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

[kksnowbear]

Again, the discussion as it applies here concerns Nvidia MSRP, not Asus.  You didn't get your card for the MSRP that Nvidia specifies, which furthers the concept that Nvidia's MSRP is just part of their bullsh*t marketing tactics.  (BTW you really aren't making it look better by insisting you paid more than Nvidia MSRP for what is still just a 4090...the more you paid, the less performance for price you're actually getting).

It doesn't matter if vendor X sets an MSRP at $4000, what matters is Nvidia's trying to represent that a $550 GPU will equal a 4090.

I'll try to make it easier, for those having trouble comprehending:  The performance being represented is artificially high, while the prices being cited are artificially low. 

This leads to supposedly valid price/performance comparisons that simply have no basis in reality.

What genius marketing!  Claiming a product is better than it is, while saying it will cost less than it almost certainly will.  (Never mind not mentioning you probably won't get one for at least several months after they say you can...)

But hey, I can understand that some people will just believe that a $550 5070 will outperform a 4090. 

Because, you know, Nvidia said so.

Edited January 22 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

40 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

The Asus screenshot isn't dated in any way.  You have proof they were charging 1800 plus at intro?

That was the price at the time. That image was still on my Asus wishlist page. Lots of retailers like Best Buy will have a price match guarantee so they’ll meet anyone else’s deal. I bought from them instead of Asus because I had a gift card there. But they were both the same price. Along with similar cards from MSI Gigabyte etc. Like this one

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/msi-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4090-gaming-slim-24g-24gb-ddr6x-pci-express-4-0-graphics-card-black/6573906.p?skuId=6573906

Edited January 22 by SharpeXB

[kksnowbear]

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

That was the price at the time. That image was still on my Asus wishlist page.

Pretty sure that the website will update the prices even if it's on your wishlist.  Regardless, "because I said so" isn't really proof.

Edited January 22 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Again, the discussion as it applies here concerns Nvidia MSRP, not Asus.  You didn't get your card for the MSRP that Nvidia specifies, which furthers the concept that Nvidia's MSRP is just part of their bullsh*t marketing tactics.

I don’t imagine Nvidia specifies MSRP for all the other vendors and all the versions they sell. If anyone wants the low priced Nvidia model they can certainly buy it for MSRP if they’re willing to wait. Your confusion is that you think this base price should apply to everyone else’s model.

I’m not really interested in the 5090 but I clicked the Best Buy “Notify Me”. So I’ll let you all know when I can buy it just so you know…

[SharpeXB]

8 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Pretty sure that the website will update the prices even if it's on your wishlist.  Regardless, "because I said so" isn't really proof.

This is the same price as the Asus. I don’t see the TUF model sold anymore. 
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/msi-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4090-gaming-slim-24g-24gb-ddr6x-pci-express-4-0-graphics-card-black/6573906.p?skuId=6573906

Oh don’t worry I’ll let you know when I get a reply on the 5090. They don’t “bait and switch” their prices at Best Buy, that’s actually a legit retailer here. They’re about the only B&M store that survived Amazon putting everyone else out of business. 

[kksnowbear]

31 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Your confusion is that you think this base price should apply to everyone else’s model.

Nope. I'm not confused about anything, nor are a lot of other people who are beginning to realize what's going on. 

The confusion seems to be among those who still can't see what's happening.

As I said already, I'll try to make it easier, for those having trouble seeing it:  The performance being represented (by Nvidia) is artificially high, while the prices being cited (by Nvidia) are artificially low. 

This leads to supposedly valid price/performance comparisons that simply have no basis in reality.

Of course, I'm sure a couple of forum "experts" know better than the growing number of very reputable sources online, all seeing what I do...even most intelligent laypeople aren't buying the "5070 outperforms a 4090" nonsense...

And why would Nvidia even try to pass that off if they're *not* full of crap?  

Edited January 22 by kksnowbear

[kksnowbear]

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You seem very confused about all this for someone who builds PCs for a living

The confusion isn't mine.  I see the same thing that the majority sees here, including plenty of experts who have already said it's baloney.

