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

[SolMiester]

Bingo.

snip<Wall of text whinging as per before x 100>snip.

LOL, RS...surely you realise its got nothing to do with users not tech savy at all...that just dont get all hurt over pricing like you do....Every card release from NV, its like...oh yay, now we get to hear RS waffle on again about how high the prices for cards are and you used to get more for your money!..Dude, you need to change the record, no one is listening except the AMD fans in this forum.

Will you do actually, every single card released is always faster than the other and mostly you pay the same price..Each generation is faster than the last, each card is more performance for the money....

Microsoft just did a 20% increase in its o365 subscription! 20%!!, how do you think clients tied into o365 feel about 20% increase for no gain at all.

 

[ultima_trev]

So much for it being faster than GTX 980. I suppose that won't matter though since GPUs with 4GB of VRAM are quickly showing their limits.

 

[R0H1T]

Now, they actually realize that (as of now) the Vulkan mode gives skewed results, for the reasons explained above.

So you agree that it isn't entirely ID's fault here & that Nvidia ought to have part of the blame, if not most of it?

 

[Qwertilot]

Interesting question given those evga cards is why anyone would want one of the rather more expensive options.

Bigger coolers perhaps, but it's hardly like the 1060 needs those! My 960 with that one fan cooler is very well behaved.

Suppose some people feel happier with massive looking gfx cards

 

[crisium]

Hardware Canucks shows the 480 beating the 1060 by 12% in Quantum Break @ 1080p.

Good find.

That means RX 480 is beating the 1060 in 5/6 next gen API titles. Quantum Break, Doom, Warhammer, Hitman, Ashes = 480. Tomb Raider = 1060.

Hmm. A lot to think about.

 

[krumme]

From Tom's Hardware:



They still have a lot to work on the Vulkan mode for NVIDIA.

So it doesnt work on nv and therefore we dont use it on amd. Lol.
Gamers can enable it and get a boost even for nv cards. But thg cant?
Payed marketing from nv. Plain and simply. Thg have been going down the drain for 15 years.

 

[Sweepr]

Either way, there's no denying that most DX12 games (+Doom) are showing better performance on the rx 480.

A minor 3% according to Hardware Canucks (4 games) and ComptoirduHardware (7+1 games), while GTX 1060 is 12% faster in DX11, which represents the majority of titles people play today. Lower power (overall), temps and noise (reference vs reference) and great custom models available from the start as a bonus. For a lot of people it's actually a better card than the competitor, for similar prices if you ignore from the obvious gouging.

 

[Thala]

Lol, that's a horrible average calculation.

Indeed, its borderline crazy.

Is anyone planning on playing on the older API when the new API is available and better?

Yup, NVdia buyers will stay at DX11 in order to pretend to be faster than the competition with the same API.

Its like:

A: Why dont you enable DX12 in this games, gives additional 10fps?
B: Thats true, but with DX11 i am 5 fps faster than the next guy with AMD, while with DX12 i am 5 fps slower. Gives me the warm fealing of beeing faster after all.
A: Seriously ???

 

[Sweepr]

Nice to see a custom model keeping up with Founder's Edition efficiency.

 

[guachi]

Lol, that's a horrible average calculation.

Why does the average include both Hitman Dx12 and DX11? Ashes DX12 and DX11? Doom Vulkan and Opengl? Total War dx11 (if I recall correctly AMD gain a lot when going DX12)? Is anyone planning on playing on the older API when the new API is available and better, or both at the same time? A better solution would be to include the best result for a game (dx11 or dx12) for each vendor or include one, but including both is just stupid.

Either way, there's no denying that most DX12 games (+Doom) are showing better performance on the rx 480.

Said exactly what I wanted to say. With so many cards and and dx11/dx12/vulkan/opengl it's a bit of a mess to test everything...

But that being said, it seems that you could limit that kind of testing to four cards - 1060/70/80 and the 480 as those are the immediate choices for new purchase.

At a minimum, provide the comparison between the 480 and 1060. If you can't do that, why even bother testing?

Any buyer now wants a meaningful test of dx12 performance.

 

[sm625]

If I am reading this right, you can underclock/undervolt a 1060 down to a point where it only consumes 60 watts? And even then it still outperforms a 480 at 150 watts?

 

[AtenRa]

Good find.

That means RX 480 is beating the 1060 in 5/6 next gen API titles. Quantum Break, Doom, Warhammer, Hitman, Ashes = 480. Tomb Raider = 1060.

Hmm. A lot to think about.

heh, actual gameplay (no in game benchmark) at 1440p and RX480 is a little faster than GTX 1060 even at ROtTR. Also worth noticing, how terrible GTX 980 is in this gameplay chart with constant deeps.

