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

[SPBHM]

1060 for $199 is extremely attractive and possibly more of a realistic choice than the 480s which seem to go for more?

but 3 vs 4GB can be critical, hopefully we will get some tests focusing on that to see how often this extra 1GB makes a big difference.

in any case, I think I would rather have a 3GB 1060 than a "4GB" 970.

 

[Ranulf]

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).

My R9 290 that I bought for $250 in late 2014, two months before the 960 came out is all the data you need. But my 7870 has 2gb of ram, cost me $150 in Dec. 2013 and has held up better. My 970 with free games was a better buy given the free games, even without the $30 settlement. The one 960 I own was a decent deal because it came with a free copy of MGSV, namely around $130. I've had it for just under a year and it is already faltering. Is it an absolutely horrid card? No. But it was far overpriced in most situations. These days given Nvidia's past history, I don't think I can trust them with anything more than $250-300 on a card. Anything else will be to big of a loss/depreciation, price/perf wise.

 

[tweakboy]

Go with gang green. why not

 

[antihelten]

My R9 290 that I bought for $250 in late 2014, two months before the 960 came out is all the data you need. But my 7870 has 2gb of ram, cost me $150 in Dec. 2013 and has held up better. My 970 with free games was a better buy given the free games, even without the $30 settlement. The one 960 I own was a decent deal because it came with a free copy of MGSV, namely around $130. I've had it for just under a year and it is already faltering. Is it an absolutely horrid card? No. But it was far overpriced in most situations. These days given Nvidia's past history, I don't think I can trust them with anything more than $250-300 on a card. Anything else will be to big of a loss/depreciation, price/perf wise.

I'm sorry but I really don't see how this has any relation to the question I was asking?

So you bought a 4GB card (the 290), a 2GB card (960), another 2GB card (7870) and a 3.5/4 GB card (970). None of those cards will tell us anything about how a 3GB card stacks up to a 4GB card, and as such has no relevance to the question I was asking.

Regarding prices, I never made any comment on those, so I don't see how that's relevant to my post at all.

 

[mohit9206]

There's also another saying which goes by "there’s no such thing as a bad card, only bad prices". Question is the 1060 3GB priced badly? I guess we'll find out when reviews arrive.In my opinion its priced fairly as it beats $200 RX470 at the same price.When in future AMD has a card at $200(which one can buy easily) that beats the 1060 3GB then we can talk about how this card doesn't make sense.
Also there's another thing i read quite often on forums something that goes"There is no such thing as futureproof in computer hardware".Whenever someone brings up the concept of futureproof, people just regurgitate the above statement.So it must also apply to 1060 3GB i guess.

 

[Erenhardt]

1060 for $199 is extremely attractive and possibly more of a realistic choice than the 480s which seem to go for more?

but 3 vs 4GB can be critical, hopefully we will get some tests focusing on that to see how often this extra 1GB makes a big difference.

in any case, I think I would rather have a 3GB 1060 than a "4GB" 970.

Couple of problems here.
It is not real 1060 but the cut down part.
We already see games where 8gb 470 is much faster than 4gb 470.

 

[AtenRa]

Any reviews yet for the 3GB ??

 

[KevinH]

mt

 

[jpiniero]

Any reviews yet for the 3GB ??

Probably won't get any since it doesn't look like any cards were provided for testing.

 

[Sweepr]

Expreview and PCOnline reviews are out, from page 89:

http://www.expreview.com/48945-all.html
http://diy.pconline.com.cn/827/8271241_all.html

 

[DamZe]

Expreview and PCOnline reviews are out, from page 89:

http://www.expreview.com/48945-all.html
http://diy.pconline.com.cn/827/8271241_all.html

As we expected, in DX11 titles that can live with 3GB the difference is almost zero between the two, but in vRAM heavy titles the regular 1060 sees a healthy lead of around 10%. Now that is of course half the story, micro stutter due to swapping might become an issue with the 3gb card in the future.

