News Micro Center Prices RTX 4080 Close to RTX 4090's MSRP

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
So, a max of $2000? And it's not even a 4090, but the lesser model? Do I have this right?

That specific card (Eagle) is worth maybe a third of its price. That is an insult. I know PC building is an expensive hobby, but I swear on my soul I will never pay $2000 for one part. That should be a crime. Jensen is out of his entire mind
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted member 14196
actually that might be an error in the article (hopefully lol), since it says the Eagle is $1999 but the Eagle OC is about $700 dollars cheaper
 
Considering MicroCenter is usually the "best pricing scenario", I'll just think that nVidia is going for the "hard squeeze; tight grab" of it's fanboi base which will buy regardless of what abomination they put on a shelve. This could be nVidia truly testing the limits of its most hardcore fanbase and how hard they can squeeze every last penny out of them before they drop prices to fight AMD somewhat.

Regards.
 
Thankfully consumers get to vote with their wallet. A product or service is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. Nvidia can't eat these GPUs so if they don't sell at excessive prices then the price will drop. It may take some time as there are people that will pay stupid prices to own the newest anything. It's an affliction. 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted member 14196
boe rhae said:
So, a max of $2000? And it's not even a 4090, but the lesser model? Do I have this right?

That specific card (Eagle) is worth maybe a third of its price. That is an insult. I know PC building is an expensive hobby, but I swear on my soul I will never pay $2000 for one part. That should be a crime. Jensen is out of his entire mind
Click to expand...
Typo that I've now fixed. The Eagle is Gigabyte's base model at $1,199.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boe rhae
No need for more insipid carping about evil nVidia squeezing people for more money. This is normal, and is an opportunity to see how the market works, and people's buying behavior.

People who buy high-end products at launch are price-insensitive. nVidia has established that they are still the clear performance leader, by substantial margins, and that's what these early adopter buyers care about: Best performance, bar none. There's no namby-pamby about perf/$ or perf/watt.

Since it can't win on perf, AMD not surprisingly is angling for both of the latter for RX 7K, with substantially lower pricing, and the touted "50% improvement in perf/watt". These appeal to a different segment than the above.

My observation is that gamers (the target demo for these) prefer the simpler appeal of balls-out perf, over the more nuanced perf/$ or perf/W. Thus nVidia's pitch has and will resonate more strongly over AMD's. Also a contributing factor is that gamers are generally less price sensitive than non-gamers when it comes to performance. That's why nVidia GPUs command a higher price over equivalent AMD cards.

The 4080 is a perfect example of why halo products matter. They allow the lower products in the line to ride the coattail, with higher pricing than would otherwise be warranted. In buyers' minds, nVidia's 4000 cards are simply faster than AMD's.

The more important takeaway is that the marketing for both corporations (all corporations really) behave very much similar. If AMD were in nVidia's shoes, it would market the exact same way. It's a very rational and deliberate profit-maximizing strategy, because all companies are profit-maximizing entities. People like to ascribe morality to companies, but there is no "evil" or "good" involved. It's simply about money. AMD is no different than nVidia or Intel.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CorpRebel, Phaaze88, spongiemaster and 1 other person
Are they subsidizing GeForce Now with these prices? Are the first 1,000,000 GPUs going into Nvidia's racks or something so they have to charge double what they are worth to break even?
 
baboma said:
The more important takeaway is that the marketing for both corporations (all corporations really) behave very much similar. If AMD were in nVidia's shoes, it would market the exact same way. It's a very rational and deliberate profit-maximizing strategy, because all companies are profit-maximizing entities. People like to ascribe morality to companies, but there is no "evil" or "good" involved. It's simply about money. AMD is no different than nVidia or Intel.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you said except the above. If corporations are legally an entity that can be charged with crimes and can donate money to political campaigns because it has 1st amendment rights then I believe you can and should ascribe morals to companies. Just look at Chick-fil-A. When I see corporations doing what could be perceived as taking overly greedy actions I will say that company XXX is greedy. Companies are not a gestalt. They can be morally judged because they are made up of people and the actions a company collectively takes is reflective of their morals and all who remain to work there.

