Geforce GTX 1060 Thread: faster than RX 480, 120W, $249

[antihelten]

I swear I went trought newegg prices after your replay in #2059 and noticed all cards out of stock and only a single $400 480 listing. Wanted to troll you a bit by linking it here to support your claim of superior perf/$ of nv GPUs, just for giggles, no one would take it seriously.

But yet, here we are... comparing $400 rx 480 to other cards.

Hilarious!

Honestly the $400 was a bit of a joke, but I only listed it because Bacon1 was complaining about me using prices that weren't available, and since that price was the only one available for the 480 at the time, then that was the only option left.

Remember I originally wanted to use MSRP, but apparently that wasn't acceptable.

Not true. 290 was cheap worldwide. And there was a huge used market at a bargain prices after mining bubble.

It definitely wasn't $250 (which you could occasionally find it for in the US) where I live, and if we're talking used cards, then it's obviously a completely different scenario (especially when talking about used mining cards), since used cards will obviously always be cheaper than new ones (and I'm comparing to new ones here, hence me not using used prices for the 1070).

 

[Erenhardt]

Honestly the $400 was a bit of a joke, but I only listed it because Bacon1 was complaining about me using prices that weren't available, and since that price was the only one available for the 480 at the time, then that was the only option left.

Remember I originally wanted to use MSRP, but apparently that wasn't acceptable.



It definitely wasn't $250 (which you could occasionally find it for in the US) where I live, and if we're talking used cards, then it's obviously a completely different scenario (especially when talking about used mining cards), since used cards will obviously always be cheaper than new ones (and I'm comparing to new ones here, hence me not using used prices for the 1070).

Should have used /s in your post then.

290 wasn't $250 here either. But that is the case for all GPU not hittings US MSRP because of 24%VAT + USD conversion ratio and retailers gauging on new stock. It is now exclusive to any particular GPU

 

[antihelten]

Should have used /s in your post then.

290 wasn't $250 here either. But that is the case for all GPU not hittings US MSRP because of 24%VAT + USD conversion ratio and retailers gauging on new stock. It is now exclusive to any particular GPU

I guess I should have used /s, but I didn't expect Bacon1 to first complain about me using prices that weren't available and then afterwards complain about me only using prices that were available. I thought the inherent contradiction in those positions would have been obvious, but I guess not.

Regarding the 290, it wasn't available where I live for $250 even when taking VAT and conversion into account.

 

[crisium]

I don't understand why do people have problem with Nvidia releasing a $200 card with 3GB in 2016?
Need i remind you that AMD launched R9 380 with only 2GB in May 2015?
May 2015 - AMD launches 2GB card for $180 with 4GB model at $220
Aug 2016- NV launches 3GB card for $200 with 6GB model at $250
Seems pretty similar strategy by both AMD and Nvidia here.

The 2GB 380 was criticized, and rightly so.

Just as 7950 Boost (380 equivalent) users could use more than 2000MB in playable settings, 980 (1060 equivalent) users can use more than 3000MB in playable settings. That's the issue. The card is a day 1 compromise and will require lower settings in some games purely because of a VRAM bottleneck.

 

[Bacon1]

I guess I should have used /s, but I didn't expect Bacon1 to first complain about me using prices that weren't available and then afterwards complain about me only using prices that were available. I thought the inherent contradiction in those positions would have been obvious, but I guess not.

Regarding the 290, it wasn't available where I live for $250 even when taking VAT and conversion into account.

Where did I complain about using MSRP?

 

[Sonikku]

2GB cards were DOA since 2014.

I was quite the rebel using 1gb 7770 until 2016.

 

[Headfoot]

2gb in 2016 is 100% DOA. Honestly, if you are upgrading from an old card and your budget only fits the 2 and 3 gig cards - dont upgrade. You're just wasting money. If you're building new, wait, save longer, get something with 4, 6 or more.

At some point you're better off not buying the card at all.

I'd take a PS4 Neo or Xbox Scorpio over a 2 GB or 3 GB card in 2016-2017.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I was quite the rebel using 1gb 7770 until 2016.

I still am. Wish a new game would come out that I was interested enough in to upgrade.

 

[antihelten]

Where did I complain about using MSRP?

#2060

 

[Bacon1]

#2060

I didn't say to not use the MSRP. I said you should use the MSRP of actual released cards. Where is a 1070 that has actually sold for $380 and not just the fictional MSRP that Nvidia made?

There were $200 480s, what 1070 has sold @ $380?

 

[eddman]

what 1070 has sold @ $380?

None, and it doesn't mean anything. NVidia suggested a selling price for stock cards to their partners and they ignored it. So what? They thought "why price it low when we can get away with it", and they did. How come they didn't ignore it for 1060 cards? Because 480 is actively competing with it.

There is nothing fictional here. MSRPs being ignored is not a new thing and happens in such situations all the time.

As soon as properly competing AMD cards launch, stock 1080s and 1070s will sell at their nvidia MSRP or maybe even lower.

EDIT: Still, I get it. Current prices for those cards are ridiculous and if I was in a market for a high-end card, I wouldn't buy one. I don't like paying more for something that isn't worth the extra, unnecessary money.

 

[sze5003]

I didn't say to not use the MSRP. I said you should use the MSRP of actual released cards. Where is a 1070 that has actually sold for $380 and not just the fictional MSRP that Nvidia made?

There were $200 480s, what 1070 has sold @ $380?

There is a gigabyte windforce model for $399 on jet.com with the new shopper code that being it down to $350 something if you forgo returns. Of course it came in stock right after I bought my card.

 

[antihelten]

I didn't say to not use the MSRP. I said you should use the MSRP of actual released cards. Where is a 1070 that has actually sold for $380 and not just the fictional MSRP that Nvidia made?

There were $200 480s, what 1070 has sold @ $380?

I didn't say that you said not to use MSRP, I said that you were complaining about my usage of MSRP, because the cards weren't currently available at that price, and thus I used available prices instead.

But tell you what, I'll play along with you moving the goalposts once again, and now use the definition of lowest price of released cards. That would be $240 for the 8GB 480 and $390 for the 1070 (neither of which are currently available at those prices). Whether we use $380 or $390 for the 1070 makes zero difference for the original point.

And note that I never made any claims about the 4GB 480, since as far as I can tell that thing has been all but EOL'ed and replaced by the 470 at the $200 price point.

 

[Bacon1]

None, and it doesn't mean anything. NVidia suggested a selling price for stock cards to their partners and they ignored it. So what? They thought "why price it low when we can get away with it", and they did. How come they didn't ignore it for 1060 cards? Because 480 is actively competing with it.

There is nothing fictional here. MSRPs being ignored is not a new thing and happens in such situations all the time.

As soon as properly competing AMD cards launch, stock 1080s and 1070s will sell at their nvidia MSRP or maybe even lower.

EDIT: Still, I get it. Current prices for those cards are ridiculous and if I was in a market for a high-end card, I wouldn't buy one. I don't like paying more for something that isn't worth the extra, unnecessary money.

Except Nvidia isn't the manufacturer of those cards, so they can't set the MSRP. They can suggest a price for their partners to use, but that doesn't mean that the partner's (the "M") are going to price them there. Hence the $380 MSRP of 1070 is a lie, it never happened. No cards were released at that price so you can't use it.

I didn't say that you said not to use MSRP, I said that you were complaining about my usage of MSRP, because the cards weren't currently available at that price, and thus I used available prices instead.

But tell you what, I'll play along with you moving the goalposts once again, and now use the definition of lowest price of released cards. That would be $240 for the 8GB 480 and $390 for the 1070 (neither of which are currently available at those prices). Whether we use $380 or $390 for the 1070 makes zero difference for the original point.

And note that I never made any claims about the 4GB 480, since as far as I can tell that thing has been all but EOL'ed and replaced by the 470 at the $200 price point.

480s sold for $240 today from amazon, where and when did the 1070 sell for $390? The only ones I've seen in stock are all $410+.


https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rx480/

https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/nvidia/gtx1070/

When you are basing your price/perf off fictional pricing it very much matters, otherwise your numbers mean absolutely nothing.

So I see $240 vs $410 or 70% more expensive.

 

[eddman]

Except Nvidia isn't the manufacturer of those cards, so they can't set the MSRP.

Sigh, how many times does this need to be stated. It does NOT matter who makes the cards. NVidia is simply suggesting to their partners to sell their stock cards at certain prices. They are free to ignore it and price them as they like.

They can suggest a price for their partners to use, but that doesn't mean that the partner's (the "M") are going to price them there.

Huh? So you are agreeing with me.

Hence the $380 MSRP of 1070 is a lie, it never happened. No cards were released at that price so you can't use it.

