Geforce GTX 1060 Thread: faster than RX 480, 120W, $249

[railven]

I dont think people with 200usd cards change more often than those with 600usd card.
Actually i think its opposite because enthusiast wants the fastest and that nessesitates a new card every second year at least. Do we have any survey of that btw?

I made that argument here, but I was told by a prolific poster people buy $500+ GPUs to keep 5-7 years. Which blows my mind.

I don't even keep a car for that long! dat depreciation!

 

[krumme]

I made that argument here, but I was told by a prolific poster people buy $500+ GPUs to keep 5-7 years. Which blows my mind.

I don't even keep a car for that long! dat depreciation!

Perhaps they view their gfx as a longterm "investment"?

 

[Arachnotronic]

Perhaps they view their gfx as a longterm "investment"?

If they do, they should also note that resale value of NVIDIA products tends to be much better than comparable AMD products.

I am seeing used GTX 980s selling on eBay for north of $300 right now. You'd be lucky to get $200 for a Radeon R9 290X.

 

[Mopetar]

Check this out:

http://news.mydrivers.com/1/487/487454.htm (use Google Translate)

Ah, didn't know you were talking specifically about the Chinese market.

 

[RussianSensation]

If they do, they should also note that resale value of NVIDIA products tends to be much better than comparable AMD products.

I am seeing used GTX 980s selling on eBay for north of $300 right now. You'd be lucky to get $200 for a Radeon R9 290X.

What a flawed comparison you just made even though the general statement was true. R9 290X came out nearly a full year earlier for $549. That means it should have a lower resale value than a more efficient and faster card that's nearly 10 months newer. What you didn't talk about though was how starting October/November 2014, R9 290X dropped to $280-300 while GTX980 cost $550. You cannot compare the resale value of R9 290X without shifting the timeline to 980's release date because 980 was never for sale when R9 290X launched at $549. That means $550-600 AIB 980 selling today for $300 and R9 290X selling today for $200 shows that whoever bought an R9 290X against GTX980 actually ended up better off. And that doesn't even consider mining into the equation in which case 980 is a complete dog waste of $.

I already said it before and I'll repeat it. If GTX1060 6GB costs $249-299, it's a worse buy than a $199 RX 480 4GB. 25-50% more expensive for what 15-17% higher performance?

Another point -- every single NV user hyping up GTX1060 and putting down RX 480 did not recommend R9 380 2GB over 950, R9 380 4GB over 960 4GB, R9 280X/380X over 960 4GB. Furthermore, for close to a year R9 290 was available for $250-275 and once again it was NOT recommended over the $200 GTX960 4GB on this forum by the same people trying to suggest that GTX1060 is going to be a better deal than the RX 480.

August 2015 TPU Buyer's Guide:

"PowerColor Radeon R9 290 TurboDuo - $249
NVIDIA simply cannot get the pricing of its sub-$300 lineup right and continues to offer nothing compelling until the $310 GeForce GTX 970. The company may yet make a ton of money with their mid-range line-up, but that's only because of its better sales-force. The Radeon R9 290 TurboDuo from PowerColor is a gem.

At just $249, the Radeon R9 290 TurboDuo offers current-gen tech. Our tests show that the R9 290 is a whopping 52 percent faster than the $50 cheaper GeForce GTX 960 at 1920 x 1080 pixels, our target resolution. It also offers 4 GB of video memory. PowerColor added a factory overclock on top of that. If this doesn't highlight NVIDIA's terrible pricing for the GTX 960, nothing will."

NV loyalists/supporters did not recommend a $50-75 more expensive R9 290 that was > 50% faster but if a 15-20% faster GTX1060 6GB costs $249 it's a better value than a $199 RX 480 4GB? :thumbsdown:

:sneaky: Give me a break. The hypocrisy on this forums is absurd.

That said, the big weakness of the 1060 that I see is not some possible gains by AMD in DX 12, but the vram. I might consider 3gb in a 150.00 1050, but for the 1060 over 200.00, it is pretty much a non-starter. And I think the 6gb model will be considerably more expensive than the 480.

That's exactly it right here. 3GB of VRAM on a 1060 is an anchor but the 1060 6GB will cost significantly more than a $199 RX 480 4GB.

HD7970 Is Still alive! That's why I'm going to buy Rx 480 rather than GTX 1060

...and even if you happen to have missed the mining days with HD4870<->R9 390X/Fury X, here is one more chance to get a free RX 480. 191 days payback period:
https://www.cryptocompare.com/mining/sapphire/radeon-rx-480-ethereum-mining/

That's another bonus feature RX 480 has. Of course NV supporters will continue to deny the relevance of this since "they have no time to save $$$ on mining with their GPU." I've heard this line for 8+ years now.

Under Windows:
$500/$400 GTX280/285 vs. $0 HD4870/4890
$350/500 GTX580 vs. $0 HD6950/6970
$400/500 GTX680 vs. $0 HD7950/7970/7970Ghz
$500/700 GTX780/780Ti vs. $0 R9 290/290X
$330/550 GTX970/980 vs. $0 R9 390/390X
$650 GTX980Ti vs. $0 Fury/Fury X/R9 295X2
....
$200-300 GTX1060 vs. $0<->$240 RX 480

:thumbsup:

Everything else will either sometimes be "too close to call" or, more commonly, GTX 980/GTX 1060 will win decisively like in the Divison, Mirror's Edge, Witcher 3, Just Cause 3, GTA V, ROTR, Crysis 3, BF Star Wars, etc....

Same way how your $550-600 GTX980 "won" against a $280-300 R9 290X?

Generation after generation this concept of price/performance and/or putting $ aside towards a next gen upgrade flies completely over your head. This isn't the high-end market where flagship performance has exponential price/performance curve.

Remember how you bought a $350 GTX570 and I got a $230 HD6950 2GB? Your card never outlasted mine but I had $120 left over towards HD7970?

Remember how a $450 GTX680 "outlasted" a $280-300 HD7950?
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...z_edition_7950_iceq_xsup2_boost_clock,13.html

Remember how a $380-450 GTX770 2-4GB outlasted a $300 R9 280X?

Remember how a $500 GTX780 3GB outlasted a $400 R9 290?

For mainstream/performance market, time and time again in GPU history proves that when the GPU performance is within 10-15% but the price difference is large in % terms, it's better to save the $ towards a next generation GPU upgrade. 15% performance difference between RX 480 4GB and GTX1060 6GB won't make any tangible difference in gaming over the next 2 years but $70-100 saved will make a HUGE difference towards buying a next generation 2018 $200 graphics card.

In fact, the closer GTX1060 is to the $300 mark, the worse it is not because of the RX 480 but because of the used GTX980Ti cards going for $350-360.

Last generation I recommended gamers buy an R9 290/290X/390/970 OR go all the way up to the GTX980Ti and looking back I was 100% correct in this recommendation. If GTX1060 is $279-299, it's a no-man's land card as it would be better (while possible) to get a $199 RX 480 4GB and save the $ towards a future card OR just save a little more and buy a used GTX980Ti after-market card.

An after-market used 980Ti will be 45%+ faster than a GTX1060 ~ 980. That means if GTX1060 6GB comes in at $279-299, it's a terrible value card in light of what else is available in the marketplace.

You can argue all you want that it's unfair to compare used vs. new cards but this is an enthusiast forum where we recommend the best deals for PC builders/gamers.

The reason price/performance is such an important metric is because it takes all brand loyalty completely out of the picture. For budget gamers who are cash strapped and try to save $ on the most important components such as a PSU or a CPU, spending $70-100 more for a GPU 15% faster in the $200-300 range is absurd. The situation was completely different with R9 290 over 960 because it had DX12 Async and the performance delta was a massive 50-60% once both were overclocked.

Here is another 2 ways to look at it:

Upgrade path 1:

GTX760/7950/7970 user sells his old card for $80, buys a $200 RX 480, net cost to upgrade is $120. Same user would need to pay ($250-300) less $80 = $170-$240 to get a GTX1060 6GB.

All of a sudden we are looking at an upgarde cost of $120 vs. $170-240, or 50-100% more expensive upgrade for what a 15-20% faster card? Bad deal.

Upgrade path 2:

i5 6600K + GTX1060 6GB vs. i7 6700/6700K + RX 480.
or
i3 6100 + GTX 1060 6GB vs. i5 6400/6500 + RX 480.

Again, a complete no brainer. The i7 system will last 5+ years while both the 1060 and RX 480 will be outdated in 2. i5 SKL is always preferable over i3 SLK for games.

This Upgrade Path #2 also applies for a Brand New build. Once again, spending extra on a faster CPU is better and history proves that's exactly how it's going to go down (see i5 2500K / 3570K vs. 2600K/3770K).

Upgrade path 3:

New a new monitor or larger SSD. Extra $ could actually be used to step up for a regular 1080p monitor to a FreeSync one or go from a 120GB to a 240-256GB SSD or from a 250 to a 480/500GB SSD. The larger SSD will be used in the rig for 3-4 years, most likely longer than the useful life of the RX 480 or the GTX1060.

That's why NV users hate the price/performance metric because it's the most objective metric available that lays out all the other possibilities of where the extra $$$ can go. Price/performance is also a forward looking metric since it inherently includes the saved monetary component that can be used towards a future, much faster, better featured GPU. This is exactly why many didn't recommend R9 290X over 290, 390X over 390 and Fury X over the Fury. Same logic just on the high-end.

 

[Silverforce11]

If they do, they should also note that resale value of NVIDIA products tends to be much better than comparable AMD products.

I am seeing used GTX 980s selling on eBay for north of $300 right now. You'd be lucky to get $200 for a Radeon R9 290X.

Consider that 290X were ~$250 in late 2014, $200 for an 290X is a pretty damn good sell.

Heck I sold mine for ~$250 USD a month ago. I bought it for ~$300 USD here.

If anything, Radeons hold their resale value due to all the mining interesting.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Consider that 290X were ~$250 in late 2014, $200 for an 290X is a pretty damn good sell.

290X launched at $549.

Heck I sold mine for ~$250 USD a month ago. I bought it for ~$300 USD here.

Nice! :thumbsup:

If anything, Radeons hold their resale value due to all the mining interesting.

I don't know, GeForces seem to hold up better, although I haven't done extensive research across multiple models. That might be something interesting to do at some point.

 

[StrangerGuy]

RX 480 starts at $199, and it's $240 for the 8 GB version. Did you make a typo?

You can't compare equivalent USD retail prices with U.S and other countries, when latter have import taxes, sometimes hugely so.

But damn if the 1060 6GB is really priced the same as the 480 8GB NV is going for the jugular at AMD, no mercy style. I can't see anybody wanting to buy RX480s in that scenario.

 

[Thala]

I can't see anybody wanting to buy RX480s in that scenario.

If GTX1060 turns out to be faster in DX11 but slower in DX12, as it currently seems likely, why would anyone chose a GTX1060 for future DX12 games? Don't know about you, but i don't play games i have finished months/years ago but are still present in the regular benchmark mix. In addition, i assume that future games tend to need more compute power in the shaders instead of fillrate. So i predict we will see a shift from ROP limited to shader limited relatively speaking as more advanced rendering techniques gets implemented.
In summary i would not touch a GTX1060 with a ten foot pole assuming it is equally priced with RX480. Of course it could still happen that GTX1060 positively surprise with respect to DX12 performance.

Disclaimer: Both GPUs are no upgrade for me, so the question what i would buy is purely hypothetical.

 

[sirmo]

You can't compare equivalent USD retail prices with U.S and other countries, when latter have import taxes, sometimes hugely so.

But damn if the 1060 6GB is really priced the same as the 480 8GB NV is going for the jugular at AMD, no mercy style. I can't see anybody wanting to buy RX480s in that scenario.

