NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Founders Edition

[laszlo]

pricing is good; is made for those who work at Nvidia and have a wage of min 3000 $/month ;hope Jensen force them to buy one card/person....

i won't pay more than 400 for a decent gpu red or green period; seems my upgrade had to wait...in the end games are not a priority considering current economic situation which may be worse next year...better to have reserves for living/unexpected spending's, than a piece of silicon...

 

[Valantar]

It is not measured by the meter. In 4k, even 10 fps more can make you happy. You will not notice differences in 1080p or 1440p, where the counter exceeds 100 fps, but at higher resolutions it changes the page.
Of course, everyone has their own options. It can play excrementably in 4K or invest in a video card that will give it at least a decent experience.

All you're saying here is that "for some people, performance matters more than price". This isn't a counterargument to people pointing out the horrendous value of this GPU, its just a statement about humans generally not being rational beings. Which is true, but also irrelevant. Just because some people for whatever reason don't care about value doesn't make that less relevant. And this GPU, while very fast, delivers worse performance per dollar than its predecessors. That isn't progress, that's a regression. If you are privileged enough to not care about value, please at least have the perspective to recognize that this isn't a privilege afforded to everyone.

work at Nvidia and have a wage of min 3000 $/month

What Nvidia employees make just $36 000/year? I get what you're saying, but maybe replace 3000 with 10 000?

 

[Bwaze]

It is not measured by the meter. In 4k, even 10 fps more can make you happy. You will not notice differences in 1080p or 1440p, where the counter exceeds 100 fps, but at higher resolutions it changes the page.
Of course, everyone has their own options. It can play excrementably in 4K or invest in a video card that will give it at least a decent experience.

Of course, everyone can purchase what they think is reasonable. But think for a moment what would constant regression in price / performance actually bring us in the long run.

If we focus just on GeForce series, Nvidia Geforce 256 started it all at $250 in 1999. Let's assume a 50% generational uplift (there were some with much more, and some with much less), and of course a 50% price increase, because it's apparently even OK to have a 70% price increase from generation to generation now.

Only 10 generations later a GeForce 100 series flagship would cost over 14.000 dollars in 2010. And of course a proper price for Ada flagship less than 20 generations after GeForce 256 would be half a million dollars. And only two generations later we'll be over one million, so better buy now!

Still sounds logical to have the same or even worse price increase as performance increase?

 

[`Orum]

For those that are math challenged, compared to 3080 10GB, it is (100-67)/67 = 49% faster in 4K, and at a cost of ($1200-$700)/$700=71% increase in price. You decide if it is worth it for you.

The big difference, of course, is VRAM. For gaming this (mostly) doesn't matter, but when it comes to productivity, namely AI workloads, it matters a whole lot.

Just a launch price, probably will come down once they milk the early adopters.

It won't, or at least, not for some time. Remember, Nvidia got played by the crypto market as hard as a grandmother putting her life savings into it at the peak of the bubble, and massively over-purchased Ampere silicon. The high prices you are seeing are not because they want to milk early adopters--it's the opposite. They want to milk late adopters (i.e. those still buying Ampere in 2023) as much as they can. Ampere mid and low-end (3070 and below) cards are still selling at or above MSRP, here in Q4 2022, more than two years after they were released (and well after "the merge").

The only way this works is if Lovelace is at no performance/price advantage, which is where it sits now, and where it's going to sit until one of the following happens:

• Nvidia finally sells out of Ampere stock (this will take quite a long time at current pricing)
• AMD forces their hand by having a lot of RDNA3 cards available at reasonable pricing

Even if Nvidia were to discount mid/low-end Ampere, it's likely only going to be to keep them in line with Lovelace pricing when equivalent 'tier' cards launch. I don't see that happening until late Q1 at the earliest, and even that assumes that AMD will play some role in forcing them to release (e.g. releasing the 7600 XT, 7700, and/or 7700 XT). We'll still be paying just as much percent more in money for them as they are percent faster.

