Rumor: Price Cuts on GTX660Ti series coming next week

[AnandThenMan]

I think Nvidia has played the 28nm shortage card a few too many times here. In fact TSMC's 28nm yields are reportedly at 80%+, and capacity has gone up 5 fold since Q2. There may still be some shortages, but that would seem to affect AMD as well, so I'm not sure what makes the Nvidia situation apparently unique.

 

[Keysplayr]

I think Nvidia has played the 28nm shortage card a few too many times here. In fact TSMC's 28nm yields are reportedly at 80%+, and capacity has gone up 5 fold since Q2. There may still be some shortages, but that would seem to affect AMD as well, so I'm not sure what makes the Nvidia situation apparently unique.

Nvidia moves a lot more product than AMD. So a shortage for one may not be a shortage for the other.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Nvidia moves a lot more product than AMD. So a shortage for one may not be a shortage for the other.

overall

AMD 28,155 units 22.8% share, -1.8% from Q1, -1.3% from Q2-2011
nvidia 18,950 units 15.3% share, +0.2% from Q1, -4.5% from Q2-2011
intel 75,80 units 61.4% share, +1.7% from Q1, +6.0% from Q2-2011

discrete
AMD 14,000 units, 42.9% share, -2.1% from Q1, -2.5% from Q2-2011
nvidia 18,600 untis, 57.1% share, +2.1% from Q1, +2.5% from Q2-2011​

 

[RussianSensation]

I like how NV and AMD both sneaked in a price increases in the mid-range (HD7850/7870 $249/349) but AMD appears to have taken 98% of the blame of rising 28nm wafer prices and gauging the consumer.

GTX460 768/1GB ($199/229) --> GTX660Ti $299.

Selling GTX680 for $500 is justified because well NV still has a 'shortage' of GK104 chips? If there is a shortage of GTX680 chips, how come there is only 1 GTX680 out of stock and 28 are in stock on Newegg and GTX690 is in stock? Maybe the reason 680 is still $500+ is because NV isn't seeing decline in sales for the cards enough to force them to drop prices just yet. As long as they are moving 680s for $500, I don't think they will lower prices.

 

[sze5003]

Well the 690 is nearly 1k last I checked. I would never buy that even if I had the money to spend on a gpu that much. Suprisingly people still buy the 680 as much as they do the 670..maybe not now but when they first came out. But of course something was bound to happen when all these cards are almost neck to neck with each other, at least for the average consumer.

 

[RussianSensation]

The prices in North America are still fairly close. In Europe, NV cards command a massive price premium.

Asus DCUII 7970 429 Euro
Asus DCUII 680 599 Euro

UK
Asus DCUII 7970 - £357.35
Asus DCUII 680 - £461.62

Here in Toronto:
Asus DCUII 7970 - $529 CDN
Asus DCUII 680 - $559 CDN

You can imagine how 660Ti that costs more than a 7950 in Europe is a sober proposition.

 

[toyota]

I like how NV and AMD both sneaked in a price increases in the mid-range (HD7850/7870 $249/349) but AMD appears to have taken 98% of the blame of rising 28nm wafer prices and gauging the consumer.

GTX460 768/1GB ($199/229) --> GTX660Ti $299.

Selling GTX680 for $500 is justified because well NV still has a 'shortage' of GK104 chips? If there is a shortage of GTX680 chips, how come there is only 1 GTX680 out of stock and 28 are in stock on Newegg and GTX690 is in stock? Maybe the reason 680 is still $500+ is because NV isn't seeing decline in sales for the cards enough to force them to drop prices just yet. As long as they are moving 680s for $500, I don't think they will lower prices.

well to be fair the gtx660 ti launched at 20% more than the gtx560 ti launched at but is 50% faster. the 7870 and 7850 increased their price at the same level of increasing their performance. so at least with nvidia you got 30% more performance for your dollar where with AMD you got basically zero.

comparing the $300 gtx660 ti to the $229 gtx460 seems odd but even doing that the gtx660 ti offers 90% more performance for 30% more money. so if anything that's a pretty huge increase in performance per dollar at launch prices.

bottom line is that no matter how bad the Nvidia prices look, they still gave an increase in performance for your money. it was AMD's launch prices that were a freaking joke and made no increase at all in performance per dollar.

