when a GTX1060 is not a GTX1060 - the VRAM problem

[Notional]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

So if you ignore most of my arguments I feel I should return the favor so:

 

- Yes: VRAM has impact on textures which in turn have little impact on performance. The real impact however, it's the price of the gddr chips which is not negligible so it's disingenuous for you to assume there's no good reason to use less of them when there's a plenty good reason right there to go with less vram.

 

Nvidia has been doing this for many years in fact: AMD always goes overboard with the amount of VRAM they put on cards (8gb for a 390? You're kidding me not even the 1080 can utilize that much with like 2x the horsepower) and people that like AMD have been saying how big of a problem this is, yet it has been almost always just fine and in need of very few tweaks.

 

Just a perpetual go-to argument that AMD likes to throw around not unlike their "core" wars "More cores, we have more cores! You're getting 8 cores for the price of only 2 cores from intel!" That to me is a transparent marketing gimmick: it looks nice to have fairly large numbers on the back of the box stats.

Of course, I even said it myself: NVidia does it to save money. But they always cut 1-2GB too much compared to the GPU power. 2GB 770, 3GB 780/ti. They are useless today compared to the AMD counterparts. With the 1060 series being more expensive with a similar sized chip, you simply cannot blame variable cost here. I'm not criticizing 6GB on the 1060, as I think that is mostly enough, but anything less is just not ok.

 

You say AMD always goes overboard with VRAM. The same was said about the 290 with 4GB contra 3GB 780. Well guess what, that is too little now, even though the GPU is more than powerful enough to handle higher texture settings. I cannot use highest on RotTR or DEMD (I don't have Mirrors Edge Catalyst), but based on Digital Foundry's test, it won't be enough there either. So is 8GB overboard in the 390? Well maybe, we will know more in a year or two, but it's a refresh of Hawaii, so they had no choice but to double VRAM if they wanted more than 4GB.

 

I doubt any Vega card will be under 8GB and really they shouldn't.

 

You keep making this an NVidia versus AMD thing, but they are in the same box here. Do you think 8GB is too much for the 1080 too? Double the horse power is irrelevant when texture settings has such little impact on performance.

[Misanthrope]

How is it irrelevant? If the card can't push the detail levels it matters a lot if the vram is going to waste since the GPU can't keep getting fed enough VRAM data anyway since it's choking on performance.

 

Whatever you're going in circles at this point to all you've said I just have a 3 word comment: Asked and answered.

[Notional]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

How is it irrelevant? If the card can't push the detail levels it matters a lot if the vram is going to waste since the GPU can't keep getting fed enough VRAM data anyway since it's choking on performance.

 

Whatever you're going in circles at this point to all you've said I just have a 3 word comment: Asked and answered.

Problem is that you focus on all settings being at equal level, aka presets. You could easily run medium settings on everything but having textures on ultra. That would make the game look really great at very very little performance impact. We are talking about consoles being able to have better textures than this 1060 3GB card. That is a joke any way you want to look at it.

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, Notional said:

Problem is that you focus on all settings being at equal level, aka presets. You could easily run medium settings on everything but having textures on ultra. That would make the game look really great at very very little performance impact. We are talking about consoles being able to have better textures than this 1060 3GB card. That is a joke any way you want to look at it.

Texture difference between high and ultra is very little (That's why you had to compare to medium to make your point earlier). Lighting and shaders are a lot more noticeable.

 

This is just confirmation bias at this point: you already made up your mind about textures being the ultimate necessity for any and all games because you're trying to defend your position. Meanwhile most advances in the last years had very little to do with textures and it's been particle effects, tessellation, shaders, etc. All the things you say don't matter. 

[Notional]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Texture difference between high and ultra is very little (That's why you had to compare to medium to make your point earlier). Lighting and shaders are a lot more noticeable.

 

This is just confirmation bias at this point: you already made up your mind about textures being the ultimate necessity for any and all games because you're trying to defend your position. Meanwhile most advances in the last years had very little to do with textures and it's been particle effects, tessellation, shaders, etc. All the things you say don't matter. 

At 3GB even second highest texture might be unobtainable. As I said, texture resolution/number of textures only goes up. We got a huge boost with the introduction of the new consoles, and games looks so much better/detailed as a result. This tendency will only continue.

