News Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Specs Leak: AD104 Cut by a Quarter

[neojack]

the used market is vast since the crypto crash, dont waste your money on those
exemple : used 5700xt, 220$CAD on my local classified ads. still perfectly fine for 1440p
2080ti/6800xt : 650$CAD

 

[kinney]

If the 4070 ends up being the same performance and same price as a 3080, I'll likely buy it. I wanted to buy a 3080 two years ago, but could never find one close to MSRP. Once they finally got cheaper a few months ago, I decided to wait to see the new cards around the corner.
My monitor has a G-Sync module (bought a month before the G-Sync compatible program. lol.) So if I want to keep adaptive sync, which I do, I'm locked into Nvidia.

Assuming a 4070 is the exact performance as a 3080 for the same price, it would still have a few important benefits for me: 1) availability. 2) AV1 encoding. 3) 20% more VRAM. 4) better RT performance. 5) better power efficiency. So, it'd still be a minor upgrade, and those first two points are very important for me. Might not be the 50% better performance at the same price point that I would have hoped for, but it hopefully won't be worse than the 3080 either, and at least I should be able to buy the damn thing in a few months, assuming mining doesn't take off again.

That's me, anyway.

I'm with you on this. The way I see it is the pattern of the xx70 series cards matching the xx80 series cards is still happening. I don't care if it's a 192 vs 256bit memory bus. That's the type of comparison kids are doing online nonstop trying to pretend a 4070 Ti / 4080 12GB is "actually a 4060" but it's stupid. It's all about performance. If the 4070 matches the 3080 10GB, it's a win. We're just seeing price jumps across the board.

I went ahead and bought an Arc A770 16GB for $350 recently and have had no problems with it. But I still may buy a 4070 as well, if it's available as a 2-slot. One thing to keep in mind for multiple monitor users with Nvidia is if this is still an issue- PSA:For people with dual monitors with different refresh rates : pcmasterrace (reddit.com)
I tested Arc and it plays well with multiple monitors with mixed refresh rates. I haven't bothered to put my Geforce in to test, but Intel and supposedly AMD don't require matching refresh rates. If that's true, that alone is a reason to stop buying Nvidia. I have a $600 4K 144Hz panel. I'm not buying 2 more that match it just to use Nvidia.

 

[PEnns]

First of all, I don't know of anyone who has ever said that a new generation of card would be both faster and cost than their series predecessors.

You haven't been paying attention and if you haven't read them, it doesn't mean it didn't happen!

And I am glad you're in love with nGreedia. Enjoy the overpriced and underpowered (but not when it comes to gulping down enormous amounts of electric juice!) products!!

 

[atomicWAR]

except not many ppl NEED the HALO gpu.

AMD likely doesnt try because of that fact.

the next tier down from halo is where "most" ppl will cap out at.
that and the 60 tier likely sell the most.

Oh I very much agree. My disability, particularaly in winters now I am back in colder weather (I miss living in Hawaii), really keeps me house bound for a number of months in severe pain. So I admit I spend a little more than maybe I should as a way to help keep my sanity. But if a high end PC gaming/Video editing setup can help me side track myself from my pain, for me it is worth it. But Absolutely most gamers fall in the 50-60-70 class.

In a perfect world though it would have been nice to tell Nvidia to pound feet and go AMD for my high end GPU needs(?) for a change.

 

[10tacle]

You haven't been paying attention and if you haven't read them, it doesn't mean it didn't happen! And I am glad you're in love with nGreedia. Enjoy the overpriced and underpowered (but not when it comes to gulping down enormous amounts of electric juice!) products!!

So you've got no backup of your claim that "pundits" claimed the 4-series would be faster AND cheaper than the 3-series. Yeah that's what I thought.

 

[Joseph_138]

And all pundits were telling anyone who would listen: Wait till the 4xxx come out, they'll be much better and less expensive.....

So, the crowd waited for this??

The pathetic shenanigans and obscene greed from nGreedia never fails to disappoint!!

