How can a gtx 1060 get outdated?

[The Torrent]

Just been playing modern warfare on 3440x1440 max settings accept the bad ones 75percent render scaling at 80fps and this is a gpu I got for £100 a few months ago and I’m just thinking how easy budget gaming is gonna become. How much better can they make graphics really?

now I’m starting to see 2 things, 1 everyone soon even at super budget levels are gonna have very solid performance graphics cards and currently I’m seeing the performance out of cards increasing quicker than the engines need for power for higher quality graphics.

this is great as everyone can run everything but isn’t there gonna start being a split in the market?

 

if someone can hit their monitor at 1440p 144fps and thats capped, are they ever really gonna upgrade? Or need to upgrade? The hunger from graphics engines is not increasing proportionally.

 

so I’m thinking there’s gonna start being a split in the market with people who care about graphics and rtx(which inside rtx I feel there will be a split again soon) and people who don’t want to waste money but upgrading their gpu’s due to the performance of their cards already making out their monitor. So basically let’s say if they refreshed gtx 1000, most people will go gtx 1060, nobody will go middle of the line, then loads of people will go gtx 1080ti. How do you think the gpu market will counter this?

 

who else is thinking about this? My thoughts coming in while I’m typing so it’s not all making sense probably.
 

also are forums down? Activity tab not working for me. (1st November, 11:50 gmt)

[DoctorNick]

Is this a new thing? Some people care about graphics and some don't. Most games run on lower/mid-end hardware with low/medium settings. Depending on resolution of course. Price/performance scales almost 1:1 - comparing a GTX 1060 to 1080ti in my case I have both in two systems. 1060 is about 1/3 performance of the 1080ti and 1/3 the price (from new) 

[Bruno_A]

Those are impressive numbers with your 1060. Is this the campaign?

[RhysMusique]

60-series graphics cards are the lowest end of the true high performance graphics card offering. So you'd expect that within a few generations, since GTX 1060 there's been RTX 2060 and now RTX 2060 SUPER, as well as Nvidia filling the gaps by introducing the 1660 and now 1660 SUPER cards. Call of Duty will have been created with that in mind, since it has settings for Ray Tracing etc.

 

ALL hardware gets outdated. I remember a few Titan cards 4-5 years ago, and thinking 'Wow, nothing will beat that for under $1000 for many many years to come'. Now we have 70-series cards easily pushing them aside. There is no such thing as futureproofing, especially at the low end. I've just replaced a GTX 980Ti in my system because it was a VRAM bottleneck in my system.

 

All that said, you don't /have/ to have a brand new expensive GPU to get the best out of games, you just need to start making small tradeoffs. Render detail vs framerate, framerate vs resolution, resolution vs render detail, things like that. Play around with the settings and you'll find a happy medium in most games for a few years to come.

 

Apologies if this sounded harsh but tech moves fast and the market leaders are market leaders for a reason. They innovate with every iteration.

 

Rhys

[The Torrent]

1 hour ago, RhysMusique said:

60-series graphics cards are the lowest end of the true high performance graphics card offering. So you'd expect that within a few generations, since GTX 1060 there's been RTX 2060 and now RTX 2060 SUPER, as well as Nvidia filling the gaps by introducing the 1660 and now 1660 SUPER cards. Call of Duty will have been created with that in mind, since it has settings for Ray Tracing etc.

 

ALL hardware gets outdated. I remember a few Titan cards 4-5 years ago, and thinking 'Wow, nothing will beat that for under $1000 for many many years to come'. Now we have 70-series cards easily pushing them aside. There is no such thing as futureproofing, especially at the low end. I've just replaced a GTX 980Ti in my system because it was a VRAM bottleneck in my system.

 

All that said, you don't /have/ to have a brand new expensive GPU to get the best out of games, you just need to start making small tradeoffs. Render detail vs framerate, framerate vs resolution, resolution vs render detail, things like that. Play around with the settings and you'll find a happy medium in most games for a few years to come.

 

Apologies if this sounded harsh but tech moves fast and the market leaders are market leaders for a reason. They innovate with every iteration.

 

Rhys

I get that, but look how far graphics have also come and demand from the engine itself to push out better graphics,

 

but as i said looking at mw graphics, im starting to notice that gpu's are getting better faster and faster as they do, but the demand from the engine themselves due to optimization and what not is getting less and less so eventually theres gotta be a point where high end gpu's theres no point off - but the gpu market cant let that happen, can it?

1 hour ago, bruny06 said:

Those are impressive numbers with your 1060. Is this the campaign?

yes, i was impressed too.

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

so 1080p which is what the 1060 excels at.

 

 

some people want 4k, some want 240hz. there's a number of situations that the 1060 just cannot cope with. It's great if it suits everything you want it to do. but it will not be able to keep up forever, you'll eventually have to start lowering your settings to get smooth frame rates

ok so maybe not 1060 thats my case, but is there really a difference between 240hz and 500hz which a gamer that doesnt want to waste money (about waste money point, i dont mean it harshly i mean like people who dont care about price to performance only just want best performance possible which is a very small margin) will care about enough to spend what im sure will be a silly amount of extra price to get those refresh rates if possible.

What im saying is eventually we gotta reach a point where advancements dont make sense to the average gamer, but what happens then, are they just brainwashed into thinking that 'oh ray tracing is super required especially for competitive everyone's gotta go get that not'.

 

Its just me playing mw i thought id be fine if graphics better than this never came, i mean we can get super realistic graphics if people want that - but there are negatives to that which im sure there will be scientific studies into soon - my opinion btw if we get the ability which im sure we will get soon, super realistic environments/graphics especially in vr should not be allowed for many scenarios.

 

i lost my point idk if i answered your point directly i dont want to read all my semi-english rubbish again lol sorry.

1 hour ago, DoctorNick said:

Is this a new thing? Some people care about graphics and some don't. Most games run on lower/mid-end hardware with low/medium settings. Depending on resolution of course. Price/performance scales almost 1:1 - comparing a GTX 1060 to 1080ti in my case I have both in two systems. 1060 is about 1/3 performance of the 1080ti and 1/3 the price (from new) 

theres gotta be a point though in the future that the gtx1060 equivalent of then would literally do no better at performance (even if its not as able but limited by whats virtually possible by coding and computer algorithms) is no better than the future 1080ti equivalent.

[glenalz81]

7 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

theres gotta be a point though in the future

For this to happen some advancements would need to stop entirely.

 

GPUs are already playing catch up to display technology.

[The Torrent]

4 minutes ago, glenalz81 said:

For this to happen some advancements would need to stop entirely.

 

GPUs are already playing catch up to display technology.

are they? I think the other way around. 

[WereCatf]

12 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

but as i said looking at mw graphics, im starting to notice that gpu's are getting better faster and faster as they do, but the demand from the engine themselves due to optimization and what not is getting less and less so eventually theres gotta be a point where high end gpu's theres no point off - but the gpu market cant let that happen, can it?

That's a load of rubbish. Game-devs could easily create such high-fidelity games that even an RTX 2080 Super couldn't push half a frame per second, they are just simply choosing to make their games playable with reasonable hardware.

[glenalz81]

2 hours ago, The Torrent said:

are they? I think the other way around.

Tell me a GPU that can do 144hz at 4k high settings in most titles?

[The Torrent]

22 minutes ago, glenalz81 said:

Tell me a GPU that can do 144hz at 4k high settings in most titles?

dual 2080ti can do it

source: https://uk.pcmag.com/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-founders-edition/120408/ultimate-pc-gaming-what-does-it-take-to-play-at-4k-and-144hz

 

im sure some non-founders oc'd ones especially on liquid loops will be able to do higher.

 

In any case, im talking about the middle 90 percent. How many people are actually gonna want to run things at 4k? Even so right now only 4k 144hz monitors are massive in size and most people, especially for competitive, want smaller monitors. I'm sure 22 inch 4k is a waste of time.

[Kisai]

6 hours ago, The Torrent said:

Just been playing modern warfare on 3440x1440 max settings accept the bad ones 75percent render scaling at 80fps and this is a gpu I got for £100 a few months ago and I’m just thinking how easy budget gaming is gonna become. How much better can they make graphics really?

 

The GTX 1060 and 1050ti are just barely able to scrape by at 1080p60, higher resolutions or frame rates come at the cost of graphic features like turning off. Yes, you can run the desktop at 1440p or 2160p(4k) , but the GPU will probably be pegged the entire time.

 

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, glenalz81 said:

Tell me a GPU that can do 144hz at 4k high settings in most titles?

No single GPU can.

 

A HEDT would still be needed to get there, as a regular desktops do not have the PCIe lanes to run two GPU's without crippling them.

[BTGbullseye]

8 minutes ago, Kisai said:

as a regular desktops do not have the PCIe lanes to run two GPU's without crippling them.

Well, not without PCIe 4.0... So the new Ryzen 3000 chips can provide that. (no GPU can saturate a PCIe 4.0 x8 connection, and only a few can saturate it at x4)

[Ergroilnin]

Depends on usage.

 

I got my 1060 6GB like a year ago (after five years on 760 2GB), I am using 1440p 144hz monitor as my main and it has been a smooth experience for me.

 

However I do not play AAA games and even if I do play one, I just downsize the resolution/tweak some details (yes ultra on 4k must look glorious, but I do not care that much) and so the GPU has been perfect for me for the price (sure some may say I should have gotten a RX580 8GB at least, but at the time I was OK with Nvidia and I wanted cooler and more power efficient card, so for me, it was a little bit better, considering they cost about the same at the time in my country).

 

And really, it will stay that way for me for years to come, because I just do not even play all that much anymore and when I do, I have huuuuuuuge backlist of "older" games that I want to play and 1060 will do just fine for those.

 

Obviously, if I had enough spare income and was actually still actively playing (especially if I was the type of gamer, that plays newest AAA games each year), yeah sure, I'd get 2080ti and perhaps even consider having 4k monitor for all that eye candy. But I am not, so I am and will be very happy with my 1060 6gb for years.

[xg32]

there won't a split that the devs have to worry about, just people playing on different resolution/refresh rates, 1080p/60/144hz will always be affordable. 

 

6 hours ago, The Torrent said:

are they? I think the other way around. 

There are already people that look at 4k gaming/100hz/144hz, hdr, oled, micro led that's coming, full dci-p3 coverage with newer panels etc. GPUs are massively lagging displays atm, but it's not a problem for main stream consumers. <2% of steam users use a 2080/ti. SLI just isn't feasible due to lack of support. There is never enough horsepower on a single gpu, though personaly i'd settle a long time with 4k/98/120hz (gpus aren't there yet)

 

To answer when a 1060 gets outdated, next gen consoles are kinda aimed at 4k for 500bucks, if a pc is weaker than a new console (late 2020), then i personally consider it outdated, but it doesn't matte for you if a 1060 does what you need it to do.

[Mark Kaine]

It already is outdated. 6GB RAM doesn't really cut it anymore. 

 

And that's coming from a MSI GTX 1060 6GB GAMING X owner. 

 

 

[The Torrent]

46 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

It already is outdated. 6GB RAM doesn't really cut it anymore. 

 

And that's coming from a MSI GTX 1060 6GB GAMING X owner. 

 

 

6gb vram not enough?

for what?

its fine for 1440p widescreen atleast ive neverf got close

[MadAnt250]

44 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

It already is outdated. 6GB RAM doesn't really cut it anymore. 

 

And that's coming from a MSI GTX 1060 6GB GAMING X owner. 

Do you mean VRAM? Because 6GB of VRAM is still great for 1080p@60fps. I play at a locked 75 fps just fine in most of my games with the detial settings set to high or mostly high and I just have 4GB of VRAM.

[Mark Kaine]

34 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

for what?

its fine for 1440p widescreen atleast ive neverf got close

MHW with high res textures for example.  Uses over 6GB with not even maxed out settings. 

 

I agree it depends on the game and for most games it's still adequate @1080p for sure. 

1440p no way. You can be happy if something like ROTTR runs at medium to high settings at 1080p/60fps. 

 

Also "75% rendering" doesn't count as that means you aren't really playing at the resolution you think you are. 

 

Other example,  RE2R  runs fine at high settings @*1080p*,  but forget about max settings, or even close. 

 

And this is now.  More and more games are already demanding more than what a 1060 offers, it will only get worse and soon. 

 

I would want to say it's still good value for the money but I live in Europe and paid 300€ for mine and frankly,  it's not good value.  For 200 maybe,  yes, sure. 

[Kisai]

8 hours ago, MadAnt250 said:

Do you mean VRAM? Because 6GB of VRAM is still great for 1080p@60fps. I play at a locked 75 fps just fine in most of my games with the detial settings set to high or mostly high and I just have 4GB of VRAM.

The VRAM amount doesn't matter. The type of VRAM does. A cheap GPU with DDR4 memory in 128bit configuration versus an expensive GPU with GDDR6 in 512bit configuration is a VERY different animal.

 

At any rate, HD1080p60 is doable with that tier of card, just not all games will do p60 with it, let alone 144. The amount of additional GPU performance you need to go from 60 to 144 is about 59% more. To go from 1080p to 1440p requires 33% more, so you need 92% more GPU to go from 1080p60 to 1440p144. That's almost all the way to 4K as going from 1080p60 to 2160p60 requires 100% more GPU, which is spec-for-spec the difference between a 1060 and a 1080. (1280 CUDA cores to 2560 CUDA cores)