NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Reviewer’s Guide Leaked

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, Thony said:

"Outdated" u would be happy to own one of them.

I know but they should update their testing methodology.

[Thony]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

I know but they should update their testing methodology.

Doesn't matter really, users gonna paint the card with lot older CPUs. 

 

As far as they use same CPU to bench all the cards it's all good to see how the card performs not the CPU it is paired with. 

 

Skylake is still pretty new so maybe they didn't get their hands on one just yet. 

 

YouTube gonna test is with the latest hopefully within a week.

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, Thony said:

Doesn't matter really, users gonna paint the card with lot older CPUs. 

 

As far as they use same CPU to bench all the cards it's all good to see how the card performs not the CPU it is paired with. 

 

Skylake is still pretty new so maybe they didn't get their hands on one just yet. 

 

YouTube gonna test is with the latest hopefully within a week.

But we can hopefully agree that they used inadequate drivers to compare the RX 480 to the GTX 1060.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Energycore said:

Well, nvidia posted it all over social media (hearsay, I don't use social media) so more than a rumor, it's a lie

 

1060s look right on par with RX 480s just as I expected.

I don't really see how you could look at these numbers and come to the conclusions that:

1) It is on par with the RX 480. Tthe guide says that it should be 10-15% faster

2) Say that the "980 performance" is a lie. The 980 is 10% faster than the RX 480 on average.

 

If the numbers in the reviewer guide is anything to go by (I wouldn't trust them one bit), the 1060 is 10% faster than the RX 480 (or more). That would put it at 980 tier performance.

 

If the numbers are true, and the 260 dollar price the Zotac card is listed for on SabrePC turns out to be accurate too (AMP! version for 280), then AMD will be in trouble. That's quite a few "if"s, but they are aren't too hard to imagine being true.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I don't really see how you could look at these numbers and come to the conclusions that:

1) It is on par with the RX 480. Tthe guide says that it should be 10-15% faster

2) Say that the "980 performance" is a lie. The 980 is 10% faster than the RX 480 on average.

 

If the numbers in the reviewer guide is anything to go by (I wouldn't trust them one bit), the 1060 is 10% faster than the RX 480 (or more). That would put it at 980 tier performance.

 

If the numbers are true, and the 260 dollar price the Zotac card is listed for on SabrePC turns out to be accurate too (AMP! version for 280), then AMD will be in trouble. That's quite a few "if"s, but they are aren't too hard to imagine being true.

I expected on-par performance because the 1060 has 66% the CUDA cores of the GTX 1070, and the RX 480 has 66% the performance of a GTX 1070. I know there are other factors that come into play, but that was my rough estimate.

 

We also have yet to see RX 480s for $200, that was the advertised price. I wonder if they're pulling the same stunt as Nvidia

[ace_cheaply]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't really see how you could look at these numbers and come to the conclusions that:

1) It is on par with the RX 480. Tthe guide says that it should be 10-15% faster

2) Say that the "980 performance" is a lie. The 980 is 10% faster than the RX 480 on average.

 

If the numbers in the reviewer guide is anything to go by (I wouldn't trust them one bit), the 1060 is 10% faster than the RX 480 (or more). That would put it at 980 tier performance.

 

If the numbers are true, and the 260 dollar price the Zotac card is listed for on SabrePC turns out to be accurate too (AMP! version for 280), then AMD will be in trouble. That's quite a few "if"s, but they are aren't too hard to imagine being true.

Well, comparing reviewer benchmarks to those listed by Nvidia with the older driver seems to show a rather large disparity. However, most of that is due to settings, from what i can see. 

 

It wouldn't surprise me to find out this is best case scenario for settings with the best single run, but it does appear the 1060 will be comparable to a 980.  

[samcool55]

Let's do some basic maths here

 

RX 480 4GB, 200 dollars for sale, people even managed to get one for less but let's ignore that for now.

1060, 250 dollars MSRP, maybe you can get one for that money, but for now let's take the number that's at least a bit in favour of the 1060. 

