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

[rikitikitavi]

Since most disappointment (afaik) comes from the gaming community, there should be a new naming scheme forgoing all useless 6600xt/3060super bs... it is called CyberpunkBenchmarkAv1440pMax or whatever, so Nvidia 250 and AMD 300 - no more confusion lmao. You buy FPS, nothing else matters.

[Dabombinable]

9 hours ago, starsmine said:

And if you are to argue SE is better, it should be known that people correctly assume that means "Special Edition"
It does not mean slow edition, thats just a nick name people who already know about the card know about.

most would assume special means faster

That misleads consumers more then 8GB would, as less ram makes you assume lesser. 

LE is what Nvidia used to use, as well as XT... SE however was widely used by Ati and even to some who weren't tech savvy it became also known as "Shit Edition"

[Stahlmann]

12 hours ago, sof006 said:

While that is true, the uptake on anything Ray Traced is still super slow and i've looked at the performance differences and in reality AMD isn't that far behind. I bet the new AMD cards will be a massive improvement.

AMD isn't that far behind?

 

Take the 3080 10G and 6800 XT for example. In rasterization they're roughly the same which is why i'm making this comparison. Now turn on ray tracing effects and the 3080 will always be significantly ahead, up to 50% depending on the game and the extent of the ray tracing implementation. That's a huge difference, normally such a difference would place the Nvidia card multiple performance tiers above the AMD card when we'd talk about raster.

 

Until AMD cards can hold a candle to Nvidia's ray tracing performance i won't buy their GPU's. I don't buy stuff from a brand just because they currently have less controversy going on. If i'd stop buying stuff from every brand i've had a bad experience with or heard bad things about, then frankly i wouldn't even be able to build a PC anymore. I shop by what products makes the most sense for me. And you should too. In the end none of these companies we're talking about care about our well being. They're in it for the money, and that's it.

 

In a few years down the line we will reach a point where practically every GPU is "good enough" at raster performance. And at this point the dividing factor will be ray tracing performance. Just like nowadays no one bothers to benchmark 2D games anymore, because everyone knows practically every GPU can run them no problem. That's where we're heading - like it or not. And if AMD can't pull it together by then, they will fall behind and lose most of the market share they're trying to gain right now.

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Textbook example of the fallacy of relative privation...

No it's not.

 

In this thread, I am saying "I don't think this is an issue so I don't get why it gets so much attention. If we buy the argument that people present then shouldn't that argument also apply to situation X, Y and Z?"

 

It would only be a fallacy of relative privation if I agreed that this was an issue, but told people to ignore it and talk about something else instead.

 

 

I am pointing out hypocrisy because so far I haven't seen anyone complain about the things I highlighted. I also think the level of attention things get are way out of proportion.

[LAwLz]

14 hours ago, MageTank said:

I do not disagree with you, but I do want to say that in @leadeater's defense, I have seen him complain about these very things.

I think you are getting leadeater mixed up with someone else.

I have gone through his posts and I have not found a single one where he says the XT branding or the 1660 naming are issues. He did mention Ti and Super (but not XT) earlier in this particular thread but gave them a pass because "history".

 

 

 

14 hours ago, MageTank said:

Based on what I am reading, both you and Leadeater appear to be arguing for the same thing (though with differing levels of passion). Seems like we all agree that the current naming conventions suck across the board and not just for Nvidia. Anyone that remembers me during the Zen chipset launches knows I was not a fan of AMD's chipset naming convention being intentionally similar to Intel's but only being off by a single digit, resulting in mass confusion and people purchasing incompatible boards with the wrong vendors processor. This issue does not plague only the GPU segment and needs to be addressed across the industry.

I don't think we are.

Leadeater thinks that Nvidia are:

• Creating an issue.
• Trying to mislead and rip people off.
• That they don't give a damn.
• Putting in effort in an attempt to misinform customers.
• Says that people should not have to rely on suffixes to understand performance. Only the first part of a name matters.
• Thinks that it should be called the RTX 3050 Ti.
• Thinks that this may potentially be illegal or should be illegal.

 

I think that:

• This isn't an issue.
• That next to no one will be negatively affected by this naming scheme.
• That an enthusiast, which let's be honest are most people buying computer parts off the shelf, will most likely find reviews and get an accurate depiction of the performance they will get.
• That an average Joe looking to buy a 3060 will assume the 8GB model performs worse than the 12GB model because "larger number is faster", which in this particular case is correct, but for the wrong reasons. Thus will not actually cause any harm.
• This card shouldn't be called the 3050 Ti because I think model numbers should be based on the GPU die, not performance. If we start arguing that performance is what defines if something is a 3060 or 3070 then we will probably end up in situations where mini variants of a card and really high end overclocked versions of a card will end up being named different things because "they perform differently". A factory overclocked 3060 shouldn't be called a 3060 Ti or 3070 just because it might perform within spitting distance of a very poor 3060 Ti. Performance should not dictate product names. Memory shouldn't dictate it either because if we go with that logic we end up with stuff like the RX 580 4GB and RX 580 8GB needing different names. To me, the only logical way to have any consistency is to say that the GPU die is what matters, not performance or memory. My suggestion also allows for consistency between laptop and desktop models. 

 

 

14 hours ago, MageTank said:

My two cents on this 3060 8GB situation (not that anyone asked for it) is that Nvidia is well within their right to name the products as they deem appropriate.

I don't really like this argument. I typically find the whole "well they are legally allowed to do this" argument to be kind of a cop out. I know you elaborate more and give your own opinion later in the post, but I just wanted to add this little remark.

 

 

14 hours ago, MageTank said:

Those of you on a crusade to save the ill-informed from making a mistake during purchase, put that energy towards something that will actually matter. Yelling at Nvidia and the other companies from a tech forum they don't frequent likely won't reach their ears, but you can certainly reach the ears of their customers if you create guides, write reviews or get the word out to reviewers that can reach those customers.

My stance that I don't think these potential "ill-informed customers" actually exist, and if they do exist they are probably a very small group that might as well fall into the "ignorant beyond saving" group you mention later in your post.

 

 

14 hours ago, MageTank said:

I don't think people would have a problem with this if retail stores publicly advertised ROP/TMU/SM counts on their specification pages, but almost no retailer has a fleshed out specification tab for GPU's. If I am Joe Everyman and I google "8GB vs 12GB VRAM" I'll likely find an explanation about frame buffer sizes and impact of running out of VRAM, but nothing about similarly classed cards having completely different SM configurations or bus widths which would have a far more significant impact on performance than simply having less VRAM at a given resolution.

I just tried this and the information I got when googling "8GB vs 12GB" was actually fairly decent and would have pointed me, as an uneducated customer, towards the 12GB card. Especially if it is true that the price is the same for both cards which some have claimed.

I think expecting the average Joe with next to no understanding of computers to buy PC parts is already a fairly big stretch, but to also expect them to research how frame buffers work is an even bigger stretch. My guess is that 99% of the average Joes who don't look up benchmarks will go "oh, 12 is a bigger number so it's probably better", which in this case is true.

 

 

14 hours ago, MageTank said:

Now I do disagree with anyone that believes these suffixes shouldn't exist in general, you have to give these companies something to market with and they exist to describe the physical condition of the product. If every card was called "RTX 3080" on a website but looked differently, it would be just as problematic for customers as you'd have no means of finding the specific card aesthetic you are looking for, or end up overspending on a subpar 3080 when an overclocked version is similarly priced or cheaper.

Agree, which is why I am against statements like this:  

On 12/4/2022 at 12:27 PM, leadeater said:

And any of that makes this ok how?

 

Back to the old but the number at the end actually means something to the uninformed. No, no it doesn't. Like it didn't for the RTX 4080.

 

People know the first part, rely on the first part, talk about the first part. How many people ever really talk about more than that, see GTX 1060 3GB vs 6GB. That was already painful enough and at least that was less of a kick in the shins.

 

I also find the whole "only the first part of a name matters!" completely illogical when the suggested solution is to call the card the 3050 Ti, which has another suffix on it. A suffix that I think even less ill-informed customers would understand.

 

I think it is easier for the average Joe to understand "12GB means it is faster than 8GB" than it is to understand "Ti means it is faster than non-Ti", but both cases hinges on the idea that customers read more than the first part of the name, which the same people arguing for "add Ti to the end" says they don't. It makes no sense to me.

[MageTank]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think you are getting leadeater mixed up with someone else.

I have gone through his posts and I have not found a single one where he says the XT branding or the 1660 naming are issues. He did mention Ti and Super (but not XT) earlier in this particular thread but gave them a pass because "history".

You're right. My dyslexia strikes again. It was back during the 1060 3GB/6GB debacle:

 

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think we are.

Leadeater thinks that Nvidia are:

• Creating an issue. 
• Trying to mislead and rip people off.
• That they don't give a damn.
• Putting in effort in an attempt to misinform customers.
• Says that people should not have to rely on suffixes to understand performance. Only the first part of a name matters.
• Thinks that it should be called the RTX 3050 Ti.
• Thinks that this may potentially be illegal or should be illegal.

 

I think that:

• This isn't an issue.
• That next to no one will be negatively affected by this naming scheme.
• That an enthusiast, which let's be honest are most people buying computer parts off the shelf, will most likely find reviews and get an accurate depiction of the performance they will get.
• That an average Joe looking to buy a 3060 will assume the 8GB model performs worse than the 12GB model because "larger number is faster", which in this particular case is correct, but for the wrong reasons. Thus will not actually cause any harm.
• This card shouldn't be called the 3050 Ti because I think model numbers should be based on the GPU die, not performance. If we start arguing that performance is what defines if something is a 3060 or 3070 then we will probably end up in situations where mini variants of a card and really high end overclocked versions of a card will end up being named different things because "they perform differently". A factory overclocked 3060 shouldn't be called a 3060 Ti or 3070 just because it might perform within spitting distance of a very poor 3060 Ti. Performance should not dictate product names. Memory shouldn't dictate it either because if we go with that logic we end up with stuff like the RX 580 4GB and RX 580 8GB needing different names. To me, the only logical way to have any consistency is to say that the GPU die is what matters, not performance or memory. My suggestion also allows for consistency between laptop and desktop models. 

This is what I meant by "differing levels of passion". Both of you have very differing opinions about Nvidia's intent and what impact the naming convention has on customers, but both seem to agree that the naming convention needs improvement and should change. At the core of both arguments lies the same solution, regardless of how different your plans are to arrive at that point. If Nvidia implemented your idea to base the naming off the die, I doubt Leadeater would have a problem with that and it would likely resolve the points you highlighted from his post.

 

Now if you want my personal opinion on the matter, I do agree and disagree with both of you on several of the points noted in your summary.

• Nvidia is indeed creating an issue. However, it's NOT just Nvidia creating an issue. GPU descriptions in general from ALL sides are annoying to deal with and processors are in the same boat now too. I am not even talking about potentially misleading customers (intent is hard to prove), I am simply talking from a support perspective. If I am a game developer and I list my minimum specifications as "GTX 1060" but did so when the 6GB model was launched, is the burden on me to go back and change my minimum specifications to clarify the 6GB model because I couldn't anticipate Nvidia releasing a 1060 again with slightly reduced specs? If I am Microsoft and I say Windows 11 supports the Athlon 3000G (Picasso) but AMD re-releases the Athlon 3000G with 14nm Raven Ridge, is it on me to go back to clarify that we support the 12nm version, not the 14nm version? I dislike having problematic naming conventions forcing support teams to go back and adjust things just because we couldn't slightly modify the part number on launch. Not to mention, what customer is going to check between part numbers YD3000C6M2OFH and YD3000C6M2OFB to determine if they have the correct Picasso vs Raven Ridge CPU?
• I disagree that next to no one will be negatively affected by the naming scheme, but I don't think the impact is as large as what is being portrayed. Again, we already had people on this very forum asking about the differences between the GTX 1660, Ti and Super to discern which was fastest. I also know first hand that enthusiasts are not the only people buying hardware off shelves. I've shopped at my local Micro Center store dozens of times (I basically live in their water cooling section rent free) and I hear plenty of moms asking about parts to buy for their kids birthday or holidays. Now, where I do diverge from Leadeater's beliefs is that I think this is on the store staff to be trained to qualify the customer and get them the best hardware for their dollar. Component naming conventions should not have an impact if the sales team is well educated (which they should be). One could argue that some people may not seek help and simply buy based on box art and what "looks" good, but I am also in the camp that consumers have to try to educate themselves before spending their hard earned money.
• I agree with you that the average customer will likely assume 8GB is a lesser number and will therefore automatically assume it is worse. However, you have to remember that people in the market for budget-mid tier hardware are likely trying to save some money and will probably just google "8GB vs 12GB VRAM" and not be informed of the different bus widths or in some situations, differences in SM/TMU/ROP counts. Now most places offer a fair return/exchange policy so I cannot image someone will be permanently affected by choosing the wrong card, so I'll concede this is likely not a big deal.
• I completely agree with you on naming the GPU's after their dies. Honestly, it would make rebrands much easier to spot and finding better value from cards based on what they are cut down from.
• Leadeater is correct that intentionally misleading customers is illegal, the problem is proving intent. Intent to deceive is tricky because it implies you are aware what you are doing is deceptive (which they probably are) and that what you are doing is indeed deceptive (which some can argue for and against). Do I personally believe Nvidia is being deceptive? Not really, at least not any more than the other companies playing this game (AMD's chipset marketing team for example). The reason behind my line of thinking is that the name "RTX 3060" doesn't mean anything in and of itself. If you take this to court and ask a judge or jury what does "RTX 3060 mean", they likely won't have an answer. By the letter of the law (at least here in the states), Nvidia would not be subject to any litigation based on their actions. Can we say it's sketchy and shady behavior? Sure, I am definitely in that camp because there is literally nothing stopping them from coming up with a new name, but I don't think what they are doing is inherently illegal, at least not yet. I would argue Intel was in far worse of a position when they had the 7640X and 7740X on the X299 platform as MOST customers would not know based on the naming conventions that using those processors on X299 would kill off memory channels and PCIe lanes, yet Intel got through that just fine.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't really like this argument. I typically find the whole "well they are legally allowed to do this" argument to be kind of a cop out. I know you elaborate more and give your own opinion later in the post, but I just wanted to add this little remark.

Fair enough. Capitalism is etched into my brain, this line of thinking is common here, lol.

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I just tried this and the information I got when googling "8GB vs 12GB" was actually fairly decent and would have pointed me, as an uneducated customer, towards the 12GB card. Especially if it is true that the price is the same for both cards which some have claimed.

I think expecting the average Joe with next to no understanding of computers to buy PC parts is already a fairly big stretch, but to also expect them to research how frame buffers work is an even bigger stretch. My guess is that 99% of the average Joes who don't look up benchmarks will go "oh, 12 is a bigger number so it's probably better", which in this case is true.

When I googled 8GB vs 12GB VRAM, it pointed me towards a reddit thread recommending the 8GB 3060 Ti: 

 

Now we could assume that once this card launches, there will be better information out to inform potential buyers, but as it stands, I could potentially be mislead based on the logic followed in that reddit thread.

 

Now let me preface my bias by saying I am in the PC integration business so I am very guilty of preying on the ignorance of customers to sell my systems. If everyone knew how to build a PC, I'd be out of a job. Now with that said, I do not believe it is uncommon for average joes to buy individual PC components. I mentioned it in my wall of text above, but people do so as gifts all of the time. Now they often rely on the expertise of sales associates, so I would hope that they are in good hands if they are doing so. If you are walking into a computer store with the mentality that you know more than the sales rep and you end up making the wrong purchase, you deserved that karma, lol.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I also find the whole "only the first part of a name matters!" completely illogical when the suggested solution is to call the card the 3050 Ti, which has another suffix on it. A suffix that I think even less ill-informed customers would understand.

 

I think it is easier for the average Joe to understand "12GB means it is faster than 8GB" than it is to understand "Ti means it is faster than non-Ti", but both cases hinges on the idea that customers read more than the first part of the name, which the same people arguing for "add Ti to the end" says they don't. It makes no sense to me.

I agree, which is why I think your idea of calling the GPU's by their dies is the most logical solution to this problem. That is, until companies decide they want to troll each other with very similar GPU names like AMD did with the motherboard chipsets. Then we have a right to raise some pitchforks, lol.

[LAwLz]

17 hours ago, MageTank said:

I agree, which is why I think your idea of calling the GPU's by their dies is the most logical solution to this problem. That is, until companies decide they want to troll each other with very similar GPU names like AMD did with the motherboard chipsets. Then we have a right to raise some pitchforks, lol.

The thing is though, both of these cards (the 3060 8GB and 3060 12GB) seem to have the same die.

Both of them uses the GA104 die (edit: sorry, GA106), which is why I think it makes sense to call them both the 3060.

[MageTank]

Just now, LAwLz said:

The thing is though, both of these cards (the 3060 8GB and 3060 12GB) seem to have the same die.

Both of them uses the GA104 die, which is why I think it makes sense to call them both the 3060.

Would be very unlikely if both had the exact same full die. Typically when Nvidia cuts down a card by ANY measure, it gets a slight change. They'd call it the "GA104-150-A1" for the 12GB, and likely cut this 3060 8GB down into something else, like a GA104-125-A1 or something along those lines. Based on the fact that its 8GB VRAM and also exactly half the bus width of an 8GB 3070, I am going to assume this is Nvidia cutting down some very defective 3070's and fusing off half the memory controllers and a significant portion of the SM's.

 

It is very possible I may have misinterpreted your desire to name these after the dies, as I was thinking the full die, not just GA104 vs GA102, etc. Though I also understand nobody is going to want to walk into a PC store and ask if any GA104-125-A1's are in-stock. Especially with my hillbilly accent, that would be a mouthful.

 

Perhaps the solution would be both a change to the die naming convention and then naming the cards after the revised die naming convention? Using Nvidia as an example, they could do a G for Geforce or Gaming, whatever the G stands for. Follow that letter up with the architecture (though this gets confusing when you have Ada and Ampere), followed by a number. Let's say 1-5 to keep it simple, 1 being their budget number, 5 being their halo tier products. You want a 3080 Ti? You have a GA550. A 3080? GA500. A 3070? GA400. 3060? GA300. If you want to add products in between, modify the last two digit numbers. If you keep this rule consistent, people will always know the performance class of the product based on the architecture and numeric performance class. As long as you do not make a GA300 that is slower than a GA300, but call it GA350, you'll be fine, lol.

 

This also opens up better naming conventions for Nvidia's other product stack. Quadro cards from the Ampere architecture could be called QA500,QA400, etc. The same with their Tesla series (if those still exist). 

[LAwLz]

29 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Would be very unlikely if both had the exact same full die. Typically when Nvidia cuts down a card by ANY measure, it gets a slight change. They'd call it the "GA104-150-A1" for the 12GB, and likely cut this 3060 8GB down into something else, like a GA104-125-A1 or something along those lines. Based on the fact that its 8GB VRAM and also exactly half the bus width of an 8GB 3070, I am going to assume this is Nvidia cutting down some very defective 3070's and fusing off half the memory controllers and a significant portion of the SM's.

 

It is very possible I may have misinterpreted your desire to name these after the dies, as I was thinking the full die, not just GA104 vs GA102, etc. Though I also understand nobody is going to want to walk into a PC store and ask if any GA104-125-A1's are in-stock. Especially with my hillbilly accent, that would be a mouthful.

 

Perhaps the solution would be both a change to the die naming convention and then naming the cards after the revised die naming convention? Using Nvidia as an example, they could do a G for Geforce or Gaming, whatever the G stands for. Follow that letter up with the architecture (though this gets confusing when you have Ada and Ampere), followed by a number. Let's say 1-5 to keep it simple, 1 being their budget number, 5 being their halo tier products. You want a 3080 Ti? You have a GA550. A 3080? GA500. A 3070? GA400. 3060? GA300. If you want to add products in between, modify the last two digit numbers. If you keep this rule consistent, people will always know the performance class of the product based on the architecture and numeric performance class. As long as you do not make a GA300 that is slower than a GA300, but call it GA350, you'll be fine, lol.

 

This also opens up better naming conventions for Nvidia's other product stack. Quadro cards from the Ampere architecture could be called QA500,QA400, etc. The same with their Tesla series (if those still exist). 

I am fairly sure it is the same.

On TechPowerUp they are listed as GA-106-302-A1 and GA106-300-A1, but when you look around on Google it seems like even some newer 12GB cards uses the 302 die.

It seems like the 302 die revision was done because of mining-related things, and all new cards uses the 302 die. The same die the 3060 8GB is reported as using.

 

Maybe I am completely wrong, but couldn't it be the case that the 8GB card simply has fewer memory chips connected, and as a result not the entire memory bus is used?

 

The 12GB model has 6 memory chips, 2GB each, and a 32 bit bus each connecting them to the GPU. That results i 12GB of memory connected on a 192 bit wide bus.

The 8GB model could have 4 memory chips, 2GB each, and a 32 bit bus each connecting them to the GPU. That results i 8GB of memory connected on a 128 bit wide bus.

 

The GPU remains unchanged.

 

 

Considering the lack of press release and seemingly lack of availability, this might just be an OEM card that some vendors requested. I find it hard to believe that Nvidia would create a a die just for this seemingly low volume part. Seems more likely that they would just let ABIs not connect all the memory chips if they didn't want to.

[leadeater]

17 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Thinks that this may potentially be illegal or should be illegal.

No I think it's garbage and we should not be willing to accept it. I have not made a single comment about legality other that  if they did call it a RTX 3050 Ti but re-used all the RTX 3060 product page and performance information meaning it would not represent the product that would be illegal. There's no debate around the legality of that situation, but I'm not saying Nvidia would do that I'm saying if they had called it a RTX 3050 Ti then they would have been legally required to make sure such a product page have the correct information which is a better outcome for consumers.

 

17 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Says that people should not have to rely on suffixes to understand performance. Only the first part of a name matters.

No I said established and known naming conventions are highly important and sticking to those should be done. Those naming conventions also exist for a reason to represent a product, different parts configured to be the same as used to make up the product. That could be different memory suppliers, different silicon die and other board components. So long as the SM count is the same, the memory bus is the same, TDP/TGP reference is the same then you have the same fundamental product and should be name so. Suffixes can and should exist but only for the right reasons to represent the correct thing and not foster the spreading of misinformation. Directly equating VRAM capacity to performance is misinformation, it is factually and objectively not true and you know it. Using it in that way is improper.

 

Ti and Super are suffixes that represent performance, I do not like those however like I said they are existing established naming convention that is understood in the market and they also do not result in spreading misinformation as they are a unique thing to Nvidia for the expressed purpose of representing performance and a product itself.

 

XT, XTX etc are just as bad and said the same thing in the RDNA3/RX 7000 topic. I however do not feel the need to drag another brand in and complain about them in a topic that is not about them. I will reference others as and where necessary and the only reason talking about another brand were even necessary was to counter bad arguments about VRAM capacity, of which both companies have examples of doing it correctly and transparently as well as not.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe I am completely wrong, but couldn't it be the case that the 8GB card simply has fewer memory chips connected, and as a result not the entire memory bus is used?

Yes that is literally the situation, resulting in it having the same configured memory bus as the RTX 3050 and the same memory capacity I might add. Both the RTX 3060 and RTX 3050 use GA106 based dies and if you want to make the argument that only the configuration of the die matters aka the SM count then you'd be wrong.

 

An RTX 3080 with a 128bit memory bus would not be a RTX 3080, it would not even be remotely close to the same performance regardless if the memory capacity were the same or not which would actually be possible.. You can very clearly see where I am drawing a line, memory bus matters and if you change that then it's not the same product anymore.

 

You've just been ignoring the memory bus and wanting only the GPU die configuration to be allowed to denote a product name where as I include memory bus and consider it a major part of a product. You can have that opinion but do not tell me it doesn't matter and no not reduce my argument to just mere "it's performance" when I have made the effort more than once to explain and outline this and specifically step in a state "no I do not just mean performance".

 

If you want to summarize my arguments then get it right. I've given you the feed back on some of those points and yet you ignore it and get it wrong. Don't summarize what you cannot get right or understand if that is the issue.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The GPU remains unchanged.

The GPU die may be the same or based on the same but the graphics card is not the same. It's not the same memory bus nor the same performance and those are traits that are used to create product names following the naming conventions as mentioned. If it were just a mere capacity only change then I have no issue as I've said. Since the product name no longer matches the product anymore I deem it improper to use it and I do not consider "8GB" as sufficient and proper to designate what should be an actually different model name.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Considering the lack of press release and seemingly lack of availability, this might just be an OEM card that some vendors requested

It's plenty available in the regions it's released in. Does a retail Galax box purchased within Australia look like an OEM product to you? I can also buy this card from 3 different AIBs at least here in NZ retail. It's not an OEM product, it just may not be being sold in EU etc and it wouldn't be the first time Nvidia has done a China only or Asia only product. Such a product being region specific however does not make it acceptable. I hope you aren't arguing something is more acceptable because it only potentially effects 50% of the worlds population (I'm assuming you can get this in all of Asia).

 

And none of this addresses the very real problem I mentioned of trying to go back in time and re-write history. Everyone talks about just the "RTX 3060" as there was only one at release. The reviews you will see will simply be just that, all the information will be written like that. If one were to go looking for RTX 3060 information then they will get the 12GB variant even if they were to put 8GB in the google search, that will happen. People will get directed to incorrect information.

 

 

This will happen. This is a problem, and it's been a problem in the past.

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The thing is though, both of these cards (the 3060 8GB and 3060 12GB) seem to have the same die.

Both of them uses the GA104 die, which is why I think it makes sense to call them both the 3060.

I think you mean GA106? Major die code like that isn't a good argument btw. GA104 is used in RTX 3060, RTX 3060 Ti, RTX 3070, RTX 3070 Ti.

 

The difference between the RTX 3070 and RTX 3070 Ti is just 2 SMs, ~%5 difference, while both being 256bit bus however GDDR6 vs GDDR6X so a very large difference in memory bandwidth thus graphic card (product) performance.

 

So why not just call both of these, significantly different performing products, the same RTX 3070 with different VRAM capacity stuck on the end? Because they have the same capacity. But what if one were 8GB and the other 16GB?

 

Does RTX 3070 8GB & RTX 3070 16GB make more sense if that were the situation? I really think not. This is simply not something I think should be normalized.

 

A graphics card is more than just the GPU die. I suggest you have a stronger think about your reasoning and logic around that.

 

VRAM capacity has no place being on the end of a graphics card name other than to signify it's capacity and only the capacity, nothing else.

[leadeater]

On 12/7/2022 at 10:56 AM, LAwLz said:

You sound pretty emotional and upset about this. Maybe you should take a while off, cool down and come back to this topic when you have calmed down a little?

Have a think at why I would be upset at you. How many times do I need to point out to you over and over that you have been ignoring what has said, correcting your generalizations and summations of my points that are false and incorrect. And keep argue points irrelevant to what was said because you lack the courtesy for what I know perfectly well you understand.

 

It's your deliberate and knowing behavior I find abhorrent. I'll treat you with exactly as much as you show in return. If you cannot abide by the points I just raised then I have no other option to knock you back for it.

 

On 12/7/2022 at 10:56 AM, LAwLz said:

I don't think your argument of "this is okay to do because of history" is a valid argument

Yes it is a very valid argument. It's as valid as all knowledge that exists because guess what, that's history. We know we we know and we carry that forward through time, this knowing of things known helps us understand. As soon as you start putting in arbitrary things in to the equation that are not defined or established, or in this case worse, improperly used then understanding get lost.

 

If you want to change historic practices then it's on the one wanting to drive the change to justify it and show that its a better way and support that change. Just like these manufacturers do when they go through a major re-brand of product modeling i.e. GTX to RTX.

 

On 12/7/2022 at 10:56 AM, LAwLz said:

because at least the average Joe will most likely reach the correct conclusion (for the wrong reason) in that regard.

Which is unacceptable and that is my position on that, obviously. That is literally one of the ways misinformation spreads. And as a reminder everyone plays a part in that, I'm not saying it's just Nvidia. In fact for the most part that is spread by others and not Nvidia, they just created the situation. 

 

While those people might be correct on this occasion they may not be correct always, just like they wouldn't have been GTX 1060 3gb vs GTX 1060 5GB. You are actually saying it's not a problem to set a flawed precedent and I don't know why you are ok with that.

 

On 12/7/2022 at 10:56 AM, LAwLz said:

For example AMD only started using XT on their 5000 series of GPUs, and yet nobody had any issues with that. I tried looking on this forum and after 15 minutes of searching I could not find anyone who raised even a single objection to that poor naming scheme,

Well two points here. 1) I did. 2) This topic is about Nvidia and the RTX 3060 8GB so trying to drag in others is both hardly relevant at all and whataboutism. And my response to point 2 is what about if I don't give a damn about other past examples from other brands or even Nvidia themselves. This is this, those are those. Unless you have an actually good reason to bring it up then you'll find I won't care about it, neither can I change the past. What I can do is point to the past like I have and say it was bad then and it's still bad now.

 

The only hypocrisy here is your determination to say it exists. Strong case of confirmation bias is applying.

 

Now you might get some semblance of an apology if you rescind the below because zero of it is accurate or true. Had you done your duty of care as a debater you'd have not made these errors.

17 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Leadeater thinks that Nvidia are:

• Trying to mislead and rip people off.
• Says that people should not have to rely on suffixes to understand performance. Only the first part of a name matters.
• Thinks that this may potentially be illegal or should be illegal.

 

 

And this bares pointing out again. I have said this is not a huge issue, you can quote me on that more than once in this topic. Most things we agree on. What I do not agree on is your acceptance and reasoning given for "8GB" is sufficient. Now you can hold that opinion and I'll obviously disagree but what I will not stand by is all the other nonsense you've tried to use to support it which are just wrong. All you've got is 8GB and 12GB are different numbers/letters, it's not a good argument but it's true and accurate one, and you'll find I have never once denied that they are indeed different numbers/letters.

[Mihle]

I would argue that 3060 8 and 12gb both being called 3060 with so large performance difference, is worse than the "super" or "XT" naming scheme, tho those aren't ideal either. (XTX is very bad tho)

 

It would be better if they just started using more of the numbers. For example a 2070 super could be called 2065. Or the 3060 8gb that this topic is about, could have been called 3055 or something.

[mr moose]

I just don't see how anyone is going to create a naming scheme that accurately reports performance. It has not been done for any other tech product.  Should we ignore all the numbers after i when buying an intel processor and ask them to name them according to raw performance?  what about when said products perform better at specific tasks, should we have two names for each card so that one can represent games using engine X while the other represents workloads using openCL?

 

The card has a 3060 chip, so it should be called a 3060, it is not a 3050 or a 3070 or even a 3055.  It has a unique amount of ram which identifies it as not being the 12G version.  It has benchmarks that clearly place it's performance against other cards including the 12G. This is how we know how it compares to the 12G.   It would be very hard to blame Nvidia because someone didn't read the benchmark properly and confused 8 for 12. 

[LAwLz]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

No I think it's garbage and we should not be willing to accept it. I have not made a single comment about legality other that  if they did call it a RTX 3050 Ti but re-used all the RTX 3060 product page and performance information meaning it would not represent the product that would be illegal. There's no debate around the legality of that situation, but I'm not saying Nvidia would do that I'm saying if they had called it a RTX 3050 Ti then they would have been legally required to make sure such a product page have the correct information which is a better outcome for consumers.

Maybe I misunderstood this post from you then:

On 12/4/2022 at 1:00 PM, leadeater said:

On 12/4/2022 at 12:43 PM, mr moose said:

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what they call these things

Yes it does. As a consumer protection law advocate yourself you know this.

 

 

Mr Moose says that it doesn't matter if they call it the 3060 8GB.

You replied by saying it does and brings up consumer protection laws. The logical way of reading this post is, in my mind, that you are saying that the way they have named these cards could be at odds with consumer protection laws.

If your statement is read in a vacuum then I could understand you making a grand statement about how sometimes, the name of products matters, but when looking at this context and the person you were replying to my interpretation was "leadeater thinks this might be against the law".

 

 

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

No I said established and known naming conventions are highly important and sticking to those should be done.

But hold on. I feel like we are once again flip flopping between different customers here.

Now we are once again back to the idea that customers have been following hardware news for years and are familiar with certain suffixes, but we are not allowed to change or introduce new suffixes because that might take some time before people get used to.

I thought the people who were "at risk" of being fooled by this naming scheme were people who didn't follow hardware news and may not even be familiar with suffixes like Ti or XT. 

I feel like you are moving the goalpost here because before you said:  

On 12/4/2022 at 12:27 PM, leadeater said:

People know the first part, rely on the first part, talk about the first part. How many people ever really talk about more than that

But now all of a sudden you are saying people do read suffixes, but apparently only if it's "Ti" or "Super"? 

 

You can't have it both ways. Do people ignore suffixes? Then all suffixes are bad. If they don't ignore suffixes, then we should expect people to read all suffixes. We can't say that people only read Ti suffixes but not 8GB suffixes. That makes no sense.

 

 

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

Yes that is literally the situation, resulting in it having the same configured memory bus as the RTX 3050 and the same memory capacity I might add. Both the RTX 3060 and RTX 3050 use GA106 based dies and if you want to make the argument that only the configuration of the die matters aka the SM count then you'd be wrong.

Except you are deliberately leaving out a lot of information here.

Yes, the 3050 and 3060 use the same base die, but they are not using the exact same die.

The 3050 uses the die named GA106-150-KA-A1. The 3060, both the 8GB and 12GB models, uses the GA106-302-A1.

 

There is a very big difference between "using the exact same die" and "one card has a fully enabled die and one has the same die but partially disabled".

 

In the case of the 3060 8GB vs 3060 12GB, it seems like they are the exact same card, except two memory dies have been removed. The only thing that has changed is the memory, and as a result I think it makes sense to differentiate them with a suffix that specifies the memory difference.

 

 

Another point I would like to raise is that we have this issue everywhere when it comes to computer hardware.

For example a lot of SSDs will perform differently depending on capacity too. For example the Samsung 980 Pro 500GB is roughly half as fast as the 1TB model in sequential writes for example (possibly because of more NAND chips, so more chips can be written to at once). The caches are also different sized so performance varies quite a lot.

Does this mean we should advocate for Samsung to rename their drives so the 980 Pro 500GB is now called the 975 Pro? Of course not. That would just make things needlessly complicated and would probably not help any customer.

I think the same deal applies here.

 

I would love if a system existed where it was obvious to anyone, regardless of how well read they were, to instantly understand exactly how a graphics card performed in any given situation, but the fact of the matter is that no such system exists. Of course, you can do a better or worse job at it and I would argue the whole "Ti" and "XT" suffixes are worse than just using slightly higher numbers (3065 for example instead of 3060 Ti), but then again, I am fairly sure people were mocking Intel when they reached 10th gen because "lol so many numbers". The more I think about it, the more my joke about how gamers can't focus long enough to read more than 4 character seems true.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

I think you mean GA106? Major die code like that isn't a good argument btw. GA104 is used in RTX 3060, RTX 3060 Ti, RTX 3070, RTX 3070 Ti.

Yeah sorry, I meant the GA106.

I don't have to use the major die code though. It seems like the 3060 8GB and 3060 12GB uses the exact same die, the GA106-302-A1.

 

The GA104 is not used in the 3060 by the way. At least not according to TechPowerUp. They list it as the GA106. The 8GB and 12GB models seems to be using the exact same die. It seems like only the memory chips has changed between them. The 8GB has two fewer chips.

[MageTank]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The GA104 is not used in the 3060 by the way. At least not according to TechPowerUp. They list it as the GA106. The 8GB and 12GB models seems to be using the exact same die. It seems like only the memory chips has changed between them. The 8GB has two fewer chips.

It is, but only certain SKUs which is what confused me earlier when I referenced the GA104: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-rtx-3060-12-gb-ga104.c3832.

 

Two of my cards in the lab are GA104, but looking at my older samples, they are all GA106. Very interesting, nothing on the box art changed to clarify this and I don't recall them performing any differently at all.

 

EDIT: Don't know if this matters, but my two GA104 cards do have V2 or LHR in their naming, but I am also aware of GA106 LHR cards so I doubt this matters.

[Blademaster91]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

I just don't see how anyone is going to create a naming scheme that accurately reports performance. It has not been done for any other tech product.  Should we ignore all the numbers after i when buying an intel processor and ask them to name them according to raw performance?  what about when said products perform better at specific tasks, should we have two names for each card so that one can represent games using engine X while the other represents workloads using openCL?

If Nvidia wants the VRAM capacity to be an indicator of performance then they should add the memory bus bandwidth to the product naming, like RTX 3060 (192 bit) 12GB. What Nvidia is doing with their 2 different 3060 models is like if Intel made two different i7 cpu's, one of them has higher clocks but doesn't clearly indicate that higher performance in the naming. And IMO, Intel's naming is confusing enough with their 5 digit numbering, and it gets even more confusing with their mobile cpu's.

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

The card has a 3060 chip, so it should be called a 3060, it is not a 3050 or a 3070 or even a 3055.  It has a unique amount of ram which identifies it as not being the 12G version.  It has benchmarks that clearly place it's performance against other cards including the 12G. This is how we know how it compares to the 12G.   It would be very hard to blame Nvidia because someone didn't read the benchmark properly and confused 8 for 12.

The 3060 8GB shouldn't be called a 3060 because it doesn't have the same 3060 die as the 3060 12GB, the 12GB version is the GA106-300-A1, 8GB version is GA106-302-A1, and the 8GB version has a lower 128 bit memory bus bandwidth,compared to the the 12GB having a 192 bit memory bus.

Although you wouldn't know any of that unless you watched or read an in depth review, most people don't do that, they just want to upgrade from the same tier of card and want to get the best product for their money. If they accidentally buy the 8GB instead of the 12GB because the VRAM capacity on the box is intentionally in fine print, Nvidia controls everything the OEM's can do,even box designs, so this whole confusion is on nvidia and I think that blaming this on the consumer is part of the problem of Nvidia getting away with anti-consumer nonsense. Nvidia tried to do the same thing with the 4080 12GB and they got massive backlash for it, yet people here still defended Nvidia for it. It seems like Nvidia didn't learn anything from that so they did it again with the 3060 8GB, and quietly as to not tell any reviewers or offer any review products, I find that a lot more scummy as people buying the lower range cards aren't always going to be as informed as the enthusiasts spending over $1000 on a graphics card.

[HenrySalayne]

10 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

The 3060 8GB shouldn't be called a 3060 because it doesn't have the same 3060 die as the 3060 12GB, the 12GB version is the GA106-300-A1, 8GB version is GA106-302-A1,

That's not a good point. We have seen XX70 series dice getting put into XX60 cards, but Nvidia tuned the performance to be slightly better or on par with the XX60 series die.

 

10 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Although you wouldn't know any of that unless you watched or read an in depth review, most people don't do that

Even if they do, all reviews dating back to the 3060 (12 GB) launch simply call the card 3060. Nvidia not only knew this, their homepage also doesn't differentiate between the 8 GB model and the 12 GB model.

The final verdict can only be one thing: Nvidia is deceiving their costumers.

[xAcid9]

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

I just don't see how anyone is going to create a naming scheme that accurately reports performance. It has not been done for any other tech product.  Should we ignore all the numbers after i when buying an intel processor and ask them to name them according to raw performance?  what about when said products perform better at specific tasks, should we have two names for each card so that one can represent games using engine X while the other represents workloads using openCL?

 

The card has a 3060 chip, so it should be called a 3060, it is not a 3050 or a 3070 or even a 3055.  It has a unique amount of ram which identifies it as not being the 12G version.  It has benchmarks that clearly place it's performance against other cards including the 12G. This is how we know how it compares to the 12G.   It would be very hard to blame Nvidia because someone didn't read the benchmark properly and confused 8 for 12. 

How about putting a relative performance graph or some sort of graphic on side of the box comparing both 8GB & 12B performance.

Do it for all GPUs that have 2 or more variants with the same name. Too much too ask? Or too much information for the customer to make sense of it? 

[leadeater]

On 12/9/2022 at 12:37 AM, mr moose said:

I just don't see how anyone is going to create a naming scheme that accurately reports performance.

It doesn't have to  accurately report performance, it has to accurately differentiate product configuration. You know, literally how its done now bar these edge cases where companies get lazy and can't be bothered going the full effort so just make it a "variant" of an existing product while being as different as any other named SKU.

 

On 12/9/2022 at 12:37 AM, mr moose said:

The card has a 3060 chip, so it should be called a 3060, it is not a 3050 or a 3070 or even a 3055.

The card has the same die from the same wafer as the RTX 3050 and RTX 3060. The only difference is final binning, fusing and microcode which makes it whatever die SKU designation required. Nvidia isn't getting separate wafers and dies manufactured for each of these products, it's just how they end up final configuration wise.

 

And no it can be called whatever the hell Nvidia wants to call it and whatever name they choose we can like, or dislike. I find these arguments reductive and ill-informed because what you just said is literally counter to how Nvidia is doing the entire product creation process going back decades.

 

On 12/9/2022 at 12:37 AM, mr moose said:

It has benchmarks that clearly place it's performance against other cards including the 12G.

Correction, it has benchmarks from so far one, maybe a couple of reviewers who picked up on this product configuration discrepancy and the existence of the product and choose to test it. As yet Nvidia has not officially recognized or identified it as having a difference in performance, you should find this problematic.

 

Literally the first and second hit on Google for RTX 3060 8GB review is actually the RTX 3060 12GB review and it's not in the URL title either so easily missed and it's not identified in any of the graphs as being 12GB either. So unless someone is paying proper attention and actually reading most of at least the opening to the review and not just graph hunting only then will they pickup on it. Those that are just skim checking and graph searching will be looking at the wrong information easily being unaware of that.

 

Have you actually tried looking for reviews of the graphics card or are you just going off the linked source in this topic? Which btw is only the third result in Google.

 

And I can blame Nvidia because they were simply being lazy and created this in the quickest and simplest way for themselves and I'd bet without much consideration at all to any of these potential problems. I also see no benefit to consumers for this product existing so I can't weigh that against this either.

[leadeater]

21 hours ago, MageTank said:

It is, but only certain SKUs which is what confused me earlier when I referenced the GA104: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-rtx-3060-12-gb-ga104.c3832.

Wikipedia lays out the products a lot better with the table on there. It's actually quite well maintained. If you want to get a good overview of what is used across the product line then that is a better place than techpowerup.

[leadeater]

22 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Except you are deliberately leaving out a lot of information here.

Yes, the 3050 and 3060 use the same base die, but they are not using the exact same die.

The 3050 uses the die named GA106-150-KA-A1. The 3060, both the 8GB and 12GB models, uses the GA106-302-A1.

RTX 3050 has 2 different dies of the same configuration, RTX 3060 has 3 different dies of the same configuration supplied by 2 different wafer/die sources (GA106 & GA104).

 

And I note you haven't addressed that RTX 3070 vs RTX 3070 Ti situation, nor RTX 3080 128bit bus possibilities. Die configuration is not the be all and end all of a graphics card and it's not the only factor Nvidia uses right now or in the past to create named product SKUs re: RTX 3070 Ti & RTX 2080/2080 Super & GTX 1080 Ti/Titan X & GTX 780 Ti/Titan Black.

 

22 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The 3050 uses the die named GA106-150-KA-A1. The 3060, both the 8GB and 12GB models, uses the GA106-302-A1.

You know you just repeat exactly what I said right?

 

" Both the RTX 3060 and RTX 3050 use GA106 based dies and if you want to make the argument that only the configuration of the die matters aka the SM count then you'd be wrong."

 

What do you think GA106-150-KA-A1 & GA106-302-A1 represent? SM count and sometimes other sub SM component changes.

 

22 hours ago, LAwLz said:

In the case of the 3060 8GB vs 3060 12GB, it seems like they are the exact same card, except two memory dies have been removed. The only thing that has changed is the memory, and as a result I think it makes sense to differentiate them with a suffix that specifies the memory difference.

And now you are leaving off information. If you remove memory dies then you reduce memory bus and if you reduce memory bus you have a different product as per what Nvidia already does right now to differentiae named product SKUs. I'm not going to let you not acknowledge this actually important fact. If it were just a reduction of memory die density then as I've said fine to name it this way but it's not that is it.

 

So no they are not the exact same card, the mere fact you had to say "except" in that sentence degrades your argument from the outset. It's the same "except" it's not the same.

 

22 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But now all of a sudden you are saying people do read suffixes, but apparently only if it's "Ti" or "Super"? 

 

You can't have it both ways. Do people ignore suffixes? Then all suffixes are bad. If they don't ignore suffixes, then we should expect people to read all suffixes. We can't say that people only read Ti suffixes but not 8GB suffixes. That makes no sense.

Did you not bother to look at the example used, RTX 4080. I'm sure you can figure out where this is going...

 

I'm not having it both ways, you're just intentionally being obtuse, ignoring or not reading what is said and then when clarified later you want to make these misinformed or worse comments.

 

Right now I can say literally anything because it seems you aren't reading anything. Seems you are too busy trying to prove this point that you haven't actually bothered to evaluate what has been said.

 

I literally said Ti and Super have an established and known meaning, like actually come on now. Really do we need to cover this again? REALY? Do we, actually. Do we.....

 

RTX 3070 Ti [Insert stuff after that gets ignored]

RTX 3070 [Insert stuff after that gets ignored]

 

When people recognize known things and naming commonly used that is what they use to identify the product, other things can and do get ignored. That's that last time I'll spell it out for you again, this is REALLY basic and obvious. And I don't for a single second think you were ever confused by this nor didn't know what I meant so making me cover it yet again I do find offensive. Just fyi. Choose wisely how you want to continue from here, wasting my time with things I know you understood just fine is pretty much the least acceptable thing to me.

[leadeater]

22 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Mr Moose says that it doesn't matter if they call it the 3060 8GB.

You replied by saying it does and brings up consumer protection laws. The logical way of reading this post is, in my mind, that you are saying that the way they have named these cards could be at odds with consumer protection laws.

If your statement is read in a vacuum then I could understand you making a grand statement about how sometimes, the name of products matters, but when looking at this context and the person you were replying to my interpretation was "leadeater thinks this might be against the law".

My comment applied to exactly what was quoted. Product names do matter and are covered by this. Saying it "doesn't matter what they name it" is wrong. If you want to make a leap and make out that I was commenting about specifically the RTX 3060 8GB then that is your mistake to make. I simply object to that being said because I know he knows that is not true, it wasn't a well thought out comment by him, that is all.

