The serious GAP in GPU price/performance

[kapone32]

These are your 1080p cards (have 5500 XT/had RX 590, speaking from experience). They really shouldn't be in the $200-300 USD range... I mean, R9 390 wasn't that much slower than RX 590 and it was about $300 years ago...flat performance over all those years...but power consumption has dropped drastically too.

Honestly, RX 5500 XT is a $200 or less card.

But this gets to my point...
View attachment 157055
Your problem is your weakening currency. Welcome to the new, pandemic-induced normal. Imports (which cards are) are going to be more expensive.


CPUs are always going to be cheaper than discreet graphics cards of comparative performance simply because of all the material and manufacturing costs that go into making a card versus a socketed processor. DRAM isn't cheap.

The integrated GPUs (sans the Devil's Canyon oddballs with HBM...which suffer noticeable drop when the HBM is full) always suffer severe bottlenecks because they don't have ridiculously high bandwidth video memory.

I totally get that what you are

I agree with you. This generation has been absolutely pathetic for entry level cards (funny considering sub $150 use to be the king of value)

A nearly 7 year old 7870XT tahiti (which was only $135 Fall of 2013) is faster than almost every single entry level card of this gen (GT 1030, GTX 1050 non Ti, GTX 750, GTX 950, RX460/560).

That's embarrassing, thats like the equivalent of a 2011 entry level card barely offering 8600 GT/GTS level performance.

2.5 years into last gen you could get near highend launch performance (X1900/7900GT level) and 10-15% faster performance than a 1 year old midtier (8600GTS level) on just an $89 dollar 9500GT.........

Absolutely pathetic from both sides. Literally the only saving grace in the last 2 years is vendors dumping the prices of the old 470/480/570s but even then that's pretty sad that you basically have to wait for a 2016 era card to get closeout price (at the very end of the generation) just to get a good entry level priced card

Exactly what I am getting at. The 5500XT has no business being so expensive. The market in my opinion has been fooled into thinking that the prices are justified. I remember when $200 Canadian actually gave you a decent card for whatever the popular resolution was.

These are your 1080p cards (have 5500 XT/had RX 590, speaking from experience). They really shouldn't be in the $200-300 USD range... I mean, R9 390 wasn't that much slower than RX 590 and it was about $300 years ago...flat performance over all those years...but power consumption has dropped drastically too.

Honestly, RX 5500 XT is a $200 or less card.

But this gets to my point...
View attachment 157055
Your problem is your weakening currency. Welcome to the new, pandemic-induced normal. Imports (which cards are) are going to be more expensive.


CPUs are always going to be cheaper than discreet graphics cards of comparative performance simply because of all the material and manufacturing costs that go into making a card versus a socketed processor. DRAM isn't cheap.

The integrated GPUs (sans the Devil's Canyon oddballs with HBM...which suffer noticeable drop when the HBM is full) always suffer severe bottlenecks because they don't have ridiculously high bandwidth video memory.

Sorry I did not get to reply fully (stupid work laptop). I understand the argument that a high end GPU will cost more than an equivlant GPU to make but that is not the complete picture in my opinion. The MIning craze for AMD and just flat out Greed from Nvidia has launched GPU prices into the stratosphere (In Canada). The problem as I see it is 2 fold. AMD's best card (until the 5700XT) was indeed Tahiti. The problem (maybe because the acquisition happened around then) is AMD stagnated until Polaris. At the same time the jump from the 8800 to 780 was tangible but the 9th and 10th series Nvidia GPUs performance increases solidified their place on the market. I have Vega cards and I love them but they are not paragons of price/performance.

 

[theonek]

well thanks new zealand prices are worse..
$350nzd for a 1650 super to $2399nzd for a Rtx 2080ti

hehe almost like in ours national currency too...

 

[tussinman]

Exactly what I am getting at. The 5500XT has no business being so expensive. The market in my opinion has been fooled into thinking that the prices are justified. I remember when $200 Canadian actually gave you a decent card for whatever the popular resolution was.

