[Various] 1060 Reviews

[StyM]

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/graphic...arts-at-us-249

Just a couple of hours before the rumored official paper launch for the Geforce GTX 1060, a set of leaked slides have revealed the final pieces of the puzzle, the price and the availability date.

According to fresh slides leaked over at Videocardz.com, the new Nvidia GTX 1060 will be available worldwide on July 19th with a price starting at US $249. While it is still not clear if the US $249 MSRP is for a rumored 3GB or 6GB version, this is still a great price for a mid-range graphics card, especially if Nvidia's "performance of the GTX 980" claims prove to be true.

As detailed in the earlier leaked slides, the Nvidia Geforce GTX 1060 packs 1280 CUDA cores and works at a GPU Boost clock of 1710MHz. The rumored 3GB version is not mentioned so we are only sure that we will see a version with 6GB of 192-bit GDDR5 memory clocked at 2000MHz (8.0GHz effective). The Geforce GTX 1060 has a 120W TDP and needs a single 6-pin PCI-Express power connector.

Just as it was the case with earlier launched Geforce GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 graphics cards, the Geforce GTX 1060 will also be available as a special limited Founders Edition version which will be priced at a US $50 premium, at US $299.

Official reviews should be available later today, so we will finally have a chance to check out its real-world game performance.

At US $249/$299, Nvidia Geforce GTX 1060 will certainly put a lot of pressure on AMD's Radeon RX 480, marking the beginning of the mid-range GPU wars.

Guru3d
Nvidia announces GeForce GTX 1060 at $249
Gigabyte Announces GeForce GTX 1060 G1 GAMING Graphics Card


PCPer
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Preview: Pascal with GP106

TweakTown
NVIDIA announces its GeForce GTX 1060, ready to battle Radeon RX 480

KitGuru
Nvidia officially announces the GTX 1060


Hexus
Nvidia takes wraps off GeForce GTX 1060 graphics card

Toms
Nvidia Says GeForce GTX 1060 Will Outperform GTX 980, Founders Edition Will Cost $299

Ars
Nvidia unveils the GTX 1060: Faster than a GTX 980 for $250

TechPowerUP
GeForce GTX 1060 announced - No SLI support

Official Reviews

• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Techpowerup
• MSI GeForce GTX 1060 Gaming X Review @ Techpowerup
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Hardwarecanucks
• Gigabyte Geforce GTX 1060 G1 Gaming Review @ Hardwarecanucks
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ HardOCP
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Phoronix
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Techspot
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Eurogamer
• MSI GeForce GTX 1060 Gaming X Review @ Eteknix
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Nordichardware
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Techgage
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Cowcotland
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Arstechnica
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Techradar
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ TweakTown
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ PCPerspective
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Expreview
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Computerbase
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Tomshardware
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ 4Gamer
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ PCWatch
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ HKEPC
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review @ Arabhardware

[AliG]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the 4GB 480 is still the best value on the market. Don't get me wrong, any of the custom 1060s will trounce it and at roughly $280-300 offer great return on investment.

But my logic is simple:
You cannot play under different settings with a 1060 as opposed to 480.

Think of it this way, even though on average the 1060 seems to be around 6-8% faster, that's not enough to let you play at a higher resolution. Certainly more is better, but if you get say 25 vs 20 fps at 4k, it's not really enjoyable eitherway. And while the 8GB 480 is technically more future proof, most reviews show that most you'll get an FPS or two.

So I stand by my analysis. For the money, the 4GB 480 is the best card on the market. If I were to go after 4k, I'd probably say 1070 is the sweet spot. But for 1440p, I think the 1060 doesn't offer enough of a bump that you can play at higher settings, such that the performance increase isn't worth the price premium.

[Ket]

I'll chime in with AliG here, for me the 1060 is absolutely not worth the money. 6GB on a bandwidth starved 192bit bus, WTF are nvidia thinking? Talk about paying more for less. A 192bit bus looked inadequate when the push for 1080p mainstream gaming was underway, never mind 1440p. Yes I know bandwidth compression but that does not make up for everything. On top of all that poor Async Compute performance (I won't say poor DX12 performance as without Async Compute I'm sure the 1060 does alright in DX12) which is going to become a huge thing with AMD tech powering both MS and Sony consoles, and look at the GPU clockspeed of even a reference 1060, 1.5GHz with a boost of 1.7GHz. Thats on average lets say 250MHz faster than the RX 480 GPU clock which tends to top out around 1.35GHz currently (FFS AIBs get your finger out and release properly cooled RX 480s so we can see whats what more).

