nVidia Q3: Revenue up 53%

[Erenhardt]

please back up your argument with facts and links, not your opinion

Quoting some PR form reviews that is aimed directly at consumers to brainwash them and grab their money is not a best "backup" for your opinion.
Two things:
1. If gtx 1050 is as fast (or actually a bit faster) than the High End GTX295, does it make 1050 a High End card? By your definition, yes!
2. If Titan Pascal is 50 times (not really) faster than $350 G92, does it mean that if Titan Pascal is anything below 50x350=17500$ it is a smoking deal? By your definition, yes!

You are using PR to back up anti consumer opinion. Something PR people do.

 

[raghu78]

come on guys. There is only one way to look at it. Nvidia is charging these absurd prices and getting away because
1. The consumer is willing to pay.
2. AMD is not providing competition.

Nvidia's gpu revenue increase is staggering. The consumer is paying for those massive profits and AMD is bleeding for its inability to compete.

 

[happy medium]

Kinda. But, historically, you can judge its performance based on die size. I think it's better to look it at this way, the largest die size of that generation is considered the highest end of that generation. That still hasn't changed. The highest end Pascal card is the Titan XP. Therefore, in respect to its generation, the GTX1080 is a midrange card. The only thing that changed is pricing. Historically, it's common for the halo card to be priced around $549-$649. Now, it's $1000. That's the main difference. It's not a good direction for us consumers. It's pretty awesome for Nvidia and shareholders, though.

The so called highest end Halo card in 2011 was the 700$ gtx590, in 2012 it was the $1000 gtx690, in 2013 it was the $1000 Titan 6gb , in 2014 it was the 1000$ Titan X, in 2016 its the $1200 Titan X(P) which has no competition.

The high end consisted of the $550/$650 gtx580,680,780,980 and 1080.

Just because the market does not have dual gpu halo cards now, does not mean they didn't at one time exist.

 

[happy medium]

come on guys. There is only one way to look at it. Nvidia is charging these absurd prices and getting away because
1. The consumer is willing to pay.
2. AMD is not providing competition.

Nvidia's gpu revenue increase is staggering. The consumer is paying for those massive profits and AMD is bleeding for its inability to compete.

Once again where do you see absurd prices?
Since 2010 prices are the same.
Take another look a GOOD look!

These are the facts, these prices are real, the cards existed. This is not a fantasy.

Super high end.
gtx 590 700$ March 2011
gtx 690 1000$ May 2012
Titan 1000$ March 2013,/ gtx780ti November 2013 ,700$
Titan X 1000$ March 2015, /gtx980ti June 2015 ,700$
Titan XP 1200$ August 2016

High end
gtx580 500$, November 2010
gtx680 500$ March 2012
gtx780 650$ June 2013
gtx980 550$ September 2014
gtx1080 650$ May 2016

lower high end
gtx570 350$ December 2010
gtx670 400$ May 2012
gtx770 400$ May 2013
gtx970 330$ September 2014 ,WOW! cheap
gtx1070 400$ June 2016

Mid range
gtx560ti 250$ January 2011
gtx660ti 300$ August 2012
gtx760 250$ June 2013
gtx960 220$ Jan 2015
gtx1060 250$ Aug 2016

lower end
gtx560
gtx660
gtx750
gtx950
gtx1050

 

[linkgoron]

The so called highest end Halo card in 2011 was the 700$ gtx590, in 2012 it was the $1000 gtx690, in 2013 it was the $1000 Titan 6gb , in 2014 it was the 1000$ Titan X, in 2016 its the $1200 Titan X(P) which has no competition.

The high end consisted of the $550/$650 gtx580,680,780,980 and 1080.

Just because the market does not have dual gpu halo cards now, does not mean they didn't at one time exist.

You're just proving a point comparing the Titan/X/XP and the 690 and 590.

Previously the best single card used to be a fully enabled 500mm^2 X80 card (with the exception of the 680. AT even comment about it in their review). Nvidia have changed it, and now smaller dies have basically jumped up a tier (or two), while the previous 500mm^2 single cards have become "halo" 1000$-1200$ cards.

The Titan XP isn't even a fully enabled chip.

