Not far off from the likes of the 750Ti, which is the performance tier where they belong.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
State of the GPU industry market summed up in one video
- Thread starter SneakyStephan
- Start date
Not far off from the likes of the 750Ti, which is the performance tier where they belong.
Last year you could ALMOST build a computer at a console price point that competed with the PS4 and Xbox One: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxUPJdcChzE
Last year's Alienware Alpha computer can compete with the PS4 and Xbox one, and has been selling at a fluctuating $550~$330 price point.
While it's not exactly at a $400 level to get a build that competes or beats the PS4 and Xbox One, it's getting really close.
alexandros
Banned
I think that has more to do with the fact that developers are pushing PC hardware harder these days, either by developing impressive-looking PC exclusives or by pushing settings and quality much further than console settings. That certainly wasn't the case back in 2009 and it's a good thing. I do understand your point though, it's clear that the "best bang for your buck" hardware has moved to the upper midrange part of the market $300-400) rather than the $200-250 it used to be a few years ago. So I'd say that the lower midrange and actual midrange part of the market is underwhelming compared to the beast that was the 8800gt.
Still,the 4690k/gtx970 rig you built isn't really midrange. It's certainly upper midrange, maybe even lower high-end depending on one's definition. The fact that $1000 gpus exist doesn't mean that a $400 gpu should be considered midrange.
Prophet Steve
Member
So about the highest-end consumer card and an I7. Well, no shit that you are going to have shit value for your PC parts that way.
Not that they are bad choices, but it is known that on the higher end of the marker the price performance ratio are way lower.
Also you indicated twice the framerate and better visuals than consoles. Which kind of implies slightly more than twice the performance.
What you have is like 4 times the performance.
That $150 includes the CPU in the PS4 though. For the 750Ti to compete with the PS4, you essentially need an i3 processor. That's another $120 on top.
The reason you didn't see the substance is that you weren't smart enough to realize node shrinks mean nothing to a consumer.
GTX and Radeon branding is a marketing message to the consumer. Nvidia and AMD would and actually do use different branding vernacular when discussing pricing and quantity with foundries they buy their dies from.
Consumers have no need to be sold gpus on how refined the manufacturing process is. They only care about features and performance.
longdi
Banned
It is a half-stupid video as many have pointed out already.
Sure AMD is guilty of re-branding and repricing their old GPUs, but i dont see why they will want to leave money on the table. Nvidia is also sitting on their asses.
The problem lies in the failure of their foundry partners from advancing beyond 28nm. It is just that much harder as we go smaller. Even the mighty Intel suffered a lot moving from Haswell (22nm) to Skylake (14nm).
That said, I am surprised how much performance AMD/Nvidia managed to squeeze out from 28nm. 7970 -> 290X -> Fury has seen 50% improvements every cycle. Same with Nvidia. It is just not cheap to produce and sell big dies.
Of course, this set a dangerous precedent that AMD/Nvidia can keep their prices at $650 for top tier video cards going forward. But we should expect the days of $199/299 HD4800 series being over. Those were crazy times.
Sure AMD is guilty of re-branding and repricing their old GPUs, but i dont see why they will want to leave money on the table. Nvidia is also sitting on their asses.
The problem lies in the failure of their foundry partners from advancing beyond 28nm. It is just that much harder as we go smaller. Even the mighty Intel suffered a lot moving from Haswell (22nm) to Skylake (14nm).
That said, I am surprised how much performance AMD/Nvidia managed to squeeze out from 28nm. 7970 -> 290X -> Fury has seen 50% improvements every cycle. Same with Nvidia. It is just not cheap to produce and sell big dies.
Of course, this set a dangerous precedent that AMD/Nvidia can keep their prices at $650 for top tier video cards going forward. But we should expect the days of $199/299 HD4800 series being over. Those were crazy times.
at this point.....I buy a decent card for $ value. The GTX 970 was perfect and click optimize....at 1080p its really not a problem anymore....sometimes when a setting is turned down and I get a 15-20fps boost I can't even tell WTF was turned off.
