In case you missed my post..
One post of this info is enough.
esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
Last edited by a moderator:
Meanwhile, 3 GBs of VRAM is really meh these days (4 GBs is next) and I really can't find any justification for the 3 GB 1060. It's just not right. $200+ cards should never be VRAM-limited so soon after release, imo.
Overall takeaway: The Fury X is erratically-performing garbage (as objective people and Nvidia-lovers alike have known for a year and a half now) likely due to either its weak front-end and/or VRAM (and at other times due to CPU overhead). Contrary to the former rallying call of a few particular defenders, it is not aging better than the real 980 Ti (ie. aftermarket). It's even experiencing a bit of a Kepler effect relative to the 480 where its geometry throughput is stressed.
Meanwhile, 3 GBs of VRAM is really meh these days (4 GBs is next) and I really can't find any justification for the 3 GB 1060. It's just not right. $200+ cards should never be VRAM-limited so soon after release, imo.
Meanwhile actual AMD competitors to GM200/GP104 are still no-shows, let alone GP102. And GP104 masquerading as the flagship GPU, in combination with its high prices, is really getting boring. After all the 16/14nm hype, the 980 Ti provided a bigger performance jump from the 980 while still on 28nm than the 1080 did over the 980 Ti. And Nvidia gets rewarded for it with record profits while AMD are clearly outclassed and no longer a threat, so why would they even bother giving us impressive gains for reasonable prices again?
2016 sucked for high-performance microprocessors (including CPUs).
Rest is without surprise.Its gameworks so AMD is slow.
1440p
After market 1080ti would probably look nice. But we won't see it in a timely enough fashion to matter. Well, not when I know Volta is right around the corner. Navi is 2018? So is Vega supposed to compete with high end pascal/1080ti and Volta?I need Volta to get here ASAP. Titan X isn't enough for 144hz 1440p games of the future it seems and I'm not going to deal with crap multi GPU scaling in major titles just to get the performance I want in titles like Watch Dogs 2.
Those are 1440p results, hardly a resolution one would be using with a 1060 in this game. At 1080p, the 3gb is only 20 to 25% slower, pretty much in line with the price difference.RIP 3G 1060! That performance drop between the 6 and 3 gig versions is insane. I have a friend who is looking to upgrade, and now I'm glad I told him to get 6 or 8 gigs of VRAM.
Performing a solid 20-25% slower at 1080p, presumably because of VRAM limitations, is a pretty big deal since that difference is only going to grow as games use more VRAM. Unless games magically use less memory, 3gigs just isn't going to cut it. I have a friend looking to get a card for under $300, and while I'm happily recommending a 1060, I'm making sure he stays the hell away from the 3gig versions.Those are 1440p results, hardly a resolution one would be using with a 1060 in this game. At 1080p, the 3gb is only 20 to 25% slower, pretty much in line with the price difference.
I'm happy I held out. Either way if you're with amd your life sucks at the high end. At least you shouldn't put yourself through the insane Fiji performance to only get gimp ed by 4gb vram. Was that even addressed in this article? How is Fiji managing when it should need more vram for textures?
Edit: fury x would have been $275 for me. $330 + rebate + Amex deal.
I need Volta to get here ASAP. Titan X isn't enough for 144hz 1440p games of the future it seems and I'm not going to deal with crap multi GPU scaling in major titles just to get the performance I want in titles like Watch Dogs 2.
Pcgameshardware using only aftermarket cards.Thats why rx480(overclocked and not throttling) is so fast vs furyX.Rest using reference crap cards.Pcgameshardware also have 980Ti at 1350mhz vs rest that using 980Ti at 1000-1100mhz(thats 30% more performance).So its 35% faster than furyx.If 4GB of VRAM is an actual physical limitation in this title, why is Fury X CF beating GTX1080 8GB or RX 480 8GB at 1440p?
This forum loves to bash the Fury X's VRAM limitations but this^ benchmark isn't showing it. It's possible different AA settings that PCGamesHardware implemented is what's causing the discrepancy.
If 4GB of VRAM is an actual physical limitation in this title, why is Fury X CF beating GTX1080 8GB or RX 480 8GB at 1440p?
This forum loves to bash the Fury X's VRAM limitations
Seems everyone loves to bash the 3gb card and expect it to perform up to the 6gb card despite the fact that it is cheaper and has less cuda cores as well. No one is arguing that the 6gb card isn't better, but in a price/performance analysis, which seems the gold standard for every other card, the 3gb card holds its own, even in this game.Performing a solid 20-25% slower at 1080p, presumably because of VRAM limitations, is a pretty big deal since that difference is only going to grow as games use more VRAM. Unless games magically use less memory, 3gigs just isn't going to cut it. I have a friend looking to get a card for under $300, and while I'm happily recommending a 1060, I'm making sure he stays the hell away from the 3gig versions.
Yea, the irony is priceless.Yea almost as much as the gtx1060 3gb, I feel your pain.
What are you talking about? 780Ti is not doing well in SLI. It has the worst SLI scaling of all cards - 40% SLI scaling if you look at the minimums.Yea funny why does the 3gb 780ti in sli do so well also?
What are you talking about? 780Ti is not doing well in SLI. It has the worst SLI scaling of all cards - 40% SLI scaling if you look at the minimums.
All other cards show 60% scaling in minimums.
In 1440p the best dual card performance is coming from R9 290 with 94% scaling in minimums and averages
780 Ti SLI looks like an abomination. It used to be within 10% of the 980. You'll need two of them to achieve that level in this game. One of them is almost as bad. Eaten by the 290 and getting tortured from a few feet behind by the 380X. Also 780 = 960.
Forza Horizon 3 - runs like crap
1060-3G does have his price, but perhaps we have lost the necessary things. Assuming the barrel has a very low plank, does it mean that the other boards have lost their function? It seems that the recent 3A games in the proof of this matterSeems everyone loves to bash the 3gb card and expect it to perform up to the 6gb card despite the fact that it is cheaper and has less cuda cores as well. No one is arguing that the 6gb card isn't better, but in a price/performance analysis, which seems the gold standard for every other card, the 3gb card holds its own, even in this game.