nVidia Q3: Revenue up 53%

[xpea]

well, selling ton of those without any competition has helped too:

source:
https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/688793-benchmark-10x-tesla-p100-gpu-nvtp100-16/

 

[happy medium]

dont look at marketing name.Look at SKU name.
GTX680 is GTX560TI successor
GTX980 is GTX560TI successor
GTX1080 is GTX560TI successor

GTX780TI is GTX580 successor
TITANX is GTX580 successor
FULL GP102 will be GTX580 successor(they selling cutdown sku for 1200USD now) no successor out yet.TITANXP is close to GTX570.BIG cutdown sku.Only its cut less this time.

No , no, no, you are moving the goalposts , Nvidia and AMD made a super high end segment A.K.A Titan/Fury. You need to acknowledge that.

Why do we not see cards like the dual gpu gtx690 anymore?
They have been replaced with Titan / Fury.

How its cut down, how big the die is, does not matter.
That all was changed with single gpu super high end cards that replaced the dual gpu junk.

Look at the performance and price brackets and names.
Its common sense.

How much has performance risen from the gtx580 to the 680 to the 780 to the 980 to the 1080. The price stayed about the same and the performance went up every time consistently.

Same with every performance tier, performance rose and the price stayed about the same.


Super high end.
gtx 590 700$ March 2011
gtx 690 1000$ May 2012
Titan 1000$ March 2013,/ gtx780ti November 2013 ,700$
Titan X 1000$ March 2015, /gtx980ti June 2015 ,700$
Titan XP 1200$ August 2016

High end
gtx580 500$, November 2010
gtx680 500$ March 2012
gtx780 650$ June 2013
gtx980 550$ September 2014
gtx1080 650$ May 2016

lower high end
gtx570 350$ December 2010
gtx670 400$ May 2012
gtx770 400$ May 2013
gtx970 330$ September 2014 ,WOW! cheap
gtx1070 400$ June 2016

Mid range
gtx560ti 250$ January 2011
gtx660ti 300$ August 2012
gtx760 250$ June 2013
gtx960 220$ Jan 2015
gtx1060 250$ Aug 2016

lower end
gtx560
gtx660
gtx750
gtx950
gtx1050

 

[Head1985]

No , no, no, you are moving the goalposts , Nvidia and AMD made a super high end segment A.K.A Titan/Fury. You need to acknowledge that.

Why do we not see cards like the dual gpu gtx690 anymore?

Nope i dont need acknowledge that.I know what i am saying and i have right.
Why we dont see dual GPU?Because they increase price for single GPU that cost now more than dual cards in pre kepler era and nobody will buy 2000-3000USD dual card.Just look at TITANZ..NV tried it and failed.Its better for them sell 1200USD single GPU which is BTW GTX570 successor

 

[Krteq]

well, selling ton of those without any competition has helped too...

...
source:
https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/688793-benchmark-10x-tesla-p100-gpu-nvtp100-16/

First picture is a server equipped with K80s, not a P100s

 

[happy medium]

Here I'll link some reviews to back up my claim and put this fantasy you guys make up to rest.

quote from gtx680 review "retaking the performance crown"

"Last but not least, let’s talk about pricing and availability. GTX 680 is the successor to GTX 580 and NVIDIA will be pricing it accordingly, with an MSRP of $500. This is the same price that the GTX 580 and GTX 480 launched at back in 2010, and while it’s consistent for an x80 video card it’s effectively a conservative price given GK104’s die size."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review

quote from the gtx780 review "The new high end"

"Meanwhile, compared to the GTX 680 which it will be supplanting, the GTX 780 should be a big step up in virtually every way. As NVIDIA likes to put it, GTX 780 is 50% more of everything than GTX 680. 50% more SMXes, 50% more ROPs, 50% more RAM, and 50% more memory bandwidth. In reality due to the clockspeed differences the theoretical performance difference isn’t nearly as large – we’re looking at just a 29% increase in shading/texturing/ROP performance – but this still leaves GTX 780 as being much more powerful than its predecessor."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review

quote from the gtx980 review.

"Today’s launch will see GM204 placed into two video cards, the GeForce GTX 980 and GeForce GTX 970. We’ll dive into the specs of each in a bit, but from an NVIDIA product standpoint these two parts are the immediate successors to the GTX 780/780Ti and GTX 770 respectively.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review


quote from a gtx1080 preview.

"The base clockspeed of 1607MHz is some 42% higher than GTX 980 (and 60% higher than GTX 980 Ti), and the 1733MHz boost clockspeed is a similar gain. On paper, GTX 1080 is set to offer 78% better performance than GTX 980,"
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10326/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-preview/


As you can see even the reviews say your wrong.
These are the facts.

please back up your argument with facts and links, not your opinion or I will report post for trolling.

 

[Azix]

The main contribution here is probably the lack of a fury replacement from AMD. People are willing to stretch for the 1070 even though its $100+ more than the last *70 card. Thats huge sales for nvidia. 1060 as well should be decent margins. AMD revenue shot up as well so only makes sense nvidia does too with new releases and a fuller range.

 

[happy medium]

Nope i dont need acknowledge that.I know what i am saying and i have right.
Why we dont see dual GPU?Because they increase price for single GPU that cost now more than dual cards in pre kepler era and nobody will buy 2000-3000USD dual card.Just look at TITANZ..NV tried it and failed.Its better for them sell 1200USD single GPU which is BTW GTX570 successor

Funny how the $1000 Titan 6gb was reviewed against the 700$ gtx590 and $1000 gtx690 and other $600+ top end cards. I'm guessing that is the price segment and performance tier it was in.
Like I said replacing the dual gpu slot.

 

[happy medium]

The main contribution here is probably the lack of a fury replacement from AMD. People are willing to stretch for the 1070 even though its $100+ more than the last *70 card. Thats huge sales for nvidia. 1060 as well should be decent margins. AMD revenue shot up as well so only makes sense nvidia does too with new releases and a fuller range.

I agree with most of your post but after the initial price gouging the 1070 is about $70 more than the ridiculously low priced gtx970.
The x70 segment has for the last 6 years been about $350 to $400.
gtx570 350$ December 2010
gtx670 400$ May 2012
gtx770 400$ May 2013
gtx970 330$ September 2014 ,WOW! cheap
gtx1070 400$ June 2016

 

[thilanliyan]

The 1080 is not a small chip, it's right around the same size as G92.

Wasn't G92 sold for $200-250? I can't remember what I bought my 8800GT for anymore.

 

[Trumpstyle]

If zen is not competitive with intel cpu, amd just haft to be in serious trouble. Nvidia is slowly killing amds dgpu business. Just imagine when volta comes out, will those gpu be more than twice energy effience? And if zen can't compete they will go bankrupt slowly as I hardly think their console business can keep them alive.

What you guys think?

 

[USER8000]

No , no, no, you are moving the goalposts , Nvidia and AMD made a super high end segment A.K.A Titan/Fury. You need to acknowledge that.

Why do we not see cards like the dual gpu gtx690 anymore?
They have been replaced with Titan / Fury.

How its cut down, how big the die is, does not matter.
That all was changed with single gpu super high end cards that replaced the dual gpu junk.

Look at the performance and price brackets and names.
Its common sense.

How much has performance risen from the gtx580 to the 680 to the 780 to the 980 to the 1080. The price stayed about the same and the performance went up every time consistently.

Same with every performance tier, performance rose and the price stayed about the same.


Super high end.
gtx 590 700$ March 2011
gtx 690 1000$ May 2012
Titan 1000$ March 2013,/ gtx780ti November 2013 ,700$
Titan X 1000$ March 2015, /gtx980ti June 2015 ,700$
Titan XP 1200$ August 2016

High end
gtx580 500$, November 2010
gtx680 500$ March 2012
gtx780 650$ June 2013
gtx980 550$ September 2014
gtx1080 650$ May 2016

lower high end
gtx570 350$ December 2010
gtx670 400$ May 2012
gtx770 400$ May 2013
gtx970 330$ September 2014 ,WOW! cheap
gtx1070 400$ June 2016

Mid range
gtx560ti 250$ January 2011
gtx660ti 300$ August 2012
gtx760 250$ June 2013
gtx960 220$ Jan 2015
gtx1060 250$ Aug 2016

lower end
gtx560
gtx660
gtx750
gtx950
gtx1050

Wow! Thanks for that. So a 500MM2 to 600MM2 GPU based card with a full GPU was $500 in late 2010 and nearly six years later a 400MM2 to 500MM2 GPU based card with a cut down GPU is $1200.

