why won't nvidia drop their prices?

[MODEL3]

How the GT200 production is going?

 

[Nebor]

I'm still considering buying one. I realize the ATI line offers similar performance at a lower price point, but I'm more familiar with nvidia, and have traditionally had fewer problems with them. Plus I like their settings gui better. I need a new card for my desktop PC that currently has an 8800GTS, and I need a new card for my HTPC that currently is using onboard G45 video. I'd like to wait for the GT300s to come out, but I may end up getting the high end GT200s instead... I just need to find one small enough to fit in my htpc.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Because NVIDIA has had the better product for years now. Just because AMD comes out with a new card (with limited availability), is not going to change things.

Troll more. You're so full of crap it's ridiculous.

The GTX 295 has not been out for years. The GTX 280 had the performance crown for not even half a year. The 4870x2 had the performance crown for at least as long as the GTX 280 did. The 4850x2 was ALWAYS better than the GTX 280 and 285 from day one while also being cheaper at launch and for the rest of history. You always ignore this or bash it because it's a dual card, yet you're the first person to say the GTX 295 is a better card than the 5870. Hypocrite much? There has never been a reason to buy a GTX 260, 275, 280, or 285 for almost their entire life spans. ATI has had a cheaper card that was just as fast or faster than every single one of those for almost the entire last generation. Once in a while there were some hot deals that shook things up, but the vast majority of the time, Radeon was consistently cheaper at every performance level. All Nvidia has is the GTX 295 which was always over $100 more expensive than the 4870x2 while being 5-10% faster in the best case scenario and consistently slower in plenty of games. It wasn't even faster across the board despite the huge price gap. How can you justify that as Nvidia having the best product for years?

As of right now, the HD 5870 is faster than the GTX 295 in the very most popular PC game of all time, World of Warcraft.

Undisputed history: Radeon 9700 > Geforce FX, Radeon X800 > Geforce 6800, Radeon X1900 > Geforce 7800/7900, Radeon HD 2900/3800 < Geforce 8800/9800

Edit: And limited availability of the 5870? It's been in stock somewhere online at MSRP every single day since launch.

Also:

GTX 295
HD 5870
GTX 295
HD 5870

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Radeon X800 > Geforce 6800

But...but the 6800 had SM3!!! It must have been better.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: lopri
More realistic reason is that NV has already sold the cards at a price to AIB partners. Lowering prices before their inventories are taken care of would anger the partners very much, and NV can't afford to pay back the difference. (Wasn't there such a drama between NV and XFX around GT200 launch?)

Probably this.

 

[MrK6]

Originally posted by: lopri
More realistic reason is that NV has already sold the cards at a price to AIB partners. Lowering prices before their inventories are taken care of would anger the partners very much, and NV can't afford to pay back the difference. (Wasn't there such a drama between NV and XFX around GT200 launch?)

Ding! They won't lower prices until they clear the older "high-priced" inventory or stock completely stagnates.

 

[crazylegs]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Because NVIDIA has had the better product for years now. Just because AMD comes out with a new card (with limited availability), is not going to change things.

Really? I think AMD/ATi has offered competitive counterparts to Nv's products for a very long time.

Thats Wreckage. What else do you expect, except for biased opinions present as fact?

 

[*kjm]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Because NVIDIA has had the better product for years now. Just because AMD comes out with a new card (with limited availability), is not going to change things.

Come on Wreckage enough..... I have found it for sale almost every day just dont know if I want to jump on it. And better in what aspect? We all dont have top dollor for cards and are looking for the best buy for our dollor at the time. I run NVIDIA and ATI in my systems and always get the best bang for the buck looking for medium to high end graphics and will tell you the last card in my system is a HD 4890@960/1015.

Don't get me wrong I could get the top card any time but with hunting, woodworking, gamming and owning a home I have to pick and choose and I have ended up getting the best cost card that works for me now to feed my other hobbies.

 

[MarcVenice]

There's a couple of reasons. AIB's aren't getting as much GTX285's and GTX295's as they would like, they are readily available, but I think Nvidia is keeping stocks low, so they don't end up with a lot of overpriced gpu's. Supply and demand explain the somewhat high prices.

