dj-electric Nvidia is the only one defining what is a GTX 1060, and what is a GT 1030. This card is named GTX 1050 3GB, and while it certainly may confuse people, that is its name. Weather it is meant solely for the purpose of confusion among customers - its up to debate and within speculation







Memory speed may correlate directly to performance, but it is never in a 1:1 ratio with actual performance. This is exactly why a card, or any product should be judged on its performance, and not on its paper specs. I've seen many people saying they will avoid the GTX 1060 6GB only because it has a 192bit bus, and not by any other reasonable reason.

Come on. First Nvidia releases a 1060 6GB and a 3GB variant. It becomes very clear to many that these are not just VRAM limited cards but also a 10% shader count gap. But even today, lots of people STILL miss it. They read 6GB and 3GB, conclude they don't need more than 3GB, and they're done.Then, in the aftermath of Pascal we see this. A smaller VRAM variant of the 1050. Logic would suggest there is also a 10% shader count gap here, but no, this is a completely different tier of product we're looking at. This is not a 1050. Its a 1040. And the flak it receives is exactly because of that: the name is a bad and obviously misleading choice. You say up for debate, I say blatantly misleading. And it seems a lot of press agrees.Nvidia has always been horrifying to get clarity on in the entire segment below x60 (and even x60 isn't safe, look at the GTX 660 OEMs). They keep screwing with everything and you never know what's what. Kepler refresh: we get a 750ti... that is in fact a Maxwell card. :kookoo: Mobile: there are warehouses full of misleading nomenclature, including cards that had new names but still carried architecture from years back. Surprisingly enough, they never do this in the midrange to high end segments, where buyers are actually looking at specs. In those cases they now differentiate with 'Max Q'... which effectively means buying full price for a card that performs a full tier below what you're seeing on the box - now its not shader count or VRAM but clocks and 'efficiency'.You can say its just a name, but its not. This is a carefully crafted and constantly expanded encyclopedia of misdirection and everything is aimed at pushing consumers either to a higher end product or by handicapping them with an underperforming one 'because they chose the cheaper route' - the latter is the real world effect of these naming schemes. Its not Nvidia's fault, the consumer chose for himself... While in fact he just couldn't make a proper informed choice.