[Eurogamer] GTX 1060: 3 GB vs 6 GB

[poofyhairguy]

Out of 4 dx 12 games, I only see one that is significantly faster on the 470 than on the 3gb 1060, while there are six games 10% or more faster on the 3gb 1060, so I dont really see how that proves your point.

My point was about the obvious trend we can see, which is completely lost on you if you don't pay attention to when the games were released.

Those 6 games are all 2015 or 2014 games, which is what I said- the 3GB 1060 is a perfect card for older games from that era. Overall in 2016 games the 470 leads (not in every game but on average), and even in the 2016 games where the 3GB 1060 leads it doesn't lead by double digits ever (like it does with six 2014-2015 games as you pointed out). That is the trend I am pointing out.

But really vs the 470 isn't the only way to tell, as the 3GB also greatly lags behind the 6GB model in 2016 games. In 2014-2015 games the 3GB model is 10% slower exact zero times compared to the 6GB model even at 1440p. Then if we look at 2016 games, counting 1440p, we see four games where the 3GB model lags the 6GB model by more than 10%! If the trend holds the 3GB 1060 will age much much faster than the 6GB model, which again reinforces my point of what kind of card the 3GB 1060 is. I don't see how anyone can even argue it, the 3GB 1060 is clearly falling behind in 2016 games in relation to both the 6GB 1060 and the 470.

Now what someone can debate is my prediction about where this will go. I predict that by the end of the year the 470 will be the faster card in new games over the 3GB 1060. BUT I think the 6GB 1060 is simply the best card in the whole $200-300 category as it has the power to rock old games (like the 3GB model can also do), plus it will fall behind the 480 less in newer games (if at all) compared to how the 3GB 1060 will fall behind the 470. The 470 has an extra 1GB of RAM (plus the trend) so to me it's the clear winner at the $200-ish price point if you want to play new games going forward, but the 6GB 1060 is the winner over the 480 at the $250-ish price point for both current and future games as an OC will mitigate the Directx 12 advantage for a 480.

If I was just in the market for a 1060 (aka AMD isn't an option) I would do everything in my power to afford the 6GB model, as the gap will grow bigger than benchmarks of 2014 and 2015 games will have you believe. Unless of course I only wanted to play old games, in which case quite frankly a clearance 970 (which should be cheaper than a decent 3GB 1060) might be the best deal.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Then if we look at 2016 games, counting 1440p, we see four games where the 3GB model lags the 6GB model

Another way to look at this is that the 3 GB is OK for 1080p but not higher resolutions.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Another way to look at this is that the 3 GB is OK for 1080p but not higher resolutions.

I don't think we can outright declare that the 3GB model is "ok for 1080p" going forward just based on the results we have. I want to see the minimums for all those Directx 12 games at 1080p before that is some sort of accepted truism. Average frame rates can hide dips that affect playability.

For example those lower frame rates in tougher Tomb Raider scenes at 1080p still stand out to me when we look at the data points we do have. Plus we have evidence from reviews that Hitman in Directx 12 at 1080p wants more than 3GB VRAM. If that is a trend instead of an exception the 3GB model will be toast in a year, but we don't have the data to know one way or the other.

The only conclusion that is clear to me from the data we have is that the 3GB model does worse with 2016 games across the board. In pre-2016 games the 3GB model lags behind the 6GB model in 1080p 6.44% on average. Meanwhile in 2016 games the 3GB 1060 lags behind 7.9% on average at 1080p. So even at 1080p the trend of the 3GB model aging worse than the 6GB model is still clear, it just isn't as dramatic. Minimum framerates (which we don't have) would tell the rest of the story.

 

[boozzer]

even posters right here on this very thread is trying to screw people over by recommending the trash that is 1060 3gb.

the very same ones telling people 960 2gb was a great card. they really should be banned from advice threads.

 

[antihelten]

My point was about the obvious trend we can see, which is completely lost on you if you don't pay attention to when the games were released.

Those 6 games are all 2015 or 2014 games, which is what I said- the 3GB 1060 is a perfect card for older games from that era. Overall in 2016 games the 470 leads (not in every game but on average), and even in the 2016 games where the 3GB 1060 leads it doesn't lead by double digits ever (like it does with six 2014-2015 games as you pointed out). That is the trend I am pointing out.

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.

 

[96Firebird]

Yeah, but then we can just blame the Gaming Devolved program right? I was taught it was ok to make sweeping generalizations for these programs...