This is why I didn't wait. RTX 40 is turning out to be a really poor value for money, and the RTX 30 and RDNA 2 cards, that aren't overpriced, are selling out everywhere. Just go to PC Parts Picker, and you'll see that the deals on last generation cards are drying up fast. RDNA 3 looks to be much better value than RTX 40, but the prices are still pretty high. This is the exact situation that Jay, from JayzTwoCents, was warning people about months ago, but was scoffed at, because RTX 40, and RDNA 3, were only a few months away at the time. I upgraded the cards in 2 PC's and one Mac Pro since he released that video, and don't regret it all. Meanwhile, the naysayers are doing nothing but complain about the current situation.

 

[oofdragon]

If the leaked 7900XTX benchmarks leaks are correct even the 7900XTX is over priced! Based on the leaked benchmarks the 7900XTX would be a 42% price increase when matched against the last gen 3080 tier, which is just unheard of for a gen over gen price increase and just sad.

I dont think so.. to my eyes it's cheaper actually. I say this based that the 7900XTX is shaping to be 50% faster than a 6950XT and that the 6900XT launched at $1000 as well. Of the trend follows down fo the other cards then the 7700XTX would be a 50% 6750XT (3090 lvl) at $500.. that's exactly what the 4070 should have been at performance and price MINIMUM

 

[oofdragon]

Assuming a 4070 is the exact performance as a 3080 for the same price, it would still have a few important benefits for me: 1) availability. 2) AV1 encoding. 3) 20% more VRAM. 4) better RT performance. 5) better power efficiency. So, it'd still be a minor upgrade, and those first two points are very important for me.

I'll be using it only for gaming and it's easy to find a 3080 around $575 at eBay right now. People fear ending up with a card that was used for mining but that really isn't concerning at all. Next year when the 4070 is out the 3080 price will come down further to around $500, AMD will be launching their 6800XT replacement at around $400 as well. That said, VRAM and RT won't be different at all between 3080 and 4070, and rasterization will be match by AMD new gen, so as a gaming only perspective the $700 price point for a 4070 is NUTS. I'll take the AMD card any day at $400. RT has a small penalty on it but at 6800XT is irrelevant sub 4K

 

[oofdragon]

Not sure why you are picking different tiers from different generations. 1080 launched at $600, FE at $700. 2080 launched at $700, with the FE at $800 (Super was a refresh), 3080 was $700 (if you had a friend that worked at Best Buy).

It's simple.. for 10 years the 80 series sold for less than $699, even Tis and supers, and performance always went north of 50% upgrade. Where's the 4080 at this price point? You may agree that inflation leads to price raise, sure, but if in 10 years they were able to hold the 80 series at $699, there isn't really any justification for it to get anywhere more than $799, no way. The 2080 launched at $799 "because of RT cores", people said f* u Ngreedia and they reverted it to $699 with the 2080 Super. Now they are launching it that $1200 because of what exactly? It's f* u Ngreedia again!

As I said every 70 series surpassed their 80Ti predecessor. The 770 did, 970, 1070, 2070(super), 3070. Always at sub $499. We are talking here 10 years. So the 4070 at $549 and 3080Ti/3090 lvl makes sense. If though they r charging $900 for the 4070Ti how much will the 4070 cost? And looking at those specs can it even match a 3080Ti? There's a real chance that AMD will launch the 7700XTX at around $499 with this 3080Ti/3090 performance lvl. RT at AMD side is said to be improved this gen as well so there's REALLY no way Nvidia will hold this pricing scheme for long. They r ripping early adopters

2012: 780 Ti: $699
2014: 980 Ti $649 (got cheaper)
2016: 1080Ti $699
2018: 2080S $699
2020: 3080 $699
2022: 4080 $1200🤡

The clown move is here.. 2080Ti $1000, 3080Ti $1200, 4080Ti $1400, 5080Ti $1600.. and so on unless people say f* you ngreedia. The 4090 is also overpriced at $1600. The 4070 at $549 means a 5070 at $549 or $599 at 4090 lvl.. UNLESS people pay whatever Nvidia asks them, that's the error. The power isn't at sellers hand but buyers. So here isnthe deal Ngreedia: RTX4070 at $549 or no deal. Whoever pays what Ngreedia wants will be feeding the troll, I'm not doing it. I like AMD better anyway, it's the competition that keeps pricing in check and I'm sure they will deliver with the 7700XTX

 

[PEnns]

So you've got no backup of your claim that "pundits" claimed the 4-series would be faster AND cheaper than the 3-series. Yeah that's what I thought.

If you spend any time on this website to READ and comprehend something, you'd see the answer!

And I guess you're too lazy to google or you already know but don't want to see you're wrong. Typical fanboyism.

 

[Amdlova]

Because the admins... need ti saysl Nvidia is good, have the right price, The 192 bits bus and twelve GB ram is enough to play half-life at 4k. I Will not play rage against nvidia.

 

[spongiemaster]

It's simple.. for 10 years the 80 series sold for less than $699, even Tis and supers, and performance always went north of 50% upgrade. Where's the 4080 at this price point? You may agree that inflation leads to price raise, sure, but if in 10 years they were able to hold the 80 series at $699, there isn't really any justification for it to get anywhere more than $799, no way. The 2080 launched at $799 "because of RT cores", people said f* u Ngreedia and they reverted it to $699 with the 2080 Super. Now they are launching it that $1200 because of what exactly? It's f* u Ngreedia again!

As I said every 70 series surpassed their 80Ti predecessor. The 770 did, 970, 1070, 2070(super), 3070. Always at sub $499. We are talking here 10 years. So the 4070 at $549 and 3080Ti/3090 lvl makes sense. If though they r charging $900 for the 4070Ti how much will the 4070 cost? And looking at those specs can it even match a 3080Ti? There's a real chance that AMD will launch the 7700XTX at around $499 with this 3080Ti/3090 performance lvl. RT at AMD side is said to be improved this gen as well so there's REALLY no way Nvidia will hold this pricing scheme for long. They r ripping early adopters

2012: 780 Ti: $699
2014: 980 Ti $649 (got cheaper)
2016: 1080Ti $699
2018: 2080S $699
2020: 3080 $699
2022: 4080 $1200🤡

The clown move is here.. 2080Ti $1000, 3080Ti $1200, 4080Ti $1400, 5080Ti $1600.. and so on unless people say f* you ngreedia. The 4090 is also overpriced at $1600. The 4070 at $549 means a 5070 at $549 or $599 at 4090 lvl.. UNLESS people pay whatever Nvidia asks them, that's the error. The power isn't at sellers hand but buyers. So here isnthe deal Ngreedia: RTX4070 at $549 or no deal. Whoever pays what Ngreedia wants will be feeding the troll, I'm not doing it. I like AMD better anyway, it's the competition that keeps pricing in check and I'm sure they will deliver with the 7700XTX

Comparing cards based solely on price and the name Nvidia gave it is an exercise in stupidity. Anyone with a brain isn't basing their purchase on the name of the card which is arbitrary and meaningless. Any purchase should be based on performance and features with price tied into that. No one is going to argue that a 4080 is a good value. It isn't, not even when compared to the only other 4000 series card currently available, the more expensive 4090. You also haven't adjusted prices for inflation. The 780Ti was a 3GB card that adjusted for inflation sold for over $900. The 4080 is a 16GB card currently selling for $1200. 10 years, more than 5 times the memory for 33% more money. Compare the performance between the two cards. Add ray tracing and DLSS, better encoders, etc and the value argument in favor of the earlier cards evaporates.

 

[10tacle]

If you spend any time on this website to READ and comprehend something, you'd see the answer! And I guess you're too lazy to google or you already know but don't want to see you're wrong. Typical fanboyism.

Just. One. And yes, I'm still waiting. Look at my stats. I've been here a little while. Just one comment quoted here (or any other credible tech website forum) where someone said that the 4-series would be cheaper than the 3-series. I'll keep waiting.... tap tap tap...

 

[10tacle]

The 780Ti was a 3GB card that adjusted for inflation sold for over $900. The 4080 is a 16GB card currently selling for $1200. 10 years, more than 5 times the memory for 33% more money. Compare the performance between the two cards. Add ray tracing and DLSS, better encoders, etc and the value argument in favor of the earlier cards evaporates.

Thank you. I'm at a loss where people think we need to be stuck at a $599 high end GPU like we had ten years ago that now could barely run today's games at 1440p and 60Hz/60FPS, let alone 1440p and 120+FPS/Hz or even 4K at 60Hz. We have exponentially more performance of today's GPUs compared to four generations ago. Let's take Witcher 3 for example at 4K right here on Tom's reviews - the $649 980 Ti cough-wheezed out 37 FPS ($815 in today's dollars), whereas the $1,300 4080 roasted 154 FPS ($1,033 in the 980 Ti's 2015 dollars). It's even worse in DX12 games, RT not even being a part of the argument.

You know what else is amazing? The AMD fans not mentioning their own GPU's price increases over the years, starting with the $1,099 RX 6950 XT when five years ago AMD's flagship $499 RX Vega 64 "Nvidia killer" underwhelmed the world. I mean seriously. We could play this whine game all day. I paid $5.99 for a Big Mac combo in 2012 and now it's $8.99. In 2012 a base 4-banger Toyota Camry SE was $22K. Now it's $28K (and a much better, bigger, and more powerful car mind you unlike the non-improved Big Mac combo). It's all about perspective - something that apparently has become lost among so many out there for whatever reason.

 

[helper800]

Thank you. I'm at a loss where people think we need to be stuck at a $599 high end GPU like we had ten years ago that now could barely run today's games at 1440p and 60Hz/60FPS, let alone 1440p and 120+FPS/Hz or even 4K at 60Hz. We have exponentially more performance of today's GPUs compared to four generations ago. Let's take Witcher 3 for example at 4K right here on Tom's reviews - the $649 980 Ti cough-wheezed out 37 FPS ($815 in today's dollars), whereas the $1,300 4080 roasted 154 FPS ($1,033 in the 980 Ti's 2015 dollars). It's even worse in DX12 games, RT not even being a part of the argument.

You know what else is amazing? The AMD fans not mentioning their own GPU's price increases over the years, starting with the $1,099 RX 6950 XT when five years ago AMD's flagship $499 RX Vega 64 "Nvidia killer" underwhelmed the world. I mean seriously. We could play this whine game all day. I paid $5.99 for a Big Mac combo in 2012 and now it's $8.99. In 2012 a base 4-banger Toyota Camry SE was $22K. Now it's $28K (and a much better, bigger, and more powerful car mind you unlike the non-improved Big Mac combo). It's all about perspective - something that apparently has become lost among so many out there for whatever reason.

The perspective that you say is lacking is wage stagnation and even decline of the past decades while costs exceed inflation. So even though you get more performance for your dollar the asking price is much steeper to attain it. This is out of reach for the people that used to be able to get the same tier of graphics card for much cheaper, even though newer cards are a better buy performance per dollar.

I can come up with an arbitrary decade old card comparison to make my argument like @spongiemaster did as well. The comparison of the 700 dollar 780 ti with 3GB of video memory to its own 10 year old predecessor the FX 5950 Ultra at 500 dollars. The FX 5950 Ultra had 256 megabytes of Vram and got 86 FPS in Quake 3 at 1600 x 1200 resolution, meanwhile the 780 ti can get 980 FPS on the same settings and resolution. The same comparison shows that the 780 ti had 12 times the memory and performance over its decade old peer albeit costing 40% more. Does that value proposition sound comparable going from a 980 ti 780 ti to a 4080?
Edited for clarity.

 

[spongiemaster]

I can come up with an arbitrary decade old card comparison to make my argument like @spongiemaster did as well. The comparison of the 700 dollar 780 ti with 3GB of video memory to its own 10 year old predecessor the FX 5950 Ultra at 500 dollars. The FX 5950 Ultra had 256 megabytes of Vram and got 86 FPS in Quake 3 at 1600 x 1200 resolution, meanwhile the 780 ti can get 980 FPS on the same settings and resolution. The same comparison shows that the 780 ti had 12 times the memory and performance of its decade old peer albeit costing 40% more. Does that sound comparable going from a 980 ti to a 4080?