I can list a few reasons:

- DX12 and longevity
- 8gb VRAM again future proof
- FreeSync.. no licensing fees
- Price / perf

But let's not kid ourselves, this is Nvidia, they will want a premium for their card.. Also they would be leaving a pretty huge gap between 1060 and 1070 in their pricing segment. 1060 will be a low $300 card, with the 3gb version costing $289. That's my prediction.

960 offered only marginal perf/dollar improvement over 970.

 

[coercitiv]

If they do, they should also note that resale value of NVIDIA products tends to be much better than comparable AMD products.

I am seeing used GTX 980s selling on eBay for north of $300 right now. You'd be lucky to get $200 for a Radeon R9 290X.

Let's see if I can summarize what RS produced with his ultra typing engine Assume products were bought at launch, as you requested, and are being sold now.

290X released at the end of Oct 2013 - therefore owned for 32 months
980 released at the end of Sep 2014 - therefore owned for 21 months

290x dropped from 550 to 200, $10.9 per month
980 dropped from 550 to 300, $11.9 per month

Taking into consideration variation in resale prices, one can conclude both products deprecate at roughly the same pace over time.

 

[sirmo]

What's the supposed lead 1060 had over rx480? because apparently it just shrunk by 3% of improved rx480 performance with this new driver.

 

[itsmydamnation]

do we know if 1060 is GP104 or GP106?

 

[nenforcer]

do we know if 1060 is GP104 or GP106?

Yes, it is a new Pascal GPU GP106 with 1280 Unified CUDA Cores on a 192-bit bus and 6GHz GDDR5 memory.

nVidia is going to have a smaller framebuffer by 2GB, a smaller memory bus by 64-bit and slower memory by 2GHz GDDR5 than when compared to AMD RX 480.

They are claiming greater than GTX 980 performance but nVidia has a history of releasing cards which are near the prior performance of previous flaghship (mid-range) cards which underperform the previous mid-range for reasons just like I stated above. The GTX 760 was a GK104 rebrand with a smaller memory bus (192-bit) which performed worse than the prior mid-range flagship and had a corresponding lower price tag. The GTX 1060 looks exactly the same a worse performing GTX 980 with a smaller bus and slower memory. I don't know how they can price this above RX 480 unless they just going to rely on the "nvidia" brand markup.

We've also seen that while nVidia cards are supposedly more efficient in their use of memory having a smaller framebuffer (3GB GTX 1060 vs 4GB RX 480, 6GB GTX 1060 vs 8GB RX 480) does seem to hurt the cards once resolution is cranked up to 1440P and especially 4K.

Furthermore you can't even SLI GTX 1060 while you can go quad CrossfireX with RX 480.

 

[AtenRa]

What's the supposed lead 1060 had over rx480? because apparently it just shrunk by 3% of improved rx480 performance with this new driver.

The problem is most of the GTX 1060 reviews will use the old RX 480 numbers because they dont have the RX-480 anymore to retest.

 

[Bacon1]

Let's see if I can summarize what RS produced with his ultra typing engine Assume products were bought at launch, as you requested, and are being sold now.

290X released at the end of Oct 2013 - therefore owned for 32 months
980 released at the end of Sep 2014 - therefore owned for 21 months

290x dropped from 550 to 200, $10.9 per month
980 dropped from 550 to 300, $11.9 per month

Taking into consideration variation in resale prices, one can conclude both products deprecate at roughly the same pace over time.

Except you could never buy a 290x new for $200. Thats the used price still today. 980 are also used $200

 

[SolMiester]

Yes, it is a new Pascal GPU GP106 with 1280 Unified CUDA Cores on a 192-bit bus and 6GHz GDDR5 memory.

Furthermore you can't even SLI GTX 1060 while you can go quad CrossfireX with RX 480.

Where did you hear you cant SLI 1060's(NDA isnt until 7th), haven't all x60 SKUs been able to SLI?

 

[Bacon1]

Where did you hear you cant SLI 1060's(NDA isnt until 7th), haven't all x60 SKUs been able to SLI?

