Paint the narrative they want shown.
Funny that their scores are all very low for the 480 as someone else posted in the other thread with chart showing how much different the #s were from actual reviewers.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
[Videocardz] GTX 1060 Reviewer Guide Leaked
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Paint the narrative they want shown.
Funny that their scores are all very low for the 480 as someone else posted in the other thread with chart showing how much different the #s were from actual reviewers.
nerp
Diamond Member
Common practice for media to get stuff like this. When covering a municipal budget, reporters usually have the budget and outline and have interviewed the mayor days before it's made public and the public hearing begins. You might not agree with the executive summary and a good reporter goes through the raw budget. Lazy reporters just retype the budget summary.
Azix
Golden Member
I don't see the point of including 480 scores. 1060 performance alone would be adequate.
AMD has done similar, though I am not sure how inaccurate it was. They added a ton more detail but still doesn't sit well with me.
What, if the 480 scores don't match what is in the reviewer guide the reviewer should go try figure out what to change? I think it might be better for reviewers to only read the technical details part of the guide and skip the brainwashing. Then come back after the review is done to see if they missed something.
AMD has done similar, though I am not sure how inaccurate it was. They added a ton more detail but still doesn't sit well with me.
What, if the 480 scores don't match what is in the reviewer guide the reviewer should go try figure out what to change? I think it might be better for reviewers to only read the technical details part of the guide and skip the brainwashing. Then come back after the review is done to see if they missed something.
Last edited:
dacostafilipe
Senior member
I don't see the point of including 480 scores. 1060 performance alone would be adequate.
AMD has done similar, though I am not sure how inaccurate it was. They added a ton more detail but still doesn't sit well with me.
What, if the 480 scores don't match what is in the reviewer guide the reviewer should go try figure out what to change? I think it might be better for reviewers to only read the technical details part of the guide and skip the brainwashing. Then come back after the review is done to see if they missed something.
This was just as bad and it did not mirror reviews scores!
Flapdrol1337
Golden Member
^
0x anisotropic filtering... what the hell?
0x anisotropic filtering... what the hell?
Probably trying to force apples-to-apples comparison. At least two times we had reviews where nv default to 0AF.
Some interesting/curious stuff in this guide.
We now have official stats on the size of the GP106 chip: 200mm^2, 4.4 billion transistors. Got to admit, Hawaii/GM204-level performance is impressive for a chip with fewer transistors than Tonga. Nvidia's high-clock-speed strategy looks like it paid off pretty well this generation.
The guide says that "the heatsink has been dramatically expanded and is over 50% larger than the heatsink used on the GTX 960". That's largely meaningless, since the GTX 960 reference card was virtually nonexistent. I never saw one for sale anywhere. I suppose it might have some relevance to OEMs.
An interesting tidbit of information is that the GTX 1060 Founder's Edition will be sold only through Nvidia's website.
Nvidia included a paragraph full of excuses about why SLI isn't supported. It will be interesting to see how review sites treat this.
The part about Furmark is inconsistent and contradictory. In one paragraph they say that Furmark "could permanently damage the card", then two paragraphs down they mention that their cards have a protection mechanism against going over the power threshold. The guide ignores the real reason why sites like TPU run tests with Furmark: to determine the card's power limit.
Nvidia wants reviewers to conduct performance testing on an open bench, but test acoustics in a closed case. It's obvious why: they want quiet readings, but don't want thermal throttling during gaming, and we know the 1070 and 1080 FE cards did throttle for many users. They punctuate this by mentioning that "most of our tech marketing team is composed of former members of the media" - the subtext being that if reviewers play ball, they might have a cushy gig at Nvidia waiting for them in the future.
Nvidia is apparently outsourcing their official definition of TDP to Wikipedia.
We now have official stats on the size of the GP106 chip: 200mm^2, 4.4 billion transistors. Got to admit, Hawaii/GM204-level performance is impressive for a chip with fewer transistors than Tonga. Nvidia's high-clock-speed strategy looks like it paid off pretty well this generation.
The guide says that "the heatsink has been dramatically expanded and is over 50% larger than the heatsink used on the GTX 960". That's largely meaningless, since the GTX 960 reference card was virtually nonexistent. I never saw one for sale anywhere. I suppose it might have some relevance to OEMs.
An interesting tidbit of information is that the GTX 1060 Founder's Edition will be sold only through Nvidia's website.
Nvidia included a paragraph full of excuses about why SLI isn't supported. It will be interesting to see how review sites treat this.
The part about Furmark is inconsistent and contradictory. In one paragraph they say that Furmark "could permanently damage the card", then two paragraphs down they mention that their cards have a protection mechanism against going over the power threshold. The guide ignores the real reason why sites like TPU run tests with Furmark: to determine the card's power limit.
Nvidia wants reviewers to conduct performance testing on an open bench, but test acoustics in a closed case. It's obvious why: they want quiet readings, but don't want thermal throttling during gaming, and we know the 1070 and 1080 FE cards did throttle for many users. They punctuate this by mentioning that "most of our tech marketing team is composed of former members of the media" - the subtext being that if reviewers play ball, they might have a cushy gig at Nvidia waiting for them in the future.
Nvidia is apparently outsourcing their official definition of TDP to Wikipedia.
William Gaatjes
Lifer
Have you looked at the L2 cache.
If that is true, it has 1536K L2 cache. It will be interesting to see that this does not become another 3.5GB debacle.
If that is true, it has 1536K L2 cache. It will be interesting to see that this does not become another 3.5GB debacle.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
