You thought GTX 1060 was confusing? You've seen nothing. Enter RTX 2060 and 6 variants of the same card

[D13H4RD]

Just now, Bouzoo said:

I am not sure what you are trying to prove with that point. I do know more than enough people who bought every single component without knowing jack about it (except the wi-fi card), hence why I am saying it. That's why I said that my personal experience is not good of an evidence since it differs vastly from yours. 

There are indeed a lot of people who buy products based on branding or based on word of mouth that may not have been throughly researched. 

 

There are a lot of people who just went with a specific setup because the brand they had chosen had a good reputation, but may not know that there are variations within said brand's lineup. 

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

no other product on the planet has a different model name for variations within that model. 

And those aren't any better or a good argument to put forward.

 

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You didn't answer the question, if the product is properly described (product description), then why does it need another model number/name

Because few look past the core product model number i.e. RTX 2060 and understand they are getting something different. Hell I know people who have gotten the wrong Intel CPU because they missed the K when buying it. You can describe the product as much as you like but that doesn't maker it more easily identifiable, these are two different things.

 

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This is not about the mark up, I was saying specifically that I like having options, many people like having options, a cheaper version of anything is better if you don't need all the bells and whistles.

And when those options means that for example the 4GB model costs more than it would have if the 3GB model did not exist and the cost would have been the same or within $10?

 

Is that extra option actually good for you?

 

I think you need to do more information/research in to the cost of parts of GPUs and how they come to the MSRP. You're assuming the existence of the 3GB model means that there would be an option that is now cheaper than if it had not existed, that is not supported by any evidence I have seen ever. It's too small a BOM cost difference to lead to a non artificial MSRP difference.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

I am not sure what you are trying to prove with that point. I do know more than enough people who bought every single component without knowing jack about it (except the wi-fi card), hence why I am saying it. That's why I said that my personal experience is not good of an evidence since it differs vastly from yours. 

I have been building pcs for people since 1996, At that point it was my full time occupation working in a shop specializing in customs and repairs.  I have to this day yet to encounter a great swath of uniformed general consumers trying to buy a component, especially in the last 5 years as most of them want a laptop, not a desktop.

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And those aren't any better or a good argument to put forward.

So in a worse case scenario (being an uniformed customer) if you were to buy a car you wouldn't ask why the sx is cheaper than the GT or RX?  They have those branding to differentiate between variations of a model,   Are you seriously trying to tell me that people don't bother reading the whole think and just stop at "2060"?   Maybe a small portion of the less mentally sufficient, however I think it is a bit arrogant to think we are the only consumers that don't know how to appraise a product.  Shit even in everyday shops I hear customers asking how long will this last" what makes it better than the cheaper one? why should I pay more? what does this symbol here mean? etc etc.    Don't tell me you just buy based on brand.

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because few look past the core product model number i.e. RTX 2060 and understand they are getting something different. Hell I know people who have gotten the wrong Intel CPU because they missed the K when buying it. You can describe the product as much as you like but that doesn't maker it more easily identifiable, these are two different things.

if the product clearly says ddr5 on the box or website then that is enough for me, you buy the wrong one after that it is your fault.  Same with that poor guy who bought the wrong CPU, they are all marked with a K, if you don't know what it means then that is not the fault of the product description being bent and twisted.

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

And when those options means that for example the 4GB model costs more than it would have if the 3GB model did not exist and the cost would have been the same or within $10?

Or the 3G model costs less whatever, price is determined by what the market will pay, there is only so much manipulation a company can do before they experience a loss of revenue from people not buying.

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Is that extra option actually good for you?

If it's the cheapest option and otherwise wouldn't exist then yes it is good, otherwise I would have had to pay more for features that I don't need.

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I think you need to do more information/research in to the cost of parts of GPUs and how they come to the MSRP. You're assuming the existence of the 3GB model means that there would be a option than is now cheaper than if it had no existed, that is not supported by any evidence I have seen ever. It's too small a BOM cost difference to lead to a non artificial MSRP difference.

I think you need to do more research on market forces and pricing strategies.  It doesn't matter how much the parts cost (and frankly I have not used bom as a reason for cost variance so I don;t know why you keep referring to it), the end product has an upper and lower limit it can sell in.   Even with no competition there is a limit to how much a company can increase it's prices before people stop upgrading/put off buying due to the cost.   The introduction of more products does not always push the entire stack up, it does not always push it down either, but in many cases the cheaper option is cheaper than what would have been had there been no other option.