That is just a huge straw man. Of course they make a huge difference, but unlike textures, tessellation, god rays, etc, has huge performance impact. Running medium preset with ultra textures will always look better than medium preset, medium textures. Performance will be identical sans 1-2 fps. That is performance well spent.

[Misanthrope]

10 minutes ago, Notional said:

At 3GB even second highest texture might be unobtainable.

In one game. The rest of the games you quoted are actually better coded with better optimized texture size thus the second highest is obtaniable. In fact they're mostly not that good compared to a game like Witcher 3.

[Notional]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

In one game. The rest of the games you quoted are actually better coded with better optimized texture size. In fact they're mostly not that good compared to a game like Witcher 3.

I literally gave you 6 examples off of the top of my head. I know there's more than those. It's not just about texture size, but also the level of detail in the game, as in more unique textures on the screen at any given time. You know texture diversity. Witcher 3 is nice looking, but their textures are not that impressive. Not a lot of diversity on them either. GDDR5 simply isn't expensive enough to justify 3GB on a 200+$ card. A 1060 is faster than a 780, and that old card suffers hard from the VRAM limitation in modenr games.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Notional said:

I literally gave you 6 examples off of the top of my head. 

And I literally told you those are not cases of the second highest texture settings being not obtainable. Are you even reading at this point? I'm done with you.

[Prysin]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

And I literally told you those are not cases of the second highest texture settings being not obtainable. Are you even reading at this point? I'm done with you.

Here i prove, in a not that demanding title (for reals), that even 4GB can be too little for 1080p...
So if 4096MB is too little, how can 3072 be enough?

Also, i know you have an affinity for team green, and that is fine, but defending a stupid product only reflects poorly onto yourself.

 

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Here i prove, in a not that demanding title (for reals), that even 4GB can be too little for 1080p...
So if 4096MB is too little, how can 3072 be enough?

Also, i know you have an affinity for team green, and that is fine, but defending a stupid product only reflects poorly onto yourself.

1080p max? How many fucking times I have to say that lowering the textures and AA is acceptable for a 200 bucks card?

 

Also I actually owned an equal amount of AMD and Nvidia gpus (If you count ATI cards as AMD). I conceded and even agreed and repeated arguments in favor of the 470 over the 1060-3. I even conceded that the naming scheme of the card is misleading and fucking stupid. My only beef is with this falsehood about painting the card as if it was a fucking scam when

 

1) You know exactly what you're getting

2) There's a simple workaround the limitations with benefits that for many users will outweigh the downsides.

 

I don't think I can present a more reasonable argument than this. You simply think anybody that disagrees with your conclusion (not your statements and individual points) is unreasonable and biased.

[Prysin]

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

1080p max? How many fucking times I have to say that lowering the textures and AA is acceptable for a 200 bucks card?

 

Also I actually owned an equal amount of AMD and Nvidia gpus (If you count ATI cards as AMD). I conceded and even agreed and repeated arguments in favor of the 470 over the 1060-3. I even conceded that the naming scheme of the card is misleading and fucking stupid. My only beef is with this falsehood about painting the card as if it was a fucking scam when

 

1) You know exactly what you're getting

2) There's simple workaround the limitations with benefits that for many users will outweigh the downsides.

 

I don't think I can present a more reasonable argument than this. You simply think anybody that disagrees with your conclusion (not your statements and individual points) is unreasonable and biased.

i agree that marketing is misleading as fuck. Potentially intentionally maliciously so (probs due to 950s not selling nearly as good as 960s and thus they are trying something "new" this time)

 

The simple workaround is to degrade the experience for the end user. I do not call that a workaround, nor a caveat. I would call that a outright kick in the nuts.

 

That is like claiming "a workaround for poorly tasting resturant food is to season it yourself". NO, its not a workaround. YOU SHOULDNT HAVE TO WORK AROUND LIMITATIONS OF HARDWARE THAT IS MARKETED TO TARGET 1080p.

 

If the "1050Ti" was designed and marketed for 900p or ultra budget, i would be fine with it. But its not. And as thus a user should under no circumstances have to work around anything.

You buy something that says "Excellent 1080p gaming". Then that means Excellent 1080p at Ultra as well as low.

 

 

EDIT: having "owned" products does not mean you dont have an affinity for one or the other. That is a silly argument.
I have actually owned equal number of Nvidia products as ive owned AMD and Intel products. That doesnt mean i am neutral, nor does it mean that i am clearly biased. It just means ive owned equal number of products from all vendors. Infact, the one vendor i have owned the least products from is IBM.