 

Making an NZ/AUS etc CGA or FTA law argument is a waste of time and nothing would come of it so I just won't do it. Btw just as a bit of extra information for you intent to mislead or deceive is not a requirement to be in breach of these, that might seem a little unfair but the laws are there to protect consumers not business and put consumers first.

[mr moose]

16 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

If Nvidia wants the VRAM capacity to be an indicator of performance then they should add the memory bus bandwidth to the product naming, like RTX 3060 (192 bit) 12GB. What Nvidia is doing with their 2 different 3060 models is like if Intel made two different i7 cpu's, one of them has higher clocks but doesn't clearly indicate that higher performance in the naming. And IMO, Intel's naming is confusing enough with their 5 digit numbering, and it gets even more confusing with their mobile cpu's.

So how do you propose that they name all their products so all the information is contained within the name? I personally don't consider a name to be an indicator of performance.  I know lot of people fall for the basic marketing of naming and such, but at the end of the day, so long as each product is unique in it's identifiability and the name isn't intentionally obfuscating something (which I don't consider it to be in this case), then I don't see the problem.  Is an falcon XR6 faster than a Falcon futura?  no body goes by the name to work that out, they look up spec sheets and reviews.  Same here is the 8G slower than the 12G model?  yes, but like every other product on the market you need to look up the reviews to know that.

 

 

16 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

The 3060 8GB shouldn't be called a 3060 because it doesn't have the same 3060 die as the 3060 12GB, the 12GB version is the GA106-300-A1, 8GB version is GA106-302-A1, and the 8GB version has a lower 128 bit memory bus bandwidth,compared to the the 12GB having a 192 bit memory bus.

I know that difference, that doesn't make it not a 3060.   Again this is why we have product reviews and unique identifiers. At best the name should only give you a ball park idea of performance.  Don't forget that there are a lot of specs the name does not tell you about in the tech sphere,  not all i5's are the same and you have to look up reviews or specs to know that the difference between the i513600k and the i513600kf is that one supports ecc. 

16 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Although you wouldn't know any of that unless you watched or read an in depth review, most people don't do that, they just want to upgrade from the same tier of card and want to get the best product for their money.

Again, if people are not going to bother reading a review then it doesn't matter what the card is called,  they are buying blind anyway.  Honestly how is anyone going to know what performs better, an RX6700XT or an RTX3060TI if they don't read a review?  The name means diddly squat by itself, and it only is honest if it is unique to it's product and not a lie.  

16 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

If they accidentally buy the 8GB instead of the 12GB because the VRAM capacity on the box is intentionally in fine print, Nvidia controls everything the OEM's can do,even box designs, so this whole confusion is on nvidia and I think that blaming this on the consumer is part of the problem of Nvidia getting away with anti-consumer nonsense. Nvidia tried to do the same thing with the 4080 12GB and they got massive backlash for it, yet people here still defended Nvidia for it. It seems like Nvidia didn't learn anything from that so they did it again with the 3060 8GB, and quietly as to not tell any reviewers or offer any review products, I find that a lot more scummy as people buying the lower range cards aren't always going to be as informed as the enthusiasts spending over $1000 on a graphics card.

Who is going to "accidentally" buy a GPU?   I don't think there is anything to blame on anyone.  Consumers haven't been lied to and aren't accidentally buying a subpar card because of a name and Nvidia aren't lying about the cards specs.    When there is a problem on any sort of scale that can't e attributed to a handful of people doing stupid things (because there always will be a few) then we'll start discussing if the box information was to blame.   But as of right now it is not a lie, it does not insinuate it is faster and we only know this because it is a different product with a different name and was reviewed as such for us to discuss.

 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

It doesn't have to  accurately report performance, it has to accurately differentiate product configuration.

It does that. it is a 3060 with 8G ram. 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

You know, literally how its done now bar these edge cases where companies get lazy and can't be bothered going the full effort so just make it a "variant" of an existing product while being as different as any other named SKU.

It is a variant of an existing product, it's a 3060 with less ram.  You know this when you look at any GPU listing because all brands are listed by GPU chip, Ram size, Brand model then maybe some brand postfix.   In this case you cannot confuse it for the 12G model unless you are ignoring the ram size. 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

The card has the same die from the same wafer as the RTX 3050 and RTX 3060. The only difference is final binning, fusing and microcode which makes it whatever die SKU designation required. Nvidia isn't getting separate wafers and dies manufactured for each of these products, it's just how they end up final configuration wise.

In that case you should be arguing for all 3060's and all the 3050 to be called the same thing. 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

And no it can be called whatever the hell Nvidia wants to call it and whatever name they choose we can like, or dislike. I find these arguments reductive and ill-informed because what you just said is literally counter to how Nvidia is doing the entire product creation process going back decades.

they can call it the bootlicker 8G for all I care, so long as it isn't a name they already use to label a product that is obviously inferior.

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Correction, it has benchmarks from so far one, maybe a couple of reviewers who picked up on this product configuration discrepancy and the existence of the product and choose to test it. As yet Nvidia has not officially recognized or identified it as having a difference in performance, you should find this problematic.

Have you considered that their motivation for testing it was due to it being a new variant? I mean that is why nearly every (if not all) GPU is tested and reviewed, so we can see how they perform against not only their own variants but the competition as well.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Literally the first and second hit on Google for RTX 3060 8GB review is actually the RTX 3060 12GB review and it's not in the URL title either so easily missed and it's not identified in any of the graphs as being 12GB either. So unless someone is paying proper attention and actually reading most of at least the opening to the review and not just graph hunting only then will they pickup on it. Those that are just skim checking and graph searching will be looking at the wrong information easily being unaware of that.

So the card hasn't been out long enough for google search to update with 8G reviews, you yourself said in just the past paragraph that there were only one or two reviews so far.  this doesn't mean anything.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Have you actually tried looking for reviews of the graphics card or are you just going off the linked source in this topic? Which btw is only the third result in Google.

 Not having enough product reviews does not equal deceptive advertising. 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

And I can blame Nvidia because they were simply being lazy and created this in the quickest and simplest way for themselves and I'd bet without much consideration at all to any of these potential problems. I also see no benefit to consumers for this product existing so I can't weigh that against this either.

 

You are more than welcome to any feeling on the matter,  I just don;t agree that the name is deceptive.  It is clearly identifiable as a product other than the 3060 12G and reviews can be found if buyers are interested.  Just like every other product (except the 1030).

 

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

How about putting a relative performance graph or some sort of graphic on side of the box comparing both 8GB & 12B performance.

Do it for all GPUs that have 2 or more variants with the same name. Too much too ask? Or too much information for the customer to make sense of it? 

If they are honest and only compare to other variants in the same product line up then I think that would be good for the consumer. However if it becomes the usual marketing wank performance graphs we see from Nvidia and Intel then I personally think just a simple and unique name is enough and consumers can go to independent 3rd parties for performance comparisons.