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

[sontin]

https://bethesda.net/#en/events/game/doom-vulkan-support-now-live/2016/07/11/156

The FIRST showing of Vulkan was with Nvidia on stage during the 1080 announcement.

Doesnt matter when they dont care to optimize it. They just used nVidia.
Reality is that their developers are using Twitter to advertise AMD cards.

Doom is everything but neutral.

 

[moonbogg]

the funny thing is that I think people who would buy a 970 last year will probably buy a 1060 now (which is a lot cheaper) because it really looks good compared to the 960 and the 1070 is a lot more expensive than the 970 was, kind of feels like Nvidia was forced to the $250 price point because of the 480, competition is good.

Due to the insane price increases, high end buyers are now forced into the mid range bracket, and mid range buyers are forced into the low end bracket. The only people buying high end cards are the enthusiasts who would buy them no matter what they cost. If 1080 cost $1,000, many of those people would buy it regardless. Everyone else has been forced down an entire performance bracket.
GTX 580 equivalent has been at $1,000 for a couple generations now and its likely to go beyond that next time.

 

[sirmo]

Doesnt matter when they dont care to optimize it. They just used nVidia.
Reality is that their developers are using Twitter to advertise AMD cards.

Doom is everything but neutral.

Is this the same game that ran fine in beta and then again poorly on half the AMD cards after release which AMD had to rush a driver fix for? http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/drive...river-aims-to-fix-r9-390-performance-in-doom/

Or the game that Nvidia used to showcase Vulkan on 1080 right before the 1080 launch? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueRjbYdcXbs (they even mention having Nvidia on site during development in the video)

please..

Doom is just a well optimized game for both IHVs. It's actually an example to other developers of how to optimize an engine.

 

[Bacon1]

Doesnt matter when they dont care to optimize it. They just used nVidia.
Reality is that their developers are using Twitter to advertise AMD cards.

Doom is everything but neutral.

Yep they aren't neutral, they were on stage with Nvidia during 1080 release, put out a video showing off the 1080 running vulkan and more, but yep, totally biased towards AMD right?

Where are the Async compute drivers for Maxwell that were supposed to be out last year when Ashes of the Singularity released?

Why are we always waiting for drivers from Nvidia? I mean it was the end of the world when AMD took 3 days to release their driver for 390 to fix doom issues in opengl. Yet we are now 8 days out and no async compute driver for Nvidia? For shame :whiste:

 

[Silverforce11]

The title of this thread is incorrect. The prices aren't even correct since it's everywhere.

It should be, "1060, a little faster than RX 480 in DX11, a lot slower in DX12/Vulkan".

To be precise / accurate.

 

[swilli89]

Reviews added to the OP!

Geforce GTX 1060 Reviews

4Gamer
ArabHardware
ArsTechnica
ComptoirduHardware
ComputerBase
Clubic
ElChapuzasInformatico
eTeknix
GamersNexus
GameStar.de
GameSpot
Guru3D
Hardware.info
Hardware Canucks
Hardware.fr
Hexus
HKPEC
HotHardware
NordicHardware
PCGamesHardware.de
PCWorld
PC Perspective
Phoronix
Pure PC
PCLab
PC Watch
SweClockers
Tom's Hardware
TechPowerUp
Tweakers
Xfastest

Weird how you didn't include [H].

Beyond that, Techpowerup's benchmark suite is pretty decidedly outdated, they don't test any of the modern APIs. How could they possibly leave out Doom?

I think most agree Computerbase is about the best site out there for pure, objective and comprehensive benchmarks. Right now a reference 480 is 6% slower across the board and costs 20% less. We all know 480's reference design isn't great and I think most expect a healthy increase in performance soon from AIBs. From reviews the 1060 AIB perform the same as the FE so we won't expect any increase there.

So the 480 AIBs will probably make the performance similar for

• less cost
• more RAM
• Much better DX12 and Vulkan performance (easily more future proof with this combined with the additional RAM).

So explain to me how the 480 isn't the better option?

 

[Sweepr]

The title of this thread is incorrect. The prices aren't even correct since it's everywhere.

$249 cards available from day 1. Looks like your prediction of prices starting at $299 was just fantasy.

A wide variety of cards are due to hit today, from most of the major players. The list of cards launching today include...

EVGA GTX 1060 edition: $249
EVGA GTX 1060 Superclocked (SC) Edition: $259
ASUS STRIX-GTX1060-6G-GAMING: $329
ASUS Turbo Edition: $249
PNY GeForce GTX 1060: $259
MSI GeForce GTX 1060 GAMING X 6G: $289
MSI GeForce GTX 1060 Gaming 6G: $279
MSI GeForce GTX 1060 Armor 6G OC: $259
MSI GeForce GTX 1060 6GT: $249
Gigabyte GV-N1060G1 GAMING-6GD: $289
Zotac GeForce GTX 1060 AMP 6GB: $279
ZT-P10600A-10L ZOTAC GTX 1060 Mini 6G: $249

6 VGAs listed at $249 @ Newegg (currently out of stock), some of them even include a slight factory OC. Certain users here already bought one.

www.newegg.com/VGA/EventSaleStore/I...3512X1535351Xcca30333b0424abe4c9d3e6e9dbcb815

It should be, "1060, a little faster than RX 480 in DX11, a lot slower in DX12/Vulkan".

