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

[crisium]

It's ~100MHz slower (though it will come down to actual average boost performance), but with the same configuration. Should be just a step down in performance.

Historically this is pretty good for mobile, as it is common to have completely different chips and lower clocks. Especially if it has the full 8000MHz GDDR5 192-bit, that is rare for mobile.

65W isn't high here. It's less than the 75W TDP of the 970M which was very common in (relatively) thin gaming laptops.

Unless we see a further cut down GP104 I think this will be very common just like the 970M was since the 1920 shader GTX 1070, even with lower clocks, will use quite a bit of power in mobile form. The 970M was a further cut GM204 (1280 Shaders) so it is possible we will see a 1536 or 1664 shader mobile part as a 1065M or 1070M. But until then expect to see this as the gaming laptop chip of choice other than in the 2-inch fat laptops which will house mobile 1070 or 1080 cards.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Doom is brand agnostic.

Oh now they're agnostic eh?

Considering NV used Doom to unveil Pascal, I wouldn't be surprised if behind the scenes they were working with iD for weeks optimizing Maxwell and Pascal for this title. This explains why AMD did so well in the Beta but the final game now magically bombs on everything prior to Fury.

 

[sweetusernames]

Oh now they're agnostic eh?

Is a person not allowed to change their view in light of new information?

 

[railven]

Oh now they're agnostic eh?

That thread got dirty pretty quick. I hope some people go back and read it. DOOM was a great game but around here it was marred because AMD had a driver issue that people had to accuse NV of perpetuating.

Is a person not allowed to change their view in light of new information?

Just take a stroll through that thread. Some posters pretty much accused Bethesda of taking a bribe and sabotaging AMD's performance.

Even though the performance issue only affected a few AMD cards, it was still pushed that it was NV's doing and not an AMD oversite

 

[Bacon1]

That thread got dirty pretty quick. I hope some people go back and read it. DOOM was a great game but around here it was marred because AMD had a driver issue that people had to accuse NV of perpetuating.



Just take a stroll through that thread. Some posters pretty much accused Bethesda of taking a bribe and sabotaging AMD's performance.

Even though the performance issue only affected a few AMD cards, it was still pushed that it was NV's doing and not an AMD oversite

And yet we see the same thing now with people accusing id of working only with AMD, when they've flat out said in the patch note they've been working with both daily.

The difference was, beta worked fine, and final release added new options which only broke hawaii cards which was very odd. Performance didn't tank on any Nvidia cards when vulkan launched, they either gained a little or not much, but no FPS was cut in half.

I mean look at the FPS difference and you can't say that something wasn't horribly broken at launch, so it was clear there wasn't communication between id and AMD at that time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvWaE-3Aseg

 

[Nhirlathothep]

so who bought amd 480 did a big mistake?


Trolling and threadcrapping are not allowed.
Markfw900

 

[sze5003]

so who bought amd 480 did a big mistake?

What are you talking about? I have an amd card and the game runs beautifully almost maxed out at 1080p.

 

[trane]

I was going to spring for a GTX 1060, but looking at three DX12/Vulkan benchmarks in since the 480 release - TW:W, ROTR Async patch and Doom - have changed my mind. 1060 is a ticking time bomb, it's just not going to last. Sure, it'll edge out the 480 in DX11 benchmarks, but seeing as how all my most anticipated games in the near future are DX12, 480 is easily the better choice.

 

[Nhirlathothep]

What are you talking about? I have an amd card and the game runs beautifully almost maxed out at 1080p.

your 7970 is ot

 

[Sweepr]

Hermitage Akihabara (Japan) says the 3GB model will be released in the near future. So many conflicting rumors.

 

[sze5003]

Hermitage Akihabara (Japan) says the 3GB model will be released in the near future. So many conflicting rumors.

I linked an article earlier in the thread about the 3gb being called the 1050 and released in December. Not sure why that far out.

 

[Sweepr]

I linked an article earlier in the thread about the 3gb being called the 1050 and released in December. Not sure why that far out.

HA is talking about the GTX 1060 3GB model.


Here's another source, this store lists the 3GB model as well as the 6GB.

Geforce GTX 1060 3GB launching next month?

- Geforce GTX 1060 6GB launching July 19th
- Geforce GTX 1060 3GB launching August 10th

https://world.tmall.com/item/535668...176416&cm_id=140105335569ed55e27b&abbucket=15

 

[Sweepr]

Geforce GTX 1060 3DMark Time Spy DirectX 12 Results

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/20652/spy/11620/spy/19654/spy/21277/spy/25212/spy/11101#

Different scores from different users.
3 on the right are at stock, 3 on the left OC.
Graphics score of 3923 / 3994 / 3999 pts at stock, matches the RX 480:

 

[Keysplayr]

Is a person not allowed to change their view in light of new information?

Sure, but not when it's ALWAYS in one direction. Try not to act like it isn't noticeable.

 

[Silverforce11]

Geforce GTX 1060 3DMark Time Spy DirectX 12 Results

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/20652/spy/11620/spy/19654/spy/21277/spy/25212/spy/11101#

Different scores from different users.
3 on the right are at stock, 3 on the left OC.
Graphics score of 3923 / 3994 / 3999 pts at stock, matches the RX 480

That's GTX 980 level.

A good result for GP106 @ 120W.

Though Pascal seems to have an edge in Time Spy compared to Maxwell, so in DX11 games it will be slightly below GTX 980.

Also note, OC is around the same as 1070 and 1080, basically ~10% performance gain.

We're far away from Maxwell's 20-25% performance gain with OC this generation.

If there's a 3GB 1060, it's DOA. Custom 970 already beat GTX 980 performance and it's got 3.5GB vram. There's a TON of 970s in the wild, most popular card and all that jazz.

 

[Keysplayr]

That's GTX 980 level.

A good result for GP106 @ 120W.

Though Pascal seems to have an edge in Time Spy compared to Maxwell, so in DX11 games it will be slightly below GTX 980.

Also note, OC is around the same as 1070 and 1080, basically ~10% performance gain.

We're far away from Maxwell's 20-25% performance gain with OC this generation.

If there's a 3GB 1060, it's DOA. Custom 970 already beat GTX 980 performance and it's got 3.5GB vram. There's a TON of 970s in the wild, most popular card and all that jazz.

No. It isnt. Dont forget Nvidias memory compression is quite good. And price is indeed a factor to those on tight budgets. 3GB 1060 will sell just fine. Just like a 320MB 8800GTS sold. Me personally, because I have a larger than 1080 display, would tend to go with the 6GB for sure. So, Id recommend waiting a little longer and save up for the 6GB 1060.

 

[Silverforce11]

Memory compression helps with effective bandwidth, not with actual capacity. It's no winzip.

1060 3GB vs 970 3.5GB, in which the custom 970 is running ahead of GTX 980 performance, at a similar price.. NV would have to really sell DX12 and Pascal Async Compute to entice gamers on a budget to get the 1060 over a faster and more vram 970.

They should just can the 3GB option, it will only taint 1060 with a bad image when it can't max games due to vram or stutters when users try.

At this point in time, it's like if NV launched the GTX 980, in 2GB and 4GB configs.. 2GB would be DOA.

 

[Keysplayr]

Memory compression helps with effective bandwidth, not with actual capacity. It's no winzip.

1060 3GB vs 970 3.5GB, in which the custom 970 is running ahead of GTX 980 performance, at a similar price.. NV would have to really sell DX12 and Pascal Async Compute to entice gamers on a budget to get the 1060 over a faster and more vram 970.

They should just can the 3GB option, it will only taint 1060 with a bad image when it can't max games due to vram or stutters when users try.

Well, however you frost it, it'll still sell just fine.
Not really sure why you would recommend 970 anything with its ram configuration. What was your stance during "ram-gate"?

 

[Silverforce11]

Well, however you frost it, it'll still sell just fine.
Not really sure why you would recommend 970 anything with its ram configuration. What was your stance during "ram-gate"?

I didn't recommend it over GPUs with real 4GB, which were cheaper, such as custom R290s that were going for $200-$220 during the 970's time or $250-$300 290X.

But against a 3GB card? That's an easy one. 3GB didn't help GTX 780/Ti future proof itself well. Paying good money for a new card in 2H of 2016 for a 3GB card is silly season.

Whether it will sell well or not, let's hope people here have more sense and actually recommend 4GB or 6/8GB options to gamers who genuinely come to tech forums for advice for a decent GPU.

 

[Keysplayr]

I didn't recommend it over GPUs with real 4GB, which were cheaper, such as custom R290s that were going for $200-$220 during the 970's time or $250-$300 290X.

But against a 3GB card? That's an easy one. 3GB didn't help GTX 780/Ti future proof itself well. Paying good money for a new card in 2H of 2016 for a 3GB card is silly season.

Whether it will sell well or not, let's hope people here have more sense and actually recommend 4GB or 6/8GB options to gamers who genuinely come to tech forums for advice for a decent GPU.

Why dont you wait to see how it actually performs before passing judgement on it? It might be perfect for 1080p gamers who turn down eye candy for the sake of fps on a tight (dad can you buy me this) budget. But, if you need to crap on it before you even know how it will perform, then do what you must.
Now, did you ever actually recommend someone buy a 970 after ram gate and before rumors of 3GB 1060?

 

[Silverforce11]

Now, did you ever actually recommend someone buy a 970 after ram gate and before rumors of 3GB 1060?

I did, for people who wanted NV GPUs and they specify it as such when they ask for advice. I also recommended the 750Ti, 950, 960 and 980Ti.

If people are open to either brand, then that's a different matter. Can't in good conscience recommend 3.5GB 970 when 290/X 4GB were available for much less $.

I'm confident it'll be around 970/980 performance however, let's wait for benches to confirm. But it's clear that kind of performance class needs more than 3GB vram for a new GPU that's meant to last for the next few years. Certainly more important for budget gamers who don't upgrade as often.

 

[antihelten]

Sure, but not when it's ALWAYS in one direction. Try not to act like it isn't noticeable.

Even if it was always in one direction for RS (which is completely false, and bordering on a personal attack btw), why wouldn't he be allowed to change his views.

As long as the new view is more accurate, due to being based on more data, it shouldn't matter what the old view was.

 

[96Firebird]

Even if it was always in one direction for RS (which is completely false, and bordering on a personal attack btw), why wouldn't he be allowed to change his views.

As long as the new view is more accurate, due to being based on more data, it shouldn't matter what the old view was.

Well, let's hope people learn not to jump to conclusions based on a their favorite brand's performance in a game.

It just makes them look foolish.

 

[Leadbox]

Well, let's hope people learn not to jump to conclusions based on a their favorite brand's performance in a game.

It just makes them look foolish.

Written and informed by personal experience no doubt :thumbsup:

 

[96Firebird]

Nope, never was that foolish...