 

[AtenRa]

If I am reading this right, you can underclock/undervolt a 1060 down to a point where it only consumes 60 watts? And even then it still outperforms a 480 at 150 watts?

Yeap, in Metro Last Light (NV sponsored). Other games will be different, especially DX-12 and Vulkan.

 

[Sweepr]

If I am reading this right, you can underclock/undervolt a 1060 down to a point where it only consumes 60 watts? And even then it still outperforms a 480 at 150 watts?

The competing cards' power consumption is now on the x-axis, and frame rate replaces clock rate on the y-axis. Using the graph's horizontal lines as a reference, we come away with the realization that Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1060 requires 61W to achieve 130 FPS at 1920x1080, whereas the AMD Radeon RX 480 needs 139W for the same frame rate in spite of its adjusted voltage. In order to average 90 FPS at 2560x1440, the GeForce GTX 1060 draws just under 62W, whereas the Radeon RX 480 comes in at 146W.

This advantage can't be underestimated. Bodes very well for notebooks as well.

 

[linkgoron]

A minor 3% according to Hardware Canucks (4 games) and ComptoirduHardware (7+1 games), while GTX 1060 is 12% faster in DX11, which represents the majority of titles people play today. Lower power (overall), temps and noise (reference vs reference) and great custom models available from the start as a bonus. For a lot of people it's actually a better card than the competitor, for similar prices if you ignore from the obvious gouging.

Yes, and according to TPU the 1060 in DX11 is ~7.5% faster (as they basically only include one dx12 game, Tomb Raider).

Those Hardware Canucks DX11 percentages are meaningless. From the way the article is built, it looks like they included the Doom OpenGL as DX11 and included Hitman and Tomb Raider in both DX11 and DX12 (I did not calculate to check). Doom is not even DX11, but otherwise things should be included once. Either have Tomb Raider/Hitman in DX11, or DX12 but not both.

Yes, the gtx has better perf/watt and general watt advantage. Some would say that the 480 uses significantly more power percentage wise. However, looking at the actual numbers it's only ~40 watts more not something very significant.

However, looking at future DX12 games, it looks like in general the rx 480 might actually the better buy. It is a Huge differential in Vulkan Doom, 12% in Quantum Break, 16% in Hitman. It also beats the 1060 in Warhammer (by a very small margin) and Ashes. This, you probably recall, with the throttling stock cooler.

guru3d reference (as I did not link to it before):
guru3d review warhammer, DX12

EDIT:
Just for clarification. The 1060 is clearly better than the 480 at DX11, I'm just saying that with more Vulkan and DX12 in the future, I'm not 100% sure that in the longer term it is a better buy, as already in today's dx12 games it is losing.

 

[Thala]

The 1060 is clearly better than the 480 at DX11, I'm just saying that with more Vulkan and DX12 in the future, I'm not 100% sure that in the longer term it is a better buy, as already in today's dx12 games it is losing.

Its relatively easy to predict what will happen. As DX11 titles are removed from the benchmark mix and DX12 titles are added the RX480 will gain and GTX1060 will lose. Well before the benchmark mix consist of only DX12 titles RX480 will be in front. The small lead we currently see is only carried by older DX11 titles.

Now if we assume, that many gamers, which are up for a purchase, have already played most of these DX11 titles, one would be irrational to suggest a GTX1060 over a RX480...unless you have a big backlog of un-played DX11 games. Another reason of course would be, if you cannot afford the 40 Watt difference on your electricity bill, which i consider rather unlikely.

 

[sontin]

The Warhammer DX12 patch is broken and the internal benchmark doesnt reflect real gameplay: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Total...Specials/Direct-X-12-Benchmarks-Test-1200551/

A GTX1060 with DX11 is still faster than a RX 480 with DX12 in real gameplay:
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/geforce-gtx-1060-test/3/#diagramm-total-war-warhammer-2560-1440

In Talos a GTX1060 is 50% faster with Vulkan than the RX 480: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2518-nvidia-gtx-1060-review-and-benchmark-vs-rx-480/page-4

GTX1060 is faster in Forza Apex: http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/geforce-gtx-1060-test/strona/26424.html

Maybe you guys should take a step back and relax.

 

[Krteq]

nice cherry picking as always

 

[sontin]

Right, because Doom, Ashes and Hitman are "neutral" games. :hmm:

 

[zinfamous]

Man, there is a lot of willful disconnect with reality going on this thread with reviews more or less confirming what has been assumed for 2 months now.

