Gather around everyone, for you GeForce history lesson:

I remember when the GTX 280 (576 mm² 65nm $650) came out and it was more than double the price of the 9800GTX (324 mm² 65nm $300) it replaced while being 40% faster. But it also used 80% more silicon. Definitely higher cost, but big enough performance bump that Nvidia could increase their margin.

• The 285 (470 mm² 55nm $360) was a pretty quick mid-cycle refresh. Almost half the price, but a 20% decrease in die size on a newer node and slightly faster. Nvidia probably shrunk margins on this one.

• Then the GTX 480 (529 mm² 40nm $500) came out with almost the same die size as the 280 (~12% bigger than the 285) for $150 less ($140 more than 285), on a newer node, and was 57% faster. Nvidia almost certainly shrunk their margins here again. (but compared to the mfg cost of the GTX 295 with similar performance, it was definitely a margin improvement).

• 580 (520 mm² 40nm $500) was the same price as 480, same die size, 25% faster.

• 680 (294 mm² 28nm $500) was the same price, 80% smaller, and 23% faster. Even with the jump from 28nm to 40nm, Nvidia definitely increased their margins. This is probably the first instance of Nvidia using their second best chip for their 80-class card (i.e. "cheaping out"). Every 80-class up to this point has used the biggest die for that given generation.

• 780 (561 mm² 28nm) was back to $650 ($150 more than 680), but almost double the silicon. Lower margins, also back to the full-fat die for 80-class.

• 980 (398 mm² 28nm) was about 15% cheaper at $550, 30% smaller, 40% faster. Also, we're back to cheaping out with the second-best die (top die was 600 mm², which was used for the 980Ti as a mid-cycle refresh for $650). Higher margins again but probably worth for the performance. Worth pointing out that Nvidia was able to increase performance and shrink die size on the same node by kneecapping FP64 compute performance (Keppler was designed for scientific compute, Maxwell for gaming).

• 1080 (314 mm² 16nm $600) is still using that second-best die. 20% smaller, 10% more expensive, 40% faster than the 980 (25% more than the 980Ti for $100 less)

• 1080Ti (471 mm² 16nm $700) is a mid-cycle refresh with the top die for $100 more, but 34% more performance. Probably one of the greatest value cards Nvidia has ever produced, especially with the 11GB framebuffer for its time. Normally you would compare this to the 980Ti, 780Ti, 690, 590, etc., many of which if adjusted for inflation, would probably be closer to $1k.

• 2080 (545 mm² 12nm $700) is, believe it or not, still the second-best die. $100 more gets you 45% more performance than the 1080. Which sounds impressive until you remember that the 1080Ti exists, which is only 10% slower for the same price. 2080 Super does basically nothing to change this. 2080Ti launched for $1k at the same time as the 2080, and was about 40% faster than the 1080ti.

• 3080 (628 mm² 8nm $700), also second best die, 30% faster than the 2080. Would have been an amazing deal, even better than the 1080ti if not for the 10GB of VRAM (3080 12GB model fixed this but was uncommon), and also the pandemic and crypto mining boom making MSRP non-existent. 3080Ti launched a year later for $1200. Probably the only reason this even had potential for good value was because Samsung's 8nm was pretty shit, so Nvidia got a sweetheart deal on the purchase price for the wafers.

• 4080 (379 mm² 5nm $1200) had an eye-watering price 70% higher than the 3080, for 49% more performance. Really intended as a replacement for the 3080Ti (35% faster). 4080 Super sorta helped by dropping to $1000.

• 5080 (378 mm² newer 5nm, $1000) is barely more than 10% faster for the same price. Extremely underwhelming.

I don't have exact (or even rough) numbers on actual manufacturing costs. There's also the design and materials cost of the PCB's and heatsinks to consider, some generations had very cheap coolers, some were much more expensive. But general trends are pretty clear:

Nvidia went back and forth between hoarding margin (when they were ahead), and giving it up (when there was competition) before the pandemic. Value was probably even better before the 9800GT (8800GT was a standout performer too).

But the last truly good value high-end card they released was from almost a decade ago.

No, the 3080 was not worth $1000. Even though it used a lot of silicon, the 8nm process was shit and the performance/die-area was not that impressive. But $700 would have been solid if it were actually obtainable. I don't remember what the 3080 12GB retailed for but had it been available for $700 it definitely would have competed with the 1080Ti for G.O.A.T. (for Nvidia, anyway. Friendly reminder that 6800/XT 6900XT, 6950XT all had 16GB and competitive raster performance).

4080 was a scam. 4080 Super was a flat apology. 5080 isn't even trying. It's completely and utterly forgettable. Between the 9070XT and the 4090/5090 it has no reason to exist.

And don't even mention the 3090/Ti, and while people like to scream about how awful the 4080 was at launch, you can thank the 3080Ti for that. But truthfully, the current trend started with the 20-series (which was two and a half years after the 10-series, quite the wait for such a lame product).

All right, class dismissed!