• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[VC]NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, GTX 980 SLI, GTX 970, 3DMark performance

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think the problem with this generation is the ridculous price creep. NV is getting away with selling a mid-range card at $500. The GTX 680 was such a successful model that NV might be following that model from here on out. Prior to the gtx 680, NV would release it's big die before anything else. Now, NV is getting away with releasing a mid-range card 1st and selling it at a higher price. Thus, this effectively increased the cost of GPUs across the board. Now, if you want the flagship card, you would need to spend $700 (780ti). That sucks for consumers.
 
I'm OK with nVidia releasing GM204 as high end as long as they release big Maxwell with a die shrink and other tweaks in the time after release of GM204.
 
Considering the risks involved with trying to make a large chip on a brand new process it does seem prudent to release the more moderate sized chips and get the kinks out of the process and the design before trying to max out the die size and build your top end product. It ought to lead to cheaper GPUs although no sign of that with 680/780's whatsoever.
 
BrightCandle said:
Considering the risks involved with trying to make a large chip on a brand new process it does seem prudent to release the more moderate sized chips and get the kinks out of the process and the design before trying to max out the die size and build your top end product. It ought to lead to cheaper GPUs although no sign of that with 680/780's whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Not really applicable if the 970, 980 are 28nm cards.
 
MathMan said:
I agree: Nvidia should rename the gm204 die to gm200 and the gm200 to gm210. That would immediately shut up those people who whine about internal engineering names as if they matter.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with internal engineering names... The problem is Nvidia selling the Chevy Impala as a Chevy Camero, and at Camero Prices.
Even if the Impala is the current highest selling model on the market, that doesn't make it into a Sportscar.

No matter how you spin the internal names, midrange chips are midrange chips and should be sold at midrange value pricing. They are not flagship chips and should not be sold for flagship pricing.
 
Pretty good out of the gate actually. As some say we need to see real world performance, but with it's first driver and a 10% performance advantage, I cant wait to see what driver improvements will gain Maxwell over it's lifetime.
 
sao123 said:
It has nothing to do with internal engineering names... The problem is Nvidia selling the Chevy Impala as a Chevy Camero, and at Camero Prices.
Even if the Impala is the current highest selling model on the market, that doesn't make it into a Sportscar.

No matter how you spin the internal names, midrange chips are midrange chips and should be sold at midrange value pricing. They are not flagship chips and should not be sold for flagship pricing.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

Unfortunately, Nvidia will never stop as long as people are willing to spend Camero money for an Impala, AND think they're getting a great deal in the process. 🙄
 
I don't feel ripped off with the 680's. They saved me from the 7970's (which really were a rip off considering how that turned out for me) and price wise for the performance improvement I felt it was reasonable at the time. The 980 is a different beast, its effectively an architecture change on the same process, so sort of a super refresh of gamer end of keplar. Its closest cousin is actually the 680/770 not the 780 that it will be compared to more often than not.
 
Keysplayr said:
Pretty good out of the gate actually. As some say we need to see real world performance, but with it's first driver and a 10% performance advantage, I cant wait to see what driver improvements will gain Maxwell over it's lifetime.
Click to expand...

We've had Maxwell for a number of months now with drivers and updates already.
 
sao123 said:
No matter how you spin the internal names, midrange chips are midrange chips and should be sold at midrange value pricing. They are not flagship chips and should not be sold for flagship pricing.
Click to expand...
You're saying that they shouldn't price based on performance but based on how they managed to achieve it? (Is there a hidden camera somewhere pointed at me?) Should my college professors have graded me for the amount of time I spent behind my desk studying instead of the actual scores on my test?

How about this compromise: they should have priced the GTX680 based on relative performance with the 7970 (IOW: more expensive), but should also have named it GTX670 to please those individuals who will never buy their product in the first place but chose to whine about unfair product naming.

