18 ms·

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% upgra

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 $100 less. And that's all for existing games that don't use RTX or DLSS or whatever, so feel free to ignore those additional freebies. > I'm pointing out that it has slowed. Yes. And I think you better get used to that. It's a consequence of the fact that we are near the end of Moore's law. > At least I'm thankful to Nvidia gods for making the higher performance card at all available, I guess... In this case, we're looking at more performance for less dollars, both compared to Nvidia's previous product and compared to AMD's current product. Your only issue is the name and marketing positioning. I think that's a pretty shallow argument, TBH.
- nickflood 8y ago
  > The 2060 handily outperforms the 1070 Ti That's not what I'm seeing in the benchmarks. > I think you better get used to that. This may be your worldview, but other people are free to think for themselves and I choose to hold it to a higher standard. This is not an attack on your beliefs, though, I'm not telling you to adopt my point of view. We saw with AMD that it was indeed not the Moore's law that led to Intel releasing the same flavor of quad-core desktop chip over and over. And I think, we'll see it again, so I'm keeping the pressure on while this happens. > Your only issue is the name and marketing positioning. That is not, in my opinion, correct.
  - TomVDB 8y ago
    > That's not what I'm seeing in the benchmarks. Change “outperforms” with “equal performance” and my argument doesn’t change due to the lower price. In the recent years, we have seen a number of cases where Nvidia set the perf/$ higher and AMD was forced to follow. This case is no different, with AMD expected to announce lower Vega 56 prices today. That’s the exact opposite of what happened with AMD and Intel wrt CPUs.

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
  > That's not what I'm seeing in the benchmarks. Change “outperforms” with “equal performance” and my argument doesn’t change due to the lower price. In the recent years, we have seen a number of cases where Nvidia set the perf/$ higher and AMD was forced to follow. This case is no different, with AMD expected to announce lower Vega 56 prices today. That’s the exact opposite of what happened with AMD and Intel wrt CPUs.