RX 480 or GTX 1060 Mini 3GB

[justin4pack]

There are some threads about the 480 as well as the mini 3gb vs the 6gb but im looking for more specific opinions on the rx 480 and the 1060 mini 3gb. Since jet now has a 480 for under 200 it makes it a viable option vs the mini. I will only be doing 1080p single screen gaming. Battlefield 1 will be a game i play alot.

 

[Alqoxzt]

There are some threads about the 480 as well as the mini 3gb vs the 6gb but im looking for more specific opinions on the rx 480 and the 1060 mini 3gb. Since jet now has a 480 for under 200 it makes it a viable option vs the mini. I will only be doing 1080p single screen gaming. Battlefield 1 will be a game i play alot.

Right now 1060 is ahead in your game but hey divison was also faster on amd when it was in beta but on release there was not much difference. and 3gb????? no way.

 

[tviceman]

The 1060 3gb is currently significantly faster than the 480 in BF1, but the 3gb card is really hard for me to recommend unless you plan on upgrading again in 12 months or so.

If you plan on using the card longer than 12-15 months, I say get the rx 480. If you plan on upgrading by then or sooner, then the 1060 3gb will be good.

 

[Leyawiin]

Sapphire Ntro RX 480 4GB for $226.75 vs. MSI GTX 1060 3GB for $226.37 Twin Frozr OC (yeah, I checked Jet) for 1080p? Flip a coin.

 

[justin4pack]

Im leaning towered the evga SC version.

 

[Gikaseixas]

RX 480

 

[Phynaz]

Im leaning towered the evga SC version.

Good idea.

 

[justin4pack]

Pulled the trigger on the 1060 3gb.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[lixlax]

3GB may end up being too little for smooth experience at 1080p.

They didn't state on gamegpu if the test was done under DX11 or DX12, assuming DX11 and DX12 is likely to consume even more. Yes, the result is under 3072MB but assuming the game isn't the only program that uses vram some memory dumping and lag may therefore occur. Ofcourse this is only beta and they can optimize it before launch or the settings can be turned down for better perfomance. In my personal opinion a 4GB 480 would have been a bit better card for that game.

 

[Axon]

Much like I could not recommend the GTX 960 2gb under any circumstances, I cannot recommend the 1060 3gb. Hopefully it works out nicely and is a non-issue.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Pulled the trigger on the 1060 3gb.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Congrats, it should be a solid performer.

 

[DamZe]

(Pulls down mic hanging from the ceiling)

"Ladies and gentlemen, tonight fighting for entry level/midrange dominance, in the green corner it’s the shamelessly castrated 1060, missing 128 shaders and with 3 GB of RAM, it runs great now, in a year you can start digging a hole to bury it in. In the red corner sits the undisputed RX480, the people's champion (XD), it has a 256-bit bus, more bandwidth than it’s castrated 1060 competition, more shaders, gets a great boost from async compute, and comes with an extra 1GB of framebuffer, and is burdened by AMD overall lackluster DX11 performance in older games."

(Two new contesters enter the ring)

"What do we have here, DX12 and Vulkan just stepped into the ring, challenging the 1060 3GB card, they are siding with the RX480, this is becoming an unfair fight!"

Joking aside, the RX480 4GB/8GB will always be a better buy than the 1060 Lite Edition, but seeing as you have already pulled the trigger on the 1060 3GB then I hope it will serve you well.

 

[Gikaseixas]

(Pulls down mic hanging from the ceiling)

"Ladies and gentlemen, tonight fighting for entry level/midrange dominance, in the green corner it’s the shamelessly castrated 1060, missing 128 shaders and with 3 GB of RAM, it runs great now, in a year you can start digging a hole to bury it in. In the red corner sits the undisputed RX480, the people's champion (XD), it has a 256-bit bus, more bandwidth than it’s castrated 1060 competitor, more shaders, gets a great boost from async compute, and comes with an extra 1GB of framebuffer, and is burdened by AMD overall lackluster DX11 performance in older games."

(Two new contesters enter the ring)

"What do we have here, DX12 and Vulkan just stepped into the ring, challenging the 1060 3GB card, they are siding with the RX480, this is becoming an unfair fight!"

Joking aside, the RX480 4GB/8GB will always be a better buy than the 1060 Lite Edition, but seeing as you have already pulled the trigger on the 1060 3GB then I hope will serve you well.

Awesome post lol. Hope OP enjoys his 1060 but i suspect he will be looking to upgrade sooner than he thinks.

Sent from my HUAWEI MT7-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[justin4pack]

Every benchmark I find shows the 1060 3gb beating the rx 480. These tests were geared toward the 470 but you can see the 480 was also beaten by the little guy. Yes it does trade some blows but when u take into consideration power draw and size it seems to be a no brainer. http://www.babeltechreviews.com/evga-gtx-1060-3gb-vs-red-devil-rx-470/

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

 

[USER8000]

Every benchmark I find shows the 1060 3gb beating the rx 480. These tests were geared toward the 470 but you can see the 480 was also beaten by the little guy. Yes it does trade some blows but when u take into consideration power draw and size it seems to be a no brainer. http://www.babeltechreviews.com/evga-gtx-1060-3gb-vs-red-devil-rx-470/

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Some of us remember the 8800GT 256MB,8800GTS 320MB,etc and similar cards. The VRAM limited cards looked good at the beginning and started getting worse and worse. The 8800GT 256MB lost performance so bad,a 9600GT(same generation of GPU) with nearly half the shaders beat it since it had more VRAM.

Plus,Digital Foundry and Guru3D,noted that the 3GB card in certain situations with newer games had performance issues and stutters too.

That is in the Rise of the Tombraider and Hitman 2016. Deus Ex:Mankind Revolution is also VRAM heavy. Its part of a continuing trend.

Most review sites are not here to make estimations of how long cards will last - but even then The Digital Foundry and Guru3D said to spend the extra and get the GTX1060 6GB.

A while back people said the GTX960 2GB and R9 380 2GB cards were fine and 4GB versions were pointless. Yet late last year,one of the big german websites tested the 4GB versions,and frametimes were much better.

You need to also think about this - on Steam 3GB cards are rare - its either 1GB,2GB or 4GB cards. Those 4GB cards are most likely the GTX970 and GTX980. Hence more and more developers will be targetting that level of performance and more than 3GB of VRAM and AMD and Nvidia want to sell more expensive cards. There is a lot for them to gain from increasing VRAM usage.

Now,look at the Founders Edition PCB - its wired for a 256 bit memory controller. That either means the GP106 has a 256 bit memory controller and the refresh of the GTX1060 will have 4GB of VRAM in its cheapest version,or Nvidia will use a cut down GP104 instead.

Don't believe me?? Nvidia replaced the GTX660 with its GK106 GPU with one from the GTX680,ie,GK104 in a cut down form with the GTX760.

The GTX1050 leak says its a 4GB card too.

Edit to post.

Digital Foundry is more a gaming orientated website and they said the following:

In the here and now, the three gig GTX 1060 is a good card with excellent performance at its £189/$199 price-point, but its VRAM allocation may well hit its limits more quickly than the four gigs found in the RX 470/480. None of the new wave of sub-£200/$200 graphics cards should be entirely ruled out, and this pared back GTX 1060 still packs plenty of punch - but investing just a little extra in the GTX 1060 6GB would be our recommendation. With certain six gig versions retailing under the initial suggested price-point, grabbing the more capable model needn't break the bank.

It makes sense if you are keeping the card for the next two to three years.

 

[justin4pack]

I see your point. Is there a release date for the 1050?

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

 

[USER8000]

I see your point. Is there a release date for the 1050?

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

October according to the latest leaks.

 

[zinfamous]

no credible techie will recommend that 3gb "1060" for anyone that is looking at that class of cards. There is simply no good reason to recommend a DOA card that is already limited with current VRAM hungry games, that are only getting hungrier. Bear in mind that anyone claiming "3gb is enough," are the very same people that said "256mb is enough" or "1gb is enough!" or "2gb is enough!" etc, every single time, despite the competitors of that time clearly proving why those lower VRAM, overpriced dogs were poor offerings. Even worse, the price differential between VRAM offerings today is drastically less than it was 5, 3, even 2 years ago. These guys will also point out that "1060 3gb outperforms 480/470 in some benchmarks!" Great, let me justify 2-5 fps greater performance on medium texture settings compared to the competitor that is able to use ultra texture settings with greater VRAM, on a card that costs the same...just so I can own nVidia. It makes no sense.

1060 6gb or 480 4/8gb are the only cards you should be considering at that price level. Or even the 470 4/8gb.

EDIT: dang, too late. Sorry OP, but you got some terrible advice earlier :\

 

[Azix]

I couldnt buy a 1060 because I think its going to get destroyed by the 480 in new games. How could I justify it if a 1400+mhz 480 is doing well against 2100Mhz 1060 in dx11? This is the 6Gb 1060 I am talking about. Reviews showing throttling 480 within 10% of 1060 cards that are boosting over 1800 and 1900 just do not give me that confidence in the 1060 not ending up like the 960 vs the competition.

Battlefield results are preliminary. Might be the optimization for AMD is going into dx12 and not dx11, not to mention its beta. AMD isn't optimizing for a beta to a game over a month away.

I'd never consider a 3GB 1060. You are setting up yourself to end up worse than the 960.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I couldnt buy a 1060 because I think its going to get destroyed by the 480 in new games. How could I justify it if a 1400+mhz 480 is doing well against 2100Mhz 1060 in dx11? This is the 6Gb 1060 I am talking about. Reviews showing throttling 480 within 10% of 1060 cards that are boosting over 1800 and 1900 just do not give me that confidence in the 1060 not ending up like the 960 vs the competition.

Battlefield results are preliminary. Might be the optimization for AMD is going into dx12 and not dx11, not to mention its beta. AMD isn't optimizing for a beta to a game over a month away.

I'd never consider a 3GB 1060. You are setting up yourself to end up worse than the 960.

,
So you choose to ignore data from a current (admittedly beta) game, made by a close partner of AMD, and base a buying decision on what *might* happen in the future? OK, if you say so. I will say it again though, if one wants to rule out the 3gb 1060 totally, based on vram, and expect a card to last 2 or 3 years, then a 4gb card has to be very questionable as well.

 

[Erithan13]

So you choose to ignore data from a current (admittedly beta) game, made by a close partner of AMD, and base a buying decision on what *might* happen in the future?

Of all the predictions about the future development of games, expecting that they will need more vram should surely be the least controversial. It's not exactly unprecedented in the past decade or two that requirements keep increasing and cards with less vram are at risk of being left behind. Debating 6GB vs 8GB is IMO largely immaterial right now, 3GB vs 6GB is absolutely not. If a 3GB 1060 has been purchased on the basis of offering great performance for older less demanding titles with the knowledge that 3GB limit has to be kept in mind that's one thing. For current and future titles that 3GB is going to be a serious hindrance.

OK, if you say so. I will say it again though, if one wants to rule out the 3gb 1060 totally, based on vram, and expect a card to last 2 or 3 years, then a 4gb card has to be very questionable as well.

Yes, exactly, and conversely if one tries to justify a 3GB card as being acceptable in 2016 then a 4GB card has to be as well, it goes both ways. This is why the 4/8GB 480 vs the 3/6GB 1060 can be so fascinating. 3GB is fine, but that can't be argued without giving the same due to the 4GB 480, but the 6GB 1060 is better than the 4GB 480, but the 8GB 480 is pointless overkill, etc. Seems as if the optimal amount of vram is always what's found on NV cards....(not directing this at you BTW. Just noting some of the mental gymnastics going on trying to defend this card.)

For the record you will not see me saying the 4GB 480 is a good buy for games going forward, 4GB is at best the bare minimum for cards in the 480/1060 level. Really anyone remotely concerned about getting some mileage out of their card for the future should be steering well clear of 4GB. This is why people recommend against the 3GB 1060, because we legitimately do not want people having a bad experience with the card tanking compared to the 6GB model, at that point the question becomes 'was saving that small amount of cash vs the 6GB card worth it'? Especially if the 4GB 470/80 does manage to cling to life meaningfully longer based on vram alone.

 

[Azix]

,
So you choose to ignore data from a current (admittedly beta) game, made by a close partner of AMD, and base a buying decision on what *might* happen in the future? OK, if you say so. I will say it again though, if one wants to rule out the 3gb 1060 totally, based on vram, and expect a card to last 2 or 3 years, then a 4gb card has to be very questionable as well.