Taking the 300 dollar FE would make the situation even worse, and i'll tell you now even with the 250 MSRP things don't look fantastic.

 

So, when you take the rx 480 4gb as the base, you would think the 25% more expensive 1060 would perform around 25% faster.

Or at least something close to that so it's somewhat appealing.

 

And after some basic maths with the results provided you end up with a performance increase of an amazing!... 15%

 

And you have to keep in mind 2 things with that number.

1. The drivers used for the rx 480 are outdated, with more recent drivers you might see a 3% performance increase from the rx 480 which would result in the performance difference decreasing to 12-ish percent.

2. Apparently the boost functions were disabled? For now it's unclear how good the IPC performance are on both chips, it would be nice to know how well the gpu's perform when clock speeds are matched but oh well...

 

Also, something i'm just assuming, the 1060 is probably bad with DX12. But again more benchmarks should show us how good or bad both cards are.

[ZestyJalapeno]

Dunno bout you, but those images are hilarious. Kinda didn't read the reviewers' guide.

[lukart]

5 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

 

 

And you have to keep in mind 2 things with that number.

1. The drivers used for the rx 480 are outdated, with more recent drivers you might see a 3% performance increase from the rx 480 which would result in the performance difference decreasing to 12-ish percent.

 

 

Also, something i'm just assuming, the 1060 is probably bad with DX12. But again more benchmarks should show us how good or bad both cards are.

 

Well they shown DX12 games quite ahead of 480, not sure if AMD will have that much luck even in DX12 titles.

Another thing, I still want to see any article that shows that on average there's a 3% gain on the new drivers across a wide set of games.

 

If you seen one show me (honestly)  

[LAwLz]

21 minutes ago, Energycore said:

We also have yet to see RX 480s for $200, that was the advertised price. I wonder if they're pulling the same stunt as Nvidia

There were a few 200 dollar RX 480s.

The thing is that the 200 dollar 480s were 4GB models that didn't actually exist yet. AMD just took a few 8GB cards, locked them down to 4GB in software (you could flash a BIOS and enable it again), and sold them for a lower price.

 

So stock was extremely low. In the future we might see true 4GB cards appear in stores, for the recommended price of 200 dollars. At this point in time though, the whole "starting at 200 dollars" was just a marketing tactic to make the card seem more appealing. Expect to pay 240 dollars for it. Reference cards might be even more expensive.

Seems pretty likely that a 480 and 1060 with the same cooler (like both with the STRIX cooler) will cost about the same.

 

 

9 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

RX 480 4GB, 200 dollars for sale, people even managed to get one for less but let's ignore that for now.

You're making the crucial mistake of believing that you can go out and buy the RX 480 for 200 dollars.

Right now that is not the case.

[Energycore]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

There were a few 200 dollar RX 480s.

The thing is that the 200 dollar 480s were 4GB models that didn't actually exist yet. AMD just took a few 8GB cards, locked them down to 4GB in software (you could flash a BIOS and enable it again), and sold them for a lower price.

 

So stock was extremely low. In the future we might see true 4GB cards appear in stores, for the recommended price of 200 dollars. At this point in time though, the whole "starting at 200 dollars" was just a marketing tactic to make the card seem more appealing. Expect to pay 240 dollars for it. Reference cards might be even more expensive.

Seems pretty likely that a 480 and 1060 with the same cooler (like both with the STRIX cooler) will cost about the same.

I can see both costing the same considering their performance difference.

 

I also have yet to see a review of an AIB RX 480 that may overclock higher

[Sauron]

linus torvalds on the first page lmao

[Murasaki]

yeah dude

[Bouzoo]

Some 480 benchmarks have no sense and are showing 20-40 less fps in some titles than other reviews do, like Guru 3D one. With thas said, some 1060 numbers make sense.

Again, wait a few more days, don't turn this into a war. 

