Thursday, May 2nd 2013

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Won't be $500 Cheap: Report

Late last month, we learned that NVIDIA plans to unveil its GeForce GTX 7-series desktop GPU family just a little later this month. According to a new report by SweClockers, the company plans to take full advantage of AMD's lethargy or console-fixation, in launching its next GPU generation much later this year. The premium GeForce GTX 780, which is reportedly based on the GK110 silicon, could command a price much higher than the $499.99 GeForce GTX 680 started out on, when it launched last March.

Pricing of the GeForce GTX 780 could be closer to that of the GeForce GTX TITAN, than today's GTX 680, according to the report. It asks us not to be surprised if the card is priced on-par with the TITAN, making us wonder if TITAN remains NVIDIA's fastest single-GPU graphics card for long, or if NVIDIA is re-branding TITAN to GTX 780, or even if it ends up being the fabled "TITAN Ultra."Source: SweClockers
Add your own comment

100 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Won't be $500 Cheap: Report

#1
blibba
by: m1dg3t
Even then, Intel could stand to learn something from them.
Well that's just it. Under the system we live in, Nvidia are, if you're correct, the ones doing it right.

by: Protagonist
I totally agree with you, but a console in its place for the same price is better, hence why i said Intel's IGP is more than enough for a casual gaming PC no need for GPU for the price of PS3 if you have a PS, XBOX or WII that just seems redundant.
I play many games that would run very unsatisfactorily even on HD4000, and I cannot afford a console, or console game prices.

Even if I could afford a console, I don't agree that they're better for the price. I can spend £200-£300 on a console (ignoring current EoL discounts), or I can spend £40 on a graphics card to play the same games at higher image quality, then spend the change on a weekend away.
Posted on Reply
#2
Fourstaff
In this thread: butthurt people who cannot stand how a capitalist market works, and people who cannot understand that there are console games which will never be made available to PC, or poorly ported.
Posted on Reply
#3
blibba
by: Fourstaff
...there are console games which will never be made available to PC, or poorly ported.
I understand that, but I also understand that it works the other way round too, and not just for "casual" games. I'm not arguing against having a PC AND a console, I'm arguing for the PC is a better alternative if money is tight and you can only afford one.
Posted on Reply
#4
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
That's Okay. I'll Just Get Another 680 For SLI.
Posted on Reply
#5
v12dock
For an extra $500 you too can get 10% more performance!
Posted on Reply
#6
Protagonist
by: blibba
I understand that, but I also understand that it works the other way round too, and not just for "casual" games. I'm not arguing against having a PC AND a console, I'm arguing for the PC is a better alternative if money is tight and you can only afford one.
The thing is I can afford both a PC and 3 consoles eg Should i spend $1,600 on 7990 Devil and play console ports and 1 or 2 PC exclusives or $1,500 on PS4, XBOX720 & WII U and play the console game plus console exclusives.

And also own a PC at the same time with no GPU.
Posted on Reply
#7
Fourstaff
by: blibba
I understand that, but I also understand that it works the other way round too, and not just for "casual" games. I'm not arguing against having a PC AND a console, I'm arguing for the PC is a better alternative if money is tight and you can only afford one.
It works the other way round too. I can get a 2nd hand rubbish computer (some early core duo model) for less than £100 including monitor for general usage, and spend another £140 on an Xbox 360. Unless you are absolutely broke (in which case play on whatever you can afford), consoles and PC costs similar enough for both to be viable at budget prices. At this time most people would already have a PC at home, it is easy to either drop a graphics card to make gaming viable (if rig is not too old), or just get a console if it is (instead of rebuilding PC).
Posted on Reply
#8
Lightofhonor
by: Protagonist
The thing is I can afford both a PC and 3 consoles eg Should i spend $1,600 on 7990 Devil and play console ports and 1 or 2 PC exclusives or $1,500 on PS4, XBOX720 & WII U and play the console game plus console exclusives.

And also own a PC at the same time with no GPU.
Why would you ever get a 7990 to play console ports? 7770-650 is all you really need for that. 1/10th the price. 7850 if you want to be sure, but even that is overkill for anything out right now at 1080p. That and a cheap i3 or quad core and you are playing what they produce.
Posted on Reply
#9
blibba
by: Protagonist
Should i spend $1,600 on 7990 Devil and play console ports and 1 or 2 PC exclusives or $1,500 on PS4, XBOX720 & WII U and play the console game plus console exclusives.
Neither - why would anyone restrict themselves to such a stupid set of alternatives?

As for "one or two PC exclusives", here are the games I've played in the last year or two, that I can recall:
  • Rig of Rods
  • Torchlight
  • Dishonored
  • Euro Truck Simulator 2
  • Kerbal Space Program
  • League of Legends
  • Starcraft II
  • Diablo II
  • Beat Hazard
  • Legend of Grimrock
  • Orcs Must Die II
  • Dungeon Defenders
  • Skyrim
There are two console ports on that list. Of course consoles have their exclusives too, but ported games end up better on a £40 graphics card than any console, so why pick the expensive option?

