Nvidia is at it again: 3060 8GB released, up to 35% slower than its 12GB counterpart

[MageTank]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Which review didn't specify the ram size? 

Almost all of them specify it in the "specs" pages of the review. The problem is, almost everyone looking at reviews is going to skip the written essay in favor of the visual graphs. None of the visual graphs included the VRAM size for the 3060 so people googling "RTX 3060 review" are likely going to find those older reviews from the usual reputable sources and assume that the 3060 referenced in the review matches the one they are buying, when that may not be the case.

 

This means every review outlet is going to have to start specifying VRAM capacity in their GPU names on their charts going forward in anticipation of Nvidia's shenanigans or risk potentially misleading their audience unintentionally. 

 

Or, Nvidia can have my idea for free and bring back the xxx5 names to their GPUs. Seriously, there was nothing stopping them from calling this an RTX 3055, lol.

[leadeater]

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

So you think people can't differentiate between a 12 and an 8?    Only in a few heads does the black and white absolutes conclude that only the first 4 numbers are important and everything else can be ignored.

If you are asking this question then you have listened to nothing and are not even trying to understand what the problem might be.

 

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

So?  if you buy a product that is not reviewed and you don't know how it performs who's fault is that?    Thinking that 3060 by itself should tell you everything you need to know to make an informed decision is just fantasy. 

Bad logic, these products should at least have something from the original manufacture. Nvidia should acknowledge with actual information what the product and performance difference might be. A spec sheet listing is not sufficient.

 

RTX 3060 by itself tells you it's an RTX 3060, 12GB and 8GB on the end tells you what the VRAM capacity is. Thinking that people are inherently going to think they will preform so differently is idiotic and goes against all understanding of Nvidia graphic card naming.

 

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

There is always a none zero group of people who will make all manner of mistakes,  but as I said earlier, if someone is that stupid that they will not look up reviews or find out what the difference is between 8 and 12 for this model then no naming convention will help them.

So you are just going to dismiss how easy it is to find the wrong information, that information about it from Nvidia does not exist and the time span where it did not exist from everyone.

 

Here is a suggestion, instead of passing this off and calling people idiots you apply a little bit of actual thinking to the issue. Making such a mistake is simple and does not make such a person stupid.

 

Don't ask me what I think makes anyone saying what you are to be...

 

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

The fact that other specs change with ram size should not be a problem because it has already been established that the product is not the same.

And it's been established and proven that those changes typically result in an actual model change i.e. RTX 3070 Ti. A change in ram size does not mean a change in memory bus, it can change not it will change.

 

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

I see no evidence that the current prefix/GPU number/post fix and ram size naming scheme (when honest) actually misleads consumers.

Right so you ignored evidence proving this to be true. No I will not post it again. You have lost your right due to your own actions for me to bother giving you the effort to do it again.

 

It's been proven it does, end of story. Historic evidence is there, go find it.

 

You not seeing it is a you problem not proof it's not a thing. Yet again I cannot fix a you problem.

 

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

But my point in this case is that you can identify these products very clearly because of the ram size, therefore when you look at the review you will know which is better

Does not address the issue of existing review not including 12GB in the graphs. Does not address the issue of Nvidia not clearly supply equivalent information that exists for the 12GB original model. Does not address the issue of how easy it is to end up looking at the wrong one, large part due to the two former things.

 

You argument is insufficient and is not better than any of proposed name others have given.

 

Notice how I do not agree with your point. Here's a hint, I likely will never agree with your point and you're supporting arguments you've tried to put forward are not good. If they were good I would have change my opinion, even slightly. Nothing you have said has changed anything in any way for me. Re-explaining again will not change the situation, I do understand what you have been saying but me understanding is not agreeing.

 

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

Your argument boils down to "the box doesn't tell me how the card will perform" so it must be misleading. 

No it doesn't. Why are you consistently proving so hard you read nothing? Maybe clue in to me repeating this to you multiple times now that you do actually not understand a single argument given to you because seemingly you don't want to.

 

If this is the case then simply exist the conversation.

 

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

Only because you have seen reviews,  and only because you can identify each product in said reviews. 

No I can because that's how Nvidia has always named products. I do not need to read a review to know that an RTX 3060 is fundamentally different to an RTX 3070 because Nvidia tells me so and gives me the information directly about how they are different to an actually sufficient standard.

 

This is not a argument for a replacement of reviews. This is an argument about how the naming convention is sufficient to indicate it's fundamental product difference and how an RTX 3060 is not an RTX 3070.

 

I can read exactly zero reviews and understand there is a large difference between those two products. Without a review of the RTX 3060 8GB I could not do the same, it is currently impossible to be informed in any about how different it might be to the RTX 3060 12GB.

 

No 128bit vs 192bit is not sufficient to inform me of that.

 

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

Hell, you wouldn't even know which one was better without reviews.

Yes I can, that were not true then Nvidia would be guilty of false advertising.

 

I should consult reviews but I do not need to consult them to know which is better. I can get other important information from reviews but that has nothing to do with this and as much as you want to try and bring that in to the conversation it is not relevant to the issue between the RTX 3060 8GB and RTX 3060 12GB naming.

 

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

You cannot argue that the name needs to illustrate a degree of performance or the detail of the product because they just can't, there are way to many variations for that.

They literally already do, right now and in the past. What on earth are you saying?

 

I legitimately think you've lost the plot trying to defend your point that you are now saying things you know not to be the case that you would at any other time realize.

[leadeater]

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

My argument is that traditionally ram size is unique to each model/version (so much so that it is a defacto part of the name).

Then you'd be wrong because the defacto stance about how people talk about Nvidia graphics card is without the VRAM.

 

You're fooling yourself by looking at URL titles on online stores. Those have zero baring on how real people in the real world and in reviews talk about the GPUs, write them down and speak audibly about them.

 

You would be lying if you said you hear people regularly say out loud the VRAM amount for any typical graphics card and you'd be lying if you said that VRAM capacity is normally included in review graphs.

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, MageTank said:

Almost all of them specify it in the "specs" pages of the review. The problem is, almost everyone looking at reviews is going to skip the written essay in favor of the visual graphs. None of the visual graphs included the VRAM size for the 3060 so people googling "RTX 3060 review" are likely going to find those older reviews from the usual reputable sources and assume that the 3060 referenced in the review matches the one they are buying, when that may not be the case.

 

This means every review outlet is going to have to start specifying VRAM capacity in their GPU names on their charts going forward in anticipation of Nvidia's shenanigans or risk potentially misleading their audience unintentionally. 

 

But they all do say it in the review.  If a consumer isn't confirming that the review is for the model they are looking at then I don't what to tell anyone.  Every review I have read mentions the ram, bandwidth, power configuration etc.  Sure they don;t always need to put it in the graphs, but if you read any review or scientific research paper you will quickly see that that is the norm.   The average consumer has somehow managed to work it out alright up until now. I am not sure why all of a sudden it is a problem.

19 hours ago, MageTank said:

Or, Nvidia can have my idea for free and bring back the xxx5 names to their GPUs. Seriously, there was nothing stopping them from calling this an RTX 3055, lol.

And doing that would not change anything, people would still have to look up reviews to know how it performs,  but going on the arguments in this thread the logic would be if they call it a 3055 then people will assume it performs better than a 3050 and worse than a 3060.  That logic quickly falls down as soon as you realise that the name will never accurately depict performance no matter what they call it.

 

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

If you are asking this question then you have listened to nothing and are not even trying to understand what the problem might be.

 

Or you just don't like my conclusion.  

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Bad logic, these products should at least have something from the original manufacture. Nvidia should acknowledge with actual information what the product and performance difference might be. A spec sheet listing is not sufficient.

Why's that?  there is almost nothing that the manufacture can include in a name that will satisfy the rational for asking for a different name.   Because no matter what they call it you will still be reliant on reviews to know how good it is.  I think the problem is you know that the ram amount makes a perfectly reasonable identifier as it has done before and you cannot argue that people will look at a 12G review and confuse it for an 8G review.  If that's the case then you may as well argue that every version of graphics card should have a completely different name and contain no numbers. 

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

RTX 3060 by itself tells you it's an RTX 3060, 12GB and 8GB on the end tells you what the VRAM capacity is. Thinking that people are inherently going to think they will preform so differently is idiotic and goes against all understanding of Nvidia graphic card naming.

And yet I never actually argued that people will assume a difference,  I argued that people will know there is a difference, but will require a review to know what that difference is.  I've always assumed that when a product has a different spec for anything and difference in price that there will be a difference in performance.  ALWAYS.  no matter if its just the ram size or a GT postfix.   It really isn't that hard to understand that, after all these companies spend a lot of money researching how consumer think and how names effect sales.  The difference between misleading and this is that the better model has the better number on it.   

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

So you are just going to dismiss how easy it is to find the wrong information, that information about it from Nvidia does not exist and the time span where it did not exist from everyone.

So far I haven't found the wrong information, every single review and google search I have done has told me there is a difference or at least stipulated which version of the 3060 the review is for. Even for all the reviews when there was only the 12G and the ti model in existence.   Even every link that has been posted here has specifically mention the 12G or the 8G version when referring to the specifics of the information.

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Here is a suggestion, instead of passing this off and calling people idiots you apply a little bit of actual thinking to the issue. Making such a mistake is simple and does not make such a person stupid.

I never said making a simple mistake makes someone stupid, I said going out and buying a product without doing ANY research on it is stupid.  This should be self evident to anyone with half a brain.  There is a big difference between a product name being easily confused and a complete lack of any attempt to ensure you are seeking out the correct information.   Especially when every review has all the specs and the full model names along with links to resellers and prices.  Only someone completely ignoring half of what they read will make that mistake, and very likely that person will make a poor choice regardless of what any company calls their product.