"admittedly beta". key. and if what people meant by 1060 is faster than 480 in it is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcNgLyRTMuo - the difference in performance is pretty minimal. I dont expect dx12 will perform worse than dx11 in battlefield to the point that the difference remains.

4GB is better than 3GB, but the additional problem for me is the 1060 3GB is not the 1060 6GB. You're going to hit problems sooner with both the cut down performance and the smaller VRAM.

 

[USER8000]

I didn't realise Rise of the Tombraider was an AMD sponsored game - Digital Foundry saw issues.

However,for some this more a brand war than giving good advice - the GTX1060 6GB is worth the extra over the 3GB model.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Of all the predictions about the future development of games, expecting that they will need more vram should surely be the least controversial. It's not exactly unprecedented in the past decade or two that requirements keep increasing and cards with less vram are at risk of being left behind. Debating 6GB vs 8GB is IMO largely immaterial right now, 3GB vs 6GB is absolutely not. If a 3GB 1060 has been purchased on the basis of offering great performance for older less demanding titles with the knowledge that 3GB limit has to be kept in mind that's one thing. For current and future titles that 3GB is going to be a serious hindrance.



Yes, exactly, and conversely if one tries to justify a 3GB card as being acceptable in 2016 then a 4GB card has to be as well, it goes both ways. This is why the 4/8GB 480 vs the 3/6GB 1060 can be so fascinating. 3GB is fine, but that can't be argued without giving the same due to the 4GB 480, but the 6GB 1060 is better than the 4GB 480, but the 8GB 480 is pointless overkill, etc. Seems as if the optimal amount of vram is always what's found on NV cards....(not directing this at you BTW. Just noting some of the mental gymnastics going on trying to defend this card.)

For the record you will not see me saying the 4GB 480 is a good buy for games going forward, 4GB is at best the bare minimum for cards in the 480/1060 level. Really anyone remotely concerned about getting some mileage out of their card for the future should be steering well clear of 4GB. This is why people recommend against the 3GB 1060, because we legitimately do not want people having a bad experience with the card tanking compared to the 6GB model, at that point the question becomes 'was saving that small amount of cash vs the 6GB card worth it'? Especially if the 4GB 470/80 does manage to cling to life meaningfully longer based on vram alone.

I never *ever* said 3gb vram is optimal. What I said was that if one totally disqualifies a card from purchase because it only has 3gb vram, a 4gb card then has to be consider marginal as well. All I am saying is that *based on the data we have*, the 3gb card performs fine. Everything else is conjecture. I just dont think all the absolute negative statements are justified, such as posters saying it is "trash" or a "non-starter", or implying anyone who recommends the card is either biased or technically inept. It is cheaper than the 6gb model, a fact which the bashers dont seem to mention, so one must accept additional compromises, although actually, at 25% less expensive than the 6gb model, it offers better performance per dollar in current games than the 6gb model (~25% more expensive, but <10% better performance). And even if it falls behind in future games relative to the 6gb model by an additional 15 to 20%, it still will be competitive based on a price/performance ratio.

I also dont agree with the posters who claim a 200.00 card should last several years, while a much more expensive card will be replaced more often. Personally I view it as just the opposite. If I bought a 400.00 1070 or 600.00 1080, I certainly would expect it to last longer than a 200.00 1060 3gb model.

 

[Bacon1]

How can people say that 4GB is limiting because 3GB is with a straight face? There is 25% difference in total memory capacity between 3GB and 4GB.

Are you going to say that the 2GB 460 is an amazing buy? It's only 1GB less than 3GB after all.

Last generations mid-top end cards all had at least 4GB of ram.

970, 980, 980 ti, 290, 390, Fury. There is no reason to buy a card with less than 4GB these days, it's better to buy an older card over the 3GB one.

Developers are going to use 4GB as their point of reference when designing their "high" end textures and effects cut off area. "Ultra" ish ones might end up using more, but we've yet to see any noticeable effects for those.

Just amazing to see the same people that said Fury was limited by 4GB at release but the 3GB 1060 is going to be totally fine for the next few years.