[Eurogamer] GTX 1060: 3 GB vs 6 GB

[Headfoot]

Guess we havent been reading the same forum. At least one poster has called the 3gb "trash" (more than once I believe), and another said anyone who recommends it is basically destroying the forums. And really, I am not even recommending the card. I am just trying to get people to look at the objective data, instead of irrationally making a decision based on personal feelings or whatever criteria some posters in this forum use.

I'm not disputing that they call it trash.
I'm disputing why they call it trash. From what I see it's the 2 reasons I listed. I can't find anybody saying its trash because its slow compared to the competition.

 

[Headfoot]

Is it really all that misleading though? I would imagine that people seeing a 1060 GPU that is $50 cheaper than the original 1060 would expect something slightly slower, but overall very similar to the original 1060, and this is exactly what the 1060 3GB delivers (roughly 5% slower on average). The only exception to this is when it's VRAM limited, but the lack of VRAM is right there in the name so that can hardly be considered misleading.

I'm not arguing the point - I'm just pointing out what is being said

 

[Keysplayr]

I'm not disputing that they call it trash.
I'm disputing why they call it trash. From what I see it's the 2 reasons I listed. I can't find anybody saying its trash because its slow compared to the competition.

Pretty sure it isn't trash for any reason. There are reasons why people will choose it over other gpus and reasons why they would choose others over it. It being "trash" isnt a rational reason, at all. Fantastic card for the money. Benches very well. Nice 1080p and even 1440 apparently.

 

[Headfoot]

Benches well now... But will 3GB be an issue in 6 months? 1 year? What is the average useful life of a midrange video card? Both nVidia and AMD have been targeting people in marketing campaigns who skip a generation, meaning at least 2 years sometimes 3 to 4.

If 3gb is fine until it starts tanking summer 2017 (hypothetical) while the 6Gb keeps up fine, is that a "fantastic" card? Not really.

It's false economy. If a cheaper card forces you to upgrade earlier, you saved no money. You just delayed when you spend it. And very likely you even had to spend more.

 

[96Firebird]

And what if it does just fine in 2 years, 3 years? You, like everyone else here, cannot predict the future.

 

[Bacon1]

And what if it does just fine in 2 years, 3 years? You, like everyone else here, cannot predict the future.

No but we can make educated guesses.

 

[boozzer]

No but we can make educated guesses.

Based on precedent no less, in the 960 2gb. god, I still remember it retailed for 220+ at release. that was a huuuuge steaming pile of turd. and we had people recommending it. it was like watching a horror show.

 

[Phynaz]

Based on precedent no less, in the 960 2gb. god, I still remember it retailed for 220+ at release. that was a huuuuge steaming pile of turd. and we had people recommending it. it was like watching a horror show.

And yet today it is still a perfectly fine 1080p card. As it was when it was released.

 

[boozzer]

And yet today it is still a perfectly fine 1080p card. As it was when it was released.

I guess we have very, very different opinions on what is fine.

 

[poofyhairguy]

True, but the 470 4GB would most likely also be down at the same level in performance (quite likely even worse based on Hardwareunboxed numbers)..

Maybe, but with current US pricing the 3GB 1060 is a competitor for the 480 more than the 470.

The cheapest 3GB 1060 listed on Newegg is $200, and it's a crappy single fan blower model (aka like the 750 ti I had that I hated because it was loud). So the first decent two fan 3GB 1060 worth buying starts around $210 and most of the cards are $220-230 with the really good models being closer to the $230 side of the line.

Meanwhile the 470 starts at $190 listed price for a decent two fan model, and the Devil card (the highest 470 card by clockspeed) is $200. So for the same price as the crappiest 3GB 1060 you can get the best 470. A really good 4GB 480 (SAPPHIRE NITRO+) is $230, which is how much a really good 3GB 1060 will cost. Therefore I think the direct competitor pricewise to the 3GB 1060 is the 4GB 480, and that is before we even try to count the magic $200 480 unicorn that some people like myself have been able to buy. So to me the 3GB 1060 has to justify those $210-230 prices, and that is hard to do when 480s are $230 and 6GB 1060s are still at $250 (for a decent two fan model FYI).

The $190 AMD 470 has no real competitor from Nvidia yet, we will have to see what the 1050 looks like before we can claim a champion among the sub $200 cards.

 

[Headfoot]

If it was 470 3GB you can be certain that (more than?) half the people defending the 1060 3GB wouldn't be even half as fervent

 

[Jaskalas]

And what if it does just fine in 2 years, 3 years? You, like everyone else here, cannot predict the future.

3GB already has issues in one game. And we expect demand to rise over time, right?
It is only logical that, as before, cards with lower than "normal" VRAM get left behind in both compatibility and then performance.
Arguing of course that you'd want to max textures. You can always sacrifice image quality to make the card last longer.

 

[Concillian]

Meanwhile the 470 starts at $190 listed price for a decent two fan model, and the Devil card (the highest 470 card by clockspeed) is $200. So for the same price as the crappiest 3GB 1060 you can get the best 470. A really good 4GB 480 (SAPPHIRE NITRO+) is $230, which is how much a really good 3GB 1060 will cost. Therefore I think the direct competitor pricewise to the 3GB 1060 is the 4GB 480, and that is before we even try to count the magic $200 480 unicorn that some people like myself have been able to buy. So to me the 3GB 1060 has to justify those $210-230 prices, and that is hard to do when 480s are $230 and 6GB 1060s are still at $250 (for a decent two fan model FYI).

The $190 AMD 470 has no real competitor from Nvidia yet, we will have to see what the 1050 looks like before we can claim a champion among the sub $200 cards.

Yes, as someone who hasn't bought yet, the 4GB 470 is looking most attractive to me since I didn't get a 4 GB 480. To be honest as a GTX760 owner, I'm really hesitant on the long term viability of the 1060 given the differences we're seeing between AMD and nVidia on the DX12 / Vulkan performance. Since I don't feel the need for max settings and realistically don't even NEED an upgrade, a 3GB 1060 might otherwise be an option. Realistically I could easily choose to afford a 1070, I am not at all hurting for money, but I don't see the value in spending that much on a card. The difference in visual quality is not a big deal to me when it comes to the enjoyment of actually playing a game.

 

[Phynaz]

I guess we have very, very different opinions on what is fine.

Well for one thing I'm color blind

 

[96Firebird]

Arguing of course that you'd want to max textures. You can always sacrifice image quality to make the card last longer.

Ding ding ding! Thank god for adjustable settings!

 

[poofyhairguy]

You can always sacrifice image quality to make the card last longer.

You can always sacrifice image quality enough to game on a GTX 950 if you wanted. I don't really get that argument.

 

[Enigmoid]

The amount of complaining over the 1060 3 GB is mind-boggling.

Last year a few individuals expressed concern in the Fury/Fury X with its 4 GB of Vram compared to the 980 Ti. Their concerns were immediately shot down. Note that the Fury X was launched just over a year before the 480/1060 and was a $650 card - an enthusiast card with enthusiast pricing.

Now one year later, we are looking at cards performing significantly worse than the Fury X at LESS THAN HALF THE COST. 3 GB is suddenly not good enough for this type of card (note that turning down setting to get playable performance is far more acceptable on a mid range card than an enthusiast card). My point is that if the 1060 3 GB does not have enough vram then the Fury X doesn't and never did (some benches already show this).

Personally I don't think 3 GB is something you want to buy in 2016 unless you are on a strict budget or play certain types of games. But then I expressed concern in the 4 GB on the Fury X.

 

[Maverick177]

The amount of complaining over the 1060 3 GB is mind-boggling.

Last year a few individuals expressed concern in the Fury/Fury X with its 4 GB of Vram compared to the 980 Ti. Their concerns were immediately shot down. Note that the Fury X was launched just over a year before the 480/1060 and was a $650 card - an enthusiast card with enthusiast pricing.

Now one year later, we are looking at cards performing significantly worse than the Fury X at LESS THAN HALF THE COST. 3 GB is suddenly not good enough for this type of card (note that turning down setting to get playable performance is far more acceptable on a mid range card than an enthusiast card). My point is that if the 1060 3 GB does not have enough vram then the Fury X doesn't and never did (some benches already show this).

Personally I don't think 3 GB is something you want to buy in 2016 unless you are on a strict budget or play certain types of games. But then I expressed concern in the 4 GB on the Fury X.

The only game I had trouble with more than 4Gb requirement is the new mirror Edge game. Literally the only game.

 

[Headfoot]

The amount of complaining over the 1060 3 GB is mind-boggling.

Last year a few individuals expressed concern in the Fury/Fury X with its 4 GB of Vram compared to the 980 Ti. Their concerns were immediately shot down. Note that the Fury X was launched just over a year before the 480/1060 and was a $650 card - an enthusiast card with enthusiast pricing.

