Nvidia Announces GeForce GTX 1080 Ti; $700, Coming Next Week

[anthony8989]

sorry does not fit again , as I said in the second reply , Electronic prices go down with time not up ...

nvidia made them go up again ...

Electronics GET cheaper over time TONS cheaper.

Nah, you're looking at it wrong. Consumer electronics get cheaper, true. But ASIC-type technology typically provides newer and better advancements for stagnant prices (best case scenario).

My only point being, you can't blanket statement "Consumer electronics get cheaper over time" because you watched the Accountant recently and it sounded cool when Ben Affleck said it and be automatically right.

The examples are a plenty: Smartphones, tablets, PCs, Laptops, Washers, Dryers, Fridges, etc.. They don't get cheaper. They get better at what they do - hence better value for the money (so kind of like getting cheaper in a way{?} but not really.)

 

[ttt_2017]

sorry does not fit again , as I said in the second reply , Electronic prices go down with time not up ...

nvidia made them go up again ...

Electronics GET cheaper over time TONS cheaper.

Nah, you're looking at it wrong. Consumer electronics get cheaper, true. But ASIC-type technology typically provides newer and better advancements for stagnant prices (best case scenario).

My only point being, you can't blanket statement "Consumer electronics get cheaper over time" because you watched the Accountant recently and it sounded cool when Ben Affleck said it and be automatically right.

The examples are a plenty: Smartphones, tablets, PCs, Laptops, Washers, Dryers, Fridges, etc.. They don't get cheaper. They get better at what they do - hence better value for the money (so kind of like getting cheaper in a way{?} but not really.)

lol your example are wrong ...

electronics get cheaper with time. They get BETTER 10 FOLDS AND CHEAPER ... unlike cars and washers and dryers and w/e the get more expensive with time .

and not only consumer Electronics , ALL Electronics !

and this is very well established fact in the electronics industry.

and funny thing you did not quote my Example about the SSD prices going down in the same time interval of nvidia going up...

and I can give tons of other examples for each part of the PC we use today ..

 

[kinggremlin]

AMD is going to have hell of work to do. 699 is good price.

IMO a Gaming card should never reach $699 ... there was a time when the flagship was always $500 ... until nvidia suddenly decided their new flagship will be $650 instead of replacing the $500 older card ...

the Last time was GTX 680 .. $500 remember ? and the better one was really a DUAL GPU GTX 690 for $999 , not a stupid "Ti"

Then they came with the "Ti" trick .. meh ...

After that Nvidia went crazy .. the Ti should be also $500 .... the flag ship should always be $500 and replaces the older flag ship , instead of fooling us with a naming trick "Ti"

I wish AMD comes in and crush the prices again like they did to intel ...

If you were older than 15, you would remember the 8800 Ultra which was released almost exactly 10 years ago (May 2, 2007) for $830. Adjusted for inflation, that's $972 today. Ati and Nvidia were both selling a $600 card back in 2004. That's $772 today. There has never been a $500 ceiling on single GPU graphics cards.

sorry does not fit again , as I said in the second reply , Electronic prices go down with time not up ...

nvidia made them go up again ...

Actually I was expecting Flagships to be $250 with time , like with PC components prices going down with time ...

has nothing to do with inflation .

Look at other products for example like RAM , SSD , Harddisks , notebooks , screens , and what so ever ... they give you better performance and become cheaper over time ...

in the past it was a DREAM to have a PC for $500 , most of the people paid from $2000-$3000 for a PC without even a 3D card years ago , and I remember reading an Article in PC magazine saying after 20 years , PCs will be $500 and performs 100 times faster...

look at the SSD market for example , did inflation hit it to the point of making it more expensive ? no ... we are paying for an M2 SSD with 3000MB/s speed CHEAPER than 60GB SSD SATA2 300 old SSD !!!

They have better SSD CPU inside , more Capacity , and 10 times faster , and CHEAPER ...

we are paying $100 for 250GB SSD that saturates the SATA port today ... 60GB SSD were $100 few years earlier

I can go on and on and on about other products as well that are living in the same time line and becoming cheaper..

Why is Nvidia so special huh ? they are tricking you and this has nothing to do with inflation.

Electronics GET cheaper over time TONS cheaper.

Most consumer electronics get cheaper over time due to increased volume and physically shrinking the item. Neither of those is occurring in the dGPU market. Intel's improving iGPU's have increasingly eaten away at the high volume lowend forcing dGPU makers to make up the difference with lower volume higher cost products. Secondly, die shrinks have seen increasingly smaller improvements in cost per transistor to the point that there was no improvement with the most recent finfet process. That's the actual cost of production. The cost to develop new GPU's and processes has significantly increased over time. In 2007, Nvidia spent $658 million in R&D. 10 years later in 2016, they spent over $1.4 BILLION on R&D. In Q1 of 2017 they spent $394 million, most ever in a quarter. Where do you think that money is coming from? Do you expect them to just eat that increased cost?

Shrinking market, decreasing improvements in production costs, significantly increasing development costs. If you're not retarded, why would you expect the cost of products in such a market to decrease over time?

That said.
2007
GTX 8800 Ultra - $830 - 768MB RAM - 384 GFLOPS
2017
1080Ti - $699 - 11GB RAM - 11340 GFLOPS (estimated)

I don't see much to complain about there.

 

[sillynilly]

Another CEO "too busy" to choose different clothes on a daily basis - pssh - please.

 

[sillynilly]

Clothing complaint aside - buying this card and my son now goes from 970 to a 1080 - lucky him!

 

[anthony8989]

lol your example are wrong ...

electronics get cheaper with time. They get BETTER 10 FOLDS AND CHEAPER ... unlike cars and washers and dryers and w/e the get more expensive with time .

and not only consumer Electronics , ALL Electronics !

and this is very well established fact in the electronics industry.

and funny thing you did not quote my Example about the SSD prices going down in the same time interval of nvidia going up...

and I can give tons of other examples for each part of the PC we use today ..

Nah, your examples are incorrect. You're confusing advancements in technology with SKU's in a product line. Many businesses follow similar pricing themes with their product arrays. And the pricing for each tier of SKU is generally stagnant unless affected by other factors like the ones kinggremlin just mentioned above. The products evolve to be faster, more efficient, and more comprehensive in their functions; but ultimately the price of a SKU in any given product line is more a reflection of market saturation (supply/demand), cost of production, offset of research and development, and a whole host of other factors that may even include natural disasters (regional instability) and so on.

 

[canadianvice]

Exactly what I was waiting for. Now I just need intel to come through with a nice processor in their training promo, and I'm sitting pretty. Well.. actually, I need the computing world to drown in orange, but I gotta be realistic.

 

[ttt_2017]

AMD is going to have hell of work to do. 699 is good price.

IMO a Gaming card should never reach $699 ... there was a time when the flagship was always $500 ... until nvidia suddenly decided their new flagship will be $650 instead of replacing the $500 older card ...

the Last time was GTX 680 .. $500 remember ? and the better one was really a DUAL GPU GTX 690 for $999 , not a stupid "Ti"

Then they came with the "Ti" trick .. meh ...

After that Nvidia went crazy .. the Ti should be also $500 .... the flag ship should always be $500 and replaces the older flag ship , instead of fooling us with a naming trick "Ti"

I wish AMD comes in and crush the prices again like they did to intel ...

If you were older than 15, you would remember the 8800 Ultra which was released almost exactly 10 years ago (May 2, 2007) for $830. Adjusted for inflation, that's $972 today. Ati and Nvidia were both selling a $600 card back in 2004. That's $772 today. There has never been a $500 ceiling on single GPU graphics cards.

sorry does not fit again , as I said in the second reply , Electronic prices go down with time not up ...

nvidia made them go up again ...

Actually I was expecting Flagships to be $250 with time , like with PC components prices going down with time ...

has nothing to do with inflation .

Look at other products for example like RAM , SSD , Harddisks , notebooks , screens , and what so ever ... they give you better performance and become cheaper over time ...

in the past it was a DREAM to have a PC for $500 , most of the people paid from $2000-$3000 for a PC without even a 3D card years ago , and I remember reading an Article in PC magazine saying after 20 years , PCs will be $500 and performs 100 times faster...

look at the SSD market for example , did inflation hit it to the point of making it more expensive ? no ... we are paying for an M2 SSD with 3000MB/s speed CHEAPER than 60GB SSD SATA2 300 old SSD !!!

They have better SSD CPU inside , more Capacity , and 10 times faster , and CHEAPER ...

we are paying $100 for 250GB SSD that saturates the SATA port today ... 60GB SSD were $100 few years earlier

I can go on and on and on about other products as well that are living in the same time line and becoming cheaper..

Why is Nvidia so special huh ? they are tricking you and this has nothing to do with inflation.

Electronics GET cheaper over time TONS cheaper.

