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

[ocre]

It's true. My dad uses a GTX 780 and he's quite happy with it, as I suspect most current Kepler users are.

I can list 6 people i know in person who still use kepler cards, one of them laughed at me when i even spoke about an upgrade.
You know, I think that most of them are running 1080 and 1900x1200 monitors.

Also, using their TVs....which i dont think i would ever do.

I know guys who bought expensive keplers, these were dropped in systems that had gtx 400 and 500 series cards. Ivy bridge and sandy bridge owners. They arent interested in higher rez monitors or upgrading their motherboards/CPUs. The 1060 would truly be a great drop in for them...a very good fit, especially if they only cost 250.

Speaking of HW. I know a guy who bought and built an AMD PH2 1100t six core. expecting it to be future proof for years to come. He got late in that era but laughed when the bulldozer came out. Anyway, he has upgraded his GPU over and over since then. Its crazy but that is the only thing i can think of that is holding him back. He gets crap fps with a 290x, terrible frame rates. He refuses to go intel (which is his thing-i dont push anything on anybody) so for his sake, I cant wait till ZEN launches.

Guess my point is, all this talk on forums is funny when you look at real people in the real world. Kepler performance made into this massive ordeal and you cannot go into a tech forum and read for 2 minutes without someone posting smack about kepler. Its not that i care, I am not defending or denying.. just saying I dont see people act like this in the real world.

Then there are people like me. I love HW. I love PC.
Seriously hate that things have slowed down so much. That progress is moving forward in mm. If i go back thru the years, i used to love to buy new motherboards and CPUs. I had so so many.
I have very little time for gaming...er even PCs anymore. But, one thing i would never mind...buying new HW. Its just that now....i bought things that i never even put together. Had a i7 4770, mATX board, ram, SSD, PSU....set in a box for months and months on end. Ended up giving it away to my nephew. in January, i gave him the box with all this stuff, said here i am gonna build a broadwell E when it comes out
i expected it to be so much better ....
really though, i just do not have the time. Family, work, 2 kids, etc..
I am very fond of PC and HW still but its just a matter of time for me. For others, they just use it...i had a deep love for it

 

[Hitman928]

As a way to compare, I used the Nvidia review guide numbers and plotted the average increases of the 480 and 1060 against the 960 and then compared that number to the techpowerup and computerbase performance summary results. As you can see, I think Nvidia is probably short changing the 480 performance a bit (as to be expected) though I do think the 1060 will outperform the 480 by a small amount in dx11 games. In DX12 and Vulkan, I expect the 480 to flip positions with the 1060. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Shivansps]

In 2 games they are using SSAA 2x, what is 2K resolution... you cant use a 1080P result to compare to that.

Still the 960 results are nonsence.

 

[Hitman928]

In 2 games they are using SSAA 2x, what is 2K resolution... you cant use a 1080P result to compare to that.

Still the 960 results are nonsence.

Yeah, I saw that. I originally started to try and find comparable benchmarks but it was hard because of the AA settings Nvidia used in most of the games. If anything, the 480 should have a bigger lead over the 960 in Nvidia's 1080p testing because of that, if techpowerup's trend holds accurate.

Anyway, that's why I did % improvements instead of trying to get a raw value and also why I included both 1080p and 1440p comparisons where possible. I'm not trying to draw a firm conclusion here or anything, just trying to give more data and perhaps better perspective.

 

[Ketchup]

Prices are not bad for being close to msrp but who just preorders without reviews or scores ? I could put an order in but I want to know how it will do, as well as long term.

Also what is the difference between the $259 and $279 model?

I would pre-order one. But I'm still not sure if I need a new card yet. The 660 is still holding pretty well for what we do.

It looks like one Zotac is a reference design, the other has better cooling and is clocked higher. Not very much higher though.

 

[krumme]

I can list 6 people i know in person who still use kepler cards, one of them laughed at me when i even spoke about an upgrade.

A wall of txt and personal annecdotes doesnt change the fact a 7870 is as fast as a 680 today. Dont even mention 7970.
In dx12 the 7870 will be much faster than 680/770. Midrange faster than highend cards.
That is a huge difference.
Those persons you know bought the wrong cards as they are still using them. The numbers is pretty clear.

Why do you recomment to upgrade to an arch that is not fit for dx12 and another 4 years. It's exactly the same stupid mistake as they did before.
Pretty sad when they use their cards for so long. When they do keep their cards for 4 years Dx12 optimized 480 with 8gb is the way to go.

 

[dark zero]

Meanwhile... in Wccf Tech... why nVIDIA gives a 3GB 1060 name on a card that is FAR weaker than the 6 GB version?
Isn't that easier to call it 1050 Ti?

 

[Bacon1]

Meanwhile... in Wccf Tech... why nVIDIA gives a 3GB 1060 name on a card that is FAR weaker than the 6 GB version?
Isn't that easier to call it 1050 Ti?

1152 CUDA Cores vs 1280

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gtx-1060-performance-benchmarks-leak/

Assuming thats what you are referring to?

Yeah seems odd, don't think cards have had different core counts but same name before have they?

 

[Ranulf]

So there is going to be a 3gb 1060 for $149.... oookay.

http://wccftech.com/gtx-1060-3gb-detailed-specs-leak/

 

[R0H1T]

So there is going to be a 3gb 1060 for $149.... oookay.

http://wccftech.com/gtx-1060-3gb-detailed-specs-leak/

Where does it say $149, the table shows 199$ for the cut down 3GB variant, if true that'd be another ripoff :hmm:

 

[linkgoron]

Where does it say $149, the table shows 199$ for the cut down 3GB variant, if true that'd be another ripoff :hmm:

We will be taking this leak with a grain of salt, but owing to the differences between both graphic cards, the 3GB version has been reported to retail for $149 USD, giving gamers on a very tight budget the freedom to enjoy the latest games with a large number of GPU taxing settings enabled at their highest configurable point. This clearly shows that the card will tackle the Radeon RX 470 which is AMD’s $149 US solution that features the cut down Polaris 10 GPU with 4 GB GDDR5 VRAM.

A 150$ price tag would probably be very competitive with the 470, whenever AMD decide to actually release it.

 

[Shivansps]

Then a GTX 1050 gona be a $100 card? wtf..... i just dont understand. Also $150 to $250 is a big jump.

Also less TMU and rops i guess.

 

[R0H1T]

A 150$ price tag would probably be very competitive with the 470, whenever AMD decide to actually release it.

Just saw that in the article however the table shows 199$ which might actually be the MSRP, same table's here ~ http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gtx-1060-performance-benchmarks-leak/

Then a GTX 1050 gona be a $100 card? wtf..... i just dont understand. Also $150 to $250 is a big jump.

I doubt the 1050 will launch under 150$ since it'd be the direct successor to the 950 & as such will not be priced cheap IMO D:

 

[Bacon1]

$149 is probably a typo, no way they would undercut their own card for $100-150 unless it performs at half or less of the speed. Considering the cores aren't cut down that much I'm guessing they are selling @ 199 and saying it will perform against the $150 470?

 

[Headfoot]

I can list 6 people i know in person who still use kepler cards, one of them laughed at me when i even spoke about an upgrade.
You know, I think that most of them are running 1080 and 1900x1200 monitors.

Also, using their TVs....which i dont think i would ever do.

I know guys who bought expensive keplers, these were dropped in systems that had gtx 400 and 500 series cards. Ivy bridge and sandy bridge owners. They arent interested in higher rez monitors or upgrading their motherboards/CPUs. The 1060 would truly be a great drop in for them...a very good fit, especially if they only cost 250.

Speaking of HW. I know a guy who bought and built an AMD PH2 1100t six core. expecting it to be future proof for years to come. He got late in that era but laughed when the bulldozer came out. Anyway, he has upgraded his GPU over and over since then. Its crazy but that is the only thing i can think of that is holding him back. He gets crap fps with a 290x, terrible frame rates. He refuses to go intel (which is his thing-i dont push anything on anybody) so for his sake, I cant wait till ZEN launches.

Guess my point is, all this talk on forums is funny when you look at real people in the real world. Kepler performance made into this massive ordeal and you cannot go into a tech forum and read for 2 minutes without someone posting smack about kepler. Its not that i care, I am not defending or denying.. just saying I dont see people act like this in the real world.

Then there are people like me. I love HW. I love PC.
Seriously hate that things have slowed down so much. That progress is moving forward in mm. If i go back thru the years, i used to love to buy new motherboards and CPUs. I had so so many.
I have very little time for gaming...er even PCs anymore. But, one thing i would never mind...buying new HW. Its just that now....i bought things that i never even put together. Had a i7 4770, mATX board, ram, SSD, PSU....set in a box for months and months on end. Ended up giving it away to my nephew. in January, i gave him the box with all this stuff, said here i am gonna build a broadwell E when it comes out
i expected it to be so much better ....
really though, i just do not have the time. Family, work, 2 kids, etc..
I am very fond of PC and HW still but its just a matter of time for me. For others, they just use it...i had a deep love for it

Its true that people do some really weird stuff out in the real world. Had a few of my siblings friends start building PCs when the 780 had just gotten its first price drop vs the 290. I told them to go 290 based it being cheaper and equally fast at the time. They all ended up going 780. Then they upgraded monitors and found the 780 lacking and upgraded again to 970s or 290s and now they're sitting ok with those.

