Not trying to be pedantic, but this isn't funny at all. Nvidia's pricing practices are shameless this generation. How I wish AMD could figure it out and compete again, then this pricing insanity would stop. After 9 GPUs bought from Nvidia, I'm seriously considering not buying from them until these insulting practices end.
Newegg has an ASUS GTX970 for $199 after rebate. That's a pretty good deal, and it might be cheaper if you get settlement money too.
I think the issue is they're competing with their previous gen stuff too which wasn't bad. The GTX970 and 980 are amazing cards (I'd love to upgrade to either of them if I had time to actually game).
1. Nvidia is going to gouge even worse the next product cycle 2. The next product cycle just got 'delayed' 12 months 3. If you bought a 10 series card, you have no one to blame but yourself
There was a golden era in the tech scene when AMD had a faster Athlon than Intel, and ATI first dropped the Radeon. FSB overclocking was not only 'allowed' but was considered normal and encouraged. Ultimately, this downhill greedy slide can be blamed on 2 things:
1. Media sites like this one, promoting the shameless business models of companies like Apple 2. You, the consumer for buying into it.
And yes, I do blame AT directly...remember when Intel locked down FSB overclocking and AT wrote a puff piece about how this would be a good thing because it would have been 'too much work' for reviewers and 'unsafe' for system integrators lol... Just disgusting.
It's a 2 stage system now, wealthy tech companies are paying big $$$ to try and have tech sites influence your purchasing habits, quite literally punishing sites that don't get on board.
See through it people, be smarter.
For the love of God, vote with your wallet or this is just going to be the tip of the iceberg.
For the love of god, get a better job and quit whining. If you can't afford a $300-1000 card every 3-5yrs (which seems to be my gpu upgrade cycle though my current one is far longer waiting all 14nm chips, IE vega/1080ti maybe), you clearly need to work on yourself.
How much does your cell phone cost OFF contract (and that thing costs you $1500-2400 for 2yrs to own on contract!)? If you're that broke that a 1070 etc is out of your range, improve your earnings ability. I will be buying my 10 series card soon, or Vega if it WINS (win or bust, period). I have no problem with pricing and AMD really needs to charge more. I can easily afford a TitanX if I see some benchmarks showing it's anywhere close to Quadro's in pro app stuff for content creation (3dsmax/blender/adobe/maya etc) and far better than 1080/1070. Since it's a pro card I'm waiting on those tests and Vega to see where it lands. BTW, I am by no means rich or anywhere near it. Saving $300-1000 for me is a one month affair though :) If that isn't the case for you (or close, maybe another month or two) again, improve your job. I'm middle class for crying out loud, but I live within my means (basically means very little to no debt!). :) All I've done is lengthen my cycle from 2yrs to 3-5 depending on what I want in an increase in perf etc. I love the fact that people are buying high, and giving me a great deal below if I choose not to go $400+. I love that there are rich people who can afford these $1000-1200 cards EVERY year…LOL. They pay for all the R&D.
If you take out Intel's 266mil a year payments (coming next year to an end) they still wouldn't make 1B (far from it). Just exactly how much money is a company supposed to be able to make in your opinion? We're not talking apple/intel/samsung etc here (who make 10-50x NV) either. So how much is an OK amount for a tech leader?
The only thing disgusting here is you whining about your own position in life ;) There are cards that are very high performing from $200 and up. If that is really a problem for you every few years you have major issues. The market sets the price not NV and their job is to find the highest price they can get IN that market, no matter what company we're talking about. Price what the market will handle, anything less is silly. The fact that AMD seems to be failing in this is their own management problem (or lack of product perf currently on the high end and cpu).
AMD's current situation is lack of R&D in CORE products. They gave up the cpu race 5yrs ago (and lost the gpu race pretty much 77% share for NV) due to chasing consoles, apus etc. They did it again with consoles rev2 coming up. If they don't charge appropriately for ZEN (assuming it's a LARGER chip than Intel HEDT) they have failed themselves and their customers as they'll have no R&D cash for the future. They have billions in debt (less than 800mil cash too) and need to make a billion or two for a few years to get that paid off and get back in the game for real. I really hope ZEN is bigger than xbox1 (363mm^2 and they make it for $100! sony's is slightly smaller but made for $90 sold for $100-105 probably) or they'll YET AGAIN be relegated to under $200 and priced to death by Intel who can bleed until AMD is beaten down yet again. They also better be aiming for Intels 24 core $7000 server chips soon next year. They will have pricing power if they put out a WINNER. After 8B in losses in the last ~15yrs they need a freaking winner in CPU again. Besides yourself, blame AMD for not making better products to compete. ***prays for HUGE die sizes*** :)
Get a life you worthless basement dweller. Rather than spending hundreds of dollars on a video card that becomes obsolete in just two years, that is already $100-$200 overpriced already, if you had a life you could spend it going outside, having drinks and eating with friends and having a good time.
Only lifeless trash would spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars on an overpriced GPU.
Why would you get settlement money? The only "settlement" regarding these cards I've heard of were over 'false advertising' of the specs, which had a cutoff date. The issue is well known now, so if you buy a card with full knowledge, you're not eligible.
The performance crown doesn't usually allow charging major premiums because the competition isn't usually this far behind.
But yes, almost complete lack of competition does allow borderline monopolistic pricing. That's kind of the point of aiming for a monopoly.
Unfortunately, regulators apparently feel that monopolies in IT in general are perfectly fine, since we have both a long history and many modern monopolies, without a single impactful step to reduce the damage they do.
I'm guessing the underlying reason for that is the rapid improvement in tech in general - that lets even egregious practices persist since despite consumers getting really shoddy deals relative to producers, they're still getting more for their money than last year.
It's the fact that nVIDIA charges a premium that allows AMD to keep in business by competing on the price/performance or low budget share of the market. If nVIDIA didn't charge a premium and it's products were priced the same while being faster no one would buy AMD.
Must be hard being broke, and have to flip burgers at McDonalds.
Nvidia makes money because they know what customers want; Raw power. Who cares about "Best bang for the buck", we want "BANG!" and don't care about bucks.
The issue here is the fact nV currently left AMD in dust, their flagships performance is right now very significant. Hopefully AMD releases something soon that can trade equal blows with 1080 or ideally Pascal Titan X. Nobody wants to pay excessive premium if it is not necessary. Well, perhaps except few hardcore fanboys.
Alas, those income gains we can see now are likely not result of Pascal or FE circus. The availability of new cards esp. at the first half of Q2'2017 (May-July) was pretty bad. Ihmo majority of increased profit comes from trimming costs of stocked Maxwell cards... and subsequently selling loads of them.
I really don't understand what people are complaining about in terms of AMD performance. For games they're good but nV has always been the better choice for gamers. AMD had a huge lead in compute performance for quite a few years, they're not so far behind even now and they seem to lag behind on manufacturing nodes and generations. Later this year the next gen stuff will come and they'll be trading blows again. The problem for AMD is that their graphics business is the only one which is competitive, but that's a topic for another time.
But compute perf meant nothing then (and still doesn't mean much today). That is the problem, AMD isn't trying to be good at what we actually DO for the most part (well not good enough that is, to achieve higher ASP). They were busy crowing about compute when NV was crowing about GAMES perf and hence priced accordingly. NV wisely chopped off compute (not needed for home usage where GAMING is king) and left that for Titan or above variety cards (tesla etc) while concentrating on features and fps in games. It was comic to watch sites like anandtech crow about F@H perf etc when only 177K people actually ever used it (the download site gives total d/ls for life), and all it does is run up your electric bills...ROFL. Who cares. Most people reading these sites GAME. Synthetic crap is just that. Crap.
AMD's problem is MANAGEMENT (not the workers) and the direction they've taken the company over the last decade. They fired the only guy who had the right idea (Dirk Meyer). Make a KING product then spend time on other stuff as profits allow. I hope ZEN is a return to KING status, not "good enough" crap that gets relegated to bargain bin pricing they have now. I won't buy ZEN unless it BEATS Intel's 8 core HEDT. Pricing means nothing to me as long as they are ~around Intel (up or down), I just want the WINNER. Period. I'm hoping they put out a 6 core (defective 8 core?) and that is what I'd be after based on Intel pricing probably. I'll be looking at $400+ this time with 6+ cores for the stuff I'm doing now. But I really hope AMD's die size is huge and prices just like Intel HEDT: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broa... They need the profits. Use failed chips for the rest of people that can't afford an 8 core at $1000+. If their 8core beats Intel's 8 (which it should if it's 100mm^2 larger than Intel, basically make it xbox1 sized which is made for $100 BTW) it should price ABOVE Intel, not below. No point in a price war if you are WINNING the perf war!
Their junk apus can go to the poor people. Nobody I know that games has any need for integrated, so enthusiast chips should always be sans gpu. Concentrate on high end first AMD! ALWAYS. That is the difference between an NV record quarter and AMD's "well at least we didn't lose money this Q". If Vega would have come FIRST, I think AMD would have made much more. If Zen had come years ago instead of consoles (and new version of consoles again coming shortly), they wouldn't have had to drop out of the cpu race. Again, this is management and I feel for the AMD employees who have to watch their talents be wasted on bad decisions. One more point: there are 30-40% less of them than a few years ago now too! That sucks. Hopefully Zen/Vega profits will pull in enough to be able to hire back more QUALITY people for future products.
Incorrect, multiple retailers have said 1080 was the fastest selling top end gpu in history. 18/23 1080's are out of stock at newegg as of a day or two ago when I checked long after launch and they are selling as fast as they make them pretty much still today which is why pricing is where it is still and AIB's see no reason to price at NV MSRP (and I wouldn't either until they're stuck on shelves).
OCuk sold 2000 AMD 480's on the first day. They sold 1000 1080's also on the first day. I'd say they have a pretty good supply, and all of the launch stuff and long after were in the quarter fully. Profit doesn't come from cutting prices to sell old inventory (that actually lessens margins). Profit here clearly came from $400+ cards.
IIRC AMD had a $1500 card not long ago (and NV tried 3000, which didn't work out). Price what the market will bear...period. That is a company's job. If I want more spending cash, I'll get a better job (always trying to do that...ROFL).
There is no monopoly here. 1/2 the PC gpus are NOT NV (integrated) and AMD owns ~23% of the market for discrete while NV owns 77. NV is dwarfed by the rest in overall gpus with under 20% IIRC. No court would take a case on this...ROFL. In fact NV is doing no harm even with Titanx which is a bargain for people who can't afford the $5000 Quadro that BIG companies easily can afford for pro app stuff which Titanx is aimed at (home users trying to do the same stuff, indie devs, contractors etc). $650 doesn't seem like much for a top end gpu (GTX 1080).
And yes, as the OP said, if NV charged less than the market would bear AMD wouldn't even be able to exist. We'd have 1080's at $300 and AMD would be dead...LOL. Capitalism works fine.
I don't know if NVIDIA ended up eventually charging AIB partners more for the GPUs, but NVIDIA didn't do anything shameless either way. They produced as many chips as they could and sold as many as they could. The market just had a bigger demand than they could supply, so either the prices go up or the availability goes down. They (NVIDIA and their AIB partners) tried to keep the prices down and that's why there was such a low availability for such a long time.
Monopolies (as you want to call these) are based on supply/ demand and aren't formed by socialism, they are formed by CAPITALISM. LOL, you think Gary Johnson is going to stop this? Don't be a dope, Gary Johnson is very much for capitalism and minimized government interference.
And as far as nVidia being a monopoly goes...not unless you mean a near monopoly on top of the line performance or better management.
I hope you two realize that the gouging isnt Nvidia, but board partners. Nvidia sells by lots of chips, say 1000 at a time, much like intel. The parners set the prices (except with the FE editions of course).
I know right? Because Nvidia also controls when we open our wallets to gouge ourselves too. The 9 series was superb when it came out and at that time it blew away anything AMD had to offer. AMD's response with the Fury series was too little, too late and then all the RX480 fans told us to wait for how incredible that was going to be. 1060 pretty much put that fire out. Now they say Vega is where it will be next. Sheeze.
The cheapest GTX 1060 you can find is $270, its even worse in Europe where the cheapest is 280 Euros, so essentially $300 when converted to US dollars. The chepest RX 480 8GB is $250 though and 260 euros, so essentially at least 30 euros cheaper and the 4GB model can be found for as little as 230 euros, which is 50 euros cheaper than the GTX 1060 which only wins in older DX11 titles specifically optimized for Nvidia.
Since most games coming out in Q4 2016 and 2017 will be DX12 and Vulkan where AMD's offerings crush Nvidia, the AMD offerings make much more sense in every single way. Only braindead Nvidia worshipers would choose Nvidia's current overpriced offerings.
What all of you whiners don't seem to understand is it took NV 9 full years to get back to 2007 profits. And they are not beating those by much now (finally). So the idea they've been ripping you off is silly. AMD should be charging more as they make peanuts. Get a better job if you can't afford a $300-700 vid card every few years. Your cell phone probably costs more than most vid cards today and those people are pulling down BILLIONS. You whine about a company that might crack 1B in profits? LOL. Whatever. Go NV (and AMD if they'd ever price correctly when they have a great product), make more money and spend more on R&D.
You guys would have them make nothing, and we'd all sit here wondering why there was no new gpus each year...ROFL. It's mind boggling you people would rather have NV act like AMD than the reverse and have AMD making more money. Market predicts pricing, and NV can clearly charge more as they have a tough time keeping 1080 in stock.
Like I said, get a better job if you can't afford your hobby (whatever it is). 1070 is already cheap enough for what you get. Do you guys realize it costs 120mil just to create a 10nm soc? Never mind the costs to make a gpu that is ~3x it's size. You should not be confused about why AMD has quarter after quarter of losses (until this last Q) and lost 8B over the last 15yrs. It's comic anyone thinks AMD has great prices, while not realizing it is exactly THAT PRICING that is killing them as a business. I hope Zen is ~350+mm^2 and is priced like Intels current HEDT ($430-1720) so they can finally get back to 58% margins like NV/Intel (and what they had themselves in 2006 when cpus over $800 existed for AMD). Some people don't seem to read balance sheets or quarterly reports...LOL.
AMD is in a funny position. It's easy to garner sympathy for them not to have >40% marketshare despite years of better perf/price, but yet they also deserve to be dipping to <20% for screwing up Hawaii and Polaris badly, milking GCN 1.0 to death and also not saying no to cryptocurrency where the incredible volatility done to AMD GPU supply/demand has garnered a ton of ill will in the much larger gaming market.
When AMD was competitive, they did charge more. Remember the $1K+ AMD CPUs? ...and that was when AMD was putting better numbers mainly in games and audio encode. That was when Intel was stuck in the P4 Netburst quicksand, while AMD continued to improve upon the short pipeline arch. based on the P3.
To ask for a competitive price, you need at least a marginally competitive product, which AMD hasn't had in a good long while. Sure, if you selectively limit your criteria to benchmark numbers alone, you can happily live with the illusion of competition. The fact, as supported by the numbers (market share, earnings, profit/loss) is that there is much more to every product than raw performance. Unless the enthusiast community realize this, people would keep getting surprised at how AMD GPUs "appear" so competitive in the benches, and yet still fail to gain any market share.
That is bullshit, Nvidia has paid the tech media really well to miinform their customers and easily recommend every Nvidia turd, use Nvidia's software to measure the card's performance, while always putting down AMD products even when they are 10x times better.
So you have a bunch of uninformed and misinformed fools tricked into buying Nvidia, thanks to fraud and sellout by media.
The ramblings of delusional AMD fanboys is always entertaining.
But that's OK, matching a 970 at only 2 years late while relying on rabid fanboys to proclaim how DX11 performance doesn't matter was clearly a successful market winning strategy.
BTW AMD CPU division should be thankful they got wrecked in 2006 instead of 2003 because not using the Pentium M on desktop was purely a political decision at Intel.
Your thoughtful and eloquent opinion is duly noted. THIS is why I visit AT; the unparalleled class... and of course this, is the balanced and rational mind it takes to still be an AMD fan circa 2016.
NVIDIA has had several successful product launches in a row now. Combine that with the competition gift wrapping them most of the market, it's no surprise they are doing so well. If you make a good product people will buy it.
The PC market is doing just fine, despite what a few clickbait articles might be saying.
I thought about that, but typically, Fiscal year does not match calendar year when there is overlap on the following year, e.g. Apr - Mar. However, 2nd quarter tends to mean the entire fiscal year occurs within the same calendar year. It's not common for those cases to have a difference between fiscal and calendar year.
Of course, it's not a rule so it could just be the way they defined it.
"We’ve seen several companies transition to practically only selling gaming computers" can you please site an example. I'm interested in this trend and want to read more about it.
Well, there Are still margings in Gaming laptops. Normal laptops Are so highly competent area that margings Are slim.
The bigger problem in the long run is RD-money. If you don't have incomes you don't have money to put reseach and development. For example Samsun has money, so They have now hypriDimm to compete against X-point memory. So competion requires a money, a lot of it. And if there is no competition, you can put up prises as hight as you like. If low end gpu is fast enough, you can ask middrange prises From it. If needed you just make new ultra low end gpu to low range price point.
