This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why are AMD graphics cards too expensive?

#41DarkZV2BetaPosted 2/24/2014 1:26:55 PM
darkstar4221 posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Why would they arbitrarily price cards lower? So they can make less money?
There's greater demand for AMD's high end cards thanks to mining. I don't think AMD is even the one profiting from that. It's retailers that are marking it up. But, even if they did, they're still selling their cards at what the consumer is willing to pay despite the cheaper price, better performance, and richer featureset of the competition at this time. That's the market response, not AMD conspiracy.
For the CPU market, AMD's prices have actually been quite high compared to Intel's, seeing as the FX series processors are complete garbage when compared to what Intel has to offer. They often come into the market at an inflated price, trying to take advantage of a small niche before quickly dropping prices when they can no longer sell units.


You forgot to mention that the only reason why Intel has a large market-share is because their chip designs are protected by patent and sui genrus laws. You need a license from Intel if you want manufacturer X86 cpus, the fact that you need a license (ie permission) just to produce x86-like cpus is the reason why Intel has a stranglehold on desktop cpu market. Intel is the one that is inflating the cost of their cpus, Intel is the one that is price gouging their customers. Their K processors still have yet to fall below $200.

I'm guessing it's the same reason why nvidia has a stranglehold in the gpu market and why no other company has popped up and decided to challenge this duopoly of both nvidia and amd. It's well known that nvidia is very protective of their ip, they don't like their ideas being stolen, and nvidia has this unwillingness to adapt to open standards. For example nvidia charging a high fee if companies want to use g-sync on their monitors, as well making all their code proprietary. nvidia wouldn't even allow sony to shrink the die of their gpus on the ps3. The business practices of nvidia and amd are monopolistic, which is obviously a sign of a lack of competition.

And keep in mind the cost of the raw materials and components that make a video card, the costs are going down, yet prices for video cards have stayed the same actually or actually increased over the years.


If they were really inflating their prices like you claim, they wouldn't have dropped the price on 2500k in anticipation of AMD's bulldozer architecture, nor would they have put it at the price it launched at, either. You'd be paying $300+ for a i5 k chip, and 500+ for a i7.

nVidia has a right to protect their chip designs as much as any artist has a right to protect their intellectual property. Given the flexible nature of the graphics processing market, and the fact that nVidia and AMD are able to continue to innovate proves that they have no such stranglehold, and the fact that there are other competitors in that market, though nowhere near as big, only furthers that proof.

Also, costs of the graphics processors have actually been dropping steadily over the years. Building a high end PC was the cheapest it's been only months ago, and I'd expect when competition heats up again, it'll become moreso.

Evidence contradicts your inane preachings.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
#42PraetorXynPosted 2/24/2014 1:30:20 PM
To be fair, the Titans (and even moreso the Quadro, Tesla, etc.) from Nvidia are probably words better than AMD's consumer gaming line for mining.

People are still paying the high prices for AMD's cards because they still come out cheaper than Nvidia's compute cards.
---
Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.png
#43Xeeh_BitzPosted 2/24/2014 1:33:38 PM
Ep1taph303 posted...
Interestingly enough, Snuckie has vanished since AMD's cards are higher priced now


nah, Snuckie vanished when the Xbox One released
---
3770K | 780 Ti x 2
Steam: Xeeh Origin: TurboPeasant
#44darkstar4221Posted 2/24/2014 2:53:12 PM(edited)
DarkZV2Beta posted...
If they were really inflating their prices like you claim, they wouldn't have dropped the price on 2500k in anticipation of AMD's bulldozer architecture, nor would they have put it at the price it launched at, either. You'd be paying $300+ for a i5 k chip, and 500+ for a i7.

nVidia has a right to protect their chip designs as much as any artist has a right to protect their intellectual property. Given the flexible nature of the graphics processing market, and the fact that nVidia and AMD are able to continue to innovate proves that they have no such stranglehold, and the fact that there are other competitors in that market, though nowhere near as big, only furthers that proof.

Also, costs of the graphics processors have actually been dropping steadily over the years. Building a high end PC was the cheapest it's been only months ago, and I'd expect when competition heats up again, it'll become moreso.

Evidence contradicts your inane preachings.


The evidence that Intel is a monopoly and price gouging their customers is there. Look at the price and performance difference between the i5-4670K Ivy Bridge and the i5-4670K Haswell. If Ivy Bridge is so outdated, why doesn't Intel lower the price of their Ivy Bridge processors?

Regarding nVidia, again they are very protective of their ip. They benefit a lot from trade-secret laws. They don't want people stealing their ideas, which is why they make their code proprietary and why they constantly ignore open standards. But at the same time they charge high licensing fees who want to use their development tools and technology. I mean is nvidia making gaming cheaper by charging a lot for g-sync? Wouldn't it better if g-sync was open source/license free, as well as their other development tools? I mean there is nothing open about nvidia, Linus Torvalds was complaining about this. Without patent or trade-secret laws, nvidia would have no choice but to release their code and be more open, and this is not even dealing with the issue with copyright and piracy (you can't pirate a video card or a cpu).

My point it's the intellectual property laws (whether be patent, copyright, or trade-secret laws) that allow these corporations to behave monopolistic, to inflate the cost of their products, and to block competition. It's blatant with Intel, not so much with nVidia, but obviously they benefit from these laws at the expense of everyone else.
#45Psykic PetrolPosted 2/24/2014 3:05:27 PM
~95% market share of the entire industry.

ARM and smartphones.
---
How do you ejaculate from plane? I try to press the buttons but I do not find it. Sorry for my bad english - Bean0
#46DarkZV2BetaPosted 2/24/2014 4:33:45 PM
darkstar4221 posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
If they were really inflating their prices like you claim, they wouldn't have dropped the price on 2500k in anticipation of AMD's bulldozer architecture, nor would they have put it at the price it launched at, either. You'd be paying $300+ for a i5 k chip, and 500+ for a i7.

nVidia has a right to protect their chip designs as much as any artist has a right to protect their intellectual property. Given the flexible nature of the graphics processing market, and the fact that nVidia and AMD are able to continue to innovate proves that they have no such stranglehold, and the fact that there are other competitors in that market, though nowhere near as big, only furthers that proof.

Also, costs of the graphics processors have actually been dropping steadily over the years. Building a high end PC was the cheapest it's been only months ago, and I'd expect when competition heats up again, it'll become moreso.

Evidence contradicts your inane preachings.


The evidence that Intel is a monopoly and price gouging their customers is there. Look at the price and performance difference between the i5-4670K Ivy Bridge and the i5-4670K Haswell. If Ivy Bridge is so outdated, why doesn't Intel lower the price of their Ivy Bridge processors?

Regarding nVidia, again they are very protective of their ip. They benefit a lot from trade-secret laws. They don't want people stealing their ideas, which is why they make their code proprietary and why they constantly ignore open standards. But at the same time they charge high licensing fees who want to use their development tools and technology. I mean is nvidia making gaming cheaper by charging a lot for g-sync? Wouldn't it better if g-sync was open source/license free, as well as their other development tools? I mean there is nothing open about nvidia, Linus Torvalds was complaining about this. Without patent or trade-secret laws, nvidia would have no choice but to release their code and be more open, and this is not even dealing with the issue with copyright and piracy (you can't pirate a video card or a cpu).

My point it's the intellectual property laws (whether be patent, copyright, or trade-secret laws) that allow these corporations to behave monopolistic, to inflate the cost of their products, and to block competition. It's blatant with Intel, not so much with nVidia, but obviously they benefit from these laws at the expense of everyone else.


You mean 3570k? Because there is no Ivy 4670k. And if you look at the IGP improvements, it's pretty significant, and in fact undermines your statement. AMD took a different direction, focussing on their APU designs, and Intel is following their lead. If they actually had the monopoly you claim, they'd just squeeze AMD out of the market like they tried(and failed) to do before.

nVidia actually provided better support for OpenGL on many occasions, has an open source handheld they support, is supporting open source linux, and deliberately trying to shake the monopoly of DirectX, so oh look, you're wrong again.
If everything was open source and free, nVidia wouldn't make enough money for the intensive R&D they do.

I'm all for patent reform, but your ravings are idealistic lunacy. You're complaining about a progressive market that benefits from it's current structure greatly, as apposed to the stagnant media industries.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
#47darkstar4221Posted 2/24/2014 7:25:12 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
You mean 3570k? Because there is no Ivy 4670k. And if you look at the IGP improvements, it's pretty significant, and in fact undermines your statement. AMD took a different direction, focussing on their APU designs, and Intel is following their lead. If they actually had the monopoly you claim, they'd just squeeze AMD out of the market like they tried(and failed) to do before.

nVidia actually provided better support for OpenGL on many occasions, has an open source handheld they support, is supporting open source linux, and deliberately trying to shake the monopoly of DirectX, so oh look, you're wrong again.
If everything was open source and free, nVidia wouldn't make enough money for the intensive R&D they do.

I'm all for patent reform, but your ravings are idealistic lunacy. You're complaining about a progressive market that benefits from it's current structure greatly, as apposed to the stagnant media industries.


Come on you know better there is hardly any difference in terms of cpu performance between between the two. In numerous tests the Ivy 3570k actually clocks better than Haswell, and Haswell is not energy efficient as Intel claims. Like I said before if Haswell is much better than why Ivy Bridge, why doesn't Intel drop prices? Because Intel has so much market power they don't have to. In an actual free market (one without the SCPA act), Intel wouldn't be able to do this.

I'm not going to deny that nVidia has greatly supported Linux and OpenGL, but still some of their business practices consist of vendor lock-in. PsychX is not open source, g-sync is not open source. G-sync is a great technology, but it doesn't benefit anyone other than nvidia and it also increases the cost of gaming. They don't even want to open up their source code for their libraries, as explained in this article.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173511-nvidias-gameworks-program-usurps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd
In Nvidia’s GameWorks program, though, the libraries are effectively black boxes. Nvidia has clarified that developers can see the code under certain licensing restrictions, but they cannot share that code with AMD — which means AMD can’t optimize its own drivers to optimally run the functions or make suggestions to the developer that would improve the library’s performance on GCN hardware. This is fundamentally different from how most optimization is done today, where Nvidia and AMD might both work with a developer to optimize HLSL code for their respective products.

Here you see how trade-secret laws benefit nVidia, I mean why do you need a license to see code?
#48Snuckie7Posted 2/24/2014 10:14:12 PM
PraetorXyn posted...
To be fair, the Titans (and even moreso the Quadro, Tesla, etc.) from Nvidia are probably words better than AMD's consumer gaming line for mining.


False.

https://litecoin.info/Mining_hardware_comparison
---
Intel Core i7 3820 | EVGA X79 SLI K2 | - | Samsung / 840 120GB / 8GB RAM | 1TB WD Caviar Blue | Corsair / 550D / H70 | Silencer MKIII 600W