Is 3GB VRAM in the GTX 1060 really that bad?

[genexis_x]

Is the GTX 1060 3GB VRAM really that sucks?

[Aytex]

Its not the vram, its the fact that it has a weaker die, less % of cores than the 6 GB

As the rx 480 4gb and 8gb is the same die, except VRAM differences.

[RadiatingLight]

Yes.

if people complained about the 970 having only 3.5GB back when it was released, less VRAM on a newer card is pretty bad.

 

I have a link in my sig comparing the 1060 and 480, where there is a section on the 3GB version. I'd highly encourage you to read it.

 

in today's games, it might not make a huge difference, but textures in the 1060 3GB's VRAM are already being compressed to fit everything in, and in the future, it will almost undoubtedly run out of Vram in games.

 

RX 480 4GB is way better.

[Energycore]

13 minutes ago, ZM Fong said:

Is the GTX 1060 3GB VRAM really that sucks?

I'm gonna say yes. Look at how the 1060 3GB fared in the RX 580 review over at tomshardware

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-580-review,5020-4.html

Spoiler

Not just a bit worse. Absolutely dreadful. Like, even our more pessimistic users on the topic of VRAM below 4GB could not have predicted something this bad.

[genexis_x]

7 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Not just a bit worse. Absolutely dreadful. Like, even our more pessimistic users on the topic of VRAM below 4GB could not have predicted something this bad.

Even the RX 550 gets 4GB VRAM...

[Energycore]

Update: Keep in mind tomshardware's numbers are a bit of an outlier, might have something to do with their test setup. TPU still shows the 1060 3GB in bag light, but nowhere near as bad.

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/13.html

[Energycore]

Just now, ZM Fong said:

Even the RX 550 gets 4GB VRAM...

AMD's onto something here

[Biggerboot]

As others have mentioned, it's a combination of the vRAM and the lesser core count.  They shoulda really called the 6gb 1060 the 1060 ti.

 

I would say the better memory compression puts it into 970 territory in terms of performance and limitations.  Overall it's a hard card to recommend unless you can get it quite cheap, but used 970s would be cheaper most of the time.

[othertomperson]

No, even cut down it performs like a 480 4gb. Get whatever is cheaper and don't worry about either one.

[Kommanche]

9 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

No, even cut down it performs like a 480 4gb. Get whatever is cheaper and don't worry about either one.

 

Not in all games. It's starting to become hamstrung by its VRAM. RX 480 is the better buy.

[The SilverStone]

Its not futureproof...Better get RX 480 4Gb

[othertomperson]

3 hours ago, Kommanche said:

 

Not in all games. It's starting to become hamstrung by its VRAM. RX 480 is the better buy.

3gb is fine for 1080p.

[Kommanche]

26 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

3gb is fine for 1080p.

For some games it is fine. For others it isn't. You would suffer on Shadows of Mordor for example.

 

Games going to continue to use more VRAM.

 

Best purchase in the midrange is 8GB 480/580.

[Technomancer__]

On 4/21/2017 at 4:23 PM, othertomperson said:

3gb is fine for 1080p.

for example raimbow six sige consumes 6gb of ram with ultra texures

[Darkseth]

it works, but you will have to turn down settings quite a bit. Less the details, more teh Textures.

On some games, you will need LOW - Medium Textures, even if you have enough performance to run everything else on Ultra @ 60 fps.

 

Do not get the 3gb model. It bottlenecks in 1080p, Period. Multiple tests have shown this.

Not in ALL games, of course. But there are more and more games, where 3gb are simply not enough.

[arnavvr]

On 4/20/2017 at 9:57 PM, Energycore said:

AMD's onto something here

Especially for longevity, AMD's GPUs tend to have more vRAM (except the fury x) and they generally last longer.

[JoostinOnline]

2 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

it works, but you will have to turn down settings quite a bit. Less the details, more teh Textures.

On some games, you will need LOW - Medium Textures, even if you have enough performance to run everything else on Ultra @ 60 fps.

 

Do not get the 3gb model. It bottlenecks in 1080p, Period. Multiple tests have shown this.

Not in ALL games, of course. But there are more and more games, where 3gb are simply not enough.

