Nvidia prices GeForce RTX 4070 Ti graphics card at $799

Skjorn

Posts: 737   +604
The 3070Ti still launched higher with tariffs. Strix 3070Ti was $1K USD at microcenter on launch day. So to me it's basically the same just no tariffs this time. Price tag is the same at launch.

The only ones that are msrp are the FE and you can only get those at bestbuy which bestbuy would hide behind another pay wall called total tech which didn't guarantee **** cause the bots were kicking ***. So $800 4070Ti is only FE. I expect the aftermarket cards will be $950+
 

Beerfloat

Posts: 583   +1,082
Let these MSRP sink in....

AMD:
6900xt = $999
6950xt = $1099

7900xt = $899
7900xtx = $999


NVidia:
3070ti = $599
3080 = $699

4070ti = $799
4080 = $1,199

Speaking of sinking..

ga4ysdRtWufiCuUx3tFmHD-1200-80.png.webp


Truth hurts
 

Pensiveclown

Posts: 38   +39
So it is only $800 after all. Lots of people with egg on their faces, then!

The performance of cards should be pretty good if they are really 3090Ti beaters. Let’s see how well they do in stuff that matters like 4K and RT vs RDOA3.
"only $800"
I assume this new pricing scheme means the 4060 will be $699, and the 4050 $599? :laughing:
If this happens, I'm sticking with the 30 series instead.

The whole point of new generations of GPUs is better performance for the price - a fixed price bracket where the performance improves. Just making more expensive and more powerful cards defeats the purpose of that. Nvidia stop with the price hikes
 

Dr Roboto

Posts: 62   +156
From my previous post on another Techspot article here is some data from Wikipedia, but now with pricing confirmed for 4070 Ti.

A $200 jump from the 3070 Ti. That is a 33% increase! Ouch. Another generation that I am going to have to skip :(

Model.........MSRP...Release
970..............$329...(9/14)
1070............$379...(6/16)
1070 Ti........$449...(11/17)
2070............$499...(9/18)
2070 Super..$499...(7/19)
3070............$499...(10/20)
3070 Ti........$599...(6/21)
4070............$699*..(?/??)
4070 Ti........$799...(1/23)
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,406   +2,939
Staff member
The whole point of new generations of GPUs is better performance for the price - a fixed price bracket where the performance improves.
Playing Devil's advocate here, but why should it be that way, just because it was in the past? Consider industries that manufacture products that rely on engineering and new technology, such as cars -- today's models are arguably a lot safer, more fuel efficient, and offer better performance and handling than those from, say, 25 years ago. The price certainly isn't the same, and yet they have continued to sell.

Every aspect of a GPU and graphics card, from the R&D to the testing, to the manufacturing, storage and distribution of all the parts has increased in complexity, cost, and to varying degrees, quality. For example, in the last financial year, AMD spent just under $3 billion in R&D alone; Nvidia spent $5 billion on R&D alone, roughly a third of AMD's entire revenue for the same period. AMD's cost of revenue was $8.5 billion, Nvidia's was $9.4 billion.

Now, one might argue that CPUs have remained relatively static, in terms of price, and that they too are affected by the same cost increases. However, they are much cheaper to produce and sell in larger volumes than graphics cards do (for example, Mindfactory in Germany sold over 250,000 CPUs during 2022, nearly double that for GPUs).

The days of graphics cards staying the same price, but just getting faster with each generation, are gone, unfortunately. Nvidia has gone with extremely high prices, simply because it can (whether this is sustainable or not remains to be seen, though), but AMD and Intel are almost certainly going to follow suit -- not to the same degree, as neither have the market share where they can force such prices.
 

EndRessentiment

Posts: 72   +69
Speaking of sinking..

ga4ysdRtWufiCuUx3tFmHD-1200-80.png.webp


Truth hurts

As meric was pointing out too, the truth is that the GPU market is currently being destroyed, mostly by Nvidia and a portion of overeager consumers - and you're gloating about that! It's like you're happy with it.

Oh, yes, AMD is not free of blame either, but they're also not the main suspect here.
 

Axeia

Posts: 64   +67
its strange at least in Estonia, where there are 100 of 4000 series cards in online stores, but all AMD 7000 series are sold out >)
It doesn't help that all of Europe was allegedly only allotted a grand total of 10.000 cards. It's easy to sell out when there isn't much to begin with.
 

Beerfloat

Posts: 583   +1,082
As meric was pointing out too, the truth is that the GPU market is currently being destroyed, mostly by Nvidia and a portion of overeager consumers - and you're gloating about that! It's like you're happy with it.

Yeah! Hyperbole and big drama about trivial things are indeed a source of amusement to me.
There's this vocal minority here that can be relied upon to show up in pretty much every single topic with even the most tenuous relation to AMD, just to complain about how evil capitalism is. That ish is hilarious - though I must admit that over time I've had to put 3 or 4 of them on ignore for overly tedious righteousness.

Anyway. Nothing is being DESTROYED. Things are cyclical. Karma will sort it out. Chill 😃
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 8,399   +7,817
Nvidia still high on yesterday's fentanyl. :rolleyes:
Playing Devil's advocate here, but why should it be that way, just because it was in the past? Consider industries that manufacture products that rely on engineering and new technology, such as cars -- today's models are arguably a lot safer, more fuel efficient, and offer better performance and handling than those from, say, 25 years ago. The price certainly isn't the same, and yet they have continued to sell.

Every aspect of a GPU and graphics card, from the R&D to the testing, to the manufacturing, storage and distribution of all the parts has increased in complexity, cost, and to varying degrees, quality. For example, in the last financial year, AMD spent just under $3 billion in R&D alone; Nvidia spent $5 billion on R&D alone, roughly a third of AMD's entire revenue for the same period. AMD's cost of revenue was $8.5 billion, Nvidia's was $9.4 billion.

Now, one might argue that CPUs have remained relatively static, in terms of price, and that they too are affected by the same cost increases. However, they are much cheaper to produce and sell in larger volumes than graphics cards do (for example, Mindfactory in Germany sold over 250,000 CPUs during 2022, nearly double that for GPUs).

The days of graphics cards staying the same price, but just getting faster with each generation, are gone, unfortunately. Nvidia has gone with extremely high prices, simply because it can (whether this is sustainable or not remains to be seen, though), but AMD and Intel are almost certainly going to follow suit -- not to the same degree, as neither have the market share where they can force such prices.
Playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocate :laughing: With sales of GPUs and CPUs/MBs in the dismal state that they are in, ATM, the market is sorting it out.

Were you around when Compaq was a thing? To me, anyway, it seems the current market is similar to those days, but for every manufacturer instead of just one. Compaq priced themselves out of the market. Their PCs were just way over-priced, and the DIY market was in its infancy. One could easily make a DIY build that was at least as good as any pre-built Compaq and, perhaps, better, because a DIY build was significantly more flexible in terms of expansion/upgrades and that DIY build cost a fraction of the cost of a "Compaq". Today, it seems like Intel/NVidia/AMD are pricing themselves out of the market in a way that is similar to what Compaq did. Compaq is just a name now with little meaning behind the brand. While I highly doubt that Intel/NVidia/AMD will fall like Compaq did, they are in business to make money, and with the market balking at all their current offerings, there is, as I see it, only one thing they can do. To me, that's drop prices to a level that the market will tolerate, and if they don't do that, they risk their own future.

Time will tell.
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,406   +2,939
Staff member
Were you around when Compaq was a thing?
I got my first computer one year before Compaq formed :)

I don't think the market is as bad as back in the late 80s/early 90s, though. While top-end PCs are pretty much the same price (I.e. north of a few thousand dollars), what you can get now for under $1000 is exceptionally good. That said, the current PC market isn't particularly buoyant thanks to declining sales (as always) and creaking economies around the globe (umm..also as always). I should imagine AMD and Nvidia are going to try and ride the storm, with regard to GPU prices, because their other sectors are still very healthy, especially the server and compute markets.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,305   +4,292
Whoa, the RTX 4070 Ti only averages TEN frames per second faster than the RX 7900 XT at 1440p with RT Ultra turned on? I guess that with RT turned on, the gulf between GeForce and Radeon is going to be irrelevant for the lower-tier cards coming out later this year. With this being less than half of the RT delta between the RTX 4080 and RX 7900 XTX, there is clearly a trend being revealed to us. I expect that the RTX 4070 and RX 7800 XT will have RT parity based on the way things are going. That will be huge because most people don't game at resolutions higher than 1440p.

I see a silver lining to this. This card will force the RX 7900 XT down in price by at least $200. At $700, the RX 7900 XT will be a lot more compelling than it was at its original $900 MSRP. What will be really interesting will be what the price of the eventual RX 7800 XT and below will be. My original estimate of $550 won't be too far off it seems and the performance should be similar or better than the RX 6950 XT in rasterisation and will undoubtedly be more robust than the 6950 XT with RT turned on.

At $700, the cost-per-frame at 4K for the RX 7900 XT would drop to $7.44, making it a fantastic value. This is the price that the RX 7900 XT should have been in the first place (it also should have been called the RX 7800 XT but that's irrelevant at this point) and at $700, it will sell VERY well. Moreover, it will force the previous models even further down, making the GPU landscape A LOT better than it has been because there's no way that retailers will be able to charge what they're currently charging for cards like the RX 6900/50 XT. They'll have to drop to $500 or below. Since the RX 6900/50 XT cards are still fantastic gaming devices, this will be great for gamers everywhere.
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 8,399   +7,817
Whoa, the RTX 4070 Ti only averages TEN frames per second faster than the RX 7900 XT at 1440p with RT Ultra turned on? I guess that with RT turned on, the gulf between GeForce and Radeon is going to be irrelevant for the lower-tier cards coming out later this year. With this being less than half of the RT delta between the RTX 4080 and RX 7900 XTX, there is clearly a trend being revealed to us. I expect that the RTX 4070 and RX 7800 XT will have RT parity based on the way things are going. That will be huge because most people don't game at resolutions higher than 1440p.

I see a silver lining to this. This card will force the RX 7900 XT down in price by at least $200. At $700, the RX 7900 XT will be a lot more compelling than it was at its original $900 MSRP. What will be really interesting will be what the price of the eventual RX 7800 XT and below will be. My original estimate of $550 won't be too far off it seems and the performance should be similar or better than the RX 6950 XT in rasterisation and will undoubtedly be more robust than the 6950 XT with RT turned on.

At $700, the cost-per-frame at 4K for the RX 7900 XT would drop to $7.44, making it a fantastic value. This is the price that the RX 7900 XT should have been in the first place (it also should have been called the RX 7800 XT but that's irrelevant at this point) and at $700, it will sell VERY well. Moreover, it will force the previous models even further down, making the GPU landscape A LOT better than it has been because there's no way that retailers will be able to charge what they're currently charging for cards like the RX 6900/50 XT. They'll have to drop to $500 or below. Since the RX 6900/50 XT cards are still fantastic gaming devices, this will be great for gamers everywhere.
Moral of your comment - wait to buy. IMO, that's the best strategy for now.
 

Pensiveclown

Posts: 38   +39
Playing Devil's advocate here, but why should it be that way, just because it was in the past? Consider industries that manufacture products that rely on engineering and new technology, such as cars -- today's models are arguably a lot safer, more fuel efficient, and offer better performance and handling than those from, say, 25 years ago. The price certainly isn't the same, and yet they have continued to sell.

Every aspect of a GPU and graphics card, from the R&D to the testing, to the manufacturing, storage and distribution of all the parts has increased in complexity, cost, and to varying degrees, quality. For example, in the last financial year, AMD spent just under $3 billion in R&D alone; Nvidia spent $5 billion on R&D alone, roughly a third of AMD's entire revenue for the same period. AMD's cost of revenue was $8.5 billion, Nvidia's was $9.4 billion.

Now, one might argue that CPUs have remained relatively static, in terms of price, and that they too are affected by the same cost increases. However, they are much cheaper to produce and sell in larger volumes than graphics cards do (for example, Mindfactory in Germany sold over 250,000 CPUs during 2022, nearly double that for GPUs).

The days of graphics cards staying the same price, but just getting faster with each generation, are gone, unfortunately. Nvidia has gone with extremely high prices, simply because it can (whether this is sustainable or not remains to be seen, though), but AMD and Intel are almost certainly going to follow suit -- not to the same degree, as neither have the market share where they can force such prices.
It's true that things are higher quality. However, we have better technology with which to produce these higher quality products, and also, have you ever heard of inflation? If everything is higher quality, and every company charges more based on that, what you get is inflation. Inflation is not a good thing. I hope intel can make some decent drivers and maybe drag down the prices in NVidia's monopoly, where it squeezes every penny out of its customers.
It doesn't help that all of Europe was allegedly only allotted a grand total of 10.000 cards. It's easy to sell out when there isn't much to begin with.
What's better is when NVidia sells already overpriced cards directly to scalpers (who probably give NVidia just a bit extra for their consideration!).
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,305   +4,292
Moral of your comment - wait to buy. IMO, that's the best strategy for now.
Damn straight! ;)
It's true that things are higher quality. However, we have better technology with which to produce these higher quality products, and also, have you ever heard of inflation? If everything is higher quality, and every company charges more based on that, what you get is inflation. Inflation is not a good thing. I hope intel can make some decent drivers and maybe drag down the prices in NVidia's monopoly, where it squeezes every penny out of its customers.
I couldn't agree more. I dId some research showing that the industry thrived for almost THIRTY years with the prices of cards remaining stable. There was price creep of about $10 per year on average. Anyone who would defend them with tales of "inflation" is either lying or is just plain stupid because they're implying that the last five years have had 3x as much inflation as the THIRTY years that preceded them. Such a thing is impossible in countries with stable economies (although to be fair, capitalist economies are doomed to collapse eventually).
 

