Nvidia GTX 1060 Founders Edition Review

[WYP]

Agreed. It's basically a 1050ti. A 1050ti(as it is now) should be the 1050, and so on and so on.

Exactly. The naming scheme is very messed up.

 

[MadShadow]

remember that the 1060 3GB has less CUDA cores than the GTX 1060 6GB.

Look at reviews that are specific to the 1060 3GB for performance data. In reality, it should have a different name.

Ah, I knew there must have been something wrong there. Thanks anyway

 

[Kaapstad]

remember that the 1060 3GB has less CUDA cores than the GTX 1060 6GB.

Look at reviews that are specific to the 1060 3GB for performance data. In reality, it should have a different name.

This^

The 6gb 1060 is a nice card but 3gb and less cuda cores are not worth it.

 

[Kushiro]

my 1070 notebook has more cores than a desktop version

Remember there was a bit of a debate over the naming of the 1060 3GB a while back.

 

[Greenback]

remember that the 1060 3GB has less CUDA cores than the GTX 1060 6GB.

Look at reviews that are specific to the 1060 3GB for performance data. In reality, it should have a different name.

Looking at reviews there only seems to be a couple of FPS in performance loss

 

[AlienALX]

Looking at reviews there only seems to be a couple of FPS in performance loss

FPS and raw power aren't the issue though. 3gb of VRAM is not enough these days.

 

[Kilbane]

FPS and raw power aren't the issue though. 3gb of VRAM is not enough these days.

90% of games at 1080p will be more than fine with 3gb. Chances are that if you are running a 1060 3gb card, you are already finding that some settings need to be down from max/ultra anyway on new AAA titles.

 

[NeverBackDown]

90% of games at 1080p will be more than fine with 3gb. Chances are that if you are running a 1060 3gb card, you are already finding that some settings need to be down from max/ultra anyway on new AAA titles.

Seeing as he's coming from a 270, he holds onto cards for a very long time. So that extra memory and cores are going to benefit him in the long run where games are going to be more memory hungry and cores.. well more performance.

 

[Greenback]

Seeing as he's coming from a 270, he holds onto cards for a very long time. So that extra memory and cores are going to benefit him in the long run where games are going to be more memory hungry and cores.. well more performance.

I did upgrade more often then kids came and money went

 

[Kushiro]

I did upgrade more often then kids came and money went

To be honest, if your going to keep your card for long, I would recommend the RX480 instead.

 

[Warchild]

90% of games at 1080p will be more than fine with 3gb. Chances are that if you are running a 1060 3gb card, you are already finding that some settings need to be down from max/ultra anyway on new AAA titles.

Thats not entirely true anymore. Games are being designed to use up all the memory it can on a card. So yeah 3GB is not enough. Look at todays AAA titles reviews and you will see they seem perform on a "eat all you can" principle with the memory. Resolution doesnt really matter.

Gears of war is a perfect example. Even at 1080 it will use almost 5gb of memory on a 980Ti 6gb card.

 

[AlienALX]

Thats not entirely true anymore. Games are being designed to use up all the memory it can on a card. So yeah 3GB is not enough. Look at todays AAA titles reviews and you will see they seem perform on a "eat all you can" principle with the memory. Resolution doesnt really matter.

Gears of war is a perfect example. Even at 1080 it will use almost 5gb of memory on a 980Ti 6gb card.

Yup I completely agree, that's spot on. It doesn't take much science or logic. The new consoles have 8gb of memory, 6gb of which is for graphics.

Why run games at lower settings at 1080p when for a few quid more you can get enough vram to max them out? makes no sense.

The problem with vram is that when you are maxed out it's incredibly difficult to lower settings to lower the amount it wants to use. Textures for example are usually set in stone, so there's only so much you can do to reduce usage. And when you hit the max? dear god, my Fury X used to do it all the time at 4k and it's really not a nice experience. The PC would literally black screen and freeze until it had done some calculations and worked it out. We're talking 30-40 second black screens in Tomb Raider (the new one).

 

[SPS]

The new consoles have 8gb of memory, 6gb of which is for graphics.

This isn't true, remember they share memory with the OS/background apps.

 

[AlienALX]

This isn't true, remember they share memory with the OS/background apps.

IIRC 1gb or so was reserved for the rest.

Not being stupid here, if a modern game is using 6gb of VRAM at 1080p then it is because that is what it gets on the console. When Sony and M$ switched to X86 based consoles it meant that "porting" was a piece of urine.

Seriously, I would be very surprised if "porting" a Xbone game (or rather compiling it) for PC involved pretty much no work whatsoever,hence why we are getting such poor games with poor performance lately that eat 60gb+ from your hard drive and pig on vram.

This is also why mGPU has been so poor. Why implement anything? just cash in.

I'm absolutely sure that when M$ designed the Xbone they did it so that it all ran on Windows 10. This is why their VR headset is Windows 10 and not Xbone.

And it's all happening because they know that console days are numbered. Hence why they are releasing their games on PC again, because they know that within a few years consoles will die out. Well, that or they will just be small cheap PCs.

So you just need to look at what a console needs now to get a rough idea of what sort of PC gear you need to replicate it. And that, right now, is a highly threaded CPU with 6gb of VRAM. I have not yet seen a console "port" use more than 6gb and I would imagine there is a reason for that.

However, AMD have stated that Navi and so on (which will be more than one small cheap and high success % when cutting the silicon) will use two cores or more and more VRAM.

That is how they will insure that PC owners will need to update with each refreshed console, because you need to match it in spec as closely as possible. And that means more memory and more VRAM.

That's why they sell these cheap cards with *just* enough VRAM to scrimp by dude. They're like the McDonald's hamburger of GPUs. You eat it, five minutes later you are hungry again. What do you do? buy another one. The 750/950/1050 segment is identical. Get a 4gb 750 or 950 though? £45+ just for a small chunk of VRAM. They do that because they know it will last longer so they charge a premium for it.

 

[NeverBackDown]

This isn't true, remember they share memory with the OS/background apps.

In the Xbox the memory is iirc 5GB reserved for games and the rest is split between OS/Background apps. PS4 is 6.5GB but Devs have the option of using 7GB but it means they need to disable some background features in order to use it.

 

[SPS]

In the Xbox the memory is iirc 5GB reserved for games and the rest is split between OS/Background apps. PS4 is 6.5GB but Devs have the option of using 7GB but it means they need to disable some background features in order to use it.

Out of interest, how did you find that out?

 

[AlienALX]

Out of interest, how did you find that out?

I don't know where he found it but probably the same place I did. I *think* it was watching a press release just before the PS4 came out. But AFAIK that info is commonplace.