Some 1660 TI Models Could Have 3GB of VRAM

[zkostik]

Biggest advantage is more overhead for higher quality and/or frame rates.

It's elitist to consider any settings below ultra equivalent to console level of graphics. Yes striving for better IQ/frame rates is good, but let's not pretend with some modest settings adjustments you can't get close on IQ/performance for a lot less cost involved in many cases. The 3GB version of the 1060Ti isn't aimed at 4K users and not really aimed at 1440p particularly either. It could selectively handle a bit of both, but it's clearly designed more most cost efficient than the 6GB version and primarily aimed at 1080p where the 6GB version allows it more headroom for those higher resolutions and extreme IQ settings that aren't VRAM vampires that offer a tiny bit more IQ in exchange for reducing performance very noticeably. Provided you don't hamper the VRAM limitation this card should be on par with 6GB version for less money in a lot of cases at it's intended resolution target. There is a point where at too low a resolution too high texture quality is simply a waste of resources from a practical standpoint. I mean you might notice with your face looking at a poster on a wall up close, but if 99.9% you aren't doing that and even then it's barely distinguishable who god damn cares if it costs you a kidney to afford it. The issue is how you went about comparing it to console and associating anything below max IQ to it that's where you come across a a bit of a elitist snob so to speak. There are huge differences from even lower mid range GPU's to console level graphics and performance so it's way off base in that sense. It's just smart to reduce a few settings that are way to performance taxing depending on the game. I mean there are cases where I'd rather suffer a bit of frame rate and input lag for higher graphic quality, but there are cases where performance matters far more. I doubt the 3GB card will be any more on average than the 1060 6GB card at 1080p and that's where it fits in. In fact I think on average it'll come out ahead til you pile on the IQ settings to bloat down the VRAM. On the plus side it should be quicker at swapping around the VRAM capacity it has and rendering frames that the other GPU would lag more due to the core speed, count, ect so there is a balance.

Please reread what I stated in my post. I simply stated that folks who don't want to get involved with a PC and want a simple setup get a console. I didn't say that for 4K you need a PC or you will have a shitty experience. Many games look fine on a console but there's no point arguing that you can have a much more superior setup on a PC as well as more flexibility in settings and performance. Regarding ultra and 4K, I expressed my own expectations and I don't run on mid range hardware. Nowhere did I mention anyone intending to run 4K with that card. New card costs more than previous gen in the same price segment and has less VRAM. This card is several years newer which is a reason many people including myself as dissatisfied with NV decision (this kind of applies to other cards like 2070 and 2080). Whenever virtual VRAM is used there is always a huge performance degradation and you see sudden fps drops as your end up loading resources from much slower RAM and SSD/HDD.

 

[knowom]

I don't see the problem the 3GB card is clearly aimed more at 720p/1080p while the 6GB card is more aimed at 1080p/1440p, but also more expensive. I imagine the 3GB will be a fair amount cheaper so if you are gaming only at 720p/1080p anyway might be a more reasonable purchase if you are on a limited budget. Not everyone can afford to buy SLI Titan card's. I wouldn't buy it myself, but I can see where people might and depends how it holds up in benchmarks. Hell if you are on a budget and a competitive gamer just aiming for the highest FPS and play at low quality settings intentionally this card should scream just as much as the 6GB version. You don't need a enormous VRAM buffer if you drop IQ down in favor of performance. Is it nice to have a bigger one for higher IQ sure, but is it needed or worth the extra money depends on the person and their expectations.

What will the price gap be between the 3 GB vs 6 GB? $50?

I wouldn't have a problem seeing a 3GB 1550 ti or something. For a card as fast a 1070, no way is 3GB enough.

Explain to me how it is more ok for you on a weaker 1550Ti with a weaker more cut down GPU? You do realize that would make the 3GB VRAM worse than on a 1660Ti. I think the point is Nvidia has enough GPU dies kicking around to sell 3GB versions and offer some kind of middle ground between 1060 and 1660Ti at around the same price point depending on how you gauge your own expectations around the VRAM limitation restraint. It comes with benefits and drawbacks, but provides options to consider at least. It's funny AMD gets criticized on Vega 7 for too much VRAM and the cost association and Nvidia gets criticized for too little VRAM on 1660Ti within about a month time span. Let's just wait on the damn reviews and buy it if you like it and it meets your expectations or don't.

 

[Shadowed]

I don't see the problem the 3GB card is clearly aimed more at 720p/1080p while the 6GB card is more aimed at 1080p/1440p, but also more expensive. I imagine the 3GB will be a fair amount cheaper so if you are gaming only at 720p/1080p anyway might be a more reasonable purchase if you are on a limited budget. Not everyone can afford to buy SLI Titan card's. I wouldn't buy it myself, but I can see where people might and depends how it holds up in benchmarks. Hell if you are on a budget and a competitive gamer just aiming for the highest FPS and play at low quality settings intentionally this card should scream just as much as the 6GB version. You don't need a enormous VRAM buffer if you drop IQ down in favor of performance. Is it nice to have a bigger one for higher IQ sure, but is it needed or worth the extra money depends on the person and their expectations.

Explain to me how it is more ok for you on a weaker 1550Ti with a weaker more cut down GPU? You do realize that would make the 3GB VRAM worse than on a 1660Ti. I think the point is Nvidia has enough GPU dies kicking around to sell 3GB versions and offer some kind of middle ground between 1060 and 1660Ti at around the same price point depending on how you gauge your own expectations around the VRAM limitation restraint. It comes with benefits and drawbacks, but provides options to consider at least. It's funny AMD gets criticized on Vega 7 for too much VRAM and the cost association and Nvidia gets criticized for too little VRAM on 1660Ti within about a month time span. Let's just wait on the damn reviews and buy it if you like it and it meets your expectations or don't.

I feel the same way about GTX 770 2GB, GTX 780 3GB, GTX 1060 3GB, GTX 960 2GB, and Fury 4GB. I don't think 3GB is enough for the amount of money they will ask for it. I wouldn't even consider comparing Radeon VII because they cannot make it an 8GB card without cutting the bandwidth in half.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the 1660 ti 3GB will be a good deal, but I don't think it will be a smart buy.

 

[knowom]

I think it all depends how it benchmarks and if it's got a niche enough use where it's generally as good as the 6GB card at lower resolution like 720p/1080p. I mean perhaps for high refresh rate displays where competitive players are known to sacrifice IQ a bit more to match refresh rate it's a decent option for less cost. I don't think either of them will likely be the smart buy frankly I don't think there is much of a smart buy in this generation of GPU's. It's been a bit lukewarm to this point at least.