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

[eddman]

It's not easy to say. For 1920 x 1080, it shouldn't really be much of an issue, probably for at least a year from now even, but I personally would be happier with at least 4 GB.

If anyone asked me to recommend a $200 card, I'd say go for a 4 GB 480 and consider the 3 GB 1060 if you cannot find a 480 and need a card ASAP, or if the asker doesn't care about ultra/very high textures.

Still, there is still the question of what the 3 GB 1060 is, exactly. Is it a normal 1060 with less memory or also a less powerful GPU, as the rumors say?

If the latter, then it should be priced at $150-170.

 

[Headfoot]

As someone who got "screwed" with the 680 2Gb, I can honestly say, I ran into 1 maybe 2 cases where I had to use lower settings than I would have otherwise have had to use (modded Skyrim, and maybe some tessellation setting in DA:I). You see VRAM issues in some benchmarks here and there, but they are almost always using too high of settings anyway. Benchmarks usually just go Ultra/Max to compare cards, even when the FPS are not good.

I'm not saying 3Gb will certainly be enough, but it's not much different than the 290X's, and I have not heard anyone complain about VRAM issues there.

Are you still using a 2GB 680 today?

 

[bystander36]

Are you still using a 2GB 680 today?

I upgraded a couple weeks ago. I was going to wait for Vega, but had too strong an itch to wait for 2017, so got a GTX 1070.

I did not plan to go low VRAM this go around, but I just wanted to let you know that the low VRAM was not as big an issue as many people claim.

 

[Concillian]

Pretty much every tripple a game or so comes out with a bunch of optimizations that eat vram with all the settings on. Of course a lot of those settings like motion blur and ocular occlusion can be turned off as many times they are annoying more than anything and don't improve display yet eat your resources and drop performance.

Yeah, it's not like a 4GB card will limit you severely. It will limit you, but the visuals on settings that use 6GB vs. 4GB are not the kind of thing that will severely limit gameplay or anything. A 3GB might be getting to that point, but I think even that will be able to be managed reasonably at 1080p.

heck I'm getting by pretty reasonably with 2GB 7850 and 2GB 760. Certainly not at ultra or anything, but it's not like games look console bad or anything. a couple years from now, I don't expect 4GB to be any more limiting than 2GB is now.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Show me even one situation where a $40 investment in VRAM beats out a $40 investment in more compute units.

Well that is a false dichotomy, as there is no option that gives you $40 more compute units. If you want more compute units than a 1060/480 its more like $140 gets you to that level.

Here is your example of needing more than 4GB of RAM even at 1080P

Plus we see in the Directx 12 mode of Tomb Raider the 390x having MUCH higher minimums and much LOWER system RAM use:

And the reason why? Because the game expects more RAM in that mode. From our local favorite:

video cards with less VRAM (in this case 4GB) actually forced the game to allocate far more system RAM to the game engine. Our guess is that because Rise of the Tomb Raider was originally coded for the PS4 and Xbox One, it expects 8GB of dynamic system RAM, and when ported over to the PC, developers had to find a way to access that much RAM if required. Now, we're not saying that this affected performance in any measurable way, but it's possible that the sky-high minimums of the 390X under DX12 may not have been a fluke.

http://techbuyersguru.com/first-look-dx12-performance-rise-tomb-raider?page=1

That last part is basically my theory- lazy console ports will consume more than 4GB of VRAM because they can on consoles and any other option will be suboptimal.

Given how many lazy console ports we have gotten recently, I think its best to assume the worst. Maybe others disagree and I can understand why they would.

 

[Sonikku]

It's here! It's finally here!

The box. Behold.

It's much longer than my 7770 but is still positively dwarfed by the size of my Fractal R4 case.
Fun Tidbit: Check the warning on the top right of the card. :biggrin:

And installed.

