1060 3GB or 480 4GB?

[DamZe]

Whats the return policy? Id go withe the faster cheaper 1060 3GB. If it gives you issues with older games at 1080p or newer games in dx11 mode, return it for a 6GB 1060 or 8GB 480. yes, more money, but im afraid with budgets come sacrifices.

Sacrifices? Only if one should be so unlucky and buy into the 3GB (2012 vRAM config) 1060 Impostor Edition aka 3GimpEdition. OP doesn't have to sacrifice anything if he can get his hands on an RX470/480 for a decent Price then he will get the best value for his money. 4GB beats 3GB any day of the week and those vRAM requirement for textures will keep increasing.

 

[Elixer]

OP, there is no way you should buy a vid card for 2017 with only 3GB if you are a serious gamer.
Unless you plan to upgrade again, or it will only see some light game use.

 

[antihelten]

Historical precedence? Look how well the 2GB Kepler cards are doing compared to the 3GB GCN's. I would go for a RX 470 4GB than a GTX 1060 3GB. Of course you could lower the texture quality to compensate for the lack of VRAM in future titles, but doesn't that defeat the whole point of graphics fidelity?

And historical precedence suggest that this might also be the case for 4GB vs. 3GB, but as I said there is no way to be certain.

Also with regards to lowering texture quality defeating the whole point of graphics fidelity, you already have to lower settings today to have the 470 4GB match the 1060 3GB (since it's roughly 10% slower today on average, and upwards of 40% slower in individual games). Doesn't that also defeat the whole point of graphics fidelity?

 

[topmounter]

If this card were meant to tide you over for a year, then I'd say saving a few bucks and getting the 1060 may make sense. However if you're planning on keeping it for three years, then I'd definitely go with the 4GB RX-480 for your 1080p gaming needs. The 480 will have better legs over that three year period as more and more DX12 games are released and AMD continues to improve performance with driver updates.

 

[magomago]

anyone looking at 480 and 1060 should not even consider a 470, its lower performance period.

The only compelling argument I see for 470 in this situation is to overclock it to approximate 480 levels.

I would go 480 4GB, the 1060 does win most benchmarks, but its not substantial enough of a victory from my POV to out-weight that fact that more games are using several gigabytes of texture memory. That will hurt things more than

 

[DamZe]

I don't know what you people are on about, but with the newest drivers the RX480 is overall faster than even the 6GB 1060! Forget the laughable 3GB Castration Edition with 10% less shaders that thing was DOA last year.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-23.html

Infraction issued for inflammatory language.
-- stahlhart

 

[daxzy]

And historical precedence suggest that this might also be the case for 4GB vs. 3GB, but as I said there is no way to be certain.

Yes, and for people thinking about buying Kepler 2GB vs GCN 3GB, they were pointed out Fermi's 1.25/1.5GB limitations as being historically bad (compared to 2GB Terascale). You're right in the sense that historical precedence doesn't guarantee the future. But you'd be stupid to not consider the correlation. The only way this would not be the case is if game developers just stopped using higher quality textures... and that seems highly unlikely with Xbox Scorpio coming out next year setting a new standard bar.

Also with regards to lowering texture quality defeating the whole point of graphics fidelity, you already have to lower settings today to have the 470 4GB match the 1060 3GB (since it's roughly 10% slower today on average, and upwards of 40% slower in individual games). Doesn't that also defeat the whole point of graphics fidelity?

Maybe when the RX 470 was released, it was 10+% behind the GTX 1060 3GB. But recent benchmarks indicate the RX 470 is 7.2% behind the GTX 1060 3GB at 1080p:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/949-28/recapitulatif-performances.html

That average differential isn't enough to lower graphics fidelity at playable settings, except maybe on GameWorks titles.

anyone looking at 480 and 1060 should not even consider a 470, its lower performance period.

Really? The RX 470 4GB is a whopping 6.2% slower than the RX 480 4GB. Depends on what kind of a discount you're getting. Why pay 20% more for 6% more performance?

 

[f2bnp]

Get the RX 470 8GB if you can, you will be future proofing yourself for many years to come.

 

[tviceman]

Don't get a 3gb card for quality 1080p gaming in 2017. A few games are already being held back in performance and it's going to get worse.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Really? The RX 470 4GB is a whopping 6.2% slower than the RX 480 4GB. Depends on what kind of a discount you're getting. Why pay 20% more for 6% more performance?

