• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

GT 1030 DDR4 review ***stay clear of it ***

jigger said:
I felt the GTX 1060 3gb should have been called the GT 1060. I think this card should be named the G 1030.
Click to expand...
Nvidia go out of their way to forcefully call that the lower spec 3GB card a 1060 despite it should have been a called 1050Ti, because they know that non-casual gamers in general will not considering thing lower than a "60 card" from Nvidia. By calling it a "60 card" alone would help shift more of those cards.
 
Really bad form and makes a mockery of the GPP “consumer clarity” excuse.

The only saving grace is if AIB partners can produce a single-slot, low-profile, passively cooled model for HTPC duties. Still should have been called 1020 though.
 
slightly off topic, but I think the 1060 6gb should have been the 1060ti and the 3gb just the 1060.

It does annoy me though, we've got 2 very obvious cases of NVidia trying to trick customers into buying a product that they think is a different product. And possibly about to be a 3rd example with the 1050 3gb
 
StarShock said:
slightly off topic, but I think the 1060 6gb should have been the 1060ti and the 3gb just the 1060.
Click to expand...
They were obviously holding on to the 1060ti naming just in case they needed to slip in another card to fill in the big performance gap between the 1060 and 1070 (like how that slipped in a 1070ti between the 1070 and 1080).

Like I mentioned prior, should have called them 1050Ti 3GB and 1060 6GB, and all the current 1050ti cards and below should move 1 tier down on the naming.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
They were obviously holding on to the 1060ti naming just in case they needed to slip in another card to fill in the big performance gap between the 1060 and 1070 (like how that slipped in a 1070ti between the 1070 and 1080).

Like I mentioned prior, should have called them 1050Ti 3GB and 1060 6GB, and all the current 1050ti cards and below should move 1 tier down on the naming.
Click to expand...

GTX1060SE 3GB would have been an appropriate name too.
 
You got it all wrong. You sniped GPP, which was the tool to make it more clear for consumer. Now without it, we will be flooded with rejects like 1030 DDR4.
Nvidia was right, man!
 
They definitely should have used the 55/65 monikers to save a lot of the confusion, it would have made the line up so much easier to understand and surely even NVidia would see that as a good thing.
 
bru said:
They definitely should have used the 55/65 monikers to save a lot of the confusion, it would have made the line up so much easier to understand and surely even NVidia would see that as a good thing.
Click to expand...
They should, but they wouldn't...since they want those confusion (boardline lying) in place for selling a low tier card at higher tier prices. Calling the 1060 3GB works better for Nvidia than calling it 1055 3GB in terms of selling at a higher price point for example.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
They should, but they wouldn't...since they want those confusion (boardline lying) in place for selling a low tier card at higher tier prices. Calling the 1060 3GB works better for Nvidia than calling it 1055 3GB in terms of selling at a higher price point for example.
Click to expand...

OK you might be right, but why do we think this. Is it just because they that daft but it fits in with the need to bash NVIDIA, or are they really that devious, sadly I think it is the latter.

What makes this worse, is if it was the red team, I think most of us on here would think, yup they really are that daft.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom