NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Renderings Emerge

[Uskompuf]

The launch of the rumored NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti graphics card has reportedly been pushed from November 17th to December 2nd. We are beginning to receive more rumors about the upcoming offering with renderings of the Gigabyte Eagle GeForce RTX 3060 Ti OC being discovered by Videocardz. The Gigabyte Eagle GeForce RTX 3060 Ti OC features a dual-fan cooler with a relatively small PCB and a factory-applied overclock. The RTX 3060 Ti is expected to feature 4864 CUDA cores, 152 Tensor cores, and 38 RT cores along with 8 GB GDDR6 memory running at 14 Gbps which should offer performance close to the RTX 2080 Super. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti has the potential to be a strong mid-range offering with a TDP of 180w and is expected to retail for ~ 400 USD.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[owen10578]

Might become the mini card SFF builders are waiting for

 

[ZoneDymo]

now lets hope that unlike its brethren it will actually materialize.

sick topical low availability burn!

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Nice, not bad price either

 

[chaosmassive]

400 dollars still too rich for my taste.
especially AIB is known for marked up the price and overlapped price between two SKU is quite common.

 

[invict]

400 dollars still too rich for my taste.
especially AIB is known for marked up the price and overlapped price between two SKU is quite common

Waiting for AMD come out with a better priced alternative. $400 is way too much for their low range cards, id take $350

 

[mahirzukic2]

Waiting for AMD come out with a better priced alternative. $400 is way too much for their low range cards, id take $350

I wanted to comment on the very same thing.
300$ sure, 350$ maybe, 400$ definitely NOT.

 

[AusWolf]

Finally, people can stop complaining that nvidia doesn't produce anything else than news. We also have render images now!

 

[evernessince]

I wanted to comment on the very same thing.
300$ sure, 350$ maybe, 400$ definitely NOT.

Heck, even at $300 that would still be too pricey. The 960 was $200 at launch. I'm sure that's the point of current GPU pricing, to push people towards the high end. You aren't getting anywhere near good value with the "low end" anymore.

 

[kmetek]

400$, more likely 500€ in EUROPE as usual.

 

[EarthDog]

Waiting for AMD come out with a better priced alternative. $400 is way too much for their low range cards, id take $350

I wanted to comment on the very same thing.
300$ sure, 350$ maybe, 400$ definitely NOT.

Heck, even at $300 that would still be too pricey. The 960 was $200 at launch. I'm sure that's the point of current GPU pricing, to push people towards the high end. You aren't getting anywhere near good value with the "low end" anymore.

We'll see more cards fill out the stack. When there's a $200 card (3050?) It will be a whole lot faster than a 960 or likely even a 1060.

I wouldnt call a 3060ti a low end card either. There's the 3060 and presumably a 3050(?) and 3040(?) below that. Look at their last product stack...the 1650 started at $150...

1650, 1650 super, 1660, 1660 super, 1660ti, rtx 2060, 2060 super, 2070, 2070 super, 2080, 2080 super, 2080ti, titan. 8 tiers not counting the super cards. The 3060ti is Nvidia's 4th card. Most would call it midrange...not low end.

Ya'll price haters (amd and nvidia) need to put the nomenclature on the back burner and look at performance for the price IMO (and figure out this is a midrange card in the first place). Want to bet this easily beats a 2060 super ($400 msrp) and a gtx 1080 ($600 msrp)? Considering the 3070 matches a 2080ti, id imagine a 3060ti to be maybe 10-15% behind which puts it at 2080-2080 super levels which are $700-$800 cards. That would put this 3060ti 20-25% more performance for the same price as 2060 super.

 

[Vayra86]

We'll see more cards fill out the stack. When there's a $200 card (3050?) It will be a whole lot faster than a 960 or likely even a 1060.

I wouldnt call a 3060ti a low end card either. There's the 3060 and presumably a 3050(?) and 3040(?) below that. Look at their last product stack...the 1650 started at $150...

1650, 1650 super, 1660, 1660 super, 1660ti, rtx 2060, 2060 super, 2070, 2070 super, 2080, 2080 super, 2080ti, titan. 8 tiers not counting the super cards. The 3060ti is Nvidia's 4th card. Most would call it midrange...not low end.

