NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 official performance leaked

I'll wait for the independent sites that have no hunt in the race to review the cards before declaring a winner. Thanks for sharing the link, though.
 
Algrim said:
I'll wait for the independent sites that have no hunt in the race to review the cards before declaring a winner. Thanks for sharing the link, though.
Click to expand...
That true but can't hurt to dream a little LoL.
 
Thanks for the info. If these numbers pan out it's kind of like I suspected, the 1060 will be a bit faster for a bit more money. Of course there's Vulkan/DX 12 to consider going forward and AIB boards that should push the 480 further. And then there's the power draw. If the 1060 can overall be a bit faster while draw a good deal less power, that's not inconsiderable especially for SFF and HTPC builds. As far as lack of multi-GPU support, I don't think it's a big deal in this class of card though it won't be taken well by enthusiasts.
 
People with samples are confirming 980 performance. 20mh/sec ethereum mining at 92watts. Price is to high for me to take one over RX 480 but its nice to have options.
 
Those numbers don't make sense. The GTX 970 commonly benches about 60% ahead of the GTX 960. That 1060 didn't quite meet those numbers. The RX 480 commonly benches about 65% ahead of the GTX 960. Not even close in those benches. And what's with the obvious edit for the 960 in Shadow of Mordor at 1440p?

I call shens.
 
buttons said:
Price is to high for me to take one over RX 480 but its nice to have options.
Click to expand...

And I guess that's the real question. Will a bit higher overall performance and lower power draw offset the cost for buyers? Certainly for some. But I think the power draw is where AMD is going to get embarrassed a little.
 
Algrim said:
Considering we just went through the station on the RX 480 hype train maybe we should be a little reluctant to get on board the 1060 hype train, don't you think?
Click to expand...

The 1060 is getting nowhere near the hype of the 480. And that's a good thing really. The 480 faced far too many expectation that were unreasonable for a $200-$240 part. All I'm expecting out of the 1060 is a bit more performance at considerably less power. I think those are reasonable expectations and ones it needs to meet to be successful considering the price.
 
heatlesssun said:
The 1060 is getting nowhere near the hype of the 480. And that's a good thing really. The 480 faced far too many expectation that were unreasonable for a $200-$240 part. All I'm expecting out of the 1060 is a bit more performance at considerably less power. I think those are reasonable expectations and ones it needs to meet to be successful considering the price.
Click to expand...

I have more conservative estimates. We're looking at a card that has half the CUDA cores as a 1080, but lower clock speed. Half the memory bus, but again, slower RAM. On PAPER, the card is less than half the performance of the GTX 1080. If the 1060 offered exactly half the performance of a GTX 1080, it (the 1060) would be slightly slower than a 970. (SOURCE) Also, during their announcement, the line that compares the 1060's performance to the 980 ends in "IN VR." We know that Pascal has enhancements that allow it to blow past its desktop performance tier in VR applications.

And then there's the x60 lineup as a whole. Nvidia has been stagnating here. The performance delta between the 960 and the 970 was HUGE. Maybe it's just recency bias, but I don't recall seeing a performance delta between the $200 and $300 lineups that large before. While there would be some desire to narrow the gap, I just don't see NV positioning a $300 and below card too close to the 1070. The gap helped drive more people towards the 970 last gen, and I'd think that they would want to continue that trend at the new $400ish price of the 1070.

My expectations before the RX 480 came out would be for a GTX 1060 to be slightly slower than a 970, but lower price, and to match or beat the 980 in VR due to Pascal's enhancements. But with them announcing it so shortly after the Polaris launch, and at a higher base price, NV must be confident that they can beat the RX 480.

I will say this though. When P10 was rumored to offer 390/390x performance at $299, this board blew up and SLAMMED AMD. Now that Nvidia is promising GTX 980 (R9 390x) performance at $299 (FE), I haven't heard a peep about price on these boards. But that may just be me. I've put most of the AMD and NV "faithful" on my ignore list, which has made the board far more pleasant.
 
Last edited:
Daniel_Chang said:
I have more conservative estimates. We're looking at a card that has half the CUDA cores as a 1080, but lower clock speed. Half the memory bus, but again, slower RAM. On PAPER, the card is less than half the performance of the GTX 1080. If the 1060 offered exactly half the performance of a GTX 1080, it (the 1060) would be slightly slower than a 970. (SOURCE) Also, during their announcement, the line that compares the 1060's performance to the 980 ends in "IN VR." We know that Pascal has enhancements that allow it to blow past its desktop performance tier in VR applications.

And then there's the x60 lineup as a whole. Nvidia has been stagnating here. The performance delta between the 960 and the 970 was HUGE. Maybe it's just recency bias, but I don't recall seeing a performance delta between the $200 and $300 lineups that large before. While there would be some desire to narrow the gap, I just don't see NV positioning a $300 and below card too close to the 1070. The gap helped drive more people towards the 970 last gen, and I'd think that they would want to continue that trend at the new $400ish price of the 1070.

My expectations before the RX 480 came out would be for a GTX 1060 to be slightly slower than a 970, but lower price, and to match or beet the 980 in VR due to Pascal's enhancements. But with them announcing it so shortly after the Polaris launch, and at a higher base price, NV must be confident that they can beat the RX 480.

I will say this though. When P10 was rumored to offer 390/390x performance at $299, this board blew up and SLAMMED AMD. Now that Nvidia is promising GTX 980 (R9 390x) performance at $299 (FE), I haven't heard a peep about price on these boards. But that may just be me. I've put most of the AMD and NV "faithful" on my ignore list, which has made the board far more pleasant.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that overall the 1060 should prove to be a bit faster. nVidia has seen the 480 and what it delivers at the $200 to $240 dollar range and no doubt priced the 1060 based on that. There however could be some trouble for nVidia when it comes to DX 12/Vulkan titles, where the 1060 might prove to be slower overall. I think that's the biggest question mark.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
I will say this though. When P10 was rumored to offer 390/390x performance at $299, this board blew up and SLAMMED AMD. Now that Nvidia is promising GTX 980 (R9 390x) performance at $299 (FE), I haven't heard a peep about price on these boards. But that may just be me. I've put most of the AMD and NV "faithful" on my ignore list, which has made the board far more pleasant.
Click to expand...

The pricing of the FE is rather ridiculous. If the 1060 is abundantly available in non-FE configuration at MSRP of 249 USD it becomes almost a moot point considering that the RX 480 in reference format is only 10 USD cheaper.
 
One hell of a paper launch. I am still waiting on those damn reviews that were right around the corner...
Yawn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Algrim said:
The pricing of the FE is rather ridiculous. If the 1060 is abundantly available in non-FE configuration at MSRP of 249 USD it becomes almost a moot point considering that the RX 480 in reference format is only 10 USD cheaper.
Click to expand...

True. I didn't mean to come across as taking the typical AMD fanboy approach of comparing the 4GB $199 RX 480 to the $299 1060 FE and going, "See!?". It's $240 vs. $250 MSRP. And despite the non-MSRP availability for the 1070/1080, that's likely due to lack of competition as well as lack of availability. I expect aftermarket 1060s and 480s to be at price parity if there is performance parity. And if there's no performance parity, the weaker cards will be $10-$20 cheaper.
 
Last edited:
{NG}Fidel said:
It was paper launched, you're right.
Click to expand...

It was announced. I guess some these days think that as soon as a product is announced, that's a launch. To me a paper launch is when there is little to no product to buy on the day the product officially goes on sale. I think there's a difference regardless of the semantics.
 
heatlesssun said:
It was announced. I guess some these days think that as soon as a product is announced, that's a launch. To me a paper launch is when there is little to no product to buy on the day the product officially goes on sale. I think there's a difference regardless of the semantics.
Click to expand...
When the term was first used it was used for these situations. Still i don't fully disagree with you.
 
I guess the one month spread between the announcement of the RX 480 and it's release really chapped your ass then.

Not to mention the RX 460 and RX 470 being no where in sight.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
It was paper launched, you're right.
Click to expand...

If I told you, "Ok Fidel, I'll be at your house next Tuesday," would you accuse me of standing you up today?

Paper launch = Products will be available from XXX day and stock doesn't show up until sometime after (see R9 Nano)
Hard launch = Products will show up on XXX day and stock actually shows up on that day.

Nvidia ANNOUNCED (not launched) the GTX 1060 stating availability for 7/19. If product shows up on that day, it's a hard launch. If it doesn't show up, it's a paper launch.
 
I have been doing this for about 20 years, so let me tell you what a "paper launch" is. I was one of the people in the industry that coined the phrase and pushed to eliminate paper launches.

paper launch
[pey-per] [lawnch, lahnch]
To remove an information embargo from technology journalists that allows performance metrics and retail product information to be shared with the general public while there is no retail product availability of said product.
 
I guess I don't even know how you'd do a hard launch these days with all of the leaks out there. You'd never be able to stage product delivery for mass sale on the day of announcement without rumors flying.
 
heatlesssun said:
I guess I don't even know how you'd do a hard launch these days with all of the leaks out there. You'd never be able to stage product delivery for mass sale on the day of announcement without rumors flying.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the cat is out of the bag now days when you have retail vendors putting pictures online. This and all the leaks that occur are forcing companies to handle these things differently. I think a lot of this has to do with SEC rules also in the way new product data is disseminated. I think companies have been forced into making "announcements" now to have any semblance of control over their own product information.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
Nvidia ANNOUNCED (not launched) the GTX 1060 stating availability for 7/19. If product shows up on that day, it's a hard launch. If it doesn't show up, it's a paper launch.
Click to expand...

A hard launch is when information and stock is available within 24 hours.
If stock doesn't show up on a promised day that's a failure of delivery covered in lies, not a paper launch.
 
original.jpg

Leaked benches lol!o_O
 
The performance numbers on that first post are a joke, it shows the rx 480 at basicly r9 370 or 380 levels.
Do people really believe that stuff? If this was posted by nvidia how do gamers not take offense to the misleading marketing?
 
sleepybp said:
The performance numbers on that first post are a joke, it shows the rx 480 at basicly r9 370 or 380 levels.
Do people really believe that stuff? If this was posted by nvidia how do gamers not take offense to the misleading marketing?
Click to expand...

I guess you weren't around when the Fury X was benchmarked by AMD, eh.
 
Algrim

No I was not reading up at that time. I know both camps show things in their best interest, but this looks a bit extreme of a stretch here
 
Well, if you ever decide to take a trip down memory lane (or into total fantasy, for that matter) you should look it up.

For the record, I don't believe any vendor-based benchmark unless it can be independently verified. I'd hold off holding one company to a standard that you're incapable or unwilling to hold another to.
 
It will OC to at least 2.6 ghz easy, guaranteed. It'll use 50 watts of power at most. At only 51% utilization it'll be faster than the 1080 SLI. Nvidia is really trying to expand the gaming market out to the masses so they'll be giving it away for free, F those 1% ers!
 
shspvr said:
Looking good

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 official performance leaked | VideoCardz.com

Hope they keep the price down to $250
Click to expand...
That's up to AIB partners isn't it? Founders edition which is what review sites seem to be getting (and what they are launching) is a 300 part.
 
We already know AIBs sell from 260$ and perhaps lower. You can preorder at 260$ today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top