Monday, October 26th 2020

Absent of Official Announcement, NVIDIA RTX 3060 Ti Graphics Cards Up for Preorder in China

Chinese marketplace Taobao has a number of retailers listing NVIDIA's RTX 3060 Ti graphics card for pre-order - a graphics card that hasn't officially been confirmed by NVIDIA. The Taobao listings fall within the 2049 to 2999 Yuans (305 to 446 USD) range; however, expectations are that NVIDIA's MSRP for the card won't be above $400. That retailers are already listing the card should all but confirm its existence, and marks an interesting way for NVIDIA to operate, introducing the Ti model before the actual RTX 3060 graphics card.

Current information places the RTX 3060 Ti as using the same 392 mm², 17.4 B transistor GA104 chip as the RTX 3070, albeit under the GA104-200 nomenclature; the chip is expected to leverage 4,864 CUDA cores, 152 Tensor Cores, and 38 RT Cores (the RTX 3070 features 5888, 184, and 46 of these respectively). Base clock is apparently set at 1410 MHz with up to 1665 MHz Boost, and should feature the same 8 GB GDDR6, 14 Gbps memory subsystem as the RTX 3070. The RTX 3060 Ti is expected to launch come mid-November, and perhaps we'll hear more about it when NVIDIA officially introduces the RTX 3070 graphics card.
Sources: Taobao, via Videocardz
Add your own comment

106 Comments on Absent of Official Announcement, NVIDIA RTX 3060 Ti Graphics Cards Up for Preorder in China

#51
RedelZaVedno
kapone32
There is no cartel between AMD and Nvidia (Why do you think TI cards exist). As much as people are focusing on the high end Polaris was a huge success for AMD. AMD is not (in my opinion) going to price the GPUs too high and indeed that is probably why Nvidia dropped prices as the next Gen consoles are going to be $599 US with more modern UI than Intel's best (PCIe 4.0) so they have to have a $300 to $400 variant that must be faster than anything in the consoles simply because of market dynamics. There have been enough lawsuits over the years to confirm that there is no love between AMD and NVidia but the acquisition of ARM will raise eyebrows.
Let me just say Nvidia needs AMD GPUs division to survive, just to not be seen as monopoly by market regulators, by leaving them the console market. Maybe AMD will start to seriously undermine Nvidia profit margins and market share by starting a price war, I really hope so, but as things stand now 50-100 bucks price undercuts (RDNA1) on competing products won't buy them any market share back.
Posted on Reply
#52
Haile Selassie
Testsubject01
Well, well! The next few days might become rather interesting.

Offtopic:


2010 - GTX 470: $349
2010 - GTX 570: $349
2012 - GTX 670: $400
2013 - GTX 770: $399
2015 - GTX 970: $329
2017 - GTX 1070: $379
2018 - RTX 2070: $499
2019 - RTX 2070S: $499

Greedy Customers! ;)

Yes, perspective matters indeed. While the competition was rather mediocre between Nvidia - AMD Radeon for GPUs and Intel - AMD for CPUs, prices in the upper midrange, high end, and enthusiast-level soared upwards objectively.
Yes, indeed perspective matters the most.
Back in 2010 the GTX 470 was the second highest tier card available, akin to RTX 3080 (where GTX 480 was an RTX 3090 equivallent). And the RTX 3080 today 'sells' for $799. In reality closer to 1k USD.
So yes, ten years = 100% price increase at least.
Posted on Reply
#53
Mats
bug
Well, it's natural for people to want more performance at lower prices. But it's a knee jerk reaction to call a seller greedy just because that doesn't happen with every single launch.
Yeah, and it actually happened with the 3070 that stayed at 500USD, or even dropped from the older FE at 600USD, but nobody cares about that because they want moar.
bug
Haters gonna hate, you won't fix that on a forum. And you won;t fix it using logic.
LOL, thanks. I actually needed someone to remind me. (Honestly)
Posted on Reply
#54
RedelZaVedno
Mats
I didn't prove anything, as as you're the only one here who thinks Jensen doesn't know what he's talking about. In your mind it makes sense, I can see that.
Jensen knows exactly what he's talking about, but he surely won't tell the truth out loud to the media and consumers at release press conference. Hell, he's been caught lying to major shareholders on impacts of mining craze on Nvidia's inventories and prices. What we hear as consumers is just a marketing BS trying to maximize sales.
Posted on Reply
#55
Mats
RedelZaVedno
Jensen knows exactly what he's talking about, but he surely won't tell the truth out loud to the media and consumers at release press conference.
That doesn't make him unique in any aspect.
Posted on Reply
#56
evernessince
Mats
Mm yeah, no. Asking $500 for the 3070 isn't greedy, except if the customer is greedy.
Given that the xx70 GPU used to be $330, yeah I'd say $500 is greedy.
Mats
So many people who thinks every new launch will bring bargain prices. Every launch. EVERY TIME.
Greediness goes both ways.
No, people just want reasonable prices again. The notion that customers are being greedy here is ridiculous, I guess the $1,200 2080 Ti was consumer greed as well?
lexluthermiester
But with a 300% increase in performance.

But with a 250% increase in performance.(also without any memory induced performance glitches)

But with a 350% increase in performance.

First card in history to do 8k gaming at solid 60hz. Pay a premium price, get a premium product.

Why is it people always whine about price? Prices have been cut nearly in half as opposed to the RTX2000 cards and yet the RTX3000's are stumping on that gen. Entitled BS.


Right?

People instead of whining, make the personal commitment to spend a bit of time to save money up and get the card you want.
Your numbers are all wrong.

First off you are confusing "increase in performance" with "x% of the performance"

The RTX 2080 Ti is a bit above a 100% performance increase over the 980 Ti, nowhere near the 350% increase you claim

www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-founders-edition/33.html

Second, your 3070 numbers are fabricated. The card hasn't been released and thus performance is unknown.


Last but not least, you can use this logic of comparing performance to much older PC parts to justify any pricing. My current CPU is over 1,000 times the performance of my first ever CPU, I must be a god having only paid $330 for it. Entitled? No, just have common sense. Modern gaming wouldn't exist if performance per dollar didn't increase each generation. Smartphones wouldn't exist, at least not anywhere under 10K, if performance per dollar didn't increase. That performance per dollar increase each generation is not consumer whining, it's the cornerstone of the industry.
Posted on Reply
#57
Gmr_Chick
agatong55
If the rumor is correct and this card is 450$ I'm out, that is crazy price for a low end card unless they are planning on releasing 70 versions like a 3050 or 3055 or something like that but even those cards will 300+
Low end card? Pffft, not even. The xx60 cards have always been mid-tier, perfectly capable GPUs able to run whatever games you throw at it. I wouldn't call that "low end". You want to talk low end, a GT 710 is low end! :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#58
Mats
evernessince
Given that the xx70 GPU used to be $330, yeah I'd say $500 is greedy.
That was several years ago, you're late to the party, that's old news.

1070 FE $450
2070 FE $600
3070 FE $500

No matter what you say, the prices won't go down.
Posted on Reply
#59
nguyen
As the company expands their product porfolio, they have to price their product according to the product stack, not the naming scheme

Maxwell: 950, 960 --> 970
Pascal: 1030, 1050, 1050Ti, 1060 --> 1070
Turing: 1650, 1650 Super, 1660, 1660 Super, 1660 Ti, 2060, 2060 Super --> 2070/S

Now how can Nvidia price 2070 at 350usd when they plan to release 7 GPUs below that ?
So yeah associating naming scheme to price point is just short sighted, price points are better market segmentation indicator.
<200usd: Budget
200-400usd: Mainstream
500-700usd: High-end
>700usd: Ultra high end
Posted on Reply
#60
renz496
kapone32
The fact these are launching in China first does not bode well for us here in North America, Especially if you can preorder one.


We won't know until Wednesday we are also due a Polaris update. AMD and Nvidia are not friends.
they are not friends but both of them want profit. in the past both company already get fined for an attempt to do price fixing for GPU market.
Posted on Reply
#61
Mats
nguyen
As the company expands their product porfolio, they have to price their product according to the product stack, not the naming scheme

Maxwell: 950, 960 --> 970
Pascal: 1030, 1050, 1050Ti, 1060 --> 1070
Turing: 1650, 1650 Super, 1660, 1660 Super, 1660 Ti, 2060, 2060 Super --> 2070/S

Now how can Nvidia price 2070 at 350usd when they plan to release 7 GPUs below that ?
Best post in this thread.