I think its become more of an obsession to be able to run things at Ultra and people feel like they are really missing something if running ay anything below that.....which is not even close to being true.
That's a good point. Everyone assumes you can only run a game at ultra, which involves post processing effects that blow console settings out of the water. I remember during the early and mid 2000s always turning off dynamic shadows because of it impacting the resolutions I could run at (and let's be honest dynamic shadows at the time looked like shit)
Especially when you can get close to equivalent of said TitanX with a 980ti. This forums skews demographics. Very very few people bought a titanX.
As anecdote, I see a lot more people here stating ownership of a 970 than a 980 or even a 980ti. Which is as it should be. As an anecdote I also tend to notice that GPUs seem to last a lot longer than they used to.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Yeah you have a good point with there being a lot more high end games now.
We still had crysis back then though, and that actually did run brilliantly on my 4870 if I lowered settings to high from ultra
Similarly to how witcher 3 and ac unity run on my 970 when I put the settings on high (60 fps)
My 970 is very much midrange, it's a good 1080p gpu, and it's just about good enough to get 60-100 fps in intensive games (with reasonable settings, I'm not talking 4x msaa or other performance demolishing settings, I'm very very much aware that 'ultra' is a completely arbitrary setting and I definitely do not expect ANY gpu to be able to run every game at 'ultra' because any self respecting PC game has dials that you can dial up to 11/10 for future hardware. like crysis and metro back in 2007-2009)
4690k is the definition of midrange
No hyperthreading, only 4 cores.
upper midrange is the 4790k (hyperthreading) and high end are the 6-8 core intel cpus.
Remember, intel have 18 core server cpus already... we're being sold the absolute bottom of the barrel in the consumer space.
This part of your post sums up my feelings really well.
You can make a heavily compromised console experience type entry level pc at a fairly low price and still beat the consoles, but you are not getting a good performance/dollar when you do that and the word compromise is generally not a word you like to hear when you're spending 500 euros.
It has always made more sense to go for a bang for buck build when choosing parts but that bang for buck price ranged has now been moved out of reach for a LOT of gamers.
And I think it's a crying shame.
especially Tera......its UE3 which ran on fricken anything.....my Phenom 2 ran Tera fine.....pretty sure any intel entry CPU would blow that card out of the water today lol. Hyperbole is strong with that one wildfire
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Nvidia had drops in profits from the latest inverstor report, due to higher operation costs. Partially due to delays, recalls, lawsuits!
It's pretty disingenuous to put in Titan cards as the high end gaming card, when it's clearly a pro-sumer card that is eating in the Quadro-line of cards.
Secondly the reduction in tech-per-dollar, is probably related to what Intel is facing as well. The market is moving forward mobile devices with long battery life, and this creates a middle-of-the-road vacuum for what OP calls sweetspot. Saying that it's no excuse for a slow in tech is just something I find baffeling. Both Intel and Nvidia have been hit by delays and tons of roadblocks as the die shrinks. Emphasis in the last few years have been on lower power consumption and lower heat, to be able to fit massive PPW into thin and light form notebooks, which is a segment that increases, while stationary is not.
Thirdly, in the gaming sphere, Indie titles and F2P games with low system requirements have become a significant force to reckon with, and that is something you also see in operating systems. Everything has to run on as many low powered devices as possible, and this makes it less appealing for more developers to push the technical envelope further slowing everything down.
Fourth, depending on where we are in a console cycle, you can often see patterns of PC games being slowed down/held back by console ports to make everything unified. This actually seems a lot less of a problem than it used to.
Fifth, In late 2009 I got a i7 920 with a 470 Fermi, and I upgraded late last year to a 4790k and a 970. There is no fucking doubt that I got a much better deal for the hardware than I got in 2009. Fermi was a hot piece of turd. It was stupid power hungry, made obscene amounts of noise and it dispersed so much heat. It was a joke. Let's not pretend that pure power is the only thing that matters in this.
It's pretty disingenuous to put in Titan cards as the high end gaming card, when it's clearly a pro-sumer card that is eating in the Quadro-line of cards.
Secondly the reduction in tech-per-dollar, is probably related to what Intel is facing as well. The market is moving forward mobile devices with long battery life, and this creates a middle-of-the-road vacuum for what OP calls sweetspot. Saying that it's no excuse for a slow in tech is just something I find baffeling. Both Intel and Nvidia have been hit by delays and tons of roadblocks as the die shrinks. Emphasis in the last few years have been on lower power consumption and lower heat, to be able to fit massive PPW into thin and light form notebooks, which is a segment that increases, while stationary is not.
Thirdly, in the gaming sphere, Indie titles and F2P games with low system requirements have become a significant force to reckon with, and that is something you also see in operating systems. Everything has to run on as many low powered devices as possible, and this makes it less appealing for more developers to push the technical envelope further slowing everything down.
Fourth, depending on where we are in a console cycle, you can often see patterns of PC games being slowed down/held back by console ports to make everything unified. This actually seems a lot less of a problem than it used to.
Fifth, In late 2009 I got a i7 920 with a 470 Fermi, and I upgraded late last year to a 4790k and a 970. There is no fucking doubt that I got a much better deal for the hardware than I got in 2009. Fermi was a hot piece of turd. It was stupid power hungry, made obscene amounts of noise and it dispersed so much heat. It was a joke. Let's not pretend that pure power is the only thing that matters in this.
Nvidia has released its financial details for Q2 FY2016, which ended on July 26, 2015. Overall sales have increased during the quarter compared to the same quarter last year by roughly 5 percent from $1.103 billion to $1.153 billion USD. In return, however, net profits have plummeted by 80 percent from $134 million USD in Q2 FY2015 to just $26 million in Q2 FY2016.
Operating costs have increased by over 22 percent to $558 million from $456 million the same quarter last year. $89 million went to the Icera modem division restructuring and another $24 million to the legal battle against both Samsung and Qualcomm. The recent Shield Tablet fire recall also had an effect on Nvidia's bottom line.
The consumer GPU division performed very well with unit sales up by 51 percent to $959 million. This is compared to $878 million in sales the previous year. According to Nvidia, high-end GPUs are experiencing this year. In comparison, revenues from business GPUs like the Quadro, Tesla, and OEM branches have been in decline. Tegra sales have also declined by 19.5 percent from $159 million to $128 million.
http://investor.nvidia.com/
It's answered up, the Alienware Alpha is the whole package. Sure, the consoles still have a (smaller) edge and I'm not saying that they are bad deals, the price is good for what they offer, but the PC hardware is not a rip-off either as the video suggest. Unless you go for premium features that you don't need, of course.
The titan was. The titanX certainly isn't.
SneakyStephan
Banned
No it didn't...
I was playing tera on my phenom II only a few weeks ago.
30 fps in cities and the overworld, 10 fps in the 20v20 bgs
sub 20 fps the dungeons too.
tera is a notoriously cpu intensive game (in part because their LUA UI is a major cpu hog and will cripple a slower cpu core and bottleneck performance) and ue3 in general is a cpu intensive engine...
dirty bomb also uses ue3 and I went from having 20-30 fps in a full server with a phenom II and hd6870 to having 80-130 fps in a full server with a i5 4690k and the very same hd6870
If you're going refute my claims then don't make shit up.
In gw2 during sieges at launch my phenom II gave me 5-10 fps, the big dragon fight (forgot the name it's been a long time) event when you had 30+ people fighting gave me 10 fps as well, my friend with an i5 2500k (stock clock) who played with me even dropped to 20fps in those sieges and fights.
@ wildfire, let me guess, your ancient cpu is a nehalem or sandy bridge quad core
That would indeed run mmos fine as my brand new 4690k is only marginally faster than a 2011 i5 2500k
What really ticks me off is me purchasing a R9 290X 8gb to replace my 78701ghz from Neweggs blowout sale @ 400US because of the new cards coming 3 weeks. And the the same card in an actually lower wattage comes in at 70 dollars less. Oh well I suppose. It does run mass effect 3 better, ie insane settings in driver, though it really didn't need to. wow did run slightly better even though that game isn't really gpu centric but it did have some tearing go away.