And not one of my clients had to come out of pocket to replace a melted 4090 or failed CPU that I sold them ...unlike some people apparently did 

Edited January 22 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

25 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Nope. I'm not confused about anything

You seem confused about two things. That the base “starting at” MSRP from Nvidia doesn’t apply to all these other vendor cards MSRP. They’re apples and oranges.
And that wanting something now vs later is going to affect price. All these hugely inflated prices you see are from “pre sellers” ie “scalpers”. A legit store will be selling these at MSRP

31 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

As I said already, I'll try to make it easier, for those having trouble seeing it:  The performance being represented (by Nvidia) is artificially high, while the prices being cited (by Nvidia) are artificially low. 

No argument there about the performance part. As far as we know…

32 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

This leads to supposedly valid price/performance comparisons that simply have no basis in reality.

The prices for the 4080 and 5080 are actually identical at $999 arguably the 5080 is even less expensive than its predecessor when you account for inflation. It doesn’t seem to represent the same boost per generation as the previous card though.

39 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

even most intelligent laypeople aren't buying the "5070 outperforms a 4090" nonsense...

Yeah I don’t think so either

[kksnowbear]

33 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You seem confused about two things. That the base “starting at” MSRP from Nvidia doesn’t apply to all these other vendor cards MSRP. They’re apples and oranges.
And that wanting something now vs later is going to affect price. All these hugely inflated prices you see are from “pre sellers” ie “scalpers”. A legit store will be selling these at MSRP

No argument there about the performance part. As far as we know…

The prices for the 4080 and 5080 are actually identical at $999 arguably the 5080 is even less expensive than its predecessor when you account for inflation. It doesn’t seem to represent the same boost per generation as the previous card though.

This discussion was about the artificially low price (Nvidia MSRP) cited for the 50 series, and the artificially high performance, thus making any price/performance analysis invalid for any meaningful purpose (at least until more/accurate data is available).

The point is that even at Nvidia MSRP (the lowest price cited anywhere I've seen) there is significant doubt as to proportional performance. (Higher MSRP from AIBs etc would only make the prospects worse, not better.)

Please stop trying to muddy the water.  No one but you is trying to confuse MSRP from Nvidia with AIBs.

Edited January 22 by kksnowbear

[Aapje]

4 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

And all your mountain of speculation is just exactly that.  Your "educated guess" doesn't prove anything, any more than your assertion about price/performance did.

Yet you are making educated guesses as well, albeit with less education behind them. Why is it OK for you to do this, but not for me?

Your double standards are very obvious.

4 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

Even if someone uses all the tools on the planet, it doesn't guarantee they're gonna get a 50 series GPU for MSRP.

You're moving the goal posts from 'MSRP is fake' aka no one can get these cards for MSRP, to a claim that anyone should be able to get these cards from MSRP (on day one as well?).

I've already explained that entire countries can have higher prices if there are tariffs or local laws that mean that stores will not have sufficient margins at MSRP. That doesn't mean that the MSRP is fake, because you can't expect companies to subsidize residents in countries that screw over their residents.

But you seem to live in a fantasy world, where companies are supposed to pay tariffs out of their own pockets, factories can make many millions of cards in 1 second, etc.

4 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

According to several reputable sources, 50 series cards will be in far more limited supply than prior releases.

Which is the same thing that we heard for the previous generation, just before release. Ultimately, we lack the actual numbers, so we can do no better than an educated guess based on the vague statements being made.

But again, you are perfectly fine using very imperfect evidence for your own educated guesses when it suits your argument, but you get upset when others do the exact same thing.

4 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

(Worth noting that, for all your brilliant "understanding", this still seems to have caught you off guard lol). I can say at least *I'm* not surprised, at all.

I'm not sure why you are claiming victory, when you didn't claim that at least one AIBs would miss the release date with their products either, so you did no better on this front. Note that 'not being surprised' wasn't the issue at hand, but whether we can predict with some level of accuracy. But you seem to be moving the goal posts again when it suits you.

I never claimed that I can predict things perfectly. What I do claim, is that I don't base my claims on market conditions no longer exist, like the mining boom, while you do base your claims on that.