Publicly traded companies have a legal imperative to be as profitable as possible at the expense of everything moral. That system has created this wide-spread belief that the actions companies take are okay or at worst neutral, regardless of what it is, as long as it is in the name of profit for their shareholders. So what do we say to those same companies, some of which use slave labor to make their products? Or companies that have children working in factories in India making cheap clothing? Or companies in South America where water rights are privatized and growing avocadoes are prioritized over peoples ability to drink it, shower, or otherwise? That's right, we collectively say that is morally reprehensible and call them names like greedy, robber barons, or some other such appropriate term respective to their actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted member 14196
I believe you can and should ascribe morals to companies.
Click to expand...

Or companies in South America where water rights are privatized...
Click to expand...

It depends on the context. The context you cited (environmental, societal) is different than the usual context where people carp about "greedy" companies, like here.

A company should charge whatever buyers are willing to pay. Evidence has shown that buyers are willing to pay more for nVidia cards over AMD's. There is no "greed" or "evil" involved.

AMD did the same thing with Ryzen 5000 series. It not only raised the price of 3600X, but also removed 3600 from the initial launch, and severely limiting availability of better-value 3300X. Buyers had to pay substantially more to buy into AM4. AMD only came out with cheaper CPUs in the face of strong Intel competition, the Alder Lake series, 18 months after the initial launch. Again, no "greed" or "evil" involved. AMD maximized its profit, which is normal and expected for a for-profit corporate entity.

True, corporations are not absolved of all responsibilities in their pursuit of profit, which is what you are saying. The context you mentioned involve important external factors, eg environmental degradation, predation, etc. We as people can and should hold companies to account for their actions.

But we should stay away from emotionally-laden and imprecise terms like "evil" and "greedy," as they are inevitably conflated to apply to anything we dislike, eg "nVidia is greedy because it raised its MSRP" is a misapplication of the term. What happens--has happened--is that the term is then reduced to mere noise and is thus rendered meaningless.

Words should matter. How we use them is important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOtherOne, JarredWaltonGPU, CorpRebel and 1 other person
digitalgriffin said:
Good luck with that. But I remember places that price gouge, and I stay away from them.

But I'm sure there will be more than a few suckers to buy that.
Click to expand...

this is not microcenter setting the price. every card has the reference model that starts at msrp and then the 3rd party cards raise the price as perceived "features" increase.
they just happen to be the first retailer to show the inflated nvidia prices for what they are.

be upset for sure at the obvious price gouging, but at least point that anger in the right direction. i absolutely promise you the prices won't be any different at any other store.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JarredWaltonGPU, digitalgriffin and helper800
Someone please tell nVidia the GPU mining is pretty much dead or close to it. Since it takes a couple of years for new gen GPUs to arrive into the market, from the time designing and early testing starts, it looks like nVidia "planned" these prices during the time period when GPUs were in extremely high demand due to mining.
 
Don't want these prices to continue? Then everyone needs to pitch in and not buy them. It's that simple... OK. Maybe not...

Intel needs more time.
AMD is working with far less money and resources - they have to work with what they got. Unfortunately, "that isn't good enough for some of us, but do better while we continue to throw more money at Nvidia." 🙄
Once Intel gets their stuff together, the situation might not change from its current duopoly(?); changing to Arc V Geforce instead, with Radeon fading out. That. Would. Downright. Suck.

"But my G-sync monitor(s)..."
Well, that's on the user for pigeonholing themselves. That's the proprietary BS doing its job. I sure as heck won't let that stop me from choosing a different brand of gpu. If I have to use some other form of adaptive sync, so be it.


The ones who are really 'stuck' with Nvidia are those who have to use CUDA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom