rx480 8GB vs GTX 1060 6GB (Two specific models)

[bthizle1]

Currently deciding between these two GPUs:

https://jet.com/product/EVGA-06G-P4...171-GHz-Boos/fa54a37dc33f452fb6112bcde38b0cdd

https://jet.com/product/MSI-Radeon-...I-Express-30/29a13d91a50a49039f7a54e74d72861e

The 1060 will come out to be around $4 more, if there is no mail in rebate than after the MIR with the MSI the 1060 will be around $20 more. Which would be best?

(There's also the 4GB version of the gaming X that I could get for only $150, however I've been lead to believe the 8gb may come in handy for futureproofing, and if I ever happen to come across a 1440p monitor)

 

[Ryland]

I had the same choice and went with the 1060 due to being more used to nvidia, and typically better drivers. Speed wise they are both about the same.

 

[bthizle1]

I'm probably equally familiar with both, having had both brands throughout the ages. So far as better drivers go....I was under the impression that AMD usually has better driver support and for much longer than nvidia as well. Also if they are about the same speed, but the 480 comes with another 2GB of VRAM, wouldn't that give it the edge?

 

[Mopetar]

How long are you planning on keeping the card that you buy? The difference in VRAM may not become relevant in the time you have the card.

I'd probably get the 4 GB $150 card though as it's a much better value. If you're still gaming at 1080p, the 4 GB memory should be fine. Neither the 480 or 1060 are great 1440p cards in my opinion as in a lot of games you'll probably need to turn down settings to get above 60 FPS, especially for future titles, so I'd just get the $150 4 GB RX480 and put the extra $100 towards upgrading in a few years.

Alternatively, you can wait until Vega comes out which should be in about two months. If they put pressure on NVidia, the 1070 should come down in price (or AMD will have something similar at a better price) and for $100 more you'll probably be able to get a card that offers solid 1440p performance. Even now you might be able to get a 1070 for ~$370 with a good deal or rebate. However that card is overkill for 1080p so you'd really only want to consider it if you do plan on upgrading your monitor.

 

[bthizle1]

How long are you planning on keeping the card that you buy? The difference in VRAM may not become relevant in the time you have the card.

I'd probably get the 4 GB $150 card though as it's a much better value. If you're still gaming at 1080p, the 4 GB memory should be fine. Neither the 480 or 1060 are great 1440p cards in my opinion as in a lot of games you'll probably need to turn down settings to get above 60 FPS, especially for future titles, so I'd just get the $150 4 GB RX480 and put the extra $100 towards upgrading in a few years.

The 8GB version is only $43 or so more, not $100.......Also I imagine keeping it for at the very least 2 years, hopefully around 3-4, perhaps more.

EDIT: Oh and there are a handful of games currently that do pass 4 GB, even if it is because of shadowcache. You don't think that in the next year alone there will be more games that take advantage of even a bit more than 4GB VRAM?

 

[Mopetar]

The 8GB version is only $43 or so more, not $100

Ah, I had just clicked the link and saw $250 and then you said $150 for the 4 GB card, so that's where I got the $100.

Also I imagine keeping it for at the very least 2 years, hopefully around 3-4, perhaps more.

Probably worth getting the extra VRAM if you plan on 4 years. Though if you are going to move to 1440p, I still think it would be better to move to the next tier up. However, right now there really isn't anything in the $300 sweet spot that the 970 used to be at, and I don't see that happening for a while, even if AMD is aggressive with Vega. Maybe there's a Polaris refresh at the same time with a slightly tweaked design to add 4 - 8 additional CUs which might allow it to occupy the $300 space, but I'm guessing it'll be the same Polaris chip with better clocks and memory speed.

EDIT: Oh and there are a handful of games currently that do pass 4 GB, even if it is because of shadowcache. You don't think that in the next year alone there will be more games that take advantage of even a bit more than 4GB VRAM?

For 1080p it largely doesn't matter based on most games from what reviewers have found: http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2503-amd-rx-480-4gb-vs-8gb-benchmark-is-it-worth-it. It seems like it only makes a difference when using the insane quality textures that some games offer that don't look that much better. Who knows what it'll look like in 3 years though, so it could be worth the extra $40.

 

[ConsoleLover]

1060 generally wins in DX11 titles, depending on the game usually 4-10fps more. For example in GTA 5 you will see a difference of 10fps, sometimes even more, Watch Dogs 2 1060 also has 6-8fps advantage.

