Why are most people here saying never to buy a 1060 3GB

[System Error Message]

no, its just the amount of memory on the card. I have the RX 480 and many high end 1080p games use more than 3GB of vram already. So getting a 1060 with 3GB of vram will only last you for a year or 2 at most before you dont have enough vram for 1080p games.

[xAcid9]

lol. buying a 3GB card right now is like buying a 2GB card last year and 1060 is surely capable for more than that. 

[MorganO]

4 hours ago, Jovidah said:

By that reasoning no one should buy a 1070 because it's a cut-down 1080, or an i5 because it's a cut-down i7 cpu...

From a price / performance they both make total sense.

No,  it's cut down but also markets as a 3gb card the same way it's marketed as the usual 6gb so people who don't research will get the short end of the stick

[SteveGrabowski0]

I'd take a 1060 3GB over an RX 480 4GB. There is still no such thing as a $200 RX 480 while you can get a 1060 3GB for $190 and a 1060 6GB for $235.

[Jovidah]

17 minutes ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

No,  it's cut down but also markets as a 3gb card the same way it's marketed as the usual 6gb so people who don't research will get the short end of the stick

Well judging by the benchmarks that short end is only 5-10% shorter... and 20-30% cheaper. 

Maybe you'll notice a difference 4 years down the line... but to be honest none of the 60-series cards really ever had that kind of staying power in the first place.

[System Error Message]

1 minute ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I'd take a 1060 3GB over an RX 480 4GB any day. There is still no such thing as a $200 RX 480 while you can get a 1060 3GB for $190 and a 1060 6GB for $235.

Well i guess like last time people are overpricing a card because of fame. Seems to happen a lot but on amazon UK the rx 480 8GB is around the same price as the 1060 6GB.

The only problem with 1060 is memory bandwidth. Other than graphics AMD beats it in features like freesync, openCL API and performance whereas Gsync significantly adds cost.

 

However you should take a look at some GPU history. In the past the best of the single GPUs would cost around $300, now they cost more than double like the gtx 1080 or titan. The rx480 is the best AMD offers now and it is priced below $300. I dont have anything against CUDA or physx but the vendor lock in by nvidia is very disadvantages to developers as it means the people who can buy and use your software needs to own particular hardware so that limits your audience. CUDA has its advantages but openCL runs on many more things even your phone's GPU. even qualcomm snapdragons come out supporting the latest openCL version.

[SteveGrabowski0]

4 minutes ago, System Error Message said:

Well i guess like last time people are overpricing a card because of fame. Seems to happen a lot but on amazon UK the rx 480 8GB is around the same price as the 1060 6GB.

The only problem with 1060 is memory bandwidth. Other than graphics AMD beats it in features like freesync, openCL API and performance whereas Gsync significantly adds cost.

 

However you should take a look at some GPU history. In the past the best of the single GPUs would cost around $300, now they cost more than double like the gtx 1080 or titan. The rx480 is the best AMD offers now and it is priced below $300. I dont have anything against CUDA or physx but the vendor lock in by nvidia is very disadvantages to developers as it means the people who can buy and use your software needs to own particular hardware so that limits your audience. CUDA has its advantages but openCL runs on many more things even your phone's GPU. even qualcomm snapdragons come out supporting the latest openCL version.

I'm talking in the context of gaming.

[System Error Message]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I'm talking in the context of gaming.

i am partially in context. memory bandwidth holds the 1060 back. Some games favour AMD some favour nvidia so perhaps if you got both cards you could use whichever card was best for the game.

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 minute ago, System Error Message said:

i am partially in context. memory bandwidth holds the 1060 back. Some games favour AMD some favour nvidia so perhaps if you got both cards you could use whichever card was best for the game.

More games favor the 1060. The 290 shredded the 970 on memory bandwidth too but the 970 got better framerates in games until a few months ago. 

[System Error Message]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

More games favor the 1060. The 290 shredded the 970 on memory bandwidth too but the 970 got better framerates in games until a few months ago. 

that just shows that AMD takes time to optimise their drivers. Most people cant afford to buy a new GPU every year.

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 minute ago, System Error Message said:

that just shows that AMD takes time to optimise their drivers. Most people cant afford to buy a new GPU every year.

I'm sure the RX 480 will be a slightly better gpu than the GTX 1060 in two years. It's not now and probably won't be until around then.

[System Error Message]

58 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I'm sure the RX 480 will be a slightly better gpu than the GTX 1060 in two years. It's not now and probably won't be until around then.

Perhaps but the rx 480 does let you game at ultra on 1080p at 60 fps, coupled with freesync and that adds up a lot cheaper compared to gsync. So even if the 1060 is 10% faster than the rx 480 now, thats a small margin which will be different in 2 years and thats not even talking about vulkan or dx12.

[divito]

Depends on what games you play and what you have in your system. I don't play anything current (CS:GO, LoL, SC2, Hearthstone) and probably wouldn't ever play over 1080p, so a 1060 3GB is an option I'm considering to upgrade my 760 FTW.

[Lays]

2 hours ago, System Error Message said:

that just shows that AMD takes time to optimise their drivers. Most people cant afford to buy a new GPU every year.

