How is prices set on a market if not by supply and demand may I ask? If you don?t get that basic of how the economy you live in works you are really missing out.
The price has a lot more to do than supply and demand. Yes it is a part of it, but so is sales forecasting. How many of a particular line will we sell? If we are forecasting sales in the retail segment of 30,000 units, then we need to set the price at XXX amount of dollars.
This price will always be higher at launch because you need to make up the money you spent on R &D. After this amount is made up, then supply and demand will dictate what the price should be. If sales remain strong, then the price will stay high.
They are many other factors, but damn im at work and can't type all day
This price will always be higher at launch because you need to make up the money you spent on R &D. After this amount is made up, then supply and demand will dictate what the price should be. If sales remain strong, then the price will stay high.
They are many other factors, but damn im at work and can't type all day
Damn....and I thought my economics and finance degrees would never pay off
. Actually I said that "Joe User" who would be swayed by "headlines on the sites and in the magazines"(your quote) is not the one whose buying habits ultimately set market price in this sector. I believe pricing in this sector to be a function of OEM revenues which subsidizes the higher end cards. Not to say "Joe User" doesn't have any impact on final pricing, but he and his almighty dollar are not the final say....Self
PS-LOL....at your " If you don?t get that basic of how the economy you live in works you are really missing out."
I don't see how this could be a "bug" as they claim since 3dmark2003 has been out for a few months and this is nvidia's WHQL driver.
Huh? ATIs 3.2 Cats are WHQL and they have bug that will hardlock an OS in Half-life. Which one (if this is true) do you think is worse? Nvidia profiling 3dmakr03 demo or ATIs hardlock of an OS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
BTW this is plain silly. ATI fanoboys couldnt take the idea thier pride and joy got smoked and have come up with a hilarious rumor. And if you think Nvidia can profile every single demo out there WOW!
Oh and dont forget the Doom3 demo was supplied by ID not Nvidia, and well, the 5900 Ultra smoked the 9800 Pro.
Huh? ATIs 3.2 Cats are WHQL and they have bug that will hardlock an OS in Half-life. Which one (if this is true) do you think is worse? Nvidia profiling 3dmakr03 demo or ATIs hardlock of an OS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
BTW this is plain silly. ATI fanoboys couldnt take the idea thier pride and joy got smoked and have come up with a hilarious rumor. And if you think Nvidia can profile every single demo out there WOW!
Oh and dont forget the Doom3 demo was supplied by ID not Nvidia, and well, the 5900 Ultra smoked the 9800 Pro.
Originally posted by: Yourself
Damn....and I thought my economics and finance degrees would never pay off
Self
PS-LOL....at your " If you don?t get that basic of how the economy you live in works you are really missing out."
Fair enough. I myself hold a degree in national economics, since that seems to be an issue here. I agree with you in all but your conclusion. The question I can?t find another answer to then previously implied in my posts is: Who does the Oem market sell to if not Joe User?
I think they indeed sell to Joe User. And right now Joe is unknowingly waiting to see the next TV-show or glossy magazine article saying that Nvidia has new cards which performs XX% better then its competitors. This will raise the demand and as such raise price. Sure this will have a much bigger effect on low end cards (because there is were the real profits are) then on high end cards (High end cards are mostly there to show off and then rub off to its smaller siblings, for proof just look at the naming schemes). But most of us even here at a hardware site will not shell out 400$ for a high-end card. What matters to most are the low-end cards.
And to WicKeD the price is not higher at launch because R&D costs or what not but because the demand is higher. Think about it. If a seller has a product that performs 100 but sells it for 200$ you wouldn?t buy it if you could get a card from a different seller that performs 100 for just 100$. You don?t care if the company had high R&D cost nor does its competitors. There is a lot of things affecting supply and demand (R&D effects supply) but the fact that supply and demand sets the price remains.
I find Beyond3D to be alot more credible. The guys who post there are propably the smartest bunch of forum-posters when it comes to 3D.
Originally posted by: Megatomic
Anyone can join an online forum. I could join the Beyond3D forum but that wouldn't make me some 3D guru (well, not any more than I already am
The people who post there are generally VERY knowledgeable. Among others there are two guys from Futuremark, one from PowerVR, at least one from Ati, several software-writers etc. etc.
