nVidia has a GTX1060 with only 3GB of VRAM, but that's not all

[Misanthrope]

24 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Yes but their manufacturing process could be so bad that they don't have the choice to create cut down cards they wouldn't have released otherwise. I they had to throw a negligeable amount of cards because they can't be sold as a 1060, then it's okay, it doesn't cost them too much. But if they have like 10 to 20% of their production which isn't good enough, but in those cards, only a negligible part has less cores working than the 10%  cut-down limit,  it makes sense they create a new model to sell those cards they paid to manufacture.

That only explains the lack of cuda cores, not the cut down amount of vram which is clearly a cost saving measure.

[PlayStation 2]

22 hours ago, deviant88 said:

best way to rip off people its unbelievable what some companies get away with in gaming industry/hardware industry, people will think 1060 3GB its the same as 1060 6GB with less Vram, scammers

As shitty as this is, this technically isn't scamming.

[laminutederire]

2 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

As shitty as this is, this technically isn't scamming.

Legally speaking no, but morally it is shady enough to confuse non techies looking to but their first PCs 

 

9 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That only explains the lack of cuda cores, not the cut down amount of vram which is clearly a cost saving measure.

Yes because they have to make a differentiation and they have to explain people why it's cheaper 

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

Legally speaking no, but morally it is shady enough to confuse non techies looking to but their first PCs 

 

Yes because they have to make a differentiation and they have to explain people why it's cheaper 

That still doesn't explains why it must be a 1060. They could at least name it 1060u or 1060v for value or whatever to make it a distinct product. This is basically disengenious advertisement: look at how good the 1060 is! Too bad you bought the crap version even though we named it exactly the fucking same.

 

People just don't look at specs it will fool many.

[laminutederire]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That still doesn't explains why it must be a 1060. They could at least name it 1060u or 1060v for value or whatever to make it a distinct product. This is basically disengenious advertisement: look at how good the 1060 is! Too bad you bought the crap version even though we named it exactly the fucking same.

 

People just don't look at specs it will fool many.

Yes that is what I was saying, it's legally acceptable, but it's morally so unethical to do that.

But yeah people are fools and nvidia profits from it everytime.

[kuddlesworth9419]

23 hours ago, Majestic said:

Uses =/= requires.

 

I have seen 2GB cards tank, I'm not arguing against that. But the shift to 3GB being too low is not emperically proven, atleast not to my knowledge.

Back when I still had Skyrim I was using a lot of 8k textures and many graphical mods and an ENB. I was running at about 3.5GB of memory usage on a 680 Classified. If games these days are using more then that then they are doing something drastically wrong.

[aisle9]

22 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Yes that is what I was saying, it's legally acceptable, but it's morally so unethical to do that.

But yeah people are fools and nvidia profits from it everytime.

They both profit from it. AMD told gamers hungry for VR, particularly those on a tight budget, that it could create a VR-capable card for $200. Is it VR capable? Sure, barely. Will it be VR capable in a year? Not if you like your VR playable. I consider that to be as bad as gimping a 1060's core count and still calling it a 1060.

[AresKrieger]

Actually have they announce the spec for the 1060m because I remember hearing something about that chip being a thing, and generally the mobile GPUs are just cut down desktop gpus for thermals and or power efficiency (though they didn't cut the power requirement) 

[laminutederire]

4 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

They both profit from it. AMD told gamers hungry for VR, particularly those on a tight budget, that it could create a VR-capable card for $200. Is it VR capable? Sure, barely. Will it be VR capable in a year? Not if you like your VR playable. I consider that to be as bad as gimping a 1060's core count and still calling it a 1060.

Hmmm amd delivered on that promise. It IS in the minimum VR specs. In the future yes it won't be enough. When? I don't know, but that's the point of computer hardware, it is obselete before it is broken.

It isn't a lie, there are some metrics, they designed their card to enter it, that's it.

Besides who cares about AMD, we're talking about the 1060.