I don't think that's what it shows at all.  In my opinion, the only reason why the 290 and 290x + other hawaii GPU's got so much better, is because they "recycled" the architecture and re-used all of it for their 300 series.   So optimizing for the 300 series, in turn gave the 200 series a boost as well.   I'd be willing to bet if the 300 series had a different architecture, the 200 series wouldn't of continued to gain performance over time due to driver improvements.

[Prysin]

11 hours ago, farzher said:

I realize it's 5-10% slower than 6GB, but it's 30% cheaper!

My math says it's by far the best value card that exists

People here say "get RX 480 or 1060 6GB. never 1060 3GB"
Why...1060 3GB is way cheaper than both, and it's even slightly faster than RX 480
(If you don't know what I'm talking about just search "1060 3gb" on here)
 

because most people here seem to be spiteful cunts who want to troll you rather then help you.

[Prysin]

6 minutes ago, Lays said:

I don't think that's what it shows at all.  In my opinion, the only reason why the 290 and 290x + other hawaii GPU's got so much better, is because they "recycled" the architecture and re-used all of it for their 300 series.   So optimizing for the 300 series, in turn gave the 200 series a boost as well.   I'd be willing to bet if the 300 series had a different architecture, the 200 series wouldn't of continued to gain performance over time due to driver improvements.

you should change the hairstyle of your frog avatar to a trump toupé

[ybriK]

Never saw the point of anything above 4GB VRAM for these types of GPUs as they don't have enough horsepower to push 60 FPS ultra-max settings on past/current demanding titles. It just seems all marketing stuff as majority of consumers will turn down some settings to achieve stable 60 FPS anyway at any given resolution above 1080p.

[Dimmizer]

I feel like something people are forgetting here is like getting a 1060 3GB is a nice budget card and it'll run everything just fine probly for many years to come.. a 1060 3GB isn't going to be that card you buy to turn around an crank up the gfx all the way and run stupid high resolutions etc.. No.. It's a card you buy to run games at medium to high settings with decent textures and 1080 maybe 1440 resolutions..

I run a 960 SSC 4GB running dual monitors one of which is a damn TV with a weird 1842x1036 and my other running 1680x1050 but I run everything so far maxed settings and I assume that's just cause I have 4GB of memory..

 

~~~
TL:DR tho the 1060 is a cheap and fast card for this moment in time. Not everyone wants to play with all settings maxed etc.. they just wanna play the game with decent frames and not get lag or micro stutters all of which the 1060 will deliver perfectly.

[sgloux3470]

11 hours ago, farzher said:

I realize it's 5-10% slower than 6GB, but it's 30% cheaper!

My math says it's by far the best value card that exists

 

The performance delta will increase over time.  You'll see the 1060 6GB pull ahead significantly in the next 1-2 years.

 

I dunno if it will ever reach 30% better, but there's also the advantage of being able to run higher quality post processing, anti-aliasing and texture quality settings without being constrained by vRAM.

 

TL:DR tho the 1060 is a cheap and fast card for this moment in time. Not everyone wants to play with all settings maxed etc.. they just wanna play the game with decent frames and not get lag or micro stutters all of which the 1060 will deliver perfectly.

There's often a ridiculous assumption these days that GPU's only ever run games on ultra settings.  I blame last console generation being so long leading to even mid range PC cards being able to run everything on ultra/60FPS with complete ease.

 

 

[Dimmizer]

7 minutes ago, sgloux3470 said:

There's often a ridiculous assumption these days that GPU's only ever run games on ultra settings.  I blame last console generation being so long leading to even mid range PC cards being able to run everything on ultra/60FPS with complete ease.

I agree

[Morgan Everett]

13 hours ago, farzher said:

no it's not. not at 1080p. 6gb is irrelevant in 95percent of games.  3gb is more than you need. 

 

Even at 1080p, there are going to be cases where VRAM becomes a problem, both now and, increasingly, in the future. It wouldn't matter on a lower tier card where other factors come into play sooner, but the 1060 isn't one of those. 

[ivan134]

Doom and mirrors edge catalyst are games that exist right now that are vram hogs. It's only going to get worse in the future. 3 GB on a $200 GPU in 2016 is a joke.

[Andrew Sh]

13 hours ago, Morgan Everett said:

Because 3 GB of VRAM is inadequate for such a card.

Nope. It is enough for pretty much anything at 1080p. There are around 2 titles that use more and they perform terrible on cards that should perform better at 1080p.
Most modern games use under 2gb.

 

[Morgan Everett]

2 minutes ago, Andrew Sh said:

Nope. It is enough for pretty much anything at 1080p. There are around 2 titles that use more and they perform terrible on cards that should perform better at 1080p.
Most modern games use under 2gb.

 

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. Your last sentence is particularly wide of the mark.

[YongKang]

I love that OP don't realize why the 970 3.5 gb+0.5 slower VRAM fiasco was such a big problem. This directly correlates with the 1060 3gb. A lot of games use more than 3 gb of VRAM. 4GB should be the minimum. Even the RX460, a much lower end card dedicated to esports games, have a 4 gb version. 

Plus, the 1060 3gb version isn't just cutting on the VRAM. They cut almost everything. At that point, you might be better with a RX470 4GB.