They aren't now (beyond holding back on lower SKUs in the stack to move the same Ampere stock they call ancient GPUs unworthy of DLSS 3 but as a certified poor, I digress) but they would rather do that then engage in a price war, especially considered how much room for SKUs they have.
So you're saying Nvidia could potentially exploit something so we are going to assume they are evil?
Where is the evidence of Nvidia holding back the lower SKUs? (beyond nonsense from some YouTube channels)
It's normal that lower chips follow in sequence. I thought people would remember this by now.
On the last bit, nonsense? I wasn't the one who announced a card and then unlaunched it, it was NVIDIA.
Renaming a product due to market backlash? How is this relevant to your claims?
No matter where you put it, even in these generations of old (the GTX 980 wasn't the top model, there were two GPUs above it, the 980 Ti and the Titan X),
GTX 980 was the top model for about half a year, and it remained in the high-end segment until it was suceeded by Pascal.
the xx104-class cards have always been the middle of the pack ones. Even with Kepler, the GTX 600 series were quickly complimented by the 700 series that introduced the GK110 which was sizably faster than the GK104, similarly to how the GTX 500 series (and the 580) launched only 8 months apart from the GTX 480 that fixed the 400 series' terrible thermals, it was wise of NVIDIA at the time not to repeat the GF100.
The mid-range cards of the 600-series was using both GK106 and GK104 chips.
The 600-series was "short lived" compared to the current release tempo. Back then Nvidia used to release a full generation and a refreshed generation (with new silicon) every ~1.25-1.5 years or so.
Geforce GTX 480 was delayed due to at least three extra steppings.
And back in the 400-series they used a GF100 chip in the GTX 465, which scaled terribly.
You should spend some time looking through the
List of Nvidia GPSs. The naming is arbitrary; in one generation a 06 chip is the lowest, in others the 08 chip is. What they do is design the biggest chip in the family first, then "cut down" the design into as many chips as they want to, and name them accordingly; 0, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8. Sometimes they even make it more complicated by making 110, 114, etc. which seems like minor revisions to 100 and 104 respectively.
So listen and learn, or keep digging…
AMD has always been the cheaper, value option and despite this, it is not enough to improve the market situation of the company.
So, AMD needs to step up with something completely different, plus the discounts, of course.
This might be your impression, but it doesn't match the reality. Back in the ATI days, they used to offer higher value in the upper mid-range to lower high-end segments, but since then they have been all over the place.
The Fury cards didn't start things off well, low availability and high price. Followed by RX 480/580 which were very hard to come by at a good price, compared to the competitor GTX 1060 which sold massive amounts and still was very available, even below MSRP at times. The RX Vega series was even worse, most have now forgotten that the $400/$500 price tag was initially with a game bundle, and it took months before they were somewhat available close to that price. Over the past 5+ years, AMD's supplies have been too low. Quite often the cheaper models people want are out of stock, while Nvidia's counterparts usually are. This is why I said AMD needs to have plenty of supplies to gain market shares.
We need to stop painting Nvidia/AMD/(Intel) as villains or heroes. They are not our friends, they are companies who want to make money, and given the chance, they will all overcharge for their products.
It is very possible that RTX is the new PhysX and the same fate will be shared.
RTX is their term for the overarching
GPU architecture:
I doubt it will go away until their next major thing.