If you can afford both, I'd say the one or two consoles and a cheap graphics card makes more sense than three consoles and an IGP. Both make way, way more sense than >£300 graphics cards and the like.

by: Fourstaff
At this time most people would already have a PC at home, it is easy to either drop a graphics card to make gaming viable (if rig is not too old), or just get a console if it is (instead of rebuilding PC).
I don't know if this was intended as an argument against me, but it's almost exactly my point. I say almost because most games run fine on 5-7 year-old CPUs at this point, and this is a tech forum, so most of us have desktops.

As for the situation where you can only afford an Xbox 360 or a major PC refresh, I'd say it then comes down to which platform you tend to prefer the exclusives on. Xbox 360 might be cheaper to start with, but the PC will earn it back on cheaper games.
Posted on Reply
#10
FrustratedGarrett
by: m1dg3t
Nvidai are serial rapists. There is NO way to compare their tactics to anyone other than Intel. Even then, Intel could stand to learn something from them.
Totally true! The fact that they're still pushing Cuda to become more relevant when Open-CL, a cross-platform and standard API, is around tells tales about that company.

Anyhow, I've been using AMD graphics cards for the last 5 years and since AMD will most likely have better offerings this time around, as anything 50% or more faster than Titan they come up with will do to beat the GTX 780.
Posted on Reply
#11
Dent1
by: blibba
AMD did the same when they had the chance (see Athlon FX, Athlon X2). Any sensible company would - this is the game they're forced to play.
No they didn't. The Pentium 4 and Pentium D cost more or as much as AMD's faster alternatives.

by: Fourstaff
In this thread: butthurt people who cannot stand how a capitalist market works, and people who cannot understand that there are console games which will never be made available to PC, or poorly ported.
It works both way, there are plenty of PC exclusive games which will never see light on a console. i.e. Guildwars, World of Warcraft, Diablo ...just to name a few.

The people that are complaining are the people whom feel they need to own every generation of high end video card. They need to breath and step back and realise that they can skip a few series. My 5850 CF as good as the high end cards today and I have no intention of upgrading until I absolutely have to.
Posted on Reply
#13
Fourstaff
by: blibba

I don't know if this was intended as an argument against me, but it's almost exactly my point. I say almost because most games run fine on 5-7 year-old CPUs at this point, and this is a tech forum, so most of us have desktops.

As for the situation where you can only afford an Xbox 360 or a major PC refresh, I'd say it then comes down to which platform you tend to prefer the exclusives on. Xbox 360 might be cheaper to start with, but the PC will earn it back on cheaper games.
There is a subtle difference between my point and yours: you are assuming that upgrading will be applicable to most, and conveniently ignores those who cant. If, for example, I have a need for a light laptop for me to carry around daily. Instead of getting another desktop for gaming I might as well get a console, which will be cheaper (unless you get one of those super expensive VAIO Z laptops).

As for games, its highly variable. I play Dota 2, world of tanks and StarCraft 2 99% of my time, so that is total spent of £35. I play gundam vs exclusively on ps3, that is about £30.
Posted on Reply
#14
blibba
by: Dent1
No they didn't. The Pentium 4 and Pentium D cost more or as much as AMD's faster alternatives.
And the 7990 costs just as much as Nvidia's faster (!?) alternatives.

by: Fourstaff
There is a subtle difference between my point and yours: you are assuming that upgrading will be applicable to most, and conveniently ignores those who cant. If, for example, I have a need for a light laptop for me to carry around daily. Instead of getting another desktop for gaming I might as well get a console, which will be cheaper (unless you get one of those super expensive VAIO Z laptops).
Yes, I was assuming a modern desktop being available. In that situation, I would endorse buying a console (though if it was me I might be tempted to just not bother).

That conclusion is not the fault of inflated GPU prices, though, which is where this all started - someone saying they'd buy a console because the 780 was going to be so expensive.

by: Fourstaff
As for games, its highly variable. I play Dota 2, world of tanks and StarCraft 2 99% of my time, so that is total spent of £35. I play gundam vs exclusively on ps3, that is about £30.
But you're comparing one game with 3! Incidentally I didn't pay that much for my copy of SC2.
Posted on Reply
#15
Fourstaff
by: blibba
But you're comparing one game with 3! Incidentally I didn't pay that much for my copy of SC2.
And the other 2 is free :rolleyes:

My point still stands: we cannot bring in the cost of games into equation, unless we know the behaviour of game - buying. I have been playing Dota for as long as I can remember, picked up Starcraft II only because I think I could do ok with it (ended my "career" with top 25 masters in 2 consecutive seasons, stopped after that because I can't improve much more unless I go pro).

