Nvidia shows signs in [2023]

  • Thread starter Deleted member 2197
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NVidia's DPC problem still exists? its the main reason i avoid their products, every graphics card i bought from them eventually has that problem, maybe i'm unlucky but the seeing it still happening i doubt it was just bad luck.
 
Last edited:
A recent RTX 4060 Techgage review indicates the card might generate low budget Creator interest in specific applications like Blender.
After poring over these results, we can see that the new RTX 4060 easily beats out its RTX 3060 predecessor, and often surpasses either the RTX 3070 or RTX 3070 Ti, depending on the render engine.

When we compare against the last-gen parts, the RTX 4060 looks quite good, in some cases even able to match the RTX 3070 Ti, which SRP’d for $599. That said, there are are variations in performance strengths of the RTX 4060, with it out-performing the RTX 3070 Ti one moment (in Arnold), while other times slides in behind RTX 3070 and just ahead of RTX 3060 Ti.

One performance gain that stood out was with Blender. In both of the Cycles renders, the RTX 4060 leaped quite a bit ahead of the RTX 3060.
 
In my opinion, this is what NVIDIA should've named their current cards, this would have made much more sense, with a vastly better general critical/public reception but would've made pricing much more difficult. Imagine a 4070 costing 800$, or a 4050 with a 300$ price tag.

RTX 4090 : RTX 4090
RTX 4080 : RTX 4080
RTX 4070 Ti : RTX 4070
RTX 4070 : RTX 4060 Ti
RTX 4060 Ti : RTX 4060
RTX 4060 : RTX 4050
 
A recent RTX 4060 Techgage review indicates the card might generate low budget Creator interest in specific applications like Blender.

But that usage case places an even higher emphasis on VRAM than gaming and the RTX 4060 comes in at a downgrade against the outgoing 3060 12GB. Anecdotally in creator circles just last gen the preference was for the 3060 12GB over the 3060ti even if they were the same price.
 
In my opinion, this is what NVIDIA should've named their current cards, this would have made much more sense, with a vastly better general critical/public reception but would've made pricing much more difficult. Imagine a 4070 costing 800$, or a 4050 with a 300$ price tag.

RTX 4090 : RTX 4090
RTX 4080 : RTX 4080
RTX 4070 Ti : RTX 4070
RTX 4070 : RTX 4060 Ti
RTX 4060 Ti : RTX 4060
RTX 4060 : RTX 4050
Names don't matter. Even if they would name 4090 a 4050 that wouldn't make any change to perf/price.
 
In my opinion, this is what NVIDIA should've named their current cards, this would have made much more sense, with a vastly better general critical/public reception but would've made pricing much more difficult. Imagine a 4070 costing 800$, or a 4050 with a 300$ price tag.

RTX 4090 : RTX 4090
RTX 4080 : RTX 4080
RTX 4070 Ti : RTX 4070
RTX 4070 : RTX 4060 Ti
RTX 4060 Ti : RTX 4060
RTX 4060 : RTX 4050
Agreed. I think much of the blame is due to not knowing competitor pre-launch price/performance in similar tiers.
 
In my opinion, this is what NVIDIA should've named their current cards, this would have made much more sense, with a vastly better general critical/public reception but would've made pricing much more difficult. Imagine a 4070 costing 800$, or a 4050 with a 300$ price tag.

RTX 4090 : RTX 4090
RTX 4080 : RTX 4080
RTX 4070 Ti : RTX 4070
RTX 4070 : RTX 4060 Ti
RTX 4060 Ti : RTX 4060
RTX 4060 : RTX 4050
First time in a while I've agreed with you, but yeah it'd be much less awful if'n they followed your naming scheme. It would have better reflected the cards performance relative to previous generations.
 
Names don't matter. Even if they would name 4090 a 4050 that wouldn't make any change to perf/price.

I think I'd have been happier with those names even without a price change (although obviously lowered pricing in line with the names would have been better). At least then we would have a much clearer generational leap at each tier that aligbs better with previous generational uplifts and would just have to get used to the fact that each tier has gone up massively in price. It would seem more... honest, than the current scheme.
 
9 years ago nVidia sold a GTX960 card for $199 with a 200mm^2 die, 128bit, 2GB. Alone CPI put this card at $260 in 2023.

Now you get a 156mm^2 5nm die, 128bit and 8GB for $299. There is nothing wrong about the price. Its just average and domain specific inflation which makes this card so expensive.
It's telling that you had to cherry pick one of the worst releases you could find from a very specific architecture release that had bloated die sizes due to still using an old(at the time) 28nm process which allowed them to keep costs down even on the relatively larger dies.

The 960 was widely considered to be a very disappointing part. It still technically sold well thanks to its popular inclusion in like 90% of prebuilts at the time, but it was not a part anyone informed would readily recommend, especially in the face of AMD's superior alternatives.

This might honestly be the only place on the internet where anybody is seriously trying to ignore the reality of what's going on in order to put in place some distorted view that Nvidia's pricing is actually just fine. It's just wild and really makes this place seem like it's not really the place to be to have informed discussion outside any deeper technical areas.
 
The only 'tier' in existence worth talking about is the pricing tier. The rest are just people being tools for marketing depts.

Surely actual performance is also relevant.

The way I see it there are a number of tiers we can categorise GPU's into such as:

Price
Performance (relative to each other, last gen, and the competition)
Power Draw (relative to the rest of the current lineup)
Chip size (relative to the rest of the current lineup)

And then naming scheme should be applied based on the above characteristics, ideally following historical trends as a way of informing the consumer.

Clearly the needle has moved this generation on Price vs the others, and if the genuine reason for that is increased costs then I'd prefer the IHVs were honest about that and just increasd the pricing at each naming tier.

Instead I feel they're trying to obfuscate the pricing increase by rearranging the naming scheme. Essentially trying to fool less informed customers into thinking they're getting a higher end GPU (relative to the current and last gen stacks) than they actually are.
 
Surely actual performance is also relevant.
Which is where perf/price comes from naturally.

People should really stop seeing various "tiers" in marketing namings and start looking at what the same price gets you - adjusting this for inflation maybe which is in fact quite sizeable when comparing modern GPUs to something like Pascal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top