Nvidia: Not Enough Money in a PS4 GPU for us to bother

[Grooveriding]

Try Amazon they have them in stock. I think Microcenter does to.

Amazon, NCIX, EVGA, CC, MC etc.

Two weeks after launch and they are always in stock, so much for the 'they can't make them fast enough' fantasy.

 

[Will Robinson]

All of this equally applies to the oil cartel:

• The market can bear it (oil companies are still in business).
• We have a choice (take a bus, cycle, work from home, etc).
• "Primal law" of supply & demand (we demand it, the oil cartel supplies).
• They can't price it out of reach or nobody will buy it (obviously people still buy petrol).

So, will anyone tell me (with a straight face) that current petrol prices - along with their rampant inflation levels - are good for the consumer?

It's amazing to see people argue against competition and not grasp the ramifications of a monopoly. Well maybe not in your case given you receive free hardware from nVidia, so their pricing doesn't affect you.

Ouch

 

[Mistwalker]

It IS all about what the market can bear. Always has been, always will be. Whether there is competition or not. Competition is a factor of course, but that "primal law" of supply and demand is tireless. Good for consumers? I don't know what to think about that. On one hand, Titan costs 1000. Tough pill to swallow, but everyone has a choice to buy it or not. Same goes for any other tier card. If AMD goes out of business, then I can see Nvidia boosting prices a bit. But they can't boost the price so much as to makes products out of reach, otherwise, people won't buy them, or just stick to low tier products and that will effect Nvidia's bottom line. They'll make adjustments. Same goes for Intel and their CPUs.

It gives NVIDIA Money for R&D...it's so simple, yet you cannot see it?

This is the viewpoint of the corporation, NOT the consumer.

That you, as a consumer, would tout their line rather than that of an end-user is very unnerving. Of course it all ultimately comes down to supply and demand, but competition is vital for the consumer as it pressures companies to offer better value for their services or goods. Without it, the power to pressure that supply-demand curve so it favors profit margins, with buyers capitulating because they have no alternative, the ONLY beneficiary is the corporation. And you seem to have no problems with this.

It's...one of the most disgusting things I've read on this board, really. As if giant corporations needed apologists or support from the people they are supposed to be working for sales from.

How do you figure people don't have a choice to get Titan or not? You can get a 7970 for $400 that is within 30% of it, or a 680 for $440 that is within 40%? Where is the lack of choice?

Wow. Don't you realize you have no lack of choice BECAUSE there is competition? BFG is talking about a reality where AMD is gone and that 680 is $649, and you pay it and like it. This isn't just about Titan, which is fortunately an outlier (for now) and already priming people for a much higher price-per-performance line going forward.

My point isn't that monopoly's are good, it just that duo monopolies aren't much better. All it takes is a weak showing from one company and the other immediately pounces, $550 7970s was the product of a duo monopoly, $500 GK104's were a result of weak competition in a duo monopoly.

No, $550 7970s were the result of Nvidia keeping their previous-gen flagship cards at premium prices, and AMD--bleeding money--being forced to play the same game. And that reality did not last, with massively better prices and values (for consumers!) as a result of even one other player on the market.

The difference between a monopoly and a duo-monopoly is the difference between that $550 7970 and today's $385 7970. It is VERY significant.

 

[Arachnotronic]

This is the viewpoint of the corporation, NOT the consumer.

That you, as a consumer, would tout their line rather than that of an end-user is very unnerving. Of course it all ultimately comes down to supply and demand, but competition is vital for the consumer as it pressures companies to offer better value for their services or goods. Without it, the power to pressure that supply-demand curve so it favors profit margins, with buyers capitulating because they have no alternative, the ONLY beneficiary is the corporation. And you seem to have no problems with this.

It's...one of the most disgusting things I've read on this board, really. As if giant corporations needed apologists or support from the people they are supposed to be working for sales from.

Wow. Don't you realize you have no lack of choice BECAUSE there is competition? BFG is talking about a reality where AMD is gone and that 680 is $649, and you pay it and like it. This isn't just about Titan, which is fortunately an outlier (for now) and already priming people for a much higher price-per-performance line going forward.

No, $550 7970s were the result of Nvidia keeping their previous-gen flagship cards at premium prices, and AMD--bleeding money--being forced to play the same game. And that reality did not last, with massively better prices and values (for consumers!) as a result of even one other player on the market.

The difference between a monopoly and a duo-monopoly is the difference between that $550 7970 and today's $385 7970. It is VERY significant.