 

[AnandThenMan]

bottom line is that no matter how bad the Nvidia prices look and it was AMD's launch prices that were a freaking joke.

Lack of competition will do that. The GTX280 launched at $650, the 4870 launched shortly after at $299 and forced a massive price drop from NV, they even refunded a % of the purchase for some people, a commendable thing to do actually.

 

[blastingcap]

Lack of competition will do that. The GTX280 launched at $650, the 4870 launched shortly after at $299 and forced a massive price drop from NV, they even refunded a % of the purchase for some people, a commendable thing to do actually.

As commendable as attempting to dodge liability for bumpgate?

 

[Keysplayr]

overall

AMD 28,155 units 22.8% share, -1.8% from Q1, -1.3% from Q2-2011
nvidia 18,950 units 15.3% share, +0.2% from Q1, -4.5% from Q2-2011
intel 75,80 units 61.4% share, +1.7% from Q1, +6.0% from Q2-2011

discrete
AMD 14,000 units, 42.9% share, -2.1% from Q1, -2.5% from Q2-2011
nvidia 18,600 untis, 57.1% share, +2.1% from Q1, +2.5% from Q2-2011​

Is this for the 7xxx and 6xx series only?
And does this include AMD APUs.

 

[RussianSensation]

That's 1 way to look at it and I even ripped HD7900 launch prices. Then I thought about it and realized why AMD did it. For years AMD gave away their cards for "free" - yes free because they made almost no $ selling them (some quarters actually lost $). Despite that, NV ended with about 60-63% discrete GPU market share after 2-3 years of HD5800/6900 generation vs. Fermi. Toyota even when AMD gave you 4870 for $299 when the slower 260 was $399, then they responded less than a year later with $269 4890 that gave $499 GTX280 performance. And yet, you still bought the inferior 260 216 over the 4890. I was looking at cards that generation and I remember vividly that HD4890 was going for $175-200 shortly after launch, around the same price 260 216s were going for. Funny enough HD4890 OC competed with GTX275 OC not a 260 216. So guess what AMD tried to get customers like you to switch and yet you still bought the 260 216 over the 4890. Their strategy didn't work. Why give away cards for 'free' when NV users aren't switching? Makes no sense unless you want to bankrupt the company.

AMD basically has been giving away their videocards for peanuts for 3 generations in a row:

$199 4850 / $299 4870
$269 5850 / $369 5870
$299 6950 / $369 6970

AMD didn't offer any large price/performance increase on paper because they weren't selling $400-500 GPUs for 3 generations in a row (you know ripping customers off! or in capitalism: making $)

Remember GTX280 for $649 and GTX260 for $399?

The only reason NV's price / performance looks so good compared to their old line-up is because they've been ripping off gamers for 3 consecutive generations and Team Green didn't say a word. GTX580 for $500 vs. $299 HD6950 Unlocked. WOW, 580 still sold. Now AMD is 'ripping' gamers off (i.e., trying to make $) like NV has been doing for years and years and people are complaining. AMD gave us the best price/performance for 3 years in a row and yet many NV users bought 0 of their cards.

To me both companies are offering poor price/performance this round from HD6950 unlocked. If gamers wanted to influence lower prices in the marketplace by speaking with their wallets, they should have been buying AMD cards and forcing NV to take notice. That didn't happen. Now both companies are selling $500 flagship cards and moved up mid-range to $250-300. Gamers mostly have themselves to blame because they loud and clear sent a message to NV and AMD that they didn't care about price/performance for 3 generations in a row.

It's pretty funny when you think about it:

- AMD gave the best price/performance hands down since 2009 and even beat NV to market by 6 months with HD5000 series and NV users didn't care.
- Now AMD gave up trying to get NV users to switch and NV gamers are complaining they raised prices?

What's next HD8970 for $299 and 50% faster than a $499 GTX780? NV loyalists probably still won't buy it.

P.S. When ATI sold their flagship cards for $499-599 I don't recall people asking them to be priced $100-200 below NV.

 

[toyota]

Is this for the 7xxx and 6xx series only?

the AMD 7 series and Nvidia 6 series would not even had been out then.

 

[toyota]

That's 1 way to look at it and I even ripped HD7900 launch prices. Then I thought about it and realized why AMD did it. For years AMD gave away their cards for "free" - yes free because they made $0 selling them (actually lost $). Despite that, NV ended with about 60-63% market share after 2-3 years of HD5800/6900 generation with Fermi. Toyota even when AMD gave you 4870 and 4890, you still bought the inferior 260! So guess what AMD tried to get customers like you to switch and yet you still bought the 260 216 over the 4890. Their strategy didn't work. Why give away cards for free when NV users aren't switching? Makes no sense unless you want to bankrupt the company.

AMD basically has been giving away their videocards for free for 3 generations in a row:

$199 4850 / $299 4870
$269 5850 / $369 5870
$299 6950 / $369 6970

AMD didn't offer any large price/performance increase on paper because they weren't selling $400-500 GPUs for 3 generations in a row.

Remember GTX280 for $649 and GTX260 for $399?

The only reason NV's price / performance looks so good compared to their old line-up is because they've been ripping off gamers for 3 consecutive generations and no one said a word. GTX580 for $500 vs. $299 HD6950 Unlocked. That's a joke right? Now AMD is doing the same but people are complaining. AMD gave you the best price/performance for 3 years in a row you bought 0 of their cards.

To me both companies are offering poor price/performance this round from HD6950 unlocked.

It's pretty funny when you think about it:

- AMD gave the best price/performance hands down since 2009 and even beat NV to market by 6 months with HD5000 series and NV users didn't care.
- Now AMD gave up trying to get you to switch and you are complaining they raised prices?

What's next HD8970 for $199?

um I bought a factory oced 260 with backplate for 185 bucks that also included a game. that was way cheaper than the 4870 512mb was going for.

 

[Keysplayr]

the AMD 7 series and Nvidia 6 series would not even had been out then.

So what would they include? 58xx and 4xx?

And besides, wasn't the subject of ATM post pertaining to 28nm?

"I think Nvidia has played the 28nm shortage card a few too many times here. In fact TSMC's 28nm yields are reportedly at 80%+, and capacity has gone up 5 fold since Q2. There may still be some shortages, but that would seem to affect AMD as well, so I'm not sure what makes the Nvidia situation apparently unique. "

If the 7 series and the 6xx series (which are on 28nm) werent even out then, why did he show those results?

 

[RussianSensation]

um I bought a factory oced 260 with backplate for 185 bucks that also included a game. that was way cheaper than the 4870 512mb was going for.

When 260 OC was $185, how much was the 4890? I am having a hard time believing that GTX260 216 cost $185 but 4870 512mb was more expensive. When in the world did this happen?

Summer-Fall 2009, GTX260 216 MSI TwinFrozr was $185 on Newegg
Summer-Fall 2009, HD4890 OC Cyclone was $200 on Newegg

August 2009, I was looking between those 2 cards exactly.

HD4890 took a dump all over the GTX260 216.

Any person who didn't buy a single AMD card from 2009 to today shouldn't even be complaining about high prices on AMD's line because they gave the best price/performance for 3 generations in a row. You didn't bite. Now you are paying for it since GTX670 is $400, because AMD is no longer interested in selling HD7950/HD7970 for $299/$369 at launch (unless they have to).

 

[toyota]

When 260 OC was $185, how much was the 4890? I am having a hard time believing that GTX260 216 cost $185 but 4870 512mb was more expensive. When in the world did this happen?

August 16, 2009, GTX260 216 MSI TwinFrozr was $175-185. MSI HD4890 OC was $175-195. HD4890 OC smashed it in performance. Before that, HD4870 1GB were going for $125-140 on Newegg for 3-4 months.

the 4890 was not out yet as this was in 2008. I just looked it up and my card was $230 and had a $40 rebate making it $190. it also came with some Tom Clancy game but newegg ran out of that promo and gave me another $25 credit. so really the card cost me $165 shipped. the 4870 512mb cost more and the 4870 1gb was WAY more since it had just came out.

EDIT: and the card was actually 15 bucks cheaper than that a month later.