[Bananasplit_00]

2 hours ago, Emzijs said:

I read throught all the fuzz around here and stuff. And it got me wondering.

If Nvidia is so far ahead of AMD in terms of GPU VRAM and technology itself, then why it's all of a fuzz about GTX1060 3GB being the shitty card? Where I see, it's an opportunity for Nvidia to compete between RX460 and RX470 with this card with a price around 150 euros.
Other thing is, GTA V is mentioned as a benchmark here. I play it with my GTX750 OC 2GB and it holds up pretty well with 45-60fps on High settings with all the FXAA things turned down. Is really VRAM amount the issue, or the technology behind it?

not sure what kind of beastly 750TI you have but the one i had had massive problems in GTA-V, hell even TF2 and CS:GO, it was a horrible card IMO, and then paired with the FX-6300 i was running at the time it was a shit PC over all tbh but i was not maxing out that CPU so it was a GPU based bottleneck it seems

[aisle9]

4 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Hmmm amd delivered on that promise. It IS in the minimum VR specs. In the future yes it won't be enough. When? I don't know, but that's the point of computer hardware, it is obselete before it is broken.

It isn't a lie, there are some metrics, they designed their card to enter it, that's it.

Besides who cares about AMD, we're talking about the 1060.

I just hate it when someone rails on the hypocrisy and shady business dealings of one team without mentioning those of the other. They both do it. Intel does it. Every player in every goods-based industry does it. In this particular case, NVIDIA is pretty blatantly screwing consumers who might see it come to market and get excited that they can afford a 1060 without knowing that it's just barely a 1060--kind of like how PC owners in the low/mid-market got excited that they could afford a VR-capable GPU for $200--then will see that when they start buying VR games in a year, their GPU is useless.

 

Of course, that begs the question of who the hell taught VR-hungry gamers to build systems that leave them with only $200 for the GPU, but I digress.

 

If NVIDIA does the right thing and calls this GPU either a 1050 or a 1050 Ti, this whole thread is a moot point. If they don't, well, that'll be disappointing for us. Not so much for the prebuilt OEMs that will no doubt snap up 1060 3GB boards like hot cakes, and for the typical Best Buy prebuilt shopper who doesn't know the intricacies of the GPU, just knows that when he says he wants a $900 gaming PC, the employee takes him over to an iBuyCrap rig and leaves the kid in awe of how far his $900 will go: a Skylake i5 (never mind that it's a 6400) and a GTX 1060 (with 3GB of VRAM and, more importantly, a reduced core count).

[Emzijs]

9 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

not sure what kind of beastly 750TI you have but the one i had had massive problems in GTA-V, hell even TF2 and CS:GO, it was a horrible card IMO, and then paired with the FX-6300 i was running at the time it was a shit PC over all tbh but i was not maxing out that CPU so it was a GPU based bottleneck it seems

I had it with FX4100 and now with i5 6500. CSGO is running on 200-250fps with high settings without HSAA/AA/FXAA bullshit. Same settings with GTA V, and having 30-55 fps.

I am now considering for upgrading to EVGA GTX970 FTW since I am on tight budget, and I may can get it for 200 euro brand new.

 

[Bananasplit_00]

Just now, Emzijs said:

I had it with FX4100 and now with i5 6500. CSGO is running on 200-250fps with high settings without HSAA/AA/FXAA bullshit. Same settings with GTA V, and having 30-55 fps.

I am now considering for upgrading to EVGA GTX970 FTW since I am on tight budget, and I may can get it for 200 euro brand new.

 

im starting to belive more and more that my 750TI was broken. lol now my brother is using my old FX-6300 + 750TI computer  he is always complaining that its preforming like shit and he cant even get a solid 60fps on low/medium aparently 

[Emzijs]

2 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

im starting to belive more and more that my 750TI was broken. lol now my brother is using my old FX-6300 + 750TI computer  he is always complaining that its preforming like shit and he cant even get a solid 60fps on low/medium aparently 

It may be the case. Because my card is still pretty strong in terms of mid/high gaming settings at 1080p. But as I said - it's already too weak and I am looking into upgrade.

