• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

GeForce GTX 650 Ti Specifications Detailed

Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
1,734 (0.53/day)
Likes
455
Location
on top of that big mountain on mars(Romania)
System Name ( . Y . )
#51
Where were you living... under a rock!
The Original GTX260 (192sp) released 6/16/2008 and then not even 10 days later the 4870 came out... and wham! At $300 the 4870, to use others phrases "clean the GTX260 clock". In the Diamond 4870 review of June 30th W1zzard could even bring himself to show the GTX260 (shown at the time at $450) in the review!
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Diamond/HD_4870/1.html

It got so bad so Nvidia and AIB partners where compelled to send out checks reimbursing those first buyers to the tune of between $60-125. I was such an embarrassment that Nvidia went all hands on deck to get the "Core 216" release in exactly 3 months achieving parity in price while still performance waned in like the newer titles like Quake4.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphi..._on_GeForce_GTX_200_after_Price_Collapse.html

And just months ago the GTX680 was "some great coup" over a 7970; 3-1/2 months behind and 10% less for only small performance here and there? That's nothing compared to 10 days and 25%. While nobody was needing to send any hush money…
:slap:
I know but that doesnt change the fact that they asked so much for those cards at that time.
Where were you living... under a rock!
That was unnecesary.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
1,725 (0.71/day)
Likes
203
Location
So. Cal.
#52
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. :rockout:
 
Last edited: