5 ms·

Nvidia is sticking to the strategy of releasing the same GPU with RTX bolted on under a lower number and charging the same price for it... 2060 ($350) is very c

Nvidia is sticking to the strategy of releasing the same GPU with RTX bolted on under a lower number and charging the same price for it... 2060 ($350) is very close to 1070 ($300), 2070 to 1080, 2080 ($800) to 1080 ti ($750). Edit: not the same same obviusly, but very similar in terms of benchmarks. Doesn't seem like progress to me. With RTX being underpowered on current gen cards there's no real benefit in being an early adopter by buying this generation of graphics cards if you at all count the money you spend. Just find a used 1080 Ti, I say. I think, Nvidia tries to pull an Apple and move the "premium" price tier up 500 points while curiously nobody in the press is calling them out on it.

TomVDB 8y ago
Would you have been ok with them calling this a 2080 while keeping a $350 price tag? Today, I see that a new 1070 Ti goes for $400+. This new RTX 2060 has the same performance for $350. In other words: if you ignore the name of the product, the new product line gives you better performance and more features (RTX, tensor cores) for the same price than yesterday's product. Is your only beef with the naming of the product? Why does the name matter?
- nickflood 8y ago
  The problem in my opinion is that in the past they would effectively shift performance down one SKU on each generation, and at the top you could get a 30% upgrade in performance for the same kind of money. Like the 980 Ti to 1080 Ti for example. Now you get marginally the same amount of performance for marginally the same amount of money. It doesn't matter what they call it if the performance/money is what it is. I compare names because names meant a set price point going up to 10XX generation. If you've got no use for RTX and tensor cores, those cards are very similar. RTX is available in one game only 3 months after launch, and what if I just dont want to be an early adopter? Tensor cores, yeah, if you're going to earn money or otherwise have your life improved by additional hardware in Turing, sure, it's a no-brainer. But I feel like it's not for many gamers. Disclaimer: I'm not saying I am entitled to progress. I'm pointing out that it has slowed. I feel that this is similar to the lack of competition Intel was having. At least I'm thankful to Nvidia gods for making the higher performance card at all available, I guess...
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    > The problem in my opinion is that in the past they would effectively shift performance down one SKU on each generation, and at the top you could get a 30% upgrade in performance for the same kind of money. Like the 980 Ti to 1080 Ti for example. Now you get marginally the same amount of performance for marginally the same amount of money. That's the exact problem with this generation. Before the top end (980 ti) became midrange (1070) for substantially less money. Now they just pushed the names up a bracket and kept (roughly) the same, and justified it by inventing a new "top end".
    - nickflood 8y ago
      Yep, you get me. And this saddens me doubly because we saw the same kinda "upgrade" from $700 to $1000 in flagship phones not long ago and everybody was just as okay there. Maybe it's the tariffs, or inflation, or some other thing that totally justifies this kind of sudden jump, but somehow not many press outlets acknowledge this jump at all existing, for them it's business as usual it seems. My only hope is that consumers will react with falling sales. I'm sticking to my 1080 Ti for sure until the next gen.
  - TomVDB 8y ago
    > If you've got no use for RTX and tensor cores, those cards are very similar. But, again, they are not. The 2060 handily outperforms the 1070 Ti for $50 to $100 less. And that's all for existing games that don't use RTX or DLSS or whatever, so feel free to ignore those additional freebies. > I'm pointing out that it has slowed. Yes. And I think you better get used to that. It's a consequence of the fact that we are near the end of Moore's law. > At least I'm thankful to Nvidia gods for making the higher performance card at all available, I guess... In this case, we're looking at more performance for less dollars, both compared to Nvidia's previous product and compared to AMD's current product. Your only issue is the name and marketing positioning. I think that's a pretty shallow argument, TBH.
    - nickflood 8y ago
      > The 2060 handily outperforms the 1070 Ti That's not what I'm seeing in the benchmarks. > I think you better get used to that. This may be your worldview, but other people are free to think for themselves and I choose to hold it to a higher standard. This is not an attack on your beliefs, though, I'm not telling you to adopt my point of view. We saw with AMD that it was indeed not the Moore's law that led to Intel releasing the same flavor of quad-core desktop chip over and over. And I think, we'll see it again, so I'm keeping the pressure on while this happens. > Your only issue is the name and marketing positioning. That is not, in my opinion, correct.

TomVDB 8y ago

Would you have been ok with them calling this a 2080 while keeping a $350 price tag? Today, I see that a new 1070 Ti goes for $400+. This new RTX 2060 has the same performance for $350. In other words: if you ignore the name of the product, the new product line gives you better performance and more features (RTX, tensor cores) for the same price than yesterday's product. Is your only beef with the naming of the product? Why does the name matter?

nickflood 8y ago
The problem in my opinion is that in the past they would effectively shift performance down one SKU on each generation, and at the top you could get a 30% upgrade in performance for the same kind of money. Like the 980 Ti to 1080 Ti for example. Now you get marginally the same amount of performance for marginally the same amount of money. It doesn't matter what they call it if the performance/money is what it is. I compare names because names meant a set price point going up to 10XX generation. If you've got no use for RTX and tensor cores, those cards are very similar. RTX is available in one game only 3 months after launch, and what if I just dont want to be an early adopter? Tensor cores, yeah, if you're going to earn money or otherwise have your life improved by additional hardware in Turing, sure, it's a no-brainer. But I feel like it's not for many gamers. Disclaimer: I'm not saying I am entitled to progress. I'm pointing out that it has slowed. I feel that this is similar to the lack of competition Intel was having. At least I'm thankful to Nvidia gods for making the higher performance card at all available, I guess...
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  > The problem in my opinion is that in the past they would effectively shift performance down one SKU on each generation, and at the top you could get a 30% upgrade in performance for the same kind of money. Like the 980 Ti to 1080 Ti for example. Now you get marginally the same amount of performance for marginally the same amount of money. That's the exact problem with this generation. Before the top end (980 ti) became midrange (1070) for substantially less money. Now they just pushed the names up a bracket and kept (roughly) the same, and justified it by inventing a new "top end".
  - nickflood 8y ago
    Yep, you get me. And this saddens me doubly because we saw the same kinda "upgrade" from $700 to $1000 in flagship phones not long ago and everybody was just as okay there. Maybe it's the tariffs, or inflation, or some other thing that totally justifies this kind of sudden jump, but somehow not many press outlets acknowledge this jump at all existing, for them it's business as usual it seems. My only hope is that consumers will react with falling sales. I'm sticking to my 1080 Ti for sure until the next gen.
- TomVDB 8y ago
  > If you've got no use for RTX and tensor cores, those cards are very similar. But, again, they are not. The 2060 handily outperforms the 1070 Ti for $50 to $100 less. And that's all for existing games that don't use RTX or DLSS or whatever, so feel free to ignore those additional freebies. > I'm pointing out that it has slowed. Yes. And I think you better get used to that. It's a consequence of the fact that we are near the end of Moore's law. > At least I'm thankful to Nvidia gods for making the higher performance card at all available, I guess... In this case, we're looking at more performance for less dollars, both compared to Nvidia's previous product and compared to AMD's current product. Your only issue is the name and marketing positioning. I think that's a pretty shallow argument, TBH.
  - nickflood 8y ago
    > The 2060 handily outperforms the 1070 Ti That's not what I'm seeing in the benchmarks. > I think you better get used to that. This may be your worldview, but other people are free to think for themselves and I choose to hold it to a higher standard. This is not an attack on your beliefs, though, I'm not telling you to adopt my point of view. We saw with AMD that it was indeed not the Moore's law that led to Intel releasing the same flavor of quad-core desktop chip over and over. And I think, we'll see it again, so I'm keeping the pressure on while this happens. > Your only issue is the name and marketing positioning. That is not, in my opinion, correct.