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

[Keysplayr]

Apparently even Manufacturer doesn't adhere to Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price. They could set it at 1$ and it would be the same... irrelevant.

Irrelevant because you say it is? Not likely. Supply and demand can and does play a part.

 

[Erenhardt]

Irrelevant because you say it is? Not likely. Supply and demand can and does play a part.

You want me to believe you will use perf/$ charts with amd GPU at the top just because amd states MSRP for their cards is 1$? But they actually sell them on their site for $250? Do you see where it is going?

 

[poofyhairguy]

If we go by the definition at the end of your post, the prices would be $400 for the 480 (since that is the only price that has been available for multiple days),

You missed a key part of the metric, it's not about at that moment availability.

My last metric was three parts:

1. Lowest price on Newegg without a Paypal or visa or any generic coupon (a Newegg coupon code just for a particular GPU is fine though).

2. Is that price for more than one day (basically culling a day like Black Friday)

3. For that GPU Newegg allows people to sign up for auto-notify if not in stock, which Newegg only does if more stock is coming. When a product won't be stocked anymore they won't let you do that

By the metric the lowest auto notify 1070 is $399. The lowest auto-notify 8GB AMD 480 is $240.

 

[Keysplayr]

You're going to believe whatever you want anyway, so do you really want an answer? No, I "believe" you do not.

You missed a key part of the metric, it's not about at that moment availability.

My last metric was three parts:

1. Lowest price on Newegg without a Paypal or visa or any generic coupon (a Newegg coupon code just for a particular GPU is fine though).

2. Is that price for more than one day (basically culling a day like Black Friday)

3. For that GPU Newegg allows people to sign up for auto-notify if not in stock, which Newegg only does if more stock is coming. When a product won't be stocked anymore they won't let you do that

By the metric the lowest auto notify 1070 is $399. The lowest auto-notify 8GB AMD 480 is $240.

Also, why is the 1070 and the 480 even in the same conversation? Shouldn't this be an exclusive 1060 and 480 price/perf discussion?

 

[Keysplayr]

You want me to believe you will use perf/$ charts with amd GPU at the top just because amd states MSRP for their cards is 1$? But they actually sell them on their site for $250? Do you see where it is going?

Wait, are these questions rhetorical? Because..... ?

 

[poofyhairguy]

Also, why is the 1070 and the 480 even in the same conversation? Shouldn't this be an exclusive 1060 and 480 price/perf discussion?

I mentioned the 1070 for an example.

By the Newegg metric the correct price to use to calculate 1060 perf/$ is $249.

 

[Keysplayr]

I mentioned the 1070 for an example.

By the Newegg metric the correct price to use to calculate 1060 perf/$ is $249.

So, use the lowest available price for the 1060 if it helps your argument.

 

[sze5003]

Aren't you guys talking about the lowest msrp for everything ? Default msrp for the 480's reference when they came out is $239 if you don't count the xfx backplate edition.

 

[poofyhairguy]

So, use the lowest available price for the 1060 if it helps your argument.

The whole point of the metric (any metric) is to have a consistent comparison. I don't have an argument other than trying to identify a good metric.

The practical way of looking at it is on more than one day the best price people have bought a 1060 at is $249.99. The best price people have bought a 480 8GB multiple days is $239.99. That seems fair to me, and the fact those prices line up to MSRP or any other number is coincidence. We know that because by the same metric the lowest multi day price for a 1070 is $399.99 (which happens to be higher than the useless MSRP metric).

I don't see how there could possibly be a better metric to use, as it's not biased either way or tied to any sort of "announced" press release prices. Real world pricing should trump all.

 

[Keysplayr]

I really don't see how any of this TRULY matters anyway. 1060 is higher performing, less power consuming, and about equal cost to a 480. Both cards are close in dx12. 1060 dominates in dx11. It's kind of an easy choice if that is the general question being posed here.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I really don't see how any of this TRULY matters anyway.

Is that your way of begrudgingly agreeing to the viability of my metric?