Most consumer electronics get cheaper over time due to increased volume and physically shrinking the item. Neither of those is occurring in the dGPU market. Intel's improving iGPU's have increasingly eaten away at the high volume lowend forcing dGPU makers to make up the difference with lower volume higher cost products. Secondly, die shrinks have seen increasingly smaller improvements in cost per transistor to the point that there was no improvement with the most recent finfet process. That's the actual cost of production. The cost to develop new GPU's and processes has significantly increased over time. In 2007, Nvidia spent $658 million in R&D. 10 years later in 2016, they spent over $1.4 BILLION on R&D. In Q1 of 2017 they spent $394 million, most ever in a quarter. Where do you think that money is coming from? Do you expect them to just eat that increased cost?

Shrinking market, decreasing improvements in production costs, significantly increasing development costs. If you're not retarded, why would you expect the cost of products in such a market to decrease over time?

That said.
2007
GTX 8800 Ultra - $830 - 768MB RAM - 384 GFLOPS
2017
1080Ti - $699 - 11GB RAM - 11340 GFLOPS (estimated)

I don't see much to complain about there.

sorry , you missed the GTX 680 for $499 in between ..

you are missing the whole point .. I am tired of repeating it. so lets each has his own opinion on the matter.

 

[ttt_2017]

lol your example are wrong ...

electronics get cheaper with time. They get BETTER 10 FOLDS AND CHEAPER ... unlike cars and washers and dryers and w/e the get more expensive with time .

and not only consumer Electronics , ALL Electronics !

and this is very well established fact in the electronics industry.

and funny thing you did not quote my Example about the SSD prices going down in the same time interval of nvidia going up...

and I can give tons of other examples for each part of the PC we use today ..

Nah, your examples are incorrect. You're confusing advancements in technology with SKU's in a product line. Many businesses follow similar pricing themes with their product arrays. And the pricing for each tier of SKU is generally stagnant unless affected by other factors like the ones kinggremlin just mentioned above. The products evolve to be faster, more efficient, and more comprehensive in their functions; but ultimately the price of a SKU in any given product line is more a reflection of market saturation (supply/demand), cost of production, offset of research and development, and a whole host of other factors that may even include natural disasters (regional instability) and so on.

not really ... you are missing the whole point. but it seems we cant convince each others so I will leave this conversation as it ended.

 

[Kunra Zether]

AMD is going to have hell of work to do. 699 is good price.

IMO a Gaming card should never reach $699 ... there was a time when the flagship was always $500 ... until nvidia suddenly decided their new flagship will be $650 instead of replacing the $500 older card ...

the Last time was GTX 680 .. $500 remember ? and the better one was really a DUAL GPU GTX 690 for $999 , not a stupid "Ti"

Then they came with the "Ti" trick .. meh ...

After that Nvidia went crazy .. the Ti should be also $500 .... the flag ship should always be $500 and replaces the older flag ship , instead of fooling us with a naming trick "Ti"

I wish AMD comes in and crush the prices again like they did to intel ...

If you were older than 15, you would remember the 8800 Ultra which was released almost exactly 10 years ago (May 2, 2007) for $830. Adjusted for inflation, that's $972 today. Ati and Nvidia were both selling a $600 card back in 2004. That's $772 today. There has never been a $500 ceiling on single GPU graphics cards.

sorry does not fit again , as I said in the second reply , Electronic prices go down with time not up ...

nvidia made them go up again ...

Actually I was expecting Flagships to be $250 with time , like with PC components prices going down with time ...

has nothing to do with inflation .

Look at other products for example like RAM , SSD , Harddisks , notebooks , screens , and what so ever ... they give you better performance and become cheaper over time ...

in the past it was a DREAM to have a PC for $500 , most of the people paid from $2000-$3000 for a PC without even a 3D card years ago , and I remember reading an Article in PC magazine saying after 20 years , PCs will be $500 and performs 100 times faster...

look at the SSD market for example , did inflation hit it to the point of making it more expensive ? no ... we are paying for an M2 SSD with 3000MB/s speed CHEAPER than 60GB SSD SATA2 300 old SSD !!!

They have better SSD CPU inside , more Capacity , and 10 times faster , and CHEAPER ...

we are paying $100 for 250GB SSD that saturates the SATA port today ... 60GB SSD were $100 few years earlier

I can go on and on and on about other products as well that are living in the same time line and becoming cheaper..

Why is Nvidia so special huh ? they are tricking you and this has nothing to do with inflation.

Electronics GET cheaper over time TONS cheaper.

That phylosify only applies if you ingnore councils, TV's, sound systems, car stereos, speakers, cell phones, I could go on once a company finds a price point that consumers are willing to buy a product at they sell it for that the only time price drops over time occur is when there is a list of interest in said product or due to competition. Yes some products do reduce in price over time as they become cheaper to produce and easier to manufacture.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

The timing is a bit off and sooner than expected. AMD stummbled a bit and put nVidia in a interesting position. Their planned 770 was in the same performance range (tho w/ more OC headroom) as what they saw AMD being capable of offering. So the 770 got relabeled as the 780 and the original 780 design was shelved. So when AMD came out with the 2xx series , nVida sat and waited until AMD spend millions fueling the hype train, which nVidia then hijacked by releasing the Ti.

It was "Deja Vu all over again" with the 9xx series where nVidia dominated in devastating fasdion grabbing 80% of the installed base and with the 970 outselling all R7 / R9 2xx and 3xx series combined.

AMD chose not to compete against the 1070 / 1080 but ya knew that the 1080 Ti was sitting on the shelf just like the 780 Ti and 980 Ti. Now however we see a change in strategy and one can't help but wonder why. if the Ti is going to top the new AMD offerings then why not just wait and bait AMD to release announce and promote their cards again, and then steal all the thunder by dropping the Ti afterwards ?

I can only surmise that AMD let the giant fall asleep and now nVidia has gotten wind of what is actually coming and they no longer feel confident in stealing the win in the last seconds of the game. Releasing the card before AMDs new cards, leaves them free to take a position that the end of the 10xx cards has been released and that their new 11xx cards will be the ones that will compete.

I might be wrong of course but it's the best idea that comes to mind which would explain the change in strategy. In any case, the announcment s good news for asll the folks with planned 1070 / 1080 builds as they are either "moving up" to a better card or saving $100-$150 or so on the planned builds.

 

[anbello262]

Exactly what I was waiting for. Now I just need intel to come through with a nice processor in their training promo, and I'm sitting pretty. Well.. actually, I need the computing world to drown in orange, but I gotta be realistic.

What does "orange" mean?

 

[canadianvice]

Exactly what I was waiting for. Now I just need intel to come through with a nice processor in their training promo, and I'm sitting pretty. Well.. actually, I need the computing world to drown in orange, but I gotta be realistic.

What does "orange" mean?

Methamphetamines.

No, I'm kidding. Orange. The colour. Nothing is made in orange anymore. I like orange. Therefore, this is a problem.

 

[HaB1971]

No prices dropped on Newegg.. and search for 1080Ti and all you get are Founders Edition 1080's... let the pricing gouging of supply and demand begin !!!

 

[anbello262]

Exactly what I was waiting for. Now I just need intel to come through with a nice processor in their training promo, and I'm sitting pretty. Well.. actually, I need the computing world to drown in orange, but I gotta be realistic.

What does "orange" mean?

Methamphetamines.

No, I'm kidding. Orange. The colour. Nothing is made in orange anymore. I like orange. Therefore, this is a problem.

Haha, I thought that it might be a slang term for something. Well, I really like green+black, and that too is becoming less common (last black+green mobo IU saw were the Gigabyte sniper z87 series). At least, I can use RGB to cover my issues.

A Pink system would be something interesting as well.

 

[10tacle]

If you were older than 15, you would remember the 8800 Ultra which was released almost exactly 10 years ago (May 2, 2007) for $830. Adjusted for inflation, that's $972 today. Ati and Nvidia were both selling a $600 card back in 2004. That's $772 today. There has never been a $500 ceiling on single GPU graphics cards.

sorry does not fit again , as I said in the second reply , Electronic prices go down with time not up ...

nvidia made them go up again ...

I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot of people out there who really do not know anything about economic indexes and how they are relevant to us. GPU prices are compared at their release point at that time. It's the only fair and consistent way of real pricing comparisons at release over the years.

Kinggremlin is 100% correct here in comparing the original release price of the GTX 880 Ultra to today, *after* adjusting for what it would cost in today's dollars. Now if one really wants to have fun with inflation numbers, work backward: take today" $699 1080Ti launch price and push it back in time to 2007 and what that money was back then (having a hard time thinking that 2007 was 10 years ago, but whatever)....it would be $599. And if the $499 GTX 680 were released today in 2011's dollars, it would have cost $463.

It used to be at one time basic economic principles were taught in high school (at least in the US anyway). It's hard to drive a point across someone is incapable of understanding. Kudos to the two guys who tried to explain things to this guy.

