when a GTX1060 is not a GTX1060 - the VRAM problem

[DocSwag]

I recommend the 1060 6gb over the rx 480 8gb, but it looks like I'll be recommending the rx 480/470 4gb over a 1060 3gb

[Mr.Meerkat]

15 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

My ultimate issue here though is...

 

Why are you buying a midrange (or now "budget" card as this has been pushed into by the marketers) and expecting to crank up everything to maximum and expect 60FPS+?

 

Funny when people on this forum are always like "3GB+ isn't enough vRAM for 1080p"...I'm sorry, my 1GB 560 is able to play triple As at 1080p perfectly fine...GTA 5 with mostly med and some low settings at 1080p grants 70fps with little to no stuttering due to it being straved of vRAM  Yes people want 60fps and ultra on 4K and whatever but come on, you're buying the wrong card for that (as you've said).

[zMeul]

2 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

My ultimate issue here though is...

 

Why are you buying a midrange (or now "budget" card as this has been pushed into by the marketers) and expecting to crank up everything to maximum and expect 60FPS+?

it's not even about that

 

do you recall the Fiji with it's 4GB of HBM1 - everyone from AMD and their dog were adamant that 4GB is enough - it was not

do you recall the whole debacle surrounding the GTX970's VRAM allocation?

it's not the matter of the price, it's the matter of what you're selling and towards what segment

I saw the same bullshit excuses from the raging AMD fanboys, and now I'm seeing same bullshit excuses from naysayers and apologists

 

the GTX1060 3GB is artificially strangled by the lack of VRAM in certain situation in current games - this card is within 5% of the 6GB model, but goes down to 30% when constrained by VRAM

again, and I can't fucking stress this enough, what about next batch of games, what about DX12, Vulkan - those will eat up VRAM

 

RotTR is a case study and a herald of what's to come - 3GB for 1080p will not be enough

 

my own tests, were done without any form of AA and still shot past the 3GB mark

 

---

 

tone down quality settings? then excuse me .. why did you spend 200$ on it when you could've very well kept your money and play with the integrated graphics at 720p

no!? 

 

---

 

a lot of people use GFE and a lot of those people use GFE to set the games they play for them
how long until GFE will push GTX1060 6GB settings for 3GB card owners? since you know ... nVidia thinks it's the same card 

Edited August 27, 2016 by zMeul

[Matu20]

1 hour ago, Nineshadow said:

I read 85 avg on the 2nd one and reckoned that.

 

Seriously though, it's still gonna do just fine. Not as fine as the 6GB version, but it's going to be doing ok. It doesn't make games unplayable. You might need to turn down 1-2 settings but that's about it. And those settings won't make much of a difference in your visual experience in the end.

 

The 6GB version is a better choice if you can afford it.

 

I managed to play Rise of The Tomb Raider on my GTX 560 with 1 GB of RAM so yeah...I don't know.

Average doesn't mean shit in terms of stuttering. Go look up Gamers Nexus' video on No Mans Sky for that exact same issue; 120fps average, but unplayable.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, DocSwag said:

I recommend the 1060 6gb over the rx 480 8gb, but it looks like I'll be recommending the rx 480/470 4gb over a 1060 3gb

And that is a perfectly reasonable recommendation (specially 470 > 1060). But ultimately there is such a thing as a tech saavy but budget consumer (i.e. most of this forum) that can decide "I rather have the horsepower instead of the vram" and opt for the 1060 for something like high refresh rate 1080p

[Carclis]

1 hour ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

 

Funny when people on this forum are always like "3GB+ isn't enough vRAM for 1080p"...I'm sorry, my 1GB 560 is able to play triple As at 1080p perfectly fine...GTA 5 with mostly med and some low settings at 1080p grants 70fps with little to no stuttering due to it being straved of vRAM  Yes people want 60fps and ultra on 4K and whatever but come on, you're buying the wrong card for that (as you've said).

As someone who owns a 4GB card I can tell you now that it's not looking promising. Titles like Rise of the Tomb Raider and Deus Ex cause a decent amount of stuttering with texture settings maxed (even just high on Deus Ex) and on games like Doom where the card is more than fast enough, it's just hamstrung by the lack of VRAM preventing you from increasing the texture settings further. Wouldn't you find it insulting if the 1070 was released in 4/8GB versions?

[Misanthrope]

29 minutes ago, zMeul said:

it's not even about that

 

do you recall the Fiji with it's 4GB of HBM1 - everyone from AMD and their dog were adamant that 4GB is enough - it was not

do you recall the whole debacle surrounding the GTX970's VRAM allocation?

it's not the matter of the price, it's the matter of what you're selling and towards what segment

I saw the same bullshit excuses from the raging AMD fanboys, and now I'm seeing same bullshit excuses from naysayers and apologists

 

the GTX1060 3GB is artificially strangled by the lack of VRAM in certain situation in current games - this card is within 5% of the 6GB model, but goes down to 30% when constrained by VRAM

again, and I can't fucking stress this enough, what about next batch of games, what about DX12, Vulkan - those will eat up VRAM

 

RotTR is a case study and a herald of what's to come - 3GB for 1080p will not be enough

 

my own tests, were done without any form of AA and still shot past the 3GB mark

 

---

 

tone down quality settings? then excuse me .. why did you spend 200$ on it when you could've very well kept your money and play with the integrated graphics at 720p

no!? 