Regardless, I think GPUs nowadays are plenty powerful, they have outran the resolution curve for the time being. There is a need for a company to produce a premium product to improve their brand image, which is why Nvidia is going to charge an outrageous price for their offering.
Posted on Reply
#16
Dent1
by: blibba
And the 7990 costs just as much as Nvidia's faster (!?) alternatives.
The only card faster than the 7990 is the GTX 690. Both cards trade blows with each other, they're very close performers and they are priced similarly. Both performance and price are in the same ballpark of around $1,000.

The difference being the high Pentium 4 was getting outperformed consistently by low end Sempron, but Intel still jacked up the price to match the Athlon XP/64. I don't see the high end ATI 7990 getting out performed by the low end GT 440 like the Sempron/P4 scenario.

As far as pricing goes, consoles in the long run can cost more. The cost of Xbox Live points for example, or paying to unlock certain game features or exclusive content, it all adds up. On PC aside from a few suscription games the online experience is generally FREE. I can remember picking up Half-Life 2 Episode on release for £25 and got Orange Box free, an equivalent game would have cost me almost £50 on Xbox at the time.

PC is only expensive for the guys chasing the latest and greatest when their current rig is capable of doing fine for years to come.
Posted on Reply
#17
tastegw
Would not be a wise move to price the 780 at anything over $700US.
Posted on Reply
#18
GreiverBlade
positive point for my 7950 ... no competition rofl, AMD compet just right with right price, i guess going green isnt an option for my next "upgrade", cheap 7950 xfire incomming (i know i know AMD didnt fixed xfire problems, sooo what?)

i just hope 780 will not be based on titan or kepler ... titan is basically a 685 (since the 690 name is allready taken) otherwise it would be a bit sad that a 780 has the same perf lvl as a Titan...
Posted on Reply
#19
Dave65
Will be an excellent reason to go back to AMD for my graphics..
Posted on Reply
#20
EarthDog
by: blibba
AMD did the same when they had the chance (see Athlon FX, Athlon X2). Any sensible company would - this is the game they're forced to play.
+1. Also their 79xx series was $500+ as well upon release. They dropped the price multiple times to be more competitive.

This isnt an AMD/Nvidia thing... muppets. :slap:
Posted on Reply
#21
BigMack70
This is just what happens when there's no competition; I am not surprised.

I'll wait for Maxwell for an upgrade, though. An overpriced rebrand (assuming they're cutting down performance from the Titan substantially) doesn't interest me.
Posted on Reply
#22
Casecutter
by: tastegw
Would not be a wise move to price the 780 at anything over $700US.
Have to say if Nvidia needs to find homes for the GK110 Geldings, this is probably their plan, use that Titian LE for the 780. I expect $700-750 price for a card the might offer 15-20% more performance over the current GTX680, while probably the same 15-20% below Titan. Twenty percent more than GTX680's would cause a more logical price of ~$600, but I don't see that, as that would undercut their needed ROI, and Titan prices.

Then nothing more than rebadge the GK114's up a rung on the ladder the GTX770 will get the full "1536" Cuda count of the 680, while perhaps a smidgen more clock/boost and other refinements to Dynamic clocks. We'd be lucky if the 770 price would work out a $450, but IDK. Then the 760Ti gets the GTX670 specs and 256-bit and same boost refinements, with a $370 price. The 760 (non-Ti) will base from the current GTX660Ti (1344 Cuda part/192-Bit part) for $280. While what Nvidia plans for the GTX650Ti Boost on down is probably more of the same.

I honestly don't think AMD is being "lethargic or has console-fixation" (more banter :shadedshu), but saying (in an Italian accent) No please, I insist you's go first... AMD has gone first the last two times and Nvidia's just played "one-up's-man-ship". I sense AMD would rather wait and see what Nvidia does, then could they go all "4870" on them.
;)
Posted on Reply
#23
erocker
Nvidia is smart. Creating an entire new line out of existing silicon. They'll sell it at a premium and people will buy it up! Then towards the end of the year their competition will have new cards and prices with change a bit. The 670/680 seems to sell quite well even though Nvidia's competition has cards that are now faster and sell for cheaper! Not to mention come with much better game bundles.

Really though, like I said they're smart. This "7 series" launch will make their shareholders happy.
Posted on Reply
#24
KainXS
well we did kinda see it coming, its not the first time nvidia have done this you know:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#25
GreiverBlade
kinda funny to see people keeping doing the "there is no competition" thing ...

what a funny joke ... AMD keep it up and cut price Nvidia keep it up and ... f***k with price, i think we have a winner ...

ask any computer tech AMD and Nvidia are on par (in some game AMD does better in other Nvidia does) just perf to perf Nvidia charge 150-200$ premium (just like apple does??? oh god another monster is born... oh wait ... apple charge $$$ over average perf lvl ... so no... Nvidia is nicer)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment