Gigabyte RX 480 G1Gaming vs MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X [HardOCP]

[Carfax83]

Here's a very recent review of both an AiB RX 480 and a GTX 1060 from HardOCP using the latest drivers.

It covers both stock and overclocked speeds. The Gigabyte RX 480 seems to have issues maintaining it's stock clock speed unless you raised the power target. Also, it's a shame they didn't test the power draw when overclocked

There were some technical victories between the video cards. In Battlefield 1, Fallout 4, Gears of War 4, and The Witcher 3 the MSI GeForce GTX 1060 GAMING X edged out the lead overall slightly. When we say slightly, it was slight, averages ranged from 3% faster to 10% faster. Then there were games that the GIGABYTE Radeon RX 480 G1 GAMING edged out on performance. It was faster in Deus Ex: Mankind Divided and DOOM.

When we introduced overclocking both video cards improved performance by a noticeable amount. Overall we can see that the MSI GeForce GTX 1060 GAMING X actually gained more performance than the GIGABYTE RX 480 G1 GAMING with its overclock, in games. However, when comparing between them we still get the same results we had when not overclocked.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The overall final conclusion in terms of performance is that both video cards are neck and neck, providing equivalent desktop gameplay experiences. What is going to then be the primary factors when choosing one over the other is going to come down to price, manufacturer and brand, and the highest overclock you can achieve.

And there you have it. The GPU battle of 2016 in a nutshell.

I am glad I have my 480 personally, thanks to ethereum (which the 1060 can mine) and zcash (which the 1060 can't mine right) I have paid for it almost twice over since launch day.

 

[Piroko]

Kudos for them to actually do a bios update on their GPUs if needed.

The 480 clock speed variation is talked up a bit more than I would expect, we're talking about a 4MHz / >1% difference in averages and 28 MHz / >3% difference max. The accompanying graph starts at 1240 MHz and ends at 1300MHz

As for their conclusion, seems about right. VR performance and power consumption victory goes to the 1060, but we're low enough in total system power that there isn't much of a noise difference between the two. The 480 tends to be cheaper to compensate for that.

 

[happy medium]

"While overclocked the GIGABYTE Radeon RX 480 G1 GAMING hit a top system wattage of 348W. While overclocked the MSI GeForce GTX 1060 GAMING X hit a top system wattage of 271W."

The rx 480 needs 78 watts more while overclocked ,that is a lot more power for lower end cards. It would be like having an extra 75 watt lightbulb in your case.
I would bet this would effect your overclocked cpu temps as well as other components.

rx480 needed 75% fan speed vs the 1060's 50% while overclocked.

 

[AtenRa]

Nice review but the Gigabyte card is one of the worst RX 480 out there and the MSI GTX 1060 one of the best.
I would really like to see the best of both in a big vs review, like the XFX GTR Black or PowerColor Red Devil RX 480s vs MSI/ASUS or EVGA GTX 1060 6GB

 

[Headfoot]

"While overclocked the GIGABYTE Radeon RX 480 G1 GAMING hit a top system wattage of 348W. While overclocked the MSI GeForce GTX 1060 GAMING X hit a top system wattage of 271W."

The rx 480 needs 78 watts more while overclocked ,that is a lot more power for lower end cards. It would be like having an extra 75 watt lightbulb in your case.
I would bet this would effect your overclocked cpu temps as well as other components.

Insignificant. Amounting to a degree or 2 in the case, and a couple bucks at best in a month.

rx480 needed 75% fan speed vs the 1060's 50% while overclocked.

That doesn't mean anything. All that matters is how loud it is at the performance level it can provide. 100% of a low number is still a low number and 50% of a huge number is still pretty big.

 

[Carfax83]

Insignificant. Amounting to a degree or 2 in the case, and a couple bucks at best in a month.

Not insignificant, because it's a consequence of AMD's lesser architectural efficiency. As long as there remains such a large deficit between AMD and NVidia in architectural efficiency or performance per watt, then AMD will NEVER take back the performance crown.

 

[Carfax83]

Nice review but the Gigabyte card is one of the worst RX 480 out there and the MSI GTX 1060 one of the best.

