599 USD marker is rather close to the GTX 870 Ti. its competing with itself?:P

Ehm Hilbert, how is this strange? I take you have see the 970 and 980 listed at MaxICT? 423 and 640 euro. It IS gonna be 200 bucks apart. No rumour either...since a few days

Pricing... or Overpricing?

"GTX 870 Ti" => "GTX 780 Ti" obviously 😉 Higher prices than expected, at least for me...

I'm holding out untill Pascal, i wont need GPU horses for the Games i'm gonna play the next 1,5-2 years.

Meh I wish all this rumormongering would stop and we could get some hard facts on the table. I am also wildly curious about AMD's next offering. The 290 series is so good, but I don't need anything new so desperately that I can't wait till this new generation rolls around.

$600 for the GM204? Goddamn, this thing must be an absolute beast. lel

Ehm Hilbert, how is this strange? I take you have see the 970 and 980 listed at MaxICT? 423 and 640 euro. It IS gonna be 200 bucks apart. No rumour either...since a few days

I wonder of if the price difference of 50% also relates in any way to a 50% performance increase... NOT 🙄

I am betting Hilbert already has the cards being shipped to his address for a review over the weekend or may be even before the GAME24 event....... Hope I am right :P

If those prices are correct, then i guess the time to switch to the red team is coming near...

Not bad pricing...

I am betting Hilbert already has the cards being shipped to his address for a review over the weekend or may be even before the GAME24 event....... Hope I am right :P

He already has the cards and has already completed his review, he is just waiting for the NDA to lift.

So that's going to be around £475-£499 (including VAT) here in the UK then for the GTX 980? Not quite the lower price point I'd been hearing about. Besides which, I'm not sure the GTX 980 sounds like that impressive an update from my GTX 780 in all honesty based on the leaked specs. And that 256-bit memory bus...yuck! The reviews will reveal all I'm sure but I would probably be better waiting to see what else comes along whether it be a GTX 980 Ti, a new AMD card or even the next NVIDIA GTX 1080 or whatever it will be called. It's not like there are any games out now or coming out in the six months that will demand a more powerful card, certainly not at the 1920x1200 resolution that I am more than happy to continue playing at. Had I waited three months then I could have got the more powerful GTX 780 Ti for the same £550 price I paid for my GTX 780 and that serves as a bitter reminder that it is not always a good idea to buy the first thing that comes along...

So... the price/performance has not changed meaningfully in like what... 2.5 years? Also, this is the full GM204 correct? That means no real Ti edition for those who care and wait.

So... the price/performance has not changed meaningfully in like what... 2.5 years?

When has it ever changed really? I've been paying like $500-600 for top end graphics cards that give me an average of 60fps in modern titles since like my 9800XT.

When has it ever changed really? I've been paying like $500-600 for top end graphics cards that give me an average of 60fps in modern titles since like my 9800XT.

Price performance usually changes meaningfully between generations. 7800 to 8800, 8000 to 200, 200 to 400. Each of these times it was about 2X the performance for roughly the same price (and in the cse of the 8800GT or 560 even better). At this price that would mean people have been paying about 600-800 (SLI or not) USD for a similar performance (20% at best change) profile since about 3 years.

Price performance usually changes meaningfully between generations. 7800 to 8800, 8000 to 200, 200 to 400. Each of these times it was about 2X the performance for roughly the same price (and in the cse of the 8800GT or 560 even better). At this price that would mean people have been paying about 600-800 (SLI or not) USD for a similar performance (20% at best change) profile since about 3 years.

Well like all these gaps are also two years apart. A 8800GTX ($600) came out in Nov. 2006. Then 9 series but yeah. The next doubling was in June 2008 with the GTX280 ($500). Next doubling was March 2010 with the GTX480($500). The 480 to 580 was like a 20% increase. The 580 to 680 was like a 30% increase. So the next big gap again was from March 2010 to 2012 with the 480($500) to the 680($500). Then we doubled in Nov 2013 to the GTX780 Ti ($700). If the 980 launches this week @ $600 that will be roughly 2.5 years after GTX680 for double the performance. So while it's slightly worse it's hardly terrible or stalled and honestly it's not bad considering no 20nm, tsmc increased pricing, etc.

Well like all these gaps are also two years apart. A 8800GTX ($600) came out in Nov. 2006. Then 9 series but yeah. The next doubling was in June 2008 with the GTX280 ($500). Next doubling was March 2010 with the GTX480($500). The 480 to 580 was like a 20% increase. The 580 to 680 was like a 30% increase. So the next big gap again was from March 2010 to 2012 with the 480($500) to the 680($500). Then we doubled in Nov 2013 to the GTX780 Ti ($700). If the 980 launches this week @ $600 that will be roughly 2.5 years after GTX680 for double the performance. So while it's slightly worse it's hardly terrible or stalled and honestly it's not bad considering no 20nm, tsmc increased pricing, etc.