[JZStudios]

Wow. As a person with a 2gb 960, why the hell is there even a 3gb option available? The 2060 should be 6gb and the 2050 4. Anything below that now is basically guaranteed to run out of vram in modern games. I pity whoever buys a new GPU with 3gb of ram. At least my 960 got me a few years, 3gb is outdated now.

[leadeater]

 

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Or the 3G model costs less whatever, price is determined by what the market will pay, there is only so much manipulation a company can do before they experience a loss of revenue from people not buying.

In absence of the 3GB model the 4GB would cost the same, at worst $10 more. Explain to me how this is better and also explain that the 4GB now costing more than it would have is better?

 

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

but in many cases the cheaper option is cheaper than what would have been had there been no other option.

What exactly makes it cheaper. Edit: Because there is another option, the 4GB variant.

[mr moose]

Just now, leadeater said:

 

In absence of the 3GB model the 4GB would cost the same, at worst $10 more. Explain to me how this is better and also explain that the 4GB now costing more than it would have is better?

 

That's fact is it? When nvidia released the ddr4 1030 it was $10 cheaper than the GDDR5 1030 which did not go up in price.  So even though it was shitty marketing practice, it wasn't a exercise in price inflation.

 

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

That's fact is it? When nvidia released the ddr4 1030 it was $10 cheaper than the GDDR5 1030 which did not go up in price.  So even though it was shitty marketing practice, it wasn't a exercise in price inflation.

 

The DDR4 1030 was substantially slower (pretty much half the speed), had a different GPU config and physically cost far less to make.

[mr moose]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

The DDR4 1030 was substantially slower (pretty much half the speed), had a different GPU config and physically cost far less to make.

yes, my point is it didn't push the cost of the GDDR5 1030 up.  It just came in as a cheaper option. 

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's fact is it? When nvidia released the ddr4 1030 it was $10 cheaper than the GDDR5 1030 which did not go up in price.  So even though it was shitty marketing practice, it wasn't a exercise in price inflation.

The parts cost reduction along with existing margin being high enough and the current 1030 already being on the market with established pricing (the most important factor) does not make this that similar.

 

Without a part cost difference large enough to influence product cost (why I keep bringing it up) it will come to the market and the way the market has always reacted is that the lowest model/variant will cost the least, if the 4GB model is the lowest it will cost the least. It being 4GB won't actually make it cost more than if we now remove the 4GB model and only have the 3GB. In both situations of only either one existing the pricing would be the same and the 6GB model would cost more, even though that price difference set by both the MSRP and market segmentation doesn't directly correlate to the product cost actually being more.

 

The lower floor won't change so yes the 3GB will be cheaper than the 4GB model and the 4GB model would cost more but that pricing structure would only exist because those two products exist.

 

What is actually making you think that having the 3GB option will lead to a lower price option had it not existed otherwise?

[Dabombinable]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

yes, my point is it didn't push the cost of the GDDR5 1030 up.  It just came in as a cheaper option. 

An option that was not distinguished at all from the GDDR5 version, which had been out for far longer and therefore is where people would have gotten their info from. Ergo anyone buying the DDR4 card got duped.

[Bouzoo]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I have been building pcs for people since 1996, At that point it was my full time occupation working in a shop specializing in customs and repairs.  I have to this day yet to encounter a great swath of uniformed general consumers trying to buy a component, especially in the last 5 years as most of them want a laptop, not a desktop.

I have not been building PCs for so long, started only in the early 2000s and do it only in my free time, so usually 1-2 builds per month. My experience doeas vastly differ from your, from starters due to the fact that most people here still want desktops for games. As I said, we will not be able to agree on this one. 

[mr moose]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

An option that was not distinguished at all from the GDDR5 version, which had been out for far longer and therefore is where people would have gotten their info from. Ergo anyone buying the DDR4 card got duped.

Yeah, I know.  that's not what the issue is.  The problem is leadeater is trying to claim that more options will push the price up.  I am just countering that.

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

The parts cost reduction along with existing margin being high enough and the current 1030 already being on the market with established pricing (the most important factor) does not make this that similar.

