Geforce GTX 1060 Thread: faster than RX 480, 120W, $249

[Sweepr]

Yeah, that GPU appears to have 1911 MHz core clock. 205 MHz higher than rumoured 1706 MHz core clock of GTX 1060.

Scores are very similar to the first that were leaked: www.techpowerup.com/223920/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-3dmark-firestrike-performance-revealed

Perhaps the card can boost to these speeds for short periods of time.

 

[Glo.]

That would make it boost for over 400 MHz. Over 1/4th of base core clock.

I have never seen anything before. Highly OCed GPU to my taste.

 

[Sweepr]

That would make it boost for over 400 MHz. Over 1/4th of base core clock.

I have never seen anything before. Highly OCed GPU to my taste.

It was listed as 1,886 MHz in all but one result (1,911 MHz you quoted) and the scores are basically the same as the previously leaked ones. 1,886 MHz is the max boost clock for Geforce GTX 1080 Founder's Edition in games as noted by ComputerBase, 3DMark most likely picked the same for Geforce GTX 1060 Founder's Edition. Probably doesn't even hit these speeds for more than very short periods of time.

 

[antihelten]

Geforce GTX 1060 6GB 3DMark Results

www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9202637/fs/9202684/fs/9202725/fs/9180075/fs/9181008#

Fire Strike Graphics Score: 12.951
Fire Strike Extreme Graphics Score: 6.063
Fire Strike Ultra Graphics Score: 2.902-2.911

So not faster than a 980 as promised. A bit disappointing but still a decent GPU.

 

[Sweepr]

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 can hit 2.0 GHz

Here’s the first screenshot allegedly showing GTX 1060 hitting 2 GHz in Heaven Benchmark. Card hits 2012 MHz boost clock with 116% power target and temperature at around 74 C. That’s achieved with 61% fan speed (2000 RPM), but there’s no information how loud that is. Click on the picture to see the full screenshot.

http://videocardz.com/62086/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-rumors-part-5-full-specs-2-0-ghz-overclocking
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-final-specifications

 

[Sweepr]

So not faster than a 980 as promised. A bit disappointing but still a decent GPU.

Because of 40-50 pts or so in 3DMark? Scores vary a bit depending on the system, even on the same system. Here Fire Strike graphics score is >200 pts above the 980.

And remmember they promised 'the power of the Geforce GTX 980'. Anything above that is bonus.

 

[antihelten]

Because of 40-50 pts or so in 3DMark? Scores vary a bit depending on the system, even on the same system. Here Fire Strike graphics score is >200 pts above the 980.

A few points below may still make it as fast as a 980, but it's unlikely to be faster (unless these 3DMark results are unreliable of course)

And remmember they promised 'the power of the Geforce GTX 980'. Anything above that is bonus.

No, they quite clearly promised faster than GTX 980:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/07/07/official_nvidia_geforce_gtx_1060_announcement#.V4JIyrh974Y

 

[Sweepr]

No, they quite clearly promised faster than GTX 980:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/07/07/official_nvidia_geforce_gtx_1060_announcement#.V4JIyrh974Y

Ok, point taken. But that's still very vague, they could pick any review that shows <1% faster overall and claim they were right.

A few points below may still make it as fast as a 980, but it's unlikely to be faster (unless these 3DMark results are unreliable of course)

Once again, these scores vary depending on the system. You can easily find GTX 980 results a hair below the leaked GTX 1060 scores as well.

 

[Keysplayr]

A few points below may still make it as fast as a 980, but it's unlikely to be faster (unless these 3DMark results are unreliable of course)



No, they quite clearly promised faster than GTX 980:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/07/07/official_nvidia_geforce_gtx_1060_announcement#.V4JIyrh974Y

The way it was worded, you'd think there should be a question mark at the end of that sentence. The first few sentences in the H review says that's the question everyone wants answered.
It looks as though the 1060 will trade blows with a 980, which in my book, is equal, not faster or slower.

 

[antihelten]

Ok, point taken. But that's still very vague, they could pick any review that shows <1% faster overall and claim they were right.

imho, anything within the margin of error wouldn't count as faster. So the 1060 would need to be at least 5-10% faster to really count as "faster" if you ask me.

Once again, these scores vary depending on the system. You can easily find GTX 980 results a hair below the leaked GTX 1060 scores as well.

Of course the results vary, and of course you can find get lower 980 results, but you can probably also get lower 1060 results. The point is that there is no significant difference between those 1060 results and the results of a 980, and thus a 1060 cannot really be considered faster as was promised.

