Prediction about RTX 5000 Series

[Zazigalka]

I speculate each card will be more expensive than the the previous generation and every card will get 8GB of RAM.

I think vram will go down the higher the tier.

 

[Laurijan]

5080 seems like a 5070 this time Nvidia's 80 class SCAM version 2.0 (youtube.com)

 

[Ibotibo01]

They could, but leaks indicate that GB207 is smaller than AD107, with only 2560 CUDA cores and 32 ROPs. Even if Nvidia do unleash the full potential of GB207 in the 5060, it won't be much faster than the 4060.
If the 5060 does actually have 3584 CUDA cores (either if GB207 is bigger than leaks indicate, or if it's based on a cut-down GB206) it could be a decent bit faster than the 4060, and would likely be about as fast as your prediction indicates, assuming Blackwell has at least modest architectural and/or clock-frequency improvements over Lovelace.
GB206 supposedly has 4608 CUDA cores and a 128-bit bus, the same as AD106. It could possibly match the 4070 if it uses 3GB GDDR7 chips, but would otherwise be limited by VRAM capacity. I don't think it would actually benefit much from a 192-bit bus if 4x3GB is cheaper than 6x2GB, as GDDR7 (at 32Gbps) on a 128-bit bus will have slightly more total bandwidth than the GDDR6X (at 21Gbps) on an RTX 4070. A 128-bit bus could cause problems if they use slower 28Gbps GDDR7 though, or if 3GB chips aren't available at reasonable prices when Nvidia starts manufacturing RTX 5060 Tis.

I expect that the 5060 will be based on a cut-down GB206 and that the much higher bandwidth of GDDR7 compared to the 4060 Ti's 18Gbps GDDR6 will allow it to outperform the 4060 Ti, which is severely bandwidth-limited. I'm a lot more pessimistic than you in my prediction of the 5060 Ti though: if it only has 8GB VRAM, it's DOA except for competitive esports; any 16GB version would require clamshelling and be too expensive, like the 4060 Ti 16GB; and if it has 12GB it's likely to either be too expensive or to come out too late to matter. Nvidia could surprise me though.

I didn't know that. I had just assume what will be next if trend of die of 107 would continue So, RTX 5060 would be based on GB206. They could increase core count of 5060 to 4096. Even, 4608 couldn't be enough for GB206 die. They won't use GB205 or GB204 for 5060 Ti. Its performance could be same level with 4070 but at 1080p. I saw recent leaks about RTX 5070. It is frustrating. How could it be same with 4070 Ti? Already, we have RTX 4070S for $599. Why we buy this DOA or disaster? This is non-sense. It is Nvidia, maybe they could use GB207 for 5060. They could give 12GB VRAM on 192 bit bus along with GDDR7. It could increase performance levels to RTX 4060 Ti. RTX 5060 12GB (2560 cores) = RTX 4050 (140W Laptop)x1.08(96 bit to 128 bit)x1.15(128 bit to 192 bit)x1.2(Architectural Boost)x1.08(GDDR7) = 1.60 so for comparing RTX 4060 we need to divide this with 1.23 and it will equal to 1.30 so performance level will be on par with RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB or RTX 3070. RTX 5060 GB207 with 12GB is okay-ish for $299. I personally have been considering RTX 5060 would replace my 3060 but if this will happen I don't know I will buy even with $299. On the other hand, RTX 5060 Ti would only have 8GB. But if it would have 12GB or 16GB, I will want to buy that. But at what cost?

 

[Speedyblupi]

They won't use GB205 or GB204 for 5060 Ti.

Why not? Apparently there is no GB204, but GB205 is supposed to be smaller than AD104. They probably wouldn't use the full die, but I don't think a cut-down GB205 die being used for the RTX 5060 Ti is unrealistic. The RTX 4060 Ti didn't sell that well, I think Nvidia will want to give it at least a modest upgrade. By selling the full GB205 die as the RTX 5070 12GB for ~$550, they can still make a ton of profit on the cut-down die as an RTX 5060 Ti with 10GB or 12GB at ~$450. They'll make better margins than on the current RTX 4070 (because the die is smaller) or RTX 4060 Ti 16GB (because clamshelling RAM is expensive, even though the GPU die is cheap), and Nvidia fans will buy it.

It is Nvidia, maybe they could use GB207 for 5060. They could give 12GB VRAM on 192 bit bus along with GDDR7.

No. There's no chance whatsoever that GB207 will have a 192-bit bus. It would make the die significantly larger (the bus width isn't just a result of how many RAM chips are connected - the physical interfaces and memory controllers need to be built into the GPU, and they take up a significant proportion of the die area), and it just isn't necessary on a GPU as weak as GB207 is expected to be, especially if it uses GDDR7 (to be fair, according to leaks, GB207 might be limited to GDDR6; but it would still be slower than an RTX 4060 Ti, which uses 128-bit GDDR6, so GB207 doesn't even need GDDR7 in order to avoid being severely limited by bandwidth). Giving such a small die a 192-bit bus would be a waste of money (assuming the leaks are accurate and GB207 has 2560 CUDA cores, a version with a 192-bit bus would be about 15%-20% larger than one with a 128-bit bus, therefore about 15%-20% more expensive; plus the VRAM itself would cost 50% more). Nvidia wasting money and giving us more VRAM than they think we need, in a generation where they adopt a much faster and more expensive type of VRAM, is absolutely the last thing they would do.

