 of your fancy American dollars.
when the Ultra first came out it was around $500, so I can't see the NV20 being any less than that. I'm just waiting to see how low the geforce2 prices will go afterwards...
Most of us have absolutely no idea what the price is going to be.
I would have to say however that the price will be lowerthan what most people have posted thus far. How many people have a $500 graphic's card in their computer at home? I don't what the sales number are/were for the ulttra but nVIDIA needs to sell the N20 like crazy to make it economically worthwhile. Therefore, cards based on the chip must offer significant performance cost incentive otherwise who'll buy except the small population of fanatic gamers.
IF there's a market of 100 million people/users worldwide, but only about maybe 2 million of them would spend $500 on a graphics card, you don't build a chipcard that well sell for $500. nVIDIA will only get about $40-50 a chip, they need to sell a lot more than 2 million chips to make the project economically viable.
Pricing an ultra is completely different from introducing a new chip...you already sell lower grades of the chip for "cheap"...so segregating the high yields and marking up the price is actually desirable... that's what Intel and AMD do.
nVIDIA and ATI did the market research along time ago and have know what their chips and cards based on their chips will cost to manufacturer for months and months and months. General MSRP's have probably been set in stone for several months now. No company moves forward on this kind of a large scale project without having 95%+ confidence in the profitability of the project. To do otherwise is insane and nVIDIA is not insane. Also remember that tey have competion from ATI.
Put me down for $300 dollars for the first cards from both nVIDIA and ATI.
I would have to say however that the price will be lowerthan what most people have posted thus far. How many people have a $500 graphic's card in their computer at home? I don't what the sales number are/were for the ulttra but nVIDIA needs to sell the N20 like crazy to make it economically worthwhile. Therefore, cards based on the chip must offer significant performance cost incentive otherwise who'll buy except the small population of fanatic gamers.
IF there's a market of 100 million people/users worldwide, but only about maybe 2 million of them would spend $500 on a graphics card, you don't build a chipcard that well sell for $500. nVIDIA will only get about $40-50 a chip, they need to sell a lot more than 2 million chips to make the project economically viable.
Pricing an ultra is completely different from introducing a new chip...you already sell lower grades of the chip for "cheap"...so segregating the high yields and marking up the price is actually desirable... that's what Intel and AMD do.
nVIDIA and ATI did the market research along time ago and have know what their chips and cards based on their chips will cost to manufacturer for months and months and months. General MSRP's have probably been set in stone for several months now. No company moves forward on this kind of a large scale project without having 95%+ confidence in the profitability of the project. To do otherwise is insane and nVIDIA is not insane. Also remember that tey have competion from ATI.
Put me down for $300 dollars for the first cards from both nVIDIA and ATI.
mini -
While I agree with most of what you said, I think you have failed to take account of one key point: exotic DDR costs mucho $$$. If we assume that the typical next gen card will come equipped with 64 MBs of wide, high-speed DDR I have sincere doubts that a $300 price point can be reached.
While I agree with most of what you said, I think you have failed to take account of one key point: exotic DDR costs mucho $$$. If we assume that the typical next gen card will come equipped with 64 MBs of wide, high-speed DDR I have sincere doubts that a $300 price point can be reached.
What would be interesting to see is a time chart with the rising cost of video cards against the decrease in size in the PC games market. If it weren't for PC RPGs, I would have given up on PC market when the $500 Geforce 2 came out.
>Limitations: 2D so fuzzy you can't read text at 640x480, and limited to only 256-colour mode.
So, I'm not insane ???
I moved from V3 3k to Radeon and then to GF2pro. I am using the Radeon on a different machine ... anyway, I noticed that the GF2pro 2d desktop fuzziness is so distracting, that I thought my card was bad. I've had many tell me that my cable/monitor is bad, but this obviously isn't the cause, as this same box was used with the other cards and 2d was very nice.
This is a game rig, so 2d isn't that important, but to be as fuzzy as it is seemed pretty rediculous. What if this wasn't only a game rig?
So, I'm not insane ???
I moved from V3 3k to Radeon and then to GF2pro. I am using the Radeon on a different machine ... anyway, I noticed that the GF2pro 2d desktop fuzziness is so distracting, that I thought my card was bad. I've had many tell me that my cable/monitor is bad, but this obviously isn't the cause, as this same box was used with the other cards and 2d was very nice.
This is a game rig, so 2d isn't that important, but to be as fuzzy as it is seemed pretty rediculous. What if this wasn't only a game rig?
DaveB3D -
Did you finish that article? I'm interested to see what you have to say on the subject.
Did you finish that article? I'm interested to see what you have to say on the subject.
Even the magazine "reviewers" are quick to "forget" about the 2D quality. Most likely because they jump straight into Quake without even looking at the desktop.
Other than getting on the 'net to publish the review, grumbling about how fuzzy the text looks (must be my eyes from 13 hours of Quake-17) they never think about 2D quality.
Other than getting on the 'net to publish the review, grumbling about how fuzzy the text looks (must be my eyes from 13 hours of Quake-17) they never think about 2D quality.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter