[VC] NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Specifications Leaked, Faster than RX 480

[Glo.]

GTX 1060 will be directly 50% of GTX 1080 founders edition.

1.7 GHz is the exact core clock on which GTX 1080 runs typically in games. We are talking about Founders edition stock settings.

And we have to remember that GTX 1080 has GDDR5X memory. So how do you think GTX 1060 will perform?

It won't be faster than RX 480, but for sure more efficient. It is direct competitor to RX 470, but will be quite a lot faster than it.

 

[jpiniero]

It won't be faster than RX 480, but for sure more efficient. It is direct competitor to RX 470, but will be quite a lot faster than it.

It's possible that the 1060 can maintain/boost higher than the stock GP104 cards though, especially at 120W. So it won't be exactly 50% slower. Since they are claiming 980 performance, you have to assume that it's going to be around that which would make it faster than the ref 480.

 

[Glo.]

It's possible that the 1060 can maintain/boost higher than the stock GP104 cards though, especially at 120W. So it won't be exactly 50% slower. Since they are claiming 980 performance, you have to assume that it's going to be around that which would make it faster than the ref 480.

Nope. 1715 MHz gives directly 4390 TFLOPs of compute power.

Cores are fast, but you forget that you have also reduced bandwidth, lower amount of ROPs. IMO overdone the TDP, and it the actual power consumption will be around 110-115W, but the GPU will not be faster than RX 480.

IF GTX 1070 costs 379$, then GTX 1060 should not cost more than 299$. If Nvidia will bring this GPU in 3 GB version as 199$ they have a killer.

 

[Adul]

Nope. 1715 MHz gives directly 4390 TFLOPs of compute power.

Cores are fast, but you forget that you have also reduced bandwidth, lower amount of ROPs. IMO overdone the TDP, and it the actual power consumption will be around 110-115W, but the GPU will not be faster than RX 480.

IF GTX 1070 costs 379$, then GTX 1060 should not cost more than 299$. If Nvidia will bring this GPU in 3 GB version as 199$ they have a killer.

A 3GB $199 card would be a crime. I hope to GOD do they do not do that. That would be a lot of suckers who would endup with a short term card.

 

[Thala]

What do you mean "still" ?
It "should".

Assuming the predictions are true, that 1060 is lagging behind 15% for future DX12 titles and only win for years old DX11 titles, and that for 20% more price... "should" is just the wrong term...it is rather unfortunate that it would still sell like hotcakes

 

[96Firebird]

A 3GB $199 card would be a crime. I hope to GOD do they do not do that. That would be a lot of suckers who would endup with a short term card.

People are capable of turning down settings to play within their card's limits.

 

[nerp]

This might be my next card.

 

[Glo.]

A 3GB $199 card would be a crime. I hope to GOD do they do not do that. That would be a lot of suckers who would endup with a short term card.

Why is that? It is quite fair price if you consider that AMD has the same price for 4 GB version of RX 480.

 

[William Gaatjes]

That is strange, i know it depends on more than just raw theoretical computation power.

But for the fun of it :

GTX1080 : 9000 GFLOPS/ 2560 = 3,516GFLOPS/cuda core
GTX1070 : 6500 GFLOPS/ 1920 = 3,385GFLOPS/cuda core

If we take the average to do a very coarse way of ruling out clock differences :
3,45GLFOPS.

The GTX1060 has 1280 Cuda cores * 3.45 GLFOPS = 4417 GFLOPS total.
That is way less than a RX480.
But in the same league as a RX470 and double the RX460 will be.

Of course, there are a lot more variables.
The clockspeed can be bumped up a lot.
But that will use power a lot.

Forgot the less bandwidth. Maybe use partial disabled binning again.
Keep an eye on that L2 cache.

 

[Erithan13]

A 3GB $199 card would be a crime. I hope to GOD do they do not do that. That would be a lot of suckers who would endup with a short term card.

It would basically be the 2GB 960 all over again and we all know how that's turned out. Actually, probably worse than that because while the 960 was never a great card even with 4GB, the 6GB 1060 looks to be a solid competitor to the 480. That would leave the 3GB 1060 as a good gpu with the 3GB being a potentially crippling problem. Again given where the 2GB 960 stands (or rather, doesn't stand) today I'd wager the money saved by going for the 3GB is not going to be much comfort going forward when the performance takes a hit. Heck the 970s 3.5GB isn't looking all that hot in 2016 either, even for someone on a tight budget 3GB could prove to be a sacrifice too far right from the get-go.

You could make the same argument against the 4GB 480 but from the looks of things the 4GB 480 is going to be priced under the 3GB 1060.....more to the point the 480 is very much a replacement for existing 4GB cards while Nvidia is directly targeting 980 level performance with the 1060. '980 performance with 1GB less vram' is not going to be an easy sell to anyone.

Edit: FWIW I predict the 6GB 1060 is going to be about equal to the 480. Neither will soundly trounce the other outside of the usual cherry-picked benchmarks and AMD/NV favoured games, they will very much be trading blows across most games. That leaves pricing as the key. I'll be genuinely rooting for the 1060 if the 6GB models are in the same price range as the 8GB 480s. 8GB vs 6GB is at this moment more immaterial than 3GB vs 4GB. I don't think I'll be getting one but I'll certainly appreciate the competition.

 

[jpiniero]

Cores are fast, but you forget that you have also reduced bandwidth, lower amount of ROPs. IMO overdone the TDP, and it the actual power consumption will be around 110-115W, but the GPU will not be faster than RX 480.

What I was trying to get at is that the clock speed might be in general higher than GP104 (taking into consideration that boost isn't 'guaranteed'). And that's why it's 120W instead of something lower. We don't know how many ROPs it has - it could be more than the 32 that the 480 has.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Since when did a 3GB card become unusable? Most games don't come close to 3GB used at 1080p. You'll run out of 'horsepower' before you'll be limited by VRAM. Throw 3GB on a middle tier card, now there's a problem.

I really hope custom 480s can dish out some serious performance. If these 1060s come out and beat the 480 in perf/watt and perf/$, that's not good for AMD. Not good at all.

 

[parvadomus]

I think they will be neck and neck.

 

[Headfoot]

I wouldn't buy 3GB in 2016.

 

[topmounter]

Nope. 1715 MHz gives directly 4390 TFLOPs of compute power.

Cores are fast, but you forget that you have also reduced bandwidth, lower amount of ROPs. IMO overdone the TDP, and it the actual power consumption will be around 110-115W, but the GPU will not be faster than RX 480.

IF GTX 1070 costs 379$, then GTX 1060 should not cost more than 299$. If Nvidia will bring this GPU in 3 GB version as 199$ they have a killer.

I wonder if nV will go the FE route with the 1060 launch as well.

 

[sirmo]

RX 480 and rx470 by proxy will remain the price/perf kings imo.

 

[Thala]

GTX1080 : 9000 GFLOPS/ 2560 = 3,516GFLOPS/cuda core
GTX1070 : 6500 GFLOPS/ 1920 = 3,385GFLOPS/cuda core

If we take the average to do a very coarse way of ruling out clock differences :
3,45GLFOPS.

The GTX1060 has 1280 Cuda cores * 3.45 GLFOPS = 4417 GFLOPS total

Not sure what you trying to calculate here. But GFLOPs are just a simple calculation based on the assumption of 2 FLOP per cycle and core. So the only scaling factor is frequency.
Example:
GTX1080 = 2560 Cores * 2 FLOP * 1700MHz = 8704 GFLOPS
GTX1060 = 1280 Cores * 2 FLOP * 1700MHz = 4352 GFLOPS

 

[William Gaatjes]

Not sure what you trying to calculate here. But GFLOPs are just a simple calculation based on the assumption of 2 FLOP per cycle and core. So the only scaling factor is frequency.
Example:
GTX1080 = 2560 Cores * 2 FLOP * 1700MHz = 8704 GFLOPS
GTX1060 = 1280 Cores * 2 FLOP * 1700MHz = 4352 GFLOPS

That is exactly what i did. I only took the 1070 as an extra variable.
You proved my point as well.
Without hard data, we can only assume and go by what we do know.
And although pascal is lightning fast and can clock high, there are limits.
Also, if the GTX1060 would be a bit faster than the RX480, The target 1080p market, will all go for a GTX1060 and not a GTX1070.

 

[sm625]

I wouldn't buy 3GB in 2016.

I will. There are still very few corner cases where more than 3GB justifies the price premium. I'd rather have $40 worth of raw gpu silicon. I'm hoping we see $199 3GB 1060. If the 6GB version beats the RX 480 8GB version by 15% on average, then the 3GB version will beat the RX 480 8GB by 12% on average.

 

[sze5003]

I seriously doubt the 6gb model will be cheaper than an Rx 480. We would also need dx 12 benches against the same games tested with a 480 to see really how much faster it is.

 

[Glo.]

What I was trying to get at is that the clock speed might be in general higher than GP104 (taking into consideration that boost isn't 'guaranteed'). And that's why it's 120W instead of something lower. We don't know how many ROPs it has - it could be more than the 32 that the 480 has.

Yes It is a possibility. However... In this scenario The GPU would have to maintain core clocks all the time. 1.7 GHz is the very close to 1693 MHz boost on GTX 1070. So that will most likely be what we will see.

48 ROPs, judging by the amount of how wide is memory bus in Geforce GPUs.

I still don't think it will be able to be faster than 50% of GTX 1080. Especially when Geforce performance is so heavily reliant on rasterizing performance.

Now the ball is on Nvidia side. If GTX 1060 with 3 GB of RAM is 199$ GPU they have a killer.

 

[Thala]

I still don't think it will be able to be faster than 50% of GTX 1080. Especially when Geforce performance is so heavily reliant on rasterizing performance.

Now the ball is on Nvidia side. If GTX 1060 with 3 GB of RAM is 199$ GPU they have a killer.

Does not compute. If the 1060 is only half of 1080, then it is slower than RX 480 and thus too pricey for 199$.

 

[Glo.]

Does not compute. If the 1060 is only half of 1080, then it is slower than RX 480 and thus too pricey for 199$.

Thats exactly what I have posted before. However, 199$ is fair price considering the efficiency.

 

[garagisti]

Why is that? It is quite fair price if you consider that AMD has the same price for 4 GB version of RX 480.

Has Nvidia confirmed the price? If not, let may that i suspect the price for 1060 will be closer to $250, than $200. $300 for 6gb version.

It's strange, a lot of people complained about 4gb option as pointless, but are happily talking about $200 card, which will only have 3gb. BTW, $!70 odd would get one a 470 with 4gb, no?

Depending on what games you play more, Gimpwurse one means you're reduced to using Nvidia. If Gimpwurse games are not exactly what you play more, then AMD's a fair deal too. If you don't mind using it for a spot of mining, then you may recover some of your cost as well, which has been mentioned several times by RussianSensation.

I'll be totally surprised if Nvidia lower cost of 1060 to about half of 1070.

 

[Sweepr]

I still don't think it will be able to be faster than 50% of GTX 1080. Especially when Geforce performance is so heavily reliant on rasterizing performance.

So you're basically saying they are lying and the card will be slower than a Geforce GTX 970. Right.