NVIDIA Readies GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Based on TU116, Sans RTX

[PLSG08]

Wouldn't it be easier to name if its the GTX 2060 and RTX 2060, rather than a whole new nomenclature?

 

[Ruru]

Wouldn't it be easier to name if its the GTX 2060 and RTX 2060, rather than a whole new nomenclature?

That would be the most wise branding for these. RTX for raytracing, GTX for no raytracing. And they could still put low-end models for 2000 series, just like with good old GT and GTS.

 

[Vayra86]

source: VideoCardz

ah ok, fake news then

I wouldn't count on it. How else are they going to populate the midrange and entry level? Its either going to be Pascal refresh or this Turing adaptation, and it clearly isn't going to be larger than required Turing RTX dies further cut down - they are still competing with AMD especially in this segment and they have to compete on raw price/perf.

The biggest question is really just what name they will give it. It seems like they want to separate RTX 2xxx from everything else very clearly, which also hints at RTX's future - not very rosy. If they keep it segmented off for a high end proposition, it will die. For the current high end, we may yet see them fill up the entire product stack with non-RT capable Turing cards. Don't be surprised if they do - after all, shareholders rule the game, not gamers. If they can't sell Turing RTX cards, they will start pushing alternatives. They might also not be so keen on lowering prices because Turing RTX dies are still massive, yields won't be fantastic, and a non-RTX die can easily be 20% smaller.

I just need to look at my own situation: RTRT is a complete dud so far, my 1080 runs everything I throw at it and if I was high-res gaming, a 2080 would be the only possible move forward but its already priced way out of my comfort zone. 1080ti's are pretty much gone by now. So what's left? A 2070 for nonexistant RT and zero extra performance? A Radeon VII if I'm really desperate? And all that trouble just to get 1080ti performance two years after it released? Nvidia can't explain to any shareholder that the entire Pascal high end customer base has no incentive to upgrade within their product stack. Radeon VII, even if its only a symbolic launch, is right there ready to throw a spanner in the works up unto 2080 levels as well - even just the chance of AMD changing course and pushing more of those out at aggressive pricing can be enough to make buyers wait it out. Shareholders aren't going to buy the RTX marketing BS like some consumers did - they're not going to sit there and wait because Nvidia says so. Money rules, look at the chart below, factor in Nvidia's outlook, and consider you having a bunch of shares - buy, keep or sell? I'd be selling right now; Nvidia isn't going to release another Pascal anytime soon and mining is dead.

Remember, you're looking at a company whose stock price took a nosedive this year and set them back to 2H2017. All bets are off.

 

[Rahnak]

I seriously doubt they'll release any new GTX cards that outperform the RTX 2060 even in non-raytracing gaming as that would cripple their push for RTX adoption.

 

[Argyr]

I wouldn't count on it. How else are they going to populate the midrange and entry level? Its either going to be Pascal refresh or this Turing adaptation, and it clearly isn't going to be larger than required Turing RTX dies further cut down - they are still competing with AMD especially in this segment and they have to compete on raw price/perf.

The biggest question is really just what name they will give it. It seems like they want to separate RTX 2xxx from everything else very clearly, which also hints at RTX's future - not very rosy. If they keep it segmented off for a high end proposition, it will die.

I don't know man, this whole story stinks. Let's say Nvidia knew RTX would be a flop, why would they release 2xxx first? Why not release 11xx first and let RTX tech advance a little more behind the curtains. Releasing 2xxx first then 11xx sounds absolutely retarded.

 

[Vayra86]

I don't know man, this whole story stinks. Let's say Nvidia knew RTX would be a flop, why would they release 2xxx first? Why not release 11xx first and let RTX tech advance a little more behind the curtains. Releasing 2xxx first then 11xx sounds absolutely retarded.

People would NEVER upgrade to RTX if it was more expensive and offered equal or less performance. That is why we saw the unique timing of Pascal's overstock drying up just about when Nvidia's Turing line up was hitting the shelves. They're like that salesman saying 'these are the last ones' only to pull out another box when his new product arrives a bit late. Nvidia creates artificial demand by carefully controlling the supply chain.

Even on this very forum there is a whole bunch of users that upgraded to a 2070 or 2080 because the 1080ti's were all gone or priced out of reach. That alone answers your questions perfectly. People don't buy RTX for the RTX. They buy it for performance over what they had prior to it.

Nvidia sincerely believed they had it all sorted out with RTX: they own the high end market, and they were going to give it something new to spend on. It is pure arrogance and it always meets the same end: a slow, painful death. Gsync is a recent example of that - they're still trying to market that as something that is on another level as VRR while everybody with two brain cells knows its not. PhysX: the only part of it that is alive is the shared CPU code. Not the GPU acceleration that is proprietary. GameWorks: the only tech that survives more than a handful of games is that which is picked up as industry standard, stuff like FXAA for example. That is also the irony of all that proprietary tech; if its truly good, its almost impossible to not make it a standard; the market almost forces you to do so.

So, why 11xx after 20xx? Right now you've got tons of gamers with fat wallets sitting on their money, waiting for something worth spending on. They still want their high refresh 1440p content driven, they still want their 4K ultra, and they still want their 1080p120+, and they are done paying a premium on it when there is no need to. 11xx can easily capture that market right now, minds are ready for it. Look at how happy people (even W1zzard) became when the 2060 rivalled 1080 performance at a 350 dollar price point. Progress! An actually interesting product in an otherwise desolate landscape. I will say this: when an Nvidia x60 card is the greatest reason for joy something is very, very wrong with your proposition

 

[kings]

If it brings GTX 1070 performance or near that level for $250, Nvidia could have a massive winner on this one!

 

[SIGSEGV]

why would they wanna release this kind of gpu? lol









i knew it... lol

 

[Manu_PT]

I wouldn't count on it. How else are they going to populate the midrange and entry level? Its either going to be Pascal refresh or this Turing adaptation, and it clearly isn't going to be larger than required Turing RTX dies further cut down - they are still competing with AMD especially in this segment and they have to compete on raw price/perf.

The biggest question is really just what name they will give it. It seems like they want to separate RTX 2xxx from everything else very clearly, which also hints at RTX's future - not very rosy. If they keep it segmented off for a high end proposition, it will die. For the current high end, we may yet see them fill up the entire product stack with non-RT capable Turing cards. Don't be surprised if they do - after all, shareholders rule the game, not gamers. If they can't sell Turing RTX cards, they will start pushing alternatives. They might also not be so keen on lowering prices because Turing RTX dies are still massive, yields won't be fantastic, and a non-RTX die can easily be 20% smaller.

I just need to look at my own situation: RTRT is a complete dud so far, my 1080 runs everything I throw at it and if I was high-res gaming, a 2080 would be the only possible move forward but its already priced way out of my comfort zone. 1080ti's are pretty much gone by now. So what's left? A 2070 for nonexistant RT and zero extra performance? A Radeon VII if I'm really desperate? And all that trouble just to get 1080ti performance two years after it released? Nvidia can't explain to any shareholder that the entire Pascal high end customer base has no incentive to upgrade within their product stack. Radeon VII, even if its only a symbolic launch, is right there ready to throw a spanner in the works up unto 2080 levels as well - even just the chance of AMD changing course and pushing more of those out at aggressive pricing can be enough to make buyers wait it out. Shareholders aren't going to buy the RTX marketing BS like some consumers did - they're not going to sit there and wait because Nvidia says so. Money rules, look at the chart below, factor in Nvidia's outlook, and consider you having a bunch of shares - buy, keep or sell? I'd be selling right now; Nvidia isn't going to release another Pascal anytime soon and mining is dead.

Remember, you're looking at a company whose stock price took a nosedive this year and set them back to 2H2017. All bets are off.

View attachment 114644

Imo their whole rtx line up is a disgrace because apart from RTX 2080ti they add absolutely nothing to the table performance wise. Ray Tracing is almost useless in 2019, will be in 2020, and when it is relevant you already need to buy new gpu model.