I bought it for elite dangerous and eve valkyry on the OR. Elite is insane now tho. I just don't feel I got the boost I got when I went from a gtx260 216 sli setup to the 7870. It seems the big gains come when you freesync or gsync or play games like gtav and witcher both of which I play on ps4.
@ sneakystephan I played Tera on my phenom 2 x 6 with the my sli'd 260 216's and it ran fantastic. I can't imagine something changed to tank performance but maybe something did, I personally played it when it first came out.
I bought it for elite dangerous and eve valkyry on the OR. Elite is insane now tho. I just don't feel I got the boost I got when I went from a gtx260 216 sli setup to the 7870. It seems the big gains come when you freesync or gsync or play games like gtav and witcher both of which I play on ps4.
@ sneakystephan I played Tera on my phenom 2 x 6 with the my sli'd 260 216's and it ran fantastic. I can't imagine something changed to tank performance but maybe something did, I personally played it when it first came out.
CybernatonEvolution
Member
Fuck Nvidia.
I ran my with a amd phenom ii x6 1090t and a 7950(Orginally the GTX 260 that I started with) from the Korean beta days.....don't forget Phenom II lastest a long ass time (From 2008 to 2012)
so don't bring that fucking bullshit here saying I'm liar.
Vital Tundra
Member
So basically the Titan cards should be the next step and not the most premium?
KojiKnight
Member
Errr what? Since when is the 980 a midrange card? I'd even say the 970 is in the upper echelons of what I'd consider midrange.
I didn't take in to account crazy deals. My cousin bought a brand new PS4 with 3 games a couple of weeks ago for £250. You can currently get an Xbox One with a 42" Samsung HDTV for $500. I think the device you're both talking about is about $480 on Amazon right now? The 4GB version anyway. That's still a good degree more expensive than the PS4. And I'm pretty sure the PS4 will see a price drop soon as well. In that sense, the point I'm making still stands, the console's are cheap. Even at this point in their cycle where they're actually over priced, they're still offering decent bang for buck.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Considering tera only uses 2 cores and puts the vast majority of the load on one core, your x6 is no better at running tera than my x3.
High end by name, midrange by die size and memory bus.
The 980 is a midrange card, it's all about the branding and naming schemes.
I did a test build for a more powerful ps4 pc before the ps4 even launched for 400.
It even included an useless Blu-Ray drive.
The sad thing is that this build 2day would be more expensive, cause the pc market stood still while the lost value.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Just because you can, you shouldn't. The only reason to get a gaming PC is to have a PC which plays all games at 60FPS. Otherwise, PC gaming is pointless.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
I don't remember it being so when I saw this topic last night, did he turn off the comments for the video?
I don't care what fanboy garbage gets posted, that's bullshit.
I don't care what fanboy garbage gets posted, that's bullshit.
what's your x3 running at Ghz wise? model possibly?
My cousin uses the computer everyday(I gave it to him) and doesn't have insane issues except inside cities where hundreds loads and even my computer is just like....fuck this lol
Vital Tundra
Member
Is that sarcasm?
For you maybe. PC gaming has many more things to offer than 60fps.
I think it is important to note that despite prices being higher, builds also last much longer than they used to. A build with a 2500K and a 7970 or 670 is still a beast today that has no issues with 1080p.
A 4 year old build would be almost unusable looking back 8-15 years ago.
It's all a result of Moore's Law not being possible anymore.
A 4 year old build would be almost unusable looking back 8-15 years ago.
It's all a result of Moore's Law not being possible anymore.
Except, you know, for playing PC games and profit from the PC software ecosystem
You meant 120 FPS, but that's okay.
SneakyStephan
Banned
720BE, which is a 955BE with one core disabled (can be reenabled on most of them if you have the right motherboard, sadly I didn't have the right motherboard)
It has the full 6MB cache from the 955BE
It ran at 3.4 ghz clockspeed (that's as high as it would go without going to like 70 degrees celcius, which would be enough to kill it in the long term
)Even if you had a really good sample and could clock to 3.7 or something, 10 percent more performance does not turn 10-15 fps in 20v20 battlegrounds into 30+ fps.