Note that the AIB statement is still quite vague about whether they will make up for the delays or not. We also have no statements by other AIBs, and the other statements are 'we've heard'-statements/rumors. These are not the most reliable. And we have no actual numbers.

You also need to keep in mind that a delay doesn't have to mean that supply can't catch up later. For example, if the plan was to deliver 1 million units spread over a month (this number is just an example), but they have a delay where they deliver 1 million units during the second half of the month, then the supply situation is exactly the same at the end of the month. In both cases, they delivered the exact same number of products to market when you look at the entire month. Then the only impact is on the people who must have the card in the first half of the month.

It really depends on what the cause of the delay is, which is only vaguely alluded to. If there is no hampering of production, then this should only be a temporary hiccup, where the issue is how fast they can bring the cards to market, and not how many cards they can deliver.

But here also, I see no proper analysis from your side what possibilities exists, and to what extent we actually have evidence to support an educated guess. You just uncritically grasp onto evidence when it appears to support your position, yet are extremely critical when it doesn't. There is no objectivity where you are just as critical of all evidence, no matter what claim it supports. 

4 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

And, of course, this will make it even less likely for anyone to get one for anything like MSRP.

Yes, early on, which I already argued is a hard thing to pull off, and tends to require quickly grabbing a card from a very limited quantity.

This is why I suggested that people resist the FOMO and realize that the supply situation will most likely improve over time, unless there is a shock event like a sudden mining boom, so they might want to resist the scarcity mindset, where they overspend based on the idea that they will lose out if they don't jump on the very first opportunity to buy a card.

4 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

Mind you, even if they did, there's still the issue that at least one qualified reviewer has said even at MSRP, even with something like 30% performance increase, the 5090 will be "disappointing".  There are others (like you) who have suggested the 5080 might "give a very poor increase in performance".

You don't seem to realize that this is not actually an argument in favor of your claims. If the cards are disappointing, then we can expect demand to be lower. This then means that there is less demand for the cards priced above MSRP, and AIBs will shift more production to MSRP cards, sooner. Furthermore, there will be less competition between buyers, so it will be easier to pick up an MSRP card.

Note that if the cards are better than the previous generation, 'disappointing' is merely a subjective statement that is fully dependent on the extent to which one's subjective expectations are met. You'd still buy the 5080 when you are in the store and have a choice between a 4080 or 5080 for $999.

There is a big difference between a product that is a bad purchase in general, or a product that offers a small improvement, so it makes sense for fewer people to upgrade, when they already have a decent card.

[kksnowbear]

44 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Yet you are making educated guesses as well, albeit with less education behind them. Why is it OK for you to do this, but not for me?

Your double standards are very obvious.

You're moving the goal posts from 'MSRP is fake' aka no one can get these cards for MSRP, to a claim that anyone should be able to get these cards from MSRP (on day one as well?).

I've already explained that entire countries can have higher prices if there are tariffs or local laws that mean that stores will not have sufficient margins at MSRP. That doesn't mean that the MSRP is fake, because you can't expect companies to subsidize residents in countries that screw over their residents.

But you seem to live in a fantasy world, where companies are supposed to pay tariffs out of their own pockets, factories can make many millions of cards in 1 second, etc.

Which is the same thing that we heard for the previous generation, just before release. Ultimately, we lack the actual numbers, so we can do no better than an educated guess based on the vague statements being made.

But again, you are perfectly fine using very imperfect evidence for your own educated guesses when it suits your argument, but you get upset when others do the exact same thing.

I'm not sure why you are claiming victory, when you didn't claim that at least one AIBs would miss the release date with their products either, so you did no better on this front. Note that 'not being surprised' wasn't the issue at hand, but whether we can predict with some level of accuracy. But you seem to be moving the goal posts again when it suits you.

I never claimed that I can predict things perfectly. What I do claim, is that I don't base my claims on market conditions no longer exist, like the mining boom, while you do base your claims on that.

Note that the AIB statement is still quite vague about whether they will make up for the delays or not. We also have no statements by other AIBs, and the other statements are 'we've heard'-statements/rumors. These are not the most reliable. And we have no actual numbers.