 

[Erithan13]

To be honest I'm amazed 3GB vs 6GB in the latter half of 2016 is even a discussion at all. I think the 6GB 1060 is one fine card that at the moment does rank as superior to the 480. That places no obligation on me to give the 3GB 1060 a pass on any of its negative aspects - the misleading name, meagre vram and the price. You can be a fan of Nvidia all you want, think many or most of their cards are highly compelling amazing products, and also accept that maybe the 3GB 1060 isn't their finest moment. It seems however to be inconceivable to some that there are genuine objective reasons not to recommend the 3GB 1060 and that it may in fact prove to be a disastrous choice going forward based on what happened to the 2GB 960. I'm definitely going to have this thread bookmarked as one to revisit as time goes on. I predict future benchmarks wherein the 6GB 1060 continues to do well while the 3GB version enters a long descent into irrelevance for any modern titles.

The worst part is, all of this could have been avoided without any material changes to the card. Just call it a 1050ti and market it appropriately at a lower price point. The argument that 'it's meant for older games/lower settings/lower resolutions' is fine for the likes of the RX 460 and maybe the 470. Merely by calling it a 1060 have NV opened themselves to many avenues of criticism that wouldn't otherwise exist.

 

[antihelten]

Yeah, but then we can just blame the Gaming Devolved program right? I was taught it was ok to make sweeping generalizations for these programs...

Amongst the 2016 games there is one game that uses Gaming Evolved effects* (Deus Ex: Mankind Divided), one game that uses Gameworks effects (Tom Clancy's The Division) and one game that uses both (Rise of the Tomb Raider)**.

The much more logical answer is that the trend is due to the fact that 5 of the 9 games from 2016 feature DX12 or Vulkan (with one more, Deus Ex, to recieve support for DX12 in the future), vs 0 games from 2013-2015.

*Which should really be called GPUOpen effects.
**Some might mention Ashes and Hitman as well, but to my knowledge they don't use any AMD developed effects/features.

 

[DaveSimmons]

even posters right here on this very thread is trying to screw people over by recommending the trash that is 1060 3gb.

the very same ones telling people 960 2gb was a great card. they really should be banned from advice threads.

A GTX 1060 3 GB isn't "trash" it just isn't as good. Of course the 6 GB version is better, but it's also $50-100 more. If I needed a new card today I'd buy a 1080 since I can afford it, but I don't call every "lesser" card trash.

The 3 GB is also better than the 970 in one way, in that it doesn't have the 0.5 GB poison RAM that can crater performance. I suggested that people avoid the 970, but (if you can't afford to spend more) the 3 GB 1060 is not an awful choice for those wanting nvidia.

Also, 2 GB VRAM is still OK for games through the end of 2015 (including Fallout 4) if you don't need to go crazy with hires mods, and for 2016+ games if you are willing to drop the resolution and/or settings down a notch. I only upgraded my GTX 680 with 2 GB last year because it slowed down a bit in Fallout 4 in some city areas at 19x12 with very high settings. I could have tweaked settings to make it smoother, but got a 980 ti instead.

 

[escrow4]

A GTX 1060 3 GB isn't "trash" it just isn't as good. Of course the 6 GB version is better, but it's also $50-100 more. If I needed a new card today I'd buy a 1080 since I can afford it, but I don't call every "lesser" card trash.

The 3 GB is also better than the 970 in one way, in that it doesn't have the 0.5 GB poison RAM that can crater performance. I suggested that people avoid the 970, but (if you can't afford to spend more) the 3 GB 1060 is not an awful choice for those wanting nvidia.

Also, 2 GB VRAM is still OK for games through the end of 2015 (including Fallout 4) if you don't need to go crazy with hires mods, and for 2016+ games if you are willing to drop the resolution and/or settings down a notch. I only upgraded my GTX 680 with 2 GB last year because it slowed down a bit in Fallout 4 in some city areas at 19x12 with very high settings. I could have tweaked settings to make it smoother, but got a 980 ti instead.

It is trash. 3GB of vRAM out of the box is a hard limit. You are automatically limiting the textures you can use. Its not like shaders or ROPs when you can reduce other settings. Do you really want to gut everything AND settings? Its like an Android device with 1GB RAM and 8GB ROM in 2016. Barely acceptable for lite usage.

 

[frozentundra123456]

double post

My point was about the obvious trend we can see, which is completely lost on you if you don't pay attention to when the games were released.

