why prices of older technology of pc components does not go down?
Posted by sonatta09@reddit | buildapc | View on Reddit | 112 comments
I’ve been wondering why is it that certain PC components, like a previous-generation Ryzen or intel 7-9 chips, RTX 3060 are still being sold at their original launching prices in retail stores even 3–5 years later? while laptops, handheld, consoles, tablets, and smartphones often drop by as much as 70% in malls once a newer generation hits the market. Both categories use silicon chips, so why don’t desktop components depreciate as quickly? Are manufacturers intentionally holding prices high to squeeze out the last drops of profit from hardware that’s nearly obsolete?
I’m over here still rocking GTX 1660s patiently waiting to buy the RTX 3060 and finally admit it’s not a luxury watch
KillEvilThings@reddit
Companies know how to end supply of products just enough that they can sell them at full price before demand fully dies out and so prices are stable then maintain then rise.
Aristotelaras@reddit
Capitalism can be very useful when you put boundaries to it.
KillEvilThings@reddit
Sure, but then I wouldn't even call it capitalism.
It's called having a market that isn't total dogshit and motivated purely by profit at all costs. But that's in practice, what it is right now.
MyStationIsAbandoned@reddit
I think it'd be called Capitalism with some boundaries.
the problem though is...whose going to respect the boundaries? it's the same issue you'll get if Capitalism went away. The corruption will still be there. The greed will still be there. Something's gotta happen to where most people are on the same page or maybe to where being greedy just wouldn't even benefit anyone. I dunno. Smarter people than me need to be thinking about. I just believe that capitalism itself isn't some kind of incentive for evil or whatever. People are greed with or without it.
pack_merrr@reddit
I think the issue in this discussion is we're acting like capitalism and a free market are the same thing. First, I would ask what anyone means by "free" market. We obviously don't have a completely free market in the laissez faire "do whatever you want" sense. We have a market economy with rules. That doesn't make the system any less "capitalist" though, and it wouldn't make it any more if we did away with those.
I go back to Marx who said basically capitalism is a system where you have a class of people who own capital(property, money, real estate etc.) and a class of people who sell their labor(they work a job for a wage). In contrast, socialism is a system where those doing the labor, own the capital that is produced from their labor.
I think where things get confused is with the fact that strict definition from the 19th century has a more limited usefulness today. The lines between those two classes are a lot more blurred, capitalism has a much different character than it did back then. But I think it's still useful because it describes capitalism and alternative systems like socialism/communism not as a question of whether we have a market, or whether the government provides things, or some mix of the two. But instead it says that it's a question of who owns what, who is calling the shots in the economy, and how are people interacting with each other in that economy.
Another way to look at it is in terms of democracy. We have a democratic political system(or a Republic maybe), either way it means ideally everyone gets a say on how things are run, we do that by electing representatives. Capitalism isnt a political system it's an economic system, and it's not a "democratic" economic system because in capitalism everyone doesn't necessarily get a say on how companies(the economy) are run. I don't get to tell Jenson (or Nvidia shareholders) how Nvidia is run unless I own that company. That's true for a lot of things more important than graphics cards, I don't have a democratic say on things that likely affect my day to day life a lot more than the government who I do get to vote on.
Rather than talking about markets, or the government deciding things, I think it's more accurate and makes more sense to think of it in terms of how far we want to extend democracy. Do we keep it just in terms of politics, and do we expect "politics" to fix issues in the economy(look how well that has gone). Or, do we make the economy more democratic, maybe by electing CEOs and boardrooms the same way we elect Presidents and members of Congress? Maybe some other way?
I'm not sure I agree with the whole "middle ground" or trying to put guard rails on capitalism thing. It feels like we know something isn't working, rather than trying to fix a sinking ship why don't we actually just all get on one that works? I'm not trying to suggest we need to make radical changes, like we shouldn't throw out the parts of the system that do work well for example, but instead a different way to look at how to "fix" things.
mpyne@reddit
They are closer to being the same thing than a free market and "not capitalism". All that capitalism brings on top of a free market is essentially investors.
You can get all the bad things you hate from capitalism out of a plain free market too, such as pollution, fraud, cartels and the like.
pack_merrr@reddit
Coudnt you have a free market in a socialist economy? I guess it depends how you're defining a "free" market, but market socialism is a thing?