Considering that hardlocking OS does not benefit Ati in any way, whereas cheating in 3DMark does benefit NV, I would say that the cheating is worse. Espesially since it seems to be intentional
Rumor? That corrpution seems to be fact, not rumor. And I find this "bug" just a tiny bit too convenient. It seems to me that some NVIDIOTS just can't face the facts.
What does the D3-demo have to do with this?
As pointed out, this potential cheating could go a lot farther than 3Dmark. The vast majority of hardware sites only use about 10 ?12 benchmarks and they are all the same benches. It would probably be quite a simple task to identify these benchmarks and for Nvidia (or ATI for that matter) to make special optimizations just for these benches.
This would lead to questions like this: Is the GF4 4200 really faster than a 8500 in general games -- or does it just look faster in the pre-selected benchmark games run on the Hardware sites????????
This would lead to questions like this: Is the GF4 4200 really faster than a 8500 in general games -- or does it just look faster in the pre-selected benchmark games run on the Hardware sites????????
Considering that hardlocking OS does not benefit Ati in any way, whereas cheating in 3DMark does benefit NV, I would say that the cheating is worse. Espesially since it seems to be intentional
Wow you think possible cheating on a non-playable benchmark is worse than a driver hardlocking your OS?
Interesting....................................................
Rumor? That corrpution seems to be fact, not rumor. And I find this "bug" just a tiny bit too convenient. It seems to me that some NVIDIOTS just can't face the facts.
Fact????????? Because they show a bunch of corrupted images that equals fact?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Gee if that is what we need to prove cheating. Lets look at some of the SC, D3, or Planetside images of the R350.
You ATI fanboys will jump on any bandwagon to make your nerves feel better about Nvidia coming back in a strong way.
What does the D3-demo have to do with this?
People are blabbing about how this "rumored cheating" is making the 5900 Ultra look faster than it is. Well simply look at the doom 3 benchmark and compare the 2 cards. Also it is a head off for the eventual ATI fanboys inner rage argument that Nvidia is cheating in the D3 benchmark also.
This would lead to questions like this: Is the GF4 4200 really faster than a 8500 in general games -- or does it just look faster in the pre-selected benchmark games run on the Hardware sites????????
And it is starting ROTFLMAO!
Wow you think possible cheating on a non-playable benchmark is worse than a driver hardlocking your OS?
Interesting....................................................
Rumor? That corrpution seems to be fact, not rumor. And I find this "bug" just a tiny bit too convenient. It seems to me that some NVIDIOTS just can't face the facts.
Fact????????? Because they show a bunch of corrupted images that equals fact?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Gee if that is what we need to prove cheating. Lets look at some of the SC, D3, or Planetside images of the R350.
You ATI fanboys will jump on any bandwagon to make your nerves feel better about Nvidia coming back in a strong way.
What does the D3-demo have to do with this?
People are blabbing about how this "rumored cheating" is making the 5900 Ultra look faster than it is. Well simply look at the doom 3 benchmark and compare the 2 cards. Also it is a head off for the eventual ATI fanboys inner rage argument that Nvidia is cheating in the D3 benchmark also.
This would lead to questions like this: Is the GF4 4200 really faster than a 8500 in general games -- or does it just look faster in the pre-selected benchmark games run on the Hardware sites????????
And it is starting ROTFLMAO!
Oem market (for the most part) sells to "Joe Big Corporation". Also, last time my company (Joe Big Corporation) replaced my workstation I don't remember them giving me the option of picking the cool new $500 graphics adapter that used the "non-cheater" version of the driver that kicked ass in 3D mark. If they did I was sick that day and got stuck with a 16 meg Nvidia Vanta
Self
How exactly is this 3DMarks fault? Besides, this cheat can be applied to just about all benchmarks out there, including real-life game-benchmarks (UT2K3 flyby etc.)
Think man think! Which is worse:
a) an accidental bug in Ati's drivers that locks the OS
b) an intentional cheat in NV-drivers designed to artificially boost their performance in popular benchmark
Sure, to the end user, A is more immediate. But overall, B is ALOT worse. It shows about the morality of the company in question. And it casts a shadow over all benchmarks.
Sure, bug in any drivers is a bad thing. But intentional cheating is 100% BS! and that's why NV cheating is alot worse IMO.
Interesting....................................................
I'm sure that there will be additional investigation on this matter in the near future. And I find funny that you suspect these findings, but you automatically believe everything NV spoon-feeds you.
