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

[Phynaz]

Also, as i have said so many times, GCN is not optimized for DX-11 but for DX-12/Vulkan/Metal.

Sure. AMD planned on those API's in 2008 when GCN was being designed. Six years before Microsoft announced DX12 and Apple announced Metal.

That's one hell of a crystal ball.

 

[Azix]

Do i have to state the obvious. perf/watt and the ramifications for the higher end Vega GPUs which are going to be power limited to 250w-275w(max) .

Vega should be fine. Obviously AMD has a history of improving performance while keeping similar tdp. Vega is a new architecture over polaris so that is a possibility. They have around 100W over the 480 to work with.

 

[Cookie Monster]

AMD GPUs seem to be all purpose devices, sure their efficiency can't compete with nVIDIA's offerings, but they are way more compute capable. I don’t think their perf/watt is bad because Polaris packs 390/X performance with almost half the power draw, and that to me is monumental, and proof that GCN is alive and well. And when it comes to higher end gaming, power efficiency doesn't carry that much weight, even Maxwell/Pascal sip a lot of power at the ultra-high end segment. If Vega can deliver 250W TDP and rival 1080/TitanX(P) it will be all good, and their DX12/Vulkan lead would most likely increase tremendously. As for Volta, we will see. But for now NVidia will have to brute force their way through current and future async compute heavy DX12/Vulkan titles, while AMD users will see their hardware take advantage of these new APis.

What does being all purpose have anything to do with this? Actually a better question here is, why be the jack of all trades when its not a master in anything?

Also why do you need compute capabilities e.g. FP64 for games knowing that it doesn't benefit in games? Id prefer power efficiency over compute especially if Im going to use to for gaming.

You bring up how RX480 is monumental as it performs like a 390X while consuming half the power.. but a GTX1070 based on the so called failure Pascal, performs roughly 30~40% faster than the 390X at the similar power draw of a RX480. To me the latter is much more impressive than the former.

Power efficiency does carry its weight even at the high end, because this will be the limiting factor for the high end chips. There is a reason why you dont see >300W GPUs as often.

If Polaris is any indication of Vega, Vega will be a very power hungry GPU regardless of HBM2.0 (a simple doubling of Polaris with HBM2.0 will bring it at the levels of a GTX1080 possibly at ~250W TDP but how will it compete against GP102 based cards?).

Anyways.. I think we may have gone way to OT.

 

[esquared]

You folks need to stay on topic. This is a GTX 1060 thread. Not an AMD thread.

if you want to talk about AMD? Start your own thread or participate in the many thread we already have.

Next time, I will start issuing infractions.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[3DVagabond]

imo AMD way overhyped Polaris with 2.5x perf/watt improvement claims and we all now know it was plain lies. AMD now resembles a company which has only hype and marketing to sell what are basically unimpressive products. Even if you consider DX12/Vulkan performance the custom GTX 1060 has still better perf/watt than custom Rx 480 as we are seeing custom 480 draw 200+w while custom 1060 are drawing 130w. AMD's DX12 perf lead is 5-10% but Nvidia's per/watt lead is >50% . btw we are seeing custom 1060 and custom 480 selling at same price so thats a perfectly fair comparison.




I do not expect miracles from Vega. Given AMD's improvements to GCN are incremental and over 4 years perf/sp has moved up by only 15-20% I do not expect a Kepler->Maxwell jump in perf/sp or perf/watt with Vega.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.computerbase.de/2016-08/amd-radeon-polaris-architektur-performance/2/&edit-text=

If you are going to hang the success or failure of a design on the marketing dept. you are going to be disappointed often. Imagine if you saw nVidia's presentation with Id running Doom and thought, "Wow, nVidia is going to be the card to have for Doom and Vulkan", and bought it?

 

[Keysplayr]

No need to imagine. People did. And likely very happily playing Doom and maybe some games other than Doom as well.

 

[Sweepr]

https://world.tmall.com/item/537231209043.htm?id=537231209043

 

[GIS]

So I received my 1060 today, but when I try to setup my wallpaper (I usually get high quality photos from interfacelift), the images appeared washed-out to me...Or am I illusion? I download the same images I previously used and I remember they look much sharper on my 5 year old HD 6950...I see some white tinting effects on images, web browsing, and just everything in general. Any ideas what's going on? Or I have to set up correctly. I don't know how to tweet the GPU to make images look sharper and just more colorful for lack of a better word.