What are investors? Investors are people that own property of some sort, and get paid from it without doing work themselves. In Marxist speak they "extract value". I guess I would agree any version of capitalism that didn't include a market economy woudnt really be recognizable as capitalism to any of us, but my point was more how I don't think a market(and certainly not how free it is or isn't) is really the defining feature of capitalism.
I would say you could get those out of any system, I'm not sure those are inherent to capitalism. I do think capitalism might have some features that make some of those more likely to exist, but any system would have its flaws depending how you look at it.
Intranetusa@reddit
This is not a useful way to define it as we have CEOs who get paid a wage and make millions by selling their labor, lower upper class and upper middle class professionals like surgeons and lawyers who sell their labor and can also make millions, and average people who own capital like living off their investments in stock and property when they retire.
Capitalism is better described as a system where property and the means of production are owned by private parties - in contrast to socialism where the same are owned by the public/govt/etc.
pack_merrr@reddit
I guess that's my bad if that wasn't more clear, but that's essentially the point I was trying to make. Marx's definition, while outdated, describes capitalism/socialism/communism in terms of different classes relationship to production, which is what's important.
That's why I agree with you when you say "where the same are owned by the public/govt/etc.". I think it's misleading to call modern forms of "welfare" like food stamps socialism, because the government isn't owning or producing anything there, it's taxing people to give others money and influencing how they spend it in a market dominated by private actors.
Aristotelaras@reddit
I saw a chart recently with top GPU sellers in Amazon US. The 5070 was the no1 in sales. It looks like Nvidia did their market research. They can put the bare minimum amount of vram to their GPUs and people will buy them anyway.
cokespyro@reddit
Fuck capitalism is right. One day when society collapses it’ll be due to this bullshit of a philosophy that profits should be valued over anything else.
SanSenju@reddit
It's because of the profit motive that things are getting worse. They want infinite growth in profit in a finite world which is biology is called cancer.
If a product that improved human existence isn't profitable or not as profitable as something else, then research or production of that product will not happen.
KillEvilThings@reddit
It's funny how the capitalist bootlickers here can't even realize that something has bad and should be fixed yet they only consider its positives and thus its infalliable.
imakeshituplmao@reddit
Gotta love the irony of ppl shitting on capitalism because they cant get enough supplies of luxury items like video game graphics cards that only exist because of capitalism in the first place
SanSenju@reddit
Capitalism built nothing. Labor built the gpu and did the necessary research for it. Labor does everything while the -ism decides who gets paid how much.
Capitalism involves paying labor little while siphoning the value generated by labor to the top
imakeshituplmao@reddit
by that logic, socialism builds nothing and doesnt help ppl with social safety and welfare...other peoples labor does that?
so all economic systems doesnt build anything?
As for paying little, in the ither system u can pretend to work while they pretend to pay u
SanSenju@reddit
yes socialism doesn't build stuff. That is what labor does. Socialism says the full value generated by labor a should go to those who do labor. Your only making a fool of yourself thinking that is some sort of a gatcha.
imakeshituplmao@reddit
You can talk about what u think it should be all u want. Just like i can say capitalism should b about the maximally efficent allocation of labor and resources by private sectors.
What it should b is not wat it is in real life.
The fully value of labor doesnt go to ppl who generate labor even in socialist systems. Never has, n never will. There is always a cut off the top that is allocated to something that is decided by someone else who may not be involved in the labor.
In any socialist based system, the state run by other ppl takes a cut of the value and allocates those value to where they see fit
mpyne@reddit
That was just as true in Communism as well, you couldn't just work on poetry if the local party Soviet decided your unique talents would be more profitably applied elsewhere.
Nothing about profit in capitalism requires infinite growth. As you point out, it requires only that other alternatives for investment compare as being less profitable. If nothing is profitable to invest in, then I'd just hold my money in the bank, or under my mattress, and the economy would still function fine.
SanSenju@reddit
Wrong, the Soviet Union prioritized spending more on the military because of the existential threat the US represented.
Capitalism does require infinite growth, they will NEVER be satisfied with making a profit and will keep wanting more and more without exception. They hold money in the bank as they lobby the govt for favorable deals, laws, or tax breaks to get profits
Wooshio@reddit
Capitalism is the only reason this stuff even exists, otherwise society would be collectively spending money on things like housing everyone, giving basic income, free full health care for all, etc. Not spending million on GPU R&D to run video games well.
randomusername023@reddit
And yet the reason there’s a housing crisis is because of regulation…
Shivin302@reddit
Funny how the sectors with the most regulations (housing and healthcare) have the highest prices and the lowest quality
MarxistMan13@reddit
Healthcare has the highest prices in the US. In all other civilized countries, healthcare is a basic human right, not a market for corporations to compete in to squeeze out maximum profits.
