Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
My money says buy what you can afford. Thats where my money is. That is where my mouth is. Not hard to understand.
- Status
Now will you make this promise to Anandtech forums:
"In the next two to three years,the GTX1060 3GB will be within 10% of the GTX1060 6GB,in ALL games including minimums and have similar frametimes".
Stop spinning,make that promise or don't bother answering me again in this thread. The same goes with all the 3GB defenders here.
I will give you a few days to decide.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
Bully tactics dont work through the internet my good friend.
I said my piece, you should respect my opinion even if you disagree with it. Not try and badger fellow posters with repetitive paragraphs asking for promises.
I'll give you a few days to ruminate on that.
Best regards
I said my piece, you should respect my opinion even if you disagree with it. Not try and badger fellow posters with repetitive paragraphs asking for promises.
I'll give you a few days to ruminate on that.
Best regards
Why would I make that promise when I have never claimed anything like that or anything close to it. All I have argued for in this thread is that the 1060 3GB does just fine against the RX 470, and whilst that may change in the future, there is currently no data to clearly indicate that it will do so. In other words I haven't made a single prediction, quite the contrary I have warned others about making predictions based on feelings instead of data.
You on the other hand have been constantly arguing with conviction that 3GB will without a doubt become a bottleneck (example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
So the real question is are you willing to make the following promise right now:
"The 1060 3GB will be significantly VRAM limited vs. the RX 470 4GB in 2 to 3 years time. Significantly meaning that it loses by a significant margin (more than 10%) in the majority of games, due to a lack of VRAM (and not due to other issues such as DX12/Vulkan)."
If you make that promise, then I will gladly make a promise that actually matches my claims in this thread, which would be the following:
"The 1060 3GB may or may not be significantly VRAM limited vs. the RX 470 4GB in 2 to 3 years time, although there is currently no data to clearly indicate it one way or the other"
Then we can both promise to eat cat food if our promises turns out false as is tradition on these forums (hi Moonbogg).
Also I think it's hilarious that when I ask you for 460 768MB vs 1GB you actually think that 8800 GT 256MB vs 9600 GT 512MB is a suitable substitute. The whole point of looking at the 460 numbers is due to the fact that just like the 1060 3GB vs the RX 470 4GB we are looking at a comparable ratio of VRAM. Just admit it you made a claim that you can't back up and now you are trying your hardest to deflect.
But hey let me do your job for you, here is the original 460 review from TPU, and here is that latest review that included the 460 from TPU. The 768MB version started out being 8% slower at 1200P and ended up being 11% slower at 1200P, or in other words a loss in performance of 3%. Hardly what I would call collapsing. And mind you that over 80% of the games in the benchmark suite were replaced with newer ones, so the lack of performance loss wasn't due to not testing newer games.
Regarding the Guru3D review, I said that there wasn't much of interest to report because their number matched up with what we had already seen at that point, in other words nothing new.
And this may sound weird to you, but I actually look at the numbers in reviews not just the final conclusion. Reason being that you will often find idiotic statement in conclusion such as this one: "again I would advise 6GB as I feel 4GB+ is the norm for proper mainstream gaming anno 2016", which is obviously incorrect given that only one of the games out of 8 that Guru3D tested actually showed any kind of VRAM limitation (Hitman). If only 12.5% of the games you're testing this year shows something then it's obviously not the norm for said year.
And no their conclusion is not simply to buy the 6GB version, their conclusion is to buy the 6GB if you are playing at 1440P (something I agree with) or if you have the extra cash, the latter obviously being a shitty argument, since you can use that line of reasoning to argue that people should get the Titan X.
You do know why he's defending anything NVIDIA, right, or have you missed his sig?
Attacking other users is not allowed
Markfw900
Last edited by a moderator:
So basically again both of you are spinning things - now again I am asking you again!
Now will you make this promise to Anandtech forums:
"In the next two to three years,the GTX1060 3GB will be within 10% of the GTX1060 6GB,in ALL games including minimums and have similar frametimes".
You are doing everything but making that promise and then start to play the victim - both of you have posted massively in this thread saying 3GB is fine,and there has been plenty of data to show that VRAM limited cards have not posted by many people. Remember,I am talking about the GTX1060 6GB vs the 3GB,not some AMD card which I have barely mentioned here. I have a GTX960 and had a GTX660TI beforehand,so it is reasonably likely I will get a GTX1060 at some point.
Remember,this is the GTX1060 3GB vs GTX1060 6GB thread.
I also said the following:
So,basically you are doing everything NOT to put your money where your mouth is.