Now one year later, we are looking at cards performing significantly worse than the Fury X at LESS THAN HALF THE COST. 3 GB is suddenly not good enough for this type of card (note that turning down setting to get playable performance is far more acceptable on a mid range card than an enthusiast card). My point is that if the 1060 3 GB does not have enough vram then the Fury X doesn't and never did (some benches already show this).

Personally I don't think 3 GB is something you want to buy in 2016 unless you are on a strict budget or play certain types of games. But then I expressed concern in the 4 GB on the Fury X.

I dont think 4GB on the Fury was great. But the difference is that high end buyers upgrade more frequently than midrange buyers. It's pretty common to see the fastest card get replaced by the new fastest card. Its pretty common to see the midrange card have to last out its own generation and subsequent one. For many, the Fury only had to last until 16nm which it did. Aftermarket 980 Ti was always the better buy though, VRAM definitely being part of that picture.

 

[Enigmoid]

I dont think 4GB on the Fury was great. But the difference is that high end buyers upgrade more frequently than midrange buyers. It's pretty common to see the fastest card get replaced by the new fastest card. Its pretty common to see the midrange card have to last out its own generation and subsequent one. For many, the Fury only had to last until 16nm which it did. Aftermarket 980 Ti was always the better buy though, VRAM definitely being part of that picture.

True. But you do expect a true high end card to have some longevity at least.

IMO - $250 gives you a compromise card. It will never be the best and you will have to turn down settings. $650 should not give you a card that is going to last forever, but should buy you something that is reasonably future proof for at least 3 years (like the 7970 and NOT like the 780 Ti).

 

[Leyawiin]

If it was 470 3GB you can be certain that (more than?) half the people defending the 1060 3GB wouldn't be even half as fervent

lol - if the RX 470 came out as 3GB it would be touted as a great midrange GPU here and there wouldn't be any need for defending the GTX 1060 3GB beyond the usual "it sucks in DX12/Vulcan!" stuff.

The amount of complaining over the 1060 3 GB is mind-boggling.

Last year a few individuals expressed concern in the Fury/Fury X with its 4 GB of Vram compared to the 980 Ti. Their concerns were immediately shot down. Note that the Fury X was launched just over a year before the 480/1060 and was a $650 card - an enthusiast card with enthusiast pricing.

Now one year later, we are looking at cards performing significantly worse than the Fury X at LESS THAN HALF THE COST. 3 GB is suddenly not good enough for this type of card (note that turning down setting to get playable performance is far more acceptable on a mid range card than an enthusiast card). My point is that if the 1060 3 GB does not have enough vram then the Fury X doesn't and never did (some benches already show this).

Personally I don't think 3 GB is something you want to buy in 2016 unless you are on a strict budget or play certain types of games. But then I expressed concern in the 4 GB on the Fury X.

That bit of obvious brand bias will get explained away now that you brought it up. vvvv

 

[Keysplayr]

No but we can make educated guesses.

Educated guesses steered by bias? Or educated guesses steered by intelligence?

 

[Bacon1]

Educated guesses steered by bias? Or educated guesses steered by intelligence?

Member of Nvidia Focus Group
NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time

Myself I go for the later, can't be sure what steers you.

This is a rather interesting point, and just for the fun of it I tried plotting all the games from the ABT review and the Eurogamer review relative to their release dates:

The game sitting at the very top where the 1060 3GB is almost 60% faster is Project CARS, which is a clear outlier here. Regarding trends, it looks like there is little if any trend from 2013 through 2015 (maybe a very slight trend in favour of the 470), but as soon as we move into 2016 we see a clear trend in favour of the 470 as you mentioned.

 

[Keysplayr]

Myself I go for the later, can't be sure what steers you.

Im sorry but your posts of late point to the former. sorry.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The amount of complaining over the 1060 3 GB is mind-boggling.

Last year a few individuals expressed concern in the Fury/Fury X with its 4 GB of Vram compared to the 980 Ti. Their concerns were immediately shot down. Note that the Fury X was launched just over a year before the 480/1060 and was a $650 card - an enthusiast card with enthusiast pricing.

I never liked Fiji myself, seemed like a dead end tying the worlds largest pile of shaders with that little of RAM. In fact I disliked it so much when I needed an AMD GPU I went for a 390X over a regular Fury (or even 290X) due to the VRAM.

Every console generation always maxes the hardware out towards the end and I think this will especially happen with 1.5 consoles coming to push the envelope. Textures is the last place games can go higher without really cutting performance, so I think late gen console games (and therefore console ports) will be VRAM hogs in Directx 12 (read: "yay I spend even less time porting console code"). That is just my prediction though to be clear, but I feel we are seeing a trend to eventually back it up.