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

[Keysplayr]

dude GTA V is showing 4GB itself being insufficient at 1080p for the highest settings There are quite a few games now where 4GB itself is borderline sufficient at 1080p. Less than that is just a shortsighted buy.

http://techreport.com/review/30473/amd-radeon-rx-470-graphics-card-reviewed/3

"The somewhat furrier frame-time graph for the RX 470 versus the RX 480 in GTA V is one case where we might be observing the difference that 8GB of memory makes on the beefier Polaris card, as well. With GTA V's "extended distance scaling" maxed, the RX 470, the R9 380X, and the GTX 960 all appear to be swapping data in from main memory often, while the RX 480 appears to be able to keep all the assets it needs in its pool of GDDR5. I'm guessing that keeping that data local has a noticeable impact on smoothness and performance."

If a gamer is on a very strict budget then I would recommend Rx 480 4GB at USD 199 or Rx 470 4GB (if available at USD 179) otherwise I would say Rx 480 8GB and GTX 1060 6GB at USD 250-USD 270 are the best options for anybody who keeps the GPU for 2+ years.

Dude! So you turn down the settings to accomodate the card you buy. Why does this need explaining? You just said this > "highest settings". Highest setting might use a whole lot of memory needlessly without much, if any, visual improvements. And even if it does, that is the level the card you pay for can play. Want all the candy? Buy a TitanX. Want something that can fit your 200.00 budget and you game at 1080p? But a 1060 3GB. If 3GB wasn't a viable level of card, it would not be produced. It will be a beautiful 1080p card with not every bell and whistle turned on in game settings. And Nvidia's memory compression algorithms are 2nd to none. They can do more with less.

 

[antihelten]

dude GTA V is showing 4GB itself being insufficient at 1080p for the highest settings There are quite a few games now where 4GB itself is borderline sufficient at 1080p. Less than that is just a shortsighted buy.

http://techreport.com/review/30473/amd-radeon-rx-470-graphics-card-reviewed/3

"The somewhat furrier frame-time graph for the RX 470 versus the RX 480 in GTA V is one case where we might be observing the difference that 8GB of memory makes on the beefier Polaris card, as well. With GTA V's "extended distance scaling" maxed, the RX 470, the R9 380X, and the GTX 960 all appear to be swapping data in from main memory often, while the RX 480 appears to be able to keep all the assets it needs in its pool of GDDR5. I'm guessing that keeping that data local has a noticeable impact on smoothness and performance."

If a gamer is on a very strict budget then I would recommend Rx 480 4GB at USD 199 or Rx 470 4GB (if available at USD 179) otherwise I would say Rx 480 8GB and GTX 1060 6GB at USD 250-USD 270 are the best options for anybody who keeps the GPU for 2+ years.

If 4GB is an issue in GTA V, then why doesn't the GTX 970 that Techreport also included in the review show the same issue (a furry frame-time graph)?

As far as I can tell it's really only the 470 and 380X that shows issues in the frame-time graph (the 960 also shows a bit, but only towards the end of the benchmark run)

This frame time graph is from the RX 480 review, and it shows non of the issues reported in the RX 470 review (a couple of the settings are different in the 480 review, but the "extended distance scaled" setting is still maxed here):

I don't know what is causing the GTA V issues in the RX 470 review, but it doesn't appear to be VRAM related to me.

 

[Erenhardt]

They had a system issue in the review. Maybe it is killing the 470 aswell - explains the huge gap between the two:
http://techreport.com/blog/30506/re...rame-time-results-in-our-radeon-rx-470-review

470 shouldn't be slower more than 10% off the 480. Or it is hitting VRAM limit.

 

[Keysplayr]

I don't know how much success we will have in persuading an NVidia Focus Group member on why a 3GB card in the 200$ price range in this day and age is a very foolish proposition, perhaps we needn't even try.

Dude! So you turn down the settings to accomodate the card you buy. Why does this need explaining?

They had a system issue in the review. Maybe it is killing the 470 aswell - explains the huge gap between the two:
http://techreport.com/blog/30506/re...rame-time-results-in-our-radeon-rx-470-review

470 shouldn't be slower more than 10% off the 480. Or it is hitting VRAM limit.

Am I correct to assume that the 960 in this bench has 2GB? or it this the 4GB model? Looking. Nope. 4GB.

 

[Keysplayr]

If 4GB is an issue in GTA V, then why doesn't the GTX 970 that Techreport also included in the review show the same issue (a furry frame-time graph)?

As far as I can tell it's really only the 470 and 380X that shows issues in the frame-time graph (the 960 also shows a bit, but only towards the end of the benchmark run)

This frame time graph is from the RX 480 review, and it shows non of the issues reported in the RX 470 review (a couple of the settings are different in the 480 review, but the "extended distance scaled" setting is still maxed here):

I don't know what is causing the GTA V issues in the RX 470 review, but it doesn't appear to be VRAM related to me.

It is completely possible that the downplay of the 3GB 1060 is because it doesn't have 4GB like it's direct competitor. 470/480 4GB.
It's common sense to turn down settings in a game if you need to in order to nail playable framerates and there isn't any proof yet that this will need to be done when comparing
a RX470/480 4GB vs the 1060 3GB. Unless I missed the benches.

 

[Sonikku]

Selling a cheaper 3gb $200 card is a smart move for Nvidia. Terrible choice for a consumer, but what does Nvidia care? Even with less vram than it needs, Nvidia knows it will still sell like hot cakes. And when 3gb isn't enough a year from now? User buys yet another Nvidia card. It's win-win. From a business standpoint at least.

 

[Keysplayr]

Selling a cheaper 3gb $200 card is a smart move for Nvidia. Terrible choice for a consumer, but what does Nvidia care? Even with less vram than it needs, Nvidia knows it will still sell like hot cakes. And when 3gb isn't enough a year from now? User buys yet another Nvidia card. It's win-win. From a business standpoint at least.

Common misconception. You don't know how much VRAM it needs.

 

[crisium]

I am sure of the millions of people with comparable NV cards like 970 OC, 980, 1060 6GB, that a few can chime in and state how they find playable settings using at least 3000MB in some games.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Selling a cheaper 3gb $200 card is a smart move for Nvidia. Terrible choice for a consumer, but what does Nvidia care? Even with less vram than it needs, Nvidia knows it will still sell like hot cakes. And when 3gb isn't enough a year from now? User buys yet another Nvidia card. It's win-win. From a business standpoint at least.

Good point. Typically when it comes to pretty much anything in life, if you buy cheap stuff you're going to end up upgrading it more quickly than you do more expensive stuff.

That's part of the reason that 970 and now 1070 are proving so popular -- people are willing to pay a bit more for longevity as well as a better gaming experience throughout the useful life of the card.

 

[nerp]

Good point. Typically when it comes to pretty much anything in life, if you buy cheap stuff you're going to end up upgrading it more quickly than you do more expensive stuff.

That's part of the reason that 970 and now 1070 are proving so popular -- people are willing to pay a bit more for longevity as well as a better gaming experience throughout the useful life of the card.

I fit this profile perfectly. I was always the person that got the best bang/buck card and was happy with mid-high settings. The 6600GT back in the day was that card. The Radeon HD4850 was that card briefly for some time. This time, I paid a bit more but the 1070 is that big of a leap that it was worth it to me.

 

[Erenhardt]

Good point. Typically when it comes to pretty much anything in life, if you buy cheap stuff you're going to end up upgrading it more quickly than you do more expensive stuff.

That's part of the reason that 970 and now 1070 are proving so popular -- people are willing to pay a bit more for longevity as well as a better gaming experience throughout the useful life of the card.

Tell that to all those who bought $700 780ti.
They could have got a 25% faster GPU for $150 less (25%)

 

[3DVagabond]

It is going to be slower with one SM cluster disabled and half the vRAM of the regular 1060. Say goodbye to ultra textures with this card. Overall the 4GB RX480 at around 200-something is the clear choice here as we are seeing 3GB cards choke in newer titles that dump textures into vRAM.

Yes. The 3GB model is cut down with the same model number. I wonder how many people will get taken by this latest deception?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Good point. Typically when it comes to pretty much anything in life, if you buy cheap stuff you're going to end up upgrading it more quickly than you do more expensive stuff.

I think I'm the poster-child for that.

I'm cheap, but I seem to upgrade often. I bought four Gigabyte Brix J1900 -based mini-PCs, and while they work, my ASRock Deskmini STX mini-PC with full desktop strength G4400 Skylake dual-core blows the J1900 Atom quad-core away. If only I had waited for the Deskmini STX, then all of my mini-PCs could have been Skylake-desktop fast. Sadly, although the Deskmini that I ordered had Intel 2x2 AC wireless, it did not have a VESA mount for the back of the monitors, which the J1900 Brix units did. So, still not an ideal replacement, until I can get VESA mounting brackets for the Deskmini.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I think I'm the poster-child for that.

I'm cheap, but I seem to upgrade often. I bought four Gigabyte Brix J1900 -based mini-PCs, and while they work, my ASRock Deskmini STX mini-PC with full desktop strength G4400 Skylake dual-core blows the J1900 Atom quad-core away. If only I had waited for the Deskmini STX, then all of my mini-PCs could have been Skylake-desktop fast. Sadly, although the Deskmini that I ordered had Intel 2x2 AC wireless, it did not have a VESA mount for the back of the monitors, which the J1900 Brix units did. So, still not an ideal replacement, until I can get VESA mounting brackets for the Deskmini.

I just bought a Deskmini and it really is a NUC killer. When I was putting it together I genuinely thought that this would be the perfect system for you. Guess I was mostly right

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yes. The 3GB model is cut down with the same model number. I wonder how many people will get taken by this latest deception?

Yeah, that's a bit sleazy. Kind of like how the GTX460 768 only had 192-bit memory, while the GTX460 1GB had 256-bit.

I recognize that there were technical reasons behind that, but the marketing behind it, and the attempt at equivalence, from a marketing perspective, is sleazy.

 

[iiiankiii]

It is completely possible that the downplay of the 3GB 1060 is because it doesn't have 4GB like it's direct competitor. 470/480 4GB.
It's common sense to turn down settings in a game if you need to in order to nail playable framerates and there isn't any proof yet that this will need to be done when comparing
a RX470/480 4GB vs the 1060 3GB. Unless I missed the benches.

No thank you. I'd rather have a 4GB 480x than a 3GB GTX 1060. The trend is towards higher VRAM usage (duh?). So why would you settle for less VRAM? DX12, at this early stage, uses a brick ton of VRAM. PS4K and Scorpio will push VRAM higher. Plus, GCN will continue to be optimized by default because of consoles (a bonus for Polaris). I wouldn't want a 3GB for 1080p gaming. I'm not convinced. I wasn't convinced with 2GB vs 3GB then. I'm not convinced with 3GB vs 4GB now. All things roughly equal, I'm gonna want to grab the higher VRAM card. I don't think that's an illogical conclusion.

 

[Ranulf]

I think I'm the poster-child for that.

I'm cheap, but I seem to upgrade often. I bought four Gigabyte Brix J1900 -based mini-PCs, and while they work, my ASRock Deskmini STX mini-PC with full desktop strength G4400 Skylake dual-core blows the J1900 Atom quad-core away. If only I had waited for the Deskmini STX, then all of my mini-PCs could have been Skylake-desktop fast. Sadly, although the Deskmini that I ordered had Intel 2x2 AC wireless, it did not have a VESA mount for the back of the monitors, which the J1900 Brix units did. So, still not an ideal replacement, until I can get VESA mounting brackets for the Deskmini.

This deskmini is intriguing. It shows you can use a stock cooler with it, is there enough room to mount say a noctua itx cooler?

