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

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

 

 

Either you are assuming more options are good or you are ignoring how multiple variants of the same card can be confusing for the consumer/buyer.

I am not assuming they are bad like many already are, but pointing out that (generally speaking) more options are good, how could it be bad?  you are not forced to buy a specific option, you buy the one that best suits your needs, with more options more needs are catered for.

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I'm not assuming more is bad, I know more are bad if they don't actually make a difference or inflate prices to accommodate their existence.

Exactly, if, if they meet the criteria to be bad they are bad, but just having more options doesn't automatically make them bad, they actually have to do something dodgy or anti consumer like they did with the 1060 or the 1030 for it to be bad. Even then it wasn't more options that were bad, it was deceptive naming/advertising practices that was dodgy.

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

If there is an actual performance difference between them then using the same model number is again confusing to the consumer/buyer and therefore bad.

Again, I have already qualified that, I said if the only difference was memory (which includes anything associated that isn't optional (like bandwidth)),  then how is just have a few more options bad.  We don;t know if the GPU cores are going to be different between them yet or not. If they then sure, that's fucked up naming, but we don't know yet.

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Critical thinking applied moves the likelihood away from more options being good for the consumer/buyer to being worse.

Then give me an example,  we have many options from the GT1030 all the way to the RTXtitan, is that intrinsically bad?  We have multiple options on mobos with the same chipset (I.E number of sata ports, size, usb port 3/c support) does that make them bad?  no because somewhere along the line there are consumers who don't use USB C or need 6 sata devices connected.   The same thing happens outside PCs too, you have 3 difference versions of most drills each with different options/performance ratings. 

 

As I said before more options is better, bad naming and advertising practices are not.

[D13H4RD]

Realistically speaking, this is early days, but I have a feeling that unless the differences are made clear, this is probably going to be identical to the GTX 1060 3GB vs 6GB, where the latter has the full CUDA core count of the GP106 amongst other things. 

 

And I'm still in the camp that a 3GB + 4GB SKU probably isn't necessary when plopped together. Personally, I'd take a 4GB + 6GB SKU, and not adding a third one with 3GB of VRAM.

 

I still maintain that the beefier model with all the latest tech and goodies should have the "Ti" prefix to denote that this is the beefier model with the latest tech and the full CUDA core count, sort of like the 1050 Ti vs 1050

[Bouzoo]

43 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I am not the one making assumptions here. No ones knows what the difference is other than memory.

Even if there is not, it's too many options. Before you say that more options are better, don't forget that NV introduced with 1060 the 9Gbps card, so it's not unusual for them to add even more. There is a point after which many options becomes too many options which just confuse the customer. I can assume that they are using 3 and 6 due to how the chips stack, but then use all chips in 6GB and use 4GB as 2nd card, drop the freaking 3GB.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

Even if there is not, it's too many options. Before you say that more options are better, don't forget that NV introduced with 1060 the 9Gbps card, so it's not unusual for them to add even more.

Even knowing that I can say more options are better because more options are better.  Just because they introduce options that you think are pointless, unless they are doing something dodgy and not disclosing the actual hardware, then damn right more options are better.

 

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

There is a point after which many options becomes too many options which literally just confuse the customer.

Thatr's just the 3rd person effect,  what makes you so sure that GPU customers aren't as savvy as you?

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

I can assume that they are using 3 and 6 due to how the chips stack, but then use all chips in 6GB and use 4GB as 2nd card, drop the freaking 3GB.

if the only difference is less ram and a lower price then why should they drop it.  I bought a 570 because the current 1060 (even the 3g version) was too much, but had they had a cheaper version that still outperformed the AMD equivalent I would have bought it.

[Dabombinable]

Luckily I've once again avoided this problem....by getting another **70 series card as they seem to lack the "Geforce FX5200 syndrome" that's plaguing Nvidia's lower tier cards. The sheer number of models for that series was insane. And manufacturers were scummy AF about it as they didn't need to specify what each version lacked.

[D13H4RD]

I want to be clear on this. 

 

Whilst I agree that more choices are good for the consumer, there has to be a distinction between logical choices and redundant ones. 

 

My personal philosophy is that a product lineup should adequately cover various bases depending on the market segment, budget, demands and other factors, and done so in a manner that is clear and concise. Such as having 3 distinct product families for the budget, midrange and high-end market. 

 

The problem starts when you begin adding in redundant products that could share the same name as another product but have minor spec differences that add up to a product that ultimately isn't much different. Even worse still is when you add a product that has the same name as another but performs far worse (GT 1030 DDR4). 

 

IMO, a choice between a 4GB and a 6GB SKU is good for the consumer as it gives them an additional choice based on their needs and budget so as long as it is made clearly. I don't think a 3GB SKU is necessary, especially if there are no other differences. 

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I am not assuming they are bad like many already are, but pointing out that (generally speaking) more options are good, how could it be bad? 

100% disagree, see my quote. That is an assumption and is bad. You first have to show more is good to say they are good.

 

More options can be good, more options can be bad. All you did was generalize that more is good when you can make the same generalization to say it's bad.

 

I'm applying more than just simple assumption so evaluate if having 6 RTX 2060 is likely good or bad from past experience, questions asked on forums, questions asked of me personally, information I have gathered on things like BOM costs and how that translates to product costs.

 

I'm more than happy to say these 6 variants are most likely bad for consumers and could be better dealt with by using different models, I'm not saying they should not exist.

[D13H4RD]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

More options can be good, more options can be bad. All you did was generalize that more is good when you can make the same generalization to say it's bad.

More options can be good provided that there is not much redundant choices alongside a clear concise nomenclature and hierarchy that clearly depicts exactly which market segment that product caters to. 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, D13H4RD said:

More options can be good provided that there is not much redundant choices alongside a clear concise nomenclature and hierarchy that clearly depicts exactly which market segment that product caters to. 

Yes and that's not counter or different to what I'm saying, simply generalizing, assuming or what ever name one wants to call it so say more = good is wrong. More is just more.

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes and that's not counter or different to what I'm saying, simply generalizing, assuming or what ever name one wants to call it so say more = good is wrong. More is just more.

I think a good example of that was Samsung's smartphone portfolio in the early 2010s.

 

Could you tell a difference between one Galaxy versus another seemingly identical Galaxy? Those were immensely confusing, especially when there were so many that catered to one market segment. 

 

Granted, many were region-specific, but it's not exactly organized 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

100% disagree, see my quote. That is an assumption and is bad. You first have to show more is good to say they are good.

I gave a few examples of how more is good.  Generally speaking more is always better for the consumer
.

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

More options can be good, more options can be bad. All you did was generalize that more is good when you can make the same generalization to say it's bad.

No, tI'm just not assuming this is bad because Nvidia rather I'm waiting for the actual products details to release and deciding based on actual information.  In general more choice is better. 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I'm applying more than just simple assumption so evaluate if having 6 RTX 2060 is likely good or bad from past experience, questions asked on forums, questions asked of me personally, information I have gathers on things like BOM costs and how that translates to product costs.

But not on actual product information?  Without actual information, deciding it's bad is an assumption.

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I'm more than happy to say these 6 variants are most like bad for consumers and could be better dealt with by using different models, I'm not saying they should not exist.

Different models than what, you don't even know what makes these models different outside of ram.  How can you "know" an alternative models name is better when you don't have any information on the actual?  Why would they use a different model if it turns out that the GPUS are identical bar for memory?

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, D13H4RD said:

I think a good example of that was Samsung's smartphone portfolio in the early 2010s.

 

Could you tell a difference between one Galaxy versus another seemingly identical Galaxy? Those were immensely confusing, especially when there were so many that catered to one market segment. 