Those 6 games are all 2015 or 2014 games, which is what I said- the 3GB 1060 is a perfect card for older games from that era. Overall in 2016 games the 470 leads (not in every game but on average), and even in the 2016 games where the 3GB 1060 leads it doesn't lead by double digits ever (like it does with six 2014-2015 games as you pointed out). That is the trend I am pointing out.

But really vs the 470 isn't the only way to tell, as the 3GB also greatly lags behind the 6GB model in 2016 games. In 2014-2015 games the 3GB model is 10% slower exact zero times compared to the 6GB model even at 1440p. Then if we look at 2016 games, counting 1440p, we see four games where the 3GB model lags the 6GB model by more than 10%! If the trend holds the 3GB 1060 will age much much faster than the 6GB model, which again reinforces my point of what kind of card the 3GB 1060 is. I don't see how anyone can even argue it, the 3GB 1060 is clearly falling behind in 2016 games in relation to both the 6GB 1060 and the 470.

Now what someone can debate is my prediction about where this will go. I predict that by the end of the year the 470 will be the faster card in new games over the 3GB 1060. BUT I think the 6GB 1060 is simply the best card in the whole $200-300 category as it has the power to rock old games (like the 3GB model can also do), plus it will fall behind the 480 less in newer games (if at all) compared to how the 3GB 1060 will fall behind the 470. The 470 has an extra 1GB of RAM (plus the trend) so to me it's the clear winner at the $200-ish price point if you want to play new games going forward, but the 6GB 1060 is the winner over the 480 at the $250-ish price point for both current and future games as an OC will mitigate the Directx 12 advantage for a 480.

If I was just in the market for a 1060 (aka AMD isn't an option) I would do everything in my power to afford the 6GB model, as the gap will grow bigger than benchmarks of 2014 and 2015 games will have you believe. Unless of course I only wanted to play old games, in which case quite frankly a clearance 970 (which should be cheaper than a decent 3GB 1060) might be the best deal.

My point was about the obvious trend we can see, which is completely lost on you if you don't pay attention to when the games were released.

Those 6 games are all 2015 or 2014 games, which is what I said- the 3GB 1060 is a perfect card for older games from that era. Overall in 2016 games the 470 leads (not in every game but on average), and even in the 2016 games where the 3GB 1060 leads it doesn't lead by double digits ever (like it does with six 2014-2015 games as you pointed out). That is the trend I am pointing out.

But really vs the 470 isn't the only way to tell, as the 3GB also greatly lags behind the 6GB model in 2016 games. In 2014-2015 games the 3GB model is 10% slower exact zero times compared to the 6GB model even at 1440p. Then if we look at 2016 games, counting 1440p, we see four games where the 3GB model lags the 6GB model by more than 10%! If the trend holds the 3GB 1060 will age much much faster than the 6GB model, which again reinforces my point of what kind of card the 3GB 1060 is. I don't see how anyone can even argue it, the 3GB 1060 is clearly falling behind in 2016 games in relation to both the 6GB 1060 and the 470.

Now what someone can debate is my prediction about where this will go. I predict that by the end of the year the 470 will be the faster card in new games over the 3GB 1060. BUT I think the 6GB 1060 is simply the best card in the whole $200-300 category as it has the power to rock old games (like the 3GB model can also do), plus it will fall behind the 480 less in newer games (if at all) compared to how the 3GB 1060 will fall behind the 470. The 470 has an extra 1GB of RAM (plus the trend) so to me it's the clear winner at the $200-ish price point if you want to play new games going forward, but the 6GB 1060 is the winner over the 480 at the $250-ish price point for both current and future games as an OC will mitigate the Directx 12 advantage for a 480.

If I was just in the market for a 1060 (aka AMD isn't an option) I would do everything in my power to afford the 6GB model, as the gap will grow bigger than benchmarks of 2014 and 2015 games will have you believe. Unless of course I only wanted to play old games, in which case quite frankly a clearance 970 (which should be cheaper than a decent 3GB 1060) might be the best deal.

