Nvidia SUPER Range.

[Ahovv]

This entire thought is about as illogical as it gets.

They could change the entire naming scheme between generations.

How do you compare a Navi 5700 to an RX-series card? What does it "replace" on the stack? How do you compare a Vega 56 to an RX 400... or, ohwait, they were at R(no X!) 300 before that. How would you have compared which product in the GTX 200-series was comparable to the preceeding series (GT 9000)?

Your entire "argument", such as it was, fails right there.

You compare SKU's based on the market segment they sit in. Full stop.

Anything else is just you trying to be right when you're clearly wrong.

nVidia CLEARLY announced almost 18 months before it happened that they were removing Titan from the consumer lineup with the next generation, and making the Titan series its own, dedicated Prosumer series of SKUs that they will now keep multiple versions of in production (4, currently - Titan X, Titan Xp, Titan V, and RTX Titan).

It is GONE from the (consumer) product stack. The 2080Ti replaced it as the "Halo Product" at the top of the stack.

That simple.

Was nVidia responsible for bad communication on the facts of how the product lineup changed? Sure.

Was there not a super-great performance uplift between the 10-series and the 16/20 series? Also, sure. (Although this is actually a return to normal, as from the GT 8000/9000 series all the way through the 7 series, it was EXTREMELY common for performance gains between generations to be only 10-15%, and only at the "halo" product, with everything simply shifting down one slot. The giant gains from 7-9 and 9-10 were flukes because they landed at a critical mass of "massive die shrink" (7-9) and "die shrink + new uArch" (9-10). Historically, gains werent that big. We're simply back to that).

But the fact remains that product lineup changed. Everything shifted up one segment, basically. The -60 card is now the entry-level 1440p/high refresh card. The -70 card is now the high-end card. The -80 card is now the enthusiast card, and the -80Ti is now the Halo product. It gets even weirder because of the split-naming scheme, as the actual replacement for the -60 SKU in performance is.... a DIFFERENT -60 SKU (the 1660Ti) because of the weird split-naming convention between RTX and GTX cards.

IF they had all been 20 series cards, the 1660Ti would have been the GTX 2050 Ti, and the 1660 would have been a 2050 (or may simply not have existed at all, in favor of a card somewhere between the current 1650 and 1660 in performance).

When they came out with a 1060 it was a replacement for a 960 in the series even though it performs way better. Each generation shifts every # higher in performance. A 1060 can actually do proper 1080p ultra gaming but previous -60 cards cannot without sacrificing serious frame rate or settings. That doesn't mean the 1060 is magically now a 970 replacement just because that's its closest previous generation card.

Ultimately this is a semantics argument. Defining what it "replaces" depends on what exactly you mean. If you want to define it as "whatever is closest from last gen" then go for it, but NOBODY else uses that definition. Nobody says a 1060 replaces a 970. They're very close in performance, so nothing is being "replaced." On the other hand, a 1060 does replace a 960 due to its place in the hierarchy, combined with pricing and an improvement in performance.

[Ianus]

As much as i am fan of intel/nvidia must say AMD has better relationship to customers price wise they know they are not top dog and put price accordingly.. In Future i might consider full amd rig cause this is becoming retarded.. nvidia can milk my donger with dry mouth with this BS

[Life-Binder]

yeah they sure priced 5700 accordingly ...


"I'll buy AMD even if its the same/worse, that'll show Nvidia !"

[Temp name]

can we stop beating this to death?

The 2080Ti replaced the Titan Xp, not the 1080Ti.

The Titan Xp was.. 1200$.
The 2080Ti was.. 1200$.

The replacement for the 1080Ti was the 2080...
1080Ti was... 699$
2080 was... 699$.

FFS, guys, the product stack changed. How hard is that to wrap your heads around? Titan is its own, independent, non-consumer lineup now. the X80Ti is the "Halo" product.

Where is the proof that it did aside from price? Because the performance numbers and name back up that the product stack stayed the same and just shifted up a price tier

[pansertjald]

When they came out with a 1060 it was a replacement for a 960 in the series even though it performs way better. Each generation shifts every # higher in performance. A 1060 can actually do proper 1080p ultra gaming but previous -60 cards cannot without sacrificing serious frame rate or settings. That doesn't mean the 1060 is magically now a 970 replacement just because that's its closest previous generation card.

Ultimately this is a semantics argument. Defining what it "replaces" depends on what exactly you mean. If you want to define it as "whatever is closest from last gen" then go for it, but NOBODY else uses that definition. Nobody says a 1060 replaces a 970. They're very close in performance, so nothing is being "replaced." On the other hand, a 1060 does replace a 960 due to its place in the hierarchy, combined with pricing and an improvement in performance.

