DamZe
Member
- May 18, 2016
- 187
- 80
- 101
Even more then that card, the 8800GT 256MB should be a warning sign. Similar scenario:
Older, slower cards have more VRAM (8800GTS 320MB... GTX 970 3.5GB+0.5MB)
Slower, contemporary competition has more VRAM (3870 512MB... RX 470 4GB).
Developers tailor around what the market has. A lot of the market already has slower cards with more than 3GB. For years these have existed at 4GB minimum, essentially since the 290 4GB nearly 3 years ago. The 970 3.5GB+0.5GB may be the most used gaming card still today. Even cards as slow as the 380X are 4GB only, and the much slower 960 has 4GB options.
Developers know these cards are plentiful. These cards have 4GB+. These cards are slower than the 1060 Core 1152 3GB. It's written plain as day that this will require compromise.
The only question is, for $200 max Joe, who refuses to move an inch on his budget, what will you recommend? It just seems like a shame for the consumer to have to make a compromise cause there is good speed here.
The 1060 3GB gimp edition is a true nVIDIA card (take that as you will), it's the perfect illusion. It's most likely their batch of flawed GP106 boards unable to salvage more than 3gb due to SM cluster constraint (who knows might be simialiar to the 970 debacle), now ready to be sold to those who are desperate. This card is an insult to the weary consumer. But nVIDIA doesn't care, they have the market, they know it will sell on brand alone. As for the regular 1060, now that card did everything right compared to the 960.