[Eurogamer] GTX 1060: 3 GB vs 6 GB

[USER8000]

Is 4GB good to go for the future?

Personally not that sure myself. AMD has said for the Fury X they were targetting games on per game basis to make sure 4GB was enough. Once AMD gets their backside out of gear and releases the Vega cards,you know what is going to happen!! They will have 8GB cards,8GB RX480 cards,8GB R9 390 and R9 390X cards and so on.

This is why I think the 6GB and 8GB cards have their merits,plus I think the 6GB vs 8GB is not as big a difference as say 6GB or 8GB over 4GB or 3GB.

The issue,is that in the UK we can get non-reference GTX1060 6GB cards cheaper than the non-reference RX480 8GB,which makes it quite tempting as a card.

The RX470 pricing is way too close to the RX480 4GB to make much sense,and even though 4GB cards are well represented on Steam,so that might help them I personally still feel cagey on them.

AMD and Nvidia are not our mates - they are businesses.

The midrange cards of this generation are the GTX1060 6GB and RX480 8GB - they are not special versions,ie,they are the standard versions of the cards. The 3GB and 4GB versions are cheaper "special edition" cards which are built down to the price-point.

They will make sure the "special edition" cards will hit issues sooner rather than later.

If it were the fact that the GTX1060 3GB and RX480 4GB were the "normal edition" cards,I might feel more confident,but AMD and Nvidia want either more repeat sales or higher average selling prices if you want a longer lasting card as the market is shrinking.

Also in the UK we have been hit by our political issues,so prices are up accross the board,compared to the previous generation cards,so its easily another £25 to £50 on top of prices,say last year.

 

[AtenRa]

Is 4GB good to go for the future?

Depends on the GPU, for the GTX 1080 no, for the GTX 1060 yes.

There is no use of more than 4GB if the card will not be able to produce acceptable fps (30fps or more).

 

[antihelten]

There is no use of more than 4GB if the card will not be able to produce acceptable fps (30fps or more).

Wrong, Mirror's Edge Catalyst with hyper settings is perfectly playable on cards with 6-8GB, but generally unplayable on comparable cards with 4GB or less.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Also,looking at the Guru3D review:

Look at the comparison between the GTX1060 6GB and 3GB in those games - there is noticeable spikes in the frametimes.

Chimes with what the Digital Foundry saw.

They also saw stuttering in another game.

It seems some here are massively desperate to oversell the GTX1060 3GB,and yet Digital Foundry,which is more a site for gamers,said the following:







Guru3D said to get the 6GB version too.




The GTX1060 3GB defenders have no leg to stand on - both those sites have said to get the 6GB version - one that does FCAT testing and another which is more a GAMING orientated site.

My prediction is that they will keep on saying the 3GB version is fine,and then forget about it as more and more games have issues.

Then they will argue about something else,and forget about all the people they have mislead to buy the 3GB card.

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.

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.

 

[Phynaz]

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.

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.

 

[SirDinadan]

Wrong, Mirror's Edge Catalyst with hyper settings is perfectly playable one cards with 6-8GB, but generally unplayable on comparable cards with 4GB or less.

Mirror’s Edge Catalyst Launching With "Hyper" Settings, Powered By The GeForce GTX 1080 & 1070

It's a preset created to take advantage of the huge frame buffer of GTX 1070 & GTX 1080.

It's also states that:

Making full use of their blistering performance, and 8GB framebuffer, DICE is able to dramatically increase environmental detail and shadow quality on the new 10 Series graphics cards, and further improve the quality of reflections, visual effects, environmental maps, image based lighting, motion blur, and Resolution Scale’s downsampling. Classed as “Hyper” settings, these enhancements enable users to explore a richer, more detailed city on the very best PCs and graphics cards, delivering the definitive Mirror's Edge™ Catalyst experience.

I would dispute the underlined section, or maybe I should consult a optometrist. It's a perfect example how to waste GPU resources for unnoticeable IQ improvements.