I don't think even Apple managed that one.

Got to say Nvidia knows how to sell its products!

 

[happy medium]

Wasn't G92 sold for $200-250? I can't remember what I bought my 8800GT for anymore.

$300 to $350
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2396

 

[happy medium]

Wow! Thanks for that. So a 500MM2 to 600MM2 GPU based card with a full GPU was $500 in late 2010 and nearly six years later a 400MM2 to 500MM2 GPU based card with a cut down GPU is $1200.

I don't think even Apple managed that one.

Got to say Nvidia knows how to sell its products!

I don't understand your point, what exactly are you trying to say?.
Here are my linked facts.

quote from gtx680 review "retaking the performance crown"

"Last but not least, let’s talk about pricing and availability. GTX 680 is the successor to GTX 580 and NVIDIA will be pricing it accordingly, with an MSRP of $500. This is the same price that the GTX 580 and GTX 480 launched at back in 2010, and while it’s consistent for an x80 video card it’s effectively a conservative price given GK104’s die size."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review

quote from the gtx780 review "The new high end"

"Meanwhile, compared to the GTX 680 which it will be supplanting, the GTX 780 should be a big step up in virtually every way. As NVIDIA likes to put it, GTX 780 is 50% more of everything than GTX 680. 50% more SMXes, 50% more ROPs, 50% more RAM, and 50% more memory bandwidth. In reality due to the clockspeed differences the theoretical performance difference isn’t nearly as large – we’re looking at just a 29% increase in shading/texturing/ROP performance – but this still leaves GTX 780 as being much more powerful than its predecessor."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review

quote from the gtx980 review.

"Today’s launch will see GM204 placed into two video cards, the GeForce GTX 980 and GeForce GTX 970. We’ll dive into the specs of each in a bit, but from an NVIDIA product standpoint these two parts are the immediate successors to the GTX 780/780Ti and GTX 770 respectively.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review


quote from a gtx1080 preview.

"The base clockspeed of 1607MHz is some 42% higher than GTX 980 (and 60% higher than GTX 980 Ti), and the 1733MHz boost clockspeed is a similar gain. On paper, GTX 1080 is set to offer 78% better performance than GTX 980,"
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10326/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-preview/


These are the facts.

I don't understand your post, what opinion are you trying to give.

 

[Det0x]

Die size alone should tell you that the GTX 1080 is only a "mid end" card.
The full GP104, aka GTX 1080 is only 314mm² for godsake..

For comparison:

900 series (on a mature node)
The Maxwell GTX 960 is 227mm² (mid end)
The Maxwell GTX 980 is 398mm². (high end)
The Maxwell GTX 980TI / GTX Titan X is 601mm² (ultra high end)

1000 series
The Pascal GTX 1050 TI is 135mm² (low end)
The Pascal GTX 1060 is 200mm² (mid end)
The Pascal GTX 1080 is 314mm² (mid end)
The Pascal "GTX 1080TI" / Titan X Pascal is 471mm² (high end)
The Pascal Tesla P100 is 610mm² (ultra high end)

The Nvidia PR seem to have done a splendid job convincing its consumers to pay 1-2 price brackets higher then the performance they get in return.. It should be obvious people are paying high-end+ money, for mid-end performance (1080)


100mm² -> 175mm² = low end
176mm² -> 350mm² = mid end (GTX 1080)
351mm² -> 500mm² = high end
501mm² -> 600+mm² = ultra high end

~ numbers above

 

[LurchFrinky]

Maybe I am blind, but I fail to see how Nvidia increasing profit/margins has any affect at all on AMD's profit/margins. Good on Nvidia for making money, that's what they are supposed to do.

And why is everyone harping on what constitutes midrange or high-end? Hasn't this been covered ad nauseam in numerous other threads?

Is there any analysis that shows how many Pascal cards have moved, or what portion of these increased profits are due to the newer product stack?