But now you are trying to claim that an unknown product that has not been released will now be more because of the existence of a lower spec'ed model even though the cost of the making it isn't significantly more.   Again the cost to make the product is not what determines the retail price. It's just another small cost in the long lists of costs.   What determines the end retail cost is the overall performance of the product in it's lineup and what the market will pay for that lineup.

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Without a part cost difference large enough to influence product cost (why I keep bringing it up) it will come to the market and the way the market has always reacted is that the lowest model will cost the least, if the 4GB model is the lowest it will cost the least.

And if you introduce a 3G model then it will cost the least. 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

It being 4GB won't actually make it cost more than if we now remove the 4GB model and only have the 3GB. In both situations of only either one existing the pricing would be the same and the 6GB model would cost more, even though that price difference set by both the MSRP and market segmentation doesn't directly correlate to the product cost actually being more.

No it won't, you have no way to know that they would cost the same,  and besides that you are effectively trying to argue that we should have less options because by not offering one of the lower tier options the consumer will some how pay less.

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

The lower floor won't change so yes the 3GB will be cheaper than the 4GB model and the 4GB model would cost more but that pricing structure would only exist because those two products exist.

And due to market forces if you remove the 3G model you are still going to be paying the same for the 4G, but with the 3G model the market will expect it to be less, they can't just make the 4G cost more because the 3g exists, that would mean they would need to shift the entire product stack up one and consumers don't like that, especially when prices are already inflated due to ram and mining, and greedy retailers etc.

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

What is actually making you think that having the 3GB option will lead to a lower price option had it not existed otherwise?

because it is only 3G, who is going to pay the same or more for a product with less ram?  Honestly, it doesn't matter if you determine Nvidia price from the top down or the bottom up, either way they have balance the price between what the market will pay without doing themselves out of sales.   They have yet to sell a lower performing product for the same or more than a better performing variant of that product, I see no logical reason why they would try to, I see no reason in the market space that would dictate they try and hide a price inflation inside a new cut down model (the market is too smart for that).

[D13H4RD]

43 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I Are you seriously trying to tell me that people don't bother reading the whole think and just stop at "2060"?   

 

if the product clearly says ddr5 on the box or website then that is enough for me, you buy the wrong one after that it is your fault.  

Hence why clear nomenclature is important. 

 

If it isn't called the 2060 Ti, then the memory type and capacity should at least be listed on the SKU and retail box.

 

If one has to sell a product that shares its name with another, then it has to be made clear as to what makes that other model different from its similarly named counterpart. Unfortunately, some AIB vendors fail to do so, usually just listing the memory as "2G", "4G" or "6G", not "2GB DDR4" or "4GB GDDR5". This definitely becomes a problem when 2 similarly named models have different memory types, such as the GT 1030, where despite the existence of a DDR4 and GDDR5 model, some AIBs just print "2G" on the box. 

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And due to market forces if you remove the 3G model you are still going to be paying the same for the 4G, but with the 3G model the market will expect it to be less, they can't just make the 4G cost more because the 3g exists, that would mean they would need to shift the entire product stack up one and consumers don't like that, especially when prices are already inflated due to ram and mining, and greedy retailers etc.

Right so you agree that the existence of more models will effect market pricing.

 

As to the first part that is faulty logic, you are coming from the angle of the product existing then it being removed which this is not the case. This is discussing whether a product having not existed at all.

 

Having not existed at all means it would have not impacted market pricing, it did not exist.

 

So what actually makes you think the lowest market price of the 3GB model would be less than the 4GB model had only one of them existed, not removed, not later added but only one of them ever existing.

 

Edit:

We are also not talking about later introducing a 3GB model either, the source for this shows that all 6 are coming to market at the same time.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

I have not been building PCs for so long, started only in the early 2000s and do it only in my free time, so usually 1-2 builds per month. My experience doeas vastly differ from your, from starters due to the fact that most people here still want desktops for games. As I said, we will not be able to agree on this one. 

No, your right on that score, most people here do want desktops for gaming, that's what separates us and hardware developed specifically for us from the rest of the market.

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Right so you agree that the existence of more models will effect market pricing.

Always will agree that varying products in the market will have varying prices

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

As to the first part that is faulty logic, you are coming from the angle of the product existing then it being removed which this is not the case. This is discussing whether a product having not existed at all.