I remember a few weeks back I saw one at my local micro center for $220 but didn't really know much about it so I went home and looked it up

10% better performance and 10% cheaper price than a 4-year-old 1060 6GB. That's absolutely pathetic, definition of stagnant market

 

[Valantar]

Currencies aside, GPU prices have indeed gone up by quite a lot in recent years, and I entirely agree that the low-end market is severely underserved. For a bit of perspective: In September 2011 I bought a 2GB Radeon HD 6950 for 1356 NOK. At the time, 1 NOK = 0.17668 USD according to XE.com, so that GPU cost me the equivalent of $240 USD including the 25% Norwegian VAT, so about $192. This was still a few months before the launch of the Radeon 7990, but the card was a year old at the time. Original MSRP was $299 according to the TPU review (my card was not a reference cooler version, so likely had a small markup). This was AMD's second highest tier single-GPU card at the time. The next step up, the 6970, was $369, with only the insane dual-GPU 6990 hitting anything resembling current high-end GPU pricing at $699. While it is somewhat reasonable that the top end of performance becomes more expensive over time, one would also expect that the maturing of the GPU business would lead to more acceptable low-end solutions. Instead we now have a market that basically doesn't give any options below $150, with value at that price point being downright terrible and $200 being the entry level for acceptable price/performance. Even accounting for inflation, it should really be possible to sell a $100 (US) GPU today with pretty decent performance. Yet nobody does so. It's a crying shame, really.

 

[R0H1T]

You're forgetting that while DIY GPU prices have kind of gone out of hand, of the normal consumer, they have way more choices in the notebook (wrt a decade back) market now albeit mainly limited to Nvidia. Part of the reason why desktop GPUs have only gone up in price is the fact that AMD hasn't fielded a true competitor to Nvidia's top end, the other part is that people are spending a lot more on notebooks now ~ a market which is basically Nvidia or nothing! So long story short the volumes on desktop GPU sales are sliding & that gives very little incentive or indeed margins/headroom for someone like AMD to lower their price, Nvidia can do that but then why would they ~ did you see Intel offer anything more than (mainstream) 4 cores for over a decade?

 

[kapone32]

You're forgetting that while DIY GPU prices have kind of gone out of hand, of the normal consumer, they have way more choices in the notebook (wrt a decade back) market now albeit mainly limited to Nvidia. Part of the reason why desktop GPUs have only gone up in price is the fact that AMD hasn't fielded a true competitor to Nvidia's top end, the other part is that people are spending a lot more on notebooks now ~ a market which is basically Nvidia or nothing! So long story short the volumes on desktop GPU sales are sliding & that gives very little incentive or indeed margins/headroom for someone like AMD to lower their price, Nvidia can do that but then why would they ~ did you see Intel offer anything more than (mainstream) 4 cores for over a decade?

When I wrote this post there was no news of the 5300XT. As much as GPU sales are sliding in my opinion it is not as a result of a lack of demand but affordability. The last decently priced GPU was the RX 570 (You can still get the Gigabyte 4GB for $169.99). This is exactly where the argument of an affordable modern GPU from AMD/Nvidia comes from. A decent Gaming notebook in Canada costs a minimum of $950. If the 5300XT is say $179.99 in Canada I predict it will sell better than any of their other cards. One of the things I have found recently is any PC component that is high in price/performance is very hard to come by. This includes the 3300X (now $179.99), 2400G, likely the 10400F, any decent MB for under $120 and any PSU that is 600 Watts and less than $60. I don't see the 3400G as good value at $209.99 and even though the 3200G is a decent value at $139.99 it is not a true Gaming APU in my opinion.

 

[Athlonite]

well thanks new zealand prices are worse..
$350nzd for a 1650 super to $2399nzd for a Rtx 2080ti

Yup gotta love our Gougeland prices I just paid $686.47+$6.50pnp to Napier from Wellies for an Sapphire RX5700 Pulse 8GB

 

[R0H1T]

As much as GPU sales are sliding in my opinion it is not as a result of a lack of demand but affordability.

I'd argue it's both, kinda like that chicken & egg thing. Just in the recent past we had semi decent sub $100 GPUs like the GT 1030, do you remember a successor to that? The fact is people who need such kind of GPU are likely buying an APU anyway or getting them old(er) models. The ones who need slightly more are having to pay (arguably) a lot more than in the past because the market simply isn't there. While the market for a 1650 or 1650Ti is huge, it really is, though if I had to guess I'd say Nvidia sells a lot more volumes in the notebook arena. Yes a competitive AMD or even Intel might change things a little bit but it certainly won't stop the flight towards gaming notebooks, even entry level ones whose sales will surge as 8 or 6 cores have become more affordable. I forgot to mention one other thing ~ tinkering, more people still prefer set (or buy) & forget & with the number of such people growing I'd say the trend towards mobile gaming isn't going to decelerate anytime soon.

