Nvidia Geforce GTX 1060 specifications leaked

The power of the gtx 980 for a rumored $200-250, depending on vram, continues to upend the gaming world.   Who'd a thunk.

Bye, bye RX 480.

Just did. Nice.

I don't think non sli will be an issue for most.   This market segment probably wouldn't anyways and if one does need that performance, just get a gtx 1080.

Ok well first lets get Nvidia officially saying that they don't support sli when it comes out, I'm hearing lot of rumors going around so lets just wait on that.

Secondly, if one gpu is not enough for your needs, then there is room to go up to the next level gpu to get more power.

If nvidia wants to stop people from using its own gpus against it (aka 1060 sli vs 1080) then it has the right to do so, and it sounds like its doing just that.

Now in our defense it is nice to be able to sli 1060 for more power but cheaper than 1080.

And in nvidia's defense every time we do that kind of stuff, its them that ends up paying for it.

Having said all that, single gpu IMHO is always better then multi gpu for multiple reasons, sli scaling, 2 gpus = more possibility of something going wrong, etc.

To each his own, and by that I'm referring to those of us that rather sli 1060, those of us that rather go single gpu 1080 and Nvidia who wants us to pay for their performance.

Edited by DST4ME - 09 Jul 2016 at 7:58am

Well it's obvious why they are not supporting it, and while it is within their right to do so, it doesn't make it any less crappy.

Then again, AMD not making the market competitive is why Nvidia gets away with crap like this. They will continue to do so until they are forced not to gouge. Sadly the lack of competition on the high end leaves all of us wanting power to pay ridiculous premiums for marginal gains, with architecture based around the concept of planned obsolescence.

We desperately need real competition in the gpu market.

Edited by Invader Mig - 09 Jul 2016 at 2:23pm

Originally posted by DST4ME Well hang on there a minute, all things being fair, then we should have never been able to sli lower cards for better performance to begin with. We have been getting a free ride if you will and now its over, while it sucks, it is still fair. All they are asking for is for us to pay for the perfomrance we want. And yes AMD dragging their feet is responsible for this in some ways.

You have to be kidding me. A free ride? I'm sorry man, I respect your opinion usually, but this comment is ridiculous in my opinion. I can't believe you are defending these business practices by calling them fair. They, as a business are legally beholden to their stock holders to maximize profit, but there is nothing "fair" about it.

They, as a virtual monopoly are price gouging to ludicrous levels. They just released a new sli bridge that offers better performance, but kill SLI on the mid range, and reduce sli to a max of dual on the current high end. The next gen will come with 3x sli so if you want that then pay more.

If the prices for what they were giving us were actually "fair" then I'd agree, but they are far from it. I don't root for billion dollar corporations the same way I would a sports team, because the consumers best interest is far from their first concern. This goes for AMD, Intel, Nvidia or any company. They are in an advantageous position and since they are not currently being challenged, can do whatever they please. The notion of attaching the word "fair" to what they are doing is absolutely mind blowing to me. "Obvious", "Sensible", "Smart". These words I can agree with, but certainly not fair.

I pay the premium because I'm a framerate whore. 60fps is the minimum framerate I consider tolerable, but it's far from ideal. Triple digit framerates is where I like to game. Also Gsync > Freesync so the choice is pretty much made for me. That doesn't mean I enjoy having my wallet raped or would even entertain the notion that what is happening is fair.

Maybe you could clarify further so I can understand your point better, because I can't wrap my head around what I just read.

Originally posted by DST4ME Whether the price we are paying is a fair price is a different argument than whether a company has the right to make you pay for the next level product if that is what you need. We used the same exact argument back in the Cassette and cd days for how much music album cost, that you are using now. Are they price gouging, yes to a point, is that fair, no. Is it fair for them to ask you to pay more for higher performance? yes, is the price they are charging for that higher performance fair? probably not. but one has nothing to do with the other when we are talking about what is fair and not, I mean it does and it doesn't, if you catch what I'm saying.

