Dr. Jon Peddie, president of the research company and consulting firm, points out the multifaceted nature of the AIB market “squeeze”:
“The AIB market, largely supported by gamers, is being squeezed from the bottom by powerful new notebooks and CPU integrated graphics, and from the high end by rising pricing due to competition (supply and demand), memory prices, and Trump administration tariffs that bounce around.”
I can’t say I’m impressed with the reporting here, which neglects to account for graphics card prices tripling around the start of this decade and never returning to normal. This had already broken the usual upgrade cycle among PC gamers, well before Trump tariffs and memory scarcity arrived.
Graphics card price tripling and game graphical fidelity is reaching diminishing returns. It’s hard to justify the money not to be able to run new games but to run them on High or Ultra instead of Low or Medium.
I can’t say I’m impressed with their research, which neglects to account for graphics card prices tripling around the start of this decade and never returning to normal I read a magazine article about a small press release for and made a completely unfounded assumption about
These quarterly press releases from Jon Peddie Research mainly just go over more recent developments in high-level detail. The actual report, which yes is $3000 because it’s meant for enterprise customers, covers all of this, which you can verify by reading its description and ToC.
Such unfounded confidence that a professional report studying the cost of GPUs fails to account for some basic shit someone would tell you on Reddit is just arrogance; there’s no other word for it.
Such unfounded confidence that a professional report studying the cost of GPUs fails to account for some basic shit someone would tell you on Reddit is just arrogance; there’s no other word for it.
No, it’s a reasonable response to years of AIB price reporting that has very often neglected to call out the price gouging that I mentioned. Obviously, I wasn’t about to spend $3000 and hours of my time, nor grovel through its table of contents, to find out whether this particular report was an exception that was somehow overlooked in the article that was shared with the public.
Updated my comment to reflect new information.
In any case, your short-sighted assessment of my comment is exceeded only by your rudeness and hair-trigger combativeness. You’re not exactly making this forum a nicer place to be. Kindly go take a walk.
Obviously, I wasn’t about to spend $3000 and hours of my time to find out whether this particular report was an exception
I’d wager my kidneys to a pack of gum that you didn’t even know there was a full, paywalled report behind this before you commented (the PC Gamer article you quoted never cites $3000). If you did, this line of reasoning would be an interesting way to save face had, again, a bulleted description and table of contents not been freely available, making laughably obvious what minimal critical thought went into your mischaracterization of the report.
And frankly, if you did know, that’s even wilder, because you fully assumed you knew better; you didn’t even try to qualify it. You just outright said they failed to account for it without knowing what was in the report. Which is somehow even worse.
I can’t say I’m impressed with the reporting here, which neglects to account for graphics card prices tripling around the start of this decade and never returning to normal. This had already broken the usual upgrade cycle among PC gamers, well before Trump tariffs and memory scarcity arrived.
Graphics card price tripling and game graphical fidelity is reaching diminishing returns. It’s hard to justify the money not to be able to run new games but to run them on High or Ultra instead of Low or Medium.
Especially when high and ultra don’t look that much better than medium and low.
These quarterly press releases from Jon Peddie Research mainly just go over more recent developments in high-level detail. The actual report, which yes is $3000 because it’s meant for enterprise customers, covers all of this, which you can verify by reading its description and ToC.
Such unfounded confidence that a professional report studying the cost of GPUs fails to account for some basic shit someone would tell you on Reddit is just arrogance; there’s no other word for it.
No, it’s a reasonable response to years of AIB price reporting that has very often neglected to call out the price gouging that I mentioned. Obviously, I wasn’t about to spend $3000 and hours of my time, nor grovel through its table of contents, to find out whether this particular report was an exception that was somehow overlooked in the article that was shared with the public.
Updated my comment to reflect new information.
In any case, your short-sighted assessment of my comment is exceeded only by your rudeness and hair-trigger combativeness. You’re not exactly making this forum a nicer place to be. Kindly go take a walk.
I’d wager my kidneys to a pack of gum that you didn’t even know there was a full, paywalled report behind this before you commented (the PC Gamer article you quoted never cites $3000). If you did, this line of reasoning would be an interesting way to save face had, again, a bulleted description and table of contents not been freely available, making laughably obvious what minimal critical thought went into your mischaracterization of the report.
And frankly, if you did know, that’s even wilder, because you fully assumed you knew better; you didn’t even try to qualify it. You just outright said they failed to account for it without knowing what was in the report. Which is somehow even worse.