Even though the RTX 5060 being limited to 8GB VRAM would suck, I'm certain that Nvidia would rather wait for 3GB GDDR7 chips to come out so they can give it 12GB while minimising their own costs, and use the limited VRAM capacity as an excuse to upsell us on more expensive GPUs with wider buses in the meantime. If Nvidia were really worried about the RTX 5060 being outcompeted by cheaper AMD GPUs, maybe (if the leaks aren't up-to-date) they would give GB206 a 192-bit bus and base the RTX 5060 on that die, but GB207 having a 192-bit bus is unrealistic. It's questionable whether GB206 would benefit from a 192-bit bus; GB207 definitely won't have one. If the RTX 5060 is 12GB, it's either using 3GB chips or using a larger die.

 

[Ibotibo01]

By selling the full GB205 die as the RTX 5070 12GB for ~$550, they can still make a ton of profit on the cut-down die as an RTX 5060 Ti with 10GB or 12GB at ~$450.

$450 is a little harsh but it should be faster than 4070S for justifiying the cost.

They'll make better margins than on the current RTX 4070 (because the die is smaller) or RTX 4060 Ti 16GB (because clamshelling RAM is expensive, even though the GPU die is cheap), and Nvidia fans will buy it.

What is the most effecting cost between die size or VRAM modules? For example, according to the below graph, it states that one module cost is $2.274 and if we are multiply this by 8, we will find the 8GB cost which is $18.16. It is quite low price. If we are comparing 3 years, we would see cost of GDDR6 modules decreases to 1/6 of price, even more less. So how couldn't they deliver more VRAM sizes for 4060? They could give 16GB variant for $349 with just increasing cost of $18. I think they want to sell only High-End GPUs.

View attachment 1729151030742.webp

Even though the RTX 5060 being limited to 8GB VRAM would suck, I'm certain that Nvidia would rather wait for 3GB GDDR7 chips to come out so they can give it 12GB while minimising their own costs, and use the limited VRAM capacity as an excuse to upsell us on more expensive GPUs with wider buses in the meantime.

Actually, yes. Yesterday's leaks showed Nvidia could release RTX 5060 in March 2025 but they would postpone to July or June for waiting 3GB modules or maybe giving two variants. I don't want to believe GB207 option. If GDDR6 will be used on GB207, we could see RTX 5060 16GB GDDR6. It's performance could be nightmare. You are right it cannot compete with 4060 Ti. It's performance could match with 6700 XT or 3060 Ti and 10-15% slower than 4060 Ti. On the other hand, if they will use GB206, it would be on par with 3070. I would select RTX 5060 8GB GB206 GDDR7 over GB207 16GB GDDR6.

 

[Speedyblupi]

What is the most effecting cost between die size or VRAM modules? For example, according to the below graph, it states that one module cost is $2.274 and if we are multiply this by 8, we will find the 8GB cost which is $18.16. It is quite low price. If we are comparing 3 years, we would see cost of GDDR6 modules decreases to 1/6 of price, even more less. So how couldn't they deliver more VRAM sizes for 4060? They could give 16GB variant for $349 with just increasing cost of $18. I think they want to sell only High-End GPUs.

View attachment 367917View attachment 367915

This is true, but 8Gb VRAM chips are generally obsolete, no GPU that's still being manufactured in significant volume uses them (unless Nvidia is still making GTX 1650s/MX550s for low-end laptops, which is possible but unlikely at this point). I can't find spot prices for 16Gb GDDR6 (except at Mouser, which only has it them for £15 or more - Nvidia clearly isn't paying that much), but I expect they cost more than $2.274 per GB.

Much of the VRAM cost of the RTX 4060 Ti 16GB (and also the RX 7600 XT) comes from "clamshelling", rather than just the VRAM itself.
In order to fit 16GB RAM on a 128-bit bus using 2GB (16Gb) chips, they need to put chips on both sides of the circuit board. This means that both the circuit board and the assembly process to install the VRAM onto it need to be more complex. It's not possible to fit 16GB on a 128-bit bus using 8Gb chips, as each chip is 32-bits wide and they can fit up to 2 chips per memory controller by clamshelling.

I didn't mean to imply that the RTX 5060 can't have 16GB VRAM, it can, it would just require clamshelling. It might be available in both an 8GB and 16GB version, like the RTX 4060 Ti. But if there is a 16GB version of the RTX 5060, I expect it will be overpriced relative to its performance advantage over the 8GB version, like the RTX 4060 Ti 16GB was.