Nevertheless, you statement is correct, but I don't like these type of shenanigans. Game devs should make effects that improve the experience and if it's possible, fine-tune it as well.

 

[antihelten]

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.

We are basically dealing with two different scenarios, a) the ones where we see a small hit due to VRAM like in Hitman and b) the ones where we see a large hit like in Mirror's Edge.

The first kind is perfectly acceptable and to be expected, because as you say the hit is comparable to the price difference (and the 1060 3GB is still perfectly playable), and performance differences of this size is perfectly normal between competing cards even when VRAM is not an issue (for instance compared to the RX 470 4GB the 1060 3GB is 50% faster in No Man's Sky, 38% faster in the witcher 3, 65% faster in Anno 2205, 52% faster in Assassin's Creed Syndicate, and 52% faster in Battlefield 4)

The second kind is a lot more problematic, but since 4GB cards suffer just as much in the only game that behaves like this currently (Mirror's Edge Catalyst), and since there therefore isn't anything better available at the $200 price it's just one of the limitations one has to accept when buying a $200 GPU (and given that ultra settings and hyper settings are almost identical, I think most people will be able to survive this one).

Obviously if scenario a) starts to become more common than the games where the 1060 3GB beats the RX 470 by comparable amount, or if we start seeing games of scenario b) that doesn't also affect the RX 470, then the RX 470 would become the better GPU, but that hasn't happened so far, and unlike some other posters in this thread I sadly don't own a crystal ball.

Mirror’s Edge Catalyst Launching With "Hyper" Settings, Powered By The GeForce GTX 1080 & 1070

It's a preset created to take advantage of the huge frame buffer of GTX 1070 & GTX 1080.

It's also states that:


I would dispute the underlined section, or maybe I should consult a optometrist. It's a perfect example how to waste GPU resources for unnoticeable IQ improvements.

Nevertheless, you statement is correct, but I don't like these type of shenanigans. Game devs should make effects that improve the experience and if it's possible, fine-tune it as well.

I absolutely agree that the hyper settings in Mirror's Edge are super silly, but as it stands currently that is the only game that has a gap between the 1060 3GB and 1060 6GB that is significant enough to really be considered problematic.

 

[antihelten]

dp

 

[USER8000]

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.

 

[Headfoot]

If you can save $200 for a video card you can continue saving that money however you were already up to $250 and be better off for it. It's faster today and there's no worrying about whether its going to tank or not. I don't see whats so difficult about that.
This is a similar situation to the 960 4GB vs 290 about a year back. One was a little bit more money and clearly a better buy.
People come to this forum so we, having more knowledge, can point out these inflection points.

 

[Keysplayr]

If you can save $200 for a video card you can continue saving that money however you were already up to $250 and be better off for it. It's faster today and there's no worrying about whether its going to tank or not. I don't see whats so difficult about that.
This is a similar situation to the 960 4GB vs 290 about a year back. One was a little bit more money and clearly a better buy.
People come to this forum so we, having more knowledge, can point out these inflection points.

And you could save up for 40 million years and buy nvidia or AMD outright and have them whip up a gpu just for you.
Do you not understand the concept of barely scraping up enough for what you want? Some folks wont even have enough for a 3GB 1060 or even a 2GB 960. You dont have the right, or the luxury to tell people what they SHOULD afford. That is pompous and arrogant to tell anyone what the can and cannot afford. Only they themselves know. So when you speak like this, You cannot be taken seriously.

 

[antihelten]

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.

You forgot to call him a victim.

It is also the article which started this thread.

Funny how suddenly you acknowledge this now that it suits you, but when I pointed it out to you, you just ignored it.

BTW are you ever going to back up your claims regarding the GTX 460 768MB vs.1GB?

If you can save $200 for a video card you can continue saving that money however you were already up to $250 and be better off for it. It's faster today and there's no worrying about whether its going to tank or not. I don't see whats so difficult about that.

If you can save $250 for a video card you can continue saving that money however you were already up to $380 and be better off for it. It's faster today and there's no worrying about whether its going to tank or not. I don't see whats so difficult about that.

Silly argument is silly.

 

[antihelten]

dp

 

[zinfamous]

And you could save up for 40 million years and buy nvidia or AMD outright and have them whip up a gpu just for you.
Do you not understand the concept of barely scraping up enough for what you want? Some folks wont even have enough for a 3GB 1060 or even a 2GB 960. You dont have the right, or the luxury to tell people what they SHOULD afford. That is pompous and arrogant to tell anyone what the can and cannot afford. Only they themselves know. So when you speak like this, You cannot be taken seriously.

And yet you haven't spent any of your own money on a GPU in...how many years? It's weird to expect honest advice about how people should compare and spend their money on products between 2 companies when the one giving the advice receives free hardware of the ultra high-end from the one company every ~6 or 4 months or so. It's like Susan Ormon giving savings advice to poor people: "Well, take your $50,000 that you have saved--because you aren't spending it, right? right?--and put it in a safe index fund!"

The GTX 1060 6gb is an excellent card and worthy of being recommended. Likewise, there is enough history with the way games mature and the way devs push hardware limits to simply accept the shear fact that advising someone to purchase a VRAM-limited card (by that generation's established standards) is disingenuous, at best. It is perfectly acceptable for your favorite silicon manufacturing company (that also gives you free stuff for your "honest opinions") to make great products, but also to make terrible products at the same time. It shouldn't trouble such an individual to admit just as much, either.

Just an honest observation, though.

 

[Keysplayr]

And yet you haven't spent any of your own money on a GPU in...how many years? It's weird to expect honest advice about how people should compare and spend their money on products between 2 companies when the one giving the advice receives free hardware of the ultra high-end from the one company every ~6 or 4 months or so. It's like Susan Ormon giving savings advice to poor people: "Well, take your $50,000 that you have saved--because you aren't spending it, right? right?--and put it in a safe index fund!"

The GTX 1060 6gb is an excellent card and worthy of being recommended. Likewise, there is enough history with the way games mature and the way devs push hardware limits to simply accept the shear fact that advising someone to purchase a VRAM-limited card (by that generation's established standards) is disingenuous, at best. It is perfectly acceptable for your favorite silicon manufacturing company (that also gives you free stuff for your "honest opinions") to make great products, but also to make terrible products at the same time. It shouldn't trouble such an individual to admit just as much, either.

Just an honest observation, though.

0 years!!!!!!!
I buy all my own gpus except for the one per gen (if that) nvidia sends me. I have other people in my house who are gamers.
Now put your false "concern" to sleep. Permanently. Thanks

 

[krumme]

Only one per generation? So only one titan xyz? What do you use as pilow then?
File a formal complain.

 

[krumme]

Where i live a sapphire fury is the same price as a 6g 1060.

I dont think this defending 3g 1060 is about vram size but just about buying nv whatever is in the price segment.

1060 6g seems very balanced to me looking at the knowledge we have from prior cards. Especially at the brink of dx12. 3g is just flat out to little vs both price and perf.

 

[Keysplayr]

Only one per generation? So only one titan xyz? What do you use as pilow then?
File a formal complain.

Yeah, ya lost me. Maybe its that I just dont care enough.

 

[Keysplayr]

Where i live a sapphire fury is the same price as a 6g 1060.

I dont think this defending 3g 1060 is about vram size but just about buying nv whatever is in the price segment.

1060 6g seems very balanced to me looking at the knowledge we have from prior cards. Especially at the brink of dx12. 3g is just flat out to little vs both price and perf.

But these claims arent manifesting in the real world. Only the imaginary world.

 

[railven]

Halo buyers are wrong for buying something they can afford and budget buyers are now wrong for buying something that is their price budget. It just seems you can't win around here if you buy an NV card.

