[Eurogamer] GTX 1060: 3 GB vs 6 GB

[boozzer]

Well for one thing I'm color blind

damn, that sucks bro I am surprise you care about graphics that much given your condition. I would be super casual if I was in your shoes.

 

[Shivansps]

I gona repeat it for the last time, if you think 3GB is DOA, 4GB is DOA as well, there is no excuses here, a year from now both 3GB and 4GB cards gona be insufficient for FHD.
And if someone already got a FHD display its likely that they wanna change it for 2K display tomorrow.

 

[frozentundra123456]

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.

Exactly, just typical of the all or nothing thinking which dominates these forums. Personally, i think it should be a bit cheaper

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.

The 4gb 480 also has issues in that game, if you are referring to mirror's edge.

Edit: if you actually look at the data, the 3gb 1060 handles the game better than the 4gb 480 (better frame times), although neither offers satisfactory playability.

 

[Bacon1]

I gona repeat it for the last time, if you think 3GB is DOA, 4GB is DOA as well, there is no excuses here, a year from now both 3GB and 4GB cards gona be insufficient for FHD.
And if someone already got a FHD display its likely that they wanna change it for 2K display tomorrow.

Welp if 4GB is dead, guess 6GB is too!

What kind of logic is that?

4GB was the top end card amount for many years, and is 25% more space than 3GB.

I guess if you think the 3GB 1060 is ok, then the 2GB 460 should be a steal @ $100 right? I mean hardware unboxed thinks so

http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/rx-460-4gb-vs-2gb-vram-benchmark-is-more-better/

 

[IllogicalGlory]

It's simply no fair if only 3GB gets to be DOA. Besides, what if you want to drop $300 on a monitor to go with your $200 video card?

4GB has always been the real problem. First it was the 780 Ti, then the 970, now the 1060. Either 3/3.5GB is fine or 4GB is too little as well.

What I'd like to see is someone purchase one of those 3GB cards that's apparently fine, but I doubt anyone defending it here would, were they in the market for a 1060. It's just like some members defending the 2GB 960, saying it's just as good as the 4GB version, while having themselves purchased a 4GB 960.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Welp if 4GB is dead, guess 6GB is too!

What kind of logic is that?

4GB was the top end card amount for many years, and is 25% more space than 3GB.

I guess if you think the 3GB 1060 is ok, then the 2GB 460 should be a steal @ $100 right? I mean hardware unboxed thinks so

http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/rx-460-4gb-vs-2gb-vram-benchmark-is-more-better/

The kind of logic that says 4 is a lot closer to 3 than 6 is? It does seem contradictory at best that 3gb is called "trash" while 4 gb is given a free pass, when nobody really knows how much either amount of vram will affect future performance. I believe it is generally accepted as well that nVidia has more efficient memory management, so 3 could be closer to 4 that the absolute numbers would indicate. Also, as I said in the previous post, the 4gb 480 tanks even harder than the 3gb 1060 in the Mirror's Edge insane quality test, so there *is* evidence that 4gb could be inadequate as well, while 6gb 1060 performs much better than either.

 

[Bacon1]

The kind of logic that says 4 is a lot closer to 3 than 6 is? It does seem contradictory at best that 3gb is called "trash" while 4 gb is given a free pass, when nobody really knows how much either amount of vram will affect future performance. I believe it is generally accepted as well that nVidia has more efficient memory management, so 3 could be closer to 4 that the absolute numbers would indicate. Also, as I said in the previous post, the 4gb 480 tanks even harder than the 3gb 1060 in the Mirror's Edge insane quality test, so there *is* evidence that 4gb could be inadequate as well, while 6gb 1060 performs much better than either.

Nvidia doesn't have better memory management, if anything they use more memory than AMD cards from tests I've seen (think it was gamegpu?). Do you have a source showing that Nvidia has better memory management?

Nvidia has better compression, but that helps bandwidth not total usage.

4GB isn't given a "free pass", but it is 25% more space to use. If 1060 was 4gb / 8gb like 480 I'd have no issues recommending it. All mid-high end cards have been 4GB+

960 4gb, 970 (though .5 was slow, still .5 more fast vram than 1060), 980, 980 ti, 290, 290x, 390, 390x, Fury.

Developers know they can use upto 4GB without issue for "high" textures. Ultra might need >4, but high can go to 4 without issue... except for the 1060 3gb thats shown up.

 

[fuccboi]

People in a market for a $199 GPU usually don't have a good CPUs and Nvidia's cards are much better into a budget builds due to not having such a huge driver overhead AMD has. Just check all those sad boiz on youtube with Rx 470s paired with i3 or even worse the AMD's future proof manycore CPUs which are still waiting for their prime while sucking their owners' blood through electricity bills and heat year after year, now the low-lvl api is in sight, just few more years for the pure dx12 games, almost there the promised future. Anyway it's sad watching them to go for the budget build/brand after the unbiased expert's recommendation at forums like these while being majorly screwed over on all fronts, now they also need to buy a new mid to high end CPU to even get that sub-par Polaris 10 performance out of it while paying for its inefficiency (mainly the OC editions) in the long run again. Rx 470 is running out of breath in the 1080p long before it runs out of Vram in comparison to 1060 3gb which might actually be the more balanced one of them two.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Given the historical data we have available today, one could easily guess that 4GB cards will outlast 3GB ones but will the delta be enough to allow the 4GB user have a better experience altogether? My 7970 still plays most games and with very little compromise. That PC drives a 1080p monitor and 3GB seems to be fine for it.

My educated guess (hahaha) is that by the time 3GB wont cut it, 4GB will have problems too. Furthermore, the amount of memory is not the real issue here because Nvidia can Keplerize their entire lineup to favor the next best thing... yes i'm more concerned about that than the cards amount of memory.

I would never purchase a 3 or 4GB card right now. Remember guys, DX12 is here so equip yourself accordingly

 

[Shivansps]

My educated guess (hahaha) is that by the time 3GB wont cut it, 4GB will have problems too. Furthermore, the amount of memory is not the real issue here because Nvidia can Keplerize their entire lineup to favor the next best thing... yes i'm more concerned about that than the cards amount of memory.

Then you are worried about some AMD users propaganda, also you need to keep in mind all those rumors are actually caused by the lack of VRAM on the Kepler line, for instance, the GTX770 2GB, most Kepler cards with enoght VRAM are still doing fine, and im yet to see someone with a kepler card testing the same modern game with launch drivers vs current driver and show negative perf, you will think it is easy enoght to test and should be ample proof if that where right.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Then you are worried about some AMD users propaganda, also you need to keep in mind all those rumors are actually caused by the lack of VRAM on the Kepler line, for instance, the GTX770 2GB, most Kepler cards with enoght VRAM are still doing fine, and im yet to see someone with a kepler card testing the same modern game with launch drivers vs current driver and show negative perf, you will think it is easy enoght to test and should be ample proof if that where right.

No i'm not worried and a do think it is not propaganda by AMD users since many of them are actually using Nvidia as we speak. Those guys are just basing their assumptions on historical data.

Just like AMD has proved us that they're unable to match Nvidia power consumption efficiency, Nvidia has proved us that they're prone to forget old buyers and prioritize newer generation owners.I have a kepler card and i know first hand of this issue.

Don't defend it just because it is made by Nvidia

 

[boozzer]

People in a market for a $199 GPU usually don't have a good CPUs and Nvidia's cards are much better into a budget builds due to not having such a huge driver overhead AMD has. Just check all those sad boiz on youtube with Rx 470s paired with i3 or even worse the AMD's future proof manycore CPUs which are still waiting for their prime while sucking their owners' blood through electricity bills and heat year after year, now the low-lvl api is in sight, just few more years for the pure dx12 games, almost there the promised future. Anyway it's sad watching them to go for the budget build/brand after the unbiased expert's recommendation at forums like these while being majorly screwed over on all fronts, now they also need to buy a new mid to high end CPU to even get that sub-par Polaris 10 performance out of it while paying for its inefficiency (mainly the OC editions) in the long run again. Rx 470 is running out of breath in the 1080p long before it runs out of Vram in comparison to 1060 3gb which might actually be the more balanced one of them two.

this is as bad of a post as it gets.

 

[Mondozei]

People in a market for a $199 GPU usually don't have a good CPUs and Nvidia's cards are much better into a budget builds due to not having such a huge driver overhead AMD has. Just check all those sad boiz on youtube with Rx 470s paired with i3 or even worse the AMD's future proof manycore CPUs which are still waiting for their prime while sucking their owners' blood through electricity bills and heat year after year, now the low-lvl api is in sight, just few more years for the pure dx12 games, almost there the promised future. Anyway it's sad watching them to go for the budget build/brand after the unbiased expert's recommendation at forums like these while being majorly screwed over on all fronts, now they also need to buy a new mid to high end CPU to even get that sub-par Polaris 10 performance out of it while paying for its inefficiency (mainly the OC editions) in the long run again. Rx 470 is running out of breath in the 1080p long before it runs out of Vram in comparison to 1060 3gb which might actually be the more balanced one of them two.

Do you have any real sources for that idle speculation, like an actual tech website that has done some tests? One-off people on YT isn't a source.

