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

[R0H1T]

Stop exaggerating the prices.

660 launched at $229.
1060 launches at $249.

Yeah just as the 480 launched at 200$ (it did in the US) & had 4GB extra VRAM absolutely free. Funny isn't it that the lack of availability of 4GB models is always highlighted yet the 249$ 1060 being sold (probably) only a handful of them across the world is hailed as a major achievement

 

[Det0x]

What is worth a notice is some reviewers using Doom in OGL not in Vulkan. I wonder if there was something in the reviewers guide on that matter

My thoughts exactly when i wrote:

Granted i've only read a few reviews, but i cant seem to find any vulkan doom benchmarks with the 1060.

Have you guys seen any ?

Have found a single Vulkan Doom benchmark over at HardOCP

 

[LTC8K6]

What is worth a notice is some reviewers using Doom in OGL not in Vulkan. I wonder if there was something in the reviewers guide on that matter

NV cards were defaulting to an older Vulkan API, according to one reviewer.

AMD cards were using the latest.

I haven't seen anyone address it, or say if it meant anything, but just mention it.

 

[AtenRa]

That, and some of them simply reuse old benchmarks on old drivers for the old cards. Why bother showing new developments in gaming if it means you have endure the struggle of rebenching? Guru3d is very guilty of this, for example. The consequence of laziness is readers get outdated and incomplete info.

The majority of the Reviewers dont have the RX 480 anymore and they simple are using the old numbers from the original reviews. The situation will change dramatically with custom cards from both AMD and NV.

 

[Thala]

Just by adjusting fan and power settings 480 gets as much improvement as 1060 from overclocking. Add OC on top of it, and 480 is better ocer than 1060.

What a sad state of nvidia overclocking has become after amazing ocing of maxwell. Pascal is a giant failure on the OC front. What a letdown...

But, but, but...the GTX is supposed to offer irresponsible amount of overclocking...Didn't you read the memo from Jen-Hsun Huang?

The majority of the Reviewers dont have the RX 480 anymore and they simple are using the old numbers from the original reviews.

Which is somewhat unfortunate since all RX480 owner are currently playing on "faster cards" than the reviews indicate. There was a major driver upgrade which improved performance across the board.

 

[krumme]

Who want to write a review of a card saying its not fit for the comming top AAA games?

Its nothing but trouble and lower clickrate. Changing a narrative doesnt come so easy.

 

[Bacon1]

NV cards were defaulting to an older Vulkan API, according to one reviewer.

AMD cards were using the latest.

I haven't seen anyone address it, or say if it meant anything, but just mention it.

If you mean people manually installing another version of the driver to get speed improvements, that was debunked. They were running in lower resolution.

The drivers are provided directly from Nvidia. AMD was stuck using an older version of OpenGL for some reason.

 

[LTC8K6]

But, but, but...the GTX is supposed to offer irresponsible amount of overclocking...Didn't you read the memo from Jen-Hsun Huang?



Which is somewhat unfortunate since all RX480 owner are currently playing on "faster cards" than the reviews indicate. There was a major driver upgrade which improved performance across the board.

Don't we just need to look at the drivers the reviewer lists?

If they list the latest drivers, then the numbers should be representative.

 

[Zstream]

Who want to write a review of a card saying its not fit for the comming top AAA games?

Its nothing but trouble and lower clickrate. Changing a narrative doesnt come so easy.

That's why I went with the 480. It will be able to play AAA titles, with my 1080p resolution, without issue. I could have easily have waited for a 1060, purchased a 1070/80 or even looked for Vega or whatever big chip from Nvidia or AMD comes next.

The point I'm trying to make, is that people buy whatever cards they can afford. I for one am simply tired of paying $400+ for a GPU every year to keep my e-peen hard.

 

[3DVagabond]

I'm curious about how price for these plays out over the next couple of days and weeks....already seeing markups of +25% and much, much greater vs the MSRP which is already a disappointing +20% over 480 does not bode well.

performance-wise: +7% over 480 in DX11 now and losing forever with DX12 (almost certainly losing in all benchmarks 6 months from now) does not bode well, especially with that price difference.

This seems like the card to recommend if it is important to you to boast a 5-8% performance premium for about 1 or 3 months of ownership over a card that is roughly 30-40% cheaper.
:thumbsup:

Nice summary. I'm not sure how anyone could recommend this card with a straight face.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you mean people manually installing another version of the driver to get speed improvements, that was debunked. They were running in lower resolution.

The drivers are provided directly from Nvidia. AMD was stuck using an older version of OpenGL for some reason.

No, it is specifically Doom and the Vulkan API revision.

They tried to load the latest API, but NV still reported using the older one.

AMD didn't have that glitch and was using the latest.