You fail to realize that what's good for the consumer isn't necessarily great for shareholders. Maybe you don't hold investments, but I for one like to see companies see financial prosperity for the good of my investments. There are more important things than a $50 discount on a GPU out there.

 

[Dribble]

So, will anyone tell me (with a straight face) that current petrol prices - along with their rampant inflation levels - are good for the consumer?

Not a very good example.

The current petrol prices occur because the companies have used up the cheapest-to-exact oil so that makes prices rise, and there is much more demand from china/india/brazil so that makes prices rise. As far as I know we aren't running out of sand for silicon. Petrol is also just petrol - you don't come out with a new version of petrol that's twice as fast every year and you can't make smaller petrol or larger petrol.

Other then the fundamentals of supply and demand this can't really be sensibly applied to graphics cards.

 

[piesquared]

Here's a great summary of NVidia's looming disaster. The author makes some great points and what we've seen so far from Gaming Evolved is just the tip of the 'ice burg ahead' for NVidia. IMO

It's an investment thesis so simple it could be written in a Google (GOOG) doc. Short or sell Nvidia (NVDA). The upcoming Tegra 4 from Nvidia is not going to be powering the next version of Google's Nexus 7 tablet. And, frankly, it's really no surprise because, despite the hyperventilating of Nvidia's PR staff, the Tegra 4 is the wrong SoC for pretty much anything below a 10" or bigger specialty tablet, and even then it is iffy. Qualcomm (QCOM) is, a Snapdragon 600, and likely would have had won both the original Nexus 7 and the Microsoft (MSFT) Surface RT last year had TMSC's 28 nm process not been having yield trouble, delaying the Snapdragon S4 rollout.

Now that is behind them and Qualcomm can and is shipping seemingly billions of its Snapdragons in all variants, there is little to no room for the Tegra 4 in the market place. Even if the Tegra 4 is faster at some level than the best Qualcomm has to offer, it is yet again another iteration of the Intel (INTC) vs. AMD (AMD) debate of building a faster path to a dead end. Who cares if you can eke out slightly better Sunspider scores if your SoC uses twice the power and costs four times as much to make?

This question is the bane of enthusiasts and most of the tech press - cool technology does not equate with good product. And from where I sit, the Tegra 4 is the blocked punt in the CPU equivalent of a three and out in football

Look at the reasons cited by Google as to why it chose the Snapdragon over the Tegra 4 - cost, integrated LTE and, most importantly, availability. Simply put, in every way, Qualcomm's SoCs are simply better value and more reliably available than anything Nvidia has or will have anytime soon. Nvidia doesn't have TMSC to help prop them up for another four quarters.

So, not only did Nvidia not learn from the Tegra 3 -- taking those 10 million pity sales thanks to a screwed up 28nm marketplace as a sign of a job well done - it repeated it because nothing says success like failure. Since then, it has tried to tell everyone it's something it isn't, namely capable of competing with anything else on the market. And when the customer that handed you 6 million of those 10 million in sales bolts for your rival, someone has to be willing to finally yell, "Iceberg dead ahead."

It should say something loud and clear when AMD in 2012 was viewed as more reliable and more capable than Nvidia to Sony (SNE), Nintendo (NTDOF.PK) and Microsoft. How many Tegra 4's will Nvidia sell this year if it even ships working silicon? How many Jaguar-cores will AMD? There is a reason why AMD won all three of them and it isn't because Nvidia didn't want the business.

Then let's watch the carnage in the graphics space as AMD continues to work towards mobile dual graphics with first Richland and then Kaveri, which should bury any thought of a place for Nvidia at that table either. It's not that all of its products are bad, it's that not enough of them will be good enough real soon now.

The Tegra line was supposed to be Nvidia's way out of this mess all those years ago, but after you've ticked off the OEMs three times for not delivering on your promises that path is now honestly closed. Nvidia should have let Intel buy it when the rumors were floating around a few years ago. By now the two could have merged into a formidable opponent to Qualcomm, Apple (AAPL) and Samsung. As it stands now I fully expect it to be sold for parts and IP by the time the dust settles on this era of computing.

Iceberg dead ahead.

Hmm so NVidia 'opted out' of consoles to ride the ship to the bottom.

TL;DR- Short NVidia fast.

http://m.seekingalpha.com/article/1288651

 

[railven]

You fail to realize that what's good for the consumer isn't necessarily great for shareholders. Maybe you don't hold investments, but I for one like to see companies see financial prosperity for the good of my investments. There are more important things than a $50 discount on a GPU out there.