 

[Sonikku]

A purchase for Nvidia is a purchase for today. Not tomorrow.

 

[raghu78]

the GTX 1060 3GB is for people on a very tight budget. At USD 199 - 209 its ok but once you get to USD 229- USD 239 the Rx 470 8GB and the Rx 480 4GB become better alternatives.

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-08/radeon-rx-470-test/3/
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/sapphire-radeon-rx-480-nitro-oc-test/3/

Custom 470 8G cards like Nitro use 8 Ghz memory and are pretty damn close to Rx 480 8GB ref (just 3% slower) . Even in DX11 the GTX 1060 3G OC would be roughly on par with GTX 1060 GB due to 10% lesser cores. That would put it 10% faster than Rx 480 4G OC or Rx 470 8G OC. But the VRAM tradeoff and Rx 480 / 470 's superior DX12 performance make it a better option for anyone looking at keeping the cards for more than 2 years.

A purchase for Nvidia is a purchase for today. Not tomorrow.

Nvidia is in the business of maximizing revenues and profits but the user has to look out for oneself. The 3GB is destined to be a poor choice for anybody who is not used to buying cards every 1-2 years.

 

[DamZe]

A purchase for Nvidia is a purchase for today. Not tomorrow.

LMAO! That should be one of their slogans! XD

 

[stuff_me_good]

Just wondering why the thread headline is biased and states that 1060 is faster than rx480 when it's only haft the truth? 1060 faster in dx11 but slower in dx12 games. Guess which ones are more commonly talked in one years time?

 

[Keysplayr]

Just wondering why the thread headline is biased and states that 1060 is faster than rx480 when it's only haft the truth? 1060 faster in dx11 but slower in dx12 games. Guess which ones are more commonly talked in one years time?

Show us the sources you are getting your information from, and we'll interpret how you are interpreting them. And also, what would you have for the title of this thread? Thanks.

 

[Keysplayr]

Couple of problems here.
It is not real 1060 but the cut down part.
We already see games where 8gb 470 is much faster than 4gb 470.

It is a 1060 3GB. It isn't a 1060 6GB. The 1060 3GB is indeed a real 1060, just not the way you demand it to be.
Do you remember GTX460 and it's variants?

 

[Arachnotronic]

It is a 1060 3GB. It isn't a 1060 6GB. The 1060 3GB is indeed a real 1060, just not the way you demand it to be.
Do you remember GTX460 and it's variants?

What I find astonishing is that people are unhappy with the branding even though the naming is pretty appropriate. In situations where 3GB of VRAM will not limit a workload, the two parts should perform nearly identically; the difference isn't even as large as the difference between a Founders Edition model and a factory OC'd 1060 6GB model. In VRAM limited situations the 6GB version will obviously offer a better experience, but that's what the extra $50 on the price tag is for.

Anyway, I think this will be a reasonable card for those who can't go above $199 (as a youth I found myself in this situation when buying GPUs) and still want GTX 1060 performance at 1080p or lower. I don't get the hate for this product as it brings more performance at a lower price point; would people here prefer that NVIDIA just re-brand a GTX 960 instead?

 

[zinfamous]

It is a 1060 3GB. It isn't a 1060 6GB. The 1060 3GB is indeed a real 1060, just not the way you demand it to be.
Do you remember GTX460 and it's variants?

Of course it isn't. Why in the world would you think that?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10580/nvidia-releases-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb

Or, maybe you mean that the 1060 3G is "the real 1060," where the 1060 6GB should be the 1060 Ti? nVidia already dropped the ball on that naming, though. So the consumer that is paying any kind of attention basically knows that the 3gb is isn't "a real 1060" now, because it isn't the same card. Simple hardware details, simple facts.

My speculation is that AMD tossing out the 480 at the "$199"/240 prices did force their hand quite a bit, and it's possible that both releases were a bit faster than they wanted them to be, and the branding was a bit off.