 

[Shivansps]

No i'm not worried and a do think it is not propaganda by AMD users since many of them are actually using Nvidia as we speak. Those guys are just basing their assumptions on historical data.

Just like AMD has proved us that they're unable to match Nvidia power consumption efficiency, Nvidia has proved us that they're prone to forget old buyers and prioritize newer generation owners.I have a kepler card and i know first hand of this issue.

Don't defend it just because it is made by Nvidia

Well if you have a kepler card i think you could provide proof, again, everyone talks a lot but im yet to see a game running slower with launch drivers than with current drivers on kepler.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Well if you have a kepler card i think you could provide proof, again, everyone talks a lot but im yet to see a game running slower with launch drivers than with current drivers on kepler.

I have a Sager gaming Laptop, see sig
You just have to look around and you'll find plenty of evidence, even here we had threads discussing it.

Sent from my HUAWEI MT7-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[antihelten]

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.

Problem is that these so called "crappy single fan blower" 1060 3GB models are still competitive with the fastest of RX 470 models. Case in point ABT's review was of a single fan 1060 3GB vs. the RX 470 Red Devil and the 1060 still won by 5-6% on average.

So yes the $190 RX 470 absolutely has competition in the form of $200 1060 3GB models.

So one might say that it's actually the RX 470 that has to justify it's $190-220 price when even the fastest model can't beat the so called "crappy single fan blower" 1060 3GB models.

Developers know they can use upto 4GB without issue for "high" textures. Ultra might need >4, but high can go to 4 without issue... except for the 1060 3gb thats shown up.

So far we only have one game that has been conclusively shown to have VRAM issues on the 1060 3GB, Mirror's Edge Catalyst with hyper settings. This game has just as big issues on 4GB cards (as evidenced by the fact that an RX 480 4GB is even slower than the 1060 3GB).

So as it stands currently there really aren't any games out there where it can be conclusively said that 3GB is an issue but 4GB isn't. As such until such a game actually appears it only makes sense to treat them (3GB and 4GB) the same.

 

[Keysplayr]

The problem is that even when the 3GB 1060 performs better than any 470 or 480 (4 or 8GB), to try to get AMD some sales, they attack the 3GB number and make it look like 3GB can't handle it. But 4GB can. Fortunately, almost anyone can see through this.
"3GB won't be able to handle any type of gaming within the next 15 to 18 months" is something I often read in here and have to chuckle. As if they are trying to make us believe that 15 to 18 months isn't just some arbitrary number they pulled out of you know where.
Call the 1060 3GB what it is. A great (better than 470 and even 480) 1080 and in some cases 1440 GPU.

 

[zinfamous]

The problem is that even when the 3GB 1060 performs better than any 470 or 480 (4 or 8GB), to try to get AMD some sales, they attack the 3GB number and make it look like 3GB can't handle it. But 4GB can. Fortunately, almost anyone can see through this.
"3GB won't be able to handle any type of gaming within the next 15 to 18 months" is something I often read in here and have to chuckle. As if they are trying to make us believe that 15 to 18 months isn't just some arbitrary number they pulled out of you know where.
Call the 1060 3GB what it is. A great (better than 470 and even 480) 1080 and in some cases 1440 GPU.

1: no one says that it won't be able to play these games, only that users will have to compromise on setting quality, especially textures which, with AAA games now coming from console ports (the ones where dGPU performance actually matters), are designed for hardware that uses 5-8gb or so--actual IQ issues that are not represented in FPS benchmarks.
2: On its own, it's not the worst card out there, but calling it a "1060" when it clearly is not, and pricing it where it is, makes it a bad product.
3: Like 1, this isn't about 3gb being useless right now, but being a very poor, nonstarter recommendation in a day when you get 4-8gb for about 10-20% more cash now, and expect no compromises within the year (or, well, now) that you will have to accept with 3gb. Plenty of people have 3gb cards now (like myself) and get along fine with them....but we've had those cards for nearly 4 years or longer and are looking to upgrade and knowing current limitations that we experience, there is no rational reason to recommend that gimped solution in place of a real upgrade path for other users. This is called honesty in recommendations. Recommending someone who is coming in from 1 or 2 gb to go with a 3gb card as "something they will notice and be happy with!" is doing them a disservice. I don't see a reason for them not to skip the 3gb era when it is already the stubborn past.

4. THis is a slightly nuanced argument but the key points are pretty obvious, and you guys often overlook that.

...but all of this is related to people coming in and wanting to actually play AAA games like Battlefield 1 and others today, not MOBAS where the 3gb or 2gb whatever card is likely a non issue. Yes, a 3gb "1060" will actually play Battlefield at great FPS according to benchmarks, but what about the settings that lead to IQ and actually demand more physical VRAM than is available? why make that compromise when other cards at the same price will offer more IQ options? Or, quite simple, why continue to repeat the same, tired " [less]X gb is perfectly fine!" argument that has only ever worked....never?

Why ignore the actual recommendations of the very same testing sites that provide these benchmarks, claim that the 3gb "1060" stutters at higher settings--even those reviewers say not to consider this compromised card in the real market where better options are actually available.

 

[justin4pack]

People seem to keep making a huge deal about the 3gb vs 4gb, but benchmarks show it beating the 4gb. I myself will only be 1080p gaming. For the size and power draw, it really makes sense for me anyway to get the 1060 3gb.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

 

[zinfamous]

People seem to keep making a huge deal about the 3gb vs 4gb, but benchmarks show it beating the 4gb. I myself will only be 1080p gaming. For the size and power draw, it really makes sense for me anyway to get the 1060 3gb.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

and those reviewers publishing those benchamarks also talk about it stuttering in those games and further, do not recommend the 3gb card vs other cards in that class, assuming you want to use this thing for a couple of more years. If your plan is to replace it in 6 months, fine, but just be aware--also what those same reviewers are saying--is that you will have to cut down the texture settings compared to the 4gb+ cards to maintain that glorious ~4fps advantage. And of course, that will be the real experience when it comes to IQ.

Also DX12, where even that 470 4gb will outperform the 3gb "1060" in Battlefield once that implementation goes beyond beta...and the other DX12 or Vulkan titles where Polaris tends to outperform current Pascal in that class.

 

[antihelten]

and those reviewers publishing those benchamarks also talk about it stuttering in those games...

If you're talking about the Eurogamer review, they do indeed mention that the 1060 3GB stutters, but only during a scene transition, not during actual gameplay, to be more specific this is what they said:

but as we move into the second and third areas, we hit a short period of stutter followed by sustained, lower frame-rates

Furthermore this is only in a single game (Tomb Raider), and you conveniently forgot to mention that they also said that the 4GB cards stutters (this time in Unity):

The 4GB AMD cards exhibit more stutter, but still operate roughly at their expected performance level

 

[Keysplayr]

1: no one says that it won't be able to play these games, <snip>

you mean not actually using those words? I agree. The implications are rampant, however.


2: On its own, it's not the worst card out there, but calling it a "1060" when it clearly is not, and pricing it where it is, makes it a bad product.

It's a 1060 3GB. It's named poorly, but a bad product it is not.


3: Like 1, this isn't about 3gb being useless right now, but being a very poor, nonstarter recommendation in a day when you get 4-8gb for about 10-20% more cash now, and expect no compromises within the year <snip>
Nonstarter? As it bests its 4GB and 8GB competition? Brazen to say so.
And people may not have 10 to 20% more money. Its the reason we have tiers, else everyone would have TitanX's.

4. THis is a slightly nuanced argument but the key points are pretty obvious, and you guys often overlook that.

...but all of this is related to people coming in and wanting to actually play AAA games like Battlefield 1 and others today, not MOBAS where the 3gb or 2gb whatever card is likely a non issue. Yes, a 3gb "1060" will actually play Battlefield at great FPS according to benchmarks, but what about the settings that lead to IQ and actually demand more physical VRAM than is available? why make that compromise when other cards at the same price will offer more IQ options? Or, quite simple, why continue to repeat the same, tired " [less]X gb is perfectly fine!" argument that has only ever worked....never?

Why ignore the actual recommendations of the very same testing sites that provide these benchmarks, claim that the 3gb "1060" stutters at higher settings--even those reviewers say not to consider this compromised card in the real market where better options are actually available.

It could very well be that Nvidias memory compression technology is much further advanced than AMD can ever hope to offer. 3GB Nvidia may actually be better than 4GB AMD.
I would love to see some stress testing of this sort.
1060 3GB will be a great 1080p card now and for the forseeable future.

 

[DamZe]

1060 3GB will be a great 1080p card now and for the forseeable future.

If the forseeable future is the next couple of months, then I agree.

 

[Keysplayr]

If the forseeable future is the next couple of months, then I agree.

Because the next couple of months will change everything.. lol.

 

[Pantalaimon]

It could very well be that Nvidias memory compression technology is much further advanced than AMD can ever hope to offer. 3GB Nvidia may actually be better than 4GB AMD

Wow, NVDIA has amazing memory compression and their 3 gb can be better than actually having 1 gb more physical memory on the competitor's card. Why have more physical memory, let's just compress it the NVIDIA way. Think of all the savings from not having to put more physical memory on the cards. /s