RX 480 vs GTX 1060 (same price)

[raghu78]

Maxwell, the 7970, the 280x , the 780, the 780ti have nothing to do with PAscal and the 1060 vs the 480 for the same price.
ANd that goes for consoles also.

I disagree. One of the main reasons the AMD older GCN GPUs are performing so well today is the GCN DNA in consoles. The same DNA is present in PS4 Pro and Scorpio. The game developers optimize the games for the consoles and GCN architecture and the PC ports benefit automatically. We are likely to see a wave of next gen console games optimized around Polaris (PS4 Pro) and Vega (Scorpio). With GPUOpen making it easy to bring console optimizations to PC as exemplified by Doom's GCN shader intrinsics its evident that AMD has the right long term strategy.

 

[MajinCry]

Since OP is planning to keep the card for more than a year, AMD is what he'll be wanting. NVidia has shown that they'll abandon their previous generation cards once the new ones release. That ain't good.

 

[raghu78]

OH I get it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Its ok for the 1060 to be faster, quieter, use less power, overclock better and have better VR performance, but if Maddie says go AMD , we should go AMD.

When you guys who fall for this are done buying your cards ,I have some swamp land to sell you that in my opinion is not that wet and could become dryer in the future.

If you cannot see the relation between AMD PC GCN GPUs longevity and the consoles GCN DNA you are in denial.

 

[Gorbugal]

When you guys who fall for this are done buying your cards ,I have some swamp land to sell you that in my opinion is not that wet and could become dryer in the future.

That's a pretty disingenuous analogy, you keep saying things like "magic eight ball" and can't predict the future. People predicting this on the basis of past trends is hardly equivalent to crystal ball gazing. Nobody can know for sure granted, but the OP I'm certain understands that and is asking people to speculate on what card would be best for "at least 3 years".

I agree with the flip a coin position. The 480 might be slower now but is the difference enough to noticeably change your experience? The extra VRAM has never hurt anyone in the long run (which the OP is in for) and the power efficiency might matter if you game 8 hours a day but you've probably got other more pressing issues than power bills if that's the case. I'd very, very slightly lean towards the 480 but there is no wrong choice here, both card will serve you well.

 

[daxzy]

Stop changing the subject....

I'll say it again...for the same price the 1060 is the better card, the faster card, the quieter card, the card that uses less power, the card that overclocks better.

Get over it, these are the facts.

If you want to predict the future, your in the wrong forum.

No dude, you're changing the subject. The OP specifically asks what each card may look like after a 3 year lifespan, and you consistently ignore it. I've pointed out reviews 3 years apart where 2GB Kepler cards just don't deliver anymore. It doesn't take a genius to realize the GTX 1060 6GB (at the same price as a RX 480 8GB) is slightly (~10%) better in current games, minus a few outliers, while being about 50% more energy efficient. A major point the OP taking the question to a HW forum is so we can debate on what might happen in the future. You simply cannot ignore the fact that Nvidia does sh!tty handling of N-2 generation cards (right now that'd be Kepler, but Fermi was also sh!tty when Maxwell launched).

You could also say it takes AMD quite a long time to get their drivers rights...either way, I'd rather have the faster, quieter card now, and see what happens about DX12 later. As is now, they are neck and neck with DX12.

Yes, that is also a reasonable conclusion.

And FYI, if I were in the same situation, I'd buy a GTX 1060 6GB. But as soon as Nvidia drops support of driver optimizations (like they've done with Maxwell), I'd upgrade or sidegrade (if I had no money) to Vega or Volta, whichever is better.

 

[ConsoleLover]

Right now 1060 6GB is better in DX11, but not by much. I mean there are certain titles its even 20% faster, but in most the difference is 5%-10% faster, but 480 8GB wins in pretty much every DX12 title and this is without the real proper DX12 optimizations. Most games designed today are dual designed, meaning for DX11 and DX12, some have DX12 'tacked' on, so not even DX12 designed, yet DX12 shows much better performance on AMD's hardware.

So essentially pick your poison, if you plan to play mostly DX11 titles for the next year(both dx12 and dx11 titles are coming out) then go for the 1060 6gb, if not go for the RX 480 8gb. This said AMD has started optimizing their DX11 drivers and are gaining boosts in several DX11 games, significant boosts, so if they continue with this trend we may actually see the 480 equalling the 1060 in dx11 and beating it in dx12, so wait and see game.

