Once again, that is not what the data shows, except in a few cherry picked games. In fact, overall, the 6gb card is 25% more expensive, and and less than 10% faster. actually making the 3gb a better price/performance card, *based on the hard data that we have*. And even in the cherry picked Hitman game that you show above, the 6gb model is only 25% faster that the 3gb, actually right in line with the price difference.
I know you are in a rush ,but don't forget Tombraider and Assassins Creed. The Digital Foundry show the GTX1060 6GB has having 33% higher minimums in Tombraider,the Guru3D showed far better frametimes in Tombraider and Hitman for the 6GB card. You can make accusations all you want,that is far more than the 10% shader difference in more intensive games.
Plus in the UK,the difference is as low as 20% and I like said,if you do ditch your card,the GTX1060 6GB will have a better resale value too.
It makes me wonder whether some of you think at all long-term. Games will use more and more VRAM - don't believe me?? Look at Steam - its in 1GB,2GB and 4GB bumps. Those 4GB bumps are down to the GTX970 and GTX980?? None of the 2GB cards are high performance cards - GTX960 and R9 380 level at most.
I linked before to a computerbase.de article which showed the 4GB versions of the GTX960 and R9 380 having far more consistent frametimes last year. That is not even GTX970 level cards. All ignored OFC.
So do you honestly think when a dev in 2017 and 2018,pushes out a pretty looking game,they won't be considering for "recommended" settings,a 4GB card like a GTX970 or GTX980 as a minimum. There are millions of them.
They also want people to upgrade off these cards too - VRAM is any easy way to do it.
What was your point again? All I see is a bunch of antagonism. If you meant to get somebody to see your point of view you're doing it wrong.
No different than the people defending the GTX1060 3GB,being antagonistic either?? Previous people in this thread said 3GB was pushing it,and they did the same.Takes two to tango. So you need to ask yourself that question,to what was is your point?? If you don't like the criticism of the GTX1060 3GB,nobody is forcing you or anybody else to answer me at all. Its literally a pot calling a kettle black.
Plus lets go back to the Digital Foundry the hardware arm of Eurogamer,which is one of the best gaming sites out there. They are mostly a gaming site which happens to also do hardware tests,and they test more games than most hardware sites do.
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 3GB - the Digital Foundry verdict
Going back to our
GTX 1080 review, we were pleasantly surprised to see how well the old GTX 780 Ti held up on our modern benchmarking suite bearing in mind its 3GB of VRAM. The new GTX 1060 3GB has the same amount of memory but an additional two generation's worth of memory compression optimisations - the end result is that three gigs is indeed enough for top-tier 1080p60 gameplay - as long as you stay away from memory hogs like MSAA (which tends to kill frame-rate) along with 'HQ/HD' texture packs and extreme resolution texture options. By and large, the visual impact of these options at 1080p is rather limited anyway - generally speaking, they're designed for 4K screens.
That said, as good as Nvidia's compression technology is, it is lossless in nature, meaning that its effectiveness won't just change on a title by title basis, but at a per-scene level too, according to the content. And with the Hitman benchmark suggesting that even at 1080p, we might be hitting the three gig limit and seeing an additional hit to performance not caused by the reduced CUDA core count, we do have to wonder about the level of future-proofing this cut-down GTX 1060 has. The visual improvement found in super high resolution texture packs may be limited, but we certainly wouldn't want to drop down to medium quality artwork on future titles in order to sustain the expected level of performance.
In the here and now, the three gig GTX 1060 is a good card with excellent performance at its £189/$199 price-point, but its VRAM allocation may well hit its limits more quickly than the four gigs found in the RX 470/480. None of the new wave of sub-£200/$200 graphics cards should be entirely ruled out, and this pared back GTX 1060 still packs plenty of punch - but investing just a little extra in the GTX 1060 6GB would be our recommendation. With
certain six gig versions retailing under the initial suggested price-point, grabbing the more capable model needn't break the bank.
They are gaming site,who do extensive tests,and are not one to mince their words. They say get a GTX1060 6GB and like me they are saying it makes sense over time for such a relatively small outlay.
This is the same site,which frequently tries to show how budget PCs are a good alternative to a console,so if they say spend the extra,they mean as it a good piece of advice to a gamer.
So it seems certain posters on here know better than the Digital Foundry with all their extensive testing week in and week out,who say to get the GTX1060 6GB.
It is also the article which started this thread.