Those are my exact thoughts. After having both cards I can't think of a time when the 480 has any clear advantage in usage especially if you get a decent 470 that can overclock. The difference is something you can only see in a chart of average fps, it won't give you back a setting that the 470 can't have especially at 1080p.

Maybe the 480 will age better, but really a 7970 never outlasted a Oced 7950 and a 290x never outlasted a 290. A Fury X won't outlast a Fury. AMD cut cards are a deal.

On 3GB vs 4GB to me it's a huge difference due to what is on the market already. How many cards around that level have 4GB ram? Plenty- 290/290x, 970/980, and the Polaris cards. How many have 3GB? Exactly two- the now ancient 780 ti and the 3GB 1060. If developers only target the 3.5 GB of ram the most popular card on Steam has, a 3GB card is still screwed. I think saying 4GB might as well be 3GB really clouds the issue. The 3GB 1060 is basically only worth the money if you want to only play older/MOBA games (then it's kinda a steal).

Now the question beyond that is: is 8GB worth it? To me that is a question of how long you keep your cards. If the card is a stopgap, save the money for the next GPU. If you expect to use it 3 years from now get the 8GB model, but even then know that settings that push that far might be unplayable on 470/480 class cards anyway.

The PS4 Pro has that extra GB of ram, but it might be a while before it or the next Xbox are a development target. By the time games aren't being ported to the Xbone or PS4 non Pro you should be able to buy a 1080 ti level of power for 1070 prices.

 

[frozentundra123456]

If you absolutely cant save up for a 1060/6gb or 480/8gb then I would go for a 470 4gb. I think it is absurd to mercilessly bash a 3gb card and give a free pass to a 4 gb card. If one accepts the vram arguments, either card will most likely require compromises eventually. So if I were forced to go with the lower vram, I would save even more and go with the 470.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

If you absolutely cant save up for a 1060/6gb or 480/8gb then I would go for a 470 4gb. I think it is absurd to mercilessly bash a 3gb card and give a free pass to a 4 gb card. If one accepts the vram arguments, either card will most likely require compromises eventually. So if I were forced to go with the lower vram, I would save even more and go with the 470.

So will anything, but 4GB has the advantage of being the amount of memory on a 980 and more than the amount of memory on the 970, which as we know, is the most popular GPU. Given that, it seems like a pretty safe bet at 1080p, especially when the Fury X seems to be doing alright (probably about as well as 1060 3GB does at 1080p) even at 4K with the same framebuffer right now.

It's almost like you're saying there's no difference between 3GB and 4GB. I wonder what we'd be hearing if the 1060 had 4GB. Plus, I'm sure you've criticized the Fury X for its less VRAM many times, and I agree on that count. This situation is very similar.

 

[frozentundra123456]

So will anything, but 4GB has the advantage of being the amount of memory on a 980 and more than the amount of memory on the 970, which as we know, is the most popular GPU. Given that, it seems like a pretty safe bet at 1080p, especially when the Fury X seems to be doing alright (probably about as well as 1060 3GB does at 1080p) even at 4K with the same framebuffer right now.

It's almost like you're saying there's no difference between 3GB and 4GB. I wonder what we'd be hearing if the 1060 had 4GB. Plus, I'm sure you've criticized the Fury X for its less VRAM many times, and I agree on that count. This situation is very similar.

Well, ignoring the thinly veiled personal attack of my favoring nVidia, I *do* think if one tries to predict the future 2 or 3 years in advance, it is very difficult to say how much difference there will be between 3 and 4gb. But maybe you have a magic crystal ball or something.

 

[AtenRa]

Well, ignoring the thinly veiled personal attack of my favoring nVidia, I *do* think if one tries to predict the future 2 or 3 years in advance, it is very difficult to say how much difference there will be between 3 and 4gb. But maybe you have a magic crystal ball or something.

I can tell you TODAY that the 4GB card will ALWAYS be able to enable higher texture settings than the 3GB card, we dont need a crystal ball for that.
Same will hold true in 2-3 years from now, you may not be able to play at Ultra settings with the RX 480 4GB in 3 years from now but the 4GB will allow you to play with higher Textures than the GTX 1060 3GB again and again and again.

 

[antihelten]

Yes, and for people thinking about buying Kepler 2GB vs GCN 3GB, they were pointed out Fermi's 1.25/1.5GB limitations as being historically bad (compared to 2GB Terascale). You're right in the sense that historical precedence doesn't guarantee the future. But you'd be stupid to not consider the correlation. The only way this would not be the case is if game developers just stopped using higher quality textures... and that seems highly unlikely with Xbox Scorpio coming out next year setting a new standard bar.

So basically you're just agreeing with what I originally posted, i.e. that 4GB may very well end up being a significant advantage compared to 3GB, but that there is no way to say so for certain.

Maybe when the RX 470 was released, it was 10+% behind the GTX 1060 3GB. But recent benchmarks indicate the RX 470 is 7.2% behind the GTX 1060 3GB at 1080p:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/949-28/recapitulatif-performances.html

That average differential isn't enough to lower graphics fidelity at playable settings, except maybe on GameWorks titles.

You shouldn't use averages across multiple games to compare bottlenecks (VRAM and others), since bottlenecks will almost always only have a significant effect in a smaller fraction of the total number of games and thus have a limited effect on the average difference.

For instance take the 2GB 960 vs the 4GB 960. The 2GB 960 is generally agreed to be one of the most VRAM limited cards in newer times, but when you compare it to it's 4GB sibling, it is only in a fraction of games that the VRAM limit is actually a problem (Techspot only saw a significant difference in 2 out of 11 tested games), and the average difference at 1080P is only 2.8% (and only 2.4% when looking at the 99th percentile). So based on the average across all games we would be lead to believe that there is no significant difference between 2GB and 4GB VRAM.

As for the average difference in individual game not being enough to lower graphics fidelity between the 470 4GB and the 1060 3GB, outside of GameWorks titles, I would beg to differ. In TPU's benchmark suite the 470 4GB falls behind by 20% or more in 9 out of the 21 games they tested, and of these 9 titles only 3 are what I would consider GameWorks titles (AC: Syndicate, Fallout 4 and the Witcher 3, although the Witcher 3 was tested without hairworks enabled). Of course those 3 titles also happen to some of the most popular titles released in recent times, so I don't see why they shouldn't count.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if going forward, there will be more AAA gameworks titles where the 470 falls significantly behind, than there will be AAA VRAM limited titles where the 1060 falls significantly behind.

I can tell you TODAY that the 4GB card will ALWAYS be able to enable higher texture settings than the 3GB card, we dont need a crystal ball for that.

And I can tell you TODAY that you are wrong. There are plenty of games out there where the 4GB card cannot enable higher texture settings than the 3GB card, since the3GB and 4GB cards are equally capable of maxing out the texture setting in said games. Sure in theory a 4GB card can handle higher resolution textures than a 3GB card, but you can never enable higher texture settings than what the developers give you (excluding modding), and since 3GB is currently fine for what developers give us in the vast majority of games, this is a moot point.

 

[Bacon1]

Also with regards to lowering texture quality defeating the whole point of graphics fidelity, you already have to lower settings today to have the 470 4GB match the 1060 3GB (since it's roughly 10% slower today on average, and upwards of 40% slower in individual games). Doesn't that also defeat the whole point of graphics fidelity?

What recent review have you seen that compares a 470 vs 1060 3gb not 6gb?

The 3GB 1060 is basically only worth the money if you want to only play older/MOBA games (then it's kinda a steal).

And in that case, why spend that much money on the game since FPS mostly doesn't matter much on those types of games.

In TPU's benchmark suite the 470 4GB falls behind by 20% or more in 9 out of the 21 games they tested

You mean the one using a reference 470 and using months old data that they didn't retest with?

AMD: Catalyst 16.10.1 WHQL

but you can never enable higher texture settings than what the developers give you (excluding modding), and since 3GB is currently fine for what developers give us in the vast majority of games, this is a moot point.

Thats incorrect, computerbase tested that here a while back:

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-09/grafikkarten-speicher-vram-test/2/

Also look at the pricing.

The 1060 3gb is just barely cheaper than the 480 4gb let alone the 470 4gb.

MSI Armor 1060 3GB for around 240 euros (year its absurd i know) and Nitro+ RX 480 4GB for 255 euros.

 

[antihelten]

What recent review have you seen that compares a 470 vs 1060 3gb not 6gb?

The one I linked obviously

You mean the one using a reference 470 and using months old data that they didn't retest with?

By all means, if you have some evidence that proves that there are no games outside of GameWorks titles where the 470 4GB is significantly slower than the 1060 3GB feel free to share it.

Thats incorrect, computerbase tested that here a while back:

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-09/grafikkarten-speicher-vram-test/2/

4 games (3 of which are known as some of the most VRAM heavy titles released recently) now constitutes the majority of games?

In fact Computerbase tested an additional 21 games, and guess what they found, yep 3GB is NOT an issue for the majority of said games.

Again I'm not saying that there aren't games out there where 4GB is superior to 3GB, simply that it isn't always the case (like AtenRa claimed).

 

[daxzy]

So basically you're just agreeing with what I originally posted, i.e. that 4GB may very well end up being a significant advantage compared to 3GB, but that there is no way to say so for certain.

Yes, except you're framing it in a context to cast doubt and uncertainty whereas I frame it as an almost certainty.

You shouldn't use averages across multiple games to compare bottlenecks (VRAM and others), since bottlenecks will almost always only have a significant effect in a smaller fraction of the total number of games and thus have a limited effect on the average difference.

For instance take the 2GB 960 vs the 4GB 960. The 2GB 960 is generally agreed to be one of the most VRAM limited cards in newer times, but when you compare it to it's 4GB sibling, it is only in a fraction of games that the VRAM limit is actually a problem (Techspot only saw a significant difference in 2 out of 11 tested games), and the average difference at 1080P is only 2.8% (and only 2.4% when looking at the 99th percentile). So based on the average across all games we would be lead to believe that there is no significant difference between 2GB and 4GB VRAM.

Yes, for weaker GPU's, VRAM generally won't matter anyways. If we could magically give a 15 year old GPU more VRAM, no amount will save it.

As for the average difference in individual game not being enough to lower graphics fidelity between the 470 4GB and the 1060 3GB, outside of GameWorks titles, I would beg to differ. In TPU's benchmark suite the 470 4GB falls behind by 20% or more in 9 out of the 21 games they tested, and of these 9 titles only 3 are what I would consider GameWorks titles (AC: Syndicate, Fallout 4 and the Witcher 3, although the Witcher 3 was tested without hairworks enabled). Of course those 3 titles also happen to some of the most popular titles released in recent times, so I don't see why they shouldn't count.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if going forward, there will be more AAA gameworks titles where the 470 falls significantly behind, than there will be AAA VRAM limited titles where the 1060 falls significantly behind.

TPU's benchmarks use old AMD drivers (16.10.1 vs 16.11.5). You can check out updated AMD drivers at HardwareCanucks (albeit its the RX 480 8GB vs GTX 1060 6GB). At 1080p, the GTX 1060 6GB's 12% lead shrinks to 2% for DX11 titles. At 1080p, the GTX 1060's 3% loss extends to 6% for DX12/Vulkan titles. And with recent AMD ReLive drivers, we can probably expect a further small bump in performance for the RX family.

And based on the game selection, it definitely seems like the newer games perform a lot better than the older ones on GCN. So going forward, I would imagine new AAA titles to favor AMD.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...3945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-2.html

 

[Bacon1]

In fact Computerbase tested an additional 21 games, and guess what they found, yep 3GB is NOT an issue for the majority of said games.

Google Translate from the page:

In some games, it hangs
But the average FPS over all games show in this case not the whole truth. A look in the individual games, on the other hand, suggests that there are problems. The GeForce GTX 1060 Founders Edition in F1 2015 is, for example, 31 percent faster. In Hitman, it is 18 percent, in Rainbow Six: wins 13 percent and in Mirror's Edge Catalyst equals 74 percent.

The memory is not always enough
In these games the 3,072 MB of memory is no longer enough. Storage deficit is only visible in extreme cases visible at the FPS, because it must jerk clearly - in the games this is the case. The Frametimes confirm this.

Again I'm not saying that there aren't games out there where 4GB is superior to 3GB, simply that it isn't always the case (like AtenRa claimed).

Sure, but the trend is newer games are more VRAM heavy which is what he was trying to get at. Why pay more for less VRAM?

By all means, if you have some evidence that proves that there are no games outside of GameWorks titles where the 470 4GB is significantly slower than the 1060 3GB feel free to share it.

http://www.gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/titanfall-2-test-gpu

470 even manages to slightly beat out the 1060 6gb.

http://www.gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-1-test-gpu

470 is just behind the 1060 6gb (3gb not tested but is ~5%-10% slower due loss of shaders)

http://www.gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/deus-ex-mankind-divided-test-gpu

470 right next to the 1060 again

Many sites haven't done updates since the holidays and AMD's Relive drivers in early December so its hard to find exact comparisons

 

[AtenRa]

I can tell you TODAY that the 4GB card will ALWAYS be able to enable higher texture settings than the 3GB card, we dont need a crystal ball for that.

