NVIDIA 5 Series cards - Get your wallets ready boys and girls....

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, LucShep said:

GPUs were still selling at MSRP, even in Europe.

You are making a mistake that I've seen before, where you ignore that the euro has fallen compared to the dollar. It used to be that the euro was worth about 20% more than the dollar, which coincidentally is the average sales tax in the EU. So then it would look like the companies would ask for exactly the same price in euros as the MSRP in dollars, and people got conditioned into thinking that this was a valid way to calculate the correct EU price, even though it was merely a coincidence that the exchange rate and the sales tax worked out in such a way that the EU price in euros was almost the same as the US price in dollars.

Now the euro is almost on par with the dollar, so EU citizens have lost buying power when they buy products priced in dollars.

But I've done the calculation many times, the local prices of the cheapest cards in my EU country are typically just the euro equivalent of the US prices + sales tax. When the prices are above MSRP, this tends to be true in both regions and is due to shortages and such.

This has nothing to do with the MSRP being BS.

However, the MSRP price is merely the price of the lower specced models. If you expect to get a ROG Strix model for MSRP, then you don't understand what the MSRP actually refers to.

Quote

Do your own quick research - at least in Europe, the RTX4070 and RTX4070 Super still sell for 700€ to 850€, in this very day.

False:

null

Edited January 17 by Aapje

[kksnowbear]

What makes the MSRP argument bullsh*t is that the cards don't typically sell at that fictitious price, especially not at release.  It has nothing to do with exchange rates.

Sure, if you wait long enough, kneel down and pray facing a certain way, wear your lucky socks and rub the rabbit's foot lol you can find better prices (duh).  I've found deals, I do it all the time.

But that doesn't mean that all cards will eventually sell at MSRP, nor that they release at MSRP, nor that the actual value they bring is worth the cost to begin with.

LMAO if all the were true, Nvidia wouldn't need  BS marketing tactics claiming a 5070 can outperform a 4090...yet they've actually tried to sell that cart load of BS to the consumer.

I own a 4090.  It's a freaking awesome GPU and I got a better than average price...but I still tell people they're too stupid expensive and not really worth the cost.

Also, you can't compare best-case special pricing on a third-rate GPU released years ago to release prices for the model someone might actually want today.  Sorry but I don't want to be forced into buying something I don't want, just because of a 'good' price.

And again, none of this has anything to do with people being tired of getting ripped off.  What happened before has nothing to do with it.  It's taken time, but people are starting to see how ridiculous it is - unlike your assertion that people somehow 'don't understand'.

"Getting worse" as applies in any meaningful human context is a matter entirely of individual perception and perspective.   "Worse" itself is subjective.  Worse than what, according to whom?

And arguing that a Ferrari isn't sold as a value proposition is pointless; we're not talking about Ferraris, and there are far (far) more people who buy GPUs than Italian sports cars.

Edited January 17 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

A simple search here finds graphics cards at MSRP or up to maybe 25% more for the same product depending on where you buy. Savvy shopping or in some cases just the willingness to wait will get you a good deal. If you just gotta have the hot newest thing right away you’ll pay the premium. That’s normal when buying anything. 

Edited January 17 by SharpeXB

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

You are making a mistake that I've seen before, where you ignore that the euro has fallen compared to the dollar. It used to be that the euro was worth about 20% more than the dollar, which coincidentally is the average sales tax in the EU. So then it would look like the companies would ask for exactly the same price in euros as the MSRP in dollars, and people got conditioned into thinking that this was a valid way to calculate the correct EU price, even though it was merely a coincidence that the exchange rate and the sales tax worked out in such a way that the EU price in euros was almost the same as the US price in dollars.

Now the euro is almost on par with the dollar, so EU citizens have lost buying power when they buy products priced in dollars.

But I've done the calculation many times, the local prices of the cheapest cards in my EU country are typically just the euro equivalent of the US prices + sales tax. When the prices are above MSRP, this tends to be true in both regions and is due to shortages and such.

This has nothing to do with the MSRP being BS.

However, the MSRP price is merely the price of the lower specced models. If you expect to get a ROG Strix model for MSRP, then you don't understand what the MSRP actually refers to.

False:

Sure, and that makes sense.
But let's see, and AFAIK, the MSRP of the 4070 Super is 600$ (582.23€). 

