3 ms·

>it is way too expensive for regular gamers The 80 series has always been a low-volume, high-margin halo product within Nvidia's gaming range. It's dirt cheap

>it is way too expensive for regular gamers The 80 series has always been a low-volume, high-margin halo product within Nvidia's gaming range. It's dirt cheap and high-volume compared to Quadro, but top-of-the-range for gaming. Cryptomania has revealed to Nvidia that they probably priced the 1080 too low at launch - many gamers were in fact willing to pay substantially inflated prices for The Best GPU. If the mass market decides to wait for the RTX 1060 or 1050, that's fine with Nvidia, as they face no real competition from AMD at the moment. It's very much in Nvidia's interests to make the most of their market dominance.

emodendroket 8y ago
The 70 series is traditionally pretty popular for gamers though. At $600, though, I mean... that's at the point where just the graphics card is more than one of the 4K consoles Microsoft or Sony is putting out. Obviously a PC game is going to look nicer, but someone has to start thinking about that comparison.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  > I mean... that's at the point where just the graphics card is more than one of the 4K consoles Microsoft or Sony is putting out. The console might output 4K but that doesn't mean the GPU inside can handle higher settings than a 1060. The $600 GPU is irrelevant to that comparison.
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    > The console might output 4K but that doesn't mean the GPU inside can handle higher settings than a 1060 Which is kinda irrelevant too, since console games are highly optimized for exactly 1 graphic card & rest of the setup. You get all the details hardware is capable of smoothly, nothing more or less. No fiddling with tons of settings that most have no clue about. I don't get this often used argument - my games look better on PC than on consoles. Yes some UI gimmicks look better, textures have higher res, but after 30 minutes of playing it really doesn't matter at all, quality of gameplay and smoothness of experience is the king. Of course if one pours 5x the amount of money into PC that would be spent on console, there needs to be some inner justification. But it still doesn't make sense to me. This is a view of person who plays only on PC, never had any console.
    - gspetr 8y ago
      > You get all the details hardware is capable of smoothly, nothing more or less. The "smoothly" part is far from guaranteed. cough Dying Light cough > Of course if one pours 5x the amount of money into PC that would be spent on console, there needs to be some inner justification. IIRC PC game sales are far juicier than their console counterparts, especially if you don't live in 1st world countries.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        To the extent that's true it kind of works against your argument, doesn't it? I doubt that PC sales look better in India because Indians all have top-of-the-line Alienware rigs.
        gspetr 8y ago
        I don't think it does, actually. The top of the line rigs are what you need to play new titles on Ultra settings, sold at $50-60+ With hardware comparable in pricing to what you'd find in a console (or using something that doesn't make much sense to mine with, like a GTX 780Ti) you can easily play a 3-5 year-old game at 1/2 to 1/4 of it's original price, which might even be reduced further by -50% to -90% during a Steam sale.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      If you set it to medium you should get a smooth experience. You don't have to do anything I'd call "fiddling", and being optimized for a specific GPU is overrated (and not even true with the current consoles). Especially when you have a much better CPU. > Of course if one pours 5x the amount of money into PC that would be spent on console, there needs to be some inner justification. You can get a prettier and smoother experience if you do that and don't put the settings on super-ultra. But also, if you're already going to have a computer, popping in a better-than-console GPU is cheaper than a console.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    But it does open up the system's library of exclusive titles, which makes it seem compelling to someone considering a video card purchase who already has an older one that does OK with games.
- Kurtz79 8y ago
  "someone has to START thinking about that comparison." Sorry, but this comment is really kind of hilarious. The "PC vs. Console" debate is something that almost predates the Internet and it has generated countless forum wars... A high range PC has always been the more powerful and expensive gaming machine, since basically the first 3DFX cards in the late 90s, some people are OK with that, other prefer consoles as a perfectly acceptable alternative.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    That's not really what I meant. Obviously some people have drawn their lines in the sand and will never consider switching. I don't think that's everyone. I play games on both console and PC, as I imagine do many others. If the price is too unreasonable, or the PC version doesn't work right without a bunch of configuration, or whatever, I can't be bothered with it and will just go to the console version of something.
Fnoord 8y ago
I think the cryptomania revealed that people (young people, gamers, who got into cryptocurrencies) could earn a few bucks or so back with their investment. Some of whom used mom 'n pop's electricity grid for that purpose. If they had to pay that back, it was likely 0% interest.
- byte1918 8y ago
  You're deviating from the point. It's irrelevant to the discussion who are the crypto people and where or how they got the money.

emodendroket 8y ago

The 70 series is traditionally pretty popular for gamers though. At $600, though, I mean... that's at the point where just the graphics card is more than one of the 4K consoles Microsoft or Sony is putting out. Obviously a PC game is going to look nicer, but someone has to start thinking about that comparison.

Dylan16807 8y ago
> I mean... that's at the point where just the graphics card is more than one of the 4K consoles Microsoft or Sony is putting out. The console might output 4K but that doesn't mean the GPU inside can handle higher settings than a 1060. The $600 GPU is irrelevant to that comparison.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  > The console might output 4K but that doesn't mean the GPU inside can handle higher settings than a 1060 Which is kinda irrelevant too, since console games are highly optimized for exactly 1 graphic card & rest of the setup. You get all the details hardware is capable of smoothly, nothing more or less. No fiddling with tons of settings that most have no clue about. I don't get this often used argument - my games look better on PC than on consoles. Yes some UI gimmicks look better, textures have higher res, but after 30 minutes of playing it really doesn't matter at all, quality of gameplay and smoothness of experience is the king. Of course if one pours 5x the amount of money into PC that would be spent on console, there needs to be some inner justification. But it still doesn't make sense to me. This is a view of person who plays only on PC, never had any console.
  - gspetr 8y ago
    > You get all the details hardware is capable of smoothly, nothing more or less. The "smoothly" part is far from guaranteed. cough Dying Light cough > Of course if one pours 5x the amount of money into PC that would be spent on console, there needs to be some inner justification. IIRC PC game sales are far juicier than their console counterparts, especially if you don't live in 1st world countries.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      To the extent that's true it kind of works against your argument, doesn't it? I doubt that PC sales look better in India because Indians all have top-of-the-line Alienware rigs.
      - gspetr 8y ago
        I don't think it does, actually. The top of the line rigs are what you need to play new titles on Ultra settings, sold at $50-60+ With hardware comparable in pricing to what you'd find in a console (or using something that doesn't make much sense to mine with, like a GTX 780Ti) you can easily play a 3-5 year-old game at 1/2 to 1/4 of it's original price, which might even be reduced further by -50% to -90% during a Steam sale.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    If you set it to medium you should get a smooth experience. You don't have to do anything I'd call "fiddling", and being optimized for a specific GPU is overrated (and not even true with the current consoles). Especially when you have a much better CPU. > Of course if one pours 5x the amount of money into PC that would be spent on console, there needs to be some inner justification. You can get a prettier and smoother experience if you do that and don't put the settings on super-ultra. But also, if you're already going to have a computer, popping in a better-than-console GPU is cheaper than a console.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  But it does open up the system's library of exclusive titles, which makes it seem compelling to someone considering a video card purchase who already has an older one that does OK with games.
Kurtz79 8y ago
"someone has to START thinking about that comparison." Sorry, but this comment is really kind of hilarious. The "PC vs. Console" debate is something that almost predates the Internet and it has generated countless forum wars... A high range PC has always been the more powerful and expensive gaming machine, since basically the first 3DFX cards in the late 90s, some people are OK with that, other prefer consoles as a perfectly acceptable alternative.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  That's not really what I meant. Obviously some people have drawn their lines in the sand and will never consider switching. I don't think that's everyone. I play games on both console and PC, as I imagine do many others. If the price is too unreasonable, or the PC version doesn't work right without a bunch of configuration, or whatever, I can't be bothered with it and will just go to the console version of something.

Fnoord 8y ago

I think the cryptomania revealed that people (young people, gamers, who got into cryptocurrencies) could earn a few bucks or so back with their investment. Some of whom used mom 'n pop's electricity grid for that purpose. If they had to pay that back, it was likely 0% interest.

byte1918 8y ago
You're deviating from the point. It's irrelevant to the discussion who are the crypto people and where or how they got the money.