 

[AnandThenMan]

If the 7 series and the 6xx series (which are on 28nm) werent even out then, why did he show those results?

To show that AMD ships more units, contrary to what you said. You didn't say Nvidia is shipping more 28nm parts however. Now extrapolate the total share into 28nm production, over the course of the 28nm node, it is logical to state that AMD will demand more wafers. Now consider that AMD was first to 28nm@TSMC (before anyone else I believe) and they have more 28nm SKUs than Nvidia. Taking the above in totality, it is easy to predict that AMD has more 28nm demand than Nvidia, or stretching things you could say they are about the same. But as RS pointed out, there is no shortage of Kepler cards, so that throws the entire claim out the window.

But remember Nvidia blamed TSMC for Fermi's delay, so they are no stranger to throwing their fab partner under the bus. As for the GTX2xx prices, the whole point is without competition they cost 2x as much, without competition the 7xxx cards were priced much higher.

 

[Keysplayr]

To show that AMD ships more units, contrary to what you said. You didn't say Nvidia is shipping more 28nm parts however. Now extrapolate the total share into 28nm production, over the course of the 28nm node, it is logical to state that AMD will demand more wafers. Now consider that AMD was first to 28nm@TSMC (before anyone else I believe) and they have more 28nm SKUs than Nvidia. Taking the above in totality, it is easy to predict that AMD has more 28nm demand than Nvidia, or stretching things you could say they are about the same. But as RS pointed out, there is no shortage of Kepler cards, so that throws the entire claim out the window.

But remember Nvidia blamed TSMC for Fermi's delay, so they are no stranger to throwing their fab partner under the bus. As for the GTX2xx prices, the whole point is without competition they cost 2x as much, without competition the 7xxx cards were priced much higher.

Actually, that's a nice line of BS. You yourself were talking about 28nm. If you weren't intending to show that, then you should include all sales of Nvidia and ATI back to the early 90s.
You and I both know we were talking 28nm. So until you post those figures, I'll stick by what I said.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Any person who didn't buy a single AMD card from 2009 to today shouldn't even be complaining about high prices on AMD's line because they gave the best price/performance for 3 generations in a row. You didn't bite. Now you are paying for it since GTX670 is $400, because AMD is no longer interested in selling HD7950/HD7970 for $299/$369 at launch (unless they have to).

I absolutely agree with this 100%. People want their cake and want to eat it too. Complain about AMD's prices but never buy their cards, never buy their cards when they offer better value. And then turn around and blame AMD for Nvidia's high prices.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Actually, that's a nice line of BS.

No it's the reality of the market currently, but you chose to conveniently ignore it.

If you weren't intending to show that, then you should include all sales of Nvidia and ATI back to the early 90s.

You can't be serious.

 

[Keysplayr]

No it's the reality of the market currently, but you chose to conveniently ignore it.

Gotcha. You posted early (Q1) 2011 numbers and here we are most of the way through 2012. You're right on bud.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Gotcha. You posted early (Q1) 2011 numbers and here we are most of the way through 2012. You're right on bud.

Try reading the link I posted.

 

[sze5003]

Come to think of it the reason I never owned a top tier card was because up until now all I had was Nvidia cards. They were all too expensive for me back then. Then I figured I'm going to pay 400+ this time and I'm not even getting the last card in the series, I would be getting next to last. So the Amd drop pricing actually helped me to try something new out.

 

[Keysplayr]

Try reading the link I posted.

I did.

A few things from the report:
* attach rates continune to slowly decrease (attach rate is the pecent of gpu enabled chipsets or discrete gpu's sold with a CPU). desktop was 39.6% in Q2-11 and 33.7% in Q2-12, Mobile was 43.0% in Q2-11 and 36.8% in Q2-12.
* chipsets with graphics were just 5.7% of the total gpu units sold in Q2, standalone were 26.4% and the rest were cpu integrated.
* nvidia is finally at the end of the road for chipsets, in Q2 of 2011 they sold 4.7M units, in Q2 of 2012 they were down to 350K.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I did. [read the link]

Then I'm not sure what this is about:

Gotcha. You posted early (Q1) 2011 numbers and here we are most of the way through 2012. You're right on bud.

The numbers I posted are the latest available, Q2-2012.