I had originally tried to get the EVGA mini and was poised to score a killer deal getting the 1060 at msrp for $250 minus the paypal coupon code that stood to give me $25 off $200+ orders. Sadly, it ran out of stock while I was submitting my order. I didn't see a 1060 of any flavor in stock again until a full day later (The MSI one) and by then the coupon code had expired. :'( Oh well.

But for what it is worth, getting one even for MSRP seems like a deal these days, not to mention the MSI variant I settled on is longer with two fans dissipating heat instead of one. Should make for either silent gaming under full load or better overclocks. Or both. :awe:

 

[sze5003]

It's here! It's finally here!

The box. Behold.

It's much longer than my 7770 but is still positively dwarfed by the size of my Fractal R4 case.
Fun Tidbit: Check the warning on the top right of the card.

And installed.

I had originally tried to get the EVGA mini and was poised to score a killer deal getting the 1060 at msrp for $250 minus the paypal coupon code that stood to give me $25 off $200+ orders. Sadly, it ran out of stock while I was submitting my order. I didn't see a 1060 of any flavor in stock again until a full day later (The MSI one) and by then the coupon code had expired. :'( Oh well.

But for what it is worth, getting one even for MSRP seems like a deal these days, not to mention the MSI variant I settled on is longer with two fans dissipating heat instead of one. Should make for either silent gaming under full load or better overclocks. Or both. :awe:

That looks nice, enjoy it. I kind of wish I had gotten a modular PSU. My case is a mess. I'm sure you won't have any issues with that card at whatever game on 1080p. Also, it doesn't look much bigger than your previous card.

 

[Arachnotronic]

It's here! It's finally here!

The box. Behold.

It's much longer than my 7770 but is still positively dwarfed by the size of my Fractal R4 case.
Fun Tidbit: Check the warning on the top right of the card. :biggrin:

And installed.

I had originally tried to get the EVGA mini and was poised to score a killer deal getting the 1060 at msrp for $250 minus the paypal coupon code that stood to give me $25 off $200+ orders. Sadly, it ran out of stock while I was submitting my order. I didn't see a 1060 of any flavor in stock again until a full day later (The MSI one) and by then the coupon code had expired. :'( Oh well.

But for what it is worth, getting one even for MSRP seems like a deal these days, not to mention the MSI variant I settled on is longer with two fans dissipating heat instead of one. Should make for either silent gaming under full load or better overclocks. Or both. :awe:

Nice, enjoy. The 1060 is a heck of a card, a huge upgrade from your old 7770. :thumbsup:

 

[poofyhairguy]

It's here! It's finally here!

The box. Behold.

It's much longer than my 7770 but is still positively dwarfed by the size of my Fractal R4 case.
Fun Tidbit: Check the warning on the top right of the card. :biggrin:

And installed.

I had originally tried to get the EVGA mini and was poised to score a killer deal getting the 1060 at msrp for $250 minus the paypal coupon code that stood to give me $25 off $200+ orders. Sadly, it ran out of stock while I was submitting my order. I didn't see a 1060 of any flavor in stock again until a full day later (The MSI one) and by then the coupon code had expired. :'( Oh well.

But for what it is worth, getting one even for MSRP seems like a deal these days, not to mention the MSI variant I settled on is longer with two fans dissipating heat instead of one. Should make for either silent gaming under full load or better overclocks. Or both. :awe:

Awesome! Looks great in the case. Let us know how improved your gaming experience is!

 

[Sweepr]

GTX 1060 6GB delivering 40.3% better perf/watt than reference RX 470 4GB / 60% better than ASUS Strix:

 

[Glo.]

Have you seen Performance per dollar?

 

[Sweepr]

TechPowerUp MSI Gaming X GTX 1060 6GB vs MSI Gaming X RX 480 8GB

- GTX 1060 is ~10% faster @ 1920x1080
- Gain from overclocking: 15.1% (GTX 1060) vs 8.6% (RX 480)
- Performance per Watt: GTX 1060 79% better
- Fan Noise: Same in idle, GTX 1060 3 dBa quieter under load
- Temperature: GTX 1060 4 °C less under load + OC
- Same perf/$ (using MSRP)

GTX 1060

RX 480

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/RX_480_Gaming_X

 

[Arachnotronic]

Have you seen Performance per dollar?

