NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 to Ship in Six Variants Based on Memory Size and Type

[HZCH]

Confusing AF

What the hell where they thinking? And this 3gb RAM for a midrange card is an insult.

Hopefully for future buyers, it might be fake...

 

[Vayra86]

In the real world, GTX 1060 3GB works just fine for an entry mid-range card, and that's what the experience tells us.

Comparing Kepler directly to Turing is not fair, newer GPU architectures are more efficient.

You said it right. Entry midrange. Bottom barrel. And releasing a similar 3GB 'next gen' means it has dropped lower than that.

If that is something you feel comfy spending ~200 bucks on, by all means. I'd suggest spending 220~240 to get double VRAM and more consistency alongside higher performance. These 2060's are going to present a choice along those lines and we all know they will, so let's stop fooling each other. This is a typical penny wise / pound stupid trade off.

 

[M2B]

Why is 4GB okay and 3GB not?
Different GPUs have different levels of compression, and different ways of allocating and managing memory.

4GB allows you to use Ultra/High quality textures in most games where the Ultra textures is out of reach on a 3GB card in newer AAA titles. sometimes you need to put the texture quality on medium to avoid stuttering and other problems on a 3G card.
That extra 1GB of memory makes a noticeable difference.

"Different GPUs have different levels of compression"
That's mostly about memory bandwidth and not the frame buffer.
You can't use better textures on a 3GB card vs another 3GB card and say "my GPU has better memory compression".
In Real-World scenarios it won't work like that.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

In the real world, GTX 1060 3GB works just fine for an entry mid-range card, and that's what the experience tells us.

Comparing Kepler directly to Turing is not fair, newer GPU architectures are more efficient.

6 GiB version of GTX 1060 outsold the 3 GiB versions 2:1. What does that tell you? Now we're almost 2.5 years later. I wouldn't be surprised if it shifts to 4:1 to 8:1 with the RTX 2060.

Why? I already explained it to you: the 32-bit barrier is gone. Games aren't treading lightly with their memory footprint anymore. Xbox One X ports have access to 11 GiB RAM + VRAM. As the next generation of consoles launch, it's going to go even higher. 3 GiB is like a person with a broken leg: they'll live but not well. Games want more memory. Run out and framerate tanks.

 

[ShurikN]

Buying 3GB in 2019 is buying for yesterday, not tomorrow. There is zero future-proofing with it. Which would be fine if that was a $120 card. In reality it'll be around $300.
Some games will work fine, but most visually high-end titles will struggle.
Battlefield 5 is already unplayable at 1080p with less than 4GB VRAM.

 

[CandymanGR]

Yes, but still people here try to persuade the rest of us that.. "3gb is just fine". Like we haven't seen ourselves how far this is from the truth.
But nobody of these people would actually buy such a card. Its funny, people with 2080's telling to other members that "3gb is fine".
But hey.... they are 'experienced", they know all and the rest of us we are ignorants.

P.S. Yes, i am being sarcastic.

 

[Tatty_Two]

6 GiB version of GTX 1060 outsold the 3 GiB versions 2:1. What does that tell you? Now we're almost 2.5 years later. I wouldn't be surprised if it shifts to 4:1 to 8:1 with the RTX 2060.

Why? I already explained it to you: the 32-bit barrier is gone. Games aren't treading lightly with their memory footprint anymore. Xbox One X ports have access to 11 GiB RAM + VRAM. As the next generation of consoles launch, it's going to go even higher. 3 GiB is like a person with a broken leg: they'll live but not well. Games want more memory. Run out and framerate tanks.

To be fair, that was not just due to the increased memory but possibly the 128 more shader units the 6GB version had, it was just a faster card even when not using the additional memory for some 40 or 50$ more...……. the combination of both just made so much more sense for those who could stretch to the additional cost.

 

[EarthDog]

To be fair, that was not just due to the increased memory but possibly the 128 more shader units the 6GB version had, it was just a faster card even when not using the additional memory for some 40 or 50$ more...……. the combination of both just made so much more sense for those who could stretch to the additional cost.

Indeed....if anyone knew about it. That wasn't exactly advertised much. Prospective buyers would have to know or look and compare specs. Most looking at these see '6GB more than 3GB' and think it's better. You give consumers too much credit.

 

[bug]

This is off topic (if this thread ever had one), but I was just looking at some ads for laptops. The GPU model wasn't even mentioned, it was "Nvidia graphics with 4GB of RAM". A bit scary imho.

 

[phill]

Has Nvidia gone mad?? So much effort for a middle of the road card, I just don't get it...

 

[micropage7]

sometimes i feel like they poisoning the market, i mean they create small gap to push consumer to add little more money to get higher one

 

[bug]

sometimes i feel like they poisoning the market, i mean they create small gap to push consumer to add little more money to get higher one

Yeah, I hate them for that, too. I mean, before Nvidia, this tactics was almost unheard of. Oh, wait!

 

[Space Lynx]

Can't wait for 7nm AMD gpu's to make Nvidia cry. Sick of this crap.

 

[Vayra86]

sometimes i feel like they poisoning the market, i mean they create small gap to push consumer to add little more money to get higher one

You can go to a random bar in town and find the same trickery in a simple price list of booze. Or even a supermarket where all that matters is where the product is positioned - at eye level or far below.

 

[efikkan]

6 GiB version of GTX 1060 outsold the 3 GiB versions 2:1. What does that tell you?

That means Nvidia sold more GTX 1060 3GB cards than AMD did of RX 400/500 combined (according to Steam survey), so that tells me more people want this than Polaris.

And don't forget the 6 GB version of GTX 1060 is like 5-6% faster too.

Why? I already explained it to you: the 32-bit barrier is gone.

Stop with this nonsense. 32-bit CPUs/OS' have NOTHING to do with memory capacity.

Buying 3GB in 2019 is buying for yesterday, not tomorrow. There is zero future-proofing with it. Which would be fine if that was a $120 card. In reality it'll be around $300.

Some games will work fine, but most visually high-end titles will struggle.

Battlefield 5 is already unplayable at 1080p with less than 4GB VRAM.

Aah, the eternal "future proofing" argument.
I remember all those who bought GCN over Kepler because it was more "future proofing" in Direct3D 12. Then R9 390(X) with 8 GB for "future proofing". And then Fiji with HBM for "future proofing", but then suddenly memory capacity didn't matter any more, because HBM was so glorious. Then Polaris with 8 GB for "future proofing", because memory capacity suddenly mattered again.

In real world it's a balancing act. You'll have to guess your requirements for the immediate future. But taking "future proofing" too far is going to be wasted money in the end. History has proven that paying extra for a lot of "future proofing" has never paid off.

Can't wait for 7nm AMD gpu's to make Nvidia cry. Sick of this crap.

Then prepare yourself for disappointment.

 

[Space Lynx]

Then prepare yourself for disappointment.

sure thing buddy.

 

[Casecutter]

Just to ask, with a 192 Bit bus how would they access 4Gb with only 3 lanes.

 

[efikkan]

Just to ask, with a 192 Bit bus how would they access 4Gb with only 3 lanes.

Two options that I know of:
- Disable one memory controller and use 128-bit, possibly compensate with faster memory.
- Use an imbalanced memory configuration, like GTX 660/660 Ti.

 

[Deleted member 158293]

LOL at 3GB...

*Looks through closet for old 3GB 7970... yup... launched in 2012...*

I don't get it, but ok... guess 2060 is the "Sucker's Edition"..

 

[bug]

Can't wait for 7nm AMD gpu's to make Nvidia cry. Sick of this crap.

Yeah, people have been waiting for that since AMD's nomenclature used four digits.

Edit: Oops, I forgot about the 285.

 

[Vayra86]

That means Nvidia sold more GTX 1060 3GB cards than AMD did of RX 400/500 combined (according to Steam survey), so that tells me more people want this than Polaris.

And don't forget the 6 GB version of GTX 1060 is like 5-6% faster too.


Stop with this nonsense. 32-bit CPUs/OS' have NOTHING to do with memory capacity.


Aah, the eternal "future proofing" argument.
I remember all those who bought GCN over Kepler because it was more "future proofing" in Direct3D 12. Then R9 390(X) with 8 GB for "future proofing". And then Fiji with HBM for "future proofing", but then suddenly memory capacity didn't matter any more, because HBM was so glorious. Then Polaris with 8 GB for "future proofing", because memory capacity suddenly mattered again.

In real world it's a balancing act. You'll have to guess your requirements for the immediate future. But taking "future proofing" too far is going to be wasted money in the end. History has proven that paying extra for a lot of "future proofing" has never paid off.


Then prepare yourself for disappointment.

You can believe whatever you want to believe and if you think 3GB GPUs are the shit in 2019, more power to you. The sales records show a different picture with even the midrange vastly outselling 3GB models with higher capacities. Compare that to the Kepler days where standard high end VRAM was 2GB. Nobody in their right mind bought the 4GB 670 or 680 - simply because games could barely even allocate more than 1.5GB. Today they allocate 6GB and up without issues. Game development has changed a bit. There is a reason 4GB 970's were released when Maxwell popped up (a 25% increase over a similar core power GTX 780(ti)), and that amound doubled for the next gen equivalent, GTX 1070. Its clear as day the balance has completely shifted towards the console norm in terms of VRAM. There is a reason even the midrange RX480 comes in 8GB flavors too.

Explain this, how does 5-6% performance gap translate to half or 25% less VRAM? Where is the balance in that? And why would you *not* suffer a performance hit from such a cutdown when you push data over the same, rather narrow bus?