Meanwhile the prices kept getting worse, and we are guilty too. People going crazy because the 7th, I repeat, 7th fastest gpu in the world right now costs "only" 420€ here on Europe (rtx 2060). So they buy it like hot cakes. Pathetic.

 

[Ruru]

why would they wanna release this kind of gpu? lol









i knew it... lol

Why not? Everyone isn't drooling about RTX ON.. I see more difference when switching from high settings to very high/ultra settings than some dumb ray-tracing.

 

[Argyr]

People would NEVER upgrade to RTX if it was more expensive and offered equal or less performance. That is why we saw the unique timing of Pascal's overstock drying up just about when Nvidia's Turing line up was hitting the shelves. They're like that salesman saying 'these are the last ones' only to pull out another box when his new product arrives a bit late. Nvidia creates artificial demand by carefully controlling the supply chain.

Even on this very forum there is a whole bunch of users that upgraded to a 2070 or 2080 because the 1080ti's were all gone or priced out of reach. That alone answers your questions perfectly. People don't buy RTX for the RTX. They buy it for performance over what they had prior to it.

Nvidia sincerely believed they had it all sorted out with RTX: they own the high end market, and they were going to give it something new to spend on. It is pure arrogance and it always meets the same end: a slow, painful death. Gsync is a recent example of that - they're still trying to market that as something that is on another level as VRR while everybody with two brain cells knows its not. PhysX: the only part of it that is alive is the shared CPU code. Not the GPU acceleration that is proprietary. GameWorks: the only tech that survives more than a handful of games is that which is picked up as industry standard, stuff like FXAA for example. That is also the irony of all that proprietary tech; if its truly good, its almost impossible to not make it a standard; the market almost forces you to do so.

So, why 11xx after 20xx? Right now you've got tons of gamers with fat wallets sitting on their money, waiting for something worth spending on. They still want their high refresh 1440p content driven, they still want their 4K ultra, and they still want their 1080p120+, and they are done paying a premium on it when there is no need to. 11xx can easily capture that market right now, minds are ready for it. Look at how happy people (even W1zzard) became when the 2060 rivalled 1080 performance at a 350 dollar price point. Progress! An actually interesting product in an otherwise desolate landscape.

Ok, you sound like a VGA historian holy shit While theres a lot of great info here, one thing you're getting wrong:

It is too soon to bury RTX my fren. Have you seen the recently released Atomic Heart RTX demo? Man I never want to see those old geometric fake shadows in a game again. There's a lot of misunderstanding in the community regarding RTX: Theres a huge chunk of people who believe RTX is nothing more than a dumb reflection in a puddle. I've been analyzing RT from the Metro Exodus released last year, it's absolutely magnificent.

The recent Atomic Heart demo showcased a new side of RT, I didn't know it could have such a beautiful effect on one-directional light (and the resulting shadows).

People are only checking the damn FPS numbers, but absolutely underestimate the beautiful results of RT.

Too soon, I'm not ready to bury RT, no it's not a dud. I gladly take an FPS hit in exchange for immersive and realistic graphics/shadows

 

[Vayra86]

Ok, you sound like a VGA historian holy shit While theres a lot of great info here, one thing you're getting wrong:

It is too soon to bury RTX my fren. Have you seen the recently released Atomic Heart RTX demo? Man I never want to see those old geometric fake shadows in a game again. There's a lot of misunderstanding in the community regarding RTX: Theres a huge chunk of people who believe RTX is nothing more than a dumb reflection in a puddle. I've been analyzing RT from the Metro Exodus released last year, it's absolutely magnificent.

The recent Atomic Heart demo showcased a new side of RT, I didn't know it could have such a beautiful effect on one-directional light (and the resulting shadows).

People are only checking the damn FPS numbers, but absolutely underestimate the beautiful results of RT.

Too soon, I'm not ready to bury RT, no it's not a dud. I gladly take an FPS hit in exchange for immersive and realistic graphics/shadows

Absolutely. I agree, the demo is impressive. But I'm more of a realist than one to dream away at 'what could be'.

