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

Page 91 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,388
1,270
136
It is based on the data of past cards ending up gimped in the long run. The long run being possibly just 1 year after the card was released. A recent example being the 960.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
It is based on the data of past cards ending up gimped in the long run. The long run being possibly just 1 year after the card was released. A recent example being the 960.

I sorry, what doesn't a 960 run?
 

guachi

Senior member
Nov 16, 2010
761
415
136
The 1060 3gb is a card nobody should buy. And it will surely sell tons.

It's the perfect card for yesterday's games.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Just scored a Gigabyte GTX 1060 6GB for $249 at NewEgg to replace my son's HD 6850. Now he and my grandson can play Fallout 4, and the new card uses no more power. Hopefully my MSI 390 Gaming can limp along another six or eight months - I'm getting terrible artifacting in Fallout 4 and it's like having a heater running in the room - then I'll pick up one for myself too.

Seems to me that AMD promised GTX 980 performance for $240 but fell short in the real world, whereas Nvidia actually provided GTX 980 performance for $249. Surprisingly good DX12 performance too. I thought AMD would really have an advantage here, but so far while they definitely get more improvement, it's not enough to make a significant advantage. Nvidia is to be commended for providing such power so cheaply - although I suppose the 480 pretty much forced their hand. Sweet card.
 

mohit9206

Golden Member
Jul 2, 2013
1,381
511
136
lol. $200 MSRP for a 3gb card in 2016.

Why force yourself to accept lower texture quality when you can do better on a cheaper card? Or just go with the +$50 option from nVidia that has more than a 1 week lifespan?

This is an overpriced HTPC or light gaming/MOBA card
If you call this an overpriced card,then by logic and math,the RX470 is also overpriced.
1060 3GB at $200 is 15% faster on avg then RX470 at $180. So you can pay 11% more and get 15% more performance with the 1060 3Gb compared to RX470 4GB. Simple Math bro.
And the most amazing(tragic) thing is there aren't any RX470 available at $180.They all start at $200 so why should anyone pay the same price as 1060 3GB and get 15% less performance in return? Someone please be kind enough to explain this to me.

The 1060 3GB gimp edition is a true nVIDIA card (take that as you will), it's the perfect illusion. It's most likely their batch of flawed GP106 boards unable to salvage more than 3gb due to SM cluster constraint (who knows might be simialiar to the 970 debacle), now ready to be sold to those who are desperate. This card is an insult to the weary consumer. But nVIDIA doesn't care, they have the market, they know it will sell on brand alone. As for the regular 1060, now that card did everything right compared to the 960.
Lol i find that slightly amusing. What i find actually insulting to the weary consumer is that AMD launched a $199 4GB RX480 whose only purpose was to scream to the press that they have a VR ready card for $199 but AMD had absolutely no intentions to sell $199 RX480s other than to send to reviewers for favourable reviews and create a positive buzz.
Then AMD went ahead and launched RX470 for $180 which is just $20 cheaper than 4GB RX480(that doesn't exist) but none of those actually sold at that price instead starting from $200.
AMDs intention's the entire way through was to sell the RX470 from $200 onwards and RX480 for $250 onwards.Now THAT is truly what i would call an insult to the weary consumer who wanted a VR ready card for $200.We all got deceived by AMD.

Now i understand the rules AMD talk is not allowed in this thread but i had to post this as some people are calling this new 1060 3GB card an insult,overpriced,etc while ignoring what AMD did with the launch of Polaris cards.
Besides more competition is always better.Am sure most will agree atleast on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sonikku

Pantalaimon

Senior member
Feb 6, 2006
341
40
91
If you call this an overpriced card,then by logic and math,the RX470 is also overpriced.
1060 3GB at $200 is 15% faster on avg then RX470 at $180. So you can pay 11% more and get 15% more performance with the 1060 3Gb compared to RX470 4GB. Simple Math bro.
I thought the competitor for the 1060 is the RX480, not the RX470. Even the subject of this thread says so.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
I thought the competitor for the 1060 is the RX480, not the RX470. Even the subject of this thread says so.
Doesnt really matter what the number designation. The point was that the 470 has really replaced the 480 4gb at 200 dollars and the 1060 3gb at 200 dollars is
a logical c0mpetitor. Actually both companies are being a bit shady here. AMD for hyping up a 200.00 card that effectively does not exist, and nVidia for not renaming the 1060 3gb clearly to distinguish it from the "full" 1060.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sonikku

antihelten

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,764
274
126
It is based on the data of past cards ending up gimped in the long run. The long run being possibly just 1 year after the card was released. A recent example being the 960.

Is there really any data to support this theory though?

I know that there is data showing that 2GB cards can fall apart compared to a 4GB version, and likewise there are also a few examples here and there that 4GB can be an issue compared to 8GB versions, but to my knowledge there isn't any evidence of 3GB cards falling apart compared to 4GB cards.

Either way it should be quite easy for reviewers to test when they get their hands on the 3GB 1060. I assume that they still have the 4GB BIOS for the 480, so all they would have to do is compare the 3GB 1060 against the 4GB 480 and see if there are any games where the 3GB falls behind the 4GB 480 (by a larger margin than what the 6GB 1060 falls behind the 8GB 480 in said game obviously).
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,582
162
106
Is there really any data to support this theory though?

I know that there is data showing that 2GB cards can fall apart compared to a 4GB version, and likewise there are also a few examples here and there that 4GB can be an issue compared to 8GB versions, but to my knowledge there isn't any evidence of 3GB cards falling apart compared to 4GB cards.

Either way it should be quite easy for reviewers to test when they get their hands on the 3GB 1060. I assume that they still have the 4GB BIOS for the 480, so all they would have to do is compare the 3GB 1060 against the 4GB 480 and see if there are any games where the 3GB falls behind the 4GB 480 (by a larger margin than what the 6GB 1060 falls behind the 8GB 480 in said game obviously).
What about the 970, with 3.5GB normal VRAM, & we've seen benches in this forum which paint it in a bad light when the resolution or certain settings are turned up? That should obviously be a big red flag.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
What about the 970, with 3.5GB normal VRAM, & we've seen benches in this forum which paint it in a bad light when the resolution or certain settings are turned up? That should obviously be a big red flag.
Wasn't that when the 970 first launched and had issues accessing the last 512MB of memory? And then ironed out mostly through drivers? Or do you mean the reviews where over 3.5 or 4GB of memory was intentionally sought after to see what happens when textures require more video memory than the GPU has? News. This could be a red flag for even a TitanX if you can manage to use up more memory than it has.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,582
162
106
Wasn't that when the 970 first launched and had issues accessing the last 512MB of memory? And then ironed out mostly through drivers? Or do you mean the reviews where over 3.5 or 4GB of memory was intentionally sought after to see what happens when textures require more video memory than the GPU has? News. This could be a red flag for even a TitanX if you can manage to use up more memory than it has.
No, some of the recent posts in the past month or so, will try to find them.
 

antihelten

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,764
274
126
What about the 970, with 3.5GB normal VRAM, & we've seen benches in this forum which paint it in a bad light when the resolution or certain settings are turned up? That should obviously be a big red flag.

To my knowledge the 970 only ever had issues in SLI setups or in games with modded textures (like Skyrim and such), and even then it was rather rare.
 

psolord

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2009
1,968
1,206
136
Even more useless than the 8GB RX470.
Hell, let's grab 32GB of RAM for our i3s and call it a day.

EDIT:
Just to be clear: The 3GB 1060 is not the same 6GB 1060 :p

I meant imagine the confusion my friend. And the box artwork. :)
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,001
3,357
136
3GB GTX 1060 from Zotac

https://www.techpowerup.com/225137/zotac-unveils-its-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb-graphics-card

2195-albums570-picture68609.png


2195-albums570-picture68610.png
 
May 11, 2008
19,869
1,233
126
If you call this an overpriced card,then by logic and math,the RX470 is also overpriced.
1060 3GB at $200 is 15% faster on avg then RX470 at $180. So you can pay 11% more and get 15% more performance with the 1060 3Gb compared to RX470 4GB. Simple Math bro.
And the most amazing(tragic) thing is there aren't any RX470 available at $180.They all start at $200 so why should anyone pay the same price as 1060 3GB and get 15% less performance in return? Someone please be kind enough to explain this to me.


