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

[boozzer]

Now this is what was meant to compete with mid range cards like polaris 10. I wonder if they'll price them competitively as well.

they will have to if nv wants to sell

competition is great.

 

[Keysplayr]

they will have to if nv wants to sell

competition is great.

Yes i know but traditionally nv can charge more for similar performance. Wondering if they will continue this or try to cut the legs off of the comp.

 

[ShintaiDK]

they are not in stock bellow 500euro

Wrong again:
https://geizhals.eu/?cat=gra16_512&...=uk&hloc=eu&plz=&dist=&mail=&sort=p&bl1_id=30

 

[NTMBK]

Cool, looking forward to some serious competition in the graphics market again

 

[Keysplayr]

they are not in stock bellow 500euro

You are incorrect and....
They go in and out of stock just like any other product in the world.

 

[Head1985]

Wrong again:
https://geizhals.eu/?cat=gra16_512&...=uk&hloc=eu&plz=&dist=&mail=&sort=p&bl1_id=30

Really?only one e-shop stop with this.

 

[Keysplayr]

Really?only one e-shop stop with this.

One is all thats needed to contradict your earlier incorrect assessment. Why would we need more?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Really?only one e-shop stop with this.

Geizhals isn't an eshop. Plenty of shops with below your 500€+ claim.

 

[crisium]

If the 1060 is half the size of a 1080, why do people think it will match the 980 in performance ? 50% of 1080 performance would be ~970, 980 is around 60%.

Simple math indicates that in order to match a 980, the 1060 will either need to be more than 1280SP, or it will need to be clocked significantly higher than the 1080.

If it has 75% of the ROPs and ~60% of the bandwidth (assuming 8GHz chips) then it has a beefier configuration than the 960 that was straight 1/2 of 980 in everything.

That being said, it would be a tall order to match a 980 with only 1280 shaders. 960 is only a bit more than half the 980's performance, and even with the ROPs and bandwidth feeding the shaders more as the napkin math dictates this puts the 1060 closer to the 970 than the 980 - perhaps in-between with optimism. Also while thanks to much higher clocks a stock 1070 can draw or edge out a stock Titan X, the 980 actually has the highest stock boost clocks of any Maxwell card so 1070:TX shader ratio may not apply here.

I'm hoping current rumours are false and we get something stronger. An x06 based on Kepler's ratio to x04 would have either 1536 or 1664 shaders. And this would easily let it be at least somewhat faster than a 980, which is what works best for marketing and is what I would have thought them to seek.

 

[PeckingOrder]

Yes i know but traditionally nv can charge more for similar performance. Wondering if they will continue this or try to cut the legs off of the comp.

you say it like it's due to people having been misled by marketing

when you have superior software/driver support (less driver issues), CUDA/G-sync/Shadowplay and more games optimized for your product, you can charge more for it because it's not just about the hardware you're buying at the end of the day

sorry but that's just basic economics

 

[Magee_MC]

One is all thats needed to contradict your earlier incorrect assessment. Why would we need more?

We? Are you on some sort of team or group working together?

 

[96Firebird]

We? Are you on some sort of team or group working together?

"We" meaning the forum?

Unless you enjoy false statements floating around...

 

[Ma_Deuce]

you say it like it's due to people having been misled by marketing

when you have superior software/driver support (less driver issues), CUDA/G-sync/Shadowplay and more games optimized for your product, you can charge more for it because it's not just about the hardware you're buying at the end of the day

sorry but that's just basic economics

If you can offer a better experience, of course you can charge more. unfortunately, a better experience is something nv has been lacking for a while. Expecially in their driver department.

 

[frozentundra123456]

But why? APU killed entry & mainstream dGPU market.

Not really. These new 14nm dgpus are far superior to any APU.

 

[Magee_MC]

"We" meaning the forum?

Unless you enjoy false statements floating around...

No, I'm not a fan of false statements floating around, and I agree that only one example was needed to prove it incorrect. However, he didn't provide the proof, and the "we" was referring to the proof.

It's just a subtle slip, but it shows that it's often not about the facts being correct, but about us vs them. It's one of those little things that add up to this being a less pleasant place to discuss technology than it could be.

