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

[kksnowbear]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

There’s nothing cynical or nefarious about the pricing. If anything they are initially priced too low which is why there’s a shortage.

Balony.

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

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. 

Demand is very much not infinite, just in this case, it's just higher than supply in this particular case, and part of that is NVIDIA creating an artificial scarcity situation. They could easily make more chips, but without valid competition, they have no incentive to do so. Instead, they trickle them onto the market, so that they can advertise a low MSRP while in practice, the prices are vastly higher.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

In the larger scheme of things everyone in the economy benefits from companies being profitable. 

You know where you can stick your "trickle down economics". The only ones who benefit from a company padding the margin on their product are the shareholders. Most people benefit from healthy competition that forces companies to keep prices down and quality high. This is not the situation we're currently in, AMD is getting better, but it still lags behind in some areas.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

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. 

Not "every market", this is pretty much restricted to tech and software. Most products do not work like that. A bag of chips or a lawn chair will set you back more or less the same amount no matter if it was introduced this year or five years ago. Tech markets are a pathological case for many reasons, including this one.

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Demand is very much not infinite

Yes it is. That’s Econ 101. Did they teach economics where you went to school? Do you remember trying to buy toilet paper during the pandemic?

11 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The only ones who benefit from a company padding the margin on their product are the shareholders.

And that’s millions of people. The money those people earn then funds so many other things. 

15 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Not "every market"

Every market is influenced by the same forces. Seems like you need to educate yourself on how the economy works, you’d be less upset and confused. 

[Dragon1-1]

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes it is. That’s Econ 101. Did they teach economics where you went to school? Do you remember trying to buy toilet paper during the pandemic?

Of course they did, including the concept of "market saturation" which you apparently had never heard of. Demand exceeding supply is a common situation in a dynamic market, but hardly the rule, especially in more static markets. Case in a point, do you remember buying toilet paper after the pandemic (you know, after an enormous economic anomaly had passed)? You probably don't, because shortages of common household goods are rare unless you're in some backwater like the UK.

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And that’s millions of people. The money those people earn then funds so many other things. 

Except those "millions of people" you refer to do not get significant money from dividends. If you have a handful of NVIDIA shares from Robinson, you don't earn money when the company does, you "earn" it when the stock price goes up, which is mostly caused by an expectation of the company earning money in the future. FYI, when people talk about shareholders, they think of the handful of super-rich guys who have enough shares to sit on the company board and collect significant dividends from them. They are the ones this economy works for, not you.

It seems I'm not the one who needs to educate myself on how economy works. Go and try it, you'll be less ignorant, likely more upset, but realizing you're being screwed without lube typically does that.

[Aapje]

4 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

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.

You need to understand that these companies can't just lie due to legal reasons, so they try to deceive people by comparing apples to oranges, or cherry picking, but they can't just make up stuff. So extrapolating in a smart way does get you into the right range.

Besides, Nvidia is extremely unlikely to release a slower product in the same tier, so an price/performance is pretty much guaranteed if the price does not increase for a tier.

But if you want we can agree that I'm apologize to you if price/performance of the 5080 & 5070 (Ti) gets worse or remains the same (using MSRP pricing), and vice versa.

[kksnowbear]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

You need to understand...

No, I really don't need to understand all that blather.

What I actually do understand is that your assertion was opinion, being represented as fact.

I asked for data supporting your own assertion that "There is objectively a gain in price/performance of rasterization, without factoring in the fake frames, for all but the 5090", as reviews won't be available until 1/24.

You don't have any such data - "objectively" or otherwise.

Which means your assertion was, just as I said, more BS speculation, but being represented as fact.

BTW, I'm also not falling for your (ongoing) attempts to play the "MSRP" nonsense.  That's simply not reality, and as already covered extensively, it's just another fabrication; a tactic to make things sound somehow better than they are.

Edited January 19 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Of course they did

Your posts come across as if you don’t understand much of it, so…

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

They are the ones this economy works for, not you.

You should see how much this can work for the average investor. Not just super wealthy people. The average US worker (or the kind that can afford PC games) will retire on what they make in the market, continually reinvesting those dividends over decades. Companies that lose money certainly don’t help anyone. 

Edited January 19 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Your posts come across as if you don’t understand much of it, so…

Only to a person who is so ignorant that he convinced himself that he is the one who understands economics. Dunning-Kruger is strong in that one. Honestly, it's one thing to not know about market saturation being a thing, and another thing entirely to openly deny it exists.

Either that, or it's a massive cope because you happen to be on a DRIP (which, may I remind you, only cares how well your company is doing), and are imagining this applies to everyone.

[Aapje]

@kksnowbear

If you refuse to accept the law and it's consequences, then there is nothing I can do to change your mind.

 

[kksnowbear]

4 hours ago, Aapje said:

@kksnowbear

If you refuse to accept the law and it's consequences, then there is nothing I can do to change your mind.

 

Law?  LMAO...what "law" is that?  All I'm "refusing to accept" is your continued BS speculation and opinion.

Here's your direct assertion:

20 hours ago, Aapje said:

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

To which I replied by asking for the data you have that proves your statement.  I furthered that by saying having any such data would be remarkable, since reviews of actual hardware aren't going to happen til the 24th.

So, where's your data?  Seems fairly apparent at this point you have no such data.  In other words, it appears you are stating unqualified opinion as if it's fact.

This business about MSRP is no more a 'law' than your speculation about performance.

There's no 'law' regarding what the MSRP is set at, nor any law that dictates actual prices.  Insisting on comparing one fictitious price to another fictitious price is obviously what you *want* to do, because it favors your argument.  However, it remains that both are fictitious numbers that, in reality, mean nothing.

In reality, MSRP is a fabrication of the manufacturer, for their own reasons (which is another matter).  MSRP means absolutely nothing when no product is actually attainable at that price.  And I can all-but-assure you it will not be; certainly not initially.  (Yes, that's an opinion, but I am hereby expressing it as such).

Thus: Insisting on using some absurd, fabricated "MSRP" invalidates the "price" component of "price/performance" value.

Furthermore, as it appears at present you have no empirical data to support the "performance" component of your "price/performance" assertion, you completely lack actual, meaningful foundation for either aspect of any such analysis of price/performance.

In short, as I said:  More uninformed BS speculation, being presented as if it's fact.

Of course, I'd love to be wrong here.  If you actually have the data I've asked for three times now, by all means...

Edited January 19 by kksnowbear

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

Law?  LMAO...what "law" is that?

I've already explained that companies can't just give fake performance figures, due to false advertising laws.

But the pattern with you in general is that you blow an enormous amount of hot air, and have a hard time actually listening to other people.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you want to keep reacting to things I didn't say, then go ahead.

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Honestly, it's one thing to not know about market saturation being a thing, and another thing entirely to openly deny it exists.

An interesting point although as I see it that theory would tend to justify the higher prices. It implies that regardless of price there are only so many customers for a certain product. So the market for graphics cards is limited to people who own a compatible PC and lowering the price would not increase demand. Unless you consider scalping etc. Therefore Nvidia would have less to gain by lowering prices and selling higher quantities as could be done with something like game consoles. The demand for crypto mining sure seems like the very definition of infinite demand. You can literally use these to make money and there’s no upward limit for that. 

7 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Either that, or it's a massive cope because you happen to be on a DRIP (which, may I remind you, only cares how well your company is doing), and are imagining this applies to everyone.

A Dividend Reinvestment Plan? No perhaps I wasn’t clear. Many investors (in the US) like me are into mutual funds. They own shares of that which in turn owns a variety of equities or other securities. It’s a better option than directly owning the stock for many reasons. 60% of Americans have such accounts mainly for retirement. So yes that doesn’t apply to literally everyone but it’s a very large segment. The profits made by companies like Nvidia benefit huge numbers of ordinary people, not just a “handful of super-rich guys”

Edited January 19 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

15 minutes ago, Aapje said:

I've already explained that companies can't just give fake performance figures, due to false advertising laws.

