The GPU Market Finally Gives In, Nvidia Prices Drop

[kiwigraeme]

Say what the RTX 3060 launched in Feb 2021 for $329 and is now selling for $340- maybe hard to get at launch - 2 year old tech at "new price" - doesn't seem great value

I think if AMD wasn't around Nvidia would price higher - hey if 3060 is $450 why not get that 3080 for $1200

Xbox and PS5 refreshes will be here for Xmas - budget minded get one of those

 

[rmcrys]

As I live in Brazil, GPU prices are even crazier than the ones in USA or Europe. I currently use an GFX 1050 Ti and I am thinking about replacing it. What GPU would you guys suggest as the best upgrade?

Get a 3060 or 3060ti as soon as the 4060 series are out and readily available (the last 3060 units will be sold at a very good price).

I bought 6 months ago a 3060ti in second hand ( year old) for 200€.

 

[Warrior247]

This is an AMD price drop! Anywhere from 16%-43% on new cards? “If” you want an AMD card there it is.The good news is, nobody wants one! Intel actually raised prices on their A770 16GB card, shocking. Nvidia isn’t giving real price drops. If you’re not getting at least 10%, you’re not getting a price drop. 1% is not a worthy price drop.

 

[punctualturn]

It will be interesting to see how the market responds to the about-to-launch GPUs. They seem unexciting to me, but I’m not their target. Low sales on the bread-and-butter cards may hurt the bottom line more than the high end.

The market will respond in the same way it has for the last 3 or so years, they will continue giving Dear Leader Jensen more money, because all the media outlets will continue shoving nvidia gpus down our throats.

AMD its only mentioned with the hopes that nvidia cuts prices, but never with the guidance to actually buy AMD.

 

[KofeViR]

The market will respond in the same way it has for the last 3 or so years, they will continue giving Dear Leader Jensen more money, because all the media outlets will continue shoving nvidia gpus down our throats.

AMD its only mentioned with the hopes that nvidia cuts prices, but never with the guidance to actually buy AMD.

Well I don't buy AMD because of the multi monitor watt usage (7900XTX uses 50 watts) and lack of features in general. AMD is simply asking too much for what you get.

In terms of raster perf, AMD is doing fine but when it comes to features and RT perf, they are far behind.

 

[mbk34]

I'm looking forward to the reviews and the actual prices we'll pay here in the UK. It would be nice to include some older cards in the comparisons (such as 1060, 2060 or AMD equivalent) for those of us that have been waiting a long time for prices to come down. It would be nice to include Intel's bundled offers in the reviews as people like me will be looking to build a new system anyway.

 

[torchyear]

Based on the press release previously mentioned, it's hard to view the 8GB 4060 as a compelling successor to the 12GB 3060. Nvidia giveth with the larger L2 cache, but taketh away with the VRAM and bus width - and underwhelming performance improvements when DLSS isn't turned on. And what about 1440p? Looking forward to Steve's eventual 3060 vs 4060 non-DLSS 1440p comparisons.

(Perhaps frame interpolation and AI upscaling is the new normal now. That's somewhat depressing.)

 

[Julnor]

Based on the press release previously mentioned, it's hard to view the 8GB 4060 as a compelling successor to the 12GB 3060. Nvidia giveth with the larger L2 cache, but taketh away with the VRAM and bus width - and underwhelming performance improvements when DLSS isn't turned on. And what about 1440p? Looking forward to Steve's eventual 3060 vs 4060 non-DLSS 1440p comparisons.

(Perhaps frame interpolation and AI upscaling is the new normal now. That's somewhat depressing.)

It probably won't be much different than the 6650 XT, if even that strong. It will completely choke on 1440p, forget 4k. Even if it's an older game that barely needs any GPU power the bandwidth will just preclude higher resolution performance.

 

[KofeViR]

Based on the press release previously mentioned, it's hard to view the 8GB 4060 as a compelling successor to the 12GB 3060. Nvidia giveth with the larger L2 cache, but taketh away with the VRAM and bus width - and underwhelming performance improvements when DLSS isn't turned on. And what about 1440p? Looking forward to Steve's eventual 3060 vs 4060 non-DLSS 1440p comparisons.

