> it is way too expensive for regular gamers
Gamers arent kids anymore. Amongst my friends that game, most are nearly 30 working excellent jobs in software.
Gamers arent kids anymore. Amongst my friends that game, most are nearly 30 working excellent jobs in software.
They always have been. Still doesn't stop those who can buying them.
One would be forgiven for expecting roughly GTX 1080 Ti performance in the RTX 2070 at around $449-499 USD.
Or did you want to highlight something else I missed?
When you sell a product that actually has less compute performance (the RTX 2080) at the same price point as the higher-end part from the last generation (GTX 1080 Ti) something has gone horribly wrong. A lot of this is likely due to the Tensor/RTX units on the new GPU's taking up die space and there hasn't been an appropriate process shrink to make up for it, but it's all the more reason these are REALLY unappealing options for anyone outside the top-end enthusiast segment (the GTX 1070 is the most popular enthusiast card this generation, because even enthusiasts have budgets - which is usually the $400-500 range for GPUs).
tl;dr; Prices here make no sense, cards with similar or less performance selling at the same price point you could get from the previous gen - just with raytracing support added on top (so it won't net you WORSE performance with this new functionality utilized). I don't know who Nvidia thinks is going to buy these from a gaming perspective.
The hype around "ti" is unreal. Now they're changing it to "RTX" and "ti". /shock /awe /s
To me, it's pretty clear NVIDIA is cashing out.
Have you not noticed the market slaps the word gaming on commodity hardware along with a bunch of christmas lights and people happily pay a premium for it.
Gamers aren't the brightest bunch and a $1000 is the right price point when people are gladly dropping that on a mobile phone now.
Sure compared to a few years ago I'd agree with you, this market? this hype? No.
Even in the initially released marketing material, by Nvidia, the 8800 GTX had the obviously way better raw specs than the 9800 GTX. Took them a couple of days until they changed the material to compare on performance % in different games.
But the 9800 GTX was actually a slower card than the one year older 8800 GTX due to lower memory bandwidth and capacity. As such it was competing against one generation older mid-range cards like the 8800 GTS 512.
Current Steam user survey results (now that the over-counting issue has been fixed) shows the GTX 1060 as the single most popular GPU installed by active Steam users with a 12.5% market share, the GTX 1050 Ti and 1050 take second and third place with ~9.5% and ~6% respectively that means about 30% of Steam users have a current-gen GPU in the $200-300 price range.
So yes, volume != profit, but the consumer obviously trends towards more reasonably priced cards. Cards in the Titan price-point that NVidia is trying to sell the RTX 2080 Ti at are so uncommon that they get lumped into the 'other' category of the Steam survey - and since I highly doubt magic like doing integer operations in tandem with FP32 operations is going to bring that much of a performance improvement to the majority of gaming workloads in tandem with the really weak raw numbers of the just-announced cards (fewer TFLOPS on the 2080 than the 1080 Ti selling in the same price bracket) it's obvious Nvidia is really taking the piss with their pricing. You're paying more for raytracing, that's it - and while it's certainly a cool feature I don't really see gamers caring that much until it becomes usable at that $200-300 price point.
There's many expensive hobbies, but also a ton of cheap ones.