You also need to keep in mind that a delay doesn't have to mean that supply can't catch up later. For example, if the plan was to deliver 1 million units spread over a month (this number is just an example), but they have a delay where they deliver 1 million units during the second half of the month, then the supply situation is exactly the same at the end of the month. In both cases, they delivered the exact same number of products to market when you look at the entire month. Then the only impact is on the people who must have the card in the first half of the month.

It really depends on what the cause of the delay is, which is only vaguely alluded to. If there is no hampering of production, then this should only be a temporary hiccup, where the issue is how fast they can bring the cards to market, and not how many cards they can deliver.

But here also, I see no proper analysis from your side what possibilities exists, and to what extent we actually have evidence to support an educated guess. You just uncritically grasp onto evidence when it appears to support your position, yet are extremely critical when it doesn't. There is no objectivity where you are just as critical of all evidence, no matter what claim it supports. 

Yes, early on, which I already argued is a hard thing to pull off, and tends to require quickly grabbing a card from a very limited quantity.

This is why I suggested that people resist the FOMO and realize that the supply situation will most likely improve over time, unless there is a shock event like a sudden mining boom, so they might want to resist the scarcity mindset, where they overspend based on the idea that they will lose out if they don't jump on the very first opportunity to buy a card.

You don't seem to realize that this is not actually an argument in favor of your claims. If the cards are disappointing, then we can expect demand to be lower. This then means that there is less demand for the cards priced above MSRP, and AIBs will shift more production to MSRP cards, sooner. Furthermore, there will be less competition between buyers, so it will be easier to pick up an MSRP card.

Note that if the cards are better than the previous generation, 'disappointing' is merely a subjective statement that is fully dependent on the extent to which one's subjective expectations are met. You'd still buy the 5080 when you are in the store and have a choice between a 4080 or 5080 for $999.

There is a big difference between a product that is a bad purchase in general, or a product that offers a small improvement, so it makes sense for fewer people to upgrade, when they already have a decent card.

Uh, no.

I've identified my perspectives as just that.  I also stated quite clearly I have no problem with expressing opinion, perspectives etc.

The problem is when someone, like you, wants to post opinion and have it treated as fact. I explained why it's misleading and harmful.

I've already quoted you several times, showing you were representing your opinions as fact.

If you'd like, I can quote you again:

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

You have no factual data upon which to base comments like this, but it is stated as if it's fact.  I asked multiple times, but the truth is you don't have it.  That means your claim about rasterization is (at present) an opinion.

Since this was also the basis for your assertion regarding price/performance, that claim is also unproven as of when it was stated.  It was speculation, just as I said.

Edited January 22 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

This discussion was about the artificially low price (Nvidia MSRP)

How is this “artificially low”? You can actually buy the card for this price, it’s not fictional. 

1 hour ago, kksnowbear said:

No one but you is trying to confuse MSRP from Nvidia with AIBs.

I’m not, you just did here

2 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

You didn't get your card for the MSRP that Nvidia specifies

 

[kksnowbear]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

How is this “artificially low”? You can actually buy the card for this price, it’s not fictional. 

I’m not, you just did here

 

You did not get your 4090 for Nvidia's $1599 MSRP.

This is really, really simple.  The fact you paid more for an AIB card, but still only got a 4090 isn't exactly helping your argument. 

As I've repeatedly explained, most sensible people and a good number of (actual) experts are calling the whole thing for what it is.  So you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with all of them.

Edited January 22 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

You did not get your 4090 for Nvidia's $1599 MSRP.

There you go again confusing one product for another  

[kksnowbear]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

There you go again confusing one product for another  

I'm not confusing anything. Sorry it's over your head.

 

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, kksnowbear said:

I'm not confusing anything. Sorry it's over your head.

 

I’ll post a receipt for my $1,999 (plus tax!) RTX 5090. I’ll buy one just to end this silly discussion. It will be worth it Then I’ll sell it on eBay for $3,000

[kksnowbear]

You were likely to be among the first to buy a 5090 to begin with, in my estimation.

And buying one, regardless of price, doesn't change that performance for the price is said to be "disappointing" even at MSRP (Although maybe you can get it for a lot less than MSRP...that's what it would take).