Common sense, use it, instead of gazing endlessly at performance summaries that reduce all detail to a single percentage and rarely bases it on a fully comprehensive benchmark suite. Reviews are an indicator, not an absolute all encompassing truth. People apparently still didn't get that memo. Its the exception that makes the rule when it comes to VRAM and you only need one edge case to kill the experience.

 

[Gasaraki]

You can easily run almost every single game on a 3GB card at 1080p just fine, but you're gonna lower the texture quality in some games and that's all. the 3GB version is not ideal but is not as usless as some people think, it actually might be a good value card for those needing a fairly powerful GPU and don't care about the maximum quality textures or VRAM related settings.
if the 3GB RTX 2060 is going to be priced under 200$, I don't see a problem but anything higher than 200$ is unacceptable.
8GB VRAM on a 800$ card (RTX 2080) is more disappointing than 3GB on a budget card to me.

OMG, I NEEDS 12GB of RAM!!!

The truth is that if most people game at 1080 (which it is) 3GB of RAM should be enough for the vast majority of games. I game at 3440x1440 and most games don't break 4GB of RAM.

 

[Tatty_Two]

OMG, I NEEDS 12GB of RAM!!!

The truth is that if most people game at 1080 (which it is) 3GB of RAM should be enough for the vast majority of games. I game at 3440x1440 and most games don't break 4GB of RAM.

I struggle to comprehend what games you are playing then. I moved from a 4GB 290X to a 1070 a few months back, I only play one game which is world of tanks and they completely updated their game engine and overnight the 290X on ultra settings moved from an average 2.9Gig usage to 4.4 and that game is hardly demanding even on ultra at my 2560 x 1080.

 

[cyneater]

I love how everyone is triggered with the 3,4 and 6GB?

What about the 11Gb flag ship.... its the same as the last generation... and its an odd number.
12GB would be better or 16gb

Since there is no competition Nvidia could stick there logo on a turd and market that

Where is the blast processing?

 

[kanecvr]

AMD = overheating, power hungry, unstable, bad software, no innovation BUT IT'S CHEAPER!!
NVIDIA = expensive

I really don't get the NVIDIA haters, AMD is pure shit, it's the Walmart variant of video cards

You're kidding right? Latest nvidia software is garbage. AMD adrenalin has better features, includes out of the box OC and fan profiles, runs and feels smoother, is less taxing then geforce experience and launches faster, doesn't nag you to create an account to use some features, and it's been bug free for years - as opposed to nvidia's drivers witch had versions with critical bugs like "forgetting" to spin up your fans when in load, miss-managing GPU voltage, failing to install over stock, signed windows drivers, and so on.

And don't get me started on overheating. My 1080FE would quickly go to 83C and throttle down to 1300mhz, causing it to perform WORSE them my old 1070. I took the FE card back and got a MSI card, witch did pretty much the same thing. I had to buy and install a 100$ cooler to get the card to stop throttling. Same for power usage - the 180w TDP on the 1080 is pure fiction. Under load my 1080 draws 200-240w on it's own (tested with an ampermeter on the 2nd 12v rail on the PSU witch only the video card is using 20 amps x 12 = 240w. I tought the card draws 180w if not allowed to boost, but at stock 1530Mhz it draws allmost 16 amps - 12v x 16a = 192W. If you're refering to the 1060, the yeah - those are cool cards. 70-75C even with cheap, crap coolers - but they are fast cards. They're OK for 1080p, but that's it. The 580 can do a lot better, especially overclocked versions like the XFX 580GTS OC Black edition (that card does get pretty freakin' hot tough).

As for instability - you've never used an AMD card right? I've had a 7950, then two, then a 280x, then bought a second one, and then a 290 (no-x) - they were all rock-solid. I also played around with a Vega64 - and while the max FPS is not as high as on a 1080 (in some games), the minimum FPS and frame times are miles better on the Vega, so much so that most games are noticeably smoother, even tough the framerate is a tiny bit slower. I've been trying to trade my 1080 for a vega64, but guess what - nobody wants to take the trade! The only reason I switched to nvidia is the minding boom witch made AMD cards climb in price to a silly degree. A Vega 64 was twice the price I payed for my 1080, so I said screw that and bought what made sense at the time.

You are DEFINITELY RIGHT on the innovation part tough... AMD needs to get of their asses and release something competitive - not that 590 (i.e. overclocked 580 BULLSHIT). And this both for AMD and Nvidia fans. Left to their own devices, nvidia will end up charging 5000$ for a high end GPU.

For 1080p screens(which most gamers are still using), 3GB is still reasonable.


That will depend on the settings level.

The 470 and 570 are great little cards. And so is the 580. I picked up a 4GB 580 in november for 150$ for my living room PC (i5 2500k @ 4GHz, mATX form factor) and it runs 1080p @ ultra flawlesly. I even play some games in 4k (less demanding ones like civ6 and some oldies). For that price nvidia was ofering a 1050ti witch is significantly slower.