Try following the thread. I didn't arbitrarily choose the 780Ti.

 

[helper800]

Try following the thread. I didn't arbitrarily choose the 780Ti.

I said that the "decade old card comparison" was arbitrary not that the card chosen was arbitrary in and of itself. You were arguing that the older cards value preposition for their time was less than that of the 4080 is now, no? I argued that if you put the 780 ti in the same kind of comparison to its decade older part, it was much more of a significant jump than between the 780 ti and the 4080, thus showing the older cards "value" during their time was much higher. You used to get significantly more FPS per dollar years ago compared to now. If I am misunderstanding something still, disregard these messages.

 

[10tacle]

The perspective that you say is lacking is wage stagnation and even decline of the past decades while costs exceed inflation.

Now you are getting into non-sequitur variables that are endless. What's next? Bringing up the cost increases of the consumer with the power or internet/cable provider bill to counter argue against the increase of GPU costs? In an argument you have to have a waterline from which to draw from. Myself and another poster already mentioned cost correction for inflation. Wage inequalities? That's a personal problem and entirely irrelevant here. Don't like your job or pay? Get another one or better skillset yourself to get a higher paying job. As a PS5 owner as well as a 20+ year console owner and PC gamer builder, better yet, if you don't like the cost of a GPU - modern entry level or otherwise, then just buy a console and call it a day. The ship that delivered us the $350 GTX 970 or Radeon 6970 sailed back home long ago.

 

[helper800]

Now you are getting into non-sequitur variables that are endless. What's next? Bringing up the cost increases of the consumer with the power or internet/cable provider bill to counter argue against the increase of GPU costs? In an argument you have to have a waterline from which to draw from. Myself and another poster already mentioned cost correction for inflation. Wage inequalities? That's a personal problem and entirely irrelevant here. Don't like your job or pay? Get another one or better skillset yourself to get a higher paying job. As a PS5 owner as well as a 20+ year console owner and PC gamer builder, better yet, if you don't like the cost of a GPU - modern entry level or otherwise, then just buy a console and call it a day. The ship that delivered us the $350 GTX 970 or Radeon 6970 sailed back home long ago.

Non-sequitur; a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

So the determining factors behind buying power has no logical following in regards to graphics cards and their increasing prices, and decreasing performance gains gen over gen? When I made an argument you evaded my point by calling it non-sequitur but then followed it up with your own slippery slope argument. The cost correction for inflation that you bring up shows that you get less performance for more money, proving my point that in the past you got more value for the money. There is no reason that consumers should take this lying down just because the cards have technically better performance and features. Top tier cards were 700 dollars and now they are 1200-1600 dollars, even with inflation there are huge jumps in price for same or similar performance tier parts. Nvidia and AMD have taken advantage of tertiary use cases and outside factors like scalping to increase the base price of cards to, in my opinion, unreasonable levels. If you look at the totality of what you are getting for the money, today is one of, if not the worst times to buy a graphics card new.

 

[KyaraM]

The perspective that you say is lacking is wage stagnation and even decline of the past decades while costs exceed inflation. So even though you get more performance for your dollar the asking price is much steeper to attain it. This is out of reach for the people that used to be able to get the same tier of graphics card for much cheaper, even though newer cards are a better buy performance per dollar.

So, inflation does not factor into R&D and material costs etc. at all in your world? Interesting. I'm sure you can sell the information of where to find that magical universe and how to get there to GPU manufacturers. You will never want for money again for the rest of your days, I'm sure.

The idea that GPU manufacturers have to consider your personal wage in their price calculations is ludicrous and, frankly, impossible to do. That's not how price calculations work. Besides, do you really think they give a hoot about who buys their cards? I got very bad news for you there. All they care about is that the cards do sell, and they do. If they go to a Jeff Bezos or a John Doe is none of their concern, never was and never will be. That goes equally for AMD, Intel, Invidia, or whatever other company from whatever business area you want to pick. Creating fair employment conditions is government business. If you want that, get a government that does that for you, or get a better job in the current system. But don't mash stuff together that has little to no relation with each other.

 

[helper800]

So, inflation does not factor into R&D and material costs etc. at all in your world? Interesting. I'm sure you can sell the information of where to find that magical universe and how to get there to GPU manufacturers. You will never want for money again for the rest of your days, I'm sure.

The idea that GPU manufacturers have to consider your personal wage in their price calculations is ludicrous and, frankly, impossible to do. That's not how price calculations work. Besides, do you really think they give a hoot about who buys their cards? I got very bad news for you there. All they care about is that the cards do sell, and they do. If they go to a Jeff Bezos or a John Doe is none of their concern, never was and never will be. That goes equally for AMD, Intel, Invidia, or whatever other company from whatever business area you want to pick. Creating fair employment conditions is government business. If you want that, get a government that does that for you, or get a better job in the current system. But don't mash stuff together that has little to no relation with each other.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that these companies have to account for anything, any assumptions or inferences you made reading my comments are your own. I never said that these companies did not have their own costs of any kind. I made the single point that the increasing prices and decreasing performance gains do not, in my opinion, justify purchasing these companies products. If you believe that the declining sales of graphics cards from Nvidia has nothing to do with their core customers inability to purchase their product, at least in part, because of the reasons I outlined to you, I cannot help you. I also stated that if you account for the inflation of cards from the past which all had R&D costs, labor costs, et cetera, you still end up with hundreds of dollars of increase to the price of similar tiered parts based on the performance and features of their time.

Also, as a side note, every single company does include price calculations of their product for their core customer base and their incomes or expected ability to pay for such products. If they did not account for this they would not have a viable product to sell. Companies have always used metrics to determine if their customers can pay for a product at a given price. They can try to sell 100,000,000 cards at 35% profit margin for 1200 dollars each (42B profit) or they can sell 5,000,000 of the same product with a 93.5% profit margin for 12,000 dollars each (56.1B profit). The calculations used to determine maximum profit at any given price point includes the probability of their customers being able to buy their product and how many of that product they can make and move as well.

 

[KyaraM]

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that these companies have to account for anything, any assumptions or inferences you made reading my comments are your own. I never said that these companies did not have their own costs of any kind. I made the single point that the increasing prices and decreasing performance gains do not, in my opinion, justify purchasing these companies products. If you believe that the declining sales of graphics cards from Nvidia has nothing to do with their core customers inability to purchase their product, at least in part, because of the reasons I outlined to you, I cannot help you. I also stated that if you account for the inflation of cards from the past which all had R&D costs, labor costs, et cetera, you still end up with hundreds of dollars of increase to the price of similar tiered parts based on the performance and features of their time.

Also, as a side note, every single company does include price calculations of their product for their core customer base and their incomes or expected ability to pay for such products. If they did not account for this they would not have a viable product to sell. Companies have always used metrics to determine if their customers can pay for a product at a given price. They can try to sell 100,000,000 cards at 35% profit margin for 1200 dollars each (42B profit) or they can sell 5,000,000 of the same product with a 93.5% profit margin for 12,000 dollars each (56.1B profit). The calculations used to determine maximum profit at any given price point includes the probability of their customers being able to buy their product and how many of that product they can make and move as well.

Last time I talked to people, what deterred them from getting a new GPU was the fact they were all sold for 150% or more of the MSRP, or not available as all, and this situation started shortly after the RTX 2000 series came out and the Crypto craze started. At least here where I live. It only got worse the past few years until the crash. Yeah, I kinda feel that's a bigger reason. Also, yeah, they calculate how likely it is for them to get rid of the stock they get. However, both supply and demand are kinda limited, and when there are 5 million GPUs and enough rich people willing to buy them at the price - which the past few years demonstrated there are - then why not sell it for that? The market situation lately literally told them they can. And scalpers essentially confirmed it by buying off all the GPUs at release. As long as they exist, you can kiss cheap GPUs goodbye, or have to wait. Btw, why would someone with low income even buy an expensive gaming PC? A console is far cheaper and more affordable, and even if you still need a PC for something, unless you do something more than browse the web or write some Word documents/Excel sheets (which most users do not), there is no need for anything expensive. Capable laptops are available for a couple hundred bucks, and even when including the console in the calculation it's cheaper than a highend system.