In any case, I don't feel we as consumers should have to pay for Nvidia's mistake.

 

[Richards]

@W1zzard you got to add 3dmark speedway to the suite

 

[Sake]

Most people here wish that AMD 7900 card perform, than maybe nvidia will lower the prices so they can buy an Nvidia card. Ridiculous

 

[Bwaze]

Remember, Nvidia got played by the crypto market as hard as a grandmother putting her life savings into it at the peak of the bubble, and massively over-purchased Ampere silicon. The high prices you are seeing are not because they want to milk early adopters--it's the opposite. They want to milk late adopters (i.e. those still buying Ampere in 2023) as much as they can. Ampere mid and low-end (3070 and below) cards are still selling at or above MSRP, here in Q4 2022, more than two years after they were released (and well after "the merge").

Poor Nvidia, we should organize a GoFundMe!

Ofcourse the record revenues during the cryptoinsanity were barely enough to cover the rising manufacturing costs (not true, for the sake of people who can't detect sarcasm).

And most of the extra profit over the almost two year fool's gold rush was earned by the AIBs, or stores, or even scalpers, Nvidia sold only for the old MSRP calculated costs (not true, for the sake of people who can't detect sarcasm).

Remember the previous cryptocrash in 2018?

There was a lot of talk Nvidia also miscalculated and ordered large quantities of Pascal flagships, and throughout all 2018 and even after the release of Turing people were wondering how Nvidia will use all those unsold chips, perhaps cutting them down so they wouldn't interfere with Turing sales? And then the talk stopped when we realized there won't be any new Pascal flagship cards. What happened? Who cares, Nvidia got enough money during cryptoinsanity they could just chuck them in a landfill.

High GPU prices only make sense if it's combined with scatcity, and if there's no great demand, there mustn't be great supply.

 

[Gica]

All you're saying here is that "for some people, performance matters more than price". This isn't a counterargument to people pointing out the horrendous value of this GPU, its just a statement about humans generally not being rational beings. Which is true, but also irrelevant. Just because some people for whatever reason don't care about value doesn't make that less relevant. And this GPU, while very fast, delivers worse performance per dollar than its predecessors. That isn't progress, that's a regression. If you are privileged enough to not care about value, please at least have the perspective to recognize that this isn't a privilege afforded to everyone.

Of course, everyone can purchase what they think is reasonable. But think for a moment what would constant regression in price / performance actually bring us in the long run.

View attachment 270160

If we focus just on GeForce series, Nvidia Geforce 256 started it all at $250 in 1999. Let's assume a 50% generational uplift (there were some with much more, and some with much less), and of course a 50% price increase, because it's apparently even OK to have a 70% price increase from generation to generation now.

Only 10 generations later a GeForce 100 series flagship would cost over 14.000 dollars in 2010. And of course a proper price for Ada flagship less than 20 generations after GeForce 256 would be half a million dollars. And only two generations later we'll be over one million, so better buy now!

Still sounds logical to have the same or even worse price increase as performance increase?

Gentlemen, you have the right not to buy, but I don't understand why you are complaining? Who will take into account? As you can see, the high price for msrp is even small next to the one regulated by the free market. If nVidia now recommends (msrp = recommendation) $1000 for the 4090 and $500 for the 4080, do you think you will buy at those prices?
I caught communism and I know what the mercurial (imposed price) is. The products you were looking for could not be found in stores and were sold on the black market at the price regulated by it. At a 50% lower price, the entire production would be taken over by integrators and speculators, and you still buy them at the current price.
If you are not AMD fans, with no intention of buying even at $500, then you really have a problem with the correct perception of reality.

It's simple for me: I don't buy! And I'm not even complaining. They can sell them a GT 4010 for $10,000 or $1,000,000, that's their job, because then there will be more people who won't buy, they'll be left with unsold goods and go bankrupt. In reality, everything is calculated. They have some well-trained people who inspect the market and it seems that they do a good job if a 4090, with an MSRP of $1499, you can barely find it for $2000.

 

[Bwaze]

So be prepared:

2022, RTX 4080 - $1200
2024, RTX 5080 - $1800
2026, RTX 6080 - $2700
2028, RTX 7080 - $4050
2030, RTX 8080 - $6075
2032, RTX 9080 - $9112
2034, RTX 1080 - $13669

And I was being generous, only 50% generational price increase, not the current 70% one. With 70% price increases it looks even more extortion market behaviour:

2022, RTX 4080 - $1200
2024, RTX 5080 - $2040
2026, RTX 6080 - $3468
2028, RTX 7080 - $5896
2030, RTX 8080 - $10022
2032, RTX 9080 - $17038
2034, RTX 1080 - $28965

But of course, this 70% price increase for a generation with a below average performance increase is just one off, right? Although the reasons you people cite hold for every generation...

 

[Prima.Vera]

That's because they don't have those cards in stock for various reason such as, extremely low yields for the top GPUs due to their complexity; keeping artificially the stocks low and prices up in order to sell the left overs from the next generation, plain and simple callous greed, etc.

 

[Bomby569]

Read some of the complaints, and tbh i think Nvidia should ask for even more as people would still buy.
Glad i don't have to buy the newest thing or my head explode like some people.

Now we need crypto back to make this things 10.000$

 

[Valantar]

Gentlemen, you have the right not to buy, but I don't understand why you are complaining? Who will take into account? As you can see, the high price for msrp is even small next to the one regulated by the free market. If nVidia now recommends (msrp = recommendation) $1000 for the 4090 and $500 for the 4080, do you think you will buy at those prices?
I caught communism and I know what the mercurial (imposed price) is. The products you were looking for could not be found in stores and were sold on the black market at the price regulated by it. At a 50% lower price, the entire production would be taken over by integrators and speculators, and you still buy them at the current price.
If you are not AMD fans, with no intention of buying even at $500, then you really have a problem with the correct perception of reality.

It's simple for me: I don't buy! And I'm not even complaining. They can sell them a GT 4010 for $10,000 or $1,000,000, that's their job, because then there will be more people who won't buy, they'll be left with unsold goods and go bankrupt. In reality, everything is calculated. They have some well-trained people who inspect the market and it seems that they do a good job if a 4090, with an MSRP of $1499, you can barely find it for $2000.

That is an impressive amounts of things that are not arguments in any way, but just various ways of repeating "nobody can do anything to affect anything at all, we're all just free-floating atoms in the void". It's got to be pretty depressing to live in a world where literally nothing can be affected by anything else, honestly. Like, what do you even care about at that point? Why try anything at all?

Counterpoint: we are complaining because Nvidia's job is to provide us with useful products. You admit as much yourself in the part where you try to say that their job is to make money - 'cause if they try too hard at that, they will go bankrupt. Which tells us that "making money" isn't the core of the business, as it's not an activity contingent upon itself - it's contingent on a more basic function - producing and selling useful products at acceptable prices. Profits are a byproduct of the core business of the company, which is making useful products. The complaints come from the fact that they are actively making these products massively unaffordable in order to line their own pockets - what is otherwise known as exploitation. So, the answer to your question is in what you yourself wrote: we are complaining because Nvidia is failing at the core function of their existence as a company, and are instead pushing as hard as they can to maximize their own profits. This has actual, real-world harmful effects to their customers, who lose their ability to pursue cherished activities (whether for business or pleasure), or are made to over-spend in order to do so (which has its own share of harmful effects). Why would anyone not protest against this? I mean, "the right not to buy" is itself a protest. It's just a woefully ineffectual one - literally the least effective form of protest possible, of shutting up and walking away. You presenting that as somehow a trump card argument against people protesting is just outright stupid.

We're well accustomed to your brand of die-hard hyper libertarian thinking here, but the massive logical flaws behind that kind of thinking don't go away just because you keep repeating them, nor do they go away because of your vague, hand-wavy quasi-straw man "I've seen what communism can do" hyperbole.

So be prepared:

2022, RTX 4080 - $1200
2024, RTX 5080 - $1800
2026, RTX 6080 - $2700
2028, RTX 7080 - $4050
2030, RTX 8080 - $6075
2032, RTX 9080 - $9112
2034, RTX 1080 - $13669

(and I was being generous, only 50% generational price increase, not the current 70% one)

So what you're saying is that in ~2036, the price of a flagship GPU will surpass the global median wage? I guess that adds up.

 

[Bomby569]

That's because they don't have those cards in stock for various reason such as, extremely low yields for the top GPUs due to their complexity; keeping artificially the stocks low and prices up in order to sell the left overs from the next generation, plain and simple callous greed, etc.

given the price i wouldn't make many of them because i would never guess there were so many nuts willing to part with their money, i bet Nvidia thought the same. But idiots keep being idiots and they are multiplying
Nvidia just wanted to move the old 3*** cards and never expected that people would line to buy this overpriced crap

 

[Shatun_Bear]

$1200, street price more like $1500-1600 for AIB cards as these FE's will be completely non-existent again for about 2 years like the previous 3080...

I remember when I bought an 80-tier card (AIB GTX 980) for £350. Price has quadrupled in 5 years!

 

[Bwaze]

People are also defending this extraordinary price increase as "it doesn't matter what the product is called, so what if RTX 4080 is priced as RTX 3090 was, and RTX 4070 will come at RTX 3080 price, roughly $700 - you buy the price and performance bracket, not the name"

We can see what will that get us in a couple of generations, for roughly $1200, probably corrected for inflation (because why not) youl'll get:

2022, RTX 4080, $1200
2024, RTX 5070, $1440
2026, RTX 6060, $1728
2028, RTX 7050, $2074
2030, RTX 8040, $2488
2032, RTX 9030, $2986
2034, RTX 10020, $3583

 

[Bomby569]

Like gamers nexus Steve said we are supposed to get more performance, that's the natural evolution, what isn't natural is having to pay more in proportion, that's not progress.
Nvidia just solves for x performance increase and them multiply x by the price of the last card.

Stop buying into this, you'll never see the end, and will be paying new car money for a gpu in a couple generations. You're already paying used car money

 

[Gica]

Gentlemen, I give an example of how the free market is regulated (capture). It will also be adjusted for video cards if AMD comes up with something competitive.
Continue the protests, please.

 

[Valantar]

$1200, street price more like $1500-1600 for AIB cards as these FE's will be completely non-existent again for about 2 years like the previous 3080...

I remember when I bought an 80-tier card (AIB GTX 980) for £350. Price has quadrupled in 5 years!

Yep, this is the key part. It used to be that MSRP set the starting point, with partner models adding a bit to that, and prices then dropping noticeably over the next couple of years until a new generation arrived. Now, instead, we have MSRPs as an unachievable minimum, with prices staying well above this until the next generation arrives - which in turn sets it MSRPs higher than the previous generation. I mean, we went from 80-tier launching at $549 (980) to 699 (1080 - technically the MSRP was 599 but the Founders Edition was 699 and nearly all partner models matched or exceeded that initially) to 799 (2080 founders) to a nominal 700 (!!!) with the 3080, but that MSRP was so woefully unrealistic that it took two full years for it to materialize. And now we have an 80-tier at $1200! This is pure insanity, plain and simple.