 

[happy medium]

Die size alone should tell you that the GTX 1080 is only a "mid end" card.
The full GP104, aka GTX 1080 is only 314mm² for godsake..

For comparison:

900 series (on a mature node)
The Maxwell GTX 960 is 227mm² (mid end)
The Maxwell GTX 980 is 398mm². (high end)
The Maxwell GTX 980TI / GTX Titan X is 601mm² (ultra high end)

1000 series
The Pascal GTX 1050 TI is 135 (low end)
The Pascal GTX 1060 is 200 mm² (mid end)
The Pascal GTX 1080 is 314mm² (mid end)
The Pascal "GTX 1080TI" / Titan X Pascal is 471mm² (high end)
The Pascal Tesla P100 is 610mm² (ultra high end)

The Nvidia PR seem to have done a splendid job convincing its consumers to pay 1-2 price brackets higher then the performance you get in return.. It should be obvious people are paying high-end money, for mid-end performance (1080)


10mm² -> 175mm² = low end
176mm² -> 350mm² = mid end (GTX 1080)
351mm² -> 500mm² = high end
501mm² -> 600+mm² = ultra high end

Please show me anything reviewed to back up your opinion.
Any link to what you are saying.
Anything official that's not someones opinion.
Something that says gtx 1080 the gtx970's successor, anything to back up your claim.

 

[happy medium]

And why is everyone harping on what constitutes midrange or high-end? Hasn't this been covered ad nauseam in numerous other threads?

Well there is a select few that somehow think the way Nvidia makes money is to rip us off by selling us inferior products. They think somehow a price performance bracket from 8+ years ago matters today.

I linked facts and now I'm waiting for someone to link their facts to counter.
So far I have received a bunch of numbers and opinions.
Not 1 link to a fact.

 

[happy medium]

Wow! Thanks for that. So a 500MM2 to 600MM2 GPU based card with a full GPU was $500 in late 2010 and nearly six years later a 400MM2 to 500MM2 GPU based card with a cut down GPU is $1200.

I don't think even Apple managed that one.

Got to say Nvidia knows how to sell its products!

So if Nvidia made a gtx1080 with a 200mm dies size, with performance 2x faster than a gtx980ti, and sold it for 1000$. It would be a mid range card?
No it would be the ultra high end performance king.
die size means nothing!

 

[USER8000]

snip

The facts are the cost of cards are dependent on one major factor - die size. The die size is the singular most expensive component in many cards(and probably memory). You just linked to the prices of the entire ranges,not me and your statement shows the top end cards have gone up in price. Nobody cares about names,since it is irrelevant to the discussion and each generation will be faster than the previous one,so what??

The GTX580 used a fully enabled 529MM2 GF110 and from your previous statement sold for $500. It was the highest end gaming product.

The Geforce Titan X Pascal Editon uses a partially enabled 472MM2 GP102 die and is $1200 from your statement. It is the highest end gaming product.

That is a 2.4X increase in US dollar price from top end to top end for a slightly smaller and partially disabled GPU.

Your statement also showed a GTX1080 using a 314MM2 die selling for $650. The G92 was 324MM2 and in its fully enabled form started at $350. You even mentioned previously the 8800GT using the same die was under $350. Both GDDR5X and GDDR5 were relatively new at the time the cards were launched.

The GTX560TI had a similar sized die to both the one in the GTX1080 and 8800GTS 512MB. It started at $250.

So another large increase in Dollar price.

Nvidia has increased Dollar prices across the board at a faster rate than any production cost increases and R and D costs. This is why they are making more money - ASP has gone up quite a bit. The market for card sales is lower than 10 years ago,so it is even beyond the contraction in sales.

Again JPR and Mercury Research support this - enthusiast class cards sales doubled during 2015,and most likely would have seen the same jump this year. People are spending more and more on cards as they p

If you cannot understand that,then that is your issue not mine,mate.

Like I mentioned Nvidia has successfully managed to market these increases well and manage people's expectations and that is a sign of good marketing like Apple has managed in the past. They are here to make money not be a consumers best friend.

 

[happy medium]

The facts are the cost of cards are dependent on one major factor - die size. The die size is the singular most expensive component in many cards(and probably memory). You just linked to the prices of the entire ranges,not me and your statement shows the top end cards have gone up in price. Nobody cares about names,since it is irrelevant to the discussion and each generation will be faster than the previous one,so what??