The game was only playable for me when leveling in the overworld or grinding bams, the big battlegrounds were a no go and dungeons were just miserable with consistently under 30 fps while fighting the bosses.
This is true.
Though gpus are seeing plenty of performance increases (cpus obviously are not), they are happening slower (more time between new gpu series) but the jumps are still massive
gtx 980 ti is an absolute monster performance wise compared to the gtx 580 just 4 years ago.
There was a worse lull performance wise after the radeon 9800 pro, I remember the x800 and x1800 being overpriced (comparatively to the 9800pro) and having much worse performance gains.
GPU performance gains and prices didn't get good again until the 8800GT released.
I didn't upgrade at all from 2003 until 2009 because of this (I'm hard headed like that)
We really need another 8800GT
the gtx 980 could have been it.GPUS/cpus lasting longer just means graphics aren't getting better as fast and games aren't getting bigger/doing more (cpu load) , it's a chicken and egg problem ,no better cpus = no point making games that need a fancier cpu than exists today = no demand for better cpus.
Look at how ambitious star citizen is and how much they do technically that hasn't been done before, then think about all the things they can't do but could have done if cpu performance didn't stall in 2011.
Directx 12 draw call improvements are an exciting and temporary boost hopefully, for all the hoohah and (over)hype about dx12 I hope it will result in higher draw distance and better LOD in games.
The pop in and cereal box buildings in AC unity are fucking embarrassing
I have hope for AMD ZEN to possibly revive the cpu market,that is if AMD don't just price their 8 core ZEN to match the intel extreme cpus, which they might considering their bullshit with FURY in the gpu market.
Prophet Steve
Member
Uhm, no. Not at all.
All the games that high-end cards can not run like that also offer settings that go far beyond what consoles are doing -- and they often don't run at a stable 30 FPS on consoles, at lower settings.
Holy crap you can't be serious.
You're serious aren't you?
Oh my god.
720BE, which is a 955BE with one core disabled (can be reenabled on most of them if you have the right motherboard, sadly I didn't have the right motherboard)
It has the full 6MB cache from the 955BE
It ran at 3.4 ghz clockspeed (that's as high as it would go without going to like 70 degrees celcius, which would be enough to kill it in the long term
Even if you had a really good sample and could clock to 3.7 or something, 10 percent more performance does not turn 10-15 fps in 20v20 battlegrounds into 30+ fps.
The game was only playable for me when leveling in the overworld or grinding bams, the big battlegrounds were a no go and dungeons were just miserable with consistently under 30 fps while fighting the bosses.
holy hotness! Yes, the 1090t is OC'ed to 4.0Ghz which still is a bump but don't forget we never had BG's in Tera until a year later (2013)...by which I had quit by then. I don't ever remember having issues in dungeons due to the constrained areas....open areas gave some issues though especially in crowded sections.
Reallink
Member
How much did Nvidia's non-dGPU divisions lose though (e.g. Grid, Shields, Tegra)? People like to say the same thing about Amazon ("They make no money selling you goods!!"), which conveniently ignores the BILLIONS their CE/Devices division spends/loses unrelated to the retail side.
SneakyStephan
Banned
And that would explain it then.
You weren't wrong. tera was playable back when you played it. (with disclaimer that you find 30 fps acceptable)
Then they added the rifts (nexus or something I can't remember) (which they later removed) and the big battlegrounds and the game was no longer even remotely playable (way below 30 fps, which is where it objectively is no longer playable for anyone) .
As soon as you get more than 5-10 people together in tera the performance just craters.
They also added the gunner class which was another performance demolisher in dungeons
Yep, it's why I roll my eyes whenever someone brings up that nvidia isn't that profitable as if to prove that margins on maxwell aren't HUGE (and they are huge)
That's not even to mention that most big corporations these days try to limit their on the books profits as much as possible (try to have as much cost writeoffs as possible) for legal tax evasion purposes., but we don't need to go into that their mobile failures are enough.
