NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Put Through AoTS, About 16% Faster Than GTX 1060

[notb]

The thing is, when you only have one or two competitors, you're really, really careful not to ruin them. Otherwise you'd become a monopoly and subject to all sorts of extra attention. It's less of hassle to keep them around.

Exactly like you said and IMO quite a lot of people here don't get this.
No company wants to be a monopolist, unless being owned by the government. Being a monopolist sucks and makes the whole business much more expensive. Not to mention the state would do everything possible to divide such a company anyway.

For Intel it's way more convenient to give AMD their 10% market share - especially if it's not a very interesting part (like HEDT).
We have to wait until AMD gets competitive in mobile solutions, to actually see Intel giving a f...

 

[THANATOS]

have to agree with you there
It has been almost 3 years since the release of the Pascal cards
and yet they charge 20% more for a card that is probably only 16% faster
is this a joke?
This thing should be more of a successor to the gtx 1050Ti and sub 200 usd

GTX1060 is ~68% faster than 1050Ti and costs $210. This card is faster than GTX1060 and should cost under $200? I would love that, but It's unreasonable.

 

[Ruru]

Is this really called 1660Ti instead of 1160Ti?

I find that reasonable, reminds me of 660 Ti back in the day.

 

[Vya Domus]

but It's unreasonable.

More performance for less money after 2 years is now considered unreasonable ? Nvidia sure did their job well.

 

[R0H1T]

The thing is, when you only have one or two competitors, you're really, really careful not to ruin them. Otherwise you'd become a monopoly and subject to all sorts of extra attention. It's less of hassle to keep them around.
Incidentally (and this is just speculation on my side) that's why Nvidia has surrendered consoles to AMD: to provide AMD a lifeline when they were getting hammered on the PC.

That's not even remotely true.

Same here.

 

[cucker tarlson]

it's can't be comparable to 1070 and beat 1060 by 16% only at the same time. 1070 is roughly 1.35x of 1060 6gb. If this is indeed 2060 cut down to 1536 sp I find it hard to believe it's only 1.16x of 1060.

 

[phill]

I think Nvidia need to release a few more in between cards because I'm not sure they have enough...

What a way to confuse the consumer....

 

[cucker tarlson]

I think Nvidia need to release a few more in between cards because I'm not sure they have enough...

What a way to confuse the consumer....

well,it's a new series name (11/16) on a new architecture,moving the new 1160 series to a performance spot of prev gen 1070. Only ones that are gonna be confused here are the ones who are confused by numbers in general.
It's not like selling rx 480,rx580 and rx590 which are basically the same card with +100mhz improvement each and perform within a couple of percent of each other.
Anyway,haven't seen @RejZoR in a while,I would love to hear his commentary on the naming

 

[notb]

That's not even remotely true.

Same here.

Actually he is right and there's quite a lot of stuff that supports it (we have anti-monopoly law and some of us actually had the "pleasure" of living in a real-life experiment).

Why do you think otherwise? Some arguments maybe? Why do you think it's so great to be a monopolist?

 

[silentbogo]

The main issue with this bench is that "Genuine Intel 000" CPU running at 2.1GHz. On DX11 it's handicapping everything else and also hints towards this system being a laptop (e.g. it's GTX1660 Max-Q).
With those clocks the CPU is 99.9% the new core i7-9750H engineering sample (8c/16t, clocks in a ballpark of typical H/HQ variant, probably 4-4.2GHz boost).

 

[notb]

I think Nvidia need to release a few more in between cards because I'm not sure they have enough...

What a way to confuse the consumer....

People interested in benchmarks and architecture will know what is what, so lets put them aside.
People not interested in benchmarks will go to a store and ask a salesman about a PC. And he'll tell them that 1660 is newer and faster than 1060, which is perfectly correct.

What exactly do you find so confusing?

 

[IceScreamer]

I find that reasonable, reminds me of 660 Ti back in the day.

I dunno, after 10-series as listed on their site, ignoring the 20-series, one would think they would use 11-series naming scheme.

 

[bug]

More performance for less money after 2 years is now considered unreasonable ? Nvidia sure did their job well.

More performance for less money when the competition is still a no show - that's unreasonable.

 

[R0H1T]

Actually he is right and there's quite a lot of stuff that supports it (we have anti-monopoly law and some of us actually had the "pleasure" of living in a real-life experiment).

Why do you think otherwise? Some arguments maybe? Why do you think it's so great to be a monopolist?

