8 ms·

Their price point was too high to be considered a 4070. If they launched it as a 4070, it would be naked price gouging.

by Spartan-S63 4y ago

imiric 4y ago
> it would be naked price gouging As opposed to the rest of the 40 series cards?
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  If you divide the cost of the card by the pixel fill rate, the 4090 is a bargain.
  - onli 4y ago
    It is a new series. It is supposed to be cheaper relative to the performance than the ancestor series, not priced as a higher tier.
  - plasticchris 4y ago
    This is a fundamental shift from years past where perf per dollar scaled up every generation. Now they are trying to scale performance while also scaling up price. Only time will tell if the demand is inelastic or not.
    - neogodless 4y ago
      The RTX 3090 had an MSRP of $1499, so this is only a 6.7% increase. If there was a fundamental shift, it was when that card launched.
  - filmgirlcw 4y ago
    Meh, only if you accept that the 4090 is really a Titan or a Quadro under another name. And to be fair, I think that it probably is. But that doesn’t match with the consumer designation that we see in these things and so bargain or not, this is a professional card being marketed to consumers. If you’re looking for a pro card and have the cooling and power to support it (not to mention, the workflow needs that could benefit), that’s great. If you’re a gamer or enthusiast, the price is still high enough (not to mention the other changes you might need to make to your rig to support the card) that the actual delta between the potential and what you’ll actually do with the card means you should probably just stick with either a 3090 that is now half the price, or hold out for the other 4000 series cards if you must get a next-gen card.
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      This is incorrect. If you want to play e.g. Cyberpunk at 4k maxed out with decent framerates the 4090 is the only card that gets you there. Especially once you start looking at meaningful numbers like 1% lows, even the 3090 is struggling to break the low 30s. It doesn’t apply to every game or every resolution, but there are actual game scenarios where a 4090 makes sense. Price and heat and power and space not withstanding, it’s a meaningful upgrade.
      - flerchin 4y ago
        Dangit, I do want to play Cyberpunk maxed in 4k. Sorry kids, I guess you'll have to take a gap year before you can go to college, daddy's gonna upgrade.
        Wowfunhappy 4y ago
        I will add that, IMO, if it's possible for any gpu to play a just-released game at maximum settings at a high resolution at 60+ fps, the developers haven't set the maximum quality settings high enough. Leave some headroom for future GPUs, or allow players who e.g. prefer a ludicrously high draw distance at any cost to make that choice and dial down the resolution to compensate. Most games don't meet this bar, and I think gamers who expect to be able to set every slider to the max and go to town—yes, even on a $2K GPU—are mostly responsible.
        Godel_unicode 4y ago
        I disagree that developers should spend valuable engineering time on producing games that can’t be run. Spend that time making other games instead, or squashing bugs (looking at you, cyberpunk!) and maybe keep a backlog of future features to patch in when the hardware gets there.
        autoexec 4y ago
        I agree! When it comes to graphics, just make them look great with current (and not uncommon) hardware. When most gamers have upgraded hardware capable of substantial differences games can keep selling remasters if people care. I'm fine with nearly all gamers getting a better experience even if that means the tiny fraction of gamers who can and are willing to spend insane amounts of money on the best of all possible video cards are not able to take full advantage of their crazy hardware in most games.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    3070 had .29 GP/s/$ at base clock. 4090 has .28 GP/s/$ at base clock. Considering this is coming out two years later, I'm not so inclined to call it a bargain.
    - elabajaba 4y ago
      Especially considering the whole 30 series had inflated MSRPs due the ridiculous demand gpu mining created which lead to GPU shortages for regular consumers.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
izacus 4y ago
I think you're setting yourself for another massive disappointment if you think nVidia will sell those at any kind of lower price in the future. Because that's the issue isn't it? Everyone wanting for nVidia to just sell those chips for less? They'll slap 4070Ti or something on it and sell it to you for the same price.
- Macha 4y ago
  You might have missed it with how long the inflated market lasted, but in the last few months with the ethereum PoS transition and the threat of recession keeping gamers at bay they literally haven't been able to sell the 30-series cards for quite a bit under MSRP in what was a very sudden reversal from being above MSRP. Maybe a new series stole the demand but part of the reason they're holding out on lower tier SKUs is the 30-series is not going away fast enough, so there's a good chance that we're back in the 10-series vs 20-series day where there's so much used stock of the old series and a perception that nvidia is gouging to the extent that it hamepers sales of the new ones. 30 series launch MSRPs looked very good until it became clear you couldn't get them for that price, partly because they were having to partially roll back the 20 series price increases, so it wouldn't be impossible to see a repeat.
  - radicalbyte 4y ago
    For the 30 series it was the 3080 in particular which looked fantastic - it had 95% the performance of the 3090 for half the price ($750 vs $1500) and it was a large improvement on the previous generation. This time around the 4090 is an excellent card, the 4080 16GB is a lot slower and the 4080 12GB a lot slower than the 16GB. They've also jacked the prices: the 4080 should be $750 and the 4090 should be $1500. Arguably lower again given the coming recession and the market being flooded with the previous generation. It will be interesting to see what AMD do as they could make life very difficult for nVidia.
    - izacus 4y ago
      > This time around the 4090 is an excellent card, the 4080 16GB is a lot slower and the 4080 12GB a lot slower than the 16GB. And "by a lot slower" you mean "they're all faster than previous generation flagship 3090".
7speter 4y ago
But now they have this bin of chips designated as the low tier 4080 that they previously said was worth, what 1000 dollars? Do they call it a 4070 and just instantly sell it for 600 dollars? Really showsbus that the value behind their cards are whatever Jensen and friends want it to be, actual costs be damned.
- mst 4y ago
  That's true of pretty much everything though. The monetary value of a thing is definitionally how much money you can sell it for.
  - 7speter 4y ago
    But i thought it was inflation that drove the price of everything up the last two years?
    - puffoflogic 4y ago
      Yes, good, you're getting there. Now... put them together... Inflation is driven by consumers having more money. This means that more can be charged for the same products and the consumers will begrudgingly pay. This means more will be charged. This is why giving ~50% of US net-taxpayers free cash caused inflation to spike.
      - 7speter 4y ago
        Right, that's all the cause of 60% "inflation," I suppose.