But i have one of their products too.

 

 

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, Prysin said:

i agree that marketing is misleading as fuck. Potentially intentionally maliciously so (probs due to 950s not selling nearly as good as 960s and thus they are trying something "new" this time)

 

The simple workaround is to degrade the experience for the end user. I do not call that a workaround, nor a caveat. I would call that a outright kick in the nuts.

 

That is like claiming "a workaround for poorly tasting resturant food is to season it yourself". NO, its not a workaround. YOU SHOULDNT HAVE TO WORK AROUND LIMITATIONS OF HARDWARE THAT IS MARKETED TO TARGET 1080p.

 

If the "1050Ti" was designed and marketed for 900p or ultra budget, i would be fine with it. But its not. And as thus a user should under no circumstances have to work around anything.

You buy something that says "Excellent 1080p gaming". Then that means Excellent 1080p at Ultra as well as low.

I actually did address this specific points with Notional before he literally outspend my good will and patience (which is, in all fairness, a rare commodity with me) but I don't mind going over this again with you:

 

1) Yes it is a degraded experience. My only argument was that it wasn't that much of a degradation all things considered due to the amount of games where it factors in and the fidelity loss.

2) I agree, you shouldn't need to do workarounds. But the midrange and low end market is basically always a compromise. There's never a perfect product in this category if you ask me. The point is that the 1060 at least has a way to compromise vs the 470 that's just inherently lower in horsepower and there's far less fixes about that: Almost all users will notice the lower particle effects, volumetric lighting, etc. more than slightly worst textures. Also there's more than one obvious workaround: modding communities often do help a lot with far better texture work than what the devs can come up with, particularly if your name is Bethesda.

3) No argument about the 1050ti being the correct and not-actually-misleading name this card should have.

4) "Excellent 1080p gaming" is extremely overused I completely agree. So much so that I have even higher standards: I would consider the Fury or the 1070 as the lowest excellent 1080p experience since those are the only ones that can max out absolutely everything and still push not only 60 but well over 60 minimum FPS and closer to 90 to 120 which is where excellence should stand for PC gamers, 1080p 60fps is just "good" any other superlative is misused if you ask me.

[Prysin]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

2) I agree, you shouldn't need to do workarounds. But the midrange and low end market is basically always a compromise. There's never a perfect product in this category if you ask me. The point is that the 1060 at least has a way to compromise vs the 470 that's just inherently lower and there's far less fixes about that: Almost all users will notice the lower particle effects, volumetric lighting, etc. more than slightly worst textures. Also there's more than one obvious workaround: modding communities often do help a lot with far better texture work than what the devs can come up with, particularly if your name is Bethesda.

 

depends on the game.

in a FPS game, yes you notice particles (smoke mainly) being worse, far more then textures. But we cannot put the yard stick at FPS games. Because the massive majority of players play something else, although Overwatch IS helping FPS-MOBA genre gain traction with its huge player-base.

Fact is, the most played games are the following (in no specific order):
World of Warcraft

League of Legends

DOTA2
Guildwars 2

Overwatch

Mabinogi

Blade and Soul

CSGO

Battlefield/COD (AFAIK, mostly on consoles atm, PC is waiting for BF1)

 

Notice how the majority of these games are the type you spend A LOT of time in looking at slow paced gameplay. Hours upon hours.

This is where textures are truly important. AA is a MUST, because you are so damn likely to notice it.

 

Yes, the budget segment has compromises, however compromises should be made by the end user, not by Intel's, Nvidia's or AMD's marketing department.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

depends on the game.

in a FPS game, yes you notice particles (smoke mainly) being worse, far more then textures. But we cannot put the yard stick at FPS games. Because the massive majority of players play something else, although Overwatch IS helping FPS-MOBA genre gain traction with its huge player-base.

Fact is, the most played games are the following (in no specific order):
World of Warcraft

League of Legends

DOTA2
Guildwars 2

Overwatch

Mabinogi

Blade and Soul

CSGO

Battlefield/COD (AFAIK, mostly on consoles atm, PC is waiting for BF1)

 

Notice how the majority of these games are the type you spend A LOT of time in looking at slow paced gameplay. Hours upon hours.

This is where textures are truly important. AA is a MUST, because you are so damn likely to notice it.

 

Yes, the budget segment has compromises, however compromises should be made by the end user, not by Intel's, Nvidia's or AMD's marketing department.

I also noticed how none of the games on that list cross with your list of VRAM size issues. Or well was it one or two then?

 

The only other point is that the fact that the 470 exists means that you as a consumer is making the compromise. So long as you have options that have substantial differences Nvidia or AMD are not making the compromise for you if you ask me.

[Mira Yurizaki]

6 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Notice how the majority of these games are the type you spend A LOT of time in looking at slow paced gameplay. Hours upon hours.

This is where textures are truly important. AA is a MUST, because you are so damn likely to notice it.

Yes, the budget segment has compromises, however compromises should be made by the end user, not by Intel's, Nvidia's or AMD's marketing department.

Most people who play the games you listed don't actually give a damn about either. Some of those games don't even have art styles that would benefit all that much from high resolution textures. I can't really count how many people I know who are PC gamers who complain about these sorts of things.

 

And how are there compromises made by the marketing department? If there was a compromise here, they'd call it a 1050 or 1050 Ti rather than a 1060

 

I'm still not understanding this idea that if you buy a discrete graphics card, you should be able to max out the quality settings, get smooth framerates, and the only limiting factor is resolution.

[Mira Yurizaki]

I'm going to beat a dead horse here, mostly to poke at the "maximum settings or bust" people because here's the thing, the difference between maximum texture quality and the one below it is minimal, if anything at all.
 

Spoiler

 

Fallout 4

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/fallout-4/fallout-4-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-001-ultra-vs-medium.html

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/fallout-4/fallout-4-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-002-ultra-vs-medium.html (there are some differences, but the base quality of the textures themselves are more important to compare)

 

Call of Duty: Black Ops 3

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/call-of-duty-black-ops-iii/call-of-duty-black-ops-3-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-1-extra-vs-high.html (It's definitely sharper, but the distance at which the detail remains appreciably sharper drops off from what looks like within 5 feet)

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/call-of-duty-black-ops-iii/call-of-duty-black-ops-3-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-2-extra-vs-high.html (Again, only major differences are up close)

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/call-of-duty-black-ops-iii/call-of-duty-black-ops-3-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-4-extra-vs-high.html (Can barely make out anything if at all)

 

Just Cause 3

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/just-cause-3/just-cause-3-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-001-very-high-vs-high.html (I can't really tell a difference)

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/just-cause-3/just-cause-3-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-003-very-high-vs-high.html ( Looks like normal maps start losing their quality, but otherwise the overall quality looks the same)

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/just-cause-3/just-cause-3-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-002-very-high-vs-high.html (Can't see a damn thing)

 

Witcher 3

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-1-ultra-vs-high.html (Can't see any appreciable difference)

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-2-ultra-vs-high.html (Ditto)

 

Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/metal-gear-solid-v-the-phantom-pain/metal-gear-solid-v-the-phantom-pain-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-1-extra-high-vs-high.html (Can't see any appreciable difference)

 

GTA V

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/grand-theft-auto-v/grand-theft-auto-v-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-5-very-high-vs-high.html (The road looks sharper if you focus on it)

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/grand-theft-auto-v/grand-theft-auto-v-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-2-very-high-vs-high.html (Can't see anything different)

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/grand-theft-auto-v/grand-theft-auto-v-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-1-very-high-vs-high.html ( The sign looks sharper, but nothing else seems to)

 

 

The point? Texture quality has achieved almost parity between high and maximum. This reminds me of when Doom 3 came out with its "Ultra" quality settings and you know what the difference was? It was basically High with the textures uncompressed. At the time, it may have helped with performance because texture compression perhaps wasn't a "free lunch" feature back then. But today, I don't see how it isn't. Especially considering that texture compression is also both lossless and fixed (meaning a 2:1 compression algorithm is always going to compress 2:1). So today, it may just be the same thing as "high", just uncompressed, for no real reason other than just because.

[Tech Inquisition]

18 hours ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Hope they make a "gimp" video about this one :p, like the one for the 970 hehe.

I wouldn't mind to do a Nerf Hunt series, but alas... I don't have both versions of the 1060 available...

[RagnarokDel]

On 27/08/2016 at 10:22 AM, zMeul said:

 

my advise to people thinking of buying this card - if you plan to play a single game (MOBAs or CS:Go) this card will suffice

but if plan to make this purchase for general gaming and want to keep it for couple or years, make an effort at get the 6GB model - this is not a sound investment

If you only play CS:GO and MOBAs, the 460 is a much better choice.

[Cheddle]

#IMAFIRINMALAZOR

 

If your 'settings' are high enough to hit a 3gb vram util issue at 1080p - your already FAR ahead of console visual fidelity... 

 

The real issue becomes apparent when assigning arbitrary names to texture qualities such as 'low' and 'ultra' - when in one title the 'low' texture sizes could be over double another titles 'ultra' texture sizes and the user is left to ponder over how 'bad' their PC is because it can only run 'low'.

 

we are at an impasse... do we ask game devs to cripple game visuals to support the low-end 2/3gb video cards or do we ask them to make better visuals to make our $1,000 GPUs break a sweat and work hard?? It seems that peoples expectations are directly related to how far they can turn that "quality dial" up rather than how good a game actually looks!!!! 

 

How about you appreciate the level of visual fidelity that the 1060 3gb is able to provide for its price, rather than kicking up a salt storm over a GPU not being able to run 'ultra' settings without stuttering... its price is less than 1/5th the cost the current top tier GPU sold today. 

 

The 1060 3gb has a real place in the market today and regardless of it hitting a vram wall at 'ultra' settings. people need to stop expecting it to behave like a GPU that is four times its price.

 

I remember walking into a PC store and buying the top of the line HD6970 for $330 AUD. Skyrim never looked so good! now, not even 6 years later, the same sum of money gets you a card that is shamed into a corner by PC gamers preened into thinking $1,000 is a sensible sum of money to spend on a GPU so you can turn that dial up to 'ultra'. Nvidia, plz sthap.

[Cheddle]

On 8/29/2016 at 10:57 AM, M.Yurizaki said:

I'm going to beat a dead horse here, mostly to poke at the "maximum settings or bust" people because here's the thing, the difference between maximum texture quality and the one below it is minimal, if anything at all.
 

  Hide contents

 

Fallout 4

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/fallout-4/fallout-4-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-001-ultra-vs-medium.html

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/fallout-4/fallout-4-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-002-ultra-vs-medium.html (there are some differences, but the base quality of the textures themselves are more important to compare)

 

Call of Duty: Black Ops 3

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/call-of-duty-black-ops-iii/call-of-duty-black-ops-3-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-1-extra-vs-high.html (It's definitely sharper, but the distance at which the detail remains appreciably sharper drops off from what looks like within 5 feet)

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/call-of-duty-black-ops-iii/call-of-duty-black-ops-3-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-2-extra-vs-high.html (Again, only major differences are up close)

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/call-of-duty-black-ops-iii/call-of-duty-black-ops-3-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-4-extra-vs-high.html (Can barely make out anything if at all)

 

Just Cause 3

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/just-cause-3/just-cause-3-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-001-very-high-vs-high.html (I can't really tell a difference)

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/just-cause-3/just-cause-3-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-003-very-high-vs-high.html ( Looks like normal maps start losing their quality, but otherwise the overall quality looks the same)

http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/just-cause-3/just-cause-3-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-002-very-high-vs-high.html (Can't see a damn thing)

 

Witcher 3

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-1-ultra-vs-high.html (Can't see any appreciable difference)

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-2-ultra-vs-high.html (Ditto)

 

Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/metal-gear-solid-v-the-phantom-pain/metal-gear-solid-v-the-phantom-pain-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-1-extra-high-vs-high.html (Can't see any appreciable difference)

 

GTA V

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/grand-theft-auto-v/grand-theft-auto-v-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-5-very-high-vs-high.html (The road looks sharper if you focus on it)

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/grand-theft-auto-v/grand-theft-auto-v-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-2-very-high-vs-high.html (Can't see anything different)

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/grand-theft-auto-v/grand-theft-auto-v-texture-quality-interactive-comparison-1-very-high-vs-high.html ( The sign looks sharper, but nothing else seems to)

 

 

The point? Texture quality has achieved almost parity between high and maximum. This reminds me of when Doom 3 came out with its "Ultra" quality settings and you know what the difference was? It was basically High with the textures uncompressed. At the time, it may have helped with performance because texture compression perhaps wasn't a "free lunch" feature back then. But today, I don't see how it isn't. Especially considering that texture compression is also both lossless and fixed (meaning a 2:1 compression algorithm is always going to compress 2:1). So today, it may just be the same thing as "high", just uncompressed, for no real reason other than just because.

 

^ that