nVidia has a GTX1060 with only 3GB of VRAM, but that's not all

[Hunter259]

Just now, Majestic said:

I was seriously asking, be specific about what evidence you want. You want proof of memory bandwidth affecting certain games?

What did I replay to? You quoting memory bandwidth. What the hell else would I be talking about?

[2FA]

46 minutes ago, Prysin said:

show me a benchmark where it does not.

780Ti did have 6GB model too so you should easily be able to find counter proof.

There was never a 6GB 780ti because Nvidia didn't wan't to undercut the Titan/Titan Black. There was a 6GB 780 though.

[2FA]

4 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

What did I replay to? You quoting memory bandwidth. What the hell else would I be talking about?

Puppies and rainbows?

[Starelementpoke]

1 minute ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Puppies and rainbows?

I was going to say pizza and cake, but that works too.

[AresKrieger]

Still don't understand why it has less cores than the normal 1060 if it is going to actually be called a 1060

 

I'm still betting it's a 1050 or 1050ti since otherwise this card makes no sense

[aisle9]

2 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

It is against forum rules to call people fanboys. Did you not see the screenshot I put up? It is of a 290x were all 4gb is used at 1080p, so yeah I contribute, to debunk this 3gb is enough BS. Further more I am in no way a fanboy, I buy the GPU that is best for my needs, I could not care less if it was AMD or Nvidia that makes it.

Don't be a fanboy and I won't call you a fanboy, fanboy. Explain to me how the picture of the NVAGINA card you posted was anything but fanboying.

 

This thread's gone about as well as expected. For the few people actually trying to have a discussion, there are plenty more who have, predictably, whipped out their team red/team green e-dicks. The card in question, for all I care, is a 1050, in the same way that a cut down 960 was called a 950. I don't know why NVIDIA didn't label it as such to position it more directly against the 460. It'll be a decent 1080p card for its intended audience, although it'll be underpowered for the high-end gamers of LTT--but then, what are high-end LTT gamers doing buying an entry-level GPU?

 

As par for the course with this generation, it'll probably outperform the 460, but at a higher price point. NVIDIA fanboys will be waving the performance flag, AMD fanboys will be pointing out their card's better frames per dollar, and the rest of us will be shrugging our shoulders and getting on with our day.

[Dackzy]

1 minute ago, aisle9 said:

Don't be a fanboy and I won't call you a fanboy, fanboy. Explain to me how the picture of the NVAGINA card you posted was anything but fanboying.

 

This thread's gone about as well as expected. For the few people actually trying to have a discussion, there are plenty more who have, predictably, whipped out their team red/team green e-dicks. The card in question, for all I care, is a 1050, in the same way that a cut down 960 was called a 950. I don't know why NVIDIA didn't label it as such to position it more directly against the 460. It'll be a decent 1080p card for its intended audience, although it'll be underpowered for the high-end gamers of LTT--but then, what are high-end LTT gamers doing buying an entry-level GPU?

 

As par for the course with this generation, it'll probably outperform the 460, but at a higher price point. NVIDIA fanboys will be waving the performance flag, AMD fanboys will be pointing out their card's better frames per dollar, and the rest of us will be shrugging our shoulders and getting on with our day.

1. It is called fun, maybe you have never heard of that.

2. It is fun to poke to Majestic a little

3. You broke the rule again GG WP

4. I just showed that 3gb is stupid, with that screenshot and that is 100% on topic.

5. Majestic wanted to see a game at 1080p using more than 3gb of vram so I showed him it.

6. This thread is about 1060 not the 1050.

7. You clearly don't know who I am, since you call me a fanboy.

8. I mainly think any GPU that is made for 1080p gaming and has less than 4gb is just stupid.

9. I only care about what brand that makes the cooler, so for Nvidia I would pick a EVGA, MSI, Zotac, Palit, gainward or the extremely high end Asus (matrix, that nobody really wants to buy because it is so expensive) card over other cards, for AMD I would pick Sapphire, XFX, MSI, powercolor or the extremely high end Asus (matrix, that nobody really wants to buy because it is so expensive) card over other cards.

 

also since my post was taken down I will put the screenshot here, it is again a 290x with 4gb of ram that was used here:

 

[Majestic]

31 minutes ago, Prysin said:

trust me

No.

 

So now 4GB isn't enough. At what point does this still revolve around required memory for your typical gaming scenario, and start drifting into terrible games optimization and actively looking for scenario's that choke memory requirements.

 

3 out of 5 examples are Ubisoft Montreal games. Talk about having a common denominator, and no doubt the reuse of engines and assets. The other example, rise of the tomb raider, i've not seen stuttering or hitching on my own 4GB card but it does take a performance hit on v. high textures. As for Metro, that game has some big performance variance when testing. I've never seen any loop give me <5% variance to the previous/next one.

 

But in all seriousness, as if the x60 series has ever been a considered a staple for gaming at Ultra settings at any point. You buy midrange cards, knowing you get a next-to-perfect experience barring a few concessions. If it means dropping the textures (meant for higher resolutions and GPU's) with zero-to-none visual hit, that's perfectly fine for most folks.

 

Games now have to accomodate for a wider variety of resolutions, that also means having higher resolution texture packs. You can't use a the same texture packs for 4K as you do for 1080p. Setting everything to maximum may not even make sense at 1080p, as the PPI is way too crap to notice the uptick in texture resolution. It's reached the point where developers retro-actively remove their higher texture packs because people with midrange cards start complaining about poor performance, or solicit warnings when selecting them.

 

This whole discussion is stupid. Anyone can find scenario's where a card chokes for memory. You can even find them for the Titan X. That does not imply the settings where A. designed for that card, B. make any sort of sense, or C. impact the visuals dramatically. And unless games start becoming unplayable on lower memory cards at reasonable settings, this OCD on memory needs to stop. Have you seen pricing of graphics cards lately? Think that has nothing to do with us going from 2GB to 8GB on midrange units in the span of a year?

 

3 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

1. It is called fun, maybe you have never heard of that.

You were being deliberately inflammatory with that post. Don't even pretend to call for the moral highground here, mr. memes.

[Dackzy]

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

You were being deliberately inflammatory with that post. Don't even pretend to call for the moral highground here, mr. memes.

1. I am not

2. I just like to poke at you, because you sometimes set your mind on something and then it can only be that way.

3. He also broke forum rules, more times than I did...

4. Mr. memes kek it was one pic, I don't feel like I deserve that title yet, just for one pic, maybe if I did 10 sure and I can do that really fast, but meh I won't.

5. Look at the screenshot...

[Citadelen]

Nvidia has been a little sneaky this generation. First they named the new Titan the Titan X, and now the 3GB & 6GB variants of the 1060 have different cuda core counts.

[Dackzy]

9 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

Nvidia has been a little sneaky this generation. First they named the new Titan the Titan X, and now the 3GB & 6GB variants of the 1060 have different cuda core counts.

maybe they can sell more of the older Titan X's this way, because people buy them by mistake  

 

That would be funny

[Citadelen]

2 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

-snip-

Yeah I have a feeling that was the reason behind it.

[marldorthegreat]

2 hours ago, don_svetlio said:

3GB at 1080p is a joke in this day and age. Even the 960 had 4GB.

Its basically a gtx 950 replacement. 

[DarkBlade2117]

We should beg the question why the RX 470 isn't the RX 480 and RX 480, the RX 480x.

[DarkBlade2117]

4 minutes ago, marldorthegreat said:

Its basically a gtx 950 replacement. 

Isn't it supposed to be $250 though? Wasn't that the MSRP? A 950 replacement should be $150-$165.

[Citadelen]

4 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

-snip-

RX 480X is a horrid name.

[Dackzy]

Just now, Citadelen said:

RX 480X is a horrid name.

nonono XFX DD is a bad name and XFX RX480 XXX is also a really bad name I am not joking at all.

First card they have here http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/products/amd-radeon-rx-400-series#* 

[aisle9]

Just now, Dackzy said:

nonono XFX DD is a bad name and XFX RX480 XXX is also a really bad name I am not joking at all.

First card they have here http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/products/amd-radeon-rx-400-series#* 

XFX RX 480X XXX DD

 

Let's see how many office search monitors are set off by the guy who goes shopping for that beast. All it needs is a "2G1C Edition"

[Trik'Stari]

3 hours ago, DominicNikon said:

GTA V uses 3.5-3.7gb of vram on my GTX 980 at 1080p

At 1920x1080? Or 5760x1080? Because I never hit that much on single screen with my 970. I can max literally everything. If I turn on triple monitor surround, then I can easily go well above 3.5/4 gigs of VRAM

 

Or do you have DSR turned on or something?

[marldorthegreat]

6 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Isn't it supposed to be $250 though? Wasn't that the MSRP? A 950 replacement should be $150-$165.

All 1000 series gpus are about 100 dollars more expensive.

It makes sense. 

[marldorthegreat]

1 hour ago, Hunter259 said:

Black Ops 3, Arkham, GTA V, BattleField 1, Rise of the Tomb Raider, etc. 3GB is not enough for max at 1080p with upcoming and even current titles.

In the 1000 series it is, with new compression it will be. 

[Hunter259]

Just now, marldorthegreat said:

In the 1000 series it is, with new compression it will be. 

Compression is only so effective. No 3GB is not enough for max 1080p even with compression.

[marldorthegreat]

9 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

RX 480X is a horrid name.

It will be the rx 485 

[Goodman2265]

I read the title and expected to whole 4 GB is 3.5 GB vram thing from the 970. except it would be 6GB to 3GB

[MageTank]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

At 1920x1080? Or 5760x1080? Because I never hit that much on single screen with my 970. I can max literally everything.

 

Or do you have DSR turned on or something?

My brother hits about 3.2-3.3gb at 1920 x 1080 with everything on max. This is what's seen in Afterburner OSD, not in-game GTA options. Though, he has 3 monitors (only one showing the game). If the game is played in fullscreen exclusive on just one monitor, will the others being used by the same GPU for Skype/Teamspeak monitoring make the overall VRAM usage increase? I have personally never used a multi-monitor setup, so I genuinely do not know, lol. 

 

1 minute ago, marldorthegreat said:

In the 1000 series it is, with new compression it will be. 

Ding Ding Ding! Took someone long enough to get it. Architectural changes have an impact on VRAM (both capacity and bandwidth). However, it's not magic. It has its limitations. That being said, using Kepler's potential lack of VRAM for an analogy when talking about Pascal (2 generations newer) it's a difficult comparison to make. Kepler lacks the level of DCC used in Maxwell, let alone the improved one used in Pascal.

 

Why these people are fighting to such an extent is beyond me. Regardless of how much VRAM you throw on the 1060, it's still a sub-1080p card these days. A 1060 won't be able to max out every title at 1080p, even if it had 8GB VRAM. Some things are just too demanding in terms of raw horsepower, and no amount of VRAM or VRAM bandwidth will save them. 

 

As others said, the nomenclature issue is getting old, and there is no reason to call an entirely different card the same name. Once is a problem, but twice is unforgivable. If this card was an x50 card, nobody in this thread would be complaining. AMD's Entry-Level gaming cards have 2GB versions as well, so a 3GB entry level gaming card wouldn't/shouldn't bother anyone. Again, these cards will hit other limitations before VRAM becomes an issue 90% of the time.