I guess it helps that the 480 launch was disappointing after the hype train managed to drive full steam into the reality chasm. At least this 1060 launch doesn't seem nearly as underwhelming in that light, despite clearly underperforming nVidia's actual claims (but hey, 480 hype was fan hype, never really performed any better than AMD actually claimed it would :/)

Now I guess we wait and see what their stock situation is after a few days of sales numbers and see if this is the same issue with 1070/1080.

Or is it already another paper launch?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Problem right now is that you have to decide whether you want to purchase for the present or try to predict the future. Both the 1060 and 480 have good and bad points. I think Tom's had a very valid point at the end of the review, that if it were available for 200.00, the 4gb 480 could be the best option. Probably good enough for 1080p, while the 8gb 480 and 6gb 1060 are kind of in limbo, more than needed for 1080p, but a bit sketchy for 1440 and VR. The 1060 really needs a more decisive advantage in current games to offset the possible future advantage of the 480 in DX12. (Although all the bashing of every nVidia card and hyping of vulcan and DX 12 is really getting old, it is a factor to consider.) OTOH, I really would resent buying a 480 because AMD so badly overpromised and underdelivered on the efficiency claims. And yes, denigrate it all you want, AMD fans, but efficiency *is* very important to me.

Finally, 300.00 for the FE 1060 is simply absurd. If the aftermarket cards settle in around 250.00 (edit: with decent availability), then it would be a much more viable choice.

 

[RussianSensation]

A minor 3% according to Hardware Canucks (4 games) and ComptoirduHardware (7+1 games), while GTX 1060 is 12% faster in DX11, which represents the majority of titles people play today. Lower power (overall), temps and noise (reference vs reference) and great custom models available from the start as a bonus. For a lot of people it's actually a better card than the competitor, for similar prices if you ignore from the obvious gouging.

BS. You are purposely ignoring the best deal in the $200-300 price segment, the 4GB RX 480.

Stating DX12/Vulkan games don't matter is ignorance at its finest given that BF1, Deus Ex MD, Watch Dogs 2 are going to be AMD Gaming Evolved titles.

We have heard for years how future performance in games doesn't matter because we all buy next gen cards to play 3-4 year old DX11 games, not games released in the next 1-2 years?

TechSpot

"We have now tested the RX 480 4GB model and can confirm there is no noticeable reduction in performance. So when it comes to shopping for the best value, you should most certainly save 20% off the sticker price and get the 4GB RX 480. At $200 AMD has a considerably stronger product on its hands as you are about to see from the cost per frame data:

DX11
1060 $299 MSRP = 58 fps = $5.17 per frame
1060 $249 MSRP = 58 fps = $4.31 per frame
RX 480 4GB $199 MSRP = 52 fps = $3.84 per frame

DX12
1060 $299 MSRP = 60 fps = $5.00 per frame
1060 $249 MSRP = 60 fps = $4.16 per frame
RX 480 4GB $199 MSRP = 61 fps = $3.27 per frame
http://www.techspot.com/review/1209-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060/page10.html

The unbiased reality is that RX 480 4GB offers great 1080p 60 fps performance, at least as good DX12 performance and costs substantially less than the GTX1060 6GB.

If the gamer is savvy, he/she can find a good deal on the mobo and step up from an i5 6400 to the i5 6600K or from the i5 6600K to the i7 6700/K.

This is exactly what I said will happen before 1060 even launched but I thought it would beat 480 by 15%, not 7-8%.

RX 480 also earns ~ $45 USD in profits per month.

At 175W power usage, 27MH/sec, $0.20 USD per kWh, even with the increased difficulty, the RX 480 is estimated to earn $175 USD in profits over the next 6 months, almost paying for itself entirely.
http://karldiab.com/EthereumMiningCalculator/

Your blatant disregard for the RX 480 4GB model and disregard for RX 480's ability to actually make $ both show you aren't presenting all of the advantage RX 480 has. If there were no RX 480 4GB cards on the market and ethereum mining wasn't a thing, then a $249 1060 6GB would be a better deal than a $239 RX 480 8GB but that's not what's happening in the real world.

The last time gamers listened to horrible advice to buy a GPU for today's games and ignore the future, they got GTX660->780Ti = all overpriced and under-performing NV cards over the 3-4 year period that gamers actually kept those cards over the HD7850->R9 290X series.

Why would someone prioritize old DX11 games over upcoming DX12 titles that are actually some of the most anticipated games of 2016?

1060 shows almost no gains under DX12/Vulkan which means its DX11&12 performance is likely what you see and what you get in the next 1-2 years.

RX 480's DX11 performance is not a reflection of the card's potential for next gen games. The RX 480's $199 MSRP is even $50 less, $ that can be used to buy a better CPU that will last 5 years.