The numbers simply do not bear out your arguments or those of the other posters who are arguing that the 3gb 1060 is a terrible card compared to the 6gb model, even in the 2016 games. Granted, the 6gb is clearly the better card. But it is also 25 % more expensive. Overall, the difference in performance is clearly less than 10%, and even in the few 2016 games tested the average difference is clearly less than the price difference (10 to 15%? On a phone so hard to calculate the exact number). So based on the performance per dollar, the 3gb card is actually a better value. Now one can speculate till the cows come home what will happen in a year or two, but based on the hard data that we have now, and on current prices, the 3gb card is very competitive vs the 6gb card, maybe somewhat less so against a 470 at the same price. I would agree it probably should not have been called a 1060, but the data simply does not justify the venom being directed against the card.

Edit: The actual numbers are as follows: 1060 6gb vs 3gb-- 7.1 % faster overall
8.6% faster in 2016 DX 12
And dont forget the 3gb model also has less processing power.

1060 3gb VS the 470 5.4 % faster in all games
9.2% faster in DX11 games
5.4 % slower in DX12 games
I used the numbers for 1080p, since I dont think it would be likely to buy this class card for 1440p. So actually, if there is a trend in the few DX12 games tested, it seems that GCN is gaining ground vs pascal, but very little effect of 3 vs 6 gb vram for the 1060. One can cite past architectures or speculate on the future, or just arbitrarily call a 3gb card "trash", but this is what the hard numbers show.

 

[Phynaz]

oops, wrong thread

 

[Maverick177]

About a year ago: relax, ,no games will use more than 3.5Gb at 1080p.
Now: relax, no games will use more than 3Gb at 1080p.

 

[antihelten]

So actually, if there is a trend in the few DX12 games tested, it seems that GCN is gaining ground vs pascal, but very little effect of 3 vs 6 gb vram for the 1060. One can cite past architectures or speculate on the future, or just arbitrarily call a 3gb card "trash", but this is what the hard numbers show.

I agree with this.

Right now there is very little evidence that the 3GB will be a huge issue for the 1060 vs the 4GB of the 470, even the worst case scenario that people have managed to dig up, i.e. a single scene in a single bench, still runs at ~50 FPS (which is 15% slower than the RX 470 in the same scene), hardly the end of the world*.

DX12 on the other hand looks like it has the potential to be a much bigger determinant overall in the 1060 3GB vs RX 470 matchup going forward.

*It might be interesting to see how the 1060 3GB does in Mirror's Edge: Catalyst with Hyper settings, since that is known to be very VRAM heavy as well.

 

[mohit9206]

All of this backlash could have been avoided if only Nvidia simply called it 1050Ti instead of 1060.
Although that would have created another problem of x50 cards now costing $200 instead of $150 before.Nvidia simply wanted to disguise a x50 series card as x60 so it could look like a good value at $200 although the performance is certainly x60 class,the vram isn't.

 

[antihelten]

About a year ago: relax, ,no games will use more than 3.5Gb at 1080p.
Now: relax, no games will use more than 3Gb at 1080p.

It's actually two years ago since the 970 came out, and so far the people who claimed that 3.5GB would be fine for 1080P have been largely correct. Sure there are a few edge cases here and there, but the vast vast majority of the time it's a non-issue.

Time will tell how the second statement holds up.

All of this backlash could have been avoided if only Nvidia simply called it 1050Ti instead of 1060.
Although that would have created another problem of x50 cards now costing $200 instead of $150 before.Nvidia simply wanted to disguise a x50 series card as x60 so it could look like a good value at $200 although the performance is certainly x60 class,the vram isn't.

Even with VRAM limitations, the performance gap to the 1060 6GB is really too small for the 1050 Ti name to make sense historically speaking. For comparison the 750 Ti was ~35% slower than the 760, and the 650 Ti was ~35% slower than the 660. In comparison the 1060 3GB is 5-10% slower than the 6GB version when not VRAM limited and 25-30% slower when VRAM limited*.

Calling it the 1050 Ti Boost would probably have been the most sensible (although it's kind of a silly name).

*and that is even debatable since ABT didn't see anywhere near the same performance hit in the same benchmark.

 

[crisium]

No, historically speaking this is rare and they would have different model designations because of the 10% shader cut.

The 980 Ti is equal or closer to the Titan X in every regard (closer in shaders) than the 1060 3GB is to the 1060 6GB, yet these cards are designated differently. Also in terms of shaders, the 290 is closer to the 290X than what separates the two 1060s.

An about ~9-12.5% shader cut with different names has been normal. GTX 670, GTX 980 Ti, R9 290, RX 470, etc. Fermi was even closer, although they differed in ROPs and bus width as well.