 

[kinggremlin]

sorry , you missed the GTX 680 for $499 in between ..

you are missing the whole point .. I am tired of repeating it. so lets each has his own opinion on the matter.

There were numerous generations of GPU's between the 8800 Ultra and the 1080Ti.
What's so special about the 680?
Well except for the fact that the GTX 680 was the first midrange GPU that Nvidia charged a flagship level price for. Nvidia produces 2 dies every architecture, a small die typically around 300mm for low and midrange cards, and a big die typically around 500mm or larger for their highend cards. For Kepler Nvidia sold the 294mm 680 as a flagship despite it using the smaller die. Then later, Nvidia released the still Kepler based 780Ti and Titan, 561mm die, as the flagship of the 700 series, when they really should have been the flagship of the 600 series.

So again, what's your point singling out the GTX 680's $500 price?

 

[ttt_2017]

sorry , you missed the GTX 680 for $499 in between ..

you are missing the whole point .. I am tired of repeating it. so lets each has his own opinion on the matter.

There were numerous generations of GPU's between the 8800 Ultra and the 1080Ti.
What's so special about the 680?
Well except for the fact that the GTX 680 was the first midrange GPU that Nvidia charged a flagship level price for. Nvidia produces 2 dies every architecture, a small die typically around 300mm for low and midrange cards, and a big die typically around 500mm or larger for their highend cards. For Kepler Nvidia sold the 294mm 680 as a flagship despite it using the smaller die. Then later, Nvidia released the still Kepler based 780Ti and Titan, 561mm die, as the flagship of the 700 series, when they really should have been the flagship of the 600 series.

So again, what's your point singling out the GTX 680's $500 price?

The sad thing here that you guys are not getting the point and I have t repeat it again ...

in the PC components , each part with time has a curve of its price , with time it goes down , for technology allows you to mass produce it at larger quantity and cheaper cost with time ...

this curve should never go up again ...

as I said , a flagship Harddisk started with 20,000 some 40 years ago , and the curve down made it reach 100$ today and 1000 times faster and better and larger ... and so on.

People in the industry know this , and as I said earlier , 20-25 years ago no one could dream of a full pc for $500 was a dream , yet PC Magazine wrote an article that things will go cheaper and better to the point that a PC will be 100 times faster and cost only $500 ONLY all the components regardless of inflation or anything else .. 25 years ago you could never get a PC lower than $2000 (good enough PC)

Nvidia reached $500 for their flag chip and they decided for the lack of competition to rise their flagship after GTX 680 .. they went agains the industry route in pricing ... and the fact that they today are selling their GTX 1080 for $500 proves my point 100% , and yes they could release it for even lower than $500 and still profit .

Actually people should expect the curve down for the flaghip GPU to reach $250 already and not going higher.

its is not about the GTX 680 it is about the point they curve changed direction , and focus here (WHILE OTHER ELECTRONICS IN THE PC PARTS NOT CHANGING DIRECTION USING THE SAME MANUFACTURING METHODS BUT FOR OTHER CHIPS INSTEAD OF GPU CHIPS)

This is the point ...

look at SSD Prices are they going up or down ? what Manufacturing process are they using ? and why they never go up in prices ? and their curve down with time is still curve down ? because they are pricing it right and not OverPricing like Nvidia did.

This has nothing to do with RD as well , becuase the GTX 680 had its RD as well and was Priced right..

the GTX 1080 release price should be $499 and the GTX 1080 Ti should be ALSO $499 taking GTX 1080 place and lowering the GTX 1080 to $400

Actually Gaming Flag ships should reach $250 after 10+ years ...but we need competition ... and we need a third and fourth player , hopefully some one will step in from the ARM CPU maker .. they already have experience in making 3D APU in their chips ... Like Apple or Samsung or Qualcomm .. they can make GPU for desktop I think ...

 

[bit_user]

I can only surmise that AMD let the giant fall asleep and now nVidia has gotten wind of what is actually coming and they no longer feel confident in stealing the win in the last seconds of the game. Releasing the card before AMDs new cards, leaves them free to take a position that the end of the 10xx cards has been released and that their new 11xx cards will be the ones that will compete.

Yeah, there's something to be said for putting product out in the market to soak up demand before your competitor can tap it.

Maybe Nvidia was seeing a fall-off in 1080 and Titan purchases, and decided to liven things up while they still can. Plus, the launch of Ryzen unleashes a small burst of demand for mid/higher-end GPUs, on which they could capitalize (too bad for AMD that they couldn't harness the demand created by their own CPU launch).

 

[bit_user]

in the PC components , each part with time has a curve of its price , with time it goes down , for technology allows you to mass produce it at larger quantity and cheaper cost with time ...

this curve should never go up again ...

You're confusing a historical trend with some kind of physical law.

One reason GPUs deviate from your curve is that more performance can be added by increasing parallelism. Far more so than CPUs, in the past decade. This pushes up die sizes, reducing the yield (since the defect rate is per unit of area) and the number of dies that can fit on a wafer (which is the basic unit of semiconductor production cost).

With DRAM and NAND, you're looking at cost per cell (in the form of $ per GB). But, with GPUs, you're only looking at cost per chip, rather than cost per ALU pipe.

There are other issues, but this is probably the biggest error, in your analysis. Again, don't confuse trends with some kind of law. Where there's sufficient market demand, this technology can be pushed to deliver higher performance, but it will come at a higher price. The ceiling for that price is ultimately what the market will bear. Of course, there are also points of diminishing returns, in different aspects of a GPU.

 

[kyotokid]

..what gets me is the odd 11 GB VRAM. As this card already matches if not performs the 1,200$ Titan-X (Nvidia even admits to this on its site) why bother paying 500$ more for an extra GB of VRAM, 8 RPOs and 184 KB of L2 cache?

Now granted I am not paid the big Zloty's the development and marketing people at Nvida make, but it would seem to make more sense to offer the 1080Ti with the same specs as the GP102 Titan X (It already has the same core count) and upgrade the Titan X to 16 GB GDDR5X and 2840 Cores to actually make it worth that extra 500$ over the 1080Ti. When the Quadro P5000 was released with double the memory (GDDR5X) of it's predecessor and an extra 512 cores, the price remained the same.

 

[bit_user]

..what gets me is the odd 11 GB VRAM.

Well, if the memory channels aren't interleaved, then they can have any number they want. The software simply has to distribute data evenly between the different banks, in order to get good performance. That shouldn't be too hard.

As this card already matches if not performs the 1,200$ Titan-X (Nvidia even admits to this on its site) why bother paying 500$ more for an extra GB of VRAM, 8 RPOs and 184 KB of L2 cache?

I think they pretty much came to terms with the idea that nobody is going to be buying Titan XP's after this launch. I imagine that market must've been pretty saturated, or else they figured Vega will kill it so why not take the initiative and at least reap the rewards.

it would seem to make more sense to offer the 1080Ti with the same specs as the GP102 Titan X (It already has the same core count) and upgrade the Titan X to 16 GB GDDR5X and 2840 Cores to actually make it worth that extra 500$ over the 1080Ti. When the Quadro P5000 was released with double the memory (GDDR5X) of it's predecessor and an extra 512 cores, the price remained the same.

Well, perhaps they could go to 24 GB, assuming GDDR5X chips are available in sufficient density, but you can't reasonably hit 16 GB with 12 memory controllers. It has to be a multiple.

Then, the market for 24 GB Titan X's is probably so small, and most of it is price-insensitive enough to go for their Tesla or Quadro products.

Let's not forget something significant that happened, recently: the announcement of the Quadro GP100 (or whatever it's called). I think that is what's really superseding the Titan X, for that price-insensitive segment of their graphics market that really demands the highest performance available.

 

[ttt_2017]

in the PC components , each part with time has a curve of its price , with time it goes down , for technology allows you to mass produce it at larger quantity and cheaper cost with time ...

this curve should never go up again ...

You're confusing a historical trend with some kind of physical law.

One reason GPUs deviate from your curve is that more performance can be added by increasing parallelism. Far more so than CPUs, in the past decade. This pushes up die sizes, reducing the yield (since the defect rate is per unit of area) and the number of dies that can fit on a wafer (which is the basic unit of semiconductor production cost).

With DRAM and NAND, you're looking at cost per cell (in the form of $ per GB). But, with GPUs, you're only looking at cost per chip, rather than cost per ALU pipe.

There are other issues, but this is probably the biggest error, in your analysis. Again, don't confuse trends with some kind of law. Where there's sufficient market demand, this technology can be pushed to deliver higher performance, but it will come at a higher price. The ceiling for that price is ultimately what the market will bear. Of course, there are also points of diminishing returns, in different aspects of a GPU.

What proves my Analysis is the new price Cut of the GTX 1080 .. $500 ... the REAL PRICE ..

you forget that each SSD has a CPU inside also , and multi core as well ... SSD inside are little PC , they have CPU , Cache , and Memory .. Actualy SSD are tiny PCs ...

sound cards any one ? a $10-20 sound card today was $100-$200 , and I am not talking about shielded expensive cards with 7.1 surround , no simple ones !!

at the end when you look at ANY electronic device it is SILICON !!! the rest is RD and Design.. thats why they go down in price with time ... its SILICON at the end no matter what. Chip MAKING. YIELD , AND ETC .. the more you advance the smaller and more quantity and more yield you get at the same price !

 

[kinggremlin]

sorry , you missed the GTX 680 for $499 in between ..

you are missing the whole point .. I am tired of repeating it. so lets each has his own opinion on the matter.

There were numerous generations of GPU's between the 8800 Ultra and the 1080Ti.
What's so special about the 680?
Well except for the fact that the GTX 680 was the first midrange GPU that Nvidia charged a flagship level price for. Nvidia produces 2 dies every architecture, a small die typically around 300mm for low and midrange cards, and a big die typically around 500mm or larger for their highend cards. For Kepler Nvidia sold the 294mm 680 as a flagship despite it using the smaller die. Then later, Nvidia released the still Kepler based 780Ti and Titan, 561mm die, as the flagship of the 700 series, when they really should have been the flagship of the 600 series.

So again, what's your point singling out the GTX 680's $500 price?

The sad thing here that you guys are not getting the point and I have t repeat it again ...

in the PC components , each part with time has a curve of its price , with time it goes down , for technology allows you to mass produce it at larger quantity and cheaper cost with time ...

this curve should never go up again ...

as I said , a flagship Harddisk started with 20,000 some 40 years ago , and the curve down made it reach 100$ today and 1000 times faster and better and larger ... and so on.

People in the industry know this , and as I said earlier , 20-25 years ago no one could dream of a full pc for $500 was a dream , yet PC Magazine wrote an article that things will go cheaper and better to the point that a PC will be 100 times faster and cost only $500 ONLY all the components regardless of inflation or anything else .. 25 years ago you could never get a PC lower than $2000 (good enough PC)

Nvidia reached $500 for their flag chip and they decided for the lack of competition to rise their flagship after GTX 680 .. they went agains the industry route in pricing ... and the fact that they today are selling their GTX 1080 for $500 proves my point 100% , and yes they could release it for even lower than $500 and still profit .

Actually people should expect the curve down for the flaghip GPU to reach $250 already and not going higher.

its is not about the GTX 680 it is about the point they curve changed direction , and focus here (WHILE OTHER ELECTRONICS IN THE PC PARTS NOT CHANGING DIRECTION USING THE SAME MANUFACTURING METHODS BUT FOR OTHER CHIPS INSTEAD OF GPU CHIPS)

This is the point ...

look at SSD Prices are they going up or down ? what Manufacturing process are they using ? and why they never go up in prices ? and their curve down with time is still curve down ? because they are pricing it right and not OverPricing like Nvidia did.

This has nothing to do with RD as well , becuase the GTX 680 had its RD as well and was Priced right..

the GTX 1080 release price should be $499 and the GTX 1080 Ti should be ALSO $499 taking GTX 1080 place and lowering the GTX 1080 to $400

Actually Gaming Flag ships should reach $250 after 10+ years ...but we need competition ... and we need a third and fourth player , hopefully some one will step in from the ARM CPU maker .. they already have experience in making 3D APU in their chips ... Like Apple or Samsung or Qualcomm .. they can make GPU for desktop I think ...

Why do you keep comparing different products to dGPU's when there is no correlation between them? The price of a gallon of milk in 1970 was 36 cents. We're paying over 10 times more now for a gallon. And that has as much to do with the price of video cards as the comparisons you have made. Not only do your post make no logical sense, they're not even factually accurate.

You seem obsessed with the dGPU to hard drive comparison, yet the price of a hard drive has been relatively unchanged for over a decade. A one platter drive in the early 2000's was about $80-$90. That's what a 1 platter drive costs today. Same with 2 platter drives and so forth. What has gone down is the price per capacity which is a completely different metric. Your argument that video cards should get cheaper over time because hard drive performance/capacity per dollar has improved by a factor of X over time makes absolutely no sense. When comparing dGPU's to hard drives using the same criteria you find that video card performance per dollar the last decade has improved by magnitudes more than hard drive performance per dollar has.