HARDOCP:

Take note, upon installing the provided NVIDIA drivers Vulkan Libraries 1.0.11.1 are installed by default from the NVIDIA drivers. We went ahead and upgraded to the latest Vulkan libraries utilizing the SDK to version 1.0.17.0, which is the latest stable version. We made sure to apply this SDK to update the libraries on all video cards tested. However, even though we have the libraries installed, it is up to the video card and game to utilize what it wants. In this case, we found on both NVIDIA GPUs DOOM uses Vulkan API libraries 1.0.8 in the game.

However, the AMD drivers install the newest 1.0.17.0 Vulkan API libraries by default. We found that the AMD Radeon RX 480 uses the newest 1.0.17.0 Vulkan API libraries in-game. When we brought up the console (shown above) on RX 480, it showed "1.0.17.0" next to Vulkan API where NVIDIA GPUs show 1.0.8. Just something worth noting.

 

[3DVagabond]

Holy hyperbole, Batman. 7% faster is now "destroying" the competition.

And "no clear wins" for AMD, because the reviewer clearly can't see 20% cheaper 480 4GB which was already released.

The $250 1060 puts serious pressure on that $240 480 8GB in DX11, no doubt. But let's not lose our heads here TPU.

AFAIK (I don't have time to look ATM) TPU doesn't use DX12 and Vulkan in their benchmark suite.

 

[Thala]

Don't we just need to look at the drivers the reviewer lists?

If they list the latest drivers, then the numbers should be representative.

Indeed. As far i found only computerbase.de and hardocp using crimson 16.7.2.

 

[96Firebird]

Man some of you guys exaggerate prices to the extreme! I know you have to try to make your pointless argument look better, but at least stick to the facts...

AFTERMARKET GTX 1060's are listed for $250, both at Newegg and EVGA. Can you buy them right now? No, because the demand for such a card at that price is crazy. Rest assured, those that wanted them bad enough bought them.

Taking a look at TPU's performance summary, the 1060 is on average 6.4% faster than the RX 480 8GB. Using MSRPs of $240 and $250, which both cards COULD HAVE BEEN bought for before selling out, the 1060 is only 4.2% more expensive.

Since perf/$ is king for a lot here, looks like a good showing for the 1060...

I'm even using performance numbers from the FE 1060, I could use aftermarket 1060s and make the comparison look even more in favor of the 1060.

Edit - Since someone pointed out ComputerBase.de used the newest AMD drivers, the 1060 still has a 6% lead on average over the 480 8GB. The newest AMD drivers haven't increased performance for these cards, as been pointed out.

 

[Sweepr]

Orly?

Just by adjusting fan and power settings 480 gets as much improvement as 1060 from overclocking. Add OC on top of it, and 480 is better ocer than 1060.

From your ComputerBase review it needs an extra 42W to sustain 1266 MHz, and the actual gain from overclocking from this speed is 7-8% (vs 14-15% for the GTX 1060 according to TPU).

 

[Thala]

From your ComputerBase review it needs an extra 42W to sustain 1266 MHz, and the actual gain from overclocking from this speed is 7-8% (vs 14-15% for the GTX 1060 according to TPU).

Doesn't distract from the fact that the RX480 overclocks better than GTX1060. You are getting +18% performance from RX480 and only 15% from GTX1060. Both relativ to stock settings.

In addition i remember only Jen-Hsun Huang promising irresponsible amount of overclocking. Speaking about lies, i remember NVidia claiming +15% performance vs. RX480. Now that the reviews are out we see it is nowhere close to this. In fact many reviews rated GTX1060 below GTX980.

 

[coercitiv]

They tried to load the latest API, but NV still reported using the older one.

I'm confused, why would reviewers drop Vulkan in favor of OGL due to default Nvidia behaviour?

What's next, are we going to see AMD deprecate support for DX11/OGL so that reviewers are forced to use the newer APIs?

 

[Sweepr]

EVGA comes out of the gate with compact cards, at $250. Amazing how competition can keep prices at MSRP...

http://www.evga.com/Products/Produc...ily=GeForce+10+Series+Family&chipset=GTX+1060

Indeed, also a nice factory OC for an extra $10. Very similar to custom RX 480 prices.

Impressive how close to the RX 480 it is even in the most AMD favourable titles.

And then on the titles that NVIDIA usually performs better...

12% faster overall.

 

[Ketchup]

Is anybody using the Nvida 368.81 driver? I checked 5 sites and they were all using 368.64. Have no idea if that would make any difference, just found it odd since the .81 driver has a release date of 7/14.

 

[linkgoron]

Man some of you guys exaggerate prices to the extreme! I know you have to try to make your pointless argument look better, but at least stick to the facts...

AFTERMARKET GTX 1060's are listed for $250, both at Newegg and EVGA. Can you buy them right now? No, because the demand for such a card at that price is crazy. Rest assured, those that wanted them bad enough bought them.

Taking a look at TPU's performance summary, the 1060 is on average 6.4% faster than the RX 480 8GB. Using MSRPs of $240 and $250, which both cards COULD HAVE BEEN bought for before selling out, the 1060 is only 4.2% more expensive.

Since perf/$ is king for a lot here, looks like a good showing for the 1060...

I'm even using performance numbers from the FE 1060, I could use aftermarket 1060s and make the comparison look even more in favor of the 1060.

TPU is also benching the 480 with older drivers and not benching any DX12 games (except tomb raider).

Looking at benches which include other dx12 and doom we see a different picture, except in Tomb raider.

Hardocp:

Hitman:

Once again AMD Radeon RX 480 is faster than GeForce GTX 1060, about 18% here at 1080p. Once again the lower the resolution, the greater the impact RX 480 has over 1060 with Vulkan or DX12.

Doom:

Here the AMD Radeon RX 480 is 32% faster than the GeForce GTX 1060 running "Ultra" settings and "Nightmare" settings at 1080p under the Vulkan API. Performance has increased with the more CPU bound resolution, perhaps showing one advantage of Vulkan API (and coincidently DX12 as well) the fact that CPU overhead can be reduced at lower resolutions improving performance.

Toms Ashes (The rx 480 is around 5% faster):

The Radeon RX 480’s strong performance in Ashes of the Singularity staves off Nvidia’s attack right out of the gate. In fact, GeForce GTX 1060 lands closer to the 970’s performance than the 980 it’s supposed to emulate

Hardware Canucks shows the 480 beating the 1060 by 12% in Quantum Break @ 1080p.

 

[Sweepr]

I'm confused, why would reviewers drop Vulkan in favor of OGL due to default Nvidia behaviour?

What's next, are we going to see AMD deprecate support for DX11/OGL so that reviewers are forced to use the newer APIs?

From Tom's Hardware:

ID said, that they optimzed the render path ONLY for AMD yet and that the Nvidia implemention will follow later. How we can test a half-done game without the optimized driver?

Currently asynchronous compute is only supported on AMD GPUs and requires DOOM Vulkan supported drivers to run. We are working with NVIDIA to enable asynchronous compute in Vulkan on NVIDIA GPUs. We hope to have an update soon.

They still have a lot to work on the Vulkan mode for NVIDIA.

 

[R0H1T]

From Tom's Hardware:



They still have a lot to work on the Vulkan mode for NVIDIA.

You mean Nvidia has a lot of work to do, demoing 1080 using Doom/Vulkan IIRC & yet failing to update their drivers/working with ID to release Vulkan enabled Doom at the same time as AMD, shows what Nvidia is really doing

It's all a game of smoke & mirrors for them, they really don't want rebviews to highlight how good AMD is with DX12/Vulkan D:

 

[linkgoron]

12% faster overall.

Lol, that's a horrible average calculation.

Why does the average include both Hitman Dx12 and DX11? Ashes DX12 and DX11? Doom Vulkan and Opengl? Total War dx11 (if I recall correctly AMD gain a lot when going DX12)? Is anyone planning on playing on the older API when the new API is available and better, or both at the same time? A better solution would be to include the best result for a game (dx11 or dx12) for each vendor or include one, but including both is just stupid.

Either way, there's no denying that most DX12 games (+Doom) are showing better performance on the rx 480.

 

[Sweepr]

You mean Nvidia has a lot of work to do, demoing 1080 using Doom/Vulkan IIRC & yet failing to update their drivers/working with ID to release Vulkan enabled Doom at the same time as AMD, shows what Nvidia is really doing

It's all a game of smoke & mirrors for them, they really don't want rebviews to highlight how good AMD is with DX12/Vulkan D:

Now, they actually realize that (as of now) the Vulkan mode gives skewed results, for the reasons explained above.

"ID said, that they optimzed the render path ONLY for AMD yet and that the Nvidia implemention will follow later. How we can test a half-done game without the optimized driver?

Currently asynchronous compute is only supported on AMD GPUs and requires DOOM Vulkan supported drivers to run. We are working with NVIDIA to enable asynchronous compute in Vulkan on NVIDIA GPUs. We hope to have an update soon.

 

[Bacon1]

From Tom's Hardware:



They still have a lot to work on the Vulkan mode for NVIDIA.

I guess you forgot that Nvidia had id up on stage during the 1080 premiere?

Nvidia just had id Software come on stage at their event in Austin, TX to show Doom up and running on the GTX 1080. That may not seem like a big deal, so to kick things up a notch, id had the game running using the Vulkan API. That's the low-level OpenGL equivalent of DirectX 12, and while id didn't specifically say how much faster Vulkan allowed the game to run, they did enable the in-game FPS counter.

http://www.pcgamer.com/id-software-shows-doom-running-on-gtx-1080-using-vulkan/


Or how about they've been working daily directly with both companies for a while now?

Since late March 2016 we started working daily with both AMD and NVIDIA. Both have been great partner companies, helping bring full DOOM and Vulkan driver support live to the community. There was a lot of work on all fronts but we are pleased with the results.

https://bethesda.net/#en/events/game/doom-vulkan-support-now-live/2016/07/11/156

I thought Nvidia had the best driver team out there? Still waiting for async compute drivers for Maxwell, how long will it take for Pascal?