[laminutederire]

21 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

I just hate it when someone rails on the hypocrisy and shady business dealings of one team without mentioning those of the other. They both do it. Intel does it.

To be frank the VR ceiling won't change that much for a while though. Headsets are so expensive no one buy those, so no developer make good looking games for it, therefore no need for beastly gpus for VR until we have Gta VR in 5 years.

 

Thing is that nvidia is blatantly arrogant about screwing their customers while other at least try to respect people a bit.

[Nup]

Bit of a tinfoil hat moment here - but this could be a move to make their 1060m look better. 

[aisle9]

Just now, laminutederire said:

Thing is that nvidia is blatantly arrogant about screwing their customers while other at least try to respect people a bit.

Eh, I think they'll all more or less do anything for a quick buck, regardless of who gets screwed in the process. It's just a question of who's done the most annoying thing in the last few weeks.

[captain cactus]

2 hours ago, Maxxtraxx said:

 

Thank you, first hand users/owners of 3Gb cards!

 

This thread seems to be an argument for the sake of argument.

 

There seems to be a few points that show what 3Gb of Vram means for performance.

 

1: 3Gb is enough Vram... adjust settings to match your hardware... Because you're on PC and you can!

2: 3Gb seems a good match for the performance of the card! Having more Vram on a card doesn't mean the card is powerful enough to use all of it in most cases.

3: AMD seems to add Vram to their cards as a sales point...

4: I agree and belive that this card should be called the GTX1050 or 1050Ti

 

Because 8Gb would be better than 4gb on a card like a GTX960/GTX1060 just like 32Gb of system memory is better than 16Gb for your Pentium G3258... more does not mean faster or better or more usable.

More is not always better and when you don't have enough on a few games... adjust settings, It's not a console.

 

Nope, the R9-390 series (and the 290) don't have any compression on the things that go into memory whatsoever, so they require lots of VRAM (and lots of bandwidth which is why the 290/390 series have a 512-bit bus with 16 flipping memory chips).

[Maxxtraxx]

45 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Nope, the R9-390 series (and the 290) don't have any compression on the things that go into memory whatsoever, so they require lots of VRAM (and lots of bandwidth which is why the 290/390 series have a 512-bit bus with 16 flipping memory chips).

Ok, that may be the case ALSO, but when you don't have the performance advantage it's all about the paper specs to help bolster sales... the automotive market has been this way for years.

 

I guess it's another good way of doing it, if you don't have the compression algorithms to reduce memory bandwidth consumption then just get a bigger memory bus to up the throughput... Either make the peg smaller to fit through the available hole or make a bigger hole to fit the peg through.

[captain cactus]

40 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Ok, that may be the case ALSO, but when you don't have the performance advantage it's all about the paper specs to help bolster sales... the automotive market has been this way for years.

 

I guess it's another good way of doing it, if you don't have the compression algorithms to reduce memory bandwidth consumption then just get a bigger memory bus to up the throughput... Either make the peg smaller to fit through the available hole or make a bigger hole to fit the peg through.

Or do both: a smaller peg in a bigger hole so more smaller pegs fit trough said hole.

[Prysin]

4 hours ago, MageTank said:

What does Lays being Lays have to do with anything? He has experience with 780's. As do I. As do a lot of people. What he says is exactly what I stated earlier in this thread. 

 

If you are going to call @Lays out on it, you need to call me out on it too. Though, you are going to be in for a very difficult time, because what he and I have said is an absolute fact. Look at those notebook GPU's with twice the VRAM of their desktop counterparts, and tell me if its enough to make those crippled GPU's strong enough to handle demanding titles.