 

[Headfoot]

you say it like it's due to people having been misled by marketing

when you have superior software/driver support (less driver issues), CUDA/G-sync/Shadowplay and more games optimized for your product, you can charge more for it because it's not just about the hardware you're buying at the end of the day

sorry but that's just basic economics

Provide a source for less driver issues or it's pure FUD. Last I checked having your last gen product fall off the map in terms of relative performance to your new gen and the competition is not a quality driver experience.

 

[xthetenth]

you say it like it's due to people having been misled by marketing

when you have superior software/driver support (less driver issues), CUDA/G-sync/Shadowplay and more games optimized for your product, you can charge more for it because it's not just about the hardware you're buying at the end of the day

sorry but that's just basic economics

And this is why NV gets to charge more, because people actually believe this even after them dropping multiple problem drivers this year and taking a good while to fix them.

Anecdote, but switching from NV to AMD was the best thing I ever did for driver stability. I saw multiple people on multiple boards have issues with 364, and I had two major driver issues that directly impacted playability on my 970 while I owned it.

Shadowplay is kind of cool but there's plenty good alternatives, GSync isn't something you should pay extra for considering you pay extra for it on the monitor end as well, and CUDA does literally nothing for gamers so it only matters to a tiny fraction of customers.

I'm happy for you, it takes actual performance to give me the perception of value, it must be so much easier shopping for you.

 

[Face2Face]

Well, it looks to be a good reference design for a mainstream SKU. *thumbsup* from me.

Basically 1/2 a 1080 in full chip specs as we expected for GP106. Performance should be between 970/980 stock.

+ 1

I actually quite like the look of the card. I won't buy one, but it looks good.

 

[R0H1T]

you say it like it's due to people having been misled by marketing

when you have superior software/driver support (less driver issues), CUDA/G-sync/Shadowplay and more games optimized for your product, you can charge more for it because it's not just about the hardware you're buying at the end of the day

sorry but that's just basic economics

This why Nvidia doesn't need much PR :thumbsup:

You're forgetting (or maybe not) all the driver glitches this year, & the last, not to mention the 3.5GB 970, yes they lied & were sued, also the fact that CUDA, Gsync, Shadowplay are all proprietary & not necessarily superior to OpenCL, freesync et al.

Do we need to continue about the part where they kill their last gen cards in a hurry, though drivers, & other such stuff?

 

[Qwertilot]

I'm hoping current rumours are false and we get something stronger. An x06 based on Kepler's ratio to x04 would have either 1536 or 1664 shaders. And this would easily let it be at least somewhat faster than a 980, which is what works best for marketing and is what I would have thought them to seek.

Isn't the > than a 980 card effectively what the 1070 is?

 

[Silverforce11]

Now this is what was meant to compete with mid range cards like polaris 10. I wonder if they'll price them competitively as well.

$199 is not mid-range anymore bud. That's purely mainstream.

Mid-range has moved on up in price, to whatever the 970, 980 and 390/X were at. High-end is above that.

 

[Silverforce11]

But why? APU killed entry & mainstream dGPU market.

You mean APU killed 750Ti, 950 and 960?

Do you consider the gtx 960 to be mid-range or mainstream?

Look at price brackets, entry GPUs are around the $100 mark up to $149, while better mainstream ones are around the $199 mark.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Here in NL the 1070's that go under 500 sell out quickly.

You can get them for under 550 though.

 

[Stuka87]

you say it like it's due to people having been misled by marketing

when you have superior software/driver support (less driver issues), CUDA/G-sync/Shadowplay and more games optimized for your product, you can charge more for it because it's not just about the hardware you're buying at the end of the day

sorry but that's just basic economics

You are going to need to back this claim of "less driver issues" up. nVidia has successfully bricked cards with driver updates, even the current pascal cards have issues.

Cuda has very little impact on the vast majority of gamers. G-sync is an over priced proprietary tech that is limited a handful of displays (as opposed to freesync which has a TON of supported displays). Shadow play is a gimmick used by very few.

Now back to the 1060, if they are launching a month early (as opposed to this being the intended time all long), quantities are for sure going to be low. AMD could have launched RX 480 a month ago if they wanted, but they wanted huge quantities to be available.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

You are going to need to back this claim of "less driver issues" up.

Imo the only real problem with the amd driver is the higher dx11 cpu overhead.