 

[Fizban]

This is not for the Used market.

I don't live near a Microcenter, I have to use Amazon, Newegg, Canada Computers, Memory Express and I believe B&H. There is no doubt that the 2080TI currently is the best GPU in terms of performance but the price of entry costs more than a well specced Gaming PC.

The 2080 Super, 2070 Super, 5700XT and 5700 all share the same (in Canada) $479 to $899 range.

The 2060 Super and 5600XT command the sub $400 range and can all be had for under $400 (usually).

The 1650, 5500XT, 1660, RX 580 and 1660 Super command the sub $300 market.

When you get into sub $200 is where the problem exists. The most viable solution in the sub $200 space is the AMD APUs. The 2400G, 3200G and 3400G are all great for what they are but seriously lacking in raw GPU grunt vs a discrete card (GT 1030 even). It is my opinion that AMD/Nvidia are missing out on a potential market by snubbing the budget market. Indeed (I know I will get at least one Xfire is dead) if AMD released a cut down Vega card with say 16+ Compute units, that was DX12 and Xfire compatible with the GPU in the current AM4 APUs. If that sold for let's say $139.99 (Cad) or $109.99 US an an MSRP and was totally capable of 1080P 60-100 FPS I have no doubt it would be a success especially in these times with depressed economic markets.

I know that there are new GPUS coming out later this year. That does not mean that the current offerings (In Canada) will magically fall into lower tiers, indeed we will likely see the $479 to $1999 get more variety than the $99 to $399 market.

You have sub-$200 cards listed in the sub-$300 category, at least in the US. GTX 1650 launched at $149. 1650 Super is also the budget king. It's $160 and outright obliterates a base 1650.

I agree with you. This generation has been absolutely pathetic for entry level cards (funny considering sub $150 use to be the king of value)

A nearly 7 year old 7870XT tahiti (which was only $135 Fall of 2013) is faster than almost every single entry level card of this gen (GT 1030, GTX 1050 non Ti, GTX 750, GTX 950, RX460/560).

Uhh, 7870XT launched at $334. Comparing it to cards that cost less than half that makes no sense. I have no idea why you're citing it as being a $135 card, it was not released at anywhere near that price.

the other part is that people are spending a lot more on notebooks now

Notebooks are way cheaper than they used to be. A $999 laptop I bought in 2019 has triple the performance of a $1,200 laptop I bought in 2015.

The $1,200 notebook was one with a 960M. The $999 one has a 1660 TI.

I remember a few weeks back I saw one at my local micro center for $220 but didn't really know much about it so I went home and looked it up

10% better performance and 10% cheaper price than a 4-year-old 1060 6GB. That's absolutely pathetic, definition of stagnant market

5500 XT is closer to 3% more performance than a 1060 according to techpowerups GPU ranking across their 25 game test.

That said, it's not 10% cheaper. 1060 launched at $250. 5500 XT is $169 or $199 depending on the version of it. That's a 20% or 30-40% discount, not 10%.

Instead we now have a market that basically doesn't give any options below $150, with value at that price point being downright terrible and $200 being the entry level for acceptable price/performance.

I disagree that the $159 1650 Super is downright terrible. It is roughly as powerful as a GTX 980, yet is $159. It's a fantastic value. The $219 1660 is only 11% faster than it. The 1660 Super is similarly a great bang for buck card, but isn't under $200, but also isn't much over $200.

 

[Valantar]

I disagree that the $159 1650 Super is downright terrible. It is roughly as powerful as a GTX 980, yet is $159. It's a fantastic value. The $219 1660 is only 11% faster than it. The 1660 Super is similarly a great bang for buck card, but isn't under $200, but also isn't much over $200.