480 generally wins in DX12 titles, the latest sniper elite 3 has AMD gaining close to 20fps in DX12 and making it actually faster than the 1060, when it otherwise lost badly under DX11. Overall in DX12 480 wins by about 5-7fps over the 1060 in sniper elite 3.

Some DX12 games are equal though, GOW, Forza 3, AOTS, CIV6 its pretty much same performance, they are neck and neck. Deus EX on the other hand has 480 winning consistently by about 5-6fps under DX12.

Though it's worth pointing out that in many cases DX12 is an equalizer for 480, meaning under DX12 the 480 tends to catch up to the 1060 DX11 performance, so its not a net win in performance, its more of an equalizer.

Ultimately if you think most upcoming games will take DX12 seriously and have proper implementation then 480 makes a bit more sense, especially with 2GB more vRam, if you think DX11 games are going to still be the primary focus in the next year at least, then the 1060 for DX11 makes more sense and has a bit smaller power consumption if that's worth anything to you. You also only need 6pin vs 8pin on most 480's.

There are 8pin 1060's, but I've yet to see any 1060 use more than 140W even under heavy OC upwards of 2136, which is about the max OC. Most cards tend to show instability at 2113MHz.

On the other hand most 480's I've seen tend to OC up to 1400MHz, more than that and there is instability. The max OC I've seen seems to be 1435MHz stable, but those are extremely rare cases, lottery wins in the silicon lottery. It also tends to use upwards of 30W more clocked at 1400MHz.

 

[tviceman]

Flip a coin.

 

[Sweepr]

Here's PCGamer's latest 16 game average, from their 1080 Ti review:

Spoiler

www.pcgamer.com/geforce-gtx-1080-ti-review

 

[richaron]

Sweeper is 100% correct, despite having a history of anti-AMD half truths.

1060 is only a couple of percent faster at the moment and the 480 performs better in newer titles, so it's basically a wash. But like all AMD GPUs of recent years the 480 will have longer legs.

Of course these averages are less important than specific games, and if the OP knows what games they will be playing that might effect our recommendations.

 

[tviceman]

1060 is only a couple of percent faster at the moment and the 480 performs better in newer titles, so it's basically a wash.

Looks like Nvidia has closed the gap and / or taken the lead in many titles where the RX 480 was outright better. In that PC Gamer list, the RX 480 wins in BF1, Deus Ex, Doom, and Hitman. The GTX 1060 wins all the other benchmarks including the newer games of Total War, Shadow Warrior 2, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Gears 4, Dishonored 2, and Civ 6.

But like all AMD GPUs of recent years the 480 will have longer legs.

The only guarantee you can attach to this statement is the fact that the RX 480 has 8gb of vram. By the time both cards are obsolete, though, the vram discrepancies may not matter.

If the OP knows what games they will be playing that might effect our recommendations.

Agreed.

 

[Headfoot]

Honestly it's not going to make much of a difference unless you are planning on getting a monitor that's got Freesync. Then i'd go AMD, otherwise it's a wash.

 

[IEC]

Do you have Freesync or will you consider Freesync when you upgrade to 1440p?

Because that's up to $200 cheaper for Freesync versus Gsync, depending on the monitor.

Otherwise, would be hard to go wrong with either choice.

 

[guachi]

I'll just second (or third) the recommendation that if you might get Freesync (and you should) then the 480 is a better choice.

Gsync monitors are so much more expensive that you could buy a Freesync monitor and a 480 for the price of a Gsync monitor alone.

And once you've played on a Freesync (or Gsync) monitor I doubt you'll go back. It's that good.

 

[poofyhairguy]

It really comes down to the games you want/expect to play.

 

[Yuriman]

NV announced new drivers that will improve performance significantly in DX12 titles:

http://www.techradar.com/news/nvidias-new-geforce-drivers-deliver-a-huge-boost-to-dx12-games

Historically, AMD cards have aged better. Whether this is due to AMD leaving performance on the table at launch with poor drivers, NV not bothering to optimize for their older cards, or AMD's previous designs having been more forward-thinking, I don't know. Past performance does not predict future returns, but the pattern may still hold.

What we know today: The 1060 has 25% less VRAM and performs a hair better when you average a large number of titles. The 480 draws 25% more power, and supports more free standards, such as Freesync.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I really don't think you can go wrong either way.

It's the person wanting to buy a 3GB 1060 over a 4GB 480 or even a 470 that you want to help.

 

[Bacon1]

NV announced new drivers that will improve performance significantly in DX12 titles:

http://www.techradar.com/news/nvidias-new-geforce-drivers-deliver-a-huge-boost-to-dx12-games

Those drivers didn't change anything except maybe a boost in hitman.

 

[raghu78]

Both these cards are pretty much on par. Depending on the games tested either card could come out ahead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jml0uItdnE

Nvidia GTX 1060 is slightly ahead today (3-5%) in more reviews but if you intend to keep the card for 3-4 years I would say go with the Rx 480. The GCN console legacy is the main reason for AMD cards to run very well for many years. With PS4 Pro using a custom Polaris derivative I think that trend will continue.

 

[SPBHM]

if you have a very fast CPU the 480 might be a better or as good of a choice, if you don't, I think the 1060 is the way to go because Nvidia is clearly still better at DX11 with slower CPUs.
https://youtu.be/H-aP0JqJkJ0?t=7m2s

 

[Bacon1]

https://youtu.be/H-aP0JqJkJ0?t=7m2s

Uhhh I think they messed up that test. Why is it running faster on the Pentium than the i7 on the 1060??

I7: 77 face -> 82 ship -> 67 while ship is landing

G4560: 93 face -> 103 ship -> 80 while ship is landing

Sorry DF but you messed up something bad there.... Seems like they swapped their i7 and G4560 on the 1060 which makes the 480 and 1060 line up the same in the end.

 

[SPBHM]

Uhhh I think they messed up that test. Why is it running faster on the Pentium than the i7 on the 1060??

I7: 77 face -> 82 ship -> 67 while ship is landing

G4560: 93 face -> 103 ship -> 80 while ship is landing

Sorry DF but you messed up something bad there.... Seems like they swapped their i7 and G4560 on the 1060 which makes the 480 and 1060 line up the same in the end.

it's not swapped, the i7 footage is much older from last year, the g4560 footage is newer, made for that video.
they are not necessarily using the same settings and drivers on the i7 and Pentium footage I suppose (but are using the same with both cards on each CPU), which is not ideal, but the main thing stands, the 480 have some bad fps drops to mid 40s with the Pentium, the 1060 doesn't, also the 480 with a faster CPU didn't have that problem.

in any case the advantage for Nvidia in this situation (dx11, slower CPU) is well known.

 

[Bacon1]

the i7 footage is much older from last year, the g4560 footage is newer, made for that video.
they are not necessarily using the same settings and drivers on the i7 and Pentium footage I suppose

Then they aren't just testing the CPU... who knows what config change could have caused issues then. It's not a reliable test.

If anything, the slower CPU actually leveled the playing field between the two in DX11 and reduced the 1060 lead.

Mute this one annoying music, but lots of games tested:

It all depends on the game engine: Call Of Duty IW, TitanFall 2 480 is faster even in DX11. While ROTTR DX12 1060 is faster.

 

[SPBHM]

the test is using the same settings for both cards on each CPU, relative performance is pretty clear and a win for the 1060 in a game that normally is faster (with faster CPUs) for the 480,

but I agree that mixing old results from the 4790K from last year is not ideal, but still shows the relative performance quite clearly.

this is just one case, but when you add to many other test over the years showing an advantage for NV in DX11CPU bound and their DX11 MT support which gives them a clear lead in synthetic tests like: this (the DX11 bit)... I would take the 1060 6GB over the 480 8GB for slower CPUs, since most games are still DX11

 

[Bacon1]

but I agree that mixing old results from the 4790K from last year is not ideal, but still shows the relative performance quite clearly.

The problem is, we don't know if a game patch, driver or setting or if it was the CPU that caused the slow down on the 480, because we don't have the i7 result to directly compare it against. Something obviously changed because the 1060 was 20% faster on the G4560 than the i7 6700k footage....

this (the DX11 bit)

The one that shows a 750 Ti outperforming a 290x? We know that isn't the case though so obviously its not a bottleneck in real world usage

Did you watch the video I provided? It shows the 480 faster in a few DX11 titles even on the G4560.

Also most AAA games are getting DX12 versions so I wouldn't say most games are still DX11 or will be in the future. If anything games are moving fast towards DX12 and some even Vulkan as well.