That's the most intellectually dishonest statement you've said so far in this forum by a lot (and coming from you that's saying something): a downgrade in quality that most users wont even notice unless they actually look at screenshots in details gets blown out of proportion to "omg 720p gaming"

 

That's ridiculous: the difference in settings is truly negligible your entire argument falls apart when you look at the reality of what games use vs what you claim.

 

 

[Valentyn]

4 minutes ago, Carclis said:

As someone who owns a 4GB card I can tell you now that it's not looking promising. Titles like Rise of the Tomb Raider and Deus Ex cause a decent amount of stuttering with texture settings maxed (even just high on Deus Ex) and on games like Doom where the card is more than fast enough, it's just hamstrung by the lack of VRAM preventing you from increasing the texture settings further. Wouldn't you find it insulting if the 1070 was released in 4/8GB versions?

In Deus Ex you should turn on Shader Caching in the Drivers for it . Apparently makes a world of difference for folks on 4GB GPUs.

Then launch the game, run around a bit, close and reopen and should help apparently.

 

[Bouzoo]

33 minutes ago, zMeul said:

the GTX1060 3GB is artificially strangled by the lack of VRAM in certain situation in current games - this card is within 5% of the 6GB model, but goes down to 30% when constrained by VRAM

again, and I can't fucking stress this enough, what about next batch of games, what about DX12, Vulkan - those will eat up VRAM

Well that's obvious, same how some 4 GB cards hit the limit because of VRAM restraints. I'm not sure why all the fuss specifically regarding VRAM, if people buy the 3 GB model and later discover they have issues because they bought the wrong card it's their own fault. If the card is cheaper you might want to investigate why. Either gather all the info or don't complain later. I can't count how many times I've heard people complaining how their $500 laptop can't run all games maxed. 

I personally don't see the purpose of the 3GB model but that's just me.

[Bhav]

The 3 Gb 1060 is perfectly fine for 1080p with none, or low (2x) AA, and maybe in only a few games, medium texture settings.

 

As people have pointed out, why are you buying a midrange (I would call it a lower than midrange) card and expecting to max everything out at 1080p?

 

 

[zMeul]

17 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

In Deus Ex you should turn on Shader Caching in the Drivers for it . Apparently makes a world of difference for folks on 4GB GPUs.

Then launch the game, run around a bit, close and reopen and should help apparently.

shader cache and VRAM usage and two very different things - their relation to this issue is pure coincidence

the shader cache is there to help the game avoid having to recompile the shaders each time you re-launch the game - some game engines do this natively, some others do not

 

the inherent issue with shader cache shows when either the game "suffers" from a game engine change (or just a minor alteration) , or when graphic drivers change drastically (usually a new branch)

what happens then is that the old cached shaders need to be wiped clean and recompiled - some games don't do this; one game that I encountered this issue with is Armored Warfare

[Deletist_Jerk]

It's like people are trying to say we can no longer play games with GTX 780.

 

That's just not true, and ignorant. 

[Valentyn]

13 minutes ago, zMeul said:

shader cache and VRAM usage and two very different things - their relation to this issue is pure coincidence

the shader cache is there to help the game avoid having to recompile the shaders each time you re-launch the game - some game engines do this natively, some others do not

 

I don't care, I'm just posting what people have said alleviates the stuttering in Deus Ex for them on AMD hardware.

As it's certainly not a VRAM issue, as it hasn't been for me and I only have a paltry 4GB on my current card. Unless I try and use MSAA, which neuters performance on even the GTX 1080 in this title.

[Carclis]

20 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

In Deus Ex you should turn on Shader Caching in the Drivers for it . Apparently makes a world of difference for folks on 4GB GPUs.

Then launch the game, run around a bit, close and reopen and should help apparently.

Thanks for that. At least high settings is playable for me now, even if very high is still a stretch.

 

12 minutes ago, Bhav said:

The 3 Gb 1060 is perfectly fine for 1080p with none, or low (2x) AA, and maybe in only a few games, medium texture settings.

 

As people have pointed out, why are you buying a midrange (I would call it a lower than midrange) card and expecting to max everything out at 1080p?

 

 

Well considering it's so close in price to the 6GB version it doesn't at all seem worth it. Games that are already out are quite easily reaching close to 3GB of VRAM and that number is swiftly increasing. I would ask why it exists when the 4GB RX 470/480 would be better options?

[Bhav]

Just now, Carclis said:

Thanks for that. At least high settings is playable for me now, even if very high is still a stretch.

