The gtx 1060

[Foruka_]

who else thinks the gtx 1060 will outperform the rx 480 at the time being released. Similiar specs as in same frame rate on same video games.

[Simon771]

Will see

About pricing, nvidia has done great, so it will be great competition for RX 480.

Not sure about performance yet, but it will be in around RX 480 performance. 10% better or worse, depending on games. That's just a guess, but in the past it was like that.

[HKZeroFive]

Too early to say.

 

Hype was a major downfall of the RX 480 (it's still a good card, but not even close to what people made it up to be), so don't speak too soon until the benchmarks come out.

[Foruka_]

I also believe that Nvidia has done a great job on pricing, but i feel that the rx 480 is much better than the gtx 1060 because it has 8 gb instead of 6. I feel that AMD is stronger in this price range than nvidia but then again the gtx 1060 is similar to the gtx 980. well supposedly they say. Like you said Simon771 will have to wait.

[Foruka_]

your right about that. Im still not buying any of the new gpus because im buying the r9 390 msi edition.

[Simon771]

1 minute ago, ItsDave said:

I also believe that Nvidia has done a great job on pricing, but i feel that the rx 480 is much better than the gtx 1060 because it has 8 gb instead of 6. I feel that AMD is stronger in this price range than nvidia but then again the gtx 1060 is similar to the gtx 980. well supposedly they say. Like you said Simon771 will have to wait.

None of those cards are meant for 4K gaming.

 

6GB or 8GB is more tah enough for 1080p and 1440p gaming.

So you can just forget about any kind of memory problems. Did you ever use more than 4GB vram anyway? I'm playing at 1440p and I didn't even go beyond 3,5GB ram usage on gpu.

I'm just interested what performance we will get from 1280 pascal cores

[Foruka_]

True im only doing 1080p gaming. also i know this is out of topic but i heard the r9 390 is better than the gtx 970 is that true?

[HKZeroFive]

3 minutes ago, ItsDave said:

True im only doing 1080p gaming. also i know this is out of topic but i heard the r9 390 is better than the gtx 970 is that true?

They more or less trade blows at 1080p. Once you scale up to 1440p, the R9 390 (IMO) is the better choice.

[Foruka_]

1 minute ago, HKZeroFive said:

They more or less trade blows at 1080p. Once you scale up to 1440p, the R9 390 (IMO) is the better choice.

Okay, i just need to wait and see and ill do my decision later on. also is the i5 6600k good for any of these cards.

[Briggsy]

AIB 1060's are launching alongside the flounders edition, so expect some interesting benchmarks.

[Devin92]

20 minutes ago, ItsDave said:

Okay, i just need to wait and see and ill do my decision later on. also is the i5 6600k good for any of these cards.

an i5 is gonna be fine for those card for sure. worst come to worst you can buy a decent cooler and overclock it to 5ghz LOL.

[othertomperson]

40 minutes ago, ItsDave said:

I also believe that Nvidia has done a great job on pricing, but i feel that the rx 480 is much better than the gtx 1060 because it has 8 gb instead of 6. I feel that AMD is stronger in this price range than nvidia but then again the gtx 1060 is similar to the gtx 980. well supposedly they say. Like you said Simon771 will have to wait.

Either of these could only have 4GB and you wouldn't tell the difference. This even assumes that Pascal hasn't improved on Maxwell's compression -- it has. You can't even run into the problem you had with the 960 whereby people SLI-ing them found themselves with a 980 equivalent with only 2GB of usable vram, which was absolutely not enough -- you cannot SLI this card by the looks of it.

 

You don't need more vram than the 980 Ti has, especially attached to a GPU that doesn't perform anything like as well as a 980 Ti

[Simon771]

53 minutes ago, ItsDave said:

True im only doing 1080p gaming. also i know this is out of topic but i heard the r9 390 is better than the gtx 970 is that true?

At 1080p they are mostly the same. Some games will prefer AMD and other nvidia.

At 1440p however, R9 390 might be 10% better.

 

Keep in mind that GTX 970 have 3,5GB ram acctually, so that's why R9 390 is better option with 8GB VRAM.

 

But GTX 1060 will have 6GB ram ... plenty for 1440p games.

6GB ram is what GTX 980 Ti have, and users were using it for 4K.

[Devin92]

22 minutes ago, Simon771 said:

At 1080p they are mostly the same. Some games will prefer AMD and other nvidia.

At 1440p however, R9 390 might be 10% better.

 

Keep in mind that GTX 970 have 3,5GB ram acctually, so that's why R9 390 is better option with 8GB VRAM.

 

But GTX 1060 will have 6GB ram ... plenty for 1440p games.

6GB ram is what GTX 980 Ti have, and users were using it for 4K.

but bandwidth is smaller isnt it?

1060 is 192 Gb/s and 980ti is 336 Gb/s. Will this make a difference in performance?

[Simon771]

1 minute ago, Devin92 said:

but bandwidth is smaller isnt it?

1060 is 192 Gb/s and 980ti is 336 Gb/s. Will this make a difference in performance?

I'm not sure about that. In theory it should make some difference, just don't know in what scenarios.

For 1080p gaming, both RX 480 and GTX 1060 will be your best bet ... that's for sure.

 

For 1440p, we need to wait for benchmarks to see how those specs are doing in real gaming.

[App4that]

1 hour ago, othertomperson said:

Either of these could only have 4GB and you wouldn't tell the difference. This even assumes that Pascal hasn't improved on Maxwell's compression -- it has. You can't even run into the problem you had with the 960 whereby people SLI-ing them found themselves with a 980 equivalent with only 2GB of usable vram, which was absolutely not enough -- you cannot SLI this card by the looks of it.

 

You don't need more vram than the 980 Ti has, especially attached to a GPU that doesn't perform anything like as well as a 980 Ti

There are already AIB cards that support SLI, only the reference PCB doesn't have fingers.

[othertomperson]

1 hour ago, App4that said:

There are already AIB cards that support SLI, only the reference PCB doesn't have fingers.

Fair enough. Not that I think you should be doubling up on this tier of card either way, now or in the future.

 

2 hours ago, Simon771 said:

Keep in mind that GTX 970 have 3,5GB ram acctually, so that's why R9 390 is better option with 8GB VRAM.

I can't believe people are still repeating this complete bullshit in July 2016.

[App4that]

10 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

Fair enough. Not that I think you should be doubling up on this tier of card either way, now or in the future.

 

I can't believe people are still repeating this complete bullshit in July 2016.

I know right? My buddy runs a 970 and has yet to have an issue because of his memory. And we play the same games.

[maulemall]

3 hours ago, HKZeroFive said:

Too early to say.

 

Hype was a major downfall of the RX 480 (it's still a good card, but not even close to what people made it up to be), so don't speak too soon until the benchmarks come out.

It did EXACTLY what AMD said it would do.

Any Hype or proliferation of hype was from people who were to lazy and dishonest to check it.

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, maulemall said:

It did EXACTLY what AMD said it would do.

Any Hype or proliferation of hype was from people who were to lazy and dishonest to check it.

So it uses 150w? 

[maulemall]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

So it uses 150w? 

So YOU as a reviewer can Unequivocally say it doesn't..

Show us YOUR work and proof that it doesn't.

[othertomperson]

45 minutes ago, maulemall said:

So YOU as a reviewer can Unequivocally say it doesn't..

Show us YOUR work and proof that it doesn't.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-10,review-33587-9.html

 

Here you go. It uses 164W.

 

It performs like a 970, uses more power than a 970, but is on a 14nm process rather than the 970's 28nm. Imo that's a bit of a fail tbh.

[Simon771]

1 hour ago, othertomperson said:

Fair enough. Not that I think you should be doubling up on this tier of card either way, now or in the future.

 

I can't believe people are still repeating this complete bullshit in July 2016.

I'm not saying that GTX 970 is bad or that it can't run games at 1080p.

But for games that uses more memory, R9 390 would be better option since it have 2x more memory. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[othertomperson]

11 minutes ago, Simon771 said:

I'm not saying that GTX 970 is bad or that it can't run games at 1080p.

But for games that uses more memory, R9 390 would be better option since it have 2x more memory. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Your words:

3 hours ago, Simon771 said:

Keep in mind that GTX 970 have 3,5GB ram acctually

Incorrect. It has 4GB vram. Speaking as someone who used this card for 4K gaming from October 2014 right up until earlier this month, it has 4GB vram. It can use 4GB vram. It has zero issues, no stuttering and no fps drop, associated with using more than 3.5GB vram. You are spreading misinformation.

 

In tests that compare a 290X with a downclocked 390X to give a true apples to apples comparison between a 4GB and 8GB version of the exact same card, the 8GB version gives 0 fps difference consistently.

 

If you want to game at 4 or 5K and actually stretch the vram of any of these, why the hell would you be using the 480, 1060, 970 or 980 in a world in which the 1080, 1070, Titan X, 980 Ti and Fury X all exist? Dual 970s for 4K made sense back in 2014 when the 980 Ti was only a rumour -- and one that Linus was adamant was false, btw. It doesn't make sense now.

[maulemall]

4 hours ago, maulemall said:

It did EXACTLY what AMD said it would do.

Any Hype or proliferation of hype was from people who were to lazy and dishonest to check it.

 

3 hours ago, othertomperson said:

Here you go. It uses 164W.

 

It performs like a 970, uses more power than a 970, but is on a 14nm process rather than the 970's 28nm. Imo that's a bit of a fail tbh.

 

4 hours ago, maulemall said:

So YOU as a reviewer can Unequivocally say it doesn't..

Show us YOUR work and proof that it doesn't.

Thank God you guys can cut and past toms