It sure doesn't seem like we got close to it in practice, even by the cheapest bottom of the barrel dual-fan models like you say, by looking at the search engine/app for the very best prices in my country (all over 20 retailers, and also includes Amazon Spain). 

So, as for the "False"  ............................. ?



If that much, my calculations say it has to do with taxes (in my country that's 23%), plus the retailer margin/fee -  so, along with what you say.
Yet you can see prices flutuate immensely (those you see there are the lowest of the lowest, but most stores go much, much higher than that!).
That's why MSRP is basically "fictional" to me and those in my country (Portugal), which belongs to the EU, because it hasn't correspond to the reality since 2020 (it did before!). 

...and please, don't even get me on the 4080s and 4090s (close to a comical horror movie)...
 

Edited January 17 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

You keep misunderstanding that MSRP means Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price. The actual price you pay for anything depends on market conditions and your own priorities. 

Edited January 17 by SharpeXB

[kksnowbear]

18 minutes ago, LucShep said:

AFAIK, the MSRP of the 4070 Super is 600$ (582.23€)

Sure doesn't seem like we got close to it in practice, even by the cheaper bottom of the barrel dual-fan models, by looking at the search engine/app for the very best prices in my country (all over 20 retailers, and also includes Amazon Spain).

So, as for the "False"  ............................. ?



...and please, don't even get me on the 4080s and 4090s (close to a comical horror movie)...

Well, I guess that ought to address the MSRP argument, then...

(And more specifically the point about cheaper bottom of the barrel models)  All 4090s/3070s/.../(insert GPU chip number here) are *not* created equal; this has been shown many times over the years.  So getting a card of decent quality often winds up costing even more.

[LucShep]

12 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Well, I guess that ought to address the MSRP argument, then...

(And more specifically the point about cheaper bottom of the barrel models)  All 4090s/3070s/.../(insert GPU chip number here) are *not* created equal; this has been shown many times over the years.  So getting a card of decent quality often winds up costing even more.

Exactly.
And the pill is even harder to swallow when you've presented DCS to your friends (who are into VR) and they get hooked, only to see how heavy and demanding the game is (and prices of hardware...).  Could almost swear this hobby gets closer and closer to cocaine addition prices!  

 

Edited January 17 by LucShep

[kksnowbear]

2 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Could almost sware this hobby gets closer and closer to cocaine addition prices!  

Having been close to addiction at a far less responsible point in my life decades ago, I can see your point

And yes, with games demanding ever more performance, it seems like this business with letting AI do all the work, and 'fake frames' artificially inflating performance to an absurd level...I dunno, the whole thing is really disappointing to me, honestly.

I actually get it, the physics and science that goes into all these components, I spent more than four years in formal study about all that...die size, shrinkage, current, heat transfer...

...but knowing *why* it is - although I do genuinely see the reasoning in the approach - it may even be looked upon as inevitable...just doesn't seem to make it right.

It still seems disingenuous and...wrong. That they would make such a ridiculous claim as they did about the 5070 just absolutely proves my point.  They're simply taking unfair advantage of the fact that people still want to believe you can get something for nothing.

[Pilotasso]

On 1/15/2025 at 10:56 PM, Aapje said:

This is a very silly comment. First of all, the 9070 XTX doesn't exist. AMD will release the 9070 XT, so without the extra X.

Secondly, whether it is DOA (for DCS) depends on the price/performance, which we cannot judge right now, since we don't know the exact performance or price.

 

Is it?

Keep in mind what people are saying about a 16GB VRAM card for DCS. Ill get back to you once the 24GB 7900XTX is inevitably compared with 9070XT reviews after NDA expires. 

[LucShep]

51 minutes ago, Pilotasso said:

Is it?

Keep in mind what people are saying about a 16GB VRAM card for DCS. Ill get back to you once the 24GB 7900XTX is inevitably compared with 9070XT reviews after NDA expires. 

I concur. 
16GB VRAM is getting shorter for DCS VR, which also likes very high raster performance and large mem-bus bandwidth. 

But, to be fair, the Nvidia RTX5080 and 5070Ti are also 16GB and 256-bit mem-bus, and those are considered the upcoming "top gaming models" (the RTX 5090 is enthusiast / pro-sumer level).