Don't start an argument with him. It's just Kagthul and he lives in his own little universe, where every body else is an idiot if they don't agree with him

[Coldkil]

FFS, guys, the product stack changed. How hard is that to wrap your heads around? Titan is its own, independent, non-consumer lineup now. the X80Ti is the "Halo" product.

Point is, the product stack didn't change at all. They just bumped up all prices a notch because of a combination of external reasons (the crypto boom, bloated production of 10 serie, keeping 20 serie price high to make the 10 sell) and the fact there's not much competition if not on the low-mid segment (which moves more units but is less visible).

What replaces what is completely irrelevant. It's just a crap move for customers that will have to buy a lower tier card due to inflated prices while not gaining anything meaningful in performance.

The 20 serie is a PR disaster from every single point of view. I'm not talking about the card performance, but the fact they tried to sell the RTX gimmick with no actual games using it and being heavy as hell on performance and keep going with a so complex and bloated product lineup to just confuse people out into buying crap they don't need and getting generally bad deals.

[Shinzai]

On the pricing of the original RTX line, we were split originally between it being due to the RTX addition and just plain price gouging.

At this point, I think it's obvious that the SUPER line up is basically how the original cards would have landed performance-wise, if AMD had been able to challenge Nvidia at the time.

They jacked up their prices, because the market was wide open for them to. They cashed in hard on early adopters and now they're just clearing stock.

They could have had this price/performance from launch day.

[Aleksej89]

Why are both AMD and Nvidia so god damn retarded when it comes to naming their products?

Instead of clearly assigning each product with a unique model number (2060, 2065, 2070, 2075... in the nvidia 2xxx generation) they go for some TI super TITAN X whatever nonsense that you have to google just to understand how it relates to other products.

AMD is even worse with their naming scheme where every so often they give a completely different name (VEGA) that does not fit into the previous model numbering scheme.

[Temp name]

Why are both AMD and Nvidia so god damn retarded when it comes to naming their products?

Instead of clearly assigning each product with a unique model number (2060, 2065, 2070, 2075... in the nvidia 2xxx generation) they go for some TI super TITAN X whatever nonsense that you have to google just to understand how it relates to other products.

I mean, we've been with the TI suffix for so long that it's pretty easy to understand. And Titan is another product, slightly separate from their mainstream gaming lineup, so they aren't used as a suffix (Though their horrible naming schemes on Titans* are hilarious). Super is just stupid though
*Seriously, it's hilarious. In no chronological order because I can't remember and don't wanna look it up, we have:
The Titan
The Titan Z
The Titan Black
The Titan X
The Titan X (again, but this time on Pascal)
The Titan Xp (Also on Pascal)
The Titan V
And now the Titan RTX

[Kuntantee]

So SUPER is basically another name for TI. Except they're still doing TI. And also TI SUPER.

Way to make your product stack confusing Nvidia..

From what I can understand, the 2060 SUPER will be between the 2060 and 2070. The 2070 SUPER will be between 2070 and 2080. They're using the step-up chips, but with some cores disabled. Also 2080ti SUPER just.. Sounds weird.

They are basically producing a new high-end chip, and shifting rest of the line up once.

[Ahovv]

Yeah TI is pretty easy to understand by now. An XX70 TI will be better than an XX70 but not as good as an XX80.

But they have other dumb things, like the sudden jump to 1660 TI out of nowhere, or how a 1060 3GB is totally different from 1060 GB.

[Temp name]

Yeah TI is pretty easy to understand by now. An XX70 TI will be better than an XX70 but not as good as an XX80.

But they have other dumb things, like the sudden jump to 1660 TI out of nowhere, or how a 1060 3GB is totally different from 1060 GB.

Yeah I'm not gonna defend those. 1660ti is just a weird naming thing. If the 1660 was as powerful as a 2060 just without the RT and Tensor cores I could understand it.. kinda.. But it isn't.
And 1060 vs 1060 not being the same performance either is equally stupid. Create different SKUs with different amount of VRAM, that's fine, but they should perform the same outside of that. They released a china specific model with 5GB that was otherwise as powerful as the 6GB model which I'm entirely fine with

[Coldkil]

Yeah I'm not gonna defend those. 1660ti is just a weird naming thing. If the 1660 was as powerful as a 2060 just without the RT and Tensor cores I could understand it.. kinda.. But it isn't.
And 1060 vs 1060 not being the same performance either is equally stupid. Create different SKUs with different amount of VRAM, that's fine, but they should perform the same outside of that. They released a china specific model with 5GB that was otherwise as powerful as the 6GB model which I'm entirely fine with

It's marketing at its finest. 1660 is a 2060 without RTX/tensor cores - but better make it sound a clearly inferior option so people are attracted by the "better" one

IIRC they choose 1660 specifically to make it clear they weren't 20xx and to "keep distance" from them, while showing they're better than the 10xx counterparts.

It's literally 20 > 16 > 10 with 16 nearer to 20 than to 10.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I would define super as binning the chips in a more refined way. We all know about the silicon lotto and this likely is just fixing the winners and rebranding them and factory pushing them because of the increased performance.

It will be more expensive of course. Mostly because that is corporate rule 101. Not to mention marketing costs. I doubt it will be worth it for a vast majority of people. Especially if you already have a 20XX card. Feels more like they are just pushing out this lineup to have something launch with AMD cards. The supers will be the top tiers and the reggies can be price adjusted to be direct competition that is still the stronger option.

At least my wallet is still safe. My 1080ti is still doing me strong.

[Temp name]

It's marketing at its finest. 1660 is a 2060 without RTX/tensor cores - but better make it sound a clearly inferior option so people are attracted by the "better" one

IIRC they choose 1660 specifically to make it clear they weren't 20xx and to "keep distance" from them, while showing they're better than the 10xx counterparts.

It's literally 20 > 16 > 10 with 16 nearer to 20 than to 10.

Yeah, I get *why* they chose the name.. But the 1660 isn't a 2060 without those cores. It performs worse in every game, even without ray tracing turned on. It's literally just an inferior chip.

The 1660 gets ~90fps, the 2060 gets ~110. To pretend they're the same chip is about the same as pretending the 2070 and 2080 share a chip

Edit: The 1660/1660ti use the TU116 chip, the 2060 uses a cut-down TU106, with the 2070 using the full TU106 chip. The 2080 uses a TU104, and the 2080ti/Titan RTX use a TU102

[Coldkil]

Yeah, I get *why* they chose the name.. But the 1660 isn't a 2060 without those cores. It performs worse in every game, even without ray tracing turned on. It's literally just an inferior chip.

The 1660 gets ~90fps, the 2060 gets ~110. To pretend they're the same chip is about the same as pretending the 2070 and 2080 share a chip

Edit: The 1660/1660ti use the TU116 chip, the 2060 uses a cut-down TU106, with the 2070 using the full TU106 chip. The 2080 uses a TU104, and the 2080ti/Titan RTX use a TU102

Yeah, i wasn't talking about raw performance. The whole point was their decision to make an inferior "cheap" product just to lure the people with stricter budget that won't ever tough a 20 serie with these prices.

Nivida product stack gets more convoluted the more time passes and it's all against customers.

EDIT: just to be clear, a 1660 would suffice in the majority of cases one aims towards the 2060. Most people are simply deceived by the product name.

[Ahovv]

Yeah, i wasn't talking about raw performance. The whole point was their decision to make an inferior "cheap" product just to lure the people with stricter budget that won't ever tough a 20 serie with these prices.

Nivida product stack gets more convoluted the more time passes and it's all against customers.

EDIT: just to be clear, a 1660 would suffice in the majority of cases one aims towards the 2060. Most people are simply deceived by the product name.

The only thing I can think of is wanting a bit higher refresh rate 1080p gaming. But that's pretty niche since most people with high-refresh rate monitors would just shell out the extra money to actually achieve higher fps than what a 2060 offers.

And the 2060 definitely doesn't give a consistent 60 fps at 1440p ultra, so yeah, it's in a weird spot and I'm not really sure why people would buy it. Raytracing would be a pretty shitty reason due to the performance hits.

[Coldkil]

The only thing I can think of is wanting a bit higher refresh rate 1080p gaming. But that's pretty niche since most people with high-refresh rate monitors would just shell out the extra money to actually achieve higher fps than what a 2060 offers.

And the 2060 definitely doesn't give a consistent 60 fps at 1440p ultra, so yeah, it's in a weird spot and I'm not really sure why people would buy it. Raytracing would be a pretty shitty reason due to the performance hits.

Exactly. RT at the moment is worth only on 2080+ because you have the horsepower under the hood for it and also the budget available to build a machine that will make it work well.

[Saphyron]

At this point I am just heavily confused by the naming strategy of Nvidia, and AMD for that matter.
Why not make it logical?

2-4 letter word defines Type.
4 number that defines Hierarchy.
2 letter word that defines Special editions (such as TI)
4 number that defines year of release.

An example of this would be:
GTX 1060 TI 2017
or
RTX 1060 TI 2018
or
GTX 1060 SU 2019

[Afrospinach]

At this point I am just heavily confused by the naming strategy of Nvidia, and AMD for that matter.
Why not make it logical?

2-4 letter word defines Type.
4 number that defines Hierarchy.
2 letter word that defines Special editions (such as TI)
4 number that defines year of release.

An example of this would be:
GTX 1060 TI 2017
or
RTX 1060 TI 2018
or
GTX 1060 SU 2019

They probably just cannot count of the products they can produce ever being that neat.