(Perhaps frame interpolation and AI upscaling is the new normal now. That's somewhat depressing.)

The 4060 will win in 99% of games even with no DLSS. 3060 had a weak GPU and the 12GB VRAM makes no difference because GPU is too weak to run high settings anyway (at 1440p)

3060 Ti 8GB smashed 3060 12GB completely and still does in 2023. According to Techpowerup's 4070 Founders Review, the 3060 is 32.69% slower than 3060 Ti in 1440p.

Most games run ultra preset just fine with 8GB at 1440p.

Even The Last of Us does high preset without any issues on 8GB cards now. Patching done wonders and it was completely unoptimized at launch. High looks pretty much identical to Ultra, in terms of textures, shadows and lightning.

Ultra mostly adds garbage like DoF, Motion Blur, Chromatic Aberration, Bloom and Lens Flare, Film Grain etc. and uses lesser or uncompressed textures instead which barely makes any difference to the look of textures (in most games, even medium and ultra textures look almost identical...)

 

[WhoCaresAnymore]

Boy I'm glad I'm "not into" gaming any more. I mean I started out with space invaders in the arcades,
original doom, wolfenstein, and the like. There isn't any way I'd spend what Nvidia and the like want for
a video card.

I can say the same. When upgrades came at a reasonable cost, I kept up with the games and was excited. Now I don't care.

 

[KofeViR]

I can say the same. When upgrades came at a reasonable cost, I kept up with the games and was excited. Now I don't care.

Why read news about GPUs then, LMAO..
You don't need a RTX 4090 to play games.

Back in the days, hardware was cheaper but lasted way shorter. The total cost of PC gaming is pretty much the same today, if not cheaper. A properly build mid-end system will last for 5 years with ease.

I remember the 90s and early 00s with dirt ugly GPUs (green and brown PCB) with a noisy always-on 40mm fan attached, for 200-300 dollars

Lets take RivaTNT for example. Because it was a gamechanger. 299 dollars on launch. Thats almost 600 dollars today with inflation.

The card barely lasted 2 years before it was considered "slow"

And you think it was cheaper "back then"? Naah..

 

[Peter Farkas]

Say what the RTX 3060 launched in Feb 2021 for $329 and is now selling for $340- maybe hard to get at launch - 2 year old tech at "new price" - doesn't seem great value

I think if AMD wasn't around Nvidia would price higher - hey if 3060 is $450 why not get that 3080 for $1200

Xbox and PS5 refreshes will be here for Xmas - budget minded get one of those

I am interested in a console (first time in my pcmasterrace life) for my son. Can you share some info about these refreshes?

 

[wiyosaya]

When the insane prices for high-end GPUs come back down to Earth, if they ever do since they have been insane for many years now, I'll agree that the GPU Market has finally given in.

Then again, there is the used market.

 

[wiyosaya]

the core value of any business is to make money for their share holders. They have a legal obligation to make money for their shareholders or they can be fined. We are no longer customers, we are "consumers"

Do not forget any of this.

I would like to point out that while nVidia does have documented freight shipments selling directly to miners, AMD does not. Not saying it didn't happen, just that there isn't any evidence that it did. I also think AMD saw that mining craze as an opportunity to build marketshare with marketshare being more valuable than just sales.

Make money, Yes. Not fleece their customers and expect them to like it. Ethical business practices will still make money.

ATM, I think, none of the "GPU" giants expected so much push-back from the market. After all, they are all subject to market forces and if your company is not selling cards because the market refuses to buy, they cannot and will not make money.

So remember that aspect too.

But what does Nvidia do? Cut production just to keep their cards insanely priced. Cutting production, too, has to cut into their profits. In other words, Nvidia has given their customers the middle finger and expects them to take it and love it.

My bet is that the fact that they cut production is only going to backfire on them. If the reaction from their customers to these new "4060" cards is like it has been here, the market will continue to give Nvidia the middle finger and either go elsewhere, not buy the new gen, or seriously consider, like myself, buying used at more reasonable prices.

 

[wiyosaya]

As I see it, the problem with the model these companies are following is that they think, and depend on, bringing out new cards way before they are needed, is going to entice the market to buy their products at the insane prices they have been charging for years.

In a way, its the fault of those in the market for buying insanely priced cards for nothing more than bragging rights. I forget the names of the Nvidia cards that started this trend, but the ball has been squarely in Nvidia's court since they started this crap and people bought their insanely priced cards.

Now, people are wising up and refusing to buy their over-priced crap. And what does Nvidia do? Cut production because it is intoxicated on the high it got from the days when people would spend insanely on their products.

And we call these piddling price cuts on mid-range cards "The GPU Market has Finally Given In?"

The smart company will decide that they still need to sell cards to make money, and I bet we will see further price drops - maybe not right-away, but when it finally starts to really hurt these drunken and intoxicated companies.

We've already seen this with Intel. They were the poster-boy of over-priced crap. Finally, the market has bitten them as evidenced by their latest profit statement. No company can continue on that kind of downward spiral for very long.

If any of these companies want to remain profitable, they will have take it on the nose, and adjust their pricing structure - lest they disappear into obscurity.

I don't know now many were around in the days of Compaq, but they essentially had the same kind of mentality - and look at what they have become - a company doomed to obscurity by their own hubris.

 

[BaKKaThaFiF]

Well, both companies threw gamers out the window during the mining craze and all complains were met with "supply and demand, it`s that simple, you *****", even though they choked supply as much as they could to create even more demand, thus incentivizing scalpers and drove prices to the roof, but boy, oh boy, the tides are turning. Mining is officially dead. Most gamers don`t give a fck about their latest offerings and won`t buy their overpriced cards. More so, their image as predatory and despicable enterprises weights in, because a tarnished reputation makes people reluctant to spend money. I`m not saying gamers collectively, but most that use their brains will be picky as hell and only buying at substantial price cuts. So, what can I say, Nvidia and AMD? It`s not just supply and demand, you morons, ethics is a core value for any business! That is if you want customer loyalty and long-term sustainability.

Ha! I love it how AMD has to take the heat for Nvidia's price gouging. Over the last decade, including the pandemic inflation and mining craze, AMD's flagship MSRP increased by 35% while actual price increased by 28%.on the other side, Nvidia has increased their flagship MSRP by 68% and actual retail has gone up 70%. Nvidia jumped MSRP by $500 going from the 3090 to the 3090ti for a 5% performance boost because of scalpers. This ain't a both sides issue. For every 40 series card, you can find a comparable RX 6000 or 7000 card for at least $150 less. These two companies are not the same.

 

[punctualturn]

Well I don't buy AMD because of the multi monitor watt usage (7900XTX uses 50 watts)

When people want to drown, they can do it in a small cup...that will or maybe was fixed with a driver update, but said that, 50 watts could translate to around US$2-3 a month.

and lack of features in general.

Which features?
Do you mean DLSS, CUDA and other tools that are made by nvidia to exactly kill competition and keeping you prisoner to their hardware?

I dont know about you, but anti-consumer practices like those are the reason why I do buy AMD.

when it comes to features and RT perf, they are far behind.

Man, the RT nonsense is really tiresome.

First, how many games are currently listed in Steam in total?

How many of those have RT in a useful, well implemented way that will make every single gamer want to excuse the performance hit included by enabling RT?

Does that performance hit really improve gameplay that much? No, it doesnt.

We are easily, at least 4 more gens away from having capable hardware and games that are worth the RT performance hit.

In my book, that time will be when I can buy a GPU that will run all the RT nonsense at 4K@120 fps and it cost around US$400 to 500.

But hey, no need to continue hammering this nail in, since its clear that many, many people will find whichever excuse they can to continue giving nvidia money.

 

[BaKKaThaFiF]

If you don't do 3D, and don't care much about raytracing, I would go for an AMD with a lot of VRAM. 6800, 6700, something like this.

If you need 3D / cuda, or raytracing, probably rtx 2080 or higher (3000 series better). It should be ok for some years, but I wouldn't go for the lowest line of any series.

