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

[antihelten]

I'm just pointing that their definition of faster might not be the same as yours. 5-10% would be great but I don't see it happening in a broad spectrum of games. It might fare better against GM204 in newer titles though, perhaps that what they're quoting when they say it's faster.

Sure Nvidia may just be talking about a 1% difference or less and still technically be faster.

But any reasonable consumer who reads something like "GTX 1060 is faster than GTX 980", must assume that we are at least talking about a noticeable amount faster, otherwise it's an irrelevant thing to brag about. And I don't care if it's Nvidia, AMD, Intel or someone else, when they go out and start bragging about how their new product is faster than the old one, then I expect it to be by a noticeable amount and not 1%, and if they fail to deliver that then I will be disappointed as a consumer.

 

[Keysplayr]

I'm curious, why is it you think I'm not willing to accept the bare minimum from Nvidia (my reason apparently being the opposite of yours)?

You guys are you and Sweepr, seeing as you are the only ones I've been arguing with that seem perfectly happy with the 1060 only matching or being just 0.0001% faster than the 980 when Nvidia said the 1060 would be faster than GTX 980.

And of course I expect at least 5% faster, otherwise it's pointless. There isn't a person alive who would be able to tell the difference between a card running at X fps and another card running at X + 0-4.9% faster. So if the difference is less than 5% then in practise it's a draw.

And again I don't understand why you are happy with Nvidia being "technically correct". I mean sure if you work for Nvidia's PR department then you would feel fine about it, but as a consumer you can't possibly be satisfied with that.

And as far as who's argument would hold up in court, again what does it matter, are you a lawyer or a consumer?

As I said, for some reason you seem happy to accept the bare minimum from Nvidia, which as I said to Sweepr, seems like a really defeatist attitude to have for a consumer.



Of course it doesn't need to be faster, But as I said above, do you work for Nvidia's PR department or are you a consumer? As the later I simply can't understand how you could be happy with anything less than a 5% improvement when Nvidia says the 1060 will be faster than the 980.



So Nvidia lying about the performance of the 1060 would be okay to you because the specs are poor relatively speaking and it's cheap?

Yeah I'm sorry but I really don't agree with that logic.

It would also be a technical accomplishment if it actually lived up to Nvidia's claims.

You want us to accept 5% or better constitutes faster. Nothing less.
We want you to accept that faster is faster no matter what the percentage no matter how small.
Neither will happen. Lets move on.

 

[Thala]

Your overclock argument got proven wrong with examples of stock Geforce GTX 1080 FE being listed as a 1860-1886 MHz card due to GPU Boost 3.0, way above NVIDIA's boost clocks of 1733 MHz (without overclock). This doesn't mean they hit the mythical 1886 MHz in actual games (still above 1733 MHz, never said the opposite):

Indeed you are right, 1886MHz is not overclocked. Any GTX 1080 reach 1886MHz as that is the maximum boost frequency given you are below power and thermal targets. Could very well be the same for GTX1060.

It was just that for the FE cards 1886MHz was only achieved at the beginning of the gaming session and got reduced as the temperature increased and thermal throttling set in. It rarely was the power target which kept the GTX1080 FE below 1886MHz.
The 1733MHz value is just artificial and not a real limit, NVidia typically talks about "average boost" in this context while the max boost always has been 1886MHz for all stock GTX10x0 GPUs.

 

[amenx]

Sure Nvidia may just be talking about a 1% difference or less and still technically be faster.

But any reasonable consumer who reads something like "GTX 1060 is faster than GTX 980", must assume that we are at least talking about a noticeable amount faster, otherwise it's an irrelevant thing to brag about. And I don't care if it's Nvidia, AMD, Intel or someone else, when they go out and start bragging about how their new product is faster than the old one, then I expect it to be by a noticeable amount and not 1%, and if they fail to deliver that then I will be disappointed as a consumer.

Wow.. so much emotion, so much angst.. over what? 1% or 5%? No consumer should buy based on manufacturers blurbs alone. Reviews are only way to go. If consumers buy simply on manufacturers hype and ignore all else, they deserve to be burned. No matter what product.

 

[Silverforce11]

1060 6GB non founders is supposed to be 249.00 MSRP, isn't it?

Just like 1070 and 1080 non-founders are supposed to be $379 and $599. I like how some of you guys pretend these events of the last month didn't happen, and here you are again talking about 1060 $249 MSRP vs $299 FE like they will really be $249..

If they are, then you can make those claims. But in the interest of accuracy, the only 1060 confirmed in price is the reference $299.

 

[Silverforce11]

3dMark of 1060 @ 1911mhz vs RX 480 @ 1350mhz:

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9202637/fs/9188962#

It looks like the 1060 may catch up at over 2ghz.