The cards don't have a SLI slot on them, not sure if they've said anything else about it though.

 

[Silverforce11]

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gtx-1060-3dmark-benchmarks-leaked/

The leak is from ChipHell.

The 6GB edition, 3dMark Firestrike & Ultra, ~GTX 980 performance.

No SLI. Note the PCB is short like RX 480, with the blower hanging off the rear.

 

[SolMiester]

Furthermore you can't even SLI GTX 1060 while you can go quad CrossfireX with RX 480.

Hmmm, well called.

 

[Ranulf]

Another point -- every single NV user hyping up GTX1060 and putting down RX 480 did not recommend R9 380 2GB over 950, R9 380 4GB over 960 4GB, R9 280X/380X over 960 4GB. Furthermore, for close to a year R9 290 was available for $250-275 and once again it was NOT recommended over the $200 GTX960 4GB on this forum by the same people trying to suggest that GTX1060 is going to be a better deal than the RX 480.

RS, you're forgetting that the 960 has HDMI 2.0. Its the HTPC card. Gotta be forward thinking for those newer tvs.


No sli for 1060!? Huh. Does the FE version at least have a lighted logo?

 

[selni]

...and even if you happen to have missed the mining days with HD4870<->R9 390X/Fury X, here is one more chance to get a free RX 480. 191 days payback period:
https://www.cryptocompare.com/mining...hereum-mining/

That's another bonus feature RX 480 has. Of course NV supporters will continue to deny the relevance of this since "they have no time to save $$$ on mining with their GPU." I've heard this line for 8+ years now.

Under Windows:
$500/$400 GTX280/285 vs. $0 HD4870/4890
$350/500 GTX580 vs. $0 HD6950/6970
$400/500 GTX680 vs. $0 HD7950/7970/7970Ghz
$500/700 GTX780/780Ti vs. $0 R9 290/290X
$330/550 GTX970/980 vs. $0 R9 390/390X
$650 GTX980Ti vs. $0 Fury/Fury X/R9 295X2
....
$200-300 GTX1060 vs. $0<->$240 RX 480

:thumbsup:

Are you meaning to imply that AMD cards always pay for themselves via *coin mining but nvidia cards are completely useless for this? That might have been true with kepler and AMD does still have a notable lead in this area, but you're a little out of date here...

 

[96Firebird]

I like the "under windows" stipulation there...

Probably knows that the 1070 gets a decent 31MH/s at 145W under Linux, but that doesn't matter because it doesn't fit his agenda to sell the red cards...

https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/7722/gtx-1070-fe-mining-benchmarks

 

[TeknoBug]

Typical of Nvidia if there's no SLI capacity on the GTX1060, I understand it on the low end cards like the GTX750/Ti and lower, etc. but um... yeeaaahh.

(at least GTX950 supports SLI)

 

[BSim500]

Under Windows:
$500/$400 GTX280/285 vs. $0 HD4870/4890
$350/500 GTX580 vs. $0 HD6950/6970
$400/500 GTX680 vs. $0 HD7950/7970/7970Ghz
$500/700 GTX780/780Ti vs. $0 R9 290/290X
$330/550 GTX970/980 vs. $0 R9 390/390X
$650 GTX980Ti vs. $0 Fury/Fury X/R9 295X2
....
$200-300 GTX1060 vs. $0<->$240 RX 480.

That has to be the dumbest "comparison" imaginable. It's difficult to believe you actually posted that with a straight face. Here's the CPU equivalent : If I bought an FX-8350 for $160 and an i5-6600K for $249, left the former unopened in a cupboard for a year but used the latter for work earning a $50,000 salary in the process, I hereby declare AMD CPU's are over 300x more expensive than Intel's ($160 vs -$49,751) using the same "True TCO RussianSensation Cost/Profit Calculator" (tm)...

Honestly, the "quality" of "analysis" and borderline troll "comparisons" on these forums even by supposed "higher grade advice" members has completely fallen through the floor over the past couple of weeks... :thumbsdown: