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

[Sonikku]

It will be a nice 1080p card. Easily. And The prices you suggest are crazy low. 199.00 is about right.

It would be crazy for Nvidia not to charge at least $199 because it's what they could get for one. Nvidia can't keep the 1060 in stock even without miners to contend with as it is.

 

[Sonikku]

No person can in good conscious recommend to their friend (or anyone) pay $199 for a new 3gb card in 2016. Why would you suggest buyers neuter themselves with hardware that is ostensibly limited in current games?

You have a much better-peforming $199 card at that price, not to mention the 470 for at least $20 cheaper that has a reasonable chance of outperforming it.

...you'd be the first nVidia guy (well, next to sweepr), that I have seen not criticizing this design. It really makes no sense today.

But here's the thing; Nvidia is under no obligation to provide a good value product for the money when the masses scoff at cards like the 290x. From a business perspective, if people are willing to buy an ill-equipped card because of a strong name brand then why not do so and fatten up the margins? Card fizzles quickly because not enough Vram? Boom. They buy another Nvidia card.

Nvidia doesn't have to cater exclusively to enthusiasts with sense and an eye for the future. They can make a very lucrative business model off of the misinformed masses alone with money to burn and a soft spot for name brand and marketing.

 

[zinfamous]

It would be crazy for Nvidia not to charge at least $199 because it's what they could get for one. Nvidia can't keep the 1060 in stock even without miners to contend with as it is.

weird, I've seen 1060s in stock at Amazon and Newegg the last two days. --not the MSRP but the ~$280 cards, I believe.

the only 480 I have seen in stock since release has been the lol $350 reference card that Amazon keeps listing.

 

[zinfamous]

But here's the thing; Nvidia is under no obligation to provide a good value product for the money when the masses scoff at cards like the 290x. From a business perspective, if people are willing to buy an ill-equipped card because of a strong name brand then why not do so and fatten up the margins? Card fizzles quickly because not enough Vram? Boom. They buy another Nvidia card.

Nvidia doesn't have to cater exclusively to enthusiasts with sense and an eye for the future. They can make a very lucrative business model off of the misinformed masses alone with money to burn and a soft spot for name brand and marketing.

right, that is their business. My point is that members of this board--those that tend to give advice to their friends that don't care about the technicalities, and the board itself acting as a review board for the piles of lurkers and others that ask questions--are doing a great disservice by recommending such a card, at such a price, considering the other cards in that class.

All things being equal, $199 for a 3gb card in 2016 that is supposed to compete with 4gb cards (or 6-8gb cards that are priced $40-50 more) is completely unconscionable. I daresay nVidia has earned that luxury through their marketing shenanigans over the years, but it is no less than Apple charging premium prices for mediocre guts and the "premium design" of an entirely special rectangle.

the 1060 6gb is a fine card--this 3gb is a steaming turd that no respectable techie would recommend to a friend at any price above $150 or 160.

 

[railven]

Nvidia doesn't have to cater exclusively to enthusiasts with sense and an eye for the future. They can make a very lucrative business model off of the misinformed masses alone with money to burn and a soft spot for name brand and marketing.

They've been making a killing with this. Even when I recommend AMD friends/family members still get Nvidia. Unless I'm at the store or placing the order, my suggestion for a GPU often goes unheard. Which, sort of annoys me.

I was at Microcenter and have first hand experience with sales clerks underselling AMD cards.

End of the day, NV's market brand/presence is huge, and these forums ain't going to do much to change that. Just cruising other forums that get 10-100x more this places traffic, NV is cemented as the go-to for PC Gaming.

NV knows this. And they are milking every single dime they can in the process.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Personally I am nervous about 4GB. Games that require a certain amount for settings plus Directx 12 VRAM bloat that we have seen means that I think soon games will cross the 4GB barrier even at 1080p. I think 6GB is fine, but I am sure glad AMD let me have another 4GB for free when I lacked the foresight to understand how much ram usage will jump. I think if you can't get a reference 4GB 480 that turns 8GB the next best card is a 6GB 1060.