It's the most expensive here because we allow companies to set prices, rather than the government setting prices as it is elsewhere. So yeah, capitalism.
Frasine@reddit
Do yall really think calling something a "human right" automatically drops prices to said goods or service? What a load of ignorant blabbering.
Who gon tell him?
Ok_Class4848@reddit
How is it that literally every other country has it figured out except for the US?
pack_merrr@reddit
I get the down votes and I disagree with you, but I actually don't think you're wrong.
I'll be more honest than the other guy and say I think healthcare should be a human right, because we both know it's not some inalienable thing coming from the sky or God or whatever. But I would just rather live in a society where that right is guaranteed, by society.
I think it's a little dishonest to suggest the government is "setting prices", but I get your point. I agree the way the government acts in the healthcare industry in the US is stupid, regulating the insurance companies isnt really helping anyone, that's why I would rather see it do it differently.
Rather than having this weird system where insurance companies, hospitals, and the government play this stupid game with all the waste, inefficiency, and blood sucking middlemen that comes inherent with the beautiful "free market", I would much rather have the state put it's big boy pants on and do away with the insurance companies and hospitals entirely. We'll have "insurance" and we'll clearly still have hospitals, it's the private ownership and profit motive I have an issue with.
chad25005@reddit
Seems to work for other countries.
Dijkstra_knows_your_@reddit
Why do you think people smuggle meds from Canada and Mexico? Stuff like insulin costs multiple times what you pay e.g. in Europe
Trylena@reddit
In Argentina we made healthcare and education human rights, and guess what? People can actually use them without going broke.
MarxistMan13@reddit
No, calling it a human right hopefully makes the US government wake the fuck up and treat it as such, eliminating the need for private insurance and providing universal healthcare to its citizens... like every single other developed nation. Thus, the government sets prices because that's who pharmaceutical and medical supply companies are selling to.
pack_merrr@reddit
"Most regulations" lol. Didn't realize we were keeping tally.
Capitalism ≠ free markets, though
atomic__balm@reddit
I can't wait to hear this insanely stupid take
MrJedi1@reddit
Developers aren't the ones asking the government to tell them how many apartments they're allowed to build...
Coltand@reddit
Zoning is responsible for housing shortages in many regions. The current situation is at least somewhat attributable to NIMBYs.
Ok_Class4848@reddit
Actually if the focus was setting up basic needs that would be done relatively quickly.
Then humanity focuses on being creative.
Before it was arts, today it’s going to be music, film, television, video games.
Lots of money would be spent to improve those things, in the name of entertainment.
We would spend less on stupid shit like bombs.
Minimum-Account-1893@reddit
Ironically, the anti capitalists are often very pro capitalism for themselves personally. It's the way it is.
Wooshio@reddit
Heh, never thought of it that way, but it's true. Their dream of the perfect socialist society is just like capitalism but they get luxuries they can't afford right now for free.
pack_merrr@reddit
I don't understand the point and I'm not sure you know what socialism is if you think it's about getting "free" luxuries.
mpyne@reddit
They're saying the people who go on and on about socialism good have a mistaken understanding of socialism, thinking that it would be like what the rich get in capitalism today with luxuries everywhere.
KillEvilThings@reddit
That's literally not how that works.
Minimum-Account-1893@reddit
Ok. Thanks for that. Productive.
Many likely knew what I was talking about. If it went right past you, well it happens. Easy and low effort to just essentially say "WRONG", but the best way to not be wrong is not participate at all.
If you are focused on "literally" and I'm not, those are two different view angles of the same foundation. Except there is still only one view here, which makes me wonder if you were emotionally triggered. If you were thinking, there would be evidence of that.
mpyne@reddit
If "society" wanted to do that they could do that right now, even with capitalism.
So there's nothing to say society would do that if capitalism weren't a thing, and in fact the historical evidence is precisely the opposite.
imakeshituplmao@reddit
Lol yeh. These ppl think the public or govt would spend hundreds of billions of dollars on making technology for play video games instead of more useful stuff
Gotta love the irony of ppl shitting on capitalism because they cant get enough supplies of luxury items like video game graphics cards that only exist because of capitalism in the first place
SanSenju@reddit
All the more reason to end capitalism
PsyOmega@reddit
Why are you promoting bloodshed?