The GTX580 used a fully enabled 529MM2 GF110 and from your previous statement sold for $500. It was the highest end gaming product.

The Geforce Titan X Pascal Editon uses a partially enabled 472MM2 GP102 dies and is $1200 from your statement. It is the highest end gaming product.

That is a 2.4X increase in US dollar price from top end to top end for a slightly smaller and partially disabled GPU.

Your statement also showed a GTX1080 using a 314MM2 die is selling for $650. The G92 was 324MM2 and in its fully enabled form started at $350. You even mentioned previously the 8800GT using the same die was under $350. Both GDDR5X and GDDR5 were relatively new at the time the cards were launched.

The GTX560TI had a similar sized die to both the one in the GTX1080 and 8800GTS 512MB. It started at $250.

So another large increase in Dollar price.

Nvidia has increased Dollar prices across the board at a faster rate than any production cost increases and R and D costs. This is why they are making more money - ASP has gone up quite a bit. The market for card sales is lower than 10 years ago,so it is even beyond the contraction in sales.

Again JPR and Mercury Research support this - enthusiast class cards sales doubled during 2015,and most likely would have seen the same jump this year.

If you cannot understand that,then that is your issue not mine,mate.

I'll ask you the same question.

So if Nvidia made a gtx1080 with a 200mm dies size, with performance 2x faster than a gtx980ti, and sold it for 1000$. It would be a mid range card?

No it would be the ultra high end performance king.
die size means nothing!
I don't have any links to back up any of these ridiculous claims yet.

again here are my links to reviews that categorize what cards succeed other cards.

quote from gtx680 review "retaking the performance crown"

"Last but not least, let’s talk about pricing and availability. GTX 680 is the successor to GTX 580 and NVIDIA will be pricing it accordingly, with an MSRP of $500. This is the same price that the GTX 580 and GTX 480 launched at back in 2010, and while it’s consistent for an x80 video card it’s effectively a conservative price given GK104’s die size."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review

quote from the gtx780 review "The new high end"

"Meanwhile, compared to the GTX 680 which it will be supplanting, the GTX 780 should be a big step up in virtually every way. As NVIDIA likes to put it, GTX 780 is 50% more of everything than GTX 680. 50% more SMXes, 50% more ROPs, 50% more RAM, and 50% more memory bandwidth. In reality due to the clockspeed differences the theoretical performance difference isn’t nearly as large – we’re looking at just a 29% increase in shading/texturing/ROP performance – but this still leaves GTX 780 as being much more powerful than its predecessor."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review

quote from the gtx980 review.

"Today’s launch will see GM204 placed into two video cards, the GeForce GTX 980 and GeForce GTX 970. We’ll dive into the specs of each in a bit, but from an NVIDIA product standpoint these two parts are the immediate successors to the GTX 780/780Ti and GTX 770 respectively.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review


quote from a gtx1080 preview.

"The base clockspeed of 1607MHz is some 42% higher than GTX 980 (and 60% higher than GTX 980 Ti), and the 1733MHz boost clockspeed is a similar gain. On paper, GTX 1080 is set to offer 78% better performance than GTX 980,"
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10326/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-preview/


As you can see even the reviews say your wrong.
These are the facts.

please back up your argument with facts and links, not your opinion

 

[kraatus77]

Die size means everything when it comes to how much is BOM cost and how much it sells for. because that's where your huge pile of money /revenue/margins came from.

"if Nvidia made a gtx1080 with a 200mm dies size, with performance 2x faster than a gtx980ti, and sold it for 1000$. It would be a mid range card?

yes it will, it will be a mid range infront of 450-500mm die size gpu of same architecture. because it will be 2x faster than midrange gtx1080@200mm.

your argument is baseless and anti consumer at best.

 

[iiiankiii]

So if Nvidia made a gtx1080 with a 200mm dies size, with performance 2x faster than a gtx980ti, and sold it for 1000$. It would be a mid range card?
No it would be the ultra high end performance king.
die size means nothing!

Kinda. But, historically, you can judge its performance based on die size. I think it's better to look it at this way, the largest die size of that generation is considered the highest end of that generation. That still hasn't changed. The highest end Pascal card is the Titan XP. Therefore, in respect to its generation, the GTX1080 is a midrange card. The only thing that changed is pricing. Historically, it's common for the halo card to be priced around $549-$649. Now, it's $1000. That's the main difference. It's not a good direction for us consumers. It's pretty awesome for Nvidia and shareholders, though.

 

[Dribble]

If zen is not competitive with intel cpu, amd just haft to be in serious trouble. Nvidia is slowly killing amds dgpu business. Just imagine when volta comes out, will those gpu be more than twice energy effience? And if zen can't compete they will go bankrupt slowly as I hardly think their console business can keep them alive.

What you guys think?

I think you are not allowed to discuss that here, or show examples of that or the thread gets locked. But in the real world, beyond the hordes of fanboys with their hands in their ears and their fingers on the "report" buttons, that is the case.

As for Nvidia what's impressive is despite owning nearly all (80%) of what was meant to be a mature, if anything declining market (see 1000 posts about the end of discrete graphics) they have somehow still managed a huge increase in revenue and profits.

 

[Det0x]

Die size means everything when it comes to how much is BOM cost and how much it sells for. because that's where your huge pile of money /revenue/margins came from.

"if Nvidia made a gtx1080 with a 200mm dies size, with performance 2x faster than a gtx980ti, and sold it for 1000$. It would be a mid range card?

yes it will, it will be a mid range infront of 450-500mm die size gpu of same architecture. because it will be 2x faster than midrange gtx1080@200mm.

your argument is baseless and anti consumer at best.

Good response

To spoon-feed it further for those who have problems understanding this simple logic

Card1 @ 150mm2 is 1.5x faster then X-card (low end)
Card2 @ 200mm2 is 2x faster then X-card (mid end)
Card3 @ 450mm2 is 4.5x faster then X-card (high end)
Card4 @ 600mm2 is 6x faster then X-card (ultra high end)

Even if card2 is 2x faster!!111 then X-card, its still only mid end in the product stack

Die size alone should tell you that the GTX 1080 is only a "mid end" card.
The full GP104, aka GTX 1080 is only 314mm² for godsake..

For comparison:

900 series (on a mature node)
The Maxwell GTX 960 is 227mm² (mid end)
The Maxwell GTX 980 is 398mm². (high end)
The Maxwell GTX 980TI / GTX Titan X is 601mm² (ultra high end)

1000 series
The Pascal GTX 1050 TI is 135mm² (low end)
The Pascal GTX 1060 is 200mm² (mid end)
The Pascal GTX 1080 is 314mm² (mid end)
The Pascal "GTX 1080TI" / Titan X Pascal is 471mm² (high end)
The Pascal Tesla P100 is 610mm² (ultra high end)

The Nvidia PR seem to have done a splendid job convincing its consumers to pay 1-2 price brackets higher then the performance they get in return.. It should be obvious people are paying high-end+ money, for mid-end performance (1080)


100mm² -> 175mm² = low end
176mm² -> 350mm² = mid end (GTX 1080)
351mm² -> 500mm² = high end
501mm² -> 600+mm² = ultra high end

~ numbers above

Key sentence is:

"The Nvidia PR seem to have done a splendid job convincing its consumers to pay 1-2 price brackets higher then the performance they get in return.. It should be obvious people are paying high-end+ money, for mid-end performance (1080)"

 

[SlickR12345]

If zen is not competitive with intel cpu, amd just haft to be in serious trouble. Nvidia is slowly killing amds dgpu business. Just imagine when volta comes out, will those gpu be more than twice energy effience? And if zen can't compete they will go bankrupt slowly as I hardly think their console business can keep them alive.

What you guys think?

What are you talking about? Volt is over a year away and Nvidia just went from 28nm to 16nm FinFet, they are not going to get another such reduction in power draw, this is it. The best they could do is increase clocks and keep the same consumption, but I bet its going to be a little rearrangement of products.

2060 6GB will be $200, they probably won't do another 3GB turd, but knowing Nvidia they might, they love screwing over people who are ignorant. That is the type of refresh we'd be looking.