AMD did state last year they are not focusing on the higher segment models anymore, so that still makes the 9070XT an interesting proposition, if it's close to RTX5070 but with 4GB more VRAM (plus the promising FSR4), and at a lower price.

With all their faults, I think the RX 7900XT 20GB and 7900XTX 24GB should have been at least "polished" (and FSR4-able) and price readjusted, to be competitive.
They could still gather some attention if so.  Instead, AMD dropped them altogether.
 

Edited January 17 by LucShep

[kksnowbear]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

You keep misunderstanding that MSRP means Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price. The actual price you pay for anything depends on market conditions and your own priorities. 

And you keep insisting that somehow this is a simple misunderstanding about a word.  It is not.

Edited January 17 by kksnowbear

[Aapje]

3 hours ago, LucShep said:

That's why MSRP is basically "fictional" to me and those in my country (Portugal), which belongs to the EU, because it hasn't correspond to the reality since 2020 (it did before!). 

But if they are not fictional in The Netherlands, then there must be some issue specific to Portugal which causes you to have higher prices.

[The_Nephilim]

10 hours ago, Aapje said:

First of all, the GPUs are not getting less strong and price/performance does keep increasing, although not as fast as in the past. Of course, you, like many others, may feel that you are entitled to faster progress. But if you cannot distinguish between things getting worse versus your expectations not being met, then a fact-based discussion is not possible.

Secondly, they did respond by a lack of sales for the 4080 by lowering the price of the 4080 Super and 5080 to $1k. And they dropped the price of the 5070 and 5070 Ti by $50.

Motherboards have become more expensive and I paid twice as much for my current motherboard as for the previous of the same model (but an earlier gen), but there is still plenty of choice of good motherboards below $300.

I'll look at MSRP, which is more objective, especially since you appear to have bought a previous generation card back then. The 1080 had a $699 MSRP in 2016. In todays money, with inflation, that makes for about $914. So the price of the 80-class has gone up, but not by that much. And the 4080 is over three times as fast, and the 5080 a bit faster still. So you get triple the performance for 10% more money if you adjust for inflation.

I am not entitled but it is sick that nVidia is using fake frames and making look like a performance gain when it is not.. hey that is fine if they are at a wall they could jusrt easily say we are at that point were we are getting diminishing returns instead of the hyperbole they are pushing..

 

Sorry you feel it is a gain. I guess then I can give nVidia fake money  every 2 dollars and pay them with fake money so for every real dollar I give them it will be two fake bills.. hey I like that idea..

[kksnowbear]

21 minutes ago, The_Nephilim said:

Sorry you feel it is a gain. I guess then I can give nVidia fake money  every 2 dollars and pay them with fake money so for every real dollar I give them it will be two fake bills.. hey I like that idea..

 

Now *that* is the best idea I've heard yet!

[Dragon1-1]

8 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

"Getting worse" as applies in any meaningful human context is a matter entirely of individual perception and perspective.   "Worse" itself is subjective.  Worse than what, according to whom?

What is getting worse is affordability, and this is not an opinion, but rather a hard economic fact. Things are getting more expensive all over, particularly necessities like housing, heating and power, and many peoples' wages are not quite keeping up. That is documented well enough. So even if GPU prices, when adjusted for inflation, were perfectly steady or even improving, per unit of performance, people just have proportionally less money to spend on those things. In effect, the performance of cards that they can afford is getting worse. The sales pitch may make some people feel better about dropping down a tier, but the way I see it, they're essentially being tricked into paying to downgrade their PC.

1 hour ago, The_Nephilim said:

Sorry you feel it is a gain. I guess then I can give nVidia fake money  every 2 dollars and pay them with fake money so for every real dollar I give them it will be two fake bills.. hey I like that idea..

Yeah, that'd serve them right. Could also make their GPUs affordable again in this economy...  

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, The_Nephilim said:

I am not entitled but it is sick that nVidia is using fake frames and making look like a performance gain when it is not.. hey that is fine if they are at a wall they could jusrt easily say we are at that point were we are getting diminishing returns instead of the hyperbole they are pushing..

 

Sorry you feel it is a gain. I guess then I can give nVidia fake money  every 2 dollars and pay them with fake money so for every real dollar I give them it will be two fake bills.. hey I like that idea..

LOL!!!   Yeee Boiiii! 

And always remember......... 
 

 

[Panzerlang]

4 minutes ago, LucShep said:

LOL!!!   Yeee Boiiii! 

And always remember......... 
 

 

What an absolute spiv.

The guy in the video.

[The_Nephilim]

5 hours ago, Panzerlang said:

What an absolute spiv.

The guy in the video.

Haha, that spiv you say is the CEO of nVidia lol!! I am sure he could have been a good salesman in a past life or something..

[Panzerlang]

3 minutes ago, The_Nephilim said:

Haha, that spiv you say is the CEO of nVidia lol!! I am sure he could have been a good salesman in a past life or something..

I know, just can't remember his name. Yeah, he'd thrive on a shady car-lot, selling old beaters. "This old Toyota Prius, we tweaked the ECU and now it can go as fast as a Ferrari!" 

Edited January 18 by Panzerlang

[Dragon1-1]

Well, he had to start his business career somewhere.  Perhaps it was sales.

[Aapje]

18 hours ago, The_Nephilim said:

Sorry you feel it is a gain.

There is objectively a gain in price/performance of rasterization, without factoring in the fake frames, for all but the 5090 (the jury is still out on that one, but the price/performance improvement is probably going to be very small at best).

I don't particularly like the fake frames, or at least how much it gets pushed as the new default, but with slowing progress in process nodes, you won't get the kind of rasterization performance improvements as in the past, if they would get rid of the fake frames.

Ultimately, they cannot keep increasing the number of fake frames, so this is something that they can't keep doing.

[kksnowbear]

36 minutes ago, Aapje said:

There is objectively a gain in price/performance of rasterization, without factoring in the fake frames, for all but the 5090

According to whom?  Where is your data?

Having any actual data (and not extrapolation of Nvidia marketing drivel) would be remarkable since, AFAIK, reviews of actual hardware aren't going to happen til the 24th.

Sounds like more BS speculation, but being represented as fact.

Edited January 18 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

19 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

What is getting worse is affordability, and this is not an opinion, but rather a hard economic fact. Things are getting more expensive all over, particularly necessities like housing, heating and power, and many peoples' wages are not quite keeping up.

And yet, even at these prices graphics cards like this will be sold out and on wait lists upon launch. The customer they are targeting these at can clearly afford them. The average person doesn’t buy a 5090, they own a PlayStation. There’s also such a thing as voluntary inflation where the cost of living is exceeded by the cost of living well. We live in an age where it’s possible to buy a $400 toothbrush. 

Edited January 18 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

The customer they are targeting these at can clearly afford them. 

You mean crypto miners and scalpers? I don't care who they are targeting, I care about how things look from a gaming standpoint. The GPUs will be sold out on launch because of insufficient supply at that point in time, not because the prices are not outrageous. Once enough of them trickles into the market to clear the waiting lists, the prices should stabilize. It's a cynical ploy to squeeze as much dough from the market as possible, and I hope AMD can finally provide some viable competition at the top end, because they wouldn't be getting away with it if they didn't pretty much own that part of the GPU market.

[SharpeXB]

41 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You mean crypto miners and scalpers?

From an economic standpoint it doesn’t matter who the customers are, they’re still buyers.

41 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The GPUs will be sold out on launch because of insufficient supply at that point in time, not because the prices are not outrageous.

Supply and demand are interrelated. Supply is always finite and demand is infinite. If they were priced higher they wouldn’t sell out and vice versa. 

41 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Once enough of them trickles into the market to clear the waiting lists, the prices should stabilize.

Right, all you have to do to get a good price is wait. If you just gotta have anything right away you’ll pay a premium. That’s how every market works including this one. 

41 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It's a cynical ploy to squeeze as much dough from the market as possible

There’s nothing cynical or nefarious about the pricing. If anything they are initially priced too low which is why there’s a shortage. Price is just a rationing mechanism and the substitute for a more restrictive price is something else like a waiting list. Such as standing in line for a sellout show. Every company tries to maximize profit unless they’re incompetent. If AMD could create such demand for their products they would do the same. In the larger scheme of things everyone in the economy benefits from companies being profitable. 
 

Edited January 18 by SharpeXB