Ya'll price haters (amd and nvidia) need to put the nomenclature on the back burner and look at performance for the price IMO (and figure out this is a midrange card in the first place). Want to bet this easily beats a 2060 super ($400 msrp) and a gtx 1080 ($600 msrp)? Considering the 3070 matches a 2080ti, id imagine a 3060ti to be maybe 10-15% behind which puts it at 2080-2080 super levels which are $700-$800 cards. That would put this 3060ti 20-25% more performance for the same price as 2060 super.

400 is still steep for a mdranger. The 660ti was 299 MSRP, for perspective. That's +33%.

Still, time does pass, but this is definitely not cheap or competitive for its place in the stack. Neither is a 3070 at 500. We all know this. Only competition over those price points can confirm it.

In another way you could say there is some noticeable RT tax happening in the line up of both camps, perhaps.

 

[EarthDog]

400 is still steep for a mdranger. The 660ti was 299 MSRP, for perspective. That's +33%.

Still, time does pass, but this is definitely not cheap or competitive for its place in the stack. Neither is a 3070 at 500. We all know this. Only competition over those price points can confirm it.

In another way you could say there is some noticeable RT tax happening in the line up of both camps, perhaps.

the 1660ti is further down the stack and doesn't have RT. You're comparing apples to oranges there. This is akin to a 2060 super ($400)... currently these are both the lowest cards with RT hardware... and they closely match in name. I bet we'll see a 3060 with it perhaps the last one with RT hardware in ampere.

 

[Vayra86]

the 1660ti is further down the stack and doesn't have RT. You're comparing apples to oranges there. This is akin to a 2060/2060 super ($400)... currently these are both the lowest cards with RT hardware... and they closely match in name. I bet we'll see a 3060 with it perhaps the last one with RT hardware in ampere.

Be that as it may, a 2060S at 400 was and is a little overpriced as well. The move gen to gen in terms of performance/dollar is very weak. Turing is the worst possible comparison to make. But as we both say - RT tax.

 

[EarthDog]

Be that as it may, a 2060S at 400 was and is a little overpriced as well. The move gen to gen in terms of performance/dollar is very weak. Turing is the worst possible comparison to make. But as we both say - RT tax.

We'd all like things cheaper, without a doubt. But consider you're getting $700-$800 worth of performance in this gen, compared to last is my point. inflated turing prices are what they are...this feels like an improvement.

2070S was $500 and performed the same as a $700 card (1080ti, a flagship). This gen you have the 3070 ($500) as fast as 2080ti ($1100).

Again, we'd all like to pay less, but feels like it settled well

 

[Rei]

I do wish Nvidia would drop the "Ti" & "Super" nomenclature & just go straight to numbering the forth digit. e.g. GeForce RTX 3065, GeForce RTX 3075, GeForce RTX 3085, GeForce RTX 3095, etc. It's getting to be a mouthful. Nvidia since last year have been changing/removing their naming schemes on most of their products such as Quadro & Nvidia Tesla (the GPGPU, not the microarchitecture). This is all my personal opinion & feelings however.

I'm feeling a Deja Vu here. I feel like I made the same kind of post somewhere before here...

 

[mahirzukic2]

We'd all like things cheaper, without a doubt. But consider you're getting $700-$800 worth of performance in this gen, compared to last is my point. inflated turing prices are what they are...this feels like an improvement.

2070S was $500 and performed the same as a $700 card (1080ti, a flagship). This gen you have the 3070 ($500) as fast as 2080ti ($1100).

Again, we'd all like to pay less, but feels like it settled well

Like someone already said, sure you might get comparable performances but the thing is, the whole stack is moved upwards in price.
Today's high-end costs more than yesterday's high-end, today's midrange costs more than yesterday's midrange, etc.

 

[Vayra86]

We'd all like things cheaper, without a doubt. But consider you're getting $700-$800 worth of performance in this gen, compared to last is my point. inflated turing prices are what they are...this feels like an improvement.

2070S was $500 and performed the same as a $700 card (1080ti, a flagship). This gen you have the 3070 ($500) as fast as 2080ti ($1100).

