Last I checked (around the time Nvidia launched it), the DGX-1 seemed "perfectly priced" against Intel's systems. As in they seemed to have priced it in terms of how many Xeon chips you'd have to get to have equivalent performance.
I guess that's one way to go if you value profits above anything else, but I think Nvidia is making a strategic mistake. If it doesn't have to price them that high, then it shouldn't. Because otherwise it's just leaving a bigger opening for Intel to enter the market in a big way.
I think a better long-term strategy would be to make it as hard as possible for Intel to enter the market, and one way to do that is to have reasonable but yet quite aggressive pricing for its GPUs.
Unlike Nvidia, Intel is going to be pressured to recoup the $31 billion it put into Altera and Mobileye, so even if Intel will match Nvidia's new prices, Intel will struggle to recoup that money, while Nvidia can do just fine continuing to sell its GPUs.
And yet, (from what I've read) DGX-1's are getting snapped up faster than Nvidia can make them. If you have a >6 month wait list, and people still want them at that price, then supply & demand suggests you may even be under-priced (of course Nvidia wants that market saturation).
I guess that's one way to go if you value profits above anything else, but I think Nvidia is making a strategic mistake. If it doesn't have to price them that high, then it shouldn't. Because otherwise it's just leaving a bigger opening for Intel to enter the market in a big way.
I think a better long-term strategy would be to make it as hard as possible for Intel to enter the market, and one way to do that is to have reasonable but yet quite aggressive pricing for its GPUs.
Unlike Nvidia, Intel is going to be pressured to recoup the $31 billion it put into Altera and Mobileye, so even if Intel will match Nvidia's new prices, Intel will struggle to recoup that money, while Nvidia can do just fine continuing to sell its GPUs.