I'd argue the opposite of your case: most gamers are better off squeezing the $50 savings and buying an RX 480 4GB and investing the difference into a faster CPU instead since that's $ well spent. Real world performance difference between RX 480 and 1060 under DX11 will not be material at all. Moving up from an i3 6100 to an i5 6400 or i5 6400 to a 4.6-4.8Ghz i5 6600K is a far bigger deal long-term.

It's also face palming seeing the same people who defended and blatantly ignored R9 280X/380X/290 over $50-75 cheaper GTX950/960 cards are now recommending that gamers spend $50-100 extra for the 1060 over the $200 RX 480 4GB. That's like the biggest insult on a technical forum because a $250-275 R9 290 was as fast as $400 GTX960 SLI but a 1060 is not even 10% faster than a 480!!!

And yes, denigrate it all you want, AMD fans, but efficiency *is* very important to me.

What CPU do you have with that HD7770? Chances are the $149 RX 470 would be the 1080p 60Hz card for you anyway. There is no way that a $250 RX 480/1060 will be as good of a value if the RX 470 can overclock and reach GTX970/R9 290 level of performance at 1080p.

As far as efficiency is concerned, what's the break even time to make up the $50 spent upfront on the GTX1060 over the RX 480 4GB? Right now there are no RX 480/1060 cards available which means claiming that RX 480 4GB is sold out is irrelevant since the entire segment is sold out.

Also, since it seems you are a budget gamer with a 7770, I don't understand why you are ignoring the fact that RX 480 actually makes $ monthly and pays for electricity while doing so?

 

[zinfamous]

Problem right now is that you have to decide whether you want to purchase for the present or try to predict the future. Both the 1060 and 480 have good and bad points. I think Tom's had a very valid point at the end of the review, that if it were available for 200.00, the 4gb 480 could be the best option. Probably good enough for 1080p, while the 8gb 480 and 6gb 1060 are kind of in limbo, more than needed for 1080p, but a bit sketchy for 1440 and VR. The 1060 really needs a more decisive advantage in current games to offset the possible future advantage of the 480 in DX12. (Although all the bashing of every nVidia card and hyping of vulcan and DX 12 is really getting old, it is a factor to consider.) OTOH, I really would resent buying a 480 because AMD so badly overpromised and underdelivered on the efficiency claims. And yes, denigrate it all you want, AMD fans, but efficiency *is* very important to me.

Finally, 300.00 for the FE 1060 is simply absurd. If the aftermarket cards settle in around 250.00, then it would be a much more viable choice.

yeah, I think that is fair and very reasonable. Neither are at a definite yes or no for a general answer right now. Problem is it's too early to tell right now with upcoming and future development with nascent APIs leaving a lot of speculation on the table, + current prices and stock issues of both leave every body playing the "well, if at this price!" argument.

At least for nVidia's sake, the 1060 didn't release with a rather alarming power draw issue on top of a TDP that simply doesn't (and con't) meet AMD's advertised spec. Still, raw performance is pretty much what is expected and the overall drama over that was a bit overblown, imo (not to say it wasn't a real issue considering AMD's advertised claims)

 

[Sweepr]

The Warhammer DX12 patch is broken and the internal benchmark doesnt reflect real gameplay: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Total...Specials/Direct-X-12-Benchmarks-Test-1200551/

A GTX1060 with DX11 is still faster than a RX 480 with DX12 in real gameplay:
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/geforce-gtx-1060-test/3/#diagramm-total-war-warhammer-2560-1440

In Talos a GTX1060 is 50% faster with Vulkan than the RX 480: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2518-nvidia-gtx-1060-review-and-benchmark-vs-rx-480/page-4

GTX1060 is faster in Forza Apex: http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/geforce-gtx-1060-test/strona/26424.html

Maybe you guys should take a step back and relax.

Nice find. DX12/Vulkan is all about specific vendor optimizations, and using Gaming Evolved titles as definite proof that the competitor is superior in all titles running on these new APIs is laughable at best.

Futuremark's new TimeSpy DX12 benchmark is tested here, with async on and off. AMD gains around 12 per cent, double Nvidia's boost with async enabled - but it does demonstrate that the feature is active on Pascal. GTX 980 testing shows that Maxwell gains nothing here.

And the card is a step up from Maxwell here as well.

 

[Thala]

OTOH, I really would resent buying a 480 because AMD so badly overpromised and underdelivered on the efficiency claims.

That is the biggest gripe i have as well with RX480. Although objectively looking a 40W difference is close to negligible from the financial point of view. But still AMD clearly overpromised here with their 2.8x efficiency claims.