I'd say the opposite is more likely tbh, with AMD missing from the fight this time and Nvidia likely looking into providing minor perf/price gains in favor of bigger margins.
Eh, a GB203 based 5080 at $1200 with a ~4090 performance would be a "price cut".
Sure but I just don't see why Nvidia would push for lower margins in current market. And moving 5080 to the biggest die is just that.
980 launched at $550 while being slightly faster than 780Ti which was $700 so it kinda would be?
So? The top card of the lineup wasn't 780. You could even argue that it was Titan Z with its $3000 MSRP but for the sake of argument lets assume that Titans weren't GeForces.
If its faster or even similar to 4090? Yeah, it's a "price cut".
The cut down 970 matched the 780Ti for just $330. The 980 was considered hugely overpriced, especially since it wasn't a high end part like the 780 was. Anybody paying attention to what the 980 actually was at the Maxwell launch knew that it wasn't a true replacement for the 780, and that we'd get a much higher performing high end part soon.
The analogy is them not launching the highest chip of the lineup until the next year. If you don't like Maxwell for whatever reason then see Pascal - same thing.
Could you please point me to where any vendor describe this decision of theirs?
Performance (as in fps shown in benchmarks by products) and pricing (these are what we call entry level, mid range, high end, etc) tiers exist. Nothing else exists and should be used in any gen on gen comparison, ever.
Educating customers is what reviewers should be doing instead of pouring water on something which "exist" only in the imagination of said customers to get clicks and views.
The vendors don't talk about the decisions (and there's no rational expectation of them to do so) yet the labeling and related tiering inarguably exists.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Don't mistake your opinion for universal truth, regardless of whether I or anyone else agrees with you.
If you would like people to lean towards your opinion, start by approaching it in a more fair and balanced way. Also: Good luck telling people not to chase clicks and views, that form of brain rot seemingly pervades every facet of online life at this point... Hint: you're not going to win a fight against those things, at least not until society as a whole figures it out.
Off the top of my head there were re-badges like 470->570 which were essentially nothing more than a price cut. I'm sure there are other examples of that, with many reviewers considering such launches as "price cuts". A fresh example would be a 4080->4080S. Why is it any different when such launch comes from "another generation"?
Something 99.99% of people would agree with for incredibly obvious reasons. If we didn't expect this, then there'd be very little to be excited by with a new generation of processor technology. I mean, it's literally what has built the entire processor industry for many decades, it's what allowed the personal computer to become a thing in the first place, and the primary reason Moore's Law was held up as so insanely important to everybody. If we cant deliver improved performance for better prices as an inherent part of a new generation, then we're not really moving forward.
470->570 was when AMD were doing yearly releases. The 500 series was entirely just a rebrand series, just cuz it was their practice to have a new series every year kinda like how Intel does things. They of course could have easily kept the same 400 series naming for an extra year, just with a discount and it would have been the same thing. Nobody would have a problem with that, especially cuz the 400 series was already pretty great value to begin with. But it absolutely was a pain point for AMD cuz they didn't have any replacement for the 500 series parts til 2019, three years after Polaris 10's launch in 2016, and AMD were absolutely criticized for this, though they were propped up heavily by the cryptomining boom in 2017/2018, letting them ignore most of that criticism.
What if Blackwell comes with essentially the same perf/price gains as those of 40 Super? How would that be any different just because it's "a new generation"?
I judge based on generation versus generation largely. Which in today's landscape(and for Nvidia for quite a while now) means a two year cycle. Launch vs launch. Interim/price cut parts are nice to have, but do not determine the basis of comparison for me. And I'm even more strongly against judging against later discounted parts that are priced to move, as I dont think that makes for a fair comparison for new parts which of course will have a hard time demonstrating bigger value improvements against such heavily discounted parts. Not a fan when people do that. I do try and be reasonable. I have no agenda to make anybody look bad or anything.
Maybe there's quite a lot of rejected GB203 dies that can be cut down to 320-bit bus w/ 112-116SMs? That'd be good as a 5080 IMV. 84 SM full die GB203 will be quite small (probably close-ish to 300mm2 than 400mm2) and with a good enough cooler & board that's not too costly and ran at 250W would be really good as a 5070 Ti 16GB targetting 1440p.