Now, as for the HD5870, the GTX295 is faster, at least it was in my testing. The HD 5870 is cheaper though, and gives you more features (dx11 to name one). I wouldn't recommend buying a GTX295 over a HD 5870, but I can imagine it happens.

Now, what is more puzzling is the price of the GTX285. In holland it's still priced at 265 euro's, although the HD 5850 is 50 euro's cheaper. HD 5850 is also in short supply though, but people who are to unpatient to wait 1/2 weeks to buy a HD 5850 for less money then a GTX 285 are just plain stupid.

 

[alyarb]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
In holland

always wondered about your avatar.

 

[alcoholbob]

The 285 is still costs over $300 all over the place with the OC variants even costing more than the 5870 in some areas (like newegg).

This is while the 5850 is $259 and is faster.

In other words, ATI marketing fail.

 

[happy medium]

The same reason you buy a Corvette instead of a Mustang. If you have the money to buy, you buy the best name in reliability and performance. Even though some of us know better, overall the Nvidia name still like a Corvette. Most buyers outside of enthusiast forums like this still go with the product that is traditionally the best, Nvidia.

Mabe most people who game have 22/24 inch monitors and don't find the need to spend 375$ to get 150fps instead of the 100fps they were getting with there 4870's/90's gtx260's/85's?

No games = no upgrade.

Things should change around Thanksgiving when people see some games that push there hardware at reasonable resolutions.

What do you think the percentage is across the country of people who game on a 30 inch monitor or want 3,4,5 monitors? 5%?

Edit: I just noticed a resolution thread and its 1900x1080 (over the next 3 years) buy a landslide.
A resolution which current hardware handles just fine.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2339679&enterthread=y

 

[crisium]

ATi's pricing makes sense though. 5870 at $260 compared to the Radeon 4890 at $200 it makes sense. The GTX 285 never did, and honestly was instantly a pointless buy unless you have a ton of disposable income and wanted GTX 285 SLI. Anyone who buys a GTX 285 at this point is kind of crazy, but Nvidia prices are always higher so I guess the crazies keep the company going.

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: T2k
Give it a few weeks - even if NV is hoping on a very limited PRware GT300 launch before Christmas, they HAVE to lower their prices otherwise they will not sell anything in the biggest quarter of the year.

Agreed. A few weeks will bring two things, stability to ATI supply, and the holiday season.

As I've owned mostly nV cards, not hoping to offend, but someone would be stupid to pay +$275 for a GTX 285, or +$450 for a GTX 295 from this moment forward.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Hauk

Originally posted by: T2k
Give it a few weeks - even if NV is hoping on a very limited PRware GT300 launch before Christmas, they HAVE to lower their prices otherwise they will not sell anything in the biggest quarter of the year.

Agreed. A few weeks will bring two things, stability to ATI supply, and the holiday season.

As I've owned mostly nV cards, not hoping to offend, but someone would be stupid to pay +$275 for a GTX 285, or +$450 for a GTX 295 from this moment forward.

I agree also:thumbsup:

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: happy medium
The same reason you buy a Corvette instead of a Mustang. If you have the money to buy, you buy the best name in reliability and performance. Even though some of us know better, overall the Nvidia name still like a Corvette.

Corvettes especially need better interiors...horribly plasticy and things creak and rattle like no tomorrow...even my mom's VW Jetta has a nicer interior and it costs a LOT LESS than a Vette. I drove one 2 years ago and it was one of the biggest disappointments for me ever.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Because NVIDIA has had the better product for years now. Just because AMD comes out with a new card (with limited availability), is not going to change things.

During the Radeon 2900 and 3800 days, I agree, Nvidia has the clearly better parts. Before that AMD and Nvidia were quite competitive, and last gen proved to be quite competitive. Each has had and continues to have unique features, I wouldn't say either companies feature set is better... well at least until the 58x0 cards, I think it's pretty safe to say that the features included with the 58x0 cards are hard to beat.

In the mean time, I feel bad for anyone paying ~$300 for a GTX285.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: thilanliyan

Originally posted by: happy medium
The same reason you buy a Corvette instead of a Mustang. If you have the money to buy, you buy the best name in reliability and performance. Even though some of us know better, overall the Nvidia name still like a Corvette.

Corvettes especially need better interiors...horribly plasticy and things creak and rattle like no tomorrow...even my mom's VW Jetta has a nicer interior and it costs a LOT LESS than a Vette. I drove one 2 years ago and it was one of the biggest disappointments for me ever.

But the Vette will beat the VW in reverse.:laugh:

Point was, Mustangs are almost as fast but cost less ,and don't have the name value of Vettes.

 

[Xellos2099]

I am still pretty happy with my $230 GTX275 from a couple of month agos.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Because NVIDIA has had the better product for years now. Just because AMD comes out with a new card (with limited availability), is not going to change things.

Troll more. You're so full of crap it's ridiculous.

The GTX 295 has not been out for years. The GTX 280 had the performance crown for not even half a year. The 4870x2 had the performance crown for at least as long as the GTX 280 did. The 4850x2 was ALWAYS better than the GTX 280 and 285 from day one while also being cheaper at launch and for the rest of history. You always ignore this or bash it because it's a dual card, yet you're the first person to say the GTX 295 is a better card than the 5870. Hypocrite much? There has never been a reason to buy a GTX 260, 275, 280, or 285 for almost their entire life spans. ATI has had a cheaper card that was just as fast or faster than every single one of those for almost the entire last generation. Once in a while there were some hot deals that shook things up, but the vast majority of the time, Radeon was consistently cheaper at every performance level. All Nvidia has is the GTX 295 which was always over $100 more expensive than the 4870x2 while being 5-10% faster in the best case scenario and consistently slower in plenty of games. It wasn't even faster across the board despite the huge price gap. How can you justify that as Nvidia having the best product for years?

As of right now, the HD 5870 is faster than the GTX 295 in the very most popular PC game of all time, World of Warcraft.

Undisputed history: Radeon 9700 > Geforce FX, Radeon X800 > Geforce 6800, Radeon X1900 > Geforce 7800/7900, Radeon HD 2900/3800 < Geforce 8800/9800

Edit: And limited availability of the 5870? It's been in stock somewhere online at MSRP every single day since launch.

Also:

GTX 295
HD 5870
GTX 295
HD 5870

Wrong on that count, 19xx was indisputably late in that cycle, so late that in terms of product sales it counted as a loss.

Suffice to sale the pendulum swings, and it doesn't make sense to say one company makes better products, because thats simply not true.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Wrong on that count, 19xx was indisputably late in that cycle, so late that in terms of product sales it counted as a loss.

Suffice to sale the pendulum swings, and it doesn't make sense to say one company makes better products, because thats simply not true.

The 7800 came out first, then the X1800(which was very competitive), then the X1900(which was flat out better than the 7800, X1800, and the 7900), then the 7900 came out after.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: videogames101
Wrong on that count, 19xx was indisputably late in that cycle, so late that in terms of product sales it counted as a loss.

I think it was the X1800 that was late.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Rezist
Also nVidia has the name brand that everyone knows like Intel. The P4 reference has already been made but it's the same thing here as well. Until market perception changes this will always work, nVidia will never have to compete on a price/performance scale with ATi since there better known.

THis is probably the most ignorant, hilarious hillbilly, ridiculous claim made in this thread (sans Wreckage's worthless trolling but everybody knows he's full of sh!t anyway.)

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: videogames101

Wrong on that count, 19xx was indisputably late in that cycle, so late that in terms of product sales it counted as a loss.

Suffice to sale the pendulum swings, and it doesn't make sense to say one company makes better products, because thats simply not true.

The 7800 came out first, then the X1800(which was very competitive), then the X1900(which was flat out better than the 7800, X1800, and the 7900), then the 7900 came out after.

Exactly. And let's not get into how 9700 Pro mopped the floor with everything NV had on the market (GF4) then did it again with the replacement GF FX (which not only sucked with its 128-bit membus but NV rolled out way too late.)

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: thilanliyan


I think it was the X1800 that was late.

Funny how he left that card out. :laugh:


The 4800 series was better than what ATI had out before, but other than being cheaper on release. It offered nothing over what NVIDIA already had.

Revenue and marketshare back what I have been saying. I'm not sure why certain people are in denial over this. I think they feel, if they say it enough people will actually believe it.