Reviews: GeForce GTX 1660 Ti testing Galore - MSI, ASUS and Palit

What a comeback!!! Just wow.

You on the other hand...

• 1. never heard of Palit GameRock cards
• 2. pricing depends heavily on country/retailer

Yet you talk about them as "probably the cheapest". Stop embarrassing yourself, please.

 

Most PNY cards sold here are reference PCB cards with good warranty.

He knows nothing about Nvidia is what it is.

 

Seems to be the case, head in the sand in this regard. Bit annoying talking about how something he's never heard of is probably the cheapest option. Why do people talk about something they openly admit not knowing about? Doesn't look clever.

 

I'm just really sad that AMD announces price drops for a 2016 product instead of competing like they should

 

That price drop for 1 card from limited retailers that is out of stock most places.

 

something around 2070 performance at 1660ti prices .....

 

huh? Vega is a horrible architecture. using HBM2 is not sustainable and doesn't lead to any profits.
with the new 7nm process node they can easily release a much better product than Polaris. Navi is a big change for AMD and should be quite different from previous GCNs

RX 580/590 are getting cut, allegedly.

 

Aren't they bargain bucket already?

 

the RX 590 doesn't look great vs the 1660Ti, in some regions the pricing is basically identical while the 1660Ti is much more efficient and faster.
for the RX 580, it's definitely a good deal now, but we already know there's GTX 1660 and 1650 which will probably under-cut the RX 580 as well.

 

AMD has announced up coming price cuts for both the 580 ($199) and 590 ($229).
Rumors are the NAVI may be released as soon as July. We will see.

 

It´s horrible just as he has stated in pretty muhc every single comment he has written about AMD, just simply because in his mind is not an Nvidia card that consumes less than his direct competition at a lower price.... and has Nvidia slapped on it.

HardwareCaps said: ↑
I can tell you why I will never get a Vega GPU. 2 things: Noise and heat.
the Vega cards are well known to be extremely loud and produce quite a lot of heat. not something I would want even if the performance is solid.

EXTREMELY LOUD
QUITE A LOT OF HEAT

So basically take a fact and supersize it; BOOM!

You have a hardware caps comment; not hard to follow to be honest

 

Vega 56 performance card at an official $269 on 7nm with lower heat and power consumption would be nice. Would also be nice if it was just shy of vega 64 performance at the same price point or say $299, with again 7nm with lower heat and power consumption then current vega 56.

There is a lot that could be asked for. I don't think anyone would br upset with inbetween vega 56 and 64 performance for around $300 and less heat and power consumption then current AMD offerings.

Not everyone has a 1070 or up performance card, and not everyone is interested in paying 400 and up to get it.

 

Something that will take same performance spot while being much cheaper to produce.

Here's the funny thing. When people say that AMD makes almost nothing on Radeon 7 due to 16GB of HBM costing around $320. (Which anyone can track down to original source in time of Vega 64 release as "Worst case Scenario Guess" expecting that 2x4GB HBM2 could cost up to $160.)
But, what would Vega 56/64 manufacturing cost be like, if just 2x4GB HBM2 did cost $160 even today? 2x4GB HBM2 likely costs under $100 now. Otherwise we would not see Vega 56 even at that promotional price.

Navi should take spot of everything in range of Vega 64 and under, just so AMD can keep reasonable profit margins. AMD promised through words of Lisa Su, that we are going to get updates. And that's one person in AMD I trust.

 

using HBM based GPU on any mass market product right now, is basically throwing money away.

I highlighted the key words there. was talking obviously about my personal opinion as I really care about heat output and noise.
even if we disgard these issues. as I said, HBM2 is not viable for a mass market product. it makes no sense. it is well known that AMD barely makes any money out of Vega. the Crypto Craze actually helped AMD a lot to regain some of the losses from Vega.

also trying to portray me as a Nvidia fanboy makes little sense, just go to any RTX news and see my comments.
let me tell you something, I was very blunt about what I think about the RTX failure.
same goes for Intel.

 

Well the failure in my eyes is the fact that they got to this situation in the first place. when we are talking about high end parts especially, the memory while consuming decent amount of power doesn't consume as much relative to the core itself. Nvidia can scale very efficiently their CUDA cores with GDDR memory and stay in a reseasonable range of TDP. that's not true for AMD.
I think Polaris was a great step in the right direction, if you look at what AMD focused it was first and foremost efficiency, which I felt was the right design choice. this is why Polaris looks far more competitive.
then came Vega which was the opposite, we can't get good efficiencies so let's use super rare and expensive memory that is clearly not ready for mass production for consumer product. that's a poor choice IMO