 

[antihelten]

You want us to accept 5% or better constitutes faster. Nothing less.
We want you to accept that faster is faster no matter what the percentage no matter how small.
Neither will happen. Lets move on.

No I want you to accept that I personally don't count improvements of less than 5% since you are basically within the margin of error at that point, you are perfectly welcome to celebrate improvements of less than this of course, although I'm not sure what you gain by doing so, unless you work for Nvidia's PR department, because you sure as hell don't gain anything meaningful as a consumer.

If a manufacturer comes out and brags that their new product is faster than their old one what is the minimum amount faster you would expect as a consumer, and would you not be disappointed if they didn't hit this minimum?

Wow.. so much emotion, so much angst.. over what? 1% or 5%? No consumer should buy based on manufacturers blurbs alone. Reviews are only way to go. If consumers buy simply on manufacturers hype and ignore all else, they deserve to be burned. No matter what product.

Wow, so much corporate apologism.

So you don't think we should hold Nvidia accountable for their claims?

And what started this whole discussion wasn't about Nvidia being 1% or 5% faster btw, what started it was the fact the early leaks showed the 1060 as being (marginally) slower than a 980 (and the later ones show much the same as far as I can tell), which would clearly go against Nvidias claims.

 

[Silverforce11]

@antihelten

NV can say the 1060 is faster than the 980 without going into specifics. It could be faster in VR, in their Funhouse demo to be more specific.

It should be around 970 to 980 performance on spec either way so it won't be far off in games.

 

[Kenmitch]

We'll have to wait for launch reviews for that answer. Might as well be above 1.7 GHz but most likely below the listed clocks from 3DMark. My point is, the card is at stock here.

You know how nvidia boost works. Using the stated boost clock for comparisons like fps/watt or any others is dishonest at minimum. One must monitor them if they really want to know what it really is.

Using my Zotac 1070 Amp as an example. Stated boost clock is 1797 I believe. Stock settings it will boost to 1999MHz at times. I've never seen it revert to 1797 yet. Only had it a couple days so fare and haven't really tested it thoroughly yet.

 

[antihelten]

@antihelten

NV can say the 1060 is faster than the 980 without going into specifics. It could be faster in VR, in their Funhouse demo to be more specific.

It should be around 970 to 980 performance on spec either way so it won't be far off in games.

They could, but so far they have always made it clear with the Pascal cards when they were talking VR performance, so given that they haven't done so here plus the fact that have clearly told the tech sites that "1060 is faster than 980" without any conditionals, I don't think it's too much to say that any reasonable person would interpret their claims as being about general performance.

Besides normally when a company (Be it Nvidia or any other), makes vague claims that only apply in select scenarios, they always tend to include the "up to" modifier e.g. "up to X% faster".

Also compare this with the 1070 were Nvidia basically made the same claim against the Titan X (i.e. 1070 is faster than a Titan X), it ended up being 10% faster. So when Nvidia starts making similar claims with 1060 vs 980 then we should reasonably expect an improvement in the same ball park.

 

[Shivansps]

3dMark of 1060 @ 1911mhz vs RX 480 @ 1350mhz:

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9202637/fs/9188962#

It looks like the 1060 may catch up at over 2ghz.

Thats the stock result for 1060.

 

[Keysplayr]

Just like 1070 and 1080 non-founders are supposed to be $379 and $599. I like how some of you guys pretend these events of the last month didn't happen, and here you are again talking about 1060 $249 MSRP vs $299 FE like they will really be $249..

If they are, then you can make those claims. But in the interest of accuracy, the only 1060 confirmed in price is the reference $299.

You can stick to whatever you think will improve your arguments, but anyone can see that is exactly what youre trying to do. We can all plainly see that the non-founders 6GB 1060 is supposed to be 249.00. Why don't you?
What is your point anyway? That everyone will gouge the 1060 when they launch? That even though MSRP is 249.00 for the 1060 6GB non founders editions they will be price gouged when they launch?
You might be right. Thank goodness this doesn't happen with AMD cards.

 

[Keysplayr]

Thats the stock result for 1060.

1911MHz is the stock result for 1060?

 

[sze5003]

You can stick to whatever you think will improve your arguments, but anyone can see that is exactly what youre trying to do. We can all plainly see that the non-founders 6GB 1060 is supposed to be 249.00. Why don't you?

There was some article I read said the 6gb msi version will actually be $249-269. Hoping that's true or else we could see them stick to similar FE prices just like we did with the 1070. I guess we will know the week after next.

Then again the 1070 price was never confirmed to $379 since that was an nvidia event price they threw out before it came out.

 

[Keysplayr]

There was some article I read said the 6gb msi version will actually be $249-269. Hoping that's true or else we could see them stick to similar FE prices just like we did with the 1070. I guess we will know the week after next.

Then again the 1070 price was never confirmed to $379 since that was an nvidia event price they threw out before it came out.