Performance per dollar is a trivial metric to win.

 

[Sonikku]

Performance per dollar is trivial when we're comparing imaginary msrp numbers that don't hold up to reality.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Performance per dollar is a trivial metric to win.

I don't think that is fair, you are basically saying being a better priced card doesn't matter. Price matters for the 80% of buyers who aren't chasing Titans and Tis

Nvidia was the $/perf winner with the 950 prior to Polaris and they had a lot of success with that card.

 

[godihatework]

Well that is a false dichotomy, as there is no option that gives you $40 more compute units. If you want more compute units than a 1060/480 its more like $140 gets you to that level.

Here is your example of needing more than 4GB of RAM even at 1080P

Plus we see in the Directx 12 mode of Tomb Raider the 390x having MUCH higher minimums and much LOWER system RAM use:

And the reason why? Because the game expects more RAM in that mode. From our local favorite:



http://techbuyersguru.com/first-look-dx12-performance-rise-tomb-raider?page=1

That last part is basically my theory- lazy console ports will consume more than 4GB of VRAM because they can on consoles and any other option will be suboptimal.

Given how many lazy console ports we have gotten recently, I think its best to assume the worst. Maybe others disagree and I can understand why they would.

why are you using 1440P Tomb Raider charts to argue the RAM limitation here when you explicitly stated you were talking 1080P?

 

[poofyhairguy]

why are you using 1440P Tomb Raider charts to argue the RAM limitation here when you explicitly stated you were talking 1080P?

The point I am trying to make with the second graph isn't dependant on resolution. In the second graph the 390x has lower minimums than the Nvidia cards thanks to Directx 12, while in Directx 11 the situation is completely the opposite:

The point is that with Directx 12 the optimizations for RAM we came to expect in the Directx 11 era will be gone in poorly ported games (which I think the Tomb Raider Directx 12 port qualifies) because console can use up to 8GB of RAM. Therefore the ports (especially day one before patching) might expect more than 3GB (or even 4GB) of VRAM simply because the console can use that much as they put the minimum effort possible into the port.

My point is a prediction that what we have seen so far with Directx 12 - it isn't always better- will remain the case going forward, and what will drive that is sloppy console ports that don't NEED more than 3GB/4GB of RAM but will use it just because the console could. Combine that with crazy non-console settings that push past 4GB even at 1080p today (aka my first example picture) and you have a recipe for needing as much VRAM as you can buy.

If I could have made the same point with 1080p graphs I would have but many sites basically wrote off the Directx 12 Tomb Raider port so I didn't have that to work with. But again, the resolution of the game on the PC doesn't change how much VRAM the consoles can use. That has been locked in place since 2013, and soon Directx 12 make that 8GB fact part of life for every PC gamer.

 

[mooncancook]

Performance per dollar is a trivial metric to win.

Honestly to me I don't care about performance per dollar or performance per watt. I look at the price tier of the current cards and my need and budget, and decided on a roughly 250 budget for a 480 8gb or 1060 6gb. My first choice is the 480, the extra wattage doesn't matter to me, but I couldn't find any custom cards well after release, so I end up getting a 1060 which is more readily available. It's arriving today amd I'm excited to replace my 760 2gb

 

[godihatework]

The point I am trying to make with the second graph isn't dependant on resolution. In the second graph the 390x has lower minimums than the Nvidia cards thanks to Directx 12, while in Directx 11 the situation is completely the opposite:

The point is that with Directx 12 the optimizations for RAM we came to expect in the Directx 11 era will be gone in poorly ported games (which I think the Tomb Raider Directx 12 port qualifies) because console can use up to 8GB of RAM. Therefore the ports (especially day one before patching) might expect more than 3GB (or even 4GB) of VRAM simply because the console can use that much as they put the minimum effort possible into the port.

My point is a prediction that what we have seen so far with Directx 12 - it isn't always better- will remain the case going forward, and what will drive that is sloppy console ports that don't NEED more than 3GB/4GB of RAM but will use it just because the console could. Combine that with crazy non-console settings that push past 4GB even at 1080p today (aka my first example picture) and you have a recipe for needing as much VRAM as you can buy.

If I could have made the same point with 1080p graphs I would have but many sites basically wrote off the Directx 12 Tomb Raider port so I didn't have that to work with. But again, the resolution of the game on the PC doesn't change how much VRAM the consoles can use. That has been locked in place since 2013, and soon Directx 12 make that 8GB fact part of life for every PC gamer.

There is a ton of guesswork in your post, maybe you should have made that clear initially?

Additionally, the major impact of a lower VRAM value is decreased texture quality and an inability to run higher levels of AA. Both of which are common tradeoffs at this price point regardless.

Arguing that a $200-250 USD card isn't future proof enough seems pretty pointless. They're not designed to be future proof. They're designed to provide a certain level of performance today.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[antihelten]

Have you seen Performance per dollar?

It's worth noting that this chart doesn't include the 4GB version of the RX 480 (it would be at about 122%), of course it's pretty damn hard to find one actually in stock, but hey.

Performance per dollar is a trivial metric to win.

As long as the company in question doesn't care about turning a profit, then yes it is trivial to win this metric. At least until they go bankrupt and stop competing at all.

 

[poofyhairguy]

There is a ton of guesswork in your post, maybe you should have made that clear initially?

I apologize if that wasn't clear I was making a prediction that 3GB of RAM soon won't be enough even at 1080p. I don't think is a bad prediction though:

Additionally, the major impact of a lower VRAM value is decreased texture quality and an inability to run higher levels of AA. Both of which are common tradeoffs at this price point regardless.

I don't know about that. AA is always a hit but usually if you have enough VRAM increasing the texture quality is almost a "free" image quality increase in regards to FPS. Hence why console port textures are bloating, that is the chosen way for late-life consoles to get a boost.

The real issue is the drop off when you run out of RAM is WAY worse than when you run out of GPU might. When your GPU is maxed the FPS drops from 60 to 45 (for example), when the VRAM is maxed you get a FPS in the teens and it's stuttercity. The penalty for running out of VRAM is huge.

Arguing that a $200-250 USD card isn't future proof enough seems pretty pointless. They're not designed to be future proof. They're designed to provide a certain level of performance today.

I don't know if that is fair. When the GTX 970 came out the 280X was basically a $250ish card and two years later it is still enough for many games at 1080p. It certainly aged better than a 2GB GTX 960 and I think part of that is the extra VRAM.

Plus the point is why chose a card with 3GB, when it is VERY likely that will soon be a limitation, and when a 4GB card (or greater) isn't that much more money and the penalty for running out of VRAM is so great? I don't see any purpose in justifying short sighted decisions. We see tons of people on this forum still rocking GTX 660/760s or other Kepler cards, and any of these GPUs (1060, 480, 470, etc.) is more than enough for 1080p today so at some level you ARE buying for the future if you chose between them.

A person who is trying to game for cheap on a 1440p display has to accept a short lifetime for one of these GPUs, but for 1080p gamers (ie most of them) every card (except the 3GB 1060 in my opinion) will still be running high settings three years from now (again a prediction if that isn't clear).

 

[jacktesterson]

Performance per dollar is a trivial metric to win.

I think its a huge metric.

 

[godihatework]

I apologize if that wasn't clear I was making a prediction that 3GB of RAM soon won't be enough even at 1080p. I don't think is a bad prediction though:

I don't know about that. AA is always a hit but usually if you have enough VRAM increasing the texture quality is almost a "free" image quality increase in regards to FPS. Hence why console port textures are bloating, that is the chosen way for late-life consoles to get a boost.