EDIT: Beyond3D has this to say;
So they can verify the findings.
Sure there can be graphics-glitches in games (like with DetonatorFX in GTA: VC). But this is a bit too convenient to be ordinary glitch. This is comparable to the Quack-fiasco IMO. Now I'm sure that you think that the Quack-thingy was awful and slimy. Yet here you are defending NV when they do something similar. Hypocrisy.
Nice try, but I run GF2 GTS here. Before that I had Riva TNT. I don't worship any company, I use whatever makes the best products. And I'm not afraid to flame them if they screw up. And NV screwed up. Big time.
The more I read your ranting, the more obvious it is to me that you a biased and blind. You refuse to accept the fact that NV could do something as slimy as this. You have hoisted NV on a pedestal, and in your mind, it can do no wrong. In your mind this whole thing is a "massive consipary of those NV-hating Ati-fanboys!".
Well, what I have read, people don't think that they cheated like this in the D3-benchmark. At least in B3D they don't think so. Now I do think that we should take the D3-benchmarks with a grain of salt (unfinished game that had severe problems with Ati-drivers), but I don't think that NV cheated as such in it.
And obviously 3DMark has the necessary tools to catch the cheaters. They caught this one. they caught when NV screwed around with the rendering in Mother Nature... If anthing, this shows that 3DMark is a good tool, since it can help expose cheaters.
NV cheats in 3DMark. And in your mind that is 3DMarks fault, not NV's
Mymy...i'm fed up with these nvidiots.
While they're cheating on a program that can affect the sale of their products and that of rival's and you get lesser product than looking, it's of no importance. Great for you. omfg.
Synthetic benchmarks suck? No.
It can't represent exact performance of UT2003, nor UT2, nor D3, nor HL2 nor...
But it can represent rough performances of the gaming in general. And that with so many quick /convenient references to so many various settings of systems then check if anything gone wrong on your system. And that is useless. Great for you.
While they're cheating on a program that can affect the sale of their products and that of rival's and you get lesser product than looking, it's of no importance. Great for you. omfg.
Synthetic benchmarks suck? No.
It can't represent exact performance of UT2003, nor UT2, nor D3, nor HL2 nor...
But it can represent rough performances of the gaming in general. And that with so many quick /convenient references to so many various settings of systems then check if anything gone wrong on your system. And that is useless. Great for you.
This is not a hearing about whether or not nvidia is quilty, it's a public forum where techno geeks go for fun.
So
Since it seems that nvidia has cheated-and since we can't investigate to make sure they aren't lying when they say 'it's a bug' we need to appeal to those people who are more knowledge than ourselves (who don't work for nvidia). As it stands we are having some very knowledgeable people stating that they believe it was a diliberate hack and not a "bug". Nemisis posted a link or two earlier. And we have some programmers over at nvnews.net that also believe it's a hack.
And if you're going to smear shat allover extremetech's crediblity you better be able to back it up with some logical premises, not "oh, they seem to benchmark in a way i don't like, therefore their reviews and whatever they write are invalid."
Most of us that take this seriously are not fanboys of either company, to check this out look through our posts and you'll find that most have owned at least ati and nvidia, and some ati, nvidia, and matrox.
'I am not a big fan of synthetic benches but the reason nvidia does not like it is because of the failure of futuremark to incorporate nvidia specific coding/paths into the program in order for their products to perform better...
if there is a product you do not like you do not purposely sabotage it in order to prevent others running it specially if there is a problem with it running the way it was designed to be run on your hardware... that is extremely unethical though this is what kyle is implying is the case...
now.. the problem is not native to 3dmark03... the way most benches are conducted are quite similar to 3dmark03... even if it is not a real game engine... and hence what is to prevent nvidia from doing the same thing that they are doin in the benches here in other benches...
is it that hard to understand that 'optimizations' like this are providing a false idea of the performance of a product... not to say the nv35 is a bad product... I have said many times it is a very good card.. but in order for it to 'beat' the 9800pro if the optimizations are netting a few fps here and there through cheating alone and not through raw power there is something wrong...
bear in mind also the sheer number of people who actually do put weight in 3dmark03 results... other than kyle of course.'
Rogo
So
Since it seems that nvidia has cheated-and since we can't investigate to make sure they aren't lying when they say 'it's a bug' we need to appeal to those people who are more knowledge than ourselves (who don't work for nvidia). As it stands we are having some very knowledgeable people stating that they believe it was a diliberate hack and not a "bug". Nemisis posted a link or two earlier. And we have some programmers over at nvnews.net that also believe it's a hack.
And if you're going to smear shat allover extremetech's crediblity you better be able to back it up with some logical premises, not "oh, they seem to benchmark in a way i don't like, therefore their reviews and whatever they write are invalid."
Most of us that take this seriously are not fanboys of either company, to check this out look through our posts and you'll find that most have owned at least ati and nvidia, and some ati, nvidia, and matrox.
'I am not a big fan of synthetic benches but the reason nvidia does not like it is because of the failure of futuremark to incorporate nvidia specific coding/paths into the program in order for their products to perform better...
if there is a product you do not like you do not purposely sabotage it in order to prevent others running it specially if there is a problem with it running the way it was designed to be run on your hardware... that is extremely unethical though this is what kyle is implying is the case...
now.. the problem is not native to 3dmark03... the way most benches are conducted are quite similar to 3dmark03... even if it is not a real game engine... and hence what is to prevent nvidia from doing the same thing that they are doin in the benches here in other benches...
is it that hard to understand that 'optimizations' like this are providing a false idea of the performance of a product... not to say the nv35 is a bad product... I have said many times it is a very good card.. but in order for it to 'beat' the 9800pro if the optimizations are netting a few fps here and there through cheating alone and not through raw power there is something wrong...
bear in mind also the sheer number of people who actually do put weight in 3dmark03 results... other than kyle of course.'
Rogo
Originally posted by: Yourself
Oem market (for the most part) sells to "Joe Big Corporation". Also, last time my company (Joe Big Corporation) replaced my workstation I don't remember them giving me the option of picking the cool new $500 graphics adapter that used the "non-cheater" version of the driver that kicked ass in 3D mark. If they did I was sick that day and got stuck with a 16 meg Nvidia Vanta
Self
But are we really talking about workstations here? I fail to see how the buying decisions of graphic cards for workstations effects the prices on 3D-cards made for games. These cards are so very different. Just as you say the big corporations don?t demand 3D-cards hence are not a part of the demand curve. Joe User is.
The people who wonder why Beyond3D is seen as an anti-nvidia website just need to read your above message. Where are the guys from Nvidia?
Actually the only person who I would say is very knowledgeable at Beyond3D is Kristof Beets from PowerVR. Any news on when we can see the Kyro4? Wouldn't it be really funny if while ATI and Nvidia are fighting their pathetic battles PowerVR came along and wiped the floor with both of them!
And doom3
A large contention of mine is its pretty obvious they *tried* to do it (hardwire each frame) in Doom-III, but john carmack knew what to look for and did not let them use their own recorded *Time Demo*.
It shows, yet again a marked pattern of unethical behavior on a wide variety of issues. Thats all. This kind of stuff is the only thing i have ever had a problem with Nvidia over.
EDIT: In fact I wonder if they found a way to cheat in the Timedemo they used anyway... its hard to say at this point.
Rogo
A large contention of mine is its pretty obvious they *tried* to do it (hardwire each frame) in Doom-III, but john carmack knew what to look for and did not let them use their own recorded *Time Demo*.
It shows, yet again a marked pattern of unethical behavior on a wide variety of issues. Thats all. This kind of stuff is the only thing i have ever had a problem with Nvidia over.
EDIT: In fact I wonder if they found a way to cheat in the Timedemo they used anyway... its hard to say at this point.
Rogo
Where is your proof to backup your comments? If you can't backup your comments then your just spreading bogus crap and there's enough of that already in this thread.
Who cares about the so called "cheating".
If you buy a card from a reputable retailer, you have 30 days to return it. If the drivers give you good quality images and can play your games at a decent frame rate then keep it. If not take it back under the return timelines.
BTW.. ExtremeTech is just holding a grudge because they were not included with the Doom 3 benchmarks.
P.S I will take Kyle's word any day over Dave Salvator
If you buy a card from a reputable retailer, you have 30 days to return it. If the drivers give you good quality images and can play your games at a decent frame rate then keep it. If not take it back under the return timelines.
BTW.. ExtremeTech is just holding a grudge because they were not included with the Doom 3 benchmarks.
P.S I will take Kyle's word any day over Dave Salvator
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter