Is 3GB enough for 1080p?

[gregoryvg]

Thinking about getting a GeForce GTX 1060 3gb to pair up with my aging i5 2500k but wondering which one to get. My monitor is 1080p 60hz. I will not be upgrading the monitor until after my next build. So would the 3 GB version of the GTX 1060 be good enough to push 1080p for the next couple years (until like early /mid 2019)?

Here is the one I am looking at (only $159 after MIR):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01KUCL25Y/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

 

[VirtualLarry]

When I upgraded fairly recently, I picked up a pair of 4GB XFX RX 470 cards, dual hard-swap fans, for $150 ea.

I thought that the extra VRAM would come in useful.

YMMV. There was a huge thread previously, hashing this all out, and most non-hardcore-NV fans agreed with the assessment that I made: 4GB VRAM or more is going to be a standard for cards moving forward.

Shadows of Mordor can really suck up the VRAM, as can GTA V.

Edit: The consensus was roughly, that 3GB VRAM might get you by for now, but in 2-3 years, most games will really need 4 or more GB of VRAM.

Edit: Even the lowly RX 550, which is only HALF the GPU power of the RX 560, itself maybe 10% faster than an RX 460, comes in a 4GB variety. That alone should tell you something. (Although, the Tech Deals guy says to ignore such a low-end card with high VRAM like that, and just get the 2GB version. He also does not recommend the RX 550 for AAA titles at all. Just Moba/e-sports.)

 

[frozentundra123456]

Thinking about getting a GeForce GTX 1060 3gb to pair up with my aging i5 2500k but wondering which one to get. My monitor is 1080p 60hz. I will not be upgrading the monitor until after my next build. So would the 3 GB version of the GTX 1060 be good enough to push 1080p for the next couple years (until like early /mid 2019)?

Here is the one I am looking at (only $159 after MIR):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01KUCL25Y/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

This thread is going to get ugly fast. The AMD lobby loves to bash the 1060 3gb mercilessly. On a more objective note, only 3gb of vram is a disadvantage, especially at higher resolutions or ultra textures. IMO, if you plan to replace the card in a couple of years and stick to 1080p, you should be fine. I haven't followed prices closely for a while, but that price seems very good. I would however consider the 470/570 4 gb, as it can often be found very cheap as well, and at the same price or cheaper I would probably choose it over the 1060 3gb, although to me the choice is a toss up.


Threadcrapping Inflammatory posting is not allowed.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Sven_eng]

This thread is going to get ugly fast.

Because of your comment yes. Reported.

 

[Triloby]

Depends on what kind of games you'll be playing at 1080p. If you're only gonna play e-sports and MOBA games, then you can get away with 3 GB for now. Especially if you plan on upgrading your entire rig within the next couple of years.

If you want to play all the big-name titles (GTA 5, Shadows of Mordor, Ghost Recon Wildlands, etc.) or any game that uses lots of high-resolution textures (Skyrim), then 3 GB is really cutting it close when it comes to current and future games.

Edit: Even the lowly RX 550, which is only HALF the GPU power of the RX 560, itself maybe 10% faster than an RX 460, comes in a 4GB variety. That alone should tell you something. (Although, the Tech Deals guy says to ignore such a low-end card with high VRAM like that, and just get the 2GB version. He also does not recommend the RX 550 for AAA titles at all. Just Moba/e-sports.)

The RX 550 isn't even powerful enough to take advantage of 4 GB of VRAM. That's why he recommended the 2 GB model. A GPU that weak would barely be able to deal with high-res textures even with the 4 GB of VRAM.

 

[gregoryvg]

Yeah, I was afraid of the 3GB being too uncertain to last for a couple years. I've been looking at this too, it's a 4GB card that is more powerful than a GTX 960 (only $119) but it's problem is that it probably won't be powerful enough to last two years. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01M4KGTNI/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

I tried the RX 480 but it didn't want to play nice with my system so am a little afraid to try another AMD for now. My GTX 660 works perfect but slow, and my son's GTX 970 worked fine in my system when I tried it.

 

[Crono]

I wouldn't be afraid of trying another AMD card. The RX 470/570 is right in the sweet spot of value.

 

[daveybrat]

The 3GB 1060 feels just like back when i bought my Nvidia GTX 460 768MB card. At the time myself and others said i wouldn't need more than that. Well, it turns out i should have spent the little extra money and got the 1GB version as i started to become Vram limited in games at the time. Spend the extra for a 6GB or just get a RX470/570 like the others here are recommending!

 

[DisarmedDespot]

Three gigabytes of VRAM will *probably* be fine... But unless you're set on that card in particular I'd strongly suggest looking for four gigabytes or more. The 470s/570s seem to be in a great position, and the 480s/580s go on sale pretty often. If you'd prefer Nvidia and don't mind spending more, the 6GB 1060 is a good option. Remember, the 3GB 1060 is actually cut-down, so the 6GB will be a tad bit faster.

 

[Bacon1]

I'd say look at reviews, but most reviewers stopped using it because it feel behind the 1060 6gb and 4gb amd models a lot.

For $160 its not bad as that's close to the normal price of a 1050 Ti which is far slower (though sadly has 4GB of VRAM). If it was 4GB at that price it would be a solid buy, but you will have to make compromises to texture quality sooner with it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Remember, the 3GB 1060 is actually cut-down, so the 6GB will be a tad bit faster.

Yeah. If you've got your heart set on a GTX1060, then get a 6GB version. Yeah, they cost a little bit more.

I doubt that by this time next year, that they will even be selling any 3GB cards.

 

[Makaveli]

I would opt for the 1060 6GB card given the choice.

My 7970Ghz has 3GB and still runs GTV 5 and Mordor fine at 1200p.

But it doesn't make sense to go with the 3GB card when the other isn't much more expensive.

 

[Crono]

I might have to take back my recommendation, miners are eating up the supply. If you see a good deal on a 6GB 1060 (currently best pricing on Newegg is $240 for a Zotac mini 1060), go for it.

 

[Yakk]

Turn down some memory intensive settings and you can get by on 3GB at 1080, but 4GB is the sweetspot IMHO.

 

[Bacon1]

I might have to take back my recommendation, miners are eating up the supply. If you see a good deal on a 6GB 1060 (currently best pricing on Newegg is $240 for a Zotac mini 1060), go for it.

$160 for a 3gb -> $240 for a 6gb version is a massive increase in price and destroys the price/perf. He is better just going for a $150-180 470/480/570/580

 

[96Firebird]

If you want to step up to a 1060 6GB, best deal is this one for $202 or less with store pickup...

https://www.walmart.com/ip/EVGA-GeF...Inches-Graphics-Card-06G-P4-6161-KR/117040471

But you'll be fine with 3GB if you turn down some settings...

 

[Jason Ives]

If you want to step up to a 1060 6GB, best deal is this one for $202 or less with store pickup...

https://www.walmart.com/ip/EVGA-GeF...Inches-Graphics-Card-06G-P4-6161-KR/117040471

But you'll be fine with 3GB if you turn down some settings...

So it isn't 240? Anyone have any luck with 2GB on 1080?

 

[96Firebird]

So it isn't 240? Anyone have any luck with 2GB on 1080?

Well Crono did say cheapest on Newegg, which is indeed $240 without rebates, or around $230 after rebate and shipping.

 

[Guru]

Right now the RX 470/570 is a lot better than the 1060 3GB. Not only does it have 1GB more ram for less money, but you can even get a 8GB version for less than $180.

Most 1060 3GB are still around $200, occasionally a $190 will pop out, but its more expensive than the much faster and more future proof RX 570 4/8GB.

 

[DidelisDiskas]

From what i remember the 1060 3gb version also has 10% fewer shader units than the 6gb version. Really strange choice by nvidia to give more ram to the 1050ti, than the more powerful 1060 3gb version, and then for some reason cut out some cuda cores from it to boot.

 

[Red Hawk]

So it isn't 240? Anyone have any luck with 2GB on 1080?

2 GB is not enough for modern games, period. I was benchmarking Gears of War 4 with a 2 GB Radeon 270X recently, and found even that card was significantly VRAM limited at 2 GB. It could run all the non-texture settings on "high" at a playable frame rate ("playable" meaning keeping the minimum frame rate at 30 FPS), but textures had to be kept at medium or the minimum frame rate cratered to below 25 FPS.

 

[Shmee]

Only reason to get a 3GB card for gaming was if it was a 79xx or 280(x) in the past. Now there are better options IMO, I think 4 GB is a sweet spot to start.

 

[Crumpet]

I frequently hit the 3.5gb limit on my GTX970, admittedly gaming ultrawide.

I'd recommend 4gb + going forward.

 

[IEC]

I bought a Gigabyte 3GB 1060 mostly based on the outputs and the price (got it for $160 AR + Ghost Recon Wildlands). The buyer for the system I put it in hardly games, so gaming wasn't really a priority for the build. I realized after the fact that despite its name, the 3GB "1060" is a cut down version about 10% weaker than the 1060, as well as having less memory. I used the new Unigine Superposition benchmark to stress-test the GPU and was a little surprised at the lower-than-expected results until I read up on the 3GB vs 6GB chip differences. Also, guess how much vRAM the 1080p Extreme setting uses... yup, more than 3GB.

If buying primarily for gaming, I would skip the 3GB card entirely and buy a card with minimum 4GB.

 

[DaveSimmons]

4 GB is nice to have, but even 2 GB is fine if you are willing to lower settings a notch.

Ultra textures? Even 4 GB may run out of room. Medium or high? You're fine.

It really depends on how much you want to pay, how long you plan to keep the card, and how much it annoys you to dial down grass-blade shadows from sharp to soft. In my opinion, of course.