NV30's $360 price tag: Why?

[DrAkO]

Ok thx for the info...

He have probably 2 versions of the NV30, to synchronize the clock, one with a 400 Mhz Core and 800 Mhz Memory Clock and another with a 500 Mhz Core and 1000 Mhz Memory Clock, so IF he have 2 versions, the 360$ price is for the lower version!

Probably an MX version and a TI version...

Damn Comdex! The rumour is too big...need a true specs for this card...

Maybe tomorrow :)

[thcdru2k]

i doubt they would ever chage $360 for an mx version. if anything it'll probably be different ti versions or whatever they plan to call it.

[DrAkO]

Yeah 360$ is a lot of money for an MX version...

I really wait impatiently for the specs of this card! :)

And a 48Go/s Bandwith, You believe it ?

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by DrAkO
Yeah 360$ is a lot of money for an MX version...

I really wait impatiently for the specs of this card! :)

And a 48Go/s Bandwith, You believe it ?
there's no way a card intended for the mainstream will ever be more than $200. that's just too expensive.

NV30 does not have 48GB/sec bandwidth. it is effective bandwidth.

every nvidia card since GF3 has had an EBW number, but it was never touted AFAIK. same goes for every ATI card since the original Radeon.

[INNOVISION]

If the NV30 is priced at $360 than be happy. Really happy.
Before, peoples was whinning there ass off because they "think" the NV30 will cost around $400-$600. Now they heard that the NV30 will cost $360 from the source, and they think the card must be slower then the R300, therefore its only $360. Does it ever occur to you that Nvidia gots competition therefore they will priced the card at a cheaper price to be competitive ?.

[suburbanguy]

the raw bandwidth for NV30...isn't it going to be something like 16-24 GB/sec?

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by suburbanguy
the raw bandwidth for NV30...isn't it going to be something like 16-24 GB/sec?

16GB/sec with 1GHz memory and a 128bit bus

[Fotis]

I don't know that card looks very expensive to make.I think it'll be around 500$.Thats a little too much for me.:(

[Uttar]

Sounds like $360 is for the non-ultra version. The big question is... Is that non-ultra faster than the Radeon 9700 Pro? On par? Slower? We'll see that soon I guess...

The ultra version price is still unknown, but will be between $399 and $499 according to previewers...


Uttar

[alex.burm]

Originally posted by Uttar
Hello everyone,

I didn't see any thread on this, and as the dark hour of doom is upon us ( Knowing if the NV30 is faster/slower than a R300, knowing what AA/Aniso system is used, info of the different versions, ... ) , we better create one fast before it's too late! :)

The most obvious explanation would be that the GeForce FX is slower than the R300. But there is another explanation...

The Inquirer revealed that the yields of the R300 are of about 25% ( while they shouldn't be trusted too much, I see no reason for this to be wrong, many people speculated that before ) , and seeing how the die is HUGE, it is *essantial* to ATI to sell the R300 at about $399 - else, they'll lose money.

At $399, ATI still makes a small profit. But if the NV30 comes at $360 and is on par or better than the R300, ATI will have to reduce their R300 price.

The result? ATI would have three choices:
1. Sell Radeon 9700s while losing money
2. Sell overpriced Radeon 9700s
3. Stop producing Radeon 9700s

Now,what would be the consequences of each choice?

1. ATI would lose money. However, they aren't anywhere near bankrupty, so this could be pretty much okay. However, Radeon 9700 avaibility would be rapidly lower, as ATI wouldn't produce any more chip.
2. Radeon 9700s would barely sell, and this would make the NV30 the obvious choice for the gaming enthusiast. This would significantly increase NV30 sales.
3. NV30 would have no more competition once current chips are sold out, and would thus sell significantly better.


If either 2 or 3 happens, nVidia is once again in a position of power. The only problem then becomes the Radeon 9500, which remains a powerful competitor. However, with a few driver improvments and minor price cuts, nVidia will do alright.


Should this theory proof wrong, maybe the NV30 will indeed be slower than the R300. I guess we'll see...


Uttar
well as a general rule of thumb, when a company first creates a chip die, it will be oversized, after a while they optimise the gate layout or shrink the transistor size, and the yields will increase again (thats why the 1st released chips are always EXTREMELY expensive).
for those that dont know (not patronising) when chips are fabricated in a silicon wafer, the wafer contains impurities, a smaller sized core lessens the chance for an impurity to affect the chip, a large core, large chance of an impurity occuring within the core area.
so if most wafers are about 20cm in diameter, its a good idea to keep the chip to about 0.5mmx0.5mm :)

and if this is such a big problem maybe the fabrication plants should have their silicon crystal manufacturing inproved.

as u already might know only 3 companies own their own fabrication plants (which cost around 1 billion dollars to build) for sub 0.1 micron FET manufacture:

Intel, IBM, Fujitsu.

rant over.