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

[frozentundra123456]

Well, I think nVidia does have some work to do with the new APis. However, I also think all this talk of making a purchase based on what *might* happen, especially based on a single AMD Evolved game, is pretty absurd as well. Especially for a midrange card that can easily be replaced in a couple of years.

 

[Hitman928]

Well, I think nVidia does have some work to do with the new APis. However, I also think all this talk of making a purchase based on what *might* happen, especially based on a single AMD Evolved game, is pretty absurd as well.

Doom is not a GE game. Other than that, I agree with the quote.

 

[Delicieuxz]

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07...md-nvidia/#diagramm-doom-mit-vulkan-2560-1440
1070 - 88
RX480 - 79

RX480 is just 10% behind 1070. Where 1060 is going to end up?

I have no idea if somebody imagined RX480 to get that close to 1070 a couple of weeks ago.
When informed people dig down why this is the case there would be no other reason to buy 1060 over RX480 only if that person is a fan.

Different results in this bench:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/new-patch-brings-vulkan-support-to-doom.html

DOOM WQHD

RX 480 - 73 fps
GTX 1070 - 96 fps


The GTX 1070 gets 99 fps in OpenGL, which means there's a negative performance benefit for it in Vulkan. I'm guessing either id or Nvidia will patch it to work properly.

 

[Sweepr]

+140-170 MHz for ASUS Strix:

Geforce GTX 1060 tracker @ NowInStock:

www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/nvidia/gtx1060

 

[RussianSensation]

Well, I think nVidia does have some work to do with the new APis. However, I also think all this talk of making a purchase based on what *might* happen, especially based on a single AMD Evolved game, is pretty absurd as well. Especially for a midrange card that can easily be replaced in a couple of years.

Doom is brand agnostic. AMD working closely with the developer to take full advantage of GCN in no way precludes NV from doing the same. There is also no AMD black box equivalent GW source code that NV is forced to render. No one is purposely gimping or stopping NV from using Async Compute they touted in Pascal. The older generation cards cannot use this feature since they don't have it.

I am pretty sure if Intel worked with a game developer and optimized the game to run way better on Haswell or Skylake over Sandy/Ivy/Bulldozer/Vishera, the same people moaning about GCN smashing Kepler and Maxwell in DX12/Vulkan wouldn't say a word about "unfair" optimization practices.

As far as people calling out AMD on having better longevity, I don't blame them as that's just a fact. Even if we ignore Doom, in EVGA 1070 SC review by TPU a $700 780Ti lost to the $400 reference throttling 290 @ 1440p. Look at 780Ti vs. 390X to see the whopping 780Ti is getting now against the card it was designed to go head-to-head. Look at how horribly 680/770/780 fare against 7970/280X as of November 2014!

It's also amazing how you keep defending NV while getting offended when people show proof that GCN was the superior architecture to Kepler and Maxwell for future games, despite yourself using an HD7770 for almost 5 years. NV has put your card's competitors on legacy support while AMD still puts out drivers and performance optimizations for your long outdated card.

Practically almost everyone here who recommended Kepler and recently 750-750Ti/950/960 should be recommending 480 over 1060 simply based on how bad their advice was over the last 2-4 years. I still remember the cries over 2GB and 3.5GB as sufficient but now the same people are trashing the 480 4GB. The bias is so obvious that it's a shame because many gamers come here for an honest advice.

It's gotten so bad that now that the price/peformance metric is flat out ignored. We literally had guys on here doing anything to not recommend 280X/380X/290 over the 950/960 now suggesting gamers should spend $50-100 more for a 15% faster 1060 over a $200 480. Let me guess what's $50-80, just a meal for 1-2? Ya, that's why on Steam so many gamers have an R9 290, right?

 

[littleg]

Perf/$ is still king imo. At least outside VC&G anyway. Nobody in the real world really cares if this card or that uses 30W less but if it's $30 less then it's a factor.

 

[boozzer]

Perf/$ is still king imo. At least outside VC&G anyway. Nobody in the real world really cares if this card or that uses 30W less but if it's $30 less then it's a factor.

I am 100% sure the majority of us in vcg don't care about any other metrics besides perf/$ and noise, just a few who brings up wattage constantly no matter what. it is why they get labeled as shills n such.

 

[boozzer]

I think it means dx 12 games depending on how they are developed and if they can benefit from vulkan. But of course no one can see the future.

but still a good base for predictions so much salt from some of the posters. and this base is an API. something all game devs can use.

free performance gains of 20-60%.

as a gamer, if you can't get excited about this, I dunno what will. and it isn't like only amd cards benefited. nv cards + low end cpus also saw improvements, just not ones pair with high end cpus.

 

[sze5003]

but still a good base for predictions so much salt from some of the posters. and this base is an API. something all game devs can use.

free performance gains of 20-60%.

as a gamer, if you can't get excited about this, I dunno what will. and it isn't like only amd cards benefited. nv cards + low end cpus also saw improvements, just not ones pair with high end cpus.

Which is one of the reasons I would rather get a 480 knowing it may have better support for dx12 as well as long term in case the next wave of gpu's isn't impressive enough to warrant another upgrade.

 

[Azix]

10% slower is roughly what you'd expect if you just looked at peak theoretical compute for each card:

Interesting to see how Vulkan Doom performance correlates closely to theoretical peak compute:

• 970 -- 3.4 TFlops vs. 60.6 FPS
• 390 -- 5.1 TFlops vs. 77.4 FPS
• 480 -- 5.2 TFlops vs. 79 FPS
• 980ti -- 6.1 TFlops vs. 85 FPS
• 1070 -- 5.8 TFlops vs. 88 FPS
• Fury X -- 8.6 TFlops vs. 110 FPS

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07...md-nvidia/#diagramm-doom-mit-vulkan-2560-1440
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...-RX-480-will-launch-199-more-5-TFLOPS-compute
http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/4

the 1070 is 6.4 tflops. hence why its faster than the 980ti by a little. You are using boost clocks for the 980ti but base for the 1070. the value for the 480 and 970 probably are different too. Some of these 480 cards might not even be reaching much higher on boost in the vulkan benchmarks. Might be much closer to the 1070. With OC would be interesting to see.

 

[torlen11cc]

VRAM in SLI, does it double?

 

[Krteq]

Not in AFR

 

[frozentundra123456]

Doom is brand agnostic. AMD working closely with the developer to take full advantage of GCN in no way precludes NV from doing the same. There is also no AMD black box equivalent GW source code that NV is forced to render. No one is purposely gimping or stopping NV from using Async Compute they touted in Pascal. The older generation cards cannot use this feature since they don't have it.

I am pretty sure if Intel worked with a game developer and optimized the game to run way better on Haswell or Skylake over Sandy/Ivy/Bulldozer/Vishera, the same people moaning about GCN smashing Kepler and Maxwell in DX12/Vulkan wouldn't say a word about "unfair" optimization practices.

As far as people calling out AMD on having better longevity, I don't blame them as that's just a fact. Even if we ignore Doom, in EVGA 1070 SC review by TPU a $700 780Ti lost to the $400 reference throttling 290 @ 1440p. Look at 780Ti vs. 390X to see the whopping 780Ti is getting now against the card it was designed to go head-to-head. Look at how horribly 680/770/780 fare against 7970/280X as of November 2014!

It's also amazing how you keep defending NV while getting offended when people show proof that GCN was the superior architecture to Kepler and Maxwell for future games, despite yourself using an HD7770 for almost 5 years. NV has put your card's competitors on legacy support while AMD still puts out drivers and performance optimizations for your long outdated card.

Practically almost everyone here who recommended Kepler and recently 750-750Ti/950/960 should be recommending 480 over 1060 simply based on how bad their advice was over the last 2-4 years. I still remember the cries over 2GB and 3.5GB as sufficient but now the same people are trashing the 480 4GB. The bias is so obvious that it's a shame because many gamers come here for an honest advice.

It's gotten so bad that now that the price/peformance metric is flat out ignored. We literally had guys on here doing anything to not recommend 280X/380X/290 over the 950/960 now suggesting gamers should spend $50-100 more for a 15% faster 1060 over a $200 480. Let me guess what's $50-80, just a meal for 1-2? Ya, that's why on Steam so many gamers have an R9 290, right?

No need to attack me personally.

Yes, we can make guesses as to what future trends will be. But that is no assurance they will continue indefinitely. That is all I am saying.