That is some downright ridiculous logic. So technological progress shouldn't come with any type of increase in what we get for our money, and we should rather be grovelling thankfully for any scraps we get? The GTX 980 launched in 2014 for $550 on a 28nm process. Getting the same performance for $160 in 2020 really isn't impressive given the production node and architecture improvements we've seen since then, particularly as the 980 belonged to a premium/high end segment where prices are generally far more padded than lower cost ones. While more advanced nodes are more expensive per die area, everything else lowers cost/perf over time - smaller nodes means smaller dice, typically lowering total cost for a similar die. Higher clocks means you need less cores for the same performance. Architectural improvements to "GPU IPC" do the same. Faster memory and better memory compression do the same. A smaller die on a newer process also requires less power, cutting VRM and PCB costs. Etc, etc.

The GTX 1650 launched at $149 into a market where you could get a brand-new 14% faster RX 570 for less money. While that is indeed a slightly unfair comparison as those prices were on the tail end of a generation, it still presented a downright terrible value proposition, even if power consumption was about half. Now, AMD has followed that up with a similarly poor value RX 5500 XT, but that just means that for this generation, we are paying more for the same or less performance than we did last time around. All for GPUs that cost less to make. How is that anything but terrible value? While every previous generation of GPUs has delivered a significant improvement in price/perf, this generation has done no such thing, representing an overall terrible value proposition. While it's partly true that this is due to the competitive situation, it cannot fully be blamed on that. Nor can declining sales be blamed - the drop in GPU sales over the past decade is almost entirely due to entry-level (i.e. GT 210-level) GPU sales disappearing due to the prevalence of iGPUs, with gaming GPU sales increasing across the board. Blaming laptop sales also makes little sense when those use the same chips and thus help amortize the same R&D costs.

well thanks new zealand prices are worse..
$350nzd for a 1650 super to $2399nzd for a Rtx 2080ti

Is that really that bad? USD MSRPs have no tax, NZ has 15% GST, and according to DuckDuckGo 1 USD = 1.62 NZD. So for a US$1200 2080 Ti, that becomes 2235 NZD. Worst case scenario there's a 7% markup. The 1650 Super is definitely worse off though (159 * 1,15 * 1,62 = 296), but the markup is still not terrible at 18%. For comparison, in Norway the cheapest 1650S I can find is NOK 2179 including 25% VAT. 1 USD = 9,73 NOK, so 159 * 1,25 * 9,73 = 1934, so there's a 12,6% markup there - not too different from NZ.

 

[Kanan]

I do not agree that no progress has been made. Now a sub 500 card will enable 1440p ultra and / or high fps (1440p) gaming. Before it was just 1080 p at that price and 1440p was a exclusive at 700+. Progress has been made. 5700 XT models are great for 1440p and start at under 400$. Also, 4K gaming is now at around 400-700 bucks, before it was either not a thing at all, or just for expensive SLI setups. Again, I say, progress has been made.

Also there is a 4K high fps card now available, which just was not a thing at all before - the 2080 Ti.

 

[Fizban]

That is some downright ridiculous logic. So technological progress shouldn't come with any type of increase in what we get for our money

No one has said technological progress shouldn't come with any type of increase in what we get for our money.

A $160 part from 2019 matching a $550 part from 2014 is also VERY much an increase in what we get for our money....

I don't know what fantasy world you live on where paying 29% of what you paid 5 years beforehand for the same performance doesn't quantify as paying less.

The GTX 1650 launched at $149 into a market where you could get a brand-new 14% faster RX 570 for less money.

No one said the 1650 was a good buy. AMD usually dominates the budget sector, and when the 1650 came put they did. Once the 1650 Super came out that changed. The RX 570 however has a MSRP of $169, $10 more than the 1650 Super, and the 1650 Super is 18% faster than a 570, it's even faster and cheaper than a 580 as well.

The 1650 Super is likely the best performance/buck of any card either company has ever released.

Now, AMD has followed that up with a similarly poor value RX 5500 XT, but that just means that for this generation, we are paying more for the same or less performance than we did last time around. All for GPUs that cost less to make. How is that anything but terrible value? While every previous generation of GPUs has delivered a significant improvement in price/perf, this generation has done no such thing, representing an overall terrible value proposition.

Except you're ignoring the cards that in fact DO offer more bang/buck than the previous generations. 1650 Super is more powerful than 5500 and 5500 XT, and cheaper than both.[/QUOTE]

 

[RandallFlagg]

I think this is really a demand problem. The 5500XT along with the 1660 and 1650 Ti should have filled this gap. GPUs are going for a premium right now though, and while I'm not certain why my guess it is a result of all the WFH and such linked to covid. I noticed a couple months ago it was easy to buy a 2060 well under the $300 mark but today that's impossible. I bet the discounts will start again in 1-2 months.

