# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Put Through AoTS, About 16% Faster Than GTX 1060



## btarunr (Jan 22, 2019)

Thai PC enthusiast TUM Apisak posted a screenshot of an alleged GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Ashes of the Singularity (AoTS) benchmark. The GTX 1660 Ti, if you'll recall, is an upcoming graphics card based on the TU116 silicon, which is a derivative of the "Turing" architecture but with a lack of real-time raytracing capabilities. Tested on a machine powered by an Intel Core i9-9900K processor, the AoTS benchmark was set to run at 1080p and DirectX 11. At this resolution, the GTX 1660 Ti returned a score of 7,400 points, which roughly compares with the previous-generation GTX 1070, and is about 16-17 percent faster than the GTX 1060 6 GB. NVIDIA is expected to launch the GTX 1660 Ti some time in Spring-Summer, 2019, as a sub-$300 successor to the GTX 1060 series.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## biffzinker (Jan 22, 2019)

btarunr said:


> NVIDIA is expected to launch the GTX 1660 Ti some time in Spring-Summer, 2019, as a sub-$300 successor to the GTX 1060 series.


Under $300 would translate to $299 knowing Nvidia's recent pricing shenanigans. /s Hopefully the price is $250.


----------



## gmn 17 (Jan 22, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Under $300 would translate to $299 knowing Nvidia's recent pricing shenanigans. /s Hopefully the price is $250.



A Turing 1880 ti would be ideal


----------



## dj-electric (Jan 22, 2019)

Being only 16% faster than a GTX 1060 6GB, this better be sub 249$


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 22, 2019)

it needs to be well under the 250 mark to make any sense
16% is peanuts
150.00 to 175.00 would make sense price amd out of the market


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 22, 2019)

OneMoar said:


> it needs to be well under the 250 mark to make any sense
> 16% is peanuts
> 150.00 to 175.00 would make sense price amd out of the market


nVidia's main goal as any company is to maximize profit, not to price AMD out of the market.
If they can sell a card for $300 and still sell all of them, there is no reason to price it any lower.


----------



## biffzinker (Jan 22, 2019)

OneMoar said:


> 150.00 to 175.00 would make sense price amd out of the market


Not likely gonna happen if it's as fast as a 1070.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 22, 2019)

No dx12?


----------



## biffzinker (Jan 22, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> No dx12?


Are you questioning why it wasn't benched in DX12?


----------



## Metroid (Jan 22, 2019)

This card supposed to be sold for under $150, not under $300. Nvidia is not living in the real world anymore after the crypto crazy in 2017 and when it wakes up its share will be worth 50% of what is today, wake up nvidia.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 22, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Are you questioning why it wasn't benched in DX12?



Yeah, the latest API has been around how long now?


----------



## darksf (Jan 22, 2019)

Second Hand 1070 is already sub 300$ go stick your overpriced silicone waffer somewhere.


----------



## medi01 (Jan 22, 2019)

Zubasa said:


> nVidia's main goal as any company is to maximize profit, not to price AMD out of the market.


It doesn't have to "price AMD out" as people happily buy 1.5-2 times slower 1050/1050Ti over 470/570 no matter what, because green.

I mean, masses buying what mainstream is, is not something new.


----------



## Metroid (Jan 22, 2019)

Anybody buying this card over a rx 570 or rx 580 is not living in the real world.


----------



## IceScreamer (Jan 22, 2019)

Is this really called 1*6*60Ti instead of 1*1*60Ti?


----------



## CandymanGR (Jan 22, 2019)

16%! lol.


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 22, 2019)

I believe everyone who posted a reply in this thread did read the review for 2060 on this site, right?
If you read It, then you should know 2060 is 16-17% faster in FullHD than GTX1070, right?
Then I don't understand why so many of you believe a card with 20% more Cuda cores, TMU and comparable clocks is only 16% faster than GTX1060 when IPC of Turing is already ~10-15% better!
This score is either not accurate or this card doesn't have 1536 cuda or it has noticeably lower clocks which is unlikely.


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 22, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Anybody buying this card over a rx 570 or rx 580 is not living in the real world.


If the performance of 570 or 580 is not enough for you then you need to buy something stronger than those cards and this card shouldn't be only 16% faster than 1060, read my previous reply for more details.
If the performance of 570 or 580 is good enough for you then buy them, they have the best performance/price ratio.



Metroid said:


> This card supposed to be sold for under $150, not under $300. Nvidia is not living in the real world anymore after the crypto crazy in 2017 and when it wakes up its share will be worth 50% of what is today, wake up nvidia.


What is the current price of GTX1060? It's $210 as shown in the chart in this review: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2060_Gaming_Z/.
Please give me a valid reason why should a faster card cost under $150 when GTX1060 costs a lot more?


----------



## Blueberries (Jan 22, 2019)

I don't see the point of this card. The 2060 is at least 30% faster than the 1060 and it's already priced very affordably. 

NVIDIA tried to come up with a 2050 ti and realized RT at that level is dumb and now they're saving face by passing it off as a different tier? Just scrap the whole thing before it gets worse.


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 22, 2019)

Blueberries said:


> I don't see the point of this card. The 2060 is at least 30% faster than the 1060 and it's already priced very affordably.
> 
> NVIDIA tried to come up with a 2050 ti and realized RT at that level is dumb and now they're saving face by passing it off as a different tier? Just scrap the whole thing before it gets worse.


Not everyone is willing to pay >€350 for a graphic card at least I am not.
2060 is >50% faster than 1060 according to this review: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_RTX_2060_Gaming_Z/32.html.
Having RT cores for anything under 2060 is pointless in my opinion so this is a good move. Even keeping the Tensor cores is questionable.

What I don't like about 2060 and this cards is the 192bit bus.
That is a big disadvantage because they can use either 3GB or 6GB of Vram.
They should have used 256bit and then they could use 4GB or 8GB of Vram. With a 33% wider bus they could use a cheaper GDDR5 memory at least for this card.


----------



## notb (Jan 22, 2019)

Blueberries said:


> I don't see the point of this card. The 2060 is at least 30% faster than the 1060 and it's already priced very affordably.


2060 priced very affordably? It's a mid-range card, placed above the previous generation (1060 was $250 at launch).
So Nvidia now needs 2 chips below - actual successors to 1050 and 1060.

I expected them to just go for 2030 and 2050, but it seems the 2000-series is RTX only.
1660 is going to replace 1060 and, clearly, there has to be some "1550" in the works as well.


----------



## CandymanGR (Jan 22, 2019)

Sorry. I couldn't resist.


----------



## [XC] Oj101 (Jan 22, 2019)

IceScreamer said:


> Is this really called 1*6*60Ti instead of 1*1*60Ti?



I can answer that. It's because it's 16% faster, not 11% faster.


----------



## bajs11 (Jan 22, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Under $300 would translate to $299 knowing Nvidia's recent pricing shenanigans. /s Hopefully the price is $250.


have to agree with you there
It has been almost 3 years since the release of the Pascal cards
and yet they charge 20% more for a card that is probably only 16% faster
is this a joke?
This thing should be more of a successor to the gtx 1050Ti and sub 200 usd


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

OneMoar said:


> it needs to be well under the 250 mark to make any sense
> 16% is peanuts
> 150.00 to 175.00 would make sense price amd out of the market


The thing is, when you only have one or two competitors, you're really, really careful not to ruin them. Otherwise you'd become a monopoly and subject to all sorts of extra attention. It's less of hassle to keep them around.
Incidentally (and this is just speculation on my side) that's why Nvidia has surrendered consoles to AMD: to provide AMD a lifeline when they were getting hammered on the PC.


----------



## notb (Jan 22, 2019)

bug said:


> The thing is, when you only have one or two competitors, you're really, really careful not to ruin them. Otherwise you'd become a monopoly and subject to all sorts of extra attention. It's less of hassle to keep them around.


Exactly like you said and IMO quite a lot of people here don't get this.
No company wants to be a monopolist, unless being owned by the government. Being a monopolist sucks and makes the whole business much more expensive. Not to mention the state would do everything possible to divide such a company anyway.

For Intel it's way more convenient to give AMD their 10% market share - especially if it's not a very interesting part (like HEDT).
We have to wait until AMD gets competitive in mobile solutions, to actually see Intel giving a f...


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 22, 2019)

bajs11 said:


> have to agree with you there
> It has been almost 3 years since the release of the Pascal cards
> and yet they charge 20% more for a card that is probably only 16% faster
> is this a joke?
> This thing should be more of a successor to the gtx 1050Ti and sub 200 usd


GTX1060 is ~68% faster than 1050Ti and costs $210. This card is faster than GTX1060 and should cost under $200? I would love that, but It's unreasonable.


----------



## Kissamies (Jan 22, 2019)

IceScreamer said:


> Is this really called 1*6*60Ti instead of 1*1*60Ti?


I find that reasonable, reminds me of 660 Ti back in the day.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 22, 2019)

THANATOS said:


> but It's unreasonable.



More performance for less money after 2 years is now considered unreasonable ? Nvidia sure did their job well.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 22, 2019)

bug said:


> The thing is, when you only have one or two competitors, *you're really, really careful not to ruin them*. Otherwise you'd become a monopoly and subject to all sorts of extra attention. It's less of hassle to keep them around.
> Incidentally (and this is just speculation on my side)* that's why Nvidia has surrendered consoles to AMD*: to provide AMD a lifeline when they were getting hammered on the PC.