According to TPU reviews:

GPU	MSRP/Founders Edition	Price at launch of next gen	Relative performance over previous gen
GTX 980	549	400 (72% of launch after ~20 months)	+ ~30% @1080p/1600p
GTX 1080	599/699 (+9%/27%)	470 (67%, + >2 years)	+~56% performance @1080p,+ ~67% @1440p
RTX 2080	699/799 (+17%/14%)	600 (75%, + 2 years)	+ ~37% @1440p, +45% @2160p
RTX 3080	699 (+0%! On paper, though.)	660 (94%, +2 years)	+ ~51% @1440p, + ~67% @2160p
RTX 4080	1199 (+71%)		+ ~37% @1440p*, + ~49% @2160p

*RTX 4080 at 1440p is at least somewhat CPU limited

So, what conclusions can we draw here?
- Historically, the performance increase of the 4080 is ... okay. Not the worst, not the best. Blazing fast, yes, but that's expected. The overall increase is decidedly middle-of-the-road, RTX 2080-like.
- The MSRP increase is unprecedented in a way that really can't be exaggerated - it's just stunningly horrible
- The fact that RTX 3080 prices are still at 94% of MSRP two years later also shows that there is something very wrong with this market

So, in terms of performance, this is decent. In terms of value, it's atrocious - an actual regression, where you pay more per frame than with the previous generation at MSRP. This of course says something about market conditions that aren't entirely in Nvidia's hands, but the MSRP of this card is indefensible both in light of current market realities and its actual performance.

Gentlemen, I give an example of how the free market is regulated (capture). It will also be adjusted for video cards if AMD comes up with something competitive.
Continue the protests, please.

Yep, 'cause a single screenshot of a random selection of products with random snapshot prices at a random point in time is proof of a self-regulating market. Yep, that's all you need, economics are solved. On to the next problem!

(/s, in case that wasn't abundantly clear)

 

[Bwaze]

Like gamers nexus Steve said we are supposed to get more performance, that's the natural evolution, what isn't natural is having to pay more in proportion, that's not progress.
Nvidia just solves for x performance increase and them multiply x by the price of the last card.

Stop buying into this, you'll never see the end, and will be paying new car money for a gpu in a couple generations. You're already paying used car money

It's actually worse. Compared to RTX 3080 it's 50% faster in 4K and 70% more expensive.

The only way this price increase makes "sense" is by comparing RTX 4080 to RTX 3090 Ti which came out in the middle of cryptolunacy and had a pre-scalped MSRP.

But no gamer bought gaming cards for such prices, or so few it's not really relevant in any way.

Remember the times when crypto enthusiasts were bold enough to openly declare themselves on such forums? There were many that claimed that price increases during crypto bull runs are actually a good thing - for a relatively short period new cards would be of course out of reach of gamers, but extra money for card developers, AIBs, even stores will eventually trickle down to gamers, and after an inevitable crash there would be plenty of cheap used (well cared for) cards available for all! And Nvidia, AMD could use the extra revenue to offer better cards for lower prices for gamers, when the bull runs end?

 

[Valantar]

But no gamer bought gaming cards for such prices, or so few it's not really relevant in any way.

More accurately, quite a few did, but they were acting out of desperation, as many of them were literally forced to not leave their home at the time.

It's almost as if people's purchasing behaviours can be affected by outside events, and that this makes people susceptible to manipulation. Who knew?

 

[Vario]

It's actually worse. Compared to RTX 3080 it's 50% faster in 4K and 70% more expensive.

The only way this price increase makes "sense" is by comparing RTX 4080 to RTX 3090 Ti which came out in the middle of cryptolunacy and had a pre-scalped MSRP.

But no gamer bought gaming cards for such prices, or so few it's not really relevant in any way.

Remember the times when crypto enthusiasts were bold enough to openly declare themselves on such forums? There were many that claimed that price increases during crypto bull runs are actually a good thing - for a relatively short period new cards would be of course out of reach of gamers, but extra money for card developers, AIBs, even stores will eventually trickle down to gamers, and after an inevitable crash there would be plenty of cheap used (well cared for) cards available for all! And Nvidia, AMD could use the extra revenue to offer better cards for lower prices for gamers, when the bull runs end?

View attachment 270164

"well cared for" LOL. I'd rather not buy someone's used half dead crypto hardware, made that mistake before.