That logic does not follow.

What is this "lie" trend in forums lately. Is everything a lie these days? Partners are ignoring the MSRP. What's unbelievable about that?! Yes, no cards were released at nvidia's MSRPs and it's been explained a hundred times why that is; a brutal combination of high demand/low supply/no competition.

Why don't you answer my question. If MSRPs for 1070 and 1080 are a "lie", then why 1060's MSRP isn't a lie? Why 1060s are selling at NVidia's MSRP?

If NVidia "lied" about 1070 and 1080 MSRPs, then why not lie about 1060? There is an FE version for 1060 too, at $300. Why partners went for the $250 price tag?

These conspiracy theories are getting out of hand.

 

[Bacon1]

Sigh, how many times does this need to be stated. It does NOT matter who makes the cards. NVidia is simply suggesting to their partners to sell their stock cards at certain prices. They are free to ignore it and price it as they like.

The Manufacturer is NOT Nvidia for these cards, it is the Partner (EVGA, MSI, Gigabyte, etc). They are the ones that set the actual MSRP for the cards.

None of them have set the $380 price point for the Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price for their cards.

What is this "lie" trend in forums lately. Is everything a lie these days? Partners are ignoring the MSRP. What's unbelievable about that?! Yes, no cards were released at nvidia's MSRPs and it's been explained a hundred times why that is; a brutal combination of high demand/low supply/no competition.

Why don't you answer my question. If MSRPs for 1070 and 1080 are a "lie", then why 1060's MSRP isn't a lie? Why 1060s are selling at NVidia's MSRP?

See above, Nvidia can't set the MSRP for cards they don't sell. It is up to the actual Manufacturer (Partner) to set the suggested price.

The 1060's aren't selling at Nvidia's MSRP, they are selling at the Partner's MSRP, because again, Nvidia isn't the one setting the MSRP. They are suggesting a price to their partners which is separate from the MSRP which is the RETAILER suggested price.

 

[eddman]

The Manufacturer is NOT Nvidia for these cards, it is the Partner (EVGA, MSI, Gigabyte, etc). They are the ones that set the actual MSRP for the cards.

None of them have set the $380 price point for the Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price for their cards.

See above, Nvidia can't set the MSRP for cards they don't sell. It is up to the actual Manufacturer (Partner) to set the suggested price.

The 1060's aren't selling at Nvidia's MSRP, they are selling at the Partner's MSRP, because again, Nvidia isn't the one setting the MSRP. They are suggesting a price to their partners which is separate from the MSRP which is the RETAILER suggested price.

Why are you complicating everything for no reason?! NVidia is suggesting prices for stock cards to their partners that the PARTNERS make. They are free to ignore it. They are ignoring it. What's the mystery here?

None of them have set it to $380, and?! They are ignoring NVidia's suggestion. What's not to get?

Do you even know what an MSRP set by a GPU manufacturer is for? They don't have to make the cards to set the MSRP. They are setting a global MSRP for stock, non-OCed cards, no matter who makes them. Manufacturers are free to set their own selling prices.

Really?!! 1060s are not selling at NVidia's MSRP?!! What are you on about? So they lied about 1070's MSRP but not for 1060's? The suggested price is for partners. Stop making stuff up.

Are you trolling me and I haven't realized?

This is the definition of a GPU maker's MSRP to their board partners: "if you make a card with our GPU, at stock clocks, we suggest you sell it at X price".

It can't be more clear. It's been like this for YEARS.

 

[Bacon1]

Why are you complicating everything for no reason?! NVidia is suggesting prices for stock cards to their partners that the PARTNERS make. They are free to ignore it. They are ignoring it. What's the mystery here?

None of them have set it to $380, and?! They are ignoring NVidia's suggestion. What's not to get?

And those aren't the actual MSRP. Those are suggested prices for the manufacturers to set the real MSRP to.

This is the definition of a GPU maker's MSRP to their board partners: "if you make a card with our GPU, at stock clocks, we suggest you sell it at X price".

It can't be more clear. It's been like this for YEARS.

Yes, and that isn't MSRP unless its sold by the GPU maker. When the partner's are the ones making the cards, they are the ones setting the real MSRP.

I'm just trying to point out that you can't use $380 as the MSRP for 1070 when no cards have ever sold for that price. Still waiting to see what one sold for $390 MSRP.

How about we create a new term call "GMSPP" - GPU Maker Suggested Partner Price for what you like to call Nvidia's MSRP.

 

[sze5003]

As far as I know yes they did say in the one press release the 1070 would be $379 but it never happens due to demand/ low supply.

Also nvidia doesn't set prices. They just have a suggested retail price. Nvidia designs and supports the chip which is made by some factory and then shipped out to gpu manufacturers(gigabyte, msi,etc).

All this stuff is worked out beforehand in contract and prices are set then as nvidia has to sell the processors in bulk.

We don't know what they sell the chips for. The manufacturers like gigabyte, asus, whatever design their own coolers and other add-ons and then price the card based on what they see fit on the market. Supply is low, demand is high, people want it, that's our design so you will have to pay that.

Sure they could sell it for the rumored $379 but not when you add chips that are better binned or extra efficient coolers, backplate, and led's. They chose to stick very close to the FE edition prices for that reason as well as demand being high and supply is low.

 

[eddman]

And those aren't the actual MSRP. Those are suggested prices for the manufacturers to set the real MSRP to.

Yes, and that isn't MSRP unless its sold by the GPU maker. When the partner's are the ones making the cards, they are the ones setting the real MSRP.

I'm just trying to point out that you can't use $380 as the MSRP for 1070 when no cards have ever sold for that price. Still waiting to see what one sold for $390 MSRP.

How about we create a new term call "GMSPP" - GPU Maker Suggested Partner Price for what you like to call Nvidia's MSRP.

GMSPP? Stop complicating everything for no reason. GPU makers set MSRP for partners. They ignore it sometimes. The end.

EDIT: That M in MSRP, means "partners", "for partners", not NVidia.

 

[Keysplayr]

In the words

And those aren't the actual MSRP. Those are suggested prices for the manufacturers to set the real MSRP to.



Yes, and that isn't MSRP unless its sold by the GPU maker. When the partner's are the ones making the cards, they are the ones setting the real MSRP.

I'm just trying to point out that you can't use $380 as the MSRP for 1070 when no cards have ever sold for that price. Still waiting to see what one sold for $390 MSRP.

How about we create a new term call "GMSPP" - GPU Maker Suggested Partner Price for what you like to call Nvidia's MSRP.

The real and the only MSRP has already been set. Partners do not have to adhere to it. You have to deal with this agonizing fact. And generating another acronym is not the way to begin the 12 step program.

 

[guachi]

I still am. Wish a new game would come out that I was interested enough in to upgrade.

I was using a 5870 until a week ago (well, eight days). But I actually found something to make me upgrade.

Mostly I'd been playing (or buying) old games that I either had or could get really cheap. The only modern game I had purchased was EU IV and that doesn't require much of a card.

But Warhammer sucked me in and it's LOL on a 1gb card. And then X-Com 2 was on sale and still is through the 15th on Steam. 2016 seems like a great year for PC games.

 

[poofyhairguy]

now use the definition of lowest price of released cards.

I think add a "minus a generic coupon, pricing mistake or one day doorbuster sale" caveat to that (like a Jet.com coupon or black Friday respectively) and you have the best metric possible for perf/$.

Maybe a better way to put it is "the lowest multi-day price (in stock or auto-notify) on Newegg.com." That cuts right to the core of the metric IMHO.

 

[antihelten]

I think add a "minus a generic coupon, pricing mistake or one day doorbuster sale" caveat to that (like a Jet.com coupon or black Friday respectively) and you have the best metric possible for perf/$.

Maybe a better way to put it is "the lowest multi-day price (in stock or auto-notify) on Newegg.com." That cuts right to the core of the metric IMHO.

If we go by the definition at the end of your post, the prices would be $400 for the 480 (since that is the only price that has been available for multiple days), and about $425 for the 1070. But Bacon1 (and others) have already said that they don't accept those prices (or more precisely they don't accept the RX 480 price, they seem perfectly ok with accepting the price for the 1070).

Honestly I don't particularly care which metric is used, as long as it's consistent, but the goalposts are moving so fast in this thread that it's making my head spin, so I'm not going to indulge in this particular discussion any further.

 

[Erenhardt]

In the words


The real and the only MSRP has already been set. Partners do not have to adhere to it. You have to deal with this agonizing fact. And generating another acronym is not the way to begin the 12 step program.

Apparently even Manufacturer doesn't adhere to Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price. They could set it at 1$ and it would be the same... irrelevant.