Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
That's why when someone refers to a product where price and performance (plus other details) are unknown, you should only take it with so much weight behind it so to speak.
For example, I only started speaking critically of the RTX 4080, despite it being before launch, because there was still enough information on it (price was given, and some performance numbers, from nVidia themselves, was released). Otherwise, I keep my mind fluid on future things. Like I was considering an RTX 3080 maybe, but I also knew it'd be a while before I bought, so I figured "I'll wait and see what the RTX 4070 offers". Well... we all know how that went. So now I'm waiting on information on the RX 7800 series.
Sure. I love nVidia hardware. I'm more familiar with it, and if you put two options in front of me that perform close enough in rasterization and ray tracing (doesn't exist), I'd probably choose nVidia if the prices were the same.
And there are certainly use cases where nVidia might be more beneficial, even if that is partly due to preference.
But personally, I am unwilling to consider them at the current time given the price for performance offering is so awful for them, EVEN on the mid-range where it's traditionally the best. I had a 8800 GT, a GTX 560 Ti, tried to get a GTX 970 and ended up with a GTX 1060. All fantastic price for performance points, but after Pascal, nVidia's price for performance has been becoming increasingly mediocre. That might not matter enough to everyone, but it does to me.
Unfortunately, AMD probably does have a large uphill battle. I've heard it referred to as "mind share" and it perfectly describes it really. It certainly seems to be a powerful thing. You used to see it with Intel when it came to CPUs and you often see it with Samsung when it comes to SSDs. Often times there's an equivalent enough or even better choice than whatever these would offer, but people (often times even enthusiasts!) wouldn't be informed enough to know it and would just default to whatever brand is in their mind. Which, I mean I get. Keeping up with every little thing is just impossible, so it's probably a way our primitive brains cope with overload. And companies prey on that dearly.
It's exactly because you never kept up with it and more familiar with nVidia. AMD is probably slightly less consistent than Intel in CPUs (only because they've been skipping generations and separating desktop and mobile) but no way is nVidia less confusing about their naming.
nVidia has even more of a history of skipping generations, though lately they've been more consistent there. Naming within generations though is still pretty awful.
The main thought process is rather similar on both.
The first number is the generation.
The difference is nVidia numbers the tier in the tens (third digit overall) whereas AMD numbers the tier in the hundreds (second digit overall). For an example, what nVidia would refer to as xx60 is what AMD would refer to as x6x0).
The final digit is almost always 0 and meaningless on both.
The leaves the remaining digit (second for nVidia, third for AMD).
For nVidia, it's usually 0 and meaningless... except for the GTX 16 series. For AMD, it often signifies a refresh (usually xx50) of that particular tier (nVidia is less consistent in refreshes; sometimes it's Ti, sometimes it's SUPER, sometimes it's both, who knows).
The XT and non-XT distinction is rather simple; the XT is just the better version. The XTX being used in the latest products is unnecessary though IMO.
So in thought process they're similar-ish. What makes nVidia a bit worse is that they tend to be more nonsensical with actually naming GPUs where they actually fall in performance, and they tend to rebrand a bit more. Buying a GT 430? A GT 1030? There's multiple different ones that might differ in bus width and have huge performance differences but they're called the same product number anyway. 9800 GT? Oh, that's a 8800 GT. GTS 250? Wasn't that about the same thing? Buying a GT 610? Oh, that's just a GT 520 renamed. Buying a GTX 1060? The 3 GB and 6 GB differ in more than just VRAM. Buying that new RTX 3060 8 GB? Yeah, same thing, and nVidia is doing this one silently and keeping price similar. Deceitful. Then there's the RTX 4080 12 GB and 16 GB which are both over-named for what they are. The gap between the RTX 4080 and RTX 4090 is unusually massive, when it's often at its smallest here.
Intel is a bit better than AMD on naming (but besides skipping generations, AMD is about the same), but no way is nVidia less confusing than AMD on GPUs.
Sry but imo, gamers are the most gullible consumers in this world and nvidia knws how to milk them
Truth is that most people want AMD to be popular only to drive down NVIDIA prices, so they can continue buying NVIDIA. It's a typical scenario where people want others to do something, but they don't want to do it themselves. It's like so many other things - global warming for example, people want others to save the planet so they don't have to.