Mariabliss

Posts: 12   +12
The days of graphics cards staying the same price, but just getting faster with each generation, are gone, unfortunately. Nvidia has gone with extremely high prices, simply because it can (whether this is sustainable or not remains to be seen, though), but AMD and Intel are almost certainly going to follow suit -- not to the same degree, as neither have the market share where they can force such prices.
People also complained when video game prices went up. Do they really expect things to stay the same forever? It's not realistic, even if it's JUST for the fact that wages slowly creep up.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,305   +4,292
"only $800"

If this happens, I'm sticking with the 30 series instead.
Yeah, stick it to Jensen by having an nVidia card in your PC!
The whole point of new generations of GPUs is better performance for the price - a fixed price bracket where the performance improves. Just making more expensive and more powerful cards defeats the purpose of that.
Do you think that Jensen Huang actually cares? People like you give him money no matter what he does and as long as you keep buying nVidia cards, nothing will ever change.

The anti-consumer practices of nVidia aren't exactly new and they exist because people like you complain but then bend over and take it:
Nvidia stop with the price hikes
So... let me get this straight. To make nVidia stop with the price hikes, you're going to buy or have already bought an nVidia card? Just how is that plan of yours supposed to work?

That's the kind of logic that got us into this mess to begin with! :laughing:

Joking aside, I saw what nVidia was doing over a decade ago and have done the only thing that anyone can to make nVidia change its ways, I refused to buy their cards. You are buying their cards which is enabling their behaviour so you're not really in any position to be complaining, are you? If you only buy nVidia cards, then you helped create the problem that now exists, the problem that you're all pissy about.

I was more or less unaffected by nVidia's price-gouging for the longest time because I wasn't buying nVidia cards. People like you changed all that, even for me. People who kept buying nVidia cards have forced me to pay more for Radeons and here's why:

This is how things played out for far too long:

  1. 1) nVidia would release a cards that were expensive and bad values.
  2. 2) People like you would complain.
  3. 3) ATi/AMD would release cards that crushed GeForce at every mainstream price-point
  4. 4) nVidia would lower their prices to better compete with Radeon but would still cost more
  5. 5) People like you would buy the GeForce cards at their new lower price
  6. 6) Radeons would only sell out when put on clearance at the end of the generation
  7. 7) Rinse, repeat.

I knew that the way things were going weren't sustainable. AMD finally said:
"Screw these whiny babies! We offer them better performance and value but they STILL choose GeForce no matter what! From now on, we're not going to try to help consumers anymore because we're going broke trying and they don't deserve it!"
- They're not wrong and to their credit, they took it for a lot longer than I would have.

So now, AMD just lets nVidia release first and then prices their cards strategically based on what the GeForce cards are priced at. So now I am affected by nVidia pricing, a situation which was directly caused by people like you buy nVidia no matter what.

When you think about it, I would have every right to be pissed off at you for this but I know that you didn't intend for this to happen. You just weren't able to see past your own nose, fell for nVidia's marketing and bought GeForce cards, like most people these days. It was all about you and that's the kind of mentality that Jensen banks on because it's the same mentality that he has.

If you truly want to affect positive change in the GPU market, your next three video cards will have to come in red boxes, it's just that simple. A man is always willing to put his money where his mouth is. That's really all you have to do. Acting otherwise makes your words insincere and weightless. Sooner or later, some people actually wake up and see what is happening around them in the market and are willing to do what is needed.

It's not like it's some big sacrifice because the difference between GeForce and Radeon is about the same as the difference between Core and Ryzen. For 99.9% of the time, you can't tell one from the other when using it.
 
Last edited:

Beerfloat

Posts: 583   +1,082
If you truly want to affect positive change in the GPU market, your next three video cards will have to come in red boxes, it's just that simple.
They might, just as soon as AMD starts making compelling GPUs. Being cheaper is not the only type of positive change.

Innovation and the overall quality of the customer experience should not be dismissed either. If AMD ever decides to move beyond bringing an Nvidia-like featureset (but two years later and almost as good, if you don't look too closely) I might just consider them once again.