If they keep growing in data center like this and keep their ridicules lead over amd on the high end , why not charge 2000$ dollars for a 3090 , yes I would make me cry , but MONEY MONEY MONEY!
Plz for the love of god more competition in the GPU market.
I'll gladly pay $2k for 3090 card IF it has 24GB of memory. In fact I'd order eight of them IF they also have blower type fans (to install them side by side). If A100 are priced the same as V100, choosing 4x or 5x 3090 cards vs 1x A100 is a no-brainer.
not me , but who bought the 1100-1400$ 2080Ti , tons of people , it feels like people already forgot how insanly high the 2080Ti was priced , if you compared to how much value we can get these days on the cpu market like a 3700X etc. who buys 1000$ smart phones , tons.
And if you can't afford it you can buy streaming game pass from Nvidia and if that gets popular who on earth do they wanna sell a cheap high end card 2 , nobody.
The 2080TI was not overpriced; all it did was replace the initial Titan (RTX after all has tensor cores too now), release alongside the rest of the cards instead of 8-12 months later, & had more deep-learning capabilities than a $3000 Titan.
Not all deep-learning endeavors need that much VRAM; if you need that VRAM you would't bother w/ Nvidia RTX at all being a non-starter. That said, many do just fine using RTX's tensor cores for deep-learning otherwise that is again faster than the $3000 Titan before it.
I don't know in what universe you live, but typically, they add another performance tier at the same prices, just like they did all the years before. They just wanted more money this time because AMD had Vega and they needed moisturizer from all the laughing
The fact is that a TI of the past would not have been $700 if it launched alongside the other cards or had the deep-learning capabilities of the RTX 2080TI. Furthermore, your rebuttal is insufficient of the fact that the 2080TI indeed replaced an initial Titan that has been $1000-$1200 for some time to me.
Also note that the 2080TI is unapolgetically a 4K card, it has features you can't simply compare w/ cards of old to justify its price for the same reason you don't compare a $1100+ iPhone 11 Pro to the $800 prices high-end iPhones of old having far more sophisticated uses
It was. The entire 20 series line up was more expensive than their direct predecessors. Had 1080 Ti launched alongside 1080, it probably would have been priced at $850-$1000 range.
Having new features does not excuse anything; DL, RT, whatever, doesn't matter. If each generation was supposed to be more expensive simply because of features, we'd be in the thousands of dollars range by now.
Undoubtedly manufacturing costs do have an impact, but the main reason for such prices is always the lack of a proper competition. Remember what happened with 280 and 260 when 4870 launched? The 260 had a 576mm2 die.
Besides, I don't see why a consumer would be so willing to defend higher prices.
This isn't a defense for higher prices, but a primer on economics and competition.
If Intel or AMD had a higher performing part than NVIDIA, they would, rationally, charge more. So for the hypothetical OP's 3090 at $2k, that means Intel would have a better part at $2.2k and AMD an even more powerful part at $2.5k.
If Nvidia couldn't compete on performance then they will have to release parts with a cheaper price, but the higher priced parts won't go away, it just means someone else can charge more instead.
Obviously no one will price their top product low if they know it fairly outperforms the competition, but I'm not talking about only the top model, but the entire line up.
4870 was slower than 280, and yet it forced a massive price cut upon nvidia, showing that the 200 line up was, in fact, overpriced.
They didn't need to undercut nvidia in pricing and could've priced it at the same level as 260, but they did to capture market share, and were in relatively good financial situation to pull it off. That's what I mean by proper competition; not just competitive products, but a competitive company.
Had AMD been in a better financial situation, they might've been able to pull the same tactic with the RX 5000 line if they decided to, but they weren't and needed to make as much money as possible with each card, so they stayed close to nvidia's pricing. They are still priced well, IMO, but nothing like the 4000 series.
AMD being MIA for many months after RTX's launch, and still not being in an optimal financial situation when RX 5000 came out, allowed nvidia to raise the whole pricing field a level and keep at it.
Remember while ago when Nvidia introduced the Titan first single GPU (for consumers) at 999$, people said who would buy that but here today 1.2k$ consumer card being sold like its a norm. we see companies stretching the limit on how much they charge the consumer for top end devices with ultra expensive and somewhat niche of cards if enough people buy those card then they know they can stretch the price even further for lower tier next gen cards.
On the other end of that spectrum, if you're willing to keep the resolution slider down and disable anti-aliasing, there are a lot of games that are well within reach of one to three generation old integrated graphics such that there is fun to be had without the cost of a dedicated GPU whatsoever and if enough people would eventually come around to that sort of thinking, charging over $1k for a graphics adapter would no longer be a realistic objective. I doubt that would ever happen given the amount of hype, dick waving, and competitiveness there is among people that play computer games though.
Sure there are good games that can run on bit dated integrated graphics. But the point is not hey you can play games on cheap hardware the point is prices of new hardware on all levels increase especially in the highend inproportionally to inflation, to manufacturing costs, to older generation transitions etc. Playing on old integrated graphics is step forward and two steps backwards, because advancement in hardware allow for more immersive and more detailed games, the solution is not resolving to austerity and limiting yourself but it is real competition that would force all players to lower prices. And I think that from certain budget people should use consoles due better bang for the buck.
This is an interesting point. Personally, I'm growing tired of the extremes to which GPU companies (mostly Nvidia, but AMD a little) are going just to keep shoving GPU performance up. Absurd TDPs with massive cooling devices to handle them, ridiculously large dies (mostly looking at Nvidia here), expensive and esoteric memory interfaces (AMD's turn here) with correspondingly complex PCB and VRM designs.
I sometimes wonder what things would look like if maximum GPU board power had remained in sane single-slot ranges around 75W, with double-slot coolers available for silence. We'd still have exceeded Xbox One / PS4 level performance by now, but at far more sane costs to the end-user and the environment.
Thing is, the main reason I can see for the increasing costs at the high-end is that the market isn't growing at the rate it used to. Without that growth, the only way to keep increasing revenues is increasing prices. GPUs have hit the same problem mobile phones did - they got too expensive and too slow on development to be replaced yearly. Both markets went for the same solution: raise ASP.
The 3090 could be considered a TI upgrade a gen early for 2080TI owners; considering that you can get the money back from a 2080TI in a matter of weeks & it probably won't have a successor for another 2 years again, it can be worth it for some people.
NVDA's organic growth was from $3.1 B to $3.3B in the last quarter, while all the rest was due to acquisition. Its data center has hardly grown, I am sorry.
Umm yes you are right, the datacenter fuel is mainly thanks Mellanox, not more compute cards sold. More or less there is a 10% revenue increase Y/Y thanks to Nvidia itself. Good but nothing of stagghering. Nvidia as one of the worst bubble share of the trading market, right now is in the "very dangerous" list, with Tesla, Apple, AMD and many others in different sectors.
You really mean you want either AMD or Intel to start charging $2k for a GPU.
In other words, price competition to drive GPU prices down requires a competitor who can charge an equivalent price, first. If AMD or Intel can release a GPU that beats a 3090, as you put it, then they will charge more for it.
In response, NV can either release a more powerful part, at an even higher price, or they can release a cheaper part if they can't compete on performance.
Because right now if you want a cheaper GPU, you can definitely get a 2060 for $309, and by this time next year you can probably get something like a 3060 for $329 or the 2060 for under $299.
Yeah good point. Jensen stated during the conference call that the next generation of Ampere GPUs will send the earnings even higher for the foreseeable future.
delve a little deeper and we see that mellanox contributed ~550 million of that 1.752 billion in "datacenter" revenue. Therefor we conclude that in the reported quarter, the gaming revenue increased while datacenter compute revenue was flat... They will be closer to 50% datacenter compute in first calendar quarter of 2021 when graphics card sales should drop/flatline.
For most people, gaming is just a hobby... and, as a hobby, falls under budget restrictions.
Looking at Steam stats, both 208 and 2080 Ti are under 1% of share. Biggest "sellers" are 1060, 1050 Ti and 1050... followed by 1650, 1070 etc.
I am on 1070 myself. What can I say? I have spent around NZD850, back in 2017, and will upgrade when I have noticeably better GPU in the same price range. 1070 was replacement for aging RX280, and improvement was big. Thinking of it, 1070 was a bit faster and cheaper than previous year's 980. 2070 would be GPU in the same price range now, but according to benchmarks, it is not going over 30% faster than 1070, in some games less.
Doesn't sound like something to invest close to NZD1000.
If 3070 gets in 2080 performance zone and keeps sub-NZD1000 price, maybe.
But I'm thinking more and more, getting next gen console and stick with it for 5 years would be more justified, economically, than keeping up with Nvidia.
Tired of cheaters in every e-sport and triple A multiplayer FPS game. I'm considering, keep decent PC (with gtx1660) for CS:GO (that also can run valorant, old simcity, dotA) and moving next triple A title to console ( with XIM for mouse & keyboard) .
Sure, release no new graphics cards for 2+ years and the ones released not selling well to PC builders for gaming due to abysmal price/performance improvement over previous gen. You can make any sales trends look however you want with the right marketing. Release a 3080ti at the 980ti launch price ($650) at a minimum 25% performance improvement over the 2080ti and the tables would turn in weeks or months.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
35 Comments
Back to Article
plopke - Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - link
If they keep growing in data center like this and keep their ridicules lead over amd on the high end , why not charge 2000$ dollars for a 3090 , yes I would make me cry , but MONEY MONEY MONEY!Plz for the love of god more competition in the GPU market.
shabby - Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - link
Who will buy those?surt - Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - link
Everyone with a datacenter, apparently.nathanddrews - Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - link
Everyone that always buys the highest end gear without flinching. I'm guessing $1499 Founders Edition.p1esk - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
I'll gladly pay $2k for 3090 card IF it has 24GB of memory. In fact I'd order eight of them IF they also have blower type fans (to install them side by side). If A100 are priced the same as V100, choosing 4x or 5x 3090 cards vs 1x A100 is a no-brainer.plopke - Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - link
not me ,but who bought the 1100-1400$ 2080Ti , tons of people , it feels like people already forgot how insanly high the 2080Ti was priced , if you compared to how much value we can get these days on the cpu market like a 3700X etc.
who buys 1000$ smart phones , tons.
And if you can't afford it you can buy streaming game pass from Nvidia and if that gets popular who on earth do they wanna sell a cheap high end card 2 , nobody.
So plz more competition in the GPU market.
plopke - Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - link
well they would sell like surt said to datacenter :Plilkwarrior - Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - link
The 2080TI was not overpriced; all it did was replace the initial Titan (RTX after all has tensor cores too now), release alongside the rest of the cards instead of 8-12 months later, & had more deep-learning capabilities than a $3000 Titan.beginner99 - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
The Titan usually also had more VRAM which for any real deeplearning is actually needed.lilkwarrior - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
Not all deep-learning endeavors need that much VRAM; if you need that VRAM you would't bother w/ Nvidia RTX at all being a non-starter. That said, many do just fine using RTX's tensor cores for deep-learning otherwise that is again faster than the $3000 Titan before it.dersteffeneilers - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
I don't know in what universe you live, but typically, they add another performance tier at the same prices, just like they did all the years before. They just wanted more money this time because AMD had Vega and they needed moisturizer from all the laughinglilkwarrior - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
The fact is that a TI of the past would not have been $700 if it launched alongside the other cards or had the deep-learning capabilities of the RTX 2080TI. Furthermore, your rebuttal is insufficient of the fact that the 2080TI indeed replaced an initial Titan that has been $1000-$1200 for some time to me.Also note that the 2080TI is unapolgetically a 4K card, it has features you can't simply compare w/ cards of old to justify its price for the same reason you don't compare a $1100+ iPhone 11 Pro to the $800 prices high-end iPhones of old having far more sophisticated uses
Spunjji - Friday, August 21, 2020 - link
The extent to which you're prepared to rationalize this on Nvidia's behalf is touching.eddman - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
It was. The entire 20 series line up was more expensive than their direct predecessors. Had 1080 Ti launched alongside 1080, it probably would have been priced at $850-$1000 range.Having new features does not excuse anything; DL, RT, whatever, doesn't matter. If each generation was supposed to be more expensive simply because of features, we'd be in the thousands of dollars range by now.
Undoubtedly manufacturing costs do have an impact, but the main reason for such prices is always the lack of a proper competition. Remember what happened with 280 and 260 when 4870 launched? The 260 had a 576mm2 die.
Besides, I don't see why a consumer would be so willing to defend higher prices.
michael2k - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
This isn't a defense for higher prices, but a primer on economics and competition.If Intel or AMD had a higher performing part than NVIDIA, they would, rationally, charge more. So for the hypothetical OP's 3090 at $2k, that means Intel would have a better part at $2.2k and AMD an even more powerful part at $2.5k.
If Nvidia couldn't compete on performance then they will have to release parts with a cheaper price, but the higher priced parts won't go away, it just means someone else can charge more instead.
eddman - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
Obviously no one will price their top product low if they know it fairly outperforms the competition, but I'm not talking about only the top model, but the entire line up.4870 was slower than 280, and yet it forced a massive price cut upon nvidia, showing that the 200 line up was, in fact, overpriced.
They didn't need to undercut nvidia in pricing and could've priced it at the same level as 260, but they did to capture market share, and were in relatively good financial situation to pull it off. That's what I mean by proper competition; not just competitive products, but a competitive company.
Had AMD been in a better financial situation, they might've been able to pull the same tactic with the RX 5000 line if they decided to, but they weren't and needed to make as much money as possible with each card, so they stayed close to nvidia's pricing. They are still priced well, IMO, but nothing like the 4000 series.
AMD being MIA for many months after RTX's launch, and still not being in an optimal financial situation when RX 5000 came out, allowed nvidia to raise the whole pricing field a level and keep at it.
Spunjji - Friday, August 21, 2020 - link
A solid analysis here, @eddman.Spunjji - Friday, August 21, 2020 - link
It didn't replace the Titan, though. There's a Titan RTX.It is catastrophically overpriced compared with previous Ti cards. Performance went up but PP$ barely moved.
Spunjji - Friday, August 21, 2020 - link
It didn't replace the Titan, though. There's a Titan RTX.It is catastrophically overpriced compared with previous Ti cards. Performance went up but PP$ barely moved.
Eliadbu - Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - link
Remember while ago when Nvidia introduced the Titan first single GPU (for consumers) at 999$, people said who would buy that but here today 1.2k$ consumer card being sold like its a norm.we see companies stretching the limit on how much they charge the consumer for top end devices with ultra expensive and somewhat niche of cards if enough people buy those card then they know they can stretch the price even further for lower tier next gen cards.
PeachNCream - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
On the other end of that spectrum, if you're willing to keep the resolution slider down and disable anti-aliasing, there are a lot of games that are well within reach of one to three generation old integrated graphics such that there is fun to be had without the cost of a dedicated GPU whatsoever and if enough people would eventually come around to that sort of thinking, charging over $1k for a graphics adapter would no longer be a realistic objective. I doubt that would ever happen given the amount of hype, dick waving, and competitiveness there is among people that play computer games though.Eliadbu - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
Sure there are good games that can run on bit dated integrated graphics. But the point is not hey you can play games on cheap hardware the point is prices of new hardware on all levels increase especially in the highend inproportionally to inflation, to manufacturing costs, to older generation transitions etc. Playing on old integrated graphics is step forward and two steps backwards, because advancement in hardware allow for more immersive and more detailed games, the solution is not resolving to austerity and limiting yourself but it is real competition that would force all players to lower prices. And I think that from certain budget people should use consoles due better bang for the buck.Spunjji - Friday, August 21, 2020 - link
This is an interesting point. Personally, I'm growing tired of the extremes to which GPU companies (mostly Nvidia, but AMD a little) are going just to keep shoving GPU performance up. Absurd TDPs with massive cooling devices to handle them, ridiculously large dies (mostly looking at Nvidia here), expensive and esoteric memory interfaces (AMD's turn here) with correspondingly complex PCB and VRM designs.I sometimes wonder what things would look like if maximum GPU board power had remained in sane single-slot ranges around 75W, with double-slot coolers available for silence. We'd still have exceeded Xbox One / PS4 level performance by now, but at far more sane costs to the end-user and the environment.
Thing is, the main reason I can see for the increasing costs at the high-end is that the market isn't growing at the rate it used to. Without that growth, the only way to keep increasing revenues is increasing prices. GPUs have hit the same problem mobile phones did - they got too expensive and too slow on development to be replaced yearly. Both markets went for the same solution: raise ASP.
lilkwarrior - Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - link
The 3090 could be considered a TI upgrade a gen early for 2080TI owners; considering that you can get the money back from a 2080TI in a matter of weeks & it probably won't have a successor for another 2 years again, it can be worth it for some people.Jimbo11 - Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - link
NVDA's organic growth was from $3.1 B to $3.3B in the last quarter, while all the rest was due to acquisition. Its data center has hardly grown, I am sorry.Gondalf - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
Umm yes you are right, the datacenter fuel is mainly thanks Mellanox, not more compute cards sold.More or less there is a 10% revenue increase Y/Y thanks to Nvidia itself. Good but nothing of stagghering.
Nvidia as one of the worst bubble share of the trading market, right now is in the "very dangerous" list, with Tesla, Apple, AMD and many others in different sectors.
Tabalan - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
Nvidia income grew from $2.6B, not $3.1B. Imo, there is no reason to compare Q/Q as market fluctuates during year. Y/Y is way better comparison.michael2k - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
You really mean you want either AMD or Intel to start charging $2k for a GPU.In other words, price competition to drive GPU prices down requires a competitor who can charge an equivalent price, first. If AMD or Intel can release a GPU that beats a 3090, as you put it, then they will charge more for it.
In response, NV can either release a more powerful part, at an even higher price, or they can release a cheaper part if they can't compete on performance.
Because right now if you want a cheaper GPU, you can definitely get a 2060 for $309, and by this time next year you can probably get something like a 3060 for $329 or the 2060 for under $299.
hanselltc - Wednesday, August 19, 2020 - link
Wonder how will the next Q go with major gaming releases, considering Turing was somewhat of a dim release.UltraWide - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
Yeah good point. Jensen stated during the conference call that the next generation of Ampere GPUs will send the earnings even higher for the foreseeable future.liquidaim - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
delve a little deeper and we see that mellanox contributed ~550 million of that 1.752 billion in "datacenter" revenue. Therefor we conclude that in the reported quarter, the gaming revenue increased while datacenter compute revenue was flat... They will be closer to 50% datacenter compute in first calendar quarter of 2021 when graphics card sales should drop/flatline.PandaBear - Thursday, August 20, 2020 - link
So they got Mellanox, Compute, Mining, and Gaming. They just need to buy ARM and completely bypass Intel for the whole DC solution, and destroy Intel.Zagor Te Nay - Sunday, August 23, 2020 - link
For most people, gaming is just a hobby... and, as a hobby, falls under budget restrictions.Looking at Steam stats, both 208 and 2080 Ti are under 1% of share. Biggest "sellers" are 1060, 1050 Ti and 1050... followed by 1650, 1070 etc.
I am on 1070 myself. What can I say? I have spent around NZD850, back in 2017, and will upgrade when I have noticeably better GPU in the same price range. 1070 was replacement for aging RX280, and improvement was big. Thinking of it, 1070 was a bit faster and cheaper than previous year's 980. 2070 would be GPU in the same price range now, but according to benchmarks, it is not going over 30% faster than 1070, in some games less.
Doesn't sound like something to invest close to NZD1000.
If 3070 gets in 2080 performance zone and keeps sub-NZD1000 price, maybe.
But I'm thinking more and more, getting next gen console and stick with it for 5 years would be more justified, economically, than keeping up with Nvidia.
m00bee - Thursday, August 27, 2020 - link
Tired of cheaters in every e-sport and triple A multiplayer FPS game.I'm considering, keep decent PC (with gtx1660) for CS:GO (that also can run valorant, old simcity, dotA) and moving next triple A title to console ( with XIM for mouse & keyboard) .
So sorry for my broken english.
Levish - Wednesday, August 26, 2020 - link
Sure, release no new graphics cards for 2+ years and the ones released not selling well to PC builders for gaming due to abysmal price/performance improvement over previous gen. You can make any sales trends look however you want with the right marketing. Release a 3080ti at the 980ti launch price ($650) at a minimum 25% performance improvement over the 2080ti and the tables would turn in weeks or months.