 

Granted, many were region-specific, but it's not exactly organized 

TBH you could show me 3 photos of different Samsung Galaxy phones and I'd be unable to say what they are, I care very little about phones and my personal one is a Nokia 635 lol.

[D13H4RD]

Just now, leadeater said:

TBH you could show me 3 photos of different Samsung Galaxy phones and I'd be unable to say what they are, I care very little about phones and my personal one is a Nokia 635 lol.

Haha, but I tend to use that as an example of a product lineup with a lot of redundant products and a lack of cohesion as to what caters to whom.

 

Thankfully, they've cleared up (at least somewhat) with their current lineup, where you have the Galaxy J for the lower-end, the Galaxy A for the midrange and the Galaxy S/Note for the high-end. (That's not to say its flawless as even some Galaxy J/A phones overlap each other) 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I gave a few examples of how more is good.  Generally speaking more is always better for the consumer

You gave examples of products with functional difference, they could also have size differences, or colour difference among other differences that would differentiate the product more and have more meaning than this. Not very relevant here.

 

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Generally speaking more is always better for the consumer

Disagree. Consumer electronics is riddled with tons of redundant models of products poorly explained or differentiated, dubious pricing differences and poor understanding of these from the people trying to sell it. This is true across computers, computer parts, phones, audio/visual etc. And that's all within the same manufacturer, add in all the market options and it gets worse.

 

Generally speaking I would not say more options is good nor bad here.

 

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Different models than what, you don't even know what makes these models different outside of ram. 

RTX 2060 Ti = GDDR6 and RTX 2060 = GDDR5 as just one simple example. Using already existing established model naming that has some understanding within the consumer base and is more easily identifiable from the product box/name.

 

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But not on actual product information?  Without actual information, deciding it's bad is an assumption.

Sorry but I have actually used actual information and knowledge.

[Bouzoo]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Generally speaking more is always better for the consumer

Yes, generally speaking it is. Generally speaking having 2060s with 1GB or 2GB is good as well since it brings more options. Generally speaking pushing out 15 cards at $800 each is better than 6 cards at $500 since it gives more options. A bit extreme generalization but I'm holding to the generalgeneral part. 

Generally customers should have more options no doubt. This one the other hand is, in my subjective opinion, is exploiting customers. 

 

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Thatr's just the 3rd person effect,  what makes you so sure that GPU customers aren't as savvy as you?

GPU customers? Just so there is no confusion, as in people who buy GPUs? I mean that's literally everyone. Upgrading or new builds. Not me alone, but everyone on this forum is a minority as a tech savvy person. Every single one of us. It's a fact that most customers aren't tech savvy. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You gave examples of products with functional difference, they could also have size differences, or colour difference among other differences that would differentiate the product more and have more meaning than this. Not very relevant here.

Not relevant? how? it is purely an example of more optio9ns being good.  We don't know how many cores the 2060 has let alone if each model will be different.

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Disagree. Consumer electronics is riddled with tons of redundant models of products poorly explained or differentiated, dubious pricing differences and poor understanding of these from the people trying to sell it. This is true across computers, computer parts, phones, audio/visual etc. And that's all within the same manufacturer, add in all the market options and it gets worse.

You're not describing a problem with options but a problem with advertising and marketing information. 

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Generally speaking I would not say more options is good nor bad here.

 

RTX 2060 Ti = GDDR6 and RTX 2060 = GDDR5 as just one simple example. Using already existing established model naming that has some understanding within the consumer base and is more easily identifiable from the product box/name.

One example fo something better than what?  if each model clearly indicates what it is then you are just changing names for sake of it.

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Sorry but I have actually used actual information and knowledge.

How many cuda cores does the 2060 have? how many tensor corse? what with the stock freq be?  

 

What actual information?

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

GPU customers? Just so there is no confusion, as in people who buy GPUs? I mean that's literally everyone. Upgrading or new builds. Not me alone, but everyone on this forum is a minority as a tech savvy person. Every single one of us. It's a fact that most customers aren't tech savvy. 

GPU customers, people who buy GPU's do so becasue they are, as you say upgrading or building a PC.  They constitute majority of the GPU buying market. People who don't know the difference between a 1030 and 570 don't buy GPU's as a general rule, they get a friend to help or they buy a prebuilt.  Tech enthusiasts might be the minority of all consumers, but we are the majority of PC component buying consumers.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

GPU customers? Just so there is no confusion, as in people who buy GPUs? I mean that's literally everyone. Upgrading or new builds. Not me alone, but everyone on this forum is a minority as a tech savvy person. Every single one of us. It's a fact that most customers aren't tech savvy. 

And even then within this sub group it was still not that widely understood that there was a difference between the GTX 1060 3GB and GTX 1060 6GB. Takes time to raise product awareness and more options increases that time. Even if there are no GPU core differences between these 6 cards there is going to be a lot of people asking for help understanding the difference between them.

 

The sheer number of them and the scenarios where those differences may or may not matter is probably going to lead to only 2 or 3 of them getting popular recommendations, like the RTX 2060 6GB GDDR6 for the higher memory bandwidth to sustain higher resolution performance.

[Bouzoo]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

majority of PC component buying consumers.

Yeah I'd disagree hard. Really hard. I could argue from my experience yada yada, but that us not good enough of a proof. On a global scale I think we are still a minority even with helping people. As a general rule they should ask for helo, but they so often don't. I think thisis one of those arguments where we will probably never convince each other. 

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

One example fo something better than what?  if each model clearly indicates what it is then you are just changing names for sake of it.

Because you're less likely to buy the GDDR5 variant when you actually wanted the GDDR6. It's not just changing it for the sake of it there is a clear difference between GDDR5 and GDDR6 even without an actual performance difference which we don't know yet. However if it doesn't matter then why bother listing if it has GDDR5 or GDDR6, lawsuit protection against people getting pissy they only got GDDR5 and not GDDR6?

 

And the 3GB or the 4GB, either one, doesn't need to exist.

 

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You're not describing a problem with options but a problem with advertising and marketing information. 

More options under the same model is simply more confusing, marketing will not fix that. Not creating 6 sub models of the same thing without a clear reason to will fix that. If you're going to ignore the past and other GPUs and how ram amount makes little to no difference unless the GPU can drive a high enough resolution to require more then you are ignoring clear information that more options under that amount does nothing.

 

The cost of ram chips is small, so small to keep product segmentation an artificial buffer will be required. You know what is better for the consumer, not having that extra option and having a single option that makes the most sense.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

Yeah I'd disagree hard. Really hard. I could argue from my experience yada yada, but that us not good enough of a proof. On a global scale I think we are still a minority even with helping people. As a general rule they should ask for helo, but they so often don't. I think thisis one of those arguments where we will probably never convince each other. 

I just don't know a single person who buys a GPU or CPU but has zero idea about it.  Would you go and buy a circular saw based on the model number or would you research?  would you buy a car because of it's name or would you take it for a test drive and read reviews?  Most people are just like us, they are no less stupid as they are foolish.  

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Because you're less likely to buy the GDDR5 variant when you actually wanted the GDDR6. It's not just changing it for the sake of it there is a clear difference between GDDR5 and GDDR6 even without an actual performance difference which we don't know yet. However if it doesn't matter then why bother listing if it has GDDR5 or GDDR6, lawsuit protection against people getting pissy they only got GDDR5 and not GDDR6?

But if they are listed in the product description then why do they need another model name altogether? why is it a problem if you walk into a shop and they have on the shelf two 2060 and one is labled GDDR5 and is cheaper than the one labeled GDDR6?  What if that memory is the only difference, do you still want them to differentiate (which they already have) between the two models?

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

And the 3GB or the 4GB, either one, doesn't need to exist.

