I know but that doesnt change the fact that they asked so much for those cards at that time.
That was unnecesary.
First I'm sorry, I do get derogatory sometimes, not anything personal.
The GTX260 is a clear example of just how much markup cards like these have at release and 20% reduction still won’t hurt that much. I see the similar thing with the original 7970, AMD deviated from the previous practice of determining MSRP from cost, profit, and market penetration, and started with performance/price matrix as a larger influence. As in Nvidia got $500 for a level of performance we are "X" higher, so we can justify more. Then there was TSMC increase, and that could have been a genuine adder. While because Nvidia might still pull the "GK100" (the big chip) also, AMD in late Nov/Dec AMD could see their price might end be copasetic, so they ran with it. I also reflect on "as developed" AMD had always considered Tahiti to furnish "GHz" clocks, but the stuff from TSMC fell short.
There’s the dilemma, AMD needed to down-clock to stay at the TDP, so do you cut price to $500 to start, even though you still better the competitors old top-tier part by 8% ($/per). Though if you can get
good Tahiti's down the road would they provide those at $500 (which kind of what happed). Things went really wacky when Nvidia got a smaller die to give them 680 performance. Then they use that ability to flip the tables on the competition, a hand Nvidia wasn’t routinely known to have.
But what all this did was make prices adjust which is great for us.
