Your mistake is compare and contrast with another brand. Loyal Nvidia customers only compare and contrast within the Nvidia ecosystem.
Your mistake is compare and contrast with another brand. Loyal Nvidia customers only compare and contrast within the Nvidia ecosystem.Honestly, after seeing 8GB review, 16GB is even worse value proposition. When not limited by VRAM 4600ti is 25-30% slower than 6800XT. So on one hand you could buy 4060ti/16GB for $500, or you could buy 6800XT for $530 and enjoy 25% uplift in performance. I wonder if RDNA2 cards will go up in price after this atrocious release.
The margins suck. That's the problem.
I disagree with the idea that console games are more expensive than Steam. There is so much competition for physical game sales on console that stuff usually goes on sale a lot cheaper and a lot quicker on PS5 than it does on Steam. Only way I have seen PC be cheaper the first year or two of a game's release is if you're buying keys off scammer sites like G2A. Steam is the cheapest once the game is a few years old but if you're an impatient gamer PS5 tends to be cheaper. I'd expect it's similar with XBox too.Yeah, I absolutely agree. GPU gains have been so lackluster, and will likely to continue to be lackluster, that it's convinced me even more so that console gaming is the right choice moving forward, even if console games are more expensive than their PC/Steam counterparts. I suspect by the time the RTX 5060 Ti comes out with 16 GB of VRAM at $499 that has the performance of an RTX 3080, the PS5 Pro and Xbox Series X Pro will be out with 50%+ performance for the same price.
They can, but will they? The following are true:Nvidia has 63% gross margins. They can cut the damn prices.
This would be a good 4050ti at $250. It's a disaster at this price. It barely has more VRAM than my 1060 6GB.
I'll admit that if you want cheap console games, physical used copies are the way to go. Unfortunately, I am firmly in the 100% digital camp. It doesn't help that owning the physical copy still requires the contents of the disc to be transferred over to the console's hard drive before the game can be played. At that point, I'd rather just download it.I disagree with the idea that console games are more expensive than Steam. There is so much competition for physical game sales on console that stuff usually goes on sale a lot cheaper on PS5 than it does on Steam. Only way I have seen PC be cheaper the first year or two of a game's release is if you're buying keys off scammer sites like G2A. Steam is the cheapest once the game is a few years old but if you're an impatient gamer PS5 tends to be cheaper. I'd expect it's similar with XBox too.
This should have been a 192 bit bus, with 12GB (or 160/10GB at the bare minimum), and it would have been quite decent for $400.
I'm not even talking used copies. There is so much competition between Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, Target, Gamestop, etc that prices can fall fast for physical games. But yeah if you buy digital you get Steam like prices in the first year after release and then higher than Steam after that. It's going to suck when they remove the blu ray drives next gen.I'll admit that if you want cheap console games, physical used copies are the way to go. Unfortunately, I am firmly in the 100% digital camp. It doesn't help that owning the physical copy still requires the contents of the disc to be transferred over to the console's hard drive before the game can be played. At that point, I'd rather just download it.
According to those plots, seems like 64MB should be the minimum amount of cache to make an impact at all relevant resolutions. At 32 MB, all three of those curves intersect the same place.Or they needed more cache. This only has 32 GB of L2 which isn't going to do well beyond 1080p and some of the modern titles may even strain that.
Navi 22 (6700 - 6700XT) which was aimed at 1440p and had a 192-bit bus, still had at least 80 MB of Infinity cache. These NVidia GPUs are basically the same as Navi 23 where it's a 128-bit bus and 32 MB of cache. Those are obviously not aimed at any kind of serious gaming above 1080p.
Locuza modified a graph that AMD put out to show how infinity cache performed based on resolution.
The differences in design could alter the results, but at 1080p the 32 MB cache from Navi 23 has a 55% hit rate. At 1440p this drops to 38%. The full 96 MB of Navi 22 has a 69% hit rate for 1440p titles.
The other problem is that NVidia opted to use cheaper memory for the 4060 Ti. If the used the same faster clocked memory that the 4070 has it would offer a ~15% increase in bandwidth which would probably go a long way to help alleviate a lot of the performance issues that this card is seeing.
I think the entire rtx 4000 lineup pricing is exactly about maintaining good margins in a lower sales volume environment (death of mining). The strange bit, to me, are the design decisions that were made, 3 years ago?, WRT RAM configurations/bus widths. It seems like NV entirely missed the boat in terms of what AAA titles would need.Please show us evidence of the profit on each 4060TI. I'd like to see these "razor thin margins" that poor, poor NV has to endure.
The design decisions were made years in advance, but how they name and price each SKU can still be changed up to the last minute. What they've done this generation is scoot the naming of each SKU to a lower-than-normal die. If they didn't have theI think the entire rtx 4000 lineup pricing is exactly about maintaining good margins in a lower sales volume environment (death of mining). The strange bit, to me, are the design decisions that were made, 3 years ago?, WRT RAM configurations/bus widths. It seems like NV entirely missed the boat in terms of what AAA titles would need.
Fair point. But I don’t 100% agree.The design decisions were made years in advance, but how they name and price each SKU can still be changed up to the last minute. What they've done this generation is scoot the naming of each SKU to a lower-than-normal die. If they didn't have the4080 12 GB4070 Ti and you moved every SKU up a tier in terms of die, e.g. 4070 gets the 4070 Ti die and 4060 Ti gets the 4070 die, then things make a little more sense.
This 4060 Ti is clearly a xx50 class die when it shouldn't be.
I don't disagree that what Nvidia did is egregious. It's ludicrous that their 16GB offering this gen is in the form of a $1200 overpriced GPU.Fair point. But I don’t 100% agree.
The fact, for example, that the $800 4070Ti doesn’t have 16 GB of RAM is utterly nonsensical as a 2023 GFX card given it's otherwise very good performance. 12GB is the bare minimum for RAM in 2023 - game developers are probably cringing.
The 4070 Ti should've been a cutdown 4080 which maintains the 256-bit bus so that it would get 16 GB.
Fair point. But I don’t 100% agree.
The fact, for example, that the $800 4070Ti doesn’t have 16 GB of RAM is utterly nonsensical as a 2023 GFX card given it's otherwise very good performance. 12GB is the bare minimum for RAM in 2023 - game developers are probably cringing.
I got a laugh out of Aussie Steve talking about the Nvidia briefing last week. The reps saying games have to cater to 8GB because that's the max most gamers have. They don't want to lose all those sales you know. So 8GB is just fine. But also, same rep says 8GB owners have to be prepared to turn down settings at 1080. LAWLZ! "Hey guyz! Buy our $400 card! No need to feel nostalgic for last gen console gaming! We got you covered homie!"
The 4080 cuts 8 SMs out of a possible 84 for the full AD103. There's plenty of meat on that bone.The 4080 is already cut down far enough that a further cut isn't necessary.
EVGA looks wiser every day.
You have any links or reports. I have seen anything like the noise about profit margins on NV GPU based AIBs like we did with the 3000 series.AIBs are going to take it in the Jensen for sure.