• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think it will outperform 480 in dx11 titles and will initially be behind in certain dx12 titles. Nvidia could improve dx12 performance over time.
 
Keysplayr said:
I think it will outperform 480 in dx11 titles and will initially be behind in certain dx12 titles. Nvidia could improve dx12 performance over time.
Click to expand...

Word is this is peak Nvidia DX12 performance as it is for Maxwell and Pascal.

If anything is to be done, it must be done from the developers end of things.

Logically speaking, since Nvidia commands a bigger share of the gaming market, as time goes by developers whether they like it or not will have it in their best interests to optimize their DX12 games with Nvidia cards in mind as well.

But it may still not be the case though, since the consoles have AMD and they run Async too. That means if devs attempt to optimize DX12 for Nvidia they have to do two separate implementations (consoles, and then PC) and that's fairly unlikely.

[This assuming the current DX12 implementations on PC are a "copy-paste" of the console implementation, which is obviously designed with AMD in mind]
 
StrangerGuy said:
Perf/$ is pretty linear from a $240 480 to a $400 1070, placing the 1060 on that curve at $240-$300 and NV will easily win just by the virtue of perf/w, OC potential and massively better mindshare alone.
Click to expand...

True. We already know NV's sales aren't correlated with perf/$ against AMD/ATI. (780 vs. 290 or 290X vs. 780Ti or 280X vs. 770 2-4GB, 260 vs. HD4870, HD6950 vs. GTX570, HD7970 1Ghz vs. GTX670, R9 290X vs. 980, etc.)

The mainstream PC gamer has to be very careful on this one. The extra $ spent on the 8GB RX 480 is better spent on a faster CPU instead. Move up from an i3 to an i5, from a stock i5 to an i5 K. It also doesn't matter if AMD claims that RX 480 was designed for 3-4 years in mind. It's a 2 year or less GPU. For that reason I question spending $40 more for the RX 480 8GB version. The issue with GTX1060 3GB is that for modern games that's too risky. Otoh, if GTX1060 6GB is $279.99, that's an $80 difference between that card and the $199 RX 480 4GB. We would then come full circle again and I'd recommend the mainstream/performance gamer spend the extra $80 towards a faster CPU that will last 5 years. No one had an issue recommending 3.5GB 970, 4GB 290/290X/980 for all of last year so there is no particular reason to even go for a 6-8GB card for this performance class over an 4GB card for 1080p gaming.

As you said though, the NV brand name will ensure they will be able to sell VRAM gimped 1060 3GB over RX 480 4GB. The hilarious part is that NV PR/marketing will not be able to use that 4GB is insufficient for 1080p gaming against a GTX1060 6GB but then still be able to recommend GTX1060 3GB over the RX 480 4GB. For that reason, AIB RX 480 4GB will likely be the best mainstream card in 2016 as long as AIBs can hit $210-220 prices.

Knowing NV though having a $239-249 GTX1060 6GB creates too large of a gap with the 1070, unless they later introduce the GTX1060Ti. I am thinking they will price it much closer to $279-299 than $239-249.


$199 RX 480 4GB
vs.
$299 GTX1060 6GB = 50% more expensive
$279 GTX1060 6GB = 40% more expensive
$249 GTX1060 6GB = 25% more expensive

In all of these cases, the GTX1060 6GB is a worse price/performance card.

In summary: The budget/performance gamer will be way better off either putting the extra savings towards a next generation 2018 GPU upgrade if GTX1060 costs $279-299 ($80-100 is a LOT of $ towards a next gen 2018 $200-225 RX 480 successor that would make the upgrade just $120-145) OR putting it towards a faster CPU for longevity. Unless the GTX1060 6GB costs $249, RX 480 4GB will be the best value at $199 among all of these cards. The extra 10-15% performance isn't going to matter over 2 years but moving from an i3 to an i5, or i5 to i5K is $ well spent. If GTX1060 6GB costs $279-299, then we'd looking at moving from an i5 6600K to an i7 6700/K for a new system build/platform upgrade. In that case, it's not even a contest in favour of the i7 6700K + RX 480 4GB >>>>>> i5 6600K + GTX 1060 6GB.
 
Last edited:
PurePC already has a review sample, probably other websites as well:

GTX-1060-PurePC.png


Of course there’s a review sample of the latest card from the ‘Greens’ — GTX 1060 — at our office already. So get ready for another tests.
Click to expand...

The third rumor for today came from Korean retailer. This table shows products that will take part in Overwatch bundle promotion between June 28th and August 31st. First column shows available products, second column describes quantity of available products and third column mentions how many sets of Overwatch themed stuff will be added for those purchases. Finally, the last paragraph says GTX1060 Series are coming soon. I don’t have a link, but I was told it’s from Facebook.
Click to expand...

http://videocardz.com/61780/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-rumors-part-1
 
hsjj3 said:
Word is this is peak Nvidia DX12 performance as it is for Maxwell and Pascal.

