• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Nvidia 270/290 in deep trouble (GT200 based GX2 dead as well)

Associate
Joined
26 Jan 2008
Posts
559
Me too mate, Back in 3 weeks and have set a £1500 limit for new rig (not including monitor) to be purchased before Xmas. The trouble is would i get anything that is massively faster than my current [email protected]/8800GTX setup (Not booted up for 6 months :( )
The only component ive not gone firm(ish) on is the GFX Card, P45 and E8600 will form the base but what GFX???????????


If your just gaming i don't think you'd notice much differance with a quad except maybe in one or two games, unless you have to upgrade, i'd say just upgrade the graphics card to see you through the next 12 months and do a system refresh this time next year
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
4,505
Location
GREAT Britain
The biggest thing to hit nvidia is that people now realise that they were being ripped off with the prices for the 200 series, how quickly did they drop once they had competition. I will now not buy nvidia again and about 90% of my mates feel the same, we were all robbed.

That would be foolish, blind brand loyalty will not get you anywhere. ATI were forced to release at extremely low prices due to NV. NV were forced to drop their prices because of ATI. Both manufacturers have released some exceedingly expensive graphics cards that are very over-priced. In fact, this is the first time I've seen the fastest card available for ~£250 or less since the GeForce DDR. Its got to the point where NV are apparently not making any profit on the ICs in the US.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2003
Posts
5,011
Location
UK PLC
Why?

The E8600 will clock higher, use less power and give you a better min frame rate in games due to higher clocks. If he needs a quad for specific apps fair enough.

I do a little video editing but not enough that i pace around waiting for the rig to finish. It will be mainly for gaming and the 8800gtx rig will go alongside the new one for a little LANtastic gaming with my son. Will be interesting to see how the two machines compare as both will be at 1920x1200 on 24" monitors. The new rig will also be WCed and will go into either a TJ07 or a Cosmos S. Ive not had an ATI card since my 9800pro not that that is a reason i would buy red this time around.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 May 2007
Posts
10,049
That would be foolish, blind brand loyalty will not get you anywhere. ATI were forced to release at extremely low prices due to NV. NV were forced to drop their prices because of ATI. Both manufacturers have released some exceedingly expensive graphics cards that are very over-priced. In fact, this is the first time I've seen the fastest card available for ~£250 or less since the GeForce DDR. Its got to the point where NV are apparently not making any profit on the ICs in the US.

Have to disagree a little there boogle ati could easily have brought the 4870 in at a higher price and still had lots of sales as nv would have kept there prices pretty much the same. Think of the starting price on the gtx260 thats where the 4870 could have came in at as the cards are around equal in performance. Ati could have just under cut nv by around £20 instead of around £70 but they choose to keep the prices low instead of going for the big profit on each card. I think even before the 4 series was going to be released ati said the price structure was going to be similar to what the 3 series was and i think it would have been had the credit crunch not happened and drove the prices up.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Oct 2006
Posts
3,761
Location
here
Have to disagree a little there boogle ati could easily have brought the 4870 in at a higher price and still had lots of sales as nv would have kept there prices pretty much the same. Think of the starting price on the gtx260 thats where the 4870 could have came in at as the cards are around equal in performance. Ati could have just under cut nv by around £20 instead of around £70 but they choose to keep the prices low instead of going for the big profit on each card. I think even before the 4 series was going to be released ati said the price structure was going to be similar to what the 3 series was and i think it would have been had the credit crunch not happened and drove the prices up.

IIRC you're right. ATI did say before the release of the 48** that the pricing structure was going to be similar to the 3 series.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
4,505
Location
GREAT Britain
The 9800GTX wasn't *that* much slower than the 4850, so the 4850 was forced to be priced somewhere around the 9800GTX's price. It was, and actually took a further step by being released at a slightly cheaper price point - sufficiently low to drive the loyal NV masses to ATI. If it was similiarly priced, people would have stuck with their existing NV cards / said 'oh ATI are still struggling to beat NV's old 8800/9800GTX 2 years on'.

The 4870 is basically a 4850 with different memory, and higher clocks. You couldn't justify a massive hike in price, not with ATI's rep at the time (they've done it before aka X800XTPE and X1950XTX, but at this point they didn't have the rep to pull it off), so it was a smallish jump. There was also a second reason - significantly undercut NV and you accomplish multiple things:

1) Decrease NV's sales dramatically, increasing your own
2) Gain marketshare rapidly
3) Make NV look like they're price gouging
4) Hammer NV's bottom line, GT200 is exceedingly large and expensive to manufacture. But forcing the price down so massively - you severely weaken your strongest opposition

It's all in the marketing. Both NV and ATI realise the biggest asset you can have is a loyal fanbase, it gets you through the weaker generations like the FX5800 and HD2900 as well as maximises long-term profit.

ATI needed a bang, and they got it. It'll be interesting to see whether they do indeed keep prices low; or as soon as they're back on top, start releasing high-value cards once again.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,620
Location
Co Durham
The 9800GTX wasn't *that* much slower than the 4850, so the 4850 was forced to be priced somewhere around the 9800GTX's price.

Err am I going senile or was the 4850 around £130 on launch when the 9800GTX were still around £200 until Nvidia responded by slashing the price of the 9800GTX in response to ATI?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
4,505
Location
GREAT Britain
Err am I going senile or was the 4850 around £130 on launch when the 9800GTX were still around £200 until Nvidia responded by slashing the price of the 9800GTX in response to ATI?

Aye it was, but afaik the price drop was already planned? If not, then ATI deserves kudos for bringing value for money (heh) back to the GPU market.
 
Associate
Joined
14 Jan 2008
Posts
2,053
Location
UK
It is not nvidias cards that are to blame for much of their troubles it is the way they acted as a company when they thought they were too far ahead of Ati to worry for another year at least thats what has got people's backs up. They constantly just rehashed existing products making it confusing for people and lets face it no one likes to be confused but you might tolerate it if the company is the best.

Ati came from nowhere really with the 4xxx seires no one really expected them to have the kick they turned out to have and nvidia were stupid in as much as even when the 4xxx seires was a relatively known quantity they still released their new gpu's with a hefty price that set them up to look silly a week later when the Ati's launched. It isn't the products nvidia wants to worry about as much as their management that seem to have lost the plot a little in the last few months.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,620
Location
Co Durham
Aye it was, but afaik the price drop was already planned? If not, then ATI deserves kudos for bringing value for money (heh) back to the GPU market.

No I think they slashed the price after they had to slash the price of the GTX260 and GTX280. Nobody would buy a £200+ 9800GTX if a GTX260 could be had for another £10 or so ignoring the fact that the 4850 was £70 cheaper.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jul 2008
Posts
4,962
Location
Brighton
Exactly my point, if ati had not released the 4 series then we would all still be paying over the top prices for nvidia cards. i agree that both companies are out to make money but ati makes around a 30% profit on thiers but nvidia were making a 50% profit on average on each 200 series card.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,820
significantly undercut NV and you accomplish multiple things:

1) Decrease NV's sales dramatically, increasing your own
2) Gain marketshare rapidly
3) Make NV look like they're price gouging
4) Hammer NV's bottom line, GT200 is exceedingly large and expensive to manufacture. But forcing the price down so massively - you severely weaken your strongest opposition

One of the first rules of business - never get into an undercutting war with a larger competitor.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
31,707
Location
Hampshire
9800gtx was very really meant as a competitor to the 4850 anyway, that's the job of the 9800GTX+.

I'd agree that the 4870 was slightly underpriced on launch (I reckon they could have got away with £250), but they certainly couldn't have charged 280 pricing for it as it is a weaker card.
 
Permabanned
Joined
19 Oct 2007
Posts
6,322
Location
.
dont forget prices dont neccesarily drop......i could have bought a 280gtx for the price of my 260gtx or nearabouts, if i had bought it when it came out. instead, prices ROSE :(
 
Back
Top Bottom