RDNA2 traces rays just fine and they don't need fake frames to make the performance seem better than it is. All GPUs run 3D an no one "needs" CUDA anymore. My 6800 ref, even with it's atrocious cooling design, can still pull over 60 fps on max settings w/ RT at 1440 in most titles and it costs the same as the 4060 16GB for far better performance. The 6750 is only a 5% performance hit from there and it costs the same $400 as the 4060 8GB.

If you're trying to raytrace at 4k, sure, buy Nvidia. You've obviously got the money for it if you're spending $400-$500 on your monitor. But unless your money is burning a hole in your pocket, there's no reason to pay for ANY RTX card. The few improvements they have over Radeon aren't worth the massive price increase.

 

[BaKKaThaFiF]

AMD its only mentioned with the hopes that nvidia cuts prices, but never with the guidance to actually buy AMD.

So you'd rather continue to hope and pray that Nvidia drops prices over recommending people buy the obvious better value from AMD? That mentality is why we've seen Nvidia's pricing triple over the last 10 years. Don't be part of the problem.

 

[waclark]

"If you're playing at anything above 1080p, the 3060 is the best out of all the mid-range options." that's valid only for short while, because if you look at the trend which will grow exponentially, the 8GB VRAM will become absolute minimum soon enough. There are a couple of reason for this: the current generation of consoles(exclusing Series S) have 16GB (total) RAM, which mean around 12GB for video. The publishers and share-holders dont want to pay for optimization but only to make quick buck. And there's also another capitalism effect - the GPU manufacturers push as much as possible toward the maximum planned obsolescence, to force us to buy the next one as quickly as possible.
So the 3060 with its 8GB VRAM is bound to fail in a year or two.

I'm not so sure this trend towards higher resolution graphics and, therefore, the need for more VRam will grow exponentially. There was a good article on CNET about developers concerned about global warming and the impact of gaming on global warming. Some developers are looking at ways to make their games more climate friendly and that includes not having high-definition graphics. It all adds up, more Vram, more cores, faster bandwidth and so on. It all takes power.

 

[BaKKaThaFiF]

In terms of raster perf, AMD is doing fine but when it comes to features and RT perf, they are far behind.

They're RT performance is just fine. Unlike Nvidia, AMD understand that not everyone has $500 to spend on a 4K high refresh rate monitor just to use their $2000 GPU after spending $1500 on the rest of their system. 90% of PC gamers are fine with 1080. And building a GPU so powerful that any CPU I'm existence will bottleneck is isn't really a feature I'd want. I'd take the higher dual monitor wattage over an Nvidia card that runs 200w over TGP and spikes another 200w higher than that for more than twice the price but only offers 30% better performance.

 

[waclark]

So you'd rather continue to hope and pray that Nvidia drops prices over recommending people buy the obvious better value from AMD? That mentality is why we've seen Nvidia's pricing triple over the last 10 years. Don't be part of the problem.

I don't think AMD is always the "obvious" value. For certain GPUs, at certain price points, they win handily. However, when you start to get into the higher end GPUs, I don't think AMD is showing any more value than Nvidia and in some cases less.

 

[BaKKaThaFiF]

I don't think AMD is always the "obvious" value. For certain GPUs, at certain price points, they win handily. However, when you start to get into the higher end GPUs, I don't think AMD is showing any more value than Nvidia and in some cases less.

You can get a 7900xtx, build a custom loop to cool it, overclock it by 50% to match the 4090 performance and still spend less money. At every tier of the 40 series, AMD has a comparable option for no less than $150 cheaper. That's been the standard price difference for 4 generations now. Unless your wallet is on fire, Nvidia offers nothing to justify paying more for an RTX card.

 

[waclark]

Yea, but no. Prices aren't "dropping". Old inventory is being moved out. Prices are still high by most people's standards. When I see a 4080 for $1K or a 4070Ti for $600, then I'll know prices have dropped.

 

[punctualturn]

So you'd rather continue to hope and pray that Nvidia drops prices over recommending people buy the obvious better value from AMD? That mentality is why we've seen Nvidia's pricing triple over the last 10 years. Don't be part of the problem.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote?

Because your comment is exactly what I meant in the part that you quoted.