And I can tell you TODAY that you are wrong. There are plenty of games out there where the 4GB card cannot enable higher texture settings than the 3GB card, since the3GB and 4GB cards are equally capable of maxing out the texture setting in said games. Sure in theory a 4GB card can handle higher resolution textures than a 3GB card, but you can never enable higher texture settings than what the developers give you (excluding modding), and since 3GB is currently fine for what developers give us in the vast majority of games, this is a moot point.

Seriously now ??

 

[DamZe]

OP, I think you made the right choice that you decided on one of the RX 470/80 variants and I implore you to stick to that decision, sadly the only thing that is evident from browsing these forums is that you will find posters on this forum who will try to mask the facts and use semantics to push their favourite brands. I hope that you as a reasonable individual can clearly see the dilemma here, whereas the RX 470/480 have over 2000 shaders and 256-bit bus coupled with 4GB-8GB vRAM you are expected from some of these posters to ignore recent turn of events which clearly show that AMDs RX cards have seen good gains with newest drivers and being toe to toe with the 1060s in DX11 and beating them in DX12.

Just think for a moment here, how can one justify a $200 3GB, 192-bit, 1152 shader part when the RX470/480 have clear advantages in the form of more shaders, a wider bus a much better utilization of DX12 and async compute and perhaps most importantly more vRAM.

Good luck installing a couple of nice texture mods and better foliage in Skyrim Special Edition to spruce up the visuals on a 3GB card in 1080p. On my 1070 this requires 3.4-3.6 GB of vRAM.

4GB in today's gaming climate is the minimum and absolutely needed going forward in 1080p+ gaming. Erase the memory of the 3GB fake 1060 abomination from your brain and you will be a much happier PC enthusiast I assure you. I think this thread can thus be considered completed as the OP has made his choice and in my opinion (and clearly the opinion of many others) made the right one for his current situation and budget.

 

[JustMe21]

I would say buy the 4 GB RX 480, but get the 6 GB 1060 or 8 GB RX480 if you can. Back when the GTX 960 was primarily sold in 2 GB variants, I went ahead and bought a 4 GB variant and it's doing better in benchmarks than the 2 GB version due to the extra memory. Also, the reason SpaceBeer recommended the Sapphrie Nito+ RX470 w 8 GB is because its memory was clocked the same as an RX 480 and it's clock speed is near a stock RX 480, so it's performance is one of the higher RX 470s, has more memory, and is closely priced to RX 480 4 GBs.

I've also managed to underclock and undervolt my Sapphire Nitro+ RX 470 and get even better performance using Wattman. My GTX 1060 and RX 480 results are from cards I purchased and tested before doing builds for other people, BTW.
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/optimizing-radeon-performance-with-wattman.2482895/

 

[tential]

The reason I recommend the 470 is its literally basically as fast as a 480....its such a minimal perf increase for the cost I don't get why everyone is so hooked on recommending a 480 other than just not fully understanding the amd line up of gpus

 

[ConsoleLover]

Get the RX 470 8GB if you can, you will be future proofing yourself for many years to come.

They have the reference design Sapphire of RX 470 with 4GB, which are significantly cheaper, but they don't come with DVI-D, which my monitor has, its an older monitor, also its only got 6pins, so limited OC headroom.

The Nitro 470 8GB is more expensive than the 480 4GB and from what I've seen in most benches 480 4GB beats 470 8GB by about 10% if we take slightly manufacturer OC versions like the MSI's Twin Frozr for example. So far the extra 8GB seems to help the RX 480 over the 4GB a bit, due to the higher clocks by default.

So the question is will in the future ram bottle neck more than core? And again if the 470 8GB was cheaper, even slightly I would have probably mentioned it here and possibly went for it, but its about 15 euros more expensive.

The reason I recommend the 470 is its literally basically as fast as a 480....its such a minimal perf increase for the cost I don't get why everyone is so hooked on recommending a 480 other than just not fully understanding the amd line up of gpus

470 4GB and 480 4GB are very similar in price here, about 10 euros difference, if it was like in the USA where you can find literally $170 470 4gb, with rebates even $160 or whatever, compared to $200, of course it makes more sense, but at about 10 euros difference, I'd rather go for the faster option.

They have a reference design one from Sapphire at about 20 euros cheaper, but it doesn't have DVI-D output, it also has 6pin only and since its blower style from the reference designs which from all reviews hovers at about 90C degrees, I'm not comfortable getting it and having it throttle due to temps, use hdmi to dvi-d converters and increasing input lag and maybe even possible issues with the converter cables, etc... So its not an option.

 

[nurturedhate]

If there's only a $10 difference between a 470 and a 480 then it's the 480 all day.