Lol i find that slightly amusing. What i find actually insulting to the weary consumer is that AMD launched a $199 4GB RX480 whose only purpose was to scream to the press that they have a VR ready card for $199 but AMD had absolutely no intentions to sell $199 RX480s other than to send to reviewers for favourable reviews and create a positive buzz.
Then AMD went ahead and launched RX470 for $180 which is just $20 cheaper than 4GB RX480(that doesn't exist) but none of those actually sold at that price instead starting from $200.
AMDs intention's the entire way through was to sell the RX470 from $200 onwards and RX480 for $250 onwards.Now THAT is truly what i would call an insult to the weary consumer who wanted a VR ready card for $200.We all got deceived by AMD.

Now i understand the rules AMD talk is not allowed in this thread but i had to post this as some people are calling this new 1060 3GB card an insult,overpriced,etc while ignoring what AMD did with the launch of Polaris cards.
Besides more competition is always better.Am sure most will agree atleast on this.

I see your point on the gtx 1060. And i partially agree.
But what always puzzles me is that AMD has more compute units than running in graphics. At least. That is the impression i have been getting for the last few years.
Because, how is it possible that Nvida with less SM than AMD has Vector units, still wins in pure graphics tests ? Is it purely the 32 /64 ?
My hunch is that as long as the GTX 1060 driver can schedule the compute threads faster than AMD ACE and HWS can schedule, Nvidia will seem faster. Also , there is something that troubles me about the driver from AMD. Is it using the newest SSE/AVX when it sees the cpu can execute it ?
How else is it possible that Intels best for gaming, the I7-6700K, has such an advantage available for the RX480 in the new DOOM vulkan version. Will Polaris rise when its soulmate ZEN arises ?
I just do not get it. I am puzzled. There is something brewing at AMD and the stew needs time to get ready. Or it is going to taste like old shoes.
 

fingerbob69

Member
Jun 8, 2016
38
10
36
In a way I see this as the ultimate RussianSensation card for that reason. He always says it's better to buy a midrange card every two years at a rock bottom price than a high end card and hold it for 4-5 years. So here is a midrange card that saves you $50 today (compared to full 1060) and basically FORCES you to replace it in two years.

Actually you omit a rather large chunk of RS's argument. That is to say you have the card mining when not otherwise employed. The card eventually pays for itself.
 

poofyhairguy

Lifer
Nov 20, 2005
14,612
318
126
Actually you omit a rather large chunk of RS's argument. That is to say you have the card mining when not otherwise employed. The card eventually pays for itself.

I see no reason a 3GB 1060 can't mine. Not as well as a 470 probably, but it could do it.

Plus to be completely honest my comment was kinda tongue in cheek. RS was always against the 2GB 960s so I assume the 3GB 1060 is in the same camp.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,493
7,547
136
Mainstream:
If you're going for budget, pick a 470 or 4gb 480.
Otherwise, pick a 6GB 1060.
 

redzo

Senior member
Nov 21, 2007
547
5
81
Mainstream:
If you're going for budget, pick a 470 or 4gb 480.
Otherwise, pick a 6GB 1060.
This.

AMD went for more AIB freedom by allowing 4GB and 8GB RX470/80. But market demand and price make the rules and aibs also choose what is best for their profit. Still not good for the consumer if the prices don't reflect the(true) value of the final product.

nVidia went agresive by calling a gimped 1060 still 1060 while betting on their brand name. Good move on behalf of them from a business perspective, but from a customer's perspective it is plain defeat: gimped die masquerading as a full one plus vram capacity way bellow the safe side limit. Overall, the 1060 3Gb looks like a very tempting 1080p price/performance and efficiency option but with a warranted highly questionable one year life span.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DamZe

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,475
136
This.

AMD went for more AIB freedom by allowing 4GB and 8GB RX470/80. But market demand and price make the rules and aibs also choose what is best for their profit. Still not good for the consumer if the prices don't reflect the(true) value of the final product.

nVidia went agresive by calling a gimped 1060 still 1060 while betting on their brand name. Good move on behalf of them from a business perspective, but from a customer's perspective it is plain defeat: gimped die masquerading as a full one plus vram capacity way bellow the safe side limit. Overall, the 1060 3Gb looks like a very tempting 1080p price/performance and efficiency option but with a warranted highly questionable one year life span.

The GTX 1060 3GB is going to run out of VRAM pretty quickly as more DX12 / Vulkan games come out in the next few months and in 2017/2018 . This card is going to be limited by VRAM inspite of having a pretty powerful GPU. I would say this one is going to be one of the most short lived cards. I think Nvidia will sell it for a year and EOL it when they introduce Pascal refresh GTX 1100 series.