- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 11,387
- Reaction score
- 6,167
I see MC 814.99 and Newegg 779.99 with shipping.
Tech Gaming Hardware discussion (& Hardware Sales) thread
- Thread starter Madmick
- Start date
I see MC 814.99 and Newegg 779.99 with shipping.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2020
- Messages
- 3,622
- Reaction score
- 6,048
MC had a different MSI one for 814.... I think it was a Gaming X version but the one you showed was a Mech 2x and it was 774 at MC and 769 at NE.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 10,822
- Reaction score
- 3,979
Not the same cards. As @Clifford_Harris stated you haven't showed one instance of MC actually price gouging. You've been erreously comparing different cards...
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,626
- Reaction score
- 25,718
I just showed a GPU that is clearly gouging above the MSRP. It doesn't matter if Newegg and third-party resellers on Amazon are also charging gouged prices. The point is MC isn't an exception. They're also gougers.
Go ahead and multiple the 25% tariff cost to the premium above MSRP that you can find the "Gaming X" for any card in the $400-$600 MSRP range from the past 2 generations before this one. I just gave you an example. The "Gaming X" RTX 2070 Super debuted at a +$50 above MSRP. That's the standard premium. Take another example from AMD: the 5700 XT.
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/jb...d-radeon-rx-5700-xt-gaming-x?history_days=730
$449. Once again exactly +$50 above MSRP.
$479.99 (MSRP) + $50 (typical Gaming X AIC premium) = $529.99 + 25% tariff (kicked back in Jan-2021) = $662.49 normal non-crypto expected price
MC Price = $814.99 - $662.49 expected normal Gaming X price = +$152.50 price gouge (+23%)
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2020
- Messages
- 3,622
- Reaction score
- 6,048
Show another retailer selling the current generation Gaming X for the 662 expected price. If you can't do that then you can't say that MC is gouging on the price, because MSI just might be the ones that are gouging on the price of the cards. You can't declare all retailers gougers if you don't know the price they're getting them for before selling them on the market.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 10,822
- Reaction score
- 3,979
No one in here is disputing the gouging.
The gouging isn't coming from MC which was the main point of the argument between rob mafia and Prefect. The markup is or will be coming from MSI (and other manufacturers). MC doesn't dictate MSRP for these GPUs.
Bringing up the history of how much the older GPUs cost doesn't change the fact that the big markup isn't Microcenter's doing. They will charge you what the MSRP is give or take a bit for selling it to you from their brick and mortar storefront.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,626
- Reaction score
- 25,718
If everyone is gouging it doesn't mean that nobody is gouging. That's a stupid argument.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 10,822
- Reaction score
- 3,979
You're making an assumption that this card is supposed to retail for 662 based on historical data. At no point did you confirm to us that MSI didn't already raise that price for this particular GPU which was the main point we're trying to tell you.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2020
- Messages
- 3,622
- Reaction score
- 6,048
My argument isn't that everyone is gouging, my argument is that you can't prove everyone (retailers) are gouging unless you can showcase what they're being charged for the card in the first place. You seemingly can't.
Furthermore if Microcenter is gouging as you claim, why were they selling multiple other cards at the 479 MSRP?
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,626
- Reaction score
- 25,718
I've established AMD launched the RX 6700 XT at an MSRP of $479, which hasn't been raised, and I've established that MSI historically charged a $50 premium on this AIC. The burden of proof has shifted. I've also showed you historical evidence indicating Microcenter irrefutably gouged prices during a similar crypto-inflated period.
Can you show any evidence they aren't gouging?
WCCFTech ran a rumored price for the Gaming X 6700 XT $599 on Mar-17 (though that wasn't set). Even at that inflated price it would still be a gouge:
https://wccftech.com/review/msi-radeon-rx-6700-xt-gaming-x-12-gb-gddr6-graphics-card-review/
Five days ago there was a story indicating that MSI signaled they would have to raise their prices for the first time because they are receiving a smaller supply from AMD & NVIDIA (and the majority of their business depends on GPU sales for revenue). No indication they'd increased prices prior to this. They didn't suffer supply issues in 2020. When they have participated in duplicitous price scheming it's been through subsidiaries on eBay:
MSI Expects GPU Shipments to Continue Dropping, May Raise Prices in 2021
So do you guys have any evidence showing MSI or other board partners are the sole source of an increase in prices? Because the evidence of gouging is concrete. Your presumption the board partners (1) raised prices to retailers, and (2) are the exclusive source of raised prices are both unsubstantiated.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2020
- Messages
- 3,622
- Reaction score
- 6,048
Sure, there's two variants Sapphire and ASrock that sold for 479 at launch at Microcenter. There's another Asrock Model (Challenger) that sold for 569, all other board partners' models were 750-829. The highest priced one was the Asus at 829, that's also sold for the same price on Asus' website.
So if we're looking at the highest price model, and it's being sold at the same price on both MC and The Manufacturers' site, there's reason to believe that MC isn't substantially marking up the price.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,064
- Reaction score
- 9,812
this is embarrassing. full contrarian, again. we all know this argument is only happening because it's the inverse of what i said.
the fact that 5600Xs are selling for msrp and 5800Xs are selling under msrp, despite high demand (and with limit 1 per person and in-store only) is pretty clear proof that they're not gouging. especially when so many are claiming the CPUs are unobtanium.
the fact that most of the 6700xts they had in stock were the $479 variants is another tell. if they wanted to gouge, they would have had more than 3 whole units of the higher priced models. they all sold out in a day, anyway...
the fact that 5600Xs are selling for msrp and 5800Xs are selling under msrp, despite high demand (and with limit 1 per person and in-store only) is pretty clear proof that they're not gouging. especially when so many are claiming the CPUs are unobtanium.
the fact that most of the 6700xts they had in stock were the $479 variants is another tell. if they wanted to gouge, they would have had more than 3 whole units of the higher priced models. they all sold out in a day, anyway...
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,626
- Reaction score
- 25,718
All this establishes is the price the retailers charged.Sure, there's two variants Sapphire and ASrock that sold for 479 at launch at Microcenter. There's another Asrock Model (Challenger) that sold for 569, all other board partners' models were 750-829. The highest priced one was the Asus at 829, that's also sold for the same price on Asus' website.
So if we're looking at the highest price model, and it's being sold at the same price on both MC and The Manufacturers' site, there's reason to believe that MC isn't substantially marking up the price.
First, this isn't the AIC I highlighted, and second, where are you drawing the officially released launch MSRPs for these specific AIC variants from the board partners themselves (Asus, ASRock, etc.)?
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2020
- Messages
- 3,622
- Reaction score
- 6,048
Which is the price that matters, if every single retailer is charging the exact same thing for the exact same card, then logic suggests this is the MSRP.
The AIC you highlighted is selling for around the same price at every single retailer. I showed you other AICs specifically the ASUS one since that's a manufacturer and also a retailer. ASUS and MC having the exact same price for an ASUS card shows that MC isn't marking up that specific card....You asked for any evidence that MC weren't marking up Graphics Cards, you were given that in the form of ASUS and MC selling an ASUS graphics card for the exact same price as well as me stating that Sapphire and ASRock had Graphics Cards on sale for AMD's MSRP of 479$.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 10,822
- Reaction score
- 3,979
This article is badly written too (as in wrong):
For example, if you wanted to pick up an RTX 3090 that should retail for around $700, you’ll probably have to pay about twice that. That’s if you can find one! Even scalpers are starting to come up dry.
I wanna know where you can score any RTX 3090 for $700 considering the founder's edition is selling for 1500. LOL.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,907
- Reaction score
- 2,749
Man I am so glad I got that bstock 2080 super for 450 a few months before the 3000s came out. I wanted to get a 3070. Great decision on my part. I’ll pat myself on the back on my way out.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,064
- Reaction score
- 9,812
even if they meant well, it does have a bribery feel to it.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 22,507
- Reaction score
- 30,880
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2011
- Messages
- 32,232
- Reaction score
- 18,042
But does it have to be a good review?
good or bad, they're paying for the review either way.
I'd honestly expect something like this from MSI, but not Gigabyte.
If it was something like leave a review on the motherboards website or Gigabytes own web store, I wouldn't have that much of an issue with it. But when they're wanting you to post reviews on other sites like Amazon, Newegg, etc that just gives off a bad vibe.