The problem with that is that the 680 was already overpriced when it came out at 600 USD. Its price performance in comparison to the 580 GTX was not 2x for same amount. And not even 2x same amount as in the 480. So nvidia maintaing 2x 680 for same price, is just extending the way they inflated card pricing 2.5 years ago. We all knew then they were abusing their market position, and they are just doing it again unfortunately. I want to be excited for this card, but Nvidias pricing scheme for mid to high end since GK104 has been quite ridiculous. Yet no journalist or review site has made a really big deal about it. I am surprised Hilbert has not to be honest.

Well like all these gaps are also two years apart.

Come on...dodgy choice starting with G80.

Geforce 256 August 31, 1999 - Geforce 2 April 2000 - Geforce 3 February 2001 - Geforce 4 February 2002 - Geforce FX Early 2003 - Geforce 6 April 2004 - Geforce 7 June 2005 - G80 November 8, 2006 - Geforce 9 February 21, 2008 - Geforce 10/GT200 June 16, 2008 - January 2009 for GT200b GTX285, most of coming with a hefty performance increase or as an acceptable refresh.

G80 actually had a refresh in 2007 that moved the chips to a smaller node so the LEGENDARY <$250 8800GT was launched. Talk about pricing. http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_8800_GT/images/3dmark06_1280_1024.gif That's $250 or less a year later for your $600 card's performance. Right now prices are both inflated and fixed until EoL with way longer lifespans (if nVidia actually bother to release that is) which means something is really wrong. GM204 should be a ~$50 chip to make at $3.5K per wafer, so 500% markup on the whole video card seems a bit out of proportion, especially when it's only marginally faster than 2012's intended product.

The problem with that is that the 680 was already overpriced when it came out at 600 USD. Its price performance in comparison to the 580 GTX was not 2x for same amount. And not even 2x same amount as in the 480. So nvidia maintaing 2x 680 for same price, is just extending the way they inflated card pricing 2.5 years ago. We all knew then they were abusing their market position, and they are just doing it again unfortunately. I want to be excited for this card, but Nvidias pricing scheme for mid to high end since GK104 has been quite ridiculous. Yet no journalist or review site has made a really big deal about it. I am surprised Hilbert has not to be honest.

The 680 had an MSRP of $500 and the vast majority of people thought it was excellent price vs performance. But it's also more than just doubling and pricing and stuff you need to look at the reasons why certain things happened. Why did the 680 not double the 480? Well for starters Nvidia was moving into the mobile space at this point. Kepler hugely reduced power consumption of their architecture compared to Fermi. They were already trending towards a focus on performance per watt rather than just performance. The other issue is at the time was 28nm yields from TSMC were horrible. The 680 at launch was paper and near impossible to get even when they started trickling in. My 690 was even worse and TSMC reported horrible yields on HP28 all the way till August 2012. A lot of people here like to claim that Nvidia was capable of launching the full GK110 in 2012 and while the design may have been finished at that point there is absolutely no way they would have been able to manufacture it at a reasonable price if at all. The other thing is diminishing returns on die shrinks and wafer cost changes. TSMC used to charge by working chip, how they charge based on wafer. So if their yields suck Nvidia has to pay the price regardless. And things like GTX280 (65nm) to GTX480 (40nm) is a much bigger jump than GTX480 (40nm) to GTX 680 (28nm) not to mention that each die shrink has increased costs of manufacturing itself. It's easy to look at Nvidia and just say "well their greedy" but there are a lot of manufacturing and engineering constraints going on behind the scenes. And it's not like their CEO is just getting fat off all the profits. Their R&D has increased year after year and is now at $337m per quarter vs. AMD's at $277m and has been decreasing for sometime. http://ycharts.com/companies/AMD/r_and_d_expense http://ycharts.com/companies/NVDA/r_and_d_expense

Come on...dodgy choice starting with G80. G80 actually had a refresh in 2007 that moved the chips to a smaller node so the LEGENDARY <$250 8800GT was launched. Talk about pricing. That's $250 or less a year later for your $600 card's performance. Right now prices are both inflated and fixed until EoL with way longer lifespans (if nVidia actually bother to release that is) which means something is really wrong. GM204 should be a ~$50 chip to make at $3.5K per wafer, so 500% markup on the whole video card seems a bit out of proportion, especially when it's only marginally faster than 2012's intended product.

You say dodgy choice starting with G80 then you link to a benchmark @ 1280 res, lol. http://www.hwcompare.com/4187/geforce-8800-gt-512mb-vs-geforce-8800-gtx/ But yeah 8800GT was excellent but it was also kind of an anomaly when you compare it to ever other card released ever, plus it was a year after 8800GTX.