 

[boozzer]

a 200$ piece of hardware is cheap we all should be buying and upgrading yearly. /s

 

[mohit9206]

Selling a cheaper 3gb $200 card is a smart move for Nvidia. Terrible choice for a consumer, but what does Nvidia care? Even with less vram than it needs, Nvidia knows it will still sell like hot cakes. And when 3gb isn't enough a year from now? User buys yet another Nvidia card. It's win-win. From a business standpoint at least.

I don't see how it is a terrible choice for consumer.If it ends up being faster than RX470 4GB then instead of AMD having the entire sub $200 market in its control,consumers will now have a choice of which card to buy.Might even make AMD cut the price of RX470 and/or increase production of 4GB RX480.All these things make the existence of 3GB 1060 better for the buyer.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Could we maybe at least wait for benchmarks before reaching any conclusions? That said, seems like it should really be the 1050. At 150 dollars, it would compete nicely between the 460 and 470, but I am sure it will compete with the 470, where 3gb is hard to accept.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I don't see how it is a terrible choice for consumer.If it ends up being faster than RX470 4GB then instead of AMD having the entire sub $200 market in its control,consumers will now have a choice of which card to buy.Might even make AMD cut the price of RX470 and/or increase production of 4GB RX480.All these things make the existence of 3GB 1060 better for the buyer.

Interesting point. Competition seems to be good for the consumer when AMD challenges NVIDIA, but it's bad for the consumer if NVIDIA challenges AMD. 4GB is future proof but 3GB is not, even though if one is serious about being "future proof" one would just pay a bit extra for RX 480 with 8GB or GTX 1060 with 6GB.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Could we maybe at least wait for benchmarks before reaching any conclusions? That said, seems like it should really be the 1050. At 150 dollars, it would compete nicely between the 460 and 470, but I am sure it will compete with the 470, where 3gb is hard to accept.

I wonder what GP107 looks like.

 

[raghu78]

Interesting point. Competition seems to be good for the consumer when AMD challenges NVIDIA, but it's bad for the consumer if NVIDIA challenges AMD. 4GB is future proof but 3GB is not, even though if one is serious about being "future proof" one would just pay a bit extra for RX 480 with 8GB or GTX 1060 with 6GB.

Competition is always good for the consumer. What we need is competing products at all price points from Nvidia and AMD. Right now Nvidia is making a killing with USD 400 - USD 450 GTX 1070, USD 650 - USD 700 GTX 1080 and USD 1200+ GTX Titan. AMD has a difficult road ahead as Polaris has been disappointing.Whether the problems with Polaris are design or process issues related remains to be seen. It looks like AMD and Nvidia might both use Samsung for few of their GPU products. So we are likely to see a faster ramp to FINFET GPUs than 28nm Kepler (GTX 600 series) or 28nm GCN (HD 7000 series). This is good for the consumer. What we as consumers need is faster Polaris revisions which fix the clock/power issues and a strong Vega lineup so that the consumer gets the best bang for buck in 2017 irrespective of which GPU vendor he chooses.

I wonder what GP107 looks like.

I will take a guess. 640 sp, 128 bit GDDR5, 32 ROPs, 112 - 128 GB/s, 45-60w, 100 sq mm. Performance slightly better than GTX 960. This chip will cause AMD a lot more pain.

 

[mohit9206]

Could we maybe at least wait for benchmarks before reaching any conclusions? That said, seems like it should really be the 1050. At 150 dollars, it would compete nicely between the 460 and 470, but I am sure it will compete with the 470, where 3gb is hard to accept.

1050 won't b $150 though.
GTS 450- $130
GTX 550Ti,650Ti,750Ti- $150
GTX 950- $160
GTX 1050- $170-180?

 

[R0H1T]

1050 won't b $150 though.
GTS 450- $130
GTX 550Ti,650Ti,750Ti- $150
GTX 950- $1604
GTX 1050- $170-180?

So Nvidia will leave the $150(or below) market to AMD, you also said that the 460(4GB) is DOA or something to that effect? Will be interesting to see how people react to a ~180$ 1050, assuming there's no 1050Ti.