KillEvilThings@reddit
You know, you almost got me lol.
jhenryscott@reddit
Something something first half
dertechie@reddit
They used to continue production at the tail end of a generation longer but they cut it off sooner now to not have a glut of previous generation stuff that needs to have the prices cut on it.
The other thing is that if you aren’t changing the production node then you can’t run old and new in parallel - you want all of your wafers going towards the newer, more profitable chips. Ada Lovelace and Blackwell were both in the same process node so once Blackwell started production the equivalent Ada cards stopped.
Soft-Policy6128@reddit
Thank you, a lot of people often forget the gpu nodes for both NVIDIA and AMD were using the same nodes for both previous and current gens this cycle. So producing anything from the older gen would take away wafer production from the newer lines.
I'm personally curious if old node generation will continue once GPUs start being made on the newer types of nodes this next generation
dertechie@reddit
I think the answer is yes but less than they would have ten years ago. They’re much more willing to let minor shortages push up prices than they used to be - it pushes back the point where they are selling GPUs at or below MSRP.
mpyne@reddit
They make less money when they allow shortages, even with price increases.
The reason they allow shortages of consumer GPUs is because they make even more money by building for datacenter/AI markets. But if they could snap their fingers and build twice as much per year they would because they'd make even more money that way than by allowing shortages throughout both consumer and datacenter segments.
It just turns out you can't scale that all up overnight, so we're fighting over used and new GPUs to meet consumer demand, and that bids up prices for everybody.
Minimum-Account-1893@reddit
Not exactly the same node. N4P was after N4. If you look at TSMCs roadmap, N3 wasn't economically feasible for the consumer class for either Nvidia or AMD this gen. The 40 series was 4N, but AMD wasn't, I believe AMD were an older node last gen, maybe 6N. Now both the 50 series, and the 9000 series are 4NP.
It varies though, and they can produce different nodes like last gen. TSMCs demand is simply sky high right now.
Even Intel will have to use TSMC to get sales. The popularity of Intel, non TSMC, was probably where consumers were better off.
Now there's pretty much one and it is all on TSMC, making their production extremely high in demand with a limited supply for bottom level consumers
AI for corps willing to pay big $$$, or smuggling into China... all TSMC. AMD, Nvidia, Sony, Microsoft, everyone needs to begin with TSMC products to sell their own.
Scalpers knew this, and read the market. They seen this occuring years ago and capitalized on it.
It's hard to blame capitalism as a whole, for this extremely odd and rare scenario in capitalism.
KillEvilThings@reddit
That of course, ties into doing what ultimately benefits the company and not the consumer.
Intranetusa@reddit
GPUs have a healthy consumer base. You are just confused at what that base is. Their consumer base are busineses - not video gamers like yourself.
And you yourself have wrongly conflated capitalism with any aspect of the market that you don't like. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of property and the means of production. That is it. In contrast to socialism, which is the public/govt ownership of the same.
DumbNTough@reddit
You'd be playing with a yo-yo instead of a gaming PC if it weren't for capitalism. SYBAU
pack_merrr@reddit
Pretty sure we'd at least have Tetris seeing as a Communist country made that one
DumbNTough@reddit
Da, Tetriz advanced future video electronic game for the little Comradskis! Only $1,2000
KillEvilThings@reddit
Man imagine glazing an economic system so much that clearly, empirically, motivates profit driven motives over any actual humanitarian reasons.
Frasine@reddit
Imagine unironically arguing against an economic system while literally engaging with said system regularly. For a guy so against capitalism you sure do love consuming them.
"Upgrade this upgrade that buy this buy that" but yeah we're the slaves instead. Take your own damn advice.
MyStationIsAbandoned@reddit
Yeah. I think the term is "Luxury Beliefs".
I think there's an obvious middle ground. We can all agree that corruption and greed are bad. What anti-capitalist wont agree on though is that corruption and greed will still exist and always exist even if Capitalism magically vanished over night and we'd still have all the same problems.
The problem needs to be dealt with at the root. How? I don't know because we can't have a real conversation without insulting each other and over zealous people banning those who have differing opinions. A common theme with just about everything.
pack_merrr@reddit
Do you talk to other people, or you just make up arguments for them in your head? I guess I would say I'm anti-capitalist. My position is that greed is a human trait, so of course it's gonna always exist. But cooperation, empathy, selflessness are also human traits that are going to exist no matter what too.
The existence of greed is kind of why I said I'd consider myself anti-capitalist. I think whatever economic system or way of organizing society we have, it should be one that nurtures and rewards the more positive aspects of humanity like cooperation and empathy, rather than rewarding and bringing out the greed inside of people. My actual opinions are probably more nuanced, but to put it really bluntly I think capitalism is more likely to reward greed, and socialism would bring out those more positive traits.
Sure if capitalism vanished overnight we'd still have greed, corruption, violence and a lot of the same problems. I don't agree we'd have all the same problems though, I think we would also have a lot of new ones. I also kind of think "capitalism" and "socialism" are kinda stupid words because if you ask 10 people to define them, it feels like you'll get 20 different definitions. So whatever anti-capitalist system we would hypothetically move to, it'd be my hope at least the difference is that we no longer rewarded greed in a Gordon Gecko "Greed is good" kind of way (dope movie, but it's probably not the best way to structure society all things considered lol).
Aristotelaras@reddit
These hypocrites you described are the worst.
Frasine@reddit
There's a lot of problems with capitalism in general, and I share similar sentiments because I was poor back then.
But... I'm not the one saying fuck capitalism and then recommending others to get a 9070xt and a high end mobo for the best performance gains. Like bro you just folded in five minutes to yourself?
pack_merrr@reddit
I'm not sure you know what capitalism is if you think something about this is a contradiction?
KillEvilThings@reddit
You're just an absolute moron if you think you can exist in this system without engaging in it.
DumbNTough@reddit
You mean the way you glaze socialism lol
Get the fuck out of here, dumbass kid.
customcarguru@reddit
Idk bro just buy it. Stop scramming over 250 bucks. Lots of complaining in this thread about how they will buy when things change, but all you are doing is trading time for money.
Far-Glove-888@reddit
CPUs: stagnation in performance means there's no need to reduce prices
GPUs: new GPU generation doesn't offer better price/perf, therefore no need to reduce price of older gens
And no, laptops/handhelds/consoles/phones don't drop 70% when new ones come out. They slowly drop in price over time, if at all (Switch 1 didn't get price drop when Switch 2 came out)
ioiplaytations2@reddit
It wasnt like this before... Ever since scalers controlled the market, this happened.
BullPropaganda@reddit
Current prices are horribly inflated, therefore old products are also horribly inflated. It's horrible
Unicorn_puke@reddit
I remember when I bought my rtx 3060 in 2021 that my old card the gtx 960 was selling for $150-250 depending on model. Still seeing them priced at that whenever i see someone selling. It's crazy.
ky420@reddit
According to some youtubers if amd releases the 10070 and 10090 at planned prices it would cause a drop in gpu prices but who knows
Unicorn_puke@reddit
I doubt we'll see any meaningful drops in prices of "modern" hardware. You might see 3-4 generations back drop if there is still supply enough but I doubt going forward we'll see any new release stuff priced lower without being the very best models.
There's just too much demand for GPUs between miners, AI learning, data centers and gamers. Until there's just product only for gamers and not so widely used I don't think there's any way prices will drop.
ky420@reddit
As far as mining I think its moved away from gpus, I think most people have quit mining period. Power got too high. I never realy understood it when people were making money from it. WIsh I had. ai is more hungry for them than the miners tho. thankfully they don't use the same ones but they sure need the vram. maybe thats why they want to piddle it out to us.
TentiTiger11@reddit
Kinda crazy the 960 sells for that much but I guess it makes sense since no one buys those really. More in-demand ones like 3070s have gone down in price (got mine for $180 few months ago)
Wooshio@reddit
Are they? 1660 came out 6 years ago, and now days you can get something like an RX 9060 XT 16GB for $350. If someone can't even afford that after all these years they should probably switch to console gaming. The GPU market really isn't that bad.
BullPropaganda@reddit
Not too long ago, the tippy top GPUs were $500. I would usually get one for around $200 that was in the sweet spot of price to performance ratio
Wooshio@reddit
Last high end Nvidia GPU that had MSRP of $500 was gtx 780 which was 15 years ago. That would be $700 today accounting for inflation.
