Nobody talked about the GTX1660Ti, my response was about the GTX 1660 giving 50% more performance than the GTX1050Ti at the same price. And yes we had 50% more performance than the GTX1050/Ti at the same or lower price for months now with the RX 570 and RX 580. What is ridiculous is that people forgetting we had the RX 570 4GB + 2 Games from $150 and the RX 580 + 2 Games from $180 for months but only now when the GTX1660 comes at $220 its the second coming of Jesus.
Its funny how people justify the increase in price per segment because of the larger die when we didnt have any increase of prices in the past ( example GTX 9xx vs previous Gen) and at the same time throw the ball to AMD viral marketing for stating the obvious which is that the GTX1660/Ti should have been priced at the GTX 1050/Ti price points.
ps. Curiously nobody said anything about NVIDIAs viral marketing when most people here, including me, were saying that Radeon Vii price should have been lower.
Everyone forgets that RX 590 came with a 3x $60 ($180) game bundle + 20% higher performance at the same price GTX1060 was selling at the time. But nooooo, lets only compare the MSRPs.
I meant to say GTX 1660, not ti.
104% faster than a GTX 1050 ti and 137% faster than a gtx 1050(the above chart doesn't have the 1050 but if you look at the gtx 1050 review, the gtx 1050 ti is 20% faster).
Now look at the gtx 1060. Look at the performance difference between the gtx 1060 and 950.
127%.
Nothing about the performance is 50 series about this generation. Just because Nvidia spent more money to develop more silicon to specifically target the 1070 series does not mean anything below this should be a 1050 or lower. The 1070 series has been one of Nvidia's best sellers so it should be no surprise Nvidia would make a chip specifically for this segment. Looking at the performance difference between the RTX 2070 and 2080, it clear that this silicon was developed specifically for the 70 series not the 60 series.
The number 1 complaint about the RTX series is that it is expensive doesn't move price to performance forward and people are forced to pay an RTX tax..Guess what GT116 is for?
It's a turing series without the RTX tax. Dies moderately larger without the tensor cores or RT hardware leading to traditional performance more inline what you would expect with a new generation. Considering the gain from this series is pure architecture without the node shrink, they are really normal.
Looking at the 50 series specifically, these cards consist of cards with the following characteristics, 75watt tdp, 128bit buses and dies around 130mm. It simply stupid to think this should be a 50 series.
It's more like a 10% difference between the GTX 1060 and rx590 as seen in the chart above.
You talk about this game bundle but you know AMD does not remotely retail pricing for these. And secondly, you know AMD didn't have to pay for with this series but Nvidia did. R and D. R and D represents 40% of the cost of a videocard if we compared cost of good sold and R and D. This is literally billions of dollars. By packing some games in, it's a disguise that your paid more money for the 2nd refresh of this card. Again nothing you said justifies the name change to the rx590.
Pure price is more important because it causes the market to move, not game bundles. This game bundle kept pricing elevated. Considering AMD cut the pricing of their rx 580/590 shortly after the release of these cards, it obvious that increasing price to performance rather than games bundles is more helpful to consumers.
Facebook
Twitter