I do consider it "complaining" in a way. Don't get me wrong, I complain about stuff all the time. but for the most part when I "complain", I usually make a move and do something to go along with it. Or in many cases I won't even complain and just make the move. In the example with GPUs, I would have complained and already bought an AMD card and moved on and been happy. Or not complained and simply bought the card and been happy and me buying AMD was the complaint, and Nvidia will feel it by selling one less GPU. Seems like a more sensible and effective way to protest. But if people are complaining for 3 or 4 years straight, then they really shouldn't be saying a GPU is some meaningless piece of hardware that shouldn't cost $2,000. If they're been complaining for this long, it goes to show it has a higher value then they think. If I saw myself complaining for 4 years straight, yeah I would have just dropped 2k on a gpu and called it an investment because apparently gaming is central to how I live my life.
Again, I know I complain so I'm not trying to rip on people just for complaining but the way it's done with GPUs, is strange to me.
With the 6500 XT, people were ripping on it even after the reviews/videos were out. Videos and a lot of people on Reddit/review sites saw the good in it, but again with the Youtubers were tearing it up because of the whole "specs" thing. Just because some specs, they wanted to trash it and did. With CPU's people say don't look at specs, look at performance. Then for the 6500 XT seems they did the opposite.
I also don't blame Nvidia for falling back on the performance. I think a lot of people don't take Nvidia has a harder job pleasing people. from 720p to 1080p 144hz wasn't too big a leap to keep up with. Now people are choosing to go to 1440, 4k and obviously high refresh rates and blaming Nvidia for not giving something to run that. Might as well ask for something that can run 16k 240hz in five years and then slap Nvidia around because they can't provide it. What are they supposed to do? put a super computer inside a GPU?. I wouldn't blame Nvidia if I couldn't play 4k 144 hz. Honestly it's my fault I don't appreciate 1080p anymore. It's a 1st world problem really.
You're not presuming these people are complaining for the sake of it and doing nothing more, are you? Do some people do that? Sure, probably. Presuming all of the complaining you see is merely that seems incredibly unlikely though.
This is also unlikely. You don't really think all (even if not literally) of the complaints are from people with an intention to buy and instead complaining for four years straight and not buying at all? I'd wager an insignificant number fit that criteria.
This is a common fallacy when looking at something from the perspective of a single by-stander over time and taking "everything else" as a monolithic whole. It's like when you see complaints about one thing, and complaints about another, and then try and go "you're complaining about the opposite things, therefore it's invalid" when usually it's different people making those different complaints. The market isn't a monolithic entity, it is made up of vastly varying individuals.
For the GPU market, it's likely people complain for one of two reasons; either they are going to buy and are noticing pricing and thus complain (and let's also address that complaints about pricing will always exist because it's a subjective thing), or they are enthusiasts or otherwise someone who watches the market over time and complains because they realize the precedent the trend sets.
For example, I may not be in the market for something like an RTX 4080, but it being the poster representation of both the worsening price/performance and changing meaning of what the tiers represent in performance with nVidia cutting the chips down are still precedents that greatly impact the overall market and thus me. Or do people have to purchase something, something they apparently have issues with, to justify their ability to give feedback on things?
People complain largely for the principle of things. I shouldn't even have to point that out.
That's hardly exclusive to GPUs though? I've heard a LOT of complaining about prices especially these last four years for almost everything.
While the extent of it was overstated, the reasoning being pointed out was valid. Tech communities, enthusiasts, etc. tend to get into the details.
And you're wrong that people only look at performance and not specifications for CPUs. There's people on this very forum who will recommend a 5900X for people stating they are on a budget and gaming (!) but say in the same breath that a 5600X is not good enough, when the former is just a double the cores version of the latter, and real performance numbers show they aren't separated by much because gaming isn't parallelized to that extent. It definitely happens with CPUs.
Nobody is "blaming nVidia for having performance" though (or I'm not seeing that)? What is happening is either nVidia has chosen a route where they simply can't financially make offerings to the lower budget points, or they can and are choosing to mark it up and not do so anyway (personal opinion, it's this one), but regardless of which it is, it doesn't matter from a consumer standpoint because the result is the same. nVidia is more and more giving less options to people that it used to (it used to have some good price for performance options at lower price points, and not just at the near or above four figure mark).
When you have an established consumer base and suddenly you're not appealing to many of them as much, this sort of reaction is expected.
Well, they obviously have their reasons. Everyone who does has a reason. Although I would call their reason "childish". I'm not trying to sound better than anyone else here, being on Steam at all is on some level childish and I do it. I just think for adults, so much complaining (without acting), is much more so. The key thing here I suppose is not actually making a move along with the complaints and accepting what situation you're in. And what we have is a lot of good gpus and a lot of good games still available. But because the newest high tier gpus are pretty expensive, for some gamers it's almost as if we ran out of water, or fuel or just got a 10k medical bill out of nowhere.
Yeah, I do actually believe there are people who have been complaining for 4 years straight without actually buying anything. Waiting on Nvidia. I could obviously be wrong on this, but I would think it's happening. I think it's a small percentage of people, but those same people are so vocal about it, that they manage to get anyone willing to listen to perceive it being a lot of people. If that isn't the case it's almost sadder. I'd hate to think those people have actually bought newer cards are on a 3xxx or something and are yet again complaining about the 4xxx series and then blaming Nvida that they can't afford a 1k card every yeard or two. I've had my 2070 for a couple years and I haven't really cared, so I can imagine someone still stuck on a 1xxx series GPU still stewing and waiting for something good from Nvidia to come along.
I understand what you're saying and you may be right. I really don't visit too many forums or hang around many other tech enthusiasts so my perception of what I see on Steam may have incorrectly formed my perception of how many people are complaining and who they are. And keeping track of exactly who said what when and where isn't very realistic. Just does seem to me that from my recollection it is a lot of people and then when I think of each youtuber doing it also I can just multiply what they said now being the opinion of countless others who have liked their video or just tuned in to get what they think is the answer.
Yeah, but pricing affects everything. Now that I think about it, complaining goes on about everything also. I am starting to think that one of the reasons I don't get the complaining all that much is because I happen to be very internal about my upsets. I am full of negativity, but have learned over time to keep it inside unless talking about it will make a difference. And in the cases of complaining on Steam about GPU prices just doesn't seem like it has been very effective. I know everyone is different so I guess they shouldn't end up like me. Because then some may end up a ticking time bomb.
See, I don't really follow all that. When it comes to GPUs, (or really any other product for that matter), I simply look at the product and evaluate whether it's worth it. When will I upgrade next, will the performance be good enough if so for how long. If I like the pricing I get it. If Nvidia wanted to charge $1,000 for a 3060 and I was happy to buy it for that price then whatever, I made a purchase I liked. If not then oh well, I'll keep looking for something else or learn to do without. I don't look at one card and compare it to every other card on the same level as I guess you guys do.
I did get mad when I got the 2070 and then they released the Super versions for the same price. That did piss me off, and you know I learned my lesson. I only rarely complain or bring it up because oh well.
I wish that was accurate, but with so many things on this planet everyone has their reasons and not all complaints are for principles. With the GPU complaints, I am sure everyone doing it would love to think it was for a noble cause or attempting to accomplish something, but I'm not so sure it's that.
Well, because of scalpers/covid and all that I would think everything has had it's share of complaints. But I remember the 2xxx complaints starting it all and this was before covid and all that and I don't remember any other complaints on that level. I mean, shoot even DDR5 memory is expensive and AM5 motherboards, but I don't see it being blasted as hard as GPU price/performance criticism has been since then.
Well, I suppose that's true if your logic was simply measuring gaming performance. Problem is the disagreements on what performance should be measured. Anyone on Steam suggesting overall core performance mostly get drowned out for the multiple people rushing in to talk about video benchmarks in single threaded applications.
And the suggestion for 5900x as a budget gaming CPU I'm pretty sure I've seen, but isn't typical or at least from what I've seen. If anyone said budget, I wouldn't suggest a 5900x and I don't think that should be used as too common an occurrence (unless their budget could squeeze it in while still retaining quality parts as the rest of the system). Or even if it was, it's obviously incorrect for a true budget rig, and there will always be incorrect advice here and there.
This is interesting to me. It seems like most people have accepted that Nvidia is choosing to use crummy tactics like bumping prices up or limited product.
Has any of this been proven with hard proof?. I'm sure articles have suggested the same thing but is it actually proven?. If it has I'd like to see the proof and I'll change my mind on the whole complaining thing I suppose. I still wouldn't do it, but I'd find it much more acceptable.
This sounds like business 101, but doesn't necessarily mean Nvidia is doing it.
This is my first time doing the multiple quoting thing, and I'm trying to start in the habit so each point is more clearly pointed out like you do.
I'll sort of address most of the "complaining" bit just here since it's being covered a lot now but wasn't really originally a big part of the discussion.
Yes, complaining happens. The fact that it exists and the fact it continues and the fact that people *insert this action here* or *insert that action here* isn't some mutually exclusive thing than negates those criticisms. That's my overarching point, since you seemed to be putting forward a thought process that the complaining is somehow hypocritical (if not and I read that wrong, then say so).
Sometimes complaints are simply partly venting though. And that's okay.
Sure, and most people value price to performance to some extent.
The thing is, it's precisely that very thing, the poor and worsening price for performance factor combined with rising prices that nVidia is going with right now. Hence, the thread title and much of the recent complaining.
See, now if I were in that position, it wouldn't anger me. Why?
There's a golden rule you should apply to any purchases you make. "Am I willing to part with the current asking price for it?" If the answer is yes, then you made that choice. If drops in price right after you bought it, so what? You still found it the original asking price, obviously, or else you wouldn't have (or shouldn't have) purchased it at that price to begin with. So why does it matter if it dropped?
I know the somewhat obvious answer is "well I could have had more money now". Yeah, that's true, and it makes those situations unfortunate. but pricing isn't a fixed thing, so you have to live with the fact that it can happen, and simply ensure you find something worth a price before parting with however much it costs, and you won't find it bothers you as much.
At least, that's my opinion. A lot of people do seem to get upset when things go on sale right after they buy and if it ever happens to me, I shrug and move on.
I'm saying people tend to "complain for a reason", which is true, not that "it is always for a cause you in particular will necessarily see as noble".
This is a VERY subjective thing. Opinions will vary greatly. But few people actually complain for the sole sake of it, even if it seems like it. There's usually some underlying reasons involved.
Why is Covid necessary to justify being able to complain about pricing? Sure, it was an general subject used to explain some pricing woes of the early part of the decade, but that doesn't mean those factors NOT being at play strip reason for pricing being a concern to anyone.
Pricing on new platforms and RAM is definitely a common reason I see given when the subject comes up, so I disagree there. That's more of a "new RAM is expensive at first and gets cheaper over time" (well, except when the market is price fixing, like the RAM and GPU market have both been caught doing). The GPU market though, and nVidia especially, as of the last few generations is on another level. Hence the more frequent vocal feedback about it.
You're reading into it I think. People are just noting that nVidia is increasingly becoming the poorer price to performance option.
No justification is needed for why people can't have the opinions they do on pricing. Ultimately, as a large publicly traded company, nVidia will seek to maximize profits, not to please consumers, so pricing will reflect what they believe is the best place to generate the most profit and not have it counteracted by lost sales.
I actually hate doing it because it makes it feel like I'm responding to too much, haha. But yeah, it does keep some conversations more clear, but also can make some minor points become bigger conversation pieces than they need to be (which feels like it's happening here a bit).
https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3060-with-8gb-memory-has-been-tested-17-performance-difference-vs-12gb-model
Lol
Performance/watt from Lovelace can be insane, the 4080 can average only 251W while getting 30% more FPS on average than the 3090 Ti, which uses twice that.
I think you have that backwards. AMD slides claim 21 fps at 4k ultra rt the 4080 is around 30.
You know I realized something (that I probably should have realized before). I mainly capture stuff and in that case I suppose I can just use my CPU since speed isn't important. CPU can keep up with capturing perfectly fine. It's just encoding like let's say hour+ long stuff that makes me appreciate the GPU encoding, but I hardly really do that. So for the moment, I'm actually OK with the idea of getting an AMD GPU as soon as the 7xxx series comes out over anything Nvidia offers (unless the prices get reasonable again), which I don't think will happen.