NV30 delayed - Official

[noko]

Supposenly 400 million bukaroos for the NV30 project. Thats a pretty hefty load of change for any company. Gesh, Nvidia most really be scared what ATI was going to throw at them. Well with a little hindsight, so far where we stand that is, looks like they where justified. Yet the NV30 project is still in progress!!

 

[jvd]

are you sure they didn't scrap it because it cost to much to make and didn't offer enough of an aprovement over what was already out or would have been out in the near future. Sure it be crazy to spend 650 on a 9700 clocked 20 mhz faster but how about if it was clocked at 200mhz faster ? how about a dual r9700 clock at say 400mhz a chip with 800mhz ram or more. The problem I see with ati releasing one of them is that even the r400 would not be faster than it. Sure the r400 will be dx 10 or whatever but i doubt the performance increase would be there. So basicly I would go and buy the r9700 max for 650 instead of a 400 dollar r9700 normal. But next year when they release the r400 and its slower or the same spead of my max and they want 400 for it i would not buy it. I would wait for another max or untill the dx10 features are there. That is why the card is not out

edit: thats why i believe the maxx and the sli tech is being saved in case a rival blows another one out of the water and they are forced into it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Recall 3dfx and the V5 6000 debacle. 3dfx ultimately canned that project because they reasoned that the market was insufficient for a $600+ vid card, regardless of its performance...

Recall the Voodoo2 SLI success. $600 rig...relatively popular.

Why? Because it absolutely blew everything else away.

BTW, I don't V5 6000 was canned for that reason....they simply couldn't get the bridge chip to work with enough compatibility.

Saying that there is a market for a $650 video card ignores the obvious. Nvidia/ATI, etc. could always create a multichip design and scale performance up through the ceiling.

Yes, but at what cost?

Just because I believe there is a market for such cards, doesn't mean I think ATI or nVidia could deliver it with a profit using mutli-chip parts. That's two different questions. One of the "problems" with mutli-chip designs is that it throws a very big "wrinkle" in the driver development. It costs a lot more to support a multichip board than just the make-up of components....

 

[Bigus Dickus]

$400 is already an insane rip off...

Really? Intel charges that much for ~55 million transistors on a 478 pin flip chip package.

From ATi you get ~110 million transistors on a ~1000 pin flip chip package, 128 MB of very fast DDR memory, video encoding hardware, a PCB, perhaps some bundled software, etc.

I think that's hardly a rip-off. Yes, perhaps designing the logic for a 2+ GHz chip is more costly, but I think you get my point.

 

[Xmas]

The amount of effort you put into something or the price of its parts hardly affects what it's worth for the customer.

 

[Geeforcer]

Recall the Voodoo2 SLI success. $600 rig...relatively popular.

Why? Because it absolutely blew everything else away.

V2 is a somewhat different case: you could get one and then another one. Two purchases of $300 are much easier to swallow/justify then a $600 one. In addition, the risks to 3dfx were much smaller: They would still make money off people who bought one card but bulked at the cost on a SLI setup. With one $600 card, its all or nothing. I don't think we would be talking about the success of V2 if 3dfx was selling them exclusively as $600 SLI packages. Finally, what fraction of the market had an SLI rig (in other words, how successful was it really)?

I think V2 SLI is a poor indicator of market viability of a $600 card because, well, it was NOT as single, $600 card.

 

[OpenGL guy]

The amount of effort you put into something or the price of its parts hardly affects what it's worth for the customer.

That goes without saying, but you can't expect companies to take a loss either. People who can afford expensive toys will buy expensive toys and you can bet that the products are priced according to the market they are trying to reach.

 

[Ichneumon]

A 9700 MAXX would be a complete and utter waste anyway... as the 9700 Pro is already almost always CPU bound.

They'll have faster chips out by the time faster CPUs are out, so a MAXX card right now really wouldn't be any use to a gamer...

 

[LittlePenny]

There are those of us, who are still students. I wouldn't mind having a nifty DX9 card to program on. But, I would have to skip alot of lunches to save enough for that. And may I remind you, the time it takes for highend to go lowend/affordable is a wasted semester of learning.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

The amount of effort you put into something or the price of its parts hardly affects what it's worth for the customer.

I don't think such a general statement is accurate. While it is true that sometimes the amount of effort or price of components going into a piece of hardware doesn't affect it's perceived value to the customer, that is by no means always the case.

For a simple example, think of a high-end audio amplifier. If someone takes the time and effort to hand match resistors, capacitors, etc., then that is value added effort, and as such it increases what the hardware is worth to the customer. Also, you can use more expensive metal film resistors etc. that will increase what the hardware is worth to the customer.

On the other hand, you could conceivably spend a great deal of time and effort hand picking resistors and such that were horribly matched, and you could I suppose use really expensive components that were perfectly unsuited for the application. In that case, then the effort and component price would not affect the value to the customer.

Perhaps your point was simply that the final performance (be it speed, image quality, or sound quality) is not there, it doesn't matter how much unobtainium was put in there, or how many years it took to design that crap. That is certainly a valid point, but not all things are so complex that that can even occur. In some things, more expensive components inevitably result in a more valuable finished product.

Maybe Gfx cards are on the other end of the spectrum though. ? In any case, I certainly feel when I a few hundred on a new video card that I'm actually getting more per dollar than when I buy a new CPU for $100. Just my opinion though.

 

[Geeforcer]

I think that for the most consumers Parhelia is the prime example of what Xmas is talking about

 

[Bigus Dickus]

I think that for the most consumers Parhelia is the prime example of what Xmas is talking about

Good example!

 

[KimB]

There are those of us, who are still students. I wouldn't mind having a nifty DX9 card to program on. But, I would have to skip alot of lunches to save enough for that. And may I remind you, the time it takes for highend to go lowend/affordable is a wasted semester of learning.

Speaking of which, I'm going to be working on a Senior Thesis over the next couple of quarters, and I may be able to convince the professor I'm working for to get an NV30 (NV30GL would be even better...at may be possible!) for a visualization machine

 

[Nagorak]

$400 is already an insane rip off

Pretty strong words. Do you know how much it costs to make a high-end video chip? Do you know how much high-end memory costs? Do you know how much R&D it takes to make a high-end chip? Do you know how much it costs to support a driver team?

$400 also includes a hefty retail mark-up, so it's not like ATi is making $400 per card. Otherwise you wouldn't find the R9700 available online for $320. The costs frankly are not my problem. Obviously a few people buy these cards but to me they seem to be nothing but a waste of money. The performance just does not justify the cost, especially because depending on the game you're going to end up being CPU limited. Going beyond $400 is just ridiculous...there's not going to be enough demand and a company selling a $650 card because they HAVE to is going to end up taking a loss on it whether they like it or not.

Also the cost of the driver team is totally irrelevant to the R9700's cost. You'd still need a driver team for the value and mainstream cards and since they all share a similar architecture it's not like supporting another card is a lot more work. I'm sure there is some optimizing, but it's not as if ATI could just fire the whole driver team if they dropped the R9700 from their line-up.

When the NV30 is released, we'll see how much the $400 MSRP of the R9700 drops. I could be wrong, but I suspect we'll find that the current cost is price gouging at its worst (just like GF2 Ultra, GF3, etc). This isn't an attack on ATi either, but by no means do I consider them to be angels just because they were #2 for the past couple years.

The amount of effort you put into something or the price of its parts hardly affects what it's worth for the customer.

Exactly.

$400 is already an insane rip off...

Really? Intel charges that much for ~55 million transistors on a 478 pin flip chip package.

From ATi you get ~110 million transistors on a ~1000 pin flip chip package, 128 MB of very fast DDR memory, video encoding hardware, a PCB, perhaps some bundled software, etc.

I think that's hardly a rip-off. Yes, perhaps designing the logic for a 2+ GHz chip is more costly, but I think you get my point.

I don't buy Intel chips for a reason.

 

[antlers]

I can imagine a couple of circumstance in which the arrival of the NV30 does not force down the price of the 9700 pro at all.

 

[noko]

Me too, if the NV30 performs significantly below the Radeon 9700 that could keep the price up, add some fancy DDRII ram at the same time and the price could actually be sustained at a higher exchange rate.

 

[OpenGL guy]

Obviously a few people buy these cards but to me they seem to be nothing but a waste of money.

That's your opinion.

The performance just does not justify the cost, especially because depending on the game you're going to end up being CPU limited.

If you're CPU limited, increase resolution and add AA and AF until you are satisfied with the results. How many cards can run games at 1600x1200 with AA and AF at acceptable speeds?

Also the cost of the driver team is totally irrelevant to the R9700's cost. You'd still need a driver team for the value and mainstream cards and since they all share a similar architecture it's not like supporting another card is a lot more work.

It's not irrelevant at all: You can bet that the cost of the driver team is figured into the price of every chip/board sold, no matter what market segment. How else could the company plan to make money? If you don't take into account each expense, then you'll have a much tougher time making money.

When the NV30 is released, we'll see how much the $400 MSRP of the R9700 drops. I could be wrong, but I suspect we'll find that the current cost is price gouging at its worst (just like GF2 Ultra, GF3, etc).

What evidence do you have to support your position? You never answered any of my earlier questions about R&D costs. Plus, how much does it cost to manufacture a 110 million transitor chip on a 0.15 micron process?

If you don't want the best there is, that's your problem, but to go on about "rip off" and "price gouging" without any facts to support your position is ridiculous.

Please come back when you get some facts.

 

[Reverend]

Are the prices of most Ferraris, Mercedes and BMWs "ripoffs"? Not, not to those that can afford them. To those that can afford these cars, I doubt they care how much money went into the R&D, design, etc etc of such cars - they only care that they can get these cars.

 

[noko]

Most people buy something because the product is worth more to them then the money in their pocket. Manufacturers sell things because usually the cost to produce is cheaper then the selling price (profitible). In that kind of relationship both parties win. The seller makes a profit and the buyer gets what he wants.

It is kinda hard for price gouging when there is decent competition. Still if it is too much then don't buy it. No one is forcing anyone to buy an ATI Radeon 9700pro card.

The Radeon 9700pro is one of the most advance piece of silicon ever designed/tested/manufactured and delivered. Now for a price of less then $400 that is frankly amazing in my books. The graphical processing power of one VPU is more then the processing power of hundreds if not thousands of previous designed graphic chips of 10 years ago.

 

[SirPauly]

The performance just does not justify the cost, especially because depending on the game you're going to end up being CPU limited.

Your view is your subjective view and nothing more and doesn't translate into every single consumer that exists on this planet.

I can offer many points that the 9700 product can justify the cost because if a consumer craves to have AA and anisotrophy combined with a higher resolution the 9700 really shows its 3d muscles compared to past/existing products and not to mention the future proof aspects of the product.

What other product at any price point that exists right now that can offer what the 9700 does when it comes to AA and anisotrophy?

None.

Some can make the points of using the word VALUE for its high-end price tag.....the 9700 may be the first product to offer this compared to past high-end 3d products. In other words, a product that almost meets the hype of the company itself. That says a lot to some and especially me -- but my view is only my subjective view.