They will gouge the 1060s. They (vendors) gouge everyone every chance they get. No questions. Any new GPU released is home run time for vendors.

 

[sze5003]

They will gouge the 1060s. They (vendors) gouge everyone every chance they get. No questions. Any new GPU released is home run time for vendors.

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if they see how well the FE editions sell. Why would any vendor then sell it for less when they can say it's better than reference with customizations. I wish the 480's AIB models were out already I'm sure those will shoot up around that price point too having direct price with the 1060.

 

[SolMiester]

No I want you to accept that I personally don't count improvements of less than 5% since you are basically within the margin of error at that point, you are perfectly welcome to celebrate improvements of less than this of course, although I'm not sure what you gain by doing so, unless you work for Nvidia's PR department, because you sure as hell don't gain anything meaningful as a consumer.

If a manufacturer comes out and brags that their new product is faster than their old one what is the minimum amount faster you would expect as a consumer, and would you not be disappointed if they didn't hit this minimum?



Wow, so much corporate apologism.

So you don't think we should hold Nvidia accountable for their claims?

And what started this whole discussion wasn't about Nvidia being 1% or 5% faster btw, what started it was the fact the early leaks showed the 1060 as being (marginally) slower than a 980 (and the later ones show much the same as far as I can tell), which would clearly go against Nvidias claims.

What do you do when you see your favourite nascar driver win the race by .5 of a second?...Do you say he is faster and won, or claim that its a draw because of the margin of error?

 

[Silverforce11]

They will gouge the 1060s. They (vendors) gouge everyone every chance they get. No questions. Any new GPU released is home run time for vendors.

If that's the case, why do you insist on making untrue comparisons, by saying the 1060 is $249?

We have 1 confirmed price, the reference 1060 @ $299. The rest, you do not know what it will be.

The RX 480 have been in the wild awhile, at least we know the 4GB is actually $199 and the 8GB is $239.

This applies to discounted custom 970s that run @ 980 performance too.

Now do you see how the cheap discounted 970 is a real threat to the 1060 3GB?

 

[tweakboy]

Good deal, but bad companies.. imo gl,

 

[Keysplayr]

If that's the case, why do you insist on making untrue comparisons, by saying the 1060 is $249?

We have 1 confirmed price, the reference 1060 @ $299. The rest, you do not know what it will be.

The RX 480 have been in the wild awhile, at least we know the 4GB is actually $199 and the 8GB is $239.

This applies to discounted custom 970s that run @ 980 performance too.

Now do you see how the cheap discounted 970 is a real threat to the 1060 3GB?

Who is the one REALLY insisting on anything here, Silverforce?
Only thing going to threaten a 3GB 1060 is a 4GB 480. Thats about it.

 

[boozzer]

What do you do when you see your favourite nascar driver win the race by .5 of a second?...Do you say he is faster and won, or claim that its a draw because of the margin of error?

that is a horrible, horrible example because there is no margin of error in a nascar race. :thumbsdown:

 

[3DVagabond]

Wow.. so much emotion, so much angst.. over what? 1% or 5%? No consumer should buy based on manufacturers blurbs alone. Reviews are only way to go. If consumers buy simply on manufacturers hype and ignore all else, they deserve to be burned. No matter what product.

While they should know better that doesn't exonerate the IHV for lying or over hyping.

 

[Atreidin]

What do you do when you see your favourite nascar driver win the race by .5 of a second?...Do you say he is faster and won, or claim that its a draw because of the margin of error?

That analogy doesn't make any sense. I don't play each game only one time, each GPU doesn't go in only one computer, etc.
If we have to go with your analogy, though, I'd say the second place driver was about equal skill, assuming all other variables were equal, and I couldn't make a determination about which driver was the best until I saw the results of more races.

 

[ElFenix]

that is a horrible, horrible example because there is no margin of error in a nascar race. :thumbsdown:

Well, there is, but it's very small. Do NASCAR races have photo finish equipment?

I have no idea what the margin of error is for video card reviews. It's not like sites are going out and getting 20 samples on the open market and calculating sigma and publishing error bars.

 

[boozzer]

Well, there is, but it's very small. Do NASCAR races have photo finish equipment?

I have no idea what the margin of error is for video card reviews. It's not like sites are going out and getting 20 samples on the open market and calculating sigma and publishing error bars.

of course they do. photo finish is simply a must for all type of races the moment the tech became available. https://www.google.com/search?q=nas...r-rNAhVGTSYKHSUADVYQ_AUICCgB&biw=1920&bih=953

margin of error for gpu reviews is because benchmarks are not 100% accurate like photo finishes. it is not about different cards of the same gpu producing different results, even though there is that too. especially now with gpu boost. I really, really hate the boost trend.

IF, if the difference is only 1%, there is no difference.