I understand that, but that module doesn't cost $100. Nvidia is charging that much for the module, but it probably costs them less than $10 to produce. Ridelynn made a great post. The point i was trying to make is that the $150 price premium is only plausible right now because there is no market competition. Once adaptive sync monitors start coming out, Nvidia will be forced to shit or get off the pot. Like Ride said, they might be able to get away with a 20 or 40 dollar price premium, but certainly not 150. My big concern because companies do this kind of crap in the enthusiast market all the time, is that rather than try to undercut nvidia, they will just sell their products at the same or similar price point to gsync so they can reap bigger profits. The market has already proven that people will pay that kind of money for those monitors (look at me). So why sell something for less than you could?
I don't know where you've looked at, but adaptive sync are already for a while, there's 2(+1 asus ips one not showing up for some reason) available on newegg atm, with additional six incoming soon.
I understand that, but that module doesn't cost $100. Nvidia is charging that much for the module, but it probably costs them less than $10 to produce. Ridelynn made a great post. The point i was trying to make is that the $150 price premium is only plausible right now because there is no market competition. Once adaptive sync monitors start coming out, Nvidia will be forced to shit or get off the pot. Like Ride said, they might be able to get away with a 20 or 40 dollar price premium, but certainly not 150. My big concern because companies do this kind of crap in the enthusiast market all the time, is that rather than try to undercut nvidia, they will just sell their products at the same or similar price point to gsync so they can reap bigger profits. The market has already proven that people will pay that kind of money for those monitors (look at me). So why sell something for less than you could?
I don't know where you've looked at, but adaptive sync are already for a while, there's 2(+1 asus ips one not showing up for some reason) available on newegg atm, with additional six incoming soon.
Good points, im sorry i was under the impression none had actually released that were Async, IPS, and 144hz.
So that at least counters what i thought would happen. My point still stands nvidia isnt gonna be able to sell those monitors at a 150-200 price premium for long. We'll see, ive been wrong before.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
In order to make a monitor with G-sync, the monitor manufacturer has to buy a module from Nvidia for about $100 and incorporate it into the monitor. Adaptive sync does not analogously require extra hardware to add to the cost of building the monitor. After various markups from everyone in the chain, that $100 difference ends up about $150 at retail.
I understand that, but that module doesn't cost $100. Nvidia is charging that much for the module, but it probably costs them less than $10 to produce. Ridelynn made a great post. The point i was trying to make is that the $150 price premium is only plausible right now because there is no market competition. Once adaptive sync monitors start coming out, Nvidia will be forced to shit or get off the pot. Like Ride said, they might be able to get away with a 20 or 40 dollar price premium, but certainly not 150. My big concern because companies do this kind of crap in the enthusiast market all the time, is that rather than try to undercut nvidia, they will just sell their products at the same or similar price point to gsync so they can reap bigger profits. The market has already proven that people will pay that kind of money for those monitors (look at me). So why sell something for less than you could?
Having to make a separate physical module adds to the cost. I'm sure the modules don't cost Nvidia $100 each, but they're not free. Adding adaptive sync support to an otherwise high quality monitor, on the other hand, is free.
But one shouldn't expect Nvidia to sell hardware at cost, as that's not a way to make money. It doesn't cost $650 to build each GeForce GTX 980 Ti either, after all. But there are some fixed costs to design a chip that don't scale with the number of parts sold, so if you're only making a 20% gross margin on each chip sold, you're probably losing a ton of money in your quarterly results.
I think that Nvidia's basic goal with G-sync is to get a bunch of monitors out there that only have the full functionality if paired with an Nvidia GPU. That way, people who already have such a monitor and want to upgrade their video card will be tied to Nvidia--and may buy Nvidia even if they'd otherwise have bought AMD. It's the same game that Nvidia has been playing with CUDA for many years now. See, GPU PhysX, for example, or more recently, HairWorks.
Eventually Nvidia will probably decide that the losses of people buying a Radeon card instead of GeForce because adaptive sync is so much cheaper outweigh the gains of getting additional G-sync monitors out there, at which point, they'll update their drivers to support adaptive sync. But I have no idea whether that point is two weeks away or two years.
I dont have much to add, but wanted to just voice my opinion on 3 monitors in portrait mode
I currently do this at work on 3 Dell Ultra Sharp 27 inch monitors. Its literally a wall, but since the job I do is design work and I use PDFs and numerous documents up at all times for guidance, its perfect. I've been dying to do this at home since theres no way I can get games on my systems at work.
I do know what you mean though, most monitor bases are terrible. All of the Dell Ultrasharp monitors I've used are very solid and they will rotate, also have minimal bevels.
but ya, 3 monitors in portrait mode is unconventional. not many people do it and I really think its because most of the more popular monitors just dont rotate. Heres a shot of my work desk
One poll on HardOCP found that, among people who have three monitors for gaming, about 1/3 of them put the monitors in portrait mode.
As for your job, my theory is that the amount of good computer work that they expect you to do is proportional to the number of monitors they give you to do it.
But you pay a hefty price premium for it. I'm not interested in paying that price premium.
Eventually 3D NAND will probably be the cheapest way to build chips of a given capacity, at which point, it could bring SSD prices down considerably. But we're not there yet.
I looks like that price premium is going straight to retailers' pockets as markups on "new" items typically do. Amazon is selling the 850 Evo for $165 for the 500GB version for their "Prime Day" event. The 1TB model is $360.
Just replaced my dead 780Ti with a 980TI and finished in the > 96% range of 3DMark.
But did you notice actual difference with your own eyes?
All too often I see people parade with benchmark scores and when you compare the graphics and speed of the system you won't notice any difference other then that 1fps or Windows booting 0.10s faster.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Comments
I don't know where you've looked at, but adaptive sync are already for a while, there's 2(+1 asus ips one not showing up for some reason) available on newegg atm, with additional six incoming soon.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007617%20600559798
and compare their prices to their gsync counterparts, the most expensive acer one doesn't count cause it's IPS, and all others are TN panel.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007617%20600559797%20600012694
that's $630 - $470 price difference for cheapest monitors coming to $160 difference which is a lot.
and the ips comparison is $600 for the one Quizzical linked in first post compared to $800 for gsync, which is $200 difference even more.
the only ips gsync on newegg : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009742
Good points, im sorry i was under the impression none had actually released that were Async, IPS, and 144hz.
So that at least counters what i thought would happen. My point still stands nvidia isnt gonna be able to sell those monitors at a 150-200 price premium for long. We'll see, ive been wrong before.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Having to make a separate physical module adds to the cost. I'm sure the modules don't cost Nvidia $100 each, but they're not free. Adding adaptive sync support to an otherwise high quality monitor, on the other hand, is free.
But one shouldn't expect Nvidia to sell hardware at cost, as that's not a way to make money. It doesn't cost $650 to build each GeForce GTX 980 Ti either, after all. But there are some fixed costs to design a chip that don't scale with the number of parts sold, so if you're only making a 20% gross margin on each chip sold, you're probably losing a ton of money in your quarterly results.
I think that Nvidia's basic goal with G-sync is to get a bunch of monitors out there that only have the full functionality if paired with an Nvidia GPU. That way, people who already have such a monitor and want to upgrade their video card will be tied to Nvidia--and may buy Nvidia even if they'd otherwise have bought AMD. It's the same game that Nvidia has been playing with CUDA for many years now. See, GPU PhysX, for example, or more recently, HairWorks.
Eventually Nvidia will probably decide that the losses of people buying a Radeon card instead of GeForce because adaptive sync is so much cheaper outweigh the gains of getting additional G-sync monitors out there, at which point, they'll update their drivers to support adaptive sync. But I have no idea whether that point is two weeks away or two years.
I dont have much to add, but wanted to just voice my opinion on 3 monitors in portrait mode
I currently do this at work on 3 Dell Ultra Sharp 27 inch monitors. Its literally a wall, but since the job I do is design work and I use PDFs and numerous documents up at all times for guidance, its perfect. I've been dying to do this at home since theres no way I can get games on my systems at work.
I do know what you mean though, most monitor bases are terrible. All of the Dell Ultrasharp monitors I've used are very solid and they will rotate, also have minimal bevels.
but ya, 3 monitors in portrait mode is unconventional. not many people do it and I really think its because most of the more popular monitors just dont rotate. Heres a shot of my work desk
One poll on HardOCP found that, among people who have three monitors for gaming, about 1/3 of them put the monitors in portrait mode.
As for your job, my theory is that the amount of good computer work that they expect you to do is proportional to the number of monitors they give you to do it.
I looks like that price premium is going straight to retailers' pockets as markups on "new" items typically do. Amazon is selling the 850 Evo for $165 for the 500GB version for their "Prime Day" event. The 1TB model is $360.
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-2-5-Inch-Internal-MZ-75E500B-AM/dp/B00OBRE5UE/
There's also the MX100 512GB for $160.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KFAGCUM/
But did you notice actual difference with your own eyes?
All too often I see people parade with benchmark scores and when you compare the graphics and speed of the system you won't notice any difference other then that 1fps or Windows booting 0.10s faster.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"