If you believe digitimes from a while back, MSI's profit is 90% notebook, 10% GPU and significantly minor for MB, embedded and other. Makes you wonder why they don't just drop MB, but it helps them keep an ecosystem of the gaming philosophy
Intel and Nvidia are running a Monopoly on the market of CPU's and GPU's, respectively. This is bad for the lemmings, aka end users who get overcharged.
After seeing Nvidia's profits, I am led to believe that Intel and Nvidia somehow control AMD ensuring that they release only inferior products that will pose very little challenge to their own, thus making sure that their profits remain exceedingly high.
AMD is a corpse that NVIDIA and Intel keep alive artificially in an Intensive Care Unit for the sole purpose of evading potential Monopoly charges.
Through anti-competitive behaviour that starved AMD of precious R&D funds during a critical juncture, Intel certainly contributed to that issue. And Intel lost the lawsuit over this matter. AMD had their own missteps too, though.
Fantastic results overall, but if I am to nitpick, it's amazing how little Tegra revenue is growing.
Remember Jen-Hsun Huang saying circa 2011 that Tegra should soon be a billion dollar business (i.e, 1 billion dollar a year revenue). Five years later, they are nowhere near that yet. I guess on the positive side the business had a good quarter, and at least Nvidia still seems committed to it and hasn't thrown in the towel (like TI or Intel).
Will be interesting to see how much Nvidia will grow in the datacentre over the coming couple of years. I think once POWER 9 comes along with its tight integration with NV Link, things should get pretty interesting.
All in all, if I was in the market, I'd take a serious look at Nvidia's stocks.
The rumours are currently that Nintendo has chosen Tegra (rumours are conflicting on if it's X1 or Parker) for their new NX console. The NX is expected to replace both the 3DS and the Wii U (consolidating Nintendo's product lineup into a single handheld/console device), and putting Tegra in 50 million consoles would go a long way towards boosting Tegra revenue.
On the other hand, it's been suggested that nVidia, hurting from missing out on both the XB1 and PS4, was desperate to make the Nintendo deal, and is doing it at-cost or even at a loss in order to build momentum for Tegra.
Confirmations on all this (from the technical side at least) should come sometime between September 2016 (when Nintendo will officially announce the NX) and March 2017 (when Nintendo has said it will be released).
Peanuts? The part cost of such an SoC is probably at least $30, meaning the deal could represent $1.5 billion in revenue in chip costs alone. That's three entire years worth of Tegra's current revenue. That's not peanuts.
On the flip side, mobile SoCs by per se have proved to be a commoditized, cutthroat low margin business. Unless NV have a compelling end-user product like the iPhone, no point swimming the waters there. Besides, most of the profit is found in industrial/HPC customers and high-end of the consumer GPU segment.
Well this means PC gaming is on the rise, which is great for certain manufacturers and oems.
I hope AMD learned their lesson and somehow ramps their R&D. Considering they've been devoting a lot of it to power reduction and integrated solutions, you'd think they'd be further on the heels of nVidia.
I hope the current starvation for nVidia cards helps them, their new cards are pretty good and are available, and some of their driver offerings like Target Frame Rate are often not marketed enough but are amazing.
R&D is funded by profits. If you don't turn a profit, you can't do R&D for the next generation.
Sure, some of NVIDIA's huge profits will go into dividends for the shareholders (nothing wrong with that) but most of it will go into bigger and better tech in the future. I'm not interested in their tablets or streaming games etc. but I am not part of that generation, and broadband here in Oz is still not that great.
Yes as I mentioned in Q2 2016 they wrote down their Icera modem division. And Q2 2016 was last year because of NVIDIA's fiscal year being almost a full year ahead.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
67 Comments
Back to Article
Zaxx420 - Thursday, August 11, 2016 - link
Looks like all the 1070/1080 price gouging paid off...loleuskalzabe - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Not trying to be pedantic, but this isn't funny at all. Nvidia's pricing practices are shameless this generation. How I wish AMD could figure it out and compete again, then this pricing insanity would stop. After 9 GPUs bought from Nvidia, I'm seriously considering not buying from them until these insulting practices end.webdoctors - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Newegg has an ASUS GTX970 for $199 after rebate. That's a pretty good deal, and it might be cheaper if you get settlement money too.I think the issue is they're competing with their previous gen stuff too which wasn't bad. The GTX970 and 980 are amazing cards (I'd love to upgrade to either of them if I had time to actually game).
dsumanik - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
You realize what this means?1. Nvidia is going to gouge even worse the next product cycle
2. The next product cycle just got 'delayed' 12 months
3. If you bought a 10 series card, you have no one to blame but yourself
There was a golden era in the tech scene when AMD had a faster Athlon than Intel, and ATI first dropped the Radeon. FSB overclocking was not only 'allowed' but was considered normal and encouraged. Ultimately, this downhill greedy slide can be blamed on 2 things:
1. Media sites like this one, promoting the shameless business models of companies like Apple
2. You, the consumer for buying into it.
And yes, I do blame AT directly...remember when Intel locked down FSB overclocking and AT wrote a puff piece about how this would be a good thing because it would have been 'too much work' for reviewers and 'unsafe' for system integrators lol... Just disgusting.
It's a 2 stage system now, wealthy tech companies are paying big $$$ to try and have tech sites influence your purchasing habits, quite literally punishing sites that don't get on board.
See through it people, be smarter.
For the love of God, vote with your wallet or this is just going to be the tip of the iceberg.
TheJian - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
For the love of god, get a better job and quit whining. If you can't afford a $300-1000 card every 3-5yrs (which seems to be my gpu upgrade cycle though my current one is far longer waiting all 14nm chips, IE vega/1080ti maybe), you clearly need to work on yourself.How much does your cell phone cost OFF contract (and that thing costs you $1500-2400 for 2yrs to own on contract!)? If you're that broke that a 1070 etc is out of your range, improve your earnings ability. I will be buying my 10 series card soon, or Vega if it WINS (win or bust, period). I have no problem with pricing and AMD really needs to charge more. I can easily afford a TitanX if I see some benchmarks showing it's anywhere close to Quadro's in pro app stuff for content creation (3dsmax/blender/adobe/maya etc) and far better than 1080/1070. Since it's a pro card I'm waiting on those tests and Vega to see where it lands. BTW, I am by no means rich or anywhere near it. Saving $300-1000 for me is a one month affair though :) If that isn't the case for you (or close, maybe another month or two) again, improve your job. I'm middle class for crying out loud, but I live within my means (basically means very little to no debt!). :) All I've done is lengthen my cycle from 2yrs to 3-5 depending on what I want in an increase in perf etc. I love the fact that people are buying high, and giving me a great deal below if I choose not to go $400+. I love that there are rich people who can afford these $1000-1200 cards EVERY year…LOL. They pay for all the R&D.
If you take out Intel's 266mil a year payments (coming next year to an end) they still wouldn't make 1B (far from it). Just exactly how much money is a company supposed to be able to make in your opinion? We're not talking apple/intel/samsung etc here (who make 10-50x NV) either. So how much is an OK amount for a tech leader?
The only thing disgusting here is you whining about your own position in life ;) There are cards that are very high performing from $200 and up. If that is really a problem for you every few years you have major issues. The market sets the price not NV and their job is to find the highest price they can get IN that market, no matter what company we're talking about. Price what the market will handle, anything less is silly. The fact that AMD seems to be failing in this is their own management problem (or lack of product perf currently on the high end and cpu).
AMD's current situation is lack of R&D in CORE products. They gave up the cpu race 5yrs ago (and lost the gpu race pretty much 77% share for NV) due to chasing consoles, apus etc. They did it again with consoles rev2 coming up. If they don't charge appropriately for ZEN (assuming it's a LARGER chip than Intel HEDT) they have failed themselves and their customers as they'll have no R&D cash for the future. They have billions in debt (less than 800mil cash too) and need to make a billion or two for a few years to get that paid off and get back in the game for real. I really hope ZEN is bigger than xbox1 (363mm^2 and they make it for $100! sony's is slightly smaller but made for $90 sold for $100-105 probably) or they'll YET AGAIN be relegated to under $200 and priced to death by Intel who can bleed until AMD is beaten down yet again. They also better be aiming for Intels 24 core $7000 server chips soon next year. They will have pricing power if they put out a WINNER. After 8B in losses in the last ~15yrs they need a freaking winner in CPU again. Besides yourself, blame AMD for not making better products to compete.
***prays for HUGE die sizes*** :)
dsumanik - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
poor lil baby go cry cry...peeps only rage when you hit that nerve of truth.HighTech4US - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
Yea you do seem to cry and whine alot.TheJian speaks the truth.
slickr - Sunday, August 14, 2016 - link
Get a life you worthless basement dweller. Rather than spending hundreds of dollars on a video card that becomes obsolete in just two years, that is already $100-$200 overpriced already, if you had a life you could spend it going outside, having drinks and eating with friends and having a good time.Only lifeless trash would spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars on an overpriced GPU.
Michael Bay - Saturday, August 20, 2016 - link
>Life=gutYou`re exactly like him.
Gigaplex - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link
Why would you get settlement money? The only "settlement" regarding these cards I've heard of were over 'false advertising' of the specs, which had a cutoff date. The issue is well known now, so if you buy a card with full knowledge, you're not eligible.michael2k - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
If AMD had the performance crown, they'd be charging the premium. That's kind of the point of having the crown.emn13 - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
The performance crown doesn't usually allow charging major premiums because the competition isn't usually this far behind.But yes, almost complete lack of competition does allow borderline monopolistic pricing. That's kind of the point of aiming for a monopoly.
Unfortunately, regulators apparently feel that monopolies in IT in general are perfectly fine, since we have both a long history and many modern monopolies, without a single impactful step to reduce the damage they do.
I'm guessing the underlying reason for that is the rapid improvement in tech in general - that lets even egregious practices persist since despite consumers getting really shoddy deals relative to producers, they're still getting more for their money than last year.
Michael Bay - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Oy vey, somebody`s geschaft is working, WE CAN`T HAVE THAT, bring out muh monopoly wailing!Strunf - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
It's the fact that nVIDIA charges a premium that allows AMD to keep in business by competing on the price/performance or low budget share of the market.If nVIDIA didn't charge a premium and it's products were priced the same while being faster no one would buy AMD.
dsumanik - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
No dude, this comes down to one thing only. People associating their epeen with having the fastest computer possible at any cost.How does it feel to literally be a cow walking in,one to the slaughterhouse? Much like waiting in line at an Apple Store I presume ....lol
TormDK - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Must be hard being broke, and have to flip burgers at McDonalds.Nvidia makes money because they know what customers want; Raw power. Who cares about "Best bang for the buck", we want "BANG!" and don't care about bucks.
slickr - Sunday, August 14, 2016 - link
Nvidia knows its customers are idiots and like sheep to the slaughter go to the slaughter pit.HollyDOL - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
The issue here is the fact nV currently left AMD in dust, their flagships performance is right now very significant. Hopefully AMD releases something soon that can trade equal blows with 1080 or ideally Pascal Titan X. Nobody wants to pay excessive premium if it is not necessary. Well, perhaps except few hardcore fanboys.Alas, those income gains we can see now are likely not result of Pascal or FE circus. The availability of new cards esp. at the first half of Q2'2017 (May-July) was pretty bad. Ihmo majority of increased profit comes from trimming costs of stocked Maxwell cards... and subsequently selling loads of them.
HollyDOL - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Though I wonder if they'll be able to stay so positive and growing in Q3 when all those $30 fees for GTX970 start to add up...niva - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
I really don't understand what people are complaining about in terms of AMD performance. For games they're good but nV has always been the better choice for gamers. AMD had a huge lead in compute performance for quite a few years, they're not so far behind even now and they seem to lag behind on manufacturing nodes and generations. Later this year the next gen stuff will come and they'll be trading blows again. The problem for AMD is that their graphics business is the only one which is competitive, but that's a topic for another time.TheJian - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
But compute perf meant nothing then (and still doesn't mean much today). That is the problem, AMD isn't trying to be good at what we actually DO for the most part (well not good enough that is, to achieve higher ASP). They were busy crowing about compute when NV was crowing about GAMES perf and hence priced accordingly. NV wisely chopped off compute (not needed for home usage where GAMING is king) and left that for Titan or above variety cards (tesla etc) while concentrating on features and fps in games. It was comic to watch sites like anandtech crow about F@H perf etc when only 177K people actually ever used it (the download site gives total d/ls for life), and all it does is run up your electric bills...ROFL. Who cares. Most people reading these sites GAME. Synthetic crap is just that. Crap.AMD's problem is MANAGEMENT (not the workers) and the direction they've taken the company over the last decade. They fired the only guy who had the right idea (Dirk Meyer). Make a KING product then spend time on other stuff as profits allow. I hope ZEN is a return to KING status, not "good enough" crap that gets relegated to bargain bin pricing they have now. I won't buy ZEN unless it BEATS Intel's 8 core HEDT. Pricing means nothing to me as long as they are ~around Intel (up or down), I just want the WINNER. Period. I'm hoping they put out a 6 core (defective 8 core?) and that is what I'd be after based on Intel pricing probably. I'll be looking at $400+ this time with 6+ cores for the stuff I'm doing now. But I really hope AMD's die size is huge and prices just like Intel HEDT:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broa...
They need the profits. Use failed chips for the rest of people that can't afford an 8 core at $1000+. If their 8core beats Intel's 8 (which it should if it's 100mm^2 larger than Intel, basically make it xbox1 sized which is made for $100 BTW) it should price ABOVE Intel, not below. No point in a price war if you are WINNING the perf war!
Their junk apus can go to the poor people. Nobody I know that games has any need for integrated, so enthusiast chips should always be sans gpu. Concentrate on high end first AMD! ALWAYS. That is the difference between an NV record quarter and AMD's "well at least we didn't lose money this Q". If Vega would have come FIRST, I think AMD would have made much more. If Zen had come years ago instead of consoles (and new version of consoles again coming shortly), they wouldn't have had to drop out of the cpu race. Again, this is management and I feel for the AMD employees who have to watch their talents be wasted on bad decisions. One more point: there are 30-40% less of them than a few years ago now too! That sucks. Hopefully Zen/Vega profits will pull in enough to be able to hire back more QUALITY people for future products.
TheJian - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
Incorrect, multiple retailers have said 1080 was the fastest selling top end gpu in history. 18/23 1080's are out of stock at newegg as of a day or two ago when I checked long after launch and they are selling as fast as they make them pretty much still today which is why pricing is where it is still and AIB's see no reason to price at NV MSRP (and I wouldn't either until they're stuck on shelves).OCuk sold 2000 AMD 480's on the first day. They sold 1000 1080's also on the first day. I'd say they have a pretty good supply, and all of the launch stuff and long after were in the quarter fully. Profit doesn't come from cutting prices to sell old inventory (that actually lessens margins). Profit here clearly came from $400+ cards.
HollyDOL - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
Can you reference those claims?krazyfrog - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
If you don't like it, don't buy it. Graphics cards aren't exactly basic commodities.HollyDOL - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Heretic! :-DMichael Bay - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
How dare you. GFX are THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, you BIGOT!BurntMyBacon - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link
@krazyfrog: "Graphics cards aren't exactly basic commodities."Get out!
TheJian - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
IIRC AMD had a $1500 card not long ago (and NV tried 3000, which didn't work out). Price what the market will bear...period. That is a company's job. If I want more spending cash, I'll get a better job (always trying to do that...ROFL).There is no monopoly here. 1/2 the PC gpus are NOT NV (integrated) and AMD owns ~23% of the market for discrete while NV owns 77. NV is dwarfed by the rest in overall gpus with under 20% IIRC. No court would take a case on this...ROFL. In fact NV is doing no harm even with Titanx which is a bargain for people who can't afford the $5000 Quadro that BIG companies easily can afford for pro app stuff which Titanx is aimed at (home users trying to do the same stuff, indie devs, contractors etc). $650 doesn't seem like much for a top end gpu (GTX 1080).
And yes, as the OP said, if NV charged less than the market would bear AMD wouldn't even be able to exist. We'd have 1080's at $300 and AMD would be dead...LOL. Capitalism works fine.
Yojimbo - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
I don't know if NVIDIA ended up eventually charging AIB partners more for the GPUs, but NVIDIA didn't do anything shameless either way. They produced as many chips as they could and sold as many as they could. The market just had a bigger demand than they could supply, so either the prices go up or the availability goes down. They (NVIDIA and their AIB partners) tried to keep the prices down and that's why there was such a low availability for such a long time.Hrel - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
Unfortunately AMD doesn't have Billions of dollars to invest in the R&D to equal a card like Nvidia's 10 series.We now have a monopoly in CPU's and GPU's. A monopoly in Operating Systems and ever increasing soldered shit machines that can never be upgraded.
Yup, we're pretty much fucked unless we elect Gary Johnson as President, only way to stop this socialist trend.
masouth - Tuesday, August 16, 2016 - link
Monopolies (as you want to call these) are based on supply/ demand and aren't formed by socialism, they are formed by CAPITALISM. LOL, you think Gary Johnson is going to stop this? Don't be a dope, Gary Johnson is very much for capitalism and minimized government interference.And as far as nVidia being a monopoly goes...not unless you mean a near monopoly on top of the line performance or better management.
HideOut - Sunday, August 14, 2016 - link
I hope you two realize that the gouging isnt Nvidia, but board partners. Nvidia sells by lots of chips, say 1000 at a time, much like intel. The parners set the prices (except with the FE editions of course).Chaser - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
I know right? Because Nvidia also controls when we open our wallets to gouge ourselves too. The 9 series was superb when it came out and at that time it blew away anything AMD had to offer. AMD's response with the Fury series was too little, too late and then all the RX480 fans told us to wait for how incredible that was going to be. 1060 pretty much put that fire out. Now they say Vega is where it will be next. Sheeze.slickr - Sunday, August 14, 2016 - link
The cheapest GTX 1060 you can find is $270, its even worse in Europe where the cheapest is 280 Euros, so essentially $300 when converted to US dollars. The chepest RX 480 8GB is $250 though and 260 euros, so essentially at least 30 euros cheaper and the 4GB model can be found for as little as 230 euros, which is 50 euros cheaper than the GTX 1060 which only wins in older DX11 titles specifically optimized for Nvidia.Since most games coming out in Q4 2016 and 2017 will be DX12 and Vulkan where AMD's offerings crush Nvidia, the AMD offerings make much more sense in every single way. Only braindead Nvidia worshipers would choose Nvidia's current overpriced offerings.
TheJian - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
What all of you whiners don't seem to understand is it took NV 9 full years to get back to 2007 profits. And they are not beating those by much now (finally). So the idea they've been ripping you off is silly. AMD should be charging more as they make peanuts. Get a better job if you can't afford a $300-700 vid card every few years. Your cell phone probably costs more than most vid cards today and those people are pulling down BILLIONS. You whine about a company that might crack 1B in profits? LOL. Whatever. Go NV (and AMD if they'd ever price correctly when they have a great product), make more money and spend more on R&D.You guys would have them make nothing, and we'd all sit here wondering why there was no new gpus each year...ROFL. It's mind boggling you people would rather have NV act like AMD than the reverse and have AMD making more money. Market predicts pricing, and NV can clearly charge more as they have a tough time keeping 1080 in stock.
Like I said, get a better job if you can't afford your hobby (whatever it is). 1070 is already cheap enough for what you get. Do you guys realize it costs 120mil just to create a 10nm soc? Never mind the costs to make a gpu that is ~3x it's size. You should not be confused about why AMD has quarter after quarter of losses (until this last Q) and lost 8B over the last 15yrs. It's comic anyone thinks AMD has great prices, while not realizing it is exactly THAT PRICING that is killing them as a business. I hope Zen is ~350+mm^2 and is priced like Intels current HEDT ($430-1720) so they can finally get back to 58% margins like NV/Intel (and what they had themselves in 2006 when cpus over $800 existed for AMD). Some people don't seem to read balance sheets or quarterly reports...LOL.
Do you guys want AMD to make money or what?
StrangerGuy - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
AMD is in a funny position. It's easy to garner sympathy for them not to have >40% marketshare despite years of better perf/price, but yet they also deserve to be dipping to <20% for screwing up Hawaii and Polaris badly, milking GCN 1.0 to death and also not saying no to cryptocurrency where the incredible volatility done to AMD GPU supply/demand has garnered a ton of ill will in the much larger gaming market.darkfalz - Sunday, August 14, 2016 - link
Perf/price means next to nothing for technology that is not scalable. This is a hardware enthusiasts site, not Dell or HP.comD. Lister - Sunday, August 14, 2016 - link
When AMD was competitive, they did charge more. Remember the $1K+ AMD CPUs? ...and that was when AMD was putting better numbers mainly in games and audio encode. That was when Intel was stuck in the P4 Netburst quicksand, while AMD continued to improve upon the short pipeline arch. based on the P3.To ask for a competitive price, you need at least a marginally competitive product, which AMD hasn't had in a good long while. Sure, if you selectively limit your criteria to benchmark numbers alone, you can happily live with the illusion of competition. The fact, as supported by the numbers (market share, earnings, profit/loss) is that there is much more to every product than raw performance. Unless the enthusiast community realize this, people would keep getting surprised at how AMD GPUs "appear" so competitive in the benches, and yet still fail to gain any market share.
slickr - Sunday, August 14, 2016 - link
That is bullshit, Nvidia has paid the tech media really well to miinform their customers and easily recommend every Nvidia turd, use Nvidia's software to measure the card's performance, while always putting down AMD products even when they are 10x times better.So you have a bunch of uninformed and misinformed fools tricked into buying Nvidia, thanks to fraud and sellout by media.
StrangerGuy - Sunday, August 14, 2016 - link
The ramblings of delusional AMD fanboys is always entertaining.But that's OK, matching a 970 at only 2 years late while relying on rabid fanboys to proclaim how DX11 performance doesn't matter was clearly a successful market winning strategy.
BTW AMD CPU division should be thankful they got wrecked in 2006 instead of 2003 because not using the Pentium M on desktop was purely a political decision at Intel.
D. Lister - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link
@slickrYour thoughtful and eloquent opinion is duly noted. THIS is why I visit AT; the unparalleled class... and of course this, is the balanced and rational mind it takes to still be an AMD fan circa 2016.
Wreckage - Thursday, August 11, 2016 - link
NVIDIA has had several successful product launches in a row now. Combine that with the competition gift wrapping them most of the market, it's no surprise they are doing so well. If you make a good product people will buy it.The PC market is doing just fine, despite what a few clickbait articles might be saying.
deveraux83 - Thursday, August 11, 2016 - link
Presumably the 2017 is a typo. If not, I know which stock to go long on next year...webdoctors - Thursday, August 11, 2016 - link
Every quarter this comes up, its Fiscal year not calendar year...deveraux83 - Thursday, August 11, 2016 - link
I thought about that, but typically, Fiscal year does not match calendar year when there is overlap on the following year, e.g. Apr - Mar. However, 2nd quarter tends to mean the entire fiscal year occurs within the same calendar year. It's not common for those cases to have a difference between fiscal and calendar year.Of course, it's not a rule so it could just be the way they defined it.
Yojimbo - Thursday, August 11, 2016 - link
It's correct. It's Quarter 2 of their Fiscal Year 2017. NVIDIA's fiscal year is almost 1 year ahead of the calendar year.deveraux83 - Thursday, August 11, 2016 - link
OK, learned something new then. Thanks.Adi_Nemesis - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
"We’ve seen several companies transition to practically only selling gaming computers" can you please site an example. I'm interested in this trend and want to read more about it.Brett Howse - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Sure MSI is one such company: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8922/interview-at-ce...haukionkannel - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Well, there Are still margings in Gaming laptops. Normal laptops Are so highly competent area that margings Are slim.The bigger problem in the long run is RD-money. If you don't have incomes you don't have money to put reseach and development.
For example Samsun has money, so They have now hypriDimm to compete against X-point memory. So competion requires a money, a lot of it. And if there is no competition, you can put up prises as hight as you like. If low end gpu is fast enough, you can ask middrange prises From it. If needed you just make new ultra low end gpu to low range price point.
Ian Cutress - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
If you believe digitimes from a while back, MSI's profit is 90% notebook, 10% GPU and significantly minor for MB, embedded and other. Makes you wonder why they don't just drop MB, but it helps them keep an ecosystem of the gaming philosophyyannigr2 - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Founders Edition financials.Achaios - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Intel and Nvidia are running a Monopoly on the market of CPU's and GPU's, respectively. This is bad for the lemmings, aka end users who get overcharged.After seeing Nvidia's profits, I am led to believe that Intel and Nvidia somehow control AMD ensuring that they release only inferior products that will pose very little challenge to their own, thus making sure that their profits remain exceedingly high.
AMD is a corpse that NVIDIA and Intel keep alive artificially in an Intensive Care Unit for the sole purpose of evading potential Monopoly charges.
Michael Bay - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Ah, so intel is to blame for years of lackluster AMD processors on all fronts, got it.willis936 - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Arguably yes. Read about AMD v. Intel.Gigaplex - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link
Through anti-competitive behaviour that starved AMD of precious R&D funds during a critical juncture, Intel certainly contributed to that issue. And Intel lost the lawsuit over this matter. AMD had their own missteps too, though.DPUser - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
DO i have this right?Intel = CPU
NVIDIA = GPU
AMD = ICU
aryonoco - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
Fantastic results overall, but if I am to nitpick, it's amazing how little Tegra revenue is growing.Remember Jen-Hsun Huang saying circa 2011 that Tegra should soon be a billion dollar business (i.e, 1 billion dollar a year revenue). Five years later, they are nowhere near that yet. I guess on the positive side the business had a good quarter, and at least Nvidia still seems committed to it and hasn't thrown in the towel (like TI or Intel).
Will be interesting to see how much Nvidia will grow in the datacentre over the coming couple of years. I think once POWER 9 comes along with its tight integration with NV Link, things should get pretty interesting.
All in all, if I was in the market, I'd take a serious look at Nvidia's stocks.
Guspaz - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
The rumours are currently that Nintendo has chosen Tegra (rumours are conflicting on if it's X1 or Parker) for their new NX console. The NX is expected to replace both the 3DS and the Wii U (consolidating Nintendo's product lineup into a single handheld/console device), and putting Tegra in 50 million consoles would go a long way towards boosting Tegra revenue.On the other hand, it's been suggested that nVidia, hurting from missing out on both the XB1 and PS4, was desperate to make the Nintendo deal, and is doing it at-cost or even at a loss in order to build momentum for Tegra.
Confirmations on all this (from the technical side at least) should come sometime between September 2016 (when Nintendo will officially announce the NX) and March 2017 (when Nintendo has said it will be released).
poohbear - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
that deal would be peanuts compared to the rest of the sectors Nvidia is in.Guspaz - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link
Peanuts? The part cost of such an SoC is probably at least $30, meaning the deal could represent $1.5 billion in revenue in chip costs alone. That's three entire years worth of Tegra's current revenue. That's not peanuts.TormDK - Friday, August 12, 2016 - link
I was quite surprised when I saw that Microsoft has servers in Azure now, with Nvidia GPU's in them.StrangerGuy - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
On the flip side, mobile SoCs by per se have proved to be a commoditized, cutthroat low margin business. Unless NV have a compelling end-user product like the iPhone, no point swimming the waters there. Besides, most of the profit is found in industrial/HPC customers and high-end of the consumer GPU segment.m16 - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
Well this means PC gaming is on the rise, which is great for certain manufacturers and oems.I hope AMD learned their lesson and somehow ramps their R&D. Considering they've been devoting a lot of it to power reduction and integrated solutions, you'd think they'd be further on the heels of nVidia.
I hope the current starvation for nVidia cards helps them, their new cards are pretty good and are available, and some of their driver offerings like Target Frame Rate are often not marketed enough but are amazing.
darkfalz - Sunday, August 14, 2016 - link
R&D is funded by profits. If you don't turn a profit, you can't do R&D for the next generation.Sure, some of NVIDIA's huge profits will go into dividends for the shareholders (nothing wrong with that) but most of it will go into bigger and better tech in the future. I'm not interested in their tablets or streaming games etc. but I am not part of that generation, and broadband here in Oz is still not that great.
Dark Man - Monday, August 15, 2016 - link
"Operating income for the quarter was $317 million, up 317% from Q2 2016"Brett Howse - Tuesday, August 16, 2016 - link
Yes as I mentioned in Q2 2016 they wrote down their Icera modem division. And Q2 2016 was last year because of NVIDIA's fiscal year being almost a full year ahead.