And, no I dont obsessively analyze performance per dollar to the last cent. It is the most important metric, but I do consider power use and efficiency as well, whether people on these forums want to denigrate it or not. Cant people just buy what they want even if it costs a bit more without having thier nose rubbed into it about what a "bad" decision they made? And speaking of the HD7770 that I have, I bought it for 2 reasons: price, and for the performance at the time, it was quite efficient, and would run on the fairly weak PSU that I had.

 

[atakall]

Doom is brand agnostic. AMD working closely with the developer to take full advantage of GCN in no way precludes NV from doing the same.

You mean like what happened exactly with Doom? /s nVidia programmers worked with iD at iD offices for 2-3 weeks exclusively refining Doom's coding for Pascal in anticipation of its use at the 1080 announcement conference (& I'm sure have spent plenty more time prior to and since). This was specifically mentioned during the 1080 conference and occurred prior to iD's programmers spending time with AMD in advance of the 480 intro (although, again, I'm sure communications were open and ongoing between all 3 parties long before these particular periods and since). I've seen this fact missing on numerous posts (including posts that were declaring AMD's purported sponsorship of the title b/c AMD software engineers also worked with iD programmers to refine the code), be it lack of knowledge, convenience or forgetfulness (not by you).

 

[Sweepr]

Mobile Geforce GTX 1060 Specs

1280 SPs
80 TMUs
48 ROPs
6 GB 192-bit (192 GB/s)
Core Clock: 1405 MHz (base), 1671 MHz (boost)
65W TDP

www.purepc.pl/notebooki/geforce_gtx_1060_mobile_pelny_uklad_gp106_trafi_do_laptopow

Almost identical to the desktop version, at (nearly) half the TDP.

 

[sze5003]

Not sure if this was posted but looks like the 3gb version will be called the 1050 after all. But why release in December?

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/52996...-gtx-1060-3gb-arrive-1050-december/index.html

 

[hsjj3]

Mobile Geforce GTX 1060 Specs

1280 SPs
80 TMUs
48 ROPs
6 GB 192-bit (192 GB/s)
Core Clock: 1405 MHz (base), 1671 MHz (boost)
65W TDP

www.purepc.pl/notebooki/geforce_gtx_1060_mobile_pelny_uklad_gp106_trafi_do_laptopow

Almost identical to the desktop version, at (nearly) half the TDP.

How is that possible? I assume some from the very slightly lower clockspeeds...but the rest? Where are they saving a further 50W from?

 

[Glo.]

How is that possible? I assume some from the very slightly lower clockspeeds...but the rest? Where are they saving a further 50W from?

The boost most likely will be theoretical. At 65W it will most likely after longer periods of time constantly be at stock core clocks.

 

[LTC8K6]

The boost most likely will be theoretical. At 65W it will most likely after longer periods of time constantly be at stock core clocks.

Well, we'd all love that wattage on a PCI-E card, so why not make it?

 

[LTC8K6]

GPU-Z shot shows 106 TMUs?

Just an error?

 

[hsjj3]

The boost most likely will be theoretical. At 65W it will most likely after longer periods of time constantly be at stock core clocks.

Still that shouldnt account for much in power savings. Not enough to halve it, at least.

 

[Glo.]

Well, we'd all love that wattage on a PCI-E card, so why not make it?

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[hsjj3]

http://videocardz.com/62242/evga-geforce-gtx-1060-pictured

The two cards have different heat sink designs too. Curiously enough, the base model looks exactly like my 750 SC while the SC model looks exactly like my 960 SC.

 

[dark zero]

Mobile Geforce GTX 1060 Specs

1280 SPs
80 TMUs
48 ROPs
6 GB 192-bit (192 GB/s)
Core Clock: 1405 MHz (base), 1671 MHz (boost)
65W TDP

www.purepc.pl/notebooki/geforce_gtx_1060_mobile_pelny_uklad_gp106_trafi_do_laptopow

Almost identical to the desktop version, at (nearly) half the TDP.

Not so identical... the clocks are way lower than the desktop version.
And that TDP.. isn't that high?

But still it could be similar to a theorical GT1040 ot even a GTX1050

 

[tweakboy]

Great prices, they fell good, gl