NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Reviews + Benchmarks

[Kobz360]

39 minutes ago, gilang01 said:

Here's my RX 480 @1350/2200 

AIB RX480s will probably be around my score

 

Damn that is a very nice graphics score

[gilang01]

Just now, Kobz360 said:

Damn that is a very nice graphics score

It's stable too. Tested it on witcher 3, asc syndicate, heaven 4.0, and AOTS

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

So it would seem overclocking tells a different story huh. 

 

Looks like its gonna be interesting. 

[Humbug]

1 hour ago, Noolz said:

And for the Vulkan/DX12 benchmarks.....well, saying that there are only a handful of games is correct. But what about engines? 
We are already seeing an implementation in the Unreal Engine and Frostbite engine and the RX 480 whoops the 1060 ass in Vulkan....and by Vulkan i mean a real implementation.
Not what the Talos Principle did.

To be fair to Croteam their Vulkan renderer is a work in progress, and it has been getting faster over last 2 months.

They said themselves it's not completed yet, and it's only accessible right now by opting into the optional public beta. 

Valve's Source 2 Vulkan renderer is also beta (click here for numbers) but that one is a lot closer to completion than Talos Principle.

 

Combined the adoption of new gen APIs (Vulkan / DX12) seems to be quite aggressive in the industry. The majority are still DX11 but out of the demanding AAA games coming up which really push GPUs a significant percentage will use the new APIs.

[Guest Kloaked]

13 hours ago, Mastagon said:

I think I read something about Nvidia asking reviewers to exclude it on /r/amd (and let's all take that with the grain of salt it deserves.) HardOCP included it in their review. 

That's a pretty large accusation. I'm not saying they didn't do it because I could buy that they would do something like that, but confirmation would be nice.

13 hours ago, Valentyn said:

 

Yup and in Vulkan the reference 480 is 32% faster in 1080p, and 25% in 1440p.
 

Pretty significant margins, shame there are no other big Vulkan games out yet. Although Battlefield 1 is apparently also getting Vulkan support.

There's also the Talos Principle, but that's not actually a Vulkan game, they use a Vulkan Wrapper there.

Outside of this whole thing with who performs better on Vulkan or DX12, the argument is still going to be the same Nvidia versus AMD fanboy argument. Especially on this forum where the lowest common denominator will throw out a bunch of terms that they don't understand and pretend to know what they're talking about.

 

If I'm buying a GPU and I plan on playing games that people actually play and enjoy for more than the occasional AMD/Nvidia benchmark boner, I'm spending more on an Nvidia card at this point in time until something changes - Nvidia cards have better support generally, and the only thing I have to worry about with those cards are whether or not EVGA has any in stock anywhere.

 

Mark my words though: there will be a game that comes out that might use one or two proprietary Nvidia effects and uses the Vulkan API - out of the gate, every Nvidia card will beat the AMD equivalent even after AMD drivers are released, and people from the AMD brigade will bitch about Nvidia sabotaging AMD, like they always do. You don't ever see anyone complain about AMD sabotaging Nvidia when AMD has a significant performance advantage somehow, because that argument is garbage.

[Trik'Stari]

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/07/nvidia-gtx-1060-review/

 

Umm, last I looked, $50 isn't a "wee bit more money", it's a decent amount more. Especially when you get paid hourly and have to save for several weeks/months to get a PC component.

1 hour ago, Kloaked said:

That's a pretty large accusation. I'm not saying they didn't do it because I could buy that they would do something like that, but confirmation would be nice.

Outside of this whole thing with who performs better on Vulkan or DX12, the argument is still going to be the same Nvidia versus AMD fanboy argument. Especially on this forum where the lowest common denominator will throw out a bunch of terms that they don't understand and pretend to know what they're talking about.

 

If I'm buying a GPU and I plan on playing games that people actually play and enjoy for more than the occasional AMD/Nvidia benchmark boner, I'm spending more on an Nvidia card at this point in time until something changes - Nvidia cards have better support generally, and the only thing I have to worry about with those cards are whether or not EVGA has any in stock anywhere.

 

Mark my words though: there will be a game that comes out that might use one or two proprietary Nvidia effects and uses the Vulkan API - out of the gate, every Nvidia card will beat the AMD equivalent even after AMD drivers are released, and people from the AMD brigade will bitch about Nvidia sabotaging AMD, like they always do. You don't ever see anyone complain about AMD sabotaging Nvidia when AMD has a significant performance advantage somehow, because that argument is garbage.

Nvidia cards have better support at launch, but not over time. AMD cards get more powerful as time goes by (relative to launch) because they actually support their products rather than cutting them off to force people to buy more. (DX-12 and everything before the 700 series as an example)

 

There are people, where I work, with 200 series cards that can run GTA V on 1080p ultra with everything turned on, and get better FPS than my 970. And they aren't 290's or 290x's. I wanna say one of them is using a 270 but I can't remember off the top of my head.

[LAwLz]

34 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Umm, last I looked, $50 isn't a "wee bit more money", it's a decent amount more. Especially when you get paid hourly and have to save for several weeks/months to get a PC component.

You are comparing the reference RX 480 to the FE 1060. The AIB versions of the 1060 are quite a lot cheaper.

Here is one for 250 dollars. So the price difference is like 10 dollars, unless you are comparing it to the mythical 4GB RX 480 which seems more rare than actual unicorns (they literally did not exist for a while, AMD just rebranded some 8GB cards because they weren't actually making the 4GB model).

So compared to the 8GB model of the RX 480, the GTX 1060 gives a much better price:performance ratio. The 4GB 480 at 200 dollars wins the price:performance crown though.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Nvidia cards have better support at launch, but not over time. AMD cards get more powerful as time goes by (relative to launch) because they actually support their products rather than cutting them off to force people to buy more. (DX-12 and everything before the 700 series as an example)

Never buy any computer product based on promises of future updates. The whole "AMD cards gets better over time compared to Nvidia" is actually not based on any solid evidence. For all we know, AMD cards might have aged better because of the extra VRAM, and if that's the case then there is nothing that guarantees that it will happen again.

 

34 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

There are people, where I work, with 200 series cards that can run GTA V on 1080p ultra with everything turned on, and get better FPS than my 970. And they aren't 290's or 290x's. I wanna say one of them is using a 270 but I can't remember off the top of my head.

Then you (or they) are doing something wrong. The 270 should NOT match your GTX 970 in GTA 5. With the latest drivers for both the AMD and Nvidia card, the GTX 970 matches the 390X in GTA. If your colleagues says they get higher FPS than you with a 270 (or even a 290X) then they are most likely using lower settings than you are. Or maybe you are getting bottlenecked somewhere else while they aren't?

Here are the GTA 5 benchmarks. The GTX 970 is 9% faster than the fastest card from the 200 series.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, LAwLz said:

You are comparing the reference RX 480 to the FE 1060. The AIB versions of the 1060 are quite a lot cheaper.

Here is one for 150 dollars. So the price difference is like 10 dollars, unless you are comparing it to the mythical 4GB RX 480 which seems more rare than actual unicorns (they literally did not exist for a while, AMD just rebranded some 8GB cards because they weren't actually making the 4GB model).

So compared to the 8GB model of the RX 480, the GTX 1060 gives a much better price:performance ratio.

 

 

Never buy any computer product based on promises of future updates. The whole "AMD cards gets better over time compared to Nvidia" is actually not based on any evidence. For all we know, AMD cards might have aged better because of the extra VRAM, and if that's the case then there is absolutely nothing that guarantees that it will happen again.

 

Then you (or they) are doing something wrong. The 270 should NOT match your GTX 970 in GTA 5. With the latest drivers for both the AMD and Nvidia card, the GTX 970 matches the 390X in GTA. If your colleagues says they get higher FPS than you with a 270 (or even a 290X) then they are most likely using lower settings than you are. Or maybe you are getting bottlenecked somewhere else while they aren't?

Here are the GTA 5 benchmarks. The GTX 970 is 9% faster than the fastest card from the 200 series.

-snip

The only real bottleneck is that my monitor only does 60. They have one of those fancy pants monitors lol

 

All I can say is what I have heard or read, which is generally that AMD cards get better driver support (they get supported for longer).

 

Unless Nvidia decides to drastically FIX their display spanning (triple monitor surround, whatever they want to call it) then I am going with AMD this time around, just to see if I like it better. I've only had Nvidia up to this point, not counting the absolutely TERRIBLE APU I had before I got my 4690k. Which could barely play BF4. Even my 4690k somehow manages to play BF4 better than that piece of crap did.

 

(The comparison between me and my co-worker was single monitor only.)

[handymanshandle]

20 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

How about we look at real world prices tho?

 

For one:

I fail to find a RX 480 anywhere close to 249$ in germany.

The cheapest i saw as of yesterday was sold for 289 Euro and dropped to 269 as of today. (I wonder why)

High demand, Import Costs, and Stock is why it likely costs more.

 

20 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

Then i fail to see why anyone would buy a 1060 FE, if partner cards are cooler, faster AND less noisy while also being cheaper. So clearly comparing to the FE price is,.. not a really useful thing to do. A few differend models of the GTX 1060 sell for 279 Euro as of today.

True, but right now pricing of the AIB cards for RX 480 aren't out right now. The basic 1060s will kinda overlap the 480s though I think the AIB 8GB 480 could overlap the FE 1060 or AIB 1060s.

20 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

So the GTX 1060 is 5-25% faster, 10 wooping bugs more expensive, draws less power, is less noisy and heats up the room less.

Maybe some people want their PC to be more like a space heater.

 

[Kobz360]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Never buy any computer product based on promises of future updates. The whole "AMD cards gets better over time compared to Nvidia" is actually not based on any solid evidence. For all we know, AMD cards might have aged better because of the extra VRAM, and if that's the case then there is nothing that guarantees that it will happen again.

 

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. As you you can see below, there are 2 graphs. The one on the left is from December 2013, and on the right is from a few days ago. Just take a look at the 270X vs the 760. Both cards had 2GB VRAM. The 760 went from being 13% better than the 270X to 7% worse than it. To see the 270X so close to the 960 at this point further reiterates the strength of the card. The 290X was being destroyed by the 780 Ti early on, but now, it beats it. The exact same GPU (albeit more VRAM) in the form of the 390X competes with a card which is one full generation ahead of it in the 980. Look at the 280X in 2013 (vs. the 780) and look at the 280X now.. it's quite amazing. 

 

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_270X_Gaming/24.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X/24.html

[ace_cheaply]

6 minutes ago, Kobz360 said:

-snip-

As a current owner of an hd 7870 (270x) and a GTX 770 I'm going to go ahead and say the performance isn't close between the cards. The 770 is still at least 25-30% faster.  I don't disagree with the premise that amd cards age better though.  

[Deli]

7 hours ago, wcreek said:

 

Maybe some people want their PC to be more like a space heater.

 

If a 150w rx 480 can be a space heater. How about a 250w TDP 980Ti and Titan X? Refrigerator?

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, Deli said:

If a 150w rx 480 can be a space heater. How about a 250w TDP 980Ti and Titan X? Refrigerator?

Nah they'd probably just have more space heating capability. Though I think an R9 390X or R9 Fury/Fury X would be much better for a space heater.

[Deli]

57 minutes ago, wcreek said:

Nah they'd probably just have more space heating capability. Though I think an R9 390X or R9 Fury/Fury X would be much better for a space heater.

The difference between 1060 and 480 in term of TDP is 30w. Sure, for some fanboys, that 30w is enough to turn a room in to an oven.

[handymanshandle]

Just now, Deli said:

The difference between 1060 and 480 in term of TDP is 30w. Sure, for some fanboys, that 30w is enough to turn a room in to an oven.

Yeah I know that the heat difference will likely be negligible and similar story for power draw. Of course it's the small details that matter.

[Guest Kloaked]

8 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

The only real bottleneck is that my monitor only does 60. They have one of those fancy pants monitors lol

 

All I can say is what I have heard or read, which is generally that AMD cards get better driver support (they get supported for longer).

 

Unless Nvidia decides to drastically FIX their display spanning (triple monitor surround, whatever they want to call it) then I am going with AMD this time around, just to see if I like it better. I've only had Nvidia up to this point, not counting the absolutely TERRIBLE APU I had before I got my 4690k. Which could barely play BF4. Even my 4690k somehow manages to play BF4 better than that piece of crap did.