That's fair and all, but is a clear conflict of interest.

Should I assume those that are of similar mentallity are also investors?

If so, that would definitely explain their posting history.

So where is the outcry that investors openly post on forums promoting the company and their products to forum posters without disclosure?

 

[Grooveriding]

When you become an investor in a company you create an inherent conflict of interest with being a consumer of that company's goods. Your interests become aligned with the company's interests. I'm sure a large portion of the financial nvidia fanboying we see is just due to posters with a few bucks invested into nvidia, which naturally would lead to an emotional attachment as it's their money on the line.

Something I personally stay away from, I put money in savings and RSPs. When you read some of the posts here it's pretty clear it's just random investor #2586932 talking with their .000000001% share of NVDA. Which generally goes completely against the interests of people who are shopping for their products.

 

[railven]

When you become an investor in a company you create an inherent conflict of interest with being a consumer of that company's goods. Your interests become aligned with the company's interests. I'm sure a large portion of the financial nvidia fanboying we see is just due to posters with a few bucks invested into nvidia, which naturally would lead to an emotional attachment as it's their money on the line.

Something I personally stay away from, I put money in savings and RSPs. When you read some of the posts here it's pretty clear it's just random investor #2586932 talking with their .000000001% share of NVDA. Which generally goes completely against the interests of people who are shopping for their products.

I can only think of one poster here who's posting style took a dramatic change and it made more sense after he openly said he was an investor.

Really puts a whole different angle at the marketer/shill thing. If people are investors and posting trying to be unbias, well that giant conflict of interest is just damning if they get hardware to "evaluate."

Woof!

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Here's a great summary of NVidia's looming disaster. The author makes some great points and what we've seen so far from Gaming Evolved is just the tip of the 'ice burg ahead' for NVidia. IMO

Hmm so NVidia 'opted out' of consoles to ride the ship to the bottom.

TL;DR- Short NVidia fast.

http://m.seekingalpha.com/article/1288651

Some compelling arguments in that article. He had me right up until he mentioned Charlie and SA as an authority...

I don't think the situation is as doom and gloom as that article, but I definately think nvidia should be concerned about losing the updated nexus 7. Have no fear though because Project Shield is going to sell like 20 million Tegra 4's. ROFL!!!!

 

[badb0y]

Here's a great summary of NVidia's looming disaster. The author makes some great points and what we've seen so far from Gaming Evolved is just the tip of the 'ice burg ahead' for NVidia. IMO











Hmm so NVidia 'opted out' of consoles to ride the ship to the bottom.

TL;DR- Short NVidia fast.

http://m.seekingalpha.com/article/1288651

I disagree, nVidia is in a much better position then AMD even though they don't have console contracts or a strong TWIMTBP campaign. For one they have a strong brand name with nVidia and Geforce and moving forward we have some exciting products coming from them such as project Denver, Maxwell, Tegra etc.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Here's a great summary of NVidia's looming disaster. The author makes some great points and what we've seen so far from Gaming Evolved is just the tip of the 'ice burg ahead' for NVidia. IMO











Hmm so NVidia 'opted out' of consoles to ride the ship to the bottom.

TL;DR- Short NVidia fast.

http://m.seekingalpha.com/article/1288651

Short Nvidia which has $0 debt, $6/share in cash (against a $12.50 share price), and continues to generate ~$1/share in FCF year over year...right. I am familiar with that author's work and believe that he has very little insight into Nvidia's business.

 

[Arachnotronic]

That's fair and all, but is a clear conflict of interest.

Should I assume those that are of similar mentallity are also investors?

If so, that would definitely explain their posting history.

So where is the outcry that investors openly post on forums promoting the company and their products to forum posters without disclosure?

There are no laws that require disclosure of stock positions on message boards. That being said, I'll disclose that I own shares of all three of Intel, Nvidia, and AMD. Intel because it will take much more smartphone/tablet share than people expect + huge data center business. Nvidia because its professional GPU (Tesla/Quadro) GPU business + consumer GeForce businesss are cash cows (and I do not believe that IGPs will make a dent in sales here) + there could be some very real upside from Tegra if it actually succeeds. AMD, primarily because I believe that their new semicustom APU strategy could work out, and I also think that its low power X86 cores could gain some real traction, especially as Windows RT fails, and the OEMs will require a 2nd source to Intel's Haswell/Bay Trail products.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Amazon, NCIX, EVGA, CC, MC etc.

