- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,944 (0.79/day)
Processor | AMD Ryzen 9 5900X ||| Intel Core i7-3930K |
---|---|
Motherboard | ASUS ProArt B550-CREATOR ||| Asus P9X79 WS |
Cooling | Noctua NH-U14S ||| Be Quiet Pure Rock |
Memory | Crucial 2 x 16 GB 3200 MHz ||| Corsair 8 x 8 GB 1333 MHz |
Video Card(s) | MSI GTX 1060 3GB ||| MSI GTX 680 4GB |
Storage | Samsung 970 PRO 512 GB + 1 TB ||| Intel 545s 512 GB + 256 GB |
Display(s) | Asus ROG Swift PG278QR 27" ||| Eizo EV2416W 24" |
Case | Fractal Design Define 7 XL x 2 |
Audio Device(s) | Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus |
Power Supply | Seasonic Focus PX-850 x 2 |
Mouse | Razer Abyssus |
Keyboard | CM Storm QuickFire XT |
Software | Ubuntu |
So, let's wait for actual benchmarks of finalized products then.The specs seem worse than they actually are (because of L2 cache and very high clocks)…
![Smile :) :)](https://tpucdn.com/forums/data/assets/smilies/smile-v1.gif)
Why?And VRAM capacity is an actual problem. 8 GB was already problematic on the 3070.
RTX 4060/4060 Ti is mostly going to be a 1080p card, or 1440p at medium details.
We've had this discussion with every generation; people make up subjective anecdotes about how much VRAM a card actually needs, when benchmarks show these cards still scale pretty well at even 4K resolutions. I wouldn't worry about 8 GB on a such card, both because I know how graphics actually works, but most importantly because benchmarks show they still run out of memory bandwidth and computational power long before VRAM under normal (realistic) use cases. Sure, you can load custom ridiculous texture packs which eats VRAM, but that's an unbalanced and unrealistic edge case, which shouldn't be the basis for buying recommendations.
And please don't bring up the future-proofing argument, that argument is BS and it hasn't held true in the past.
If you take into account the inflation levels of the product's lifespan, then it doesn't look that bad at all. Most years it's ~1.5-2.5%, but as we know the past couple of years combined is ~15% in the official numbers (~25%+ if we look at real inflation after the old models). So using the same assumptions as you, 3060 -> 4060, ~45% extra performance at roughly the same real price, then why complain?660 -> 960 - 37% performance increase with a 15% price decrease (I am ignoring the 760 because it was a refresh)
960 -> 1060 - 100% performance increase with a 25% price increase (there was also a slightly slower model with 3 GB at just $200, same as 960)
1060 -> 2060 - 56% performance increase with a 40% price increase
2060 -> 3060 - 21% performance increase with a 6% price decrease
3060 -> 4060 - ~45% performance increase with a 21% price increase (if leaks are true)
(Not trying to spawn a political discussion here, just trying to look at things from a real world perspective)
GTX 1060 was undoubtedly one of the greatest card deals of all times (possibly the greatest seller too?), and its dominance has several contributing factors;It seems pretty clear why the 1060 was the number 1 card on Steam for almost 6 years.
- The card was good (obviously), and despite the critics the cheap 3 GB version was plenty for most buyers in this segment.
- The supplies were great most of the time, could often be found below MSRP, especially the 3 GB version.
- The competition, RX 480/580, was in really short supply.
- The successor, Turing, was late (~2.5 years), and supplies weren't great initially.
I've built three systems with this card myself, and recommended it many times. The Pascal generation has held up pretty great overall too.
The solution is more competition. AMD (and Intel) needs to produce good cards in the mid-range and have good availability in all markets to really push prices down. Otherwise the current trend will continue.And it is beyond my comprehension why they do not want to achieve the same success with any card after that. Corporations' obsession with margins instead of overall profits is incredible (I experienced that myself working for one).