 

Well considering it's so close in price to the 6GB version it doesn't at all seem worth it. Games that are already out are quite easily reaching close to 3GB of VRAM and that number is swiftly increasing. I would ask why it exists when the 4GB RX 470/480 would be better options?

It exists because it can.

 

If you dont like it then dont buy it?

 

What exactly is your issue?

[Valentyn]

2 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Thanks for that. At least high settings is playable for me now, even if very high is still a stretch.

 

If you turn off contact hardening shadows and tessellation you should get a substantial performance boost, especially on your minimums.

That should allow you to up AF to X16 and some other details.

[BuckGup]

So instead of marketing it as a lesser card like a 1050 they sell it the same in hopes to get more money. Also a great way to make money on wafer that aren't perfect.

[Carclis]

1 minute ago, Bhav said:

It exists because it can.

 

If you dont like it then dont buy it?

 

What exactly is your issue?

When people look at benchmarks for a 1060 they expect 1060 performance. As others have mentioned earlier, it would have been better if the card was released as a 1050 to prevent misrepresentation. It is extremely unusual to ever see $10/20 be the difference between a great experience and unplayable and this is a card that could potentially show it .

[Bhav]

Just now, Carclis said:

When people look at benchmarks for a 1060 they expect 1060 performance. As others have mentioned earlier, it would have been better if the card was released as a 1050 to prevent misrepresentation. It is extremely unusual to ever see $10/20 be the difference between a great experience and unplayable and this is a card that could potentially show it .

Im pretty sure this happens all the time. Its not hard to research a cards performance and reviews and make a decision on whether or not to purchase it based on that.

 

Yours, and other peoples reasons for simply not liking the card are pretty weak tbh. If you dont like something, then dont buy it and move on.

[Mr.Meerkat]

As an owner of a 290X with 4GB of vRAM and although I have a limited triple A library, I can say that I've never ever suffered issues due to running out of vRAM BUT it's probably has something to do with me ALWAYS turning AA off immediately when a new game launches as to me, I can't see a difference between no AA and max AA.

 

If you ever lived with weaker hardware, you'll know that if you're playing a game for the story or for fun rather than looking at the max AA and ultra settings graphics, turning the settings down is fine as graphics isn't your number one priority. 

[Fetzie]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

How is this worst?

 

You know exactly what you're getting. The issue wasn't the ammount of vram but the misrepresentation (imo outright lie by omission) about being 4gb instead of 3.5 and crippled .5

Yeah, now they're misrepresenting the power of the card. It isn't only 3GB of VRAM that has been cut - the card is missing a shader unit, and the core and memory run at lower speeds (obviously the memory is also on a lower bus width due to using less chips too).

 

Labelling this the GTX 1060 3GB leads the buyer to believe that it performs like a 1060. And it performs anywhere between 5 and 10 FPS lower than the "full" 1060 according to guru3d.

[Prysin]

And people called bullshit when i showed that even 4GB is borderline at 1080p if you are going to max out games.

[Bhav]

Just now, Carclis said:

When people look at benchmarks for a 1060 they expect 1060 performance. As others have mentioned earlier, it would have been better if the card was released as a 1050 to prevent misrepresentation. It is extremely unusual to ever see $10/20 be the difference between a great experience and unplayable and this is a card that could potentially show it .

Im pretty sure this happens all the time. Its not hard to research a cards performance and reviews and make a decision on whether or not to purchase it based on that.

 

Yours, and other peoples reasons for simply not liking the card are pretty weak tbh. If you dont like something, then dont buy it and move on.

[Misanthrope]

22 minutes ago, Carclis said:

When people look at benchmarks for a 1060 they expect 1060 performance. 

The naming convention is unintuitive and unclear.

 

Kinda like when the R9 280x was faster than the R9 285 which also was launched after the 280x making it even more confusing.

 

Oh wait, could it be that this other GPU company also has a stupid fucking naming scheme? Say it isn't sooo!!!!

 

Seriously we're arguing semantics. Yes gullible buyers might mistake one card for the other. They might also think that the 3D vision features are widely supported, they might read about this great Ansel feature that works on one fucking game, etc. Marketing will always be bullshit we can't hold consumer's hands if they are that fucking stupid they should just buy a prebuild or better yet a PS4.

[Bhav]

1 minute ago, Fetzie said:

Yeah, now they're misrepresenting the power of the card. It isn't only 3GB of VRAM that has been cut - the card is missing a shader unit, and the core and memory run at lower speeds (obviously the memory is also on a lower bus width due to using less chips too).

 

Labelling this the GTX 1060 3GB leads the buyer to believe that it performs like a 1060. And it performs anywhere between 5 and 10 FPS lower than the "full" 1060 according to guru3d.

NO

 

The card is correctly advertised with its reduced shaders and vram when you buy it. This isnt the same as a GTX 970 being advertised as a 4 Gb 256 bit card which it never actually was.