Two weeks after launch and they are always in stock, so much for the 'they can't make them fast enough' fantasy.

A lot of those places have very limited availability, Amazon has 1 evga card left when I checked and it was $1,200. Some are back ordered, some are sold out.

But then they've been in stock and sold out repeatedly since it released, on a daily bases, all throughout the day.

Could be as expected they're slowing down in sales, but then you haven't proven that all you've shown is that at X time there was some availability when there has always been at least some at some point during the day since release.

 

[railven]

There are no laws that require disclosure of stock positions on message boards. That being said, I'll disclose that I have positions in Intel, Nvidia, and AMD

Hey. I'm not singling anyone out, just an angle I never really thought of.

Frankly I don't care what people do with their personal lives. Call it a light bulb in my head going off, but the witch hunt for "shills" makes me wonder as Groove said - how many of these alleged shills are just simply investors who are looking out for their investment.

 

[wand3r3r]

@Grooveriding "The Myth"

The egg is the only retailer out there?

Various Titans in stock
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ords=gtx+titan

Titan in stock
http://us.ncix.com/search/?categoryid=0&q=gtx+titan

Again, in stock
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...keywords=titan

2 of 3 in stock
http://www.evga.com/Products/Produc...GeForce+TITAN+Series+Family&chipset=GTX+TITAN

Congratulations, you found the only retailer out of stock. Point proven, not.

 

[Atreidin]

You fail to realize that what's good for the consumer isn't necessarily great for shareholders. Maybe you don't hold investments, but I for one like to see companies see financial prosperity for the good of my investments. There are more important things than a $50 discount on a GPU out there.

Also just because it is good for the consumer doesn't mean it's bad for the shareholders, either. Sometimes charging people $50 less now means more than $50 from them later. Maybe the short-term profits won't be as good (maybe), but I think there should be much more focus on long-term strategies in our corporate culture. Most people don't behave like sociopaths, unlike most companies and the people who run them.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

The egg is the only retailer out there?

Various Titans in stock
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ords=gtx+titan

Titan in stock
http://us.ncix.com/search/?categoryid=0&q=gtx+titan

Again, in stock
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...keywords=titan

2 of 3 in stock
http://www.evga.com/Products/Produc...GeForce+TITAN+Series+Family&chipset=GTX+TITAN

Congratulations, you found the only retailer out of stock. Point proven, not.

Amazon has 7 total in stock.

NCIX has version 1 in stock, how many available?

TD says they have 1 version in stock.'

2 or 3 for evga, you mean 2 and limited quantities like everyone else? All those cards will probably sell today, and more will become available. This is how it's been since it released, not sure the issue here.

No, but given Titan has been available on and off since release at various times throughout the day I went with probably the most popular site on the web for computer hardware.

I don't get the hate, but then again I never do.

Nobody was whining about the $1000 3960x getting stomped in perf/$ against the i5-2500k because almost everyone was buying the i5, but I guess it's ok for Intel but not Nvidia? Doesn't make sense to me, either way I wouldn't buy either chip, but I'm not going to fault the companies that try to make money off them.

Wow. Don't you realize you have no lack of choice BECAUSE there is competition? BFG is talking about a reality where AMD is gone and that 680 is $649, and you pay it and like it. This isn't just about Titan, which is fortunately an outlier (for now) and already priming people for a much higher price-per-performance line going forward.

No, I bought an i5-2500k for $230 on release day and if I still had it today it would still be a much better purchase than anything AMD has at that price point despite $200 being the limit of AMD's current CPU design. If I didn't get a 7950 for $300 I could have gotten a 660Ti or 670 both have similar performance and similar prices, the fact is I had choice outside AMD at my price range because Nvidia was offering OTHER PRODUCTS.

The other fact here is that because AMD did so poorly this generation we have the $1000 GK110, and the $500 GK104, I shouldn't have had to pay $300 for mid-range performance. I'm sure I'd have had to pay a bit more if AMD wasn't there, but then you're talking theatricals and there is no sense arguing what Nvidia would do had AMD not been there since their prices are already ridiculous with AMD there anyways. I wasn't planning to upgrade, 28nm has been a compete joke - no thanks to AMD or Nvidia.

 

[railven]

Nobody was whining about the $1000 3960x getting stomped in perf/$ against the i5-2500k because almost everyone was buying the i5, but I guess it's ok for Intel but not Nvidia? Doesn't make sense to me, either way I wouldn't buy either chip, but I'm not going to fault the companies that try to make money off them.