Ill-Mastodon-8692@reddit
gtx titan launched around that time for $999
thank it paving the way for the xx90 pricing today
PogoTempest@reddit
That’s a midrange NVIDIA now lmao. Meanwhile a high end will mug you at gun point
Wooshio@reddit
In label only, you can get 5070 Ti for $750 which will net you higher average FPS on Ultra in AAA games at todays standard resolutions then 780 did when it came out at resolutions that were standard back then. While also doing things like ray tracing and rending million+ more polygons. It's why direct tier comparisons like that make no sense.
Veiny_Transistits@reddit
The GPU market changed suddenly and dramatically 5 years ago.
The consumers and their market mindset for standards was significantly cheaper prices for new cards, and ready availability.l, and even better for both for used cards.
Wooshio@reddit
All markets have changed, cars, groceries, houses, etc. That's just how things go. The nice thing about GPU's over the last decade is that they are also usable for longer then ever, where in the past you had to upgrade every 3-4 years to play AAA games now you really don't, so you do get more for your money. And this is likely to get even better due to flexibility offered by upscaling. Not to mention consumer expectations have also changed, people were ok with much lower FPS / graphical fidelity years ago then they are now at every tier.
vlegionv@reddit
It's always been like this in the desktop market.
When new stuff comes out, there are still people trying to maximize their last gen stuff, but with less and less supply.
this would happen like every single year back when every generation of intel changed socket types.
pugneus@reddit
Used market is incredibly cheap
BitRunner64@reddit
It depends on the product. AM4, Ampere etc. are still pretty desirable. The 3060 is still competitive with current-gen mid-range/low-end cards. The 5700X3D is still an excellent upgrade if you're on an older AM4 system. Even if it's overpriced compared to something like a 7600X, you save money by not having to get a new mobo and RAM.
If you want bargains, you'll have to look at even older stuff on the second-hand market.
Minimum-Account-1893@reddit
Supply and demand.
Too much supply, not enough demand = better prices.
Too much demand, not enough supply = higher prices
They lower prices to get more sales. Now imagine that they already get the sales, with no reason to reduce prices. They likely found people kept buying up the supply even when they raised prices.
turtlelover05@reddit
Buy used and you won't have as much of a problem.
667questioning@reddit
Crypto? Some users, especially COVID and post we’re buying not for gaming features but with the idea of mining their own coin? Thus keeping demand high until the stock was gone.
DarvinostheGreat@reddit
Because people are still buying them at stupidly high prices. Also in my experience people in the NA market think that because they paid $1000 for something it is still worth like 90% of that years later
MyStationIsAbandoned@reddit
For some people we have to buy it. My old PC gave out and I had to spend like half my savings building my current one immediately because it's my work station.
Paid like $1,300 something for my 4080 Super. i can't even remember if that was a good deal or not at the time. the whole build has paid for itself already, but still...it sucks spending so much at once.
ky420@reddit
If they get it then it technically is. Hope to sell my 9060xt for msrp when next gen amd cards drop hoping to grab a 9070xt. Prolly won't ever happen. But we will see. Course I'd have to have some boot but it'd feasible unless stuff drops
No-Preparation4073@reddit
One of the things is that in computer parts, whent hey stop making them, they have stopped making them. There are no new ones. So it turns into a longer term lesson of supply and demand, at least until the item is not longer functional. As an example, there are a lot of computers / MB that won't work with windows 11. While they are still functional as computers under windows 10, they are effectively EOL and their value will drop rapidly as everyone tries to sell out of them.
3060s are a perfect example of supply and demand. Those cards are generally awesome and can keep pace to all but the very stupidly high AAA game titles. For someone running say day trading with multiple screens, they are awesome. They are also not really in production anymore. So supply and demand keeps the price higher.
PallBallOne@reddit
I think in the US, the retailers like NewEgg, Micro Center receive rebates directly from the video card manufacturer to deliver discounts during promotional periods
Obviously you won't have access to the cheaper deals outside the US, you would be subject to the pricing structure in your own country
Coolman_Rosso@reddit
There's reasonable enough demand for something like the 3060, despite it being discontinued. They still go for $300-320, which is the same price I paid two years ago. Prices are just mad inflated on top of this.
That said at this point you're better off trying for a cheaper used card, or going to the extra mile for the new RX 9060 XT 16 GB which is superior to the 3060.
EndlessZone123@reddit
3060 12GB is the only good entry gpu for anything AI. 8GB cards are significantly cheaper at least locally for me.
EndlessZone123@reddit
3060 8gb are much cheaper than 12gb. People using them as the cheapest way for AI workloads with 12gb of vram to the price doesnt drop that much. The top cpu's i7/9 or R7/9 chips per socket are typically way more expensive perf/$ because people try buying them to upgrade without changing their motherboard.
thiccdaddyswitch@reddit
Waiting is pointless. You should have realized that after all those years waiting. Buy always the best you can afford at the moment of purchase.
m4tic@reddit
If you had all of the remaining stock of old but good CPUs and/or GPUs that are no longer being manufactured but still wanted by consumers, would you lower the price?
skylinestar1986@reddit
Because they are not old enough. It has to be really old like Intel 3rd gen CPU or Nvidia Maxwell to be considered old and got into AliExpress market.
IndividualNovel4482@reddit
I mean.. there is no valid reason to lower prices. Unless they want to sell them out perhaps.
Same for games. They do not and should not lower prices in time. They just go on sale.
ChocolateNeat4489@reddit
I believe that emotional attachment to the corporations and being financially irresponsible just because I can still afford it, is also a factor.
If people were ruthlessly focused on value, instead of red / green team fights, overpaying by 80% for something that is only 20% faster, paying more than MSRP and justifying price gauging and 'inflation' that seem to affect GPUs the most, the corpos wouldn't dare to do what they do.
The effective monopoly and no open competition also aren't helping.
1AMA-CAT-AMA@reddit
Because newer components don't bring enough to the table to devalue older components.
Why would you ever sell a 4090 for below MSRP when 5090s are insanely priced, and 5080s are simply nowehere near as good?
groveborn@reddit
They still want to turn a profit. Why would they sell them below cost when it's cheaper to throw them away?
Diels_Alder@reddit
Now that Nvidia 's real market is corporate AI clients, the gaming retail market just needs to avoid disrupting that. Which means NVidia will adjust production to avoid lower prices anywhere.
kevcsa@reddit
Because some people are still buying them.
Also, I strongly recomment the used market. Old stuff can be actually cheap there.
Ultimately it's all about price/performance ratio.
A 3090 is still expensive even on the used market, because it performs well, and it's valuable for productivity too.
Xeno_man@reddit
The things with technology is once they finish a run of chips, no more of those chips will ever be made again. It's not like a competitor can copy them and make some knock offs. It's not like the original manufacture will spin up production again and make some old chips just because there is demand. It's a finite supply
Biggeordiegeek@reddit
Right now it’s a lot more complex than it ever has been
The major elephant in the room is the threat of tariffs and the unpredictability of the current US administration
Then you have the basic monopoly on advanced process nodes, TSMC have jacked up prices a lot in the past five years, and even Intel have to have them manufacture some stuff
Add in the AI boom which has made it far more profitable for the big chip companies to divert waffers to their datacentre and AI products and keep supplies intended for domestic users low
For CPUs Intels latest gen chips are whilst not terrible, are very uncompetitive and AMDs chips are so good they have ignored the low end of the market with AM5 so on their side the only budget options are AM4
As for the 3060 specifically, that was probably the best card in terms of what you got in a long time, that 12GB VRAM means it’s far more sought after than a 3060Ti
And if I am frank, if you want a GPU upgrade at that level, I would be looking at a 9060XT 16GB
In terms of GPUs, in Europe at least, supply in normalising and for the first time in a longtime it feels like the market is stabilising
But yeah CPUs is not in a great space right now
vlegionv@reddit
This is nothing new.
There's just less supply of older stuff, but people still want last generation stuff to maximize being on last generation. see all the people who went from ryzen 1700 to ryzen 5700x3d. So there's still demand despite no new supply.
Back in the day this would make top of the line intel cpu's and motherboards skyrocket a generation or two after each intel gen, because that was also back when pretty much every single intel gen was a new socket lmao.
lambardar@reddit
depends on the card to be honest.
I bought the 3080 when it launched for about $2500. now I see on facebook marketplace for $300. same with the others with the exception of the 3090 and 4090.. these have 24G vram.
I can't get enough of the 3090 or 4090s. Some chinese modded 4090 with 48G vram are going for crazy prices.
It all comes down to VRAM.
Jaxsso@reddit
It appears they stopped production of the 3060 in 2024. Probably the reason they are actually more expensive now than a year ago is because of the 12 GB of VRAM, and they aren't making more. You can get much faster cards for a lot less, but they only have 8GB of VRAM.