Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 3GB equipped with fewer CUDA cores

[Corky34]

I think you're making assumptions about average consumers that simply aren't true, based on your knowledge of consumers, which I suspect to have sample bias (towards the more knowledgable/enthusiast consumers).

Quiet the opposite, i expect your average consumer to see a box, retailers page or whatever, see a 1060 3GB and 1060 6GB and assume the only difference between the two is the amount of RAM, i expect your average consumer doesn't have a clue what a CUDA core, streaming multiprocessors, or texture mapping unit is, that's even if a retailer listed those things on the product page or box.

In my experience most consumers know nothing whatsoever about the hardware they're buying beyond a rough idea that one thing is faster than another, often based on fallacious assumptions (like the aforementioned large-but-slow RAM cards).

Isn't that the point, the consumer knows, or even assumes, that both 1060's would be identical other than the amount of RAM, it seems a bit like buying a Golf only to find out it's a Polo in disguise.

Knowledgeable consumers will be aware that it has less shaders, whereas naive consumers will just look at the numbers and think "6GB is better than 3GB". Either way, it'll be fairly clear that the 3GB version is a slower card.

IMO that's the problem though, it's not going to be slower *just* because of the RAM, it's going to be slower because one of these GPU's isn't like the other.

GPU names/numbers are entirely marketing-driven: they don't actually mean anything.

And that's what i have the problem with, marketing wise your average consumer is likely to assume the technical details, the type of GPU (type as in what the consumer considers a type) is the same from one 1060 GPU to another.

[c12038]

Smells like a GTX760 with extras lol

[scaryjim]

Quiet the opposite, i expect your average consumer to see a box, retailers page or whatever, see a 1060 3GB and 1060 6GB and assume the only difference between the two is the amount of RAM, i expect your average consumer doesn't have a clue what a CUDA core, streaming multiprocessors, or texture mapping unit is, that's even if a retailer listed those things on the product page or box.

I'm not going to quote your whole post, but interestingly, you've kind of disagreed and agreed with my point all at once - and the above is a good example. The average consumer absolutely does not have a clue about all those things you mention, and that's why I don't think they'll assume the only difference between the cards is RAM - they'll just know one has a bigger number so is probably faster. It's the lack of underlying knowledge that means they won't assume the cards are identical, and won't care why one is slower than the other: they'll just know it's slower.

You seem to be assuming a lot more knowledge and understanding of GPUs in general than I think people have. You seem to be assuming people know there are other things that might be different, or the same, that they should care about. Well, my experience is very much that people don't understand that. They just understand faster or slower. They only care about faster or slower. They'll assume that the GTX 1060s should perform fairly similarly, but that the 3GB one should be slower. And that's what they'll get. They won't care how that's been manufactured. They won't care about the technical details. They won't care about 10% less shaders, because they won't understand 10% less shaders. They won't think "the 3GB card will be identical to the 6GB card apart from the size of the frame buffer, and as I'm only playing at 1080p I can probably get away with the 3GB frame buffer so for me the 3GB card will be just as fast as the 6GB card". They'll think "the 3GB card will be slower than the 6GB card", and make a decision based on if they want faster or cheaper.

[Corky34]

We do sort of, disagreed and agreed i mean, yes someone with no knowledge of the subject is going to think bigger numbers are better, however when the inevitable happens and someone tells them that 1060 3GB isn't just slower because of the RAM it's slower because Nvidia gimped the 3GB model that's when i think the smelly stuff is going to hit the rotary ventilating device, i guess the people I'm thinking of are the people that buy something without researching the in's and out's only to be told of their "mistake" later, in a similar fashion as the 970.

[scaryjim]

... however when the inevitable happens and someone tells them that 1060 3GB isn't just slower because of the RAM it's slower because Nvidia gimped the 3GB model that's when i think the smelly stuff is going to hit the rotary ventilating device ...