But if you wanna spend that kind of money on a GPU that's "disappointing" right out of the box, just to make you feel like you're right, by all means Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Edited January 22 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

18 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

You were likely to be among the first to buy a 5090 to begin with, in my estimation.

I don’t think they go on sale until the 30th at least not legitimately. So of course I don’t have one (yet?) Let’s see when my Best Buy wait list number comes up.

18 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

And buying one, regardless of price, doesn't change that performance for the price is said to be "disappointing" even at MSRP

Yeah it’s like 30% better maybe for… the 4090 accounting for inflation is actually $1690 so ($1999/$1690) so 18% more expensive for I don’t see the need for one honestly and multi frame generation? For a card like that?! Yeah sure I need a fake 400 FPS!

22 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

But if you wanna spend that kind of money on a GPU that's "disappointing" right out of the box, just to make you feel like you're right, by all means

Watch I can maybe sell my 4090 for $2,349.99 ($550 more than I paid for it) and get a free upgrade

https://www.ebay.com/itm/296947004295?_skw=rtx+4090+asus+tuf&itmmeta=01JJ82MVKDHY53PZ87G78QFZPE&hash=item45236bb387:g:wmQAAOSw~zhnYyXa&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA8HoV3kP08IDx%2BKZ9MfhVJKlXQaHQHp4KvFfJZZQhKsj9MVJvlF8UcEVdvDL9oDbSj1C4QPvHMVfAnhM%2BK8faNPvnHgA0trShCs3KYzy0YF7Fd9XokRty3AUNv9DgtDv0efaA1ZZbaSDMuhpay0qSLgxvUxjlE%2Bd6uahmdEog1wJ8ipZt%2B8wE4ovPgXS45KJluOz0B4gEa1iI5kf30xjOmBx8y20v%2Br3kgff%2FKYth2kEPu2lHkoNHfJI4KtyAjP6zipsD%2BH6Daok2ldNhJZ1iNrxIh4PzTTG68zq9OoEoFpgJ9zeSS%2B6Pcp4RO2zROmAvOQ%3D%3D|tkp%3ABFBM8rnTgpJl

[kksnowbear]

 

36 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t think they go on sale until the 30th at least not legitimately. So of course I don’t have one (yet?) Let’s see when my Best Buy wait list number comes up.

Yeah it’s like 30% better maybe for… the 4090 accounting for inflation is actually $1690 so ($1999/$1690) so 18% more expensive for I don’t see the need for one honestly and multi frame generation? For a card like that?! Yeah sure I need a fake 400 FPS!

Watch I can maybe sell my 4090 for $2,349.99 ($550 more than I paid for it) and get a free upgrade

https://www.ebay.com/itm/296947004295?_skw=rtx+4090+asus+tuf&itmmeta=01JJ82MVKDHY53PZ87G78QFZPE&hash=item45236bb387:g:wmQAAOSw~zhnYyXa&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA8HoV3kP08IDx%2BKZ9MfhVJKlXQaHQHp4KvFfJZZQhKsj9MVJvlF8UcEVdvDL9oDbSj1C4QPvHMVfAnhM%2BK8faNPvnHgA0trShCs3KYzy0YF7Fd9XokRty3AUNv9DgtDv0efaA1ZZbaSDMuhpay0qSLgxvUxjlE%2Bd6uahmdEog1wJ8ipZt%2B8wE4ovPgXS45KJluOz0B4gEa1iI5kf30xjOmBx8y20v%2Br3kgff%2FKYth2kEPu2lHkoNHfJI4KtyAjP6zipsD%2BH6Daok2ldNhJZ1iNrxIh4PzTTG68zq9OoEoFpgJ9zeSS%2B6Pcp4RO2zROmAvOQ%3D%3D|tkp%3ABFBM8rnTgpJl

I think you missed my point (about you buying a 5090)...

But, whatever  

I'm considering selling my 4090 but for a reasonable and fair price. I wouldn't ask scalper's prices for anything, ever. Guess that's just me.

Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta talk to a guy who I bet that I could get you to say you were going to buy a 5090 before they were even reviewed...  