Price your products based on what your customers are willing to pay for, not for what it costs to make them: follow that rule and you'll have a chance to actually make money.
 
Last edited:
RaistlinZ said:
Unfortunately, Nvidia will never stop as long as people are willing to spend Camero money for an Impala, AND think they're getting a great deal in the process. 🙄
Click to expand...
I can assure you that those who bought a GTX680 at launch for less money than a 7970 with better performance were right to think that they got a great deal.

It's not their fault that it took AMD 6 months to come up with a driver and a new SKU that made it surpass it.

To get back on topic: if GTX980 performs better than a R290X and costs the same or equal, it has every right to be called the top dog, irrespective of the die size of the chip.
 
Last edited:
MathMan said:
You're saying that they shouldn't price based on performance but based on how they managed to achieve it? (Is there a hidden camera somewhere pointed at me?) Should my college professors have graded me for the amount of time I spent behind my desk studying instead of the actual scores on my test?

How about this compromise: they should have priced the GTX680 based on relative performance with the 7970 (IOW: more expensive), but should also have named it GTX670 to please those individuals who will never buy their product in the first place but chose to whine about unfair product naming.

Price your products based on what your customers are willing to pay for, not for what it costs to make them: follow that rule and you'll have a chance to actually make money.
Click to expand...

Product performance is not the only measure of what it should cost.
Quality, feature set, materials, design, and unit cost should all go into deciding the price a unit should fetch.

A plastic spoon, a steel spoon, and a silver spoon of the same volume will all feed you at the same rate (performance). Are you stating that they should all be able to harvest the same price? Absurd!
 
So much clickbait flying around.

At this point I'm inclined to believe precisely nothing until the NDA lift. I don't care if it turns out to be right.
 
tviceman said:
Exaggerating? There are not any r290 cards going for $350. There is one for $370, 3 more under $400, and 10 $400+. The ASP is right around $400, not $350.
Click to expand...

The reference cooled 290s are going for $200-$250. TriX and other non-ref are going for $300-$350. These are 'buy it now' prices in the US.
 
sao123 said:
Product performance is not the only measure of what it should cost. Quality, feature set, materials, design, and unit cost should all go into deciding the price a unit should fetch.
Click to expand...
Sure. Which quality, feature set, materials, and design do you have in mind where the 7970 was trumping the GTX680 at launch?

unit cost: You want to reward AMD for being worse at efficient design? Do you believe that customers should have been charged more for the larger Tahiti die because it had disabled DP units? If Nvidia makes a very efficient die with a huge ring of empty silicon around it just to dial up the die area, would that satisfy your grievances?

A plastic spoon, a steel spoon, and a silver spoon of the same volume will all feed you at the same rate (performance). Are you stating that they should all be able to harvest the same price? Absurd!
Click to expand...
Beautiful analogy: we have both plastic and steel spoons at work. People on start taking the plastic spoons after the steel spoon are gone. They just don't feel as well in your mouth. Silver spoons look way better at a festive dinner table. Another important KPI for some occasions. And, some people simply like to buy something more expensive just because they can.

What kind of KPI do think are important for a gaming GPU? Performance. Energy efficiency. Fan noise. Anything else? All things where a GTX680 excelled over the AMD flagship. Nvidia magnanimously priced it lower. Yet that still not good enough.
 
If true is a bigger fact than what most of you expect. If this leaks are true, Maxwell doubled the perf/w like Kepler did once. Remember Kepler is the most power efficient arch ever made by Nvidia.
 
Won't be surprised if they released a big Maxwell chip a few months after the 980s and dub it Titan 2 and overprice it. And people will buy it too.
 
DarkKnightDude said:
Won't be surprised if they released a big Maxwell chip a few months after the 980s and dub it Titan 2 and overprice it. And people will buy it too.
Click to expand...
Of course they will release such a thing. And they will price it exactly right: a sweet spot at which you maximize your profit (and other considerations.) That's how you run a successful business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top