Their price point was too high to be considered a 4070. If they launched it as a 4070, it would be naked price gouging.

imiric 4y ago

> it would be naked price gouging As opposed to the rest of the 40 series cards?

PaulHoule 4y ago
If you divide the cost of the card by the pixel fill rate, the 4090 is a bargain.
- onli 4y ago
  It is a new series. It is supposed to be cheaper relative to the performance than the ancestor series, not priced as a higher tier.
- plasticchris 4y ago
  This is a fundamental shift from years past where perf per dollar scaled up every generation. Now they are trying to scale performance while also scaling up price. Only time will tell if the demand is inelastic or not.
  - neogodless 4y ago
    The RTX 3090 had an MSRP of $1499, so this is only a 6.7% increase. If there was a fundamental shift, it was when that card launched.
- filmgirlcw 4y ago
  Meh, only if you accept that the 4090 is really a Titan or a Quadro under another name. And to be fair, I think that it probably is. But that doesn’t match with the consumer designation that we see in these things and so bargain or not, this is a professional card being marketed to consumers. If you’re looking for a pro card and have the cooling and power to support it (not to mention, the workflow needs that could benefit), that’s great. If you’re a gamer or enthusiast, the price is still high enough (not to mention the other changes you might need to make to your rig to support the card) that the actual delta between the potential and what you’ll actually do with the card means you should probably just stick with either a 3090 that is now half the price, or hold out for the other 4000 series cards if you must get a next-gen card.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    This is incorrect. If you want to play e.g. Cyberpunk at 4k maxed out with decent framerates the 4090 is the only card that gets you there. Especially once you start looking at meaningful numbers like 1% lows, even the 3090 is struggling to break the low 30s. It doesn’t apply to every game or every resolution, but there are actual game scenarios where a 4090 makes sense. Price and heat and power and space not withstanding, it’s a meaningful upgrade.
    - flerchin 4y ago
      Dangit, I do want to play Cyberpunk maxed in 4k. Sorry kids, I guess you'll have to take a gap year before you can go to college, daddy's gonna upgrade.
      - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
        I will add that, IMO, if it's possible for any gpu to play a just-released game at maximum settings at a high resolution at 60+ fps, the developers haven't set the maximum quality settings high enough. Leave some headroom for future GPUs, or allow players who e.g. prefer a ludicrously high draw distance at any cost to make that choice and dial down the resolution to compensate. Most games don't meet this bar, and I think gamers who expect to be able to set every slider to the max and go to town—yes, even on a $2K GPU—are mostly responsible.
        Godel_unicode 4y ago
        I disagree that developers should spend valuable engineering time on producing games that can’t be run. Spend that time making other games instead, or squashing bugs (looking at you, cyberpunk!) and maybe keep a backlog of future features to patch in when the hardware gets there.
        autoexec 4y ago
        I agree! When it comes to graphics, just make them look great with current (and not uncommon) hardware. When most gamers have upgraded hardware capable of substantial differences games can keep selling remasters if people care. I'm fine with nearly all gamers getting a better experience even if that means the tiny fraction of gamers who can and are willing to spend insane amounts of money on the best of all possible video cards are not able to take full advantage of their crazy hardware in most games.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  3070 had .29 GP/s/$ at base clock. 4090 has .28 GP/s/$ at base clock. Considering this is coming out two years later, I'm not so inclined to call it a bargain.
  - elabajaba 4y ago
    Especially considering the whole 30 series had inflated MSRPs due the ridiculous demand gpu mining created which lead to GPU shortages for regular consumers.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

izacus 4y ago

I think you're setting yourself for another massive disappointment if you think nVidia will sell those at any kind of lower price in the future. Because that's the issue isn't it? Everyone wanting for nVidia to just sell those chips for less? They'll slap 4070Ti or something on it and sell it to you for the same price.

Macha 4y ago
You might have missed it with how long the inflated market lasted, but in the last few months with the ethereum PoS transition and the threat of recession keeping gamers at bay they literally haven't been able to sell the 30-series cards for quite a bit under MSRP in what was a very sudden reversal from being above MSRP. Maybe a new series stole the demand but part of the reason they're holding out on lower tier SKUs is the 30-series is not going away fast enough, so there's a good chance that we're back in the 10-series vs 20-series day where there's so much used stock of the old series and a perception that nvidia is gouging to the extent that it hamepers sales of the new ones. 30 series launch MSRPs looked very good until it became clear you couldn't get them for that price, partly because they were having to partially roll back the 20 series price increases, so it wouldn't be impossible to see a repeat.
- radicalbyte 4y ago
  For the 30 series it was the 3080 in particular which looked fantastic - it had 95% the performance of the 3090 for half the price ($750 vs $1500) and it was a large improvement on the previous generation. This time around the 4090 is an excellent card, the 4080 16GB is a lot slower and the 4080 12GB a lot slower than the 16GB. They've also jacked the prices: the 4080 should be $750 and the 4090 should be $1500. Arguably lower again given the coming recession and the market being flooded with the previous generation. It will be interesting to see what AMD do as they could make life very difficult for nVidia.
  - izacus 4y ago
    > This time around the 4090 is an excellent card, the 4080 16GB is a lot slower and the 4080 12GB a lot slower than the 16GB. And "by a lot slower" you mean "they're all faster than previous generation flagship 3090".

7speter 4y ago

But now they have this bin of chips designated as the low tier 4080 that they previously said was worth, what 1000 dollars? Do they call it a 4070 and just instantly sell it for 600 dollars? Really showsbus that the value behind their cards are whatever Jensen and friends want it to be, actual costs be damned.

mst 4y ago
That's true of pretty much everything though. The monetary value of a thing is definitionally how much money you can sell it for.
- 7speter 4y ago
  But i thought it was inflation that drove the price of everything up the last two years?
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    Yes, good, you're getting there. Now... put them together... Inflation is driven by consumers having more money. This means that more can be charged for the same products and the consumers will begrudgingly pay. This means more will be charged. This is why giving ~50% of US net-taxpayers free cash caused inflation to spike.
    - 7speter 4y ago
      Right, that's all the cause of 60% "inflation," I suppose.