Edit: Yes, I'm 100% certain now, for some reason, screen look washed-out (like some white casting on the screen). When I go to my school website, the landscapes and people look bland to me, like lost of color saturation or something. I have not change any settings on my monitor tho...what's going on.

This will have huge impact on indie games as graphics are their selling point. Welp

 

[Keysplayr]

So I received my 1060 today, but when I try to setup my wallpaper (I usually get high quality photos from interfacelift), the images appeared washed-out to me...Or am I illusion? I download the same images I previously used and I remember they look much sharper on my 5 year old HD 6950...I see some white tinting effects on images, web browsing, and just everything in general. Any ideas what's going on? Or I have to set up correctly. I don't know how to tweet the GPU to make images look sharper and just more colorful for lack of a better word.

Edit: Yes, I'm 100% certain now, for some reason, screen look washed-out (like some white casting on the screen). When I go to my school website, the landscapes and people look bland to me, like lost of color saturation or something. I have not change any settings on my monitor tho...what's going on.

This will have huge impact on indie games as graphics are their selling point. Welp

Have you played with the color settings? Gamma? You might try starting there. Gamma is a huge culprit for washed-out appearances. Your AMD card may have required a higher gamma setting than is required for your Nvidia card.
How did you uninstall your AMD drivers?
Also, you may want to start a new thread for more exposure to your problem.

 

[redzo]

https://world.tmall.com/item/537231209043.htm?id=537231209043

Pascal is fast and efficient. We already knew this. I'm certain that it is going to end up as fast as rx480 stock overall as per techpowerup's reviews.
Slaughtering the 1060 die and still calling it 1060 is an assault to everyone's intelligence. Best case, it should have been called 1050ti. AMD is such a big looser for not marketing its RX470 as R480.
I've got zero reasons not to think that this is gonna sell like crazy.

Still, 2 years is way too much for keeping this. I give it max 1.5 years, best case scenario, until performance is gonna tank hard at 1080p max due to its reduced vram.
Buy now, get ready to replace it soon.

 

[tweakboy]

1080 SLI + 4k resolution in games. I get 1fps,,,,,,,,,, how much do you get ?

 

[antihelten]

https://world.tmall.com/item/537231209043.htm?id=537231209043

A quick look at this site indicates that the normal Inno3D 1060 6GB is selling for ¥ 2400, whilst the 3GB is selling for ¥ 1800, or 25% less.

If this price difference holds true in general, then the 3GB 1060 could end up with an MSRP below $200 (75% of $250 would be $187.5).

If the 3GB is indeed within 5% performance wise as these slides would seem to suggest, then this card could end up being one hell of a card perf/$ wise. In fact it would largely slide in where the now non-existent $200 4GB 480 used to sit.

 

[Sweepr]

GTX 1060 3GB now official, here's MSRP worldwide:

$199 MSRP
Denmark – DKK 1,799
Euro – EUR 183 EX VAT
UK – GBP 189.99
Norway – NOK 2,199
Sweden – SEK 2,299

http://videocardz.com/63252/nvidia-launches-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb

Already in stock in DK.

 

[Sweepr]

First review of $199 GTX 1060 3GB out (Inno3D model)! Overall close to the 6GB model, and faster than RX 470 (they didn't include RX 480).

http://www.expreview.com/48945-all.html

 

[zinfamous]

lol. $200 MSRP for a 3gb card in 2016.

Why force yourself to accept lower texture quality when you can do better on a cheaper card? Or just go with the +$50 option from nVidia that has more than a 1 week lifespan?

This is an overpriced HTPC or light gaming/MOBA card

 

[Sweepr]

Another chinese review:

http://diy.pconline.com.cn/827/8271241_all.html

Took a hit in Crysis 3 and AotS next to the 6GB model, but let's not forget it has less CUDA cores as well - very close in other titles. Overall ahead of RX 480 in the games they tested:

 

[R0H1T]

lol. $200 MSRP for a 3gb card in 2016.

Why force yourself to accept lower texture quality when you can do better on a cheaper card? Or just go with the +$50 option from nVidia that has more than a 1 week lifespan?