[samcool55]

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

You're making the crucial mistake of believing that you can go out and buy the RX 480 for 200 dollars.

Right now that is not the case.

Well they are not in stock but you can get one for 200 dollars if you can wait a bit.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709 601203818 600007787&Tpk=rx 480&ignorear=1

 

You could also get one for 170 dollars in a specific situation with a coupon and stuff i don't know but it was possible (sold out now)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4sheff/sapphire_radeon_rx_480_4gb_gddr5_16999_19999_30/

 

Sooo yea... You can if you are lucky and fast enough.

 

edit: didn't know you can't order one if it isn't in stock, tbh that suprises me. Didn't know that! Oh well learned something new today.

 

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

Some 480 benchmarks have no sense and are showing 20-40 less fps in some titles than other reviews do, like Guru 3D one. With thas said, some 1060 numbers make sense.

Again, wait a few more days, don't turn this into a war. 

You can not compare FPS numbers between different testers. You can easily get a 20-40 FPS difference in different sections of a game. If one person benchmarks the card in a really intense part with lots of action, explosions and so on, while another benchmarks in a more calm part of the game then both tests will show widely different FPS numbers.

When you look at benchmarks you should look at % increase/decrease between two products. That number should stay fairly consistent regardless of which part of a game you benchmark.

 

 

2 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Well you can order one, they are not in stock but you can get one for 200 dollars if you can wait a bit.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709 601203818 600007787&Tpk=rx 480&ignorear=1

 

You could also get one for 170 dollars in a specific situation with a coupon and stuff i don't know but it was possible (sold out now)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4sheff/sapphire_radeon_rx_480_4gb_gddr5_16999_19999_30/

 

Sooo yea... You can if you want. You just have to be lucky with the stock or just order one and get one as soon as they come in.

No you can't order it. Didn't you look at the Newegg link you posted? You can sign up to get an email when they are back in stock. Once they are in stock you then have to go to the page and order it before it gets sold out again. Considering how rare the 4GB models are, it might take a long time before they come back in stock, and when they do there might only be a handful of cards which will be sold out immediately.

 

It will probably change in the future, but right now you are more likely to find a unicorn than you are finding an RX 480 for 200 dollars in stock, ready to be ordered.

[samcool55]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

No you can't order it. Didn't you look at the Newegg link you posted? You can sign up to get an email when they are back in stock. Once they are in stock you then have to go to the page and order it before it gets sold out again. Considering how rare the 4GB models are, it might take a long time before they come back in stock, and when they do there might only be a handful of cards which will be sold out immediately.

 

It will probably change in the future, but right now you are more likely to find a unicorn than you are finding an RX 480 for 200 dollars in stock, ready to be ordered.

 

I edited my post, i'm really suprised you can't just order one and have them send one to you as soon as they come in...

 

But again won't change the fact you could get one for 200 bucks if you were fast enough...

 

 

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, samcool55 said:

But again won't change the fact you could get one for 200 bucks if you were fast enough...

If you are fast enough then you can beat Usain Bolt at sprint, make a fortune and then buy two GTX 1080.

That is also a fact, but it's a fact that is irrelevant to most people wanting to buy an RX 480.

[samcool55]

23 minutes ago, lukart said:

 

Well they shown DX12 games quite ahead of 480, not sure if AMD will have that much luck even in DX12 titles.

Another thing, I still want to see any article that shows that on average there's a 3% gain on the new drivers across a wide set of games.

 

If you seen one show me (honestly)  

Well keeping in mind there is always a margin of error results are very similar, which is to be expected.

And with everyone being all over the boost in doom, the amount of information is very minimal.

But i managed to find a 3dmark with the old and new drivers and it showed a 2.25%-ish improvement.

Not far off the 3% they promised and again keeping the margin of error in mind the new driver did indeed bring a little performance boost.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9195106/fs/9174677/fs/8807033#

[lukart]

1 minute ago, samcool55 said:

Well keeping in mind there is always a margin of error results are very similar, which is to be expected.

And with everyone being all over the boost in doom, the amount of information is very minimal.

But i managed to find a 3dmark with the old and new drivers and it showed a 2.25%-ish improvement.

Not far off the 3% they promised and again keeping the margin of error in mind the new driver did indeed bring a little performance boost.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9195106/fs/9174677/fs/8807033#

 

But thats the problem, first 3Dmark is not a game, and second I want to see not one game but a hand full of games tested against the old driver and average out the performance increase.

[samcool55]

4 minutes ago, lukart said:

 

But thats the problem, first 3Dmark is not a game, and second I want to see not one game but a hand full of games tested against the old driver and average out the performance increase.

I know but no tech guy out there seems to care sadly enough. 

And tbh you won't notice the 3% increase so going back to the post that started this, a 15% on average faster card that's 25% more expensive is imo not that appealing, especially when you are competing in a quite low price category and price/performance is very important.

 

 

[samcool55]

11 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If you are fast enough then you can beat Usain Bolt at sprint, make a fortune and then buy two GTX 1080.

That is also a fact, but it's a fact that is irrelevant to most people wanting to buy an RX 480.

Well that's saying you can buy earth if you are rich enough...

 

You can't actually beat usain bolt if you are a normal person but quite small. The reason Bolt managed to set a WR has to do with the fact he is so big.

The amount of energy he can put into running is objectively larger than the average runner...

Also it's possible to beat him if you have a similar height because his first 2 steps could be better. (also a fact btw fyi)

 

Apart from being off-topic, as soon as the rx 480 4gb is on sale again my point is completely relevant again for people that want a rx 480 4GB and then it all makes sense again.

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

I know but no tech guy out there seems to care sadly enough. 

And tbh you won't notice the 3% increase so going back to the post that started this, a 15% on average faster card that's 25% more expensive is imo not that appealing, especially when you are competing in a quite low price category and price/performance is very important.

If these rumors, plus the retailer prices that are currently up are true, then it will be more like an ~8% price increase for a 15% performance increase.

You can't compare it against a 200 dollar RX 480 because they barely exist right now. You have to compare it to something you can actually buy. AMD could have put the MSRP of the 4GB model at 1 dollar and it still would not have made any difference. It would still not be available for purchase.

 

 

5 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

You can't actually beat usain bolt if you are a normal person but quite small. The reason Bolt managed to set a WR has to do with the fact he is so big.

The amount of energy he can put into running is objectively larger than the average runner...

Also it's possible to beat him if you have a similar height because his first 2 steps could be better. (also a fact btw fyi)

If you think he is fast because of his height then you are very ignorant. Height is a factor, but saying that you have to be as tall as him to beat him is like saying Usain Bolt would need to be as tall as me to be able to beat me (I am taller than him). There is more to running than just length.

Nesta Carter is 170cm and his best time is 9.78 seconds (Bolt's record is 9.58). His below-average height is not stopping him one bit from being very close to Bolt's record.

There are A LOT of ~180cm tall people on the record list for 100 meter sprint as well. They are about average height (177cm is average for men in the US) and run faster than 99.9999999997% of people.

 

4 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Apart from being off-topic, as soon as the rx 480 4gb is on sale again my point is completely relevant again for people that want a rx 480 4GB and then it all makes sense again.

Yes, as soon as you can buy the 200 dollar RX 480 then your point will be valid. The thing is that you can't do that today, and we don't know when you will be able to.

[themaniac]

1500 base 1700 boost, i highly doubt there will be much room to overclock it

[Teddy07]

1 hour ago, samcool55 said:

You can't actually beat usain bolt if you are a normal person but quite small. The reason Bolt managed to set a WR has to do with the fact he is so big.

The amount of energy he can put into running is objectively larger than the average runner...

Also it's possible to beat him if you have a similar height because his first 2 steps could be better. (also a fact btw fyi)

bullshit. He the set Worldrecord because he his doping methods are the best