BTW I never said the 1060 wasn't a great value card. By my metric it is second only to the $199.99 4GB 480 on perf/$. I would recommend one over a 8GB 480 in most cases because of that metric.

 

[dark zero]

I really don't see how any of this TRULY matters anyway. 1060 is higher performing, less power consuming, and about equal cost to a 480. Both cards are close in dx12. 1060 dominates in dx11. It's kind of an easy choice if that is the general question being posed here.

Is an awful cryptominer compared to the 480... And that makes them more expensive.

 

[hrga225]

I really don't see how any of this TRULY matters anyway. 1060 is higher performing, less power consuming, and about equal cost to a 480. Both cards are close in dx12. 1060 dominates in dx11. It's kind of an easy choice if that is the general question being posed here.

I partially agree.In todays DX11 and DX12 they perform about the same,and price is about the same,so as you said - pick your poison.
Now,todays DX12 games use featurelevel_11.My believe is that when games start to use featurelevel_12,RX480 will be substantially faster.Will that be enough performance to achieve playable(or good enough) framerate is completely different matter.

 

[jkauff]

In the U.S., MSRP is legally required only for vehicles. Other companies use it for their own purposes, which vary. It's highly abused in the retail world. Apparel makers, for example, set a high MSRP on their goods so retailers can advertise that they're selling an item for "40% off", when in fact it's their regular everyday price.

I don't know why it even exists in the GPU world, except maybe to make Nvidia or AMD products look like a better deal than the other's--or maybe better than last year's models.

For high-demand GPUs, retailers price according to supply and demand. Period. MSRP means nothing to them. It's easy to put a low price tag on an item that you don't have in stock, but expect that price to change when they actually get some inventory.

 

[Keysplayr]

Is that your way of begrudgingly agreeing to the viability of my metric?

BTW I never said the 1060 wasn't a great value card. By my metric it is second only to the $199.99 4GB 480 on perf/$. I would recommend one over a 8GB 480 in most cases because of that metric.

Still demanding to be right?
No man. it's that it TRULY doesn't matter. It's why I capitalized the letters. For emphasis.

 

[Sweepr]

Geforce GTX 1060 3GB Specs

Launch in early September.

Some Geforce GTX 1050 bits/rumors:
- Arrives in October
- 128-bit (4GB?)
- About half the price of GTX 1060 6GB
- Similar performance to GTX 960

 

[poofyhairguy]

Still demanding to be right?

No man, I just want to identify the best metric for perf/$ because it comes up in almost every single thread (including this one). It's no fun rehashing it every time.

If you have a better metric I would love to hear it, I would love to admit I am wrong about my Newegg metric because there is something better we can use.

Perf/$ is all that TRULY matters at the end of the day so it's important to be consistent with that metric.

 

[Keysplayr]

No man, I just want to identify the best metric for perf/$ because it comes up in almost every single thread (including this one). It's no fun rehashing it every time.

If you have a better metric I would love to hear it, I would love to admit I am wrong about my Newegg metric because there is something better we can use.

Perf/$ is all that TRULY matters at the end of the day so it's important to be consistent with that metric.

My point was there really isn't any need for any metric. It's just a bragging rights thing. No real meaning in the real world.
If you can arbitrarily change any metric you wish, then there are no need for any metrics at all.

 

[Yakk]

The 480 are paying for themselves, so Free on a Perf/$ metric makes it interesting.

 

[poofyhairguy]

My point was there really isn't any need for any metric. It's just a bragging rights thing.

"Just a bragging rights thing" would be me saying "the 8GB 480 is $199.99 because I bought one for that price." Such a statement ignores the fact that the next person who buys a reference 4GB 480 might not get the extra 4GB of VRAM no matter how savvy they are. Or someone going "I got my 1060 for $225 because a Paypal coupon" is a bragging rights thing because that coupon is expired and had nothing to do with how Newegg is pricing 1060s.

Trying to figure out the best metric for perf/$ is at the core of trying to decide which product is the best for your money and what product to recommend to other people (which is why people come here). Without a consistent metric pages of words are wasted as people put forth whatever perf/$ metric they can think of that makes their "side" look better.

What do you think we should recommend cards based on- how many lights the GPU cooler has? Which side gives you or miners the most GPUs for free? We need a solid metric that applies to everyone, and in that perf/$ is king.

No real meaning in the real world.

You must be kidding me. Yeah right, perf/$ has no meaning in the real world which must be why EVERY GPU review mentions it.

This is a technology site, not a fashion blog. Metrics and facts are the only way we know which product is the better technology offering. When people come here for recommendations being able to say "this is the fastest card for the money" is a huge deal. It used to be the only metric that matters, and I argue it's still the most important metric for MOST midrange consumers with options (aka people looking at this thread trying to figure out which card to get).

If you can arbitrarily change any metric you wish, then there are no need for any metrics at all.

Agreed, which is why I put forth what I think is a consistent and fair perf/$ metric that would apply to any savvy (read: can put in a nowinstock notification and buy when the lowest priced card is in stock) GPU consumer. Heck once supply catches up even the savvy part won't matter, all that will matter is perf/$.

But as I said, if you have a better metric for perf/$ spill the beans please. I am open to ideas, and I would be happy to admit a better metric exists. I care more to have something we can all agree on so when the next cards hit (1060 3GB, 1050, AMD Vega, etc.) we don't have to have this metrics discussion all over again. For example, I could see the value in having two perf/$ metrics- a Directx 11 perf/$ one and a Vulkan/Directx 12 perf/$ one. What matters is fairness and consistency.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Geforce GTX 1060 3GB Specs

Launch in early September.

Some Geforce GTX 1050 bits/rumors:
- Arrives in October
- 128-bit (4GB?)
- About half the price of GTX 1060 6GB
- Similar performance to GTX 960

If the 1050 can get 960 level performance it would nicely fit into the gap between the 460 and 470 from AMD. If the price is around 125.00 (half of the suggested 249.00 AIB 1060) it would be a great deal. However if it is around 150.00 (half of a 1060 at 300.00), then it becomes very much less attractive vs a 200.00 470. Anything over 150.00 also should have at least 4gb of vram (either 1050 or 1060).

 

[96Firebird]

The 480 are paying for themselves, so Free on a Perf/$ metric makes it interesting.

The 1060 are paying for themselves under Linux, so free on a perf/$ metric makes it interesting.

 

[Erenhardt]

I really don't see how any of this TRULY matters anyway. 1060 is higher performing, less power consuming, and about equal cost to a 480. Both cards are close in dx12. 1060 dominates in dx11. It's kind of an easy choice if that is the general question being posed here.

FYI:
In real life 1060 is less than 5% faster than 480 in dx11, a lot slower in dx12 a hugely inferior in vulkan, and more expensive.

Custom 480 are up to 10% faster than reference which puts then right where the 1060 cards are. Funny how quickly the 1060 is loosing ground. How many weeks until 1060 will have to fight against 470?

Rx 480 have freesync support, has more memory, and can make money with mining. A huge deal when we are counting every penny worth of frame. Don't tell me a cheapskate that picks the best perf/$ GPU counting down the single cents per frame, will then fork $200 premium for gsync monitor. If not, how will his experience compare to the other guy with freesync?


So you were right only on two things here. 480 consumes more power, true - about 50 watts, which sound funny ^^. And the choice is very simple - 480 is the card to get if you cant find 470 anywhere.

 

[Sweepr]

FYI:
In real life 1060 is less than 5% faster than 480 in dx11, a lot slower in dx12 a hugely inferior in vulkan, and more expensive.

In real life AMD's overhyped advantage in DX12 is in the single digits, and that includes their Gaming Evolved titles (more like tech demos). Even custom RX 480 is slower overall than stock clocks GTX 1060 6GB - using an extra 80W and with less OCing headroom on top. I know it's hard to accept but GTX 1060 GB is the better card for most.

 

[guachi]

With a Gsync monitor being $150-300 more than an equivalent Freesync monitor, the $/performance metric for a 1060 vs. 480 is awful.

And, for me, *sync is a must. The 1060 was never an option.