 

[Himeko]

$400 in Europe.

 

[Sonikku]

They've been making a killing with this. Even when I recommend AMD friends/family members still get Nvidia. Unless I'm at the store or placing the order, my suggestion for a GPU often goes unheard. Which, sort of annoys me.

I was at Microcenter and have first hand experience with sales clerks underselling AMD cards.

End of the day, NV's market brand/presence is huge, and these forums ain't going to do much to change that. Just cruising other forums that get 10-100x more this places traffic, NV is cemented as the go-to for PC Gaming.

NV knows this. And they are milking every single dime they can in the process.

The damnest thing is that I knew all of this only too well and wanted another AMD card but couldn't get one. The only 480's I ever see in stock are $260+ variants that by that point are no longer a good value in my opinion. I kick myself for not pulling a Poofy on launch day and getting a 8gb $200 card. Even a 4gb $200 would have been good. But they are now a mirage.

 

[sze5003]

Personally I am nervous about 4GB. Games that require a certain amount for settings plus Directx 12 VRAM bloat that we have seen means that I think soon games will cross the 4GB barrier even at 1080p. I think 6GB is fine, but I am sure glad AMD let me have another 4GB for free when I lacked the foresight to understand how much ram usage will jump. I think if you can't get a reference 4GB 480 that turns 8GB the next best card is a 6GB 1060.

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.

 

[Sonikku]

On a personal note I think it's funny how we're all going crazy about 3gb of vram not being enough when the GPU in my main gaming machine right now has exactly... 1gb.

 

[railven]

On a personal note I think it's funny how we're all going crazy about 3gb of vram not being enough when the GPU in my main gaming machine right now has exactly... 1gb.

Damn, you must be hurtin'

WoW is destroying my VRAM and I still can't hit 60 FPS @ Level 10

 

[Sonikku]

Sad thing is I tried playing WoW on a hand-me-down I gave to my mother with a Core 2 Duo E6750 and a X1950XT when I was visiting and away from my main machine and that thing chokes. D:

The GOOD thing is it's perfect for playing pirated Vanilla WoW. :awe:

 

[Sonikku]

 

[sm625]

There is still no real evidence that 3GB is or is going to be insufficient within a 2 year service life of the product.

This article from 2016 concludes that there is virtually zero difference between 2GB and 4GB. And yet all these people are recommending what amounts to a $40 cost add just for an extra 3GB of RAM that most likely will not be needed. Show me the evidence. Show me even one situation where a $40 investment in VRAM beats out a $40 investment in more compute units.

 

[rancherlee]

There is still no real evidence that 3GB is or is going to be insufficient within a 2 year service life of the product.

This article from 2016 concludes that there is virtually zero difference between 2GB and 4GB. And yet all these people are recommending what amounts to a $40 cost add just for an extra 3GB of RAM that most likely will not be needed. Show me the evidence. Show me even one situation where a $40 investment in VRAM beats out a $40 investment in more compute units.

To me its really a non-issue, if the 3-4gb becomes an issue just bump back the textures a notch. 6gb or 8g will only really be needed if you don't mind playing at 40fps with everything maxed out on future titles. If your a 60 FPS+ or bust person I don't think the 1060 or 480 will push that with max settings in the future anyhow. That's where I'm at with my 7950, I can use more than the 3gb but usually settings that use that much drop me into the 30's and 40's.

 

[frozentundra123456]

To me its really a non-issue, if the 3-4gb becomes an issue just bump back the textures a notch. 6gb or 8g will only really be needed if you don't mind playing at 40fps with everything maxed out on future titles. If your a 60 FPS+ or bust person I don't think the 1060 or 480 will push that with max settings in the future anyhow. That's where I'm at with my 7950, I can use more than the 3gb but usually settings that use that much drop me into the 30's and 40's.

