3 ms·
That's not quite true. They've pulled this stunt a few times. Most recently with the 6GB and 3GB versions of the 1060. That was arguably even worse because they
by goosedragons 4y ago
That's not quite true. They've pulled this stunt a few times. Most recently with the 6GB and 3GB versions of the 1060. That was arguably even worse because they did it after the launch.
- MarioMan 4y agoI didn't realize it was this bad, but Wikipedia lists 7 different GTX 1060 chip revisions with 3, 5, and 6 GB variants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#GeForce_10_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_proces...
- Kirby64 4y agoThe 1060 didn't really have significant differences in performance, as far as I can tell. Still bad to do it, but GPU benchmarks appear to put performance hit at ~3% less for the 3GB version. Looks like there's also a 5GB version which has slower clocks... which is about 10% worse... but I assume that's mainly due to clock rate, not the memory or the actual silicon. Those all have the same amount of CUDA cores and processing pipeline, though. Unlike this '4080 12GB'. See: https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare/GeForce-GTX-1060-vs-GeForce-GTX-1060-3GB-vs-GeForce-GTX-1060-5GB/3548vs3566vs3923 https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare/GeForce-GTX-1060-...