According to you, what if I want it? what if the difference is more than just a few $$ because there is a problem with the GPU and they had to laser of a dud part of the memory?

 

We just don't know why yet, and if the differences are clearly labeled why does it matter?

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

More options under the same model is simply more confusing, marketing will not fix that. Not creating 6 sub models of the same thing without a clear reason to will fix that. If you're going to ignore the past and other GPUs and how ram amount makes little to no difference unless the GPU can drive a high enough resolution to require more then you are ignoring clear information that more options under than amount does nothing.

UI'm glad you feel that way, but it doesn't actually give me an example of having more options being bad. 

 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

The cost of ram chips is small, so small to keep product segmentation an artificial buffer will be required. You know what is better for the consumer, not having that extra option and having a single option that makes the most sense.

You feel that would be better for you, I like having lots of options.  I hated the way they advertised and marketed the 1030, but to be honest having the option of a cheaper DDR4 card is great, not everyone needs a fast GPU for word when their one dies.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But if they are listed in the product description then why do they need another model name altogether?

Sure putting it right at the end and it being more a technical product spec than the model is oh so clear. They are all RTX 2060's, they are all the same right? Those numbers at the end aren't that important, I'll just get the cheapest.

 

Nobody ever gets confused by numbers tacked on to the end of model numbers/names.

 

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

According to you, what if I want it? what if the difference is more than just a few $$ because there is a problem with the GPU and they had to laser of a dud part of the memory?

According to every review ever that shows that and the information gathered from places like GN that has covered the cost of parts on GPUs and how the price structure works etc, and also actually looking up what the cost of the memory chips are.

 

The cost, MSRP, will indeed be more than just a few dollars because that's what will happen to necessitate product segmentation. You know the cost of the die doesn't actually change even when lasering off parts right?

 

Edit:

You'll have a better shot at convincing me that the source for this is bogus and some of those are actually RTX 2050's than to get me to say all 6 of those options is better for the consumer.

[D13H4RD]

To be frank though, releasing an RTX 2060 Ti isn't too wild for NVIDIA. 

 

The prior generation 1050 Ti was a GP107 with the full CUDA core count and additional VRAM versus the 1050 whilst the 1070 Ti was a GP104 with less disabled cores and likely other enhancements versus the 1070.

 

The one exception are the xx80 Ti cards, where they were basically Titan GPUs that are slightly cut down for consumer use in the high-end. 

 

You could call the full on 2060 a 2060 GDDR6, but I think 2060 Ti just makes more sense, especially if the lesser models have lower binned GPUs of the same model. 

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Sure putting it right at the end and it being more a technical product spec than the model is oh so clear. They are all RTX 2060's, they are all the same right? Those number at the end aren't that important, I'll just get the cheapest.

 

Nobody every gets confused by numbers tacked on to the end of model numbers/names.

You didn't answer the question, if the product is properly described (product description), then why does it need another model number/name, no other product on the planet has a different model name for variations within that model.  

 

 

Quote

According to every review ever that shows and the information gathered from places like GN that has covered the cost of parts on GPUs and how the price struct works etc, and also actually looking up what the cost of the memory chips are.

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.

 

Quote

The cost, MSRP, will indeed be more than just a few dollars because that's what will happen to necessitate product segmentation. You know the cost of the die doesn't actually change even when lasering off parts right?

Of course it doesn't, but they can't charge the same price for a defective ship that can only utilise half the ram.  It has to be cheaper or it won't sell at all.

 

EDIT: I can't believe you thought I was talking about taking a perfectly good chip and lasering off a bit to make a cheaper one, I seriously mean't taking the failed silicon and selling it cheaper. 

[Bouzoo]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I just don't know a single person who buys a GPU or CPU but has zero idea about it.  Would you go and buy a circular saw based on the model number or would you research?  would you buy a car because of it's name or would you take it for a test drive and read reviews?  Most people are just like us, they are no less stupid as they are foolish.  

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.