Why are you both so scared to make that promise?? So basically your evasion of the question is indicating you are uncomfortable making that statement,since you are not sure. If you are not sure,you err on the side of caution.
Because YOU in your own heart know 3GB is not enough as you actually have ZERO conviction it is enough,otherwise you would make that promise to this forum.
You both are disgenuous forum enthusiasts - you are trying your best to make people spend more over time with a worse card which will hit issues.
Plus,this is what Guru3D said:
The reviewer is talking about 1080P and saying he has doubts about 3GB of VRAM and said to spend extra for 6GB.
Even the Digital Foundry said the same. So apparently both those respected sites are preaching. So both you and your mate know better than Digital Foundry.
You basically even called the Guru3D reviewer an idiot.
Keeping spinning - the rest of the forum is going to hold you to it,in the next few years as BOTH of you are massively pushing the 3GB GTX1060 over the GTX1060 6GB and one of you bought a 12GB card over a faster 6GB card and even said its down to textures,but now is doing everything to oversell the GTX1060 3GB.
We are done here - both of you can't make the promise,so it means you have no conviction for your position.
Last edited:
The point it is not massively more expensive - £30 to £40 more. That is less than the price difference between a Core i3 6100 and a Core i5 in the UK.
Plus the low VRAM defence crew(who are not even sure themselves,by buying 12GB VRAM cards,and so on),forget that the GTX1050 is a 4GB card. Millions of GTX970 and GTX980 cards have 4GB of VRAM. Nvidia made the GTX960 2GB EOL and replaced it with the 4GB version last year.
Even the PCB of the Founders Edition GTX1060 supports a chip with 256 bit memory controller,so that either means the GP106 has a 256 bit memory controller which will be enabled for the refresh chip,or either they will plonk in a salvaged GP104 chip.
Nvidia replaced the GTX660 with the GTX760 and the latter had a GK104 chip(former had a GK106) and they went from a 192 bit memory controller to a 256 bit one.
But don't worry,the same people here extolling how brilliant the GTX1060 3GB,will no doubt be extolling how massive an upgrade the GTX2060 4GB will be over it especially saying how you can raise texture settings,whilst forgetting they were pushing hard for 3GB card.
I am quite aware of people like Rollo.
Last edited:
I didn't know you owned this forum,but hilarious you have a GTX970 4GB and yet you are trying to support your mates?? They are so worried now so that they need to get a couple of mates for moral support. Bless.
Its funny how this is a GTX1060 6GB vs 3GB thread,and yet any mention of the 6GB card,seems to send shivers down their back,and they are so scared they don't want anybody criticising or not recommending the GTX1060 3GB. Scary isn't it??
So why don't your mates make a promise then?? It shows you how uncomforable you and your mates are,when you have a 4GB card,your mate has a 12GB one and you need to try and help each other out over a simple question?? I am not sure what the other bloke has - maybe somebody can find that one out.
Or will you be replacing your GTX970 4GB with a GTX1060 3GB?? Why didn't you buy a GTX780/GTX780TI as they were reduced down in price quite a bit. In the UK you could get a GTX780TI 3GB for GTX970 4GB money!!
Or will you stop posting here,if you replacement card has more VRAM??
The biggest defenders of the GTX1060 3GB,seem to have cards with more VRAM. LMAO.
3GB is fine as long as any of you don't buy the card. LMAO.
It is going to brilliant looking back at this thread in a year or two.
But don't worry,when it is highlighted that the GTX1060 3GB has gotten much worse,you will either play the victim or sarcastic card and spin away,and also have a card with more than 3GB of VRAM.
Also when the GTX1065 4GB or GTX2060 4GB replaces this,you will all forget about the brilliant GTX1060 3GB and how the "new" cards are 10X better turning up settings. Just like all the people who forgot about the 8800GT 256MB when the 9600GT 512MB came out,even though they argued for months how 256MB was enough.
Last edited:
Once again, since apparently you didn't understand it the first time around. I have never made an argument in this thread that is even remotely close to that promise, so I really don't see why you want me to make it.
But tell you what I will in fact make that promise if in return you make the following promise:
"In the next two to three years,the RX 460 2GB will be within 10% of the Titan X,in ALL games including minimums and have similar frametimes"
Obviously you haven't ever argued this point either, but apparently you don't care what people actually argue, so this should be fine by you right? or are you, in your own words, going to waffle out of it and play the victim?
Yes me refusing to make a promise about something I have never argued in favor of is obviously me being a victim, seriously could you be any more obtuse?
I have never said that 3GB is fine period, I have simply said that there is currently no evidence that the 1060 3GB will be at a severe disadvantage against the RX 470 4GB due to VRAM.
And the fact that there has been plenty of data of previous cards with a 50% VRAM deficit does not in any way validate that a card with a 25% VRAM deficit will behave similarly.
Also I think it's cute that you a completely ignoring the GTX 460 768MB vs 1GB situation, are you ever going to provide any evidence to back up your claims here or are you going to continue waffling?
And yes this is the GTX1060 3GB vs GTX1060 6GB thread, what's your point, can I not make any arguments about the 1060 3GB versus it's competitor the RX 470 4GB because of the title of the thread?
You're right I don't feel comfortable making a promise about something I have never argued for, why would I?
I never said that I was sure that 3GB wouldn't become a bottleneck (compared to the 4GB of the RX 470), but simply that there isn't currently any evidence to support it.
And erring on the side of caution is an easy argument to make if you have the money, but as I have already told you the vast majority of consumers are not willing to spend more than $200 on a GPU, otherwise we might as well recommend that they all get a Titan X, you know in the name of caution and all that. So the question remains the same as always, what is the best option available for a consumer that is only willing to spend $200? telling them to spend $250 (or more) is obviously a non-starter.
In other words he said exactly what I previously wrote. The 3GB is perfectly fine for 1080P ("the 3 GB should be fine if you stick at 1080P or a lower resolution", "You'll play your games up-to 1920x1080 perfectly fine and using proper image quality settings") and if your budget is higher than $200 then get the 6GB ("If you can spend the extra dough, go for that 6GB model.").
But thanks for proving my point I guess.
No I didn't call the Guru3D reviewer an idiot I said he made a single idiotic statement. An idiot is someone who continuously makes idiotic statements and refuses to correct them when called out on them.
The rest of the forum is more than welcome to hold me to my claims, but unlike you I would assume that they can actually read and thus understand what those claims are.
For the umpteenth time I have never pushed the 1060 3GB over the 1060 6GB. My argument has always been a) the 1060 3GB is not currently a worse GPU than the RX 470 4GB, even with the lower VRAM amount, and b) the 1060 6GB is a better GPU than the 1060 3GB, but not an option if your budget only stretches $200.
Aaw don't run away now, that seems a bit, what's the word, victim like.
Besides I already told you that I would make the promise if you make the promise I posted above. Or are you afraid of promises now and going to waffle out?
Now will you make this promise to Anandtech forums:
"In the next two to three years,the GTX1060 3GB will be within 10% of the GTX1060 6GB,in ALL games including minimums and have similar frametimes".
Did you say yes or no, I hate reading annoying posts so just make it easy for me.
Now will you make this promise to Anandtech forums:
"In the next two to three years,the RX 460 2GB will be within 10% of the Titan X,in ALL games including minimums and have similar frametimes"
Most definitely not,just like I said the 6GB version will be be better than the 3GB version but you might want to look at the thread title:
I will stand by what I said.
Its a thread discussing the GTX1060 3GB and 6GB cards,not an RX460 thread. You also seem to also want to make this some AMD vs Nvidia thing. Not sure this is relevant to a GTX1060 3GB vs 6GB thread.
So again you are waffling and spinning and remember you are the one who answered me first saying to get the GTX1060 3GB model:
So,going from the statement you made replying to me:
You seemed quite scared to make the statement,but don't worry get some more of your mates to try and morally support you!
You are doing everything to not answer the question as I predicted and trying to push every discussion away from it. Literally every reply you and your mate since I asked the question,is finding every way to not answer it. This is what you are going to do for the rest of the thread.
Last edited:
Why not? are you afraid? a victim?
Also if the thread title is the only issue you have with that promise, then I can quickly make a new thread we you can then make the promise, that should be fine right?
And so will (and have) I.
First of all it's the RX 470 not RX 460. Second of all if you don't understand why the RX 470 is relevant you might want to go back to the first post in this thread and look at the article that was linked (and from which this thread got its title)
Here's the link for convenience. You might notice that the RX 470 is mentioned more than a few times in that article.
At this point I'm becoming more and more convinced that your reading comprehension is close to non-existant. I didn't tell you to get anything, your question was how anyone could consider the 1060 3GB to be fine relative to the 6GB version, and my answer was the price difference.
So,going from the statement you made replying to me:
You seemed quite scared to make the statement, but don't worry get some more of your mates to try and morally support you!
And just like that you remove all doubt that your reading comprehension is in fact non-existant.
My statement: "some people may find a price hike of 25% for a 5% increase in performance (and an unknown increase in the future) to be too much."
See if you can spot the important part, I helped you a little by highlighting it.
You mean just like you how you are doing everything not to make the above promise I put before you?
By the way when are you going to provide evidence for your GTX 460 claims? still waffling out on that one, or are you too scared?
Last edited:
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
At this point I think that maybe user8000 is just using a disposable AT account to troll us into taking bait and engaging in infractionable and bannable confrontation.
Repeating over and over the same thing to spite other posters. What else can that be called? My advice, just dont get heated or personal.
Repeating over and over the same thing to spite other posters. What else can that be called? My advice, just dont get heated or personal.
I was about to write something about Hanlon's razor, but you're probably right.
So again,more waffling and spinning from you in the thread titled:
I am surprised that you missed the title on top of every page.
You are doing everything possible not to answer the following question:
So a yes or no?? You know where I stand on it(nope),as its not even the case now.
I predict the next few pages,if anybody asks you that you will do everything possible not to answer it. You might want to have the argument about the GTX1060 3GB vs RX470/RX480 with those who obviously have missed the thread title.
Its going to be interesting to see how it goes in next few years.
So basically you are saying that anybody who does not agree with you is a troll account,which shows you how desperate you are to not answer the question and find anyway not to answer it.
The whole point,is that the reason I keep asking it,since at every point you find new and creative ways of not answering it,and then try and change the argument to something else.
So basically your absurd logic is:
1.)Anybody who has a Nvidia card and does not agree with you is a troll
2.)Anybody who has a AMD card and does not agree with you is a troll
So using your logic that means only what you say is non-trolling and you are the ones who can't even make a simple yes or no statement.
Now you play the victim,just because you can't answer a simple question. I have seen Rollo,before on UK forums. Do you honestly think I am not aware of the tactics you are playing here?? You are evading a very simple question.
I posted loads of information which multiple people have appreciated(looking at the response to some of those posts) and you just quietly evaded that.
Last edited:
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
Feels like the same situation with Dual Cores vs Quads, even today there are people defending Duals for 2016 gaming(im not talking about minefield ).
3GB for GTX 980 performance is DOA in the second half of 2016, people should understand this and inform those that dont know, simple as that. If the buyer doesnt care its another thing but people here should acknowledge the fact that latest games need more than 3GB for higher textures and things will only get worse in the coming months/years.
). 3GB for GTX 980 performance is DOA in the second half of 2016, people should understand this and inform those that dont know, simple as that. If the buyer doesnt care its another thing but people here should acknowledge the fact that latest games need more than 3GB for higher textures and things will only get worse in the coming months/years.
Arachnotronic
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2006
- 11,715
- 2,012
- 126
Feels like the same situation with Dual Cores vs Quads, even today there are people defending Duals for 2016 gaming(im not talking about minefield
3GB for GTX 980 performance is DOA in the second half of 2016, people should understand this and inform those that dont know, simple as that. If the buyer doesnt care its another thing but people here should acknowledge the fact that latest games need more than 3GB for higher textures and things will only get worse in the coming months/years.
Is 4GB good to go for the future?
And I'm surprised (but not really) that you completely ignored the context of the title even though I just gave you a link to the article in question
First of all that's not actually a question, it's a statement, but I'm not surprised you don't know the difference. Secondly I already told you my stance regarding that promise, so I don't know why you keep asking me to making (other than the lack of reading comprehension and all that)
And why won't you make the above promise I proposed for you? afraid?
Again, I already have answered you just keep on ignoring my answer (which was negative btw)
And regarding the argument of GTX1060 3GB vs RX470/RX480, I'll keep it in this thread seeing as that was part of what the article dealt with, so it is only natural (of course you would actually have to read the article to understand that).
No we are saying that someone who willfully misrepresents others posts and then demand that they make some complete non sequitor promise is a troll
My original theory was more along Hanlon's razor and I'll admit that you are making it quite hard to decide.
Funny how you accuse me of refusing to answer your questions and using "tactics", when I have already answered the question. When you are the one who continuously edits out other members entire post so you can avoid answering them and instead go of on some incoherent rant. When you are the one misrepresenting other peoples arguments (I state that the 1060 6GB will be ahead by an unknown amount in the future and based on that you want me to promise it will never be more than 10% ahead, lolwut!?).
Seriously mate, I have never seen anyone project as hard as you are doing right now.
PS. I already answered you question, now why won't you make your promise, and where is the GTX 460 data?
Last edited:
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter