Has the delay of R520..

[overclocked]

Had any "bigger" effects on the industry that the consumer in all the different segments are going to feel, or do you think its not of that a big matter?
This is a question from a consumer POV rather then a "technical"..

 

[Geo]

Well, one hears it is impacting the big oem makers, in that even after R520 is out, most of those high-end boxes sold this fall are already committed to having 7800 in them due to lead-time constraints. So folks that buy rather than build this fall are impacted.

 

[trinibwoy]

Well the "delay" relative to the competition thus far is insignificant - the GTX has been available for under a month. Add to that the fact that there are sub $200 mid-range cards with full DX9 feature support and good performance and it's clear that the gamer market is in no need for a G70 or R520 at the moment.

The only tangible impact I can see so far is that the prices on the GTX may be inflated in this no-competition scenario but that should be very short lived. Prices are dropping extremely fast ($535 now) even with no r520 in sight.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I heard the delay of the R520 made baby Jesus cry.

 

[trinibwoy]

So folks that buy rather than build this fall are impacted.

What's the net impact though? Having a 7800 instead of a X900 in their machines (assuming that the X900 would have gained OEM acceptance if released in the same timeframe as G70)?

 

[Geo]

I heard the delay of the R520 made baby Jesus cry.

You shouldn't refer to yourself as a deity that way.

 

[Voltron]

Just a note to all the economic observers out there who think that more balanced competiton always leads to lower prices - you are wrong. Look at the past year when NVIDIA and ATI were on arguably more equal footing than ever at the high end of the market and prices were never higher.

 

[Geo]

I imagine that might depend on the unit you are using as your divisor. For instance, how would prices per ps look over the last few years? Tho we might have to define units, maybe even per ps mhz.

 

[nutball]

In which market segment? The ultra-high-end is not a price sensitive market, but that's not the fault of NV/ATI it's the fault of the muppets who pay the money.

When I can get a 6600GT for ~£100 and an X800XL for ~£200 I think competition is working just fine.

 

[Dave Glue]

In which market segment? The ultra-high-end is not a price sensitive market, but that's not the fault of NV/ATI it's the fault of the muppets who pay the money.

When I can get a 6600GT for ~£100 and an X800XL for ~£200 I think competition is working just fine.

Very true. I roll my eyes at the prices of the high end as well, but you have to take relative performance & features of modern games into account. It's not as simple as saying "A Voodoo2 was the best at the time, and it was only $300!" and comparing it to a 7800GTX.

The price for the high-end has gotten higher, but the bar has been raised as well. What did Voodoo2 SLI give you? ~45fps at 1024*768 in Unreal, closer to 30fps in Quake3. What does a single GTX give you? 1600*1200*4X AA ~60+fps in titles that look photorealistic by comparison.

Yes, the prices have gone up - but so has the performance, while running games that are using far more effects. Don't want to pay it? Then don't - a 6600GT/X800 will play games today at performance levels we could only dream of a few years ago. This is exactly where the high-end should be, a niche category that satisfies the demands of the most die-hard enthusiast, while the huddled masses "suffer" with just 1280*1024 with a little AA (of course, then there's F.E.A.R and EQ2, which seems to have a 7800GTX SLI setup as a baseline...).

Don't forget that ATI's supply problems have put a serious crimper on any price wars as well; the X800XL was an amazing bargain when it "debuted" based on its MSRP - the problem was that it was in so short supply most stores were selling it for $100 more than the suggested retail, and it only got to that price point 6 months later (at least here).

 

[Voltron]

I didn't say competition wasn't working, rather, that's it a fallacy to assume that prices will decline just because products are on more equal footing. In the case of last year's high end battle, there wasn't an impetus for either company to lower prices. And, in fact, it helped establish a higher price point at the high end, since both companies wanted the perception of having the most exclusive product on the shelves. Not that there's anything wrong with this - in comparison with cpu prices, gpus are a steal.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Just a note to all the economic observers out there who think that more balanced competiton always leads to lower prices - you are wrong. Look at the past year when NVIDIA and ATI were on arguably more equal footing than ever at the high end of the market and prices were never higher.

Just think what the progress and prices would have been like if only one of the incumbents were around.

Cards are expensive, but the investment and technology that goes into making these terrifically complex cards is immense.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I disagree with everyone who says parity at the top and more/better competition doesn't lower prices.

I can pick up a 9800 pro for under $100us that would be perfectly good at playing almost any game out there with lots of eye-candy....THAT is where we're seeing the true values at, last generation gets cheap quick.

 

[Voltron]

Well, what I am saying that prices might not be all that much different in the hypothetical instance of one strong industy player, since the industry is in a tight oliogopoly anyway. In such circumstances, prices may not differ from monopoly conditions. In any case, at this point mass markets are not willing to pay all that much for gpus in relation to cpus, so it hardly matters.

 

[Geo]

I'd invite your attention to what a 6600GT --this year's NV midrange-- does to a 5950Ultra --last years NV top-end. And it ain't even close.

So sorta what Digi said, only with NV it is even more apparent, IMHO.