Meanwhile browsing more casual forums, seems the GTX 1060 3GB is being well received. Primarily on price. It's faster than the similarly priced RX 470 by a good margin. NV must have seen something in the waters. Because of the mining situation, I'm reading in some parts of the world it's even cheaper.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Halo buyers are wrong for buying something they can afford and budget buyers are now wrong for buying something that is their price budget. It just seems you can't win around here if you buy an NV card.

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But you know, it goes for both sides, you just happen to see when it's NV being attacked... bias is the culprit

Meanwhile browsing more casual forums, seems the GTX 1060 3GB is being well received.

This is what makes this forum worth coming in to. We touch subjects no other forum does. The simple fact that people are criticizing 1060 3GB seems to irk most of the Nvidia fanboys around here, something we've seen with GTX 960 2GB too and guess what, NV defenders didn't learn the lesson.

I chose the GTX 980TI over Fury X mainly because 4GB is right on the limit with newer games and since i keep my cards for 2 or more years, going with the 6GB card made more sense and i have a soft spot for AMD. The thing is, most of you guys won't admit when your favorite GPU maker makes a boo boo. For me AMD failed by releasing Fury X with just 4GB (high end) and now Nvidia did the same by releasing a 3GB card in this class.

We all saw that GTX 970 3.5GB started to have difficulties keeping up with the competition on some titles a year ago. What makes you guys think 1060 3GB will be ok with even more demanding titles being released

 

[railven]

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But you know, it goes for both sides, you just happen to see when it's NV being attacked... bias is the culprit

Really is funny being called NV bias. Haha.

We all saw that GTX 970 3.5GB started to have difficulties keeping up with the competition on some titles a year ago. What makes you guys think 1060 3GB will be ok with even more demanding titles being released

Where did I argue ever in favor of the GTX 1060 3GB? What makes you think I'd even recommend it?

 

[Gikaseixas]

Really is funny being called NV bias. Haha.

If you have nothing useful to say, let's not derail the thread any further.

Where did I argue ever in favor of the GTX 1060 3GB? What makes you think I'd even recommend it?

Again, nothing better to say? I feel like i'm wasting my time... You're in the 6GB vs 3GB thread aren't you? By saying this:

Meanwhile browsing more casual forums, seems the GTX 1060 3GB is being well received. Primarily on price. It's faster than the similarly priced RX 470 by a good margin. NV must have seen something in the waters. Because of the mining situation, I'm reading in some parts of the world it's even cheaper.

you clearly defending 1060 3GB

 

[railven]

If you have nothing useful to say, let's not derail the thread any further.

You accuse me of bias, but I'm derailing the thread? Okay....

Again, nothing better to say? I feel like i'm wasting my time... You're in the 6GB vs 3GB thread aren't you? By saying this:
you clearly defending 1060 3GB

What? Here is my post about this actual conversation you may have missed it:

Welps, as I'm finding from a few friends/family - price is gonna really dictate the success of these cards. Recommended a few people I know asking to up their budget, 2/3 still went with the GTX 1060 3GB. Welps, for their needs I'm sure it will be more than enough.

At this point I should just stop recommending AMD cards. Even when I was hardcore AMD, no one would take my recommendation for them haha. That NV brand presence. Woof.

Notice where I said I recommned to people that asked me to up their budget, ie I didn't recommend the GTX 1060 3GB - I actually recommended the RX 480. Sometimes when I recommend stuff to family/friends they don't listen to me. I can't force them to.

Thanks for accusing me of bias and then assuming my position, though. Glad we had this chat. I'll stop wasting your time

 

[rgallant]

All good points.
it's good to know my 3gb 780's won't hit the vram wall in the next 2-3 years.
I didn't think with games coming for the PS4 NEO would push dev's to make more demanding games not one bit.
and anyone with cards with more than 3gb of vram has wasted their money again.