efikkanGTX 1060 => RTX 2060: +~63%(1440p) +~60%(1080p)

And 1060 => 2060, because they are called the same, right?
So had Huang named that 2050 it would be even cooler, right? I mean greater upgrade and all.
Or, perhaps, he could have named it 1550, just for lols ya know.

Now on the front that actually matters (unlike name that change nothing), the price:
1060 MSRP => $249, 2060 MSRP => $349, 40% higher price

GTX 1070 => RTX 2070: +~44%(4K) +~41%(1440p)

1070 ($379) => 2070 ($499) 31% higher price

GTX 1080 => RTX 2080: +~43%(4K) +~41%(1440p)

1080 ($599) => 2080 ($699) 17% higher price (how generous of them, eh?)

GTX 1080 Ti => RTX 2080 Ti: +~38%(4K) +~33%(1440p)

1080Ti($699) => 2080Ti ($999) wow, only 43% more expensive, for 33% higher performance, that's what one calls progress

Vayra86high-end-value kings.

As in "I can kinda sorta find some niche where obnoxious pricing doesn't look all that terrible", yay.

@medi01 You can't judge progress by high end prices. High end prices are always set as high as the market will take, they have less of a relation to the underlying hardware.
In the mid-range, we only have the 1660Ti so far to compare. Which is both too low a sample and too early to tell where it will settle.

bugYou can't judge progress by high end prices.

On what planet is 1060 "high end"?
The only semi-notable bump on perf/buck was 1080=>2080 "transition", where things got "only" 17% more expensive.
The rest was 30-40% bump on price.

Welcome back to planet Earth.

medi01On what planet is 1060 "high end"?
The only semi-notable bump on perf/buck was 1080=>2080 "transition", where things got "only" 17% more expensive.
The rest was 30-40% bump on price.

Welcome back to planet Earth.

On every planet where you don't judge products by their stickers. Price, performance and TDP make the 2060 a successor to 1070(Ti).

Edit: I realize it's hard to think of 2060 as high end when there are 3 more cards slotted above it. But if you move the 2080Ti in the Titan lineup (where it really belongs), I believe things start falling into place.

Cutting prices is a start, but won't help their company, they need to reduce heat and power consumption to be competitive.

bugPrice, performance and TDP make the 2060 a successor to 1070(Ti).

Oh. That's cool. Makes me wonder why original post positioned it vs 1060.
Probably with the same "logic".

And for "successors". Something beyond obvious is going on, but your eyes are so wide shut, you manage not to see it.
So let me spell it with big fat letters: "successor" cards used to show major perf/$ progress. This is gone now. Perf is bumped and so is price. Upfront with Pascal we got 330mm2 chip selling at 500mm chips price point. This trend continued with Tesla cards.

medi01Oh. That's cool. Makes me wonder why original post positioned it vs 1060.
Probably with the same "logic".

And for "successors". Something beyond obvious is going on, but your eyes are so wide shut, you manage not to see it.
So let me spell it with big fat letters: "successor" cards used to show major perf/$ progress. This is gone now. Perf is bumped and so is price. Upfront with Pascal we got 330mm2 chip selling at 500mm chips price point. This trend continued with Tesla cards.

So, my eyes are shut and you're angry at Nvidia because they don't compete well with themselves. Because that's totally what happens in other industries when only one player counts :kookoo:

Some people need to refresh their memory:

Prices have varied a lot.
So much for how things "used to be".

efikkanSome people need to refresh their memory:

Prices have varied a lot.
So much for how things "used to be".

Awwww... You just trampled the guy's right to selective memory :cry:

LOL, there will always be AMD fanboy idiots complaining about NVIDIA's pricing because their cognitive dissonance doesn't allow them to criticise the thing allowing NVIDIA to set high prices - namely AMD's lack of competitiveness.

bug....that's totally what happens in other industries when only one player counts

The part you are missing is a bunch of strange people twisting reality for 30-40%-ish price bumps to look like "progress".
It isn't the fact "why this is happening", for god's sake, of course because they can.
But people here try to deny "it" is happening at all.

Heck, even 16xx is "clear" naming.

Assimilatorthe thing allowing NVIDIA to set high prices

There are at least two things allowing nvidia to set high prices (which, I swear to god, I'd love to see even higher, much much higher), customers actually voting with their pockets. Happened just recently with NV missing revenue targets by 25%.

Assimilatorcriticise... AMD's lack of competitiveness.

Criticizing money starved underdog for not performing comeback on two fronts, that is what would be idiotic.
It's a miracle they managed to get back to "competitive with Intel" given resources they had.
On GPU front, with 7nm product consuming 25% more than competitor's 14nm (yeah, most "review" games are green yadayada, but that's the playing field we have for years to come), despite using less power hungry (and more expensive) RAM, uh, I don't see major comeback any time soon, there was that elusive 7nm Navi, which, if it even is released by the end of Summer, will be at least half a year too late, given 7nm from greedy green is not far away.

medi01The part you are missing is a bunch of strange people twisting reality for 30-40%-ish price bumps to look like "progress".
It isn't the fact "why this is happening", for god's sake, of course because they can.
But people here try to deny "it" is happening at all.

Wth does pricing to have with progress? It's you that brings unrelated concepts to the discussion in order to argue a conclusion you have already settled upon.

The cards are faster than the previous generation. The prices are over the top (depending on how you look at them, but let's go for worst case scenario for now). Even at those price perf/$ is still a little better than before. That's all there is to it.

bugWth does pricing to have with progress?

Everything. Tablets existed end of 90th. It took a price drop for them to become a mass product.

bugunrelated concepts

Oh, I'm so sorry to point out 30-40% price hike on cards listed as 30-40% faster, it's soo unrelated.

I do wonder what kind of "math" these AMD fanboys employ; where the quite significant gains of Turing isn't qualifying as progress but a Polaris and Vega refresh somehow is… :rolleyes:

efikkanPolaris and Vega refresh somehow is

Citation needed.

And great job derailing conversation into "progress" semantics.

medi01Everything. Tablets existed end of 90th. It took a price drop for them to become a mass product.


Oh, I'm so sorry to point out 30-40% price hike on cards listed as 30-40% faster, it's soo unrelated.

By the same logic, if someone built a rocket capable of carrying people to Mars, but it would cost $100bn, that wouldn't be progress.

Turing is progress. There are high-priced models, but everything else is better than Pascal. End of story.

btarunrAMD cut pricing of the Radeon RX Vega 56 in select markets to preempt the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti...... This development is significant given that the GTX 1660 Ti is rumored to perform on-par with the GTX 1070, which the RX Vega 56 outperforms. The RX Vega series is still very much a part of AMD's product stack, and AMD continues to release new game optimizations for the card. NVIDIA is expected to launch the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti within February. Although based on the "Turing" architecture, it lacks real-time raytracing and AI acceleration features, yet retains the increased IPC of CUDA cores from the new generation.

At relevant resolutions

www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GTX_1660_Ti_Gaming_X/28.html
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GTX_1660_Ti_Gaming_X/33.html
TPU was unable to test the Vega 56 OC but THG did and obtained 8%

At 1080p, the Vega 56 edges MSI 1660 Ti tested here by 1%, Doing the math ....

MSI 1660 Ti = 100 x 99.0 / 90.3 = 109.63
Vega 56 = 101 x 1.08 = 109.08

So that's pretty much a wash at 1080p... at 1440p ...

Vega 56 = 103 x 1.08 = 111.24 so Vega 56 gets the edge (1.61%) here.
Looking at ancilliary data...

Peak Power: Vega 56 (237 watts) / 1660 Ti (141) ... $76 in extra electric costs at 30 hours per week over 4 years (@$0.11 pr kwhr), + $20 on PSU purchase, $10 for extra case fan
Load Temps: Vega 56 (75C) / 1660 Ti (67)
Noise: Vega 56 (42 dbA) / 1660 Ti (32 dbA)

The 1660 Ti can be had for $279 on new egg today....lowest price for vega 56 is $369... $90 more. Given the ancilliary numbers, Im thinking the Vega is now**at best** a a $259 option.

From a personal PoV, the noise is a deal killer; I've looked at the AIB versions and noise is still waaay high by comparison. But it would cost me $165.80 in extra power costs (more with AIB) over 4 years plus a more expensive PSU and an extra fan (one 140mm fan per 75 - 100 watts)

medi01On what planet is 1060 "high end"?

I would call it the highest performance card in the "mid range" overall but certainly "high end of what 1080p users will have under consideration"and that comprises 60.48% of gamers. It is still the most popular card in use today with 14.87 % market share ... can't blame all that on "uneducated users". That's 18 times that of the 580 (AMDs best seller) which has 0.82%. And while, the 580 / 590 are faster "outta the box", considering their limited OC ability (4-5%), power heat and noise, I don't see a place for the 570 / 580 / 590 at current pricing.

John NaylorAt relevant resolutions

www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GTX_1660_Ti_Gaming_X/28.html
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GTX_1660_Ti_Gaming_X/33.html
TPU was unable to test the Vega 56 OC but THG did and obtained 8%

At 1080p, the Vega 56 edges MSI 1660 Ti tested here by 1%, Doing the math ....

MSI 1660 Ti = 100 x 99.0 / 90.3 = 109.63
Vega 56 = 101 x 1.08 = 109.08

So that's pretty much a wash at 1080p... at 1440p ...

Vega 56 = 103 x 1.08 = 111.24 so Vega 56 gets the edge (1.61%) here.
Looking at ancilliary data...

Peak Power: Vega 56 (237 watts) / 1660 Ti (141) ... $76 in extra electric costs at 30 hours per week over 4 years (@$0.11 pr kwhr), + $20 on PSU purchase, $10 for extra case fan
Load Temps: Vega 56 (75C) / 1660 Ti (67)
Noise: Vega 56 (42 dbA) / 1660 Ti (32 dbA)

The 1660 Ti can be had for $279 on new egg today....lowest price for vega 56 is $369... $90 more. Given the ancilliary numbers, Im thinking the Vega is now**at best** a a $259 option.

From a personal PoV, the noise is a deal killer; I've looked at the AIB versions and noise is still waaay high by comparison. But it would cost me $165.80 in extra power costs (more with AIB) over 4 years plus a more expensive PSU and an extra fan (one 140mm fan per 75 - 100 watts)

True, but you can give AMD some credit for this cards release. Without a very competitive product Nvidia wouldn't have lost all that value and thus been under the gun to deliver.

bugBy the same logic, if someone built a rocket capable of carrying people to Mars, but it would cost $100bn, that wouldn't be progress.

Because? I'm sorry, I have troubles following twisted minds.

All, but the top Turing card offers performance that was already available at roughly the same price.

Correct analogy would be someone building "even cooler" rocket, that would do exactly the same as older, non cool one and for the same price.

But let's dance with "progress" semantics, shall we.
Nothing can stop you from avoiding to hear it, certainly not some post on some random forum out there somewhere.

1660Ti card, bar the confusing naming, actually IS progress in perf/$ terms, thanks for consumers voting with their wallets against ngreedy policies.

John NaylorI would call it the highest performance card in the "mid range" overall but certainly "high end of what 1080p users will have under consideration"

Arguable at best.

@John Naylor
If you go that far in details, then please include 2 games bundled with V56, as well as 2Gb of RAM.
Price difference in Germany is 30 Euros, and I don't mean blower card.

RedwoodzTrue, but you can give AMD some credit for this cards release. Without a very competitive product Nvidia wouldn't have lost all that value

It wasn't AMD at all. It was people not buying GPUs any more (40% drop vs last year).
AMD is pretty much non-existent as far as setting green price goes at this point.