 

[Bwaze]

More accurately, quite a few did, but they were acting out of desperation, as many of them were literally forced to not leave their home at the time.

It's almost as if people's purchasing behaviours can be affected by outside events, and that this makes people susceptible to manipulation. Who knew?

I was aiming solely at RTX 3090 Ti, which had $2000 MSRP, but it was of course sold for even higher scalped prices. And it's the only card that had such a discount after crypto crashed - it's MSRP was even officialy lowered to $1200 - but it's mostly sold out, and remaining cards are now more expensive than they were a while ago.

And yes, many gamers paid horribly inflated prices. Because it's a hobby for a lot of people, and having extra time during lockdowns it made sense to upgrade the computer - it was unfortunate that the crypto bull run coincided, but I bet it made Nvidia very, very happy.



By the way, remember when crypto crashed in 2018, and Nvidia claimed that it had very little influence on revenue? And for about two quarters Nvidia even showed the perfectly good revenues - until they plummeted, and it was obvious that Nvidia did some creative accountancy to hide the crypto revenue, extend it over a longer period.

Now the revenue plummeted as soon as crypto crashed, and we all just assumed that's the reason. What if we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and the whole combined drop from less interest due to no more lockdowns, no more crypto, and less buying power due to incoming recession and high inflation is only coming?

 

[Gica]

Yep, 'cause a single screenshot of a random selection of products with random snapshot prices at a random point in time is proof of a self-regulating market. Yep, that's all you need, economics are solved. On to the next problem!

(/s, in case that wasn't abundantly clear)

I can give thousands of examples. In that case, those who had AMD planned and were patient for a month saved ~$75, calculated "by eye". About 30% of the price of 32GB DDR5 5200MHz or 75% of the price of a decent cooler for r5/r7.
Employees of nVidia, AMD, etc. they are the employees of the investors, gentlemen. Investors want maximum profit, don't look at your complaints. If they can sell you a needle for $1,000,000, they will sell it for that much. Our chance at a low price remains only the competition between rivals, not the rivers of tears shed on the forums.
From the launch of 4090 until December, nVidia plays alone. End of story.

 

[Valantar]

I can give thousands of examples. In that case, those who had AMD planned and were patient for a month saved ~$75, calculated "by eye". About 30% of the price of 32GB DDR5 5200MHz or 75% of the price of a decent cooler for r5/r7.

... but all this proves is that prices vary. Is anyone denying that?

Investors want maximum profit, don't look at your complaints.

... and that is precisely what is being criticized. For-profit investing is a parasitic blemish on society, and does literally noting but bring about harm, including harming the core operations of the businesses they invest in by twisting them from "make good products" to "make as much money as possible, however you can". That's literally the entire point. You keep acting as if this is somehow just a law of nature rather than people making conscious choices within societal and legal frameworks that can either allow this or not. There are many, many ways of stopping this, and it's only through more than half a century of gradually implemented neoliberal politics that this type of profiteering has become possible at all. Please stop pretending as if this is just the way things are. It's the willed outcome of extremely wealthy and powerful people pushing politics in a specific direction for a long, long time in order to better their own situation at the cost of everyone else. And that can actually be changed, at least for those of us who don't live in dictatorships.

 

[Bwaze]

Our chance at a low price remains only the competition between rivals, not the rivers of tears shed on the forums.

And by voting with our wallets. Most people don't, or shouldn't care which company has the performance crown, only who offers best bang for buck in a price bracket we are interested in - and very few of us aim for the flagships. And that also includes cards we already own - choosing not to upgrade this generation hurts Nvidia just as much as choosing AMD card.

And I'd rather shed rivers of tears about scalping prices of new products than shed river of tears about other people that complain on internet forums that prices are too high for them. But to each his own.

And I like to believe rivers of tears on internet is what convinced Nvidia to "unlaunch" RTX 4080 12GB for $900, it certainly wasn't competition.