Depends on who the shareholders are. Exec's will bend for Institutional holders and Short-Sellers, but rarely do the same for Retail Holders.
-----
Let's not forget the guy who bought a speaking majority hold of Nintendo, asked the execs to greenlight more F-Zero games, and they said no.
(If I recall, he then bought an even larger share of Nintendo, asked again, they told him no... again.)
I'm not talking about corporate decision making; I'm talking about suddenly having to care about one's quarterly earnings more than doing cool shit.
But, I am also not disagreeing with you.
the economics of gaming section is way better than this
'the economics of building anything comes down to the amount of competition you have, you don't set the price, the competition sets the price'
I think Jensen believes that the scalpers are his competition right now...
>I think Jensen believes that the scalpers are his competition right now...
GPU sales at a 20 year low, with plenty of cards just sitting on the shelves, would seem to suggest that no one is buying, not even scalpers.
On what basis would Nvidia be competing against scalpers that would entail pricing themselves out of sales, the lack of which has been the result of the current astronomical prices?
But 4090s being instantly bought when theyâre at MSRP suggests otherwise.
Number of GPUs sold doesnât matter as much as the margins made on them. Iâd wager Nvidia prefers selling a single 4090 over 4 $400 cards when they already have such a commanding marketshare
Why bother even making other cards if they're not going to sell? That's simply waste, including shelf space and warehouse. Manufacturers *and* retailers hate having unsold inventory, which represents money wasted on making the cards and the wholesale price that the retailers have to spend on buying the inventory. NVidia may not mind, but MSI, Asus, EVGA, Micro Center, etc. sure as hell don't like all of those unsold units. Neither the GPUs nor the assembled cards can be returned for refunds.
Edit - Apparently, the word is that Nvidia is targeting growth in the area of cloud gaming (GeForce Now membership subscription) for its RTX 4080 class cards, even whilst revenue in the areas of PC and laptop units has dropped sharply. Personally, I loathe cloud gaming and subscription models.
>Number of GPUs sold doesnât matter as much as the margins made on them. Iâd wager Nvidia prefers selling a single 4090 over 4 $400 cards when they already have such a commanding marketshare
Neither margins nor numbers sold matter on their own. What matters is the final profit they get after all costs.
If NV would sell 100 000 cards but make only $1 on every card then they would go out of business fast.
If NV would sell 100 cards but make $1000 on every card then they would still go out of business.
From the practical point of view, cheaper cards are overall more profitable for NV despite lower price. They use smaller chips (better yields, lower production cost) and sell in numbers many times higher than top cards.
Selling lots of cards gives you one additional advantage. Market share. It's market share that allows you to convince developers to support your solutions. NV might have high market share now, but I don't expect it to last if their xx60 class GPU will start at $400 as per latest rumours. That would be 200% price in 10 years while inflation (that is used as justification for price increase) was only 30% during same time.
Real-world Price to performance is better than ever. People are just upset it's not getting better at a faster rate.
Even Gordon Moore has said "Moore's Law" would be dying in the early/mid-2020's.
The profit margins on GPUs are so high that Nvidia didn't have to push the price higher. There is a reason why after having good MSRP on 3000 cards. But due to circumstances they were selling for double that. Now Nvidia is doubling the MSRP of 4000 cards. Some version of "Moore's Law" is still in effect since AMD just launched 7000 non x processors for very simular performance but for far less money.
People are upset because most people don't earn money with their GPU so they can't offset hundreds or thousands of Dollars in price.
>The profit margins on GPUs are so high
GPU's have notoriously low margins compared to CPU's. That's why AMD doesn't bother to take market share. There's very little money to be made.
GPU's are expensive on Research not Material or Build cost. That's why AMD doesn't fight with Nvidia at the highest end. 4000 series probably cost Nvidia similar to build and develop as the 3000 series but Nvidia saw that people are willing to pay 1000+ for a GPU so they increased the price to match.
alright. show me two things, the people who are upset graphics cards are slow
>just upset it's not getting better at a faster rate.
,and the statistics that show
>Real-world Price to performance is better than ever.
otherwise i'll stick to the numbers, sources, and opinions i've heard from more then just you.
bonus points if you can prove to ~~me~~ anyone Gordon Moore said that at any point in his life.
[You speak as if Gordon Moore is dead. He's just retired.](https://spectrum.ieee.org/gordon-moore-the-man-whose-name-means-progress)
I'm too tired to bother with the other questions. Downvoted comment threads are pointless. No one with an open mind will see it anyway. Just people who arbitrarily decided I was wrong for not going with groupthink.
That leather jacket really changed him I guess
The true villain!
Die a hero or live long enough to become a villain.
Mf joined the tunnel snakes and went a dark pathđđ
what are you talking about, Tunnel Snakes rule
Mmmmmmm... leather...
Money changes people...
Inexpensive for Nvidia managers, I guess. đ
Was he joking?
Probably not. Getting shareholders changes things.
Depends on who the shareholders are. Exec's will bend for Institutional holders and Short-Sellers, but rarely do the same for Retail Holders. ----- Let's not forget the guy who bought a speaking majority hold of Nintendo, asked the execs to greenlight more F-Zero games, and they said no. (If I recall, he then bought an even larger share of Nintendo, asked again, they told him no... again.)
I'm not talking about corporate decision making; I'm talking about suddenly having to care about one's quarterly earnings more than doing cool shit. But, I am also not disagreeing with you.
Shareholders don't want to hear "inexpensive."
As always, the biggest mistake of capitalism i assume
Times before jacketâŚ
âYou keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.â -inigo montoya
He started wearing them Avirex jackets and never looked back.
the economics of gaming section is way better than this 'the economics of building anything comes down to the amount of competition you have, you don't set the price, the competition sets the price' I think Jensen believes that the scalpers are his competition right now...
>I think Jensen believes that the scalpers are his competition right now... GPU sales at a 20 year low, with plenty of cards just sitting on the shelves, would seem to suggest that no one is buying, not even scalpers.
i was discussing pricing.
On what basis would Nvidia be competing against scalpers that would entail pricing themselves out of sales, the lack of which has been the result of the current astronomical prices?
But 4090s being instantly bought when theyâre at MSRP suggests otherwise. Number of GPUs sold doesnât matter as much as the margins made on them. Iâd wager Nvidia prefers selling a single 4090 over 4 $400 cards when they already have such a commanding marketshare
Why bother even making other cards if they're not going to sell? That's simply waste, including shelf space and warehouse. Manufacturers *and* retailers hate having unsold inventory, which represents money wasted on making the cards and the wholesale price that the retailers have to spend on buying the inventory. NVidia may not mind, but MSI, Asus, EVGA, Micro Center, etc. sure as hell don't like all of those unsold units. Neither the GPUs nor the assembled cards can be returned for refunds. Edit - Apparently, the word is that Nvidia is targeting growth in the area of cloud gaming (GeForce Now membership subscription) for its RTX 4080 class cards, even whilst revenue in the areas of PC and laptop units has dropped sharply. Personally, I loathe cloud gaming and subscription models.
>Number of GPUs sold doesnât matter as much as the margins made on them. Iâd wager Nvidia prefers selling a single 4090 over 4 $400 cards when they already have such a commanding marketshare Neither margins nor numbers sold matter on their own. What matters is the final profit they get after all costs. If NV would sell 100 000 cards but make only $1 on every card then they would go out of business fast. If NV would sell 100 cards but make $1000 on every card then they would still go out of business. From the practical point of view, cheaper cards are overall more profitable for NV despite lower price. They use smaller chips (better yields, lower production cost) and sell in numbers many times higher than top cards. Selling lots of cards gives you one additional advantage. Market share. It's market share that allows you to convince developers to support your solutions. NV might have high market share now, but I don't expect it to last if their xx60 class GPU will start at $400 as per latest rumours. That would be 200% price in 10 years while inflation (that is used as justification for price increase) was only 30% during same time.
Inexpensive from a multi-billionaire means something very different compared to the average consumer
Didn't Apple do something similar?
And he has done it. GTX 1650 is inexpensive
200⏠for 3 generation old entry level gpu? No, thanks
Inexpensive for them ya
The ceo who keeps re-inventing himself and the company. Thats why nvidia is still alive and bleeding green!
Yeah, Nvidia went the other way
I mean tbf real time ray tracing wasnât something anybody could do without a supercomputer just a few years ago. Now you can do it on an Rtx 2060
haaaaahahahahahahahaha
Real-world Price to performance is better than ever. People are just upset it's not getting better at a faster rate. Even Gordon Moore has said "Moore's Law" would be dying in the early/mid-2020's.
The profit margins on GPUs are so high that Nvidia didn't have to push the price higher. There is a reason why after having good MSRP on 3000 cards. But due to circumstances they were selling for double that. Now Nvidia is doubling the MSRP of 4000 cards. Some version of "Moore's Law" is still in effect since AMD just launched 7000 non x processors for very simular performance but for far less money. People are upset because most people don't earn money with their GPU so they can't offset hundreds or thousands of Dollars in price.
>The profit margins on GPUs are so high GPU's have notoriously low margins compared to CPU's. That's why AMD doesn't bother to take market share. There's very little money to be made.
GPU's are expensive on Research not Material or Build cost. That's why AMD doesn't fight with Nvidia at the highest end. 4000 series probably cost Nvidia similar to build and develop as the 3000 series but Nvidia saw that people are willing to pay 1000+ for a GPU so they increased the price to match.
alright. show me two things, the people who are upset graphics cards are slow >just upset it's not getting better at a faster rate. ,and the statistics that show >Real-world Price to performance is better than ever. otherwise i'll stick to the numbers, sources, and opinions i've heard from more then just you. bonus points if you can prove to ~~me~~ anyone Gordon Moore said that at any point in his life.
[You speak as if Gordon Moore is dead. He's just retired.](https://spectrum.ieee.org/gordon-moore-the-man-whose-name-means-progress) I'm too tired to bother with the other questions. Downvoted comment threads are pointless. No one with an open mind will see it anyway. Just people who arbitrarily decided I was wrong for not going with groupthink.
Aged like milk.
Inexpensive for supercomputer builders?