To be precise / accurate.

To be even more precise/accurate: ~7-12% faster in DX 11, a little slower ~3% in DX12 (#1, #2) - at lower power/heat/noise, smaller die size and with plenty of custom models available at launch to choose.

 

[zinfamous]

did those listed at 249 actually sell, or was it just a listing with perma "OOS"? I know that sounds strange and conspiricish, but I don't think there was really enough stock to hit that price.

I also like how you take the maximum performance difference favoring nVidia and the lowest performance difference favoring AMD in your response, rather than the actual truth, which shows that the performance difference is a wash

Excellent reporting there, Ace! :thumbsup:

 

[boozzer]

did those listed at 249 actually sell, or was it just a listing with perma "OOS"? I know that sounds strange and conspiricish, but I don't think there was really enough stock to hit that price.

perma oos is the case for all 249$ versions just like the lower price 1070s :thumbsdown:

seems like any reviews even remotely showing 480 in a positive light is excluded from the list of reviews

 

[Glo.]

did those listed at 249 actually sell, or was it just a listing with perma "OOS"? I know that sounds strange and conspiricish, but I don't think there was really enough stock to hit that price.

I also like how you take the maximum performance difference favoring nVidia and the lowest performance difference favoring AMD in your response, rather than the actual truth, which shows that the performance difference is a wash

Excellent reporting there, Ace! :thumbsup:

In my country there is absolutely no point in being interested in AMD lineup.

Nano - 2349 PLN
Fury - 1999 PLN
GTX 1070 - 2179 PLN, 2299 PLN
GTX 1060 - 1279 PLN.

It is bonkers to think about this. And yes, the GPUs are actually in stock in some of shops.

 

[sontin]

Yep they aren't neutral, they were on stage with Nvidia during 1080 release, put out a video showing off the 1080 running vulkan and more, but yep, totally biased towards AMD right?

So, advertising AMD cards over Twitter makes a developer not biased.
The Pascal launch was 2 months earlier. Enough time to sabotage gaming for nVidia customer for advertising AMD.

Feel free to proof that the Vulkan path is optimized for nVidia cards and id has done something. Otherwise let it just go.

 

[boozzer]

In my country there is absolutely no point in being interested in AMD lineup.

Nano - 2349 PLN
Fury - 1999 PLN
GTX 1070 - 2179 PLN, 2299 PLN
GTX 1060 - 1279 PLN.

It is bonkers to think about this. And yes, the GPUs are actually in stock in some of shops.

buying the 1070 is a no brainer in your country. do you know why amd gpus cost so much in your country? just seem weird how the prices aren't lowered as new cards come out.

 

[Ketchup]

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

I find it funny that you give a "segment" starting at $200 a $100 price range.

TBH, I think the people looking to buy cards for future games are looking at a higher price segment than the 660 and the 480. At least they should be.

I also think it's interesting that a card that has been out for less than one day is being compared by price. If people are that price sensitive, they are going to wait for the price to settle down, and of course, for the card to actually be available for purchase somewhere.

 

[nurturedhate]

So, advertising AMD cards over Twitter makes a developer not biased.
The Pascal launch was 2 months earlier. Enough time to sabotage gaming for nVidia customer for advertising AMD.

Feel free to proof that the Vulkan path is optimized for nVidia cards and id has done something. Otherwise let it just go.

bwahhahhhaha.
ha.

I'm sorry but the shifting of goalposts and who did what is quite comical at this point. Remember when Doom released and people were saying id and Nvidia did something to the game and you and your like went around saying how id is not biased.... and now this. This is high comedy my friend. High comedy indeed.

 

[boozzer]

So, advertising AMD cards over Twitter makes a developer not biased.
The Pascal launch was 2 months earlier. Enough time to sabotage gaming for nVidia customer for advertising AMD.

Feel free to proof that the Vulkan path is optimized for nVidia cards and id has done something. Otherwise let it just go.

vulkan is a API. not proprietary crap like gameworks or gaming evolve. how did id sabotage nv cards? do tell.

 

[frozentundra123456]

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!!!



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?

I dont do any mining if that is what you mean. My cpu is an i5 2320 at stock. I agree the 470 will be more than enough for me. In fact I probably will stick with the 7770 until a new game comes out that it cant handle that I am interested in. Right now I am playing older games. The only new games that would motivate me to upgrade would be a new Elder Scrolls or Borderlands single player game.

