So, I know this is primarily a political blog, but I do discuss gaming topics if I can work in a political or economic angle, and I just wanted to discuss the state of the GPU market.
So, for those who don't know what a GPU is, it's the part of your computer that lets you play games. It's called "graphics processing unit" and is also known as a "video card" or "graphics card." Most PCs dont have them by default, which is why when you go buy a PC from a store and take it home, you're stuck struggling to run fortnite and rocket league. You need dedicated graphics hardware to have a console like gaming experience on PC or better. You also need fast CPU and a lot of RAM, but most modern computers come with decent enough hardware anyway.
PC gaming has had a pretty complex history in terms of affordability. it used to be, console was the only affordable way to go. If you played on PC, you'd spend $1000+ on hardware and couldn't run games 2-3 years later. The lifespan of parts has expanded over time, and PC gaming actually started taking off as a more affordable option in the PS3/Xbox 360 era, and even more so in the PS4/XB1 era.
But in the past few years, the market for GPUs became broken, and prices are out of control.
I got into mainstreaming PC gaming around 2008 or so, when I wanted to upgrade my computer to play crappy F2P games on the internet. I got more and more interested in playing on PC and a few years later built a dedicated gaming PC when I graduated college in 2010.
The GPU market was always fairly accessible. When I got into it, there were options from as low as $50 to up to $700 at the ultra high end. My first GPU was a HD 3650 I paid $80 for. It was a very basic video card. I used it with an aging PC that could abrely handle games even with an upgrade, but it was worth it. It gave me a taste of PC gaming and never went back.
While you could pay as little as say, $50 on the low end, and up to $700 on the high end, most people seemed to spend between $100-300 back in the day. GPUs like the 8800 GT and 9800 GT were the kings of the day. You could get them for around $250ish and you had a GPU that could actually run games for a solid 5-6 years. THose cards were considered "legendary". They were twice as powerful as what came before, and it took years for something to come out to make you want to upgrade.
Soon, these cards were supplanted by cheap AMD GPUs. There are two major brands of GPUs. Nvidia, who is the market leader and generally considered the superior company, and AMD, who often makes worse products, but tends to sell them at competitive prices. After their 8800/9000 GPU series, success went to Nvidia's head and they released the 200 series, which is where they started developing the naming scheme we're all familiar with. They had GPUs from the weak AF 210, all the way up to the 295, which was a dual GPU that cost insane amounts of money. Most people opted for a GTS 250 (about on par with the 9800 GTX+ which was the previous gen flagship) for around $150, or they spent a bit more on a GTX 260. But generally speaking, it was better just to buy AMD. You could get a HD 4830 which equalled a 8800/9800 GT for like $130, or you could buy a 4850 or 4870 for a bit more. While AMD didn't have "the best" GPUs, they generally were competitive enough that it forced Nvidia to lower their prices to something more reasonable.
From there, Nvidia's product stack normally looked as follows. They would have GPUs from the X10 on the low end (X being the series number) to the X90 on the high end. 90 normally being some dual card (two 80 cards stuck together). On the low end, you could spend anywhere from $30 on up, and the flagship would generally be like $700-1000. Or if you wanted the best SINGLE GPU, you could spend $500 or so.
However, I want to focus on what most people bought. The most popular bang for your buck cards were the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The 50s were mid range cards that could be had fairly affordably ($150ish or so) and didnt age particularly well, but were still worth it. 60 cards were the best bang for the buck generally. They often cost between $200-300 and provided the best experience for the money. 70 cards were also kind of sort of worth it, but vs the 60 cards you're generally talking 30% more performance for 50% more money (their price tag was often around $380-400). And yeah. Only rich people bought 80/90 cards. And anything below the 50 cards were often crap that wasnt worth buying.
As far as AMD, I wont go into their pricing schemes, since they kept changing it. Originally when I got into gaming, they had a similar scheme to nvidia, having flagships with 8s in them, like the 3870, 4870, or 5870, with lower "8" cards like the 4850, 5850, etc. These generally performed like an nvidia 60 or 70 series card. AMD had their own 7 cards too, which were more like a 50 series card from nvidia. And then they'd have their 4/5/6 lower end cards like the 5450 (similar to GT210), 6670 (similar to GT 440), etc.
And yeah, the market dynamic was generally that Nvidia cards were a bit more expensive but generally better experience, AMD cards were cheaper, but often had issues with stability due to bad drivers and stuff. Nvidia cards generally lasted longer because nvidia supported them longer, while AMD cut driver support sometimes as little as 3-4 years after purchase (nvidia cards would last up to 6-8).
But generally both brands had their pros and cons. AMD was a bit less refined, but worth it for the money, and nvidia was a bit more expensive for a more refined experience. My first GPUs were actually AMD. I bought a HD 3650 for like $80 as my first card, and then a HD 5850 for around $300 a few years later. And yeah, I did have issues. I remember the drivers on the 3650 in particular were atrocious, and even the 5850 would crash on some games for no apparent reason. My friend was often very much an nvidia fan, and he bought 80 cards every 2 years or so. One year he gave me his old 580 because he wanted a 680. I used it for a year, it broke, but because it was nvidia, and more specifically, EVGA (the best nvidia sub brand GPU), i could claim the warranty and get a replacement. I got bumped up to a GTX 760, and used it until 2017 when it broke. By then it was about time to upgrade anyway.
And it was largely the golden age of PC gaming. You could go out, buy a $200-300 GPU, and be set for the next 4 years or so. Maybe even longer if you got a legendary series like the 8800 GT. Generally speaking, new products would come out every year, both companies competed, with Nvidia generally being the market leader and AMD being the more value oriented brand, and most people preferring nvidia because it's more refined. Not that AMD is bad, you can have a decent expeirence on AMD, but between twitchiness with drivers, and lack of long term support, nvidia was generally better. Still, both had a place in the market, and the market worked BECAUSE there was a dynamic that if nvidia went full stupid, AMD would always correct them.
In 2016, the last series of GPUs came out that can be considered to be affordable. Nvidia came out with the 1000 series, and AMD the 400/500 series. Nvidia had their normal lineup of GPUs from around $100ish by this point with the 1050 (they largely stopped selling lower because it wasnt worth it and they were junk) and the 1080 Ti which was $700 (they eventually stopped $700 dual cards and came out with single cards about a year later for that price). AMD didnt have a solid product to compete with Nvidia's high end, so they flooded the market with cheap GPUs in the form of the RX 400/500 series. The 470/570 and 480/580 being solid products, with the 470/570 beating most of Nvidia's low end and the 480/580 competing directly with the 1060.
I actually didnt expect to upgrade my GPU that year, but because my replacement 760 bought the farm and I was out of warranty by that point, I had to upgrade. And looking at the market at the time, it seemed like buying cheaply wasnt worth it. The 1050 was on par with my 760 and cost like $140 by this point, and there wasnt a solid upgrade until I hit 1060 territory. On the AMD side, the prices were inflated because in 2017 apparently crypto mining (gamers' "crypto-nite" as it makes prices insanely high) was a thing, and the AMD cards were massively overpriced for their value. I weighed my options, but between wanting a more stable experience and not wanting AMD to cut drivers on me like they did with my old 5850 (seriously, the 460 was still supported in 2017 and AMD dropped 5000 series support in 2015), I decided to just go with Nvidia.
I was kind of disappointed because Nvidia's roadmaps from 2014 showed a major jump in 2016 (which happened) and yet another in 2018. But then nvidia changed their road map and never came out with that massive 2018 bump. The 2016 "pascal" cards remained relevant until late 2018-2019 when nvidia finally DID come out with a new series...and because of AMD's various failures and mishaps over the years, nvidia did something that they felt justified in doing, they raised prices.
We didnt get the GTX 2000 series, but the RTX 2000 series. The R standing for ray tracing. I never heard of ray tracing before this point, but wanna know how movies get lighting so good? Ray tracing. It's very demanding and takes traditional computers days to render single frames, but nvidia managed to invent a technology that could do it decently in real time. However, even with their tech it was demanding so they also invented DLSS, an upscaling technology to accompany ray tracing. Basically, they wanted to make ray tracing the future of gaming. But, this feature wouldn't come cheap, and because AMD was still struggling against nvidia's 1000 series, Nvidia just saw fit to raise prices.
This is roughly the pricing scheme of the 1000 series:
1050- $100-130
1050 Ti- $140-190
1060 3 GB- $190-220
1060 6 GB- $260-300
1070- $380-420
1070 Ti- $420-450
1080- $550-600
1080 Ti- $700
And then Nvidia did this with the 2000 series:
RTX 2060- $350
RTX 2070- $500
RTX 2080- $700
RTX 2080 Ti- $1000
Notice a pattern? Basically the 60 turned into a 70 card, the 70 turned into a 80 card, and the 80 turned into a 80 ti card price wise. And the 2080 ti cost what a "titan" card used to cost (titans being insanely overprice cards only rich people bought).
What you'll notice is...what about people who were interested in 60 cards and below? Well, they did come out with a complementary 16 series GPU aimed for the low end without ray tracing with the 1650 and 1660 series replacing the 1050 and 1060 series. But for 60 buyers....basically you got 1070 performance for the price of a 1060. Which wasn't bad, it was a 35% uplift, but given the 1060 was dominant for over 2 years by this point, a 35% jump was underwhelming. That used to be your normal yearly uplift on an OFF year. Like 460-560 or 660-760 was that kind of jump. And those were the small "refresh" jumps. By 2019, we should've been seeing double the performance. It took 3 years for the 460 (2010)to be as powerful as 2 8800 GTs (2007). It took 3 years for the 760 (2013) to be as powerful as 2 460s. It took 3 years for the 1060 (2016) to be as powerful as 2 760s. And in 3 years, we got a measly 35% jump to the 1660 ti replacing my 6 GB 1060.
At the time, I just kind of realized that with the 1000 series, I just stumbled onto another "legendary" series like the 8800 GT. The 1000 series was a massive jump over the 900 series, and it took years to finally be replaced. ANd the replacement was...not much better than what I had. It was one small generational leap.
I dont actually mind having hardware that lasts a while. it saves me money. And buying at the "right time" is always what I dream to do. I love having that legendary hardware that lasts for so long its still relevant 5-6 years later. Man, I didn't know what I was in for with this market.
Of course, we can see what was really going on. We got the same gains we always did. Nvidia just exploited the situation and raised prices. The 2060 should've really been the $250 card if the market functioned. But nvidia let their RTX talking points go to their head and charged 70 prices for the thing. And I was kind of outraged for it. Because by this point, the 2060 was roughly where the market should've been at for the money. Around a 60-70% improvement over the 1060. At least. Again, double in 3 years for the same money is the norm roughly. But instead, we got 35%.
What was AMD doing? Failing. Again and again. The RX 480/580 were solid cards for the money, but they could only make a $200-300 GPU for a flagship while Nvidia dominated the whole high end market. And then there was vega, which ended up not being that good. And the RX 5000 series ended up being okay for the money, but outside of the flagship 5700 XT wasnt much better than nvidia for the money (5600 XT would've been in my price range...much like the 1660 ti it was a "1070 level" GPU). And they didn't have ray tracing. And their drivers sucked. And their coolers sucked. ANd it was nothing but problems.
So...before we go further, I wanna point out, this was 2019. BEFORE the pandemic. What happened during the pandemic? Well, that's where the crap hit the fan. We ended up with a double whammy of supply chain shortages (common discussion on this blog) combined with a crypto currency surge. And a general surge for hardware in general as people were stuck staying home all day. So massive increase in demand combined with massive decrease in supply and what do you get? Prices exploding.
This happened just in time for the 3000 series to come out. They followed the same pricing scheme as the 2000 series, with the 3060 which i would covet at the high price of $329. Finally something 2x as good as my now aging 1060, which was still good, but not amazing these days. And for a lot more money. And then you're lucky to even get it at that price. Demand was insane, and the price soared to an eye watering $700-800. Heck, the 1050 ti at one point was $400, and that was worse than my $270 1060. As I said, that was around $180ish when I bought, and that was high, its MSRP was actually like $140. My 1060 was as high as $600 at times. Of course I wasnt gonna sell it because I wanted to game on it. But yeah, it was like, I better hope this thing doesn't die on me or I'm screwed.
AMD released the RX 6000 series, which was a major improvement over the 5000 series, but because demand was so hot for GPUs, they also inflated prices, and people still bought them up. Crypto miners would buy anything. Scum of the earth (I hate crypto currency, it's such a dumb idea, and it completely broke the GPU market). Anyway, by this point both Nvidia and AMD were selling flagship cards for around $1000 and of course they went for far more. And the coveted 3060 was $300-400. And the RX 6600 (AMD's equivalent) was about the same. And as someone who originally planned to upgrade my 1060 in 2020, I was in this weird hellish limbo. It wasnt that bad. Games still ran on my 1060, but it was getting old, my previous card died, I feared this one would die too, and given next gen consoles I'm just waiting for games to want more power, and not being able to afford a more powerful card. I COULD shell out for $350-400 for a 3060 or 6600, but why would i want to? That crap should cost $250ish by now. Of course during COVID, shoulds didnt mean much because the GPU market was completely broken.
Anyway, in 2022, the GPU market FINALLY broke. Crypto currency shifted from a "proof of work" concept (solve puzzles on your GPU to get imaginary internet money) to "proof of stake" (ownership matters more) and demand crashed for GPUs, and prices finally went back to earth. But they were still high. I watched as nvidia cards remained well above MSRP, with AMD cards starting to once again develop a competitive edge. The RX 6600 dropped into the $300s, with the 6650 XT also being in the $300s, and then toward the end of the year, in the $200s. Even during pandemic level pricing I could tell the 6600s were fairly cheap for some reason, they performed just below the 3060 from nvidia, but because AMD's ray tracing abilities are inferior (although they exist by this point) it's like a lot of people just didn't wanna buy them. Which is dumb. I know nvidia is the better company, but I'm not against buying AMD if they are cheaper. heck, most of my AMD purchases over the years was explicitly because they were cheaper. But given how AMD cards clearly had a competitive advantage in price, I'd reward that.
Still, most people don't. For some reason nvidia cards keep topping the charts. And now they have like 88% of the market share, which is insane. I know AMD has always been behind, but nvidia quite frankly doesnt deserve such a ridiculous monopoly.
Anyway, now we're getting the next NEXT gen with the 4000 series, and nvidia decided to do it again. They're charging $1600 for their 4090, and $1200 for their 4080, and had to cancel the "4080 12 GB" which was a much inferior card fvor $900. Keep in mind, with the 1000 series cards, the top end card was $700. For a while the top end single cards were $500 with the $700 flagship being a dual card. But now, Nvidia isnt even competing in the sub $300 space. They have the "3050", which is just a 1660 ti with ray tracing more or less (maybe slightly stronger, but not by much) for like $300, although the MSRP is less and no Nvidia card goes for MSRP. It's ridiculous. Like, Nvidia just abandoned the sub $300 space mostly, expanding us to pay top dollar pricing on GPUs that are only 50% better than what we bought in 2016 for the same money. Ridiculous.
And AMD hasnt been any better. Their RX 6500 was basically just a 1060/580 level card for $200. And it sucked worse in some ways due to being limited to 4 PCIE lanes (16 is normal). And what's wrong with this picture? Just...massive stagnation. The same level of performance for the same money. Greater levels of performance for more money.
Still, I will admit, I did finally get my upgrade this Christmas. My trigger point was 2x performance for under $300. And the AMD cards crashed in price, hard, after the crypto bubble popped. Turns out, most gamers would rather be gauged by nvidia. Any time I ask why on forums, i just get weird flexes about "features" and "ray tracing" and "DLSS", never mind that AMD has similar features, their ray tracing abilities are worse than nvidia's overall but still competitive on price, and AMD has their own alternatives to DLSS. Even though nvidia is better, it's not "let's spend significantly more" level better for me. No one should ever buy a 3050 or 3060 for the price they go for. They're way inflated.
But yeah, AMD card crashed hard, and the holiday deals were insane. RX 6600s were had as low as $190. 6650 XTs (replacement of the 6600 XT released this year), were had as low as $230-250. Which is...quite frankly, what these cards should've cost all along. $220 for a 6600 and $270 for a 6600/6650 XT seemed like fair price points all along. Maybe $250 for the 3060. Bring back pre 2018 pricing.
I know a lot of people on forums get huffy and act like "inflation" is just a cover for higher prices, but technology tends to get cheaper over time. And the price tiers should've remained roughly the same, and it should be noted just because you can compare 2016-2022 pricing now due to 2021 and 2022's inflation, this crap started BEFORE covid. Really, I will insist that $250ish for 60/600 series cards is what they should've cost all along. That's what the market used to produce before it went to crap. And honestly, it's crap because NVIDIA IS GAUGING. THEY HAVE AN 88% MARKET SHARE, A DE FACTO MONOPOLY, AND THEY KNOW PEOPLE WILL PAY INSANE PRICES FOR HARDWARE, SO THEY'RE MILKING PEOPLE. IF YOU WANT IT TO STOP, YOU HAVE TO SAY NO AND FORCE THE PRICES TO DROP LIKE THEY DID FOR AMD.
And as I said, I went for the AMD card. 6650 XT for $230? SWEET. Finally a worthy upgrade for my 1060 for the price it should've been all along. And given the priced rebounded since christmas and now the 6600 is up to $240+ and the 6650 XT at $300+ and the next generation looking to produce mediocre gains for the money YET AGAIN, I feel like I just beat the market. The 7600 XT is likely to be 30-50% better...for 30-50% more money. The 4060...forget about it. If that thing is under $400, you're lucky.
Anyway, you might be wondering why I'm writing this, and it's to tell people, the only way you're gonna get them to stop charging this much for GPUs, is to stop buying them. Sure, there's some people who will ALWAYS go out there and spend insane amounts for GPUs, and these people tend to be upper class yuppies who have no value of money and act like they're the core market when they're not.
If you look at steam hardware survey, most people are running 1060s and 1650s still, with the 2060 and 3060 only becoming relevant recently. The 2060 is around $250-300, which is what it should've been at launch, and the 3060 is $350+ still. Not worth the money. But people want upgrades so they're buying.
But I'm not seeing people buy AMD...why? If AMD is gonna put their GPUs on sale, that's the only way you're gonna get an upgrade and beat the market. I know AMD has a lot of bad reputations for drivers, less features, but Im gonna be honest, they've improved A LOT since the old days. Looking online they support their GPUs for longer, generally 6-9 years, more akin to what nvidia does more or less. They drivers tend to age better than Nvidia's in recent years, and while sure people have problems, I had issues on nvidia too. The same issues i had on my HD 5850? Sure, I had games that crashed on nvidia before. I suspect my old 1060 was fine, it wasn't dying as it did it for over a year, but yeah I had regular crashes on games like Halo infinite and Battlefield 2042. ESPECIALLY 2042, although as we know that game is a broken mess anyway. And I even can do RAY TRACING on my AMD card. Seriously its performance is just below the 3050's in that respect. By the way, outside of nvidia's tech demos, the tech isnt worth it, the difference is barely noticeable, and it's not worth the frames in the sub $400 market anyway.
Honestly, this market isnt gonna improve unless people can say no. You can say no by sticking to aging hardware as long as possible. And I respect that. I was gonna ride or die on my 1060 until it was unable to run games, either from dying or just being obsolete if necessary. I wasnt gonna buy until my demands were met. And eventually, they were. Just not by Nvidia. And I would buy AMD if they provided a competent product at the right price range, which they did.
Heck INTEL makes GPUs now, although I'd avoid those due to their drivers being immature and twitchy. Still, intel GPUs seem to have a possible future too.
But yeah, you cant be loyal to a single brand that has near monopoly status and keep buying their stuff when theyre clearly price gauging. If we band together and say no, and only buy when the right product for the right price appears, then these companies wouldnt get away with this crap, and pricing would be normal again.
That said, right now, if you want a GPU, you probably should buy AMD. Seriously, i know nvidia is better they ARE better, but AMD is still good, and they're getting to the point of being way cheaper than nvidia. Seriously, I got a card that cost $400 at MSRP for $230, that's INSANE. And it undercuts not just nvidia's $300 product, but also their $350-400 one too. Sadly that deal is expired and buying them at $300-330 is a hard sell, but yeah, at under $300 it's a great deal. And the 6600 is still a solid option for around $240-250ish or less.
Point is, don't give nvidia a dime until they lower prices. It's not "inflation", its "price gauging" learn the difference. It's basic econ 101 at work. There's little competition, most people buy nvidia, they have a near monopoly, and you can either reward competition, or you can continue to be screwed by the "big green rod" as some people like to say online. Just my two cents on the issue. Or my $200 since that's about what I like to ideally pay for a GPU.
No comments:
Post a Comment