AT quote from 680 review:

What you won’t find today however – and in a significant departure from NVIDIA’s previous launches – is Big Kepler. Since the days of the G80, NVIDIA has always produced a large 500mm2+ GPU to serve both as a flagship GPU for their consumer lines and the fundamental GPU for their Quadro and Tesla lines, and have always launched with that big GPU first. At 294mm2 GK104 is not Big Kepler, and while NVIDIA doesn’t comment on unannounced products, somewhere in the bowels of NVIDIA Big Kepler certainly lives, waiting for its day in the sun.

 

[happy medium]

Quoting some PR form reviews that is aimed directly at consumers to brainwash them and grab their money is not a best "backup" for your opinion.
Two things:
1. If gtx 1050 is as fast (or actually a bit faster) than the High End GTX295, does it make 1050 a High End card? By your definition, yes!
2. If Titan Pascal is 50 times (not really) faster than $350 G92, does it mean that if Titan Pascal is anything below 50x350=17500$ it is a smoking deal? By your definition, yes!

You are using PR to back up anti consumer opinion. Something PR people do.

Now reviews/links are PR and your opinion is now fact.
Really man, this is trolling at its best.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Exactly this! Anyone, ANYONE who thinks differently is unfortunately BLIND and too much of an Nvidia blind follower to use logic and reason to understand this simple and basic concept!

GTX 1070 should be today's midrange and should cost $250, the 1060 6GB should be $180, 1060 3GB should be $160, 1050ti should be $120 and 1050 should be $100. The GTX 1080 should be $350 and the 1080TI which will be released after Vega should be $500 with the Titan X being a premium card at $800-900.

Those are the real prices and real ranges of graphic cards.

No, the "real" ranges and prices "are what they are", not what someone thinks they "should" be. It has nothing to do with being a blind nVidia follower, but simply seeing and accepting reality.

 

[happy medium]

You're just proving a point comparing the Titan/X/XP and the 690 and 590.

Previously the best single card used to be a fully enabled 500mm^2 X80 card (with the exception of the 680. AT even comment about it in their review). Nvidia have changed it, and now smaller dies have basically jumped up a tier (or two), while the previous 500mm^2 single cards have become "halo" 1000$-1200$ cards.

The Titan XP isn't even a fully enabled chip.

How far would you like to go back to prove your point the ti4400?
I went back 6 years almost 7 now.
The best single halo card in 2010 was the $700 gtx590, that's a fact.
the next fastest card was the $1000 gtx690.

Whats the die size have to do with it?
You do know prices of most anything increase over almost a 7 year span.

 

[caswow]

No, the "real" ranges and prices "are what they are", not what someone thinks they "should" be. It has nothing to do with being a blind nVidia follower, but simply seeing and accepting reality.

as long as nvidia is collecting the sweet money its ok. people seem to accept the price hike regardless if its more expensive than 2 generations before. people want people buy consumerism at its best.

 

[nurturedhate]

Once again where do you see absurd prices?
Since 2010 prices are the same.
Take another look a GOOD look!

These are the facts, these prices are real, the cards existed. This is not a fantasy.

Super high end.
gtx 590 700$ March 2011
gtx 690 1000$ May 2012
Titan 1000$ March 2013,/ gtx780ti November 2013 ,700$
Titan X 1000$ March 2015, /gtx980ti June 2015 ,700$
Titan XP 1200$ August 2016

High end
gtx580 500$, November 2010
gtx680 500$ March 2012
gtx780 650$ June 2013
gtx980 550$ September 2014
gtx1080 650$ May 2016

lower high end
gtx570 350$ December 2010
gtx670 400$ May 2012
gtx770 400$ May 2013
gtx970 330$ September 2014 ,WOW! cheap
gtx1070 400$ June 2016

Mid range
gtx560ti 250$ January 2011
gtx660ti 300$ August 2012
gtx760 250$ June 2013
gtx960 220$ Jan 2015
gtx1060 250$ Aug 2016

lower end
gtx560
gtx660
gtx750
gtx950
gtx1050

Now compare die sizes, relative performance within the stack, power consumption, etc and see how absurd your statement looks.

 

[happy medium]

No, the "real" ranges and prices "are what they are", not what someone thinks they "should" be. It has nothing to do with being a blind nVidia follower, but simply seeing and accepting reality.

Hurray , your right , they "are what they are", not what someone thinks they should be.