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Don't ask me what I think makes anyone saying what you are to be...

Personal attacks only weaken your argument.

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

And it's been established and proven that those changes typically result in an actual model change i.e. RTX 3070 Ti. A change in ram size does not mean a change in memory bus, it can change not it will change.

Never said that, I said a change in ram size establishes a change in the product.  It can now be identified as something different so whatever else changed should not be a problem, i.e the consumer will find out everything that changed when they look up the specs of the model or reviews of the model.

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Right so you ignored evidence proving this to be true. No I will not post it again. You have lost your right due to your own actions for me to bother giving you the effort to do it again.

 

I did not ignore anything,  I acknowledge that when the naming conventions are not honest it is a problem, but when they are honest it is not a problem.  You can post or not post anything you like using whatever reasoning you feel, but that will not change the fact that what you have posted does not prove anything as absolute as you are claiming against my postulations.

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

It's been proven it does, end of story. Historic evidence is there, go find it.

 

You not seeing it is a you problem not proof it's not a thing. Yet again I cannot fix a you problem.

You can't seem to fix a proof problem either.    You seem to be stuck in a dilemma that everything is black and white all the time.  Nvidia reused a GPU name and spec in a dishonest way before, as I have pointed out and said I agree with you on it,  but that doesn't mean every name is dishonest if the underlying specs aren't what you feel they should be.  So long as the name is unique to the product. 

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Does not address the issue of existing review not including 12GB in the graphs. Does not address the issue of Nvidia not clearly supply equivalent information that exists for the 12GB original model. Does not address the issue of how easy it is to end up looking at the wrong one, large part due to the two former things.

The information is there, how can it be that information that is so easy to access both in the reviews and on the makers website equals not clearly supplying said information. 

You may as well tell the judge you didn't stop because the sign was not clearly there while looking at a photo of the sign being right there.   Honestly I got all the information that differentiates these two models straight form the 3060 page on the nvidia website, the 2 articles I read both listed the same differences in spec.  How is that not clearly identifying each product as being different.  the 12G version has been around since when start of this year end of last?  the 8G version has been out a month 2 at the best? I am reading a 3060 12G review that was released in june this year.   You can't just say "look at all these reviews of the 3060 that don;t differentiate between the 2 models when those reviews were all released long before the 8G version was anything.    You are conflating conditions that are not born of naming issues.

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

You argument is insufficient and is not better than any of proposed name others have given.

 

Notice how I do not agree with your point. Here's a hint, I likely will never agree with your point and you're supporting arguments you've tried to put forward are not good. If they were good I would have change my opinion, even slightly. Nothing you have said has changed anything in any way for me. Re-explaining again will not change the situation, I do understand what you have been saying but me understanding is not agreeing.

Hmm,  you say you understand but your rebuttals do not give that impression.  I say not reading any reviews when buying a GPU is stupid and you respond by accusing me of calling people who make mistakes stupid.  No it does not look like you understand what I am saying.

 

For the following I have snipped out bits that are just repeating SO i can make some more coherent remarks.

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

 you do actually not understand a single argument given to you because seemingly you don't want to.

 

 

I legitimately think you've lost the plot trying to defend your point that you are now saying things you know not to be the case that you would at any other time realize.

S0 you claim there is nothing I can say that will change your mind, you claim I do not understand anything and have lost the plot as it were,  so why are you even responding?  I firmly believe an ongoing discussion where you consistently re-evaluate and reword your arguments until a mutual understanding can be at least agreed upon if not the actual condition.  but if you are only here to make it your point or no point then I am not interested.

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

I can read exactly zero reviews and understand there is a large difference between those two products. Without a review of the RTX 3060 8GB I could not do the same, it is currently impossible to be informed in any about how different it might be to the RTX 3060 12GB.

 

No 128bit vs 192bit is not sufficient to inform me of that.

 

Yes I can, that were not true then Nvidia would be guilty of false advertising.

 

I should consult reviews but I do not need to consult them to know which is better. I can get other important information from reviews but that has nothing to do with this and as much as you want to try and bring that in to the conversation it is not relevant to the issue between the RTX 3060 8GB and RTX 3060 12GB naming.

 

They literally already do, right now and in the past. What on earth are you saying?

 

So you do not need reviews to know which card is better, but you also need nvidia to change the name so you can know which card is better without reviews?  And you think my arguments are piffle.

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

If this is the case then simply exist the conversation.

 

 

I think I will. These replies are getting too long and way to much of these posts have more to do with the type of argument rather than the specifics of the content. And I likely just as guilty,  I do respect your input on this forum, most of the time anyway. 

 

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

You would be lying if you said you hear people regularly say out loud the VRAM amount for any typical graphics card and you'd be lying if you said that VRAM capacity is normally included in review graphs.

In reviews,  yes.  If you want to talk about graphs, if there is only one GPU i.e 3060 in the review then they will not mention the ram (because there is no need, there is no confusion as you have already been given the details of that model). But when there are two that have different rams amounts they ALWAYS do.  i.e all the 1060 6G and 10603G reviews.  Here's an example:

 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2604-gtx-1060-3gb-vs-6gb-benchmark-review/page-3

 

When I was considering a 1060 (went with R570 in the end), I looked at a lot of reviews for the 1060 both the 3G and the 6G versions.   I know that model gets raised a bit with naming issues, however that was another one where I never struggled to find the information and never confused the two.

 

[MageTank]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

But they all do say it in the review.  If a consumer isn't confirming that the review is for the model they are looking at then I don't what to tell anyone.  Every review I have read mentions the ram, bandwidth, power configuration etc.  Sure they don;t always need to put it in the graphs, but if you read any review or scientific research paper you will quickly see that that is the norm.   The average consumer has somehow managed to work it out alright up until now. I am not sure why all of a sudden it is a problem.

If customers did their research before buying things, I'd likely be out of a job, lol. The simple truth is, our caveman brains process images better than text. We see graphs with nice colors and think (ha, bigger bar better) and the name next to it informs our decision. To be frank, the average consumer doesn't care why something is better, they only care that they are getting the best value for their money. Take this forum for example. You and I have both been around here long enough to have our fair share of arguments/debates with people. How often do we provide endless amounts of evidence with links, only to be countered by an image with a graph? lol.

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

And doing that would not change anything, people would still have to look up reviews to know how it performs,  but going on the arguments in this thread the logic would be if they call it a 3055 then people will assume it performs better than a 3050 and worse than a 3060.  That logic quickly falls down as soon as you realise that the name will never accurately depict performance no matter what they call it.

You are correct. It won't accurately depict performance, as in, a customer won't know how it performs relative to one another. However, if they follow that naming scheme and ensure that for example, a 3060 is always faster than a 3055 (even if only by a few %), then a customer can at least assume by the name alone that bigger number = better and be correct in that assumption.

 

I am not asking that they make this idiot proof. I'll say it again, the moment you try to make something idiot proof, they build a better idiot. That's an exercise in futility. That said, you can always make something easier for people and it have no negative consequences on your bottom line. Simplifying the naming conventions used on hardware would go a long way towards this goal. I don't just mean this in GPUs, we need to see this with CPUs and motherboard chipsets too.

[leadeater]

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

Or you just don't like my conclusion. 

No, your conclusion doesn't at all include half of what I said and only covers the parts you want to harp on about. I have covered much more and your conclusion includes none of it.

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

S0 you claim there is nothing I can say that will change your mind, you claim I do not understand anything and have lost the plot as it were,  so why are you even responding?  I firmly believe an ongoing discussion where you consistently re-evaluate and reword your arguments until a mutual understanding can be at least agreed upon if not the actual condition.  but if you are only here to make it your point or no point then I am not interested

The problem is you won't even acknowledge or talk about any points I have made so why wouldn't I be completely uninterested in discussing it with you anymore. I have done exactly this multiple times yet you leave out entire arguments and reasoning and will only address it in a way that has to do with what your argument is about, your point that you want to make, which is of course in your interest to do but so it is mine.

 

I've said I do not agree with your reasoning and I think what you have presented is bad reasoning and logic. Either put forward something better or that opinion won't change. Arguing that as text RTX 3060 8GB and RTX 3060 12GB are different is not in dispute. So I would again ask you to go back and actually read what has been said and the past evidenced examples of why this has been a problem so is a problem not might be a problem.

 

And the reason as to why I told you this, to hopefully actually wake you up and realize that is the case so you can go back and actually read and attempt to understand what has been said and maybe redress the points. I'll know you have done this when you start addressing things that you have not done so until now which are massive parts of the discussion you continue to either ignore or not understand.

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

So you do not need reviews to know which card is better, but you also need nvidia to change the name so you can know which card is better without reviews?  And you think my arguments are piffle.

You may as well be arguing for naming products after celestial bodies then. No it is not nonsense. Those model names actually mean and represent something and have always. Not that naming them after celestial bodies would be a problem itself so long as the name isn't used twice for different products, however then yes I wouldn't be able to look at the name and know which is better from that.

 

RTX 3060 is a product name that represents a product configuration. RTX 3070 is a product name that represents a product configuration. Nvidia through their own product information and marketing along with history establishes that yes indeed an RTX 3070 would be faster than an RTX 3060 and I do not need reviews to know this.

 

It is you saying otherwise that is nonsense. Seemingly you do not understand what product naming is for and why. You were the one arguing that a product or model name cannot and could never inform people of the detailed product configuration when that is exactly what it does. Product naming becomes a problem when you start making variants like this so that name is no longer sufficient and accurate as it used to be.

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

You can't seem to fix a proof problem either.    You seem to be stuck in a dilemma that everything is black and white all the time.  Nvidia reused a GPU name and spec in a dishonest way before, as I have pointed out and said I agree with you on it,  but that doesn't mean every name is dishonest if the underlying specs aren't what you feel they should be.  So long as the name is unique to the product. 

Bad argument, doesn't address the actual issue. RTX 3060 has been used twice and for two different products therefore not unique.

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

I did not ignore anything,  I acknowledge that when the naming conventions are not honest it is a problem, but when they are honest it is not a problem.  You can post or not post anything you like using whatever reasoning you feel, but that will not change the fact that what you have posted does not prove anything as absolute as you are claiming against my postulations.

Yes it does and has. This is a you problem as stated. I have in fact proven it with historic evidence of literally the exact same situation.

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

Never said that, I said a change in ram size establishes a change in the product.  It can now be identified as something different so whatever else changed should not be a problem, i.e the consumer will find out everything that changed when they look up the specs of the model or reviews of the model.

GTX 1060 5GB reviews where please?

 

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

The information is there, how can it be that information that is so easy to access both in the reviews and on the makers website equals not clearly supplying said information. 

False it is not there. Spec sheet is not enough. You tell me how much extra production information on Nvidia website for the original product exists. Is the exactly equivalent amount present for his model? No right? Any answer other than no is a lie.

 

Come on now at least be a little honest. Just a tiny small amount. Not much to ask for.

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

How is that not clearly identifying each product as being different.  the 12G version has been around since when start of this year end of last?  the 8G version has been out a month 2 at the best? I am reading a 3060 12G review that was released in june this year.   You can't just say "look at all these reviews of the 3060 that don;t differentiate between the 2 models when those reviews were all released long before the 8G version was anything.    You are conflating conditions that are not born of naming issues.

That is specially part of the damn issue and why it's important to NOT use conflicting names like reusing RTX 3060 in a situation like this to avoid the issue.

You just said what the problem is and why/how it's a problem yet don't seem to care how easy it is to mitigate the problem by not using RXT 3060 naming.

 

Because the 8GB did not exist is exactly why avoiding naming conflicts is important. It is a naming issue because they choose not to prevent it from being an issue. And more specifically it's an issue because they are not the same product with different VRAM capacities. The naming is NOT representative of the product no matter how much you want to argue "uniqueness" in names. I'm sorry but RTX 3060 does actually represent something.

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

I've always assumed that when a product has a different spec for anything and difference in price that there will be a difference in performance.  ALWAYS.  no matter if its just the ram size or a GT postfix. 

And assuming VRAM capacity like this is like I said a bad assumption supporting misinformation and makes no attempt to make sure technical specifications mean what they actually are and people understand things correctly. I'm sorry but my opinion on what you just said makes you a bad PC advocate, ALWAYS.

 

Yes it matters.

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think I will. These replies are getting too long and way to much of these posts have more to do with the type of argument rather than the specifics of the content. And I likely just as guilty,  I do respect your input on this forum, most of the time anyway. 

If you had at least made a single attempt to address and understand arguments and points outside of your own then it wouldn't have gone that way. It's your own fault.

[leadeater]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

In reviews,  yes.  If you want to talk about graphs, if there is only one GPU i.e 3060 in the review then they will not mention the ram (because there is no need, there is no confusion as you have already been given the details of that model). But when there are two that have different rams amounts they ALWAYS do.  i.e all the 1060 6G and 10603G reviews.  Here's an example:

 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2604-gtx-1060-3gb-vs-6gb-benchmark-review/page-3

 

When I was considering a 1060 (went with R570 in the end), I looked at a lot of reviews for the 1060 both the 3G and the 6G versions.   I know that model gets raised a bit with naming issues, however that was another one where I never struggled to find the information and never confused the two.

Correct and the reason why that is done and why this example is less of a problem is both variants existed from day one so everyone knew it was necessary to display the data in that way. Yet outside of reviews people mostly just talk about GTX 1060 and don't stipulate which one. Even then with his example because the product configuration is different, not VRAM capacity, they shouldn't both be named GTX 1060 either.

 

The whole entire reason you never struggled was because both models existed and were released at the same time, were globally available and were officially documented fully and acklowdge by Nvidia. This is not the same as say for example the GTX 1060 5GB (which you as yet never addressed) nor this RTX 3060 8GB.

 

These situations simply are not the same which is why the outcomes are different.

[Godlygamer23]

The fact that there are people literally defending NVIDIA on this nonsense is astounding. Performance and VRAM amount should be two different things. They did the same nonsense with the 1060, where the VRAM amount difference led to a massive difference in performance because the GPU on the lower capacity model was more cutdown. If someone was looking at two PCs with two differing amounts of RAM(say 16GB vs 32GB), would you expect an inherent difference in bandwidth? Maybe, if they used crappier modules. But to me, I would expect them to use the same general modules, just with lesser capacity, unless it was very clear on the specifications that they were using different RAM modules with lower clock speeds and looser timings. 

 

In the case of graphics cards, if there is a major difference in performance that is not related to the VRAM being filled up and paging to system RAM, GPU core, memory bandwidth, etc, but simply due to the difference in capacity, I would absolutely expect the same performance. It's not clear in the model what the difference _actually_ is, and I think it would be better if they put "3060 192-bit" instead of just the lower capacity. It makes it more clear that there is an actual difference. 

 

The other thing to think about is the price difference - there isn't one. Which means the lower performing product is also a worse value, so you have effectively a more expensive product for the performance you're actually getting.

 

Again, the fact that people are _defending_ this is absolutely astounding.

[leadeater]

So timely and relevant heh

 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Performance and VRAM amount should be two different things.

 

They are two different things, no one has said otherwise. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

They are two different things, no one has said otherwise. 

Yet seemingly you are perfectly happy for this to not actually be the case and happy for the capacity designation to also signify a product and performance difference.

 

If you actually truly believe this to be the case then don't say RTX 3060 8GB is acceptable naming when it has a different memory bus and a different performance as a result of that.

 

Far as I am concerned you are and have been saying otherwise, pages and pages of it.

 

The only possible way for VRAM capacity to mean only capacity and not performance also, aka two things, is to only ever use it for capacity and not a single thing more. Pick a stance, you're flip flopping.

[Godlygamer23]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

They are two different things, no one has said otherwise. 

VRAM capacity deltas are being conflated with outright performance. To say otherwise is ignoring the pages and pages of posts saying differently

 

You are okay with NVIDIA marketing the same tiered card with differing memory as if the only difference is VRAM capacity. The marketed model is making the customer miss critical information, and quite frankly, NVIDIA's behavior is anti-consumer. 

[mr moose]

22 hours ago, leadeater said:

Yet seemingly you are perfectly happy for this to not actually be the case and happy for the capacity designation to also signify a product and performance difference.

Because if you had bothered to read any of my posts you would have seen me say over and over and over that the ram amount is just a way to differentiate models.  I never made claims about it being an indicator of performance outside of what effect marketing might have.    I personally have never bought a product without doing my research so the name has never fooled me into anything more than looking at that product in greater detail. 

 

 

22 hours ago, leadeater said:

If you actually truly believe this to be the case then don't say RTX 3060 8GB is acceptable naming when it has a different memory bus and a different performance as a result of that.

I already told you I don't care what the details or name of a product is so long as it is easily identifiable.    I.E two different products with the same name is not easily identifiable and therefore bad naming and unethical (e.g 1030), two different names for two different products is o.k. 

 

22 hours ago, leadeater said:

Far as I am concerned you are and have been saying otherwise, pages and pages of it.

Perhaps you can quote me where I claimed performance and Vram amount are the same thing.

22 hours ago, leadeater said:

The only possible way for VRAM capacity to mean only capacity and not performance also, aka two things, is to only ever use it for capacity and not a single thing more. Pick a stance, you're flip flopping.

Sure thing,  I've have repeatedly claimed that Vram amount equals Vram amount.Just because the Vram amount is the way to tell if the card is different doesn't mean the Vram amount indicates performance.

 

This is what I said way back on page 6:

 

Quote

The other thing people are forgetting in this discussion is that the ram size never tells you anything about performance,  it never has and likely never will.  Suddenly expecting or demanding they make it mean something in comparison to other products on the market is not going to change that.

 

 

15 hours ago, Godlygamer23 said:

VRAM capacity deltas are being conflated with outright performance. To say otherwise is ignoring the pages and pages of posts saying differently

It's not my fault if people make that assumption.

15 hours ago, Godlygamer23 said:

You are okay with NVIDIA marketing the same tiered card with differing memory as if the only difference is VRAM capacity. The marketed model is making the customer miss critical information, and quite frankly, NVIDIA's behavior is anti-consumer. 

The model marketing tells you this is a card with X ram,  if you want to know how good that is look up a bench mark.

 

I am getting tired of having to re-explain that I don't think ram is a performance metric and that it is simply a way to identify one variant from another.  If you don't look up reviews and expect a card to perform better just because it has higher numbers then more fool you.

 

[Godlygamer23]

40 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The model marketing tells you this is a card with X ram,  if you want to know how good that is look up a bench mark.

 

I am getting tired of having to re-explain that I don't think ram is a performance metric and that it is simply a way to identify one variant from another.  If you don't look up reviews and expect a card to perform better just because it has higher numbers then more fool you.

You're right. It tells you the VRAM capacity. But it's not telling you that it has a 192-bit bus, versus 256-bit, which does impact performance, which, because of NVIDIA's nonsense, is caused by the reduction in VRAM capacity, and that is the problem. More VRAM should not inherently result in higher performance, and neither should less VRAM, and that's the main problem here. However YOU decide to spin it, they are selling a card(for the same price) at the same tier with lower VRAM capacity without clearly(or at all) communicating the lesser bus width, which can easily lead people into thinking it's basically the same card but with less VRAM. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

You're right. It tells you the VRAM capacity. But it's not telling you that it has a 192-bit bus, versus 256-bit, which does impact performance, which, because of NVIDIA's nonsense, is caused by the reduction in VRAM capacity, and that is the problem.

It also doesn't tell you power loading, card size, number of ports, feature compatibility or if the card is made with cheaper capacitors, budget resistors or from recycled horse dung.    the problem we have is that people want the name to reflect the performance.  Names don't, can't and never have been a reflection of performance, that is a marketing thing and human response thing.  All I want I for the name to be easily identifiable.  So people don't confuse versions when looking up reviews.  

 

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

More VRAM should not inherently result in higher performance, and neither should less VRAM, and that's the main problem here.

I agree that it shouldn't, But by the same token people will always buy bigger numbers.  If Nvidia release a card with bigger numbers but it performs worse then we have a problem.  What we have though is Nvidia releasing a card with smaller numbers that performs worse.  So in this case they have not leveraged misinformation to sell a shit product.

 

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

However YOU decide to spin it, they are selling a card(for the same price) at the same tier with lower VRAM capacity without clearly(or at all) communicating the lesser bus width, which can easily lead people into thinking it's basically the same card but with less VRAM. 

As I said before, those specs can be clearly obtained and for the most part people are arguing about buyers who don't even know what these things are.  Which means they will be looking up reviews,  this card is easily identifiable from the 12G version so when they see reviews showing it to perform way worse yet cost the same they aren't going to buy it.  And if we assume it will drop in price and become cheaper, people will see the reviews and know both that it performs worse and is cheaper.  They will still be able to make an informed purchase.   The problem in this thread is people keep reading me say Vram amount and assume it means I think that intrinsically means performance.  I don't and never have,  I acknowledge that the average consumer will see one lower and one higher and will assume the higher one is better (which they would be right about), but that is 1. just a perception and 2. works out better for the consumer so they aren't being mislead to buy a shittier unit.

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Names don't, can't and never have been a reflection of performance

Yes they have, they are named that way now.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

It also doesn't tell you power loading, card size, number of ports, feature compatibility or if the card is made with cheaper capacitors, budget resistors or from recycled horse dung.

Most of those are indeed told you via the graphics card model number. The generation part tells you almost all the features the graphics card supports, typically the number of port but that is sometimes also reflected by the performance class of the model number.

 

All those numbers Nvidia uses aren't just for fun, they do mean something, as does Intel's and AMD's.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

the problem we have is that people want the name to reflect the performance.

It already does right up until Nvidia breaks their own model naming convention because they see fit to do so.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

All I want I for the name to be easily identifiable.  So people don't confuse versions when looking up reviews. 

And that will never work when different versions are released at different times, sometimes restricted markets, thus all common references and colloquial usage is already set. You simply cannot go back in time and change what happened to better suit this new future state nobody ever knew would happen.

 

But your want still disregards the issue of the name being confusing. Being able to identify that these two products are indeed differently name when the name offers next to zero indication of how they are different.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So in this case they have not leveraged misinformation to sell a shit product.

Yet they allow the misinformation that less vram means lower performance making that more prevalent. Unintended outcomes from bad naming doesn't discount the issue that exists, intention isn't really relevant to the issue unless you want to make a malice argument which I have not done for this story.

 

I think you are fixated on thinking I'm trying to say Nvidia is doing marketing misinformation, I've had to point this out numerous times, no I'm point out ONLY that this spreads the misinformation about vram capacity and performance. Not a single thing more, nothing.

 

And it's not solely on Nvidia for how that happens. But their naming is the cause so carry the responsibility.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Which means they will be looking up reviews,  this card is easily identifiable from the 12G version so when they see reviews showing it to perform way worse yet cost the same they aren't going to buy it.

If only it were both impossible and unlikely that a person ends up looking at the wrong information due to the way data is displayed as a result of when and how products are released in to the market.

 

If these two cards shared nothing more than the product generation model number and had completely unique product class model numbering then it would indeed be near impossible and unlike that a person would end up looking at the wrong card.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I acknowledge that the average consumer will see one lower and one higher and will assume the higher one is better (which they would be right about), but that is 1. just a perception and 2. works out better for the consumer so they aren't being mislead to buy a shittier unit.

This does not make your assumption correct. Have the forethought to realize that you are saying this is your assumption and you are just as likely wrong as right as is anyone else's assumption.

 

The difference is with your assumption consumers will be harmed if you are wrong. Though it's highly unlikely Nvidia will change the model name and/or never do such a thing again. That won't stop me from saying they are doing something wrong when they are.

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I am getting tired of having to re-explain that I don't think ram is a performance metric and that it is simply a way to identify one variant from another.

I'm sorry but that is what you are saying. If you say that the RTX 3060 8GB is clearly identifiable as different and thus acceptably named then you are indeed saying just this exact thing.

 

RTX 3060 means something, it is also the sole and official Nvidia model name for all these cards. The VRAM capacity was previously just a product specification, it was not a version or variant identifier. The RTX 3060 8GB is a variant and the 8GB signifies it as such, that 8GB means something and represents something and not just VRAM capacity.

 

Using VRAM capacity for anything other than VRAM capacity is improper and should never be done. "It is being used and a way to identify one variant from another" is simply not a good argument  and simply is not logical at all.

 

You can repeat that as much as you like, it will not make it acceptable to anyone but yourself.

[leadeater]

On 12/15/2022 at 10:42 PM, mr moose said:

Sure thing,  I've have repeatedly claimed that Vram amount equals Vram amount.Just because the Vram amount is the way to tell if the card is different doesn't mean the Vram amount indicates performance.

Claim all you like, as it is being used by Nvidia right now it is being used to indicate performance. You are simply wrong. That is exactly how it is being used.

 

On 12/15/2022 at 10:42 PM, mr moose said:

Because if you had bothered to read any of my posts you would have seen me say over and over and over that the ram amount is just a way to differentiate models.

I have and my reply to you every time is this is terrible logic and unacceptable. No matter how many times you say it using 8GB as part of the model name to mean anything other than VRAM capacity is wrong always. Since that is not the sole and only way it is being used then it is being misused, period. 

 

You have been using flawed arguments and reasoning based on bad logic and you simply do not like being told this. I'm not going to tell you anything otherwise when I believe so strongly that is the case.

 

I simply cannot agree with "it's just a model/version/variant identifier" when the entire problem is that is itself a misusage of VRAM capacity. See the problem here? Notice why I can never agree with you and why I'm saying your reasoning and logic is bad. This is the exact reason we are at an impasse as I cannot ever accept VRAM capacity being used in a way that you find acceptable.

 

On 12/15/2022 at 10:42 PM, mr moose said:

Perhaps you can quote me where I claimed performance and Vram amount are the same thing.

Sure

 

Quote

Everything you have said in this entire topic.

Legit the most easy way to quote it.

 

Or just to appease you

On 12/13/2022 at 11:32 PM, mr moose said:

I've always assumed that when a product has a different spec for anything and difference in price that there will be a difference in performance.  ALWAYS.  no matter if its just the ram size or a GT postfix

Now this is not the only instance I could quote, there are many other times where you are indeed essentially saying VRAM capacity and it's written signification as part of product naming means performance.

 

But before you try and defend yourself about this point I would suggest you accustom yourself to why I object to it's usage as that will make you understand real fast there is likely no sufficient defense you could raise for me.

 

On 12/15/2022 at 10:42 PM, mr moose said:

I personally have never bought a product without doing my research so the name has never fooled me into anything more than looking at that product in greater detail. 

Cool story and that's great for you. Since you are not everyone in the world saying this makes no difference and isn't of much relevance.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I already told you I don't care what the details or name of a product is so long as it is easily identifiable.    I.E two different products with the same name is not easily identifiable and therefore bad naming and unethical (e.g 1030), two different names for two different products is o.k. 

You are aware that the GT1030 that used DDR4 memory was "clearly identified" as a GT1030 DDR4. The DDR4 is just being used as a version identifier.

 

DDR4 was written on the box.

 

Sounds like you are saying the GT 1030 was unethical yet is the same situation as this. Is this not rather confusing?

[mr moose]

@leadeater I am not going 30 rounds again, I have said what I believe.  You are clearly not going to change your mind based on my opinions and you haven't given me any reason to change mine.   I bid you a good evening, even though it is just after midnight there as I type this.

 

 

[leadeater]

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

@leadeater I am not going 30 rounds again, I have said what I believe.  You are clearly not going to change your mind based on my opinions and you haven't given me any reason to change mine.   I bid you a good evening, even though it is just after midnight there as I type this.

That is fine. I'll just say something to help you understand why I think this is an issue and why you haven't addressed the talking points I and others have had.

 

Picture this situation.

 

There is a house on 123 Long Road, it has an address that you can clearly identify. We can all agree that this house has a unique address and we can find it. However the issue is the house is on fire. Pointing out that the house can easily be identified by it's address doesn't address the issue about the house being on fire and how to navigate to it, which is the problem situation being talked about.

[Coaxialgamer]

Let me dust off my shaming hat...