[TBG] The Video Card Rankings - Fall 2014

[wand3r3r]

The Tech Buyers Guru has updated their Video card rankings with the newly introduced maxwell cards and current market pricing.

http://www.techbuyersguru.com/VideoCardRankings.php

...

Based on this history, we have doubts that the amazing new GTX 970, offering unheard of performance at its suggested retail price of $330, will actually remain broadly available at that price. If it does, it will be the most game-changing product since the awesome 8800 GT, on which our Speed Rating system is based. That card was released in October 2007 for $300 - and so, accounting for inflation, the GTX 970 on paper offers an impressive six times the performance as that card for the same price, translating to nearly one Speed Rating added for each of the seven years since the 8800 GT's debut.

It's interesting to see the concrete improvements.

I guess the rate used to be "doubling every 18-24 months"? Which would put it at 2007=1x, 12.2009=2x, 12.2011=4x, 12.2013=8x, 12.2014 = 16x. We're not there even if the large 980 ti brings 50% more.

It feels like nothing changes dramatically, since we have only got tiny bumps since 2010. At least the prices are finally back down to earth.

It's the first time in a long time when NV has a great card for a good price. I guess AMD will have to drop prices at some point.

+1 for competition.

Take a look at the pricing trends:
The 6x speed was brought down to earth a lot quicker then the other trends.
http://www.techbuyersguru.com/VideoCardRankings4.php

Does that mean that the market doesn't support the extremely high prices, or is it to hard to correlate anything like that from the chart.

 

[amenx]

Based on this history, we have doubts that the amazing new GTX 970, offering unheard of performance at its suggested retail price of $330, will actually remain broadly available at that price.

970 inventory is a problem. Have on pre-order from Amazon with no availability info yet.

If it does, it will be the most game-changing product since the awesome 8800 GT, on which our Speed Rating system is based. That card was released in October 2007 for $300...

8800gt was released at $250 actually. Stocks were plentiful from day 1 I recall. That card never appealed to me tbh. As a single slot, cooling was terrible. Went for the one above it, the 8800gts 512mb (around $350 I believe). These cards were mis-named imo. One I had before it was 8800gts 640mb (g80) with 384-bit bus. The gts 512 (g92) had a 256-bit bus, less vram, yet was 30% faster. Why they named it to seem like a lesser card is beyond me.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Nice chart at the end, with numbers instead of the kind of arbitrary rankings that Tom's gpu ranking uses. Too bad they didnt include some of the stronger igps to see how they compare with the older cards. Maybe still around 1x to 1.5x for even the best AMD APUs?

 

[nitromullet]

8800gt was released at $250 actually. Stocks were plentiful from day 1 I recall.

There was stock on day one, as there was with the GTX 970. Then the initial 8800GT stock sold out, and there was price gouging.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=104199

 

[Termie]

Good point guys. The 8800GT may actually have been $250 to start, then went up to $300 right away. But it was bundled with the brand new game Crysis, which added a lot of value at that time.

 

[wand3r3r]

Nice chart at the end, with numbers instead of the kind of arbitrary rankings that Tom's gpu ranking uses. Too bad they didnt include some of the stronger igps to see how they compare with the older cards. Maybe still around 1x to 1.5x for even the best AMD APUs?

The pricing trend is great, it's fun to see and compare with future releases. I'd be kind of curious where the APUs fall, although I don't see myself buying one in the immediate future. Once they really ramp them up they seem to be the ultimate tiny pc component.

 

[wand3r3r]

Looking at the high end pricing there seems to have been a worrisome upwards price trend, although there have been some good performance/$ increases.

Will this continue or can the market bear higher pricing? The 290/970 have been the main high end value cards as they clearly bring a lot of performance for considerably less. We have truly been milked for everything possible the past couple years.

The dual cards also received massive price increases even excluding the absurd titan z.

 

[Termie]

Hey, that's a pretty nice addition, Wand3r3r!

The one bright spot might be the GTX 980, which could be considered a follow-up to the GTX 780. But that's a philosophical argument for some people.

Overall, though, you're absolutely right. I honestly think it has to do with the dual-GPU cards finally becoming workable, unlike some of the hot, loud, and buggy versions of old. That's pushed up the price cap tremendously. So now a single-GPU card for $600 doesn't look that bad. But perhaps you're right that Nvidia and AMD are also going for extra profits where they can.

 

[Kenmitch]

The TitanZ intro price of $300 seems a little off(x10)....Who's running that site

 

[Termie]

The TitanZ intro price of $300 seems a little off(x10)....Who's running that site

Good catch.

 

[wand3r3r]

Yeah I was considering the 980, but it's not exactly the 780 ti successor as you mentioned.

I think the next card to land will be high end 980 ti or 1080p ti (whatever they call it ) and the 390x and they may not hit before 1H 2015... I'll await them to clear up how the next generation will be priced and see how they fit on the charts. Until then it's just fun to speculate and reflect on the past releases.

 

[sontin]

Looking at the high end pricing there seems to have been a worrisome upwards price trend, although there have been some good performance/$ increases.

One year earlier the 8800GTX was introduced with a $649 price tag. 6 months later the price of the 8800Ultra was $840.

So no, $549 for a GTX980 is a normal high-end price and even Titan's price tag was not abnormal.

 

[Haserath]

Nice chart at the end, with numbers instead of the kind of arbitrary rankings that Tom's gpu ranking uses. Too bad they didnt include some of the stronger igps to see how they compare with the older cards. Maybe still around 1x to 1.5x for even the best AMD APUs?

Best APU is still weaker than the 1.5x 7750 by quite a bit so <=1x. Thanks to the memory.

For $120, the 7600 is like a Core 2 quad+8800GT. Not too bad.
---
I think the reason Nvidia priced the 480-580 at $500 was the timing and poor relative performance.

AMD was still pricing really low on their cards. 5870 MSRP $380 and within 10% of a 480. So by the time the 580 fixed the flaws, Nvidia just had to deal with a $500 price.

Had the 580 been doable in early 2010. Definite $600-650. With 570 at $450.

The 280 before that had been $650 before the AMD smackdown 4870.

 

[RussianSensation]

One year earlier the 8800GTX was introduced with a $649 price tag. 6 months later the price of the 8800Ultra was $840.

So no, $549 for a GTX980 is a normal high-end price and even Titan's price tag was not abnormal.

Wrong. 8800 GTX was 2-3X faster than 7900 GTX. 980 is 7-10% faster than 780Ti which means 980 is a mid-range next gen card, not high end. In the past NV would have never called 980 a 980. It's simply a 6600GT vs. 5950U or GTX460 vs. 285. Never in the history of NV has a real next gen flagship only beat their last gen flagship by 7-10%. The real historical price of 980 is $250-300 at most. But because TSMC and GloFo can't produce 20nm or 16nm at reasonable prices and volume, NV and AMD now bifurcate a generation into 2. Gamers just don't want to acknowledge this because if they do, they will admit to paying $500-550 for mid-range 680/7970 and 980, etc.

Once real flagship cards launch from NV and AMD it will be obvious how horrible of a value 980 was at $550. AMD and NV raised mid-range prices by $100-200 and this trend continues this generation.

With 970, it's hard to complain about value but 980 is just a horribly overpriced card, one of the worst in years - 7-10% faster than 780Ti for barely less money is pathetic historically speaking. At least NV saved face with 970 -- awesome little card.

As far as Titan goes, that was one of the biggest rip-offs. Months later 780 for $650, then 9 month after R9 290 for $400 and now 970 beats the Titan at $330 slightly more than 1.5 years later. Next fall we'll have a card with Titan's performance for $250, which means in 2.5 years Titan will have fallen $750 in value.

780Ti at $700 --> 11 months later 970 with 90-95% performance for $330 is proof that only the most dedicated gamers or those with high income should ever consider buying $700 GPUs because NV and AMD are now maximizing profit margins at the onset and depreciation on ultra high end is at all time high. At least back then if you got a 280 or 480, it was flagship performance for 2 years. This is no longer the case due to NV and AMD releasing mid-range products first at flagship prices. That's why the smartest way to upgrade now is either wait for the game that forces you to upgrade, or wait until 2nd half of a generation where the real flagship comes out and mid-range cards like 980 fall to their real pricing of $299-349.

This new AMD-NV strategy is brilliant:

1) They either milk us with $500-550 mid-range first;
2) or they get us on the 2nd half with $600-800 flagship.

We can't win since they will get us either now with a 980 or later with GM200. Luckily we still get treated to gems like 970