 

(The comparison between me and my co-worker was single monitor only.)

 

Well I can tell you that when people generally say "I'm getting 60 fps in <game>", they mean they'll sometimes peak at 60 but they're actually averaging much much lower. I can get 60fps looking at the sky in Witcher 3 at 1440p all day but when I actually play the game I will average lower than 60.

 

They also fixed their multi-display configurations iirc. That was one of the main things about that Nvidia conference where they eventually revealed the 1080 and 1070.

[handymanshandle]

48 minutes ago, wcreek said:

Of course it's the small details that matter.

@Deli I should add that the small details seem to matter to fanboys at least. 

 

I know with a profile pic llike this:

 

 

and a cover photo like this.

Spoiler

 

I'm likely an AMD fanboy, but honestly being a fanboy is very bad for competition. I just have those because I think AMD has a better valued product. I also think the AIB 480s looks better than the AIB 1060s.

I really like the Nitro and Double Dissipation.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Kloaked said:

 

Well I can tell you that when people generally say "I'm getting 60 fps in <game>", they mean they'll sometimes peak at 60 but they're actually averaging much much lower. I can get 60fps looking at the sky in Witcher 3 at 1440p all day but when I actually play the game I will average lower than 60.

 

They also fixed their multi-display configurations iirc. That was one of the main things about that Nvidia conference where they eventually revealed the 1080 and 1070.

They fixed the performance, or the actual process of configuring the setup? Because going back and forth between three regular monitors and triple monitor surround is a complete pain in the ass. For some reason my left and right monitors switch sides during that process. I've tried moving cables around, but it doesn't make a difference because Nvidia for some reason changes which output does what, in the two different use cases.

[Prysin]

8 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

The only real bottleneck is that my monitor only does 60. They have one of those fancy pants monitors lol

 

All I can say is what I have heard or read, which is generally that AMD cards get better driver support (they get supported for longer).

 

Unless Nvidia decides to drastically FIX their display spanning (triple monitor surround, whatever they want to call it) then I am going with AMD this time around, just to see if I like it better. I've only had Nvidia up to this point, not counting the absolutely TERRIBLE APU I had before I got my 4690k. Which could barely play BF4. Even my 4690k somehow manages to play BF4 better than that piece of crap did.

 

(The comparison between me and my co-worker was single monitor only.)

Nvidia fixed tripple monitor with Pascal. 

 

Read up on Simultaneous Multi Projection.

 

Setting it up, bezel correction etc is still going to suck, as they did little or nothing in that regard

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Prysin said:

--snip

Setting it up, bezel correction etc is still going to suck, as they did little or nothing in that regard

Then I'm not interested in the slightest. Their idea of support for setting it up is a complete fucking joke.

[Prysin]

5 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

 

Well I can tell you that when people generally say "I'm getting 60 fps in <game>", they mean they'll sometimes peak at 60 but they're actually averaging much much lower. I can get 60fps looking at the sky in Witcher 3 at 1440p all day but when I actually play the game I will average lower than 60.

 

They also fixed their multi-display configurations iirc. That was one of the main things about that Nvidia conference where they eventually revealed the 1080 and 1070.

i agree.

 

Also, check my previous post. Image quality was improved, setup was not.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

1 hour ago, wcreek said:

Nah they'd probably just have more space heating capability. Though I think an R9 390X or R9 Fury/Fury X would be much better for a space heater.

 

Having owned a 280x, 390x and 980 Ti. I can tell you, you're dead wrong. The 980 Ti is the best contender for a space heater. 

[handymanshandle]

Just now, Pohernori said:

 

Having owned a 280x, 390x and 980 Ti. I can tell you, you're dead wrong. The 980 Ti is the best contender for a space heater. 

Yeah.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Just now, wcreek said:

Yeah.

 

Well along with the Titan X since its the bigger brother.

[Julian5]

On 19/7/2016 at 1:11 PM, HKZeroFive said:

Perhaps. Looks to be about 350-400 euros for most European countries. The price gouging that plagued the earlier NVIDIA Pascal cards may be in effect.

not at all its 400 - 550