One of the worst? Surely that's hyperbole. The G1 lineup uses the Windforce cooler, which is quite robust if you ask me.

 

[Headfoot]

Not insignificant, because it's a consequence of AMD's lesser architectural efficiency. As long as there remains such a large deficit between AMD and NVidia in architectural efficiency or performance per watt, then AMD will NEVER take back the performance crown.

When I go and buy a card, I care about how fast it goes and how much it costs. I dont care that it makes my electric bill $2 more expensive a month and I don't care that it makes my CPU run 3C hotter.

 

[kawi6rr]

One of the worst? Surely that's hyperbole. The G1 lineup uses the Windforce cooler, which is quite robust if you ask me.

When it comes down to outright performance the G1 is not at the top it's got a moderate overclock nothing to brag about. There are a few better 480 cards out there that I would have chosen.

 

[Mopetar]

Cost over time eventually is important. If it's $2 a month more in electricity, over 2 years it's equivalent to paying $50 more up front, just spread out over time. You'd have to game a lot or live somewhere with expensive electricity to have that problem though unless the power gap is massive.

Unless you live in Alaska in which case it just saves on the heating bill so you may as well OC as much as possible.

 

[kawi6rr]

Nobody did any real testing to see how much more wattage costs the $2 amount was thrown out there as an example.

 

[Carfax83]

When I go and buy a card, I care about how fast it goes and how much it costs. I dont care that it makes my electric bill $2 more expensive a month and I don't care that it makes my CPU run 3C hotter.

Yes, and how fast that card goes is directly correlated to its performance per watt, whether you realize it or not. Most end consumers don't care about the nitty gritty engineering characteristics of this card or that, but it's these very same characteristics that determine the actual performance of a GPU..

NVidia's advantage in performance per watt means they will always be able to release faster cards than AMD, because they get a lot more performance out of every watt than AMD can..

 

[nurturedhate]

Cost over time eventually is important. If it's $2 a month more in electricity, over 2 years it's equivalent to paying $50 more up front, just spread out over time. You'd have to game a lot or live somewhere with expensive electricity to have that problem though unless the power gap is massive.

Unless you live in Alaska in which case it just saves on the heating bill so you may as well OC as much as possible.

Except it's not $2 a month. It is massively less.

 

[tential]

The only reason I care about power consumption is I don't want my room getting hot.

Then there is the environmental concern. I'm interested in the Elon musk solar panels for roofs that was recently announced. I don't think it's hard for us to lower our environmental footprint. Even if it's insignificant maybe it does annoy me to no end how inefficient amds gpu is in a wide selection of games.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Nobody did any real testing to see how much more wattage costs the $2 amount was thrown out there as an example.

OK, lets do the numbers. Assume 2.5 hours of gaming per day, 15 cents per kwh, 70 watts difference as this test shows. That comes out to 1.225 kwh/week or about 18 cents per week, which sounds insignificant, but actually comes out to almost ten dollars per year. Still not a huge number, obviously, but if the price and performance is otherwise equal, to me it would have to be the deciding factor.

 

[nurturedhate]

OK, lets do the numbers. Assume 2.5 hours of gaming per day, 15 cents per kwh, 70 watts difference as this test shows. That comes out to 1.225 kwh/week or about 18 cents per week, which sounds insignificant, but actually comes out to almost ten dollars per year. Still not a huge number, obviously, but if the price and performance is otherwise equal, to me it would have to be the deciding factor.

But the price isn't equal and in many cases can be $30+ at times. That is 3+ years of use before simply breaking even on price. Also it's $9.36 a year not $10. Don't round up to try to sell your narrative, you did the rest of the math. Only reason to stop 2 feet from the finish line to to blur the truth. Good try though, maybe next time.

 

[tviceman]

The only reason I care about power consumption is I don't want my room getting hot.

Then there is the environmental concern. I'm interested in the Elon musk solar panels for roofs that was recently announced. I don't think it's hard for us to lower our environmental footprint. Even if it's insignificant maybe it does annoy me to no end how inefficient amds gpu is in a wide selection of games.

This x100. I argued that power consumption did not have an effect on room temperature during the Fermi era, until I bought a Fermi. Boy was I wrong. I will always choose the card with less power consumption for the same performance in a similar price bracket, because lower power means quieter cooling, less heat dump, and of course I sleep a little better knowing I am doing my part to lessen carbon emissions while still enjoying my hobby.

 

[tviceman]

Conclusion: for regular gaming you can't go wrong with either card. They look to be about equal when it's all said and done and entirely game dependent if one or the other has a significant advantage. If you want the cheapest solution, get the RX 480. If you want better overall VR performance and lower power consumption, get the GTX 1060.

 

[happy medium]

The only reason I care about power consumption is I don't want my room getting hot.

s.

Exactly! When I play games, I overclock my cpu and my low power gxt960, I have to open the windows a bit. I can imagine if I bought a high power cpu and a 390 and overclocked it, my room would be a hot box.

 

[Stiliyan]

Yes, and how fast that card goes is directly correlated to its performance per watt, whether you realize it or not. Most end consumers don't care about the nitty gritty engineering characteristics of this card or that, but it's these very same characteristics that determine the actual performance of a GPU..

NVidia's advantage in performance per watt means they will always be able to release faster cards than AMD, because they get a lot more performance out of every watt than AMD can..

Generally you are right but Headfoot is talking about how much performance you can get for a certain amount of money. For example for 250$ I can get 100% performance, for the same amount of money you can get 90% of that performance but with better performance/watt characteristics.

"While overclocked the GIGABYTE Radeon RX 480 G1 GAMING hit a top system wattage of 348W. While overclocked the MSI GeForce GTX 1060 GAMING X hit a top system wattage of 271W."

The rx 480 needs 78 watts more while overclocked ,that is a lot more power for lower end cards. It would be like having an extra 75 watt lightbulb in your case.
I would bet this would effect your overclocked cpu temps as well as other components.

rx480 needed 75% fan speed vs the 1060's 50% while overclocked.

I doubt that they are using the same fans. So your point is irrelevant if you don't give a proof that g1 gaming's fans at 75% are louder than msi's at 50%.

 

[tential]

Conclusion: for regular gaming you can't go wrong with either card. They look to be about equal when it's all said and done and entirely game dependent if one or the other has a significant advantage. If you want the cheapest solution, get the RX 480. If you want better overall VR performance and lower power consumption, get the GTX 1060.

Is there definitive data on the 480 being cheapest? At launch the 1060 had far better deals that I saw. It was even for me recently and now it's been more 480 deals. It's largely dependent on when you buy as to what is cheaper. Amd doesn't have the large price advantage they used to.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

The only reason I care about power consumption is I don't want my room getting hot.

Then there is the environmental concern. I'm interested in the Elon musk solar panels for roofs that was recently announced. I don't think it's hard for us to lower our environmental footprint. Even if it's insignificant maybe it does annoy me to no end how inefficient amds gpu is in a wide selection of games.

"Environmental concerns". That's absolutely laughable. 120W vs 170W of power consumption for a few hours a day at most. Yeah, that extra 50W is going to cause irrevocable environmental damage.

The hot room thing is a nonsense excuse in all but the most extreme circumstances too.

These are all feeble rationalizations common to green team. I wont' deny that red team has any shortage of rationalizations themselves, but that "environmental" thing gets to me because it's so absurd.

 

[happy medium]

"Environmental concerns". That's absolutely laughable. 120W vs 170W of power consumption for a few hours a day at most. Yeah, that extra 50W is going to cause irrevocable environmental damage.

The hot room thing is a nonsense excuse in all but the most extreme circumstances too.

its 78 watts not 50

 

[IllogicalGlory]

its 78 watts not 50

Yeah, you really got me there. 78W, wow. There'd be no global warming if everyone bought NVIDIA, I'm sure. I'm not necessarily talking about these exact two cards either.

All these rationalizations come after buying/analyzing the card from your favorite team, not before. If NV were behind in perf/watt, we'd be seeing different excuses. I don't think such excuses are necessary to justify recommending or buying a 1060 or any other NV card. Do we really have to go so far as to blame the other side for environmental damage?