Read more.Quote:
As well as halving the graphics memory it offers 1,152 rather than 1,280 CUDA cores.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
As well as halving the graphics memory it offers 1,152 rather than 1,280 CUDA cores.
Ridiculous, and almost disingenuous, to cause confusion like that. AMD were bad enough with slower memory on 4GB 480 models, but at least the change was related to memory which was already a product differentiator.
I'd say it's more than just disingenuous, it's dishonest and fraudulent, using the same model name to describe two distinctly different specifications of GPU core is being done with the intention of misleading people, it should be called a 1050 not a 1060 3GB.
Fraudulent? Only if they claim it has 1280 shaders when it doesn't - and that's not the case here. Misleading? Only if there was a widespread expectation that the model number of a graphics card guaranteed a particular specification, and that's never been the case (take the GTX 460, for instance, or the many many lower end cards that nvidia served with multiple different architectures). You'd have to be a very naive customer to assume that a GTX 1060 3GB and a GTX 1060 6GB were otherwise identical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Disingenuous? Maybe, but it's a very minor snip in specs - just 10% less cores. That's not like the step down from GTX 1080 to GTX 1070, or the one from 1070 to 1060. iirc it's les than the difference between an R9 280 and an R9 280X, or a 290 and a 290X. So I can understand them not wanting to call it a 1050. However nvidia have done away with differentiation within performance categories, so they've left themselves nowhere to go, I guess...
One thing we all know is that the average consumer will be swayed by bigger numbers. So the average consumer will automatically assume that the GTX 1060 6GB is better than the GTX 1060 3GB. In this case they'd be more right than usual, and at least they haven't released a card with more memory but clocked slower, which is the usual trick (4GB R7 240s, for instance, that have DDR3 memory).
No ... while I think the difference could be made clearer by nvidia, I'm actually going to give them a bye on this one. The average person will assume that the 3GB card is slower than the 6GB card anyway. It's unclear, but I don't think it's particularly misleading.
We're going to have to disagree then as personally i see this as Nvidia intending to deceive, they're trying to persuaded your average consumer that the two cards are the same sans the RAM.
Would be nice to have a more obvious designation, although both vendors have done this in the past and from what I remember, hasn't caused too much fuss because of it. I think some the the odd model/range naming changes and memory capacities have caused a lot more "bad purchases"
You are one of the most loving(read pure fanboy) nVidia customer i have ever seen. I mean i have seen many fanboys but not like you. Hail the king fanboy of nVidia.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjimFraudulent? Only if they claim it has 1280 shaders when it doesn't - and that's not the case here. Misleading? Only if there was a widespread expectation that the model number of a graphics card guaranteed a particular specification, and that's never been the case (take the GTX 460, for instance, or the many many lower end cards that nvidia served with multiple different architectures). You'd have to be a very naive customer to assume that a GTX 1060 3GB and a GTX 1060 6GB were otherwise identical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Disingenuous? Maybe, but it's a very minor snip in specs - just 10% less cores. That's not like the step down from GTX 1080 to GTX 1070, or the one from 1070 to 1060. iirc it's les than the difference between an R9 280 and an R9 280X, or a 290 and a 290X. So I can understand them not wanting to call it a 1050. However nvidia have done away with differentiation within performance categories, so they've left themselves nowhere to go, I guess...
One thing we all know is that the average consumer will be swayed by bigger numbers. So the average consumer will automatically assume that the GTX 1060 6GB is better than the GTX 1060 3GB. In this case they'd be more right than usual, and at least they haven't released a card with more memory but clocked slower, which is the usual trick (4GB R7 240s, for instance, that have DDR3 memory).
No ... while I think the difference could be made clearer by nvidia, I'm actually going to give them a bye on this one. The average person will assume that the 3GB card is slower than the 6GB card anyway. It's unclear, but I don't think it's particularly misleading.
Lets discuss the your fact
1. Fraudulent- If Every nVidia 1060 3GB pack has a BIG Font title that says it has less cores than 6GB only then its not, otherwise i guarantee that most of the buyers wont know a thing. If thats not fraudulent i dont know what is. They will just think its because of the RAM. Until they find the reviews. Then they will be very angry.
2. Misleading- In recent times i have not seen a card that had different chips for different ram. Either it was totally different chips with different name and branding or the exact same chip with less memory. Anyone who did not read the review is not going know if they are so different.
3.Disingenuous - Ofcourse
Its not about the speed difference, its about the concept of speed. My GPU is slower because i had bought less memory is entirely different than My GPU is slower because it had bought less memory and also it was shrunk by 10% by nVidia to make them more rich.
And most importantly people did not forget that 3.5+.5 GB scandal that nVidia tried to conceal.
I think this time nVidia revealed that just to control the damage. nVidia lower end sucks.
If nVidia just somehow loses its CUDA programming territory( if its possible to run CUDA in other GPUs). Then there would have been a lot less sales for nVidia hardware.
NB: i almost never comment in hexus. I just felt like doing it after i saw your post.
+1
[QUOTE=saviour2012;378857]Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjimFraudulent......Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
It's quite clear that current reviews of the 1060 (which never said "1060 6GB edition") will be seen by buyers looking at graphics cards to buy, then they will see this "1060 3GB Edition" for $50 cheaper, and think that it is in anyway the same product but with less RAM, what a massive deal.
So yes, it's using the existing name and reviews of a product to release a product with only 90% of the compute ability onto the market to trick people into buying them thinking they are getting the 1060 (but will less RAM).
AMD at least at launch time (and hence review time) stated that the 4GB variants would have slower RAM.
And 3GB? Really.
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). 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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
I've got a friend who, a couple of years back, chose an A6 APU over an A8 APU on the basis that it was a lot cheaper but only a couple of hundred MHz slower - completely missing the fact that it also only had half the CPU and GPU cores. And I think we've all known people who've bought a low-end GPU over a higher end option because the former had 4GB of RAM, so had to be better, right? There've been plenty of occasions where I asked a friend whaty graphics card they've got and I've got a response like "Oh, I think it's nvidia .. it's a 2GB one". They have not the first clue what the underlying GPU is like, how many shaders it should have, how many shaders it does have, what the bus width or clock speeds are ... they're just irrelevant details to the vast majority of consumers. It's nvidia. It's got 3GB of RAM. It plays Dark Sould 3 alright. That's all they care about.
Like I say, there's definitely a lack of clarity around the decision - but I don't think anyone's going to buy a GTX 1060 3GB thinking it will perform identically to a GTX 1060 6GB. 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.
Of course, I'm sure someone in the US will wait 6 months then launch a class-action suit claiming it was misleading, but then anyone who buys anything without doing at least some research should suck it up, IMNSHO. After all, someone tried to sue AMD for calling the FX 8350 an 8 core CPU.
GPU names/numbers are entirely marketing-driven: they don't actually mean anything. I've seen far more egregious naming shenanigans than this, and there are far more serious problems facing the world than whether people will realise that their cheaper 1060 with only 3GB of RAM doesn't have quite as many shaders as the more expensive 6GB version (frankly, most of them won't know what a shader is). I just can't find the energy to care about this one.
Bored with new gpu releases!
Base price to performance meh,partner cards priced to close to price of old 'higher'cards they compare to!
Not to mention never in stock.
That would utterly explain the 5 AMD-based computers in my house, absolutely. I love nvidia so much that I'm desperately propping up AMD so the rest of the nvidia fanboys have something to bash down - because if AMD weren't around who would us nvidia fanboys pick on, eh?!Quote:
Originally Posted by saviour2012
Seriously - it's fraudulent if nvidia claim that the specifications of the card are different to those shipped. They're not doing that. They've said, very clearly, that the card will have less shaders. Anyone who actually bothers to do the research properly will have no issue finding that information - after all, they won't release the card for another month, yet we all already know it has less shaders. We're sitting here discussing the fact. That's a VERY long way from fraud.
As I said, misleading is questionable, disingenuous is very arguable. But it's certainly not the first card nvidia have released with the same name but different specifications - for some of their lower end cards during the Fermi/Kepler crossover there were up to three different versions which used different architectures. Let's not forget the GTX 460 - which had 1GB versions with both a 256bit bus and a 192bit bus. If you're looking for misleading and disingenuous, that's it right there.
Until we see box art and retail cards, we won't know what the advertising will say. Nvidia often put cuda core counts on their product boxes, so we might well see the 1152 Cores clearly listed on the box. It'll be down to (r)etailers to make the difference clear on their websites. But one thing nvidia are doing is being open about the difference in the tech press. That at least gives everyone the opportunity to find out the difference if they do a little bit of basic research. My experience of actual consumer who actually buy graphics cards suggests that this is a non-issue. If it turns into a genuine issue, I'll happily hold my hands up and say I was wrong. I just think a little perspective would be good for everyone...
Nvidia messed alot when they introduced the 2016 Titan X which can misslead someone with that name Titan X. Something like Titan X II could be much better. GTX1060 with fewer cores is plain dumb, why dont you just name it 1050ti or something??
Because they can upsell the GTX950 replacement for a higher price??Quote:
Originally Posted by lumireleon
It also means the GTX1050 will be even more relatively gimped now,and will be a third tier salvage product whereas the GTX950 was a second tier one.
Yet to be seen CAT, yet to be seen. The GTX 950 was a 25% cut in shaders from the GTX 960, not 10%. I imagine that's why nvidia didn't want to call this the 1050 - it'll be a lot closer to the 1060 than the 950 was to the 960. It's a pretty transparent attempt to compete with the RX 470. It could really do with a suffix or something - they could've revived the "SE" nomenclature from the GTX 460. But then we'd complain that they're making the naming scheme too complex, probably ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
If all of your posts are of this quality, then I welcome you to not comment again.Quote:
Originally Posted by saviour2012
Personally, I don't see the issue, as Jim has said, they aren't claiming it has the same shaders.
I'd like to think that "most" people would check the specs of a piece of hardware before purchasing..