Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 14 Mar 2019 at 13:00.
Nvidia should knock £50 off the MSRP, because then the custom ones would be around the same price as the custom RX 580s which offer very similar performance.
It's very power efficient and therefore doesn't need a fancy cooler/pcb/etc. I bet the cheapest models can o/c to near the same performance while staying quiet, just need to be a bit careful of other annoyances like coil whine which can be more prevalent on cheaper pcb's.
At £200, the 1660 makes a fair amount of sense, but a fancy variant for £250 makes almost no sense whatsoever. I think that AIB partners need to get a bit of a grip with these expensive variants, because the price premium is just not worth it over the base models. Makes a certain amount of sense to pay £50 more for custom cooling or VRMs at the higher end of the market but at this end of the scale that sort of additional money will buy you the next card up the stack.
I'd also love to see BT reviewing a lot more of the "basic" variants rather than these premium ones, although I appreciate that the AIBs will be keener to sample the fancy ones to you guys.
We do have some less crazy ones in as well. As to the marketing strategies of board partners.. well...
Great, looking forward to the reviews. Although I suspect that we'll see that the basic models are maybe 5% slower and 20% cheaper, which just goes to show how stupid these premium versions are.
It has come to my attention that the originally published version of this review was showing incorrect power and temperature data for the GTX 1060, GTX 1070, GTX 1070 Ti, RTX 2060 Founders Edition, Palit RTX 2070 Dual, and Sapphire RX 580 in the graphs on page 10. This was due to the respective entries in our graphing system not being updated with newer power/temperature data following a benchmark update. The issue has since been rectified, and all data in the graphs is correct as of this update.
No other data was affected, and the mistakes here did not affect the outcome of the review, but I still feel it’s important to be transparent in instances such as this.
We strive to record and present data as accurately as possible, as we understand that our data can affect purchasing decisions. As editor and the author of this article, this mistake falls on me, so I sincerely apologise.
I will be taking steps to ensure that this won’t happen again and have added notes to alert returning readers on the affected pages. I have also updated all other affected articles accordingly.
Separate names with a comma.