- I'm looking at 12nm (already maxed out) and then a 7nm node after that... and nothing else in the pipeline for the foreseeable future after that. I still haven't seen how RTX is going to hit the masses at a reasonable price point. The 2060 certainly isn't it, and we also certainly will need more than 10 gigarays (2080ti) to get that demo we've seen interactive at decent FPS. Decent being 40-60. Not even 60 locked. Port Royal gets 37 FPS averages using those 10 gigarays, on the largest ever gaming GPU die, on a resolution that is old news.

- There are many other things to do that benefit the visual appearance of gaming. And they want a LOT of GPU horsepower too - but they are readily available in terms of content and require no extra dev work either. The aforementioned 1440p120+, the 4K60 experience. The ever larger ultrawides. Those are things people buy other hardware for. Its a primary concern. RTRT is just a quality setting - and its fighting an uphill battle against these resolutions and refresh rates, because when people buy into those, they want them in their games too - with or without RT. Will you really downscale your content just to have RT at 25% of the res you can actually play on (4K > 1080p)? Or suffer bad pixel mapping because 1440p won't scale nicely to 1080p? Oh yeah, and don't forget its on a per-game basis too.

- Consoles, so far, aren't moving along. The majority of the gaming market is based on console content releases. That ties into the chicken vs egg situation with RT enabled content. Today, there's barely anything to see and even the list of games that will use it, is very limited, and PC only. PC only also means the target market for every dev that uses RTRT is limited. Not very attractive to spend money on. Its not going to make you a different game and you can't charge a premium for it either. And here's the kicker: DXR is DirectX = Xbox only. You know, that console that is losing the war every time, designed by a company that is still pushing all the wrong buttons for gamers at large.

So... nope. Not happening.

 

[B-Real]

I wonder if Jensen Huang finds this rumor underwhelming. No RTX, No DLSS. Will it be crushed ?

+1

2060 is 1080 performance so this will match 1070.If pricing matches rx590 we'll have a card worth looking at in the sub-300 range, cause atm rx590 is a farce. 4% faster than rx580 OC vs OC and $50 more expensive.

I don't know how you got that 4% faster than RX580 OC vs. OC. If you check TPU's Sapphire RX 580 review, it shows a 4,4% OC. Same Sapphire RX 590 OC results show 3,9% jump. And the performance difference is around 10%. So I really don't know how you got that 4%. If you check OC results for the 2060 and 1080, there is a bigger gap for the 1080 with 9,% and 13,8% respectively. Plus it's somewhat slower than the 1080.

Ok, you sound like a VGA historian holy shit While theres a lot of great info here, one thing you're getting wrong:

It is too soon to bury RTX my fren. Have you seen the recently released Atomic Heart RTX demo? Man I never want to see those old geometric fake shadows in a game again. There's a lot of misunderstanding in the community regarding RTX: Theres a huge chunk of people who believe RTX is nothing more than a dumb reflection in a puddle. I've been analyzing RT from the Metro Exodus released last year, it's absolutely magnificent.

The recent Atomic Heart demo showcased a new side of RT, I didn't know it could have such a beautiful effect on one-directional light (and the resulting shadows).

People are only checking the damn FPS numbers, but absolutely underestimate the beautiful results of RT.

Too soon, I'm not ready to bury RT, no it's not a dud. I gladly take an FPS hit in exchange for immersive and realistic graphics/shadows

Well if you see that on one side, you get the RT feature, while on the other side to get enough fps to get higher quality RT, you get reduced graphics in other territories.

If it brings GTX 1070 performance or near that level for $250, Nvidia could have a massive winner on this one!

Mark my words: it either won't be 1070 performance level or won't be as low as $250. Hey, you forgot it, it's NV.

 

[Vayra86]

I don't know how you got that 4% faster than RX580 OC vs. OC. If you check TPU's Sapphire RX 580 review, it shows a 4,4% OC. Same Sapphire RX 590 OC results show 3,9% jump. And the performance difference is around 10%. So I really don't know how you got that 4%. If you check OC results for the 2060 and 1080, there is a bigger gap for the 1080 with 9,% and 13,8% respectively. Plus it's somewhat slower than the 1080.