Edited January 22 by kksnowbear

[SharpeXB]

21 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

I wouldn't ask scalper's prices for anything, ever. Guess that's just me.

I wouldn’t either really. I usually just auction them and have never had anyone buy one for more than I paid for it. That would be nuts. If somebody does actually do that though on eBay you’re bound by the agreement to sell it afaik. Crazy there are a lot of 4090s with very high prices on there. Caveat emptor…

Edited January 22 by SharpeXB

[kksnowbear]

Well the money I made on that wager will certainly help pay for my next upgrade.

[Nightdare]

You know boys, instead of beating each other over the head with what we all can agree is basic (ab)use of market capitalism

How about we go back to the regular programming that these new 50x0 cards aren't as big positive developments for actual performance, power consumption and price

3 things that we can all agree on, were major issues for the previous gen

 

Truth of the matter is that the newest top performing card can still not handle RT, not without faking it, not without using less (or even equal) power, not even at an equal price

4 generations of RTX, still 200% short of basic performance, where the even more advanced AI isn't used to boost the tech, but disguise its failings to even larger degree than the previous gens

[kksnowbear]

6 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

these new 50x0 cards aren't as big positive developments for actual performance, power consumption and price

Well, I'm not 100% sure what you mean...but I do believe that's what I've been saying all along.

You can't discuss price v performance without solid data on either one. So far no one here has this data (in spite of trying to sound like they do).

And using Nvidia's BS marketing to establish meaningful values for either price or performance is delusional.

Edited January 22 by kksnowbear

[Nightdare]

5 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Well, I'm not 100% sure what you mean...but I do believe that's what I've been saying all along.

 

I believe I just read page after page of arguing the insanity of the meaning of MSRP

 

...which -unless I'm suffering from the Mandela effect, when i was young, actual sales price was always below it, giving a false idea in advertisement that outlets were actually giving people deals

Also, manufacturers' prices -if sold directly, always were the highest, to not compete in their own market with their partners and importers

 

[kksnowbear]

3 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

I believe I just read page after page of arguing the insanity of the meaning of MSRP

 

...which -unless I'm suffering from the Mandela effect, when i was young, actual sales price was always below it, giving a false idea in advertisement that outlets were actually giving people deals

Also, manufacturers' prices -if sold directly, always were the highest, to not compete in their own market with their partners and importers

 

Uhh...no.

Again: the continued discussion about MSRP is because you cannot have any meaningful price performance assessments without reliable data for both price and performance.  No real prices are in effect, since you cannot buy what nobody has in stock.  And no real performance data is available, because Nvidia only published biased marketing drivel.

No reliable data means no valid price performance comparisons are possible...but some in this thread continue to act as if valid conclusions are possible. 

How's that, when no accurate data performance is available yet (not counting marketing BS)?   How do you establish price v performance based on prices that apply to stock no one has?

And I don't know where your idea of MSRP comes from, but this isn't car sales.  MSRP in this market is typically the lowest price you'll see.

So, since most any price for actual in stock hardware will be higher (if you can get the cards at all) then price v performance will be worse at "street" price than if you could buy cards at MSRP.

The significance of MSRP (price) and fake frames etc (performance) is that these things mean Nvidia's trying to convince consumers they're getting more (fake frames) for less (MSRP).  The reality is exactly opposite; you're getting less performance for more money.  That's what many people are pissed about.

You can't discuss price v performance without meaningful, accurate data, for both price and performance.

Hopefully that clarifies things for you.

2 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

Also, manufacturers' prices -if sold directly, always were the highest, to not compete in their own market with their partners and importers

(This was actually your quote, not sure why the site is saying its mine) Anyway, this part is actually correct - which is another reason AIB MSRP is not really the number to use if you're trying to prove price performance is better like some here are: It'll only come out worse by using a higher value for price.  (More cost, roughly same performance). You'd actually want the lowest possible cost (Nvidia MSRP) and the highest performance data.  Trouble is, as before, Nvidia MSRP isn't reliable because it won't apply to most of the people most of the time; almost certainly not right at release.

Edited January 23 by kksnowbear