News Nvidia reveals GTX 1060 3GB

This has to be their dumbest release yet at their most insulting price point ever...

 

And so is the fact that the GDDR is slower and it isn't really a 1060 as it has less on the core.

This card should be a 1050 or 1050ti, Nvidia are going to end up in hot water again.

 

This irritates me because it's misleading most consumers. So many people aren't going to check the core count of cards with the same name (essentially). They aren't going to realise that the 3GB card is actually going to be slower. It's BS and there is no good reason not to give it a different name.

 

It's going to backfire, that's for sure. It doesn't take much to p**s off an American and have them chase you legally.

 

Hard to outdo the dead on arrival 960, but they are trying that's for sure.

 

Well Considering Nvidia lost the 970 memory issue, i can see this being a lawsuit waiting to happen

 

so out of all those people that may be mislead, how many are actually going to notice the performance difference between 9 and 10 SM?

EDIT: Plus, they know, they would expect some performance degradation due to 6GB vs 3GB.


Honestly, I don't see any issue.

Then again, I'm Canadian. American folks would sue anything.

EDIT2: people who don't expect less performance because they didn't notice 3GB vs 6GB deserve to get scammed. I'm sorry for being harsh. That's just dumb.

EDIT3: Again, sorry for being harsh, eh?

 

Probably the same amount of people that noticed the difference with the 970's segmented RAM, like you say though American folks would sue anything.

 

You guys asking for some litigation pain? 'cause I'm feeling insulted.

 

which, honestly, at the grander scheme of things, amounts to a very small percentage.

to be clear, I'm talking about the people who actually NOTICED the lack of performance/having shitty/buggy slow-down (I'm one of them), EXCLUDING folks who read about it online and decided to join the lawsuit even if they themselves don't experience any noticeable issues....

I got a 970 and Witcher 3 works fine in Ultra/Nvidia recommendation at 1080. If I drop some of them to High I get a constant 60FPS with my "gimped 970".

If Nvidia labels this card as 1050 or 1060 Ti I don't even want to start on the amount of people who will complaint on how convoluted and confusing their naming system is...

Aah, human.

I'll go back to watching Olympics now.

 

Since they're removing an SM, I wonder if they'll upclock to compensate?

Agreed. This is a 1050TI in my book at the moment, until some benchmarks are seen.

 

You gotta find us fist.

Probably an even smaller percentage than the 970 issue, with the 970 it was (afaik) only noticeable at high resolutions/high quality setting when the RAM filled up, with this I'm guessing it will only be noticeable in lower resolutions/high quality settings, either way it's very poor form of Nvidia, this should have been called the 1050 IMO.

 

i dont think its going to matter if its noticable, there will be a significant ( due to fewer cuda cores and such ) MEASURABLE difference in performance, from a product that still retains the 1060 name, so i think the US folk will have a legal platform to stand on ( or will at least be able to build a legal platform )

it would be like selling a V12 car with only a V10, people will notice they are buying a car advertised as a V12, and only getting a V10, Nvidia are marketing this as a 1060, so people expect a full 1060, not 9/10s of a 1060

 

In NVIDIA's defense, they'll be marketing it as 1060 3GB as opposed to 1060 6GB. I don't think it's their first time doing this, I just can't remember which one was it...

Oh, 8800? GTS 640MB and 8800 320?

 

Look forward to seeing this on the benches. I"m curious. Of course I don't see a reason to upgrade from the GTX 970 yet. I may just skip the 10xx series.

 

In all fairness, I don't think people should expect GPU spec's to be consistent between model derivatives in the same way as they should expect the full quota of memory to work "properly".

 

Laws on misleading customers exist as customers cannot be expected to be fully knowledgeable about a product. Expecting consistency between named lines is part of this. When you buy a car the engine size is clearly presented to you, it is not hidden away, for example.

Therefore if Nivdia want to do this they should do what they did with the 560 GTX 448 and state the core count in the name so that the consumer is aware that there is a fundamental underlying difference between two same cards which have the same name. and not just what on the surface looks like a bargain card. Yes, 6 GB and 3 GB is part of this, but then if they don't need to state a core count difference, why should they show a memory difference either and just leave that info in the small print too.

 

Did AMD specify that the 4gb card runs slower clocks for its 480 to the point where a 470 custom beats it in every single benchmark. And is cheaper to boot.

Nvidia will probably not market it at all, once you get this far down the product chain your relying on the bigger products to do your marketing. I have never saw a Nvidia announcement on a none tech website.

This is not Samsung / Apple spending Billions on marketing, Nvidias bill for this launch marketing wise is the review cards they send out and that will be about it.

If the 3gb is the same gap as AMDs 480 4gb vs 8gb is people will stop complaining pretty fast.