Tuesday, May 13th 2014

$2,999 Price of GeForce GTX TITAN-Z Not Justifiable: Review

Here's why NVIDIA still hasn't launched the GeForce GTX TITAN-Z at the $2,999 price-point it so boldly announced at GTC 2014 - it's not worth its price by a long shot, at least not when stacked up against the Radeon R9 295X2, according to a review published by Hong Kong based print magazine E-Zone. In most tests, the two are evenly matched, with the R9 295X2 even outperforming it by a significant margin in some. In tests where the GTX TITAN-Z leads the R9 295X2, the lead isn't significant, at least nowhere close to justifying its price. The only way NVIDIA can sell the GTX TITAN-Z, if these numbers hold true, is by delivering on its 375W TDP figure.

The review finds that a system running a single GTX TITAN-Z draws 33W less power than the same system running two GTX 780 Ti cards in SLI, and 60W less power than the same system running a single R9 295X2 (tested at FireStrike Extreme load). Unless you plan on future-proofing yourself for the next decade, the lower power draw doesn't justify the $1,500 higher price. So what explains the delay in launching the GTX TITAN-Z? Either a redesign with higher clocks (and proportionately higher power draw), or development of faster drivers.


Source: LinusTechTips Community
Add your own comment

82 Comments on $2,999 Price of GeForce GTX TITAN-Z Not Justifiable: Review

#1
matar
by: TheMailMan78
Perfect Price? I don't think so. The only reason GPU makers are selling GPUs for 2000 bucks is because they can. I remember with 999 seemed extreme and that's when the economy was good! Now its a deal. The R&D and MFG. has in NO WAY been increased 100% in less that 5 years. What you are seeing here is market prices from demand. I wouldn't be surprised if NVIDIA and AMD were not price fixing again. If you pay 2 grand for a GPU then you have more money than brains.
$1999 Perfect Price considering that is a dual GTX Titan black GPUs.
Posted on Reply
#2
Prima.Vera
by: matar
$1999 Perfect Price considering that is a dual GTX Titan black GPUs.
That's bullshit and you know it.

No video card should be sold with more than a 500$ imo. Dual GPU or otherwise. And I am talking about consumer cards not professional ones.

Remember the 4870 and 4870X2 era? Those prices were right back then. Then nVidia started to get greedy after the acquisition of Ageia and everything changed.
Posted on Reply
#3
HumanSmoke
by: The Von Matrices
I have no disagreement that the Titan-Z (and the Titan less so) are overpriced, but you're short-sighted if you think that manufacturing costs are not increasing. If all the reports are to be believed, for the first time in history, advanced processes (20nm and lower) are projected to have comparable or even higher costs per-transistor than the previous generation (28nm) throughout their entire life cycles. That means if you double the number of transistors on your 20nm GPU compared to the 28nm GPU, you actually have a GPU that costs nearly twice as much to manufacture. NVidia is ahead of the trend with it's $1000 GPUs, but the increased pricing is not completely attributable to corporate greed. I would be very surprised if AMD's next generation, high end, 20nm GPU was priced at less than $799 due to the increased manufacturing costs.
This.
Amazing how some people seem to think that process tech is somehow a fixed cost. 28nm wafers really only dropped in price in the latter part of last year if TSMC's financials are anything to go by. $6K per wafer (now ~ $3.5K) , with the prospect of $10K per 16nmFF/14nm is going to add somewhat to the bottom line.

[Source]
by: Prima.Vera
That's bullshit and you know it.
No video card should be sold with more than a 500$ imo....Remember the 4870 and 4870X2 era? Those prices were right back then.
Actual HD 4870 X2 cost : $549
So no video card should be sold for more than $500, yet the $549 price on the 4870 X2 was right??
Posted on Reply
#4
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: HumanSmoke
This.
Amazing how some people seem to think that process tech is somehow a fixed cost. 28nm wafers really only dropped in price in the latter part of last year if TSMC's financials are anything to go by. $6K per wafer (now ~ $3.5K) , with the prospect of $10K per 16nmFF/14nm is going to add somewhat to the bottom line.

[Source]

Actual HD 4870 X2 cost : $549
So no video card should be sold for more than $500, yet the $549 price on the 4870 X2 was right??
Those increases still do not justify a 100% increase. I would guess 40% at best. Which would be in line with most market costs over the last decade of consumer goods.

This is only arguing the price perspective. Not the validity of the product. If you want to pay that cash for something fine but, its not going to make your gaming experience any better than cheaper routes. I'm not trashing on NVIDIA or AMD. I'm stating they are the only horses in the race and know it. They are pricing themselves together and its obvious.

Oh and I know all to well MFG. costs are never a fixed rate. I've been in manufacturing for over 15 years. I fully agree with you there. Costs ALWAYS increase in the long run. I question AMD and NVIDIAs inflation of them.
Posted on Reply
#5
HumanSmoke
by: TheMailMan78
Those increases still do not justify a 100% increase. I would guess 40% at best.
Silicon prices certainly don't account for the escalation of the top end of the model range, but those aren't the volume markets. 'The large die GPUs will be subsidised under the encompassing fabrication contracts that produce the vast bulk of the model lines - the sub $100 OEM orientated mobile/desktop entry level graphics, and the sub-$150 discrete OEM/consumer add in board markets. These markets obviously don't see price escalation, while the overall bill of materials doesn't decrease (overwrought coolers and packaging, widespread GDDR5 usage over DDR2/3, die size not decreasing appreciably). I'd hold off on percentages until it's known how the vendors' contracts are structured with the semicon foundry. If the vendors are paying for "good die" only then per-wafer cost goes up accordingly to guarantee they meet the contract minimums- which all hinges on yields, which as far as I'm aware aren't a known quantity yet.
by: TheMailMan78
I question AMD and NVIDIAs inflation of them.
Undoubtedly, Nvidia and AMD have some kind of arrangement, no matter how informal.
Posted on Reply
#6
Prima.Vera
by: HumanSmoke

So no video card should be sold for more than $500, yet the $549 price on the 4870 X2 was right??
I payed 499$ straight, back in the day for it. ;) Then change it with a 350$ ATI HD 5870. :D
Posted on Reply
#7
eroldru
by: SKL_H
The price tag is to much they reconsider their price it they want it to sell, but maybe nvidia will fine tune the deivers and increase its performance...
by 200%? Yeah that would make it a good buying option. But why pay twice for a lot less performance?
Posted on Reply