rtwjunkieOf course not!!! 1070 is. It is the SAME POINT IN NVIDIA’s lineup! Even Nvidia, whose products they are tell you that each model replaces itself. 60 to 60, 70 to 70, 80 to 80. Its not a hard concept to grasp.

If they did not get better than higher level models of previous gens, there would be no need to ever produce anything new.

bugAh, another one that can't see past numbers on the box. I can't fix that buddy.

rtwjunkieLet me make it easy for your obtuseness.

A BMW 3 series gets a new model year. The new model year is as powerful as last years 5 series. Does that make the new one a 5 series? No! It makes it a new and more powerful 3 series.

Same thing applies to video cards.

bugThat's a pretty poor analogy. Cars are segmented by features and options, something that doesn't really apply to video cards.

Still, following your line of thought, if 2060 is the successor to 1060, what does that make the 1660(Ti). Because all your reasoning seems to be built around ignoring those cards even exist.
We now have more model numbers. In my opinion, it's the 1660(Ti) that makes all other cards look like they were mislabeled.

64KBut you do get features and options with cards.

For example the GTX 1060. All of which had the same die size of 200 mm² and 4.4 billion transistors and 192 bit Memory Bus. You could choose between:

1060 3GB 1152 Shaders and GDDR5 VRAM 192.2 GB/s bandwidth
1060 6GB 1280 Shaders and GDDR5 VRAM 192.2 GB/s bandwidth
1060 6GB 1280 Shaders and GDDR5 VRAM 216.7 GB/s bandwidth (higher clocked 9 Gbps VRAM)

Nothing changed on the size of the die or transistor count nor the size of the memory bus width. In short none of the improvements turned a 1060 into a 1070 overclocked versus overclocked.

1070 8GB 1920 Shaders and GDDR5 VRAM 256.3 GB/s bandwidth and 256 bit Memory Bus and Die Size 314 mm² and 7.2 billion transistors

Nvidia has turned everything into a confusing mess for consumers with the Super series and the naming conventions and they have done this before with the Kepler series 7 years ago.

bugOk, that's just dumber to the rescue of dumb.

64KWhen you start calling people dumb and dumber.......that's when the discussion starts to derail into shit.

Be better than that bug.

GoldenXThe whole line is a mess of expensive products and cut down features. And the worst part is that it still is the best choice right now.

bugThat may have been uncalled for.
But that doesn't change my argument. With Pascal, starting with the midrange at ~$200 we had:
1060 ($200-250)-> 1070 ($380-450) -> 1080 ($500-700)
With Turing, excluding the Supers, starting with the midrange at ~$200 we have:
1660 ($220-280) -> 2060 ($350) -> 2070 ($500) -> 2080 ($800)

The obvious nomenclature shift (and major snafu on Nvidia's part) seems to be something people try hard to miss.

64KIt's the RTX thing. The Tensor Cores and RT cores made the dies really large on Turings except for the 1660 and 1660 Ti and since Nvidia pays per wafer. They get fewer GPU's per wafer and the cost increase is passed on to consumers and the faster GDDR6 for cards which is more expensive.

I can't say at this time whether Nvidia was right or wrong with pushing Ray Tracing. Time will tell but for now the prices are painful for most gamers looking to upgrade from Maxwells or even Keplers. Pascal owners should probably wait it out until next year if they can.

GoldenXThe whole line is a mess of expensive products and cut down features. And the worst part is that it still is the best choice right now.

Vya DomusI can't see how the ultra mega super RTX 2060 at 400$ would be the better choice versus a 380$ 5700.

bugI know about the die size.
But I would have named everything differently:
1660 -> 2060*
2060 -> 2070
2070 -> 2080
2080 -> 2080Ti

And I'm sure there would have been much less complaints. Hell, I have written before if I were Nvidia I would have introduced RTX in Quadro cards first because of the large dies. But with AMD such a no-show, they must have seen an opportunity to milk the market.

*this would have been a GTX, of course

Vya DomusI can't see how the ultra mega super RTX 2060 at 400$ would be the better choice versus a 380$ 5700.

GoldenXThe fact that the Navi one should have went against Pascal, not Turing.

Vya DomusSo, the history of what should have went against what is more relevant than the here and now ? I don't think this is about what's the better choice any longer but AMD seems to have understood that thankfully

GoldenXNvidia could do that before because they had the market share, AMD doesn't.

GoldenXThey want to enter the battle without being on par on features (mesh shaders, any sort of RT).

Vya DomusWe both know stuff such as mesh shaders and RT mean jack shit if market share is your goal.

GoldenXIf you aren't on feature parity on the long run, you end up like SiS, VIA, Matrox, etc.

ZoneDymoand really, these prices are just ridiculously high and have been from the start.

Vya DomusNot when the features are found in <1% of the software recently released (being generous here).

AnymalSimilar situation as in 1999 with T&L and Geforce 256. Maybe nvidia is not that stupid. People hates what they dont understand. BTW, 1660 for 220€ and 1660ti in DE are great p/p against 1060 3gb and 1060 6gb. Peace out!