The way it was worded, you'd think there should be a question mark at the end of that sentence. The first few sentences in the H review says that's the question everyone wants answered.
It looks as though the 1060 will trade blows with a 980, which in my book, is equal, not faster or slower.

The way it was worded? what part of "Faster than GTX 980" left you in doubt? [H] can speculate all they want, that doesn't change what Nvidia claimed.

It is blatantly obvious from just reading a few of the tech sites out there, that Nvidia has clearly been claiming that the 1060 is faster than the 980, full stop.

Nvidia claims the GTX 1060 is faster than a GTX 980

Nvidia says that the GTX 1060 is not only faster than the GTX 980...

Nvidia Says GeForce GTX 1060 Will Outperform GTX 980

The GTX 1060 is even faster than AMD&#8217;s $200 stunner and Nvidia&#8217;s former $500 flagship, the GTX 980

 

[Sweepr]

The point is that there is no significant difference between those 1060 results and the results of a 980, and thus a 1060 cannot really be considered faster as was promised.

For marketing purposes, a tiny bit faster (in actual games, not 3DMark) counts as faster. Up to 10% faster than a GTX 980 + AIB headroom for higher clocked models would make it a little bit too close to GTX 1070 for NVIDIA's taste. I will be happy if it matches the GTX 980 with only 1280 SPs at MSRP prices (or close).

 

[antihelten]

For marketing purposes, a tiny bit faster (in actual games, not 3DMark) counts as faster. Up to 10% faster than a GTX 980 + AIB headroom for higher clocked models would make it a little bit too close to GTX 1070 for NVIDIA's taste. I will be happy if it matches the GTX 980 with only 1280 SPs at MSRP prices (or close).

When's the last time Nvidia claimed a product was faster, with it then only being a tiny bit faster (i.e. less than the 5-10% I mentioned earlier)?

And why would you be happy with Nvidia not living up to their promises? That honestly seems like a bit of a defeatist attitude to me.

 

[tviceman]

A few points below may still make it as fast as a 980, but it's unlikely to be faster (unless these 3DMark results are unreliable of course)



No, they quite clearly promised faster than GTX 980:

I'm betting ever-so-slighty faster on average at 1080p, but generally slower at 1440p. Color compression won't entirely make up for the bandwidth loss and raw throughput vs. GTX 980 that is better utilized at higher resolutions. That marketing slide should have never been made, and they should have stuck with "the power of GTX 980 for every gamer." Still though, $250 for a low-power card that is 10% faster than the RX 480 in non DX12, and tied at DX12 is a better deal than the 8gb RX 480 at $240. Nvidia's 15% smaller die, 1+ billion less transistors, and noticeably lower power consumption is keeping a foot on AMD's throat. AMD is only able to compete on price, which is not a technical feature or benefit in any way to them.

 

[Silverforce11]

The real competitor that may make users think twice about a $299 1060 is actually custom OC 970s that are already GTX 980 performance, they can be had for quite cheap.

If review sites use custom 970s, especially like they did for the RX 480 reviews, it would look very unfair to the more expensive 1060.

 

[Keysplayr]

imho, anything within the margin of error wouldn't count as faster. So the 1060 would need to be at least 5-10% faster to really count as "faster" if you ask me.



Of course the results vary, and of course you can find get lower 980 results, but you can probably also get lower 1060 results. The point is that there is no significant difference between those 1060 results and the results of a 980, and thus a 1060 cannot really be considered faster as was promised.



The way it was worded? what part of "Faster than GTX 980" left you in doubt? [H] can speculate all they want, that doesn't change what Nvidia claimed.

It is blatantly obvious from just reading a few of the tech sites out there, that Nvidia has clearly been claiming that the 1060 is faster than the 980, full stop.

Nvidia claims the GTX 1060 is faster than a GTX 980

Nvidia says that the GTX 1060 is not only faster than the GTX 980...

Nvidia Says GeForce GTX 1060 Will Outperform GTX 980

The GTX 1060 is even faster than AMD’s $200 stunner and Nvidia’s former $500 flagship, the GTX 980

And this:
http://adrenaline.uol.com.br/admin/...Y46ZzC3D7y9033b/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1060_5.jpg

Remember dude, we still haven't seen authentic benchmarks yet, so your rant here may be spot on or way off the mark. Just simmer down.

 

[antihelten]

I'm betting ever-so-slighty faster on average at 1080p, but generally slower at 1440p. Color compression won't entirely make up for the bandwidth loss and raw throughput of the GTX 980 that can be better utilized at higher resolutions.

