Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[JEMC]

Bofferbrauer2 said:

JEMC said:

I'm having a hard time believing this.

Nvidia tried to sell the 4080 for $1200 and it failed miserably, that's why the Super revision was priced at $1000. Mind you, the 4090 was "only" three hundred more and so it made sense to spend a bit more and get a lot more, but the reality is that is you canb afford to spend that much money on a GPU, you can spend a bit more and get the better model, the 5090.

So yeah, I seriously doubt it.

But, you know, never say never, given that this time around there is no competition from AMD, Nvidia may have gone cocky and it's trying it again.

The thing is, the 4080 also had competition in form of the 7900XTX which was faster in Raster, plus the 4090 kinda set an upper limit. The 5080 won't have that competition unless the 5080 ain't much faster than the 4080 (considering that according to rumors the 50 series will be mainly improved in RT and AI, raster could have had a much smaller increase that gen), as then the 9070XT might creep up on it.

Also, failed miserably? The 4080 is still in front of the 4080 Super in the Steam survey. Of course, the 4090 was a much better deal price/performance (hence why it has sold about as much as both 4080 versions combined according the steam survey), but it's successor the 5090 is already rumored to go for ~$2500, creating a much larger gap between itself and the 5080.

That all being said, I also think that the prices in the leak are inflated, though just somewhat. Don't expect the 5080 to go for less than $1199 at launch, with $1499 on the high end.

Ok, I got carried away, I admit it. Still, at launch it all the 4090s were really hard to find in stock while there were plenty of 4080 everywhere, so it didn't sell as well as Nvidia hoped.

haxxiy said:

JEMC said:

My comment was focused more on the free will of pricing them the way they want or if they'd be forced by Nvidia to price them as the rest.

A smart company would go for the middle ground, charging more than they could but still being something like $100 cheaper than anyone else to sell more units.

Well, mind that AIB partner margins are below 10% nowadays and Nvidia can't allocate and sell infinite GPUs on demand to them anyway. The more likely scenario is local consumers bearing 100% of the additional cost with some extra scalping elsewhere as a side-effect.

The US isn't that massive of a PC gaming market anymore (probably ~10%) for anything to revolve around them, really.

Nvidia has a finite number of chips, no doubt about it, but if other brands sell less because of the high price, they'll buy less chips from Nvidia (no one wants to have a big stack of unsold GPUs) and Zotac/Inno3D could step in and get ahold of those unsold chips for their cheaper products.

With that said, just like there are some die hard fans of AMD or Nvidia, there are also the same number of die hard fans of brands lile Asus, so it's difficult to see them jumping to another brand to save some bucks.

And are you sure about the size of the PC gaming market in the US? Because that number seems very low.