Seeing is believing.
Super high end.
gtx 590 700$ March 2011
gtx 690 1000$ May 2012
Titan 1000$ March 2013,/ gtx780ti November 2013 ,700$
Titan X 1000$ March 2015, /gtx980ti June 2015 ,700$
Titan XP 1200$ August 2016

High end
gtx580 500$, November 2010
gtx680 500$ March 2012
gtx780 650$ June 2013
gtx980 550$ September 2014
gtx1080 650$ May 2016

lower high end
gtx570 350$ December 2010
gtx670 400$ May 2012
gtx770 400$ May 2013
gtx970 330$ September 2014 ,WOW! cheap
gtx1070 400$ June 2016

Mid range
gtx560ti 250$ January 2011
gtx660ti 300$ August 2012
gtx760 250$ June 2013
gtx960 220$ Jan 2015
gtx1060 250$ Aug 2016

lower end
gtx560
gtx660
gtx750
gtx950
gtx1050

and links to back it up.

quote from gtx680 review "retaking the performance crown"

"Last but not least, let’s talk about pricing and availability. GTX 680 is the successor to GTX 580 and NVIDIA will be pricing it accordingly, with an MSRP of $500. This is the same price that the GTX 580 and GTX 480 launched at back in 2010, and while it’s consistent for an x80 video card it’s effectively a conservative price given GK104’s die size."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review

quote from the gtx780 review "The new high end"

"Meanwhile, compared to the GTX 680 which it will be supplanting, the GTX 780 should be a big step up in virtually every way. As NVIDIA likes to put it, GTX 780 is 50% more of everything than GTX 680. 50% more SMXes, 50% more ROPs, 50% more RAM, and 50% more memory bandwidth. In reality due to the clockspeed differences the theoretical performance difference isn’t nearly as large – we’re looking at just a 29% increase in shading/texturing/ROP performance – but this still leaves GTX 780 as being much more powerful than its predecessor."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review

quote from the gtx980 review.

"Today’s launch will see GM204 placed into two video cards, the GeForce GTX 980 and GeForce GTX 970. We’ll dive into the specs of each in a bit, but from an NVIDIA product standpoint these two parts are the immediate successors to the GTX 780/780Ti and GTX 770 respectively.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review


quote from a gtx1080 preview.

"The base clockspeed of 1607MHz is some 42% higher than GTX 980 (and 60% higher than GTX 980 Ti), and the 1733MHz boost clockspeed is a similar gain. On paper, GTX 1080 is set to offer 78% better performance than GTX 980,"
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10326/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-preview/

 

[zinfamous]

HM: pretty sure that reposting your exact same post 5 times (up to this point) would classify as spamming.

You might want to go back and trim that up. FWIW, repeating the same argument that no one seems to be buying just because you think it is right is not the same as validation of your argument.

 

[happy medium]

Now compare die sizes, relative performance within the stack, power consumption, etc and see how absurd your statement looks.

Die size, power consumption does not matter man.

price/ performance is what dictates what tier a card is in.

In your world a 800mm chip , with performance of a gtx960 is high end.
That's absurd!

 

[happy medium]

HM: pretty sure that reposting your exact same post 5 times (up to this point) would classify as spamming.

You might want to go back and trim that up. FWIW, repeating the same argument that no one seems to be buying just because you think it is right is not the same as validation of your argument.

do you have something to add? are you going to troll , spin and deflect the facts.
mabe taking the conversation off track will work.

I don't think its right , I used links to prove my facts. I don't inject my opinion into a conversation like IT IS A FACT.
I'll be happy to see your links, facts.

 

[pj-]

come on guys. There is only one way to look at it. Nvidia is charging these absurd prices and getting away because
1. The consumer is willing to pay.
2. AMD is not providing competition.

Nvidia's gpu revenue increase is staggering. The consumer is paying for those massive profits and AMD is bleeding for its inability to compete.

This is really all that needs to be said.

mid range, high end, halo, who gives a crap how big the dies are? They are priced what (apparently a whole lot of) people will pay. They evidently have ZERO reason to charge less than what they are charging.

 

[happy medium]

as long as nvidia is collecting the sweet money its ok. people seem to accept the price hike regardless if its more expensive than 2 generations before. people want people buy consumerism at its best.

People seem to "want to believe" that it was more expensive 2 years before.

But I already showed, that's not true!