Nvidia didn't state resolution in their claims (as far as I can tell), so faster at 1080P and the same/slower at higher res, would be ok by me.

And this:
http://adrenaline.uol.com.br/admin/...Y46ZzC3D7y9033b/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1060_5.jpg

Remember dude, we still haven't seen authentic benchmarks yet, so your rant here may be spot on or way off the mark. Just simmer down.

It's not my rant it's Nvidia's rant. They are the ones running around to every tech site claiming the 1060 will be faster.

And I'm perfectly aware that we haven't seen any in depth benchmarks yet (although we may very well have seen authentic ones). My point has simply been that based on the current ones the 1060 is not faster than the 980, I certainly hope this will change with more in depth tests.

Assuming the 1060 is not faster than a 980 (only matching it), would you be ok with this, even though Nvidia promised more than that?

 

[Keysplayr]

When's the last time Nvidia claimed a product was faster, with it then only being a tiny bit faster (i.e. less than the 5-10% I mentioned earlier)?

And why would you be happy with Nvidia not living up to their promises? That honestly seems like a bit of a defeatist attitude to me.

Is not a tiny bit faster.... faster? Whatever "faster" is in your mind doesn't necessarily recreate the definition of faster to all. Faster is faster. /done.

 

[Keysplayr]

The real competitor that may make users think twice about a $299 1060 is actually custom OC 970s that are already GTX 980 performance, they can be had for quite cheap.

If review sites use custom 970s, especially like they did for the RX 480 reviews, it would look very unfair to the more expensive 1060.

No way. Real competitor would be the 249.00 1060 or 199.00 480 4GB.

 

[torlen11cc]

Thanks! 64% the size of GP104. I think Nvidia made the right call going with 192-bit bus and 48 ROPs since GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 are demonstrated bandwidth starvation.

I think 192bit bus isn't enough...

 

[antihelten]

Is not a tiny bit faster.... faster? Whatever "faster" is in your mind doesn't necessarily recreate the definition of faster to all. Faster is faster. /done.

And as I said to Sweepr, when was the last time Nvidia claimed a given product was faster than another, with only the tiniest of margins?

Why are you guys so quick to accept the bare minimum from Nvidia?

 

[Silverforce11]

No way. Real competitor would be the 249.00 1060 or 199.00 480 4GB.

Why, is a discounted 970 @ GTX 980 performance a bad deal?

I mean the 1060 3GB has less vram than the 970. Then the 6GB 1060 is $299. Until there's volume @ MSRP, it's fud to claim it's @ MSRP.

 

[Keysplayr]

Why, is a discounted 970 @ GTX 980 performance a bad deal?

I mean the 1060 3GB has less vram than the 970. Then the 6GB 1060 is $299. Until there's volume @ MSRP, it's fud to claim it's @ MSRP.

1060 6GB non founders is supposed to be 249.00 MSRP, isn't it?

 

[Sweepr]

Why, is a discounted 970 @ GTX 980 performance a bad deal?

I mean the 1060 3GB has less vram than the 970. Then the 6GB 1060 is $299. Until there's volume @ MSRP, it's fud to claim it's @ MSRP.

No. It's actually FUD to claim there won't be any Geforce GTX 1060 <$299 at launch just because NVIDIA is selling a special limited FE model exclusively through their website for this price. The price is $249+ for AIBs, which is only $10 more than a 8GB RX 480 of better performance and lower power if it matches GTX 980 at 120W.

 

[Keysplayr]

And as I said to Sweepr, when was the last time Nvidia claimed a given product was faster than another, with only the tiniest of margins?

Why are you guys so quick to accept the bare minimum from Nvidia?

Probably the exact opposite reason you are not.

Faster is faster to us. (whoever you think "you guys" are)

And faster to you has to be a certain percentage faster, I.E. >5%
to be considered faster.

Who is right here, technically? The people saying it's faster even if it's a smidge? Or the people saying it has to be >5% faster to really be considered faster?

Who's argument would hold up in court if it had to?

 

[redzo]

The real competitor that may make users think twice about a $299 1060 is actually custom OC 970s that are already GTX 980 performance, they can be had for quite cheap.

If review sites use custom 970s, especially like they did for the RX 480 reviews, it would look very unfair to the more expensive 1060.

We still don't know the pricing of custom 4GB rx480. Those things are meant to be cheap. Where I live, the 8GB 480x reference price is inflated. It is way above a 970.

Custom 480x's and 1060's hit the market: this is the time to buy a 480 or a 1060 for the right price.