Intel had a pretty decent product for their first launch with good gains in market share. Hopefully their next gen will keep the market in check with a good price/performance target for high end GPUs.Yay, can't wait for $4000+ top of the line gaming GPUs and $800+ low end!
If AMD can't bring reasonable price/performance in the coming wave of BS... then PC gaming might truly be done for.
Nvidia shows signs in [2023]
- Thread starter pharma
- Start date
- Status
Even if something like this will eventually happen it will happen due to production realities and not because of demand on AI market products.Yay, can't wait for $4000+ top of the line gaming GPUs and $800+ low end!
Also 800+ won't be "low end" for another couple of centuries.
It took 25 years for high-end prices to become low-end prices.
Low end isn't a relative term, you can't just call a $800 product "low end" because there's nothing cheaper.
I don't. 25 years ago $200 was high-end.
arandomguy
Regular
Yay, can't wait for $4000+ top of the line gaming GPUs and $800+ low end!
If AMD can't bring reasonable price/performance in the coming wave of BS... then PC gaming might truly be done for.
The Steam Deck is $400. The low end is really just going to be IGPs going forward. IGPs are capable of playing every game in Steam's top 100, this wasn't something you could always say.
Hardware enthusiasts have always had this disconnect with the actual broader PC gaming audience in terms of what PC gaming actually is and what's required for it hardware wise.
What's happening is that there's basically a growing and split and loss of the "multiplatform middle" essentially. The reality is that competing against the consoles for that customer base is more more being viewed as not a lucrative business for the PC hardware side. The PC market is just shifting more so to target low end gamers, PC platform specific gamers, and console+ gamers.
'Production realities' is not why the prices are what they are currently. You know this, we know this. I dont know why you keep trying to dishonestly argue otherwise. Nvidia is simply seeing what they think they can get away with.
But it's arguably the lower-mid end of the GPU market that is getting hammered the hardest lately. It's the most price sensitive part of the market, and we're getting GPU's that previously would have been sold at like $150 for $400 now. And it also means being relegated to low amounts of VRAM and whatnot, which ages GPU's faster.
You used to be able to spend like $200 and get something extremely adequate for modern games, and $400 got you something that was properly good and long lasting.
It's a big problem going forward.
I know what I've said, and this is corroborated by literally every chipmaker on the planet. So please stop trying to push something which doesn't exist as a known fact.
arandomguy
Regular
We're looking at two different things in terms of "low end" gamers. From the hardware enthusiast side yes it does look that way with where the discrete GPU market is going. But from a broader PC gaming stand point that's really the loss of the lower middle. Actual low end PC gamers now are fine with IGPs and the games that popularize that segment are not the AAA multiplats shared with the consoles.
The above is also an important distinction in terms of discussing how GPUs are aging out. For the games low end gamers are mostly playing GPUs are actually lasting longer than ever. Again they aren't gravitating as much to the AAA multiplats that hardware enthusiast circles tend to emphasis in terms of what is considered PC gaming.
Something interesting that I'm not sure how many people consider is that console gaming is only more popular than PC gaming in the mainstream in the relatively wealthier G7/Western nations. For all the talk about PC gaming being more expensive, the poorer markets are actually PC gaming centric.
"It's corroborated by the people selling us the chips, who are a totally reliable source!". And no, even they do not actually corroborate this at all. It suggests there's price hikes of course, but nothing to justify the insane level of pricing increase(an effective 100%+ for most of 40 series) that Nvidia is trying to greedily get away with.
More proof was Nvidia's refusal to drop prices of 30 series parts all while AMD was reducing price of RDNA2 parts that were built using the more expensive TSMC process. There is absolutely no NEED for these ridiculous, extortionate 40 series prices. It's greed.
Last edited:
That segment is still very significant, though. It routinely dominates the Steam hardware survey, for instance. AAA gaming is still what mostly drives the industry forward and there's an enormous market for people who want to play those games and need an adequate GPU to do so.
The whole boom in PC gaming from like 2010 to 2017 or so was reliant heavily on offering those affordable-but-still-good hardware options. I know it played a huge part in my decision to go with building a gaming PC instead of buying a PS4 back in 2013, for instance.
Right. So there are price *increases* on products using chips on advanced processes and everything is fine, it's just Nvidia's issue.
I dunno what to add really. Wake up?
You are now just deliberately avoiding the 'not even that nuanced' part of the argument where the point isn't that some level of price increase is understandable, it's the extreme level of price increase that is absolutely insane and not remotely justified. A sub 200mm² GPU selling for $400/500? This is simply not defensible. You'd have to resort to clearly dishonest or nonsense arguments to try and do it.
Anyways, 4060 reviews are out and it's predictably another shameful, greedy attempt by Nvidia to sell us lower tier parts at much higher prices through transparent naming exploitation. This is a straight up budget part being sold as a midrange GPU.
I'm not avoiding anything. You're the only one here who claims that Nvidia has a unique production capability which is completely different from everyone else's and thus they somehow are responsible for the current pricing - which is the same for all IHVs on the market but hey, this is seemingly a big ask to notice.
Yeah, I'll repeat: the size of the die means absolutely nothing for the pricing of a product using that die.
This is just absurd. You're again doing what I just accused you of and absolutely ignoring the nuance of my argument. It's not some black and white 'are price increases justified, yes or no?' question as you are so desperate to try and frame it.
Yes, you repeat a lot of completely ridiculous things in order to defend Nvidia at all costs.
I agree. Completely ignoring all the facts around you because your agenda is just to paint Nvidia in a bad light is absurd. Nothing more to add here.
Guys, just disagree and commit. At this stage the argument isn't generating any useful insight.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
