NVIDIA recently released a new version of the GeForce RTX 3060 that features 8 GB rather than 12 GB of memory, but not everyone seems to be happy with it, including Hardware Unboxed’s Steven Walton, who slammed the graphics card in a new review that he published today, calling it a “horrible anti-consumer move by NVIDIA.”
Benchmarks that Walton shared in the review suggest that the GeForce RTX 3060 (8 GB) may be notably slower than the original GeForce RTX 3060, which features 12 GB of GDDR6 memory and a larger memory interface width (192-bit vs. 128-bit), a seemingly significant difference that has led to the performance gap between the two models.
“[The GeForce RTX 3060 (8 GB)] is noticeably slower than the original, and in a number of instances, was significantly slower in our testing,” Hardware Unboxed concluded before going on to describe the graphics card as a “horribly anti-consumer move by NVIDIA” for reasons that include pricing (the 8 GB model is reportedly nearly as expensive as the 12 GB model in some regions) and packaging, which can be very similar between the two models and confuse buyers.
“It serves little more than to line their pockets while misleading and ripping off customers,” opined Walton, who also called it a “disgusting move.” “[NVIDIA has] taken a well-established, almost two-year-old product, quietly cut it down and they’re making out like a bandit unfortunately.”
NVIDIA launched the GeForce RTX 3060 with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on October 27, complemented by what the company said was a faster version of the GeForce RTX 3060 Ti with GDDR6X memory.
The GeForce RTX 3060 family starts at $329, according to the current landing page for the graphics cards featuring 2nd generation RTX architecture.
Discussion (4 replies)
Join Discussion →I saw a performance review on this and it's bad.
It may be the same chip as the 12G version (so it avoids that fiasco that the 4080 did), but it castrates the memory access so bad it may as well be a different chip. And, at least right now, apparently it costs the same as the 12G version. So WTF is this even for? I have to agree with HU's opinion, and the opinion of many others - it's only there to try to rip uniformed buyers off.
I'm saying it again. It sure feels like there's some kind of disconnect between marketing and the rest of NV these days. They had a great opportunity to duke it out with AMD in this in-demand segment with a lower-priced card and basically shot themselves in the foot at the last step. Knock $100, or more, off for some lost performance and some would consider it a deal but at the same price and you've basically just lit a fire. I even read another story on this where they mention how the ARC A770 beats it bad, and looks attractive.
This references HU as well but also the bit about the ARC A770.
https://www.pcgamer.com/rtx-3060-8gb-way-slower-no-cheaper-avoid-says-first-online-review/
"The upshot, in some games, involves a huge performance advantage for the 12GB card. The worst example is Dying Light 2. At 1080p, on high graphics settings, the 12GB card runs 35% faster than the 8GB. That's 69fps versus 51fps. Just for a little more context, the much maligned Intel Arc A770 GPU hits 85fps in the same test."
I recently got a 3060 12GB for my back up PC and didn't have any interest in a "gimped" card. This 8GB card shouldn't even be a thing IMO.
They will blame inflation, they reduce Vram so they can keep the price where it was instead of raising it, performance be damned.