 

[Glo.]

buying the 1070 is a no brainer in your country. do you know why amd gpus cost so much in your country? just seem weird how the prices aren't lowered as new cards come out.

I have absolutely no idea. To make a point I forgot to mention how much RX 480 costs. It is 1349 PLN.

70 PLN more than faster, and consuming less power GTX 1060. And GTX 1060 is in stock.

 

[Sweepr]

Right now a reference 480 is 6% slower across the board and costs 20% less.

The reference 8GB model costs only $10 less than a nice custom GTX 1060 that even includes slight OC. Minor difference and even lower price for NVIDIA (vs 8GB model) in other countries as well. Really a no brainer, which is why you had to bring up the 4GB model that doesn't have a direct competitor yet.

We all know 480's reference design isn't great and I think most expect a healthy increase in performance soon from AIBs. From reviews the 1060 AIB perform the same as the FE so we won't expect any increase there.

Nice to know that cheaper cards are performing just as well/better than the $299 model.

[*]Much better DX12 and Vulkan performance (easily more future proof with this combined with the additional RAM).

Less than 5% better DX12 performance overall, and that includes Gaming Evolved titles. Time Spy already indicates there's no surprise when you optimize for both. Overall it is slower in the majority of today's games and more power hungry, which is enough reason to consider the alternative. _

 

[nurturedhate]

vulkan is a API. not proprietary crap like gameworks or gaming evolve. how did id sabotage nv cards? do tell.

Don't even try to guess. When Doom released and performance was different from the beta some people were all over the "id and Doom are not biased" and now the same people are all "id and Doom are completely biases, look here" yet now ignore id and the 1080 launch....

It's ridiculous. It's stunning. It's hysterical.

 

[sontin]

vulkan is a API. not proprietary crap like gameworks or gaming evolve. how did id sabotage nv cards? do tell.

Dont know. Ask Creative Assembly for an explanation. They did it: http://www.dsogaming.com/news/report-total-war-warhammer-runs-27-slower-dx12-nvidias-hardware/

Or maybe Croteam with Talos: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2518-nvidia-gtx-1060-review-and-benchmark-vs-rx-480/page-4

There are enough ways. I have the Twitter account from the "lead renderer programmer" as a proof that they dont care about nVidia.

 

[96Firebird]

Don't even try to guess. When Doom released and performance was different from the beta some people were all over the "id and Doom are not biased" and now the same people are all "id and Doom are completely biases, look here" yet now ignore id and the 1080 launch....

It's ridiculous. It's stunning. It's hysterical.

Surely you see the much more prevalent opposite of that, right? If not, well...

 

[sirmo]

The reference 8GB model costs only $10 less than a nice custom GTX 1060 that even includes slight OC.

You mean the loss leader price?

Have we not just gone through the 1080 and 1070 dual pricing racket?

 

[nurturedhate]

Dont know. Ask Creative Assembly for an explanation. They did it: http://www.dsogaming.com/news/report-total-war-warhammer-runs-27-slower-dx12-nvidias-hardware/

Or maybe Croteam with Talos: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2518-nvidia-gtx-1060-review-and-benchmark-vs-rx-480/page-4

There are enough ways. I have the Twitter account from the "lead renderer programmer" as a proof that they dont care about nVidia.

So you are posting multiple sources from differing games and engines that show Nvidia in a negative light in DX12 and we are suppose to ask each individual game and engine designer why they all decided not to optimize for Nvidia hardware? The majority of the pc market company? Why they didn't optimize their software? All of them? You see the pattern here? It has been forming for a while. Wait, hold on, I bet it's those async drivers Nvidia promised a long time ago. When are those suppose to come out again? Have a date? A guess? A hunch? No? Figured.

See when you have spent a LONG time saying that its AMD's fault for not optimizing for this and that you don't get to go and say the opposite for Nvidia. This is the internet. Things get saved. People remember stuff. This is how all of this works. Try to remember that.

 

[nurturedhate]

Surely you see the much more prevalent opposite of that, right? If not, well...

I do, I think both sides are hysterical. What's your point?

 

[garagisti]

Is this the same game that ran fine in beta and then again poorly on half the AMD cards after release which AMD had to rush a driver fix for? http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/drive...river-aims-to-fix-r9-390-performance-in-doom/

Or the game that Nvidia used to showcase Vulkan on 1080 right before the 1080 launch? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueRjbYdcXbs (they even mention having Nvidia on site during development in the video)

please..

Doom is just a well optimized game for both IHVs. It's actually an example to other developers of how to optimize an engine.

Nvidia loses bench means the game is rubbish and poorly coded.

That said, some would understand that there's a difference between the architectures, and that Nvidia's is better suited for dx11, than 12. Volta, is a new architecture iirc, and should do decidedly better than Pascal, which is tweaked Maxwell.

Of course, the same lot would peddle TRoTR as a proper DX12 benchmark, the only DX12 game which lost performance compared to DX11 on both Nvidia & AMD.