 

[linkgoron]

People seem to "want to believe" that it was more expensive 2 years before.

But I already showed, that's not true!

You already shown that it is true. The best single card used to cost ~500-650$. Now it costs 1200$.

You're just proving exactly what everyone here is saying. Nvidia's marketing is excellent, and they've managed to push their lower end cards up the stack with people buying it.

It is also AMD's fault obviously. But if they ever manage to compete again, I don't see them lowering the current market prices by much.

Anyway, to be at least a little on topic and stop derailing the thread, Nvidia's elegant marketing and their engineering beating AMD across the board has them at these record profits. They really are executing very well on the engineering front. The 10 series was a flawless execution.

 

[happy medium]

This is really all that needs to be said.

mid range, high end, halo, who gives a crap how big the dies are? They are priced what (apparently a whole lot of) people will pay. They evidently have ZERO reason to charge less than what they are charging.

Hey, while this is true and I agree, my point was the prices are not absurd looking at the history of Nvidia cards.

 

[Headfoot]

You're looking purely at nomenclature, which makes no sense for reasons that I mentioned earlier. When you focus on nomenclature, you get inconsistencies and ironies like high end Kepler GPUs such as the GTX 780 Ti and Kepler Titan being inferior to new "midrange" cards like the GTX 1060..

High end, midrange, low end are all relative terms. The only absolute metric is performance, and that is what ultimately determines the pricing of a GPU.

As such, the GTX 1080 provides the foundation of NVidia's high end performance bracket. The GTX 1070 is an entry level high end card, whilst the GTX 1080 is the high end card. The Titan XP and the upcoming GTX 1080 Ti are ultra high end cards..

NVidia has segmented its high end bracket for a long time now to exploit performance driven consumers that will pony up a lot more money for their GPUs than anyone else..

No, it's mid range. Take literally any measurable metric, let's take CUDA cores for example.

GP100 (DGX-1) -> 3840 Cores
GP102 (Titan XP) -> 3584 Cores
GP104 (GTX 1080) -> 2560 Cores
GP106 (GTX 1060) -> 1280 Cores
GP107 (GTX 1050 Ti) -> 768 Cores

Wow, yet again, there are 2 dies with more cores and 2 dies with less cores. Middle. If you look at the change in cores when you switch cards, you can choose to go up and gain 50% cores or you can choose to go down and lose 50% cores. That is literally the definition of middle. If you go down again (1060 -> 1050 ti) you lose 40% relative to the 1060 (another 20% relative to the 1080). Which would make 1080 upper-midrange since still 2 more higher SKUs exist above it.

Let's take RAM capacity as another measurement

GP100 (DGX-1) -> 16GB HBM2 RAM
GP102 (Titan XP) -> 12GB GDDR5X
GP104 (GTX 1080) ->8GB GDDR5X
GP106 (GTX 1060) -> 6GB GDDR5X
GP107 (GTX 1050 Ti) -> 4GB GDDR5X

Literally smack in the middle, again. You can even talk memory tech as midrange. 3 techs from a purely bandwidth and capacity standpoint, HBM = fastest, gddr5x = second fastest, gddr5 = third fastest. The middle memory tech.

Memory bandwidth

GP100 (DGX-1) -> 720 GB/s
GP102 (Titan XP) -> 480 GB/s
GP104 (GTX 1080) -> 320 GB/s
GP106 (GTX 1060) -> 192 GB/s
GP107 (GTX 1050 Ti) -> 112 GB/s

Middle. Again.

It's the midrange card, like every x04 card before it. This is beyond nomenclature. The specs are in the middle.

Try it yourself with die size, TFLOPS compute, etc. and see what happens.

 

[happy medium]

You already shown that it is true. The best single card used to cost ~500-650$. Now it costs 1200$

What was the last single best card that cost ~ $550?
it was in 2009 and it was the gtx295. almost 8 years ago.

 

[linkgoron]

What was the last single best card that cost ~ $550?
it was in 2009 and it was the gtx295. almost 8 years ago.

The 580 was 499$ according to Anandtech. The 680 was 499$. It obviously was the best Nvidia could offer at the time, as they would've released the Titan much sooner if they could, instead of the 690 (see, in contrast, the 1080/Titan XP release and 980/Titan X release).

 

[pj-]

Hey, while this is true and I agree, my point was the prices are not absurd looking at the history of Nvidia cards.

I dunno, my gf thought the price I paid for my pascal titan x was pretty absurd. As did I.

 

[happy medium]

No, it's mid range. Take literally any measurable metric, let's take CUDA cores for example.

GP100 (DGX-1) -> 3840 Cores
GP102 (Titan XP) -> 3584 Cores
GP104 (GTX 1080) -> 2560 Cores
GP106 (GTX 1060) -> 1280 Cores
GP107 (GTX 1050 Ti) -> 768 Cores

Wow, yet again, there are 2 dies with more cores and 2 dies with less cores. Middle. If you look at the change in cores when you switch cards, you can choose to go up and gain 50% cores or you can choose to go down and lose 50% cores. That is literally the definition of middle. If you go down again (1060 -> 1050 ti) you lose 40% relative to the 1060 (another 20% relative to the 1080). Which would make 1080 upper-midrange since still 2 more higher SKUs exist above it.

Let's take RAM capacity as another measurement

GP100 (DGX-1) -> 16GB HBM2 RAM
GP102 (Titan XP) -> 12GB GDDR5X
GP104 (GTX 1080) ->8GB GDDR5X
GP106 (GTX 1060) -> 6GB GDDR5X
GP107 (GTX 1050 Ti) -> 4GB GDDR5X

Literally smack in the middle, again.

It's the midrange card, like every x04 card before it. This is beyond nomenclature. The specs are in the middle.

I don't think you want to go here.

high end gtx770, gtx780,
Enthusiast. gtx780ti, Titan 6gb, titan black, titan Z

No, it's mid range. Take literally any measurable metric, let's take CUDA cores for example.

GP100 (DGX-1) -> 3840 Cores
GP102 (Titan XP) -> 3584 Cores
GP104 (GTX 1080) -> 2560 Cores
GP106 (GTX 1060) -> 1280 Cores
GP107 (GTX 1050 Ti) -> 768 Cores

Wow, yet again, there are 2 dies with more cores and 2 dies with less cores. Middle. If you look at the change in cores when you switch cards, you can choose to go up and gain 50% cores or you can choose to go down and lose 50% cores. That is literally the definition of middle. If you go down again (1060 -> 1050 ti) you lose 40% relative to the 1060 (another 20% relative to the 1080). Which would make 1080 upper-midrange since still 2 more higher SKUs exist above it.

Let's take RAM capacity as another measurement

GP100 (DGX-1) -> 16GB HBM2 RAM
GP102 (Titan XP) -> 12GB GDDR5X
GP104 (GTX 1080) ->8GB GDDR5X
GP106 (GTX 1060) -> 6GB GDDR5X
GP107 (GTX 1050 Ti) -> 4GB GDDR5X

Literally smack in the middle, again. You can even talk memory tech as midrange. 3 techs from a purely bandwidth and capacity standpoint, HBM = fastest, gddr5x = second fastest, gddr5 = third fastest. The middle memory tech.

Memory bandwidth

GP100 (DGX-1) -> 720 GB/s
GP102 (Titan XP) -> 480 GB/s
GP104 (GTX 1080) -> 320 GB/s
GP106 (GTX 1060) -> 192 GB/s
GP107 (GTX 1050 Ti) -> 112 GB/s

Middle. Again.

It's the midrange card, like every x04 card before it. This is beyond nomenclature. The specs are in the middle.

Try it yourself with die size, TFLOPS compute, etc. and see what happens.

Really?
whats next ?are we gonna use pci-e 6pin connectors to measure what tier a card is in?
Well my gtx960 has a 8 pin and a 6 pin, its high end.
You are reaching is my point.

 

[Headfoot]

I don't think you want to go here.

high end gtx770, gtx780,
Enthusiast. gtx780ti, Titan 6gb, titan black, titan Z


Really?
whats next ?are we gonna use pci-e 6pin connectors to measure what tier a card is in?
Well my gtx960 has a 8 pin and a 6 pin, its high end.
You are reaching is my point.

Your argument is "Here's some handwaving and my outrage"

My argument is look at these firm numbers and determine which one is in the middle. It's GP104, every time.

 

[happy medium]

I dunno, my gf thought the price I paid for my pascal titan x was pretty absurd. As did I.

I wonder if you paid $1000 for a gtx690 5 years ago, she would have felt the same?