That's not even remotely true.

Same here.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 22, 2019)

it's can't be comparable to 1070 and beat 1060 by 16% only at the same time. 1070 is roughly 1.35x of 1060 6gb. If this is indeed 2060 cut down to 1536 sp I find it hard to believe it's only 1.16x of 1060.


----------



## phill (Jan 22, 2019)

I think Nvidia need to release a few more in between cards because I'm not sure they have enough...

What a way to confuse the consumer....


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 22, 2019)

phill said:


> I think Nvidia need to release a few more in between cards because I'm not sure they have enough...
> 
> What a way to confuse the consumer....


well,it's a new series name (11/16) on a new architecture,moving the new 1160 series to a performance spot of prev gen 1070. Only ones that are gonna be confused here are the ones who are confused by numbers in general.
It's not like selling rx 480,rx580 and rx590 which are basically the same card with +100mhz improvement each and perform within a couple of percent of each other.
Anyway,haven't seen @RejZoR in a while,I would love to hear his commentary on the naming


----------



## notb (Jan 22, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> That's not even remotely true.
> 
> Same here.


Actually he is right and there's quite a lot of stuff that supports it (we have anti-monopoly law and some of us actually had the "pleasure" of living in a real-life experiment).

Why do you think otherwise? Some arguments maybe? Why do you think it's so great to be a monopolist?


----------



## silentbogo (Jan 22, 2019)

The main issue with this bench is that "Genuine Intel 000" CPU running at 2.1GHz. On DX11 it's handicapping everything else and also hints towards this system being a laptop (e.g. it's GTX1660 Max-Q).
With those clocks the CPU is 99.9% the new core i7-9750H engineering sample (8c/16t, clocks in a ballpark of typical H/HQ variant, probably 4-4.2GHz boost).


----------



## notb (Jan 22, 2019)

phill said:


> I think Nvidia need to release a few more in between cards because I'm not sure they have enough...
> 
> What a way to confuse the consumer....


People interested in benchmarks and architecture will know what is what, so lets put them aside.
People not interested in benchmarks will go to a store and ask a salesman about a PC. And he'll tell them that 1660 is newer and faster than 1060, which is perfectly correct.

What exactly do you find so confusing?


----------



## IceScreamer (Jan 22, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> I find that reasonable, reminds me of 660 Ti back in the day.


I dunno, after 10-series as listed on their site, ignoring the 20-series, one would think they would use 11-series naming scheme.


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> More performance for less money after 2 years is now considered unreasonable ? Nvidia sure did their job well.


More performance for less money when the competition is still a no show - that's unreasonable.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 22, 2019)

notb said:


> Actually he is right and there's quite a lot of stuff that supports it (*we have anti-monopoly law and some of us actually had the "pleasure" of living in a real-life experiment*).
> 
> Why do you think otherwise? Some arguments maybe? Why do you think it's so great to be a monopolist?


Except when have anti monopolistic laws worked as intended, classic example - Intel? Sure there's argument to be made when the big companies drive their competitors out of business using unfair trade practices, like predatory pricing, but again I'll refer you to Intel.

Now the assumption that this would lead Nvidia or Intel to be broken up is untrue, or at least murky at best & untested in such instances. Intel is still not the only x86 chip maker, there's Via & Nvidia cannot be termed monopoly just based on their discrete GPU's since that's a really niche market. Technically Intel & Via(?) also make GPU for PC, albeit IGP only.

The point is these companies enjoy higher margins & profits, more than pure market-share. At least that's how I look at it, they'd rather sell things at 10% premium instead of driving the competitors out of business with possibly a long &/or less profitable price war.


----------



## Nxodus (Jan 22, 2019)

silentbogo said:


> The main issue with this bench is that "Genuine Intel 000" CPU running at 2.1GHz. On DX11 it's handicapping everything else and also hints towards this system being a laptop (e.g. it's GTX1660 Max-Q).
> With those clocks the CPU is 99.9% the new core i7-9750H engineering sample (8c/16t, clocks in a ballpark of typical H/HQ variant, probably 4-4.2GHz boost).



finally someone not as gullible as the rest on this forum (and elsewhere)
Of course it's a laptop vga.

Let me repeat myself: Nvidia might be "greedy", but not retarded. They are not going to cannibalize their own products. 20 series for Desktop, there's not going to be any 11 or 16 series.


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Except when have anti monopolistic laws worked as intended, classic example - Intel? Sure there's argument to be made when the big companies drive their competitors out of business using unfair trade practices, like predatory pricing, but again I'll refer you to Intel.
> 
> Now the assumption that this would lead Nvidia or Intel to be broken up is untrue, or at least murky at best & untested in such instances. Intel is still not the only x86 chip maker, there's Via & Nvidia cannot be termed monopoly just based on their discrete GPU's since that's a really niche market. Technically Intel & Via(?) also make GPU for PC, albeit IGP only.
> 
> The point is these companies enjoy higher margins & profits, more than pure market-share. At least that's how I look at it, they'd rather sell things at 10% premium instead of driving the competitors out of business with possibly a long &/or less profitable price war.


You're apparently oblivious to the additional scrutiny that a monopoly "enjoys". And when that scrutiny varies from one country to the next, it makes all the more "enjoyable".


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 22, 2019)

Someone like AMD dying a "natural death" wouldn't put additional scrutiny on Intel or Nvidia, that's speculation at best. Intel or Nvidia could've chosen to price AMD out of the market, but they didn't because "margins" & bottom-line. This is like making a case for why Apple couldn't be the sole supplier of Mac products.


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 22, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> More performance for less money after 2 years is now considered unreasonable ? Nvidia sure did their job well.


How much did 1060 cost at launch? $299 for FE and $249 for custom cards If I remember correctly and after 2 years GTX1060 costs $210.
I will say It once more that It's unreasonable to expect a card 16% faster(It should be more) than 1060 to be priced under $200 while the slower older card(GTX1060) costs $210. 

If they want this card to have at least the same performance/price ratio as 2060, then the price needs to be $279 but considering no RT I think It will be $249, but we will see.


----------



## silentbogo (Jan 22, 2019)

Just adding a bit of perspective to my previous post as to what this should be compared to. Couldn't find any DX11 benches for GTX1060 max-q, but here's a GTX1070 max-q paired with i7-8750H(6c/12t predecessor of this 9th gen engineering sample):
https://www.ashesofthesingularity.c...-details/71ad8f42-203e-496f-a902-485b6264c8bc



Scores a measly 4200pts, which brings the advantage from stated 16%(which in reality is over 20% for the highest-scored desktop version of GTX1060 6G in database) to nearly 75% over 1070 max-q[!!!] if we do an apples-to-apples comparison.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 22, 2019)

THANATOS said:


> I will say It once more that It's unreasonable



Your logic is based solely on pricing and performance without realizing most of that is dictated by the underlying silicon.

The only time you can really say something like this is unrealistic is when there is an actual technological limitation that prevents them from going under a certain price point. Currently there is no such thing, not when talking about this sort of performance level and not within Nvidia's product stack. Pascal has been sold at *absurdly high margins 2 years ago*, remember that the 1080 was a mere 300 mm^2 GPU and the 1060 was 200 mm^2.

I am going to say it once more as well, Nvidia did a fine job obliterating consumer expectations. Keep believe that this stuff is "unreasonable", meanwhile Nvidia will get another big fat check and you an ever worse product compared to previous generations without even realizing it.


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Your logic is based solely on pricing and performance without realizing most of that is dictated by the underlying silicon.
> 
> The only time you can really say something like this is unrealistic is when there is an actual technological limitation that prevents them from going under a certain price point. Currently there is no such thing, not when talking about this sort of performance level and not within Nvidia's product stack. Pascal has been sold at *absurdly high margins 2 years ago*, remember that the 1080 was a mere 300 mm^2 GPU and the 1060 was 200 mm^2.
> 
> I am going to say it once more as well, Nvidia did a fine job obliterating consumer expectations. Keep believe that this stuff is "unreasonable", meanwhile Nvidia will get another big fat check and you an ever worse product compared to previous generations without even realizing it.


If what you say was true, we'd solve virtually all the problems in economy with a law mandating that no product can be sold for more than, let's say, 10% over its production costs.
Obviously, that doesn't fly. Because your simplistic view of what the value of a product is doesn't fly.

I'm not saying we should applaud Nvidia for their prices. But at the end of the day, the have correctly identified an opportunity to sell for more $$$ and they have taken it. That's all. Personally, I understand Turing prices are mostly dictated by the die size and the lack of a response from AMD and I'm still hoping the move to 7nm will take care of the former. Because I wouldn't want these price hikes to stick.


----------



## notb (Jan 22, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Except when have anti monopolistic laws worked as intended, classic example - Intel?


I sense an issue.
We're discussing the main example of this happening. Intel didn't buy AMD because of anti-monopoly regulations (unless you have a better explanation).
But you say that it couldn't have been the reason, because these regulations don't work on Intel.
With this kind of logic we'll never get to anything constructive. 

Anti-monopoly regulations don't mean you can't be a monopolist. Their only role is to protect competition, but competition must exist in the first place.
If you're an only supplier of some product (because no one else knows how to do it or isn't interested) you are a monopolist, but anti-monopoly laws don't apply.

In fact legal system is what actually makes monopolies possible through copyright, patents and concessions. ;-)


> The point is these companies enjoy higher margins & profits, more than pure market-share. At least that's how I look at it, they'd rather sell things at 10% premium instead of driving the competitors out of business with possibly a long &/or less profitable price war.


So now you're literally accusing Intel and Nvidia of being better at doing business than AMD. Is this really what you intend?
It's like if you accused a runner for winning unfairly, because he trained harder or has better body proportions. Because in your perfect world all runners should have identical bodies and train exactly the same.

Both Intel and AMD can do top-notch CPUs. But Intel is better at selling them. And selling is the core ability in any business.


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 22, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Your logic is based solely on pricing and performance without realizing most of that is dictated by the underlying silicon.
> .....
> I am going to say it once more as well, Nvidia did a fine job obliterating consumer expectations. Keep believe that this stuff is "unreasonable", meanwhile Nvidia will get another big fat check and you an ever worse product compared to previous generations without even realizing it.


I will try once more.
It's unreasonable to expect the soon to be released 1160 to be priced under $200 when It's weaker predecessor with a smaller die size named GTX1060 costs $210 today. If GTX1060 costs $210 today then It's impossible that they will sell this new chip for under $200 unless GTX1060 will get another price cut.
Let's not forget that there is no reason to price It let's say at $199 when the closest weaker competitor RX590 costs $260 or the stronger competitor GTX1070 is priced at $320.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 22, 2019)

THANATOS said:


> It's unreasonable to expect the soon to be released 1160 to be priced under $200 when It's weaker predecessor with a smaller die size named GTX1060 costs $210 today. If GTX1060 costs $210 today then It's impossible that they will sell this new chip for less unless GTX1060 will get another price cut.



You do realize this has happened plenty times by this point right ? The 1060 wont remain forever in production.

The 2070 was sold at a lower price than the 1080ti but had comparable performance , how was that possible accordion to your logic ?


----------



## phill (Jan 22, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> well,it's a new series name (11/16) on a new architecture,moving the new 1160 series to a performance spot of prev gen 1070. Only ones that are gonna be confused here are the ones who are confused by numbers in general.
> It's not like selling rx 480,rx580 and rx590 which are basically the same card with +100mhz improvement each and perform within a couple of percent of each other.
> Anyway,haven't seen @RejZoR in a while,I would love to hear his commentary on the naming



That I can understand but I thought the new line was RTX 20xx rather than 1160??   Unless it's a completely cut down version of of the 2060 for example that's going to be half the price or something, I'm not sure I understand the reason for the card?

AMD cards are a bit like it I agree, but they aren't going forward leaps and bounds in performance.  It just seems like a bit of a waste to release it from my little brain that was all...


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 22, 2019)

notb said:


> *I sense an issue.*
> We're discussing the main example of this happening. *Intel didn't buy AMD because of anti-monopoly regulations* (unless you have a better explanation).
> But you say that it couldn't have been the reason, *because these regulations don't work on Intel.
> With this kind of logic we'll never get to anything constructive.*
> ...


I'm not sure what issue you're talking about.

I never said buying AMD, more like burying them.

No I said Intel got away with anti monopolistic, unfair trade practices in the past - same can be said of MS & they were even more blatant, arguably Google as well.

There is no law preventing natural monopolies that develop over time in more mature markets, or market segments. Let alone many places around the world that don't have (m)any anti monopoly laws in the first place.

Right, like I said. Competition or consumers?

Read again what I wrote, Intel certainly & possibly Nvidia(?) got away with much worse in the past - what makes you think the US DoJ or EU will step in if Intel/Nvidia lower their prices to such an extent that AMD becomes irrelevant? No, I thought so!

Let's not go there, I know AMD have their share of a chequered past but is it something you wanna be defending, even if it is Intel or Nvidia?

Right & let's not forget the power of $ that got them in that place, aside from lots of superior products (last decade) & shady deals.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 22, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Yeah, the latest API has been around how long now?


Long enough... but not a ton of games have it yet either. It also brings more of the cpu into things. 



phill said:


> I think Nvidia need to release a few more in between cards because I'm not sure they have enough...
> 
> What a way to confuse the consumer....


Are you serious?

If 5 cards are too much, AMD/Intel CPU selection must make you want to explode. Lololol!


----------



## Kissamies (Jan 22, 2019)

THANATOS said:


> How much did 1060 cost at launch? $299 for FE and $249 for custom cards If I remember correctly and after 2 years GTX1060 costs $210.
> I will say It once more that It's unreasonable to expect a card 16% faster(It should be more) than 1060 to be priced under $200 while the slower older card(GTX1060) costs $210.
> 
> If they want this card to have at least the same performance/price ratio as 2060, then the price needs to be $279 but considering no RT I think It will be $249, but we will see.


Looks like the cheapest GTX 1060s here in Finland are 220 euros for 3GB, and 259 euros for 6GB. Feels ridiculous that 1060 is about 2½yrs old, and they're still going for about their MSRP.


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

phill said:


> That I can understand but I thought the new line was RTX 20xx rather than 1160??   Unless it's a completely cut down version of of the 2060 for example that's going to be half the price or something, I'm not sure I understand the reason for the card?
> 
> AMD cards are a bit like it I agree, but they aren't going forward leaps and bounds in performance.  It just seems like a bit of a waste to release it from my little brain that was all...


The new line is RTX 20xx. But since the 2060 can barely push DXR, it's clear any lesser card in that lineup won't be up to the task. If you can't use that hardware, you get rid of it and, if you don't want to be slapped with frivolous lawsuits, you do your best to make the differentiation as clear as possible. In this case, you create a numbering scheme different from 20xx.
Still pretty messy, I agree, but so is the whole movement to push RTRT into the mainstream a little too soon.


----------



## phill (Jan 22, 2019)

bug said:


> The new line is RTX 20xx. But since the 2060 can barely push DXR, it's clear any lesser card in that lineup won't be up to the task. If you can't use that hardware, you get rid of it and, if you don't want to be slapped with frivolous lawsuits, you do your best to make the differentiation as clear as possible. In this case, you create a numbering scheme different from 20xx.
> Still pretty messy, I agree, but so is the whole movement to push RTRT into the mainstream a little too soon.



Ah that's ok then that someone agrees even with my crappy style of english lol  
Surprised then they didn't just release GTX cards in stead of RTX below 2070...  So GTX 2060 then RTX 2070...  Might have been a little better but I understand at least were your going


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 22, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> You do realize this has happened plenty times by this point right ? The 1060 wont remain forever in production.
> 
> The 2070 was sold at a lower price than the 1080ti but had comparable performance , how was that possible accordion to your logic ?


If Nvidia wants to sell all of their inventory of GTX1060 then they can't price It higher than It's successor unless they sell all stock before this new card is released.
2070 doesn't have comparable performance to 1080ti. It has weaker performance so It is price is also lower.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 22, 2019)

10% WQHD... about a half tier difference.


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 22, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> Looks like the cheapest GTX 1060s here in Finland are 220 euros for 3GB, and 259 euros for 6GB. Feels ridiculous that 1060 is about 2½yrs old, and they're still going for about their MSRP.


 If I am correct then MSRP doesn't include VAT, that's why It looks like It costs the same. AMD in this performance range has much better value(more Vram, same performance for less money).


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

phill said:


> Ah that's ok then that someone agrees even with my crappy style of english lol
> Surprised then they didn't just release GTX cards in stead of RTX below 2070...  So GTX 2060 then RTX 2070...  Might have been a little better but I understand at least were your going


Neah, simply changing RTX to GTX wouldn't have been enough. People are _that_ dumb.


----------



## Kissamies (Jan 22, 2019)

THANATOS said:


> If I am correct then MSRP doesn't include VAT, that's why It looks like It costs the same. AMD in this performance range has much better value(more Vram, same performance for less money).


Yeah our MSRPs includes VAT always.


----------



## Nxodus (Jan 22, 2019)

THANATOS said:


> If I am correct then MSRP doesn't include VAT, that's why It looks like It costs the same. AMD in this performance range has much better value(more Vram, same performance for less money).



more RAM that it can't utilize, worse power draw, worse thermals, worse compatibility, worse stability. Sure, AMD is naturally the better choice


----------



## phill (Jan 22, 2019)

bug said:


> Neah, simply changing RTX to GTX wouldn't have been enough. People are _that_ dumb.



I like to have a bit more hope but maybe that's miss placed  

Always remember this, higher numbers is better....


----------



## M2B (Jan 22, 2019)

Existence of this GTX 1060 replacement is actually needed, especially for laptop makers.
Nvidia needs something to compete with RX 590, imagine the day all the 1060s are out of stock, then what does nvidia have in the mainstream market? Nothing other than GTX 1050Ti replacement which obviously isn't going to be strong enough.


----------



## HD64G (Jan 22, 2019)

This GPU is made just to win over RX590 priced a bit higher. Simple as that.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jan 22, 2019)

Nvidia will price it at whatever it wants,  and people will just buy it, not complicated.  As long add their marketing and branding help up,  no need for them to be competitive at any level.


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 22, 2019)

Nxodus said:


> more RAM that it can't utilize, worse power draw, worse thermals, worse compatibility, worse stability. Sure, AMD is naturally the better choice


1. no, having more Vram is never a disadvantage 
2. yes, the power draw is very high
3. yes, temperature and fan noise is worse
4. worse compatibility? What do you mean?
5. worse stability? What do you mean?

For the price of 1050Ti 4GB you can buy a ~45% faster RX570 8GB with 3 games included. 
I think RX570 is a much better choice than 1050Ti.
RX580 vs GTX1060 It is more or less a tie in my opinion.


----------



## XiGMAKiD (Jan 22, 2019)

GTX 1660 Ti, let me guess it's gonna be priced at $280 and the GTX 1660 at $240 with performance equal to GTX 1060


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

yakk said:


> Nvidia will price it at whatever it wants,  and people will just buy it, not complicated.  As long add their marketing and branding help up,  no need for them to be competitive at any level.


Yeah, that's the problem with Nvidia, they're not competitive.


----------



## Kissamies (Jan 22, 2019)

THANATOS said:


> 1. no, having more Vram is never a disadvantage
> 2. yes, the power draw is very high
> 3. yes, temperature and fan noise is worse
> 4. worse compatibility? What do you mean?
> ...


And you can sell those games and then you can say that the card was cheap as bread.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jan 22, 2019)

bug said:


> Yeah, that's the problem with Nvidia, they're not competitive.



Great example


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 22, 2019)

A few weeks ago nobody believed a word of this rumor. lol.

It has its consequences though, and those aren't very good for the RTX proposition in a broad sense. This will stall adoption at least to some degree and it will make devs scratch their head when they decide to implement RTRT or not.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 22, 2019)

Why? In my head, it's a better decision to do this than to strap RT/TC to a card which literally doesnt have enough horsepower to run it and jack the price up.

RT capabilities will come down in price as time goes on. Remember these are almost 4 months old, not 4 years.


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> A few weeks ago nobody believed a word of this rumor. lol.
> 
> It has its consequences though, and those aren't very good for the RTX proposition in a broad sense. This will stall adoption at least to some degree and it will make devs scratch their head when they decide to implement RTRT or not.


Developers seem to have a problem moving to DX12 in general (BFV with DX12, an API designed to offer more fine grained control, eats more VRAM than with DX11!), I don't think the mid range of this generation will have an impact on them deciding to do the legwork or not. Nvidia's partner programs will have a much bigger impact on that.



EarthDog said:


> Why? In my head, it's a better decision to do this than to strap RT/TC to a card which literally doesnt have enough horsepower to run it and jack the price up.
> 
> RT capabilities will come down in price as time goes on. Remember these are almost 4 months old, not 4 years.


I'm pretty sure he's thinking installed base.
In my mind, this generation only serves as proving ground, so devs can see what's possible, with the installed base to come with future iterations (again, 7nm can't come soon enough).


----------



## efikkan (Jan 22, 2019)

Why do people fall for these kinds of "leaks" every time?
As I've pointed out many times before, unreleased products don't show up with a product name, they just display the device ID. The actual product name don't show up until the product release drivers. So whenever we see "leaks" like this, we know they are fake.

We went through this for months ahead of Turing, with loads of fake news from Videocardz and Wccftech about "1180" and "1180 Ti". But as always, we forgive and forget.
This time they've even managed to create a mock-up image of "*RTX* 1660 Ti". They don't even try to make it convincing…



IceScreamer said:


> Is this really called 1660Ti instead of 1160Ti?


It doesn't make any sense with the 16-series cards…
I wouldn't trust anything sources like Wccftech, Videocards, etc. "leaks" without any real sources. All the information about "1660" so far has been fake.


----------



## unikin (Jan 22, 2019)

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB -> 1536 CU + 1770 MHz/6000 MHz -> 5.44 TFLOPs = $279
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB -> 1280 CU + 1785 MHz/4000 MHz -> 4.57 TFLOPs = $250

If true, NVidia just pooped on us again. Waiting +2 years for 15-20 % performance increase? Shame, shame, shame on you NGreedia!


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

unikin said:


> GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB -> 1536 CU + 1770 MHz/6000 MHz -> 5.44 TFLOPs = $279
> GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB -> 1280 CU + 1785 MHz/4000 MHz -> 4.57 TFLOPs = $250
> 
> If true, NVidia just pooped on us again. Waiting +2 years for 15-20 % performance increase? Shame, shame, shame on you NGreedia!


I wonder what do you have to say about RX 590 with its 10% improvement over the RX 580, a year and a half later.

Also, great job pulling specs from where the sun don't shine.


----------



## unikin (Jan 22, 2019)

bug said:


> I wonder what do you have to say about RX 590 with its 10% improvement over the RX 580, a year and a half later.
> 
> Also, great job pulling specs from where the sun don't shine.



Similar specs came from AdoredTV's and RedgamingTech's sources... Where there's smoke there's fire, usually. 

As for n-x rebranding of Polaris going for $290 or R7 for that matter, Red team has lost it's mind. But I really don't care anymore. I will buy next GPU when I get GTX 1080 or better performance for 300 quid or less, be it from NVidia or AMD. Until then I'm out of the GPU buying game.


----------



## Casecutter (Jan 22, 2019)

Gone are the days (and in some ways gamers) who remember the days when you got a "decent performance jump", at a reduced MSRP.  I guess if we are generous the GTX 1070 8Gb was perhaps truly leveled off at +$350 in Nvidia mind.  Will a 16% increase, for 15% less cash feel like progress?   Let hope competition from Navi can break such lack luster stagnation. 

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-reduces-price-of-regular-gtx-1070.html


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 22, 2019)

I mean 16% at the same tdp is better then what amd has done so yea ...


----------



## steen (Jan 22, 2019)

THANATOS said:


> Having RT cores for anything under 2060 is pointless in my opinion so this is a good move. Even keeping the Tensor cores is questionable.



Then what of TU107? DLSS -> tensor cores.

The real question is whether "TU116" is a different die as speculated or a salvage yield of TU106 (RTX fused) given the purported 2060 PCB.



> What I don't like about 2060 and this cards is the 192bit bus.
> That is a big disadvantage because they can use either 3GB or 6GB of Vram.
> They should have used 256bit and then they could use 4GB or 8GB of Vram. With a 33% wider bus they could use a cheaper GDDR5 memory at least for this card.



I understand, esp given the 2060/70 FE have the same PCB, but bandwidth scaling & TU uarch improvements mean it does more with less. For 8GB frame buffer there's a less crippled TU106, the 2070 & TU107 2050 with 4GB. Marketing I'm afraid.



bug said:


> The thing is, when you only have one or two competitors, you're really, really careful not to ruin them. Otherwise you'd become a monopoly and subject to all sorts of extra attention. It's less of hassle to keep them around.



It's likely predatory pricing might draw more undue attention than other marketing programs... 



> Incidentally (and this is just speculation on my side) that's why Nvidia has surrendered consoles to AMD: to provide AMD a lifeline when they were getting hammered on the PC.



More a case of Nvidia being surrendered to the sidelines... There's the issue of not playing well with others and having burnt bridges with the big consoles. (also with Apple, Intel, Dell/HP, AIBs, etc.) Add to that their SOC sucked by comparison & no x86 licence. Custom semi is a relatively low margin but high volume business that NV might prefer to avoid when they see lower hanging, higher margin fruit anyway.



notb said:


> No *Every* company wants to be a monopolist, unless being owned by the government. Being a monopolist sucks *is awesome* and *but* makes the whole business *cost to the rest of the economy* much more expensive.



Fixed. MC=MR.



> Not to mention the state would do everything possible to divide such a company anyway



Debatable. It's not the US of the 1900s & Rockefeller only had 90% market power. The legal & regulatory burden of proof requires horizontal & vertical integration with market abuses. Given decades of deregulation & a generally  pro-right numbered supreme court, good luck with that.

Sorry for the long multi-quote.


----------



## Kissamies (Jan 22, 2019)

unikin said:


> GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB -> 1536 CU + 1770 MHz/6000 MHz -> 5.44 TFLOPs = $279
> GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB -> 1280 CU + 1785 MHz/4000 MHz -> 4.57 TFLOPs = $250
> 
> If true, NVidia just pooped on us again. Waiting +2 years for 15-20 % performance increase? Shame, shame, shame on you NGreedia!


I doubt, a typical gamer wouldn't probably know what he/she is buying. At least 1060 3GB vs 6GB was "more is more", when 3GB had less shaders with its lower VRAM.


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Jan 22, 2019)

<£200 and it could be interesting. Btw I think the performance in Ashes isn't a good overall test of this thing. Let's wait for proper reviews. I expect it will be 30%+ faster in most games. 

Honestly I dont want to regress in VRAM capacity and my 570 was £150 and already offers good 1080p performance and has 8GB so i'm gonna pass on this thx Nvidia.


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 22, 2019)

nvidias lossless memory compression more then quadruples effective memory bandwith in a lot of workloads buss width doesn't really matter anymore


----------



## illli (Jan 22, 2019)

This whole generation of cards has sucked. Price/performance has gone way down. 
This card should be $199 at most. The 2060 should be a $250 part, the 2070 should be the $350 part and so on. 
But no, NV got greedy.. and rightly so. They're basically like intel now, controlling most of the market, demanding inflated prices because they can get away with it.


----------



## Blueberries (Jan 22, 2019)

notb said:


> 2060 priced very affordably? It's a mid-range card, placed above the previous generation (1060 was $250 at launch).
> So Nvidia now needs 2 chips below - actual successors to 1050 and 1060.
> 
> I expected them to just go for 2030 and 2050, but it seems the 2000-series is RTX only.
> 1660 is going to replace 1060 and, clearly, there has to be some "1550" in the works as well.