 

[Valantar]

No one has said technological progress shouldn't come with any type of increase in what we get for our money.

A $160 part from 2019 matching a $550 part from 2014 is also VERY much an increase in what we get for our money....

I don't know what fantasy world you live on where paying 29% of what you paid 5 years beforehand for the same performance doesn't quantify as paying less.

No one said the 1650 was a good buy. AMD usually dominates the budget sector, and when the 1650 came put they did. Once the 1650 Super came out that changed. The RX 570 however has a MSRP of $169, $10 more than the 1650 Super, and the 1650 Super is 18% faster than a 570, it's even faster and cheaper than a 580 as well.

The 1650 Super is likely the best performance/buck of any card either company has ever released.

Except you're ignoring the cards that in fact DO offer more bang/buck than the previous generations. 1650 Super is more powerful than 5500 and 5500 XT, and cheaper than both.

The 1650 Super is a half-gen refresh launched partly to compete with better performing competition at the same price, and partly to counteract the dirt-poor impression the 1650 left by launching at $150 with 15% less performance than cards that were at the time selling for $120-130 new. If the 1650S didn't then do decently in price/perf something would be very, very wrong, but using it as the base for comparison is also then rather misleading as it is so obviously targeted at that particular use, and is clearly an aberration compared to the overall market. In a vacuum, the 1650S is a decent enough value, but it represents near zero progress from the early 2017 competition (RX 570). An ~18% increase in perf/$ in 2 1/2 years is quite bad, in particular when the part being compared is launched specifically as a statement saying "hey, look, we can deliver some value too!" That Nvidia didn't follow its launch up with dropping the 1650 (non-S) to some reasonable price - say, $120 - just goes to show that they have no intention of actually providing value in this segment unless they are forced to do so.

As for the 980 comparison: I don't disagree that there (obviously) is a significant gain in perf/$ since then. However, the 980 was a 2nd-tier card, i.e. high-end non-flagship. That means a big and expensive die, it means a premium market segment with higher margins than lower end cards, and it means cutting-edge tech - all of which (at least according to marketing and sales) is supposed to justify charging a premium. A GTX 1650 on the other hand has none of this - the die is tiny, its feature set is pared back (no new and fancy NVENC etc.), and it sells in what I would call the high end of the budget GPU price class, so margins should be slim. The 1650 launched slightly more than 55 months after the 980, with the 980 performing 33% higher and costing 27% of the 980 at launch. On the other hand an earlier comparison like the 750 Ti launched at $149 46 months after the GTX 480 ($499, so 750 Ti was 30% of this) with the 480 8% faster. Comparing each budget card to the -80 level two generations prior and the time between launches, the 750 Ti was a ~3.1x perf/$ increase compared to a ~2.7x one for the 1650, and in a shorter time to boot. More granularly, the 750 Ti delivered a per-month perf/$ gain of ~6.7% over the 480 while the 1650 just managed 5%. The 1650S nearly rectified this, coming in at a seemingly good overall value, but due to its lateness it still represented a lower perf/$ gain over time (~6.1% increase/month) compared to the 980 than the 750 Ti over the 480. You could say that the 1650S offers 100% of the 980 while the 750 Ti only offered 92% of a 480, but the 750 Ti also arrived nearly a year and a half sooner after the 480s launch compared to the 1650S after the 980. In other words: it is undeniable that we are currently getting worse value for money at the low end than we did previously when compared to both the current market and previous offerings compared to their simultaneous market. It takes longer to get the same relative performance at the same low-ish price now than it did previously. This is a regression through and through.

Another point underscoring this is of course that the 1650S was very obviously never planned from Nvidia's side - if it was, they would have made TU117 large enough to accommodate it and made the non-S cut down, rather than having to use a significantly cut-down TU116 for it. Nvidia had their hand forced into launching the 1650S after they made an obvious cash grab with the 1650, delivering historically poor value for money with no way of improving this easily. And as mentioned above, they could have done a lot to rectify this impression by also lowering the 1650 non-S' MSRP - yet they haven't. Instead they keep selling what was always a DOA card at $10 less than their own next step up that is also 35% faster. It's truly mind-boggling how determined Nvidia obviously is to not provide any kind of value at the low end of the scale. It's just really too bad that AMD has chosen to keep pace with Nvidia in terms of pricing instead of undercutting them here, as that is clearly the only thing that can lead Nvidia to providing any kind of value.

I think this is really a demand problem. The 5500XT along with the 1660 and 1650 Ti should have filled this gap. GPUs are going for a premium right now though, and while I'm not certain why my guess it is a result of all the WFH and such linked to covid. I noticed a couple months ago it was easy to buy a 2060 well under the $300 mark but today that's impossible. I bet the discounts will start again in 1-2 months.

Those were likely launch rebates linked to the "2060 KO" and similar low-end SKUs launched to counter the 5600 XT. Those prices might return, or they might not - it's more likely we'll see clearance sales once the launch dates for next-gen cards get closer.

 

[Totally]

Well.........

You can find a GTX 1650 for $160 and a 5500 XT for $180 (US).

That and the RX 580 floats around in the $150-170 range

 

[EarthDog]

That and the RX 580 floats around in the $150-170 range

Certainly, though not really the point of this thread.

 

[Totally]

Certainly, though not really the point of this thread.

Isn't he saying that there isn't anything sub-$200 when there is.

 

[EarthDog]

Isn't he saying that there isn't anything sub-$200 when there is.

But he's talking about modern budget cards/product stacks, not last gen high end. I see Turing and Navi mentioned...

The budget end of the market, not last gen leftovers.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I have Vega cards and I love them but they are not paragons of price/performance.

Nor could they be. HBM2 is really expensive.

 

[kapone32]

You have sub-$200 cards listed in the sub-$300 category, at least in the US. GTX 1650 launched at $149. 1650 Super is also the budget king. It's $160 and outright obliterates a base 1650

I am talking about Canadian prices.

 

[Totally]

But he's talking about modern budget cards/product stacks, not last gen high end. I see Turing and Navi mentioned...

The budget end of the market, not last gen leftovers.

I suppose but find this an odd thing to get worked up over hardware demands haven't moved 1080p only need so much power, video game graphics haven't become anymore demanding and it looks to be the case for sometime as there is a lot of low hanging fruit for games dev before attempting to push graphics and 4k seems to be stalling a bit as devs are walking things back away from 4k60. RT is going to be the next bump that necessitates a new generation of cards from top to bottom until then last gen cards are fine.

 

[Valantar]

I suppose but find this an odd thing to get worked up over hardware demands haven't moved 1080p only need so much power, video game graphics haven't become anymore demanding and it looks to be the case for sometime as there is a lot of low hanging fruit for games dev before attempting to push graphics and 4k seems to be stalling a bit as devs are walking things back away from 4k60. RT is going to be the next bump that necessitates a new generation of cards from top to bottom until then last gen cards are fine.

If that was indeed the case, we ought to have the opposite situation of what we have today - after all, hardware is progressing, both in terms of production nodes and architectural performance and efficiency. So if software was stagnating but hardware progressing, we ought to be getting ever cheaper cards that could meet our needs. Instead the opposite is true, so something in that line of reasoning is off.

 

[EarthDog]

I suppose but find this an odd thing to get worked up over hardware demands haven't moved 1080p only need so much power, video game graphics haven't become anymore demanding and it looks to be the case for sometime as there is a lot of low hanging fruit for games dev before attempting to push graphics and 4k seems to be stalling a bit as devs are walking things back away from 4k60. RT is going to be the next bump that necessitates a new generation of cards from top to bottom until then last gen cards are fine.

That may be true... just making sure you're with context.

 

[$ReaPeR$]

This is why I can't wait for Intel to enter the dgpu market with even a "good enough" product. It's more profitable for AMD and Nvidia to hike prices, especially for AMD since amd has the only viable Apu option. Both companies are acting as a cartel atm, I hope Intel manages to disrupt that status quo.

 

[kapone32]

This is why I can't wait for Intel to enter the dgpu market with even a "good enough" product. It's more profitable for AMD and Nvidia to hike prices, especially for AMD since amd has the only viable Apu option. Both companies are acting as a cartel atm, I hope Intel manages to disrupt that status quo.

That is what we need and also AMD absolutely has to produce a high end card at semi affordable prices rivalling whatever Nvidia's high end has.