It is only recently that Nvidia has begun to space their cards apart more, starting with GTX 760 vs GTX 770. Although obviously as you can see the 980 Ti was an exception to the older days of close spacing.

The older cases such as GTX 260, GeForce 9600GSO, GTX 560 Ti, that had multiple versions with the same name are also different because they were months apart, not released at approximately the same time (weeks) here. 460 192-bit 728MB vs 256-bit 1GB is the only Nvidia example that really has a parallel here.

 

[Maverick177]

Time will tell how the second statement holds up.

You completely miss the point.

 

[boozzer]

Do you guys know how to ruin the reputation of a forum? how to ruin the quality of a forum?

By recommending a trash of a gpu that was the 960 2gb and now 1060 3gb. This is how.

The very reason why people have such low opinions for tomshardware forum. Once people get burned by a recommendation, they will remember. people who bothers to ask on forums are not your typical mindless consumer.

 

[poofyhairguy]

It's actually two years ago since the 970 came out, and so far the people who claimed that 3.5GB would be fine for 1080P have been largely correct. Sure there are a few edge cases here and there, but the vast vast majority of the time it's a non-issue.

Because Nvidia ran interference for the 970 and optimized VRAM usage via the driver in cases when users found issues with the 970 at 1080p. A particular example I remember was that Shadows of Mordor had some stuttering if you used the Ultra HD textures (that the 980 didn't have) until a driver update magically fixed the issues. Much like the Fury the 970 was handled in drivers, when it could be handled (some cases like Mirror Edge's Hyper mode have no driver solution).

The issue is that in Directx 12 that ability for Nvidia to basically fix the mistakes of developers is gone. Now developers needs to fix their mistakes, which we all know from years of playing so-so console ports is simply asking too much. We already have seen where in both Hitman and Tomb Raider that the VRAM usage at 1080p can go over 3GB in Directx 12 mode. If that is the sign of things to come then soon maybe even 4GB of VRAM won't be enough.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The difference (to me) is this:

If an engine or game code asks a 1060 how much RAM it has, it says 3 GB. The engine uses up to 3 GB and all is well.

If an engine or game code asks a 970 how much RAM it has, it say 4 GB. If the engine accepts this, the poison 0.5 GB might be used, killing performance. Nvidia hacked around this for DX 11.

With the 1060 an engine can properly decide what to cache and what to discard, knowing what will fit in the RAM. With the 970 the "4 GB" number is a ticking time bomb. We can hope the bomb might not explode for most games if newer versions of Unity, Unreal, etc. bother to include built-in hacks to avoid the bad 0.5 GB.

 

[Pantalaimon]

Do you guys know how to ruin the reputation of a forum? how to ruin the quality of a forum?

By recommending a trash of a gpu that was the 960 2gb and now 1060 3gb. This is how.

The very reason why people have such low opinions for tomshardware forum. Once people get burned by a recommendation, they will remember. people who bothers to ask on forums are not your typical mindless consumer.

This. So much this.
I truly don't understand what's the motivation of the defenders of this 3 gb card.

 

[BeauCharles]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FfKtNcJ7mM

Much ado about nothing. How many would keep a mid-range card for more than a couple years? Not too many most likely. Its like calling the HD 7850 1GB or GTX 650 Ti Boost 1GB "trash" when they were introduced. The biggest tripping point for this card is its nomenclature. If it had been named anything else the noise in hardware forums wouldn't have been nearly so loud. That said, AT forums are a much more "red" animal so the hew and cry probably would have been just as bad.

That said, of course you should get the 6GB full fat version if you can swing the additional $50.

 

[Bacon1]

How many would keep a mid-range card for more than a couple years? Not too many most likely.

Actually people tend to keep low end cards longer than high end ones (especially those that upgrade every new card release).

People with low budgets need to really get the best longevity from them, otherwise they'd get much better performance/price with the mid-tier cards.

 

[DaveSimmons]

This. So much this.
I truly don't understand what's the motivation of the defenders of this 3 gb card.

Because not everyone has an unlimited budget like I do. I could sneer at everyone not buying a 1080 but that doesn't help them.

I disagree 100% that it's somehow evil to say "if you can afford it, get the 6 GB but the 3 GB will work with these limitations: ....".

People buy a 750ti, 950, 1050 (once available) when the card suits their needs and their budget. The 1060 3GB is $50-100 less than the 6 GB at a cost of <10% speed difference now and an unknown % in the future.