GTX 1060 vs 1070 TI

[jonesi100]

Currys have a 1070 GTX for 299, but is the extra performance worth the extra cash?

[Baozhai]

I don't think so paying an extra amount where you get around 10 to 15% improvements. However when you overclock 1070 Ti, it comes very close to 1080. So it all boils down to one's preference.
I would prefer to invest your money in gtx 2060 which retails around $349 and its benchmarks shows that its neck and neck with 1070 Ti.

[the_weegie]

The GTX 1660 TI is being released shortly, similar performance to the old Maxwell Titan X and GTX 1070 (if leaks are to be believed) and has been seen on amazon for £286.

[Zak33]

think Curries ran out pretty fast tbf

[watercooled]

The GTX 1660 TI is being released shortly, similar performance to the old Maxwell Titan X and GTX 1070 (if leaks are to be believed) and has been seen on amazon for £286.

So roughly the same performance for roughly the same money. I don't understand why Nvidia were surprised by the low sales of Turing TBH!! Maybe their marketing nonsense isn't as infallible as they hoped.

I mean I don't mean to be obtuse and I'm sure there's a bit more to it than that, but the pricing is all wrong for the Turing series, and even if you buy into all the RTX guff, the 1660 doesn't have it! Just, if you have some existing products on the market with a given price and performance, then you release new products which change NOTHING in that regard, why would they sell well? Like, in order to upgrade you want one of the following (fanboys aside):
1) More performance for the same money
2) The same performance for less money (similar to (1))
3) More performance no matter what.

Points 1 and 2 are not met by Turing at all. 3 is only met for the very top-end otherwise you get nothing above what you'd get moving to a higher, probably discounted, Pascal card. Even power efficiency doesn't change appreciably.

There are enough Nvidia fanboys in comment sections of reviews etc calling out anyone criticising Turing pricing as 'whinging' etc, that the pricing is justified and/or that Nvidia are getting away with it because lack of competition. I mean that's clearly not true is it? It's logically indefensible when Turing sales have been terrible...

Edit: Oh and not to mention you get more memory with a 1070 than you do with a 2060, 8GB vs 6GB. Might be important going forward.

[the_weegie]

So roughly the same performance for roughly the same money. I don't understand why Nvidia were surprised by the low sales of Turing TBH!! Maybe their marketing nonsense isn't as infallible as they hoped.

I mean I don't mean to be obtuse and I'm sure there's a bit more to it than that, but the pricing is all wrong for the Turing series, and even if you buy into all the RTX guff, the 1660 doesn't have it! Just, if you have some existing products on the market with a given price and performance, then you release new products which change NOTHING in that regard, why would they sell well? Like, in order to upgrade you want one of the following (fanboys aside):
1) More performance for the same money
2) The same performance for less money (similar to (1))
3) More performance no matter what.

Points 1 and 2 are not met by Turing at all. 3 is only met for the very top-end otherwise you get nothing above what you'd get moving to a higher, probably discounted, Pascal card. Even power efficiency doesn't change appreciably.

There are enough Nvidia fanboys in comment sections of reviews etc calling out anyone criticising Turing pricing as 'whinging' etc, that the pricing is justified and/or that Nvidia are getting away with it because lack of competition. I mean that's clearly not true is it? It's logically indefensible when Turing sales have been terrible...

Edit: Oh and not to mention you get more memory with a 1070 than you do with a 2060, 8GB vs 6GB. Might be important going forward.

Yep, same performance for same money, however there's a chance that through driver updates etc the 1660 TI will improve on current performance. I'd be fairly confident in saying the 1070 is as good as it's ever going to be right now, so given performance and price being equal I'd go with the newer tech.

Pricing for Turing is indeed all wrong, and I'd argue that AMD's failure to compete is part of the reason why Nvidia are gouging/miling the public. AMD's best used to be competitive with Nvidia's best but a while back nvidia's best was now a whole level above AMD's best. This pricing is the logical conclusion even though it rankles more than a bit.

I'd argue that memory is only going to be a limiting factor at higher resolutions (2K, 4K) and if you're gaming at those resolutions a 1070 or indeed a 1660 TI isn't the card one'd be going for.

[watercooled]

I agree to a point WRT pricing in light of competition, but don't forget Nvidia also have to compete against what is already on offer and what people already own. Turing just isn't any better in terms of the critical price/performance metric.

I've said from the beginning it's a really weird launch - even with a mediocre product, Nvidia usually does something to market it well, whether that's with free stuff, arbitrary comparisons or 'features', but they've really done very little to make Turing look like a compelling purchase IMO. Maybe they were banking 100% on ray tracing or their iffy DLSS implementation, but they've so far done a terrible job of making either look like remotely good reasons to buy into this generation. RTX runs comically poorly and/or makes some games look arguably worse* and DLSS just makes things look worse universally from what I can see, and for comparatively little performance uplift.

Or maybe value is intentionally terrible this generation in order to shift Pascal stockpiles since the crypto crash, with the side benefit of being able to restore something closer to normality with the next gen which everyone will no doubt see as great value??

*The screenshots I've seen for Metro, the lighting is terrible with RTX on in most of the scenes I saw. It's like BF3-style obnoxious lighting where, being indoors, everything outside is white, and looking from outside in, everything is pitch black. Sorry guys, that's not how human eyes see things! I've seen people claim that it's a more realistic implementation of lighting, and while that might be true in terms of light levels linearly e.g. if you're looking through some sort of camera with the exposure fixed, human eyes just don't see things that way, so it doesn't appear realistic at all. I mean it's really not hard to stand in a room and look outside to see that for yourself is it??

Sorry jonesi100 for going off on a tangent!! Hopefully you made a decision on what card to purchase?

[Remontvfdspb]

The TDP is identical between the 1070 Max-Q and 2060 Notebook 80-90W. I guess this stands to reason, though I would have hoped for some additional perf-per-watt. A little underwhelming.