I'd be willing to bet Nvidia makes a profit on those parts. The "cost" to Nvidia is probably very low. Maybe 30-40 bucks a chip, tops. Lower end models cost even less. We will find the true extent of any issues with their 3rd quarter financials.
I so agree with that my CF setup seems much better than a GTX 280 i tried and games like GRID seems to be out of the world!!!
Skunkwourk
Diamond Member
- Dec 9, 2004
- 4,662
- 1
- 81
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
bad idea... These are both pretty much opposite ends of the high performance market, and they are not the areas where hi volume sales are made. The idea for any company such as AMD is to sell their name based on their high end products, and have that trickle down to more average users.
The big money is in OEM contracts. Dell, Gateway, HP, etc... is were the money is. What OEMs are looking for is not a single good (or even great) component, but a platform. OEMs love stuff like Intel's Centrino.
This has always plagued both AMD and ATI. Bringing them together hasn't cured that. Remember, you're talking about the company that brought us the 'Sempron'. Which, IMO, was probably one of the best budget chips ever, but was cursed with an almost unmarketable name.
That said, ATI has definitely shown a more effective use of launch strategy with the 4800 series. The early launch of the 4850 was a good move, and showed they were ready to play rough this round. They have also worked the paper launch of the 4870X2 very much to their advantage. They have managed to make themselves the current darling of the review world. The only thing that could possibly break the 4870X2 would be poor driver support, but their PR/marketing dept has done a solid job of building buzz around the X2.
Well, I certainly wouldn't count NV out too soon. ATI better be prepared for NV's next architecture. If history has taught us anything, it's that neither ATI or NV like losing. There doesn't seem to be anything that motivates either company like a year of egg on their face.
FalseChristian
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2002
- 3,322
- 0
- 71
I've seen the GeForce GTX 280 in action an d it is an amazing card. The Radeon HD 4870 is also a spectacular GPU and ylu can't lose with either. I've had both ATI and nVidia products in the past and have never been disappointed.
Competition is good for all of us!
Competition is good for all of us!People forget the FX series was only initally a disaster, once they released the FX 5700/ FX 5900 they were close to on a par with ATI's offerings (9600, 9800) and the 6 months after that the fx5950 was faster than any of ATI's offerings at the time
also read the amount of reviews the GTX series has compared the the ATI 48xx series on newegg, thats a general indicator whos shipping the greater volume right now ATI is way in the lead
Not necessarily.
How many reviews does the Phenom 9850 BE have on NewEgg? 423.
How many reviews are there for Yorkfields (non-Extreme Edition), combined?
Q9550 - 11
Q9450 - 192
Q9300 - 130
That's 333 total.
Now head on over to the CPU subforum and see how many people you can get to admit that they own a 9850 BE.
*shrug* I recall a couple of threads a while back where people asked for thoughts from people using 9850 BEs. Maybe a handful of people responded that they owned one. For all the reviews at NewEgg, people are awfully shy about saying that they have them. Either that, or going off the number of NewEgg reviews isn't a good indicator of market share.
i can agree with you on that one but in a very general sense its an ok reference for example the Q6600 has 2164 reviews, the e6600 had over 2000 when it was taken off the site they are the two most popular CPU's on this forum by far
Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree with the overall conclusions you could draw from that particularly example (the Q6600 and E6600 being pretty popular). In some cases, I think you'll actually get an underestimate of units sold by basing your conclusions on # of NewEgg reviews. Especially with the more mundane items that fewer people get excited about. Like AS5 for example -- around 2000 reviews for the 3.5g version. That stuff's been around for years, and I tend to think that they're sold more tubes of that stuff than Q6600s.
We weren't really discussing price, we were discussing market share. And why there are seemingly fewer 9850BE owners here than Yorkfield owners, when the number of NewEgg reviews would indicate otherwise. Anyways, this is all starting to go off on a tangent -- that example was originally designed to illlustrate why it's not good to use NewEgg reviews to get a sense of market share.
someone said something about price gauging...im sorry, but what nvidia tried to do was pathetic...it actually tried to screw their most loyal customers, with starting prices of new gtx series...after they saw that ati has much better value, they rediculously dropped the price...ofc i could be wrong, and nvidia is losing money on every sale
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,209
- 50
- 91
Not exactly dadach. Nvidia most likely priced their cards what they thought the market would support. Look at the prices the 8800GTX and the 8800GTS640 started out with. 649/449. How long did the 2900XT remain over 400? Because it was competitive with the 8800GTS which was also over 400 for a long time. ATI changed the rules of marketing severely undercutting what they could have gotten for their 4xxx cards due to the good performance they were getting. They wanted their consumers back and that is reflected in the prices ATI started out with. Because of their good performance and ridiculously low prices, Nvidia of course had to respond. Which they did.