 

You know I like you Prysin, but the way you worded this post just annoys me. It makes it seem as if Lays (or myself) know nothing about GPU's because in our experience, VRAM was not the limiting factor when raw horsepower was. 

yes. for the 700 series you WOULD be correct. Both of you. However the way i interpreted @Lays post, he stated that "3GB is fine for this tier" of cards, however the 1060, even if cut down, is easily capable of pushing above 3GB before dipping below 60FPS. As i demonstrated with my 290X, which would be very close in performance to a 1060, or a 1060 is very close in performance to a 290X. Whatever floats your goat.

 

I would argue that a 1060 is too strong, for 3GB VRAM. Even if cut down. Anything at GTX 970 levels of performance, or higher, should never have less then 4GB VRAM. SImply because the GPU IS powerful enough to push the pixels.

 

There is also the fact that Nvidia GPUs are VERY good at pushing raw pixel count, morphing and rasterizing. Which means that using higher quality assets, such as 4k native textures and downsampling should not affect the GPU in any major way, performance wise. In comparison, the real taxing effects are as always Alpha effects, Global or local lighting and global or local shading. These are the most common performance hungry effects. Yes raw resolution can be an issue, but by downsampling, the final end of the image, the one where you apply shader based tasks such as Anti Aliasing and Ambient occlusion doesnt have to deal with the higher res image as it should already have been downsampled before or during the initial post processing.

[Prysin]

2 hours ago, aisle9 said:

Eh, I think they'll all more or less do anything for a quick buck, regardless of who gets screwed in the process. It's just a question of who's done the most annoying thing in the last few weeks.

i think, for the last 4 years or so. AMD has been playing the "good guy". Not because they couldnt be assholes, but because they NEED to gain market share. By attending to your customers rather then your bottom line, you are able to build a loyal following. The best customer, is after all, a return customer. And the more customers they can get, the more efficient they can build their brand up to where they are truly competitive.

[aisle9]

3 minutes ago, Prysin said:

i think, for the last 4 years or so. AMD has been playing the "good guy". Not because they couldnt be assholes, but because they NEED to gain market share. By attending to your customers rather then your bottom line, you are able to build a loyal following. The best customer, is after all, a return customer. And the more customers they can get, the more efficient they can build their brand up to where they are truly competitive.

Well, yes and no. I wouldn't dare suggest that NVIDIA is above such things, but most of AMD's R7 line was just rebranding of Radeon HD GPUs with the pomp, circumstance and price tag of a new card. I don't remember how AMD was marketing those cards, but blatant rebranding of old designs isn't exactly "good guy" stuff.

 

But, again, they didn't fundamentally weaken a GPU and market it as the same thing. That is really, really BS, and I'm still holding out some shred of hope that by the time the 1060 3GB makes it to market, it will be called the 1050, 1050 Ti, 1055, 1059 and a half Ti, anything to indicate that it is, in fact, a weaker chip, not just less VRAM.

[Prysin]

6 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Well, yes and no. I wouldn't dare suggest that NVIDIA is above such things, but most of AMD's R7 line was just rebranding of Radeon HD GPUs with the pomp, circumstance and price tag of a new card. I don't remember how AMD was marketing those cards, but blatant rebranding of old designs isn't exactly "good guy" stuff.

 

But, again, they didn't fundamentally weaken a GPU and market it as the same thing. That is really, really BS, and I'm still holding out some shred of hope that by the time the 1060 3GB makes it to market, it will be called the 1050, 1050 Ti, 1055, 1059 and a half Ti, anything to indicate that it is, in fact, a weaker chip, not just less VRAM.

well R7 from AMD is basically the same as "GT" cards from Nvidia.... and both of them doesnt give a shit if they put new parts into "that" linup.

[aisle9]

Just now, Prysin said:

well R7 from AMD is basically the same as "GT" cards from Nvidia.... and both of them doesnt give a shit if they put new parts into "that" linup.

*looks at his GT 730

*looks at the GT 430 that is literally the exact same thing, just $5 on Craigslist instead of $20

*curses NVIDIA