I don't expect to get a 2019 Corvette for the same price as the 2016 Corvette either. The 2060 is priced correctly, I don't know why everyone expects everything handed to them. $350 is not a lot of money, that's a car payment.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 22, 2019)

Blueberries said:


> $350 is not a lot of money



Maybe, who is to say ?


----------



## Blueberries (Jan 22, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Maybe, who is to say ?



Anyone who's bought a house, car, refrigerator, a new set of furniture, a mattress...

It's not a lot of money. It's a luxury item. You don't need THE LATEST video card, and if you WANT it, you'll pay a premium. Welcome to the 21st century.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 22, 2019)

Blueberries said:


> Anyone who's bought a house, car, refrigerator, a new set of furniture, a mattress...
> 
> It's not a lot of money. It's a luxury item. You don't need THE LATEST video card, and if you WANT it, you'll pay a premium. Welcome to the 21st century.



Maybe you also don't need a car, or a new set of furniture. It's not a lot of money for you but not for everyone, it's a premium if you think it is. This is purely subjective.


----------



## Blueberries (Jan 22, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Maybe you also don't need a car, or a new set of furniture. It's not a lot of money for you but not for everyone, it's a premium if you think it is. This is purely subjective.



That was the point.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 22, 2019)

While most agree that Turing could use a little price cut, we still have to acknowledge the fact that production costs in general are increasing. If we are to expect significant improvements in the next years, then we probably have to accept minor price increases, as new nodes and new memory is increasingly expensive. We seem to be beyond the point where the benefits from the new nodes are great enough to offset higher wafer costs.

AMD struggled to make money on Vega 56/64 due to high production costs, and it's no accident their upcoming Radeon VII is priced at $700. While the price increase from Pascal to Turing might be a little more than just production costs (2080 Ti in particular), a sensible price is probably somewhere in the middle. While we want a sane competitive market, competition can also push prices too low and push parties out of the market.


----------



## Nkd (Jan 22, 2019)

OneMoar said:


> nvidias lossless memory compression more then quadruples effective memory bandwith in a lot of workloads buss width doesn't really matter anymore



Are you saying you don't need more vram because of that? Is so, you can have all the bandwidth but running out of vram is just that running out of it. Check out gtx 1060 ray tracing or ultra setting benchmarks. Hardocp did an in-depth analysis and 2060 was choking and those minimum frames were basically it running out of ram. The issue is not even the 6gb for me, issue is charging 350-400 for cards and having only 6gb of ram? Hard to recommend 2060 at this point.

Now to Nvidia's benefit yes the dies are bigger and the production cost is higher. But they needed to stop forcing RTX down people's throat with a card that can barely do it and runs out of ram at 1080p+ ultra settings. There is simply no excuse for 2060 being where its at.


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 22, 2019)

what on earth do you need more then 6gb of vram for at 1440p ?


----------



## Casecutter (Jan 22, 2019)

OneMoar said:


> I mean 16% at the same tdp is better then what amd has done so yea


How do we know about the TDP of this supposed GTX 1660... was that divulged yet?
Cause the GTX 1060 6Gb was a 1*2*0W TDP, a RTX 2060 is 160W TDP. (fixed that number miss-typed my bad)
The RX 580 is a 185W TDP, while the RX 590 is 175W TDP.

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/



efikkan said:


> AMD struggled to make money on Vega 56/64 due to high production costs


 At first perhaps but their overall sale on the interposer package is higher and the mark-up/profit verses a chip only.  That adds to their bottom line revenue.


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 22, 2019)

Casecutter said:


> How do we know about the TDP of this supposed GTX 1660... was that divulged yet?
> Cause the GTX 1060 6Gb was a 160W TDP, a RTX 2060 is 160W TDP.
> The RX 580 is a 185W TDP, while the RX 590 is 175W TDP.
> 
> ...



the tdp on the 1060 6gb is 120w knowing that and knowing what the tdp on the 2060 is it should be in that ballpark


----------



## efikkan (Jan 22, 2019)

Nkd said:


> OneMoar said:
> 
> 
> > nvidias lossless memory compression more then quadruples effective memory bandwith in a lot of workloads buss width doesn't really matter anymore
> ...


I just want to add, while memory compression doesn't help as much as *OneMoar* claims, Nvidia does draw more benefits from their compression than AMD.
This compression saves both bandwidth and memory usage, but the gains depends on the type of data. Most textures will not be compressed at all, but certain types of rendering buffers are mostly emptiness and can be massively compressed.


----------



## notb (Jan 22, 2019)

Blueberries said:


> I don't expect to get a 2019 Corvette for the same price as the 2016 Corvette either. The 2060 is priced correctly, I don't know why everyone expects everything handed to them. $350 is not a lot of money, that's a car payment.


1) Not everyone wants to spend a lot on a PC (it's not that important in their life).
2) $350 could be a "car payment" in some place and monthly salary in another.

Thing is: Nvidia has been selling huge numbers of $100-200 GPUs and there's no reason not to do so any more. Not making such cards will only push more people to consoles - a market in which Nvidia is not a big player.


Blueberries said:


> It's not a lot of money. It's a luxury item. You don't need THE LATEST video card, and if you WANT it, you'll pay a premium. Welcome to the 21st century.


A GPU is a luxury item? Seriously? And you mix up "latest" with "greatest", right?

Sure, we could have a model where only $300+ GPUs are released and they go down in price after 2-3 years.
So, for example, instead of buying a GTX 1050Ti, you could get a refreshed GTX 780.
It's a bit like what AMD is doing. And this leads to a situation where all cards (fast and slow) suck a lot of power. And where manufacturers have to support architectures for longer.
Anyway, people have chosen Nvidia's more purpose-built products. I don't understand why anyone would want them to become more like AMD, when we know this doesn't work.


----------



## Nkd (Jan 22, 2019)

OneMoar said:


> what on earth do you need more then 6gb of vram for at 1440p ?



Really? lol! Games are using more and more ram, not less. Look at hardocp review how the card choked on some of the games with ultra settings and especially RTX on. I wouldn't touch a card with less then 8gb of rams these days. Even 1080p ultra can choke the gameplay experience where you get minimum fps drop and stutter as it has to swap in and out of memory.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 22, 2019)

OneMoar said:


> nvidias lossless memory compression more then quadruples effective memory bandwith in a lot of workloads



That is *compression for color*. Shaders do a lot more than that, Nvidia has no where near the advantage that you claim (by the way where did you even got that from ? ) And aldo, everyone has color compression, even low power ARM GPU cores.



OneMoar said:


> buss width doesn't really matter anymore



Bus width is critical, Nvidia and AMD would use even more chips if they could but they are limited by PCB layouts. HBM also says hi, that memory technology relies a lot on very wide bus connections.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 22, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Bus width is critical


To what? High res gaming shows gddr5x and gddr6 have plenty. Remember when HBM w as first announced and didn't show gains low... but when it went against the same cards at higher res, it closed the gap. Last I recall that doesnt happen with gddr5x/6...is my memory messing with me?


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 22, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> To what?



Memory bandwidth performance.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 22, 2019)

That's what I thought.. the rest of my post applies. 

Edit: Confirmed. At least looking 2070+ anyway. All make the gap bigger as res goes up. This isnt a totally me.ory constrained thing, but that washvms big thing ...and at least in gaming, it's not doing much...compared to gddr6 that isnt 192bit bus.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 22, 2019)

Confirmed what ? I seriously don't known what are you on about. I simply said the bus width is a critical factor in deciding how the memory assembly will perform coupled with any GPU.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 22, 2019)

Bandwidth's effects. You were replying to onemoar who said bandwidth really doent matter. I supported his assertion (in gaming for what these cards are used for).

Apologies if I jumped in!


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 22, 2019)

Nkd said:


> Really? lol! Games are using more and more ram, not less. Look at hardocp review how the card choked on some of the games with ultra settings and especially RTX on. I wouldn't touch a card with less then 8gb of rams these days. Even 1080p ultra can choke the gameplay experience where you get minimum fps drop and stutter as it has to swap in and out of memory.


rtx is irrelevant for this card doesn't support it and its not fast enough to run it if it was 

*NEXT *


----------



## notb (Jan 22, 2019)

efikkan said:


> While most agree that Turing could use a little price cut, we still have to acknowledge the fact that production costs in general are increasing.


GPUs are custom made electronics. There is no indivisible production cost that goes up and pushes prices.
Yes, materials and workforce are becoming more expensive, but it simply means you have to make a slightly simpler product. Thanks to general technology improvement it will still be faster.

In other words: for each cost c above some minimal c_0 you can make an optimal GPU (i.e. fastest possible at cost c). Same goes for CPU.
And we know this minimal c_0 is tiny (you can buy "a PC" for $5 these days ).

Nvidia obviously doesn't have to increase prices to offer a better GPU than before. They do it, because they can.


----------



## M2B (Jan 22, 2019)

Nkd said:


> Really? lol! Games are using more and more ram, not less. Look at hardocp review how the card choked on some of the games with ultra settings and especially RTX on. I wouldn't touch a card with less then 8gb of rams these days. Even 1080p ultra can choke the gameplay experience where you get minimum fps drop and stutter as it has to swap in and out of memory.



Agreed.
I would get an RX 570 8GB instead of that shitty VRAM limited stuttery mess RTX 2060. [Sarcasm]
But the problem is that shitty VRAM limited stuttery mess RTX 2060 is faster than all mid-range cards (including Vega 56 and 1070Ti) with 8GB of VRAM at 1440p, so what to do?


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

Nkd said:


> Really? lol! Games are using more and more ram, not less. Look at hardocp review how the card choked on some of the games with ultra settings and especially RTX on. I wouldn't touch a card with less then 8gb of rams these days. Even 1080p ultra can choke the gameplay experience where you get minimum fps drop and stutter as it has to swap in and out of memory.


That BFV title looks really suspicious. DX11 sits comfortably within 6GB of VRAM. Yet simply switching to DX12 (no DXR) increases VRAM usage by 30%? With an API that's meant to offer finer grained control so devs can use resources more judiciously, no less. It's just one title, we clearly need to look at more, but this looks like sloppy programming to me.


----------



## M2B (Jan 22, 2019)

bug said:


> That BFV title looks really suspicious. DX11 sits comfortably within 6GB of VRAM. Yet simply switching to DX12 (no DXR) increases VRAM usage by 30%? With an API that's meant to offer finer grained control so devs can use resources more judiciously, no less. It's just one title, we clearly need to look at more, but this looks like sloppy programming to me.



As far as I know there is only one game that actually needs more than 6GB to run at 1440/ultra without being VRAM limited: Wolfenstein 2.


----------



## bug (Jan 22, 2019)

M2B said:


> As far as I know there is only one game that actually needs more than 6GB to run at 1440/ultra without being VRAM limited: Wolfenstein 2.


It's tricky to measure that. A smart game engine will fill-up whatever VRAM it finds pre-emptively. But there are no tools to tell you when that happens. The only way to know for sure is to watch whether the performance actually tanks when VRAM is being exhausted or not. I have seen that tested in reviews on TPU (on titles that aren't that demanding to begin with), but not on any other site.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 22, 2019)

bug said:


> It's tricky to measure that. A smart game engine will fill-up whatever VRAM it finds pre-emptively. But there are no tools to tell you when that happens. The only way to know for sure is to watch whether the performance actually tanks when VRAM is being exhausted or not. I have seen that tested in reviews on TPU (on titles that aren't that demanding to begin with), but not on any other site.


Exactly, allocated memory doesn't mean required memory.
Performance, stuttering in particular, is the indicator of insufficient memory.


----------



## M2B (Jan 22, 2019)

bug said:


> It's tricky to measure that. A smart game engine will fill-up whatever VRAM it finds pre-emptively. But there are no tools to tell you when that happens. The only way to know for sure is to watch whether the performance actually tanks when VRAM is being exhausted or not. I have seen that tested in reviews on TPU (on titles that aren't that demanding to begin with), but not on any other site.



https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-ray-tracing-turing,5960-7.html

The minimum framerate on the 2060 at 1440p is significantly lower than on vega 56 which is slower on average.
I believe it's VRAM related because Wolfenstein 2 is extremely VRAM hungry in general and is literally unplayable on a 4GB card at 1440p on max settings.


----------



## Blueberries (Jan 22, 2019)

notb said:


> A GPU is a luxury item? Seriously? And you mix up "latest" with "greatest", right?



Yes. It's a comfort item. You can build a PC without a dedicated GPU, it's not a necessary part, just like a dedicated sound card.


----------



## notb (Jan 22, 2019)

Blueberries said:


> Yes. It's a comfort item. You can build a PC without a dedicated GPU, it's not a necessary part, just like a dedicated sound card.


It makes no sense. The fact that one can live without a product doesn't make it a luxury. If you apply this condition, what non-luxury items are you left with? Water, vitamins and protein?

People that buy GPUs want them either for gaming or for work. I hope we don't have to discuss the latter. And is gaming a "luxurious" hobby now? Really?

And while this is quite fun, where are you going with this? That you have a lot of money to spend on your PC and you don't care about poorer fellows?


----------



## xorbe (Jan 23, 2019)

GTX 1060 SC 6GB has been on sale for $210 quite a few times.


----------



## Midland Dog (Jan 23, 2019)

gmn 17 said:


> A Turing 1880 ti would be ideal


nah i personally say that only 116 sillicon is needed, anything else with turing should be 7nm so they can double the rt ops per sm


----------



## Mistral (Jan 23, 2019)

So it's as fast as the RX590, not too bad...


----------



## Blueberries (Jan 23, 2019)

notb said:


> It makes no sense. The fact that one can live without a product doesn't make it a luxury.



That is literally the definition of luxury.

The 2060 has more performance at an MSRP of $350 than the 1070 at an MSRP of $370. The ridiculous idea that it should be priced at 1060 tier is something you made up in your head. 

You want a cheaper GPU? Buy a 10 or 9 series, the fact that you feel entitled to the latest part at whatever price you want is ludicrous.


----------



## Totally (Jan 23, 2019)

Blueberries said:


> That is literally the definition of luxury.



I and Merriam-Webster, and Oxford literally disagree. Just because one can live without something doesn't qualify it as a luxury. Also as a term Luxury is relatively subjective and not firmly objective.



> lux·u·ry
> /ˈləkSH(ə)rē,ˈləɡZH(ə)rē/
> _noun_
> 
> the state of great comfort and extravagant living.


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 23, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> nah i personally say that only 116 sillicon is needed, anything else with turing should be 7nm so they can double the rt ops per sm


Or increase the number of SM / ROP / TMU so you get a meaningful increase in 99% of games instead of just BFV.
You know like 70~100% increase per gen like it used to, instead of the 25~30% we got with Turing.


----------



## Blueberries (Jan 23, 2019)

Totally said:


> I and Merriam-Webster, and Oxford literally disagree. Just because one can live without something doesn't qualify it as a luxury. Also as a term Luxury is relatively subjective and not firmly objective.



Try extrapolating the words "great comfort" to this context. A luxury item is something you buy out of comfort and not out of necessity.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jan 23, 2019)

only one game & claims it's faster than the GTX1060 because of DX12 + A-Sync? not relevant enough to justify the nerfed Turing core. Would just settle with the 2060, water-cool it, OC it & be done with it.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 23, 2019)

Totally said:


> I and Merriam-Webster, and Oxford literally disagree. Just because one can live without something doesn't qualify it as a luxury. Also as a term Luxury is relatively subjective and not firmly objective.



Right, but when you apply 'necessity' to something like a GPU you want to use for gaming, you're just a spoiled brat. I think it *is* a sign of extravagant wealth that you can spend 350 or more on a graphics card just to play some games. That is a crapload of LEGO, right there, that you could also play with. 350 bucks also gets you a short holiday. It also feeds a few people for about a month.

So if you define a gaming GPU not as a luxury, maybe that is a definition of 'entitlement', then.



Blueberries said:


> Try extrapolating the words "great comfort" to this context. A luxury item is something you buy out of comfort and not out of necessity.



You're spot on. The endless complaining about price is not only pointless its also a bit sad. Yes its a lot of money, so either save up longer, or don't buy it... There is always going to be some item one might want that is priced out of reach.


----------



## medi01 (Jan 23, 2019)

Blueberries said:


> he ridiculous idea that it should be priced at 1060 tier is something you made up in your head.



After 2 iterations of stagnatn perf/$ with "but it ends with XX", we finally got the reverse version, very amusing.
Bending Over Backward Chronicles: Aggressive Nonsense.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 23, 2019)

medi01 said:


> After 2 iterations of stagnatn perf/$ with "but it ends with XX", we finally got the reverse version, very amusing.
> Bending Over Backward Chronicles: Aggressive Nonsense.



So you don't buy it. Problem solved... or you can do a medi01 and go full tantrum mode.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 23, 2019)

notb said:


> It makes no sense. The fact that one can live without a product doesn't make it a luxury. If you apply this condition, what non-luxury items are you left with? Water, vitamins and protein?
> 
> People that buy GPUs want them either for gaming or for work. I hope we don't have to discuss the latter. And is *gaming a "luxurious" hobby now*? Really?
> 
> And while this is quite fun, where are you going with this? That you have a lot of money to spend on your PC and you don't care about poorer fellows?


Yes it is a luxury! Are some *people on this forum so deluded* that they don't consider mid/high end PC/gaming a luxury?


Totally said:


> I and Merriam-Webster, and Oxford literally disagree. Just because one can live without something doesn't qualify it as a luxury. Also as a term Luxury is relatively subjective and not firmly objective.


Tell that to someone who lives on the street or barely gets a meal a day - *not because they made bad choices in life, but because they were not born into a privileged family*!


----------



## medi01 (Jan 23, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Problem


The problem of people "unfairly" complaining about  nvidia's price policy exists only in your head and, perhaps, other parts of your body.
Stagnant perf/$ and ever raising prices is not "a problem", but a fact.
If you have problems when people state it, perhaps you should try to figure, why.


----------



## notb (Jan 23, 2019)

Blueberries said:


> That is literally the definition of luxury.


No, it isn't!
There's only one decent definition of something being "a luxury" - that's "luxury goods" in economics. Simply put: these are things that you want more as they become more expensive (like collectables, art, jewelry etc).

Everything else is colloquial and varies from dictionary to dictionary (and from person to person).

There's no way to create a good definition of "luxury" the way you want. There's no objective condition, so you quickly end up with everything or nothing being luxurious. 


> The 2060 has more performance at an MSRP of $350 than the 1070 at an MSRP of $370. The ridiculous idea that it should be priced at 1060 tier is something you made up in your head.


I never said that. I said there's a need for a cheaper card.
You should concentrate more on reading and less on imagining new world order. 


> You want a cheaper GPU? Buy a 10 or 9 series, the fact that you feel entitled to the latest part at whatever price you want is ludicrous.


I can't buy a 9-series anymore and 10 will also disappear when cheaper 16/20-series arrive.
So what's your solution?

As I said: AMD does what you say - they release a high-end model and keep refreshing it in following years with lower prices. But we end up with inefficient cards (power-hungry, hot and noisy). Customers clearly prefer what Nvidia has been doing.

Moreover, GPU is more than just performance and efficiency. It's also about other technologies - like output standards, CUDA compatibility, supported hardware encoding etc. That's why refreshing (and updating these things) makes more sense than just selling the same card for 6 years.


Blueberries said:


> Try extrapolating the words "great comfort" to this context. A luxury item is something you buy out of comfort and not out of necessity.


Which gets as back to what I said: using your definition, the only non-luxury products are those our organism needs to function: water, food, oxygen etc.
But since these can be found for free in the wild, is everything you have to pay for a luxury?


R0H1T said:


> Yes it is a luxury! Are some *people on this forum so deluded* that they don't consider mid/high end PC/gaming a luxury?


If you base this on a definition that "luxury" is something you can live without, isn't any kind of gaming a luxury?

Are some people on this forum *so elitist and arrogant *that they need recognition for owning expensive hardware? :-D


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 23, 2019)

notb said:


> If you base this on a definition that "luxury" is something you can live without, isn't any kind of gaming a luxury?


Figuratively speaking - yes, in case of PC/console gaming though the costs range anywhere between 500$ to infinity. In many parts of the world, including my own, a person can easily live for a month (or more) off that kind of money. No matter how you look at it, it is a *luxury*.


notb said:


> Are some people on this forum *so elitist and arrogant *that they need recognition for owning expensive hardware? :-D


 I don't know honestly, I'm not someone who does that *nor am I in a position to judge others* on what they do - I also know how that'll pan out here. However given my background, surroundings & upbringing I've always thought of the "collective good" over individual prosperity & even though it may sound socialist - I don't support companies who put profits above all else.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 23, 2019)

medi01 said:


> The problem of people "unfairly" complaining about  nvidia's price policy exists only in your head and, perhaps, other parts of your body.
> Stagnant perf/$ and ever raising prices is not "a problem", but a fact.
> If you have problems when people state it, perhaps you should try to figure, why.



The problem is not unfair complaints, the complaints are valid (Turing is a big fat no-no for me), but these same people are still buying these cards, keeping the status quo intact. And 'Nvidia's' price policy... its the market's price policy really. Radeon 7 is a perfect example. Its a bit of hypocrisy if you ask me. Many people (and most don't even realize it) say to themselves 'that 20xx is too expensive, screw Nvidia, I'm buying a lower tier Nvidia card'  And the same thing happens on the AMD side, make no mistake. Complaints about price are as old as commerce and trade - its the eternal dance between customer and salesman at its core.

Stagnant perf/dollar has nothing to do with Nvidia but with a lack of competition. If AMD competed and if we had a sizeable performance boost this generation in both camps, thén you would have seen prices drop. It won't happen by complaining to Nvidia and still rewarding them with 80% market share. You can see this in the midrange where AMD is still playing; the price of Vega has dropped considerably and the 350 dollar price point is now fiercely fought over. Here, we can get GTX 1080 performance at 66% of the price (give/take) it used to be at launch.

I think we will see an interesting dynamic in the coming months/year, one where the midrange is more than sufficient for mainstream resolutions at pretty fantastic FPS and quality settings, while any more powerful GPU costs an arm and a leg. High end GPU will possibly stagnate even more or price itself out of the market - Turing is already a clear example of this with the 2080(ti) and Radeon 7 is following suit. And this may continue until either Nvidia or AMD find ways to implement an MCM solution effectively, doing the Zen yield efficiency trick all over again. Both camps now have super large dies in the high end, its not something they can keep up in a cost effective way. Neither Radeon 7 or TU102 are viable for future iterations at a reasonable price.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 23, 2019)

I think MCM will mostly be nonviable for the foreseeable future, in GPU space. Heck we haven't gotten past CF or SLI hangover, imagine something similar except in hardware.
Till we get there, if we cross that bridge, I'll hold on to that thought.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 23, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> I think MCM will mostly be nonviable for the foreseeable future, in GPU space. Heck we haven't gotten past CF or SLI hangover, imagine something similar except in hardware.
> Till we get there, if we cross that bridge, I'll hold on to that thought.



Fast interconnects have long been sci-fi, haven't they, its one of the few areas where we still see major advancements, most recently with IF. SLI/Crossfire have to make do with a standard PCIe bus to make multiple chips work. Or bridges. I can't believe that some IF-like solution cannot work as well or even better for GPUs. Its not like CPU isn't doing a lot in real time either, there is just less data being moved. Nvidia also has its Nvlink, which seems more suitable for GPU. Every competitor already has a fast interconnect technology waiting to be used.

Everything is possible I think its mostly a question of cost effectiveness, that is why you speak of a CF/SLI 'hangover' (there was also a time when it was almost mandatory for high-end performance!) and that is also why Zen is so succesful, it comes at a time where new nodes and the performance/die size we require are creating major difficulties in terms of scaling. Had AMD launched their Zen during the Bulldozer days, it may have fallen flat on its face because Intel could just as easily push out monolithic chips.



notb said:


> No, it isn't!
> If you base this on a definition that "luxury" is something you can live without, isn't any kind of gaming a luxury?



Yes. The penny dropped 

That is the essence of luxury. And as humans we are quick to forget that what we've attained are in fact luxuries and are quick to convert those into 'necessities' in our heads. That is exactly what you see here and exactly why some of you seem to have problems with stating that a video card is a luxury. Its called entitlement and its a widespread issue.

I prefer counting my blessings on what I have right now, and be thankful for every day I can live in wealth and good health. Once you've visited a few less fortunate countries (or live in one) you'll get a pretty clear picture of what is luxury and what is not. Its not abstract at all, the only abstract here is every individuals' frame of reference. Which can also be translated to 'you haven't seen much of the world if you think a video card is not a luxury'. Just because one lacks knowledge doesn't suddenly change a definition.


----------



## bug (Jan 23, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Fast interconnects have long been sci-fi, haven't they, its one of the few areas where we still see major advancements, most recently with IF.



I'm afraid IF might have been a one trick pony. It did the job for the first generation Ryzen, but hit a wall with Threadripper (IF eats more power than _all_ Threadripper's cores together). On top of that, AMD comes out and says IF doesn't scale, so Zen2 will still use a 14nm IF implementation.
At this point, it's as much a hindrance as much as it is a boon for the platform.


----------



## InVasMani (Jan 23, 2019)

Does this still have DLSS and mesh shading and simply lack RTRT? If so if priced the same or very close to the same as the 1060 then better than nothing at least.


----------



## Casecutter (Jan 23, 2019)

OneMoar said:


> the tdp on the 1060 6gb is 120w knowing that and knowing what the tdp on the 2060 is it should be in that ballpark


Total miss-type on the TDP of the GTX 1060...  So the GTX 1660 (or whatever) will be in the 160W TDP for the RTX 2060? How does that correspond to your statement...


OneMoar said:


> I mean 16% at the same tdp is better then what amd has done so yea ...



So, your dissing AMD, and I take it the RX 590 for 10% performance increase while a 5% TDP reduction?  Although admired to see 16% more performance but a TDP increase of 30% if looking at the ballpark of the RTX 2060?... That's what your words were implying ... Correct?

We can't get good comparison of actual perf/watt as W1zzard doesn't include the RX 590 in the latest reviews.  That said the RX590 is not nearly in the RTX 2060 territory, while actually hard to correlate that data point between reviews. Kind of wish their was like the Sapphire RX 590 NITRO+ Special Edition in those RTX 2060 charts... ugliness be dammed.


----------



## gasolina (Jan 23, 2019)

if this is 250$ and overclock well plus SLI support would be a very interesting deal to make .


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jan 23, 2019)

Zubasa said:


> nVidia's main goal as any company is to maximize profit, not to price AMD out of the market.
> If they can sell a card for $300 and still sell all of them, there is no reason to price it any lower.



Exactly, and until people stop obsessing over 10% performance differences this won't change.  But it _will_ change the second people realize those yearly hardware upgrades aren't making their games any better.

Hopefully people do realize that eventually...



bug said:


> I'm afraid IF might have been a one trick pony. It did the job for the first generation Ryzen, but hit a wall with Threadripper (IF eats more power than _all_ Threadripper's cores together). On top of that, AMD comes out and says IF doesn't scale, so Zen2 will still use a 14nm IF implementation.
> At this point, it's as much a hindrance as much as it is a boon for the platform.



AMD said that a die shrink of the IO _portion _ of a CPU's die doesn't scale better performance compared to die shrinking the cores.  You have it completely wrong lol, and AMD is correct in that statement.  For example it's not like die-shrinking Haswell's memory controller did a whole lot for performance or efficiency compared to die shrinking the actual cores.

Also just to be clear - *are you actually calling Infinity Fabric a "one trick pony"?*  Even if it was, that's one hell of a trick that allowed AMD to make Desktop cpu's that obliterate Intel's HEDT line-up.


----------



## Totally (Jan 23, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Yes it is a luxury! Are some *people on this forum so deluded* that they don't consider mid/high end PC/gaming a luxury?
> Tell that to someone who lives on the street or barely gets a meal a day - *not because they made bad choices in life, but because they were not born into a privileged family*!



Hence the term is relative, I was going to an example similar to what you just said then declined to figured you'd pick up on that and not try to split hairs but clearly not.

OMITTED example: It's a luxury for me to wake up and draw breath not as a citizen of North Korea every morning.


----------



## illli (Jan 24, 2019)

pretty sad these are the times we live in.  Past couple months you could buy a 1070/vega 56 for $299 or less, with game bundle... this 'new' card by nvidia is underwhelming.


----------



## bajs11 (Jan 24, 2019)

THANATOS said:


> GTX1060 is ~68% faster than 1050Ti and costs $210. This card is faster than GTX1060 and should cost under $200? I would love that, but It's unreasonable.


you sir and many other seem to have forgotten its 2019 now not 2016
by your logic then they should have just kept releasing 16% faster gpus and still charge 50-100 bucks more with each generation


----------



## efikkan (Jan 24, 2019)

illli said:


> pretty sad these are the times we live in.  Past couple months you could buy a 1070/vega 56 for $299 or less, with game bundle... this 'new' card by nvidia is underwhelming.


Which is called a sale.
It's not like the new cards are never going to have discounts.


----------



## bug (Jan 24, 2019)

Captain_Tom said:


> AMD said that a die shrink of the IO _portion _ of a CPU's die doesn't scale better performance compared to die shrinking the cores.  You have it completely wrong lol, and AMD is correct in that statement.  For example it's not like die-shrinking Haswell's memory controller did a whole lot for performance or efficiency compared to die shrinking the actual cores.


That's where IF is, so I'm not sure what's your beef here.


Captain_Tom said:


> Also just to be clear - *are you actually calling Infinity Fabric a "one trick pony"?*  Even if it was, that's one hell of a trick that allowed AMD to make Desktop cpu's that obliterate Intel's HEDT line-up.


Well, it's out for one generation and already isn't going place. What do _you_ call that?


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jan 24, 2019)

bug said:


> Well, it's out for one generation and already isn't going place. What do _you_ call that?



I am sorry - What isn't going places?


----------



## bug (Jan 24, 2019)

Captain_Tom said:


> I am sorry - What isn't going places?


This isn't going places: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13124/the-amd-threadripper-2990wx-and-2950x-review/4
It's stuck on 14nm, it will draw the same amount of power (give or take some tweaks).


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jan 24, 2019)

bug said:


> This isn't going places: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13124/the-amd-threadripper-2990wx-and-2950x-review/4
> It's stuck on 14nm, it will draw the same amount of power (give or take some tweaks).



What is *"it"*?  You think EPYC/TR isn't going to go anywhere?   LOL did you see the demonstration where an one single EPYC 3000 chip beat two of Intel's top XEON's while using less energy?

Have you missed the news lately?  AMD showed off an R5 3600 matching a $500 9900K while using close to half the energy.


----------



## bug (Jan 24, 2019)

Captain_Tom said:


> What is *"it"*?  You think EPYC/TR isn't going to go anywhere?   LOL did you see the demonstration where an one single EPYC 3000 chip beat two of Intel's top XEON's while using less energy?
> 
> Have you missed the news lately?  AMD showed off an R5 3600 matching a $500 9900K while using close to half the energy.


Ok now you're just playing dumb.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jan 24, 2019)

bug said:


> Ok now you're just playing dumb.



See there it is again - and that is why I am honored to be quoted in the signature of someone completely ignorant to what's going on in this space.  Makes me look smart.

I mean seriously listen to yourself - you are saying I am "playing dumb" when you literally haven't paid attention to the latest developments.  What's scary is there are people liking your posts that have absolutely zero facts behind them.  You clearly don't even know what Infinity Fabric is, and yet you seem to fancy yourself an armchair expert.   Then again fanboys like hearing fanboys parrot their own beliefs back to themselves....


*But I will continue to bite in the off chance you might want to learn - Why are you accusing me of "Playing Dumb?"   Have you actually not seen the latest demo's of the ZEN 3000 series?*


----------



## InVasMani (Jan 25, 2019)

Captain_Tom said:


> Exactly, and until people stop obsessing over 10% performance differences this won't change.  But it _will_ change the second people realize those yearly hardware upgrades aren't making their games any better.
> 
> Hopefully people do realize that eventually...
> 
> ...


 I think where a shrink on the I/O hub for AMD makes the most impact is just the space savings if that means possibly squeezing in another 2 chiplet's that's a big up lift in performance right there regardless of how it improves the I/O hub itself from a die shrink. It's something they can worry about more if Intel starts to catch up, but isn't likely to happen for awhile so no need to worry yet I'd say. In fact by the time Intel is a threat again they might be transitioning to 5nm anyway or on the verge of it.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jan 25, 2019)

InVasMani said:


> I think where a shrink on the I/O hub for AMD makes the most impact is just the space savings if that means possibly squeezing in another 2 chiplet's that's a big up lift in performance right there regardless of how it improves the I/O hub itself from a die shrink. It's something they can worry about more if Intel starts to catch up, but isn't likely to happen for awhile so no need to worry yet I'd say. In fact by the time Intel is a threat again they might be transitioning to 5nm anyway or on the verge of it.



Yep - actually rumors of Zen 3 point to exactly that.   Zen 3 should have slight but notable performance tweaks similar to Zen+, but with a complete rework of the I/O die (including a die shrink to 7nm+ for both the cores and I/O).  Supposedly going to cut overall power consumption in half again, and yes I suppose they could probably add one more chiplet if they really wanted to.


----------



## AnkitaMishra (Jan 27, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Under $300 would translate to $299 knowing Nvidia's recent pricing shenanigans. /s Hopefully the price is $250.


Price should be 139 USD because GTX 1660 Ti is successor of GTX 1050 Ti. The Successor of GTX 1060 6Gb is RTX 2070 8 GB (TU106).


----------



## John Naylor (Jan 27, 2019)

Wow ... it seems we have more economics PhDs on the forum than techno-geeks .  The economics are simple.

1.  Folks who make a living at this examine the market and ascertain "what the market will bear".
2.  Vendors will always sell at a premium over this number as early after release, they can't sell more than they can get,
3.  As supply catches up with demand, the sale prices will come into line.
4.  If supply can't keep up, prices will rise; if supply exceeds demand prices will drop.
5.  Prices will always follow what the market will bear.  It's not "shenanigans", it's called capitalism.
6.  Board members are fiscally responsible to their shareholders and have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder returns
7.  So pricing procedures will ignore any philanthropic reasoning; only 2 things can affect that.  a) competition and customer price ceilings
8.  AMD has been unable to compete in the upper tiers for some time and with each successive generation of late has lost 1 more tier.
9.  Customers want what they want ... until they are able to exercise restraint, the only option they have is buy and cry.
10.  In the US, we still have the tariff penalty.   Buy a complete PC made in china = no tariff .... buy the parts and built pay the penalty


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jan 27, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> Wow ... it seems we have more economics PhDs on the forum than techno-geeks .  The economics are simple.
> 
> 1.  Folks who make a living at this examine the market and ascertain "what the market will bear".
> 2.  Vendors will always sell at a premium over this number as early after release, they can't sell more than they can get,
> ...



One would call of this "common sense", but yes some people don't seem to have any around here.   My favorite complaints were the ones regarding Vega 64's prices a month after launch - they are elevated because the demand is higher than supply... not because AMD is "lying" lol.


----------



## AnkitaMishra (Jan 27, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> Wow ... it seems we have more economics PhDs on the forum than techno-geeks T.  The economics are simple.
> 
> it is not that simple and rather far from it, look at 10-series and 20-series comparison. 10-series up to 60 percent performance boost, 20-series nearly zero.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 28, 2019)

Captain_Tom said:


> One would call of this "common sense", but yes some people don't seem to have any around here.   My favorite complaints were the ones regarding Vega 64's prices a month after launch - they are elevated because the demand is higher than supply... not because AMD is "lying" lol.


lol, that's ok...nvidia is doing the same thing...its a two way street but some standing on either side of the road cant tell.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Jan 30, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> lol, that's ok...nvidia is doing the same thing...its a two way street but some standing on either side of the road cant tell.



I mean the "Founders Edition" was a load of crap, but at least now the founders cards do have good coolers, and in fact my main problem with the Founders cards wasn't Nvidia - it was nvidia fanboys acting like the AIB cards would ever be cheaper lol.   We all know that outside a handful of horrible and limited-run blower coolers, almost all AIB cards will cost more than the inferior founders cards.

Having said that, *yes - it is still Supply and Demand*.  If no one bought the founders cards, the MSRP would be "real."  People need to stop buying up new cards on release that are only 20% better than something they got years ago... or at least stop complaining when their actions lead to higher prices.


----------



## anubis44 (Jan 30, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Under $300 would translate to $299 knowing Nvidia's recent pricing shenanigans. /s Hopefully the price is $250.


Not likely. NVidia will actually try to charge $300 (or 20% more than the $250 price point of the GTX1060) for a card that's barely 15% faster than the previous generation equivalent.


----------



## gamerman (Feb 3, 2019)

yeah, why nvidia dont sell it 100$ and get free lisence next product and give free coffee also.. byaaa <--crying

why this complain...its cheap and nvidia are not charity factory, it need profit also, but, when it get cash from you,you  get best gpus,fastest,high new tech and excellent efficiency with whisper quiet.

it cost money.

buy rx 550 gpu its cost 100$, and be happy.


----------