 

[ttt_2017]

sorry , you missed the GTX 680 for $499 in between ..

you are missing the whole point .. I am tired of repeating it. so lets each has his own opinion on the matter.

There were numerous generations of GPU's between the 8800 Ultra and the 1080Ti.
What's so special about the 680?
Well except for the fact that the GTX 680 was the first midrange GPU that Nvidia charged a flagship level price for. Nvidia produces 2 dies every architecture, a small die typically around 300mm for low and midrange cards, and a big die typically around 500mm or larger for their highend cards. For Kepler Nvidia sold the 294mm 680 as a flagship despite it using the smaller die. Then later, Nvidia released the still Kepler based 780Ti and Titan, 561mm die, as the flagship of the 700 series, when they really should have been the flagship of the 600 series.

So again, what's your point singling out the GTX 680's $500 price?

The sad thing here that you guys are not getting the point and I have t repeat it again ...

in the PC components , each part with time has a curve of its price , with time it goes down , for technology allows you to mass produce it at larger quantity and cheaper cost with time ...

this curve should never go up again ...

as I said , a flagship Harddisk started with 20,000 some 40 years ago , and the curve down made it reach 100$ today and 1000 times faster and better and larger ... and so on.

People in the industry know this , and as I said earlier , 20-25 years ago no one could dream of a full pc for $500 was a dream , yet PC Magazine wrote an article that things will go cheaper and better to the point that a PC will be 100 times faster and cost only $500 ONLY all the components regardless of inflation or anything else .. 25 years ago you could never get a PC lower than $2000 (good enough PC)

Nvidia reached $500 for their flag chip and they decided for the lack of competition to rise their flagship after GTX 680 .. they went agains the industry route in pricing ... and the fact that they today are selling their GTX 1080 for $500 proves my point 100% , and yes they could release it for even lower than $500 and still profit .

Actually people should expect the curve down for the flaghip GPU to reach $250 already and not going higher.

its is not about the GTX 680 it is about the point they curve changed direction , and focus here (WHILE OTHER ELECTRONICS IN THE PC PARTS NOT CHANGING DIRECTION USING THE SAME MANUFACTURING METHODS BUT FOR OTHER CHIPS INSTEAD OF GPU CHIPS)

This is the point ...

look at SSD Prices are they going up or down ? what Manufacturing process are they using ? and why they never go up in prices ? and their curve down with time is still curve down ? because they are pricing it right and not OverPricing like Nvidia did.

This has nothing to do with RD as well , becuase the GTX 680 had its RD as well and was Priced right..

the GTX 1080 release price should be $499 and the GTX 1080 Ti should be ALSO $499 taking GTX 1080 place and lowering the GTX 1080 to $400

Actually Gaming Flag ships should reach $250 after 10+ years ...but we need competition ... and we need a third and fourth player , hopefully some one will step in from the ARM CPU maker .. they already have experience in making 3D APU in their chips ... Like Apple or Samsung or Qualcomm .. they can make GPU for desktop I think ...

Why do you keep comparing different products to dGPU's when there is no correlation between them? The price of a gallon of milk in 1970 was 36 cents. We're paying over 10 times more now for a gallon. And that has as much to do with the price of video cards as the comparisons you have made. Not only do your post make no logical sense, they're not even factually accurate.

You seem obsessed with the dGPU to hard drive comparison, yet the price of a hard drive has been relatively unchanged for over a decade. A one platter drive in the early 2000's was about $80-$90. That's what a 1 platter drive costs today. Same with 2 platter drives and so forth. What has gone down is the price per capacity which is a completely different metric. Your argument that video cards should get cheaper over time because hard drive performance/capacity per dollar has improved by a factor of X over time makes absolutely no sense. When comparing dGPU's to hard drives using the same criteria you find that video card performance per dollar the last decade has improved by magnitudes more than hard drive performance per dollar has.

lol your example of gallon of milk is against you infact ...

this means a $2000 PC in old times that now you can get better one is worth $20,000 and went to $500 .. andthats what I am saying ... everything goes up but Electronics GO DOWN. and nvidia made them go up again.

I am not comparing GPU to hard drives alone , no it is every part in the PC EACH one of them ... and you missed my point again in the harddisk prices , they did not go UP !!! and we are moving to SSD now and they are moving down as well in price over time.

and to finish this topic once and for all , look at the mobile phone chips , they double performance in GPU (internal) every 2 years you dont see the phones get more expensive outside Apple and Samsung (two greedy companies)..

any ways I will close this subject because there is no point in repeating the same thing.

have a nice day .