Some quick math:

Current RX 480 GPU clocks hit around 1.35GHz
GTX 1060 GPU clocks on average with boost hit about 1.6GHz
250MHz difference lets say, thats around +18% core frequency vs the 480
Which only translates to about a 6-8% lead

That right there should show all you need to see about just how badly nerfed the 1060 is and how rapidly the Pascal architecture is becoming more outdated, but lets go further.

Lets now also look at the 8GB RX 480, some people will argue you don't need 8GB vRAM for 1080p \ 1440p, I strongly disagree. I'll point people to Shadow of Mordor with its HD texture pack and Doom 2016 which outright locks you out of its "Nightmare" graphics options unless you have a GPU with 5GB vRAM or more, and this is just the start of things like this. I'll now also throw in for consideration large open world games that have had modders create massive HD texture packs redoing the whole game such as HD2k for Skyrim combined with other Skyrim HD mods for NPC skin, clothing, weapons, etc.

My point is, you buy a 1060 its lifespan is going to be short lived, and in DX12 using Async Compute at least its going to be like trying to get a one legged man to sprint in a marathon. That is simply unacceptable for 300 or so. Now also think about that Pascal architecture just being a tweaked and castrated Maxwell II, sacrificing IPC and using a new node to try and brute force its way with clockspeed in to relevancy. Drivers will not bring universal significant gains to Pascal as its a old architecture based off of Maxwell II any significant universal gains from new drivers it already has. Lets also not forget that theres no SLi for the 1060, not that I personally have any love for dual GPU setups their more hassle than their worth but for those that do "double up", no chance with the 1060. I'll also dispute a GTX 1060 being able to keep up with a roughly equally clocked GTX980 once settings are at maximum with some AA and resolution hits 1440p, but thats another story. RX 480 however, new architecture, better DX12 support, all-round more future proof (especially the 8GB model) with the potential for some very nice performance improvements with new drivers.

Its a no-brainer, RX 480 is what you want to get if you don't plan to upgrade your GPU for 3+ years, just wait until the AIBs finally release custom cooled and clocked versions.

ED- Talking of Doom 2016 locking you out of Nightmare options unless you have 5GB vRAM or more the Doom benchmarks on hardwarecanucks are invalid as they say they benchmarked the 1060 with nightmare quality settings yet mysteriously a GTX 980 is in that chart, along with a 970 and 2GB 960 - simply impossible.

[StyM]

but why are you comparing a 480 against a 1060 ?
amd is a generation behind...

[Ket]

.... or a generation ahead depending how you want to look at it. Slower in DX11 compared to nvidia, but faster (sometimes significantly) in DX12 and Vulkan compared to nvidia. So yeah, if AMD handle things right they can curb stomp nvidia and intel by being first to swing for a change.

[AliG]

So I think we're kinda detracting away from the 1060's strength here. It is truly a better overall card for most applications *today*. I agree that as more things leverage DX12 and Vulkan AMD will see a considerable advantage, but let's not forget the 1060 is also smaller and more power efficient.

My whole point is that it's worse overall value. Yes, you get a better card - but, it is not enough of an increase to actually change your in game experience. As such, I say save the money and get the $200 4GB 480.

[Ket]

Thats not a plus point in my book, it merely makes the 1060 average. At best. A objective informed onlooker would see the 1060 and 480 then think "Well, the 1060 is faster in DX11 and is a bit more power efficient but the 480 still offers perfectly good DX11 performance while being faster in DX12 and Vulkan while also having the potential for significant improvements in performance with Crimson driver updates."

Thats more or less the bottom line. Its not like anyone can call me a fanboy either as my current GPU is a GTX 980

[CrimInalA]

4GB RX 480 is what would be best value for money , at least in my book AND IF the suggested retail prices actually would hold up .
I see RX 480 AMD edition 8GB sell in europe for 300€+, custom cards 350€+ . 4GB cards are simply unavailable and overpriced everywhere .
This really is miles away from the 199$ pricepoint AMD sets this card at . (or 220€ for 4GB and 260€ for 8GB in europe)

On newegg i see all 4GB version out of stock too although 199$ price is listed which is a fair price .
Here in Europe prices are crazy on these cards making them way too expensive for the amount of GPU power they have .

[Ket]

Reference 4GB RX 480 in the UK is 183, thats almost a steal if the reference cooler didn't suck so badly. Clicky. Reference 8GB RX 480 is 220, again almost a steal if the reference cooler didn't suck. Clicky. The 480 will never sell though until AIBs pull their thumbs out their arses and release properly cooled versions. So far the only custom 480 I see is from Asus, and they want 299 for that. Needless to say Asus can go shove a hot poker up their arse at that price.

[AliG]

4GB RX 480 is what would be best value for money , at least in my book AND IF the suggested retail prices actually would hold up .
I see RX 480 AMD edition 8GB sell in europe for 300€+, custom cards 350€+ . 4GB cards are simply unavailable and overpriced everywhere .
This really is miles away from the 199$ pricepoint AMD sets this card at . (or 220€ for 4GB and 260€ for 8GB in europe)

On newegg i see all 4GB version out of stock too although 199$ price is listed which is a fair price .
Here in Europe prices are crazy on these cards making them way too expensive for the amount of GPU power they have .

Yeah but that's Europe. Try finding a GTX 1060, 1070 or 1080 within even 100 euro of the msrp and I'll say you found a steal.

[kemo]

SAPPHIRE NITRO+ Radeon RX 480 4GB 220$ , should provide better price/performance than any 1060GTX , 1060 main advantage will always be power consumption , and that is why Nvidia is miles ahead .

Yeah but that's Europe. Try finding a GTX 1060, 1070 or 1080 within even 100 euro of the msrp and I'll say you found a steal.

Try amazon , from time to time you will find plenty of 1070 options to be available in 2-5 days .

[Ket]

Yeah but that's Europe. Try finding a GTX 1060, 1070 or 1080 within even 100 euro of the msrp and I'll say you found a steal.

Stuff like that is why the UK voted to leave the EU we're fed up of paying jacked up prices on things along with a plethora of other things.

1060 main advantage will always be power consumption , and that is why Nvidia is miles ahead

Clicky. Really? 27w is "miles ahead"? Sure about that? Power consumption is always going to vary but anything thats in around 50w from one another is not going to make a lot of difference.

[vario]

According to techpowerup, its more like 40-50W
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...X_1060/24.html

And if a card is faster while consuming 1/3rd less power and overclocks way better.That means thats a better card.
Vulkan has one title, and DX12 results are a mixed bag.
Considering all this and proclaiming RX 480 better card is some hardcore magic.
AMD Needs AIB cards to go cheaper than the 1060`s to be competetive.

[Metroid]

Stuff like that is why the UK voted to leave the EU we're fed up of paying jacked up prices on things along with a plethora of other things.

We will embrace the rip-off Britain even more after Britain exit the EU, look at the hardware prices on non EU Nordic countries.

The 1060 is a better card overall x RX 480, watchout for the RX 470, I think it will be the best card all around. I will end up buying the RX 470 only because I have a free-synch monitor. I do like Nvidia features a lot more than AMD's.

AMD's Vega should have launched already, a nano Vega would be great for performance/watts ratio and I think it would end up on top just like the nano.

[kemo]

Clicky. Really? 27w is "miles ahead"? Sure about that? Power consumption is always going to vary but anything thats in around 50w from one another is not going to make a lot of difference.

Yes, miles ahead, rx480 is consuming as much as 1070 gtx. Try removing the power target off the rx480 and it will fly between 1070 gtx and 1080 gtx in terms of power consumption.
after you do that, try to under clock the 1070 gtx and set power target 120w it will easily beat the 1060 gtx by 10-15%.
Rx480 core is so weak that it needs higher bandwidth, higher power rating to trail the 1060 gtx.

1060 GTX has narrow bus 25% narrower , 15% smaller die , 20% lower transistor count , 17% lower power consumption .
RX 480 is closer to 1070 GTX than 1060 GTX.

[naokaji]

Stuff like that is why the UK voted to leave the EU we're fed up of paying jacked up prices on things along with a plethora of other things.

Your currency has been tanking against the US Dollar for several years already which has been driving prices up as all hardware prices are dependant on the US Dollar.

Plus introducing a separate set of red tape on companies that operate on both sides of the channel will just drive up prices even further.

[Metroid]

Yes, miles ahead, rx480 is consuming as much as 1070 gtx. Try removing the power target off the rx480 and it will fly between 1070 gtx and 1080 gtx in terms of power consumption.
after you do that, try to under clock the 1070 gtx and set power target 120w it will easily beat the 1060 gtx by 10-15%.
Rx480 core is so weak that it needs higher bandwidth, higher power rating to trail the 1060 gtx.

I do hope for AMD's sake, Vega HBM2 nano will close the gap on performance/power consumption because Polaris is serious lagging behind Pascal right now on that department.