That's way too advanced reasoning for some readers. ;)
Because look: it ends with -70 so it must cost the same for eternity. /s

The same people who call the RTX 3070 a mid range card.. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#62
Versalius02
Mats
Best post in this thread.

That's way too advanced reasoning for some readers. ;)
Because look: it ends with -70 so it must cost the same for eternity. /s

The same people who call the RTX 3070 a mid range card.. :rolleyes:
I second this. Performance at varying prices (or price brackets) is a far better metric to judge advancement of the industry. The naming scheme adopted for each generation is only based on relative performance within that generation, so its relation to the same name of a different generation is not a solid foundation for comparison.

As an example:
I bought a GTX 780 in late 2013 for $500.
I bought an RTX 2070 in late 2018 for $500.

The fact that I went from a x80 series card "down" to a x70 series card at that price point is completely meaningless to me. All that matters is the VERY nice performance increase I got by making that upgrade. Because the name of any particular SKU is determined by its relative performance in the product stack, its name is otherwise arbitrary. They could have called the 2070 the RTX 2080 if they wanted, have the $700 card be called the RTX 2080 Ti and the $1000 card be the RTX 2090 without changing the cards themselves. All this to say the name of the card at each price point doesn't matter, just what performance it offers. That is what should be compared between generations to determine how much progress the industry in making.
Posted on Reply
#63
Quicks
Where do people get that the RX470 released at R349$ ?
RX 470, it’s dropped $10 to $169, from the original MSRP of $179
www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-rx-47-460-msrp/

The people defending 400$ for video card is reasonable must be recruits for Nvidia or AMD to justify this madness. I think these companies had it too good when cryptocurrencies was a thing and now want to relive it each year!
Posted on Reply
#64
Zach_01
lexluthermiester
First card in history to do 8k gaming at solid 60hz. Pay a premium price, get a premium product.

Why is it people always whine about price? Prices have been cut nearly in half as opposed to the RTX2000 cards and yet the RTX3000's are stumping on that gen. Entitled BS.
8K 60hz or FPS what are you saying here, its confusing...

But this is not:


And the 3090 is not a TItan, because Jensen's BS marketing is calling it "Titan level performance".

It doesnt have Titan name, it doesnt have Titan drivers and performance. If its a Titan dont be shy nVidia... call it a Titan.

The 3090 is a misleading product constructed to be presented as the new Titan with a fake 1000$ discount, but in reality its a 2080Ti replacement with high VRAM capacity and a +50% MSRP price hike. And they manage to do this by cutting the 3080 down to 10GB. Its very smart to present your next flagship GPU with 1GB less VRAM from previous 2080Ti 11GB just to promote a 24GB with a lost among marketing identity.

Nice try Jensen!

And some misleaded users seeing the 24GB and think its a bargain.
3090 is better against 3080... +5% at 1080p, 8% 1440p, +10% 4K.
For 100+% MSRP price hike!

Its just Jensen's good business but not a Titan.
Posted on Reply
#65
Ibotibo01
I used RTX 2070S performance against RTX 2080Ti for RTX 3060 Ti's predicted performance.


Core count of RTX 3080 is 8704, RTX 3060 Ti is 4864, RTX 2080 Ti is 4352, RTX 2070S is 2560.
Core count of RTX 3060 Ti / RTX 3080s = RTX 2080 Ti/RTX 2070S (almost same)

In performance,
RTX 2070S/RTX2080Ti = 62/81 = 0.765
RTX 3060 Ti/RTX3080 = 0.76

So, RTX 3060Ti will be between RTX2080S and RTX2080Ti. Also RTX 3060 will be equal to RX 5700 XT. RTX 3070 will be equal 2080 Ti.
RTX 3060 Ti = RTX2080S+9%
Posted on Reply
#66
lexluthermiester
RedelZaVedno
It's actually not that simple.
Yes, it is.
RedelZaVedno
We need market regulators to step in when market is not functioning properly
No, we don't need that, the market is just fine.
KaitouX
Would you say that the 1050Ti able to do 4K gaming at solid 60hz?
No, I wouldn't. That is an absurdly silly comparison... The more correct comparison would be 1080ti doing 4K.
KaitouX
If not, then the 3090 also isn't able to do 8K, DLSS is extremely limited to a few titles and isn't native, so even if the quality is better in the end it still is upscaling from a lower resolution.
Oh really?
Let us know if you need help getting that foot out of your mouth..
Zach_01
8K 60hz or FPS what are you saying here, its confusing...
What's confusing? If you are truly confused by that statement, there's nothing I can do to help you. You're on your own.
Posted on Reply
#67
Testsubject01
Haile Selassie
Yes, indeed perspective matters the most.
Back in 2010 the GTX 470 was the second highest tier card available, akin to RTX 3080 (where GTX 480 was an RTX 3090 equivallent). And the RTX 3080 today 'sells' for $799. In reality closer to 1k USD.
So yes, ten years = 100% price increase at least.
Indeed! It was the second-highest tier available but still marketed as just high-end. The reason was, that the first iteration of Fermi (aka Thermi) was a burning electric furnace and they could not support anything past the GTX 480 (Enthusiast card), which also was a cut-down version due to the problems.

All that was kinda rectified with the revision of Fermi by the end of the same year (2010) with the Geforce 500-series, which introduced the GTX 570, GTX 580, and GTX 590.
The latter was marketed as the flagship card of the architecture and thous the card you would rather rate as the "Titan-class" / RTX 3090 equivalent.
Funnily enough, the GTX 580 was $499 MSRP and the "two sandwiched GTX 580 on one PCB"-GTX 590 was "just" $699 MSRP.

One could also argue with performance, that the GTX 560 Ti was technically the successor of the GTX 470, which was released at $289.
So yeah, perspective. I chose to compare the SKU over the years, one might instead compare performance-, price-, marketing- tiers.

But regardless of the choice, building a high end- / enthusiast-tier system equivalent to 2010 with today's high end- / enthusiast-tier hardware you are paying for more than just inflation, new production tech and R&D-recuperations, you are also paying for the monopoly NVIDIA effectively enjoys.

At that point, one simply can't and shouldn't argue anymore that the customer is greedy by disapproving and criticizing the rising prices, which was the reason for the post in the first place.
Posted on Reply
#68
lexluthermiester
evernessince
Your numbers are all wrong.
My numbers are based on TPU's benchmark data available here on the site for anyone to view. You got a problem with those numbers? Take it up with W1zzard. But just for the record, W1zzard has much more credibility that you do.
evernessince
First off you are confusing "increase in performance" with "x% of the performance"
I sure am not. I was offering a comparison of the percentage of performance increase to contrast the percentage of price increase offered by that user.
evernessince
The RTX 2080 Ti is a bit above a 100% performance increase over the 980 Ti, nowhere near the 350% increase you claim
Oh? Go read some reviews and recalculate your numbers. The 1080ti kicked the crap out of the 980ti and the 2080ti nearly did the same to the 1080ti.
evernessince
Second, your 3070 numbers are fabricated. The card hasn't been released and thus performance is unknown.
You need to pay closer attention to detail, because the 2070 was also included in that comparison and that's what I was referring to. Lets face facts, the 3070 is going to do to the 2070 what the 3080 did to the 2080. So while those EXACT numbers aren't yet know, it's a very safe bet the 3070 is going to kick ass.
EDIT; Looks like the numbers ARE known:
Hmm..
evernessince
Last but not least, you can use this logic of comparing performance to much older PC parts to justify any pricing.
No the other user did that, I was simply pointing out how absurd it is, just like your attempt at retort.
Posted on Reply
#69
Chrispy_
Gmr_Chick
Low end card? Pffft, not even. The xx60 cards have always been mid-tier, perfectly capable GPUs able to run whatever games you throw at it. I wouldn't call that "low end". You want to talk low end, a GT 710 is low end! :laugh:
If a current-gen xx60 card cannot run a game at or near max graphical fidelity with reasonable framerates, then the game is the problem. Something like 80% of all PC gamers will have worse GPU than the current gen xx60 card.

Take a vanilla 1660. There's almost no AAA game on the market that won't run 1080p60 at high settings or better.
Literally the first Google result (and an example of a game that's the problem - Remedy's Control runs like garbage on everything and its visuals don't even remotely justify how low the framerates are. 4K completely unplayable even on the 2080Ti flagship at launch, and visuals that are similar in style but, in my opinion, far worse than 2016's DeusEx: MD that runs much better despite also being criticised as being poorly optimised and demanding on hardware of its day).

EDIT:
I just had a quick scan of the Steam hardware survey. If you take the 1660Super (the current xx60 series card) then 92% of all Steam gamers have worse, and that's already a skewed metric that's biased towards people with higher-end GPUs than the global average.
Posted on Reply
#70
Zach_01
lexluthermiester
What's confusing? If you are truly confused by that statement, there's nothing I can do to help you. You're on your own.
I love how you bypassed that GamersNexus video screenshot and giving Linus's 1 game to call the fake Titan 3090 8K gaming card.
Especially when that video states clearly its nVidia sponsored! :laugh:
:shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#71
BoboOOZ
JMccovery
You could call it pure greed if the costs related to production stayed the same or were cheaper, but with more expensive process technologies and cost increases due to COVID, things are going to be more expensive.
The biggest price hikes with the lowest performance gained came with Turing. There was no COVID back then. It was just greed + quasi-monopolistic position.
Posted on Reply
#72
AusWolf
RedelZaVedno
I agree, that's why I say we need functioning antitrust laws. Just 2 asymmetrical market players is simply not enough for functioning market. I really hope Intel entering the market changes that. Apple is a bit different, because there still is fierce competition on the premium phone market like Samsung and Huawei so cartel deals between players are not as likely.


It's actually not that simple. We need market regulators to step in when market is not functioning properly or consumers get F... because cartel deals are formed, leaving consumer no option but to buy a product at elevated prices in the end.
I don't believe Apple is different at all. With their iOS, they created a strong fan base who wouldn't abandon them even if their phones cost 10x as much (whether they're any good is a different story). The same way, an nvidia fan would never ever buy an AMD graphics card. AMD's fan and buyer base is a lot smaller, thus nvidia's prices are dictated purely by the market, not by product value or competition. They can sell their products for as much as they want, because people are gonna buy them no matter what.

I really can't blame nvidia in this game, as in their position, I would do the exact same thing. If I really had to blame someone, it would be the fans.
Posted on Reply
#73
Rei
Zach_01
And the 3090 is not a TItan, because Jensen's BS marketing is calling it "Titan level performance".

It doesnt have Titan name, it doesnt have Titan drivers and performance. If its a Titan dont be shy nVidia... call it a Titan.

The 3090 is a misleading product constructed to be presented as the new Titan with a fake 1000$ discount, but in reality its a 2080Ti replacement with high VRAM capacity and a +50% MSRP price hike. And they manage to do this by cutting the 3080 down to 10GB. Its very smart to present your next flagship GPU with 1GB less VRAM from previous 2080Ti 11GB just to promote a 24GB with a lost among marketing identity.

Nice try Jensen!

And some misleaded users seeing the 24GB and think its a bargain.
3090 is better against 3080... +5% at 1080p, 8% 1440p, +10% 4K.
For 100+ MSRP price hike!

Its just Jensen's good business but not a Titan.
While I'm saying this from a perspective-based observation, I do believe that the 3090 is a Titan-class GPU & a Titan replacement just cuz there hasn't been an x90 since GTX 690 which was a dual-GPU setup which Titan replaced. Titan always had significantly more VRAM than GeForce (except for Titan X & Titan Xp which only had an extra 1GB over 1080 Ti) & while Titan still outperform above the best of their respective GeForce generation, but always not by much, kinda like going xx70 to xx80. This to me seems like Nvidia is bringing back xx90 nomenclature to replace Titan GPUs. Even the pricing is much like a Titan GPU.
Posted on Reply
#74
BoboOOZ
Guys, it's not a Titan, it;'s a BF GPU

Posted on Reply
#75
Rei
BoboOOZ
The biggest price hikes with the lowest performance gained came with Turing. There was no COVID back then. It was just greed + quasi-monopolistic position.
Except at the time, the "price hike" came from Nvidia's investment into the new RT cores & Tensor cores to offset processing from the other cores to prevent performance loss. I believe it paid off as Ampere had similar pricing as Turing yet with better RT & Tensor cores as well as much more CUDA cores.
BoboOOZ
Guys, it's not a Titan, it;'s a BF GPU
That's what Nvidia is calling it. Essentially, what Titan is or suppose to be.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment