170W If I'm understanding this right, because of the 192 bit bus width, only 6GB or 12GB are possible (6x 1GB or 6x 2GB VRAM chips), they probably deemed 6GB not enough for this card, and since 1.5GB GDDR6 chips are not being manufactured, something in-between, 9GB, wouldn't be possible. The same applies for the other cards, 256 bit bus width on the 3060 Ti and 3070 means only 8GB or 16GB (8x 1GB or 8x 2GB chips), the 320 bit bus width on the 3080 means only 10GB or 20GB, and the 384 bit bus width on the 3090 means only 12GB or 24GB.
A 12gb card would've been very useful for VR. But this 3060 probably has the same raw performance as a 1080 ti. However, a card with this level of performance is not anymore enough for the newer VR headsets.
Not really, VR relies more on the CPU than the GPU. Even say a 1070 level card today wouldn't have any major issues with VR.
They simply wanted more than 6gb but cant do 8 or 10 due to constraints with the 192-bit bus. So its either 6 or 12gb.
maybe they should stop using 192bit on xx60 series i can under stand if for xx50 and lower but the xx60? i can not
Yep. If 1.5GB GDDR6 chips existed, they could have gone with 9GB for the 3060, 12GB for the 3060 Ti and 3070 and 15GB for the 3080, but unfortunately they don't. I'm guessing that supporting a 256 bit bus width on the GA106 GPU would have costed more than using 2GB chips on the 3060.
Nope. I use a 9700k with a 1070 and Quest 2 for PC VR. I can only run PC VR games at about 40 to 50 fps with a resolution sale of just 80% on medium to high settings or 100% on low to medium settings. The 8gb of my 1070 is already being used at 98%+. The thing about VR is that super sampling is very important for image/graphics quality since your eyes are so close to the screen. That's why these VR headsets are capable of up to 200% resolution scale via super sampling and this demands a lot of graphics power as well as VRAM.
Probably because research shows people will be the card with more VRAM regardless of actual performance.
Its a marketing spec more than a useful performance spec. Nvidia has done this before with weak cards, most notable on the worst card ever, the infamous FX 5200 which initially had 64mb but they later made 512mb versions which had more vram than the flagship card (256mb). I think AIBs did that. As mentioned, many uninformed buyers see vram as the most important spec.
This card makes no sense, more vram but a lower card in general compared to the ti version i dont get it.
TDP is much higher compared 10 series. GTX 1060 120 W. GTX 1080 180 W. RTX 3060 170 W. GTX 3080 320 W.
TDP is the price of the big increase in performance from the 20 series to the 30 series. Despite the increase in TDP when comparing 2 cards from the same range, the 30 series are more efficient than the 20 and the 10 series (higher performance per watt). RTX 3060 (170W), probably around a similar tier of performance or slightly weaker than the 2070 Super (215W) and 1080 Ti (250W). When it comes to TDP, I guess the 3050 Ti could be the 1060 and 1660 Ti replacement? Rumors that it'll have 6GB of VRAM also.
I would say this is a dumb thing to do as far as gaming goes but since these cards are going to miners 98% of the time right now anyway, it really doesn't matter what gamers think right now. hopefully by the time inventory is under control and gamers can actually buy these cards, Nvidia will have cards that actually make sense for gamers to buy, like a 3080/3080Ti with a sensible amount of ram.
almost 2x more shader cores than my RTX 2060 which I sold for £310 on ebay just before Christmas. NICE DEAL.
@ezodagrom I currently have a GTX 1060 6GB and my plan was to get RTX 3060, but maybe a 3050 Ti would be a better replacement in terms of TDP and price, if there will be an 8GB variant. Will have to wait and see what the prices will be in EU for RTX 3060, that's if we can even find in stock. If I'm upgrading, the next card needs to have at least 8GB of VRAM.