That's not true. I've got a friend who has it and he runs all his games on Ultra, including Mass Effect Andromeda. There's less than a 10% performance difference between the 3GB and 6GB versions. 

 

This is for 1440p, but it does do a good job of showing the differences:

 

[aisle9]

The 3GB 1060 is a card that should not exist. It's, imo, the worst purchase amongst the performance-oriented Pascal or Polaris GPUs, with the 1050 and RX 460 right behind (although the 460 looks better and better as its prices continue to come down).

[Darkseth]

And where are the Frametime graphs?

 

average fps doesn't matter shit when it comes to Vram.

it's the Frametimes only, that show bad behaviour when not enough Vram is available. Textures loading not fast enough, small stuttering not visible to any fps counts. But visible and feelable to the player.

 

See here, Infinite Warfare: https://www.computerbase.de/2016-11/call-of-duty-infinite-warfare-benchmark/2/#abschnitt_probleme_bei_weniger_als_8_gb_speicher

If your GPU has only 4gb Vram, you NEED low textures. Even with NORMAL textures, you get more Framedrops as with LOW textures.

And no, even the "magical" HBM vram of the Fury X doesn't prevent it from stuttering, because 4gb is not enough.

 

In many cases, the Card lowers the performance to counter that. In some games, for example Rise of the Tomb raider, the Card shows much more than just 10% Performance difference.

 

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Ethocreeper said:

for example raimbow six sige consumes 6gb of ram with ultra texures

Don't confuse RAM with VRAM

 

[Technomancer__]

12 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Don't confuse RAM with VRAM

 

its vram with ultra textures

they have a bar that measures how much vram do you need like gta and it says 6 for me

plus when you hover over the option for ultra textures it says you need 6gb vram minimum and the textures downloaded to use them

[Nup]

35 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's not true. I've got a friend who has it and he runs all his games on Ultra, including Mass Effect Andromeda. There's less than a 10% performance difference between the 3GB and 6GB versions. 

 

This is for 1440p, but it does do a good job of showing the differences:

 

Dude ME:A loves vram. 

 

It regularly goes over 4 gigs when playing (2560x1080) and with a mix of high and ultra. This is probably due to some ultra settings, which dont really make a difference, but still interesting to note how much it can eat up.

 

I'v even seen it peak at 5.1gb, but couldn't find that spot again. 

 

Afterburner and related pictures. 

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, Nup said:

Dude ME:A loves vram. 

 

It regularly goes over 4 gigs when playing (2560x1080) and with a mix of high and ultra. This is probably due to some ultra settings, which dont really make a difference, but still interesting to note how much it can eat up.

 

I'v even seen it peak at 5.1gb, but couldn't find that spot again. 

 

Afterburner and related pictures. 

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Just because it can use up to 5.1 doesn't mean it HAS to have that much.  It will compress as needed.  That hurts performance slightly, but it doesn't cripple it.  People who think that the 3GB version doesn't work just haven't tried it.

 

Also, when I said 1080p, I meant 1920x1080.

 

 

[JoostinOnline]

41 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

The 3GB 1060 is a card that should not exist. It's, imo, the worst purchase amongst the performance-oriented Pascal or Polaris GPUs, with the 1050 and RX 460 right behind (although the 460 looks better and better as its prices continue to come down).

Have you ever used it, or are you just talking out of your ass?  Because as I said before (and as a little research will show you), it runs just fine.  It only starts doing really bad at settings that the 6GB version can't handle either.

[Nup]

8 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Just because it can use up to 5.1 doesn't mean it HAS to have that much.  It will compress as needed.  That hurts performance slightly, but it doesn't cripple it.  People who think that the 3GB version doesn't work just haven't tried it.

 

Also, when I said 1080p, I meant 1920x1080.

 

 

I agree, I mostly did this just to push things. Games are at their sweet spot at ~high settings, and use less Vram there. 

But i do think that the 3gb 1060 is a bad buy, much better off saving up a bit and getting the 6gb version or a 480. If 3gb is starting to show its limitations now, it'll be having problems in a year or two.

Its also funny that the 1050ti gets 4gb