What if that $1,000 Intel was in through Intel history perceived to be that I7 2600K?

Like I told someone else in another forum my real complaint about the price - what if Intel had a fab issue, and since AMD sucks balls, they took their 2c/2t i3's spread them across the i3 line up, took their 2c/4t i3's and renamed them i5's, took their 4c/4t i5's and named them i7's and then took their working 4c/8t i7s and called them the Extreme edition. Then a few months down the road Intel fixed their fab issue and launched their working 6c/12t chips as some kind of new LEET EXTREME edition for $2,000.

I'm sure in such a scenario everyone would be bitching. I mean, AMD is flat on their face so there is nothing stopping Intel from doing such a thing.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Short Nvidia which has $0 debt, $6/share in cash (against a $12.50 share price), and continues to generate ~$1/share in FCF year over year...right. I am familiar with that author's work and believe that he has very little insight into Nvidia's business.

Tom Luongo seems to be an especially clueless individual. D:

 

[BallaTheFeared]

What if that $1,000 Intel was in through Intel history perceived to be that I7 2600K?

Like I told someone else in another forum my real complaint about the price - what if Intel had a fab issue, and since AMD sucks balls, they took their 2c/2t i3's spread them across the i3 line up, took their 2c/4t i3's and renamed them i5's, took their 4c/4t i5's and named them i7's and then took their working 4c/8t i7s and called them the Extreme edition. Then a few months down the road Intel fixed their fab issue and launched their working 6c/12t chips as some kind of new LEET EXTREME edition for $2,000.

I'm sure in such a scenario everyone would be bitching. I mean, AMD is flat on their face so there is nothing stopping Intel from doing such a thing.

Ok, so lets assume that happens.

Why am I upgrading from a $230 i5-2500k that does 5.3Ghz?

Where is my incentive to upgrade, how is Intel paying for R&D and fabs if they aren't enticing me to buy PCs?

There aren't a lot of people in the world today who don't already have a computer, the trick is getting them to upgrade and with your logic hardly anyone would, even now most don't that's why I still repair countless Pent 4 rigs.


Same thing this generation, I paid $185 for my 470 in 2010, there was nothing until the 2GB 7850 reach that price point that offered comparable perf/$. Hence I never upgraded until my card died, I upgraded out of necessity, not desire.

 

[badb0y]

Ok, so lets assume that happens.

Why am I upgrading from a $230 i5-2500k that does 5.3Ghz?

Where is my incentive to upgrade, how is Intel paying for R&D and fabs if they aren't enticing me to buy PCs?

There aren't a lot of people in the world today who don't already have a computer, the trick is getting them to upgrade and with your logic hardly anyone would, even now most don't that's why I still repair countless Pent 4 rigs.

Crysis 4 will come out and rape your PC then what will you do? Buy a console?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Crysis 4 will come out and rape your PC then what will you do? Buy a console?

Turn the settings down, or upgrade if there is a compelling product on the market (which is something this gen hasn't offered over 40nm for the most part).

But then that's just me, Nvidia is making bank off GK104 and they're selling a lot, look at the market share difference they obtained with mid-range $500 products.

Sure it doesn't make sense to me, but then I'm not trying to rationalize it nor argue against the fact which in this case shows consumers are willing to overpay for products. What do you want me to say? Shame on you Nvidia/AMD! Meh, to each their own.

 

[badb0y]

Turn the settings down, or upgrade if there is a compelling product on the market (which is something this gen hasn't offered over 40nm for the most part).

Turning the settings down is not an option for me. What about Crysis 5? Eventually your computer will crap out even on low settings, you can't expect the gaming market to stand still because some people don't want to upgrade.

 

[ICDP]

Turning the settings down is not an option for me. What about Crysis 5? Eventually your computer will crap out even on low settings, you can't expect the gaming market to stand still because some people don't want to upgrade.

Eventually, if enough people decided not to upgrade the prices would drop to a more reasonable level that the market will tolerate.

Titan is an outlier IMHO and the initial Titan mania is drying up. Titan is now avaiable to purchase at MSRP, quite simply most of the people who wanted one have got one. It will still sell but at a much reduced rate. Nvidia can keep Titan at $1000 as long as there is no direct competition that comes close. It was never meant to be a high volume seller.

AMD and Nvidia would be delighted if we would see the old top end become midrange at the same prices and the new top end would cost $1000. Oh, wait...