Sorry, didn't have a chance to check this since yesterday, this thread blew up!
I agree keys. The 4xxx series could be much higher in price. However they figured out by keeping the prices just a bit lower they could gain so many more consumers. I mean who wouldn't want to pay $270 for a card that could out perform a $400 one?
I agree keys. The 4xxx series could be much higher in price. However they figured out by keeping the prices just a bit lower they could gain so many more consumers. I mean who wouldn't want to pay $270 for a card that could out perform a $400 one?
Yes, In other words they were lying about manufacturing costs being $150- $200. Nv is the biggest drama king in this industry...when asked about price being so high- they say some garbage about manufacturing costs and suddenly drop prices by 200 bucks when amd releases a competitive product? When you ask them about DX 10.1 - they say it's not really useful, that's such an immature statement to make. I need DX10.1! every developer needs one, who are they to decide whats best for us?........and there was a talk of Gddr 5 last year and they were ranting about memory prices being too high.
There is no true DX10 game out there except Call of Juarez, rest of them are commercially promoted by NV using selective DX10 features from the API library that only their cards can do the best..
From all of this we can conclude that nv doesn't look at the best interests of it's customers. They like ripping off people's wallets and over hyping the mediocre features of their product line.
Are you kidding me? Did you just arrive on the graphics card scene or something? Their initial pricing for their top end cards is what it has been for about the last 4 years. You will notice once demand slumped thanks to ATI they lowered the price. Anybody purchasing those cards knew they were bleeding edge and paid a premium for it.Originally posted by: dadach
someone said something about price gauging...im sorry, but what nvidia tried to do was pathetic...it actually tried to screw their most loyal customers, with starting prices of new gtx series...after they saw that ati has much better value, they rediculously dropped the price...ofc i could be wrong, and nvidia is losing money on every sale
Well, I used to buy- my last setup was 8800 GTX in SLI. I think everyone has to go through this phase to realize what's really going on.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,209
- 50
- 91
Well, you have your views and you're welcome to them. I recall both ATI and Nvidia debuting their flagship models north of 600 dollars (pre 2900XT, the last time they were truly competitive until today). Was it costing ATI that much money to make their GPU's? They price what the market will support. They price what history shows the market will support. Why do you call it lying, when it's actually called product positioning and pricing? And what do you mean by manufacturing costs? The whole card, or just the GPU? Do you know? Ask ATI about Physx and see how important they think it is. Ask them about CUDA.
It's kind of hard to make these kinds of arguments when both companies behave very much alike when it comes to touting their respective features. Try to keep a level head about it and see things as they really are. Competitive. That's what we are seeing here.
And if you say you "need DX 10.1" I'll believe you. If you say "I don't need Physx!" I'll believe you again. As long as you believe it, that's good enough for me.
apoppin
Lifer
That is a pretty extreme view.
i am no Nvidia fan, yet i do not believe they are deliberately out to "cheat" anyone. They have become a "big corporation" with a big corporation mentality = the Bottom Line is King.
AMD has also done the SAME THING when they were on top with their Athlon - and they paid for it with lost and bitter fans
i predicted that Nvidia was "out of touch" with its Main Fan Base - US - with GX2's *ridiculous pricing* - completely out of touch with the current recession; and they dropped prices over $100 within a month. They simply had no follow-up to their long-lasting GTX-8800; which was only surpassed over 1-1/2 years later by Tesla.
Now Tesla Architecture IS amazing - but not so much now for gaming. .. Nvidia is aiming for future applications with CUDA and trying to take on intel - which is a bit much also imo. So they are stretched "thin" and it shows. They were also caught by their GPUs failing and look to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in losses and are looking to their insurance to bail them out [no doubt they will also ask TSMC for damages later also]
Yes, there is NO LIE about the GT GPU being $110-125. Clearly Nvidia is taking serious "losses" with Tesla to stay competitive price-wise ... but that was due to AMD stealing a page from Nvidia's playbook; not Nvidia's lack of foresight - they were blindsided [as we were mostly fooled] by HD4x50's outstanding and pragmatic performance - it is cheap to produce and is sufficient for gaming, whereas Nvidia's solution is "overkill" -imo]
Nvidia will get back on track with the shrink to 55 nm .. my prediction
- they MUST get on track, or their partners will finally rebel.. ANd that means they must try and gain back US - their fan base again. They know what they must do, i think.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 20K
-
Solved! Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 12K
-
-
-
Question Geekbench 6 released and calibrated against Core i7-12700
- Started by igor_kavinski
- Replies: 275
Facebook
Twitter