Except when have anti monopolistic laws worked as intended, classic example - Intel? Sure there's argument to be made when the big companies drive their competitors out of business using unfair trade practices, like predatory pricing, but again I'll refer you to Intel.

Now the assumption that this would lead Nvidia or Intel to be broken up is untrue, or at least murky at best & untested in such instances. Intel is still not the only x86 chip maker, there's Via & Nvidia cannot be termed monopoly just based on their discrete GPU's since that's a really niche market. Technically Intel & Via(?) also make GPU for PC, albeit IGP only.

The point is these companies enjoy higher margins & profits, more than pure market-share. At least that's how I look at it, they'd rather sell things at 10% premium instead of driving the competitors out of business with possibly a long &/or less profitable price war.

 

[Argyr]

The main issue with this bench is that "Genuine Intel 000" CPU running at 2.1GHz. On DX11 it's handicapping everything else and also hints towards this system being a laptop (e.g. it's GTX1660 Max-Q).
With those clocks the CPU is 99.9% the new core i7-9750H engineering sample (8c/16t, clocks in a ballpark of typical H/HQ variant, probably 4-4.2GHz boost).

finally someone not as gullible as the rest on this forum (and elsewhere)
Of course it's a laptop vga.

Let me repeat myself: Nvidia might be "greedy", but not retarded. They are not going to cannibalize their own products. 20 series for Desktop, there's not going to be any 11 or 16 series.

 

[bug]

Except when have anti monopolistic laws worked as intended, classic example - Intel? Sure there's argument to be made when the big companies drive their competitors out of business using unfair trade practices, like predatory pricing, but again I'll refer you to Intel.

Now the assumption that this would lead Nvidia or Intel to be broken up is untrue, or at least murky at best & untested in such instances. Intel is still not the only x86 chip maker, there's Via & Nvidia cannot be termed monopoly just based on their discrete GPU's since that's a really niche market. Technically Intel & Via(?) also make GPU for PC, albeit IGP only.

The point is these companies enjoy higher margins & profits, more than pure market-share. At least that's how I look at it, they'd rather sell things at 10% premium instead of driving the competitors out of business with possibly a long &/or less profitable price war.

You're apparently oblivious to the additional scrutiny that a monopoly "enjoys". And when that scrutiny varies from one country to the next, it makes all the more "enjoyable".

 

[R0H1T]

Someone like AMD dying a "natural death" wouldn't put additional scrutiny on Intel or Nvidia, that's speculation at best. Intel or Nvidia could've chosen to price AMD out of the market, but they didn't because "margins" & bottom-line. This is like making a case for why Apple couldn't be the sole supplier of Mac products.

 

[THANATOS]

More performance for less money after 2 years is now considered unreasonable ? Nvidia sure did their job well.

How much did 1060 cost at launch? $299 for FE and $249 for custom cards If I remember correctly and after 2 years GTX1060 costs $210.
I will say It once more that It's unreasonable to expect a card 16% faster(It should be more) than 1060 to be priced under $200 while the slower older card(GTX1060) costs $210.

If they want this card to have at least the same performance/price ratio as 2060, then the price needs to be $279 but considering no RT I think It will be $249, but we will see.

 

[silentbogo]

Just adding a bit of perspective to my previous post as to what this should be compared to. Couldn't find any DX11 benches for GTX1060 max-q, but here's a GTX1070 max-q paired with i7-8750H(6c/12t predecessor of this 9th gen engineering sample):
https://www.ashesofthesingularity.c...-details/71ad8f42-203e-496f-a902-485b6264c8bc


Scores a measly 4200pts, which brings the advantage from stated 16%(which in reality is over 20% for the highest-scored desktop version of GTX1060 6G in database) to nearly 75% over 1070 max-q[!!!] if we do an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[Vya Domus]

I will say It once more that It's unreasonable

Your logic is based solely on pricing and performance without realizing most of that is dictated by the underlying silicon.

The only time you can really say something like this is unrealistic is when there is an actual technological limitation that prevents them from going under a certain price point. Currently there is no such thing, not when talking about this sort of performance level and not within Nvidia's product stack. Pascal has been sold at absurdly high margins 2 years ago, remember that the 1080 was a mere 300 mm^2 GPU and the 1060 was 200 mm^2.

I am going to say it once more as well, Nvidia did a fine job obliterating consumer expectations. Keep believe that this stuff is "unreasonable", meanwhile Nvidia will get another big fat check and you an ever worse product compared to previous generations without even realizing it.

 

[bug]

Your logic is based solely on pricing and performance without realizing most of that is dictated by the underlying silicon.