Again, we'd all like to pay less, but feels like it settled well

Nah, we're still paying no-high-end-competition prices. Get real. AMD needs to have Navi in good shape for at least a full gen before you see any shift down as Nvidia has to respond.

700 for an x80. That is the so-called 'cheap' baseline the rest gets based off.

 

[EarthDog]

Today's high-end costs more than yesterday's high-end, today's midrange costs more than yesterday's midrange, etc.

Does it, though?

3090 = 1100, titan = 2400
3080 = 800, 2080ti = 999
3070 = 500, 2070 = 599.

Nah, we're still paying no-high-end-competition prices. Get real.

we are? See above. Doesnt look like it to me. I get it isnt as cheap as pre turing (only $100 off of xx80 cards) but its cheaper than turing. So like I said...

inflated turing prices are what they are...this feels like an improvement.

can the above actually be refuted? How isnt it an improvement? What am I missing?

With amd's pricing where it is with rdna2, things won't get cheaper next gen..

 

[Vayra86]

Does it, though?

3090 = 1100, titan = 2400
3080 = 800, 2080ti = 999
3070 = 500, 2070 = 599.

we are? See above. Doesnt look like it to me. I get it isnt as cheap as pre turing (only $100 off of xx80 cards) but its cheaper than turing. So like I said...
can the above actually be refuted? How isnt it an improvement? What am I missing?

With amd's pricing where it is with rdna2, things won't get cheaper next gen..

How on earth is a 2080ti equal to a 3080 now then? The 2080ti is the 3090 - the biggest Gx102 cut they can make before a full 100 die. Not the VRAM-scarce, cut of a cutdown GA102 that they call 3080. That's just a GA102 because their 104 didn't quite do enough to use it higher up. You're explaining that as if its our problem but its really not, Nvidia chooses their tiers and the die they need to feed them. A 3090 is not a Titan and hardly even a semi-pro card, which for all intents and purposes no gaming card really was since Maxwell as Nvidia neutered every unique selling point they had in that direction. OK you can save more data on it. Wooptiedoo. Other than that its a Geforce card plain and simple - yes even despite what those conflicting messages say from Huang's mouth and on the Nvidia website

The 2080(S) is the 3080
Etc.
Where is this Titan in the Geforce stack for Turing even?!

I'm not sure what you're smoking here but damn son, don't smoke those leather jackets along with it... you don't see things clearly anymore.

I'd also like to remind you of this
1080ti = 699
980ti = 799

Yeah, Ampere is so cheap. Especially given its weak node, high TDP and so-so VRAM cap...

 

[mahirzukic2]

Does it, though?

3090 = 1100, titan = 2400
3080 = 800, 2080ti = 999
3070 = 500, 2070 = 599.

we are? See above. Doesnt look like it to me. I get it isnt as cheap as pre turing (only $100 off of xx80 cards) but its cheaper than turing. So like I said...
can the above actually be refuted? How isnt it an improvement? What am I missing?

With amd's pricing where it is with rdna2, things won't get cheaper next gen..

You obviously don't get it then. Turing introduced out of space like prices, and now you compare nvidia 30XX or Amd's card and say, they have good value proposition.
Sure, they do when compared to products with out of space like prices, when compared to anything other than that (literally all the previous generations on nvidia cards) then not so much. Why is this so hard to get? The whole disconnect with turing family was a total outlier and should never be used for comparison, performance or price wise, EVER.

 

[EarthDog]

You obviously don't get it then. Turing introduced out of space like prices, and now you compare nvidia 30XX or Amd's card and say, they have good value proposition.
Sure, they do when compared to products with out of space like prices, when compared to anything other than that (literally all the previous generations on nvidia cards) then not so much. Why is this so hard to get? The whole disconnect with turing family was a total outlier and should never be used for comparison, performance or price wise, EVER.

No, I get it. Quite clearly. I even said as much.......do I need to quote myself or can you glance up and read it?

What I don't agree with is the selective use of what price to base the cards on. "zOMG Turing is so off the wall you can't use that".... but we're comparing previous generations........right?! Now AMD's card are out and around the same price and performance (better of course, the point is they are much higher than their previous attempts.

How on earth is a 2080ti equal to a 3080 now then? The 2080ti is the 3090 - the biggest Gx102 cut they can make before a full 100 die.