Your currency has been tanking against the US Dollar for several years already which has been driving prices up as all hardware prices are dependant on the US Dollar.

Plus introducing a separate set of red tape on companies that operate on both sides of the channel will just drive up prices even further.

Yes, hardware prices in all stages of r&d, from creation to end user are based on usd. So the only way for Britain right now is to increase the minimum wage but if Britain do then will be consequences. I guess all in life have the good and bad side of everything.

[AliG]

According to techpowerup, its more like 40-50W
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...X_1060/24.html

And if a card is faster while consuming 1/3rd less power and overclocks way better.That means thats a better card.
Vulkan has one title, and DX12 results are a mixed bag.
Considering all this and proclaiming RX 480 better card is some hardcore magic.
AMD Needs AIB cards to go cheaper than the 1060`s to be competetive.

I never said that - ever.

In fact, if you go back and read what I wrote, I rather explicitly stated the 1060 is the better card.

What I did note, however, is that the 4GB 480 offers the best value on the market. I provided sound analysis and stand by that statement.

[Metroid]

I never said that - ever.

In fact, if you go back and read what I wrote, I rather explicitly stated the 1060 is the better card.

What I did note, however, is that the 4GB 480 offers the best value on the market. I provided sound analysis and stand by that statement.

It's funny though, in the case gtx 1060 x rx 480, I wonder how much money(usd) would somebody spend more on electricity having the rx 480 instead of the gtx 1060 monthly. Lets say 10 hours a day at maximum performance.

[kemo]

It's funny though, in the case gtx 1060 x rx 480, I wonder how much money(usd) would somebody spend more on electricity having the rx 480 instead of the gtx 1060 monthly. Lets say 10 hours a day at maximum performance.

30 more watt , 10 hours daily for a year, should be around 3 dollars in Egypt

[Ket]

Yes, miles ahead, rx480 is consuming as much as 1070 gtx. Try removing the power target off the rx480 and it will fly between 1070 gtx and 1080 gtx in terms of power consumption.
after you do that, try to under clock the 1070 gtx and set power target 120w it will easily beat the 1060 gtx by 10-15%.
Rx480 core is so weak that it needs higher bandwidth, higher power rating to trail the 1060 gtx.

1060 GTX has narrow bus 25% narrower , 15% smaller die , 20% lower transistor count , 17% lower power consumption .
RX 480 is closer to 1070 GTX than 1060 GTX.

Lets keep things as relevant as possible shall we? We aren't talking about the GTX 1070 or 1080, but 480 against 1060. So, keeping things as relevant as possible using you're logic people can set the power target to its maximum on a 1060 GPU and wow, look at that, it'll consume more power where it has the TDP room to maintain higher clocks, just like the AMD 480 GPU will if you remove its power target. To that end have you ever considered why the 480 uses more power? It simply has more going on under its hood (read: more future proof architecture), but we'll get on to that in a moment.

Again keeping things as relevant as possible you saying the 480 is "weak" because it has more bandwidth is utter nonsense. Sorry but you clearly gone and pulled that out your arse. The 480 not only has more "physical" bandwidth than a 1060 because you know, its just on a wider, more potent bus, it also makes use of delta colour compression just like a 1060 does to further enhance its actual bandwidth. Further, each Polaris geometry engine has a index cache for what AMD calls "small instanced geometry." The cache supposedly reduces the need to move data around, reducing internal bandwidth requirements and improving throughput. Pure and simple, this gives the 480 a advantage. In case you want to dispute this (I somehow get the feeling you will...) Proof. Check the bandwidth test, the 480 beats out the GTX 980 (sorry, no actual 480 vs 1060 I could find, but supposedly the 1060 is more or less 980 performance so close as possible match) with random textures and is within spitting distance with black textures. As a minor side note some people may also like to look at the polygon throughput test in that link, and the ALU tests, all of which show very potent numbers. Particularly the ALU tests where the 480 beats the 980 in every single one of them by very comfortable margins (you can also extrapolate these results as wins or on par with potential 1060 results). No I'm not conveniently ignoring the texture fillrate test either, just chalking it up to a architectural bottleneck, or hell, even a driver issue as results are very similar to that of a 380X which has less texture units.

Finally, back to that more going on under the 480s hood, just give THIS a read.

So bottom line, no, the 480 is not a weak GPU and is the more future proof with stronger DX12 and Vulkan showings than the 1060. To be clear, I'm not saying the 1060 is a bad card, its just not the smart choice with its lack of Async Compute performance, very uninspiring DX12 performance, and somewhat poor Vulkan performance. GTX 1060 is for "now", RX 480 is for now and the future, ie; as I already stated, those who don't plan to upgrade their GPU for 3+ years.