 

[psolord]

1152 CUDA Cores vs 1280

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gtx-1060-performance-benchmarks-leak/

Assuming thats what you are referring to?

Yeah seems odd, don't think cards have had different core counts but same name before have they?

Well the GTX 260 core216 was still a GTX 260 althought it had the c216 in the name. This role will go to the "3GB" now I guess.

There was also a 448core GTX 560 Ti if memory does not fail me.

 

[dark zero]

Maybe is the 1050 Ti the card we are talking about.

And only the 1040 will go less than 150 dollars.

 

[Keysplayr]

Maybe is the 1050 Ti the card we are talking about.

And only the 1040 will go less than 150 dollars.

Blows my mind how folks think things like this have never been done before.
psolord you just gave perfect examples.

And guys, calm down. It's video cards, not cancer research.

If I was buying soon, I'd still go with the 1060 6GB.

 

[Sweepr]

Geforce GTX 1060 3GB Specs

https://benchlife.info/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb-spec-07122016

GP106, 1152 SPs, 3GB GDDR5. Launch 2-3 weeks after the 6GB model. WCCFTech says it's $149:

We will be taking this leak with a grain of salt, but owing to the differences between both graphic cards, the 3GB version has been reported to retail for $149 USD, giving gamers on a very tight budget the freedom to enjoy the latest games with a large number of GPU taxing settings enabled at their highest configurable point. This clearly shows that the card will tackle the Radeon RX 470 which is AMD’s $149 US solution that features the cut down Polaris 10 GPU with 4 GB GDDR5 VRAM.

http://wccftech.com/gtx-1060-3gb-detailed-specs-leak/#ixzz4EEU9428t

I've heard nothing about the price for this part so far.

 

[Shivansps]

72 TMU.... and 48 rops?

 

[Thala]

Anyway, that's why I did % improvements instead of trying to get a raw value and also why I included both 1080p and 1440p comparisons where possible. I'm not trying to draw a firm conclusion here or anything, just trying to give more data and perhaps better perspective.

Indeed, the numbers provided by NVidia do not match up. The % difference is far away from what was measured by the reviews. Apparently something is very inconsistent to say the least.
I do not think you can draw any more conclusions based on this.

 

[psolord]

Wow, 19GB/s bandwidth. It will run pacman like a dream! xD

 

[Shivansps]

The thing is, since AMD is launching a no so cutdown version of the P10 at $149, no way that a 128 bit cut down GP106 as GTX1050 could match that.

And since RX460 is a total crap, they may be launching GP107 as a 1050 at $100...

 

[crisium]

The thing is, since AMD is launching a no so cutdown version of the P10 at $149, no way that a 128 bit cut down GP106 as GTX1050 could match that.

And since RX460 is a total crap, they may be launching GP107 as a 1050 at $100...

That's a GTX 1060 3GB Core 1152 at $150. The full 48 ROPs and 192-bit, apparently (could be slower clocks).

Now the clock rate differences we still don't know, but at least as far as shaders go the 470 is slightly more cut down than the 1060 3GB. If 1060 6GB > 480, then by extension 1060 3GB > 470, and perhaps by a larger amount. Speaking strictly DX11, of course.

However, the 3GB is a big negative. That means right now, today, in games already released, the 470 will be able to run higher textures than the 1060 3GB even at 1080p. Hitman, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and Mirror's Edge, etc. And a higher texture setting is usually pretty negligible to the framerate hit. We could have a situation where the 470 runs at higher image quality due to textures, but the 1060 pumps higher framerates. Again in DX11 anyway.

The 1060 3GB is a hell of a compromise card because of this.

And also, even if 1060 3GB > 470 straight up, thanks to the naming scheme, some will see 1060 6GB > 470 even greater, and assume that translates to the 3GB version when even ignoring VRAM, it has fewer shaders and thus less performance. Less shaders, same name, very shady. Should be 1050 Ti (the 980 Ti is closer to the Titan X than what separates the 1060s).

 

[Janooo]

I just went through the Doom thread.
It appears only fans and clueless people will be buying 1060.