DegustatoR
Legend
Yeah, the card is probably the worst in perf/price gains over Ampere gen.Reviews of the 4060Ti are a great laugh. What an awesome deal for $400.
Yeah, the card is probably the worst in perf/price gains over Ampere gen.Reviews of the 4060Ti are a great laugh. What an awesome deal for $400.
No, it's pretty much as bad as anything else in the Lovelace lineup. It's a consistently ridiculously terrible lineup of GPU's, all doing the same thing of selling lower end GPU's at higher end prices and trying to legitimize it with their renamings.Yeah, the card is probably the worst in perf/price gains over Ampere gen.
Again, I know you're not dumb enough to believe what you're saying here. 'Cost per transistor' isn't an actual thing. Costs are based on wafers. And there's a significant difference in the amount of usable dies you get from a smaller die compared to a larger die, which is why small dies are used in low end products and large dies are used in high end products. Vast difference in overall yields.AD106 will probably end up being about 24B of Ts? This puts it closer to GA102's 28.3B than GA104's 17.4B. Do any of these dies look "low end" to anyone?
I just bought a 4070, and it's a impressive card, but it's not what a $600 card should be IMO. Would decent at $450.Nvidia are just continuing the shift down of the stack, using the premise of super resolution and frame generation as the benchmark for price/performance.
They're all good cards really, the power efficiency is great. The 4060 would have been a nice 4050 for $150.I just bought a 4070, and it's a good card, but it's not a good $600 card IMO. Would be a decent $450 card.
Yes, I think even $200-$250 would be fair. Actually I'm thinking of the 4060Ti. The 4060 should not be more than $200 IMO.They're all good cards really, the power efficiency is great. The 4060 would have been a nice 4050 for $150.
I know what I'm saying here and it's not me who's dumb to not listen and resort to constant personal attacks instead of providing any sort of relevancy to the discussion.Again, I know you're not dumb enough to believe what you're saying here.
Yes, it is.'Cost per transistor' isn't an actual thing.
Are you selling wafers in your GPUs?Costs are based on wafers.
Yields don't tell us anything about a cost of some chip made on some wafer either. You have to know the cost of the wafer and the yield to know how much a chip of some size would cost to make on that wafer.And there's a significant difference in the amount of usable dies you get from a smaller die compared to a larger die, which is why small dies are used in low end products and large dies are used in high end products. Vast difference in overall yields.
I know perfectly well that you made a 100% false claim when you've said that a chip is "low end" because it's ~200mm^2.You know all this perfectly well, of course.
Why not $50 or $5?The 4060 would have been a nice 4050 for $150.
Are you selling wafers in your GPUs?
Nice try. Are you going to defend this inconsistency by pretending the chip size was unknown?Yields don't tell us anything about a cost of some chip made on some wafer either. You have to know the cost of the wafer and the yield to know how much a chip of some size would cost to make on that wafer.
I'm not going to defend anything. The chip size doesn't tell us anything about it market position.Nice try. Are you going to defend this inconsistency by pretending the chip size was unknown?
To believe that a sub 200mm² GPU in the modern market isn't a 'low end' part would really require supreme idiocy. And I dont for a second think you're actually that dumb.I know perfectly well that you made a 100% false claim when you've said that a chip is "low end" because it's ~200mm^2.
How much does the wafer cost?To believe that a sub 200mm² GPU in the modern market isn't a 'low end' part would really require supreme idiocy. And I dont for a second think you're actually that dumb.
You're just dishonest to the bone. You will literally say anything to defend Nvidia.
Come the frick on dude. Who are you trying to fool here? What is wrong with you?
Again, I know you're not dumb enough to believe what you're saying here
You're just dishonest to the bone. You will literally say anything to defend Nvidia.
Please stop your personal attacks and concentrate on the arguments at hand. Your behavior is not conducive to a proper discussion and doesn't actually help your case, stick to the facts in a civilized manner.I know you're not dumb enough to actually believe that
Amazing plan.I'm not going to defend anything. The chip size doesn't tell us anything about it market position.
Indeed. I haven't time to clean up this thread but any future personal attacks will see thread bans.Come the frick on dude. Who are you trying to fool here? What is wrong with you?Again, I know you're not dumb enough to believe what you're saying hereYou're just dishonest to the bone. You will literally say anything to defend Nvidia.Please stop your personal attacks and concentrate on the arguments at hand. Your behavior is not conducive to a proper discussion and doesn't actually help your case, stick to the facts in a civilized manner.I know you're not dumb enough to actually believe that
"Historically" doesn't prove anything for the future. Things change.Yet historically chip sizes corresponded to market positions.
You haven't seen, say, Vega 10 competing with GP104?We never saw bigger chips made for lower segments or vice versa. Can you explain that?
Do you really go through life refusing all inductive knowledge?"Historically" doesn't prove anything for the future. Things change.
You haven't seen, say, Vega 10 competing with GP104?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with the realities of silicon production?Do you really go through life refusing all inductive knowledge?
And how could such a change occur?
So? Now you see AD103 in a $1200 product. What does that tell you?I did see them competing. But to stay on topic, never did I saw for example GP104 in $150 or $1500 products.