The only time you can really say something like this is unrealistic is when there is an actual technological limitation that prevents them from going under a certain price point. Currently there is no such thing, not when talking about this sort of performance level and not within Nvidia's product stack. Pascal has been sold at absurdly high margins 2 years ago, remember that the 1080 was a mere 300 mm^2 GPU and the 1060 was 200 mm^2.

I am going to say it once more as well, Nvidia did a fine job obliterating consumer expectations. Keep believe that this stuff is "unreasonable", meanwhile Nvidia will get another big fat check and you an ever worse product compared to previous generations without even realizing it.

If what you say was true, we'd solve virtually all the problems in economy with a law mandating that no product can be sold for more than, let's say, 10% over its production costs.
Obviously, that doesn't fly. Because your simplistic view of what the value of a product is doesn't fly.

I'm not saying we should applaud Nvidia for their prices. But at the end of the day, the have correctly identified an opportunity to sell for more $$$ and they have taken it. That's all. Personally, I understand Turing prices are mostly dictated by the die size and the lack of a response from AMD and I'm still hoping the move to 7nm will take care of the former. Because I wouldn't want these price hikes to stick.

 

[notb]

Except when have anti monopolistic laws worked as intended, classic example - Intel?

I sense an issue.
We're discussing the main example of this happening. Intel didn't buy AMD because of anti-monopoly regulations (unless you have a better explanation).
But you say that it couldn't have been the reason, because these regulations don't work on Intel.
With this kind of logic we'll never get to anything constructive.

Anti-monopoly regulations don't mean you can't be a monopolist. Their only role is to protect competition, but competition must exist in the first place.
If you're an only supplier of some product (because no one else knows how to do it or isn't interested) you are a monopolist, but anti-monopoly laws don't apply.

In fact legal system is what actually makes monopolies possible through copyright, patents and concessions. ;-)

The point is these companies enjoy higher margins & profits, more than pure market-share. At least that's how I look at it, they'd rather sell things at 10% premium instead of driving the competitors out of business with possibly a long &/or less profitable price war.

So now you're literally accusing Intel and Nvidia of being better at doing business than AMD. Is this really what you intend?
It's like if you accused a runner for winning unfairly, because he trained harder or has better body proportions. Because in your perfect world all runners should have identical bodies and train exactly the same.

Both Intel and AMD can do top-notch CPUs. But Intel is better at selling them. And selling is the core ability in any business.

 

[THANATOS]

Your logic is based solely on pricing and performance without realizing most of that is dictated by the underlying silicon.
.....
I am going to say it once more as well, Nvidia did a fine job obliterating consumer expectations. Keep believe that this stuff is "unreasonable", meanwhile Nvidia will get another big fat check and you an ever worse product compared to previous generations without even realizing it.

I will try once more.
It's unreasonable to expect the soon to be released 1160 to be priced under $200 when It's weaker predecessor with a smaller die size named GTX1060 costs $210 today. If GTX1060 costs $210 today then It's impossible that they will sell this new chip for under $200 unless GTX1060 will get another price cut.
Let's not forget that there is no reason to price It let's say at $199 when the closest weaker competitor RX590 costs $260 or the stronger competitor GTX1070 is priced at $320.

 

[Vya Domus]

It's unreasonable to expect the soon to be released 1160 to be priced under $200 when It's weaker predecessor with a smaller die size named GTX1060 costs $210 today. If GTX1060 costs $210 today then It's impossible that they will sell this new chip for less unless GTX1060 will get another price cut.

You do realize this has happened plenty times by this point right ? The 1060 wont remain forever in production.

The 2070 was sold at a lower price than the 1080ti but had comparable performance , how was that possible accordion to your logic ?

 

[phill]

well,it's a new series name (11/16) on a new architecture,moving the new 1160 series to a performance spot of prev gen 1070. Only ones that are gonna be confused here are the ones who are confused by numbers in general.
It's not like selling rx 480,rx580 and rx590 which are basically the same card with +100mhz improvement each and perform within a couple of percent of each other.
Anyway,haven't seen @RejZoR in a while,I would love to hear his commentary on the naming

That I can understand but I thought the new line was RTX 20xx rather than 1160?? Unless it's a completely cut down version of of the 2060 for example that's going to be half the price or something, I'm not sure I understand the reason for the card?

AMD cards are a bit like it I agree, but they aren't going forward leaps and bounds in performance. It just seems like a bit of a waste to release it from my little brain that was all...