- Joined
- Nov 15, 2021
- Messages
- 2,443 (3.25/day)
- Location
- Knoxville, TN, USA
System Name | Work Computer | Unfinished Computer |
---|---|
Processor | Core i7-6700 | Ryzen 5 5600X |
Motherboard | Dell Q170 | Gigabyte Aorus Elite Wi-Fi |
Cooling | A fan? | Truly Custom Loop |
Memory | 4x4GB Crucial 2133 C17 | 4x8GB Corsair Vengeance RGB 3600 C26 |
Video Card(s) | Dell Radeon R7 450 | RTX 2080 Ti FE |
Storage | Crucial BX500 2TB | TBD |
Display(s) | 3x LG QHD 32" GSM5B96 | TBD |
Case | Dell | Heavily Modified Phanteks P400 |
Power Supply | Dell TFX Non-standard | EVGA BQ 650W |
Mouse | Monster No-Name $7 Gaming Mouse| TBD |
Doing some calculations based on the value of various product launches. Found this interesting (lower is better):
This is NOT adjusted for inflation. Using an extreme curve in about the middle of the lineup gives us the blue line above.
Below are my calculations for that:
I had to do some guessing about Ada's MSRP. There was no pricing method based on specifications that could account for the 4080 16GB's pricing; it always came out to $1000 at most while maintaining a $1600 4090. Using Extrapolation based on performance, I came up with the blue line in the chart above. Note that "XX80 Super" is in this case the 4080 16GB, and the XX70 TI is the same GPU. I used an aggressive curve in the middle of the chart to bring the low end to similar levels as older cards.
At the XX80 Super and the XX90 level, the price/performance is quite similar, so it wasn't hard to tell that the price-to-performance line could be much flatter this generation, based on the high end. (lower is better)
Based on the line above, here are my calculations for the 40-series lineup pricing. Note again that the 4090 and 4080 (16) are calculated instead of estimated.
It doesn't look good.
Either way, and it will probably fall somewhere in the middle, Nvidia is moving more cards into the "Halo" market. This is not a good thing as it leads to terrible value for previously affordable units like the XX80 and XX70 levels.
Let's adjust for inflation (as per the US Government's CPI) and see how Nvidia's pricing has changed.
Ouch! Not a great look. Actually, Ampere did much better than I expected. I wonder if it is from the move from TSMC to Samsung. Anyways, it looks like Ada's value at the low end "MIGHT" be better than the 3050 - which is like saying that it smells better than rotting meat.
If you are interested, this is the value chart based on MSRP/Performance across multiple generations (inflation-adjusted, lower is better):
Unfortunately, the "Titan" cards screw up my neat little graph. Setting them to an arbitrary value gives me this(lower is better):
That's a little easier to see. Ada is actually decent value, but it should be much better, being the new thing. Remember, these are inflation-adjusted MSRPs, not current values. Sadly, the 3060 TI is better value new at MSRP than what these Ada MSRPs could turn out to be.
This is NOT adjusted for inflation. Using an extreme curve in about the middle of the lineup gives us the blue line above.
Below are my calculations for that:
Name | Perf | Price | $/% of 4090 |
4090 | 100 | $1,600.00 | $16.00 |
4080 TI | 82 | $1,270.49 | $15.50 |
4080 (16) | 80 | $1,200.00 | $15.00 |
4080 (12) | 66 | $900.00 | $13.64 |
4070 TI | 66 | $660.00 | $10.00 |
4070 | 61 | $490.00 | $8.00 |
4060 TI | 49 | $390.00 | $8.00 |
4060 | 51 | $360.00 | $7.00 |
4050 | 33 | $230.00 | $7.00 |
I had to do some guessing about Ada's MSRP. There was no pricing method based on specifications that could account for the 4080 16GB's pricing; it always came out to $1000 at most while maintaining a $1600 4090. Using Extrapolation based on performance, I came up with the blue line in the chart above. Note that "XX80 Super" is in this case the 4080 16GB, and the XX70 TI is the same GPU. I used an aggressive curve in the middle of the chart to bring the low end to similar levels as older cards.
At the XX80 Super and the XX90 level, the price/performance is quite similar, so it wasn't hard to tell that the price-to-performance line could be much flatter this generation, based on the high end. (lower is better)
Based on the line above, here are my calculations for the 40-series lineup pricing. Note again that the 4090 and 4080 (16) are calculated instead of estimated.
Name | Performance | Calculated MSRP | $/% of 4090 |
4090 | 100 | $1,600.00 | $16.00 |
4080 TI | 82 | $1,270.49 | $15.50 |
4080 (16) | 80 | $1,200.00 | $15.00 |
4080 (12) | 66 | $900.00 | $13.64 |
4070 TI | 66 | $900.00 | $13.60 |
4070 | 61 | $790.00 | $13.00 |
4060 TI | 49 | $630.00 | $12.80 |
4060 | 51 | $620.00 | $12.20 |
4050 | 33 | $420.00 | $12.80 |
Either way, and it will probably fall somewhere in the middle, Nvidia is moving more cards into the "Halo" market. This is not a good thing as it leads to terrible value for previously affordable units like the XX80 and XX70 levels.
Let's adjust for inflation (as per the US Government's CPI) and see how Nvidia's pricing has changed.
Ouch! Not a great look. Actually, Ampere did much better than I expected. I wonder if it is from the move from TSMC to Samsung. Anyways, it looks like Ada's value at the low end "MIGHT" be better than the 3050 - which is like saying that it smells better than rotting meat.
If you are interested, this is the value chart based on MSRP/Performance across multiple generations (inflation-adjusted, lower is better):
Unfortunately, the "Titan" cards screw up my neat little graph. Setting them to an arbitrary value gives me this(lower is better):
That's a little easier to see. Ada is actually decent value, but it should be much better, being the new thing. Remember, these are inflation-adjusted MSRPs, not current values. Sadly, the 3060 TI is better value new at MSRP than what these Ada MSRPs could turn out to be.