I can see a cut-down 1660 Ti going for $230, but surely a 3 GB GDDR5 card would be less than $229. That card would struggle even now in some games..
Out of curiosity, if performance is close to GTX1070 why get the 6GB 1660ti at $279 over the 8GB GTX 1070 currently found at newegg at $299 ???
Well, since it isn't even officially announced yet, it is hard to say exactly where performance falls, and if there will still be GTX 1070 cards when the 1660Ti ships.
Honestly I think the 1650 will be 1024 cores ,4 clusters cut, 4gb ,128 bit
,is that even possible ? :] That would be very close to rx 470/480 speeds.
The rumors are for the 1660 (non Ti) to have 6GB of GDDR5, not 3GB.
Because you pay for hardware that is not usable by 99% of current games.
I don't think it's a zero chance, definitely a low chance though. I can still dream at least!IMO there is Zero chance of that happening. NVidia is all in on RT. Lower end cards are the exception because functional RT HW would just blow the transistor budget in that chips in that price range.
You wrote:its easy math, just figure out how much faster a Touring core is than a Pascal core.
rtx 2060 1920 cores vs gtx 1660ti 1280 cores =80% or 20% slower.
They said the 1660ti will have higher clocks than the 2060 So I'll use a 2060 overclocked model.
It should be right around a gtx1070 on this chart 2060 100% vs 1660ti at 80%
View attachment 2708
Because you pay for hardware that is not usable by 99% of current games.
You wrote:
"rtx 2060 1920 cores vs gtx 1660ti 1280 cores =80% or 20% slower."
How does this calc work? 2/3 rds (66%) of the cores get 80% performance?
This is odd, because I do recall our back and forth regarding DX12. You were upselling AMD's dominance as far back as Hawaii/Fiji, 2015. You kept citing DX12 performance for a handful of games.
Be consistent atleast. Either new hardware/features maters at launch or it doesn't.
If that 19% increase over 1060 is true how can Nvidia get away with calling this a 60 Ti card? Really hoping it's BS and it's the $229 1660 that's only around 20% faster than the 1060.
You got 980Ti for 300 used but most bought it at full price of 700 dollars so it is not an apt comparison.The naming certainly leaves something to be desired but again these cards are very interesting from an academic standpoint to see what the Turing arch sans RT cores is capable of doing (is it even the Turing arch at that point?)
I suspect these will be very potent little cards, only question that's left is if the price will be right (I say it too much maybe, but GTX 980TI performance for $300 2.5 years after I got a 980Ti for ~$300 is again not very inspiring).
$300 price point should really be somewhere between the 1080/Ti in terms of raw performance if we where on a standard cadence...
This is odd, because I do recall our back and forth regarding DX12. You were upselling AMD's dominance as far back as Hawaii/Fiji, 2015. You kept citing DX12 performance for a handful of games.
Be consistent atleast. Either new hardware/features maters at launch or it doesn't.
In the past we had new features added for free (no added price per segment). RT cores came with double the price over previous segments (example : GTX 1080Ti vs RTX 2080Ti). So essentially we are paying extra for hardware that is not usable by 99% of games.
You got 980Ti for 300 used but most bought it at full price of 700 dollars so it is not an apt comparison.
The 290x should have been priced at $349 , it was hot ,power hungry and a midrange card. The gtx980 used half the power was much faster for the same $550. For $150 more you could have waited for the much much faster 980ti.Hawaii R9 290X launched at $549 with superior Mantle and later DX-12/Vulkan performance against the GTX780 that was selling for $649. There was no added price tax for features like Asynchronous Compute , Mantle and later DX-12/Vulkan performance.
The 290x should have been priced at $349 , it was hot ,power hungry and a midrange card. The gtx980 used half the power was much faster for the same $550. For $150 more you could have waited for the much much faster 980ti.
See how this works? There is always something better cheaper on the horizon.
The 290x should have been priced at $349 , it was hot ,power hungry and a midrange card. The gtx980 used half the power was much faster for the same $550.
Ok I'll rephrase, better, faster or cheaper....Not always. 2080 and 2080Ti proved this theory wrong. Better but not cheaper.
Even better is debatable in case of 2080.
Do we even know what Navi is supposed to be? Is it supposed to be the successor of RX570/580 or Vega 56/64?Ok I'll rephrase, better, faster or cheaper....
Next we will hear, the old standby......
Wait for Navi, wait for Navi!
Just like wait for Vega, wait for Vega.
Because you pay for hardware that is not usable by 99% of current games.
Do we even know what Navi is supposed to be? Is it supposed to be the successor of RX570/580 or Vega 56/64?
There will be 7nm 590, Vega 56, , and Vega 64 replacements with about a 15% performance uplift in each performance tier. I dont know if its Navi or not.Do we even know what Navi is supposed to be? Is it supposed to be the successor of RX570/580 or Vega 56/64?