You said we should have never been able to SLI lower cards for better performance to begin with, and that our "Free Ride" is over. That is always how it's been since the inception of lower end mutli gpu configs. The tradeoffs being dealing with SLI/xfire and your lack of upgrade paths in the future. That's the point. So I can't agree or even understand how those words even make the slightest bit of sense.

I was responding directly to your quote. You are right, what's fair and what is legal isn't the same. That is the exact argument I made, not you. That is why I offered up a set of words that I'd agree with. Obvious, sensible and smart being the three.

They are gimping options they have always offered, forcing people to purchase cards with highly inflated prices and extremely low availability. They can do this because they have no competition in the high end segment. This is as clear cut of an example you'll find of price gouging. It's a predatory practice, and while it's legal, the use of terms like "fair" and "free ride" just blow my mind.

This seems to be more an issue of wording than anything else; and if that is in fact the case then perhaps you can understand why I would see such language as extremely confusing.

Originally posted by DST4ME I feel as tho you are not understanding what I'm saying. the price they are charging has nothing to do with my argument. I'm simply saying a company has the right to tell you that if you want a 4 door car instead of the 2 door than you have to pay more for it. and if they allowed you before to connect 2 cheaper cars together to get a 4 door and now they no longer want to allow you to do that, then that is fair also, due to the fact that you should have never been able to connect 2 card together, it was them that allowed and they can take it back. The price they charge for their product has nothing to do with the above. I agree they charge too much for their product and that is not fair. I agree they are cornering the market and taking advantage of not having a real competition and that is not fair.

That line there again "due to the fact that you should have never been able to connect 2 card together". They brought that tech for the express purpose of connecting two cards together to improve performance, and now that they choose to limit that ability for the express purpose of price gouging, and it's fair because what Nvidia giveth Nvidia taketh away.

Yea, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.

Originally posted by DST4ME Yes IM, I think it is fare that what Nvidia giveth Nvidia taketh away. I think the difference here is that I look at sli as a technology nvidia decided to make available in certain products, it belongs to higher end cards, but in order to compete they made it available to lower end cards. Now they have decided to stop support for the lower end. It sounds to me like you think nvdia owes you sli on all cards because they gave it to you before, basically opposite of "what Nvidia giveth Nvidia taketh away", "what Nvidia giveth Nvidia oweth" If that is the case then ya we gonna have to agree to disagree. The price tho we are in full agreement. We do disagree a lot but I too do respect your knowledge and point of view.

I never even remotely eluded to the fact that Nvidia owed anyone anything. It is their "prerogative" to take away what they once made available.

The point I made from the very beginning is that the reason they are doing so is for the express purpose of price gouging. Price gouging is a predatory practice that does not benefit consumers in any way shape or form. I am a consumer, so what they are doing directly affects me and everyone who is a customer negatively, because if left unchecked it will only get worse.

As a result, as stated in my other post, we desperately need competition so that this stops. As you said they only brought sli to the low end as a response to competition, which was good for everyone. That competition has evaporated, and now we are where we are, which benefits no one other than Nvidia.

Price gouging while legal, is shady as hell. There are many examples of business practices that are legal, but negatively impact consumers. While it is their right to do what they are doing, it is also my right to call a spade a spade.

For the record I also respect your opinion and the good you do in this community. None of this is an attack on your character. Healthy debate is never bad, so long as it remains civil and it has.   

The no support for sli, is to force people to the higher tier, which is in high demand and has low availability. This allows them to up the price even more due to the simple concept of supply and demand. Even the 1080 doesn't support sli above 2 cards. You want more for things other than benching, wait for 1080ti and Titan. This is definitely price gouging. It's admirable in a way, because from a business perspective it's brilliant. I however, quickly forget that fact when I look at my wallet.

Edited by Invader Mig - 09 Jul 2016 at 7:48pm

No you're absolutely right, the act of not supporting sli isn't price gouging in and of itself, as I said that decision was made for the the purpose of gouging. Which we see on higher models.

On a somewhere related note, it seems like a RX 485 may be coming out at some point. Which I imagine will bring about the 1060 ti with SLI.

ALL ABOARD THE SPECULATION TRAIN!!