That could certainly happen, and I won't argue about whether it's potentially confusing - it absolutely is. But that's not quite the same thing as misleading, and it's a very long way from fraudulent. It's certainly a long way from the most misleading thing nvidia have ever done, and it's arguably no more confusing than the bad old days of too many suffixes (GT, GTO, GTS, GTX, GX2....).

The bottom line (IMNSHO, of course) is that the information is already out there if people care about what they're buying. So while I can see that some people might be confused, I don't think there's really any excuse for being confused. If you're bothered, read up on it. If you're not, don't worry about it.

[Corky34]

That's the part we're going to have to disagree on.

To me personally, if what i described happened to me i would feel mislead and think the company acted fraudulently, ultimately though something like that will be decided by a judge, as you pointed out there's a good probability of someone suing Nvidia over this.

[scaryjim]

... if what i described happened to me i would feel mislead and think the company acted fraudulently, ultimately though something like that will be decided by a judge, as you pointed out there's a good probability of someone suing Nvidia over this.

And nvidia's lawyers would show the judge a link to this article & thread, which is publically readable and clearly states that the 3GB card has less shaders. You might feel mislead, but given the information is readily available I really don't see that case ever coming out in your favour. *shrug*

[Corky34]

I'm not sure an article on Hexus would be admissible as evidence.
Anyhow doesn't the law (INAL) say something about companies, in other words it's down to the company to make people aware not third parties.

[ed^chigliak]

Nvidia have just created
GTX1063
GTX1066

There is no such thing as a GTX1060. You change the core and you change the model name. Those are the rules.

[aniilv]

Nvidia have just created
GTX1063
GTX1066

There is no such thing as a GTX1060. You change the core and you change the model name. Those are the rules.

LOL

take a look at phones for instance, almost no flagship model comes with same spec over all their phones... Be it different cpu or memory but they all have deviations. This clearly states different model by saying its 3GB version. There is no expectation that it will have same hardware when it clearly has different name.

[scaryjim]

I'm not sure an article on Hexus would be admissible as evidence.
Anyhow doesn't the law (INAL) say something about companies, in other words it's down to the company to make people aware not third parties.

I'm pretty sure any readily available source that provides the information would be admissible - as long as the information about the underlying spec is out there people can't claim they didn't know. But I'm pretty sure nvidia's website will also give the correct number of shaders - the GTX specs database is pretty damn good in that regard, whatever you think of nvidia's products. Better than AMD's, to an extent, since most of their GPU specs are listed using the weaselly "up to xxx shaders", rather than a specific amount.

... You change the core and you change the model name. Those are the rules.

Whose rules? Who made them? Who enforces them? What else do these mythical "rules" say? I'm intrigued - all this time I didn't realise there were rules about naming GPUs! I can't help thinking someone should've told nvidia and AMD...

[ed^chigliak]

3GB and 6GB is clearly an amount of memory so by the powers of deduction GTX1060 is the name given to the GPU.

Beer 1 pint = Beer

Beer half a pint = Milk

Just a product name. There are no rules.

[badass]

3GB and 6GB is clearly an amount of memory so by the powers of deduction GTX1060 is the name given to the GPU.

Beer 1 pint = Beer

Beer half a pint = Milk

Just a product name. There are no rules.

Beer 1 pint = 1 pint of wifebeater
Beer 1/2 pint = 1/2 pint of different strength beer

[Corky34]

6 Apples = Apples
3 Apples = Oranges

[scaryjim]

6 Apples = Apples
3 Apples = Oranges

I'd love to see you play Doom on an apple!

Utterly spurious example. It's 6 large apples, or 3 very slightly smaller apples. Or, if you prefer, 6 class I apples vs 3 class II apples. It's still an apple*.

*EDIT: that's an apple, not an Apple (R), of course. We all know Apple(R)'s use AMD GPUs nowadays

[Corky34]

Are we talking about the original Doom? That's been made to run on some pretty eclectic stuff, maybe we could make a battery out of the apples to run this.