It's as silly as claiming sony wasn't making bank on their cameras and movie studio equipment just because they lose a ton of money with their stupid TVs and were bleeding money with their playstation division in the ps3 days.
probably pretty well. It seems to by supply constrained, but that is primarily due to low manufacturing volumes.
Dictator93
Member
WAIT. wut?
And that would explain it then.
You weren't wrong. tera was playable back when you played it. (with disclaimer that you find 30 fps acceptable)
Then they added the rifts (nexus or something I can't remember) (which they later removed) and the big battlegrounds and the game was no longer even remotely playable (way below 30 fps, which is where it objectively is no longer playable for anyone) .
As soon as you get more than 5-10 people together in tera the performance just craters.
They also added the gunner class which was another performance demolisher in dungeons
It's weird but even playing now the game hitches and skips even at 80fps(on my current rig), when playing last night I sat there and I'm just like
how does this game seem to run worse now than it did 3 years ago......how the did performance get so shitty. The game used to run perfectly fine. Gunners are OP from what I saw too btw(little off topic there XD)
Also (I didn't meant to be a dick in that first post....I think I just got a little upset being called a liar, of which we both played at different times.)
SneakyStephan
Banned
They're trading margins (low volume high profit) for market share (losing all of it)
In the short term this is giving them money, in the long term they might fuck themselves over completely.
That isn't our concern (consumer) though.
If people support an industry you expect benifits to the consumer, like volume production lowering costs and competition further lowering prices.
We aren't getting either benifit. All we get is marketing, perceived value and price collusion (which is hard to prove unless CEOs are retarded enough to discuss it in company emails like they did in 2008).
I'm not happy about only a fraction of the money I paid for my 970 going into the actual production and R&D, and the rest going into marketing and shareholder pockets.
Because that's what you ARE paying for when you buy a titan (or a 970), you are paying for branding and marketing.
I don't want beats/apple gaming computer, my gpu is not a fashion accessory.
I got defensive, you got defensive, it was based on a misunderstanding.
My apologies as well, water under the bridge.
The tone of my post is "almost". This is from last year's hardware, only a year into the PS4 and Xbone's lifespand it's seeing low range computer hardware matching it's power on $450~$550 budget. Soon it'll eclipse, soon after it'll surpass.
I want to upgrade my PC but every time I look at prices it just seems you can't get as much for your money at the moment.
I built it in 2011 and I still have my spreadsheet with the costs.
A HD 6870 GPU (+free copy of Deus Ex HR) cost me £125 back then, and it was a great card at the time. For the same money now I can get a R9 370, which from what I can tell is basically the same card with minor changes and wouldn't be much of an upgrade at all.
It's the same with CPUs, I paid £150 for my i5 2500k. If I was to spend the same money again four years later I wouldn't be able to gain much performance.
My whole build with case + keyboard + everything else (except a monitor) cost me £580. It's hard to spend that much now and end up with a better PC than what I already have.
I built it in 2011 and I still have my spreadsheet with the costs.
A HD 6870 GPU (+free copy of Deus Ex HR) cost me £125 back then, and it was a great card at the time. For the same money now I can get a R9 370, which from what I can tell is basically the same card with minor changes and wouldn't be much of an upgrade at all.
It's the same with CPUs, I paid £150 for my i5 2500k. If I was to spend the same money again four years later I wouldn't be able to gain much performance.
My whole build with case + keyboard + everything else (except a monitor) cost me £580. It's hard to spend that much now and end up with a better PC than what I already have.
SneakyStephan
Banned
The 370 is basically a hd 7850 from 2012, it's like 60 percent faster than your 6870.
You could get a 380 (7950) which is about 2x as fast.
But yeah, you'll be paying about 50 percent more than what you paid for your old 6870 4 years ago for the privilege of getting twice the performance.
Not a very exciting upgrade is it :\
There is 5-6x the performance (980ti) out there but it's going to cost you 6 times more than your 6870 as well...
For nvidia there's either the rather gimpy 960 at 220 euros (performs similar to the 380 I believe but the low memory bandwidth doesn't make it suitable for downsampling or lots of AA) and then a huge price gap to the 970 (3.5GB false advertising edition
) for 380 euros