My favorite false advertising was Nvidia’s claim that Dynamic Super Resolution “provides 4K 2160x3840 quality on any screen” Literally telling people it will put more pixels on their monitor I notice that’s been taken down, maybe somebody sued them

[Dragon1-1]

35 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The demand for crypto mining sure seems like the very definition of infinite demand. You can literally use these to make money and there’s no upward limit for that. 

Only when you disregard the entire rest of the crypto ecosystem. Crypto miners are making things worse by introducing additional demand, but this market could saturate as well, because it's limited to those who can access cheap power. Days of GPU racks stacked along the side of a house are long gone.

Also, there's the fact that NVIDIA locked down its lower end GPUs to make them less attractive to crypto miners, in order to push them towards the top of the line offerings. So at best, your arguments would apply only to the top tier GPUs. Others are very much subject to market saturation, though obviously supply is currently so low (thanks to NVIDIA throttling it) that this is not a going concern.

Quote

Many investors (in the US) like me are into mutual funds.

Mutuals aren't necessarily based around holding any given company's stock long term and collecting dividends. They can do this (some are even based around it), but they can also short them if the going gets though. There are ways of making money off stock that's taking a hit, and I'm under impression most investment funds prefer to trade stock than hold it anyway. Either way, mutuals are typically diversified, so you get the benefits if all companies are doing well, but if it's just one of them squeezing its customers, those with a large share of that particular company (typically rich investors) will be the only ones that'll notice, unless your fund manager had the foresight to go long on its stock, that is.

[LucShep]

The sad reality is that Nvidia, being in such a strong domination of the GPU market, and leading in AI solutions (which also all AAA games development now hold onto as a crutch over bad optimization) can put whatever price on their GPUs - they will sell regardless.

I got nothing against premium stuff being priced as such (it has always exhisted), the fortunate and wealthy will always reach it anyway.
I mean, there are audiophile headphones selling at well over 5.000 Euros. And just look at the prices of high-end PC monitors and TVs....
So, stuff like the RTX 4090 and 5090 is just one more drop in the silly waters of that ocean. If there's a market for such, there's obviously an audience willingly paying for it.

My problem is prices on the medium and medium/high range products, getting so ludicrously high that it makes the adoption of PC-gaming a really expensive affair these days.
And it's not really a matter of "just lower the graphical settings in game options", because some of these games (and to some extention that includes DCS) run and look downright horrible when at reduced settings, worse than many older games.

Nvidia 50, 60, 70 and 80 series selling for nearly double their regular price in a matter of five years, does not have to do with inflation or currencies falling in relation to dollar.
It's pure greed and blatant exploitation of the market.  And, unfortunately, it's something that also AMD has proven to go along with whenever they got a chance. 

 

Edited January 20 by LucShep

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Only when you disregard the entire rest of the crypto ecosystem. Crypto miners are making things worse by introducing additional demand, but this market could saturate as well, because it's limited to those who can access cheap power. Days of GPU racks stacked along the side of a house are long gone.

Also, there's the fact that NVIDIA locked down its lower end GPUs to make them less attractive to crypto miners, in order to push them towards the top of the line offerings. So at best, your arguments would apply only to the top tier GPUs. Others are very much subject to market saturation, though obviously supply is currently so low (thanks to NVIDIA throttling it) that this is not a going concern.

That's not true. Bitcoin mining has transitioned to ASICs a long time ago, so they have not been a factor. But Ethereum mining was highly profitable, until Ethereum moved from proof of work to proof of stake. Basically, at first each Ethereum transaction required Ethereum mining to validate the transaction, but they switched over to computers having to put up a stake of quite a bit of money in Ethereum, and then these computers could validate transactions. At the point that they switched over, the mining boom went away.

None of the later coins had anywhere near enough value and transaction volume to sustain the mining boom.

The crypto miners had a few ways to evade the throttling, so it never was effective enough to stop the mining.

[Dragon1-1]

I confess I haven't been up to date on the crypto scam. This was a concern with 40 series, I guess it isn't anymore.

Then again, if it's not crypto, then it might be AI instead, though I don't know how many are actually buying GPUs for that, since the big players don't use PC hardware for this. Either way, it's certainly not the infinite moneymaker many thought crypto was.

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

The sad reality is that Nvidia, being in such a strong domination of the GPU market, and leading in AI solutions (which also all AAA games development now hold onto as a crutch over bad optimization) can put whatever price on their GPUs - they will sell regardless.

And that is the real problem, lack of competition. A monopoly is bad, and a duopoly isn't great, either. Nvidia can do whatever they want with artificial scarcity, price gouging, and so on, and people won't go anywhere else because they can't. A healthy market keeps the prices low and the margins reasonable. GPU market is far from healthy.

Lowering the settings isn't the answer with UE5 games, BTW (dunno about others). It's not that it looks hideous, it's that it doesn't help. You're practically forced to have a high end GPU for those, or it just plain won't run. That's why Jedi Survivor, for instance, didn't do as well as it could have. It's an awesome game, but too heavy for many otherwise up to date rigs even on minimum settings. It seems some of that is UE5 itself, but I have a feeling every game dev is running a 4090 or something on their dev PC. It seems like every damn thing that comes out these days has performance problems. My 3090 means I'm mostly exempt from that, but it's not a good look for the studios.

Edited January 19 by Dragon1-1

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Others are very much subject to market saturation, though obviously supply is currently so low (thanks to NVIDIA throttling it) that this is not a going concern.

You make it sound like Nvidia has a monopoly on the market and is engaged in price fixing. They aren’t the only company that makes graphics cards but they do command a lead in this particular segment. PC gamers are split 75% Nvidia 17% AMD and 8% Intel. AMD makes 100% of the GPUs for the PS and Xbox consoles though and those are about 50% of the whole gaming market. Comparing prices between Nvidia and AMD reveals them to be about equal kind for kind. The most common card is an RTX 3060 at $290 and its AMD equivalent RX 6600 sells for $200. The RTX 4080 and AMD 7900 XTX both weigh in at about $1,000. So there is competition here. 

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Mutuals aren't necessarily based around holding any given company's stock

Sure, they are usually oriented around some particular segment. What’s amazing to realize is how many people probably own a chunk of Nvidia. Assuming they are allocated correctly the largest segment they’ll be in is a large cap US stock or S&P Index fund. The largest holdings in those will be the current “Magnificent Seven”, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla. So Nvidia is probably one of the largest holdings that some 55 million people have. Every one of those companies is striving, as you decry to “squeeze as much dough from the market as possible” and that money is funding millions of retirements and sending kids to college and so on.

Edited January 19 by SharpeXB

[kksnowbear]

8 hours ago, Aapje said:

I've already explained that companies can't just give fake performance figures, due to false advertising laws.

But the pattern with you in general is that you blow an enormous amount of hot air, and have a hard time actually listening to other people.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you want to keep reacting to things I didn't say, then go ahead.

Companies can and do get away with a lot.  Fabricating ridiculous MSRP is not a crime, nor is 'throttling' supply to artificially increase prices, both of which everyone knows is what Nvidia has done and still does.

"The pattern with you (and other forum 'experts') in general" is making statements as fact, when it's just unqualified, bullsh*t speculation and opinion.  And when you're shown to be wrong, it's always reduced to the same personal attacks and insults.

I cited exactly what you absolutely did say, but here it is again just for the record:

On 1/18/2025 at 1:42 PM, Aapje said:

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

Now leave the personal attacks and insults out of it. 

You have no factual data whatsoever, and therefore what you most assuredly did say is fabrication, presented as fact when you don't have factual knowledge or any proof.  That means it's BS speculative opinion, being represented as fact.

(If you want to keep denying that, go ahead..but that little blue quote box would appear to prove otherwise.)

Sorry if your own inaccurate comment is what's bothering you - I didn't make you say it, nor did anyone else.

Edited January 20 by kksnowbear

[Aapje]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Then again, if it's not crypto, then it might be AI instead, though I don't know how many are actually buying GPUs for that, since the big players don't use PC hardware for this. Either way, it's certainly not the infinite moneymaker many thought crypto was.

AI is not a money-maker for most, but it is a field in which companies and states think that they can set themselves up for success in the future.

And China definitely seems to have bought up lots of 4090s, given how there was a sudden shortage in the West when a ban on sales to China was announced, and almost all new stock seems to have been shipped to China before that ban. And even after the ban, it was worth creating a China-legal version.

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

Companies can and do get away with a lot.  Fabricating ridiculous MSRP is not a crime, nor is 'throttling' supply to artificially increase prices, both of which everyone knows is what Nvidia has done and still does.

I have not said that either won't happen, although rumor has it that Nvidia mandates that the companies bring out MSRP models. Then again, they also seem to squeeze the AIBs so the margins on MSRP-cards are very low. So the AIBs do seem to produce few of the MSRP models initially.

However, this happens every generation, so it is not a valid reason to argue that this generation in particular is not going to provide a price/performance improvement. Again, you keep acting as if I wrote things that I never claimed.

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

"The pattern with you (and other forum 'experts') in general" is making statements as fact, when it's just unqualified, bullsh*t speculation and opinion.  And when you're shown to be wrong, it's always reduced to the same personal attacks and insults.

And the pattern with you is that you very aggressively oppose extremely reasonable statements, and take your own experiences as the only valid truth.

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

I cited exactly what you absolutely did say, but here it is again just for the record:

Now leave the personal attacks and insults out of it. 

You have no factual data whatsoever, and therefore what you most assuredly did say is fabrication, presented as fact when you don't have factual knowledge or any proof.  That means it's BS speculative opinion, being represented as fact.

If you don't want people to call you out, you might want to stop stating falsehoods. We have factual data, consisting of the published benchmarks by Nvidia. This is certainly not the best data, because they don't publish the exact numbers, and most of the graphs compare apples to oranges. However, the graphs have proven reasonably accurate for the (few) games that are presented that do not do false comparisons.

Even if you apply generous margins or error, it seems quite unlikely that a 15-20% gain suddenly becomes zero or negative, aside from the fact that Nvidia has never gone backwards in the same tier.

[Dragon1-1]

24 minutes ago, Aapje said:

And China definitely seems to have bought up lots of 4090s, given how there was a sudden shortage in the West when a ban on sales to China was announced, and almost all new stock seems to have been shipped to China before that ban. And even after the ban, it was worth creating a China-legal version.

To be fair, China has plenty of people who might legitimately want a 4090 for gaming. This is a huge market, after all, and it's pretty easy to imagine sellers inside China buying up the stock and hoping to sell for outrageous prices once the ban drops.

[Panzerlang]

This seems to be reasonably believable. Around 3000 Euros for the 5090s. Obscene. Like, properly obscene. Anyone who believes any amount of R&D and blah blah blah for consumer-grade electronic components can justify or explain such a price needs their head tested.

Custom GeForce RTX 5080 and RTX 5090 pricing emerges: made for gamers with deep pockets - VideoCardz.com

Edited January 20 by Panzerlang

[Aapje]

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

To be fair, China has plenty of people who might legitimately want a 4090 for gaming. This is a huge market, after all, and it's pretty easy to imagine sellers inside China buying up the stock and hoping to sell for outrageous prices once the ban drops.

There is a lot of income inequality in China, so one would expect there to be a decent group that could indeed afford a 4090. However, there seems to be an industry in China that converts 4090s to server cards: https://www.techpowerup.com/316066/special-chinese-factories-are-dismantling-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4090-graphics-cards-and-turning-them-into-ai-friendly-gpu-shape

This seems to be a major source of the scam cards, which get sold without a GPU chip.

[Lange_666]

From Guru3D:
https://www.guru3d.com/story/rumor-geforce-rtx-5090-limited-availability-at-launch/

"NVIDIA plans to release its new GeForce RTX 5090 and 5080 graphics cards, yet reports suggest that availability at launch will be very restricted".
"Technical reports point out that the RTX 5090 will be especially scarce during its initial release".

This will already rise the price of the cards at launch.

Edited January 20 by Lange_666