Again, anyone paying attention (which should be everyone posting here), understands that the GPU on the 3gb vs the 6gb 1060 are not the same GPUs. Only one of those is "the real 1060," but which is it?

 

[zinfamous]

What I find astonishing is that people are unhappy with the branding even though the naming is pretty appropriate. In situations where 3GB of VRAM will not limit a workload, the two parts should perform nearly identically; the difference isn't even as large as the difference between a Founders Edition model and a factory OC'd 1060 6GB model. In VRAM limited situations the 6GB version will obviously offer a better experience, but that's what the extra $50 on the price tag is for.

Anyway, I think this will be a reasonable card for those who can't go above $199 (as a youth I found myself in this situation when buying GPUs) and still want GTX 1060 performance at 1080p or lower. I don't get the hate for this product as it brings more performance at a lower price point; would people here prefer that NVIDIA just re-brand a GTX 960 instead?

No, it brings lower performance at the same price point of its direct competitors. This isn't a terrible product, it's a terribly priced product that is really only useful to the MOBA crowd that, honestly, can already get all of the performance that they will ever need at $150 and lower.

How many years and how many generations of GPUs and terrible releases will we have to go through the same "x gb memory is enough!" comments before those people realize that they are simply fooling themselves? I know humans are inherently stubborn when they absorb some sort of kinship to these things, but come on--these are toys and rpducts, made by people that really don';t care about you or I. It isn't going to hurt anyone's pride to be honest and point out the very glaring issues with releases this year (on both sides: it is obvious that the 480 4gb "$199" reference card was a fleeting fart in the wind--probably a directed strategy to force nVidia's hand which probably did work, but I don't see it playing well for the consumer and perception of AMD)

 

[Shivansps]

Hang on... maybe and article is wrong, but 3GB 8Gbps cant be done, it has to be 7gbps. Its the same issue with RX480 "4"GB of ram at 8gbps...

If it really is 3GB 8gbps, it may unlock to 6GB.

 

[Ranulf]

A purchase for Nvidia is a purchase for today. Not tomorrow.

Exactly.

 

[Erenhardt]

What I find astonishing is that people are unhappy with the branding even though the naming is pretty appropriate. In situations where 3GB of VRAM will not limit a workload, the two parts should perform nearly identically; the difference isn't even as large as the difference between a Founders Edition model and a factory OC'd 1060 6GB model. In VRAM limited situations the 6GB version will obviously offer a better experience, but that's what the extra $50 on the price tag is for.

Anyway, I think this will be a reasonable card for those who can't go above $199 (as a youth I found myself in this situation when buying GPUs) and still want GTX 1060 performance at 1080p or lower. I don't get the hate for this product as it brings more performance at a lower price point; would people here prefer that NVIDIA just re-brand a GTX 960 instead?

Way too many sources here to even have a shadow of a doubt that a cut down chip is performing identical to full chip.

Also, title is misleading. Even in dx11 games 1060 can be slower. Dx12 and vulkan is a bloodbath for 1060.

 

[raghu78]

Hang on... maybe and article is wrong, but 3GB 8Gbps cant be done, it has to be 7gbps. Its the same issue with RX480 "4"GB of ram at 8gbps...

If it really is 3GB 8gbps, it may unlock to 6GB.

nice point. There are 8 no Gbps chips with 4 GB capacity. So if its 7 Gbps its possible otherwise those are limited through BIOS to 3GB. If people are able to unlock the full 6 GB then its an awesome card.

 

[Ranulf]

None of those cards will tell us anything about how a 3GB card stacks up to a 4GB card, and as such has no relevance to the question I was asking.

Regarding prices, I never made any comment on those, so I don't see how that's relevant to my post at all.

While I oh so eagerly await more data from users/reviewers, my point was given the recent history of video cards, the 3gb is likely a limiting factor, killing any benefit of the price. The opposite example being the $240+ 470 cards with 8gb of ram.