Yeah people's perception of the 2060 is so off the mark its unreal. In reality for most reviews you're looking at an OC versus stock comparison and everybody misses that. The 1080 is notably faster and when you go to 1440p or 4K the gap widens, especially in min. FPS. The frametime consistency of the 2060 is horrible (comparable to 980ti), while the 1080 is rock solid all the way up to 4K/high. Somehow people think that lacking 2 GB VRAM and some bus width doesn't matter.

 

[sutyi]

2060 is 1080 performance so this will match 1070.If pricing matches rx590 we'll have a card worth looking at in the sub-300 range, cause atm rx590 is a farce. 4% faster than rx580 OC vs OC and $50 more expensive.

It's more around a GTX 1070Ti, depending on the game.

The TU116 is already cut down on the hardware level by 20%, thus putting it below a plain GTX 1070 already, if they don't touch the clocks.

It's just a jab at Polaris V1.3 as the GTX 1060 GP106 or 104 based is on it's way out / off the shelves.

This thing if it's coming at all is just to bridge the price and performance gap between the RTX 2050 (if we get it) and the RTX 2060.

 

[willace]

Wouldn't it be easier to name if its the GTX 2060 and RTX 2060, rather than a whole new nomenclature?

Most of the time people just look at number, so no.......that would not be a good idea

 

[_Flare]

So maybe the Ray-less Turings look like this ??

 

[Anymal]

I wonder if Jensen Huang finds this rumor underwhelming. No RTX, No DLSS. Will it be crushed ?

C'mon, this will sell under 300usd, not 699usd.

 

[medi01]

NVIDIA can afford to sell at sub-$300 price

Poor nVidia is struggling to make us cards it "can afford" selling at "sub $300" price.

 

[Prince Valiant]

Yeah people's perception of the 2060 is so off the mark its unreal. In reality for most reviews you're looking at an OC versus stock comparison and everybody misses that. The 1080 is notably faster and when you go to 1440p or 4K the gap widens, especially in min. FPS. The frametime consistency of the 2060 is horrible (comparable to 980ti), while the 1080 is rock solid all the way up to 4K/high. Somehow people think that lacking 2 GB VRAM and some bus width doesn't matter.

They've been busy drinking the Nvidia Kool-Aid .

 

[M2B]

Yeah people's perception of the 2060 is so off the mark its unreal. In reality for most reviews you're looking at an OC versus stock comparison and everybody misses that. The 1080 is notably faster and when you go to 1440p or 4K the gap widens, especially in min. FPS. The frametime consistency of the 2060 is horrible (comparable to 980ti), while the 1080 is rock solid all the way up to 4K/high. Somehow people think that lacking 2 GB VRAM and some bus width doesn't matter.

Frametime Consistency of RTX 2060 is completely normal.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...-founders-edition-review-benchmark-vs-vega-56

The lack of "bus width" has nothing to do with frametime consistency, the GDDR6 memory makes up for that.
Frametime inconsistency might happen because of the limited framebuffer at 4K but it's very rare.
RTX 2060 is a 1080p/1440p card after all, and even if you wish to game at 4K with it you're gonna lower the settings anyway so the RTX 2060 benchmarks at 4K/ultra in recent demanding games are useless.
I see your point, some very memory intensive games such as Wolfenstein 2 do need more than 6GB to run at higher resolutions without any problems but that doesn't mean the RTX 2060 has frametime issues in general.

 

[bubbleawsome]

They should've named the RTX parts RTX 20xx and the GTX parts GTX 11xx, and then next gen be RTX 30xx and GTX 12xx.

 

[TheHunter]

Poor nVidia is struggling to make us cards it "can afford" selling at "sub $300" price.

Lol I was going to quote that line too.

 

[windwhirl]

They should've named the RTX parts RTX 20xx and the GTX parts GTX 11xx, and then next gen be RTX 30xx and GTX 12xx.

Even better: GeForce for non-RTX parts, RayForce for RTX-enabled ones

 

[Fx]

Wouldn't it be easier to name if its the GTX 2060 and RTX 2060, rather than a whole new nomenclature?

This is my thoughts. It doesn't make much sense to me to change number and moniker to differentiate product lines.