That is not really correct in all the games they tested. Even in these somewhat old games now, 2 games showed a 10% or greater difference at higher texture settings (Rainbow Seige and Mordor). And that was with a 960. The 1060 is considerably more powerful than the 960, and could use settings where more vram is utilized. OTOH, we are looking at 3gb vs 2gb, so it is hard to make a direct comparison.

All in all though, I think a 3gb 1060 is an unfortunate choice by nVidia. They are already taking a lot of criticism for their cards aging poorly, and how the 480 will become much better with DX12. (Note: I see this as likely, but perhaps not to the extent that some of the AMD fans are using to bash the 1060). Anyway, like I said in a previous post, having only 3gb of vram will only add fuel to the fire so to speak for those bashing nVidia cards for not aging well. To me, a 3gb 1060 would have to be considerably cheaper than the 4gb 480, but I doubt nVidia will price it that way.

 

[railven]

Ha-ha that made me laugh. Kudos.

 

[Keysplayr]

But here's the thing; Nvidia is under no obligation to provide a good value product for the money when the masses scoff at cards like the 290x. From a business perspective, if people are willing to buy an ill-equipped card because of a strong name brand then why not do so and fatten up the margins? Card fizzles quickly because not enough Vram? Boom. They buy another Nvidia card.

Nvidia doesn't have to cater exclusively to enthusiasts with sense and an eye for the future. They can make a very lucrative business model off of the misinformed masses alone with money to burn and a soft spot for name brand and marketing.

So, anyone who spends a ton on a graphics card must be misinformed? Small thinking, wouldn't you say?

 

[Sonikku]

We were talking about the 3gb 1060.

 

[Headfoot]

Love people rushing to defend 3GB 1060 in 2016. It's unbelievably transparent why this is happening.

It's coincidentally the same people who defended 2GB 680s versus 3GB 7970's in 2012. And we know how that turned out.

Don't be ignorant and either go 4GB RX 480 or save the $40 and get a 6GB 1060.

 

[Enigmoid]

Love people rushing to defend 3GB 1060 in 2016. It's unbelievably transparent why this is happening.

It's coincidentally the same people who defended 2GB 680s versus 3GB 7970's in 2012. And we know how that turned out.

Don't be ignorant and either go 4GB RX 480 or save the $40 and get a 6GB 1060.

Sure, and you had the 4 GB fury arguments and the 7850 1 GB arguments too.

As far as vram concerns as cards aged I think the 7850 1 GB crowd got screwed over the most.

 

[zinfamous]

So, anyone who spends a ton on a graphics card must be misinformed? Small thinking, wouldn't you say?

It seems you are talking about paying a ton of money for a card with top? performance, and with no competition in its class. That is pure market.

What you are responding to is a discussion about paying too much for a card that is already handicapped within its class and loses to the existing competition.

 

[frozentundra123456]

It seems you are talking about paying a ton of money for a card with top? performance, and with no competition in its class. That is pure market.

What you are responding to is a discussion about paying too much for a card that is already handicapped within its class and loses to the existing competition.

Any benchmarks to back that up? I agree that 3gb is a bad idea, but since there are no benchmarks for the 3gb 1060, it is premature to say it is handicapped in its class.

Edit: I mean in current games, not some speculative universe in 2 years.

 

[Headfoot]

As far as vram concerns as cards aged I think the 7850 1 GB crowd got screwed over the most.

Yeah, agreed. That was a terrible card. Honestly, if your budget can't reach a card with enough VRAM to be worth it just dont buy anything until it can. It's complete false economy. Buyers are infinitely better off just waiting and saving a little longer to get the better cards. This is $40 we're talking about. If you can spend $200 on a card that last $40-50 isn't going to kill anyone. And you likely gain a year of usable life on the back end of the card versus the VRAM gimped version

 

[bystander36]

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.