Ultimately I'd wait till close to new year and see how prices line up then. I think once we get stable stock we might see many of these cards drop in price, especially as sales start to slow down.

 

[guachi]

I bought a 480 instead of a 1060 because I also upgraded my monitor.

Freesync is far cheaper than Gsync and has a greater selection of monitors available. You can get a Freesync monitor and a 480 for the price of a Gsync monitor.

A roughly 5% faster 1060 wasn't worth it over the benefits of adaptive sync.

As future games push your fps lower and lower adaptive sync will continue to give you a good, smooth play experience.

For me, because I was looking at adaptive sync, the competitive price of a 1060 compared to a 480 was $0.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

I bought a 480 instead of a 1060 because I also upgraded my monitor.

Freesync is far cheaper than Gsync and has a greater selection of monitors available. You can get a Freesync monitor and a 480 for the price of a Gsync monitor.

A roughly 5% faster 1060 wasn't worth it over the benefits of adaptive sync.

As future games push your fps lower and lower adaptive sync will continue to give you a good, smooth play experience.

This IMO is the only important advantage the 480 has right now, but it's a solid one. Unfortunately, the 1060 seems to be ahead in most every way apart from that.

 

[tviceman]

I think right now the 1060 is generally the better buy at the same price. Usually better performance, lower power consumption, better overclocking. However the recommendation is still game dependent, as some games favor one GPU vs. another.

 

[SPBHM]

480 being sold at the same price as the 1060 is a fail,
480 was supposed to push for lower prices, and it should, since it's not as fast and not as efficient (also not as good for OC),

 

[Shmee]

Please try to cool it guys, quit arguing.

With that said, the 1060 is currently winning a bit, but previous trends show AMD cards pulling ahead after a couple years or more, going back to GCN 1.0. If the OP wants longevity out of this purchase, the 480 may have that going for it. Note that both of them should mine fairly well, but AMD is generally easier to setup for new miners.

 

[alcoholbob]

That's pretty pretentious to say that in 3 years both cards will be worthless. Plenty of people are running 3 year old mid-high end cards and play most games at high/1080p just fine.

And AMD cards have a past history of being better over a period of time than Nvidia. Whether or not that will hold true with Polaris is not certain, but it's far better than your magic 8 ball, just see Kepler/Fermi vs GCN 1.0.

I think it's worth considering given the console ecosystem is now like Windows, with quicker upgrade cycles. In 3 years we could be looking at another half cycle, in which case a 1060 or RX 480 level product would be slower than the consoles. So you'd be looking at a competent card that could certainly run games at minimum or near medium details, but they'd be definitely behind the curve even in multiplatform titles.

 

[GaiaHunter]

It is a though choice.
The good news are they are both good cards.

5 years ago the 1060 would be the recommendation but now there is a pattern since the 7970 vs GTX680 that AMD cards seem to start worse when compared to NVIDIA cards but age better.

 

[MarkizSchnitzel]

I really don't understand why would you buy a mid range GPU as "an investment in the future".
Is it worth it suffering half of the card lifetime, to potentially have slightly better performance the other half?

 

[greatnoob]

I really don't understand why would you buy a mid range GPU as "an investment in the future".
Is it worth it suffering half of the card lifetime, to potentially have slightly better performance the other half?

No sane, rational person would spend $400-1200 on a card to get marginally better looking visuals. Not everybody is a 24/7 hardcore XXXXXXTREME gamer.

 

[antihelten]

price = even
quiet = 1060
power consumption =1060
performance =1060
overclocking =1060
drivers= even?
VR performance = 1060

GTX 680 vs. 7970 at launch:

price = 680
quiet = 680
power consumption =680
performance =680
overclocking = 7970
drivers= 680
VR performance = N/A

GTX 680 vs. 7970 3 years later? Very different picture.

History is obviously not a perfect predictor of the future, but to pretend that it tells us nothing is just plain disingenuous.

 

[mohit9206]

Buy a 1060 simply because AMD failed to keep their promise for $200 RX480.Both being same price,the faster card now is the better card.Extra 2GB vram on RX480 is nice and all but it will be atleast 2 years before that extra vram comes into play.

 

[antihelten]

Buy a 1060 simply because AMD failed to keep their promise for $200 RX480.Both being same price,the faster card now is the better card.Extra 2GB vram on RX480 is nice and all but it will be atleast 2 years before that extra vram comes into play.

So between the 8GB 480 and the 6GB 1060, he should get the 1060 because the 4GB 480 (a completely different card than the ones mentioned) isn't available at $200? I really don't get the logic here?

 

[happy medium]

I have an idea. Why don't we make a 7970 vs 680 4gb ,3years later thread.
this is the 1060 vs the 480 thread.

 

[frozentundra123456]

No sane, rational person would spend $400-1200 on a card to get marginally better looking visuals. Not everybody is a 24/7 hardcore XXXXXXTREME gamer.

That was not the point. The point is that console graphics, and consequently PC requirements for AAA games, seem to be advancing rapidly, and if you want a competent mid range card in three years, you need to buy something like a 1070 with a lot of extra headroom now. This forum, for whatever reason, has somehow delved into somehow expecting a low/midrange card to be "future proof", in exactly the opposite of what makes sense, that if you want something to be "future proof", you should buy something with extra headroom now, or be willing to sacrifice settings or replace the card in 2 or 3 years.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Is it worth it suffering half of the card lifetime, to potentially have slightly better performance the other half?

We are talking about a slight better performance in games during a period where both cards easily achieve playable performance against a time where potentially better performance might be the difference between a good experience and a frustrating experience.

Suffering above 60 fps vs slightly more above 60 fps isn't really suffering.

 

[repoman0]

I wanted to get the RX480, but for whatever reason when I put the MSI one into my PC, it could no longer wake up from standby. I had bought a used one from Microcenter, looked brand new but I took it back and replaced it with a new one -- same problem. Unfortunately it was a deal breaker so I went with a 1060 instead, which works fine. Nvidia's track record of card obsolescence in newer games irritates me, but if/when that happens I'll just sell it and buy whatever AMD card is out and hope sleep mode works by that point.

It hasn't been a particularly exciting upgrade ... I had a 290 before, but needed HDMI 2.0. The best part is it doesn't throw 250 watts worth of heat into my case.

 

[guachi]

price = even
quiet = 1060
power consumption =1060
performance =1060
overclocking =1060
drivers= even?
VR performance = 1060

Price - The OP has stated for sake of discussion that the prices of the two cards are the same and they basically are the same, at least here in the US.

Quiet - While the reference 480 is the loudest 480, I own one and I still haven't ever heard the fan. That being said, you can get quiet 480s easily enough so it's not really advantage 1060. The 1060 may test quieter, but if you can't hear the fan it doesn't matter what the dB are at some point.

Power Consumption -Over three years the 1060 will probably save you about $15 so when it's all said and done, the prices aren't actually equal. Though there is nothing stopping your from setting up a low voltage profile for your 480 and mining away on it.

Performance - The 1060 is about 5% faster at stock.

Overclock - I checked a review of an ASUS ROG Strix 1060 OC and 480 OC and the 1060 was... 5% faster.
So it doesn't look the the 1060 is significantly better at OC than a 480

Drivers - I can't comment on drivers specifically. I actually own a 480 so I always check to see what the new drivers bring and they seem to have constant updates for games that people use as benchmarks.

VR Performance - I suppose the 1060 is faster but, frankly, I just don't care.

So that yields:
Price = even
Quiet = even
Power = $15 to the 1060
Performance = 5% to the 1060
OC = even
Drivers = even (with the caveat that AMD will likely support the 480 longer)
VRAM = 2GB to the 480 (though I have yet to see it actually matter)
VR = Don't care
Adaptive Sync = $100-300 to the 480.

If you look at benchmarks, you'll see that with a Freesync monitor you can actually game at 1440 with the 480 as almost every game will be above the Freesync floor. And if it's not, you can always bump settings down to 'High' vice 'Very High'. I don't think you could actually game with the 1060 at 1440 without almost every game being below 60 fps and you'd have constant screen tearing.

If you game at 1080/60 then it doesn't really matter which card you get.

 

[YBS1]

The fastest GTX 1060 / 6700K combo in the world.
Yep, so much faster than those RX 480's. So much overclocking headroom.....

Timespy

Firestrike

 

[IllogicalGlory]

You won't be getting 1450MHz+ RX 480 overclocks without watercooling. 2100MHz on a 1060 can be achieved with almost any custom version.