[Videocardz] NVIDIA To Release Something 'SUPER?'

[Glo.]

Cant believe Nvidia would be so stupid to price a $300 card for $1000-1200. Not a good business model when they can double sales volume if at much lower prices, while in the end making the same profit. Even stupider when they want gaming studios to adopt RT in a much more widespread fashion. Much more compelling when RTX cards can command a much bigger market share. Very high priced RTX cards defeats that purpose.

Its making me laugh, that people expect RTX 2080 Ti to not be premium product and premium priced. That is how business works. Its a halo product which is supposed to make up money on the lower price margin on GPUs like: GTX 1660 Ti, RTX 2060, RTX 2070. And yes, it has to make up the margin, because margin on those GPUs is lower than on previous generation GPUs that they are replacing.

 

[Head1985]

i just saw the most recent video posted by Moores Law is Dead and he posted source in the video description but its not opening for me.

That chart make me sad

 

[amenx]

Its making me laugh, that people expect RTX 2080 Ti to not be premium product and premium priced. That is how business works. Its a halo product which is supposed to make up money on the lower price margin on GPUs like: GTX 1660 Ti, RTX 2060, RTX 2070. And yes, it has to make up the margin, because margin on those GPUs is lower than on previous generation GPUs that they are replacing.

I dont believe that at all. For every 2080ti, a dozen or more 2060s will easily be sold. If even as a rough representation, the Steam Hardware Survey bears that out (ie, 1060 vs 1080ti owners). The 2080ti is almost double the price of the 1080ti, which will should diminish its sales even further compared to mainstream/mid-range cards. The 2080ti is more of a statement product than real money earner. The 2060 sales volume will generate more profit easily.

Secondly, $300 manufacture cost (if true) of 2080ti does not stop at the cost of the HW parts only, but extends to packaging, marketing, distribution and most of all, R&D expenses. All that has to be factored in. I would think all that can easily put the card costs over the $500 level.

Finally, RTX cards are a different beast altogether from any of Nvidias previous gens. Nvidia is staking their (gaming business) future on the success and widespread adoption of ray tracing in PC gaming. High prices will only hinder that for them and game developers will care less about RT if only a tiny percentage of GPU owners can use it.

 

[Glo.]

I dont believe that at all. For every 2080ti, a dozen or more 2060s will easily be sold. If even as a rough representation, the Steam Hardware Survey bears that out (ie, 1060 vs 1080ti owners). The 2080ti is almost double the price of the 1080ti, which will should diminish its sales even further compared to mainstream/mid-range cards. The 2080ti is more of a statement product than real money earner. The 2060 sales volume will generate more profit easily.

Secondly, $300 manufacture cost (if true) of 2080ti does not stop at the cost of the HW parts only, but extends to packaging, marketing, distribution and most of all, R&D expenses. All that has to be factored in. I would think all that can easily put the card costs over the $500 level.

Finally, RTX cards are a different beast altogether from any of Nvidias previous gens. Nvidia is staking their (gaming business) future on the success and widespread adoption of ray tracing in PC gaming. High prices will only hinder that for them and game developers will care less about RT if only a tiny percentage of GPU owners can use it.

Really is it that hard to believe in?

Nvidia charges half of what they charged previously for the same size dGPU and the same manufacturing costs. RTX 2060 is 445 mm2 and has 80$ at least memory subsystem in cost. GTX 1080 Ti had the same almost die size 476 mm2, and GDDR5X was much cheaper than GDDR6 is. But GTX 1080 Ti cost 699$, and Nvidia charges half of that for the same effectively GPU from the manufacturing point of view in terms of costs.

You know how it is reflected? In lower revenue last quarter. Both because of lower sales, and higher manufacturing costs.

Yes. RTX 2080 Ti is specifically designed as money earner. Price hike of this generation is reflecting this: for both, AMD and Nvidia.

 

[amenx]

Yes. RTX 2080 Ti is specifically designed as money earner. Price hike of this generation is reflecting this: for both, AMD and Nvidia.

Making money through volume sales is far more valid approach in this type of business imo than selling a high priced product in tiny quantities. No one wants to see their market share diminished and very high pricing is one sure way to do it.

 

[Glo.]

Making money through volume sales is far more valid approach in this type of business imo than selling a high priced product in tiny quantities. No one wants to see their market share diminished and very high pricing is one sure way to do it.

But the market is diminishing, regardless. DIY market is dying for last few years. The only moment when it was not dying was cryptoboom. Not sustainable from business perspective, and knows that AMD, and knows that Nvidia. There is no growth in consumer GPUs, and everybody is getting in touch with reality on this front.

 

[linkgoron]

The R9 390 was a refresh from the R9 290 that was released @ $399. You know why its gone down to $330 in the R9 390? The GTX 970, thats why:

What's the point you're trying to make? I had a R9 390.

AMDs lower pricing was just to keep up with Nvidia. They were taking margin hits just to avoid losing market share (as we've seen with the vega 56 over last year or so). The RX 480 was also vs the 970 at the time of release (Rx 480 = $239. GTX 970 = $265. source: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-rx-480/ , again pricing has to take competition into account, more so for AMD than for Nvidia due to their shrinking market share. AMD has had to bite the bullet re margins on several GPUs, again, most notably V56... just to stay relevant vs Nvidia. AMDs pricing on some of their products was not reflecting a healthy business model, but rather one of desperation of clinging on to ever decreasing market share.

What's your point exactly? Why are you talking about the Vega 56? The RX 480 has 8GB of memory on 14nm three years ago and cost $240. This isn't some ancient 660ti from seven years ago which you used. The fact is that we used to have a healthy price/perf increase. I never stated the reasons. Clearly, lack of competition has been the cause for the current stagnation. However, you're only strengthening my claim - that lack of competition is the main cause of higher prices, not higher costs. For the sake of fairness, AMD have obviously decided to join the margin party now. The 5700XT is an even bigger joke it seems, with a 251mm^2 die @ $450 and an "anniversary edition" @ $500 .

Gaming is not the sole revenue source for todays more diversified Nvidia. Also the windfall of the mining boom may have had something to do with record profits a couple years ago.The RTX cards since release have been poor in sales ("lower than expected" official statement).

Q1 last year gaming was still about half of their revenue:

gaming drove Nvidia’s success, totaling $1.72B in revenue, a 68% increase year-over-year (1% down from Q4 2017). [...]

Gross margin increased from 61.9% in Q4 2018 to 64.5

Nvidia have reached record margins at the end of last year. You can see a steady increase since 2016, huge spike during 2018. As gaming is around ~1/2 of their revenue, are you saying that they haven't increased their margins in gaming cards, the increases are all cost related?

Spoiler

the RTX 2060 @349 is not unreasonable (given the obviously higher manufacturing costs and added complexity vs the 1060, ie, bigger dies, more expensive GDDR6), unless you can give us a breakdown of actual cost of parts, dies, vram, etc, to demonstrate your case rather than just assuming.

It is unreasonable. It's a 6GB 192-bit card, being released almost three years later for $50 more. Vega 64 was released @ $500 with 8GB HBM, with a bigger die and 2 billion more transistors two years ago.

Really is it that hard to believe in?

Nvidia charges half of what they charged previously for the same size dGPU and the same manufacturing costs. RTX 2060 is 445 mm2 and has 80$ at least memory subsystem in cost. GTX 1080 Ti had the same almost die size 476 mm2, and GDDR5X was much cheaper than GDDR6 is. But GTX 1080 Ti cost 699$, and Nvidia charges half of that for the same effectively GPU from the manufacturing point of view in terms of costs.

The 1080ti had 11GB of GDDR5X with a 352-bit memory bus, and it was a ~93.3% (91.6% ROPs) cut of a 471mm^2 die with 11.8 billion transistors. The 2060 has 6GB of GDDR6 with a 192-bit memory bus and is a ~83% cut (75% ROPs) of a 445mm^2 GPU with 10.8 billion transistors with a process which is probably more mature than 16nm two years ago. According to Computerbase, the 1080ti is 35% faster @ 1440p. How are they the "same effective GPU"?

 

[Glo.]

The 1080ti had 11GB of GDDR5X with a 352-bit memory bus, and it was a ~93.3% (91.6% ROPs) cut of a 471mm^2 die with 11.8 billion transistors. The 2060 has 6GB of GDDR6 with a 192-bit memory bus and is a ~83% cut (75% ROPs) of a 445mm^2 GPU with 10.8 billion transistors with a process which is probably more mature than 16nm two years ago. According to Computerbase, the 1080ti is 35% faster @ 1440p. How are they the "same effective GPU"?

From the manufacturing costs point of view, they are the same GPU.

 

[Head1985]

But the market is diminishing, regardless. DIY market is dying for last few years. The only moment when it was not dying was cryptoboom. Not sustainable from business perspective, and knows that AMD, and knows that Nvidia. There is no growth in consumer GPUs, and everybody is getting in touch with reality on this front.

Its only dying because amd/nv keep raising prices.Polaris is 3years old.Rtx cards didnt bring any new performance except 1200usd 2080ti.And on top of that they have worse price/performance or same price/performance as old pascal.Polaris replacement will cost 450usd.So if they both releasing overpriced garbage why should people upgrade?
Look at gtx 970.Why nobody released last gen top performance/titanxp at 330 usd?

 

[Glo.]

Its only dying because amd/nv keep raising prices.Polaris is 3years old.Rtx cards didnt bring any new performance except 1200usd 2080ti.And on top of that they have worse price/performance or same price/performance as old pascal.Polaris replacement will cost 450usd.So if they both releasing overpriced garbage why should people upgrade?
Look at gtx 970.Why nobody released last gen top performance/titanxp at 330 usd?

There is no growth in dGPUs for past 4 years in DIY market. If you add to that increasing manufacturing costs(GDRR6 is more expensive than GDDR5) and increasing design costs, there is no brainer that prices go up, for dGPUs.

 

[mohit9206]

There is no growth in dGPUs for past 4 years in DIY market. If you add to that increasing manufacturing costs(GDRR6 is more expensive than GDDR5) and increasing design costs, there is no brainer that prices go up, for dGPUs.

But gddr6 is cheaper than hbm and despite that AMD are charging exorbitant amount for their cards following in the footsteps of Nvidia and its not because of increased costs, its because they would love to get a slice of super high margins like Nvidia.

 

[Glo.]

But gddr6 is cheaper than hbm and despite that AMD are charging exorbitant amount for their cards following in the footsteps of Nvidia and its not because of increased costs, its because they would love to get a slice of super high margins like Nvidia.

4 GB HBM2 stacks should not cost more than 30$ per stack. Which may make memory subsystem for 8 GB HBM2 and 8 GB GDDR6 to cost the same efectively.

But GDDR6 is much easier in volume manufacturing to handle without any drawbacks.

 

[NTMBK]

Reviews are out for 2060S and 2070S. These are basically price cuts to the 2070 and 2080- which is no bad thing, because those cards were totally overpriced! Hoorah for price cuts.

It does put the 2060 in a bit of a weird place- there's only $50 between it and the 2060S, but a pretty big gap in performance. The 2060 could really do with a price cut... or rather a rebadge as the 2050 SUPERDUPER, or whatever.

 

[Face2Face]

Reviews are out for 2060S and 2070S. These are basically price cuts to the 2070 and 2080- which is no bad thing, because those cards were totally overpriced! Hoorah for price cuts.

It does put the 2060 in a bit of a weird place- there's only $50 between it and the 2060S, but a pretty big gap in performance. The 2060 could really do with a price cut... or rather a rebadge as the 2050 SUPERDUPER, or whatever.

The real benefit is the 2GB of VRAM. Other than that, it's only 10-12% faster at 1080/1440p in current games..,

 

[guachi]

So it's basically a price cut of the 2070 to $400 as the 2060S has almost identical performance to a 2070. And the 2070S is almost a 2080 for $500. It's 5% slower than a 2080 for 29% less money.

When I was watching E3 I thought that the Navi cards needed to be $30 less for each card. I stand by that today.

Even Radeon VII needs to be at least $30 below the $670 you can get it for now.

 

[Bouowmx]

When NVIDIA's -70 tier is capable of besting AMD's flagship (Radeon VII)