The real issue is the drop off when you run out of RAM is WAY worse than when you run out of GPU might. When your GPU is maxed the FPS drops from 60 to 45 (for example), when the VRAM is maxed you get a FPS in the teens and it's stuttercity. The penalty for running out of VRAM is huge.



I don't know if that is fair. When the GTX 970 came out the 280X was basically a $250ish card and two years later it is still enough for many games at 1080p. It certainly aged better than a 2GB GTX 960 and I think part of that is the extra VRAM.

Plus the point is why chose a card with 3GB, when it is VERY likely that will soon be a limitation, and when a 4GB card (or greater) isn't that much more money and the penalty for running out of VRAM is so great? I don't see any purpose in justifying short sighted decisions. We see tons of people on this forum still rocking GTX 660/760s or other Kepler cards, and any of these GPUs (1060, 480, 470, etc.) is more than enough for 1080p today so at some level you ARE buying for the future if you chose between them.

A person who is trying to game for cheap on a 1440p display has to accept a short lifetime for one of these GPUs, but for 1080p gamers (ie most of them) every card (except the 3GB 1060 in my opinion) will still be running high settings three years from now (again a prediction if that isn't clear).

Alpha game is alpha.

And your examples of cards that people are using now and getting good 1080P results are all cards with under 4GB VRAM...

It sounds like you're complaining about the VRAM without seeing any results, which kinda comes across as partisan?

The card isn't even out yet, we have no pricing, and yet you can already say it's a bad buy.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Headfoot]

Performance per dollar is a trivial metric to win.

Wow. Really? I bet grass is green too.

They could offer a $5 1070 and it would destroy anything. Its absolutely, 100% NOT about how easy it is to win. It's 100% about WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS. Nobody cares if you *could* win it.

This concerted effort across this forum to try and downplay price/perf is absolutely pathetic. It's shameful.

In every category of consumer good EVER there are 2 primary concerns. Absolute quality/performance. Quality/performance per dollar spent. These are the most important concerns. Acting like it isn't is irrational and intentionally misleading.

Just stop. Stop downplaying price/perf. If your goal is to make people believe /show people the 1060 is a better buy then say something that actually makes any sense, like "It's faster, overclocks better, and it's widely available for only $10-20 more than an 8GB 480"

 

[poofyhairguy]

Alpha game is alpha.

Mirror's Edge Catalyst isn't alpha and its already blows WAY past 3GB at 1080p (as noted before). Plus almost every Directx 12 shows the evidence of VRAM bloat. Directx 12 is the future, so that means the future is probably about needing more than 3GB of VRAM.

And your examples of cards that people are using now and getting good 1080P results are all cards with under 4GB VRAM...

They are getting good results TODAY, but I expect the 3GB 280x to jump off the same VRAM cliff any 3GB card will jump off in 1-2 years.

My point was a 3GB 280X aged better than say a 2GB GTX 960 (aka a card that competed with it price wise), showing the wisdom in buying more VRAM than you need today. My point was not that I would buy a 280x today, for the same reason I wouldn't buy (or recommend) any 3GB card.

It sounds like you're complaining about the VRAM without seeing any results, which kinda comes across as partisan?

Where you are wrong is we HAVE seen the results. In most of the current Directx 12 games 3GB of VRAM isn't always enough even at 1080p (especially for Nvidia cards for some reason):

There is your proof. So unless you have evidence that the 1060 has some sort of magic VRAM compression other Nvidia cards don't have, or you assume for some crazy reason Directx 12 isn't the future, then there is no valid conclusion except 3GB of VRAM won't be enough for the top texture settings once most games are Directx 12. I am calling it a prediction to be fair, but it seems like a pretty solid prediction to me given that ALL the evidence we have so far points in that direction.

The card isn't even out yet, we have no pricing, and yet you can already say it's a bad buy.

Good point, if it's like $130 who cares about lacking VRAM right? But if it's within $20 of any 4GB 480 it's a bad buy, for the reasons listed above. I will admit that is the one piece of info we lack today, maybe Nvidia will surprise us.