The 1060 3GB is a far better deal than the 1060 6GB

[Streetguru]

4 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

I'm talking about two GTX 1060 models.  That's all this thread is about. 

 

You seem to not understand that people have a finite amount of money.  There will always be something better.  You shouldn't pay 25% more for a 4% performance improvement.  That's ridiculous.

Nvidia isn't the only GPU manufacturer in the market, the 3GB card is a better value now, but the VRAM is too limiting for me and many others to recommend it generally.

Look at Resident Evil 7, that game eats VRAM up

Adding in the AMD cards and well, it's DOA

[JoostinOnline]

2 minutes ago, DrMikeNZ said:

That is quite an old video.

I ran into massive VRAM bottleneck issues with my GTX970 at 1080p. I cannot imagine having 0.5GB less VRAM would be a good idea especially as games are using more and more.

The amount of VRAM needed differs drastically based on the card.  3GB on a 900 series isn't going to cut it for that kind of gaming.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

They're almost identical cards, but one has more VRAM.  That is in no way a silly comparison.

You are ignoring the 10% higher cuda core count of the 6GB version. You are also completely ignoring frametime, another very important metric. The 6GB is superior in that regard, and it's not something one should ignore. 

 

The reason the 3gb model gets shot down, is because more titles are coming out that are heavily dependent on VRAM. While the 1060 3GB shows superior price:performance for most titles, this isn't the case for some of the more demanding ones, and certainly won't be the case in the future. If you are going to get a card within the price bracket of the 1060 3gb, you might as well get a RX 480, which is superior in every regard for the same amount of money.

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, Streetguru said:

Nvidia isn't the only GPU manufacturer in the market, the 3GB card is a better value now, but the VRAM is too limiting for me and many others to recommend it generally.

Adding in the AMD cards and well, it's DOA

For the billionth time, I'm not saying you should or shouldn't recommend the 1060 over the 480.  I'm saying that if someone is on a budget, and for whatever reason they're set on a 1060, you should recommend the 3GB version.

[Biggerboot]

1 minute ago, DrMikeNZ said:

That is quite an old video.

I ran into massive VRAM bottleneck issues with my GTX970 at 1080p. I cannot imagine having 0.5GB less VRAM would be a good idea especially as games are using more and more.

Nvidia claims better texture compression on Pascal makes up for it.  I don't know how true those claims are because I haven't looked at the compression algorithms myself or how effectively it's utilized in-game.

 

I get where the OP is coming from.  If the 3gb 1060 seems like a good value to you, then go for it.  That being said, the 470 is probably where I'd go with a $200 gpu budget.

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

You are ignoring the 10% higher cuda core count of the 6GB version. You are also completely ignoring frametime, another very important metric. The 6GB is superior in that regard, and it's not something one should ignore. 

 

The reason the 3gb model gets shot down, is because more titles are coming out that are heavily dependent on VRAM. While the 1060 3GB shows superior price:performance for most titles, this isn't the case for some of the more demanding ones, and certainly won't be the case in the future. If you are going to get a card within the price bracket of the 1060 3gb, you might as well get a RX 480, which is superior in every regard for the same amount of money.

ROTTR used over 7GB of VRAM, but performed just barely lower on the 3GB version.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

ROTTR used over 7GB of VRAM, but performed just barely lower on the 3GB version.

While that likely didn't impact framerate, it most likely did have an impact on the quality of textures being loaded in. I wouldn't use a framerate graph as a means of actually gauging ones end experience. 

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, Biggerboot said:

Nvidia claims better texture compression on Pascal makes up for it.  I don't know how true those claims are because I haven't looked at the compression algorithms myself or how effectively it's utilized in-game.

 

I get where the OP is coming from.  If the 3gb 1060 seems like a good value to you, then go for it.  That being said, the 470 is probably where I'd go with a $200 gpu budget.

Thank you, someone gets it.  If I were to get a new GPU right now, it would be the 480.  It performs better.  I'm saying that if you are going to recommend a 1060, it should be the 3GB version.

[Streetguru]

4 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

For the billionth time, I'm not saying you should or shouldn't recommend the 1060 over the 480.  I'm saying that if someone is on a budget, and for whatever reason they're set on a 1060, you should recommend the 3GB version.

Well no, because the 480 is pretty objectively better most people would get it over a 3GB 1060 when shown modern benchmarks and the other advantages, or they should save up for the 6gb card

 

6 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

The amount of VRAM needed differs drastically based on the card.  3GB on a 900 series isn't going to cut it for that kind of gaming.

If you're referring to the memory compression improvements, that's nice to have, but can't replace real VRAM

[Drak3]

14 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

anyone who suggests the 3GB version gets shot down. 

The 3GB on the 1060 inferior can bottleneck the GPU in graphically demanding games at settings the card could run with a bit more VRAM. Moving forward, more and more games will also require more VRAM to be able to drive the GPU to its potential.

The 1050Ti can handle 1080p gaming comfortably and has 4GB of VRAM. The 1060 can handle some moderate 1440p gaming with it's 6GB. Then the AMD offerings, the RX 470 and 480, both handle 1080p very well while not costing as much with their 4GB models. The 3GB 1060 inferior should not exist in any capacity.

 

6 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

I'm talking about two GTX 1060 models.  That's all this thread is about. 

This thread is about whatever the forum users talk about on it, within the forum's guidelines. Expanding the narrow view of a thread that seems a tad narrow minded is to be expected. Evolution of conversation.

 

 

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, Streetguru said:

Well no, because the 480 is pretty objectively better most people would get it over a 3GB 1060 when shown modern benchmarks and the other advantages, or they should save up for the 6gb card

 

If you're refering to the memory compression improvements, thats nice to have, but can't replace real VRAM

If you compare the differences of performance of 3GB/6GB (or 2GB/4GB) versions of the 900 series, you'll see a much bigger gap than with the 1060.

[JoostinOnline]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The 1050Ti can handle 1080p gaming comfortably and has 4GB of VRAM. The 1060 can handle some moderate 1440p gaming with it's 6GB. Then the AMD offerings, the RX 470 and 480, both handle 1080p very well while not costing as much with their 4GB models. The 3GB 1060 inferior should not exist in any capacity.

If you look at the 3GB version of the 1060, it can handle 1440p gaming quite well.

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

This thread is about whatever the forum users talk about on it, within the forum's guidelines. Expanding the narrow view of a thread that seems a tad narrow minded is to be expected. Evolution of conversation.

People completely ignored my point and jumped straight into how AMD was better.  It's frustrating.  It's like starting a topic about Kaby Lake and someone says "Wait for Ryzen" 50 times in the span of 2 minutes.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

If you look at the 3GB version of the 1060, it can handle 1440p gaming quite well.

My 1070 can barely max out 1440p titles. I would most definitely refrain from trying to push that card into the 1440p category, it certainly does not belong.

[Biggerboot]

4 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

If you look at the 3GB version of the 1060, it can handle 1440p gaming quite well.

People completely ignored my point and jumped straight into how AMD was better.  It's frustrating.  It's like starting a topic about Kaby Lake and someone says "Wait for Ryzen" 50 times in the span of 2 minutes.

I think it's well intentioned advice most the time.  Where I think the forums usually go overboard are not considering things like regional price differences, different use cases and variables other than straight up FPS in games.

 

Wouldn't put it into the 1440p category either.

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

My 1070 can barely max out 1440p titles. I would most definitely refrain from trying to push that card into the 1440p category, it certainly does not belong.

What do you consider to be "quite well"?  Does everything have to be maxed out with 144fps?  If that's what you want,, you shouldn't get either 1060 (or 480).

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

What do you consider to be "quite well"?  Does everything have to be maxed out with 144fps?  If that's what you want,, you shouldn't get either 1060 (or 480).

60fps medium-high in modern AAA titles.

[JoostinOnline]

2 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

I think it's well intentioned advice most the time.  Where I think the forums usually go overboard are not considering things like regional price differences, different use cases and variables other than straight up FPS in games.

Why did everyone assume I didn't know that?  Or that it was necessary to say it over and over and over?  I never made an argument AGAINST the 480.

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

60fps medium-high in modern AAA titles.

I don't understand people saying they can't get high quality on those. I have a shitty 750 Ti 2GB, and the only game I own that I can't get 60fps at medium-high settings on is ROTTR.  Now admittedly, that's at 1080p, but still.

[Biggerboot]

Definitely depends on the titles too.  The most graphically demanding games I probably have in my steam lib is GTA V or Metro Redux.  In that sense, my GTX 970 is still completely competent.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

What do you consider to be "quite well"?  Does everything have to be maxed out with 144fps?  If that's what you want,, you shouldn't get either 1060 (or 480).

Suuure let's reduce all settings to low jist for the sake of higher resolution 

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Suuure let's reduce all settings to low jist for the sake of higher resolution 

What are you talking about?

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

Why did everyone assume I didn't know that?  Or that it was necessary to say it over and over and over?  I never made an argument AGAINST the 480.

I don't understand people saying they can't get high quality on those. I have a shitty 750 Ti 2GB, and the only game I own that I can't get 60fps at medium-high settings on is ROTTR.  Now admittedly, that's at 1080p, but still.

I own a GTX 750 Ti, and I highly doubt that. That's with me using it with on a backup machine with a 4.5ghz Skylake i5 and a 1600x900 monitor. Perhaps you should try that again, with a little more honesty.

[TheKDub]

38 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

I've seen soooooooooo many people say you need the 6GB version.  Take a look at some benchmarks:

Edit: I never brought up the R480.

Edit 2: Stop trying to turn this into an AMD vs Nvidia thread.

 

The reason people say others should go for the 6GB version instead of the 3GB version is because the 6GB not only has twice the VRAM, it's also an overall more powerful card.

 

Seeing how the 1060 is more powerful than the 970, and the 970 can eat up the 3.5GB of faster VRAM in certain games, if anything you should go for more VRAM and additional power instead of less VRAM.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Why did everyone assume I didn't know that?  Or that it was necessary to say it over and over and over?  I never made an argument AGAINST the 480.

I don't understand people saying they can't get high quality on those. I have a shitty 750 Ti 2GB, and the only game I own that I can't get 60fps at medium-high settings on is ROTTR.  Now admittedly, that's at 1080p, but still.

Let's bring a completely irrelevant card like a 750ti while bashing othet for bringing 480 to the discussion 

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, TheKDub said:

 

The reason people say others should go for the 6GB version instead of the 3GB version is because the 6GB not only has twice the VRAM, it's also an overall more powerful card.

I said it's a better deal.  You're talking about, at most, a 10% performance increase for a 25% price increase.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

If you look at the 3GB version of the 1060, it can handle 1440p gaming quite well.

It really can't. There are some cherry picked circumstances where it's acceptable, but it's a piss poor performer in the real world.

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

My 1070 can barely max out 1440p titles. I would most definitely refrain from trying to push that card into the 1440p category, it certainly does not belong.

Pssh! Joostin is claiming that the 3GB 1060 inferior is quite capable at 1440p, surely a card with roughly 48% better hardware performance and 266% of the VRAM should handle 1440p144 without breaking a sweat!

2 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Suuure let's reduce all settings to low jist for the sake of higher resolution 

If it means I can play GTA V @ 16K, but everything looks like PS2 graphics, I wouldn't complain.

 

Much.

 

 

Alot.