 

Having not existed at all means it would have no impacted market pricing, it did not exist.

Will not agree that a product we haven't seen in the market suddenly being introduced,  is evidence that the prices are higher than they would be otherwise.

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So what actually makes you think the lowest market price of the 3GB model would be less than the 4GB model had only one of the existed, not remove, not later added but only one of them ever existing.

 

Market forces.  Nvidia are going  to charge as much as they can for each product they make, regardless if it's just one or fifty.  

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

Hence why clear nomenclature is important. 

 

If it isn't called the 2060 Ti, then the memory type and capacity should at least be listed on the SKU and retail box.

 

That's all I have been saying, if the product is clearly described then what is the problem?  If the only difference is the ram then it should be labeled and that all it needs.  E.G RTX2060 6G GDDR6  They used to label them like this all the time.   In fact they aorus 9Gb still is labeled like that.

 

but yas I have been trying to illustrate, this is a problem with marketing and product disclosure, not a problem with have multiple options.

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Market forces.  Nvidia are going  to charge as much as they can for each product they make, regardless if it's just one or fifty.  

Correct, and had there only been a 4GB model it would come to market and the market price would be no different. There would be nothing to cause an increased price, there is already an expected price range for the x60 series and the 6GB model would cost more than the lower VRAM one.

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Will not agree that a product we haven't seen in the market suddenly being introduced,  is evidence that the prices are higher than they would be otherwise.

I don't think you are understanding the argument nor putting forward any evidence to me to show that if the 3GB being proposed would not exist that the lowest price of the 4GB model would in fact be higher.

 

Market evidence in the past would show that if the 4GB model were the lowest and the 3GB not exist it would fall to the same lowest point, it being 4GB or 3GB irrespective. What evidence do you have to the contrary that this would not be the case?

 

I would agree that if later in the product life a 3GB model were to be introduced it would come in at a lower price point than the current in market 4GB option and would not likely increase the cost of the 4GB models.

 

Situation matters.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Market evidence in the past would show that if the 4GB model were the lowest and the 3GB not exist it would fall to the same lowest point, it being 4GB or 3GB irrespective. What evidence do you have to the contrary that this would not be the case?

 

Market forces, I don't think it matters which way around they are introduced, Nvidia's business practice (as is almost all of them) is such to charge as much as they can without negatively effecting business. About the only time a manufacture charges less is when they want to run a deal or establish a new product or try an aggressive program to regain market share.  Nvidia need none of those things right now,  in fact NVIDIA are pretty much in the same boat as apple, good luck finding them running a % off promotion.

[leadeater]

Just now, mr moose said:

Market forces, I don't think it matters which way around they are introduced, Nvidia's business practice (as is almost all of them) is such to charge as much as they can without negatively effecting business. About the only time a manufacture charges less is when they want to run a deal or establish a new product or try an aggressive program to regain market share.  Nvidia need none of those things right now,  in fact NVIDIA are pretty much in the same boat as apple, good luck finding them running a % off promotion.

Nvidia and AIB still set prices based on the market, the competition and what people are likely willing to pay. I see no evidence here that a 3GB card would cost less than a 4GB card at release in the situation of only either one existing, they would result in the same price.

 

Yes you get more options, yes the 4GB one is going to cost more but that is only going to benefit Nvidia not the consumer. What is more beneficial to the consumer is not having the 3GB option at product release, the lower price point would be the same anyway (3GB won't make this point lower at release).

 

If you later introduced the 3GB model after market prices have settled then yes you would end up with a cheaper option under that scenario.

 

However I would argue this would not happen using the same memory type as the difference in cost between 3GB and 4GB is too small making it not possible to introduce a 3GB card at a lower price point without switching to GDDR5 instead of GDDR5X or something else to lower the price. All the possible combinations and ways to later introduce cheaper options appears to all be coming to market immediately, if we are going to get cheaper options later in product life that could now only come from Nvidia and AIBs lowering prices and not from cheaper configurations being introduced like GDDR5X cards instead of GDDR6 etc.

 

This is better for Nvidia because all these variants are coming in at the beginning of the product life-cycle so will carry the higher price due to it, there will be more options across the price range and potentially more people opting to spend more had there only been two options like the GTX 1060 or three to account for a GDDR6 option or lesser etc.

 

This is not better for the consumer, at release the 3GB model offers no benefit to the consumer as it's not cheaper than the 4GB model would have been. Paying more for the 4GB doesn't result in you getting a better experience or performance unless you play at a resolution the requires it over the 3GB or games come out that need it at lower resolutions, but you ended up paying more than you would otherwise have and makes the existence of the 3GB model even more questionable.

 

This release structure of these 6 models at the same time doesn't benefit the consumer, the different options have dubious benefits and the biggest winner is Nvidia from people spending more on more expensive options they might not need or would otherwise have done under a different release structure.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Nvidia and AIB still set prices based on the market, the competition and what people are likely willing to pay. I see no evidence here that a 3GB card would cost less than a 4GB card at release in the situation of only either one existing, they would result in the same price.

 

Yes you get more options, yes the 4GB one is going to cost more but that is only going to benefit Nvidia not the consumer. What is more beneficial to the consumer is not having the 3GB option at product release, the lower price point would be the same anyway (3GB won't make this point lower at release).

You still have to show why that would be the case.    All their cards are priced to benefit them,  how can you claim that in this situation (that hasn't even occurred yet) that this one is going to be priced higher than normal? on what evidence has this even occured in the past. regardless when they introduce the 4g or 3g model they are already goingt o be charging as much as they think they can.

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

If you later introduced the 3GB model after market prices have settled then yes you would end up with a cheaper option under that scenario.

 

However I would argue this would not happen using the same memory type as the difference in cost between 3GB and 4GB is too small making it not possible to introduce a 3GB card at a lower price point without switching to GDDR5 instead of GDDR5X or something else to lower the price. All the possible combinations and ways to later introduce cheaper options appears to all be coming to market immediately, if we are going to get cheaper options later in product life that could now only come from Nvidia and AIBs lowering prices and not from cheaper configurations being introduced like GDDR5X cards instead of GDDR6 etc.

 

This is better for Nvidia because all these variants are coming in at the beginning of the product life-cycle so will carry the higher price due to it, there will be more options across the price range and potentially more people opting to spend more had there only been two options like the GTX 1060 or three to account for a GDDR6 option or lesser etc.

 

This is not better for the consumer, at release the 3GB model offers no benefit to the consumer as it's not cheaper than the 4GB model would have been. Paying more for the 4GB doesn't result in you getting a better experience or performance unless you play at a resolution the requires it over the 3GB or games come out that need it at lower resolutions, but you ended up paying more than you would otherwise have and makes the existence of the 3GB model even more questionable.

 

This release structure of these 6 models at the same time doesn't benefit the consumer, the different options have dubious benefits and the biggest winner is Nvidia from people spending more on more expensive options they might not need or would otherwise have done under a different release structure.

You keep going back to raw material costs,  What AMD has on the market at the time of release will likely have a bigger influence on what Nvidia charge than the difference between 3G and 4G.

[D13H4RD]

45 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's all I have been saying, if the product is clearly described then what is the problem?  If the only difference is the ram then it should be labeled and that all it needs.  E.G RTX2060 6G GDDR6  They used to label them like this all the time.   In fact they aorus 9Gb still is labeled like that.

 

but yas I have been trying to illustrate, this is a problem with marketing and product disclosure, not a problem with have multiple options.

Personally, if the difference amounts to more than just VRAM capacity (like GDDR5 vs GDDR6, different CUDA core counts, etc.), then I'll still fall back to my earlier opinion that if such is the case, then the "Ti" should be affixed to the beefier model a la GTX 1050 vs 1050 Ti. 

 

But that's up to NVIDIA's product planning and marketing team to decide, and quite honestly, I sometimes get the impression that whoever does the naming for the various SKUs of a GPU from either NVIDIA or AMD is more of an engineer than a marketer. 

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You keep going back to raw material costs,  What AMD has on the market at the time of release will likely have a bigger influence on what Nvidia charge than the difference between 3G and 4G.

Yes because the cost does matter, the margins AIBs make on graphics card is extremely small. You need to actually go watch the GN videos on this. To later introduce a cheaper option the product has to be cheaper to make, AIBs margin is so small this is a necessity. AIBs cannot and will not sell at a loss.