According to techpowerup, its more like 40-50W
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...X_1060/24.html

And if a card is faster while consuming 1/3rd less power and overclocks way better.That means thats a better card.
Vulkan has one title, and DX12 results are a mixed bag.
Considering all this and proclaiming RX 480 better card is some hardcore magic.
AMD Needs AIB cards to go cheaper than the 1060`s to be competetive.

Trying to compare apples to apples much? Was the Athlon64 a worse CPU because people couldn't get bananas overclocks out of it like people could do with the Pentium 4? Hell no, you could get a monster OC on a P4 and it still sucked. To a lesser extent the same is true of the 480 it (currently) doesn't clock as high as a 1060 but it doesn't need to it basically gets the same amount done @ 1.3GHz as the GTX 1060 does @ 1.6 - 1.7GHz. Needing more speed to do the same amount of work does not mean a better GPU, it means the absolute opposite, which to spell it out means the 1060 has crap IPC performance. This should not be any surprise to anyone nvidia themselves have said they took away some IPC in a bid to maximise clock frequency.

[Metroid]

GTX 1060 is for "now", RX 480 is for now and the future, ie; as I already stated, those who don't plan to upgrade their GPU for 3+ years.

I wonder how long will Nvidia and AMD stay on the 14nm 16nm process cause if they stay the same length of time as they did the last 28nm generation then right now these cards are a bargain. Optimization will never give and never gave as much performance as die shrink process concerning GPU's.

[Ket]

Current road maps put 10nm slated for about 2018-2019, so a 8GB 480 would last the distance, would a 1060 last the same amount of time? I'm very dubious about that due to it having worse IPC performance, being based on a already old architecture, poor Async Compute performance, and its less than inspiring DX12 and Vulkan performance. If I was forced to put a lifespan on the 1060 I'd say 18 months as a lot of its results are already very average with a few exceptions. The 1060 wouldn't look as bad if you could SLi it, but alas you can't. I really can't find many positives about the 1060 except from it has good DX11 performance and as marginal as it is as it really is a case of pennies over the course of a year, slightly better power consumption. In a nutshell thers far too many negatives for the 1060 to make it a card to recommend to a mainstream gamer as they aren't the type of people who are going to replace their GPU more frequently than every 2.5 - 3yrs.

[AliG]

I'm still curious how much manufacturing process is playing a role in the power consumption. If you just do the raw math, the 480 is 16% larger but has 29% more transistors. On paper, it should be on the more efficient transistor technology. But - transistor size does not necessarily directly correlate with gate leakage. Even if the gates are physically smaller, they could be more leaky, and thus part of why the 480 consumes so much more power than expected.

Again, I think the whole discussion of which card is better is moot. The 1060 is faster on average, and consumes less power. In terms of better engineering, it is the better card. I just don't think it's more valuable - especially not compared to the 4GB 480 which is like 7% slower than the 3rd party cards but 40% cheaper.

[vario]

...
Trying to compare apples to apples much? Was the Athlon64 a worse CPU because people couldn't get bananas overclocks out of it like people could do with the Pentium 4? Hell no, you could get a monster OC on a P4 and it still sucked. To a lesser extent the same is true of the 480 it (currently) doesn't clock as high as a 1060 but it doesn't need to it basically gets the same amount done @ 1.3GHz as the GTX 1060 does @ 1.6 - 1.7GHz. Needing more speed to do the same amount of work does not mean a better GPU, it means the absolute opposite, which to spell it out means the 1060 has crap IPC performance. This should not be any surprise to anyone nvidia themselves have said they took away some IPC in a bid to maximise clock frequency.

Dude, thats absurd comparison, 1060 is faster AT STOCK AND IT OVERCLOCKS MUCH BETTER, also athlons WERE overclocking VERY GOOD, i got mine 3200+ up to 2880Mhz,FX F3`s were doing like 3200mhz , RX 480 BARELY overclocks, that means that the performance delta (in most games) INCREASES which was very different from A64 vs P4NW.We get that nvidia did lose some "IPC" but overall, it worked for them.
Also remember that RX does less work (in most games, besides pretty much 3-4 of them) per watt, and P4 (especially 90nm) were powerhogs.
Comparison is just bad bad bad.
Also, how in the hell its comparing apples and bananas, these are same generation cards, made for the same segment sold at similar price.