Why is nvidia more expensive than ati graphics cards?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by sn4k3_64 (1129 posts) -

Ok i need to ask this now, as i dont get it, i was looking at ati gpu's, they seemed much faster AND cheaper than the nvidia cards. Why is this?

#2 Posted by Espada12 (23248 posts) -

Physx, Cuda, Better drivers.. that's all I can guess. Also the 460GTX kinda punches a hole in your statement :P although it's pretty new.

#3 Posted by Disturbed123 (1665 posts) -

I guess majority of companies always have the nvidia trademark "best played with nvidia" hence why, and also ATI cards to have a few hiccups in glitches here and there, and require a fair bit of driver updates (theyre actually small issues, nothing major), but by default, everything is pretty much compatible with Nvidia cards. Also u get cuda and PhyX which drives the price up.

#4 Posted by NLahren (1927 posts) -
ati cards are not much faster, gtx 465 not worth the money since ati's counterpart 5830 is better otherwise nv>ati
#5 Posted by sn4k3_64 (1129 posts) -

Physx, Cuda, Better drivers.. that's all I can guess. Also the 460GTX kinda punches a hole in your statement :P although it's pretty new.

Espada12
Erm im not sure about that, ive seen cheaper ati cards at cheaper prices with what looked like better performance :S
#6 Posted by sn4k3_64 (1129 posts) -

I guess majority of companies always have the nvidia trademark "best played with nvidia" hence why, and also ATI cards to have a few hiccups in glitches here and there, and require a fair bit of driver updates (theyre actually small issues, nothing major), but by default, everything is pretty much compatible with Nvidia cards. Also u get cuda and PhyX which drives the price up.

Disturbed123
good points there, i remember having some problems with my card
#7 Posted by BeavermanA (2652 posts) -
They'll charge what people are willing to pay. There are many fan boys for different brands that will gladly pay more money for a product with equal or inferior performance. Nvidia is just taking advantage of that, like any company would.
#8 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

Up until very recently, Nvidia was the market leader in discrete GPU sales. That was the case for quite awhile. Nvidia is generally more well-known to the casual consumer (in my experience), and they have more bells and whistles with their cards and drivers. For example, Nvidia supports CUDA and Physx, which aren't of much use to most people, but they're good marketing tools. For the most part Nvidia has had the fastest cards on the market.. that is until recently. Now ATI has the fastest overall card (5970). Nvidia recently brought out the excellent bang for the buck GTX 460, which is the first product from the GTX 400 series that most reviewers are really recommending versus their ATI counterparts. In the last year, ATI has released the very well-reviewed, excellent performing 5000 series cards, which have taken a massive chunk out of Nvidia's customer base (myself included).

So, in short.. Nvidia was the "big dog" and market share leader for discrete GPU sales until recently, so they could afford to be a little bit more expensive. Now with the relative failure of their Fermi (GTX 400) line of products, they've fallen out of the top spot, and may have to change their pricing. I wouldn't be shocked to see a big price drop on Nvidia's current lineup, or if that doesn't happen.. maybe they will have the cheaper product lineup next round. For this round they have to be counting on the GTX 460 to save their butts, since it seems to be the lone "diamond in the rough" of their current product line. One thing's for sure- Nvidia can't afford another round like this. They went from having a sizeable market share lead over ATI before the HD5000 series release, to trailing. That's a position they're not used to being in. As a consumer, I'd like to see their next series of cards be a big success.

#9 Posted by BDK-Soft (795 posts) -

Physx, Cuda, Better drivers.. that's all I can guess. Also the 460GTX kinda punches a hole in your statement :P although it's pretty new.

Espada12
hmm physx is kinda moot, only a handful of games supports it. Ati's version of cuda is called ati stream. Oh and nvidia makes better drivers? Naaaaah they don't. Personally I've had nothing but trouble with nvidia drivers. Ati's works far better at least on my comp, they don't accidentally fry your gpu either..
#10 Posted by kaitanuvax (3814 posts) -

Because most of their cards cost alot to manufacture. Not that it's always a good thing..*cough* GF100 *cough*.

They have one exception, however, in the GTX 460 768MB. It costs the same as a 5830 (rofl I told you guys this card sucked ass the day it came out) but spanks it in games.

#11 Posted by i5750at4Ghz (5839 posts) -
gtx 470 is more than the 5850 cause it performs better. Same for gtx 480 vs 5870. As far as price is concerned nvidia pricing fits its performance.
#12 Posted by darx55 (1528 posts) -
ati cards are not much faster, gtx 465 not worth the money since ati's counterpart 5830 is better otherwise nv>ati NLahren
i lold irl
#13 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

gtx 470 is more than the 5850 cause it performs better. Same for gtx 480 vs 5870. As far as price is concerned nvidia pricing fits its performance.i5750at4Ghz

The performance gap between the GTX 480 and the 5870 isn't worth the over $100 price difference between them IMO. When you add in the extra cost of running one (they use between 75 and 90 more watts of power under load... that's ALOT), they aren't a good value. You get a GPU that performs 10-15% better, while costing over $100 more in some cases, runs much hotter, and drinks way more power. Hell, if ATI had put 2000+ stream processors on the 5870 and made it eat 260+ watts, it wouldn't been faster than the GTX 480 and probably still costed less. GF100 is very inefficient. They seem to have figured something out with GF104.

#14 Posted by smc91352 (7786 posts) -
the over $100 price difference between themhartsickdiscipl
this 470 is $270, $15 less than a 5850. I still wouldn't get it over a 5850 'cause of the heat. The electricity bill would make it cost more, also.
#15 Posted by Espada12 (23248 posts) -

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Physx, Cuda, Better drivers.. that's all I can guess. Also the 460GTX kinda punches a hole in your statement :P although it's pretty new.

BDK-Soft

hmm physx is kinda moot, only a handful of games supports it. Ati's version of cuda is called ati stream. Oh and nvidia makes better drivers? Naaaaah they don't. Personally I've had nothing but trouble with nvidia drivers. Ati's works far better at least on my comp, they don't accidentally fry your gpu either..

I forgot about stream, but either way.. you can't convince me that ATI makes better drives than nvidia, after dealing with multiple lockups with my 2600XT and having no problems with my 8800GTX I'll just leave it at that.

#16 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]the over $100 price difference between themsmc91352
this 470 is $270, $15 less than a 5850. I still wouldn't get it over a 5850 'cause of the heat. The electricity bill would make it cost more, also.

Yeah, I didn't really get into the GTX 470 vs. 5850 debate because I knew the prices were much closer than the gap between gtx 480 and 5870. Like you I'm still not sure that I would get a GTX 470 over a 5850, even if the 470 was slightly less. TBH I think the only GTX 400 series card I would even consider is the GTX 460 1gb.

#17 Posted by BDK-Soft (795 posts) -

[QUOTE="BDK-Soft"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Physx, Cuda, Better drivers.. that's all I can guess. Also the 460GTX kinda punches a hole in your statement :P although it's pretty new.

Espada12

hmm physx is kinda moot, only a handful of games supports it. Ati's version of cuda is called ati stream. Oh and nvidia makes better drivers? Naaaaah they don't. Personally I've had nothing but trouble with nvidia drivers. Ati's works far better at least on my comp, they don't accidentally fry your gpu either..

I forgot about stream, but either way.. you can't convince me that ATI makes better drives than nvidia, after dealing with multiple lockups with my 2600XT and having no problems with my 8800GTX I'll just leave it at that.

Actually it's the other way around. Nvidia drivers will cause crashes and lockups while ati drivers are working all the time. They certainly didn't work well with my old 8800. The only horrible thing about ati drivers is that useless powerplay thing, I hate it with a passion.
#18 Posted by kaitanuvax (3814 posts) -

Yeah, I didn't really get into the GTX 470 vs. 5850 debate because I knew the prices were much closer than the gap between gtx 480 and 5870. Like you I'm still not sure that I would get a GTX 470 over a 5850, even if the 470 was slightly less. TBH I think the only GTX 400 series card I would even consider is the GTX 460 1gb.

hartsickdiscipl

*768MB goes cry in a corner silently*

='(

#19 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yeah, I didn't really get into the GTX 470 vs. 5850 debate because I knew the prices were much closer than the gap between gtx 480 and 5870. Like you I'm still not sure that I would get a GTX 470 over a 5850, even if the 470 was slightly less. TBH I think the only GTX 400 series card I would even consider is the GTX 460 1gb.

kaitanuvax

*768MB goes cry in a corner silently*

='(

LOL! That's right, you should! You and your measly 86gb/s of memory bandwidth and 24 ROPs! :P

#20 Posted by i5750at4Ghz (5839 posts) -

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]gtx 470 is more than the 5850 cause it performs better. Same for gtx 480 vs 5870. As far as price is concerned nvidia pricing fits its performance.hartsickdiscipl

The performance gap between the GTX 480 and the 5870 isn't worth the over $100 price difference between them IMO. When you add in the extra cost of running one (they use between 75 and 90 more watts of power under load... that's ALOT), they aren't a good value. You get a GPU that performs 10-15% better, while costing over $100 more in some cases, runs much hotter, and drinks way more power. Hell, if ATI had put 2000+ stream processors on the 5870 and made it eat 260+ watts, it wouldn't been faster than the GTX 480 and probably still costed less. GF100 is very inefficient. They seem to have figured something out with GF104.

My point still remains. The gtx 480 costs more due to the fact it peforms better than a 5870. Whether its worth the extra cost or not isn't up for debate as it's a personally question. IMO I would much rather have the gtx 480 as it handles dx11 titles much better.
#21 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]gtx 470 is more than the 5850 cause it performs better. Same for gtx 480 vs 5870. As far as price is concerned nvidia pricing fits its performance.i5750at4Ghz

The performance gap between the GTX 480 and the 5870 isn't worth the over $100 price difference between them IMO. When you add in the extra cost of running one (they use between 75 and 90 more watts of power under load... that's ALOT), they aren't a good value. You get a GPU that performs 10-15% better, while costing over $100 more in some cases, runs much hotter, and drinks way more power. Hell, if ATI had put 2000+ stream processors on the 5870 and made it eat 260+ watts, it wouldn't been faster than the GTX 480 and probably still costed less. GF100 is very inefficient. They seem to have figured something out with GF104.

My point still remains. The gtx 480 costs more due to the fact it peforms better than a 5870. Whether its worth the extra cost or not isn't up for debate as it's a personally question. IMO I would much rather have the gtx 480 as it handles dx11 titles much better.

I wouldn't touch a GTX 480 with a 20-foot pole. What I'm looking forward to is (hopefully) a dual-gpu GF104 variant.

#22 Posted by i5750at4Ghz (5839 posts) -

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The performance gap between the GTX 480 and the 5870 isn't worth the over $100 price difference between them IMO. When you add in the extra cost of running one (they use between 75 and 90 more watts of power under load... that's ALOT), they aren't a good value. You get a GPU that performs 10-15% better, while costing over $100 more in some cases, runs much hotter, and drinks way more power. Hell, if ATI had put 2000+ stream processors on the 5870 and made it eat 260+ watts, it wouldn't been faster than the GTX 480 and probably still costed less. GF100 is very inefficient. They seem to have figured something out with GF104.

hartsickdiscipl

My point still remains. The gtx 480 costs more due to the fact it peforms better than a 5870. Whether its worth the extra cost or not isn't up for debate as it's a personally question. IMO I would much rather have the gtx 480 as it handles dx11 titles much better.

I wouldn't touch a GTX 480 with a 20-foot pole. What I'm looking forward to is (hopefully) a dual-gpu GF104 variant.

I have a 5850 now, will upgrade to 2 gtx 460's in a month or so. Hopefully whatever comes 1st or 2nd quarter of next year is much better than what we have now, as far as DX11 performance goes.
#23 Posted by Neo_revolution7 (2088 posts) -

[QUOTE="NLahren"]ati cards are not much faster, gtx 465 not worth the money since ati's counterpart 5830 is better otherwise nv>ati darx55
i lold irl

i lold quietly to my self :)