LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Extra CUDA cores and more/faster memory is what makes a graphics card 'Super'.
Read more.Extra CUDA cores and more/faster memory is what makes a graphics card 'Super'.
If they actually sell new ones with MSRP prices of old ones, and old ones are getting price cut, then it is all beneficial for customers.
As usually, this happens when AMD arrives on market with something new, the competition slash the prices and everyone is running to buy competition products for lower prices.
And that is thanks to AMD. But they are not rewarded for their effort.
So for me, there is this moral dilemma. At least on GPU side, should I go for green or red team?
On CPU side, if what AMD presented is true, Intel needs to up their game and some. So I will go AMD. That is easy choice.
What do you think?
The more you live, less you die. More you play, more you die. Isn't it great.
Is their intention to release slightly upgraded SKUs an admission that they over estimated the value of RTX to customers, an admission that customers expected better 'standard' performance for the price.
Supposedly Nvidia have 90% profit margins on some of their GPUs. if you are OK with that, keep giving them money.Originally Posted by darcotech
The new 2070 is using the same TU-104 die as 2080, before it used the 2060 die. So this is what I would have expected them to release in the first place, making me once again think they have a poor attitude to their customers.
But all academic to me as a Linux user given Nvidia's poor open source support.
Except for recently existing ones that have just shelled out. Really don't think customer loyalty is a term that exists among the Nvidia board.
If availability is mid July its been on the cards (n.p.i.) for some time
Can these people seriously not read the market? Consumers want super affordable, this is not going to be affordable. $150-300 has always been the vast majority, and neither company has provided any real performance improvement to that bracket in over 4 years.
Do they? I keep hearing that Nvidia's most successful product by far has been the 1080ti. That wasn't cheap, and it wasn't value, but it made a ton of money.
Yes, they read the market. The market is buying whatever the prices. So why should they lower prices if it is selling great with high ones? They are here for your (our) money. Problem is probably with the ones buying them. Probably because "their life" depends on higher FPS? ;-)
The more you live, less you die. More you play, more you die. Isn't it great.
It was plenty valuable... for cryptominers.
Which explains why nVidia was crying about Turing sales.
It may have been successful for Nvidia but going on the Steam hardware survey (yes it's flawed but it's the best we have) the 1060 is by far the biggest selling GPU (16% vs 2% for the 1080ti) so it seems most peoples budget is around £200.
1.67% specifically, and the 1080 Ti wouldn't have gotten anywhere near that representation if the 2nd hand market wasn't flooded with miner cards after the crash.
I think we need to separate the difference in number of units sold to the revenue/profit per unit. The 1080ti has an insane profit margin and reaped stupidly awesome rewards from the crypto market, so did the Vega 56/64. The 1060 sold vastly more in units than the 1080ti but you could almost guarantee the 1080ti made more money overall...
But they wouldn't have without the GPU crypto-boom, which is long dead.
Yet there were a ton of them left on the shelves when the 2080 was released. All gone now pretty much despite the mining boom being well over.
They are also pretty good for 4K and VR use. If you can afford £450 for a monitor or headset and are already looking at at least £200 for a minimum spec GPU you can probably afford to jump in at the top end. That's what the people I know who bought 1080 and 1080ti cards got them for.
AMD have been trying to produce value cards for years. It hasn't improved market share one jot. That's despite the RX 570 and Vega 56 being pretty immense value atm.
Yes, there was a ton of them left on the shelves, because nVidia didn't anticipate the crypto bubble popping and massively overproduced and hardly anybody in the real consumer market was willing to pay £700-800 for a GPU, much less crypto prices. And gone, only because retailers were forced to hack prices at the knees due to low demand and a saturated 2nd hand market, and even then it took 3 years after launch, and a year after replacement for them to go, and I'm sure most of those sales were because people were balking at the RTX prices. This is hardly evidence of a consumer market that doesn't care about price. Because there's literally no market anywhere, where consumers don't care about price.
Frankly, high-end 'consumer' pascal success is fundamentally a market distortion fuelled by commercial crypto sales that should be outright discarded as junk data as far as statistics is concerned.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote