News Why Nvidia's RTX 4080, 4090 Cost so Much

[drivinfast247]

No one is forcing people to upgrade, but when your card gets so old that it struggles in most games, it means it's time to upgrade, but when card costs twice & 3 times more than it used to be in the past, you're basically stuck with your current card, because Jensen Huang or whatever his is name decided to become richer and doesn't give a rat's ass about middle or low class people. You understand it now?

But the new ~$500 cards are giving you the performance of past gen $1000+ flagship cards. Don't go for flagship models. You understand it now?

 

[DRagor]

But the new ~$500 cards are giving you the performance of past gen $1000+ flagship cards. Don't go for flagship models. You understand it now?

All nice, except for lots of people 500$ is way too expensive (there is a reason most popular cards according to Steam are things like 1060). How can you logically explain spending 500$ on GPU alone when you can have whole console with Game Pass for the same money?

 

[-Fran-]

But the new ~$500 cards are giving you the performance of past gen $1000+ flagship cards. Don't go for flagship models. You understand it now?

And WHAT $500 new card are you talking about here? LOL

I think that is exactly the whole point of calling out nVidia on this one. The starting point of the 4K series is $900. That's a lot of money for an entry point for something that, in all fairness, shouldn't be an object of luxury? Then again (to DRagor's point), we're entering luxury territory here. Gaming is not a right, but a privilege, I guess. And nVidia is making sure we're all very well aware of that fact. PC gaming at least, with the latest and greatest hardware.

I'm starting to think we have to start considering gaming a privilege in a more serious manner and we avoid all these annoyances with price. I think no one bats an eye when a new Lambo or Bugatti is announced, because it is understood it's not "for the masses".

Regards.

 

[drivinfast247]

And WHAT $500 new card are you talking about here? LOL

I think that is exactly the whole point of calling out nVidia on this one. The starting point of the 4K series is $900. That's a lot of money for an entry point for something that, in all fairness, shouldn't be an object of luxury? Then again (to DRagor's point), we're entering luxury territory here. Gaming is not a right, but a privilege, I guess. And nVidia is making sure we're all very well aware of that fact. PC gaming at least, with the latest and greatest hardware.

I'm starting to think we have to start considering gaming a privilege in a more serious manner and we avoid all these annoyances with price. I think no one bats an eye when a new Lambo or Bugatti is announced, because it is understood it's not "for the masses".

Regards.

Have they announced the 4070 and 4060 cards pricing yet?

 

[drivinfast247]

All nice, except for lots of people 500$ is way too expensive (there is a reason most popular cards according to Steam are things like 1060). How can you logically explain spending 500$ on GPU alone when you can have whole console with Game Pass for the same money?

Because one is a console and the other a PC. I'm not sure what you are asking?

 

[-Fran-]

Have they announced the 4070 and 4060 cards pricing yet?

Not that I have seen or remember, no. Happy to be wrong though.

Regards.

 

[DRagor]

Because one is a console and the other a PC. I'm not sure what you are asking?

Well, both are used for gaming. So what would be a reason to play on PC if playing on console is a lot cheaper?

 

[Lostnknox]

While silicon manufacturing costs are increasing rapidly, the costs are being greatly exaggerated. Even with the massive price increase of TSMC's 5nm node, that shouldn't add up to more than $100 extra for AD102 vs GA102. The much smaller AD103 shouldn't add more than about $45 in cost compared to GA102 (4080 vs 3080.) AMD's chiplet approach won't save them more than $60 compared to nVidia at the outside comparing their flagship cards - I expect other design considerations (lower TDP reducing power delivery and cooling costs, and cheaper VRAM) will bring more cost savings.

Nivida's cost will be higher because the yield will be lower do to the complexity of chip and AMD will have a higher yield because they won't be trying to produce such a complex chip in one process plus they are using a cheaper process to make the chiplets. All these things point to a substantial difference in total manufacturing cost for the two companies.

 

[Lostnknox]

I have to say... Long, long time!
AMD has had better price / performance ratio many times and still people buy Nvidia, so Nvidia don´t have to worry people going to buy AMD... They still buy Nvidia no matter what. Same this as Apple vs Android phones. The price means nothing to some people. And it seems that that group is the big majority! About 80% of the customers.

Its because Nivida has good marketing. Have you ever watched a digital foundry video about ray tracing? They make it seem as though it's the most amazing technology known to man but love to gloss over the fact that games like Cyberpunk look good without it. I think it actually looks better with a higher resolution than a lower one with ray tracing on.

 

[Lostnknox]

Because 3000 series cards are still expensive, if they try to price the 4000 series card any less they will cannibalize the sales of 3000 series cards.

But AMDs looks as though they are setting up the 7000 to severely under cut Nvidia's prices and there's no doubt they will be better than Nivida's 3000 series cards. The only reason I could think of that would make this possible is if the manufacturing cost is so high that they can't lower the prices without losing a lot of money. When you see what Evga said about why they are quitting the graphics card business it really confirms that the cost were to high to produce the cards and they were losing money as a result.

 

[King_V]

not brand loyalty for me. It's the terrible review at gpubench which made me choose nvidia. Fighter 6600XT and Asus RTX 3050 are both priced at around 18,500 pesos (approx 320 usd) brand new with warranty, in the local store I went to a few months ago. Purchased the RTX 3050 without a second thought, even though I knew the 6600XT is the stronger gpu.

That's the part I find exceptionally confusing.

 

[DSzymborski]

Gaming is not a right, but a privilege, I guess. And nVidia is making sure we're all very well aware of that fact. PC gaming at least, with the latest and greatest hardware.

I'm starting to think we have to start considering gaming a privilege in a more serious manner and we avoid all these annoyances with price. I think no one bats an eye when a new Lambo or Bugatti is announced, because it is understood it's not "for the masses".

Regards.

High-end computer parts have always been a luxury item while being a terrible bang for the buck. The GTX 280 was at $649 in 2008, nearly $900 in 2022 dollars. Midrange Pentiums in the 90s cost as much and sometimes more than the high-end Alder Lake and Zen 4 CPUs today.

If Nvidia's entry-level GPU really ends up at $900 at retail, AMD will eat their lunch on the low end. In any case, while Nvidia deserves a lot of derision for myriad things they've done, it's hardly fair to blame them for a price point that you made up.

In the most recent Steam survey, nearly 80% of people play at 1080p or lower resolution, with about two-thirds of all users at exactly 1080p. A GPU that can give you a good experience at 1080p is not out of reach for the masses, except for the brief period of the worst of the supply crunch, but that was a world resource problem rather than a GPU-specific thing.

For any product in which there's differentiable quality and a population of people who can and and are willing to pay for a luxury product, the high-end of the product segment will expand to serve those people.

 

[-Fran-]

High-end computer parts have always been a luxury item while being a terrible bang for the buck. The GTX 280 was at $649 in 2008, nearly $900 in 2022 dollars. Midrange Pentiums in the 90s cost as much and sometimes more than the high-end Alder Lake and Zen 4 CPUs today.

If Nvidia's entry-level GPU really ends up at $900 at retail, AMD will eat their lunch on the low end. In any case, while Nvidia deserves a lot of derision for myriad things they've done, it's hardly fair to blame them for a price point that you made up.

In the most recent Steam survey, nearly 80% of people play at 1080p or lower resolution, with about two-thirds of all users at exactly 1080p. A GPU that can give you a good experience at 1080p is not out of reach for the masses, except for the brief period of the worst of the supply crunch, but that was a world resource problem rather than a GPU-specific thing.

For any product in which there's differentiable quality and a population of people who can and and are willing to pay for a luxury product, the high-end of the product segment will expand to serve those people.

Yes, I don't disagree. Back then you could SLI the 280's and go ballistic on cost if you wanted then. Point is, the "mainstream entry point" has moved upwards and, as you say, I'm just noting this generation may be the drop that breaks the camel's back.

nVidia already moved the goalpost with the 680 generation by making the XX-104 series chip from mid to high and now they've moved it yet again to highest. That's what triggers me and people is just eating it as it's "normal" without batting an eye.

I just wonder when people will wake up and stop taking this business abuse. Maybe, as many have suggested, people won't wake up and just take it, again.

Regards.

 

[Phaaze88]

I bought a 1080Ti at launch day for about 710USD. With inflation as it is today, that's just under 860USD.
Just before gpu prices went to hell, that would've afforded me an RTX 3080 or RX 6800XT. Right now though, I could snag a RTX 3080Ti or RX 6900XT.

What does that amount to? That kind of money doesn't get me a halo gpu anymore, which is a matter of personal feelings... can't think of any other argument for it.

Well, both are used for gaming. So what would be a reason to play on PC if playing on console is a lot cheaper?

I've always found getting a PC just for gaming to be a luxury investment, if not a bit... well, dumb(comparing cost to console) when it is so much more than that.
One is paying for a level of versatility that can not be had from a console. That's where some of that extra cost is going. Maybe one should stay with consoles if those extra features aren't desired? IDK.
Console exclusives? Ehh, not enough to draw me towards one or another. They'll only keep me occupied for so long, then I'll back on cross platform titles or something.

Gamepass? Cloud gaming? Cool concepts. I just hope they remain as optional, instead of being forced down our throats, as I'm not a fan of the expansion of subscription models.
I like titles from multiple publishers, but some of them don't want to share, trying to lock you to just their platform.
Screw you, EA Play. I love me some Need For Speed(Most Wanted) and not much else... and while I can cancel anytime, due to playing on and off, I would still end up paying more than a one time purchase of those old games given enough time.
Then they wonder(?) how the 'yo-ho-hos' just won't die...

That's the part I find exceptionally confusing.

Tac 25 fell for UBM's 🐮💩. They said as much with the 'terrible review on gpubench', which some people don't realize that it and cpubench are just userbenchmark.

 

[DRagor]

One is paying for a level of versatility that can not be had from a console. That's where some of that extra cost is going. Maybe one should stay with consoles if those extra features aren't desired? IDK.

True, but for like 99% tasks you use your PC that are not gaming you don't need GPU at all. That's why I only compare GPU cost to console, as buying GPU is sort of declaration that you will use PC for gaming (also).

Gamepass? Cloud gaming? Cool concepts. I just hope they remain as optional, instead of being forced down our throats, as I'm not a fan of the expansion of subscription models.

Neither do I, but can't deny budget wise Game pass is definitely best bang for buck. Sure you can't decide what you can play this way but I treat it as a price to pay to able to play for "cheap".

 

[Lostnknox]

That's the part I find exceptionally confusing.

Not sure why anyone would want a 3050 over a 6600 xt. 🤷‍♂️

 

[King_V]

All of this is just wrong. How can you miss 8% inflation every month for the past year don't you know that 8 * 12 is 96? Everything cost more and that's it. Price of gas doubled, the price of food doubled, the price of your girlfriend even doubled yet somehow you expect graphics cards to stay the same price?

Your premise is wrong.

 

[DSzymborski]

All of this is just wrong. How can you miss 8% inflation every month for the past year don't you know that 8 * 12 is 96? Everything cost more and that's it. Price of gas doubled, the price of food doubled, the price of your girlfriend even doubled yet somehow you expect graphics cards to stay the same price?

Hang on a sec. Inflation is quite high by US standards, but those are year-over-year numbers, not monthly ones. When you see 8% inflation over, say, August 2022, that's relative to August 2021, not July 2022.

 

[nimbulan]

I don't think anything costs less when making a graphics card today than it did compared to two years ago at the Ampere launch. Have GDDR6 prices gone down? Substrate, PMIC, resistor, capacitor, PCB, VRM, shipping, etc. prices have all gone up. Best case, if everything else stays the same and Nvidia goes from paying $100 per GPU chip to $200 per chip, I'd expect that to result in a final product that costs $200 extra compared to the previous generation. Add in everything else and it's not really surprising to see Nvidia trying to get $900+ for the 4080 series. Sure, prices could be lower, but unless Nvidia has so many Ada GPUs that it doesn't sell out at launch, there's no reason for it to actually be lower just yet.

Now when RDNA 3 comes out, we'll see if Nvidia reacts with price cuts and maybe an RTX 4070.

I strongly doubt those prices. I suspect it's more like $8K per 4N wafer at a minimum (which was customized for Nvidia's needs and that increases pricing), and a maximum that might be twice that. 24GB of GDDR6X is probably $6 per 2GB chip, minimum, which would mean at least $72 for memory, could be more. Card and cooler and fans, probably $75–$150, depending on the model. Now add in all the PMICs, VRMs, capacitors, resistors, and any other surface mounted devices and I think a rough estimate of $50–$100 for all of those isn't out of the question.

So based on my estimates, it would be more like $300 as an absolute minimum (reality is probably somewhat close to $300 for a card like the RTX 4080 12GB), but a maximum would be more like double that, maybe more. Yeah, that's still $600 in base costs selling for $1600, but as Spongie points out, R&D and a lot of other things come into play, and this is the halo card for now. It was never going to be affordable.

Yeah there are other added costs as well. Going by the 14-15% inflation in the past two years, that's $100 on top of the price of the 3080, plus ~$50 extra for the GPU die (since this one's much smaller) and miscellaneous other costs (larger cooler for one) so let's call it $900, except they want $1200 for the 4080. Now I haven't run the math on the 4070 they're also calling a 4080, but the comparison isn't going to be any more favorable there. The only reason they called that card a 4080 is to try to fool everyone into thinking that they haven't jacked prices up, but then again I'm not expecting AMD's prices to be much better.

On another note, TSMC 5nm wafers cost $17k before they announced several price hikes, so it wouldn't surprise me if they're up to $20k now. The custom 4N process for nVidia won't be any cheaper than that.

 

[-Fran-]

This is a very well timed video from Jim:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5DsL2y8aBk


He's been talking about nVidia for a long time, so listen to this person and try to be open minded with what he says.

Regards.

 

[Tac 25]

Not sure why anyone would want a 3050 over a 6600 xt. 🤷‍♂️

this should answer your question.



https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-3050-vs-AMD-RX-6600-XT/4127vs4117

 

[King_V]

It's hilarious that, even on userbenchmark, the 3050 outdoes the 6600XT only in the categories of:

• User Rating
  • Scores over 85% require users from at least 100 different countries to have recently voted up a product.
• Market Share
• Age

The average bench, however, is still forced to show numbers in AMD's favor, 93.7% vs 72.9%, no matter how badly userbenchmark wishes otherwise.

That said, userbenchmark desperately tries to make up for it by insisting on their "editoral" conclusion that nobody wants AMD cards, their marketing tactics are Neanderthal, etc etc. But, damn, I mean, they're not even trying to hide the "OMG I HATE AMD SO MUCH" attitude.

 

[tamalero]

You could say that to every Lamborghini owner. Just buy the card you can afford, or 2nd hand. I'll be selling 3090 for half the price or lower when the time comes.

That means <Mod Edit>. The other dude was still flexing lol.

It's like Elon Musk claiming the price of a Yacht is "cheap" because he can afford to buy it in a second.