Also, those ludicrous prices wasn't just Envidia selling the cards for more to board partners and then to retailers, either. I have spent many an evening listening to my boyfriend venting his frustration about his employer, a major tech retailer over here, overpricing GPUs to hell and back when the price they got them at from manufacturers was exactly the same as before, yet retail prices skyrocketed. But I'm sure that's not a factor, either...

 

[helper800]

Last time I talked to people, what deterred them from getting a new GPU was the fact they were all sold for 150% or more of the MSRP, or not available as all, and this situation started shortly after the RTX 2000 series came out and the Crypto craze started. At least here where I live. It only got worse the past few years until the crash. Yeah, I kinda feel that's a bigger reason. Also, yeah, they calculate how likely it is for them to get rid of the stock they get. However, both supply and demand are kinda limited, and when there are 5 million GPUs and enough rich people willing to buy them at the price - which the past few years demonstrated there are - then why not sell it for that? The market situation lately literally told them they can. And scalpers essentially confirmed it by buying off all the GPUs at release. As long as they exist, you can kiss cheap GPUs goodbye, or have to wait. Btw, why would someone with low income even buy an expensive gaming PC? A console is far cheaper and more affordable, and even if you still need a PC for something, unless you do something more than browse the web or write some Word documents/Excel sheets (which most users do not), there is no need for anything expensive. Capable laptops are available for a couple hundred bucks, and even when including the console in the calculation it's cheaper than a highend system.

Also, those ludicrous prices wasn't just Envidia selling the cards for more to board partners and then to retailers, either. I have spent many an evening listening to my boyfriend venting his frustration about his employer, a major tech retailer over here, overpricing GPUs to hell and back when the price they got them at from manufacturers was exactly the same as before, yet retail prices skyrocketed. But I'm sure that's not a factor, either...

I agree with most of what you have said, and to be fair to both of us, listing all of the factors that lead to higher prices for any product is hard as there can be any number of reasons for any given product. The last two sentences in your reply in particular are some of the driving factors in the increased pricing of the new gen. Nvidia and AMD realized they can sell their product to retailers or direct to customers for much more than they had been because of supply limitations that created unusual demand.

Retailers took advantage of the situation with the 3000 series from Nvidia and 6000 series from AMD. Everyone involved wants to get the most money they can at every step between wafer and store shelves. With the 4000 series, supply has somewhat returned but profits that Nvidia and AMD lost out of from retailers and scalpers from the 3000 and 6000 releases is reflected in the new 4000 series pricing and most likely 7000 series from AMD.

What is waning right now is customers willingness to pay such prices for many reasons, a few of which have been described in prior posts. Most of the people willing to pay these higher prices have already gotten an 1800-3000 dollar 3000 / 6000 series card. There are lower income people that save for years to have a mid-range+ gaming PC and sometimes all it takes is a near doubling in MSRP to put off people builds for years. I tend not to argue what people should and should not do with their money, as someone who values freedom of choice even if that means making an objectively dumb purchasing decision, like buying a Bugatti or any other such ostentatious product.

 

[JamesJones44]

Let's just wait until 3rd party benchmarks come out in a few days before we make incorrect claims about price to performance of the AMD products.

There out and the benchmarks match the leaks.

 

[JamesJones44]

I dont think so.. to my eyes it's cheaper actually. I say this based that the 7900XTX is shaping to be 50% faster than a 6950XT and that the 6900XT launched at $1000 as well. Of the trend follows down fo the other cards then the 7700XTX would be a 50% 6750XT (3090 lvl) at $500.. that's exactly what the 4070 should have been at performance and price MINIMUM

That's a lame argument when the 3080 and the 2080 were the same price at their respective releases and yet the 3080 was 25% faster on average.

 

[helper800]

That's a lame argument when the 3080 and the 2080 were the same price at their respective releases and yet the 3080 was 25% faster on average.

Agreed, but I believe that the 3080 was like 25% faster than the 2080 ti which is much more impressive.