 

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You still have to show why that would be the case.    All their cards are priced to benefit them,  how can you claim that in this situation (that hasn't even occurred yet) that this one is going to be priced higher than normal? on what evidence has this even occured in the past. regardless when they introduce the 4g or 3g model they are already goingt o be charging as much as they think they can.

You still don't understand the point, the lowest point will be fixed regardless of 3GB or 4GB. Having the 3GB just means you get less ram, that's it. You could of had 4GB but not under this release structure.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes because the cost does matter, the margins AIBs make on graphics card is extremely small. You need to actually go watch the GN videos on this. To later introduce a cheaper option the product has to be cheaper to make, AIBs margin is so small this is a necessity. AIBs cannot and will not sell at a loss.

That doesn't actually change anything.  It doesn't matter how low their margin, no one is going to pay more for a 3G over a 4G.  therefore it will be cheaper or it won't sell and then it really doesn't matter what their margin is.

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You still don't understand the point, the lowest point will be fixed regardless of 3GB or 4GB. Having the 3GB just means you get less ram, that's it. You could of had 4GB but not under this release structure.

They likely won't get to the lowest point because pricing starts as high as they can.  Besides that, even if they are fixed at the lowest point without the 3G model you are still going to be paying more for the 4G because nvidia can charge more.   Do you really think the lack of  a 3G model will reduce what they charge for the 4G?  We are talking about NVidia right?

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They likely won't get to the lowest point because pricing starts as high as they can.  Besides that, even if they are fixed at the lowest point without the 3G model you are still going to be paying more for the 4G because nvidia can charge more.   Do you really think the lack of  a 3G model will reduce what they charge for the 4G?  We are talking about NVidia right?

Actually yes because the market is only going to pay so much for the lowest option of the x60, what that actually is be it 3GB or 4GB won't change that. However if you release BOTH at the same time in to the market the 4GB will naturally settle at a higher price than the 3GB cards no matter what Nvidia and AIBs do, that is totally logical. This is not a point I am arguing against or saying wouldn't happen.

 

Situation 1:

RTX 2060 3GB is the lowest card, market price $200.

RTX 2060 6GB is the highest card, market price $250.

 

Situation 2:

RTX 2060 4GB is the lowest card, market price $200.

RTX 2060 6GB is the highest card, market price $250.

 

Situation 3:

RTX 2060 3GB is the lowest card, market price $200.

RTX 2060 4GB is the lowest card, market price $225.

RTX 2060 6GB is the highest card, market price $250.

 

Who wins? Nvidia from all those buying 4GB cards at $25 more.

 

Edit:

Hell I'll even throw in a bonus one:

Situation 4:

RTX 2060 4GB is the lowest card, market price $210.

RTX 2060 6GB is the highest card, market price $250.

 

Still better off the 3GB not being released at launch. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Actually yes because the market is only going to pay so much for the lowest option of the x60, what that actually is be it 3GB or 4GB won't change that. However if you release BOTH at the same time in to the market the 4GB will naturally settle at a higher price than the 3GB cards no matter what Nvidia and AIBs do, that is totally logical. This is not a point I am arguing against or saying wouldn't happen.

 

Situation 1:

RTX 2060 3GB is the lowest card, market price $200.

RTX 2060 6GB is the highest card, market price $250

 

Situation 2:

RTX 2060 4GB is the lowest card, market price $200.

RTX 2060 6GB is the highest card, market price $250

 

Situation 3:

RTX 2060 3GB is the lowest card, market price $200.

RTX 2060 4GB is the lowest card, market price $225.

RTX 2060 6GB is the highest card, market price $250

 

Who wins? Nvidia from all those buying 4GB cards at $25 more.

The problem is that is not evidencee that it is happening, this is just as likely from the way Nvidia usually charge:

 

Situation 1:

RTX 2060 3GB is the lowest card, market price $20000.

RTX 2060 6GB is the highest card, market price $25000

 

Situation 2:

RTX 2060 4GB is the lowest card, market price $23000.

RTX 2060 6GB is the highest card, market price $25000

 

Situation 3:

RTX 2060 3GB is the lowest card, market price $20000.

RTX 2060 4GB is the lowest card, market price $23000.

RTX 2060 6GB is the highest card, market price $25000

 

 

Humor aside, without knowing exactly what they are charging is seems illogical to assume they choose to sell the 4G for less than what they can just because they aren't offering a 3G.