Fastest card in the stack. I don't care if they call it a Ti or a Titan or a Potato... that is like vs. like right now... suddenly we can't compare the stack from top to bottom...? You're adding artificial dividers trying to match up 'names'. Which, I get.... but for this excersise, I think it's prudent to start top down. Fastest and most expensive card vs fastest and most expensive card of the previous generation. Does it really matter what the name is? This product stack's highest end vs previous gen product stack's highest end....

I'd also like to remind you of this
1080ti = 699
980ti = 799

Reminding me of an anomoly in flagship pricing is not remotely helpful or poignant. You know damn well that doesn't happen often at all. That said, looks like it sort of did here if you compare the stack (and drop the naming conventions). You guys are putting these in buckets and seeming forgetting about the notable performance uptick (at least it feels this way from both of your responses).

you don't see things clearly anymore.

lolololololOsaurus. I see things quite clearly. The difference is we don't agree on that point. Please don't start to be demeaning in this conversation...




One last time....

inflated turing prices are what they are...this feels like an improvement.

This is, without a doubt, an improvement over Turing. You can twist it however you want.

....and a 3060Ti isn't a "low range" card either. lol

Cheers, boys.

 

[Vayra86]

No, I get it. Quite clearly. I even said as much.......do I need to quote myself or can you glance up and read it?

What I don't agree with is the selective use of what price to base the cards on. "zOMG Turing is so off the wall you can't use that".... but we're comparing previous generations........right?! Now AMD's card are out and around the same price and performance (better of course, the point is they are much higher than their previous attempts.


Fastest card in the stack. I don't care if they call it a Ti or a Titan or a Potato... that is like vs. like right now... suddenly we can't compare the stack from top to bottom...? You're adding artificial dividers trying to match up 'names'. Which, I get.... but for this excersise, I think it's prudent to start top down. Fastest and most expensive card vs fastest and most expensive card of the previous generation. Does it really matter what the name is? This product stack's highest end vs previous gen product stack's highest end....

Reminding me of an anomoly in flagship pricing is not remotely helpful or poignant. You know damn well that doesn't happen often at all. That said, looks like it sort of did here if you compare the stack (and drop the naming conventions). You guys are putting these in buckets and seeming forgetting about the notable performance uptick (at least it feels this way from both of your responses).


lolololololOsaurus. I see things quite clearly. The difference is we don't agree on that point. Please don't start to be demeaning in this conversation...

The stack top to bottom is the top 3090 versus the top 2080ti. You are free to point me to the gaming card above the 3090 and/or the 2080ti...
And the rest follows logically after that.

A 3090 is just a Geforce with more VRAM like all the rest.

NVIDIA's next-gen Titan RTX specs teased: 48GB GDDR6X and over $3000

NVIDIA's next-gen Ampere TITAN RTX being prepped in case AMD hits with Bigger Navi, would pack up to 48GB of GDDR6X, cost $3000+

www.tweaktown.com

 

[EarthDog]

Titan is both.... I can't help that. RTX 3090 is similar (but more neutered, that doesn't suddenly move it to 2nd in the stack).

There isn't a gaming card above the 3090 (right now), the Titan RTX and 3090 are both, quite clearly, crossover cards. The Titan does more compute work, we get that, but that also isn't the point. Quadro is their professional line and that has nothing to do with these cards.

3090 / Titan RTX
3090 / 2080 Ti
3080 / 2080
3070 / 2070.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree and move on.

EDIT: LOL @ tweaktown rumor... when it comes out (its rumor and vaporware as of two months ago...nothing since), let's have this talk again, shall we?

 

[Vayra86]

There isn't a gaming card above the 3090 (right now)

3090 / Titan RTX
3090 / 2080 Ti
3080 / 2080
3070 / 2070.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree and move on.

That list you made right now is a lot more sensible, and that is agreeing to agree really isn't it

Now put the MSRPs next to it. And even then you're still comparing only to Turing, the least sensible comparison as AMD didn't play ball in this segment at all and RT got introduced - early adopter tax. How is early adopter's tax a norm all of a sudden?!

Everything is an improvement over Turing, but that still doesn't make it good.