If anything is to be done, it must be done from the developers end of things.

Logically speaking, since Nvidia commands a bigger share of the gaming market, as time goes by developers whether they like it or not will have it in their best interests to optimize their DX12 games with Nvidia cards in mind as well.

But it may still not be the case though, since the consoles have AMD and they run Async too. That means if devs attempt to optimize DX12 for Nvidia they have to do two separate implementations (consoles, and then PC) and that's fairly unlikely.

[This assuming the current DX12 implementations on PC are a "copy-paste" of the console implementation, which is obviously designed with AMD in mind]
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't read that first sentence with a straight face.
You just essentially just said, that at this time of launch, DX12 performance on Nvidia Pascal will be as good as it ever gets.

Ahhhh... forums.
 
I can't believe that it's now "common wisdom" that AMD's architecture will be better across all DX12 games based on a very limited sampling of titles.

Let's wait for more big-name titles to hit before jumping to conclusions?
 
Arachnotronic said:
A broad set of them. As in maybe 10+. It's hard to draw useful conclusions from a small sample size.
Click to expand...

Or as a buyer, you could look the ones you actually want to play.

I bought my GTX 980ti for Fallout 4, I didn't care about the numbers for Battlefield xxx or CS:GO or....

If Fallout 5 runs much better on AMD and there are no heat / power / noise issues then I'll buy AMD for it.
 
50M consoles.
Its not like its a surprise there is a difference in dx12.
What we have now just confirms what have been said for years would come. Talking sample size is crap.

6M ps4 neo vr sets expected this autum with polaris. 6M for h2 only sony.
The dx12 difference is only going to grow.
The hard evidence in consoles sold and fps goes hand in hand with what eg zlatan and other devs have said for years.

Instead of all this stupid defense the interesting part is what happens after ps4 neo or after dx12 because amd is clearly going to rely on it to stay compettitive. And its not going to last forewer.
 
krumme said:
50M consoles.
Its not like its a surprise there is a difference in dx12.
What we have now just confirms what have been said for years would come. Talking sample size is crap.

6M ps4 neo vr sets expected this autum with polaris. 6M for h2 only sony.
The dx12 difference is only going to grow.
The hard evidence in consoles sold and fps goes hand in hand with what eg zlatan and other devs have said for years.

Instead of all this stupid defense the interesting part is what happens after ps4 neo or after dx12 because amd is clearly going to rely on it to stay compettitive. And its not going to last forewer.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't worry. Xbone2 will be AMD, too. The console effect is going to continue for atleast 3-4 more years.
 
Sweepr said:
So it 'barely' matches a Geforce GTX 980? That's less impressive than Hardware Canucks DX12 results. Based on these results, not sure how some people think Geforce GTX 1060 DX12 performance will end up at Tonga levels.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense, I don't understand why some people are downplaying the 1060. If NV puts out a competitive product, this is good for gamers, especially those who have G-Sync monitors and want 980 performance for less than 970 prices.
 
The specs suggest that it could match the 980, but historically this part hasn't matched that level of performance from the previous gen. (See the 760 and the 960 compared to the 680 and 780). However, this is a node change so bigger gains are to be expected. My guess is that it will trade blows with the 480 but will be a bit more expensive and obviously have less VRAM. It will probably return to the same arguments people made on both sides for or against the 970 and the 390. The 480 will be the better value, offer more VRAM and might edge out the 1060 in certain dx12 titles, while the 1060 will be less power hungry, and possibly edge the 480 out in current titles. That being said, I don't think the power usage of the 480 will drive people away to the same extent that it did on the 290/390 because it still requires far less, even if it will be less efficient than the 1060.
 
Arachnotronic said:
It doesn't make sense, I don't understand why some people are downplaying the 1060. If NV puts out a competitive product, this is good for gamers, especially those who have G-Sync monitors and want 980 performance for less than 970 prices.
Click to expand...

Eh, I would imagine that most people with gsync monitors are not worried about this debate right now. They're already likely at 980 perf levels.
 
Sweepr said:
So it 'barely' matches a Geforce GTX 980? That's less impressive than Hardware Canucks DX12 results. Based on these results, not sure how some people think Geforce GTX 1060 DX12 performance will end up at Tonga levels.
Click to expand...

It s 1.5% faster, is that what you call barely matching the 980..?..

Or is you "metric" that it should be 15% faster to be considered as roughly matching the comparison..?.

That s a good start given the current games status, there s not much chances that the 980 will keep on better with more DX12ed games..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top