This is an overpriced HTPC or light gaming/MOBA card

It's basically a 1050Ti at best, since RAM isn't the only the difference, but why would Nvidia advertise it as such? They've got the 970 "previous gen best seller GPU" as a precedence, why change now

 

[psolord]

Imagine if someone releases a 1060 3GB with 6GBs! xD

 

[psolord]

So I received my 1060 today, but when I try to setup my wallpaper (I usually get high quality photos from interfacelift), the images appeared washed-out to me...Or am I illusion? I download the same images I previously used and I remember they look much sharper on my 5 year old HD 6950...I see some white tinting effects on images, web browsing, and just everything in general. Any ideas what's going on? Or I have to set up correctly. I don't know how to tweet the GPU to make images look sharper and just more colorful for lack of a better word.

Edit: Yes, I'm 100% certain now, for some reason, screen look washed-out (like some white casting on the screen). When I go to my school website, the landscapes and people look bland to me, like lost of color saturation or something. I have not change any settings on my monitor tho...what's going on.

This will have huge impact on indie games as graphics are their selling point. Welp

See if you have full color enabled.

 

[IEC]

10% fewer CUDA cores at a 20% lower price would make it a pretty compelling $199 card, if not for the 3GB vRAM. While you have the graphics horsepower to turn up the settings, you're potentially hamstrung out of the gate by the vRAM capacity.

Still, I can see it selling well because it is priced right for its performance.

 

[crisium]

For those that are willing to compromise in VRAM heavy titles it seems viable at $200 considering that's where the slower 4GB 470 is.

Though in some titles you will get a scenario where the 470 can run a higher texture setting. However, it seems likely the 470 will be pushing fewer frames and you possibly might have to toggle down another setting to make it playable. Hence the compromise - the 1060 Core 1152 should be the outright better card compared to the 470, but 3GB leaves something to be desired and will make scenarios where that's not necessarily true.

If 4GB 480 was actually there as intended I would recommend that though. But such a product at such a price doesn't exist anymore.

 

[fuccboi]

I don't know boiz, it costs the same as the cheapest RX 470 4GB in my country. I might need to lower the textures from ultra to very high at 1080p in a few games but I'd get a way more out of that chip, whether it's OC, power efficiency, price/perf, I could even mine eth at similar hash rates.

 

[USER8000]

I don't know boiz, it costs the same as the cheapest RX 470 4GB in my country. I might need to lower the textures from ultra to very high at 1080p in a few games but I'd get a way more out of that chip, whether it's OC, power efficiency, price/perf, I could even mine eth at similar hash rates.

I would not touch one with a bargepole and I have a GTX960 4GB. In the UK the pricing is a joke - you can get AIB RX480 4GB cards for the same price and RX470 cards can be had for less money.

I remember cards like the 8800GTS 320MB,8800GT 256MB and so on having quite short lifespans. I already see games go past 3GB on my current card,and it is only going to get worse with the new console refreshes and their more powerful graphics.

Remember what happened to the GTX660TI and GTX760 2GB cards against the various versions of the HD7950 3GB??

Find some money down the sofa or save up a bit longer!!

 

[Headfoot]

I had the 8800 GTS 320 back in the day and I've learned my lesson. The gimped RAM version is a waste of time. You'll just be forced to upgrade sooner or continue to turn things off

 

[crisium]

Even more then that card, the 8800GT 256MB should be a warning sign. Similar scenario:

Older, slower cards have more VRAM (8800GTS 320MB... GTX 970 3.5GB+0.5MB)
Slower, contemporary competition has more VRAM (3870 512MB... RX 470 4GB).

Developers tailor around what the market has. A lot of the market already has slower cards with more than 3GB. For years these have existed at 4GB minimum, essentially since the 290 4GB nearly 3 years ago. The 970 3.5GB+0.5GB may be the most used gaming card still today. Even cards as slow as the 380X are 4GB only, and the much slower 960 has 4GB options.

Developers know these cards are plentiful. These cards have 4GB+. These cards are slower than the 1060 Core 1152 3GB. It's written plain as day that this will require compromise.

The only question is, for $200 max Joe, who refuses to move an inch on his budget, what will you recommend? It just seems like a shame for the consumer to have to make a compromise cause there is good speed here.